Advertisement

Responses of Structures to SDoF vs. MDoF Vibration Testing

  • Laura D. JacobsEmail author
  • Garrett D. Nelson
  • John H. Hofer
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)

Abstract

The vibration excitation mechanisms for structures in service are typically multi-directional. However, during product testing conducted in a lab setting the standard practice is to replicate these environments with three orthogonal single axis vibration tests. Recent advances in technology have made it possible to perform multi-axis simulations in the laboratory. Simultaneous multi-axis excitation can result in different stress states, rates of damage accumulation, and peak accelerations and strains than those resulting from sequential single axis testing. Accordingly, a series of experiments were run on a plate structure to investigate and quantify these differences. The experiments included single and multiple axis tests with different excitation amplitudes. The single axis tests were performed on both uniaxial and multiaxial shaker systems. The control levels, response energy, modal behavior, and peak accelerations were compared for each test condition. The data illustrates the differences between the structural response for single and multi-axis tests and enables an objective comparison between testing conducted on single and multiple axis shaker systems.

Keywords

Multi-axis Vibration Experimental Structural response Dynamics 

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. Department of Defense Environmental Engineering Considerations and Laboratory Tests, MIL-STD-810G. October 2008Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U.S. Navy Manufacturing Screening Test Standards, NAVMAT P-9492. May 1979Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    JEDEC Standard: Vibration Variable Frequency, JESD22-B103B. June 2006Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang, K.Y., Frydman, A.M.: Three-dimensional random vibration testing definition and simulation. Proc. 36th Annual Mtg., pp. 129–139. Institute of Environmental Sciences, Mount Prospect, IL (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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. Proc. 80th Shock and Vibration Symp., San Diego, CA, October 2009Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Habtour, E., et al.: Novel approach to improve electronics reliability in the next generation of US Army small unmanned ground vehicles under complex vibration conditions. J. Fail. Anal. Preven. 12(1), 86–95 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    French, R.M., Handy, R., Cooper, H.L.: A comparison of simultaneous and sequential single-axis durability testing. Exp. Tech. 30(5), 32–37 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Himelblau, H., et al.: Effects of triaxial and uniaxial random excitation on the vibration response and fatigue damage of typical spacecraft hardware. Proc. 66th Shock and Vibration Symp., Arlington, VA, October 1995Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peterson, C.: Time-to-failure testing using single- and multi-axis vibration. Sound Vib. 47(3), 13–17 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Whiteman, W.E., Berman, M.S.: Fatigue failure results for multi-axial versus uniaxial stress screen vibration testing. Shock Vib. 9(6), 319–328 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blevins, R.D.: Plates. In: Formulas for Natural Frequency and Mode Shape, pp. 264–269. Krieger, Malabar, FL (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johns, D.J., Nataraja, R.: Vibration of a square plate symmetrically supported at four points. J. Sound Vib. 25(1), 75–82 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Felemban, M.B.: Vibration analysis of point and column supported mindlin plates. M.S. thesis, Mech. Eng., King Fahd Univ. of Petroleum & Minerals, Dharan, Saudi Arabia (1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petyt, M., Mirza, W.H.: Vibration of column-supported floor slabs. J. Sound Vib. 21(3), 355–364 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Correlated Solutions, Inc. Digital image correlation. http://www.correlatedsolutions.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=36. Accessed 16 June 2008
  17. 17.
    Team Corporation. Tensor 900 multi-axis high frequency vibration test system (Online). http://www.teamcorporation.com/images/brochures_A4/Tensor900_A4.pdf
  18. 18.
    Smallwood, D.O., Gregory, D.L.: Evaluation of a 6-DOF electrodynamic shaker system. Proc. 79th Shock and Vibration Symp., Orlando, FL, October 2008Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Piersol, A.G., Paez, T.L.: Shock data analysis. In: Piersol, A.G., Paez, T.L. (eds.) Harris’ Shock and Vibration Handbook, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2010). Ch. 20Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smallwood, D.O.: An improved recursive formula for calculating shock response spectra. 51st Shock Vib. Bull. 51(2), 211–217 (1981)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Halfpenny, A., Walton, T.C.: New techniques for vibration qualification of vibrating equipment on aircraft. Proc. Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010, Austin, TX, May 2010Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    DeLima, W.J., Ambrose, M.N.: Experimental characterization and simulation of vibration environmental test. In: Mains, M. (ed.) Topics in Modal Analysis, vol. 10. Springer, New York (2015). Ch. 6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura D. Jacobs
    • 1
    Email author
  • Garrett D. Nelson
    • 1
  • John H. Hofer
    • 1
  1. 1.Vibration/Acoustics SimulationSandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations