rainflow cycle counting for random vibration fatigue analysis revision a by tom irvine
DESCRIPTION
85th Shock and Vibration Symposium 2014. Rainflow Cycle Counting for Random Vibration Fatigue Analysis Revision A By Tom Irvine. This presentation is sponsored by. NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC ). Vibrationdata. Dynamic Concepts, Inc. Huntsville, Alabama. Contact Information. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
NESC Academy
1
Rainflow Cycle Counting for Random Vibration Fatigue Analysis Revision A
By Tom Irvine
85th Shock and Vibration Symposium 2014
2
This presentation is sponsored by
NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC)
Dynamic Concepts, Inc. Huntsville, Alabama
Vibrationdata
3
Contact Information
Tom Irvine Email: [email protected]
Phone: (256) 922-9888 x343
http://vibrationdata.com/
http://vibrationdata.wordpress.com/
4
Introduction
Structures & components must be designed and tested to withstand vibration environments
Components may fail due to yielding, ultimate limit, buckling, loss of sway space, etc.
Fatigue is often the leading failure mode of interest for vibration environments, especially for random vibration
Dave Steinberg wrote:
The most obvious characteristic of random vibration is that it is nonperiodic. A knowledge of the past history of random motion is adequate to predict the probability of occurrence of various acceleration and displacement magnitudes, but it is not sufficient to predict the precise magnitude at a specific instant.
5
Fatigue Cracks A ductile material subjected to fatigue loading experiences basic structural changes. The changes occur in the following order:
1. Crack Initiation. A crack begins to form within the material.
2. Localized crack growth. Local extrusions and intrusions occur at the surface of the part because plastic deformations are not completely reversible.
3. Crack growth on planes of high tensile stress. The crack propagates across the section at those points of greatest tensile stress.
4. Ultimate ductile failure. The sample ruptures by ductile failure when the crack reduces the effective cross section to a size that cannot sustain the applied loads.
6
Vibration fatigue calculations are “ballpark” calculations given uncertainties in S-N curves, stress concentration factors, non-linearity, temperature and other variables.
Perhaps the best that can be expected is to calculate the accumulated fatigue to the correct “order-of-magnitude.”
Some Caveats
7
Rainflow Fatigue Cycles
Endo & Matsuishi 1968 developed the Rainflow Counting method by relating stress reversal cycles to streams of rainwater flowing down a Pagoda.
ASTM E 1049-85 (2005) Rainflow Counting Method
Goju-no-to Pagoda, Miyajima Island, Japan
8
Sample Time History
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
TIME
ST
RE
SS
STRESS TIME HISTORY
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A
H
F
D
B
I
G
E
C
STRESS
TIM
E
RAINFLOW PLOT
Rainflow Cycle Counting
Rotate time history plot 90 degrees clockwise
Rainflow Cycles by Path
Path CyclesStress Range
A-B 0.5 3
B-C 0.5 4
C-D 0.5 8
D-G 0.5 9
E-F 1.0 4
G-H 0.5 8
H-I 0.5 6
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A
H
F
D
B
I
G
E
C
STRESS
TIM
E
RAINFLOW PLOT
Rainflow Cycle Counting
Rotate time history plot 90 degrees clockwise
Rainflow Cycles by Path
Path CyclesStress Range
A-B 0.5 3
B-C 0.5 4
C-D 0.5 8
D-G 0.5 9
E-F 1.0 4
G-H 0.5 8
H-I 0.5 6
11
Range = (peak-valley)
Amplitude = (peak-valley)/2
Rainflow Results in Table Format - Binned Data
(But I prefer to have the results in simple amplitude & cycle format for further calculations)
12
Use of Rainflow Cycle Counting
Can be performed on sine, random, sine-on-random, transient, steady-state, stationary, non-stationary or on any oscillating signal whatsoever
Evaluate a structure’s or component’s failure potential using Miner’s rule & S-N curve
Compare the relative damage potential of two different vibration environments for a given component
Derive maximum predicted environment (MPE) levels for nonstationary vibration inputs
Derive equivalent PSDs for sine-on-random specifications
Derive equivalent time-scaling techniques so that a component can be tested at a higher level for a shorter duration
And more!
13
Rainflow Cycle Counting – Time History Amplitude Metric
Rainflow cycle counting is performed on stress time histories for the case where Miner’s rule is used with traditional S-N curves
Can be used on response acceleration, relative displacement or some other metric for comparing two environments
14
For Relative Comparisons between Environments . . .
The metric of interest is the response acceleration or relative displacement
Not the base input!
If the accelerometer is mounted on the mass, then we are good-to-go!
If the accelerometer is mounted on the base, then we need to perform intermediate calculations
Vibrationdata
15
Reference
Steinberg’s text is used in the following example and elsewhere in this presentations
16
Bracket Example, Variation on a Steinberg Example
Power Supply
Solder Terminal
Aluminum Bracket
4.7 in
5.5 in
2.0 in
0.25 in
Power Supply Mass M = 0.44 lbm= 0.00114 lbf sec^2/in
Bracket Material Aluminum alloy 6061-T6
Mass Density ρ=0.1 lbm/in^3
Elastic Modulus E= 1.0e+07 lbf/in^2
Viscous Damping Ratio 0.05
6.0 in
17
Bracket Natural Frequency via Rayleigh Method
18
f 94.76 Hzn
Bracket Response via SDOF Model
Treat bracket-mass system as a SDOF system for the response to base excitation analysis. Assume Q=10.
19
0.001
0.01
0.1
10 100 1000 2000
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
L (
G2 /H
z)
POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY 6.1 GRMS OVERALL
Base Input PSD, 6.1 GRMS
Frequency (Hz)
Accel (G^2/Hz)
20 0.0053
150 0.04
600 0.04
2000 0.0036
Now consider that the bracket assembly is subjected to the random vibration base input level. The duration is 3 minutes.
Base Input PSD
20
Base Input PSD
The PSD on the previous slide is library array: MIL-STD1540B ATP PSD
21
Time History Synthesis
22
An acceleration time history is synthesized to satisfy the PSD specification
The corresponding histogram has a normal distribution, but the plot is omitted for brevity
Note that the synthesized time history is not unique
Base Input Time History
Save Time History as: synth
23
PSD Verification
24
SDOF Response
25
Acceleration Response
The response is narrowband The oscillation frequency tends to be near the natural frequency of 94.76 Hz The overall response level is 6.1 GRMS This is also the standard deviation given that the mean is zero The absolute peak is 27.49 G, which represents a 4.53-sigma peak Some fatigue methods assume that the peak response is 3-sigma and may
thus under-predict fatigue damage
Save as: accel_resp
26
Stress & Moment Calculation, Free-body Diagram
MR
R F
Lx
The reaction moment M R at the fixed-boundary is: The force F is equal to the effect mass of the bracket system multiplied by the acceleration level. The effective mass m e is:
LFMR
em 0.2235 L m
em 0.0013 lbf sec^2/in
27
Stress & Moment Calculation, Free-body Diagram
The bending moment at a given distance from the force application point is
M̂
L̂AmM̂ e
where A is the acceleration at the force point.
The bending stress S b is given by
I/CM̂KSb
The variable K is the stress concentration factor.
The variable C is the distance from the neutral axis to the outer fiber of the beam.
Assume that the stress concentration factor is 3.0 for the solder lug mounting hole.
ebˆS K m LC / I A
28
Stress Scale Factor
eˆK m LC / I
ebˆS K m LC / I A
= ( 3.0 )( 0.0013 lbf sec^2/in ) (4.7 in) (0.125 in) /(0.0026 in^4)
31I = w t
12= 0.0026 in^4
= 0.881 lbf sec^2/in^3
= 0.881 psi sec^2/in
= 340 psi / G
0.34 ksi / G
386 in/sec^2 = 1 G
L̂ 4.7 in (Terminal to Power Supply)
29vibrationdata > Signal Editing Utilities > Trend Removal & Amplitude Scaling
Convert Acceleration to Stress
30
The standard deviation is 2.06 ksi The highest absolute peak is 9.3 ksi, which is 4.53-sigma The 4.53 multiplier is also referred to as the “crest factor.”
Stress Time History at Solder Terminal
Apply Rainflow Counting on the Stress time history and then Miner’s Rule in the following slides
Save as: stress
31
Rainflow Count, Part 1 - Calculate & Save
vibrationdata > Rainflow Cycle Counting
32
Stress Rainflow Cycle Count
But use amplitude-cycle data directly in Miner’s rule, rather than binned data!
Range = (Peak – Valley) Amplitude = (Peak – Valley )/2
33
The curve can be roughly divided into two segments The first is the low-cycle fatigue portion from 1 to 1000 cycles, which is
concave as viewed from the origin The second portion is the high-cycle curve beginning at 1000, which is
convex as viewed from the origin The stress level for one-half cycle is the ultimate stress limit
For N>1538 and S < 39.7
log10 (S) = -0.108 log10 (N) +1.95
log10 (N) = -9.25 log10 (S) + 17.99
S-N Curve
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
100
102
106
108
101
103
104
105
107
CYCLES
MA
X S
TR
ES
S (
KS
I)S-N CURVE ALUMINUM 6061-T6 KT=1 STRESS RATIO= -1
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
34
Miner’s Cumulative Fatigue
m
1i i
i
N
nR
Let n be the number of stress cycles accumulated during the vibration testing at a given level stress level represented by index i Let N be the number of cycles to produce a fatigue failure at the stress level limit for the corresponding index. Miner’s cumulative damage index R is given by
where m is the total number of cycles or bins depending on the analysis type
In theory, the part should fail when Rn (theory) = 1.0 For aerospace electronic structures, however, a more conservative limit is used
Rn(aero) = 0.7
35
Miner’s Cumulative Fatigue, Alternate Form
mb
ii 1
1R
A
A is the fatigue strength coefficient (stress limit for one-half cycle for the one-segment S-N curve)
b is the fatigue exponent
Here is a simplified form which assume a “one-segment” S-N curve.
It is okay as long as the stress is below the ultimate limit with “some margin” to spare.
36
Rainflow Count, Part 2
vibrationdata > Rainflow Cycle Counting > Miners Cumulative Damage
37
Cumulative Fatigue Results
SDOF System, Solder Terminal Location, Fatigue Damage Results for Various Input Levels, 180 second Duration, Crest Factor = 4.53
Input Overall Level
(GRMS)
Input Margin (dB)
Response Stress Std Dev (ksi) R
6.1 0 2.06 2.39E-08
8.7 3 2.9 5.90E-07
12.3 6 4.1 1.46E-05
17.3 9 5.8 3.59E-04
24.5 12 8.2 8.87E-03
34.5 15 11.7 0.219
Again, the success criterion was R < 0.7
The fatigue failure threshold is just above the 12 dB margin
The data shows that the fatigue damage is highly sensitive to the base input and resulting stress levels
Vibrationdata
38
Continuous Beam Subjected to Base Excitation Example
Use the same base input PSD & time history as the previous example.
(The time history named accel in this exercise is the same as synth from previous one.
39
Continuous Beam Subjected to Base Excitation
y(x, t)
w(t)
EI,
L
Cross-Section Rectangular
Boundary Conditions Fixed-Free
Material Aluminum
Width = 2.0 in
Thickness = 0.25 in
Length = 8 in
Elastic Modulus = 1.0e+07 lbf/in^2
Area Moment of Inertia = 0.0026 in^4
Mass per Volume = 0.1 lbm/in^3
Mass per Length = 0.05 lbm/in
Viscous Damping Ratio = 0.05 for all modes
Vibrationdata
40vibrationdata > Structural Dynamics > Beam Bending > General Beam Bending
Vibrationdata
41
Natural Participation Effective Mode Frequency Factor Modal Mass 1 124 Hz 0.02521 0.0006353 2 776.9 Hz 0.01397 0.0001951 3 2175 Hz 0.00819 6.708e-05 4 4263 Hz 0.005856 3.429e-05
modal mass sum = 0.0009318 lbf sec^2/in = 0.36 lbm
Continuous Beam Natural Frequencies
Vibrationdata
42Press Apply Base Input in Previous Dialog and then enter Q=10 and Save Damping Values
Vibrationdata
43
Apply Arbitrary Base Input Pulse. Include 4 Modes. Save Bending Stress and go to Rainflow Analysis.
Vibrationdata
44
Bending Stress at Fixed End
Vibrationdata
45
Vibrationdata
46
Cantilever Beam, Fixed Boundary, Fatigue Damage Results for Various Input Levels, 180 second Duration
Input Overall Level
(GRMS)
Input Margin (dB)
Response Stress Std Dev
(ksi)R
6.1 0 0.542 1.783e-13
12.2 6 1.08 1.09E-10
24.2 12 2.16 6.61E-08
48.4 18 4.3 4.02E-05
Cumulative Fatigue Results
The beam could withstand 36 days at +18 dB level based on R=0.7
( (0.7/4.02e-05)*180 sec) / (86400 sec / days) = 36 days
Vibrationdata
47
Rainflow can also be calculated approximately from a stress response PSD using any of these methods:
• Narrowband• Alpha 0.75• Benasciutti • Dirlik• Ortiz Chen• Lutes Larsen (Single Moment)• Wirsching Light• Zhao Baker
Frequency Domain Fatigue Methods
Vibrationdata
48
0
nn df)f(Gfm
where
f is frequency
G(f) is the one-sided PSD
The nth spectral moment for a PSD is nm
Spectral Moments
The eight frequency domain methods on the previous slides are based on spectral moments.
Additional formulas are given in the fatigue papers at the Vibrationdata blog: http://vibrationdata.wordpress.com/
Vibrationdata
49
The eight frequency domain methods “mix and match” spectral moments to estimate fatigue damage.
Additional formulas are given in the fatigue papers at the Vibrationdata blog:
http://vibrationdata.wordpress.com/
Spectral Moments (cont)
24 mm]P[E
The expected peak rate E[P]
Vibrationdata
50
Return to Previous Beam Example, Select PSD
Vibrationdata
51
Apply mil_std_1540b PSD. Calculate stress at fixed boundary.
Vibrationdata
52
Bending Stress PSD at fixed boundary
Overall level is the same as that from the time domain analysis.
Vibrationdata
53
Save Bending Stress PSD and to Rainflow Analysis.
Vibrationdata
54
Vibrationdata
55
Rate of Zero Crossings = 186.4 per sec Rate of Peaks = 608.5 per sec Irregularity Factor alpha = 0.3063 Spectral Width Parameter = 0.9519 Vanmarckes Parameter = 0.475 Lambda Values Wirsching Light = 0.6208 Ortiz Chen = 1.097 Lutes & Larsen = 0.7027 Cumulative Damage Damage Rate A*rate (1/sec) ((psi^9.25)/sec) Narrowband DNB = 1.9e-13, 1.0573e-15, 5.8100e+30 Dirlik DDK = 1.26e-13, 7.0141e-16, 3.8543e+30 Alpha 0.75 DAL = 1.53e-13, 8.4808e-16, 4.6602e+30 Ortiz Chen DOC = 2.09e-13, 1.1602e-15, 6.3754e+30 Zhao Baker DZB = 1.12e-13, 6.2029e-16, 3.4085e+30 Lutes Larsen DLL = 1.34e-13, 7.4303e-16, 4.0829e+30 Wirsching Light DWL = 1.18e-13, 6.5634e-16, 3.6066e+30 Benasciutti Tovo DBT = 1.48e-13, 8.2304e-16, 4.5226e+30 Average of DAL,DOC,DLL,DBT,DZB,DDK
average=1.469e-13
Vibrationdata
56
Method Time History Synthesis
PSD Average
Damage R 1.78e-13 1.47e-13
Bending Stress Damage Comparison
Vibrationdata
57
Plate Response to Acoustic Pressure
Vibrationdata
58
• Use frequency domain damage methods to assess acoustic fatigue damage
• Demonstrated for a rectangular plate subjected to a uniform acoustic pressure field
• Consider a plate with dimensions 18 x 16 x 0.063 inches
• The material is aluminum 6061-T6
• The plate is simply-supported on all four edges
• Assume 3% damping for all modes
Objective
Vibrationdata
59
• The plate is subjected to the Boeing 737 Aft Mach 0.78 sound pressure level
• Assume that the pressure is uniformly distributed across the plate
• The sound pressure level and its corresponding power spectral density are shown in the following figures
• Calculate the stress and cumulative fatigue damage at the center of the plate with a stress concentration factor of 3
• Determine the time until failure at the nominal level and at 6 dB increments
Applied Pressure
Vibrationdata
60
Boeing 737 Mach 0.78 SPL, Aft External Fuselage
Vibrationdata
61
Boeing 737 Mach 0.78 , Equivalent PSD, Aft External Fuselage
Vibrationdata
62
The stress concentration factor is applied separately by multiply the magnitude by 3.
The magnitude is then squared prior to multiplying by the force PSD.
Center of the Plate
Vibrationdata
63
Center of the Plate Stress Response PSD
Vibrationdata
64
Cumulative Damage, Simply-Supported Rectangular Plate, Center, Stress Concentration=3
Margin Displacement Damage Rate Time to Failure
(dB) (inch RMS) (1/sec) (sec) (Days)
0 0.0126 1.808e-15 5.53e+14 6.40E+09
6 0.0252 1.076e-12 9.29e+11 1.08E+07
12 0.0504 6.324e-10 1.58e+09 18302
18 0.1008 3.822e-07 2.62e+06 30
Damage Results
Vibrationdata
65
Circuit Board Fatigue Response
to Random Vibration
Vibrationdata
66
• Electronic components in vehicles are subjected to shock and vibration environments.
• The components must be designed and tested accordingly
• Dave S. Steinberg’s Vibration Analysis for Electronic Equipment is a widely used reference in the aerospace and automotive industries.
Vibrationdata
67
• Steinberg’s text gives practical empirical formulas for determining the fatigue limits for electronics piece parts mounted on circuit boards
• The concern is the bending stress experienced by solder joints and lead wires
• The fatigue limits are given in terms of the maximum allowable 3-sigma relative displacement of the circuit boards for the case of 20 million stress reversal cycles at the circuit board’s natural frequency
• The vibration is assumed to be steady-state with a Gaussian distribution
Vibrationdata
68
Circuit Board and Component Lead Diagram
L
B
Z
Relative Motion
Componenth
Relative Motion
Component
Vibrationdata
69
Fatigue Introduction
The following method is taken from Steinberg:
• Consider a circuit board that is simply supported about its perimeter
• A concern is that repetitive bending of the circuit board will result in cracked solder joints or broken lead wires
• Let Z be the single-amplitude displacement at the center of the board that will give a fatigue life of about 20 million stress reversals in a random-vibration environment, based upon the 3 circuit board relative displacement
Vibrationdata
70
Empirical Fatigue Formula
B = length of the circuit board edge parallel to the component, inches
L = length of the electronic component, inches
h = circuit board thickness, inches
r = relative position factor for the component mounted on the board
C = Constant for different types of electronic components 0.75 < C < 2.25
LrhC
B00022.0limit3Z
The allowable limit for the 3-sigma relative displacement Z is
(20 million cycles)
Vibrationdata
71
Relative Position Factors for Components on Circuit Boards
r Component Location(Board supported on all sides)
1 When component is at center of PCB (half point X and Y).
0.707 When component is at half point X and quarter point Y.
0.5 When component is at quarter point X and quarter point Y.
72
.
Conclusions
1.0
0.5
0.707
0.707
Relative Position Factor r
Vibrationdata
73
Component Constants
C=0.75 Axial leaded through hole or surface mounted components, resistors, capacitors, diodes
C=1.0 Standard dual inline package (DIP)
Vibrationdata
74
Component Constants
C=1.26 DIP with side-brazed lead wires
C=1.0 Through-hole Pin grid array (PGA) with many wires extending from the bottom surface of the PGA
Vibrationdata
75
Component Constants
C=2.25
C=1.26 Surface-mounted leaded ceramic chip carriers with thermal compression bonded J wires or gull wing wires.
Surface-mounted leadless ceramic chip carrier (LCCC).
A hermetically sealed ceramic package. Instead of metal prongs, LCCCs have metallic semicircles (called castellations) on their edges that solder to the pads.
Vibrationdata
76
Component Constants
C=1.75 Surface-mounted ball grid array (BGA).
BGA is a surface mount chip carrier that connects to a printed circuit board through a bottom side array of solder balls.
Vibrationdata
77
Component Constants
C = 0.75 Fine-pitch surface mounted axial leads around perimeter of component with four corners bonded to the circuit board to prevent bouncing
C = 1.26 Any component with two parallel rows of wires extending from the bottom surface, hybrid, PGA, very large scale integrated (VLSI), application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), very high scale integrated circuit (VHSIC), and multichip module (MCM).
Vibrationdata
78
Circuit Board Maximum Predicted Relative Displacement
• Calculating the allowable limit is the first step
• The second step is to calculate the circuit board’s actual displacement
• Circuit boards typically behave as multi-degree-of-freedom systems
• Thus, a finite element analysis is required to calculate a board’s relative displacement
• The formula on the following page is a simplified approach for an idealized board which behaves as a single-degree-of-freedom system
• It is derived from the Miles equation, which was covered in a previous unit
Vibrationdata
79
SDOF Relative Displacement
AQ25.1
nf4.29Z
13
f n is the natural frequency (Hz)
Q is the amplification factor
A is the input power spectral density amplitude (G^2 / Hz), assuming a constant input level.
inches
Vibrationdata
80
Exercise 1
A DIP is mounted to the center of a circuit board.
Thus, C = 1.0 and r = 1.0
The board thickness is h = 0.100 inch
The length of the DIP is L =0.75 inch
The length of the circuit board edge parallel to the component is B = 4.0 inch
Calculate the relative displacement limit
LrhC
B00022.0limit3Z (20 million cycles)
Vibrationdata
81
vibrationdata > Miscellaneous > Steinberg Circuit Board Fatigue
Vibrationdata
82
A circuit board has a natural frequency of fn = 200 Hz and an amplification factor of Q=10.
It will be exposed to a base input of A = 0.04 G^2/Hz.
What is the board’s 3-sigma displacement?
Exercise 2
Vibrationdata
83
vibrationdata > Miscellaneous > SDOF Response: Sine, Random & Miles equation > Miles Equation
Vibrationdata
84
Exercise 3
Assume that the circuit board in exercise 1 is the same as the board in exercise 2.
Will the DIP at the center of the board survive 20 million cycles?
Assume that the stress reversal cycles take place at the natural frequency which is 200 Hz. What is the duration equivalent to 20 million cycles ?
Answer: about 28 hours
© The Aerospace Corporation 2010© The Aerospace Corporation 2012
Extending Steinberg’s Fatigue Analysis of Electronics Equipment to a Full Relative
Displacement vs. Cycles Curve
Tom IrvineDynamic Concepts, Inc.NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC)
4-6 June 2013
Vibrationdata
86
Introduction
• Predicting whether an electronic component will fail due to vibration fatigue during a test or field service
• Explaining observed component vibration test failures
• Comparing the relative damage potential for various test and field environments
• Justifying that a component’s previous qualification vibration test covers a new test or field environment
Project Goals
Develop a method for . . .
87
.
Conclusions
Fatigue Curves
• Note that classical fatigue methods use stress as the response metric of interest
• But Steinberg’s approach works in an approximate, empirical sense because the bending stress is proportional to strain, which is in turn proportional to relative displacement
• The user then calculates the expected 3-sigma relative displacement for the component of interest and then compares this displacement to the Steinberg limit value
88
.
Conclusions
• An electronic component’s service life may be well below or well above 20 million cycles
• A component may undergo nonstationary or non-Gaussian random vibration such that its expected 3-sigma relative displacement does not adequately characterize its response to its service environments
• The component’s circuit board will likely behave as a multi-degree-of-freedom system, with higher modes contributing non-negligible bending stress
89
• Develop two-segment RD-N curve for electronic parts (relative displacement)
• Steinberg provides pieces for this curve, but “some assembly is required”
• Steinberg gives an exponent b = 6.4 for PCB-component lead wires, for both sine and random vibration
• He also gave the allow relative displacement at 20 million cycles
• The low cycle portion will be based on another Steinberg equation that the maximum allowable relative displacement for shock is six times the 3-sigma limit value at 20 million cycles for random vibration
Vibrationdata
90
6.4
(N) log-6.05
Z
RD log 10
limit310
The final RD-N equation for high-cycle fatigue is
RD-N Equation for High-Cycle Fatigue
Will add to Vibrationdata Matlab GUI package soon.
91
Conclusions
0.1
1
10
100 102 104 106 108101 103 105 107
CYCLES
RD
/ Z
3-
lim
itRD-N CURVE ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS
The derived high-cycle equation is plotted in along with the low-cycle fatigue limit.
RD is the zero-to-peak relative displacement.
Vibrationdata
92
Fatigue Damage Spectra
Can be calculated from either a response time history or a response PSD.
Fatigue Damage Spectra
i
m
1i
bi nAD
Develop fatigue damage spectra concept similar to shock response spectrum
Natural frequency is an independent variable
Calculate acceleration or relative displacement response for each natural frequency of interest for selected amplification factor Q
Perform Rainflow cycle counting for each natural frequency case
Calculate damage sum from rainflow cycles for selected fatigue exponent b for each natural frequency case
Repeat by varying Q and b for each natural frequency case for desired conservatism, parametric studies, etc.
• The shock response spectrum is a calculated function based on the acceleration time history.
• It applies an acceleration time history as a base excitation to an array of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems.
• Each system is assumed to have no mass-loading effect on the base input.
. . . .Y (Base Input)..
M1 M2 M3 ML
X..
1 X..
2X..
3 X..
L
K1 K2K3 KL
C1 C2 C3 CL
fn1 < << < . . . .fn2fn3
fnL
Response Spectrum Review
-100
-50
0
50
100
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
TIME (SEC)
AC
CE
L (
G)
-100
-50
0
50
100
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
TIME (SEC)
AC
CE
L (
G)
-100
-50
0
50
100
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
TIME (SEC)
AC
CE
L (
G)
-100
-50
0
50
100
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
TIME (SEC)
AC
CE
L (
G)
RESPONSE (fn = 30 Hz, Q=10)
RESPONSE (fn = 80 Hz, Q=10)RESPONSE (fn = 140 Hz, Q=10)
Base Input: Half-Sine Pulse (11 msec, 50 G)
SRS Example
10
20
50
100
200
10 100 10005
( 140 Hz, 70 G )
( 80 Hz, 82 G )
( 30 Hz, 55 G )
NATURAL FREQUENCY (Hz)
PE
AK
AC
CE
L (G
)SRS Q=10 BASE INPUT: HALF-SINE PULSE (11 msec, 50 G)
Response Spectrum Review (cont)
-10
-5
0
5
10
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
TIME (SEC)
AC
CE
L (
G)
FLIGHT ACCELEROMETER DATA - SUBORBITAL LAUNCH VEHICLE
Nonstationary Random Vibration
Liftoff Transonic Attitude Control
Max-Q Thrusters
Rainflow counting can be applied to accelerometer data.
10-1
102
105
108
1011
1014
10 100 1000 2000
Q=50Q=10
NATURAL FREQUENCY (Hz)
DA
MA
GE
IN
DE
XFATIGUE DAMAGE SPECTRA b=6.4
Flight Accelerometer Data, Fatigue Damage from Acceleration
The fatigue exponent is fixed at 6.4. The Q=50 curve Damage Index is 2 to 3 orders-of-magnitude greater than that of the Q=10 curve.
10-1
103
107
1011
1015
10 100 1000 2000
b=9.0b=6.4
NATURAL FREQUENCY (Hz)
DA
MA
GE
IN
DE
XFATIGUE DAMAGE SPECTRA Q=10
Flight Accelerometer Data, Fatigue Damage from Acceleration
The amplification factor is fixed at Q=10. The b=9.0 curve Damage Index is 3 to 4 orders-of-magnitude greater than that of the b=6.4 curve above 150 Hz.
© The Aerospace Corporation 2010© The Aerospace Corporation 2012
Optimized PSD Envelope for Nonstationary Vibration
Tom IrvineDynamic Concepts, Inc.NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC)
3-5 June 2014
Vibrationdata
101
Introduction - Nonstationary Flight Data
-2
-1
0
1
2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
TIME (SEC)
AC
CE
L (G
)
ARES 1-X FLIGHT ACCELEROMETER DATA IAD601A
Ares 1-X
• Liftoff Vibroacoustics
• Transonic Shock Waves
• Fluctuating Pressure at Max-Q
102
.
Conclusions
References by Year
• Endo & Matsuishi, Rainflow Cycle Counting Method, 1968
• T. Dirlik, Application of Computers in Fatigue Analysis (Ph.D.), University of Warwick, 1985
• ASTM E 1049-85 (2005) Rainflow Counting Method, 1987
• S. J. DiMaggio, B. H. Sako, and S. Rubin, Analysis of Nonstationary Vibroacoustic Flight Data Using a Damage-Potential Basis, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol, 40, No. 5. September-October 2003
• K. Ahlin, Comparison of Test Specifications and Measured Field Data, Sound & Vibration, 2006
• Scot McNeill, Implementing the Fatigue Damage Spectrum and Fatigue Damage Equivalent Vibration Testing, SAVIAC Conference, 2008
• A. Halfpenny & F. Kihm, Rainflow Cycle Counting and Acoustic Fatigue Analysis Techniques for Random Loading, RASD Conference, 2010
• T. Irvine, An Alternate Damage Potential Method for Enveloping Nonstationary Random Vibration, Aerospace/JPL Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments Workshop, 2012 - Time Domain Method
103
Conclusions
SDOF Model
• Assume component behaves as single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system
• Avionics are typically black boxes for mechanical engineering purposes!
• Unknowns
Component natural frequency
Amplification factor Q
Fatigue exponent b
• Perform fatigue damage calculation on each response for permutations of the three unknowns
• This adds conservatism to the final PSD envelope
• The fatigue calculation can be performed starting with either a time history or PSD base input
104
Conclusions
Relative Damage Index
• A relative fatigue damage index can be calculated from the rainflow cycles using a Miners-type summation
• The damage index D becomes the Fatigue Damage Spectrum (FDS) metric as a function of: natural frequency, amplification factor Q and fatigue exponent b
i
m
1i
bi nAD
where
A i is the acceleration response amplitude from the rainflow analysis
n i is the corresponding number of cycles
b is the fatigue exponent
105
Conclusions
Enveloping Approach
• A PSD envelope can be derived for nonstationary flight data using rainflow cycling counting and the relative fatigue damage index
• The enveloping is justified using a comparison of Fatigue Damage Spectra between the candidate PSD and the measured time history
• The derivation process can be performed in a trial-and-error manner in order to obtain the PSD with the least overall GRMS level which still envelops the flight data in terms of fatigue damage spectra
• Could also seek to minimize overall displacement, velocity, peak G2/Hz level, etc.
• Or minimize weighted average of these metrics
106
Conclusions
Enveloping Approach (cont)
• The Dirlik semi-empirical method can be used to calculate the FDS for each candidate PSD in the frequency domain
• The immediate output of the Dirlik method is a “rainflow cycle probability density function (PDF)”
• The rainflow PDF can be converted to a cumulative histogram
• The cumulative histogram can be converted into individual cycles with their respective amplitudes
• Compare the fatigue spectra of the candidate PSD to that of the flight data for each Q & b case of interest
• Scale candidate PSD so that it barely envelops the flight data in terms of FDS
• Include some convergence option along the way
• Select the candidate which has the least overall GRMS level, or some other criteria
107
Conclusions
Dirlik Method
• Sample base input and SDOF response
Dirlik method calculates rainflow cycle cumulative histogram from response PSD.
The Dirlik equation is based on the weighted sum of the Rayleigh, Gaussian and exponential probability distributions.
Uses area moments of the response PSD as weights.0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100 100020 2000
Response 11.2 GRMSInput 6.1 GRMS
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
L (
G2 /H
z)
POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY fn=200 Hz Q=10
108
.
Conclusions
• The response analysis for the nonstationary time history is performed using the Smallwood, ramp invariant digital recursive filtering relationship, for each fn & Q
• Perform rainflow cycle count on response time history
• Calculate the damage index D for each fn, Q & b
• The damage for each permutation is then plotted as function of natural frequency, as an FDS
SDOF Response Time Domain
Response Acceleration
Base Acceleration
109
.
Conclusions
• Derive a 60-second PSD to envelope the flight data
• Consider 800 candidate PSDs formed by random number generation, with four coordinates each
Sample Flight Data
110
.
Conclusions
Case Q b
1 10 4
2 10 9
3 30 4
4 30 9
Q & b Values for Fatigue Damage Spectra
Natural Frequencies: 20 to 2000 Hz
All cases will be analyzed for each successive trial.
Permutations
For Reference Only
111
.
Conclusions
0.001
0.01
0.1
100 100020 2000
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
L (
G2/H
z)
POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY ENVELOPE 3.3 GRMS OVERALL
Freq (Hz)
Accel (G^2/Hz)
20 0.0018
31 0.0019
211 0.0168
2000 0.0024
PSD Envelope, 3.3 GRMS, 60 sec
The PSD with the least overall GRMS which envelops the flight data via fatigue damage spectra
Optimized PSD
112
.
Conclusions
102
104
106
108
1010
100 100020 2000
PSD EnvelopeMeasured Data
NATURAL FREQUENCY (Hz)
DA
MA
GE
IN
DE
XFATIGUE DAMAGE SPECTRA Q=10 b=4
FDS Comparison 1
113
.
Conclusions
102
104
106
108
1010
100 100020 2000
PSD EnvelopeMeasured Data
NATURAL FREQUENCY (Hz)
DA
MA
GE
IN
DE
XFATIGUE DAMAGE SPECTRA Q=10 b=4
FDS Comparison 1
114
.
Conclusions
103
105
107
109
1011
100 100020 2000
PSD EnvelopeMeasured Data
NATURAL FREQUENCY (Hz)
DA
MA
GE
IND
EX
FATIGUE DAMAGE SPECTRA Q=30 b=4
FDS Comparison 2
115
.
Conclusions
103
105
107
109
1011
100 100020 2000
PSD EnvelopeMeasured Data
NATURAL FREQUENCY (Hz)
DA
MA
GE
IND
EX
FATIGUE DAMAGE SPECTRA Q=30 b=4
FDS Comparison 2
116
.
Conclusions
102
105
108
1011
1014
1017
100 100020 2000
PSD EnvelopeMeasured Data
NATURAL FREQUENCY (Hz)
DA
MA
GE
IN
DE
XFATIGUE DAMAGE SPECTRA Q=10 b=9
FDS Comparison 3
117
.
Conclusions
104
107
1010
1013
1016
1019
100 100020 2000
PSD EnvelopeMeasured Data
NATURAL FREQUENCY (Hz)
DA
MA
GE
IN
DE
XFATIGUE DAMAGE SPECTRA Q=30 b=9
FDS Comparison 4
118
.
Conclusions
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
100 100020 2000
Maximum Envelope of 2.5-sec Segments, 2.0 GRMSFatigue Damage Spectrum, Optimized, 3.3 GRMS
FREQUENCY (Hz)
AC
CE
L (
G2/H
z)POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY
PSD Comparison
Maximum Envelope is traditional piecewise stationary method, but its PSD need further simplification.
119
.
Conclusions
Conclusions
• An optimized PSD envelope was derived for nonstationary flight data using the fatigue damage spectrum method
• The FDS case with both the highest Q & b values drove the PSD derivation for the sample flight data
• Still recommend using permutations because other cases may be the driver for a given time history
• The method can be used more effectively if the natural frequency, amplification factor, and fatigue exponent are known
• The method is flexible
• The PSD duration can be longer or shorter than the flight vibration duration
• Could require the candidate PSDs to each have a ramp-plateau-ramp shape
• A similar method could be used for deriving force & pressure PSDs