This report documents the fatigue code SIESTA that has been used for recently here at Sandia National Laboratories. It is written in two parts: the first as a user manual and the second as a theory manual. Currently employed in SIESTA are stress-life cycle approaches. Clients have requested the use of standards in particular analyses; therefore, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler Pressure Vessel Code fatigue standards have been implemented. These include an elastic, an elastic-plastic, and a weld fatigue method. All three methods use a Max-Min cycle counting method that is appropriate for non-proportional loading. A Signed von Mises method that used a Rainflow Cycle Counting Method is also implemented. The Signed von Mises with the Rainflow Cycle Counting Method is appropriate for proportional loading. Several verification examples are noted and include comparisons to experimental data.
This work explores deriving transmissibility functions for a missile from a measured location at the base of the fairing to a desired location within the payload. A pressure on the outside of the fairing and the rocket motor’s excitation creates an acceleration at a measured location and a desired location. Typically, the desired location is not measured. In fact, it is typical that the payload may change, but measured acceleration at the base of the fairing is generally similar to previous test flights. Given this knowledge, it is desired to use a finite-element model to create a transmissibility function which relates acceleration from the previous test flight’s measured location at the base of the fairing to acceleration at a location in the new payload. Four methods are explored for deriving this transmissibility, with the goal of finding an appropriate transmissibility when both the pressure and rocket motor excitation are equally present. These methods are assessed using transient results from a simple example problem, and it is found that one of the methods gives good agreement with the transient results for the full range of loads considered.
One of the more crucial aspects of any mechanical design is the joining methodology of parts. During structural dynamic environments, the ability to analyze the joint and fasteners in a system for structural integrity is fundamental, especially early in a system design during design trade studies. Different modeling representations of fasteners include spring, beam, and solid elements. In this work, we compare the various methods for a linear system to help the analyst decide which method is appropriate for a design study. Ultimately, if stresses of the parts being connected are of interest, then we recommend the use of the Ring Method for modeling the joint. If the structural integrity of the fastener is of interest, then we recommend the Spring Method.
Motivation: Crucial aspect of mechanical design is joining methodology of parts. Ability to analyze joint and fasteners in system for structural integrity is fundamental. Different modeling representations of fasteners include spring, beam, and solid elements. Various methods compared for linear system to decide method appropriate for design study. New method for modeling fastener joint is explored from full system perspective. Analysis results match well with published experimental data for new method.
This work explores deriving transmissibility functions for a missile from a measured location at the base of the fairing to a desired location within the payload. A pressure on the outside of the fairing and the rocket motors excitation creates an acceleration at a measured location and a desired location. Typically, the desired location is not measured. In fact, it is typical that the payload may change, but measured acceleration at the base of the fairing is generally similar to previous test flights. Given this knowledge, it is desired to use a finite element model to create a transmissibility function which relates acceleration at the previous test flights measured location at the base of the fairing to acceleration at a location in the new payload. Three methods are explored for deriving this transmissibility, with the goal of finding an appropriate transmissibility when both the pressure and rocket motor excitation are equally present. A novel method termed the Harmonic method is introduced and unfortunately found not to be as accurate as standard methods. However, the standard methods also do not perform particularly well for the combined loading of aerodynamic pressure and rocket motor excitation.
The root mean square (RMS) von Mises stress is a criterion used for assessing the reliability of structures subject to stationary random loading. This work investigates error in RMS von Mises stress and its relationship to the error in acceleration for random vibration analysis. First, a theoretical development of stress-acceleration error is introduced for a simplified problem based on modal stress analysis. Using results from the example as a basis, a similar error relationship is determined for random vibration problems. Finite element analyses of test structures subject to an input acceleration auto-spectral density are performed and results from parametric studies are used to determine error. For a given error in acceleration, a relationship to the error in RMS von Mises stress is established. The resulting relation is used to calculate a bound on the RMS von Mises stress based on the computed accelerations. This error bound is useful in vibration analysis, especially where uncertainty and variability must be thoroughly considered.
The goal of this work is to build model credibility of a structural dynamics model by comparing simulated responses to measured responses in random vibration environments, with limited knowledge of the true test input. Oftentimes off-axis excitations can be introduced during single axis vibration testing in the laboratory due to shaker or test fixture dynamics and interface variation. Model credibility cannot be improved by comparing predicted responses to measured responses with unknown excitation profiles. In the absence of sufficient time domain response measurements, the true multi-degree-of-freedom input cannot be exactly characterized for a fair comparison between the model and experiment. Methods exist, however, to estimate multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) inputs required to replicate field test data in the laboratory Ross et al.: 6-DOF Shaker Test Input Derivation from Field Test. In: Proceedings of the 35th IMAC, A Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics, Bethel (2017). This work focuses on utilizing one of these methods to approximately characterize the off-axis excitation present during laboratory random vibration testing. The method selects a sub-set of the experimental output spectral density matrix, in combination with the system transmissibility matrix, to estimate the input spectral density matrix required to drive the selected measurement responses. Using the estimated multi-degree-of-freedom input generated from this method, the error between simulated predictions and measured responses was significantly reduced across the frequency range of interest, compared to the error computed between experimental data to simulated responses generated assuming single axis excitation.
Six degree of freedom (6-DOF) subsystem/component testing is becoming a desirable method, for field test data and the stress environment can be better replicated with this technology. Unfortunately, it is a rare occasion where a field test can be sufficiently instrumented such that the subsystem/component 6-DOF inputs can be directly derived. However, a recent field test of a Sandia National Laboratory system was instrumented sufficiently such that the input could be directly derived for a particular subsystem. This input is compared to methods for deriving 6-DOF test inputs from field data with limited instrumentation. There are four methods in this study used for deriving 6-DOF input with limited instrumentation. In addition to input comparisons, response measurements during the flight are compared to the predicted response of each input derivation method. All these methods with limited instrumentation suffer from the need to inverse the transmissibility function.
Recent advances in 6DOF testing has made 6DOF subsystem/component testing a preferred method because field environments are inherently multidimensional and can be better replicated with this technology. Unfortunately, it is rare that there is sufficient instrumentation in a field test to derive 6DOF inputs. One of the most challenging aspects of the test inputs to derive is the cross spectra. Unfortunately, if cross spectra are poorly defined, it makes executing the tests on a shaker difficult. In this study, tests were carried out using the inputs derived by four different inverse methods, as described in a companion paper. The tests were run with all 6DOF as well with just the three translational degrees of freedom. To evaluate the best way to handle the cross spectra, three different sets of tests were run: with no cross terms defined, with only the coherence defined, and with the coherence and phase defined. All of the different tests were compared using a variety of metrics to assess the efficacy of the specification methods. The drive requirements for the different methods are also compared to evaluate how the specifications affect the shaker performance. A number of the inverse methods show great promise for being able to derive inputs to a 6DOF shaker to replicate the flight environments.