Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Random Vibration Analysis Using Miles Equation and ANSYS Workbench August 2010 Owen Stump DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 1 Purpose • The purpose of the following testing was to determine if there was a significant difference in the results of a random vibration problem using Miles Equation followed by a static analysis in ANSYS or using the ANSYS random vibration analysis. • Additionally, it was desirable to see if either analysis accounted for the octave rule. – The Octave Rule: In a coupled system undergoing random vibration, there is an amplification to the output of the system. – The frequency range where the amplification exists is dependent on the weight ratio, frequency ratio, and damping ratio between the input and the output of the coupled system. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 2 Methods for Solving The following methods were compared against each other to determine which is the more accurate method to solve random vibration problems: • Miles Equation – Perform modal analysis to find natural frequency of system. – Use Miles Equation in order to find 3 Sigma GRMS for the system. – Multiply 1.0 G by the 3 Sigma GRMS value and apply that product as an acceleration in desired direction. – Perform a static structural analysis to find deformations and stresses. Miles Equation: 3 GRMS 3 * Q • 2 * Q * f * PSD 1 2 * Random Vibration analysis in Workbench – Perform modal analysis to find natural frequency of the system. – Perform a random vibration analysis using the modal analysis as the initial condition environment, with the PSD Base Excitation applied in the desired direction. – Evaluate desired stresses and deformations at 3 sigma values. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 3 Two Bar System • Initially, a two bar system was tested. • Three geometries were used for the initial testing. • Further testing was performed on eight geometries with a varying output bar width. • One end of the bar has a fixed boundary condition placed on one face (Zero Displacement in X, Y, and Z). • The same material (Structural Steel; E = 2.9E7 psi; Density = 0.28383 lbm/in^3) was used for all bars. • Q was held constant at 10 by changing the constant damping ratio for the random vibration analysis to 0.05. • The acceleration used in the static analysis was applied in the –Z direction. • The PSD base excitation was applied in the +Z direction for the random vibration analysis. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 4 PSD Levels The following PSD Levels were used for all trials: Frequency PSD Level 20 0.0200 50 6.1900 80 20.0000 120 20.0000 630 1.2000 1000 1.2000 2000 0.0200 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 5 X Z Y First Geometry Fixed Face on End of Bar Input Bar 1”x1”x10” Output Bar 0.5”x0.5”x10” Bonded Connection DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 6 Results for the First Geometry 2 Bar Model Solutions using Miles Equation Solutions using Random Vibration Analysis in ANSYS Workbench Frequency (Hz) 114 114 Abort PSD Level (G^2/Hz) 20 20 Q 10.0 10.0 3 Sigma GRMS 568 N/A 3 Sigma Maximum Equivalent Stress (psi) 212750 286430 3 Sigma Maximum Deformation in bending direction (in) 0.80536 0.85146 CP Time for Modal Analysis (sec) 1603 1603 CP Time for Random Vibration Analysis (sec) 92 665 Total Run CP time (sec) 1694 2268 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 7 X Z Y Second Geometry Fixed Face on End of Bar Input Bar 1”x1”x10” Output Bar 1”x1”x10” Bonded Connection DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 8 Results of the Second Geometry 2 Identical Bar Model Solutions using Miles Equation Solutions using Random Vibration Analysis in ANSYS Workbench Frequency (Hz) 80 80 Abort PSD Level (G^2/Hz) 20 20 Q 10.0 10.0 3 Sigma GRMS 476 N/A 3 Sigma Maximum Equivalent Stress (psi) 247540 203840 3 Sigma Maximum Deformation in bending direction (in) 1.11560 1.05190 CP Time for Modal Analysis (sec) 2240 2240 CP Time for Random Vibration Analysis (sec) 151 1270 Total Run CP time (sec) 2392 3510 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 9 Y X Z Third Geometry Input Bar 1”x1”x10” Output Bar 0.5”x0.5”x10” Bonded Connection Fixed Face on End of Bar DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 10 Results of the Third Geometry 2 Bar Model - Reverse Boundary Conditions Solutions using Miles Equation Solutions using Random Vibration Analysis in ANSYS Workbench Frequency (Hz) 21 21 Abort PSD Level (G^2/Hz) 0 0 Q 10.0 10.0 3 Sigma GRMS 9 N/A 3 Sigma Maximum Equivalent Stress (psi) 24151 95992 3 Sigma Maximum Deformation in bending direction (in) 0.28172 0.38378 CP Time for Modal Analysis (sec) 1527 1527 CP Time for Random Vibration Analysis (sec) 90 675 Total Run CP time (sec) 1616 2202 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 11 Further Testing with a Variable Two Bar System Y X Z Fixed Face on End of Bar Input Bar 10” long bar f2 h1 = 1” Output Bar 10” long bar Bonded Connection h2 f1 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 12 Results of Variable Two Bar System Q 3 Sigma GRMS Miles Eq. Stress (psi) Miles Eq. Deflection (in) WB Stress (psi) WB Deflection (in) 78 10 455 234040 1.299 237680 1.295 161 115 10 569 158220 0.805 212820 0.850 320 241 100 10 532 142470 0.879 140780 0.877 1 320 320 80 10 476 209150 1.115 172650 1.052 1.25 320 399 66 10 340 212150 1.135 187140 1.102 1.5 320 476 55 10 247 209840 1.136 191460 1.123 2 320 628 42 10 111 158040 0.871 155470 0.919 2.5 320 774 34 10 52 112420 0.627 117310 0.685 h2/h1 f1 (Hz) f2 (Hz) f_system (Hz) 0.25 320 80 0.5 320 0.75 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 13 Conclusions from the Two Bar System • This initial testing was inconclusive, because too many variables were uncontrolled. • The results show that the Workbench method is clearly different than the Miles Equation method, so there should be one that is preferable to the other. • The Miles Equation method is the quicker of the two methods. • Additional testing needed to be performed to gain a better understanding of the differences between the results of the two method of solving random vibration problems in ANSYS. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 14 Mass and Spring System • The advantage of using the mass spring system in testing is that each variable (weight, spring stiffness, and damping) can be easily controlled. • This allows the results of the testing to be easily compared to previously created graphs showing the effects of the octave rule at various weight ratios and frequency ratios. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 15 Y Z Geometry X Output Block W = 1 lb For all trials Grounded Block For W2/W1 = 0.05, W = 0.05 lbs For W2/W1 = 0.25, W = 0.25 lbs For W2/W1 = 0.50, W = 0.50 lbs Input Block Three 1” x 1” x 1” cubes located 10” apart along Z axis. Density of the output block was altered in each trial to change the weight ratio. Density of input block and grounded block set to 1 lb/in3. Young’s Modulus of each block set to 1E7 psi. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 16 Y Z Boundary Conditions X Fixed Boundary Condition (Zero Displacement on X, Y, and Z) on one face on grounded block. 4 Springs connected to each corner of two sides (+Y side and +X side) of input block and output block (8 springs total for each block). Each Spring connected to ground 100” away from block and has a stiffness of 100,000 lbs/in. Springs were added to prevent rotation and translation in the X and Y directions for the two free blocks. They do no prevent motion in the Z direction. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 17 Y Z Connections X k2 k1 The stiffness of the spring connecting the input block to the output block was changed for each trial in order to change the frequency ratio. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 Spring connecting the input block to the grounded block kept at a constant stiffness of 10000 lbs/in. 18 Y Z Applied Loads X Acceleration in –Z direction applied in static analysis for the Miles Equation analysis. PSD base excitation applied in +Z direction to fixed boundary condition for the Random Vibration analysis. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 19 Variables d, D = Displacement f = Frequency k = Spring stiffness p, P = Spring force W = Weight D2 f system, 3 Sigma GRMSf_system W2 k2, P2 d1 f1, 3 Sigma GRMSf1 d2 W1 p1, k1 Input Block Uncoupled D1 W2 f2, 3 Sigma GRMSf2 p2, k2 Output Block Uncoupled DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 W1 k1, P1 Input and Output Block coupled 20 Equations Frequency Ratio Weight Ratio f2 f1 W2 W1 Displacement Amplification Ratio D2 d2 P2 p2 3 Sigma GRM Sf system Force Amplification Ratio 3 Sigma GRM S Ratio 3 Sigma GRM Sf 2 Third Amplification Ratio Displacement Third Amplification Ratio Force DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 Displacement Amplification Ratio 3 Sigma GRM S Ratio Force Amplification Ratio 3 Sigma GRM S Ratio 21 Details of First Trial • • • • Weight Ratio (W2/W1) = 0.05 q2/q1 = 1 (Assumed Value) Q = 10 (Assumed Value) Displacement amplification ratio is the ratio of the coupled response of the output block to the uncoupled response of the output block. – – • Force amplification ratio is the ratio of the force at the spring of the coupled output block to the force at the spring of the uncoupled output block. – – • This shows the increase in the response of the output block as a result of being connected to the input block compared to the uncoupled output block response. The coupled output block response was calculated by subtracting the input block’s displacement from the total displacement of the output block. For Random Vibration analysis in Workbench, force was calculated based on F=k*x for the coupled and uncoupled analysis. For Static analysis, force was found using the spring probe on the appropriate spring. The third amplification ratio is the ratio of one of the previous two amplification ratios and a 3 Sigma GRMS ratio – – – The 3 Sigma GRMS ratio is a ratio between the 3 Sigma GRMS value of the coupled system and the 3 Sigma GRMS value of the uncoupled output block. This is an attempt to show a ratio that does not include the effects of the varying PSD Level, as well as the varying frequency values. This ratio shows the degree to which coupling amplifications to the two available measurements. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 22 Details of Second and Third Trials • • • • • Second Trial: Weight Ratio (W2/W1) = 0.25 Third Trial: Weight Ratio (W2/W1) = 0.50 q2/q1 = 1 (Assumed Value) Q = 10 (Assumed Value) The amplification ratios are calculated in the same manner as in the first trial. • The frequency ratios were not held constant from the first trial in order to better capture the peak of the amplification curve for each trial. • The values for W1, k1, and f1 were held constant for all trials. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 23 Results of First Trial W2/W1 = 0.05 q2/q1 = 1 Displacement Amplification Ratio 3.000 Miles Equation Workbench Method 2.500 2.000 D2/d2 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 f2/f1 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 24 Results of First Trial W2/W1 = 0.05 q2/q1 = 1.0 Force Amplification Ratios 3.00 Miles Equation 2.50 Workbench Method 2.00 P2/p2 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 f2/f1 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 25 Results of First Trial Amplification Ratio divided by 3 Sigma GRMS ratio W2/W1 = 0.05 q2/q1 = 1.0 3.000 2.500 Miles Equation - Force 2.000 Amplification Ratio divided 3 Sigma GRMS Ratio 1.500 Workbench Method - Force 1.000 0.500 0.000 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 f2/f1 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 26 Results of Second Trial W2/W1 = 0.25 q2/q1 = 1 Displacement Amplification Ratio 1.800 1.600 1.400 1.200 1.000 D2/d2 0.800 0.600 Miles Equation 0.400 Workbench Method 0.200 0.000 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 f2/f1 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 27 Results of Second Trial W2/W1 = 0.25 q2/q1 = 1.0 Force Amplification Ratios 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 P2/p2 0.80 Miles Equation 0.60 Workbench Method 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 f2/f1 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 28 Results of Second Trial W2/W1 = 0.25 q2/q1 = 1.0 Amplification Ratio divided by 3 Sigma GRMS Ratio 1.600 1.400 1.200 1.000 Amplification Ratio / 3 Sigma GRMS 0.800 Miles Equation - Force 0.600 Workbench Method - Force 0.400 0.200 0.000 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 f2/f1 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 29 Results of Third Trial W2/W1 = 0.5 q2/q1 = 1 Displacement Amplification Ratio 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 D2/d2 0.80 Miles Equation 0.60 Workbench Method 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 f2/f1 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 30 Results of Third Trial W2/W1 = 0.5 q2/q1 = 1.0 Force Amplification Ratios 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 P2/p2 0.80 Miles Equation 0.60 Workbench Method 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 f2/f1 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 31 Results of Third Trial Amplification Ratio divided by 3 Sigma GRMS ratio W2/W1 = 0.5 q2/q1 = 1.0 1.400 1.200 1.000 Amplification Ratio/ 3 Sigma GRMS Ratio 0.800 0.600 Miles - Force 0.400 Workbench - Force 0.200 0.000 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 f2/f1 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 32 Combined Results Displacement Amplification Ratio at Different Weight Ratios q2/q1 = 1 3.000 Miles Equation W2/W1=0.5 Workbench Method W2/W1=0.5 2.500 Miles Equation W2/W1=0.05 Workbench Method W2/W1=0.05 2.000 Miles Equation W2/W1=0.25 D2/d2 Workbench Method W2/W1=0.25 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 f2/f1 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 33 Combined Results Force Amplification Ratios at Different Weight Ratios 3.00 q2/q1 = 1 Miles Equation W2/W1 = 0.05 Workbench Method W2/W1 = 0.05 2.50 Miles Equation W2/W1 = 0.25 Workbench Method W2/W1 = 0.25 2.00 Miles Equation W2/W1 = 0.5 Workbench Method W2/W1 = 0.5 P2/p2 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 f2/f1 DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 34 Observations from Mass Spring Testing • • • • For each weight ratio, there is a larger amount of amplification due to the coupling of the masses using the workbench random vibration analysis, rather than the method using Miles Equation and static analysis. Although not perfect, the amplification curves from the analysis method using the workbench random vibration analysis resemble the curves on pages 152 and 153 of Vibration Analysis for Electronic Equipment (Steinberg). The amplification curves from the Miles Equation method do not resemble these curves. Based on the third amplification ratio, the Miles Equation responses’ amplification is based entirely on the variations to the 3 Sigma GRMS value, which is expected, but the workbench method retains an amplification once the variations to the 3 Sigma GRMS value are taken out. – • • • • • This would indicate that there are additional coupling effects added in the workbench method for solving random vibration systems. Outside of the Octave Rule range (about 0.5<f2/f1<2), the Miles Equation method and the workbench method produce similar results. The Octave Rule range did not shift as much as expected when the weight ratio was changed, based on the graphs on pages 152 and 153 of Vibration Analysis for Electronic Equipment (Steinberg). The amplification is changed when the weights are altered, even when the frequency ratio and the weight ratio remain the same. The difference between the amplifications between the two solution methods is greater when the weight ratio is lower. The Miles Equation force amplification ratio is equal to the 3 sigma GRMS ratio. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 35 Testing with Real Model • A more complex model was run in ANSYS to see if the observations made from the previous testing are conserved. • The results for the limiting area of the model will be compared to determine if the Workbench method produces results different to the Miles Equation results. • Equivalent Stress, Normal Stress, and Directional Deformation will be used to compare the two methods of analysis. – These were chosen because they are the most meaningful measurements that can be evaluated in the postprocessing for the random vibration analysis. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 36 Y X Geometry Z Clamps Bracket Housing DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 6 Faces Fixed (Zero Displacement in X, Y, and Z) on Housing. The 3 Faces not shown are the similar faces on the opposite side of each housing part. 37 Details of testing • A modal analysis was run to find the natural frequencies of the model • These natural frequencies were used to perform the random vibration analysis in Workbench – Random Vibration analysis was performed using the same PSD level chart as in the previous experiments. • The natural frequency of the bracket was used in the Miles Equation analysis – The same PSD levels were used for the Miles Equation as the previous experiments. – Miles Equation analysis included a static structural analysis with an acceleration applied to the tool. • Weight Ratio between bracket (W2) and the housing and clamps (W1) is 0.11. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 38 Modal Analysis • The modal analysis indicated the natural frequency of the bracket is 493.34 Hz. • 6 Faces on the housing parts were fixed (Zero displacement in X, Y, and Z). • The modal solution was limited to frequencies between 10 Hz and 750 Hz in order to reduce the time for solving the analysis. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 39 Modal Analysis – Deformation Plot DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 40 Modal Analysis – Deformation Plot DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 41 Miles Equation • The Miles Equation was used to analyze the model. • Based on the 493 Hz found in the modal analysis and the PSD Levels chart used in the previous experiments, the 3 Sigma GRMS value was found to be 356. • A static structural analysis was performed on the model with an applied acceleration of 137416 in/s^2 in the -X direction. • 6 Faces on the housing were fixed (Zero displacement in X, Y, and Z). DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 42 Miles Equation – Directional Deformation Plot – Y Direction DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 43 Miles Equation – Directional Deformation Plot – Y Direction DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 44 Miles Equation –Equivalent Stress Plot DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 45 Miles Equation –Equivalent Stress Plot DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 46 Workbench Method • Random Vibration analysis was performed in Workbench using the PSD level chart used in the previous experiments. • PSD G acceleration applied in +X direction. • Modal analysis results were used for the random vibration analysis. • 6 Faces on the housing were fixed (Zero displacement in X, Y, and Z). These faces are where the PSD base excitation is applied during the analysis. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 47 Workbench Method – Directional Deformation Plot – Y Direction DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 48 Workbench Method – Directional Deformation Plot – Y Direction DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 49 Workbench Method – Equivalent Stress Plot DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 50 Workbench Method – Equivalent Stress Plot DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 51 Results Measurements Miles Equation Results Workbench Method Results Ratio of Workbench Method to Miles Equation Directional Deformation in Y 0.0156 in. 0.035404 in. 2.269 Equivalent Stress 30,401 psi 50,112 psi 1.648 Note: Equivalent Stress for Miles Equation is the Von Mises stress, and for the Workbench Method it is a modified version of the Von Mises stress. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 52 Conclusions from Test with Real Model • The workbench method of solution results in a more conservative result than the Miles Equation solution. • The difference seen in the ratio of the results for the workbench method to the results of the Miles Equation method is consistent with the expected difference resulting from the octave rule. • The workbench method was not able not solve the model as it was originally constructed, although using the Miles Equation method, the solution could be found. – Multiple connections had to be changed slightly to allow the model to solve successfully using the random vibration analysis. – This could prove to be an issue when trying to solve more complicated models. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 53 Overall Conclusions • The workbench method is the more conservative method to use when solving random vibration problems. • Special considerations regarding which solving method is appropriate to use, should be made for any system where the PCB and chassis have a frequency ratio that is within the Octave Rule region (0.5<f2/f1<2 for W2/W1 = 0.05). • The results from the workbench method more closely match the expected results based on the octave rule for the mass spring system and the real model. • Further testing could be performed to find the limitations to the random vibration analysis in ANSYS. DAA Proprietary Information Not For Distribution ©DAA, Aug, 2010 54