Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

, Volume 29, Issue 12, pp 5157–5166 | Cite as

A component mode synthesis method for 3-D finite element models of aero-engines

  • Yanfei ZuoEmail author
  • Jianjun Wang


Because of the complicated configuration of aero-engines, 3-D finite element models are convenient and accurate to to simulate the vibration performance of the aero-engines, and are now widely used with a high order of Degrees of freedom (DOFs). A Component mode synthesis (CMS) method is introduced to reduce the computational effort of rotors and stator modeled by 3-D finite element. By additional master DOFs in substructures it’s more convenient than traditional CMS to get the inner response of substructures without mode expansion and is validated as being as accurate as traditional CMS. Rotating substructure of rotors with variable spinning speed can also be reduced by the method. Reduced gyroscopic matrix depended by variable spinning speed can be easily obtained by multiplying a speed coefficient to unit condensed gyroscopic matrix. A reduction example of an aero-engine model including casing model, bearings and counter-rotating rotors shows the accuracy and efficiency of the method. The method greatly decreases RAM and solution time used for dynamic analysis, which brings possibilities of a great number of repeatability analyses.


3D finite element Aero-engine CMS Model reduction Rotordynamics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    J. S. Rao, History of rotating machinery dynamics, Springer, Chennai, India (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. A. Chaudhry, 3-D finite element analysis of rotors in gas turbines, steam turbines and axial pumps including blade vibrations, University of Virginia, USA (2011).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Q. Han and F. Chu, Dynamic response of cracked rotorbearing system under time-dependent base movements, J. of Sound and Vibration, 332 (25) (2013) 6847–6870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. S. Rao and R. Sreenivas, Dynamics of a three level rotor system using solid elements, Asme Turbo Expo 2003, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2003) 601–606.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. S. Han, Calculation of design sensitivity for large-size transient dynamic problems using krylov subspace-based model order reduction, JMST, 27 (9) (2013) 2789–2800.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. J. Guyan, Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices, AIAA Journal, 3 (2) (1965) 380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. D. Henshell and J. H. Ong, Automatic masters for eigenvalue economization, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 3 (1975) 375–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    R. R. Craig, Coupling of substructures for dynamic analysis, AIAA Journal, 6 (7) (1968) 1313–1319.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. Craig and C. J. Chang, Free-interface methods of substructure coupling for dynamic analysis, AIAA J., 14 (11) (1976) 1633–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. H. MacNeal, A hybrid method of component mode synthesis, Computers & Structures, 1 (4) (1971) 581–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Curnier, On Three modal synthesis variants, J. of Sound and Vibration, 90 (4) (1983) 527–540.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    C. U. Bucher, A modal synthesis method employing physical coordinates, free component modes, and residual flexibilities, Computers & Structures, 22 (4) (1986) 559–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    L. E. Suarez and M. P. Singh, Improved fixed interface method for modal synthesis, AIAA J., 30 (12) (1992) 2952–2958.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    M. A. Tournour et al., Validation, performance, convergence and application of free interface component mode synthesis, Computers and Structures, 79 (20) (2001) 1861–1876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    S. Besset and L. Jezequel, Dynamic substructuring based on a double modal analysis, J. of Vibration and Acoustics, 130 (1) (2008) 011008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    J. G. Kim, K. H. Lee and P. S. Lee, Estimating relative eigenvalue errors in the craig-bampton method, Computers & Structures, 139 (2014) 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    K. J. Bathe and D. Jian, Component mode synthesis with subspace iterations for controlled accuracy of frequency and mode shape solutions, Computers & Structures, 139 (2014) 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    M. B. Wagner et al., Model reduction methods for rotor dynamic analysis: A Survey and Review, International J. of Rotating Machinery, 2010 (2011) 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Y. A. Khuliefk and M. A. Mohiuddin, On the dynamic analysis of rotors using modal reduction, Finite Elements in Analysis & Design, 26 (1) (1997) 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    A. Shanmugam and C. Padmanabhan, A fixed-free interface component mode synthesis method for rotordynamic analysis, J. of Sound and Vibration, 297 (3–5) (2006) 664–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Y. F. Zuo, J. J. Wang and W. M. Ma, Rotating substructure method for 3-d finite element rotor model reduction, J. of Aerospace Power (04) (2014) 894–900.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Y. F. Zuo et al., Method for selecting master degrees of freedom for rotating substructure, Asme Turbo Expo 2014, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2014).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    M. Geradin and N. Kill, A New approach to finite element modelling of flexible rotors, Engineering Computations, 1 (1) (1984) 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Energy and Power EngineeringBeijing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations