A methodology to design multi-axis test rigs for vibration and durability testing using

frequency response functions

Polat Sendur, Umut Ozcan, and Berk Ozoguz

Citation: Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 30, 065001 (2017); doi: 10.1121/2.0000526

View online: https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000526
View Table of Contents: http://asa.scitation.org/toc/pma/30/1
Published by the Acoustical Society of America

Articles you may be interested in

The repeatability and reproducibility of laboratory building acoustic measurements: Numerical study
Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 30, 015001 (2017); 10.1121/2.0000530

Incorporating measurement standards for sound power in an advanced acoustics laboratory course
Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 30, 040001 (2017); 10.1121/2.0000523

History of sound source localization: 1850-1950

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 30, 050002 (2017); 10.1121/2.0000529

Perception of acoustic comfort in large halls covered by transparent structural skins

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 30, 015005 (2017); 10.1121/2.0000540

Acoustics of naturally ventilated double transparent facades

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 30, 015004 (2017); 10.1121/2.0000538

The effects of the element damping in sound insulation predictions following EN12354
Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 30, 015003 (2017); 10.1121/2.0000537
Volume 30 http://acousticalsociety.org/

Acoustics `17 Boston

173rd Meeting of Acoustical Society of America and 8th Forum Acusticum
Boston, Massachusetts
25-29 June 2017
Structural Acoustics and Vibration: Paper 1pSA5

A methodology to design multi-axis test rigs for

vibration and durability testing using frequency
response functions
Polat Sendur
Mechanical Engineering, Ozyegin Universitesi, Istanbul, Cekmekoy, 34794, TURKEY;
polat.sendur@ozyegin.edu.tr
Umut Ozcan
Ford Otomotiv A.S., Istanbul, TURKEY; uozcan@ford.com
Berk Ozoguz
Ford Otomotiv A.S., Istanbul,TURKEY; bozoguz@ford.com

The multi-axis simulators are designed for experimental verification of the safe functioning of large compo-
nents and subsystems under real world customer usage in vibration and durability testing. Transformation of
the full vehicle conditions to mast rig testing with correct system dynamics and vibration characteristics and
boundary conditions is a key challenge in the development of the experimental set-up. In this paper, a
systematic methodology is formalized how to design the experimental set-up on MAST rig to replicate the
vehicle dynamics and vibration characteristics in vehicle conditions. System modes and frequency response
functions are chosen as key performance metrics to compare the dynamics of the system to be tested for
both full vehicle and rig design. Criteria on the metrics are defined to make decision if the test rig design is
sufficiently replicating the in-vehicle conditions. The methodology is illustrated on a side skirt attached to a
heavy duty truck chassis that demonstrates the application of the methodology in practice.

Published by the Acoustical Society of America

© 2017 Acoustical Society of America [DOI: 10.1121/2.0000526]

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 30, 065001 (2017) Page 1
P. Sendur et al. Designing multi-axis test rigs using frequency response functions

1. INTRODUCTION
Globalization combined with increased competition in the marketplace requires vehicle design to be
well optimized. Given the increased market demand for lighter and more powerful vehicles, it becomes
evident that optimum vehicle design for various vehicle attributes such as NVH and fuel economy is a key
component. Trade-offs between attributes and optimization studies are performed in the product
development cycle. Happian-Smith (Ref. 3) describes the 4 phases of the product development cycle as:
Program Definition, Design and Development, Product Verification and Production.
Apart from optimization of vehicle design, it has been a challenge for OEMs to reduce the time spent
on the design phase for a long time. For this reason, the accelerated durability tests on components or
subsystems in laboratory have been an important challenge for product development cycle. The
combination of physical and virtual testing can further accelerate the design process due to the identification
and subsequent elimination of physical and virtual prototype deficiencies, such as uncertainty on model
parameters.
For many years, companies have used laboratory simulation testing to improve the quality, durability
and reliability of vehicle components. Hostens et al. (Ref. 5) specifies the development of design of a six-
degrees-of freedom test rig for tractor vibrations in working conditions, and test rig performance criteria
(maximum load, amplitude and frequency), kinematic (actuator placement, choice of joints) and dynamic
(resonance frequencies of structure, allowable stresses) with optimum actuator location. Mantaras and
Luque (Ref. 7) presents a virtual test rig using a three-dimensional model of the elasto-kinematic behaviour
of a vehicle. In this study, a general approach is put forward to determine the three-dimensional position of
the body and the main parameters which influence the handling of the vehicle.
Generally, in a vibration test, a test fixture connects the part to be tested to the table that will vibrate,
called a shaker table or vibration table, and transmits the force from the table to the part. A forcing function
is inputted for the frequency range of interest, and the response of this part due to the function is measured.
Subramanian et al. (Ref. 10) describes the advantages of the Multi-Axis Shaker Testing (MAST) system
as one of the best methods for quickly conducting durability tests of vehicle sub-systems since it allows the
test specimen to be excited under various configurations from simultaneous six spatial degrees of freedom
in order to realistically simulate a broad range of loading conditions. To achieve this motion the system is
equipped with a table on which different servo hydraulic cylinders act in three orthogonal different
directions. In addition, the system has a set of hydraulic and pneumatic actuators of different capacities
with its respective force and displacement sensors.
Principally, the multi-axis simulators are designed for experimental verification of the safe functioning
of large components and subsystems under real world customer usage and accelerate durability tests. This
allows the validation of the subsystem design including vibration tests, dynamic loading in aerospace and
automotive industry, automotive component validation and durability testing. Durability testing in MAST
covers a wide range of subsystems and components including cooling systems, engine mounts, seats and
interior trims.
Buckley and Chiang (Ref. 2) describes the possible complications of MAST testing. The test could
provide misleading results, or even cause damage to the subsystem during testing. Fixing or connecting the
subsystem to table correctly plays an important role to represent the conditions in full system so the design
is optimum in terms of performance, cost and weight. Many vehicle systems and components experience
complex in-service loading conditions, which makes it difficult for a validation engineer to design an
equivalent durability test cycle.
Raath and Waveren (Ref. 2) describes the fundamentals of multi-axis servo-hydraulic simulator control
in the time domain formulation and compares the advantages of the formulation is to the traditional
frequency domain methods to enable a realistic durability test. Subraminian et al. (Ref. 10) details the
multi-axis road data simulator, which entails realistic loads onto the components for capturing meaningful
information on behaviour of the product and recreate the field failure modes with reduced power
consumption and cost of testing. You and Fricke (Ref. 12) describe various hybrid simulation methods
combining physical and virtual components in an effort to reduce the requirement for an accurate analysis

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 30, 065001 (2017) Page 2

P. Sendur et al. Designing multi-axis test rigs using frequency response functions

model while allowing “real-time” vehicle dynamics. Sinapus (Ref. 9) presents the theoretical background
of the test method with particular emphasis on the damping estimation, on the determination of the
generalized mass, and on finding a suitable base axis combination for multi-axial shaker table. Antonia
(Ref. 1) describes the virtual model (CAE) of test rig, consisting of the specimen/system to be tested, the
surrounding components and the boundary conditions, in terms of constraints and actuator forces. The
method is applied to and validated on the design of a test rig for experimental fatigue analysis of a chassis
cross member, which is highly relevant for and influenced by the full vehicle behavior. Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) of the virtual rig such as local stresses, relative displacements and cross-section forces
are compared with the ones calculated in the full vehicle analysis, used as reference. In this paper, first a
quasi-static analysis was performed on the full vehicle Finite Element model.
There is extensive literature on setting up test rigs, actuator simulator control, and hybrid simulation
methods for the replication of dynamics events as in vehicle. However, the design of a test rig setup to
represent vehicle level dynamic characteristics to study vibrations and vibrational fatigue problems has not
been fully explored. The current study lays-out the methodology to build the test rig with correct
dimensions, boundary conditions and modifications, which produces realistic loads onto the components in
field testing. The methodology is shown on the side skirt rig design for a heavy commercial side skirt.

2. METHODOLOGY
The methodology on how to design the test rig and modification to the original system will be described
in this section.

A. METRIC 1: NATURAL FREQUENCIES AND MODE SHAPES

Natural frequencies and mode shapes are functions of the structural properties and boundary conditions,
which describe the dynamic characteristics of systems to excitations. The response of the mast rig and full
vehicle will be compared with respect to the modes and mode shapes in the frequency range of interest. For
a dynamic system with no damping, the equation of motion can be written as in Equation (1).

̈ + [𝐾] ∙ {𝑈} = 0
[𝑀] ∙ {𝑈} (1)

where [K] is the stiffness matrix and [M] is the mass matrix. Assuming a harmonic solution in the form
of given in Equation (2):

{𝑢} = {∅} ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛⁡(𝜔 ∙ 𝑡) (2)

where {∅} is the mode shape (or the eigenvector) and 𝜔 is the circular natural frequency results in the
eigenfunction shown in Equation (3). Substitution of the solution in the equation of motion results in the
eigenfunction as given in Equation (3):

([𝐾] − 𝜔2 ∙ [𝑀]) ∙ {∅} = 0 (3)

The mode and mode shapes of the vehicle and system in the test rig should be compared to make sure
that the system in the test rig performs similarly to the in-vehicle conditions.

B. METRIC 2: POINT MOBILITY AND TRANSFER MOBILITY

Frequency response analysis is a method used to compute structural response to steady state oscillatory
excitation. The important results obtained from a frequency response analysis usually include
displacements, velocities and acceleration of the points on the structure. In the frequency response analysis,
structural response is computed at discrete excitation frequencies by solving matrix equations. For the
damped forced vibration equation of motion with harmonic excitation as given in Equation (4):

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 30, 065001 (2017) Page 3

P. Sendur et al. Designing multi-axis test rigs using frequency response functions

̈ + [𝐵] ∙ {𝑥(𝑡)
[𝑀] ∙ {𝑥(𝑡)} ̇ } + [𝐾] ∙ {𝑥(𝑡)} = {𝑃(𝜔)} ∙ 𝑒 𝑗𝜔𝑡 (4)

Assuming a harmonic solution in the form of Equation (5):

{𝑥(𝑡)} = {𝑢(𝜔)} ∙ 𝑒 𝑗𝜔𝑡 (5)

where 𝑢(𝜔) is the displacement vector results in Equation (6):

𝑢(𝜔) 1
= 2 (6)
𝑃(𝜔) (−𝜔 ∙ 𝑀 + 𝑖 ∙ 𝜔 ∙ 𝐵 + 𝐾)

ISO 7626-1 (Ref. 6) defines the mechanical mobility 𝑌𝑖𝑗 as the frequency-response function formed by
the ratio of the velocity response phasor at point i to the excitation force phasor at point j, with all other
measurement points on the structure allowed to respond freely without any constraints other than those
constraints which represent the normal support of the structure in its intended application. The definition is
given mathematically in Equation (7):

𝑣𝑖
𝑌𝑖𝑗 = (7)
𝐹𝑗

where 𝑣𝑖 is the velocity-response at point i and 𝐹𝑗 is the force at point j.

Direct mobility or driving point mobility , 𝑌𝑖𝑖 , is the complex ratio of the velocity and force taken at the
same point in a mechanical system. Transfer mobility is the complex ratio of the velocity measured at the
point i in the mechanical system to the force excitation 𝐹𝑗 at the point j in the same system.
Point mobility will be calculated for the excitation points of the full vehicle and test rig as a measure of
energy imparted to both for the frequency spectrum of interest. “Similar” point mobility characteristics
show the test rig is “similar” to the full vehicle. Point mobility is to be calculated as described in Equation
(8). In Equation (8), subscripts x, y and z indicate the x, y and z direction of the velocity and force direction
of the excitation points. Visual comparison of the point mobility results in terms of amplitude and frequency
of the modes will be performed between the full vehicle and test rig.

2 2 2
𝑉𝑥𝑖 2 𝑉𝑦𝑖 2 𝑉𝑧𝑖 2 𝑉𝑥𝑖 𝑉𝑦𝑖 𝑉𝑧𝑖 𝑉𝑥𝑖 2 𝑉𝑦𝑖 2 𝑉𝑧𝑖 2
𝑌𝑖𝑅𝑀𝑆 = √( ) + ( ) + ( ) + ( ) + ( ) + ( ) + ( ) + ( ) + ( ) (8)
𝐹𝑥𝑖 𝐹𝑥𝑖 𝐹𝑥𝑖 𝐹𝑦𝑖 𝐹𝑦𝑖 𝐹𝑦𝑖 𝐹𝑧𝑖 𝐹𝑧𝑖 𝐹𝑧𝑖

where 𝑌𝑖𝑅𝑀𝑆 is the point mobility at the ith excitation point, v represents the velocity and F represents
the force at the ith excitation point.
Transfer mobility will be calculated between the excitation points and response points for both test rig
and full vehicle. Transfer mobility calculation is similar to the point mobility calculation. Transfer
mobilities in each direction (x, y, and z) are summed for the number of excitation points as described in
Equation (9). This term indicate how similar the response of the output of interest (the point where there
may be durability concerns) for the given similar point mobility at the excitation points. Visual comparison
of the transfer mobility results in terms of amplitude and frequency of the modes will be performed between
full vehicle and test rig.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 30, 065001 (2017) Page 4

P. Sendur et al. Designing multi-axis test rigs using frequency response functions

𝑛 2 2 2
𝑉𝑥İ 2 𝑉𝑦İ 2 𝑉𝑧İ 2 𝑉𝑥𝑖 𝑉𝑦İ 𝑉𝑧İ 𝑉𝑥İ 2 𝑉𝑦İ 2 𝑉𝑧İ 2
𝑌𝑖𝑗𝑅𝑀𝑆 = ∑ √( ) + ( ) + ( ) + ( ) + ( ) + ( ) + ( ) + ( ) + ( ) (9)
𝐹𝑥𝑖 𝐹𝑥𝑖 𝐹𝑥𝑖 𝐹𝑦𝑖 𝐹𝑦𝑖 𝐹𝑦𝑖 𝐹𝑧𝑖 𝐹𝑧𝑖 𝐹𝑧𝑖
𝑖=1

where 𝑌𝑖𝑗𝑅𝑀𝑆 is the transfer mobility of the jth response point, i is the ith excitaion point and n is the
number of excitation points.

3. RESULTS
The methodology described in Section 2 will be demonstrated on the design of a test rig design for the
side skirt attached to the chassis of a heavy duty truck as a case study. Trimmed chassis model consists of
rails and cross members, which are the structural parts supplying the stiffness and where all the accessories
such as muffler, fuel tank, fenders and bumpers are attached. Dynamic behavior of the chassis mainly
depends on the mass and inertia of the subcomponents and modeling approach. Many of the structural
components are modeled as finite element models since heavy components have low frequency resonances
which might effect the vehicle vibration and acoustic characterictic. Trimmed chassis model has high
number of degree of freedom so the finite element mesh size needs to be correctly determined by means of
structural tests to improve the solution performance, post processing time and effectiveness of the CAE
models. Trimmed chassis model shown in Figure 1 has more than one million degree of freedom. The
results of this model will be referred as the full vehicle and the objective for the test rig design is to replicate
the full vehicle on the metrics described in Section 2.A and Section 2.B.

Figure 1: Trimmed Chassis Model of the Truck

C. MODELLING DESCRIPTION
The test rig design is investigated with respect to the key metrics described in Section 2. Since the
chassis testing is expensive, only the parts that have major effect on overall performance should be included
in the test rig design.
Boundary conditions are chosen as the chassis suspension attachment points since these points are
where the road input is transmitted to the chassis and considered to be the most critical contributor to
durability performance. The chassis model is constrained at the front suspension leaf spring front eye and
rear air suspension rear plate. The constraints are shown in Figure 2.
Excitation points (or inputs to the CAE model) for point mobility and transfer mobility calculations are
selected as front suspension and front plate of the rear air suspension for the same reasons as selecting the
constraint locations. Rear air suspension anti roll bar attachment is added as excitation point since the lateral
forces during handling maneuvers are reacted at this location. The excitation points are also shown in Figure
2.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 30, 065001 (2017) Page 5

P. Sendur et al. Designing multi-axis test rigs using frequency response functions

Figure 2: Constraints and Excitation Points

The attachment points of the side skirt to the chassis (shown in Figure 3) are chosen as the response
points as the point mobility at these locations are considered as the energy input to the side skirt system and
proper design of the test rig to result in similar point mobility characteristics at these locations are critical.

Figure 3: Response Points on the chassis

The response of the face of the side skirt is critical due to the durability concerns as well. Therefore, 15
additional points are chosen on the side skirt as shown in Figure 4. Initial results on point mobility of these
15 points showed higher point mobility results for points SKRT01-SKRT05 since they are closer to the side
skirt attachment brackets. Therefore, these five points are chosen as primary points on the side skirt, while
the rest are monitored during the investigations.

Figure 4: Response Points on the side skirt

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 30, 065001 (2017) Page 6

P. Sendur et al. Designing multi-axis test rigs using frequency response functions

The point mobility metrics are calculated for each excitation point as described in Equation (8), and the
transfer mobility metrics are calculated for each response point as described in Equation (9).
Design of Experiment (DOE) approach has been taken to understand the sensitivity of each subsystem
in the trimmed chassis. The approach is to remove subsystems one by one from the far end of the trimmed
chassis to side skirt. The subsystem levels as a part of the DOE matrix that are removed during the iterations
are presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Subsystems that are removed from trimmed chassis

The removal of the subsystems has been performed with this order: 1) Bumper, referred as IT01, 2)
Steps, referred as IT02, 3) Rear Wheel Arc Liner, referred as IT03, 4) Brake tanks, referred as IT04, 5)
Spare wheel, referred as IT05 in the results, 6) Exhaust muffler, referred as IT06, 7) Symmetric side skirt,
referred as IT07, 8) Chassis cut in x-direction edges for a smaller model, referred as IT08 in the results, 9)
Chassis cut section location is extended: referred as IT08_1.
The simulation results starting from the full trimmed chassis to the iterations described above are
compared to decide the “base design” of the test rig. The dimension and the weight of the system are also
important and considered in the design of the test rig. The discrepancies between the “base design” will be
improved with some modification to the test rig to include dynamics effects.
As one of the key metrics, point mobility results are investigated for constraint and response points
(RRCHSPC, RRAXSTAB, RRFSPR, BRAC01, BRAC02, BRAC03, BRAC04, SKRT01, SKRT02,
SKRT03, SKRT04, SKRT05). The modes of the systems are compared between full vehicle and test rig as
the peaks of the point mobility results. The results are plotted from Figure 6 to Figure 10. These plots are
chosen as samples as there are many more response points. The trend in all of the plots is similar to make
the decision on the base design of the test rig.

Figure 6: Point mobility results for RRCHSPC Figure 7: Point Mobility results for RRAXSTAB

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 30, 065001 (2017) Page 7

P. Sendur et al. Designing multi-axis test rigs using frequency response functions

Figure 8: Point Mobility results for RRFSPR Figure 9: Transfer Mobility results for BRAC01

Figure 10: Transfer Mobility results for SKRT01

Comparison of the point mobility results indicates key differences between iterations and full trimmed
chassis results. However, it can be concluded that Iteration 1 to Iteration 7 have similar response and
therefore iteration 7 is chosen as the “base design” for test rig since it has the least number of parts to fit on
the test rig. The next step is to concentrate on the differences between the full trimmed chassis and Iteration
7. Considering the performances, one can conclude that the response is significantly different @ 7 Hz and
@ 10 Hz. Iteration 7 has much lower point mobility at 7 Hz and much higher point mobility results at 10
Hz. The point mobility result for Iteration 7 and full trimmed chassis model are acceptable for the rest of
the spectrum.
Lateral movement of the chassis contributes the most to the response @ 10 Hz from the detailed
investigation of the point mobility results. This is mainly due to the deletion of the subsystems and
reinforcements. The lateral movement is constrained with the introduction of c-shaped bars are added on
top of the chassis rails. While designing the c-bars, caution is taken to make sure that the response @ 10
Hz is improved while the response for the rest of the spectrum is not affected adversely. This design of the
test rig with the addition of c-shaped reinforcements is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Test rig design with the addition of c-bar reinforcement

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 30, 065001 (2017) Page 8

P. Sendur et al. Designing multi-axis test rigs using frequency response functions

Similarly, the response @ 7 Hz is investigated. Design action with the addition of c-shaped
reinforcement to improve @ 10 Hz reduced the response @ 7 Hz. Therefore, transmission cross brackets
(shown in Figure 7) have been deleted to increase the response @ 10 Hz. After completing tuning of the
test rig at these two frequencies, thickness and location of the c-shaped bars have been optimized for
improved response for the full spectrum. Comparison of the final design of the test rig to the original
trimmed chassis show the level of reduction of the components for the MAST testing, which is one of the
benefits of the proposed method in this paper.
Results for trimmed chassis, base design (Iteration 7) and final tuning of the test rig are presented from
Figure 12 to Figure 15. The only point mobility that could be improved @ 7 Hz is considered as BRAC01
(shown in Figure 14). Since this paper focuses on the methodology, no more design action is considered
but this could be done by optimizing the c-shaped reinforcements or by new design actions. For the
remaining eleven points, the overall point mobility comparison is satisfactory for the spectrum of interest.
Considering the subsystems that have been removed from the base system, similar point mobility
characteristics are obtained in a very basic model which proves that, rig testing with low number of elements
is also capable of reflecting fully trimmed vehicle scenario. The cost saving with this approach is beyond
discussion.

Figure 12: Point Mobility results for RRCHSPC Figure 13: Point Mobility for RRAXSTAB

Figure 14: Transfer Mobility for BRAC01 Figure 15: Transfer Mobility for SKRT01

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 30, 065001 (2017) Page 9

P. Sendur et al. Designing multi-axis test rigs using frequency response functions

4. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a systematic methodology is formalized for the test rig to replicate the full vehicle
condition. Key metrics are defined and formulated for both full vehicle and rig design. Criteria on the
metrics are discussed to make decision if the test rig design is sufficiently replicating the in-vehicle
conditions. The methodology is illustrated on a side skirt attached to a heavy duty truck chassis that
demonstrates the application of the methodology in practice.
In this paper, the methodology has been described in detail. General design guidelines to match the
performance of the test rig to that of the full vehicle response can be summarized to test rig engineers as a
rule of thumb as follows:
1. The contribution of the subsystems that are further away from the system to be tested (i.e. the side-
skirt in the case study presented in this paper) in the test rig is generally lower and therefore should
be considered first while removing from the full chassis. This has secondary advantage of fitting
the system to test rig and making sure that the test rig is capable of testing the system without
exceeding the weight capacity of the MAST rig.
2. Once the base level of the test rig is finalized, decision the frequency of range of interest is needed.
Then, the frequencies where there is difference between full vehicle and test rig design should be
identified.
3. The next step is to improve the key metrics (system modes and point mobilities) at these frequency
points. Root-cause analysis using formal contribution analysis may be necessary to find the design
actions on the test rig to improve key metrics.
4. The subsystem should be constrained similar to the full vehicle condition. Last but not the least,
constraint points, input points and output points should reflect the real life scenarios, which should
be critically discussed and investigated before building the test rig.
Research in vibration-based damage (VBD) identification has been rapidly expanding over the last few
years. Application of currently available VBD algorithms such as derivatives of mode shapes (Ref. 13),
modal flexibility (Ref. 14 and Ref. 15), modal strain energy values (Ref. 16), damage index algorithm (Ref.
17) and comparison to the methodology presented in this paper is acknowledged as a future research. The
correlation of the durability of the side skirt system in full vehicle on road and the durability of the side
skirt of the truck on the test rig is also considered as future work.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 30, 065001 (2017) Page 10

P. Sendur et al. Designing multi-axis test rigs using frequency response functions

REFERENCES
1
M. Antonia, “CAE Based Design Approach for Durability Test Rigs,” SAE Technical Paper F2014-NVH-075
(2014).
2
K. Buckley and L. Chiang, “Design and Analysis of Vibration Test Fixtures for Payloads Project,” Report No: NAG
1001 (2010).
3
J. Happian-Smith, “Introduction to Modern Vehicle Design,” Society of Automotive Engineers, ISBN-10:
0768005965 (2002).
4
B. Hooreweder, D. Moens, R. Boonen and P. Sas, “Design and Simulation of a Novel Multi-Axial Fatigue Test Rig,”
Experimental Mechanics 52 513-524 (2012).
5
I. Hostens, J. Anthonis, P. Kennes and, H. Ramon, “PM—Power and Machinery: Six-degrees-of-freedom Test Rig
Design for Simulation of Mobile Agricultural Machinery Vibrations,” Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research
77 155-169 (2000).
6
ISO 7626-1, “Vibration and Shock - Experimental Determination of Mechanical Mobility - Part 1: Basic Definitions
and Transducers,” Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (1986).
7
D. A. Mantaras and, P. Luque, “Virtual Test Rig to Improve the Design and Optimisation Process of the Vehicle
Steering and Suspension Systems,” Vehicle System Dynamics 50 1563-1584 (2012).
8
MSC.Nastran Basic Dynamic Analysis User’s Guide, MSC.Software Corporation (2004).
9
A.D. Raath and C.C. Waveren, “A Time Domain Approach to Load Reconstruction for Durability Testing,”
Engineering Failure Analysis 5, 113-119 (1998).
10
J.M. Sinapius, “Tuning of Normal Modes by Multi-Axial Base Excitation, Mechanical Systems and Signal
Processing” 13, 911-924 (1999).
11
D. Subramanian, N. Siva Kumar, and A. Rahim, “A Modular High Frequency Stable Orthogonal Road Load Exciter
for Validation of Automotive Components,” SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-2754 (2015).
12
S. S. You and, D. Fricke, “Advances of Virtual Testing and Hybrid Simulation in Automotive Performance and
Durability Evaluation,” SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-0029 (2011).
13
M. Cao, M. Radzienski, W. Xu, W. Ostachowicz, “Identification of multiple damage in beams based on robust
curvature mode shapes,” Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 46 468–480 (2014).
14
F. Choi, J. Li, B. Samali, K. Crews, “Application of the modified damage index method to timber beams,”
Engineering Structures 30 1124–1145 (2008).
15
S. Sung, K. Koo, H. Jung, “Modal flexibility-based damage detection of cantilever beam-type structures using
baseline modification,” Journal of Sound and Vibration 333 (2014).
16
B. L. Wahalathantri, D. P. Thambiratnam, T. H. Chan, S. Fawzia, “Vibration based baseline updating method to
localize crack formation and propagation in reinforced concrete members,” Journal of Sound and Vibration 344 258–
276 (2015).
17
T. M. Whalen, “The behavior of higher order mode shape derivatives in damaged, beam-like structures,” Journal of
Sound and Vibration 309 426–464 (2008).

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 30, 065001 (2017) Page 11