Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

Register Log in
  • Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Best Method for Recovering Results at FEM Center of Gravity

Status
Not open for further replies.
MrRogers1987

MrRogers1987

Aerospace
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
45
Location
US
I want to track the accelerations for the CG of my spacecraft from frequency response analysis runs. This is is obviously not a physical point in the FEM though. I'm thinking an MPC of some sort is the approach to use, but unsure of the most accurate way to implement it. The simplest (as far as setup) method seems to just have a node at the CG and use an RBE3 spider out to every node in the FEM.

My concern is that this won't truly capture the response of the center of gravity since all the weighting on every independent node will be the same by default. In reality the weighting should be based on the mass of each node, correct? Perhaps with a fine enough mesh the difference is negligible? Is there a different approach entirely that anyone would suggest?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
One option is to create mass point at CG and connect it to spacecraft using RBE3 with complete mass of spacecraft at the CG. This can capture the exact acceleration at CG. But how the behavior of this mass point for frequency response is unknown, since I not tried this before in frequency response.

I am not Nastran user, so it may happen that there may be better tools available in software itself.

But why there is need to track imaginary point? IMO and guess, the resultant acceleration location should be close to CG.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't need a concentrated mass because all the mass is accounted for in the FEM itself. I just want to track the response of the spacecraft CG for notching/force limiting purposes for vibration testing predictions. There are design load factors we do not want to exceed on the overall spacecraft. Using the acceleration of the spacecraft CG to compare to these g-load limits seems the most appropriate. Maybe there is another method of recovering overall resultant acceleration that I am overlooking though?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In RBE3 may be you can change the weighing factors by using constraint coefficients if you want. You need to check how that's done in Nastran. For RBE3 the the motion of master is average of slave nodes.

But there will be unnecessary constraints introduced in model due to RBE3. You can anyway try this on simple problem like plate or cylinder analysis and then once you are satisfied with results on simple problem you can implement it on spacecraft.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Take a look at the MONDSP1 entry. It won't give you accelerations directly, only displacements, but in a frequency response analysis this is only a factor of omega^2 away.
DG
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Mr Rogers, did you find a good way to do this? Im trying to do this exact same thing: CG acceleration, frequency response analysis. I have heard of the method of using RBE3 or MPC to connect to all the nodes in the system, and then weighing each individual node with the nodal mass.

What about this. Can you create and RBE3 with the center (dependent) node at the CG, and place the legs (independent) at the system's interface locations. Each leg will result in individual interface forces & moments, which will then be balanced by the single point force & moments at the CG. Do you think that would work? Ive not tried this myself.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
leonardober said:
Mr Rogers, did you find a good way to do this? Im trying to do this exact same thing: CG acceleration, frequency response analysis. I have heard of the method of using RBE3 or MPC to connect to all the nodes in the system, and then weighing each individual node with the nodal mass.
Click to expand...

I was overthinking it. It really just boils down to F = m*a since you want the CG's response. So use a CBUSH to recover the input force, and divide that by the total mass to get your net acceleration.

The issue with doing the RBE3 route is you would need to make sure each independent node's contribution is weighted by the mass associated with that node, otherwise it will not be technically correct. For instance if you have an area with a very fine mesh and an area with a very coarse mesh, the fine mesh will drive the dependent node's response disproportionately.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

EKCP
  • Question Question
TABLES1 limited number of stress/strain entries for SOL 401 Using FEMAP 24.06
Replies
6
Views
15K
rb1957
rb1957
Salvenheit01
  • Locked
  • Question Question
FEMAP: Create CFAST at multiple points
Replies
0
Views
986
Salvenheit01
Salvenheit01
ghylander
  • Locked
  • Question Question
Use of MFLUID for external fluid field
Replies
0
Views
1K
ghylander
ghylander
Xprivate
  • Locked
  • Question Question
FEMAP SUBSTEP/MULTISTEP/Multiple loadcases for same BCs
Replies
4
Views
587
ThomasH
ThomasH
Itxusta
  • Locked
  • Question Question
2d axisymmetric analysis of a revolution part
Replies
3
Views
1K
Itxusta
Itxusta

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top