You are on page 1of 48

Fundamentals of Vibration and Modal Analysis

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

Seat Vibration

Engine

Rearview mirror vibration

Rotor

Gearbox and Transmission Cockpit vibration & noise Environmental sources Structural Integrity

Cabin comfort

Accessories

Source

System Transfer

Systematic approach to noise & vibration testing

The source transmitter - receiver approach

!
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

f
Log-Magnitude e

x
Frequency Response Function

H ( ) =

x ( ) 1 = f ( ) m2 + cj + k
f(t) x(t) m

10

-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

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

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

We have to look for other approaches Virtual prototype: Finite Element Modal Analysis Physical prototype: Experimental Modal Analysis

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

Experimental Modal Analysis: Aircraft Test Setup Example

Responses

Inputs
Ground Vibration Test

F3

(GVT) System

F4 F1 F2

Force Inputs
0 . 1 0

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

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

H=

1 N

Xi i =1 F i
N

16 copyright LMS International - 2008

FRF measurements
DFT averaging Power and cross spectra calc. FRF and coherence

Linear spectra

f(t)

F()

GFF()

H1 =

G XF GFF

coh = h

G XF

G XX GFF

FRF estimators graphical interpretation

At single frequency : N measurements available
X

H1

H2

Hv

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

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

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

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

F F 0.00 0 00

( (m/s2)/N) ( Log 0.00

Vehicle FRFs
Body-in-white Fully-trimmed vehicle

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

Demo_car

Porsche

23 copyright LMS International - 2008

5 shaker excitation
1.00

( (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

Tires not soft enough

Embraer, IMAC 05
28 copyright LMS International - 2008

Boundary Conditions Practical Examples

Pneumatic suspension

Elastic cords

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

Impact testing

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)

Random

Burst Random

3 averages
3.50

/ Amp plitude

10 averages
2.70

0.00

Hz

/ Ampl litude

1100.00

20 averages
2.20

0.00

Hz

1100.00
/ Amplitude e

40 averages
2.10

180.00 -180.00

Ph hase 0.00

0.00

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

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

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 [ , , ]

-89.83

41 copyright LMS International - 2008

Data Verification
Excitation power spectra Driving point FRFs Reciprocity Linearity Coherences

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

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

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

100.00

46 copyright LMS International - 2008

Course summary

Boundary conditions

Structural testing in source transfer receiver model

Excitation techniques

Thank you