Comparison of single-input single-output and multi-input multi-output control strategies for performing sequential single-axis random vibration control test

Abstract

This study investigates the use of single-input single-output and multi-input multi-output control strategies for performing single-axis vibration control tests. In particular, the work addresses the problem of high-level cross-axis responses during those tests. To compare the two control strategies, the study presents a test campaign carried out on an automotive component by exploiting two different test facilities: a single-axis shaker and a three-degree-of-freedom shaker table. The analysis points out the limitations of the single-input single-output control strategy. The coupling between the excitation system and the test specimen causes cross-axis excitations that compromise the test validity. In some cases, the cross-axis vibration level even exceeds the acceptable threshold of 14 dB. The multi-input multi-output control strategy instead, besides the feedback control of the main axis, allows the simultaneous vibration control along the two cross axes, thus, improving the quality of the single-axis test. Moreover, the work provides a detailed study followed by practical examples on how to better exploit the evident potential of the multi-input multi-output control strategy for definitely avoiding cross-axis vibration control problems.

Keywords

Single-axis vibration testing multi-input multi-output control single-input single-output control random vibration cross-axis vibrations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ammanagi

Manohar

(2016) Optimal cross-spectrum of road loads on vehicles: theory and experiments. Journal of Vibration and Control 22(19): 4012–4024.

Bendat

Piersol

(2011) Random Data: Analysis and Measurement Procedures. 4th edition. NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons Vol. 729.

Daborn

Ind

Ewins

(2014) Enhanced ground-based vibration testing for aerodynamic environments. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 49(1–2): 165–180.

D’Elia

Musella

Mucchi

, et al. (2020) Analyses of drives power reduction techniques for multi-axis random vibration control tests. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 135: 106395.

Guan

G-f

Wang

H-t

Xiong

(2015) Multi-input multi-output random vibration control of a multi-axis electro-hydraulic shaking table. Journal of Vibration and Control 21(16): 3292–3304.

International Organization for Standardization (2012) Road vehicles—environmental conditions and testing for electrical and electronic equipment. ISO 16750-3.

Lalanne

(2014) Mechanical Vibration and Shock Analysis, Volume 5: Specification Development. USA: John Wiley & Sons.

Martin

Schneider

(2017) Spectral density matrices used to characterize vibration environments. Sound and Vibration 51(11): 8–13.

Ministere de la Defense – Delegation Generale pour larmement (1986) Essais generaux en environment des materials (general tests of materials in environment). GAM EG-13.

10.

Mršnik

Slavič

Boltežar

(2016) Multiaxial vibration fatigue—a theoretical and experimental comparison. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 76–77: 409–423.

11.

Musella

Blanco

Mastrodicasa

, et al. (2019) Combining test and simulation to tackle the challenges derived from boundary conditions mismatches in environmental testing. In: Proceeding of 37th IMAC conference, (eds Walber

, et al.), Orlando, USA, 28–31 January 2019. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

12.

Musella

D’Elia

Carrella

, et al. (2018) A minimum drives automatic target definition procedure for multi-axis random control testing. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 107: 452–468.

13.

Musella

D’Elia

Manzato

, et al. (2017) Analyses of target definition processes for MIMO random vibration control tests. In: Proceeding of 35th IMAC conference, (ed Dervilis

), Garden Grove, CA, 30 January–2 February 2017. Springer.

14.

Peeters

Debille

(2002) Multiple-input-multiple-output random vibration control: theory and practice. In: Proceeding of the 2002 international conference on noise and vibration engineering, Leuven, Belgium, 16–18 September 2002. Leuven, Belgium: Katholieke Universiteit. pp. 507–516.

15.

Roberts

Ewins

(2018) Multi-axis vibration testing of an aerodynamically excited structure. Journal of Vibration and Control 24(2): 427–437.

16.

Smallwood

(2010) A proposed method to generate a spectral density matrix for a multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) vibration test. In: Proceeding of 80th shock and vibration symposium, San Diego, CA, 25–29 October 2009. Richmond VA: Shock and Vibration Information Analysis Center.

17.

Smallwood

Paez

(1993) A frequency domain method for the generation of partially coherent normal stationary time domain signals. Shock and Vibration 1(1): 45–53.

18.

Underwood

(2002) Multi-exciter testing applications: theory and practice. In: Proceeding of institute of environmental sciences and technology, Anaheim, CA, 2002, pp. 1–10.

19.

Underwood

Ayres

Keller

(2011) Filling in the MIMO matrix part 1—performing random tests using field data. Sound and Vibration 45(3): 8–14.

20.

Underwood

Keller

Ayres

(2017) Multi-shaker control: a review of the evolving state-of-the-art. Sound and Vibration 51(8): 8–16.

21.

United States Department of Defence (2008) Method 514.6: Vibrations. United States Military Standard 810G.

22.

United States Department of Defence (2014) Method 527.1: Multi-exciter test. United States Military Standard 810G w/CHANGE 1.

23.

Whiteman

Berman

(2001) Inadequacies in uniaxial stress screen vibration testing. Journal of the IEST 44(4): 20–23.

24.

Zheng

Chen

, et al. (2018) Probability distributions control for multi-input multi-output stationary non-Gaussian random vibration test. Journal of Vibration and Control 24(21): 5201–5210.

25.

Zheng

Chen

Vandepitte

, et al. (2019) Multi-exciter stationary non-gaussian random vibration test with time domain randomization. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 122: 103–116.