Developing vibration and shock test specifications.

Frank Sherratt, DiDam Limited and N.W.M. Bishop, RLD Limited December 2001

1. Introduction
This article arises from a Workshop conducted by the Society of Environmental Engineers on 15
May 2001 and entitled “Future Vibration and Shock Testing”. This was made up of presentations
about current practice and likely future developments. Following the Workshop the Society
Chairman, Bob Bootle, wrote in Environmental Engineering inviting discussion about how the field
should develop, and in particular what was the future for the ‘Lalanne’ methodology. We were not
at the Workshop, and are not vibration specialists, but we have worked on fatigue analysis using
frequency domain methods, which is a closely related field. We prepared the central part of this
article (section 3) from written material presented at the Workshop, with the aim of understanding
that material ourselves. When we had finished we felt the text might be useful as a contribution to
the discussion Bob Bootle has asked for. To make the article more useful to non-specialists we have
added a brief survey of current developments in section 2.

Several of the presentations refer to a document by Christian Lalanne, of CEA/CESTA (reference

3), which is obviously an important part of any judgements on the Lalanne methodology. We
completed the main text of this paper before we had a copy of that report, but have since obtained
one. It is an extensive document, and we have only studied a small part of it. We have added an
appendix about a key section from it, and considered this in our comments at the end of the main
paper.

2. Current developments in shock and vibration testing.

Testing practices in this field have traditionally relied on procedures laid down in standards.
Modern data collection and analysis capabilities are causing a re-think of this approach, possibly
leading to a move towards tests “tailored” to suit a particular service requirement. Setting up a
tailored test forces us to consider the objectives of the test and how to achieve them, rather than just
following procedures agreed by a committee.

Two common criteria for systems that must withstand vibration are: -

A. The system must continue to function after experiencing the greatest magnitude of ‘load’
applied in service or during transportation. Failure to achieve this is called “first-pass failure”.

B. The system must also continue to function under sustained application of dynamic loading.
Failure to achieve this is called fatigue failure.

A test must therefore replicate those features of service conditions that cause either of these failure
modes. Steps towards this are:-

(a) Collect data. This step will not be considered further.

(b) Put the data in a coherent form.
(c) Identify those features of the data which control (1) and (2) above and draw up a
specification which transfers them to a test.
2.1 Data analysis approaches

Vehicles such as trucks, ships and aircraft and their payloads are common targets for this sort of
analysis and it is convenient to concentrate the discussion on these cases. In collecting data
parameters like acceleration, displacement, strain etc. will have been recorded. Richards (ref. 1) lists
five analysis approaches that may then be used. The choice depends mainly on how the test
specification is to be drawn up. The five possibilities are: -

(i) Conventional Power Spectral Density (PSD)

(ii) Peak Hold Spectra
(iii) The Sandia approach
(iv) The Aberdeen Proving Ground approach
(v) A Cranfield approach.

Filling in a few details, for (i) The PSD’s may be from one location, but more commonly an
envelope of data from different locations, different vehicles and different routes is used. In (ii) peak
hold values are not peak values from a time-domain record but “the largest G(ω) values that occur
in each spectral band over the analysis record length”. Sandia and Aberdeen are a laboratory and
proving ground respectively in the U.S.A. The Cranfield method is described in ref.(1); it aims to
match the measured PSD of acceleration and also the Amplitude Probability Density Distribution
(APD).

2.2 Test specification creation.

Existing practice is illustrated by a round robin exercise reported by Richards and Hibbert (ref. 2).
Vibration data was supplied to 22 participating organisations. Each of these undertook to analyse
the data, choosing their own methods. They were also invited to derive test specifications for
vibration and shock. The record analysed was a 52-minute trace taken on a 10 tonne 4x4 vehicle
travelling for 40 km on public, non-motorway roads. Vertical, lateral and axial accelerations on the
payload were measured, plus vehicle speed.

Space does not allow definitions of the parameters chosen by participants. A simple list is:-

(i) rms vs time, taken over short intervals

(ii) Power Spectral Density. All participants used PSD’s at some point. Many took the whole
record as one sample but others divided it into 2, 3 or 4 sections.
(iii) Peak hold, used to match amplitude for the test specification
(iv) Maximum Response Spectra (MRS). Those participants who defined a shock test
normally used a measured MRS to set maximum response. Those participants who used
FDS (see below) also used MRS to ensure that maximum responses were being matched.
(v) Level crossing, used to match amplitude for the test specification.
(vi) Amplitude Probability Density Distribution (APD), used to match amplitude for the test
specification.
(vii) Probability Distribution Function (PDF)
(viii) Fatigue Damage Spectra (FDS). Three participants calculated FDS. This was used to
generate a test PSD which would give an equivalent FDS

2
The number of participants using each technique was: -

Technique No Technique No Technique No.

. .
rms vs time 11 Peak hold 5 Amplitude Probability Density 3
(APD)
PSD, whole record 13 Maximum Response Spectra 9 Probability Distribution 3
(MRS) Function (PDF)

PSD, sections of record 7 Level crossing 2 Fatigue Damage Spectrum 3

(FDS)

Thirteen participants proposed tests All defined a vibration test but only seven felt that this needed
supplementing with a shock test. The tests specified wide-band vibration with given rms levels,
sometimes changing rms from time to time.

2.3 Summary of current developments.

Summarising the main points so far: -

(1) “Test tailoring” to match a vibration test or a shock test to a particular application is likely to
become more common. The test will be based on field measurements.
(2) A PSD is the most common field measurement, but this is unlikely to describe a real service
loading on its own and it is already being supplemented in some tests.
(3) By shaping the excitation profile, or varying the test drive signal from time to time, other
factors can be matched. Likely candidates are Amplitude Probability Density Distribution
(APD), Maximum Response Spectra (MRS) and Fatigue Damage Spectra (FDS)

3. The presentations made at the SEE workshop on May 15 2001.

Several of the presentations referred to Lalanne methodology and some participants had used
software originating from CEA/CESTA, which is based on the method. This provides MRS and
FDS estimates from measured traces. Christian Lalanne of CEA/CESTA made one of the
presentations.

Common symbols in many of the presentations were:-

C, b, values in the constant amplitude fatigue (S-N) expression N = C.S-b

Q, the dynamic amplification factor
K, a link between stress and excitation, often stress/acceleration or stress/displacement.

3.1 Summaries of presentations.

Christian Lalanne, CEA/CESTA

This is an extensive survey of what can go wrong if Frequency Domain methods are used on non-
stationary records. An explanation is given of the role of b when computing an accelerated test. The
role of Shock Response Spectrum (SRS) and Extreme Response Spectrum (ERS or MRS) is

3
examined, and their lack of relevance for fatigue is acknowledged. The role of rainflow counting in
computing the FDS is made clear and details of using FDS for fatigue simulation are covered. There
are detailed examples of the influence of b and Q in calculations involving road and air transport.
There is no information about how an FDS is found from a PSD.

David Richards, Hunting Engineering.

The presentation is subdivided, with titles:-

(a) “Assumptions inherent in current methods and sensitivity to those assumptions” This is
mostly about calculating ‘equivalent’ stresses and particularly the role of the S-N slope b. Typical
values of b are given.

(b) “Assumptions inherent in FDS/MRS methods and sensitivity to those assumptions”. This
gives a good examination of the role of Q, b and K variation for FDS. It is stated clearly that MRS
is used for first-passage failure calculation and FDS is used for fatigue. How FDS is related to PSD
is not discussed. The general conclusion is that although MRS and FDS are useful for severity
comparisons, absolute predictions are unreliable.

(c) “Comparison of the effects of tests and environments” This is a detailed examination of Def
Stan 00-35 parts 3 and 5. It has good plots of FDS against “resonance frequency” but does not
describe how they were obtained.

(d) “SRETS – An EU study of transportation severities”. This reports work on EU contract No.
SMT4-CT95-2005(DG 12-RSMT, entitled Source Reduction by European Testing Schedules.
There were ten Project Partners. The objective was to improve the design of packaging by acquiring
a better understanding of transportation loading. A wide range of time-domain and frequency
domain parameters were measured, including PSD and FDS. Test acceleration by modifying the
rms of a wide-band history was studied.

(e) “A comparison of the effects of transportation with the Def Stan 00-35 Part 3
‘Transportation of Materiel’ test severity” This is a full paper reporting a detailed comparison
between the test specified in Part 3 of Def Stan 00-35 and those specified in Part 5 of the same
standard. SRS/MRS and FDS methods are used. The Part 3 test has prevented service failures, but it
is possible that it is too severe. The data is given in a number of very informative figures, including
FDS data for swept sine tests.

Annex A gives a very good explanation of MRS and FDS calculations. Reference is made to
Lalanne (3) for overall methodology, to Svensson (4) for a computation method and to Holm and de
Mare (5) for a model of fatigue behaviour. The Annex also gives specific guidance about obtaining
MRS and FDS. A key operation is the transformation from frequency domain to time domain in
computing the FDS. The procedure recommended is to break the ‘arbitrary waveform’ into small
blocks, apply the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), multiply the result by the complex response
characteristics of a Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) analysis and then apply the Inverse Fast
Fourier Transform (IFFT) to obtain a time history. The fatigue calculation is then performed using
the model described in reference (5) rather than rainflow counting because the latter has been
shown to be “not reliable with low irregularity factor data”.

4
Bob Bootle, Matra BAe Dynamics “Missile life profiles”

The paper is a straightforward account of practices in an industry that has extensive experience in
the field. The author states firmly that missile design is not driven by transportation vibration but is
driven by deployment vibration; He then goes on to describe how good design is achieved. The
techniques are not precisely in line with those reported by other presenters, and there is not the same
emphasis on MRS and FDS, but there is no doubt that the analysis methods are well founded. Points
made include:-

(a) Both time and frequency domain methods are used, often with Finite Element models and
fatigue software packages.
(b) Laboratory testing is predominantly based on acceleration rather than stress/strain.
(c) A trials database for about 15 missiles and 12 host aircraft has been created. Data has also
been collected on missiles carried by ships, tracked vehicles and men.
(d) Response data are usually analysed for mean and distribution, with confidence levels. They
are sometimes enveloped.
(e) The proportion of life to be spent at each severity level is estimated.
(f) Acceleration is used to drive and monitor tests, usually separating sine and random
components. Prolonged low level periods are retained.

Darrel Charles, Cranfield Aerospace Ltd. “Review of processes for the generation of vibration test
specifications”

The presentation lists possible data reduction tools as Time-series data, PSD analysis, Mean and
Peak hold PSD, Amplitude Probability Distributions, Fatigue-analysis-cycle-counting and Fatigue
Damage Spectra. Deployment on stores carried by fast jets is described, with details of data from a
Harrier. In the description of general methodology the first step is given as establishing stationarity.
Manoeuvres are separated from straight and level flight. Overall g rms is plotted against dynamic
pressure and g2/Hz against frequency. On one graph an envelope PSD using 3 x standard deviation
as part of the derivation is shown. Expressions for equivalent severity using Q and equivalent
duration using b are given. One table gives a flight profile for fast jets, listing altitude, Mach
number, duration and severity, and also an ‘equivalent’ duration at Qmax. Deployment on tracked
vehicles and helicopters is described. Finally concerns are expressed about values of b, validity of
use for a full structure with different materials, joints etc., and applicability to non-linear materials.

Markku Juntunen et. al. VTT and Nokia “Development of shock and vibration test specifications for
telecommunication equipment in automotive environments”.

The paper presents a detailed and clear description of a Mission Synthesis exercise on
telecommunications equipment permanently installed in a Ford Mondeo. LMS Mission Synthesis
software CADA-X was used. Values of Q (=10), b(=8), C(=1) and K(=1) for the situation are given,
as are sampling and filtering data for the acquisition of SRS. Plots of SRS and “vibration test
spectra” are displayed. The latter is based on FDS data modified by a statistical safety factor whose
basis is clearly defined. Test acceleration is used. Reference (3) is quoted as a main source for the
technical approach.

5
4. Conclusions.
In addition to reading and summarising the presentations made on 15 May we have made a short
study of reference (3). Appendix A of this article gives an extract that we think covers the most
important part of the fatigue analysis, and our conclusions here take account of it.

If failures during vibration tests are true fatigue failures some of the weaknesses in present vibration
testing methods are:-

(i) The role of b and C in N=C.S-b is often poorly controlled. The shape of the specimen used in
the original S-N tests dominates b but is often not reported in vibration literature. Instead
lists are provided of values for particular materials, which is wrong. Some of the quoted b
values seem unrealistic, often in a non-conservative direction.
(ii) Shortening a test by increasing the rms of the applied loading must be done cautiously.
Values of b are likely to be uncertain, and they have a very strong influence on estimated
life. High rms values may trigger different failure mechanisms.
(iii) Frequency is not a prime controlling variable in fatigue. A PSD only controls life if it
controls time-domain parameters (usually the rainflow distribution). This means that the
history must be stationary. This in turn would call for shorter samples and more frequent
changes of test rms than are being used at present.
(iv) The FDS of a swept-sine history can be calculated, but its relationship to the FDS
of a wide-band history with similar frequency characteristics is complex. Swept-sine
excitation is useful but in fatigue analysis it does not simulate wide-band excitation.
(v) If a transformation from the frequency domain to the time domain is being used (e.g.
in Richard's contribution 5), the IFFT sampling must be statistically sound.

Three points specific to Appendix A are:-

(vi) Calculating the fatigue life of a component using Equation (6) of ref.(3) is not in line with
modern practice. It does not consider the geometry of the system being vibrated but uses
global parameters and estimates E(D) from these. Modern fatigue design uses Finite
Element Analysis to calculate PSD's of stress at 'hot-spots' where cracks are likely to form,
and then uses these to estimate life to failure at each hot-spot. In vibration testing this is
unfortunate because it really means that we need to know typical failure locations before
drawing up a test procedure.
(vii) It is common in classical vibration theory to carry out wide-band analysis using expressions
which should strictly be limited to the narrow-band case. Special features of the Appendix A
analysis make this practice more confusing than usual.
(viii) In several places the analysis assumes that the damage caused by the G(ω) component at
one point on the frequency axis is not affected by components at other locations. This is true
if each of the components is applied in sequence, as in swept-sine work, but when they
occur in a wide-band form there are interactions.

In spite of these reservations we feel that the two subjects of vibration and fatigue are making
substantial progress towards common methodology, and that the Workshop helped in this process.

6
5. References

(1) Richards, D.P., “A review of analysis and assessment methodologies for road transportation
vibration and shock data”, Environmental Engineering, Vol. 3 No 4 Dec 1990.
(2) Richards, D.P. and Hibbert, B.E. “A round robin exercise on road transportation data”
Journal of the IES, July 1993 and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 2, June 1994.
(3) Lalanne, Christian “The mechanical environment test specification development method”,
3rd edition, October 1997, Centre d’etudes Scientifues et Techniques d’Aquitaine.
(4) Svenssen, Thomas “ Utilisation of Fatigue Damage Response Spectrum in the evaluation of
transport stresses”, Swedish Testing and Research Institute, SP Report 1993:13
(5) Holm, S. and de Mare, J, “A simple model for fatigue life” IEEE Transactions on
Reliability, Vol 37 No. 3, 1988

6. Appendix A. Deriving a PSD to give a required FDS.

If fatigue resistance is the criterion being assessed then a key operation in deriving a test
specification is computing a PSD which will give a required FDS. How this is accomplished with
the Lalanne method is covered in Section VII.9 of:-

Lalanne, Christian “Mechanical environment test specification development method.”

Commissariat a l’ Energie Atomique, CESTA, BP2, 33114, Le Barp, France.

This states:-

“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:-

K b n +p T 2b / 2 π n
E[ D] = 4 3 b/2
Γ(1 + b / 2) .{ ∑ G [I i 0 (hi +1 ) − I 0 (hi )]}b / 2 Equation (6)
C [(2π ) f 0 ] 4ξ i =1

ξ h 2 + αh + 1 1 2h + α 2h − α
where, I 0 = ln 2 + [arctan + arctan ] Equation (7)
πα h − αh + 1 π 2ξ 2ξ
fi
and hi = α = 2(1 − ξ 2 )1/ 2
f0

If we choose n points on a damage curve we have a set of n linear equations between values that
can be written as follows in matrix form:

E(D) = A.Gb/2

(Gb/2 = matrix column

where each term is equal to Gi b/2) from where G is taken, based on Gb/2 = A-1.E(D)”

No further explanation of Equation (6) is given at this point, but the symbols are defined in
Appendix 1 “Maximum Response Spectrum and Fatigue Damage Spectrum”. They are:-

7
ξ = damping coefficient S-N data N = CS-b f = frequency, f0 = resonant frequency, K = s/z,
where s = stress, z = displacement T = duration Γ= Gamma function

The next occurrence of the same expression is numbered Equation (A1-93), in Section A1.V
“Random Vibrations”, Sub-Section A1.V3. “Fatigue Damage Spectrum”. Preceding sections give a
derivation of this, the critical steps being:-

(a) A1.V.1.1. Expressions for the probability density distribution of maxima in terms of the
irregularity factor, r, including the Rayleigh expression when r = 1.
(b) A.V.1.3. Expressions for r in terms of I0, I2, and I4 where I values are moments of a
spectrum, G, "with constant power between frequencies f1 and f2." The expression for I0 in
Equation (7) above has the same form, so presumably depends on the same assumption.
(c) A1.V.3.1. Calculation of damage from a time history. This includes “The computation
assumes that a histogram of peaks (nI, zI) is established. This can be obtained by a Rainflow
type counting method”.
(d) A1.V.3.3. Calculation of damage from a PSD with r = 1 (narrow-band).This gives E(D) in
terms of the Rayleigh distribution. It is then stated “in practice this equation is a good
approximation for E(D) for r > 0.6”.
(e) A1.V.3.3. After “for a white noise type excitation and an assumed narrow band response
zrms = (Q.G0/4w03)”, displacement, z, is put in terms of Q, G and ω. It is then stated that “If
the excitation has a PSD with plateaux at constant levels E(D) can be written as __”. This is
followed by Equation (A1-93), which is identical with Equation. (6) above.

Weak points are:-

(i) The extension of a narrow-band solution to the wide-band case seems to be even more
confused than it is in most frequency domain analyses. A PSD with a series of plateaux is
certainly not narrow-band.
(ii) Simply summing the damage done by different plateaux in a PSD as proposed in (e) would
be valid for a swept-sine test, but not for a wide-band one.
(iii) In setting up the array E(D) = A.Gb/2 a similar assumption is involved. E(D) is clearly
proportional to G but summing the terms in the column of a matrix calculated from
Equation (6) assumes linearity and no interaction between the A terms. This is unlikely.
(iv) Equation (6) uses system parameters and gives a direct estimate of E(D) from these. Fatigue
is a local phenomenon and the normal procedure is to compute local responses (e.g. a PSD
of stress) before estimating damage.