Fundamentals of Vibration and Modal Analysis

Fundamentals of Vibration and Modal Analysis
Measurement functions Excitation techniques Testing practice
Sales New Hires Training 2008 Swen Vandenberk
Lecture objectives
By completing this lecture, you will:
f(t) x(t) m k
ground
Know how measurements are performed for Experimental Modal Analysis Understand what an FRF and a coherence is Have a feeling for the practicalities of structural testing Be able to talk about excitation tec ques techniques
2 copyright LMS International - 2008
Modal Analysis Understanding the Dynamic Properties of Structures
Seat Vibration
Engine
Wheel & Tire
Steering Wheel Shake Noise at Drivers & Passengers Ears
Turbomachinery Road
Rearview mirror vibration
Rotor
Gearbox and Transmission Cockpit vibration & noise Environmental sources Structural Integrity
Cabin comfort
Accessories
Source
System Transfer
Receiver
Systematic approach to noise & vibration testing

The source transmitter - receiver approach
!
Receiver
Response: noise vibrations
Transmitter
System characteristics: structural acoustic
Source
Operating loads: p g structural acoustic critical loads critical dynamics worst case scenario
Structural Dynamics Modelling SDOF (Single degree of freedom) system
Source
System Transfer
H
0
Receiver
f
Log-Magnitude e
x
Frequency Response Function
H ( ) =
x ( ) 1 = f ( ) m2 + cj + k
f(t) x(t) m
10
damping controlled region

-1
10
mass controlled region stiffness controlled region

-2 2
10
0 0
10 12 Frequency Hz
14
16
18
20
-50 Phase
k
ground
-100 -150 -200 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Frequency Hz 14 16 18 20
The simplest dynamic system
Structural Dynamics Modelling MDOF system

More complex dynamic system
grou und grou und f1(t) k1 c1 x1(t) m1 f 2(t) m2 x (t) 2 fn(t) mn xn(t)
Input
k n+1 c n+1
System
Output
k2 c2
abstract
As many peaks as masses

0.10
Modal parameters =
Eigenfrequency = Peak in FRF g q y Damping ratio = Width of FRF peak / decay in IRF Mode shape = Deformation at eigenfrequency
0.91
H pq ( j)
10.0e-6
180.00 180 00 ( g/N N) Real l -1.07 -180.00 0.00 Hz 80.00 0.00 s 6.00
H pq ( j)
Freq. domain: Frequency Response Function (FRF)

Phase
( g/N) Log
Time Domain: Impulse Response Function (IRF)
Mode Shapes
Mode 1
Mode 2
2 1
Analytical Modal Analysis: only for simple cases

w OK for x
d 4w m 2 w=0 dx 4 EI
Distributed parameters Lumped parameters
But what about real-life structures?
We have to look for other approaches Virtual prototype: Finite Element Modal Analysis Physical prototype: Experimental Modal Analysis
See CAE technology lecture See here!
Engineering for improved Noise & Vibration performance Experimental Modal Analysis
Excitation techniques DSP Frequency Response Functions (FRFs) Curve-fitting / (modal) parameter est at o estimation Validation
Modal Parameters: Frequency Damping p g Mode shapes
Experimental Modal Analysis: Aircraft Test Setup Example

Responses
Inputs
Ground Vibration Test
F3
(GVT) System
F4 F1 F2
Force Inputs
0 . 1 0
N) (m/s )/N Log
Resp ponses
H11 H 21 H31 H41
H12 H13 H14 H22 H23 H24 H32 H33 H34 H42 H43 H44
1 row or column suffices to determine modal parameters Reciprocity
0 . 0 0 1 8 0 . 0 0
- 1 8 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 H z 8 0 . 0 0
Phase
pq
= H qp
Experimental Modal Analysis
Required knowledge for a successful modal test
Test Setup
Make measurements
Identify Parameters
Verify/document results
Purpose of the test Knowledge of expected modes of the system Expected results Transducers and excitation devices Knowledge of digital signal processing, parameters such as leakage, windows, time and frequency relationships, FFT, excitation techniques Knowledge of modal theory Knowledge of modal parameter estimation techniques Knowledge of modal theory Synthesis. MAC
Experimental Modal Analysis vs. Finite Element Modal Analysis

Experimental H () i , i ,{i }, Qi Numerical M , C, K i , i ,{i }, Qi
Requires prototype Very fast (1-5 days) Very accurate for frequency More reliable for damping Limited number of points
Requires FE model Many days/weeks Fast alternative evaluation A lot of model uncertainties (joints / damping / ) High number of points
Experimental Modal Analysis
1. Measure FRFs
2. Estimate poles
3. Estimate shapes
5. Use modal parameters Troubleshooting Check frequencies Qualitative descriptions of mode shapes Simulation and prediction Design optimisation Diagnostics and health monitoring Finite Element model verification/improvement Hybrid system model building
4. Validate
Experimental Modal Analysis Applications
Car body, fully equipped car, car interior cavity, cavity Aircraft fuselage, full aircraft, interior cavity, Components: engine block, suspension systems, brakes, antennas Processing plants: piping systems, equipment mounting Mechanical equipment: turbine blades, q p , compressors, pumps Audio & household: CD-drive, washing machine, loudspeakers Infrastructure: bridge off shore platforms bridge, off-shore
Digital Signal Processing for Structural Testing ToC

See DSP lecture
Basic DSP Fourier transform Quantisation Aliasing Leakage ea age Frequency Response Function (FRF) estimators Coherence functions
Input
System
Output
Frequency Response Function (FRF) Measurements SISO

Input
Frequency Response Function
System
Output
X ( ) = H ( ) F ()
How to estimate Ideal world
H=
X F
Nave averaging approaches

N 1 i =1 X i H= N N 1 i =1 Fi N
Real life: averaging required Mechanical noise Non-linear behaviour Electrical noise in the instrumentation
Random excitation: averaging of linear spectra go to 0
H=
1 N
Xi i =1 F i
N
May be 0 (very small) at some spectral lines
Use statistical noise modelling instead
FRF measurements
DFT averaging Power and cross spectra calc. FRF and coherence
Time signals Input
Linear spectra
f(t)
F()
GFF()
H1 =
G XF GFF
H() Cr ross GXF() ( ) coh() X() O Output x(t) GXX()
coh = h
G XF
G XX GFF
FRF estimators graphical interpretation

At single frequency : N measurements available
X
H1
H2
Hv
H1 estimate Least squares Output noise
H2 estimate Least squares Input noise
Hv estimate Total least squares Input noise Output noise
1 N i=1 X i Fi* GXF H1 = N = 1 N i =1 Fi Fi* GFF N

1 N i =1 X i X i* GXX H2 = N = 1 N GFX * Fi X i N i =1
linea amplitude (ms-2/N) ar
0 2 1
Smaller than 1 when Noise in the measurements Nonlinearities Leakage g
linear amplitude a
1 2 3 4 5 7 1 6
8.1 2
)N/2-sm( edutilpma raenil edutilpma raenil
008 zH 007
006
005
004
003
002
001
0 0
Coherence
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1.2 1 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Hz 800
Cross spectrum inequality Non-coherent Non coherent noise
FRF
GFX G XX GFF
2
Coherence
GFX 2 = G XX GFF
Coherence
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Hz 800
0 0
FRF + Coherence Typical Examples

1.05 10.0
100 40 20 10
Lo g
4 2 1 0.4 0.2 0.1
Leakage
g/N
0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 2 1 0.000 0.000 0 4 000 0.000 2 1 3e-05 1e-05 0 200 400 600 800 100 0 Hz 120 0 140 0 160 0 180 0 2047. 5
/ Amplitude
( (m/s2)/N)
dB
1 0.9
Amplitu de
/
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 03
F B B 8.38 0.00 Hz
coherence DRV:1:+X FRF DRV:1:+X / FOR:1:+X FRF DRV:1:+X / FOR:2:+X
0.2 0.1 0 0
0.00
-70.0 45.00
200
400
600
800
100 0 Hz
120 0
140 0
160 0
180 0
2047. 5
Coherence and FRF Variance
FRF Variance
2 H
1 2 . = 2( N 1) 2 H
Large co e e ce a ge coherence corresponds to a good FRF estimation When the coherence is low, low take more averages
90% confidence bounds on the estimated FRF magnitude and phase p
Aircraft In-flight Testing Noisy FRFs

In-flight excitation, 2 wing-tip vanes, 2 min sine sweep 9 accelerometers Noisy data (additional unmeasurable turbulence excitation)
Coherences
1.00 1.00
FRFs
/ Amplitude
180.00 Phase -180 00 180.00 Hz Hz
F F 0.00 0 00
Coherence w ing:vvd:+Z/Multiple Coherence back:vde:+Y/Multiple
( (m/s2)/N) ( Log 0.00
Vehicle FRFs
Body-in-white Fully-trimmed vehicle
Lowly-damped structure, sharp peaks

0.10 98.1e-3
Highly-damped structure, rounded peaks
( (m/s2)/N) Log 98.1e-6 180.00 180 00 Phase -180.00 0.00 Hz 80.00 FRF moto:9:+Z/karo:25:+Z 3.50 Hz 30.00 FRF moto:9:+Z/karo:25:+Z
100e-6 180.00 180 00 Phase -180.00
( (m/s 2)/N) ) Log
Demo_car
Porsche
Radarsat Satellite
5 shaker excitation
1.00
100e-9 180.00 Phase -180.00 10.00 Hz 64.00
Low contribution of red input to response red
( (m/s2)/N) Log
Structural testing equipment
Excitation Shakers or hammer Force cell Response Accelerometers cce e o ete s LDV (laser)
Boundary Conditions
Fixed boundary conditions Difficult to realise Flexibility of fixtures Added damping Environmental noise
Free-free suspension In practice: almost free-free Soft spring, elastic cord spring Soft cushion
Check if your suspension is soft enough !
Rigid bod mode frequency < 10 % of first fle ible mode body freq enc flexible
Boundary Conditions Practical Examples

Free-free (soft tires) Fixed-free
ATA Engineering, IMAC 05

GVT of Embraer 170 Influence of Tire Pressure
Tires not soft enough
Embraer, IMAC 05
Boundary Conditions Practical Examples

Pneumatic suspension
Courtesy Airbus France
Elastic cords
Operational boundary conditions
FRF measurements
Impact Testing
Advantages Limited equipment Easy and fast y Low cost Excellent for troubleshooting Disadvantages Poor Signal to Noise ratio Poor for non-linear structures Double impacts ADC underload / overload
Time Frequency
Respon nse
Inp put
FRF
Typically: fixed response accelerations roving impact location
Impact testing
About Hammer Tips
Force spectrum Coherence FRF
Soft tip
Hard tip
Right tip
FRF measurements
Shaker Testing
Time Frequency
Fast & reliable

Input t Response e
Best ratio quality/time Better energy distribution over structure Excellent for trouble shooting & modification simulation Typically fixed excitation point, multiple response points - measured in batches Only way to characterize non-linearities
FRF
Shaker testing Required instrumentation
An excitation device is attached to the structure using a rod (stinger) ( stinger ) Characteristics of the stinger to ensure that the only input is along the shaker excitation axis High axial stiffness Low transverse and bending stiffness Multiple shakers can be used Energy distribution over structure All responses are above the background noise Exciting different parts of a real structure (e.g. wing and tail plane of an aircraft) Exciting a 3D-structure in different directions (X,Y,Z) Multiple-reference measurements Mode multiplicity Less risk to miss modes (controllability)
Shaker Excitation signals

Random
Burst Random
Stepped Sine Normal mode excitation
Chirp Swept Sine p
Random excitation Averaging

3 averages
3.50
/ Amp plitude
10 averages
2.70
0.00 Phase 180.00 -180.00
0.00
Hz
/ Ampl litude
1100.00
20 averages
2.20
0.00 180.00 -180.00 Phas
0.00
Hz
1100.00
/ Amplitude e
40 averages
2.10
180.00 -180.00
Ph hase 0.00
0.00
180.00 180 00 -180.00
Phas se 0.00
/ Amplitude 0.00
Hz
1100.00
Hz
1100.00
Random excitation With Hanning window Comparison of random with and without a Hanning window after 40 averages
FRF
2.80
Coherence
FRF random with Hanning FRF random without Hanning
1.00
1.00 1.00
/ Amplitude
/ Amplitude
Amplitude
FRF random with Hanning FRF random without Hanning

0.00 0.00 Hz 1100.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 Hz 1100.00 0.00
The smearing of energy to neighboring spectral lines in the FRFs is far less when a Hanning window is applied, which result in a far better approximation of the studied system and a vast improvement of the coherence
Amplitude
Shaker testing
(MIMO) burst excitation
Advantages: applicable for lightly and heavily damped syste s systems Leakage? Only if the responses do not die out within the observation period (block) Disadvantage wrt random: less energy in structure, less good Signal to Noise ratio
Shaker testing Comparison random and burst random
Random with Hanning Burst R d B t Random FRF comparison
Conclusion: Avoid Random on lightly damped structures !

Shaker testing (MIMO) Sine Shaker Signals
Stepped sine pp
Sinusoidal excitation Covering entire frequency range Build FRF line by line All shaker energy at single f h k t i l frequency High quality Best signal to characterize non-linear properties
Normal modes
Excite the structure at resonance frequency with tuned input force combination (several shakers) such that only one mode in resonance Oldest method Very accurate Feel the mode directly But ti B t ... time consuming i Traditionally preferred method by aircraft manufacturers
Shaker testing Overview Excitation Methods

Random Swept Sine Stepped Sine Normal Modes
t
AP(F) [N] AP(F) [N] AP(F) [N] AP(F) [N]
f
[Hz] [Hz] [Hz] resonance [Hz]
Shaker testing Overview Processes

Random Swept Sine Stepped Sine Normal Modes
t
AP(F) [N] AP(F) [N] AP(F) [N] AP(F) [N]
f
[Hz] [Hz] [Hz] resonance [Hz]
Phase Seperation or Frequency Response Function (FRF) based methods

Measure FRF
-19.83 ((m/s2 2)/N) dB
Phase Resonance / Mode Appropriation

Measure / Identify Mode [ , , ]
Modal Parameter Estimator
Experimental Modal Model [ , , ]
FRF DRV :1:+X / FOR:1:+ FRF DRV :2:+X / FOR:2:+
-89.83
Data Verification
Excitation power spectra Driving point FRFs Reciprocity Linearity Coherences
Input 1 at right wing
Input 2 at the rear part of fuselage
100e+6 F F AutoPow er FOR:1:+X AutoPow er FOR:2:+X
10.0e-3 10 0e 3 0.00 Hz 400.00
N2 Log
Driving Point FRFs
Selection and verification of excitation locations All modes present in driving point FRF ? Alternating resonances and anti-resonances Phases between 0-180
0.07
Bad quality driving q y g point FRF = Bad quality modal model !
( g/N) Log
FRF DRV:1:+X/FOR:1:+X FRF DRV:2:+X/FOR:2:+X 33.6e-6 180.00 Phase -180.00 0.00 Hz 100.00
Reciprocal FRFs
Alignment stinger force cell accelerometer

1.00 FRF DRV:1:+X / FOR:2:+X FRF DRV:2:+X / FOR:1:+X
100e-6 180.00 Phase -180.00 0.00 Hz 100.00
( (m/s2)/N) Log
Linearity of FRFs
X =H F
3 different excitation levels
1.00
X = H F
0.10
N2 Log
(g/N) Log
F F F
AutoPow er FOR:1:+X AutoPow er FOR:1:+X AutoPow er FOR:1:+X
FRF DRV:1:+X/FOR:1:+X FRF DRV:1:+X/FOR:1:+X (1) FRF DRV:1:+X/FOR:1:+X (2)
10.0e-6 180.00 180 00 Phase
1.00e-6 0.00 Hz 100.00
-180.00 0.00 Hz 100.00
Coherences
Coherence differs from 1 in case of: Non-Linearity Non Linearity Leakage Unmeasured sources Ot e o se Other noise
1.00 1 00
/ Real
F F F F 0.00 0.00 Hz
Coherence Coherence Coherence Coherence
DRV:1:+X DRV:2:+X ENG:1:+Y FUSL:5:+X
100.00
Course summary
Boundary conditions
Structural testing in source transfer receiver model
Excitation techniques
Introduction to Experimental Modal M d l Analysis
DSP for Structural Testing: FRFs and T ti FRF d coherences
Thank you
Sales New Hires Training 2008 Swen Vandenberk

Fundamentals of Vibration and Modal Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

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

Fundamentals of Vibration and Modal Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Fundamentals of Vibration and Modal Analysis

Measurement functions Excitation techniques Testing practice

Sales New Hires Training 2008 Swen Vandenberk

2 copyright LMS International - 2008

Modal Analysis Understanding the Dynamic Properties of Structures

Wheel & Tire

Steering Wheel Shake Noise at Drivers & Passengers Ears

Rearview mirror vibration

3 copyright LMS International - 2008

Systematic approach to noise & vibration testing

4 copyright LMS International - 2008

Structural Dynamics Modelling SDOF (Single degree of freedom) system

damping controlled region

mass controlled region stiffness controlled region

-100 -150 -200 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Frequency Hz 14 16 18 20

The simplest dynamic system

5 copyright LMS International - 2008

Structural Dynamics Modelling MDOF system

As many peaks as masses

Freq. domain: Frequency Response Function (FRF)

Time Domain: Impulse Response Function (IRF)

7 copyright LMS International - 2008

Analytical Modal Analysis: only for simple cases

But what about real-life structures?

See CAE technology lecture See here!

8 copyright LMS International - 2008

Modal Parameters: Frequency Damping p g Mode shapes

9 copyright LMS International - 2008

Experimental Modal Analysis: Aircraft Test Setup Example

N) (m/s )/N Log

H11 H 21 H31 H41

1 row or column suffices to determine modal parameters Reciprocity

10 copyright LMS International - 2008

Experimental Modal Analysis

Required knowledge for a successful modal test

11 copyright LMS International - 2008

Experimental Modal Analysis vs. Finite Element Modal Analysis

12 copyright LMS International - 2008

Experimental Modal Analysis

13 copyright LMS International - 2008

Experimental Modal Analysis Applications

14 copyright LMS International - 2008

Digital Signal Processing for Structural Testing ToC

15 copyright LMS International - 2008

Frequency Response Function (FRF) Measurements SISO

Nave averaging approaches

Random excitation: averaging of linear spectra go to 0

May be 0 (very small) at some spectral lines

Use statistical noise modelling instead

16 copyright LMS International - 2008

Time signals Input

H() Cr ross GXF() ( ) coh() X() O Output x(t) GXX()

17 copyright LMS International - 2008

FRF estimators graphical interpretation

H1 estimate Least squares Output noise

H2 estimate Least squares Input noise

Hv estimate Total least squares Input noise Output noise

1 N i=1 X i Fi* GXF H1 = N = 1 N i =1 Fi Fi* GFF N

linea amplitude (ms-2/N) ar

)N/2-sm( edutilpma raenil edutilpma raenil

Cross spectrum inequality Non-coherent Non coherent noise

19 copyright LMS International - 2008

FRF + Coherence Typical Examples