SAND2015-9969C

Why Pseudo-Velocity Works

(and It’s Not What You’ve Been Told)

David J. Manko
dmanko@sandia.gov

Sandia National Laboratories

P.O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0557

Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia

Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of
Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
Use of Pseudo-Velocity Shock Spectra as a Damage Metric

The pseudo-velocity shock spectrum (PVSS) is the

maximum absolute value of relative displacement for a
SDOF system multiplied by its corresponding frequency

Natural Frequency of Single Peak Relative Displacement

Degree of Freedom System Between Base and Mass
Use of Pseudo-Velocity Shock Spectra as a Damage Metric
(cont’d)
There is heuristic evidence that the plateau of the PVSS
corresponds to component/system damage

It has been observed for quite disparate shock inputs that

shock severity increases as the plateau of the PVSS rises
Use of Pseudo-Velocity Shock Spectra as a Damage Metric
(cont’d)

ANSI standard S2.62-2008 for shock testing equipment

defines 10 severity levels in terms of velocity change at
impact which corresponds to the plateaus on the PVSS
Section 7.4.6.4 of MIL-HDBK-340A states that shock
acceptance testing is not required for environments less
than 100 in/sec
 Justification for Use of PVSS as a Damage Metric

The sole justification given for using PVSS as a damage

metric is that peak modal velocity is proportional to peak
modal stress for certain geometries and loading conditions
The substantiating modal stress-velocity relationships were
derived for rod, beam, plate and cylindrical structures
excited at resonance or free-vibration response
Unfortunately, real structures and loading conditions do
not conform to the above restrictions
Further, modal velocity has no general relevance to
pseudo-velocity except during free-vibration and resonance

How accurate is the modal stress-velocity relationship for

non-idealized geometries and non-resonant loading conditions?
 Reference Problem Description

A reference finite element model of a notional component

was developed to generate baseline solutions for the
evaluations
 Reference Problem Description (cont’d)

Reference problem is comprised of a 40% E-Glass reinforced

polyphenylene sulfide (PPS/G) tube supported by urethane
bushings in an aluminum housing
The glass tube is 12” long with a 1” diameter and 1/16” wall
thickness
7/8” diameter by 1/2" long phenolic plugs are located in the ends
of the glass tube
The aluminum housing consists of a 10” long, 2” x 2” x 3/16”
square tube with 2 1/2” x 2 1/2” x 1/4” angle flanges
The flanges have 1 1/2” centered holes to accommodate the 1” x 1
1/2” x 1/4” urethane bushings that support the tube in the housing
Elastic material properties, 5% modal damping, and a timestep of
4e-5 sec were used
The longitudinal stresses at the midspan of the tube and housing
outer fibers (i.e., location of peak bending stress) were monitored
as the limiting stress states for this geometry
 Modal Response of Reference Model

Mode Frequency Participation Modal Effective

Factor Mass
(Hz) (lb-sec^2/in)

1 489 1.3318 76.7498E-06

2 974.6 1.06828 40.0284E-06
3 2297 1.31565 707.673E-06
4 3387 -108.603E-03 107.388E-09
5 3483 -48.8572E-03 13.8676E-09
6 3619 -2.13937E-03 15.69E-12
7 3694 311.004E-03 661.007E-09
8 3702 10.3894E-03 358.043E-12
9 3835 -3.29016E-03 37.6051E-12
10 3908 738.906E-03 2.14452E-06
11 4021 -2.06565E-03 14.718E-12
12 4110 -30.8445E-03 22.1216E-09
13 4146 -27.9906E-03 4.72662E-09
14 4255 438.751E-06 661.739E-15
15 4496 -777.078E-06 14.0015E-12
16 4531 112.004E-06 43.0685E-15
17 4538 -14.8603E-03 763.978E-12
18 4833 -4.06795E-03 426.444E-12
19 4839 -29.2764E-06 2.94928E-15
20 4975 4.63798E-03 85.5505E-12
21 5173 3.6136E-06 45.0995E-18
22 5402 5.07643E-03 46.6754E-12
23 5404 2.47488E-03 20.6789E-12
24 5475 -7.76292E-03 12.6485E-09
25 5528 -30.6532E-06 3.23821E-15
26 5613 4.58372E-03 69.6029E-12
27 5789 -276.38E-06 280.044E-15
28 5841 17.7686E-03 7.61722E-09
29 5899 -1.26958E-06 5.54153E-18
30 5928 -3.50802E-03 25.0498E-12
31 6122 -73.6962E-06 19.4777E-15
32 6283 9.56834E-06 312.962E-18
33 6314 708.034E-06 1.27985E-12
34 6413 -151.045E-06 83.5627E-15
35 6677 8.97388E-06 270.586E-18
36 6679 -66.6957E-06 14.7152E-15
37 6740 2.03868E-03 9.57179E-12
38 6870 456.463E-03 2.67343E-06
39 6877 -298.096E-03 467.648E-09
40 6878 -2.33805E-03 23.0555E-12
 Calculation of Modal Stress-Velocity Coefficients

10 cycles of a 10 g resonant sinusoid were applied to the

reference model that had a single active mode
The first and last quarter cycles of the sinusoidal excitation
were modified to a haversine form for smoother beginning
and ending transitions
Calculation of Modal Stress-Velocity Coefficients (cont’d)

The peaks of the midspan stress-time history results for the

ringdown response were ratioed by the corresponding
peaks in the modal velocity results
The mean of these ratios is assigned as the modal stress-
velocity coefficient for that mode
Calculation of Modal Stress-Velocity Coefficients (cont’d)

The modal velocity for a given mode is equal to the velocity

at any arbitrary point divided by the modeshape
displacement at that same point
The magnitude of the modal velocity defined in this manner
is affected by the modeshape scaling but this effect is
cancelled through subsequent multiplication by the
participation factor which is similarly scaled
The stress lags the velocity by one fourth of the modal
period which was considered for peak matching
The midspan tube modal stress-velocity coefficients for the
first three modes are 33.79, 20.64 and 1.95 psi-sec/in,
respectively
Note the variation of stress coefficient between modes at
the same point in the structure which is commonly
neglected when applying the pseudo-velocity concept
 Accuracy of Modal Stress-Velocity Relationship

Midspan tube stresses were calculated by applying a shock

transient with varying magnitude for the duration of the
event (i.e., no ringdown period) to the full reference model
Accuracy of Modal Stress-Velocity Relationship (cont’d)
The modal contribution to tube stress was determined
using a Matlab script that multiplied the modal stress-
velocity coefficient by the participation factor and modal
velocity calculated from a SDOF response to the prescribed
input, all for the same mode
The total tube stress was obtained by summing the three
decoupled modal stress-time histories while taking into
account the one-fourth period time lag which differs for
each mode
Stress at Point a Participation Factor Period

Modal Stress-Velocity Modal Velocity

Coefficient for Point a
Accuracy of Stress-Modal Velocity Relationship (cont’d)

The temporal correlation is excellent but there is significant

amplitude error during periods of significant excitation

Modal velocity is not proportional to modal stress for

all loading conditions and structures so why does
pseudo-velocity work?
 Why Does Pseudo-Velocity Work?

In the absence of wave propagation, modal stress is

proportional to modal displacement (not modal velocity)
This fact is demonstrated by re-executing the prior example
using modal stress-displacement coefficients (which do not
require temporal lagging)
 Why Does Pseudo-Velocity Work? (cont’d)

If a PVSS increases across the whole frequency range, then

the displacement and corresponding stress state in each
mode increases proportionally

implies

Therefore, an increasing PVSS curve represents a more

severe stress state for a component or system