See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311303691

A Review on Fluid Structure Interaction Analysis Methodology

Article · June 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 2,729

4 authors, including:

Suraj Bhakade Surajkumar Kumbhar

Annasaheb Dange College of Engineering and Technology Ashta Rajarambapu Institute Of Technology
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   65 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Prasad Kengar
Annasaheb Dange College of Engineering and Technology Ashta
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design and development of driver testing unit & analysis of the effect of various parameters on reaction time View project

Design and development of sugarcane leaf cutter View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Suraj Bhakade on 02 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Trend in Research and Development, Volume 3(3), ISSN: 2394-9333
www.ijtrd.com

A Review on Fluid Structure Interaction Analysis

Methodology
1
S.P. Bhakade, 2S.G.Kumbhar, 3Y.B.Mohite and 4P.V.Kengar,
1,2,3,4
Assistant Professor, Annasaheb Dange College of Engineering and Technology, Ashta, Maharashtra, India

Abstract– Fluid Structure interaction (FSI) is the interaction

of some movable or deformable structure with an internal or
surrounding fluid flow. There are different ways by which
fluid structure interaction analysis can be carried out. In this
literature review some of them are discussed with their merits
and demerits.
Keywords-- CFD, FSI, Stability, Coupling
I. INTRODUCTION
A flexible solid structure contacting a flowing fluid is
subjected to a pressure which may cause deformation in the
structure. As a return, the deformed structure alters the flow
field. The altered flowing field, in turn, exerts another form of
pressure on the structure with repeats of the process. This kind
of interaction is called Fluid – Structure Interaction (FSI).
To determine the effects of fluid-structure interaction for a
given system, engineering design often involves extensive
experimental testing. However, experiments may be costly,
time consuming and in some cases even infeasible. As
numerical models and techniques have matured over the last
decades to deliver more accurate predictions, and with the
advent of increasing computing power for affordable prices,
numerical simulation has become more established in the
design process to support or even replace experimental testing
[1].
A. Fluid-structure interactions can be classified into three
groups:
1. Zero strain interactions: such as the transport of suspended
solids in a liquid matrix.
2. Constant strain steady flow interactions: The constant force
exerted on an oil-pipeline due to viscous friction between the
pipeline walls and the fluid.
3. Oscillatory interactions: where the strain induced in the
solid structure causes it to move such that the source of strain
is reduced, and the structure returns to its former state only for
the process to repeat.
Figure 1: Fluid Structure Interaction Domain
Figure 2: Fluid structure interaction
B. Typical applications of FSI include:
Biomedical applications - drug delivery pumps, intravenous
catheters, elastic artery modeling for stent design. Aerospace
applications - airfoil flutter and turbine engines[5].
Automotive applications - under hood cooling, HVAC
heating/cooling, and heat exchangers. Fluid handling
applications - valves, fuel injection components, and pressure
regulators. Civil engineering applications - wind and fluid
loading of structures. Electronics cooling.
C. Different approaches for solving FSI problems
a. Monolithic approach
Monolithic solution methods treat the coupled fluid and
structure equations simultaneously, i.e., they directly operate
on the aggregated fluid and structure equations. As this
system is in general nonlinear, the solution procedure
typically involves a Newton method [3].
A monolithic or direct approach is when the equations
governing the flow and the displacements of the structure are
solved simultaneously. The discretization of the problem leads
to a large matrix of equations which is solved with a single
solver. The monolithic approach has the advantages of
stability since the mutual influence of the fluid and the
structure can be taken into account directly. An example of
commercial software that implements the monolithic approach
is ADINA. ADINA is using finite elements to discretize both
the structure and the fluid, whereas in computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) the traditional discretization approach is to
use finite volumes.
b. Partitioned approach
This is very popular in solving FSI. It is not only used in FSI
but the idea can be applied to different problems and
situations. Important applications are provided by

IJTRD | May-Jun 2016

Available Online@www.ijtrd.com 617
 International Journal of Trend in Research and Development, Volume 3(3), ISSN: 2394-9333
www.ijtrd.com
thermomechanics, fluid-structure interaction and control-
structure interaction.
Figure 3: Partitioned approach
A partitioned approach is when the equations governing the
flow and the displacement of the structure are solved
separately with two distinct solvers. This will allow for codes
specialized for flow equations and structural equations and
hence possibly more efficient solution techniques for each of
them. On the other hand; the partitioned approach requires a
coupling algorithm to allow for the interaction and to
determine the solution of the coupled problem. Partitioned
algorithms use subsequent solutions of the fluid and structure
subproblems and the interaction is either loosely or strongly
coupled. A loosely coupled algorithm is explicit and the codes
will have only one bidirectional exchange of solved variables
per time step, in a sequentially staggered manner. A strongly
coupled algorithm (implicit) uses an iterative staggered
scheme which performs subiterations over the single fields to
converge at the end of the timestep.
Stability issues for partitioned algorithms
A wide variety of stability issues regarding FSI-problems and
partitioned algorithms have been reported. Most of the
problems are in regard to the loosely coupled algorithm.
When using a loosely coupled algorithm to solve FSI-
problems with incompressible flow and slender structures, it
has been observed that instabilities in the computations will
occur. The instabilities depend on the mass density of the fluid
versus the mass density of the structure, but also the geometry
of the domain has importance. It has further been observed
that decreasing the time step size will result in even more
instability, or that the instability occurs earlier. The instability
is inherent in the scheme itself and has been named 'artificial
added mass effect'. The name comes from that the fluid
closest to the coupling interface will act as extra mass on the
structure, increasing its inertia.
In sequentially staggered schemes the fluid forces depend on
predictions of the interface displacement instead of the actual
ones. Errors in the predictions together with the added mass
effect will lead to incorrect coupling forces which yields the
instability.
Since the density of the structure versus the density of the
fluid affects the stability of the computations, a so called mass
density ratio has been defined:
IJTRD | May-Jun 2016
Available Online@www.ijtrd.com
It has been observed that loosely coupled algorithms are
unstable for low density ratios and the instabilities increase as
the ratio gets lower. Also, strong coupled algorithms are
affected by the density ratio in such a way that an increased
number of iterations are needed within each time-step in order
to achieve convergence of forces along the interface at the end
of the time-step.
It is well known that the strongly coupled algorithms are more
stable than the loosely coupled ones, because the iterative
scheme ensures balance of the forces at the end of each time-
step.
Regarding choice of time-step length for loosely coupled
algorithms, in there has been defined an interval where the
computations are conditionally stable. This interval has an
upper boundary resulting from the Courant-Friedrichs- Lewy
condition (CFL) and a lower boundary resulting from the
highest eigenvalue of the added mass matrix.
Α < Δt < CFL < 1
Where:
A=Min size of time step size limited by the highest eigenvalue
of the added mass matrix.
CFL=The maximum size of the time step according to the
general CFL condition.
The following list summarizes the instability issues prompted
above:
For loosely coupled algorithms:
Stability is dependent on mass density ratio and geometry of
the domains. Instability increases with decreasing mass
density ratio.
For unstable computations, decreasing of time step size will
lead to earlier occurrence of instabilities or increased
instabilities.
For conditionally stable computations the time step size has an
upper limit depending on the CFL number and a lower limit
depending on the highest eigenmode of the added mass
matrix.
For strongly coupled algorithms:
More stable for low mass density ratio than the loosely
coupled algorithm. Decreasing of the ratio leads to more
subiterations which in turn leads to increased computing time.
c. Loosely- coupled and strongly- coupled partitioned
approaches-
If only a single (one time for the fluid program and one for the
structure) solution per time step are carried out, such
partitioned methods are commonly referred to as loosely-
coupled partitioned methods. Their essential disadvantage
pertains to the loss of the conservation properties of the
continuum fluid-structure system. Although the order of the
incurred error can be improved by predictors, loosely-coupled
methods can never be exactly conservative.
Partitioned methods which solve the fluid-structure system by
repeating within a time step alternate fluid and structure
solutions until convergence are called strongly-coupled
partitioned methods.
To improve the order of the numerical evaluation error
incurred by loosely-coupled partitioned methods, prediction
techniques are used. For example, instead of integrating the
618
 International Journal of Trend in Research and Development, Volume 3(3), ISSN: 2394-9333
www.ijtrd.com
fluid equations based on the position of the structure boundary
in the previous time interval, a prediction can be used for the
position of the structure boundary in the current time interval.
Strongly-coupled methods have a greater computational cost
per time step than loosely-coupled methods. However,
strongly-coupled methods can maintain conservation at the
fluid-structure interface, which renders them unconditionally
stable. In contrast, loosely-coupled methods are typically
energy increasing and, hence, numerically unstable.
d. Direct Coupled FSI (DC-FSI) and practical FSI (P-FSI)
DC-FSI
DC-FSI is AcuSolve's own name for the partitioned approach
of solving FSI problems. Within DC-FSI, AcuSolve enables
cooperation with the third-party structural solvers Abaqus and
MD Nastran, supporting both the sequential staggered
solution scheme (explicit) and the iterative staggered scheme
(semi implicit). The limitation is in the structural solver
whether it supports the semi implicit coupling or only the
explicit one [2].
Figure 4: Direct Coupled FSI (DC-FSI)
E. P-FSI
P-FSI is a unique method for AcuSolve. Within this method
the FSI-problems are solved in AcuSolve without real-time
coupling with the structural solver. P-FSI uses an iterative
staggered algorithm called multi-iterative coupling (MIC).
This coupling algorithm uses predictors and correctors in each
iteration to stabilize the solution. The MIC scheme gives more
stable computations for lower structure-fluid ratios than for
example the sequential staggered scheme.
Figure 5: Practical FSI (P-FSI)
IJTRD | May-Jun 2016
Available Online@www.ijtrd.com
View publication stats
II. ADVANTAGES
Some of the advantages of the P-FSI method are:
1. No run time coupling is required: The codes can be
run with a different time increment and different
duration
2. More stable: Eliminates high wave number modes
3. Efficiency -Shorter setup time -Shorter CPU time
III. LIMITATIONS
Some of the limitations of the method are:
1. Only linear structural analysis is supported
2. Only a small number of modes is practical
CONCLUSION
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code is coupled with a
computational structural mechanics (CSM) code for solving
fluid-structure interaction (FSI) problem in many systems of
automobile. This allows both parts of the fluid structure
interaction problem to be solved in the best possible way: a
Finite Volume Method for the fluid dynamics and a finite
element method for the structure. The CFD results obtained
allow a visualizing of the velocity field and pressure field
inside system. The CSM results permit to obtain the
displacement field, the deformed shape and the Von Mises
stress.
Acknowledgement
I am thankful to Prof. V.R. Patil and Prof. R.G. Desavale,
Department of Automobile Engineering, ADCET, Ashta, for
their encouragement and support to carry out this work.
References
[1] J. M. T. Penrose, D. R. Hose, C. J. Staples, I. S. Hamill,
I. P. Jones and D. Sweeney, (2000), „Fluid structure
interactions: coupling of CFD and FE‟, 18. CAD-FEM
Users' Meeting, International FEM-Technologies
[2] A. Aksenov, K. Iliine, T. Luniewski, T. McArthy, F.
Popielas, R. Ramkumar, (2005), „Oil Leakage Through a
Valve Stem Seal‟, ABAQUS Users‟ Conference.
[3] G. Hou, J. Wang, A. Layton, (2012), „Numerical
methods for fluid structure interaction- A review‟,
Communications in Computational Physics, vol.12 , no.
2, 2012, 337-377.
[4] Vijay R. Patil, “An overview disarray in active
suspention system”, International journal of Engineering
Research and Applications (IJERA), ISSN: 2248-9622,
Vol.3, Issue 1, June-2013, pp. 1156-1160.
[5] Z. Yun, Y. Hui, (2011), „Coupled fluid structure flutter
analysis of a transonic fan‟, Chinese Journal of
Aeronautics, vol.24, 2011, 258-264.
[6] Vijay R. Patil, “A comparative study between vehicles‟
passive and active suspension system- A Review”,
International journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA), ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol.3, Issue
1,Jan-2013.
619