Advances in aircraft and spacecraft science

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of mass operator methods considering test uncertainties

  • Olympio, K.R. (Structural Engineering Dept., Airbus DS GmbH) ;
  • Blender, F. (Mechanical Systems Germany Dept., Airbus DS GmbH) ;
  • Holz, M. (Structural Engineering Dept., Airbus DS GmbH) ;
  • Kommer, A. (Structural Engineering Dept., Airbus DS GmbH) ;
  • Vetter, R. (Mechanical AIT Dept., Airbus DS GmbH)
  • Received : 2016.12.18
  • Accepted : 2017.09.30
  • Published : 2018.03.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In the space industry, structures undergo several vibration and acoustic tests in order to verify their design and give confidence that they will survive the launch and other critical in-orbit dynamic scenarios. At component level, vibration tests are conducted with the aim to reach local or global interface loads without exceeding the design loads. So, it is often necessary to control and limit the input based on a load criterion. This means the test engineer should be able to assess the interface loads, even when load cannot be measured. This paper presents various approaches to evaluate interface loads using measured accelerations and by referring to mass operators. Various methods, from curve fitting techniques to finite element-based methods are presented. The methods are compared using signals with known imperfection to identify strengths and weaknesses of each mass operator definition.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Airbus Defence and Space's

References

  1. Allemang, R.J. and Brown, D.L. (2006), "A complete review of the complex mode indicator function (CMIF) with applications", Proceedings of the International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.
  2. Boudraa, A.O., Cexus, J.C. and Saidi, Z. (2004), "EMD-based signal noise reduction", J. Sign. Proc., 1(1), 33-37.
  3. Carne, T.G., Bateman, V.I. and Dohrmann, C.R. (1991), "Force reconstruction using the inverse of the modeshape matrix", Proceedings of the 13th Biennial ASME Vibration Conference, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.
  4. Carne, T.G., Bateman, V.I. and Mayes, R.L. (1992), "Force reconstruction using a sum of weighted accelerations technique-max-flat procedure", Proceedings of the 10th International Modal Analysis Conference.
  5. Dobson, B.J. and Rider, E. (1990), "A review of the indirect calculation of excitation forces from measured structural response data", Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 204(2), 69-75.
  6. ECSS-E-HB-32-26A (2013), Space Engineering: Spacecraft Mechanical Loads Analysis Handbook.
  7. Olympio, K.R., Blender, F., Holz, M., Kommer, A. and Vetter, R. (2016), "Implementation and test of a robust mass operator tool", Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Spacecraft Structures, Material and Environmental Testing, Toulouse, September.
  8. Passino, K.M. (2005), Biomimicry for Optimization, Adaptation, and Decision-Making in Computer Control and Automation, Springer Science & Business Media, London, U.K.
  9. Primodal User's Manual (2015), Version 2.8.