Tom’s Conference Papers & Slide Index

I am trying to collect all my presentations. This is a work-in-progress…

Thank you,
Tom Irvine

* * * * * *

NAFEMS World Congress 2017

Introduction to Vibration

Spectral Functions

Random Vibration

Vibration Fatigue

Shock 1 & 2

Videos

* * * * * *

Aerospace Spacecraft & Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments Conference

2017, Statistical Energy Analysis Software & Training Materials, Part 2

2016, Statistical Energy Analysis Software & Training Materials

2015, Seismic Analysis and Testing of Launch Vehicles and Equipment using Historical Strong Motion Data Scaled to Satisfy Shock Response Spectra Specifications

2014, Optimized PSD Envelope for Nonstationary Vibration

2013, Extending Steinberg’s Fatigue Analysis of Electronics Equipment to a Full Relative Displacement vs. Cycles Curve

2012,  Keynote, Dynamics Engineering: A Call to Serve  

2012, An Alternate Damage Potential Method for Enveloping Nonstationary Random Vibration

2011, The NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) Shock & Vibration Training Program

* * * * * *

European Space Agency

2015, ESA-ESTEC

ESA Pyrotechnic Shock Distance & Joint Attenuation via Wave Propagation Analysis

ESA Shock Analysis of Launch Vehicle Equipment using Historical Accelerometer Records to Satisfy Shock Response Spectra Specifications 

2016, European Conference on Spacecraft Structures Materials and Environmental Testing

Modifying Spectral Fatigue Methods for S-N Curves with MIL-HDBK-5J Coefficients

* * * * * *

Various Vibration & Fatigue Conferences

VAL2015, A review of spectral methods for variable amplitude fatigue prediction and new results

VAL 2015, Using a Random Vibration Test Specification to Cover a Shock Requirement via a Pseudo Velocity Fatigue Damage Spectrum

ICoEV 2015, International Conference on Engineering Vibration, Derivation of Equivalent Power Spectral Density Specifications for Swept Sine-on-Random Environments via Fatigue Damage Spectra

MOVIC & RASD 2016, Multiaxis Fatigue Method for Nonstationary Vibration

* * * * * *

Shock and Vibration Exchange (formerly SAVIAC)

* * * * * *

Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (IEST)

ESTECH 2016, Nonstationary Vibration Enveloping Method Comparison

* * * * * *

Earthquake Engineering Conferences

16th WCEE, Seismic Analysis and Testing of Equipment using Historical Strong Motion Data Scaled to Satisfy Shock Response Spectra Specifications

* * * * * *

AIAA

2003, A Time Domain, Curve-Fitting Method for Accelerometer Data Analysis

2003, Practical Application of the Rayleigh-Ritz Method to Verify Launch Vehicle Bending Modes

* * * * * *

Miscellaneous

Sine Sweep vs. Random for Pre and Post Testing

19_fuel-cell-vibration-test

Certain equipment must be designed and tested to withstand vibration.  This is common in the automotive, aerospace, military and other industries.    The equipment is typically mounted to a shaker table and then subjected to a base input random or sine sweep vibration test.   The random vibration is usually in the form of a power spectral density (PSD).

The sine sweep or random test level may represent a maximum expected field environmental, a parts and workmanship screen, or an envelope of both.   The level may also include a statistical uncertainty margin or a safety factor.

A common practice is to perform low-level sine sweep test before and after the full-level test in order to measure the transmissibility ratio and identify natural frequencies and damping ratios.   There must be at least one base input control accelerometer and one reference accelerometer for this test, where the reference accelerometer is mounted somewhere on the test item.   The before and after transmissibility curves are then compared to assess whether any of the response peaks have shifted in frequency or magnitude.   Any shift may indicate that some fasteners have loosened or some other change has occurred.  If so, further investigation is needed.  Ideally, two curves are identical such that no further evaluation is required.

Sine sweep is the traditional vibration test for the pre and post tests.  The purpose of this paper is to determine whether random vibration can be substituted for sine sweep, via an example.  This could be done for time saving.  Also, random vibration is easier to control than sine sweep.

A difference between sine sweep and random is that all modes are excited all the time for stationary broadband random.  There is only one excitation frequency at a given time in sine sweep vibration, and each mode will be excited individually if the modal frequencies are well-separated.  In addition, the random vibration used for shaker testing typically has a bell-shaped histogram curve, whereas sine sweep vibration with constant amplitude has a bathtub-shaped histogram.

Both sine sweep and random should give the same transmissibility results for a linear system per textbook theory, but there are some practical concerns for implementation of each.  The numerical example results will show that random vibration is adequate, although sine sweep remains the best choice because it can give finer resolution.

An example is given in:  sine_sweep_random_pre&post_test.pdf

See also:

Webinar Unit 3 Sine Sweep Vibration 

Beam Bending Natural Frequencies & Mode Shapes

– Tom Irvine

Multi-axis Shock & Vibration Testing

Equipment must be designed and tested to withstand shock and vibration.  Ideally, all equipment would be tested on a shaker table with six-degree-of-freedom control (three translations and three rotations).  Such tables and control systems exist but are very expensive.  Furthermore, any multi-axis testing requires careful consideration of phase angles between the six degrees.

Another option is to test equipment on a triaxial table where the three translations are controlled, and the three rotational degrees are constrained to zero motion.  Testing on a biaxial table is yet another choice.

The most common test method, however, remains testing in each of three orthogonal axes, one axis at a time, on a single-axis shaker.  This is simplest and least expensive method.

The question arises “Should the acceleration level be increased for the case of single-axis testing?”

There is a tacit understanding that aerospace and military equipment test levels already have a sufficient uncertainty margin or safety factor so that the levels can be used without further increase.  In other words, the specifications are already intended for single-axis testing.  In many cases, a uniform level is used in each axis which is the maximum envelope of the maximum expected levels in the three axes plus some margin.

* * *

The standards which address testing equipment for earthquakes take a different approach. The following descriptions are taken from five common standards.

Only KTA 2201.4 gives a scaling formula.  This is also the only standard from the five samples which may be freely downloaded.

* * *

IEEE 344-2013  Standard for Seismic Qualification of Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations

8.6.6 Multiaxis tests

Seismic ground motion occurs simultaneously in all directions in a random fashion. However, for test purposes, single-axis, biaxial, and triaxial tests are allowed. If single-axis or biaxial tests are used to simulate the 3D environment, they should be applied in a conservative manner to account for the absence of input motion in the other orthogonal direction(s). One factor to be considered is the 3D characteristics of the input motion. Other factors are the dynamic characteristics of the equipment, flexible or rigid, and the
degree of spatial cross-coupling response. Single and biaxial tests should be applied to produce adequate levels of excitation to equipment where cross coupling is significant and yet minimize the level of overtesting where the cross coupling is not significant.

* * *

KTA 2201.4   Design of Nuclear Power Plants against Seismic Events, Part 4: Components

This document may be freely downloaded: link

See paragraphs

5.3.3 Excitation Axes

5.5.2.5 Simultaneity of excitation directions

Simultaneous three-axis testing is preferred. But single-axis testing can be substituted by testing in each of three axes sequentially.

The standard shows, for example, that the uniform single-axis level should be the “square root of the sum of the squares” of the three orthogonal installation site levels.

* * *

IEC 980 Recommended practices for seismic qualification of electrical equipment of the safety system for nuclear generating stations

6.2.9 Qualification test method

6.2.9.1 General

As is well known, seismic excitation occurs simultaneously in all directions in a random way. According to this point of view, the test input motion should consist of three mutually independent waveforms applied simultaneously along the three orthogonal axes of the equipment.

However, taking into account that three axial testing installations are rare and that triaxial testing is desirable when significant coupling exists simultaneously between the two preferred horizontal axis of the specimens, biaxial testing with multifrequency independent input motion in the horizontal and vertical direction is an acceptable test.

Tests shall be performed according to 6.3.2 and, in terms of total duration and fatigue induced, are intended to become conservative.

In some cases, single axis tests with multiple, or single frequency excitation are also acceptable methods of test if properly justified considering the effect of coupling between axes.

* * *

Telcordia GR-63-CORE

Assumes single-axis testing.  The base input time history is specified in the standard.

* * *

IEEE 693-2005 – IEEE Recommended Practice for Seismic Design of Substations

paragraph 4.9

The shaker table shall be biaxial with triaxial preferred.

* * *

See also:

Seismic Test & Analysis Webinars

Hypersphere SRS

 

– Tom Irvine

Webinar Index

Here is a listing of the webinars and related materials.

Matlab script: Vibrationdata Signal Analysis Package

1. Natural Frequencies

2. Sine Vibration

3. Sine Sweep Vibration

4. Random Vibration

5. Fourier transforms

6. Leakage Error, Hanning Window

7. FFTs

8. Waterfall FFT

9. White Noise FFT

10. Sample Rate & Aliasing

11. Power Spectral Density

12. Power Spectral Density Functions of Measured Data

13. SDOF Response to Power Spectral Density Base Input

14. Synthesizing a Time History to Satisfy a PSD Specification

15. SDOF Response to Base Input in the Frequency Domain

16. Vibration Response Spectrum

17. SDOF Response to Applied Force

18. Force Vibration Response Spectrum

19. Digital Filtering

20. Digital Filtering, Part 2

21. Integration & Differentiation of Time Histories

22. Integration and Differentiation of Time Histories & Spectral Functions

23. Classical Shock Pulse

24. Seismic Shock

25. Pyrotechnic Shock

26. Pyrotechnic Shock, part 2

27. SRS Synthesis

28. Multi-degree-of-freedom SRS

29. Stress-Velocity Relationship

30. Rectangular Plate Shock & Vibration

31. Rectangular & Circular Plate Shock & Vibration

32. Electronic Circuit Board Fatigue

33. Rainflow Fatigue

34. Rainflow Fatigue for Continuous Beams

35. Using Fatigue to Compare Sine and Random Environments

36. Non-Gaussian Random Fatigue and Peak Response

37. Acoustic Fatigue

38. Electronic Circuit Board Fatigue Part 2

39. Sine-on-Random Vibration

40. Shock Fatigue

41. PSD Special Topics

42. Shock Special Topics

43. Two-degree-of-freedom System, Two-stage Isolation

44. Sine Filtering

45. Two-degree-of-freedom System with Rotation and Translation

46. Two-degree-of-freedom System with Multi-point Enforced Motion

47. Shock Response Spectrum Synthesis, Special Topics

Seismic Test & Analysis Webinars

Structural Dynamics Webinars

Fatigue Webinars

Circuit Board Shock & Vibration Analysis

HALT/HASS for Product Reliability

More later. . .

– Tom Irvine

Nonlinear Modeling of Bolted Interfaces & Joints

Mechanical joints may have nonlinear damping and stiffness, due to.frictional slipping between the connected members, etc.  I am enclosing modeling advice from a colleague and related links.

– Tom Irvine

* * *

If the nonlinearity stays fairly weak then there are a few options to do a worst case analysis:

1.) For broadband loads the linear model with low-level damping is usually a very conservative model for the system at high amplitude (in our cases we frequently see damping increase by a factor of 3-4). Of course if you have a sharp harmonic then you need to consider the downward shift in frequency, but that is usually small and you’re not likely to design something to have a strong excitation frequency just barely below resonance.

2.) To improve fidelity, these uncoupled 1DOF oscillator models with power-law dissipation (i.e. log(damping) vs log(displacement amplitude) = linear) can do a very good job of capturing how the damping changes with amplitude. It APPEARS (no guarantees with nonlinearity) that one can obtain a “worst case” analysis by using a linear model with damping near the maximum damping expected at that amplitude. However, a word of caution: the frequency shift smears the resonance peak, so one cannot necessarily assume that the damping measured by a half-power method will be accurate! We use a Hilbert transform or some other time domain technique to estimate damping at a time instant (and therefore at a certain amplitude). We have also used step-sine tests (in a paper for this year’s IMAC) with a phase condition to find the resonance frequency and damping with good success. In any event, an approach such as this will be less over-conservative than a linear model based on low-amplitude response and if one is careful it is probably possible to still make sure it is conservative.

3.) If there is nonlinearity then one should also think whether any nonlinear phenomena might come into play: super-harmonic resonance (exciting a mode at omega by applying a force at (1/2)*omega, (1/3)*omega, etc…; modal coupling (modes are excited that shouldn’t be based on linear theory), chaos, etc…

Dr. Matt Allen, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Dynamics of Bolted Interfaces

Numerical Study Iwan Model

Nonlinear Characterization of a Bolted Structure

* * *

See also:

Some Nonlinear Sine Sweep Vibration Test Data 

Tall Building Natural Frequencies and Damping

Seismic Test & Analysis Webinars

This is a work-in-progress…

I am creating a series of webinars with Matlab exercises for seismic testing.

Here are the slides.

Telcordia Technologies Generic Requirements GR-63-CORE:  Bellcore_GR_63_Core.ppt
This unit contains an alternative waveform for VERTEQII.

CEI.IEC 980, Recommended practices for seismic qualification of electrical equipment of the safety system for nuclear generating stations:  CEI/IEC 980: 1989

IEEE Std 693-2005, Recommended Practice for Seismic Design of Substations: IEEE_693_sine_beat.pptx

IEEE Standard for Seismic Qualification of Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating
Stations: IEEE_std_344.ppt

Matlab script: Vibrationdata Signal Analysis Package

* * *

See also:

Cummins Generator Seismic Shaker Test

Earthquake Conference

Seismic Shock

Webinar 47 – Shock Response Spectrum Synthesis, Special Topics

Seismic Peak Ground Acceleration

Some Earthquake Engineering Terminology

* * *

– Tom Irvine

Shock & Vibration Courses, Trieste, Italy & Singapore

You are welcome to participate in any of the following courses.

I will teach shock & vibration course in Trieste, Italy on January 25-27, 2017.   Course Link

* * *

I will teach a shock & vibration finite element analysis course in Singapore, February 13-15, 2017.  Brochure Link

Thank you,
Tom Irvine

Structural Dynamics Webinars

This is a work-in-progress…

I am creating a series of webinars with Matlab exercises for structural dynamics and finite element analysis.

Here are the slides:

Unit 1  Basic FEA

Unit 2  Damping

Unit 3 Modal Analysis

Unit 4 Transfer Functions

Unit 5  Transient Analysis

Unit 6  Applied Force Response Analysis

Unit 7  Response to Seismic Base Mass Excitation

Unit 8  Response to Enforced Motion

Unit 9  Beam Bending FEA

Unit 10 Beam Bending FEA with Added Mass and Stiffness

Unit 11 Beam Bending FEA with Steady-State Sinusoidal Base Excitation

Unit 12 Beam Bending FEA with Sine Sweep Base Excitation

Unit 13  Beam Bending FEA with PSD Base Excitation

Unit 14  Beam Bending FEA Fatigue

Unit 15  Beam Bending FEA Shock

Unit 17  FEA: Circuit Board Natural Frequencies

Unit 18  FEA: Circuit Board Damping

Unit 19  FEA: Circuit Board Response to Sine Vibration

Unit 20  FEA:  Circuit Board Response to Sine Sweep Vibration

Unit 21  FEA:  Circuit Board Response to Random Vibration

Unit 22  FEA:  Circuit Board Response to PSD Synthesis

Unit 23_FEA:  Circuit Board Shock Response Spectra & Synthesis 

Unit 24_FEA:  Circuit Board MDOF Shock

Unit 25:  FEA:  Circuit Board Fatigue

Special Topic:  Irvine_multiaxis_fatigue.pptx

Matlab script: Vibrationdata Signal Analysis Package

* * *

See also:

Transfer Functions from Normal Modes

Convert Modal Damping to a Damping Coefficient Matrix

Beam Bending, Finite Element Analysis

The Mode Acceleration Method  MA_method.pdf

The Modal Truncation Augmentation Method:  MTAM.pdf
This is also known as the residual vector method.  

* * *

– Tom Irvine

Satellite Equipment Vibration Testing

stentor__1

Stentor Satellite

Equipment mounted in satellites must withstand acoustic-driven random vibration at liftoff and during the transonic and maximum dynamic pressure phases of flight.   The equipment must be designed and test accordingly.

The equipment is mounted on shaker tables for the random vibration testing, but this can be overly conservative with respect to the actual vibroacoustic environment.

Here is an interesting case study paper:

Comparison of Satellite Equipment Responses Induced by Acoustic and Random Vibration Tests, Bertrand Brevart, Alice Pradines, 2002. Comparison_Satellite_2002.pdf

Force-limiting is one method for mitigating this overtest problem.  See NASA-HDBK-7004

More later…

– Tom Irvine