You are on page 1of 48

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

3 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

4 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

5 copyright LMS International - 2008

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)


6 copyright LMS International - 2008

Phase

( g/N) Log

Time Domain: Impulse Response Function (IRF)

Mode Shapes
Mode 1

Mode 2

2 1

7 copyright LMS International - 2008

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!

8 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

9 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

10 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

11 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

12 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

13 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

14 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

15 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

16 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

17 copyright LMS International - 2008

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


18 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

19 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

20 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

21 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

22 copyright LMS International - 2008

( (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

23 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

24 copyright LMS International - 2008

( (m/s2)/N) Log

Structural testing equipment

Excitation Shakers or hammer Force cell Response Accelerometers cce e o ete s LDV (laser)

25 copyright LMS International - 2008

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
26 copyright LMS International - 2008

Boundary Conditions Practical Examples


Free-free (soft tires) Fixed-free

ATA Engineering, IMAC 05


27 copyright LMS International - 2008

GVT of Embraer 170 Influence of Tire Pressure

Tires not soft enough

Embraer, IMAC 05
28 copyright LMS International - 2008

Boundary Conditions Practical Examples


Pneumatic suspension

Courtesy Airbus France

Elastic cords

Operational boundary conditions

29 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

30 copyright LMS International - 2008

Impact testing
About Hammer Tips

Force spectrum Coherence FRF

Soft tip

Hard tip

Right tip

31 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

32 copyright LMS International - 2008

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)

33 copyright LMS International - 2008

Shaker Excitation signals


Random

Burst Random

Stepped Sine Normal mode excitation

Chirp Swept Sine p

34 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

35 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

36 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

37 copyright LMS International - 2008

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 !


38 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

39 copyright LMS International - 2008

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]

40 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

41 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

42 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

43 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

44 copyright LMS International - 2008

( (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

45 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

46 copyright LMS International - 2008

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

47 copyright LMS International - 2008

Thank you

Sales New Hires Training 2008 Swen Vandenberk