Advertisement

Experimental and Analytical Approaches in a Virtual Shaker Testing Simulation Environment for Numerical Prediction of a Spacecraft Vibration Test

  • S. WaimerEmail author
  • S. Manzato
  • B. Peeters
  • M. Wagner
  • P. Guillaume
Conference paper
  • 534 Downloads
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)

Abstract

A spacecraft is exposed to a variety of extreme dynamical loads during launch. As a result, spacecraft are tested on ground in a vibration test campaign to ensure and verify the global integrity of the structure and to screen the flight hardware for workmanship errors since safety and security are top priorities. Additionally, the gathered experimental test data can be used to validate and correlate mathematical models. During these tests especially in fixed-base sinusoidal vibration testing of large spacecraft, the dynamical interaction between the test specimen, the vibration controller and test facility is a critical issue affecting the closed-loop vibration control performance, the quality of subsequent numerical model validations or even damaging the entire testing setup. In order to assess the occurrence of such issues and to minimise their influence by adapting control parameters, virtual shaker testing intends to numerically replicate the entire vibration test chain. To successfully predict the actual experimental conditions, validated and reliable models need to be developed, replicating the control strategy as well as the shaker and test specimen dynamic behaviour as accurately as possible. In practice, such models are usually not available or accessible to the test engineer or analyst. Therefore, this paper reviews the current status of the work combining experimental and physical methodologies to numerically predict a sine vibration test. Two approaches are presented: (1) a purely experimental data driven approach based on measured data only, e.g. from system self-check data and (2) a hybrid data driven approach considering numerical shaker facility and structural dynamic test specimen models. Subsequently, the corresponding sine control closed-loop simulation results are correlated to real physical test data and consequently their advantages and disadvantages are discussed.

Keywords

Environmental spacecraft testing Sine control Multiphysics system Modelling and simulation Experimental system identification 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors of this work gratefully acknowledge the European Space Agency under the Network/Partnering Initiative PhD programme (contract No. 4000110039/14/NL/PA) in collaboration with Siemens Industry Software NV and Vrije Universiteit Brussel. A special thank you also to Alessandro Cozzani, Matteo Appolloni and Steffen Scharfenberg from ESTEC for their support and discussions.

References

  1. 1.
    NASA: Technical handbook, Spacecraft dynamic environments testing, NASA-HDBK-7008, (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ESA-ESTEC, European Cooperation for Space Standardization: Space engineering, Spacecraft mechanical loads analysis handbook, ECSS-E-HB-32-26A, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bettacchioli, A.: Simulation of satellite vibration test. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Spacecraft Structure, Materials and Environmental Testing, Brunswick, April 2014Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nali, P., Bettacchioli, A.: Beating phenomena in spacecraft sine tests and an attempt to include the sine sweep rate effect in the test-prediction. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Spacecraft Structure, Materials and Environmental Testing, Brunswick, April 2014Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bettacchioli, A., Nali, P.: Common issues in S/C sine vibration testing and a methodology to predict the sine test responses from very low level run. Proceedings of the 29th Aerospace Testing Seminar, Los Angeles, October 2015Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bettacchioli, A.: Feasibility study of the beating cancellation during the satellite vibration test. Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Spacecraft Structures, Materials and Environmental Testing, Toulouse, September 2016Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Appolloni, M., Cozzani, A.: Virtual testing simulation tool for the new quad head expander electrodynamic shaker. Proceedings 6th International Symposium on Environmental Testing for Space Programmes, ESA-ESTEC, June 2007Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Appolloni, M., Cozzani, A., et al.: Multi-Degrees-Of-Freedom vibration platform with MIMO Controller for future spacecraft testing: an application case for virtual shaker testing. Proceedings of the 29th Aerospace Testing Seminar, Los Angeles, October 2015Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Remedia, M., Aglietti, G., Kiley, A.: Vibration testing: post-test correlation approach based on virtual testing. Proceedings of the 29th Aerospace Testing Seminar, Los Angeles, October 2015Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Remedia, M., Aglietti, G., Appolloni, M., Cozzani, A., Kiley, A.: A virtual testing approach for spacecraft structures post-correlation purposes. Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Spacecraft Structures, Materials and Environmental Testing, Toulouse, September 2016Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Remedia, M., Aglietti, G., Appolloni, M., Cozzani, A., Kiley, A.: Virtual testing: a pre- and post-test tool for base-driven spacecraft testing. Proceedings of the 30th Aerospace Testing Seminar, Los Angeles, March 2017Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ricci, S., Peeters, B., Fetter, R., Boland, D., Debille, J.: Virtual shaker testing for predicting and improving vibration test performance, Proc. IMAC 2009, Orlando, February 2009Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ESA-ESTEC study, TN-3: assessment of the shaker performance in presence of non-linear dynamic effects, LMS International in framework of ESA study advancement of mechanical verification methods for non-linear spacecraft structures. TEC-MCS/2007/1558/ln/ANGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nali, P., Augello, G., Bettacchioli, A., Landi, G., Gnoffo, M.: A virtual shaker testing experience: modeling, computational methodology and preliminary results. Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Spacecraft Structures, Materials and Environmental Testing, Toulouse, September 2016Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Waimer, S., Manzato, S., Peeters, B., Wagner, M., Guillaume, P.: Modelling and experimental validation of a coupled electrodynamic shaker and test structure simulation model, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering, Leuven, September 2016Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Waimer, S., Manzato, S., Peeters, B., Wagner, M., Guillaume, P.: Numerical modelling and simulation of a closed-loop electrodynamic shaker and test structure model for spacecraft vibration testing, Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Spacecraft Structures, Materials and Environmental Testing, Toulouse, September 2016Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Waimer, S., Manzato, S., Peeters, B., Wagner, M., Guillaume, P., Overview of coupling methodologies for reliable sine vibration test simulation and prediction, Proceedings of the 30th Aerospace Testing Seminar, Los Angeles, USA, March 2017Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peeters, B., Auweraer, H.V.D., Guillaume, P., Leuridan, J.: The PolyMAX frequency-domain method: a new standard for modal parameter estimation. Shock. Vib. 11, 395–409 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    El-Kafafy, M., De Troyer, T., Peeters, B., Guillaume, P.: Fast maximum-likelihood identification of modal parameters with uncertainty intervals: a modal model-based formulation. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 37, 422–439 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    El-kafafy, M., Accardo, G., Peeters, B., Janssens, K., De Troyer, T., Guillaume, P.: A fast maximum likelihood-based estimation of a modal model. In: Mains M. (eds) Topics in modal analysis, volume 10. Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15251-6_15 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fox Lang, G., Snyder, D.: Understanding the physics of electrodynamic shaker performance. Sound Vib. 35, 24–26 (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Waimer, S., Manzato, S., Peeters, B., Wagner, M., Guillaume, P.: Derivation and implementation of an electrodynamic shaker model for virtual shaker testing based on experimental data, Proceedings of the 29th Aerospace Testing Seminar, Los Angeles, October 2015Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Waimer, S., Manzato, S., Peeters, B., Wagner, M., Guillaume, P.: A multiphysical modelling approach for virtual shaker testing correlated with experimental test results, Proceedings of the 34th International Modal Analysis Conference IMAC, Orlando, January 2016Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Manzato, S., Bucciarelli, F., Arras, M., Coppotelli, G., Peeters, B., Carrella, A., Validation of a Virtual Shaker Testing approach for improving environmental testing performance, Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering, Leuven, September 2014Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Waimer
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • S. Manzato
    • 1
  • B. Peeters
    • 1
  • M. Wagner
    • 3
  • P. Guillaume
    • 2
  1. 1.Siemens Industry Software NVLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.European Space Agency, ESA/ESTECNoordwijkThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations