Extreme Response Spectrum of A Random Vibration PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/278315968
Extreme Response Spectrum of a Random Vibration
Chapter · April 2014

DOI: 10.1002/9781118931219.ch2
CITATIONS READS
0 226
1 author:
Christian Lalanne
Lalanne Consultant
32 PUBLICATIONS 62 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Christian Lalanne on 16 October 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

- Mechanical Environment Test Specification Development Methods -
October 1997
Third edition
MECHANICAL ENVIRONMENT
TEST SPECIFICATION
DEVELOPMENT METHOD
Author: Christian LALANNE

Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique
CESTA, BP2, 33114 Le Barp, France
Subject Transforming Mechanical Shocks and Vibration Measurements to

Dimensional and Test Specifications.
Keywords: Mechanical shock, safety factor, fatigue damage, real environment, test,
test factor, life cycle profile, specification, shock response spectrum,
maximax response spectrum, vibration, random vibration.
 CEA-CESTA, 1997
ISBN-2-7272-0204-0
christian.lalanne@free.fr
-1-
-2-
- CONTENTS -
Pages:
PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS.......................................... 7
I- DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................... 11
I.1- Standard ................................................................................................. 11
I.2- Specification ........................................................................................... 11
II- PURPOSE OF TESTING .............................................................................. 12

II.1- Characterization Test............................................................................. 12
II.2- Identification Test .................................................................................. 12
II.3- Evaluation Test ...................................................................................... 12
II.4- Final Adjustement/Development Test .................................................... 13
II.5- Prototype Test ....................................................................................... 13
II.6- Pre-qualification Test (or Evaluation Test) ............................................. 13
II.7- Qualification ........................................................................................... 13
II.8- Qualification Test ................................................................................... 13
II.9- Certification ........................................................................................... 14
II.10- Certification Test.................................................................................. 14
II.11- Stress Screening Test ......................................................................... 14
II.12- Reception ............................................................................................ 14
II.13- Reception Test .................................................................................... 15
II.14- Qualification / Acceptance Test ........................................................... 15
II.15- Series Test .......................................................................................... 15
II.16- Sampling Test...................................................................................... 15
II.17- Reliability Test ..................................................................................... 15
III- SPECIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 16

III.1- What Can Be Expected from a Test Specification ? ............................. 16
III.2- Specification Types............................................................................... 16
III 2.1- Specifications Requiring In-Situ Testing ................................... 17
Advantages ................................................................................... 17
Drawbacks .................................................................................... 17
-1-
III.2.2- Specifications Derived from Standards documents................... 17

History .......................................................................................... 17
Major Standards ........................................................................... 21
Advantages and Drawbacks ......................................................... 22
III.2.3- Current Trend ........................................................................... 23
III.3- Specifications Based on Real Environmental Data ............................... 23
III.3.1- Interest ..................................................................................... 23
III.3.2- Advantages and Drawbacks ..................................................... 24
IV- TEST TAYLORING: METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 24
V- STEP 1: ANALYSIS OF THE LIFE CYCLE PROFILE - REVIEW OF

SITUATIONS.................................................................................. 25
VI- STEP 2: DETERMINATION OF THE REAL ENVIRONMENT DATA 27

ASSOCIATED WITH EACH SITUATION .......................................
VII- STEP 3: DETERMINATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT TO BE SIMULATED 28

VII.1- Need ................................................................................................... 28
VII.2- Synopsis Methods ............................................................................... 28
VII.3- The Need for a Reliable Method .......................................................... 29
VII.4- Synopsis of the Real Environment Associated with a Subsituation ...... 30
VII.5- Application of a Safety Factor.............................................................. 31
VII.6- Possible Application of an Aging Factor .............................................. 35
VII.7- Synopsis of a Situation ........................................................................ 35
VII.8- Synopsis of All the Life Cycle Profile Situations ................................... 36
VII.9- Search for a Vibration with the Same Severity .................................... 37
VIII- STEP 4: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TEST PROGRAM .............................. 42

VIII.1- Application of a Test Factor ................................................................ 42
VIII.2- Choice of Test Chronology ................................................................. 44
IX- APPLYING THIS METHOD TO THE ROUND-ROBIN EXAMPLE ................ 45
X- TAKING THE ENVIRONMENT INTO ACCOUNT IN THE PROJECT

MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................ 47
-oOo-
-2-
- APPENDICES -
A1- MAXIMAX RESPONSE SPECTRUM AND FATIGUE DAMAGE

SPECTRUM.................................................................................................. 55
I- PRINCIPLE................................................................................................ 57
II- DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................... 57
II.1- Maximax Response Spectrum ...................................................... 57
II.2- Fatigue Damage Spectrum ........................................................... 58
III- SINUSOIDAL VIBRATIONS .................................................................... 58
III.1- Maximax Response Spectrum ..................................................... 58
III.2- Fatigue Damage Spectrum .......................................................... 60
IV- SWEPT SINE EXCITATIONS ................................................................. 62
IV.1- Maximax Response Spectrum ..................................................... 62
IV.1.1- General Case .................................................................... 62
IV.1.2- Sweep at Constant Acceleration ........................................ 63
IV.1.3- Sweep at Constant Displacement ...................................... 64
Case of a Single Level ....................................................... 64
Swept Sine Excitation with Several Levels ......................... 64
IV.2- Fatigue Damage Spectrum ............................................................ 65
IV.2.1- General Case .................................................................... 65
IV.2.2- Linear Sweep .................................................................... 66
General Case .................................................................... 66
Linear Sweep at Constant Acceleration ............................. 67
Approximated Formulations ............................................... 68
Linear Sweep at Constant Displacement ........................... 71
IV.2.3- Logarithmic Sweep ............................................................ 72
General Case .................................................................... 72
Logarithmic Sweep at Constant Acceleration .................... 73
Logarithmic Sweep at Constant Displacement................... 73
IV.2.4- Hyperbolic Sweep.............................................................. 75
General Case .................................................................... 75
Hyperbolic Sweep at Constant Acceleration ...................... 76
Hyperbolic Sweep at Constant Displacement .................... 76
V- RANDOM VIBRATIONS ........................................................................... 77
V.1- Distribution of the Response Maxima ........................................... 77
V.1.1- General Case ..................................................................... 77
-3-
V.1.2- Special Case of a Narrow-Band Response......................... 79

V.1.3- Calculation of the Irregularity Coefficient r .......................... 80
V.2- Maximax Response Spectrum ...................................................... 81
V.3- Fatigue Damage Spectrum .......................................................... 83
V.3.1- Calculation from the Signal versus Time ............................ 83
V.3.2- Case of Stationary Gaussian Excitation .............................. 84
V.3.3- Special Case of Narrow-Band Stationary Gaussian Noise.. 85
VI- REDUCTION OF THE TEST TIME ......................................................... 87
VI.1- Fatigue Damage Equivalence in the Case of a Linear System .... 87
VI.1.1- Sinusoidal Vibration ........................................................... 87
VI.1.2- Random Vibration .............................................................. 88
VI.2- Method Based on a Fatigue Damage Equivalence According to
Basquin's Relation Taking Material Damping Variation Versus
Stress Level into Account ........................................................... 89
Sinusoidal Vibration .................................................................... 89
Random Vibration ....................................................................... 90
VII- OTHER USES OF THE MAXIMAX RESPONSE AND FATIGUE
DAMAGE SPECTRA.............................................................................. 92
VII.1- Severity Comparisons 92
VII.2- Swept Sine Excitation - Random Vibration Transformation ........ 95
A2- EXACT DUPLICATION OF THE REAL ENVIRONMENT OR SYNTHETIC

ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 99
A3- SYNOPSIS METHOD BY POWER SPECTRUM DENSITY ENVELOPE...... 105
A4- NUMERICAL VALUES OF PARAMETER b ................................................. 111

I- METALS .................................................................................................... 113
II- CASE OF ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS................................................ 115
A5- SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY .................................................................... 119
A6- SAFETY FACTOR ........................................................................................ 123

I- DEFINITION .............................................................................................. 125
II- CALCULATION OF THE SAFETY FACTOR ............................................ 125
II.1- Case of Gaussian Distributions .................................................... 125
II.2- Case of Log-Normal Distributions ................................................. 128
III- INFLUENCE OF THE CHOICE OF DISTRIBUTION LAWS .................... 131
A7- STATISTICAL ASPECT OF THE REAL ENVIRONMENT ............................ 135

I- DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS.................................................................... 137
-4-
II- DISPERSIONS - COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OBSERVED IN

PRACTICE ............................................................................................... 139
II.1- Bibliography .................................................................................. 139
II.2- Examples Taken from a Data Base .............................................. 140
III- ESTIMATION OF THE VARIATION COEFFICIENT - CALCULATION
OF ITS MAXIMUM VALUE ...................................................................... 143
A8- STRENGTH DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................ 149

I- DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS 151
II- A FEW VALUES OF THE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION ...................... 152
II.1- Static Strength .............................................................................. 152
II.2- Fatigue Failure.............................................................................. 154
II.2.1- Coefficients of Variation of Fatigue Strength Stresses for a
Given N .............................................................................. 154
II.2.2- Coefficients of Variation of the Number of Cycles to
Failure ................................................................................ 154
II.2.3- Coefficients of Variation of Ultimate Fatigue Strength ......... 155
A9- AGING FACTOR .......................................................................................... 157

I- PURPOSE OF THE AGING FACTOR ....................................................... 159
II- AGING FUNCTIONS USED IN RELIABILITY ........................................... 159
III- METHOD FOR CALCULATING AGING FACTOR ................................... 161
IV- INFLUENCE OF THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE AGING LAW .. 164
V- INFLUENCE OF THE AGING LAW MEAN .............................................. 164
VI- CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 164
A10- TEST FACTOR ............................................................................................. 167

I- PHILOSOPHY ........................................................................................... 169
II- CALCULATION OF THE TEST FACTOR ................................................. 169
II.1- Gaussian Distributions .................................................................. 169
II.2- Log-Normal Distributions .............................................................. 172
III- CHOICE OF THE CONFIDENCE LEVEL ................................................ 173
IV- INFLUENCE OF THE NUMBER OF TESTS n......................................... 174
REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 175
INDEX........................................................................................................... 187
-oOo-
-5-
-6-
- PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS -
Abbreviations
F.S. functional specifications

D.F. definition file
D.B.F. definition backup file
P.S.D. power spectral density
erf error function
F.D.S. fatigue damage spectrum
T.S. test severity
S.R.S shock response spectrum
M.R.S. maximax response spectrum
X.R.S. risk of overshoot response spectrum
R.T.S. requirement technical specification
Symbols
a' constant /
A stress at rupture under a half cycle ( N s = A )
b b Pa
b exponent of the Basquin factor ( N sb = C ) /
C constant of the Basquin factor ( N sb = C ) /
D fatigue damage /
or specific damping energy J / m3
E exaggeration factor /
ER contained environment /
ES specified environment /
E mean value of environment /
E(D) expected fatigue damage calculated mathematically /
f frequency Hz
f0 natural frequency of a linear system with one degree of freedom Hz
F reliability /
FE test factor /
G power spectral density level (m / s2)2 / Hz
h ratio of the current frequency of a P.S.D. to the natural frequency /
H (f ) transfer function /
k safety factor /
kv aging coefficient /
K proportionality constant between the distortion and the stress N / m3
(t) generalized excitation (displacement) m
m maximum value of  ( t ) m
-7-
m probability law mean /

n number of cycles /
or number of tests
or number of points
n 0+ mean number of zero crossings per unit of time with positive slope /
n +p mean number of positive peaks per unit of time /
N number of cycles at rupture /
p(u) u ( t ) signal peaks probability density /
P0 failure probability /
P (u) u ( t ) peaks distribution function /
Pv correct operation probability linked to aging /
Q Q factor /
r irregularity factor /
R mean resistance value /
s stress Pa
s eff rms stress Pa
sm maximum value of s ( t ) sinusoidal stress Pa
su limit rupture stress Pa
TS test severity m / s2
t time s
tb sinusoidal sweep time s
T duration s
T1 logarithmic sweep time constant s
u(t) generalized response (displacement) m
Um maximum of u ( t ) m
VE real environment variation coefficient /
Vmax variation coefficient maximum value /
VR resistance variation coefficient /
x (t) absolute displacement (excitation) m
x ( t ) absolute velocity m/s
x (t)
 absolute acceleration applied to a linear system with one degree m / s2
of freedom
x eff rms value of x ( t ) m / s2
z(t) relative displacement, response of the linear system mass with m
one degree of freedom
z eff rms value of z ( t ) m
zm maximum value of a z ( t ) sinusoidal response /
z sup the greatest value of z ( t ) over a given duration m
z eff rms relative velocity of z ( t ) m/s
z eff rms relative acceleration of z ( t ) m / s2
α number of standard deviations /

or 2 1 − ξ 2
or accepted risk of overshoot

β
(
2 1 − 2 ξ2 ) /
Γ( ) gamma function /
-8-
∆f interval between the half-power points Hz

ϕ phase /
ω0 natural pulsation of a linear system with one degree of freedom Hz
π(u 0 ) probability that a maximum of u ( t ) exceeds a u 0 threshold /
σ probability law standard deviation /
σE environment standard deviation /
σR resistance standard deviation /
ξ relative damping /
-oOo-
-9-
- 10 -
MECHANICAL ENVIRONMENT
TEST SPECIFICATION
DEVELOPMENT METHOD
Much equipment is submitted during its useful life to vibration environments such as those
encountered, for instance, during road transport. American research has shown that
approximately half the failures observed during satellite or missile launch vehicle flights are due
to mechanical vibration and shock. It is therefore important to take these stresses into account
very early in development of the equipment, using correctly defined specifications.
I- DEFINITIONS
I.1- Standard
A standard is a document which provides the technical specifications relative to a defined

product or product class. In the example of the environment, these standards establish, for a
given category of equipment, the tests to be performed, the severity and the procedures.
I.2- Specification
Specifications provide specific instructions which indicate how a specific work task should be
performed for a particular project. They may (or may not) be taken from a standard, but tend to
become autonomous within the context of a specific program [1].
The specifications are established at the beginning of a project for the product design and are
used during the tests to show that the product meets the requirements concerning resistance to
the environment.
- 11 -
They specify the type of environment to which the product will be exposed throughout its useful
life cycle (random vibrations, mechanical shocks, etc.) and their severity (stress amplitude,
duration, etc.).
II- PURPOSE OF TESTING
The purpose of a test may vary according to the product's development phase:
• evaluation of equipment characteristics,
• identification of a structure's dynamic behavior,
• evaluation of equipment strength,
• qualification,
• etc.
The specifications that are used vary according to the type of test. The terminology used is
often disputed. A list of the most generally accepted definitions are given below.
II.1- Characterization Test
This test is used to measure certain characteristics of an equipment item or material (Young's
modulus, thermal constants, parameters that are characteristic of fatigue resistance, etc.).
II.2- Identification Test
This test is used to measure certain parameters that are characteristic of the equipment's
intrinsic behavior (e.g. transfer functions).
II.3- Evaluation Test
This test is used to evaluate the behavior of all or part of the equipment, so that a solution can
be chosen very early on in the pre-development phase.
This test does not necessarily simulate the real environment. It can be performed using:
− most severe real levels (or estimated levels that represent the real environment) so that
the project can also be pre-evaluated [2],
− levels that are greater than the actual requirements of the project in order to obtain
additional information and acquire a certain confidence in the definition. The “over-
stress” can be defined by a multiplying factor applied to the load's amplitude or to the
test's duration [3]. A successful test shows that the project has the desired resistance
with a certain safety margin to take into account the variations due to each equipment’s
specific conditions of use [3],
− increasing levels until rupture so that the safety margins can be determined [2].
- 12 -
II.4- Final Adjustment/Development Test
This test is used to take the equipment from its research stage through to its contractual
qualification level [3].
The aim is to evaluate the performance of the equipment under environmental conditions and to
determine whether this equipment is able to withstand such conditions [4].
This test is performed during the first development stages. It can show up failures such as
performance degradation, deformations, intermittent running, structural ruptures, or any other
weak point that future studies will be able to improve. The levels to be applied are not
necessarily those that result from the real environment; they are selected to locate the
equipment's weak spots.
Development tests can also be used as a tool to evaluate several solutions and can assist when
it comes to making a decision. These tests are used to improve the overall quality of the
equipment until an appropriate level of confidence has been obtained, i.e. the equipment can
easily withstand the qualification test.
II.5- Prototype Test
This test is performed on the first series product or on one of the first items from the production
series. During this test all the equipment's performance and functional characteristics are
checked. The equipment is also submitted to climatic and mechanical endurance tests.
II.6- Pre-Qualification Test (or Evaluation Test)
This test is used to determine how well the equipment is able to resist:
• either real service conditions; it must therefore simulate as best as possible the real
environments (frequencies, levels, duration) [2], to the nearest possible safety factor,
• or qualification conditions when the specifications result from general standard

documents.
II.7- Qualification
An act by which an authorized authority recognizes, after verification, that an object has the
necessary qualities needed to fulfill a specific function, as established in the technical
specifications [3].
II.8- Qualification Test
This is a set of tests used to show the customer the quality and dependability of the equipment
during its useful life cycle. In particular these tests show that the equipment may be submitted
to the most severe service environment without being damaged [5].
According to the authors, this definition may or may not include reliability and safety tests. The
test is performed on a specimen (usually only one) which represents the exact production
- 13 -
configuration (series sample of prototype) with specifications that are defined according to the
expected use [3] [6]. This specimen will not be used for normal service.
The qualification tests are carried out on all items of equipment. These are then integrated to
make up the complete system [7]. For a certain number of technical reasons, additional
vibration qualification tests are carried out on both the complete system and on the different
equipment items [8]:
• to eliminate artificial stress imposed by the fixtures while the different equipment is being
tested,
• to evaluate the interactions between sub-systems,
• to evaluate connections, electric cables and many small components which are not
submitted to sufficient stress while the different equipment items are being qualified,
• to evaluate electrical parameter variations that result from the environment being applied.
II.9- Certification
The result of an assessment by which the State confirms that a given equipment complies with
minimal technical characteristics that the State has defined as being prerequisites for the
equipment use [3].
II.10- Certification Test
This is a set of tests that are performed on a reference specimen which is used to show that the
equipment meets the certification requirements.
II.11- Stress Screening Test
This test is performed on all manufactured equipment, the aim of which is to find latent
manufacturing faults so that faulty equipment can be eliminated and the product's overall
reliability increased [9].
II.12- Reception
A set of technical operations which enables the customer to check that the equipment he has
received meets his requirements, generally expressed in the technical specifications.
Terms such as receipt ("recette" in French -to be avoided according to BNAE( 1) [3]), or
acceptance or even quality control can also be found. In accordance with the general contract
conditions that apply to government contracts, the terms given below are used in the following
cases [10]:
• acceptance when the test does not involve a transfer of property to the State,
• reception when the task involves a transfer of property to the State, in the context of an
industrial contract.
(1) Bureaude Normalisation de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace (Office for Standardization in the field of
Aeronautics and Space).
- 14 -
II.13- Reception Test
This test enables a customer to check that the equipment he receives has the characteristics
within the tolerance limits established in the acceptance program.
These tests are generally not as thorough as the qualification tests and they are less severe.
They are not destructive (except for specific cases such as 'single-shot' or pyrotechnical
equipment for example) and concern many or all the specimens [5]. They should not reduce
the utilization potential.
The test conditions are normally representative of average service conditions. The duration is
selected which is equal to a fraction of the real duration. It may also be a very simple test
without any direct relation to the real environment, which is performed to check a weak spot’s
resistance (e.g. a sine test where the level and frequency have been established during the
development phase, to check the state of a weld, or highlight a manufacturing fault) [6]. These
tests are generally known as “acceptance tests” in the US. When they are performed
according to the conditions described above, the NASA-GSFC (NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center) calls them “flight tests”.
II.14- Qualification / Acceptance Test
For equipment produced in several units, or even in one single unit, the acceptance and
qualification test objectives are sometimes combined into one single test which in known as a
“qualification/acceptance” test. The tested equipment is then put into service. It is considered
that the test has not damaged the specimen [5].
These tests are known as “qual-acceptance tests” in the US (and “proto-flight tests” by the
NASA-GSFC).
II.15- Series Test
This test is performed on all equipment and it is used to check a certain number of functional
characteristics, according to particular specifications. Unless otherwise stated, this does not
involve testing under environmental conditions.
II.16- Sampling Test
The purpose of these tests is to guarantee the consistency of the manufacturing quality. They
concern a percentage p of series equipment (e.g. p = 10 %) chosen at random from the series
production according to the indications given by a particular specification. They include all or
part of the various tasks performed for the qualification tests.
II.17- Reliability Test
The purpose of these tests is to determine the reliability of equipment under operating
conditions. They are performed on a reasonable number of specimens. The tests should
simulate the service conditions as closely as possible, with a duration that may last
considerably longer than the real duration in order to determine the mean time to rupture, the
endurance limit or similar equipment characteristics [3].
- 15 -
To reduce costs, equivalent processes are sometimes carried out which consist in tests that are
shorter in length but are greater in amplitude, based on criteria related to the degradation mode
of the equipment concerned.
* *
This list is in no way complete. It is obvious, for reasons of cost amongst other things, that all
these tests cannot be performed for one given project. As the general objective is to qualify or
certify a product, these are the two types of tests that we encounter the most.
III- SPECIFICATIONS
III.1- What Can Be Expected from a Test Specification?
A specification should satisfy the following criteria [11] [12] [13]:
• If the equipment operates correctly during the test, there should be a very strong
probability that it will operate correctly in the real environment. This criterion means
that the specification must be at least as severe as the real environment.
• If the equipment fails during the test, there should be a very strong probability that it
will fail in operation. This means that the test should be representative of real
conditions but not excessively severe compared to the real environment.
• No other item of equipment built according to the same design should fail in operation.
A good test should therefore produce the failures that would be observed in a real environment
and should not cause failures that would not arise during operation [14] [15] (except in the case
of testing to the limits conducted to evaluate margins and determine weak spots). It should not
be too severe so as not to lead to excessive derating of the equipment [16].
III.2- Specification Types
The test can be:
• Conducted in situ by placing the equipment in the real environment it will encounter
during its useful life. For instance, for transportation, the equipment is attached by its
nominal attachment points to the chosen vehicle that should be driven under conditions
representative of real conditions
• Conducted in the laboratory on simulation facilities. In this case, the specifications can
be:
- Derived from standards,
- Defined from environmental data.
- 16 -
III.2.1- Specifications Requiring In-Situ Testing
The equipment is placed in the real environment using all its interfaces with the medium
(attachments, position, etc.). For transportation, the test is conducted by driving the vehicle
under real conditions for a specified time.
Advantages
- Test highly representative (reproduction of impedances).
- No investment in simulation facilities.
- No problem in writing the test specifications.
Drawbacks
- Cost, especially if the equipment has a very long life cycle. In this case, the test time
must be limited for practical reasons, making it impossible to verify the strength of the
equipment over time.
- Impossibility of applying a safety factor to vibration levels (the usefulness of such a

factor will be discussed below).
- The real environment generally has a random character (dispersion on the

environment and the equipment characteristics). During an in-situ test, the equipment
is submitted to a sample of vibrations among others that are not necessarily the most
severe.
- Practical impossibility of going to the limit to estimate the safety margins.
- Only the test phase is dealt with, without any dimensioning instructions.
III.2.2- Specifications Derived from Standards
History
The first tests were carried out to ensure that the product could withstand a certain defined
vibratory level which was not directly linked to the environment that it has had to support during
its useful life cycle. In the absence of a rational procedure, the specifications drawn up were
strongly influenced by the writer's personal judgment, using the test means available at the
time, and later on, using the information from previous specifications, rather than evaluating the
information available in a purely scientific manner [12] [13].
A large number of the measurements taken from numerous aircraft were compiled between
1945-1950 [17] and served as a basis for writing up certain standards (AF Specification 41065,
specifications drawn up in 1954 using data measured, compiled and analyzed by North
American Aviation [18] [19]).
- 17 -
One of the first methods used for converting this data into specifications involved grouping
them into three main categories: structural vibrations, engine-created vibrations, and resilient
mounting assembly vibrations. The signals, as a function of the time, were filtered via central
frequency filters varying continuously between a few Hertz and 2000 Hz. The maximax value of
the response was plotted onto an amplitude (peak to peak displacement) - filter's central
frequency diagram. This procedure was carried out for different aircraft and different flight
conditions, without taking into account the probability of occurrence in real conditions. The
authors [18] however sorted the measurements in order to eliminate the conditions considered
to be unrealistic (non typical experimental aircraft flights, measurements on uninteresting parts
of the aircraft, etc.). This method was preferred to the P.S.D. calculation method which uses an
averaging procedure leading to spectra smoothing and possible masking of certain details
considered to be important for developing the specification [20].
The North American Aviation'[19] compilation did not make any distinction between the
transitory phases (climb, descent, turns) and the permanent phases (cruising).
C.E. Crede, M. Gertel, and

R. Cavanaug [18] however have only
selected the permanent phases.
The method consisted in:
• either drawing the envelope of

plotted points, made up of broken
straight lines (on the logarithm
axes) that correspond to a
constant displacement or a
constant acceleration effect
depending on the frequency
Specification using Filtered Measurement Envelope (figure 1).
Figure 1
This envelope was considered to be representative of the severest conditions that could
be encountered in each of the three previously mentioned categories, without however
mentioning how the loads were obtained.
• or carrying out a statistical analysis on the plotted points and defining a curve covering
95 % of the data [21] [22] [23].
This type of diagram was used for most of the first standards [24]. Unfortunately, experimental
data processed in this format were usually published without clearly defining the width of the ∆f
band of the analysis filters [24]. Some authors used a constant width in relation to the central
frequency and equal to 200 Hz or sometimes 100 Hz, others used a ∆f width such as
∆f
= constant (today it is difficult to find any trace of this constant's value) [25].
f
The following points had to be defined in order for the curves to be applied to aeronautical
equipment:
• either a given amplitude sinusoidal vibration, without attaching much importance to the
frequency, set arbitrarily (e.g. 25 Hz) [26],
- 18 -
• or, after looking for a specimen's resonance frequencies, a sine fixed on the plotted
resonance(s), by selecting the sinusoid amplitude from the previous curve, even if the
equipment was intended to operate in a random vibration environment [27].
The most severe vibrations thus applied to penalize the specimen in the harshest
conditions (on its resonances) lead to maximum stress levels. However these
conditions, although they may be encountered during service, are very unlikely to occur
over a great length of time in any operational life cycle phase.
An endurance test of this type is similar to an accelerated test. The acceleration factor in
terms of time was estimated to be equal to about 10 for a resonant specimen and 3.33
for a non resonant specimen. These are considered to be conservative factors [17].
C.E. Crede and E.J. Lunney [25] note however that this procedure (fixed sine) is not
recommended because it is difficult to detect all the significant resonances and because
the vibrations test becomes a non standard test, influenced by the person piloting the
test. These authors recommend using a sine that is swept slowly in the direction of the
rising or falling frequencies.
• or a sine swept over the whole frequency range, firstly in a linear way, then in a
logarithmic way [14].
The duration was set either unconditionally or in a way that was representative of the real
environment or was reduced by increasing the equal fatigue damage levels as per the
equations below (see Appendix 1):
b
n1  s2 
=  (1)
n 2  s1 
or
b
x test  Treal 

=  (2)

x real  Treduced 
where b is related to the slope of the Wöhler curve [25] (n is the number of cycles performed at
stress level s and 
x the test or environment severity).
This method has often given rise to considerable problems during testing; design problems or
unnecessary weight penalties [27].
Such standards were in force until 1955, and even much later in some sectors. A major
breakthrough occurred in 1955 when it was discovered that there was a need to simulate the
continuous aspect of measured vibration spectra on missiles and thus perform random vibration
tests [25] [28]. Random vibrations were introduced into standards between 1955 and 1960,
however this met with much opposition.
C.G. Stradling [29] considered for instance that the sine is easy to generate and the results can
be interpreted relatively easily, but acknowledged that random vibrations represent the real
environment better. He however defended the sine tests with the following remarks:
- 19 -
− random vibrations measured at the input of an item of equipment often come from
several sources simultaneously (acoustic and structural),
− vibrations in the environment are propagated and are filtered by the structures. They are
therefore similar to sinusoids [25],
− the acoustic energy is itself made up of several discreet frequencies corresponding to

the structure’s modal responses to the excitation. A sine test therefore better
approximates real vibrations than it would at first seem,
− there are few applications, other than missiles, for which acoustic energy is really
significant (these remarks date back to 1960),
− there are no structures that break under random vibrations and not in sine (except, says
the author, tubes or relays which do not resist as well to random vibrations),
− much more time is needed to prepare a random test than a sine test,
− the equipment (test installation) is more expensive,
− maintenance costs are higher (more complex means which therefore reduce reliability).
Many of these arguments, most of which were founded in 1960, are no longer acceptable
today. However, many arguments exist in favor of simulating real random phenomena as far as
random vibration is concerned:
• an important point in a test is to vibrate at the resonance of the equipment's mechanical

elements. With swept sinusoidal vibrations, the resonance frequencies are excited one
after the other, whereas for random vibrations, they are all excited simultaneously, with a
level that varies at random as a function of the time [25]. Using fixed sine means that
interactions between several simultaneously excited modes can not be reproduced as in
a real environment [30]. There is no equivalent sine test which can be used to study a
response of a system with several degrees of freedom [31],
• in sinusoidal conditions and on resonance, the rms response acceleration is equal to

Q=( 1 2 ξ ) times the excitation whereas in random conditions (Appendix 1, section
A1.VII.2), the response is proportional to Q (ξ = system damping),
• equipment can have several resonance frequencies, each one with a different
overvoltage. It is therefore difficult to select an amplitude for a single test which
produces the same response as a random test for all the overvoltage values. If the real
excitation is random, a fixed sine test would tend to penalize those structures with
relatively weak damping, which respond with a greater amplitude because, with sine, the
response varies like Q (this remark is not necessarily founded, choosing the equivalence
method may take this fact into account, providing that the exact overvoltage values are
known),
• there are many rupture mechanisms, determined by the contact mechanisms, the type of
equipment (tensile or brittle), etc. The equipment may therefore behave differently under
random and sinusoidal stress [27],
- 20 -
• before comparing the random and sine test results, an equivalence method must be
defined. This is a very controversial subject, as the criteria are generally established on
the basis of response of a system with one degree of freedom only.
The spectral form of the noise then needed to be selected, with white often being chosen.
However in certain cases, the response of an intermediate structure can lead to a noise formed
by “lines”.
The problem also remained of how this type of vibration could be generated in practice as the
means available at the time were limited in power. Due to this fact, M. W. Olson [32] suggested
in 1957, for economic purposes, using a swept straight band random vibration in the chosen
frequency field to replace the wide band random vibration by an equivalent one; as with the
swept sine, the resonances are excited one after the other. The test is longer, but requires less
powerful means and maintains the statistical character.
Other authors have suggested performing a test made up of several sequence frequency
straight bands [30].
Major Standards
There are many available standards. A survey made in 1975 by the L.R.B.A. (Laboratoire de
Recherches Balistiques et Aérodynamiques: Ballistics and Aerodynamics Research Laboratory)
[33] showed that there were some 80 standards in the world (French, American, British,
German and international) that defined mechanical shock and vibration tests. However, many
of these standards are taken from previous documents with some changes. Not all these
standards have the same importance.
Among the most widely used standards in France can be mentioned [34] [35] [36] [37]:
• AIR 7304 "Environmental Test Conditions for Aeronautic Equipment: Electrical,

Electronic and On-board Instruments".
• Standard GAM - T13:
Interarmy specification titled "General Testing of Electronic and Telecommunications

Equipment" written with the following objectives:
- Unify to the greatest extent possible the environmental requirements of the

various departments of the Technical Agencies of the French General Delegation
for Armament and collect all these requirements in a single document.
- Have a sufficiently accurate contractual document.
- Facilitate the task of the engineers responsible for defining the tests applicable to
the equipment they are responsible for designing.
- Ensure the best possible compatibility of the test methods and severities with
those of international standards.
This document was replaced by GAM.EG 13 [38] which is associated with technical
attachments written as guides for the users.
- 21 -
• MIL-STD standards:
The best known is MIL STD 810 for mechanical and climatic environmental tests.
Written under the auspices of the US Air Force, it is mainly important for cooperation
programs and programs designed for export.
The standards (MIL - STD 810 C, AIR 7304, etc.) specify arbitrary vibration levels calculated
from real environment data. Generally, these levels cover those that can be encountered on a
given vehicle relatively well.
It may be desirable to apply such standards in certain situations, such as those where:
• The conditions of use are not well known,
• There are no available measurements of the real environment and such

measurements cannot be approximated by measurements on a vehicle of the same
category,
• It is desired to give the equipment a predefined strength under widely accepted

standards, possibly international.
Advantages and drawbacks
- As the standards are already available, there is no cost of establishment,
- The strength of equipment produced by different companies can be compared directly

(providing the same standards were used),
- The equipment qualified under these standards can be carried on any type of vehicle
of a given category without requiring additional tests.
But
- Because of their arbitrary nature and their ample coverage of real levels, these
standards may lead to derating (oversizing) the equipment (resulting in a possible
increase in the design cost) [39]. Commonly used environmental specifications are
rarely representative of actual service conditions. The levels are chosen arbitrarily to
satisfy the requirements for reproducibility and standardization [40] [41]. By their
nature, the standard specifications lead to developing equipment which, in many
cases, is not designed to withstand its real environment but rather to withstand a
conservative test established to simulate the environment [40]
- Unrepresentative failure mechanisms
- Excessive development cost. Certain equipment produced in small production runs

with a design implementing state-of-the-art techniques has a relatively high cost price.
Requiring it to satisfy excessively broad environmental specifications can lead to a
- 22 -
prohibitive cost. Other equipment, carried on launch vehicles or satellites, must have
as low a weight as possible, prohibiting any overdimensioning.
- Increase in lead times. Being unnecessarily conservative in establishing margins can

lead to redesigning the product and excessively and unnecessarily increasing the cost
[14].
III.2.3- Current Trend
Until the beginning of the 1980s, standards stipulated test procedures and test levels. The
choice of severity was left to the user. Most of the levels were derived from data on the real
environment, but the user had no knowledge of the origin of the data and the method used to
analyze them and transform them into a standard. To cover the large possible number of
cases, the stipulated levels were generally far above the values encountered in a real operating
environment and could therefore lead to penalizing overtesting.
In recent years (1980/1985), an important reversal of this trend has occurred internationally that
leads the specification writer to increasingly use the real environment [42].
Already, certain standards such as MIL-STD 810 C timidly left open the possibility of using the
real environment "if it was established that the equipment was subjected to an environment
estimated to be different from that specified in the standard" [43], but this was only for
guidance. The emphasis was still placed on the arbitrary levels.
The turnaround occurred with publication of MIL-STD 810 D (adopted by NATO as STANAG( 2))
and the work of GAM.EG 13. These new versions no longer directly stipulated vibration or heat
levels according to the type of environment to be simulated but recommended preferably using
real data. Lacking such data, the use of data acquired under similar conditions and estimated
to be representative or "default" values, obviously more arbitrary in character, were accepted in
that order. This is known as test tayloring.
Today we talk more about tayloring a product to its environment, to confirm the need for taking
the environmental conditions into account right from the beginning of the project and
dimensioning the product according to its future use. This step may be integrated into the
project management stipulations, for instance according to the RG Aéro 00040
Recommendation. This point will be dealt with later.
III.3- Specifications Based on Real Environmental Data
III.3.1- Interest
As early as 1957 R. Plunkett [44] suggested using measurements from the real environment.
This was followed up by other authors such as W. Dubois [45], W.R. Forlifer [46], J.T. Foley
[47] and E.F. Small [48].
Environmental tests should be based on the equipment life cycle. When the conditions of use
of the equipment to be developed are well known, and if the life cycle can be divided into
phases specifying the vehicle type or the storage conditions and duration for each phase, it
(2) Standardization agreement.
- 23 -
may be preferable to develop special environmental specifications very similar to the real
environments and apply certain safety factors [1] [48].
Taking real environment measurements into account this leads to much less severe test levels,
enables a realistic simulation to be created and minimizes the risk of over-testing [49].
H.W. Allen [50] gives the example of a specification established on the basis of statistical
analysis of 1839 flight measurements and which resulted in lower specification levels, reduced
by a factor of 1.23 (endurance test) to 3.2 (qualification test).
III.3.2- Advantages and Drawbacks
- Specifications very close to real levels (excluding the safety factor) allow the
equipment to be operated in particular under conditions very close to live conditions.
The equipment can therefore be designed with more realistic margins.
- The safety margins can be evaluated by testing to the limit.
But:
- The equipment thus defined is specific to the life cycle profile chosen. To a certain
extent, any change in the conditions of use will require examination of the new
environment, adjustment of the specifications and possibly additional testing.
- The cost of development of the specification is higher (but this expense is amply offset
during the equipment development stage).
- Comparison of the mechanical strength of different items of equipment (designed to

different specifications) is more difficult.
- Since it is attempted to provide the best possible simulation of the real environment, it
is necessary to be certain that the test facility used correctly follows the specification.
For complex specifications, this may prove difficult because of mechanical impedance
problems.
IV- TEST TAYLORING: METHODOLOGY
All the procedures used to develop test specifications include certain general steps [12] [13]
[51] [52], which are summarized on the diagram in figure 2. This procedure is currently used in
the following standards: GAM EG 13 and MIL STD 810 F.
- 24 -
ANALYSIS OF
THE CONDITIONS
OF USE
CHOCE OF
COLLECTION OF DAMAGE CRITERIA
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CALCULATION OF A SYNTHESIZED
ENVIRONMENT WITH THE SAME
SEVERITY AS THE REAL ENVIRONMENT
APPLICATION OF A
SAFETY FACTOR
POSSIBLE REDUCTION
IN THE TEST TIME
Tayloring Procedure
Figure 2
The specification determination process can be divided into four main steps:
1. Analysis of the life cycle profile.
2. Collection of data on the real environment.
3. Synopsis of the data.
4. Establishment of the test program.
V- STEP 1: ANALYSIS OF THE LIFE CYCLE PROFILE - REVIEW OF SITUATIONS
It is assumed possible to break the life cycle profile of the equipment down into elementary
phases, called situations, such as storage, road transport, air transport by helicopter or fixed-
wing aircraft, specifying the conditions that could affect the severity of the associated
environments: speed and nature of the terrain for road driving, duration, position of the
equipment, interfaces and assembly on the structure of the carrier vehicle, etc. [53].
- 25 -
The environmental parameters

S1 (vibration, heat, cold, acoustics,
Handling
mechanical shock, etc.) that could
degrade the equipment are listed
qualitatively for each situation.
S2
Road transport The figure below shows the example
of analysis of a life cycle profile limited
to carriage under an aircraft [54].
S3 S4
Each situation corresponds to a
Air transport Sea transport particular phase of the life cycle profile.
It is then subdivided into subsituations
or events where the environment can
S5
be considered specific. For instance,
1st stage ignition the air transport situation can include
the subsituations of taxiing, takeoff,
climb, cruise, turn, descent, landing,
S6
etc. The duration of each subsituation
1st stage propulsion is specified.
Figure 4 shows an example of an

S7 analysis of events taken during
1st/2nd stage separation transportation under an aircraft [54].
S8
2nd stage propulsion
Simple life cycle profile example (satellite)

Figure 3
LIST OF MISSIONS LIST OF OPERATIONS

Mission Percentage of
No. Time (min) No. Type
average mission
1 100 1 Takeoff 6.8
2 117 2 Flaps and Gear Down 6.8
3 180 3 IG Buffet Stall 0.16
4 85 4 Landing 6.8
5 125 5 360° Roll 3.12
6 90 6 Straight and Level 57.4
7 105 7 Throttle Sweep 0.68
8 360 8 Wind-up-turn 7.8
9 140 9 Pushover Nz=-1 0.008
10 Rolling Pullout 1.952
11 Sideslip 6.0
12 Pullout Nz=6 0.48
13 Speedbrake extended 2.0
Example of events of a given situation (Fighter aircraft external store)
Figure 4 [54]
- 26 -
VI- STEP 2: DETERMINATION OF THE REAL ENVIRONMENT DATA ASSOCIATED WITH

EACH SITUATION
The second phase consists of quantitatively evaluating each of the environments identified
above for each subsituation of the life cycle profile.
The available data can have several origins [55]:
- Measurements made under real conditions (real vehicle, representative roads or

runways) applied to the equipment. This is the most favorable case, but unfortunately
the least frequent. It requires being able to mount the equipment or a block model
representatively on the vehicle and making a measurement campaign.
- Measurements made on the platform of the vehicle concerned. If the equipment is not
placed directly on the platform (containerized equipment, for instance), it is necessary
to transfer the vibrations. This operation may require modeling the intermediate
structure or measuring the transfer functions.
- Measurements made on another type of vehicle in the same category, but considered
a good approximation of real values.
For certain projects, measurements were made systematically to characterize each

phase of the life cycle profile [56] [57] [58]. The measurements obtained for earlier
projects can be used as basis for writing the specifications.
The measurements made on the system studied after manufacture are useful for
verifying the predictions, possibly determining the levels in specific points and
supplying data for a more detailed failure analysis. These measurements will be used
in turn for future projects.
To satisfy this need, data banks were created to contain the largest possible number of
measurements recorded on vehicles under a variety of conditions [43] [47] [52] [59]
[60].
The data can be stored in various forms in the data banks.
The basic data are generally signals versus time. To decrease the space occupied by
the data in the bank, these signals are processed where possible as spectra:
• Shock response spectra for shocks,
• Power spectral densities for steady random vibrations.
Certain data banks (Sandia [61]) also contain data expressed as probability densities.
Such data give the percentage of the number of peaks in the signal for each
acceleration level in specified frequency bands. These data can be expressed in a
simplified form by indicating the maximum or average peak acceleration versus the
frequency or any other statistical parameter (such as the level with a 99 % chance of
not being exceeded).
- Type-synopses, which are frequency analysis envelope curves of the signals

measured on vehicles belonging to a given class.
- Prediction computations.
- 27 -
VII- STEP 3: DETERMINATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT TO BE SIMULATED
A test must be defined from the data collected for each environment of each phase of the life
cycle profile.
- It must have the same severity as in the real environment,
- It must be able to be conducted using standard test equipment. Actually, this

requirement is not necessary at this stage. However, it is preferable to take this need
into account at this early stage, whenever possible, so as to rapidly identify any
incompatibilities that would arise between the adjustments required and the capabilities
of the test facilities. If such incompatibilities proved unacceptable, another simulation
method might have to be proposed.
Rather than strictly reproducing the data measured in the real environment on the test facility, it
is preferable to develop a synopsis test with the same severity reproducing the same damage
as the real environment according to specific criteria (see Appendix 2).
VII.1- Need
The qualities that can be expected of the equivalence method are multiple:
- The equivalence criteria are representative of real physical phenomena from the
standpoint of damage potential [48].
It is very important to determine very early the nature of the stresses that could lead to
a failure. The damage modes can be multiple (creep, corrosion, fatigue, exceeding of
a limit stress, fracture, etc.) [62]. It is however generally agreed that the two most
frequent modes are exceeding of a limit stress (elastic limit, ultimate strength) and
fatigue damage [2] [12] [13] [63]. This work is also required to determine a safety
factor [64].
- The data required for the computation are readily available.
- The test time can be reduced.
- Several situations, several phases can be combined in a single test.
- The equivalence criteria are the same for all the environments with the same structure
(e.g. random vibrations, sinusoidal vibrations, mechanical shocks).
A working group organized by A.S.T.E. (Association pour le développement des Sciences et

Techniques de l'Environnement) made a study designed to identify the equivalence methods
used in France for analyzing mechanical vibration and compare the results obtained with each
method. This work was submitted in a communication to the A.S.T.E. 1980 seminar [65] and
was the subject of BNAE recommendations [66].
VII.2- Synopsis Methods
The main methods used (for vibration) are as follows:
- 28 -
- Power spectral density envelope.
- Definition of a test with a standardized test time designed to demonstrate that the
equipment is working below its endurance limit.
- Elimination of nonconstraining values (two variants).
- Equivalence of the maximax response and fatigue damage spectra [67].
VII.3- The Need for a Reliable Method
The survey showed the advantage of the last method which is today used by many companies
in France (Aérospatiale, SNCF, RATP, Thomson, Matra Défense, GIAT Industries, etc.).
Appendix 1 contains the definition of the maximax response and fatigue damage spectra as
well as the corresponding mathematical formulation. Document [68] gives full details on the
random vibration computations. The method using these spectra which be developed in the
following sections.
Remark
A recent study carried out at European level, with the same objectives, has shown not only that
the power spectral density envelope method is widely used, but also that research is being
carried out in Great Britain to attempt to take into account the distribution of instantaneous
values of the measured signal [69]. The power spectral density envelope method is given in
Appendix 3.
The measured data synopsis method must be
• reproducible: the results obtained by several specifiers using the same data must be
very close and relatively insensitive to the analysis conditions,
• reliable: the synthesized values must be similar to the measured values (if there is no
plus factor coefficient).
For a round robin [70], an analog magnetic tape with acceleration data measured on the
platform of a truck (three-axis sensor) during a 30 minute drive, was sent to several European
laboratories in 1991, three of which were in France. Each laboratory analyzed the measurement
data according to its usual method and established a test specification covering these 30
minutes of transportation. The drive included different road and speed conditions. The signals
measured were random vibrations and a transient signal.
Most of the laboratories expressed the specification as a power spectral density and a shock.
The P.S.D.s obtained are given in figure 5. The results are extremely diverse, with P.S.D.
values separated by a factor of up to 100. This therefore confirms the expressed need.
- 29 -
European Round-Robin Results

Figure 5 [70]
VII.4- Synopsis of the Real Environment Associated with a Subsituation
Mechanical Shocks
A mechanical shock can be described by signals versus time or by shock response spectra
(S.R.S.). In the first case, the shock response spectra of the signals are calculated (standard
damping value ξ = 0.05). Then, for each frequency are calculated the spectra mean E , the
standard deviation σ E , the coefficient of variation VE (ratio of the standard deviation to the
mean). The subsituation can be characterized either by the mean spectrum or by the mean + α
standard deviations ( α = 3, for instance).
Random Vibrations
The random vibrations are initially described by a signal versus time. If they are steady, their
power spectral densities are used. Then, a maximax response spectrum (M.R.S.) and a fatigue
damage spectrum (F.D.S.) are calculated from each signal versus time or each P.S.D.. As for
shocks, the mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variation VE (see Appendix 6) and the
quantity E + 3 σ E are then determined at each frequency as for the M.R.S. and F.D.S..
In order to calculate the spectra (S.R.S., M.R.S. and F.D.S.) it is necessary to set:
• The initial frequency and the final frequency. These frequencies must surround the
known or assumed natural frequencies of the equipment. In case of doubt, a large
frequency domain must be considered, such as from 1 to 2000 Hz, for instance.
• The b parameter related to the slope of the Wöhler curve (see Appendix 4).
- 30 -
Influence of b Parameter
The choice of b parameter has little impact on the resulting specification (PSD) as
long as the test time is not too short compared to that of the real environment. For
an equal time, the rms value of the PSD obtained is practically independent of b.
High values of b may however lead to somewhat more detailed spectra. The PSDs
obtained for b small are on the contrary smoother.
• The Q factor, generally chosen conventionally equal to 10 (ξ = 0. 05 ).
Influence of Q Factor
The choice of Q factor has a comparable impact to parameter b. The higher Q,

the more detailed the fatigue damage spectrum and therefore the PSD.
• Constants K and C involved in computation of the fatigue damage spectra. K is the

proportionality constant between the stress and strain of the system with one degree
of freedom ( s = K z ). C is the constant of the Basquin equation describing the
Wöhler curve ( N sb = C ). Since the vibrations of the real environment and those of
the specification determined from this environment are applied to the same equipment
(the equipment for which the specification is written), the value of these parameters is
unimportant when the aim is to compare spectra, provided it is not desired to evaluate
the exact damage (or the life expectancy). Therefore, by convention, a value of 1 is
used for K and C.
Remark
If the real environment is described by only a small number of spectra (lack of data), the
subsituation can be represented by the envelope spectrum of these spectra.
VII.5- Application of a Safety Factor
In order to take into account all the uncertainties existing when the test specifications are
written (see Appendix 5), the severities are often multiplied by a factor called safety factor (or
guarantee factor or risk factor or conservatism factor, etc.), often considered as an ignorance
factor [71]. This factor is often chosen arbitrarily. Its numerical value is generally the subject of
many discussions between the equipment designers (who would like it to be as low as possible)
and the specification writer (who is well aware of the insufficiency of his working data).
The term safety margin is often also used with either the same meaning as the safety factor or
to quantify the equipment strength margins with respect to its environment. This safety margin
which also has several definitions expresses the idea of a ratio between a certain value
characterizing the material strength and a value characterizing the applied stress.
- 31 -
When the volume of data is sufficient, the safety factor applied is determined from a reliability
computation. Otherwise, an arbitrary factor is used.
Safety Factor
The parameter describing the characteristic environment of a situation of the life cycle profile
can generally be assimilated to a random variable and represented by a type of distribution, a
mean and a standard deviation. Similarly, the capability of the equipment to withstand a given
stress may be considered as a stochastic variable. According to most authors, the variables of
these two types generally have a log-normal distribution and sometimes a Gaussian
distribution.
If these distributions are known (type, mean, standard deviation and therefore coefficient of
variation V, i.e. ratio of the standard deviation to the mean), the probability P0 that a specimen
will not withstand its environment can be calculated [72] [73]:
P0 = Prob(Environment > Strength) (3)
The failure domain is graphically

located in the area under the
curves describing the probability
densities of the two distributions
(Fig. 6).
For Gaussian and log-normal

distributions of given standard
deviations, it can be shown that P0
Failure Area
depends only on the ratio:
Figure 6
Mean equipment strength ( R )

k= (4)
Mean real or specified environment ( E )
This ratio is called the safety factor.
It depends on the:
• Variability of the environment characterizing the situation of the life cycle profile,
• Variability of the ultimate equipment strength with respect to the situation

considered,
• Maximum tolerated failure probability.
The safety factor is therefore determined for a given item of equipment and a given
environment. The safety factor can only be increased at the design stage for a given stress by
increasing the mean equipment strength (or decreasing the standard deviation of its
distribution).
- 32 -
Appendix 6 contains the equations required to calculate this factor. The process for
determining k consists of:
• Calculating the mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation VE from the
data described in the real environment.
• Choosing a maximum permissible failure probability.
Choosing the Failure Probability
Since the coefficient of variation VE varies versus the frequency for each type of
environment, it is not a priori possible to set both a safety factor k and a failure
probability P0 . If we set k, the failure probability P0 varies and, conversely, if we
set P0 , k varies. It appears preferable to us to set the failure probability rather
than k.
Few values are given in the literature. In the case of initial work taking into
account only the dispersion of the strength, the value R − α σ R where α = 2. 3 ,
corresponding to a 1 % risk for a Gaussian distribution was suggested as
dimensioning stress [74].
R.E. Blake [75] [76] considers that for Gaussian distributions and for missiles,
the reliability (calculated according to the stress-strength concept) should be
selected between 99.9 % and 99.995 %.
Two values were used herein for the failure probability:
- 10−3 , which could be chosen for specifications relative to the normal

environment,
- 10−6 for the accidental environment.
• Choosing the nature of the environment and equipment strength distributions.
Choosing the Distribution Functions
Loads
For shock spectra and for power spectral densities (and therefore rms values),
most authors agree to consider that real phenomena are represented best by a
log-normal distribution. A major drawback of a Gaussian distribution is the
possibility of negative values (see Appendix 7). We therefore use a log-normal
distribution.
Strengths
A bibliographical review shows that the central part of the strength distribution
curves (stress, elastic limit, ultimate stress, ultimate endurance, etc.) can be
represented by a normal or log-normal distribution.
- 33 -
A log-normal distribution is generally considered preferable for our problem

because:
• a normal distribution exhibits negative values
• a log-normal distribution is much more representative of the

distribution curve ends, which are the sections involved in safety
factor computations.
The log-normal distribution is considered a good approximation of fatigue

damage (or the number of cycles to fracture).
• Choosing a coefficient of variation VR according to the materials included in the

equipment under test.
Coefficient of Variation of the Strength
Maximax Response
The value suggested in reference [77] ( VR = 0. 08 ) is an envelope of numerous

published results. However, it should be noted that (see Appendix 8):
- Larger values are sometimes found.
- The values mentioned concern tests on specimens. The coefficient of

variations relative to structures made of larger parts are undoubtedly
larger [23].
Fatigue aspect
The coefficient of variation on the number of cycles to fracture or damage to

fracture ∆ can be higher than unity. However, the values are often below 0.8
(specimens).
• Calculating the corresponding safety factor from these data and the equations given
in Appendix 6, then the selected environment k E .
If the environment is characterized by an E + 3 σ E spectrum, the selected environment E R is

given by
ER =
k
1 + 3 VE
( E + 3 σE ) (5)
Remark
If the spectrum representing the real environment is an envelope spectrum, it is preferable to

apply an arbitrary safety factor.
- 34 -
Random f(t) Shock

Vibrations Random Vib.
SRS
DSP Shock
Calculation of Calculation of
MRS and FDS SRS
Calculation of E, sE , Calculation of
VE and of
E + 3 sE the envelope
Distrib. type Calculation of k(f) Calculation of Choice of

and
V k (E + 3 s ) k x envelope arbitrary k
R E
Envelope of Sum of Envelope of
MRSs FDSs SRSs
Real environment data synopsis procedure

Figure 7
VII.6- Possible Application of an Aging Factor
Equipment stored for a long time before use ages and loses strength until the time when it is
subjected to the environment. This phenomenon can be taken into account by requiring more
of new equipment by stipulating a failure probability P0′ lower than the value P0 that the
equipment must have when it is put to use. The way the aging factor to be applied in order to
meet this objective is calculated is explained in Appendix 9.
VII.7- Synopsis of a Situation
The subsituations comprising a situation are all in series. A situation is therefore characterized
by three curves:
• A maximax response spectrum enveloping all the MRSs of the vibration

environment selected E R ,
• A fatigue damage spectrum equal to the sum of all the FDSs corresponding to
the vibration environments selected for each subsituation,
• A shock response spectrum enveloping all the SRSs of the shock environments
chosen for each subsituation.
- 35 -
VII.8- Synopsis of All the Life Cycle Profile Situations
The above spectra are then combined as follows.
Parallel Situations
S4 S4
S5 S6 S56
S7 S7
Parallel Situation Synopsis

Figure 8
In this case, the equipment is subjected only to one of the environments. The envelopes of the
MRSs, FDSs and SRSs of the parallel situations are therefore computed in succession. The
resulting curves are considered as those of a situation in series with the related situations.
Series Situations
The equipment will be subjected to all the situations in the

series. It is therefore necessary to
S7
• Sum the FDSs characterizing each situation,
• Compute the envelope of the MRSs,

S8
• Compute the envelope of the SRSs.
S9
Series Situation Synopsis

Figure 9
The entire life cycle profile can then be represented by three equivalent spectra.
- 36 -
PARALLEL SITUATIONS
Envelope of SRSs
Envelope of MRSs
Envelope of FDSs
SERIES SITUATIONS
Envelope of SRSs
Envelope of MRSs
Sum of FDSs (ref. FDS)
Application of
the test factor
Calculation of a PSD Modification of

with an FDS that the computation
envelops the ref. FDS conditions
Comparison of Comparison of
FDSs MRSs and SRSs
PSD refused
PSD accepted
Specification Drafting Procedure

Figure 10
VII.9- Search for a Vibration with the Same Severity
Establishing the specification consists of searching for the characteristics of a random vibration
defined by its PSD which, over a chosen duration(3), has an FDS very close to the one resulting
from the above method (reference spectrum). This can be done in several ways:
• By taking all the points (N) defining the fatigue damage spectrum. This option
leads to a (specification) PSD with N levels.
• By choosing a few points ( n < N ) of the fatigue damage spectrum, leading to a

PSD with n levels. In this case, the FDS of the PSD obtained may not be quite
as close to the environment FDS.
(3) This method includes the de facto possibility of reducing the duration of the tests.
- 37 -
The search for the characteristics of the specification PSD from the reference fatigue damage
spectrum can be carried out based on the fatigue damage equation:
( 2)
+ b b 2
 b   p 
n
Kb np T
E (D) =
C  b 2
G 1+  
 2   4ξ i =1
∑
G i  I 0 ( h i+1 ) -I 0 ( h i )  

(6)
2p f 3 
( ) 0 
4
where
ξ h2 + a h +1 1 2h+a 2 h − a
I0 = ln +  Arc tan + Arc tan  (7)
πa h − a h +1
2 π 2ξ 2ξ 
f
hi = i (8)
f0
α = 2 1 − ξ2 (9)
If we choose n points on a damage curve, we have a set of n linear equations between values
G i that can be written as follows in matrix form:
b
E ( D) = A G 2 (10)
from where G is taken, based on:
b
G 2 = A −1 E ( D ) (11)
Remarks
1- For certain frequencies, the inversion of the matrix giving the amplitudes of the equivalent
PSD may lead to some irrealistic negative values. In this case, these values should be
corrected by setting them to zero or to a very small value (for instance 10 −3 , the lowest
value displayable on the control units). This correction leads to excessive damage in certain
frequency bands.
2- A difference of a factor of 10 between the FDSs has relatively little influence on the values of
the PSD.
From the PSD thus evaluated, it is necessary

to recalculate the MRSs and FDSs to
estimate the quality of the specification
obtained.
The FDS is thus compared with the FDS of

the complete life cycle profile. If the
differences are too large, the number of
definition points of the PSD or the frequency
values of the point selected may modified.
The MRS is compared with the life cycle MRS

to evaluate the effect of the reduction in the
Checking that the F.D.S.s are equal test time with respect to the complete life
Figure 11 cycle.
- 38 -
In order to simplify the presentation, M. R. S.SP is noted, i.e. the maximax response spectrum of
the specification, and M. R. S.PV resulting from the life cycle profile environment (reference).
Several situations are possible:
- S. R. S. > M. R. S.SP > M. R. S.PV (figure 12)
This is the ideal situation. The M. R. S.SP is greater than the M. R. S.PV due to the reduced
duration, but is smaller than the S.R.S. (shock response spectrum): under test conditions
the equipment will not be submitted to instantaneous levels greater than those under the
real environment. The specification comprises a random vibration and a shock defined
from the S.R.S. of the life cycle profile (simple type shock or S.R.S. itself).
- M. R. S.SP > S. R. S. > M. R. S.PV (figure 13)
The M. R. S.SP is greater than the S.R.S. The following two attitudes are possible:
• maintain the obtained specification with its duration (reduced), by taking the risk that
a problem may occur during the test which could be due to the instantaneous stress
to which the equipment would not normally be submitted in its useful life. This
choice can be justified by the need to considerably reduce the test when the real
environment duration is great. However, if an incident occurs during the test, this
does not necessarily show that the equipment does not comply. It is possible to
perform an envelope spectrum shock at the M. R. S.SP right at the beginning of the
test in order to check that the equipment is able to withstand the stress to which it
will be submitted artificially under vibration (without being damaged). There is no
need to simulate the shock that corresponds to the S.R.S.
• select a greater duration in order to return to the previous case.
Example of an acceptable time reduction Example of time reduction that is too great
Figure 12 Figure 13
- M. R. S.SP > M. R. S.PV > S. R. S. (figure 14)
Real environment shocks are fairly weak in amplitude compared to the vibrations and
cannot clear the time reduction. In this instance it is advisable not to reduce the duration
by too much. It is also possible to start with an envelope spectrum shock of the M. R. S.SP
for the same reasons as mentioned earlier. There is no need to perform a shock that
covers the S.R.S. of the real environment.
- 39 -
- M. R. S.PV > M. R. S.SP (figure 15)
The vibrations of one of the life cycle profile events are undoubtedly much stronger than
the other vibrations, and do not last very long. The specification is influenced mainly by
this event. If this specification is applied for a reduced time compared to the duration of
the whole life cycle profile, but for a longer time than that of the overriding event, this will
result in the test time being extended and thus to the levels being reduced. In this case,
the test duration must be reduced again until the two spectra are very close, the
M. R. S.SP slightly enveloping the M. R. S.PV .
Example of low amplitude shocks Example of a test duration that is too long
Figure 14 Figure 15
Example
Let us consider a very simple life cycle profile consisting of 2 aircraft hours and 3 helicopter
hours. Both of these environments are characterized by the P.S.D. in figure 16. Both of
these P.S.D.s have very similar effective values, but very different frequency content. The
purpose is to establish a specification that covers this life cycle profile, without any
coefficient.
“Helicopter” and “aircraft” random vibration P.S.Ds

Figure 16
- 40 -
Figure 17 shows the damage spectrum as being equal to the total of the F.D.S.s for each of
these situations, the specification damage spectrum obtained by calculating 31 points of the
spectrum, and the corresponding P.S.D. (31 levels), calculated for a reduced duration of 1
hour (effective value 10.1 m / s2).
Comparison of the real environment and specification F.D.S.s

Figure 17
Comparison of the maximax

response spectra (figure 18) shows
the increase (small) of the
instantaneous levels resulting from a
reduction in time from 5 hrs to 1 hr.
Comparison of M.R.S.s
Figure 18
Remark
For certain applications, it may be preferable to determine the characteristics of the

specification (P.S.D.) from a maximax response spectrum or a shock response spectrum. This
- 41 -
is for instance the case for transformation of a seismic specification expressed as S.R.S. to be
compared with another seismic specification defined by a P.S.D..
This procedure cannot be used unless
• There are only parallel subsituations and/or situations.
• Fatigue damage is not a critical criterion.
The specification is then calculated from an M.R.S. as follows [78].
Knowing that the maximax response can be expressed as follows in simplified form
MRS ω 02 z sup ≈ ω 02 z rms 2 ln n0+ T

= ( ) (12)
where z rms is the rms response displacement given by
π Gi
∑
1
= 2
z rms  I 0 ( hi + 1 ) − I 0 ( hi ) 
2π ω 03 i
4ξ  (13)
each line of the maximax response spectrum satisfies the following equation
(
MRS ≈ ω 02 2 ln n0+ T ) 2π
1
ω 03
πG
∑ 4 ξ i  I 0 ( hi +1 ) − I 0 ( hi ) (14)
i
This equation is a matrix equation
MRS 2 = B G (15)
yielding:
G = B −1 MRS 2 (16)
and therefore the values of G ( f ) .
VIII- STEP 4: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TEST PROGRAM
VIII.1- Application of a Test Factor
Consider an item of equipment at the end of the development stage that must be subjected to
qualification testing. The strength of the equipment is not known. At most, some assumptions
can be made as to the type of distribution (Gaussian or log-normal) and the strength coefficient
of variation VR .
The purpose of qualification is to demonstrate that the equipment has at least the specified
design strength, i.e. that the failure probability is less than P0 or again that the mean strength
distribution is greater than k times the environment mean.
If it were possible to conduct a very large number of tests, the test severity TS chosen would be
equal to k times the mean of the environment (selected environment E R ).
- 42 -
But for obvious reasons of cost,

this demonstration is generally
conducted on a single specimen.
If the test is conclusive (no
failure), it is demonstrated, with a
certain level of confidence, that
the mean is located in a certain
interval surrounding the value
E R . This interval centered on
E R would be decreased by
increasing the number of tests
and would approach zero for an
infinite number of tests. But let
us come back to the more
Applying the Test Factor realistic case of a small number
of tests.
Figure 19
It is demonstrated [72] that for Gaussian distributions, the width of this interval is equal to
2 a ′ VR E R
n
where a ′ is a constant depending on the confidence level

n = number of tests
VR = strength coefficient of variation.
[
Where R LOW is the lower limit of the interval centered on E R R LOW = E R 1 − a ′ VR ( )]
n , the
test actually demonstrates only the existence of a safety factor equal to
R LOW
k′ = < k desired (17)
Environment mean
To check that the safety factor is at least equal to k, it is therefore necessary to increase the
severity of the test so that the lower limit R LOW of the interval is located on the value to be
demonstrated ER = R = k E.
The test severity TS is obtained by multiplying the selected environment ( k E ) by the test factor
FE equal to the following equation for Gaussian distribution laws (environment and equipment
resistance), (Appendix 9):
a ′ VR
FE = 1 + (18)
n
and for log-normal laws,



FE = exp a ′
(
ln 1 + VR2 ) 
 (19)
 n 
 
This factor should be applied to the environment representative, in order to deduce the test
severity TS:
TS = F E = F k E
E R E
(20)
- 43 -
- on static acceleration amplitudes,
- on sinusoidal vibration amplitudes,
- on shock amplitudes or on shock response spectra,
- on maximax response spectra,
- on fatigue damage spectra (in this instance the variation coefficient is calculated on the
number of cycles at rupture).
The test factor is therefore used only to demonstrate the existence of a safety factor. For a
given confidence level, this factor depends on the number of tests to be conducted and the
coefficient of variation of the equipment strength.
Remarks
1- Many laboratories describe the real (or "specified") environment by its mean plus three
standard deviations ( E S = E + 3 σ E ). In this case, we have
k
ER = k E = ES (21)
1 + 3 VE
where VE is the coefficient of variation of the real environment. The definition of the test
factor is unchanged.
2- In principle, this operation, related to the qualification strategy, should be carried out during
this fourth step. We already have the P.S.D. relative to the random vibrations, calculated in
step 3. Multiplying the F.D.S. by FE is the same as multiplying the corresponding P.S.D. by
FE 2 b and its effective value by FE 1 b .
To simplify the process, the test factor is often taken into account, in practice, during step 3,
before looking for the P.S.D..
VIII.2- Choice of Test Chronology
We showed how it was possible to reduce all the vibrations associated with a life cycle profile to
a single test (for each axis). Although the method allows this to be done without difficulty, this
extremity is not always desirable for several reasons:
• Requirement for operating the equipment under test in presence of vibrations

associated with a particular situation,
• Requirement for reproducing a combined vibration/thermal environment specific to

one of the situations,
• Desirable separation of vibrations that are very different in nature: low

amplitude/long duration and high amplitude/short duration, such as the example of
road driving (10 hours, 0.5 m/s2rms) and the free flight of a missile (1 minute, 60
m/s2rms). Therefore, in practice, we are often led to establishing vibration and
shock specifications.
- 44 -
This is why, in practice, the life cycle profile is divided into several sections. For each section, a
vibration and shock specification is calculated with the described method.
The establishment of a test program therefore consists of establishing the chronology in which
the tests are to be conducted (vibration, thermal, combined environments, static acceleration,
etc.), attempting to satisfy both the requirement for good representativity of the tests and the
concern of limiting the cost of performance. For this purpose, the tests are sequenced insofar
as possible with the aim of limiting the number of changes of configuration (changes of test
facility, change of axis). These operations are time-consuming, since they require stopping the
test, disconnecting the measurement channels, disassembling the specimen, reassembling it
on another facility, checking the measurement channels after making the new connections, etc.
In theory, this four-step process (including calculating a guarantee coefficient and a test factor)
applies to all types of environment (mechanical, climatic, electromagnetic, etc.). In order for it
to be fully implemented in practice, it requires a data synopsis method comparable to the
equivalence method of maximax responses and damages used in mechanics.
IX- APPLYING THIS METHOD TO THE ROUND-ROBIN EXAMPLE
Without consulting one another, three French laboratories made the analysis using the method
described above (excluding safety factor and test factor). Each laboratory chose its own
samples from the data and calculated PSDs under its own conditions. The PSDs were
calculated in one case (Laboratory A) with a frequency step ∆f equal to 0.5 Hz, whereas the
other laboratories chose a step of 5 Hz. Similarly, each laboratory chose its own test time.
Table 1 below gives the rms values of a few samples along the three axes.
rms value (m/s2)

PSD No. Speed (km/h) OX OY OZ
1 96 4.5 1.24 1.84
2 90 3.0 0.84 1.40
3 68 1.6 0.7 0.84
4 92 3.3 1.1 1.7
5 79 1.62 0.65 0.84
6 50 2.0 0.5 0.84
7 102 4.64 1.8 1.6
8 60 1.9 0.6 0.8
9 40 1.7 0.5 0.8
10 30 1.1 0.4 0.5
Table 1
Table 2 gives the rms values of the specifications obtained for each axis by the three
laboratories, with the corresponding test times.
- 45 -
rms values (m / s2)

AXIS Laboratory A Laboratory B Laboratory C
Test time (s) 600 180 360
OX 5.3 6.88 5.30
OY 1.54 1.78 1.49
OZ 2 2.54 2.06
Table 2
To be able to compare these results validly, we referred all the specifications to a test time of
600 s (a third of that of the real environment), correcting the severities with to equalize the
fatigue damage (using the rules given in Appendix 1). It can then be seen that these results
are
• Very homogeneous, in spite of the disparity of the initial processing,
• Very similar to the vibrations measured in the real environment (see Table 3).
rms values (m / s2)

AXIS Laboratory A Laboratory B Laboratory C
Test time (s) 600 600 600
OX 5.3 5.9 5.05
OY 1.54 1.51 1.38
OZ 2 2.11 1.94
Table 3
Figures 20 and 21 give a comparison of the MRSs and FDSs obtained by the three
laboratories. Here again, it can be seen that the results agree well. The spectra plotted with
the smallest frequency step are more detailed and less smooth.
Round robin - Comparison of M.R.S.s Round robin - Comparison of F.D.S.s

Figure 20 Figure 21
- 46 -
X- TAKING THE ENVIRONMENT INTO ACCOUNT IN THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The previous section showed how specifications could be established using real environment
measurements. The proposed method can be used for writing test specifications (test
tayloring) and dimensioning specifications (tayloring the product to its environment). It is easy
to understand why there is a need to take into account environmental stress for the product and
its sub-assemblies very early on in the project, to manage conversion of this data into
specifications for the assemblies, sub-assemblies and equipment throughout the project
according to how the product definition develops, knowledge of the environment improves and
then to follow-up the demonstration illustrating whether the equipment satisfies these
specifications.
The main purpose, which is to guarantee that the equipment completely withstands its real
conditions of use, without an excessive margin, is in perfect accordance with the BNAE
RG Aéro 00040 Recommendation [79], one of the precepts being to develop a product that
responds to the minimum necessary.
The BNAE RG Aéro 00040 recommendation for the program management specification, which
will become an AFNOR standard [80], has therefore been completed to be integrated into this
procedure. It breaks the project down into the following phases: feasibility, requirement
definition, development, production, use and removal from service (figure 22).
This Recommendation suggests that a functional analysis be carried out at the beginning of the
project which would be used to identify service functions(4) for the product in the functional
specifications (F.S.). Different technical solutions can then be contemplated and evaluated so
that during the requirement definition phase a choice can be made in the requirement technical
specification (R.T.S.). The product’s technical functions(5) are thus determined and detailed in
the design phase leading to a definition file (D.F.) being drawn up. The design is validated by
different actions, the result of which is recorded in the D.B.F. (Definition Backup File) and the
project enters the production phase.
During this process, the studied system will have a different status at different times, e.g.:
functional status, specified status, defined status, developed status and live status.
(4) Service function (NF X 50-150): Action required of a product (or performed by the product to satisfy an
element of the requirement expressed by a given user.
(5) Technical function (NF X 50-150): Action internal to the product (between its components), selected by
the designer-producer, in a solution-finding context, to ensure the service functions.
- 47 -
I.C.L.: Individual Control Log B.C.L.: Batch Control Log F.L.: Follow-up Log
Different Phases of a Project
Figure 22
The product’s environment may belong to different fields, which are defined as follows:
• normal field, for which the product’s considered function must comply with the
specified performances,
• limit field, for which the product’s considered function may have down-graded
performance, but still respects the safety requirements. This degradation must be
reversible when the environment returns to the normal field,
• maximum field, for which the product’s considered function may be irreversibly down-
graded, but still respects the safety requirements.
Integrating the tayloring process into the four-step project leads to the above mentioned actions
being divided up into all the different phases of the project. The tasks to be accomplished in
each phase are summarized in tables 4 and 5.
During the feasibility phase, works related to environment are intended to characterize each of
the agents for each of the identified events in each situation of the life cycle profile by a value or
a spectrum that has a low probability to be overtaken (expected environment). This value is
determined from several measurements of the phenomenon (real environment or data base) or
from calculations.
In the case each measurement of the considered environment agent should be characterized
by a value, the expected environment is obtained by evaluating, from the n measurements, the
value that, with a given π 0 confidence level, has a P0 probability not to be overtaken, using the
amount E + α sE . The α constant is a function of P0 and π 0 .
- 48 -
- Mechanical Environment Test Specification Development Method -
Program Assembly Functions Useful Additional

Environment Values
Phases Level Concerned Information Remarks
input output service tech.
- Typical values taken - 1 value represen- - System life cycle profile

from directories and ting each event - Description of service functions For a given event, data will
databases by signal type - Hypotheses about behavior be described with values,
(transient, ran- models (natural frequency and sets of values
- Fall back levels dom), ... with the (spectrum...) associated to
Feasibility fields, Q factor, etc.)
- Values taken from characteristic System X a level of confidence and a
- Level of confidence of the
calculation models dispersion para- statistic law either
leading to confidence interval concerning
meters (expec- supposed or estimated on
- Values measured for ted environment) the variation coefficient VE . the basis of the
an event or a given measurements
the F. S. situation
Above-mentioned va-
lues updated with:
- new measurements - Life cycle profile, all assembly
or value estimations
Definition Same as above levels
- taking into account
effects induced when These values are All levels X - Estimated transfer functions
leading to selecting the design the specified envi- Same as F.S.
options ronment values. - Then, same as above
the R.T.S. - indication of whether
the value is compri-
sed in the normal,
limit or extreme field.
Taking into Account the Environment in the Feasibility and Definition Phases
Table 4
- 49 -
Program Assembly Functions Useful Additional

Environment Values Remarks
Phases Level Concerned Information
input output service tech.
- Description of technical functions - The environment values specified
- Failure probability permitted according to a situation or several
Design - Dimension criteria - Variation coefficient of the situations will be synthesized by
determinist equipment resistance grouping together several events
leading to Specified environ- - Selected environ- taken from directories or estimated or situations in order to determine
ment values ment values used for with level of confidence associated the environment values
the D.F. calculations and All levels X with the frame
simulation - Internal transfer functions - These values will allow design
- Additional hypotheses about the options to be selected
behavior models used for the
synopsis (b, etc.)
Same as above, plus:
Validation of - Level of confidence of the Same as above
the design (lea- confidence interval between the
ding to the DBF . Severities of taylori- mean resistance of performance These values will be used either for
of the technical Same as above zed tests All levels X and the environment factor calculations and simulations, or to
functions) considered determine the severity of the
- Number of identical items taylorized tests
undergoing the same test
Validation of Same as above. The updated

the develop- Environment values values will be compared to the
ment (leading specified in the Same as above but for Same as above but for service corresponding values initially
to the DBF of RTS applied to the the service functions All levels X functions selected. If the result shows an
the service system excess, the system will be updated
functions) with the values that can be deduced
- Selected values syn- - Development of the manufacturing The values synthesized per
Measurements cha- thesized per signifi- process significant event of the production
racterizing some cant event in the process will be compared to the
events in the pro- production process - Failure probability permitted synthesized values of the same type
Production duction process
- Severity of the stress
All levels X according to the significant envi- as the life cycle profile. If the result
screening and ac- ronmental configurations genera- shows an excess, the system will be
ceptance tests ted by the production process updated with the values that can be
deduced.
Taking into Account the Environment in the Design and Production Phases
Table 5
- 50 -
If the environment agent is characterized by several spectra, the expected environment

corresponds to the spectrum obtained by calculating for each frequency the amount E + α sE
from the spectrum values at this frequency.
If the distribution of points may be considered as gaussian, the estimated mean E of the
true value E V is calculated using the following formula
n
1
E=
n
∑ Ei (22)
i =1
and the estimated value sE of the true standard deviation sV from the following relation
n
∑(Ei − E)
2
i =1 (23)
sE =
n −1
By definition, the expected environment is such as [81] [82]:
 (E −E) 
2
 E +α s E − 
1
Prob  ∫−∞ dE ≤ P0  =
2 s 2E
e π0 (24)
 sE 2π 
 
 
If N is the distribution function of the normal variable, this relation may be written as follows
  E − EV + α s  
Prob  N  E
 ≤ P0  =π0 (25)
  s  
V 
then
  E − EV s  
Prob  N  + α E  ≤ P0  = π 0 (26)
  s V s V  
Let u be the normal variable and χ 2 ( f ) the variable χ 2 with f = n − 1 degrees of freedom:
  
 χ 2 ( f )  
Prob  N 
u
+α  ≤ P0  = π0
(27)
   n f  

 χ 2 (f ) 
Prob  ≤ u P0  = π 0
u
+α (28)
 n f 
 
u P0 = P0 order fractile of u.
 u− nu 
Prob  n  = π0
P0
≤ −α (29)
 
 χ 2
( )
f / f 
- 51 -
u− n u P0
The variable t f , π 0 = follows a Student distribution law off-centered with f
χ 2 (f ) / f
degrees of freedom and off-centering − n u P0 . The relation (29) may thus be written as
follows
Prob t f , π0 ≤ − α n = π 0 (30)
α value resulting:
1
α=− t f , π0 (31)
n
The values of this parameter in relation to f and π 0 are given in a lot of publications [81] [82]
[83] [84] [85]. Table 6 provides some examples.
π0 0,75 0,90 0,95

n\P0 0,75 0,90 0,95 0,99 0,75 0,90 0,95 0,99 0,75 0,90 0,95 0,99
3 1,464 2,501 3,152 4,396 2,602 4,258 5,310 7,340 3,804 6,158 7,655 10,552
4 1,256 2,134 2,680 3,726 1,972 3,187 3,957 5,437 2,619 4,416 5,145 7,042
5 1,152 1,961 2,463 3,421 1,698 2,742 3,400 4,666 2,149 3,407 4,202 5,741
6 1,087 1,860 2,336 3,243 1,540 2,494 3,091 4,242 1,895 3,006 3,707 5,062
7 1,043 1,791 2,250 3,126 1,435 2,333 2,894 3,972 1,732 2,755 3,399 4,641
8 1,010 1,740 2,190 3,042 1,360 2,219 2,755 3,783 1,617 2,582 3,188 4,353
9 0,984 1,702 2,141 2,977 1,302 2,133 2,649 3,641 1,532 2,454 3,031 4,143
10 0,964 1,671 2,103 2,927 1,257 2,065 2,568 3,532 1,465 2,355 2,911 3,981
15 0,899 1,577 1,991 2,776 1,119 1,866 2,329 3,212 1,268 2,068 2,566 3,520
20 0,865 1,528 1,933 2,697 1,046 1,765 2,208 3,052 1,167 1,926 2,396 3,295
30 0,825 1,475 1,869 2,613 0,966 1,657 2,080 2,884 1,059 1,778 2,220 3,064
40 0,803 1,445 1,834 2,568 0,923 1,598 2,010 2,793 0,999 1,697 2,126 2,941
50 0,788 1,426 1,811 2,538 0,894 1,560 1,965 2,735 0,961 1,646 2,065 2;863
α Constant Value
Table 6
If distribution is log-normal, the process is identical when replacing E by ln E in all of the

calculations. The statistical value required is then determined by considering the amount
ln E + α s ln E
e .
Remarks
1- The expected environment, "envelope" of the real environment, could be determined

using other methods such as, for example [85]:
- a statistical curve of the same type computed by evaluating the real distribution of
points on the overall spectrum,
- 52 -
- an envelope of the curves, with possible smoothing. This curve may be associated
with a P0 non - overrun probability, with a confidence level in direct relation to the
selected value of P0 , through the relation π0 = 1 − P0n ,
- a curve comprised, for each frequency, of the value that the next E value measured
with a given confidence level will overtake. The spectrum distribution law may be
gaussian or, preferably, log-normal,
2- The calculation of α may be performed approximately using the relations shown in

paragraph A7.III of Appendix 7. Approximation may be considered as satisfactory as long
as n ≥ 5 , π0 ≤ 0 , 90 , and P0 ≤ 0 , 90 (or n ≥ 3 , π0 ≤ 0 ,75 and P0 ≤ 0 , 99 ).
In the feasibility phase, it is not possible to know the transfer functions that could be used to
evaluate environment at input in sub-assemblies and equipment items. The expected
environment determined here applies to the system only.
In the definition phase, on the contrary, it is possible to obtain a first assessment for these
functions that will be used to define, for each assembly level, the specified environment
values that must be indicated within the various technical requirements specifications (per
event, as for expected environment).
The first synthesis will be performed at the beginning of the development phase, during the
design process. After a safety coefficient that assures a given probability of correct
operation in an identified environment has been applied, the synthesis will lead to the
selected environment, determined according to the methodology presented in the previous
paragraphs (system, sub-assemblies and equipment items).
This process will be repeated before validation by the qualification tests, for writing the test
severities, taking into account the most recent data available concerning the environment
and applying the test factor computed in relation to the planned test number and the
selected confidence level.
SYNTHESIS SUBASSEMBLY
PHASE REPRESENTING
LEVEL LEVEL
Expected environment
Feasibility Per event System
(Mean + α Standard deviations)
Specified environment System

Definition Per event Sub-assemblies
(Mean + α Standard deviations) Equipment items
Selected env.
Design Situation synthesis System
(k x Specified env.) Sub-assemblies
Development Equipment items
Test severities
Validation Situation synthesis
( FE x Selected env.)
The multiplying constant α assures that the real environment is lower, with a given P0
probability, than the value or the expected environment curve, for a given π 0 confidence
level.
Description of Environment in Relation to the Project Phase
Table 7
- 53 -
Table 7 summarizes, for each phase, the environment to be defined, the description mode
and the assembly level it applies to.
-oOo-
- 54 -
- APPENDIX 1 -
MAXIMAX RESPONSE SPECTRUM
AND
FATIGUE DAMAGE SPECTRUM
- 55 -
- 56 -
- APPENDIX 1 -
MAXIMAX RESPONSE SPECTRUM
AND
FATIGUE DAMAGE SPECTRUM
A1.I- PRINCIPLE
Equipment subjected during its life to shocks and random vibrations may be damaged by
several mechanisms, such as:
- When a stress generated by the environment exceeds a threshold,
- Accumulated fatigue damage due to alternate cyclic loading of the equipment.
The dynamic characteristics of the equipment are rarely known when the specification is
being written and they cannot be determined by computation. The specification written
therefore stipulates the characteristics of a random vibration that, when applied to a
reference mechanical system with a single degree of mass-stiffness-damping freedom,
creates a maximum stress and fatigue damage at least equal to those generated by the real
vibration, whatever the natural f0 of the reference resonator in the same frequency range,
where the resonance frequencies of the structure are most likely to be located.
A1.II- DEFINITIONS
A1.II.1- Maximax Response Spectrum
When dynamic stress of any type (vibration, shock) is applied to the base of a mechanical
system with one degree of mass - stiffness - damping freedom for a given duration, this
reference system responds by a relative displacement of the mass with respect to the base.
The maximum amplitude z sup (sup. value) of this relative displacement depends on the
natural frequency f0i of the reference: it is proportional to the maximum stress induced in
the spring.
The curves representing variations in quantity 4 π 2 f02 z suπ versus frequency f0 for a given
damping ξ is called "maximax response spectrum". In the case of a shock, this spectrum is
- 57 -
none other than the primary shock spectrum. In practice, a distinction is made between
positive and negative maximax values.
A1.II.2- Fatigue Damage Spectrum
The curve representing the variations of damage D versus f0 for ξ and b given (b = inverse
of the slope of the Wöhler curve) is called the "fatigue damage spectrum" [A1-1] [A1-2].
Let x ( t ) be a vibration defined by an acceleration versus time applied to a linear system with
one degree of freedom ( f0 , Q) for a duration T. It is assumed that:
- The material of which the system is made has a Wöhler curve that can be described
analytically by an equation of the type
N sb = C (A1-1)
- The stress/strain equation is linear with the form
s= Kz (A1-2)
- Miner's rule (linearly cumulative damage) is applicable.
By definition
∑ Nii
n
D= (A1-3)
i
Kb
D=
C i
∑ ni zib (A1-4)
where n i and z i are given by the histogram of the relative response z ( t ) displacement
peaks.
A1.III- SINUSOIDAL VIBRATIONS
A1.III.1- Maximax Response Spectrum
Given a sinusoidal excitation with the form:
x(t) = 
 x m sin(2 π f t) (A1-5)
the relative response displacement z ( t ) of a linear system with one degree of freedom is
expressed:
− 
x(t)
z(t)= (A1-6)
1
 2
22
 f  
2
  f  
ω 02  1 −    + 4 x 2   

  0  
f   f0  
 
where
ω 0 = 2 π f0 (A1-7)
- 58 -
For f and f0 given, z ( t ) is a maximum when x ( t ) = x m
− x m
MRS ≡ ω 20 z m = 1 (A1-8)
 2 2 2 2
 f 2  f  
1 −    + 4 x   
  f0    f0  
 
The maximax response spectrum MRS here is the curve representing the variations of
ω 20 z m versus f0 for ξ given. The positive and negative spectra are symmetric. The
positive spectrum goes through a maximum when the denominator goes through a
minimum, i.e.
  f 2  2 f   f  1 f  f 
2 1 -     -   - 2  + 2 2  - 2  = 0
  f0    f0   f0  Q f0  f0 
 
yielding
2Q 2 f
f0 = f = (A1-9)
2Q 2 -1 1- 2 ξ 2
and
Q x m x m
MRS = = (A1-10)
1-
1 2 x 1 - x2
2
4Q
As an initial approximation, it can be considered that:
MRS ≈ Q x m (A1-11)
MRS approaches zero when f0 approaches 0; MRS → x m when f0 → ∞ .
Example
500 Hz sinusoidal
10 ms-2
T = 3600 s
Q = 10
M.R.S. of a Sinusoidal Vibration

Figure A1.1
- 59 -
Case of a Periodic Signal
If the stress can be considered as the sum of several sinusoids:
x t ) = ∑ x mi sin(ω i t + ϕ i )
( (A1-12)
i
The response for a linear system with a single degree of freedom is equal to
x m i sin ( ω i t + ϕ i )

z(t)=-∑ 2
(A1-13)
i   f 2   
2
ω 02 1 -  1   + 1  f1 
  f0   Q2  f0 
 
and the maximax response spectrum is given by:
x mi sin(ω i t + ϕ i )
R ≡ ω 20 z m = ± max ∑ (A1-14)
 f  2 2 2
1 f 
i
1 −  2   + 2  i 
  f1   Q  f0 
x mi
R≤±∑ (A1-15)
2
i   f 2 1  fi 
2
1 −    + 2  
1
  f1   Q  f0 
A1.III.2- Fatigue Damage Spectrum
The amplitude of each half-cycle of the response is equal to

xm
zm =
1 (A1-16)
 2 2
f2 1 f2
ω 02 1 −  +
 f 02  Q 2 f 02 
 
yielding, since n = f T ,
Kb 
x bm
D= fT (A1-17)
C b
 2 2
f2 1 f2
ω 02b 1 −  +
 f 02  Q 2 f 02 
 
Special Case:
- If the test is conducted at resonance,
- 60 -
1
f = f0 1 −
2Q 2
Q 
xm
zm = (A1-18)
1
ω 20 1- 2
4Q
Kb Q b 
x bm
D= fT (A1-19)
C b/2
 1 
ω 02b 1- 
 4 Q2 
 
Kb Q b 
xmb
D ≈ f0 T (A1-20)
C ω 20 b
This type of test is not recommended: if f0 varies with the fatigue, a large influence of the Q
factor, which varies when the fatigue effects are felt, is observed. It is preferable to select,
e.g., f0 / 2
- If f << f0

xm
zm ≈ (A1-21)
ω 20
Kb 
x bm
D ≈ f T 2b (A1-22)
C ω0
(D is independent of Q in this domain).
f
- If → ∞ , z m → 0 and D → 0
f0
Example
500 Hz sinusoidal
x m = 10 m/s2
Q = 10
b=8
K =1
C =1
Duration T = 1 hr. F.D.S. of a Sinusoidal Vibration

Figure A1.2
- 61 -
Damage D varies as T and as 

x bm .
A1.IV- SWEPT SINE EXCITATIONS
It is assumed that the sinusoidal waveform amplitude does not vary in the frequency interval
considered.
A1.IV.1- Maximax Response Spectrum
A1.IV.1.1- General Case
The maximax response spectrum is defined by curves giving the sup. value and inf. value of
the response u ( t ) = z ( t ) (multiplied by ω 20 ) of a linear system with one degree of freedom
( f0 , Q) when f0 varies. Since these two curves are symmetric for a sinusoidal excitation, it
is sufficient to plot one of them.
Given a swept sine excitation in any pattern, we assume that the sweep rate is sufficiently
slow for the response to reach a value very close to the steady-state response.
If the level of the sinusoidal waveform remains constant and equal to  m throughout the
sweep, the system response in the frequency interval swept f1 , f2 is equal to Q  m [A1-3]
[A1-4].
Composition of the M.R.S. of a Swept Sine Vibration

Figure A1.3
For frequencies f0 located outside the domain swept, the response is at most equal to:
m
Um=
2 (A1-23)
  f 2  2
1 −  1   + f1
  f2   Q 2 f 02
 
for f0 ≤ f1 and to
- 62 -
m
Um=
2 (A1-24)
  f 2  2
1-  2   + f 2
  fo   Q 2 f 02
 
for f0 ≥ f2 . These values are reached for an extremely slow sweep.
For f0 ≤ f1 , the value of U m calculated in this way for f0 = f1 is the maximum of all the
values that could be calculated for f0 ≤ f1 between 0 and f1 . Similarly, for f0 ≥ f2 , limit f2
gives the maximum value of U m (see Fig. A1.3).
Remark
In Figures A1.3 and A1.4, the

values on the ordinate were
multiplied by ω 0 to obtain
2
quantities homogeneous to an
acceleration (as for the shock
spectra).
M.R.S. of a Swept Sine Vibration

Figure A1.4
The appearance of the sweep spectrum obtained in this way is shown in the figure above for
a sweep between f1 and f2 and a sinusoidal waveform amplitude  m . The spectrum
increases as  m from 0 to Q at f1 (if the sweep is sufficiently slow), remains at this value
between f1 and f2 , then decreases toward the value  m (see Fig. A1.4) [A1-5] [A1-6].
A1.IV.1.2- Sweep at Constant Acceleration

xm
m =
ω 20
Um = zm
Between f1 and f2 , the ordinate of the spectrum is equal to:
ω 20 z m = Q xm
for f0 ≤ f1
x m
ω 20 z m = (A1-25)
2
 f12  f12
1 − 2  + 2 2
 f0  f0 Q
For f0 ≥ f2
- 63 -
x m
ω 20 z m = (A1-26)
2
 f22  f22
1 − 2  + 2 2
 f0  f0 Q
A1.IV.1.3- Sweep at Constant Displacement
Case of a Single Level

ω2
m = xm
ω 20
Yielding
• between f1 and f2 :
ω 20 z m = Q ω 2 x m (A1-27)
• for f0 ≤ f1 :
ω2 xm
ω 20 zm = (A1-28)
2
 f2  f2
1 − 1 − 12  + 2 1 2
 f0  f0 Q
• for f0 ≥ f2 :
ω2 xm
ω 20 z m = (A1-29)
2
 f22  f22
1 −  +
 f02  f02 Q 2
Swept Sine Excitation with Several Levels
Construction of the M.R.S. of a Swept Sine Vibration with Several Levels

Figure A1.5
- 64 -
If the excitation consists of a swept sine waveform with several constant amplitude levels
 m , the maximax response spectrum is defined as the envelope of the spectra of the
different levels plotted separately. Quantities  mi can all be accelerations or displacements
or a combination of the two. It should be noted that in domain fa , f b of Figure A1.5, the
maximum response is given by the f b , f2 band and not by the f1 , f b band in which the
resonators are excited at resonance ( U m = Q  m )
Example
Figure A1.6 shows the maximax

response spectrum of a swept sine
excitation defined as follows:
Constant acceleration
20 Hz to 100 Hz: ± 5 ms-2
100 Hz to 500 Hz: ± 10 ms-2
500 Hz to 1000 Hz: ± 20 ms-2
t b = 1200 s (from 20 to 1000 Hz)
Q = 10
M.R.S. of a Swept Sine with Three Levels
Spectrum plotted from 1 Hz to 2000 Hz in
Figure A1.6
steps of 5 Hz.
A1.IV.2- Fatigue Damage Spectrum
A1.IV.2.1- General Case
If Miner's rule and Basquin's representation ( N sb = C ) are used to describe the Wöhler
curve, the fatigue damage D is expressed:
n dn
∑ Ni = ∫0
tb
D = (A1-30)
i i N
where
C
N= (A1-31)
sbm
(number of cycles to fracture at maximum level sm ),
sm = K z m (A1-32)
t b = sweep end time, and dn = f ( t ) dt (number of cycles during dt ),

f ( t ) is the instantaneous frequency of the sinusoidal waveform at time t.
Yielding
Kb tb
D =
C ∫o f ( t ) z bm dt (A1-33)
where z m is the maximum response displacement (function of f)
- 65 -
b
Kb tb   
D =
C ∫0 f ( t )  m  dt
 H( f ) 
(A1-34)
where � m is the maximum (generalized)

excitation and H ( f ) is the transfer function of
the system.
If it can be assumed that the sweep rate is

sufficiently slow for the response to reach a
high percentage of the response to a steady-
state excitation (such as 99 %) [A1-7], the
transfer function H of a linear system with a
single degree of freedom can be expressed:
Wöhler Curve
Figure A1.7
1
H( f ) = (A1-35)
2
  f 2 1 f
2
1 -    + 2  
  f0   Q  f0 
Yielding
b
Kb tb m dt
D = ∫0 f (t)

b2 (A1-36)
C 2 2 2
  f  1 f 
1 -    + 2   
  f0   Q  f0  
 
A1.IV.2.2- Linear Sweep
General Case
By hypothesis, the frequency f varies according to a function with the form:
f = α t +β (A1-37)
If f1 is the initial sweep frequency ( t = 0 ) and f2 the final frequency (for t = t b ), the sweep
velocity α is equal to:
f2 − f1
α = (A1-38)
tb
β = f1
Let us set
f
h= (A1-39)
f0
Yielding
df α dt f −f
dh = = = 2 1 dt (A1-40)
f0 f0 f0 t b
- 66 -
f0 t b
dt = dh (A1-41)
f2 − f1
b
Kb h2 f0 h  m f0 t b
D = ∫h 
b2 f2 − f1
dh (A1-42)
C h 
( )
1 2 2
 1− h
2
+ 
 Q2 
f f
where h1 = 1 and h 2 = 2 . This yields
f0 f0
b
K b f02 t b h2 h m
D = ∫
C f2 − f1 1 h 2 b 2
dh (A1-43)
( )
2 h
 1− h + 2 
2
 Q 
Linear Sweep at Constant Acceleration
Case of a single level

x m x m
m = =
ω 20 4 π 2 f02
Kb f02 t b x bm h2 h dh
D =
C (4 π 2 f02 ) b ( f2 - f1 ) ∫h 
b/2 (A1-44)
h2 
( )
1 2
2
 1- h + 2
 Q 
Swept sine excitation on several levels
If the swept sine

excitation includes
several levels with
constant acceleration in
frequency band f1 , f2 ,
the damage D is
calculated by summing
the partial damages.
For the example of Figure

Swept Sine Vibration A1.8, this would yield:
Figure A1.8
 
 
 
K t b f02  x m1 ha x bm2 x bm3
b
h dh hb h dh h2 h dh 
C (4 π 2 f02 ) b  fa - f1 ∫h1 ∫h ∫hb
D=  + + b
(A1-44)
b f b - fa a
b f2 - f b 
 2 2  h 2  h2  2
( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2
 h 2 2
 1- h + 2  
2 2
 1- h + 2   1- h + 2
  Q   Q   Q  
- 67 -
Example
Linear swept sine excitation

at constant acceleration:
20 to 100 Hz: 5 ms-2

100 to 500 Hz: 10 ms-2
500 to 1000 Hz: 20 ms-2
t b = 1200 s
Q = 10
b = 10
K =1
C =1
Spectrum plotted from 1 Hz

to 2000 Hz in steps of 5 Hz. F.D.S. of a Swept Sine at Constant Acceleration
Figure A1.9
Approximated Formulations
The equations expressing the damage include an integral that cannot be calculated
analytically except in special cases.
It can however be shown [A1-7] [A1-8], and we will confirm this later, that when the
frequency sweep includes a resonance frequency, the damage is mainly created by the
cycles applied between the half-power points.
The error introduced by neglecting the

other cycles does not exceed 3 % [A1-7].
It is recalled that these points, located on

either side of the natural frequency (see
Fig. A1.10) are defined as the intersection
of the curve representing the transfer
function H ( f ) with the horizontal Q 2 .
Their abscissa values are respectively
1 − 2ξ 2 − 2ξ 1 − ξ 2
and
Interval between the Half-Power Points
1 − 2ξ 2 + 2ξ 1 − ξ 2
Figure A1.10
- 68 -
I ( b ) function
Figure A1.11
It is shown [A1-7] that:
h2 h dh π b -1 -1 π
I = ∫h ≈ Q b (A1-46)
( )
b2
 2 2 2
+ ( 2 ξ h) 
1
2
 1 - h 
where
h1 = 1 − 2ξ 2 − 2ξ 1 − ξ 2
(A1-47)
h2 = 1 − 2ξ2 + 2ξ 1 − ξ2
This approximation is very good for b < 30 and ξ < 0.1. Figure A1.11 shows the variations of
the above approximated expression versus parameter b for different values of Q. This is
used to determine the damage:
Kb f02 t b x m
b
π b −1 −1 π
D = Q b (A1-48)
( )
b
0 ( 2 1)
C 4π 2 f 2 f − f 2
and the time to failure ( D = 1):
tb =
2 C (4 π f ) ( f
2 2 b
2 − f1 )
0
(A1-49)
π K b f 2 x b Q b −1 b −1 π
0 m
Other simplified method
M. Gertel [A1-3], returning to the remark that fatigue damage is mainly due to cycles
between the half-power points (providing the domain covered by the sweeping include these
points), defines a reduced transmissivity curve.
- 69 -
For this purpose (see Fig.

∆f Q
A1.12), he plots on the
f0
abscissa ( ∆f = interval bet-
ween half-power points) and
the transmissivity (max. of
H ( f ) ) divided by Q on the
ordinate.
With these normalized

notations, all the transfer
curves are very similar as long
Breakdown of the Interval between the Half-Power Points as Q > 5 in this frequency
Figure A1.12 [A1-4]) interval.
∆f Q
The interval is then divided into 10 equal parts grouped in
f0
pairs considering the curve to be roughly symmetric with respect
to the vertical of the natural frequency. The amplitudes of the 5
levels thus defined in these axes are shown in the table A1.1.
The fatigue damage can be calculated as follows:
n n i sib
D = ∑ Ni = ∑ C (A1-50)
Table A1.1 i i i
Kb DN b
D =
C
∑ 5
z mi (A1-51)
i
where ∆N is the number of cycles completed in ∆f . Here again, it is assumed that the
sweep completely covers ∆f .
( 4 π 2 f02 z mi )
b
Kb
DN
∑
D= i (A1-52)
(4 )
C 5 b
π 2 f02
The product 4 π 2 f02 z mi is given for each level by the values of H / Q from the above table,
multiplied by the chosen Q factor and by the amplitude  x m of the swept sine.
b
Kb DN   H 
D= ∑ Q Q  x m 
( )
b (A1-53)
C 5 4 π2 f 2
0
 
D=
Kb DN
[Q x (0.996
b b b
+ 0.959 b + 0.895b + 0.82 b + 0.744 b )] (A1-54)
( )
b m
C 5 4π 2 f 2
0
- 70 -
Example
The simple system with a natural frequency f0 = 100 Hz and a Q factor of 10 is subjected to
x m = 10 ms-2 and a duration of
a linear sweep between 10 Hz and 500 Hz with an amplitude 
30 minutes. It is assumed that the material used has a b of 8 and, to simplify, that K = 1
and C = 1.
The number of cycles completed in ∆f is:
f02 t b 1002 1800

∆N = =
Q ( f2 − f1 ) 10 (500 − 10)
∆N ≈ 3. 67 103 cycles
D=
3,67 103
(
108 108 0.9968 + 0.9598 + 0.8958 + 0.828 + 0.7448 )
(
5 4 π 2 10 )
4 8
D ≈ 1.24 10 −26 ( 0.97 + 0.72 + 0.41 + 0.20 + 0.09 )
D ≈ 2. 98 10−26
It can be seen that the last term in the brackets is already negligible, which justifies
eliminating the subsequent ones (corresponding to levels located beyond the half-power
points).
Calculating D from the same data using the simplified equation (A1-48) yields:
D = 3. 03 10−26
whereas calculating D by numerical integration (A1-44) gives D = 3.1 10−26 (for

300 integration points).
Linear Sweep at Constant Displacement
ω2
m = xm
ω 20
Yielding
K b f02 t b x bm h2 h 2 b+1 dh
D =
C f2 - f1 ∫h 
b2
(A1-55)
h 
( )
1 2 2
2
 1- h + 2
 Q 
Remark
When, during a test, part of the frequency band is characterized by a constant displacement
(generally the very low frequencies) and the other part is characterized by a constant
acceleration, the total damage is calculated for each resonance frequency f 0 by summing
- 71 -
the damage created by each type of sweep, taking into account the time spent in each
frequency band .
Example
Constant displacement
5 to 10 Hz: ± 0.05 m
10 to 50 Hz: ± 0.001 m
t b = 1200 s
Q = 10
b = 10
K =1
C =1
Spectrum plotted between

1 Hz and 500 Hz in steps
of 1 Hz (see Fig. A1.13) F.D.S. of a Linear Sweep Sine at Constant Displacement
Figure A1.13
A1.IV.2.3- Logarithmic Sweep
General Case
We defined this sweep by:
f = f1 e t T1
From (A1-36)
f (t) m
b
Kb tb
D =
C ∫0  
b2
dt (A1-56)
2 2
 f  h2 
1 -    + 2 
  f0   Q 
 
f
Let us set h =
f0
df f1 f h
dh = = e t T1 dt = dt = dt
f0 T1 f0 T1 f0 T1
b
Kb h2 m
D= f0 T1 ∫ dh (A1-57)
C h1
 2 b 2
( )
2 2 h
 1- h + 2 
 Q 
- 72 -
f f
if h1 = 1 and h 2 = 2 .
f0 f0
Logarithmic Sweep at Constant Acceleration
We have
x m
m =
4 π 2 f02
Yielding
Kb T1 x m
b h2 dh
D= f0 ∫h (A1-58)
( )
b b2
C  h 
4 π 2 f02
( )
1 2 2
2
 1- h + 2
 Q 
Example
Same data as for the

above example of linear
sweep at constant
acceleration.
F.D.S. of a Logarithmic Sweep Sine at Constant Acceleration

Figure A1.14
Logarithmic Sweep at Constant Displacement
We have:
ω2 f2
m = xm = xm
ω 20 f02
Yielding
- 73 -
Kb h2 h 2 b dh
D = f0 T1 x bm ∫h 
b2
(A1-59)
C h 
( )
1 2 2
2
 1-h + 
 Q2 
Example
Same data as for the

above example of linear
sweep at constant
displacement.
F.D.S. of a Logarithmic Sweep Sine at Constant Displacement

Figure A1.15
Remark
As above, the damage at a given natural frequency f 0 resulting from the application of a test
defined by a swept sine excitation partially at constant displacement and partially at constant
acceleration is equal to the sum of each of the two damages created separately by these two
sweeps.
Example
For a test by a (logarithmic) swept sine excitation defined as follows:
1 Hz to 10 Hz ± 1 mm
10 Hz to 1000 Hz ± 4 ms-2
Duration t = 1 hr
It should be noted that generally, although this is not an absolute rule, in such a case it is
generally arranged to have equal accelerations at the common frequency, i.e. 10 Hz in the
example.
- 74 -
x m = 4 π 2 f 2 x m
x m = 4 π 2 102 10−3 ms-2
x m ≈ 4 ms-2
The time spent between 1 Hz and 10 Hz is equal to:
10
ln
t1 = 3600 1
1000 s
ln
10
t1 = 1800 s
As much time is spent between 1 Hz and 10 Hz as between 10 Hz and 1000 Hz.
A1.IV.2.4- Hyperbolic Sweep
General Case
As was already seen, the frequency varies in this case versus the time according to:
1 1
− =at
f1 f
the constant a is such that when t = t b , we have f = f2 . Yielding
f2 − f1
a=
f1 f2 t b
Let us also set
f
h=
f0
yielding
df
dh =
f0
i.e., since
f1
f=
1 − a f1 t
f12 a dt
dh = (A1-60)
( )
2
f0 1 - a f1 t
or again
a f2
dh = dt = a f0 h 2 dt (A1-61)
f0
- 75 -
Yielding
b
Kb h2  m dh
D = ∫h 
b2
(A1-62)
Ca h 
( )
1 2 2
h  1 - h2 + 2
 Q 
b
K b f1 f2 t b h2  m dh
D =
C f2 - f1 ∫h 
b2
(A1-63)
h2 
( )
1 2
h  1 - h2 + 2
 Q 
Hyperbolic Sweep at Constant Acceleration
x m
m =
4 π 2 f02
Yielding
b
K b f1 f2 t b  x m  h2 dh
D =  
C f2 - f1  4 π 2 f02  ∫h 
b2 (A1-64)
h2 
( )
1 2
h  1 - h2 + 2
 Q 
Example
Same data as in the

case of linear sweep.
F.D.S. of a Hyperbolic Sweep Sine at Constant Acceleration

Figure A1.16
Hyperbolic Sweep at Constant Displacement
ω2 f2
m = xm = xm
ω 20 f02
- 76 -
K b f1 f2 t b x bm h2 h 2 b-1 dh
D =
f2 - f1 ∫h 
b2
(A1-65)
C h2 
( )
1 2
2
 1- h + 2
 Q 
Example
Same data as in the

case of linear sweep.
F.D.S. of a Hyperbolic Sweep Sine at Constant Displacement

Figure A1.17
A1.V- RANDOM VIBRATIONS
A1.V.1- Distribution of the Response Maxima
A1.V.1.1- General Case
Random Stress
Figure A1.18
If the distribution of the instantaneous values of the excitation can be considered Gaussian,
the distribution of the response as instantaneous stresses is also Gaussian and the
distribution of the relative maxima (see Fig. A1.18) of the response obeys the probability
density function [A1-9] [A1-10]:
- 77 -
u2  
u2 
-
p(u) =
1-r 2
e
(
2 1- r 2 ) + e 2 1+erf 
u r -  ur 
 (A1-66)
2p 2 



( ) 2 
2 1-r 
 
where
zp sp
u= =
z rms srms
sp is the maximum of the response stress s ( t ) = K z ( t ) .

   ∞
1 2
srms is the rms value of s ( t ) s rms =  ∫ G s ( f ) df  
 0   
 
G s ( f ) is the power spectral density of s ( t ) G s ( f ) = K 2 H 2 ( f ) G x ( f ) 

 
G x ( f ) is the power spectral density of the excitation �

x�
(t).
H ( f ) is the system transfer function.
1
H( f ) =
ω 20 (1 - h ) 2 2
+ h2 / Q2
 n 
r is the irregularity coefficient  = 0+ 
 2 n p 

n 0 = mean number of zero crossings per unit time, with any slope of the response s ( t ) .
n +p = mean number of relative maxima of s ( t ) per unit time.
1 srms
n0 =
π srms
1 srms
n +p =
2 p s rms
srms is the r.m.s. value of the first derivative of s ( t )

srms is the r.m.s. value of the second derivative of s ( t )
2 x
erf ( x ) ∫0 e − λ dλ
2
= (A1-67)
π
The probability π ( u 0 ) that a maximum u exceeds a threshold u 0 is calculated from the

probability distribution function.
P( u) = ∫ p( u) du
u0
-∞
- 78 -
λ2
r e - u0 2
u0 2 r u0
1- r2 u0 - r2
π( u 0 ) = 1 - 1- r 2 e - λ 2 dλ + e - λ 2 dλ
2 2
2π ∫-∞ e 2 dλ -
2π ∫
-∞ 2π ∫-∞
1- r 2
(A1-68)
i.e., in a form facilitating computations:
   u2    
1   u  -   ur   
π ( u 0 ) = 1-erf   +r e 2 1+erf    (A1-69)
2



( )2 
2 1-r 





( )
2 1-r 2   
  
Equation (A1-68) shows that for u 0 = 0
1+ r
π (0) =
2
1+ r is the proportion of positive relative maxima

2
1- r is the proportion of negative relative maxima.
2
When the response obeys the

general probability density
function (A1-66), the
distribution has a negative
part as shown in Figure
A1.19.
Distribution Comparison
Figure A1.19
A1.V.1.2- Special Case of a Narrow-Band Response
In this case
+ n0
r = 1 and n p =
2
The number of zero crossings per unit time with a positive slope is equal to the number of
relative maxima. There are no negative relative maxima (see Fig. A1.20).
With r = 1, the probability density function of equation (A1-66) becomes:
u ∞ -λ 2 /2
∫
2
=p(u) e -u 2
e dλ (A1-70)
p 2 -∞
which is the Rayleigh distribution function. In this case, π ( 0 ) =

1.
- 79 -
Relative Displacement Response of a System with one degree of freedom

Figure A1.20
A1.V.1.3- Calculation of the Irregularity Coefficient r
A careful look at the expression of p ( u ) shows that this expression depends only on the
irregularity coefficient r. For Gaussian noise, this factor depends only on the rms responses
z rms , z rms and z rms .
In the case of a constant power spectral density between two frequencies f1 and f2 , it is
shown that
π
[I 0 ( h2 ) - I 0 ( h1 )]
G0
z 2rms = (A1-71)
(2π)4 f03 4 ξ
π
[I 2 ( h2 ) - I 2 ( h1 )]
G0
z 2rms = (A1-72)
( 2 π ) f0 4 ξ
2
and
π
z 2rms = G 0 f0
4ξ
[I 4 ( h2 ) - I 4 ( h1 )] (A1-73)
where
f1 f
h1 = and h 2 = 2
f0 f0
G 0 = PSD level.
ξ  h 2 + a h + 1 1   2 h+aa
  2 h-  
I 0= ln   + arc tan   + arc tan   (A1-74)
 2 
pa  h -a h + 1  p   2ξ   2 ξ  
ξ  h 2 + a h + 1 1   2 h+aa
  2 h-  
I2 =
- ln   + arc tan   + arc tan   (A1-75)
π a  h 2 -a h + 1  π   2ξ   2 ξ  
4ξ
=
I4 h + β I2 − I0 (A1-76)
π
α = 2 1 − ξ2
= (
β 2 1 − 2ξ 2 )
- 80 -
A1.V.2- Maximax Response Spectrum
The maximax (or extreme) response R is calculated from the maximum response
encountered once (on the average) during the time of the excitation [A1-1]. The total
average number of peaks higher than z 0 for a time T is:
N = n +p T p( u 0 ) (A1-77)
The highest peak during T (average) corresponds roughly to the level u 0 which is exceeded
only once, yielding:
1
π( u 0 ) = (A1-78)
n +π T
The level u 0 is determined by successive iterations. The distribution function π ( u ) is a

decreasing function of u. We set two values of u such that:
π ( u1 ) < π ( u 0 ) < π ( u 2 )
and the interval ( u1 , u 2 ) is decreased each iteration until, for instance:
π (u1 ) - π (u 2 )
< 10-2
π (u 0 )
Yielding, by interpolation
 p ( u1 ) − p ( u 0 ) 
≈ z 0 z rms ( u 2 − u 1 )
z sup = + u1  (A1-79)
 p ( u1 ) − p ( u 2 ) 
and
=
R ( 2 p f 0 ) 2 z sup
This amplitude peak z sup is observed on the average for a time T. But analyzing the
distribution of the highest peaks shows that since the dispersion is very small, the average is
a good estimator.
Remark
Under the same hypotheses, the problem can be approached by considering the average
number of times a threshold of the response z = a is exceeded with a positive slope for a
time T. This number is given by the following equation for a Gaussian vibration:
a2
−
N a+ = na+ T = n0+ T e
2
2 zrms (A1-80)
Considering threshold a which is exceeded only once on the average, yields, setting
N a+ = 1,
(
a = z rms 2 ln n0+ T )
- 81 -
Yielding
= pp
R 4=
2 2
f 0 z sup 4 2 f 02 z rms (
2 ln n0+ T ) (A1-81)
The curve representing the variations of R ( f 0 ) is called "maximax response spectrum" [A1-
11].
Example
Random vibration defined by:
100 Hz - 300 Hz...........5 (ms-2)2/Hz

300 Hz - 600 Hz.........10 (ms-2)2/Hz
600 Hz - 1000 Hz...........2 (ms-2)2/Hz
Duration: 1 hour
The maximax (or extreme) response spectrum plotted for 5 Hz < f0 < 1500 Hz and Q = 10
is given in Figure A1.21.
M.R.S. of a Random Vibration

Figure A1.21
Remark
In the case of random vibrations, the MRSs give the average maximum response exhibited
by a system with one degree of freedom with natural frequency f 0 (for ξ given) for a time T.
If a design office wishes to dimension equipment from an MRS obeying this definition, there
is a nonnegligible risk that a peak above this average will occur during time T.
It is preferable for this use to consider a spectrum XRS with a risk of being exceeded that
can be calculated from the MRS by the equation
- 82 -
ln (α )
= 1− (A1-82)
( )
XRS MRS
ln n0+ T
where
α is the accepted risk of being exceeded (probability of finding a peak value higher than
the XRS value in n0+ T peaks,
n0+ is the mean frequency of the response of the system with one degree of freedom with
natural frequency f 0 .
For instance, we can take α = 0 .01.
XRS
The figure below shows the variations of the ratio versus n0+ T for α = 10 −4 ,
MRS
10 −3 , 10 −2 and 0 .1 respectively.
X.R.S./M.R.S. Ratio According to n0+ T

Figure A1.22
A1.V.3- Fatigue Damage Spectrum
A1.V.3.1- Calculation from the Signal versus Time
The first method consists of effectively calculating the response z ( t ) of the system with one
degree of freedom over a time ∆t , generally shorter than the time T of the vibration with a
concern for economy, and applying the above equations.
We assume that stress s is proportional to the relative displacement z. Representing the

Wöhler curve of the material considered by the approximated Basquin equation (A1-1), we
then have:
N sb = C
b and C are constants characteristic of the material

N = number of cycles to failure (average) at the sinusoidal stress level s
- 83 -
N (K z) = C
b
The damage incurred by the system

during application of a stress half-cycle
with amplitude si is:
1 sb
δi = = i (A1-83)
2 Ni 2C
and, for n i half-cycles at level si
Basquin Law ni n i sib K b

di = = = n i z ib (A1-84)
Figure A1.23 2N i 2 C 2C
(linear accumulation of Miner's cycles). Giving the damage for a signal with duration ∆t ,
m
n i sib
D Dt = ∑ d i = ∑ (A1-85)
i=1 i 2C
Kb m
D Dt = ∑
2 C i =1
n i z ib (A1-86)
The computation assumes that a histogram of peaks ( n i , z i ) is established. This can be

obtained by a Rainflow type counting method. If the vibration is stationary and ergodic, the
total damage is considered equal to:
T
DT = D Dt (A1-87)
Dt
The damage D Dt thus calculated is that created by x ( t ) during time ∆t . The statistical
aspect of the phenomenon is not taken into account.
Remark
This method is very well suited to shocks and unstationary phenomena.
A1.V.3.2- Case of Stationary Gaussian Excitation
If the distribution of the instantaneous values of excitation x ( t ) can be assumed to be

Gaussian, it is possible to make computations using the equations of Sec. A1.V.1. During
vibration duration T, the average number of peaks of z ( t ) is 2 n +p T . The average number
of these peaks with an amplitude between z p and z p + dz p is p ( z p ) dz p . This yields
( ) ( )
n z p = 2 n+p T p z p dz p (A1-88)
The mean damage is therefore [A1-13]:
- 84 -
∫−∞ z p p( z p ) dz p
Kb ∞
E( D) = n+p T b
(A1-89)
C
A1.V.3.3- Special Case of Narrow-Band Stationary Gaussian Noise
If r = 1, the probability density function of the peaks is a Rayleigh function and the mean
damage becomes [A1-13]
Kb
( )  b
b
=E (D) n p+ T 2 z rms Γ 1 +  (A1-90)
C  2
Γ( ) is the gamma function. In practice, this equation is a good approximation of E ( D ) for

r > 0. 6 . For a white noise type excitation and an assumed narrow-band response,
Q G0
z rms = (A1-91)
4 ω 30
and
b
Kb  Q G0  2  b  (A1-92)
E (D) = n +p T   G 1+ 
C  2 ω3   2
 0 
If the excitation has a PSD with plateaus at constant levels, E ( D ) can be written as follows
from (A1-90) and (A1-71):
( 2)
+ b b/2
 b   p 
n
Kb npT
E (D) =
b
G 1+  
 2   4 ξ i =1
∑
G i  I 0 ( h i+1 ) -I 0 (h i )   (A1-93)

C
( 2p ) 4 3 2
f0
 

Remark
It is difficult to have an absolute knowledge of damage D due to the facts that coefficients K
and C are not known. They are generally set to 1 to calculate D which is thus obtained
within an arbitrary multiplier. This way of proceeding usually has no consequence since all
the computations are conducted to compare the severity of several stresses on the same
structure, and therefore for a given K and C.
Example
Random vibration defined by:
100 Hz - 300 Hz..........5 (ms-2)2/Hz

300 Hz - 600 Hz........10 (ms-2)2/Hz
600 Hz - 1000 Hz..........2 (ms-2)2/Hz
Time: 1 hour
- 85 -
The fatigue damage spectrum is given by Figure A1.24 below for a mechanical system with
one degree of freedom whose natural frequency f0 varies between 5 Hz and 1500 Hz, with
Q = 10 . The parameters of the material are b = 8 , K = 0. 5 1012 N/m3, A = 109 N/m2
( C = A b ).
F.D.S. of the Random Vibration

Figure A1.24
Remarks
1- Basquin's equation can also be written:
N sb = Ab (A1-94)
The mean fatigue damage can then be written, under the hypotheses for establishment of
the equation
b
K
( )  b1
b
=E ( D )   n +p T 2 z rms Γ 1 +  (A1-95)
 A  22
equation where n +p is the number of alternate loadings to failure N.
The mean time to reach failure is such that E ( D ) = 1 , yielding:
b
K
( )  b
b
  N 2 z rms Γ 1 +  =
1 (A1-96)
 A  2
This equation can also b expressed
b
 A  1
N ( K z rms ) ( A′) b
b
= =  (A1-97)
 2  Γ 1 + b 
 
 2
Equation (A1-97) is Basquin's equation for random fatigue of a weakly damped system
with one degree of freedom. On the logarithmic scale, the Wöhler curve for random
- 86 -
fatigue is a line with the same slope − 1 / b - as for alternating fatigue and A' can be
interpreted as the ultimate random real stress ( N = 1).
2- The calculated damage is a statistical variable. Under the same simplifying assumptions
as above, it is shown that the coefficient of variation of the damage is given by:
 b
Γ (1 + b ) − Γ 2  1 + 
v2 ≈
1  2 
(A1-98)
2 p ξ n +p T 2 b
Γ 1 + 
 2
A1.VI- REDUCTION OF THE TEST TIME
A1.VI.1- Fatigue Damage Equivalence in the Case of a Linear System
A1.VI.1.1- Sinusoidal Vibration
If it can be assumed that the maximum stress caused in the equipment by a sinusoidal
vibration is proportional to the excitation amplitude, it is possible to relate a number of cycles
at a given excitation level to another, smaller number of cycles at a higher level under the
following conditions. We have
sm = Const. z m = Const. x m (A1-99)
sm = maximum stress
z m = maximum strength
x m = amplitude of the excitation.
According to Basquin:
N real ( Const.)  real = N reduced ( Const.) 

b b b b
xm xm reduced
Therefore, since the number of cycles N is equal to the product f T of the sinusoidal
frequency times the excitation duration,
1b
 T 

x mreduced = 
x mreal  real  (A1-100)
 Treduced 
x m reduced  T 
The ratio E = is called "exaggeration factor" and  real  is the "time reduction
x m real  Treduced 
factor".
Remark
This result can also be established from equation (A1-17) which shows that damage D is
proportional to T and xm
b
.
- 87 -
Swept Sine Excitation
In the same way, equations (A1-44), (A1-58), (A1-64), (A1-55), (A1-59) and (A1-65) show
that for any sweep mode, the damage is proportional to
• The sweep time t b
• The excitation amplitude 

x m or x m to the power b.
Therefore, for an equal fatigue damage, the test time can be decreased by increasing the
levels according to [A1-14]:
- For accelerations:
1b
 tb 

x mreduced = 
xm   (A1-101)
 t b reduced 
 
− For displacements:
1b
 tb 
xm = xm   (A1-102)
reduced  t b reduced 
 
providing the reduction in time does not lead to an excessively rapid sweep which would
result in limiting the resonance response to a value below the steady-state response (or to
an excessive increase in levels which would cause the equipment to work in a stress domain
too different from the real case).
All the damage equations referenced above assume that the sweep is sufficiently slow for
the response to reach a very high percentage of the steady-state response. If this were not
the case, the same equations could be used by replacing the input acceleration 
x m by G x m
(where G is the ratio of the maximum response peak of a system with one degree of
freedom to the maximum peak that would be obtained in steady state [A1-15]) or the
displacement x m by G x m (or  m by G  m )
A1.VI.1.2- Random Vibration
Equation (A1-90) shows that the mean damage is proportional to the time during which the
random vibration is applied and to its rms value to the power b (since the response rms
displacement z rms is proportional to the rms value of excitation 
x rms ). As above, we
therefore have:
1b
 Treal 

x rrmedsuced = 
x rrmeasl   (A1-103)
 T reduced 
 
Considering the levels of power spectral density G, we can write:
2 b
G reduced  T 
=  real  (A1-104)
G real  Treduced 
- 88 -
This equation assumes that the damping remains constant whatever the stress level.
A1.VI.2- Method Based on a Fatigue Damage Equivalence According to Basquin's

Relation Taking Material Damping Variation Versus Stress Level into Account
It is assumed [A1-12] that the specific damping energy is related to the stress by an equation
with the form:
D = J sn (A1-105)
where
J = constant of the material

n = 2 for viscoelastic materials
n = 2. 4 for stress levels below 80 % of the endurance limit
n = 8 beyond.
The total damping energy is related to the specific energy by factors that depend on the
geometry of the specimen and the stress distribution.
Sinusoidal Vibration
At a given resonance frequency, the Q factor is equal to:
Q = α z2− n (A1-106)
where z is the response level of the structure (relative displacement) and α is a constant
depending on the material, the geometry and the stress distribution. For a sinusoidal
excitation at a frequency equal to the resonance frequency of the structure, the maximum
response z m is written
Q x m
zm = (A1-107)
4 π 2 f02
yielding, by combining (A1-99) and (A1-107):
sm = Const. z m = Const. Q x m
then (A1-106) and (A1-107)

2−n
Q = Const. ( Q 
xm )
2−n
x m = Const. ( Q 
Q  xm ) 
xm
1
Q x m = Const. x m−1
n (A1-108)
yielding, eliminating s from N sb = Const. and knowing that N = f T as above,
n −1

x mreduced  T  b
=  real  (A1-109)

x mreal  Treduced 
- 89 -
Random Vibration
It is shown that the relative rms response displacement of a linear mechanical system with a
single degree of mass-stiffness-damping freedom, a natural frequency f0 and a Q factor
subjected to a random white noise at level G 0 can be expressed:
z 2rms = Const. ( f0 Q G 0 ) (A1-110)
yielding
srms = Const. z rms = Const. ( f0 Q G 0 )
12
and, combining (A1-106) and (A1-110):
2− n
Q = Const. ( f0 Q G 0 ) 2
i.e.:
f0 G 0 = Const. ( f0 Q G 0 )
n2
and
srms = Const. ( f0 G 0 )
1n
(A1-111)
Since the peak levels of the stress are proportional to srms , this yields, eliminating srms
between N sbrms = Const. and (A1-111):
N ( f0 G 0 )
bn
= Const.
yielding, since N = f T ,
n
G reduced  T b
=  real  (A1-112)
G real  Treduced 
i.e.
n

x rrmedsuced  T 2b
=  real  (A1-113)

x rrmeasl  Treduced 
A.J. Curtis recommends taking n = 2. 4 (stresses below the endurance limit) and b = 9 .
b
MIL-STD 810 suggests taking = 4 . AIR 7304 also uses this value, without specifying the
n
origin.
Q constant Q not constant
Sinusoidal and
Sinusoidal Random
random
1 n −1 n

x rrmedsuced  T b 
x mreduced  T  b 
x rrmedsuced  T 2b
Reduction rule =  real  =  real  =  real 

x rrmeasl  reduced 
T 
x mreal  reduced 
T 
x rrmeasl  reduced 
T
Exaggeration factor 1.17 1.24 1.20
Table A1.1
- 90 -
For guidance, the table A1.1 can be used to compare these equations applied to the same
example. Let us calculate the exaggeration factor used to go from a real time Treal to a time
Treal
with b = 9 and n = 2. 4 .
4
The results obtained for random vibrations are very similar.
Remarks
1- Whereas the last procedure described imposes the values of n and b, the first leaves full
freedom for the choice of b. The exaggeration factor is observed to vary enormously
Treal
depending on the value chosen. Let us choose, for instance, a ratio = 4 and let
Treduced
us calculate the exaggeration factor for 3 ≤ b ≤ 20 :
b 3 6 10 15 20
xrms reduced
E= 1.59 1.26 1.15 1.10 1.07
xrms real
Table A1.2
It is therefore important to choose a value of b as close as possible to the real value and,
in case of doubt, to use a default value.
2- Representing the Wöhler curve by an analytic expression with the form N sb = Const .
that has the advantage of simplifying the computations leads to neglecting the endurance
limit and assuming that all levels contribute to fatigue damage.
It is obvious that for stresses below the endurance limit, application of the endurance
factor thus calculated leads to conservative tests (but this endurance limit, well known for
steels, is not available for many other materials).
3- The practical limit on reduction of the test time is the requirement not to increase the
excitation level above the ultimate strength. It is therefore often chosen to limit the
exaggeration factor to the ratio of the ultimate strength to the endurance limit, on the
order of 2 to 3 for most materials. Strictly applied, this rule can lead to very large time
reduction factors. For an exaggeration factor E equal to 2, according to the value of b,
the following maximum values are obtained from equation (A1-104):
b 4 6 8 10 14
Treal
16 64 256 1024 16384
Ttest
Table A1.3
Accepting the above maximum values can lead to creating undue problems if used
without precautions for several reasons:
- Creation of maximum stresses exceeding the ultimate stress that are never reached
with real levels
- 91 -
- Creation of shocks in setups with play that would not appear at the real levels (or
which would be smaller)
- The equivalent damage is obtained assuming linearity of the structure, which may
not be the case in practice. The higher the stress level, and the shorter the
corresponding test time, the higher the resulting error on the exaggeration factor
- Finally, the first remark showed the influence of parameter b on determination of the
exaggeration factor E. A small error on the choice of b leads to an error on E which
increases with the reduction factor.
Time reduction is a device whose use should be limited to a minimum. When it is used,
the reduction factors should not be too high. In case of problems during the test, before
modifying the specimen, it is necessary to return to test times closer to the real times
(with a corresponding decrease in level). Certain standards [A1-16] limit the use of
accelerated tests to low level, long duration environments such as those encountered in
transportation and recommend not applying a higher level during the test than the most
severe level of the environments to which the equipment is subjected.
A1.VII- OTHER USES OF THE MAXIMAX RESPONSE AND FATIGUE DAMAGE

SPECTRA
A1.VII.1- Severity Comparisons
The spectra can be used to compare the severity of
- Several real environments,
- Real environments and test specifications or standards,
- Several specifications.
Examples
1 - Comparisons of the relative severity of an aircraft environment and the helicopter

environment each characterized by an acceleration spectral density (see Fig. A1.25).
These two vibrations have very similar rms values.
- 92 -
Comparison of "Aircraft" and "Helicopter" Random Vibrations

Figure A1.25
Figures A1.26 and A1.27 compare the maximax response and fatigue damage spectra
of these real environments with one another and with MIL-STD 810 B, assuming a
duration of 3 hours for the helicopter and 2 hours for the aircraft.
These spectra clearly show the frequency domain (i.e. the natural frequencies) the
where helicopter is more severe. They also show that the standard chosen for this
example is too severe up to 600 Hz and too lax above.
2 - Comparison of the severity of two standards.
The spectra of Figures A1.28 and A1.29 are used to compare the severity of two
standards, one defined by a random vibration and the other by a swept sine excitation.
Without these spectra, the comparison would not be easy.
Comparison of the M.R.S.s of a Standard and of Several Real Environments

Figure A1.26
- 93 -
Comparison of the F.D.S.s of a Standard and of Several Real Environments

Figure A1.27
Comparison of the M.R.S.s of Two Standards (Random Vibration / Swept Sine)

Figure A1.28
Comparison of the F.D.S.s of Two Standards (Random Vibration / Swept Sine)

Figure A1.29
- 94 -
A1.VII.2- Swept Sine Excitation - Random Vibration Transformation
Although not at all recommended, it may be necessary to transform a test by swept sine
excitations to a test by random vibrations. This operation is carried out as in the above
section from the swept sine damage spectrum.
Example
Figure A1.30 shows the damage spectrum of a swept sine excitation with a time of 3 hours
(logarithmic):
10 Hz - 200 Hz: 10 m/s2

200 Hz - 600 Hz: 60 m/s2
and the equivalent random vibration (time 2 hours) obtained for Q = 10 and b = 8 .
F.D.S. of a Swept Sine and of the Equivalent Random Vibration

Figure A1.30
The reverse transformation is also possible (looking for a swept sine test equivalent to a
random vibration defined by its P.S.D.).
- 95 -
Example
Figure A1.31 shows the power

spectral density of a random
vibration measured on the floor
of a helicopter. It is assumed
that the duration of this vibration
was 1 hour.
The search for an equivalent

swept sine vibration in the sense
of the damage leads to the test
given in the table A1.4.
P.S.D. of a "Helicopter" Random Vibration

Figure A1.31
Accelerations
Frequencies (m / s2)
(Hz) Time: 1 hour Time: 162 s
1- 20 0.1 0.14
20 - 330 2.0 2.7
330 - 360 15.0 20.5
360 - 550 7.3 10.0
550 - 730 9.3 12.7
730 - 970 5.5 7.5
970 - 1250 4.5 6.2
1250 - 1400 5.5 7.5
1400 - 2000 4.6 6.3
Table A1.4
The computation was made for Q = 10 and b = 10 , for a swept sine vibration time of 1 hour
(duration of the random vibration) then 162 s.
- 96 -
Figure A1.32 shows the

fatigue damage spectra
of the real random
vibration and the
equivalent swept sine
vibration (time 1 hour or
162 s). The relatively
small difference between
the spectra could be
reduced even more by
increasing the number of
levels.
Figure A1.33 shows the

corresponding maximax
response spectra. A
large difference between
the "random" and "1 hr
F.D.S. of a Random Vibration and of the Equivalent Swept Sine swept sine" spectra can
Figure A1.32 be seen.
For the maximax response

spectra to be similar, it is
necessary to multiply the
amplitude of the spectrum
(and the swept sine
excitation) by a factor of
around 1.364. To preserve
the same fatigue damage,
it is necessary to divide the
duration (1 hour) by
(1.364 )10 ≈ 2.22  ,
which
leads to a duration of
162 s. This duration is too
short to allow the swept
sine vibration to correctly
excite the mechanical
system. However, if the
random vibrations were
applied for several hours,
M.R.S. of a Random Vibration and of the Equivalent Swept an acceptable sweeping
Sine sinusoidal variation could
Figure A1.33 be obtained.
This example shows one of the difficulties encountered in this type of problem: determining
an equivalence between the maximax response spectra and fatigue damage spectra leads
to a very short swept sine test duration (or conversely, to a very long random vibration
duration if the initial vibration is sinusoidal).
In addition, the result is very sensitive to parameters b and Q. It can be noted here that the
maximax response spectrum of a swept sine vibration varies proportionally to Q. The MRS
of a random vibration varies as Q . This property can easily be demonstrated in the case
of the response of a linear system with one degree of freedom subjected to a white noise
type random vibration with a PSD of G 0 . The rms response is then:
- 97 -
π Q G0
ω 20 z rms = f0 (A1-114)
2
and the maximax response is approximately equal to:
π Q G 0 f0
MRS ≈ 2 ln f0 T (A1-115)
2
(T = time during which the random vibration is applied).
Example
Figure A1.34 illustrates this

phenomenon.
It shows the maximax

response spectra for:
• A swept sine vibration of

5 m/s2 between 5 Hz and
100 Hz, for Q = 10 and
Q = 50 respectively.
• A random vibration with an

rms value of 5.42 ms-2,
characterized by the
following PSD ( Q = 10 and
Influence of Q factor concerning the M.R.S.s Q = 50 . duration 4 hrs):
Figure A1.34
Frequency Amplitude R.M.S. Value

(Hz) [(m / s2)2 / Hz] (m / s2)2
3 - 4.5 0.781
4.5 - 7 0.52
7 - 12 1.041
12 - 16 2.083 5.416
16 - 20 0.52
20 - 40 0.26
40 - 55 0.13
55 - 100 0.091
Table A1.5
-oOo-
- 98 -
- APPENDIX 2 -
EXACT DUPLICATION
OF THE REAL ENVIRONMENT
OR
SYNTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
- 99 -
- 100 -
- APPENDIX 2 -
EXACT DUPLICATION
OF THE REAL ENVIRONMENT
OR
SYNTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
The specifications can be written according to one of the two following concepts [A2-1] [A2-
2] [A2-3] [A2-4].
• Exact duplication of the real environment,
• Simulation of the damaging effects of the environment.
At first view, it may appear preferable to faithfully reproduce the measured environment, for
instance by using the real signal recorded on magnetic tape as control signal for the test
facility [A2-5]. If the reproduction is faithful, the test obviously has the same severity
characteristics as the real environment. With this approach, it is unnecessary to have prior
knowledge of the damaging characteristics of the environment for the equipment. In this
sense, such an approach can be considered ideal.
Unfortunately, it is not practicable for a number of reasons among which [A2-1] [A2-2] [A2-4]
[A2-5] [A2-6] [A2-7] [A2-8] [A2-9]:
• Faithful reproduction requires a unit scale factor between the duration of the real
environment and the simulation test time. In the case of a long duration real environment,
the method can be irrealistic.
• If the life cycle profile of the equipment specifies several different vibration environments,
it is inconvenient and costly to reproduce each one sequentially in the laboratory.
• The severity of the environment is statistical in nature. Environmental data exhibit

considerable statistical dispersion which can be attributed to differences in test conditions,
the human factor and other causes that are not always obvious It has been demonstrated
that structures manufactured under the same conditions can have different transfer
functions at high frequencies [A2-10].
- 101 -
A particular recording (e.g. of a flight) cannot necessarily be considered representative of

the most severe conditions possible (the worst case flight). Even if several recordings are
available, the problem of the choice of sample to be used has to be solved.
• The vehicle generating the vibrations does not generally exist yet or is new when the test
is defined and the specifications are written and few if any measurements are available,
whereas the specific purpose of the test is to qualify the equipment before installing it on
board. The data are measured on more or less similar vehicles, with a measurement
point that is more or less close to that where the equipment will be installed.
• The tests are often performed to qualify equipment that can be installed anywhere in a
vehicle or a specific type of vehicle. The procedure would require to record the vibration
response at any point of the vehicle structure where the equipment could be installed,
and reproducing all the signals collected.
• More generally, certain equipment may be used in several types of aircraft (for instance).
It would be very difficult to reproduce each one of the possible environments.
• In the case of equipment with several attachment points for which the vibration inputs are
different, the problem arises of choosing the recording to be reproduced for the test.
• Faithful reproduction in the laboratory requires having the same interaction effects of the
specimen on the test facility or impedance matching as under real conditions, which is
often difficult to achieve. Exact duplication does not therefore guarantee a perfectly
representative test.
For these reasons, not all of which have the same importance, this method is not very often
used in the laboratories (except in the car industry). It has some applications for signals of
short duration that are difficult to reliably analyze and simulate using another process.
The second approach consists of defining a similar, but synthetic, vibration environment
constructed from available data and producing the same damage as the real environment.
The tests are expected to give results similar to those obtained in a real environment. It is
attempted to reproduce the effects of the environment rather than the environment itself.
This approach requires prior knowledge of the equipment failure mechanism when the
equipment is subjected dynamic stresses.
The main advantage of the first approach is that it does not require any assumptions on
failure modes and mechanisms. The main drawbacks are obviously the requirement for
simulating all the features of the real environment, in particular the duration, and the difficulty
of taking statistical aspects into account.
Searching a synopsis environment is a much more flexible method. Statistical analyses and
time reductions can thus be performed providing that an acceptable criterion of equivalent
damage can be defined.
It is not a priori necessary to define the specifications in terms of vibration tests [A2-11]. It
could be considered, although this is not usually done, to propose a static test, specify
minimum natural frequencies for the equipment, or an endurance limit, etc.... These
characteristics would be obtained from analyzing the effects of the real environment on the
equipment. Generally an attempt is made to define an “idealized” vibratory environment
- 102 -
having the same nature as the measured environment (random, sinusoidal, etc.) that has
been selected to be representative of the damage potential of the real environment [A2-12],
over a reduced period of time if possible.
-oOo-
- 103 -
- 104 -
- APPENDIX 3 -
SYNOPSIS METHOD
BY POWER SPECTRUM
DENSITY ENVELOPE
- 105 -
- 106 -
- APPENDIX 3 -
SYNOPSIS METHOD
BY POWER SPECTRUM
DENSITY ENVELOPE
The random vibrations are generally represented by Power Spectrum Densities (P.S.D.). Let
us consider a P.S.D. characterizing a specific event, obtained by enveloping several P.S.D.s.
calculated from several measurements, after applying a safety factor defined in Appendix 6,
if necessary. For reasons of convenience, the maximum number of P.S.D. points is
generally limited to approximately ten points to describe the specification obtained in the
documents and to display the P.S.D. on the control station during the test. In the past, this
was necessary because analog control stations were used. Nowadays, the data can be
directly transferred on to digital stations via a computer medium since they can manage a
great number of definition points in the P.S.D..
The specification is taken

from the environment P.S.D.;
its pattern is simplified by
broken straight lines,
generally horizontal (not
necessarily).
This operation has at least

two disadvantages:
• the result obtained is

dependent on the
specifier,
Example of P.S.D. Envelope
Figure A3.1
• as the trend is to widely envelope the reference spectrum, the effective value of
the specification deduced from it is very often much larger than the value of the
initial P.S.D.; the factor can reach two.
- 107 -
These effects can be minimized by reducing the specification application time using the rules
given in Appendix 1 (chapter VI).
If 
x eff is the effective value of the vibration characterized by the reference P.S.D. (real
environment), and TE the duration of the event considered; and if X 
eff is the P.S.D.
effective value obtained by envelope, the duration TR for applying the envelope P.S.D. can
be calculated using the following formula (A1-103):
b
 
x 
TR = TE  eff 

 X eff 
so that the fatigue damages caused on the equipment are respected. It is preferable to also
 eff
X
check that the exaggeration coefficient E = is not too big (lower than 2 for example). If
x eff
not, this calculation can lead to the time being reduced by too much and the instantaneous
stress being too high compared to the stress induced by the real vibration. It is then
necessary to re-shape the envelope by closely following the P.S.D.. The table A3.1
summarizes this method.
By applying this method in these conditions, one specification per event can be drawn up
and the number of events can be multiplied since there are generally several situations and
several events per situation. The method can be improved as follows to compensate this
disadvantage (table A3.2):
- by characterizing each event as before,
- by drawing an envelope composed of broken straight lines on each P.S.D. of the

considered events. Calculate the effective value of each spectrum drawn, and
make sure the obtained exaggeration coefficients E i are not too high,
- by superposing the obtained envelopes and drawing an envelope (broken straight

lines) of these curves. The last curve is the specification desired,
- by determining the reduced duration of each event from its real duration TE i and
from the exaggeration coefficient E i ,
- the total duration to be associated with the specification (only one P.S.D.) is the sum
of the reduced durations.
- 108 -
Life Cycle Profile Real Environment Real Duration Specification Reduced Duration Specification Specification
r.m.s. r.m.s. Exaggeration r.m.s.
Event Duration P.S.D. Acceleration Envelope P.S.D. Acceleration Duration Coefficient P.S.D. Acceleration Duration No

X
E1 TE1 x eff 1  eff
X TE1 E1 = eff 1 γ eff 1 TR1 1
1 x eff 1

X
E2 TE 2 x eff 2  eff
X TE 2 E2 = eff 2
γ eff 2 TR 2 2
2 x eff 2
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
Table A3.1
Life Cycle
Real Environment Real Duration Specification Reduced Duration Specification
Profile
Effective Effective Exaggeration Largest Basic
Event Duration P.S.D. Acceleration P.S.D. Acceleration Duration Envelope Coefficient Coefficient Duration Test Duration
γ eff TE1
x eff 1  eff E1 = TR1 =
E1 TE1 X 1
TE1 
X Largest value E1b
eff 1
of E i s, for
comparison
Effective value to the TR = ∑ TR i
γ eff permitted TE 2
x eff 2  eff value TR 2 = i
E2 TE 2 X TE 2 γ E 2b
2 Duration E 2 = eff

T = ∑ TE i X eff 2
i
Table A3.2
- 109 -
Advantages
This method
- can be easily implemented, with only a few calculation means,
- allows the duration to be reduced using a fatigue damage criterion,
- allows several events (or situations) to be summarized in only one P.S.D.
Drawbacks
- The way the envelope is drawn, with broken straight lines, is very subjective; the
results can be very different depending on the operator,
- The duration reduction is only determined by the envelope pattern. No duration is a

priori set but, for the drawn envelope, it would appear necessary to reduce the
duration to the value deduced from the exaggeration factor.
A survey recently performed in Europe has shown that the Power Spectrum Density
envelope method is often used (in the most simple form, i.e. without time reduction) [A3-1].
Studies are currently being carried out in England to try to take into account the distribution
of the instantaneous values of the measured signal [A3-2].
-oOo-
- 110 -
- APPENDIX 4 -
NUMERICAL VALUES
OF
PARAMETER b
- 111 -
- 112 -
- APPENDIX 4 -
NUMERICAL VALUES
OF
PARAMETER b
A4.I- METALS
The range of variation of b is between 3 and 25. The most common values are between
3 and 10 [A4-1].
M. Gertel [A4-2] [A4-3] and C.E. Crede, E.J. Lunney [A4-4] consider a value of 9 to be
representative of most materials. It is probably a consideration of this order that led to
the choice of 9 as standard value by the standards such as MIL-STD-810, AIR, etc. This
choice is satisfactory for most light alloys and copper but may be unsuitable for other
materials. For instance, for steel, the value of b varies between 10 and 14 depending on
the alloy. D.S. Steinberg [A4-5] mentions the case of 6144-T4 aluminum alloy for which
b = 14 ( N s14 = 4.12 1066 with s in psi).
b is near 9 for ductile materials and near 20 for brittle materials, whatever the ultimate
strength of the material [A4-6].
The lowest values indicate that the fatigue strength drops faster when the number of
cycles is increased, which is generally the case for the most severe geometric shapes.
The lower the stress concentration, the higher the value of parameter b.
Table A4.1 gives the value of b for a few materials according to the type of load applied:
smin
tension-compression, torsion, etc. and the value of the mean stress, i.e. the ratio .
smax
- 113 -
smin
Material Type of Fatigue Test b
smax
2024-T3 Alum Axial Load -1 5.6
2024-T4 Alum Rotating Bm -1 6.4
7075-T6 Alum Axial Load -1 5.5
6061-T6 Alum Rotating Bm -1 7.0
ZK-60 Mag 4.8
BK31XA-T6 Mag Axial Load 0.25 8.5
Rotating Bm -1 5.8
QE 22-T6 Mag Wöhler -1 3.1
4130 Steel
Normalized Axial Load -1 4.5
Hardened Axial Load -1 4.1
6Al-4V Ti Axial Load -1 4.9
Beryllium
Hot Pressed Axial Load 0 10.8
Block 0.2 8.7
Cross Rol Sht Axial Load -1 12.6
0.2 9.4
Invar Axial Load 4.6
Anneal Copper 11.2
1S1 Fiberglass 6.7
Table A4.1 [A4-7]
Material b
Copper Wire 9.28
Aluminum Alloy: 6061-T6 8.92 A few other values are given by
7075-T6 R.G. Lambert [A4-6] with no indication of
9.65
the test conditions.
Soft Solder (63-37 Tin-Lead) 9.85
4340 (BHN 243) 10.5
4340 (BHN 350) 13.2
AZ31B Magnesium Alloy 22.4
Table A4.2 [A4-6]
- 114 -
It is therefore necessary to be
very cautious in choosing the
value of this parameter,
especially when reducing the test
times for constant fatigue
damage testing.
Examples of Parameter b Values

Figure A4.1 [A4-8]
A4.II- CASE OF ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS
The failures observed in electronic components follow the conventional fatigue failure
model [A4-9]. The equations established for structures are therefore applicable [A4-10].
During initial tests on components such as capacitors, vacuum tubes, resistors, etc. and
on equipment, it was observed that the failures (lead breakage) generally occurred near
the frame resonance frequencies, generally below 500 Hz [A4-11]. The analysis of tests
conducted on components by D.L. Wrisley and W.S. Knowles [A4-12] tends to confirm
the existence of an endurance limit.
Electronic components could be expected a priori to be characterized by a b of around 8

or 9 for fatigue strength, at least in the case of discrete components with copper or light
alloy leads. That is moreover the value chosen by certain authors [A4-13].
Few data have been published on the fatigue strength of electronic components.
C.A. Golueke [A4-14] gives Wöhler curves plotted from the results of fatigue testing
conducted at resonance on resistors, for setups such that this resonance frequency is
between 120 Hz and 690 Hz (figure A4.2). His results show that the Wöhler curves
obtained for each resonance are roughly parallel. On log N − log 
x axes (acceleration),
parameter b is very close to 2. Components with the highest resonance frequency have
the longest life expectancy, which demonstrates the interest of decreasing the
component lead length to a minimum.
This work, already old (1958), also reports that the most fragile parts as regards fatigue
strength are the soldered joints and interconnections, followed by capacitors, vacuum
tubes, relays to a much lesser extent, transformers and switches.
- 115 -
Examples of Wöhler Curves of Electronic Components

Figure A4.2 [A4-14]
M. Gertel [A4-2] [A4-3] writes Basquin's equation N sb = C in the form
sb C
N = = C1
seb seb
where se is the endurance or fatigue limit.
If the excitation is sinusoidal [A4-3] and if the structure is subjected to tension-

compression, the movement of mass m is such that
y = sS
m 
s = stress in the part with section S.
If the structure is excited at resonance, we have
y = Q 
 x
and
sS
x=

mQ
Knowing that the specific damping energy D is related to the stress by
= n 2.4 if s ≤ 0.8 s e
D = J sn 
= n 8 if s > 0.8 s e
and that the Q factor can be considered as the product
Q = Km Kv
π s2
of K m = = factor of the material, dimensionless, where E is Young's modulus, times
ED
K v , dimensionless volumetric stress factor, we obtain
- 116 -
Ss Ss E D
x=
 =
m K v K m m K v π s2
SE
x=
 J sn
m Kv π s
S E J n −1
x=
 s
m Kv π
Yielding, if
S E J n−1
x el = s
m K v π el
n−1
x  s 
= 
x el  sel 
and
sb
N b = C1 ,
sel
we obtain
b
 x  n−1
N  = C1
 x el 
Yielding the value of parameter b of the resistors in the N - s axes (instead of N, 

x ):
b = 2 ( n − 1)
which, for n = 2. 4 , is equal to 2 x 1.4 = 2.8.
These low values of b are confirmed by other authors [A4-4] [A4-15] [A4-16]. Certain
concern different component technologies, up to the most recent [A4-15].
Among the published values are, for instance, those of C.E. Crede [A4-2] [A4-3]:
Resistors: b = 2.4 to 5.8

Vacuum tubes: b = 0.6
and those of E.J. Lunney, C.E. Crede [A4-4]:
Capacitors: b = 3.6 (leads)

Vacuum tubes: b = 2.83 to 2.13.
-oOo-
- 117 -
- 118 -
- APPENDIX 5 -
SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY
- 119 -
- 120 -
- APPENDIX 5 -
SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY
Uncertainties and approximations can exist for various reasons such as:
- Measurement errors.
- Relative dispersion in the levels of the real environment. There are many sources
of uncertainty in prediction of the vibration environments of aerospace systems [A5-
1] [A5-2]. The main one is the characteristic variation of the vibration levels from
one point to another on complex structures, in particular at high frequencies.
- If, for a given phase, the real environment is defined by a single sample resulting
from a short-duration measurement, a safety factor C E can be applied to cover the
possible dispersion on this value. Depending on the authors, C E can vary between
1.15 and 1.5 [A5-3]. In the case of road driving, to compensate for the uncertainties
related to variation of the characteristics of the vehicle, the terrain, the speed, the
time of year, the driver and the measurement point, G.R. Holmgren [A5-4] suggests
applying a safety factor of 1.15 to the rms value. In the case of the environment
relative to a missile flight, he applies a higher factor, equal to 1.4. If statistical
results are used (frequency spectrum defined by a mean curve plus a few standard
deviations), a factor of unity is applied.
- The dispersion in the equipment strength. For obvious reasons of cost, a single test
is generally conducted. The specimen selected belongs to a population whose
mechanical strength has a statistical distribution. By chance, the test may be
conducted on the most rugged piece of equipment. A safety factor (e.g. 1.15) is
therefore applied to the real levels to make sure that the weakest item of equipment
will be capable of withstanding the environment.
- Aging of the equipment (alteration of the strength over time, excluding fatigue and
wear). Certain items of equipment are required to operate after a long storage
period. To take this aging into account, a higher initial mechanical strength can be
required of the equipment by increasing the test levels by a certain factor (such as
1.5). If the test is conducted on equipment that is already aged, a factor of unity is
obviously applied.
- The test method, which generally requires conducting the tests sequentially on each
axis, whereas the real vibration environment is a vector resulting from the three
measured components. In some cases, a multiplier of 1.3 is applied to take into
- 121 -
account the fact that each component is necessarily less than or equal to the
modulus of the vector. [A5-3].
Remark
Two resonances are not coupled, and simultaneously excited in two different axes,
a rupture can occur in the real environment whereas the axis-by-axis test was
successful. Thus, a factor applied during the test does not necessarily solve the
problem [A5-5].
- If the real spectral distribution differs from the specified smoothed spectral
distribution, the specified spectrum may be locally exceeded [A5-6].
- The peak / rms value ratios found in flight may be higher than those existing during
qualification tests, where the test facilities limit the value to 4.5 rms or lower if
desired by the operator [A5-6].
There are therefore many reasons for applying a safety factor. However, summing all the
factors may lead to a large, irrealistic factor. They are also never all applied simultaneously.
The laudable caution in determining the test specifications should not be exaggerated.
H.D. Lawrence [A5-7], discussing vibration isolating systems (suspensions), considers that
for structures, a safety factor of 2 often leads to a dimension and weight penalty of around
20 %. In the case of random vibrations, he feels that a factor of 2 commonly leads to
penalties of 100 %.
Such factors have however been applied in the past [A5-8]:
- For acceptance tests: factors of 1 or 2 applied to the real environment depending on

the confidence in the data, with the test times preserved or increased to allow
functional testing during the tests
- For qualification tests: increase of the acceptance test levels from 3 to 6 dB and of
the test times by a factor of 3 to 5, resulting in a test that is globally four times more
severe and five times longer than the mission.
Representativity will be improved if these unconditional type "ignorance" coefficients can be

eliminated by a better understanding of the real environment. This is possible by performing
the tests on an aged equipment item, if necessary, and on a three-axis test facility if no axis
is excited predominantly over the others. Appendix 6 also provides a method to calculate a
safety factor that takes into account environment dispersions and equipment resistance,
according to a given permitted maximum failure probability.
-oOo-
- 122 -
- APPENDIX 6 -
SAFETY FACTOR
- 123 -
- 124 -
- APPENDIX 6 -
SAFETY FACTOR
A6.I- DEFINITION
The real environment, whatever its nature (sinusoidal, random or transient), is not strictly
repetitive. Several consecutive measurements of the same phenomenon give statistically
scattered results. The real environment must therefore be represented by a random variable
with a probability density, its mean E and its standard deviation σ E . Most authors consider
that the best distribution is a log-normal distribution. Others prefer a Gaussian distribution.
Similarly, all the items of equipment do not have the same static, dynamic and fatigue
strength. Their strength is distributed statistically by a curve with mean R and standard
deviation σ R . Here again, the preferred distribution is log-normal, sometimes replaced by a
Gaussian distribution. The Weibull law [A6-1] or any other law [A6-2] could be used as well.
R
The ratio is called the safety factor. This safety factor can be calculated from a quantity
E
directly describing the environment (e.g. the static acceleration incurred by equipment during
propulsion of a launch vehicle) or from the results of an analysis. For a vibration, this factor
is calculated for each frequency of the maximax response or fatigue damage spectra.
A6.II- CALCULATION OF THE SAFETY FACTOR
A6.II.1- Case of Gaussian Distributions
In mechanics, the probability that the ultimate strength R of a part is higher than the applied
stresses E for the duration of the mission considered is called the reliability. It is assumed
here that the curves characterizing the distributions of the environment and strength can be
assimilated to Gaussian curves with the form
( x − m)
2
1 −
p(x) = e 2 σ2 (A6-1)
σ 2p
The probability that the stress resulting from the environment is below the ultimate strength
of the equipment (reliability) is given by:
- 125 -
F = Prob( E < R ) = Prob( R − E > 0) (A6-2)
The failure probability is therefore equal to
P0 = 1 − F = Prob( E > R ) (A6-3)
We now propose to calculate the value of the safety factor from a maximum specified failure
probability
R
k= (A6-4)
E
If variables E and R have a Gaussian distribution, variable R − E also has a Gaussian

distribution. The reliability F is given by

−
(
x − R − E 
 )
∞ 1
∫0
2 σ 2R − E (A6-5)
F= e dx
σ R −E 2π
Considering the reduced centered variable t =

x− R−E( ) , we can write
σ R −E
t2
∞ 1 −
F= ∫ −
R −E
2π
e 2 dt (A6-6)
σ R −E
i.e., because the Gaussian distribution is symmetric,
R −E t2
1 −
F= ∫ σ R −E
−∞ 2π
e 2 dt (A6-7)
This expression can be written using the error function:
t2
x 1 −
Erf (x) = ∫0 2π
e 2 dt (A6-8)
Yielding
1 R−E
F= + Erf   (A6-9)
2  σ R −E 
 
Furthermore, knowing that

R−E= R−E (A6-10)
and that
σ R − E = σ 2E + σ 2R (A6-11)
we deduce:
- 126 -
 1 k −1
Erf −1  F −  = (A6-12)
 2  VE + k 2 VR2
2
σE σ
where VE and VR are the environment and strength coefficients of variation and R
E R
respectively [A6-3] [A6-4] [A6-5] [A6-6]. Therefore, if
 1 −1  1 
= Erf −1  F −=
aerf  Erf  − P0  and if 1 − VR2 aerf 2 ≠ 0,
 2   2 
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
0.00 1.00 1.105 1.235 1.399 1.614 1.906 2.328 2.990 4.177 6.930 28.31
0.05 1.238 1.266 1.350 1.486 1.683 1.963 2.376 3.032 4.214 6.963 20.34
0.1 1.475 1.496 1.560 1.674 1.849 2.110 2.507 3.149 4.320 7.059 20.43
0.15 1.713 1.732 1.790 1.895 2.059 2.309 2.694 3.325 4.485 7.214 20.58
0.20 1.951 1.969 2.826 2.128 2.289 2.535 2.916 3.542 4.697 7.420 20.78
0.25 2.188 2.207 2.264 2.367 2.529 2.776 3.158 3.786 4.943 7.669 21.03
0.30 2.426 2.445 2.504 2.609 2.774 3.025 3.414 4.049 5.216 7.954 21.33
0.35 2.664 2.683 2.744 2.852 3.022 3.280 3.678 4.324 5.507 8.267 21.68
0.40 2.902 2.922 2.984 3.097 3.273 3.539 3.947 4.609 5.813 8.604 22.06
Gaussian distributions - P0 = 10− 6
Table A6.1
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
0.00 1.00 1.066 1.141 1.228 1.328 1.447 1.589 1.762 1.978 2.253 2.618
0.05 1.154 1.171 1.215 1.284 1.373 1.484 1.620 1.789 2.002 2.274 2.637
0.1 1.309 1.320 1.351 1.404 1.479 1.577 1.703 1.863 2.068 2.335 2.692
0.15 1.463 1.472 1.499 1.545 1.611 1.701 1.818 1.970 2.168 2.427 2.779
0.20 1.618 1.626 1.651 1.693 1.755 1.840 1.952 2.098 2.290 2.544 2.890
0.25 1.772 1.780 1.804 1.845 1.905 1.987 2.096 2.239 2.427 2.678 3.020
0.30 1.927 1.935 1.958 1.998 2.057 2.138 2.246 2.388 2.575 2.824 3.164
0.35 2.081 2.089 2.113 2.153 2.212 2.293 2.401 2.543 2.729 2.978 3.318
0.40 2.236 2.244 2.267 2.308 2.368 2.449 2.558 2.701 2.889 3.139 3.481
Gaussian distributions - P0 = 10− 3
Table A6.2
k=
( )(
1 + 1 − 1 − VE2 aerf 2 1 − VR2 aerf 2 ) (A6-13)
(1 − VR2 aerf 2 )
For two Gaussian distributions characterized simply by their coefficients of variation VE and
VR , we thus obtain a one-to-one relation between k and P0 . Setting P0 is equivalent to
giving k and vice versa.
- 127 -
As an example, the tables A6.1 and A6.2 give k as a function of VE and VR , for P0 = 10−6
and P0 = 10−3 respectively.
Safety Factor Safety Factor

Figure A6.1 Figure A6.2
Remark
When the number of measurements used to calculate VE or VR is small, the maximum value
of this parameter for a given level of confidence can be calculated according to the method
described in Appendix 7.
A6.II.2- Case of Log-Normal Distributions
As above, the reliability is written [A6-7] [A6-8] [A6-9]:
F = Prob( E < R ) = Prob( R − E > 0) (A6-14)
and the failure probability

P0 =1 − F = Prob ( E > R ) (A6-15)
Variables E and R have log-normal distributions in this case. This means that ln E and ln R
have Gaussian distributions. Similarly ln R − ln E has a Gaussian distribution. The equation
F = Prob( E < R ) is equivalent
= to F Prob ln ( E ) < ln ( R )  , i.e. to
=F Prob ( ln R − ln E ) > 0  (A6-16)
i.e. to
 R 
=F Prob  ln > 0  (A6-17)
 E 
x − ( ln R − ln E )
Yielding, where t is the reduced centered variable t = :
σ ln R − ln E
ln R − ln E t2
1 −
F= ∫
−∞
σ ln R − ln E
2π
e 2 dt (A6-18)
- 128 -
i.e.
 R 
1  ln 
F= + Erf  E 
(A6-19)
2 σ R 
 ln 
 E 
It can easily be demonstrated that
ln R − ln E = ln R − ln E (A6-20)
σ ln R −ln E = σ 2ln E + σ 2ln R (A6-21)
The mean m and standard deviation σ of the log-normal distribution of a variable x are
moreover related to the mean mln and standard deviation σ ln of the corresponding
Gaussian distribution by the equations:
σ 2ln x
ln x +
x=e 2 (A6-22)
=σ 2x e
( 2 ln x +σ )  e σ
2
ln x
2

− 1 (A6-23)

ln x
 
or, conversely
 σ2 
σ ln x= ln 1 + x  (A6-24)
 x 2 

and
ln x ln x 2 −
=
1
2
(
ln x 2 + σ 2x ) (A6-25)
Yielding
1 + VE2
ln R − ln E = ln k + ln (A6-26)
1 + VR2
σ ln R − ln E = (
 )(
ln  1 + VE2 1 + VR2 
 ) (A6-27)
and
1 + VE2
ln k + ln
 1 1  1 + VR2 (A6-28)
Erf −1  F − =
 Erf  − P0=

 2 2 
(
ln  1 + VE2 1 + VR2 
  )( )
 1
=
Setting aerf Erf −1  F −  , yields:
 2
- 129 -
 1 + VE2 
=k exp aerf
 (1 + )(1 + )
VE2 VR2 − ln
1 + VR2 
(A6-29)
 
Remark
In this equation, safety factor k depends only on VE , and VR and, through aerf , on the
failure probability P0 .
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
0.00 1.00 1.270 1.615 2.055 2.615 3.323 4.215 5.332 6.724
0.05 1.267 1.399 1.706 2.133 2.689 3.399 4.295 5.419 6.819
0.10 1.599 1.693 1.955 2.361 2.912 3.626 4.536 5.680 7.107
0.15 2.010 2.092 2.332 2.726 3.278 4.006 4.940 6.119 7.591
0.20 2.514 2.592 2.828 3.222 3.786 4.540 5.512 6.742 8.280
0.25 3.127 3.207 3.447 3.855 4.443 5.235 6.260 7.560 9.184
0.30 3.867 3.950 4.203 4.634 5.259 6.102 7.196 8.584 10.32
0.35 4.75 4.840 5.111 5.574 6.247 7.156 8.335 9.830 11.69
0.40 5.796 5.893 6.188 6.692 7.423 8.412 9.693 11.31 13.33
Lois Log-normal distributions - P0 = 10− 6
Table A6.3
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
0.00 1.000 1.168 1.368 1.603 1.881 2.206 2.586 3.029 3.542
0.05 1.166 1.244 1.417 1.642 1.915 2.238 2.617 3.059 3.573
0.10 1.354 1.406 1.546 1.752 2.013 2.331 2.708 3.150 3.665
0.15 1.568 1.610 1.730 1.919 2.170 2.481 2.856 3.299 3.818
0.20 1.808 1.846 1.955 2.133 2.376 2.683 3.058 3.504 4.027
0.25 2.076 2.111 2.216 2.388 2.627 2.933 3.309 3.760 4.292
0.30 2.373 2.407 2.509 2.679 2.917 3.226 3.607 4.066 4.608
0.35 2.698 2.732 2.835 3.005 3.246 3.559 3.948 4.417 4.973
0.40 3.053 3.088 3.191 3.365 3.611 3.931 4.330 4.812 5.384
Log normal distributions - P0 = 10− 3
Table A6.4
If the failure mode considered is fatigue fracture, E is the fatigue damage created by the
environment (fatigue damage spectrum at a given natural frequency) and R is the ultimate
damage.
If the failure mode is exceeding of a limit stress (ultimate stress for instance), R is this limit
and E, depending on the case, is the static acceleration applied to the equipment, the value
of the MRS or the value of the SRS at a given frequency.
- 130 -
Safety Factor Safety Factor

Remark
If one of the variation coefficients is estimated from a small number of measurements, the
formula indicated in Appendix 7 can be used for processing the logarithms of the measured
values (which are based on a Gaussian law), and Vmax , can be deduced for a given level of
confidence. But we do not know how to simply calculate the variation coefficient V that
enters in the relation (A6-29), from Vmax . The difficulty can be avoided using the expression
(A6-24), which links the standard deviation σ ln x to Vx2 . For a given number of
measurements n and a level of confidence P0 , the maximum limit of the confidence interval
including σ ln x , i.e. σ ln x , can be calculated using the following formula.
max
n−1
sln x = sln x
max χ 21− P0
, n −1
2
and the maximum value of Vx can be deduced using
σ 2ln x
Vx max = e max −1
If the two variation coefficients are estimated from a small number of measurements, the
logarithm of the values can be calculated and the Gaussian laws can be used to evaluate the
maximum value of the variation coefficients on the one hand, and the guarantee coefficient
on the other.
A6.III- INFLUENCE OF THE CHOICE OF DISTRIBUTION LAWS
The figures A6.5 and A6.6 allow a comparison between the guarantee coefficient k obtained
as a function of VE for several values of VR , and the Gaussian laws:
1 1 1-aerf 2 VE2
k= + -
1-aerf 2 VR2
(1-aerf 2VR2 )
2
1-aerf 2 VR2
- 131 -
and with log-normal distributions:
=k
1 + VR2
1+ VE2

 
( )( )



exp aerf ln  1 + VR2 1 + VE2  
( aerf corresponds to a given failure probability P). These curves show that:
• When VE and VR are very small, the results are very similar.
• The curves diverge very fast when VE and VR increase.
• Log-normal distributions lead to lower safety factors than Gaussian distribution

when VE is small and to higher safety factors when VE is large, (for a given
VR ≠ 0 ).
Influence of the Distribution Laws Influence of the Distribution Laws

The following figures show the results obtained as a function of VR for a few values of VE
with both types of distributions.
It can be seen that:
• The remarks made on

the above curves are of
course confirmed
• Furthermore, there is a
vertical asymptote in the
case of Gaussian
distributions.
It can be shown that this

asymptote occurs when:
Influence of the Distribution Laws 1 − aerf 2 VR2 = 0

Figure A6.7
- 132 -
1
VR = (A6.30)
aerf
A limit value of VR therefore

corresponds to each probability
level P0 .. The figure A6.9 below
shows the variations of this limit
value versus P0 and the table
A6.5 gives a few individual
values.
These differences in behavior

are due to the difference
between the distributions at high
values and to the negative
Influence of the Distribution Laws values existing with a Gaussian
distribution [A6.10].
Figure A6.8
All these remarks show that in
the range of practical values of
VE and VR , the form of
distribution selected has an
impact.
Limit Value of VR
Figure A6.9 Table A6.5
-oOo-
- 133 -
- 134 -
- APPENDIX 7 -
STATISTICAL ASPECT
OF
THE REAL ENVIRONMENT
- 135 -
- 136 -
- APPENDIX 7 -
STATISTICAL ASPECT
OF
THE REAL ENVIRONMENT
Experience shows that the loads measured in the real environment are random in nature
[A7-1] [A7-2]. Spectrum analyses (PDSs, shock response spectra) are often given in the
literature as statistical curves: spectra at 95 %, 50 %, etc. Certain authors [A7-3] note that
the envelope spectrum is very close to the 95 % spectrum.
W.B. Keegan [A7-4] points out that the value of the mean amplitude plus two standard
deviations is located between the 93 % and 96 % probability levels. He concludes that the
best estimator of the amplitude at the 95 % probability level is the mean plus two standard
deviations.
A7.I- DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS
The mathematical form of most statistical load distributions is not known. The available data
suggest that the median range of variation is approximately normal, log-normal or follows an
extrema pattern, but the probabilities of high loads are poorly defined [A7-5].
Table A7.1 summarizes the opinions of different authors on the choice of the best suited
distribution. A number of authors choose a Gaussian distribution because it is the most
common as an initial approximation and easier to use [A7-6]. Many authors prefer a log-
normal distribution, feeling that the Gaussian distribution is not a good model since it has
negative values [A7-7] [A7-8].
The main difference between the normal and log-normal distributions is in the area of the
high values. The tail of the log-normal distribution curve indicates a higher probability of
having large deviations from the median value [A7-9].
- 137 -
DISTRIBUTION AUTHOR
PHENOMENON ANALYSIS OBSERVATIONS
FUNCTION REFERENCE
Log-normal W.B. Keegan [A7-4]
Shock SRS Pyrotechnic shock
Log-normal J.M. Medaglia [A7-10]
Acoustic noise PSD Log-normal W.B. Keegan [A7-4] Launch vehicles
Aircraft
PSD Log-normal A.G. Piersol [A7-11]
Launch vehicles
PSD Log-normal W.B. Keegan [A7-4] Launch vehicles
Random H.N. McGregor
PSD Log-normal
[A7-12]
PSD Log-normal C.V. Stahle [A7-13] Launch vehicles
PSD
Log-normal J.M. Medaglia [A7-10]
MRS
vibrations PSD Log-normal F. Condos [A7-14] Launch vehicles
PSD Log-normal R.E. Barret [A7-15]
C.V. Stahle,
Maximax response
MRS Log-normal H.G. Gongloff et
W.B. Keegan [A7-16]
Normal J.W. Schlue [A7-3]
Table A7.1
A Gaussian distribution can be sufficient

when the volume of data is small and
the uncertainty is large. A log-normal
distribution appears relatively good
although experience shows that it often
gives conservative probability estimates
[A7-7].
A.G. Piersol [A7-11] gives the curves

opposite showing a good agreement of
experimental data with a log-normal
distribution:
- Vibration levels measured in a 50 Hz

band in different locations on a Titan III
tank dome
- Levels measured in 1/3 octave bands

in different locations of an external
aircraft store, after correction taking
into account the differences in dynamic
pressure and surface densities.
Example of P.S.D. Distribution

Figure A7.1 [A7-11]
- 138 -
A7.II- DISPERSIONS - COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OBSERVED IN PRACTICE
A7.II.1- Bibliography
The analysis of the data of A.G. Piersol [A7-11] shows that the dispersion amplitude
expressed in dB (characterized by the standard deviation σ y of random variable
y = 20 log x ) in the rms vibration level in a narrow band tends to be located in the 5 - 8 dB
range for conventional aerospace structures.
This corresponds to a coefficient of variation(6) for the rms values equal to
σ2y 75.44
VE = e −1
and between 0.63 and 1.16.
B58 landing: VE = 0. 87 to 1.16 (6.5 dB to 8 dB)

analyzed in octave
Saturn V - Launch: VE = 0. 63 to 1.16 (5 dB to 8 dB)
Titan III - External stores: VE = 0. 63 to 0.78 (5 dB to 6 dB)
Remark
These standard deviations correspond to levels located in a very wide range.
Other values can be found in the literature, such as coefficients of variation of 5 % to 30 % in

shock and vibration amplitudes from 50 % to 100 % for launch vehicles [A7-17] [A7-18]. No
upper limit of these loads was detected in flight [A7-1].
12
y = ln x , we have V = eσ − 1
2
(6) In effect, for a log-normal distribution of x, if
2
20  20 
If y = 20 log x , we have a ratio  = 75.4447 on σ . Yielding
2
on y and 
ln 10  ln 10 
=V e
σ 2y ( 20 ln 10 ) 2 − 1
- 139 -
Example
Standard deviation of
6 dB: the difference
between the 97.5 % and
50 % vibration levels
corresponds to a ratio of
4 to 1 for the rms values
(16 to 1 for the PSDs).
The curves of Figure A7.2

show the distribution
function for σ y = 6 dB
and for two values of m (0
and 1). A factor
approximately equal to 4
is found between the rms
values read for
Example of Distribution Function of the P.S.D.s P = 97. 5 % and P = 50 %.
Figure A7.2
A7.II.2- Examples Taken from a Data Base
The data given in the bibliography appear to show that the variation coefficient can reach
values greater than the unit. Some examples of values calculated on spectra resulting from
measurements taken on different carriers (missile, fighter aircraft, truck) are given later.
Shocks and Vibrations Measured on a Missile
The analysis of these data evidenced a few interesting features:
- In the case of shocks, the coefficient VE = σ E E calculated from the shock

spectra:
• Varies substantially with the damping used in calculation of the spectra.
• Is different according to the phenomenon measured.
• Varies with the frequency. The highest values are observed at the
frequencies of the peaks in the shock spectra.
• Even for highly reproducible phenomena such as certain stage separation

shocks, VE is relatively large (between 0.1 and 0.5 for a very realistic
damping equal to 0.07).
- 140 -
• For certain other shocks, VE varies instead between 0.2 and 1 (always for
ξ = 0. 07 ).
- In the case of random vibrations, coefficient VE calculated from the power spectral
densities:
• Can reach very high values of around 2.
• Varies enormously with the frequency.
• In spite of these high values, the ratio

VE calculated from the rms values of
the spectral densities does not exceed a value of 0.9 for the examples
used.
Vibrations with Store Carried under Fighter Aircraft
The variations of coefficient VE relative to an external store, calculated versus the

frequency, were analyzed based on:
• The power spectral densities of the signal.
• The corresponding robustness spectra for Q = 10 .
• The fatigue damage spectra for two values of parameter b (4 and 10).
It was observed that
- The coefficient of variation calculated from the PSDs varied between approximately
0.6 and 1.2 (coefficient VE calculated with the rms values was equal to 0.33).
- The coefficient of variation calculated with the ruggedness spectra varied between
approximately 0.3 and 0.4 and the limit at high frequencies was also around 0.33.
which was consistent with the properties of the ruggedness spectra in this range
- Coefficient VE calculated from the fatigue damage spectra differed according to the
value chosen for parameter b. The higher b, the higher this coefficient. This
phenomenon, which could appear to pose a problem, actually does not raise any
difficulties, since the specification resulting from these computations is not sensitive
to the choice of b.
Vibrations Relative to Truck Transportation
The dispersion calculated on the PSDs is lower than above. It is approximately between 0.2
and 0.4 in the relevant frequency range.
These remarks clearly show that it is not realistic to choose an a priori envelope value for all
the coefficients of variation of the real environment. Considering the differences between
phenomena and the variations observed according to the frequency, this envelope value
would necessarily be very penalizing. Insofar as possible, it appears preferable to:
- 141 -
- Individualize the coefficient of variation for each type of environment.
- Use real VE ( f ) curves rather than an envelope value.
Example of Variation Coefficient Example of Variation Coefficient

Example of Variation Coefficient Example of Variation Coefficient

As an example, the figures A7.3 to A7.6 show the variations of the coefficient of variation
versus the measurement frequency of vibrations measured on the platform of a truck
(10 measurements). The coefficient of variation was calculated on
• The power spectral densities (Fig. A7.3). The coefficient of variation

calculated from the rms values was equal to 0.04.
• The maximax response spectra plotted for ξ = 0.05 (Fig. A7.4).
• The fatigue damage spectra ( ξ = 0.05, Fig. A7.5 for b = 10 , Fig. A7.6 for
b = 4 ).
- 142 -
A7.III- ESTIMATION OF THE VARIATION COEFFICIENT - CALCULATION OF ITS

MAXIMUM VALUE
In the above examples, the variation coefficient has been calculated from approximately ten
samples. Although this number is low for statistical estimations, it is hardly ever reached in
practice. This is why it would be more correct to determine, for a given level of confidence,
the interval of confidence where the variation coefficient can be located, and, in order to be
conservative in the calculations that will be performed later from taking this parameter as a
basis, to select the highest value of this interval.
Given a phenomenon that obeys a Gaussian law, it is widely admitted in the literature that
the variation coefficient ( Vmeasured ) calculated from an estimate of the average and the
n
standard deviation of a population is a random variable such as which obeys a
Vmeasured
non-central t-distribution with f = n − 1 degrees of freedom; off-centering is equal to
n
δ= (n = number of measurements) [A7-19] [A7-20] [A7-21] [A7-22] [A7-23]. This law
Vtrue
has been tabulated [A7-22] [A7-24] [A7-25] [A7-26] [A7-27] [A7-28]. Figures A7.7 and A7.8
respectively show, as an example, the probability densities and the distribution functions of
this law for n = 10 , and δ equal to 0, 2, 4 and 6.
Non Central t-Distribution Non Central t-Distribution

The variation coefficient can be estimated as follows:
- from the available tables. These cannot be accessed easily (old issues) and are
difficult to use (interpolations required).
 n 
- from an approximate calculation. This is to find δ such=
as P  t , d  is
 Vmeasured 

equal to a given probability P0 (probability so that the true variation coefficient is
lower than the maximum value thus determined). δ is then used to calculate
- 143 -
n
Vmax = . The calculation of δ is based on the remark that one of the quantities
δ
 1   1 
t 1 − −δ t n − 1 1 − −δ

 4 ( n − 1)  
 4 ( n − 1) 
u= and u = obeys a Gaussian law (where
t2 t2
1+ 1+
2 ( n − 1) 2
n
t= ) [A7-29].
Vmeasured
This method allows a relatively simple semi-analytical calculation to be performed

from the error function and its approximate expression (series development).
Example
The figure A7.9 shows the maximum

variation coefficient calculated from
approximate relations, for an estimated
variation coefficient taken from 5, 10,
20 and 50 measurements respectively,
and with a level of confidence of 90 %.
This type of calculation can also be

performed to estimate the variation
coefficient of the resistance of a
material, from n number of tests.
Maximum Variation Coefficient

Figure A7.9
- from tables composed by random selection of values, following a Gaussian law [A7-
30] [A7-31]. The tables A7.2 and A7.3 show, as an example, the maximum value of
the variation coefficient in relation to the n number of measurements, at levels of
confidence of 90 % and 80 %, for different values of the variation coefficient
estimated from the n measurements.
- 144 -
Estimated Variation Coefficient (%)

n 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1 / / / / / / / / / /
2 0.4722 0.9927 2.9117 7.7939 23.103 35.508 196.46 281.74 587.86 771.08
3 0.1534 0.3131 0.6892 1.0996 1.6946 2.5083 3.7954 6.0189 11.366 48.253
4 0.1130 0.2280 0.4733 0.7362 1.0578 1.4558 1.9669 2.6403 3.5866 5.0357
5 0.0968 0.1947 0.3988 0.6060 0.8576 1.1470 1.4947 1.9198 2.4545 3.1623
6 0.0880 0.1769 0.3603 0.5420 0.7581 1.0023 1.2815 1.6132 2.0121 2.5022
7 0.0824 0.1656 0.3363 0.5033 0.6981 0.9160 1.1605 1.4412 1.7704 2.1625
8 0.0785 0.1577 0.3197 0.4773 0.6582 0.8584 1.0810 1.3313 1.6192 1.9549
9 0.0757 0.1518 0.3075 0.4584 0.6297 0.8176 1.0246 1.2549 1.5151 1.8144
10 0.0734 0.1474 0.2981 0.4440 0.6082 0.7867 0.9822 1.1976 1.4387 1.7115
11 0.0717 0.1438 0.2905 0.4326 0.5912 0.7627 0.9491 1.1540 1.3798 1.6341
12 0.0702 0.1408 0.2844 0.4233 0.5776 0.7433 0.9228 1.1185 1.3338 1.5730
13 0.0690 0.1383 0.2792 0.4156 0.5662 0.7274 0.9010 1.0896 1.2954 1.5233
14 0.0679 0.1362 0.2748 0.4092 0.5567 0.7139 0.8829 1.0656 1.2641 1.4821
15 0.0670 0.1344 0.2710 0.4037 0.5487 0.7025 0.8674 1.0451 1.2374 1.4478
16 0.0662 0.1328 0.2677 0.3988 0.5416 0.6929 0.8541 1.0277 1.2149 1.4187
17 0.0655 0.1314 0.2647 0.3945 0.5353 0.6839 0.8421 1.0116 1.1939 1.3917
18 0.0649 0.1301 0.2622 0.3910 0.5302 0.6773 0.8330 0.9995 1.1784 1.3720
19 0.0643 0.1290 0.2599 0.3877 0.5254 0.6704 0.8241 0.9875 1.1630 1.3523
20 0.0638 0.1280 0.2577 0.3847 0.5212 0.6644 0.8159 0.9772 1.1494 1.3346
25 0.0619 0.1240 0.2496 0.3737 0.5052 0.6423 0.7860 0.9377 1.0985 1.2694
30 0.0606 0.1213 0.2440 0.3668 0.4950 0.6280 0.7669 0.9125 1.0659 1.2282
Level of Confidence of 90 %
Tableau A7.2
Estimated Variation Coefficient (%)

n 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1 / / / / / / / / / /
2 0.2142 0.4487 1.0386 1.8191 2.8842 4.5547 7.0104 10.947 19.114 38.839
3 0.1062 0.2159 0.4553 0.7007 1.0038 1.3608 1.7865 2.3025 2.9393 3.7498
4 0.0865 0.1741 0.3581 0.5415 0.7556 0.9967 1.2700 1.5823 1.9419 2.3620
5 0.0779 0.1566 0.3190 0.4781 0.6604 0.8601 1.0813 1.3263 1.6024 1.9116
6 0.0731 0.1467 0.2976 0.4437 0.6097 0.7886 0.9829 1.1963 1.4311 1.6907
7 0.0699 0.1403 0.2840 0.4221 0.5775 0.7436 0.9224 1.1162 1.3272 1.5573
8 0.0677 0.1358 0.2744 0.4071 0.5553 0.7130 0.8811 1.0621 1.2573 1.4679
9 0.0660 0.1323 0.2672 0.3962 0.5390 0.6904 0.8509 1.0224 1.2066 1.4041
10 0.0647 0.1297 0.2616 0.3877 0.5266 0.6730 0.8279 0.9925 1.1681 1.3554
11 0.0636 0.1275 0.2571 0.3810 0.5167 0.6594 0.8098 0.9688 1.1376 1.3174
12 0.0628 0.1257 0.2534 0.3755 0.5087 0.6483 0.7951 0.9495 1.1131 1.2865
13 0.0620 0.1243 0.2502 0.3708 0.5021 0.6391 0.7826 0.9336 1.0929 1.2612
14 0.0614 0.1230 0.2475 0.3670 0.4964 0.6313 0.7724 0.9202 1.0758 1.2400
15 0.0608 0.1218 0.2452 0.3637 0.4916 0.6246 0.7635 0.9029 1.0613 1.2217
16 0.0603 0.1209 0.2432 0.3609 0.4875 0.6189 0.7558 0.8990 1.0488 1.2062
17 0.0599 0.1200 0.2414 0.3583 0.4838 0.6137 0.7489 0.8902 1.0376 1.1918
18 0.0595 0.1192 0.2398 0.3562 0.4807 0.6096 0.7437 0.8830 1.0288 1.1808
19 0.0592 0.1185 0.2383 0.3543 0.4779 0.6057 0.7383 0.8763 1.0202 1.1702
20 0.0589 0.1179 0.2370 0.3526 0.4754 0.6022 0.7337 0.8703 1.0124 1.1607
25 0.0577 0.1154 0.2319 0.3463 0.4660 0.5894 0.7166 0.8480 0.9843 1.1253
30 0.0568 0.1137 0.2284 0.3423 0.4603 0.5814 0.7058 0.8340 0.9663 1.1029
Level of Confidence of 80 %
Tableau A7.3
- 145 -
The table A7.4, was drawn up to underline the influence of the level of confidence value. It
gives the maximum variation coefficient to be used when the estimated value equals 10 %,
according to n,
Level of Confidence (%)

n 50 60 70 80 90
1 / / / / /
2 0,1533 0.1986 0.2861 0.4487 0.9927
3 0.1222 0.1425 0.1706 0.2159 0.3131
4 0.1131 0.1276 0.1463 0.1741 0.2280
5 0.1094 0.1211 0.1357 0.1566 0.1947
6 0.1074 0.1174 0.1297 0.1467 0.1769
7 0.1061 0.1150 0.1257 0.1403 0.1656
8 0.1052 0.1132 0.1228 0.1358 0.1577
9 0.1045 0.1119 0.1207 0.1323 0.1518
10 0.1040 0.1109 0.1190 0.1297 0.1474
11 0.1035 0.1100 0.1176 0.1275 0.1438
12 0.1032 0.1094 0.1165 0.1257 0.1408
13 0.1029 0.1088 0.1155 0.1243 0.1383
14 0.1027 0.1083 0.1147 0.1230 0.1362
15 0.1025 0.1079 0.1140 0.1218 0.1344
16 0.1023 0.1075 0.1133 0.1209 0.1328
17 0.1022 0.1071 0.1128 0.1200 0.1314
18 0.1021 0.1068 0.1123 0.1192 0.1301
19 0.1019 0.1066 0.1118 0.1185 0.1290
20 0.1018 0.1063 0.1114 0.1179 0.1280
25 0.1014 0.1054 0.1099 0.1154 0.1240
30 0.1012 0.1048 0.1088 0.1137 0.1213
Tableau A7.4
Comparison of the Calculation Methods
Level of Confidence
0.50 0.80 0.90
n Selection VC Analytical VC Selection VC Analytical VC Selection VC Analytical VC
2 0.1533 0.1334 0.4487 0.6559 0.9927 /
3 0.1222 0.1143 0.2159 0.2213 0.3131 0.4351
4 0.1131 0.1091 0.1741 0.1752 0.2280 0.2568
5 0.1094 0.1067 0.1566 0.1568 0.1947 0.2080
6 0.1074 0.1053 0.1467 0.1467 0.1769 0.1847
7 0.1061 0.1044 0.1403 0.1401 0.1656 0.1709
8 0.1052 0.1037 0.1358 0.1356 0.1577 0.1616
9 0.1045 0.1032 0.1323 0.1322 0.1518 0.1549
10 0.1040 0.1029 0.1297 0.1295 0.1474 0.1498
15 0.1025 0.1018 0.1218 0.1217 0.1344 0.1356
20 0.1018 0.1013 0.1179 0.1178 0.1280 0.1287
25 0.1014 0.1011 0.1154 0.1153 0.1240 0.1246
30 0.1012 0.1009 0.1137 0.1136 0.1213 0.1217
Tableau A7.5
- 146 -
The values of the maximum variation coefficient, calculated by the approximate method, are
very close to the values deduced by selection, for n higher than about 4 (according to the P0
value). An example is given in Table A7.5 for an estimated variation coefficient of 0.10.
-oOo-
- 147 -
- 148 -
- APPENDIX 8 -
STRENGTH
DISTRIBUTION
- 149 -
- 150 -
- APPENDIX 8 -
STRENGTH DISTRIBUTION
Equipment strength is itself a random variable [A8-1] [A8-2] [A8-3] [A8-4]. The dispersion
can have two main origins: a dispersion in the characteristics of the materials and in the
structures (manufacturing allowances, manufacturing processes, residual stresses, etc.). A
large amount of data exists in the literature on the first.
On a given lot of mechanical parts, static and dynamic tests show that properties such as the
elastic limit, the ultimate strength, and the fatigue limit have a random character and can
only be evaluated statistically [A8-5].
The strength cannot be negative, zero or infinite, but its limit is never known with accuracy.
In the calculations, it is therefore made to vary between zero and infinity.
A8.I- DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS
Experience shows that Gaussian, log-normal and Weibull distributions can be used in most
cases to represent material strength, both for failures resulting from exceeding of a threshold
value and failures concerning fatigue [A8-6] [A8-7].
Certain authors consider that the distribution is approximately Gaussian [A8-7] [A8-8], others
that it is probably log-normal since a Gaussian distribution can exhibit negative values [A8-9]
[A8-10]. A Gaussian distribution can however be an acceptable approximation.
A log-normal distribution appears to give more realistic practical results in all cases [A8-11]
[A8-12]. An extrema distribution is also used in some cases [A8-12] as well as a Weibull
distribution [A8-13].
From a compilation of 262 test results, A.M. Freudenthal and P.Y. Wang [A8-14] established
an empirical relation giving the ultimate stress distribution of aeronautical structures
(assuming that all the structures belonged to the same population, regardless of the
structure and failure mode), based on a Weibull distribution:
- 151 -
  λ 19 
F = 1 − exp −  
  0.96  
yielding
Uλtimate strength
λ=
Mean vaλue of the uλtimate strength
More detailed analyses by type of structure were made by other authors [A8-15].
In the case of fatigue damage, it is generally considered that the life expectancy has a log-
normal distribution, which appears to be consistent with experimental data.
Other distributions were proposed. They are better adapted in certain areas of the Wöhler
curve [A8-16]. However, a log-normal distribution remains a valid model for a large variety of
variables of planned structures. It correctly explains the variations in life expectancy and is
relatively easy to use [A8-17] [A8-18] [A8-19]. Other authors proposed a Weibull distribution
based on physical and mathematical considerations.
A8.II- A FEW VALUES OF THE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
Generally, the dispersions measured on strength are smaller that those observed on loading
(values characterizing the real environment) [A8-20] [A8-21].
A8.II.1- Static Strength
Below are given a few values of the coefficient of variation for the strength of a few materials
taken from the literature. It should be noted that these values were generally obtained from
measurements made on small specimens. C.O. Albrecht [A8-22] notes that the few values
available to him appear to show that the coefficients are larger for large specimens.
- 152 -
AUTHOR Ref. MATERIAL TEST TYPE VR (%)
W. Barrois [A8-23] Aerospace metallic Tensile 1 to 19

materials
T. Yokobori [A8-24] Cast iron Ultimate strength 8.8
Mild steel Ultimate tensile 5.1

strength
R.E. Blake [A8-25] Metal structures Static strength 3 to 30
R. Cestier [A8-8] Review of data from Static strength ≤ 8 (Gauss)

the Metals Handbook
J.P. Garde
[A8-26] (3500 tests)
C.V. Stahle [A8-3] 21

(Log-normal)
A.G. Piersol [A8-20] 5 (Gauss)
P.H.Wirsching [A8-27] Light alloys 65 to 98
Steels 45 to 92
Composites 68 to 73
(Log-normal)
N.I. Bullen [A8-28] Light alloy structures 3
Wood 7
Molded light alloy parts 10
Glass (plate) 20 (Gauss)
P. Albrecht [A8-29] Beams 6 to 22
Laparlière [A8-30] Composites Interlaminar shear 1.8 to 5.6

Liberge according to
temperature
P.H. Wirsching [A8-31] Traction < 10
Table A8.1
- 153 -
A8.II.2- Fatigue Failure
A8.II.2.1- Coefficients of Variation of Fatigue Strength Stresses for a Given N
AUTHOR
Ref. MATERIAL TEST TYPE VR (%)
Steels Ultimate
J.C. Ligeron [A8-32] 4.4 to 9.4
Alloys endurance limit
Ultimate
T. Yokobori [A8-24] Mild steel 2.5 to 11.3
endurance limit
E. Mehl
[A8-33] SAE 4340 steel 30 to 95
R.F. Epremian
Large variety of Ultimate fatigue strength
P.H. Wirsching [A8-31] 5 to 15
metallic materials (N given)
Table A8.2
A8.II.2.2- Coefficients of Variation of the Number of Cycles to Failure
AUTHOR Ref. MATERIAL TEST TYPE VR (%)

Steels su ≤ 240 ksi 36
Steels su > 240 ksi 48

I.C. Whittaker [A8-34]
P.M. Besuner
Aluminum alloy 27
Titanium alloy 36
(Log-normal)
4340 steel 14.7
T. Endo [A8-35]
7075-T6 Low cycle 17.6
J.D. Morrow
fatigue
P.H. Wirsching [A8-36] 2024-T4 (<103)
19.7
J.T.P. Yao Titanium 811 65.8
SAE 1006 steel 25.1
Maraging steel Narrow-band

S.R. Swanson [A8-37] grade 200 random noise 38.6
fatigue
Maraging steel
18% nickel 69.0
T.R. Gurney [A8-38] Welded structures Mean 52
Table A8.3
- 154 -
VR (%)
R. Blake Aerospace
[A8-1] Random loads 3 - 30
W.S. Baird components
Epremian Steels 2.04 - 8.81

[A8-39] σ log mlog Log-normal
Mehl Log-normal distribution
distribution
A.H.S. Ang
[A8-40] Welded joints 52
W.H. Munse
I.C. Whittaker [A8-41] Steel UTS ≤ 240 ksi 36
Steel UTS > 240 ksi 48
Aluminum alloys 22
Titanium alloys 36
P.H. Wirsching [A8-42] Welded joints (pipes) 70 - 150
P.H. Wirsching Plastic strain 15 - 30

[A8-43] RQC - 100 Q
Y.T. Wu Elastic strain 55
Waspaloy B Plastic strain 42
Nickel-base
superalloys Elastic strain 55
VR, often around 30 % to 40 %, can be up to
75 % and even exceed 100 %.
P.H. Wirsching [A8-31] Low cycle domain: 20 % to 40 % for most
metal alloys.
For N large, VR can exceed 100 %.
Steel
T. Yokobori [A8-24] 28 - 130
Rotary bending or tension-compression
T.J. Dolan 75.S-T aluminum alloy
[A8-44] 44 - 80
H.F. Brown Rotary bending
T.J. Dolan 7075.T6 aluminum alloy
[A8-45] 10 - 100
G.M. Sinclair Rotary bending
Mild steel
J.C. Levy [A8-46] 43 - 75
Rotary bending
I. Konishi Notched plates - SS41 steel
[A8-47] 18 - 43
M. Shinozuka Alternate tensile loading
M. Matolcsy [A8-48] Review of test results 20 - 90
S. Tanaka Silver/nickel wires
[A8-49] 16 - 21
S. Akita Alternate bending
Table A8.4
- 155 -
A8.II.2.3- Coefficients of Variation of Ultimate Fatigue Strength
n
The ultimate fatigue strength ∆ = ∑ Ni can be considered as a random variable in order to
i i
quantify the uncertainties associated with the use of a simple model for describing a
complicated physical phenomenon. The corresponding coefficient of variation was
estimated by a number of authors:
AUTHOR Ref. MATERIAL VR (%)

[A8-42] Tubular structures 16 to 98
P.H. Wirsching [A8-50] The author recommends VR = 30 % (log-normal
[A8-51] and ∆ = 1 distribution)
Aluminum (389 specimens) 65
Steel (90 specimens) 76

P.H. Wirsching [A8-27]
Steel (87 specimens) 45
Composite (479 specimens) 68 to 73
Aluminum alloys
W.T. Kirkby [A8-52] 98
7075 - T6, 2024 - T3, 2024 T4, etc.
Dolan - Richart -Work [A8-53] 27 to 98
Table A8.5
-oOo-
- 156 -
- APPENDIX 9 -
AGING FACTOR
- 157 -
- 158 -
- APPENDIX 9 -
AGING FACTOR
A9.I- PURPOSE OF THE AGING FACTOR
Qualification tests demonstrate that a piece of equipment is able when tested to withstand
the vibration conditions described in its life cycle profile. However, if this equipment is not
used until several years after its qualification, its strength may decrease due to aging in such
proportions that it is no longer capable of withstanding its vibration environment.
To solve this problem, one solution consists of requiring higher strength of new equipment,
calculated so that after aging and degrading, the residual strength is sufficient to withstand
the vibration and shocks of the life cycle profile. This additional strength can be expressed by
an aging factor applied when writing the specifications. It is calculated by making an
assumption on degrading of the equipment over time [A9-1].
A9.II- AGING FUNCTIONS USED IN RELIABILITY
Let Pv be the probability of operation related to aging. Pv is a function of time that can be
approximated by several functions such as [A9-2]:
- The Weibull function:
 ( t − λ )β 
Pv exp  −
=  (A9-1)
 η 
 
where β, λ and η are constants.
- The Gaussian function, a special case of the above:
1 ∞  ( t − m)2 
=Pv
σ 2p ∫t exp  −
 2 σ 2 
 dt (A9-2)
 
m = mean
σ = standard deviation.
- 159 -
Below, we will use this function, easier to manipulate and including fewer parameters to be
determined. However, this is not a limitation on the method proposed, which could be
applied with any equation provided the numerical data necessary for its definition are
available.
Equation (A9-2) can be written in different forms facilitating numerical calculations. Let us
set:
t−m
u= (A9-3)
σ
u2
1 ∞ −
Pv =
2π u ∫ e 2 du (A9-4)
If u > 0 ,
u2
1 1 u −
Pv=
2
−
2π 0 ∫ e 2 du (A9-5)
and if u < 0
u2
1 1 u −
Pv=
2
+
2π 0 ∫ e 2 du (A9-6)
Yielding, in the general case(7)
u2
1 1 u −
Pv=
2
− sgn(u)
2π 0 ∫ e 2 du (A9-7)
knowing that the error function can be defined by
2 x −t 2
π ∫0
Erf (x) = e dt (A9-8)
and that
t2
 x  2 x −
Erf 
 2
=
π 0 ∫ e 2 dt (A9-9)
the probability Pv can also be written in the form
1  u 
=
Pv 1 − sgn(u) Erf    (A9-10)
2  
 2  
(7) sgn( ) = sign of ( )
- 160 -
Example
σ
Let us assume that = 01
. and that, after a time t = 10 years, probability Pv is equal to
m
0.999.
m
It is checked that at t = 0 , since u = − ,
σ
u2
1 ∞ −
Pv =
2π ∫
−
m e 2 du (A9-11)
σ
m u2
1 1 −
Pv=
2
+
2π ∫
0
σ e 2 du (A9-12)
m
Pv is very close to unity ( = 10) . If t = 10 years, in order for Pv = 0. 999 , it is necessary
σ
for
m = 14 years
therefore,
σ = 1. 4 years
A9.III- METHOD FOR CALCULATING AGING FACTOR
Let P0 be the probability of correct operation at time t = 0 , demonstrated by a test conducted

with a specification based on coefficient k developed in Appendix 6 (reference [A9-1]). If the
equipment is used at time t > 0, the probability of correct operation Pt , is equal to
Pt = P0 Pv (A9-13)
and is lower than P0 since Pv < 1. If, at the

time t u of equipment use, a probability Pt
equal to the probability P0 specified for
time t = 0 is desired, it is necessary that
the equipment has a higher resistance at
time t = 0 , corresponding to a probability of
correct operation P0′ < P0 , to take into
account aging and to maintain the basic
idea stated in chapter A8.I.
Given an aging law Pv ( t ) , the method for

calculating the coefficient k v related to
aging therefore consists in calculating P0′
(for t = 0 ) such that the curve Pv′ ( t )
deduced from Pv ( t ) by vertical translation
Aging Law goes through point ( t u , P0 ).
Figure A9.1
- 161 -
t −m
From (A9-10), this yields, for t = t u and u u = u ,
σ
1  u u 
=
Pv 1 − sgn(u u ) Erf   (A9-14)
2   2 
 
and
2 P0
P0′ = (A9-15)
 uu 
1 − sgn(u u ) Erf  
 2
 
which can also be written
2 P0
P0′ = (A9-16)
u2
2 uu −
1 − sgn(u u )
π ∫0 e 2 du
From this value P0′ , it is known [A9.1] how to calculate factor k' to be applied to the stress
amplitude to demonstrate this probability and therefore deduce factor k v relative to the
aging effects alone by evaluating the ratio
k′
kv = (A9-17)
k
(k is the test factor necessary to guarantee P0 ).
Remark
There is a relatively obvious limit

to this calculation. The
probability P0′ increases with tu .
For tu sufficiently large, we can
numerically have P0′ > 1 , which
is absurd (Fig. A9.2 where
P0 = 0 . 9 ).
Limit Aging Curve

Figure A9.2
The condition P0′ ≤ 1 has as consequence
- 162 -
 uu 
2 P0 ≤ 1 − sgn(u u ) Erf   (A9-18)
 2
 
i.e., if u < 0 (useful case):
 uu 
Erf   ≥ 2 P0 − 1 (A9-19)
 2
 
equation leading to a limit value of tu .
Example
Let us go back to the previous

example (Gaussian distribution,
m = 14 years, σ = 1. 4 years), with
P0 = 0. 999 .
Figure A9.3 shows the variations of

Pv versus time. It can be seen that
Pv remains very close to unity until
t = 9 years, when it decreases
suddenly.
Example of Aging Law

Figure A9.3
Figure A9.4 gives the variations of

aging factor k v versus time
(calculated for VE = 0. 20 , VR = 0. 08 ,
and for log-normal distributions).
This coefficient varies between 1 and

1.3 for t < 9. 671 years. There is no
solution if t ≥ 9. 674 years, for the
reasons mentioned above.
Example of Aging Factor

Figure A9.4
- 163 -
A9.IV- INFLUENCE OF THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE AGING LAW
Figure A9.5 shows k v (t)

calculated under the same
conditions above for different
values of σ (and therefore of
σ m).
It is observed that for t u given,

σ
the smaller σ (or ), the smaller
m
kv.
Influence of the Standard Deviation of the Aging Factor

Figure A9.5
A9.V- INFLUENCE OF THE AGING LAW MEAN
Still under the same assumptions,

Figure A9.6 shows the variations of
σ
k v ( t ) for = 01
. and m variable.
m
The larger m, the smaller k v .
Aging Coefficient according to Law Average

Figure A9.6
A9.VI- CONCLUSION
The aging factor obtained with this method has a value that depends on the time when the
equipment is used. In the example given, its value varies between 1 and approximately 1.3.
This result of course depends on the assumptions relative to the numerical values of the
coefficients of variation of the environment, the strength, the probability of operation chosen
σ
as well as on the nature of the aging curve and its parameters ( = 01
. here) and, naturally,
m
on the time elapsed before use.
- 164 -
The analysis shows that there is a limit value beyond which it is no longer possible to
preserve the required probability of operation, all other things being equal.
Remarks
1- This coefficient must not be applied if the equipment has undergone accelerated
aging before the tests.
2- This method for calculating k v can be criticized since it globally takes into account
a decrease in the performance time of the system's mechanics, without analyzing
the real aging mechanisms which often integrate chemical processes.
-oOo-
- 165 -
- 166 -
- APPENDIX 10 -
TEST FACTOR
- 167 -
- 168 -
- APPENDIX 10 -
TEST FACTOR
A10.I- PHILOSOPHY
In Appendix 6, it was shown that the reliability of an item of equipment depended only on the
ratio k (safety factor) of the mean strength ( R ) of the equipment to the environmental stress
( E ) (for Gaussian or log-normal distributions of the coefficients of variations given).
The purpose of testing is to demonstrate that the equipment has this reliability F, i.e. that its
failure probability is less than or equal to P0 . The environmental stress is known, with its
probability, mean and standard deviation. Assumptions can be made as to the equipment
strength distribution and coefficient of variation (see Appendix 7), but the value of the mean
is not known.
By conducting n tests (n generally equals 1), it is therefore attempted to check that this mean
R is such that [A10-1]:
R≥kE
A10.II- CALCULATION OF THE TEST FACTOR
A10.II.1- Gaussian Distributions
Let us assume that the tests are conducted with a severity equal to k E . Since the number
of tests is very limited, the value of the mean strength obtained is only an estimate. The true
value is actually located between two limits R LOW and R HIG [A10-2].
For a normal distribution, we have [A10-2] [A10-3]:
a′
R LOW = R C − σR (A10-1)
n
where:
R LOW is the lower estimated limit of the true value
R C is the value calculated from the n tests
- 169 -
σ R is the standard deviation of the distribution
VR is the coefficient of variation, assumed known
a' is the probability factor for a given confidence level π 0 . If VR is known, a' = 1. 64
for π 0 = 90 %. This means that there is a 90% chance that the true mean
strength is located between R LOW and R HIG , a 5 % chance that it is located
below R LOW and a 5 % chance that it is located above R HIG .
The table A10.1 gives a few values of a' (in the case of a Gaussian distribution).
a′ π0 a′ π0
0 0 2.00000 0.9544997
0.50000 0.382925 2.50000 0.98758067
0.67448983 0.50000 2.575827 0.99000
0.841621233 0.60000 3.00000 0.9973002
1.00000 0.68268949 3.290505 0.999000
1.0364334 0.70000 3.50000 0.9995347
1.1503493805 0.75000 3.890556 0.9999000
1.28155156 0.80000 4.00000 0.99993666
1.43953147 0.85000 4.416963 0.9999900
1.50000 0.866385597 4.50000 0.9999932
1.64486 0.90000 4.89054 0.999999000
1.959963985 0.95000 5.00000 0.999999427
Table A10.1
The equation (A10-1) can also be written, if σ R ≈ VR R LOW ,
a′
R LOW = R C − VR R LOW (A10-2)
n
Yielding
R LOW
RC = (A10-3)
a'
1− VR
n
To be conservative, in the absence of failure, we consider that the demonstrated safety

factor is equal to the lower limit R LOW of the interval where the mean estimated strength can
be located based on the n tests conducted divided by the mean load E :
R LOW
k′ = (A10-4)
E
Since R LOW < R , the safety factor demonstrated is below the required value k and the
demonstrated reliability is therefore below F. To guarantee k (and therefore F), it is
therefore necessary to increase the test severity by a factor FE such that the limit of the new
interval R LOW is the same as R = k E , i.e.
- 170 -
1
FE = (A10-5)
a ′ VR
1−
n
It is observed that this factor depends on the coefficient of variation of the strength and the
number of tests it is planned to conduct (for a given confidence level). The table below gives
a few values of FE versus VR and n, calculated for a confidence level π 0 equal to 0.90.
VR
0 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
1 1 1.082 1.132 1.165 1.247 1.329 1.411 1.494 1.576 1.658
2 1 1.058 1.093 1.116 1.175 1.233 1.291 1.349 1.407 1.465
n 5 1 1.037 1.059 1.074 1.110 1.147 1.184 1.221 1.258 1.294
10 1 1.026 1.042 1.052 1.078 1.104 1.130 1.151 1.182 1.208
20 1 1.018 1.029 1.037 1.055 1.074 1.092 1.110 1.129 1.147
Table A10.2
Example
Let us consider the example of a container protecting an equipment item susceptible to fall
from a random height H characterized by five measurements. It is assumed that the stress
created by the impact is proportional to the impact speed, and that the velocity is distributed
according to a Gaussian law.
H (m) 4.895 3.77 4.50 4.04 4.31

vi (m/s) 9.8 8.6 9.4 8.9 9.2
The average of this law is vi = 9.18 m / s and the standard deviation is σ vi = 0. 46 m / s, i.e.
σ vi
a variation coefficient of VE = ≈ 0. 05 . If the variation coefficient of the resistance of the
vi
most sensitive part of the equipment is equal to VR = 0. 08 , to obtain a failure probability of
less than 10-3, the average resistance of the material, expressed in impact speed R , must
be higher than or equal to k v i ; where k is taken from the Table A6.2 in Appendix 6:
k = 1. 373
therefore
R = 1. 373 x 9.19 = 12. 60 m / s.
The purpose of the test is to demonstrate that the equipment in the container can withstand,
on average, an impact speed of 12.60 m / s (i.e. a height of drop of 8.1 m).
- 171 -
Bearing in mind that these calculations will be demonstrated in one test only, it is necessary
to apply a test factor the value of which is FE = 1.132 at a level of confidence of 90 % (Table
A10.2). The drop test severity is then:
TS = FE k vi = 1.132 x 1. 373 x 9.18 = 14. 27 m / s
which corresponds to a height of drop of H = 10. 38 m.
Remarks
1- The variation coefficient of the distribution law of the impact velocity (VE ≈ 0 .05 ) has
been estimated from 5 measurements. To take into account this small number of
measurements, it would be better to use the maximum limit of the interval where the true
value of this variation coefficient may be located (at a level of confidence of 90 % for
example), instead of the estimated value VE ≈ 0 .05 , which would result in
VE max = 0 .0968 (Table A7.2).
The value obtained with the same method will be then k = 1. 471 . Therefore,
TS = FE k vi = 1.132 x 1. 471 x 9 .18 = 15. 286 m / s
and H ≈ 11. 91 m.
It would be also be possible to take into account the small number of measurements to
estimate the variation coefficient of the resistance. The maximum coefficient VR max thus
calculated would modify both the k value and the FE value.
2- The safety factor has been determined in this example by considering that the
representative parameter of the impact effect is the stress induced. If the structure of the
container is distorted at impact, it is preferable to examine the thickness of crushed
material, which is proportional to the height of drop. In these conditions, the estimated
variation coefficient of the falling height is equal to 0.10, and the guarantee coefficient k
to 1.479, which leads to a test severity (determined by a height of drop) of 7.20 m, to be
compared to 10.38 m. This example clearly shows that it is important to correctly select
the parameter used to describe the environment, associated with the anticipated effects,
or significant errors may appear.
A10.II.2- Log-Normal Distributions
For a log-normal distribution, the lower limit of the interval in which the mean strength can be
located is, similarly
a′
ln R LOW = ln R C − σ ln R (A10-6)
n
where σ ln R is the standard deviation of the log-normal distribution of R:
- 172 -
∑ ( ln R j − ln R )
2
(A10-7)
j
σ ln R =
n
Yielding, as above:
ln R LOW =
ln R C −
a′
n
(
ln 1 + VR2 ) (A10-8)
and
R LOW = R C


exp  a ′
(
ln 1 + VR2 ) 
 (A10-9)
 n 
 
The test factor is therefore equal to


FE = exp  a ′
(
ln 1 + VR2 ) 
 (A10-10)
 n 
 
Table A10.3 gives a few values of FE calculated with this equation for π 0 = 0. 90 .
VR
0 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
1 1 1.086 1.140 1.178 1.278 1.385 1.500 1.621 1.750 1.885
2 1 1.060 1.097 1.123 1.190 1.259 1.332 1.407 1.485 1.566
n 5 1 1.038 1.061 1.076 1.116 1.157 1.199 1.241 1.284 1.328
10 1 1.026 1.042 1.053 1.081 1.109 1.137 1.165 1.194 1.222
20 1 1.019 1.030 1.037 1.056 1.076 1.095 1.114 1.133 1.152
Tableau A10.3
A10.III- CHOICE OF THE CONFIDENCE LEVEL
The choice of the confidence level is related to the choice of constant a' . Figures A10.1 and
A10.2 show the influence of the choice of this parameter on the test factor for Gaussian and
log-normal distributions (and for n = 1 ).
It can be seen that:
- for π 0 given, FE is smaller for a Gaussian distribution
- for VR given, FE increases with π 0 (which is a priori obvious).
In this work, we generally used a' = 1. 64 ( π 0 = 90 %) which appears to us to be a reasonable

value.
- 173 -
Test Factor for Gaussian Laws Test Factor for Log-normal Laws
A10.IV- INFLUENCE OF THE NUMBER OF TESTS n
The figures A10.3 and A10.4 show the variations of FE versus VR for a few values of n
between 1 and 20 ( π 0 = 0.90 ). It is observed that FE varies little with n, especially when VR
is small.
Influence of the Number of Tests Influence of the Number of Tests

-oOo-
- 174 -
REFERENCES
- 175 -
- 176 -
- REFERENCES -
[1] DELCHAMPS T.B. [12] KLEIN G.H. and PIERSOL A.G.

Specifications: a view from the middle. The development of vibration test specifications
The Shock and Vibration Bulletin 39, Part 6, for spacecraft applications.
March 1969, pp. 151 / 155. N.A.S.A. CR - 234, May 1965.
[2] KROEGER R.C. and HASSLACHER G.J. [13] PIERSOL A.G.

The relationship of measured vibration data to The development of vibration test specifications
specification criteria. for flight vehicle components.
The Shock and Vibration Bulletin 31, Part 2, Journal of Sound and Vibration 4 n° 1, July
March 1962, pp. 49 / 63. 1966, pp. 88 / 115.
[3] SUCHAUD M. [14] FACKLER W.C.

La qualification d'un matériel technique et son Equivalence techniques for vibration testing.
contenu. Synthèse d'une enquête et d'une The Shock and Vibration Information Center,
étude bibliographique de documents français et SVM 9, 1972.
étrangers.
Note Aérospatiale, D.E.T. n° 13 248 / E / EXM, [15] BROCH J.T.
1975. Essais en vibrations - Les raisons et les
moyens.
[4] RUBIN S. Bruël et Kjaer, Technical Review n° 3, 1967.
Introduction to dynamics.
Proceedings I.E.S., 1964, pp. 3 / 7. [16] The establishment of test levels from field data
- Panel session.
[5] PIERSOL A.G. and MAURER J.R. The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 29, Part IV,
Investigation of statistical techniques to select 1961, pp. 359/376.
optimal test levels for spacecraft vibration tests.
Digitek Corporation, Report 10909801 - F, [17] KENNARD D.C.
October 1970. Vibration testing as a guide to equipment
design for aircraft.
[6] CARMAN S.L. W.A.D.C. A.F. Technical Report n° 5847, June
Using fatigue considerations to optimize the 1949.
specification of vibration and shock tests. ou The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 11,
Proceedings I.E.S. 1974, pp. 83 / 87. February 1953.
[7] STAHLE C.V. [18] CREDE C.E., GERTEL M. and CAVANAUGH

Estimate of effect of spacecraft vibration R.D.
qualification testing on reliability. Establishing vibration and shock tests for
The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 36, Part 7, airborne electronic equipment.
1967, pp. 1 / 18. WADC Technical Report 54-272, June 1954,
ASTIA AD 45 696.
[8] BOECKEL J.H.
The purposes of environmental testing for [19] Final engineering report on investigation of
scientific satellites. vibration and shock requirements for airborne
NASA TN D - 1900, July 1963. electronic equipment.
North American Aviation, Inc., Report n° 120 X
[9] Déverminage des matériels électroniques. - 7, March 30, 1951, Contract n° AF 33 (038) -
A.S.T.E. / A.F.Q., 1986. 7379.
[10] Répertoire de concepts américains relatifs à [20] ROBERTS W.B.

l'organisation et aux méthodes concourant à la Derivation of external store viration test spectra
qualité. from flight data.
Ministère de la Défense, D.G.A., Service de la The Journal of Environmental Sciences, Vol.
Surveillance Industrielle de l'Armement, 1982. 29, n° 5, Sept./Oct. 1986, pp. 22 / 25.
[11] BLAKE R.E. [21] KENNARD D.C.

A specification writer's viewpoint. Measured aircraft vibration as a guide to
The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 27, Part 4, laboratory testing.
1959, pp. 91 / 94. WADC A.F. Technical Report n° 6429, May
1959.
- 177 -
[22] GERTEL M. [35] COQUELET M.
Specification of laboratory tests. Recommandations pour la rédaction des
Shoch and Vibration Handbook, C.M. HARRIS clauses techniques d'essais en environnement
and C.E. CREDE, Vol. 2-24, Mc Graw Hill Book des équipements aéronautiques.
Company, 1961. Septembre 1979.
[23] BARNOSKI R.L. [36] Norme AIR 7304 - Conditions d'essais

The maximum response of a linear mechanical d'environnement pour équipements
oscillator to stationary and nonstationary aéronautiques: électriques, électroniques et
random excitation. instruments de bord.
NASA CR 340, Dec. 1965. Délégation Ministérielle pour l'Armement,
D.T.C.A., 1972.
[24] MUSTING G.S. and HOYT E.D.
Practical and theorical bases for specifying a [37] GAM-T13 - Essais généraux des matériels
transportation vibration test. électroniques et de télécommunication.
Reed Reasearch, Inc. Wash. 7, DC. Contract Ministère de la Défense, Délégation
Nord 16687, Task 36, Project RR 1175 - 36, 25 Ministérielle pour l'Armement, Service Central
Feb. 1960, ASTIA - AD 285296. des Télécommunications et de l'Informatique,
Juin 1976.
[25] CREDE C.E. and LUNNEY E.J.
Establishment of vibration and shock tests for [38] GAM-EG-13, Essais généraux en
missile electronics as derived from the environnement des matériels.
measured environment. Ministère de la Défense, Délégation Générale
WADC Technical Report 56-503, ASTIA pour l'Armement, Juin 1986.
Document n° AD 118 133, Dec. 1, 1956.
[39] The relationship of specification requirements
[26] CZECHOWSKI A., LENK A. to the real environnement.
Miner's rule in mechanical tests of electronic The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 31, Part 2,
parts. pp. 287 / 301
IEEE Transactions on Reliability, Vol. R-27, n°
3, August 1978. [40] HARVEY W.
Specifying vibration simulation.
[27] BROCH J.T. Inst. Environ. Sci. Proc., 1964, pp. 407/416.
A note on vibration test procedures.
Bruël and Kjaer Review 2, 1964, pp. 3 / 6. [41] SILVER A.J.
Problems in adding realism to standard
[28] MORROW C.T. and MUCHMORE R.B. specifications.
Shortcomings of present methods of measuring The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n°34, Part. 4-,
and simulating vibration environments. Feb. 1965, pp. 133/136.
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Sept. 1955,
pp. 367 / 371. [42] LALANNE C.
Norme 810 D - Environnement réel et
[29] STRADLING C.G. spécifications d'essais.
How good are random-wave vibration tests ? La Revue des Laboratoires d'Essais n°3, Avril
Product Engineering, Vol. 31, n° 49, Dec. 5, 1985, pp. 14/17.
1960, pp. 82 / 83.
[43] COQUELET M.
[30] HIMELBLAU H. Progrès dans l'élaboration des programmes
A comparison of periodic and random vibration d'essais d'environnement mécanique.
problems. AGARD Conference Proceeding Vol. CP 318,
Proc. 3rd Nat. Flt., Test Instr. Sym., ISA, May n°3, 10 / 81.
1, 1957, pp. 2-10-1/2-10-3.
[44] PLUNKETT R.
[31] KLEIN G.H. Problems of environmental testing.
Defends random-wave vibration tests. The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 25, Part 2,
Product Engineering, Vol. 32, n° 9, Feb. 27, Dec. 1957, pp. 67 / 69.
1961, pp. 28 / 29.
[45] DUBOIS W.
[32] OLSON M.W. Random vibration testing.
A narrow-band-random-vibration test. Shock, Vibration and Associated Environments
The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 25, Part 1, Bulletin n° 27, Part 2, June 1959, pp. 103 / 112.
December, 1957, p. 110.
[46] FORLIFER W.R.
[33] Répertoire des normes d'essais en Problems in translating environmental data into
environnement. a test specification.
L.R.B.A., Note Technique E1 200 NT 1/SEM, I.E.S. Proceedings, 1965, pp. 185 / 188.
Janvier 1975.
[47] FOLEY J.T.
[34] CHEVALIER, EVEN. Environmental analysis.
Normalisation des essais en environnement I.E.S. Proceedings, 1962, pp. 427 / 431.
des matériels.
Bulletin d'Information et de Liaison de [48] SMALL E.F.
l'Armement n°67, 10/81, pp. 56/67. A unified philosophy of shock and vibration
testing for guided missiles.
Proceedings I.E.S., 1956, pp. 277 / 282.
- 178 -
[49] TROTTER W.D. and MUTH D.V. [62] FELGAR R.P.
Combined-axis vibration testing of the SRAM Reliability and mechanical design.
missile. Shock, Vibration and Associated Environments
The Shock and Vibration Bulletin, Part 3, 1972, Bulletin n°27, Part IV, pp. 113 / 125, June
pp. 39 / 48. 1959.
[50] ALLEN H.W. [63] RACICOT R.L.

Modeling realistic environmental stresses on Random vibration analysis - Application to wind
external stores. loaded structures.
Proceedings I.E.S., 1985, pp. 392 / 399. Solid Mechanics, Structures and Mechanical
Design Division Report n°30, Case Western
[51] PADGETT G.E. Reserve University, June 1969, Ph. D. Thesis.
Formulation of realistic environmental test
criteria for tactical guided missiles. [64] SCHOOF R.F.
I.E.S. Proceedings, 1968, pp. 441/448. How much safety factor?.
Allis - Charmers Electrical Review, First
[52] GENS M.G. Quarter, 1960, pp. 21 / 14.
The environmental operations analysis
function. [65] LALANNE C.
I.E.S. Proceeding, 1967, pp. 29 / 38. Utilisation de l'environnement réel pour
l'établissement des spécifications d'essai.
[53] HAHN P.G. Synthèse sur les méthodes classiques et
Shock and vibration considerations in flight nouvelles.
vehicle system design. ASTE, 7èmes journées Scientifiques et
I.E.S. Proceeding, 1963, pp. 401 / 415. Techniques, 1980.
[54] HANCOCK R.N. [66] Missiles - Essais de simulation de transport

Development of specifications from measured logistique et d'emport tactique - Environnement
environments. mécanique.
Society of Environmental Engineers, BNAé, Recommandations RE - Aéro 61210 à
Buntingford, Herts, G.B., S.E.E. Symposium, 61218.
Vol. 1, 1979, pp. 1 / 16.
[67] LALANNE C.
[55] PIERSOL A.G. Maximax response and fatigue damage
Criteria for the optimum selection of aerospace spectra.
component vibration test levels. The Journal of the Environmental Sciences.
I.E.S. Proceeding 1974, pp. 88/94. Part I, July /August 1984, Vol. XXVII, n°4.
Part II, September / October 1984, Vol. XXVII,
[56] SCHLUE J.W. n°5.
The dynamic environment of spacecraft surface
transportation. [68] LALANNE C.
N.A.S.A., Technical Report n° 32 - 876, March Vibrations aléatoires - Dommage par fatigue
15, 1966. subi par un système mécanique à un degré de
liberté.
[57] ROSENBAUM E.S., GLOYNA F.L. CEA/CESTA, en cours de diffusion.
Tomahawk cruise missile flight environmental
measurement program. [69] CHARLES D.
The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n°52, Part 3, Derivation of environment descriptions and test
pp. 159 / 228, May 1982. severities from measured road transportation
data.
[58] KACHADOURIAN G. Part I, Environmental Engineering, Vol. 5, n° 4,
Spacecraft vibration: a comparison of flight data december 1992, p. 30.
and ground test data. Part II, Environmental Engineering, Vol. 6, n° 1,
The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n°37, Part 7, march 1993, pp. 25/26.
pp. 173 / 203, 1968.
[70] RICHARDS D.P.
[59] FOLEY J.T. A review of analysis and assessment
Preliminary analysis of data obtained in the methodologies for road transportation vibration
joint ARMY/AEC/SANDIA test of truck transport and shock data.
environment. Environmental Engineering, Vol. 3, n° 4,
The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n°35, Part 5, December 1990, pp.23/26.
pp. 57 / 70, 1965.
[71] HOWELL G.H.
[60] CAILLOT M.P. Factors of safety and their relation to stresses
Banque de données ASTE - Un carrefour loads materials.
technologique. Machine Design - July 12, 1956 - pp. 76/81.
La Revue des Laboratoires d'Essais n°3, Avril
1985, pp. 9 / 11. [72] LALANNE C.
Spécifications d'essais en environnement et
[61] FOLEY J.T. coefficients de garantie.
An environmental research study. CEA/DAM/CESTA/DT/EX/MEV 1089,
I.E.S. Proceeding, 1967, pp. 363 / 373. Novembre 1987.
- 179 -
[73] LALANNE C.
Personalization and safety factor.
Institute of Environmental Sciences Proc., - ANNEXE 1 -
1989.
ou
Coefficient de garantie.
Symposium ASTE 1989: La Norme [A1-1] BONNET D. - LALANNE C.
Interarmées GAM EG13, Personnalisation des Choix des essais - Analyse de l'environnement
Essais en Environnement, 7/8 juin 1989, Paris. mécanique vibratoire réel en vue de
l'élaboration de spécifications d'essais.
[74] Report on structural safety. Journées ASTE 1977.
Structural Engineer, Vol 33 1955, pp. 141/149.
[A1-2] LALANNE C.
[75] BLAKE R.E. Maximax response and fatigue damage
Predicting structural reliability for design spectra.
decisions. The Journal of the Environmental Sciences.
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 4, n° 3, Part I, July/August 1984, Vol. XXVII, n°4.
pp. 392 / 398. Part II, September/October 1984, Vol. XXVII,
n°5.
[76] BLAKE R.E. and BAIRD W.S.
Derivation of design and test criteria. [A1-3] GERTEL M.
Proceedings I.E.S., 1969, pp. 128 / 138. Specification of laboratory tests.
Shock and Vibration Handbook - Vol 2 - pp. 24-
[77] CESTIER R., GARDE J.P. 1/24-34
Etude des lois de distribution de la résistance HARRIS C.M. and CREDE D.E., Mc Graw-Hill
mécanique des métaux. Interprétation de 3500 Book Company - 1961.
essais américains.
CEA/DAM/ICQ/CESTA - DO 631, 18 juillet [A1-4] SCHMIDT J.H.
1977. "Quick look" assessment and comparison of
vibration specifications.
[78] LALANNE C. The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 51, Part 2,
Séismes - Comparaison de la sévérité des 1981, pp. 73/79.
spécifications.
La Revue des Laboratoires d'Essais n°17, [A1-5] CRONIN D.L.
"Très basses fréquences", Décembre 1988. Response spectra for sweeping sinusoïdal
excitations.
[79] Recommandation Générale pour la The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 38, Part 1,
Spécification de Management de programme. pp. 133/139, Aug. 1968.
B.N.A.E., R.G. Aéro 000 40, Juin 1991.
[A1-6] The study of mechanical shock spectra for
[80] Recommandation générale pour la spécification spacecraft applications.
de management de programme dans l'industrie NASA - CR 91356
aéronautique et spatiale.
AFNOR X 50 - 410, Août 1993. [A1-7] MORSE R.E.
The relationship between a logarithmically
[81] OWEN D.B. swept excitation and the build-up of steady-
Factors for one-sided tolerance limite and for state resonant response.
variables sampling plans. The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n°35, Part II,
Sandia-Corporation Monograph, SCR-607, 1965, pp. 231/262.
March 1963.
[A1-8] REED W.H., HALL A.W. and BARKER L.E.
[82] VESSEREAU A. Analog techniques for measuring the frequency
Note sur les intervalles statistiques de response of linear physical systems excited by
dispersion. frequency sweep inputs.
Revue de Statistique Appliquée, Vol. XX, n° 1, 1960 NASA TN D 508.
1972, pp. 67/87.
[A1-9] KACENA W.J. and JONES F.J.
[83] LIEBERMAN G.J. Fatigue prediction for structures subjected to
Tables for one-sided statistical tolerance limits. random vibration.
Industrial Quality Control, April 1958, pp. 7 / 9. The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 46, Part 3,
Août 1976, pp. 87/96.
[84] NATRELLA M.G.
Experimental statistics. [A1-10] LALANNE C.
National Bureau of Standards Handbook 91, Vibrations aléatoires - Dommage par fatigue
August 1, 1963. subi par un système mécanique à un degré de
liberté.
[85] PIERSOL A.G. CEA/CESTA/DQS DO 60, Mai 1995.
Procedures to compute maximum structural
responses from predictions or measurements [A1-11] LALANNE C.
at selected points. Les vibrations aléatoires.
Shock and Vibration, Vol. 3, n° 3, 1996, pp. Cours ADERA, 1978.
211/221.
[A1-12] CURTIS A.J., TINLING N.G., ABSTEIN H.T.
Selection and performance of vibration tests.
The Shock and Vibration Information Center,
SVM-8-NRL, Washington, 1971
- 180 -
[A1-13] BENDAT J.S. [A2-8] TUSTIN W.
Probability functions for random responses : Vibration and shock tests do not duplicate
prediction of peaks, fatigue damage, and service environment.
catastrophic failures. Test Engineering, Vol. 18, n°2, August 1967,
N.A.S.A - CR33, April 1964 pp. 18/20.
[A1-14] MORROW T. [A2-9] SMALL E.F.

Environmental specifications and testing. A unified philosophy of shock and vibration
Shock and Vibration Handbook, 2d ed., pp24- testing for guided missiles.
1/24-13, HARRIS C.M. and CREDE C.E, Mc I.E.S. Proceeding, 1956, pp. 277/282.
Graw-Hill Book Company - 1976
[A2-10] PARRY H.J.
[A1-15] LALANNE C. Study of scatter of structural response and
Les vibrations sinusoïdales à fréquence balayé. transmissibility.
CEA/CESTA/EX n° 803, Juin 1982. Report n°15454, Dec. 1, 1961, Lockheed
California Co. Burbank, California.
[A1-16] AVP 32
Design requirements for guided weapons. [A2-11] SUCHAUD M.
Ministry of Technology, London, May 1970. La qualification d'un matériel technique et son
contenu.
Synthèse d'une enquête et d'une étude
bibliographique de documents français et
étrangers.
Note Aérospatiale D.E.T. n° 13 248/E/EXM,
1975.
[A2-12] BLAKE R.E. and BAIRD W.S.

- ANNEXE 2 - Derivation of design and test criteria.
I.E.S Proceeding, 1969, pp. 128/138.
[A2-1] GERTEL M.
Derivation of shock and vibration test
specifications based on measured
environments.
The Journal of Environmental Sciences - Dec.
1966 - pp. 14/19.
The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 31, Part 2,
1962.- pp. 25/33. - ANNEXE 3 -
[A2-2] BLAKE R.E.
Predicting structural reliability for design
decisions. [A3-1] RICHARDS D.P.
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 4, n°3, A review of analysis and assessment
pp. 392/398. methodologies for road transportation vibration
and shock data.
[A2-3] BLAKE R.E. Environmental Engineering, Vol. 3, n° 4,
A specification writer's viewport. December 1990, pp.23/26.
1959, pp. 91/94. [A3-2] CHARLES D.
Derivation of environment descriptions and test
[A2-4] PIERSOL A.G. severities from measured road transportation
The development of vibration test specifications data.
for flight vehicle components. Part I, Environmental Engineering, Vol. 5, n° 4,
J. Sound Vib. (1966) 4 (1), pp. 88/115, July December 1992, p. 30.
1966. Part II, Environmental Engineering, Vol. 6, n° 1,
March 1993, pp. 25 / 26.
[A2-5] TUSTIN W.
Basic considerations for simulation of vibration
environment.
Experimental Mechanics, September 1973,
pp. 390/396.
[A2-6] KLEIN G.H. and PIERSOL A.G.

The development of vibration test specifications - ANNEXE 4 -
for spacecraft applications.
N.A.S.A. CR - 234, May 1965.
[A2-7] BLAKE R.E. [A4-1] LENZEN K.H., YEN B.T., NORDMARK G.E,
A method for selecting optimum shock and YAO J.T.P. and MUNSE W.H.
vibration tests. Analysis and interpretation of fatigue data.
Shock, Vibration and Associated Environments Journal of the Structural Division. Proc. of the
Bulletin n°31, Part II, October 1962, pp. 88/97. A.S.C.E. Vol. 94, n° ST12, Proc. Paper 6283,
Dec. 1968, pp. 2665/2677.
- 181 -
[A4-2] GERTEL M. [A4-15] CREDE C.E.
Derivation of shock and vibration tests based Criteria of damage from shock and vibration.
on measured environments. The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 25, Part II,
The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 31, Part II, 1957, pp. 227/232.
1962, pp. 25/33.
ou [A4-16] LUNNEY E.J. and CREDE C.E.
The Journal of Environmental Sciences, Dec. Establishment of vibration and shock tests for
1966, pp. 14/19. airborne electronics.
WADC 57-75, ASTIA Doc. 142349, January
[A4-3] GERTEL M. 1958.
Specification of laboratory tests.
Shock and Vibration Handbook, C.M. HARRIS [A4-17] DE WINNE J.
and C.E CREDE, Vol. 2, 24, Mc Graw-Hill Book Equivalence of fatigue damage caused by
Company, 1961. vibrations.
IES Proceeding 1986, pp. 227/234.
[A4-4] CREDE C.E. and LUNNEY E.J.
Establishment of vibration and shock tests for
missile electronics as derived from measured
environment.
WADC Tech. Report 56-503, WADC Patterson
AFB, Ohio 1956.
[A4-5] STEINBERG D.S.

Vibration analysis for electronic equipment.
John Wiley, 1973. - ANNEXE 5 -
[A4-6] LAMBERT R.G.
Criteria for accelerated random vibration tests.
Proceedings I.E.S., May 1980, pp. 71/75. [A5-1] PIERSOL A.G.
Criteria for the optimum selection of aerospace
[A4-7] DEITRICK R.E component vibration test levels.
Confidence in production units based on I.E.S. Proceeding, 1974, pp. 88/94.
qualification vibration (U).
The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 42, Part 3, [A5-2] PIERSOL A.G.
1972, pp. 99/110. The development of vibration test specifications
for flight components.
[A4-8] CARMAN S.L. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 4, n°1, July
Using fatigue considerations to optimize the 1966, pp.88/115.
specification of vibration and shock tests.
IES Proc. 1974, pp.83/87. [A5-3] KATZ H. and WAYMON G.R.
Utilizing in-flight vibration data to specify design
[A4-9] HASSLACHER G.J. and MURRAY H.L. and criteria for equipment mounted in jet
Determination of an optimum vibration aircraft
acceptance test. The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 34, Part IV,
Shock, Vibration and Associated Environments Feb 1965, pp 137/146
Bulletin n° 33, Part III, March 1964, pp.
183/188. [A5-4] HOLMGREN G.R.
Simulation and testing techniques for
[A4-10] BLANKS H.S. mechanical shock and vibration environments.
Exponential excitation expansion: a new Proceedings I.E.S., 1984, pp. 340/344.
method of vibration testing.
Microelectronics and Reliability, Vol. 17, 1978, [A5-5] CARMICHAEL R.F. and PELKE D.
pp. 575/582. Measurement, analysis and interpretation of F-
5A 20mm gunfire dynamic environment.
[A4-11] JACOBSON R.H. The Shock and Vibration Bulletin 34, Part 4,
Vibration and shock evaluation of airborne Feb 1965, pp. 191/204.
electronic component parts and equipments.
WADC Technical Report 56-301, ASTIA-AD [A5-6] STEININGER M. and HAIDL G.
123 658, December 1956. Vibration qualification of external A/C stores
and equipment.
[A4-12] WRISLEY D.L. and KNOWLES W.S. AGARD Conference Proceedings, Vol CP 318,
Investigation of fasteners for mounting n° 9 (12/81).
electronic components.
Report on Contract N° DA-36-039 SC-5545 [A5-7] LAWRENCE H.C.
between the Calidyne Co and SCEL, Ft. Prudent specification of random-vibration
Monmouth, N.J. testing for isolators.
The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n°29, Part IV,
[A4-13] CZECHOWSKI A., LENK A. June 1961, pp. 106/112.
Miner's rule in mechanical tests of electronic
parts. [A5-8] CARMAN S.L.
IEEE Transactions on Reliability, Vol. R-37, n° Using fatigue considerations to optimize the
3, August 1978, pp. 183/190. specification of vibration and shock tests.
Proceeding I.E.S. 1974, pp. 83/87.
[A4-14] GOLUEKE C.A.
What to do about airborne electronic
component failure.
S.A.E. Journal Vol. 66, n° 12, 1958, pp. 88 /90.
- 182 -
[A7-2] JOHNSON A.I.
- ANNEXE 6 - Strength, safety and economical dimensions of
structures.
Inst. of Building Statics and Structural
Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology,
[A6-1] PIERRAT L.
Stockholm, 1953 (Report 12).
Estimation de la probabilité de défaillance par
interaction de deux lois de Weibull.
[A7-3] SCHLUE J.W.
Rev. Statistique Appliquée, 1992, XXXX, 4,
The dynamic environment of spacecraft surface
pp. 5 / 13.
transportation.
N.A.S.A., Technical Report n° 32-876, March
[A6-2] KECECIOGLU D.
15, 1966.
Reliability analysis of mechanical components
and systems.
[A7-4] KEEGAN W. B.
Nucl. Eng. design, Vol. 19, 1972, pp. 259 / 290.
A statistical approach to deriving subsystems
specifications.
[A6-3] BREYAN W.
Proceedings I.E.S., 1974, pp. 106/107.
Effects of block size, stress level and loading
sequence on fatigue characteristics of
[A7-5] BLAKE R.E.
aluminum - alloy box beams.
A method for selecting optimum shock and
Effects of Envoronment and Complex Load
vibration tests.
Histiry on Fatigue Life. ASTM STP 462, 1970,
D.O.D. Bulletin 31 on Shock and Vibration
pp. 127/166.
Environments, October 1962, pp. 88/97.
[A6-4] LIPSON C.
[A7-6] SUCHAUD M.
New concepts on ... safety factors.
La qualification d'un matériel technique et son
Product Engineering, Mid, September, 1960,
contenu.
Vol. 9, pp. 275/278.
Synthèse d'une enquête et d'une étude
bibliographique de documents français et
[A6-5] RAVINDRA M.K., HEANEY A.D. and LIND
étrangers.
N.C.
Note Aérospatiale, D.E.T. n° 13 248/E/EXM,
Probalistic evaluation of safety factors.
1975.
Symposium on Concepts of safety of structures
and Methods of design, International
[A7-7] KLEIN G.H. and PIERSOL A.G.
Association of Bridge and Structural
The development of vibration test specifications
Engineering, London, 1969, pp. 35/46.
for spacecraft applications.
NASA CR - 234, May 1965.
[A6-6] WIRSCHING P.H. and YAO J.T.P.
A probabilistic design approach using the
[A7-8] PIERSOL A.G. and MAURER J.R.
Palmgren-Miner hypothesis.
Investigation of statistical techniques to select
Methods of Structural Analysis, Vol; 1, ASCE,
optimal test levels for spacecraft vibration tests.
1976, pp. 324/339.
Digitek Corporation, Report 10909801 F,
October 1970.
[A6-7] KECECIOGLU D. and HAUGEN E.B.
A unified look at design safety factors, safety
[A7-9] BANGS W.F.
margins and measures of reliability.
A comparison of acoustic and random vibration
Annals of the Reliability and Maintenability
testing of spacecraft.
Conference, San Francisco, Calif., July 14/17,
1968, pp. 520/528.
[A7-10] MEDAGLIA J.M.
[A6-8] MARCOVICI C., LIGERON J.C.
Statistical determination of random vibration
Utilisation des techniques de fiabilité en
requirements for subassembly tests.
mécanique.
Technique et Documentation, 1974.
August 1976, pp. 77/91.
[A6-9] RAVINDRA M.K. and GALAMBOS T.V.
[A7-11] PIERSOL A.G.
Load and resistance factor design for steel.
Criteria for optimum selection of aerospace
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Sept.
component vibration test levels.
1978, Vol. 104, n° ST 9, pp. 1337/1353.
Proceedings I.E.S. 1974, pp. 88/94.
[A6-10] JULIAN O.G.
[A7-12] Mc GREGOR H.N. et al.
Synopsis of first progress report of Committee
Acoustic problems associated with
on factors of safety.
underground launching of a large missile.
Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings
Shock, Vibration and Associated Environments,
of the A.S.C.E., Vol. 83, ST 4, n° 1316, July
Bulletin n° 29, Part IV, June 1961, pp. 317/335.
1957.
[A7-13] STAHLE C.V.
Estimate of effect of spacecraft vibration
vibration qualification testing on reliability.
- ANNEXE 7 - The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 36, Part 7,
1967, pp. 1/18.
[A7-14] CONDOS F.
[A7-1] BLAKE R.E. and BAIRD W.S. Prediction of vibration levels for space launch
Derivation of design and test criteria. vehicles.
Proceedings I.E.S., 1969, pp. 128/138. Proceedings of the IAS National Meeting on
Large Rockets, October 1962.
- 183 -
[A7-15] BARRET R.E. [A7-29] ABRAMOWITZ M. and STEGUN I.A.
Statistical techniques for describing localized Handbook of mathematical functions with
vibrating environments of rocket vehicles. formulas, graphs and mathematical tables.
NASA - TND-2158, July 1964. National Bureau of Standards, Applied
Mathematics Series 55, December 1972.
[A7-16] STAHLE C.V., GONGLOFF H.G. and KEEGAN
W. [A7-30] GIRARDEAU D.
Development of component random vibration Estimation du coefficient de variation de
requirements considering response spectra. l'environnement réel pour le calcul du
The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 6, Part 1, coefficient de garantie.
October 1975, pp. 60/61. ASTELAB 1997, Recueil de Conférences, pp.
27/35.
[A7-17] BRANGER J.
Second seminar on fatigue and fatigue design. [A7-31] Coefficient de garantie.
Tech. Rep. n° 5, Columbia University, Inst. for GAM-EG-13. Essais Généraux en
the Study of Fatigue and Reliability, June 1964. Environnement des Matériels. Annexe
Générale Mécanique. Annexe 8. Ministère de la
[A7-18] LUNDBERG B. Défense, D.G.A..
Discussion de l'article de F. TURNER "Aspects
of fatigue design of aircraft structures".
Fatigue in Aircraft Structures, A.M.
FREUDENTHAL, Ed. Academic Press, New
York, 1956, pp. 341/346.
- ANNEXE 8 -
[A7-19] JOHNSON N.L. and WELCH B.L.
Applications ot the non-central t-distribution. [A8-1] BLAKE R.E. and BAIRD W.S.
Biometrika, 31, 1940, pp. 362 / 389. Derivation of design and test criteria.
[A7-20] McKAY A.T.
Distribution of the coefficient of variation and [A8-2] JOHNSON A.I.
the extended t distribution. Strength, safety and economical dimensions of
J.R. Stastist. Soc. 95, Vol. XCV, Part IV, 1932, structures.
pp. 695 / 698. Inst. of Building Statics and Structural
Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology,
[A7-21] PEARSON E.S. Stockholm, 1953 (Report 12).
Comparison of A.T. McKAY's approximation
with experimental sampling results. [A8-3] STAHLE C.V.
J.R. Stastist. Soc. 95, Vol. XCV, Part IV, 1932, Estimate of effect of spacecraft vibration
pp. 703 / 704. vibration qualification testing on reliability.
[A7-22] OWEN D.B. 1967, pp. 1/18.
Factors for one-sided tolerance limite and for
variables sampling plans. [A8-4] FELGAR R.P.
Sandia-Corporation Monograph, SCR-607, Reliability and mechanical design.
March 1963. Shock, Vibration and Associated Environments,
Bulletin n° 27, Part IV, June 1959, pp. 113/125.
[A7-23] DESROCHES A., NELF M.
Introduction de la loi de probabilité du [A8-5] BARROIS W.
coefficient de variation dans les applications de Fiabilité des structures en fatigue basée sur
la méthode résistance - contrainte. l'utilisation des résultats d'essais.
Revue de Statistiques Appliquées, Vol. 31, n° L'Aéronautique et l'Astronautique, Première
3, 1983, pp. 17 / 26. partie, n° 66, 1977, 5, pp. 51/75.
[A7-24] RESNIKOFF G.J. and LIEBERMAN G.J. [A8-6] FENECH H., RAO A.K.
Tables of the non-central t-distribution. Statistical analysis of fatigue failure due to flow
Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, noise excitations.
1957. Journal of Vibration, Acoustics, Stress and
Reliability in Design, Vol. 108, n° 3, July 1986,
[A7-25] LIEBERMAN G.J. pp. 249/254.
Tables for one-sided statistical tolerance limits.
Industrial Quality Control, April 1958, pp. 7 / 9. [A8-7] STAHLE C.V.
Some reliability considerations in specification
[A7-26] NATRELLA M.G. of vibration test requirements for non
Experimental statistics. recoverable components.
National Bureau of Standards Handbook 91, The Shock and Vibration Bulletin n° 34, Part 4,
August 1, 1963. Feb. 1965, pp. 147/152.
[A7-27] HAHN G.J. [A8-8] CESTIER R., GARDE J.P.
Statistical intervals for a normal population. Etude des lois de distribution de la résistance
Part I. Tables, examples and applications. mécanique des métaux. Interprétation de 3500
Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 2, n° 3, July essais américains.
1970, pp. 115 / 125. CEA/DAM/ICQ/CESTA - DO 631, 18 juillet
1977.
[A7-28] OWEN D.B.
Handbook of statistical tables. [A8-9] LAMBERT R.G.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Criteria for accelerated random vibration tests.
1962. Proceedings I.E.S., May 1980, pp. 71/75.
- 184 -
[A8-10] OSGOOD C.C. [A8-23] BARROIS W.
Fatigue design. Fiabilité des structures en fatigue basée sur
Pergamon Press, 1982. l'utilisation des résultats d'essais.
Première partie: L'Aéronautique et
[A8-11] ALBRECHT C.O. l'Astronautique, n° 66, 1977, 5, pp. 51/75.
Statistical evaluation of a limited number of Deuxième partie: L'Aéronautique et
fatigue test specimens including a factor of l'Astronautique, n° 67, 1977, 6, pp. 39/56.
safety approach.
Symposium on Fatigue of Aircraft Structures, [A8-24] YOKOBORI T.
ASTM, STP n° 338, 1962, pp. 150/166. The strength, fracture and fatigue of materials.
Strength, Fracture and Fatigue of Materials.
[A8-12] JULIAN O.G. P. Noordhoff, Groningen, Netherlands, 1965.
Synopsis of first progress report of Committee
on factors of safety. [A8-25] BLAKE R.E.
Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings A method for selecting optimum shock and
of the A.S.C.E., Vol. 83, ST 4, n° 1316, July vibration tests.
1957. D.O.D. Bulletin 31 on Shock and Vibration
Environments, October 1962, pp. 88/97.
[A8-13] CHENOWETH H.B.
The error function of analytical structural [A8-26] Metals Handbook - Properties and Selection.
design. American Society for Metals, Volume 1, 8th
I.E.S. Proceedings 1977, pp. 231/234. Edition, Metals Park, Ohio, 1961.
[A8-14] FREUDENTHAL A.M. and WANG P.Y. [A8-27] WIRSCHING P.H.

Ultimate strength analysis of aircraft structures. Fatigue reliability in welded joints of offshore
A.I.A.A. Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 7, n° 3, structures.
May/June 1970, pp. 205/210. Offshore, Technology Conference, OTC 3380,
1979, pp. 197/206.
[A8-15] CHENOWETH H.B.
An indicator of the reliability of analytical [A8-28] BULLEN NI.
structural design. A note on test factors.
A.I.A.A. Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 7, n° 1, A.R.C.-R (Aeronautical Research Council
Jan./Feb. 1970, pp. 13/17. Report) R and M 3166, September, 1956.
[A8-16] LIEURADE H.P. [A8-29] ALBRECHT P.

Comportement mécanique et métallurgique des S.N. fatigue reliability analysis of highway
aciers dans le domaine de la fatigue bridges.
oligocyclique - Etude des phénomènes et Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics and Fatigue
application à la croissance des fissures. Methods: Applications for Structural Design and
Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Metz, Maintenance, ASTM STP 1983, pp. 184/204.
Septembre 1978.
[A8-30] LAPARLIERE, LIBERGE
[A8-17] WIRSCHING P.H. Etude de la dispersion des propriétés
Probability-based fatigue design criteria for mécaniques de matériaux composites Carbone
offshore structures. Epoxy.
Final Project Report API-PRAC 81-15, January CEAT - M2 695 600.
1983, American Petroleum Institute.
[A8-31] WIRSCHING P.H.
[A8-18] MARTINDALE S.G. and WIRSCHING P.H. Statistical summaries of fatigue data for design
Reliability-based progressive fatigue collapse. purposes.
J. Struct. Eng., Vol. 109, n° 8, pp. 1792/1811, NASA - CR 3697, 1983.
August 1983.
[A8-32] LIGERON J.C.
[A8-19] WIRSCHING P.H. Méthodes pratiques d'utilisation en fiabilité
Fatigue reliability in welded joints of offshore mécanique des nouveaux concepts de
structures. mécanique de la rupture.
Int. J. Fatigue, April 1980, Vol. 2, n° 2, pp. C.N.E.T. Lannion, Colloque International sur la
77/83. Fiabilité et la Maintenabilité, Communication V
A - 1, 1980, pp. 117/124.
[A8-20] PIERSOL A.G.
Criteria for the optimum selection of aerospace [A8-33] MEHLE, EPREMIAN R.F.
component vibration test levels. ASTM - STP n° 137, 25, 1953.
Proceedings I.E.S. 1974, pp. 88/94.
[A8-34] WHITTAKER I.C. and BESUNER P.M.
[A8-21] CHOI S.C. and PIERSOL A.G. A reliability analysis approach to fatigue life
Selection of tests levels for space vehicle variability of aircraft structures.
component vibration tests. Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Technical
Journal of the Electronics Division, ASQC, 4, Report AFML - TR - 69-65, Apr., 1969.
n° 3, July 1966, pp. 3/9.
[A8-35] ENDO T. and MORROW J.D.
[A8-22] ALBRECHT C.O. Cyclic stress strain and fatigue behavior of
Statistical evaluation of a limited number of representative aircraft metals.
fatigue test specimens including a factor of American Society for Testing and Materials,
safety approach. 70th Annual Meeting, Boston, Mass., June
Symposium on Fatigue of Aircraft Structures, 1967.
ASTM, STP n° 338, 1962, pp. 150/166.
- 185 -
[A8-36] WIRSCHING P.H. and YAO J.T.P. [A8-50] WIRSCHING P. H. and SHERATA A M.
Fatigue reliability: introduction. Fatigue under wide band random stresses
ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. using the rainflow method.
108, n° ST1, Jan. 1982, pp. 3/23. ASME, Journal of Engineering Materials and
Technology, Vol. 99, n° 3, July 1977,
[A8-37] SWANSON S.R. pp. 205/211.
Random load fatigue testing: a state of the art
survey. [A8-51] WIRSCHING P.H. and YAO J.T.P.
Materials Research and Standards, ASTM, Vol. A probabilistic design approach using the
8, n° 4, April, 1968. Palmgren - Miner hypothesis.
Methods of Structural Analysis, Vol. 1, ASCE,
[A8-38] GURNEY T. R. 1976, pp. 324/339.
Fatigue of welded structures.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, [A8-52] KIRKBY W.T.
England, 1968. Some effects of change in spectrum severity
and spectrum shape on fatigue behaviour
[A8-39] EPREMIAN E. and MEHL R.F. under random loading.
Investigation of statistical nature of fatigue Symposium on Random Load Fatigue,
properties. AGARD, CP n° 118, October 1972, AD-752
NACA - TN. 2719, June, 1952. 369, pp. 2-1, 2-19.
[A8-40] ANG A.H-S. and MUNSE W.H. [A8-53] DOLAN T.J., RICHART F.E. and WORK C.E.
Practical reliability basis for structural fatigue. Influence of fluctuations in stress amplitude on
ASCE Structural Engineering Conference, New the fatigue of metals.
Orleans, LA., April, 1975, Preprint 2494. Proceedings of the ASTM, Vol. 49, 1949.
[A8-41] WHITTAKER I.C.

Development of titanium and steel fatigue
variability model for application of reliability
approach to aircraft structures.
AFML-TR-72-236, Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio,
- ANNEXE 9 -
October 1972.
[A8-42] WIRSCHING P.H. [A9-1] LALANNE C.

Probability based fatigue design criteria for Spécifications d'essais en environnement et
offshore structures. coefficients de garantie.
Final Project Report API-PRAC 81-15, The DAM/CESTA/DT/EX/MEV 1089, 22 novembre
American Petroleum Institute, Dallas, TX, Jan. 1987.
1983.
[A9-2] BONO H.
[A8-43] WIRSCHING P.H. and WU Y.T. Notions générales de fiabilité.
A review of modern approaches to fatigue Stage ADERA "Initiation à la fiabilité", 1971.
reliability analysis and design.
"Random Fatigue Life Prediction", The 4th [A9-3] LALANNE C.
National Congress on Pressure Vessel and Spécifications d'essais en environnement.
Piping Technology, Portland, Oregon, June 19- Coefficient de garantie relatif aux effets du
24, 1983, ASME - PVP, Vol. 72, pp. 107/120. vieillissement.
CEA/DAM/CESTA/DT/EX n° 1232, 25
[A8-44] DOLAN T.J. and BROWN H.F. novembre 1987.
Effect of prior repeated stressing on the fatigue
life of 75S-T aluminum. [A9-4] LALANNE C.
Proc. ASTM 52-1952, pp. 1/8. Tailoring and safety factor.
Institute of Environmental Sciences Proc.,
[A8-45] SINCLAIR G.M. and DOLAN T.J. 1989, pp. 11/17.
Effect of stress amplitude on statistical
variability in fatigue life of 75S-T6 aluminium
alloy.
Trans. ASME 75, 1953, pp687/872.
-ANNEXE 10 -
[A8-46] LEVY J.C.
Cumulative damage in fatigue. A method of
investigation economical in specimens.
Engineering 179, June 1955, pp. 724/726. [A10-1] LALANNE C.
Spécifications d'essais en environnement et
[A8-47] KONISHI I. and SHINOZUKA M. coefficients de garantie.
Scatter of fatigue life of structural steel and its DAM/CESTA/DT/EX/MEV 1089, 22 novembre
influence on safety of structures. 1987.
Memoirs Fac. Engng., Kyoto Univ., 28, 1956,
pp. 73/83. [A10-2] ALBRECHT C.O.
Statistical evaluation of a limited number of
[A8-48] MATOLCSY M. fatigue test specimens including a factor of
Logarithmic rule of fatigue life scatters. safety approach.
Materialprüf. 11 (6), June 1969, pp. 196/200. Symposium on Fatigue of Aircraft Structures,
ASTM, STP n° 338, 1962, pp. 150/166.
[A8-49] TANAKA S. and AKITA S.
Trans. JSMF 38 (313), 1972, pp. 2185/2192. [A10-3] Norme AFNOR NFX06-052
- 186 -
-oOo-
- 173 -
INDEX
- 187 -
- 188 -
- INDEX -
A F
Acceptance test, 15, 50 Failure probability, 32, 33, 35, 42, 50, 126
Aging, 35, 121, 159 Feasability, 48, 49, 53
Aging factor, 35, 159 Fatigue damage spectrum, 29, 30, 36, 38,
Aging function, 159 41, 58, 60, 65, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 83, 86,
92
Fighter aircraft, 17, 26, 40, 141
B
Basquin, 31, 83, 86, 87, 89 G
Gamma function, 85
Gaussian law, 32, 33, 34, 125, 137, 151,
C 159, 169
Characterization test, 12
Certification, 14
Constant acceleration sweep, 63, 67, 73, H
76
Constant displacement sweep, 64, 71, 73, Hyperbolic sweep, 75
76
I
D
Identification test, 12
Database, 27, 49, 140 In-situ test, 17
Definition, 49, 53 Instantaneous value distribution, 29, 77,
Development, 50, 53 84
- test, 13 Interval between half-power points, 68, 70
Design, 50 Irregularity coefficient, 80
E L
Endurance test, 24 Level of confidence, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50,

Evaluation test, 12 173
Event, 26, 49 Life cycle profile, 23, 25, 28, 36, 40, 49, 50
Exaggeration coefficient, 87, 91, 108 Linear sweep, 66
Expected environment, 48, 49 Logarithmic sweep, 72
Log-normal law, 32, 34, 128, 137, 151,
172
- 189 -
- Méthode d'Elaboration des Spécifications d'Environnement Mécanique -
Reduced duration, 19, 31, 37, 39, 87, 88,

M 89, 90, 91, 108
Reliability, 32, 33, 125, 128
Maxima average number per second, 78 Test of -, 15
Maximax response spectrum, 29, 30, 36, Resistance, 32, 33, 34, 42
42, 57, 58, 62, 81, 92 Resistance dispersion, 17, 33, 121, 151
Mean number of zero crossings per Resistance distribution (see strength
second, 78 distribution)
Miner's rule, 58, 65, 84 Round Robin, 29, 45
Missile, 20, 33, 44, 140
S
N
Safety factor, 13, 17, 24, 28, 31, 34, 44,
Non central t-distribution, 53, 141 125, 169, 170
Arbitrary -, 31, 32, 34, 121
Sampling test, 15
P Selected environment, 34, 35, 43, 44, 50,
53
Shock, 30, 35, 39, 140
Parameter b, 31, 91, 113
Shock response spectrum, 30, 36, 42
Peak distribution function, 78
Sinusoidal vibration, 18, 44, 58, 87, 89
Peak probability density, 77
Situation, 25, 26, 36, 37, 49, 50
Phase
Specification, 11, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25, 38,
Definition, 49, 53
Development, 50, 53 39
Feasability, 48, 49, 53 Specific damping energy, 85, 116
Power spectrum density, 29, 30, 38, 41, Specified environment, 44, 49, 50, 53
44, 45, 107 Standard, 11, 18, 21, 24, 90
Pre-qualification test, 13 Strength distribution, 33, 34, 42, 125, 151
Project management, 47 Stress screening test, 14, 50
Prototype test, 13 Sub-situation, 26, 27, 30, 35
P.S.D. envelope, 29, 107 Swept sine, 19, 21, 62
Synopsis, 25, 29, 30, 35
- Type -, 27
Synopsis methods, 18, 28, 29, 107
Q
Q-Factor, 20, 31, 49, 97
Qualification, 13, 24, 42 T
Tayloring, 23, 24, 47
Test chronology, 44
R Test factor, 42, 43, 44, 169
Test program, 25, 42
Rainflow, 84
Test severity, 12, 23, 42, 43, 50, 53
Random - swept sine transformation, 95
Time reduction (see reduced duration)
Random vibration, 17, 19, 20, 30, 37, 77,
Truck, 29, 45, 141
88, 90, 141
Rayleigh's law, 79, 85
Real environment, 12, 16, 17, 23, 24, 34
Real environment dispersion, 17, 49, 121, U
137, 139
Real environment duplication, 28, 101 Ultimate stress, 33
Reception, 13 Uncertainty, 31, 121
- 190 -
- Méthode d'Elaboration des Spécifications d'Environnement Mécanique -
V W
Variation coefficient Weibull's law, 125, 151, 159
- of damage, 87 Wöhler curve, 19, 31, 66
- of fatigue resistance stress, 154
- of real environment, 30 ,33, 49,
123, 139 X
- of resistance, 34, 43, 50, 127, 152
- of the number of cycles at rupture, X.R.S., 83
154
Estimation of the -, 143
-oOo-
- 191 -
- 192 -
View publication stats

Extreme Response Spectrum of A Random Vibration PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Extreme Response Spectrum of A Random Vibration PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Extreme Response Spectrum of a Random Vibration

Chapter · April 2014

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Author: Christian LALANNE

Subject Transforming Mechanical Shocks and Vibration Measurements to

PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS.......................................... 7

II- PURPOSE OF TESTING .............................................................................. 12

III- SPECIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 16

III.2.2- Specifications Derived from Standards documents................... 17

IV- TEST TAYLORING: METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 24

V- STEP 1: ANALYSIS OF THE LIFE CYCLE PROFILE - REVIEW OF

VI- STEP 2: DETERMINATION OF THE REAL ENVIRONMENT DATA 27

VII- STEP 3: DETERMINATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT TO BE SIMULATED 28

VIII- STEP 4: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TEST PROGRAM .............................. 42

IX- APPLYING THIS METHOD TO THE ROUND-ROBIN EXAMPLE ................ 45

X- TAKING THE ENVIRONMENT INTO ACCOUNT IN THE PROJECT

A1- MAXIMAX RESPONSE SPECTRUM AND FATIGUE DAMAGE

V.1.2- Special Case of a Narrow-Band Response......................... 79

A2- EXACT DUPLICATION OF THE REAL ENVIRONMENT OR SYNTHETIC

A3- SYNOPSIS METHOD BY POWER SPECTRUM DENSITY ENVELOPE...... 105

A4- NUMERICAL VALUES OF PARAMETER b ................................................. 111

A5- SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY .................................................................... 119

A6- SAFETY FACTOR ........................................................................................ 123

A7- STATISTICAL ASPECT OF THE REAL ENVIRONMENT ............................ 135

II- DISPERSIONS - COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OBSERVED IN

A8- STRENGTH DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................ 149

A9- AGING FACTOR .......................................................................................... 157

A10- TEST FACTOR ............................................................................................. 167

REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 175

- PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS -

F.S. functional specifications

m probability law mean /

α number of standard deviations /

or accepted risk of overshoot

∆f interval between the half-power points Hz

A standard is a document which provides the technical specifications relative to a defined

II- PURPOSE OF TESTING

II.1- Characterization Test

II.2- Identification Test

II.3- Evaluation Test

II.4- Final Adjustment/Development Test

II.5- Prototype Test

II.6- Pre-Qualification Test (or Evaluation Test)

• or qualification conditions when the specifications result from general standard

II.8- Qualification Test

• to evaluate the interactions between sub-systems,

II.10- Certification Test

II.11- Stress Screening Test

II.13- Reception Test

II.14- Qualification / Acceptance Test

II.15- Series Test

II.16- Sampling Test

II.17- Reliability Test

III.1- What Can Be Expected from a Test Specification?

A specification should satisfy the following criteria [11] [12] [13]:

III.2- Specification Types

The test can be:

- Derived from standards,

- Defined from environmental data.

III.2.1- Specifications Requiring In-Situ Testing

- Test highly representative (reproduction of impedances).