Abstract
Choosing the right number and type of elements in modern commercial finite element tools is a challenging task. It requires a broad knowledge about the theory behind or much experience by the user. Benchmark tests are a common method to prove the element performance against analytical solutions. However, these tests often analyze the performance only for single elements. When investigating the complete mesh of an arbitrary structure, the comparison of the element’s performance is quite challenging due to the lack of closed or fully converged solutions. The purpose of this paper is to show a high-precision comparison of eigenfrequencies of a real structure between experimental and numerical results in the context of an element performance check with respect to a converged solution. Additionally, the authors identify the practically relevant accuracy of simulation and experiment. Finally, the influence of accuracy with respect to the number of elements per standing structural bending wave is shown.
Highlights
Engineers utilizing the finite element method (FEM) are confronted with the choice of element type and number of elements to solve a given problem efficiently
Numerical and FEMs in acoustics are well explained in the literature.[3,4,5]
Due to today’s high demand to reduce the costs related to the development time, FEM has become increasingly important for industrial tasks
Summary
Engineers utilizing the finite element method (FEM) are confronted with the choice of element type and number of elements to solve a given problem efficiently. Many different element types have been implemented over the years, for example, beam, shell, plate and solid elements.[1] Koschnick[2] underlines the importance of solid elements and their broad This is an Open Access article published by World Scientific Publishing Company. Numerical and FEMs in acoustics are well explained in the literature.[3,4,5] Due to today’s high demand to reduce the costs related to the development time, FEM has become increasingly important for industrial tasks This has been clear ever since the first investigations by Kompella and Bernhard[6] into the variation of two structure-borne and two air-borne paths of 57 apparently identical Isuzu pickup trucks. The frequency response functions (FRFs) varied by approximately 5–15 dB over the frequency range 0– 1000 Hz for the structure-borne and air-borne paths
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
