Random Vibration Post-Processing

Bryson Cook 38 posts since 27-Aug-2009

I have a quick question about interpreting the stress results of a Dynamic Random Vibration study. The values are RMS Von Mises stresses, which (as far as my understanding goes) are equal to one standard deviation, assuming a normal (Gaussian) distribution. So, when subjected to PSD acceleration, the stresses in each part have a 32% chance of exceeding the stresses shown.

The problem I'm having is determining a pass/fail criterion for this study. Many of the studies I've seen claim to use the PSD curve (for a specific amount of time?), and then provide results in a damage or life plot. I looked into using stresses created by the PSD curve and using them as inputs for a fatigue study, but it doesn't appear that SolidWorks has that capability.

I also tried assuming that 3*RMS stresses would ensure that stresses in the part would only have a 0.25% chance of exceeding the displayed RMS values (i.e.: the pass/fail limit is set to 1/3 of the material yield strength), but this seemed unrealistic. The RMS stresses in many of the robust parts we studied were coming fairly close to the limit (1/3 Sy).

Can anyone give me some insight on interpreting these results? For reference, I'm using PSD curves defined in MIL-STD-810G, Method 514.6C.

Kirby Meyer 11 posts since 23-Oct-2007 1. Re: Random Vibration Post-Processing 14-Sep-2009 14:58

Hello Bryson

The best way of addressing this is to approach the system at "Qualification" levels. If you are using Maximum Predicted Environment (MPE), take the existing PSD map and multiply everything by 2, or equivalently adding 6 dB to the profile. Then examine the results and

Generated by Jive SBS on 2010-04-25-06:00 1

Random Vibration Post-Processing

see what the RMS stress values are (IIRC, the RMS stress is due to RMS forces, which are, in turn from RMS accelerations).

If the RMS stress values at Qualification are below yield stresses for the system, then I would consider it a safe system.

What you are basically doing is doing what has been put into practice for physical testing but now at the simulation level. Qualification levels are generally never met during the life of physical service, but are used to effectively 'shake the system down'. If it works at Qual it usually passes into production...

Kirby

Bryson Cook 38 posts since 27-Aug-2009 2. Re: Random Vibration Post-Processing 15-Sep-2009 04:59

Kirby,

Please excuse my ignorance, but how can you tell if a given PSD is considered MPE? I'm using the PSD curves for Ground Vehicle Vibration (MIL_STD-810G, Method 514.6, Procedure 1, Category 4), but they never make mention of MPE. Thank you for your insight.

Bryson

Kirby Meyer 11 posts since 23-Oct-2007 3. Re: Random Vibration Post-Processing 15-Sep-2009 10:28

MIL-STD-810G, Method 514.6 Annex C appears to use MPE, as the text mentioned it was compiled from data (though unfortunately doesn't state there was an exaggeration factor). I would think that the square root of the integral has to be below 1 g, so I'm pretty sure it's MPE.

Generated by Jive SBS on 2010-04-25-06:00 2

Random Vibration Post-Processing

Therefore, to simulate 'Qualification' standards of +6 dB, multiply each curve by 2. I believe there's some funny math that occurs above 2000 Hz or so, but this graph is below 1000 Hz so nothing important here.

Kirby

Bryson Cook 38 posts since 27-Aug-2009 4. Re: Random Vibration Post-Processing 22-Sep-2009 06:37

Kirby,

Do you know where the idea of this "Qualification" standard comes from? I would like to be able to cite a source for making this assumption.

Thanks again,

Bryson

Kirby Meyer 11 posts since 23-Oct-2007 5. Re: Random Vibration Post-Processing 25-Sep-2009 16:50

Hello Bryan

Try, for example:

http://standards.nasa.gov/released/7003/7003.pdf

Generated by Jive SBS on 2010-04-25-06:00 3

Random Vibration Post-Processing

http://standards.nasa.gov/released/7001/7001.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/llis/0780.html

We've used Protoflight/Protoqual as +3 dB MPE, and Qual as +6 dB (2x) MPE. Here, they recommend a minimum of (3 dB). I won't complain about using 3dB; our qual levels may be harsher than others due to conservatism.

Incidentally, it looks like NASA-STD-7001 talks about the probability level for MPE, which I think was your original question.

Kirby

Kirby Meyer 11 posts since 23-Oct-2007 6. Re: Random Vibration Post-Processing 01-Dec-2009 12:03

Briefly:

MIL-STD-810 uses 3 dB (1.5x) values for qualification. MIL-STD-1540C (launch vehicles) uses 6 dB (2.0x) for qualification. Sorry for the confusion.

Kirby

Rick Nagel 22 posts since 22-Apr-2009 7. Re: Random Vibration Post-Processing 22-Jan-2010 07:32

Generated by Jive SBS on 2010-04-25-06:00 4

Random Vibration Post-Processing

Not sure if this thread is dead or not but I'll post anyway as I'm suprised there aren't more posts regarding this topic. Maybe not that many people use COSMOS for vibration analysis?

Anywho, I have performed random vibration studies using ProMechanica, NASTRAN/ PATRAN, and just recently my current employer has upgraded the COSMOS software and we will probably be undertaking some random vibration studies. To date I have not attended the COSMOS training for advanced simulation so I'm also trying to figure out what results the software is providing.

Your original comment or question seems to go along with the random vibration theory I'm familiar with. I am not familiar with the methodologies that have been advocated by the other posters. I'm not saying they are incorrect, I'm just not familiar with them. I base my analysis approach and interpretation of results on a methodolgy detialed in books by Dave S. Steinberg. Specifically I suggest you take a look at Vibration Analysis for Electronic Equipment. The book gives examples of hand calculations of a single degree of freedom vibration problem and predicts the fatigue life. The basic steps involved with the analysis and interpretation of results are: 1. Run a modal analysis 2. Perform a dynamic random analysis (ie) put in your PSD curve data 3. Review the predicted stress level (1 sigma) 4. Create a table of the 1,2, and 3 sigma stress along with number of predicted cycles (cycles are determined by time at test (ie) a one hour test with a resonant frequency of 44Hz would be about 159,000 cycles) 5. Calculate cumulative damage in accordance with Miners equation 6. Compare these results on an S/N curve for your material of interest

In a perfect world you would claim infinite life.

I believe this method is very conservative but it is well documented. If this criteria is too rigid for your application, you have to decide as an engineer what analysis methodology is

Generated by Jive SBS on 2010-04-25-06:00 5

Random Vibration Post-Processing

acceptable. Now with all that said, I haven't had alot of success with the post-processing and results tools in COSMOS. Seems like I will have to do a lot of work by hand for a final solution. The one example in the Help section of a circuit card is pretty poor.

Anyway, thats my two cents. I will be digging into this more and hopefully getting some more guidance on exactly how to interpret the results next month at SWW 2010.

Good luck

Loic Ancian 52 posts since 06-Mar-2008 8. Re: Random Vibration Post-Processing 22-Jan-2010 08:13

Rick : on your comment : you say that you look at max stress 1,2 and 3 sigma. And then, you say that for instance 159000 cycle will occur. Stress and SN curve will give you damage, but how do you calculate cumulative damage?

Miner's rule suppose that you can add damages linearly, but in your case I don't get it...

Could you clarify?

Thanks

Rick Nagel 22 posts since 22-Apr-2009 9. Re: Random Vibration Post-Processing 22-Jan-2010 10:21 I probably did a poor job explaining a complex subject. Find attached a screen shot from Steinberg. This is not included in it's entirety but it is a snapshot. Attachments: untitled.JPG (158.4 K)

Generated by Jive SBS on 2010-04-25-06:00 6

Random Vibration Post-Processing

Joe Galliera 109 posts since 21-Oct-2007 10. Re: Random Vibration Post-Processing 22-Jan-2010 13:50 The training that is given for SolidWorks Simulation Premium has a lesson that covers this topic; the title of the lesson is "Random Vibration Analysis According to MIL-STD-810F." (The letters F and G in the MIL-STD simply indicate the different revisions.) Exercise 2 of this lesson covers the fatigue resistance of the electronic component on 3-sigma output levels according to the approximate method described in D.S. Steinberg's book, Vibration Analysis for Electronic Equipment.

Rick Nagel 22 posts since 22-Apr-2009 11. Re: Random Vibration Post-Processing 25-Jan-2010 07:37

Joe,

Is there any help on this topic included in SolidWorks help or do I have to pay for a class to get a look at that document?

thanks

Joe Galliera 109 posts since 21-Oct-2007 12. Re: Random Vibration Post-Processing 25-Jan-2010 09:54

Hi Rick,

The Help for SolidWorks primarily gives details on the interface and options. The Help has no information given about how to determine the fatigue life from a random vibration problem using Steinberg's method. I suggest obtaining the information at a local university library. If you send me an email with your location, I can send you a list of libraries that have this book.

Best regards, Joe

Generated by Jive SBS on 2010-04-25-06:00 7

Random Vibration Post-Processing

Rick Nagel 22 posts since 22-Apr-2009 13. Re: Random Vibration Post-Processing 25-Jan-2010 10:33

Thanks for the rapid response. I do have the book by Steinberg. I am more interested in understanding the various radio buttons and options within the SolidWorks GUI. I'm having some trouble interpreting the stress results. For example when I choose the "Results Options" tab and make changes to some of the radio buttons such as "selected modes" versus "all modes", I don't see the von-mises stress values change in the contour plot. I want to make sure I understand the results before i make any fatigue predictions.

thanks again.

Loic Ancian 52 posts since 06-Mar-2008 14. Re: Random Vibration Post-Processing 25-Jan-2010 01:23

OK, I get it now. Thanks Rick!

Generated by Jive SBS on 2010-04-25-06:00 8