Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Revision G
By Tom Irvine
Email: tom@vibrationdata.com
April 11, 2013
______________________________________________________________________________
Variables
c
Shear factor
thickness
Length
Bending moment
Displacement
Total energy
Velocity
Shear force
Longitudinal Displacement
Base acceleration
Transverse Displacement
Normal stress
Shear stress
Constant of proportionality
Elastic modulus
Phase angle
Shear modulus
Introduction
Shock and vibration environments produce dynamic stresses which can cause material failure in
structures. The potential failure modes include fatigue, yielding, and ultimate stress limit.
F.V. Hunt wrote a seminal paper on this subject, titled Stress and Stress Limits on the
Attainable Velocity in Mechanical Vibration, published in 1960 in Reference 1. This paper
gave the relationship between stress and velocity for a number of sample structures.
1
H. Gaberson continued research on stress and modal velocity with a series of papers and
presentations, as shown in References 2 through 4.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the work of Hunt, Gaberson, and others. Derivations are
given relating stress and velocity for a number of structures. Some of these examples overlap the
work of previous sources. Other examples are original. In addition, this paper presents some
unique data samples for shock events, with the corresponding spectra plotted in tripartite format.
Stress in an Infinite Rod in Longitudinal Free Vibration
Consider an infinitely long longitudinal rod undergoing a traveling wave response. The stress is
proportional to the velocity as follows.
(x, t ) c v(x, t )
(1)
n max
c v n, max c n u n , max
(2)
A derivation is given in Appendix B.
Gaberson showed that this same equation applies to other boundaries conditions of finite rod in
Reference 2.
Stress in a Finite, Fixed-Free Rod, Longitudinal Response Excited by Resonant Base Excitation
Consider a fixed-free rod subjected to base excitation. Equation (2) applies as long as the
excitation is sinusoidal with a frequency equal to the natural frequency of the corresponding
mode. The derivation is given in Appendix C.
n, max 1.5
c
v n, max
K
(3)
max E c
y n ( x, t )
c
x 2
max
E A
v n, max
I
(4)
Note this equation applies to other boundary condition cases per Reference 1.
Equation (4) can be simplified as follows:
c v
max k
n , max
(5)
Solid Circular
Rectangular
int,x max c
The following
L 2 L 2
x
y
v int, max
1 2 L y 2 L x 2
int, y max c
L 2 L 2
y
x
v int, max
2
2
2
L
1 y
x
3
(6)
(7)
Complex Equipment
Bateman wrote in Reference 7:
Of the three motion parameters (displacement, velocity, and acceleration) describing a
shock spectrum, velocity is the parameter of greatest interest from the viewpoint of
damage potential. This is because the maximum stresses in a structure subjected to a
dynamic load typically are due to the responses of the normal modes of the structure,
that is, the responses at natural frequencies. At any given natural frequency, stress is
proportional to the modal (relative) response velocity.
Bateman then gave a formula equivalent to the following equation for mode n.
n max C
E Vn max
(8)
where
m
k
Figure 1.
The energy equation is
1
1
U mv max 2 kx max 2
2
2
(9)
The velocity is thus square root of twice the peak energy per unit mass that is stored in the
oscillator. The relationship does not directly depend on the natural frequency.
v max
2U
m
(10)
Examples
Numerical examples using the formulas derived in this paper are given in Reference 27.
Conclusion
Stress-Velocity Relationship
Modal stress is directly proportional to modal velocity for both free vibration and resonant
excitation. The proportionality equation does not depend on frequency, although the velocity
itself depends on frequency.
There are limitations to any stress-velocity equation, however. Crandall noted in Reference 26
that stress and velocity may each have concentrations, particularly for nonuniform structures.
5
27. T. Irvine, Notes on Internal and Transmitted Forces in Vibrating Multi-degree-offreedom Systems, Vibrationdata, 2010.
28. A. Piersol & T. Paez, Harris Shock and Vibration Handbook, Sixth Edition, McGrawHill, New York, 2010. See Sweitzer, Hull & Piersol; Chapter 40, Equipment Design.
29. H. Gaberson, Shock Severity Estimation, Sound & Vibration, January 2012.
30. Morse, R., presentation at Spacecraft & Launch Vehicle Dynamics Environments
Workshop Program, Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA, June 20, 2000.
Topic
MIL-STD-810G
Half-Sine Pulse
El Centro Earthquake
V-band/Bolt-Cutter Shock
Topic
APPENDIX A
(A-1)
(A-2)
u
kA cos(kx t )
x
2u
x 2
(A-3)
k 2 A sin(kx t )
(A-4)
u
A cos(kx t )
t
2u
t 2
(A-5)
2 A sin(kx t )
(A-6)
By substitution,
1
Ak 2 sin(kx t ) 2 A sin(kx t )
c2
(A-7)
10
2
c2
(A-8)
(A-9)
k
Thus,
x
u ( x, t ) A sin t
c
(A-10)
u ( x, t ) A cos t
x
c
c
(A-11)
u ( x, t ) A cos t
t
c
(A-12)
1
u ( x, t )
u ( x, t )
x
c t
(A-13)
( x, t ) E
E
x
1
u ( x, t )
u ( x, t )
A cos t
x
c t
c
c
(A-14)
u ( x, t )
t
(A-15)
( x, t )
E
v( x , t )
c
(A-16)
11
Or equivalently,
(x, t ) c v(x, t )
(A-17)
12
APPENDIX B
Stress in a Finite, Fixed-Free Rod, in Longitudinal Free Vibration
The following derivation is taken from Reference 9.
Consider a long, slender, free-free rod that is dropped such that it has a uniform initial velocity of
V as it strikes the ground. Further assume that the rod becomes attached to the ground at impact
such that its boundary conditions become fixed-free.
The displacement is
u ( x, t )
8vL
nx
sin(n t )
2 sin
2L
n
2 c n 1,3,5,
8vL
u ( x, t )
x
2 c 2L
4v
u ( x, t )
x
c
(B-1)
nx
sin(n t )
cos
n
2L
n 1,3,5,
(B-2)
1 n x
sin(n t )
cos
n
2L
n 1,3,5,
(B-3)
where
n c
2L
(B-4)
8v L c
u ( x, t )
t
2 c 2L
4v
u ( x, t )
t
1 n x
cos(n t )
sin
n 2L
n 1,3,5,
(B-5)
1 n x
cos(n t )
sin
n 2L
n 1,3,5,
(B-6)
13
Now let
8vL
u ( x, t )
u n ( x, t )
2 c
n 1,3,5,
(B-7)
1
n2
nx
sin
sin(n t )
2L
(B-8)
nx
u n ( x, t )
cos
sin(n t )
x
2n L
2L
(B-9)
c n x
sin
u n ( x, t )
cos(n t )
t
2 n L 2L
(B-10)
u n
u
n
x max
t max
(B-11)
The maximum stress per mode n is thus proportional to the maximum modal velocity.
Note that the maximum stress location will vary from that of the maximum velocity.
The peak values of harmonic displacement, velocity and acceleration have their maxima at the
antinodes of motion, whereas the peak values of stress and strain have their maxima at the nodes,
per Reference 1. This statement applies to a finite rod undergoing standing wave oscillations.
E 8 v L c
c t max c 2 c 2 n L
n max E u n
u n
4v E
c t max n c
n max E
(B-12)
(B-13)
14
Note
u n
n u n max
t max
(B-14)
u n
E
n u n max
c t max
c
n max E
(B-15)
Or in terms of the characteristic impedance,
n max c u n
c n u n max
t max
(B-16)
The advantage of calculating stress from velocity is that the natural frequency term is not
required, as it is for calculating stress from displacement.
Furthermore the characteristic impedance c plays the role of a transfer impedance which expresses
the ratio of the stress at a node of motion to the velocity at an associated antinode, per Reference 1.
Again, this applies to a finite rod undergoing standing wave oscillations.
15
APPENDIX C
Stress in a Finite, Fixed-Free Rod, Longitudinal Response Excited by Resonant Base Excitation
The following derivation is taken from Reference 10.
(x)
nU
n
()
U( x, ) W
2 2
n 1 (n ) j 2 n
(C-1)
(x)
U
n
2
x
sin n
mL c
d
U n (x) n
dx
c
2
x
cos n
mL
c
(C-2)
(C-3)
The strain is
U n (x)
dx
()
U( x, ) W
2 2 ) j 2
x
(
n 1
n
n
x
n n cos n
c
() 1 2
U( x, ) W
2
2
x
c mL
n 1 (n ) j 2 n
(C-4)
(C-5)
16
On a modal basis,
n n
() 1 2
U
(
x
,
n
x
c mL (n 2 2 ) j 2 n
max
max
(C-6)
n n
1 2
W()
x U n ( x, )
2
2
2
2
c mL
max
(n ) 2 n
(C-7)
(x)
nU
n
v( x, ) j W()
2 2 ) j 2
n 1 n
n
(C-8)
2
x
sin n
mL c
(C-9)
(x)
U
n
() 2
v( x, ) j W
2 2
mL
j
2
n 1
n
n
()
v n (x, )max W
x
n sin n
c
n
2
mL ( 2 2 ) j 2
n max
n
(C-10)
(C-11)
17
()
v n (x, )max W
n
2
mL ( 2 2 ) 2 2 2
n
n
(C-12)
A further development of the relationship between velocity and stress for this case requires that
the excitation be at the natural frequency, = n .
n n
1 2
W ( n )
x Un( x, n )
c mL ( 2 2 ) 2 2 2
max
n
n
n n
(C-13)
( ) n
W
n
x Un( x, n )
2 n c mL
max
(C-14)
( )
v n (x, n )max n W
n
( )
v n (x, n )max W
n
2 n
mL 2 2
n
n 2
2 n mL
v n ( x, n ) max
x Un( x, n )
max c
(C-15)
(C-16)
(C-17)
n max E
v n ( x, n ) max
x Un( x, n )
max c
(C-18)
18
APPENDIX D
u (x, t)
2u
t 2
KGA
2u
x 2
2u
KG 2 u
t 2 x 2
(D-1)
(D-2)
By substitution,
KG 2
2
U(x)T(t )
U
(
x
)
T
(
t
)
x 2
t 2
(D-3)
19
KG
U( x )T( t ) U( x )T( t )
(D-4)
KG U( x ) T ( t )
T( t )
U( x )
(D-5)
KG U( x ) T ( t )
T( t )
U( x )
(D-6)
(D-7)
T( t ) 2 T(t )
(D-8)
T( t ) 2 T(t ) 0
(D-9)
Propose a solution
(D-10)
T( t) a cos t b sin t
(D-11)
T( t ) a 2 sin t b 2 cos t
(D-12)
20
(D-13)
0=0
(D-14)
(D-15)
KG U( x )
2
U( x )
(D-16)
KG
U ( x )
(D-17)
2
U( x )
c2
U ( x )
2
U( x ) 0
c2
(D-18)
(D-19)
21
c
c
(D-20)
x
x
U( x ) dcos
esin
c
c
c
(D-21)
u(0, t ) 0
(zero displacement)
U(0)T( t ) 0
(D-22)
(D-23)
U(0) = 0
(D-24)
u( x , t )
0
x
x L
(zero stress)
(D-25)
U ( L)T(t ) 0
(D-26)
U ( L) 0
(D-27)
22
e=0
(D-28)
x
U ( x) d cos
c
c
(D-29)
(D-30)
L
0
dcos
c
(D-31)
n L 2n 1
, n 1, 2,3,...
c
2
(D-32)
2n 1 c
n
, n 1, 2,3,...
2 L
(D-33)
(D-34)
23
(D-35)
2n 1 x
U n ( x ) d n sin
2L
(D-36)
u ( x, t )
(D-37)
U n (x)Tn (t )
(D-38)
i 1
u ( x, t )
2n 1 x
a n sinn t b n cosn t
2L
sin
i 1
(D-39)
2n 1 x
u ( x, t ) n sin
a n cosn t b n sinn t
t
2L
(D-40)
2n 1 c
n
, n 1, 2,3,...
2 L
(D-41)
i 1
2n 1 c
t u ( x, t )
max 2 L
(D-42)
2n 1 2n 1 x
u ( x, t )
cos
a n sinn t b n cosn t
x
2L
2L
(D-43)
24
2n 1
x u ( x, t )
2L
max
(D-44)
u n
1 u
n
c t max
x max
(D-45)
V GA
2n 1 2n 1 x
u ( x, t ) GA
cos
a n sinn t b n cosn t
x
2L
2L
(D-46)
(D47)
V
G
n, max 1.5 n 1.5 u n ( x, t )
A
c t
max
(D48)
n, max 1.5
c
u n ( x, t )
k t
max
(D-49)
The shear factors for two cross-sections are given in Table D-1, as taken from Reference 11.
Shear Factor K
Rectangular
2/3
Circular
3/4
25
APPENDIX E
EI,
Figure E-1.
EI
4y
x 4
2y
t 2
(E-1)
(E-2)
d 2 Y( x)
a1 2 sinh x a 2 2 cosh x a 3 2 sin x a 4 2 cos x
2
dx
(E-3)
26
Y(0) = 0
(zero displacement)
d 2Y
dx 2 x 0
(E-4)
(E-5)
Y(L) = 0
d 2Y
dx 2
(zero displacement)
(E-6)
(E-7)
x L
a2 a4 0
(E-8)
a4 a2
(E-9)
a2 a4 0
a2 a4
(E-10)
(E-11)
a2 0
(E-12)
27
and
a4 0
(E-13)
d 2 Y( x )
a1 2 sinh x a 3 2 sin x
2
dx
(E-14)
(E-15)
(E-16)
a1 2 sinhL a 3 2 sinL 0
a1 sinhL a 3 sinL 0
sinh L
sinh L
sin L a1 0
sin L a 3 0
(E-17)
(E-18)
(E-19)
By inspection, equation (E-19) can only be satisfied if a1 = 0 and a3 = 0. Set the determinant to
zero in order to obtain a nontrivial solution.
sinL sinhL sinL sinhL 0
(E-20)
28
2 sinL sinhL 0
(E-21)
sinL sinhL 0
(E-22)
n L n, n 1, 2, 3,....
(E-23)
n
, n 1, 2, 3,....
L
(E-24)
n n 2
n
n
L
EI
(E-25)
EI
, n 1,2,3,...
1 n
f n
2 L
1 n
f n
2 L
EI
, n 1,2,3,...
EI
,
n 1, 2, 3,...
(E-26)
(E-27)
(E-28)
29
Normalized Eigenvectors
The eigenvector and its second derivative at this point are
Y( x) a1 sinhx a 3 sinx
d 2 Y( x )
a1 2 sinh x a 3 2 sin x
2
dx
(E-29)
(E-30)
Y(L) = 0
d 2Y
dx 2
(zero displacement)
(E-31)
(E-32)
x L
Thus,
d 2Y
dx 2
Y 0
(E-33)
2
2
(E-34)
The sin( n ) term is always zero. Thus a1 = 0.
The eigenvector for all n modes is
Yn (x) a n sinnx / L
(E-35)
30
0 Yn
2 ( x ) dx 1
(E-36)
a n 2 sin 2 nx / L dx 1
(E-37)
L
0
a n 2 L
1 cos(2 n x / L) 1
2 0
a n 2
1
sin(2nx / L) 1
x
2
2 n
0
a n 2 L
2
(E-38)
(E-39)
(E-40)
an2
2
L
(E-41)
an
2
L
(E-42)
Yn ( x )
2
sin n x / L
L
(E-43)
31
y( x , t )
2
L
i 1
n 2
y( x , t )
x
L L
n
y( x , t )
L
x 2
x 2
y( x , t ) n
(E-45)
i 1
n
n
L
(E-44)
2 N
sin n x / L a n sinn t b n cosn t
(E-46)
EI
,n 1,2,3,...
(E-47)
i 1
EI
2
L
y n ( x, t )
n
x 2
max
(E-48)
EI
(E-49)
i 1
2
n
y n ( x, t )
L
t
max
2
L
(E-50)
32
y n ( x, t )
x 2
max
y n ( x, t )
x 2
max
y n ( x, t )
EI t
max
(E-51)
A
y n ( x, t )
EI t
max
(E-52)
cL
1
y n ( x, t )
cL
x 2
max
(E-53)
A
y n ( x, t )
I t
max
EI
M max EI
y n ( x, t )
2
cL
x
max
max
A
y n ( x, t )
I t
max
M max c
I
E c A
max E c
y n ( x, t )
y n ( x, t )
cL I t
x 2
max
max
(E-54)
(E-55)
(E-56)
(E-57)
33
max E c
y n ( x, t )
c
x 2
max
EA
y n ( x, t )
I t
max
(E-58)
34
APPENDIX F
Stress due to Bending in a Bernoulli-Euler Beam Excited by Base Excitation
Consider a beam simply-supported at each end subjected to base excitation.
y(x,t)
EI, , L
w(t)
Figure F-1.
EI
4y
x 4
2y
t 2
2w
t 2
(F-1)
Yn ( x )
2
sin n x
L
(F-2)
d2
2
Yn ( x ) n 2
sin n x
L
dx 2
d2
dx
Yn ( x ) n 2 Yn ( x )
(F-3a)
(F-3b)
35
n
, n 1, 2, 3, ...
L
(F-4)
n n 2 EI /
(F-5)
n Yn x
Yx, W
2
2
n 1
(n ) j 2 n n
d2
Y
x
n
m
2 n
2
dx
Yx, W
2
2
x 2
(
j
2
n 1 n
n
n
n n 2 Yn ( x )
Yx, W
2
2
2
x
n 1
(n ) j 2 n n
(F-6)
(F-7)
(F-8)
On a modal basis,
n n 2
W
Yn ( x )max
2 Yn x,
(n2 2 ) j 2 n n
x
max
(F-9)
36
n n 2
Yn ( x )
W
2 Yn x,
max
2
2
2
2
x
max
(n ) 2 n
(F-10)
n Yn x
vx, j W
2
2
(
j
2
n 1
n
n
n
(F-11)
On a modal basis,
vx, max
n
Yn ( x )max
j W
( 2 2 ) j 2
n
n
n
(F-12)
Y ( x )
vx, max W
n
max
2
2
2 ) 2 2
(
n
n
(F-13)
n 2
vx, max
Y
x
,
x 2
max
(F-14)
37
n n 2 EI /
(F-15)
Yn x,
n
x 2
max
vx, max
EI
(F-16)
2 Yn x, n
x
max
vx, max
EI
1
vx, max
2 Yn x, n
x
max c L I
(F-17)
(F-18)
E I
vx, max
M max EI
Yn x, n
2
cL
x
max
(F-19)
M max EI
Yn x, n
EAI vx, max
x 2
max
(F-20)
38
EA
vx, max
max Ec
Yn x, n
c
2
I
max
(F-21)
This concept can be extended to the multi-modal response for the special case of simplysupported beam.
Again,
m
n n 2 Yn ( x )
Yx, W
2
2
2
x
n 1
(n ) j 2 n n
(F-22)
n Yn x
vx, j W
2
2
n 1
(n ) j 2 n n
(F-23)
Yx,
n 2
vx,
j
(F-24)
Yx,
j n 2
vx,
(F-25)
Thus
2
x 2
2
x 2
39
y(x, t)
w(t)
Figure F-2.
n L
1.875104
4.69409
7.85476
10.99554
(2n-1)/2
n n 2 EI /
(F-26)
40
Yi ( x )
coshi x cosi x D i sinh i x sin i x
(F-27)
where
Di
cosi L coshi L
sin i L sinh i L
(F-28)
(F-29)
(F-30)
3
III
Yi ( x ) i sinh i x sin i x D i coshi x cosi x
L
(F-31)
Note that
cosi L coshi L
1
Yi (L)
coshi L cosi L
sinh i L sin i L
sin i L sinh i L
(F-32)
41
n L
Yi (L)
1.875104
2 L
4.69409
-2 L
7.85476
2 L
10.99554
-2 L
Thus,
Y1 (0) 12 Y1 (L)
(F-33)
n Yn x
Yx, W
2
2
(
j
2
n 1
n
n
n
(F-34)
d2
Y
x
n
m
2 n
2
dx
Yx, W
2
2
2
x
n 1 ( n ) j 2 n n
(F-35)
On a modal basis,
d2
Y
x
n
2
2 n
dx
Yn x,
W
max
2
2
2
x
j
2
n
n
n
max
(F-36)
42
d2
Y
0
1
1
2
dx
Y1 0, W
2
x 2
(1 2 ) j 211
1 12
Y1 0, W
Y1 (L)
2
x 2
(1 2 ) j 211
(F-37)
(F-38)
1 12
Y (L)
YL 0, W
1
2
2 2 ) 2 2 2
x
1
1
1
(F-39)
n Yn x
vx, j W
2
2
n 1
(n ) j 2 n n
(F-40)
Y ( x )
vx, max j W 2
max
n
2
(
j
2
1
1
1
(F-41)
vx, max W
2 2
2
2
(1 ) 21 1
Y ( x )
max
1
(F-42)
1
vL, W
2 2
2
2
(1 ) 21 1
2
YL 0, 1 vL,
x 2
2
Y ( L)
1
(F-43)
(F-44)
M0, EI
2
YL 0, EI 1 vL,
x 2
2
(F-45)
12
max c E
Yn 0, c E
vL,
x 2
(F-46)
44
APPENDIX G
Figure G-1.
4z
4z
4 z
2z
D
2
h
0
4
2
2
4
2
x y
y
t
x
(G-1)
z( x, y, t )
Z mn (x, y) exp( jt )
(G-2)
m 1 n 1
a b
(G-3)
45
mn
2
D m
n
h a
b
(G-4)
m
m x n y
Z mn
A mn cos
sin
x
a
a b
m
m x n y
Z
A mn sin
sin
2 mn
a
a b
x
n
m x n y
Z mn A mn sin
cos
y
b
a b
(G-5)
(G-6)
(G-7)
n
m x n y
Z mn A mn sin
sin
2
b
a
b
(G-8)
2
M mn, x D
Z mn
Z mn
x 2
y 2
(G-9)
2
M mn, y D
Z mn
Z mn
x 2
y 2
(G-10)
46
6D 2
2
mn, x
M mn, x
Z mn
Z mn
h2
h 2 x 2
y 2
(G-11)
6D 2
2
mn, y
M mn, x
Z mn
Z mn
h2
h 2 y 2
x 2
(G-12)
2
n
(G-13)
2
2
(G-14)
6DA mn n
mn, y
max
b
h2
Note that
m x n y
Z mn A mn sin
sin
t
a b
For free vibration,
(G-15)
mn
m x n y
Z mn mn A mn sin
sin
t
a b
(G-16)
47
m x n y
Z mn mn A mn sin
sin
t
a b
mn
2
D m n
h a b
(G-17)
(G-18)
The velocity is
D m
Z mn
t
h a
D m
t Z mn
h a
max
2
m x n y
A
sin
sin
mn a b
2
A
mn
(G-19)
(G-20)
Intermodal Segment
Consider a higher mode. The vibration mode for an intermodal segment can be represent with
n=m=1.
Hunt in Reference 1 notes:
It is relatively more difficult to establish equally general relations between antinodal
velocity and extensionally strain for a thin plate vibrating transversely, owing to the
more complex boundary conditions and the Poisson coupling between the principal
stresses. One can deal, however, with the velocity strain relations in the interior of such
a plate by invoking again the fact that conditions along an interior nodal line correspond
to those of a simple edge support. Each intermodal segment can, therefore, be treated as
if it were a simply supported rectangular plate of dimensions Lx, Ly vibrating in its
fundamental mode, where Lx and Ly are the nodal separations along the X and Y axes,
as shown in Figure G-2.
48
Z(x,y)
Lx
Ly
6DA int
int, x
max
h2
L
x
2
2
Ly
6DA int
int, y
L
max
Lx
h2
y
(G-21)
(G-22)
49
t Zint
max
A int
h L x
2
2
A
L y int
t Zint
max
2
Ly
h L x
(G-23)
(G-24)
2
L
Ly
x
2
Ly
h L x
(G-25)
2
L
Ly
6 D h
x
int, x
t Zint
max
2
2
max
h
L L
y
x
(G-26)
t Zint
max
50
Eh 3
(G-27)
12 (1 2 )
L
12 (1 )
y
x
int, x
t Zint
max
2
2
max
h2
L L
y
x
Eh 4
2
L
Ly
x
E
int, x
6
t Zint
max
2
2
2
max
12 (1 )
L L
y
x
int,x max
int,x max
L 2 L 2
y
x
Zint
max L y 2 L x 2
1 2 t
3 E
L 2 L 2
x
y
Z
int
max L y 2 L x 2
1 2 t
3 E
(G-28)
(G-29)
(G-30)
(G-31)
51
int,x max c
L 2 L 2
x
y
Zint
max L y 2 L x 2
1 2 t
(G-32)
Similarly,
int, y max c
L 2 L 2
y
x
Zint
max L y 2 L x 2
1 2 t
(G-33)
52
APPENDIX H
MIL-STD-810E
An empirical rule-of-thumb in MIL-STD-810E states that a shock response spectrum is
considered severe only if one of its components exceeds the level
Threshold = [ 0.8 (G/Hz) * Natural Frequency (Hz) ]
(H-1)
53
Morse Chart
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
100
1000
10000
Figure H-1.
The curves in Figure H-1 are taken from Reference 30. The curves are defined by the following
formulas.
Threshold
Formula
300 ips
100 ips
50 ips
The 100 ips threshold is defined in part by the observation that the severe velocities which cause
yield point stresses in mild steel beams turn out to be about 130 ips, per Reference 29.
54
APPENDIX I
(End Quote)
Note that Reference f is:
Harris, C., and C. E. Crede, eds., Shock and Vibration Handbook, 5th Edition,
NY, McGraw-Hill, 2001.
55
APPENDIX J
56
APPENDIX K
Half-Sine Pulse
Figure K-1.
Max
Min
Range (dB)
Displacement (inch)
4.0
1.1e-04
91
Velocity (in/sec)
25.2
0.64
32
Acceleration (G)
16.5
0.41
32
The velocity and acceleration spectra have the same range in terms of decibels.
57
APPENDIX L
El Centro Earthquake
ACCELERATION TIME HISTORY EL CENTRO EARTHQUAKE 1940
NORTH-SOUTH COMPONENT
0.5
0.4
0.3
ACCEL (G)
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
10
15
20
25
TIME (SEC)
Figure L-1.
El Centro (Imperial Valley) Earthquake
Nine people were killed by the May 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake. At Imperial, 80 percent of
the buildings were damaged to some degree. In the business district of Brawley, all structures
were damaged, and about 50 percent had to be condemned. The shock caused 40 miles of surface
faulting on the Imperial Fault, part of the San Andreas system in southern California. It was the
first strong test of public schools designed to be earthquake-resistive after the 1933 Long Beach
quake. Fifteen such public schools in the area had no apparent damage. Total damage has been
estimated at about $6 million. The magnitude was 7.1.
The El Centro earthquake was the first major quake in which calibrated, strong-motion source
data was measured which would be useful for engineering purposes. This data has obvious
application to the design of building, bridges, and dams in California. It also has some surprising
aerospace uses. Consider a rocket vehicle mounted as a cantilever beam to a launch pad at
Vandenberg AFB on the central California coast. Engineers must verify that the vehicle can
withstand a hypothetical seismic event prior to launch. The El Centro earthquake data has thus
been used in some analyses as a modal transient input to the rocket vehicles finite element
model.
58
Figure L-2.
Max
Min
Range (dB)
Displacement (inch)
15.0
0.2
38
Velocity (in/sec)
31.0
7.4
12
Acceleration (G)
0.93
0.012
38
The SRS of the time history is shown in Figure L-2 in tripartite format.
One of the advantages of the pseudo velocity SRS is that it has a smaller amplitude range than
either the displacement or acceleration. The pseudo velocity SRS is thus less frequencydependent.
59
APPENDIX M
Re-entry Vehicle Separation Shock
ACCELERATION TIME HISTORY
RV SEPARATION
10000
ACCEL (G)
5000
-5000
-10000
91.462
91.464
91.466
91.468
91.470
91.472
91.474
91.476
91.478
TIME (SEC)
Figure M-1.
The time history is a near-field, pyrotechnic shock measured in-flight on an unnamed rocket
vehicle. The separation device was linear shape charge.
60
Figure M-2.
Table M-1. SRS, RV Separation, Results for the Domain from
100 to 10,000 Hz
Parameter
Max
Min
Range (dB)
Displacement (inch)
0.041
0.0012
31
Velocity (in/sec)
526
14
31
Acceleration (G)
20,400
23
59
The SRS of the time history is shown in Figure M-2 in tripartite format.
The values in Table M-1 begin at 100 Hz because there is some uncertainty regarding the
accuracy of the data below 100 Hz, which is typically the case for near-field pyrotechnic shock
events. The velocity range is 28 dB lower than the acceleration range.
61
APPENDIX N
SR-19 Motor Ignition & Pressure Oscillation
ACCEL (G)
500
-500
-1000
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
TIME (SEC)
Figure N-1.
The SR-19 is a solid-fuel rocket motor. The combustion cavity has a pressure oscillation at 650
Hz.
62
Figure N-2.
Max
Min
Range (dB)
Displacement (inch)
0.73
1.7e-04
73
Velocity (in/sec)
295
6.8
33
Acceleration (G)
3224
7.1
53
The peak at 680 Hz is due to the SR-19 motor oscillation which results from a standing pressure
wave in the combustion cavity.
63
APPENDIX O
Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Water Impact
ACCEL (G)
50
-50
-100
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
TIME (SEC)
Figure O-1.
The data is from the STS-6 mission. Some high-frequency noise was filtered from the data.
64
Figure O-2.
Max
Min
Range (dB)
Displacement (inch)
0.76
0.002
52
Velocity (in/sec)
209
10
26
Acceleration (G)
259
5.6
33
The velocity SRS has the smallest dynamic range in terms of decibels.
65
APPENDIX P
V-band/Bolt-Cutter Shock
200
ACCEL (G)
100
-100
-200
-300
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
TIME (SEC)
Figure P-1.
The time history was measured during a shroud separation test for a suborbital launch vehicle.
66
Figure P-2.
Max
Min
Range (dB)
Displacement (inch)
0.032
4e-04
38
Velocity (in/sec)
11.4
2.0
15
Acceleration (G)
1069
0.4
69
The velocity SRS has the smallest dynamic range in terms of decibels.
67
APPENDIX Q
Velocity
Dynamic Range
(dB)
526
31
295
33
209
26
125
32
31
12
25
32
11
15
Event
The peak velocity comparison is useful, but a consideration of natural frequency is still needed
because the dynamic range is greater than zero, at least 12 dB, in each case.
68
APPENDIX R
(lbm/in^3)
Rod
Vmax
(in/sec)
Beam
Vmax
(in/sec)
Plate
Vmax
(in/sec)
Material
E (psi)
Douglas Fir
1.92e+06
6450
0.021
633
366
316
10.0e+06
35,000
0.098
695
402
347
6.5e+06
38,000
0.065
1015
586
507
226
130
113
685
394
342
Aluminum
6061-T6
Magnesium
AZ80A-T5
Structural Steel,
High Strength
(psi)
33,000
29e+06
0.283
100,000
The following tables are taken from Reference 29. The original sources are noted. The velocity terms are
modal velocities at the elastic limit.
69
E
(1e+06 psi)
(lbm/in^3)
ult
(ksi)
yield
(ksi)
vrod
(in/sec)
vbeam
(sec)
9.954
0.334
0.098
34
24
477.4
275.9
9.954
0.34
0.098
42
36
716.2
413.9
9.954
0.334
0.1
77
66
1299.8
751.3
42
0.1
0.066
86
58
684.5
395.7
Be-Cu
18.5
0.27
0.297
160
120
1005.9
581.5
Cadmium
9.9
0.3
0.312
11.9
11.9
133.0
76.9
Copper
17.2
0.326
0.322
40
30
250.5
144.8
Gold
11.1
0.41
0.698
29.8
29.8
210.4
121.6
Kovar
19.5
0.32
34.4
59.5
468.0
270.5
Magnesium
6.5
0.35
0.065
39.8
28
846.4
489.3
Nickel
29.8
0.3
0.32
71.1
50
318.1
183.9
Silver
10.6
0.37
0.38
41.2
41.2
403.4
233.2
Solder 63/37
2.5
0.4
0.30008
158.8
91.8
Steel 1010
30
0.292
0.29
70
36
239.8
138.6
28.4
0.305
0.29
80
40
273.9
158.3
Alumina al203
54
0.13
25
20
148.3
85.7
Beryllia Beo
46
0.105
20
20
178.8
103.4
Mira
10
0.105
5.5
105.5
60.0
10.4
0.17
0.094
27.9
27.9
554.5
320.5
Material
Aluminum 5052
Aluminum
6061-T6
Aluminum
7075-T6
Be
Stainless
Quartz
Magnesia Mgo
EPO GLS G10
X/Y
EPO GLS G10 Z
10
0.101
12
12
234.6
135.6
2.36
0.12
0.071
25
35
1680.1
971.1
2.36
0.12
0.071
25
35
1680.1
971.1
Lexan
0.379
0.047
9.7
9.7
1428.1
825.5
Nylon
0.217
0.041
11.8
11.5
2395.6
1384.8
Teflon
0.15
0.077
731.3
422.7
Mylar
0.55
0.05
25
25
2962.2
1712.3
70
E
(1e+06 psi)
(lbm/in^3)
ult
(ksi)
yield
(ksi)
vrod
(in/sec)
vbeam
(sec)
0.36
0.0976
11
11
230.6
133.3
Al Cast 220-T4
9.5
0.33
0.093
42
22
459.9
265.8
Al 2014-T6
10.6
0.33
0.101
68
60
1139.4
658.6
Beryllium Cu
19
0.3
0.297
150
140
1158.0
669.4
14
0.25
0.251
20
37
357.8
224.2
Mg AZ80A-T5
6.5
0.305
0.065
55
38
1148.7
663.0
Titanium Alloy
17
0.33
0.161
115
110
1306.5
755.2
Steel Shapes
29
0.27
0.283
70
33
226.3
130.8
Concrete
3.5
0.15
0.0868
0.35
0.515
18.4
10.6
0.28
0.0972
2.5
59.6
34.4
Granite
71
APPENDIX S
Characteristic
Impedance
(MPa sec/m)
Density
Elastic
Modulus
Speed
(m/sec)
Material
(kg/m^3)
(GPa)
Bar
Bulk
Bar
Bulk
Aluminum
2700
71
5150
6300
13.9
17.0
Steel
7700
195
5050
6100
39.0
47.0
Density
Elastic
Modulus
Material
(lbm/in^3)
(psi)
Bar
Bulk
Bar
Bulk
Aluminum
0.1
1e+07
2.03e+05
2.48e+05
2.03E+04
2.48E+04
Steel
0.285
3e+07
1.99e+05
2.40e+05
5.67E+04
6.84E+04
Characteristic
Impedance
[ lbm/(in^2 sec) ]
Speed
(in/sec)
Characteristic
Impedance
(psi sec/in)
Material
Bar
Bulk
Aluminum
52.5
64.2
Steel
147
173
72
APPENDIX T
Recommended limit values for traffic are given in Table T-1, as taken from References 22
through 24. The peak value is taken from the velocity time history.
(in/sec)
0.039
0.079
0.12
0.20
73
APPENDIX U
This appendix is not concerned with vibration stress per se. It is included to show how velocity
is the amplitude metric of choice in industries outside of aerospace.
74
Max Level
Velocity RMS
(micrometers/sec)
Detail
Size
(microns)
Workshop
(ISO)
800
N/A
Office (ISO)
400
N/A
Residential
Day (ISO)
200
75
Theater
(ISO)
100
25
VC-A
50
VC-B
25
VC-C
12.5
VC-D
0.3
VC-E
0.1
Description of Use
Distinctly feelable vibration. Appropriate to
workshops and nonsensitive areas.
Feelable vibration. Appropriate to offices and
nonsensitive areas.
Barely feelable vibration. Appropriate to sleep
areas in most instances. Probably adequate for
computer equipment, probe test equipment and
low-power (to 20X) microscopes.
Vibration not feelable. Suitable for sensitive
sleep areas. Suitable in most instances for
microscopes to 100X and for other equipment
of low sensitivity.
Adequate in most instances for optical
microscopes to 400X, microbalances, optical
balances, proximity and projection aligners, etc.
An appropriate standard for optical microscopes
to 1000X, inspection and lithography
equipment (including steppers) to 3 micron line
widths.
A good standard for most lithography and
inspection equipment to 1 micron detail size.
Suitable in most instances for the most
demanding equipment including electron
microscopes (TEMs and SEMs) and E-Beam
systems, operating to the limits of their
capability.
A difficult criterion to achieve in most
instances. Assumed to be adequate for the most
demanding of sensitive systems including long
path, laser-based, small target systems and other
systems requiring extraordinary dynamic
stability.
75
Workshop (ISO)
1000
Office (ISO)
Theater (ISO)
100
VC-A (50 micro meters/sec)
6.3
10
12.5
16
20
25
31.5
40
50
63
80
Figure U-1.
76