FSI Workflow Using Advanced RBF Mesh Morphing

  • Marco Evangelos BiancoliniEmail author


Advanced workflow for fluid structure interaction (FSI) modelling using computer-aided engineering (CAE) tools suitable for the simulation of fluids and structures, that typically are related to computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and computational structural mechanics (CSM) techniques respectively, are demonstrated in the present chapter. In this context, RBF are adopted to interface structure and fluid. In the two-way approach the loads computed using CFD (pressures and shear forces) are transferred to the structure using RBF interpolation for the mapping at surfaces (the mapping topic is further deepened in Chap.  13), whilst deformation computed using CSM are then transferred to the CFD mesh using mesh morphing. The latter approach can be also used to transfer the modal shapes, computed using eigenvalues extraction performed through a finite element analysis (FEA) for instance, on the CFD mesh. The effectiveness of the two possible FSI approaches is demonstrated with practical applications pertaining to aeronautical and motorsport fields. The reported FSI implementation can be used to tackle both steady and transient problems. The chapter is concluded showing how the method can handle vortex induced vibrations of a wing in water and the transient effect due to the separation of a store from the wing of an aircraft.


  1. Ausoni P (2009) Turbulent vortex shedding from a blunt trailing edge hydrofoil. Ph.D. thesis. STI. Lausanne.
  2. Ausoni P, Zobeiri A, Avellan F, Farhat M (2012) The Effects of a tripped turbulent boundary layer on vortex shedding from a blunt trailing edge hydrofoil. J Fluids Eng 134:051207. Scholar
  3. Biancolini ME, Cella U, Groth C, Genta M (2016). Static aeroelastic analysis of an aircraft wind-tunnel model by means of modal RBF mesh updating. J Aerosp Eng 29. ISSN: 0893-1321.
  4. Bungartz HJ, Schäfer M (2006) Fluid-structure interaction: modelling, simulation, optimization, lecture notes in computational science and engineering, vol 53. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Castronovo P, Mastroddi F, Stella F, Biancolini ME (2017) Assessment and development of a ROM for linearized aeroelastic analyses of aerospace vehicles. CEAS Aeronaut J 8:353–369. Scholar
  6. Cella U, Biancolini ME (2012) Aeroelastic analysis of aircraft wind-tunnel model coupling structural and fluid dynamic codes. J Aircr 49(2):407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambers JR (2005) Innovation in Flight. NASAGoogle Scholar
  8. Chwalowski P, Florance JP, Heeg J, Wieseman CD, Perry B (2011) Preliminary computational analysis of the HIRENASD configuration in preparation for the aeroelastic prediction workshop. In: International Forum of Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics (IFASD), IFASD 2011-108, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  9. Chwalowski P, Heeg J, Dalenbring M, Jirasek A, Ritter M, Hansen T (2013) Collaborative HIRENASD analyses to eliminate variations in computational results. IFASD-2013-1DGoogle Scholar
  10. Costa E (2012) Advanced FSI analysis within ANSYS fluent by means of a UDF implemented explicit large displacements FEM solver. Ph.D. Dissertation, Program in Environment and Energy—Cycle XXIV, Industrial Engineering Department, University of Rome Tor VergataGoogle Scholar
  11. Di Domenico N, Groth C, Wade A, Berg T, Biancolini ME (2017) Fluid structure interaction analysis: vortex shedding induced vibrations, Procedia Struct Integrity, 8(2018):422–432, ISSN 2452-3216,
  12. European Commision (2013) RBF4AERO Project.
  13. Gene H, Jin W, Anita L (2012) Numerical methods for fluid-structure interaction—a review. Commun Comput Phys 12(2):337–377. Scholar
  14. Invernizzi S (2013) Advanced mesh morphing applications in motorsport. In: Automotive simulation world congress 2013, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 29–30 Oct 2013Google Scholar
  15. MSC (1997) NASTRAN basic dynamic analysis user’s guide spiral-bound—June 15. ISBN-10: 1585240036Google Scholar
  16. Reina G, Della Sala A, Biancolini ME, Groth C, Caridi D (2014) Store separation: theoretical investigation of wing aeroelastic response. Paper presented at Aircraft structural design conference, BelfastGoogle Scholar
  17. Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL, Zhu JZ (2005) The finite element method: its basis and fundamentals, 6th edn, Butterworth-Heinemann, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Zobeiri A, Ausoni P, Avellan F, Farhat M (2012) Vortex shedding from blunt and oblique trailing edge hydrofoils. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IAHR international meeting of the workgroup on cavitation and dynamic problems in hydraulic machinery and systems, BrnoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Enterprise Engineering “Mario Lucertini”University of Rome “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations