1

New Techniques for Vibration Qualification of Vibrating

Equipment on Aircraft

Dr. Andrew Halfpenny, Chief Technologist, HBM-nCode Products
1

Mr. T. C. Walton, Principal Dynamicist, AgustaWestland
2


1
HBM-nCode Products. Travelers Tower 1, 26555 Evergreen Road, Suite 700, Southfield, MI 48076.
www.ncode.com

2
AgustaWestland, Yeovil, Lysander road, Somerset, BA20 2YB. UK
www.agustawestland.com

Abstract
Allaircraftvibrateandallcomponentsaredesigned,testedandcertifiedtosurvivethesevibrationlevelsovertheirentire
servicelife.DesignstandardssuchasMILSTD810F(1)andRTCADO160E(2)areoftenusedtoobtainthevibrationsign
off test; but what is the safety margin on these tests? How many hours do they represent on real aircraft? Can the
equipmentlifebeextendedforaircraftwithlessdamagingusageprofiles?Canreadacrossevidencefromoneaircraftbe
usedtoqualifyacomponentonanotherwithoutfurthertesting?Thispaperdiscussesthelatestapproachestotheanalysis
ofshockandvibrationandshowshowvibrationtestscanbetailoredbasedonmeasuredflightspectra,howdifferenttests
canbecompared,andhowthelifeofequipmentcanbeadjustedbasedonoperationalexperience.

1 Introduction
This paper describes how the vibration environment of an aircraft can be characterized in terms of a Fatigue
Damage Spectrum (FDS) and Shock Response Spectrum (SRS). It describes how these spectra are calculated
from both measured flight load data and directly from vibration test specifications. Vibration tests can be
tailoredtoensurethattestspectraexceedflightspectrawithanadequatesafetymargin.
These techniques provide a means of comparing shock and vibrationinduced damage across different
vibration tests and different aircraft platforms. This enables us to use test and service evidence obtained on
oneaircraftplatformtoqualifyequipmentonanother.Thisreadacrossevidencehasbeensuccessfullyused
toqualify equipment without the need for any additional vibration testing. Itoffers considerable cost savings
andalsoenablesarapidpathforthedeploymentofmissioncriticalequipmentinmilitaryoperations.
Techniques are discussed which derive tailored vibration tests based on measured flight load data.
Accelerometers record the vibration levels at a number of positions on the aircraft while flying a prescribed
sequenceofmaneuvers. The fatiguedamagedosage foreachmaneuveriscalculatedusing a FatigueDamage
Spectrum (FDS), which effectively plots damage vs. frequency. The damage from each maneuver is summed
over the usage profile of the aircraft to determine the wholelife damage dosage. From this profile we
determineastatisticallyrepresentativevibrationtestwhichcontainsatleastthesamedamagecontentasthe
wholelife,butoveramuchshortertestperiod.ThisfacilitatestheprovisionforTestTailoring,asspecifiedin
AnnexAofMILSTD810F(1),aswellasRTCADO160E(2)andGAMEG13(3).
CasestudiesarepresentedtodescribehowtheanalysiswasusedbyAgustaWestlandfortailoringvibration
tests for its latest aircraft. Studies also describe how the techniques have been used to provide readacross
evidence to support flight clearance for urgently needed equipment in military operations. These include
Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

clearance for helicopter avionics and optoelectrical equipment. Studies also describe how cases for limited
type approval (i.e. restricted flight envelope or service life), or experimental flight approval are assessed
quantitatively using these techniques. The paper concludes by describing how the technique can be used to
provide quantitative evidence to support equipment life extensions based on Operational Loads Monitoring
(OLM)andHealthandUsageMonitoringSystem(HUMS)data.

2 Review of background theory Fatigue Damage Spectrum (FDS) and

ShockResponseSpectrum(SRS)
ThebasisofthetheoryusedinthispaperoriginatesfromtheworkofAmericanengineerBiotin1934.Further
developmentonthisapproachwasconductedbyLalanneandtheFrenchMinistryofDefenseinpreparationof
the military design standard GAM EG13 (3) in the 1980s. In this section we introduce the two principal
componentsoftheapproach:theShockResponseSpectrum(SRS)andtheFatigueDamageSpectrum(FDS).
TheSRSisusedtodeterminethemaximumpeakamplitudeofloadingwhichtypicallyresultsfromextreme
shock events such as severe landing, impact, weapons discharge or nearby explosions. These extreme events
cangive riseto catastrophicfailureas componentstresses exceed thedesignstrength.TheFDS, ontheother
hand,isusedtoaccumulatethedamagecausedbylongtermexposuretofatiguedamagingvibrationswhich,
although modest in amplitude, give rise to microscopic cracks that steadily propagate over time and lead to
eventualfatiguefailure.

2.1 TheShockResponseSpectrum(SRS)
TheSRSisusedtodeterminethepeakamplitudeofloadingseenduringaflighteventoravibrationtest.The
safetymarginofthetestcanbedeterminedbycomparingthetestSRSwiththeflightSRS.Itisinsufficientto
simply record the highest static acceleration level because this does not account for the frequency of the
vibration. Dynamic systems are moresensitive to certainfrequenciesthanothers, thesocalled resonant(or
natural) frequencies. Structural failure is also attributable to excessive strain energy, and strain energy in a
vibrating component is proportional to displacement rather than acceleration. Thereforethedamaging effect
of acceleration is seen to reduce with the square of the frequency. High frequencies become less damaging
thanlowerfrequencies.Itisthereforeimportanttoconsiderbothaccelerationamplitudeandfrequencyduring
thevibrationassessment.
The SRS essentially represents a plot of the peak amplitude vs. frequency. A typical SRS plot showing
helicopterflightdatacomparedwithaMILSTD810FvibrationqualificationtestisillustratedinFigure1.Inthis
case the qualification test exceeds the peak inflight levels by at least a factor of 2 so the test is considered
conservative.
TheSRSwasdevelopedbyBiotin1932(4).TocomputeBiotsShockSpectrum,themeasuredacceleration
signal is first of all filtered by a Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) transfer function centered on a specified
naturalfrequency(f
n
)asillustratedinFigure2.Themaximumvalueofthefilteredresponseisthencalculated
and this represents a single point in the SRS plot. This calculation is repeated over a whole range of natural
frequencies to createtheentireSRS.In 1934, Biot(5)publisheda paperonearthquakeanalysis andusedthe
termShockSpectrumforthefirsttime.
Biot used the SDOF response function as a frequency filter because of its ability to select a specific
frequency in a manner consistent with the physical response of a structural system. It is also mathematically
stableandisideallysuitedtorapidtimedomainconvolution.Otherspectrahavebeendocumentedwhichuse
different filters. Rupp et al (6), for example, describe an analogous approach based on a bandpass filter and
Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

this is used by some automotive companies in Europe; however, the SDOF approach is the most popular
approach.

Figure1Comparisonbetweeninflightshockexposureandatypicalvibrationtestprofile

Figure2SchematicflowchartillustratingtheSRSandFDScalculationprocess
Frequency
G
a
i
n
Frequency
L
o
g

D
a
m
a
g
e
Acceleration
on airframe
Frequency
filter (SDOF)
Rainflow count
filtered signal
Plot damage Vs
frequency
Increment filter
by f
f
Frequency
P
e
a
k

v
a
l
u
e
Peak amplitude of
filtered signal
Shock Response Spectrum (SRS) Fatigue Damage Spectrum (FDS)
Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

TheSDOFresponsefunction(Figure2)isdominatedbyasinglespikelocatedatthenaturalfrequencyf
n
.At
frequencies below the natural frequency, the component behaves quasistatically [Gain( f<f
n
) 1], while at
frequencies exceeding the natural frequency, the response is significantly attenuated [Gain( f>>f
n
) 0].
Aroundthenaturalfrequencythecomponentwillresponddynamicallyandwillbecomegreatlyamplifiedwith
itsmaximumresponsebeinglimitedonlybythedampinginthesystem[Gain(f=f
n
)=Q].Theformulaforthe
SDOFfilterfunctionisgiveninEquation1.ThisfilterwillreturnaSRSintermsofaccelerationvs.frequencyf
n
.
0oin
ucccI
() =
1
_
_1 - _

n
]
2
_
2
+
1

2
_

n
]
2

Equation1

Gain(f)istheSDOFfilterwithrespecttofrequencyf,andf
n
isthenaturalfrequency;bothareexpressedin
Hz.TheratioofthemaximumdynamicresponsetothestaticresponseisknownastheDynamicAmplification
(Q) factor. For 5% structural damping, this has the value of Q = 10 as illustrated in Figure 2. The relationship
between damping ratio and Q is given in Equation 2. It is possible to fit the amplification factor Q to the
particularcomponentbeingtested;however,establishedprocedureassumesavalueofQ=10forcomparative
analysis. This assumes that we use the same Q value when calculating the SRS inflight and the SRS from the
qualificationtest.Qisessentiallyusedtotunethefiltertothedesiredfrequencyrange,itdoesnotimplyany
mechanicalsignificanceintheanalysis.
=
1
2

Equation2

The Shock Response Spectrum (SRS) can be expressed in terms of acceleration or displacement response
depending on the frequency response function used. For fatigue purposes, we are mostly interested in the
displacement response. The SDOF filter function relating to displacement response is given in Equation 3.
Fatigue cracks initiate and grow through the cyclic release of strain energy and, therefore, the displacement
response provides a proportional relationship with the energy driving the failure. Acceleration might be the
origin of the load but it is the resulting strain (displacement) that drives the structural failure. The SRS of
displacement can therefore be used to quantify the damaging effect of the input acceleration for any SDOF
systemoverarangeofnaturalfrequencies.

0oin
dsp
() =
1
(2n
n
)
2
_
_1 - _

n
]
2
_
2
+
1

2
_

n
]
2

Equation3

Biot proposed using the SDOF assumption for all components under excitation regardless of their actual
frequency response. Over the past years many have contested the conservatism of this assumption when
appliedtocomponentswithamultimodalresponse.Lalanne(7)documentsanumberofthesestudieswhich
all conclude that the SDOF response, used in conjunction with a frequency sweep, is a suitably conservative
assumptionforallpracticalcases.
ThearrivalofdigitalcomputershasmadeitpossibletocalculatetheSRSforlongtimesignalsveryrapidly.
UsingtheZtransform,Irvine(8)derivestheequationsforaveryefficientInfiniteImpulseResponse(IIR)filter.
Halfpenny(9)describesaveryefficientprocesswhichisabletocalculatetheSRSandFDSfrommeasuredflight
datawithexceptionalspeed,andHalfpenny(10)describesanalgorithmforrealtimeanalysisofvibrationdata
whichissuitableforConditionBasedMaintenance(CBM)analysisofvibratingequipmentonaircraft.
Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

2.2 TheFatigueDamageSpectrum(FDS)
Lalanne(11),workingonthehypothesisoftheShockResponseSpectrum(SRS),proposedananalogousFatigue
Damage Spectrum (FDS). This provides a relationship between fatigue damage and frequency. The FDS is
calculatedinthesamewayastheSRSbutratherthansimplyfindingthemaximumdisplacementresponse,the
filtereddisplacementresponseisnowrainflowcyclecountedandthefatiguedamageobtainedusingaWhler
calculation. The approach is illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows a comparison between inflight damage
exposureandatypicalMILSTD810Fqualificationtest. In this casethe testoffers areasonable safetymargin
overoperationalexposure.
Fatigue damage varies exponentially with respect to stress (and relative displacement) as shown Figure 4.
This represents the familiar SN (or Whler) curve which relates stress range S to the number of cycles to
failureN
f
.ThecurvefollowsastraightlinewhenplottedonlogaxesandwasdescribedbyBasquinusingthe
powerlawrelationshipgiveninEquation4.

Figure3Comparisonbetweeninflightdamageexposureandatypicaltestprofile
C = S
b
N
]
Equation4
C is the Basquin coefficient (intercept of the SN curve with the y axis), S is the stress range (twice the
amplitudeofthesinusoidalstress),bistheBasquinexponent(gradientoftheSNcurveinlogspace)andN
f

isthenumberofsinusoidalcyclestofailure

Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

Figure4TypicalfatigueSNcurveforaluminumalloy6082intheT6condition
When random (variable amplitude) loads are encountered, rainflow cycle counting is used to decompose
thesignalintoequivalentsinusoidalstresscycles.Thetotaldamageinthetimesignalisobtainedbysumming
the damage from each stress cycle using Miners (12) linear damage accumulation rule. The total damage is
thereforeobtainedfromEquation5.
=
1
N
]
=
S
b
C

Equation5
TheBasquincoefficientCisusuallytakenasunityforcomparativeFDSanalysis.Thisimpliesthatthesame
value of C is used when calculating the FDS inflight and the FDS from the qualification test. The Basquin
exponent b has a significant effect on the FDS analysis. For traditional fatigue analysis b is obtained from
fatigue tests on the material (as per Figure 4) and is then modified to account for geometrical stress
concentrations, etc. For FDS type analysis we areprincipally interested in the first failure site and this usually
coincideswithageometricalstressconcentrationorthelocationofbolted,riveted,weldedorsolderedjoints.
Inthesecasesthevalueofbtendstolieintherange4<b<8.MILSTD810Frecommendsusingavalueofb=8
wheretheloadingprofileismainlybroadbandrandom,andb=6wheretheloadingprofileismainlysinusoidal.
In practice many engineers assume a value of b=4 which leads to a more conservative test; however, the
analysisshouldalsobeconfirmedusingavalueofb=6andb=8forprudence.
A detailed explanation of fatigue theory and rainflow analysis is beyond the scope of this paper: for more
detailsconsultHalfpenny(13)andDowningetal.(14)respectively.

2.3 CalculatingtheFDSandSRS
1
directlyfromavibrationtestspecification
IntheprevioussectionwelookedatthebasisoftheSRSandFDScalculationanddescribedhowthesespectra
canbecalculatedfromatimesignalofmeasuredaccelerationusingfrequencyfiltering.Thisapproachismost
suitableforanalyzingmeasuredflightdata;however,vibrationtestsareconvenientlyspecifiedintermsofPSD
random, Sineonrandom, sine sweep or sine dwell tests. The SRS and FDS of the vibration test could be

1
Note: the term Shock Response Spectrum (SRS) is usually replaced with the term Extreme Response Spectrum (ERS)
whenithasbeenderivedusingstatisticalmeansfromaPSDrandomvibrationtest.Bothplotsaredirectlyanalogousbut
the terminology reflects on the statistical origin of the original data. In this paper we use the term SRS loosely to
encompassbothSRSandERStoavoidunnecessarycomplication.
1 1 10
3
1 10
6
1 10
9

100
1 10
3

Number of cycle to failure (Nf)

S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
S
)
Transitionlife Endurancelimit
b
f
C N S =
Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

calculated using the time domain technique described in Figure 2. This approach involves calculating the SRS
and FDS from a derive time signal based on the vibration test specification. The process is quite straight
forward but does require a very long time signal at a very high sampling frequency. The computational
requirements and risk of human error in this approach are significant and means that a direct approach for
obtaining the SRS and FDS directly from the test specification is often preferred. In this section we introduce
methodsforcalculatingtheSRSandFDSdirectlyfromPSDandsinesweeptestsratherthantimesignals.

2.3.1 Milesequation
In 1953, Miles (15) presented an equation that is similar in nature to the SRS. Using the simple formula
expressed in Equation 6 he derived a spectrum of the RMS (Root Mean Square) acceleration response to a
randomPSDappliedtoaSDOFsystemofnaturalfrequencyf
n
anddynamicamplificationQ.
RMSaccelerationspectrum, ( ) ( )
2
accel n n n
RMS f f Q G f

Equation6

G(f
n
)isthePSDofaccelerationing
2
/Hzatfrequencyf
n
,andQisthedynamicamplificationfactor

2.3.2 ApproximateequationforobtainingSRSdirectlyfromaPSDtest
MilesequationisusedtodeterminetheRMSaccelerationresponseforaparticularnaturalfrequency.Inorder
todeterminethe maximum likely response(i.e. theSRS), Milessuggested multiplyingtheRMSspectrumby a
factor of 3 (i.e. the 3sigma curve). However, in 1978 Lalanne(16) proposeda refinement to Miles equation.
For narrowband frequencyresponse,typicalof aSDOF system, theamplitude distribution wasfoundbyRice
(17) to be Rayleigh and not Gaussian as proposed by Miles. Lalanne therefore rederived Miles equation
substituting the Rayleigh probability function. The resulting equation is known as the Maximax Response
Spectrum (MRS) or the Extreme Response Spectrum (ERS). It represents the most likely extreme amplitude
response witnessed during a vibration test of duration T seconds driven by random PSD excitation. The
responsecanalsobeexpressedintermsofrelativedisplacementinmetersusingEquation8.
ERSaccelerationspectrum, ( ) ( ) ( ) ln
accel n n n n
ERS f f Q G f f T
Equation7

ERSdisplacementspectrum, ( )
( )
( )
2
9.81
2
accel n
disp n
n
ERS f
ERS f
f
=

Equation8

Tisthetestexposuredurationinseconds,andG(f
n
)isthePSDofappliedaccelerationing
2
/Hz.
TheERSis analogoustothetimedomainSRS.However, whereasthe SRS isusuallyusedtodeterminethe
maximumresponsetoahighlydamagingtransientshock,theERSisusedtorepresentthemaximumexpected
responsewitnessedduringavibrationtest.InthispaperweusethetermSRSlooselytoencompassbothSRS
andERStoavoidunnecessarycomplication.
Theapproximateequationsgivenabovearebasedonseveralassumptions.Themainassumptionsare:
1. the input PSD is broadbanded tending to white noise (i.e. the PSD has a fairly flat profile and
containsnosignificantpeaks)
2. theresponseisnarrowbandedthisassumptionisusuallyassuredbyhavingaQvalueof10
Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

Figure 5b shows a comparison between the accurate and approximate ERS derived for a typical PSD
vibrationtestgiveninFigure5a.ThisanalysisassumesQ=10andT=16hours.

2.3.3 ApproximateequationforobtainingFDSdirectlyfromaPSDtest
FollowinginitialworkbyRice(17)andBendat(18)todeterminefatiguedamagedirectlyfromaPSDofstress,
Lalanne(11)wasabletoutilizethistechnologytocreateaclosedformcalculationtoestimatetheFDSdirectly
fromtheaccelerationPSD,thisisgiveninEquation9.Anexplanationofvibrationfatiguetheoryisbeyondthe
scopeofthispaperandyouarereferredtoHalfpenny(19)andBishopetal.(20)formoredetails.
( )
( )
( )
( )
2
2
3
9.81
1
2
2 2
b
n
n n
n
Q G f
b
FDS f f T
f

+



Equation9

Tisthetest exposuredurationin seconds, G(f

n
) isthe PSDof applied accelerationin g
2
/Hz, and () isthe
Gammafunctiondefinedas ( )
( ) 1
0
g x
g x e dx

Theapproximateequationgivenaboveisbasedonthesameassumptionsdescribedinsection2.3.2.Figure
5c shows a comparison between the accurate and approximate FDS derived for a typical PSD test given in
Figure5a.ThisanalysisassumesQ=10,b=4andT=16hours.

Figure5ComparisonbetweenapproximateandaccurateSRSandFDSforaPSDvibrationtest
2.3.4 ApproximateequationforobtainingSRSdirectlyfromasinesweeptest
The SRScan beestimated directly from asine sweeptestspecification. Equation10gives theSRSinterms of
accelerationing,whereasEquation11givestheSRSintermsofdisplacementinmeters.
SRS
ucccI
(
n
) A(
n
) Equation10
SRS
dsp
(
n
)
9.81 A(
n
)
(2n
n
)
2

Equation11
Accuratemethod
Approximatemethod
Accuratemethod
Approximatemethod
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

g
2
/
H
z
a b c
Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

A(f
n
)istheamplitudeofthesinesweepingatfrequencyf
n
Hz
Theapproximateequationsgivenabovearebasedonthesameassumptionsdescribedinsection2.3.2and
are valid over the frequency range of the sweep. Figure 6b shows a comparison between the accurate and
approximateSRSderivedforatypicalsweptsinetestgiveninFigure6a.ThisanalysisassumesQ=10.

2.3.5 ApproximateequationforobtainingFDSdirectlyfromasinesweeptest
TheFDScanbeestimateddirectlyfromasinesweeptestspecificationusingEquation12.InthiscasetheFDS
represents fatigue damage from a single sine sweep and should be multiplied by the number of sweeps
performedduringthetest.
FS(
n
)
6u
n
p ln(2)
_
9.81A(
n
)
(2n
n
)
2
_
b
n
2

b-1
b
-1
n

Equation12

isthelogarithmicsweeprateexpressedinoctavesperminuteandA(f
n
)istheaccelerationamplitudeing
atfrequencyf
n
Hz
Theapproximateequationgivenaboveisbasedonthesameassumptionsdescribedinsection2.3.2andis
valid over the frequency range of the sweep. Figure 6c shows a comparison between the accurate and
approximateFDSderivedforatypicalsweptsinetestgiveninFigure6a.ThisanalysisassumesQ=10,b=4,=1
octavepersecond,over8completesweeps.

Figure6ComparisonbetweenapproximateandaccurateSRSandFDSforasinesweepvibrationtest
2.3.6 Advanced(accurate)methodsforderivingSRSandFDSfromstandardvibrationtests
The approximate equations given above are adequate for general comparative analyses provided the
assumptionsin2.3.2arevalid.TheyaresuitableformanyofthetestsproposedinMILSTD810F(1)andRTCA
DO160E(2).Lalanne(11)andHalfpenny(9)havefurtherdevelopedtheseapproachesandpresentnumerical
solutionalgorithmsofferingmuchgreateraccuracywithoutthelimitationsinherentintheaboveassumptions.
These also offer a much wider range of vibration testing options including different sweep types and mixed
testssuchassinesweepanddwell.Moreadvancedtestssuchassineonrandomarealsosupportedwhichdo
notfulfilltheassumptionsmadein2.3.2.Discussiononthesetechniquesisbeyondthescopeofthispaperand
thereaderisreferredtoHalfpenny(9)formoreinformation.

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

g
a b c
Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

10

3 VibrationEnvironmentonanaircraft
3.1 Sourcesofhelicoptervibration
This section introduces the vibration environment on a helicopter and describes how this is modeled by the
vibrationtest.Theinformationdiscussedhereisalsoapplicabletofixedwingaircraft;however,thediscussion
inthispaperhasfocusedprincipallyonhelicoptersbecausethecasestudiespertaintothese.
Thevibration spectrum ofahelicoptercanbedescribed asaseriesofsinusoidaltonessuperimposedon a
backgroundofrandomnoise(sineonrandom).Anexamplerecordedinthefuselageofahelicopterisshownin
Figure 7. The main source of these sinusoidal tones is attributable to harmonics of the main rotor. The main
rotorfrequencyofahelicopterisrelativelylow(typically38Hz)andinaccuraciesintherotortrack,balanceor
bladepitchwill result insinusoidal tones atthisfrequency. The main rotor frequency isoften denoted bythe
term 1R while the tail rotor frequency is denoted by the term 1T. The tail rotor frequency of a helicopter is
typicallywithintherange1550Hz.
Whenthehelicopterisinflightthepitchofeachbladevariescyclicallywithrespecttoitsazimuthangle(i.e.
angleof theblade relative totheaxis oftheaircraft). Furthermore, the blades willslice through manyeddies
which arise from turbulence, aerodynamic effects of the aircraft, ground effects, bladeinduced wake effects,
etc.Thesecyclicallyperiodiceffectsgiverisetopeaksatharmonicsofthebladepassingfrequencyasshownin
Figure 7. The blade passing frequency is denoted by the term nR where n is the number of blades in the
rotor. Mosthelicoptershave between2and6bladesinthe main and tail rotors.Theprincipalharmonicsare
denotedasnR,2nR,3nR,etc..Theeffectbecomeslessobviousforthehigherorderharmonicsinexcessof3nR
astheseamplitudesaretypicallylowerthanthebackgroundrandomnoise.ThehelicopterusedinFigure7has
4bladesinboththemainandtailrotors.

Figure7FDSrecordedonthemainfuselageofahelicopter
1R 2R 4R 8R 12R 4T
Gearboxmeshing FrequencyHz
Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

11

Allcomponentswillwitnesssignificantvibrationfromthemainrotorandthisdominatesthelowfrequency
spectrum for positions throughout the aircraft. Components sited towards the tail of the aircraft will also
witnessprincipalharmonicsofthetailrotor.Componentsthataresitedadjacenttotheenginesandgearboxes
will see additional harmonics of the engine, shaft, and gearbox meshing frequencies. It is usual practice to
segregate the aircraft into regions and assume that the vibration amplitudes are similar for all equipment
positionedinthatregion.Themostcommonlydefinedregionsare:
Fuselagevibrationisdominatedbyharmonicsofthebladepassingfrequencyofthemainrotor
Avionics bay (similar to fuselage but vibration isolated mounts are designed to reduce rotorinduced
vibrationamplitudes)
Onornearenginesadditional sinusoidalharmonicsinducedthroughengineand gearboxharmonics
andmeshingfrequencies
On or near tail rotor additional sinusoidal harmonics induced through tail rotor and gearbox
harmonics
External stores and sponsons additional aerodynamic loads induced by downwash from the main
rotorandaerodynamicsoftheaircraft
Inmostcasestheverticalandlateralaccelerationsdominatetheloadingenvironmentandthefore/aftaxis
isrelativelybenign.

3.2 Typesofvibrationqualificationtest
Vibration qualification tests are typically performed in accordance with the aircraft manufacturers
specification or to one of the commonly used military design standards such as; US Department of Defense
standardMILSTD810F(1),andRTCADO160E(2).Thequalificationtestisperformedinthefollowingstages:
1. Initial resonance search swept sine test to determine the resonant frequencies of the component.
Ideally,resonantfrequenciesshouldnotcoincidewithanyoftheprincipalharmonicsoftheaircraft.A
componentwillusuallyfailqualificationiflowdampedresonancesareencounteredwithinavoidbands
of a principal harmonic unless the supplier can prove adequate durability and the aircraft OEM can
prove that the resonant issues will not adversely affect the durability of the airframe or mounting
structure.
2. Endurance test consisting of either a multiple sineonrandom vibration test or a swept sine and
dwelltest(asdiscussedinthenextparagraph)
3. Final resonance search swept sine test as per step 1 to ensure no changes in resonant frequencies
whichcouldindicatethepresenceofanemergingfatiguecrack
Most modern vibration tests are performed using uniaxial electrodynamic vibration rigs. The endurance
portionofthetestcommonlyusesamultiplesineonrandomvibrationprofile.Atestdurationof16hoursper
axis(repeatedoverx,yandzaxessequentially)istypicallyequivalentto10,000hoursofoperationalexposure.
An alternative approach is to specify a swept sine and dwell vibration profile. This approach involves an
extendedsweptsinetest(typically1hour)followedbyasequenceofstaticsinusoidaltestsdesignedtoexcite
theprincipalharmonicsoftheaircraft(typically1millioncyclesateachharmonic).Thetestisrepeatedforall
axessequentially(oneaftertheother).
The swept sine and dwell test profile is less efficient than the sineonrandom because each principal
harmonic (sine tone) must be tested separately for 1 million cycles and this leads to a very lengthy and
expensivetest.Thisisparticularlyproblematicforhelicopterswherethemainrotorharmonicsoccurata low
Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

12

frequency.Thesineonrandomtestprofileexcitesallharmonicssimultaneouslywhichismorerepresentative
of the actual aircraft loading profile. Sineonrandom tests have largely superseded the swept sine and dwell
test.Thetechniquesdiscussedinthispaperhavebeensuccessfullyemployedasameansofconvertingexisting
sweptsineanddwelltestprofilestothemorerepresentativeandefficientsineonrandom.
Afinalimpact(hammer)testisperformedontheequipmentasmountedontheaircrafttoensurethatany
additionallyflexibilityinthemountingdoesnotgiverisetoresonanceswithintheavoidbandsoftheprincipal
harmonics.

3.3 Estimationofaccelerationlevelsusedinthevibrationtest
While the aircraft is at the design stage we can obtain estimates of test acceleration levels for use in
preliminary qualification. Suitable estimates are provided by both MILSTD810F and RTCA DO160E.
Accelerationlevelsareprovidedintheformofequationswherethevibrationamplitudeisgivenasafunction
of the principal harmonic frequency. Different equations are provided for each position on the helicopter to
accountforvariationsinvibrationseverity.
As measured flight data becomes available then these preliminary design estimates should be reviewed
againstmeasureddata.Thetestaircraftisinstrumentedwithaccelerometerswhichrecordthevibrationlevels
atanumberofpositionswhileflyingaprescribedsequenceofmaneuvers.Maneuversareflownundervarious
weight conditions so we can obtain a series of measured flight events that are representative of the real
conditions seen inservice. The fatigue damage dosage for each maneuver is calculated using a FDS. The
damagefromeacheventissummedovertheusageprofileoftheaircrafttodeterminethewholelifedamage
dosage. An equivalent FDS can be calculated for the proposed qualification test and the test specification is
iterated so the test FDS exceeds the flight FDS by an acceptable safety margin. The approach is illustrated in
Figure8.
Theobjectiveoftesttailoringistoderiveaqualificationtestthatcontainsatleastthesamefatiguedamage
content as the real aircraft environment but in a shorter test time. As the damage is fixed then the vibration
amplitudeusedinthetestmustvarywiththedurationofthetest.Ashortertestwillrequiregreatervibration
amplitudesinordertoachievethesamedegreeofdamageinashorterperiod.TheShockResponseSpectrum
(SRS)isusedtocomparetheworstamplitudeusedinthetestagainsttheworstamplitudeseenduringflight.In
most cases the worst shock load seen in flight will only occur for very short periods of time at infrequent
intervals; whereas most of the fatigue damage will be attributed to long periods of flight at very modest
vibrationlevels.Testtailoringusesthiseffecttoderivetheoptimumtestduration.Theoptimumtestduration
isachievedwhentheSRSofthetestcoincideswiththeSRSobtainedfortheworstflightcondition.Thisallows
thetesttooperateattheoptimumaccelerationlevelsodamageisaccumulatedatthemaximumratewithout
exceedingtheworstloadsseeninflight.
Most traditional helicopter and fixedwing tests are overaccelerated. This means that the loading
amplitude exceeds the worst flight loads by a significant margin. This approach is justified on account of the
high safety margins implicit in the design of aircraft components. However, care is required when over
acceleratingavibrationtesttoensurethattheexcessiveloadsdonotintroduceplasticityintothecomponent
whichcouldaltertheloadpathsandchangethefailuremode.

Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

13

Figure8Testtailoringforhelicoptervibrationqualification

4 CaseStudies
4.1 Case Study 1: Vibration qualification based on readacross evidence from other
aircraft
Equipmentwasurgentlyrequiredfordeploymentonamilitaryhelicopter.Novibrationqualificationhadbeen
performedforthisaircraft;however,previousclearancehadbeenawardedforadifferenthelicoptertype.The
objective ofthis analysis is to comparethe damage content ofthe original aircraft test with that required for
thenewhelicopterandassesswhethertheexistingqualificationevidenceissufficientforflightapprovalonthe
newhelicoptertype.
The original sineonrandom qualification test was performed in accordance with MILSTD810E for
equipment mounted to the fuselage. The principal rotor harmonics are different on this helicopter and the
vibrationlevelsarelower.Themanufacturersvibrationrequirementsforthenewhelicopterareexpressedin
terms of a swept sine and dwell test. A direct comparison between the two tests was performed using the
SRS/FDSapproachandtheresultsareshowninFigure9.
A comparison of the SRS for both tests is shown in Figure 9a. The SRS required by the new helicopter
specificationsignificantlyexceedsthatprovidedintheexistingqualificationevidence.However,aconsiderable
overload is acknowledged in the new helicopter specification in order to accelerate the vibration test. A
comparison was therefore made against measured flight data and this clearly shows an acceptable safety
margin.

Step 1
Damage Transformation
Calculate
SRS
Calculate
FDS
Event
FDS
Event
SRS
Step 3
Test Synthesis
Step 2
Mission Profiling
Sum FDS
Mission
FDS
Envelope
SRS
Mission
SRS
Compare
SRS
Input data
for each
flight event
Aircraft
usage
profile
Accelerated
vibration test
profile
Calculate
FDS
Calculate
SRS
Compare
FDS
Iterate (Tailor)
test specification
Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

14

Figure9Comparisonofavailablequalifationevidencewithaircraftrequirementspecification
Figure9bshowsacomparisonoftheFDSforbothtests.Thefrequenciesoftheprincipalharmonicsareseen
to vary and cumulative damage offered by the existing qualification evidence is considerably less than that
requiredbythenewhelicopterspecification.Thereisinsufficientevidencetoconsiderfulltypeapprovalofthe
equipmentatthisstage!
Figure9cshowstheeffectofreducingthesafeoperationallifefrom10,000hoursto100hours.Duetothe
urgentrequirementofthisequipment,limitedflightapprovalwasawardedfor100operationalhoursandthe
equipmentwasfittedtoserviceaircraft.Duringthefirstyearofoperationtheequipmentwasretestedtothe
newspecificationandwaseventuallyawardedfulltypeapproval.However,ithadbeendeployedstraightaway
andusedsuccessfullyintheatreoverthisentireperiod.
Limited flight approval is also possible through a restriction of the flight envelope; i.e. by restricting some
flight conditions and maneuvers. For this type of analysis it is preferable to use measured flight load data
directly in the comparison rather than using the manufacturer specification. This approach is called Test
TailoringandiscoveredinCaseStudy2.
Inmanycasestheexistingqualificationevidenceprovessufficientforthenewaircraftandfulltypeapproval
canbeawardedwithoutrecoursetoadditionaltesting.Thisoffershugecostsavingsbecausevibrationtestsare
a)ShockResponseSpectrumshows that the suppliers
qualificationevidenceislowerthan that requiredbythe
aircraftspecificationbut isstillgreaterthan measuredflight
databyanacceptablemargin
Originalaircraftspecification
Suppliersqualificationevidence
Measuredflight loaddata
b)Fatigue Damage Spectrum shows that thesuppliers
qualificationevidenceisinadequateforthisaircraft on
accountofthedifferenceinrotorharmonic frequencies
c)Theequipmentcanbeprovisionallydelifed to 100
operationalhourspendingfurthervibrationtests
Shock Response Spectrum (SRS) Fatigue Damage Spectrum (FDS)
Fatigue Damage Spectrum (FDS)
Originalaircraftspecification
Suppliersqualificationevidence
Delifed damage spectrum(100hours)
Suppliersqualificationevidence
Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

15

often very expensive on account of the direct testing costs and the cost of the test component which is life
expiredattheendofthetest.
This approach to qualification has also proved useful for assessing experimental flight approval for new
equipment. Qualification evidence based on fixed wing installations, shipping or transportinduced damage
qualification, or slosh and vibration qualification tests often prove sufficient for limited flight clearance for
experimentalpurposes.

4.2 CaseStudy2:Testtailoringofcontrolrodvibrationtest
New yaw control rods and mountings were required on a helicopter. The control rods run through the main
fuselageandtailcone and are subjectedtoadditionalvibrationfrom the tail rotor,thetailrotorgearboxand
theintermediategearbox.Thesecomponentsareflightsafetycriticalandageneralvibrationspecificationwas
considered inadequate in this case. The existing swept sine and dwell test was also unacceptably long and
expensive (98 hours per axis), and the safety margin was uncertain. A test tailoring exercise was therefore
authorized to determine a more appropriate sineonrandom qualification test along with a complete
assessmentoftheinherentsafetymargin.
Accelerationmeasurementsweretakenoveranumberofflighteventsusingtriaxialaccelerometerslocated
at several positions on the helicopter. The SRS and FDS were calculated for each accelerometer and an
envelopetakentorepresenttheworstloadingcondition.TheFDSwasscaledovertheaircraftusageprofileas
described previously to determine the wholelife damage. The SRS and FDS were calculated over a range 5
2000Hz.AcomparisonofthemeasuredspectrawiththestandardtestspecificationisillustratedinFigure10.

Figure10Comparisonofflightvibrationexposuretocertifiedtestlimits
From Figure 10, the inflight shock response is well represented by the existing test specification over the
firstfewrotorharmonics;however,itdoesnotaddressthehighfrequencygearboxinducedpeak.Theinflight
damageresponseisalsowellrepresentedoverthefirstfewrotorharmonicsbuthasanegligiblesafetymargin.
The existing test specification does not address any of the high frequency gearboxinduced vibrations or the
peaksat1Rand2Rwhicharesignificantonthisaircraft.

4.2.1 Testtailoringprocess
Thenewtestisbasedonasineonrandomprofilecomprisingthefollowingsteps:
Flightloaddata
Standardqualification test
Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

16

1. Initialresonancesearchatasweepratenotexceeding1octave/mininaccordancewithmanufacturers
existingspecifications
2. 16hoursineonrandomtestinaccordancewithFigure11
3. Finalresonancesearchasperstep1
4. Repeatallabovestepsforeachaxis(x,y,z)
Thistestisdesignedtoofferclearanceforupto10,000operationalhoursandtesttailoringwasperformed
using theGlyphWorks Accelerated Testingpackage fromHBMnCode(21).Acomparisonof theSRSandFDS
are illustrated inFigure 12.Thetest wasderivedusing MILSTD810F as a basis.The backgroundrandom PSD
and the amplitude of the sine tones were then tailored to achieve an adequate safety margin over the
proposed usage spectrum. Further constraints were applied such that no vibration level should be less than
those recommended in MILSTD810F, and the final FDS should not be less than the existing swept sine and
dwelltestspecification.

Figure11TailoredvibrationtestbasedonMILSTD810F
From Figure 12 we see that the new test specification offers an acceptable safety margin on both peak
shockandfatiguedamage.Thesineonrandomtesttakesonly16hoursperaxisasopposedto98hoursforthe
previoussweptsineanddwelltestandthisoffersasignificantcostsaving.
These techniques provide a tailored test which accounts for the real vibration environment and avoids
potential underdesign issues by allowing direct control of the safety margin. In other situations test tailoring
has beenusedto relaxthe original test specificationwherethemeasuredusageprofileis less damaging. This
canreducetheinherentcostimplicationsofovertesting,andtheinherentweightimplicationsofoverdesign.
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Log frequency Hz
1
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
4
4
2.2g2.2g
0.001
0.01
1
2
0
1.0g
Random PSD (g
2
/Hz)
Sinusoidal tones (g)
1
1
1.1g
Freq. PSDg
2
/Hz
10 0.01
300 0.01
2000 0.001
Freq. Amp.g
2R=11Hz 1.1g
4R=22Hz 2.2g
8R=44Hz 2.2g
4T=120Hz 1.0g
PSDrandom
Sinetones
Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

17

In some cases it has been used successfully to qualify important equipment that was previously considered
inadequateandalsoextendthelifeofequipmentwherethevibrationlevelsorusagespectrumwerefoundto
be lower than the existing qualification evidence. Halfpenny (10) describes how realtime algorithms can be
used to determine the FDS and SRS inflight and provide quantitative support for life extension and CBM
assessments.

Figure12Comparisonbetweenflightvibrationexposureandtailoredtest

5 Conclusion
This paper has described how the vibration environment of an aircraft can be characterized in terms of a
Fatigue Damage Spectrum (FDS) and Shock Response Spectrum (SRS). It described how these spectra are
calculated from both measured flight load data and directly from vibration test specifications. Vibration tests
are tailored to ensure that test spectraexceed flightspectra with an adequatesafety margin. The techniques
were used successfully to tailor standard MILSTD810F tests to cover the more onerous vibration conditions
seenoncertainflightsafetycriticalcomponentsonahelicopter.Theyhavealsobeenusedtocompareexisting
qualificationevidenceforequipmentononetypeofaircraftsoitcouldbeusedonanotherwithouttheneed
for retesting. This enabled urgent equipment to be provisionally cleared for limited flight approval without
riskingcrewandaircraftsafetyorperformance.

6 Bibliography
1. US Department of Defense. MILSTD810F section 514: Department of Defense Test Method Standard for
EnvironmentalEngineeringConsiderationsandLaboratoryTests.2003.
2. RTCA Inc. RTCA DO160E: . Environmental conditions and test procedures for airborne equipment.
WashingtonDC:s.n.,2004.
3. Ministre de la Dfense, Dlgation Gnrale pour l'Armement France. GAM EG13 Essais gnraux en
environementdesmatrials.Paris:MinistredelaDfense,France,1986.
4. M.A., Biot. Transient oscillations in elastic systems. Thesis No. 259. Pasadena: California Institute of
Technology,AeronauticsDepartment.,1932.
Flightloaddata
Standardqualification test
Tailoredqualification test
Aircraft Airworthiness & Sustainment 2010

18

5. Biot, M.A. Theory of elastic systems vibrating under transient impulse, with an application to earthquake
proofbuildings.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofScience.s.l.:NationalAcademyofScience,1933.Vols.
19No2,pp.262268.
6. Rupp A, Masiere A, Dornbusch T. Durability transfer concept for the monitoring of the load and stress
conditionsonvehicles.s.l.:InovativeAutomotiveTechnologyIAT'05,Bled,2122April2005,2005.
7.C,Lalanne.MechanicalVibration&Shock,volume2.London:HermesPentonLtd.,2002.
8.T.,Irvine.AnIntroductiontotheShockResponseFunction.[Online]2002.www.vibrationdata.com.
9. Halfpenny, A. Accelerated Testing Theory and User Manual. HBMnCode GlyphWorks Product
Documentation.s.l.:HBMnCode,2008.
10.AHalfpenny,TWalton.CBMforvibratingequipmentonrotorcraft.AmericanHelicopterSociety,Technical
Specialists'MeetingonConditionBasedMaintenance.Huntsville,AL:s.n.,2009.
11.C,Lalanne.MechanicalVibration&Shock,volume5.London:HermesPentonLtd.,2002.
12.Miner,MA.Cumulativedamageinfatigue.J.AppliedMechanics.1945.Vols.67pp.A159A164.
13.A,Halfpenny.Apracticaldiscussiononfatigue.NewTechnology2001.Warwickshire,UK:MIRA,2001.
14.DowningS.D.,SocieD.F.Simplerainflowcountingalgorithms.Int.JFatiguepp3140.Jan,1982.
15.Miles,JW.Onstructuralfatigueunderrandomloading.JAeronauticalSciencespp.753.1954.
16.Lalanne,C.Lesvibrationsaleatoires.CoursADERA.1978.
17. Rice, SO. Mathematical analysis of noise. Selected papers on noise and stochastic processes. New York:
Dover,1954.
18. Bendat, JS. Probability functions for random responses: prediction of peaks, fatigue damage and
catastrophicfailures.NASAreportoncontractNAS54590.1964.
19.Halfpenny,A.RainflowcyclecountingandfatigueanalysisfromPSD.ProceedingsofASTELAB.France:s.n.,
2007.
20. F, Bishop NWM and Sherratt. Fatigue life prediction from power spectral density data. Part 2: Recent
development.Environmentalengineering.1989.Vols.2,Nos.1and2,pp510.
21.HBMnCode.GlyphWorksAcceleratedTestingPackage.
22.D,QianSandChen.JointTimeFrequencyAnalysismethodsandapplications.London:PrenticeHallPTR,
1996.ISBN0132543842.

7 Definitions,Acronyms,Abbreviations
EFA: Experimental Flight Approval
FDS: Fatigue Damage Spectrum
FFT: Fast Fourier Transform
FTA: Full Type [flight] Approval
IIR filter: Infinite Impulse Response filter
LTA: Limited Type [flight] Approval
RMS: Root Mean Square
SDOF: Single Degree of Freedom System
SRS: Shock Response Spectrum
ERS: Extreme Response Spectrum
MRM: Maximax Response Spectrum