Analyses of drives power reduction techniques for multi-axis random vibration control tests

Abstract In multi-axis vibration control testing, the power required by the excitation system for replicating the user defined test specifications is a limiting factor which cannot be overlooked. Excessive power, on top of over-stressing the often expensive test equipment, could cause data acquisition overloads which inevitably interrupt the test even before the full level run. An accurate definition of the Multi-Input Multi-Output (MIMO) control target allows to perform the control test minimising the overall power required by the shakers. In this sense, in the recent years advanced procedures have been developed in this research direction. This paper analyses the available drives power reduction techniques, offering a detailed overview of the current state-of-the-art. Furthermore, this paper provides a novel solution to manage the cases where most of the power is required by a single drive of the multiple inputs excitation system. In order to point out the pros and cons of each procedure and to show the capabilities of the novel technique, the MIMO target generation algorithms are firstly theoretically explained and then experimentally compared by using a three-axial electrodynamic shaker.

[1]  Bart Peeters,et al.  A minimum drives automatic target definition procedure for multi-axis random control testing , 2018 .

[2]  Wayne E. Whiteman,et al.  Inadequacies in Uniaxial Stress Screen Vibration Testing , 2001 .

[3]  David O. Smallwood Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) linear systems extreme inputs/outputs , 2007 .

[4]  Patrick Guillaume,et al.  Analyses of Target Definition Processes for MIMO Random Vibration Control Tests , 2017 .

[5]  Mark E. Robeson,et al.  Comparison of Electronic Component Durability Under Uniaxial and Multiaxial Random Vibrations , 2015 .

[6]  David Smallwood Minimum Input Trace for Multiple Input Multiple Output Linear Systems , 2013 .

[7]  David O. Smallwood,et al.  Comparison of the Response of a Simple Structure to Single Axis and Multiple Axis Random Vibration Inputs. , 2008 .

[8]  Janko Slavič,et al.  Multiaxial vibration fatigue—A theoretical and experimental comparison , 2016 .

[9]  D. J. Ewins,et al.  Enhanced ground-based vibration testing for aerodynamic environments , 2014 .

[10]  Gene H. Golub,et al.  Matrix computations , 1983 .

[11]  Dirk Vandepitte,et al.  Multi-exciter stationary non-Gaussian random vibration test with time domain randomization , 2019 .

[12]  C Roberts,et al.  Multi-axis vibration testing of an aerodynamically excited structure , 2018 .

[13]  Wayne E. Whiteman,et al.  Fatigue Failure Results for Multi-Axial versus Uniaxial Stress Screen Vibration Testing , 2002 .

[14]  P. M. Daborn Scaling up of the Impedance-Matched Multi-Axis Test (IMMAT) Technique , 2017 .

[15]  David O. Smallwood,et al.  A Frequency Domain Method for the Generation of Partially Coherent Normal Stationary Time Domain Signals , 1993 .

[16]  D. O. Smallwood Multiple Shaker Random Vibration Control--An Update , 1999 .

[17]  Marcos A. Underwood,et al.  Rectangular Control of Multi-Shaker Systems: Theory and Practical Results , 2004 .

[18]  Bart Peeters,et al.  Combining Test and Simulation to Tackle the Challenges Derived from Boundary Conditions Mismatches in Environmental Testing , 2020 .