Advertisement

Application of Transfer Path Analysis Techniques to the Boundary Condition Challenge Problem

  • Julie M. HarvieEmail author
  • Maarten van der Seijs
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)

Abstract

A Boundary Condition Challenge Problem was released in May 2017 by Sandia National Laboratories and Kansas City’s National Security Campus (KCNSC). The challenge problem is intended to facilitate collaborative research on methods used for laboratory shock and vibration testing of aerospace components. Specifically, the challenge problem presents a test bed structure consisting of two sub-systems and an applied shock loading. The goal is to replicate the environment observed on one of the sub-systems when it is attached to a different sub-system in a laboratory testing environment.

Meanwhile, transfer path analysis (TPA) tools have been available for several decades. TPA techniques are used extensively for noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) engineering in the automotive industry. The techniques provide insight into the vibration transmission of a source excitation to a receiving structure. By re-framing the boundary condition problem into the TPA framework, it becomes clear that TPA tools are directly applicable to the boundary condition challenge problem.

Keywords

Shock and vibration Transfer path analysis Boundary conditions 

Nomenclature

DoF

Degree of freedom

FRF

Frequency response function

u

Dynamic displacements/rotations

f

Applied forces/moments

g

Interface forces/moments

Y

Admittance FRF matrix

AB

Pertaining to the assembled system

A;⋆B

Pertaining to the active/passive component

1

Source excitation DoF

2

Interface DoF

⋆⋆3

Receiver DoF

4

Indicator DoF

ps

Pseudo-force DoF

References

  1. 1.
    Schoenherr, T.: Boundary conditions in environmental testing challenge problem, Sandia National Laboratories. https://connect.sandia.gov/sites/TestBoundaryConditions
  2. 2.
    Qualification testing – Space vehicle design criteria, Technical Report, NASA Langley Research Center; Hampton, VA, United States, May 1970Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gregory, D.L., Bitsie, F., Smallwood, D.O.: Comparison of the response of a simple structure to single axis and multiple axis random vibration inputs. In: 80th Shock and Vibration Symposium, San Diego, CA, October 2009Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Owens, B., Tipton, D.G., McDowell, M.: 6 Degree of Freedom shock and vibration: testing and analysis, 86th Shock and Vibration Symposium, Orlando, FL, October 2015Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ross, M., et al.: 6-DOF shaker test input derivation from field test. In: 35th International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL, February 2017Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daborn, P.M.: Scaling up of the impedance-matched multi-axis test (IMMAT) technique. In: 35th International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL, February 2017Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mayes, R., et al.: Optimization of shaker locations for multiple shaker environmental testing. Paper accepted for the 37th international modal analysis conference, Orlando FL, January 2019Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mayes, R.L.: A Modal Craig-Bampton substructure for experiments, analysis, control and specifications. In: 33rd International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL, February 2015Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harvie, J.M.: Using modal substructuring to improve shock & vibration qualification. In: 36th International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL, February 2018Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scharton, T.D.: Force limited vibration testing monograph, NASA Reference Publication RP-1403, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, May 1997Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Seijs, M., de Klerk, D., Rixen, D.J.: General framework for transfer path analysis: history, theory and classification of techniques. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 68–69, 217–244, August 2015Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elliott, A.S., Moorhouse, A.T.: Characterisation of structure borne sound sources from measurement in-situ. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123(5), 3176 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2933261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moorhouse, A.T., Elliott, A.S., Evans, T.A.: In situ measurement of the blocked force of structure-borne sound sources. J. Sound Vib. 325(4–5), 679–685 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2009.04.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Seijs, M., et al.: An improved methodology for the virtual point transformation of measured frequency response functions in dynamic substructuring, COMPDYN 2013, Kos Island, Greece, pp. 12–14, June 2013Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soine, D., et al.: Designing hardware for the boundary condition Round Robin challenge. In: 36th International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL, February 2018Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rohe, D., et al.: Testing Summary for the Box and Removable Component Structure. Paper accepted for the 37th international modal analysis conference, Orlando FL, January 2019Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VIBES.technologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations