Skip to content
Two overlays of a flapping plate's shapes over one cycle, the second more flexible
Plate shapes over one flapping cycle at bending rigidity 10⁻³ (left) and 10⁻⁴ (right). Own simulation.

FSI benchmark: highly flexible plate in axial flow

Dr Mohammad Ghaffari · 2020 to 2024 · Research

Context

A thin plate held at its leading edge in a uniform flow will flap like a flag. At very low bending rigidity, the plate bends into large, fast-changing shapes, and the flow and structure interact strongly over the whole cycle. Many FSI solvers lose accuracy or stability in this range, so it is a demanding test for flexible-structure work.

My role

I was the CFD engineer who developed the coupled solver and ran the validation.

Approach

  • Same coupled lattice Boltzmann, finite element and immersed-boundary solver as above.
  • Plate of length L fixed at its leading edge, in a 16L × 6L domain, at Re = 100 with stretching coefficient 500.
  • Two bending rigidities, 10⁻³ and 10⁻⁴; the second is the very flexible case.
  • Mesh-independence check at three grid levels (Δx/L = 0.025, 0.0125 and 0.00625), with each run carried through to a periodic state.

Figures

Four plots comparing simulated drag, lift and tip motion with reference data
Drag coefficient, lift coefficient and horizontal and vertical tip displacement compared with Xu et al. (2018), bending rigidity 10⁻³. Own simulation.

Outcome

  • Bending rigidity 10⁻³: mean drag coefficient 0.857, flapping amplitude 0.858 and Strouhal number 0.301, against 0.878, 0.886 and 0.299 in Xu et al. (2018).
  • Bending rigidity 10⁻⁴: mean drag coefficient 0.951 and Strouhal number 0.320, against 0.948 and 0.309.
  • Drag, lift and tip displacement follow the reference through the cycle, and the plate shapes match the published deformation patterns.
  • Fluid structure interaction
  • Flexible structures
  • IB-LBM
  • Validation

Solver: Immersed boundary lattice Boltzmann solver