Abstract
This paper describes a radically new approach to the vibration testing of structures in order to demonstrate their endurance under simulated service conditions. The excitation mechanisms of structures in-service typically fall into one of three configurations; (i) excitation from a parent structure through mechanical connections (e.g. during transportation), (ii) excitation from aerodynamic forces distributed over the outer surface of the structure (e.g. aircraft and rockets in flight), or (iii) A combination of (i) and (ii). In nearly all cases, the in-service excitation is multi-directional, yet it is standard practice to replicate these environments with three orthogonal single-axis vibration tests. In addition, a considerable mismatch of the boundary conditions between the in-service and laboratory configurations is common, especially when replicating aerodynamic environments. This paper presents quantitative evidence of limitations with the status quo and demonstrates a superior method; Impedance Matched Multi-Axis Testing (IMMAT). Three noteworthy improvements of the new method are; (i) enhanced replication of the in-service environment, (ii) much shorter test durations, and (iii) a significant reduction in costs associated with random vibration tests.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Kroeger RC, Hasslacher GJ III (1965) Relationship of measured vibration data to specification criteria. Acoust Soc Am 37(1):43–53
Piersol AG (1966) The development of vibration test specifications for flight vehicle components. J Sound Vibr 4(1):88–115
Piersol AG (1974) Criteria for the optimal selection of aerospace component vibration test levels. In: Proceedings of institute of environmental sciences, pp. 88–94
Scharton TD (1997) Force limited vibration testing. NASA Reference Publication RP-1403, Pasadena, CA
Osterholt DJ, Napolitano KL (2007) Six degree of freedom vibration testing. In: Proceedings of IMAC XXV, Orlando, FL
Smallwood DO, Gregory DL (2008) Evaluation of a 6-DOF electrodynamic shaker system. In: Proceedings of the 79th shock and vibration symposium, Orlando, FL
Salter JP (1964) Taming the general-purpose vibration test. Environ Eng 33(2–4):211–217
Witte AF, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque (1970) Realistic vibration tests. Instrum Technol. 45–48
Soucy Y, Cote A (2002) Reduction of overtesting during vibration tests of space hardware. Can Aeronaut Space J 48(1):77–86
Scharton TD (1995) Vibration-test force limits derived from frequency-shift method. J Spacecraft Rockets 32:312–316
Daborn PM (2013) Replicating aerodynamic excitation in the laboratory. In: Proceedings of IMAC XXXI, Garden Grove, CA
French RM, Handy R, Cooper HL (2006) A comparison of simultaneous and sequential single-axis durability testing. Exp Techniques 30(5):32–37
Whiteman WE, Berman M (2005) Inedaquacies in uniaxial stress screen vibration testing. J IEST 44(4):20–23
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Daborn, P.M., Roberts, C., Ewins, D.J., Ind, P.R. (2014). Next-Generation Random Vibration Tests. In: Allemang, R. (eds) Topics in Modal Analysis II, Volume 8. Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04774-4_37
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04774-4_37
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04773-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04774-4
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)