Skip to main content

Influence of Shaker Limitations on the Success of MIMO Environment Reconstruction

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Dynamic Environments Testing, Volume 7 (SEM 2023)

Abstract

Several factors can prevent MIMO environment reconstruction tests from being successful, including the locations of the shakers and their directions, the set of accelerometers that are controlled to, and the upper and lower bounds of a shaker’s dynamic range. This work explores these issues for a simple component that flew on a sounding rocket in 2019, and which was instrumented with accelerometers to capture the operational environment in detail. Electrical models were estimated for three modal shakers to predict whether a certain configuration of shakers can recreate the environment without exceeding their input voltage capabilities. Tests are performed controlling to various sets of accelerometers. Finally, the condition number threshold and stinger length are investigated as potential solutions to insufficient shaker dynamic range. These factors are all studied by simulating a MIMO test using transfer functions measured in impact hammer testing, and physical MIMO testing is performed on the most promising test configurations using six modal shakers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Force Limited Vibration Testing, NASA-HDBK-7004B, 2003. [Online]. Available: http://standards.nasa.gov

  2. Marchand, P., Singhal, R., O’Grady, M.: Force limited vibration using the apparent mass method. In: Shock & Vibration, Aircraft/Aerospace, Energy Harvesting, Acoustics & Optics, Volume 9, pp. 53–66, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30087-0_6

  3. Reyes, J.M., Avitabile, P.: Force Customization to Neutralize Fixture-Test Article Dynamic Interaction, presented at the International Modal Analysis Conference 36, Orlando, FL, 2018

    Google Scholar 

  4. Van Fossen, T., Napolitano, K.: An acceleration-based approach to force limiting a random vibration test. In: Special Topics in Structural Dynamics & Experimental Techniques, Volume 5, pp. 315–325, Cham (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Paripovic, J., Mayes, R.L.: Reproducing a component field environment on a six degree-of-freedom shaker. In: Linderholt, A., Allen, M., D’Ambrogio, W. (eds.) Dynamic Substructures, Volume 4, pp. 73–78. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47630-4_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Daborn, P.M., Roberts, C., Ewins, D.J., Ind, P.R.: Next-generation random vibration tests. 8, 397–410 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04774-4_37

  7. Tuman, M.J., Allen, M.S., DeLima, W.J., Dodgen, E., Hower, J.: Balancing impedance and controllability in response reconstruction. In: Walber, C., Stefanski, M., Harvie, J. (eds.) Sensors and Instrumentation, Aircraft/Aerospace and Dynamic Environments Testing, Volume 7, pp. 133–143. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05415-0_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Rohe, D.P., Schultz, R.A., Schoenherr, T.F., Skousen, T.J., Jones, R.J.: Comparison of multi-axis testing of the BARC structure with varying boundary conditions. In: Sensors and Instrumentation, Aircraft/Aerospace, Energy Harvesting & Dynamic Environments Testing, Volume 7, pp. 179–193, Cham (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jankowski, K., Sedillo, H., Takeshita, A., Barba, J., Bouma, A., Abdelkefi, A.: Impacts of test fixture connections of the BARC structure on its dynamical responses. In: Sensors and Instrumentation, Aircraft/Aerospace, Energy Harvesting & Dynamic Environments Testing, Volume 7, pp. 175–177, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75988-9_13

  10. Schultz, R., Avitabile, P.: Application of an Automatic Constraint Shape Selection Algorithm for Input Estimation, p. 11

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schultz, R., Nelson, G.: Techniques for modifying MIMO random vibration specifications. In: Sensors and Instrumentation, Aircraft/Aerospace and Dynamic Environments Testing, Volume 7, pp. 71–83, Cham (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05415-0_7

  12. Pacini, B.R., Kuether, R.J., Roettgen, D.R.: Shaker-structure interaction modeling and analysis for nonlinear force appropriation testing. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 162, 108000 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.108000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Beale, C., Schultz, R., Smith, C., Walsh, T.: Degree of Freedom Selection Approaches for MIMO Vibration Test Design. In: Special Topics in Structural Dynamics & Experimental Techniques, Volume 5, pp. 81–90, Cham (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05405-1_10

  14. Dumont, M., Cook, A., Kinsley, N.: Acceleration measurement optimization: mounting considerations and sensor mass effect. In: Topics in Modal Analysis & Testing, Volume 10, pp. 61–71, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30249-2_4

  15. Tuman, M.J., Schumann, C.A., Allen, M.S., Delima, W.J., Dodgen, E.: Investigation of transmission simulator-based response reconstruction accuracy. In: Sensors and Instrumentation, Aircraft/Aerospace, Energy Harvesting & Dynamic Environments Testing, Volume 7, pp. 65–76, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75988-9_4

  16. Schumann, C., Allen, M.S., Tuman, M., DeLima, W., Dodgen, E.: Transmission simulator based MIMO response reconstruction. Exp. Tech. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40799-021-00454-4

  17. Schumann, C.A., Allen, M.S., DeLima, W.J., Dodgen, E.: Transmission simulator based MIMO response reconstruction for vehicle subcomponents. In: Special Topics in Structural Dynamics & Experimental Techniques, Volume 5, pp. 189–195, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47709-7_18

  18. Rohe, D.P., Nelson, G.D., Schultz, R.A.: Strategies for Shaker placement for impedance-matched multi-axis testing. In: Sensors and Instrumentation, Aircraft/Aerospace, Energy Harvesting & Dynamic Environments Testing, Volume 7, pp. 195–212, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12676-6_18

  19. Allen, M.S., Rixen, D., Van Der Seijs, M., Tiso, P., Abrahamsson, T., Mayes, R.L.: Substructuring in engineering dynamics: emerging numerical and experimental techniques. In: CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences. Springer (2019) [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25532-9

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mayes, R., Ankers, L., Daborn, P., Moulder, T., Ind, P.: Optimization of shaker locations for multiple shaker environmental testing. Exp. Tech. 44(3), 283–297 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40799-019-00347-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kihm, F., Delaux, D.: Vibration fatigue and simulation of damage on shaker table tests: the influence of clipping the random drive signal. Procedia Eng. 66, 549–564 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.12.107

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Department of Energy’s Kansas City National Security Campus, operated by Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies LLC, for funding this work under contract number DE-NA0002839.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcus Behling .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

Fig. 12.14
A schematic representation depicts that the M armature is connected to M D U T through a spring K stinger. F is the input in the M armature. The left side has a circuit diagram with 2 voltage sources, V a and V b, resistance R a, and inductance L a in series.

Shaker dynamic model implemented in MIMO simulation

Fig. 12.15
A line graph of F R F magnitude versus frequency in hertz plots a concave upward decreasing frequency for the experimental and a concave upward decreasing line for the model.

Calibration plot for MS shakers

Fig. 12.16
A line graph of F R F magnitude versus frequency in hertz plots 2 trends for the experimental and the model. They rise at the beginning and then fall gradually. Experimental depicts the lowest value at approximately (1150, 350).

Calibration plot for LDS shaker

Table 12.5 Parameter values for MS and LDS shakers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Behling, M., Allen, M.S., Mayes, R.L., DeLima, W.J., Hower, J. (2024). Influence of Shaker Limitations on the Success of MIMO Environment Reconstruction. In: Harvie, J. (eds) Dynamic Environments Testing, Volume 7. SEM 2023. Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34930-0_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34930-0_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-34929-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-34930-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics