0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
93 vizualizări11 pagini
A new MIMO sine testing technique for accelerated, high quality FRF measurements has been developed. Vehicles have more and more damping material, leading to reduced noise and vibration levels, also during modal testing or (reciprocal) FRF measurement. The new technique is compared with stepped sine and burst random techniques with relation to data quality and measurement time using industrial application cases.
A new MIMO sine testing technique for accelerated, high quality FRF measurements has been developed. Vehicles have more and more damping material, leading to reduced noise and vibration levels, also during modal testing or (reciprocal) FRF measurement. The new technique is compared with stepped sine and burst random techniques with relation to data quality and measurement time using industrial application cases.
A new MIMO sine testing technique for accelerated, high quality FRF measurements has been developed. Vehicles have more and more damping material, leading to reduced noise and vibration levels, also during modal testing or (reciprocal) FRF measurement. The new technique is compared with stepped sine and burst random techniques with relation to data quality and measurement time using industrial application cases.
On todays vehicles it becomes ever more challenging to measure (vibro-)acoustic frequency response functions (FRF) for noise path contribution or experimental modal analysis. Vehicles have more and more damping material, leading to reduced noise and vibration levels, also during modal testing or (reciprocal) FRF measurement. The widely adopted (burst) random excitation techniques are often unable to excite the structure at suffciently high levels resulting in signal- to-noise ratio problems, long measurement times (many averages) and noisy FRFs. High quality FRFs can be measured using stepped sine excitation techniques, that are able to concentrate the excitation energy at a single frequency and excite the structure at much higher energy levels. However, the current implementation of these techniques is rather slow with measurement times that are a multiple of (burst) random techniques and as such are not often used. Therefore, a new MIMO (multiple input multiple output) sine testing technique has been developed that allows to have the high excitation levels (and resulting high quality FRF data) of a stepped sine technique, but at drastically reduced measurement times. This new technique is compared with stepped sine and burst random techniques with relation to data quality and measurement time using industrial application cases. 1 Introduction Experimental Modal Analysis (EMA) is today one of the key technologies in structural dynamics analysis. Based on the academic fundaments of system identifcation, it has evolved to become a standard approach in mechanical product development. While in the past isolated structures with low damping were tested and analyzed, modal analysis is nowadays also explored on complex structures with high damping such as trimmed car bodies or complete vehicles. Applications have expanded from structural-only modal analysis into vibro-acoustic modal analysis, combining vibration and noise measurements. In order to get correct modal models, accurate frequency response function (FRF) measurements are required. Noise path contribution or transfer path analysis [1][2] is another key technology in todays product development where high quality FRF functions are required. Transfer path analysis typically requires FRFs from many different input locations, but only a few response locations, typically microphones at driver and passengers ears. Therefore these FRF functions are often measured in a reciprocal way, by exciting the vehicle at the driver and passengers ears with loudspeakers and measuring the response of the vehicle using accelerometers and microphones. Today burst random excitation is probably the most popular excitation technique to measure these FRF functions, as the technique is fast and able to minimize leakage quite well [3]. Due to the continuous improvements in noise and vibration levels of todays vehicles, it becomes ever more challenging to perform accurate FRF measurements. Increased use of damping and acoustic isolation materials greatly reduces the noise and vibration levels, not only while driving the vehicle, but also during testing. In combination with the low energy density of the burst random excitation signals the total excitation energy is distributed over the complete frequency band this means that signal-to-noise ratios of the response channels become very low and FRF accuracy is compromised. In many cases one try to compensate this by measuring several hundreds of averages, drastically increasing measurement time, and often with little improvement in FRF quality. Much higher excitation levels can be obtained by using sinusoidal excitation, the most common being the discrete stepped sine technique [3][4], where the structure is excited by a fxed frequency sine, and response is measured after transient effects have died out. Then the frequency is changed to the one of the next frequency line and the process repeated. These techniques concentrate all the energy at a single frequency, with higher signal-to-noise ratios and high-quality FRF functions as a consequence, but are extremely slow. Further they are able to accurately control the excitation amplitude, and are as such excellently suited to analyze non-linearities. In the next section a new MIMO sine testing technique is introduced, that keeps all the advantages of a sine excitation, but drastically reduces measurement time. Recently, this excitation signal received considerable attention to speed up Ground Vibration Tests (GVT) of large aircraft [5]. In sections 3 and 4 the technique is illustrated on a midsize passenger car for 2 different applications: reciprocal FRF measurements and modal testing. 2 A new MIMO swept sine technique The MIMO swept sine technique is a digital implementation of the classical swept sine technique that excites the structure with a slowly sweeping sine over a user-defned frequency band [6]. A typical excitation and response signal is shown in Figure 1. A harmonic estimator performs data reduction, and the spectra are online built up frequency line by frequency line (Figure 2). At the end of the test, FRF and coherence functions are calculated from the measured spectra. In case of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) test setups, all exciters are driven by the same instantaneous frequency. Multiple averages with uncorrelated inputs are required in order to calculate correct FRFs. This is achieved by defning multiple sweeps with different phase relations between the different exciters. 2.1 Leakage-free online sine extraction The data is measured over a user-defned number of periods. During the measurement, the frequency of the excitation is constant. A harmonic estimator continuously extracts amplitude and phase from the measured time data in a least squares sense. Simultaneously the excitation frequency is already updated to the next value that is calculated from the current frequency, the elapsed measurement time and the required sweep rate, and the whole process is repeated. Leakage is avoided, as there is no need for a Fourier transformation (FFT) to the frequency domain. The spectra have a user-defned frequency resolution f and only need to contain data at discrete frequencies f k = k f, where k is an integer. However, the complex spectrum values (consisting of amplitude and phase) are extracted at excitation frequencies , which typically do not coincide with a discrete frequency line of the requested spectrum. Therefore, the extracted values are averaged to yield the value at spectral line : (1) where is the number of spectrum estimates available in an interval around : f f .
Figure 1: Typical excitation (top) and response signal (bottom) from a swept sine test. Figure 2: Spectra are built up frequency line by frequency line during a MIMO swept sine test.
Figure 3: System Identifcation step prior to a swept sine test with controlled excitation.
2.2 Control of excitation amplitudes In the most basic swept sine test the structure is excited by the output voltages following user-defned reference profles: output voltage (amplitude and phase) as a function of frequency. These output voltages are sent to the exciters exactly as the reference profle defnes, and are not modifed based on the response of the structure (i.e. no control). However, one of the advantages of sine excitation is the possibility to easily control the excitation, which is useful in many cases. The structure can be excited at different excitation levels to assess and analyze the non-linearity of the structure under test. The infuence of the excitation level on the modal parameters can be studied. Also, during modal testing (or FRF measurements in general) usually a fat excitation force is desired. Drops in the force autopower spectra indicate that no energy is entering the structure and lead to bad quality FRF functions. There are several reasons for a non-fat autopower, which are not further discussed here. Being able to control the excitation allows compensating for these drops and peaks in the force autopower spectra, exciting the structure with a fat excitation level. Excitation control can also be used to simulate operational conditions, by making sure that the required response levels are present at the defned response locations. For each of the control channels a target reference profle is defned, the required measured quantity as a function of frequency. In case of modal testing the control channels are typically the force cells and the target reference profle is a fat force (in Newton) over the complete frequency range. To avoid having a time consuming MIMO online closed loop control, another strategy has been implemented: control of the excitation amplitude is achieved by frst executing a so- called system identifcation step, during which the system FRF matrix H CV between the output voltages V and control channels C(C=H CV V) is estimated using pseudo random excitation and according to the MIMO H 1 estimate:
C C (2) where S CV contains the cross spectra between control channels and voltages and S VV contains the auto and cross spectra between the voltages. The system identifcation (Figure 3) also performs an extensive test setup validation by measuring background noise levels, checking signal-to-noise ratios and detecting open channels (broken cables or broken transducers). In a second step this FRF model is used to calculate the required output voltages Vref to reach the target values Cref at the control channels: V ref = H -1 C ref (3) In order to evaluate the quality of the system matrix inversion, the singular values of the system matrix H CV and the inverse system FRFs are available for checking possible singularities that might result in a bad system identifcation and bad control. The results from the system identifcation are used to calculate the maximum levels that are expected during the test on each channel and to optimize the input ranges of the AD-converters. During the actual sine sweep test the calculated output voltages Vref are sent to the exciters without any closed loop control. The complete test then runs automatically without any user interaction. CV 3 Case study: reciprocal FRF measurements on midsize passenger car Some typical acoustical transfer functions required for transfer path analysis or noise path contribution were measured on a midsize passengers car. As mentioned in the introduction, these FRFs are often measured in a reciprocal way, using loudspeaker excitation. Two LMS low-frequency volume velocity sources were placed on the drivers and passengers seats. These volume velocity sources have the shape of an average human torso and the sound output at the position of a humans ear. A total of 37 responses were measured using the LMS Scadas III frontend at various locations in the vehicle (Figure 4): 4 microphones at 4 seats, located at driver and passengers ears 3 microphones in the engine compartment at the air intake, alternator and between the engine and frewall Triaxial acceleration at the wheel knuckle of the front right wheel Triaxial accelerations on both active and passive side of the engine mounts, gearbox anti-roll mount and shock tower mount. The measurements were performed between 20 Hz and 800 Hz with 1 Hz frequency resolution. Three averages (sweeps) were measured using the swept sine technique, in order to be able to evaluate FRFs as well as coherence functions. Phase differences between the 2 volume velocity sources during the different sweeps were 0, 90 and 180 degrees. A linear sweep rate of 5 Hz/s was used. Results were compared with the stepped sine and burst random techniques. The burst random measurements were performed with 150 averages up to 1024 Hz with a 1 Hz frequency resolution, as the anti-aliasing flter starts working from 800 Hz on. For the burst random measurement, the amplifer gain was set as high as possible without damaging the volume velocity sources. For the swept sine measurement, both a fxed volume acceleration excitation of 5 m 3 /s 2 and a fxed voltage excitation (no control) were used. The results from the system identifcation procedure used for control of the volume acceleration are shown in Figure 5. From the system FRF matrix it can be seen that the response of the volume velocity sources to a fxed voltage input is not completely fat. The very low off- diagonal system FRFs indicate that there is little cross coupling between both volume velocity sources.
Figure 4: Test setup for the reciprocal FRF measurements. (Top left) 2 low frequency volume velocity sources on drivers and passengers seat. (Top right) Triaxial response measurements on active and passive side of the gearbox anti-roll mount. (Bottom left) Microphone between engine and frewall. (Bottom right) LMS Scadas III frontend equipped with 40 channels. Figure 5: Results from the system identifcation procedure. (Top) Target reference profles. (Middle) System FRF matrix between volume acceleration and voltage output. (Bottom) Calculated voltage output for in-phase sweep (left) and out-of-phase sweep (right). Figure 6: Volume acceleration spectra for both volume velocity sources during the 1st sweep: (red/black) target reference volume acceleration. (green/gray) fxed voltage output sweep (open loop). (blue/black) controlled excitation using system identifcation. (purple/gray) burst random. In Figure 6 the volume acceleration spectra of both volume velocity sources from the measurement with and without control are compared. It is clear that the volume acceleration due to a fxed voltage output is not fat, while the volume acceleration nicely follows the target reference profle during the controlled measurement. Also the volume acceleration spectra of the burst random measurement are included as a reference, clearly indicating the much higher excitation levels of the swept sine technique. The measurements were executed in one of the Engineering Services labs at the LMS facilities. Because it was not an acoustical lab, there was quite some interference from people passing by, doors opening and closing, etc. In order to check the repeatability of the measurements, burst random measurements were performed before testing started, between the stepped sine and swept sine tests and after all tests had been completed. Figure 7 shows these 3 burst random measurements of the wheel knuckle lateral acceleration towards the volume velocity source at the drivers ear. Small differences are present due to these external noise Figure 7: Repeatability of a wheel knuckle FRF for the burst random measurements before, halfway and after the tests. Figure 8: Comparison between burst random (red/black), stepped sine (blue/black) and swept sine (green/gray) FRF and coherence. (Left) front-right microphone. (Right) Wheel knuckle FRF. disturbances. Table 1 indicates the measurement times for each measurement technique. The stepped sine measurement is most time consuming. The swept sine measurement time is a lot shorter and has the same order of magnitude as the burst random measurement time. Measurement technique Measurement time Burst random (150 avgs) 2min35sec Stepped sine (3 avgs) 50 min Swept sine (3 avgs) 8 min Table 1: Reciprocal FRF measurement times for the different measurement techniques In Figure 8 the FRF and coherence functions of the car interior microphone at the front-right passengers ear and wheel knuckle lateral acceleration towards the volume velocity source at the drivers ear measured with the 3 different techniques are compared. The microphone FRFs overlay perfectly, while there are small differences in the wheel knuckle FRF. However, these are of the same order as the difference between consecutive burst random measurements (Figure 7). As expected, the coherence functions are better when sine excitation techniques are used. In Figure 9 the burst random and swept sine FRF and coherence of the active side of the gearbox anti-roll mount is shown. The coherence of the burst random measurement is extremely low in large areas of the frequency band. Using the swept sine technique, coherence values are a lot higher, only at some frequency lines dropping below 0.8. The right display of Figure 9 zooms in on the 120-250 Hz frequency band, where the coherence of the burst random measurement is approaching 0. In these cases one has to question the accuracy and reliability of the measurement. In most cases it will be concluded that this measurement is impossible with burst random excitation and the data cannot be used. The swept sine measurement has in the same region quite high coherence values above 0.8, and the FRF is smoother and less noisy. This is a measurement that can be trusted and used for further analysis. 4 Case study: modal test on a midsize passenger car A modal test was performed on the same vehicle as was used in the case study of section 3. The car was placed on its wheels and excited by 2 shakers, one at the front of the chassis under the gearbox mount, one at the back at the rear subframe mount. Responses were measured in 3 directions at 10 locations on the chassis and 3 on the powertrain (2 on the engine and 1 on the gearbox). In addition 4 microphones located at the drivers and passengers ear in the car interior were measured. The measurements were performed between 1 Hz and 200 Hz with 0.125 Hz frequency resolution. Three averages (sweeps) were measured using the swept sine technique, in order to be able to evaluate FRFs as well as coherence functions. The car was excited with a controlled force of 25 N and 0, 90 and 180 degrees phase difference between the forces during the different sweeps. A logarithmic sweep rate of 1 oct/min was used. A frequency dependent sweep rate that varies linearly over the frequency band was tried as well, with similar results to the logarithmic sweep rate. FRFs and coherences were compared with the stepped sine and burst random techniques. Figure 9: Comparison between burst random (red/black) and swept sine (green/gray) FRF and coherence of the active side of the gearbox mount. (Left) complete frequency band. (Right) Zoomed 120-250Hz. Figure 10: Engine DOF FRF and coherence with 50 averages (red/black) and 150 averages (green/gray). Figure 11: Repeatability of a driving point FRF for the burst random measurements before, halfway and after. The burst random measurements were frst performed with 50 averages up to 256 Hz with a 0.125 Hz frequency resolution. After data inspection coherence levels at the engine DOFs (degrees of freedom) were very low with extremely noisy corresponding FRFs. It was decided to continue the burst random measurements with 150 averages. Figure 10 compares the burst random measurement with 50 and 150 averages of a typical engine DOF. To check repeatability of the measurements, burst random measurements were performed before testing started, between the stepped sine and swept sine tests and after all tests had been completed. Figure 11 shows a driving point FRF from the 3 burst random measurements. It can be concluded that there were repeatability problems at the lower frequencies. The swept sine measurement was then repeated as well and showed similar repeatability problems. The measurement times for the 3 techniques are listed in Table 2. The stepped sine technique was once more the slowest technique, with burst random and swept sine measurement time almost equal. Figure 12: Comparison between burst random (red/black), stepped sine (blue/black) and swept sine (green/gray) FRF and coherence. (Left) driving point FRF. (Right) DOF on chassis. Figure 13: Comparison between burst random (red/black) and swept sine (green/gray) FRF and coherence of a DOF on the engine. (Left) complete frequency band. (Right) Zoomed 50-100 Hz. Measurement technique Measurement time Burst random (150 avgs) 22 min Stepped sine (3 avgs) 66 min Swept sine (3 avgs) 24 min
Table 2: Modal test measurement times for the different measurement techniques The left display of Figure 12 compares the driving point FRF and coherence of the shaker at the front of the car between the different techniques. Coherences are for all 3 techniques close to 1, with the swept sine coherence almost everywhere equal to 1. There are some differences between the burst random and sine techniques at the lower frequencies. This is probably caused by the non-linearity of the suspension of the car. The stepped sine and swept sine FRFs are very similar. At higher frequencies (above 50 Hz), all 3 FRFs are similar. The same conclusions can be made when looking at other DOFs, the right display of Figure 12 shows a typical FRF and coherence from a point on the chassis. In Figure 13 the burst random and swept sine FRF and coherence of one of the engine DOFs are shown. The coherence of the burst random measurement is very low at higher frequencies. Using the swept sine technique, coherence values are a lot higher, only at some deep anti-resonances and at the highest frequencies it is dropping. The right display of Figure 13 zooms in on the 50-100 Hz frequency band, where the coherence of the burst random measurement is dropping severely. In these cases one has to question the accuracy and reliability of the measurement, while the swept sine measurement has in the same region coherence values approaching 1 resulting in smooth and almost noise-free FRFs. 5 Conclusions A new MIMO sine testing technique has been introduced that uses a digital implementation of the classical swept sine excitation [6]. The technique acquires leakage-free spectra, which are processed into multiple-input-multiple-output FRFs. A system identifcation approach is implemented to control the excitation level during the test without using a time- consuming online closed loop control scheme. During several industrial case studies, the new technique was compared with the traditional burst random and stepped sine techniques. It was proven that this technique is able to measure FRF and coherence functions of similar high quality as the stepped sine technique, but at drastically reduced measurement times, which are comparable with the burst random technique. Acknowledgements This work was carried out in the frame of the EUREKA project E!3341 FLITE2 (Flight Test Easy - Extension) which is conducted in cooperation with V.U.Brussels (B), K.U.Leuven (B), Lambert Aircraft Engineering (B), INRIA (F), Sopemea (F), Onera (F), Airbus (F), Dassault (F), AGH (PL), ILOT (PL), PZL Mielec (PL). The fnancial support of IWT-Vlaanderen is gratefully acknowledged. References [1] LMS INTERNATIONAL, Transfer Path Analysis the Qualifcation and Quantifcation of Vibro-acoustic Transfer Paths, Application Note, Leuven, Belgium, 1995. [2] K. WYCKAERT AND H. VAN DER AUWERAER, Operational analysis, Transfer Path Analysis, Modal Analysis: tools to understand road noise problems in cars. In Proceedings of the SAE Noise and Vibration Conference, 139-143, Traverse City, 1995. [3] W. HEYLEN, S. LAMMENS, AND P. SAS, Modal Analysis Theory and Testing. K.U.Leuven, Belgium, 1997. [4] LMS INTERNATIONAL, LMS Cada-X, MIMO Stepped Sine Acquisition Monitor, Leuven, Belgium, www.lmsintl.com, 2005. [5] G. GLOTH AND M. SINAPIUS, Analysis of swept sine runs during ground vibration tests of large aircraft. In Proceedings of IFASD 2003, the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 2003. [6] LMS INTERNATIONAL, LMS Test.Lab, MIMO Sine Testing, Leuven, Belgium, www.lmsintl.com, 2005. LMS INTERNATIONAL Researchpark Z1, Interleuvenlaan 68 B-3001 Leuven [Belgium] T +32 16 384 200 | F +32 16 384 350 info@lms.be | www.lmsintl.com Worldwide For the address of your local representative, please visit www.lmsintl.com/lmsworldwide LMS is an engineering innovation partner for companies in the automotive, aerospace and other advanced manufacturing industries. LMS enables its customers to get better products faster to market, and to turn superior process effciency to their strategic competitive advantage. LMS offers a unique combination of virtual simulation software, testing systems and engineering services. LMS is focused on the mission critical performance attributes in key manufacturing industries, including structural integrity, system dynamics, handling, safety, reliability, comfort and sound quality. Through our technology, people and over 25 years of experience, LMS has become the partner of choice for most of the leading discrete manufacturing companies worldwide. LMS is certifed to ISO9001:2000 quality standards and operates through a network of subsidiaries and representatives in key locations around the world. LMS FRANCE Paris | T +33 1 69 35 19 20 | info@lmsfrance.fr Lyon | T +33 4 37 49 13 25 LMS DEUTSCHLAND Leonberg | T +49 7152 97 97 90 | info@lms-gmbh.de LMS ITALIANA Novara | T +39 0321 445 011 | info@lms.it LMS UK Coventry | T +44 2476 408120 | info@lms-uk.co.uk LMS N. AMERICA Detroit | T +1 248 952-5664 | info@lmsna.com Los Angeles | T +1 714 891-4205 Washington D.C. / Baltimore | T +1 410 203-1200 LMS JAPAN Yokohama | T +81 45-478-4800 | info@lms-ja.co.jp LMS KOREA Seoul | T +82 2-571-7246 | info@lmskorea.com LMS CHINA Beijing | T +86 10 8497 6463 | info@lmschina.com LMS INDIA CAE - Bangalore | T +91 80 511 51 512 | info.lmsindia@lms.be Test - Chennai | T +91 44 281 73 711| info.lmsindia@lms.be LMS RUSSIA Moscow | T +7 095 937 84 93 | info.lmsrussia@lms.be LMS SINGAPORE Singapore | T +65 6777 3609 | info.lmssingapore@lms.be LMS Test Division Leuven [Belgium] | T +32 16 384 200 | info@lms.be Breda [The Netherlands] | T +31 76 573 6363 Gttingen [Germany] | T +49 551 50 48 50 Brasov [Romania] | T +40 268 4142 LMS CAE Division Leuven [Belgium] | T +32 16 384 200 | info@lms.be Kaiserslautern [Germany] | T +49 631 30322 100 Coralville, IA [United States] | T +1 319 626 6700 Brasov [Romania] | T +40 268 4142 LMS Engineering Leuven [Belgium] | T +32 16 384 200 | info@lms.be Services Division Kaiserslautern [Germany] | T +49 631 30322 100 Detroit, MI [United States] | T +1 248 952 5664 Torino [Italy] | T +39 011 6671 615