What is Random Vibration?

There is a degree of confusion about the different kinds of vibration tests

available to the vibration testing engineer. Difficulties encountered usually center on the
difference between sinusoidal vibration (sine testing) and random vibration testing.

Sinusoidal Vibration (Sine):

Strike a tuning fork or pluck a guitar string and the sound you hear is the result of
a single sinusoidal wave produced at a particular frequency (Figure 1). Simple musical
tones are sine waves (simple, repetitive, oscillating motion of the air) at a particular
frequency. More complicated musical sounds arise from overlaying a number of sine
waves of different frequencies at the same time. Sine waves are important in more areas
than music. Every substance vibrates and has particular frequencies (resonant
frequencies) in which it vibrates with the greatest amplitude. Therefore sine wave
vibration is important to help understand how any substance vibrates naturally.


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Time (s)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Sine Wave: Displacement vs. Time

Figure 1: Representation of a sinusoidal wave. Note its repeatability and predictability.



The vibration testing industry has made good use of sine vibrations to help assess
the frequencies at which a particular device under test (DUT) resonates. These resonant
frequencies are important to the vibration testing engineer because these resonant
frequencies are the frequencies at which the DUT vibrates with the greatest amplitude;
and therefore, are the frequencies that are most harmful to the DUT.

Because real-world vibrations are not pure sine vibrations, sine testing has a
limited place in the vibration testing industry. Part of the usefulness of sine testing is its
simplicity, and therefore, it is a good point of entry into the study of vibrations.

Sine testing is used primarily to determine damage to equipment or product.
According to Tustin The best pro-sine reasons are to search for product resonances and
then to dwell on one or more of those resonances to: 1. Study modal responses; 2.
Determine fatigue life in each mode.
1


Besides testing a product to find and dwell at its resonant frequencies to
determine fatigue life, one might also use sine testing to determine damage to ones
equipment. A sine sweep prior to any shock or random test will identify any resonances
of the equipment. Running a sine test after testing a product should produce the same
data graphs. Any differences in the sweeps indicates damage to the equipment perhaps
something as simple as a shift in the natural resonant frequencies, possibly suggesting a
few loose bolts that need to be tightened.


Random Vibration:

Vibrations found in everyday life scenarios (vehicle on common roadway; rocket
in take-off, or an airplane wing in turbulent airflow) are not repetitive or predictable like
the sinusoidal wave. Consider the acceleration waveform for dashboard vibration found
in a vehicle traveling on Chicago Drive near Hudsonville, MI (Figure 2). Note that the
vibrations are by no means repetitive.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Time (sec)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
G
)
Acceleration Waveform: Dashboard Vibration: Real Test 2
Chicago Dr.: Real Data: 080205

Figure 2 Data collected on vehicle dashboard in Hudsonville, MI

Thus, there is an important place in our testing of products for a test that is not repetitive
or predictable. Random testing accomplishes this.

Random vs. Sine:

Sinusoidal vibration tests are not as helpful as random testing is, because a sine
test essentially consists of a single frequency in time. A random vibration test, on the
other hand, consists of all the frequencies in the defined spectrum being sent to the shaker
at any given time. Consider Tustins description of random vibration. Ive heard people
describe a continuous spectrum (random vibration, VRC), say 10-2000 Hz, as 1990 sine
waves 1 Hz apart. No. That is close, but not quite correct. . . . (S)ine waves have
constant amplitude, cycle after cycle. . . . .Suppose that there were 1990 of them (constant
amplitude sine waves, VRC). Would the totality be random? No. For the totality to be
random, the amplitude of each slice would have to vary randomly, unpredictably. . . .
Unpredictable variations are what we mean by random. Broad-spectrum random
vibration contains not sinusoids but rather a continuum of vibrations (with different
amplitudes, VRC).
2


Another analogy that is helpful to distinguish the key differences between sine
and random vibrations is the spotlight/floodlamp analogy. If one has a spotlight in the
backyard it will illuminate brightly a small area of the backyard. If one has a floodlamp
it will illuminate a wide range of the backyard but more dimly than the spotlight. A sine
vibration test, similar to the spotlight, will only test one frequency. A random vibration
test, on the other hand, similar to the floodlamp, will test a wide range of frequencies.
Therefore, in order to accomplish the same degree of testing, multitudes of sine tests
would need to be administered, where a simple random test accomplishes all of this in
one test. Random vibration testing is, therefore, much more efficient and precise.
Advantages of Random Vibration Testing:
One of the main goals or uses of random vibration testing in industry is to bring a
DUT to failure. For example, a company may desire to find out how a particular product
may fail because of various environmental vibrations it may be faced with. The company
will simulate those vibrations on a shaker and place their product under those conditions.
Testing the product to failure will teach the company many important things about their
products weaknesses and ways to improve the product. Random testing is the key
testing method for this kind of application.

Random vibration is also more realistic than sinusoidal vibration testing because
random simultaneously includes all the forcing frequencies and simultaneously excites
all our products resonances.
3
Under a sinusoidal test a particular resonant frequency
might be found for one part of the device under testing (DUT) and at a different
frequency another part of the DUT may hit a resonant frequency. Arriving at resonant
frequencies at different times may not cause any kind of failure, but when both resonant
frequencies are hit at the same time a failure may occur. Random testing will cause
both resonances to be hit at the same time because all frequencies in the testing range
will be forced at the same time.

Features of Random Vibration:

Power Spectrum Density (PSD):

In order to perform random testing, a random test spectrum must be developed.
Computer software collects real-time data over a time period and combines the data using
a spectrum averaging method to produce a statistical approximation of the vibration
spectrum. Generally the random vibration spectrum profile is displayed as a power
spectrum a plot of acceleration spectral density (acceleration squared per Hertz) versus
frequency (Figure 3). A power spectrum essentially shows which frequencies contain the
datas power.

200 1 10 100
-6
1x10
-5
1x10
-4
1x10
-3
1x10
-2
1x10
Frequency (Hz)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
G

/
H
z
)
Acceleration Profile
Demand
Control


Figure 3 Amount of power per unit (density) of frequency (spectral) as a function of the
frequency
The PSD demonstrates how hard the shaker is working. It doesnt give any direct
information about the forces experienced by the DUT. This is important to remember.
Since the PSD is the result of an averaging method that produced the statistical
approximation of the spectrum, an infinite number of real-time waveforms could have
generated such a PSD. Thus, at any time during a test, it is impossible to know
specifically from the PSD what forces the DUT is experiencing. The need for the PSD is
that it aids the tester in making an appropriate test profile for the shaker that will come
close to real-life vibrations that the DUT will experience.
The idea that an infinite number of real-time waveforms could generate a
particular PSD can be seen from the following graphs (Figures 4 through 7) produced from
data collected at VRC on June 28 and 30, 2005. Note that the PSD spectra formed from
the data in both cases is exactly the same, yet generated from different waveforms.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Time (ms)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
G
)
Acceleration Waveform
Ch1

Figure 4 Waveform for Body and IP Profile Lightbulb-4 for trial 2005Jun28 1330
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Time (ms)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
G
)
Acceleration Waveform
Ch1

Figure 5 Waveform for Body and IP Profile Lightbulb-4 for trial 2005Jun30 1110

5 10 100 1000
-5
1x10
-4
1x10
-3
1x10
-2
1x10
-1
1x10
Frequency (Hz)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
G

/
H
z
)
Acceleration Profile
Demand
Control
Ch1

Figure 6 PSD spectrum for trial 2005Jun28 - 1330
5 10 100 1000
-5
1x10
-4
1x10
-3
1x10
-2
1x10
-1
1x10
Frequency (Hz)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
G

/
H
z
)
Acceleration Profile
Demand
Control
Ch1

Figure 7 PSD spectrum for trial 2005Jun30-1110
Probability Density Function (PDF) Graphs:

An examination of the acceleration waveforms (Figures 4 and 5) will indicate that
much of the random vibration acceleration values are nearly the same ( 5 G). However,
some of the acceleration values are quite large compared to the normal values. To help
illustrate the rangeof acceleration values, the Power Spectrum Density is converted into
an amplitude probability density graph (PDF) (similar to Figure 8). Notice how much of the
acceleration values fall near the average acceleration value (represented by 0 Sigma). In
fact, much of the vibrations in the real-world approximate a Gaussian distribution, that
is, a distribution in which the vast majority of the data is in the 3 sigma range.
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
Sigma
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Probability Density Function for K = 3
2005Jun30 -1117k3

Figure 8 Probability density for a Light bulb test using Gaussian distribution (k=3)

There are some real-life cases in which there are more high acceleration values
than a Gaussian distribution would show. Unfortunately, most modern techniques covert
the PSD into a PDF that assumes that the majority of the data is in the 3 sigma range
(i.e. Gaussian distribution). This assumption removes from the real-time data the
accelerations that were of extremely large magnitude. These higher accelerations, which
are present in real-life scenarios, are omitted from the probability density graphs of all
those who use the traditional Gaussian distribution method. Consequently, present-day
methods of random testing are unrealistic because they fail to take into account these
higher level accelerations. Furthermore, random testing with Gaussian distribution will
result in a longer time-period to test the product to failure because the higher
accelerations responsible for failure have been omitted. Therefore, random testing, for all
its advantages over traditional sine testing, has its own disadvantages, and a better
method of testing products would prove valuable. Vibration Research Corporation has
developed ways to improve upon traditional Gaussian distributions in random testing.
This new patent-pending technique is called Kurtosion.

Overall, random testing is an excellent tool for vibration testing. It is more
efficient, more precise, and more realistic than sine testing. And, although random
testing is not perfectly realistic and can be improved upon, testing industry ought to use
random testing extensively in their testing procedures.

Field-Data Replication (FDR):

Development in vibration research has resulted in newer methods that come
closer and closer to real-life data replication. Random testing is a great improvement on
sine testing but still does not perfectly represent what happens in real-life. In response to
this, vibration research companies developed Sine-on-Random testing which
overlapped sine spectra with random spectra. The goal of this testing is to include some
peaks that occur in real-life scenarios into the random spectra. This method has been
somewhat successful in bringing tests closer to reality.

More recent development has included a method of recording real-life data and
turning it directly into a spectrum to be used in lab. This method, called field-data
replication (FDR), is very helpful in accurately representing in a test setting what is
happening on the field. This is like shaped random in a way, because the spectrum is
the same as seen in the real application. This method is good, but also has its
shortcomings. It is difficult to find a representative waveform, especially in aerospace
applications. When one is obtained, it is representative of a particular situation of the
product. Unfortunately, it is probably not representative of the entire life of the product.


Gaussian Distribution vs. Kurtosis Distribution:

One final helpful distinction is that relating to the probability distributions of a
DUTs vibratory accelerations. As mentioned earlier, a probability distribution shows the
reader how the data points compare with the average data point. Most of the data points
will center near the average with a number of outliers. Generally, as more data points are
collected the probability distribution forms a nice smooth bell-shaped curve.

Gaussian distribution is the normal probability distribution of random data. The
probability distribution curve takes on the classic smooth bell-shaped curve. Consider
the Probability Density Function (PDF) graph shown below for a set of data with
Gaussian distribution.
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
Sigma
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Probability Density Function for K = 3
2005Jun30 -1117k3

Figure 9 Probability density for a Light bulb test using Gaussian distribution (k=3)

With the use of statistics, one can find a number of interesting things about a set
of collected data. For example one can easily compute the mean and the standard
deviation of a data set statistical concepts familiar to most people communicating the
average of the data set and the range in which most of the data points fall. But a less
familiar statistical concept is the kurtosis of the data set. Kurtosis is a measure of the
peakyness of the probability distribution of the data. For example, a high kurtosis
value indicates the data is distributed with some very large outlier data points, while a
low kurtosis value indicates most data points fall near the mean with few and small
outlier data points. In the previous figure (Figure 9), the data set has a kurtosis value of 3
(Gaussian distribution) and is a smooth curved distribution with few large amplitude
outliers. However, Figure 10 shows a data set with a kurtosis value of 5. Note how the
tails extend further from the mean (indicating large number of outlier data points).
The contrast between the PDFs of a Gaussian distribution and a higher kurtosis
distribution is clearly seen in Figure 11.

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
Sigma
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Probability Density Function for K = 5
2005Jun30 - 1320k5

Figure 10 Probability density for Light bulb test using Kurtosis Control (k=5)





-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
Multiple of Sigma
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Probability Density Function
Kurtosis = 3
Kurtosis = 7

Figure 11 A comparison of kurtosis values 3 and 7. Note how the higher kurtosis value includes
higher sigma values (higher peak accelerations).

Therefore, the fundamental difference between a Gaussian distribution and a
kurtosis distribution is that, although the two data sets may have the same mean, standard
deviation and other properties, yet the Gaussian data set has its data points closely
centered on the mean while the kurtosis distribution has larger tails further from the
mean.

Implications of Kurtosis Distribution to Vibration Testing:

The obvious question is what significance does kurtosis distribution and
Gaussian distribution have to vibration testing? Present-day methods of random testing
assume a Gaussian mode of distribution of random data. Modern controllers run random
vibration tests with the majority of the RMS values near the mean RMS level, thus
vibrating the product only for a short time at peak RMS values. In fact, a Gaussian
waveform will instantaneously exceed three times the RMS level only 0.27% of the time.
When measuring field data, the situation can be considerably different, with amplitudes
exceeding three times the RMS level as much as 1.5% of the time. This difference can be
significant, since it has also been reported that most fatigue damage is generated by
accelerations in the range of two to four times the RMS level.
4
Significantly reducing the
amount of time spent near these peak values by using a Gaussian distribution can
therefore result in significantly reducing the amount of fatigue damage caused by the test
relative to what the product will experience in the real world. Gaussian distribution,
therefore, is not very realistic.

A better method of testing products than using the Gaussian distribution of data is
to adjust the distribution of data to more closely fit the real-world data by adjusting the
kurtosis level. The difference between the Gaussian distribution and a higher kurtosis
value is simply the amount of time spent at or near the peak levels. Adjusting the
kurtosis level to match the measured field level will result in a more realistic test.

A latest modification in random vibration testing is a closed-loop method of
kurtosis control, developed by Vibration Research Corporation (patent-pending). This
method will permit the adjustment of the kurtosis levels while maintaining the same
testing profile and spectrum attributes. With this new technique, in addition to the
standard random test PDF and RMS parameters, a kurtosis parameter is now defined to
produce a test in the lab. This is similar to current random tests but is one step closer to
the vibrations measured in the field. This kurtosis parameter can be easily measured from
field data in the same manner as the RMS and PDF are currently determined from field
data.

1
Tustin, Wayne. Random Vibration and Shock Testing. Equipment Reliability
Institute, Santa Barbara, CA, 2005, pg 205.
2
Ibid, pg 234-235.
3
Ibid, pg 224.
4
Connon, W.H., Comments on Kurtosis of Military Vehicle Vibration Data,
Journal of the Institute of Environmental Sciences, September/October 1991, pp.
38-41.


Think of it this way: Often, we like to measure something over a period of time, such as how many cars go
through an intersection. Then, we can average the number of cars over the length of an hour or over a number
of days. Because we're doing this over a period of time, we call this the time domain. You all know that
probability and statistics are used for such investigations. In fact, these results would be called a Probability
Density.
Random vibration analysis looks at random accelerations or forces over a range of frequencies, which we call
the frequency domain. (These random inputs are merely sustaned over a period of time, but are not time-
dependent; i.e., the longer the period of time, the better the statistical sampling in the frequency domain.) The
range of frequencies is called a spectrum. Therefore, we call these results a Spectral Density. Generically, we
use Power Spectral Density*, although this isn't exactly correct. If we are looking at accelerations, we use
Acceleration Spectral Density (ASD), and for forces, we use Force Spectral Density (FSD).
The chart shows the area under the curve as gray. This area is actually what we are interested in. If we take
the square root of this area, we then have the root mean square value of the acceleration, better known as
Grms. This value is what we use in our analysis calculations, for example in our stress calculations. If the
area is large due to a high response, then we may have problems; likewise, if the area is small, then we have a
small Grms value and we shouldn't have any problems.
Deriving any of these quantities is far beyond the scope of what I'm trying to explain here, so I won't bother. I
just hope my simple explanation itself wasn't far beyond the scope of what I am trying to expalin.
* The term Power in Power Spectral Density seems to come from the fact that when random vibration
measurements were taken, they were actually recorded electronically and so the power levels were used in
the calculations.
http://analyst.gsfc.nasa.gov/ryan/MOLA/random.html