Qualification of complex systems often involves shock and vibration testing at the component level to ensure each component is robust enough to survive the specified environments. In order for the component testing to adequately satisfy the system requirements, the component must exhibit a similar dynamic response between the laboratory component test and system test. There are several aspects of conventional testing techniques that may impair this objective. Modal substructuring provides a framework to accurately assess the level of impairment introduced in the laboratory setup. If the component response is described in terms of fixed-base modes in both the laboratory and system configurations, we can gain insight into whether the laboratory test is exercising the appropriate damage potential. Further, the fixed-base component response in the system can be used to determine the correct rigid body laboratory fixture input to overcome the errors seen in the standard component test. In this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of reproducing a system shock environment on a simple beam model with an essentially rigid fixture.
Aerospace systems and components are designed and qualified against several operational environments. Some of these environments are climatic, mechanical, and electrical in nature. Traditionally, mechanical test specifications are derived with the goal of qualifying a system or component to a suite of independent mechanical environments in series. True operational environments, however, are composed of complex, combined events. This work examines the effect of combined mechanical shock and vibration environments on response of a dynamic system. Responses under combined environments are compared to those under single environments, and the adequacy/limitations of conventional, single environment test approaches (shock only or vibration only) will be assessed. Test integration strategies for combined shock and vibration environments are also discussed.
Vibration and shock qualification testing of components can be an expensive and time-consuming process. If the component is small, often two or more units can be mounted on a fixture and tested simultaneously to reduce test time. There is an inherent danger in simultaneously testing two or more identical components as the fundamental natural frequencies and mode shapes of the individual components will be nearly identical with some slight variation due to manufacturing variability. Testing in this manner can create a situation where closely spaced vibration modes produce unwanted interference between the two units under test. This phenomenon could result in a case where one unit is over-tested while the other is under-tested. This paper presents some experimental results from simultaneously testing pairs of components which show distinct interference between the units. Some analysis will also be presented showing how variations in the components can alter the intended test response, potentially impacting component qualification.
Throughout the development cycle of structural components or assemblies that require new and unproven manufacturing techniques, the issue of unit to unit variability inevitably arises. The challenge of defining dynamic similarity between units is a problem that is often overlooked or forgotten, but can be very important depending on the functional criteria of the final product. This work aims to provide some guidance on the approach to such a problem, utilizing different methodologies from the modal and vibration testing community. Expanding on previous efforts, a non-intrusive dynamic characterization test is defined to assess similarity on an assembly that is currently being developed. As the assembly is qualified through various test units, the same data sets are taken to build a database of “similarity” data. The work presented here will describe the challenges observed with defining similarity metrics on a multi-body structure with a limited quantity of test units. Also, two statistical characterizations of dynamic FRFs are presented from which one may choose criterion based on some judgment to establish whether units are in or out of family. The methods may be used when the “intended purpose” or “functional criteria” are unknown.