0
Research Papers

Energy Based Comparison of Test and Analysis Response in the Frequency Domain

[+] Author and Article Information
Daniel C. Kammer

Department of Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706kammer@engr.wisc.edu

Sonny Nimityongskul

Department of Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706

J. Vib. Acoust 131(6), 061004 (Nov 04, 2009) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4000424 History: Received October 16, 2007; Revised May 19, 2009; Published November 04, 2009; Online November 04, 2009

Accepted modal based techniques for comparing finite element model and test data for test/analysis correlation and subsequent model updating are impossible to use in the high modal density midfrequency regime. A new approach is presented for comparing test and analysis representations using frequency-based response data instead of modal parameters. The new method uses frequency band averaging of the output power spectral densities with the central frequency of the band running over the complete frequency range of interest. The result of this computation can be interpreted in several different ways but the immediate physical connection is that it produces the mean-square response, or energy, of the system to random input limited to the averaging frequency band. The averaging process is consistent with the averaging done in statistical energy analysis for stochastic systems. The averaged response curves can be compared on a pointwise basis, or they can be compared within a running frequency band.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

FEM/test error using FBC on 5.65% averaged response

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Ten mode test and FEM acceleration PSDs

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

FEM/test error relative to maximum test response

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

GSC example finite element model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Test and FEM PSDs for GSC

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Test and FEM PSDs for GSC averaged over a 6% frequency band

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

GSC FEM/test error relative to maximum test response—6% FBA

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

GSC FEM/test errors relative to maximum test response using FBC on 6% averaged data

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

GSC FEM/test cross-MAC for mean-square response

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Single mode test and FEM acceleration PSDs

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In