Aectp-400 Edd V1 e

NATO STANDARD
AECTP-400
MECHANICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS
Edition D Version 1
NOVEMBER 2019
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
ALLIED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND TEST PUBLICATIONS
Published by the
NATO STANDARDIZATION OFFICE (NSO)
© NATO/OTAN
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
RESERVED FOR NATIONAL LETTER OF PROMULGATION
I Edition D Version 1
AECTP-400
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
II Edition D Version 1
AECTP-400
RECORD OF RESERVATIONS
CHAPTER RECORD OF RESERVATION BY NATIONS
Note: The reservations listed on this page include only those that were recorded at time of
promulgation and may not be complete. Refer to the NATO Standardization Document
Database for the complete list of existing reservations.
III Edition D Version 1

AECTP-400
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
IV Edition D Version 1
AECTP-400
RECORD OF SPECIFIC RESERVATIONS
[nation] [detail of reservation]
Note: The reservations listed on this page include only those that were recorded at time of
promulgation and may not be complete. Refer to the NATO Standardization Document
Database for the complete list of existing reservations.
V Edition D Version 1
AECTP-400
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
VI Edition D Version 1
AECTP-400
RECORD OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
General Updated the entire document format to match the most recent NATO
AP Template. Corrected various typographical errors.
Method 400 The AECTP-400 Edition 3 introductory paragraphs have been
expanded into a new method and contains general guidance
information for conducting mechanical environmental tests.
Method 401 Complete revision to the Vibration test method. Includes new C130
vibration curves.
Method 403 Complete revision to the Shock Testing method.
Method 407 The Materiel Tiedown method has been superseded by Method 424
Storage and Transit.
Method 409 The Materiel Lifting method has been superseded by Method 424
Method 410 The Materiel Stacking method has been superseded by Method 424
Method 411 The Materiel Bending method has been superseded by Method 424
Method 412 The Materiel Racking method has been superseded by Method 424
Method 414 The Handling method has been superseded by Method 403.
Method 417 The Shock Response Spectrum Shock test methodology has been
superseded by Method 403.
Method 423 Complete revision to the Multi-Exciter Vibration and Shock Testing
method.
Method 425 Complete revision to the Time Waveform Replication test method.
VII Edition D Version 1

AECTP-400
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
VIII Edition D Version 1

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
METHOD 400
MECHANICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1-1
1.3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-1
CHAPTER 2 TEST GUIDANCE .............................................................................. 2-1
2.1. USE OF MEASURED DATA ..................................................................... 2-1
2.2. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.3. EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ....................................................... 2-1
2.4. MATERIEL OPERATION .......................................................................... 2-3
2.5. CLIMATIC CONDITIONING ...................................................................... 2-3
CHAPTER 3 TEST INFORMATION ........................................................................ 3-1
3.1. DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL TEST PLANS ......................................... 3-1
3.2. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN TEST INSTRUCTION ................. 3-1
3.3. PRE-TEST INFORMATION ...................................................................... 3-3
3.4. INFORMATION DURING TEST................................................................ 3-3
3.5. POST-TEST INFORMATION .................................................................... 3-4
3.6. ENVIRONMENTAL TEST REPORTS ....................................................... 3-4
CHAPTER 4 TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES ........................................ 4-1
4.1. PREPARATION FOR TEST ..................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1. Selection of the Test Facility/Equipment ............................................ 4-1
4.1.2. Precursor and Dynamic Characterization ........................................... 4-1
4.2. INSTALLATION CONDITIONS OF TEST ITEM ....................................... 4-2
4.3. TOLERANCES.......................................................................................... 4-3
4.4. TEST INTERRUPTIONS .......................................................................... 4-5
CHAPTER 5 EVALUATION OF THE TEST RESULTS ........................................... 5-1
5.1. VERIFICATION ........................................................................................ 5-1
5.2. PHYSICS OF FAILURE ............................................................................ 5-1
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ................................. 6-1
6.1. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS ................................................................ 6-1
6.2. RELATED DOCUMENTS ......................................................................... 6-1
FIGURES
1. Interrupted Test Cycle Logic ..................................................................... 4-8
TABLES
1. Index of Mechanical Test Methods ........................................................... 1-2
2. Test Tolerances Applicable to All Tests .................................................... 4-3
3. Guide Test Tolerances for Different Waveform Verification Parameters ... 4-4
AECTP-400
METHOD 400
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 400
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
1. AECTP-400 is one of five documents included in STANAG 4370. It is important

to use AECTP-400 with other AECTPs (100 to 500) to apply the Environmental Project
Tailoring process. This process ensures materiel is designed, developed and tested
to requirements that are directly derived from the anticipated service use conditions. It
is particularly important that AECTP-400 is used in conjunction with AECTP 100 which
addresses strategy, planning and implementation of environmental tasks, and AECTP
200 which provides information on the characteristics of environments and guidelines
on the selection of test methods.
2. The test methods contained herein together with associated assessments are
believed to provide the basis for a reasonable verification of the materiel's resistance
to the effects of the specific mechanical environments. However, it should be noted
the test methods are intended to reproduce the effects of relevant environments and
do not necessarily duplicate the actual environmental conditions. Where possible,
guidance on the limitations of the intended applications is provided. The use of
measured data for the generation of test severities is recommended if available.
1.2. APPLICATIONS
1. AECTP-400 Test Methods address mechanical environments, both individually

and when combined with other environments, such as climatic environments included
in AECTP 300. The application of combined environments is relevant and often
necessary where failures could be expected from potential synergistic effects.
2. In developing a test programme, consideration is to be given to the anticipated

life cycle of the materiel and to the changes in resistance of the materiel caused by the
long term exposure to the various mechanical environments. The environmental
conditions included by the appropriate materiel platforms are also to be
accommodated. Guidance on these aspects and information on the characteristics of
environments is provided in AECTP 200. Guidelines for the planning and
implementation of environmental tasks are given in AECTP 100.
3. The list of AECTP-400 Test Methods in Table 1 reflects those currently

developed and completed. It is not comprehensive in that it will be revised as other
methods are developed. The methods listed are not to be applied indiscriminately, but
rather selected for application as required.
1.3. LIMITATIONS
AECTP-400 was not developed specifically to cover the following applications, but in
some cases they may be applied:
1-1 Edition D Version 1

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
a. Weapon effects, other than EMP,
b. Munitions safety tests covering abnormal environments,
c. Packaging testing,
d. Suitability of clothing or fabric items intended for military use,
e. Environmental stress screening (ESS) methods and procedures.
Table 1: Index of Mechanical Test Methods
METHOD TITLE
400 MECHANICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS
401 VIBRATION
402 ACOUSTIC NOISE
403 SHOCK TESTING
404 CONSTANT ACCELERATION
405 GUNFIRE
406 LOOSE CARGO
407 MATERIEL TIEDOWN (Superseded by 424)
408 LARGE ASSEMBLY TRANSPORT
409 MATERIEL LIFTING (Superseded by 424)
410 MATERIEL STACKING (Superseded by 424)
411 MATERIEL BENDING (Superseded by 424)
412 MATERIEL RACKING (Superseded by 424)
413 ACOUSTIC NOISE COMBINED WITH TEMPERATURE AND VIBRATION
414 HANDLING (Superseded by Method 403)
415 PYROSHOCK
416 RAIL IMPACT
417 SRS SHOCK (Superseded by Method 403)
418 MOTION PLATFORM
419 UNDEX
420 BUFFET VIBRATION
421 MULTI-EXCITER VIBRATION AND SHOCK TESTING
422 BALLISTIC SHOCK
423 TIME WAVEFORM REPLICATION
424 STORAGE AND TRANSIT

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
CHAPTER 2 TEST GUIDANCE
2.1. USE OF MEASURED DATA
Derive specific test levels, ranges, rates, and durations from data that occur on identical
or appropriately similar materiel that is situated on platforms under similar natural
environmental conditions (see AECTP 240). When data from actual situations are not
available or cannot be obtained nor estimated easily, tailor the test characteristics
using the information found in specific methods.
2.2. SEQUENCE
Use the anticipated life cycle sequence of events as a general sequence guide (see
AECTP 100). Base the specific sequence on the item, its intended situation-dependent
use, available program assets, and anticipated synergetic effects of the individual test
environments. In defining a life cycle sequence of exposures, consider recurring
exposure(s) that might reasonably occur during service use. In most cases there is
no single defined sequence. See AECTP-100 and AECTP-240 for additional
information.
a. Use the anticipated life cycle sequence of events as a general sequence

guide. However, experience has shown definite advantages to
performing certain tests immediately before, in combination with, or
immediately following other tests. Where these advantages have been
identified in the information in the test methods, follow the test
sequence. Use other sequences and combinations consistent with
good tailoring practices with the permission of the acquisition agency.
With the exception of information provided in the individual methods,
do not alter test sequences to ease the effects of the tests.
b. Relate cumulative effects on performance and durability of a materiel

item to a test sequence that stresses materiel in the proper order
according to its mission profile. Developing such a test sequence
requires communication among the test sponsor, the tester, the
evaluator, and the end user early and often to ensure a trackable,
reliable, and realistic test effort.
2.3. EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT
1. Interpretation of the effects of an environmental test depends on the purpose of

the test in the context of a specific acquisition program. Structural degradation and
performance anomalies may be considered as useful information during engineering
development tests, but as failures during formal tests for contractual compliance. The

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
following are some of the most common conditions that could constitute a materiel
failure, depending on specific contract requirements.
a. Deviation of monitored functional parameter levels beyond acceptable

limits established in the pre-test performance record and specified in the
requirements document. NOTE: Certain types of materiel (e.g.,
propellants and electrically driven devices) often are expected to
demonstrate decreased performance at an environmental extreme,
particularly low temperature. A failure would occur only if degradation is
more than permissible, or remains degraded after removal of the
environmental stress.
b. Not fulfilling safety requirements or developing safety hazards.
c. Not fulfilling specific materiel requirements.
d. Test item changes that could prevent the materiel from meeting its
intended service life or maintenance requirements. (For example:
Corroded components cannot be removed with specified tools.)
e. Deviation from established environmental impact requirements. (For

example: Exhaust emission levels beyond established limits or seal
failures that allow oil spills.)
f. Additional failure criteria as specified in the materiel specification.
2. The following list is not intended to be all inclusive but provides examples of
problems that could occur when materiel is exposed to a dynamic environment.
a. Structural and component fatigue.
b. Optical and sensor misalignment.
c. Collapse, rupturing and cracking.
d. Wire chafing.
e. Loosening of fasteners.
f. Intermittent electrical contacts.
g. Mutual contact and short circuiting of electrical components.
h. Seal deformation.
i. Loosening of particles or parts that may become lodged in circuits or

mechanisms.
j. Excessive electrical noise.

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
2.4. MATERIEL OPERATION
If specified in the Environmental Test Instruction, the materiel should be operated during
testing then this should be undertaken at the appropriate times specified. Performance
of non-heat dissipating materiel can be evaluated at any time that the excitation test
conditions have stabilised to within the test tolerances. Performance of heat-dissipating
specimen operation should be undertaken when both temperature and test conditions
have stabilised. In general, one of the following procedures will apply:
a. The materiel should be operated continuously with performance

evaluation made, at the times specified in the Environmental Test
Instruction.
b. The materiel should be operated intermittently and allowed to stabilise,

before performance evaluation is undertaken.
For tests undertaken to demonstrate survival of the materiel and requiring performance
evaluation, then the materiel should be operated and evaluated at the end of the test.
2.5. CLIMATIC CONDITIONING
1. If required by the Environmental Test Instruction, the materiel should be pre-

conditioned, to specified temperature and humidity conditions. The required test should
only commence after the materiel has achieved a stable temperature condition.
Therefore, sufficient time must be allowed before the start of the test, to allow the materiel
to stabilise at the required initial temperature. This will depend upon the thermal
characteristics of the materiel, such as thermal capacity, physical size and thermal
transfer. To ensure test repeatability, even if the Environmental Test Instruction does
not specify a pre-conditioning temperature, the required testing should only commence
after the material has been stabilised at Standard Atmospheric Conditions as defined in
AECTP 300.
2. In situations when testing is undertaken during constant temperature conditioning;

initial temperature stabilisation is considered to be reached, when that part of the test
materiel, which is considered to have the longest thermal lag, reaches the required
temperature within the stated test tolerances.
3. In situations when testing is undertaken during a temperature conditioning cycle,

testing should only commence after the material has achieved a stable temperature
cycle. A stable cycle is achieved once all specified points of the cycle are no more than
2 °C different from the previous cycle at that part of the Test Item which has the longest
thermal lag. This may take several cycles. Therefore it is usually necessary to subject
the item to at least one cycle to achieve stabilisation. For small materiel a stable cycle
may be achieved after only a single cycle whilst vehicle sized equipment may take four
or more cycles. Larger items may be pre-conditioned at constant temperature to reduce
the amount of cycles it will take to subsequently reach stabilisation. Ideally this

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
temperature should be at the average cycle temperature as this is likely to result in the
least time to stabilisation.
4. High temperature testing may accelerate the chemical ageing of certain materials.
If the temperature test conditions are equivalent to the most severe natural conditions,
then the possibility exists that accelerated degradation will occur if protracted vibration
testing is undertaken. This can be a particular issue when evaluating materiel containing
energetic materials and using vibration tests replicating extreme service or flight life
conditions. In such cases it may be necessary to utilise a variable temperature test cycle
rather than fixed temperature testing.
5. Every climatic chamber has a useful working volume which is smaller than the
actual chamber volume. The size of the working volume will depend upon the type of
test being undertaken, whether the materiel can modify the temperature and the flow of
air within the chamber. The ratio between chamber size and materiel size can create
considerable variability in the temperature and humidity within the working volume of the
chamber. If the materiel is too large for the working volume of the chamber it may not
be possible to adequately control the temperature within the working volume because
the test item is absorbing or radiating too much heat. Guidance on the calculation of
uncertainty of conditions in climatic test chambers can be found in IEC 60068-3-11.
6. In a situation where the item under test generates heat, the Environmental Test
Instruction must consider: airflow over the test item, test chamber size and the extent to
which the temperature can be modified in relation to the in service environment. When
testing temperature modifying materiel it may be preferable not to use forced air
circulation. However, if the only practicable procedure is to use forced air circulation,
then there are two methods which may be employed, the detailed implementation of
which is given in AECTP 300.

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
CHAPTER 3 TEST INFORMATION
3.1. DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL TEST PLANS
1. Detailed test plans for conducting environmental tests are required to determine
if the environmental criteria are met and their associated critical issues are satisfied,
and to identify critical environmental threshold values for system effectiveness that may
be evident during testing. Environmental test plans are prepared by materiel
developers, evaluators, assessors, and testers in various levels of detail during the
acquisition cycle. Development and operational testers prepare plans for testing in
laboratory and natural field/fleet environments.
2. Use decisions and data obtained through the tailoring process to determine the
need for laboratory tests, specific criterion values (settings) for the individual
environmental test methods, and the types and timing of development or operational
tests in natural environments. Early coordination with the development and operational
test community is essential to facilitate preparation of detailed environmental test plans
and to avoid costly omissions or duplications in environmental test planning. Consider
the following:
a. Probability of occurrence of specific environmental forcing functions,

alone or in combination.
b. Occurrence of similar environmental stresses in more than one life profile

phase.
c. Experience from other materiel similarly deployed/tested.
d. Expected environmental effects and materiel failure modes.
e. Expected effects on hardware performance and mission success.
f. Likelihood of problem disclosure by a specific laboratory test method

using a specific chamber test sequence/setting or natural environment
test location/method.
3.2. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN TEST INSTRUCTION
In addition to any information required in the individual test methods, provide the
following, as appropriate, to the test operator:
a. Test facilities and instrumentation.
b. Required test procedure(s).

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
c. Location of instrumentation/sensors, e.g., thermocouples, transducers.
d. The identification of the test item;
e. The axis definition of the test item;
f. Whether the test is a demonstration of performance or survival or both;
g. The configuration and method of mounting the specimen and any

necessary cables, pipes, etc., together with the axis along which the
waveform is to be applied;
h. The test severities and type of waveform to be applied;
i. The total duration of the test, or number of repetitions, including any

applicable rest periods;
j. The required frequency range of the test equipment and the frequency
range of the specified waveform;
k. The control strategy to be adopted including the reference, control and

monitoring points, or the procedure for their selection. This should also
include any limit control that needs to be applied;
l. The temperature and humidity conditions, and if applicable the thermal

test cycles, under which the test is to be conducted, if other than Standard
Laboratory Conditions;
m. Whether cross-axis motion is important, and if so the acceptable limits for

this motion and the action to be taken if the limits are exceeded;
n. The tolerances to be applied and the verification parameters to which

they are applicable;
o. If functional performance is to be assessed, the phases of the test when

the specimen is to operate and be assessed, and the levels of
performance required;
p. Whether any visual or other examinations are required, and if so at what

phases of the test they are to be conducted;
q. Whether any pre-test and post-test dynamic characterisation is required,

the approach to be used and a suitable procedure;
r. Any additional parameters to be recorded, test verification criteria to be

adopted, data to be collected and method of analysis;

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
s. Any permitted deviations from the test procedure. Whether gravitational

effects are to be considered;
t. If the influence of stray magnetic fields is important, the acceptable limits

and the action to be taken if these limits are exceeded;
u. Where applicable, whether the specimen is to be tested with or without

isolating mounts fitted;
v. Critical components, if applicable.
w. Cooling provisions, if appropriate.
x. Standard packaging configuration(s) and actions for packaging material

wear.
3.3. PRE-TEST INFORMATION
Before environmental exposure, operate the test item under standard ambient
conditions to ensure the test item is operating properly and to obtain baseline
performance data. Include the following information in the pre-test documentation:
a. Background data of each item:
(1) Item nomenclature, model, serial number, manufacturer, etc.
(2) General appearance/condition.
(3) Specific physical anomalies.
(4) Environmental test history of the specific item.
b. Collect pre-test data on the functional parameters that will be monitored

during and after each environmental test. Use functional parameters and
operational limits specified in the materiel specification or requirements
document. If such specifications are not provided, establish and apply
appropriate parameters/limits for the pre-test, the main test, and the post-
test.
c. Photographs of the test item as necessary to evaluate post-test results.
3.4. INFORMATION DURING TEST
During environmental exposure, the following information should be collected, where

applicable, for inclusion in the test report:
a. Performance check. Monitoring and recording of test item’s critical

performance parameters is required before and after all tests. Monitoring
of performance parameters is not required during non-operational tests

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
such as storage and transportation. Monitoring of performance

parameters during operational tests is strongly suggested. Where cost
concerns preclude monitoring during an operational test, consideration
should be given to the consequences of undetected, intermittent failures.
b. Test facility. Maintain a record of environmental conditions applied to the

test item.
c. Test item response. Maintain a record of test item response to applied

environmental forcing functions.
d. Test interruptions. See guidance with respect to specific test methods.
3.5. POST-TEST INFORMATION
After completing each environmental test, examine the test item in accordance with the
materiel specifications. Operate the test item when appropriate for obtaining post-test
data. Compare the results with the pre-test data obtained in accordance with
paragraph 3.2. Include the following information in the post-test record and report:
a. Test item identification (manufacturer, model/serial number, etc.).
b. Test equipment identification, including accessories.
c. The actual test sequence (program) used.
d. Deviation from the planned test program (including explanation).
e. Performance data collected on the same parameters at the same

operational levels as those of the pre-test (including visual examination
results and photographs, if applicable).
f. Room ambient test conditions recorded periodically during test period.
g. Other data specified in individual methods or requirements document(s).
h. Initial failure analyses, if applicable.
i. A signature and date block for the test engineer/technician to certify the
test data.
3.6. ENVIRONMENTAL TEST REPORTS.
Include the following information, as appropriate, in the final report for each test:
a. The purpose of the test (i.e., engineering development, qualification,

environmental worthiness, etc.).

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
b. A list of criteria and issues pertaining to the test.
c. Description of test item, including configuration identification of test

hardware and photographs as appropriate.
d. Description of test parameter, test duration, and any special conditions

involved in the test.
e. Description of test method, facility, and test procedure. Include a detailed

description of how the test item was operated during each test and any
controlled conditions.
f. Test set-up diagram/photos. Show arrangements of test item relative to

test equipment used.
g. A list of all test equipment used in the test. Identify manufacturer, model,
calibration status, and serial number for each item of test equipment
listed.
h. Location of environmental sensors such as accelerometers,

microphones, thermocouples, etc., relative to test item. Use diagrams
and photographs as appropriate.
i. Description of test instrumentation system with particular emphasis given

to any sensor averaging.
j. Test results, including metric conversion tables, if applicable.
k. Deviations from the original test plan.
l. Analysis of results relating data to criteria, including data reduction

techniques and procedures showing how the data were related to the
criteria, and a met/not met statement for each criterion.
m. Record of critical values. In situations when environmental conditions

limit or significantly degrade system performance (e.g., fog limiting
infrared sensor system effectiveness, etc.), describe the limitation and
designate it in the final test report as a critical threshold value.

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
CHAPTER 4 TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES
4.1. PREPARATION FOR TEST
4.1.1. Selection of the Test Facility/Equipment
Selection of the test facility/equipment will require an assessment of the fundamental

test parameters (e.g., displacement, velocity, acceleration, force) and should account
relevant compulsory information listed below as well as requirements specific to the
particular procedure. A review of the shock test facility relative to these test parameters
should account for the time, amplitude, and frequency ranges over which the apparatus
is capable of delivering the required shock input and that the instrumentation, data
acquisition, and control systems are capable of properly processing the test data.
4.1.2. Precursor and Dynamic Characterization
1. Precursor testing of either; a dynamically representative example of the

materiel, an additional test item or the test item itself, provides confidence that testing
of the test item can be performed within the test requirements. Precursor testing is
commonly used to; evaluate the test fixtures, establish that testing is viable at full
severity levels over the required temperature range, confirm or identify the appropriate
control strategy and verify, if applicable, that testing does not result in excessively over
or under testing any part of the materiel. Precursor testing can also be used to verify
that the required signal tolerance requirements can be achieved and to establish the
levels of cross axis motions.
2. Precursor testing should be considered an integral part the test procedure

especially when testing large complex materiel or when using either the controlled
response or multi-point control strategies. Precursor testing using dynamically
representative and inert version of materiel is also a necessity when testing systems
containing energetic materials. Mostly, precursor testing comprises a relatively short
duration test. In some instances, especially when testing systems containing energetic
materials, it may be necessary to confirm the results of the precursor test using the
actual test item. Time spent in this activity, whilst at full level may, with the agreement
of the Test Specifier be considered as fulfilling part of the required testing duration.
3. Cross-axis motion should be verified before the test is applied, by conducting

either a sine or random investigation at a level prescribed by the Environmental Test
Instruction. At some frequencies or with large-size or high mass test items, the
cross-axis motion requirements may be difficult to achieve, in such cases the cross
axis motion actually achieved over the test frequency range should be stated in the
test report.

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
4. Pre and post-test dynamic characterisation investigations may be required by

the Environmental Test Instruction. Such characterisation investigations may utilise
modal testing or resonance tests. Dynamic characterisation investigations can be
applied before and after the vibration test to identify any changes in the frequency or
damping characteristics that may have occurred. A change in frequency or damping
can indicate that some form of test item structural degradation has occurred. Any
arrangements made to detect changes in the frequency or damping characteristics,
should not substantially change the dynamic behaviour of the test item as a whole.
When prescribing dynamic characterisation investigations, the relevant Instruction
should state, the method and procedure to be used. It may also, if appropriate, state
the actions to be taken during and following the test, changes in frequency or damping
are detected.
4.2. INSTALLATION CONDITIONS OF TEST ITEM
1. The test item shall be mechanically connected to the exciters and fixtures, in the
required orientation and state, as specified in the Environmental Test Instruction.
Unless specified otherwise, the test item shall be held by its normal means of
attachment. The test item installation shall include, as required, any connections
necessary for power supplies, test signals, performance monitoring and any monitoring
instrumentation, to establish the responses from the test item.
2. When the excitation does not originate through the attachment points, then
alternative methods of connection to the vibration exciter may need to be adopted.
Specific advice on test item mounting and test fixtures for vibration and shock testing
is given in AECTP 240 Leaflet 2411/1. Advice is also available in IEC 60068-2-47.
3. The mounting arrangement should be such that the test item can be vibrated
along one of the specified test axes. The fixing points of the test item should move, as
far as practicable, in phase and in straight parallel lines with the line of motion. It may
be necessary to use different test fixtures for each test axis.
4. Any connections to the test item, such as cables, pipes, wires, should be
arranged so that they impose similar dynamic restraint and mass, to that when the
materiel is installed in its operational position. The use of any additional stays or straps
should be avoided.
5. Where gravitational force is important, or when the effect of gravity is in doubt,

the test item should be mounted so that the gravitational force acts in the same
direction, as it would in normal use. Where gravitational force is not important, the test
item may be mounted in any attitude consistent with other requirements.
6. Test items intended for use with shock or vibration isolation systems, should be
tested with isolators in position. This is because it is difficult to accurately reproduce
the dynamic response behaviour of isolators, which may be significantly affected by
temperature. If it is not practical to carry out the vibration test, with the appropriate

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
isolators in place, the test should be performed without isolators at a modified severity,
derived from measurement of the isolator dynamic response characteristics. Extended
periods of excitation can cause unrealistic heating of the test item and/or isolators. If
increasing temperatures are of concern then the excitation should be interrupted by
rest periods with a duration specified in the Environmental Test Instruction.
4.3. TOLERANCES
1. Unless otherwise specified in the Environmental Test Instruction, the tolerances

on all severities should comply with guidance in this section. Any deviation from the
specified tolerances should be agreed with the Test Specifier and the actual tolerances
achieved, and reason for the deviation, stated in the Environmental Test Report.
2. In addition to the dynamic test specification, the Environmental Test Instruction

should also specify any additional parameters, along with appropriate tolerances,
considered necessary to ensure an appropriate waveform is achieved. Commonly
adopted additional parameters are root-mean-square (RMS) for conventional vibration
tests, crest factor for high kurtosis vibration tests, peak amplitude for Shock Response
Spectrum (SRS) based tests and Temporal Moments for time waveform replication
tests. However, other additional parameters can and may be adopted.
3. The general test tolerances that apply to dynamic tests are set out in Tables 2
and 3. The test tolerances specific to a particular test are included in the appropriate
method.
Table 2: Test Tolerances Applicable to All Tests
Test Tolerances
(unless specified otherwise in the Environmental Test Specification)
Measurement Error
±5% over the entire test frequency range.
(including transducers)
The maximum cross axis amplitude at the control point
Cross Axis Motions
shall not exceed 50% of the in-plane specification.
Test Duration ±2% of the specified requirement.

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
Table 3. Guide Test Tolerances for Different Waveform Verification

Parameters
Guide Test Tolerances

(actual values shall be specified in the Environmental Test Instruction)
Tolerances For Shock Components
Shock Waveform Peak Within 20% from the specified waveform amplitude for
Level at least 90% of the peaks.
Velocity change shall be within ±15% of the value
Velocity change
corresponding to the specified shock waveform
Effective Duration ±20% of the specified target waveform
Amplitude Probability Within 20% of those computed from the specified time
Density history
The time for a shock pulse to decay to the –60 dB point
Decay Rate
should be within 20% of that specified.
Cycle And Level Within 10% of those computed from the specified time
Crossing Counts history
Within ±1.5 dB, over the specified frequency range, of
that computed from the specified time history, using a Q
Shock Response of 10 (5% damping) and at least a one-twelfth octave
Spectra bandwidth resolution. Although this may be relaxed to
±3 dB for up to 20% of the specified SRS frequency
range.
Fatigue Damage Within ±6 dB of that computed from the specified time
Spectrum history.
Tolerances For Vibration Components
±3 dB of the specified value measured at the reference
Power Spectral Density
point.
Better than 10%, (which is equivalent to a
Statistical Random
bandwidth/sampling time product (BT) of 60, or
Sampling Error
equivalent to 120 degrees of freedom).
Root Mean Square ±10% of the specified value, measured at the reference
(RMS) point over the test frequency range.
Shall be not greater than 20% of the half power point
related to the structural resonances or the narrowest
Analyser Frequency narrowband component and not shall exceed 5 Hz.
Bandwidth That is the narrowest resonance should be defined by
a minimum of 5 spectral lines between the half power
points.

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
Out Of Test Frequency

Less than 20%
Range Responses
The spectral slope below the lowest test frequency
The “roll-on” slope
shall not be less than +6 dB/octave.
The spectral slope above the highest test frequency
The “roll-off” slope.
shall be greater than -24 dB/octave.
The distribution of instantaneous values of the applied
random vibration should be nominally Gaussian and
shall contain all occurrences up to 2.7 standard
deviations, while occurrences greater than 3 standard
Amplitude Distribution:
deviations should be kept to a minimum. (For high
kurtosis tests the standard amplitude distribution
requirements should be replaced with the specific
kurtosis or distribution requirements.)
Within 20% from the specified waveform amplitude for
Vibration Waveform
at least 90% of the time history.
Amplitude Probability Within 20% of those computed from the specified time
Density history
Instantaneous Peak
Within 10% of specified values
Levels
Root mean square Within 1% of those computed from the specified time
(RMS) history
Cycle And Level Within 10% of those computed from the specified time
Crossing Counts. history
Maximum Response Within 20% of those computed from the specified time
Spectra. history
Amplitude Domain
Within a 10% of the specified waveform amplitude.
Comparison
4.4. TEST INTERRUPTIONS
For the purpose of standardization and valid testing, and unless otherwise specified in
the individual methods, apply the following procedures when a dynamic test is
interrupted. Explain test interruptions in the test report, and any deviation from the
following information. Due to the nature of testing, any observation that may indicate
a safety issue should be immediately addressed.
a. In-Tolerance Interruptions. Interruption periods during which the

prescribed mechanical test conditions are verified to be in tolerance prior
to the stoppage of test (e.g., power interruptions that do not negatively

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
affect the test article) do not constitute a test interruption. Therefore,

unless there is an alternative procedure in the Environmental Test
Specification, the testing should resume from the point it was stopped.
However, if temperature conditioning is interrupted during the mechanical
test, preconditioning and stabilization as defined in paragraph 2.6 is
required before recommencing the test.
b. Out-of-Tolerance Interruptions. A logic diagram for this condition is in

Figure 1.
(1) Undertest. If test condition tolerances fall below the minimum

tolerance value (i.e., environmental stress less severe than
specified) resulting in an undertest condition, the test may be
resumed (after reestablishing prescribed conditions, except as
noted in the individual methods) from the point at which the test
condition fell below the lower tolerance level. Extend the test to
achieve the prescribed test cycle duration.
(2) Overtest. If an overtest condition occurs, the preferable course of

action is to stop the test and start over with a new test item. If it
can be shown that the overtest condition had no detectable effect
on the test item, continue the test. Overtest conditions can
damage the test item and cause subsequent failures that may not
have occurred otherwise, thus failing a test item because of an
invalid test. However, if damage resulting directly from an overtest
occurs to a test item component that has absolutely no impact on
the data being collected, and it is known that such damage is the
only damage caused by the overtest (e.g., rubber feet on bottom
of a test item melted by high temperature where those feet have
no impact on the performance of the test item), the test item can
be repaired and the test resumed and extended as in the undertest
condition. Test conductors should coordinate with the customer
before repairing and continuing to test an item after it has been
overtested. This coordination is aimed at preventing customer
objections if the test item fails during the remainder of the test
program (claims that the test was invalid past the point of the
overtest because the overtest caused undiscovered damage to a
critical component).
c. Interruption Due to Test Item Operation Failure. Each Method

contains information for handling interruptions due to test item failure.
Analyze any such interruption carefully. The failure of the item may be
due to cumulative stress of several sequential test and not just the final
test where the item failed.

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
d. Scheduled Interruptions. There may be situations in which test

interruptions are necessary. This may be to conduct maintenance to the
test item or perform an inspection. Such interruptions must be scheduled
prior to the start of test so as to minimize the disruption to the test. These
interruptions cannot be allowed to affect the result of the test.
Additionally, they should not be so frequent that the test conditions
cannot stabilize between interruptions. All scheduled interruptions
should be documented prior to the start of testing. The rationale for any
deviation or unscheduled interruption shall be documented as they occur.

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
Figure 1: Interrupted Test Cycle Logic

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
CHAPTER 5 EVALUATION OF THE TEST RESULTS
5.1. VERIFICATION
Verification that the required test severities have been achieved, within the specified
tolerance bands, shall be undertaken. The verification shall provide;
a. Information, for each of the parameters and waveform features, specified

in the Environmental Test Instruction shall be measured and reported.
b. For long duration tests, verification should be undertaken at the

beginning, middle and end of the test. For short duration tests the entire
record length should be used.
c. Measurements made for verification purposes shall use an

instrumentation chain capable of measurement over the frequency
range, from half the lowest test frequency, up to at least twice the highest
test frequency.
d. The instrumentation error, cross-axis motions at all control points and test
duration / waveform sequence, shall be measured and reported.
e. Photographic evidence of the test set up and the measurement and

control instrumentation and locations shall be reported.
f. A record shall be taken of the temperature and humidity of the air at

sufficient points to characterise the variability within the working space of
the chamber. The temperature and humidity shall be recorded at suitable
intervals not less than 10 minutes or 100th of the overall period and any
required preconditioning, whichever is the smaller.
g. The format used in the presentation of the verification process results,

shall be the same as that used in the Environmental Test Instruction. The
verification data should be presented in an agreed digital format.
5.2. PHYSICS OF FAILURE
Analyses of failures must relate the failure mechanism to the dynamics of the failed
item and to the dynamic environment. It is insufficient to determine that something
broke due to high cycle fatigue or wear. It is necessary to relate the failure to the
dynamic response of the materiel to the dynamic environment. The scope and detail
of analysis should be coordinated with and approved by the appropriate test authority.
It is recommended to include in the failure analysis a determination of resonant mode
shapes, frequencies, damping values, and dynamic strain distributions, in addition to

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
the usual material properties, crack initiation locations, etc. AECTP 600, Leaflet 604
provides additional guidance on Physics of Failure techniques.

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
6.1. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
a. DEF STAN 00-035, Part 3, Chapter 1-03, Environmental Handbook for

Defence Materiel, Environmental Testing, General Environmental Test
Conditions and Tolerances.
b. DEF STAN 00-035, Part 3, Chapter 1-04, Environmental Handbook for

Defence Materiel, Environmental Testing, Test Apparatus/Jigs/Fixtures
and Test Control.
c. MIL-STD-810, Environmental Engineering Considerations and

Laboratory Tests, Laboratory Tests.
d. IEC 60068-3-11. Environmental testing - Part 3-11: Supporting

documentation and guidance - Calculation of uncertainty of conditions in
climatic test chambers.
e. IEC 60068-2-47 Environmental testing – Part 2-47: Tests – Mounting of

specimens for vibration, impact and similar dynamic tests
6.2. RELATED DOCUMENTS
None.

AECTP-400
METHOD 400
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
METHOD 401
VIBRATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-1
2.2. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.3. EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................ 2-1
2.4. CHOICE OF TEST PROCEDURE ............................................................ 2-2
CHAPTER 3 TEST SEVERITIES ............................................................................ 3-1
CHAPTER 4 INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN THE TEST
INSTRUCTION ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.2. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-2
4.3. TEST FACILITY ........................................................................................ 4-2
5.1.1. Precursor Testing and Dynamic Characterization Investigations ....... 5-1
5.1.2. Temperature Conditioning and Stabilization ....................................... 5-2
5.3. PROCEDURE ........................................................................................... 5-3
5.4. TOLERANCES.......................................................................................... 5-5
5.5. CONTROLS .............................................................................................. 5-8
5.5.1. Control Strategies............................................................................... 5-8
5.5.2. Fixing, Monitor, Control and Reference Points ................................. 5-10
5.5.3. Control Equalisation ........................................................................ 5-10
5.5.4. Cross-Axis Motion, Signal Distortion and Out of Test
Frequency Range Responses .......................................................... 5-11
5.6. TEST INTERRUPTIONS ........................................................................ 5-11
6.1. VERIFICATION ......................................................................................... 6-1
6.2. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION .............................................................. 6-2
7.1. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS .................................................................... 7-1
TABLES
1. Test Tolerances ........................................................................................ 5-6
ANNEX A DEFAULT VIBRATION SEVERITIES................................................. A-1
A.1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... A-1
A.2. TRANSPORTATION AND HANDLING OF MATERIEL ............................ A-2
A.2.1. General ..................................................................................................... A-2
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
CONTENTS – Continued
A.2.2. Transportation by Wheeled Vehicles on Improved Roads ........................ A-2

A.2.3. Transportation by Rail ............................................................................... A-2
A.2.4. Transportation by Sea............................................................................... A-3
A.2.5. Transportation by Fixed Wing Jet Aircraft ................................................. A-3
A.2.6. Transportation by Fixed Wing Propeller Aircraft ....................................... A-3
A.2.7. Transportation by Helicopter – Internal and Underslung ........................... A-3
A.2.8. Handling.................................................................................................... A-5
A.3. MATERIEL TRANSPORTED OR DEPLOYED IN WHEELED
VEHICLES ON UNIMPROVED ROADS ................................................... A-5
A.4. MATERIEL DEPLOYED OR INSTALLED IN TRACKED VEHICLES ....... A-6
A.5. MATERIEL DEPLOYED OR INSTALLED IN SURFACE SHIPS
AND SUBMARINES.................................................................................. A-7
A.6. MATERIEL DEPLOYED OR INSTALLED IN AIRCRAFT (FIXED
WING AND HELICOPTER) ...................................................................... A-8
A.7. MATERIEL CARRIED EXTERNALLY ON JET AIRCRAFT ...................... A-8
A.7.1. General ..................................................................................................... A-8
A.7.2. Materiel Carried Externally on Jet Aircraft – Normal Flight ....................... A-8
A.7.3. Materiel Carried Externally on Jet Aircraft – Buffet ................................... A-9
A.8. MATERIEL CARRIED EXTERNALLY ON PROPELLER
AIRCRAFT .............................................................................................. A-10
A.9. MATERIEL CARRIED EXTERNALLY ON HELICOPTERS .................... A-10
A.10. MISSILE FLIGHT .................................................................................... A-10
ANNEX A FIGURES
A-1. Common Carrier Vertical Axis ................................................................. A-11
A-2. Common Carrier Lateral Axis .................................................................. A-12
A-3. Common Carrier Longitudinal Axis ......................................................... A-13
A-4. Common Carrier - Combined Test Applicable to All Axes ....................... A-14
A-5. Materiel Transported by Rail ................................................................... A-15
A-6. Materiel Transported by Sea ................................................................... A-16
A-7. Materiel Transported in Fixed Wing Jet Aircraft – Cruise ........................ A-17
A-8. Materiel Transported in Fixed Wing Jet Aircraft – Takeoff ...................... A-18
A-9. Materiel Transported in 6 Bladed C130 Propeller Aircraft (Vertical)........ A-19
A-10. Test Severity for Materiel Transported in 6 Bladed C130 Propeller
Aircraft (Lateral & Longitudinal) .............................................................. A-20
A-11. Materiel Transported in 4 Bladed C130 Propeller Aircraft (Vertical)........ A-21
A-12. Materiel Transported in 4 Bladed C130 Propeller Aircraft
(Lateral & Longitudinal) ........................................................................... A-22
A-13. Test Severity for Materiel Transported in A400M (Vertical) .................... A-23
A-14. Test Severity for Materiel Transported in A400M (Lateral) ..................... A-24
A-15. Test Severity for Materiel Transported in A400M (Longitudinal) ............. A-25
A-16. Test Severity for Materiel Transported in A400M (Transverse) .............. A-26
A-17. Materiel Transported in Chinook Helicopter ............................................ A-27
A-18. Materiel Transported in Merlin Helicopter ............................................... A-28
A-19. Materiel Transported in Lynx / Wildcat Helicopter ................................... A-29
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
CONTENTS - Continued
A-20. Helicopter Transport ............................................................................... A-30

A-21. Helicopter Underslung Loads .................................................................. A-31
A-22. Materiel Transported as Restrained Cargo or Deployed
in Wheeled Vehicles Off-Road & Degraded Road .................................. A-32
A-23. Composite Wheeled Vehicle ................................................................... A-33
A-24. Two Wheeled Trailers ............................................................................. A-34
A-25. Two Wheeled Trailers - Combined Test Applicable to All Axes .............. A-35
A-26. Materiel Transported as Secured Cargo in Tracked Vehicles
(Low Speed Portion) ............................................................................... A-36
A-27. Materiel Transported as Secured Cargo in Tracked Vehicles
(High Speed Portion) .............................................................................. A-37
A-28. Materiel Deployed in Turret Bustle Rack or Installed in
Turret of Tracked Vehicles (Low Speed Portion) .................................... A-38
A-29. Materiel Deployed in Turret Bustle Rack or Installed in
Turret of Tracked Vehicles (High Speed Portion) ................................... A-39
A-30. Materiel Deployed on the Sponson or Installed in Hull of
Heavy Tracked Vehicles (Low Speed Portion) ........................................ A-40
A-31. Materiel Deployed on the Sponson or Installed in Hull of Heavy
Tracked Vehicles (High Speed Portion) .................................................. A-41
Light Tracked Vehicles (Low Speed Portion) .......................................... A-42
Light Tracked Vehicles (High Speed Portion) ......................................... A-43
A-34. Materiel Deployed in Ships of Mine Sweeper Size and
Above, for Masthead Locations............................................................... A-44
A-35. Materiel Deployed in Ships of Mine Sweeper Size and Above,
for Upper Deck, Protected Compartments and Hull Locations ................ A-45
A-36. Materiel Deployed in Ships Smaller than Mine Sweepers,
for Aft Locations ...................................................................................... A-46
A-37. Materiel Deployed in Ships Smaller than Mine Sweepers, for
Masthead, Upper Deck, Protected Compartments and
Hull Locations ......................................................................................... A-47
A-38. Materiel Deployed in Submarines, for All Locations ................................ A-48
A-39. Materiel Carried Externally on Low and Medium Performance
Jet Aircraft ............................................................................................... A-49
A-40. Buffet for Wing Mounted Low Aspect Ratio Materiel ............................... A-50
A-41. Buffet for Fuselage Mounted Low Aspect Ratio Materiel ........................ A-51
A-42. Buffet for Wing Mounted High Aspect Ratio Materiel .............................. A-52
A-43. Buffet for Fuselage Mounted High Aspect Ratio Materiel ....................... A-53
A-44. Materiel Carried Externally on Propeller Aircraft ..................................... A-54
ANNEX A TABLES
A-1. Main and Tail Rotor / Blade Parameters for Various Helicopters .............. A-4
A-2. Applicable Severities for Tracked Vehicles ............................................... A-6

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
A-3. Historic Test Severities for Equipment Installed In Surface Ships and
Submarines ............................................................................................... A-7
A-4. Applicable Severities for Buffet Conditions ............................................... A-9
ANNEX B VERIFICATION INFORMATION FOR DIFFERENT VIBRATION
TEST TYPES ............................................................................................ B-1
B.1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... B-1
B.2. FIXED FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATION ..................................... B-1
B.3. SWEPT FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATION ................................... B-1
B.4. SINUSOIDAL STEP FREQUENCY .......................................................... B-2
B.5. BROADBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ...................................................... B-2
B.6. FIXED NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ....................................... B-2
B.7. SWEPT NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ..................................... B-3
B.8. FIXED FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATIONS ON BROADBAND
RANDOM VIBRATION.............................................................................. B-3
B.9. SWEPT FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATION ON BROADBAND
RANDOM VIBRATION.............................................................................. B-4
B.10. FIXED FREQUENCY NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ON
BROADBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ...................................................... B-4
B.11. SWEPT FREQUENCY NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ON
BROADBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ...................................................... B-5
ANNEX C INFORMATION TO BE DOCUMENTED WHENEVER VIBRATION
TEST REQUIREMENTS CANNOT BE ACHIEVED ..................................C-1
C.1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................C-1
C.2. HISTORICAL ALTERNATIVE TOLERANCES ..........................................C-1
C.3. FIXED FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATION .....................................C-2
C.4. SWEPT FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATION ...................................C-2
C.5. SINUSOIDAL STEP FREQUENCY ..........................................................C-3
C.6. BROADBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ......................................................C-3
C.7. NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ..................................................C-3
C.8. SWEPT NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION .....................................C-4
C.9. FIXED FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATIONS ON BROADBAND
RANDOM VIBRATION..............................................................................C-4
C.10. SWEPT FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATION ON BROADBAND
RANDOM VIBRATION..............................................................................C-5
C.11. FIXED FREQUENCY NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ON
BROADBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ......................................................C-5
C.12. SWEPT FREQUENCY NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ON
BROADBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ......................................................C-6
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this method is to determine the effects on materiel of the vibration
environments that could arise during its service life. This test method is designed to
have general applicability. It encompasses basic random and sinusoidal vibration
excitations, together with more complicated composite forms of vibration. This method
accommodates strategies for both controlled input and controlled response testing.
1.2. APPLICATION
This method is applicable where materiel is required to demonstrate its adequacy to

resist the specified vibration conditions without unacceptable degradation of functional
or structural performance.
1.3. LIMITATIONS
1. This general vibration test method can be adapted to most applications,

however, a number of special purpose test methods are also available. For multi-
exciter vibration testing a more applicable procedure is Method 421 “Multi-Exciter
Vibration and Shock Testing”. For vibration testing using distributed acoustic
excitations the applicable test methods are Method 402 “Acoustic Noise” and
Method 413 “Acoustic Noise Combined with Temperature and Vibration”. Where it is
required to replicate a particular vibration time history or waveform, the applicable
procedure is that of Method 423 “Time Waveform Replication”. For unrestrained
materiel Method 406 “Loose Cargo” should be considered.
2. This test method is intended to be used in-conjunction, with the guidance of

AECTP 240 Leaflet 2411/1 “Test Apparatus / Jigs / Fixtures and Test Control”. That
leaflet provides specific guidance on the use of test fixtures for vibration and shock
testing and the application of appropriate vibration and shock test control strategies
and associated principles of verification.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
This method contains generic severities intended to simulate many in-Service

conditions and may be used in those cases where a precise simulation is unnecessary
and where a degree of over-testing can be tolerated. The severities and other
parameters for this test method should be based on the purpose for which it is being
conducted and on the conditions the materiel is likely to experience in-Service. Ideally
test severities should be based on measured data derived from in-Service conditions
and usage. Procedures for deriving test severities from measured data derived from
in-Service conditions and usage are set out in AECTP 240 Leaflet 2410.
2.2. SEQUENCE
1. The sequence of tests should normally reflect the sequence of environments

that the materiel is expected to experience during its life cycle. However, practical
limitations such as time, scheduling and resources may require modification to this
approach. If there is any doubt regarding the appropriate order for testing, then
vibration testing should be undertaken before the climatic tests relating to the same
phase of the life cycle.
2. The effects of vibration may affect performance when materiel is tested under
other environmental conditions, such as temperature, humidity, pressure,
electromagnetism, etc. So it is essential that materiel which is likely to be sensitive to
a combination of environments is tested to the relevant combinations simultaneously.
However, where it is considered that a combined test is not essential, or if it is
impractical to conduct a combined test, and where there is a requirement to evaluate
the effects of vibration together with other environments, the test item should be
exposed to all relevant environmental conditions in turn.
Vibration has the potential to induce a variety of physical effects on materiel. Vibration
can initiate damage which may be exacerbated by the subsequent application of other
environmental conditions. Conversely, vibration may exacerbate damage initiated by
previously applied environmental conditions. Some of these effects can only be
observed after a sufficient lapse of time. Typical effects of vibration include:
a. Wire chafing.
b. Loosening of fasteners.
c. Intermittent electrical contacts.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
d. Mutual contact and short circuiting of electrical components.
e. Seal deformation.
f. Structural and component fatigue.
g. Optical misalignment.
h. Cracking and rupturing.
i. Loosening of particles or parts that may become lodged in circuits or

mechanisms.
j. Excessive electrical noise.
2.4. CHOICE OF TEST PROCEDURE
1. This method contains only one test procedure which is set out in paragraph 5.1,
however, it encompasses a range of commonly used vibration excitation types
including: sinusoidal tests such as fixed frequency, swept frequency and step
frequency; basic random vibration tests such as: broadband, fixed narrowband and
swept narrowband; as well as so called composite test types. In the composite test
types, fixed frequency or swept sinusoidal or random narrowbands are typically
superimposed on a background of broadband random vibration.
2. Other procedures relating to the use of multi-axis and multi-shaker systems are
presented in Method 421 “Multi-Exciter Vibration and Shock Testing”. The use of multi-
axis or multi-exciter systems can have benefits, especially when testing large
structures and particularly for munitions and missiles intended for use on high
performance jet aircraft. In these cases the intent is to reproduce vibrations arising
from distributed excitations occurring over the entire surface of the store. Using
multiple excitation generators has the potential to produce a more realistic distribution
of vibration responses within the munitions, than could be achieved from a single
source.
3. Method 421 addresses scenarios in which the test item size requires use of
more than one exciter, or test fidelity requires more than one mechanical degree-of-
freedom. In general, if a test facility has the capability to address more than one
mechanical degree-of-freedom and if such testing can be conducted in a time and cost
effective manner, multiple axis testing should be considered as a test option. If the
default curves provided within various categories of Method 401 are used as reference
curves in a multiple-axis test, it should be recognized that Cross Spectral Density
(CSD) terms will be undefined. Method 421 recommends that the coherence terms be
near zero. Some reduction in levels (e.g., lower conservatism factors) may be justified
if it can be shown that the multiple degree-of-freedom (MDOF) test produces
significantly higher stress levels or lower fatigue life than the sequential single degree-
of-freedom (SDOF) tests.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
4. Specific procedures relating to the replication of particular time histories or

waveforms are presented in Method 423 “Time Waveform Replication”. That method
is applicable where it is necessary to reproduce specific aspects of the in-Service time
waveform. This may be necessary because the waveforms are more complex than
those that can be accommodated by this method. This may be the case when the
waveform is non-stationary, is not Gaussian, or comprises a mixture of vibration and
shocks. The time waveform replication test method may also be used when specific
aspects of the waveform need to be more closely controlled than is possible by this
method (i.e., when the phase relationship between components is important).
5. Random vibration testing has traditionally used a nominally Gaussian

distribution of amplitudes, but with the peak amplitudes truncated to around three
standard deviations. In recent years several different techniques have become
commercially available which allow the required Power Spectral Density to be
achieved, but with a waveform distribution modified to permit higher amplitudes to
occur with a greater probability. This commonly results in a distribution with a 4th
moment of statistics (Kurtosis), which is greater than that of a normal or Gaussian
distribution, hence this approach is sometimes referred to as high Kurtosis or non-
Gaussian vibration testing.
6. The general purpose vibration test procedure set out in this method can
accommodate non-Gaussian vibration testing provided the appropriate additional
Kurtosis parameters are set out in the Environmental Test Specification. These
parameters include, but are not limited to:
a. The type of non-Gaussian testing to be undertaken (see below), this will

be dependent on the controller software being used;
b. The required Kurtosis (or probability distribution);
c. The required Skewness;
d. The required Crest Factor;
e. The required root mean square over the test frequency range.
The Environmental Test Specification should also clearly state the objectives of the
test and the justification for using a high Kurtosis test. Non-Gaussian random vibration
testing requires a vibration controller, amplifier and shaker system suitable for
Gaussian random vibration, but with increased Crest Factor capabilities. With some
commercially available techniques it may also be possible to use a waveform with a
non-zero Skewness, or with a Kurtosis of less than that of a Gaussian distribution.
7. There are several commercially available techniques that can be used to modify
a Gaussian waveform into a non-Gaussian one. Three of the most common basic
techniques are:

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
a. the amplitude modulation technique;
b. the phase modification technique;
c. the non-uniform phase technique.
It should be noted that the different techniques produce distinctly different waveforms.
Simply specifying the spectrum, Skewness, and Kurtosis does not result in a waveform
with unique characteristics. For this reason the techniques are not necessarily
interchangeable and may cause different failures, even if the test severity is nominally
identical. In addition, the normal Miner’s Law based test time compression techniques
are no longer applicable. Therefore, care is needed when undertaking high Kurtosis
testing to ensure that the parameters used and the test achieved meet the requirement,
without excessive over or under-test. It is also essential to record, analyse and verify
the waveform characteristics against the original requirement.
8. Although, the vast majority of vibration test requirements are specified using
acceleration as the control parameter, this is not an essential pre-requisite of the
procedure of this method. Vibration test requirements may use acceleration, velocity,
displacement or force as control parameters. Force is the most usual alternative
parameter to acceleration for vibration test control. In such cases force transducers
are located between the exciter/fixture and the test item. Excitation control is then
controlled based upon the feedback from those transducers, in the same way as for
acceleration. Force control may be used to more realistically replicate in-Service
dynamic interaction between the materiel and the carriage platform. It may also be
used to prevent over-test or under-test of materiel, especially at the lower frequency
structural response modes.
9. Electro-dynamic and servo-hydraulic vibration excitation equipment can today

accommodate quite large and heavy materiel. However, the use of alternative
approaches such as test tracks for land vehicles, may need to be considered for very
large or heavy materiel. Moreover, such approaches may be essential where the
materiel dynamically interacts with the platform.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
CHAPTER 3 TEST SEVERITIES
The severities and other parameters for this test should be based on the conditions
and usage profiles that the equipment is likely to experience in-Service. Ideally test
severities should be derived from measured data. Procedures for deriving test
severities from measured data are set out in AECTP 200 Leaflet 2410. Generic
severities to simulate many in-Service conditions are set out in Annex A. These
severities should be used in those cases where a precise simulation is unnecessary
and where a degree of over-testing can be tolerated.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 401

INSTRUCTION
4.1. COMPULSORY
The Environmental Test Specification shall state:
a. The identification of the test item;
b. The designation/nomenclature of the test item;
c. The type of test (development, qualification, etc.);
d. Whether the test is a demonstration of performance or survival or both;
e. The definition of the test severity;
f. The method of mounting the test item and any necessary cables, pipes,
etc. together with the axes and senses along which the vibration is to be
applied;
g. Whether gravitational effects are to be considered;
h. Whether the test item is to be tested with or without isolating mounts

fitted, where applicable;
i. The precursor test strategy and requirements including the parameters

to be established and test verification criteria to be adopted;
j. The type of vibration test, the vibration test severities, the axis, sense and
order in which the vibration is to be applied as well as the test duration
including rest periods where applicable;
k. The temperature and humidity conditions, and if applicable, the thermal

test cycles under which the test is to be conducted, if other than Standard
Laboratory Conditions, and the associated pre-conditioning time;
l. The control strategy to be adopted including the reference, control and

monitoring points, or the procedure for their selection;
m. The minimum frequency resolutions to be used for control, monitoring

and verification purposes;
n. The maximum permissible variation between responses measured at the

control points and the action to be taken if these limits are exceeded
(applicable only to multi-point control);

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
o. Whether cross-axis motion is important, and if so the acceptable limits for

this motion and the action to be taken if the limits are exceeded;
p. If functional performance is to be assessed, the phases of the test when

the test item is to operate and be assessed, and the levels of
performance required;
q. Whether any visual or other examinations are required, and if so at what

phases of the test they are to be conducted;
r. Whether any pre-test and post-test dynamic characterisation is required,

the approach to be used and a suitable procedure;
4.2. IF REQUIRED
a. If the influence of stray magnetic fields is important, the acceptable limits

and the action to be taken if these limits are exceeded;
b. If internal heating can occur as a result of the vibration test and is of

concern, the acceptable limits and the action to be taken if these limits
are exceeded;
c. The tolerances to be applied if different from those in paragraph 5.4;
d. Any additional parameters to be recorded, data to be collected and

method of analysis;
e. Any additional test verification criteria to be adopted;
f. Any permitted deviations from the test procedure.
4.3. TEST FACILITY
The use of any vibration inducing equipment capable of satisfying the test requirements
stated in this method is acceptable. The capability of the vibration test equipment and
control system to conduct the test, as specified in the Environmental Test Specification,
should be verified prior to undertaking the test.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
5.1.1. Precursor Testing and Dynamic Characterization Investigations
1. Precursor testing of either: a dynamically representative example of the

materiel; an additional test item; or the test item itself; provides confidence that testing
of the test item can be performed within the test requirements. Precursor testing should
be considered to be an integral part of the test procedure especially when testing large
complex materiel, or when using either the controlled response or the multi-point
control strategy.
2. Precursor testing is commonly used to: evaluate test fixtures; establish that
testing is viable at full severity levels over the required temperature range; confirm or
identify the appropriate control strategy; and verify, if applicable, that testing does not
result in excessive over or under-testing of any part of the materiel. Precursor testing
can also be used to verify that: cross-axis motions are within the required tolerance;
the required signal tolerance or out of range frequency responses requirements can
be achieved; and to establish that the correct amplitude distribution is applied.
3. Precursor testing using dynamically representative and inert versions of the

materiel is usually necessary when testing systems containing energetic materials. In
some instances it may be necessary to confirm the results of the precursor test using
the actual (live) test item. Time spent in this activity whilst at full level, may with the
agreement of the Test Specifier, be considered as fulfilling part of the required test
duration.
4. Pre and post-test dynamic characterisation investigations may be required by

the Environmental Test Specification. Such characterisation investigations may use
resonance tests or modal testing. Dynamic characterisation investigations can be
applied before and after the vibration test to identify any changes in the frequency or
damping characteristics that may have occurred. A change in frequency or damping
can indicate that some form of test item structural degradation has occurred. Any
arrangements made to detect changes in the frequency or damping characteristics
should not substantially change the dynamic behaviour of the test item as a whole. It
should also be remembered that, in the case of a non-linear resonance, a test item
may respond differently to the sweep direction. Critical frequencies should be
determined on the upward and downward part of the sweep cycle. When prescribing
dynamic characterisation investigations, the Environmental Test Specification should
state the method and procedure to be used. It may also, if appropriate, state the
actions to be taken during and following the test, if changes in frequency or damping
are detected.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
5.1.2. Temperature Conditioning and Stabilization
1. If required by the Environmental Test Specification, the test item should be pre-
conditioned to specified temperature and humidity conditions. Sufficient time should
be allowed before the start of the test to allow the test item to stabilise at the required
initial temperature. Advice on pre-conditioning and temperature stabilisation is given
in Method 300.
2. High temperature conditioning / testing may accelerate the chemical ageing of

certain materials and can have detrimental effects. In such cases it may be necessary
to introduce rest periods, or to use a variable temperature test cycle rather than a fixed
test temperature. The characteristics of some elastomeric mounts may also be
significantly modified by thermal effects induced by vibration testing. If such heating is
unrealistic of Service conditions it may be necessary to rest the test item at appropriate
intervals. This can be a particular issue for materiel containing energetic materials
tested at temperature extremes. Moreover, those conditions may be further
exacerbated by the heat generated during vibration testing. Specifically, energetic
materials can become unstable and unsafe if subject to elevated temperatures for
durations which can occur during a sequential environmental test programme. Such
degradation is cumulative and it is therefore necessary to review the entire test
sequence to determine whether the sequence, including any temperature conditioning
and storage, could result in an unacceptable hazard. As a minimum this will require
an assessment of explosive material stability with respect to extreme temperature
exposure durations. It might be necessary to divide the overall test time (shock and
vibration in particular) into smaller portions to prevent heat build-up within the weapon
and subsequent unintended energetic reaction. It is essential and mandatory to have
a log for each weapon indicating the amount of time that has been spent at extreme
temperature for the entire test sequence, including all periods of temperature
conditioning.
1. The test item shall be mechanically connected to the exciters and fixtures in the
required orientation and state, as specified in the Environmental Test Specification.
Unless specified otherwise the test item should be mechanically connected to the
vibrator or to an appropriate fixture, by its normal means of attachment (including
vibration isolators and fastener torque, if appropriate). The test item installation shall
include any connections necessary for power supplies, test signals, performance
monitoring and any monitoring instrumentation required to establish the responses
from the test item.
2. When the excitation does not originate through the attachment points, then
alternative methods of connection to the vibrator may need to be adopted. Specific
advice on test item mounting and test fixtures for vibration and shock testing is given
in AECTP 240 Leaflet 2411/1. Advice is also available in IEC 60068-2-47.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
3. Unless otherwise specified, testing should be accomplished in three mutually

perpendicular axes in turn. The fixing points of the test item should move, as far as
practicable, in phase and in straight parallel lines with the line of motion. It may be
necessary to use different test fixtures for each test axis.
4. Any connections to the test item, such as cables, pipes, wires, should be
arranged so that they impose similar dynamic restraint and mass, to that when the
materiel is installed in its operational position. The use of any additional stays or straps
should be avoided.
5. Where gravitational force is important, or when the effect of gravity is in doubt,

the test item should be mounted so that the gravitational force acts in the same
direction as it would in normal use. Where gravitational force is not important, the test
item may be mounted in any attitude, consistent with other requirements.
6. Test items intended for use with vibration isolation systems should be tested
with isolators in position. This is because it is difficult to accurately reproduce the
dynamic response behaviour of isolators, which may be significantly affected by
temperature. If it is not practical to carry out the vibration test with the appropriate
isolators in place, the test should be performed without isolators at a modified severity
derived from measurement of the isolator dynamic response characteristics.
5.3. PROCEDURE
Step 1 Make all necessary connections of power supply and signal lines
required for operation and assessment of the performance of the
test item. Install and check any thermal and vibration
instrumentation that is required by the Environmental Test
Specification.
Step 2 Undertake any precursor testing as stipulated in the

Environmental Test Specification. Precursor testing should
include: verification of the adequacy of the control strategy;
establishing the amount of cross-axis motion; establishing Signal
Distortion or Out of Test Frequency Range Responses.
Step 3 Any pre-test dynamic characterisation stipulated in the

Environmental Test Specification shall be undertaken and
recorded in accordance with the stated procedure.
Step 4 A pre-test functional or performance test shall be performed as

specified in the Environmental Test Specification, to provide
baseline data.
Step 5 The temperature chamber shall be adjusted to provide any

temperature pre-conditioning requirements specified in the

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
Environmental Test Specification. Guidance on pre-conditioning

and test stabilisation is supplied in paragraph 5.2.2 and in Method
300.
Step 6 The vibration control equipment shall be adjusted to achieve the

desired equalisation up to -6 dB of the specified RMS level.
Unless specified in the Environmental Test Specification the
equalisation process of paragraph 5.5.3 shall be used. The time
required to achieve equalisation shall not be subtracted from the
test time.
Step 7 The vibration conditions shall be increased to the specified test

level. The finite time required to increase the vibration severity to
the specified test level, shall be the minimum possible and shall
not exceed 10% of the test duration. This time shall be recorded
and shall not be subtracted from the test time.
Step 8 The required vibration and thermal test cycles shall be applied to
the test item for the number of test cycles specified.
Step 9 Functional or performance testing shall be performed at intervals

during the testing, as specified in the Environmental Test
Specification.
Step 10 If continuous vibration testing could cause unrealistic heating of

the test item or isolators, the vibration excitation may be
interrupted by periods of rest of a duration specified in the
Environmental Test Specification.
Step 11 The test procedure shall be repeated, applying vibrations along

each specified axis in turn. When the test programme requires
the application of different types of vibration, or a number of
different amplitude levels, durations, or rigging conditions, it may
be allowable, with the agreement of the Test Specifier, to complete
the sequence of tests in one axis prior to changing to another axis,
but only within one phase of the life cycle.
Step 12 At the completion of the test the chamber shall be allowed to return
to the Standard Laboratory Conditions, at a rate no greater than
3 °C per minute.
Step 13 Perform any post-test functional or performance testing specified

in the Environmental Test Specification. Any post-test test item
dynamic characterisation stipulated shall be undertaken and
recorded in accordance with the stated procedure.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
Step 14 The test item shall be examined for detrimental effects, as

required by the Environmental Test Specification.
5.4. TOLERANCES
1. The measured reference vibration responses shall not deviate from the specified
requirements by more than the test tolerances quoted in Table 1, unless stated
otherwise in the Environmental Test Specification. The test tolerances of Table 1 are
applicable whether using controlled input or controlled response testing. The test
tolerances shall not be used to modify the specified requirements.
2. For some materiel and test arrangements, the test tolerances of Table 1 may
not be practicable. In such cases, with the agreement of the Test Specifier, the historic
alternative tolerances of Annex C may be adopted. Whenever, the test requirements
cannot be met, the reasons for failing to achieve the requirements shall be stated in
the Environmental Test Report, along with the addition information set out in Annex C,
for the applicable test type.
3. Unless stated otherwise all materiel shall be vibration tested in all three principal
axes. Where the materiel axis system is unknown relative to the vehicle or platform,
then the envelope of the vibration profiles should be used in all three principal axes.
4. Unless otherwise specified in the Environmental Test Specification, the

tolerances on all severities including duration should be as set out in this method. Any
deviation from the specified tolerances shall be agreed with the Test Specifier and the
actual tolerances achieved, and reason for the deviation shall be stated in the
Environmental Test Report.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
Table 1: Test Tolerances
Test Tolerances
(unless specified otherwise in the Environmental Test Specification)
Specific Tolerances For All Random Vibration Tests (including the broadband
component of mixed random and sinusoidal vibration tests and the fixed and swept narrowband
components of mixed broadband and narrowband random vibration tests)
Number (n) of independent n > 120
statistical degrees of
freedom (DOF) for control
of the specified ASD.
Composite Control: ± 3 dB below 500 Hz
Maximum deviation of the ± 6 dB above 500 Hz
composite control ASD in ± 10% overall grms
relation to the specified
ASD.1
Multi-point Control: Average Control Extremal Control
Maximum deviation of any ± 6 dB below 500 Hz - 6 dB / + 3 dB below 500 Hz
individual control channel ± 9 dB above 500 Hz - 9 dB / + 6 dB above 500 Hz
ASD in relation to the ± 25% overall grms ± 25% overall grms
specified ASD.2
Cross-axis Motion: ASD Less than -3 dB below 500 Hz
measured with the same Less than 0 dB (full level) above 500 Hz
number of DOF as in the Less than the relevant specified ASD for the given
test axis, along the cross-axis.
mutually orthogonal
directions, in relation to the
in-axis specified ASD.
Frequency sweep rate ± 10% of stated rate
Test time duration ± 5% of stated duration
Amplitude distribution of Nominally Gaussian (Refer to paragraph 2.4 for
the instantaneous values amplitude distribution discussion.)
of the random vibration
measured at the drive
signal.
Specific Tolerances For All Sinusoidal Tests (including fixed, swept and stepped sine
tests as well as the fixed and swept sinusoidal components of mixed random and sinusoidal tests)
Frequency ± 0.1 %
Composite Control: ± 10%
Maximum deviation of the
composite control1 tone
level(s) in relation to the
specified tone level(s).

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
Multi-point Control: Average Control Maxi Control

Maximum deviation of the ± 25% below 500 Hz + 10% / - 25% below 500 Hz
individual control channel ± 50% above 500 Hz + 10% / - 50% above 500 Hz
tone levels in relation to
the specified tone level(s).2
Cross-axis Motion: Tone Less than 50% below 500 Hz
levels measured along the Less than 100% above 500 Hz
mutually orthogonal Less than the relevant specified levels for the given
directions, in relation to the cross-axis.
in-axis specified level(s).
Frequency sweep rate ± 10% of stated rate
Test time duration ± 5% of stated duration
Difference between the ± 5% on the grms values4
unfiltered signal and
filtered acceleration signal3
NOTES:
1 Composite Control is defined as: The ASD (in the case of random vibration) or
Line Spectrum (in the case of Sine vibration) computed as either the average,
maximum, or minimum (depending on control method) of all feedback channels
deemed as control channels in a multi-point control scenario; or the single control
channel in a single-point control scenario. As discussed in paragraph 5.5.1,
multi-point control is encouraged.
2 If using minimum control, the negative tolerance will be that of the Composite
Control.
3 Distortion of the sinusoidal signal can occur particularly when using hydraulic
actuators. If distortion of the sinusoidal signal is suspected, the unfiltered signal
and filtered acceleration signal should be compared. A signal tolerance of
± 5 percent corresponds to a distortion of 32 percent by utilization of the formula
2  a2
a tot 1
d x 100
a1
where: a1 = grms value of acceleration at the driving frequency;

atot = total grms of the applied acceleration (including the value of a1).
4 The grms of a sinusoid equals 0.707 times peak g. It is not related to grms of a
random (g2/Hz) spectrum; do not use this to compare sine criteria (g) to random
criteria (g2/Hz).

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
5. Excitations outside the specified test frequency range shall be minimised. The
out of test frequency range excitations shall be quantified as set out below.
a. Sinusoidal Tests: For sinusoidal vibration tests (fixed, swept and

stepped) the Signal Tolerance shall be established up to 5000 Hz or
5 times the driving frequency, whichever is the lesser. The Signal
Tolerance shall be established from:
 NF 
signal tolerance T    1 x 100%
 F 
Where:
NF is the RMS value of the unfiltered signal.

F is the RMS value of the filtered signal.
Note: This parameter applies whether the signal is acceleration, velocity

or displacement.
b. Random Vibration: For random vibration tests, including all the vibration
tests which have broadband and narrowband random components, the
Out Of Test Frequency Range Responses shall be established from:
 GF 
Out of Test Frequency Range Responses    1 x 100%
 G 
Where:
GF is the RMS value of the test random waveform up to 5000 Hz

or 5 times the driving frequency, whichever is the lesser.
G is the RMS value of the test random waveform in the test
frequency range.
Note: This parameter applies whether the signal is acceleration, velocity

or displacement.
5.5. CONTROLS
5.5.1. Control Strategies
1. Vibration excitation is controlled to within specified bounds, by sampling the

vibratory motions of the test item under-test, at specific locations. These locations may
be at, or in close proximity to, the test item fixing points (controlled input) or at defined
points on the test item (controlled response). Also, the vibratory motions may be
sampled at a single point (single point control), or at several locations (multi-point
control). This test procedure has been formulated to permit use of any combination of
these control strategies. The initial control strategy should be specified in the
Environmental Test Specification, but it may be amended as a result of precursor

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
vibration testing carried out on the test item and associated mounting fixture, with the
agreement of the Test Specifier.
2. Controlled input testing is intended to ensure that the vibration excitation is

controlled within specified bounds, at the position the vibration would normally be
applied to the materiel in-Service. It is commonly applied when no response data are
available, or control complexity makes controlled response testing impractical. If the
dynamic characteristics of the test item and mounting fixture are not known, then a
controlled input test using either single or multi-point control should be adopted. This
control strategy should be used when no guidance is given in the Environmental Test
Specification. Commonly controlled input testing is used for small test items, when the
vibration originates through its normal attachment points. Controlled input testing has
advantages when repeatability of testing is important, such as for long term production
acceptance testing.
3. Controlled response testing is applicable where replication of in-service

measurements is required at specific locations on the test item. Controlled response
testing can be considered if the dynamic characteristics of the equipment and mounting
fixture are already known, or have been evaluated by characterisation testing. Care
needs to be taken to ensure that the responses of resonances are not unreasonably
suppressed or anti-resonances unrealistically enhanced. Controlled response testing
is commonly used for large and or dynamically flexible equipment. It can be used
where the equipment dynamic excitations are not transmitted solely through the
attachment points or where an adequate dynamic response cannot be reproduced by
control at the attachment points.
4. Single point control can be used when the preliminary vibration survey shows
that inputs to the test item are normally equal at each fixing point or when one control
accelerometer accurately represents an average of the inputs at each fixing point.
While single point control is possible, the multi-point control option described below is
the recommended choice because this technique greatly reduces the probability of
error related to issues such as: a single point accelerometer having a bad calibration,
the settings being mis-scaled in the control system or in the signal conditioning system.
Redundant control strategy is the better option.
5. Multi-point control may be used with either controlled input or controlled

response strategies and may be applicable when equipment is either large or has
widely spaced fixing points. It may also be used when single point control would result
in severe over or under-testing of parts of the equipment. The control parameters for
multi-point control are either: the arithmetic average of several response locations, for
average response control; or the maximum of these responses, for maximum response
control; or the minimum of these responses, for minimum response control. Control
on maximum or minimum response can result in some parts of the test item
experiencing over or under-test conditions. However, control on maximum response,
sometimes referred to as extremal control, has application when the specified
severities represent an envelope of spatial in-service vibration responses.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
6. Care is needed when using multi-point control, to avoid a significant over or

under-test, particularly at the test item extremities. Each control location should be
reviewed individually and if available, compared with the in-service response for that
location. The control strategy and / or control locations should be optimised to ensure
that significant over or under-test does not occur.
5.5.2. Fixing, Monitor, Control and Reference Points
1. The selection of suitable control and reference points, for a particular test item
and mounting fixture assembly, is an important aspect for ensuring a valid vibration
test. For the purpose of this test method the definitions of the fixing, monitor, control
and reference points are as follows:
a. A fixing point is defined as a part of the test item in contact with the
mounting fixture or vibration table at a point where it is normally fastened
in-service.
b. A monitor point is a position at which measurements are made in order

to establish knowledge of the response behaviour. This may be the
response of the test item, test fixture or test equipment.
c. A control point is a position at which measurements are made to allow

the vibration excitation to be controlled to within specific bounds during
the course of the test.
d. A reference point is a point at which vibration measurements are made

in order to confirm that the requirements of the test specification are
satisfied. The reference point locations should be stated in the
Environmental Test Specification. They may be monitor points, a control
points, or 'virtual' points created by manual or automatic processing of
responses from several control points.
2. Suitable monitor, control and reference points should be either specified in the
Environmental Test Specification or that document should contain a procedure for
selecting them. Unless specified otherwise in the Environmental Test Specification,
the applicability of control and reference points should be verified by means of
precursor vibration testing. The agreement of the Test Specifier should be sought
whenever a procedure is used for selecting suitable control and reference points, or
whenever their location is modified as a consequence of precursor vibration testing.
5.5.3. Control Equalization
A finite test duration is required to allow the control equipment to achieve the necessary
equalisation for closed loop control. The time required for equalisation may be
dependent upon the controller used, the complexity of the waveform and the behaviour
of the test item. If a dynamically representative (inert) test item is being used for
precursor testing purposes, then an unlimited test time for equalisation can be applied.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
However, if the actual test item is being used, then unless specified in the
Environmental Test Specification, the equalisation test time should be as follows:
a. Initial equalisation is conducted below -12 dB of the specified root mean

square (RMS) level. No test time limit is imposed for this phase of
equalisation.
b. The vibration levels are increased from -12 dB to -6 dB of the specified

RMS level (in steps as necessary). The total duration at these levels
should be no more than a quarter of the specified test duration. This
equalisation time should not be subtracted from the specified test time.
c. The vibration levels are increased from -6 dB to 0 dB of the specified

RMS level. The time spent at these levels should be kept to a minimum.
The total duration at these levels should be no more than 10% of the
specified test duration. This equalisation time should not be subtracted
from the specified test time.
5.5.4. Cross-Axis Motion, Signal Distortion and Out of Test Frequency Range
Responses
1. Cross-axis motion should be verified before the test is applied, by conducting

either a sine or random investigation at a level prescribed by the Environmental Test
Specification. At some frequencies, or with large-size or high mass test items, the
cross-axis motion requirements (set out in Table 1) may be difficult to achieve. In such
cases the cross-axis motion actually achieved over the test frequency range should be
agreed with the Test Specifier and the achieved values stated in the Environmental
Test Report.
2. Signal distortion (for sinusoidal tests) or out of test frequency range responses
(for random tests), should be established by conducting either a sine or random
investigation at a level prescribed by the Environmental Test Specification. Signal
distortion and out of test frequency range responses can be quantified using the
methodology set out in paragraph 5.4. High signal distortion may result in the
measuring system indicating incorrect vibration level responses. High out of test
frequency range responses can be indicative of problems with the control of the test,
or the presence of non-linearities within the test setup. High signal distortion or out of
test frequency range responses are sometimes indicative of deficiencies in the test
item mounting / rigging arrangement.
If for any reason the test cycles are interrupted or disrupted then, unless there is an
alternative procedure in the Environmental Test Specification, the interrupted vibration
testing should recommence from the point it was interrupted. However,
preconditioning and stabilisation, as defined in paragraph 5.2.2, is required before
recommencing the test. If a single interruption occurs with a deviation in temperature

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
of less than 10%, then testing can continue from where the deviation or interruption
ends.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
6.1. VERIFICATION
1. The measurements set out below shall be undertaken to enable a verification

process to be completed, to demonstrate that the required test severities have been
achieved within the specified tolerance bands. The verification information required for
each of the different types of vibration test is set out in Annex B. The verification
information shall, as a minimum, be established at the beginning, middle and end of
the test, unless specified otherwise in the Environmental Test Specification. For non-
stationary tests; i.e., where swept components are included in the test severity (either
sinusoidal or narrowband random), then verification shall include a complete (up and
down) sweep. The verification of a complete (up and down) sweep may not be possible
with some vibration test controllers, in such cases a separate vibration analyser should
be used.
2. The verification measurements shall encompass a frequency range from half

the lowest test frequency up to at least twice the highest test frequency. The
verification measurements shall be capable of containing peaks at least 3 times the
overall root mean square (RMS) value. For high Kurtosis tests, the verification
measurements should be capable of measuring amplitudes which encompass the
largest crest factor expected.
3. Cross-axis motions shall be measured at all control points and reported.

Normally this needs to be established at the start of the test, or during precursor testing
if at full test severities.
4. For fixed, swept and stepped sinusoidal tests, the Signal Tolerance shall be
established and reported. For all other types of test the Out of Test Frequency Range
Responses shall be established and reported, as well as the Amplitude Distribution.
The Amplitude Distribution should be obtained from a Probability Density Function
analysis undertaken on measurements made at the reference point (or each control
point, when using multi-point control) for a period of not less than 2 minutes during
testing. Normally this will need to be undertaken only once during the test. However,
for high Kurtosis tests, the Kurtosis, Skewness and Amplitude Probability Density
should be established on at least three occasions during the test at the beginning,
middle and end of the test.
5. For high Kurtosis tests, the verification measurements should include

information for each of the parameters and waveform features specified in the
Environmental Test Specification.
6. Photographic evidence of the test set up, and the measurement and control
locations, shall be reported.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
7. A record shall be taken of the temperature and humidity of the air at sufficient
points to characterise the variability within the working space of the chamber. The
temperature and humidity shall be recorded at intervals of no more than 10 minutes.
8. The format used in the presentation of the verification process results shall be
the same as that used in the specified test. That is if the test severity is defined in
terms of random vibration, then the verification shall also be in the Power Spectral
Density format. Conversely if sinusoidal components are defined, they shall be verified
as sinusoidal amplitudes. The verification data should be presented in an agreed
digital format (PC readable).
6.2. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
1. If specified in the Environmental Test Specification, the test item should be

operated during vibration testing at the appropriate times specified. Performance of
non-heat dissipating test items can be evaluated at any time that the vibration test
conditions have stabilised to within the test tolerances. Performance of heat-
dissipating test items should be undertaken when both temperature and vibration test
conditions have stabilised. In general, one of the following procedures will apply:
a. The test item should be operated continuously with performance

evaluation made at the times specified in the Environmental Test
Specification.
b. The test item should be operated intermittently and allowed to stabilise

before performance evaluation is undertaken.
For tests undertaken to demonstrate survival of the materiel and requiring performance
evaluation, the test item should be operated and evaluated at the end of the test.
2. After undertaking the prescribed environmental test, the test item should
normally be allowed to return to Standard Laboratory Conditions and stabilise at those
conditions, before undertaking any post-test examinations, functional tests,
performance tests, or any test item characterisation work. If post-test natural or
assisted drying of the test item is required, it should be undertaken in accordance with
the guidance of Method 300. That method also indicates the approach to be used if
the test item needs to be subject to controlled recovery conditions. Controlled recovery
conditions may be needed in order to prevent moisture being absorbed or lost by the
test item before undertaking any post-test examinations.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
7.1. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
a. IEC EN 60068-2, Environmental Testing, Environmental Testing Basic

Environmental Testing Procedures.
b. DEF STAN 00-035, Part 3, Environmental Handbook for Defence

Materiel, Environmental Test Methods.
c. DEF STAN 00-035, Part 5, Environmental Handbook for Defence

Materiel, Induced Mechanical Environments.
d. EUROCAE/ED-14 Section 8, Environmental Conditions and Test

Procedures for Airborne Equipment, Vibration.
e. MIL-STD-810, Environmental Engineering Considerations and

Laboratory Tests, Part 2 - Laboratory Test Methods, Method 514,
Vibration.
f. RTCA DO-160, Section 8, Environmental Conditions and Test

Procedures for Airborne Equipment, Vibration.
g. International Test Operations Procedure (ITOP) 01-2-601, “Laboratory

Vibration Schedules”, 25 January 1999. DTIC AD No. B238288.
None.

AECTP-400
METHOD 401
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
ANNEX A DEFAULT VIBRATION SEVERITIES
A.1. INTRODUCTION
1. This Annex contains default or fall back test severities which encompass a wide
range of in-service conditions. The severities and other test parameters in this Annex
should be used in those cases where a precise simulation is unnecessary and where
a degree of over-testing can be tolerated. This Annex contains test severities for
materiel when transported as well as when deployed and installed in different types of
platform.
2. A number of the vibration test severities in this Annex should be used in

conjunction with the corresponding shock severities. In those cases, the vibration and
shock severities should be considered jointly. For example, the road transportation
vibration severities encompass frequently occurring low amplitude shock events, whilst
the shock test severities of Method 403 encompass higher amplitude, infrequent
shocks. Therefore, the shock and vibration tests cannot be considered in isolation and
both shock and vibration need to be included in an environmental test programme.
3. The test severities given in this Annex, for materiel deployed or installed in the
various platforms, are not intended for platform design purposes which are the
responsibility of the platform design authority. However, the severities are intended for
the deployment of equipment fitted on those platforms, such as communications
installations etc., retrofit equipment as well as ordnance and weapon systems.
4. Unless specified otherwise, the severities quoted in this Annex represent the
vibration input to the materiel, package, battlefield protection or palletised load. The
axis system used throughout this Annex relates to the transportation vehicle or
platform. It will be necessary to consider translating this axis system into the materiel
axis system when applying the severities to materiel. If the orientation of the materiel
during transportation is not known or can be varied, then a test severity which
encompasses the severities of both transverse axes (i.e., lateral and longitudinal) or if
appropriate all three axes (i.e., vertical, lateral and longitudinal), should be used.
5. In a number of instances the test severities encompass narrowband

components. The specified amplitude of these narrowbands is intrinsically related to
the frequency bandwidth of the narrowband. If the test control equipment is unable to
practically achieve the frequency bandwidth specified, proportional adjustment to the
narrowband amplitude may be necessary. Where applicable, an approach for
achieving this is specified. Unless specified otherwise, the frequency bandwidth of
narrowbands that is actually achieved, should be within 10% of that specified.
A-1 Edition D Version 1

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
6. The peak to peak displacements for tests that include a random component
assume 3σ clipping and are provided for information only. The controller software may
calculate different displacements due to the frequency resolution or other settings that
have been selected. These controller calculated values should be used when
considering the required shaker capabilities.
7. Hydraulic shakers are generally not capable of conducting vibration tests above
about 500 Hz and so will not be able to achieve all of the tests set out in this Annex.
Where the test facility does not have suitable electro-dynamic shakers, or where the
test item is so large and heavy that testing using a hydraulic shaker is the only practical
option, the Test Specifier will need to consider the implications of limiting the test
bandwidth to 500 Hz and where appropriate change the Environmental Test
Specification, or agree to a concession. Before such a change is made to the test
specification, suitable justification in terms of the potential failure modes of the test item
should be produced and if appropriate agreed by the Test Specifier.
A.2. TRANSPORTATION AND HANDLING OF MATERIEL
A.2.1. General
Transportation and handling mostly involves packaged materiel, although it can

encompass materiel protected only by its in-service battlefield protection. The materiel
may be either single items or a palletised unit load and so reference should be made
to the intended usage profile to determine the appropriate configuration. Materiel is
expected to survive transportation and handling, but is not usually expected to be
operational during such conditions. The transportation and handling severities quoted
represent the vibration input to the package, battlefield protection or palletised load.
A.2.2. Transportation by Wheeled Vehicles on Improved Roads
The severities applicable to the logistic transportation of materiel by wheeled vehicle

are set out in Figures A-1 to A-4. These severities relate to the transportation of
secured cargo by common carrier when operated predominantly on improved roads
(i.e., on-road). The common carrier encompasses trucks and semitrailers with either
conventional or air suspension systems. The tests presented in Figures A-1 to A-3
should be used for large items that can only be loaded into the vehicle in one
orientation; when the orientation of the item is unknown or could be varied, Figure
A-4 should be used. The vibration tests for transportation of materiel by wheeled
vehicles should be undertaken along with the associated shock tests of Method 403.
Further information on the vibration conditions occurring during the transportation of
materiel during wheeled vehicle transportation is provided in AECTP 240 Leaflet 242/1.
A.2.3. Transportation by Rail
The test severities applicable to the transportation of materiel by rail are set out in
Figure A-5. The vibration test for transportation of materiel by rail should be

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
undertaken along with the associated shock tests of Method 403. Further information
on the vibration conditions occurring during the transportation of materiel on rail
vehicles is provided in AECTP 240 Leaflet 242/2.
A.2.4. Transportation by Sea
The test severities applicable to the transportation of materiel by sea are set out in
Figure A-6. Further information on the vibration conditions occurring during the sea
transportation of materiel is provided in AECTP 240 Leaflet 242/4.
A.2.5. Transportation by Fixed Wing Jet Aircraft
The test severities applicable to the transportation of materiel by fixed wing jet aircraft
are set out in Figures A-7 and A-8. The severities presented in Figure A-7 relate to
aircraft cruise and those in Figure A-8 relate to takeoff which may cause the highest
vibration levels experienced by cargo. Further information on the vibration conditions
occurring during the transportation of materiel by fixed wing aircraft is provided in
AECTP 240 Leaflet 242/3.
A.2.6. Transportation by Fixed Wing Propeller Aircraft
The test severities applicable to the transportation of materiel by fixed wing propeller
aircraft are aircraft specific. Test severities are presented in Figures A-9 and A-10 for
materiel transported in six bladed C130 aircraft. Figure A-9 sets out the test severity
for the aircraft vertical axis and Figure A-10 the test severity which should be used for
both transverse (i.e., lateral and longitudinal) axes. Test severities for materiel
transported in four bladed C130 aircraft are presented in Figure A-11 (vertical) and
Figure A-12 (transverse). Test severities for materiel transported in the A400M are
currently not available, but Figures A-13 to A-16 have been reserved for inclusion when
verified test severities become available. Further information on the vibration
conditions occurring during the transportation of materiel by fixed wing aircraft is
provided in AECTP 240 Leaflet 242/3.
A.2.7. Transportation by Helicopter – Internal & Underslung
1. The test severities applicable to the transportation of materiel internally by

helicopters are shown in Figures A-17 to A-20. The test severities are set out as
follows: Figure A-17 – Chinook; Figure A-18 – Merlin; Figure A-19 applies to small man
portable materiel in Lynx / Wildcat; test severities for other aircraft can be derived from
Figure A-20 and Table A-1 below. Further information on the vibration conditions
occurring during the transportation of materiel by rotary wing aircraft is provided in

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
Table A-1: Main and Tail Rotor / Blade Parameters for Various Helicopters
Main Rotor Tail Rotor

Blade Blade
Helicopter Rotation Number Passing Rotation Number Passing
Speed (R) of Blades Frequency Speed (R) of Blades Frequency
(Hz) (n) (nR) (Hz) (n) (nR)
(Hz) (Hz)
AH-1 (Cobra) 5.40 2 10.80 27.70 2 55.40
AH-6J (Little Bird) 7.95 5 39.75 47.30 2 94.60
AH-6M (Little Bird) 7.92 6 47.52 44.4 4 177.60
AH-64
4.82 4 19.28 23.40 4 93.60
(early Apache)
AH-64
4.86 4 19.44 23.60 4 94.40
(Late Apache)
CH-47D (Chinook) 3.75 3 11.25 Not applicable
Merlin 3.57 5 17.85 16.18 4 64.72
Gazelle SA341 6.30 3 18.90 96.20 13 1250.6
Gazelle SA342 6.45 3 19.35 98.60 13 1281.8
Lynx Mk 3 5.51 4 22.04 31.90 4 127.60
Lynx 7, 8 and 9 5.51 4 22.04 27.80 4 111.20
MH-6H 7.80 5 39.00 47.50 2 95.00
OH-6A (Cayuse) 8.10 4 32.40 51.80 2 103.60
OH-58A/C (Kiowa) 5.90 2 11.80 43.80 2 87.60
OH-58D (K Warrior) 6.60 4 26.40 39.70 2 79.40
Puma 4.42 4 17.68 21.30 5 106.50
Sea King /
3.48 5 17.40 21.30 6 127.80
Commando
UH-1 (Huey) 5.40 2 10.80 27.70 2 55.40
UH-60 (Black
4.30 4 17.20 19.80 4 79.20
Hawk)
2. If materiel is transported in more than one type of helicopter, then the total
exposure can be split on a pro rata basis over the different types of helicopter. For
example if transport occurs equally in the Chinook and Merlin aircraft only, then the
test severities of Figure A-17 (Chinook) and Figure A-18 (Merlin) should be used with
the total exposure split equally between the two. Transportation in small helicopters,
such as Lynx / Wildcat aircraft is normally only necessary for man portable equipment.
3. If the orientation of the materiel in the helicopter during transportation is not

known or can be varied, then the severity for the vertical axis should be applied in all
three principal axes.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
4. The test severities applicable to the transportation of materiel externally on any

helicopter type are shown in Figure A-21 Helicopter Underslung Loads. Note: The
choice of slings should be based on sling stiffness and the suspended mass such that
suspension frequencies (fs) do not coincide with helicopter main rotor forcing
frequencies (fi); suspension frequencies should not be within a factor of two of the
forcing frequencies (i.e., fs < (fi / 2) or fs > (2 x fi)).
A.2.8. Handling
The test severities applicable to the handling of materiel by Forklift Trucks, Trolleys
and by all ordinary trailers with suspension as well as lightweight trailers, are
encompassed by the severities of sub-paragraph A.2.2. All the vibration tests
severities associated with handling should be undertaken along with the associated
shock tests of Method 403. Further information on the vibration conditions occurring
during the handling and storage of materiel is provided in AECTP 240 Leaflets 243/1
and 243/2.
A.3. MATERIEL TRANSPORTED OR DEPLOYED IN WHEELED VEHICLES ON

UNIMPROVED ROADS
1. The test severities applicable to the tactical transport or deployment of materiel

in wheeled vehicles are set out in Figures A-22 to A-25. The severities presented in
Figure A-22 relate to wheeled vehicles when operated predominantly on unimproved
roads or cross country (i.e., off-road). Composite test severities for wheeled vehicle
transport, as secured cargo, from the port staging area to the forward base are given
in Figure A-23. Test severities for transport in two wheeled trailers, as secured cargo,
beyond the forward base are given in Figure A-24. If the orientation of the materiel in
the vehicle is unknown, or could be varied, then the vertical test should be used in all
three axes for the composite wheeled vehicle test, or the combined test presented in
Figure A-25 should be used for two wheeled trailers. All the vibration tests severities
associated with deployment in wheeled vehicles should be undertaken along with the
associated shock tests of Method 403. Further information on the vibration conditions
experienced by materiel when deployed or installed in wheeled vehicles is provided in
2. The severities of Figure A-22 include a low frequency extension, which provides
for an energy increase between 5 Hz and 14 Hz which is related to the vehicle
responses to the suspension modes. However, the primary suspension modes are
generally lower than 5 Hz and are not considered for testing in this standard, because
of vibration test equipment limitations. The low frequency extension can produce
significant displacements of equipment mounted on low frequency anti-vibration
mounts, especially those exhibiting lightly damped characteristics. These
displacements can exceed the design capability of packages and mounts. If excessive
displacement of the equipment is likely to occur, then the use of generic transportation
severities may not be appropriate.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
A.4. MATERIEL DEPLOYED OR INSTALLED IN TRACKED VEHICLES
1. The test severities for materiel deployed or installed in tracked vehicles are set
out in Figures A-26 to A-33. The applicability of these test severities is indicated in
Table A-2 below.
Table A-2: Applicable Severities for Tracked Vehicles
Test Severities
Application Low High
Vehicle Vehicle
Speeds Speeds
Materiel Transported as Secured Cargo
(These severities encompass materiel transported on or within
Figure A-26 Figure A-27
tracked vehicle as secured cargo, including shells and
ammunition and materiel on the floor of vehicle).
Materiel Installed in the Turret of Tracked Vehicles
(These severities encompass materiel installed in the turret or
deployed in the turret bustle racks of both heavy and light
tracked vehicles).
Materiel Installed in the Hull of Heavy Tracked
Vehicles
(These severities encompass materiel installed or deployed in Figure A-30 Figure A-31
the hull and sponsons of heavy track vehicles such as main
battle tanks or self-propelled guns).
Materiel Installed in the Hull of Light Tracked Vehicles
(These severities encompass materiel installed or deployed in
the hull and sponsons of light track vehicles such as armoured
personnel carriers, scout vehicles or logistic vehicles).
2. Test severities are presented for the vehicle vertical axis as well as the
transverse axes (lateral and longitudinal). If the axis of orientation of the materiel in
the vehicle is not known or can be varied, then the severity for the vertical axis should
be applied in all three principal axes. All the vibration tests severities associated with
deployment in tracked vehicles should be undertaken along with the associated shock
tests of Method 403.
3. Tracked vehicle vibration testing can be represented by swept constant

amplitude narrowbands superimposed upon broadband random vibration. To facilitate
the use of older vibration control systems the test severities are split into two levels,
which encompass low and high vehicle speeds. It is reasonable to assume that the
two speed ranges will be used to a similar extent; i.e., the test duration should be split
equally between the two speeds. The use of vibration control systems which enable
the specification of variable amplitude narrowbands is acceptable and in such cases
the two test severities may be combined.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
4. Test levels for some specific tracked vehicles can be found in International Test
Operating Procedure (ITOP) 01-2-601. Further information on the vibration conditions
experienced by materiel when deployed or installed in tracked vehicles is provided in
A.5. MATERIEL DEPLOYED OR INSTALLED IN SURFACE SHIPS AND

SUBMARINES
1. The vibration amplitudes and characteristics experienced by materiel installed

in surface ships and submarines exhibit significant variation arising from vessel size
and location. Additionally, as the amplitudes tend to be quite low and the durations
very long, a significant degree of test duration compression is typically applied. Such
test duration compression can result in test failures which do not occur in service. As
a consequence of these issues, test severities applicable to safety and mission critical
materiel installed in surface ships and submarines should be based on measurements
made under appropriate conditions. Typically those severities would be based upon
broadband random vibration encompassing frequencies up to 2 kHz. Further
information on the vibration conditions experienced by materiel when deployed or
installed in ships and submarines is provided in AECTP 240 Leaflet 248/1 and
Leaflet 248/2.
2. Historic test severities for equipment installed in surface ships and submarines
have been biased towards vibrations dominated by low frequency displacement.
These severities are unlikely to exercise all the potential failure modes of materiel
installed in surface ships and submarines. This can be a particular issue for electronic
systems and ordnance. The applicability of these historic test severities are shown in
Table A-3.
Table A-3: Historic Test Severities for Equipment Installed In Surface Ships
and Submarines
Vessel type, Size and Location Severity

Ships of Mine Masthead locations Figure A-34
Sweeper Size and All other locations
Above Figure A-35
respectively
Ships Smaller than Aft locations1 Figure A-36
Mine Sweepers All other locations Figure A-37
Submarines2 All locations Figure A-38
Note 1: The aft region is equal to one-eighth of the ship's overall length, measured from the
stern.
Note 2: except locations external to the pressure hull

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
4. The historic test requirements for materiel deployed or installed in ships and
submarines comprise two groups of tests: a group of sinusoidal sweep tests followed
by a group of fixed frequency sinusoidal tests. If the sinusoidal sweep tests identify
significant resonances in specified frequency bands, then a fixed frequency sine tone
at the frequency and peak response amplitude of the resonance identified is applied
during the fixed frequency sinusoidal tests. If no resonances are identified in the
specified bands, then a sine tone of a specified default frequency and amplitude is
applied. If more than one resonance is identified in the specified bands, then all are
applied separately with the time spent at each reduced accordingly to meet the overall
test time requirements. A resonance is deemed to be significant if its dynamic
magnification factor (Q) exceeds 3.
A.6. MATERIEL DEPLOYED OR INSTALLED IN AIRCRAFT (FIXED WING AND

HELICOPTER)
The vibration amplitudes and characteristics, experienced by materiel installed in fixed-

wing aircraft or helicopters exhibit significant variation arising from different aircraft
types, locations and missions. As a consequence test severities applicable to materiel
installed in fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters should be supplied by the aircraft
manufacturer for specific applications. This is particularly the case for high
performance aircraft, where very severe vibration conditions may occur. Further
information on the vibration conditions experienced by materiel, when deployed or
installed in jet and propeller fixed wing aircraft, is provided in AECTP 240 Leaflet 246/1
and Leaflet 246/3. Information on the vibration conditions of rotary wing aircraft is
provided in Leaflet 247/1.
A.7. MATERIEL CARRIED EXTERNALLY ON JET AIRCRAFT
A.7.1. General
The vibration amplitudes and characteristics, experienced by materiel carried

externally on jet aircraft in normal flight exhibit significant variation arising from different
aircraft types, flight condition, carriage location, proximity of other materiel and mission.
As a consequence test severities applicable to materiel carried externally on jet aircraft
should be derived for specific applications. The test severities contained in the
following paragraphs are not valid for munitions carried on high performance aircraft,
and test severities based on measured data should be adopted. Further information
on the vibration conditions experienced by materiel and munitions carried externally on
jet and propeller fixed wing aircraft is provided in AECTP 240 Leaflet 246/2.
A.7.2. Materiel Carried Externally on Jet Aircraft - Normal Flight
The vibration test severity traditionally used for materiel carried externally on low
performance jet aircraft is shown in Figure A-39. That test severity is only applicable
to aircraft flight conditions which do not result in dynamic pressures exceeding
76.6 kPa (1600 psf). It is also only applicable for materiel experiencing clean airflow

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
and is not applicable for materiel experiencing disturbed flow from upstream structures
or other materiel. The severity does not encompass materiel attached externally
directly on the aircraft skin or materiel which has open cavities, or is either fitted in an
open cavity or conformally on the aircraft.
A.7.3. Materiel Carried Externally on Jet Aircraft - Buffet
1. Buffet or vortex impingement is a short duration vibration environment

experienced by wing or fuselage mounted materiel. Buffet vibration is a high amplitude
vibration occurring during specific limited flight conditions and the most severe
conditions arise from a combination of aerodynamic flow and structural vibration
responses. When applicable, testing to replicate the effects of buffet is undertaken in
addition to the test severities for normal flight.
2. Generalised test severities for buffet conditions are set out in Figure A-40 to
A-43. The applicable severity depends upon the materiel aspect ratio and carriage
position, as indicated in Table A-4 below.
Table A-4: Applicable Severities for Buffet Conditions
Mounting Applicable Test

Store Type
Location Severity
Low Aspect Ratio Wing Figure A-40
Materiel
viz. bombs and pods Fuselage Figure A-41
High Aspect Ratio Wing Figure A-42
Materiel
viz. guided missiles Fuselage Figure A-43
3. The test severities of Figure A-40, Figure A-41 and Figure A-43 represent the
response of a single dominant structural mode (of the wing or fuselage) associated
with either bending or torsion. The assumed frequencies for these structural modes
are 30 Hz, 15 Hz and 60 Hz for Figure A-40, A-41 and A-43 respectively. However, if
the frequency of the actual dominant mode is known, the actual mode frequency should
be used.
4. The test severities of Figure A-42 represent the response of two dominant
structural modes, one the dominant aircraft wing mode and the other the materiel first
bending mode. The assumed frequencies for those structural modes are 30 Hz and
60 Hz respectively. However, if the frequencies of the actual modes are known, the
actual mode frequencies should be used. If the two frequencies are closer than 10 Hz
then modal coupling could occur and a severity based upon measured data should be
used.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
5. The severity and occurrence rate for buffet will depend upon the aircraft type,
mission type and materiel configuration etc.
A.8. MATERIEL CARRIED EXTERNALLY ON PROPELLER AIRCRAFT
Test severities applicable to materiel carried externally on propeller aircraft are set out
in Figure A-44. The characteristics of the vibrations arising from propeller aircraft are
aircraft specific. The severities of Figure A-44 assume a blade passing frequency (nR)
of 102 Hz which corresponds to a six bladed C130 aircraft. For other aircraft types the
frequencies for nR, 2nR and 3nR should be substituted for those for the specific aircraft
type.
A.9. MATERIEL CARRIED EXTERNALLY ON HELICOPTERS
Severities for materiel carried on helicopters should be derived from measured data
specific to the platform of interest.
A.10. MISSILE FLIGHT
Severities for missile powered flight should be derived from measured data specific to
the operational conditions of the missile of interest. Further information on the vibration
conditions experienced by materiel, weapons and stores in powered and free flight is
provided in AECTP 240 Leaflet 249/1.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
0.1000
0.0100
Accleeration Power Spectral Density
0.0010
(g2/Hz)
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency Acceleration Power Spectral

(Hz) Density (g2/Hz)
5 0.015
50 0.015
500 0.00015
RMS (g) 1.16
Displacement pk-pk (mm) 9.4
The minimum test time of one
Test duration per axis: hour is equivalent to 1609 km
on-road.
Note: If it is known that significant excitation is expected below 5
Hz, or if the magnitude of the transfer function between the platform
and test item is greater than unity for frequencies < 5 Hz, extend the
curve and shape it to comply with the available data.
(Figure A-4 should be used if the orientation of the materiel in the vehicle is not known or can be varied)
Figure A-1: Common Carrier Vertical Axis

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
(g2/Hz)
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

5 0.00013
10 0.00013
20 0.00065
30 0.00065
78 0.00002
79 0.00019
120 0.00019
500 0.00001
RMS (g) 0.2
on-road.
Note: If it is known that significant excitation is expected below 5
Hz, or if the magnitude of the transfer function between the platform
and test item is greater than unity for frequencies < 5 Hz, extend the
Figure A-2: Common Carrier Lateral Axis

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
(g2/Hz)
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

5 0.0065
20 0.0065
110 0.0002
121 0.003
200 0.003
240 0.0015
340 0.00003
500 0.00015
RMS (g) 0.76
on-road.
Note: If it is known that significant excitation is expected below 5 Hz,
or if the magnitude of the transfer function between the platform and
test item is greater than unity for frequencies < 5 Hz, extend the curve
and shape it to comply with the available data.
Figure A-3: Common Carrier Longitudinal Axis

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
(g2/Hz)
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Applicable to All Test Axes

5 0.015
50 0.015
500 0.001
RMS (g) 1.45
on-road.
Note: If it is known that significant excitation is expected below 5 Hz,
or if the magnitude of the transfer function between the platform and
test item is greater than unity for frequencies < 5 Hz, extend the
(This test should be used if the orientation of the materiel in the vehicle is not known or can be varied)
Figure A-4: Common Carrier - Combined Test Applicable to All Axes

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
0.1000
Acceleration Power Spectral Density
0.0100
(g2/Hz)
0.0010
0.0001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Applicable to All Axes

5 0.005
100 0.005
RMS (g) 0.69
One hour of testing is equivalent
Test duration per axis:
to 10,000 km
Figure A-5: Materiel Transported by Rail

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
0.01000
0.00100
(g2/Hz)
0.00010
0.00001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

Frequency Acceleration Power Spectral Density
(Hz) (g2/Hz)
5 0.00005
10 0.001
50 0.001
200 0.00005
RMS (g) 0.28
One hour of testing is equivalent to
three months at sea
Figure A-6: Materiel Transported by Sea

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
0.1000
Vertical axis
Longitudinal & Lateral axis
0.0100
(g2/Hz)
0.0010
0.0001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Applicable to Vertical (aircraft) Axis

(or all axes if orientation of the Applicable to Longitudinal & Lateral
materiel in the aircraft is unknown or (aircraft) Axes
can vary)
Acceleration Power Acceleration Power
Frequency Frequency
Spectral Density Spectral Density
(Hz) (Hz)
(g2/Hz) (g2/Hz)
10 0.002 10 0.001
1000 0.002 1000 0.001
2000 0.0007 2000 0.0005
RMS (g) 1.77 RMS (g) 1.30
Displacement Displacement
1.2 0.9
pk-pk (mm) pk-pk (mm)
Minimum test time Minimum test time
per axis is one hour. per axis is one hour.
One hour of testing One hour of testing
Test duration Test duration
per axis is per axis is
per axis: per axis:
equivalent to equivalent to
100 hours of flight 100 hours of flight
time. time
Figure A-7: Materiel Transported in Fixed Wing Jet Aircraft - Cruise

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
0.1000
0.0100
(g2/Hz)
0.0010
0.0001
10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

(Hz) (g2/Hz)
15 0.01
105.94 0.01
150 0.02
500 0.02
2000 0.0013
RMS (g) 4.02
One minute of testing is equivalent to
one takeoff
Figure A-8: Materiel Transported in Fixed Wing Jet Aircraft – Takeoff

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401

Sinusoidal or Narrowband Components
(Although components may be applied as either random
Broadband Random narrowbands or sinusoids, sinusoids are recommended. Propeller
aircraft vibration is more sinusoidal in nature than narrowband
random. Random on Random tends to be more stressful.)
Narrowband
Acceleration Sinusoidal
(Centre) (B = 2.5 Hz)
Frequency Power Spectral
Frequency Acceleration Acceleration Power
(Hz) Density
(Hz) (Blade order) peak Spectral Density
(g2/Hz)
(gpk) (g2/Hz)
10 0.006 102 (nR) 2.62 1.373
19 0.006 204 (2nR) 0.99 0.196
23 0.0008 306 (3nR) 1.25 0.313
135 0.0008 408 (4nR) 1.03 0.212
260 0.0065 510 (5nR) 0.54 0.058
325 0.0065
350 0.015 Note:
570 0.0015 If the frequency resolution of the vibration test control equipment
720 0.004 does not give a narrowband of exactly 2.5 Hz, the narrowband
1000 0.0045 amplitude should be re-calculated from sinusoidal peak amplitude
using the actual value of B in the equation (g2/Hz) = (gpk)2/2B. The
1200 0.0025
actual value of B should not vary by more than 2% from the
1500 0.015
required value (2.5 Hz).
1600 0.01
1700 0.006 Overall Test Parameters
2000 0.0045 RMS (g) 3.97
RMS (g) 3.22 Displacement pk-pk (mm) 2.0
Displacement
2.0 Test Duration per axis 1 hour for 20 hours of flight
pk-pk (mm)
Figure A-9: Materiel Transported in 6 Bladed C130 Propeller Aircraft (Vertical)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.00000
0.10000
0.01000
(g2/Hz)
0.00100
0.00010
0.00001
10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Applicable to both lateral and longitudinal (aircraft) Axes

Narrowband
(Hz) Density
(g2/Hz)
(gpk) (g2/Hz)
10 0.015 102 (nR) 0.90 0.162
15 0.015 204 (2nR) 0.42 0.035
25 0.0009 306 (3nR) 0.43 0.037
111 0.0004 408 (4nR) 0.25 0.013
162 0.0007 510 (5nR) 0.41 0.033
250 0.0085 Note:
1070 0.015 using the actual value of B in the equation (g2/Hz) = (gpk)2/2B. The
1300 0.0023
required value (2.5 Hz).
1680 0.0009
RMS (g) 2.49 RMS (g) 2.61
Displacement Displacement pk-pk (mm) 3.0
3.0
pk-pk (mm) Test Duration per axis 1 hour for 20 hours of flight
Figure A-10: Test Severity for Materiel Transported in 6 Bladed C130 Propeller
Aircraft (Lateral & Longitudinal)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401

Narrowband
(Hz) Density
(g2/Hz)
(gpk) (g2/Hz)
10 0.0032 68 (nR) 2.00 0.800
30 0.0032 136 (2nR) 0.60 0.072
60 0.0002 204 (3nR) 0.40 0.032
150 0.0002
300 0.0012
400 0.0012 Note:
does not give a narrowband of exactly 2.5 Hz, the narrowband
725 0.0005
amplitude should be re-calculated from sinusoidal peak amplitude
800 0.00045
943 0.00045 actual value of B should not vary by more than 2% from the
1061 0.00015 required value (2.5 Hz).
1450 0.00005
1500 0.0001
1610 0.00004
1800 0.000025
2000 0.000025 RMS (g) 1.76
RMS (g) 0.84 Displacement pk-pk (mm) 2.62
Displacement
1.52 Test Duration per axis 1 hour for 20 hours of flight
pk-pk (mm)
Figure A-11: Materiel Transported in 4 Bladed C130 Propeller Aircraft (Vertical)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
Applicable to both lateral and longitudinal (aircraft) Axes

Narrowband
(Hz) Density
(g2/Hz)
(gpk) (g2/Hz)
10 0.0022 68 (nR) 0.50 0.050
40 0.0022 136 (2nR) 0.20 0.008
60 0.00015 204 (3nR) 0.10 0.002
125 0.00015
175 0.0005
240 0.0009 Note:
2000 0.00002
RMS (g) 0.61 required value (2.5 Hz).
Displacement
1.27
pk-pk (mm)
Overall Test Parameters
RMS (g) 0.74
Test Duration per axis 1 hour for 20 hours of flight
Figure A-12: Materiel Transported in 4 Bladed C130 Propeller Aircraft

(Lateral & Longitudinal)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
To be Confirmed
Figure A-13: Test Severity for Materiel Transported in A400M (Vertical)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
To be Confirmed
Figure A-14: Test Severity for Materiel Transported in A400M (Lateral)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
To be Confirmed
Figure A-15: Test Severity for Materiel Transported in A400M (Longitudinal)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
To be Confirmed
Figure A-16: Test Severity for Materiel Transported in A400M (Transverse)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.00000
0.10000
0.01000
(g2/Hz)
0.00100
0.00010
0.00001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

(Components may be applied as either random narrowbands or
sinusoids)
Broadband Random Narrowband
Sinusoidal
(B = 2.0 Hz)
Acceleration peak
Acceleration Power
(gpk)
Frequency (Hz)
Tolerance ±2%
Spectral Density (g2/Hz)

(Blade order)
Acceleration
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Power
Vertical
Vertical
Lateral
Lateral
Frequency
Spectral
(Hz)
Density
(g2/Hz)
5 0.0006 11.25 (nR) 1.00 0.500.35 0.25 0.063 0.031

10 0.001 22.50 (2nR) 1.00 0.600.25 0.25 0.09 0.016
71 0.001 33.75 (3nR) 0.70 0.200.20 0.123 0.01 0.01
80 0.002 45.00 (4nR) 0.50 0.200.15 0.063 0.01 0.006
115 0.002 Note:
200 0.0015 If the frequency resolution of the vibration test control equipment does
735 0.00015 not give a narrowband of exactly 2.0 Hz, the narrowband amplitude
800 0.002 should be re-calculated from sinusoidal peak amplitude using the actual
900 0.00015 value of B in the equation (g2/Hz) = (gpk)2/2B. The actual value of B
should not vary by more than 2% from the required value (2.0 Hz).
1250 0.00015
2000 0.00006 Axis RMS (g) Displacement pk-pk (mm)
RMS (g) 1.10 Vertical 1.60 9.0
Displacement Lateral 1.25 4.9
2.1
pk-pk (mm) Longitudinal 1.15 3.6
Test Duration per axis 1 hour for a flight duration of 40 hours.
(The vertical test should be applied in all axes if the orientation of the materiel in the aircraft is unknown or can vary)
Figure A-17: Materiel Transported in Chinook Helicopter

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
10.0000
1.0000
0.1000
(g2/Hz)
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

sinusoids)
Sinusoidal
(B = 2.0 Hz)
Acceleration peak
Acceleration Power
(gpk)
Frequency (Hz)
Tolerance ±2%

(Blade order)
Acceleration
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Power
Vertical
Vertical
Lateral
Lateral
Frequency
Spectral
(Hz)
Density
(g2/Hz)
5 0.004 17.85 (nR) 2.50 1.50

0.50 1.56 0.56 0.063
10 0.007 35.70 (2nR) 0.60 0.25
0.10 0.09 0.02 0.003
71 0.007 53.55 (3nR) 0.40 0.20- 0.04 0.01 -
80 0.01 71.40 (4nR) 0.25 - - 0.02 - -
115 0.012 Note:
300 0.003 If the frequency resolution of the vibration test control equipment does
510 0.15 not give a narrowband of exactly 2.0 Hz, the narrowband amplitude
800 0.007 should be re-calculated from sinusoidal peak amplitude using the actual
1025 0.04 value of B in the equation (g2/Hz) = (gpk)2/2B. The actual value of B
1300 0.002
RMS (g) 5.67 Axis RMS (g) Displacement pk-pk (mm)
Displacement Vertical 5.96 10.0
5.5
pk-pk (mm) Lateral 5.77 7.4
Longitudinal 5.69 5.8
Test Duration per axis 1 hour for a flight duration of 50 hours.
Figure A-18: Materiel Transported in Merlin Helicopter

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.00000
0.10000
0.01000
(g2/Hz)
0.00100
0.00010
0.00001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
(Transportation in small helicopters, such as Lynx / Wildcat aircraft is normally only necessary for
man portable equipment)
Broadband Random (Components may be applied as either random narrowbands
or sinusoids)
Sinusoidal Narrowband
Acceleration Frequency (Hz)
Frequency Acceleration (B = 2.0 Hz)
Power Spectral Tolerance ±2%
(Hz) peak Acceleration Power
Density (g2/Hz) (Blade order)
(gpk) Spectral Density (g2/Hz)
5 0.0003 22.0 (nR) 0.76 0.146
10 0.0003 44.0 (2nR) 0.59 0.088
16 0.0008 66.0 (3nR) 0.59 0.088
35 0.0002 88.0 (4nR) 0.40 0.039
60 0.0023 110.0 (5nR) 0.13 0.004
95 0.0023 130.0 (6nR) 0.38 0.036
115 0.0001 Note:
550 0.001 If the frequency resolution of the vibration test control
700 0.01 equipment does not give a narrowband of exactly 2.0 Hz, the
1200 0.0001 narrowband amplitude should be re-calculated from sinusoidal
2000 0.0001 peak amplitude using the actual value of B in the equation
(g2/Hz) = (gpk)2/2B. The actual value of B should not vary by
RMS (g) 1.40 more than 2% from the required value (2.0 Hz).
Displacement
1.4 Overall Test Parameters
pk-pk (mm)
RMS (g) 1.66
1 hour for a flight duration of
Test Duration per axis
33 hours.
Figure A-19: Materiel Transported in Lynx / Wildcat Helicopter

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401

sinusoids)
Sinusoidal
(B = 2.0 Hz)
Acceleration peak
Acceleration Power
Frequency (Hz)
Tolerance ±2%
(gpk)
(Blade order)

Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Acceleration
Vertical
Vertical
Lateral
Lateral
Frequency
Power Spectral
(Hz)
Density (g2/Hz)
5 0.004 nR 1.73 1.73

1.0 0.75 0.75 0.25
100 0.004 2nR 1.73 1.73
1.0 0.75 0.75 0.25
500 0.001 3nR 1.73 1.73
1.0 0.75 0.75 0.25
RMS (g) 1.05 Note:
Displacement If the frequency resolution of the vibration test control equipment does
4.9 not give a narrowband of exactly 2.0 Hz, the narrowband amplitude
pk-pk (mm)
should be re-calculated from sinusoidal peak amplitude using the actual
value of B in the equation (g2/Hz) = (gpk)2/2B. The actual value of B
Axis RMS (g) Displacement pk-pk (mm)
Vertical 2.36 19.5
Lateral 2.36 19.5
Longitudinal 1.61 12.0
Test Duration per axis 1 hour for a flight duration of 6 hours
Figure A-20: Helicopter Transport

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
0.1000
In Container
In Cargo Net
0.0100
(g2/Hz)
0.0010
0.0001
0.0000
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

In Container In Cargo Net
Acceleration Acceleration
Frequency Frequency
Power Spectral Power Spectral
(Hz) (Hz)
Density (g2/Hz) Density (g2/Hz)
5 0.005 5 0.0005
100 0.005 100 0.0005
1000 0.0001 1000 0.00005
RMS (g) 1.02 RMS (g) 0.40
5.4 1.7
One hour of One hour of
Test duration testing is Test duration testing is
per axis: equivalent to per axis: equivalent to
12 hours of flight 6 hours of flight
Figure A-21: Helicopter Underslung Loads

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.000
0.100
(g2/Hz)
0.010
0.001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

5 0.001
7 0.1
11 0.1
14 0.03
50 0.03
500 0.002
RMS (g) 2.13
The minimum test time of one hour
Test duration per axis: is equivalent to 1000 km off-road
and degraded road
Figure A-22: Materiel Transported as Restrained Cargo or Deployed in

Wheeled Vehicles Off-Road & Degraded Road

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.0000
Vertical
0.1000
0.0100
(g2/Hz)
0.0010
0.0001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Vertical Lateral Longitudinal

Acceleration Acceleration Acceleration
Frequency Frequency Frequency
Power Spectral Power Spectral Power Spectral
(Hz) (Hz) (Hz)
Density (g2/Hz) Density (g2/Hz) Density (g2/Hz)
5 0.128 5 0.041 5 0.018
6 0.129 6 0.044 6 0.024
7 0.3 7 0.11 7 0.05
8 0.3 8 0.11 8 0.05
9 0.1 9 0.043 9 0.02
12 0.1 12 0.043 12 0.02
14 0.15 14 0.074 14 0.05
16 0.15 16 0.074 16 0.05
19 0.04 19 0.02 19 0.01
90 0.006 100 0.0007 23 0.01
125 0.004 189 0.001 25 0.008
190 0.004 350 0.004 66 0.001
211 0.006 425 0.004 84 0.001
440 0.006 482 0.002 90 0.002
500 0.002 500 0.001 165 0.002
221 0.003
455 0.003
500 0.002
RMS (g) 2.24 RMS (g) 1.43 RMS (g) 1.32
Displacement Displacement Displacement
31.1 18.7 13.0
pk-pk (mm) pk-pk (mm) pk-pk (mm)
The minimum test time of 40 minutes per axis is
Test duration: equivalent to 281 km on road and 523 km off road
(804 km total distance)
(The vertical test should be applied in all axes if the orientation of the materiel in the vehicle is unknown or can vary)
Figure A-23: Composite Wheeled Vehicle

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.0000
Vertical
0.1000
0.0100
(g2/Hz)
0.0010
0.0001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Vertical Lateral Longitudinal

Acceleration Acceleration Acceleration
Power Power Power
Spectral Spectral Spectral
Frequency Density Frequency Density Frequency Density
(Hz) (g2/Hz) (Hz) (g2/Hz) (Hz) (g2/Hz)
5 0.2 5 0.05 5 0.054
7 0.4 7 0.065 7 0.1
8 0.4 8 0.065 8 0.1
10 0.051 11 0.022 13 0.014
20 0.04 87 0.003 21 0.038
43 0.1 475 0.001 23 0.038
50 0.031 500 0.0005 25 0.017
105 0.075 76 0.003
150 0.03 100 0.08
259 0.046 140 0.054
332 0.01 155 0.006
500 0.005 500 0.005
RMS (g) 3.98 RMS (g) 1.20 RMS (g) 2.56
Displacement Displacement Displacement
38.4 17.4 20.1
pk-pk (mm) pk-pk (mm) pk-pk (mm)
The minimum test time of 32 minutes per
Test duration: axis is equivalent to 7.7 km on road and
43.8 km off road (51.5 km total distance)
Figure A-24: Two Wheeled Trailers

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
(g2/Hz)
0.0010
0.0001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

Frequency Acceleration Power
(Hz) Spectral Density (g2/Hz)
5 0.2
7 0.4
8 0.4
10 0.051
20 0.04
43 0.1
50 0.031
98 0.069
100 0.08
140 0.054
143 0.034
150 0.03
259 0.046
332 0.01
500 0.005
RMS (g) 4.03
The minimum test time of
32 minutes per axis is
Test duration: equivalent to 7.7 km on
road and 43.8 km off road
(51.5 km total distance)
(This test should be used if the orientation of the materiel in the vehicle is not known or can be varied)
Figure A-25: Two Wheeled Trailers - Combined Test Applicable to All Axes

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.0000
Vertical Axis
Lateral & Longitudinal Axes
0.1000
(g2/Hz)
0.0100
0.0010
Swept Frequency
Ranges
0.0001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Harmonic Swept Narrowbands
Broadband Random
(applied for the whole test duration)
Acceleration Power
Narrowband
Frequency Spectral Density (g2/Hz)
Harmonic 1 2 3
(Hz) Lateral &
Vertical Number
Longitudinal
5 0.0005 0.0005 Bandwidth (Hz) 5 10 15
20 0.0075 0.005 Sweep Range (Hz)
20 to 70 40 to 140 60 to 210
510 0.0075 0.005 (centre frequencies)
2000 0.0005 0.0005 Sweep Cycle one up & one down sweep
RMS (g) 2.57 2.18 Sweep Rate of 10Hz per minute with a minimum
1st narrowband of a full single cycle
Acceleration Power Spectral

Axis
Density (g2/Hz)
Vertical 0.15 0.15 0.15
Lateral &
RMS (g) 3.30 2.62 0.075 0.075 0.075
Longitudinal
Displacement
4.4 (max) 3.5 (max)
pk-pk (mm)
Two hours of testing,
Note: The amplitude of the 1st Narrowband may be
equally split between
Test duration increased logarithmically from 50% of the specified
high and low speed, is
amplitude at 20 Hz to the full amplitude at 40 Hz.
equivalent to 1000 km
Figure A-26: Materiel Transported as Secured Cargo in Tracked Vehicles

(Low Speed Portion)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.000
Vertical Axis
0.100
(g2/Hz)
0.010
Swept Frequency
Ranges
0.001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

Broadband Random
Acceleration Power
Narrowband
Harmonic 1 2 3
(Hz) Lateral &
Vertical Number
Longitudinal
5 0.001 0.001 Bandwidth (Hz) 5 10 15
20 0.015 0.01 Sweep Range (Hz) 70 to 140 to 210 to
510 0.015 0.01 (centre frequencies) 170 340 510
RMS (g) 3.63 3.08 Sweep Rate of 10 Hz per minute with a minimum

Axis
Density (g2/Hz)
Vertical 0.30 0.30 0.30
Lateral &
RMS (g) 4.66 3.70 0.15 0.15 0.15
Longitudinal
Displacement
3.8 (max) 3.5 (max)
pk-pk (mm)
Test duration equally split between
per axis high and low speed, is
Figure A-27: Materiel Transported as Secured Cargo in Tracked Vehicles

(High Speed Portion)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.0000
Vertical Axis
Lateral & Longitudinial Axes
0.1000
(g2/Hz)
0.0100
0.0010
Swept Frequency
Ranges
0.0001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

Broadband Random
Acceleration Power
Narrowband
Harmonic 1 2 3
(Hz) Lateral &
Vertical Number
Longitudinal
5 0.0005 0.0005 Bandwidth (Hz) 5 10 15
20 0.0075 0.005 Sweep Range (Hz)
20 to 70 40 to 140 60 to 210

Axis
Density (g2/Hz)
Vertical 0.15 0.10 0.05
Lateral &
RMS (g) 2.98 2.42 0.075 0.05 0.025
Longitudinal
Displacement
4.3 (max) 3.4 (max)
pk-pk (mm)
Figure A-28: Materiel Deployed in Turret Bustle Rack or Installed in Turret of

Tracked Vehicles (Low Speed Portion)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.000
Vertical Axis
0.100
(g2/Hz)
0.010
Swept Frequency
Ranges
0.001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

Broadband Random
Acceleration Power
Narrowband
Harmonic 1 2 3
(Hz) Lateral &
Vertical Number
Longitudinal
5 0.001 0.001 Bandwidth (Hz) 5 10 15

Axis
Density (g2/Hz)
Vertical 0.30 0.20 0.10
Lateral &
RMS (g) 4.21 3.42 0.15 0.10 0.05
Longitudinal
Displacement
3.8 (max) 3.5 (max)
pk-pk (mm)
Figure A-29: Materiel Deployed in Turret Bustle Rack or Installed in Turret of

Tracked Vehicles (High Speed Portion)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.0000
Vertical Axis
0.1000
(g2/Hz)
0.0100
0.0010
Swept Frequency
Ranges
0.0001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

Broadband Random
Acceleration Power
Narrowband
Harmonic 1 2 3
(Hz) Lateral &
Vertical Number
Longitudinal
5 0.0005 0.0005 Bandwidth (Hz) 5 10 15
20 0.0075 0.005 Sweep Range (Hz)
20 to 70 40 to 140 60 to 210

Axis
Density (g2/Hz)
Vertical 0.15 0.15 0.15
Lateral &
RMS (g) 3.30 2.62 0.075 0.075 0.075
Longitudinal
Displacement
4.4 (max) 3.5 (max)
pk-pk (mm)
Figure A-30: Materiel Deployed on the Sponson or Installed in Hull of Heavy


ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.000
Vertical Axis
0.100
(g2/Hz)
0.010
Swept Frequency
Ranges
0.001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

Broadband Random
Acceleration Power
Narrowband
Harmonic 1 2 3
(Hz) Lateral &
Vertical Number
Longitudinal
5 0.001 0.001 Bandwidth (Hz) 5 10 15

Axis
Density (g2/Hz)
Vertical 0.30 0.30 0.30
Lateral &
RMS (g) 4.66 3.70 0.15 0.15 0.15
Longitudinal
Displacement
3.8 (max) 3.5 (max)
pk-pk (mm)
Figure A-31: Materiel Deployed on the Sponson or Installed in Hull of Heavy


ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
10.0000
Vertical Axis

1.0000
0.1000
(g2/Hz)
0.0100
0.0010
Swept Frequency
Ranges
0.0001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

Broadband Random
Acceleration Power
Narrowband
Harmonic 1 2 3
(Hz) Lateral &
Vertical Number
Longitudinal
5 0.0005 0.0005 Bandwidth (Hz) 5 10 15
20 0.0075 0.005 Sweep Range (Hz)
20 to 70 40 to 140 60 to 210

Axis
Density (g2/Hz)
Vertical 0.5 0.5 0.25
Lateral &
RMS (g) 4.20 3.40 0.5 0.25 0.125
Longitudinal
Displacement
7.0 (max) 6.7 (max)
pk-pk (mm)
Figure A-32: Materiel Deployed on the Sponson or Installed in Hull of Light


ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
10.000
Vertical Axis
1.000
(g2/Hz)
0.100
0.010
Swept Frequency
Ranges
0.001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

Broadband Random
Acceleration Power
Narrowband
Harmonic 1 2 3
(Hz) Lateral &
Vertical Number
Longitudinal
5 0.001 0.001 Bandwidth (Hz) 5 10 15

Axis
Density (g2/Hz)
Vertical 1.0 1.0 0.50
Lateral &
RMS (g) 5.94 4.80 1.0 0.5 0.25
Longitudinal
Displacement
pk-pk (mm) 3.9 (max) 3.6 (max)
Figure A-33: Materiel Deployed on the Sponson or Installed in Hull of Light


ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.000
Sinusoidal Amplitude - Velocity
0.100
(m/s peak)
0.010
0.001
1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)

(Test Requirement is for Sinusoidal Sweep Testing Followed by Fixed Frequency Sinusoidal
Testing)
Peak Duration
Frequency Sweep
Test Group Region Amplitude per axis
(Hz) Rate
(mm pk) (mins)
5.00 1 to 5 60 not greater
Sinusoidal Sweep 1.25 5 to 14 33 than
Vibration 0.30 14 to 23 16 1 octave per
minute
Masthead 0.125 23 to 33 11
Fixed Frequency (see note 1) 1.250 14 20
Sinusoidal 0.300 23 20 Not
Vibration Applicable
(see note 2) 0.125 33 20
Note 1: The 1 to 5 Hz sinusoidal sweep is only required if the installed materiel exhibits a resonance below 5 Hz
Note 2: For the fixed frequency sinusoidal testing, if the materiel exhibits significant resonances in the bands
5 to 14, 14 to 23 or 23 to 33 Hz, then the tests should be conducted at the applicable sinusoidal sweep
amplitudes, at those frequencies in place of those detailed above. If the materiel has more than one resonance
in each frequency band, then the time spent at each frequency should be divided by the number of resonances.
A resonance is deemed to be significant if its dynamic magnification factor (Q) exceeds 3.
Figure A-34: Materiel Deployed in Ships of Mine Sweeper Size and Above, for
Masthead Locations

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.000
0.100
(m/s peak)
0.010
0.001
1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)

Testing)
Peak Duration
Frequency Sweep
(Hz) Rate
(mm pk) (mins)
not greater
Sinusoidal Sweep than
0.125 5 to 33 60
Vibration 1 octave
Upper deck, per minute
Fixed Frequency protected 1.250 14 20
Sinusoidal compartments and 0.300 23 20
hull Not
(see note 1) 0.125 33 20
Note 1: For the fixed frequency sinusoidal testing, if the materiel exhibits significant resonances in the bands
5 to 14, 14 to 23 or 23 to 33 Hz, then the tests should be conducted at the applicable sinusoidal sweep
amplitudes, at those frequencies in place of those detailed above. If the materiel has more than one resonance
in each frequency band, then the time spent at each frequency should be divided by the number of
resonances. A resonance is deemed to be significant if its dynamic magnification factor (Q) exceeds 3.
Figure A-35: Materiel Deployed in Ships of Mine Sweeper Size and Above, for
Upper Deck, Protected Compartments and Hull Locations

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.000
0.100
±60 mm/s pk
(m/s peak)
0.010
0.001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

Testing)
Peak
Duration
Amplitude Frequency Sweep
Test Group Region per axis
(mm/s pk (Hz) Rate
(mins)
or mm pk)
60 mm/s
or 0.4 not greater
Sinusoidal Sweep mm, than
Aft 7 to 300 60
Vibration (The aft region is
whichever 1 octave per
is the minute
equal to one-eighth of
the ship's overall lesser
Fixed Frequency length, measured from 0.4 mm or
the stern.) 24 30
Sinusoidal 60 mm/s Not
Vibration 0.2 mm or Applicable
50 30
(see note 1) 30 mm/s
Note 1: For the fixed frequency sinusoidal testing, if the materiel exhibits significant resonances in the 7 to
300 Hz, then the tests should be conducted, at the applicable sinusoidal sweep amplitudes, at those
frequencies in place of those detailed above. If the materiel has more than one resonance in each frequency
band, then the time spent at each frequency should be 60 minutes divided by the number of resonances. A
resonance is deemed to be significant if its dynamic magnification factor (Q) exceeds 3.
Figure A-36: Materiel Deployed in Ships Smaller than Mine Sweepers, for Aft
Locations

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.000
0.100
(m/s peak)
±30 mm/s pk
0.010
0.001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

Testing)
Peak
Duration
Amplitude Frequency Sweep
Test Group Region per axis
(mm/s pk (Hz) Rate
(mins)
or mm pk)
30 mm/s
or 0.2 not greater
Sinusoidal Sweep mm, than
7 to 300 60
Vibration Masthead, upper whichever 1 octave
is the per minute
deck, protected
compartments and lesser
Fixed Frequency hull 0.4 mm or
24 30
Sinusoidal 60 mm/s Not
Vibration 0.2 mm or Applicable
50 30
(see note 1) 30 mm/s
Note 1: For the fixed frequency sinusoidal testing, if the materiel exhibits significant resonances in the 7 to
300 Hz, then the tests should be conducted, at the applicable sinusoidal sweep amplitudes, at those
frequencies in place of those detailed above. If the materiel has more than one resonance in each frequency
band, then the time spent at each frequency should be 60 minutes divided by the number of resonances. A
resonance is deemed to be significant if its dynamic magnification factor (Q) exceeds 3.
Figure A-37: Materiel Deployed in Ships Smaller than Mine Sweepers, for
Masthead, Upper Deck, Protected Compartments and Hull Locations

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.000
0.100
(m/s peak)
0.010
0.001
1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)
Test Severities for Materiel Deployed in Submarines

Testing)
Peak Duration
Frequency Sweep
(Hz) Rate
(mm pk) (mins)
2.00 1 to 5 60 not greater
Sinusoidal Sweep All than
Vibration (see note 1) 1 octave per
0.125 5 to 33 60 minute
Fixed Frequency
Sinusoidal Not
All 0.125 33 60
(see note 2)
Note 1: The 1 to 5 Hz sinusoidal sweep is only required if the installed materiel exhibits a resonance below 5 Hz
Note 2: For the fixed frequency sinusoidal testing, if the materiel exhibits significant resonances in the frequency
band 5 to 33 Hz, then the test should be conducted at those frequencies in place of that detailed above. In such
cases, the severity used should be 0.125 mm. If the materiel has more than one resonance, then the time spent
at each frequency should be divided by the number of resonances. A resonance is deemed to be significant if its
dynamic magnification factor (Q) exceeds 3.
Figure A-38: Materiel Deployed in Submarines, for All Locations

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
0.100
(g2/Hz)
0.010
Vertical & Lateral Axes

Longitudinal Axis
0.001
10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Vertical & Lateral Longitudinal

Acceleration Acceleration
Frequency Frequency
Power Spectral Power Spectral
(Hz) (Hz)
Density (g2/Hz) Density (g2/Hz)
20 0.04 20 0.01
2000 0.04 2000 0.01
RMS (g) 8.90 RMS (g) 4.45
1.9 1.0
Duration per Axis
Flight Duration
Aircraft Type/ Store
for 1 Hour of
Type
Test (hrs)
Air to ground attack 30 The minimum test time is one hour
Air to air attack per axis.
10 The maximum duration of such
(fighter)
vibration testing is considered to 15
Reconnaissance 10
hours per axis.
Tanker 100
Anti-Submarine 30
ECM/pod 500
Figure A-39: Materiel Carried Externally on Low and Medium Performance

Jet Aircraft

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.000
0.100
(g2/Hz)
0.010
0.001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

(Single or multi-point response control located at the materiel mounting
locations.)
(Hz) (g2/Hz)
5 0.001
30 0.500
100 0.001
RMS (g) 2.63
30 seconds for a two hour sortie with a
Test duration per axis
maximum test time of 15 minutes per axis.
The severity represents the response of a
single dominant wing mode associated with
Maximum Spectral level either bending or torsion. If the frequency of
the actual dominant mode is known, the
mode frequency should be used.
Figure A-40: Buffet for Wing Mounted Low Aspect Ratio Materiel

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.000
0.100
(g2/Hz)
0.010
0.001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

locations.)
(Hz) (g2/Hz)
5 0.001
15 0.200
100 0.001
RMS (g) 1.46
single dominant fuselage mode associated
Maximum Spectral level with either bending or torsion. If the
frequency of the actual dominant mode is
known, the mode frequency should be used.
Figure A-41: Buffet for Fuselage Mounted Low Aspect Ratio Materiel

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
10
1
(g2/Hz)
0.1
0.01
0.001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

locations.)
(Hz) (g2/Hz)
5 0.001
30 0.500
45 0.100
60 2.000
100 0.001
RMS (g) 5.06
The severity represents the response of the
dominant wing mode and the store first
bending mode. If the frequencies of the
Maximum Spectral level actual modes are known, the mode
frequencies should be used. If the two
frequencies are closer than 10 Hz then a
tailored approach should be followed.
Figure A-42: Buffet for Wing Mounted High Aspect Ratio Materiel

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.000
0.100
(g2/Hz)
0.010
0.001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

locations.)
(Hz) (g2/Hz)
5 0.001
60 0.500
100 0.001
RMS (g) 3.35
single dominant fuselage mode associated
Maximum Spectral level with either bending or torsion. If the
frequency of the actual dominant mode is
known, the mode frequency should be used.
Figure A-43: Buffet for Fuselage Mounted High Aspect Ratio Materiel

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
1.000
0.100
(g2/Hz)
0.010
0.001
10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

Broadband Random Narrowband Components
Acceleration
Power Frequency Acceleration
Frequency Bandwidth
Spectral (Hz) Power Spectral
(Hz) (Hz)
Density (Blade order) Density (g2/Hz)
(g2/Hz)
15 0.01 102 (nR) 0.631 5
2000 0.01 204 (2nR) 0.162 10
RMS (g) 4.46 306 (3nR) 0.07 15
If nR is not 102 Hz for required aircraft, substitute
actual blade order frequency for nR.
rms (g) 5.07
Displacement pk-pk
1.5
(mm)
1 hour per axis for
Test Duration per axis 20 hours of mission
flight time
Figure A-44: Materiel Carried Externally on Propeller Aircraft

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
ANNEX B VERIFICATION INFORMATION FOR DIFFERENT VIBRATION

TEST TYPES
B.1. INTRODUCTION
This Annex sets out the verification information required to demonstrate that the test
requirements and severities have been achieved for the different types of vibration test.
The verification information set out in this Annex is required in addition to the
verification requirements of paragraph 6.1.
B.2. FIXED FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATION
For a fixed frequency sinusoidal vibration test the verification information should
include:
a. The frequency and root mean square (RMS) of the sinusoid measured at
the reference point and each control point. If the amplitude is defined in
terms of peak amplitude this should be deduced from RMS
measurement.
b. The out of plane root mean square (RMS) of the sinusoid, for each control
point and each specified monitor point.
c. The filter characteristics of the measurement and analysis system used.
d. The verification information should, as a minimum, be established at the

beginning, middle and end of the test.
B.3. SWEPT FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATION
For a swept frequency sinusoidal vibration test the verification information should
include:
the reference point and each control point. If the amplitude is defined in
terms peak amplitude this should be deduced from RMS measurement.
b. The out of plane root mean square (RMS) of the sinusoid, for each control
point and specified monitor point.
d. The verification information should be established over an entire sweep

(both increasing and decreasing frequency). This may require separate
control and measurement capabilities. The verification information
B-1 Edition D Version 1

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
should, as a minimum, be established at the beginning, middle and end

of the test.
B.4. SINUSOIDAL STEP FREQUENCY
For a sinusoidal step frequency vibration test the verification information should
include:
the reference point and each control point, for each frequency step. If
the amplitude is defined in terms peak amplitude this should be deduced
from RMS measurement.
b. The out of plane root mean square (RMS) of the sinusoid, at each control
point and specified monitor point, for each frequency step.

B.5. BROADBAND RANDOM VIBRATION
For a broadband random vibration test the verification information should include:
a. The Power Spectral Density and overall root mean square (RMS) value,
for the reference point and each control point.
b. The out of plane Power Spectral Density along with the corresponding
RMS values over the test frequency range, for each control point and
specified monitor point.
c. The verification information should, as a minimum, be established at the

B.6. FIXED NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION
For a fixed frequency narrowband random vibration test the verification information
should include:
a. The Power Spectral Density and the overall root mean square (RMS)
over the test frequency range, for the reference point and each control
point.
b. The centre frequency, Power Spectral Density amplitude and RMS of

each narrowband, for the reference point and each control point.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
c. The out of plane Power Spectral Density along with the corresponding
RMS values, for each control point and specified monitor point.

B.7. SWEPT NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION
For a swept narrowband random vibration test the verification information should
include:
a. The Power Spectral Density and the overall root mean square (RMS),
over the full test frequency range, for the reference point and each control
point.
b. The centre frequency, Power Spectral Density amplitude and the RMS of
each narrowband, for the reference point and each control point.

of the test.
B.8. FIXED FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATIONS ON BROADBAND

RANDOM VIBRATION
For a fixed frequency sinusoidal vibration on broadband random vibration test the
verification information should include:
point.
b. The frequency and root mean square (RMS) of each sinusoidal

component measured at the reference point and control points. If the
amplitude is defined in terms peak amplitude this should be deduced
c. The out of plane Power Spectral Density, the corresponding overall RMS
value as well as the frequency and root mean square (RMS) of each
sinusoidal component, for each control point and specified monitor point.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401

B.9. SWEPT FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATION ON BROADBAND

RANDOM VIBRATION
For a swept frequency sinusoidal vibration on broadband random vibration test the
verification information should include:
point.
b. The frequency and root mean square (RMS) of each sinusoidal

component measured at the reference point and control points. If the
amplitude is defined in terms peak amplitude this should be deduced
value as well as the frequency and root mean square (RMS) of each
sinusoidal component, for each control point and specified monitor point.

of the test.
B.10. FIXED FREQUENCY NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ON

BROADBAND RANDOM VIBRATION
For a fixed frequency narrowband random vibration on broadband random vibration

test the verification information should include:
point.
b. The centre frequency, Power Spectral Density amplitude and root mean
square (RMS) of each narrowband component, for the reference point
and each control point.


ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
B.11. SWEPT FREQUENCY NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ON

For a swept frequency narrowband random vibration on broadband random vibration

test the verification information should include:
over the full test frequency range, for the reference point and each control
point.
b. The centre frequency, Power Spectral Density amplitude and RMS of

each narrowband, over an entire sweep (both increasing and decreasing
frequency), for the reference point and each control point.
value as well as the centre frequency and root mean square (RMS) of
each narrowband component, for each control point and specified
monitor point.

of the test.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
ANNEX C INFORMATION TO BE DOCUMENTED WHENEVER VIBRATION

TEST REQUIREMENTS CANNOT BE ACHIEVED
C.1. INTRODUCTION
1. This Annex sets out the minimum information which needs to be documented in
the Environmental Test Report whenever the specified vibration test requirements
cannot be met. This information is in addition to the verification information set out in
paragraph 6.1 of the main method and in Annex B. This information may be
augmented by further information requirements set out by the Test Specifier. The
information requirements are set out for each different vibration test type.
2. This Annex also sets out historic alleviations to certain test tolerances which
may be adopted, with the agreement of the Test Specifier, in appropriate
circumstances. Whenever the tolerances quoted in the main body text of this chapter
cannot be met, the additional information set out in this Annex should be included in
the Environmental Test Report.
C.2. HISTORICAL ALTERNATIVE TOLERANCES
The test tolerances quoted in the main body text of this chapter may, in some
circumstances, be difficult to achieve at certain frequencies within the specified test
range, especially when using the controlled response strategy. Historically, at the
discretion of and with the agreement of the Test Specifier, certain test tolerances may
be degraded within the constraints listed below. All other tolerances remain
unchanged. The use of the test tolerances listed below shall be justified and recorded
in the Environmental Test Report, which should include the additional information set
out in this Annex.
a. All Test Types
(1) Multi-point Control: Within +5 dB and -10 dB of the specified value

at each control point.
(2) Cross-Axis Motions: Achieved cross-axis motion should be

measured and reported.
b. Sine Vibration Components
(1) Amplitudes below 500 Hz: ± 10% of the specified value at the
reference point at the specified frequency.
(2) Amplitudes above 500 Hz: ± 20% of the specified value at the
reference point at the specified frequency.
C-1 Edition D Version 1

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
(3) Additionally all amplitudes outside the range ± 10% of the specified
value should not total more than 5% of control frequency range.
c. Random Vibration Components
(1) Amplitudes below 500 Hz: ± 3 dB of the specified value at the

reference point.
(2) Amplitudes above 500 Hz: ± 6 dB of the specified value at the

reference point.
(3) Additionally all amplitudes outside the range ± 3 dB of the

specified value should not total more than 5% of the control
frequency.
(4) Root mean square: ± 2 dB of the specified value at the reference

point.
d. High Sweep Rate Narrowband or Sinusoidal components
(1) At higher sweep rates the specified tolerances may not be

achievable. Therefore the tolerance requirements for these
components should be stated in the Environmental Test
Specification.
C.3. FIXED FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATION
If the requirements for a fixed frequency sinusoidal vibration test cannot be achieved,
the following should be additionally included in the Environmental Test Report:
a. the RMS for each monitor and fixing point,
b. the identification of all resonances of the test item, rig and fixture at
frequencies in the test frequency range or Frequency Response
Functions (amplitude & phase) measured between the excitation source
and the reference, control and attachment.
C.4. SWEPT FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATION
If the requirements for a swept frequency sinusoidal vibration test cannot be achieved,
a. the RMS over a full (up and down) sweep, for each monitor and fixing
point,

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
C.5. SINUSOIDAL STEP FREQUENCY
If the requirements for a sinusoidal step frequency vibration test cannot be achieved,
a. the RMS, for each frequency step over the full test frequency range, for
each monitor and fixing point,
C.6. BROADBAND RANDOM VIBRATION
If the requirements for a broadband random vibration test cannot be achieved, the
following should be additionally included in the Environmental Test Report:
a. the Power Spectral Density and the out of plane Power Spectral Density
along with the corresponding RMS values, for each monitor and fixing
point,
and the reference, control and fixing points,
c. the Power Spectral Density and associated RMS, over the test frequency
range, of the waveform generated by the control equipment or the Power
Spectral Density of the armature voltage/amperage.
C.7. NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION
If the requirements for a fixed frequency narrowband random vibration test cannot be
achieved, the following should be additionally included in the Environmental Test
Report:
point,

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
C.8. SWEPT NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION
If the requirements for a swept narrowband random vibration test cannot be achieved,
along with the corresponding RMS values, for each monitor fixing point,
C.9. FIXED FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATIONS ON BROADBAND

RANDOM VIBRATION
If the requirements for a vibration test, comprising fixed frequency sinusoidal vibrations
on broadband random, cannot be achieved the following should be additionally
included in the Environmental Test Report:
point,

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
C.10. SWEPT FREQUENCY SINUSOIDAL VIBRATION ON BROADBAND

RANDOM VIBRATION
If the requirements for a vibration test, comprising swept frequency sinusoidal

vibrations on broadband random, cannot be achieved the following should be
additionally included in the Environmental Test Report:
along with the corresponding RMS values, for each fixing point,
C.11. FIXED FREQUENCY NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ON

If the requirements for a vibration test, comprising fixed frequency narrowband

point,

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 401
C.12. SWEPT FREQUENCY NARROWBAND RANDOM VIBRATION ON

If the requirements for a vibration test, comprising swept frequency narrowband

point,

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
METHOD 402
ACOUSTIC NOISE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-1
CHAPTER 2 GUIDANCE ........................................................................................ 2-1
2.3. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.4. CHOICE OF TEST PROCEDURES.......................................................... 2-2
2.5. TYPES OF ACOUSTIC EXCITATION ...................................................... 2-2
2.5.1. Procedure I - Diffuse Field Acoustic Noise ......................................... 2-2
2.5.2. Procedure II - Grazing Incidence Acoustic Noise ............................... 2-3
2.5.3. Procedure III - Cavity Resonance ...................................................... 2-3
CHAPTER 3 SEVERITIES ...................................................................................... 3-1
INSTRUCTION ................................................................................... 4-1
4.1. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.2. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-1
CHAPTER 5 TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES ....................................... 5-1
5.1. TOLERANCES.......................................................................................... 5-1
5.2. CONTROL ................................................................................................ 5-1
5.2.1. Control Options .................................................................................. 5-1
5.2.2. Control Methods ................................................................................. 5-1
5.2.3. Overall Accuracy of Control................................................................ 5-2
5.3.1. Procedure I - Diffuse Field Acoustic Noise ......................................... 5-2
5.3.2. Procedure II - Grazing Incidence Acoustic Noise ............................... 5-3
5.3.3. Procedure III - Cavity Resonance Acoustic Noise .............................. 5-3
5.3.4. Effects of Gravity ................................................................................ 5-3
5.4.1. Pre-conditioning ................................................................................. 5-3
5.4.2. Inspection and Performance Checks.................................................. 5-4
5.5. PROCEDURES......................................................................................... 5-4
5.5.1. Procedure I - Diffuse Field Acoustic Noise Testing ............................ 5-4
5.5.2. Procedure II - Grazing Incidence Acoustic Noise Testing .................. 5-4
5.5.3. Procedure III - Cavity Resonance Acoustic Noise Testing ................. 5-5
CHAPTER 6 EVALUATION OF TEST RESULTS ................................................... 6-1
AECTP-400
METHOD 402
TABLE
1. Acoustic Test Tolerances.............................................................................. 5-2
ANNEX A ACOUSTIC NOISE - GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST SEVERITY .... A-1
A.1. WIDEBAND RANDOM AND INCIDENCE NOISE TESTING .................... A-1
A.1.1. OVERALL SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL (OASPL) ................................... A-1
A.1.2. TEST SPECTRUM.................................................................................... A-1
A.1.3. SIMULATION OF AERODYNAMIC TURBULENCE ................................. A-1
A.2. CAVITY RESONANCE TESTING ............................................................. A-3
A.2.1. TEST PARAMETERS ............................................................................... A-3
ANNEX A TABLES
A-1. Overall Sound Pressure Test Levels and Duration ................................... A-2
A-2. Cavity Resonance Test Conditions ........................................................... A-3
ANNEX A FIGURES
A-1. Applied Test Spectrum.............................................................................. A-4
ANNEX B ACOUSTIC TESTING TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ............................... B-1
B.1. REVERBERATION CHAMBERS .............................................................. B-1
B.2. PROGRESSIVE WAVE TUBES ............................................................... B-1
B.3. ACOUSTIC NOISE CHARACTERISTICS ................................................ B-2
B.4. CONTROL STRATEGIES ........................................................................ B-2
B.5. DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................... B-3
B.5.1. SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL .................................................................... B-3
B.5.2. THIRD OCTAVE FILTERS ....................................................................... B-3
AECTP-400
METHOD 402
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this test method is to replicate the acoustic environment incurred by
systems, subsystems and units, hereafter called materiel, during the specified operational
conditions.
1.2. APPLICATION
This test method is applicable where materiel is required to demonstrate its adequacy to
resist the specified acoustic environment without unacceptable degradation of its
functional and/or structural performance. It is also applicable for materiel where acoustic
noise excitation is used in preference to mechanical vibrator excitation for the simulation
of aerodynamic turbulence.
AECTP 100 and 200 provide additional guidance on the selection of a test procedure for
a specific acoustic environment.
1.3. LIMITATIONS
Where a diffuse field acoustic noise test is used for the simulation of aerodynamic
turbulence, it is not necessarily suitable for proving thin shell structures interfacing directly
with the acoustic noise.

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
The following list is not intended to be all inclusive but provides examples of problems
that could occur when materiel is exposed to an acoustic environment.
a. Wire chafing
b. Component fatigue
c. Component connecting wire fracture
d. Cracking of printed circuit boards
e. Failure of waveguide components
f. Intermittent operation of electrical contacts
g. Cracking of small panel areas and structural elements
h. Optical misalignment
i. Loosening of small particles that may become lodged in circuits and

mechanisms
j. Excessive electrical noise
Where practical, measured field data should be used to develop test levels. It is
particularly important to use field data where a precise simulation is the goal. Sufficient
field data should be obtained to adequately describe the conditions being evaluated and
experienced by the materiel. The measured data should accurately represent the type of
acoustic excitation, frequency range, intensity, and other parameters necessary for
laboratory simulation.
2.3. SEQUENCE
Similar to vibration, the effects of acoustically induced stresses may affect material
performance under other environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity,
pressure, electromagnetism, etc. When it is required to evaluate the effects of acoustic
noise together with other environments, and when a combined test is impractical, a single
test item should be exposed to all relevant environmental conditions in turn. The order of

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
application of the tests should be considered and should be compatible with the Life Cycle
Environmental Profile.
2.4. CHOICE OF TEST PROCEDURES
The choice of test procedure is governed by the in-service acoustic environments and
test purpose. These environments should be identified from consideration of the Life
Cycle Environmental Profile as described in AECTP 100.
Three procedures are presented as follows:
a. Procedure I Diffuse Field Acoustic Noise
b. Procedure II Grazing Incidence Acoustic Noise
c. Procedure III Cavity Resonance Acoustic Noise
2.5. TYPES OF ACOUSTIC EXITATION
2.5.1. Procedure I - Diffuse Field Acoustic Noise
1. A diffuse field is generated in a reverberation chamber. Normally, a wideband

random excitation is provided and the spectrum is shaped. This test is applicable to
materiel or structures that are required to function or survive in an acoustic noise field
such as that produced by aerospace vehicles, power plants, and other sources of high
intensity acoustic noise. Since this test provides an efficient means of inducing vibration
above 100 Hz, the test may also be used to complement a mechanical vibration test,
using acoustic energy to induce mechanical responses in internally mounted materiel. In
this role the test is applicable to items such as installed materiel in airborne stores carried
externally on high performance aircraft. However, because the excitation induced by a
diffuse acoustic field is different from that of aerodynamic turbulence excitation, the test
procedure is not necessarily suitable for testing thin shell structures interfacing directly
with acoustic noise.
2. A practical guideline is that acoustic tests are not required if materiel is exposed
to wideband random noise at a sound pressure level less than 130 dB (ref 20 μPa) overall,
and if its exposure in every one-Hertz band is less than 100 dB (ref 20 μPa). A diffuse
field acoustic test is usually defined by the following parameters.
a. The spectrum levels.
b. The frequency range.
c. The overall sound pressure level.
d. The duration of the test.

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
2.5.2. Procedure II - Grazing Incidence Acoustic Noise
1. Grazing incidence acoustic noise is generated in a duct, commonly known as a

progressive wave tube. Normally, wideband random noise with a shaped spectrum is
directed along the duct.
2. This test is applicable to assembled systems that have to operate or survive in a

service environment of convected pressure fluctuations over the surface, such as exist in
aerodynamic turbulence. These conditions are particularly relevant to aircraft panels,
where aerodynamic turbulence will exist on one side only, and to externally carried stores
subjected to aerodynamic turbulence excitation over their total external exposed surface.
3. In the case of a panel, the test item will be mounted in the wall of the duct so that
grazing incidence excitation is applied to one side only. An aircraft-carried store such as
a missile will be mounted co-axially within the duct such that the excitation is applied over
the whole of the external surface.
A grazing incidence acoustic noise test is usually defined by the following parameters:
a. The spectrum levels.
b. The frequency range.
c. The overall sound pressure level.
d. The duration of the test.
2.5.3. Procedure III - Cavity Resonance
A resonance condition is generated when a cavity is excited by the airflow over it, such
as that presented by an open bomb bay on an aircraft. This causes oscillation of the air
within the cavity at a frequency dependent upon the cavity dimensions. In turn the
acoustic excitation can induce mechanical vibration into the structure and components
within the cavity. The resonance condition can be induced by the application of a
sinusoidal acoustic source, tuned to the correct frequency, to the open cavity. The
resonance condition will occur when the control microphone response reaches a
maximum in a sound field held at a constant sound pressure level over the frequency
range. A cavity resonance test is defined by the following parameters:
a. The excitation noise frequency.
b. The overall sound pressure level within the cavity.
c. The duration of the test.

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
Where relevant, the test item should be functioned and the performance measured and
noted during each test phase and/or each acoustic level applied.

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
CHAPTER 3 SEVERITIES
1. Test levels and durations should be established using projected Life Cycle
Environmental Profiles, available data, or data acquired directly from an environmental
data gathering programme.
2. When these data are not available, guidance on developing initial test severities
are to be found in Annex A. These overall sound pressure levels (OASPL) should be
considered as initial values until measured data are obtained.
3. It should be noted that the test selected may not necessarily be an adequate
simulation of the complete environment and, consequently, a supporting assessment
may be necessary to complement the test results.

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
CHAPTER 4 INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN THE TEST INSTRUCTION
4.1. COMPULSORY
a. The identification of the test item.
b. The definition of the test item.
c. The type of test: development, worthiness, qualification.
d. Whether the test item is required to operate or not during the test.
e. The operating checks required: initial, during the test, final.
f. For the initial and final checks, specify whether they are performed with
the test item installed in the test facility.
g. The details required to perform the test, including method of attachment or

suspension of the test item.
h. The control and monitor points or a procedure to select these points.
i. The pre-conditioning time and conditions.
j. The definition of the test severity.
k. The control strategy.
l. The indication of the failure criteria.
m. The method of taking into account tolerance excesses in the case of large
materiel.
n. Any other environmental conditions at which testing is to be carried out, if

other than standard laboratory conditions.
4.2. IF REQUIRED
a. The effect of gravity and the consequent precautions.
b. The number of simultaneous test items for Procedure I.
c. Tolerances, if different from paragraph 5.1.

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
5.1. TOLERANCES
The test tolerances are given below in Table 1.
5.2. CONTROL
The control strategy depends upon the type of test and the size of the materiel.
5.2.1. Control Options
5.2.1.1. Single Point Noise Control
The single point should be defined to provide an optimum control position in the
chamber or progressive wave tube.
5.2.1.2. Multiple Point Noise Control
The control points should be selected to define a controlled volume within the
reverberation chamber. Control should be based upon the average of the sound
pressure levels at each microphone. Where the range of measurements at the
monitoring positions does not exceed 5 dB (OASPL), a simple arithmetic average of
the sound pressure levels may be used. For a range of 5 dB or greater, a logarithmic
average of the sound pressure levels should be used.
5.2.1.3. Vibration Response Control
Where it is necessary to achieve a given vibration acceleration response on the test

item, the test spectrum should be adjusted to achieve the required response which
may be monitored at either a single point or as the average from multiple monitoring
points.
5.2.2. Control Methods
Control can be by either open or closed loop. Open loop control is adequate for
progressive wave tubes and for small chambers having a single noise source. Closed
loop control is more effective for large chambers having multiple noise sources that cover
different bands in the test frequency range.

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
Table 1. Acoustic Test Tolerances
Parameter Tolerance
Overall sound pressure level averaged over all control + 3 dB
microphones, ref specified overall sound pressure level - 1 dB
Overall sound pressure level at each control microphone, ref + 4 dB
specified overall sound pressure level - 2 dB
Averaged test spectrum from all control microphones at levels
+ 4 dB
above -15 dB (1) in 1/3 octave bands, ref specified 1/3 octave band
- 4 dB
sound pressure levels.
+ 6 dB
below -15 dB (1) and above -25 dB (1) in 1/3 octave bands, ref
- 6 dB
specified 1/3 octave band sound pressure levels.
+ 10 dB
-25 dB (1) and below in 1/3 octave bands, ref specified 1/3 octave
- 10 dB
band sound pressure levels.
Test time duration +/- 5% or +/- 1
min whichever
is lesser
Notes
(1) n octave band, level of -15 dB becomes -10 dB, and level of -25 dB becomes –20 dB
5.2.3. Overall Accuracy of Control
The uncertainty of measurement of the total measurement system, including statistical

errors, should not exceed one third of the specified tolerance for the overall sound
pressure level.
5.3.1. Procedure I - Diffuse Field Acoustic Noise
1. The test item should be suspended or otherwise mounted in a reverberation

chamber on an elastic system in such a manner that all appropriate external surfaces are
exposed to the acoustic field and no surface is parallel to a chamber surface. The
resonance frequency of the mounting system with the specimen should be less than 25
Hertz, or 1/4 of the minimum test frequency, whichever is the lesser. If cables, pipes etc.,
are required to be connected to the test item during the test, these should be arranged
so as to add similar restraint and mass as in-service.
2. A microphone should be located in proximity to each different major face of the

test item at a distance of 0.5 metre from the face, or midway between the centre of the
face and the chamber wall, whichever is the lesser. The outputs from these microphones
should be averaged to provide a single control signal. Where the chamber is limited to a

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
single noise injection point, one microphone should be placed between the test item and
the chamber wall furthest from the noise source. The orientation of the microphones in
such a facility is not critical, although the microphone axes should not be set normal to
any flat surface. The microphones should be calibrated for random incidence.
5.3.2. Procedure II - Grazing Incidence Acoustic Noise
1. System test items such as panels should be mounted in the wall of the duct such
that the required test surface is exposed to the acoustic excitation. This surface shall be
flush with the inner surface of the duct so as to prevent the introduction of cavity
resonance or local turbulence effects. System test items such as stores should be
suspended or otherwise mounted centrally within the duct on an elastic support such that
all external surfaces are subjected to the progressive wave. The rigid body modes of the
system should be lower than 25 Hertz or 1/4 of the lowest test frequency, whichever is
the lesser. Care must be exercised to ensure that no spurious acoustic or vibratory inputs
are introduced by the test support system or any ancillary structure.
2. The microphone(s) for control and monitoring of test conditions should preferably
be mounted in the duct wall opposite to the test panel. Other positions within the duct
may be selected provided that the microphone is positioned so that it responds to only
grazing incidence waves, and that the necessary corrections are applied to the measured
level. The microphones should be calibrated for grazing incidence.
5.3.3. Procedure III - Cavity Resonance Acoustic Noise
The test item should be suspended or otherwise mounted in a reverberation chamber

such that only that part of the specimen to be tested is exposed to the direct application
of acoustic energy. All other surfaces should be protected so that their level of acoustic
excitation is reduced by 20 dB. Protective coverings should not provide any additional
vibration damping to the structure. The microphone for control of the test should not be
located within the cavity to be tested.
5.3.4. Effects of Gravity
Tests will normally be carried out with the materiel mounted in the correct spatial
orientation, unless it is shown that the performance of the materiel is not affected by
gravity.
5.4.1. Pre-conditioning
Unless otherwise specified in the Test Instruction the test item should be allowed to
stabilise at laboratory ambient conditions.

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
5.4.2. Inspection and Performance Checks
Inspection and performance checks may be carried out before and after testing. The
requirements for these checks should be defined in the Test Instruction. If these checks
are required during the test sequence, the time intervals at which they are required should
also be specified.
5.5. PROCEDURES
The Test Instruction should stipulate whether the test item is or is not to be operating
during the test.
5.5.1. Procedure I - Diffuse Field Acoustic Noise Testing
Step 1 Install the test item into the reverberation chamber in accordance
with paragraph 5.3.1.
Step 2 Select microphone positions for control, monitoring and control

strategy in accordance with paragraph 5.2.
Step 3 When using open loop control, remove the test item and confirm
that the specified overall sound pressure level and spectrum can
be achieved in an empty chamber, then replace the test item in
the chamber.
Step 4 Pre-condition in accordance with paragraph 5.4.1.
Step 5 Conduct initial checks in accordance with paragraph 5.4.2.
Step 6 Apply the test spectrum for the specified time. If required, carry
out inspections and performance checks in accordance with
paragraph 5.4.2.
Step 7 Carry out the final inspection.
Step 8 Remove the test item from the chamber.
Step 9 In all cases record the information required.
5.5.2. Procedure II - Grazing Incidence Acoustic Noise Testing
Step 1 Install the test item in accordance with paragraph 5.3.2.
Step 2 Select microphone positions for control, monitoring and control

strategy in accordance with paragraph 5.2.

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
Step 5 Apply the test spectrum for the specified time. If required, carry
out inspections and performance checks in accordance with
paragraph 5.4.2.
Step 7 Remove the test item from the duct.
5.5.3. Procedure III - Cavity Resonance Acoustic Noise Testing
Step 1 Install the test item into the chamber in accordance with paragraph
5.3.3.
Step 2 Locate the control microphone in accordance with paragraph

5.3.3.
Step 5 Apply the sinusoidal acoustic test level and adjust its frequency to
achieve the resonance condition as indicated by the response
from the control microphone, adjust to the Test Instruction level,
and apply for the specified time. If required, carry out inspections
and performance checks in accordance with paragraph 5.4.2.
Step 7 Remove the test item from the chamber.

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
CHAPTER 6 EVALUATION OF TEST RESULTS
The test item performance shall meet all appropriate Test Instruction requirements during
and following the application of the acoustic test conditions.

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
7. REFERENCES AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
a. ISO 266, Acoustics – Preferred Frequencies, International Organization for

Standardization, 1997.
b. IEST RP-DTE040.1, High-Intensity Acoustics Testing, Institute of

Environmental Sciences and Technology, USA, January 2003.
c. NASA-STD-7001, Payload Vibroacoustic Test Criteria, National

Aeronautics and Space Agency, USA, 21 June 1996.
d. Piersol, Allan G., Vibration and Acoustic Test Criteria for Captive Flight of
Externally Carried Stores, AFFDL-TR-71-158, December 1971.
e. Burkhard, Alan H., Captive Flight Acoustic Test Criteria for Aircraft Stores,
Shock and Vibration Bulletin 43, Part 3, January 1973.

AECTP-400
METHOD 402
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 402
ANNEX A ACOUSTIC NOISE - GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST SEVERITY
1. This annex is to be used only if measured data will not be available in the early
stages of a program, and the information is vital to the design of the materiel. If there is
the possibility of obtaining measurement data on the materiel platform, the severities
developed using the information in this annex should be considered as preliminary.
2. The data contained in this annex for developing the prediction of the test levels
are based on an envelope of measured data, and may be more or less severe than the
environment being simulated. Further description of actual measured environments of
specific platforms and operating conditions is contained in AECTP 200. The initial test
severities provided in the following sections should be tempered with engineering
judgement when used.
A.1. WIDEBAND RANDOM AND INCIDENCE NOISE TESTING
A.1.1. Overall Sound Pressure Level (OASPL)
From the in-service operation for the materiel the test overall sound pressure level
and duration may be obtained from Table A-1. The values have been developed
from those in MIL-STD 810.
A.1.2. Test Spectrum
The applied test spectrum associated with these levels is shown in Figure A-1. The test
spectrum should be achieved while maintaining the test parameters within the tolerances
given in paragraph 5.1
A.1.3. Simulation of Aerodynamic Turbulence
Where a wideband noise test is required for the simulation of aerodynamic turbulence,
the test levels and durations should be derived in conjunction with those for the
complementary mechanical test; see Method 401, Annex A.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 402
Table A-1: Overall Sound Pressure Test Levels and Duration
Test
Level Duration
Typical Application
(OASPL) (minutes)
dB
Transport aircraft, at locations not close to jet exhausts 130 30
Transport aircraft, in internal material bays close to jet 140 30

exhausts
High performance aircraft at locations not close to jet 140 30

exhausts
High performance aircraft in internal materiel bays close 150 30
to jet exhausts
Air-to-air missiles on medium performance aircraft 150 30

(q< 57456 Pa)
Air-to-ground missiles on medium performance aircraft 150 15

(q< 57456 Pa)
Ground materiel in enclosed engine runup areas 150 30

High performance aircraft, in internal materiel bays close
160 30
to reheat exhaust and gun muzzles or in nose cones
Airborne rocket, most locations, but excluding booster or

160 8
engine bays
Air-to-air missiles on high performance aircraft 165 30
(q< 86184 Pa)
Air-to-ground missiles on high performance aircraft 165 15

(q< 86184 Pa)
Airborne rocket boosters or engine bays 165 8
Ground materiel on rocket launchers 165 8

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 402
A.2. CAVITY RESONANCE TESTING
A.2.1. Test Parameters
For cavity resonance testing the sound pressure level Bo, frequencies fN and duration T
will be as calculated or defined in Table A-2. The values have been developed from those
in MIL-STD 810.
Table A-2: Cavity Resonance Test Conditions
Test level
B 0  20 log q   76.4 dB ( ref 20  Pa )
0.5
 M2 
6.13 N  0.25 2.4  
 2 
fn  0.5
Hz
 M2 
0.57 L C    2.4  
 2 
2
Definitions
Bo =Sound Pressure Level, dB

fN =Resonance frequency for the Nth mode (where N =1, 2, 3,..) up to 500 Hz
(where the first mode f1 > 500 Hz , use only this mode)
N = Mode number
C = Speed of sound at altitude of flight (m/s)
L = Length or radius of opening exposed to the air stream (m)
M = Mach number
q = Flight dynamic pressure when cavity is open (Pa)
Notes:
1. Test duration: T = 1 hour for each resonance frequency.
2. A second set of resonance frequencies should be identified by using the

distance parameter, L, as the depth of the cavity.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 402
1/3 Octave SPL Relative to OASPL, dB . 1/3 Octave Band

Spectrum
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
10 100 1000 10000
Frequency, Hz
1/3 Octave Nominal 1/3 Octave Nominal

Band Centre SPL, Band Centre SPL,
Frequency, Hz dB Frequency, Hz dB
50 - 29.0 800 -11.0
63 - 25.0 1000 -11.0
80 - 21.0 1250 -11.0
100 -17.0 1600 -12.5
125 -13.0 2000 -14.0
160 -12.0 2500 -15.5
200 -11.0 3150 -17.0
250 -11.0 4000 -18.5
315 -11.0 5000 -22.5
400 -11.0 6300 -26.5
500 -11.0 8000 -30.5
630 -11.0 10000 -34.5
Figure A-1: Applied Test Spectrum
Note: Overall test levels are given in Table A-1

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 402
ANNEX B ACOUSTIC TESTING TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
B.1. REVERBERATION CHAMBERS
1. A reverberation chamber is basically a cell with hard, acoustically reflective walls.

When noise is generated in this room, the multiple reflections within the main volume of
the room cause a uniform diffuse noise field to be set up. The uniformity of this field is
disturbed by three main effects.
a. At low frequencies, standing modes are set up between parallel walls. The
frequency below which these modes become significant is related to the
chamber dimensions. Small chambers, below about 100 cubic metres in
volume, are usually constructed so that no wall surfaces are parallel to each
other in order to minimise this effect.
b. Reflections from the walls produce higher levels at the surface. The
uniform noise field therefore, only applies at positions within the central
volume of the chamber, and test items should not be positioned within
about 0.5 metre of the walls.
c. The size of the test item can distort the noise field if the item is large relative
to the volume of the chamber. It is normally recommended that the volume
of the test item should not exceed 10% of the chamber volume.
2. Noise is normally generated with an air modulator and is injected into the chamber
via a coupling horn. Provision is made in the chamber design to exhaust the air from the
modulator through an acoustic attenuator in order to prevent the direct transmission of
high intensity noise to areas outside the test chamber.
B.2. PROGRESSIVE WAVE TUBES
1. A parallel sided duct usually forms the working section of such a progressive noise
facility. This may be circular or rectangular in section to suit the test requirements. For
testing panels, a rectangular section may be more suitable, while an aircraft carried store
may be more conveniently tested in a duct of circular section.
2. An air modulator coupled into one end of the working section by a suitable horn
generates noise. From the opposite end of the plain duct, another horn couples the noise
into an absorbing termination. Maximum absorption over the operating frequency range
is required in order to minimise standing wave effects in the duct. Noise then progresses
along the duct and is applied with grazing incidence over the surface of the test item.
3. The test item itself may be mounted within the duct, in which case the grazing
incidence wave will be applied over the whole of its external surface. Alternatively the

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 402
test item may be mounted in the wall of the duct when the noise will be applied to only
that surface within the duct, e.g. on one side of a panel. The method used will depend
upon the test item and its in-service application.
B.3. ACOUSTIC NOISE CHARACTERISTICS
1. Radiated high intensity noise is subjected to distortion due to adiabatic heating.

Thus, due to heating of the high pressure peaks and cooling of the rarefaction troughs,
the local speed of propagation of these pressures is modified. This causes the peaks to
travel faster and the troughs to travel slower than the local speed of propagation such
that, at a distance from the source, a sinusoidal wave becomes triangular with a leading
shock front.
2. This waveform is rich in harmonics, and therefore the energy content is extended
into a higher frequency range. It can be seen from this that it is not possible to produce
a pure sinusoidal tone at high noise intensities.
3. The same effect takes place with high intensity random noise that is commonly
produced by modulating airflow with a valve driven by a dynamic actuator. This may be
either electrodynamic or hydraulic in operation. Due to velocity and/or acceleration
restraints on the actuator, it is not possible to modulate the airflow at frequencies greater
than about 1 KHz. Acoustic energy above this frequency, extending to 20 kHz or more,
therefore results from a combination of cold air jet noise and harmonic distortion from this
lower frequency modulation.
B.4. CONTROL STRATEGIES
1. Microphones are normally used to monitor and control the test condition. When
testing stores and missiles, it is recommended that not less than three microphones be
used to control the test. Some test items may be more effectively monitored on their
vibration response, in which case the monitoring requirements of Method 401 should be
followed as appropriate.
2. The monitoring system should be capable of measuring random noise with a peak
to rms ratio of up to 3.0. Pressure calibrated microphones used in reverberation
chambers should be corrected for random incidence noise, while those used in
progr
and both should have a linear pressure response. Provision should be made for
averaging the outputs of the microphones to provide the spatial average of the noise for
control purposes.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 402
B.5. DEFINITIONS
B.5.1. SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL
The sound pressure level is the logarithmic ratio of the sound pressures expressed as:
I P 
Lp = 10 log   = 20 log  
 I0   Po 
Where:
Lp = sound pressure level, dB

I = measured intensity, W / m 2
Io = reference intensity = 10 -12 W / m 2
P = measured PRMS pressure, Pa
Po = reference pressure = 20 x 10-6 Pa
B.5.2. THIRD OCTAVE FILTERS
A third octave filter has an upper to lower passband frequency ratio of 21/3 or
approximately 1.26. The effective filter bandwidth between the filter upper and lower
frequency –3 dB points is approximately 23 % of the centre frequency. The relationships
between the filter centre frequency and upper or lower -3 dB filter points are defined
below. Standard third octave frequency bands are defined in International Specification
ISO 266, reference b. For other definitions relevant to random vibration and data analysis
refer to Method 401.
Third Octave Filter Equations
f 0 = ( f1 x f 2 )
f0
f1 
3
2
3
f 2  f1 2
 f 2  f1  approximate equation
 0.23
f0
Where:
f0 = filter centre frequency, Hz

f1 = filter lower -3 dB frequency, Hz
f2 = filter upper -3 dB frequency, Hz

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 402
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
METHOD 403
SHOCK TESTING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE........................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.2.1. General Discussion ............................................................................ 1-1
1.2.2. Terminology ....................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.2.1. The Shock Model ............................................................................... 1-2
1.3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-4
CHAPTER 2 TEST GUIDANCE .......................................................................... 2-1
2.2. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.4. CHOICE OF PROCEDURES .................................................................... 2-3
2.4.1. Procedure Selection Considerations .................................................. 2-3
2.4.2. Difference Among Procedures ........................................................... 2-4
2.4.3. Test Implementation Options ............................................................. 2-6
2.5. TAILORING WHEN MEASURED DATA ARE AVAILABLE – GENERAL
DISCUSSION............................................................................................ 2-8
2.6. MATERIAL OPERATION .......................................................................... 2-9
CHAPTER 3 TEST SEVERITIES ........................................................................ 3-1
3.1. GENERAL ................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2. DETERMINE TEST LEVELS AND CONDITIONS .................................... 3-1
3.2.1. SRS Based on Measured Data .......................................................... 3-1
3.2.2. SRS in the Absence of Measured Data .............................................. 3-2
3.2.3. Classical Shock Pulse ........................................................................ 3-4
3.2.3.1. Classical Shock Pulses (Mechanical Shock Machine) ....................... 3-9
3.2.3.2. Classical Shock Pulses (Vibration Exciter) ......................................... 3-9
3.3. TEST AXES AND NUMBER OF SHOCK EVENTS – GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................ 3-11
3.4. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMPLEX TRANSIENTS ............. 3-11
CHAPTER 4 INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN TEST INSTRUCTION ....... 4-1
4.1. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.2. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-2
4.3. TEST FACILITY ........................................................................................ 4-2
CHAPTER 5 TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES .................................... 5-1
5.1 PREPARATION FOR TEST.......................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1. Instrumentation ................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.2. Pre Test.............................................................................................. 5-4
5.1.3. During Test......................................................................................... 5-5
5.1.4. Post Test ............................................................................................ 5-5
5.1.5. Operational Checks ............................................................................ 5-5
5.2. INSTALLATION CONDITIONS OF TEST ITEM ........................................... 5-6
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
CONTENTS – CONTINUED
5.2.1. Pre-Conditioning ................................................................................ 5-6

5.2.2. Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 5-6
5.2.3. Pretest Checkout of the Test Item ..................................................... 5-7
5.2.4. Platform Integration ............................................................................ 5-7
5.3. PROCEDURES......................................................................................... 5-8
5.3.1. Functional Shock (Procedure I) .......................................................... 5-8
5.3.1.1. Test Controls - Functional Shock (Procedure I) ............................... 5-10
5.3.1.2. Test Tolerances - Functional Shock (Procedure I) ........................... 5-10
5.3.1.3. Test Procedure I - Functional Shock (Procedure I) .......................... 5-10
5.3.2. Transportation Shock (Procedure II) ................................................ 5-12
5.3.2.1. Test Controls - Transportation Shock (Procedure II) ........................ 5-13
5.3.2.2. Test Tolerances - Transportation Shock (Procedure II).................... 5-13
5.3.2.3. Test Procedure - Transportation Shock (Procedure II) ..................... 5-13
5.3.3. Fragility Shock (Procedure III) .......................................................... 5-14
5.3.3.1. Test Controls - Fragility Shock (Procedure III) ................................. 5-17
5.3.3.2. Test Tolerances - Fragility Shock (Procedure III) ............................. 5-18
5.3.3.3. Test Procedure - Fragility (Procedure III) ......................................... 5-18
5.3.4. Transit Drop (Procedure IV) ............................................................. 5-21
5.3.4.1. Test Controls - Transit Drop (Procedure IV) ..................................... 5-22
5.3.4.2. Test Tolerances - Transit Drop (Procedure IV) ................................ 5-29
5.3.4.3. Test Procedure - Transit Drop (Procedure IV) .................................. 5-29
5.3.5. Crash Hazard Shock (Procedure V) ................................................. 5-30
5.3.5.1. Test Controls - Crash Hazard Shock (Procedure V)......................... 5-30
5.3.5.2. Test Tolerances - Crash Hazard Shock (Procedure V) .................... 5-31
5.3.5.3. Test Procedure - Crash Hazard Shock (Procedure V) ..................... 5-31
5.3.6. Bench Handling (Procedure VI) ........................................................ 5-31
5.3.6.1. Test Controls - Bench Handling (Procedure VI) ............................... 5-31
5.3.6.2. Test Tolerances - Bench Handling (Procedure VI) ........................... 5-32
5.3.6.3. Test Procedure - Bench Handling (Procedure VI) ............................ 5-32
5.3.7. Pendulum Impact (Procedure VII) .................................................... 5-33
5.3.7.1. Test Controls - Pendulum Impact (Procedure VII) ............................ 5-33
5.3.7.2. Test Tolerances - Pendulum Impact (Procedure VII) ....................... 5-34
5.3.7.3. Test Procedure - Pendulum Impact (Procedure VII) ........................ 5-34
5.3.8. Catapult Launch/Arrested Landing (Procedure VIII) ......................... 5-35
5.3.8.1. Test Controls - Catapult Launch/Arrested Landing
(Procedure VIII) ................................................................................ 5-35
5.3.8.2. Test Tolerances - Catapult Launch/Arrested Landing
(Procedure VIII) ................................................................................ 5-38
5.3.8.3. Test Procedure - Catapult Launch/Arrested Landing
(Procedure VIII) ................................................................................ 5-38
5.4. TOLERANCES AND RELATED CHARACTERISTICS ........................... 5-39
5.4.1. Classical Pulses and Complex Transient Pulses – Time Domain .... 5-40
5.4.2. Complex Transient Pulses - SRS ..................................................... 5-40
5.5. CONTROLS ............................................................................................ 5-42
AECTP-400
METHOD 403

5.6.1. Interruption Due To Laboratory Equipment Malfunction ................... 5-42
5.6.2. Interruption Due To Test Item Operation Failure .............................. 5-42
CHAPTER 6 EVALUATION OF THE TEST RESULTS ....................................... 6-1
CHAPTER 7 REFERENCE/RELATED DOCUMENTS........................................ 7-1
7.1 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS ................................................................. 7-1
7.2 RELATED DOCUMENTS ......................................................................... 7-2
FIGURES
Figure 1. Base Input SDOF System Model for Shock Considerations ............... 1-3
Figure 2. Test SRS for Use if Measured Data Are Not Available (for
Procedure I - Functional Shock, And Procedure V - Crash Hazard
Shock Test) ........................................................................................ 3-3
Figure 3. Terminal Peak Sawtooth Shock Pulse Configuration and its
Tolerance Limits (for Use When Shock Response Spectrum Analysis
Capability Is Not Available in Conduct of Procedures I, II, and V) ...... 3-7
Figure 4. Trapezoidal Shock Pulse Configuration and Tolerance Limits (for
Use When Shock Response Spectrum Analysis Capability is Not
Available in Procedure III) .................................................................. 3-7
Figure 5. Half-Sine Shock Pulse Configuration and Tolerance Limits (for Use
When Reference Criteria Are Provided as a Classical Half-Sine
Pulse) ................................................................................................. 3-8
Figure 6. Illustration of Temporal and Spectral Distortion Associated With a
Compensated Classical Terminal Peak Sawtooth ............................ 3-10
Figure 7. Trapezoidal Pulse: Velocity Change versus Drop Height ................. 5-16
Figure 8. Standard Drop Orientations for Rectangular and Cylindrical Pack ... 5-28
Figure 9. Illustration of Edge Drop Configuration (Corner Drop End View is
Also Illustrated) ................................................................................ 5-29
Figure 10. Pendulum Impact Test ..................................................................... 5-34
Figure 11. Sample Measured Store Three Axis Catapult Launch Component
Response Acceleration Time Histories............................................. 5-37
Figure 12. Sample Measured Store Three Axis Arrested Landing Component
Response Acceleration Time Histories............................................. 5-38
TABLES
Table 1. Shock Test Procedures and Configurations ....................................... 2-3
Table 2. Laboratory Test Options ..................................................................... 2-6
Table 3. Test Shock Response Spectra for Use if Measured Data Are Not
Available............................................................................................. 3-4
Table 4. Terminal Peak Sawtooth Default Test Parameters for Procedures I -
Functional Test and Procedure V – Crash Hazard ............................ 3-6
Table 5. Trapezoidal Pulse Parameters ........................................................... 3-6
Table 6. High Speed Craft - Standardized Requirements ................................ 5-9
Table 7 Limited Application Requirements by Craft Size .............................. 5-10
Table 8. Procedure II - Transportation Shock Test Sequence ....................... 5-12
Table 9. Logistic Transit Drop Test ................................................................ 5-23

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Table 10. Tactical Transport Drop Test ............................................................ 5-25

Table 11. Severe Tactical Transport Drop Test................................................ 5-27
Table 12. Five Standard Drop Test Orientations .............................................. 5-28
ANNEX A MEASUREMENT SYSTEM CHARACTERIZATION AND BASIC
PROCESSING ................................................................................... A-1
A.1. SINGLE SHOCK EVENT MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
CHARACTERIZATION AND BASIC PROCESSING. ............................... A-1
A.1.1. MEASUREMENT SYSTEM AND SIGNAL CONDITIONING
PARAMETERS ......................................................................................... A-1
A.1.2. MEASUREMENT SHOCK IDENTIFICATION ........................................... A-4
A.1.3. EFFECTIVE PULSE DURATION FOR NON-CLASSICAL SHOCKS ....... A-6
A.1.3.1. Calculation of 𝑇𝑒 .................................................................................. A-7
A.1.3.2. Calculation of 𝑇𝐸 ................................................................................. A-8
A.1.3.3. Implementation Considerations .......................................................... A-9
A.1.4. SHOCK RESPONSE SPECTRUM ........................................................... A-9
A.1.4.1. Processing Guidelines........................................................................ A-9
A.1.4.2. Processing Example......................................................................... A-13
A.1.5. FREQUENCY DOMAIN IDENTIFICATION ENERGY SPECTRAL
DENSITY (ESD)...................................................................................... A-14
A.1.6. SINGLE EVENT/MULTIPLE CHANNEL MEASUREMENT
PROCESSING GUIDELINES ................................................................. A-15
A.1.7. MEASUREMENT PROBABILISTIC / STATISTIC SUMMARY................ A-15
A.1.8. OTHER PROCESSING .......................................................................... A-15
ANNEX A FIGURES
Figure A-1a. Filter Attenuation (Conceptual, Not Filter Specific) ............................. A-2
Figure A-1b. Illustration of Sampling Rates And Out Of Band “Fold Over”
Frequencies for Data Acquisition Systems ......................................... A-4
Figure A-2. Example Acceleration Time History.................................................... A-5
Figure A-3. Example Simple Shock Time History with Segment Identification ...... A-7
Figure A-4. Maximax Pseudo-Velocity SRS Estimates for Shock and Noise
Floor Segments ................................................................................ A-11
Figure A-5. Shock Positive and Negative Pseudo-Velocity SRS Estimates ........ A-12
Figure A-6. Shock Positive and Negative Acceleration SRS Estimates .............. A-13
Figure A-7. Maximax Acceleration SRS Estimates for Shock and Noise
Floor Segments ................................................................................ A-14
ANNEX B GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL SHOCK TIME HISTORY
VALIDATION AND PROCESSING..................................................... B-1
B.1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... B-1
B.2. COMPLEX SHOCKS ................................................................................ B-1
B.3. ADDITIONAL SIMPLE SHOCK PROCESSING AND VALIDATION ......... B-3
B.3.1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... B-3
B.3.2. INSTANTANEOUS ROOT-MEAN-SQUARE (RMS) ................................. B-3
B.3.3. SHOCK VELOCITY/DISPLACEMENT VALIDATION CRITERIA .............. B-5
B.3.4. ESD ESTIMATE........................................................................................ B-8
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
B.4. SHOCK IDENTIFICATION AND ANOMALOUS MEASUREMENT

BEHAVIOR ............................................................................................... B-9
ANNEX B FIGURES
Figure B-1. Shock Time History with Segment Identification and Te and TE Time
Intervals Illustrated ............................................................................. B-2
Figure B-2. A Complex Shock ............................................................................... B-2
Figure B-3. Shock Time History Instantaneous Root-Mean-Square ..................... B-4
Figure B-4. Measurement Velocity via Integration of Mean (DC)
Removed Acceleration ....................................................................... B-7
Figure B-5. Measurement Displacement via Integration of Velocity After
Mean (DC) Removal .......................................................................... B-7
Figure B-6. Shock ESD Estimate .......................................................................... B-9
Figure B-7. Measurement Input Overdriving the Signal Conditioning
With Clipping .................................................................................... B-10
Figure B-8. Noisy or Missing Measurement Signals ........................................... B-10
Figure B-9. Combination Amplifier Overdriving and Noise .................................. B-11
ANNEX C STATISTICAL AND PROBABILISTIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR
DEVELOPING LIMITS ON PREDICTED AND PROCESSED
DATA ESTIMATES ............................................................................C-1
C.1. SCOPE .....................................................................................................C-1
C.1.1 PURPOSE ................................................................................................C-1
C.1.2 APPLICATION ..........................................................................................C-1
C.2. DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................C-2
C.2.1 LIMIT ESTIMATE SET SELECTION .........................................................C-2
C.2.2 ESTIMATE PREPROCESSING CONSIDERATIONS ...............................C-2
C.2.3 PARAMETRIC UPPER LIMIT STATISTICAL ESTIMATE
ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................C-4
C.2.3.1 NTL – Upper Normal One-Sided Tolerance Limit ...............................C-4
C.2.3.2 NPL – Upper Normal Prediction Limit.................................................C-6
C.2.4 NON-PARAMETRIC UPPER LIMIT STATISTICAL ESTIMATE
PROCEDURES.........................................................................................C-6
C.2.4.1 Envelope (ENV) – Upper Limit ...........................................................C-6
C.2.4.2 Distribution Free Limit (DFL) – Upper Distribution-Free Tolerance
Limit....................................................................................................C-6
C.2.4.3 Empirical Tolerance Limit (ETL) - Upper Empirical Tolerance Limit ...C-7
C.3. EXAMPLE .................................................................................................C-8
C.3.1 INPUT TEST DATA SET ..........................................................................C-8
C.3.2 PARAMETRIC UPPER LIMITS.................................................................C-8
C.3.3 NON-PARAMETRIC UPPER LIMITS .....................................................C-10
C.3.4 OBSERVATIONS....................................................................................C-10
C.4. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES .........................................................C-10
C.4.1 RECOMMENDED STATISTICAL PROCEDURES FOR UPPER
LIMIT ESTIMATES .................................................................................C-10
C.4.2 UNCERTAINTY FACTORS ....................................................................C-11
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
ANNEX C FIGURES
Figure C-1. Input Test Data Set ............................................................................C-9
Figure C-2. Parametric and Non-Parametric Upper Limits ....................................C-9
ANNEX C TABLES
Table C-I. Normal Tolerance Factors for Upper Tolerance Limit.........................C-5
Table C-II. Input Test Data Set ............................................................................C-8
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
Shock tests are performed to:
a. Provide a degree of confidence that materiel can physically and

functionally withstand the shocks encountered in handling,
transportation, and service environments. This may include an
assessment of the overall materiel system integrity for safety purposes
in any one or all of the handling, transportation, and service
environments.
b. Determine the materiel's fragility level, in order that packaging, stowage,

or mounting configurations may be designed to protect the materiel's
physical and functional integrity.
c. Test the strength of devices that attach materiel to platforms that may be
involved in a crash situation and verify that the material itself does not
create a hazard or that parts of the materiel are not ejected during a crash
situation.
1.2. APPLICATION
Use this Method to evaluate the physical and functional performance of materiel likely
to be exposed to mechanically induced shocks in its lifetime. Such mechanical shock
environments are generally limited to a frequency range not to exceed 10,000 Hz, and
a duration of not more than 1.0 second. (In most cases of mechanical shock, the
significant materiel response frequencies will not exceed 4,000 Hz, and the duration of
materiel response will not exceed 0.1 second.)
1.2.1. General Discussion
Having selected this Method and relevant procedures (based on the materiel's
requirements documents and the tailoring process), complete the tailoring process by
identifying appropriate parameter levels, applicable test conditions, and test techniques
for the selected procedures. Base these selections on the requirements documents,
the Life Cycle Environmental Profile (LCEP), and information provided with the
appropriate procedure. Many laboratory shock tests are conducted under standard
ambient test conditions as discussed in AECTP 300, Method 300. However, when the
life cycle events being simulated occur in environmental conditions significantly
different than standard ambient conditions, consider applying those environmental
factors during shock testing. Individual climatic test procedures of this Standard
include guidance for determining levels of other environmental loads. For temperature-

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
conditioned environmental tests, (high temperature tests of explosive or energetic

materials in particular), consider the materiel degradation due to extreme climatic
exposure to ensure the total test program climatic exposure does not exceed the life
of the materiel. (See AECTP 300, Method 302). Consider the terminology, shock
model, and use of measured data discussions in the next few sections when selecting
test levels.
1.2.2. Terminology
Much of the core terminology associated with shock testing is addressed in the
following topics: (1) the shock model, (2) laboratory shock test options including
tailoring when measured data are available, (3) single shock event characterization (in
particular the crucial issue of shock duration with detailed additional information
supplied in Annex A), (4) procedures for single shock event with multiple channel
measurement processing for laboratory tests, (5) reference to statistical and
probabilistic summary information for multiple shock events over possible multiple
related measurements provided in Annex C, and (6) references to more advanced
analysis techniques for characterizing a shock environment and its effects on materiel.
Information in Annex C is crucial for processing measured data and test specification
development.
1.2.2.1. The Shock Model
This paragraph is essential to understanding the nature of the shock environment

applied to materiel. The shock model represents materiel with a shock input defined
by a comparatively short time and a moderately high-level impulse. The duration of
the input is usually much less than the period of the fundamental frequency of the
mounted materiel, and the amplitude of the input is above peaks of extreme materiel
vibration response levels. Generally, the impulse input is distributed to the materiel
surface or body directly or, more commonly, to the materiel through its mounts to a
primary structure. It is difficult to directly measure such an impulse in time versus
magnitude. When the impulse is applied to the materiel through its mounting points to
a structure, a simple base-excited single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) linear system can
serve as a shock model for the materiel at a single resonant frequency of the materiel.
Figure 1 displays such a system with the mass representing the materiel, and the
combination spring/damper representing the path that supplies the impulse to the
materiel. This model is used to define the Shock Response Spectra (SRS) considered
throughout the subparagraphs of 1.2 and Annex B. Figure 1 displays the second order
differential equations of motion that justify base input impulse specified as
displacement/velocity. The solution can be in terms of absolute mass motion
acceleration, or in terms of relative motion between the base and the mass. For an
assumed base input acceleration measurement, the second-order differential equation
of motion is “solved” by filtering the shock acceleration using a series of SDOF systems
based upon a ramp-invariant digital filter algorithm (paragraph 7.1, reference i). The
SRS is provided by a plot of natural frequency (undamped SDOF natural frequency)

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Figure 1: Base Input SDOF System Model for Shock Considerations
versus specified mass response amplitude, and is obtained as the output of the SDOF
bandpass filters when the transient shock time history acceleration serves as the input
to the base. Materiel response acceleration, (usually measured at a materiel mount
location or, less preferably, at a materiel subcomponent with potential for local resonant
response), will generally be the variable used in characterization of the effects of the
shock. This does not preclude other variables of materiel response such as velocity,

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
displacement, or strain from being used and processed in an analogous manner, as

long as the interpretation of the measurement variable is clear, and the
measurement/signal conditioning configuration is valid; e.g., measurements made
within the significant frequency range of materiel response, etc. If, for example, base
input velocity is obtained from measurement, all relative and absolute quantities will be
transformed from those based upon base input acceleration (see Annex B). It can be
established that stress within materiel at a particular location is proportional to the
velocity of the materiel at that same location (paragraph 7.1, references e and f). For
the SDOF model, this implies that stress within the materiel is proportional to the
relative velocity between the base and the mass, and not the absolute velocity of the
mass. Annex B discusses the modeling of SDOF systems in more detail, and places
emphasis on the fact that materiel with many resonant modes can often be thought of
in terms of a series of independent SDOF systems as defined at the resonant
frequencies of the materiel.
1.3. LIMITATIONS
This method does not include:
a. The effects of shock experienced by materiel as a result of pyrotechnic

device initiation. For this type of shock, see AECTP-400, Method 415,
Pyroshock.
b. The effects experienced by materiel to very high level localized impact

shocks; e.g., ballistic impacts. For this type of shock, see AECTP-400,
Method 422, Ballistic Shock.
c. The high impact shock effects experienced by materiel aboard a ship due
to wartime service. Consider performing shock tests for shipboard
materiel in accordance with AECTP-400, Method 419 or MIL-DTL-901
(paragraph 7.1, reference c).
d. The effects experienced by fuse systems. Perform shock tests for safety
and operation of fuses and fuse components in accordance with
STANAG 4157, AOP-20 or MIL-STD-331 (paragraph 7.1, reference e).
e. The effects experienced by materiel that is subject to high pressure wave

impact; e.g., pressure impact on a materiel surface as a result of firing of
a gun. For this type of shock and subsequent materiel response, see
AECTP-400 Methods 405 and 423.
f. The shock effects experienced by very large extended materiel; e.g.,

building pipe distribution systems, over which varied parts of the materiel
may experience different and unrelated shock events. For this type of
shock, devise specialized tests based on analytical models and/or
experimental measurement data.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
g. Special provisions for performing combined mechanical/climatic

environment tests (e.g. shock tests at high or low temperatures).
Guidelines found in the climatic test methods may be helpful in setting up
and performing combined environment tests.
h. Shocks integrated with transient vibration that are better replicated under
Time Waveform Replication (TWR) methodology. See Method 423.
i. Repetitive shocks associated with unrestrained cargo in ground transport

vehicles that may be best replicated under loose cargo transportation
methodology. See AECTP-400 Method 406.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
For any configured materiel, ideally there exist representative field measurements of
shock to which the materiel might be exposed during its life according to the LCEP.
The eight procedures in this Method generally describe the scenarios in which field
shock to materiel may occur. The procedures go beyond scenarios, and suggest
default drop heights, transient waveforms, and/or default SRSs for applying laboratory
shock. These “defaults” may have originated from field measurement data on some
generic materiel in a particular configuration that were summarized and documented
at one time, but this documentation may not exists. Such lack of documentation leaves
this method with some procedures that are based upon the best laboratory test
information currently available. The reality is that obtaining accurate field
measurements can be difficult, cost prohibitive, or not possible to acquire in a timely
manner. However, to the maximum extent possible, tests based on measured data
are the recommended option before use of the provided default test criteria.
NOTE: For materiel design and development, the option of tailoring of a laboratory
shock test from field measurement information is superior to any of the test
procedures within this Method, and should be the first laboratory test option. This
assumes that the measurement data bandwidth and the laboratory test bandwidths
are strictly compatible.
2.2. SEQUENCE
a. General. Use the anticipated life cycle sequence of events as a general

sequence guide (see AECTP 100).
b. Specific to this Method. Sequencing among other methods will depend

upon the type of testing; i.e., developmental, qualification, endurance,
etc., and the general availability of test items for test. Normally, schedule
shock tests early in the test sequence, but after any vibration tests with
the following additional guidelines:
(1) If the shock environment is deemed particularly severe, and the

chances of materiel survival without structural or operational
failure are small, the shock test should be first in the test
sequence. This provides the opportunity to redesign the materiel
to meet the shock requirement before testing to the more benign
environments.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
(2) If the shock environment is deemed severe, but the chance of the
materiel survival without structural or functional failure is good,
perform the shock test after vibration and thermal tests, allowing
the stressing of the test item prior to shock testing to uncover
combined mechanical and thermal failures.
(3) There are often advantages to applying shock tests before climatic
tests, provided this sequence represents realistic service
conditions. Test experience has shown that climate-sensitive
defects often show up more clearly after the application of shock
environments. However, internal or external thermal stresses may
permanently weaken materiel resistance to vibration and shock
that may go undetected if shock tests are applied before climatic
tests.
Mechanical shock has the potential for producing adverse effects on the physical and
functional integrity of all materiel. In general, the damage potential is a function of the
amplitude, velocity, and the duration of the shock. Shocks with frequency content that
correspond with materiel natural frequencies will magnify the adverse effects on the
materiel's overall physical and functional integrity. The materiel response to the
mechanical shock environment will, in general, be highly oscillatory, of short duration,
and have a substantial initial rise time with large positive and negative peak amplitudes
of about the same order of magnitude (for high velocity impact shock; e.g., penetration
shocks, there may be significantly less or no oscillatory behavior with substantial area
under the acceleration response curve). The peak responses of materiel to mechanical
shock will, in general, be enveloped by a decreasing form of exponential function in
time. In general, mechanical shock applied to a complex multi-modal materiel system
will cause the materiel to respond to: (1) forced frequencies of a transient nature
imposed on the materiel from the external excitation environment, and (2) the materiel's
resonant natural frequencies either during or after application of the external excitation
environment. Such response may cause:
a. Materiel failure as a result of increased or decreased friction between

parts, or general interference between parts.
b. Changes in materiel dielectric strength, loss of insulation resistance,

variations in magnetic and electrostatic field strength.
c. Materiel electronic circuit card malfunction, electronic circuit card

damage, and electronic connector failure. (On occasion, circuit card
contaminants having the potential to cause short circuit may be dislodged
under materiel response to shock.)

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
d. Permanent mechanical deformation of the materiel as a result of

overstress of materiel structural and non-structural members.
e. Collapse of mechanical elements of the materiel as a result of the

ultimate strength of the component being exceeded.
f. Accelerated fatiguing of materials (low cycle fatigue).
g. Potential piezoelectric activity of materials.
h. Materiel failure as a result of cracks in fracturing crystals, ceramics,

epoxies, or glass envelopes.
2.4. CHOICE OF PROCEDURES
Table 1 summarizes the eight test procedures covered in the Method with respect to
the applicable configurations and operation states of the unit under test.
Table 1: Shock Test Procedures and Configurations.
Procedure Description Packaged Unpackaged Operational Non-

Operational
I Functional Shock X X
II Transportation Shock X X X
III Fragility X X
IV Transit Drop X X X
V Crash Hazard Shock X
VI Bench Handling X X
VII Pendulum Impact X X
VIII Catapult Launch X X X
/Arrested Landing
2.4.1. Procedure Selection Considerations
Based on the test data requirements, determine which test procedure, combination of
procedures, or sequence of procedures is applicable. In many cases, one or more of
the procedures will apply. Consider all shock environments anticipated for the materiel
during its life cycle, both in its logistic and operational modes. When selecting
procedures, consider:

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
a. The Operational Purpose of the Materiel. From requirement documents,

determine the operations or functions to be performed by the materiel
before, during and after the shock environment.
b. The Natural Exposure Circumstances. Procedures I through VII are

based on single shock events that result from momentum exchange
between materiel or materiel support structures and another body.
Procedure VIII (Catapult Launch/Arrested Landing) contains a sequence
of two shocks separated by a comparatively short duration transient
vibration for catapult launch, and a single shock for arrested landing.
c. Data Required. The test data required to document the test environment,
and to verify the performance of the materiel before, during, and after
test.
2.4.2. Difference Among Procedures
a. Procedure I - Functional Shock. Procedure I is intended to test materiel

(including mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and electronic) in its
functional mode, and to assess the physical integrity, continuity, and
functionality of the materiel to shock. In general, the materiel is required
to function during and after the shock, and to survive without damage
resulting from shocks representative of those that may be encountered
during operational service.
b. Procedure II - Transportation Shock. Procedure II is used to evaluate

the response of an item or restraint system to transportation
environments that create a repetitive shock load. The procedure uses a
classical terminal peak sawtooth, either measured or a synthetic shock
waveform, to represent the shock excitation portion of the transportation
scenario. The shock can be a repetitive event of similar amplitude, or an
irregular event that varies in amplitude and frequency bandwidth.
Ground vehicle transportation is a common source for transportation
shock. Procedure II is not equivalent or a substitute for AECTP Method
401 or other Method 403 shock test procedures.
c. Procedure III - Fragility. Procedure III is used early in the item

development program to determine the materiel's fragility level, in order
that packaging, stowage, or mounting configurations may be designed to
protect the materiel's physical and functional integrity. This procedure is
used to determine the critical shock conditions at which there is chance
of structural and/or operational system degradation based upon a
systematic increase in shock input magnitudes. To achieve the most
realistic criteria, perform the procedure at environmental temperature
extremes.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
d. Procedure IV - Transit Drop. Procedure IV is a physical drop test, and

is intended for materiel either outside of, or within its transit or
combination case, or as prepared for field use (carried to a combat
situation by man, truck, rail, etc.). This procedure is used to determine if
the materiel is capable of withstanding the shocks normally induced by
loading and unloading when it is (1) outside of its transit or combination
case; e.g., during routine maintenance, when being removed from a rack,
being placed in its transit case, etc., or (2) inside its transit or combination
case. Such shocks are accidental, but may impair the functioning of the
materiel. This procedure is not intended for shocks encountered in a
normal logistic environment as experienced by materiel inside bulk cargo
shipping containers (ISO, CONEX, etc.). See Procedure II
(Transportation Shock), and Procedure VII (Pendulum Impact).
e. Procedure V - Crash Hazard Shock Test. Procedure V is for materiel

mounted in air or ground vehicles that could break loose from its mounts,
tiedowns, or containment configuration during a crash, and present a
hazard to vehicle occupants and bystanders. This procedure is intended
to verify the structural integrity of materiel mounts, tiedowns or
containment configuration during simulated crash conditions. Use this
test to verify the overall structural integrity of the materiel; i.e., parts of
the materiel are not ejected during the shock. The crash hazard can be
evaluated by a constant acceleration (Method 404) if the lowest
resonance of the system is at least one octave below the SRS cross-over
(knee) frequency as indicated in Figure 2 and Table 3.
f. Procedure VI - Bench Handling. Procedure VI is intended for materiel

that may typically experience bench handling, bench maintenance, or
packaging. It is used to determine the ability of the materiel to withstand
representative levels of shock encountered during such environments.
This procedure is appropriate for materiel out of its transit or combination
case. Such shocks might occur during materiel repair. This procedure
may include testing for materiel with protrusions that may be easily
damaged without regard to gross shock on the total materiel. The nature
of such testing must be performed on a case-by-case basis, noting the
configuration of the materiel protrusions, and the case scenarios for
damage during such activities as bench handling, maintenance, and
packaging.
g. Procedure VII – Pendulum Impact. Procedure VII is intended to test

the ability of large shipping containers to resist horizontal impacts, and to
determine the ability of the packaging and packing methods to provide
protection to the contents when the container is impacted. This test is
meant to simulate accidental handling impacts, and is used only on
containers that are susceptible to accidental end impacts. The pendulum
impact test is designed specifically for large and/or heavy shipping

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
containers that are likely to be handled mechanically rather than

manually.
h. Procedure VIII - Catapult Launch/Arrested Landing. Procedure VIII

is intended for materiel mounted in or on fixed-wing aircraft that is subject
to catapult launches and arrested landings. For catapult launch, materiel
may experience a combination of an initial shock followed by a low level
transient vibration of some duration having frequency components in the
vicinity of the mounting platform’s lowest frequencies, and concluded by
a final shock according to the catapult event sequence. For arrested
landing, materiel may experience an initial shock followed by a low level
transient vibration of some duration having frequency components in the
vicinity of the mounting platform’s lowest frequencies.
2.4.3. Test Implementation Options
1. Table 2 summarizes the options for the eight laboratory test procedures. The
options are defined as follows:
a. “TWR” (Time Waveform Replication), means that the measurement time

history will be reproduced on the laboratory exciter with “minimal
amplitude time history error” according to AECTP-400, Method 423, or
using special shock package software for replication.
b. “Drop” is an explicit free fall drop event.
c. “Classical Pulse” refers to classical pulses to be used in testing of which

only the terminal peak sawtooth pulse and the trapezoidal pulses are
defined as defaults. This category is generally employed when suitable
field measurement information is unavailable, and traditional testing is
relied upon.
d. “SRS” refers to cases in which an SRS is used for the test specification,
and exciter shock is synthesized based upon amplitude modulated sine
waves or damped sinusoids. This category may be based on the SRS
equivalent of a classical pulse to reduce adverse effects associated with
conducting classical shock testing on a shaker, or may be defined based
upon an ensemble of measured field data. The application notes in
Annex A, paragraph 1.3 are important for defining the appropriate
duration for the synthesized SRS pulse.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Table 2: Laboratory Test Options.
Test Methodology
Classical Pulse
Procedure
Half- TP
Drop2 Sine1 Trapezoidal Sawtooth SRS TWR
Functional
I X X X X
Shock
Transportation
II X X X
Shock
III Fragility X X
IV Transit Drop X
Crash Hazard
V X X X
Shock3
VI Bench Handling X
Pendulum
VII X
Impact4
Catapult
VIII Launch/Arrested X
Landing5
1. Method 403 defines test procedures for the Half-Sine classical waveform but not
default laboratory test severities with the exception of High Speed Craft (HSC).
2. The Drop test includes vertical free fall towers, impact machines, and other test
methods with similar equipment.
3. In some cases the Crash Hazard Shock may be evaluated by a constant
acceleration, see paragraph 2.4.2d.
4. Pendulum Impact is a test item with horizontal motion that impacts a stationary
barrier.
5. A Catapult Launch/Arrested Landing test can be based on a measured waveform
or a two second damped (Q=20) sine burst of required amplitude and frequency,
see the test procedure.
2. From Table 2, it is clear that the test procedures are divided according to use of
TWR, drop test procedures, classical pulses, or synthesized waveforms from SRS.
TWR is considered the most realistic as it is based upon direct replication of field
measured data. Software vendors have generally incorporated an option for TWR
within their “shock package,” so that it is unnecessary to plan testing under specialized
TWR software as called out in Methods 423 and 421, however, both of these Methods
provide insight into tolerance and scaling related to a more general TWR methodology.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
2.5. TAILORING WHEN MEASURED DATA ARE AVAILABLE - GENERAL

DISCUSSION
1. Since test tailoring to field measured data is considered a superior technique for
shock testing, information and guidelines in this and subsequent paragraphs are very
important. Beyond the classical pulse, two techniques of shock replication in the
laboratory are possible.
a. The first technique takes a measurement shock, and conditions it for

direct waveform replication on the laboratory exciter. Conditioning may
consist of bandwidth limiting via lowpass, highpass, or bandpass filtering,
and re-sampling into a portable data file format such as ASCII. Vendor
packages may have this capability within the “shock package” or in a
special “TWR package”.
b. The second technique takes a measurement shock, computes an SRS

estimate, and subsequently uses this SRS estimate to synthesize a
representative time domain reference using a “wavelet” or a damped
sine-based synthesis approach. In order to maintain a reasonable
correlation between the effective pulse durations in the field measured
and laboratory synthesized signals, in addition to the SRS reference to
be synthesized, the test operator will require knowledge of the basic
temporal characteristics of the time domain signal(s) from which the
reference SRS is computed. More on this subject follows in Annex A,
paragraph 1.3.
2. In summary, when test tailoring based upon available field measured data is
employed, there are basically two laboratory test options available (assuming that
repetition of the laboratory shock is under the guidance of the LCEP). Depending on
the conditions of the test in which the data was acquired and the intended use for the
data, the typical application of TWR or SRS test methods are described below.
b. TWR.
(1) Measured shock is a single shock field measurement or highly

repeatable multiple shock field measurement.
(2) Complex shocks.
(3) Adequate measurement or ability to predict time histories at

relevant locations in order to have adequate information at
mounting locations of the test article.
(4) Examples of such measurements are catapult launches, aircraft

landing, and gunfire loads.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
NOTE: The bandwidth of the measurement shock and the ability of the laboratory
exciter system to “replicate the bandwidth” is an important consideration under
TWR. TWR input time histories may be band-limited, and yet the materiel
response may have broader bandwidth as a result of mounting. This area has not
been studied to any extent, and can be a function of the materiel and its mounting.
Time history bandwidths that exceed the laboratory exciter bandwidth place a
rather severe limitation on use of TWR for laboratory testing.
b. SRS.
(1) Single or multiple shock measurements where SRS values fit to a

statistical distribution. Confirmation of statistical trend must be
made.
(2) Sensor placement is sparse relative to the area in which it is to

characterize.
(3) The shock load is known to have a statistically high variance.
(4) An example of SRS preference would be the shock assigned to a

ground vehicle’s hull as a function of multiple terrains.
3. Scaling for conservatism is ill-defined, but may be applied at the discretion of

the analyst.
NOTE: SRS synthesis requires not only the SRS estimate, but (1) a general
amplitude correspondence with field measured or a predicted pulse, and (2) an
estimate of the field measured or predicted pulse duration. In general, synthesis is
applicable only for “simple shocks” (see Annex A, paragraph 1.2) with high
frequency information very near the peak amplitude; i.e., for shocks whose rms
duration is short. By the nature of the composition of the synthesized shock (i.e.,
damped sinusoids or “wavelets”), it is possible to inappropriately extend the
duration of a time history that matches a given SRS to an indefinitely long time.
Note also that when measurement data are available, certain shocks, in particular
“complex shocks” (see Annex A), may only be adequately applied under TWR.
2.6. MATERIAL OPERATION
Whenever appropriate, ensure test items are active and functioning during shock tests.
Monitor and record achieved performance. Obtain as much data as possible that
defines the sensitivity of the materiel to mechanical shock. Where tests are conducted
to determine operational capability while exposed to the environment, operate the test
item. In other cases, operate the test item where appropriate. Operation during

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
transportation will not be possible in almost all cases. Also, there are cases where the
operational configuration varies with mission phase, or where operation at high levels
of shock may not be required, and may be likely to result in damage.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
3.1. GENERAL
Refer to Annex A of this Method for a detailed discussion on measurement system

characterization and basic processing as related to mechanical shock.
3.2. DETERMINE TEST LEVELS AND CONDITIONS
When defining shock test levels and conditions, every attempt needs to be made to
obtain measured data under conditions similar to service environment conditions in the
Life Cycle Environmental Profile. Consider the following test execution ranking from
the most desirable to the least desirable as follows:
a. TWR: Measured time histories summarized, and laboratory exciter

shock created by way of direct reproduction of one or more selected time
histories under exciter waveform control (see Method 423).
b. SRS based on Measured Data: Measured time histories summarized in

the form of an SRS and laboratory exciter shock synthesized by way of
a complex transient making sure that effective shock durations (𝑇𝑒 and
𝑇𝐸 ) for the test pulse are consistent with the measured data and the
character of the synthesized waveform is “similar” to the measured time
histories with respect to amplitude and zero crossings (see
paragraph 3.2.1).
c. SRS in the absence of Measured Data: No measured time histories but

previous SRS estimates available, and laboratory exciter shock
synthesized by way of a complex transient such that effective shock
durations (𝑇𝑒 and 𝑇𝐸 ) are specified taking into consideration the nature of
the environment and the natural frequency response characteristics of
the materiel (see paragraph 3.2.2).
d. Classical Shock Pulse: No measured time histories, but classical pulse

shock descriptions available for use in reproducing the laboratory exciter
shock (see paragraph 3.2.3).
3.2.1. SRS Based on Measured Data
When measured data is available, the SRS required for the test will be determined from
analytical computations. 𝑇𝑒 and 𝑇𝐸 required for the test will be determined from
statistical processing of time history measurements of the materiel’s environment (see
Annex A, paragraph 1.3). Unless otherwise specified, the SRS analysis will be

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
performed on the AC coupled time history for Q = 10 at a sequence of natural

frequencies spaced at 1/12 octave or less to span a minimum bandwidth of 5 Hz to
2,000 Hz.
a. When a sufficient number of representative shock spectra are available,

employ an appropriate statistical enveloping technique to determine the
required test spectrum with a statistical basis (see Annex C of this
Method).
b. When insufficient measured time histories are available for statistical

analysis (only one or two time histories of like character), use an increase
over the maximum of the available SRS spectra to establish the required
test spectrum (if two spectra are available, determine a maximum
envelope according to the ENV procedure of Annex C). The resulting
spectra should account for stochastic variability in the environment, and
uncertainty in any predictive methods employed. The degree of increase
over measured time history spectra is based on engineering judgment,
and should be supported by rationale. In these cases, it is often
convenient to add either a 3 dB or 6 dB margin to the enveloped SRS,
depending on the degree of test level conservatism desired (see
Annex C, paragraph 4.2). Effective durations 𝑇𝑒 and 𝑇𝐸 for test should
be taken as the respective maximums as computed from each of the
measured time histories.
3.2.2. SRS in the Absence of Measured Data
1. If measured data is not available, the SRS and the corresponding values of
𝑇𝑒 and 𝑇𝐸 may be derived from (1) a carefully scaled measurement of a dynamically
similar environment, (2) structural analysis or other prediction methods, or (3) from a
combination of sources. For Procedure I (Functional Shock), and Procedure V (Crash
Hazard Shock), employ the applicable SRS spectrum from Figure 2 as the test
spectrum for each axis, provided 𝑇𝑒 and 𝑇𝐸 of the test shock time history is in
compliance with the accompanying Table 3. This spectrum approximates that of the
perfect terminal-peak sawtooth pulse. General guidance for selecting the crossover
frequency, Fco , for any classical pulse is to define it as the lowest frequency at which
the corresponding SRS magnitude reaches the convergence magnitude (the constant
magnitude reached in the high frequency portion of the SRS) for the damping ratio of
interest. Once Fco is defined, the effective duration considered in the complex pulse
synthesis is then defined as 𝑇𝐸 ≤ 2⁄𝐹 . Refer to paragraphs 5.4.2.c and 5.4.2.d to
𝑐𝑜
customize the bandwidth of the SRS and corresponding values of 𝑇𝑒 and 𝑇𝐸 as
required.
2. It is recommend that the test be performed with a waveform that is synthesized

from either (1) a superposition of damped sinusoids with selected properties at
designated frequencies, or (2) a superposition of various amplitude modulated sine

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
waves with selected properties at designated frequencies, such that this waveform has
an SRS that approximates the SRS on Figure 2. In reality, any complex test transient
with major energy in the initial portion of the time trace is suitable if it is within tolerance
of this spectrum requirement over the minimum frequency range of 10 to 2000 Hz, and
meets the duration requirements. Implementing a classical terminal-peak sawtooth
pulse or trapezoidal pulse on a vibration exciter are the least permissible test
alternatives (refer to paragraph 3.2.3.). In the case in which a classical pulse is given
as the reference criteria, it is permissible to synthesize a complex pulse based on the
SRS characteristics of the referenced classical pulse. In such cases, 𝑇𝑒 and 𝑇𝐸 should
be defined as in Table 3.
2
10
Amplitude (g)
1
10
Crash Hazard Test for Ground Equipment

Functional Test for Ground Equipment & Crash Hazard Test for Flight Equipment
Launch/Eject during Captive Carry
Functional Test for Flight Equipment
0
10
1 2 3
10 10 10
Natural Frequency (Hz)
Figure 2: Test SRS for Use if Measured Data Are Not Available (for
Procedure I - Functional Shock, and Procedure V - Crash Hazard Shock Test)

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Table 3: Test Shock Response Spectra for Use if Measured Data Are Not
Available.
Test Category Peak 𝑻𝒆 (ms)1 𝑻𝑬 (ms)1 Cross-over

Acceleration Frequency
(G-Pk) Fco (Hz)
Functional Test for 20 2.5 2 45
Flight Equipment 𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝐶𝑂
Functional Test for 40 2.5 2 45
Ground Equipment2 𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝐶𝑂
Launch/Eject 30 2.5 2 45
During Captive 𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝐶𝑂
Carry
Crash Hazard 40 2.5 2 45
Shock Test for 𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝐶𝑂
Flight Equipment
Crash Hazard 75 2.5 2 80
Shock Test for 𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝐶𝑂
Ground Equipment
Note 1: The default value for fmin is 10 Hz as shown in Figure 2. Refer to
guidance in paragraphs 5.4.2.c and 5.4.2.d to customize the bandwidth of the
SRS and corresponding values of 𝑇𝑒 and 𝑇𝐸 .
Note 2: For materiel mounted only in trucks and semi-trailers, use a 20G peak
value.
3.2.3. Classical Shock Pulse
Classical shock pulses (e.g., half-sine, terminal peak sawtooth, or trapezoidal) may be
defined by (1) time history measurements of the materiel’s environment, (2) from a
carefully scaled measurement of a dynamically similar environment, (3) from structural
analysis or other prediction methods, or (4) from a combination of sources. The
terminal peak sawtooth is often referenced due to its relatively flat spectral
characteristics in the SRS domain as approximated in Figure 2. In the event that a-
priori information regarding rise time of the transient event being considered is
determined to be a critical parameter, consider a half-sine pulse or a trapezoidal pulse
with a tailored rising edge in lieu of the terminal peak sawtooth. Shock pulse
substitution (e.g., half-sine in lieu of terminal peak sawtooth) requires adjustment in the
amplitude such that the velocity change of the shock pulse is equivalent to the original
specification. The resulting overtest or undertest with respect to the difference in the
SRS must be considered, documented, and approved by the appropriate testing
authority. If a classical shock pulse is defined in lieu of more complex measured time

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
history data it must be demonstrated that SRS estimates of the classical shock pulse
are within the tolerances established for the SRS estimates of the measured time
history data. In most cases, classical shock pulses will be defined as one of the
following:
a. Terminal Peak Sawtooth Pulse: The terminal peak sawtooth pulse along
with its parameters and tolerances are provided in Figure 3, and is an
alternative for testing in Procedure I - Functional Shock, Procedure II -
Transportation Shock and Procedure V - Crash Hazard Shock Test. The
terminal peak sawtooth default test parameters for Procedures I& V are
provided in Table 4 and for Procedure II refer to Table 6.
b. Trapezoidal Shock Pulse: The trapezoidal pulse along with its

parameters and tolerances is provided in Figure 4. The trapezoidal pulse
is specified for Procedure III - Fragility. The trapezoidal pulse parameters
are provided in Table 5.
c. Half-Sine Shock Pulse: The half-sine pulse along with its parameters
and tolerances is provided in Figure 5. The half-sine pulse is specified
as a reference criterion in limited scenarios within this Method. With the
exception of High Speed Craft (HSC) functional shock, this test method
does not define half-sine test severities, however use of the waveform is
common for correlation with analytical models and historical data. It is
also recognized that such pulses are still commonly called out as test
requirements by other reference documents. In addition, as discussed
in paragraph 3.2.3.1, the half-sine pulse is often used in lieu of other
classical pulses based upon equipment availability and or limitations.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Table 4: Terminal Peak Sawtooth Default Test Parameters for Procedures I -

Functional Test and Procedure V – Crash Hazard (Refer to Figure 3).
Minimum Peak Value and Pulse Duration

Test 𝐴𝑚 (G-Pk) & 𝑇𝐷 (ms)
Flight Vehicle Materiel Weapon Launch1,2 Ground Materiel1,3
Captive Carry
Procedure I - 40 G
Functional 20 G 11 ms 30 G 11 ms (Note 2)
11 ms
Procedure V
-Crash 40 G 11 ms (not applicable) 75 G 6 ms
Hazard
Note 1. For material that is shock mounted or weighing more than 136 kg (300 lbs),
an 11 ms half-sine pulse of such amplitude that yields an equivalent velocity to the
default terminal peak sawtooth may be employed. Equivalent Velocity Relationship:
𝐴𝑚(ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑓𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑒) = (𝜋⁄4)𝐴𝑚(𝑠𝑎𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑡ℎ)
Note 2. Launch Shock is a special case of Functional Shock (see paragraph 7.1k)
Note 3. For materiel mounted only in trucks and semi-trailers, use a 20G peak value.
Table 5: Trapezoidal Pulse Parameters (Refer to Figure 4).
Test Peak Value1 (𝐴𝑚 ) Nominal Duration2 (𝑇𝐷 )

G’s (sec)
2 2h
2 2 gh g
Fragility 10-50 TD  
Am g Am
Note 1: 𝐴𝑚 is dependent upon drop height “h.” Typical range is provided (refer to
paragraph 5.3.3).
Note 2: “h” is in SI: m (in) and g=9.81 m/s2 (386.09 in/sec2)

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Required Waveform
Integration time
Upper Tolerance
1.5TD
13 Lower Tolerance
1.2A
A
8 0.8A
Amplitude
3 0.2A 0.2A
0 0
-2
-0.2A 0.4TD 0.1TD -0.2A
TD
2.5TD TD 2.5TD
-7 0.1TD
2.4TD = T1
6TD = T2
-12
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 Time 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Figure 3: Terminal Peak Sawtooth Shock Pulse Configuration and its

Tolerance Limits (for Use When Shock Response Spectrum Analysis Capability
is Not Available in Conduct of Procedures I, II, and V)
18 Integration time Required Waveform

Upper Tolerance
1.5TD Lower Tolerance
0.1TD
13 0.1TD
1.2A
A
8 0.8A
Amplitude
0.2A
3 0.2A 0.2A 0.2A

0 0
-2
-0.2A 0.4TD -0.2A
TD
2.5TD TD 2.5TD
-7 2.4TD = T1
6TD = T2
-12
0 0 0 0 Time 0 0 0 0
Figure 4: Trapezoidal Shock Pulse Configuration and Tolerance Limits (for

Use When Shock Response Spectrum Analysis Capability is Not Available in
Procedure III)

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Required Waveform
Integration time
Upper Tolerance
1.5TD
13 Lower Tolerance
1.2A
A
8 0.8A
Amplitude
0.2A
3 0.2A 0.2A
0 0
-2
-0.2A 0.4TD -0.2A
0.1TD
TD
-7 2.5TD TD 2.5TD
2.4TD = T1
6TD = T2
-12
0 0 0 0 Time 0 0 0 0
Figure 5: Half-Sine Shock Pulse Configuration and Tolerance Limits (for Use
When Reference Criteria Are Provided as a Classical Half-Sine Pulse)
Key to Figures 3 through 5:

𝑇𝐷 : duration of nominal pulse (tolerance on 𝑇𝐷 is ± 10%).
A: peak acceleration of nominal pulse
𝑇1 : minimum time duration which the pulse shall be monitored for shocks produced using a
conventional mechanical shock machine.
𝑇2 : minimum time during which the pulse shall be monitored for shocks produced using a
vibration exciter.
The duration associated with the post-pulse slope of a terminal peak sawtooth and durations
associated with the pre and post slopes of a trapezoidal pulse should be less than 10% 𝑻𝑫 .
The tolerance on velocity, due to combined effects of any amplitude and/or duration deviations
from the nominal pulse, is limited to ± 20% of the pulse’s nominal velocity.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
3.2.3.1. Classical Shock Pulses (Mechanical Shock Machine)
It is recognized that conducting a terminal peak sawtooth or trapezoidal pulse on a

mechanical shock machine requires the use of special programmers (e.g., lead or gas
programmers) and requires higher impact velocity than equivalent half-sine shocks
since the half-sine pulse contains significant rebound velocity that is not characteristic
of the terminal peak sawtooth pulse. Such programmers or high velocity shock
machines are not available in all laboratories. In such cases, it may be necessary to
resort to the use of more readily available programmers used in the conduct of half-
sine shock pulses. When substitution of shock pulses is necessary, follow the
equivalent velocity guidance in paragraph 3.2.3.
3.2.3.2. Classical Shock Pulses (Vibration Exciter)
If a vibration exciter is to be employed to conduct a test with a classical shock pulse, it

will be necessary to optimize the reference pulse such that the net velocity and
displacements are zero. Unfortunately, the need to compensate the reference pulse
distorts the temporal and spectral characteristics, resulting in two specific problems
that will be illustrated through example using a terminal peak sawtooth (the same
argument is relevant for any classical pulse test to be conducted on a vibration exciter).
First, any pre and/or post pulse compensation will be limited by the  20 percent
tolerances given in Figures 3 through 5. Second, as illustrated by the pseudo-velocity
SRS in Figure 6, the velocities in the low frequency portion of the SRS will be
significantly reduced in amplitude. Also, there is generally an area of increased
amplitude associated with the duration of the pre- and post-test compensation.
Observe that the low frequency drop-off in SRS levels between the compensated and
uncompensated pulse is readily identifiable and labeled flow . Likewise, the frequency
at which the compensated and uncompensated pulses converge is readily identifiable
and labeled fhi . The drop-off at flow is considered to be acceptable if and only if the
lowest resonant frequency of the item being tested, f1 , is at least one octave greater
than flow . The amount of gain in the region flow  f  fhi is directly related to the duration
and magnitude of the compensation pulse and the percent of critical damping
employed in the SRS computation (Q=10 in Figure 6). The potential for over-test in
this spectral band must also be carefully considered prior to proceeding.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Pseudo-Velocity SRS - TP Sawtooth (40G-11ms)

Uncompensated (Solid) and Compensated (Dashed) 10
00
in 0
10 g
flow fhi
2 10
10 g in
01
0.
10
00
Pseudo velocity (in/sec)
in g
1
1 1
10 g in
1
00
0.
10
in 0
1
0. g
0 0.
10 1 in
g 01
00
0.
1 2 3
10 10 10
Figure 6: Illustration of Temporal and Spectral Distortion Associated With a

Compensated Classical Terminal Peak Sawtooth

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
3.3. TEST AXES AND NUMBER OF SHOCK EVENTS - GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS
Generally, the laboratory test axes and the number of exposures to the shock events
should be determined based upon the LCEP. However as a minimum requirement,
subject the test item to a sufficient number of suitable shocks to meet the specified test
conditions in both directions along each of three orthogonal axes. A suitable test shock
for each direction of each axis is defined to be one classical shock pulse or complex
transient pulse that yields a response spectrum that is within the tolerances of the
required test spectrum over the specified frequency range, and has an effective
duration within the tolerance of TE as defined in paragraph 5.4.2. In general, complex
transient pulses generated by modern control systems will be symmetric and the
maximax positive and negative SRS levels will be the same. However, this must be
verified for each shock event by computing the spectra for positive and negative
maximum (i.e., maximum and minimum) accelerations, generally at Q = 10, and at
least 1/12-octave frequency intervals. If the required test spectrum can be satisfied
simultaneously in both directions along an axis (i.e., symmetric pulse), one shock event
will satisfy a single shock requirement for that axis in both directions. If the requirement
can only be satisfied in one direction (e.g., polarity consideration for classical shock
inputs, non-symmetric complex transient pulses), it is permissible to change the test
setup and impose an additional shock to satisfy the spectrum requirement in the other
direction. This may be accomplished by either reversing the polarity of the test shock
time history or reversing the test item orientation. The following guidelines may also
be applied for either classical shock pulses or complex transient pulses.
a. For materiel that is likely to be exposed only rarely to a given shock event,
perform a minimum of one shock in each direction of each axis. For
shock conditions with a high potential of damage (e.g., large velocity
change associated with the shock event, fragile test article), perform no
more than one shock in each direction of each axis. Note that some high
velocity shock tests with safety implications (i.e., crash hazard) may
require two shocks in each direction of each axis.
b. For materiel likely to be exposed more frequently to a given shock event,

and there are little available data to substantiate the number of shocks,
apply a minimum of three shocks in each direction of each axis.
3.4. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMPLEX TRANSIENTS
There is no unique synthesized complex transient pulse satisfying a given SRS. In

synthesizing a complex transient pulse from a given SRS, and this complex transient
pulse either (1) exceeds the capability of the shock application system (usually in
displacement or velocity), or (2) the duration of the complex transient pulse is more
than 20 percent longer than 𝑇𝐸 , some compromise in spectrum or duration tolerance
may be necessary. It is unacceptable to decompose an SRS into a low frequency
component (high velocity and displacement), and a high frequency component (low

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
velocity and displacement) to meet a shock requirement. Often an experienced analyst

may be able to specify the input parameters to the complex transient pulse synthesis
algorithm in order to satisfy the requirement for which the shock application system
manufacturer “optimum” solution will not. Refer to paragraphs 5.4.2.c and 5.4.2.d.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
CHAPTER 4 INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN TEST INSTRUCTION
The following minimal information is required to conduct and document dynamic tests
adequately. Tailor the lists to the specific circumstances, adding or deleting items as
necessary. Performing fixture and materiel modal surveys is highly recommended.
These data are useful in evaluating test results, and in evaluating the suitability of
materiel against changing requirements or for new applications. These data can be
particularly valuable in future programs where the major emphasis will be to use
existing materiel in new applications. When modal survey is ruled out for programmatic
reasons, a simple resonance search can sometimes provide useful information.
4.1. COMPULSORY
b. The designation/nomenclature of the test item;
d. The orientation of the test item in relation to the test axes;
e. If and when operational checks are to be performed;
f. For initial and final checks, specify whether they are to be performed with
the test item installed on the test facility;
g. Other relevant data required to perform the test and operating checks;
h. The control strategy;
i. The monitor and control points or a procedure to select these points;
j. The test temperature and associated pre-conditioning time;
k. The use of isolator mounts or otherwise;
l. The definition of the test severity;
m. The indication of the failure criteria;
n. Define control tolerances. In the case of a large test item or complex

fixture, establish a process to manage tolerance concessions;

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
o. Any other environmental conditions at which testing is to be carried out if

4.2. IF REQUIRED
a. The specific features of the test assembly (vibrator, fixture, interface

connections, etc.);
b. The effect of gravity and the consequential precautions;
c. The value of the tolerable spurious magnetic fields;
4.3. TEST FACILITY
Selection of the test facility/equipment will require an assessment of the fundamental

test parameters (e.g., displacement, velocity, acceleration, force) and should account
relevant compulsory information listed in paragraph 4.1. A review of the shock test
facility relative to these test parameters should account for the time, amplitude, and
frequency ranges over which the apparatus is capable of delivering the required shock
input and that the instrumentation, data acquisition, and control systems are capable
of properly processing the test data. Test facility/equipment requirements specific to
particular test procedures are covered in Chapter 5.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Prior to initiating any testing, review the pretest information in the test plan to determine
test details (e.g., procedure, calibration load, test item configuration, measurement
configuration, shock level, shock duration, climatic conditions, and number of shocks
to be applied, as well as the information in paragraph 5.1 below). Note all details of
the test validation procedures.
The shock apparatus will be user-calibrated for conformance with the specified test
requirement from the selected procedure where the response measurements will be
made with traceable laboratory calibrated measurement devices. Conformance to test
specifications may require use of a “calibration load” in the test setup (see AECTP-
400, paragraph 4.1.1). If the calibration load is required, it will generally be a
mass/stiffness simulant of the test item. “Mass/stiffness simulants” imply that the
modal dynamic characteristics of the test item are replicated to the extent possible in
the simulant - particularly those modal dynamic characteristics that may interact with
the modal dynamic configuration of the fixturing and/or the test device. For calibration,
produce two consecutive input applications to a calibration load that satisfy the test
conditions outlined in Procedures I, II, III, V, or VIII. After processing the measured
response data from the calibration load, and verifying that it is in conformance with the
test specification tolerances, remove the calibration load and perform the shock test
on the test item. Use of calibration loads for setup to guard against excessive over test
or unproductive under test is highly recommended in all cases.
5.1.1. Instrumentation
In general, acceleration will be the quantity measured to meet a specification, with care
taken to ensure acceleration measurements can be made that provide meaningful
data. Always give special consideration to the measurement instrument amplitude and
frequency range specifications in order to satisfy the calibration, measurement and
analysis requirements. With regard to measurement technology, accelerometers,
strain gages and laser Doppler vibrometers are commonly used devices for
measurement. In processing shock data, it is important to be able to detect anomalies.
For example, it is well documented that piezoelectric accelerometers may offset or
zero-shift during mechanical shock, pyroshock, and ballistic shock (paragraph 7.1,
references m and n). A part of this detection is the integration of the acceleration
amplitude time history to determine if it has the characteristics of a physically realizable
velocity trace. For mechanical shock various accelerometers are readily available
which may or may not contain mechanical isolation.
a. Accelerometers. Ensure the following:

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
(1) Amplitude Linearity: It is desired to have amplitude linearity within

10 percent from 5 percent to 100 percent of the peak acceleration
amplitude required for testing. Since mechanically isolated
piezoelectric accelerometers (mechanically isolated or not) may
show zero-shift (paragraph 7.1, reference o), there is risk to not
characterizing these devices at 5 percent of the peak amplitude.
To address these possible zero-shifts, high pass filtering (or other
data correction technique) may be required. Such additional post-
test correction techniques increases the risk of distorting the
measured shock environment. Consider the following in
transducer selection:
(a) It is recognized that mechanically isolated accelerometers

may have both non-linear amplification and non-linear
frequency content below 10,000 Hz (paragraph 7.1,
reference o). In order to understand the non-linear
amplification and frequency characteristics, it is
recommended that shock linearity evaluations be
conducted at intervals of 20 to 30 percent of the rated
amplitude range of the accelerometer to identify the actual
amplitude and frequency linearity characteristics and
useable amplitude and frequency range. If a shock based
calibration technique is employed, the shock pulse duration
for the evaluation is calculated as:
1
𝑇𝐷 = 2𝑓
𝑚𝑎𝑥
Where 𝑇𝐷 is the duration (baseline) of the acceleration

pulse and 𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum specified frequency range
for the accelerometer. For mechanical shock, the default
value for 𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥 is 10,000 Hz.
(b) For cases in which response below 2 Hz is desired, a
piezoresistive accelerometer measurement is required.
(2) Frequency Response: A flat response within  5 percent across

the frequency range of interest is required. Since it is generally
not practical or cost effective to conduct a series of varying pulse
width shock tests to characterize frequency response, a vibration
calibration is typically employed. For the case of a high range
accelerometer with low output, there may be signal to noise ratio
(SNR) issues associated with a low level vibration calibration. In
such cases a degree of engineering judgment will be required in
the evaluation of frequency response.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
(3) Accelerometer Sensitivity: The sensitivity of a shock

accelerometer is expected to have some variance over its large
amplitude dynamic range.
(a) If the sensitivity is based upon the low amplitude vibration

calibration, it is critical that the linearity characteristics of
the shock based “Amplitude Linearity” be understood such
that an amplitude measurement uncertainty is clearly
defined.
(b) Ideally, vibration calibration and shock amplitude linearity

results should agree within 10 percent over the amplitude
range of interest for a given test.
(4) Transverse sensitivity should be less than or equal to 5 percent.
(5) The measurement device and its mounting will be compatible with
the requirements and guidelines provided in paragraph 7.1,
reference a.
(6) Unless it is clearly demonstrated that a piezoelectric

accelerometer (mechanically isolated or not) can meet the shock
requirements and is designed for oscillatory shock (not one-sided
shock pulses), recommend piezoresistive accelerometers be used
for high intensity shock events in which oscillatory response is
anticipated. Piezoelectric accelerometers may be used in
scenarios in which levels are known to be within the established
(verified through calibration) operating range of the transducer,
thereby avoiding non-linear amplification and frequency content.
b. Other Measurement Devices.
(1) Any other measurement devices used to collect data must be

demonstrated to be consistent with the requirements of the test,
in particular, the calibration and tolerance information provided in
paragraph 5.4.
(2) Signal Conditioning. Use only signal conditioning that is

compatible with the instrumentation requirements of the test, and
is compatible with the requirements and guidelines provided in
paragraph 7.1, reference a. In particular, filtering of the analog
voltage signals will be consistent with the time history response
requirements (in general, demonstrable linearity of phase
throughout the frequency domain of response), and the filtering
will be so configured that anomalous acceleration data caused by
clipping will not be misinterpreted as response data. In particular,

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
use extreme care in filtering the acceleration signals at the

amplifier output. Never filter the signal into the amplifier for fear of
filtering erroneous measurement data, and the inability to detect
the erroneous measurement data. The signal from the signal
conditioning must be anti-alias filtered before digitizing as defined
in Annex A, paragraph 1.1.
5.1.2. Pre-Test
The following information is required to conduct a shock test.
a. General. Information listed in AECTP-400, paragraph 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3.
b. Specific to this Method.
(1) Test fixture modal survey procedure.
(2) Test item/fixture modal survey procedure.
(3) Shock environment. Either:
(a) The predicted SRS or the complex shock pulse synthesis

form (superposition of damped sinusoids, amplitude
modulated sine waves, or other) specifying spectrum
shape, peak spectrum values, spectrum break points, and
pulse duration.
(b) The measured data selected for use in conjunction with the
SRS synthesis technique outlined in the procedures. (If the
SRS synthesis technique is used, ensure both the spectral
shape and synthesized shock duration are as specified).
(c) The measured data that are input as a compensated

waveform into an exciter/shock system under Time
Waveform Replication (TWR). (See Method 423.)
(d) Specified test parameters for transit drop and fragility

shock.
(4) Techniques used in the processing of the input and the response
data.
(5) Note all details of the test validation procedures.
c. Tailoring. Necessary variations in the basic test procedures to

accommodate LCEP requirements and/or facility limitations.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
5.1.3. During Test
Collect the following information during conduct of the test.
a. General. Information listed AECTP-400, paragraph 3.4.
b. Specific to this Method. Information related to failure criteria for test

materiel under acceleration for the selected procedure or procedures.
Pay close attention to any test item instrumentation, and the manner in
which the information is received from the sensors. For large velocity
shock, ensure instrumentation cabling does not add noise to
measurements as a result of cable movement.
c. If measurement information is obtained during the test, examine the time

histories and process according to procedures outlined in the test plan.
5.1.4. Post-Test
The following information shall be included in the test report.
a. General. Information listed in AECTP-400, paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6.
(1) Duration of each exposure and number of exposures.
(2) Status of the test item after each visual examination.
(3) All response time histories and the information processed from
these time histories. In general, under-processed information, the
absolute acceleration maximax SRS, and the pseudo-velocity
SRS should be supplied as a function of single degree of freedom
oscillator undamped natural frequency. In certain cases, the
Energy Spectral Density (ESD) and Fourier Spectra (FS) may be
supplied.
(4) Test item and/or fixture modal analysis data and, if available, a
mounted item/fixture modal analysis.
(5) Any deviation from the test plan or default severities (e.g., drop
surface).
5.1.5. Operational Checks
1. Whenever appropriate, ensure test items are active and functioning during shock
tests. Monitor and record achieved performance. Obtain as much data as possible that

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
defines the sensitivity of the materiel to mechanical shock. Where tests are conducted to
determine operational capability while exposed to the environment, operate the test item.
In other cases, operate the test item where practical. Operation during transportation
shock will not be possible in almost all cases. Also, there are cases where the operational
configuration varies with mission phase, or where operation at high levels of shock may
not be required, and may be likely to result in damage.
2. The final operational checks should be made after the materiel has been
returned to rest under pre-conditioning conditions and thermal stability has been
obtained.
The configuration of the test item strongly affects test results. Use the anticipated
configuration of the materiel in the life cycle environmental profile. As a minimum,
consider the following configurations:
a. In a shipping/storage container or transit case.
b. Deployed in the service environment.
5.2.1. Pre-Conditioning
1. The test item should be stabilized to its initial climatic and other conditions as
stipulated in the Test Instruction. The total materiel temperature conditioning exposure
duration time for the test program should be less than the life expectancy time of any
component material. The total exposure time must be determined from the sum of the
pre-conditioning time, plus any standby time, plus actual laboratory testing time. A
total exposure duration greater than the materiel life limit can create an accelerated
material failure mode or materiel degradation that is unrelated to the simulated
environmental test condition. In particular, caution should be used during testing of
energetic or chemically reactive materials that degrade under elevated temperature
conditions.
2. To determine the total exposure time, consideration by the test program

engineer is needed for each phase of environmental testing, mechanical climatic and
electrical, and any additional standby time prior to final operational or performance
tests. Standby or pre-conditioning time, such as maintaining the item at conditioned
temperature over a weekend, can have a significant impact. AECTP 200 series leaflets
provide further guidance on accelerated aging.
5.2.2. Data Analysis
a. In subsequent processing of the data, use any additional digital filtering

that is compatible with the anti-alias analog filtering. In particular,
additional digital filtering must maintain phase linearity for processing of

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
shock time histories. Re-sampling for SRS computational error control is

permitted using standard re-sampling algorithms.
b. Analysis procedures will be in accordance with those requirements and

guidelines provided in paragraph 7.1, reference a. In particular, validate
the shock acceleration amplitude time histories according to the
procedures in paragraph 7.1, reference a. Use integration of time
histories to detect any anomalies in the measurement system; e.g., cable
breakage, amplifier slew rate exceedance, data clipped, unexplained
accelerometer offset, etc., before processing the response time histories.
If anomalies are detected, discard the invalid measured response time
history. For unique and highly valued measured data, a highly trained
analyst may be consulted concerning the removal of certain anomalies
but, generally, this will leave information that is biased by the technique
for removal of the anomaly.
5.2.3. Pretest Checkout of the Test Item
After calibration of the excitation input device and prior to conducting the test, perform
a pretest checkout of the test item at standard ambient conditions, as defined in
AECTP 300, to provide baseline data. Conduct the checkout as follows:
Step 1: Conduct a complete visual examination of the test item with

special attention to stress areas or areas identified as being
particularly susceptible to damage and document the results.
Step 2: Where applicable, install the test item in its test fixture.
Step 3: Conduct a test item operational check in accordance with the

approved test plan, and document the results for compliance with
AECTP-400, paragraph 3.6.
Step 4: If the test item operates satisfactorily, proceed to the first test. If
not, resolve the problem and restart at Step 1.
5.2.4. Platform Integration
a. Test Fixture Design. Observe standard shock and vibration fixture

design practices with regard to frequency response and the ability to
withstand the reaction forces. Potentially high loads generated during
multi-exciter/multi-axis (MEMA) tests as a result of the accelerations
applied simultaneously in multiple degrees of freedom should be
considered.
b. Test Configuration. Both multi-exciter/single-axis (MESA) and multi-

exciter/multi-axis (MEMA) tests require that the test configuration be

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
restrained in all degrees of freedom that are not controlled by the exciter,
and released in all degrees of freedom that are. A kinematic assessment
of the setup is recommended to assist in the selection of the proper
couplings, bearings, etc., to ensure that improper loads are not
transferred to the test item through the controlled application of the test,
as well as the potentially uncontrolled motion of the exciters.
5.3. PROCEDURES
Paragraphs 5.3.1 through 5.3.8 provide the basis for collecting the necessary information
concerning the system under shock. For failure analysis purposes, each procedure
contains information to assist in the evaluation of the test results. Analyze any failure of
a test item to meet the requirements of the system specifications, and consider related
information. It is critical that any deviations to the test or test tolerances must be approved
by the appropriate test authority and must be clearly documented in the test plan and final
report.
5.3.1. Functional Shock (Procedure I)
1. The intent of this test is to disclose materiel malfunction that may result from
shocks experienced by materiel during use in the field. Even though materiel may have
successfully withstood even more severe shocks during shipping or transit shock tests,
there are differences in support and attachment methods, and in functional checking
requirements that make this test necessary. Tailoring of the test is required when data
are available, can be measured, or can be estimated from related data using accepted
dynamic scaling techniques (for scaling guidance see Method 423). When measured
field data are not available for tailoring, use the information in Figure 2 and the
accompanying Table 3 to define the shock test system input SRS or Table 4 for
classical pulse definitions. In the calibration procedure, the calibration load will be
subject to a properly compensated complex waveform in accordance with the SRS
described above for electrodynamic or servo-hydraulic shock testing. In general, tests
using classical pulses; e.g., terminal peak sawtooth, etc., are unacceptable unless it
can be demonstrated during tailoring that the field shock environment time trace
approximates such a form. If all other testing resources have been exhausted, it will
be permissible to use the information on Table 4 for employing a classical pulse.
However, such testing must be performed in both a positive and negative direction to
assure meeting the spectrum requirements on Figure 2 in both the positive and
negative direction.
2. A special category of functional shock has been established for Navy high speed
craft (HSC). Tables 6 and 7 document two functional standardized laboratory shock
test requirements to mitigate the risk of equipment malfunction or failure of hard
mounted electrical and electronics equipment in HSC due to wave impacts (paragraph
7.1 reference q). These test requirements are applicable for equipment with internal
vibration mounts, but not applicable for equipment installed on shock mounts or for

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
shock isolated seats (paragraph 7.1, reference r for guidance related to shock isolated
seats).
3. Two types of half-sine shock tests are required to minimize the risk of equipment
malfunction or failure in HSC. The first test, (HSC-I), is to be repeated three times in
each direction of the three mutually orthogonal axes. The second test, (HSC-II),
employs a lower severity shock pulse which is to be repeated 800 times in each
direction per axis with the nominal spacing between pulses set at 1-second intervals
(in the event the previous transient has not completely decayed within the nominal
1-second, contact the proper test authority for further guidance).
Table 6: High Speed Craft - Standardized Requirements1 (refer to Figure 5).
Test2 Half-Sine Pulse

Amplitude Duration
HSC-I 20 G 23 ms
HSC-II 5G 23 ms
Note 1. The half-sine classical pulse specified for HSC may not be substituted by an
SRS equivalent complex pulse.
Note 2. For equipment mounted ONLY in the Z (vertical up) direction, with the
exception of equipment mounted on a mast, arch, or cabin top, HSC-I X (positive
forward) and Y (positive to port) axis amplitudes may be reduced to 10 G.
4. HSC equipment orientation during testing should represent realistic conditions

in which the equipment may experience wave impact shock. Dominant wave impact
shock loads occur only in craft axes +Z (vertical up), -X (aft), and +/- Y (port/starboard).
Equipment that can be installed in any orientation should be tested in positive and
negative test orientations for all three equipment axes. The +X and –Z craft
orientations should be omitted during Procedure I testing for equipment installed only
in a vertical up orientation.
5. For unique situations (e.g., high value or fragile components) where general
cross platform use at any location is not anticipated, the 20 G HSC-I default amplitude
may be modified as defined in Table 7 (the pulse duration will remain at 23 ms).

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Table 7: Limited Application Requirements by Craft Size.1
Craft Size Location

Longitudinal
Length Weight
Center of Coxswain Bow
(m) (kg)
Gravity (LCG)
19.8 – 25.9 47,627 – 72,575 10 G 15 G 20 G
(65-85 ft) (105-160 klbs)
12.2 – 21.3 15,875 – 31,751
10 G 15 G 15 G
(40-70 ft) (35-70 klbs)
7.6 – 12.2 6,350 – 11,340
15 G 15 G 20 G
(35-40 ft) (14-25 klbs)
Note 1. The half-sine classical pulse specified for HSC may not be substituted by an
SRS equivalent complex pulse.
5.3.1.1. Test Controls - Functional Shock (Procedure I)
Figure 2 provides predicted input SRS for the functional shock test for use when
measured data are not available, and when the test item configuration falls into
categories - flight equipment, ground equipment or launch eject during captive carry.
The durations, 𝑇𝑒 and 𝑇𝐸 , are defined in paragraph 3.2b, and are specified in Table 3.
5.3.1.2. Test Tolerances - Functional Shock (Procedure I)
For complex transients from measured data, ensure test tolerances are consistent with
the general guidelines provided in paragraph 3.2 with respect to the information
provided in Table 3 and accompanying Figure 2. For classical pulse testing, the test
tolerances are specified on Figures 3 through 5 with respect to information in Table 4.
5.3.1.3 Test Procedure - Functional Shock (Procedure I)
If testing is required in more than one axis, repeat the procedure below for each axis.
Step 1: Select the test conditions and calibrate the shock test apparatus
as follows:
a. Select accelerometers and analysis techniques that meet

or exceed the criteria outlined in paragraph 5.1.1 and
paragraph 7.1, reference a.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
b. Mount the calibration load to the shock test apparatus in a

configuration similar to that of the test item. If the materiel
is normally mounted on vibration/shock isolators, ensure
the corresponding test item isolators are functional during
the test. If the shock test apparatus input waveform is to
be compensated via input/output impulse response
function for waveform control, exercise care to details in the
calibration configuration and the subsequent processing of
the data.
c. Perform calibration shocks until two consecutive shock

applications to the calibration load produce waveforms that
meet or exceed the derived test conditions consistent with
the test tolerances in paragraph 5.3.1.2 for at least the test
direction of one axis.
d. Remove the calibration load and install the test item on the
shock apparatus.
Step 2: Perform a pre-shock operational check of the test item. If the test
item operates satisfactorily, proceed to Step 3. If not, resolve the
problems and repeat this step.
Step 3: Subject the test item (in its operational mode) to the test shock
input.
Step 4: Record necessary data to show the shock met or exceeded

desired test levels within the specified tolerances in paragraph
5.3.1.2. This includes test setup photos, test logs, and photos of
actual shocks from the transient recorder or storage oscilloscope.
For shock and vibration isolated assemblies inherent within the
test item, make measurements and/or inspections to assure these
assemblies did not impact with adjacent assemblies. If required,
record the data to show that the materiel functions satisfactorily
during shock.
Step 5: Perform a post-test operational check of the test item. Record

performance data. If the test item does not operate satisfactorily,
follow the guidance in paragraph 5.6.2 for test item failure.
Step 6: Repeat Steps 2, 3, 4, and 5 two additional times if the SRS form
of specification is used and the synthesized pulse is symmetric
(yielding a total of three shocks in each orthogonal axis). If the
SRS based time history is not symmetric, shock in both positive
and negative polarities are required (yielding a total of six shocks
in each orthogonal axis). If the classical shock form of

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
specification is used, subject the test item to both a positive and a

negative input pulse (a total of six shocks in each orthogonal axis).
Step 7: Perform a post-test operational check on the test item. Record

performance data, document the test sequence, and see
paragraph 6 for analysis of results.
5.3.2 Transportation Shock (Procedure II)
The Transportation Shock test procedure is representative of the repetitive low

amplitude shock loads that occur during logistical or tactical materiel transportation.
Vibration testing excludes transient events, thus Procedure II functions with vibration
testing to sequentially represent the loads that may occur. The default testing
configuration is a packaged or unpackaged test item(s) in a non-operational
configuration. The test procedure may also be applied to evaluate the influence of
shock loading on a cargo restraint system, or an operational test item if required. The
test plan should define the operational mode and testing in commercial manufacturer
packaging, as fielded materiel, or a bare item that is secured or installed on the
transport platform. A default classical terminal peak sawtooth shock test sequence is
defined in Table 8. Alternatively, the shock waveform applied can be tailored with
measured data and implemented via shock replication techniques such as Method 423,
Time Waveform Replication. Transportation shock tests can frequently be completed
following a vibration test using an electrodynamic or servo-hydraulic test system, and
the same test setup configuration.
Table 8: Procedure II - Transportation Shock Test Sequence.1, 2, 3
On Road (5000 km)4 Off Road (1000 km)4

Terminal Peak Sawtooth Terminal Peak Sawtooth
Pulse Duration: 11 ms Pulse Duration: 5 ms
Amplitude Number of Amplitude Number of
(G-Pk) Shocks (G-Pk) Shocks
5.1 42 10.2 42
6.4 21 12.8 21
7.6 3 15.2 3
Note 1: The shocks set out in Table 8 must always be carried out together with
ground transportation vibration testing as specified in AECTP-400, Method 401.
Note 2: The above tabulated values may be considered for both restrained cargo
and installed materiel on wheeled and tracked vehicles. Transportation shock
associated with two-wheeled trailers may exceed off-road levels as defined.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Note 3: The shock test schedule set out in Table 8 can be undertaken using either
terminal peak sawtooth pulses applied in each sense of each orthogonal axis, or a
synthesis based on the corresponding SRS that encompasses both senses of each
axis.
Note 4: The above number of shocks is equivalent to the following distances: a)
On-road vehicles: 5000 km; b) Off-road vehicles: 1000 km. If greater distances are
required, more shocks must be applied in multiples of the figures above.
5.3.2.1. Test Controls - Transportation Shock (Procedure II)
Table 8 provides the transportation shock criteria for use when measured data are not
available. The durations 𝑇𝑒 and 𝑇𝐸 for SRS based waveform synthesis are defined in
Annex A, paragraph 1.3. Table 8 is representative of wheeled ground vehicles, but is
not characteristic of specific vehicles or a transportation scenario. The default shock
severities shown in Table 8 have application when the purpose of the test is to address
scenarios in which damage is dependent upon multiple cycle events. The levels in
Table 8 were derived from classical half-sine pulses defined in paragraph 7.1,
reference h. The classical half-sine pulses were converted to terminal peak sawtooth
with equivalent velocities. The terminal peak sawtooth was selected due to its relatively
flat SRS characteristics above the roll-off frequency. In the event field data are
available, tailor the test per the LCEP.
5.3.2.2. Test Tolerances - Transportation Shock (Procedure II)
For complex transients from measured data, ensure test tolerances are consistent with
the general guidelines provided in paragraph 5.4. For classical pulse testing, ensure
the test tolerances specified in Figure 3, with respect to the information provided in
Table 8, are satisfied.
5.3.2.3. Test Procedure - Transportation Shock (Procedure II)
Generally, either the primary road or the secondary/off road shock sequence is
preformed, not both sequences. Complete testing at all applicable shock amplitudes
in Table 8 for the number of shocks indicated, or as defined in the test plan. The lowest
amplitude shock tests are typically performed first, followed by the higher amplitude
tests. If testing is required in more than one axis, repeat the procedure below for each
axis and sequence of shock amplitudes.
Step 1: Calibrate the test equipment as follows:
a. Mount the calibration load to the test equipment and fixture

in a configuration similar to that of the actual test item. The
test setup and fixture should prevent distortion of the shock
waveform.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
b. Perform calibration shocks until two consecutive shock

applications reproduce waveforms that are within the test
tolerance specification.
c. For electrodynamic test systems or other equipment with a

stored drive signal, repeat the calibration to other required
test amplitudes and store the drive signal. Allow sufficient
time between shocks for the previous shock event to fully
decay.
Step 2: Remove the calibration load and install the test item on the test
equipment.
Step 3: Perform a pre-test inspection of the test item, and an operational

test if required.
Step 4: Subject the test item to the shock test sequence, and perform
intermediate inspections or checkouts as required between shock
events. Allow sufficient time between shocks for the previous
shock event to fully decay.
Step 5: If testing is required at a different amplitude, return to Step 3, or if

the sequence is complete, proceed to Step 6.
Step 6: Perform a post-test inspection of the test item, and operational test
if required. Document the results, including plots of response
waveforms and any pre- or post-shock anomalies. See
paragraph 6 for analysis of results.
5.3.3. Fragility (Procedure III)
1. The intent of this test is to determine (1) the maximum level of input to which the
materiel can be exposed and still continue to function as required by its operational
guide without damage to the configuration, or, (2) the minimum level of input on which
exposure to a higher level of input will most likely result in either functional failure or
configuration damage. Determination of the fragility level is accomplished by starting
at a benign level of shock as defined by a single parameter; e.g., G-level or velocity
change, and proceeding to increase the level of shock by increasing the single
parameter value to the test item (base input model) until:
a. Failure of the test item occurs.
b. A predefined test objective is reached without failure of the test item.
c. A critical level of shock is reached that indicates failure is certain to occur

at a higher level of shock.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
2. It is important in performing a fragility test to recognize that “level of input” must

correlate in some positive way with the potential for materiel degradation. It is well
recognized that materiel stress is directly related to materiel velocity such as might
occur during vibration/shock (see paragraph 7.1, references e and f) and, in particular,
to change in materiel velocity denoted as V Pulse duration that relates to the
fundamental mode of vibration of the materiel is a factor in materiel degradation. For
a drop machine with a trapezoidal pulse program, there is a simple relationship
between the three variables: pulse maximum amplitude 𝐴𝑚 (G-pk), pulse velocity
change V [m/sec2 (in/sec2)], pulse duration 𝑇𝐷 (seconds), and
𝑚 𝑖𝑛
𝑔 = 9.81 𝑠𝑒𝑐 2 (386.09 2 ) as provided by the following formula for the trapezoidal
𝑠𝑒𝑐
pulse in Figure 4 (the rise time 𝑇𝑅 and fall time 𝑇𝐹 should be kept to the minimum
duration possible to minimize the resulting increase in velocity not associated with
duration 𝑇𝐷 ):
∆𝑉 2√2𝑔ℎ
𝐴𝑚 𝑔 = (𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 ∆𝑉 = 𝐴𝑚 𝑔𝑇𝐷) , ∆𝑉 = 2√2𝑔ℎ , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑇𝐷 =
𝑇𝐷 𝐴𝑚 𝑔
(𝑡𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 ∆𝑉 = 𝐴𝑚 𝑔(𝑇𝐷 − 0.5𝑇𝑅 − 0.5𝑇𝐹 ) ≈ 𝐴𝑚 𝑔𝑇𝐷 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑇𝐷 ≫ 𝑇𝑅 , 𝑇𝐹
3. It is clear that if V is to be increased incrementally until failure has occurred or

is imminent, it is possible to either increase 𝑇𝐷 , 𝐴𝑚 or both. Since 𝑇𝐷 relates to the
period of the first mounted natural frequency of the materiel (and generally failure will
occur when the materiel is excited at its lower mounted natural frequencies), it is
required that the test be conducted by increasing the peak amplitude, 𝐴𝑚 , of the test
alone, leaving 𝑇𝐷 fixed.
4. Figure 7 provides the 100 percent rebound, V versus drop height, h based
 V 
2
upon the simple relationship h  . Holding 𝑇𝐷 fixed and incrementally increasing

8g
V provides a direct relationship between 𝐴𝑚 and V with 𝑇𝐷 serving as a scale factor.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Figure 7: Trapezoidal Pulse: Velocity Change Versus Drop Height
5. For a complex transient, there is no simple relationship between peak

acceleration, pulse duration, and a change in velocity. It is assumed here that for a
complex transient, velocity change is related to a significant difference between
successive instantaneous peaks. (This can be determined with some effort by
selecting positive and negative thresholds for which a few; e.g., five or fewer, positive
and negative peaks alternate over suitably short periods of time.) In this case, change
in velocity is not so much an instantaneous change upon impact, but may be a
successive set of changes occurring at significant periods lower than those of
acceleration. (Recall that velocity is a 1  2 f  scaling of the acceleration frequency
domain information.) For test materiel where a degree of precision is needed in
specifying the level of input and correlation of the shock effects on the materiel with the
level of input, simple base input SDOF modeling is suggested with subsequent
integration of the equations of motion to determine the relative velocity and
displacement. Simply scaling the peak acceleration level (in effect the square-root of
the energy) of the pulse likewise scales the velocity change directly for a linear system.
The same relationship between the variables holds, except now a “distribution” of
velocity change in the complex transient must be considered as opposed to a single
large velocity change as in the case of the trapezoidal pulse.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
6. Paragraph 5.3.3.c above implies that an analysis of the materiel has been
completed prior to testing, that critical elements have been identified with their “stress
thresholds,” and that a failure model of the materiel relative to the shock input level has
been developed. In addition, during the test, the “stress thresholds” of these critical
elements can be monitored, and input to a failure model to predict failure at a given
shock input level. In general, such input to the materiel produces large velocities and
large changes in velocity. If the large velocity/velocity change exceeds that available
on standard electrodynamic and/or servo-hydraulic test equipment, for this procedure
the classical trapezoidal pulse may be used on properly calibrated drop machines.
However, if the large velocity/velocity change is compatible with the capabilities of
electrodynamic and/or servo-hydraulic test equipment, consider tailoring the shock
according to a complex transient for application on the electrodynamic or servo-
hydraulic test equipment. Using a trapezoidal pulse on electrodynamic and/or servo-
hydraulic test equipment is acceptable (accounting for pre- and post-exciter
positioning) if there are no available data providing shock input information that is
tailorable to a complex transient. In summary, there is a single parameter (peak
amplitude of the shock input) to define the fragility level holding the duration of the
shock, 𝑇𝐷 , approximately constant. In the case of SRS synthesis, maximum velocity
change is not as well defined, nor as easily controllable as for the classical trapezoidal
pulse. Tailoring of the test is required when data are available, can be measured, or
can be estimated from related data using accepted dynamic scaling techniques. An
inherent assumption in the fragility test is that damage potential increases linearly with
input shock level. If this is not the case, other test procedures may need to be used
for establishing materiel fragility levels.
5.3.3.1. Test Controls - Fragility (Procedure III)
a. Specify the duration of the shock 𝑇𝐷 as it relates to the first fundamental

mode of the materiel. Select a design drop height, h, based on
measurement of the materiel’s shipping environment, or from Transit
Drop Tables 9 through 11 as appropriate to the deployment environment
when measured data are unavailable. (A design drop height is the height
from which the materiel might be dropped in its shipping configuration
and be expected to survive.) The maximum test item velocity change
may then be determined by using the following relationship for 100%
rebound:
V  2 2gh
Where:
V = maximum product velocity change m/s (in/s)

(summation of impact velocity and rebound velocity)
h = design drop height in m (in)
g = 9.81 m/s2 (386.09 in/s2)

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
The maximum test velocity change assumes 100 percent rebound.

Programming materials, other than pneumatic springs, may have less
than 100 percent rebound, so the maximum test velocity needs to be
decreased accordingly. If the maximum test velocity specified is used for
drop table shock machine programming materials other than pneumatic
springs, the test is conservative (an overtest), and the maximum test item
velocity is a bounding requirement.
b. Set the shock machine to an acceleration level (Am) as determined based

upon 𝑇𝐷 𝑎𝑛𝑑 V well below the anticipated fragility level. If no damage
occurs, increase Am incrementally (along with V) while holding the pulse
duration 𝑇𝐷 constant until damage to the test item occurs. This will
establish the materiel’s critical acceleration fragility (or velocity change)
level.
c. Test levels used in this procedure represent the correlation of the best
information currently available from research and experience. Use more
applicable test level data if they become available (paragraph 7.1,
reference g). In particular, if data are collected on a materiel drop and
the SRS of the environment computed, a scaled version of the SRS could
be used to establish the acceleration fragility level with respect to a
measured environment on electrodynamic or servo-hydraulic test
equipment, provided the displacement and velocity limitations of the test
equipment are not exceeded. In addition to the maximax acceleration
response spectra, compute the pseudo-velocity response spectra.
5.3.3.2. Test Tolerances - Fragility (Procedure III)
It is assumed that the instrumentation noise in the measurements is low so that

tolerances may be established. For complex transients from measured data, ensure
test tolerances are consistent with the general guidelines provided in paragraph 5.4.2.
For classical pulse testing, ensure the test tolerances specified in Figure 4, with respect
to the information provided in Table 5, are satisfied.
5.3.3.3. Test Procedure - Fragility (Procedure III)
This test is designed to build up in severity as measured in peak acceleration or velocity

change until a test item failure occurs, or a predetermined goal is reached. It may be
necessary to switch axes between each shock event unless critical axes are
determined prior to test. In general, all axes of importance will be tested at the same
level before moving to another level. The order of test activity and the calibration
requirements for each test setup should be clearly established in the test plan. It is
also desirable to pre-select the steps in severity based on knowledge of the materiel
item or the test environment, and document this in the test plan. Unless critical stress
thresholds are analytically predicted and instrumentation used to track stress threshold
buildup, there is no rational way to estimate the potential for stress threshold

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
exceedance at the next shock input level. The following procedures, one for a classical
pulse and the other for a complex transient, are written as if the test will be conducted
in one axis alone. In cases where more test axes are required, modify the procedure
accordingly.
a. Classical Pulse. This part of the procedure assumes that the classical
pulse approach is being used to establish the fragility level by increasing
the drop height of the test item, thereby increasing the V directly. The
fragility level is given in terms of the measurement variable-peak
acceleration of the classical pulse while holding the pulse duration as a
function of the materiel modal characteristics a constant. In using this
procedure, estimate the first mode mounted frequency of the materiel in
order to specify the pulse duration 𝑇𝐷 .
Step 1: Mount the calibration load to the test apparatus in a

configuration similar to that of the actual test item. Use a
fixture similar in configuration to the interface of the shock
attenuation system (if any) that will support the materiel.
The fixture should be as rigid as possible to prevent
distortion of the shock pulse input to the test item.
Step 2: Perform calibration shocks until two consecutive shock

applications to the calibration load reproduce the
waveforms that are within the specified test tolerances. If
response to the calibration shock is nonlinear with respect
to shock input level, other test procedures may need to be
applied to establish materiel fragility levels depending upon
the extent of the nonlinearity prior to reaching the "stress
threshold".
Step 3: Select an initial drop height low enough to assure that no

damage will occur by selecting a fraction of the anticipated
service drop height established from Transit Drop Tables 9
through 11. The maximum velocity change can be taken to
be:
V  2 2gh
Where:
V = maximum test item velocity change, m/s (in/s)

(assumes full resilient rebound of test item)
h = drop height, m (in.)
g = acceleration of gravity 9.81 m/s2 (386.09 in/s2)
Step 4: Mount the test item in the fixture. Perform an operational

check and document the pre-test condition. If the test item

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
operates satisfactorily, proceed to Step 5. If not, resolve

the problems and repeat this step.
Step 5: Perform the shock test at the selected level, and examine
the recorded data to assure the test is within tolerance.
Step 6: Visually examine and operationally check the test item to

determine if damage has occurred. If the test item does not
operate satisfactorily, follow the guidance in paragraph
5.6.2 for test item failure.
Step 7: If it is required to determine the fragility of the test item in

more than one axis, proceed to test the item (Steps 4-6) in
the other axes (before changing the drop height).
Step 8: If the test item integrity is preserved, select the next drop
height.
Step 9: Repeat Steps 4 through 8 until the test objectives have

been met.
Step 10: Perform a post-shock operational test of the test item. See
paragraph 6 for analysis of results. Document the results,
including plots of the measured test response waveforms,
and any pre- or post-shock operational anomalies.
b. Synthesized Pulse. This part of the procedure assumes that the fragility
level is some function of the peak acceleration level that correlates with
a maximax acceleration SRS of a complex transient base input (because
stress relates to velocity a peak pseudo-velocity level determined from a
maximax pseudo-velocity SRS of a complex transient is preferable. For
a complex transient specified in the time domain, this procedure
generally uses the peak acceleration of the time history to define the
fragility level.
Step 1: Mount the calibration load to the test apparatus in a

configuration similar to that of the actual test item. Use a
fixture similar in configuration to the interface of the shock
attenuation system (if any) that will support the materiel.
The fixture should be as rigid as possible to prevent
distortion of the shock pulse input to the test item.
Step 2: Perform calibration shocks until two consecutive shock

applications to the calibration load reproduce maximax
acceleration SRS or pseudo-velocity SRS that are within
the specified test tolerances. If response to the calibration

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
shock is nonlinear with respect to shock input level, other

test procedures along with simple modeling may need to be
applied to establish materiel fragility levels, depending
upon the extent of the nonlinearity prior to reaching the
"stress threshold".
Step 3: Select a peak maximax acceleration (or pseudo-velocity)

SRS level low enough to assure no damage will occur.
Step 4: Mount the test item in the fixture. Inspect and operationally
test the item to document the pre-test condition. If the test
item operates satisfactorily, proceed to Step 5. If not,
resolve the problems and repeat this step.
Step 5: Perform the shock test at the selected level, and examine
the recorded data to assure the test maximax acceleration
(or pseudo-velocity) SRS is within tolerance.
Step 6: Visually examine and operationally check the test item to

determine if damage has occurred. If so, follow the
guidance in paragraph 5.6.2 for test item failure.
Step 7: If it is required to determine the fragility of the test item in

more than one axis, proceed to test the item in the other
axes (before changing the peak maximax acceleration (or
pseudo-velocity) SRS level).
Step 8: If the test item integrity is preserved, select the next

predetermined peak maximax acceleration (or pseudo-
velocity) SRS level.
Step 9: Repeat Steps 5 through 8 until the test objectives have

been met.
Step 10: Perform a post-shock operational test of the test item. See
paragraph 6 for analysis of results. Document the results,
including plots of the measured test response waveforms
and any pre- or post-shock operational anomalies.
5.3.4. Transit Drop (Procedure IV)
The intent of this test is to determine the structural and functional integrity of the
materiel to a transit drop either outside or in its transit or combination case. In general,
there is no instrumentation requirement for the test and measurement information is
minimized; however, if measurements are made, the maximax acceleration SRS and

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
the pseudo-velocity SRS will define the results of the test, along with the measurement
amplitude time history.
5.3.4.1. Test Controls - Transit Drop (Procedure IV)
1. Test levels for this test are based on information provided in Tables 9 through
11. Test the item in the same configuration that is used in transportation, handling, or
a combat situation. Toppling of the item following impact will occur in the field and,
therefore, toppling of the test item following its initial impact should not be restrained
as long as the test item does not leave the required drop surface. Levels for this test
were set by considering how materiel in the field might commonly be dropped. Conduct
all drops using a quick release hook, or drop tester. Use of a standardized impact
surface is recommended for test repeatability because the surface configuration can
influence test results. For most drop test requirements, steel plate on reinforced
concrete is the default impact surface. The plate shall be homogenous material with a
minimum thickness of 3 inches (76 mm) and Brinell hardness of 200 or greater. The
plate shall be uniformly flat within commercial mill production standards, level within
2 degrees, and free of surface irregularities that may influence impact results. The
concrete shall have a minimum compressive strength of 2500 psi (17 MPa), and be
reinforced as required to prevent fracture during testing. In high velocity hazard
classification drop scenarios (e.g., 40 ft) it is necessary for the concrete strength be
4000 psi with a minimum thickness of 24 inches. The steel plate shall be bonded and/or
bolted to the concrete to create a uniform rigid structure without separation. The
concrete foundation plus the impact plate mass shall be a minimum of 20 times the
mass of the test item. The plate surface dimensions shall be sufficiently large to
provide direct and secondary rotational impacts, and if possible rebound impacts.
Guidance systems which do not reduce the impact velocity may be employed to ensure
correct impact angle; however the guidance shall be eliminated at a sufficient height
above the impact surface to allow unimpeded fall and rebound. Use of armor plate or
similar composition steel plate is recommended to improve steel surface durability and
prevent impact indentation and cuts. The impact surface shall be free from standing
water, ice, or other material during testing. The most severe damage potential is
impact with a non-yielding mass that absorbs minimal energy. Thus, use of a single
monolithic impact mass is recommended to reduce energy transfer into the mass rather
than the test item. The impact mass rigidity and energy transfer can be evaluated by
measurement of the mass acceleration during testing.
2. Tables 9 through 11 provide default drop conditions for transport from

manufacturer to the end of its service life. Table 9 (logistic transit drop test) includes
drop scenarios generally associated with non-tactical, logistical transport based on
weight and test item dimensions. Table 10 (Tactical transport drop test) includes drop
scenarios generally associated with tactical transport beyond the theatre storage area.
As a default, the criteria for the tactical transport drop tests are to meet all performance
requirements. For items that are incapable of meeting performance requirements,
adjustments may be made to the drop height or configuration to accommodate the item
performance limitations. If the drop conditions are modified, restrictions may be placed

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Table 9: Logistic Transit Drop Test.1
Weight of
Test Item & Largest Height of
Case Dimension Drop, h
kg (lbs) cm (in.) Notes cm (in.) Number of Drops
Under 45.4 Under 91 122 (48)
(100 ) (36) Drop on each face, edge
Man-packed and corner; total of 26
or 91 (36) & 76 (30) drops5
man-portable over
Under 91 76 (30)
45.4 - 90.8
(36)
(100 – 200 )
91 (36) & 61 (24)
inclusive
over
Under 91 61 (24) Drop on each corner;
(36) total of eight drops
90.8-454
91 – 152 2 61 (24)
(200 – 1000 )
(36 – 60)
inclusive
Over 152 2 61 (24)
(over 60)
Over 454 No limit 3 46 (18) Drop on each bottom
(1000) 4 edge. Drop on bottom
face or skids; total of five
drops
Note 1: Perform drops from a quick-release hook or drop tester. Orient the test
item so that, upon impact, a line from the struck corner or edge to the center of gravity
of the case and contents is perpendicular to the impact surface. The default drop
surface is steel backed by concrete. Concrete or 5 cm (2 in) plywood backed by
concrete may be selected if (a) a concrete or wood surface is representative of the
most severe service conditions or (b) it can be shown that the compressive strength of
the impact surface is greater than that of the test item impact point(s). Note that the
shorter shock duration associated with the steel impact surface may not excite all test
item resonant modes.
Note 2: With the longest dimension parallel to the floor, support the transit, or
combination case with the test item within, at the corner of one end by a block 13 cm
(five inches) in height, and at the other corner or edge of the same end by a block 30
cm (12 inches) in height. Raise the opposite end of the case to the specified height at
the lowest unsupported corner and allow it to fall freely.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Note 3: While in the normal transit position, subject the case and contents to the
edgewise drop test as follows (if the normal transit position is unknown, orient the case
so the two longest dimensions are parallel to the floor):
a. Edgewise drop test: Support one edge of the base of the case on a sill
13-15 cm (five to six inches) in height. Raise the opposite edge to the
specified height and allow it to fall freely. Apply the test once to each
edge of the base of the case (total of four drops).
Note 4: For shelters without shock attenuated skids, the drop height may be
reduced to 15 cm (6 in) with a 10 cm (4 in) sill for edgewise drops.
Note 5: Based on safety or item sensitivity issues, it is acceptable to divide the 26

drops among no more than five test items (see paragraph 5.3.4.1).
on the deployment of the item. Ensure an adequate test is performed and all deviations
from this procedure are properly documented. Table 11 (Severe tactical transport drop
test) includes severe drop scenarios, and the item is considered to have passed if it
did not explode, burn, spread propellant or explosive material as a result of dropping,
dragging or removal of the item for disposal. Other drop scenarios in the LCEP should
be considered.
3. Realistic variations to the default values provided in Tables 9 through 11 may

be permitted when justified; e.g., large/complex systems in which specific handling
considerations are identified in the LCEP may supersede the default levels provided.
4. Figure 8 illustrates the standard drop orientations as referenced in Tables 9

through 11. Figure 9 illustrates typical edge and corner drop configurations for large
packages as discussed in Notes 2-4 of Table 9.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Table 10: Tactical Transport Drop Test.
Impact Drop
Velocity Height1 # Drops / Impact
Scenario Category (m/sec) (m) Configuration Orientation3,6 Surface
Storage and
transport to Flat Steel7,8
5.4
Ship theatre 1.5m minimum bottom backed
(17.7 Packaged6
Transport storage area, (5 ft) of 3 and two by
ft/sec)
transport by faces.4 concrete
ship
Infantry and 5.4 Steel7,8
Unpackaged 1.5m backed
man-carried (17.7 Unpackaged 5
Handling (5 ft) by
equipment ft/sec)
Flat concrete
Loading and bottom,
offloading two
from side of faces4 Steel7,8
6.4 and two
Packaged transport 2.1m backed
(21 Packaged6 5 edges5
Handling vehicle - (7 ft) by
ft/sec)
transport by concrete
truck, forklift,
& helicopter
Underslung 6.4 Steel7,8
load, quick 2.1m Flat backed
Helicopter (21 Packaged6 1
release onto (7 ft) bottom by
ft/sec)
land or ship concrete
8.7 Packaged with
Parachute Low velocity 3.7m
(28.5 appropriate Concrete
Drop2 drop (12.2 ft)
ft/sec) honeycomb or
Flat
other shock 1
27.3 bottom
Parachute High velocity 38.1m absorbing
(90 Concrete
Drop2 drop (125 ft) system used
ft/sec)
in delivery
Note 1: The test is not intended to encompass all credible accident conditions or
severe mishandling conditions. Where the drop heights quoted are exceeded by those
specified elsewhere in the table or for other phases of Service, the higher values should
be substituted.
Note 2: Drop heights are provided for simulated parachute drops. This test may
not fully address certain effects that can occur during parachute drops in high wind

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
conditions. Consider different drop height and angles of impact to address these
issues. Drop from aircraft may be required for airdrop certification.
Note 3: Sufficient assets are required to test in each of the orientations specified.
Five standard drop orientations are listed in Table 12 and illustrated in Figure 8.
Consider other drop orientations if expected to have a greater damage potential.
Expose each item to no more than 2 drops.
Note 4: For munitions, the two faces shall be the forward and aft ends of the
munition.
Note 5: For munitions, the two edges shall be at 45 degrees on the forward and aft
ends.
Note 6: Unpackaged if required by LCEP or Test Plan.
Note 7: The default drop surface is steel backed by concrete. Concrete or 5 cm (2

in) plywood backed by concrete may be selected if (a) a concrete or wood surface is
representative of the most severe service conditions or (b) it can be shown that the
compressive strength of the impact surface is greater than that of the test item impact
point(s). Note that the shorter shock duration associated with the steel impact surface
may not excite all test item resonant modes.
Note 8: A steel impact surface shall have a Brinell hardness of at least 200. For
test items less than 454 kg (1000 lbs) the steel plate shall be at least 2.5 cm (1 in) thick,
otherwise it shall be at least 7.6 cm (3 in) thick.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Table 11: Severe Tactical Transport Drop Test.
Impact Drop
Velocity Height # Drops /
Scenario Category (m/sec) (m) Configuration Orientation4, 5
External
Carriage 6.4 2.1
Helicopter Unpackaged
on (21 ft/sec) (7 ft)
Helicopter
Includes
Military weapons
7.7 3.05 Flat
Land loading Unpackaged
(25.3 ft/sec) (10 ft) Bottom,
Vehicles and off
loading two
5
faces2
External and two
Carriage edges3
7.7 3.05
Aircraft on Fixed Unpackaged
(25.3 ft/sec) (10 ft)
Wing
Aircraft
Accidental
15.5 12.2
Crane Crane Packaged1
(50.9 ft/sec) (40 ft)
Drop
Flat
Ship Shipboard 15.5 12.2 (minimum Bottom
Packaged1
Transport Loading (50.9 ft/sec) (40 ft) of 3) and two
faces2
Flat
Shipboard Bottom,
Ship
Loading 22.1 25 two
Aircraft Packaged1 5
and (72.5 ft/sec) (82 ft) faces2
Carrier
Handling and two
edges3
Note 1: Unpackaged if required by LCEP or Test Plan.
Note 2: For munitions, the two faces shall be the forward and aft ends of the
munition.
Note 3: For munitions, the two edges shall be at 45 degrees on the forward and aft
ends.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Note 4: Sufficient assets are required to test in each of the orientations specified.
Five standard drop orientations are shown listed in Table 12 and illustrated in
Figure 8. Other drop orientations should be considered if expected to have a greater
damage potential. Each item should be exposed to no more than 2 drops.
Note 5: The default drop surface is steel backed by concrete. Concrete or 5 cm

(2 in) plywood backed by concrete may be selected if (a) a concrete or wood surface
is representative of the most severe service conditions or (b) it can be shown that the
compressive strength of the impact surface is greater than that of the test item impact
point(s). Note that the shorter shock duration associated with the steel impact surface
may not excite all test item resonant modes.
Table 12: Five Standard Drop Test Orientations.
Drop Rectangular Packages Cylindrical Packages

1 Flat Bottom Horizontal (Side 1)
2 Face 1: (Left End) Face 1: (Fwd End/Top)
3 Face 2: (Right End) Face 2: (Aft End/Bottom)
4 Edge 1: (Bottom Right End Edge) Edge 1: (Aft End Bottom Edge (45 Deg))
5 Edge 2: (Top Left Edge) Edge 2: (Fwd End Top Edge (45 Deg))
Rectangular
Package
Cylindrical
Package
Fwd End/Top
Aft End/Bottom
Standard Drop Orientations for Rectangular and Cylindrical Packages
Figure 8: Standard Drop Orientations for Rectangular and Cylindrical

Packages

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
End View
(Corner Drop)
(Edge Drop)
Hoist
Quick
Sill or Block Release
13-15 cm high.
End View
(Edge Drop)
(Edge Drop)
Drop Heights:
Drop Heights:
SpecifiedininTable
Specified Table9
516.7-VII
Figure 9: Illustration of Edge Drop Configuration (Corner Drop End View is

Also Illustrated)
5.3.4.2. Test Tolerances - Transit Drop (Procedure IV)
Ensure the test height of drop is within 2.5 percent of the height of drop as specified in
Tables 9 through 11.
5.3.4.3. Test Procedure - Transit Drop (Procedure IV)
Step 1: After performing a visual inspection and operational check for

baseline data, install the test item in its transit or combination case
as prepared for field use (if measurement information is to be
obtained, install and calibrate such instrumentation in this Step).
If the test item operates satisfactorily, proceed to Step 2. If not,
resolve the problems and repeat this step.
Step 2: From paragraph 5.3.4.1 and Tables 9 through 11, determine the
height of the drops to be performed, drop orientation, the number
of drops per test item, and the drop surface.
Step 3: Perform the required drops using the apparatus and requirements
of paragraphs 5.3.4 and 5.3.4.1 and Tables 9 through 11 notes.
Recommend visually and/or operationally checking the test item

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
periodically during the drop test to simplify any follow-on

evaluation that may be required. If any degradation is noted, see
paragraph 5.6.2.
Step 4: Document the impact point or surface for each drop and any
obvious damage.
Step 5: Following completion of the required drops, visually examine the

test item(s), and document the results.
Step 6: Conduct an operational checkout in accordance with the approved

test plan. See paragraph 6 for analysis of results.
Step 7: Document the results for comparison with data obtained in Step 1,
above.
5.3.5. Crash Hazard Shock (Procedure V)
1. The intent of this procedure is to disclose structural failures of materiel or mounts

for materiel in air or ground vehicles that may present a hazard to personnel or other
materiel if the materiel breaks loose from its mount during or after a vehicle crash. This
test procedure is intended to verify that materiel mounting and/or restraining devices
will not fail, and that sub-elements are not ejected during crash situations. Attach the
test item to its shock fixture by its in-service mounting or tie downs.
2. For materiel weighing less than 227 g (8 ounces) it may be permissible to omit
the crash hazard test if it is determined that personnel expected to be in the vicinity of
the test article are equipped with sufficient Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
(i.e., helmets with visors) such that risk of significant bodily injury is determined to be
highly unlikely. In addition to the item’s mass, assess overall material properties and
geometry when considering omitting Procedure V. Final decisions in such cases are
left to the discretion of the responsible safety authority, and based upon the case-
specific hazard analysis.
5.3.5.1. Test Controls – Crash Hazard Shock (Procedure V)
Use Table 3 and Figure 2 as the test spectrum and effective durations. If shock
spectrum analysis capabilities are not available, a classical pulse may be used as an
alternative to a complex transient waveform developed from the SRS in Figure 2.
Table 4 provides the parameters for the default terminal peak sawtooth. An aircraft
crash level of 40 G’s is based on the assumption that, during a survivable crash,
localized G levels can approach 40 G’s. Ground transportation vehicles are designed
with a higher safety factor and, therefore, must sustain a much higher G level with
correspondingly higher specified test levels.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
5.3.5.2. Test Tolerances - Crash Hazard Shock (Procedure V)
For complex waveform replication based on SRS, ensure the test tolerances are within
those specified for the SRS in paragraph 5.4.2. For the classical terminal peak
sawtooth defined in Table 4, ensure the waveform is within the tolerances specified in
Figure 3.
5.3.5.3. Test Procedure - Crash Hazard Shock (Procedure V)
Step 1: Secure the test item mount to the shock apparatus by its in-service
mounting configuration. Use a test item that is dynamically similar
to the materiel, or a mechanically equivalent mockup. If a mockup
is used, it will represent the same hazard potential, mass, center
of mass, and mass moments about the attachment points as the
materiel being simulated. If measurement information is to be
collected, mount and calibrate the instrumentation.
Step 2: Perform two shocks in each direction (as determined in

paragraph 3.2) along three orthogonal axes of the test item for a
maximum of 12 shocks.
Step 3: Perform a physical inspection of the test setup. Operation of the
test item is not required.
Step 4: Document the results of the physical inspection, including an

assessment of potential hazards created by either materiel
breakage or structural deformation, or both. Process any
measurement data according to the maximax acceleration SRS or
the pseudovelocity SRS.
5.3.6. Bench Handling (Procedure VI)
The intent of this test is to determine the ability of materiel to withstand the usual level
of shock associated with typical bench maintenance or repair. Use this test for any
materiel that may experience bench or bench-type maintenance. This test considers
both the structural and functional integrity of the materiel.
5.3.6.1. Test Controls - Bench Handling (Procedure VI)
Ensure the test item is a fully functional representative of the materiel. Raise the test
item at one edge 100 mm (4 in.) above a solid wooden bench top, or until the chassis
forms an angle of 45 with the bench top or until point of balance is reached, whichever
is less. (The bench top must be at least 4.25 cm (1.675 inches) thick.) Perform a
series of drops in accordance with specifications. The heights used during this test are
defined by examining the typical drops that are commonly made by bench technicians
and assembly line personnel.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
5.3.6.2. Test Tolerances - Bench Handling (Procedure VI)
Ensure the test height of drop is within 2.5 percent of the height of drop as specified in
paragraph 5.3.6.1.
5.3.6.3. Test Procedure - Bench Handling (Procedure VI)
Step 1: Following an operational and physical checkout, configure the

item as it would be for servicing; e.g., with the chassis and front
panel assembly removed from its enclosure. If the test item
operates satisfactorily, proceed to Step 2. If not, resolve the
problems and repeat this Step. Position the test item as it would
be for servicing. Generally, the test item will be non-operational
during the test.
Step 2: Using one edge as a pivot, lift the opposite edge of the chassis
until one of the following conditions occurs (whichever occurs
first).
a. The lifted edge of the chassis has been raised 100 mm

(4 in.) above the horizontal bench top.
b. The chassis forms an angle of 45 with the horizontal bench

top.
c. The lifted edge of the chassis is just below the point of

perfect balance.
Let the chassis drop back freely to the horizontal bench top.
Repeat using other practical edges of the same horizontal face as
pivot points, for a total of four drops.
Step 3: Repeat Step 2 with the test item resting on other faces until it has
been dropped for a total of four times on each face on which the
test item could be placed practically during servicing.
Step 4: Visually inspect the test item.
Step 5: Document the results.
Step 6: Operate the test item in accordance with the approved test plan.
See paragraph 6 for analysis of results.
Step 7: Document the results for comparison with data obtained in Step 1,
above.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
5.3.7. Pendulum Impact (Procedure VII)
The test item (large shipping container) may consist of a box, case, crate or other
container constructed of wood, metal, or other material, or any combination of these
for which ordinary box tests are not considered practical or adequate. Unless
otherwise specified, large containers are those that measure more than 152 cm
(60 in.) on any edge or diameter, or those when loaded have gross weights in excess
of 70 kg (154 lbs).
5.3.7.1. Test Controls - Pendulum Impact (Procedure VII)
a. The pendulum impact tester consists of a platform suspended from a

height at least 5 m (16.4 ft) above the floor by four or more ropes, chains,
or cables; and a bumper comprised of a flat, rigid concrete or masonry
wall, or other equally unyielding flat barrier. The bumper shall be
designed to contact the lower 23 cm (9 in) of the container, wide enough
to make full contact along the full width of the container, and has sufficient
mass to resist the impacts without displacement. The impact surface is
oriented perpendicular to the line of swing of the platform. The platform
is large enough to support the container or pack, and when hanging free,
has its top surface approximately 23 cm (9.1 in) below the top surface of
the bumper, and its leading edge approximately 8 cm (3.1 in) from the
surface of the bumper. The suspension chains are vertical and parallel
so that when the platform is pulled straight back, it will rise uniformly but
remain at all times horizontal and parallel to the floor (see Figure 10).
b. The drop height shall be determined for the required horizontal impact
velocity based on the transfer of potential to kinetic energy (ℎ = 𝑣 2 /2𝑔).
Unless otherwise specified, the vertical height is a drop of 23 cm (9 in.)
that results in a velocity of 2.13 m/sec (7 ft/sec) at impact.
c. Load the test item (container) with the interior packing and the actual
contents for which it was designed. If use of the actual contents is not
practical, a dummy load may be substituted to simulate such contents in
weight, shape, and position in the container. Block and brace the
contents, or dummy load, and cushion them in place as for shipment.
When the pendulum impact test is performed to evaluate the protection
provided for the contents, the rigidity of a dummy load should closely
approximate that of the actual contents for which the pack was designed.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Figure 10: Pendulum Impact Test
5.3.7.2. Test Tolerances - Pendulum Impact (Procedure VII)
Ensure the vertical drop height is within 2.5 percent of the required height.
5.3.7.3. Test Procedure - Pendulum Impact (Procedure VII)
Step 1: If required, perform a pretest operational checkout in accordance

with the test plan. Install accelerometers and other sensors on the
test item, as required.
Step 2: Place the test item on the platform with the surface that is to be
impacted projecting beyond the front end of the platform so that
the specimen just touches the vertical surface of the bumper.
Step 3: Pull back the platform so that the center of gravity of the pack is
raised to the prescribed height, and then release it to swing freely
so that the surface of the container impacts against the bumper.
Step 4: Examine the test item and record obvious damage. If the
container is undamaged, rotate it 180 degrees and repeat Step 3.
When the test is conducted to determine satisfactory performance
of a container or pack, and unless otherwise specified, subject

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
each test item to one impact to each side and each end that has
a horizontal dimension of less than 3 m (9.8 ft).
Step 5: Record any changes or breaks in the container, such as apparent

racking, nail pull, or broken parts, and their locations. Carefully
examine the packing (blocks, braces, cushions, or other devices)
and the contents, and record their condition. If required, perform
a post-test operational checkout in accordance with the test plan.
5.3.8. Catapult Launch/Arrested Landing (Procedure VIII)
The intent of this test is to verify the functionality and structural integrity of materiel
mounted in or on fixed wing aircraft that are subject to catapult launches and arrested
landings.
5.3.8.1. Test Controls - Catapult Launch/Arrested Landing (Procedure VIII)
a. Measured Data Not Available. Whenever possible, derive the test

conditions from measured data on applicable carrying aircraft, since
shock responses can be affected by local influences such as wing and
fuselage bending modes, pylon interfaces, and structural damping.
While the pulse amplitudes associated with this environment are
generally low, the long periods of application and high frequency of
occurrence have the potential to cause significant dynamic and/or low
cycle fatigue damage in improperly designed materiel. A typical aircraft
may fly as many as 200 sorties per year, of which more than two-thirds
involve catapult launches and arrested landings. However, for laboratory
test purposes, 30 simulated catapult/arrested landing events in each of
two axes (longitudinal and vertical) should provide confidence that the
majority of significant defects will be identified for remedial action. If
acceptable field-measured data are not available, the following guidance
is offered in which sinusoidal burst is used to simulate each catapult or
launch event. This time history has been simplified to a constant
amplitude sine burst of 2-second duration for simulation at the selected
materiel frequency (usually the first fundamental mode of the loaded
aircraft wing). For testing purposes, it is permissible to reduce the
maximum amplitude in the horizontal direction to 75 percent of that in the
vertical direction.
(1) Wave shape: damped sine wave.
(2) Wave frequency: determined by structural analysis of the specific

aircraft and frequency of the fundamental mode.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
(3) Burst amplitude: determined by structural analysis of the specific

aircraft, the frequency of the fundamental mode and the location
of the materiel relative to the shape of the fundamental mode.
(4) Wave damping (quality factor): Q = 20.
(5) Axis: vertical, horizontal, longitudinal.
(6) Number of bursts: determined by the specific application (for

example, 30 bursts, each followed by a 10 second rest period).
b. Measured Data Available. If acceptable field measured data are

available, the following guidance is offered in which the catapult event is
simulated by two shocks separated by a transient vibration, and the
arrested landing event by one shock followed by transient vibration. The
catapult launch/arrested landing shock environment differs from other
typical shock events in that it is a transient periodic vibration (roughly
sinusoidal) at a relatively low frequency determined by aircraft mass and
landing gear damping characteristics. Typical catapult launch shock time
histories are shown in Figure 11. These data represent measured
acceleration response in the vertical, horizontal and longitudinal
directions of a store component mounted on the pylon of a platform. The
data are DC coupled and low pass filtered at 70 Hz. All three time
histories demonstrate an initial transient, followed by a transient vibration
(nearly two seconds long), and concluded by a final transient. The
longitudinal axis provides a profile of the DC catapult acceleration that,
in general, will not be important for testing purposes, and can be removed
by high pass filtering the time history at a frequency less than 10 percent
of the lowest significant frequency in the maximax acceleration SRS.
Procedures for accomplishing this filtering may necessarily be iterative
(unless Fourier transform information is used) with high pass filtering
beginning at a comparatively high frequency, and decreasing until the
most significant SRS low frequency is identified. In general, catapult
acceleration response will display two shock events corresponding to
initial catapult load application to the aircraft and catapult release from
the aircraft separated by an oscillatory acceleration. Both the initial and
the final shock events have a distinct oscillatory nature. It is essential
that this test be run as a series of two shock transients separated by a
two second period of time in which transient vibration may be input.
Typical arrested landing shock time histories are shown on Figure 12.
These data represent measured acceleration response in the vertical,
horizontal and longitudinal directions of a store component mounted on
the pylon of a platform. The data are DC coupled and low pass filtered
at 70 Hz. All three time histories demonstrate an initial transient, followed
by a transient vibration (nearly three seconds long). It is clear that the
longitudinal time history has a comparatively large DC component that

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
may be filtered out for test specification development. The term

“transient vibration” is introduced here because of the duration of the
event being not typical of a shock event.
NOTE: Transient Vibrations. For precise laboratory simulation, Procedure VIII may
require consideration of the concept of a transient vibration in processing and
replication of the form of time history from measured data. For long duration
transient environments (durations on the order of one second or more), it may be
useful to process the response time history by estimating the envelope function, a(t),
and proceeding to compute a maximax Autospectral Density Estimate (ASD),
assuming short portions of the response time history behave in the same manner
as stationary random data. Estimation of this form falls under the category of
nonstationary time history processing and will not be considered further in this
Method. The importance of the transient vibration phenomenon is that (1) it has the
form of a shock (short duration and substantial time varying amplitude), (2) it can be
mathematically modeled in a precise way, and (3) it can be used in stochastic
simulation of certain shock environments. In general, shocks have their significant
energy in a shorter time frame than transient vibrations, while transient vibrations
allow for time history enveloping functions other than the exponential envelope form
often times displayed in shocks as a result of resonant response decay to an impact.
BULKHEAD VERTICAL
5.00
-5.00
0.00 5.00
BULKHEAD HORIZONTAL
5.00
Amplitude (g’s)
-5.00
0.00 5.00
BULKHEAD LONGITUDINAL
10.00
-10.00
0.00 5.00
Time (seconds)
Figure 11: Sample Measured Store Three Axis Catapult Launch Component
Response Acceleration Time Histories

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
BULKHEAD VERTICAL
10.00
-10.00
0.00 5.00
BULKHEAD HORIZONTAL
10.00
Amplitude (g’s)
-10.00
0.00 5.00
BULKHEAD LONGITUDINAL
5.00
-5.00
0.00 5.00
Time (seconds)
Figure 12: Sample Measured Store Three Axis Arrested Landing Component
Response Acceleration Time Histories
5.3.8.2. Test Tolerances - Catapult Launch/Arrested Landing (Procedure VIII)
For cases in which measured data are not available and waveforms are generated
from dynamic analysis of the configuration, ensure the waveform tolerances are within
the time history test tolerances specified for waveforms in paragraph 5.4. For cases in
which measured data are available, ensure the SRS for the test response is within the
SRS tolerances specified in paragraph 5.4.2. For transient vibration, ensure the
waveform peaks and valleys are within the tolerances given for waveforms in
paragraph 5.4 or as provided in the test specification.
5.3.8.3. Test Procedure - Catapult Launch/Arrested Landing (Procedure VIII)
Step 1: Mount the test item to its shock/vibration fixture on the shock
device for the first test axis.
Step 2: Attach instrumentation as required in the approved test plan.
Step 3: Conduct an operational checkout and visual examination in

accordance with the approved test plan. If the test item operates
satisfactorily, proceed to Step 4. If not, resolve the problems and
repeat this step.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Step 4a: If no measured field data are available, apply short transient sine
waves of several cycles to the test item in the first test axis (refer
to paragraph 5.3.8.1.a). (Each short transient sine wave of
several cycles represents a single catapult or arrested landing
event.) Follow each burst by a rest period to prevent
unrepresentative effects. Operate the test item in its appropriate
operational mode while bursts are applied. If the test item fails to
operate as intended, follow the guidance in paragraph 5.6.2 for
test item failure.
Step 4b: If measured field data are available, either apply the measured
response data under exciter system time waveform control (see
Method 423), or process the catapult as two shocks separated by
a transient vibration, and the arrested landing as a shock followed
by a transient vibration. Operate the test item in its appropriate
operational mode while bursts are applied. If the test item fails to
operate as intended, follow the guidance in paragraph 5.6.2 for
test item failure.
Step 5: If the test item has not malfunctioned during testing, conduct an
operational checkout and visual examination in accordance with
the approved test plan. If a failure has occurred, it may be
desirable to perform a thorough visual examination before
proceeding with the operational checkout to avoid initiating
additional hardware damage. When a failure occurs, consider the
nature of the failure and corrective action, along with the purpose
of the test (engineering information or contractual compliance) in
determining whether to restart the test or to continue from the point
of interruption. If the test item does not operate satisfactorily,
follow the guidance in paragraph 5.6.2 for test item failure.
Step 6: Repeat Steps 1 through 5 for the second test axis.
Step 7: Document the test results including amplitude time history plots,
and notes of any test item operational or structural degradation.
5.4. TOLERANCES AND RELATED CHARACTERISTICS
For test validation, use the tolerances specified under each individual procedure, along
with the guidelines provided below. In cases in which such tolerances cannot be met,
establish achievable tolerances that are agreed to by the cognizant engineering
authority and the customer prior to initiation of test. In cases, in which tolerances are
established independently of the guidance provided below, establish these tolerances
within the limitations of the specified measurement calibration, instrumentation, signal
conditioning, and data analysis procedures.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
5.4.1. Classical Pulses and Complex Transient Pulses-Time Domain
For the classical pulses in this Method, tolerance limits on the time domain
representation of the pulses are as specified in Figures 3 through 5. For complex
transient pulses specified in the time domain, it is assumed that testing will be
performed under TWR (Method 423), and that the tolerance guidance related to that
Method will be used. If a classical shock pulse is defined in lieu of more complex
measured time history data it must be demonstrated that SRS estimates of the classical
shock pulse are within the tolerances established for the SRS estimates of the
measured time history data.
5.4.2. Complex Transient Pulses-SRS
For a complex transient pulse specified by way of the maximax SRS; e.g., Figure 2,
the frequency domain and time domain tolerances are specified in terms of a tolerance
on the SRS amplitude values over a specified frequency bandwidth and a tolerance
on the eff ective pulse duration. If a series of shocks are performed, all acceleration
maximax SRS shall be computed at the center frequency of one-twelfth octave bands
with a default damping quality factor Q of 10 (5 percent critical damping factor).
Tolerances on the individual points (values associated with each one-twelfth octave
center frequency) are to be within -1.5 dB and +3 dB over a minimum of 90 percent of
the overall values in the frequency bandwidth from 10 Hz to 2000 Hz. For the
remaining part of the frequency band, all SRS values are to be within -3 dB and +6
dB (this places a comparatively narrow tolerance on the major frequency band of
interest, but allows a wider tolerance on 10 percent of this frequency band and a wider
tolerance on the SRS above 2 kHz). Note that if an SRS is within tolerance for both
SRS-minimum and SRS-maximums, the pulse is considered symmetric. While the
reference criteria is often limited in bandwidth as a result of excitation equipment
limitations, the analyst may require response data to be viewed through the bandwidth
at which the SRS amplitude flattens. The duration of the complex transient is defined
by 𝑇𝑒 and 𝑇𝐸 a s discussed in A n n e x A , paragraph 1.3 and shall have a tolerance
of 0.8𝑇𝐸 ≤ 𝑇𝐸 ≤ 1.2𝑇𝐸 . In addition, the following guidance is provided:
a. All tolerances are specified on the maximax acceleration SRS. Any

tolerances specified on the pseudo-velocity response spectra must be
derived from the tolerances on the maximax acceleration SRS. (For
three-coordinate paper, the pseudo-velocity tolerance can be determined
by placing tolerance bands along the SRS acceleration axis, and then
extracting the tolerance values along the ordinate for the pseudo-velocity
SRS tolerance.) Note that SRS estimates scale directly in amplitude; i.e.,
multiplication of the time history by a factor is translated directly into
multiplication of the SRS estimate by the same factor.
b. The test tolerances are stated in terms of a single measurement

tolerance; i.e., each individual laboratory test must fit within the tolerance
bands to provide a satisfactory test. For an array of measurements

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
defined in terms of a "zone" (paragraph 7.1, reference b), amplitude

tolerance may be specified in terms of an average of the measurements
within a "zone". However, this is, in effect, a relaxation of the single
measurement tolerance in that individual measurements may be
substantially out of tolerance while the average is within tolerance. In
general, when specifying test tolerances based on averaging for more
than two measurements within a zone, the tolerance band should not
exceed the 95/50 one-sided normal tolerance upper limit computed for
the logarithmically transformed SRS estimates, nor be less than the
mean minus 1.5 dB. Any use of "zone" tolerances and averaging must
have support documentation prepared by a trained analyst. The
tolerance on the duration of the test pulse when more than one
measurement is present, may be specified either as a percentage of the
harmonic mean of the pulses (the nth root of the product of the n
n
durations as defined by TE j for j  1,2,..., n i.e., TE   T ), or on some

n
E j
j=1
statistical based measure taking account of the variance of the effective

durations. For example, a 95/50 two-sided normal tolerance limit will
provide the upper and lower limits of duration for which it is expected that
95 percent of future measurements will fall with 50 percent confidence
coefficient. 10 percent of the difference in these limits might be a
reasonable duration tolerance. For further possible ways of statistically
defining specification of duration tolerance see Annex C).
c. If the test item has no significant low frequency modal response, it is

permissible to allow the low frequency portion of the SRS to fall out of
tolerance in order to satisfy the high frequency portion of the SRS,
provided the high frequency portion begins at least one octave below the
first natural mode frequency, f1 , of the mounted test item. Recall that 𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛
was defined to be one octave below f1 . The reference pulse synthesis
should be conducted such that as much of the spectrum below
𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 remains in tolerance as possible without exceeding the specified
duration 𝑇𝐸 .
d. If the test item has significant low frequency modal response, it is

permissible to allow the duration of the complex transient pulse to fall
outside of the 𝑇𝐸 range in order to satisfy the low frequency portion of the
SRS. The effective duration may be increased by as much as 1⁄(2𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 )
in addition to 𝑇𝐸 , (e.g., 𝑇𝐸 + 1⁄(2𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 )), in order to have the low
frequency portion of the SRS within tolerance. If the duration of the
complex transient pulse must exceed 𝑇𝐸 + 1⁄(2𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) in order to have the
low frequency portion of the SRS within tolerance, use a different shock
procedure.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
5.5. CONTROLS
The accuracy in providing and measuring shock and vibration environments is highly
dependent on fixtures and mountings for the test item, the measurement system, and
the exciter control strategy. Ensure all instrumentation considerations are in
accordance with the best practices available (see paragraph 7.1, references d and e).
Careful design of the test set up, fixtures, transducer mountings, and wiring, along with
good quality control will be necessary to meet the tolerances of paragraph 5.4.
Test interruptions can result from two or more situations, one being from malfunction
of the shock apparatus or associated laboratory test support equipment. The second
type of test interruption results from malfunction of the test item itself during operational
checks.
5.6.1. Interruption Due To Laboratory Equipment Malfunction
a. General. See AECTP-400, paragraph 4.4.
b. Specific to this Method. Interruption of a shock test sequence is unlikely

to generate any adverse effects. Normally, continue the test from the
point of interruption.
5.6.2 Interruption Due To Test Item Operation Failure
Failure of the test item(s) to function as required during operational checks presents a
situation with several possible options.
a. The preferable option is to replace the test item with a “new” one and
restart from Step 1.
b. A second option is to repair the failed or non-functioning component or

assembly of the test item with one that functions as intended, and restart
the entire test from Step 1.
NOTE: When evaluating failure interruptions, consider prior

testing on the same test item, and consequences of such.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
In addition to the specific guidance provided in the test plan and the general guidance
provided in AECTP-400, Chapters 2 and 3, refer to the below paragraphs for
supplemental test analysis information. Analyze any failure of a test item to meet the
requirements of the materiel specifications.
a. Procedure I (Functional Shock) - Consider any interruption of the materiel

operation during or after the shock in relationship to the materiel's
operational test requirements. (See paragraph 5.6.2.)
b. Procedure II (Transportation Shock) - Consider any damage to the shock

mounts or the internal structural configuration of the test item that may
provide a cause for the development of a failure analysis course of action
to consider retrofit or redesign.
c. Procedure III (Fragility) - The outcome of a successful fragility test is one

specified measurement level of test item failure for each test axis along
with the duration of the shock. Consider that if the test item fails either
operationally or structurally at the lowest level of testing, and there is no
provision for testing at lower levels, the test item's fragility level is not
possible to determine.
d. Procedure IV (Transit Drop) - In general, analysis of results will consist

of visual and operational comparisons for before and after test.
Measurement instrumentation and subsequent processing of
acceleration time history information can provide valuable information
related to response characteristics of the test item and statistical variation
in the shock environment.
e. Procedure V (Crash Hazard Shock) - If measurement information was

obtained, process this in accordance with paragraph 5.3.5.3, Step 4.
f. Procedure VI (Bench Handling) - In general, any operational or physical

(mechanical or structural) change of configuration from Step 1 in
paragraph 5.3.6.3 must be recorded and analyzed.
g. Procedure VII (Pendulum Impact) – In general, analysis of the results will

consist of visual inspections and any operational comparisons before and
after the test. Check for operability and inspect for physical damage of
the contents (except when using a dummy load). Damage to the exterior
shipping container that is the result of improper interior packaging,
blocking, or bracing is cause for rejection. Structural damage to the
exterior shipping container that results in either spilling of the contents or

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
failure of the container in subsequent handling is cause for rejection.

Assess whether a substantial amount of shifting of the contents within
the shipping container created conditions likely to cause damage during
shipment, storage, and reshipment of the container. Minor container
damage such as chipping of wood members, dents, paint chipping, is not
cause for rejection. If recorded, acceleration time histories or other
sensor data can provide valuable information related to the response
characteristics of the test item.
h. Procedure VIII (Catapult Launch/Arrested Landing) - Consider any failure

of the structural configuration of the test item, mount, or launcher that
may not directly impact failure of the operation of the materiel, but that
would lead to failure under in-service conditions.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
CHAPTER 7 REFERENCE/RELATED DOCUMENTS
7.1. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
a. Handbook for Dynamic Data Acquisition and Analysis, IES-RD-

DTE012.2, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology,
Arlington Place One, 2340 S. Arlington Heights Road, Suite 100,
Arlington Heights, IL 60005-4516; Institute of Environmental Sciences
and Technology.
b. Piersol, Allan G., Determination of Maximum Structural Responses From

Predictions or Measurements at Selected Points, Proceedings of the 65th
Shock and Vibration Symposium, Volume I, SAVIAC, 1994. Shock &
Vibration Exchange (SAVE), 1104 Arvon Road, Arvonia, VA 23004.
c. MIL-DTL-901, “Shock Tests, H.I. (High Impact), Shipboard Machinery,

Equipment and Systems, Requirements for”.
d. MIL-STD-331, “Fuze and Fuze Components, Environmental and

Performance Tests for”.
e. Gaberson, H. A. and Chalmers, R. H., Modal Velocity as a Criterion of

Shock Severity, Shock and Vibration Bulletin 40, Pt. 2, 1969, pp.31-49.
f. Piersol, Allan G., and T. L. Paez, eds., Harris’ Shock and Vibration
Handbook, 6th Edition, NY, McGraw-Hill, 2010.
g. AR 70-44, DoD Engineering for Transportability; Information Handling

Services.
h. DEF-STAN-00-035, Part 3, Test M3, Issue 5, 28 January 2017.
i. Smallwood, David O., “Generating Ramp Invariant Filters for Various

forms of the Shock Response Spectrum”, 76th Shock and Vibration
Symposium, 2005.
j. Bendat, J. S. and Piersol, A. G., Random Data: Analysis and

Measurement Procedures-Fourth Edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New
York, 2010.
k. Smallwood, D. O., "Characterization and Simulation of Transient

Vibrations Using Band Limited Temporal Moments", Shock and
Vibration, Vol. 1, No. 6, pp.507-527, John Wiley and Sons, 1994.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
l. Edwards, Timothy, "Power Delivered to Mechanical Systems by Random

Vibrations", Proceedings of the 79th Shock and Vibration Symposium,
Orlando, Florida, October 2008.
m. Chu, A., “Zeroshift of Piezoelectric Accelerometers in Pyroshock

Measurements,” Proceedings of the 58th Shock & Vibration Symposium,
Huntsville, AL, October 1987.
n. Plumlee, R. H., “Zero-Shift in Piezoelectric Accelerometers,” Sandia

National Laboratories Research Report, SC-RR-70-755, March 1971.
o. Bateman, V. I., “Accelerometer Isolation for Mechanical Shock and

Pyroshock,” Proceedings of the 82nd Shock and Vibration Symposium,
Baltimore, MD, November, 2011 (paper) and ESTECH2012, Orlando, FL,
May 2012.
p. NATO STANAG 4370, Environmental Testing, Allied Environmental

Conditions and Test Publication (AECTP) 200, Mechanical
Environmental Testing, Category 240.
q. NSWCCD-80-TR-2017/002, “Standardized Laboratory Test

Requirements for Hardening Equipment to Withstand Wave Impact
Shock in Small High Speed Craft”.
r. NSWCCD-80-TR-2015/010, “Laboratory Test Requirements for Marine

Shock Isolation Seats”.
a. Conover, W.J., Practical Nonparametric Statistics. New York; Wiley,

1971, Chapter 3.
b. Piersol, A.G., Analysis of Harpoon Missile Structural Response to Aircraft

Launches, Landings and Captive Flight and Gunfire. Naval Weapons
Center Report #NWC TP 58890. January 1977.
c. Schock, R. W. and Paulson, W. E., TRANSPORTATION A Survey of

Shock and Vibration Environments in the Four Major Modes of
Transportation, Shock and Vibration Bulletin #35, Part 5, February 1966.
d. Ostrem, F. E., TRANSPORTATION AND PACKAGING, A Survey of the

Transportation Shock and Vibration Input to Cargo, Shock and Vibration
Bulletin #42, Part 1, January 1972. Shock & Vibration Exchange (SAVE),
1104 Arvon Road, Arvonia, VA 23004.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
e. Allied Environmental Conditions and Test Procedure (AECTP) 400,

Mechanical Environmental Tests (under STANAG 4370), Methods 403,
416, and 417.
f. MIL-STD-209K, Lifting and Tiedown Provisions.
g. DOD Directive 4510.11, DOD Transportation Engineering.
h. Egbert, Herbert W. “The History and Rationale of MIL-STD-810 (Edition

2)”, January 2010, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology,
Arlington Heights, IL 60005-4516.
i. ANSI/ASTM D3332, Standard Test Methods for Mechanical-Shock

Fragility of Products, Using Shock Machines; Information Handling
Services.
j. Fackler, Warren C, “Equivalence Techniques for Vibration Testing”,

SVM-9, The Shock Vibration Information Center, Naval Research
Laboratory, Washington D.C., 1972.
k. Miles, J., “On Structural Fatigue Under Random Loading”, J. Aeronaut.

Sci. 21, 753-762, November 1954.

AECTP-400
METHOD 403
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
ANNEX A MEASUREMENT SYSTEM CHARACTERIZATIONAND BASIC

PROCESSING
A.1. SINGLE SHOCK EVENT MEASUREMENT SYSTEM CHARACTERIZATION

AND BASIC PROCESSING
The following paragraphs discuss basic measurement system acquisition

characteristics, followed by a discussion on the correct identification of the parts of a
measured shock (in particular the duration of a shock). Information in Annex A is
essential for the processing of measured data for a laboratory test specification.
A.1.1. MEASUREMENT SYSTEM AND SIGNAL CONDITIONING PARAMETERS
1. The data recording instrumentation shall have flat frequency response to the
maximum frequency of interest (𝑓𝑀𝑎𝑥 ). If 𝑓𝑀𝑎𝑥 is not specified, a default value of
10 kHz is recommended at each measurement location. Defining 𝑓𝐴𝐴 as the 3dB half-
power point cut-off frequency of the lowpass analog anti-alias filter, 𝑓𝑀𝑎𝑥 < 𝑓𝐴𝐴 is
implied to maintain flat frequency response. The digitizing rate must be at least 2.5
times the filtering frequency 𝑓𝑀𝑎𝑥 . Note that when measurements of peak amplitude
are used to qualify the shock level, a sample rate of at least 10 times the filtering
frequency (100 thousand samples per second for the default case) is required. For
SRS considerations a measurement shock should be acquired at 10 times the filtering
frequency or resampled to 10 times the filtering frequency.
2. It is imperative that a responsibly designed system to reject aliasing is

employed. Analog anti-alias filters must be in place before the digitizer. The selected
anti-alias filtering must have an attenuation of 50 dB or greater, and a pass band
flatness within one dB across the frequency bandwidth of interest for the measurement
(see Figure A-1a). Subsequent re-sampling; e.g., for purposes of decimation, must be
in accordance with standard practices and consistent with the analog anti-alias
configuration (e.g., digital anti-alias filters must be in place before subsequent
decimations).
3. The end to end alias rejection of the final discretized output must be shown to
meet the requirements in Figure A-1a. The anti-alias characteristics must provide an
attenuation of 50 dB or greater for frequencies that will fold back into the passband.
Spectral data including SRS plots may only be presented for frequencies within the
passband (between 0 and 𝑓𝑀𝑎𝑥 ). However, this restriction is not to constrain digital
data validation procedures that require assessment of digitally acquired data to the
Nyquist frequency (either for the initial analog to digital converter (ADC) or subsequent
re-sampled sequences). It should be noted that it is possible that certain sensor/signal
conditioning systems may display substantial “out-of-band” frequency content, i.e.,
greater than 𝑓𝑀𝑎𝑥 but less than the Nyquist frequency, in digital processing. For
example, a Fourier spectra estimate over the duration of the shock may display

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
“general signal” to “noise” that seemingly contradicts the filter attenuation criterion
displayed in Figure A-1a. In this case the signal conditioning system must be subject
to the “verification of alias rejection” described in the paragraph to follow. If the signal
conditioning system is verified as non-aliasing then the substantial frequency content
between 𝑓𝑀𝑎𝑥 and the Nyquist frequency can be digitally filtered out if desired.
Figure A-1a: Filter Attenuation (Conceptual, Not Filter Specific)
4. Verification of alias rejection should start by establishing the dynamic range

within the pass band in terms of the signal to noise ratio (SNR). The SNR =
20 log10 (VFullScale ⁄VNoisefloor ) must be  60dB. Once sufficient SNR is verified,
establishing the alias rejection characteristics may be determined using an input sine
wave with a magnitude of 0.5 * full scale range and at the lowest frequency range that
can impinge; i.e., be aliased into 𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥 , and then confirming (using the IEEE 1057 sine
wave test procedure or through inspection of the time domain data) that the alias
rejection is sufficient at this frequency.
5. If a 100 thousand sample/second digitizing rate is used, for example, then

fNyquist = 50 kHz. Theory says that if a signal above the Nyquist Ratio is present, it will
“fold over” into a frequency below the Nyquist ratio. The equation is:

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Fa = absolute value [(Fs*n)-F],
Where:
Fa = frequency of “alias”
F = frequency of input signal
Fs = sample rate
n = integer number of sample rate (Fs) closest to input signal frequency (F)
Hence the lowest frequency range that can fold back into the 10 kHz passband is from
90 kHz to 110 kHz.
6. It should be noted that Sigma Delta (SD) digitizers “oversample” internally at a

rate several times faster than the output data rate and that analog anti-alias filtering is
still required. For illustrative purposes, consider an example for a SD digitizer with a
bandwidth of interest up to 10 kHz that samples internally at 𝑓𝑠 = 800 thousand
samples/second. The internal analog based Nyquist frequency by definition is 400 kHz,
hence the analog anti-alias filter should attenuate 50 dB or more content that can fold
back into the 10 kHz pass band (790 kHz to 810 kHz and similar bands that are higher
in frequency). Figure A-1b illustrates sampling frequencies, Nyquist frequencies, and
frequency bands that can fold back into the bandwidth of interest for both conventional
and over sampling digitizers, such as the Sigma Delta. Observe that for the example
SD design, there is significant bandwidth above the 10 kHz desired 𝑓𝑀𝑎𝑥 and the
Nyquist rate that is not useable due primarily to quantization error, an artifact of the
single bit SD design. The output of a SD ADC will be digitally filtered and resampled
yielding a new effective sampling rate 𝑓𝐷𝑅 which in turn yields a new Nyquist rate for
the decimated signal of 𝑓𝐷𝑅 ⁄2. Through careful selection the digital filter cutoff
frequency, the majority of noise between 𝑓𝐷𝑅 ⁄2 and 𝑓𝑠 is removed while maintaining a
nearly flat frequency response through 𝑓𝑀𝑎𝑥 . The SD oversampling rate 𝑂𝑆𝑅 = 𝑓𝑠 ⁄𝑓𝐷𝑅 ,
which is directly correlated to dynamic range, is one of several design parameters for
a SD ADC. Most reputable vendors will provide a detailed specification sheet
associated with their products, however, it is strongly recommended that one verifies
aliasing rejection and noise floor characteristics as recommended above prior to
employing any signal conditioning system in the acquisition of critical field data.
7. In addition to the discussion above of ensuring the characteristics of the signal

conditioning system are well understood, it is also imperative that the characteristics of
the instrumentation of interest is also well understood. One should be able to clearly
delineate between noise associated with the acquisition system and the
instrumentation of interest.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Figure A-1b: Illustration of Sampling Rates and Out of Band “Fold Over”
Frequencies for Conventional and Oversampling (Sigma-Delta) Based Data
Acquisition Systems
A.1.2. MEASUREMENT SHOCK IDENTIFICATION
1. A “simple shock” is being addressed in this Method (excluding Procedure VIII

and the example of a complex shock provided in Annex B); i.e., the impulse force input
defines a single “event” arising from a characteristic phenomenon. A “simple shock” is
defined by a measurement; e.g., acceleration, with three characteristic regions:
a. An initial low amplitude stationary random measurement termed the

measurement system noise floor.
b. A series of erratic high amplitude decaying measurement amplitudes
termed the shock.
c. A comparatively low level stationary measurement at or just above the

instrumentation noise floor termed the post-shock noise floor.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
NOTE: If periodic components or non-Gaussian behavior are present in the

measurement system noise floor, the signal conditioning system needs to
be examined. If periodic components are present in the post-shock noise
floor but the general amplitude is relatively stationary, it is indicative of
mounting/materiel resonance response. A trained analyst needs to decide the
importance of such resonance information in a laboratory test specification.
This decision should be based upon the lowest mounted fundamental
frequency of the materiel. In general, shock information should not be unduly
extended in order to accommodate the full extent of the resonant “ringing”
behavior.
2. It is always imperative that the data be carefully analyzed to ensure the

measurement is free of corruption, and the nature of the event is physically well
grounded. This subject is discussed in greater detail in Annex B.
3. The example that follows will illustrate initial time domain assessment of a typical
transient acceleration time history. Annex B will provide frequency domain and more
advanced assessment. Figure A-2 displays the measurement shock that will be
considered for proper processing in both the time and frequency domain. The
phenomenon producing the shock has initial high frequency/high energy input, followed
by a form of ringing or resonance decay. The measurement shock exists between
617 milliseconds and 1560 milliseconds.
Mechanical Shock (6000 Hz BW)

100
80
60
40
20
Acceleration (G)
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (sec)
Figure A-2: Example Acceleration Time History

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
A.1.3. EFFECTIVE PULSE DURATION FOR NON-CLASSICAL SHOCKS
1. When considering the two non-classical shock alternatives discussed in

paragraph A.1.2, the analyst (and ultimately test operator), will need to consider the
effective durations (including the overall shock duration (𝑇𝑒 ) and the concentration of
energy duration (𝑇𝐸 ) for the pulse to be replicated. In the case in which TWR is selected
as the implementation method, the duration of the transient event is straightforward.
The test operator should simply identify the pre-pulse and post-pulse noise floor levels
that will indicate reasonable start and end times for the TWR based event. In the case
in which a reference transient is to be synthesized based upon an SRS reference, the
SRS reference must come with recommended effective durations established by the
analyst review of the data ensemble used to develop the SRS reference. The analyst
may view the effective durations of a transient event from a number of perspectives.
However, the final guidance on effective durations provided to the test operator with
the reference SRS should be simplified to manageable parameters to which the test
operator will be able to implement efficiently. Providing the test operator both the shock
duration (𝑇𝑒 ) and the concentration of energy duration (𝑇𝐸 ) is recommended for any
SRS based laboratory shock test. With the SRS magnitude controlling the synthesized
pulse magnitude and both and defining energy distribution, the synthesized pulse
should resemble a measured pulse having the same SRS. The concept of effective
durations is discussed further in the following paragraphs. Annex B contains more
information on determining 𝑇𝑒 and 𝑇𝐸 based upon easily computed “instantaneous root-
mean-square” computations.
2. As mentioned in paragraph A.1.2, a “simple shock” (refer to Figure A-3), is

defined in terms of three time intervals:
a. The first time interval; 𝑇𝑃𝑟𝑒 is usually well defined and occurs prior to the
shock where the measurement represents the measurement system
noise floor.
b. The second interval; 𝑇𝑒 is termed the shock duration and is defined as

the duration from the zero crossing for the first measurement acceleration
“above the instrumentation noise floor” until the perceived “termination” of
the shock. This interval contains the interval with the highest
concentration of energy, 𝑇𝐸 , defined as the minimum length of time that
APk
contains any time history magnitudes exceeding in absolute value
CF
(see detailed discussion below).
c. The third time interval; 𝑇𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡 is the time from the “termination” of the shock
until the measurement signal approaches or reaches levels of the
measurement system noise floor. (In general, shocks over reasonable
characterization/identification times seldom decay to the levels of the pre-

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
shock noise floor.) This third time interval can be termed the post-shock
noise floor that is above, but includes the measurement system noise
floor.

100
80
Tpre Tpost
60
40
20
Acceleration (G)
-20
-40
Te
-60
TE
-80
-100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (sec)
Figure A-3: Example Simple Shock Time History with Segment Identification
3. In general, for further processing it is convenient, if possible, to select the

interval 𝑇𝑃𝑟𝑒 of duration equal to 𝑇𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡 and these intervals should be reasonably
comparable or equal in length to 𝑇𝑒 . The same amount of “time/amplitude” information
is available in all three intervals.
A.1.3.1. Calculation of 𝑇𝑒
There is historical precedence in which the shock duration 𝑇𝑒 was defined as, “the
minimum length of continuous time that contains the root-mean-square (RMS) time
history amplitudes exceeding in value ten percent of the peak RMS amplitude
associated with the shock event. The short-time averaging time for the unweighted
RMS computation is assumed to be between ten and twenty percent of 𝑇𝑒 .” The
previous definitions also included discussion relative to the relationship between 𝑇𝑒 and
𝑇𝐸 at which point it was recognized that this relationship is dependent upon the “shape”
of the true RMS of the time history. Although the previous definition of 𝑇𝑒 is a useful
analysis tool, 𝑇𝑒 is now defined from the zero crossing for the first measurement
acceleration “above the instrumentation noise floor” until the perceived “termination” of
the shock as discussed above. This parameter provides a reasonable bound on the

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
interval in which the reference time history contains measurable energy levels above
the noise floor. In synthesizing the reference pulse for an SRS based laboratory test,
the user should set the window length, (time-domain block size), containing the
reference signal to Te or the nearest programmable interval greater than 𝑇𝑒 . Observe
that unlike the field measurements, the noise floor of the synthesized signal will actually
be zero. Zero padding outside of the interval 𝑇𝑒 will have no effect on the SRS
2.5
computation. In the event 𝑇𝑒 (the shock duration) is not provided, define 𝑇𝑒 = 𝑓
𝑚𝑖𝑛
where 𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 is the lowest frequency in the reference SRS (this will allow a minimum
duration sufficient to allow 3 half-cycles of the lowest frequency component in the
reference time history. 𝑇𝑒 includes both the primary “concentration of energy” and an
“extension of energy” duration.
A.1.3.2. Calculation of 𝑻𝑬
𝑇𝐸 represents a “concentration of energy” duration. There is historical precedence in

which 𝑇𝐸 was defined to be the minimum length of time that contains any time history
magnitudes exceeding in absolute value one-third of the shock peak magnitude
APk
absolute value; i.e., , associated with the reference time history. This assumes
3
the shock peak amplitude, APk , has been validated; e.g., it is not an “instrumentation
noise spike.” A definition of 𝑇𝐸 that considers the crest factor, 𝐶𝐹 = 𝐴𝑃𝑘 ⁄𝑅𝑀𝑆,
associated with the single shock or shock data ensemble from the reference SRS is
defined. The crest factor is computed in small intervals over the duration 𝑇𝑒 , (e.g.,
𝑇𝑒 ⁄10), and the “maximum crest factor” computed on the individual intervals is defined
as CF . This yields a revised definition of 𝑇𝐸 based on the minimum length of time that
APk
contains any time history magnitudes exceeding in absolute value . Even though
CF
the crest factor is a stationary random vibration concept applied when Gaussian or
particularly non-Gaussian time histories are considered in stationary random vibration,
it can be justified for use in terms of a shock if it is realized that peak amplitudes are of
a random nature and come at random times. All amplitudes less than the last
APk
amplitude greater than define a time of between greater energy concentration
CF
and lesser energy concentration that can be quite robust. The analyst must however
be immune from selecting a random amplitude spike time far from the major energy
concentration; i.e., too strict an application of the concept for determining 𝑇𝐸 .
Generally, the larger the 𝐶𝐹 the greater 𝑇𝐸 so selection of several 𝐶𝐹′𝑠 and comparing
𝑇𝐸 ′𝑠 is recommended. For several shocks; i.e., an ensemble, varying 𝐶𝐹 and
assembling a table of 𝑇𝐸 ′𝑠 should provide the analyst a robust method for establishing
duration 𝑇𝐸 for synthesis. Plots of CF versus 𝑇𝐸 would indicate the sensitivity between
the two variables. In the event 𝑇𝐸 is not provided, the test operator should assume the
CF to be 3, and synthesize a pulse such that 𝑇𝐸 for the synthesized reference time
history is characterized by 𝑇𝐸 based on the minimum length of time that contains any

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
APk
time history magnitudes exceeding in absolute value of . Having established a
3
nominal value for 𝑇𝐸 , the synthesis of a representative pulse shall have a tolerance of
0.8𝑇𝐸 ≤ 𝑇𝐸 ≤ 1.2𝑇𝐸 .
A.1.3.3. Implementation Considerations
In summary, it is desired that the reference transient synthesized based upon an SRS
reference has reasonably similar temporal characteristics to that of the field data from
which the SRS reference was derived. The analyst developing SRS based test criteria
should carefully investigate the effective duration of the ensemble of transient events
from which the final test criteria was based, and document the results along with the
SRS. The laboratory technician synthesizing the reference pulse should then be able
to consider the variables, 𝐶𝐹, 𝑇𝑒 and 𝑇𝐸 , associated with effective duration in the
synthesis process. As an example, the above durations and associated time intervals
are displayed for the typical simple shock in Figure A-3 where the pre-shock noise floor
(𝑇𝑃𝑟𝑒 ≜ 0 → 0.617 𝑠𝑒𝑐)) and the post-shock noise floor is defined as
𝑇𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡 ≜ (𝑇𝑃𝑟𝑒 + 𝑇𝑒 ) 𝑡𝑜 (𝑇𝑃𝑟𝑒 + 𝑇𝑒 ) + 𝑇𝑃𝑟𝑒 . 𝑇𝑃𝑟𝑒 and 𝑇𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡 were taken to be the same
duration for processing comparison convenience. 𝑇𝑒 = 0.943 𝑠𝑒𝑐, is identified by the
dashed lines between 0.617 and 1.56 seconds. The maximum crest factor, computed
Apk
in intervals of 𝑇𝑒 ⁄10 was computed to be 𝐶𝐹 ≜ 5. is identified by the horizontal
CF
lines based on 𝐶𝐹 ≜ 5 and |𝐴𝑃𝑘 | = 98.17 𝐺 (that occurred at time 𝑇𝑃𝑘 = 0.735 sec).
Apk
𝑇𝐸 ≜ 0.230 𝑠𝑒𝑐 is identified by the interval between the first occurrence of that
CF
Apk
occurs at approximately 0.625 seconds and the last occurrence of that occurs at
CF
approximately 0.860 seconds.
A.1.4. SHOCK RESPONSE SPRECTRUM
The SRS, either acceleration maximax SRS estimates or the pseudo-velocity maximax
SRS, is the primary “frequency domain” descriptor that links time history shock
amplitudes to some physical model; i.e., the shock model. The below paragraphs will
provide a description of the SRS options in addition to SRS estimates that may be used
to imply the validity of the measured shock information.
A.1.4.1. Processing Guidelines
1. The maximax SRS value at a given undamped natural oscillator frequency, fn ,

describes the maximum response (positive, negative, primary, and residual) of the
mass of a damped single degree of freedom (SDOF) system at this frequency to a
shock base input time history; e.g., acceleration, of duration 𝑇𝑒 (see Figure 1 for the
appropriate model). Damping of the SDOF is typically expressed in terms of a “Q”
(quality factor). Common selections for Q are Q=50 that represents 1 percent critical

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
damping; a Q =10 that represents 5 percent critical damping; and a Q=5 that represents
10 percent critical damping of the SDOF. For processing of shock response data, the
absolute acceleration maximax SRS has become the primary analysis descriptor. In
this description of the shock, the maximax acceleration values are plotted on the
ordinate with the undamped natural frequency of the base input to the SDOF system
plotted along the abscissa. The frequency range over which the SRS is computed,
(i.e., natural frequencies of the SDOF system filters) as a minimum, includes the data
signal conditioning bandwidth, but should also extend below and above this bandwidth.
In general, the “SRS Natural Frequency Bandwidth” extends from an octave below the
lowest frequency of interest, up to a frequency at which the “flat” portion of the SRS
spectrum has been reached (that may require going an octave or more above the upper
signal conditioning bandwidth). This latter SRS upper frequency fSRSmax requirement
helps ensure no high frequency content in the spectrum is neglected, and is
independent of the data bandwidth upper frequency, fmax. As a minimum, this SRS
upper frequency should exceed fmax by at least ten percent; i.e., 1.1fmax. The lowest
frequency of interest is determined by the frequency response characteristics of the
mounted materiel under test. Define f1 as the first mounted natural frequency of the
materiel (by definition, f1 will be less than or equal to the first natural frequency of a
materiel component such as a circuit board) and, for laboratory testing purposes, define
the lowest frequency of interest as fmin<f1/2, (i.e., fmin is at least one octave below f1 ).
fSRSmin can then be taken as fmin. The maximax SRS is to be computed over the time
range Te and over the frequency range from fmin to fSRSmax>1.1fmax. From paragraph
A.1.1, the fmax relationship to fAA is defined, however for SRS computation, if
Fs<10fSRSmax the time history must be re-sampled to Fsr >10fSRSmax. The SRS
frequency spacing in [fmin,1.1fmax] is left to the discretion of the analyst, but should not
be coarser that one-twelfth octave and, in general, of a proportional band spacing as
opposed to a fixed band spacing (proportional band spacing is more in tune with the
materiel modal frequency spacing, and results in fewer natural frequencies for
processing).
2. A more complete description of the shock (potentially more useful for shock
damage assessment) can be obtained by determining the maximax pseudo-velocity
response spectrum. The maximax pseudo-velocity may be plotted on log-log paper
with the abscissa as SDOF natural frequency, and the ordinate as pseudo-velocity in
units of velocity. Alternatively, a more complete description of the shock (potentially
more useful for shock damage assessment) can be obtained by determining the
maximax pseudo-velocity response spectrum, and plotting this on four-coordinate
paper where, in pairs of orthogonal axes, the maximax pseudo-velocity response
spectrum is represented by the ordinate, with the undamped natural frequency being
the abscissa, and the maximax absolute acceleration along with maximax pseudo-
displacement plotted in a pair of orthogonal axes, all plots having the same abscissa
(SDOF natural frequency). This form of a pseudo-velocity SRS plot, as seen in Figure
A-4, is widely accepted in Civil Engineering earthquake ground motion specifications,
but historically has not been as common for mechanical shock display or specification.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
10
00
3
in
10
00
0
0
10
Pre(50)
g
10
Pst(50)
in
1
g
00
Shk(50)
0.
Shk(10)
10
2
00
10
in
00
10
g
1
in
g
01
00
0.
10
1
10
00
in
0
1
g
0.
in
1
05
g
-0
1e
0
10
10
in
00
1
0.
g
0.
in
01
06
-0
g
1e
-1
in
10
10
01
0
0.
g
0.
in
00
07
1
-0
g
1e
-2
10 0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10
Figure A-4: Maximax Pseudo-Velocity SRS Estimates for Shock and Noise
Floor Segments
3. The maximax pseudo-velocity at a particular SDOF undamped natural

frequency is thought to be more representative of the damage potential for a shock
since it correlates with stress and strain in the elements of a single degree of freedom
system (paragraph 7.1, references e and f). In the laboratory testing to meet a given
specification with undesignated Q, use a Q value of 10 and a second Q value of 50 for
comparison in the processing (see Figure A-4). Using two Q values, a damped value
and a value corresponding to light damping provides an analyst with information on the
potential spread of maximum materiel response. Recommend the maximax absolute
acceleration SRS be the primary method of display for the shock, with the maximax
pseudo-velocity SRS the secondary method of display. This is useful in cases in which
it is desirable to be able to correlate damage of simple systems with the shock. Two
additional recommendations related to the validity of the measurement are as follows:
a. A pre-shock SRS of the measurement system noise floor over interval,

Tpre should be computed along with the return to noise floor interval, Tpost
i.e., post-shock noise floor, and displayed on the same plot. These
noise SRSs help to confirm the overall validity of the measurement if the
“Pre” and “Post” times allow adequate accuracy for the SRS estimates;
i.e., SRS estimates over very short time segments may not provide
representative maximax SRS amplitudes at low natural frequencies.
These SRS estimates should be computed at the Q=50 damping value

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
(see Figure A-4). Refer to Annex A, paragraph 3b for additional guidance

on establishing criteria for defining the noise floor.
b. For the shock segment, both the maximum positive and maximum
negative acceleration and pseudo-velocity SRS estimates should be
plotted for a minimum Q value of 10 over the frequency range for which
the shock SRS values are displayed (see Figure A-5). The positive and
negative SRS estimates should be very similar in nature as discussed in
paragraph A.1.4.2 and illustrated through example in Figures A-5 and
A-6. The low Q value should be able to detect acceleration time history
anomalies similar to the time history integration. If positive and negative
SRS maximax values are disparate, this could be an indicator of potential
measurement system signal conditioning problems.
10
00
3
in
10
00
0
0
10
g
Shk(10)pos
10
Shk(10)neg
in
1
g
00
0.
10
2
00
10
in
00
10
g
1
in
g
01
00
0.
10
1
10
00
in
0
1
g
0.
in
1
05
g
-0
1e
0
10
10
in
00
1
0.
g
0.
in
01
06
-0
g
1e
-1
in
10
10
01
0
0.
g
0.
in
00
07
1
-0
g
1e
-2
10 0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10
Figure A-5: Shock Positive and Negative Pseudo-Velocity SRS Estimates

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
3
10
Shk(10)pos
Shk(10)neg
2
10
Amplitude (G)
1
10
0
10
-1
10 0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10
Natural Freqency (Hz)
Figure A-6: Shock Positive and Negative Acceleration SRS Estimates
A.1.4.2. Processing Example
1. For the shock time history displayed in Figure A-3, the sample rate was
51,200 samples per second with an unknown anti-alias filter configuration. The
bandwidth of the data was from DC to 6000 Hz. The bandwidth of interest was from
10 Hz to 6000 Hz. The time history was re-sampled to 102,400 Hz to ensure a
reasonable SRS computation through 10 kHz as discussed in paragraph A.1.4.1. The
SRS estimates are actually plotted to 50 kHz to illustrate convergence at the low and
high frequency extremes. Since even the slightest of bias error influences velocity
estimates computed from acceleration data, it is recommended that minor DC bias
should be corrected as required prior to performing pseudo velocity calculations (a
severe bias error in the acceleration time may indicate more serious issues such as
amplifier and/or transducer saturation leading to data validity concerns). Quality
factors of 10 and 50 were used for computation of the acceleration and pseudo-velocity
maximax SRS estimates except where noted. Except where noted, the computations
were made with the standard ramp-invariant filter set. The abscissa of the plots is the
undamped natural frequency of the SDOF system at a one-twelfth-octave band
spacing.
2. Figure A-7 contrasts the shock maximax acceleration SRS for the Q values of
10 and 50, and for both measurement system noise floor and post-shock noise
floor for a Q of 50. Figure A-4 provides the related information for the maximax
pseudo-velocity SRS estimates. As expected, the shock is substantially greater than

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
3
10
Pre(50)
Pst(50)
Shk(50)
Shk(10)
2
10
1
10
Amplitude (G)
0
10
-1
10
-2
10 0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10
Natural Freqency (Hz)
Figure A-7: Maximax Acceleration SRS Estimates for Shock and Noise Floor
Segments
either noise floor SRS estimates. Ideally, the noise floor SRS should be 12 dB or more
below the acceleration SRS of the shock event across the frequency range of interest.
As a time history validity check, Figure A-5 and Figure A-6 provides the positive and
negative SRS estimates. It is noted that in these two figures neither the positive nor
negative SRS value dominates the other that would imply the time history information
is valid.
A.1.5. FREQUENCY DOMAIN IDENTIFICATION ENERGY SPECTRAL DENSITY

(ESD)
The ESD estimate is a properly scaled squared magnitude of the Fourier Transform of
the total shock. Its counterpart, the Fourier Spectra (FS) is, in effect, the square root
of the ESD, and may be useful for display but will not be discussed here. The
importance of the ESD estimate is its properties relative to input/output system
computations. That is for two acceleration measurements related as input and output,
either (1) an estimate of the transfer function (magnitude/phase) between the input and
output is possible, or (2) a transmissibility estimate (magnitude alone) can be
determined by ratioing the output ESD over the input ESD. Further details and
illustration of ESD estimates are provided in Annex B.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
A.1.6. SINGLE EVENT/MULTIPLE CHANNEL MEASUREMENT PROCESSING

GUIDELINES
When multiple measurements are made for a single configuration, generally pre-
processing should proceed as if multiple channel analysis is to be performed. In
particular, the pre-shock noise floor, the shock event, and the post-shock noise floor
should be of the same duration, and this duration for the shock event should be
determined based upon the “longest” duration measurement. Since SRS and ESD
processing are generally insensitive to differences in the duration of significant energy
content, such selection will allow multi-channel processing. It is imperative that for
cross-energy spectral density estimates and energy transfer function estimates, the
pre-processing; e.g., event selection durations, filtering, etc., on all measurement
channels be the same. Pre-processing across multiple measurement channels
involving integration of acceleration to determine velocity needs to correspond to the
physics of the configuration. For high signal-to-noise ratios, useful information can be
obtained from cross-spectral and transfer function estimates even though random error
is high.
A.1.7. MEASUREMENT PROBABILISTIC / STATISTIC SUMMARY
Recommend that, whenever possible, two or more equivalently processed response

measurements or test estimates be combined in some statistical manner for summary.
This summary then can be used for test specification purposes to provide a level of
confidence that the important information in the measurement or test has been
captured. Paragraph 7.1, reference b, discusses some options in statistically
summarizing processed results from a series of measurements or tests. The best
summary option is generally dependent on the size of sample. Processed results from
the SRS or ESD are typically logarithmically transformed to provide estimates that tend
to be more normally distributed; e.g., estimates in dB. This transformation is important
since often very few estimates are available from a test series, and the probability
distribution of the untransformed estimates cannot be assumed to be normally
distributed. In virtually all cases, combination of processed results will fall under the
category of small sample statistics, and need to be considered with care with other
parametric or less powerful nonparametric methods of statistical analysis. Annex B
addresses the appropriate techniques for the statistical combination of processed test
results as a function of the size of the sample and provides an example.
A.1.8. OTHER PROCESSING
Other descriptive processes that tend to decompose the shock into component parts;
e.g., product model, time domain moments (TDM), wavelets, SRS modal and power
energy methods (PEM), etc., may be useful, but details of such descriptive processes
are beyond the scope of this document, and generally fall in the area of analytical
modeling. TDM and PEM show promise of being able to characterize and compare
individual shocks among sets of similar shock time traces and perhaps provide insight
into cause of materiel failure from shock. TDM (paragraph 7.1, reference i) assessment

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
provides for characterization of the “form” of measured response with respect to both
time and frequency. PEM (paragraph 7.1, reference j) attempts to estimate the energy
absorbed within a simple modal structure of the materiel when the materiel’s base
attachment is the source of the shock input (or power input) to the materiel. PEM
seems most useful for power comparison among similar measurements for shock, and
has units (force*velocity) that relate to damage potential when applied to base motion
relative to mass motion.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
ANNEX B GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL SHOCK TIME HISTORY

VALIDATION AND PROCESSING
B.1. INTRODUCTION
This Annex provides additional guidelines for shock time history assessment including
validation; i.e., to detect any measurement system anomalies that would invalidate the
measurement. For massive field shock measurement programs where time and
budget constraints do not allow validation of individual shocks, at least one shock time
history from each measurement channel needs to be individually validated, and careful
examination of the time history for each subsequent shock from the measurement
channel be examined for gross anomalies. Consistency relative to the test
specification for processed information is acceptable as long as any inconsistency is
investigated under shock time history validation. For example, the Normal Tolerance
Limit (Annex C) when properly applied should be used only for collections of SRS
estimates that have a similar shape; otherwise the variance is inflated beyond what
might exist for field measured data under repeated experimental measurements.
B.2. COMPLEX SHOCKS
1. This Method and this Annex are focused upon simple shocks such as in Figure
A-3 (and repeated below as Figure B-1). Many shocks are not simple in nature. Figure
B-2 displays a complex shock. The phenomenon producing this shock would appear
to have three “rebounds”. If it can be traced to a distinct phenomenon, the last of the
four shocks might be separated out as a simple shock from the other three. A trained
analyst and a clear understanding of the shock producing phenomenon are needed to
justify any such decomposition of this complex shock. It probably would not be possible
to use SRS synthesis for laboratory test, leaving TWR as the only option for laboratory
testing. Cases in which it would appear that several “simple shocks” are in series
should rely upon a trained analyst to identify individual “simple shocks” in concert with
goals of the characterization, analysis, and specification. Any decomposition of a
series of shocks should be related to the phenomenon producing the shock. For
example, a catapult shock represents a non-simple shock that could be specified as
two independent simple shocks, separated in time by approximately three seconds with
an intervening transient vibration. See Figure 11. Gunfire Shock presents information
on a repeated shock, the repetition rate being the gun-firing rate. The direct replication
method is preferred over the synthesis method when non-simple shocks are being
considered.
2. Generally, this Method has no recommendations beyond the use of TWR for
laboratory test specification and laboratory testing for such complex shocks. It is
important to maintain the integrity of the complex shock to the extent possible.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403

100
80
Tpre Tpost
60
40
20
Acceleration (G)
-20
-40
Te
-60
TE
-80
-100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (sec)
Figure B-1: Shock Time History with Segment Identification and Te and TE Time
Intervals Illustrated
Figure B-2: A Complex Shock

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
B.3. ADDITIONAL SIMPLE SHOCK PROCESSING AND VALIDATION
B.3.1. INTRODUCTION
In Annex A, paragraph 1 of this method, the simple shock time segment for the
instrumentation noise floor, the shock and the post-shock noise floor are identified. In
addition 𝑇𝑒 and 𝑇𝐸 are specified. Since the SRS is the primary analysis descriptor, both
maximax acceleration and maximax pseudo-velocity estimates of the segments are
displayed and interpreted. For verification purposes, the shock maximax positive and
negative SRS estimates are displayed. Comparability of these estimates showed no
signs of the shock being invalid. In this paragraph the following analysis will be
undertaken providing (1) additional analysis of the shock, and (2) additional information
regarding the validity of the shock. In particular:
a. The time history instantaneous root-mean-square.
b. The shock velocity and displacement displayed.
c. The time history ESD estimate displayed.
Paragraphs 1.7 & 1.8 of Annex A of this Method reference more advanced processing
that is applicable to a single simple shock or useful in summarizing the information in
an ensemble of shocks. No such advanced processing is provided in this Method.
B.3.2. INSTANTANEOUS ROOT-MEAN-SQUARE (RMS)
1. The “instantaneous rms” provides useful information that may not be apparent
from examining the amplitude time history. In order to establish shock time intervals
for processing, it is useful to consider the “instantaneous rms” of a measurement
level. For the measurement a  t  0  t  T , the instantaneous rms level is defined over
the same interval as follows: 𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑠 (𝑡) = √𝑎2 (𝑡) ≥ 0 𝑓𝑜𝑟 0 ≤ 𝑡 < 𝑇 where “irms” stands
for “instantaneous root-mean-square level”. It is assumed that any DC offset in a
digitized measurement signal, a  t  , has been removed prior to computing 𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑠 .
Figure B-3 displays the irms in absolute terms and in dB. In the dB display, no negative
values are displayed. Observe that 𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑠 is computed point by point. Therefore, Apk
as referenced in paragraph 1.3 in Annex A of this method, will be the maximum
computed 𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑠 .
2. From the example of Figure B-3, it is clear that the “signal” approaches 40 dB,
while the “noise floor” is on the order of 3 dB, roughly a signal-to-noise ratio of 37 dB.
Relative to identifying the time of the beginning of the post-shock noise floor, 𝑇𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡 ,
it is a matter for an experienced analyst in concert with the objectives of the shock
assessment. Almost assuredly, post-shock instantaneous rms is greater than the
pre-shock instantaneous rms; i.e., 𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑠 (𝑇𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡 ) > 𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑠 (𝑡) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡 ≤ 𝑇𝑃𝑟𝑒 since the

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Figure B-3: Shock Time History Instantaneous Root-Mean-Square
measurement seldom returns to the measurement system noise floor levels

because of change of boundary conditions as a result of the shock. If there is indication
of periodic behavior in the time trace for 𝑡 > 𝑇𝑃𝑘 , the analyst must decide if analysis
over this periodic “ringing” behavior is important for the shock specification. For SRS
shock synthesis, it will be difficult to capture such periodic behavior and duplicate it in
testing. For waveform replication, this periodic “ringing” behavior should be retained
over a minimum of ten cycles if possible. For establishing the end of the range of T e
for a simple “well-behaved,” i.e., sharply decaying shocks, it is recommended that the
analyst examine times 𝑡 at which 𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑠 (𝑡) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡 > 𝑇𝑃𝑘 is at least 20 dB (preferably 40
dB) below 𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑠 (𝑇𝑃𝑘 ), and based upon judgment, select the zero-crossing for defining
the end of beginning of 𝑇𝑒 (or beginning of 𝑇𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡 ). Generally, criteria for defining and
automatically determining 𝑇𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡 are left to the discretion of the analyst, and selection of
𝑇𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡 is much more inconsequential in analysis than selection of 𝑇𝑃𝑟𝑒 . An estimate of
the measurement system noise floor level will be useful in establishing 𝑇𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡 . If
arbitrary specification of 𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑠 (𝑡) levels is not feasible, then a relatively robust way of
specifying the end of a shock and the beginning of the post-shock noise floor is to
begin at the end of the measured data, T , and compute the mean rms signal level until
a noticeable change in level is apparent. This can be accomplished by selecting an
averaging time; e.g., ~5 percent of the estimated duration of the shock, and computing
a moving average of time history values in the measurement system noise floor and
post-shock noise floor, where the average is shifted at least ten times within an
averaging time window and ideally computing the average at each time point. Usually,

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
plotting these rms levels leads to simple identification of 𝑇𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡 . Specifying the
normalized random error for the rms estimate can enhance this procedure.
3. This error is given by 𝜀𝑟 = 1⁄2√𝐵𝑇 for bandwidth 𝐵 and averaging time 𝑇. A 95

 
percent confidence interval is defined by ˆ x 1  2 r    x  ˆ x 1  2 r  . For 𝜀𝑟 ≈ 0.025
then [0.95𝜎̂𝑥 ≤ 𝜎𝑥 ≤ 1.05𝜎̂𝑥 ]. Estimating both the measurement system noise floor
and post-shock noise floor levels (standard deviations) for a specified normalized
random error; e.g., 0.025, computing the 95 percent confidence intervals and
determining the degree of overlap of the measurement system noise floor and post-
shock noise floor confidence intervals can provide an analytical criterion for
specifying the end of a shock. Excessive noise that may not be Gaussian in form in
the post-shock noise floor may be an indication of a degraded instrumentation signal
conditioning system as a result of the shock; e.g., broken accelerometer sensing
element, amplifier slew rate exceeded, etc. In this case, the post-shock integrity of the
measurement system needs to be validated (see paragraph 4 below).
4. If such computation and subsequent displays are not available, the assessment
for the end of the shock, and beginning of the post-shock noise floor can be determined
based on examination of a representative sample of the positive and negative peaks
in the time history (usually starting from the end of the measurement and avoiding
single spurious “noise spikes”) without regard to sign. In this case, the maximum peak
(positive or negative) can be estimated in absolute units, and then a -20 dB, -30 dB,
and -40 dB level down from the validated peak Apk , estimated by -y = 20 log10(|Apk|/|A|)
for y the desired dB decrement, and A representing either a positive or negative peak.
5. Because of the need to balance the normalized random error with the
normalized bias error to determine optimum averaging times, it is not recommended
that the instantaneous rms values be smoothed through short-time-averaging.
B.3.3. SHOCK VELOCITY/DISPLACEMENT VALIDATION CRITERIA
1. Two steps are necessary for examining an unprocessed acceleration time

history for purposes of validation.
a. The first step is to clearly define the bandwidth of the measurement time
history. The signal conditioning configuration and the ESD estimate to
be discussed in paragraph B.3.4 (below) will be helpful. The time history
bandwidth will determine if TWR is a laboratory test option.
b. The second step relates to integration of the time history to see if the
velocity and displacement make physical sense. Velocity can usually be
determined from direct integration of the shock acceleration after the
shock has had its mean removed (velocity begins at zero and ends at
zero), or has been high pass filtered to remove any DC component and
other very low frequency information. Subsequent removal of the velocity

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
mean or DC information in the velocity allows integration of the velocity

to get displacement. As a minimum requirement, shock acceleration time
traces should be integrated to provide velocity, and the velocity should
have a clear physical interpretation; e.g., oscillatory behavior and near
zero velocity at the “beginning” and the “end” of the shock. Velocity tends
to be quite sensitive to sensor or signal conditioning anomalies that
invalidate measurements. Integration of the velocity to obtain
displacement should be considered an extended requirement, and
reasonable values for displacement should be apparent. The form of
velocity (or displacement) with respect to oscillatory behavior needs to
be examined for reasonableness. That is, a form of velocity that displays
little oscillatory behavior should be suspect. Figure B-4 displays velocity
computed via mean removal alone. Figure B-5 displays the results of
integrating velocity to arrive at displacement. For displacement, “DC”
removal was performed on the velocity time history. Examination of both
these plots, knowing the physical nature of the test, shows (1)
reasonableness of peak amplitudes, and range from positive to negative
values, (2) distinct and substantial oscillatory behavior during the “shock,”
and (3) characteristic pre- and post-shock noise floor behavior. It would
appear that the bandlimited measurement does not have readily
identifiable anomalies, and the acceleration time trace can be considered
valid for further processing that is designed to either support or refute this
validation.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Figure B-4: Measurement Velocity via Integration of Mean (DC) Removed

Acceleration
Figure B-5: Measurement Displacement via Integration of Velocity After Mean

(DC) Removal

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
2. At this point in the analysis, if the velocity and displacement validation checks,
particularly the velocity validation check, do not seem to correspond with the physics
of the test, a detailed investigation of the reason for this discrepancy must be instigated.
For example, velocities that are not physically realizable call for such an investigation.
For one of a kind and expensive tests, it may be possible to recover meaningful data
based upon advanced processing techniques.
B.3.4. ESD ESTIMATE
The ESD is a single block periodogram sampled at a uniform set of frequencies

distributed over the bandwidth of interest, and displayed as a two-dimensional plot of
2
amplitude units ( "units  sec Hz" ) versus frequency in Hz. In determining the estimate,
the Fast Fourier Transform block size must include the entire shock above the
measurement system noise floor interval, 𝑇𝑒 , otherwise the low frequency components
will be biased. Selection of an analysis filter bandwidth may require padding with zeros
beyond the effective duration 𝑇𝑒 . Zero padding results in a frequency interpolation of
the ESD estimate. Generally, a rectangular window will be assumed in the time
domain, however, other windows are permissible; e.g., Kaiser, as long as the analyst
understands the effects of the window shape in the frequency domain, since time
domain multiplication results in frequency domain convolution. The ESD description is
useful for comparing the distribution of energy within selected frequency bands among
several shocks, provided the analysis frequency bandwidth is the same, and it is
realized that the estimates have approximately 100% normalized random error.
Figure B-6 displays the ESD estimate for the shock time history in Figure B-1. By either
(1) averaging n adjacent ESD ordinates (keeping estimate bias a minimum), or (2)
averaging n independent, but statistically equivalent ESD estimates, the percentage of
normalized random error can be decreased by a factor of 1 n . Frequency averaging
for periodiogram estimates is well defined in paragraph 7.1 reference j. ESD estimates
for noise floor segments tend not to be particularly useful for examining the validity of
the measurement system because of the nondescript behavior of the noise floor.
For validation purposes, the ESD estimate should display proper frequency domain
characteristics. In particular, the DC region should be rolled-off if the DC time history
component has been removed, and the maximum bandwidth levels should be rolled-
off if aliasing is not present. If the maximum bandwidth levels show an increase, it is
quite possible that aliasing is present provided the time history has not been previously
filtered. An ESD estimate needs to be computed on a high-passed time history that
has been not bandlimited by digital filtering in any way.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Figure B-6: Shock ESD Estimate
B.4. SHOCK IDENTIFICATION AND ANOMALOUS MEASUREMENT BEHAVIOR
1. In the course of examination of some 216 mechanical shocks from a single test
series (refer to paragraph 7.1.3) the variation in time history form is substantial, and
requires the judgment of an analyst for development of a specification for which shock
synthesis for an electrodynamic exciter might be appropriate. Figures B-7 through
B-9 display typical anomalous time histories related to signal conditioning or transducer
problems. The identification of the problem is assumed, and generally based upon a
visual examination of the time history.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Figure B-7: Measurement Input Overdriving the Signal Conditioning with

Clipping
Figure B-8: Noisy or Missing Measurement Signals

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Figure B-9: Combination Amplifier Overdriving and Noise
2. Based on similar displays, all of these time histories must be rejected and the
source of the problem identified before continuing to make measurements.
Figure B-8 illustrates noise in the system that could be from a loose connector or even
a missing sensor. Once again, measurement time histories of this form need to be
rejected. Measurement time histories with a few clearly identified noise “spikes” may
often be “corrected” by a trained analyst and used.
3. Finally, Figure B-9 illustrates a combination of amplifier over driving and noise
corruption. Once again, this measurement must be rejected.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
ANNEX C STATISTICAL AND PROBABLILISTIC CONSIERATIONS FOR

DEVELOPING LIMITS ON PREDICTED AND PROCESSED DATA ESTIMATES
C.1. SCOPE
C.1.1. PURPOSE
This Annex provides information relative to the statistical and probabilistic

characterization of a set of data for the purpose of defining an “upper limit” on the data
set. Such an upper limit may be subsequently used for an enveloping procedure for
specification development (this Annex provides no guidance on “enveloping
procedures,” where an “enveloping procedure” is defined as a procedure providing
polynomial interpolation of spectral information for break point definition used directly
in exciter control). Although limit estimates defined below may be applicable over a
range of different independent variables it will be assumed for convenience that the
independent variable is labeled “frequency”. (For other independent variables; e.g.,
time, serial correlation in the estimates may need to be accounted for in establishing
limits.) It is assumed that input is empirical and representative of one of more random
processes with unknown probabilistic specification (i.e., if the probabilistic structure of
the random processes is known, statistical considerations contained herein would not
be pertinent.)
C.1.2. APPLICATION
Information in this Annex is generally applicable to two or more frequency domain

estimates that are either predicted based on given information, or on time domain
measurements processed in the frequency domain according to an appropriate
technique; e.g., for stationary random vibration, the processing would be an ASD; for
a very short transient the processing could be an SRS, ESD, or FS. Given estimates
in the frequency domain, information in this Annex will allow the establishment of upper
limits on a data set in a statistically correct way with potential for probabilistic
interpretation. Statistically based lower limits may be established on a data set of
positive amplitude; e.g., ASD or SRS estimates, by inverting the amplitudes and
proceeding as in the case of establishment of upper limits, subsequently inverting the
resulting ‘upper limit’ for the desired statistically based lower limit. When using a dB
representation of amplitude, the process of inversion represents a change in sign for
the amplitude, and subsequent application of the ‘upper limit’ procedure such that with
sign reversal results in the desired statistically based lower limit.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
C.2. DEVELOPMENT
C.2.1. LIMIT ESTIMATE SET SELECTION
It is assumed that the analyst has clearly defined the objective of the prediction and/or
measurement assessment; i.e., to provide a statistically viable limit estimate.
Prediction estimates, measurement estimates, or a combination of prediction and
measurement estimates may be considered in the same manner. It is assumed that
uncertainty in individual measurements (processing error) does not affect the limit
considerations. For measured field data digitally processed such that estimates of the
ASD, SRS, ESD, or FS are obtained for single sample records, it is imperative to
summarize the overall statistics of "similar" estimates selected in a way so as to not
bias the limits. Since excessive estimate variance at any independent variable value
may lead to overly conservative or meaningless limits depending upon the procedure
selected, this choice of “similar estimates” is a way of controlling the variance in the
final limit estimates. To ensure that similar estimates are not physically biased, the
measurement locations might be chosen randomly, consistent with the measurement
objectives. Likewise, similar estimates may be defined as (1) estimates at a single
location on materiel that has been obtained from repeated testing under essentially
identical experimental conditions; (2) estimates on materiel that have been obtained
from one test, where the estimates are taken (a) at several neighboring locations
displaying a degree of response homogeneity, or (b) in "materiel zones"; i.e., points of
similar response at varying locations, or (3) some combination of (1) and (2). In any
case, similar estimates assume that there is a certain degree of homogeneity among
the estimates across the frequency band of interest.
C.2.2. ESTIMATE PROCESSING CONSIDERATIONS
Once the set of “similar estimates” has been identified the following list of assumptions
can be used to ensure limit determination is meaningful.
a. All estimates are defined over the same bandwidth and at the same
independent variable (this is referred to as a “fixed design”).
NOTE: A “random design” allows the independent variable to vary among

estimates and requires principles of distribution-free non-parametric
regression techniques to assess the relationship among the estimates.
b. The uncertainty or error in individual estimate processing (random or bias

processing error) does not significantly affect limit considerations.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
NOTE: For Fourier based estimates such as ASD, ESD or FS, the estimate
accuracy will be defined in terms of statistical degrees of freedom. For example,
a basic periodogram estimate has two statistical degrees of freedom, but
through block averaging (in time) using the Welch procedure or averaging of
adjacent frequencies (in frequency), the statistical degrees of freedom in the
estimate can be increased with subsequent decrease in estimate random error,
but potential increase in corresponding estimate bias error. It is important in
making estimates that the processing error be minimized (or optimized) in some
sense through either extending (if possible) the stationary random time history
processing length, or by increasing the estimate bandwidth by frequency
averaging. In the case of non-Fourier based estimates such as the SRS, there
is little guidance on processing bandwidth selection, except that based upon
physical considerations for single-degree-of-freedom systems. In these cases,
recommend selection of different damping factors along with bandwidths, and
comparing the limits.
c. Individual estimates from a given measurement are uncorrelated with

one another; i.e., there is no serial correlation with respect to the
independent variable.
NOTE: For Fourier based estimates, this assumption is usually fulfilled

because of the “orthogonality” of the Fourier transform. For non-Fourier based
estimates; e.g., SRS, some serial correlation in estimates is unavoidable.
d. Transformed estimates often are more in line with the assumptions

behind the limit determination procedures. For example, using a
logarithm transform to yield the estimates in dB will generally leave the
estimate set at a given frequency closer to being normally distributed.
e. Near “optimal limit estimates” may be determined potentially by

reprocessing available time trace information through change in the
spacing of the independent variable; i.e., the analysis bandwidth. For the
case of prediction, this would mean interpolation of the given prediction
estimates.
f. Parametric and non-parametric based limit estimates are available. The

analyst should select one or more limit estimates that best aligns with (a)
the desired interpretation of the limit assessment, and (b) the character
of the set of “similar estimates”.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
C.2.3. PARAMETRIC UPPER LIMIT STATISTICAL ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS
In all the formulas for the estimate of the statistical upper limit of a set of N predictions
or processed estimates at a single frequency within the overall estimate bandwidth,
{ x1, x2, ……..xN },
it is assumed that (1) the estimates will be logarithm transformed to bring the overall
set of measurements closer to those sampled of a normal distribution, and (2) the
measurement selection bias error is negligible. Since the normal and “t” distribution
are symmetric, the formulas below apply for the lower bound by changing the sign
between the mean and the standard deviation quantity to minus. It is assumed here
that all estimates are at a single frequency or for a single bandwidth, and that estimates
among bandwidths are independent, so that each bandwidth under consideration may
be processed individually, and the results summarized on one plot over the entire
bandwidth as a function of frequency. For
yi = log10(xi) i = 1,2,……,N
Mean estimate for true mean, y is given by

1 N
my 
N

i 1
yi
and the unbiased estimate of the standard deviation for the true standard deviation y
is given by
N
 y  my 
2
i
sy  i 1
N 1
C.2.3.1. NTL - Upper Normal One-Sided Tolerance Limit
1. The upper normal one-sided tolerance limit on the proportion  of population

values that will be exceeded with a confidence coefficient, , is given by NTL(N, β, ),
where
NTL  N,  ,    10
my  sy kN ,  , 
where kN,,, is the one-sided normal tolerance factor given in Table C-I for selected
values of N,  and . NTL is termed the upper one-sided normal tolerance interval (of
the original set of estimates) for which 100  percent of the values will lie below the
limit with 100  percent confidence. For  = 0.95 and = 0.50, this is referred to as the
95/50 limit.
2. The table (Table C-I), an expanded version from paragraph 7.1, reference b,
contains the k value for selected N, , . In general this method of estimation should
not be used for small N with values of  and  close to 1 since it is likely the assumption
of the normality of the logarithm transform of the estimates will be violated.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
Table C-I: Normal Tolerance Factors for Upper Tolerance Limit.
 = 0.50  = 0.90  = 0.95

N = = = = = = = = =
0.90 0.95 0.99 0.90 0.95 0.99 0.90 0.95 0.99
3 1.50 1.94 2.76 4.26 5.31 7.34 6.16 7.66 10.55
4 1.42 1.83 2.60 3.19 3.96 5.44 4.16 5.14 7.04
5 1.38 1.78 2.53 2.74 3.40 4.67 3.41 4.20 5.74
6 1.36 1.75 2.48 2.49 3.09 4.24 3.01 3.71 5.06
7 1.35 1.73 2.46 2.33 2.89 3.97 2.76 3.40 4.64
8 1.34 1.72 2.44 2.22 2.75 3.78 2.58 3.19 4.35
9 1.33 1.71 2.42 2.13 2.65 3.64 2.45 3.03 4.14
10 1.32 1.70 2.41 2.07 2.57 3.53 2.35 2.91 3.98
11 1.32 1.70 2.40 2.01 2.50 3.44 2.28 2.82 3.85
12 1.32 1.69 2.39 1.97 2.45 3.37 2.21 2.74 3.75
13 1.31 1.69 2.39 1.93 2.40 3.31 2.16 2.67 3.66
14 1.31 1.68 2.38 1.90 2.36 3.26 2.11 2.61 3.58
15 1.31 1.68 2.38 1.87 2.33 3.21 2.07 2.57 3.52
16 1.31 1.68 2.38 1.84 2.30 3.17 2.03 2.52 3.46
17 1.31 1.68 2.37 1.82 2.27 3.14 2.00 2.49 3.41
18 1.30 1.67 2.37 1.80 2.25 3.11 1.97 2.45 3.37
19 1.30 1.67 2.37 1.78 2.23 3.08 1.95 2.42 3.33
20 1.30 1.67 2.37 1.77 2.21 3.05 1.93 2.40 3.30
21 1.30 1.67 2.36 1.75 2.19 3.03 1.91 2.37 3.26
22 1.30 1.67 2.36 1.74 2.17 3.01 1.89 2.35 3.23
23 1.30 1.67 2.36 1.72 2.16 2.99 1.87 2.33 3.21
24 1.30 1.67 2.36 1.71 2.15 2.97 1.85 2.31 3.18
25 1.30 1.67 2.36 1.70 2.13 2.95 1.84 2.29 3.16
26 1.30 1.66 2.36 1.69 2.12 2.94 1.82 2.28 3.14
27 1.30 1.66 2.35 1.68 2.11 2.92 1.81 2.26 3.12
28 1.30 1.66 2.35 1.67 2.10 2.91 1.80 2.25 3.10
29 1.29 1.66 2.35 1.66 2.09 2.90 1.79 2.23 3.08
30 1.29 1.66 2.35 1.66 2.08 2.88 1.78 2.22 3.06
32 1.29 1.66 2.35 1.64 2.06 2.86 1.76 2.20 3.03
34 1.29 1.66 2.35 1.63 2.05 2.84 1.74 2.18 3.01
36 1.29 1.66 2.35 1.62 2.03 2.82 1.72 2.16 2.98
38 1.29 1.66 2.35 1.61 2.02 2.81 1.71 2.14 2.96
40 1.29 1.66 2.35 1.60 2.01 2.79 1.70 2.13 2.94
42 1.29 1.66 2.34 1.59 2.00 2.78 1.69 2.11 2.92
44 1.29 1.66 2.34 1.58 1.99 2.77 1.67 2.10 2.91
46 1.29 1.66 2.34 1.57 1.98 2.76 1.66 2.09 2.89
48 1.29 1.66 2.34 1.57 1.97 2.74 1.65 2.08 2.88
50 1.29 1.65 2.34 1.56 1.97 2.73 1.65 2.07 2.86
55 1.28 1.64 2.33 1.54 1.94 2.70 1.62 2.04 2.83
60 1.28 1.64 2.33 1.53 1.93 2.68 1.60 2.02 2.80
65 1.28 1.64 2.33 1.52 1.91 2.67 1.59 2.00 2.78
70 1.28 1.64 2.33 1.51 1.90 2.65 1.58 1.99 2.76
75 1.28 1.64 2.33 1.50 1.89 2.64 1.57 1.97 2.74
80 1.28 1.64 2.33 1.49 1.88 2.63 1.56 1.96 2.73
85 1.28 1.64 2.33 1.48 1.88 2.62 1.55 1.95 2.71
90 1.28 1.64 2.33 1.48 1.87 2.61 1.54 1.94 2.70
95 1.28 1.64 2.33 1.47 1.86 2.60 1.53 1.93 2.69
100 1.28 1.64 2.33 1.47 1.86 2.60 1.52 1.92 2.68
500 1.28 1.64 2.33 1.36 1.74 2.44 1.38 1.76 2.47
1000 1.28 1.64 2.33 1.34 1.71 2.41 1.35 1.73 2.43
 1.28 1.64 2.33 1.34 1.71 2.41 1.35 1.73 2.43
*Table values small sample 3 <= N <= 50 and large sample 50 < N.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
C.2.3.2. NPL - Upper Normal Prediction Limit
The upper normal prediction limit (NPL) is the value of x (for the original data set) that
will exceed the next predicted or measured value with confidence coefficient, , and is
given by
1 t
my  sy 1 N  1;
N
NPLN ,    10
where  = 1 - . tN-1;  is the student t distribution variable with N-1 degrees of freedom
at the 100  = 100(1-) percentage point of the distribution. This estimate, because of
the assumptions behind its derivation, requires careful interpretation relative to
measurements made in a given location or over a given estimate zone (paragraph 7.1,
reference b).
.2.4. NON-PARAMETRIC UPPER LIMIT STATISTICAL ESTIMATE

PROCEDURES
If there is some reason to believe that the estimate at a given frequency, after they
have been logarithm-transformed, will not be sufficiently normally distributed to apply
the parametric limits defined above, consideration must be given to nonparametric
limits; i.e., limits that are not dependent upon assumptions concerning the distribution
of estimate values. In this case there is no need to transform the data estimates. All
of the assumptions concerning the selection of estimates are applicable for
nonparametric estimates. With additional manipulation, lower bound limits may be
computed.
C.2.4.1. Envelope (ENV) - Upper Limit
The maximum upper limit is determined by selecting the maximum estimate value in
the data set.
ENV(N) = max{ x1, x2, ……..xN }
The main disadvantage of this estimate is that the distributional properties of the
estimate set are neglected, so that no probability of exceedance of this value is
specified. In the case of outliers in the estimate set, ENV(N) may be far too
conservative. ENV(N) is also sensitive to the bandwidth of the estimates.
C.2.4.2. Distribution Free Limit (DFL) - Upper Distribution-Free Tolerance Limit
1. The distribution-free tolerance limit that uses the original untransformed sample
values is defined to be the upper limit for which at least the fraction  of all sample
values will be less than the maximum predicted or measured value with a confidence
coefficient of “”. This limit is based on order statistic considerations.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
DFL N, ,    x max ;   1   N

where xmax is the maximum value of the set of estimates, , is the fractional proportion
below xmax, and  is the confidence coefficient. N,  and  are not independently
selectable. That is
a. Given N and assuming a value of , 0    1, the confidence coefficient

can be determined.
b. Given N and , the proportion  can be determined.
c. Given  and , the number of samples can be determined such that the
proportion and confidence can be satisfied (for statistical experiment
design).
2. DFL(N,,) may not be meaningful for small samples of data, N < 13, and
comparatively large ,  > 0.95. DFL(N,,) is sensitive to the estimate bandwidth.
C.2.4.3. Empirical Tolerance Limit (ETL) - Upper Empirical Tolerance Limit
The empirical tolerance limit uses the original sample values and assumes the
predicted or measured estimate set is composed of N measurement points over M
frequency analysis bandwidths, for a total of NM estimate values. That is
{x11, x12, …., x1M; x21, x22, …., x2M; xN1, xN2, ….xNM}
where mj is the average estimate at the jth frequency bandwidth over all N
measurement points
1 N
mj =  x ij j = 1, 2, …., M
N i 1
mj is used to construct an estimate set normalized over individual frequency

resolution bandwidths. That is
{u} = {u11, u12, ……, u1M, u21, u22, …, u2M, uN1, uN2, ….., uNM}
xij
where: uij = i = 1, 2, …., N; j = 1, 2, …., M
mj
The normalized estimate set, {u}, is ordered from smallest to largest and u = u(k) where
k
u(k) is the kth ordered element of set {u} for 0 <   1 is defined. For each resolution
MN
frequency bandwidth, then
ETL() = umj = xj j = 1, 2, …., M

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
3. Using mj implies that the value of ETL() at j exceeds  percent of the values
with 50 percent confidence. If a value other than m j is selected, the confidence level
may increase. It is important that the set of estimates is homogeneous to use this limit;
i.e., they have about the same spread in all frequency bands. In general, apply this
limit only if the number of measurement points, N, is greater than 10.
C.3. EXAMPLE
C.3.1. INPUT TEST DATA SET
Table C-II represents a homogeneous table of normally distributed numbers of unity

variance around a mean value of 3.5 with N=14 rows and M=5 columns (rows could
represent fourteen individual test measurements and columns could represent test
values over five data sets). Table C-II is used in the upper limit determinations in
paragraphs C.3.2 and C.3.3 below.
Table C-II: Input Test Data Set.
Data Set Data Set Data Set Data Set Data Set
1 2 3 4 5
3.0674 3.3636 2.0590 2.4435 3.8803
1.8344 3.6139 4.0711 4.9151 2.4909
3.6253 4.5668 3.1001 2.6949 3.4805
3.7877 3.5593 4.1900 4.0287 3.4518
2.3535 3.4044 4.3156 3.7195 3.5000
4.6909 2.6677 4.2119 2.5781 3.1821
4.6892 3.7902 4.7902 1.3293 4.5950
3.4624 2.1638 4.1686 3.4408 1.6260
3.8273 4.2143 4.6908 2.4894 3.9282
3.6746 5.1236 2.2975 4.1145 4.3956
3.3133 2.8082 3.4802 4.0077 4.2310
4.2258 4.3580 3.3433 5.1924 4.0779
2.9117 4.7540 1.8959 4.0913 3.5403
5.6832 1.9063 3.7573 2.8564 4.1771
C.3.2. PARAMETRIC UPPER LIMITS
The upper normal one-sided tolerance limit (NTL) is computed as 95/50 limit with 50
percent confidence that at least 95 percent of the values will lie below this limit for k N,
,  = 1.68 from Table C-I. The upper normal prediction limit (NPL) is computed with a
95 confidence coefficient at the 95 percent point of the distribution where tN-1; = t13;0.05
= 1.771. Figure C-1 displays the data, and Figure C-2 displays the two parametric
upper limits.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
NOTE: The degree of conservativeness in the normal prediction upper limit over
the normal tolerance limit.
10.00
Amplitude (units)
0.00
1.000 Amplitude (units) 5.000
Figure C-1: Input Test Data Set

10.00
Amplitude (units)
0
1.000 Amplitude (units) 5.000
Figure C-2: Parametric and Non-Parametric Upper Limits

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
C.3.3. NON-PARAMETRIC UPPER LIMITS
The envelope limit (ENV) along with the upper distribution-free tolerance limit (DFL) for
 proportion of the population set at 0.95 and  confidence coefficient of 0.51 for N=14
samples is displayed in Figure C-2. This represents one curve with two interpretations.
The 95 percent upper empirical tolerance limit (ETL) is also displayed on Figure C-2
where at least 95 percent of the values will be exceeded by this limit with 50 percent
confidence. The data are displayed on Figure C-2 for comparison purposes.
C.3.4. OBSERVATIONS
The “flatness” of the upper limits on Figure C-2 attests to the homogeneity of the data
in Table C-II. It is apparent from Figure C-2 that the upper limits for the parameters
selected are not “statistically equivalent.” Of the two upper limit estimates, the NTL is
favored if it can be established that the logarithm transform of the data set is
approximately normally distributed. The closeness of the nonparametric envelopes
attests also to the homogeneity of the data in Table C-II in addition to demonstrating,
for this case at least, the non-statistical ENV, the statistically based DFL and the ETL
basically agree with regard to the upper limit magnitude. For non-homogeneous data
sets ETL would not be expected to agree with ENV or DFL. For small data sets, ETL
may vary depending upon if parameter “k” rounds upward or downward.
C.4. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES
C.4.1. RECOMMENDED STATISTICAL PROCEDURES FOR UPPER LIMIT

ESTIMATES
Paragraph 7.1, reference b, provides a detailed discussion of the advantages and

disadvantages of estimate upper limits. The guidelines in this reference are
recommended. In all cases, plot the data carefully with a clear indication of the method
of establishing the upper limit and the assumptions behind the method used.
a. When N is sufficiently large; i.e., N > 7, establish the upper limit by using
the expression for the DFL for a selected  > 0.90 such that  > 0.50.
b. When N is not sufficiently large to meet the criterion in (a), establish the
upper limit by using the expression for the NTL. Select  and   0.50.
Variation in  will determine the degree of conservativeness of the upper
limit.
c. For N > 10 and a confidence coefficient of 0.50, the upper limit

established on the basis of ETL is acceptable and may be substituted for
the upper limit established by DFL or NTL. It is important when using
ETL to examine and confirm the homogeneity of the estimates over the
frequency bands.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
C.4.2. UNCERTAINTY FACTORS
Uncertainty factors may be added to the resulting upper limits if confidence in the data
is low or the data set is small. Factors on the order of 3 dB to 6 dB may be added.
Paragraph 7.1, reference b, recommends a 5.8 dB uncertainty factor (based on “flight-
to-flight” uncertainties of 3 dB, and “point-to-point” uncertainties of 5 dB) be used with
captive carry flight measured data to determine a maximum expected environment
using a normal tolerance limit. It is important that all uncertainties be clearly defined,
and that uncertainties are not superimposed upon estimates that already account for
uncertainty.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 403
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
METHOD 404
CONSTANT ACCELERATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-1
CHAPTER 2 TEST GUIDANCE ............................................................................. 2-1
2.3. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.4.1. Procedure I - Centrifuge .................................................................... 2-2
2.4.2. Procedure II - Trolley (Sled) ............................................................... 2-2
2.5. CONTROLS .............................................................................................. 2-2
2.5.1. Procedure I - Centrifuge .................................................................... 2-2
2.5.2. Procedure II - Trolley (Sled) ............................................................... 2-3
CHAPTER 3 SEVERITIES ..................................................................................... 3-1
3.1. GENERAL ................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2. SUPPORTING ASSESSMENT ................................................................. 3-1
3.3. TEST LEVELS .......................................................................................... 3-1
CHAPTER 4. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN THE TEST INSTRUCTION .. 4-1
4.1. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.2. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-1
CHAPTER 5 TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES ....................................... 5-1
5.1. TOLERANCES.......................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1. Procedure I - Centrifuge ................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2. Procedure II – Trolley (Sled) .............................................................. 5-1
5.2.1. Procedure I - Centrifuge ................................................................... 5-1
5.2.2. Procedure II – Trolley (Sled) .............................................................. 5-2
5.3. SUB SYSTEM TESTING .......................................................................... 5-2
5.4. EFFECTS OF GRAVITY AND LOAD FACTOR ........................................ 5-2
5.5. TEST PREPARATION .............................................................................. 5-3
5.5.2. Initial Checks, During the Test and Final ............................................ 5-3
5.6. PROCEDURE ........................................................................................... 5-3
ANNEX A CONSTANT ACCELERATION - GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL ............... A-1
ANNEX A TABLE
A-1. Test Severity 1 (Limit) Acceleration (Gs) .................................................. A-1
AECTP-400
METHOD 404
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 404
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1. SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this test method is to replicate the acceleration environment incurred by
conditions.
1.2. APPLICATION
resist the specified acceleration environment without unacceptable degradation of its
functional and/or structural performance. It is applicable to materiel that is installed in
aircraft, helicopter, air carried stores, surface launched missiles, and missiles in free flight.
1.3. LIMITATIONS
This test method takes no account of the rate of change of acceleration. The test method
also does not include procedures for combined static acceleration and vibration testing;
see reference a.

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
2. TEST GUIDANCE
that could occur when materiel is exposed to an acceleration environment.
a. Deflections that interfere with materiel operation.
b. Permanent deformations and fractures that disable or destroy the materiel.
c. Breakage of fasteners involving safety.
d. Short and open circuits.
e. Variations in inductance and capacitance values.
f. Malfunctions of relays.
g. Jamming or bending of mechanisms or servo controls.
h. Joint seal leaks.
i. Variation in pressure and flow regulation.
j. Cavitation of pumps.
k. Modification of the dynamics characteristics of dampers and isolators.
Where practical, measured field data should be used to develop test levels. It is
particularly important to use field data where a precise simulation is the goal. Sufficient
field data should be obtained to adequately describe the conditions being evaluated and
experienced by the materiel. As a minimum, information on the in-service acceleration
level, duration, and orientation should be obtained.
2.3. SEQUENCE
The acceleration can be potentially destructive. The Test Instructions should determine
its place in the test sequence.

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
There are two acceleration procedures. A rotary centrifuge, or a trolley, rail guided sled,
are the most common test facility techniques to achieve a desired constant acceleration.
These two procedures do not necessarily give the same acceleration input because the
centrifuge is rotary motion and the trolley is a linear acceleration. It is for the Responsible
Authority to choose the appropriate test facility according to the test items and effects to
be simulated.
2.4.1. Procedure I – Centrifuge
The centrifuge generates acceleration loads by rotation about a fixed axis. The direction
of acceleration is always radially towards the centre of rotation of the centrifuge, whereas
the direction of the load induced by acceleration is always radially away from the centre
of rotation. When mounted directly on the test arm, the test item experiences both
rotational and translational motion. The direction of the acceleration and the load induced
is constant with respect to the test item for a given rotational speed, but the test item
rotates 360 degrees for each revolution of the arm.
Certain centrifuges have counter-rotary fixtures mounted on the test arm to correct for
rotation of the test item. With this arrangement, the test item maintains a fixed direction
with respect to space, but the direction of the acceleration and the induced load rotates
360 degrees around the test item for each revolution of the arm.
2.4.2. Procedure II - Trolley (Sled)
A trolley (sled) arrangement on a track generates linear acceleration in the direction of

the sled motion. The test item mounted on the sled is uniformly subjected to the same
acceleration level as the sled experiences. The acceleration test level and the time
duration at the test level is dependent upon the length of the track, and the sled propulsion
system.
This arrangement can produce a significant vibration environment. This vibration may be
more severe that the normal service use environment. Careful attention to the attachment
design may be needed to isolate the test item from this vibration environment. Telemetry
and/or ruggedized instrumentation is required to measure the performance of the test
item during the test.
2.5. CONTROLS
2.5.1. Procedure I – Centrifuge
Where necessary during test, the acceleration shall be checked using suitable sensors.
Variations of acceleration shall be controlled within the tolerance requirements of
paragraph 5.1.1.

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
The speed rise and descent times should be such that the transverse accelerations are
lower than the accelerations specified along the test axis.
2.5.2. Procedure II - Trolley (Sled)
Where necessary during the test, the acceleration shall be checked using suitable
sensors. Variation of acceleration shall be controlled within the tolerance requirement of
paragraph 5.1.2.

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
3. SEVERITIES
3.1. GENERAL
When practical, test levels and durations will be established using projected service use
profiles and other relevant available data. When data are not available, initial test
severities are to be found in Annex A. These severities should be used in conjunction
with the appropriate information given in AECTP 200. These severities should be
considered as initial values until measured data are obtained. Where necessary, these
severities can be supplemented at a later stage by data acquired directly from an
environmental measurement programme.
3.2. SUPPORTING ASSESSMENT
It should be noted that the test selected may not necessarily be an adequate simulation
of the complete environment, and consequently a supporting assessment may be
necessary to complement the test results.
3.3. TEST LEVELS
Generally, the test includes two severities:
Severity 1: Performance at limit acceleration – materiel in operation.
The purpose is to check the correct operation of materiel while it is

subjected to the limit accelerations to be encountered in service and
to check that there is no residual deformation.
Limit acceleration is the maximum acceleration that the structure of

the materiel should withstand without residual deformation.
Severity 2: Performance in extreme acceleration – materiel not necessarily in

operation.
The purpose is to check the resistance of materiel to extreme

acceleration.
Extreme acceleration is the maximum acceleration that the structure

of the materiel should withstand without breaking, but may have
residual deformation. It is the limit acceleration times a factor of 1.5.

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 404

INSTRUCTION
4. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN THE TEST INSTRUCTION
4.1. COMPULSORY
a. The location of the control accelerometer
c. The orthogonal reference associated with the test item and its origin.
d. The pre-conditioning time.
e. The operation or non-operation of the test item during the test.
f. The operation checks to be scheduled: initial, during the test, and final;
in particular, for the initial and final checks, specify whether they are to
be made with the test item installed on the test apparatus.
g. The necessary reference dimensional checks, initial and final.
h. The definition of the test severity.
4.2. IF REQUIRED
a. The special features in assembling the test item.
b. The effect of gravity and consequent precautions.
c. Details relating to radial acceleration gradient.
d. Details necessary concerning the speed rise and descent times.

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
5. TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES
5.1. Tolerances
5.1.1. Procedure I - Centrifuge
The acceleration obtained should be the acceleration required, within ±10%, at all points
of the test item, by setting the rotation speed and distance r. The acceleration due to
gravity is not taken into account.
When the size of the materiel is large in relation to the length of the arm, the Test
Instruction may require that only certain sensitive points should be subjected to the
acceleration required ± 10%.
5.1.2. Procedure II – Trolley (Sled)
The acceleration obtained should be the acceleration required within ±10 % at all points
on the test item.
The test item should be mounted on the test facility as installed in-service.
For safety reasons, take care to ensure the test item is not ejected from the test machine
if the attachment points break. Any safety device used should not induce any additional
stress during the test. A stress calculation should be made on the test set-up before the
test.
When using a centrifuge, the wires and pipes between the slip ring and the test item
should be rigidly fixed on the arm of the centrifuge. The terms, front side, upper side, left
and right hand side designate the sides of the test item referenced in relation to the
orthogonal axes pertaining to the carrier.
5.2.1. Procedure I - Centrifuge
The orientation of the test item on the centrifuge shall be as follows:
a. Forward acceleration: front side of the test item facing the centre of the
centrifuge.
b. Backward acceleration: 180° from the position above.

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
c. Upward acceleration: upper side of the test item facing the centre of the
centrifuge.
d. Downward acceleration: 180° from the position above.
e. Acceleration to the left: left hand side of the test item facing the centre of
the centrifuge.
f. Acceleration to the right: right hand side of the test item facing the centre
of the centrifuge.
5.2.2. Procedure II – Trolley (Sled)
The orientation of the test item on the trolley shall be as follows:
a. Backward acceleration: front side of test item facing the beginning of the
track.
b. Forward acceleration: 180° from the position above.
c. Upward acceleration: upper side of the test item facing the end of the
track.
d. Downward acceleration: 180° to the position above.
e. Acceleration to the left: left side of the test item facing the end of the
track.
f. Acceleration to the right: right side of the test item facing the end of the
track.
5.3. SUB SYSTEM TESTING
The sub systems of the materiel may be subjected to different severities. In this case,
the Test Instruction should stipulate the severity specific to each sub system.
5.4. EFFECTS OF GRAVITY AND LOAD FACTOR
Where the performance of the materiel is likely to be affected by the direction of gravity
or the load factor (mechanisms, isolators, etc.) these must be taken into account by
compensation or by suitable simulation.

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
5.5. TEST PREPARATION
Unless otherwise specified, the test item should be stabilised to its initial conditions as
stipulated in the Test Instruction.
5.5.2. Initial Checks, During the Test and Final
These checks include the controls and examinations stipulated in the Test Instruction.
The final checks are made after the materiel has been returned to rest in normal controlled
atmospheric conditions, and thermal stability is obtained.
5.6. PROCEDURE
The procedure steps apply to both the sled and trolley acceleration configurations.
Step 1 Install the test item so that the direction of the acceleration is parallel
to the axis defined by the Test Instruction.
Step 2. Make the initial checks.
Step 3. Apply the required acceleration for the specified time. The test
item is to be operated when required in the Test Instruction.
Step 4. Make the final checks.
Step 5. Unless otherwise specified, apply the constant acceleration in each

of the other five remaining directions. The order of application is
not mandatory, but it is advisable to begin with the lowest
acceleration level.
Step 6. In all cases, record the information required by the Test Instruction.

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
6. EVALUATION OF TEST RESULTS
The test item performances shall meet all appropriate Test Instruction requirements
during and following the constant acceleration test.

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
a. Rogers J.D. et al., VIBRAFUGE – Combined Vibration and Centrifuge

Testing, 60th Shock and Vibration Symposium Proceedings, SAVIAC,
1989, volume III, page 63.

AECTP-400
METHOD 404
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 404
ANNEX A CONSTANT ACCELERATION - GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST

SEVERITY
Table A-1: Test Severity 1 (Limit) Acceleration (Gs)
Carrier Forward Backward Up Down Left Right

Light Aircraft 3 5 5 3 5 5
Propeller Aircraft 1 1.5 10 8.5 5 5
Jet Transport 1.5 2 8 5 3 3
Combat Aircraft 10 15 15 15 15 15
External Stores
wing 15 20 20 20 20 20
fuselage 10 15 15 15 15 15
Helicopter 2 2 7 3 4 4
External Stores 2 2 7 3 4 4
Missiles (free flight)
Anti-aircraft 30 10 50 50 50 50
Anti-missile 50 10 100 100 100 100
Surface target 10 10 20 20 20 20
Notes
1. Duration: unless otherwise specified, the duration shall be sufficient to
conduct checks as detailed in the Test Instruction.
2. Table acceleration data derived from multiple sources.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 404
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
METHOD 405
GUNFIRE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-1
2.3. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.4. RATIONALE FOR PROCEDURES AND PARAMETERS ......................... 2-2
2.6. TYPES OF GUNFIRE MATERIEL RESPONSE SIMULATION ................ 2-3
2.7. CONTROL ................................................................................................ 2-4
2.7.1. Control Strategy ................................................................................. 2-4
2.7.2. Control Options .................................................................................. 2-5
2.7.2.1. Single Point Control............................................................................ 2-5
2.7.2.2. Multiple Point Control ......................................................................... 2-5
2.7.3. Control Methods ................................................................................. 2-5
2.7.3.1. Open Loop Vibration Control .............................................................. 2-5
2.7.3.2. Closed Loop Vibration Control ........................................................... 2-5
3.1. GENERAL ................................................................................................. 3-1
CHAPTER 4 INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN THE TEST INSTRUCTIONS 4-1
4.1. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.2. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-1
5.1. TOLERANCES.......................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1. Procedure I - Direct Reproduction of Measured Data Materiel
Response ........................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2. Procedure II - Statistically Generated Repetitive Pulse ...................... 5-1
5.1.3. Procedure III - Repetitive Pulse Shock Response Spectrum (SRS) ... 5-2
5.1.4. Procedure IV - High Level Random, SOR, NBROR Vibration ............ 5-2
5.2.1. Test set-up ......................................................................................... 5-3
5.2.1.1. General .............................................................................................. 5-3
5.2.1.2. Stores ................................................................................................. 5-3
5.3. SUBSYSTEM TESTING ........................................................................... 5-4
5.5. PROCEDURES......................................................................................... 5-4
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
5.5.1. Procedure I - Direct Reproduction of Measured Materiel

Response Data .................................................................................. 5-4
5.5.2. Procedure II - Statistically Generated Repetitive Pulse ...................... 5-5
5.5.3. Procedure III – Repetitive Pulse Shock Response Spectrum (SRS) .. 5-6
5.5.4 Procedure IV - High Level Random, SOR, NBROR Vibration ............ 5-7
ANNEX A PROCEDURE I - DIRECT REPRODUCTION OF MEASURED
MATERIEL RESPONSE DATA .......................................................... A-1
A.1. SCOPE ..................................................................................................... A-1
A.1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ A-1
A.1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... A-1
A.2. DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... A-1
A.2.1. BASIC CONSIDERATION FOR ENVIRONMENT DETERMINATION ...... A-1
A.2.2. TEST CONFIGURATION .......................................................................... A-2
A.2.3. CREATING A DIGITAL FILE OF THE GUNFIRE VIBRATION
RESPONSE .............................................................................................. A-2
A.2.4. CHARACTERIZATION OF EXCITER DRIVE SIGNAL/TEST ITEM
INVERSE FREQUENCY RESPONSE FUNCTION ................................... A-2
A.2.5. TAPERING THE INVERSE FREQUENCY RESPONSE FUNCTION ....... A-3
A.2.6. COMPUTING THE IMPULSE RESPONSE FUNCTION ........................... A-3
A.2.7. COMPUTING THE COMPENSATED EXCITER DRIVE ........................... A-3
A.2.8. REPRODUCING THE GUNFIRE MATERIEL RESPONSE ...................... A-3
A.2.9. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... A-4
A.2.10. REFERENCE AND RELATED DOCUMENTS .......................................... A-4
A.3. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES ........................................................... A-4
A.3.1. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES ........................................................... A-4
A.3.2. UNCERTAINTY FACTORS ...................................................................... A-4
ANNEX A FIGURES
A-1. Digital Flight Data...................................................................................... A-5
A-2. Swept Sine Exciter Input with Resulting Test Item Response ................... A-6
A-3. Modulus and Phase of Inverse Frequency Response Function ................ A-7
A-4. Modulus and Phase of Tapered Inverse Frequency Response
Function .................................................................................................... A-8
A-5. Impulse Response Function ..................................................................... A-9
A-6. Compensated Exciter Drive Signal Along with Resulting Test Item
Response ................................................................................................ A-10
A-7. Comparison of Measured Gunfire Materiel Response with Laboratory
Simulated Gunfire Test Item Response .................................................. A-11
ANNEX B PROCEDURE II - STATISTICALLY GENERATED REPETITIVE
PULSE MEAN (DETERMINISTIC) PULSE RESIDUAL (STOCHASTIC)
PULSE ...................................................................................................... B-1
B.1. SCOPE ..................................................................................................... B-1
B.1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ B-1
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
B.1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... B-1

B.2. DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... B-2
B.2.1. NOMENCLATURE .................................................................................... B-2
B.2.2. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... B-3
B.2.3. ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................ B-3
B.2.4. MODELING AND STATISITICS FOR DESCRIPTION OF A MATERIEL
RESPONSE TIME-VARYING RANDOM PROCESS ................................ B-5
B.2.5. SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF THE MODEL TO THE MEASURED
MATERIEL RESPONSE ........................................................................... B-8
B.2.6. IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................. B-9
B.2.7. REFERENCES AND RELATED DOCUMENTATION ............................... B-9
B.3. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES ......................................................... B-10
B.3.1. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES ......................................................... B-10
B.3.2. UNCERTAINTY FACTORS .................................................................... B-10
ANNEX B FIGURES
B-1. Fifty Round 30 mm Gunfire Event ........................................................... B-11
B-2. Ensemble Sample Time History Pulse (Pulse 37 .................................... B-11
B-3. Ensemble Residual Sample Time History Pulse (Pulse 37) .................... B-11
B-4. Ensemble Time - Varying Mean Estimate ............................................... B-12
B-5. Ensemble Time - Varying Standard Deviation ........................................ B-12
B-6. Ensemble Time - Varying Root Mean Square Estimate .......................... B-12
B-7. Energy Spectral Density Function Estimate ............................................ B-13
B-8. Short Time Energy Spectral Density Function Estimate ......................... B-13
B-9. Short Time Energy Spectral Density Function Estimate ......................... B-13
B-10. Nonstationary Model Deterministic Functions ......................................... B-14
B-11. Segmented ESD Ratio ............................................................................ B-14
B-12. Smoothed Simulation Root Variance Estimate for the Time-Varying
Mean for Simulated Ensemble Sample Sizes of 10, 25, and 50, Sample
Time Histories of Maximum and Median ................................................. B-15
B-13. Smoothed Simulation Root Variance Estimates for the Time-Varying
Standard Deviation for Simulated Ensemble Sample Size of 10, 25,
and 50 Sample Time Histories of Maximum and Median ........................ B-15
B-14. Smoothed Simulation Root Variance Estimate for the Time-Varying
Root Mean Square for Simulated Ensemble Sample Size of 10, 25,
and 50 Sample Time Histories of Maximum and Median ........................ B-15
ANNEX C PROCEDURE III - REPETITIVE PULSE SHOCK RESPONSE
SPECTRUM (SRS) ............................................................................C-1
C.1. SCOPE .....................................................................................................C-1
C.1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................C-1
C.1.2. APPLICATION ..........................................................................................C-1
C.2. DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................C-1
C.2.1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................C-1
C.2.1.1. Procedure Advantages .......................................................................C-2
C.2.1.2. Procedure Disadvantages: .................................................................C-2

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
C.2.2. TEST CONFIGURATION ..........................................................................C-2

C.2.3. CREATING A DIGITAL FILE OF THE GUNFIRE VIBRATION
RESPONSE ..............................................................................................C-2
C.2.4. COMPUTING THE SHOCK RESPONSE SPECTRA ...............................C-3
C.2.5. ESTIMATING EQUIVALENT HALF-CYCLE CONTENT OF
REPRESENTATIVE GUNFIRE MATERIEL RESPONSE PULSE.............C-3
C.2.6. SRS TRANSIENT GENERATION FOR GUNFIRE MATERIEL
RESPONSE PULSE RESPRESENTATIVE ..............................................C-3
C.2.7. SIMULATING THE GUNFIRE COMPONENT RESPONSE......................C-4
C.2.8. REFERENCE AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ..........................................C-4
C.3. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES ...........................................................C-4
C.3.1. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES ...........................................................C-4
C.3.2. UNCERTAINTY FACTORS ......................................................................C-5
ANNEX C TABLES
C-1. Wavelet Definition for SRS Gunfire Pulse .................................................C-6
ANNEX C FIGURES
C-1. Digitised Flight Data ..................................................................................C-7
C-2. Comparison of Representative Gunfire Pulse Using a Q of 10, 25, 50
and 100 .....................................................................................................C-8
C-3. SRS Gunfire Pulse Generated Using a Digital Controller ..........................C-9
C-4. SRS Pulse Gunfire Simulation ..................................................................C-9
ANNEX D PROCEDURE IV - HIGH LEVEL RANDOM VIBRATION, SOR,
NBROR, VIBRATION AND GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST
SEVERITIY ........................................................................................D-1
D.1. SCOPE .....................................................................................................D-1
D.1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................D-1
D.1.2. APPLICATION ..........................................................................................D-1
D.2. DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................D-2
D.2.1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................D-2
D.2.2. PREDICTING GUNFIRE VIBRATION SPECTRA.....................................D-2
D.2.3. DURATION OF TEST ...............................................................................D-4
D.2.4. SPECTRUM GENERATION TECHNIQUES .............................................D-4
D.2.5. REFERENCE AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ..........................................D-5
D.3. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES ...........................................................D-5
D.3.1. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES ...........................................................D-5
D.3.2. UNCERTAINTY FACTORS ......................................................................D-5
ANNEX D TABLES
D-1. Suggested Generalized Parametric Equations for Gunfire-Induced
Vibration ....................................................................................................D-6
D-2. Typical Gun Configurations Associated with Aircraft Classes ...................D-7
D-3. Gun Specifications ....................................................................................D-8
ANNEX D FIGURES
D-1. Generalised Gunfire Induced Vibration Spectrum Shape ..........................D-9
D-2. The Distance Parameter (D) and the Depth Parameter (Rs) ...................D-10
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
D-3. Multiple Guns, Closely Grouped ..............................................................D-11

D-4. Test Level Reduction Due to Gun Standoff Parameter ...........................D-11
D-5: Test Level Reduction Due to Materiel Mass Loading ..............................D-12
D-6: Test Level Reduction Due to Depth Parameter .......................................D-13
D-7: Decrease in Vibration Level with Vector Distance from Gun Muzzle .......D-13
D-8: Gunfire Peak Vibration Reduction with Distance .....................................D-14
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1. SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this test method is to replicate the gunfire environment response incurred
by systems, subsystems, components and units, hereafter called materiel, during the
specified operational conditions.
1.2. APPLICATION
resist the repetitive gunfire environment without unacceptable degradation of its
functional and/or structural performance.
1.3. LIMITATIONS
It may not be possible to simulate the actual operational in-service gunfire environment
response because of fixture limitations or physical constraints that may prevent the
satisfactory application of the gunfire excitation to the test item. This test method is not
intended to simulate temperature or blast pressure effects due to gunfire.

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
2. TEST GUIDANCE
that could occur when materiel are exposed to a gunfire environment.
a. Wire chafing.
d. Touching and shorting of electrical parts.
f. Structural deformation.
g. Structural and component fatigue.
h. Optical misalignment.
i. Cracking and rupturing.
j. Loosening of particles or parts that may become lodged in circuits or

mechanisms.
k. Excessive electrical noise.
Measured data from field gun firing should be used to develop test levels for Procedures
I, II, III, and IV. It is particularly important to use field-measured data where a precise
response simulation is the goal. Sufficient field measured data should be obtained to
adequately describe the conditions being evaluated and experienced by the materiel.
The quality of field measured gunfire data should be verified in accordance with reference
c prior to developing laboratory test levels.
2.3. SEQUENCE
1. The response to gunfire may affect materiel performance when materiel is tested
under other environmental conditions such as vibration, shock, temperature, humidity,

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
pressure, electromagnetics, etc. It is essential that materiel which is likely to be sensitive

to a combination of environments be tested to the relevant combinations simultaneously.
2. Where it is considered that a combined test is not essential, or impractical to

configure, and where it is required to evaluate the effects of gunfire together with other
environments, a single test item should be exposed to all relevant environmental
conditions sequentially.
3. The order of application of tests should be considered and made compatible with
the Life Cycle Environmental Profile. If any doubt remains as to the order of testing, then
gunfire testing should be undertaken immediately after completing vibration tests.
2.4. RATIONALE FOR PROCEDURES AND PARAMETERS
Response to gunfire is characterized by a high level non-stationary, time-varying,

vibration or repetitive shock that in general is superimposed upon an ambient vibration
environment. Gunfire response has principal frequency components at the firing rate of
the gun and it’s harmonics. Ambient vibration is comparatively low level energy,
distributed fairly uniformly at frequencies other than the principal frequency components
throughout the band of measurement. The response materiel to gunfire is dependent
upon the dynamic characteristics of the materiel itself. The gunfire environment is
considered to be time-varying because it usually has a time-varying root-mean-square
(rms) level that is substantially above the ambient or aircraft induced environmental
vibration level for a comparatively short period of time. One option is to consider the
environment response data to be a series of well-defined pulses at a particular repetition
rate. With this assumption, the data analysis is usually not easily performed in terms of
a stationary analysis, such as an auto-spectral density estimate, or as a transient analysis
of the environment in terms of a shock response spectrum. If the analysis of the
measured data concludes that the gunfire induced environment is only a slight increase
in the ambient vibration level with no readily distinguishable pulse time characteristics,
stationary random vibration analysis techniques, or Procedure IV, may be used to specify
the test.
1. The procedures are given in order of preference based on the ability of the test
facility to replicate the gunfire environment. Improper test procedure selection may result
in a severe under test or over test.
Nonstationary, time-varying, Vibration:
a. Procedure I: Direct Reproduction of Measured Materiel Response Data
b. Procedure II: Statistically Generated Repetitive Pulse - Mean

(deterministic) plus Residual (stochastic) Pulse

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
c. Procedure III: Repetitive Pulse Shock Response Spectrum (SRS)

Stationary Vibration
d. Procedure IV: High Level Random, Sine-on-Random (SOR),

Narrowband Random on Random (NBROR) Vibration
2. These procedures can be expected to cover the entire range of testing for materiel
exposed to a gunfire environment. For example, in cases of severe materiel response to
a gunfire environment with highly sensitive components, only Procedures I and II are
appropriate. The use of these procedures requires that the materiel response data be
measured at hard points on the materiel. Materiel test fixturing is also required such that
the input environment excitation configuration is very similar for the measured in-service
and laboratory conditions.
3. Procedure I is recommended as the most suitable test procedure because it

provides the most accurate replication of the dynamic response of the materiel.
4 Procedure II is recommended as the second most suitable procedure because it

provides good accuracy of replicating materiel dynamic response in addition to providing
flexibility with regard to pulse randomization and gunfire burst length.
5. Procedure III is inferior to Procedures I and II because materiel time domain

gunfire response characteristics cannot be simulated as precisely using SRS techniques,
such as complex transient waveform generation. But, Procedure III can be used where
test facility limitations preclude the use of Procedures I and II.
6. Procedure IV is applicable when the materiel is distant from the gunfire excitation,
and measured data at appropriate hard points of the materiel indicate a random vibration
gunfire environment only slightly above the most severe measured random vibration
level. Procedure IV is also appropriate for aircraft gunfire in the absence of measured
data. Annex D provides guidance for an initial predicted aircraft gunfire environment and
test severity where no measured data are available.
7. In applying these procedures it is assumed that the dynamics of the materiel are
well known, in particular, the resonance’s of the materiel and the relationship of these
resonances to the gun firing rate and its harmonics. It is recommended that the materiel
dynamic response information be used in selecting a procedure and designing a test
using this test method.
2.6. TYPES OF GUNFIRE MATERIEL RESPONSE SIMULATION
1. A brief description of each type of gunfire simulation procedure is given in the

following paragraphs.
2. Procedure I - Direct Reproduction of Measured Materiel Response Data

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
In-Service gunfire materiel response is duplicated to achieve a near exact simulated

reproduction of the measured gunfire response acceleration time history. Guidelines are
provided in Annex A.
3. Procedure II - Statistically Generated Repetitive Pulse – Mean (deterministic) plus

Residual (stochastic) Pulse
Characteristics of the in-service gunfire materiel response are statistically modelled by

typically creating a “pulse ensemble” and obtaining a time varying mean “pulse” and
associated residuals using nonstationary data processing. The statistical model of the
gunfire response is simulated to achieve a very good reproduction of the measured
gunfire acceleration time history. Guidelines are provided in Annex B.
4. Procedure III - Repetitive Pulse Shock Response Spectrum (SRS)
The measured gunfire acceleration time history is broken into individual pulses for
analysis. Maximax shock response spectra are computed of the individual pulses to
characterize the gunfire environment with a unique SRS. An acceleration time history is
created that has a duration equivalent to an individual measured gunfire pulse, and that
exhibits the characteristic gunfire SRS. The characteristic SRS gunfire pulse is repeated
at the gun-firing rate. Guidelines are provided in Annex C.
5. Procedure IV - High Level Random, SOR, NBROR Vibration
If no pulse form is indicated by the measured in-service gunfire response or the materiel
is distant from the gun and only high level random vibration is exhibited, guidelines
provided in Method 401 shall be used. Typically for Procedure IV, the firing rate of the
gun cannot be determined from an examination of the field measured response time
history. In the absence of measured response data, Annex D provides guidance for an
initial test severity.
2.7. CONTROL
2.7.1. Control Strategy
The dynamic excitation is controlled to within specified bounds by sampling the dynamic
response motions of the test item at specific locations. These locations may be at, or in
close proximity, to the materiel attachment points, for controlled input tests, or at defined
points on the materiel, for controlled response tests. The dynamic response motions may
be sampled at a single point, for single point control, or at several locations, for multi-point
control.
The control strategy depends on:
a. The results of preliminary vibration or resonance search surveys carried

out on the test item and fixtures,

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
b. Meeting the test specifications within the tolerances of paragraph 5.1,
c. The capabilities of the test facility.
2.7.2. Control Options
2.7.2.1. Single Point Control
Single point control is required for Procedures I through III, and optional for Procedure IV.
A single response point shall be selected to represent the materiel hard point from which
the in-service response data were obtained, or upon which predictions were based.
2.7.2.2. Multiple Point Control
In cases where the materiel is distant from the gunfire excitation, and the measured data
at appropriate hard points indicate no more than a random vibration environment slightly
above ambient conditions, multiple point control may be desirable for Procedure IV.
Multiple point control will be based on the control strategy and on the average of the
ASD’s of the control points selected.
2.7.3. Control Methods
2.7.3.1. Open Loop Vibration Control
Application of the techniques for Procedures I through III will generally involve a computer
with a digital-to-analog interface and analog-to-digital interface with the analog output
going directly to drive the exciter. Signal processing is performed off-line or open loop
where the resulting exciter drive signal will be stored as a digital signal. During testing,
feedback response will be monitored only for abort conditions.
2.7.3.2. Closed Loop Vibration Control
For Procedure IV closed loop vibration control is to be used. Because the loop time
depends on the number of degrees of freedom and on the analysis and overall
bandwidths, it is important to select these parameters so that the test tolerances and
control accuracy can be maintained during the test. The feedback response points will
be monitored and used for both control conditions and abort conditions.

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
3. SEVERITIES
3.1. GENERAL
The test severities will be established using available data or data acquired directly from
an environmental data acquisition program. When these data are not available, initial
test severities and guidance may be found in Annex D. Test guidance is provided in
Annexes A through C for cases in which data have been collected and a precise
simulation is desired. It should be noted that the test selected might not necessarily be
an adequate simulation of the complete environment; thus, a supporting assessment may
be necessary to complement the test results.

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 405

INSTRUCTIONS
4. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN THE TEST INSTRUCTIONS
4.1. COMPULSORY
a. The identification of the test item
b. The definition of the test item
c. The orientation of the test item in relation to test axes
d. Operating or non-operating condition of the test item during test
e. The operational checks: initial, during the test, and final
f. Initial and final test item checks required and test conditions
g. The details required to perform the test
h. The pre-conditioning time and conditions
i. The use of isolator mounts and their characteristics
j. The definition of the test severity
k. The failure criteria
l. The control strategy
m. Environmental conditions at which testing is to be conducted
n. The specific features of the test assembly (exciter, fixture, interface

connections, etc.)
4.2. IF REQUIRED
a. The effect of gravity and the consequent precautions
b. Tolerances, if different from paragraph 5.1.

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
5.1. TOLERANCE
Unless otherwise specified in the Test Instruction, the tolerances applied to the single
gun-firing rate, swept or unswept, are  2.5 %. The complete test parameter control
system, checking, servoing, recording, etc., should not produce uncertainties exceeding
one third of the tolerance values specified in paragraph 5.1.1 through 5.1.4.
5.1.1. Procedure I - Direct Reproduction of Measured Materiel Response Data
a. Time Domain: Ensure the duration of one pulse is within  2.5% of the
measured gunfire duration.
b. Amplitude Domain: Ensure the test item time history response peaks are
within 10% of the measured gunfire time history peaks.
c. Frequency Domain: Compute an average energy spectral density (ESD)

estimate over the ensemble created from the materiel time history
response that is within  3 dB of the average ESD estimate based on the
measured gunfire response time history. In cases in which an ensemble
from the data cannot be created, compute an autospectral density (ASD)
estimate of the time history records for comparison, provided the data is
appropriately windowed to reduce spectral leakage. The tolerances for
the ASD analysis are  3 dB.
5.1.2. Procedure II - Statistically Generated Repetitive Pulse
a. Time Domain: Ensure the duration of one pulse is within  2.5% duration
of the measured gunfire rate.
b. Amplitude Domain: Ensure materiel time history response peaks are

within 10% of the measured gunfire time history peaks.
c. Frequency Domain: Compute an average energy spectral density (ESD)

estimate over the ensemble created from the materiel time history
response that is within  3 dB of the average ESD estimate based on the
measured gunfire time history response.

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
5.1.3. Procedure III - Repetitive Pulse Shock Response Spectrum (SRS)
a. Time Domain: Ensure the duration of one pulse is within  5% duration

of the measured gunfiring rate.
b. Amplitude Domain: Ensure materiel time history response peaks are
within  10% of the measured gunfire time history response peaks.
c. Frequency Domain: Ensure the maximax SRS computed over the

materiel time history response from one simulated gunfire pulse is within
+ 3 dB and –1 dB from the mean SRS computed over the ensemble of
field measured materiel response data. Use an SRS analysis with at
least 1/6 octave frequency spacing.
5.1.4. Procedure IV - High Level Random, SOR, NBROR Vibration
a. Time Domain. Ensure the root-mean-square (RMS) value of the

amplitude measured at the control point in the test axis is within  5% of
the preset RMS value. Likewise, ensure the maximum variation of the
RMS value at the attachment points in the test axis is  10% of the preset
RMS value.
b. Amplitude Domain. Ensure the amplitude distribution of the

instantaneous values of the random vibration at the control point is
nominally Gaussian. Use an amplitude distribution that contains all
occurrences up to 2.7 standard deviations. Keep occurrences greater
than 3.5 standard deviations to a minimum.
c. Frequency Domain. Ensure an autospectral density analysis (ASD) of the

test item time history response is within  3 dB of an ASD computed of
the field measured gunfire data or the predicted gunfire environment.
Allow exceedances up to  6 dB above 500 Hz, but limit the accumulation
of all local exceedances to 5% of the overall test frequency bandwidth.
Use a maximum analysis filter bandwidth of 5 Hz, and attempt to have
the number of independent control statistical degrees of freedom (DOF)
greater than 100. Ensure the ASD measured along the two transverse
orthogonal axes, using the same number of DOF as that used for the
control, is less than 25% of the specified ASD of the control point over
90% of the overall bandwidth.
Test items can vary from individual materiel items to structural assemblies containing
several items of materiel of different types. The test procedures should take into account
the following:

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
a. Fixturing should simulate actual in-service use mounting attachments,

including vibration isolators, and fastener torque’s, if appropriate.
b. All the connections, cables, pipes, etc., should be installed in such a way
that they impose stresses and strains on the test item similar to those
encountered in-service use.
c. The possibility of exciting the test item simultaneously along several axes
using more than one vibration exciter.
d. Suspension of the test item at low frequency to avoid complex test fixture
resonances and utilization of a force entry frame.
e. The direction of gravity or the load factor may be taken into account by
compensation or by suitable simulation. For high g aircraft maneuvers,
the effects of gravity may be substantial and require separate
acceleration testing of the test item.
5.2.1. Test set-up
5.2.1.1. General
Unless otherwise specified in the Test Instruction, the test item shall be attached to the
vibration exciter by means of a rigid fixture capable of transmitting the vibration
conditions specified. The fixture should input vibration to racks, panels, and/or
vibration isolators to simulate as accurately as possible the vibration transmitted to the
materiel during in-service use. When required, materiel protected from vibration by
these means should also pass the appropriate test requirements with the test item
hard-mounted to the fixture.
5.2.1.2 Stores
When the materiel is a store, use the following guidelines: Where practical, testing
shall be accomplished in three mutually perpendicular axes with the mounting lugs in
the normal carriage position. Suspend the store from a structural frame by means of
its normal mounting lugs, hooks, and sway braces that simulate the operational
mounting apparatus. The test set-up shall be such that the rigid body modes of
translation, rotation, or vibration for the combined structure are between 5 and 20 Hz.
Vibration shall be applied to the store by means of a rod or other suitable mounting
device running from a vibration exciter to a relatively hard, structurally supported point
on the surface of the store. Alternatively, the store may be hard-mounted directly to
the exciter using its normal mounting lugs and a suitable fixture. The stiffness of the
mounting fixture shall be such that its induced resonant frequencies are as high as
possible and do not interfere with the store response. For all methods, the launcher
rail shall be used as part of the test setup where applicable. The response to be

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
simulated may be difficult to accomplish for a store.in this testing configuration, except
for Procedure IV.
5.3. SUBSYSTEM TESTING
When identified in the Test Instruction, subsystems of the materiel may be tested
separately. The subsystems can be subjected to different gunfire levels. In this case,
the Test Instruction should stipulate the gunfire levels specific to each subsystem.
Test materiel should be stabilized to its initial climatic and other conditions as stipulated
in the Test Instruction.
All operational checks and examinations should be undertaken as stipulated in the Test
Instruction. The final operational checks should be made after the test item has been
returned to rest under pre-conditioning conditions and thermal stability has been
obtained.
5.5. PROCEDURES
The Test Instruction should stipulate whether the test item is in operation during the test.
Continuous gunfire vibration testing can cause unrealistic damage of material, such as
unrealistic heating of vibration isolators. The excitations should be interrupted by periods
of rest, defined by the Test Instruction. For additional details on each of the procedures
in paragraphs 5.5.1 through 5.5.4, refer to Annexes A, B, C, and D respectively.
5.5.1. Procedure I - Direct Reproduction of Measured Materiel Response Data
Step 1 Obtain a digital representation of the field measured response

data. In general this will involve the digitalization of a full measured
materiel acceleration response for input to the vibration control
system.
Step 2 Pre-condition the test item in accordance with paragraph 5.4.1.
Step 3 Choose the control strategy and control points and monitoring
points in accordance with paragraphs 2.7.1, 2.7.2.1, and 2.7.3.1.
Step 4 Perform operational checks in accordance with paragraph 5.4.2.

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Step 5 Mount the test item on the vibration exciter in accordance with
paragraph 5.2.
Step 6 Determine the time history representation of the vibration exciter

drive signal required to provide the desired gunfire acceleration
response.
Step 7 Apply the drive signal as an input voltage and measure the test
item acceleration response at the selected control and monitoring
points.
Step 8 Verify that the test item response is within the allowable tolerances
specified in paragraph 5.1 and 5.1.1.
Step 9 Apply the gunfire simulation for on and off periods and the total
test duration in accordance with the Test Instruction. Perform
operational and functional checks in accordance with the Test
Instruction.
Step 10 Repeat the previous steps in each other axis specified in the Test
Instruction.
Step 11 In all cases, record the information required.
5.5.2. Procedure II - Statistically Generated Repetitive Pulse
Step 1 Generate a statistical representation of the field measured data as

a mean (deterministic) plus Residual (stochastic) pulse. In general
this will involve an off-line procedure designed to generate an
ensemble of pulses based on measured data for input to the
vibration control system.
Step 3 Choose the control strategy and control or monitoring points in

accordance with paragraphs 2.7.1, 2.7.2.1, and 2.7.3.1.
Step 4 Perform the operational checks in accordance with paragraph

5.4.2.
paragraph 5.2.
Step 6 Determine the time history representation of the vibration exciter

drive signal required to provide the desired gunfire acceleration
response.

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Step 7 Apply the drive signal as an input voltage and measure the test
item acceleration response at the selected control and monitoring
points.
specified in paragraph 5.1 and 5.1.2.
Step 9 Apply the gunfire simulation for on and off periods and the total
test duration in accordance with the Test Instruction. Perform
Instruction.
instruction.
5.5.3. Procedure III – Repetitive Pulse Shock Response Spectrum (SRS)
Step 1 Separate the measured field data into individual pulses and
compute the SRS over the individual pulses using damping factors
of 5%, 2%, 1%, and 0.5% , or a Q = 10, 25, 50, and 100.
a. Compute the statistical mean SRS for each of the

respective damping factors used.
b. Compare the mean SRS for each of the damping factors to

determine the predominant frequencies and to obtain an
estimate of the duration or “half cycle content” comprising
the individual predominant frequencies. An individual
selected pulse, as the result of separation of the measured
field data into individual pulses, may be used instead of the
mean shock spectrum for each of the damping factors.
c. Characterize the SRS time history using the estimate of the

duration or “half cycle content” for specification of “wavelet”
duration, and choose either the mean SRS or an individual
pulse for amplitude characterization. This procedure
assumes the complex SRS waveform generation is based
upon wavelets, amplitude modulated sine functions.
Step 3 Choose the control strategy and control and monitoring points in
accordance with paragraphs 2.7.1, 2.7.2.1, and 2.7.3.1.

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Step 4 Perform operational checks in accordance with paragraph 5.4.2.
Step 5 Mount the test materiel on the vibration exciter in accordance with
paragraph 5.2.
Step 6 Compensate the exciter drive signal.
Step 7 Input the SRS transient drive signal through the exciter control
system at the firing rate of the gun, and measure the test item
acceleration response at the selected control and monitoring
points.
specified in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.1.3.
Step 9 Apply the gunfire simulation on and off periods and the total test
duration in accordance with the Test Instruction. Perform
Instruction.
Instruction.
5.5.4. Procedure IV - High Level Random, SOR, NBROR Vibration
Step 1 Calculate the ASD test level.
a. Compute an autospectral density estimate of the measured

gunfire materiel response data using a 2000 Hz analysis
bandwidth with a maximum 5 Hz analysis bandwidth
resolution, or compute a 2000 Hz autospectral density
prediction.
b. Generate a random vibration test spectrum from the

measured data, or from the prediction generate a test
spectrum consisting of a broadband random base with four
superimposed discrete frequency peaks that occur at the
fundamental firing rate of the gun and the first three
harmonics of the firing rate.
Step 3 Choose the control strategy and control and monitoring points in
accordance with paragraphs 2.7.1, 2.7.2.1, 2.7.2.2, and 2.7.3.2.

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Step 4 Perform the operational checks in accordance with paragraph

5.4.2.
paragraph 5.2.
Step 6 Input the vibration test spectrum in the appropriate vibration

exciter control system support software.
Step 7 Apply the drive signal as input and measure the test item
acceleration response at the selected control and monitoring
points.
specified in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.1.4.
Step 9 Apply the gunfire simulation on and off periods and total test
duration in accordance with the Test Instruction. Perform
Instruction.
Instruction.

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
and following the application of gunfire simulation. In general, the operational and
structural integrity of the test item shall be maintained during testing. Any compromise of
either operational and/or structural integrity of the test item shall constitute failure of the
item in testing.

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
a. IEST RP-DTE026.1, Using MIL-STD 810(F), 519 Gunfire, Institute of

Environmental Sciences and Technology, USA, January 2002
b. Piersol, A.G., Analysis of Harpoon Missile Structural Response to Aircraft

Launches, Landings and Captive Flight and Gunfire, Naval Weapons
Center Report #NWC TP 58890, January, 1977.
c. IES-RP-DTE012.1, Handbook for Dynamic Data Acquisition and

Analysis, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology, USA,
January 1995
d. Bendat, J.S. and A.G. Piersol, Random Data: Analysis and Measurement
Procedures, John Wiley and Sons Inc, NY, 1986

AECTP-400
METHOD 405
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
ANNEX A PROCEDURE I - DIRECT REPRODUCTION OF MEASURED

MATERIEL RESPONSE DATA
A.1. SCOPE
A.1.1. PURPOSE
This Annex provides guidance and a basis for direct reproduction of measured materiel
response data in a laboratory test on an electrodynamic vibration exciter under waveform
control in an open loop mode.
A.1.2. APPLICATION
This technique is useful for the reproduction of single point materiel response that may
be characterized as nonstationary or as a transient vibration. Acceleration is considered
the variable of measurement in the discussion to follow, although other variables could
be used, provided the dynamic range of the measured materiel response is consistent
with the dynamic range of the electrodynamic system used as an input device to
reproduce the materiel response.
A.2. DEVELOPMENT
A.2.1. BASIC CONSIDERATION FOR ENVIRONMENT DETERMINATION
It is assumed that an in-service environmental measurement test is performed with

properly instrumented materiel where the measurements are made at preselected points
on the materiel. The measurement points exhibit minimum local resonances, yet the
measurement locations will allow the detection of significant overall materiel resonances.
The measurement locations may be determined prior to making an in-service test by
examination of random vibration data on the materiel using various accelerometer
mounting locations and fixturing configurations, the same points as those to be used in
the laboratory testing. Ensure the field measured data is DC coupled, not high pass
filtered, and sampled at ten times the highest frequency of interest. Examine the
measured data time history traces for any indication of clipping, or any accelerometer
performance peculiarities such as zero shifting which may be the case for any potential
high level form of mechanical shock. If there is an indication of accelerometer
measurement anomalies, examine a potentially corrupted acceleration time history
carefully according to the procedures used in qualifying pyrotechnic shock data. Perform
processing such as time history integration to examine velocity and displacement
characteristics, sample ASDs computed, etc. See reference a for further details. If there
is no indication of accelerometer anomalies, the in-service measured data is AC coupled,
high pass filtered at a very low frequency, 1 Hz, and sampled at ten times the highest
frequency of interest and placed in a digital file for manipulation. The upper frequency
limit is determined by the anti-alias filter upper cutoff limit, which is generally around

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
2000 Hz. An example of gunfire simulation using the Procedure I techniques is discussed
below. This procedure is performed on a personal computer with signal processing
capability and analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog interfaces.
A.2.2. TEST CONFIGURATION
An instrumented test item is installed in a laboratory vibration fixture and mounted to the
armature of an electrodynamic exciter. The test item employed during the laboratory
simulation is the same materiel configuration used to collect the captive-carry gunfire
vibration materiel response data during an in-service test. A piezoelectric accelerometer
is installed internal to the test item for purposes of acceleration response input control.
A.2.3. CREATING A DIGITAL FILE OF THE GUNFIRE VIBRATION RESPONSE
The first step in this simulation process is to digitize the measured flight data to obtain an
amplitude time history, see Figure A-1. Digital processing of the analog data was
performed using a 2,000 Hz, 48 dB/octave anti-alias filter and a sample rate of 20,480
samples per second for good time history amplitude resolution. The anti-alias filter should
have linear phase characteristics.
A.2.4. CHARACTERIZATION OF EXCITER DRIVE SIGNAL/TEST ITEM INVERSE

FREQUENCY RESPONSE FUNCTION
Definition of the inverse frequency response function between the exciter drive signal and
the acceleration response of the test item installed on the exciter is achieved by subjecting
the test item to a low level of swept sine excitation. The swept sine excitation is generated
on the PC using a sample rate of 20,480 samples per second and a block size of 2,048
points for a duration of approximately 0.1 seconds. The swept sine input uses a start and
stop frequency 10 Hz and 2,000 Hz. The swept sine excitation is input through the power
amplifier using the digital-to-analog interface of the PC. Figure A-2 presents the swept
sine exciter input along with the resulting test item response, Figure A-2b. The swept
sine exciter input and the test item response were digitized utilizing the PC
analog-to-digital interface using a sample rate of 20,480 samples per second and a block
size of 2,048 points. The inverse frequency response function, IH (f), is estimated as
follows.
IH (f) = Edd(f) / Edx(f)
Where
Edd = the input energy spectral density of the swept sine exciter drive signal d(t)
Edx = the energy spectral density cross spectrum between the acceleration response of
the test item x(t), and the swept sine exciter drive signal, d(t)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Figure A-3 presents the modulus and phase of the inverse frequency response function.
To reduce the noise in IH(f), three or more IH(f) estimates may be averaged. Under
laboratory conditions, usually the signal-to-noise ratio is so high that averaging to reduce
noise levels in the estimate is unnecessary, see reference b and c.
A.2.5. TAPERING THE INVERSE FREQUENCY RESPONSE FUNCTION
Because the signal processing software computes the inverse frequency response
function out to the sampling rate Nyquist frequency, which is far above the frequency
range of interest, a tapering function is applied to the inverse frequency response
function. The tapering function removes the unwanted frequency content, noise, beyond
the frequency band of interest, 10 to 2,000 Hz. The modulus is reduced to zero from
2,000 Hz over a bandwidth of approximately 200 Hz; whereas, the phase remains
constant beyond 2,000 Hz. The modulus and phase of the tapered inverse frequency
response function is presented in Figure A-4. Some experimentation with the tapering
configuration may be needed at this point on behalf of the tester to optimize the
information preserved in the 10 to 2,000 Hz frequency domain.
A.2.6. COMPUTING THE IMPULSE RESPONSE FUNCTION
The impulse response function is generated by computing the inverse Fourier transform
of the tapered inverse frequency response function and is displayed in Figure A-5.
A.2.7. COMPUTING THE COMPENSATED EXCITER DRIVE
The compensated exciter drive signal is generated by convolution of the impulse

response function, Figure A-5, in units of (volts/g) with the measured gunfire materiel
response, Figure A-1 in units of (g). This could also be accomplished in the frequency
domain by multiplying transforms, i.e., IH(f) by the transform of an unwindowed block
of time history using either overlap-and-save or overlap-and-add procedures. The
compensated exciter drive signal is illustrated in the top portion of Figure A-6
A.2.8. REPRODUCING THE GUNFIRE MATERIEL RESPONSE
Utilizing the digital-to-analog interface capability of the PC, the compensated exciter drive
signal is input through the power amplifier to obtain the desired gunfire materiel response
from the test item. The exciter is under waveform control in an open loop mode of
operation. For the short duration of the nonstationary record or transient vibration, this is
an adequate mode of exciter control. Figure A-6 presents the compensated exciter drive
signal along with the resulting materiel response. Figure A-7 is a comparison of the
overall in-service measured gunfire materiel response with the laboratory simulated
gunfire test item response.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
A.2.9. CONCLUSION
For single point materiel response measurements on comparatively simple dynamic

materiel, the method of direct reproduction of in-service measured materiel response is
near optimal. The main advantage of this technique is that it permits reproduction of
materiel responses, nonstationary or transient vibration, that are difficult if not impossible
to completely specify and synthesize for input to a vibration control system. The main
disadvantage of this technique is that there is no obvious way to statistically manipulate
the measured materiel response data to ensure a conservative test. However,
conservativeness could be introduced into the testing by performing the manipulation at
a reduced level of exciter power amplifier gain, and then testing at the higher gain. The
assumption behind this technique is that the test item response resulting from the exciter
input is a linear function of the power amplifier gain. This linearity assumption would need
to be independently verified before testing.
A.2.10. REFERENCE AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
a. IES-RP-DTE012.1, Handbook for Dynamic Data Acquisition and

January 1995
b. Merritt, R.G. and S. R. Hertz, Aspects of Gunfire, Part 1. Analysis, NWC

TM 6648 Part 1, October 1990, Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA
93555-6100
c. Merritt, R.G. and S. R. Hertz, Aspects of Gunfire, Part 2. Simulation,

NWC TM 6648 Part 2, September 1990, Naval Weapons Center, China
Lake, CA 93555-6100
A.3. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES
A.3.1. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES
For single materiel response measurements, on comparatively simple dynamic materiel,

use Procedure I. This procedure is to be used in cases which laboratory replication of
the response environment is absolutely essential to establish materiel operational and
structural integrity under gunfire environment.
A.3.2. UNCERTAINTY FACTORS
The only significant uncertainty in this procedure results in the degree to which the
measured environment differs from the actual in-service environment. It is usually not
possible to obtain the measured environment under every conceivable in-service
condition.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Figure A-1: Digital Flight Data

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
a. Input b. Response
Figure A-2: Swept Sine Exciter Input with Resulting Test Item Response

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
a. Modulus b. Phase
Figure A-3 Modulus and Phase of Inverse Frequency Response Function

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
a. Modulus b. Phase
Figure A-4: Modulus and Phase of Tapered Inverse Frequency Response

Function

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Figure A-5: Impulse Response Function

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
a. Drive Signal b. Materiel Response
Figure A-6: Compensated Exciter Drive Signal Along with Resulting Test Item
Response

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
a. Measured b. Simulated
Figure A-7: Comparison of Measured Gunfire Materiel Response with

Laboratory Simulated Gunfire Test Item Response

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
ANNEX B PROCEDURE II - STATISTICALLY GENERATED REPETITIVE

PULSE MEAN (DETERMINISTIC) PLUS RESIDUAL (STOCHASTIC) PULSE
B.1. SCOPE
B.1.1. PURPOSE
This Annex provides an overview of Procedure II techniques for simulation of a time-

varying random process given a sample function for the process that can be used to
generate ensemble statistics describing the time varying character of the process.
B.1.2. APPLICATION
Details for the technique are found in reference c. Other aspects of the technique are
found in references d and e. More recent developments are found in references f and g.
The stochastic simulation technique described here for a single unknown time-varying
random process for which a single sample function from the process is available. The
single sample function is representative of a single gunfire physical configuration for
which extrapolation to other configurations is undetermined. Benefits of Procedure II are
defined below. The following paragraphs provide a description of Procedure II and some
of its limitations.
a. Is convenient to implement on a personal computer used to control a

vibration system,
b. Has many features analogous to that of traditional stationary time history

exciter simulation based on autospectral density estimate specification,
c. Is very flexible in terms of the length of statistically equivalent records it

can generate for laboratory replication of a in-service measured response
environment,
d. Has statistics that are easy to interpret and that approximate the true
statistical variation in the unknown underlying random process,
e. Can be generalized to other forms of time-varying random processes with

ensemble representation easily,
f. Abandons a minimal number of higher order features of the measured

response ensemble not considered essential to conservative in-service
measured data replication by way of laboratory test item response
simulation testing.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
B.2. DEVELOPMENT
B.2.1. NOMENCLATURE
E{ } expected value of the quantity within the braces
N, Np number of pulses in an ensemble
Ns number of simulated pulses
Nt number of time points in an ensemble member
P(x,t) probability distribution function for a nonstationary random process
Rxx (,t) nonstationary auto-correlation function
V[ ] variance of the quantity within the brackets
{xi(t)} random process
xi(t) ith sample function for a random process, {xi(t)}
XT(f) Finite Fourier Transform of x(t) over an interval of time T


x(t) true time-varying mean
 x ( t ) time-varying mean estimate
 x (t) true time-varying standard deviation
 x ( t ) time-varying standard deviation estimate
x2 t  true time-varying mean square


 x2 ( t ) time-varying mean square estimate
Tp period in seconds of a stationary sample record
f1=1/Tp fundamental frequency of a stationary sample record in Hertz
T sampling time interval
fc=1/(2T) Nyquist cutoff frequency

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
B.2.2. INTRODUCTION
1. The term "ensemble" is taken to mean a collection of sample time history records
defined over a specific time interval. In the case of a nonstationary environment, the only
complete description of the environment is given through:
a. Statistical estimates of all the probabilistic moments of the process as a

function of amplitude and time from the specification of P(x,t), or
b. A statistical estimate of the time-varying auto-correlation function R(,t).

Generally P(x,t) and R(,t) are not available either directly in an analytic
form or through an accurate estimate based on the limited in-service
measured response data.
2. For practical purposes, for an in-service measured environment, estimation of the

(1) time-varying mean, (2) time-varying standard deviation, (3) time-varying root mean
square, (4) overall average energy spectral density, and (5) time-varying autocorrelation
assist in characterizing the nonstationary random process from which the sample
ensemble is created. Replication of some or all of these measured ensemble estimates
in the simulation process will, in general, provide a satisfactory nonstationary test
simulation of the in-service environment.
B.2.3. ASSUMPTIONS
1. It is assumed that acceleration is the materiel response measurement variable,

however, other measurement variables, e.g., strain, may be just as useful, provided, they
are capable of capturing the characteristic amplitude or frequency range of interest.
2. To assist the practitioner in deciding if the procedures described in this annex are
applicable to a particular measurement and test objectives, the following basic
assumptions are made.
a. The in-service measured materiel response is obtained from

measurements at "hard points" on the materiel to be tested. The term "hard
point" implies that:
(1) Local materiel response peculiar to the location of the measurement

instrumentation, including structural nonlinearity, is not dominant in
the materiel response measurement, and
(2) Measured materiel response at the selected point is representative

of the overall materiel response.
b. A sample time history of the measured in-service materiel response shows

a distinct time-varying quality that repeats in a time interval correlated with
the firing rate of the gun.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
c. A sample time history of the measured in-service materiel response can be

decomposed into an ensemble of shorter time history records, or pulses.
The pulses have similar time-varying characteristics at equal time intervals
from the beginning of each pulse. The decomposition method of the
sample time history record is left to the discretion of the analyst; this usually
can be accomplished by examining the measured "timing" or "firing" pulse
for a repeated event, or by cross-correlation methods applied to the sample
time history.
d. Information is available about the configuration of the test item relative to

the materiel configuration for which the measured in-service response data
was measured.
e. The frequency response function for the electrodynamic or servohydraulic

test system exciter can be characterized by the techniques outlined for
Procedure I in Annex A.
f. Application of the test frequency response function to the simulated

amplitude time history can be accomplished through:
(1) An energy spectral density function where each pulse is individually

compensated by way of the convolution of the pulse time history with
the system impulse response function. The pulses are
concatenated into a long output voltage time history for input to the
digital-to-analog interface or,
(2) A long time history convolution, whereby the uncompensated long

output time history is first generated, and then convolved with the
system impulse response function to provide the compensated
voltage drive signal for input to the digital-to-analog interface.
3. Both of these techniques assume generation of a long compensated voltage

waveform to be run in an open loop form on a vibration system. For this open loop
configuration, it is suggested that the length of the compensated waveform not exceed
five seconds, and the appropriate abort limits are active on the vibration system. Closed
loop control will become the norm for operation with improvements in vibration control
system to increase the energy spectral density formulation with waveform compensation
on individual pulses. At this time, practicality of this procedure is limited by the processor
speed in input and output to the vibration system. In addition development is required
for: (1) a rationale to quantitatively judge the "adequacy" of the simulation in "real time,"
based on the time-varying statistical estimates, and (2) a means of "real time"
compensation of "inadequate" simulation "in real time".
g. The adequacy of the simulation in meeting the specification on the

difference, or error, between the measured in-service materiel response
statistics and the measured test item response from the laboratory test

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
simulation is based upon utilizing equivalent sample sizes or correcting the

error measure based on sample size differences.
4. In summary, at the time of this writing, the test simulation of a measured in-service
materiel response is based on:
a. Pretest generation of the uncompensated test sample time history,
b. Compensation of the test sample time history,
c. Open loop control for the vibration system,
d. Off line processing of the test item response sample time history for direct
comparison with measured in-service materiel response sample time
history.
B.2.4. MODELING AND STATISITICS FOR DESCRIPTION OF A MATERIEL

RESPONSE TIME-VARYING RANDOM PROCESS
1. A very general model for a time-varying random process is the "product model",
which assumes in its most basic form, that the time-varying characteristics of a random
process can be separated from the frequency characteristics of the random process, see
reference b. For materiel response to gunfire a form of product model can be used to
adequately describe this response. The procedures used in constructing the model
require some experience. Unfortunately, this modelling does not provide for
parameterized predictions of materiel response in other measured data configurations.
The basic statistics to be used to characterize a measured response environment with an
ensemble representation are the defined below. The error statistics for the simulation
may be based on the error expressions for a. to d.
a. The time-varying mean,
b. Time-varying standard deviation,
c. Time-varying root mean square,
d. Average energy spectral density function, may be time dependent.
2. The following is a definition of the product model used in this development. Taking
t as the continuous time variable, for discrete processing; each ensemble member
consists of Nt time samples in the time interval 0  t  Tp. Consideration is given to the
time-varying frequency character over discrete time intervals, which can be explored in
more detail through the nonstationary auto-correlation function. References c, d, and e
consider the issue in more detail. Using the reference b notation and terminology for u(t),
a sample time history from a stationary random process, {u(t)}; and both a1(t) and a2(t)

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
deterministic time histories, then a general time-varying random process {x(t)} can be
modelled as
x(t) = a1 (t) + [a 2 (t) u(t) ]f (B-1)
a1(t) is a deterministic time history in terms of the in-service time-varying ensemble mean
estimate. a2(t) is a deterministic time history in terms of the in-service time-varying
ensemble standard deviation estimate. The function a2(t) shapes, in the time domain, the
root mean square level of the residuals from the in-service ensemble after a1(t) has been
removed from the in-service ensemble. The “f” following the bracket indicates that the
residual information is a function of frequency content and in the description below, f,
represents the time-varying frequency content in four discrete and equal length time
intervals. For this model a1(t), the time-varying mean of the ensemble, will be referred to
as the "signal" and [a2(t) (u(t))]f , as the shaped residual or "noise". If the time-varying
random process is heavily dominated by the deterministic time-varying mean or "signal",
i.e., the amplitude of a1(t) is large in comparison with the residual [a2(t) (u(t))]f, then one
should expect comparatively small time domain errors in the time-varying mean, standard
deviation and root mean square. The frequency content should also be easily replicated.
The residual ensemble constructed by subtracting the time-varying mean from each
sample time history of the original ensemble is defined in terms of the in-service
measured ensemble as follows:
{r(t)} = {x(t) -  x (t)} (B-2)
This residual ensemble has the following two properties:
a. Time-varying mean of {r(t)} is zero
b. Time-varying root mean square of {r(t)} is the time-varying standard

deviation of the original ensemble {x(t)}
3. Time domain criterion for testing the validity of the simulation is given as the
variance of the time domain estimators of the time-varying mean, time-varying standard
deviation and the time-varying root mean square. Expressions for these estimators and
their variance are provided in equations (B-3) through (B-9). The unbiased time-varying
mean estimate for an ensemble {x(t)} of N time history samples is given by
1 N
ˆ x (t) = i =1 xi (t) 0  t  Tp (B-3)
N
and the variance of this estimator is given as

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405

V ˆ x t   E ˆ x t   x t 
2
 0  t  Tp (B-4)
where x(t) is the true nonstationary time-varying mean of the process.
The time-varying standard deviation estimate for this ensemble {x(t)} is given by
i 1x i t   ˆ x (t )2
N
ˆ x ( t )  0  t T p (B-5)
N 1
and the variance of this estimator can be given in its theoretical form as
V
ˆ x  E { 
ˆ x (t) - x (t)}
2
 0  t  Tp (B-6)
where x(t) is the true nonstationary time-varying standard deviation of the

process.
The unbiased time-varying mean square estimate for an ensemble {x(t)} is given by
1 N 2
ˆ 2x (t) = i =1 xi (t) 0  t  Tp (B-7)
N
and the variance of this estimator is given as
V
ˆ x t  E { 
ˆ 2x (t) - 2x (t)}2  0  t  Tp (B-8)
where x2(t) is the true nonstationary time-varying mean square of the process.
In the frequency domain, the average energy spectral density function for an ensemble
{x(t)} is
 2
Exx(f) = 2 E  X Tp (f )  0  f  fc (B-9)
 
and the variance of this estimator is given in theoretical form as
V[ Êxx (f)] = E[{Êxx (f) - Exx (f)}2] 0 f  fc (B-10)
4. In computing these estimates of error, or quantitatively measuring how "close" the

laboratory simulation test item response is to in-service materiel response, the "true"
quantities are unknown but can be taken as the processed in-service measured materiel
response.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
B.2.5. SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF THE MODEL TO THE MEASURED MATERIEL

RESPONSE
1. This portion of the Annex provides a brief overview of the actual processing
necessary to perform a successful stochastic materiel response simulation to a measured
in-service materiel response environment. The in-service measured materiel response
to be modelled is a fifty pulse, Np=50, round 30 mm gunfire event depicted in
Figure B-1a. The gun-firing rate is approximately 40 rounds per second and the event
lasts for about 1.25 seconds. This record is digitized at 20,480 samples per second with
an anti-alias filter set at 2 kHz. It is clear from visual inspection of the amplitude time
history that the record has periodic time-varying characteristics. This record is
decomposed into an ensemble of 50 pulses each of about 25 milliseconds length for
which classical time-varying statistical techniques are applied. Figure B-2a contains the
plot of a typical pulse, pulse 37, of the ensemble and figure B-3a contains its residual.
Figure B-4a contains a plot of the mean estimate for this ensemble defined in equation
B-3. The standard deviation estimate of the ensemble of N records defined in equation
B-5 is shown in figure B-5a. This is also the root mean square of the residual ensemble.
Figure B-6a contains a plot of the root mean square for the ensemble. By subtracting the
mean from each member of the ensemble, a residual ensemble is obtained. This residual
ensemble has zero mean and a non-zero time-varying root mean square the same as
the standard deviation of the original ensemble.
2. It is very important to understand the characteristics of this residual ensemble. It

should be clear from the above figures that the measured ensemble has a time-varying
mean, a time-varying mean square and a time-varying frequency with higher frequencies
in the initial portion of the record. An energy spectral density computed on the original
measured ensemble and the measured residual ensemble reveals the effect of removal
of the time-varying mean from the original ensemble and the differing frequency
characteristics of the two ensembles. Figure B-7a provides a superposition of both of the
energy spectral density estimates. The filter bandwidth for the ESD estimates is 5 Hz.
An even more dramatic depiction of the time frequency character of the original ensemble
is given in Figure B-8a, T1 through T4. In this analysis the pulse length is divided into
four equal time segments of 6.25 ms each and the average ESD computed for each
segment retaining a 20 Hz filter bandwidth. The estimates are averaged over the
ensemble with no time domain tapering applied. When all four spectra are superimposed
upon one another, it is clear that the variation of frequency with time is substantial both
for the original ensemble and for the residual ensemble in figure B-9. The residual
ensemble is studied for its second order or correlation properties in references c, d
and e. The actual steps used to perform the simulation according to the model outlined
in Figure B-1 and to estimate the error in the time-varying mean, standard deviation, root
mean square, and the partial and overall energy spectrum estimate are contained in
reference c.
3. Figures B-10a and 10b depict the deterministic function a1(t) and the estimate
function a2(t), respectively. Figure B-11a displays the residual information before the
residual is filtered and Figure B-11b the residual after filtering is applied. Using

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
information from references a and b only, Fourier based FFT and inverse FFT are used
to determine the simulated test ensemble. Segmentation in time in order to simulate the
time-varying frequency characteristics of the ensemble did provide for some minor
discontinuities at the time interval boundaries in the simulation. From reference e it can
be noted that it is also possible to segment the time-varying characteristics in the
frequency domain which also results in some minor discontinuities in the frequency
domain.
4. The results of the simulation are displayed in the figures below in order to allow
the practitioner to note the general fidelity in the simulation. Figure B-1b represents a
simulated ensemble with Np pulses to give an overall qualitative assessment of the
simulation. Figure B-2b and figure B-3b provide plots of a typical pulse, number 37, and
its residual from this simulated ensemble, respectively. Figure B-4b is the mean for the
ensemble with Figure B-5b the standard deviation, and Figure B-6b the root mean square.
Figures B-7 through B-9 display measured information with corresponding simulated
information. Figure B-12 contains the maximum, the median time-varying root variance
estimates for the time-varying mean for sample sizes of 10, 25 and 50 pulses. This
represents the error that might be expected at each time point as a result of the simulation
of the three sizes of the ensembles. Corresponding information is provided in
Figure B-13 for the time-varying standard deviation and in Figure B-14 for the time-varying
root mean square. In general for an ensemble with Np sample time histories the
maximum root variance is less than 2.5 g's with the median being below 0.75 g's. These
plots for the most part display some degree of uniformity over the time interval.
B.2.6. IMPLEMENTATION
The technique outlined above may be implemented by pre-processing the data and
generating the simulated materiel response ensemble on a mainframe computer or a PC.
In either case, the simulated digital waveform must be appropriately compensated by the
procedure described in Annex A before the analog voltage signal to the exciter is output.
This technique of stochastic simulation is quite elaborate in detail but does provide for a
true stochastic time-varying laboratory simulation of materiel response based on
measured in-service materiel response. The technique is flexible, in that it can produce
an unlimited number of "pulses" all slightly different with testing limited only by the length
of time a vibration controller can provide an adequate simulation in an open loop mode
of control. If it is assumed that exciter output and test item response scale linearly with
exciter master gain, degrees of test conservativeness in the stochastic simulation may be
introduced.
B.2.7. REFERENCES AND RELATED DOCUMENTATION
a. Lanczos C., Discourse on Fourier Series, Hafner Publishing Company,

New York, 1966.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
b. Bendat J. S. and Piersol A. G., Random Data: Analysis and

Measurement Procedures, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New
York, 1986.
c. Merritt R. G., Simulation of Ensemble Oriented Nonstationary Processes,

Part 2, Proceedings of 1994 IES 40th Annual Technical Meeting,
Chicago, IL, May 1994.
d. Merritt R. G., An Example of the Analysis of a Sample Nonstationary

Time History, Proceedings of 1994 IES 40th Annual Technical Meeting,
Chicago, IL, May 1994.
e. Smallwood D.O., Gunfire Characterization and Simulation Using

Temporal Moments, Proceedings of the 65th Shock and Vibration
Symposium, Volume 1, San Diego, California, November 1994.
f. Smallwood D.O., Characterization and Simulation of Gunfire With

Wavelets, Proceedings of the 69th Shock and Vibration Symposium,
Volume 1, Minneapolis, MN, October 1998.
g. Merritt R. G., A Note on Prediction of Gunfire Environment Using the

Pulse Method, Proceedings of 1999 IEST 45th Annual Technical
Meeting, Ontario, California, May 1999.
B.3. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES
B.3.1. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES
Use Procedure II for single materiel response measurements, on comparatively simple

dynamic materiel. This procedure is to be used in cases in which a statistically correct
laboratory replication of the response environment is absolutely essential to establish
materiel operational and structural integrity under the gunfire environment.
B.3.2. UNCERTAINTY FACTORS
The only significant uncertainty in this procedure results in the degree to which the
measured environment differs from the actual in-service environment. It is usually not
possible to obtain the measured environment under every conceivable in-service
condition. The errors in the simulation are independent of the variability of the in-service
environment.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
(a) Measured Data (b) Simulated Data
Figure B-1: Fifty Round 30 mm Gunfire Event
Figure B-2: Ensemble Sample Time History Pulse (Pulse 37)
Figure B-3: Ensemble Residual Sample Time History Pulse (Pulse 37)

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Figure B-4: Ensemble Time - Varying Mean Estimate
Figure B-5: Ensemble Time - Varying Standard Deviation
Figure B-6: Ensemble Time - Varying Root Mean Square Estimate

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
(a) Measured Data Ensemble (b) Simulated Data Ensemble
Figure B-7: Energy Spectral Density Function Estimate
(a) Measured Data Ensemble (b) Simulated Data Ensemble
Figure B-8: Short Time Energy Spectral Density Function Estimate
(a) Measured Residual Ensemble (b) Simulated Data Ensemble
Figure B-9: Short Time Energy Spectral Density Function Estimate

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
(a) a1(t) - Deterministic Signal(b) a2(t) - Estimate Smoothed Residual window
Figure B-10: Nonstationary Model Deterministic Functions
(a) Before Residual Filtering (b) After Residual Filtering
Figure B-11: Segmented ESD Ratio

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Figure B-12: Smoothed Simulation Root Variance Estimate for the Time-
Varying Mean for Simulated Ensemble Sample Sizes of 10, 25, and 50, Sample
Time Histories of Maximum and Median
Figure B-13: Smoothed Simulation Root Variance Estimates for the Time-
Varying Standard Deviation for Simulated Ensemble Sample Size of 10, 25, and
50 Sample Time Histories of Maximum and Median
Figure B-14: Smoothed Simulation Root Variance Estimate for the Time-
Varying Root Mean Square for Simulated Ensemble Sample Size of 10, 25, and
50 Sample Time Histories of Maximum and Median

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
ANNEX C PROCEDURE III - REPETITIVE PULSE SHOCK RESPONSE

SPECTRUM (SRS)
C.1. SCOPE
C.1.1. PURPOSE
This annex provides an overview of a technique for laboratory simulation of a gunfire
environment based upon a form of the “pulse method”.
C.1.2. APPLICATION
The stochastic simulation technique to be described here for a single unknown time-
varying random process for which a single sample function from the process is available.
The sample function is representative of a single gunfire physical configuration for which
extrapolation to other configurations is undetermined. Benefits of Procedure III are
defined below. The following paragraphs present an overview of the Procedure III
methodology and its limitations.
a. Is convenient to implement on a vibration control system with shock

response spectra (SRS) capability,
b. Has many features analogous to that of traditional SRS exciter shock

simulation based on SRS estimate specification,
c. Is very flexible in terms of the length of statistically equivalent records it

can generate for laboratory test replication of an in-service measured
response environment,
d. Is not restricted to one form of pulse and,
e. Abandons a minimal number of higher order features of the measured

response ensemble not considered essential to conservative in-service
measured response data replication by way of laboratory test item
response simulation testing.
C.2. DEVELOPMENT
C.2.1. INTRODUCTION
The SRS method assumes that the measured materiel response time history can be
decomposed into an ensemble of individual pulses. Maximax SRS are computed over
the ensemble of pulses using various damping factors to assist in characterizing the
frequency content of the individual pulses. The SRS mean is also computed over the
ensemble of pulses for each damping factor to further characterize the materiel response

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
pulses. Using the information from the SRS, an acceleration time history is synthesized
using amplitude modulated sine components, wavelets or damped sinusoids. The SRS
based acceleration response time history is then used as the characteristic gunfire
materiel response pulse, and input to the test item at the firing rate of the gun, see
references b and c.
C.2.1.1. Procedure Advantages
a. It makes use of standard laboratory shock test equipment,
b. The method reproduces the frequency characteristics of the measured

materiel response data,
c. The SRS can easily be specified in documents and reproduced at various

test facilities.
C.2.1.2. Procedure Disadvantages
a. The character of the time history generated by the wavelets or damped

sinusoids is not well controlled and may not appear similar in form to the
measured materiel response pulses,
b. Little or no statistical variation can be easily introduced into the

simulation, and
c. Reproducing the series of pulses at the firing rate of the gun may present
a problem for vibration control systems not designed for this mode of
operation.
A particular example of gunfire materiel response simulation using Procedure III is

discussed below. This procedure is performed using a digital vibration control system
with SRS testing capability, see references b and c.
C.2.2. TEST CONFIGURATION
An instrumented test item is installed in a laboratory vibration fixture and mounted to the
armature of an electrodynamic exciter. The test item employed during the laboratory
simulation is of the same configuration as the materiel used to collect the in-service
measured response data. A piezoelectric accelerometer is installed internal to the test
item for purposes of acceleration response measurement.
C.2.3. CREATING A DIGITAL FILE OF THE GUNFIRE VIBRATION RESPONSE
The first step in this simulation process is to digitize the measured in-service materiel
response data to obtain an acceleration time history, see Figure C-1. Digital processing
of the analog data s performed using a 2 kHz, 48dB/octave low pass anti-alias filter. The

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
digital file is DC coupled, not high pass filtered, at a sample rate of 20,480 samples per
second for good time history peak resolution. The anti-alias filter should have linear
phase characteristics.
C.2.4. COMPUTING THE SHOCK RESPONSE SPECTRA
If examination of the individual measured response pulses indicates similar character

between the pulses, a representative pulse is chosen for analysis. The SRS is then
computed over the representative pulse using a specified analysis Q of 10, 25, 50, and
100. To increase the statistical confidence in the results, the pulse sequence may be
ensemble averaged in time. The "mean" of the ensemble is taken as the representative
pulse, and the procedure above applied. The SRS used in the procedure may also be
taken to be the mean SRS of the entire pulse individual SRSs. If the pulse characteristics
are very dissimilar, then it may be necessary to run several tests depending upon the
judgement of an experienced analyst.
C.2.5. ESTIMATING EQUIVALENT HALF-CYCLE CONTENT OF

REPRESENTATIVE GUNFIRE MATERIEL RESPONSE PULSE
Figure C-2 shows that the representative gunfire materiel response pulse contains seven
predominant frequencies at approximately 80, 280, 440, 600, 760, 1360, and 1800 Hz.
A 2Q half-cycles for a constant amplitude sine wave provides approximately 95% of the
maximum SRS amplitude for a given SRS Q value. An estimate of the equivalent
half-cycle content that makes up the predominant frequencies contained in the measured
gunfire response can be determined by identifying the Q at which the peak acceleration
for a particular frequency of the SRS begins to level off. A Q of 10 in Figure C-2
characterizes the half-cycle content of the 80 Hz component. The half-cycle content of
the other predominant frequencies, except at 1800 Hz, is represented by a Q of 25. A Q
of 50 quantifies the half-cycle content of the 1800 Hz component.
C.2.6. SRS TRANSIENT GENERATION FOR GUNFIRE MATERIEL RESPONSE

PULSE RESPRESENTATIVE
After estimating the frequency content of the representative gunfire materiel response
pulse, a SRS transient time history pulse is generated using a digital vibration control
system, by means of a proprietary wave synthesis algorithm. The SRS transient time
history pulse is composed of 1/12 octave wavelets, with the majority of the 1/12 octave
components limited to three half-cycles, the minimum allowed for the vibration control
system. The seven predominant frequencies are restricted for half-cycle content by either
the 25-millisecond duration of the gunfire response pulse, 40-Hz gun firing rate, or by the
half-cycle estimation technique discussed in Annex C, paragraph 2.5. A Q of 10 is
identified for the 80 Hz component; a Q of 25 for the 280, 440, 600, 760, and 1360 Hz
components; and a Q of 50 for the 1800 Hz component. The SRS mean is computed
over the ensemble of pulses for each damping factor, Q = 10, 25, 50, and 100, to
characterize the SRS amplitudes. The mean SRS that is computed using an analysis Q
of 50 is then selected to define the SRS amplitude for each frequency component of the

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
simulated materiel response pulse. Zero time delay is specified for each of the 1/12
octave wavelets. Table C-1 provides the wavelet definition for making up the complex
transient pulse, and Figure C-3 displays the SRS gunfire materiel response complex
transient pulse produced from the wavelet definition.
C.2.7. SIMULATING THE GUNFIRE COMPONENT RESPONSE
The final step in the gunfire materiel response simulation is to repeat the SRS gunfire
transient at the gun firing rate of 40 Hz. Because of output pulse rate limitations of the
vibration control system being used, the 40 Hz firing rate could not be achieved. Figure
C-4 is an acceleration time history that illustrates the repetitive character of the SRS
gunfire simulation method without vibration controller output pulse rate limitations.
Figure C-4 is generated for illustrative purposes by digitally appending the Figure C-3
SRS materiel response transient pulse at the gun firing rate. If the vibration control
system does not allow for such rapid repetition, the Annex A waveform control procedure
could be used on a digitally simulated and exciter compensated series of materiel
response pulses.
C.2.8. REFERENCE AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
a. IES-RP-DTE012.1, Handbook for Dynamic Data Acquisition and

January 1995
b. Merritt R.G. and S. R. Hertz, Aspects of Gunfire, Part 1. Analysis, NWC

TM 6648 Part 1, October 1990, Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA
93555-6100
c. Merritt, R.G. and S. R. Hertz, Aspects of Gunfire, Part 2. Simulation,

NWC TM 6648 Part 2, September 1990, Naval Weapons Center, China
Lake, CA 93555-6100
C.3. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES
C.3.1. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES
For single point materiel response measurements on comparatively simple dynamic

materiel, use Procedure III. This procedure is to be used in cases in which laboratory
replication of the response environment is essential to establish materiel operational and
structural integrity under gunfire environment and for which the test facility is incapable of
using Procedure I and II.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
C.3.2. UNCERTAINTY FACTORS
This procedure includes no statistical uncertainty in addition to any uncertainty in the

degree to which the measured environment compares with the in-service environment.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Table C-1: Wavelet Definition for SRS Gunfire Pulse
Frequency Amplitude Half-cycles Frequency Amplitude Half-

Hz g Hz g cycles
78.75 11.995 3 445.45 34.995 21

83.43 11.803 3 471.94 26.455 3
88.39 11.628 3 500.00 19.999 3
93.64 11.455 3 529.73 21.232 3
99.21 11.285 3 561.23 22.568 3
105.11 11.117 3 594.60 23.988 29

111.36 10.952 3 629.96 18.323 3
117.98 10.777 3 667.42 13.996 3
125.00 10.617 3 707.11 20.448 3
132.43 10.459 3 749.15 29.992 37
140.31 10.304 3 793.70 31.225 3

148.65 10.151 3 840.90 32.509 3
157.49 10.000 3 890.90 33.845 3
166.86 10.814 3 943.87 35.237 3
176.78 11.708 3 1,000.00 36.728 3
187.29 12.662 3 1,059.46 38.238 3

198.43 13.709 3 1,122.46 39.811 3
210.22 14.825 3 1,189.21 41.448 3
222.72 16.051 3 1,259.91 43.152 3
235.97 17.358 3 1,334.84 44.975 49
250.00 18.793 3 1,414.21 37.325 3

264.87 20.324 3 1,498.31 31.010 3
280.62 22.004 13 1,587.40 50.003 3
297.30 18.275 3 1,681.79 80.631 3
314.98 16.901 3 1,781.80 130.017 89
333.71 14.825 3 1,887.75 124.882 3

353.55 13.002 3 2,000.00 119.950 3
374.58 16.653 3
396.85 21.330 3
420.45 27.321 3
Notes:
a. Wavelet definition is based upon form of wavelet in proprietary SRS

waveform synthesis software, see reference b.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Figure C-1: Digitised Flight Data

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Figure C-2: Comparison of Representative Gunfire Pulse Using a Q of 10, 25,

50 and 100

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Figure C-3: SRS Gunfire Pulse Generated Using a Digital Controller
Figure C-4: SRS Pulse Gunfire Simulation

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
ANNEX D PROCEDURE IV - HIGH LEVEL RANDOM, SOR, NBROR

VIBRATION AND GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST SEVERITY
D.1. SCOPE
D.1.1. PURPOSE
This Annex provides the option of utilizing predicted gunfire vibration data, when no
measured data are available, to ensure that materiel mounted in an aircraft with onboard
guns can withstand the vibration levels caused by:
a. Pulse overpressures emitting from the muzzle of the gun impinging upon
the materiel support structure and,
b. Structure-borne vibration.
This Annex also provides the option for utilizing high level random vibration when the
measured data spectrum displays no outstanding discrete harmonic contents.
D.1.2. APPLICATION
This Annex is applicable only for aircraft gunfire and materiel mounted in an aircraft with
onboard guns. Guidance in this Annex is to be used only if in-service measured materiel
response data are not available or will not be available in the early stages of a
development program. This Annex is not intended to justify the use of sine-on-random
(SOR) or narrowband random-on-random (NBROR) for cases in which measured data
displays broadband spectra along with components at discrete frequencies. The
information in this Annex should be used only if it is vital to the design of the materiel. If
there is a possibility of obtaining early measurements of the materiel response mounted
on the in-service platform, the severity's developed using the information in this Annex
should be supplanted with the severity's estimated from the materiel response under in-
service measurement and one of the other procedures used for testing. In particular, if
the measured materiel response in-service environment has the character of high level
broadband random vibration with no characteristics conducive to application of Procedure
II or Procedure III, then:
a. Apply Procedure I in the form of transient vibration, or,
b. Submit the materiel to a specified level of high level broadband vibration,

based on ASD estimates of the measured in-service materiel response,
over a period of time consistent with low cycle fatigue assumptions in
accelerated testing or as specified in the Test Instruction, see method
401, Vibration.
D-1 Edition D Version 1

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
D.2. DEVELOPMENT
D.2.1. INTRODUCTION
This Annex is essentially additional guidance based on reference a. The “Pulse Method”
in reference a I-4.4.1 of has not been included, but is covered in reference b, which
provides insight into the use of the “Pulse Method” in conjunction with a predictive
rationale. References c, d and e provide information relative to the origin of gunfire
vibration for aircraft in reference a. Procedure IV differs from the other three procedures
in that it is a result of a prediction procedure developed on the basis of an analysis of a
comparatively small set of measured gunfire materiel response data. The predicted
spectrum therefore provides estimates of materiel vibration response that may be
substantially different from in-service measured vibration response of a particular
materiel. For a particular materiel and gun or materiel configuration, the levels of materiel
response to gunfire are generally subject to a large degree of uncertainty. This
uncertainty increases substantially in gunfire configurations where the gun is less than a
metre from the materiel, and the materiel is excited by the gun blast pressure wave.
D.2.2. PREDICTING GUNFIRE VIBRATION SPECTRA
Gunfire prediction spectra consist of a broadband spectrum representative of an ASD

estimate from stationary random vibration along with four harmonically related sine
waves. Figure D-1 provides a generalized vibration spectrum for gunfire-induced
vibration that defines the predicted response of materiel to the gunfire environment. Four
single frequency, harmonically related, sine vibration peaks superimposed on a
broadband random vibration spectrum characterize the spectrum. The vibration peaks
are the frequencies that correspond to the nominal gunfire rate and the first three
harmonics of the gun-firing rate. The specific values for each of the parameters shown
in Figure D-1 can be determined from Table D-1, Table D-2 and Table D-3, and Figures
D-2 to D-8. The suggested generalized parametric equation for the three levels of
broadband random vibration defining the spectrum in Figure D-1 is given in dB for g²/Hz,
with reference to 1 g²/Hz as:
10 log10 Tj = 10 log10 (NF1E) + H + M + W + J + Bj - 53 dB j = 1, 2, 3 (D-1)
where the parameters are defined in Table D-1. The suggested generalized parametric
equation for the four levels of single frequency, sine vibration defining the spectrum in
Figure D-1 is given in dB for g²/Hz, with reference to 1 g²/Hz as:
10 LOG10 Pi = 10 LOG10 T3 + Ki + 17 dB i = 1, 2, 3 (D-2)
where the parameters are defined in table D-1.
The key geometrical relations used to determine the predicted vibration spectra are the
following four geometrical factors:

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
a. Vector distance, D. The vector distance from the muzzle of the gun to
the mean distance between materiel support points as shown in Figure
D-2. For configurations involving multiple guns, the origin of vector D is
determined from the centroidal point of the gun muzzles as shown in
Figure D-3. Figure D-7 and Figure D-8 provide for spectra reduction
factors related to the distance D for the random spectra and the discrete
frequency spectra, respectively.
b. Gun standoff distance, h. The distance normal to the aircraft’s surface in

Figure D-4.
c. Depth parameter, Rs. The distance normal to the aircraft’s skin to the
materiel location inside the aircraft. If Rs is unknown, use Rs = three
inches (76 mm) ; See Figure D-2. Figure D-6 provides spectra reduction
factors related to Rs.
d. The gun calibre parameter, c, in millimetres, or inches.
The vibration peak bandwidths, consistent with windowed Fourier processing, should be
based on in-service measured materiel response data if available. When such in-service
data are not available, the vibration peak bandwidths can be calculated as:
 F
BW3db 
4
for:
BW3dB = the bandwidth at a level 3dB, factor of 2, below the peak ASD level
F = the fundamental frequency, Fi, or one of the harmonics F1, F2, F3, or F4
For cases where the gun firing rate changes during a development program, or the gun
may be fired at a sweep rate, it is desirable to either
a. Perform sinusoidal sweeps within the proposed bandwidth for the

fundamental and each harmonic or
b. Apply narrowband random vibration levels provided the sweep frequency

bandwidth is not too large.
This technique may over-predict those frequencies where the attachment structure or
materiel response becomes significantly nonlinear. Likewise, for those cases in which
the attachment structure or materiel resonances coincide with the frequencies in the
gunfire environment, the materiel vibration response could be under-predicted. The
practitioner should clearly understand the options available and inherent limitations in the
vibration control system software.

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
D.2.3. DURATION OF TEST
Use a duration for the gunfire test, in each of the three axes, equivalent to the expected
total time the materiel will experience the environment in-service. This duration may be
conservatively estimated by multiplying the expected number of aircraft sorties in which
the gun firing will occur by the maximum amount of time that gun firing can occur in each
sortie. The number of sorties in which gunfire will occur will be associated with planned
aircraft training and combat utilization rates, but will generally be in the vicinity of 200 to
300 sorties. The maximum gunfire time of gunfire per sortie can be determined from
Table D-2 by dividing the total rounds per aircraft by the firing rate. When a gun has more
than one firing rate, perform the test using both firing rates, with test time at each firing
rate based on the expected proportion of time at each firing rate for in-service use. The
guns carried by an aircraft are generally fired in short bursts that last a few seconds.
Testing to a gunfire environment should reflect a form of in-service use in compliance with
the Test Instruction. For example, vibration could be applied for two-seconds followed by
an eight rest period during which no vibration is applied. This two-second-on, eight
second-off, cycle is repeated until the total vibration time equals that determined for the
aircraft type and its in-service use. This cycling will prevent the occurrence of unrealistic
failure modes due to vibration isolator overheating or buildup of materiel response in
continuous vibration. Intermittent vibration can be achieved by several means including:
a. The interruption of the exciter input signal.
b. Use of the Annex A waveform replication strategy for transient vibration.
D.2.4. SPECTRUM GENERATION TECHNIQUES
Gunfire materiel response is characterized by broadband random vibration with four

vibration peaks that occur at the first three harmonics and the fundamental frequency of
the firing rate of the onboard guns. Most vibration control system software packages
contain a provision for performing a gunfire vibration test based on this form of predicted
SOR spectra. The details of these software packages are in general proprietary, but the
practitioner is expected to have a clear understanding of the capabilities and limitations
of the software. On occasion it has been noted that the dynamic range required to
produce and control a specified gunfire spectrum is beyond the ability of some available
vibration controllers. A method of solving this problem is to enter into the vibration
controller the broadband random spectrum with its strong vibration peaks. At those
frequencies that have the intense vibration peaks, sine waves can be electronically added
to the input of the vibration amplifier. Ensure the amplitude of these sine waves is such
that the vibration level produced at those frequencies is slightly less than the desired
spectrum level. The vibration controller can make the final adjustment to achieve the
needed test level. It is important to note that Pi is in terms of G²/Hz and not Gs. Care
must be exercised in specifying the amplitude of the sine waves in G or equivalent input
voltage corresponding to a G level. This means of environment replication allows the
gunfire test to be done closed loop with commonly available laboratory test equipment
and control system software.

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
D.2.5. REFERENCE AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
a. Merritt, R.G., A Note on Prediction of Gunfire Environment Using the

Pulse Method, IEST, 40th ATM, Ontario, CA, May 1999.
b. Sevy, R. W., and E. E. Ruddell, Low and High Frequency Aircraft Gunfire
Vibration and Prediction and Laboratory Simulation, AFFDL-TR-74-123,
December 1975, DTIC number AD-A023-619.
c. Sevy, R. W., and J. Clark, Aircraft Gunfire Vibration, AFFDL-TR-70-131,

November 1970, DTIC number AD-881-879.
d. Smith, L.G., Vibration Qualification of Equipment Mounted in Turboprop

Aircraft, Shock and Vibration Bulletin, Part 2, May 1981.
D.3. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES
D.3.1. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES
For aircraft vibration for equipment mounted in the aircraft with no available measured
data use Procedure IV with the prediction methodology.
D.3.2. UNCERTAINTY FACTORS
This procedure includes substantial uncertainty in general levels because of the

sensitivity of the gunfire environment to gun parameters and geometrical configuration.
It may be appropriate to increase levels or durations in order to add a degree of
conservativeness to the testing. Changes in the levels, durations, or both for the sake of
increasing test conservativeness must be supported by rationale and environment
assessment documentation. Since extreme spectra prediction levels do not necessarily
provide test inputs that correlate with measured data for the same geometrical
configuration, the uncertainty in damage potential is increased substantially as the
predicted spectra increase level, i. e. testing with this procedure may be quite
unconservative.

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Table D-1: Suggested Generalized Parametric Equations for Gunfire-Induced

Vibration
10 log10 Tj = 10 log10 ( NF1E ) + H + M + W + J + Bj - 53 dB
10 log10 Pi = 10 log10 T3 + Ki + 17 dB
For
N= Maximum number of closely spaced guns firing together. For guns that are
dispersed on the host aircraft, such as in wing roots and in gun pods, separate
gunfire vibration test spectra are determined for each gun location. The vibration
levels, for test purposes, are selected for the gun that produces the maximum
vibration levels.
E= Blast energy of gun (see Table D-3).
H= Effect of gun standoff distance, h (see Figure D-4).
M= Effect of gun location M = 0 unless a plane normal to the axis of the gun barrel
and located at the muzzle of the gun does not intersect the aircraft structure,
then M = -6 dB.
W= Effect of the weight of the equipment to be tested (use Figure D-5). If weight of
materiel is unknown, use W = 4.5 kilograms.
J= Effect of equipment's location relative to air vehicle’s skin
(use Figures D-2 and D-6).
Bj = Effect of vector distance from gun muzzle to materiel location (see Figure D-7).
Fi = Gunfiring rate where F1 = fundamental frequency from Table D-2.
( F2 = 2F1, F3 = 3F1, F4 = 4F1 )
Tj = Test level in G /Hz. j = 1, 2, 3
2
Pi = Test level for frequency Fi in G2/Hz (where i = 1 to 4).

Ki = Effect of vector distance on each vibration peak, Pi (see Figure D-8).
Notes:
a. These equations are in metric units.
b. The resultant dB values are relative to 1 g2/Hz.

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Table D-2: Typical Gun Configurations Associated with Aircraft Classes
Gun Firing Rate Rounds

Aircraft/Pod Location
(Quantity) Rounds/Min Rounds/Sec Capacity
A-4 MK 12(2) Wing roots 1000 16.6 100/Gun
A-7D M61A1 (1) Nose, left side 4000 & 6000 66.6 & 100 1020
A-10 GAU-8/A (1) Nose 2100 & 4200 35 & 70 1175
A-37 GAU-2B/A (1) Nose 6000 100 1500
F-4 M61A1 (1) Nose 4000 & 6000 66.6 & 100 638
F-5E M39 (2) Nose 3000 50 300/Gun
F-14 M61A1 (1) Left side of 4000 & 6000 66.6 & 100 676
nose
F-15 M61A1 (1) Right wing 4000 & 6000 66.6 & 100 940
root
F-16 M61A1 (1) Left wing root 6000 100 510
F-18 M61A1 (1) Top centre of 4000 & 6000 66.6 & 100 570
nose
F-111 M61A1 (1) Underside of 5000 83.3 2084
fuselage
MIRAGE DEFA 554 1200 & 1800 20 & 30
RAFALE DEFA 791B 2520 42
GEPOD 30 GE430 (1) POD 2400 40 350
(GAU-8/A)
SUU-11/A GAU-2B/A (1) POD 3000 & 6000 50 & 100 1500
SUU-12/A AN-M3 (1) POD 1200 19 750
SUU-16/A M61A1 (1) POD 6000 100 1200
SUU-23/A GAU-4/A (1) POD 6000 100 1200

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Table D-3: Gun Specifications
GUN CALIBER BLAST ENERGY, E

GUN
mm in Joules, J *
GAU-2B/A 7.62 .30 6,700
GAU-4/A 20 .79 74,600
GAU-8/A 30 1.18 307,500
AN-M3 12.7 .50 26.000
M3 20 .79 83.000
M24 20 .79 80.500
M39 20 .79 74.600
M61A1 20 .79 74.600
MK11 20 .79 86.500
MK12 20 .79 86.500
DEFA 554 30 1.18 125.000
DEFA 791B 30 1.18 245.000
Notes:
* joules (J) x 0.7376 = foot-pounds

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Figure D-1: Generalised Gunfire Induced Vibration Spectrum Shape

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Figure D-2: The Distance Parameter (D) and the Depth Parameter (Rs)

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Figure D-3: Multiple Guns, Closely Grouped
Figure D-4: Test Level Reduction Due to Gun Standoff Parameter

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Figure D-5: Test Level Reduction Due to Materiel Mass Loading

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Figure D-6: Test Level Reduction Due to Depth Parameter
Figure D-7: Decrease in Vibration Level with Vector Distance from Gun Muzzle

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 405
Figure D-8: Gunfire Peak Vibration Reduction with Distance

AECTP-400
METHOD 406
METHOD 406
LOOSE CARGO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-1
2.3. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-1
CHAPTER 4 INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN THE TEST INSTRUCTION... 4-1
4.1. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.2. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-1
5.1. TOLERANCES.......................................................................................... 5-1
5.4. INITIAL AND FINAL CHECKS .................................................................. 5-1
5.5. PROCEDURE ........................................................................................... 5-2
5.5.1. Procedure I ......................................................................................... 5-2
5.5.2. Procedure II........................................................................................ 5-2
CHAPTER 7 REFERENCE/RELATED DOCUMENTS............................................ 7-1
ANNEX A LOOSE CARGO - GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST SEVERITY ............. A-1
ANNEX B TECHNICAL GUIDANCE – TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION ................ B-1
ANNEX B FIGURE
B-1. Typical Package Tester ............................................................................ B-3
ANNEX C DERIVATION OF TEST AREA COMPUTATION EQUATIONS ..............C-1
AECTP-400
METHOD 406
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 406
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1. SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this test method is to replicate the effects of the transportation shock
environment incurred by systems, subsystems and units, hereafter called materiel, during
transportation as loose cargo in vehicles. In particular, this test method accommodates
the unrestrained collision of materiel with the floor and sides of the cargo load bed and
with other cargo.
1.2. APPLICATION
The test method is applicable where materiel is required to demonstrate its adequacy to
resist the loose cargo environment without unacceptable degradation of its functional
and/or structural performance. AECTP 100 and 200 provide additional guidance on the
selection of a test procedure for related vibration and shock environments during
transportation.
1.3. LIMITATIONS
This method does not address vibrations as induced by secured cargo transportation or
transportation of installed materiel, nor individual shocks or impacts inflicted during
handling or accidents.

AECTP-400
METHOD 406
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 406
2. TEST GUIDANCE
that could occur when materiel is exposed to the loose cargo environment.
a. Fatigue, cracking, rupture,
b. Deformation, specially of protruding parts,
c. Loosening of connections and seals,
d. Displacement of components,
e. Chafing of surfaces.
Measured data and in-service information should be obtained to tailor the duration of the
loose cargo test based on LCEP information. The loose cargo table amplitude control
parameters are generally not modified to match a specific vehicle or transport platform.
2.3. SEQUENCE
In a test sequence, loose cargo tests will be scheduled in order to reflect as closely as
possible the projected service use profiles. However, if it is considered that this test would
probably generate critical materiel failures, the position within the sequence could be
changed.
The choice of test procedures is governed by the test item configuration.
Two procedures are proposed. These two types differ from one another only in the
installation of the test item. Circular synchronous motion is to be used for both types of
tests. These two types of tests are:
Procedure I: Equipment likely to slide (e.g., rectangular cross section items)
Procedure II: Equipment likely to roll (e.g., circular cross section items)

AECTP-400
METHOD 406
Unless specified in the Test Instruction, the materiel is not operated during this test.

AECTP-400
METHOD 406
3. SEVERITIES
The test levels result from the rotational speed of the package tester table in the test
facility and may be dependent on the individual apparatus and the test item configuration.
The test time will be established using the projected service use profiles. Test severities
are to be found in Annex A.

AECTP-400
METHOD 406
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 406

INSTRUCTION
4.1. COMPULSORY
a. The identification of the test item,
b. The definition of the test item,
c. The orientation of the test item in relation to the axis of throw of the test
table,
d. The operating checks: initial, final,
e. The details required to perform the test,
f. The monitor points on the test item (if any),
g. The pre-conditioning conditions and time (if any)
h. The definition of the test severity including test time,
i. The indication of the failure criteria,
j. The fencing configuration of the package tester,
4.2. IF REQUIRED
a. Tolerances, if different from paragraph 5.1.,

AECTP-400
METHOD 406
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 406
5.1. TOLERANCES
The tolerance of the speed of rotation is +/- 2 rpm
1. Procedure I: Using suitable fixturing as described in Annex B, the test item will
be placed on the steel covered package tester bed (see Annex B). The wooden impact
walls and sideboards shall be positioned so as to allow impacting on only one end wall
(no rebounding) and to prevent rotation of the test item through 90 degrees about the
vertical axis. Multiple test items will not be separated by sideboards. The test item will
be positioned in its most likely shipping orientation. In the event the most likely shipping
orientation cannot be determined, the test item will be placed on the bed with the
longest axis of the test item parallel to the long axis of the table (throw axis).
2. Procedure II: Using suitable fixturing as described in Annex B, the test item will
be placed on the steel covered bed of the package tester (see Annex B). The wooden
impact walls and sideboards shall be placed so as to form a square test area (see
Annex B for the formula to compute the area dimensions). The test item will be placed
on the package tester in a random manner. Because part of the damage incurred during
testing of these items is due to the items impacting each other, the number of test items
should be greater than three.
No test will be started on an area of the steel plate which is severely damaged or worn
through.
Unless otherwise specified, the test item should be stabilized to its initial conditions
stipulated in the Test Instruction.
5.4. INITIAL AND FINAL CHECKS
These checks include the controls and examinations stipulated in the Test Instruction.

AECTP-400
METHOD 406
5.5. PROCEDURE
5.5.1. Procedure I
Step 1 Make the pre-conditioning checks in accordance with para. 5.3.1.
Step 2 Make the initial checks in accordance with para. 5.4.
Step 3 Place the test item on the bed of the package tester as specified
in para. 5.2.
Step 4 Operate the table for the time specified in the Test Instructions.
After half the total designated test time, the test shall be stopped,
the test item shall be rotated 90 degrees about the test item’s
vertical axis (using the same test area constraints described
above), and the test continued.
Step 5 Make the final checks in accordance with para. 5.4.
Step 6 In all cases, record the information required
5.5.2. Procedure II
Step 1 Make the pre-conditioning checks in accordance with para. 5.3.1.
Step 2 Make the initial checks in accordance with para. 5.4.
Step 3 Place the test item on the bed of the package tester as specified
in para. 5.2.
Step 4 Operate the table for the time specified in the Test Instructions.
After half of the total designated test time the test shall be stopped,
the test items once again placed in a random manner, and the test
continued.
Step 5 Make the final checks in accordance with para. 5.4.
Step 6 In all cases, record the information required

AECTP-400
METHOD 406
and following the loose cargo test.

AECTP-400
METHOD 406
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 406
7. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
a. Connon, W.H., Ground Vehicle Loose Cargo Vibration Schedules,

Report USACSTA-6277, AD Number B114819, January 1987.
b. Charles, D. and Neale, M., Loose Cargo Test Options, 65th Shock and
Vibration Symposium Proceedings, SAVIAC, volume I, page 233, 1994.
c. White, G.O., TECOM Package Tester Characterization, US Army

Aberdeen Test Center, Report ATC-7883, AD Number B217688,
September 1996.

AECTP-400
METHOD 406
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 406
ANNEX A LOOSE CARGO - GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST SEVERITY
3. The severity contained in this annex is based on measured data on items likely to
slide and items likely to roll and is applicable to both Procedure I and Procedure II. This
severity represents 240 km of loose cargo transport in tactical wheeled vehicles over
rough terrain.
a. Package tester rotation speed, circular synchronous motion: 300 rpm  2
b. Test time: 20 minutes
4. For munitions safety certification testing, the test item shall be tested in the
horizontal and/or vertical orientation as applicable. For a sequential test program, the
test item shall be oriented horizontally for 10 minutes of the test followed by 10 minutes
in the vertical orientation. For a non-sequential test program, one-half of the sample test
items shall be tested in the horizontal orientation for 20 minutes and the remaining half
shall be tested in the vertical orientation.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 406
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 406
ANNEX B TECHNICAL GUIDANCE - TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Simulation of this environment requires use of a package tester or equal hydraulic test
system which imparts a 25.4 mm (one inch) peak to peak circular motion to the table at
a frequency of 5 Hz. This motion takes place in a vertical plane. The term multiple test
items refers to identical test items and not a mixture of unrelated items.
a. Typical test equipment is depicted in Figure B-1. This equipment is

commonly referred to as a package tester. The fixturing required is as
shown and will not secure the item to the bed of the package tester. The
fence opposite the vertical impact wall is not intended as an impact
surface, but is used to restrain the test item from leaving the tester. The
distance to this restraining fence should be sufficient to prevent constant
impact, but still prevent one or more of multiple test items from "walking"
away from the others. The height of the test enclosure (sideboards,
impact wall and restraining fence) should be at least 5 cm higher than the
height of the test item to prevent unrealistic impacting of the test item on
the top of the enclosure.
b. The test bed of the test system shall be covered with a cold rolled steel
plate, 5 to 10 mm thick. The metal plate shall be secured with bolts, with
the tops of the heads slightly below the surface. The bolts shall be at
sufficient interval around the four edges and through the centre area to
prevent diaphragming of the steel plate.
c. For the circular cross section items, the impact walls and sideboards shall
be placed so as to form a square test area. The size of the test area is
determined by a series of equations presented below. Derivation of
these equations is presented in Annex C. SW and SB are chosen based
on test item geometry to provide realistic impacting with the test bed
impact walls and between test items. Typical value for both SW and SB
is 25 mm. The following formula shall be used to determine the test area
dimensions:
For values of the number of test items, N > 3, the required slenderness ratio, Rr, is
computed from equation 1:
N L
Rr  1
equation 1
0.767 L N 2
 2 SW  N 1 S B
Rr = required slenderness ratio

L = length of the test item, cm

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 406
D = diameter of the test item, cm
N = number of test items
SW = space between test item and wall, cm
SB = space between each test item, cm
The test item actual slenderness ratio, Ra, is computed from:
Ra = L/D equation 2
and is independent of the number of test items, N.
If the actual test item slenderness ratio, Ra, is greater than the required ratio, Rr,
computed in equation 1, then:
1
X  0.767 L N 2 equation 3
X = length of each side of the square test area
If the actual test item slenderness ratio, Ra, is less than the required ratio, Rr, computed
in equation 1, then:
X  N D  2 S W  N 1S B equation 4
For values of N < 3, the required slenderness ratio, Rr, is computed from equation 5:
N L
Rr  equation 5
1.5 L  2 SW  N 1 S B
If the actual test item slenderness ratio, Ra, is greater than the required ratio, Rr,
computed in equation 5, then:
X  1.5 L equation 6
Otherwise:
X is computed from equation 3.
Generally, if the actual slenderness ratio, L/D, is greater than 4, equations 3 or 6

(depending upon the number of test items) are applicable.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 406
Figure B-1: Typical Package Tester

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 406
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 406
ANNEX C DERIVATION OF TEST AREA COMPUTATION EQUATIONS
1. Originally, the computation of the size of the test area for multiple (N > 3) circular
cross section test items was computed from:
1
X  0.767 L N 2 equation 1
X = length of each side of the square test area, cm
2. This was derived originally for testing slender items (e.g., rounds of ammunition)
and is not applicable for items with a low slenderness ratio where the actual test item
slenderness, Ra, is defined by:
Ra = L/D equation 2
Ra = actual test item slenderness ratio
The actual slenderness ratio is independent of the number of test items, N.
For any test item, the test area width may be defined as:
W = N D + 2Sw + (N-1)SB equation 3
W = required width of square test area, cm
SW = space between test item and wall, cm
SB = space between each test item, cm
3. It is possible to compute a slenderness ratio required to determine if the test area

is dependent upon the length or width of the test item by using the definition of R from
equation 2 and calling this required value Rr.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 406
Rr = L/D equation 4
Thus:
D = L/Rr equation 5
Substituting into equation 3:
W = (N L/Rr) + 2Sw + (N-1)SB equation 6
Solving for Rr:
N L
Rr  equation 7
W  2 SW  N 1 S B
4. The diameter of the test item becomes the critical factor whenever the value W is
equal to or greater than the value X. Since the value Rr is inversely proportional to W, it
will reach a maximum value when W reaches a minimum value relative to X, or when W
equals X. Combining equation 1 with equation 7:
N L
Rr  1
equation 8
0.767 L N 2
 2 SW  N 1 S B
If the test item has an actual slenderness ratio, Ra, greater than the required ratio, Rr,
equation 1 is used to determine the test area. Otherwise, the test area is determined by
equation 3.
5. The derivation can also be performed when the number of test items, N, < 3. For
this case, the original test area computation was based on:
X  1.5 L equation 9
6. The requirement for W may still be defined by equation 3. The critical value for Rr
can be calculated by inserting the value of X from equation 9 as the value for W in
equation 7. This yields:
N L
Rr  equation 10
1.5 L  2 SW  N 1 S B
If the test item has an actual slenderness ratio, Ra, greater than the required ratio, Rr,
equation 9 is used to determine the test area. Otherwise, the test area is determined by
equation 3.

AECTP-400
METHOD 407
METHOD 407
MATERIEL TIEDOWN
Method 407 is superseded by Method 424.
AECTP-400
METHOD 407
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 408
METHOD 408
LARGE ASSEMBLY TRANSPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-1
2.3. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.4. TEST FACILITY ........................................................................................ 2-2
2.5. STRAPPING ARRAGEMENTS................................................................. 2-2
2.6. LARGE ASSEMBLY INSTALLATION ....................................................... 2-2
CHAPTER 4 INFORMATION TO BE provided IN THE TEST INSTRUCTION ....... 4-1
4.1. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.2. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-1
5.2. PROCEDURE ........................................................................................... 5-1
ANNEX A LARGE ASSEMBLY TRANSPORT - GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST
SEVERITY ................................................................................................ A-1
AECTP-400
METHOD 408
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 408
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1. SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this method is to replicate the vibration and shock environment incurred
by large assemblies of materiel installed or transported in wheeled or tracked vehicles.
In this test method, the specified vehicle type is used to provide the mechanical excitation
to the installed or transported assembly.
1.2. APPLICATION
This test is applicable to:
a. Materiel comprising a large assembly,
b. Materiel forming a high proportion of the vehicle gross mass,
c. Materiel forming an integral part of the vehicle.
which is required to demonstrate its adequacy to resist the specified ground mobility
conditions without unacceptable degradation of its functional and/or structural
performance.
This test method is also applicable where a laboratory test such as Test Method 401 -
Vibration, or Test Method 406 - Loose Cargo, may not be practical or cost effective.
AECTP 100 and 200 provide additional guidance on the selection of test procedure for
ground mobility conditions.
1.3. LIMITATIONS
None specified.

AECTP-400
METHOD 408
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 408
2. TEST GUIDANCE
that could occur when materiel is exposed to ground mobility conditions.
a. Wire chafing.
d. Mutual contact and short circuiting of electrical components.
f. Structural and component fatigue.
g. Optical misalignment.
h. Loosening of components.
i. Excessive electrical noise.
Where practical, measured field operational information should be used to tailor the test
levels. Sufficient data should be obtained to adequately describe the conditions being
evaluated and experienced by the materiel in each LCEP phase. The measured data
and information acquired should as a minimum be sufficient to account for the data
variances due to the distribution of the transport platform condition and age, payload
capacity and restraint system, operational personnel, and the environmental operating
conditions.
2.3. SEQUENCE
The test will comprise several parts involving different road surfaces, distances and
vehicle speeds, and in some cases different vehicles. The order of application of each
part should be considered and made compatible with the Life Cycle Environment Profile.

AECTP-400
METHOD 408
2.4. TEST FACILITY
When setting up the test, consideration must be given to the test surfaces available at the
particular test location selected to undertake the test. Also, the selection of the test
surfaces and related test distances must be appropriate for the specified type of vehicles
and their anticipated use.
2.5. STRAPPING ARRANGEMENTS
During the test it is important to reproduce the more adverse arrangements that could
arise in normal use. For example, during transportation excessive tightening of webbing
straps could prevent movement of the test item(s) during the test and thereby limit the
damaging effects; whereas relaxation of strap tension during service use could produce
repeated shock conditions.
2.6. LARGE ASSEMBLY INSTALLATION
The test item should be installed in or on the vehicle in its design configuration. If the
assembly is to be contained within a shelter, or if other units are attached to the materiel
assembly in its in-service configuration, then these items should also be installed in their
design configuration.

AECTP-400
METHOD 408
CHAPTER3 SEVERITIES
3. SEVERITIES
Military vehicles fall into the following broad groups:
a. Medium mobility wheeled land vehicles spending a high

proportion of their life on normal paved roads.
b. High mobility wheeled land vehicles spending time on both roads and
cross-country conditions.
c. Tracked vehicles.
Distances and speeds, together with any restrictions on weather conditions, shall be
formulated for each vehicle type and shall cover all relevant surface types, such as
smooth roads, rough roads and cross country.
All such selections and formulations for the test shall be agreed with the authority
responsible for compliance with the environmental requirements.
A typical set of test conditions is given in Annex A.

AECTP-400
METHOD 408
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 408

INSTRUCTION
4.1. COMPULSORY
a. The identification of the item(s) to be tested,
b. The type of test: development, qualification, etc.,
c. If operating checks are to be performed and when,
d. The type(s) of vehicle(s) to be tested and the associated load state(s),
e. The test conditions for each vehicle and the associated tolerances for
distance and vehicle speed,
f. The configuration of the materiel during the test,
g. The climatic conditions under which the test is to be conducted if other than
ambient,
h. Other relevant data required to perform the test and operating checks,
i. A statement of the failure criteria.
4.2. IF REQUIRED
None identified.

AECTP-400
METHOD 408
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 408
The test item shall be mounted in or on the vehicle as stated in the Test Instruction.
5.2. PROCEDURE
a. Examine the test item and carry out any required performance checks.
b. The vehicle containing the test item shall be subjected to the specified test
conditions.
c. Any required performance checks shall be undertaken as specified.
d. Test item shall be examined as specified for any detrimental effects.
e. In all cases, record the information required.

AECTP-400
METHOD 408
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 408
The performance of the test item shall meet all appropriate Test Instruction requirements
during and following the application of the Large Assembly Transport test conditions.

AECTP-400
METHOD 408
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 408
a. Test Operations Procedure (TOP) 01-1-011B Vehicle Test Facilities at

Aberdeen Test Center and Yuma Test Center, AD No. 1043599,
12 December 2017.

AECTP-400
METHOD 408
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 408
ANNEX A LARGE ASSEMBLY TRANSPORT - GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST

SEVERITY
3. Typical test courses for the Large Assembly Transport test are indicated below.
The vehicle containing the installed test item shall be driven over the required test
course(s) at the speed and total duration, or distance, defined in the Test Instruction.
Ensure that the test duration on each test course and the vehicle operational speed are
in accordance with the scenario(s) of the Life Cycle Environment Profile. If the LCEP in-
service road information is not available, the specified default test severity may be used.
Reference a provides a description of applicable test courses. If the test course speed
tolerance is undefined in the Test Instruction, the typical course speed tolerance is
+/- 10% of the specified vehicle speed.
4. Default Test Severity - The default minimum test severity is defined by operation
of the test vehicle over each of the five test courses below at the defined speed and total
course distance. The vehicle speed(s) used for the tests will be as specified below unless
the speed exceeds the safe driving conditions, in which case the maximum safe operating
speed will be used with agreement from the test requesting organization. The total
distance requirement can be completed with repetitive runs across a shorter distance of
test course. However, the individual courses must be of a sufficient length to excite the
full length of the vehicle and simulate a typical continuous road surface driving condition.
Repetitive vehicle runs across an excessively short test course section is not acceptable.
The total cumulative distance for all five courses is approximately 10 km (6 miles). Unless
defined in the Test Instruction, a sequential order for testing on the different courses is
not a requirement.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 408
Test Course Vehicle Speed Course Length

MPH (km/hr) feet (m)
Coarse Washboard (150 mm waves, 2 m apart) 5 (8) 3950 (1204)
Two Inch Washboard (50 mm) 10 (16) 4100 (1250)
Radial Washboard (50 mm to 100 mm waves) 15 (24) 1200 (366)
Three Inch Spaced Bump (75 mm) 20 (32) 3800 (1158)
Belgian Block 20 (32) 19700 (6005)

AECTP-400
METHOD 409
METHOD 409
MATERIEL LIFTING
AECTP-400
METHOD 409
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 410
METHOD 410
MATERIEL STACKING
AECTP-400
METHOD 410
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 411
METHOD 411
MATERIEL BENDING
AECTP-400
METHOD 411
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 412
METHOD 412
MATERIEL RACKING
AECTP-400
METHOD 412
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 413
METHOD 413
ACOUSTIC NOISE COMBINED WITH TEMPERATURE AND VIBRATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-1
2.3. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.4. RATIONALE FOR PROCEDURE AND PARAMETERS ........................... 2-2
2.4.1. Test Rationale .................................................................................... 2-2
2.4.2. Test Parameters ................................................................................. 2-2
2.4.3. Precursor Trials .................................................................................. 2-3
4.1. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.2. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-1
5.1. TOLERANCES.......................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1. Vibration ............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.2. Acoustic.............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.3. Temperature....................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.4. Duration.............................................................................................. 5-1
5.2. CONTROL ................................................................................................ 5-1
5.3. INSTALLATION CONDITIONS ................................................................. 5-1
5.4. EFFECTS OF GRAVITY ........................................................................... 5-2
5.5.2. Inspection and Performance Checks.................................................. 5-2
5.6. PROCEDURES......................................................................................... 5-2
5.6.1. Precursor Test .................................................................................... 5-2
5.6.2. Operational Test ................................................................................. 5-3
FIGURES
1. Typical Test Facility Layout ........................................................................... 2-3
ANNEX A DERIVATION OF TEST PARAMETERS ................................................ A-1
A.1. SCOPE ..................................................................................................... A-1
A.2. DATA REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................... A-1
A.3. TEMPERATURE PROFILE ...................................................................... A-3
A.4. VIBRATION PROFILE .............................................................................. A-4
AECTP-400
METHOD 413
A.5. REFERENCEs .......................................................................................... A-7

ANNEX A FIGURES
A-1. Flight Profiles for Six Illustrative Missions ................................................. A-2
A-2. Temperature Profiles for Six Illustrative Mission Types ............................ A-4
A-3. Equivalent Free Stream Dynamic Pressure Illustrative Missions .............. A-5
A-4. Illustrative Vibration Test Severity Profiles ................................................ A-5
A-5. Illustrative Vibration Test Severity Spectrum ............................................ A-6
ANNEX A TABLE
A-1. Illustrative Store Use ................................................................................. A-2
ANNEX B TEST FACILTY REQUIREMENTS ......................................................... B-1
B.1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... B-1
B.2. VIBRATION CONDITIONS ....................................................................... B-1
B.3. TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS ............................................................... B-1
B.4. FACILITY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .................................................. B-2
AECTP-400
METHOD 413
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1. SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
1. The purpose of this test method is to replicate the environment induced in the
internal equipment, hereafter called materiel, of stores and missiles when carried
externally on high performance aircraft during the specified operational conditions.
2. To achieve an accurate simulation, this test method combines acoustic noise

excitation with mechanical vibration and conditioned airflow to produce the required
mechanical and thermal responses in the internal units of the test item. The test method
is also capable of reproducing the changes in the vibration and temperature responses
that arise during specific aircraft mission profiles.
1.2. APPLICATION
1. This test is applicable where materiel is required to demonstrate its adequacy to

resist the specified environment without unacceptable degradation of its functional and/or
structural performance.
2. The principles of this test method may also be applicable to the simulation of other
vibration environments, such as those induced during missile flight conditions.
3. AECTP 100 and 200 provide additional guidance on the selection of a test
procedure for a specific environment.
1.3. LIMITATIONS
Where this test is used for the simulation of aerodynamic turbulence, it is not necessarily
suitable for proving thin shell structures interfacing directly with the acoustic noise.

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
2. TEST GUIDANCE
The following list is not intended to be all inclusive, but provides examples of problems
that could occur when materiel is exposed to this combined environment.
a. Wire chafing
b. Component fatigue
c. Component connecting wire fracture
d. Cracking of printed circuit boards
e. Failure of waveguide components
f. High cycle fatigue failure of small panel areas
g. High cycle fatigue failure of small structural elements
h. Optical misalignment
i. Loosening of small particles that may become lodged in circuits and

mechanisms
j. Excessive electrical noise
Where practical, field data should be used to develop test levels. It is particularly
important to use field data where a precise simulation is the goal. The parameters and
profiles are influenced by store type, aircraft installation, aircraft performance and mission
conditions. Profile derivation information is given in Annex A. When measured flight data
are not available, sufficient information is presented in Annex A to determine test profiles
and levels.
2.3. SEQUENCE
This test is designed for the simulation of the primary environmental effects that are
induced in complete assembled stores during external carriage on fixed wing aircraft.
However, should a test item need to be exposed to any additional environmental tests,

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
then the order of application of the tests should be compatible with the Life Cycle
Environmental Profile.
2.4. RATIONALE FOR PROCEDURE AND PARAMETERS
2.4.1. Test Rationale
1. In particular this test is designed to reproduce the main responses measured in

flight at the internal units of complete assembled stores, and to provide a realistic
simulation of relevant flight mission conditions through the use of acoustic noise,
vibration, and temperature conditioning.
2. The test equipment configuration for this test method is shown in Figure 1.
Acoustic noise is applied using the acoustic field of a reverberation chamber, while low
frequency excitation of the store will be induced by a mechanical vibration exciter. This
broadly represents the operational environment in that low frequency excitation, below
about 100 Hertz, normally results from mechanical input through the attachment points.
At higher frequencies the major in-service excitation source results from aerodynamic
flow over the exterior skin surface of the store, and is simulated in the test method by the
acoustic noise field. A more detailed description of the facility requirements is given in
Annex B
2.4.2. Test Parameters
All environmental parameters are controlled from the responses of the test item. Thus
the vibration and acoustic noise excitation should be controlled to give the required
internal unit vibration responses. Temperature control should normally be achieved at an
external thin skin section since time constants and power dissipation during power on
periods will significantly affect the internal component temperatures.
Therefore, the parameters required to fully define the test conditions are:
a. The temperature profile in terms of constant temperatures, rates of

temperature change during transition periods, and the time duration for
each element of the mission.
b. The vibration response in terms of spectrum, rms acceleration level, and

location(s), and the time duration for each element of the mission.

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
Figure 1: Typical Test Facility Layout
2.4.3. Precursor Trials
Control of the test conditions is derived from store responses. Therefore, a representative
store should be made available for precursor trials in order to establish the required
excitation conditions. It may be necessary to control the vibration response of the store
from external locations such as at strong points of the structure. In this case it is required
that the external control characteristics be established after setting up the reference
condition at the internal location(s). The precursor trial should be carried out in
accordance with paragraph 5.6.1.
When specified, during in-service simulations, the test item should be functioning and its
performance should be measured and recorded.

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
3. SEVERITIES
Test levels and durations should be established using data acquired directly from the
project environmental data acquisition programme, from the International Standard
Atmosphere (ISA) tables or equivalent, other appropriate flight measured data, or critical
design conditions derived from projected Life Cycle Environmental Profiles. These test
profiles should be derived in accordance with the procedure given in Annex A.

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 413

INSTRUCTION
4.1. COMPULSORY
c. The type of test: development, reliability, etc.
d. The times at which the test item is to be operating during the test.
e. The operating checks required: initial, during the test final.
f. The details required to perform the test including the method of installation
of the test item.
g. The monitor and control points or a procedure to select these points.
h. The indication of the failure criteria.
i. The initial climatic conditions, from AECTP 300 or from measured data.
j. The initial climatic conditions as derived from AECTP 300 or from

measured data.
4.2. IF REQUIRED
a. The effect of gravity and the consequent precautions.
b. The tolerances, if different from paragraph 5.1.

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
5.1. TOLERANCES
Tolerances should be specified for all relevant vibration, acoustic, temperature, and
duration control parameters. If tolerances are not met, the difference observed shall be
noted in the test report.
5.1.1. Vibration
For wideband random elements of the test, the tolerances should be in accordance with
those in Method 401 Vibration.
5.1.2. Acoustic
For reverberant acoustic field elements of the test, tolerances should be in accordance
with those in Method 402 Acoustic Noise.
5.1.3. Temperature
For non-transitional temperature elements of the test, the tolerances should be in

accordance with those in Method 300. For temperature transitions, the tolerances should
be defined in the Test Instructions.
5.1.4. Duration
The test duration shall be within +/- 2 % or one minute of the specified requirement,
whichever is the lesser.
5.2. CONTROL
The environmental parameters required to control the test conditions are stated in
paragraph 2.4.2. The derivation of these parameters is given in Annex A.
5.3. INSTALLATION CONDITIONS
The installation conditions are included in paragraph 5.6 and supported by further detail
in Annex B.

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
5.4. EFFECTS OF GRAVITY
If the performance of the materiel is affected by gravitational effects, then the in-service
mounting orientation should be used during the tests.
Unless otherwise specified, the test item should be stabilized to the initial conditions
stipulated in the Test Instruction. See also AECTP 300, Method 300.
5.5.2. Inspection and Performance Checks
Inspection may be carried out before and after testing. The requirements of these
inspections should be defined in the Test Instruction. If these checks are required during
the test sequence, then the time intervals at which the inspections are required should
also be specified.
5.6. PROCEDURES
5.6.1. Precursor Test
A precursor trial shall be carried out on a representative test item, as follows, in order to
establish the control parameters:
Step 1 Use AECTP 300 as appropriate. This will determine the response
temperature of the test item to be used at the initiation of this test.
Step 2 Install instrumentation on or in the representative test item similar

to measurement trials used to establish the service environment.
Step 3 Install the representative test item in the reverberation chamber, as

detailed in paragraph 5.6.2, Steps 1, 2, and 4.
Step 4 In the event that internal access within the representative item is
not possible, externally instrument the representative item as
specified in the Test Instruction. The spectral data from these
external locations may need to be used as a basis for vibration
control for the actual operational test item.
Step 5 Apply acoustic noise with mechanical vibration, to fill in the low
frequency excitation, until the required vibration spectra are
obtained at the internal instrumentation locations.

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
Step 6 Record the acoustic sound pressure levels and vibration spectra
necessary to achieve the required internal vibration responses.
Step 7 In all cases, record and analyse the data as specified.
Step 8 Remove the representative item from the chamber.
5.6.2 Operational Test
The test item shall be subjected to the following procedure:
Step 1 Install the test item in the chamber using the in-service attachment
points as specified in the Test Instruction.
Step 2 Arrange connections to the test item, such as cables, hoses, etc.,
so that they impose similar dynamic restraint and mass to the test
item as when the materiel is mounted in the in-service condition.
Step 3 Install accelerometers and temperature sensors on the test item

at the specified locations.
Step 4 Install the temperature duct over the test item and ensure that a
uniform gap is provided, and that connections to the test item do
not unduly obstruct this gap. The duct should not provide any
additional restraint to the test item.
Step 5 Connect the temperature conditioning duct to the supply duct.
Step 6 Close the chamber, initiate the temperature conditioning system,

and stabilise the test item at the required temperature.
Step 7 Perform the test using the parameters determined in paragraph

5.6.1, Step 5 and with the required temperature profiles as
specified in the Test Instruction.
Step 8 Record all the information as specified in the Test Instruction.
Step 9 Remove the test item from the chamber and perform the post test
inspections stipulated in the Test Instruction.

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
and following the application of the test conditions.

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
a. IEST RP-DTE040.1, High-Intensity Acoustics Testing, Institute of

Environmental Sciences and Technology, USA, January 2003.

AECTP-400
METHOD 413
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 413
ANNEX A DERIVATION OF TEST PARAMETERS
A.1. SCOPE
This annex defines procedures by which acoustic, vibration, and thermal test cycle
severities can be established. The main application of the procedure is to derive test
severities and test cycles for testing of stores, missiles and other airborne weapons. The
procedure may also be applicable to aircraft materiel provided the environments of prime
concern are vibration or kinetic heating induced by aerodynamic flow. The severities
derived using this annex procedure could also be adopted for mechanical vibration,
Method 401, when combined with thermal testing.
A.2. DATA REQUIREMENTS
1 The data required to determine vibration and thermal test cycle severities are the
installation details for the aircraft platform, the sortie profiles, the number of each type of
sortie, and information on altitude or temperature conditions.
2 The sortie profiles need to be defined in terms of airspeed, altitude and time.
Illustrative profiles are shown in Figure A-1. Representative sortie profiles are frequently
set out in the technical requirements specification for stores, missiles, and other airborne
weapons. Another source of suitable information is the aircraft manufacturer.
Additionally, a number of representative sortie profiles suitable for reliability testing are
defined in MIL-HDBK 781, reference a. Whatever the source conditions, they should not
exceed the capability of the carriage aircraft with the required weapons configuration.
3 The proportion of each type of sortie within the operational life of the materiel must
be established in order that this distribution can be reflected in the test conditions.
Illustrative store use is presented in Table A-1. This information has been derived from
UK data supplied by RAF Logistics Command. Such information is normally included in
the technical requirements specification for stores, missiles, and other airborne weapons.
4 Information on nominal altitude-temperature conditions can be obtained from

International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) tables. For extreme altitude-temperature
conditions, reference should be made to AECTP 200, Leaflet 2311. This leaflet also
indicates the range of sea level temperature conditions likely to be experienced in world-
wide weapon deployment.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 413
Figure A-1: Flight Profiles for Six Illustrative Missions
Table A-1: Illustrative Store Use
Number Duration Duration Average Percentage Percentage

of of of mission of total of total
missions longest shortest duration, missions, duration,
Flight Manoeuvre
per year mission, mission, minutes % %
minutes minutes
High level transit 1 40 40 40 3 2
Low level ground
attack following 7 85 65 74 19 18
standing air patrol
Low ground attack
7 85 60 69 19 17
with evasion
Low ground attack 8 100 60 74 21 21
High low high strike
4 100 60 84 11 12
with evasion
High low high strike 10 125 45 83 27 30

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 413
A.3. TEMPERATURE PROFILE
1 For each phase of the sortie profile, the altitude condition will enable the ambient
temperature to be determined. Using the aircraft speed at each altitude, it is possible to
calculate the skin recovery temperature from the following expressions:
 r   -1 M2 
Tr = Ta 1+
 2 

Where:
Tr = adiabatic thin skin temperature, degrees K or R
Ta = ambient air temperature as a function of altitude, degrees K or R
r = Recovery factor
 = Ratio of specific heats, 1.4 for air, standard conditions
M = Mach number
In the absence of other information, a recovery factor of 0.9 can usually be assumed.
This reduces the above expression to:
Tr  Ta (1 0.18M 2 )
2 Having established the temperature condition for each phase of the sortie, it is
possible to plot the temperature profile of the materiel skin for the complete sortie.
Temperature profiles for six illustrative sorties are shown in Figure A-2. Since small
variations in skin temperature may not be directly reflected in internal component
temperatures, it is possible to combine temperature conditions to produce a composite
temperature sortie that will include both stable temperature conditions and associated
rates of change of temperature at each stage.
3 Where it is required to cover world-wide operating conditions, the temperature

cycle can be enhanced by the introduction of cycle deviations to represent various sea
level temperatures as shown in Figure A-2.
4 To maintain representative conditions, particularly for reliability testing purposes,

the basic temperature cycle will normally not comprise only the extreme positive and
negative sea level temperatures. The probability of operation away from sea level
ambient temperature should be established to determine the number of cycles at each
condition. Cycles based on hot and cold level temperatures should be interspersed with
the ambient cycles such that each condition is evenly distributed over the life cycle of the
store.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 413
Figure A-2: Temperature Profiles for Six Illustrative Mission Types
A.4. VIBRATION PROFILE
1 For each phase of the sortie profile, the aircraft pressure, altitude, and airspeed
can be used to proportion flight vibration data into an appropriate profile. The vibration
severities generated are intended to represent store responses occurring in flight. For
the purpose of the laboratory test, combined acoustic and mechanical excitations are
used to generate the required vibration response profile. The exact proportion of acoustic
and mechanical excitations required will depend upon the facilities available.
2 The vibration severities experienced by a store vary throughout a sortie with

changes in flight dynamic pressure, which may follow the profiles of Figure A-3, for
example. Vibration severities are also dependent upon a number of non-sortie
dependent criteria such as store geometry and construction, measurement location, and
axis. Hence, appropriate flight measured vibration data are required for the store when
subjected to specific flight conditions. The measured severities can then be scaled
according to the sortie profiles required for test purposes, such as those shown in
Figure A-4. Figure A-5 shows a typical vibration spectrum that may be established from
the illustrative vibration data.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 413
Figure A-3: Equivalent Free Stream Dynamic Pressure Illustrative Missions
Figure A-4: Illustrative Vibration Test Severity Profiles

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 413
Figure A-5: Illustrative Vibration Test Severity Spectrum
3 The approximate relationships between flight dynamic pressure and vibration

severities are given below:
Acceleration, rms = B q
Acceleration, ASD = C q 2
Where B and C = Constants for a given aircraft or store configuration
q = Flight dynamic pressure
4 The relationship between flight dynamic pressure, q with aircraft velocity and
altitude is given by:
1 1
Dynamic pressure q   0 V 2  PM 2
2 2
Where 0 = atmospheric density at sea level, kg/m3
V = equivalent air speed, m/s
P = air pressure at specified altitude, Pa

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 413
M = true Mach number of aircraft
 = ratio of specific heats, 1.4 for air, standard conditions
For ISA conditions:
q = 70.9 M2 (1 - 2.256 x 10-5h)5.2561 kPa, h = altitude in metres
or
q = 1480 M2 (1 - 6.875 x 10-6h)5.2561 lb/ft2, h = altitude in feet
5 In the absence of suitable measured flight vibration data, alternative information

can be derived from AECTP 200, Leaflet 246/2.
A.5. REFERENCES
a. MIL-HDBK 781A, Reliability Test Methods, Plans, and Environments for

Engineering Development, Qualification and Production, USA Department
of Defense, 1 April 1996.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 413
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 413
ANNEX B TEST FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
B.1. INTRODUCTION
This test method is designed to provide a close approximation to the flight vibration and
temperature environment seen by the internal components of assembled materiel carried
externally on fixed wing aircraft.
B.2. VIBRATION CONDITIONS
1. The main source of vibration in-service is the aerodynamic flow excitation acting
over the total exposed surface of the materiel. Under laboratory test conditions the
acoustic field of a reverberation chamber simulates this vibration.
2. Acoustic excitation at low frequencies in a reverberation chamber is normally

limited by the size of the chamber, the low frequency cut off of the noise generation
system, and the power availability. Additionally, the very low frequencies, that result from
the wing and pylon bending and torsional modes for example, are mechanically coupled
through the store attachment interface. Low frequency energy should be applied to the
test item by means of a mechanical exciter operating in the nominal frequency range of
5 to 100 Hertz.
3. Mechanical vibration is applied via a light coupling connected to a strong point on

the test item. This single point coupling should be rigid in the axis of vibration but should
allow lateral motion of the test item.
4. The acoustic and mechanical stimuli are adjusted to achieve the required
composite vibration response at the specified internal location(s).
B.3. TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS
1. The normal method of generating high intensity noise in a reverberation chamber

involves the use of a relatively high airflow through the chamber. In order to achieve the
required temperature conditions at the test item skin, it is necessary to enclose the test
item and to control the temperature within that enclosure. This enclosure must be
effectively transparent to the acoustic noise.
2. To achieve rapid temperature changes at the test item skin and to reduce losses
of conditioned airflow, it is preferred that the acoustically transparent enclosure be
connected into a closed loop with the heat exchanger(s).
3. Temperature control will normally be established with a temperature sensor

attached to a section of the external skin of the test item. The capacity of the facility
temperature conditioning equipment should be sufficient to ensure that the thermal

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 413
response of this skin section follows the highest temperature change rate within the
tolerance specified.
B.4. FACILITY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
1. The reverberation chamber construction must include sufficient structural mass

and damping such that the noise spectrum is not unduly influenced by vibration of the
chamber interior surfaces. This can be achieved by ensuring that the chamber wall
fundamental resonance frequencies are less than the lowest acoustic test frequency
required.
2. Low frequency excitation is applied mechanically; hence the low frequency

response of the chamber is not as critical as for a standard acoustic test. The minimum
chamber size for a given vibration response spectrum may be selected for a cut-off
frequency at or below the crossover between mechanical and acoustic excitation.
Chamber dimensions required to accommodate the test item may be the limiting factor,
and the ratio of the major dimensions of the chamber must provide for adequate modal
density at the lowest acoustic noise frequency.
3. The section of temperature conditioning air ducting within the chamber should be
constructed to survive long periods of exposure to the acoustic noise conditions.
Additionally, it may be desirable to incorporate noise attenuation within the external
ducting to minimize the noise transmission to areas outside the chamber.

AECTP-400
METHOD 414
METHOD 414
HANDLING
AECTP-400
METHOD 414
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
METHOD 415
PYROSHOCK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-1
2.1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1. Rationale for Pyroshock Testing ........................................................ 2-1
2.1.2. Definition of Pyroshock....................................................................... 2-1
2.1.3. Pyroshock Characteristics .................................................................. 2-2
2.1.4. Pyroshock Intensity Classification ...................................................... 2-3
2.1.5. Effects of the Environment ................................................................. 2-4
2.2.1. Measured PYROSHOCK Data Available ........................................... 2-5
2.2.2. Measured PYROSHOCK Data not Available ..................................... 2-6
2.3. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-6
2.4.1. Procedure I - Near-Field with Actual Configuration .......................... 2-7
2.4.2. Procedure II - Near-Field with Simulated Configuration .................... 2-7
2.4.3. Procedure III - Far-Field with Mechanical Test Device ...................... 2-8
2.4.4. Procedure IV - Far-Field with Electrodynamic Exciter ....................... 2-8
2.5. Procedure Selection Considerations ......................................................... 2-8
3.1. GENERAL ................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2. TEST CONDITIONS – SHOCK SPECTRUM TRANSIENT DURATION
AND SCALING .......................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.1. Pyroshock Source Energy Scaling (SES) ........................................... 3-1
3.2.2. Pyroshock Response Location Distance Scaling (RLDS) .................. 3-2
3.3. SPECIFIC PROCEDURES – TEST AXES, DURATION, AND NUMBER
OF SHOCK EVENTS ................................................................................ 3-2
3.3.1. Procedure I - Near-Field with Actual Configuration .......................... 3-2
3.3.3. Procedure III - Far-Field with Mechanical Test Device ....................... 3-3
3.3.4. Procedure IV - Far-Field with Electrodynamic Exciter ........................ 3-3
3.5. ISOLATION SYSTEM ............................................................................... 3-4
3.6. SUB-SYSTEM TESTING .......................................................................... 3-4
3.7. MATERIEL CONFIGURATION ................................................................. 3-4
4.1. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.1.1. Pretest ................................................................................................ 4-1
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
4.1.2. During Test......................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.3. Post-test ............................................................................................. 4-2
4.2. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-3
5.1. TOLERANCES AND TEST LEVEL ESTIMATION .................................... 5-1
5.1.1. Procedure I - Near-Field with Actual Configuration ......................... 5-1
5.1.2. Procedure II - Near-Field with Simulated Configuration ................... 5-1
5.1.3. Procedure III - Far-Field with Mechanical Test Device ...................... 5-1
5.1.4. Procedure IV - Far-Field with Electrodynamic Exciter ....................... 5-2
5.1.5. Sufficient Data for Test Level Estimation............................................ 5-2
5.1.6. Insufficient Data for Test Level Estimation ......................................... 5-2
5.2. CONTROL ................................................................................................ 5-2
5.3. INSTALLATION CONDITIONS OF TEST MATERIEL .............................. 5-2
5.3.1. Test Facility ........................................................................................ 5-2
5.3.2. Calibration .......................................................................................... 5-3
5.3.3. Instrumentation .................................................................................. 5-4
5.3.3.1. Accelerometer .................................................................................... 5-4
5.3.3.2. Signal Coniditioning............................................................................ 5-4
5.3.4. Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 5-4
5.3.5. Test Set-up......................................................................................... 5-5
5.3.5.1. Procedure I - Near Field with Actual Configuration ............................ 5-5
5.3.5.2. Procedure II - Near Field with Simulated Configuration...................... 5-5
5.3.5.3. Procedure III - Far Field with Mechanical Test Device ....................... 5-5
5.3.5.4. Procedure IV - Far Field with Electrodynamic Exciter ........................ 5-5
5.4. EFFECTS OF GRAVITY ........................................................................... 5-5
5.5.1. Preliminary Steps ............................................................................... 5-6
5.5.2. Pre-test Checkout............................................................................... 5-6
5.6. PROCEDURES......................................................................................... 5-7
5.6.1. Procedure I - Near-Field with Actual Configuration. ......................... 5-7
5.6.3. Procedure III - Far-Field with Mechanical Test Device. ...................... 5-9
5.6.4. Procedure IV - Far-Field with Electrodynamic Exciter. ..................... 5-10
6.1. PROCEDURE I - NEAR FIELD WITH ACTUAL CONFIGURATION......... 6-1
6.2. PROCEDURE II - NEAR FIELD WITH SIMULATED CONFIGURATION . 6-1
6.3. PROCEDURE III - FAR-FIELD WITH MECHANICAL TEST DEVICE ...... 6-1
6.4. PROCEDURE IV - FAR-FIELD WITH ELECTRODYNAMIC EXCITER .... 6-1
ANNEX A PYROSHOCK TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ........................................... A-1
A.1. SCOPE ..................................................................................................... A-1
A.1.1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS-TERMINOLOGY .................................... A-1
A.1.1.1 Single Measured Environments ......................................................... A-1
A.1.1.2 Combination of Measurements .......................................................... A-6
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
A.2. REFERENCES AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ..................................... A-13

ANNEX A FIGURES
A-1. Total Event Pyroshock Amplitude Time History ........................................ A-7
A-2. Pyroshock Velocity Amplitude Time History .............................................. A-7
A-3. Magnitude Amplitude Time History ........................................................... A-8
A-4. Acceleration Maximax SRS ...................................................................... A-8
A-5. Acceleration Maximax SRS - Total Shock Event ...................................... A-9
A-6. Pseudovelocity Response Spectrum ........................................................ A-9
A-7. Acceleration Energy Spectral Density Estimate ...................................... A-10
A-8. Acceleration Fourier Transform Estimate ................................................ A-10
A-9. Correction of Shock Response Spectrum for Distance From
Pyrotechnic Source ................................................................................. A-11
A-10. Shock Response Spectra for Various Point Source Pyrotechnic
Devices ................................................................................................... A-11
A-11. Shock Response Spectrum vs Distance From Pyrotechnic Source ........ A-12
A-12. Peak Pyroshock Time History Response vs Distance From Pyrotechnic
Source .................................................................................................... A-12

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1. SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this test method is to replicate the effects of complex high amplitude and
high frequency transient responses which are incurred by systems, subsystems and
units, hereafter called materiel, during the specified operational conditions under
exposure to pyroshock from pyrotechnic explosive or propellant-activated devices.
1.2. APPLICATION
This method is applicable where materiel is required to demonstrate its adequacy to resist
the pyroshock environment without unacceptable degradation of its functional and/or
structural performance. Supplemental technical guidance is contained in references a,
b, and Annex A. AECTP 100 and 200 provides guidance on the selection of a test
procedure for the pyroshock environment.
1.3. LIMITATIONS
Because of the highly specialised nature of pyroshock, apply it only after giving careful
consideration to information contained in the paragraphs below. In general, it may not be
possible to simulate some of the actual in-service pyroshock environments because
fixture limitations or physical constraints can prevent the satisfactory application of the
pyroshock to the test item.
a. This method does not include the shock effects experienced by materiel as
a result of any mechanical shock, transient vibration, shipboard shock, or
EMI. For these types of shocks see the appropriate method in AECTP-
400.
b. This method does not include the effects experienced by fuse systems that
are sensitive to shock from pyrotechnic devices. Shock tests for safety and
operation of fuses and fuse components may be performed in accordance
with other applicable national and international standards specifically
addressing fuse system environmental testing.
c. This method does not include special provisions for performing pyroshock
tests at high or low temperatures.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
d. This method is not intended to be applied to manned space vehicle testing,

see reference b and Annex A reference l.
e. This method does not address secondary effects such as induced blast,
EMI, and thermal effects.
f. This method does not address effects of ballistic shock on materiel.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
2. TEST GUIDANCE
2.1. INTRODUCTION
Because of the highly unique form of the environment, introductory discussion is provided
to characterise the environment.
2.1.1. Rationale for Pyroshock Testing
Pyroshock tests involving pyrotechnic, explosive- or propellant-activated devices are

performed to:
a. Provide a degree of confidence that materiel can structurally and

functionally withstand the infrequent shock effects caused by the
detonation of a pyrotechnic device on a structural configuration to which
the materiel is mounted.
b. Experimentally estimate the materiel's fragility level relative to pyroshock in

order that shock mitigation procedures may be employed to protect the
materiel structural and functional integrity.
2.1.2. Definition of Pyroshock
1. Pyroshock is often referred to as "pyrotechnic shock." For purposes of this

document, initiation of a pyrotechnic device will result in an effect that is referred to as a
pyroshock refers to the localised intense mechanical transient response caused by the
detonation of a pyrotechnic device on adjacent structure.
2. A number of devices are capable of transmitting intense transients to a materiel.

In general, a pyroshock is caused by: (1) an explosive device, or (2) a propellant activated
device, releasing stored strain energy, coupled directly into the structure. For clarification,
a propellant activated device includes items such as a clamp that releases strain energy
causing a structural response greater than that obtained from the propellant explosion
alone. The excitation source can be described in terms of their spatial distribution as:
point sources, line sources and combined point and line sources, see Annex A reference
l. Point sources include explosive bolts, separation nuts, pin pullers and pushers, bolt
and cable cutters, and pyro-activated operational hardware. Line sources include flexible
linear shaped charges (FLSC), mild detonating fuses (MDF), and explosive transfer lines.
Combined point and line sources include V-band (Marmon) clamps. The loading from
the pyrotechnic device may be accompanied by the release of structural strain energy
from structure preload or impact amongst structural elements as a result of the activation

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
of the pyrotechnic device. The test method is used to evaluate materiel likely to be
exposed to one or more pyroshocks in its lifetime.
3. Pyroshocks are generally limited to a frequency range between 100 Hz and

1,000,000 Hz, and a time duration from 50 microseconds to not more than 20
milliseconds. Acceleration response amplitudes to pyroshock may range from 300g to
300,000g. The acceleration response time history to pyroshock will, in general, be very
oscillatory and have a substantial rise time, approaching 10 microseconds. In general,
the pyroshocks generate material stress waves that will excite materiel to respond to very
high frequencies with wavelengths on the order of sizes of microelectronic chip
configurations. Because of the limited velocity change in the structure resulting from the
firing of the pyrotechnic device, and the localised nature of the pyrotechnic device, the
structural resonances of the materiel below 500 Hz will normally not be excited. The
materiel system will undergo very small displacements with small overall structural
damage. The pyroshock acceleration environment in the vicinity of the materiel will
usually be highly dependent upon the configuration of the materiel. The materiel or its
parts may be in the near-field or far-field of the pyrotechnic device with the pyroshock
environment in the near-field being the most severe, and that in the far-field the least
severe.
2.1.3. Pyroshock Characteristics
Pyroshock is a physical phenomenon characterised by the overall material and

mechanical response at a structure point. The pyrotechnic device produces extreme local
pressure, with perhaps heat and electromagnetic emission, at a point or along a line. This
extreme local pressure provides a near instantaneous generation of local high-magnitude
non-linear material strain rates accompanied by the transmission of high-magnitude and
high frequency material stress waves that produce a high acceleration and low velocity,
short duration response at distances from the point or line source. The characteristics of
pyroshock are:
a. Near the source stress waves in the structure caused by high material
strain rates, non-linear material region, that propagate into the near-field
and beyond;
b. High frequency, 100 Hz - 1,000,000 Hz, and very broadband frequency

input;
c. High acceleration, 300 g - 300,000 g, with low structural velocity and

displacement response;
d. Short-time duration, typically < 20 milliseconds;
e. High residual structure acceleration response, after the pyrotechnic

event;

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
f. Point source or line source input, the input is highly localised;
g. Very high structural driving point impedance, P/v. Where P is the large
explosive force or pressure, and v is the small structural velocity. At the
source the impedance could be substantially less if the material particle
velocity is high;
h. Response time histories away from the source that are highly random in
nature, i.e., little repeatability and very dependent on the configuration
details;
i. Response at points on the structure greatly affected by structural

discontinuities;
j. Substantial heat and electromagnetic emission may accompany the

structural response from ionisation of gases during the pyrotechnic event.
2.1.4. Pyroshock Intensity Classification
The nature of the response to pyroshock suggests that the materiel or its components
may be classified as being in the “near-field” or “far-field” of the pyrotechnic device. The
terms near-field and far-field relate to the shock intensity at the response point and the
intensity is a function, in general unknown, of the distance from the source and the
structural configuration between the source and the response point.
a. Near-Field. In the near-field of the pyrotechnic device, the response is

governed by the structure material stress wave propagation effects.
Materiel, or any portion of the materiel, is in the near-field of an intense
pyrotechnic device if within a distance of 15 cm (6 in) of the point of
detonation of the device, or a portion of it in the case of a line charge. If
there are no intervening structural discontinuities, the materiel may be
expected to experience peak accelerations in excess of 5000 g, and
substantial spectral content above 100,000 Hz. The near-field of a less
intense pyrotechnic device can be considered to be within 7.5 cm (3 in)
of the point of detonation of the device, or a portion of it, with subsequent
reduction in the peak acceleration levels and spectral levels.
b. Far-Field. In the far-field of the pyrotechnic device the pyroshock

response is governed by a combination of material stress wave
propagation effects and structural resonance response effects. Materiel,
or any portion of the materiel, is in the far-field of an intense pyrotechnic
device, if at a distance of beyond 15 cm (6 in) of the point of detonation
of the device or a portion of it, in the case of a line charge. If there are
no intervening structural discontinuities, the materiel may be expected to
experience peak accelerations between 1000g and 5000 g and
substantial spectral content above 10,000 Hz. The far-field of a less

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
intense pyrotechnic device can be considered to be beyond 7.5 cm (3 in)

of the point of detonation of the device, or a portion of it, with subsequent
reduction in the peak acceleration levels and spectral levels. On
occasion, the far-field of a pyrotechnic device is characterised by the
mechanical structural resonance response effects above. If there are no
intervening structural discontinuities, the materiel may be expected to
experience peak accelerations below 1000g and most spectral content
below 10,000 Hz.
2.1.5. Effects of the Environment
1. The following discussion is not intended to be all inclusive, but provides examples
of problems that could occur when materiel is exposed to pyroshock.
2. In general, pyroshock has the potential for producing adverse effects on all
electronic materiel. The level of adverse effects increases with the level and duration of
the pyroshock, and decreases with the distance from the pyrotechnic device. Durations
for pyroshock that produce material stress waves with wavelengths that correspond with
the natural frequency wavelengths of micro-electronic components within materiel will
enhance adverse effects. In general, the structural configuration transmits the elastic
waves and is unaffected by the pyroshock. Examples of problems associated with
pyroshock include:
a. Materiel failure as a result of destruction of the structural integrity of

micro-electronic components,
b. Materiel failure as a result of relay chatter;
c. Materiel failure as a result of circuit card malfunction, circuit card damage

and electronic connector failure. On occasion, circuit card contaminants
having the potential to cause short circuits may be dislodged under
pyroshock.
d. Materiel failure as a result of cracks and fracture in crystals, ceramics,

epoxies, or glass envelopes.
This section provides background and guidance on the use of measured data in
pyroshock testing, and comment for cases in which measured data are not available. For
pyroshock, pyro-devices are “designed into” the overall materiel configuration and must
perform for a specific purpose. In this case, it is easier to obtain measured data during
such times as laboratory development. On occasion measured pyroshock data may be

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
readily available, and should be processed and utilised to the greatest extent possible in
the Test Instruction development.
2.2.1. Measured Pyroshock Data Available
a. If measured data are available, the data may be processed using the
Shock Response Spectra (SRS), Fourier Spectra (FS) or the Energy
Spectral Density (ESD). For engineering and historical purposes, the
SRS has become the standard for measured data processing. In the
discussion to follow it will be assumed that the SRS is the processing
tool. In general, the maximax SRS spectrum, absolute acceleration or
pseudo-velocity, is the main quantity of interest. Determine the SRS
required for the test from analysis of the measured environmental
acceleration time history. After carefully qualifying the data, to make
certain there are no anomalies in the amplitude time histories, compute
the SRS. Annex A reference f provides information regarding the
qualifying of pyroshock data. The analyses will be performed for a Q =
10 at a sequence of natural frequencies at intervals of at least 1/6 octave
and not greater resolution than 1/12th octave spacing to span at least
100 to 20,000 Hz, and not to exceed 100,000 Hz. When a sufficient
number of representative shock spectra are available, employ an
appropriate statistical technique, in general enveloping, to determine the
required test spectrum. Method 417 Annex D describes the statistical
techniques. Parametric statistics can be employed if the data can be
shown to satisfactorily fit an assumed underlying probability distribution.
For example, the test level can be based on a maximum predicted
environment defined to be equal to or greater than the 95th percentile
value at least 50 percent of the time, this is a tolerance interval approach.
When a normal or log-normal distribution can be justified, Method 417
Annex D, derived from Annex A reference g, provides a method for
estimating the test level.
b. Use an increase over the maximum of the available spectral data to

account for variability of the environment, and establish the test spectrum
when insufficient data are available for statistical analysis. The increase
is based upon engineering judgement and should be supported by
rationale for the judgement. It is often convenient to envelop the SRS by
computing the maximax spectra over the sample spectra, and add a + 6
dB increase margin to the SRS maximax envelope.
c. When employing the pyroshock test, determine the effective transient

time duration, Te , from the time history. For all procedures, the
pyroshock shock amplitude time history used for the SRS analysis will be
Te in duration. In addition, measurement data will be collected for a
duration Te prior to the pyroshock, and duration T e after the pyroshock
for subsequent analysis. In general, each individual axis of the three

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
orthogonal axes will have approximately the same shock test SRS and
the average effective duration as a result of the omni-directional
properties of a pyroshock in Procedure I and Procedure II. For Procedure
III, the form of shock test SRS may vary with axes. An SRS exciter shock
technique, complex transient, must be employed when using Procedure
IV. Classical shock pulse forms of shock are not acceptable substitutes
for an SRS based test procedure.
2.2.2. Measured Pyroshock Data not Available
1. If a database is not available for a particular configuration, the tester must rely
upon configuration similarity and any associated measured data for prescribing a
pyroshock test. Because of the sensitivity of both the pyroshock to the system
configuration, and the wide variability inherent in pyrotechnic shock measurements, the
tester must proceed with caution. As a basic guide for pyroshock testing, Figure A-10
provides SRS estimates for four typical aerospace application pyrotechnic point source
devices. Figure A-11 provides information on the attenuation of the SRS peaks and the
SRS ramp with distance from the source for the Figure A-10 point sources. Information
in Figure A-10 and Figure A-11 came from Annex A reference n. Reference n also
recommends that the attenuation of the peak SRS across joints be taken to be 40% for
each joint, up to three joints, and that there be no attenuation of the SRS ramp. Figure
A-12 provides the degree of attenuation of the peak time history response as a function
of the shock path distance from the source for seven aerospace structural configurations.
This information is summarised from Annex A reference o. The SES scaling law or the
RLDS scaling law may provide guidance, see paragraph 3.2.2.
2. In most cases, either Procedure II or Procedure III are the optimum procedures for
testing with the smallest risk of either substantial undertest or gross overtest. If
Procedure I is not an option, the tester must proceed with caution with Procedure II or
Procedure III according to the guidelines within this method. Other helpful information
concerning test procedures is contained in reference a. In reality, a test transient is
deemed suitable if the SRS equals or exceeds the given SRS requirement over the
minimum frequency range of 100 to 20,000 Hz and the duration of the test transient is
within 20% of that of the normal pyroshock response duration for other configurations.
2.3. SEQUENCE
1. Pyroshock is normally experienced near the end of the life cycle, except otherwise
noted in the life cycle profile. Normally, schedule pyroshock tests late in the test
sequence, unless the materiel must be designed to survive extraordinarily high levels of
pyroshock for which vibration and other shock environments are considered nominal.
Pyroshock tests can be considered independent of the other tests because of their unique
specialised nature, and consideration of combination environment tests will be rare. It is
good practice to expose a single test item to all relevant environmental conditions in turn
if independence of other tests cannot be confidently substantiated.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
2. In addition, perform tests at room ambient temperature unless otherwise specified

or there is reason to believe either operational high temperature or low temperature may
enhance the pyroshock environment.
3. This method does not include sequence-related guidance for unplanned test
interruption as a result of pyroshock device or mechanical test equipment malfunction for
cases in which the pyroshock is being mechanically simulated. Generally, if the
pyroshock device malfunctions or interruption occurs during a mechanical shock pulse,
repeat that shock pulse. Care must be taken to ensure stresses induced by the
interrupted shock pulse do not invalidate subsequent test results. In particular, check
materiel functionality and inspect the overall integrity of the materiel to ensure pre-shock
test materiel integrity. Record and analyse data from such interruptions before continuing
with the test sequence.
The choice of test procedure is governed by many factors including the in-service
environment and materiel type. These and other factors are dealt with in the general
requirements of AECTP 100, and in the definition of environments in AECTP 200. This
test method includes four test procedures.
2.4.1. Procedure I - Near-Field with Actual Configuration
Replication of pyroshock for the near field environment using the actual materiel and
associated pyrotechnic device in the in-service configuration Procedure I is intended to
test materiel, including mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and electronics, in the in-service
mode and actual configuration. The test item and pyrotechnic device physical
relationship are maintained in the laboratory test. In Procedure I the materiel, or a portion,
is located in the near-field of the pyrotechnic device(s).
2.4.2. Procedure II - Near-Field with Simulated Configuration
Replication of pyroshock for the near-field environment using the actual materiel, but with
the associated pyrotechnic device isolated from the test item Procedure II is intended to
test materiel, including mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and electronics, in the in-service
mode but with a simulated structural configuration. Normally this will minimise testing
costs because less materiel configurations and/or platforms associated with the test item
will be damaged. The test setup can be used for repeated tests at varying levels. Every
attempt should be made to use this procedure to duplicate the actual platform or materiel
structural configuration by way of a full-scale test. If this is too costly or impractical,
employ scaled tests with consideration for configuration details in the scaling process. In
particular, only the structure portion directly influencing the materiel is needed in the test,
provided it can be assumed that the remainder of the structure will not influence materiel
response. On occasion, a special pyrotechnic device may be employed for testing the
materiel, such as a flat steel plate to which the materiel is mounted and the pyrotechnic

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
charge is attached. In Procedure II it is assumed that the materiel, or some part, lies
within the near-field of a pyrotechnic device(s).
2.4.3. Procedure III - Far-Field with Mechanical Test Device
Procedure III is replication of pyroshock for the far-field environment with a mechanical
device that simulates the pyroshock peak acceleration amplitudes and frequency content.
Pyroshock can be applied using conventional high acceleration amplitude or frequency
excitation devices. Reference a provides a description of shock input devices, their
advantages and limitations. Procedure III typically excludes an electrodynamic exciter
because of exciter frequency range limitations. In Procedure III it is assumed that all parts
of the materiel lie in the far-field of the pyrotechnic device(s).
2.4.4. Procedure IV - Far-Field with Electrodynamic Exciter
Procedure IV is replication of pyroshock for the far-field environment using an

electrodynamic exciter to simulate the comparatively low frequency structural resonant
response to the pyrotechnic device. In all cases, it is necessary to verify, using in-service
measurements, that the simulation using an exciter is representative of the platform
resonant response alone. In Procedure IV it is assumed that all parts of the materiel lie
in the far-field of the pyrotechnic device(s). The materiel is subject to the structure
platform resonant response alone.
2.5. PROCEDURE SELECTION CONSIDERATIONS
1. Based on the test data requirements, determine which test procedure is

applicable. Note any structural discontinuities that may serve to mitigate the effects of the
pyroshock on the materiel, and select the procedure based on the actual materiel in-
service configuration. In some cases, the selection of the procedure will be driven by test
practicality. Consider all pyroshock environments anticipated for the materiel during its
life cycle, both in its logistic and operational modes. In any case, one test will be
considered sufficient for testing over the entire amplitude and frequency range of
exposure of the materiel. Do not break up measured or predicted response to pyroshock
into separate amplitude or frequency ranges, and apply different techniques in testing in
each separate amplitude or frequency range. When selecting the procedure consider the
following:
a. The Operational Purpose of the Materiel From the requirement

documents, determine the functions to be performed by the materiel
either during or after exposure to the pyroshock environment.
b. The Location Relative to the Pyrotechnic Device Determine if the

materiel or a portion of the materiel lies within the near-field or far-field of
the pyrotechnic device, see the definition in paragraph 2.1.4.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
2. If the materiel, or a portion, is located within the near-field of the pyrotechnic

device, without isolation of the materiel, and if there are no measured field data,
apply only Procedure I or II.
3. If the materiel is located within the near-field of the pyrotechnic device, and
measured field data exist, apply Procedure III if the processed data supports the
amplitude and frequency range capabilities of the test devices.
4. If the materiel is located within the far-field, and is subject to structural

response only, apply Procedure IV if the processed data supports the velocity,
displacement, and frequency range of an electrodynamic exciter. If the data does not
support the electrodynamic exciter limitations, apply Procedure III.
a. Operational Purpose. The test data required to determine whether the

operational purpose of the materiel has been met.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
3. SEVERITIES
3.1. GENERAL
When practical, test levels and durations will be tailored or established using projected
in-service use profiles and other relevant data. Pyroshock events are “designed into” the
overall materiel configuration with a well-defined sequence of occurrence. When
measured data are not available consult Annex A or the references provided. All
information should be used in conjunction with the appropriate information given in
AECTP 200. Having selected one of the four pyroshock procedures based on the
materiel's requirements documents and the tailoring process; complete the tailoring
process by identifying appropriate parameter levels, applicable test conditions and
applicable test techniques for the procedure. For pyrotechnic testing, exercise extreme
care in consideration of the details in the tailoring process. Base these selections on the
requirements documents, the Life Cycle Environmental Profile, the Operational
Environment Documentation, and information provided with this procedure. Consider the
following when selecting test levels.
3.2. TEST CONDITIONS – SHOCK SPECTRUM TRANSIENT DURATION AND

SCALING
Derive the SRS and the effective transient duration, Te, from measurements of the
materiel's functional environment or, if available, from dynamically scaled measurements
of a similar environment. Because of the inherent very high degree of randomness
associated with the response to a pyroshock, extreme care must be exercised in
dynamically scaling a similar event. For pyroshocks there are two known scaling laws for
use with response from pyroshocks that may be helpful if used with care, see reference
b and Annex A reference l.
3.2.1. Pyroshock Source Energy Scaling (SES)
The first scaling law is the Source Energy Scaling (SES) where the SRS is scaled at all
frequencies by the ratio of the total energy release of two different devices. For Er and
En the total energy in two pyrotechnic shock devices the relationship between the SRS
processed levels at a given natural frequency, fn, and distance, D1, is given by the
following expression:
En
SRSn ( fn | E n , D1)  SRSr ( fn | E r , D1 )
Er
In using this relationship, it is assumed that either an increase or decrease in the total
energy of the pyrotechnic shock devices will be coupled into the structure in exactly the

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
same way. Excessive energy from one device will go into the structure as opposed to
being dissipated in some other way, e.g., through the air.
3.2.2. Pyroshock Response Location Distance Scaling (RLDS)
The second scaling law is the Response Location Distance Scaling (RLDS) where the
SRS is scaled at all frequencies by an empirically derived function of the distance
between two sources. For D1 and D2, the distances from a pyrotechnic shock device the
relationship between the SRS processed levels at a given natural frequency, fn, is given
by the following expression:
  



SRS fn D2  SRS fn D1 exp   8 x 104 f n

2.4 fn0.105  

  D2  D1 

   

In using this relationship it is assumed that D1 and D2 can be easily defined as in the case
of a pyrotechnic point source device. Figure A-9 from reference b displays the ratio of
SRS(fn|D2) to SRS(fn|D1) as a function of the natural frequency, fn, for selected values of
the term ( D2 - D1 ). It is clear from this plot that as the natural frequency increases there
is a marked decrease in the ratio for a fixed ( D2 - D1 ) > 0 , and as ( D2 - D1 ) increases,
the attenuation becomes substantial. This scaling relationship when used for prediction
between two configurations relies very heavily upon (1) similarity of configuration, and
(2) similarity of type of pyrotechnic device. Annex A reference l and the example provided
in this reference should be consulted before applying this scaling relationship.
3.3. SPECIFIC PROCEDURES – TEST AXES, DURATION, AND NUMBER OF

SHOCK EVENTS
For Procedure I, subject the test item to a sufficient number of suitable shocks to meet
the specified test conditions. The following guidelines may be applied. For materiel that
is likely to be exposed only rarely to a given pyroshock event, perform one shock for each
appropriate environmental condition. For materiel that is likely to be exposed more
frequently to a given pyroshock event, and there is little available data to substantiate the
number of pyroshocks, apply three or more shocks at each environmental condition
based on the anticipated service use. A suitable test shock for each axis is one that yields
an SRS that equals or exceeds the required test SRS over the specified frequency range
when using a duration specified Te value for the test shock time history and when the
effective duration of the shock is within twenty percent of the specified Te value.
Determine the SRS for Q = 10, and at least 1/6-octave frequency intervals. The objective
of the test is to test the physical and functional integrity of the materiel under the actual
pyroshock configuration in the near-field of the pyroshock device.
For Procedure II, subject the test item to a sufficient number of suitable shocks to meet

AECTP-400
METHOD 415

based on the anticipated service use. A suitable test shock for each axis is one that yields
an SRS that equals or exceeds the required test spectrum over the specified frequency
range when using a duration specified Te value for the test shock time history and when
the effective duration of the shock is within twenty percent of the specified Te value.
Determine the maximax SRS for Q = 10, and at least 1/6-octave frequency intervals. The
objective of the test is to test the structural and functional integrity of the materiel under a
simulated pyroshock configuration in the near-field of the pyroshock device.
For Procedure III, subject the test item to a sufficient number of suitable shocks to meet
number of pyroshocks, apply three or more at each environmental condition based on
the anticipated service use. The measured response test requirements may be satisfied
along more than one axis with a single test shock configuration. Consequently, it is
conceivable that a minimum of three test shock repetitions will satisfy the requirements
for all directions of all three orthogonal axes. At the other extreme, a total of nine shocks
are required if each shock only satisfies the test requirements in one direction of one axis.
If the required test spectrum can be satisfied simultaneously in all directions, three shock
repetitions will satisfy the requirement for the test. If the requirement can only be satisfied
in one direction, it is permissible to change the test set-up and impose three additional
shocks to satisfy the spectrum requirement in the other direction. A suitable test shock
is one that yields an SRS that equals or exceeds the required test SRS over the specified
frequency range. Determine the maximax SRS for Q = 10, and at least 1/6-octave
frequency intervals. The objective of the test should be to test the structural and functional
integrity of the system under pyroshock in the far-field of the pyroshock device.
For Procedure IV, subject the test item to a sufficient number of suitable shocks to meet
based on the anticipated service use. The measured response will not be omni-
directional. For Procedure IV it may be permissible, but highly unlikely, to simultaneously
meet the test requirements along more than one axis with a single test shock
configuration. Consequently, it is conceivable that a minimum of three test shock
repetitions will satisfy the requirements for all directions of all three orthogonal axes. At

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
the other extreme, a total of nine shocks are required if each shock only satisfies the test
requirements in one direction of one axis. If the required test SRS can be satisfied
simultaneously in all directions, three shock repetitions will satisfy the requirement for the
test. If the requirement can only be satisfied in one direction, it is permissible to change
the test set-up and impose three additional shocks to satisfy the SRS requirement in the
other direction. A suitable test shock is one that yields an SRS that equals or exceeds
the required test spectrum over the specified frequency range. Determine the maximax
SRS for Q = 10, and at least 1/6-octave frequency intervals. The objective of the test
should be to test the structural and functional integrity of the system under pyroshock
where the low frequency structural response of the platform is the primary input to the
materiel.
It should be noted that the selected test procedure may not provide an adequate
may be necessary to compliment the test results. In the case of pyroshock this may be
difficult since prediction methodology for this environment is in its infancy. What
prediction methodology exists is based primarily on empirical test results with few
adequate analytical models.
3.5. ISOLATION SYSTEM
Materiel intended for use with shock isolation systems, or special structural isolation
configurations, should normally be tested with its isolators or shock attenuation devices
in position, or under the special structural isolation configuration. The test item should be
tested without isolators if it is not practical to carry out the pyroshock test with the
appropriate isolators, or if the high frequency dynamic characteristics of the materiel
installation are highly variable. Or, test the item in a structural configuration at a modified
severity specified in the Test Instruction. Determining the modified severity is a
questionable practice, unless the materiel configuration is very basic and the scaling laws
can be applied.
3.6. SUB-SYSTEM TESTING
When identified in the Test Instruction, sub-systems of the materiel may be tested
separately and can be subject to different pyroshock severities. If this course of action is
elected, extreme care must be exercised to properly define the sub-system boundary
conditions because of the sensitivity of pyroshock levels to attachment points at sub-
system boundaries.
3.7. MATERIEL CONFIGURATION
Configure the test item for pyroshock as would be anticipated during in-service conditions
including particular attention to the details of the mounting of the materiel to the platform.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
Pyroshock response variation is particularly sensitive to the details of the materiel and
platform configuration.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 415

INSTRUCTION
4.1. COMPULSORY
4.1.1. Pretest
The following information is required to conduct a pyroshock test adequately.
General. Information.
a. The identification of the test materiel
b. The definition of the test materiel
c. The type of test: development, qualification, etc.
d. The operation or non-operation of the test materiel during the test
e. The packaging conditions, if applicable
f. The operating checks to be performed and when, if applicable
g. The control strategy
h. The indication of the failure criteria
Specific to this Method.
a. Test system (test item/platform configuration) detailed configuration

including
(1) Location of the pyrotechnic device
(2) Location of the materiel with respect to the pyrotechnic device
(3) The structural path between the pyrotechnic device and the
materiel; and any general coupling configuration of the
pyrotechnic device to the platform and the platform to the materiel
including the identification of structural joints

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
(4) Distance of the closest part of the materiel to the pyrotechnic

device
b. Pyroshock environment, including
(1) Type of pyrotechnic device
(2) If charge related - size of pyrotechnic device charge
(3) If charge effect - stored strain energy in primary device
(4) Means of initiation of the pyrotechnic device
(5) Anticipated EMI or thermal effects
c. Duration of pyroshock if Procedure III or Procedure IV is used, or the size

and distribution of the pyrotechnic device charge if Procedure I or
Procedure II is used.
d. General materiel configuration including measurement points on or near

the materiel.
4.1.2. During Test
For test validation purposes, record deviations from planned or pre-test procedures or
parameter levels, including any procedural anomalies that may occur.
4.1.3. Post-test
Record the following post-test information.
General
Information listed previously.
Specific to this method.
a. Previous test methods to which the specific test item has been exposed.
b. Duration of each exposure or number of specific exposures.
c. Any data measurement anomalies, e.g., instrumentation high noise

levels, etc.
d. Status of the test item for each visual examination.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
e. Test levels with supporting measurement analysis.
f. Results of operational checks.
4.2. IF REQUIRED
The number of simultaneous test materiel tolerances, if different from paragraph 5.1.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
5.1. TOLERANCES AND TEST LEVEL ESTIMATION
Following are guidelines for test tolerances for pyroshock for the four procedures. All
tolerances are specified on the maximax acceleration SRS. Any tolerances specified on
the pseudo-velocity SRS must be derived from the tolerances on the maximax
acceleration SRS and be consistent with those tolerances. The test tolerances are stated
in terms of single measurement tolerance. For an array of measurements defined in terms
of a “zone”, see Annex A reference g, a tolerance may be specified in terms of an average
of the measurements within a “zone”. It should be noted, however, this is in effect a
relaxation of the single measurement tolerance and that individual measurements may
be substantially out of tolerance while the average is within tolerance. In general, when
specifying test tolerances based on averaging for more than two measurements within a
zone the tolerance band should not exceed the 95/50 one-sided normal tolerance upper
limit computed for the logarithmically transformed SRS estimates nor be less than the
mean minus 1.5 dB. Any use of zone tolerances and averaging must have support
documentation prepared by a trained analyst. It should be noted from reference b, current
aerospace practice for tolerance on the maximax SRS is given as + 6 and -6 dB for
fn < 3 kHz and + 9 and - 6 dB for fn > 3 kHz with at least 50% of the SRS magnitudes shall
exceed the nominal test specification.
If prior measured data are available or a series of pyroshocks are performed, all
acceleration maximax SRS computed with a one-twelfth octave frequency resolution are
to be within –3 dB and + 6dB over a minimum of 80 % of the overall frequency bandwidth
from 100 Hz to 20 kHz. For the remaining 20 % part of the frequency band, all SRS are
to be within – 6 dB and + 9 dB.
to be within –3 dB and + 6 dB over a minimum of 80 % of the overall frequency bandwidth
from 100 Hz to 20 kHz. For the remaining 20% part of the frequency band, all SRS are to
be within – 6 dB and + 9 dB.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
to be within –1.5 dB and + 3dB over a minimum of 80 % of the overall frequency

bandwidth from 100 Hz to 10 kHz. For the remaining 20 % part of the frequency band, all
SRS are to be within – 3 dB and + 6 dB.
to be within –1.5 dB and + 3 dB over a minimum of 90 % of the overall frequency
bandwidth from 10 Hz to 2 kHz. For the remaining 10 % part of the frequency band, all
SRS are to be within – 3 dB and + 6 dB.
5.1.5. Sufficient Data for Test Level Estimation
When a sufficient number of representative shock spectra are available, employ an

appropriate statistical technique (in general an enveloping technique) to determine the
required test spectrum. Method 417 Annex D describes the appropriate statistical
techniques. In general, parametric statistics can be employed if the data can be shown
to satisfactorily fit an assumed underlying probability distribution. For example, in certain
standards the test levels are based upon a maximum predicted environment defined to
be equal to or greater than the 95th percentile value with a confidence coefficient of at
least 0.50. This is an upper tolerance level approach. When a normal or lognormal
distribution can be justified, Annex A reference g provides a method for estimating such
a test level.
5.1.6. Insufficient Data for Test Level Estimation
When insufficient data are available for statistical analysis, use an increase over the
maximum of the available spectral data to establish the required test spectrum to account
for variability of the environment. The degree of increase is based upon engineering
judgement and should be supported by rationale for that judgement. In these cases it is
often convenient to envelope the SRS by computing the maximax spectra over the
sample spectra and proceed to add a + 6dB margin to the SRS maximax envelope.
5.2. CONTROL
The control strategy is dependent upon the type of test and the configuration of the
materiel. In general the testing is open-loop from pre-configured tests used to calibrate
the test severity.
5.3. INSTALLATION CONDITIONS OF TEST MATERIEL
5.3.1. Test Facility
Pyroshock can be applied using actual pyrotechnic devices in the design or a simulated
configuration, conventional high acceleration amplitude/frequency test input devices, or

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
an electrodynamic exciter. The pyroshock apparatus may incorporate a compressed gas

shock tube, metal-on-metal contact, ordnance-generated pyroshock simulator,
electrodynamic exciter, actual pyrotechnic device on a scale model, actual pyrotechnic
device on a full scale model, or other activating types of apparatus. For Procedure I or
Procedure II, references related to ordnance devices must be consulted. For Procedure
III the guidelines in the method must be followed. Reference a provides a source of
alternative test input devices, their advantages and limitations. In this procedure it is
assumed that all parts of the materiel lie in the far-field of the pyrotechnic device. Utilise
the guidelines in this method; reference a provides supplemental information for
consideration for such testing. For Procedure IV, it is assumed that all parts of the
materiel lie in the far-field of the pyrotechnic device and the measured or predicted data
are consistent with the 2000 Hz frequency limitations of the electrodynamic exciter in
addition to the acceleration amplitude limitations. It is also important to note that for large
materiel, the velocity input of the exciter may exceed the velocity of the materiel under
the actual pyroshock environment. For velocity sensitive materiel, this may constitute an
over test. In the ensuing paragraphs the portion of the test facility responsible for
delivering the pyroshock to the materiel will be termed the shock apparatus. Such shock
apparatus includes the pyrotechnic shock device and the fixturing configuration in
Procedure I and Procedure II, the mechanical exciter and the fixturing configuration in
Procedure III, and the electrodynamic exciter and the fixturing configuration in
Procedure IV.
5.3.2. Calibration
Ensure the shock apparatus is calibrated for conformance with the specified test
requirement from the selected procedure. Procedure I may be used without pre-shock
calibration in cases in which the configuration details are in accordance with the test plan.
However, Procedure I should be used with a pre-shock calibration in cases in which the
hardware is expendable and added test costs are not exorbitant, to ensure accurate test
simulation for the materiel. For Procedure II, before the test item is attached to the
resonating plate, it will be necessary to attach a simulated test item and obtain measured
data under test conditions to be compared with the desired test response. Caution must
be exercised so that the pre-test shocks do not degrade the resonating plate
configuration. For Procedure III, calibration is crucial. Before the test item is attached to
the shock apparatus it will be necessary to attach a simulated test item and obtain
measured data under test conditions to be compared with the desired test response. For
Procedure IV, utilising the SRS method with proper constraints on the effective duration
of the transient, calibration is necessary. Before the test item is attached to the shock
apparatus, it will be necessary to attach a simulated test item and obtain measured data
under test conditions to be compared with the desired test response. For Procedure II,
Procedure III and Procedure IV, remove the calibration load and then perform the shock
test on the actual test item.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
In general for pyroshock, acceleration will be the quantity measured to meet specification
with care taken to ensure acceleration measurements can be made that provide
meaningful data i.e., the measured data are well qualified, Annex A reference f. On
occasion more sophisticated devices may be employed, e.g., laser velocimeter. In these
cases give special consideration to the instrument amplitude and frequency range
specifications in order to satisfy the measurement and analysis requirements.
5.3.3.1. Accelerometer
a. Transverse sensitivity of less than or equal to 5%.
b. An amplitude linearity within 10% from 5% to 100% of the peak

acceleration amplitude required for testing.
c. For all pyroshock procedures a flat frequency response within +10%

across the frequency range 10 - 20,000 Hz. The devices may be of the
piezoelectric type or the piezoresistive type. (Experience has shown that
valid pyroshock measurements within the near-field of the pyroshock
device are very difficult to make.)
d. Use measurement devices compatible with the requirements and

guidelines provided in the paragraphs above.
5.3.3.2. Signal Conditioning
Use signal conditioning compatible with the instrumentation requirements for the
materiel. In particular, filtering will be consistent with the response time history
requirements. Use signal conditioning requirements compatible with the requirements
and guidelines provided in the paragraphs above. In particular use extreme care in
filtering the acceleration signals either (1) directly at the attachment point, i.e.,
mechanical filtering to reduce the very high frequencies associated with the pyroshock,
or (2) at the amplifier output. The signal into the amplifier should never be filtered for
fear of filtering bad measurement data and the inability to detect the bad measurement
data. The signal from the signal conditioning must be anti-alias filtered before
digitising.
1. Digitising the analog voltage signal will not alias more than a 5 percent
measurement error into the frequency band of interest (100 Hz to 20 kHz).
2 Filters that are used to satisfy the data digitisation requirement shall have linear
phase-shift characteristics.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
3 Filters that are used to satisfy the data digitisation requirement shall have a pass
band flatness within one dB across the frequency range specified for the accelerometer
(see paragraph 5.3.3).
4. Analysis procedures will be in accordance with those requirements and

guidelines provided in the paragraphs of this method; supplemental information can be
found in Annex A reference f. In particular, the pyroshock acceleration amplitude time
histories will be qualified according to the procedures provided in the paragraphs of
this method. Each amplitude time history will be integrated to detect any anomalies in
the measurement system. e.g., cable breakage, slew rate of amplifier exceeded, data
clipped, unexplained accelerometer offset, etc. The integrated amplitude time histories
will be compared with criteria given in the paragraphs of this method. For Procedure I
and Procedure II to detect emission from extraneous sources, configure an
accelerometer without sensing element and process its response in the same manner
as for the other accelerometer measurement responses. If this accelerometer exhibits
any character other than very low level noise, consider the acceleration measurements
to be contaminated by an unknown noise source.
5.3.5. TEST SET-UP
5.3.5.1. Procedure I - Near-Field with Actual Configuration
In this procedure the materiel is tested on the actual overall configuration. For
installation ensure the in-service mounting conditions are maintained.
5.3.5.2. Procedure II - Near-Field with Simulated Configuration
In this procedure mount the materiel on the flat plate (or other suitable simulation
device) in either an isolated or an un-isolated configuration dependent upon the in-
Service condition.
5.3.5.3. Procedure III - Far-Field with Mechanical Test Device
In this procedure follow test instruction procedures for installing materiel for a shock
test. Details of the installation procedures will depend upon the test device
configuration.
5.3.5.4. Procedure IV - Far-Field with Electrodynamic Exciter
In this procedure follow test instruction procedures for installing materiel for a shock
test on an electrodynamic exciter.
5.4. EFFECTS OF GRAVITY
Because of the potentially high acceleration levels for pyroshock, gravity has no effect on
the test configuration or analysis of the test data. Only in cases in which the materiel itself

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
is sensitive to gravity and the operation of the materiel depends upon the direction of
gravity relative to the materiel orientation should the effects of gravity be considered.
5.5.1. Preliminary Steps
Prior to initiating any testing, review pre-test information in the test instruction to determine
test details (e.g., procedures, test item configuration, pyroshock levels, number of
pyroshocks):
a. Choose the appropriate test procedure.
b. Determine the appropriate pyroshock levels for the test prior to calibration
for Procedure II, Procedure III and Procedure IV from previously
processed data (if available).
c. Ensure the pyroshock signal conditioning and recording device has

adequate amplitude range and frequency bandwidth. It may be difficult
to estimate a peak signal and range the instrumentation appropriately. In
general, there is no data recovery from a clipped signal, however for
overranged signal conditioning, it is usually possible to get out
meaningful results for a signal 20 dB above the noise floor of the
measurement system. In some cases, redundant measurements may be
appropriate, one measurement being overranged and one measurement
ranged at the best estimate for the peak signal. The frequency bandwidth
of most recording devices is usually readily available, but one must make
sure that device input filtering does not limit the signal frequency
bandwidth.
5.5.2. Pre-test Checkout
All items require a pre-test checkout at standard ambient conditions to provide baseline
data. Conduct the checkout as follows:
a. Conduct a complete visual examination of the test item with special

attention to any micro electronic circuitry areas. Pay particular attention
to its platform mounting configuration and potential stress wave
transmission paths.
b. Document the results for compliance with General Requirements.
c. Where applicable, install the test item in its test fixture.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
d. Conduct an operational checkout in accordance with the approved test

plan along with simple tests for ensuring the measurement system is
responding properly.
e. Document the results for compliance with General Requirements.
f. If the test item operates satisfactorily, proceed to the first test. If not,
resolve the problem and restart at Step 1.
g. Remove the test item and proceed with the calibration (except in the case
of Procedure I for no pre-shock calibration).
5.6. PROCEDURES
The following procedures provide the basis for collecting the necessary information
concerning the platform and test item under pyroshock.
Step 1. Follow the guidance of this test method to select test conditions.
Mount (1) the test item if there will be no calibration for actual
materiel configuration used in this procedure or (2) a dynamically
similar test item if there is to be calibration prior to testing. Select
accelerometers and analysis techniques, that meet the criteria,
outlined in previous paragraphs of this method; supplemental
information is contained in Annex A reference f.
Step 2. Perform a functional check on the test item.
Step 3. Subject the test item (in its operational mode) to the test transient
by way of the pyrotechnic device.
Step 4. Record necessary data that show the shock transients met or
exceeded desired test levels. This includes test set-up photos,
test logs, and plots of actual shock transients. For shock isolated
assemblies within the test item, make measurements and/or
inspections to assure these assemblies did attenuate the
pyroshock.
a. Perform the functional check on the test item.

Record performance data.
b. If a dynamically similar test item is used to calibrate

the test set-up, repeat steps 3, 4, and 5, a minimum
of three times for statistical confidence. If the
required test tolerances have been met, replace the

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
substitute test item with the actual test item and

repeat steps 3, 4, and 5, as specified in the Test
instruction.
c. Document the test series.
Step 5. Following the guidance provided in this method; supplemental

information is in reference a, select test conditions and calibrate
the shock apparatus as follows:
a. Select accelerometers and analysis techniques, that

meet the criteria, outlined in previous paragraphs of
this method; supplemental information is contained
in Annex A reference f.
b. Mount the calibration load (the actual test item, a

rejected test item, or a rigid dummy mass) to the test
apparatus in a manner similar to that of the actual
test item. If the test item is normally mounted on
shock isolators to attenuate the pyroshock, ensure
the isolators are functional during the test.
c. Perform calibration shocks until two consecutive

shock applications to the calibration load produce
waveforms that, when processed with SRS
algorithm meet or exceed the desired test
conditions, for at least one direction of one axis.
d. Remove the calibrating load and install the actual

test item on the shock apparatus, paying close
attention to mounting details.
Step 6. Perform a functional check of the test item.
Step 7. Subject the test item, in its operational mode, to the test
pyroshock.
Step 8. Record necessary data that show the shock transients met or
exceeded desired test levels. If requirements are given in terms
of more than one axis, examine responses in the other axes to
ensure the test specification has been met. Include test set-up
photos, test logs, and photos of actual shock transients. For shock
isolated assemblies within the test item, make measurements

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
and/or inspections to assure the isolators attenuated the

pyroshock.
Step 9. Perform the functional check on the test item. Record

performance data.
Step 10. If a dynamically similar test item is used to calibrate the test set-
up, repeat steps 3, 4, and 5, a minimum of three times (for each
of the three axis) for statistical confidence. If the required test
tolerances have been met, replace the substitute test item with the
actual test item and repeat steps 3, 4, and 5, (for each of the three
axis) as specified in the Test instruction.
Step 11. Document the test series.

information is in reference a. Select test conditions and calibrate
the shock apparatus as follows:


rejected item, or a rigid dummy mass) to the test
apparatus in a manner similar to that of the actual
materiel. If the materiel is normally mounted on
shock isolators to attenuate the pyroshock, ensure
the isolators are functional during the test.
c. Perform calibration shocks until two consecutive
waveforms that, when processed with an SRS
algorithm meet or exceed derived test conditions for
at least one direction of one axis.
d. Remove the calibrating load and install the actual

test item on the shock apparatus paying close
Perform a functional check of the test item.
Subject the test item (in its operational mode) to the test pyroshock.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
Record necessary data that show the shock transients met or exceeded desired test
levels. If requirements are given in terms of more than one axis, examine responses
in the other axes to ensure the test specification has been met. Include test set-up
photos, test logs, and photos of actual shock transients. For shock isolated assemblies
within the test item, make measurements and/or inspections to assure the isolators
attenuated the pyroshock.
Perform the functional check on the test item. Record performance data.
If a dynamically similar test item is used to calibrate the test set-up, repeat steps 3, 4,
and 5, a minimum of three times for statistical confidence. If the required test tolerances
have been met, replace the substitute test item with the actual test item and repeat
steps 3, 4, and 5, as specified in the Test instruction.
Document the test series.

information is in Annex A references. Select test conditions and
calibrate the shock apparatus as follows:


rejected item, or a rigid dummy mass) to the
electrodynamic exciter in a manner similar to that of
the actual materiel. If the materiel is normally
mounted on shock isolators to attenuate the
pyroshock, ensure the isolators are functional during
the test.
c. Develop the SRS wavelet or damped sine

compensated amplitude time history based on the
required test SRS.
d. Perform calibration shocks until two consecutive

waveforms that, when processed with SRS
algorithm meet or exceed derived test conditions for
at least one direction of one axis.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
e. Remove the calibrating load and install the actual

test item on the electrodynamic exciter paying close
Perform a functional check of the test item.
Subject the test item, in its operational mode, to the test electrodynamic pyroshock
simulation.
Record necessary data that show the shock transients met or exceeded desired
test levels. If requirements are given in terms of more than one axis, examine
responses in the other axes to ensure the test specification has been met. Include
test set-up photos, test logs, and photos of actual shock transients. For shock
isolated assemblies within the test item, make measurements and/or inspections to
assure the isolators attenuated the pyroshock.
Perform the functional check on the test item. Record performance data.
If a dynamically similar test item is used to calibrate the test set-up, repeat steps 3,
4, and 5, a minimum of three times for statistical confidence. If the required test
tolerances have been met, replace the substitute test item with the actual test item
and repeat steps 3, 4, and 5, as specified in the Test instruction.
Document the test series.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
In addition to the guidance provided above, the following information is provided to assist
in the evaluation of the test results. Analyse any failure of a test item to meet the
requirements of the system specifications, and consider related information such as
follows.
6.1. PROCEDURE I - NEAR FIELD WITH ACTUAL CONFIGURATION
Carefully evaluate any failure in the structural configuration of the test item, e.g., mounts
or tiedowns, that may not directly impact failure of the functioning of the materiel, but that
would lead to failure in its service environment conditions. Carefully examine any failures
as a result of EMI emission.
6.2. PROCEDURE II - NEAR FIELD WITH SIMULATED CONFIGURATION
Carefully evaluate any failure in the structural configuration of the test item, e.g., mounts
or tiedowns, that may not directly impact failure of the functioning of the materiel, but that
would lead to failure in its service environment conditions. Carefully examine any failures
as a result of EMI emission.
6.3. PROCEDURE III - FAR-FIELD WITH MECHANICAL TEST DEVICE
The mechanical shock simulation will, in general, provide a more severe low frequency
environment, comparatively large velocity and displacement, than the actual pyroshock
event and, hence, any structural failures may be more related to those found in the SRS
prescribed shock tests described in Method 417. Clearly identify structural failures that
may be due solely to over test in the low frequency environment.
6.4. PROCEDURE IV - FAR-FIELD WITH ELECTRODYNAMIC EXCITER
The electrodynamic shock simulation will, in general, provide a more severe low
frequency environment, comparatively large velocity, than the actual pyroshock event
and, hence, any structural failures may be more related to those found in the SRS
prescribed shock tests described in Method 417. Clearly identify structural failures that
may be due solely to overtest in the low frequency environment.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
a. IES-RP-DTE032.1, Pyroshock Testing Techniques, Institute of

Environmental Sciences and Technology, USA, 1 September 2002.
b. NASA-STD-7003, Pyroshock Test Criteria, USA National Aerospace and

Space Administration, 18 May 2003.

AECTP-400
METHOD 415
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
ANNEX A PYROSHOCK TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
A.1. SCOPE
This annex is designed to provide technical guidance on the general considerations and
terminology given to pyroshock testing within the last few years that is supported by the
references in this annex.
A.1.1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS-TERMINOLOGY
A.1.1.1. Single Measured Environments
1. In general, response acceleration will be the experimental variable of

measurement for pyroshock. This choice of measurement variable does not preclude
other variables of measurement such as velocity, displacement, or strain from being
measured and processed in an analogous manner, as long as the interpretation,
capabilities, and limitations of the measurement variable are clear. Particular attention
must be given to the high frequency environment generated by the pyrotechnic device,
and the capabilities of the measurement system to faithfully record the materiel
responses. Annex A reference f details the trade-off between pyroshock measurement
procedures and should be implemented.
2. The terms that follow will be helpful in the discussion relative to analysis of
response measurements from pyroshock testing. To facilitate the definition of the terms,
each of the terms is illustrated for a typical pyroshock measurement. Figure A-1 provides
an acceleration amplitude time history plot of a measured far-field pyroshock with the
instrumentation noise floor displayed before the pyroshock, the pyroshock, and the
subsequent post-pyroshock noise floor. It is important to provide measurement data
including both the pre-pyroshock noise measurement and the post-pyroshock combined
noise and low level residual structure response. The first and last vertical lines represent
the equal duration pre-pyroshock, pyroshock, and post-pyroshock time intervals selected
for analysis. The pre-pyroshock time interval contains the instrumentation system noise
floor, and serves as a measurement signal reference level. The pyroshock time interval
includes all the significant response energy of the event. The post-pyroshock time interval
is of equal duration to the pre-pyroshock time interval, and contains the measurement
system noise in addition to some of the pyroshock residual noise inconsequential to the
response energy in the pyroshock. In some cases where the pre-pyroshock and post-
pyroshock amplitude levels are substantial compared to the pyroshock, the pyroshock
has been mitigated and/or the measurement system noise is high, the identification of the
pyroshock may need critical engineering judgement relative to the start and the
termination of the pyroshock event. In any case, analysis of pre-pyroshock and post-
pyroshock measurement information in conjunction with the pyroshock measurement
information is essential. Validate all data collected from a pyroshock. Annex A reference

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
f provides guidelines. One of the simplest, and most sensitive, criteria for validation is an
integration of the signal time history after removing any small residual offset. If the
resulting integrated signal has zero crossings and does not appear to go unbounded, the
pyroshock has passed the first validation test. Figure A-2 provides the velocity plot for
the pyroshock in Figure A-1.
a. Effective Transient Duration. For a pyroshock, the "effective transient

duration", Te, is the minimum length of time that contains all significant
amplitude time history magnitudes. Te begins at the noise floor of the
instrumentation system, just prior to the initial most significant
measurement, and proceeds to the point that the amplitude time history
is a combination of measurement noise and substantially decayed
structural response. An experienced analyst is required to determine the
pertinent measurement information to define the pyroshock event. The
longer the duration of the pyroshock, the more low frequency information
is preserved that may be important for far-field test considerations. For
near-field test considerations, the effective transient duration will be
much shorter because of the higher ranging of the measurement system.
The amplitude criterion requires that the amplitude of the post-pyroshock
amplitude time history envelope be no more than 12 dB above the noise
floor of the measurement system depicted in the pre-pyroshock
amplitude time history. Method 417 Annex E provides further description
of Te.
(1) From Figure A-1 there appears to be at least two logical

times at which the pyroshock might be terminated. The first
time is immediately after the end of the high frequency
information, the second vertical dashed line in Figure A-1
at approximately 3.5 milliseconds after the beginning of the
pyroshock. The second time is given by the third vertical
line in Figure A-1, some 6.6 milliseconds after the
beginning of the pyroshock and after some of the apparent
low frequency structural response has been attenuated.
These judgements, based on examination of the amplitude
time history, use an amplitude criterion and a frequency
criterion. Figure A-3 contains a plot of amplitude of the
absolute value of the pyroshock, in dB versus time. This
figure illustrates the difficulty in coming up with precise
criteria for determining the effective duration of a
pyroshock. The initial noise floor level is never obtained in
the record. Figure A-1 illustrates the difference between
processing the two different pyroshocks in Figure A-1, with
the SRS, i.e., the short duration pyroshock and the long
duration pyroshock. It is clear that the only significant
difference is near 100 Hz. The magnitude of the SRS at
lower natural frequencies can be quite sensitive to the

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
effective transient duration, whereas the SRS at higher

natural frequencies is generally insensitive to the effective
transient duration.
b. Shock Response Spectrum Analysis Annex A reference k defines the

absolute acceleration maximax Shock Response Spectrum (SRS) and
provides examples of the SRS computed for classical pulses. The SRS
value at a given undamped natural oscillator frequency, f n, is defined to
be the absolute value of the maximum of the positive and negative
acceleration responses of a mass for a given base input to a damped
single degree of freedom system. The base input is the measured shock
over a specified duration (the specified duration should be the effective
duration). For processing of pyroshock shock response data, the
absolute acceleration maximax SRS has become the primary analysis
descriptor. In this measurement description of the pyroshock, the
maximax absolute acceleration values are plotted on the ordinate, with
the undamped natural frequency of the single degree of freedom system
with base input plotted along the abscissa.
(1) A more complete description of the pyroshock, and

potentially more useful for pyroshock damage comparison
in the far-field, can be obtained by determining the pseudo-
velocity response spectrum. This spectrum is plotted on
four-coordinate paper where, in pairs of orthogonal axes,
the pseudo-velocity response spectrum is represented by
the ordinate with the undamped natural frequency being the
abscissa and the maximax absolute acceleration along with
the pseudo-displacement plotted in a pair of orthogonal
axes. All plots have the same abscissa, see Annex A
reference k. The pseudo-velocity at a particular oscillator
undamped natural frequency is thought to be more
representative of the damage potential for a shock since it
correlates with stress and strain in the elements of a single
degree of freedom system, Annex A reference b. The
pseudo-velocity response spectrum can be computed
either by (1) dividing the maximax absolute acceleration
response spectrum by the undamped natural frequency of
the single degree of freedom system, or (2) multiplying the
relative displacement by the undamped natural frequency
of the single degree of freedom system. Both these means
of computation provide essentially the same spectra except
possibly in the lower frequency region, in which case the
second method of computation is more basic to the
definition of the pseudo-velocity response spectrum.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
(2) Figure A-5 provides the estimate of the maximax absolute

acceleration SRS for the record pyroshock record in Figure
A-1, and Figure A-6 provides the estimate of the pseudo-
velocity, pseudo-displacement and maximax absolute
acceleration for this record on four-coordinate paper. In
general, compute the SRS over the pyroshock event
duration, and over the duration measurement for the pre-
pyroshock and the post-pyroshock events with twelfth
octave spacing and a Q = 10 (Q=10 corresponds to a single
degree of freedom system with 5% critical damping).
Figure A-5 also provides estimates of the maximax
absolute acceleration SRS for the pre-pyroshock and the
post-pyroshock. Figure A-6 provides estimates of the
pseudo-velocity response spectrum for the pre-pyroshock
and the post-pyroshock. If the testing is to be used for
laboratory simulation, use a second Q value of 50 (Q=50
corresponds to a single degree of freedom system with 1%
critical damping) in the processing. It is recommended that
the maximax absolute acceleration SRS be the primary
method of display for the pyroshock, with the pseudo-
velocity response spectrum as the secondary method of
display and useful in cases in which it is desirable to be
able to correlate damage of simple systems with the
pyroshock.
c. Energy Spectral Density Annex A reference l defines the Energy

Spectral Density (ESD) estimate for a pyroshock of duration T. In this
description, the properly scaled magnitude of the Fourier Transform of
the total pyroshock is computed at a uniform set of frequencies and
displayed as a two-dimensional plot of amplitude versus frequency. The
amplitude units are ( units2-sec )/Hertz. In determining the ESD estimate,
it is important that, if the Fast Fourier Transform is used, the block size is
selected such that all of the pyroshock event is contained within the block
but excessive noise beyond the duration of the transient is removed by
zero-padding the Fourier Transform block. The ESD description is useful
for comparing the distribution of energy within the frequency band
amongst several pyroshocks. However, if adjacent frequency
components are not averaged, the percentage of normalised random
error in the ordinate is 100%. By averaging n adjacent ordinates, the
percentage of normalised random error decreases as 1/ n with a
decreased frequency resolution. Computation of the ESD estimates for
the pre-pyroshock and the post-pyroshock provide useful information
relative to the distinct frequency character of the pyroshock as compared
to the frequency character of the pre-pyroshock noise and the post-
pyroshock combination noise and structural response. Figure A-7

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
provides ESD estimates for the pyroshock and the pre-pyroshock and
post-pyroshock events in Figure A-1, respectively.
d. Fourier Spectra Annex A reference l defines the Fourier Spectra (FS)

estimate for a pyroshock of duration T. In this description, the properly
scaled square root of the magnitude of the Fourier Transform of the total
pyroshock is computed at a uniform set of frequencies and displayed as
a two-dimensional plot of amplitude versus frequency. The amplitude
units are (units-sec). In determining the FS estimate, as in the case of
the ESD estimate, it is important that if the Fast Fourier Transform is
used, that the block size is picked such that all of the transient is
contained within the block but excessive noise beyond the duration of the
transient is removed by zero-padding the Fourier Transform block. This
description is useful for noting outstanding frequency components within
the overall frequency band amongst pyroshocks. If adjacent frequency
components are not averaged, the percentage normalised random error
in the ordinate is 100%. By averaging n adjacent ordinates, the
percentage of normalised random error decreases as 1/(n) with a
decreased frequency resolution. Computation of the FS estimates for
the pre-pyroshock and the post-pyroshock provide useful information
relative to the distinct frequency character of the pyroshock as compared
to the frequency character of the pre-pyroshock noise and the post-
pyroshock combination noise and structural response. Figure A-8
provides FS estimates for the pyroshock and the pre-pyroshock and post-
pyroshock events in Figure A-1, respectively.
e. Other Methods Over the past few years, at least two other techniques
potentially useful in processing pyroshock data have been suggested.
Annex A reference h describes the utilisation of time domain or temporal
moments for comparing the characteristics of the pyroshock over
different frequency bands. The usefulness of this technique resides in
the fact that if the pyroshock can be represented by a simple
nonstationary product model, the time domain moments must be
constant over selected filter bandwidths. Thus the pyroshock can be
characterised by a model with potential usefulness for stochastic
simulation. Annex A reference i explores this reasoning for mechanical
shock. It has been suggested, Annex A reference j, that "wavelet"
processing may be useful for pyroshock description, particularly if a
pyroshock contains information at intervals of time over the duration of
the shock at different time scales, i.e., different frequencies. It is likely
that this form of processing may become more prevalent in the future as
the level of examination of transients becomes more sophisticated and if
“wavelet” processing is shown to be more useful for description of
phenomenon with substantial randomness.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
A.1.1.2. Combination of Measurements
In general, for pyroshock tests a single response record is obtained. At times it may be
convenient or even necessary to combine equivalent processed responses in some
appropriate statistical manner. Annex A reference g and Method 417 Annex D of this
standard discuss some options in statistically summarising processed results from a
series of tests. In general, processed results, either from the SRS, ESD or FS are
logarithmically transformed in order to provide estimates that are more normally
distributed. This is important since often very little data are available from a test series,
and the probability distribution of the untransformed estimates cannot be considered to
be normally distributed. In all cases, the combination of processed results will fall under
the category of small sample statistics and needs to be considered with care utilising
parametric or less powerful nonparametric methods of statistical analysis. Method 417
Annex D addresses some appropriate techniques for the statistical combination of
processed test results from a limited number of tests.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
Short
Duration Long
Duration
Figure A-1: Total Event Pyroshock Amplitude Time History
Figure A-2: Pyroshock Velocity Amplitude Time History

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
Figure A-3: Magnitude Amplitude Time History
Figure A-4: Acceleration Maximax SRS

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
Figure A-5: Acceleration Maximax SRS - Total Shock Event
Figure A-6: Pseudovelocity Response Spectrum

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
Figure A-7: Acceleration Energy Spectral Density Estimate
Figure A-8: Acceleration Fourier Transform Estimate

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
Figure A-9: Correction of Shock Response Spectrum for Distance From

Pyrotechnic Source
Figure A-10: Shock Response Spectra for Various Point Source

Pyrotechnic Devices

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
Figure A-11: Shock Response Spectrum vs Distance From Pyrotechnic

Source
Figure A-12: Peak Pyroshock Time History Response vs Distance From

Pyrotechnic Source

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
A.2. REFERENCES AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
Included below are references used in the text to define terminology and provide
information on techniques used in pyroshock testing.
a. Harris, Cyril M., ed. Shock and Vibration Handbook, 3rd Edition, NY,
McGraw-Hill, 1988.
b. Gaberson, H. A. and R. H. Chalmers. Model Velocity as a Criterion of

Shock Severity, Shock and Vibration Bulletin 40, Pt. 2, (1969) 31-49.
c. ANSI/ASTM D3332-77, Standard Methods for Fragility of Products Using

Machines. 1977.
d. Gaberson, H. A. and R. H. Chalmers. Reasons for Presenting Shock

Spectra with Velocity as the Ordinate, Proc. 66th Shock and Vibration
Symp., Vol. II, pp 181-191, Oct/Nov. 1995.
e. Piersol, A.G., Analysis of Harpoon Missile Structural Response to Aircraft

Launches, Landings and Captive Flight and Gunfire. Naval Weapons
Center Report #NWC TP 58890. January 1977.
f. IES-RP-DTE012.1, Handbook for Dynamic Data Acquisition and

January 1995
g. Piersol, Allan G., Procedures to Compute Maximum Structural

Responses from Predictions or Measurements at Selected Points, Shock
and Vibration Journal, Vol. 3, Issue 3, 1996, pp 211-221.
h. Smallwood, David O., Characterization and Simulation of Transient

Vibrations Using Band Limited Temporal Moments, Shock and Vibration
Journal, Volume 1, Issue 6, 1994, pp 507-527.
i. Merritt, Ronald G., A Note on Transient Vibration Model Detection, IES

Proceedings of the 42nd ATM 1995, Institute of Environmental Sciences,
Mount Prospect, Illinois.
j. Newland, D. E., An Introduction to Random Vibrations, Spectral &

Wavelet Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York 1995.
k. Kelly, Ronald D. and George Richman, Principles and Techniques of

Shock Data Analysis, The Shock and Vibration Information Center, SVM-
5, United States Department of Defense.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 415
l. NASA-HDBK-7005, Dynamic Environmental Criteria, USA National

Aerospace and Space Administration, 13 March 2001.
m. Zimmerman, Roger M., Section 32, VII. Shock Test Techniques, 3)

Pyroshock-Bibliography, Experimental Mechanics Division I, Sandia
National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 19 April 1991.
n. Barrett, S., The Development of Pyro Shock Test Requirements for

Viking Lander Capsule Components, Proceedings of the 21st ATM,
Institute of Environmental. Sciences, pages 5-10, Apr. 1975.
o. Kacena, W. J., McGrath, M. B., and Rader, W. P., Aerospace Systems

Pyrotechnic Shock Data, NASA CR-116437, -116450, -116401, -116402,
-116403, -116406, and - 116019, Vol. I-VII, 1970.

AECTP-400
METHOD 416
METHOD 416
RAIL IMPACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-1
2.1. EFFECT OF THE ENVIRONMENT .......................................................... 2-1
2.4. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-2
INSTRUCTION ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.2. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-1
5.1. TOLERANCES.......................................................................................... 5-1
5.3. TEST CONDITIONS ................................................................................. 5-1
5.3.1. Test Procedure I - US Cushioned Coupler Car .................................. 5-1
5.3.2. Test Procedure II - European Railway................................................ 5-2
5.3.3. Test Procedure III - Laboratory Simulation ......................................... 5-2
TABLE
416-1. Procedure II Measured Test Item Shock Acceleration Amplitude ............. 5-2
AECTP-400
METHOD 416
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 416
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1. SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this test method is to replicate the railroad car impact conditions that occur
during rail shipment of systems, subsystems and units, hereafter called materiel, and their
tiedown arrangements during the specified logistic conditions. Rail impacts tests are also
conducted to subject large materiel to specified longitudinal and/or transverse shocks to
demonstrate material strength.
1.2. APPLICATION
1. AECTP 200 provides guidance on the selection of a test procedure for a specific
rail impact environment. Further description of procedures for railcar loading and
transportation are provided in reference d.
2. Test Procedure I (US Cushioned Coupler Car) is applicable where materiel is

required to demonstrate its adequacy to resist the specified railroad car impact
environment without unacceptable degradation of its functional and/or structural
performance. This test is mandatory for materiel to be transported by rail in the US.
3. Test Procedure II (European Railway) is applicable for the generation of a low-

level, long duration shock on large test items, and is a requirement of the European
Railway Administration.
4. Test Procedure III (Laboratory Simulation) is a laboratory simulation applicable to

items fitted onto or transported by railway vehicles.
1.3. LIMITATIONS
This method is not intended for railcar crash conditions or small individual packages that
would normally be shipped mounted on a pallet.

AECTP-400
METHOD 416
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 416
2. TEST GUIDANCE
The following list is not intended to be all inclusive, but provides examples of problems
that could occur when materiel is exposed to the rail impact environment.
a. Loosening of tiedown straps.
b. Failure of attachments, creating a safety hazard.
c. Shifting of materiel on the railcar.
d. Failure of materiel.
For Procedures I and II, measured field shock data is generally useful only as a baseline
reference during testing. Measured data can be used to tailor the classical shock
waveform amplitude in Procedure III, or provide a shock time history waveform for
laboratory simulation tests.
1. Procedure I - US Cushioned Coupler Car is mandatory for test items shipped by

rail within the US. Procedure I is derived from MIL-STD 810 and reference e. Procedures
II and III are not acceptable substitutes for Procedure I. In addition, analytical computer
model based simulation, such as finite element methods, do not eliminate the requirement
to perform the Procedure I laboratory testing
2. Procedure II - European Railway is for shock test purposes only and is a

requirement of the European Railway Administration. Procedure II is derived from
reference c.
3. Procedure III - Laboratory Simulation is a laboratory shock test used to simulate

the rail impact environment, and is based on acceleration levels from references a and b.

AECTP-400
METHOD 416
2.4. SEQUENCE
The order of the rail impact testing will be determined by the requesting organization and
specific sequential test requirements should be stated in the Test Instruction.

AECTP-400
METHOD 416
3. SEVERITIES
Test conditions are specified in paragraph 5.3.

AECTP-400
METHOD 416
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 416

INSTRUCTION
4.1. COMPULSORY
a. The identification of the test item
b. The definition of the test item
c. The definition of test severity
d. Tiedown conditions
e. Axis and direction in which the impact is applied to the test item
f. Details required to perform the test
g. Speed measurement
h. The indication of the failure criteria
4.2. IF REQUIRED
a. Railcar speed tolerances, if different from paragraph 5.1.,
b. Tolerances on acceleration amplitude and pulse width (Procedure II)
c. Tiedown chain or cable tension and instrumentation or load measurement

requirements
d. Instrumentation requirements for test item acceleration or railcar coupler

force.

AECTP-400
METHOD 416
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 416
5.1. TOLERANCES
The procedure I railcar impact speed tolerance is + 0.8, - 0.0 km/hr for all railcar impact
speeds and successive impacts.
1. Test Procedure I requires that the test item be mounted on the railcar in direct
contact with the floor, and secured using the approved or Test Instruction specified
tiedown method.
2. Test Procedure II requires that the test item be secured to the railcar in a manner
such that the test item suspension is rendered mostly ineffective.
3. Test Procedure III requires that the test item be secured to the shock machine as
described in Method 403, paragraph 5.2.
5.3. TEST CONDITIONS
Several techniques exist to calibrate a section of rail track and monitor the railcar speed
for testing, such as radar, timing, or track marking. Tests are typically performed on a
level section of track with a minimum 61 m (200 ft.) length test section. A locomotive car
is used to initiate the motion of the moving railcar(s). Use of an incline track section to
initiate railcar motion is also possible. To insure test repeatability, the measurement of
tiedown forces and railcar coupler force in Procedure I and II is desirable. In addition, the
use of empty railcars for the stationary, or moving, impact mass railcars will improve test
repeatability by eliminating the amount of shock impact energy transferred into kinetic
energy motion of the mass located on these railcars. Increasing the mass of impact
railcars with dummy weight is permissible; however the mass must be securely attached
to the railcar to prevent relative motion during testing.
5.3.1. Test Procedure I - US Cushioned Coupler Car
1. The test item shall be mounted on a cushioned coupler car. The railcar containing
the item to be tested should travel at the specified speed and collide with a stationary
railcar(s) having a minimum total gross weight of 250,000 lbs (114,000 kg). One to five
stationary railcars are allowable to meet the 250,000 lbs. Prior to impact the airbrakes of
the non-moving railcar(s) shall be set in the emergency position, and the couplers shall
be compressed. If the test item can be shipped in only one orientation, the railcar shall
be impacted once at speeds of 4, 6, and 8 mph (6.4, 9.7, and 13.0 km/hr) in one direction

AECTP-400
METHOD 416
and 8 mph (13.0 km/hr) in the opposite direction (a total of 4 impacts). The tiedown
hardware shall not be re-tensioned during the successive speed tests. If the test item
can be shipped in more than one orientation, the test shall be repeated for each
transportation orientation. The specified speeds are mandatory for equipment to be
transported by rail in the USA.
2. Blockings, tiedowns, and the test item shall be inspected after each impact. The
blockings and tiedowns shall be repaired if damaged, and the test performed again
starting with the lowest impact speed. Failure of tiedown attachments considered built in
parts of the equipment shall constitute a failure. Repair and retesting will be required.
5.3.2. Test Procedure II - European Railway
1. The test item is positioned on a stationary test car, and is impacted by another
railcar (impact car) which is set in motion by a locomotive at an initial speed of 5.0 km/h
(3 mph). The impact speed is gradually increased until the required acceleration
amplitude and pulse width are achieved. The maximum permissible speed is 10.0 km/h
(6 mph). If the specified acceleration cannot be achieved at an impact speed of
10.0 km/h, the mass of the impact car must be increased. The required Procedure II
measured test item acceleration levels are defined in Table 416-1.
Table 416-1: Procedure II Measured Test Item Shock Acceleration

Amplitude
Axis Peak Acceleration, g Pulse Width, ms

Longitudinal 4.0 50
Lateral 0.5 50
Vertical 0.3 50
2. It is unlikely that the acceleration and pulse width for the lateral and vertical axes
will be met simultaneously with those in the longitudinal axis. Therefore, the tolerances
specified in the Test Instruction should take into account of this uncertainty.
5.3.3. Test Procedure III - Laboratory Simulation
Test Procedure III is a laboratory shock simulation applicable to items fitted onto or
transported by railway vehicles. See Method 403, Classical Waveform Shock, Annex A
for test severities. Test procedures defined in Method 417, SRS Shock, may also be
applicable for laboratory simulation tests if adequate field data is available for the
simulation requirements.

AECTP-400
METHOD 416
and following the application of the rail impact test.

AECTP-400
METHOD 416
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 416
a. Random Vibration and Shock Testing of Equipment for Use on Railway

Vehicles, IEC TC9 WG 21, Draft 12th revision 1996 (9/1371).
b. Magnuson, C.F. and Wilson L.T, Shock and Vibration Environments for
Large Shipping Containers on Rail Cars and Trucks, Sandia Laboratories,
Report SAND76- 0427, July 1977.
c. RIV Anlg II Verladevorschriften Band I und II (taken from the

Guidelines/Requirement of the European Railway Administration)
d. TM 55-2200-001-12, Transportability Guidance, Application of Blocking,

Bracing, and Tiedown Materials for Rail Transport, US Department of
Army, 18 November 1992
e. Test Operation Procedure (TOP) 1-2-501, Rail Impact Testing, AD Number

A295441, 10 October 2001

AECTP-400
METHOD 416
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 417
METHOD 417
SRS SHOCK
AECTP-400
METHOD 417
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 418
METHOD 418
MOTION PLATFORM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-1
2.3. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.5. TYPES OF MOTION ................................................................................. 2-1
2.6. CONTROL STRATEGY ............................................................................ 2-2
CHAPTER3 SEVERITIES ...................................................................................... 3-1
4.1. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.2. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-1
5.1. TYPES OF MOTION ................................................................................. 5-1
5.2. TEST FACILITY ........................................................................................ 5-1
5.3. TOLERANCES.......................................................................................... 5-1
5.4. PROCEDURE ........................................................................................... 5-2
ANNEX A MOTION PLATFORM - GUIDANCE
FOR INITIAL TEST SEVERITY .......................................................... A-1
ANNEX A TABLE
A.1. Motion Platform Initial Test Severity .......................................................... A-1
AECTP-400
METHOD 418
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 418
CHAPTERT 1 SCOPE
1. SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this test method is to replicate the motion platform conditions incurred by
conditions.
1.2. APPLICATION
resist the specified motion platform environment without unacceptable degradation of
functional and/or structural performance. The most common environment for induced
platform motion is a large ship during a rough sea state condition. For combined axis,
multi-degree of freedom motion, see Method 421.
1.3. LIMITATIONS
This test is not intended to represent any motion of the materiel mounting platform other
than rigid body motion.

AECTP-400
METHOD 418
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 418
2. TEST GUIDANCE
The following list is not intended to be all-inclusive but provides examples of problems
encountered when materiel is exposed to motion platform:
a. Structural deformation,
b. Cracking and rupturing,
c. Loosening of fasteners,
d. Loosening of parts or components.
Where practical, measured field operational information should be used to tailor the test
levels. Sufficient data should be obtained to adequately describe the conditions being
evaluated and experienced by the materiel in each LCEP phase. The measured data
and information acquired should as a minimum be sufficient to account for the data
variances due to the distribution of the transport platform condition and age, payload
capacity and restraint system, operational personnel, and the environmental operating
conditions.
2.3. SEQUENCE
The order of application of the test should be considered relative to other tests and made
compatible with the Life Cycle Environmental Profile.
There is only one test procedure, see paragraph 5.4
2.5. TYPES OF MOTION
Unless otherwise specified, the motion should be sinusoidal. Measured in-service data
can be used for laboratory sinusoidal simulation testing, time waveform replication, or
other similar techniques.

AECTP-400
METHOD 418
2.6. CONTROL STRATEGY
This motion can be controlled with an angular sensor, or it is possible to use a linear
sensor fixed to the table. In the latter case, it is necessary to make a correction between
linear and angular motion.

AECTP-400
METHOD 418
3. SEVERITIES
When practical, test levels and durations will be established using projected in-service
use profiles and other relevant available data. When data are not available, initial test
severities are provided in Annex A. These severities should be used in conjunction with
the appropriate information given in AECTP 200.

AECTP-400
METHOD 418
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 418

INSTRUCTION
4.1. COMPULSORY
a. The identification of test item.
b. The definition of test item.
c. The definition of test severity.
d. The orientation of the test item in relation of the test axes.
e. Operation checks: initial, final.
f. Details required to perform the test.
g. The indication of failure criteria.
h. Climatic conditions for the test.
4.2. IF REQUIRED
a. Tolerances, if different from paragraph 5.3.
b. The specific features of the test assembly.

AECTP-400
METHOD 418
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 418
5.1. TYPES OF MOTION
Four motions are defined for a ship with vertical, transverse, and longitudinal axes of v, t,
and l respectively. Vertical is normal to the ground plane. Transverse is across the short
dimension of the ship and perpendicular to the v and l axis. Longitudinal is parallel to the
long ship dimension, and is perpendicular to the v and t axis.
a. Roll is the oscillatory rotational motion of a ship about the longitudinal

axis.
b. Pitch is the oscillatory rotational motion of a ship about the transverse

axis.
c. Yaw is the oscillatory rotational motion of a ship about the vertical axis.
d. Heave is the oscillatory translation motion of a ship in the vertical axis.
5.2. TEST FACILITY
The test facility is typically a large table which can oscillate about a horizontal axis. Two
types of test machines are common.
a. A horizontal table coupled, at each end, with two or more vertical

hydraulic actuators. The control system generates actuator motion to
simulate roll or pitch motion by control of the table rotation about a
horizontal axis. Alternatively, by controlling the vertical motion of the
table, heave motion can be simulated.
b. A horizontal table with bearings forming a fixed horizontal hinge line. The
table oscillates by use of one or several hydraulic actuators. This table
configuration does not simulate heave motion.
5.3. TOLERANCES
Tolerances for the test equipment frequency and angular displacement are indicated
below. These values shall be applied for laboratory testing if a test tolerance value(s) is
not defined in the Test Instruction.

AECTP-400
METHOD 418
a. Frequency:
(1)  0.05 Hz from 0 Hz to 0.5 Hz
(2)  10 % from 0.5 Hz to 5 Hz
b. Angular Displacement:
(1)  15 % at the control signal
5.4. PROCEDURE
If the test item in-service orientation is unknown onboard the transportation platform, and
undefined in the Test Instruction, the test item will be tested in all three major axes. The
Test Instruction shall specify if the test item must be operating during the test.
Step 1. If applicable, pre-condition the test item.
Step 2. Implement the control strategy, including control and monitoring

points.
Step 3. Perform the initial operational checks.
Step 4. Apply the specified motion, and conduct the required operational
and functional checks.
Step 5. Perform the final operational checks.
Step 6. Repeat Steps 1 to 5 for the other required axes.
Step 7. Record the information required in the Test Instruction.

AECTP-400
METHOD 418
and following the completion of the motion platform test.

AECTP-400
METHOD 418
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 418
ANNEX A MOTION PLATFORM - GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST SEVERITY
1. This Annex is to be used only if measured data will not be available in the early
3. The test item will be subjected to controlled roll and pitch motion defined on the
appropriate in-service platform in Table A-1 for the test duration specified. A test severity
is not stated for yaw and heave axis motion because in-service levels are usually low.
Table A-1 provides a test severity for a sea state 5/6 and is derived from multiple NATO
sources.
Table A-1: Motion Platform Initial Test Severity
Platform Roll Pitch Test Duration

Frequency Angle Frequency Angle
Hz Degrees Hz Degrees
Aircraft Carrier 0.065 +/- 20.0 0.143 +/- 5.0
Frigate 0.091 +/- 30.0 0.196 +/- 10.0 30 min./axis
Submarine 0.143 +/- 30.0 0.100 +/- 10.0

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 418
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
METHOD 419
UNDEX ASSESSMENT AND TEST
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.2.1. UNDEX Environment.......................................................................... 1-2
1.2.2. Outline of UNDEX Assessment Process ............................................ 1-4
1.2.3. Assessment Complexity ..................................................................... 1-6
1.2.4. UNDEX Assessment Scheduling in the Test Programme .................. 1-7
1.2.5. UNDEX Assessment Application ...................................................... 1-10
1.3. LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................... 1-11
2.1. EFFECT OF THE ENVIRONMENT .......................................................... 2-1
2.1.1. Failure Mechanisms ........................................................................... 2-2
2.1.2. Failure Modes .................................................................................... 2-3
2.3.1. Laboratory Test Methods ................................................................... 2-5
2.3.2. Analysis Methods ............................................................................... 2-6
2.4. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-8
3.1. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 3-1
3.2. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 3-1
CHAPTER 4 Test CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES .......................................... 4-1
4.1. TOLERANCES.......................................................................................... 4-1
4.2. INSTALLATION CONDITIONS OF THE TEST ITEM ............................... 4-1
4.3. TEST CONDITIONS ................................................................................. 4-2
4.4. CALIBRATION .......................................................................................... 4-2
FIGURES
1. UNDEX Shock Wave Characteristics........................................................ 1-4
2. Materiel Safety and Suitability Diagram .................................................... 1-6
3. UNDEX Assessment and Materiel Life Cycle Relationship ....................... 1-9
4. Multi-Discipline Shock Safety UNDEX Assessment ................................ 1-10
ANNEX A UNDEX ASSESSMENT PROCESS ....................................................... A-1
A.1. ASSESSMENT OUTLINE ......................................................................... A-1
A.2. ASSESSMENT PARTS IN DETAIL .......................................................... A-1
A.2.1. PART 1 – DEFINITION OF SCOPE.......................................................... A-1
A.2.1.1. Task Overview ................................................................................... A-3
A.2.1.2. Acceptance Criteria Definition ............................................................ A-3
A.2.1.3. Task Definition ................................................................................... A-3
A.2.2. PHASE 2 - EVALUATION ......................................................................... A-6
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
A.2.3. PHASE 3 – ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS ......................................... A-17

A.3. DOCUMENTATION EXAMPLE .............................................................. A-18
ANNEX A FIGURES
A-1. General Phases of the UNDEX Assessment ............................................ A-2
A-2. Phase 1 - Definition of Scope UNDEX Assessment Plan Documentation A-5
A-3. Phase 2 - Assessment Evaluation ............................................................ A-9
A-4. UNDEX Assessment Flow Diagram ........................................................ A-10
A-5. Phase 3 - UNDEX Assessment Conclusion ............................................ A-18
A-6. Example of Single Page UNDEX Assessment Summary ....................... A-19
ANNEX B UNDEX ASSESSMENT AND TEST CONSIDERATIONS ...................... B-1
B.1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... B-1
B.2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................................. B-2
B.3. POTENTIAL FAILURE MODES ................................................................ B-4
B.3.1. Step 2A EXCITATION MECHANISMS AND FORCES ........................... B-4
B.3.2. Step 2B COMPONENT DYNAMIC PROPERTIES .................................. B-7
B.3.3. Step 2C DYNAMIC RESPONSE DETERMINATION ............................. B-9
B.3.4. Step 2D MECHANICAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT .......................... B-11
B.3.4.1. Simple Materiel - Shock Grade Curve Scheme or Test Approach ......... B-11
B.3.4.2. Complex Materiel - Shock Grade Curve Scheme or Test Approach ....... B-12
B.4. FAILURE CRITERIA ............................................................................... B-13
B.5. UNDEX ASSESSMENT VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION ................. B-13
ANNEX C UNDEX TESTING USING SRS METHODS ...........................................C-1
C.1. BACKGROUND AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ...............................C-1
C.2. APPLICATION OF SRS TECHNIQUES TO UNDEX TESTING ...............C-1
C.3. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SRS TESTING ..........................C-3
C.3.1. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................C-3
C.3.2. SHOCK TEST SPECIFICATION...............................................................C-5
C.3.3. FIXTURING DESIGN ................................................................................C-5
C.3.4. SHOCK TEST CONTROL INSTRUMENTATIONS ...................................C-5
C.3.5. PRECURSOR TESTING ..........................................................................C-5
C.3.6. LIVE TEST PROGRAMME .......................................................................C-7
ANNEX C FIGURES
C-1. Key Steps In Materiel UNDEX SRS Testing .............................................C-4
ANNEX D UNDEX TEST EQUIPMENT ................................................................D-1
D.1. EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISITCS ..........................................................D-1
D.1.1. OPERATIONAL SHIP SHOCK .................................................................D-1
D.1.2. SHOCK BARGE........................................................................................D-1
D.1.3. MECHANICAL SHOCK MACHINES .........................................................D-2
D.1.3.1. Deck Shock Machine..........................................................................D-2
D.1.3.2. Two Tonne Shock Machine ................................................................D-3
D.1.3.3. Lightweight and Medium Weight Shock Machine ...............................D-4
D.1.4. VIBRATION TEST SYSTEMS ..................................................................D-5
D.1.5. DROP TEST MACHINES .........................................................................D-6
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
ANNEX D TABLE
D-1. Deck Shock Machine Characteristics........................................................D-3
D-2. Two Tonne Shock Machine Characteristics ..............................................D-4
D-3. Lightweight and Medium Weight Shock Machine Characteristics .............D-5

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1. SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
The test method procedures are applicable to systems, subsystems, and units, hereafter
called materiel, which must function or survive a non-contact underwater explosion
(UNDEX) event. The purpose of this test method is to provide an UNDEX assessment
method, which uses a multi-discipline approach to the production of a materiel safety and
suitability for service statement. The method combines both analytical analysis and
physical testing to ensure that materiel deployed or transported at sea can withstand the
UNDEX environment. The principle objectives of the test method are the following:
a. Derive an assessment process for materiel such that the safety and
suitability for service criteria can be demonstrated with an acceptable and
appropriate margin of safety balanced against the risk consequences of
failure.
b. Define safety as the prime requirement of an assessment, and provide

guidance for serviceability compared with current custom and practice
regarding ship design criteria.
c. Integrate UNDEX assessment with the current procedures for assessing

the dynamic behaviour of materiel.
d. Provide a materiel UNDEX assessment strategy to enable appropriate

questions to be asked and assessment routes identified for independent
assessment.
e. Enable existing vibration and shock test facilities to be used for live UNDEX
testing of materiel.
1.2. APPLICATION
1. Transportation by sea is likely at some stage during the life cycle of most materiel.
This is particularly the case in times of increased tension or hostility when large quantities
of materiel to support services require shipment to front line bases and theatre. Naval
weapons are a special case in that they are also deployed on-board naval vessels and
often have different packaging or storage arrangements. As a consequence, there is a
need to assess the effects of UNDEX events when materiel are stored, deployed or
transported on a seagoing vessel. The issues are wider than materiel serviceability in that
any compromise of safety has wider implications for the safety of the complete vessel
and crew.

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
2. The increasing structural complexity of materiel and the trend to purchase

commercial off the shelf (COTS) hardware from third party sources also requires
improvements in assessment methods and data for the provision of relevant safety and
suitability for service arguments. Integrated and tailored assessment using modelling and
historical databases in support of tests provide the opportunity to optimise the
assessment process. This is particularly relevant to the assessment of materiel subject
to UNDEX events. At present, assessment of materiel subject to the UNDEX
environment is commonly tested using a Shock Grade Curve Scheme, and where
necessary by specialised one-time assessment. Since the Grade Curve Scheme is not
entirely applicable to materiel that exhibit complex dynamic response behaviour, a
tailored multi-disciplinary assessment approach using modelling, test and correlation from
historical data is required. Therefore, the need exists to formalise the tailored assessment
process to compliment the Shock Grade Curve Scheme.
3. Grade Curves are empirical and represent structures subjected to a range of

underwater explosions both in the near and far field. They can be directly applied to
materiel, which may be considered to be a rigid body, a severe limitation for complex
munitions. Shock Grade Curves assume a representative structure, which is sub-
divided into shock environments or grades. This is an attempt to subdivide, albeit
coarsely, the ship into areas of differing dynamic character of the shock input where
the different positions will see significantly different dynamic input conditions for the
same UNDEX event. Furthermore, the transmission path will be different between the
stowage and operational deployment positions resulting in modified dynamic input
levels. For example, at deck level lower frequency excitation, 10’s of Hz, will be present
whilst within the hull the frequency content will be in the range of hundreds of Hz. In
essence a Shock Grade Curve Scheme provides a prescriptive procedure for
determining the response of a rigid body, firmly attached to a seating within a vessel.
This rigid body can readily be considered as a simple lump mass model. However, the
weakness of the lump mass approach and simple use of the fundamental natural
frequency is that the shock input to individual components and their response, modified
by the equipment structure, cannot be considered.
4. This test method defines a tailored UNDEX assessment process that builds on the
Shock Grade Curve Scheme, and extends the capability to cover dynamically complex
materiel. It describes a rationale and assessment process applicable to a wide range of
materiel using a comprehensive and tailored assessment strategy designed to be used
in support of safety and suitability for service UNDEX assessments. Method 403 test
methodologies for Shock Response Spectrum (SRS) or classical shock testing should be
applied when required.
1.2.1. UNDEX Environment
1. Throughout this document the term UNDEX is used to describe the dynamic loads
ensuing from underwater explosive detonation. Historically the descriptions, ‘underwater
shock’ and ‘shock loading’ have been used incorrectly as general terms. Shock is just
one effect that occurs from an UNDEX event, and therefore forms one part of the total

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
UNDEX induced loading as described below. A short review of the physics and
characteristics of an UNDEX event is provided below. Figure 1 illustrates the event.
2. The UNDEX event consists of the early time shock and oscillating gas bubble
effects. Following detonation of a submerged explosive charge, or warhead,
approximately one third of the explosive energy is propagated into the surrounding fluid
in the form of an acoustic pressure pulse. The peak pressure and the decay rate are
functions of the charge size, explosive type, and the distance from the point of detonation.
Similarly, quantities such as impulse and energy flux density, which are derived from
pressure time data, are dependent upon these quantities. The pressure pulse is typically
characterised by a very fast rise time, a few milliseconds, pressure peak followed by a
slower pressure decay. The decay is generally modelled as exponential, with the peak
pressure being inversely proportional to the distance from the detonation point, P ~ 1 /
distance. Near the detonation point, the pulse shock wave propagation velocity is
typically three to five times the 1500 m/s (4921 ft/s) speed of sound in water. The
pressure peak, for a nominal distance from the detonation, is in the range of 5 to 25 MPa
(725 to 3626 PSI), with an effective duration of 1 millisecond.
3. At the point of detonation the explosive event also introduces a volume of high
pressure and temperature gas into the fluid. This gas expands against the ambient
hydrostatic pressure. The bubble expansion attains considerable outward momentum,
which overshoots the equilibrium condition, and an oscillating gas bubble thus ensues.
The principle effects from the gas bubble are considerable incompressible flows of water
radially out from the point of detonation, a flow which alternates direction as the bubble
oscillations develop. Each time the bubble reaches a minimum condition, a rebound
phenomenon occurs whereby a pressure pulse is propagated into the fluid. The action
of migration of the buoyant bubble and energy dissipation of each cycle ensures that the
bubble rarely oscillates beyond two or three cycles.

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
Shock Wave Spray

Gas Bubble Plume
Plume
Air Blast Wave

Surface Wave
Surface
Surface
Reflected
Shock Wave
Bubble
Oscillating &
Migrating Gas
Pulse 1
Bubble
Shock Wave
Charge
Bottom
Reflected
Bottom Shock Wave
Figure 1: UNDEX Shock Wave Characteristics
1.2.2. Outline of UNDEX Assessment Process
1. UNDEX assessment in the context of shipborne materiel is a multi-disciplinary

activity in the assessment of safety and suitability for service of a materiel when subject
to the effects of an UNDEX event. There should be a minimum of three scenarios
considered in the UNDEX assessment.
a. Transit
b. Magazine Storage
c. Operational Deployment (e.g. in the launcher)
2. The transit scenario occurs where a sea vessel transports the materiel.
Transportation could potentially be by naval vessel, naval transport, or a commercially
chartered transport vessel. Transportation by sea potentially applies to materiel for all
three services. The casing or packaging of materiel may differ considerably from the
operationally stored configurations. For materiel, which is identified for use by the navy,
assessment of the magazine stowage condition is necessary. However, materiel with
commonality to other services may also be stowed in naval warship magazines. These
naval warship conditions should have the same level of assessment as naval ordnance
since they are equally likely to be exposed to the full exigencies of the UNDEX loading.

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
Operational deployment of materiel will see the materiel removed from the magazine
environment and placed in a launcher, or deployment system, where the materiel may
spend a significant part, or perhaps all, of its time at sea.
3. There are three levels of survivability considered for materiel carried in naval
warships; the three levels of function are summarised below. The vessel itself, and all
equipment, has been designed to well established shock resistant design guidelines.
Therefore, the requirement exists to rationalise the UNDEX design levels of the vessel
with those for the materiel. Typically a warship is designed to fulfil a level of function at a
specific severity of attack. This is engendered in the concept of the Shock Factor. The
function may be the ability to remain a viable weapons platform, or could merely be the
ability to maintain propulsion and steerage. Overriding this severity of attack criteria is
the most demanding level which defines the point where uncontrollable flooding occurs
in the vessel, commonly referred to as “to float”.
Level I To fight - The ability to maintain a particular operational

function.
Level II To move or mobility - Ability to fight has been lost, but a capability
to move and steer is maintained sufficient to return to port.
Level III To float - Watertight integrity, or the point where

uncontrollable flooding occurs.
4. For each of the assessment scenarios and ship design criteria it is necessary to
determine if the materiel is safe and serviceable and determine what constitutes
unacceptable failure. At Level III it is necessary for the materiel to remain safe and not
pose a threat to the watertight integrity of the vessel by the initiation of a significant
detonation or burning event. Premature ignition or detonation is considered to be a worst-
case condition and is clearly unacceptable. All materiel must be able to meet this failure
criterion and be capable of safe disposal following exposure to an event below the level
III design criterion.
5. Serviceable can be subjective and difficult to relate to the ship design levels. For
example, a single materiel item such as a shell could be questionable in terms of
serviceability but other shells and the system for launching them, the gun, may remain
operable and able to fight. However, a self-defence air weapon when launched must be
guaranteed to be serviceable. Typically serviceability levels need to be assessed on a
case-by-case basis.
6. A further requirement may be imposed relating to the Level I ship design criteria.
It should be confirmed that a stowed or deployed materiel, at the level at which the fighting
capability of the vessel is to be maintained, will not impact upon the overall fighting
capability of the vessel. For example, while the post-shock state of the materiel may itself
be safe, the materiel location on a stowage rack may impede the handling of other
weapons, thus compromising the fighting function of the platform in which it is stored.

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
The safe and serviceable criteria are shown in Figure 2. The safety requirement must be
maintained for all of the three ship design criteria levels including safe disposal. The
serviceability criteria vary with the requirement. It is often difficult to define when
serviceability is lost since it could be a gradual process, rapid, or catastrophic loss of
function. In practice, it is necessary to define zones where serviceability may be
questioned, but in general serviceability should as a minimum be maintained at Level I.
Safety Serviceability Functional

Probability Level
Zone
Safe for Level I

Use
Gradual loss Level II

Safe
of serviceability
Capable of
Disposal Level III
Line of Unserviceability
Figure 2: Materiel Safety and Suitability Diagram
1.2.3. Assessment Complexity
Several criteria provide a basis to differentiate the need for a simplistic or more complex
UNDEX assessment. Annex B also provides a summary of general considerations for
UNDEX planning. The main areas for consideration are:
a. Structural Flexibility - This is characterised by multi-modal behaviour. In

general, generic empirical models or data can only be applied to rigid
bodies and those represented by simple lump mass models where only the
first mode is of interest. Where the degree of structural flexibility,
packaging, or support cannot be adequately represented by lump masses,
or where a multi-modal response is required, then a tailored approach to
the UNDEX assessment should be considered.

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
b. Distributed Systems – The materiel, it’s housing, or the structure in which it

is stored, may occupy a significant volume of the vessel structure.
Generally, materiel which are long and slender, fall into this category and
therefore require individual assessment. Long and slender materiel, such
as a torpedo located on flexible mounts or arranged over a number of ships
or submarine frames, requires a tailored assessment. In this case the
structure will exhibit multi-modal behaviour and be subjected to UNDEX
loading which will invariably differ in phase along the materiel length. This
response results in complex dynamic behaviour of the materiel or container
which must also be adequately represented in the UNDEX assessment.
The materiel dynamic behaviour can also be influenced by the proximity of
other materiel in the stowage location. This situation can change as
materiel are expended and illustrate the need to consider a range of
payload configurations in the UNDEX assessment.
c. Shock Isolation Mounts - Materiel shock isolation mounts are generally

highly non-linear, allowing large deformations to occur which represents a
difficult modelling problem to achieve the desired degree of accuracy. Even
so, the support structure and mounts should be considered to be integral
to the materiel and modelled or tested accordingly. Materiel mountings
offer a degree of protection from an UNDEX event and are therefore an
essential element in the load path. Complex dynamically responsive
materiel and supports will require a tailored UNDEX assessment.
d. Packaging - The packaging becomes an integral part of the materiel

structure, which can have a marked influence on the materiel dynamic
behaviour and will need to be included in the dynamic model and UNDEX
assessment. Different packaging and environments may need to be
considered relating to the materiel in the transit, magazine, and operational
conditions.
e. Cost - UNDEX testing, analysis and assessment can be costly. This

dictates that a cost benefit analysis be performed to aid the decision-
making process relating to the requirement to undertake a tailored UNDEX
assessment. This is in contrast to simply testing materiel by applying the
generic empirical model or data. However, the cost of the UNDEX
assessment should be considered in terms of optimising the overall
assessment process by reducing the number of scenarios requiring
laboratory testing to demonstrate safety and suitability for service
requirements.
1.2.4. UNDEX Assessment Scheduling in the Test Programme
1. UNDEX assessment is not generally considered to be a design driver for materiel

and occurs at the end of the design process prior to acceptance, after design of a suitable
stowage, encapsulation, racking and mounting. It is most applicable during the

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
qualification stage, since it requires an advanced design and a prototype or fully

engineered materiel to be meaningful. This does not preclude inclusion of UNDEX
information in the functional design process, providing that the limitations are understood
and acceptable. The UNDEX assessment will be specific to the deployed platform and
remain valid through service life. However, if there are any life cycle design changes,
which influence the UNDEX environment i.e. new platform, launcher or stowage etc. then
a further assessment may be required. Where an UNDEX assessment has not been
considered at the qualification stage it is recommended that a retrospective assessment
be carried out. This is particularly relevant when considering extension of service life
where the UNDEX assessment should play an important role and as a minimum, if one
already exists, be reviewed. In general UNDEX assessments should be performed where
benefit or gain can be shown to add confidence to the service life safety case. The safety
case brings together all safety arguments into a single structured, comprehensive and
auditable document.
2. For the UNDEX assessment to be meaningful it critically depends upon the quality,
quantity and timely availability of relevant information. The sponsor of the assessment
must be aggressively proactive in obtaining this information at the appropriate time in the
project or procurement cycle. When considering COTS procurement the requirement for
data relating to the UNDEX assessment should be identified at the earliest time and
included in the procurement contract to ensure availability when required.
Examples of data required are:
a. Structural profile of the materiel
b. Mass distribution and or mass of component parts.
c. Method of stowage
d. Materials and method of construction.
e. Details of warhead, explosive fill, propellant and pyrotechnics.
f. Environment in which to be assessed i.e. ship class, launcher Vs

magazine etc.
g. Existing vibration or static structural test results.
h. Existing live drop test data.
3. The materiel life cycle UNDEX assessment and equivalent elements for the design
certification process is shown in Figure 3. The materiel life cycle stages range from the
Staff or Service Requirement, through design, manufacture and certification, operational
use, life extension and safe disposal. For many materiel development programmes the
UNDEX assessment and documentation may simply form part of the design certification

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
documentation. For COTS materiel information relating to the design manufacture,

qualification and certification for use and release to service will be necessary and should
be specified at the procurement contract stage. Clearly life cycle condition monitoring
and operational records form an important requirement to assess changing operational
conditions and requirements and for assessing life extension and safe disposal.
Munition Life Cycle UNDEX Activity
Staff / Service Requirement
Establish Overall Technical Specifiy UNDEX

Requirements Requirement Requirement
Design Assurance Plan UNDEX Assessment

Strategy
Formulate
Strategy
Specification for UNDEX

Qualification Plan Assessment Tasks
Note: Procured Systems
Define Tasks & Require UNDEX Assessment
Work Programme Data
UNDEX Assessment UNDEX Assessment

Design Process
Data From Various Process
Sources
Undertake
Defined Tasks
Design Assessment & UNDEX Assessment &
Reports Verification & QA
Safety / Suitability for
Records
Service Case
Design Compliance UNDEX Compliance

Statements Statements
Demonstrate
Compliance Certification for Use & Release to
Service
Operational Use - Which May Review of UNDEX

Operational
Include Any Changes to Assessment as Necessary
Records and Data
Operational Constraints - Depending on Changing
From Monitoring
Operational Records Operational Conditions
Continued Safety &

Suitability for Service Case
Re-evaluation
UNDEX Assessment
Life Extension Original Design Data
Based on Through Life
Operatinal Data &
Conditions & Future
Monioring Data
Operational Requirements
Continued Safety &

Suitability for Service Case
End of Life & Safe

Disposal
Figure 3: UNDEX Assessment and Materiel Life Cycle Relationship

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
1.2.5. UNDEX Assessment Application
1. The results of an UNDEX assessment form a key component to a multi-discipline

safety case as shown in Figure 4. In general, a safety case considers various inputs from
each technical discipline to form the argument conclusion where the case is judged on
the basis of the strengths and weaknesses of each contributing discipline. Typically the
theory of a safety case can be provided from a combination of laboratory testing, tailored
assessment, modelling techniques, generic standards, and historical database input.
These information sources combine to give strength and depth to the safety case.
Shock Assessment
Safety Case
Testing Tailored Generic Materiel Historical

Assessment Standards Computer Database
Models
In-Service
Testing
Laboratory
Environment
Modelling and
Simulation
Figure 4: Multi-Discipline Shock Safety UNDEX Assessment
2. The combination of techniques employed to reach a conclusion will depend upon

the complexity of the materiel, the consequences of failure, and suitability for service
requirements. Furthermore, where analytical techniques are employed, the verification
and validation of basic theory will need to be demonstrated. For example, artillery shells
would require basic shock qualification testing in conjunction with generic empirical
models, or data, to determine the level of test and demonstrate safety and suitability for
service. A packaged, semi-flexible, materiel on elastomeric mounts would require lump
mass modelling and application of the generic empirical models, or data, and testing. A
more complex, flexible materiel may justify the use of a non-linear finite element model,
and where feasible, full-scale shock trials using equipment specific failure criteria. When
considering a general UNDEX assessment, the principles of a graded escalation, fitness
for purpose, approach using a multi-discipline safety case consistent with the perceived
risk, due to failure modes and consequences, required confidence level, and cost should
be applied.

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
1.3. LIMITATIONS
Laboratory or field simulation, and in-service measurement, of UNDEX environments is

a complex task. The UNDEX event is a function of the stand-off distance from the ship
to explosive charge varies from low frequency, high displacement and acceleration,
excitation to near pyroshock high frequency excitation conditions. Laboratory simulation
equipment generally cannot encompass the entire range of requirements. A range of
equipment is needed to simulate the possible excitation modes. Further guidance on
appropriate test procedures and equipment is provided in the following sections and
Annex D. The analytical modelling approach also has limitations due to non-linear
response and multiple UNDEX excitation paths. The choice of the model, and boundary
conditions should be carefully chosen to match the failure mode under consideration.
The limitations are summarized below.
a. Laboratory simulation tests and equipment may only have the capability to
evaluate one portion of the UNDEX environment or expected failure mode.
b. UNDEX analytical models should be used to validate testing and the

expected dynamic response.
c. The use of measured in-service is critical to the accuracy of UNDEX

assessment and testing.

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
2. TEST GUIDANCE
Presently the assessment of materiel subjected to the UNDEX environment is usually

performed using impact techniques based upon either generic empirical model data, or
where necessary by a one-time specialized assessment. The generic empirical
equations are based upon vessel type, storage location within the vessel, and
serviceability, or safety requirements of the materiel in question. However, these
methods are extremely limited where the materiel is dynamically flexible, or is stowed in
a manner or location where the empirical equations do not apply. These cases require
the tailored UNDEX assessment procedures to be considered.
2.1. EFFECT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
1. Traditional methods of considering UNDEX focus on the direct shock wave effects,
and established design methods have developed for considering this phase of the
loading. While it is true that the shock wave is a potentially severe damage loading, it is
a relatively local phenomenon and only contains one third of the total explosive energy.
The remainder of the energy is dispersed with the secondary oscillating gas bubble
effects, which may provide more severe loading than the initial shock wave excitation.
The oscillating gas bubble can promote excitation of the fundamental flexural modes of
the ship or submarine hull girder. Additional structural loading occurs from the interaction
of the gas bubble with the ship hull. Where the underwater explosion is in close proximity
to the hull structure, it subjects the hull structure, internal equipment, and materiel to an
extremely high intensity transient loading. This occurs from focusing the gas bubble
energy into a shape charge effect, generating a jet, which interacts with the hull. The
consequence is localised impulsive loading, which can be extremely severe. In contrast
to the initial fast transient of the shock wave, the flexural behaviour, commonly referred
to as whipping, is global in nature, occurs over several seconds, generates large
displacements, and can represent a worst case loading condition.
2. The process identified in this method advocates a balanced approach to

considering UNDEX excitation, which include the secondary bubble effects where
applicable. In this respect, it is considered more appropriate to term any assessment of
this kind an ‘UNDEX assessment’ as opposed to a ‘shock assessment’ description.
There is little point in ensuring safety and suitability for service for the early time shock
loading when some seconds later a whipping or jet excitation compromises the materiel.
The object of the assessment is the materiel, thus the important issue is the interaction
of the various UNDEX loads with the materiel. This loading is dependent upon the
following factors:
a. The low and high frequency interaction of the shock wave and the gas
bubble with the vessel hull.

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
b. For the shock loading, the transfer function between the hull and the
materiel stowage position. The primary transmission path through the
hull, bulkheads, decks, and stowage structure will progressively modify
the dynamic input from the explosive event.
c. For whipping loads, the materiel survivability, which is driven by the gross
flexural characteristics of the vessel hull girder, the structural mass and
stiffness distribution.
d. The material and construction of the vessel.
e. The inclusion of any shock or vibration isolation materials or devices.
f. The materiel stowage configuration.
2.1.1. Failure Mechanisms
UNDEX is considered to be a single load phenomenon consisting of shock and whipping

components. Mechanical failure generally occurs through high inertia loading particularly
where there is an inertia mismatch, such as a rocket booster attached to a missile. Shock
loading can cause local plasticity, plastic collapse, and or buckling. In addition whipping
could result in high strain, low cycle fatigue. A list of common UNDEX failure mechanisms
is provided below.
a. Break or deform seals.
b. Component cracking.
c. Induction of fissures in the explosive.
d. Formation of powder from the energetic material.
e. Shaking of loose energetic material into cracks or screw threads.
f. Local heating by shaking the particles against one another or by friction

with package furniture or mountings.
g. Distortion, thus compressing explosives either in bulk, cracks, or screw

threads.
h. Break or damage mechanical parts of arming mechanisms, thus

producing an armed blind store.
i. Make or break electrical circuits by damaging wiring or components

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
j. Cause damage which is undetectable until an attempt is made to use the

store, or until further damage is incurred and a low-level event results in
the failure being observed or catastrophic failure.
k. Loosening of fasteners.
l. Intermittent electrical contacts.
m. Mutual contact and short circuit of electrical components.
n. Structural or component failure or fracture.
o. Optical misalignment.
p. Cracking and rupture.
q. Loosening of parts that may become lodged in circuits or mechanisms.
2.1.2. Failure Modes
The failure modes must be linked to the input excitation and to positively validate the
cause of potential failures. The list below is not exhaustive, but it illustrates the variety
of conditions in which failure can arise and the close interaction between the
mechanical damage mechanisms. In general failures will fall into the following
categories.
a. Detonation - This form of failure is considered to be unacceptable under

any circumstances and is a principal concern of the UNDEX assessment.
b. Deflagration, slow burn - This form of failure is considered to be

unacceptable under any circumstances and is a principal concern of the
UNDEX assessment.
c. Fatigue, particularly at welds or parent metal - Under the action of cyclic

loading, defects that have been initiated by the UNDEX event or a pre-
existing condition can grow until a pre-defined crack size is reached. This
can threaten the integrity of the materiel or its component parts and may
onset another failure mechanism.
d. Brittle fracture - Brittle materials should be avoided for use where the
materiel will be subject to severe shock loading. However, for
completeness brittle fracture occurs when the crack driving force at the
tip of the crack becomes greater than the material toughness value.
Failure is characterised by rapid crack extension and complete failure of
the component due to a single peak load condition. In some cases

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
depending upon the design and the material properties the crack will
arrest.
e. Fracture - Fracture can be quantified using linear elastic fracture

mechanics, elastic-plastic fracture mechanics, and combined methods.
Fracture toughness properties are determined from experimental
measurement and should reflect the material, temperature, and loading
(strain rate) to which the materiel or structure under investigation is to be
subjected. For shock loading the materiel is subject to transient dynamic
forces, which should involve the determination of dynamic material
toughness properties. Plastic collapse and strength requires the material
tensile properties.
f. Plastic Failure - Can be localised plasticity such as deformation, or gross

plastic failure such as the formation of plastic hinges.
g. Leakage - Describes a failure condition for a containment vessel where

the fitness for purpose of the vessel is compromised by providing a path
from the interior to the exterior.
h. Instability (buckling) - At any cross section, the total aggregate area and
position of any defects should be such that the buckling strength of the
component is not reduced to, or below, the maximum applied loading
conditions.
i. Failure from initial imperfections - Initial geometric imperfections can

cause stress concentrations resulting in an accelerated or enhanced
likelihood of failure from defects located within these regions. UNDEX
assessment for other modes of failure should therefore consider these
higher stresses.
j. Control or functional limits (displacement limits) - Shock induced failure

of electronic components and control systems result in the materiel failing
to meet the serviceability criteria and in some cases can compromise
safety.
k. Combined failure modes - These are combinations of the above failure

modes in which complex interactions can occur. Typical examples
include: combined fracture and plastic collapse, crack initiation followed
by fatigue and fracture, or plastic collapse, buckling followed by fracture.
l. Collision and adequate space envelope - The space envelope

surrounding the stowed materiel should be adequate to prevent collision
during the UNDEX event. Collision with other materiel or support
structural members can represent a significant cause of shock or

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
impulsive input and subsequent damage to the materiel or support

structure.
The application and need to use measured in-service data is discussed throughout this
test method. The UNDEX test method relies on measured data because the
measurements are costly, difficult to obtain accurately, needed as a basis for laboratory
simulation testing, and required for model validation. Investigation of the existing
historical databases of measured and expected scale and full-scale responses for both
the platform and test item should be a defined task in the UNDEX assessment process.
1. UNDEX assessment and testing relies on both laboratory experiments and

analytical or modelling methods. The choice of the equipment and analytical methods
clearly depends on the type of materiel and simulation or failure mode investigation.
Choices of equipment and modelling vary from full-scale experimental tests to scale
laboratory response measurements.
2. For the laboratory testing approach, the required equipment depends primarily on
the required displacement, acceleration, velocity, and combined environments needed
for a test. The Laboratory Test Methods paragraph below and Annex C and D provide
information on equipment applications. Annex C provides information on the use of SRS
techniques for above or below shock mount laboratory shock simulation. Annex D
provides more detailed information on the various types of test equipment. Where
appropriate, other test methods and procedures in AECTP-400 should be applied.
3. For the analytical, assessment, or modelling approach the Analysis Methods

paragraph below and Annex A and B provide further information. Annex A provides a
guide to the UNDEX assessment process. Annex B provides a question and answer
format to determine requirements and procedures.
2.3.1. Laboratory Test Methods
1. Other than impact testing, and in specific cases electrodynamic exciter shock
testing, there are currently limited facilities available for laboratory shock testing of live
materiel. Inert materiel laboratory testing can be performed using shock machines,
barges, and underwater rigs. UNDEX trials using representative platform sections and
existing purpose built barges can be undertaken using large charges, such as 450 kg
TNT equivalent of explosive. Qualification testing is currently mostly conducted by
comparing the predicted or measured UNDEX response of an inert materiel with drop
testing results. This approach leaves considerable scope for uncertainty, since it is a
common belief that the comparison can be made on the basis of peak acceleration. For
a more rigorous comparison, though not ideal, the two tests must be compared in
temporal and spectral domains using a common mechanism, such as the SRS. However,

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
a way forward is to further develop the above mount SRS method employing modelling
techniques used in conjunction with currently deployed vibration test systems. It is
considered that a significant proportion of UNDEX testing for dynamically complex
materiel could be conducted in this manner. A summary of common laboratory test
methods is provided below.
a. Barge testing of inert materiel.
b. Shock table testing of inert materiel (Deck Shock Machine & Two Tonne
Machine).
c. Pendulum hammer type devices on live and inert materiel.
d. Electrodynamic or hydraulic exciter shock testing of inert and live materiel.

Where the above mount SRS is known, the shock input time history can be
experimentally determined provided the materiel weight and dynamic
response characteristics remain within the exciter thrust limit.
e. Free fall programmable classical shock pulses. Generally applicable to the

testing of live materiel, up to 1350 kg and 3000 Gs, at low pulse widths
used for ‘Safe and Suitable’ shocks. The correlation to UNDEX
assessment is debatable.
f. Drop testing of both inert and live stores. Generally applicable to the testing
of live stores but correlation to UNDEX assessment is debatable.
g. Whipping - currently no whipping test is defined other than scale model

facilities and access to historical data from previous whole ship trials. Barge
testing does not take account of whipping.
2. The deck and two tonne shock machines are commonly used for inert materiel.
The pendulum hammer type shock machines are applicable to testing of equipment to
MIL-DTL-901E, reference e. Where the above mount shock response spectrum is
known, and the shock levels fall within defined limits of shock simulation on vibration test
systems, the SRS offers a more appropriate and realistic shock testing method for live
and inert materiel. Free fall programmable shock machines provide an additional form of
drop testing, typically where classical shock pulses are required. This method is
particularly applicable to structurally simple materiel and where live testing is essential.
Drop testing is used as a compromise in conjunction with an assessment of the UNDEX
behaviour. The test equipment and techniques are described further in Annex D.
2.3.2. Analysis Methods
1. A validated theoretical model offers the potential to reduce the amount of

qualification testing. Validation using experimental test results either from specific tailored
testing or a historical shock database is essential. The veracity of the numerical modelling

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
and validation effort is proportional to the depth and accuracy of the information on which
it is based. A well-validated model offers the scope to perform many load case
assessments and thereby identify the worst cases that can form the basis of a testing
programme. Also modelling can provide the above mount input information necessary to
allow shock testing using electrodynamic exciters which in many cases can offer a more
appropriate alternative to drop testing. However, modelling does not replace the need for
qualification testing as a proof of safety and suitability for service.
2. Analysis methods can range from simple lump mass analytical methods to
complex non-linear numerical methods such as Finite Element (FE) and Boundary
Element (BE). A wide-ranging modelling capability is necessary to perform a tailored
UNDEX assessment; some of the methodologies include:
a. Non-linear Structural Dynamic Modelling. Using commercial codes,

including ABAQUS, NASTRAN, ASAS, DYNA, etc.
b. Fluid and Shock Loading Model. Using either a BE interface or some

Eulerian fluid models.
c. Fluid and Structural Interaction Modelling. Using either an approximate

method, DAA2, or more advanced methods such as Hydrocodes with full
Arbitrary LaGrange - Euler (ALE) coupling.
d. Transient Response Analysis. Where a finite element method is used with

the dynamic UNDEX input applied as a loading function either from directly
measured UNDEX data, or using an approximate input derived from a
generic empirical equation.
3. Modelling is compared against a realistic series of load cases and extensive

transient or vibration validation is performed which typically includes static, modal,
frequency response, full shock transient, frequency, time domain, and acceleration
spectral density (ASD) validation with experimental results. The key to achieving analysis
results in which confidence can be gained is based upon the following points.
a. Rigorous verification and validation using experimental data and use of

national shock testing archive and databases.
b. A commensurate level of complexity applied to the analysis, defined on a

case-by-case basis. There is constantly the need to avoid using a ‘sledge
hammer to crack a walnut’ while ensuring that oversimplification does not
occur and debase the assessment. This is particularly the case where
examples of complex finite element models have been used with a generic
empirical response model pulse as a dynamic input. Given the
assumptions inherent in the empirical equation, the level of approximation
of the input does not do justice to the level of complexity of the model. This

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
situation should be avoided and a more accurate loading defined from

experimental data directly or using a fluid structure interaction technique.
c. Ensure that test programmes include input from the analysis to optimise
applicability.
d. UNDEX assessment is a specialist area requiring technical specialists who

are familiar with test, analysis, the platform and the application of rigorous
QA procedures.
e. Utilisation of a national historical UNDEX database.
2.4. SEQUENCE
The effect of UNDEX induced shock may affect materiel performance under other
environmental conditions, such as vibration, temperature, altitude, humidity, leakage or
EMI/EMC. Also, it is essential that materiel which is likely to be sensitive to a combination
of environments be tested to the relevant combinations simultaneously.
Where it is considered that a combined environmental test is not essential or not practical
to configure, and where it is required to evaluate the effects of UNDEX with other
environments, a single test item should be exposed to all relevant environmental
conditions. The order of application of environmental tests should be compatible with the
Life Cycle Environmental Profile.

AECTP-400
METHOD 419

INSTRUCTION
General information requirements are specified below. The requirements need to be

tailored to the laboratory or analytical techniques used for the UNDEX assessments or
test programme.
3.1. COMPULSORY
c. The definition of the test severity including amplitude, duration and number
of pulses to be applied.
d. The type of test: development, qualification etc.
e. The method of mounting, including isolators if applicable, and below or

above isolation mount.
f. The operation or non-operation of the test item during test.
g. The packaging conditions, if applicable.
h. The requirements for operating checks if applicable.
i. The control strategy (Pulse shape, time history etc.)
j. The tolerances and control limits.
k. The details required to perform the test.
l. The definition of the failure criteria if applicable.
3.2. IF REQUIRED
a. The climatic conditions if required if other than standard laboratory

conditions.

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
b. The effect of gravity and the consequential precautions.
c. The value of the tolerable spurious magnetic field.

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
The UNDEX assessment and test partially relies on other AECTP-400 test methods and
test standards to define detailed test procedures because of the multiple materiel
excitation paths. The AECTP-400 methods for Shock (Method 403), Pyroshock (Method
415), Motion Platform (Method 418), and Multi-Exciter Shock and Vibration (Method 421)
all collectively support simulation of portions of the UNDEX environment. The procedures
in these test methods should be applied as appropriate to the specific test programme.
The Test Instruction must define the hierarchy of documents and standards to satisfy the
compliance requirements. This test method provides the additional considerations
necessary for the UNDEX environment to the appropriate test. In cases of analytical
assessment, similar validation procedures should be applied.
4.1. TOLERANCES
1. Where classical shocks are a test requirement, tolerances are given in Method
403. Where complex waveforms are specified, unless stated in the Test Instruction the
shock response measured at the reference point shall not deviate from the specified
requirements by more than the values defined below:
2. For tests controlled on the SRS parameters the tolerance on the SRS amplitude
should be ±1.5 dB over the specified frequency range. Over a limited frequency range,
a tolerance of ± 3 dB is permissible. Additional constraints on the time domain
parameters, peak amplitude, and /or effective duration, are usually necessary to ensure
that an adequate simulation is achieved. These additional constraints are described in
Method 417, Annex D and E. The tolerances used shall be stated in the Test Instruction.
4.2. INSTALLATION CONDITIONDS OF THE TEST ITEM
The following will apply where UNDEX testing forms part of the assessment, unless
otherwise stated in the Test Instruction. The direction of gravity or any loading factor due
to mechanisms, or shock isolation, must be taken into account by compensation or by
suitable simulation.
a. The test item shall be mechanically attached to the shock machine

or exciter, directly by its normal means of in-service attachment, or
by means of a fixture. The mounting configuration shall enable the
test item to be subject to the UNDEX loads along the various axes
and directions specified. External connections necessary for
measuring purposes should add minimum restraint and mass.

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
b. Any additional restraints or straps should be avoided. If cables, pipes, or

other connections are required during the test, these should be arranged
so as to add similar restraint and mass as the in-service installation.
c. Materiel intended for use with isolators shall be tested with the isolators
installed unless the above mount UNDEX input shock has been specified.
d. Shock isolators may require instrumentation and monitoring to verify that

temperature induced failures are created due to the dynamic excitation.
Sequential periods of testing and stationary should be used if isolator
heating is observed.
4.3. TEST CONDITIONS
Generally precursor testing will be a requirement for an UNDEX test programme. Any
structural characterization tests shall be undertaken and recorded as stipulated in the
Test Instruction.
a. A number of applications of the test pulse is usually required before the

control equipment is able to achieve an acceptable response at the
reference point. This is precursor activity usually performed on a dynamic
representation of the test item.
b. The test item should be stabilized to its initial climatic and other conditions
as stipulated in the Test Instruction.
4.4. CALIBRATION
The test equipment should be calibrated and adjusted to ensure that the required test
parameters can be reproduced during the actual test. This is best achieved using a
dynamically representative test item.

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
and following the application of the UNDEX environment test.

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
General References
a. NATO STANAG 4137, Standard Underwater Explosion Test for Surface

Ships and Underwater Craft, 17 Feb 1976.
b. NATO STANAG 4141, Shock Testing of Equipment for Surface Ships, 15

December 1976.
c. NATO STANAG 4142, Shock Resistance Analysis of Equipment for

Surface Ships, 8 March 1977.
d. NATO STANAG 4150, Shock Testing of Heavyweight Ship Equipment in

Floating Shock Vehicles, 24 April 1979.
e. MIL-DTL-901E, Shock Tests H.I. (High Impact) Shipboard Machinery,

Equipment, and Systems, Requirements For, USA Department of the
Navy, 20 June 2017.
f. SVM-17 - Naval Shock Analysis and Design, Scavuzzo, Rudolph J. and

Pusey, Henry C., ISBN 0-9646940-4-2, Shock and Vibration Information
Analysis Center (SAVIAC), 2000.
UK UNDEX Environment References
a. BR 8541: Explosive Safety Requirements For Armament Stores For Naval

Use, September 1996, 3rd Edition.
b. BR 8472: Naval Standard Range Mounts For Equipment Installation (To

Attenuate Mechanical Shock or Vibration).
c. BR 3021: Shock Manual (Metric), March 1975.
d. BR8470: Shock and Vibration Manual.
e. CB 5012: Shock Manual (Metric), December 1974.

AECTP-400
METHOD 419
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
ANNEX A UNDEX ASSESSMENT PROCESS
A.1. ASSESSMENT OUTLINE
This Annex provides a detailed overview of how individual technical functions, or

disciplines, associated with UNDEX assessments may be combined to produce a unified
methodology for performing an UNDEX assessment of materiel. The framework for an
UNDEX assessment process and the common steps necessary to satisfy the
requirements are defined. The process is directed specifically at the qualification of
materiel to meet the safe and suitable for service criterion, but can include service life
extension and disposal as described in STANAG 4570. The main document for this test
method also provides introductory information on the UNDEX environment and
considerations for testing. There are three distinct phases to the UNDEX assessment
process shown in Figure A-1. These three phases, can combine in an iterative way to
refine the process, as more information becomes available.
Phase 1 – Definition of Scope An overview combined with definition of acceptance

criteria and tasks, including the identification of appropriate technical information and
disciplines. This effectively defines the assessment requirement and strategy. Phase 1
concludes with documentation of the reviewed and approved UNDEX assessment plan.
Phase 2 – Assessment Evaluation A suitable assessment route is adopted

according to the definition of the task. A detailed analytical or experimental analysis is
then performed based upon that assessment route. The results are interpreted and
compared with the selected acceptance criteria defined previously.
Phase 3 – Assessment Conclusions On the basis of the detailed assessment

results, a decision is made with respect to safety and suitability for service.
A.2. ASSESSMENT PHASES IN DETAIL
A.2.1. PHASE 1 – DEFINITION OF SCOPE
1. This is the specification of the assessment requirement from a consideration of

existing and required information. It is essential to have well defined objectives for the
UNDEX assessment as a starting point, along with the desired level of confidence in the
assessment. Four steps may be identified in this phase of the work:
a. Task Overview
b. Acceptance Criteria Definition
c. Task Definition

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
d. UNDEX Assessment Plan Documentation
Task Overview
Codes of Practice etc.

AECTP 200 & 400
Define Acceptance Def Stan 00 35
Criteria MIL- STD - 810
GAM-EG-13
Phase 1
Definition of Scope
Task Definition
Technical Disciplines
Grade Curves (GC)
Document UNDEX Tailored Assessment
Strategy Testing - Live & Inert
(Including Review & Analysis:
Approval) - GC
- Psuedo Static, GC
- Dynamic GC
- FE
Collect & Process

Information
Phase 2
Detailed Assessment Does this meet with
Acceptance Criteria
No Repeat Process
Yes
Document UNDEX Conclusions

Phase 3 Including Recommendations / Actions For Inclusion In
Conclusion The Safety Case - Demonstrating
Safe & Suitable For Service
Figure A-1: General Phases of the UNDEX Assessment

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
2. How these steps interact is shown in Figure A-2. Annex B provides a

comprehensive list of questions and guidance notes to assist in the UNDEX assessment
scope definition. The scope should assess and include the availability of all relevant
information. For example, commercial off the shelf (COTS) materiel may not be
supported by sufficient technical information to allow an UNDEX assessment; the
availability of representative test specimens may be restricted. Using the questions in
conjunction with the plan shown in Figure A-6 permits the scope of the assessment to be
well defined.
A.2.1.1. Task Overview
The aim of this step is to provide an overview of the objectives and requirements of the
UNDEX assessment using the ability to fight, move and float as guidance. Decisions
taken on the objectives will affect the direction and emphasis of the assessment
performed in the later phases. For example, when safety is the prime objective then
failure conditions could be limited to those, which cause potential injury or loss of life.
Overall financial constraints, time limits, or lack of information may also influence
objectives and UNDEX assessment procedures.
A.2.1.2. Acceptance Criteria Definition
Three main elements indicated below make up the acceptance criteria. Failure criteria
are part of the overall acceptance criteria. However, failure criteria are particularly
important since they govern the choice of assessment route, as described later in this
Annex. Where it is difficult to define acceptance or failure criteria, environmental testing
may prove necessary as part of the evaluation process. To avoid final conclusions of an
assessment being qualified by arbitrarily chosen degrees of confidence, the required
confidence in the assessment should be chosen at the start. This choice depends on the
consequences of failure and level of criticality.
a. Define the required function of the materiel.
b. Define the failure criteria.
c. Define the required confidence
A.2.1.3. Task Definition
1. The Figure A-2 flowchart illustrates the procedure to be followed in the task
definition step. The objective of this step is to provide adequate planning and ensure that
the assessment commences with a comprehensive consideration of the work involved.
Responses to the list of questions in Annex B allow the following:
a. Systematic reduction of the problem to a size that can be completed.
b. Selection of the most appropriate method of assessment.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
c. Identification of critical items or components.
d. Identification of failure modes that are possible given the excitation

mechanisms.
2. It may not immediately be obvious which components are critical to achieving and
maintaining safety and suitability for service. Techniques such as Failure Modes and
Effects Analysis (FMEA) or Redundancy Analysis may be required to identify the critical
regions. The components may further be reduced in number by consideration of possible
failure modes associated with the UNDEX excitation mechanisms Each component will
have its own margin of safety, and it is desirable to consider the range to further reduce
the assessment to the most critical components. Furthermore, there may be
components, which have an overriding influence on the safety of the system as a whole.
For example, a warhead booster may be more critical than other components, and will
thus drive the safety assessment. Any assumptions made which will reduce the problem
size will ultimately need to be justified to the safety case officer and documented.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
Commercial in Confidence Security Issues

Issues - Ow nership &
Commercial Issues Relating Task Overview
To The Data Requirements (Annex B1) Develop With Client
Define Required Duty

See Design & Functional
Scenarios
Specification
Acceptance (Annex B2)
Criteria
Define Failure Criteria From Client, Codes &
(Annex B3 & B4) Specific to The Application
Define Required
Confidence Level
(Annex B1 & B3.4 & B4)
Define Failure Modes

(Annex B3 & B4)
(2A)
Define Possible
Excitation Mechanisms
& Forces
(Annex B3.1)
See Annex B Questions
For Guidance
(2B)
Task Definition Consider Component
Dynamic Properties
(Annex B3.2)
(2C)
Consider Forced
Response Estimation
(Annex B3.3)
Select Assessment Route

(In General Terms)
& Technical Disciplines
Define Information Gathering Analysis & Test
& Processing Methods
(Annex B1 & B3.4 & B4)
Avoidable Cost Basis

Perform An Operational Should Be Used In
Cost Benefit Analysis Conjunction With Worst
Case Scnarios
Document UNDEX
Assessment
(Include Review &
Approval)
Go To
Phase 2
Figure A-2: Phase 1 - Definition of Scope

UNDEX Assessment Plan Documentation

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
3. The final step in Phase 1 is to fully document the task overview, acceptance
criteria, and task definition, including appropriate review and approval. Information on
materiel components, excitation mechanisms, and likely failure modes identified during
this stage should be documented. If several assessment cases have been identified for
detailed assessment, then each should be considered individually. For example, a
materiel may be stowed differently in various vessel classes.
A.2.2. PHASE 2 - EVALUATION
1. The definition of tasks, with a cost benefit assessment, will enable selection of an
appropriate route to satisfy the objectives of the UNDEX assessment. The chosen
assessment route may require refinement, as further information becomes available, to
complete the analysis in the definition of scope. The detailed assessment leading to the
decision on safety and suitability for service has four steps as shown below and in
Figures A-3 and A-4.
a. Step 2A - Excitation Mechanisms and External Forces.
b. Step 2B - Materiel Properties Definition.
c. Step 2C - Structural Response Estimation.
d. Step 2D - UNDEX assessment.
2. The input requirements and output results from steps 2A to 2D are determined by
the objectives of the UNDEX assessment and are described below. These steps can be
accomplished through the required combination of laboratory testing and analytical, or
modelling, analysis. Discussion is presented below on four methods to complete steps
2A through 2D, followed by information on the individual Phase 2 steps.
a. Method I - Testing Only
Full scale testing of inert materiel can readily be accomplished at several

test facilities using mechanical simulation test equipment or a floating test
platform. Inert materiel structural testing can be undertaken in accordance
with BR 8541 and consistent with the guidelines for general Naval
equipment in BR 8470 and CB 5012 or using specific tailored testing.
However, live energetic materiel testing is limited to the use of mechanical
simulation equipment such as shock, vibration, or drop test systems.
Shock response spectra, or waveform replication techniques using
electrodynamic or servo-hydraulic test systems offer the most accurately
controlled test procedure. Either equipment type requires a defined input
acceleration time history within the limits of the exciter thrust, displacement
and frequency bandwidth capability. Pyroshock excitation, Method 415,
may also be applicable. The equipment performance limitations can
restrict test capabilities for large low frequency displacements and high

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
frequency excitation requirements. The use of acceleration dynamic

responses above the materiel isolation mount as the input control
specification may be desirable for the UNDEX test. Drop also tests provide
a measure of general ruggedness, but the induced loading, duration, and
magnitude can be significantly different from measured shipborne UNDEX
loading. This limits the correlation of drop test data to predicted UNDEX
performance, particularly for dynamically complex materiel. If the tests are
definitive, the qualification test can form the basis of the UNDEX safety
case directly.
3. Full scale testing avoids using unproven scaling techniques, but unique test
fixturing may be necessary, which are costly and physically large. The fixturing
and equipment may itself suffer significant damage and be unusable for further
tests. Procedures II, III, and IV may be necessary to extrapolate testing data to
inaccessible regions of the structure or materiel. Also testing may not be practical
when considering the combination of load cases necessary to establish the safety
and suitability for service case. Annex D provides further information on laboratory
or experimental test equipment.
b. Method II - Tailored Test and Validated Analysis
This method provides a balance between test and theoretical

analysis. This ensures the most cost-effective use of testing,
combined with measured data to validate any analysis. The
analysis allows extreme environment cases to be considered which
may not be feasible to investigate through laboratory testing. The
existence of measured data provides the safety case officer with
improved confidence, in a cost-effective manner; the number of test
cases can generally be reduced. Testing may include modal as well
as qualification testing. Modal tests will require application of
theoretical or empirical scaling laws if scale models have been used.
c. Method III - Validated Analysis
Given the databases of UNDEX transient acceleration responses

already existing, it is often possible to use measured data from
previous tests or experiments. Procedure III is similar to II, but uses
historical data to correlate with an existing model or data set.
However, caution is required in the use of inadequately documented
measured test data. The validity of the historical data needs to be
justified to the safety case officer.
d. Method IV - Unvalidated Analysis
This option is the least desirable, but is the only possible course of
action when tailored testing is not possible and no relevant historical

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
data exists. This procedure is only to be used as a last resort.

Theoretical developments and new computer simulations not
requiring validation by future experiments are included. The obvious
increased level of uncertainty will attract increased scrutiny. The
safety case officer will require evidence of the validity of the
approach, competence of the UNDEX assessment team, and a
proven track record in this type of analysis. The use of reliability
error bands is a useful method of improving confidence.
4. The more complex assessment methods should be aimed at reducing the

uncertainties in the UNDEX assessment procedure where higher risk situations are
encountered. A combination of cost limitations and acceptable degree of uncertainty will
determine the UNDEX assessment procedure. Assessment of uncertainties is often
made on a subjective basis and an experienced engineer is required to make these
judgements aided where appropriate by suitable techniques. The detailed assessment
has three possible outcomes:
a. The assessment is acceptable, the materiel may have passed or failed, and
the output from step 2D forms the response in Phase 3.
b. The assessment is unacceptable because of an insufficient level of

confidence in the UNDEX assessment, and the decision is made to
improve the assessment by repeating steps 2A to 2D until the required
degree confidence level is achieved.
c. The assessment is unacceptable due to a high degree of uncertainty, and

the decision is made to redefine the materiel stowage, or recommend
alterations to the materiel. This will require redefining the scope and
repeating steps 2A to 2D.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
From
Phase 1
See Undex A ssessment Chart
Figure A-4
Select Initial UNDEX A ssessment
Methods I, II, III & IV
Steps (2A ) to (2D) (A nnex B3)
Determine Environmental
(2A) Critical Shock Factor Or
Determine Excitation Mechanism & Threat
Forces For A ssessment Method
(A nnex B3.1) Increase Level Where
A ppropriate
A ssess Uncertainty Factors
Collect & (2B)

Process Determine Munitiont Dynamic Increased Number Of
Information Properties Load Cases / Tests or Y es
(A nnex B3.2) Increase Depth of
A nalysis
A ssess Uncertainty Factors
(2C)
Determine Loads on Munition For
Excitation & Environmental A pplication No
To A nalysis And Or Test Is Change Of
(A nnexB3.3) Level Possible & If
Testsed Is A nalysis or if
A nalysis Is Test
A ssess Uncertainty Factors Feasible?
Has Worst Case

Been Considered & Does
No
Uncertainty Allow A n UNDEX Saf ety
A ssessment ?
Y es
Y es
(2D)
Ref ine Failure Criteria If Necessary &
Perf orm UNDEX Saf ety Assessment
(A nnex B3.4)
Compare With Could Greater

Acceptance Is Undex Certainty Lead To A
Criteria A ssessment Satisf actory? No
Satisfactory UNDEX
(A nnex B5)
Assessment
Y es
Saf ety Assessment Based On

UNDEX Assessment & Other
Parameters
Go To
Phase 3
Figure A-3: Phase 2 - Assessment Evaluation

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
M unition Type
What is the munition

type?
Rigid or Flexible
Munition types range from small arms to complex missiles.

ENVIRONMENT
The relevant UNDEX assessment method will depend upon
the munition type and dynamic flexibility
What is the appropriate

assessment method to
apply to the munition
type?
Technical Env ironme ntal M ounting Storage
Use discriminator
questions in Annex B
& shown in
Figs A-2 & A-3
Is the environment a Is the munition palet,

chacon, cradle, container, Storage &
Frigate, Destroyer, Carrier,
seating, capsual, deck containment
Submarine, Minor War
launcher, hard, flexible, dynamic
Vessel (MWV) or RFA
bulkhead, upper deck, characturistics
Transport?
lower deck axial or
athwartship mounted?
Cost benefit assessment 2A

What are the dynamic Cost
properties? (ALARP) What is the availability of
Rigid the munition system?
Flexible
Distributed
High / Low Aspect
Rtaio
Is it economic and or
appropriate to test?
METHOD
M e thod I M e thod II M e thod III M e thod IV

Integrity Testing Tailored Test & Analysis - Validated Analysis -
Qualification Testing Validated Analysis Unvalidated
Figure A-4: UNDEX Assessment Flow Diagram

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
Method I
Determine Test Levels

2B
(Can be derived from analysis and
or the Grade Curves or others)
Is it necessary to test
complete Munition or is it posible to No
test components & achieve valid
Safety Case?
Yes
Is Munition Go To
No Method III
Available?
Yes
Is Live No
Yes
Testing Possible?
Inert Testing
Live Testing
No
2C
Barge Test If Available
Is Weight
No Less Than Yes
Drop Testing 2 T?
Is Shaker No (Validity of drop testing should
Method be assessed because of
Applicable? difficulty in read across Shock Table
to UNDEX) Barge Tests (Less than 2 T AUW
(Actual Undex) Simulated UNDEX)
Yes Electro magnetic / Servo-

Hydraulic shaker SRS Testing
- Limited Input 'g' Levels &
Measured data from testing to
Frequency - Consider Weight conf irm dynamic response levels
Limitations
Assess test results and

compare with acceptance
Assessment criteria
(Use discriminator questions in Annex B
and if in doubt seek expert advice)
2D
Is UNDEX
Output Assessment
Satisfactory?
Yes
Go To
Phase 3
Figure A-4 Continued: UNDEX Assessment Flow Diagram

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
2A
Methods II, III & IV
is munition in-hull or out

with hull?If the munition is stored
outside the hull or spends significant time
Dry Wet
where a direct waterbourne shock path exists,
2B Determine dynamic this must be treated as
properties a special case
What Are Structures

Dynamic Properties?
flexible
Simple and rigid
complex and rigid
Use simple lumped Use multiple MDOF Undertake FE analysis of munition FE analysis using Fluid
mass model lumped mass model and or storage method Structural Interaction methods
No
Are the grade

curves
applicable?
Yes
Use either the Grade Curve input or
experimentally measured input Use either the Grade Curve input or
Apply w orst case atttack scenario at
(consider multiple load cases) experimentally measured input
suitable shock factor
(consider multiple load cases)
2C
Is whipping a
Yes
concern?
Assess w hipping input loads by

consideration of platform design Compare model against
No expected behaviour - time
domain, forced response.
If possible validate against the

Is Method Grade Curves
II II, III & IV being III IV
used?
Validate Validate No Validation
Tailored test data Output: Historical data

(UNDEX test of inert, Stress analysis of munitionAccn, velocity & (UNDEX test of inert,
dynamic, modal, disp Space envelopeStructural deformation dynamic, modal,
scale etc in vicinity of explosive components etc. scale etc
Choose another
Is assessment
2D acceptable
No method and
reassess
Yes
Go To Go To
Phase 3 Phase 1
Figure A-4 Continued: UNDEX Assessment Flow Diagram

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
5. The accuracy of the four assessment steps should be increased until a satisfactory
cumulative level of confidence in the assessment procedure can be demonstrated. It is
not essential to increase the level of accuracy in all of the assessment steps
simultaneously, only where a weakness is identified. The UNDEX assessment flow
diagram shown in Figure A-4 comprises the generalised steps 2A to 2D, encompassing
specific requirements. These steps are the same for generalised vibration assessment,
which allow integration of the two procedures. The following sections consider each key
step.
Step 2A - Excitation Mechanism and External Forces
The main excitation mechanisms are direct structure-borne shock and bubble induced
whipping. Where the materiel is stored or deployed with the vessel or is in a position
where a direct fluid path exists, then this is a special case. In such circumstances structure
borne shock plus the direct shock wave loading need consideration. It should be
ascertained what combination of these excitation mechanisms is required to be included
in the UNDEX assessment. For example whipping would not be included for a fast patrol
craft. In general all ships need to be considered for shock but only high aspect ratio
vessels are susceptible to whipping. The levels associated with the excitation
mechanisms can be taken from the Shock Grade Curve Scheme, measured from
experiment or derived from theoretical evaluation. The ‘worst case’ stowage
configuration and a range of ‘worst case’ UNDEX scenarios will generally require to be
considered, although these will vary on a case-by-case basis.
Procedure I - Analytical Methods
In an UNDEX assessment analytical methods can be used to relate the response of a

materiel to a given dynamic input excitation and define test-input data. This will often
require a non-linear analysis accomplished using finite elements and / or boundary
element methods. These analytical methods are complex and require sophisticated
specialist software used by personnel with appropriate direct experience. Personnel
competency and associated QA should be specified and will depend upon the type of
analysis and assessment required. Validation and verification of the analysis techniques
and UNDEX assessment is essential and employ experimental data, Grade Curves, non-
linear material properties and the extensive historical shock database etc.
Procedure II - Experimental Methods
Experimental methods reduce the uncertainty associated with the UNDEX assessment
and analytical methods by the use of full scale and model trials. They deal with the real
physical system, which encompass non-linearity and the interaction effects. However,
experimental testing and full-scale trials can be expensive. They should be considered
in terms of
a. Qualification testing.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
b. The requirement for verification and validation of the analysis.
c. Assessment of the potential cost benefit.
d. The number of scenarios, which need to be considered to evaluate the

operational safety and suitability for service requirement.
Considerable specialist knowledge, expertise and experience are required to specify,

install, operate and monitor equipment and interpret the data correctly.
Step 2B - Materiel Properties Definition
A necessary prerequisite of an UNDEX assessment is the need to assess the dynamic

properties of the materiel, stowage support, and the ships structure (such as stiffness,
mass, damping, frequency, mode shape, etc.). This can be achieved by analytical and /
or experimental methods.
Procedure I - Analytical Methods for Dynamic Properties
1. For materiel and stowage which can be approximated to one or two degrees of
freedom, simple hand calculations using lump mass parameters are acceptable for
determining the dynamic behaviour of the materiel and its stowage support, provided that
the material properties are known. This approach is included in the UK UNDEX
reference a.
2. For multi-degree of freedom and more complex systems, finite element and modal
analysis is necessary. This requires the generation of a computer model, which
represents accurately the geometric and material properties of the materiel and its
supports. Experience in finite element modelling and analysis will reduce the
uncertainties caused by an incorrect representation of the actual physical system. This
applies in particular to aspects, which are difficult or unnecessary to model accurately
such as damping, junctions at structural elements and non-linear behaviour of supports
etc.
Procedure II - Experimental Methods for Dynamic Properties
Dynamic properties can be determined by modal testing techniques. In brief this involves
the excitation of the component at low levels of vibration and the measurement of the
response. The signal usually measured by transducers placed on the component or by
non-contact methods is analysed to provide the modal frequencies, shapes and the
damping characteristics. Modal testing techniques generally provide much more
accurate dynamic characteristics than analytical methods. However, since low vibrations
are used to determine modal characteristics they are essentially linear. The validity of
using a linear representation will need justification because of the high excitation levels
associated with an UNDEX event.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
Step 2C – Structural Response Estimation
The external dynamic forces in conjunction with the dynamic properties will cause a
dynamic response of the materiel and its support. This response will be in the form of
internal stresses and strains and these parameters are essential for the UNDEX structural
integrity assessment. Methods of evaluating dynamic response may be either theoretical
or experimental.
Procedure I - Analytical Methods for Structural Response
1. Dynamic response can be computed using the finite element technique. The
computer model generated to provide the dynamic characteristics can be utilised to
calculate the dynamic responses. Damping cannot be defined by an analytical method
but can be estimated and included in the model. Damping must always be included in
the analysis and if no accurate damping levels are available it should be estimated as the
result of experience or measurement. For linear structural systems analysis techniques
such as modal superposition are adequate. However, for non-linear behaviour, non-
linear finite element methods and the use of direct time-integration techniques are
required. Whereas non-linear approaches are not necessarily required for all UNDEX
analyses, those considering safety criteria are likely to be at high shock factors, near or
at hull lethality levels. These will invariably drive mounting structures, packaging, and
casings into plastic behaviour.
2. In the case of materiel, which can be represented as lump masses the Shock
Grade Curves Scheme can be applied directly, to obtain the forced response levels
associated with shock and latterly a crude representation of whipping effects.
Procedure II - Experimental Methods for Structural Response
1. Two uses of experimental testing are possible to monitor the structural response
in an UNDEX assessment: Full-scale testing and model testing.
2. Full scale testing is usually expensive but produces the most accurate results
since all the physical conditions are representative. UNDEX testing of inert materiel is
possible but in the UK live testing has historically largely been restricted to drop testing.
With the improvement of vibration / shock controllers and availability of high thrust electro-
magnetic shakers it is now feasible to consider applying SRS methods for live materiel
testing. The size of materiel capable of being tested using this method is governed by
the above mount shock level / time history, its weight and dynamic behaviour. Currently
UNDEX testing using this method has successfully been completed on materiel up to
900 kg. SRS testing applies equally to inert materiel and provides realistic input shocks
consistent with operational response time histories. A further advantage of this method
is that currently deployed dynamic test facilities can be utilised without costly capital
expenditure. However, both drop testing and SRS testing rely upon an understanding of
the operational input shock time history, which can only be derived from barge tests, full
scale tests of inert materiel or from theoretical models and the historical database.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
3. With inert testing, where there are a number of support configurations or attack
scenarios full scale testing can be impractical. The usual form of testing is to use the
actual materiel or a dynamically equivalent replica supported in a representative manner.
This is then tested at the pre-defined UNDEX severity and strains and dynamic responses
are recorded. Scale models may be used, but normal static scaling procedures may be
inappropriate. When considering the dynamic behaviour scaling factors are difficult to
determine, especially for complex components. A review of UNDEX test techniques
applicable to materiel is given in ANNEX C.
Step 2D - UNDEX Assessment
Potential Damage Mechanisms
The dynamic and strain information obtained is generally for a fully operational materiel,
which is defect free. The values are used in combination with the requirements of the
assessment and the chosen failure modes, to select a suitable UNDEX assessment
technique. Common failure mechanisms and modes are listed in Section 2.1.1 & 2.1.2
of Method 419 and it is possible for them to be present either singly or combined.
UNDEX Methods of Assessment
1. UNDEX assessment is an integrated multi-disciplinary activity combining

experiment, test and theoretical analysis.
2. The failure modes can be assessed using experimental testing, fracture

mechanics based analytical techniques, non-fracture mechanics based techniques, or
semi-empirical treatments such as the Shock Grade Curve Schemes.
Procedure I Experimental Testing
An UNDEX assessment implies that if the materiel is able to sustain the stresses and
strains imposed during an UNDEX event, then it passes safety requirement at the ‘to float’
level and if it remains functional at the ‘to fight’ level then it is considered serviceable.
Testing full-scale prototypes either to service loads or to destruction will give an indication
of the likely failure modes and the factors of safety. Correlation with small-scale tests is
possible but uncertainty may be introduced due to scaling effects. Small scale testing is
generally used to obtain mechanical toughness properties for materials and is
impracticable for live materiel. Testing may take the form of simulated shock using test
machines or barge tests.
Procedure II Analytical Assessment Techniques
Procedure II can range from the application of simple analytical formulae to full-blown
Hydrocode treatment of the fluid structure interaction problem. The key is choosing a
method of complexity consistent with the level of detail required in the assessment. At
the simple level direct solution of the equations of motion for simple rigid systems can

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
suffice. Where flexible equipment and / or supports are included then the direct choice is
the use of finite element techniques whereby the load is provided from a Shock Grade
Curve Scheme or an experimentally measured input. Where the assessment necessarily
needs to consider fluid structure interaction it is possible to consider estimated hull inputs
using Taylor plate theory. In reality fluid structural interaction is considered with the more
sophisticated yet still approximate techniques. These include the cylindrical wave
approximation, virtual mass approximation and the improved approximation inherent in
the doubly asymptotic approximation (DAA) family. The DAA approach is essentially a
boundary element approach, which considers the fluid field as a boundary wrap over a
structural finite element model. For scenarios where fluid volumes and cavities are
significant increasing complexity is required and the only acceptable choice in this
instance is the use of a Hydrocode. Hydrocodes are specialist codes and are currently
‘state-of-the-art’. Their use requires significant investment in expertise and hardware and
depending upon the maturity of the fluid structure coupling contained within, the results
may not be any more accurate than those of an approximate method.
Procedure III Codes of Practice and Guidance Documents for UNDEX

Assessment
There are currently no guidance documents or codes of practice applicable to tailored

UNDEX assessment of complex materiel. A range of documents are available which
provide guidance and procedures applicable to simple materiel and these include:
AECTP 200 & 400, Def Stan 00-035, MIL-STD-810, GAM-EG-13, BR 8470, BR 8472,
BR 3021, CB 5021, NES 814, and NES 1004.
A.2.3. PHASE 3 – ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS
An UNDEX assessment is deemed to be complete when a definitive statement can be

made that the integrity of the materiel can or cannot be proven for required duty and meet
the safety and suitability for service criteria within an acceptable margin, Figure 4.8. This
statement should be qualified with an assigned level of confidence determined by the
uncertainty factors associated with the particular steps taken in the UNDEX assessment.
Comparison with any target probability or confidence requirements defined in Phase 1
will also influence the final statement. A clearly drawn, concise and unambiguous
conclusion should be recorded. The MOD safety case assessor will require well defined
audit trails from the assessment start to conclusion. Any conclusions drawn may be
qualified by comparison with pre-determined, quantifiable criteria.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
From
Phase 2
UNDEX To
Assessment Phase 1
Conclusions
Is Safety Assessment
Based Upon UNDEX Assessment?
No
Are Other Influential Parameters
Acceptable ?
Yes
END
Figure A-5: Phase 3 - UNDEX Assessment Conclusion
A.3. DOCUMENTATION EXAMPLE
An example of a single-page summary record of an UNDEX assessment is shown in

Figure A-6.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
PHASE 1: DEFINITION OF SCOPE NUMBER:

Structure
Component
Objective of Assessment
Failure Mode(s) Considered
Excitation Mechanism(s)
Brief Description
PHASE 2: DETAILED UNDEX ASSESSMENT

Method
Method I Method II Method III Method IV
Testing Only Tailored Validated Unvalidated
Step
Testing & Analysis Analysis
Validated
Analysis
Step 2A
Excitation
Mechanisms &
Forces
Step 2B
Materiel &
Component
Dynamic
Properties
Step 2C
Dynamic
Response
Determination
Step 2D
UNDEX
Assessment
PHASE 3: CONCLUSIONS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Key References
Figure A-6: Example of Single Page UNDEX Assessment Summary

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
ANNEX B UNDEX ASSESSMENT AND TEST CONSIDERATIONS
B.1. INTRODUCTION
1. This Annex reviews the general considerations needed to determine an

appropriate UNDEX assessment process or test programme. Consideration of a range
of in-service conditions and analysis approaches will provide the necessary information
to allow completion of the required documentation or experimental tests. The questions
specified are only guidelines, and additional topics may need to be evaluated for
individual UNDEX test programme or Test Instruction requirements. Fundamental
questions to start the process are defined below:
a. What is the required function of the materiel or components?
b. What constitutes an unacceptable failure?
c. Is there an acceptable failure scenario?
d. What is the required confidence in the conclusions of the assessment?
e. Is a safety case required, if so what category?
f. Is personnel safety involved?
g. If the consequences of failure are economic, how large is the potential

loss?
h. What are the results of a fault consequence assessment?
i. Is post shock disposal of the materiel to be considered?
j. What level of serviceability is required?
k. Is the UNDEX assessment associated with new materiel, or a life

extension case?
2. The most pertinent question is perhaps the definition of an acceptable and

unacceptable failure. The simplest condition for which materiel can compromise
operations is by detachment from the mounting point(s) during the UNDEX event, and
becoming a “projectile” on the ship. Environmental simulation tests for this condition are
generally referred to as “crash hazard” tests. Therefore, captivity of the materiel, or shock
isolation hardware failure, is an important issue.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
3. There are generally no circumstances where premature ignition or detonation of

energetic material can be tolerated for safety considerations. Explosive failure is self
evident from a safety viewpoint, and can only meet the watertight integrity requirement.
However, safety could be compromised by a second order event, such as fuel leakage,
fuse instability, radioactive leakage, or any event which could impact upon the efficient
capability of the ship to meet its shock design criteria.
4. Furthermore, following an UNDEX event, the capability for safe handling,

servicing, or disposal of the materiel must exist. Increasing shock levels can be
associated with a decrease in serviceability and reliability. This introduces the concept
of “safety levels” associated with the failure mechanism(s), and is directly related to the
safety case category required from the UNDEX assessment. The key criteria which must
be defined by the UNDEX assessment process, is determination if the materiel is safe or
serviceable at the required level (I, I, or III), to fight, move, or float respectively.
B.2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Does the UNDEX assessment include transit by commercial ships?
a. How is the materiel packaged?
b. How is the materiel protected?
c. How is the materiel slung and loaded?
d. What events will the materiel be exposed to during loading and storage?
e. Where is the materiel stored?
f. Is the materiel stored above or below deck?
g. Is the materiel in a container?
h. Is there any form of dynamic isolation? (Elastomeric mounts, yielding

constant force devices, crushable materials, compliant structures etc.)
i. Can the materiel become a mechanical projectile?
j. Can the materiel create a personnel, equipment, or operational hazard?
k. What is the free travel and sway space?
l. What is the space envelope associated with the materiel storage

position?

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
m. Can external mechanical bodies, as a result of UNDEX, affect the

materiel?
Does the UNDEX assessment include stowage in naval ships magazines?
a. What are the stowage arrangements and configuration?
b. Where and how will the materiel be stowed?
c. Where will the materiel be stored? - (Close to the hull, on deck, seating,
above or below the waterline etc.).
d. What structure is between the wetted hull and the storage position?
e. What is the shock loading path?
f. What is the free travel and sway space? i.e., what is the space envelope
associated with the materiel storage position?
g. Is there any form of dynamic isolation? (Elastomeric mounts, yielding

constant force devices, crushable materials, compliant structures etc.)
h. Can the materiel become a mechanical projectile? If not, how is the

materiel restrained?
i. If the materiel is restrained can the restraint itself impose damage under
high deceleration?
j. Can the materiel hazard other materiel, itself or personnel? Either by

impact, leakage and electrical hazard initiated by failure.
k. Is the UNDEX assessment to include operational deployment- Naval

ships (ready for use launcher environment)?
l. Is the materiel located on the hull, deck, upper or lower deck?
m. Is there any isolation between the launcher and the ship structure?
n. At what axial position is the materiel located on the ship?
o. What are the boundary conditions in terms of the launcher structural

dynamics?
p. Can any part of the launcher structure impinge on the space envelope of
the materiel boundary (crushing etc.)?

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
q. How is the materiel restrained? Is it merely gravity, interference or other

physical restraint?
r. Does the materiel need to be judged on a case-by-case basis?
B.3. POTENTIAL FAILURE MODES
What are the potential failure modes of the materiel?
a. Detonation
b. Deflagration, slow burn
c. Fatigue, in particular at welds to parent metal
d. Fracture
e. Plastic collapse
f. Leakage
g. Instability and buckling
h. Failure from initial imperfections
i. Control or functional limits such as displacement limits
j. Combined failure modes
k. Collision and adequate space envelope
B.3.1. Step 2A Excitation Mechanisms and Forces
What excitation mechanisms are conceivable?
1. It is important to consider that any combination of the perceived excitation

mechanisms, while potentially damaging in themselves, will also have the potential to
make the materiel a projectile. Captivity of the materiel is an overriding requirement.
2. Derived from any of the excitation mechanisms and external forces the materiel
could become, or suffer impact from other detached materiel. Also, the materiel may still
remain attached to the elastomeric mounts but could exceed its allowable sway space
and collide with other structures or materiel.
3. Whipping is dependent upon the attack geometry and the geometric and dynamic
characteristics of the target. A long slender ship would generally be subject to whipping;

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
a short landing craft would be subject to severe sinusoidal rigid body motion. There are
generally more instances where whipping motion excitation is a concern than non-
existent.
4. Hydrostatic pressure pre-load may be an important issue for submarine

assessment cases. General UNDEX dynamic excitations are below.
a. Shock.
b. Whipping.
c. Acoustic, fluid-acoustic coupling, acoustic shock waves.
d. Fluid phenomena - Bubble flow loading (incompressible fluid flow),

cavitation.
e. Mechanical transmission.
f. Differential hydrostatic pressure.
g. Impact from drops, energetic missiles, collision, loss of captivity etc.
h. Transient pressures.
What are the characteristics of these possible excitation mechanisms?
a. Steady state, transient or random.
b. Transient – acoustic.
c. Transient bubble.
d. Frequency range, broadband, narrow band.
e. Amplitude distribution and time distribution, i.e. maximum pulse

magnitude & phasing.
f. Spatial correlation, uniform distribution, point loads.
When considering the characteristics of the possible excitation mechanisms the

following should be addressed.
a. The explosive type, depth and warhead size and attack angle.
b. The shock factor for the attack weapon.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
c. The peak overpressure, impulse duration, and amplitude.
5. The shock factor, which may be expressed as a direct hull shock factor, keel
shock factor or an angle shock factor, is related to the energy flux density. From
these considerations the input shock loading can be defined.
Shock Factor  Parameter Fraction  Shock Grade Curve

Scheme
An explosive parameter The Shock Grade The Shock Grade
related to the energy Curves Scheme relate Curves Scheme can
flux density from an to a given position and supply:
UNDEX explosive event known input level. The Acceleration
parameter fraction is a Velocity
scaling constant to Displacement
relate information at
other shock factors
How does the excitation change with operational variables?
a. Depth
b. Time
c. Attitude of impact: component or target of excitation
d. Angle of attack
What is the likely accuracy of the above estimates of excitation forces?
Estimation of the forces is based upon well established and validated techniques, and
upon either empirical equations, or from the Shock Grade Curve Scheme. The Shock
Grade Curve Scheme is a distillation of a very large database of ship and submarine
dynamic responses to UNDEX events.
a. Are they based on direct measurement local to the structure or

component?
b. If so, were the measurements made under worst-case conditions for

each possible excitation?
c. If based on empirical formulae, can the use of the formulae be justified?
d. If theoretical, how has the theoretical model used been validated?

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
B.3.2. Step 2B Component Dynamic Properties
Are dynamic material properties for materiel, packaging, and support structure,
available?
a. Aerospace alloys, elastomeric mounts, seals etc.
b. If the information is not available where can it be found?
c. Is testing necessary - modal, shock, and static properties, UTS, Charpy,

etc.?
d. Is information available on the inter-connection of components?
e. Will the inter-connections effect the dynamic behaviour of the materiel or

equipment i.e. friction across bolted joints?
f. What test information is available to allow verification of FE or other

models?
Are in-service measurements available covering the range of possible

variables?
a. Force, time, acceleration, and amplitude
b. Frequency
c. Variation in properties between nominally identical components

(elastomeric mounts and interconnections)
What are the boundary conditions of the component under assessment?
a. Isolated from other structures (free, rigidly fixed or damped)
b. Strongly coupled to other structures, which are not significantly

dynamically influenced by the component.
c. Strongly coupled to other structures, mutually interacting with them
d. Does the materiel occupy a significant axial length? (since shock loading
of a distributed system will be phased) This is important both axially and
athwartships.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
Is it reasonable to assume linear behaviour in the excitation force range?
a. For low shock loads a linear system can be utilised. However, above a
threshold shock factor a non-linear assessment will be required.
b. For Non-linear mounting systems treatment of the mounts as linear

isolators is not adequate.
Could the materiel have resonant frequencies in the excitation frequency

band?
a. Higher frequency modes of the materiel may be excited depending upon

the resonance characteristics.
b. Low frequency mounting systems may be susceptible to low frequency

whipping inputs.
Is the modal density sufficiently high that the statistical analysis is applicable
or are individual modal properties required?
In general it is the first ten modes of the materiel structure, which will be significant.
This limitation can be considered to be a benefit in terms of the FE model and its
validation since it is difficult to accurately validate high order modes.
Are the component resonant frequencies high compared to the impact duration
for transient excitations so that pseudo-static calculations are sufficient and no
modal properties are required?
a. If a Shock Grade Curve Scheme approach is adopted, only rigid body

behaviour with no high frequency components is considered. However,
for flexible structures high frequency modes could be excited. The
interaction between components would then need to be evaluated. This
is an important factor when defining the need for tailored testing.
b. The pseudo static approach tends to lead to structural forces, which are
conservative resulting in a degree of pessimism. Therefore, pseudo
static analysis should be treated with caution. However, this approach is
often used in the absence of a dynamic analysis and can result in
unrepresentative responses. Tailored assessment using modelling and
test should be used where possible.
What are the mode shapes, relevant modes and the estimated (modal or
averaged) damping values?
a. Fundamental response mode.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
b. Impulse response.
c. Mechanical damping.
d. Fluid damping.
e. Acoustic radiation damping.
f. Are the damping sources lumped or distributed?
How will the above dynamic parameters be altered by environmental factors

associated with operation? Including:
Shock assessment is primarily involved with gross movement where subtleties such
as temperature are second order. However, pre-load can have a significant effect
when considering elastomeric isolators.
a. Temperature
b. Pre-load changes at supports
Variations in the characteristics between nominally identical components are

likely. Can the possible spread be estimated?
In most cases it is not possible to estimate the spread of dynamic response

characteristics. The nominal design and build standard is generally consistent and is
adopted. There are far more influential approximations made in the assessment than
considering a nominal spread in the materiel dynamic properties characteristics e.g.
the fluid / hull and structural load path can only be approximated.
What is the estimated accuracy of the frequencies, damping values and mode
shapes?
a. Are they based on relevant measurements on a real component?
b. If theoretical, how has confidence in the relevance of the model been

obtained?
c. If empirical, are the data / formulae applicable to those components in

this environment?
B.3.3. Step 2C Dynamic Response Determination
Are the measurements of the response under the correct environmental

conditions available?

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
a. Do they cover all excitations identified above?
b. Are they made under the most onerous of conditions?
c. Coincidence of structural and excitation frequencies for most lightly

damped modes.
d. Highest coupling in terms of spatial match.
e. Conditions needed to promote onset of instabilities.
f. Impact conditions associated with highest forces.
Can responses be estimated by extrapolating limited measurements from

similar structures or Materiel?
a. How has the extrapolation been justified?
b. What are the main parameters to which the response is sensitive?
c. What is the likely accuracy of the estimated response?
This is the basis of the Shock Grade Curve Scheme, which is limited to compact, rigid
materiel. The following questions will help in identifying if the materiel can be
considered as rigid.
a. What is the aspect ratio of the materiel or collective materiel?
b. Are materiel supported individually or collectively?
c. Could individual materiel be removed for use?
d. Is the materiel or collection of materiel a flexible, multi-modal structure or

is it rigid and compact?
e. Examples of a typical materiel or collection of materiel, which are rigid

and compact, are shells, depth charges, case of racked shells, Blow
Pipe, Sea Wolf. Those, which can be considered to be flexible and or
distributed, include Tomahawk, torpedoes and air weapons.
If no direct measurements of the response are available, what theoretical

estimates can be made for each relevant excitation force?
This only applies to tailored assessments of flexible materiel described above. There
are established, validated and verified techniques for estimating the UNDEX loading
on marine structures. The Shock Grade Curve Scheme can be used for limited lump

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
mass structural models or as inputs where it is deemed that fluid structure interaction
calculation is not required.
How sensitive is the response to known mechanical and excitation variables?
The Shock Grade Curve Scheme is relatively insensitive to mechanical changes,

principally because of the crude modelling capability. Tailored assessment may take
account of the materiel structural geometry thereby providing a more sensitive
assessment.
B.3.4. Step 2D Mechanical Integrity Assessment
B.3.4.1. Simple Materiel - Shock Grade Curve Scheme or Test Approach
For a simple materiel a testing programme would be appropriated which covers the
most onerous conditions.
Are component endurance or failure data available under the most onerous
conditions?
a. Are the results statistically meaningful?
b. Do all the parameters, which significantly affect the dynamic response or

failure resistance, have pessimistic values?
In calculating the endurance or likelihood of failure, how sensitive is the result

to the dynamic strength parameter used?
a. What is the safety margin on the allowable dynamic response?
The Shock Grade Curve Scheme is insensitive to the dynamic and strength parameters
used and therefore it is difficult to scope the range of parameters. It is very difficult to
adequately define a safety margin using the Shock Grade Curve Scheme. An
approximation for whipping is included in the 1987 Shock Grade Curve Scheme but
their accuracy can be questioned since whipping is approximated simply by the
inclusion of a low frequency sine residual component in the tail of the specified impulse.
In practice whipping response will be platform specific.
Are the results of this assessment acceptable in terms of the ability of the
component to meet the duty specified?
a. If not, is this because parts of the assessment are overly conservative?

If so, initiate a detailed analysis of these in Phase 2 of the analysis.
b. If not, what are the main options for improving the integrity as identified
by the assessment and sensitivity study?

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
c. Evaluate most likely options for improvement starting at question 1 again.
Both the Shock Grade Curve Scheme and tailored assessment using complex
numerical methods will not define if the materiel failure criteria. If the failure criteria are
based upon structural damage these methods are well placed to provide this, where
the simple analysis will not. The Grade Curves are sufficient to determine acceleration
levels and the gross dynamic response for simple materiel. This can then be related
to survival or damage test levels (i.e., 30 g over 10 ms can be predicted) and historical
data associated with weapon survival or failure used for comparative purposes. The
tailored assessment and testing approach can give the inertial load and structural
behaviour in and around the materiel from which assessment of the failure modes and
likelihood of detonation may be assessed.
B.3.4.2. Complex Materiel - Shock Grade Curve Scheme or Test Approach
The added complexity of analysis methods to investigate the dynamic behaviour of

complex materiel allows the sensitivity of the result to dynamic and strength parameters
to be assessed. This allows a range of ‘what if’ questions to be investigated. However,
this approach can be costly and a cost benefit analysis will be required.
Are component endurance or failure data available under the most onerous
conditions?
a. Are the results statistically meaningful?
b. Do all the parameters, which significantly affect the dynamic response or

failure resistance, have pessimistic values?
In calculating the endurance or likelihood of failure, how sensitive is the result

to the dynamic strength parameter used?
What is the safety margin on the allowable dynamic response?
Are the results of this assessment acceptable in terms of the ability of the
component to meet the duty specified?
a. If not, is this because parts of the assessment are overly conservative?

If so initiate a detailed analysis in Phase 2 of the process.
b. If not, what are the main options for improving the integrity as identified
by the assessment and sensitivity study?
c. Evaluate most likely options for improvement starting at question 1 again.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
B.4. FAILURE CRITERIA
What data are required to derive failure criteria?
a. Materials data
b. Geometry data
c. Environmental data
d. Fastenings
What failure criteria can be derived from available data, including component
in-service experience?
a. What is the estimated probability of failure associated with these criteria?
b. Are there uncertainties that could make the failure criteria optimistic?
Shock assessment attempts to model the dynamic behaviour of a large section of the
ship and predict its dynamic response to complex transient inputs. The materiel,
structure if flexible, will also require to be modelled in some detail. The level of
knowledge to achieve the desired objective is high and the analyses are complex, non-
trivial and should not be confused with static modelling. The level of controls, which
must be in place to manage the analysis and minimise the potential for error and the
uncertainties, are high. The objective of an UNDEX assessment must therefore be to
refine the scope to the worst-case behaviour in terms of safety assessment, suitability
for service and influence the qualification testing programme.
B.5. UNDEX ASSESSMENT VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION
a. Is it economically viable to get test data?
b. Is it politically acceptable to get test data?
c. Is a materiel available to risk destruction?
d. Can a testing programme be influenced by modelling; thereby, only

providing the minimum data to allow validated results? Maximum load
cases can be explored.
e. Is data derived from live materiel available or is only dummy materiel data
available?
f. In which case, what method and criteria are to be used to determine if

detonation is possible?

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
ANNEX C UNDEX TESTING USING SRS METHODS
C.1. BACKGROUND AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
1. Laboratory UNDEX Testing has traditionally been performed using mechanical

shock test machines in conjunction with test standards such as UK BR 8740 or USA MIL-
DTL-901. This procedure relies on the application of below mount shock levels to
relatively dynamically inactive equipment. UNDEX testing of live explosive materiel
commonly uses various drop test shock simulation methods. The advent of improved
complex shock control systems, in conjunction with long stroke, high thrust, exciters for
vibration test systems make it possible to consider the use of shock response spectrum
(SRS) techniques for inert and live UNDEX testing. This shock test method is most
effective where dynamically complex materiel is concerned, and the above shock
isolation mount input time history data are available or can be derived. Generally, SRS
methodologies rely upon definition of an SRS test severity from an in-service measured
acceleration time history. Where necessary it may require a dynamic finite element model
to establish the above mount time history and the associated SRS. The defined input
SRS is then applied with a suitable fixture and high thrust vibration system to the test
item.
2. Where the materiel is a low to medium mass, direct use of SRS techniques can
sometimes be performed with the below mount measurements because the input peak
acceleration levels can be increased significantly up to those specified in the Grade
Curves. However, for higher mass materiel it is necessary to establish the above mount
dynamic response of the materiel before proceeding. The use of modelling in conjunction
with the SRS methodology is an advantage since it potentially reduces the overall testing
requirements by identifying worst cases, and providing a more appropriate and technically
superior shock test method that closely simulates the actual predicted in service
conditions.
C.2. APPLICATION OF SRS TECHNIQUES TO UNDEX TESTING
The key steps in the application of SRS techniques to UNDEX testing of materiel are
shown in Figure C-1. The defined process assumes that the test item characteristics, in-
service LCEP, test equipment performance envelope, and data analysis capabilities are
known.
Definition of Material Properties and Test Parameters
a. Determine the mass of the materiel, and physical characteristics.
b. Determine the type of support structure, mount, and the stowage

configuration.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
c. Determine the materiel and its container dynamic properties if applicable.
d. Define the level of UNDEX survivability.
e. Determine the below mount shock input time history.
f. Determine if an electrodynamic exciter has adequate thrust to apply the

specified below mount shock time history without recourse to the above
mount FE modelling. If yes, go to step 7, then skip to step 12. If no, go
to step 7, and implement intermediate steps.
Above Isolation Mount Response and Modelling Considerations
a. Determine the above mount materiel shock response time history. By

laboratory test if the exciter is capable. Or, by modelling in the steps
below.
b. Model the support structure, mount, container and materiel using a non-
linear finite element model and determine the system dynamic behaviour.
c. Model the shock input to the support structure
d. Calculate the worst case above mount dynamic response of the materiel
for various UNDEX scenarios.
e. Calculate the worst-case SRS at the point of interest.
Definition and Verification of Laboratory Testing
a. Develop a representative shock test fixture taking into account the mass,
inertia, thrust and performance limitations of the test laboratory
electrodynamic exciter.
b. Develop an UNDEX test specification. Use the calculated SRS to derive

an equivalent shock input time history comprising a series of damped
sinusoids. This includes converting the shock time history into a SRS,
which is split into multiple, phased damped sinusoids. The exciter to test
item transfer function is then defined. Apply the specified shock pulse in
terms of damped sinusoids to the test system exciter and materiel to
achieve the in-service shock. The materiel shock response time history
is then compared to the in-service shock time history for validation
purposes.
c. Perform preliminary tests to evaluate the dynamic behaviour of the test

setup and the test item; identify the optimum test control point(s) and
confirm that the test specification can be adequately met. Compare the

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
test shock response time history with the in-service shock response time
history as well as the SRS.
d. Undertake live materiel UNDEX testing.
C.3. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SRS TESTING
C.3.1. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
a. The shock response time history and its SRS obtained from either in-
service measurement data or modelling is used as the basis of the shock
test specification. The test specification will be developed for the
frequency range that potentially affects the failure modes of interest.
b. The duration of the shock response time history should be assessed as

adequate to allow specification of the low frequency SRS, nominally 5 Hz
to 10 Hz. This low frequency limit needs to be consistent with mount
resonances and the test system exciter thrust and control requirement.
c. SRS’s at various damping levels appropriate to the materiel to be shock

tested should be considered, such as Q = 1%, 5%, 10%, and 15% as
required.
d. Ensure that both low and high frequency components are included in the
test specification SRS. Low pass filtered data may be used to interpret
the time history, but should not generally be used when analysing the
SRS without fully understanding the consequences in terms of potential
damage.
e. It is necessary to ensure bias error criteria has been met.
f. The peak acceleration level to be simulated during the laboratory test,

the mass of the materiel and test equipment exciter must be established.
This information will be used to establish that the test system is capable
of adequately performing the shock test to the full acceleration test level.
g. It is necessary to establish the test specification SRS control limits at the

3 dB level.
h. The number and level of pre-cursor shocks to achieve adequate control

must be established and taken into account in the SRS test specification.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
Def ine the support structure,

Def ine / establish below mount Def ine munition and container
Def ine level of survivability mount and stow age
shock time history dynamic properties
conf iguration
Def ine munition mass and

support arrangement
Pre liminary conside rations include :

Determine Electromagnetic
* SRS from operational trial data or
shaker thrust to apply shock
w ithout recourse to FE modelling
modelling * Consider the potential failure modes to
Y ES No establish frequency range
* Ensure the duration of shock time history
Determine munition shock is adequate to allow excitation of lowest
response time history frequency ie. consistent with the mount
frequency
*Consider SRS's at various Q=1, 10, 25, 50,
Model support structure, mount, 100
container and munition using * Ensure Bias Error criteria is met
non-linear FEM & Determine
system dynamic behaviour
* Include both low & high frequency
components
* Establish peak 'g' levels to be attained
Model the shock input to the
support structure
Calculate w orst case above

mount dynamic response f or
attack scenarios
Develop representative shock
test rig - take into account
Calculate w orst case SRS at
mass, inertia, thrust, and
point of interest
limitations of shaker ie.
overturning moments etc.
use calculated SRS / time
Specif y allow able SRS
history to derive equivalent
tolerance ie.+/-3dB
shock time history using
f romcomputed SRS
damped sinusoids or w avelets Build test rig & mount on a
suitable shaker
Develop shock test

Choose control strategy, control
specif ication & trial specif ication
& monitoring points in
including duration and number
accordance w ith control options
of shocks to be applied
Evaluate the munition / test

f ixture / shker TF
Establish shaker drive signal

compensation & apply
Undertake pree-cursor testing

to ensure adequate shock test
levels, control & compare w ith
original time history and SRS
data
Condition munition
Perf orm operational checks
Test
Figure C-1: Key Steps In Materiel UNDEX SRS Testing

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
C.3.2. SHOCK TEST SPECIFICATION
The shock test specification will be in the form of a shock pulse time history consisting
of a series of damped sinusoids (frequency, acceleration amplitude, damping %, delay
% and polarity). This time history will be derived from the specified SRS and shock
response time history using a specified damping and frequency range.
C.3.3. FIXTURING DESIGN
1. Where possible in-service materiel components should be used in the test

fixturing design. Where a container is used, the container must be mounted to the
exciter head expander and support plate structure using the in-service configuration.
2. Where possible, it is necessary to avoid non-linear joints and interfaces. The

non-linear effects may only become apparent during the application of the full level
shock pulse and not be included during evaluation of the system transfer function.
3. Where possible, fixturing symmetry about the shaker centreline should be

maintained to avoid overturning moments, significant structural overhang, and
unwanted rotational inertia effects.
The introduction of lateral shock components should be avoided.
C.3.4. SHOCK TEST CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION
a. It is necessary to use accelerometers mounted in the direction of the

shock for control purposes.
b. Where possible triaxial accelerometers should be used to establish any

lateral shock components.
c. Where possible triaxial accelerometers should be used to monitor the

materiel's structural response at key positions of interest.
d. Where a container is used, it is necessary to instrument the materiel and

the container to establish any dynamic magnification across the mounts
throughout the frequency range of interest.
C.3.5. PRECURSOR TESTING
During precursor testing it is necessary to:
a. Establish the structural integrity of the fixturing and the test setup.
b. Determine the optimum control parameters and strategy.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
c. Evaluate the fixturing dynamic behaviour.
d. Establish if the specified shock input at full test level can be achieved.
e. Establish if the test system and controller is capable of control at full test
level.
f. Demonstrate that the test specification SRS can be achieved with the
 3 dB limits.
g. Demonstrate instrumentation calibration and integrity.
h. Select control point(s) on the shaker base plate or materiel structure.
i. Determine the test fixturing and control system dynamic response

characteristics, in terms of the system transfer function. This is achieved
by exciting the structure with random excitation, measuring the response
at the control point and analysing over the frequency range of the SRS.
The resulting transfer function is then used to shape the exciter drive
signal to achieve the required shock pulse. Note the low-level random
excitation will not generally detect non-linear effects exhibited by the
fixturing and materiel.
j. Apply the shock pulse to the structure at a reduced level, nominally

– 12 dB, and repeat at least three times to achieve an average. Repeat
this process at – 9 dB, -6 dB, and – 3 dB before going to full level. The
number of averages will depend on the fixturing, structure and SRS being
applied. The gradual approach to full test level is necessary to establish
optimum control parameters and take account of non-linear effects.
k. Confirm optimum location of the control point(s).
l. Compare both the response time history and the SRS with those
specified at the control point and at relevant points on the materiel
structure. This will validate the shock input test specification.
m. If the results show that the specified shock pulse is not being adequately
achieved it may be necessary to consider the following:
(1) Alternative test control positions.
(2) Reduction or redistribution of fixturing and test load mass.
(3) Application of other damping levels used to calculate the SRS.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
(4) Phasing and damping of the damped sinusoids used to construct

the input shock pulse.
(5) Use of a test system with a higher thrust capability.
(6) Improvement in the control system capabilities.
(7) Multiple shock strategy.
(8) Relaxation of the control tolerance limits.
C.3.6. LIVE TEST PROGRAMME
When undertaking the live test it is necessary to consider the following:
a. Confirm the control transfer function derived during the precursor test.
b. Validate the precursor test results, the shock response time histories and
SRS, at low levels using live materiel prior to undertaking the full live test
programme.
c. Confirm similarity between the input time history and the operational
UNDEX event time history.
d. Include in the live test programme strategy the need to apply multiple
shocks at reduced level to establish the control parameters.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
ANNEX D UNDEX TEST EQUIPMENT
D.1. EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS
The objective of an UNDEX shock test is to induce a response in the test item, which as
closely as possible, corresponds to the expected response of in-service materiel during
a non-contact underwater explosion for a specified threat event. A shock test of individual
inert materiel can be performed using an operational ship, barge platform, vibration test
system, free fall drop, or shock machine as appropriate within the equipment
displacement, amplitude, and frequency limits. Shock testing of live explosive materiel is
currently often restricted from full-scale ocean or barge testing due to environmental
concerns. The choice of equipment depends on the test item dimensions, mass, shock
excitation level, and Test Instruction requirements. Large or heavy test items may require
component or sub-assembly testing. In some cases, full scale operational ship testing
may be the only option due to the physical characteristics of the test item or the installation
configuration.
D.1.1. OPERATIONAL SHIP SHOCK
The use of a full-scale, or partial-scale, operational ship test is typically the most realistic
test method; however the tests are also expensive to conduct. One benefit of operational
ship testing is that simultaneous testing of several test items in actual in-service
configuration can be conducted. The tests also permit acquisition of measured
engineering data for subsequent laboratory or experimental testing, and model validation.
In general, operational ship tests require a higher level of considerations and funding, but
the benefits can be justified based on the test program requirements. These full or scale
ship tests can only be performed if the ship is beyond the manufacturing phase, which
can adversely affect the timeliness of the project.
D.1.2. SHOCK BARGE
A shock barge is a floating platform into or on which an inert materiel is installed for
detonation of an explosive charge in the water. The test item installation can be a full-
scale in-service configuration, or a scaled model. Similarly, the body of water can be
natural open-ocean, an isolated pond, or a water tank suitable for the scale of the test.
The charge is positioned relative to the barge to simulate an UNDEX scenario
corresponding to the particular Shock Factor. For all floating platform tests, a number of
considerations are necessary to account for the shock wave direct and reflected
transmission path to the barge, installation of the test item, water properties, and the
explosive charge characteristics. Two common types of floating barges are flat or keel
shaped barges (Type 1) and round bottomed barges (Type 2) to simulate ocean surface
ships and submarines respectively. Type 1 barges vary in size and are used for
equipment tests ranging from components to full-scale generators, pumps, and gun
systems. Type 2 barges have a semi-cylindrical cross section of a submarine hull with

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
ballasting and buoyancy provided by bow and stern structures. The test section of the
barge is semi-cylindrical with scantlings similar to those of a submarine pressure hull from
the keel to just above the horizontal centreline. The frames are continued to a deep
coaming of similar scantlings at the weather deck.
D.1.3. MECHANICAL SHOCK MACHINES
A shock machine is equipment that induces a shock response in the test item by a rapid
displacement of the machine table or an impact projectile. The transfer function
associated with the operation of the machine determines the displacement and
acceleration profile. The severity of the response that can be induced in a test item
depends upon the machine capacity and combined mass of the test item plus fixturing.
The shock pulse from these machines is typically generated by hydraulic, pneumatic, or
gravity control. A closed loop control system may not be present on some machines, and
shock pulse is created by default control parameters. The characteristics of several types
of shock machines are presented below.
D.1.3.1. Deck Shock Machine
The deck shock machine is designed to induce a lightly damped oscillatory shock
response. Such a response is experienced by materiel directly fastened to a vessel in
locations remote from the hull during an UNDEX excitation. The deck shock machine
consists of a horizontal shock table, to which the test item is attached. Linkages to four
transverse torsion bars connect the table. The torsion bars are located in journal bearing
pedestals, which are directly attached to the machine foundation. The inner end of each
torsion bar is fitted with a crank arm. Energy to operate the machine is provided by two
hydraulic rams that apply torque to the torsion bars using the crank arms before the
machine is actuated. The outer end of each torsion bar is fitted with a dog and pawl
arrangement. The pawls are held into the dogs by means of cams connected to two
pneumatic rams that are a firing rod and firing cylinder.
Once the required torque is achieved in the torsion bars, the machine is actuated by way
of the pneumatic rams. The linkages to the shock table thus transmit the energy stored
in the torsion bars. The linkage between the torsion bars and the shock table may be set
to induce either vertical or horizontal motion of the shock table. Response characteristics
of a typical deck shock machine are shown in Table D-1.

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
Table D-1: Deck Shock Machine Characteristics
Parameter Capability
Table dimensions 2740 mm x 1070 mm (9 ft x 3.5 ft)
Maximum test mass 680 kg (1499 lb)
Maximum displacement 64 mm (2.5 in)
Small mass: 6.1 m/s (240 in/s)
Maximum velocity
Maximum mass: 4.3 m/s (169 in/s)
Small mass: 1000 m/s2 (102 g)
Maximum acceleration
Maximum mass: 700 m/s2 (71 g)
D.1.3.2. Two Tonne Shock Machine
1. The two tonne shock machine is designed to induce the heavily damped
oscillations, which would be experienced by materiel in locations close to the hull of a
vessel due to a UNDEX event. The machine operates on the same principle as a
compressed air gun; a projectile is propelled by compressed air to impact on a target. To
prevent the direct transmission of reaction forces to the surrounding floor, the machine is
secured to a reaction mass of approximately two hundred tonnes in mass below the floor
level. This reaction mass bottom surface is supported by oil springs and is free to move
vertically in roller guides. The inner cylinder, orientated vertically, has within it a projectile,
which is free to slide in the cylinder bore. Surrounding the inner cylinder, and concentric
with it, is the outer cylinder. The annulus space between the two cylinders, stores the
compressed air, which provides the energy to propel the projectile. Connecting the
annulus and the cylinder bore are ports, which are closed by the projectile when it is at
the bottom of the inner cylinder, prior to commencement of the working stroke. Projectile
cylinder seals prevent the unwanted escape of air from the annulus to the spaces above
and below the projectile.
2. The cavity below the projectile is connected to the annulus through a valve, which
is operated remotely. The operation of the shock machine is initiated by opening this
valve and allowing pressure to build up below the projectile, slowly moving the projectile
upwards. The projectile eventually uncovers all the compressed air ports, which causes
the projectile to move quickly up the inner cylinder towards the shock table.
3. Integral with the projectile is an acceleration damper, which operates on an

oleopneumatic principle. When the projectile impacts with the shock table, relative
displacement between the damper piston and the projectile body occurs. While this takes
place, hydraulic fluid is transferred from the damper chamber through an orifice plate to
a second chamber in which a separator, backed by nitrogen pressure, is free to slide. As
the stroke of the damper piston proceeds, a shaped restrictor moves into the orifice
varying the effective area of the orifice, and hence also the damping.
4. The deceleration of the shock table is controlled by eight oil pneumatic dampers
operating on a similar principle to that of the accelerating damper. The shock imparted

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
to the shock table can be varied as indicated below. Typical two tonne shock machine
characteristics are shown in Table D-2.
a. Adjusting the table height;
b. Varying the pressure of air in the annulus;
c. Varying the initial relative positions of the orifice and restrictor in the
acceleration dampers;
d. Varying the initial relative positions of the orifice and restrictor in the
deceleration dampers;
e. Acceleration, varying the nitrogen pressure behind the separator in the

acceleration dampers;
f. Deceleration, varying the nitrogen pressure behind the separator in the

deceleration dampers.
Table D-2: Two Tonne Shock Machine Characteristics
Parameter 500 Kg Test Mass 1900 Kg Test Mass

Maximum displacement 46 mm (1.8 in) 38 mm (1.5 in)
Maximum velocity 9 m/s (354 in/s) 6 m/s (236 in/s)
Maximum acceleration 5500 m/s2 (561 g) 3000 m/s2 (306 g)
Maximum deceleration 2750 m/s2 (280 g) 1500 m/s2 (153 g)
5. This shock machine is capable of inducing vertical motion of the shock table.
Shock tests in other directions may be conducted by attaching the test item to the shock
table in an appropriate relative position, using appropriately designed rigid fixturing.
D.1.3.3. Lightweight and Medium Weight Pendulum Hammer Shock Machine
The Lightweight (LWSM) and Medium Weight (MWSM) shock machines are the
equipment specified in the MIL-DTL-901 test specification. The machine consists of a
gravity accelerated pendulum hammer that impacts an anvil plate to excite the attached
test item. The severity of the impact is tailored by the drop height of the hammer. Table
D-3 provides typical characteristics for the LWSM and MWSM machines. Reference e
also provides further information on the test machines.

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
Table D-3: Lightweight and Medium Weight Shock Machine Characteristics
Parameter Lightweight Shock Machine Medium Weight Shock

Machine
Hammer Weight 400 lb (181 Kg) 3000 lb (1361 Kg)
Maximum Test Weight 550 lb (250 Kg) 7400 lb (3357 Kg)
Maximum displacement 1.5 inches (38 mm) 3.0 inches (76 mm)
D.1.4. VIBRATION TEST SYSTEMS
1. Vibration test systems, electrodynamic or servo-hydraulic, can be used to apply

a measured or synthesised input time history, for the associated shock response
spectrum (SRS), to either an inert or live test item. The use of vibration systems for
UNDEX testing is restricted principally by the availability of the input time history, low
frequency displacement, peak acceleration, frequency range, and the mass and
geometry of the combined materiel plus fixturing. However, where these criteria can
be met, this equipment is effective and more appropriate than drop testing.
2. Traditionally electrodynamic or servo-hydraulic exciters have been used for a

variety of shock simulation testing. However, they have been ignored for UNDEX
testing for anything other than small components because of their limited dynamic
range (displacement, velocity, acceleration and frequency response). Test systems in
common use have acceleration, displacement and frequency limits of 100 G, 2 inches,
and 200 Hz respectively. With the advent of improved shock control systems and long
stroke high thrust shakers, these limitations has been largely overcome for moderate
weight materiel, typically up to 800 kg (1764 lb), and the test limitation depends on the
required materiel dynamic response.
3. The limitations can be further reduced by using the above shock mount isolation
response as a control point instead of the below mount SRS dynamic excitation as an
input. The peak G and excitation frequency range are greatly reduced at the materiel
by mechanical isolation mounts, which act as mechanical filters, and the current
generation of exciters can approach the peak G levels defined in the Grade Curves.
To be able to use vibration test systems for UNDEX testing materiel it is necessary to
calculate the above mount dynamic response using realistic below mount input data
and a representative model of the mount and materiel. This process can be complex;
however, the reward is the definition of shock input levels generally within the range of
the modern exciters. Specification of the above mount materiel dynamic response
allows an SRS to be derived. The SRS in the form of a matched acceleration time
pulse can then be applied to the test item using an exciter with a suitable fixture.
Currently it is considered that this technique offers a solution to UNDEX testing of
materiel that are installed on mechanical mounts, or packaged materiel where the
package can be considered as the mount.
4. For applications where materiel test severity levels fall within the useable
envelope of vibration test systems, this equipment offers a more suitable, technically

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 419
superior, alternative to conventional methods of UNDEX testing of inert and live

materiel. Furthermore, this method of UNDEX testing can be accomplished using
existing live materiel test facilities, and therefore represents the only fully
representative method currently available. Where force limitations are encountered for
large items, multi-exciter test systems can be used to meet the test specification.
Further description of vibration test system equipment and application to shock and
SRS testing is provided in Method 403. Information on multi-exciter test methods for
physically large or heavy test items is provided in Method 421.
D.1.5. DROP TEST MACHINCES
Drop testing can either be performed simply by dropping the test item onto various
materials used to shape the input transient shock event or using a free fall machine
which is configurable to simulate simple transient shock events. A drop test is free fall,
or mechanically accelerated, and induces a short duration transient event, which
simulates the rise time of the initial shock pulse, a few milliseconds. The longer time
duration associated with the actual UNDEX event is ignored. Dropping the materiel
onto various materials or a configurable platform can shape the input pulse by
programming the shock event. This can be effective where classical shock pulses are
required, but drop testing is severely limited on the grounds of realism and should only
be considered as a ruggedness test. It is often a technique, which is difficult to justify,
since half-sine components are chosen almost at random from the in-service complex
oscillatory dynamic response time history records. Furthermore, the Fourier spectrum
of the approximate half-sine pulse is completely different from the operational SRS,
which has a marked effect on excitation of potential failure mechanisms.

AECTP-400
METHOD 420
METHOD 420
BUFFET VIBRATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-2
2.3.1. Measured Store Buffet Vibration Data Available ................................ 2-3
2.3.2. Measured Store Buffet Vibration Data Not Available .......................... 2-4
2.4. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-4
INSTRUCTION ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.2. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-2
5.1. TEST CONTROLS .................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1. Precursor Trials .................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.2. Control Strategy & Options ................................................................. 5-1
5.2. STORE OPERATION ............................................................................... 5-1
5.3. TOLERANCES.......................................................................................... 5-1
TABLE
1 General Store AR and Fundamental Frequency ....................................... 2-2
ANNEX A BUFFETT VIBRATION - GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST SEVERITY A-1
ANNEX A TABLE
A-1. Summary of Buffet Vibration Test Schedules ........................................... A-2
ANNEX A FIGURES
A-1. LOW ASPECT RATIO WING STORE ...................................................... A-3
A-2. LOW ASPECT RATIO FUSELAGE STORE ............................................. A-5
A-3. HIGH ASPECT RATIO WING STORE...................................................... A-7
A-4. HIGH ASPECT RATIO FUSELAGE STORE ............................................ A-9
ANNEX B MEASURED Buffet VIBRATION SPECTRUMS .... …………………….B-1
ANNEX B FIGURES
B-1. Low Aspect Ratio (AR ≈ 5) Wing Store, Straight-Level Flight and Buffet .. B-2
B-2. Store Vibration as a Function of Angle of Attack and Flight Dynamic
Pressure ................................................................................................... B-2
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
B-3. High Aspect Ratio Wing Store, Straight-Level Flight and Buffet ............... B-3
B-4. High Aspect Ratio (AR ≈ 17) Wing Store, Straight-Level Flight and
Buffet ....................................................................................................... B-4
B-5. High Aspect Ratio (AR ≈ 18) Wing Store, Straight-Level Flight
and Buffet ................................................................................................. B-5
B-6. High Aspect Ratio (AR ≈ 18) Wing and Fuselage Store During Buffet ...... B-6
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1. SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this test method is to replicate the short duration vibration environment
for wing or fuselage mounted materiel on aircraft during flight induced buffet vibration.
The materiel, hereafter referred to as stores, is typically electro-mechanical systems,
subsystems, bombs, missiles, Electronic Countermeasure (ECM) pods, and fuel tanks.
Buffet vibration is a high amplitude vibration occurring during limited flight manoeuvres
due to aerodynamic flow and structural vibration modes. The test considerations are
different from Method 401 (Vibration) because of the short duration of the event.
1.2. APPLICATION
1. The test method includes discussion of the buffet phenomenon, the causes, and
aggravating factors. The flight manoeuvres that generate buffet are identified and the
relative effects due to store type, aspect ratio, mass, and location are discussed.
Interaction between the host aircraft wing or fuselage and the store vibration modes are
also addressed. This test method is applicable where stores are required to demonstrate
adequacy to resist buffet vibration safely without unacceptable degradation of the store
performance and/or structure.
2. Buffet vibration occurs as a result of unsteady aerodynamic pressure acting on

aircraft structures, including the externally carried fuselage or wing stores. Another
possible source of store vibration in buffet is the excitation of the store skin panels and
store fins if equipped. Such responses are highly dependent upon the structural details
of the particular store, and not suitable for generalized test methods. The extent of the
induced vibration on the store depends primarily upon the following factors.
a. Flight Condition. The angle of attack of the host aircraft is a key parameter
influencing the response of the store in buffet. During straight and level
flight, stores will be excited by aerodynamic flow over exposed surfaces. A
boundary layer will form at the store nose that becomes turbulent and
thicker downstream, thus imparting vibration energy to the store. The
nature of the turbulent airflow is predominantly low frequency excitation.
Short duration aircraft combat or high speed manoeuvres result in loading
from centrifugal, gravitational, and aerodynamic forces that induces
additional vibration excitation in the store.
b. Aircraft Configuration. The location the store is mounted on the aircraft and
number of other stores present in the airflow around the store will influence
the susceptibility to buffet. Wing mounted stores generally experience more

AECTP-400
METHOD 420
buffet excitation than under-fuselage stores. The total combined mass of

a particular weapon load installed on the aircraft will influence its agility in
manoeuvring and also influence the overall dynamic response behaviour
and the magnitude of buffet induced responses.
c. Aircraft and Store Dynamic Characteristics. The modal response

characteristics of the aircraft and of the installed store will influence the
amplitude of vibration response. Buffet can be problematic for flexible high
aspect ratio stores because either the store, or their installation, can
possess low frequency modes less than 100 Hz. These modes can be
associated with
(1) Store bending.
(2) Rigid body motion of the store arising from the flexibility of its
carriage equipment.
(3) Rigid body motion arising from aircraft wing bending and torsion.
1.3. LIMITATIONS
Accurate laboratory simulation of buffet vibration requires adequate fixturing for the
airframe, store mounting, and matching of test equipment and test item impedance to the
actual in-service conditions. Common limitations of the laboratory simulation procedures
are below.
a. Simulation of the actual in-service buffet environment may not be possible

because fixture limitations or test equipment physical constraints prevent
the satisfactory uniform application of the vibration excitation to the test item
at all locations.
b. Current vibration control equipment may not be able to simulate the

measured vibration due to a non-Gaussian or transient vibration
environment.
c. The test method initial test severities may not be applicable to high aspect
ratio stores with a variable diameter along the store length.
d. The test method initial test severities do not include internal store generated
vibration excitation.

AECTP-400
METHOD 420
2. TEST GUIDANCE
A large number of parameters influence the maximum dynamic response of a wing or

fuselage mounted store. Accurate prediction and characterization of the response to
eliminate problems also has several approaches. In general, the measurement of flight
data for required mission flight profiles, modal analysis, and analytical modelling can
adequately predict the potential for failures on specific airframes and stores. The
following list is not intended to be all inclusive but provides examples of problems that
could occur when materiel is exposed to the buffet vibration environment.
a. Structural or fatigue induced failure of the store mounting points on the

airframe or store.
b. Failure of internal store components.
c. Reduction of the store in-service life due to severe dynamic environment.
d. Aircraft flight manoeuvre limitations due to coupling of airframe and store

motions.
1. The test method procedures are designed to reproduce the primary low frequency
dynamic responses measured in flight of complete assembled stores and to provide
realistic laboratory simulation of relevant mission flight conditions through the use of
vibration and temperature conditioning. For the test method, aircraft stores are divided
into two classes, low and high aspect ratio (AR). These two classes also each contain
separate wing and fuselage mounted stores. The cases indicated in Table 1 are covered
in the test method. The dimensionless aspect ratio is defined in Equation 1 as the ratio
of the store length to diameter.
2. In general, stores can be categorized as low aspect ratio (AR< 7, stiff structure) or
high aspect ratio (AR >15, flexible structure). The low AR materiel, generally bombs or
heavy structure, has a higher fundamental first bending mode than high AR stores,
generally missiles or rockets. Consequently, the first bending modes for low and high AR
stores are approximately 200 Hz and 60 Hz respectively. There is not a clear division
between high and low AR stores. Any store with a first bending mode frequency of
approximately 200 Hz or greater can be treated as a low AR store, regardless of the
specific AR.

AECTP-400
METHOD 420
Table 1: General Store AR and Fundamental Frequency
Aspect Ratio Store Fundamental

Frequency, Fn (typical), Hz
Low, AR < 7, stiff store Fn > 200 Hz
AR between 7 to 15 Dependent on Fn
High, AR > 15, flexible store Fn ~ 60 Hz
Aspect Ratio (AR) = Store Length / Store Diameter [1]
3. The dominant vibration response for the low AR store during buffet will generally
be in a rigid body mode of the mounting platform. An important exception to this is when
the store does not have a uniform cross-section, such as laser guided bombs with slender
front guidance unit sections compared to the warhead sections. Such cases demand
special attention to determine the lowest bending mode frequency, which may be that of
the entire guidance unit bending on the warhead section. For other store types, the most
significant mode may be bending of the store’s tail on the centre section.
4. The induced buffet vibration for a high AR store is coupled between the platform
modes and the store modes. Thus, flexible stores are more prone than stiff stores to the
induced buffet excitation amplification because of the low frequency excitation
characteristics of buffet vibration. The above categories of modal response are not
mutually exclusive. In particular, a high AR store bending mode may be close to wing
torsion or bending modes, giving rise to a severe buffet vibration environment.
5. Interaction between the modes of vibration, the dynamic excitation, and other
factors can combine to create situations where buffet becomes a major consideration for
the store design. A worst-case installation could involve a high AR store at an outboard
wing station of an agile aircraft. Or, a least problematic installation could be a low AR
store carried on a fuselage station of a not very agile aircraft.
6. Store vibration responses arising from buffet vibration are usually confined to
frequencies from 5 to 400 Hz. The vibratory energy will be imparted by aerodynamic
excitation encountered in–service over the surface area of the store. For practical
purposes the effects of buffet vibration can be simulated with mechanical excitation alone;
the higher frequency acoustic driven excitation is excluded for the low frequency motion
simulation.
Where practical, air carriage data should be used to develop buffet test levels. It is
particularly important to use air carriage data where precise simulation is the goal.
Sufficient air carriage data should be obtained to adequately describe the conditions
being evaluated and experienced by the store. Examples of measured store buffet
vibration response for high and low aspect ratio, and wing or fuselage mounted stores
are given in Annex B.

AECTP-400
METHOD 420
2.3.1. Measured Store Buffet Vibration Data Available
1. Several considerations exist for a store or airframe test program with scheduled
data acquisition. When defining the aircraft flight profile for data acquisition, it is important
to ensure that flight manoeuvres expected to generate buffet are included, wind-up-turns,
steady heading sideslips, vectored thrust in flight, etc. It is also important that
instrumentation transducer locations are selected for buffet vibration laboratory
simulation. In particular, it is important that any relevant store, pylon and aircraft structural
modes are identified that could be expected to respond to buffet vibration, so that
accelerometers or other transducers can be positioned accordingly. In most cases,
measurements at the extremities of the store should be given a high priority for this
purpose. Through knowledge of the structural dynamics of the store, pylon and aircraft
are of great value when interpreting the measured flight responses. Such knowledge
would be gained from either an analytical finite element analysis or preferably
experimental modal analysis of the store in its carriage configuration on the aircraft.
2. Typical signal processing techniques currently used for identifying flight events
can be deficient for identifying and quantifying critical buffet vibration conditions. Two
particular issues arise with buffet, which are problematic in terms of signal processing.
The first is the short duration of the event. The second is the limited bandwidth over which
the buffet vibration takes place. It is recommended that the Grms time history be used for
identifying buffet vibration events within the complete measured time history should
employ a restricted frequency bandwidth covering only the modes likely to be excited
during buffet excitation, typically 5 to 500 Hz. It is also essential that the time history
record lengths are adequate to meet the appropriate data processing error criteria. When
quantifying the effect of buffet in an ASD format, the data should be analysed up to 500
Hz. However, because data are likely to be non-stationary, appropriate care must be
taken when computing and interpreting ASD data.
3. When developing a test severity from measured data an acceptable approach is

to construct a random spectrum test with a tailored severity. For each buffet manoeuvre
condition, obtain the ASD that best describes the vibration responses, taking into account
the possible non-stationary properties of the data. Use the ASDs generated to assemble
a credible worst-case ASD by overlaying the individual ASDs and enveloping by a
number of straight-line segments.
4. For each mission only a short time will be spent in buffet vibration. Similarly, during
the entire life of the store only a short period (minutes) may be spent in actual buffet.
Therefore, the worst-case ASD should be used for each buffet excursion and aggregated
over the total number of missions. It should be noted that the spectrum of random
vibration commonly generated in test facilities is Gaussian, the software control
algorithms are based on Gaussian excitation. It is recommended that buffet vibration
data be checked to conform to a Gaussian distribution and if found not to be so the PSD
amplitude should be corrected. Techniques for time domain replication may provide
better laboratory simulation accuracy but require extraordinary management
manipulation for test equipment procurement funding.

AECTP-400
METHOD 420
5. For high aspect ratio stores not only can buffet generate high vibration responses,
but the buffet environment exposure times can be significant in terms of the total air
carriage life of several hundred hours during multiple mission deployment. Additionally,
high aspect ratio stores are more likely to be exposed to severe manoeuvres because of
the mission flight profile for high performance aircraft. For stiff stores, however, buffet
vibration amplitudes are likely to be lower than flexible stores, but the exposure times in
terms of total air carriage life are also likely to be lower, such as several hours air carriage.
6. High and low aspect ratio store vibration amplitudes arising from the effects of
buffet vary over a wide range on a given aircraft as well as between aircraft. Therefore,
buffet vibration test severities should be based upon in-service flight vibration
measurements. The worst case high aspect ratio store on the wing of high performance
aircraft necessitates the tailored testing approach. Nevertheless, for initial design and
other purposes the use of generic severities may be necessary for preliminary design.
2.3.2. Measured Store Buffet Vibration Data Not Available
Annex A provides generic ASD spectra based upon measured data for each of the four
store types described in this test method. As a minimum, tailoring of the fundamental
vibration mode frequencies is desired for a specific aircraft and store. The test
specifications permit the use of initial estimates of wing, structural, and store modal
frequencies, but these estimates are suggested only for design formulation; the final test
should be based upon experimental data or analytical modelling, for example finite
element analysis. In the absence of any measured data the Annex A initial severity may
be used for preliminary evaluation.
2.4. SEQUENCE
1. The buffet vibration test is designed for the simulation of the primary environmental
effects that are induced in complete assembled stores during external carriage on fixed
wing aircraft. However, should a store need to be exposed to any additional
environmental tests, then the order of application of the tests should be compatible with
the life cycle environmental profile.
2. The effects of buffet may affect performance when the store is tested under other
environmental conditions, such as temperature. Stores that are likely to be sensitive to a
combination of environments should be tested to the relevant combinations
simultaneously. If the simultaneous environment test is considered non-essential, or
impractical to configure, a single store should be exposed to all relevant environmental
conditions sequentially.
3. The order of application of tests should be considered and made compatible with
the store Life Cycle Environmental Profile. If doubts concerning the sequence of testing,
buffet vibration testing should be undertaken first, or in conjunction with air carriage
vibration testing.

AECTP-400
METHOD 420
3. SEVERITIES
Test conditions are specified in paragraph 5.3.

AECTP-400
METHOD 420
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 420

INSTRUCTION
4.1. COMPULSORY
a. The technical identification of the store
b. The definition of the store
c. The type of test: development, qualification, or other
d. The method of store mounting
e. The orientation of the store in relation to the laboratory test axis
f. If store operating checks are to be performed and when
g. The initial and final checks, specify whether they are to be performed with
the store installed on the test facility
h. Other relevant data required to perform the test and operating checks
i. The vibration control strategy, and test reporting requirements
j. The monitor and control points or a procedure to select these points
k. The definition of test severity
l. The indication of failure criteria
m. The method to account for tolerance excess in the case of large stores
and a complex fixture
n. Any other environmental conditions at which testing is to be carried out if

other than standard laboratory conditions
o. The pre-conditioning time
p. The operation or non-operation of the store during testing.
q. The requirements for operating checks if applicable

AECTP-400
METHOD 420
r. The tolerances and control limits
s. Other details required to perform the test
4.2. IF REQUIRED

connections etc.)
b. The climatic conditions if required if other than standard laboratory

conditions
c. The effect of gravity and the consequential precautions
d. The value of the tolerable spurious magnetic field
e. Tolerances if different to those specified in paragraph 5.3

AECTP-400
METHOD 420
CHAPTER 5. TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES
5.1. TEST CONTROLS
5.1.1. Precursor Trials
Control of the test conditions is derived from the store dynamic response. Therefore, a
dynamically representative store should be made available for precursor trials in order to
establish the required excitation conditions. Precursor testing is essential to assess the
dynamic behaviour of the store and test equipment. The maximum response
experienced at the store extremities should be limit controlled and it is essential that the
vibration control position corresponds to measured air carriage data. Buffet vibration
testing should be undertaken in the vertical, transverse, and longitudinal directions. In
some cases cross coupling will ensure that adequate vibration amplitudes are generated
in the transverse or longitudinal axis.
5.1.2. Control Strategy & Options
It is recommended to test for the effects of buffet separately from tests designed to
represent the effects of straight and level flight. The test control strategy should recognise
that the maximum vibration responses usually occur at the extremities of the store and
that limit control will be necessary. Buffet testing should be performed as a controlled
response at a position, which corresponds to, measured air carriage data, preferably
adjacent to the fixture. The vibration control strategy should be in accordance with
AECTP-400 Method 401 Vibration Section 2.6.
5.2. STORE OPERATION
When specified in the Test Instruction or relevant specification, during in-service

simulations, the store should be operated and its performance measured and noted.
5.3. TOLERANCES
The test tolerances and related characteristics associated with buffet vibration testing
should be in accordance with AECTP-400 Method 401 Section 5.1.
The installation conditions of the test item associated with buffet testing should be in
accordance with AECTP-400 Method 401 Section 5.2.

AECTP-400
METHOD 420
The test preparation of the test item associated with buffet testing (pre-conditioning and
operational checks) should be in accordance with AECTP-400 Method 401 Section 5.3.

AECTP-400
METHOD 420
The test item performance shall meet all appropriate specification requirements during
and following the application of the buffet vibration.

AECTP-400
METHOD 420
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 420
a. Piersol, Allan G., Vibration and Acoustic Test Criteria for Captive Flight of
Externally Carried Aircraft Stores, AFFDL - TR-71-158, December 1971.
b. Heaton, P.W., and Czuchna, J.S., Prediction of Dynamic Environments for

Airborne External Stores During Aircraft Straight and Level Flight, IES, 41st
Annual Technical Meeting, May 1995.
c. Heaton, P.W., and White, G.P., Airborne Store Captive Cruise Vibration
Spectral Variations Scaling, Proceedings of the 65th Shock & Vibration
Symposium, November. 1994.
d. Czuchna, J.S., L.E. Pado, R.M. Hauch, and G.P. White, Comparison of
Prediction Techniques Airborne Store Captive Cruise Vibration,
Proceedings of the 65th Shock & Vibration Symposium, November 1994.
e. Richards, David P., The Derivation of Procedures to Estimate Vibration

Severities of Airborne Stores, Proceedings of the Institute of Environmental
Sciences, May 1990.

AECTP-400
METHOD 420
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
ANNEX A BUFFET VIBRATION - GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST SEVERITY
Store Configuration Figure Page
Low Aspect Ratio Wing Store Figure A-1 473
Low Aspect Ratio Fuselage Store Figure A-2 475
High Aspect Ratio Wing Store Figure A-3 477
High Aspect Ratio Fuselage Store Figure A-4 479
3. The Annex A vibration test schedules are designed to simulate vibration test
amplitudes for stores located at an under-wing or under-fuselage aircraft position. Both
high and low aspect ratio stores are considered. In general, the procedures described
are suitable for all new requirements where in-service data exists. Figures A-1 to A-4
provide generalized vibration spectra for buffet induced vibration. The spectral envelope
is a characteristic shape, which varies depending on the store aspect ratio and carriage
position.
4. Development of generic buffet vibration test levels is a complicated process

because of the potential for complex interactions between the store and the aircraft. As
a result, there is the potential for extreme dynamic response levels, which can be
inappropriate as default test levels for all stores and airframes. For example, stores of
non-uniform cross section are outside the scope of the default severity. The non-uniform
mass may create, or interact with other modes, and induce a resonance condition that is
not included in the default test schedules. In compiling the default test severities,
consideration has been given to aircraft wing modes and store rigid body or bending
modes. Consequently, the following default severities should not be considered all
embracing, but are offered as a way forward for initial design and development purposes.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
When available, measured data or analytical models should be used to define the primary
mode frequency and/or the ASD amplitude peak level. Annex B provides comparisons
of in-service measure buffet conditions. AECTP 200 also provides guidance on factors
influencing aircraft vibration. Table A-1 below provides a summary of the Annex A buffet
vibration default tests. As shown, the induced vibration energy is a function of both the
store type and location. A rigid, low aspect ratio, store on an aircraft fuselage location is
the least severe. A flexible, high aspect ratio, store on a flexible wing location is the most
severe. This comparison is based only on the Annex A initial test severity schedules and
may not apply for the actual aircraft or store under consideration.
Table A-1: Summary of Buffet Vibration Test Schedules
Test Time, Grms

Store Configuration Figure maximum, V, T, L
min.
Low Aspect Ratio Wing Store A-1 15 2.63
Low Aspect Ratio Fuselage Store A-2 15 1.46
High Aspect Ratio Wing Store A-3 15 5.06
High Aspect Ratio Fuselage Store A-4 15 3.35

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
1
Primary Wing
Mode Frequency
fn = 30 Hz
0.1
ASD Amplitude, G2/Hz
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1 10 30 100 1000
Frequency, Hz
Random Spectrum Breakpoints

Frequency, ASD,
Hz G2/Hz
5 0.001
30 0.500
100 0.001
Random Grms = 2.63
Figure A-1: Low Aspect Ratio Wing Store

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
Figure A-1: Low Aspect Ratio Wing Store Test Description
Test Parameters:
Test Axes: Vertical, Transverse, and Longitudinal
Test Duration: Use the duration defined by the Life Cycle Environmental Profile
Equivalence Factor: None
Vibration Spectrum: Broadband random vibration
Control Strategy: Single or multi-point response control
Control Notes:
a. When the test duration cannot be defined from the LCEP, the default
duration for each axis is 6 seconds for each buffet vibration event or a
maximum of 15 minutes total in each axis.
b. Cross coupling effects may be utilized to satisfy the transverse and/or

longitudinal axis vibration requirements. When cross coupling is less than
the longitudinal requirement, testing should be conducted in the longitudinal
axis to in-flight levels or where this data is not available at half the amplitude
used for the maximum experienced in the vertical or lateral axes.
c. Use the maximum control system roll-off rate at the 5 and 100 Hz
breakpoints.
d. The test schedule is derived for a response control accelerometer(s)

located at the store mounting location.
Schedule Description
The default severity for low aspect ratio wing stores under is shown in Figure A-1 and
should be applied in each axis. This figure shows a single spectral peak at the
dominant wing mode associated with either bending or torsion. If the actual dominant
natural frequency mode is known, the mode frequency should be used to centre the
peak. However, in the absence of known dominant modal frequencies, a default value
of 30 Hz should be used.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
1
Primary Store
Mode Frequency
fn = 15 Hz
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1 10 15 100 1000
Frequency, Hz

Frequency, ASD,
Hz G2/Hz
5 0.001
15 0.200
100 0.001
Random Grms = 1.46
Figure A-2: Low Aspect Ratio Fuselage Store

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
Figure A-2: Low Aspect Ratio Wing Store Test Description
Test Parameters:
Control Notes:

breakpoints.

The default severity for low aspect ratio stores carried under fuselage is shown in
Figure A-2 and should be applied in each axis. This figure shows a single spectral
peak at the rigid body natural frequency of the installed store. If the rigid body natural
frequency is known, the frequency should be used to centre the peak. However, in the
absence of this information, a default value of 15 Hz should be used.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
10
Primary Wing Primary Store
Mode Frequency Mode Frequency
fn = 30 Hz fn = 60 Hz
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1 10 30 60 100 1000
Frequency, Hz

Frequency, ASD,
Hz G2/Hz
5 0.001
30 0.500
45 0.100
60 2.000
100 0.001
Random Grms = 5.06
Figure A-3: High Aspect Ratio Wing Store

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
Figure A-3: High Aspect Ratio Wing Store Test Description
Test Parameters:
Control Notes:

breakpoints.

The default severity of high aspect ratio stores carried under wing is shown in Figure
A-3 and should be applied in each axis. This figure shows two peaks associated with
the dominant wing mode and the store first bending mode. If the two modal natural
frequencies are known, then they should be used to centre the peaks. If the two natural
frequencies are closer than 10 Hz then a tailored approach must be followed. In the
absence of the two modal frequencies then a wing mode of 30 Hz and store bending
mode of 60 Hz should be used. The spectral minima between the two modes should
be set to 45 Hz or half the frequency difference between the two modes if the
frequencies are known.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
1
Primary Store
Mode Frequency
fn = 60 Hz
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1 10 60 100 1000
Frequency, Hz

Frequency, ASD,
Hz G2/Hz
5 0.001
60 0.500
100 0.001
Random Grms = 3.35
Figure A-4: High Aspect Ratio Fuselage Store

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
Figure A-4: High Aspect Ratio Fuselage Store Test Description
Test Parameters:
Control Notes:

breakpoints.

The default severity of a low aspect ratio store carried under an aircraft fuselage is
shown in Figure A-4 and should be applied in each axis. This figure shows a single
peak associated with the store first bending mode. If the actual dominant bending
mode frequency is known, the mode frequency should be used to centre the peak. If
the first bending modal frequency is unknown then a default frequency of 60 Hz should
be used.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
ANNEX B MEASURED BUFFET VIBRATION SPECTRUMS
1. Annex B contains several examples of measured store flight vibration data to

illustrate the amplitude and spectral differences in store vibration during buffet conditions.
The primary spectral peak in these plots is shown to be in the 10 to 100 Hz bandwidth
region addressed by this test method. There are in some cases additional higher
frequency resonance peaks; however the amplitude of these secondary peaks is typically
a factor of at least 10 times lower in amplitude than the primary peak. If required, a full
bandwidth simulation may be possible with combined mechanical and acoustical
simulation equipment. The main objective for the buffet vibration test method is the
simulation of the low frequency regions in which the buffet vibration amplification occurs.
2. The data also illustrates the possible problems in the use of the Annex A initial test
severity as design criteria without actual in-service measurement data. The generic test
spectrums may fail to simulate an additional vibration mode, such as wing torsion. The
amplitude ratio between the store and wing modes also may not be representative of the
in-service buffet conditions.
3. Figure B-1 and B-2 are vibration data for a low aspect ratio (AR ≈ 5) wing store.
Figure B-1 shows vibration spectra from the instrumented store during straight and level
flight (S&L) and also when undertaking a wind-up-turn (WUT). Both data sets are for a
420 psf dynamic pressure flight manoeuvre. In this case the store response in the vertical
axis at the store centre of gravity can be seen to increase by more than three orders of
magnitude at low frequency. In this case, the store is being driven by vibration of the
aircraft’s wing in buffet; the response near 25 Hz is due to a wing torsion mode. Further
data from this particular airframe and store combination indicate that the vibration
response of the store is also related to the aircraft angle attack and flight dynamic
pressure as shown in Figure B-2.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
0.1
S&L 420 psf 0.881 g rms
506 3652 1992 1 10 1 1 1813

Power Spectral Density (g²/Hz) 0.01
WUT 420 psf 1.521 g rms
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
1 10 100 1000 10000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure B-1 Low Aspect Ratio (AR ≈ 5) Wing Store, Straight-Level Flight and
Buffet
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
750 0.5 g rms
700 0.4 (3 to 100 Hz)
650 0.3
600 0.2
Dynamic 550 0.1
Pressure 500 0.0
(psf) 450
400 16 17
350 13 14 15
300 11 12
9 10
7 8 Angle of Attack (Degs)
Notes:
1. Aspect Ratio approximately 5, stiff store.

2. Data acquired over the 3 to 100 Hz frequency range where store buffet was known
to occur.
3. Data acquired under stationary buffet conditions.
Figure B-2: Store Vibration as a Function of Angle of Attack and Flight Dynamic
Pressure

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
Figure B-3 is vibration data for a high aspect ratio wing store. Vibration responses from
straight and level flight (S&L) and buffet conditions are shown in Figure B-3. The store
fundamental bending modes in the vertical and lateral axes are near 60 Hz, and these
modes dominate the ASD for buffet conditions. Specifically, the figure shows data from
the store nose, where it can be seen that the difference in amplitude at 60 Hz is about 20.
Aircraft wing modes are not as prevalent in this data as in Figure B-1. The lack of wing
modes could be due to the limited range of flight conditions included in these flights,
and/or the significant differences in the two aircraft’s wing construction and dynamic
behaviour. The vibration peak centred near 8 Hz is believed to be a wing bending and/or
store pitching motion.
0.1
533 3727 1993 206 7 3 3 487 533 3727 1993 206 8 3 3 495
S&L 0.213 g rms
Power Spectral Density (g²/Hz)
0.01 WUT 0.532 g rms
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
1 10 100 1000 10000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure B-3: High Aspect Ratio Wing Store, Straight-Level Flight and Buffet

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
Figure B-4 is flight vibration data for a high aspect ratio (AR ≈ 17) wing store. Store
vibration data from straight and level flight (S&L) and a wind-up-turn (WUT) are presented
in the figure. The main spectrum difference is the store response amplification at the
store first bending mode, 50 Hz, which is approximately 60 times higher than straight and
level flight; 0.3 G2/Hz in buffet compared to 0.005 G2/Hz during level flight.
10
S&L 1.078 g rms
532 3726 1993 208 3 4 4 222 532 3726 1993 208 4 4 4 234
1 WUT 2.199 g rms
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure B-4: High Aspect Ratio (AR ≈ 17) Wing Store, Straight-Level Flight and
Buffet

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
Figure B-5 and B-6 are vibration data for a high aspect ratio (AR ≈ 18) store during
straight and level flight ( S&L ), a wind-up-turn ( WUT ), and carried under-wing and
under-fuselage. When carried under the aircraft wing, the Figure B-5 store vibration
data indicate that the dominant response in buffet is at the store fundamental bending
mode of approximately 33 Hz. No major wing or pylon modes appear to be excited
by either of the two manoeuvres. As expected, the buffet vibration responses of the
store carried on a fuselage station in Figure B-6 are much lower than when the store
is mounted under-wing.
1
S&L 0.214 g rms
529 3723 1993 202 1 3 3 448 529 3723 1993 202 2 3 3 464
WUT 1.561 g rms
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
1 10 100 1000 10000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure B-5: High Aspect Ratio (AR ≈ 18) Wing Store, Straight-Level Flight and
Buffet

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 420
1
Fuselage Centre 0.464 g rms
529 3723 202 2 8 8 473 530 3724 201 2 9 9 444

Inboard Wing Pylon 1.015 g rms
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
1 10 100 1000 10000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure B-6: High Aspect Ratio (AR ≈ 18) Wing and Fuselage Store During Buffet

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
METHOD 421
MULTI-EXCITER VIBRATION AND SHOCK TESTING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE ............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.2.1. General Discussion ............................................................................ 1-2
1.2.2. Terminology ....................................................................................... 1-2
1.3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-6
CHAPTER 2 TEST GUIDANCE............................................................................... 2-1
2.2. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.4.1. Procedure Selection Considerations .................................................. 2-2
2.5. TYPES OF VIBRATION ............................................................................ 2-3
2.6. CONTROL STRATEGY OPTIONS ........................................................... 2-3
2.7. MATERIAL OPERATION .......................................................................... 2-3
3.1. GENERAL ................................................................................................. 3-1
3.3. DETERMINE TEST LEVELS AND CONDITIONS .................................... 3-1
3.3.1. Laboratory Test Data Input................................................................. 3-1
3.3.2. Laboratory Test Data Output .............................................................. 3-2
3.3.3. Cross-Spectral Density Considerations .............................................. 3-2
CHAPTER 4 INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN TEST INSTRUCTION ........... 4-1
4.1. GENERAL ................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.3. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-2
4.4. TEST FACILITY ........................................................................................ 4-2
5.1.2. Calibration .......................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.4. Pre-Test Checkout ............................................................................. 5-2
5.2.1. Instrumentation .................................................................................. 5-3
5.2.2. Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 5-4
5.2.3. Platform Integration ............................................................................ 5-5
5.3. PROCEDURES .................................................................................. 5-5
5.3.1. Pre-Test ............................................................................................. 5-5
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
5.3.2. During Test......................................................................................... 5-6

5.3.3. Post-Test ............................................................................................ 5-7
5.3.4. Procedure I. Time Domain Reference Criteria ................................... 5-7
5.3.5. Procedure II. Frequency Domain Reference Criteria ......................... 5-8
5.4. TOLERANCES AND RELATED CHARACTERISTICS ............................. 5-9
5.5. CONTROLS .............................................................................................. 5-9
5.6.1. Interruption Due to Laboratory Equipment Malfunction .................... 5-10
5.6.2. Interruption Due to Test Item Operation Failure ............................... 5-10
5.6.3. Interruption Due to a Scheduled Event............................................. 5-11
5.6.4. Interruption Due to Exceeding Test Tolerances ............................... 5-11
6.1. GENERAL GUIDANCE ............................................................................. 6-1
6.3. QUALIFICATION TESTS .......................................................................... 6-1
6.4. OTHER TESTS ......................................................................................... 6-2
CHAPTER 7 REFERENCE/RELATED DOCUMENTS ............................................ 7-1
7.1. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS ................................................................. 7-1
FIGURES
1. SESA - Single exciter vertical axis test setup ........................................... 1-3
2. MESA (if control configured for two exciter 1-DOF motion) or MEMA
(if control and mechanical couplings configured for two exciter
2-DOF motion) .......................................................................................... 1-4
3. MEMA - Tri-axial exciter test setup (Translational Degrees-of-Freedom) . 1-5
ANNEX A ENGINEERING INFORMATION FOR MET TRANSDUCER
PLACEMENT ............................................................................................ A-1
A.1. GENERAL PHILOSOPHY FOR A MET .................................................... A-1
A.2. REFERENCE POINT CONSIDERATIONS FOR MDOF TESTING .......... A-1
A.2.1. REFERENCE DATA CONSIDERATIONS ................................................ A-1
A.2.2. REFERENCE POINT KINEMATICS ......................................................... A-2
ANNEX A FIGURE
A-1. Body With n Accelerometers. Placements ............................................... A-2
ANNEX B SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION FOR LINEAR TIME-INVARIANT MDOF
SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. B-1
B.1. TRANSFER-FUNCTION ESTIMATIONS.................................................. B-1
B.2. SIGNAL TRANSFORMATION .................................................................. B-1
B.3. CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION................................................................ B-2
B.3.1. SISO AUTO AND CROSS SPECTRAL DEFINITIONS REVIEW ............. B-2
B.3.2. SISO TRANSFER FUNCTION AND COHERENCE FUNCTION
DEFINITIONS REVIEW ............................................................................ B-3
B.3.3. MIMO AUTO-SPECTRA, CROSS-SPECTRA, AND INITIAL FUNCTION
ESTIMATES ............................................................................................. B-4
B.3.3.1. Frequency Domain Transfer Function Relationship ........................... B-4
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
B.3.3.2. Key Transfer Function Derivations .................................................... B-5

B.3.3.3. Key Transfer Function Derivations Alternative ................................... B-7
B.3.4. MIMO COHERENCE FUNCTIONS .................................................... B-8
B.3.4.1. Ordinary Coherence ........................................................................... B-8
B.3.4.2. Partial Coherence .............................................................................. B-9
B.3.4.3. Multiple Coherence ............................................................................ B-9
B.3.5. DRIVE SIGNAL COMPENSATION ........................................................... B-9
ANNEX C PROCEDURE I MET (TIME WAVEFORM REPLICATION (TWR)
SPECIFIC) ................................................................................................C-1
C.1. PROCEDURE I MET (TIME DOMAIN REFERENCE CRITERIA).............C-1
C.1.1. PREPROCESSING...................................................................................C-1
C.2. ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS FOR A PROCEDURE I MET .................C-1
C.2.1. ADDRESSING TRANSLATIONAL MOTION ............................................C-1
C.2.2. ADDRESSING ANGULAR MOTION.........................................................C-1
C.3. TEST TOLERANCES FOR A PROCEDURE I MET .................................C-2
C.3.1. COMPOSITE (GLOBAL) ERROR DISCUSSION FOR PROCEDURE I ...C-3
C.3.2. GLOBAL RMS ERROR .............................................................................C-3
C.3.3. GLOBAL ASD ERROR .............................................................................C-5
C.3.4. GLOBAL SRS ERROR .............................................................................C-8
ANNEX D PROCEDURE II MET (SPECTRAL DENSITY MATRIX (SDM)
SPECIFIC) ................................................................................................D-1
D.1. PROCEDURE II MET (FREQUENCY DOMAIN REFERENCE
CRITERIA) ................................................................................................D-1
D.1.1. PREPROCESSING...................................................................................D-1
D.2. ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS FOR A PROCEDURE II MET ................D-1
D.2.1. MESA AND MEMA SPECIFICATION PARAMETERS .............................D-1
D.2.1.1. Cross Spectral Density Structure .......................................................D-2
D.2.2. CONTROL HIERARCHY ..........................................................................D-3
D.2.2.1. Measured Data Available ...................................................................D-3
D.2.2.2. Measured Data Not Available .............................................................D-3
D.2.2.3. Use of 1-DOF References ..................................................................D-4
D.3. TEST TOLERANCES FOR A PROCEDURE II MET ................................D-4
D.3.1. COMPOSITE (GLOBAL) ERROR DISCUSSION FOR PROCEDURE II ..D-5
ANNEX D TABLES
D-I. Reference Criteria for a 2-DOF Linear Motion Random MET ...................D-2
D-II. Reference Criteria for a 3-DOF Linear Motion Random MET ...................D-2
ANNEX E LABORATORY VIBRATION TEST SCHEDULE DEVELOPMENT
FOR MULTI-EXCITER APPLICATIONS ............................................ E-1
E.1. SCOPE ..................................................................................................... E-1
E.2. FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION ................................................... E-1
E.2.1. FACILITIES ............................................................................................... E-1
E.2.2. INSTRUMENTATION ............................................................................... E-1
E.3. REQUIRED TEST CONDITIONS ............................................................. E-2
E.3.1. TEST CONFIGURATIONS ....................................................................... E-2

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
E.3.1.1. Basic Representation of a MIMO System........................................... E-2

E.3.1.2. Generalized Representation of a MIMO System ................................ E-3
E.3.2. GENERALIZED MDOF VIBRATION CONTROL DISCUSSION ............... E-4
E.4. TEST PROCEDURES .............................................................................. E-6
E.4.1. DEVELOPMENT OF MISSION OR LIFETIME SCENARIO ...................... E-6
E.4.2. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... E-6
E.4.3. FIELD DATA ACQUISITION ..................................................................... E-6
E.4.3.1. Instrumentation .................................................................................. E-7
E.4.4. USE OF RIGID BODY MODES ................................................................ E-7
E.4.4.1. Acceleration (Input) Transformation ................................................... E-8
E.4.4.1.1. Acceleration (Input) Transformation Derivation .................................. E-8
E.4.4.1.2. Equation 4.1 ....................................................................................... E-9
E.4.4.2. Drive (Output) Transformation .......................................................... E-10
E.4.4.2.1. Drive (Output) Transformation Derivation ......................................... E-11
E.4.5. DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................... E-12
E.4.5.1. Phase and Coherence Based Representations of CSD Terms ........ E-13
E.4.5.2. Positive Definite SDM Considerations .............................................. E-13
E.4.5.3. Data Compression............................................................................ E-15
E.4.5.4. Limiting Strategies ............................................................................ E-16
E.4.5.5. Minimum Drive Considerations ........................................................ E-16
E.4.5.5.1. Independent Drives .......................................................................... E-16
E.4.6. INDEPENDENT REFERENCES ............................................................. E-18
E.4.7. RECOMMENDED PRACTICES SUMMARY .......................................... E-19
E.5. DATA REQUIRED .................................................................................. E-20
E.5.1. REFERENCE SDM DEVELOPMENT ..................................................... E-20
E.5.1.1. SDM Ensemble CSD Characteristics ...................................................... E-20
E.5.2. TEST TOLERANCE RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... E-21
E.5.3. LABORATORY DATA ............................................................................. E-22
E.6. MDOF VSD METHODS .......................................................................... E-23
E.6.1. OPTIONS CONSIDERED ....................................................................... E-23
E.6.1.1. Method I ........................................................................................... E-23
E.6.1.2. Method II .......................................................................................... E-26
E.6.2. EXAMPLE ............................................................................................... E-27
E.6.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS ..................................................................... E-35
ANNEX E FIGURES
E-1. Basic Representation of a MDOF System ................................................ E-3
E-2. Generalized Representation of a MDOF System ...................................... E-4
E-3. Generalized Multi-Axis Vibration System ................................................ E-11
E-4. Transducer Placement (Input to Missile Rack) ....................................... E-27
E-5. Normalized Weighted Average SDM ...................................................... E-31
E-6. Method I Normalized Reference SDM .................................................... E-32
E-7. Method II Reference SDM ...................................................................... E-34
E-8. ASD References for the Z Axis ............................................................... E-34
E-9. ASD References for Rotation About Z Axis (Rz) ..................................... E-35
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
ANNEX E TABLE
E-1. Mission Scenario..................................................................................... E-29
APPENDIX 1 GLOSSARY ..................................................................................... E1-1
E.1.1. LABORATORY VIBRATION TEST SCHEDULE (LVTS) ........................ E1-1
E.1.2. SCENARIO ............................................................................................. E1-1
APPENDIX 2 ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ E2-1
APPENDIX 3 NOMENCLATURE........................................................................... E3-1
APPENDIX 4 MATRIX ALGEBRA REVIEW .......................................................... E4-1
APPENDIX 5 REFERENCES ................................................................................ E5-1
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
Multi-exciter test methodology is performed to demonstrate, or provide a degree of

confidence if multiple test items are considered, that materiel can structurally and
functionally withstand a specified dynamic environment, e.g., stationary, non-
stationary, or of a shock nature, that must be replicated on the test item in the laboratory
with more than one motion degree-of-freedom. The laboratory test environment may
be derived from field measurements on materiel, or may be based on an analytically-
generated specification.
1.2. APPLICATION
a. General. Use this Method for all types of materiel except as noted in
paragraph 1.3 below. For combined environment tests, conduct the test
in accordance with the applicable test documentation. However, use this
Method for determination of dynamic test levels, durations, data
reduction, and test procedure details.
b. Purpose of Test. The test procedures and guidance herein are adaptable
to various test purposes including development, reliability, qualification,
etc.
c. Dynamics Life Cycle. AECTP-100 and AECTP-240 provide an overview
of various life cycle situations during which some form of vibration
(stationary or non-stationary) may be encountered, along with the
anticipated platform involved.
d. Organization. A considerable body of supplementary information is
included in the Annexes. Reference citations to external documents are
at the end of the main body (paragraph 7.1). The Annexes are structured
as follows:
ANNEX A - ENGINEERING INFORMATION FOR MET TRANSDUCER

PLACEMENT
ANNEX B - SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION FOR LINEAR TIME

INVARIANT MDOF SYSTEMS
ANNEX C - PROCEDURE I MET (TIME WAVEFORM REPLICATION

(TWR) SPECIFIC)
ANNEX D - PROCEDURE II MET (SPECTRAL DENSITY MATRIX

(SDM) SPECIFIC)

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
ANNEX E - LABORATORY VIBRATION TEST SCHEDULE

DEVELOPMENT FOR MULTI-EXCITER APPLICATIONS
1.2.1. General Discussion
Use this Method to demonstrate that the materiel of interest can structurally and
functionally withstand a specified dynamic environment that is defined in more than a
single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) motion; i.e., in multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDOF)
motion. Establishing confidence intervals may also be of interest if multiple like items
are under test. Specification of the environment may be through a detailed summary
of measured field data related to the test materiel that entails more than one degree-
of-freedom, or analytical generation of an environment that has been properly
characterized in MDOF. In general, specification of the environment will include
several degrees of freedom in a materiel measurement point configuration, and testing
of the materiel in the laboratory in a SDOF mode is considered inadequate to properly
distribute vibration energy in the materiel in order to satisfy the specification. As a
result of the increased complexity of MET over sequential application of SDOF single-
exciter testing (SET), an analyst will need to provide rationale for selection of this
Method, after careful review of the available data. AECTP-400, Methods 401, 403 and
423 provide guidance in developing the rationale and requirement for MET. Reasons
for selection of MET over SET may include the following.
a. MET provides a distribution of vibration or shock energy to the materiel

in more than one axis in a controlled manner without relying on the
dynamics of the materiel for such distribution.
b. MET may be selected when the physical configuration of the materiel is

such that its slenderness ratio is high, and SET must rely on the
dynamics of the materiel to distribute energy.
c. For large and heavy test materiel, more than one exciter may be
necessary to provide sufficient energy to the test item.
d. MET allows more degrees-of-freedom in accounting for both the

impedance matches and the in service boundary conditions of the
materiel.
1.2.2. Terminology
Several terms need to be carefully defined for contrasting MET with SET. The term
“test configuration” used in this document will refer to the totality of description for
laboratory testing including the sources of excitation, test item fixturing, and orientation.
In either testing configuration, distinction must be made between excitation
measurement in a vector axis of excitation, and measurement on the test item in either
the vector axis of excitation or in another vector different from the vector axis of
excitation. Generally, to avoid confusion in specification and reporting, the vector
directions of excitation and measurement must be specified in terms of a single

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
laboratory inertial frame of reference related to the test configuration. In addition, it is

helpful to specify the test item geometrical configuration along with the dynamic
properties such as mass moments of inertia relative to the single laboratory inertial
frame of reference.
a. Single-Degree-of-Freedom (SDOF) – motion defined by materiel

movement along or about a single axis whose description requires only
one coordinate to completely define the position of the item at any instant.
b. Multiple-Degree-of-Freedom (MDOF) – motion defined by test item

movement along or about more than one axis whose description requires
two or more coordinates to completely define the position of the item at
any instant.
c. Single-Axis (SA) - excitation or response measurement in a unique

single vector direction (linear or rotational). For rotational axis, the vector
direction is perpendicular to the plane of rotation of the exciter or test
item. Figure 1 displays a single-axis input in the vertical direction to an
extended structure.
d. Multi-Axis (MA) – excitation or response measurement that requires

more than one unique vector for description. Refer to Figures 2 and 3 for
MA examples of both two-axis and three-axis inputs to a common
structure.
Laboratory Reference Frame

z
y
x
Figure 1: SESA - Single Exciter Vertical Axis Test Setup

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
e. Single-Exciter/Single-Axis (SESA) - application of a single exciter

providing dynamic input to the test item in a single vector direction. All
SET configurations are SESA by definition.
f. Multi-Exciter/Single-Axis (MESA) – application of multiple exciters

providing dynamic input to the test item in a single vector direction. For
example, extended materiel might require excitation at the forward and
aft end in a single vector axis as illustrated in Figure 2. If the definition of
excitation requires more than a single vector, refer to the MEMA
definition. Figure 2 illustrates a two-exciter application. Note that the
system would require appropriate bearing assemblies to allow a pure
rotational MESA or combined linear and rotational MEMA motion.
g. Multi-Exciter/Multi-Axis (MEMA) - Application of multiple exciters

providing dynamic input to the test item in a way that requires more than
a single vector for complete description of excitation and measurement.
Figure 3 displays a three exciter three axis test. Three axes vertical,
transverse, and longitudinal are required to describe the test. Note that
many multi-axis test platform configurations have been built in recent
years. Common six-exciter examples are the hexapod (Stewart
Platform), MAST, and Team Cube. There are also over-determined
actuated systems consisting of more than 6 exciters. In each case, the
dynamic properties vary between designs, and must be considered in the
design of a MET.
TEST ITEM
VIBRATION HEAD
EXPANDERS
ELECTRODYNAMIC
EXCITERS
z
y
x
Figure 2: MESA (If Control Configured for Two Exciter 1-DOF Motion) or
MEMA (If Control and Mechanical Couplings Configured for Two Exciter
2-DOF Motion)

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
x y
Figure 3: MEMA - Tri-axial Exciter Test Setup (Translational Degrees-of-

Freedom)
h. Single-Input/Single-Output (SISO) - refers to input of a single drive

signal to an exciter system in an SDOF configuration and a single
measured output from the fixture or test item in an SDOF configuration.
i. Single-Input/Multiple-Output (SIMO) - refers to input of a single drive

signal to an exciter system in a SDOF configuration, and multiple
measured outputs from the fixture or test item in a MDOF configuration.
In general, for specification purposes the dynamic behavior of the test
item will not be assumed to contribute to the output DOF, i.e., measured
rotation of an extended test item that is being excited in a cantilever mode
will still basically be considered as a SET with linear acceleration
characterizing the output.
j. Multiple-Input/Single-Output (MISO) - refers to input of multiple drive

signals to an exciter system configuration in a MDOF configuration, and
a single measured output from the fixture or test item in a SDOF
configuration. This terminology is most used in measurement data
processing where the single output is a composite of measurements from
multiple inputs.
k. Multiple-Input/Multiple-Output (MIMO) - refers to input of multiple drive

signals to an exciter system configuration in a MDOF configuration, and
multiple measured outputs from the fixture or test item in a MDOF

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
configuration. It is important to note that generally there is no one-to-one

correspondence between inputs and outputs, and the number of inputs
and number of outputs may be different.
In the paragraphs to follow, generally only the terms MESA and MEMA will be used,
however, for processing measurement data the terms SISO, SIMO, MISO, and MIMO
are standard (paragraph 7.1, references 1 and 3.).
1.3. LIMITATIONS
This Method addresses very general testing configurations for applying excitation in
multiple axes to materiel. Generally, field deployed materiel has boundary (or
impedance) conditions that are very difficult and often cost prohibitive to replicate in
laboratory testing. The overall goal of a MET is to achieve a distribution of materiel
excitation energy that approaches that appearing during in-service deployment, while
minimizing the difference between in-service and laboratory boundary conditions.
Fixturing design limitations and/or other physical constraints may limit application of in-
service environment in the laboratory. Also, in-service measurements may not be
adequate to specify the laboratory test configuration. As always, engineering analysis
and judgment will be required to ensure the test fidelity is sufficient to meet the test
objectives.
The following limitations also apply to this Method:
a. It does not address aspects of vendor-supplied software control strategy

for a MET.
b. It does not address advantages or disadvantages of Procedure I and

Procedure II MET as defined in paragraph 2.4. The state of the art in a
MET is not such that a comprehensive comparison can be made at this
time.
c. It does not address optimization techniques of the laboratory test

configuration relative to distribution of the excitation energy within the test
item.
d. It does not address technical issues related to axes of excitation and

materiel mass and product moments of inertia. Nor does it address the
need for specialized software for optimizing the axes of excitation with
respect to mass and products of inertia.
e. It generally does not provide specific test tolerance information as this is

highly dependent on the (1) test objective, (2) test laboratory
measurement configuration, and (3) vendor software control strategy.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
f. It does not discuss, in detail, the potential for efficiencies and efficacies
of a MET over SET, leaving this as a part of specification of MET peculiar
to the in-service measured environment.
g. It does not discuss optimum in-service measurement configuration

factors consistent with a MET.
h. It assumes that excitation is provided mechanically through electro-

dynamic or servo-hydraulic exciters, and does not consider combined
acoustic (refer to Method 402) or pneumatic induced modes of excitation.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
It is recommended that measured field vibration data should be used to develop test
levels. It is particularly important to use field data where a precise simulation is the
goal. Sufficient data should be obtained to adequately describe the conditions being
evaluated and experienced by the materiel in each LCEP phase. The sample size of
measured data should as a minimum be sufficient to account for the data variances
due to the distribution of the transport platform condition and age, payload capacity,
operational personnel, and the environmental operating conditions. Refer to Annex E
for considerations and techniques for developing Laboratory Vibration Test Schedules
(LVTS) that can be utilized to simulate field vibration environments on a vibration table.
2.2. SEQUENCE
1. Examine requirements documents and apply the tailoring process to determine

where significant excitation energy distribution effects are foreseen in the life cycle of
the materiel, or substantial testing cost savings might be achieved by employing MET
strategy. Confirm the need for this method and its place in the test sequence.
Generally, a MET-specified environment may occur at any time during the life cycle of
the materiel, and may be interspersed among specially designed multiple axis SET
environments, e.g., shock. Perform tests representing critical end-of-mission
environments last. For most tests, this can be varied if necessary to accommodate
test facility schedules, or for other practical reasons.
2. Identify the test conditions, particularly with respect to temperature conditions.

Exercise extreme care in consideration of the details in the tailoring process. Base
these selections on the requirements documents, the Life Cycle Environmental Profile,
and information provided with this procedure.
In general, all in-service measured environments require multiple axis response

measurements for complete description. Generally, a MET will distribute excitation
energy to the test item and minimize the effects of in-service boundary conditions. The
following is a partial list of effects to materiel that may be better replicated in the
laboratory under a MET than a SET.
a. Fatigue, cracking, and rupture sensitive to multi-axis excitation.
b. Deformation of materiel structure, e.g., protruding parts.
c. Loosening of seals and connections.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
d. Displacement of components.
e. Chafing of surfaces with single-axis design.
f. Contact, short-circuiting, or degradation of electrical components.
g. Misalignment of materiel components (e.g., optical).
Two basic test procedures are defined under MET. The MESA or MEMA procedures
may be used in replication of either a field measured materiel response or an
analytically derived multi-axis environment. The two basic test procedures are
summarized as follows:
a. Procedure I – Time Domain Reference Criteria. This MET Procedure is

an extension to the SESA Time Waveform Replication (TWR) techniques
addressed in Method 423. As with the case for SESA, the time histories
measured or synthesized for a MEMA TWR test are not limited to
stationary Gaussian time histories.
b. Procedure II – Frequency Domain Reference Criteria. This MET

Procedure is an extension to the SESA Spectral based vibration control
techniques addressed in Method 401. As with the case for SESA, the
time histories synthesized for a MEMA random test will be stationary and
Gaussian.
2.4.1. Procedure Selection Considerations
1. Based on the test data requirements, determine if this Method is applicable. In

particular, determine if there is carefully measured and properly processed materiel
field measurement configuration information available in the form of band-limited time
histories or auto- and cross-spectral density estimates as appropriate to be consistent
with the laboratory MET configuration and vibration control system vendor software
specification requirements. Basic consideration is given to an environment in a single-
axis requiring multiple exciters, or an environment in multiple axes requiring multiple
exciters. Generally, the MEMA procedure exceeds the complexity of the MESA
procedure, so attempts should be made to minimize the test procedure complexity to
the degree possible.
2. Materiel in-service use, along with significant environment energy distribution

effects, should assist in procedure selection. One major consideration, in selection of
Procedure I, is the ability to address scenarios in which the reference signal statistics
are not stationary and Gaussian. Procedure II should be considered in the event that
the reference data are stationary, and the ensemble of signals representing the service
life may be reasonably represented by a Gaussian probability density function, and/or
when time compression techniques are to be employed. Refer to the guidance

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
provided in AECTP 300 Method 300 and paragraph 4.2.2.1 of MIL-STD-810G CN1
Method 514.7 regarding manipulation of kurtosis to address non-Gaussian behavior.
2.5. TYPES OF VIBRATION
As of the publication date of this document, Procedure II – Frequency Domain

Reference Criteria is only readily available for MDOF Random excitation. In order to
address complex environments such as combined sine-on-random or swept
narrowband random-on-random in a MDOF test, Procedure I – Time Domain
Reference Criteria must be employed.
2.6. CONTROL STRATEGY OPTIONS
Refer to Annex E, paragraph E.3.2 for a general discussion of the MDOF control
process for insight as to how the MDOF LVTS will serve as the reference in the
control process.
2.7. MATERIAL OPERATION
Whenever appropriate, ensure test items are active and functioning during vibration
tests. Monitor and record achieved performance. Obtain as much data as possible
that defines the sensitivity of the materiel to vibration. Where tests are conducted to
determine operational capability while exposed to the environment, operate the test
item. In other cases, operate the test item where practical. Operation during
transportation will not be possible in almost all cases. Also, there are cases where the
operational configuration varies with mission phase, or where operation at high levels
of vibration may not be required, and may be likely to result in damage.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
3.1. GENERAL
There are no default severities defined for the method. Test levels and durations will
be established using projected service use profiles and other relevant available data.
Refer to Annex E for considerations and techniques for developing Laboratory
Vibration Test Schedules (LVTS) that can be utilized to simulate field vibration
environments on a vibration table.
Note that the test selected may not be an adequate simulation of the complete
environment and, consequently a supporting assessment may be necessary to
complement the test results.
3.3. DETERMINE TEST LEVELS AND CONDITIONS
Generally, both procedures require in-service measured response data. Procedure I

will require multiple time traces to serve as the test references, and Procedure II will
require the measured data to have been processed into auto- and cross-spectral
density estimates in determining test levels and conditions. However, it is also possible
that a MET procedure may rely on analytically specified time histories or auto- and
cross-spectral density information.
3.3.1. Laboratory Test Data Input
Acceptable engineering practice as described in paragraph 7.1, reference 5, should be

used to provide in-service materiel response measurement data that may be used
directly in specifying one of the procedures for a MET, or may be inferred as
representative of an environment that may be indirectly specified for one of the
procedures for a MET. In either direct or indirect use of measurements, particular
measurements are made relatively independent of materiel structure or in “zones” of
the materiel that are insensitive to local conditions. It is also assumed that in-service,
materiel response measurements correspond with materiel response measurements
to be made in the laboratory under a MET. It is essential that the mass properties of
the materiel be determined, including center-of-gravity and the mass and product
moments of inertia. Whenever practical, obtain a modal survey of both the in-service
and the laboratory materiel configurations. This will allow assessment of the overall
dynamic characteristics of the two configurations, in addition to identifying any non-
linearities as a result of materiel joints, etc. Proper interpretation of the normal mode
analysis will assist in determining an optimum laboratory test configuration based on
in-service measurements. Even a simple mass/stiffness analytical model will greatly

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
assist in establishing an optimum laboratory test configuration. Give careful attention

to the form and nature of the input information into the MET vendor supplied software.
3.3.2. Laboratory Test Data Output
In addition to the considerations in paragraph 3.3.1, the test item may be instrumented
at locations other than the points of MET “control,” and these points are generally
termed per discussion in paragraph 3.3.1 “monitoring” points. Such measurement
points may be useful for other purposes such as analytical modeling of materiel and
materiel components. Such measurement information and its use will not be discussed
further here.
3.3.3. Cross-Spectral Density Considerations
In the conduct of a MET, the definition of the cross-spectral density (CSD) terms play
a major role in the degree to which the characteristics of the laboratory motion
correlates to the field measurements in terms of both joint spectral and temporal
characteristics. In the case of Procedure I (time domain reference) the CSD
information is preserved within the individual time histories to be used as reference
criteria. In the case of Procedure II (frequency domain reference) the CSD terms need
to be specified based on CSD estimates computed from field data. Annex D addresses
the control of CSD terms in more detail.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
4.1. GENERAL
The following minimal information is required to conduct and document dynamic tests
adequately. Tailor the lists to the specific circumstances, adding or deleting items as
necessary. Performing fixture and materiel modal surveys is highly recommended.
These data are useful in evaluating test results, and in evaluating the suitability of
materiel against changing requirements or for new applications. These data can be
particularly valuable in future programs where the major emphasis will be to use
existing materiel in new applications. (When modal survey is ruled out for
programmatic reasons, a simple resonance search can sometimes provide useful
information).
4.2. COMPULSORY
b. The definition of the test item;
d. The orientation of the test item in relation to the test axes;
e. If and when operational checks are to be performed;
f. For initial and final checks, specify whether they are to be performed with
the test item installed on the test facility;
g. Other relevant data required to perform the test and operating checks;
h. The vibration control strategy;
i. The monitor and control points or a procedure to select these points;
j. The temperature pre-conditioning time;
k. The use of isolator mounts or otherwise;
l. The definition of the test severity;
m. The indication of the failure criteria;
n. Define control tolerance. In the case of a large test item or complex

fixture, establish a process to manage tolerance concessions;

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
o. Any other environmental conditions at which testing is to be carried out if

4.3. IF REQUIRED

connections, etc.);
c. The value of the tolerable spurious magnetic fields;
4.4. TEST FACILITY
The specialized nature of a MET requires use of a test facility that includes proven MET
capability, fixture(s) for mounting the test materiel, and appropriate equipment for
recording the response of the test item at the specified control and monitor locations.
In addition, the test facility will have expertise necessary to appropriately configure the
test according to the form of test materiel as outlined in paragraph 2.4.1. Ensure the
exciter control has appropriately validated MET hardware and software.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
1. Carefully examine the reference time histories or specified auto- and cross-
spectral information for validity. Ensure the test specification is band-limited according
to the band limits of the shaker system. In particular, it may be necessary to remove
any high amplitude low frequency components that will cause an over-travel condition
for the shaker control system or result in velocity limit violation. In the event the
reference data must be modified to address exciter system limitations, care must be
exercised to ensure the intent of the test is not compromised; and the modifications
must be documented and approved by the responsible test officer. Most MET systems
do provide for such exciter system limit checks; however, the feasibility of exciter
reproduction relative to cross-spectral information is generally not checked.
2. Characterize the materiel to be tested. For example:
a. Dynamically flexible structure with a varying length/diameter ratio.
b. Dynamically stiff structure with flexible appendages.
c. Dynamically/geometrically asymmetric structure.
d. Materiel in shipping or storage containers with pursuant

materiel/container isolation.
3. If the test item is unique and must not be degraded before laboratory testing,
test a dynamic simulation item that represents the dynamic properties of the materiel
to be tested to ensure the MET can be properly compensated. Such a preliminary test
will allow specification and refinement of the control strategy, including selection of
control measurement points. It may also allow specification of the overall exciter
configuration for optimizing the test strategy.
Before starting a test, review pretest information in the test plan to determine test
details (procedure(s), test item configuration(s), levels, durations, vibration exciter
control strategy, failure criteria, test item operational requirements, instrumentation
requirements, facility capability, fixture(s), etc.).
a. Select the appropriate MET configuration and associated fixturing.
b. Select the appropriate data acquisition system (e.g., instrumentation,

cables, signal conditioning, recording, and analysis equipment).

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
c. Operate vibration equipment without the test item installed or with a mass
simulant to confirm proper operation.
d. Ensure the data acquisition system functions as required.
5.1.2. Calibration
Ensure the excitation apparatus, all transducers, signal conditioning equipment,

independent measurement systems, and the vibration control system are calibrated for
conformance with the specified test requirement. Careful design of the test set up,
fixtures, transducer mountings and wiring, along with good quality control will be
necessary to meet the tolerances of paragraph 5.4.
conditions.

temperature over a weekend, can have a significant impact. The actual test conditions
concern the duration for high temperature storage and operational tests, high
temperature soaks during vibration, and possibly solar radiation tests. AECTP 200
provides further guidance on accelerated aging.
5.1.4. Pre-test Checkout
All items require a pretest checkout to provide baseline data. Conduct the pretest
checkout as follows:
Step 1 Examine the test item for physical defects, etc., and document the
results.
Step 2 Prepare the test item for test, in its operating configuration if required, as
specified in the test plan.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
Step 3 Examine the test item/fixture/excitation system combination for

compliance with test item and test plan requirements.
Step 4 If applicable, conduct an operational checkout in accordance with the test

plan and document the results for comparison with data taken during or
after the test. If the test item fails to operate as required, resolve the
problems and repeat the operational checkout.
Whenever appropriate, ensure test items are active and functioning during vibration tests.
Monitor and record achieved performance. Obtain as much data as possible that defines
the sensitivity of the materiel to vibration. Where tests are conducted to determine
operational capability while exposed to the environment, operate the test item. In other
cases, operate the test item where practical. Operation during transportation will not be
possible in almost all cases. Also, there are cases where the operational configuration
varies with mission phase, or where operation at high levels of vibration may not be
required, and may be likely to result in damage. The final operational checks should be
made after the materiel has been returned to rest under pre-conditioning conditions and
thermal stability has been obtained.
Test items can vary from materiel components to structural assemblies containing several
different subassemblies. Consequently, the installation procedures need to take into
account the following:
a. The test item attachment should simulate actual in-service mounting

attachments (including vibration isolators, and fastener torque, if
appropriate). Items mounted on rubber isolation systems may require
monitoring of the isolator temperature with planned test interruptions to
prevent overheating and unnatural failure of the isolator or unrealistic
transfer of energy to the unit under test.
b. All the connections (cables, pipes, etc.) should be installed to impose

stresses and strains on the test item similar to those encountered in
service.
1. Various sensor types can be used in a MET setup and used to establish the
reference for a MET. In general, and used in examples throughout this document,
acceleration will be the quantity measured to establish the specification for the
procedure. Processed sensor measurement information from the lab environment
should correspond to processed measurement information made in the field. This is
ideally accomplished by mounting the test item accelerometer in the same location as

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
that on the field measurement materiel from which the measured information was
extracted. In the MDOF case, instrumentation location and polarity become critical test
parameters (refer to Annex A). To maintain proper phase relationships between
channels, a synchronous sample and hold analog to digital converter (A/D) is
recommended. When possible, recommend laboratory and field data acquisition and
instrumentation be the same. Otherwise, it may be necessary to pre-process reference
data prior to the conduct of a laboratory test.
2. Calibrate all measurement instrumentation to traceable national calibration

standards. The measurement device and its mounting will be compatible with the
requirements and guidelines provided in paragraph 7.1, reference 5.
a. Accelerometer. In the selection of any transducer, one should be familiar

with all parameters provided on the associated specification sheet. Key
performance parameters for an accelerometer follow:
(1) Frequency Response: A flat frequency response within  5%

across the frequency range of interest is required.
(2) Transverse sensitivity should be less than or equal to 5%.
(3) Nearly all transducers are affected by high and low temperatures.
Understand and compensate for temperature sensitivity deviation
as required. Temperature sensitivity deviations at the test
temperature of interest should be no more than  5% relative to
the temperature at which the transducer sensitivity was
established.
(4) Base Strain sensitivity should be evaluated in the selection of any

accelerometer. Establishing limitations on base strain sensitivity
is often case specific based upon the ratio of base strain to
anticipated translational acceleration.
(5) High sensitivity accelerometers are recommended when linear

accelerometers are employed to make rotational motion
estimates.
b. Other measurement devices. Any other measurement devices used to

collect data must be demonstrated to be consistent with the requirements
of the test.
In general, because of impedance mismatches and boundary condition effects,

differences between the field and laboratory environments will exist. Such differences
between the laboratory measured and test specified information may require further
analysis to determine if the differences are relevant to the test objectives.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
a. Rudimentary analysis to ensure the test tolerances are met is usually

performed within the MET software and control strategy. Laboratory
personnel should consult the vendor-supplied MET control system
documentation, and clearly understand the determination of these test
tolerances. In most cases this will require direct contact with the vendor
of the MET system. At the time of this initial publication, common
examples of analysis techniques that are performed during a MET
include computation of EU-rms versus time, ASD, CSD, peak-detection,
and histograms.
b. More extensive data analysis can be performed to examine the

significance of test tolerance deviations with off-line specialized software.
Refer to Method 423, Annex B for Procedure I analysis methods, and
paragraph 7.1, references 4 and 5 for a variety of detailed analysis
techniques for random data applicable for Procedures I and II.
5.2.3. Platform Integration
a. Test Fixture Design. Observe standard shock and vibration fixture

design practices with regard to frequency response and the ability to
withstand the reaction forces with consideration of potentially high loads
generated during MEMA tests as a result of the accelerations applied
simultaneously in multiple degrees of freedom.
b. Test Configuration. Both MESA and MEMA tests require that the test
configuration be restrained in all degrees of freedom that are not
controlled by the exciter, and released in all degrees of freedom that are.
A kinematic assessment of the setup is recommended to assist in the
selection of the proper couplings, bearings, etc., to ensure that improper
loads are not transferred to the test item through the controlled
application of the test, as well as the potentially uncontrolled motion of
the exciters.
5.3. PROCEDURES
The following steps provide the basis for collecting the necessary information concerning
the platform and test item under MET testing. It is critical that any deviations to the test
or test tolerances must be approved by the appropriate test authority and must be clearly
documented in the test plan and final report.
5.3.1. Pre-Test
The following information is required to adequately conduct a MET.
a. Specific to this Method.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
(1) Selection of test procedure and test system (test item/platform

configuration) detailed information including:
(a) Control sensor locations for control time traces (refer to

Annex A for MET specific considerations).
(b) Reference time histories for a Procedure I MET, or

reference ASD & CSD for a Procedure II MET.
(c) Monitor/limit sensor locations (if any).
(d) Levels of pre-test acceptable to obtain appropriate shaker

system compensation.
(e) Criteria for satisfaction of the test, including previously

agreed MET tolerance limits.
(2) Ability of overall system to replicate either a measured materiel

environment or an analytically specified materiel environment
under a MET, including band-limited input and the temperature
effects (if any).
b. Tailoring - Necessary variations in the basic test parameters/testing

materials to accommodate Life Cycle Environmental Profile (LCEP)
requirements and/or facility limitations.
5.3.2. During Test
Collect the following information while conducting the test.
(1) Capture of the appropriately processed control time trace

information in digital form for comparison with the specification.
Compute key time domain engineering unit (EU) specific metrics
such as rms versus time and key spectral metrics such as auto-
spectral and cross-spectral density estimates, and ensure
compliance with agreed-upon tolerances.
(2) Capture of the appropriately processed monitor/limit time trace

information in digital form.
(3) Recording of the number of exposures and the duration of the

dynamic environments.
(4) Log of auxiliary environmental conditions such as temperature.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
(5) Log of any out of tolerance conditions relative to the control

measurement points.
(6) Log of materiel functional failure.
5.3.3. Post-Test
The following post-test data shall be included in the test report.
(1) Duration of exposure of the materiel to the dynamic MET

environment.
(2) Any data measurement anomalies, e.g., high instrumentation

noise levels, loss of sensor response.
(3) Status of the test materiel/fixture. In particular, any structural or

functional failure of the test materiel/fixture.
(4) Any deviations from the original test plan.
5.3.4. Procedure I. Time Domain Reference Criteria
Step 1 Select the test conditions to be addressed and mount the test item on the
excitation platform. Select the control locations and associated analysis
techniques that will be used as potential test metrics (refer to Method
423, Annex A, and Annexes A, B, and C of this Method). Placement and
polarity of all sensors (i.e. accelerometers) must match that of the
reference signals (refer to Annex A). Clearly identify each axis of
excitation and provide alignment procedures to ensure all measurements
are made precisely along each excitation axis. Use all inherent
information concerning the dynamic/geometric configuration of the test
item, including specification of the center-of-gravity of the test item in
three orthogonal axes, modal characteristics of the test fixturing, and all
pertinent mass moments of inertia.
Step 2 If required; perform an operational check of the test item at defined

environmental test conditions per the test plan. If the test item operates
satisfactorily, proceed to Step 3. If not, resolve the problem(s) and repeat
this step.
Step 3 Subject the test item (or dynamic simulant) to a system identification
process that determines the initial exciter drive voltage signals by
compensation. For the MDOF case, the initial signals sent to the exciters
for compensation must be statistically independent, and form vectors that
are linearly independent with respect to the DOFs to be tested. If a

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
dynamic simulant is used, replace the dynamic simulant with the test item
subsequent to the system identification and compensation phase.
Step 4 Subject the test item in its operational mode to the TWR compensated
waveform. It is necessary to make an initial run at less than full level to
ensure proper dynamic response, and to validate proper functioning of
the instrumentation.
Step 5 Record necessary data, including the control sensor and drive time
traces that can be processed to demonstrate that satisfactory replication
of the matrix of reference time trace signals has been obtained.
Step 6 Continuously monitor vibration levels and, if applicable, test item

performance throughout the exposure. If levels shift or a failure occurs,
shut down the test in accordance with the test interruption procedure
(paragraph 5.6). Determine the reason for the shift and proceed in
accordance with the test interruption recovery procedure (paragraph 5.6).
Step 7 Repeat Steps 4, 5, and 6 as specified in the test plan.
Step 8 Remove the test item from the fixture and perform an operational check.
Inspect the test item, mounting hardware, packaging, etc., for any signs
of visual mechanical degradation that may have occurred during testing.
5.3.5. Procedure II. Frequency Domain Reference Criteria
Step 1 Select the test conditions to be addressed and mount the test item on the
excitation platform. Select the control locations and associated analysis
techniques that will be used as potential test metrics (refer to Annexes A,
B, and D of this Method). Placement and polarity of all sensors (i.e.
accelerometers) must match that of the reference signals (refer to Annex
A). Clearly identify each axis of excitation and provide alignment
procedures to ensure all measurements are made precisely along each
excitation axis. Use all inherent information concerning the
dynamic/geometric configuration of the test item, including specification
of the center-of-gravity of the test item in three orthogonal axes, modal
characteristics of the test fixturing, and all pertinent mass moments of
inertia.
Step 2 If required; perform an operational check on the test item at defined

environmental test conditions per the test plan. If the test item operates
satisfactorily, proceed to Step 3. If not, resolve the problem(s) and repeat
this step.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
Step 3 Subject the test item (or dynamically accurate simulant if available) to a
system identification process. For the MDOF case, the initial signals sent
to the exciters must be statistically independent and form vectors that are
linearly independent with respect to the DOFs to be tested. If a dynamic
simulant is used, replace the dynamic simulant with the test item
subsequent to the system identification and compensation phase.
Step 4 Subject the test item in its operational mode to the specification levels,
monitoring both auto and cross-spectral density terms. It is necessary to
make an initial run at less than full level to ensure proper dynamic
response, and to validate proper functioning of the instrumentation.
Step 5 Record necessary data, including the drive signal and control sensor auto
and cross-spectral estimates that demonstrate satisfaction of the overall
test objectives.
Step 6 Continuously monitor vibration levels and, if applicable, test item

performance throughout the exposure. If levels shift or a failure occurs,
determine the reason for the shift, and follow the test interruption
procedure (paragraph 5.6).
Step 7 Repeat Steps 4, 5, and 6 as specified in the test plan.
Step 8 Remove the test item from the fixture and perform an operational check.
Inspect the test item, mounting hardware, packaging, etc., for any signs
of visual mechanical degradation that may have occurred during testing.
5.4. TOLERANCES AND RELATED CHARACTERISTICS
The question of reasonable tolerances in a MET is not simple for either MET procedure.
Guidelines for establishing test tolerances for a Procedure I MET are discussed in
Annex C, and tolerances for a Procedure II MET are discussed in Annex D. Due to the
unique factors associated with a MET, test metrics will often need to be addressed on
a test by test basis. It is critical that the test objectives be clearly understood prior to
establishing test tolerances, and that the metrics are carefully documented prior to
conduct of the test.
5.5. CONTROLS
The accuracy in providing and measuring shock and vibration environments is highly
dependent on fixtures and mountings for the test item, the measurement system, and
the exciter control strategy. Ensure all instrumentation considerations are in
accordance with the best practices available (see paragraph 7.1, references 4 and 5).
Careful design of the test set up, fixtures, transducer mountings, and wiring, along with
good quality control will be necessary to meet the tolerances of paragraph 5.4.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
Test interruptions can result from multiple situations. The following paragraphs discuss
common causes for test interruptions, and recommended paths forward for each.
Recommend test recording equipment remain active during any test interruption if the
excitation equipment is in a powered state.
When interruptions are due to failure of the laboratory equipment, analyze the failure
to determine root cause. It is also strongly advised that both control and response data
be evaluated to ensure that no undesired transients were imparted to the test item
during the test equipment failure. If the test item was not subjected to an over-test
condition as a result of the equipment failure, repair the test equipment or move to
alternate test equipment and resume testing from the point of interruption. If the test
item was subjected to an over-test condition as a result of the equipment failure,
immediately notify the test engineer or program manager responsible for the test item.
Conduct a risk assessment based on factors such as level and duration of the over-
test event, spectral content of the event, cost and availability of test resources, and
analysis of test specific issues to establish the path forward.
5.6.2. Interruption Due To Test Item Operation Failure
Failure of the test item(s) to function as required during operational checks presents a
situation with several possible options. In all cases, immediately notify the test
engineer or program manager responsible for the test item. Failure of subsystems
often has varying degrees of importance in evaluation of the test item. Selection of
options a. through c. below will be test specific.
a. The preferable option is to replace the test item with a new or redesigned
item and restart the entire test sequence.
b. An alternative is to replace/repair the failed or non-functioning component

or assembly with one that functions as intended, and restart the entire
test. Conduct a risk analysis prior to continuing since this option places
an over-test condition on the entire test item except for the replaced
component. If the non-functioning component or subsystem is a line
replaceable unit (LRU) whose life-cycle is less than that of the system
test being conducted, proceed as would be done in the field by
substituting the LRU, and continue from the point of interruption.
c. For many system level tests involving either very expensive or unique
test items, it may not be possible to acquire additional hardware for re-
test based on a single subsystem failure. For such cases, a risk
assessment should be performed by the organization responsible for the
system under test to determine if replacement of the failed subsystem
and resumption of the test is an acceptable option. If such approval is

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
provided, the failed component should be re-tested at the subcomponent

level.
NOTE: When evaluating failure interruptions, consider prior testing on the same
test item and any consequences of such.
5.6.3. Interruption Due To a Scheduled Event
There are often situations in which scheduled test interruptions will take place. For
example, in a tactical transportation scenario, the payload may be re-secured to the
transport vehicle periodically (i.e., tie-down straps may be re-secured at the beginning
of each day). Endurance testing often represents a lifetime of exposure; therefore it is
not realistic to expect the payload to go through the entire test sequence without re-
securing the tie-downs as is done in a tactical deployment. Similarly, items mounted
on rubber isolation systems may require monitoring of the isolator temperature with
planned test interruptions to prevent overheating and unnatural failure of the isolator.
Many other such interruptions, to include scheduled maintenance events, are often
required over the life-cycle of materiel. Given the cumulative nature of fatigue imparted
by dynamic testing, it is acceptable to have test interruptions that are correlated to
realistic life-cycle events or to minimize the effects associated with compressed test
parameters. All scheduled interruptions should be documented in the test plan and
test report.
5.6.4. Interruption Due To Exceeding Test Tolerances
Exceeding the test tolerances or a noticeable change in dynamic response may result
in a manual operator initiated test interruption or an automatic interruption when the
tolerances are integrated into the control strategy. In such cases, check the test item,
fixturing, and instrumentation to isolate the cause.
a. If the interruption resulted from a fixturing or instrumentation issue,

correct the problem and resume the test.
b. If the interruption resulted from a structural or mechanical degradation of

the test item, the problem will generally be considered a test failure.
Follow the guidance in paragraph 5.6.2 for test item failure.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
6.1 GENERAL GUIDANCE
1. The test item performance shall meet all appropriate Test Instruction requirements
during and following the application of vibration.
2. The following information is provided to assist in the evaluation of the test

results. Analyze in detail any failure of a test item to meet the requirements of the
system specification, and consider related information such as:
a. Proper collection of information from the control accelerometer

configuration, including representative durations of time trace information
at all test levels based on expressions for estimate statistical error
criteria. All time trace measurement information must be time-correlated
to ensure proper estimation.
b. Proper collection of information from the monitor accelerometer

configuration (if any), including representative durations of time trace
information at all test levels according to the same principles as used for
control measurements.
c. Record the MET software test tolerance information.
d. If necessary, apply one or more of the techniques described in Annexes

C and D for detailed comparison of the frequency domain information. In
particular, use the collected time trace information to compute the
agreed-upon test metrics.
Analyses of vibration related failures must relate the failure mechanism to the dynamics
of the failed item and to the dynamic environment. It is insufficient to determine that
something broke due to high cycle fatigue or wear. It is necessary to relate the failure
to the dynamic response of the materiel to the dynamic environment. The scope and
detail of analysis should be coordinated with and approved by the appropriate test
authority. It is recommended to include in the failure analysis a determination of
resonant mode shapes, frequencies, damping values, and dynamic strain distributions,
in addition to the usual material properties, crack initiation locations, etc.
6.3. QUALIFICATION TESTS
When a test is intended to show formal compliance with contract requirements,

recommend the following definitions:

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
a. Failure definition. “Materiel is deemed to have failed if it suffers

permanent deformation or fracture; if any fixed part or assembly loosens;
if any moving or movable part of an assembly becomes free or sluggish
in operation; if any movable part or control shifts in setting, position, or
adjustment, and if test item performance does not meet specification
requirements while exposed to functional levels and following endurance
tests.” Ensure this statement is accompanied by references to
appropriate specifications, drawings, and inspection methods.
b. Test completion. A vibration qualification test is complete when all

elements of the test item have successfully passed a complete test.
6.4. OTHER TESTS
For tests other than qualification tests, prepare success and/or failure criteria and test
completion criteria that reflect the purpose of the tests.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
a. NATO STANAG 4370, Environmental Testing, Allied Environmental

Conditions and Test Publication (AECTP) 200, Mechanical
Environmental Testing, Category 240.
b. International Test Operations Procedure (ITOP) 01-1-050, “Development

of Laboratory Vibration Test Schedules”, 6 June 1997, DTIC AD No.
B227368.
c. International Test Operations Procedure (ITOP) 01-2-601, “Laboratory

Vibration Schedules”, 25 January 1999. DTIC AD No. B238288.
d. Bendat, Julius S. and Allan G. Piersol, Random Data Analysis and

Measurement Procedures, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, 2000.
e. Handbook for Dynamic Data Acquisition and Analysis, IEST-RD-

DTE012.2; Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology,
Arlington Heights, IL 60005-4516; Institute of Environmental Sciences
and Technology Website.
f. Fitz-Coy, Norman and Hale, Michael T., “On the Use of Linear
Accelerometers in Six-DOF Laboratory Motion Replication: A Unified
Time-Domain Analysis”, Proceedings of the 76th Shock and Vibration
Symposium, Nov. 2005. Shock & Vibration Exchange (SAVE), 1104
Arvon Road, Arvonia, VA 23004.
g. Underwood, Marcos A. and Keller, Tony, “Applying Coordinate

Transformations to Multi-DOF Shaker Control”, Sound and Vibration,
January 2006, Sound and Vibration Website.
h. Shock and Vibration Handbook, 5th Edition, Edited by Cyril M. Harris and
Allan G. Piersol, McGraw-Hill, New York NY, 2002.
i. Smallwood, David O., “Multiple Shaker Random Vibration Control – An

Update”, SAND 98-2044C.
j. Smallwood, David, Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) Linear

Systems Extreme Inputs/Outputs. Shock and Vibration 13 (2006) 1-25;
Manuscript number SAV-05-058; IOS Press, Inc., 4502 Rachael Manor
Drive, Fairfax, VA 22032.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
k. Hale, Michael T., “Consideration of Global Error Metrics in the Conduct

of MDOF Motion Replication”, Proceedings of the 77th Shock and
Vibration Symposium, Nov. 2006; Shock & Vibration Exchange (SAVE),
l. Underwood, Marcos A. and Keller, Tony, “Using the Spectral Density

Matrix to Determine Ordinary, Partial, and Multiple Coherence”,
Proceedings of the 77th Shock & Vibration Symposium, October, 2006;
Monterey, California.
m. Underwood, Marcos A., “Multi-Exciter Testing Applications: Theory and

Practice”, Proceedings – Institute of Environmental Sciences and
Technology, April 2002.
n. Plummer, A.R., “Control Techniques for Structural Testing: A Review”,

Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part I: J. Systems and Control Engineering, 2007.
o. Welch, P.D., “The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of
power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified
periodograms”, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, Vol.
AU-15, No. 2, June 1967.
p. Fitz-Coy, N, Hale, M. and Nagabhushan, V., “Benefits and Challenges of

Over-Actuated Excitation Systems”, Shock and Vibration Journal,
Volume 17, Number 3 / 2010.
None.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
ANNEX A ENGINEERING INFORMATION FOR MET TRANSDUCER

PLACEMENT
A.1. GENERAL PHILOSOPHY FOR A MET
1. The general philosophy for a Multi-Exciter Test (MET) is essentially the same
as that of the Single Exciter case; however, there are additional considerations that
need to be addressed in the conduct of a MET. It is addressing the additional
considerations associated with MESA and MEMA, and assessing the adequacy of a
laboratory MET, i.e., comparing the reference time histories or spectral content with
the results obtained in laboratory based tests, that are the concerns of this Annex. As
of the inclusion of this new test method into AECTP-400, the primary vibration control
system vendors offer MET options for time waveform replication (TWR), sine, shock,
and random. Options for combined environments such as narrowband-random-on-
random and sine-on-random are generally implemented via TWR based techniques.
2. In the simplest terms for MESA and MEMA tests, multiple exciters are employed
to excite one or more mechanical-degrees-of-freedom. For traditional SESA testing,
the test reference is provided as either a single reference time trace as discussed in
AECTP-400 Method 423, or in terms of simple magnitude versus frequency plots such
as an auto spectral density as discussed in Method 401. For a MET, multiple channels
are required in the control process. For a MET defined in the time domain, multiple
time traces will be required, and for a MET defined in the frequency domain, cross
spectral densities are required in addition to auto-spectral parameters in defining the
test reference. For either case, the system identification (transfer function) estimation
process is now a matrix operation as opposed to a simple division as in the SESA case.
3. The additional complexities associated with MESA and MEMA testing require
an increased level of technical skill from the test engineers in planning such tests, and
from the test operators that will ultimately perform the tests. Test objectives must be
clearly understood to ensure that, in addressing the inevitable test-specific obstacles
associated with any MDOF test, the test objectives are still properly addressed.
A.2. REFERENCE POINT CONSIDERATIONS FOR MDOF TESTING
A.2.1. REFERENCE DATA CONSIDERATIONS
The first step in performing a MET in the laboratory begins with acquiring sufficient
reference data. In addition to the standard concerns related to the dynamic range and
frequency response characteristics of the transducers and recording equipment used
in the field data acquisition phase, the quantity and spatial locations of the transducers
become critical test parameters. Understanding the underlying dynamics of MDOF
systems, and the physical constraints such systems place on the spatial locations of
reference transducers in order to perform true MDOF laboratory motion replication, is

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
not trivial. Similarly, it is essential that the test operators are able to understand the
dynamics of an arbitrary data set that may be provided by an outside source for use as
reference data in a laboratory test.
A.2.2. REFERENCE POINT KINEMATICS
1. A unified discussion on the use of linear accelerometers for motion

reconstruction is addressed in paragraph 7.1, reference 6. Specifically, paragraph 7.1,
reference 6, investigated the number of uni-axial transducers required, and the
placement of these transducers in the field data acquisition phase for 6-DOF motion
reconstruction. The principal analysis is performed in the time domain using
kinematical relationships from classical mechanics.
rn
O
r1 ri
r2
Figure A-1: Body With n Accelerometers. Placements
2. In addressing the laboratory inputs required for 6-DOF replication, paragraph

7.1, references 6 and 16 also consider a body equipped with n tri-axial linear
accelerometers located as shown in Figure A-1. It is well known from classical
mechanics that the acceleration measured by the ith transducer is given kinematically
by
a i  aO    r i      r i    i , i  1,2,, n , (1)
where aO represents the acceleration of a reference point in the body,  and 
represent, respectively, the rigid body angular acceleration and angular velocity, r i the
location of the ith transducer relative to the reference point, and  i  r i  2  r i
represents the contributions due to non-rigid body effects (i.e., flexibility). Ignoring the
flexibility effects (i.e.,  i  0 ), Equation 1 represents n vector equations in three vector
unknowns (i.e., aO ,  , and  ). In general, aO is unknown unless a transducer was
selected a priori for that location. For notational convenience, matrix equivalent
operations were used to rewrite Equation 1 as shown in Equation 2 where the flexibility
effects have also been neglected.
  
ai  aO   r i    r i = aO  r i , i  1,2,, n (2)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
 
3. In Equation (2),  and  are skew symmetric matrices representing the vector
cross products, and          represent the contributions of angular motion to the
measured linear acceleration (i.e., the contributions of “tangential” and “centripetal”
accelerations). Assuming that    x iˆ   y jˆ   z kˆ and   x iˆ  y jˆ  z kˆ are the
angular acceleration and angular velocity coordinatized in the body fixed frame, then
 0  z y   0 z y 
     
   z 0  x  ,    z 0  x  ,
  y x 0   y x 0 
 
and


  y2  z2   x y   z xz   y 

    x y   z


 x2  z2   y z   x 

   
 x z y  y z   x  
 x2  y2 
4. True motion replication in the laboratory using the measured accelerations (field
data) to construct the drive point accelerations will require knowledge of aO (three
unknowns) and  (nine unknowns), for a total of 12 unknowns. A closer examination
of  , however, reveals the matrix is comprised of only six unique unknowns (i.e., the
components of  and  ). Thus, if aO ,  , and  can be determined from measured
field data, theoretically, the motion in the field can be exactly (within the limits of the
measurement devices) replicated in the laboratory. From paragraph 7.1, reference 6,
it was shown that in the most general case, nine parameters ( a0 ,  ,  ) are required to
reconstruct the motion and, thus, the minimum number of required transducer channels
is nine. The analysis was also used to show that if specific restrictions are imposed on
the motion (e.g., a0  0 ), six properly placed accelerometers would be sufficient.
Additionally, if consideration was given to the rigid body kinematic relationship between
d
the angular velocity  and the angular acceleration  (i.e.,   ), then
dt
implementation in the frequency domain also reduces the number of required
parameters from nine to six.
5. The two stated restrictions (i.e., a0  0 or frequency domain implementation) that

result in six transducers being sufficient, are consistent with the conditions found in the
vibration testing environment. An assumption of a0  0 does not necessarily provide
sufficient information for exact motion reconstruction. In fact, it was shown that in the
most general case, only  could be uniquely determined and, thus, additionally, the
kinematic relationship between  and  has to be exploited. Hence, the most

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
influential of the two restrictions is the simplified relationship between angular velocity
and angular acceleration in the frequency domain (i.e.,  (s )  s(s ) ). Note that this
condition is only valid for rigid bodies. Once flexibility is considered, this simplification
no longer exists and, thus, the use of six transducers becomes questionable.
6. From an implementation perspective, while it has been shown that six properly
located linear accelerometers are sufficient to use as a basis for 6-DOF motion
replication, it is also obvious that near ideal conditions are required. Specifically, and
as is generally the case for laboratory vibration tests, a0  0 in Equation 1 is a necessary
requirement to ensure accurate replication of acceleration and velocity at unmonitored
points on the test item. A more realistic concern is that, in practice, one is not
necessarily working with a rigid body, and the fact that there will inevitably be a
mechanical impedance mismatch between the field and laboratory conditions. Under
such conditions, predictably there will be issues with the condition number of the
system transfer function matrix Hxy .
7. To address such issues, it is strongly recommended that an over-determined

feedback scheme (number of control channels > number of mechanical DOF)
consisting of properly placed linear accelerometers be employed. One such proven
control configuration is selection of three non-collinear tri-axial clusters of linear
accelerometers. This control configuration is very versatile in that any plane may be
used, with the only critical factor being that the relative positions of the transducers
remain non-collinear.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
ANNEX B SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION FOR LINEAR TIME-INVARIANT MDOF

SYSTEMS
B.1. TRANSFER-FUNCTION ESTIMATIONS
1. Exploiting the over-determined feedback technique as discussed in Annex A is

also advantageous in providing a weighting technique, analogous to the common
practice in traditional SDOF testing in which various multiple-channel averaging
schemes are employed to address payload dynamics issues. In the conduct of an
MDOF vibration test, if an over-determined feedback scheme consisting of properly
placed linear accelerometers is employed, Hxy is approximated in a Least-Squares
sense, thereby providing a sound method of implementing a multi-channel control
scheme. However, as is the case for the general 1-DOF case, one should always
optimize the fixture design because no control scheme will force motion of a structure
in an unnatural manner. The accuracy of the Least Squares approximation of Hxy will
be directly related to the degree of modal similarity between the field deployment
platform and the laboratory test platform.
2. Based on the previous discussion of kinematic considerations for transducer

placement, it is clear that great care must be taken to establish a central point to which
all measurement locations could be referenced. Carefully measure and record the
specific location and polarity of each transducer. In addition, this process requires
forethought as to how the test item will be fixtured in the laboratory to ensure the “exact”
measurement locations can be used.
B.2. SIGNAL TRANSFORMATION
For a situation in which the reference signals for a 6-DOF test are provided in the
traditional translational (X, Y, and Z) and rotational (Pitch (rotation about Y), Roll
(rotation about X), and Yaw (rotation about Z)) engineering units (EU), one may wish
to transform between appropriately placed linear transducers and traditional 6-DOF
EUs. Since there are many combinations of exciters that may be employed for a given
MDOF test, the transformation matrix between linear accelerometers and traditional 6-
DOF EUs, the transformation matrix will be test specific. In addition, one may wish to
apply non-uniform weighting across the exciters for a given DOF, or even include non-
rotational or non-translational degrees-of-freedom such as tensional response into
consideration in developing the control law for a given test. Kinematics based output-
signal transformations are also very useful in addressing over-actuated systems to
ensure properly compensated signals are sent to exciters with common mechanical
degrees-of-freedom. A detailed discussion of signal transformation is given in
paragraph 7.1, references 7 and 13.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
B.3. CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION
1. It is not the intent of this document to provide the specifics of the control
algorithms used in the conduct of MESA and MEMA vibration testing. In fact, the
various MET control system vendors do not always approach control in the same
manner. There are, however, a few basic concepts that are keys to the MESA and
MEMA control problem that will be addressed in the following sections.
2. The theory relative to linear accelerometer placement discussed in Annex A was

developed from a time domain perspective. While the time domain approach is very
useful in developing an understanding of the basic rigid body kinematics leading to
establishing requirements for mapping of acceleration to an arbitrary point (i.e., a drive
point), it is not practical to implement as a real- time control scheme. In practice, the
drive files are generated based on frequency-domain transfer function approximations.
3. Control system vendors have developed various control algorithms for conduct
of a MDOF MET. Although vendors may consider the details of many of their vendor
specific techniques to be proprietary, the following general discussion regarding type
H1 transfer function estimations for a MDOF case is still relevant, and serves as a
working introduction to the basic control scheme. Basic definitions are reviewed to
illustrate the importance of cross-spectrum components in the conduct of a MDOF
MET. This discussion is summarized in this Annex and discussed in detail by Bendat
and Piersol in paragraph 7.1, reference 4.
B.3.1. SISO AUTO AND CROSS SPECTRAL DEFINITIONS REVIEW
Prior to matrix-based discussions of transfer function estimates for a MET, consider

the following basic scalar definitions as presented by Bendat and Piersol in paragraph
7.1, reference 4. The discussions assume two stationary (ergodic) Gaussian random
processes  x (t ) and y (t ) . The finite Fourier Transforms of  x (t ) and y (t ) are
defined as:
T
X  f   X  f ,T    x  t e  j 2 ft dt
0
T
Y  f   Y  f ,T    y  t e  j 2 ft dt
0
The auto and cross-spectral densities of x  t  and y  t  for an “unlimited time” length
T are defined respectively as:
1 
E  X  f ,T  
2
Gxx (f )  2 lim
T
T   
1
Gyy (f )  2 lim E  Y  f ,T  
2
T  T  
1
Gxy (f )  2 lim E  X *  f Y  f  
T  T

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
Estimates of Gxx  f  , Gyy  f  and Gxy  f  as computed over a “finite time” interval are
defined as:
2 2

Gxx (f )  Sxx  f    X  f ,T 
T  
2
Gyy (f )  Syy  f    Y  f ,T  
2
T 
2
Gxy (f )  Sxy  f    X *  f Y  f  
T
1
and will have a discrete spectral resolution of Be  f  . Employment of S xx  f  , Syy  f 
T
and Sxy  f  will generally be unacceptable due to the large random error associated
with the “raw” estimate. In practice, the random error is reduced, (refer to paragraph
7.1, reference 4, for a detailed error discussion), by computing an ensemble of nd
different averages of length T to obtain a “smooth” estimate defined as:
2
Gˆ xx (f )    X  f ,T  2 
nd
ndT i 1  
2
Gˆ yy (f )    Y  f ,T  2 
nd
ndT i 1  
2
Gˆ xy (f )    X *  f Y  f  
nd
ndT i 1
B.3.2. SISO TRANSFER FUNCTION AND COHERENCE FUNCTION DEFINITIONS

REVIEW
Another very useful tool in the analysis of SISO linear systems are the transfer function
and associated coherence estimates. Again, both concepts are explained in detail
within paragraph 7.1, reference 4. Using the previously defined auto and cross-
spectrum definitions, the optimum frequency response function (transfer function) is
defined as:
Gˆ xy  f 
Hˆ xy  f  
Gˆ  f 
xx
and the associated coherence function is defined as:

2
Gˆ xy  f 
ˆ 2
f  
Gˆ xx  f  Gˆ yy  f 
xy
The transfer function provides a frequency domain view of the gain and phase
relationship between the input and output signals, while the coherence function

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
indicates the amount of causality in the transfer function. The coherence function
range is 0   xy2  f   1 , with 0 representing no causality and 1 representing perfect
causality. Observe that for the SISO case, computation of both Ĥ  f  and  xy2 f  are
simple division operations to be performed at each of the discrete spectral lines. The
following paragraph takes a general MIMO view of the SISO scenario just discussed.
In the following discussions, all estimates will be considered to be “smoothed” through
the use of an appropriate number of measurements and the ^ symbol will be eliminated.
B.3.3. MIMO AUTO-SPECTRA, CROSS-SPECTRA, AND INITIAL FUNCTION

ESTIMATES
Consider the MIMO system described below consisting of m inputs and n outputs. Note
that, for the general case, m ≠ n. (A Linear Time-Invariant (LTI) system is assumed).
B.3.3.1. Frequency Domain Transfer Function Relationship
Develop a Frequency Domain transfer function relationship between the input and
output. The following discussion is one of multiple approaches. Welch’s method,
paragraph 7.1 reference 15, is generally used to compute a smoothed estimate of the
spectral terms in the following discussion.
a. Define X(f) as column vector of the m input signals and Y(f) as a column
vector of the n output signals.
 X1  Y1 
X  Y 
 2  2
X   . , Y  . 
   
 .  .
 Xm  Yn 
   
b. Define the Transfer Function Matrix between X(f) and Y(f) as Hxy  f  such
that the input precedes the output.
 H11 H12 . . H1n 

H . . H2 n 
 21 H22
Hxy   . . . . . 
 
 . . . . . 
 H m1 H m 2 Hmn 


ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
c. Define the Instantaneous Power Spectra as:

Sxx = X * X' Instantaneous Input Auto-Spectrum (Dim: m x m)
Syy = Y Y* '
Instantaneous Output Auto-Spectrum (Dim: n x n)
Sxy = X* Y' Instantaneous Cross-Spectrum (Dim: m x n)
d. Define the Cumulative Power Spectra over k averages as:

1 k
Gxx =  Sxx
k i=1 i
Cumulative Input Auto-Spectrum (Dim: m x m)
1 k
Gyy =  i=1 S yy i Cumulative Output Auto-Spectrum (Dim: n x n)
k
1 k
Gxy =  i=1 S xy i Cumulative Cross-Spectrum (Dim: m x n)
k
B.3.3.2. Key Transfer Function Derivations
Given the definitions a. and b. above, it follows that:
Y  H'xy X
nx 1 mx 1
nxm
Y1   H11 H21 . . H m1   X 1 

Y  H . . Hm 2   X 2 
 2   12 H22
 .  . . . . .  . 
    
.  . . . . .  . 
Yn  H1n H2n . . Hmn   X m 
  
Re-write the input/output relationship in terms of the cumulative auto and cross spectra
as defined above in paragraph B.3.3.1d.
 
'
Y = H'xy X = XHxy
X * Y = X * XHxy
1 k * ' 1 k * ' 1 k 
Gxy =
k
 X Y = i=1 Xi XiHxy =  i=1 Xi* Xi'  Hxy = GxxHxy
i=1 i i
k k 
Gxy = GxxHxy
Gxx -1Gxy = Gxx -1GxxHxy
Gxx -1 Gxy = Hxy
mxm mxn mxn

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
In performing laboratory MET, the initial estimation of Hxy will be computed based on a
set of uncorrelated random input signals. The desired signal, Y , will have been either
measured directly, or possibly computed via a 6-DOF model based prediction, leaving
X (that will represent the input to the vibration exciter) as the unknown.
   
-1 -1
H'xy X yielding H'xy  Y = X .
-1
Recall that Y = H'xy X , therefore, H'xy Y = H'xy
nx1 mx1 nx1 mx1
nxm mxn
 
1
Note that for the general case in which m≠n, the computation of H'xy will require a
pseudo-inverse (Moore-Penrose) approximation. This computation involves a singular
value decomposition (SVD) of H'xy . Viewing the singular values provides two useful
pieces of information. First, it provides information on a spectral line basis as to the
rank of H'xy , and second, it provides an indication as to the dynamic range of H'xy ,
thereby providing insight into the potential for noise in computation of the drive files.
Estimations of H'xy via SVD techniques are more computationally intense than classical
methods such as the Cholesky decomposition; however, the SVD technique is more
robust and capable of addressing rectangular and singular matrices. SVD techniques
also provide straight forward methods of addressing dynamic range and noise by
investigating the ratio of the largest to smallest singular values.
From a Procedure II control algorithm perspective, one may be interested in

computation of Gxx directly from Hxy . Recall from above that Y = H'xy X , from which
nx1 mx1
nxm
the following is derived:

Y = H'xy X
 
'
Y ' = H'xy X = X 'Hxy
Y = H X  = H X
*
* ' '* *
xy xy
Y Y = H X  X H 
* ' '*
xy
* '
xy
This yields:
1 k * ' 1 k *' * ' 1 k 
Gyy =  Yi Yi = k i=1HxyXi [XiHxy ] = Hxy*' k i=1 Xi*Xi'  Hxy = Hxy*' GxxHxy
k i=1
Gyy = H'*xyGxxHxy
Which leads directly to:
  Gyy Hxy 
-1 -1
Gxx = H'*xy
Paragraph 7.1, reference 4, goes into considerably more detail, to include error
analysis, regarding the discussion above. In addition, the various control system
vendors continue to improve on the basic concepts using unique (and often proprietary)
techniques to improve convergence to the reference array based on error in both time

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
and frequency domains. The discussion above serves as an illustration through use
of well-defined and established analyses of the increased level of complexity
associated with MDOF vibration testing. Of particular interest are that the fundamental
principles are based on the assumption that the excitation system is LTI, and that the
reference measurements were acquired from a kinematically consistent body. Clearly,
neither assumption holds for the majority of laboratory vibration tests, even in the SESA
case. The issue at hand is establishing metrics of acceptability for a MET.
B.3.3.3. Key Transfer Function Derivations Alternative
An alternative to the derivations in paragraphs B.3.3.1 and B.3.3.2, which is commonly

employed in the MIMO vibration control arena, is based on making the following minor
changes in definitions within paragraph B.3.3.1:
a. Define X(f) as column vector of the m input signals and Y(f) as a column
vector of the n output signals as defined in paragraph B.3.3.1.
 X1  Y1 
X  Y 
 2  2
X   . , Y  . 
   
 .  .
 Xm  Yn 
   
b. Define the Transfer Function Matrix between X(f) and Y(f) as Hyx(f) such
that the output precedes the input. Recalling Hxy as defined in paragraph
B.3.3.1, observe that Hyx = H'xy and that Hxy1  Hyx .
 H11 H21 . . H m1 
H . . H m 2 
 12 H22
Hyx   . . . . . 
 
 . . . . . 
H1n H2n . . Hmn 

Y = Hyx X
nx1 mx1
nxm
c. Define the Instantaneous Power Spectra as:

ˆ = XX *'
Φ Instantaneous Input Auto-Spectrum (Dim: m x m)
xx
ˆ = YY
Φ *'
Instantaneous Output Auto-Spectrum (Dim: n x n)
yy
ˆ = YX *'
Φ Instantaneous Cross-Spectrum (Dim: n x m)
yx
Observe in comparison to the definitions provided in paragraph B.3.3.1

that:
ˆ = S' ,
Φ ˆ = S' ,
Φ ˆ = S*'
and Φ
xx xx yy yy yx xy

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
d. Define the Cumulative Power Spectra over k averages as:

1 k ˆ
Φxx =  Φxx i
k i=1
Cumulative Input Auto-Spectrum (Dim: m x m)
1 k ˆ
Φyy =  i=1 Φ yy i Cumulative Output Auto-Spectrum (Dim: n x n)
k
1 k ˆ
Φyx =  i=1 Φ yx i Cumulative Cross-Spectrum (Dim: n x m)
k
Observe in comparison to the definitions provided in paragraph B.3.3.1
that:
Φxx = G'xx , Φyy = G'yy , and Φyx = Gxy
*'
Applying the input/output relationship of an LTI system, and by making

the following substitutions based on the definitions for the cumulative
auto and cross spectra as defined above in paragraphs B.3.3.3c and
B.3.3.3d yields the following:
1 k 1 k *' 1 k
Φyy =
k
 Y Y *' =  i=1Hyx Xi [Hyx Xi ] =  i=1Hyx Xi Xi*'Hyx
i=1 i i
k k
*'
= Hyx ΦxxH*'yx and,
-1
Φxx = H-1yxΦyy H*'yx  Or, by defining Z = H-1yx simplifies to Φxx = ZΦyy Z*'
1 k 1 k 1 k
Φyx =
k
 Y X *' =  i=1Hyx Xi Xi*' = Hyx  i=1 Xi Xi*' = Hyx Φxx
i=1 i i
k k
which leads to :
Φyx Φ-1
xx = Hyx
Observe that two approaches discussed within paragraph B.3.3 are very
similar in structure. Selection of technique is generally one of preference
or possibly computational advantage.
B.3.4. MIMO COHERENCE FUNCTIONS
The concept of coherence will need to be expanded to address the MIMO case. Refer
to the paragraph 7.1, references 4 and 9, for a detailed discussion on this subject.
Following, are three basic coherence definitions that apply to the MIMO case for a
linear system.
B.3.4.1. Ordinary Coherence
The ordinary coherence function is defined as the correlation coefficient describing the
linear relationship between any two single spectra. In the multiple input case, care
must be taken in interpretation of ordinary coherence. It is possible that the coherence
between the output and a given input may be much less than unity, even if the
relationship is strictly linear due to the influence of other input signals. For a linear
MIMO system, the ordinary coherence is defined as:

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
2
Gxy mn
 2mn  f  
Gxxmm Gyy nn
where,
Gxxmm  f  = auto-spectrum of the input m
Gyynn  f  = auto-spectrum of the output n
Gxymn  f  =cross-spectrum between input m and output n
B.3.4.2. Partial Coherence
The partial coherence function is defined as the ordinary coherence between one
conditioned output and another conditioned output, between one conditioned input and
another conditioned input, or between one conditioned input and a conditioned output.
The individual input and output signals are “conditioned” by removing the contributions
from other inputs. There is a partial coherence function that exists for every input-
input, output-output, and input-output combination for all permutations of conditioning.
B.3.4.3. Multiple Coherence
1. The multiple coherence function is defined as the correlation coefficient

describing the linear relationship between a given output and all known inputs. A
multiple coherence function exists for each output signal. The multiple coherence
function provides an excellent method of evaluating the degree and relative importance
of unknown contributions such as noise and nonlinearities to each output signal.
2. As is the case for ordinary coherence, a low multiple coherence value

represents a low causality between the output signal of interest and the input signals.
This information is critical in the closed loop control process in that it will influence the
transfer function estimate. In fact, MDOF control systems use the multiple coherence
function as a key test parameter. Specifically, the control algorithm will compute the
multiple coherence for each output channel at each spectral line. Prior to updating the
transfer function during a test, the multiple coherence function will be evaluated to
ensure a specific threshold is achieved, (i.e.,  mn 2
 f   0.7 ). If the user-defined
threshold has not been achieved, the transfer function for that spectral line will not be
updated. Partial and multiple coherence are discussed in detail in paragraph 7.1,
reference 4. Underwood also provides an interesting perspective of both partial and
multiple coherence in paragraph 7.1, reference 12.
B.3.5. DRIVE SIGNAL COMPENSATION
1. The previous discussions of auto and cross-spectral densities and how they are
used in the computation of the system transfer function and associated coherence
functions are all applied in the initial system identification phase in a MET. Subsequent

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
to the initial system identification, the output (drive) signals are updated similar to the
traditional SESA case. Although the details of each control system vendor’s algorithms
will vary, there are two basic drive signal update methodologies.
2. The first drive signal update technique is based simply on continuous updates
of the system transfer function, and is performed throughout the duration of the test to
address minor system changes (paragraph 7.1, reference 13). Note that for any
frequencies for which the drive signals are fully correlated, corrections to the system
transfer function will not be possible.
3. The second drive signal update technique is based on the error spectrum that
is computed between the feedback spectrum and the specified reference spectrum.
Typically, some fraction of the error is applied to a correction of the coupling matrix
corrected during each loop. The coupling matrix is the spectral density matrix that
couples the vector of white noise sources generated by the control system to achieve
the desired reference spectrum.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
ANNEX C PROCEDURE I MET (TIME WAVEFORM REPLICATION (TWR)

SPECIFIC)
C.1. PROCEDURE I MET (TIME DOMAIN REFERENCE CRITERIA)
C.1.1. PREPROCESSING
Since placement and orientation of transducers are paramount in the conduct of MDOF
MET, performing a thorough pretest review is essential to overall test validity and
efficiency. Misalignment of one transducer will adversely affect the transfer function
matrix as a whole. To address these types of issues, take detailed measurements and
photographs of the actual field setup (i.e., how and where the materiel was mounted)
to aid in proper laboratory setup (since the laboratory configuration should mimic the
field setup as accurately as possible). In addition, once the test item and associated
measurement and control instrumentation are configured in the laboratory, examine
phase and coherence measurements between drive channels and control channels to
make sure that input points and their resultant responses are logical (e.g., a vertical
input should largely affect vertical responses at low frequencies). Also, ensure the
spectral characteristics of the control accelerometers and associated signal
conditioning equipment have the same frequency response characteristics as that of
the instrumentation used to make the original reference measurements, or properly
pre-condition data as required to ensure proper phase relationships between channels.
C.2. ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS FOR A PROCEDURE I MET
C.2.1. ADDRESSING TRANSLATIONAL MOTION
Since linear transducers are generally the measurement transducers of choice,

translational measurements will be readily available. One needs only to have a well-
defined coordinate system established.
C.2.2. ADDRESSING ANGULAR MOTION
1. Auto-Spectral Density (ASD) analysis provides a general spectral view of the

reference data; however, it contains no phase information. It is the differences in phase
and amplitude between collinear accelerometers that indicate the presence of angular
motion. One method of investigating the presence of angular acceleration (either pure
or combined with translational acceleration) from a suite of linear accelerometers is to
perform complex transfer functions between collinear pairs of linear accelerometers.
Subsequently, performing the same transfer function analysis between the same
locations in the laboratory provides another metric for measuring the fidelity of the
laboratory test. Analyzing the transfer functions corresponding to the field and
laboratory measurements often indicates where the mechanical impedance between
field and laboratory begin to diverge. Referring back to the ASD measurements, one

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
is able to gain some perspective as to the amount of energy present as a function of

frequency, providing perspective into the deviations expected as a result of divergence
in mechanical impedance. Similarities between the reference and laboratory transfer
functions indicate field and laboratory rotations are also similar.
2. In an effort to address the actual level and fidelity associated with rotational
degrees-of-freedom from a test controlled entirely by feedback obtained from linear
accelerometers, computations of angular motion can be developed. Perform
computations from both the reference data and corresponding laboratory control
accelerometer pairs, and compare results. The computation takes the form of a small
angle approximation; however, since the reference plane on which the accelerometer
is mounted is actually rotating, there is no computation error as a function of angle as
in the case of a fixed plane small angle approximation. To illustrate, consider two linear
accelerometers positioned to measure z-axis motion mounted a distance l inches from
their relative centerline along the y-axis. An estimate of Roll (Rx) axis angular motion
rad
in units of at the centerline between the two transducers can be computed as
s2
 a1z  a2z  * 386
. Ideally this technique will provide a good metric for analyzing the
2l
angular motion for the “rigid body” case. The frequency, at which the field data and
laboratory data begin to diverge is an indication of where the mechanical impedance
between tactical field mechanical interface and laboratory fixturing begins to differ. The
magnitude of the divergence provides some idea of the quality of the impedance match,
and provides a key data point in understanding if the test fidelity is sufficient in
addressing a test-specific criteria. In general, the instantaneous center of rotation
(ICR) may not coincide exactly with the ICR of the test platform, and that the angular
motion estimates may, in fact, be vectors that are not perfectly orthogonal with respect
to the true axis of rotation. However, as long as the laboratory reference linear
accelerometers used to make the angular acceleration estimates correlate to the exact
location and phase of the reference measurements, a localized angular motion
comparison is still of interest in addressing replication fidelity.
3. If possible, even though it may be band-limited, recommend an angular

accelerometer or rate transducer be placed at the midpoint between the linear
accelerometers being used to estimate the rotational DOF of interest. The addition of
the angular accelerometer will provide a direct measure of ground truth for angular
acceleration at a particular point on a structure.
C.3. TEST TOLERANCES FOR A PROCEDURE I MET
As discussed in paragraph 5.4, at this point in TWR test philosophy, test tolerance
specification is not well quantified. However, numerous candidates for quantifying
TWR testing are provided in the Annex section of AECTP-400 Method 423. Each of
the metrics addressed in Method 423 Annex A for SESA TWR is also applicable to the
MDOF case, only the MDOF case will consist of an “array” of reference channels and
an “array” of control channels. As is the case for SESA TWR, recommend the

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
reference time histories be segmented into categories of stationary random, shock, or

non-stationary, and the tolerance criteria be applied to each segment based on the
data classification. For tolerance development purposes for TWR, the tolerances
should not exceed the tolerances provided in Methods 401and 403 respectively, for
stationary random vibration and mechanical shock categories. The tolerances for the
third form of time trace, non-stationary data, are somewhat dependent on the nature of
the non-stationarity. Techniques for non-stationarity assessment for which time trace
amplitude is a function of both time and frequency are available (see paragraph 7.1,
reference 4). Some non-stationary time traces that have time invariant frequency
characteristics can be represented by the Product Model (PM), and can be processed
for tolerance purposes as stationary random vibration with a time-varying envelope.
Consult Annexes A and B of Method 423 for details of TWR tolerance specification for
non-stationary time traces. Finally, in addition to time segmenting the overall reference
and control traces, it may be desirable to establish separate test tolerances over
common bandwidths of the reference and control time traces, i.e., perform frequency
segmenting. This could be accomplished through digital filter scheme. This Method
provides no guidance for tolerance development under frequency segmentation.
C.3.1. COMPOSITE (GLOBAL) ERROR DISCUSSION FOR PROCEDURE I
One obvious point of concern in addressing adequacy of a 6-DOF TWR test is in a

global sense. This is analogous, in the conduct of traditional SDOF testing to the
practice of providing a composite control plot summarizing multiple control channel
averaging or weighting schemes. For example, experience has shown that in MEMA
tests in which a specific mechanical degree-of-freedom consists of a very small
percentage of the composite energy across all mechanical degrees-of-freedom, the
associated error for that DOF will often be higher than the desired test tolerances
discussed in paragraph C.3 above. Three candidates, (many others are possible) for
accessing global error are addressed in paragraph 7.1, reference 11, and summarized
below. The three techniques discussed below are consistent with the rudimentary
division of data types discussed in Method 423, Annex A.
C.3.2. GLOBAL RMS ERROR
One of the most common time domain error metrics employed in TWR testing is simply
comparisons between the reference data and laboratory data as EU-rms versus time
computed over short time slices for the duration of the test. For the MDOF TWR case,
the rms versus time error is easily calculated for each control channel as illustrated by
Step 2 below. Also of interest would be an energy weighted view of the rms versus
time error between the reference and control signals. This concept is developed in the
following steps:
Step 1 The arrays r and l shown in Equation 3.2.1 represent, respectively,

JxN JxN
the N point sampled reference and laboratory test data for each of the J
control channels. Test-specific parameters such as sample frequency
and filter settings should be tracked by the test operator. It is assumed

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
that the time histories represented by Equation 3.2.1 will not have a bias,
or that any bias has been removed during pre-processing.
 r1(n )   l1 ( n ) 
   
 r2 (n )   l 2 (n ) 
r (n )  l (n )  n  1,2 N; (3.2.1)
JxN   JxN  
   
 rJ (n )   l J (n ) 
Step 2 The two matrices RMS _ r and RMS _ l shown in Equation 3.2.2 contain
the g-rms values for each reference and laboratory test channel
computed over each time segment, s. The j index, j  1, J , represents
the control channel number and the s index, s  1, S , represents the time
segment number. For example, if the sample frequency Fs is 1024 Hz,
and the rms calculation is to be computed every 0.5 seconds (M=512
samples), s  1would represent samples n  1 M , s  2 would represent
the samples n  M  1 2M , and so on.
 rms _ r11 rms _ r1S   rms _ l11 rms _ l1S 

   
RMS _ r    RMS _ l   
JxS
 rms _ r rms _ rJS 
JxS
 rms _ l rms _ l JS 
 J1  J1 (3.2.2)
1 M .s
1 M .s
where, rms _ r js   r j 2 (n )
M n (( M .s )M 1
and rms _ l js   l j 2 (n )
M n (( M .s )M 1
Step 3 Observing that the columns of the two matrices shown in Equation 3.2.2
represent the reference and laboratory test channels, g-rms values for a
given time segment s , it is possible to isolate the individual columns and
develop a weighting strategy across all control channels for each time
segment. Equation 3.2.3 illustrates a 2-norm computed for each column
of the reference matrix RMS _ r . Note that post multiplication by indexing
vector Us provides a method of isolating the s th column of interest.
nc _ rms _ r 
1xS
 RMS _ r U 1 2 ,  RMS _ r  U2 2 , ,  RMS _ r  US 2

 1 0 0
 
0
 
1
 
0 (3.2.3)
where, U1    , U2    , , US   
Sx 1   Sx1   Sx 1  
     
0 0  1
Step 4 Equation 3.2.4 demonstrates computation of a weighting factor for each
entry in the reference matrix RMS _ r , based on a column normalization
to the corresponding 2-norm computed in Equation 3.2.3. This weighting
factor may be considered in addressing rms-error between the reference
and laboratory data.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
  RMS _ r11 2  RMS _ r12 

2
 RMS _ r1S 
2

 
  nc _ rms _ r1   nc _ rms _ r2   nc _ rms _ rS  
2 2 2
 
  RMS _ r21   RMS _ r22   RMS _ r2S  
2 2 2
 2 
Wt    nc _ rms _ r1 2  nc _ rms _ r2 
2
 nc _ rms _ rS   (3.2.4)
JxS
 
 
 RMS _ r 2
  J1   RMS _ rJ 2   RMS _ rJS  
2 2
  nc _ rms _ r 2  nc _ rms _ r2 
2
 nc _ rms _ rS  
2
 1
Step 5 The relative error between the reference signals and signals measured
during laboratory testing can be computed on a log scale per Equation
3.2.5.
  RMS _ l11   RMS _ l12   RMS _ l1S  
     
  RMS _ r11   RMS _ r12   RMS _ r1S  
 
  RMS _ l 21   RMS _ l 22   RMS _ l 2S  
     
RMS _ err  20log10   RMS _ r21   RMS _ r22   RMS _ r2S   (3.2.5)
JxS  
 
 
  RMS _ l J 1   RMS _ l J 2   RMS _ l JS  
  RMS _ r     
 J1   RMS _ rJ 2   RMS _ rJS  
Step 6 The RMS _ err matrix can be normalized by the weighting parameter
defined in Matrix Wt as illustrated in Equation 3.2.6.
  RMS _ err11 Wt11  RMS _ err12 Wt12  RMS _ err1S Wt1S  

 
  RMS _ err21 Wt 21  RMS _ err22 Wt22  RMS _ err2S Wt2S   (3.2.6)
RMS _ Nerr   
JxS
 
  RMS _ err Wt  RMS _ errJ 2 WtJ 2  RMS _ errJS Wt JS  
 J1 J1
Step 7 A Global-rms error may now be established for each time segment as
illustrated in Equation 3.2.7.
 J J 
Glob _ rms _ err     RMS _ Nerr U1, ,   RMS _ Nerr US  (3.2.7)
1xS  j 1 j 1 
The rms error produced in Step 7 above provides a global perspective to rms error
between the reference and laboratory data in which each control location is included
and weighted in terms of the energy within each time segment, s.
C.3.3. GLOBAL ASD ERROR
1. One of the most common frequency domain error metrics employed in TWR
testing is based upon comparisons of ASD ' s computed over a given time segment.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
The level of non-stationarity of a reference signal and/or similarities in the data over a
particular segment of time may be considered in selection of the time segment over
which the ASD is computed. While it is certainly easy to argue the usefulness of an
ASD estimate of non-stationary data, the technique is still useful in making a direct
comparison between field based reference signals and laboratory-based data from a
TWR test. A logical division of time segments is to select the segments to be as close
to piecewise stationary as possible.
2. As previously stated, the topic of this document is centered on establishing

global performance metrics for the MDOF TWR scenario. The steps that follow outline
one technique for consideration in viewing ASD results computed over multiple control
channels.
Step 1 The arrays r and l shown in Equation 3.3.1 represent respectively, the
JxN JxN
N point sampled reference and laboratory data for each of the J control
channels. Test-specific parameters such as sample frequency, Fs , and
filter settings, should be tracked by the test operator. It is assumed that
the time histories represented by Equation 3.3.1 will not have a bias, or
that any bias has been removed during pre-processing.
 r1(n )   l1 ( n ) 
   
 r2 (n )   l 2 (n ) 
r (n )  l (n )  n  1,2 N; (3.3.1)
JxN   JxN  
   
 rJ (n )   l J (n ) 
Step 2 The two matrices ASD _ rs and ASD _ l s shown in Equation 3.3.2
represent ASD estimates computed over time segment, s . The j index,
j  1, J , represents the control channel number and the f index,
BS
f  1, F , where , represents each spectral line of the ASD
F
2
estimate. For example, if Fs  1024 and the block-size  BS  used in the
estimate of the ASD is set to BS  512 , F  256 and the frequency
Fs
resolution would be f   2Hz . In computing the ASD estimates, the
BS
time segment, s , may be either the entire range n  1...N , or some subset
thereof.
 asd _ r11 asd _ r1F   asd _ l11 asd _ l1F 
   
ASD _ rs (f )    ASD _ l s    (3.3.2)
JxF
 asd _ rJF 
JxF
 asd _ l asd _ l JF 
 asd _ rJ 1  J1
Step 3 Observing that the columns of the two matrices shown in Equation 3.3.2
G2
represent the reference and laboratory test channels values for a
Hz

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
given spectral line as estimated over time segment, s , the individual

columns can be isolated and a weighting strategy developed across all
control channels for each spectral line. Equation 3.3.3 illustrates a 2-
norm computed for each column of the reference matrix ASD _ rs . Post
multiplication by indexing vector, U , provides a method of isolating an
individual column of interest.
nc _ asd _ rs 
1xF
  ASD _ r  U
s 1 2 ,  ASD _ rs  U2 2 , ,  ASD _ rs  UF 2

 1 0 0
      (3.3.3)
 0 1 0
where, U1  , U2    , ,UF   
Fx 1   Fx 1   Fx 1  
     
0 0  1
Step 4 Equation 3.3.4 demonstrates computation of a weighting factor for each
entry in the reference matrix ASD _ r based on a column normalization
to the corresponding 2-norm computed in Equation 3.3.3. This weighting
G2
factor may be considered in addressing error between the reference
Hz
and laboratory data.
  ASD _ r11 2  ASD _ r12 
2
 ASD _ r1F 
2

 
  nc _ asd _ r1   nc _ asd _ r2   nc _ asd _ rF  
2 2 2
 
  ASD _ r21   ASD _ r22   ASD _ r2F  
2 2 2
 2 
Wts    nc _ asd _ r1 2  nc _ asd _ r2 
2
 nc _ asd _ rF   (3.3.4)
JxF
 
 
 ASD _ r 2
  J1   ASD _ rJ 2   ASD _ rJF  
2 2
  nc _ asd _ r 2  nc _ asd _ r2 
2
 nc _ asd _ rF  
2
 1
Step 5 The relative error between the reference signals and signals measured
during laboratory testing can be computed on a log scale per Equation
3.3.5.
  ASD _ l11   ASD _ l12   ASD _ l1F  
     
  ASD _ r11   ASD _ r12   ASD _ r1F  
 
  ASD _ l 21   ASD _ l 22 
 
 ASD _ l 2F  
 
ASD _ errs  10log10   ASD _ r21   ASD _ r22   ASD _ r2F   (3.3.5)
JxF  
 
 
  ASD _ l J 1   ASD _ l J 2 
 
 ASD _ l JF  
 
 ASD _ r
 J1   ASD _ rJ 2   ASD _ rJF  
Step 6 The ASD _ err matrix can be normalized by the weighting parameter
defined in Matrix Wt as illustrated in Equation 3.3.6.

ANNEX C TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
  ASD _ err11 Wt11   ASD _ err12 Wt12   ASD _ err1F Wt1F  

 
  ASD _ err21 Wt 21   ASD _ err22 Wt22   ASD _ err2F Wt2F   (3.3.6)
ASD _ Nerrs   
JxF
 
  ASD _ err Wt   ASD _ errJ 2 WtJ 2   ASD _ errJF WtJF  
 J1 J1
Step 7 A Global ASD error may now be established for each time segment, s,
as illustrated in Equation 3.3.7.
 J J 
Glob _ asd _ errs     ASD _ Nerr U1, ,   ASD _ Nerr UF  (3.3.7)
1xF  j 1 j 1 
The ASD error spectrum produced in Step 7 above provides a global perspective to
ASD error between the reference and laboratory data in which each control location is
included, and weighted in terms of the energy at each spectral line.
C.3.4. GLOBAL SRS ERROR
As discussed in Method 525.1, significant transients that can be identified within a

reference time trace may be analyzed post-test using traditional SRS or pseudo
velocity SRS analysis. A global error technique for SRS analysis can be developed
with a slight variation of the ASD approach defined in paragraph C.3.3 above.
Specifically, as a substitute for indexing on a frequency line basis, index frequency on
a 1/12th octave basis using maxi-max acceleration within each 1/12th octave band.

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
ANNEX D PROCEDURE II MET (SPECTRAL DENSITY MATRIX (SDM)

SPECIFIC)
D.1. PROCEDURE II MET (FREQUENCY DOMAIN REFERENCE CRITERIA)
D.1.1. PREPROCESSING
Since placement and orientation of transducers are paramount in the conduct of MDOF
MET, performing a thorough pretest review is essential to overall test validity and
efficiency. Misalignment of one transducer will adversely affect the transfer function
matrix as a whole. To address these types of issues, take detailed measurements and
photographs of the actual setup (i.e., how and where the item was mounted) to aid in
proper laboratory setup (since it should mimic the field setup as accurately as possible).
In addition, once the test item and associated measurement and control
instrumentation are configured in the laboratory, examine phase and coherence
measurements between drive channels and control channels to make sure that input
points and their resultant responses are logical (e.g., a vertical input should largely
affect vertical responses at low frequencies). Ensure the spectral characteristics of the
control accelerometers and associated signal conditioning equipment have the same
spectral characteristics of the instrumentation used to make the original reference
measurements, or properly pre-condition data as required, to ensure proper phase
relationships between channels. Also, it is highly recommended that an FEM model of
the MET configuration be developed. A prior knowledge of the modal characteristics
of a laboratory-based MET system often proves to be of great value in addressing
undesired modal response through implementation of additional feedback to be
considered in the control scheme.
D.2. ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS FOR A PROCEDURE II MET
D.2.1. MESA AND MEMA SPECIFICATION PARAMETERS
The classical metrics addressed in Method 401 for control of SESA vibration tests are
insufficient for the analysis of a MET. In the conduct of either a MESA or MEMA
Procedure II vibration test, both auto-spectral density (ASD) and cross-spectral density
(CSD) terms are required test parameters. As one would expect, the configuration of
a MET will influence the reference spectral requirements. For example, consider
defining a random test for the two MET systems illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. Table
D-I illustrates a spectral density matrix (SDM) construct, for the 2-DOF MET shown in
Figure 2 and similarly, Table D-II illustrates the format of spectral information required
in specifying the 3-DOF MET of the system shown in Figure 3. Observe that the format
of a Spectral Density Matrix (SDM) consists of auto-spectral density (power spectral
density) terms on the diagonal and cross-spectral density terms on the off-diagonal.
Also, note the Hermitian structure for the case in which the SDM is square.

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
Table D-I: Reference Criteria for a 2-DOF Linear Motion Random MET
ASDz1z1  f  CSDz*1z 2  f 
CSDz1z 2  f  ASDz 2 z 2  f 
Table D-II: Reference Criteria for a 3-DOF Linear Motion Random MET
ASDxx  f  *
CSDxy f  *
CSDxz f 
CSDxy  f  ASDyy  f  *
CSDyz f 
CSDxz  f  CSDyz  f  ASDzz  f 
Ideally, field measurements will be available to define both auto and cross spectral
densities. One note regarding the development of vibration criteria for a Procedure II
MET is that, unlike the SESA case, it is difficult to develop a composite set of reference
spectra for a MEMA test. The difficulty lies primarily in the inability to characterize the
CSD terms across an ensemble of measurements. This issue is discussed in further
detail in Annex E.
D.2.1.1. Cross Spectral Density Structure
1. Most of the commercially available MET control systems provide a method of

entering the CSD terms in the form of relative phase and coherence. For example, if
one wished to conduct a vertical only test using the two-exciter configuration illustrated
in Figure 2, the ideal reference would be a phase setting of 0 degrees with a coherence
of 1.0. Similarly, if the motion desired was pure pitch, the ideal reference would be a
phase setting of 180 degrees with a coherence of 1.0. Unfortunately, selecting a
coherence setting of 1.0 results in a singular SDM. Furthermore, it is very rare to find
perfectly coherent measurements in practice due to noise and system non-linearities.
Experience has shown that when specifying highly coherent measurements in a MET,
a coherence selection that is slightly less than 1.0, (  ij = .95 to .98), greatly reduces the
numerical concerns associated with a singular SDM, and the desired frequency and
temporal characteristics are still achieved to a high degree.
2. Direct knowledge of the CSD characteristics of the field environment is desired

as the phasing characteristics between mechanical DOF’s may have a significant effect
on the response of the UUT. Modal characteristics of the UUT may highly influence
response dynamics as a function of the relative phasing of the reference (drive) signals.

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
D.2.2. CONTROL HIERARCHY
In earlier MET control algorithms as discussed in paragraph 7.1, reference 8, in the

hierarchy of control for a MET, correction of the ASD terms were generally given
priority. CSD terms were then corrected to the degree possible without corrupting the
ASD terms. In modern MET algorithms, the drive signals are updated such that the
SDM matrix has minimal mean-squared error. The degree of accuracy in replicating
the CSD terms in a MEMA test are often test-specific, and associated tolerances
should be tailored as appropriate. For example, consider a 6-DOF MET designed to
address functional performance of a component such as a gimbal-based stabilization
platform for which one may have interest in the rotational degrees of freedom to a
frequency that is much less than the full test bandwidth. For such cases, maintaining
accurate CSD characteristics between control points will be predefined by the test
performance objectives and the CSD characteristics at frequencies higher than the
bandwidth of the required functional test are not considered critical.
D.2.2.1. Measured Data Available
When in-service measurement data have been obtained, it is assumed that the data
are processed in accordance with good data analysis procedures (see paragraph 7.1,
references 4 and 5). In particular, an adequate number of statistical degrees-of-
freedom has been obtained to provide information with acceptable statistical error.
Consideration must be given to not only statistical error in auto-spectral density
estimates, but also in cross-spectral density estimates (including transfer, coherence
function estimates). For cross-spectral density transfer function estimates, it is
important to correctly diagnose the coherence or lack of coherence among
measurements. Low coherence implies that the vibration energy between
measurements is uncorrelated, so that multiple exciters may be employed without
cross-spectral information. Low coherence may also be viewed as a relaxation of strict
cross-spectral information and perhaps use of the cross-spectral information that
occurs naturally in the laboratory test configuration. Generally, careful attention must
be given to the field measurement configuration. In particular, the location of the
measurement points and qualification of the points as to whether they are structural
points on the materiel capable of describing overall vibration characteristics of the
materiel, or are response points on the materiel local to specific component response
definition of the materiel.
D.2.2.2. Measured Data Not Available
When measurement data are not available and only specification level auto-spectral
density information is available, it almost always needs to be assumed that excitation
environments are independent of one another (coherence values are near zero). In
addition, the effects of in-service and laboratory boundary condition impedance cannot
be assessed. Normal mode information from the materiel is important in allowing the
general decoupling of vibration modes of response. Careful attention must be given to
the specification of the “control” and “monitoring” measurement points. A control

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
measurement point would typically be on a structural member and describe the overall
vibration characteristics of the item. A monitoring measurement point would describe
local vibration characteristics that are relevant for a specific component. Paragraph
7.1, reference 10, provides information on extremes of excitation.
D.2.2.3. Use of 1-DOF References
Employing highly conservative vibration specifications originally designed for a 1-DOF

laboratory test as uncorrelated reference ASD’s for a MDOF test should be addressed
with caution. Vibration specifications developed for 1-DOF scenarios are often
purposely conservative, in part to account for the fact that no significant coupling
between mechanical DOF’s is expected in the laboratory. However, such coupling
between mechanical DOF’s is certainly possible in the field or in a MDOF laboratory
setting. Therefore, employing highly conservative spectra as references in a MDOF
test could yield uncharacteristically high response in the event the unit under test has
closely coupled structural modes between mechanical DOF’s. If the conservatism
characteristics of the 1-DOF references are clearly defined, it may be possible to
develop an alternative set of uncorrelated references with reduced conservatism to
address MDOF scenarios.
D.3. TEST TOLERANCES FOR A PROCEDURE II MET
In general, all test tolerances need to be established based on some comparison in the
frequency domain of the auto-spectral and cross-spectral density specifications with
the corresponding laboratory test measured auto-spectral and cross-spectral
information. Substantial reliance with respect to tolerances will be made on the auto-
spectral density information, with cross-spectral density information playing a
secondary role because of its reliance on measurement channel coherence for error
characterization. Basic comparison might be taken for nominal test tolerances
performed by the vendor-supplied MET software. Test laboratory personnel need to
consult the vendor-supplied MET system manuals for such tolerances, and have a very
clear understanding of the proper interpretation of the test tolerances. Unfortunately,
the question of reasonable tolerances in a MET is not simple. Generally, the test
tolerances prescribed in Method 401 for stationary random vibration are applicable for
auto-spectral density information derived from a MET. However, it is often necessary
to relax test tolerances on cross-spectral density information. Transfer function
estimates along with coherence, partial coherence and multiple coherence function
estimates may be necessary to assess the test tolerance questions. An experienced
analyst will be required in cases where multi-channel measurements must be assessed
for test tolerance assessment.
Since the test is run in real time, it is only necessary to ensure the reference input is
properly compensated before running the test. All MET strategies and vendor software
provide for very low level testing for establishing preliminary transfer function
information that may be updated for higher level testing. The updated transfer function

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
accounts for certain vibration system amplitude nonlinearities that may occur as the
general level of vibration is increased.
D.3.1. COMPOSITE (GLOBAL) ERROR DISCUSSION FOR PROCEDURE II
The same issues discussed in Annex C, paragraph C.3.1, apply to Procedure II MET.
However, for a Procedure II test, the time histories synthesized by the control system
will be wide sense stationary and Gaussian in nature. Therefore, the global error
discussion reduces to a discussion of the ASD and CSD error. Recall from the
discussion in paragraph D.2.2, that ASD is often given priority in the control scheme,
and that the degree of CSD accuracy required will be determined largely on a test-by-
test basis. Addressing global error will depend largely on the MET configuration and
control transducer placement. Translational and rotational degrees of freedom may be
viewed in a composite sense by averaging or weighting each transducer in a common
axis, or possibly by considering the composite ASD error across all axes as suggested
in Annex C, paragraph C.3.3. Translational degrees of freedom are readily computed
from direct accelerometer measurements, while rotational degrees of freedom may be
viewed in terms of the ASD computed from either direct angular motion measurements
or from estimates of rotations computed from linear accelerometers. When considering
estimates of rotational degrees of freedom based on linear accelerometers, refer to the
guidance and caution discussed in Annex C, paragraph C.2.2.

ANNEX D TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421

FOR MULTI-EXCITER APPLICATIONS
E.1. SCOPE
This Annex presents considerations and techniques for developing Laboratory

Vibration Test Schedules (LVTS) that can be utilized to simulate field vibration
environments on a vibration table. Laboratory vibration tests are used extensively in
lieu of more time-consuming and less cost effective field exposure tests. This Annex
specifically addresses random vibration testing controlled to frequency-domain
vibration spectra and is intended to address multiple “exciter” (also referred to as
“shaker” or “actuator”) scenarios with the emphasis on mechanical multiple degree-of-
freedom (MDOF) scenarios. There is a significant increase in complexity between
single-exciter/single-axis (SESA) and multiple-exciter/multiple-axis (MEMA) testing in
terms of both mechanics and control. MEMA specific issues ranging from definitions
and nomenclature consistency, to data analysis techniques, will be addressed.
E.2. FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION
E.2.1. FACILITIES
The development of a LVTS will require access to the test item of interest (or a
dynamically equivalent surrogate), access to the carrier vehicle, appropriately placed
transducers, signal conditioning and data acquisition hardware, and a controlled
environment for collecting input data (e.g., a road course for wheeled and/or tracked
vehicles, waterway for watercraft, airspace for aircraft, rotorcraft, and/or spacecraft).
E.2.2 INSTRUMENTATION
1. LVTSs are generally defined in terms of acceleration units. The transducer of

choice for making acceleration measurements is an accelerometer. This Annex will
address LVTS development in terms of acceleration.
2. It is strongly recommended that the same model of accelerometer and signal

conditioning is employed at all instrumented locations to preserve phase
characteristics during both the field acquisition and laboratory test phase of any MDOF
test. Refer to the guidelines in AECTP 401, MIL-STD-810G CN1 (reference E.5.1) and
Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (IEST) Recommended Practice
IEST-RP-DTE012.2 (reference E.5.2) for recommended accuracy of the transducers
and associated signal conditioning.
E-1 Edition D Version 1

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
E.3. REQUIRED TEST CONDITIONS
The primary function of Vibration Schedule Development (VSD) is to combine vibration

measurements of numerous events that collectively represent an item’s lifetime
vibration exposure (or some predefined subset thereof) into a manageable set of LVTS
representing the equivalent exposure. The most dynamically accurate method to
reproduce the full exposure would be to sequentially vibrate the system to all the
individual, uncompressed events representing its full lifecycle. However, such an
approach is generally not feasible from both schedule and economic perspectives and
some compromises must be made to realize the benefits of testing in the laboratory.
Time compression techniques based on fatigue equivalency are typically employed
such that vibration testing can be performed in a timely and economic manner. North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Allied Environmental Conditions Test Publication
(AECTP) 240, Leaflet 2410 (reference E.5.3) and Method 514.7 of MIL-STD-810G
CN1, provide general guidance for developing accurate representations, and issues
that should be considered during the VSD process for the SESA scenario. This Annex
expands upon the discussion in Leaflet 2410 to address the general multiple exciter
test scenario. Discussions will be limited to random LVTS development. At the time
of this publication, no commercially available multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO)
solutions exist for swept narrowband random on random (NBROR) or sine-on-random
(SOR) other than Procedure I - Time Waveform Replication based techniques.
E.3.1. TEST CONFIGURATIONS
The MIMO random vibration test problem can refer to several configurations. One
configuration is multiple exciters driving a single test item in one axis. This
configuration is often used for large test items too large for a single exciter. A second
configuration is the excitation of a single test item with multiple exciters in more than
one axis. Linear displacements along defined directions are referred to as translation
degree-of-freedom (DOF) and angular displacements along those same directions are
referred to as rotation DOFs. Up to six DOFs exist for a rigid body (i.e., X-, Y-, Z-
translations and roll, pitch, yaw rotations). In some cases, additional DOFs can be
excited due to deformations of the test article and/or testing an item with articulating
components.
E.3.1.1. Basic Representation of a MIMO System
All MIMO test systems are discussed using a common description in terms of matrix
equations (see references E.5.2, E.5.4, and E.5.5). A simplified version of the general
MIMO random vibration test problem can be generalized in Figure E-1. The complete
mechanical system is characterized by the power amplifiers and a system of several
exciters, on which is mounted a single test article. The response of the test article is
monitored by a vector of response channels (represented as {c}). Each element in the
vector is typically the acceleration time history from a single accelerometer. Other
types of sensors can be used, with attention paid to the nature of the measurements
relative to the test item and other sensors. The power amplifiers are driven by a vector

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
of electrical drives (represented as {d}), generated by a control system. Each element

in the vector is a time history driving a single shaker. The control system monitors the
response of the test item {c}, and attempts to produce drive signals {d}, such that the
statistics of the control signals meet some criteria as specified in the test specifications.
d { c}
Power Amplifiers
Vibration Shakers
Test Article
Signal Acquisition
[H]
Control System
Test Specifications
Figure E-1: Basic Representation of a MDOF System
E.3.1.2. Generalized Representation of a MIMO System
A more generalized MIMO system is shown in Figure E-2. A system under test is
driven by Ns shakers resulting in the response of Na control accelerometers. The
accelerometer data are typically structured in blocks. Each of the acceleration records
will then be a vector of time samples. Some control systems then provide for a
transformation matrix, Ta, to convert the block of Na accelerometer time histories to Nc
control variables. The Spectral Density Matrix (SDM) of the control variables is then
estimated from the current block of data and previous data. The transformation matrix,
Ta, is typically a constant independent of frequency. In theory the transformation matrix
could be applied before or after the estimation of the control SDM. The estimated
control SDM, C is then compared with the reference SDM, R, and a correction is
computed for the drive SDM, D. The drive time histories {d} are then computed from
the drive SDM, D, using time domain randomization. A second transformation matrix,
Ts, is employed to transform the Nd drive variables into Ns shaker drive signals. In
theory, Ts could be implemented before or after the transformation into the time
domain. One advantage of placing the transformation in the frequency domain section
of the control algorithm is that the matrix could then be made a function of frequency.
Having the transformation matrix, Ts, a constant assumes the shakers are matched
and the desired transformation can be deduced.

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
System under test

{s} Ns shakers driving a test item resulting in {a}
Voltage Na accelerometer response measurements Acceleration
drives to return
shakers signals
Ns x1
Ts Na x1
Drive to
shaker voltage Ta
transformation Acceleration
{d} matrix transformation
matrix
Drive Ns x Nd
Nc x Na
variables
Nd x1
Reference SDM
R
{c}
Time domain Control
randomization Nd x Nc
variables
Nd x Nd Nc x1
Internal system Estimate
[D] feedback control [c] SDM
Drive Nd x Nc Control C
variables SDM Nc x Nc
Nd x Nd Nc x Nc
Figure E-2: Generalized Representation of a MDOF System
E.3.2. GENERALIZED MDOF VIBRATION CONTROL DISCUSSION
1. A general discussion of the MDOF control process is provided for insight as to

how the MDOF LVTS will serve as the reference in the control process. The purpose
of the control loop is to minimize the difference between the reference and the control
signals by making corrections to the drive signals. The correction can be computed in
several ways. One method is to compute the drive from:
ˆ
D  ZRZ'
where the system impedance matrix, Z, is updated as new information is gathered, or

a modified reference spectrum, R̂ , is computed based on the error in the return
spectrum. The initial drive vector is typically computed using the above equation and
the reference SDM. A drive signal error can also be computed from:
De  Z(R  C)Z'

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
Sometimes an adaptive correction is used. Sometimes a combination of all methods

is used.
2. The transformation matrices are often called the input and output transformation
matrices. One should be careful with this nomenclature because of the confusion
between input and output. The input to the system under test (voltages to the power
amplifiers or servo controllers) is the output of the control system. The output of the
system under test (such as accelerometer measurements) is the input to the control
system. Paragraphs E.4.4.1 and E.4.4.2 provide the nomenclature employed for input
and output transformations, as they are applied within this document.
3. Minor errors in the matching of shakers can be corrected by the control

algorithm, but major mismatches could be problematic. The time domain drive signals
(represented by {s}), are sent to the shakers completing the control loop.
d. If Ta is not available, then Na = Nc and {a} = {c}. If Ts is not available, then

Nd = Ns and {d} = {s}. If Nd = Nc, the number of control variables and the number of
drive variables are the same. This is referred to as square control. Square control is
the most common control method. If Ns > Na the system is over-actuated and least
squares approach using a pseudo inverse (pinv) is typically used to determine the drive
signals. If Ns < Na the system is under-actuated and exact control of the control SDM
is often not possible. In such cases, some kind of average control is usually
implemented. Often when Ns ≠ Na some combination of the transformation matrices
are often used to force square control, Nd = Nc.
4. The entire mechanical system can be characterized by a matrix of frequency

response functions [H]. For the typical case, these frequency response functions will
have units of g/V (acceleration in gravitational units/volts of drive). For the typical case,
the control signals are characterized by a SDM. The diagonal elements are the
autospectral density (ASD or PSD) of the control signals. The off diagonal elements
are the cross spectral densities (CSD) between pairs of control signals. The input to
the system is characterized by the SDM of the voltage drive signals. The fundamental
relationship between the drives and the control signals is given by:
C  HDH'
The complex conjugate transpose is denoted by [ ]’. All of the matrices in the equation
are complex functions of frequency. The spectral density matrix is Hermitian 6, i.e.
Dij  D ji * where D ji * is the complex conjugate of D ji , and D ji is an element from a
spectral density matrix. Note that this requirement demands that the diagonal elements
are real. Note that C and D are square matrices; they have the same number of rows
and columns. C and D are the same size only if H is square, i.e. the same number of
inputs and outputs. To be physically realizable, the SDM must also be positive semi-
definite. This requirement will be discussed in paragraph E.4.5.2.

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
5. The drive spectral density matrix is converted into the drive time histories using
the method of time domain randomization (see reference E.5.4). The spectral density
matrix is typically estimated using Welch’s method (see reference E.5.7).
E.4. TEST PROCEDURES
VSD requires a thorough knowledge of the dynamic environment to which the test
hardware will be exposed when fielded. This knowledge must include characterization
of the exposure levels and durations for all relevant conditions.
E.4.1. DEVELOPMENT OF MISSION OR LIFETIME SCENARIO
The duration of the vibration environments can be derived from the item’s Life Cycle
Environment Profile (LCEP). The life cycle will include many different types of induced
mechanical environments which may occur while the materiel is being handled,
transported, deployed and operated. Although all the induced mechanical
environments are not critical in terms of generating potential damaging response
amplitudes, they contribute in varying degrees to the materiel’s fatigue damage. All
expected exposure conditions should be tabulated, along with corresponding
durations, to form the items lifetime “scenario”. The scenario is a key parameter in the
development of any vibration schedule.
E.4.2. LIMITATIONS
The mechanical degrees of freedom (DOFs) for which a VSD effort is capable of
addressing, is a function of the number and placement of the transducers employed in
the field data acquisition phase. Similarly, the maximum number of mechanical DOFs
possible to reproduce in the laboratory environment is a function of the number and
placement of actuators and coupling hardware. This Annex will consider the general
case for VSD development in which the reference SDM will be defined in terms of the
six classical (3-translational and 3-rotational) rigid body mechanical DOFs. In the event
less than six mechanical DOFs are being considered, the generalized theory is easily
configured to address the motion of interest.
E.4.3. FIELD DATA ACQUISTION
When in-service measurement data have been obtained, it is assumed that the data is
processed in accordance with good data analysis procedures, as in Multi-Shaker Test
and Control IEST-RP-DTE022.1 (reference E.5.8) and Welch’s method. In particular,
an adequate number of statistical degrees of freedom (DOFs) have been obtained to
provide information with acceptable statistical error. Consideration must be given to
not only statistical error in auto-spectral density estimates, but also in cross-spectral
density estimates (including transfer and coherence function estimates).

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
E.4.3.1. Instrumentation
For the purpose of this Annex, all instrumentation related discussions will be limited to
linear accelerometers and engineering units of g’s, as was the case in the general
control discussion provided in paragraph 3.1.1. Linear accelerometers have several
advantages including familiarity to most users, low cost, wide bandwidth, small size
and weight, and readily available low cost highly reliable signal conditioning options.
E.4.4. USE OF RIGID BODY MODES
1. In single axis testing, the control input is often defined with a single
accelerometer. This is satisfactory if the shaker and test fixtures are rigid within the
frequency band of interest. If the shaker and test fixtures are not rigid, the technique
of using a single accelerometer for control can sometimes lead to serious difficulty. To
overcome these problems, methods using the average of several accelerometers
and/or force limiting have come into common practice. In MEMA testing, the problem
can be more serious as non-rigid body response is more common. When considering
the special case of multiple shakers exciting a test item with multiple rigid body degrees
of freedom, the use of the input transformation to define the response in terms of rigid
body modes has several advantages. It is somewhat analogous to a generalization of
the common practice for single axis testing. If there are more control channels than
rigid body degrees of freedom, and an input transformation matrix is defined to
transform the control accelerometers into rigid body modes, one essentially defines the
motion of each rigid body mode as a weighted average of the accelerometers active
for the mode. In many cases, given the control authority of the shakers, this is about
the best viable solution. It is analogous to averaging accelerometers for a single axis
test, which is common practice. The elastic modes are not controlled, since often the
control authority over these modes does not exist. The system is driven with an
equivalent rigid body motion in each of the rigid body modes. It is necessary to make
sure that for any mode the transformation of the control accelerometers {a} does not
result in zero for any of the rigid body modes. If higher flexural modes are present they
will not be controlled. In theory the flexural modes can be limited by adding control
variables, but this requires knowledge of the modes in the test setup. This information
can only be determined with materiel in the test configuration. For this reason, it is
sometimes desirable to allow modification of the test requirements after this information
is made available. Exactly how this will be accomplished in specification writing will
have to be determined at a later date.
2. An advantage of using rigid body modes in the specification is that the field
measurements used to define the environment can be made with the transducers in
locations different from the locations of the transducers used in the laboratory test. The
field measurements are reduced to equivalent rigid body modes using an acceleration
transformation matrix (refer to paragraph E.4.4.1), and the modes are controlled on the
test using another transformation matrix for the laboratory test configuration. The two
transformation matrices do not have to be the same. Use of alternate control points,

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
while maintaining a full rank transformation matrix, provides a way of making the
laboratory test “equivalent” in the sense of the rigid body modes.
3. A practical difficulty arises when more modes are attempted to be controlled.

The general case of six (6) rigid body modes requires the specification of a 6 x 6 SDM
(6 ASD’s and 15 CSD’s). Physical understanding of the SDM matrix associated with
rigid-body motion by itself is difficult without the additional complications of elastic
DOFs. Furthermore, it is difficult to assure that the specification results in a positive
definite SDM, which is a physical requirement. (Additional discussion on positive
definite matrices is the subject of paragraph E.4.5.2.)
E.4.4.1. Acceleration (Input) Transformation
The acceleration to control space transformation matrix, Ta , commonly referred to as

the “input transformation matrix” from the control system perspective, is defined in the
article “Applying Coordinate Transformations to Multi-DOF Shaker Control” (Reference
E.5.9) and generalized in the article “Benefits and Challenges of Over-Actuated
Excitation Systems” (reference E.5.10). The acceleration transformation matrix
transforms a set of accelerometer measurements into a set of control variables. Often
these control variables are descriptions of rigid body modes. The acceleration
transformation is usually performed in the time domain as:
c = Ta a
E.4.4.1.1. Acceleration (Input) Transformation Derivation
One goal of this Annex is to define a standard nomenclature. The following summary
has been restructured to the nomenclature defined by this Annex. Referring to the
input transformation derivation (see reference E.5.10), a generic acceleration
measurement at the k th position in orientation j is structured as Equation 4.1:
 P aPo 
ak j  e j  
e  r    (4.1)
T T P P
 j   P P 
i
  
where a0 is the linear acceleration at some reference point designated the “origin”,  is
the angular acceleration of the body (assuming it is rigid), k  1, 2, ..., Na  , i  1, 2, ..., n  ,
j   x, y , z  and eTx  1 0 0 , eTy  0 1 0 , and eTz  0 0 1 are row selection vectors
(as shown assuming accelerometer orientation is aligned per a traditional right hand
Cartesian system). Parameter Na represents the number of accelerometer
measurements (as previously defined) and n   Na the number of measurement
locations; e.g., utilization of multi-axis accelerometers results in n   Na . Vector ri is the
position vector relating the position of measurement location i to a user defined origin.

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421

 P r i P  is the skew symmetric operator equivalent of the cross product, making the
 
matrix based computations in Equation 4.1 possible. The matrix equivalent of a vector

(i.e., a coordinatized vector quantity) is denoted as    where the right superscript
and subscript identify the body and point of interest respectively, and the left
superscript denotes the coordinate frame in which the vector quantity was
P P
coordinatized; e.g., r i in Equation 4.1 denotes the ith point on body P (the platform)
coordinatized in frame F P - the platform’s coordinate frame.
E.4.4.1.2. Equation 4.1
Equation 4.1 represents one equation in six unknowns, the three components of the
linear acceleration of the reference point and the three components of the rigid body
angular acceleration. In order to determine these quantities, at least six measurements
are needed. These requirements are not as stringent as that reported in the article “On
the Use of Linear Accelerometers in Six-DOF Laboratory Motion Replication”
(reference E.5.11) because of the assumptions above (i.e., small angular velocities
and rigid body). Let’s consider the most general case of Na measurements from n*
locations. In this case, Equation 4.1 becomes:
 T e j  r 1  
T P P 
 a1j  e j 
    P P
P P   a 
a2 j  eTj e j  r i    o 
T
ak     
 j   

  P P  , i  1, 2, ..., n , j   x, y , z 
     
a   T    61
 n j  e e j  r n  
T P P
 n1  j 
 n 6 
which using the nomenclature defined in this Annex is of the form:

aMeas = Ta  cMotion (4.2)
n×1 n×6  6×1
where cMotion is a 6 x 1 matrix of unknown linear and angular accelerations and aMeas
is an nx1 matrix of acceleration measurements. Observe that Ta  is entirely defined
by knowledge of (i) placement, (ii) orientation, and (iii) utilized signals of the
accelerometers.
-1
Observe that if Ta is of full column rank, then TaT Ta  exists enabling cMotion to be
solved as follows:
aMeas = Ta cMotion
TaT aMeas = TaT Ta cMotion
-1 -1
TaT Ta  TaT aMeas = TaT Ta  TaT Ta cMotion
-1
TaT Ta  TaT aMeas = cMotion

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
-1
Defining Ta  TaT Ta  TaT , Equation 4.2 can be rewritten as:
cMotion = Ta aMeas (4.3)
Where  Ta  is a 6 x n matrix referred to in the literature as the “Acceleration Transform

-1
Matrix” or “Input Transform Matrix”. Observe that the critical requirement that TaT Ta 
exists in order to derive the input transformation matrix  Ta  , is solely a function of
placement and orientation of measurement transducers.
E.4.4.2. Drive (Output) Transformation
1. Although details of the Drive Transformation are not required to develop a

MDOF VSD reference, a short summary of the concept is provided for general
knowledge. Referring to the schematic in Figure E-2, transformation matrix Ts
transforms the Nd drive variables into Ns shaker drive signals. Reference E.5.10
provides a formal derivation of the transformation matrix, Ts. Note that while the
“acceleration transformation” was computed based on knowledge of position and
polarity of the control accelerometers, the transformation matrix, Ts is dependent upon
the position and line of action (LOA) of the individual actuators. In this Annex and
within reference E.5.10, Ts is referred to as the “drive transformation” or “output
transformation”. The following cases summarize the computation of Ts and the effect
on the control process.
a. Case 1: Configurations in which the number of motion degrees-of-

freedom or control signals, Nc and the number of output control variables,
Nd are the same is referred to as “square” control. If the number of output
control variables, Nd and the number of shakers, Ns is the same, the
transformation matrix, Ts will simply be the Identity matrix.
b. Case 2: Configurations in which the number of shakers Ns exceeds the

number of output control variables Nd , the excitation system is said to be
over-determined or over-actuated. In such cases, some of the drives will
be linear combinations of other drives. Furthermore, if Ts is a constant
which is employed in the time domain, the individual actuators must be
matched (e.g. matched frequency response functions (FRFs)).
c. Case 3: Configurations in which the number of shakers, Ns is less than

the number of control signals, Nc , the excitation system is said to be
under-determined or under-actuated. In such cases, exact control of the
SDM is not possible.

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
2. In theory, Ts could be implemented before or after the transformation into the

time domain. One advantage of placing the transformation in the frequency domain
section of the control algorithm is that the matrix could then be made a function of
frequency. Having the transformation matrix, Ts, a constant assumes the shakers are
matched and the desired transformation can be deduced.
E.4.4.2.1. Drive (Output) Transformation Derivation
1. As previously stated, one goal of this Annex is to recommend a standard

nomenclature. The following summary from reference E.5.10 has been restructured to
the nomenclature recommended by this Annex. Figure E-3 illustrates the generalized
multi-axis vibration system.
Platform FP Platform
P2
CP P3 Pr CP Pi
F2 P
P1 ri
W F3 Fr Mi
F1  i uˆ i
R
Fi
Br
B2 B Bi
B1 CB ri
CB B3
Base O
FB
Base
(a) (b)
Figure E-3: Generalized Multi-Axis Vibration System
2. Refer to reference E.5.10 for a detailed derivation of Equation 4.4. The following
summary illustrates how the output transform, Ts is associated with the P-Matrix,
(Plucker Matrix) discussed in the reference.
 f1 
 B uˆ1 B
uˆ 2
B
u Ns  f2  
ˆ 
 
  B P B

B
m aC  g  F E 

   
(4.4)
 P m1P

P
m2
P P P

m Ns    P P P P P  P P P P
 
   I C     I C   M E 
P
 
fNs 
P F C
6 xN s N s x1 6 x1

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
In Equation 4.4, P represents the Plucker Matrix which is derived from known
geometric parameters associated with the individual actuators, F represents the
drive and C represents the desired motion. The variables B
uˆi represent the LOA
vectors for each of the actuators and P miP is the moment arm associated with force fi .
Observe that the maximum dimension for the C matrix will be six, if all six traditional
motion DOFs are being considered (i.e., Nd  6 ). As stated in paragraph E.4.4.2,
Case 1 scenarios will simply have an identity matrix as the output transformation matrix
and Case 3 scenarios (under-actuated) will not have a unique solution. Case 2
scenarios (over-actuated) may be addressed in terms of output transformations. The
objective is to determine F in Equation 4.4, yielding the Ns drive signals as follows:
T T
a. Define F  P D and substitute into P F  C yielding P P DC
Ns x1 Ns x 6 6 x1 6 xNs Ns x1 6 x1 6 xNs Ns x 6 6 x1 6 x1
P P will be of full rank (i.e. invertible) if P is of full rank.

T
b.
6 xNs Ns x 6
1
If P is of full rank: D   P P  C
T
(1)
6 x1  6 xN N x 6  6 x1 s s
(2) If P is not full rank, actuator placement is not sufficient to obtain
the mechanical DOF’s desired.
(3) Substituting results from (2) yields
1
F  P
T
D P
T  P P T C
Ns x 1 Ns x 6 6 x1 Ns x 6 6 xNs Ns x 6  6 x1
1
(4) Ts  P
T  P P T
Ns x 6 Ns x 6  6 xNs Ns x 6 
The discussions within this paragraph and previous derivation assumed Nd  6 . In the
event Nd  6 , N d would represent the actual number of mechanical DOFs. In terms of
the nomenclature of Figure E-2, and assuming matched actuators are employed,
voltage drives to the shakers for the over-actuated scenario would be defined as
Equation 4.5:
s = Ts d (4.5)
E.4.5. DATA ANALYSIS
1. Ensure transducer placements have been addressed, to guarantee the desired

motion DOFs may be resolved (refer to paragraph E.4.4.1.2), and that common data
validity checks are performed. Then, it is recommended that appropriate combinations
of the linear acceleration measurements be transformed into the desired traditional
motion DOFs through implementation of the acceleration transformation matrix. The

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
transformed time histories will be referenced to a single point on the structure referred
to as the “origin” as discussed in paragraph E.4.4.1.
2. A SDM for each test configuration identified in the mission scenario should be
computed. In addressing the VSD techniques for reducing an ensemble of data, in this
case an ensemble of SDM’s, the analyst will be required to deal with the ASD terms
(the diagonal terms of the SDM) and CSD terms (the off-diagonal terms of the SDM).
E.4.5.1. Phase and Coherence Based Representations of CSD Terms
Although the off-diagonal terms of the SDM are computed in terms of a CSD, it is
common among control system vendors to allow cross terms to be defined in terms of
Phase and Coherence. This is a convenient option in that it is often easier to physically
interpret SDM CSD terms in terms of Phase and Coherence. There is a direct
relationship between the two techniques of defining the cross terms of the SDM that is
2
Gij
dependent upon the definition of ordinary coherence between two signals,   2
ij .
Gii G jj
Normalizing the CSD terms of the SDM by GiiGjj yields a normalized spectral density
matrix (SDMn) in which the ASD terms are not affected and the magnitude of the
Gij
normalized CSD terms are defined as , which is equivalent to the square root
Gii G jj
of the ordinary coherence function, while not affecting the original phase relationship
of the CSD terms. Similarly, the normalized spectral density matrix, SDM n, may be
transformed back to the original CSD form of the SDM.
E.4.5.2. Positive Definite SDM Considerations
1. Any specified spectral density matrix must be positive semi-definite to be

physically realizable. In practice it must be positive definite. The determinate of the
matrix must be ≥0. All the eigenvalues of the SDM must be ≥0. This must be true at
all frequencies. It must be possible to perform a Cholesky decomposition of the
specified SDM. Another property of positive semi definite matrices is from Matrix
Computations (see reference E.5.12):
2
2  ij
 ij   ii  jj or 0 2
1
 ii  jj
2
In the terms of random vibrations the ordinary coherence,  between signals must be
less than or equal to one. In practical terms, if the coherence between any pair of
signals is one, the SDM will be positive semi-definite and the control system will have
problems. Note that in general, if D is Hermitian and positive semi-definite C will also
be Hermitian and positive semi-definite.

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
2. If all the eigenvalues are non-negative, the matrix is positive semi-definite. If

any of the eigenvalues are zero, it implies that one or more of the rows of the spectral
density matrix are a linear combination of other rows. In practice, one would typically
expect to deal only with positive definite matrices. Observe that even a small amount
of noise or nonlinearity will result in a positive definite matrix. If a matrix is positive
definite, the matrix can always be factored using Cholesky decomposition,
Φ  LL'
where L is a lower triangular matrix. Which without loss of generality can be rewritten
as,
Φ  LIL'
where I is the identity matrix. In this application, I is not really the identity matrix. I is
a spectral density matrix. At every frequency, I is a diagonal matrix of ones. The
components in I are independent since all the off diagonal elements are zero. It is now
clear why the cross spectral density matrix must be positive definite. If any of the
elements in I are zero, it implies that there are less than N (the number of rows or
columns in Φ ) independent sources in Φ . Some of the rows and columns are linear
combinations of other rows and columns. The identity matrix is positive definite,
therefore Φ must be positive definite. Using the interpretation of Random Data
Analysis and Measurement Procedures13, the diagonal elements of I can be interpreted
as the auto-spectral densities of independent random noise sources. The maximum
number of independent noise sources is N. If some of the elements in I are zero, the
problem can still be solved by making the corresponding rows and columns of L zero.
This is the positive semi-definite case. This case corresponds to the case where there
exists less than N independent sources. Some of the N sources are linear
combinations of other sources. This case will be very difficult for the control system.
In general one may make some of the sources small but not zero. Part of this document
will discuss the generation of a desired control SDM to make the control problem
achievable and hopefully relatively easy for the control system to implement.
3. In general the control problem is an inverse problem. The desired control SDM
(the output of the system under test) is known, and the drive (input to the system under
test) SDM must be computed. There is a potential point of confusion here. The control
system manufacturers treat the drive SDM as the output of the control system, which
is the input to the shaker system. Similarly, the control system input is the output of
the shaker system. Paragraphs E.4.4.1 and E.4.4.2 provide nomenclature employed
for input and output transformations as they are applied within this document.
4. Inverse problems can be very difficult as multiplication by a matrix inverse is

required. If the matrix is ill-conditioned, the result will be similar to dividing by zero for
the scalar case.

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
For the case in which the number of inputs and outputs are the same; H is a square
matrix of FRF’s. The solution is to invert H. The solution for the drive matrix is then
given by:
Z  H1
D  ZRZ'
This of course assumes H is well-conditioned and the inverse exists. Part of this
document will discuss issues to help the process of achieving a well-conditioned H
matrix.
The H matrix is typically estimated from:
Hˆ  Sˆ CDDˆ 1
The inverse of D̂ must exist. This implies that D̂ must be positive definite. The initial
estimate of H is determined by exciting the system with a set of independent white
inputs in a pretest environment. If H is to be corrected during the test, D̂ must be
positive definite during the test or special provisions must be used to avoid the
inversion of D̂ at frequencies where D̂ is not positive definite. This is one of the reasons
the reference R rarely has any of the coherences equal to unity.
E.4.5.3. Data Compression
1. Use of time compression techniques such as Miner-Palmgren may be employed

to modify the ASD terms. References E.5.1 and E.5.3 provide discussions on time
compression. In the simplest terms, the Miner-Palmgren Hypothesis (Miner’s rule) is
a set of mathematical equations used to scale vibration spectra levels and their
associated test times. It provides a convenient means to analyse fatigue damage
resulting from cyclical stressing. The mathematical expression and variable
descriptions for this technique are illustrated in Equation 4.6:
M
t2  S1 
  (4.6)
t1  S2 
where:
t1 = equivalent test time
t2 = in-service time for specified condition
S1 = severity (root mean square ((rms)) at test condition
S2 = severity (rms) at in-service condition
(The ratio S1 S2 is commonly known as the exaggeration factor.)

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
M = a value based on (but not equal to) the slope of the S-N curve for the appropriate
material where S represents the stress amplitude and N represents the mean number
of constant amplitude load applications expected to cause failure. For the MDOF VSD
work at hand, the default of M  7 was selected per reference E.5.1.
2. It is recommended that the final vibration specification ASD terms are no greater
than 3 decibel (dB) higher than maximum values measured in the field. Miner-
Palmgren will be employed to the ASD portion of the SDM in the same manner as one
would employ for a traditional 1-DOF scenario. Details such as maintain common test
durations between mechanical DOFs are addressed in paragraph E.6.
E.4.5.4. Limiting Strategies
Traditional notching techniques may also be employed if impedance mismatches lead

to unrealistically high test item response. Notching techniques may be employed
across all actuators with equal weighting or by weighting notching at each actuator as
a function of coherence between the actuators and the location of interest. In addition
to traditional notching based on acceleration spectra, it is also possible to consider
limiting based on other parameters (e.g., von Mises Stress or Force limiting). As with
any notching scheme, it is critical that any resulting deviations to the test or test
tolerances must be approved by the appropriate test authority and must be clearly
documented in the test plan and final report.
E.4.5.5. Minimum Drive Considerations
A number of challenges have been identified in addressing the objective of establishing

a reference SDM for multiple exciter test (MET) scenarios. One major area of concern
is related to the fact that it is highly likely that there will be mechanical impedance
differences between the field and laboratory conditions. Given these impendence
mismatch issues, it is undesirable to force the test item into what could potentially be
an unnatural state as fixtured in the laboratory. Optimally, achieving the specified
autospectra without excessively taxing the excitation system is desired. Smallwood
made a general approach to establishing minimum drive criteria in the article “MIMO
Linear Systems Extreme Inputs/Outputs” (reference E.5.14). Unfortunately, the
technique does not always guarantee the resulting SDM to be positive semi-definite.
E.4.5.5.1. Independent Drives
Although an active area of research, general techniques to address minimum drive

criteria have not been formally established at the time of this publication. A proposed
approach for trending drive voltages towards minimums while maintaining a positive-
definite SDM, is discussed in the article “A Proposed Method to Generate a Spectral
Density Matrix for a MIMO Vibration Test” (reference E.5.15), and is summarized
below:
a. Taking a clue from the modal test community, assume the drive signals
to the excitation system will be uncorrelated. Typically for a vibration test,

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
the drives are the voltage inputs to the shakers. For a simulation, the
inputs into a model are often forces. It is always possible to excite the
system with uncorrelated inputs. This is standard practice in the modal
community, and is standard practice when performing the system
identification for MIMO test systems. This leads to the logical question:
Is it possible to generate a set of uncorrelated inputs that will produce a
desired set of response autospectra (the diagonal of the output SDM)?
b. The general equation relating the control point accelerations to the drive
voltages is given in Random Vibrations, Theory and Practice (reference
E.5.16):
SY  HSXH'
where H' is the conjugate transpose of H , and SX and SY are SDM’s. H
is a matrix of frequency response functions relating the output to the input
of the excitation system. In our case, ideally, SX will be a diagonal matrix.
Let X be a column vector of the diagonal of SX or, X  diag(SX ) , and
Y  diag( S Y ) . The relationship between the autospectra, as shown in
Appendix D proof 1, is given by:
Y  HX
where:
H  Η. * conj(H)
where: * indicates an element by element multiplication. Hij | Hij |2 .
The solution is given by:

X  H1Y
In some cases the result will include negative elements in X . This is not physically
possible. It indicates that the desired ASD’s cannot be achieved with independent
drives. In this case the negative values are set to zero, and the output SDM is
recomputed from SY  HSXH' using the modified input spectral density matrix (the
negative values set to zero). The resulting control point acceleration autospectra,
will not be at the desired levels. To correct this problem, the control point acceleration
autospectra are rescaled to the desired levels, keeping the phase and ordinary
coherence the same. This is accomplished by pre and post multiplying the SDM by
a diagonal matrix whose elements are the square root of the ratio of the desired ASD
to the computed ASD:
SYnew  Ss SYoldSs
where Ss is a diagonal matrix and:

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
Yii ,new
Ss,ii 
Yii ,old
Note: Setting SYii,new=1, provides an efficient way to compute the normalized

SDM where the diagonals are one and the magnitude of the off diagonals squared
are the ordinary coherence and the phase of the off diagonal elements is the
phase of the cross spectra.
The drive SDM can then be computed as:

SXnew  ZSYnew Z'
where Z  pinv(H) , the Moore-Penrose pseudo inverse. If H is square and full rank, the
solution typically ends here. If H is not square or not full ranked:
SYnew  HSXnew H'
The diag(SYnew ) may not yield the desired ASD’s. In this case, an iterative approach
will often improve the result.
E.4.6. INDEPENDENT REFERENCES
1. It is sometimes desirable to define the reference spectrum in terms of a diagonal

matrix of autospectra. Several reasons drive us in this direction. One common
case is that only knowledge of the autospectra from the field environments is
available. Several factors can result in this situation. First the field data may
have been acquired without phase information. Second, the resulting cross
spectra can have a very complicated structure which is impractical to implement
in a specification. Enveloping amplitudes is possible, but enveloping the phase
is much more difficult. Third, the specification may be a composite of several
environments, making the definition of cross spectra very difficult. Fourth, the
vehicle on which the field data were taken may not be identical to the test
vehicle. Fifth, the boundary conditions in the field may be different from the
boundary conditions in the laboratory.
2. Small changes in the modal frequencies caused by any of the above factors can
change the phase at any frequency near a mode by a large amount. All these
factors make the specification of the cross spectra difficult. An option is to ignore
the cross spectra and set them all to zero. This has the theoretical advantage
of providing an excitation that in some sense covers the control variable
response space.
3. The drive signals can readily be computed yielding uncorrelated motion (in this
case the SDM of the uncorrelated reference spectra Y is diagonal) from:
SX0  ZSY0 Z'

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
This approach is currently available in commercial control systems. You simply specify
the reference SDM as a diagonal matrix with the cross spectra (or equivalently the
coherences) zero or near zero. This is typically a conservative approach.
4. In contrast to the independent drive discussion in paragraph E.4.5.5.1, the

danger with the independent reference concept is that this specification of control
variables may be overly conservative near frequencies dominated by a single mode.
An important clue that the result may be overly conservative is the trace of the drive
voltages. This trace should be monitored and if overly large in some band of
frequencies, limits can be negotiated and implemented.
E.4.7. RECOMMENDED PRACTICES SUMMARY
The following list provides recommendations and general guidance to be considered

when addressing the multi-axis VSD.
a. If possible, specify the test in terms of the rigid body motion.
b. Over specification of the control accelerometers is desirable. Use more

control accelerometers than degrees of freedom in the test.
c. If possible, the entire SDM should be specified. A method to automate

the generation of envelopes may be desired. This will permit the
generation of the envelopes to be less developer specific.
d. If the entire SDM is specified, it is suggested that the coherence be set

to near zero if the desired coherence is below 0.2. It should be
recognized that the estimation of coherence is a biased result (the result
will always be positive). It is recognized that the estimated coherence
will never be zero; however, the control software can attempt to make the
coherence as low as possible. The tolerance on the coherence must
recognize the bias. If the coherence is small the phase is not important.
For convenience, establishing a zero phase is a reasonable specification
when the coherence is low.
e. If step c becomes too complicated, it is recommended that the test be

run with near zero coherence.
f. If step e results in unrealistic responses, try using the independent drive

option.
g. Consider a compromise position between independent reference criteria

of step e and independent drive criteria as recommended in step f.

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
h. If the drive requirements are excessive at some frequencies, allow the

test to be modified to reduce the drive requirements as discussed in
paragraphs E.4.5.4 and E.4.5.5.
i. It is understood that MIMO testing is more complicated than single-input

single output (SISO) testing. The specifications must reflect the desires
of a knowledgeable environmental test engineer. Good communication
between the project team, the environmental test engineer and the test
lab must be maintained to achieve the desired test results.
E.5. DATA REQUIRED
As discussed in NATO AECTP Leaflet 2410 (reference E.5.3), field data must be
acquired based upon the anticipated mission scenario of the unit under test (UUT). As
detailed in paragraph E.4.4.1.1 and reference E.5.1, transducer placement and
orientation are critical and must be thoroughly documented.
E.5.1. REFERENCE SDM DEVELOPMENT
As stated in paragraph E.4.5, a SDM in terms of the desired rigid body modes to be
tested should be computed for each test configuration identified in the mission
scenario.
E.5.1.1. SDM Ensemble CSD Characteristics
Based on the characteristics of the CSD terms of the ensemble of SDMs, the VSD
process will yield a vibration specification consistent with one of the three cases that
follow:
a. Case 1. Coherence Terms Approaching Zero (Independent Motion

DOFs) – This is the easiest situation to deal with in that each motion DOF
ASD may be addressed individually via the same techniques employed
in 1-DOF VSD as discussed in reference E.5.3. When programming the
vibration control system, it is recommended that coherence be set to a
low non-zero level (i.e.,   0.1 ) over the test bandwidth of interest. For
2
such a small coherence, the phase parameter is essentially a random

variable and establishing a phase specification is not required.
b. A special situation that may lead an analyst to develop a MDOF vibration

specification with independent motion DOFs, would be a composite
specification that encompasses multiple vehicles (i.e. a composite
wheeled vehicle specifications comparable to those in MIL-STD-810G,
Method 514.7). As each vehicle will tend to have its own CSD
characteristics, it is not possible to define CSD terms such that a single
coherence and phase relationship addresses each vehicle. Enveloping
techniques that work well in addressing magnitude based ASD terms are

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
simply not applicable in addressing phase relationships between

mechanical DOFs.
c. Case 2. Non-Zero Coherence across a Portion of the Test Bandwidth –

When developing a MDOF vibration specification based on a single
platform, one would expect the CSD terms measured across the range
of scenarios addressed in the mission scenario to be similar in nature.
The dynamic characteristics of the structure and often the proximity of
the measurement transducers will greatly influence the CSD
characteristics. There are often situations in which coherence between
motion DOFs are high and phase is well defined, but only over a portion
of the test spectrum. This is a common observation on many wheeled
vehicles where coherence is high at lower frequencies (i.e. frequencies
below 50 Hertz (Hz) and near zero at higher frequencies. In such
scenarios, one would only establish coherence and phase specifications
for the portion of the spectrum with high coherence. The remainder of
the spectrum would be treated as in Case 1. Also, in establishing CSD
reference criteria, the analyst must ensure the resulting criteria is
physically realizable (refer to paragraph E.4.5.3 for additional detail).
d. Case 3. Non-Zero Coherence across the Full Test Bandwidth – This

scenario is comparable to Case 2 with coherence being defined across
the entire test bandwidth. It is anticipated that this would be the least
likely scenario in a MDOF VSD effort. However, it is also the
configuration that will be the most difficult to deal with from both a VSD
development aspect and from an implementation perspective. In addition
to the issue of ensuring the resulting SDM reference is physically
realizable, the classic problem of mechanical impedance mismatch
between field and laboratory are often major concerns in implementing a
fully defined SDM reference criterion for a laboratory test. Specifically, if
the mechanical impedance between field and laboratory are not very well
matched (and they usually are not), there may be portions of the
spectrum in which coherence may be significantly different than specified
and simply not controllable. While this situation is also possible in
Case 2, it is almost certain to be an issue in a scenario such as Case 3,
in which the entire test bandwidth has a CSD reference criteria. This
topic of uncontrollable coherence associated with mechanical impedance
mismatches is a control issue for all three Cases and is discussed further
in the minimum drive consideration of paragraph E.4.5.6.
e. Regardless of which of the three cases the SDM is characterized by, it is

highly likely that there will be mechanical impedance differences between
the field and laboratory conditions. In some cases these impedance
differences may result in excessive drive signals. Although the various
control system vendors address this situation in varying degrees, it may
still be necessary to address this issue through test operator intervention

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
via techniques such as those identified in paragraphs E.4.5.4 and

E.4.5.5.
E.5.2. TEST TOLERANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Setting tolerances for a MIMO test is challenging given the large amount of information
encompassed by the reference autospectra and cross spectra involved. Additionally,
the overall energy is not necessarily distributed evenly about each mechanical DOF
and dominant DOFs often tend to dominate the control. The objective here is to
establish a reasonable starting point in establishing test tolerances. Experience with
specific test configurations may be employed to refine the basic guidance defined
below. As usual, any test specific test tolerances should be clearly documented within
the test plan.
a. Autospectra(1): ±3 dB for f  500Hz and ±6dB for f  500Hz .
(1) The portion of the spectrum that actually reaches the maximum
tolerance limits is anticipated in narrow bandwidths. The tolerance
on the overall Grms level of each controlled DOF shall be within
±15% of the corresponding reference.
b. Cross spectra: Define tolerances in terms of Phase and Coherence.

Note that there will be a statistical variation of coherence and phase
estimates as a function of the statistical DOFs used to estimate the
control SDM and also as a function of the coherence between inputs.
Take caution in that the expected statistical variation imposes a lower
limit on how tight the respective tolerance can be.
Coherence: For ordinary coherence in the range 0.5    1.0 ,

2
(1)
set the tolerance to be ±0.1 (avoid establishing a coherence
reference or tolerance of 1.0).
Phase: If   0.5 , any phase is acceptable. If 0.5    1.0 and

2 2
(2)
the frequency f is within the band fh  3f where fh is a frequency
where the reference rate of phase change is more than 10 / Hz
and f is the line spacing of the reference spectra, the default
tolerance on phase will be 40 . Otherwise, if outside of a
frequency band referenced with such high rates phase change,
the default tolerance on phase will be 10 .
c. Limiting: See paragraph E.4.5.4.

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
E.5.3. LABORATORY DATA
In the case the reference SDM is directly employed as the reference in a MET test (i.e.
input/output (I/O) Transformation Control as discussed in reference E.5.9), and rigid
body presumptions are sound, the control accelerometers are not required to be placed
in the exact same location in the laboratory as they were used in the original acquisition
phase. The critical parameter is that all control locations employed in the laboratory
test are referenced to the same “origin” as selected in the original VSD development.
However, it is often desirable, based on making position specific comparisons between
field and laboratory data, to match the laboratory control locations to the original
measurement points.
E.6. MDOF VSD METHODS
E.6.1. OPTIONS CONSIDERED
Having reviewed the data acquisition and analysis requirements, this section is
dedicated to defining the steps for two candidate MDOF VSD methodologies (see
reference E.5.17). Method I is processed in the SDM domain and Method II conducts
averaging steps in the Cholesky Domain. An example follows in paragraph E.6.3.
E.6.1.1. Method I
The following is a 10 step outline of Method I (SDM Domain) MDOF VSD:
Step 1 Prepare to convert field measurements into motion DOFs.
Identify position vectors r1  rn and row selection vectors e j as defined in

paragraph E.4.4.1.1, corresponding to the field measurements.
Identify the mission scenario.
Identify the frequency bandwidth of interest.
Identify the sampling frequency of the field measurements.
Step 2 Transform the field measurements into motion DOF’s per equation (4.3)
for each “Run” identified in the mission scenario.
Step 3 Compute the SDM for each run identified in Step 2. The dimension of
the resulting SDM’s will be [6x6xd], where d is the number of spectral
lines being considered to addresses the frequency bandwidth of interest.
Since the SDM is computed from measured field data, it should be

positive definite; however, a check should be performed to verify that
each individual SDM is positive definite. This serves as an excellent data
quality check.

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
Refer to the guidance in Step 7 if minor corrections are required to force

an individual SDM to be positive definite.
Step 4 Convert the CSD terms (the off-diagonal terms of the SDM) into a
normalized form in which the magnitude squared of the cross terms
correlates to the ordinary coherence while leaving the phase unchanged.
This is accomplished by normalizing (dividing) the CSD terms by

GxxGyy .
While it is not absolutely necessary to conduct this step, it is often easier

to understand the physical meaning of the CSD terms when viewed in
terms of phase and coherence.
Step 5 Either organize all of the SDM’s for the Runs of interest into a logical
structure or merge them into one file of known matrix structure such as
[SDM_Run1,SDM_Run2….SDM_RunN] to optimize the conduct of basic
statistics.
Step 6 Compute a weighted average SDM of the N SDM’s of Step 5.
It is critical that the weighted average be performed on the true complex

CSD terms (not the normalized SDM).
The weighting factor on the average will be directly correlated to the

mission scenario times identified in Step 1. If the individual Runs are
positive definite, the resulting average should also be positive definite.
However, numerical issues may yield non-positive definite results. To
minimize numerical issues, average only the lower triangular portion of
the SDM and fill in the upper triangular portion of the SDM by taking
advantage of the Hermitian structure of the matrix (see reference E.5.16).
Any type of enveloping operation should be avoided as it is highly likely

to yield a non-positive definite result.
Step 7 As SDM data are manipulated through activities such as averaging, it is

advisable to verify the results remain positive definite. As discussed
above, occasional numerical issues may be of concern in some
instances. If required, force the SDM computed in Step 6 to be positive
definite.
This is done by systematically reducing the magnitude of the cross

spectral density terms until the Cholesky decomposition is possible at
each depth (spectral line) of the SDM. (If required, this process may be
somewhat conservative in its reduction of the coherence between DOFs

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
in that the systematic reduction of cross term magnitudes is applied to

each cross term equally).
Step 8 Scale the diagonal terms of the autospectra (the diagonal terms of the
SDM) resulting from Step 7 to the maximum rms level of each of the N
SDM’s in Step 5 on an individual DOF basis using Miner-Palmgren.
Observe that a new total test time will be computed for each DOF and
that it is highly probably that the resulting test times for each DOF will not
be the same.
Since the magnitude of the autospectra are being increased while not
modifying the cross-spectral density terms, the resulting scaled SDM
should still be positive definite. However, as discussed in Step 7, it is
highly recommended that anytime a SDM is manipulated, it should be
verified that the resulting SDM remains positive definite.
Step 9 Review the test time associated with each DOF resulting from Step 8 and
select a reasonable test time to which the entire SDM may be referenced
to. In this step, avoid scaling the dominant DOF by more than the
maximum envelope of measured values for that DOF.
Just as in the case of a 1-DOF VSD development, one should consider

the general guidance to keep the final test amplitudes resulting from time
compression to be no more than 3 dB above the maximum measured
field data. Once a test time is selected, reapply Miner-Palmgren as
required per DOF. Again make sure the resulting SDM is positive definite
and modify as required per Step 7.
Step 10 Scale the results from Step 9 up by up to 3 dB, while not exceeding 3 dB
above the envelope of measured values per DOF, to account for
uncontrolled variables such as fleet variations and scenario conditions
not considered in the mission scenario. There are often practical
limitations in maintaining all DOF’s within 3 dB of the envelope of
measured values from their respective DOF. In such cases, attempt to
associate the maximum compression with the lowest level DOF or a DOF
known to be mechanically robust. The resulting SDM and the test time
association per Step 9 define the final specification.
This is accomplished by pre and post multiplying the SDM by the square
root of the ratio of the desired scaling factor as:
SYnew  Ss SYoldSs (e.g. to scale the SDM ASD terms by 3 dB while keeping
the phase and ordinary coherence the same, the diagonal terms of Ss
would be defined as Ss,ii  2 ).

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
[In the event the user has documented evidence that the mission
scenario is of sufficient fidelity to minimize uncontrolled variables, the
default scale factor of 3 dB in this step may be reduced].
E.6.1.2. Method II
The following is a 10 step outline of Method II (Cholesky Domain) MDOF VSD:
Step 1-4 Correlate directly to Method I Outline.
Step 5 Perform a Cholesky decomposition on the individual SDM associated

with each Run in the mission scenario.
Since each individual Run was based on a physical event, the individual
SDM’s should be positive definite, thereby making the Cholesky
decomposition possible. (Recall all Runs would have been tested to
verify each was positive definite or corrected as required per Step 3).
Either organize all of the lower triangular matrices resulting from the
Cholesky decomposition for the Runs of interest into a logical structure
or merge them into one file of known matrix structure such as
[CHOL_Run1,CHOL_Run2….CHOL_RunN] to optimize the conduct
basic statistics.
Step 6 Compute a weighted average Lower Triangular Matrix of the N Cholesky

decompositions of Step 5.
The weighting factor on the average will be directly correlated to the

mission scenario identified in Step 1. Note that the resulting average will
still consist of positive eigenvalues implying that when converted back
into the SDM format that the result will be positive definite.
Once converted back into the SDM domain, the resulting CSD terms will
generally be highly comparable to the average CSD values computed in
Step 6 of Method I. However, the rms levels of the ASD terms will not be
the same. In addition, the spectral shape of the ASD terms will generally
have been slightly modified.
Step 7 Rescale the ASD terms of the SDM resulting from Step 6 to match the
rms levels of those in Method 1 Step 6.
Convert the CSD terms (the off-diagonal terms of the SDM) into a
normalized form in which the magnitude squared of the cross terms
correlates to the ordinary coherence while leaving the phase unchanged.
(Again, while it is not absolutely necessary to conduct this step, it is often
easier to understand the physical meaning of the CSD terms when
viewed in terms of phase and coherence).

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
Observe that Method II involves the averaging of matrix square roots.

The resulting SDM phase and coherence are expected to be very similar
to those of the averaged field data produced in Method I. The ASD terms
spectral shapes are expected to be slightly different (i.e., < 3 dB per
spectral line for SDM’s of similar statistical variance). The actual
differences depend to a great deal on the statistical variation of the
component square roots. If the statistical variation is significant, one may
consider developing multiple references by grouping runs with similar
spectral shapes or by reverting to Method I.
Step 8-10 Correlate directly to Method I Outline.
E.6.2. EXAMPLE
1. To illustrate the process discussed above, a simple example was derived

(Method I is addressed first). Using an available wheeled vehicle, the input to an
onboard missile storage rack was instrumented as shown in Figure E-4. The
transducer at the center of Figure E-4 was placed at the user defined origin, position
[0,0,0], in terms of a Cartesian coordinate system. In a traditional right hand
orientation, the forward direction of the vehicle was defined as the positive x-axis,
towards the vehicle driver’s side was considered positive y-axis, and through the
vehicle roof was considered the positive z-axis. All transducers are referenced in terms
of their relative placement to the origin as discussed previously in the acceleration
transformation section of this Annex.
Figure E-4: Transducer Placement (Input to Missile Rack)

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
2. Method I Example.
a. Having established a clear coordinate system definition, the key

parameters discussed in Step 1 are identified. In distance units of inches,
the positions of the four corner accelerometer locations used in this
example are defined as:
r 1  [ 17, 6,0] ', r 2  [ 17,6,0] ', r 3  [17, 6,0] ', r 4  [17,6,0] ' , which in skew
symmetric form are:
0 0 6  0 0 6 0 0 6  0 0 6 
x   P P x 
 r   0 0 17 ,  r2   0
P P
0 17  ,  r3   0 0 17  ,  r4    0 0 17 
 P P x   P P x 
1   
6 17 0   6 17 0  6 17 0   6 17 0 
For convenience, the instrumentation team placed the tri-axial

transducers such that the channel used to measure the y-axis motion
was actually 180 degrees out of phase with respect to the referenced
coordinate system. This issue is addressed by simply defining row
selection vectors as eTx  [1,0,0], eT  [0, 1,0], eT  [0,0,1] . Matrix Ta and
y z
matrix Ta may now be computed as per the discussion in paragraph

E.4.4.1.1 as:
1 0 0 0 0 6 
0 1 0 0 0 17 

0 0 1 6 17 0 
 
1 0 0 0 0 6 
0 1 0 0 0 17 
 
0 0 1 6 17 0 
Ta  
1 0 0 0 0 6 
 
0 1 0 0 0 17 
 
0 0 1 6 17 0 
1 0 0 0 0 6 
 
0 1 0 0 0 17 
0 0 1 6 17 0 

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
0.2500 0 0 0.2500 0 0 0.2500 0 0 0.2500 0 0 

 0 0.2500 0 0 0.2500 0 0 0.2500 0 0 0.2500 0 

 0 0 0.2500 0 0 0.2500 0 0 0.2500 0 0 0.2500 
Ta   
 0 0 0.0417 0 0 0.0417 0 0 0.0417 0 0 0.0417 
 0 0 0.0147 0 0 0.0147 0 0 0.0147 0 0 0.0147 
 
0.0046 0.0131 0 0.0046 0.0131 0 0.0046 0.0131 0 0.0046 0.0131 0 
The field data were sampled at 4096 Hz and the bandwidth of interest is
500 Hz. For the example at hand, a mission scenario was established
using a Beta distribution as discussed in reference E.5.3, and is
illustrated in Table E-1. Allowing for the time associated with speeds
below 5 miles per hour (mph), the total mileage represented is
approximately 300.
b. The field data were then converted into motion DOFs, cMotion , using
Equation 4.3 per Step 2.
c. The time histories, cMotion were then transformed into the frequency
domain in the form of a SDM per run as described in Step 3. Each SDM
was tested per the Cholesky decomposition property and verified to be
positive definite.
Table E-1: Mission Scenario
Road Speed Time Distance

Classification (mph) (hrs) (miles)
5 .690 3.45
Embedded Rock 10 1.545 15.45
15 .737 11.05
10 5.18 51.80
Cross Country 20 6.332 126.64
30 2.002 60.06
5 .811 4.055
Radial Washboard 7 1.841 12.88
10 1.183 11.83

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
d. Each SDM was then normalized as suggested in Step 4 to allow the

analyst to review the degree of coherence between DOFs.
e. Per Step 5, the SDMs were configured into a convenient structure to

allow statistical analysis. The data were configured as
SDM_all=[SDM_Run1,SDM_Run2….SDM_Run8] . Observe only 8 of
the 9 runs identified in the scenario are being considered. In reviewing
the field data, the 5 mph radial washboard data were significantly lower
than the rest of the Runs, determined to have no effect on fatigue, and
were not considered in computing the basic statistics of the ensemble.
f. Next, per Step 6, a weighted average in terms of the time per road
condition as defined in Table E-1 was computed. This average should
be computed in terms of complex CSD terms, not the normalized SDM.
The resulting weighted average SDM was then tested at each spectral
line to establish whether or not the positive definite criterion was met.
Figure E-5 illustrates the weighted average SDM. Taking advantage of
the Hermitian property of a SDM, Figure E-5 is laid out such that the lower
triangular section represents the phase between DOFs, the upper
triangular portion represents the square root of the ordinary coherence,
and the diagonal terms are the ASDs of the 6 rigid body DOFs. Although
too small to review in detail on a single page as shown, the coherence
plots are all scaled between 0.1 and 1.0. This is to illustrate there is some
level of coherence, particularly below 100 Hz in the example at hand,
between DOFs. Using the VSD process proposed, the analyst will try to
keep as much coherence in the final specification as possible while still
ensuring the final result is positive definite.
g. In order to address the possibility of having to deal with non-positive

definite results, a utility was written which gradually and equally reduces
the magnitudes of the cross spectral density terms until the positive
definite criterion is met per Step 7. This technique actually reduces the
cross term magnitudes of some CSDs more than what is required.
Addressing this potential shortcoming is one of the motivations for the
development of Method II.

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
0
Average (before fpd) 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10
0
10
|C(1,2)|
|C(1,3)|
|C(1,4)|
|C(1,5)|
|C(1,6)|
C(1,1)
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1
10 10 10 10 10
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10
(C(2,1)))
200 0
10
|C(2,3)|
|C(2,4)|
|C(2,5)|
|C(2,6)|
C(2,2)
100
0
-1 -1 -1 -1
10 10 10 10
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
0 0 0
10 10 10
(C(3,1)))
(C(3,2)))
200 200 0
10
|C(3,4)|
|C(3,5)|
|C(3,6)|
C(3,3)
100 100
0 0
-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
0 0
10 10
(C(4,1)))
(C(4,2)))
(C(4,3)))
200 200 200 0

10
|C(4,5)|
|C(4,6)|
C(4,4)
100 100 100
0 0 0
-1 -1
10 10
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
0
10
(C(5,1)))
(C(5,2)))
(C(5,3)))
(C(5,4)))
200 200 200 200 0
10
|C(5,6)|
C(5,5)
100 100 100 100
0 0 0 0
-1
10
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
(C(6,1)))
(C(6,2)))
(C(6,3)))
(C(6,4)))
(C(6,5)))
200 200 200 200 200 0
10
C(6,6)
100 100 100 100 100
0 0 0 0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
Freq(Hz) Freq(Hz) Freq(Hz) Freq(Hz) Freq(Hz) Freq(Hz)
Figure E-5: Normalized Weighted Average SDM
h. At this point, per Step 8, the rms level was computed for each ASD
(diagonal SDM Entry) over the bandwidth of interest (3-500 Hz in this
example). Each ASD was then scaled to the level of the maximum rms
level via Equation 4.6.
i. Per Step 9, the new test times associated with each ASD were also
documented. As expected, the new times associated with each DOF
were no longer the same. Since the VSD effort is designed to yield a
simultaneous 6-DOF reference, it will be necessary to choose a common
test time and rescale all ASD entries to the selected test duration. For
the example at hand, a test duration of 15 minutes was selected. As is
always the case with selection of compressed test durations, one should
adhere to the guidance of not exaggerating the ASD power levels by
more than 2:1. Of course when dealing with 6 ASD terms, this is not
always possible. In such cases, the analyst should avoid increasing the
dominant DOFs or DOFs with known structural shortcomings by more
than 3 dB above maximum measured ASD levels.
j. The terms comprising the SDM were based on average ASD and CSD
estimates, which is in contrast to the guidance provided in reference
E.5.3, in which the ASD levels carried through the calculations of a
1-DOF VSD were actually based on an ASD computed as the sum of a

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
Mean ASD and standard deviation computed on a per spectral line basis.
Working directly with the mean ASD levels is intended to avoid excessive
conservatism in the VSD process. Conservatism intended to address
uncontrolled variables such as fleet variations and conditions not
considered in the mission scenario are addressed by a single scalar
(+3 dB in this example) in Step 10. Clearly the analyst has the ability to
modify the final conservatism level based on knowledge of the specific
VSD effort.
The final reference SDM produced by Method I is shown in Figure E-6. Observe that
the phase and coherence terms are essentially unchanged from that of the average
SDM of Figure E-5.
FINAL
0
Normalized (after fpd) +3dB 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10
|C(1,2)|
|C(1,3)|
|C(1,4)|
|C(1,5)|
|C(1,6)|
C(1,1)
0
10
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1
10 10 10 10 10
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10
(C(2,1)))
200
|C(2,3)|
|C(2,4)|
|C(2,5)|
|C(2,6)|
C(2,2)
0
100 10
0
-1 -1 -1 -1
10 10 10 10
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
0 0 0
10 10 10
(C(3,1)))
(C(3,2)))
200 200
|C(3,4)|
|C(3,5)|
|C(3,6)|
C(3,3)
0
100 100 10
0 0
-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
0 0
10 10
(C(4,1)))
200
(C(4,2)))
200
(C(4,3)))
200
|C(4,5)|
|C(4,6)|
0
C(4,4)
100 100 100 10

0 0 0
-1 -1
10 10
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
0
10
(C(5,1)))
(C(5,2)))
(C(5,3)))
(C(5,4)))
200 200 200 200

|C(5,6)|
C(5,5)
0
100 100 100 100 10
0 0 0 0
-1
10
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
(C(6,1)))
(C(6,2)))
(C(6,3)))
(C(6,4)))
(C(6,5)))
200 200 200 200 200

C(6,6)
0
100 100 100 100 100 10
0 0 0 0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
Figure E-6: Method I Normalized Reference SDM
3. Method II Example. The first four steps of Method II correlate directly to that of
Method I. The major deviation in Method II is that all averaging will be computed in the
Cholesky domain. In Step 5, Cholesky decompositions are carried out on the individual
SDM’s associated with each Run in the mission scenario. Since each individual Run
was based on a measured physical event, the individual SDMs were positive definite
as expected, thereby making the Cholesky decomposition possible. In the event that
a given Run had failed the Cholesky decomposition and all measurement locations and
relative polarities were verified; investigate the spectral lines at which the
decomposition fails. If the decomposition is failing at only a few spectral lines, it may

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
be possible to salvage the measurement employing the CSD magnitude reduction

techniques proposed in Method I. The Cholesky domain data were then organized into
a convenient structure for statistical analysis. As in Method I, Matlab was used to
compute the weighted averages and the Cholesky domain data were organized as:
CHOL_all=[CHOL_Run1, CHOL_Run2…..,CHOL_RunN]. In Step 6, a weighted
average in terms of the time per road condition as defined in Table E-1 was computed
over the lower triangular matrix of the eight Cholesky decompositions of Step 5. The
weighted average was then converted back into the SDM domain. As expected, the
coherence characteristics of the resulting SDM were comparable with that of
Figure E-5 and the rms levels of the ASD terms required rescaling per Step 7. Steps
8-10 were carried out directly as stated in the Method I outline.
4. The reference SDM resulting from Method II (Figure E-7) yielded similar phase
and coherence characteristics to that of the reference SDM resulting from Method I
(Figure E-6). Note that the Method I example took advantage of averaging only the
lower triangular CSD terms, avoiding potential numerical issues, thereby not requiring
the SDM to be forced positive definite in a manner that would result in lowering the
coherence in a more conservative manner than required.
5. ASD Comparisons. Next, the minor spectral shape deviations between the ASD
resulting from the two VSD methods discussed will be illustrated. Figures E-8 and
E-9 show the ASD references for the Z axis (vertical) and rotation about Z axis (Rz)
respectively, as produced from both VSD methods. The ASD references are
superimposed with the raw (unexaggerated) reference data from which the
specifications were created. Observe that the ASD shapes envelope the field data
without excessive conservatism.
6. As stated previously, the test duration for the reference SDM yielded by both
Methods in this example was established to be 15 minutes. Clearly, as illustrated in
Figures E-8 and E-9 the associated ASD references are highly correlated.

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
0
FINAL Normalized +3dB 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10
|C(1,2)|
|C(1,3)|
|C(1,4)|
|C(1,5)|
|C(1,6)|
C(1,1)
0
10
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1
10 10 10 10 10
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10
(C(2,1)))
200
|C(2,3)|
|C(2,4)|
|C(2,5)|
|C(2,6)|
C(2,2)
0
100 10
0
-1 -1 -1 -1
10 10 10 10
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
0 0 0
10 10 10
(C(3,1)))
(C(3,2)))
200 200
|C(3,4)|
|C(3,5)|
|C(3,6)|
C(3,3)
0
100 100 10
0 0
-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
0 0
10 10
(C(4,1)))
200
(C(4,2)))
200
(C(4,3)))
200
|C(4,5)|
|C(4,6)|
0
C(4,4)
100 100 100 10
0 0 0
-1 -1
10 10
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
0
10
(C(5,1)))
(C(5,2)))
(C(5,3)))
(C(5,4)))
200 200 200 200
|C(5,6)|
C(5,5)
0
100 100 100 100 10
0 0 0 0
-1
10
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
(C(6,1)))
(C(6,2)))
(C(6,3)))
(C(6,4)))
(C(6,5)))
200 200 200 200 200
C(6,6)
0
100 100 100 100 100 10
0 0 0 0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
Figure E-7: Method II Reference SDM
-1
ASD Raw Data and Reference Overlays (Z-Axis)
10
ER 5
ER 10
ER 15
-2
XC 10
10 XC 20
XC 30
RW 7
RW 10
-3
10 Method II Ref
Method I Ref
G2/Hz
-4
10
-5
10
-6
10
-7
10 0 1 2
10 10 10
Freq (Hz)
Figure E-8: ASD References for the Z Axis

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
0 ASD Raw Data and Reference Overlays (Rz Axis)

10
ER 5
ER 10
ER 15
-1 XC 10
10 XC 20
XC 30
ER 7
-2
ER 10
10 Method II Ref
Method I Ref
(r/s2)2/Hz
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
-6
10 0 1 2
10 10 10
Freq (Hz)
Figure 9: ASD References for Rotation About Z Axis (Rz)
E.6.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS
1. Two techniques were defined for establishing an input specification for a MDOF
system. It was shown that simple enveloping techniques are not appropriate when
considering CSD terms due to the sensitivity of such operations associated with
maintaining a physically realizable reference. The resulting SDM references yielded
through the process outlined are fully populated SDM’s. Importing the fully populated
SDM into the MDOF control system in an efficient manner is essential due to the
volume of information involved.
2. While synthesizing a drive signal with CSD characteristics of the field data is
desired, it is recognized that the mechanical impedance of the laboratory configuration
is highly unlikely to match that of the field data. Therefore, it will be difficult to maintain
CSD characteristics across the spectral bandwidth of interest and thus, the control
hierarchy will generally place emphasis on the ASD terms. Also, it is not uncommon
in MDOF tests for a specific mechanical degree-of-freedom to consist of a very small
percentage of the composite energy across all mechanical degrees-of-freedom. In
such cases, the associated error for the low DOF will often be higher than the desired
test tolerances and considering global test tolerances may need to be considered.
3. Care was taken in the examples provided to limit the amount of conservatism in
the VSD process. One quickly realizes that the amount of conservatism is cumulative
across degrees of freedom and if not managed carefully will yield test levels

ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
significantly higher than the measured environment. Unlike, the common technique of
essentially adding 3 dB to all measurements prior to conducting averaging or
enveloping techniques in the 1-DOF arena per reference E.5.3, all weighted averages
in the 6-DOF examples shown were based on raw averaged data. Conservatism to
account for variables such as fleet variability and mission scenario omissions were
added in the final step. Magnitude amplification associated with time compression
techniques was limited to no more than maximum measured levels. Also, on the
subject of tolerances, one may find it reasonable to define phase and coherence
tolerances over only a portion of the test bandwidth. In the example provided, the
coherence dropped off considerably at frequencies above 50 Hz. Since the phase term
is essentially a random variable for low coherence, setting tolerances for frequencies
greater than 50 Hz would not be recommended for the example shown.

APPENDIX 1 OF ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421

APPENDIX 1 GLOSSARY
Refer to paragraph 1.2.2 of this Method. Additional terms specific to this Appendix
follow:
E.1.1. LABORATORY VIBRATION TEST SCHEDULE (LVTS) – All information

required to perform a vibration test on a vibration exciter. Information typically includes:
a broadband spectra (or profile), sine or narrowband information (if used), test run time,
control accelerometer locations, control methods and tolerances, and any test specific
information required.
E.1.2. SCENARIO – A tabulation of expected exposure events and the corresponding

durations.
E1-1 Edition D Version 1

APPENDIX 1 OF ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

APPENDIX 2 TO ANNEX E TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 421

APPENDIX 2 ABBREVIATIONS
AECTP Allied Environmental Conditions Test Publication

ASD auto spectral density (also referred to as the power spectral
density (PSD)
CG center of gravity
CSD cross spectral density
dB decibel
DFT discrete Fourier transform
DOF degree of freedom
DTC US Army Developmental Test Command
FRF frequency response function
g/V gravitational units/volts of drive
Hz hertz
I/O input/output
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IES Institute of Environmental Sciences
IEST Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology
LCEP Life Cycle Environment Profile
LOA line of action
LVTS Laboratory Vibration Test Schedule
MA multi-axis
MDOF multiple degree-of-freedom
MEMA multiple-exciter multiple-axis
MESA multiple-exciter single-axis
MET multiple exciter test
MIL-STD Military Standard

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
MIMO multiple-input multiple-output

MISO multiple-input single-output
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NBROR narrowband random on random
pinv Moore Penrose pseudo inverse
PSD power spectral density
rms root mean square
RTC US Army Redstone Test Center
SA single-axis
SDM spectral density matrix
SDOF single degree-of-freedom
SESA single-exciter/single-axis
SIMO single-input multiple-output
SISO single-input single-output
SOR sine-on-random
TWR Time Waveform Replication
UUT unit under test
VSD Vibration Schedule Development

AECTP-400
METHOD 421

APPENDIX 3 NOMENCLATURE
Term Definition
{} A vector where each element is a discrete time history or
function of frequency, the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) of a
time history. In general lower case letters will be used for
functions of time and upper case letters will be used for
functions of frequency. Sometimes lower case letters are used
to designate an element in a matrix.
[] Will denote a matrix. Usually a third dimension will denote time

samples or samples as a function of frequency.
[ ]T The transpose of a matrix.
[ ]′ The transpose of a real matrix or often used as a compact

notation to represent the complex conjugate transpose of a
matrix.
[ ]*′ The complex conjugate transpose of a matrix (also see [ ]′
above).
[ ]† The Moore Penrose pseudo inverse of a matrix.
^ Over a variable will denote an estimated value.
{a} The vector of return acceleration signals.
A The spectral density matrix of the return signals, typically in units
2
of G Hz .
{c} A vector of the control signals from a MIMO system. Each
element in the vector is a function of time. It can be thought of
as a 2 dimensional matrix. First dimension is the input number.
The second dimension is the time index.
{C} The DFT of {c}.
C The spectral density matrix of the control signals. The diagonal
elements are the real auto-spectral densities of the control
signals. The off diagonal elements are complex functions of
frequency giving the cross spectral density between pairs of
control signals.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
Term Definition
{d} A vector of drive signals into a MIMO system. Each element in
the vector is a function of time. It can be thought of as a 2
dimensional matrix. First dimension is the input number. The
second dimension is the time index.
[D] The drive signals in the frequency domain. {d} is formed from
[D] using a method called time domain randomization. Initially
D  ZRZ' .
E[ ] The expected value.
g The acceleration of gravity.
[H] A matrix of frequency response functions (FRF’s) relating the
control system response to the drive signals. Typically the
elements will have units of g/V. Each element is a frequency
response function. A third dimension typically is the amplitude
as a function of a set of frequencies relating to the DFT of the
input and response signals.
Ns The number of drive signals, the number of shakers.

Nc The number of control signals.
Na The number of acceleration return signals.
Nd The number of output control variables.
R The reference control spectral density matrix; the desired
spectral density matrix.
{s} The vector of shaker drive voltages.
S The spectral density matrix of the drives in shaker space.
SCD The spectral density matrix between the control signal and the
drives to the shakers.
Ta The acceleration to control space transformation matrix.
Ts The drive in the control space to voltages {s} to the shakers
transformation matrix.
Z= H† The system impedance matrix, typically units of volts/g.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421

APPENDIX 4 MATRIX ALGEBRA REVIEW
A matrix is an array of numbers arraigned in rows and columns. The size of the matrix
is typically stated an [n,m] or n x m, where n is the number of rows and m is the number
of columns. In this document 3 dimensional matrices are also used where the third
dimension is typically samples in either the time or frequency domain. This Appendix
will discuss only two dimensional matrices. It is assumed that if the matrix has 3
dimensions, that the operations can be performed on each 2 dimensional matrix along
the third dimension. For example if the matrix is a matrix of frequency response
functions, matrix operations will be performed at each frequency line. The definitions
provided in this appendix are based on information provided primarily in reference
E.5.12 and E.5.13.
a. SDM: A spectral density matrix is a 3 dimensional matrix. At each

frequency line (the 3rd index) the matrix is a square complex matrix.
Each diagonal element is the autospectrum of the corresponding
element. Loosely an element in the SDM is defined as:
1
G ji (k )  2 lim E[ X j (k,T ) X i* (k,T )]
T  T
where: G ji ( k ) is the cross spectral density between the j’th and i’th
random processes.
X j (k,T ) and X i (k,T ) are the discrete Fourier transforms of the time
histories, and k is the frequency index. If i = j, the spectrum is called the
autospectrum or the power spectrum. In reality, the true spectral density
is generally not known and an estimate is employed. Some authors
define the elements as:
1
Gij (k )  2 lim E[ X x* ( k,T ) X j ( k,T )]
T  T
The SDM matrix is Hermitian positive definite.
b. Hermitian Matrix: A matrix, A, is Hermitian if the diagonal elements are

real positive numbers and the corresponding off diagonal elements are
complex conjugate pairs:
aii  positive real number
a ji  aij*  conj (aij )
where: a ji is the element form j’th row, i’th column of A.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
Note: All valid spectral density matrices (SDM) are Hermitian.

c. Positive Definite Matrix and Positive Semi-Definite Matrix: If a square
Hermitian matrix, A, has all positive eigenvalues, the matrix is positive
definite. If the matrix has zero eigenvalues the matrix is positive semi-
definite. A Cholesky decomposition is possible for all positive definite
matrices.
A  LL'
where: L is a lower triangular matrix with real positive values on the

diagonal. L’ is the complex conjugate transpose of L. If the matrix, A, is
positive semi-definite, special care must be taken in computing L. If a
zero element is found on the diagonal of L, the entire column must be set
to zero. Computing the Cholesky decomposition is actually the easiest
way to check for positive definite. If the algorithm fails the matrix, A is
not positive definite.
d. Transformation of a Positive Definite Matrix:
Let B  HAH'
If the matrix A is positive definite, B is positive definite.
Note: All valid SDMs are positive semi-definite or positive definite.

Because some noise is always present in measured data, a measured
SDM will always be positive definite.
e. Ordinary Coherence, γ2: The ordinary coherence between two signals is

defined as:
2
G12
 
2
12
G11G22
G12 is the cross spectral density between the signals and G11 and G22 are
the two autospectra.
The ordinary coherence is bounded by 0   12  1.

2
Coherence is a measure of the linear relationship between the signals.

If the coherence is unity, a perfect linear relationship exists between the
signals. If the coherence is zero, the signals are said to be independent,
and there is no linear relationship between the signals.
If one or more of the ordinary coherences in a SDM are in unity at any

frequency, the matrix is positive semi-definite at that frequency.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
f. Singular Value Decomposition: Singular value decomposition has

several applications in MIMO testing. Singular value decomposition is
defined as:
M=USV’
M is any matrix. U and V’ are orthonormal. This implies that:
UU’=I and VV’=I
S is a diagonal matrix of non-negative real numbers. A common

convention is to order the diagonal elements of S in a non-increasing
fashion.
g. Pseudo inverse: The Moore Penrose pseudo inverse is used often in

MIMO control. Some of the properties are discussed below. The Moore
Penrose pseudo inverse can be derived as follows:
M  USV'
U'M  U'USV'  SV'
S1U'M  S1SV'  V'
VS1U'M  VV'  I
M†  VS 1U' is known as the pseudo inverse of M.
The inverse of the reduced S is easy since the matrix is diagonal. To

compute S-1 the elements greater than a tolerance are inverted and kept,
the elements less than a tolerance are replaced by zero.
MM† M= M and M†M M† = M†
MM† and M†M are Hermitian
If the number of columns in M exceed the number of rows and the rows
are independent MM†=I. If the number of rows in M exceeds the number
of columns and the columns are independent M†M=I. For a more
complete discussion see the help file for pinv in MATLAB.
h. Matrix Rank: The rank of a matrix, M, equals the number of non-zero

singular values in M. In numerical linear algebra, the singular values can
be used to determine the effective rank of a matrix. Define a measure of
singular values as the ratio of the singular values and the largest singular
value. Let r be the number values greater than a threshold. Where the
measure is less than the threshold, set the singular values to zero. The
number of non-zero singular values in the resulting matrix is the effective
rank of the matrix. The effective rank of the matrix is r. For a square

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
matrix, if r is less than the number of rows and columns in the matrix, the
matrix is said to be ill conditioned.
i. Matrix Approximation: Let M  usv '
where: s = a diagonal matrix of the singular values greater than a

threshold defined as the ratio of the singular values divided by the largest
singular value. Let n = the number of kept singular values. s has n rows
and columns. u is the first n columns of U. v’ is the first n rows of V’.
M minimizes S  usv ' F
Hence, M is a very useful approximation of M.
j. Frobenius Norm: The Frobenius Norm of matrix M is defined as:
m n 2 min( m,n )
Mf  
i 1
 mij
j 1
 trace( A ' A)  i 1
 i2
where:  i are the singular values of M.
k. Trace: The trace of a positive definite matrix is defined as the sum of the
diagonal elements. An important property of the trace often of use is:
trace( AB)  trace(BA )
l. Rescaling the Autospectra: When generating a SDM it might sometimes

be useful to rescale the autospectra and be assured that the result
remains positive definite. This can be accomplished by pre and post
multiplying by a diagonal matrix of scaling factors. The triple product will
rescale the autospectra while keeping the coherence and phase between
pairs of channels unchanged.
Gnew  SGoldS'
where: Gnew is the new positive definite SDM, Gold is the original positive
definite SDM, and S is a diagonal matrix of scaling factors. Each
autospectra will be scaled by the corresponding element in S2 .
This is a convenient way to generate the normalized SDM (the diagonal

elements are the autospectra and the magnitude squared of the off
diagonal terms are the ordinary coherence and the phase is the phase of
the cross spectra). The normalized form is computed by rescaling the
SDM to unity autospectra by pre and post multiplying the SDM by a
diagonal matrix whose terms are the inverse square root of the

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
autospectra. The resulting unity autospectra are then replaced by the

original autospectra.
The inverse is computed by replacing the diagonal autospectra by ones

and then rescaling by pre and post multiplying by a diagonal matrix
whose terms are the square root of the original autospectra.
m. Proof 1:
An element in SY is given by, where n = number of inputs, and m =

number of outputs
n n
Yij   X rk Hir H *jr i  1: m j  1: m
r 1 k 1
A diagonal element is given by:

n n n n
Yii   X rk Hir Hir*   X rk | Hir |2 i  1: m
r 1 k 1 r 1 k 1
If SX is diagonal, Xrk  0, if r  k , (a-3) reduces to:
n
Yii   X rr | Hir |2 i  1: m
r 1
This can be written as a set of linear equations:
Y  HX
Which can be solved for X as: X  H1Y

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 421

APPENDIX 5 REFERENCES
E.5.1. MIL-STD-810G Change Notice 1, Department of Defense Test Method

Standard: Environmental Engineering Considerations and Laboratory Tests,
15 April 2014.
E.5.2. Handbook for Dynamic Data Acquisition and Analysis, IEST-RP-DTE012.2,

Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology, Arlington Place One,
2340 S. Arlington Heights Road, Suite 100, Arlington Heights, IL 60005-4516.
E.5.3. AECTP 240, Edition 4, Leaflet 2410, Development of Laboratory Vibration Test
Schedules, 1 June 2009.
E.5.4. Smallwood, D.O., Multiple Shaker Random Control with Cross Coupling,
Proceedings of the Institute of Environmental Sciences (IES), April 18-20,
1978, pages 341-347.
E.5.5. Underwood, M., Multi-Exciter Testing Applications: Theory and Practice;

Proceedings of the Environmental Sciences and Technology, ESTECH2002,
May 1, 2002, Anaheim, CA.
E.5.6. US Army Developmental Test Command (DTC) / US Army Redstone Test

Center (RTC) Methodology Study of MIMO Vibration Specification Guidance,
March 2010.
E.5.7. Welch, P.D., “The Use of Fast Fourier Transform for the Estimation of Power
Spectra: A Method Base on Time Averaging Over Short, Modified
Periodograms”, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, Volume AU-15, Number 2 /
June 1967.
E.5.8. Multi-Shaker Test and Control: Design, Test, and Evaluation Division
Recommended Practice 022.1, IEST-RP-DTE022.1, 2014.
E.5.9. Underwood, M. and Keller, T. “Applying Coordinate Transformations to Multi-

DOF Shaker Control.” Sound and Vibration Magazine, January 2006.
E.5.10. Fitz-Coy, N, Hale, M. and Nagabhushan, V., “Benefits and Challenges of Over-
Actuated Excitation Systems”, Shock and Vibration Journal, Volume 17,
Number 3 / 2010.

AECTP-400
METHOD 421
E.5.11. Hale, M and Fitz-Coy, N., On the Use of Linear Accelerometers in Six-DOF
Laboratory Motion Replication: A Unified Time-Domain Analysis, 76th Shock
and Vibration Symposium, 2005.
E.5.12. Golub and van Loan, Matrix Computations, John Hopkins Press, 3rd Edition,
1989.
E.5.13. Bendat, J. and Piersol, A. G., Random Data Analysis and Measurement
Procedures, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York, 3rd Edition, 2000.
E.5.14. Smallwood, D.O., “Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) Linear Systems

Extreme Inputs/Outputs”, Shock and Vibration Journal, Vol. 14, Number 2 /
2007, pages 107-132.
E.5.15. Smallwood, D.O., A Proposed Method To Generate a Spectral Density Matrix

for a Multiple Input, Multiple Output (MIMO) Vibration Test, 80th Shock and
Vibration Symposium, 2010.
E.5.16. Wirsching, Paez, and Ortiz, Random Vibrations, Theory and Practice, Wiley
1995.
E.5.17. Hale, M., A 6-DOF Vibration Specification Development Methodology, IEST

Proceedings, May 2011.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
METHOD 422
BALLISTIC SHOCK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.2.1. Ballistic Shock Definition .................................................................... 1-1
1.2.2. Ballistic Shock Momentum Exchange ................................................ 1-2
1.2.3. Ballistic Shock Physical Phenomenon................................................ 1-2
1.3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-4
2.2.1. Procedure I – Ballistic Hull and Turret (BH&T) ................................... 2-3
2.2.2. Procedure II – Ballistic Shock Simulator (LSBSS) .............................. 2-3
2.2.3. Procedure III - Light Weight Shock Machine (LWSM) ........................ 2-3
2.2.4. Procedure IV - Medium Weight Shock Machine (MWSM) .................. 2-4
2.2.5. Procedure V - Drop Table .................................................................. 2-4
2.3. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY............................ 2-4
2.4.1. Measured Ballistic Shock Data Available ........................................... 2-6
2.4.2. Measured Ballistic Shock Data Not Available ..................................... 2-6
2.5. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-7
4.1. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.1.1. Pretest ................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1.2. During Test......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.3. Post Test ............................................................................................ 4-1
4.2. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-2
5.1. TEST FACILITY ........................................................................................ 5-1
5.2. TEST CONTROLS .................................................................................... 5-2
5.3. INSTRUMENTATION ............................................................................... 5-2
5.5.1. Preliminary Planning .......................................................................... 5-3
5.5.2. Pretest Checkout ................................................................................ 5-3
5.6. TEST PROCEDURES .............................................................................. 5-4
5.6.1. Procedure I – Ballistic Hull and Turret (BH&T) ................................. 5-5
5.6.2. Procedure II - Large Scale Ballistic Shock Simulator (LSBSS) ........ 5-6
5.6.3. Procedure III – Light Weight Shock Machine (LWSM) ....................... 5-6
5.6.4. Procedure IV - Medium Weight Shock Machine (MWSM) .................. 5-7
5.6.5. Procedure V – Drop Table.................................................................. 5-8
AECTP-400
METHOD 422

TABLES
1. Typical Ballistic Shock Simulation Procedure Parameters ............................ 2-2
2. Procedure IV MIL-S-901MWSM Hammer Drop Heights ............................... 5-8
ANNEX A BALLISTIC SHOCK - GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST SEVERITY ........ A-1
ANNEX A FIGURES
A-1. Default Ballistic Shock SRS Test Level and Tolerances ............................... A-2
A-2. Measured Ballistic Shock SRS ...................................................................... A-3
ANNEX A TABLES
A-1. Ballistic Shock Characteristics ...................................................................... A-1
A-2. SRS Tolerance Functions for Default Ballistic Shock .................................... A-2
AECTP-400
METHOD 422
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1. SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
This method includes a set of ballistic shock tests generally involving momentum
exchange between two or more bodies or momentum exchange between a liquid or gas
and a solid. The test is performed to:
a. Provide a degree of confidence that materiel can structurally and

functionally withstand the infrequent shock effects caused by high levels of
momentum exchange on a structural configuration to which the materiel is
mounted.
b. Experimentally estimate the materiel's fragility level relative to ballistic

shock in order that shock mitigation procedures may be employed to
protect the materiel’s structural and functional integrity.
1.2. APPLICATION
The Ballistic shock test method simulates a high-level transient shock that generally
results from the impact of projectiles or ordnance on armoured combat vehicles,
hardened targets, or other structures. The transient event can be considered as a specific
application of transient or pyrotechnic shock. The physical phenomenon is characterized
by the overall material and mechanical response at a structure point from elastic or
inelastic impact. Such impact may produce a very high rate of momentum exchange at
a point, over a small finite area or over a large area. The high rate of momentum
exchange may be caused by collision of two elastic bodies or a pressure wave applied
over a surface.
1.2.1. Ballistic Shock Definition
Ballistic shock is a high-level transient shock that generally results from the impact of
projectiles or ordnance on armoured combat vehicles. Armoured combat vehicles must
survive the shocks resulting from large calibre non-perforating projectile impacts, mine
blasts, and overhead artillery attacks, while still retaining their combat mission
capabilities. Reference d discusses the relationship between various shock
environments (ballistic shock, transportation shock, rail impact shock, etc.) for armoured
combat vehicles. Actual shock levels vary with the type of vehicle, the specific munition
used, the impact location or proximity, and where on the vehicle the shock is measured.
There is no intent in this test method to define the actual shock environment for specific
vehicles. Furthermore, it should be noted that the ballistic shock technology is still limited
in its ability to define and quantify the actual shock phenomenon. Even though

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
considerable progress has been made in the development of measurement techniques,

current instrumentation, such as the shock sensing gages, are bulky and cumbersome to
use. The development of analytical (computational) methods to determine shock levels,
shock propagation, and mitigation is lagging the measurement technology. The analytical
methods under development and in use to date have not evolved to the level where
analytical results can be relied upon to the degree that the need for testing is eliminated.
That is, the prediction of ballistic shock response is, in general, not possible except in the
simplest configurations. When an armoured vehicle is subjected to a non-perforating
large calibre munition impact or blast, the structure locally experiences a force loading of
very high intensity and of relatively short duration. The force loading is localized, however
the entire vehicle is subjected to stress waves travelling over the surface and through the
structure. In certain cases, pyrotechnic shocks have been used in ballistic shock
simulations. There are several caveats in such testing. The characteristics of ballistic
shock are outlined in the following paragraphs.
1.2.2. Ballistic Shock Momentum Exchange
Ballistic shock usually exhibits momentum exchange between two bodies or between a
fluid and a solid. It commonly results in velocity change in the support materiel. Ballistic
shock has a portion of its characterization below 100 Hz, and the magnitude of the ballistic
shock response at a given point reasonably far from the ballistic shock source is a function
of the size of the momentum exchange. Ballistic shock will contain material wave
propagation characteristics (perhaps substantially nonlinear) but, in general the material
is deformed and accompanied by structural damping other than damping natural to the
material. For ballistic shock, structural connections do not necessarily display great
attenuation since low frequency structural response is generally easily transmitted over
joints. In processing ballistic shock data, it is important to be able to detect anomalies.
With regard to measurement technology, accelerometers, strain gages, and shock
sensing gages are applicable measurement transducers; see reference a. In laboratory
situations, laser velocimeters are useful. Ballistic shock resistance is not, in general,
“designed” into the materiel. The occurrence of a ballistic shock and its general nature
can only be determined empirically from past experience based on well-defined
scenarios. Ballistic shock response of materiel in the field is, in general, very
unpredictable and not repeatable among materiel.
1.2.3. Ballistic Shock Physical Phenomenon
Ballistic shock is a physical phenomenon characterized by the overall material and

mechanical response at a structure point from elastic or inelastic impact. Such impact
may produce a very high rate of momentum exchange at a point, over a small finite area
or over a large area. The high rate of momentum exchange may be caused by collision
of two elastic bodies or a pressure wave applied over a surface. General characteristics
of ballistic shock environments are as follows:
a. Near-the-source stress waves in the structure caused by high material

strain rates (nonlinear material region) that propagate into the near field

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
and beyond; Combined low and high frequency ( 10 Hz to 1,000,000 Hz )

and very broadband frequency input;
b. Combined low and high frequency (10 Hz to 1,000,000 Hz) and very
broadband frequency input;
c. High acceleration (300 G to 1,000,000 G) with comparatively high structural

velocity and displacement response;
d. Short-time duration, less than 180 milliseconds;
e. High residual structure displacement, velocity, and acceleration response

(after the event);
f. Caused by (1) an inelastic collision of two elastic bodies, or (2) an extremely

high fluid pressure applied for a short period of time to an elastic body
surface coupled directly into the structure, and with point source input. The
input is either highly localized as in the case of collision or area source
input, or widely dispersed as in the case of a pressure wave;
g. Comparatively high structural driving point impedance (P/v, where P is the

collision force or pressure, and v the structural velocity). At the source, the
impedance could be substantially less if the material particle velocity is
high;
h. Measurement response time histories that are very highly random in

nature. The response has little repeatability and very dependent on the
configuration details;
i. Shock response at points on the structure is somewhat affected by

structural discontinuities;
j. Structural response may be accompanied by heat generated by the

inelastic impact or the fluid blast wave;
k. The nature of the structural response to ballistic shock does not suggest
that the materiel or its components may be easily classified as being in the
“near field” or “far field” of the ballistic shock device. In general, materiel
close to the source experiences high accelerations at high frequencies,
whereas materiel far from the source will, in general, experience high
acceleration at low frequencies as a result of the filtering of the intervening
structural configuration.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
1.3. LIMITATIONS
Because of the highly specialized nature of ballistic shock and the substantial sensitivity
of ballistic shock to the configuration, apply the test method only after giving careful
consideration to information contained in references c and d.
a. This method does not include provisions for performing ballistic shock tests
at high or low temperatures. Perform tests at room ambient temperature
unless otherwise specified or if there is reason to believe either operational
high temperature or low temperature may enhance the ballistic shock
environment.
b. This method does not address blast, EMI, and thermal secondary effects

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
2. TEST GUIDANCE
After examining requirements documents and applying the test tailoring process to
determine where ballistic shock effects occur in the life cycle of the materiel, use the
following to confirm the need for this test method and to place it in sequence with other
methods.
In general, ballistic shock has the potential for producing adverse effects on all electronic,
mechanical, and electro-mechanical materiel. In general, the level of adverse effects
increases with the level and duration of the ballistic shock and decreases with the
distance from the source (point or points of impact) of the ballistic shock. Durations for
ballistic shock that produce material stress waves with wavelengths that correspond with
the natural frequency wavelengths of micro-electronic components within the materiel will
enhance adverse effects. Durations for ballistic shock that produce structure response
movement that correspond with the low frequency resonances of mechanical and electro-
mechanical materiel will enhance the adverse effects. The following list is not intended
to be all inclusive but provides examples of problems that could occur when materiel is
exposed to the ballistic shock environment.
a. Materiel failure as a result of destruction of the structural integrity of micro-

electronic chips including their mounting configuration;
b. Materiel failure as a result of relay chatter;
c. Materiel failure as a result of circuit card malfunction, circuit card damage,

and electronic connector failure. On occasion, circuit card contaminants
having the potential to cause short circuits may be dislodged under ballistic
shock. Circuit card mounts may be subject to damage from substantial
velocity changes and large displacements;
d. Materiel failure as a result of cracks and fracture in crystals, ceramics,

epoxies or glass envelopes;
e. Materiel failure as a result of sudden velocity change of the structural

support of the materiel or the internal structural configuration of the
mechanical or electro-mechanical materiel.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
This test method includes five ballistic shock test procedures. Table 1 provides a
summary of the typical parameters for each test procedure. Annex A provides a default
SRS test level and associated acceleration amplitudes for Procedures II through IV if
measured field ballistic shock data is not available. Based on the test instruction
requirements, determine which test procedure is applicable. In most cases, the selection
of the procedure will be dictated by the actual materiel configuration; carefully consider
any gross structural discontinuities that may serve to mitigate the effects of the ballistic
shock on the materiel. In some cases, the selection of the procedure will be driven by
test practicality. Consider all ballistic shock environments anticipated for the materiel
during its life cycle, both in its logistic and operational modes. When selecting test
procedures, consider the following:
a. The operational purpose of the materiel. From the requirements

documents, determine the functions to be performed by the materiel either
during or after exposure to the ballistic shock environment.
b. The natural exposure circumstances for ballistic shock. The natural

exposure circumstances for ballistic shock are based on well-selected
scenarios from past experience and the chances of the occurrence of such
scenarios. For example, if an armoured vehicle is subject to a mine blast,
a number of assumptions must be made in order to select an appropriate
test for the ballistic shock procedure. In particular, the size of the mine, the
location of major pressure wave impact, the location of the materiel relative
to the impact “point,” etc. If the armoured vehicle is subject to non-
penetrating projectile impact, the energy input configuration will be different
from that of the mine, as will be the effects of the ballistic shock on the
materiel within the armoured vehicle. In any case, condition each scenario
to estimate the materiel response as a function of amplitude level and
frequency content. It will then be necessary to decide to which scenarios
to test and which testing is most critical. Some scenario responses may
“envelope” others, which may reduce the need for certain testing such as
road, rail, gunfiring, etc. In test planning, do not break up any measured or
predicted response to ballistic shock into separate amplitude and/or
frequency ranges utilizing different tests to satisfy one procedure.
Table 1: Typical Ballistic Shock Simulation Procedure Parameters
Maximum Test Test

Test Procedure
Item Weight Bandwidth, Hz
I Ballistic Hull & Turret, BH & T Unlimited Full Spectrum
II Large Scale Ballistic Shock Simulator, LSBSS 500 Kg ( 1100 lb ) 10 – 100K
III Light Weight Shock Machine, LWSM 114Kg ( 250 lb ) 10 – 3K
IV Medium Weight Shock Machine, MWSM 2273 Kg ( 5000 lb ) 10 – 1K
V Drop Table 18 Kg ( 40 lb ) 1 - 500

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
2.2.1. Procedure I – Ballistic Hull and Turret (BH&T)
1. Replication of the full frequency spectrum shock associated with ballistic impacts
on armoured vehicles is accomplished by firing projectiles (live fire tests) at a “Ballistic
Hull and Turret” (BH&T) with the materiel under test mounted on the BH&T structure.
This procedure is very expensive and requires that an actual vehicle or prototype be
available, as well as appropriate threat munitions. Because of these limitations, a variety
of other approaches is often pursued.
2. Test items are mounted in the BH&T that replicates the full-size vehicle in its “as
designed” configuration and location. If required, the vehicle mass is adjusted to achieve
proper dynamic response. Appropriate threats (type, distance, and orientation) are
successively fired at the hull and/or turret. This procedure is used to evaluate the
operation of actual components, or the interaction between various components during
actual ballistic impacts. This procedure is also used to determine actual shock levels for
one particular engagement, which may be above or below the ‘default’ shock level
specified in Annex A.
3. Procedure I is different from the other ballistic shock methods in that the shock
levels are unknown until each particular shot (threat munition, attack angle, impact point,
armour configuration, etc.) has been fired and measurements have been made. The
shock levels are determined by the interaction of the threat munition and the armour as
well as by the structure of the vehicle. Although the levels cannot be specified in advance,
this technique produces the most realistic shock levels.
2.2.2. Procedure II – Large Scale Ballistic Shock Simulator ( LSBSS )
Ballistic shock testing of complete components over the 10 Hz to 100 KHz spectrum can
be accomplished using devices such as the Large Scale Ballistic Shock Simulator
(LSBSS). This approach is used for components weighing up to 500 Kg (1100 lbs), and
is considerably less expensive than the BH&T approach of Procedure I. This procedure
is used primarily to test large, hard mounted components at the ‘default’ shock level
specified in Annex A. The procedure is useful for evaluating components of unknown
shock sensitivity.
2.2.3. Procedure III - Light Weight Shock Machine ( LWSM )
Components weighing less than 113.6 kg (250 lbs) and shock mounted to eliminate
sensitivity to frequencies above 3 kHz can be tested over the default Annex A 10 Hz to 3
kHz spectrum using a MIL-DTL-901 Light Weight Shock Machine (LWSM). The LWSM
is adjusted for 15 mm (0.59 inch) displacement limits. Use of the LWSM is less expensive
than full spectrum simulation, and may be appropriate if the specific test item does not
respond to high frequency shock and cannot withstand the excessive low frequency
response of the drop table (Procedure V).

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
The ballistic shock is simulated using a hammer impact. The test item is mounted on an
anvil table of the shock machine using the test item’s tactical mount. The anvil table
receives the direct hammer impact, which replicates the lower frequencies of general
threats to a hull or turret. This procedure produces ‘partial spectrum’ testing (up to
3,000 Hz) at the default test levels specified in Annex A.
2.2.4. Procedure IV - Medium Weight Shock Machine ( MWSM )
Components weighing less than 2273 kg (5000 lbs) and not sensitive to frequencies
above 1 kHz can be tested over the default Annex A 10 Hz to 1 kHz spectrum using a
MIL-DTL-901 Medium Weight Shock Machine (MWSM). The MWSM is adjusted for 15
mm (0.59 inch) displacement limits. Use of the MWSM may be appropriate for heavy
components and subsystems that are shock mounted and/or are not sensitive to high
frequencies.
The ballistic shock is simulated using a hammer impact. The test item is mounted on the
anvil table of the shock machine using the test item’s tactical mount. The anvil table
receives the direct hammer impact, which replicates the lower frequencies of general
threats to a hull or turret. This procedure produces ‘partial spectrum’ testing (up to
1,000 Hz.) at the default test levels specified in Annex A.
2.2.5. Procedure V - Drop Table
1. Lightweight components, typically less than 18 kg (40 lbs), which are shock
mounted can often be evaluated for ballistic shock sensitivity at frequencies up to 500 Hz
using a drop table. This technique often results in an overtest at the low frequencies.
The vast majority of components that need shock protection on an armoured vehicle can
be readily shock mounted. The commonly available drop test machine is the least
expensive and most accessible test technique. The shock table produces a half-sine
acceleration pulse that differs significantly from ballistic shock. The response of materiel
on shock mounts can be enveloped quite well with a half-sine acceleration pulse if an
overtest at low frequencies and an undertest at high frequencies is acceptable.
Historically, these shortcomings have been acceptable for the majority of ballistic shock
qualification testing.
2. Ballistic shock is simulated by the impact resulting from a drop. The test item is
mounted on the table of a commercial drop machine using the test item’s tactical mounts.
The table and test item are dropped from a calculated height. The table receives the
direct blow at the impact surface, which approximates the lower frequencies of general
threat to a hull or turret. This procedure is used for ‘partial spectrum’ testing of shock
mounted components that can withstand an overtest at low frequencies.
2.3. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY
1. Having selected one of the five ballistic shock procedures, based on the materiel’s
requirements documents and the tailoring process, complete the tailoring process by

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
identifying appropriate parameter levels, applicable test conditions and applicable test
techniques for that procedure. Exercise extreme care in consideration of the details in
the tailoring process. Base these selections on the requirements documents, the Life
Cycle Environmental Profile, the Operational Environment Documentation and
information provided with this method. Consider the following information when selecting
test levels.
2. In general, response acceleration will be the experimental variable of

measurement for ballistic shock. However, this does not preclude other variables of
measurement such as velocity, displacement, or strain from being measured and
processed in an analogous manner, as long as the interpretation, capabilities, and
limitations of the measurement variable are clear. Pay particular attention to the high
frequency environment generated by the ballistic attack, as well as the capabilities of the
measurement system to accurately record the materiel’s responses. For the purpose of
this method, the terms that follow will be helpful in the discussion relative to analysis of
response measurements from ballistic shock testing.
3. Effective Transient Duration - The "effective transient duration" is the minimum

length of time which contains all significant amplitude time history magnitudes beginning
at the noise floor of the instrumentation system just prior to the initial pulse, and
proceeding to the point that the amplitude time history is a combination of measurement
noise and substantially decayed structural response. In general, an experienced analyst
is required to determine the pertinent measurement duration to define the ballistic shock
event. The longer the duration of the ballistic shock, the more low frequency information
is preserved. The amplitude time history magnitude may be decomposed into several
“shocks” with different effective transient durations if it appears that the overall time history
trace contains several independent “shock-like” events in which there is decay to near
noise floor of the instrumentation system between events. Each event may be considered
a separate shock. Method 403 provides further description of the effective transient
duration.
4. Shock Response Spectrum Analysis - Reference b defines the equivalent static

acceleration maximax Shock Response Spectrum (SRS) and provides examples of SRS
computed for classical pulses. The SRS value at a given undamped natural oscillator
frequency, fn, is defined to be the absolute value of the maximum of the positive and
negative acceleration responses of a mass for a given base input to a damped single
degree of freedom system. The base input is the measured shock amplitude time history
over a specified duration; the specified duration should be the effective transient duration.
To some extent, for processing of ballistic shock response data, the equivalent static
acceleration maximax SRS has become the primary analysis descriptor. In this
measurement description, the maximax equivalent static acceleration values are plotted
on the ordinate with the undamped natural frequency of the single degree of freedom
system with base input plotted along the abscissa. Interpret the phrase “equivalent static
acceleration” literally only for rigid lightweight components on isolation mounts. Test
Method 417 provides further description of the effective transient duration and SRS.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
Derive the SRS and the effective transient duration, T, from measurements of the
materiel’s response to a ballistic shock environment or, if available, from dynamically
scaled measurements of a similar environment. Because of the inherent very high degree
of randomness associated with the response to a ballistic shock, extreme care must be
exercised in dynamically scaling a similar environment. For ballistic shock, there are no
known scaling laws because of the sensitivity of the response to the size of the shock and
the general configuration.
2.4.1. Measured Ballistic Shock Data Available
If measured data are available, the data may be processed utilizing the Shock Response
Spectrum (SRS). The use of Fourier Spectra (FS) or the Energy Spectral Density (ESD)
is not recommended, but may be of interest in special cases. For engineering and
historical purposes, the SRS has become the standard for measured data processing. In
the following discussion, it will be assumed that the SRS is the data processing tool. In
general, the maximax SRS spectrum (equivalent static acceleration) is the main quantity
of interest. With this background, determine the SRS required for the test from analysis
of the measured environmental acceleration time history. After carefully qualifying the
data, to make certain there are no anomalies in the amplitude time histories, according to
the recommendations provided in reference a, compute the SRS. The analyses will be
performed for Q = 10 at a sequence of natural frequencies at intervals of at least 1/12th
octave spacing to span a frequency range consistent with the objective of the specific test
procedure.
Because sufficient field data are rarely available for statistical analysis, an amplitude
increase over the envelope of the available spectral data is sometimes used to establish
the required test spectrum to account for variability of the environment. The degree of
permissible amplitude increase is based upon engineering judgement and should be
supported by rationale for that judgement. In these cases, it is often convenient to
envelope the measured SRS by computing the maximax spectra over the sample spectra
and adding a +6 dB margin to the SRS maximax envelope. This amplitude increase
should not be applied to the default SRS test values in Annex A of this method.
2.4.2. Measured Ballistic Shock Data Not Available
If a database is not available for a particular configuration, carefully use configuration

similarity and any associated measured data for prescribing a ballistic shock test.
Because of the sensitivity of the ballistic shock to the system configuration and the wide
variability inherent in ballistic shock measurements, use caution in determining ballistic
simulation test levels. Annex A Table A-1 and Figure A-1 give ‘default’ values for
expected ballistic shock levels when no field measurement results are available.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
2.5. SEQUENCE
Unless otherwise identified in the life cycle profile and, since ballistic shock is normally
experienced in combat and potentially near the end of the life cycle, normally schedule
ballistic shock tests late in the test sequence. In general, the ballistic shock tests can be
considered independent of the other tests because of their unique and specialized nature.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
3. SEVERITIES
Test conditions are specified in paragraph 5 and Annex A.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 422

INSTRUCTION
4.1. COMPULSORY
4.1.1. Pretest
a. Type of ballistic shock test device.
b. Means of initiation of the ballistic shock test device.
c. Duration of the ballistic shock.
d. General materiel configuration including measurement locations on or near

the materiel.
e. Test system (test item/platform configuration) detailed configuration

including:
(1) Location of the ballistic shock test device;
(2) Location of the materiel;
(3) The structural path between the ballistic shock device and the
materiel, and any general coupling configuration of the ballistic
shock device to the platform and the platform to the materiel
including the identification of structural joints.
4.1.2. During Test
a. For test validation purposes, record deviations from planned or pre-test

procedures or parameter levels, including any procedural anomalies that
may occur.
b. Damage to the test device or test fixture that may result in a variation of
input test levels and preclude further testing until replaced or repaired.
4.1.3. Post Test
a. Duration of each exposure as recorded by an instrumented test fixture or

test item, and the number of specific exposures.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
b. Any data measurement anomalies, e.g., high instrumentation noise levels,

loss of sensors or sensor mounting as a result of testing, etc.
4.2. IF REQUIRED
a. The climatic conditioning conditions, if other than standard laboratory

conditions;
b. Test tolerances, if different or additional to those in the test procedures.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
5.1. TEST FACILITY
The most common equipment is the drop table shock test machine utilized for shock
testing of small items. For larger items that are sensitive to high frequency shock, higher
frequency content and can only tolerate limited displacement, the Light Weight Shock
Machine (LWSM) and Medium-Weight Shock Machine (MWSM) specified in MIL-DTL-
901 can be useful tools for ballistic shock simulation. For large items, the Large Scale
Ballistic Shock Simulator (LSBSS) utilizes an explosive charge to drive a plate to which
the materiel is mounted. Reference d further describes test equipment for ballistic shock
testing.
a. Procedure I - A BH&T device is the armour shell of a vehicle. It must

contain the actual, fully functional, vehicle armour, but may not have an
operational engine, suspension, gun, tracks, etc. The number of functional
components and total weight of the BH&T device are adjusted to meet the
requirements of each individual test effort.
b. Procedure II - The LSBSS is a 22,700 kg (25-ton) structure that uses high

explosives and hydraulic pressure to simulate the shock experienced by
armoured vehicle components and materiel (up to 500 kg (1100 lbs))
caused by the impact of enemy projectiles. Reference g provides further
information related to LSBSS equipment.
c. Procedure III - The MIL-DTL-901 Lightweight Shock Machine uses a 182

kg (400-lb) hammer to impact an anvil plate containing the test item.
Hammer drops of 1 foot, 3 feet, and 5 feet are used from two directions in
three axes if the worst case axis is unknown. If the worst case axis is known
and agreed, it is only necessary to test in the worst case axis.
d. Procedure IV - The MIL-DTL-901 Medium-Weight Shock Machine uses a

1360 kg (3000-lb) hammer to impact an anvil table containing the test item.
Hammer height is a function of the weight on the anvil table (test item and
all fixturing), and is specified in Table 1 of reference f, MIL-DTL-901.
e. Procedure V - Drop tables typically have a mounting surface for the test
item on an anvil that is dropped from a known height. In some machines,
the anvil is accelerated by an elastic rope, hydraulic, or pneumatic pressure
to reach the desired impact velocity. The duration and shape (half-sine or
saw tooth) of the impact acceleration pulse are determined by a
‘programmer’ (elastic pad or hydro-pneumatic device), which in turn

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
determines the frequency content of the simulated shock. Test Method 403
provides further guidance on classical shock waveforms.
5.2. TEST CONTROLS
a. For shock-mounted components, it is often necessary to determine the

transfer function of the shock mounting system. Typically, a ‘dummy
weight’ of the appropriate mass and centre of gravity is mounted in place
of the test item and subjected to full level shocks. The input shock and test
item responses are measured to verify performance of the shock mounts.
Once shock mount performance has been verified, evaluation of an
operational test item can begin.
b. Prior to subjecting the test item to the full level shock, a variety of
‘preparation’ shocks are typically performed. For Procedure I (BH&T), a
low level ‘instrumentation check’ round is normally fired prior to shooting
actual threat ammunition. A typical ‘instrumentation check’ round would be
4 to 16 oz. of explosive detonated 1 to 18 inches from the outer armour
surface, and would usually produce no more than 10% of the shock
expected from threat munition. For Procedure II (LSBSS), a low-level
instrumentation check shot is usually fired prior to full level testing. For
Procedure III (MIL-DTL-901 LWSM), the 1 foot hammer blow is normally
used to check instrumentation, and any measurement problems are
resolved prior to 3-foot and 5-foot hammer drops. For Procedure IV (MIL-
DTL-901 MWSM), use the ‘Group 1’ hammer height for the instrumentation
check. A similar approach is used on Procedure V Drop Table, where a
low-level drop is used to check instrumentation before conducting the full
level shock.
5.3. INSTRUMENTATION
Acceleration or velocity measurement techniques that have been validated in shock

environments containing the high level, high frequency shock that characterize ballistic
shock must be used. In general, ballistic shock measurements require the use of at least
two different measurement technologies to cross check each other for validity. In
addition, the frequency spectrum of ballistic shock content is generally so wide (10 Hz to
more than 100,000 Hz) that no single transducer can make valid measurements over the
entire spectrum. The broad time frequency environment provides a challenge for
calibration of measurement sensors and any tolerances provided in the Test Instruction.
The physical dimension of the ballistic measurement transducer, severe environment,
and cost may limit the ability to measure more than one axis. Reference e and h provides
further details on instrumentation and measurement techniques.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
Configure the test item for ballistic shock as would be anticipated during in-service use.
In particular, attention is needed to the details of the mounting of the materiel to the testing
platform.
5.5.1. Preliminary Planning
Prior to initiating any testing, review pretest information in the test instruction to determine
test details such as procedures, test item configuration, ballistic shock levels, number of
ballistic shocks. Typical planning requirements are indicated below:
a. Choose the appropriate test procedure.
b. If the ballistic shock is a calibrated test, determine the appropriate ballistic

shock levels for the test prior to calibration.
c. Ensure the ballistic shock signal conditioning and recording devices have
adequate amplitude range and frequency bandwidth. It may be difficult to
estimate a peak signal and range the instrumentation appropriately. In
general there is no data recovery from a clipped signal. However, if signal
conditioning is over-ranged, it is usually possible to acquire meaningful
results for a signal 20 dB above the noise floor of the measurement system.
In some cases, redundant measurements may be appropriate - one
measurement being over-ranged and one measurement ranged at the best
estimate for the peak signal. The frequency bandwidth of most recording
devices is usually readily available, but ensure that the recording device
input filtering does not limit the signal frequency bandwidth.
5.5.2. Pretest Checkout
All items require a pretest checkout at standard ambient conditions to provide baseline
data. Conduct the checkout as follows:
Step 1. Conduct a complete visual examination of the test item with

special attention to any micro-electronic circuitry areas. Pay
particular attention to the item’s platform mounting configuration
and potential stress wave transmission paths.
Step 2. Document the results.
Step 3. Where applicable, install the test item in its test fixture.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
Step 4. Conduct an operational checkout in accordance with the approved

test instruction along with simple tests to ensure the measurement
system is responding properly.
Step 5. Document the results for comparison with test data.
Step 6. If the test item operates satisfactorily, proceed to the first test. If
not, resolve the problem and restart at Step 1.
Step 7. Remove the test item and proceed with the calibration.
5.6. TEST PROCEDURES
1. The following procedures provide the basis for collecting the necessary
information concerning the platform and test item under ballistic shock. Since one of four
or more ballistic shock devices may be employed, the instructions below must be
consistent with the ballistic shock device selected. General requirements applicable for
Procedures II through IV are provided below, followed by detailed procedures for each
ballistic shock test Procedure I to V. The detailed test descriptions for Procedures II
through V below assume the default test amplitudes in Annex A will be applied for the
test procedures. If measured data is available for the test, the data is substituted for the
Annex A test severity.
2. For Ballistic Shock Procedures II to IV, subject the test item to the appropriate
ballistic shock level a minimum of three times in the axis of orientation of greatest shock
sensitivity (i.e., the worst case direction). Perform a functional verification of the
component during/after each test. For frequencies above 1 kHz, many ballistic shock
events produce similar shock levels in all three axes. If the shock levels are known from
previous measurements, the shock testing can be tailored appropriately. If shock
measurements are not available, use steps a through g outlined below.
a. Ensure the test item remains in place and that it continues to function during
and following shocks that are at or below the average shock level specified
in Annex A Table A-1. The test item must also remain in place and continue
to function following shocks that are at or below the worst case shock level
specified in Annex A Table A-1. Ensure materiel critical to crew survival
(e.g., fire suppression systems) continues to function during and following
the worst case shock.
b. Mount the transducer(s) used to measure the shock on the structure as

near as possible to the structure mount. Take triaxial measurements at this
location. If triaxial measurements are not practical, make as many uniaxial
measurements as is practical.
c. Analyse the shock measurements in the time domain, as well as the

frequency domain. Calculate the SRS using a damping ratio of 5 percent

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
of critical damping (Q = 10); calculate the SRS using at least 12 frequencies

per octave, proportionally spaced in the region from 10 Hz to 10 kHz (e.g.,
120 frequencies spaced at approximately 10, 10.59, 11.22, 11.89, 12.59,
8414, 8913, 9441, 10,000 Hz).
d. For a test shock to be considered an acceptable simulation of the

requirement, 90 percent of the points in the region from 10 Hz to 10 kHz
must fall within the bounds listed in Annex A Table A-2.
e. If more than 10 percent of the SRS points in the 10 Hz to 10 kHz region are
above the upper bound, an overtest has occurred. If more than 90 percent
of the SRS points lie between the upper and lower bounds, the desired
qualification test has occurred. If none of the above occurs, and more than
10 percent of the points are below the lower bound, an undertest has
occurred. Averaging of the time history or SRS from multiple measurement
transducers for the same axis is not acceptable to meet the qualification
requirements.
f. If the test item or its mount fails during an acceptable test or an undertest,
redesign the materiel and/or its mount to correct the deficiency.
g. Retest the redesigned materiel and/or its mount following the above
procedure.
5.6.1. Procedure I – Ballistic Hull and Turret (BH&T)
Step 1. Select the test conditions and mount the test item in a Ballistic Hull
and Turret (BH&T), that may require ‘upweighting’ to achieve the
proper dynamic response. In general, there will be no calibration
when actual hardware is used in this procedure. Select
measurement techniques that have been validated in ballistic
shock environments.
Step 2. Perform a functional check on the test item.
Step 3. Fire the threat munitions at the BH&T and verify that the test item
functions as required. Typically, make shock measurements at
the mounting location (‘input shock’) and on the test item (‘test
item response’).
Step 4. Record necessary data for comparison with pretest data.
Step 5. Photograph the test item as necessary to document damage.
Step 6. Perform a functional check on the test item. Record performance

data.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
5.6.2. Procedure II - Large Scale Ballistic Shock Simulator (LSBSS)
Step 1. Mount the test item to the LSBSS using the same mounting
hardware as would be used in the actual armoured vehicle. Select
the orientation of the test item with the intent of producing the
largest shock in the ‘worst case’ axis.
Step 2. A dummy test item is typically mounted until measurements

confirm that the proper explosive ‘recipe’ (i.e., combination of
explosive weight, stand-off distance, and hydraulic displacement )
has been determined to obtain the shock levels specified in Annex
A Table A-1 and on Figure A-1. Following the dummy checkout,
mount an operational test item to the LSBSS.
Step 3. Fire the LSBSS and verify the test item is functioning as required
before, during, and after the shot.
Step 4. Record initial data for comparison with post test data.
Step 5. Fire three test shots at the shock level specified in Annex A
Table A-1.
Step 6. Inspect the test item; photograph any noted damage, and record
data for comparison with pretest data.
5.6.3. Procedure III – Light Weight Shock Machine (LWSM)
Step 1. Modify the mounting for the anvil plate, by shimming the four table
lifts, to restrict total travel, including dynamic plate deformation, to
15 mm (0.59 inch). Mount the test item to the LWSM using the
same mounting hardware as would be used in an actual armoured
vehicle. Choose the orientation of the test item with the intent of
producing the largest shock in the ‘worst case’ axis.
Step 2. Perform a pretest checkout and record data for comparison with
post test data.
Step 3. Typically, make shock measurements at the ‘input’ location to

ensure that the low frequency shock levels specified in Annex A
Table A-1 and on Figure A-1 have been attained on the 5-foot
drop.
Step 4. Perform a 1 foot hammer drop followed by a performance check;

record data.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
Step 5. Perform a 3-foot hammer drop followed by a performance check;

record data.
Step 6. Perform a 5-foot hammer drop followed by a performance check;

record data.
Step 7. Repeat Step 5 two more times.
Step 8. If the worst case axis is unknown, see paragraph 5.1c, repeat
steps 2 to 6 for each direction of each axis for a total of 18 five-
foot hammer drops.
5.6.4. Procedure IV - Medium Weight Shock Machine (MWSM)
Step 1. Modify the supports for the anvil table, by shimming the four table
lifts, to restrict table total travel, including dynamic plate
deformation, to 15 mm (0.59) inch.
Step 2. Mount the test item to the MWSM using the same mounting
hardware as would be used in an actual combat vehicle. Choose
the orientation of the test item with the intent of producing the
largest shock in the ‘worst case’ axis, see Step 7 below.
Step 3. Perform a pretest checkout and record data for comparison with
post test data.
Step 4. Typically, make shock measurements at the ‘input’ location to

ensure that the low-frequency shock levels specified in Annex A
Table A-1 and on Figure A-1 have been attained on the Group III
drop. See Table 2, Group III below; the table is derived from MIL-
DTL-901.
Step 5. Perform a Group I height hammer drop followed by a performance

check; record data.
Step 6. Perform a Group III height hammer drop followed by a

performance check; record data.
Step 7. Repeat Step 6 two more times.
Step 8. If the worst case axis is unknown, see paragraph 5.1c, repeat
steps 2 to 6 for each direction of each axis for a total of 18 hammer
drops at the Group III height.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
5.6.5. Procedure V – Drop Table
Step 1. Analytically calculate the expected response of an in-service

shock mounted test item, and calculate a shock response
spectrum (SRS). Or, based on measured field test data, calculate
an in-service SRS level. Choose a half-sine acceleration pulse
whose SRS ‘envelopes’ the expected response of the shock
mounted item. This envelope approach typically results in an
overtest at the lowest frequencies.
Step 2. Hard mount the test item to the drop table.
Step 3. Conduct a performance check and record transient shock data for
comparison with post test data.
Step 4. Test using the appropriate half sine acceleration pulse three times
in each direction of all three axes, both positive and negative, for
a total of 18 drops.
Step 5. Conduct a performance check and record data for comparison

with pretest data.
Table 2: Procedure IV MIL-DTL-901 MWSM Hammer Drop Heights
Total Weight on Anvil Table Group I Group II Group III

lb Kg ft cm ft cm ft cm
Under 1000 Under 454 0.75 23 1.75 53 1.75 53
1000 to 2000 454 to 907 1.00 30 2.0 61 2.0 61
2000 to 3000 907 to 1361 1.25 38 2.25 69 2.25 69
3000 to 3500 1361 to 1588 1.50 46 2.5 76 2.5 76
3500 to 4000 1588 to 1814 1.75 53 2.75 84 2.75 84
4000 to 4200 1814 to 1905 2.0 61 3.0 91 3.0 91
4200 to 4400 1905 to 1996 2.0 61 3.25 99 3.25 99
4400 to 4600 1996 to 2087 2.0 61 3.5 107 3.5 107
4600 to 4800 2087 to 2177 2.25 69 3.75 114 3.75 114
4800 to 5000 2177 to 2268 2.25 69 4.0 122 4.0 122
5000 to 5200 2268 to 2359 2.5 76 4.5 137 4.5 137
5200 to 5400 2359 to 2449 2.5 76 5.0 152 5.0 152
5400 to 5600 2449 to 2540 2.5 76 5.5 168 5.5 168
5600 to 6200 2540 to 2814 2.75 84 5.5 168 5.5 168
6200 to 6800 2812 to 3084 3.0 91 5.5 168 5.5 168
6800 to 7400 3084 to 3357 3.25 99 5.5 168 5.5 168

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
Analyse any failure of a test item to meet the requirements of the system specifications,
and consider related information. Carefully evaluate any failure in the structural
configuration of the test item, such as mounts, that may not directly impact failure of the
functioning of the materiel but that would lead to failure during in-service environment
conditions.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
a. Handbook for Dynamic Data Acquisition and Analysis, IES-RP-DTE012.1,

Institute of Environmental Sciences, 940 East Northwest Highway, Mount
Prospect, Illinois 60056.
b. Kelly, Ronald D. and George Richman, “Principles and Techniques of

Shock Data Analysis,” The Shock and Vibration Information Center,
SVM-5, United States Department of Defense.
c. Walton, W. Scott and Joseph Bucci, “The Rationale for Shock Specification
and Shock Testing of Armored Ground Combat Vehicles”, Proceedings of
the 65th Shock and Vibration Symposium, Volume I, October 1994,
pp. 285-293.
d. Walton, W. Scott, “Ballistic Shock Simulation Techniques for Testing

Armored Vehicle Components”, Proceedings of the 64th, Shock and
Vibration Symposium, Volume I, October 1993, pp. 237-246.
e. Walton, W. Scott, “Pyroshock Evaluation of Ballistic Shock Measurement

Techniques”, Proceedings of the 62nd Shock and Vibration Symposium,
Volume 2, pp. 422-431, October 1991.
f. MIL-DTL-901E, Shock Tests H.I. (High Impact) Shipboard Machinery,

Equipment, and Systems, Requirements For, USA Department of the
Navy, 20 June 2017.
g. Hollburg, Uwe, “On the Simulation of Ballistic Shock Loads”, Proceedings

of the 58th Shock and Vibration Symposium, Volume 1, pp. 119-135,
October 1987.
h. International Test Operation Procedure (ITOP) 4-2-828, Ballistic Shock

Testing, 5 January 2000.

AECTP-400
METHOD 422
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 422
ANNEX A BALLISTIC SHOCK - GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST SEVERITY
3. Annex A provides characteristics of a default Shock Response Spectrum (SRS)

for use with the ballistic shock Procedures II through IV. The Annex is not applicable for
Procedures I and V. Procedure I (BH&T) is a live fire test rather than a laboratory
simulation. Procedure V is based on an analytical or measured SRS level for the drop
test. Table A-1 provides typical characteristics for a measured ballistic shock and the
representative maximax SRS peak. The representative average, worst, and minimum
case SRS spectra are shown in Figure A-1 for a 10 to 100 KHz bandwidth. The
amplitudes defined in Table A-1, or alternatively Figure A-1, are the laboratory simulation
requirements and do not require an envelope or exaggeration factor. These test levels
are based on measured ballistic shock data for various vehicles, threat munitions, and
impact configurations.
Table A-1: Ballistic Shock Characteristics
Average Shock Worst Case Shock

Maximum 2
Resonant Peak Peak Peak 1 Peak Peak Peak 1
Frequency, Hz Displacement, Velocity, Value of Displacement, Velocity, Value of
mm m/s SRS, Gs mm m/s SRS, Gs
10 15 1.0 6.0 42 2.8 17
29.5 15 3.0 52.5 42 8.5 148
100 15 3.0 178 42 8.5 502
1,000 15 3.0 1,780 42 8.5 5,020
10,000 15 3.0 17,800 42 8.5 50,200
100,000 15 3.0 178,000 42 8.5 502,000
Notes:
1. The SRS, or Equivalent Static Acceleration, values are calculated for a damping
ratio equal to 5 percent of critical, Q = 10.
2. Tests involving all frequencies from 10 Hz to the maximum frequency are indicated.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 422
Table A-2: SRS Tolerance Functions for Default Ballistic Shock
SRS Tolerance Resonant Frequency, fn

Boundary From 10 to 29.5 Hz From 29.5 to 10 kHz
Upper Limit ( + 9 dB ) SRS = ( 0.1702 ) fn 2 SRS = ( 5.020 ) fn
Lower Limit ( - 6 dB ) SRS = ( 0.03026 ) fn 2 SRS = ( 0.89272 ) fn
4. The test tolerances are defined in Table A-2 and are the minimum and worst case
SRS. The upper tolerance SRS is the average plus 9 dB, and the lower tolerance is the
average minus 6 dB. The tolerance limits apply for the bandwidth limits of the required
test procedure, or as defined in the Test Instruction. The tolerance limit is not applicable
above 10 kHz. The test method defines the specific procedures, numbers of shocks
applied, and any applicable exclusions for available measured test data or other Test
Instruction requirements.
1000000
Worst Case Shock
Upper Tolerence, + 9 dB
100000
Maximax Peak SRS, Gs
10000
Average
1000 Shock
100
Minimum Shock
10 Lower Tolerence, - 6 dB
1
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Resonant Frequency, fn , Hz
Figure A-1: Default Ballistic Shock SRS Test Level and Tolerances

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 422
1000000
100000
Maximax Peak SRS, Gs
10000
1000
100 Measured Shock

SRS Curve
10
1
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Resonant Frequency, fn , Hz
Figure A-2: Measured Ballistic Shock SRS
Figure A-2 illustrates a laboratory ballistic shock simulation measured SRS, default
average, tolerance limits, and the pass–fail test criteria described in the test procedure.
For the required test bandwidth, 10 to 10 kHz, the measured SRS is slightly outside both
the upper and lower tolerance limits for several frequencies. From the SRS calculations,
the primary out of tolerance bands are approximately 20 to 30 Hz, 7 to 8 kHz, and 9.5 to
10 kHz. In this case, the sum of the out of tolerance SRS values, 14 points below the
lower tolerance limit, exceeds the maximum of 10 % or 12 points. The test is not
acceptable, the measured SRS is an undertest of the test item.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 422
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
METHOD 423
TIME WAVEFORM REPLICATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.2.1. Time Waveform Replication ............................................................... 1-1
1.2.2. SESA Time Waveform Replication ..................................................... 1-1
1.2.3. Time Trace ......................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.4. General Considerations and Terminology .......................................... 1-3
1.2.5. Time-Varying Time Trace-Physical Phenomenon .............................. 1-7
1.2.6. General TWR Test Philosophy with Regard to Time Trace
Simulation (and Scaling) .................................................................... 1-7
1.3. LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................... 1-10
2.1.1. Effects of Transition to Time Trace TWR .................................................. 2-1
2.2. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.4. TEST PROCEDURE ................................................................................. 2-2
3.1. SEVERITIES ............................................................................................. 3-1
3.2. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS................................................................ 3-1
3.3. TEST ITEM OPERATION ......................................................................... 3-2
CHAPTER 4 INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN THE TEST INSTRUCTION .... 4-1
4.1. COMPULSORY ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.2. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-2
4.3. TEST FACILITY ........................................................................................ 4-2
5.1. PROCEDURE I – THE SESA REPLICATION OF A FIELD MEASURED
OR ANALYTICALLY DERIVED MATERIEL TIME TRACE
INPUT/RESPONSE .................................................................................. 5-1
5.2.2. Pretest Checkout ................................................................................ 5-2
5.2.3. Procedure Specific ............................................................................. 5-3
5.2.3.1. Procedure I – SESA Replication of a Field Measured Materiel Time
Trace Input/Response ........................................................................ 5-3
5.4. TOLERANCES.......................................................................................... 5-5
5.5. CONTROLS ............................................................................................ 5-10
5.5.1. Calibration ........................................................................................ 5-10
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
5.5.2. Instrumentation ................................................................................ 5-10

5.6. TEST INTERRUPTION ........................................................................... 5-11
5.6.1. Interruption Due to Laboratory Equipment Malfunction .................... 5-11
5.6.2. Interruption Due to Test Materiel Operation Failure ......................... 5-12
5.6.3. Interruption Due to a Scheduled Event............................................. 5-12
5.6.4. Interruption Due to Exceeding Test Tolerances ............................... 5-13
6.1. EVALUATION OF TEST RESULTS.......................................................... 6-1
6.2. DATA ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 6-1
6.3. TEST REPORT ......................................................................................... 6-2
6.5. QUALIFICATION TESTS .......................................................................... 6-3
6.6. OTHER TESTS ......................................................................................... 6-3
7.1. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS ................................................................. 7-1
FIGURES
1. Basic TWR Test Modes as Related to Time Trace Scaling ...................... 1-5
2. Basic TWR Test Simulation Combinations ............................................... 1-8
ANNEX A SESA POST-TEST ANALYSIS ILLUSTRATION FOR TEST
TOLERANCE ASSESSMENT ............................................................... A-1
A.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ A-1
A.2. GENERAL PHILOSOPHY FOR TWR TESTING ....................................... A-1
A.3. DESCRIPTION OF REFERENCE TIME TRACE....................................... A-2
A.4. TIME TRACE PRE-PROCESSING ........................................................... A-3
A.4.1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... A-3
A.4.2. FREQUENCY BAND LIMITING ................................................................ A-5
A.4.3. TIME TRACE CORRELATION ................................................................. A-8
A.4.4. TIME TRACE SEGMENT IDENTIFICATION ............................................ A-9
A.5. POST-TEST PROCESSING FOR TPP .................................................. A-11
A.6. TPP TRANSIENT VIBRATION ................................................................ A-13
A.7. TPP STATIONARY VIBRATION ............................................................. A-16
A.8. TPP SHOCK ........................................................................................... A-22
A.9. POST-TEST PROCESSING FOR STA ................................................... A-28
ANNEX A FIGURES
A-1. Field Measured Acceleration Reference Time Trace ................................ A-2
A-2a. Exciter Head (H) (Reference/Control Time Traces Prior to Post-Test
Preprocessing) .......................................................................................... A-4
A-2b. Exciter Slip Table (S) (Reference/Control Time Traces Prior to Post-Test
Preprocessing) .......................................................................................... A-4
A-3. Reference/Control Time Trace Periodograms for Frequency Band Limiting
Through FFT Window Filtering ................................................................. A-7
A-4. Cross-Covariance Function Estimates Between Reference and Control
Time Traces .............................................................................................. A-8
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
A-5. Time Trace Segment Identification from Previously Truncated Reference

Time Traces .............................................................................................. A-9
A-6. Transient Vibration Reference Time Trace Segment .............................. A-10
A-7. Stationary Random Vibration Reference Time Trace Segment .............. A-10
A-8. Shock Reference Time Trace Segment .................................................. A-11
A-9. Plots of Overall Difference Time Trace with Toot- Mean- Square ........... A-12
A-9a. Difference Exciter (H).............................................................................. A-12
A-9b. Difference Exciter (S) .............................................................................. A-12
A-9c. Time Trace of Difference of the Differences ((S) – (H)) .......................... A-12
A-10. Transient Vibration Time Traces - r, c, and s .......................................... A-13
A-11. r Versus c Cross-Plot .............................................................................. A-14
A-12. Transient Vibration q-q Plot for s Versus Gaussian ................................ A-15
A-13. Composite Root-Mean-Square Envelope Estimates for r and c .............. A-15
A-14. Composite Normalized ASD Estimates for r and c.................................. A-16
A-15. Stationary Vibration Time Traces - r, c, and s ......................................... A-17
A-16. Stationary Vibration Probability Density Function Estimates................... A-18
A-17. Stationary Vibration q-q Plot for s Versus Gaussian ............................... A-18
A-.18a. FOT Error Assessment – 10% REA Error Fraction-of-Time (FOT) ......... A-19
A-18b. FOT Error Assessment - 5% REA FOT Error Bounds ............................ A-20
A-18c. FOT Error Assessment - One-sided 10% REA FOT Error Bounds ......... A-20
A-19a. Composite ASD Estimates for r and c..................................................... A-21
A-19b. ASD Estimate for s.................................................................................. A-22
A-20. Shock Time Traces - r, c, and s .............................................................. A-23
A-21. r Versus c Cross-Plot .............................................................................. A-24
A-22. Shock q-q Plot for s Versus Gaussian .................................................... A-25
A-23a. Composite Pseudo-Velocity Maximax Pseudo-Velocity SRS for r and c A-26
A-23b. Composite Maximax Acceleration SRS for r and c ................................. A-26
A-24. ESD Estimates for r and c ....................................................................... A-27
A-25. ESD Estimate for s.................................................................................. A-27
A-26. Short-Time Averaging for Difference Mean ............................................. A-28
A-27. Short-Time Averaging for Difference Root-Mean-Square ....................... A-29
ANNEX B SUMMARY OF POST-TEST ANALYSIS PROCESSING
PROCEDURES AND TEST TOLERANCE SPECIFICATION ................... B-1
B.1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... B-1
B.2. TERMINOLOGY ....................................................................................... B-2
B.3. REPLICATION ERROR (TEST TOLERANCE) ASSESSMENT
EXPRESSIONS ........................................................................................ B-3
B.4. REPLICATION ERROR TOLERANCE SPECIFICATION ....................... B-12
ANNEX B TABLE
B-I. Summary of Error Assessment Expressions ............................................. B-5

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
Replication of a time trace under Time Waveform Replication (TWR) methodology in

the laboratory is performed to:
a. Provide a degree of confidence that the materiel can structurally and

functionally withstand the measured or analytically derived test time
trace(s) to which the materiel is likely to be exposed in the operational
field environment.
b. Experimentally estimate the materiel’s fragility level in relation to form,

level, duration, or repeated application of the test time trace(s).
1.2. APPLICATION
1.2.1. Time Waveform Replication
This test Method discusses TWR from a single-exciter/single-axis (SESA) perspective.

Although much of the philosophy and terminology in TWR testing is common between
SESA, multiple-exciter/single-axis (MESA), and, multiple-exciter/multiple-axis
(MEMA), this Method will be limited to SESA testing. Multiple-exciter TWR applications
are addressed in Method 421. This Method provides guidelines for developing test
tolerance criteria for single axis TWR testing. Annex A addresses SESA TWR testing
by illustration. Annex B provides an overview of post-test analysis tools useful in TWR
for verification of test tolerance compliance.
1.2.2. SESA Time Waveform Replication
1. SESA TWR consists of the replication of either measured or analytically derived

(e.g., synthesized from model based predictions) time trace(s) in the laboratory with a
single exciter in a single axis, and is performed to accurately preserve the spectral and
temporal characteristics of the measured environment. Without loss of generality in
the discussion to follow, application of this Method will consist of a single time trace.
SESA TWR in this Method is founded upon a “Deterministic/Probabilistic” framework
of random process theory. An analytically derived time trace is assumed to be fully
deterministic in nature with no relationship to a probabilistic framework, e.g., a chance
of occurrence. A single measured time trace within a probabilistic framework is
assumed to be a sample realization from an ensemble of possible time traces
generated by an experiment that is replicated a number of times under identical
conditions. For a single measured time trace, it is optimal to assume that the measured
time trace represents the random process ensemble mean determined by averaging
over an ensemble of records at each time increment, and has a confidence coefficient

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
of 0.50. For more than one measured time trace captured under identical experimental
conditions, it may be possible to create a time trace ensemble for which averaging over
the ensemble members for each sample time increment yields valid estimates of the
statistical moments for the unknown stochastic process underlying the time trace
generation. This general deterministic/probabilistic philosophy for SESA TWR has
important implications for time trace scaling considerations. Replicating a single time
trace in this Method is generally transparent to the distinction between a deterministic
time trace and the ensemble mean of a stochastic time trace.
2. Until recently, the replication of time traces representing measured samples of

field environments varying in time and even frequency, or a combination of both
time/frequency variations, was not possible using commonly available exciter control
system software. The advent of more powerful data processing hardware/software,
and the implementation of advanced control strategies, has led to exciter control
system hardware and software that permit convenient replication of extended time-
varying test environments on a single exciter in a single axis in the laboratory. TWR
test methodology strongly reflects the concept of “test tailoring”.
1.2.3. Time Trace
1. The general term “time trace” is employed throughout this Method in an attempt
to capture all of the possibilities of TWR applied in the replication of field measured
(stochastic) or analytically derived (deterministic) environments in the laboratory. The
following six forms of time trace are potential candidates for TWR testing.
a. Stationary random Gaussian time trace with arbitrary ASD of arbitrary

duration.
b. Stationary random non-Gaussian time trace (for certain forms of non-

Gaussian distribution, e.g., local skewness and high kurtosis) with
specified ASD of arbitrary duration.
c. Short duration shock time trace.
d. Non-stationary time trace that has time-varying amplitude, time-varying

frequency or both of an intermediate duration (longer than a typical shock
time trace).
e. Non-stationary/stationary time trace that is repetitive at fixed period (e.g.,

gunfire shock).
f. Non-linear form time trace.
2. For general application, the time trace to be replicated under TWR is of a

substantially shorter duration than typical stationary random environments, and usually
of a longer duration than mechanical shocks. A TWR time trace may be composed of
any combination of form specified in 1.2.3a through f above.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
1.2.4. General Considerations and Terminology
1. For purposes of discussion to follow, a single measured time trace is a function

of finite duration having a uniform time sample increment and varying amplitude that is
provided in digital form. For convenience, the single time trace under consideration is
taken as acceleration, but the principles below apply equally well to other time trace
representations such as velocity, displacement, force, etc.
2. It is assumed that for any measured physical phenomenon, the measurement

can be repeated an indefinite number of times under the exact same conditions limited
only by measurement resources, i.e., the underlying random process has an ensemble
representation generally unknown. In the discussion to follow, reference to a
measured time trace ensemble related to an underlying random process will assume
the following:
a. Measured time traces are from a single physical phenomenon and have
a joint correlation structure. This basically assumes a uniform and
identical sample rate for all time traces, and common beginning and
ending points.
b. The underlying random process has a deterministic component (or

“signal”) that can be estimated by the time-varying mean of the
ensemble.
c. The underlying random process has a random component (or “noise”)

that can be estimated by a time-varying standard deviation of the
ensemble.
d. If the measured time trace ensemble has only one member then this
member will assume to be the underlying random process deterministic
component or mean with a confidence coefficient of 0.5, i.e., this sample
time trace has a 0.5 probability of being greater or less than the true
underlying random process mean at each time increment.
NOTE: This is not strictly correct because time traces have serial correlation
information that essentially correlates the time trace from one time increment to
the next time increment and, thus, the confidence coefficient may vary
depending upon the degree of serial correlation.
3. Figure 1 provides a schematic outlining three basic TWR test modes designed
to clarify the issue of time trace scaling. Generally, Method 423 attempts to define time
trace scaling, but provides no direct guidance on time trace scaling; relegating the
rationale for any time trace scaling to procedures outside this Method. The first TWR

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
test mode involves a single measured time trace (or concatenation of N measured time
traces) replicated under TWR with no scaling and

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
TWR Test Scaling
(NS) Single Measurement (ES) Measured Ensemble (AS) Single Measurement

3
5
Amplitude
2
5
0
Amplitude
0
1 -5
8 -5
Amplitude
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 7 Time
(AS) Single Measurement (Scaled)
6
5
-1 5
Amplitude
4
0
-2 3 100
80
Ensemble 2 60
Time 40 -5
-3 20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 Ensemble
Time Time Time
NS: No-Scaling ES: Ensemble-Scaling AS: Analytical-Scaling
Figure 1: Basic TWR Test Modes as Related to Time Trace Scaling

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
for scaling (termed NS for No-Scaling). In this mode there is no explicit ensemble basis
for an underlying random process, and the time trace for replication is assumed to have
a confidence coefficient of 0.50. A second mode for testing involves an ensemble of
N measured time traces from a single phenomenon representative of sample functions
from an underlying random process. In this second mode, any basis for scaling must
be obtained from the N member ensemble, external to this Method, and will generally
involve separate scale factors for the deterministic and random component estimates
defined by the ensemble (termed ES for possibility of Ensemble-Scaling). A third mode
involves an analytically derived time trace that assumes a basis for amplitude scaling
(for a single time trace or an ensemble), and is termed AS for Analytical-Scaling. In
this third mode the basis for scaling must come from outside this Method, and is
generally “ad hoc” as will be defined in paragraph 1.2.6. A fourth mode of scaling with
the intent of adding conservatism is possible through the introduction of increased test
duration, and is termed as TS for Time-Scaling. In summary, (1) NS is the
recommended fully tailored TWR testing that this Method is designed to address with
no scaling allowed; (2) ES implies a proper mode of scaling based upon adequate
ensemble sample trace information and rationale outside this Method, and (3) AS
implies TWR testing using scaling based upon methodology outside this Method, but
is not generally recommended unless the methodology has been properly validated.
(4) TS implies conservatism in terms of test durations exceeding the basic mission
scenario.
4. Scaling based upon other than measured ensemble statistics is termed ad hoc
in this Method. As implied above, the creation of an ensemble implies that there exists
an ensemble mean (deterministic component) estimate for the underlying random
process, and a “residual ensemble” created by subtracting the mean from each
member of the ensemble (random component) for the underlying random process. The
deterministic component is “orthogonal” or uncorrelated to the random component by
definition. Scaling for a measured ensemble based random process must consider
individual scaling of both the deterministic and random components. Scaling based
upon extraction of parameters from individual time traces, assessing these parameters,
and scaling time traces based upon this parameter assessment in general is ad hoc.
It is termed “ad hoc” because it scales the deterministic component and the random
component essentially the same. For such ensemble representation, the deterministic
component (the signal) and the random component (the noise) need to be scaled
separately.
5. Underlying random processes within this Method will be assumed to have

sampled continuous time traces e.g., analog voltage signal, in contrast to discrete
processes such as a Poisson counting process trace. However, a laboratory test
scenario may incorporate a discrete underlying random process through application of
a series of concatenated time traces under TWR. Such an extended laboratory test
scenario may provide more overall information for materiel structural and functional
integrity assessment. Extended laboratory test scenarios will be discussed further
when test axes, duration, and the number of time trace(s) applications are discussed
in Chapter 3 below. It would also appear that TWR is capable of replication of time

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
traces that are generated as result of reducing a uniformly sampled time trace for
fatigue purposes. Typically, traces suitable for fatigue testing only consist of discrete
peak and valley points, and are the result of applying a cycle counting process to a
uniformly sampled time trace. Cycle counting and peak/valley identification generally
distort the measured time trace in time, and can be characterized as a form of nonlinear
time trace that can be forced to be band-limited within the exciter bandwidth through
appropriate interpolation.
1.2.5. Time-Varying Time Trace - Physical Phenomenon
A time-varying trace captured in measurement signals is caused by the time-varying

phenomenon that is being measured. In general, the time-varying characteristics of
the environment (excluding shock) are longer than the lowest resonant frequency
characteristics of the materiel under test. In particular, a time-varying trace may range
from three seconds to several hundred seconds.
1.2.6. General TWR Test Philosophy With Regard To Time Trace Simulation (and
Scaling)
1. As emphasized in paragraph 1.2.4, time trace scaling to enhance

conservativeness of laboratory testing is generally outside the scope of this Method.
Figure 2 defines simulation possibilities within TWR including time trace scale rationale
assumed to be provided external to this Method.
2. Two terms important to understanding TWR simulation will be introduced. The

first term, intrinsic statistics, refers to the time-varying statistical estimates available
from a single measured time trace (generally from short-time estimates). A single time
trace has a confidence coefficient of 0.50, and the time-varying statistical estimates
provide no information relative to the underlying ensemble-based random process,
except for an estimate of the mean of the underlying random process. The second
term, extrinsic statistics, refers to the time-varying statistical estimates available from
more than one measured time trace, which forms a sample time trace ensemble. In
this case, not only is an estimate of the underlying random process mean available,
but also an estimate of its variance on a time increment basis. For comprehensive
LCEP directed TWR materiel testing specifying analytical time traces through
simulation, knowledge of the extrinsic statistics is essential. In general, specifying
analytical time traces through simulation based upon intrinsic statistics is very limited,
and usually unreliable for testing to the underlying random process. Conversely, if a
very small measured time trace sample ensemble is available, estimates of the
underlying random process parameters tend to have large errors providing for an
unreliable simulation. In this latter case, a more optimum test scenario is provided by
replication of each of the individual measured time traces in a pre-defined sequence.
A useful way to view intrinsic versus extrinsic statistics is to envision a One-Way
Analysis of Variance, whereby the intrinsic statistics correspond to the “error within”,
and the extrinsic statistics correspond to the “error among”.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
Test
TWR Simulation / Scaling
(SM) Single Measurement (MS) Measured Ensemble

(SS) Single Measurement (MM) Measured Ensemble
3
5
Amplitude
2 5
0
Amplitude
0
5
-5
Amplitude
1
-5 8 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Amplitude
-5
Time 6 8
0
(SS) Single Measurement (Simulated) 7 100
6
5 4 5
80
100 60
-1 4
80
Amplitude
2 3 40
60
0 2
Ensemble
Time 40
1 20
20 Ensemble
Time
-2 0 0 Ensemble 0 0
Ensemble
Time Time
-5
-3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Time
(MS) Measured Ensemble (Simulated)
Time (MM) Concatenated
4
Amplitude
0
-2
-4
5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Amplitude
0 8 Time
(MM) Concatenated
-5 7 4
0 6
20 5 2
Amplitude
4
40 0
3
60
2 -2
80 1 Time
-4
Ensemble 100 0 Ensemble 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time Time
MM: Multiple-Measured
SM: Single-Measured SS: Single-Scaled MM: Multiple-Measured MS: Multiple-Scaled

Figure 2: Basic TWR Test Simulation Combinations

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
3. Figure 2 attempts to clarify simulation issues for the four potential TWR test
modes provided in the Figure. Whenever simulation is undertaken, it is implicit that the
measured time trace(s) is scaled as a result of the simulation. This scaling is not
considered “ad hoc” per se. The left most portion of the figure provides the simplest
TWR test scenario with a single measured time trace and no scaling NS and no
simulation (termed SM for Single-Measured). The left center portion of the figure
provides for a single measured time trace with intrinsic trace time-average estimation
used for creation of a simulated ensemble consisting of a single time trace, where AS
is implied (termed SS for Single-Simulated). The right center portion provides the case
of multiple measurements from a single phenomenon, with ensemble creation followed
by simulation based upon combined intrinsic/extrinsic statistics and ES implied (termed
MS for Multiple-Scaled). The right-most portion of the figure provides the case of
multiple measurements from a single phenomenon, and the possibility of
concatenation of the measurements (assuming ensemble information for simulation is
too limited) (termed MM for Multiple-Measured). For generality, MM may allow for (but
does not recommend) the use of “ad hoc” scaling of the individual measurements to
be concatenated. To summarize, (1) SM is the recommended basic fully tailored TWR
testing that this Method is designed to address; (2) SS is a less desired approach to
replication of details of a single time trace with a minimal set of information that implies
scaling a single time trace; (3) MS is recommended as a specialized information/labor
intensive, but faithful approach to replication of an underlying random process under
TWR and, finally, (4) MM is recommended for a time trace concatenation form of testing
where “ad hoc” scaling procedures are best not applied.
4. It is vitally important that the distinctions made in Figure 1 and Figure 2 be

recognized in TWR testing. In addition it is important to note the following:
a. For zero mean Gaussian distributed stationary time traces, scaling is

upon the random component alone, and ways of performing scaling for
more than one time trace are provided in Leaflet 2410. For these time
traces, the statistics in the frequency domain, i.e., autospectral density
estimates, are computed and envelopes determined.
b. For time traces with a time-varying mean-square, it is unlikely that the

ensemble representation of the underlying random process will have a
time invariant or constant variance. If the underlying random process has
a time-varying variance, then the sample time traces cannot be scaled
by a constant and still preserve the probabilistic structure of the process.
c. For multiple time traces from the same underlying random process,
creation of an ensemble may not be straight forward since it is nearly
impossible to obtain measured time traces with exactly the same length
by repeating the experiment, i.e., collection process (see paragraph 7.1,
reference 3.). It is also important to remember that the measured time
traces must be “registered” or “serially correlated” according to some
physical phenomenon, so that averaging over the ensemble members for
each sample time point is meaningful. In the case where a valid

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
ensemble is available, it is possible to estimate both the mean and

variance of the random process at each time increment by averaging
over the ensemble members. Under these circumstances, TWR testing
could proceed on the basis of use of (a) the ensemble mean, (b) the
“maximum” of the ensemble members, (c) all N ensemble members, or
(d) the ensemble mean plus (minus) a proportion of the square root of
the ensemble variance. All four of these choices will preserve the
probability structure of the unknown random process underlying the
ensemble realizations. It is vitally important to note that “scaling” the
ensemble mean, or any ensemble member by a constant factor, in
general, will not provide time traces that are representative of the
probability structure of the random process, unless the variance of the
unknown random process is constant in time. Use of (d) above for TWR
testing needs further amplification. The variance estimate obtained from
averaging over the ensemble at each time increment will provide an
unbiased estimate of the variance at the time increment with substantial
random error or variation. Scaling each time point by the square root of
the variance (with appropriate sign) provides for a “non-linear”
transformation of the scaled time trace (since adjacent time increments
may be scaled by factors that are different by an order of magnitude).
Thus it becomes necessary to smooth the ensemble variance estimate
in time to obtain acceptable time-varying scale factors. This smoothing
introduces bias error with the benefit of decreased random error or
variability. Unfortunately, there is little concrete guidance on the degree
of smoothing that should be applied and, in fact, this becomes a form of
a non-linear regression problem (i.e., smoothing is dependent upon the
true unknown shape of the data being smoothed). Scaling based upon
statistical ensemble estimates should only be performed by a competent
data analyst familiar with random process theory, and the techniques of
non-linear regression.
5. This summarizes the rationale behind the philosophy of this Method of

simulation, and not directly recommending the “scaling” of measured time traces.
6. In TWR testing involving analytically-specified deterministic time trace

information, there is substantial test flexibility depending upon the assumptions that
are made, be they ad hoc or from some rational basis. In this case, this Method
becomes merely a tool for replicating what is generated without regard for the
assumptions behind the specification. Any rationale for amplitude scaling is again
external to this Method. Increased duration or repetitions is an acceptable alternative
to amplitude scaling.
1.3. LIMITATIONS
This Method addresses very general time-varying traces not necessarily identifiable
with underlying stationary or non-stationary random processes. It is apparent from

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
various vendor TWR hardware/software configurations that the only requirement for
application of this Method is the band-limited character of the time trace for replication,
and its compatibility with the band-limited characteristics of the device (exciter) to be
driven with the TWR hardware/software. For example, measured time traces that vary
in frequency can be replicated as long as the time trace bandwidth is limited to overall
bandwidth of the exciter control system. Non-Gaussian time traces can be replicated
under TWR. All measured time traces can be replicated under TWR, provided they
are within the band limit capabilities of the exciter control system to which they are
applied for testing purposes. Limitations of this Method include the following:
a. Does not specifically address very long (several hour) time traces that
can be termed “stationary” in nature (Gaussian or non-Gaussian and
possibly have significant discrete components, e.g., UAV measured
environments). It is possible to repeat a given time trace multiple times,
however, variations associated with actual experiment repetitions in the
field will not be captured. It is important to note that, given a single
stationary Gaussian or non-Gaussian time trace of sufficient length, it is
possible to (1) divide this time trace into multiple time trace segments at
zero crossings (required close to zero mean for each segment) and, (2)
randomly place these segments into a permuted order to generate
multiple time traces of sufficient length but essentially stochastically
independent of one another. This can be particularly attractive for
measured stationary non-Gaussian environments where the non-
Gaussian “exact moment structure” must be preserved over long periods
of time. The alternative to this is precise modeling of the measurement
time trace and subsequent stochastic generation of unlimited segments
for TWR input.
b. Does not explicitly address repeated environments that may be of a non-

stationary nature because of the occurrence pattern of the environment.
For example, no discussion is provided on occurrence statistics that may
be modeled in terms of a non-stationary (rate-varying) Poisson process.
c. Generally does not address the characteristics of the time trace on the
materiel in terms of materiel “rise-time” response.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
After examining requirements documents and applying the tailoring process in AECTP-
100 to determine where significant time-varying effects are foreseen in the life cycle of
the materiel, use the following to confirm the need for this Method and to place it in
sequence with other methods.
2.1.1. Effects of Transition to Time Trace TWR
Method 423 is broadly consistent with the philosophy of test tailoring. This method is
based on the use of measured or analytically derived data. The data record should be
of sufficient length to describe the environment. A substantial high amplitude field
measured time trace has the potential for producing adverse effects on all electronic
materiel. The potential for adverse effects may be related to transition time and
duration of the time trace. When transition to the time trace and time variation
characteristics in the time trace is short, “rise times” in materiel response may be
adequate to cause degradation in performance. When duration of the time trace is
substantial in comparison to the transition times, the effects to materiel, e.g., low cycle
fatigue, may also be substantial. In performing a TWR test, it is desirable that the
onset/termination of the significant environment be consistent with the
onset/termination of the environment anticipated in the field.
2.2. SEQUENCE
a. General. Use the anticipated life cycle sequence of events as a general

sequence guide (see AECTP-100, paragraph 5.5).
b. Unique to this Method. Generally, significant time-varying traces may

occur at any time during the life cycle of the materiel, and are usually
interspersed among stationary random and shock environments that are
covered under guidance provided in Methods 401, and 403, respectively.
1. Mechanical shock has the potential for producing adverse effects on the
physical and functional integrity of all materiel. In general, the damage potential is a
function of the amplitude, velocity, and the duration of the shock. Shocks with
frequency content that correspond with materiel natural frequencies will magnify the
adverse effects on the materiel's overall physical and functional integrity.
2. Vibration results in dynamic deflections of and within materiel. These dynamic

deflections and associated velocities and accelerations may cause or contribute to

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
structural fatigue and mechanical wear of structures, assemblies, and parts. In

addition, dynamic deflections may result in impacting of elements and/or disruption of
function. Some typical symptoms of vibration-induced problems follow. This list is not
intended to be all-inclusive:
a. Chafed wiring.
b. Loose fasteners/components.
d. Electrical shorts.
e. Deformed seals.
f. Failed components.
g. Optical or mechanical misalignment.
h. Cracked and/or broken structures.
i. Migration of particles and failed components.
j. Particles and failed components lodged in circuitry or mechanisms.
k. Excessive electrical noise.
l. Fretting corrosion in bearings.
2.4. TEST PROCEDURE
Procedure I: The SESA replication of a field measured or analytically derived materiel

time trace input/response. Determine if there exists a carefully measured and properly
processed field measured time trace, or if there is a generated, uniformly sampled
band-limited analytical time trace. Determine if the time trace can be placed in a
portable data file such as an ASCII file for archive and replication. If there are field
measured or analytically derived environmental time traces for a materiel component,
determine if the time trace(s) has an extended form over the entire materiel, i.e.,
determine the extent of spatial correlation.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
3.1. SEVERITIES
1. Test levels and durations should be established using projected Life Cycle
Environmental Profiles, available data, or data acquired directly from an environmental
data gathering programme.
2. It should be noted that the test selected may not necessarily be an adequate
may be necessary to complement the test results.
3. For TWR replication of measured time traces in the laboratory, the test levels
are fully specified by the field measured time traces. If several field measured time
traces are available, generally, the tester will want to make up a single data file
consisting of several “events” appropriately spaced in time. In general, for this Method,
it is not recommended that any factor, constant or otherwise, be applied to “enhance”
the measured time trace for testing (for reasons discussed in paragraph 1.2.6). It is
not recommended that time traces that exceed the capacity of the vibration exciter be
scaled down by gain, e.g., run at –3 dB. For pretest exciter control system
compensation, i.e., establishing the exciter system transfer function, the time trace may
be applied at lower levels to either the test item or to a dynamically similar surrogate.
Identify the test conditions, particularly with respect to temperature. Exercise extreme
care in consideration of the details in the tailoring process. Base the test level and
condition selections on the requirements documents, the Life Cycle Environmental
Profile, and information provided within this procedure.
3.2. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. As has been mentioned in paragraph 1.2, statistical estimates defining the

behavior of a non-stationary random process can only be made on ensembles of time
traces from the non-stationary process. Typically, only one sample time trace from an
ensemble of an unknown non-stationary random process is available. It is absolutely
essential that the test time trace be fully documented such that transfer of a file of the
test time trace can be made to other laboratories for application or testing, and be
repeated in the future. Information on the location of measurement transducers and
general test configuration must accompany the test time trace. Any such analytical
description can be tied directly to comparison between the time trace input to the
exciter control system (reference time trace) and the test output as recorded by the
exciter control system (control time trace). To clarify the terminology standard, the
“reference time trace” is merely the representation of the time trace for the laboratory
test. The “control time trace” is the digital file created by the exciter control system
representing the “result” of the test. This control time trace is created by converting an
analog voltage signal from a measurement device, e.g., an accelerometer mounted on

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
the test item or test item interface at the location that the reference time trace is to be
replicated, to a digital form by a signal conditioned analog-to-digital device. It is
referred to as a “control” time trace because it is in the comparison of the reference
time trace to the control time trace that the analog input to the exciter device is
compensated in order to reproduce the reference time trace. The “control” time trace
represents the “best fit” of the output of the exciter control system parameters through
compensation to the desired input reference time trace. Annex A provides the details
of a typical time reference/control comparison. A successful test under TWR is defined
as a test, whereby the control time trace compares to the reference time trace within
the tolerance limits specified for the test. The tolerance limits may be specified in the
time domain, the frequency domain or a combination of the two. Annex B provides the
basis for developing meaningful tolerance limits under SESA TWR. Rudimentary
tolerance limits are provided within most vendor supplied TWR software for purposes
of “controlling,” i.e., appropriately compensating the system prior to test but, in general,
the test laboratory will want to establish and implement some well-defined analytical
procedures for comparing the control time trace file with the reference time trace file.
Annexes A and B provide guidance in this area.
2. The test item may be instrumented at other locations than at the point of
“control.” The other measurements made during testing are referred to as monitoring
measurements. Such measurements may be useful for purposes such as analytical
modeling of the materiel, or just monitoring materiel response dynamic characteristics,
and will not be discussed further here. For SESA exciter laboratory testing, the TWR
software allows only single measurement comparison and monitoring for signal
compensation “control” purposes.
3. For the TWR procedure, subject the test item to a sufficient number of suitable
time trace events to meet the specified test conditions. Generally, the number of times
the test item is subject to a given time trace event is determined from the materiel’s life
cycle profile in much the same way the duration for stationary random vibration is
determined or the number of shock applications for shock is determined. In any case,
subject the test item to no fewer than three time trace events for establishing
confidence in the materiel’s integrity under test if specific information from the
materiel’s life cycle profile is not available.
3.3. TEST ITEM OPERATION
Whenever appropriate, ensure the test item is active and operating during TWR testing.
Monitor and record achieved performance correlated in time with the test time trace.
Obtain as much data as possible that define the sensitivity of the materiel to the time
trace environment. Where tests are conducted to determine operational capability
while exposed to the environment, operate the test item. In other cases, operate the
item where practical. Operation during transportation will not be possible in almost all
cases. Also, there are cases where the operational configuration varies with mission
phase, or where operation at high time trace levels may not be required, and may be
likely to result in damage.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423

INSTRUCTION
4.1. COMPULSORY
The following information is required to conduct and document TWR tests adequately.
Tailor the lists to the specific circumstances, adding or deleting items as necessary.
a. General. Information listed in AECTP-400, Method 400, Chapter 3.
(1) Test system (test item/platform configuration) detailed information

including:
(a) Control sensor location for control time trace (for single axis
testing this will be a point near the original reference
measurement point).
(b) Reference time trace to be replicated (stored on the TWR

control system disk).
(c) Monitor sensor locations (if any).
(d) Test bandwidth and preprocess reference time trace as

required.
(e) Levels of pre-test acceptable to obtain appropriate exciter

system compensation.
(f) Criteria for satisfaction of the test including TWR tolerance

limits related to the reference time trace and the control
time trace(s).
(2) Ability of overall system to replicate the time trace under TWR
including band-limited input and the temperature effects (if any).
For the application of more than one time trace, the individual time
traces must be separated at time intervals that allow the test item
to assume a pre-test dynamic condition (unless this is contrary to
the requirements of the LCEP). Impedance mismatches and
boundary conditions are important for assessing the ability to
execute a successful TWR test.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
c. Tailoring. Necessary variations in the basic test procedures to

accommodate LCEP requirements and/or facility limitations.
4.2. IF REQUIRED

connections, etc.);
c. The value of the tolerable spurious magnetic field;
d. Tolerances, if different from paragraph 5.4.
4.3. TEST FACILITY
Use a test facility, including all auxiliary equipment, capable of executing the TWR test
with the control strategies and tolerances discussed in paragraph 5.4. In addition, use
measurement transducers, data recording, and data reduction equipment capable of
measuring, recording, analyzing and displaying data sufficient to document the test
and to acquire any additional data required. In particular, decide on the means of
determining if test tolerances have been met through either vendor supplied measures
or digital post-processing measures as described in the Annexes. For TWR testing it
is important that all measurements and monitoring of test item functioning be correlated
in time.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
5.1. PROCEDURE I - THE SESA REPLICATION OF A FIELD MEASURED OR

ANALYTICALLY DERIVED MATERIEL TIME TRACE INPUT/RESPONSE
The SESA replication of a field measured time trace representing an input to the
materiel or a response of the materiel considers only an un-scaled measured time trace
in the laboratory with a single exciter in a single axis or mechanical degree-of-freedom.
conditions.

temperature over a weekend, can have a significant impact. The actual test conditions
concern the duration for high temperature storage and operational tests, high
temperature soaks during vibration, and possibly solar radiation tests. AECTP 200
provides further guidance on accelerated aging.
Carefully examine the reference time trace for validity. Ensure the reference time trace
is band limited according to the band limits of the exciter and control system software.
Make force requirement estimates based upon peak acceleration in the reference time
trace, and the overall mass to be driven by the exciter, and compare this to the exciter
force limits. If possible, integrate the acceleration time trace to obtain a velocity trace,
and subsequently integrate the velocity trace to obtain a displacement trace to ensure
the exciter is capable of reproducing the acceleration time trace without impacting its
stops. Impacting stops, even in a cushioned hydraulic actuator, will typically result in
materiel damaging accelerations. If integration is impractical or deemed likely
inaccurate, the system may be operated using a dummy mass to determine if the
available exciter stroke is sufficient. Generally, the vendor software estimates for

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
maximum velocity and displacement should be verified, and some advanced signal
processing procedures should be applied.
CAUTION: Integration is a difficult task that may provide unreliable answers.

Using a technique such as a wavelet transformation, recommend removal of DC
bias or very low frequency drift that falls below the minimum frequency of
interest without imposing a phase lag.
Deciding upon the strategy for TWR compensation of the reference time trace, i.e.,
determining the exciter drive voltage, is a very important and potentially time-
consuming task. The vendor approach to reference time trace compensation must be
clearly understood. The advantages and disadvantages of time and frequency
compensation error reduction strategies must be clearly understood. Boundary
conditions and impedance mismatches almost always require maximum use of all the
vendor software strategies for compensation. Use of exciter slip tables present special
challenges for reference time trace compensation. Vendor software will generally allow
compensation on (1) a band limited random signal, (2) a reduced level of the reference
time trace, or (3) the full level reference time trace as the test progresses or as
accumulated from previous testing at full level. Some vendor software may allow
different compensation functions (transfer functions) on different portions of the
reference time trace. It is recommended that testing be initially performed on a
dynamic simulant item that represents the dynamic properties of the materiel to be
tested to ensure the reference time trace can be properly compensated and accurately
replicated. Remember that the bandwidth of the control time trace reflects the
response of the dynamic simulation item or the materiel, and may be substantially
broader than the bandwidth of the reference time trace. TWR “control” is generally
active only over the bandwidth of the reference time trace, allowing uncompensated
response outside of this bandwidth. Vendor software may permit control beyond the
band limit of the reference time trace. If the bandwidth differences (reference versus
control) can be detected early on, this will be helpful in interpreting the results of the
test, particularly with respect to meeting test tolerances.
5.2.2. Pretest Checkout
Verify that each of the following check list items is established prior to initiation of the
test
a. Test fixture requirements.
b. Test fixture modal survey requirements / procedure.
c. Test item/fixture modal survey requirements / procedure.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
d. Control and monitor measurement locations correlate with the

configuration for which the reference time trace was obtained.
e. Test tolerances.
f. Requirements for combined environments.
g. Test schedule(s) and duration of exposure(s).
h. Axes of exposure.
i. Test shutdown procedures for test equipment or test item problems,

failures, etc.
j. Test interruption recovery procedure. (See paragraph 5.6)
k. Test completion criteria including any post processing for a refined

tolerance assessment (STTR).
l. Test requirements (force, acceleration, velocity, displacement) can be

met. Seek approval for variation if required. Document any variation.
m. Allowable adjustments to test item and fixture (if any); these must be
documented in test plan and the test report.
n. Adequate digital data storage requirements.
5.2.3. Procedure Specific
The following steps provide the basis for collecting the necessary information under
TWR testing.
5.2.3.1. Procedure I - SESA Replication of a Field Measured or Analytically

Derived Materiel Time Trace Input/Response
Step 1. Select the test conditions and mount the test item (or dynamic
simulant item) on the vibration exciter. Select accelerometers and
analysis techniques that follow the guidance outlined in paragraph
7.1, reference 2.
Step 2. If required; perform an operational check on the test item at

standard ambient conditions. If the test item operates
satisfactorily, proceed to Step 3. If not, resolve the problems and
repeat this step.
Step 3. Subject the test item (or dynamic simulant) to the system
identification process that determines the compensated exciter
drive voltage. This may include a careful look at the component

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
parts of the reference time trace, i.e., stationary vibration, shock,

transient vibration; and determination of the potential time variant
properties of the compensating function. If a dynamic simulant is
used, then replace the dynamic simulant with the test item after
compensation.
Step 4. Subject the test item in its operational configuration to the

compensated waveform. It is often desirable to make an initial run
at less than full level to ensure proper dynamic response and
validate instrumentation functionality.
Step 5. Record necessary data, paying particular attention to the vendor

software supplied test error indicator and, in general, the control
acceleration time trace that can be post processed to demonstrate
tolerance satisfaction.
Step 6. Perform an operational check on the test item and record the
performance data as required. If failure is noted, follow the
guidance in paragraph 5.6.2.
Step 7. Repeat Steps 4, 5, and 6 for the number of replications called out
in the requirements document, or a minimum of three times for
statistical confidence provided the integrity of the test
configuration is preserved during the test.
Step 8. Document the test series including the saving of all control and
monitor digital time traces, and see Chapter 6 for analysis of
results.
5.3 . INSTALLATION CONDITIONS OF TEST ITEM
Test items can vary from materiel components to structural assemblies containing several
different subassemblies. Consequently, the installation procedures need to take into
account the following:

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
 The test item attachment should simulate actual in-service mounting

attachments (including vibration isolators, and fastener torque, if
appropriate). Items mounted on rubber isolation systems may require
monitoring of the isolator temperature with planned test interruptions to
prevent overheating and unnatural failure of the isolator or unrealistic
transfer of energy to the unit under test.
 All the connections (cables, pipes, etc.) should be installed to impose

stresses and strains on the test item similar to those encountered in
service.
The following should also be considered:
 The possibility of exciting the test item simultaneously along several axes
using more than one vibration generator (refer to Method 421 for
additional guidance);
 Materiel resonances;
 The direction of gravity or the load factor (mechanisms, vibration

isolators, etc.) must be taken into account by compensation or by suitable
simulation.
5.4. TOLERANCES
1. General Philosophical Discussion. At this point in TWR test methodology, test

tolerance specification is not well quantified. Test tolerance development for TWR is
based upon a different laboratory test philosophy as opposed to the test philosophy
contained in Methods 401 and 403. The reason for this change in philosophy is
embedded in the implementation of TWR testing. TWR testing may involve replicating
a combination of stationary Gaussian, stationary non-Gaussian, and nonstationary
measured environments within a single time trace designated the reference time trace.
Tolerance specification may be related to current tolerance specification in Methods
401 and 403, or be independently established based upon the nature of TWR testing.
First, it is important to note that TWR does not provide a “waveform control strategy”
that implies the satisfaction for the time control trace of each of the time/amplitude
coordinates of every point within the reference time trace (satisfaction to within some
predetermined amplitude tolerance, while totally satisfying the sampling time
constraint). Exciter control and feedback hardware/software configurations to
accomplish this to a bandwidth of 2000 Hz are currently not available. TWR implicitly
“averages” the reference time trace (waveform) information over both time and
frequency. There are two sources for the time and frequency averaging. The first
source is through compensation of the voltage drive waveform by linear convolution
of the exciter system impulse response function estimate with the reference time trace.
The condition of system linearity is almost never satisfied so that the reference time
trace is averaged over time through the linear convolution (as opposed to providing

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
convolution through a two-dimensional non-stationary/nonlinear impulse response

function that changes instantaneously in time). The second source is the implicit and
nearly unavoidable averaging of significant amounts of energy from signals outside of
the reference time trace bandwidth (i.e., the bandwidth for TWR control). These two
sources of time/frequency averaging severely limit consideration of time point (or
increment) by time point (or increment) amplitude tolerance limit specification between
the reference and control time traces. Experience has shown that the distribution of
the time point by time point difference between the reference and control time traces
is almost always non-Gaussian distributed, leading to the need for a complex tolerance
specification and interpretation. Even though this may seem to be a significant
limitation for the implementation of TWR testing, it is important to realize that the focus
of TWR is replication of a stochastic field environment for which any one measured
sample time trace (out of a potentially infinite number of such traces) has a zero
probability of occurrence. Because the exact probability structure of the “true” field
environment is generally unknown, this implies that the test tolerance specification can
be quite broad, and the objective of the test (be it structural integrity or functional
capability) can be satisfied at the same time. In the broadest interpretation, this can
border on concluding that if the reference and control time traces plotted side-by-side
visually “look alike”, then tolerance in terms of random process theory and sample
functions has been met, even though the time-point by time-point amplitude (TPP)
difference between the reference and control traces may be substantial. In the
tolerance consideration for this Method, although TPP provides an interesting display
by plotting the reference time trace versus the control time trace along orthogonal axes
(see Annex A), it is not recommended that TPP comparison be the major determiner
for test tolerance satisfaction. Instead, recommend that time and frequency average
estimates made over the same time frame on the reference and control time traces be
used for tolerance specification. In particular, it is recommended that frequency based
averages incorporated into ASD, SRS estimation, and time-based averages
incorporated into mean-square (or root-mean-square) estimation be used in tolerance
specifications whenever possible. Methods 401 and 403 incorporate test tolerances
on ASD and SRS estimates, respectively. The tolerances in these two methods are
easily interpreted, and generally are easily satisfied in TWR testing. With regards to
time based averages, it is important to note that while the root-mean-square of the
difference between two independently distributed Gaussian random variables is a
function of the square-root of the sum of their variances, the difference of the root-
mean-square levels of the two random variables (averaged over a certain number of
realizations) may be an order of magnitude or more less. That is, the variance of an
average of N variables from a probability distribution with variance  2 is  2 N . Annexes
A and B discuss the form for tolerance specification in more detail. In the paragraphs
to follow, the term “Specialized Test Tolerance Requirements” (STTR) will be used.
Use of STTR recognizes that TWR testing may require a level of sophistication in
environmental test tailoring not experienced in the standard methods. For example,
materiel exposed to high levels of kurtosis may require TWR test methodology based
upon field measurements. Such a specialized laboratory test may require verification
of the kurtosis levels, and a detailed specification of the shape of the probability density
function to ensure other probability distribution moments are acceptable. It is not

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
feasible in this Method to prescribe acceptable tolerance limits for this scenario. Thus,
such tolerance limits will be developed under the term STTR and will require trained
analysts for specification and interpretation. This allows the focus in paragraphs 5.4.2
and 5.4.4 of a more practical nature.
2. Practical Tolerance Considerations. Laboratory testing in another method that

is implemented by using TWR test methodology should be under laboratory test
tolerance requirements in the other method. For example, Method 403 provides
tolerances on shock under the SRS methodology. For a measured shock time trace
replicated under TWR test methodology, the same SRS based test tolerances should
apply for comparison of the reference time trace SRS with the control time trace SRS.
In general, tolerances specified for TWR test methodology should be consistent with,
and no broader than laboratory test tolerances in other methods for testing with
similar objectives. Relative to TWR test methodology on measured time traces of
diverse form, measured mechanical response time traces and portions of such time
traces may have any one of three characteristic forms.
a. The first form is that of Gaussian or non-Gaussian stationary random

vibration.
b. The second form is that of a short duration high level transient or shock
where the duration of the transient is much shorter than the periods of
the lowest natural frequencies of interest for the materiel.
c. The third form is that of a non-stationary transient vibration having

duration that substantially exceeds the period of the lowest natural
frequency of the materiel.
3. A fourth form, too specialized for consideration here, might be classed as

periodic repetition of an event for which test tolerance is established according to time
trace ensemble statistics. For TWR tolerance development, such tolerances should
not exceed the tolerances provided for stationary random vibration and mechanical
shock for the first and second forms, respectively. It is anticipated that a properly
designed TWR test will easily meet the tolerance levels specified in both of these forms
(Methods 401 and 403). The tolerances for the third form of non-stationary time trace
are somewhat dependent upon the nature of the non-stationarity. Techniques for non-
stationarity assessment in which time trace amplitude is a function of both time and
frequency are available (see paragraph 7.1 references 1. and 2.). Some non-stationary
time traces that have time invariant frequency characteristics can be represented by
the Product Model (PM), and can be processed for tolerance purposes as stationary
random vibration with a time-varying envelope. Annexes A and B should be consulted
for details of TWR tolerance specification for non-stationary time traces. If it is unclear
as to how to segment a TWR time trace, then (1) time-average test tolerances may be
provided on the difference between the control and reference time traces, or (2) digital
bandpass filtering may be performed on both the control and reference time traces to
make common bandwidth comparisons. The Annexes should be consulted for such
tolerance development.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
4. Tolerance Recommendations. In general, all test tolerances need to be

established by some comparison in the time domain and frequency domain of the
digitized reference and control time traces. Rudimentary comparison that might be
taken for nominal test tolerances is usually performed by the vendor-supplied TWR
software. The vendor will typically refer to the rudimentary comparison as “rms error.”
Test laboratory personnel need to consult the vendor supplied TWR system manuals
for such error considerations, and have a very clear understanding of the proper
interpretation and meaning of such error; in particular, the segment size and averaging
performed in order to establish the “rms error.” It is strongly advised that TWR test
tolerances be developed independently of vendor supplied software, and verification
of the satisfaction of TWR test tolerances be performed independently of vendor
supplied software. In addition, in no case should vendor supplied software be relied
upon for the specification of TWR test tolerances. However, it is vitally important that
specified TWR test tolerances be correlated in some general manner with vendor
supplied “rms error,” so that test interruption may be performed if large “rms error”
implies specified test tolerance exceedance above a prescribed limit. If testing
occurring in real time at levels exceeding the maximum test tolerance rms error limit
by 10 percent, the test needs to be interrupted. Generally, it is essential that for a
precise comparison (1) the reference and control time traces be band-limited to the
exact SESA frequency band of interest, and (2) the reference and control time traces
be maximally correlated by way of digital pre-processing (see Annex A). After such
pre-processing, recommend the reference time trace be segmented into portions that
might be considered stationary, short transient (or shock) and long transient.
Generally, a 10 percent tapered cosine window should be applied to each of the
segments such that the characteristic part of the time trace is scaled by unity, and the
end points are zero. It is assumed that good signal processing practices are used to
determine the basic estimates for deciding tolerance satisfaction (see Annex B). In
particular, this may mean balancing the statistical random and bias error in the
estimates. ASD and mean-square envelope estimates are susceptible to statistical
processing errors that may distort the resulting estimates.
a. Stationary Gaussian or non-Gaussian (may include discrete

components):
(1) Frequency domain: For a cosine windowed segment represented

by a Gaussian or non-Gaussian stationary random time trace,
tolerances are placed upon ASD estimates. The control time trace
ASD estimate is to be consistent with the tolerances given in
Method 401.
(2) Amplitude domain comparison (STTR): When the windowed

segment of the reference time trace is non-Gaussian (incorporates
skewness, kurtosis or both skewness and kurtosis), recommend
the plotting of the reference and control along orthogonal axes be
initially performed for visual inspection. This visual inspection
should then be followed by an empirical quantile plot of reference

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
time trace amplitudes versus control time trace amplitudes (qq

plot). The qq point plot should approach a straight line at forty-five
degrees to each axis. Confidence intervals on this line according
to the sample size can be used for tolerance specification STTR.
Histogram plots of the reference and control time traces for
enhanced tail structure may provide useful visual inspection, and
can be used for tolerance specification for STTR. Finally,
estimates of the non-Gaussian probability distribution parameters
may be compared between the reference and the control time
traces, exercising caution since the parameter value estimates are
subject to quite restrictive statistical error considerations. For a
zero mean reference time trace, ensure single estimates of the
overall time trace sample variance are within +10 percent of the
reference time trace. Probability density of reference and control
signals should be compared to observe skewness and kurtosis
characteristics.
b. Shock:
(1) Frequency domain: For an appropriately windowed segment

represented by a shock, ensure the tolerance on the control time
trace SRS estimate with 5 percent critical damping is within -6 dB
and +3 dB of the reference time trace SRS estimate for at least a
one-twelfth octave bandwidth resolution.
(2) Amplitude domain: For the segment, ensure the major (maximum
absolute magnitude) positive and negative peaks (not to exceed
10 percent of all the reference time trace peaks in number) in the
control time trace are within + 20 percent magnitude of the
corresponding peaks in the reference time trace (peak
correspondence is based upon the fact that the control and
reference time traces have zero phase shift between them).
c. Nonstationary (Product Model):
(1) Amplitude domain: For an appropriately windowed segment that

can be represented by the “Product Model,” suggest the short-time
average estimate of the control time trace envelope (time average
root-mean-square level) be within +1 dB of the short-time average
estimate of the reference time trace envelope, where the short-
time averaging time (and time shift in average time estimates) is
not to exceed 1percent of the total duration of the reference time
trace.
(2) Frequency domain comparison: Ensure the normalized ASD

estimate for the control time trace is within ±3.0 dB (ratio of
approximately 2) of the normalized ASD estimate for the reference

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
time trace over a significant portion of the bandwidth. Note: this

may seem a broad tolerance bound but generally the normalized
ASD estimates have a restricted number of statistical degrees-of-
freedom.
5. Annex A illustrates processing for test tolerance satisfaction. Annex B provides

a table of analytical formulas and some preliminary test tolerance specifications that
may be used to formally specify tailored test tolerance (in particular, for STTR). In
cases where specified tolerances cannot be met, achievable tolerances should be
established and agreed to by the cognizant engineering authority and the customer
prior to initiation of the test.
6. Test interruptions can result from multiple situations. The following paragraphs
discuss common causes for test interruptions, and recommended paths forward for
each. Recommend test recording equipment remain active during any test interruption
if the excitation equipment is in a powered state.
5.5. CONTROLS
5.5.1. Calibration
Ensure for the exciter system, all transducers, signal conditioning equipment,
independent measurement systems, and the exciter control system hardware are
calibrated for conformance with the specified test requirement(s). Ready access to the
reference, control, and drive time trace files in digital form will be required for
independent confirmation of adequacy of the time trace replication for a successful
TWR test.
In general, acceleration will be the quantity measured to meet the specification for the
selected procedure, however similar instrumentation concerns apply to other sensors.
Ensure laboratory acceleration control measurements correspond to field acceleration
reference measurements. This is usually accomplished by mounting the test item
accelerometer for control in the same SESA location as that on the field measurement
materiel from which the reference time trace was extracted.
a. Accelerometer. In the selection of any transducer, one should be familiar

with all parameters provided on the associated specification sheet. The
device may be of the piezoelectric or piezoresistive type. Key
performance parameters for an accelerometer follow:
(6) Frequency Response: A flat frequency response within  5

percent across the frequency range of interest is required.
(7) Transverse sensitivity should be less than or equal to 5 percent.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
(8) Nearly all transducers are affected by high and low temperatures.
Understand and compensate for temperature sensitivity deviation
as required. Temperature sensitivity deviations at the test
temperature of interest should be no more than  5% relative to
the temperature at which the transducer sensitivity was
established.
(9) Base Strain sensitivity should be evaluated in the selection of any

accelerometer. Establishing limitations on base strain sensitivity
is often case specific based upon the ratio of base strain to
anticipated translational acceleration.
(10) Amplitude Linearity: It is desired to have amplitude linearity within

1 percent from 5 percent to 100 percent of the peak acceleration
amplitude required for testing.
b. Other measurement devices. Any other measurement devices used to

collect data must be demonstrated to be consistent with the requirements
of the test.
c. Signal conditioning. Use only signal conditioning that is compatible with

the instrumentation requirements of the test, and is compatible with the
requirements and guidelines provided in paragraph 7.1, reference 2.
5.6. TEST INTERRUPTION
Test interruptions can result from a number of situations that are described in the
following paragraphs.
Specific to this Method. When interruptions are due to failure of the laboratory
equipment, analyze the failure to determine root cause. Drive, control and response
time traces should be evaluated to ensure that no undesired transients were imparted
to the test materiel during the test equipment failure. If the test item was not subjected
to an over-test condition as a result of the equipment failure, repair the test equipment
or move to alternate test equipment and resume testing from the point of interruption.
If the test item was subjected to an over-test condition as a result of the equipment
failure, notify the test engineer or program engineer responsible for the test materiel
immediately. Conduct a risk assessment based on factors such as level and duration
of the over-test event, spectral content of the event, cost and availability of test
resources, and analysis of test specific issues to establish the path forward. In all
cases, archive and analyze all available time trace information including drive, control,
reference and monitor time traces, and thoroughly document the results. See
Annex A for descriptions of common test types, and a general discussion of test
objectives.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
5.6.2. Interruption Due To Test Materiel Operation Failure
Failure of the test materiel to operate as required during operational checks presents
a situation with several possible options. Failure of subsystems often has varying
degrees of importance in evaluation of the test materiel integrity. Selection of one or
more options from a through c below will be test specific.
a. The preferable option is to replace the test item with a “new” one, and
restart the entire test.
b. An alternative is to replace/repair the failed or non-functioning component

or assembly with one that functions as intended, and restart the entire
test. Conduct a risk analysis prior to proceeding since this option places
an over-test condition on the entire test item, except for the replaced
component. If the non-functioning component or subsystem is a line
replaceable unit (LRU) whose life-cycle is less than that of the system
test being conducted, it may be allowable to substitute the LRU and
proceed from the point of interruption.
c. For many system level tests involving either very expensive or unique
materiel, it may not be possible to acquire additional hardware for re-test
based on a single subsystem failure. For such cases, perform a risk
assessment by the organization responsible for the system under test to
determine if replacement of the failed subsystem and resumption of the
test is an acceptable option. If such approval is provided, the failed
component should be re-tested at the subcomponent level.
NOTE: When evaluating failure interruptions, consider prior testing on the same
test item and consequences of such.
5.6.3. Interruption Due To a Scheduled Event
There are often situations in which scheduled test interruptions will take place. For
example, in a tactical transportation scenario, the payload may be re-secured to the
transport vehicle periodically (i.e., tie-down straps may be re-secured at the beginning
of each day). Endurance testing often represents a lifetime of exposure; therefore it is
not realistic to expect the payload to go through the entire test sequence without re-
securing the tie-downs as is done in a tactical deployment. Many other such
interruptions, to include scheduled maintenance events, are often required over the
life-cycle of materiel. Given the cumulative nature of fatigue imparted by dynamic
testing, it is acceptable to have test interruptions that are correlated to realistic life-
cycle events. Document all scheduled interruptions in the test plan and test report.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
5.6.4. Interruption Due to Exceeding Test Tolerances
Exceeding the test tolerances defined in paragraph 5.4.2, or a noticeable change in

dynamic response may result in a manual operator-initiated test interruption or an
automatic interruption when the tolerances are integrated into the control strategy. In
such cases, check the test item, fixture, and instrumentation to isolate the cause. In
general, the vendor means of assessing the test adequacy in real time as described in
paragraph 5.4.4 will be relied upon (based upon its general correlation to the specified
test tolerances) for initiating test interruption. More detailed test tolerance assessment
is completed after the test has been performed. Time average root-mean-square error
between the reference and the control time traces that is above a test tolerance limit
of 10 percent will be adequate for initiation of test interruption.
a. If the interruption resulted from a fixturing or instrumentation issue,

correct the problem and resume the test.
b. If the interruption resulted from a structural or mechanical degradation of

the test item, the problem will generally result in a test failure and
requirement to re-test unless the problem is allowed to be corrected
during testing. If the test item does not operate satisfactorily, see
paragraph 5.6.2 for failure analysis.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
6.1. EVALUATION OF TEST RESULTS
The following information is provided to assist in the evaluation of the test results.
Analyze in detail any failure of a test item to meet the requirements of the specification,
and consider related information such as:
a. Information from the control accelerometer configuration, including a

digital record of the control time trace.
b. The vendor TWR software test tolerance information.
c. Application of one or more of the techniques illustrated in Annex A for

detailed comparison of the reference time trace to the control time trace.
6.2. DATA ANALYSIS
Ideally, information from the control time trace in the time and frequency domains
should be nearly identical to that information contained in the reference time trace.
Vendor supplied test error assessment provides a preliminary indication of the
replication efficacy. If vendor supplied test error assessment consistently displays less
than, e.g., 5 percent time average rms error over blocks of reference/control data,
additional analysis may be unnecessary. For production testing, reliance on
consistency of vendor supplied rms error is highly desirable. For single item tests that
are unique and for which vendor rms error provides values greater than acceptable,
then differences between the reference and control time traces must be assessed in
detail. The following guidance is provided.
a. Rudimentary analysis to ensure the test tolerances are met is usually

performed within the TWR vendor software. Laboratory personnel
should consult the vendor supplied TWR system documentation, and
clearly understand the determination of these test tolerances. In most
cases, this will require direct contact with the vendor of the TWR system.
b. More extensive data analysis can be performed to ensure test tolerances

are met based upon reference and control time trace files, with off line
specialized software according to procedures illustrated in Annex A and
discussed in Annex B.
c. Detailed data analysis for purposes of establishing parameters for a

random process or other purposes may be performed, but must be
consistent with the information provided in the Annexes, and best data
processing procedures as defined in paragraph 7.1, references 1 or 2.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
Such detailed analysis may be beyond the scope of defined tolerances,

and is to be used for report information purposes only.
d. Processing of monitor time trace information for modeling, failure

assessment, or other purposes must follow the same guidelines as for
the control time trace.
6.3. TEST REPORT
The following information should appear in the test report:
a. General. Information listed in AECTP-400, Method 400, Chapter 3.
(1) Capture of the control time trace in digital form for comparison with
the reference time trace.
(2) Capture of the monitor time traces in digital form.
(3) Recording of the number of individual test events and order for
application.
(4) Log of auxiliary environmental conditions such as temperature.
(5) Log of materiel functional failure.
(6) Number of exposures of the test item to the time trace(s) and the
order if several dissimilar time traces are used in test.
(7) Any data measurement anomalies, e.g., high instrumentation

noise levels, loss of sensor response.
(8) Status of the test item/fixture. In particular, any structural or

functional failure of the test item/fixture.
(9) Any variations from the original test plan.
Analyses of vibration related failures must relate the failure mechanism to the dynamics
of the failed item and to the dynamic environment. It is insufficient to determine that
something broke due to high cycle fatigue or wear. Include in failure analyses a
determination of resonant mode shapes, frequencies, damping values and dynamic
strain distributions, in addition to the usual material properties, crack initiation locations,
etc.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
6.5. QUALIFICATION TESTS
When a test is intended to show formal compliance with contract requirements,

recommend the following definitions:
a. Failure definition. Materiel is deemed to have failed if it suffers

permanent deformation or fracture; if any fixed part or assembly loosens;
if any moving or movable part of an assembly becomes free or sluggish
in operation; if any movable part or control shifts in setting, position or
adjustment, and if test item performance does not meet specification
requirements while exposed to operational or endurance test levels.
Ensure this statement is accompanied by references to appropriate
specifications, drawings, and inspection methods.
b. Test completion. A TWR qualification test is complete when all elements

of the test item have successfully passed a complete test. When a failure
occurs, stop the test, analyze the failure and repair the test item.
Continue the test until all fixes have been exposed to a complete test.
Qualified elements that fail during extended tests (tests extended beyond
LCEP requirements) are not considered failures, and can be repaired to
allow test completion.
6.6. OTHER TESTS
For tests other than qualification tests, prepare success and/or failure criteria and test
completion criteria that reflect the purpose of the tests.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
a. Bendat, Julius S. and Allan G. Piersol, Random Data Analysis and

Measurement Procedures, 4th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, 2010.
b. Handbook for Dynamic Data Acquisition and Analysis, IEST-RD-DTE

012.2, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology, Arlington
Place One, 2340 S. Arlington Heights Road, Suite 100, Arlington Heights,
IL 60005-4516.
c. Merritt, Ronald G., “Application of Mixed Effects Models to a Collection

of Time Trace Product Models,” Proceedings of the 77 th Shock and
Vibration Symposium, Nov. 2006; Shock & Vibration Exchange (SAVE),
d. Stuart, Alan and J. Keith Ord, Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics,

5th Edition Volume 1 Distribution Theory, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY, 1987.
a. Bickle, Larry W. and Ned R. Keltner, Estimation of Transient

Measurement Errors, SAND78-0497, August 1978.
b. Shock and Vibration Handbook, 5th Edition, Edited by Cyril M. Harris and
Allan G. Piersol, McGraw-Hill, New York NY, 2002.
c. Egbert, Herbert W. “The History and Rationale of MIL-STD-810 (Edition

2)”, January 2010; Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology,
Arlington Heights, IL 60005-4516.

AECTP-400
METHOD 423
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
ANNEX A SESA POST-TEST ANALYSIS ILLUSTRATION FOR TEST

TOLERANCE ASSESSMENT
A.1. PURPOSE
This Annex is designed to provide general guidelines for post-test analysis for SESA
TWR testing. It displays some potentially useful tools for comparison of “reference”
and “control” time traces and processing the difference between these time traces.
Post-test analysis provides insight into development of test tolerance limits for single
axis TWR. The Annex provides a rationale for minimizing the degree of post-test
analysis that may be required.
A.2. GENERAL PHILOSOPHY FOR TWR TESTING
Broadband TWR, i.e., from 5 Hz to 2000+ Hz, is relatively new to dynamic laboratory
testing with electrodynamic force exciters. The same comment applies to
electrohydraulic force exciters only over a more limited bandwidth. The philosophy for
TWR testing, including test tolerance development, is still evolving. The post-test
analysis rationale displayed below will doubtlessly be augmented/refined/enhanced
with portions eliminated, however fundamentals behind the analysis rationale will
remain.
The general term “replication error” will be used with regard to the comparison of the
difference between the control and reference time traces. SESA post-test analysis
quantitatively compares the deterministic test input reference time trace,
r  t   or sampled sequence r n  for n  1,2,..., N  , symbolic " r ," with the stochastic test
output control time trace,
c  t   or sampled sequence c n  for n  1,2,..., N  , symbolic " c."
For comparison, it is convenient to have available a stochastic difference time trace

defined as:
s  t   c  t   r  t   or sampled sequence s  n   c  n   r n , n  1,2,3,..., N  , symbolic " s."
The difference time trace represents the “replication error.” The reference and control
time traces are assumed to be perfectly correlated in time so that the difference time
trace is valid, and generally vendor software is very reliable in supplying reference and
control digital time traces that are perfectly correlated. A time/amplitude point-by-
time/amplitude point (TPP) assessment of the time traces can be made, and an
estimate of replication error determined. Annex B addresses in more detail the
statistical implications of TPP. Generally, vendors will make available a drive voltage
time trace for potential use in understanding the test limitations, i.e., fixture resonance

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
compensation, impedance mismatch, etc. This time trace must be preprocessed in the
same manner as r , c, and s . The drive time trace is of no concern in the illustration to
follow. Discussion appears in both this Annex and Annex B concerning
time/amplitude average-by-time/amplitude average (STA) assessment for
tolerance limit analysis – an alternative to TPP. Application of these procedures for
tolerance error assessment will be mentioned in this Annex and in Annex B. Generally,
direct comparison of time average estimates of r and c is much less desirable than
either examining statistics on or statistics on a time averaged version of s.
Interpretation of differences between time average estimates is more difficult.
A.3. DESCRIPTION OF REFERENCE TIME TRACE
1. The time trace selected for illustration is one unidentified band limited field
measured acceleration time trace used to assess the performance of the vendor
software for a single axis exciter configuration. Test item configuration including
fixturing was of no concern. The simplicity of the TWR test provides for replication
error that is smaller than that encountered in general testing scenarios where boundary
conditions and impedance mismatches become important. Figure A-1 displays the
unprocessed reference time trace acceleration measured in the field.
r : Reference Time Trace

40
30
20
Amplitude (g)
10
-10
-20
-30
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
Figure A-1: Field Measured Acceleration Reference Time Trace

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
2. The time trace is band limited between 1 Hz and 2000 Hz, and consists of an
initial and final low level stationary random vibration (augmented with some analytically
generated zeros), along with a form of comparatively high level transient vibration,
stationary random vibration and shock in succession. This visual assessment of the
reference time trace is a key to examining the test performance adequacy. Under
standard vendor vibration and shock system software, it would not be possible to test
materiel to this form of time trace. The time trace was submitted for TWR testing under
ambient conditions on an electrodynamic exciter using a vendor-supplied TWR
software package. The “control accelerometer” was mounted on both the exciter head
and on a conventional slip table. Even though TWR “control” is between 10 Hz and
2000 Hz, the sample rate of the reference time trace file is 25600 samples per second.
The particular TWR vendor software re-sampled the waveforms to 24576 samples per
second prior to testing. The Nyquist frequency is 24576/2=12288 Hz. Most frequency
domain plots will be restricted to 4000 Hz, and basic TWR control is out to 2000 Hz.
The field measured time trace should display a bandwidth that exceeds the TWR
control bandwidth to as much as an octave above and below the upper and lower
control bandwidth limits, respectively. For demonstration of the effect of different
boundary conditions, results of the testing will be displayed for the control time trace
from the exciter head (designated (H)) and the exciter slip table (designated (S)).
A.4. TIME TRACE PRE-PROCESSING
A.4.1. INTRODUCTION
Not many post-test analysis procedures (independent of vendor supplied test analysis)
have been formally established and agreed upon for quantifying the replication error.
For one-of-a-kind type testing with a unique reference time trace, some reliance should
be made upon custom software in post-test analysis to verify test tolerance satisfaction.
Figure A-2 displays the TWR control time traces for (H) and (S) configurations (along
with the same reference time trace) prior to beginning of preprocessing where the time
traces have been truncated for convenience.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
r(H) : Reference Time Trace

50
Amplitude (g)
0
-50
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
c(H) : Control Time Trace
50
Amplitude (g)
-50
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
Figure A-2a: Exciter Head (H) (Reference/Control Time Traces Prior to Post-
Test Preprocessing)
r(S) : Reference Time Trace

50
Amplitude (g)
-50
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
c(S) : Control Time Trace
50
Amplitude (g)
-50
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
Figure A-2b: Exciter Slip Table (S) (Reference/Control Time Traces Prior to
Post-Test Preprocessing)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
Before the reference and control time traces are processed and the difference time
trace is generated, some preprocessing is necessary. Preprocessing must be
performed in both the time and frequency domains. The following preprocessing
procedures will be discussed in turn:
a. Frequency Band Limiting.
b. Time Trace Correlation.
c. Time Trace Segment Identification.
A.4.2. FREQUENCY BAND LIMITING
1. The objective of frequency band limiting is to ensure for time trace comparison,
the reference and control time traces exist over the same exact frequency band
(generally a bandwidth coincident with the TWR control bandwidth). The importance
of this operation cannot be over emphasized. If the control time trace has significant
high frequency information not contained in the reference time trace (as a result of
boundary conditions or impedance mismatch), this will be reflected in any TPP
amplitude comparisons. The band pass filter to provide a common bandwidth for the
time traces is selected such that the minimum of the reference bandwidth and the
control bandwidths is established. This common bandwidth may be specified as, e.g.,
10 Hz to 2000 Hz, or determined by examining the magnitude of a periodogram
estimate for both time traces. The frequency band limiting operation is performed on
both the reference and control time traces, and always performed before time trace
correlation considerations. Unless the time traces are excessive in length, a single
block rectangular window FFT magnitude (periodogram) plotted in dB for both the
reference and control time traces is satisfactory for specifying the common bandwidth.
For excessively long time traces, the Welch method of spectrum computation may be
employed for common bandwidth identification. To obtain the common bandwidth, a
standard bandpass filter may be applied, making sure to preserve filter phase linearity,
in obtaining the reference and control time traces. Figure A-3 provides single block
periodograms for the reference and control time traces before and after bandpass
filtering.
NOTE: With regard to frequency band-limiting, it is very important that for any
field time trace measurement program designed to provide input to TWR
laboratory testing, the bandwidth of the field measurements exceeds by
definition, the bandwidth of interest for laboratory testing (TWR test control
bandwidth). For example, if test specifications call for a 10 Hz to 2000 Hz
laboratory test bandwidth, the field time trace measurements must exceed
2000 Hz, e.g., 4000 Hz, in order to provide a reference time trace with sufficient
bandwidth to compare with the unprocessed control time trace resulting from
TWR laboratory testing. Less critically field measurements would have
frequency content below 10 Hz, e.g., 5 Hz. The rationale behind this is as

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
follows. Almost certainly the laboratory test will exhibit energy out of the test
specification frequency band of interest or the exciter test control bandwidth as
a result of mismatch of materiel/test fixture/exciter impedance/boundary
conditions. To directly compare the field reference time trace (before bandwidth
limiting as a TWR input) with the unprocessed laboratory control time trace,
(even though the reference time trace may have been bandlimited for laboratory
test), the field measured reference time trace must have a bandwidth consistent
with the unprocessed laboratory control time trace, i.e., a bandwidth that
encompasses the bandwidth of the unprocessed laboratory control time trace.
Thus bandlimiting for comparison of reference and control time traces must be
in accord with the most significant energy in the unprocessed laboratory control
time trace (that likely exceeds the test specification bandwidth). Comparison for
purposes of time trace peak modeling for the reference and control time trace is
particularly sensitive to frequency bandlimiting considerations. To compare
reference and control time trace information in terms of the full bandwidth that
the materiel experienced in laboratory test, the laboratory test control bandwidth
must determine the bandwidth for comparison. In the example provided here
the field measured reference time trace was bandlimited to 2000 Hz (by
measurement system design without TWR consideration) thus, by necessity, in
comparison, the measured reference time trace somewhat “incorrectly” controls
bandwidth for comparison. As noted, TWR testing has important implications
for field measurement system design.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
(a) Reference Time Trace (b) Bandlimited Reference Time Trace

(10 Hz – 2000 Hz)
(c) Control Time Trace Exciter Head (d) Bandlimited Control Time Trace
(H) Exciter Head (H) (10 Hz – 2000 Hz)
(e) Control Time Trace Slip Table (S) (f) Bandlimited Control Time Trace
Slip Table (S) (10 Hz – 2000 Hz)
Figure A-3: Reference/Control Time Trace Periodograms for Frequency Band

Limiting Through FFT Window Filtering
2. Based upon examination of the periodograms for both time traces in Figure
A-2, the very low frequency information (below 10 Hz), and the very high frequency
information (above 2000 Hz) is filtered out. The frequency analysis bandwidth for this
operation is 0.067 Hz.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
A.4.3. TIME TRACE CORRELATION
1. After a common frequency bandwidth has been established, it is essential that

the band limited reference and control time traces be “perfectly” or “maximally”
correlated in time (i.e., one time trace is not shifted in time relative to the other time
trace) for TPP assessment. If the vendor software does not guarantee this perfect
correlation in time, the degree of correlation must be checked. To perform this check
and take corrective action, the cross-covariance function estimate is determined, and
the time traces shifted relative to one another, such that the peak in the cross-
covariance function estimate appears at the zero cross-covariance lag. This
computation should be performed, if possible, on a reasonably stationary segment of
the time trace. It is unnecessary to perform the correlation computations over the entire
trace, but only necessary to get a long-enough segment such that the degree of shift
can be determined with confidence (dependent upon the accuracy of the covariance
function estimate). Figure A-4 provides a biased cross-covariance function estimate
between the band-limited reference and control time traces.
(H) Biased Cross-Covariance Estimate (S) Biased Cross-Covariance Estimate

5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
Amplitude
Amplitude
1 1
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-5 0 5 -5 0 5
Lag Time (sec) -3 Lag Time (sec) -3
x 10 x 10
(a) Bandlimited Reference and (b) Bandlimited Reference and

Control Time Trace (H) Control Time Trace (S)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
Figure A-4: Cross-Covariance Function Estimates Between Reference and

Control Time Traces
2. By examining the cross-correlation estimate region near a lag of zero seconds,
it is apparent that the reference and control time traces are in phase, and no shifting of
one time trace relative to the other is necessary.
A.4.4. TIME TRACE SEGMENT IDENTIFICATION
1. It is tacitly assumed that the reference and control time traces are preserved in
such a way that (1) they are band-limited to the exact frequency band, and (2) they are
simultaneously sampled at the SESA sample rate and over the exact time interval,
providing no phase shift between the traces. Conditions in (1) and (2) have been met
in paragraphs A.4.2 and A.4.3 (in this Annex), respectively. The purpose of time trace
segment identification is to break the time trace into component parts that may be
assessed independently for test replication error. There is no known single analysis
procedure that can consistently assess the replication error for all six forms of time
trace components identified in paragraph 1.2.3 in the front portion of this Method.
Figure A-5 reveals the five segments into which the r , c, and s time traces can be
divided.
r(H) : Reference Time Trace

50
40
30
20
10
Amplitude (g)
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (sec)
Figure A-5: Time Trace Segment Identification from Previously Truncated

Reference Time Traces

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
2. The first and fifth segments represent low level pre- and post-test acceleration
of no interest for test tolerance consideration. The second segment represents a
transient vibration, the third segment stationary random vibration, and the fourth
segment a shock. For further processing purposes, the three segments of interest are
extracted by use of a rectangular window over the duration of the segment. The three
segments are displayed in Figures A-6 through A-8.
r(H) : Reference Transient Vibration

20
15
10
5
Amplitude (g)
-5
-10
-15
-20
4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2
Time (sec)
Figure A-6: Transient Vibration Reference Time Trace Segment

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
r(H) : Reference Stationary Vibration

10
2
Amplitude (g)
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (sec)
Figure A-7: Stationary Random Vibration Reference Time Trace Segment

r(H) : Reference Shock
50
40
30
20
10
Amplitude (g)
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6
Time (sec)
Figure A-8: Shock Reference Time Trace Segment
3. For materiel particularly sensitive to a band or bands of frequencies, both time

traces may be filtered (phase linearity preserved) into a number of bands, and post-
processing performed on the band or bands individually. It is quite acceptable to
decide and agree upon (before laboratory testing) a band-pass filter strategy that will

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
be acceptable for assessing replication error. This form replication error assessment
will not be pursued further here.
A.5. POST-TEST PROCESSING FOR TPP
1. From pre-processing, three individual segments of different form exist along with
the overall time trace. For reference purposes, the overall difference time trace along
with TPP root-mean-square level are displayed in Figures A-9a and A-9b. In addition,
the difference of the differences is provided in Figure A-9c.
s(H) : Difference Time Trace s(S) : Difference Time Trace

10 10
5 5
Amplitude (g)
Amplitude (g)
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -10
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (sec) Time (sec)
s(H) : Difference Time Trace rms s(S) : Difference Time Trace rms
10 10
Amplitude (g)
Amplitude (g)
5 5
0 0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Figure A-9a: Difference Exciter (H) Figure A-9b: Difference Exciter (S)
s(S-H) : Difference/Difference
10
5
Amplitude (g)
-5
-10
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (sec)
s(S-H) : Difference/Difference rms
10
Amplitude (g)
0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (sec)
Figure A-9c: Time Trace of Difference of the Differences ((S) – (H))
Figures A-9: Plots of Overall Difference Time Trace with Root-Mean-Square
2. In this particular case, TPP difference s(H) and s(S) may approach 5g, whereby
the reference time trace was bounded by 40g in the positive and negative directions.
This would suggest that, in certain parts of the time trace, the normalized random error
might approach 0.125, i.e., 12.5 percent. The rudimentary overall maximum and

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
minimum statistics for the time traces are as follows: r(H) min/max –22.84/35.24; c(H)
min/max –24.28/39.76; and s(H) min/max –4.11/4.78; c(S) min/max –23.85/39.03; and
s(S) min/max –3.95/6.08. The differences between response on the head of the shaker
(H) and the shaker slip table (S) are reasonably nominal, so that only results for the
shaker head will be provided below. When reviewing several test measurements, it is
usually desirable to provide comprehensive post-test analysis on one set of
measurements, and infer that similar analysis on the other measurements. The
segments will now be processed in turn according to meaningful and easy to interpret
estimates.
A.6. TPP TRANSIENT VIBRATION
1. Figure A-10 displays the transient vibration time trace information, from which
the general form of the transient vibration is preserved, and the difference is reasonably
nominal. There is an apparent low frequency component in the time traces between
5.58 and 5.70 seconds. Such a dominant low frequency component could preclude
strict product model assumptions for post processing. However, generally, the product
model is reasonably robust with regard to change of frequency, i.e., the momentary
change in frequency character is averaged in over the entire record length.
r(H) : Reference Transient Vibration

Amplitude (g)
20
-20
4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2
Time (sec)
c(H) : Control Transient Vibration
Amplitude (g)
20
-20
4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2
Time (sec)
s(H) : Difference Transient Vibration
Amplitude (g)
4
2
0
-2
-4
4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2
Time (sec)
Figure A-10: Transient Vibration Time Traces - r, c, and s
2. The rudimentary overall maximum and minimum statistics for the transient
vibration time trace are as follows: r min/max –17.50/15.41; c(H) min/max –
18.12/16.11; and s(H) min/max –2.99/2.12.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
3. The replication error is assessed under the product model assumption as

follows:
a. Plot for r versus c (cross-plot) is generated to measure strength of TPP

correlation (particularly for peaks and valleys at extremes of the cross-
plot).
b. qq-plot for s is generated to examine the difference time trace for
normality.
c. Root-mean-square envelopes are generated at 0.1 second averaging

time for r and c under a product model assumption.
d. Normalized ASD estimates are determined for r and c under a product

model assumption.
4. Figure A-11 plots the amplitude of r versus the amplitude c. Each individual
point in the plot represents a point in time with r amplitude along the horizontal axis,
and c amplitude along the vertical axis. The spread along the minor axis of this
ellipsoidal form implies the difference in r and c at several time increments. In this
particular case, the negative peak spread near -18g is nominal, whereas the positive
peak spread near 14g demonstrates up to a 2g difference at given time increments.
The spread near r  c  0 is of little concern since the signal-to-noise ratio is small, and
statistically independent Gaussian noise samples are being cross plotted.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
Figure A-11: r Versus c Cross-Plot
5. Figure A-12 displays the quantiles of s versus the Gaussian distribution. This
figure clearly reveals that the difference between r and c is non-Gaussian, and this
complicates the replication error assessment. In particular, “s” has tails that are longer
that those that might be expected for a Gaussian distribution with a mean and standard
deviation estimated from s.
qq-plot of Guassian Qunatiles versus s Quantiles
9
7
Amplitude s (g)
2
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Normal Quantiles
Figure A-12: Transient Vibration q-q Plot for s Versus Gaussian
6. Figure A-13 provides an overlay of envelopes of r and c in terms of root-mean-

square g’s for a short-time averaging increment of 0.1 seconds (STA assessment). If
the product model can be assumed, the differences in root-mean-square envelope
levels are a maximum of 2 percent.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
Transient Vibration RMS Envelope

6
ref
ctl
5
rms (g) 4
0
4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2 6.4
Time (sec)
Figure A-13: Composite Root-Mean-Square Envelope Estimates for r and c
7. Figure A-14 provides a composite of normalized ASD estimates for r and c. The
estimates were determined by one-sixth octave band frequency averaging. The
normalized ASD estimates differ by less than 2 dB.
Transient Vibration NASD

-20
ref
dB ref = 1 g /Hz
-30 ctl
2
-40
-50
-60 1 2 3
10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)
Transient Vibration NASD Difference
3
dB ref = 1 g /Hz
2
2
-1 1 2 3
10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure A-14: Composite Normalized ASD Estimates for r and c

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
8. From the above statistics, it can be concluded that no valid distinction can be
made between r and c under the product model assumption, even though the non-
Gaussian distribution of error s is difficult to interpret. It would appear that tolerance
for this particular segment could be established as less than 0.2 grms amplitude for 90
percent of the time trace envelope, and 2 dB for the normalized ASD estimates, based
on the information in Figures A-13 and A-14. This concludes replication error
processing and tolerance specification for the transient vibration sub-event.
A.7. TPP STATIONARY VIBRATION
1. Figure A-15 displays the stationary vibration time traces to be processed for
replication error assessment. Note the time trace s is nominal, and that r and c could
follow a product model formulation as above because of the comparatively small
envelope variation in time.
r(H) : Reference Stationary Vibration

Amplitude (g)
10
-10
8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (sec)
c(H) : Control Stationary Vibration
Amplitude (g)
10
-10
8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (sec)
s(H) : Difference Stationary Vibration
Amplitude (g)
-2
8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (sec)
Figure A-15: Stationary Vibration Time Traces - r, c, and s
2. The replication error is assessed under the stationary random vibration

assumption as follows:
a. Probability density estimates are generated for r and c.
b. The s qq-plot is generated to examine the difference time trace for

normality.
c. Fraction-of-Time (FOT) distribution for s.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
d. ASD estimates are determined for r, c and s.
3. To examine the Gaussian form of the stationary vibration trace, the composite
histogram (probability density function estimate) for r and c is plotted in Figure A-16,
with the tail behavior enhanced. The time trace information is long-tailed because of
the presence of the time-varying mean-square amplitude. “G” represents the Gaussian
histogram on the plot legend.
4. Figure A-17 provides a qq-plot for s for Gaussian quantiles. The tail behavior of
s would seem to indicate that the peak and valley values are somewhat larger than and
smaller, respectively, than a Gaussian. Even though the Gaussian portion (good fit to
straight line is greater than in the transient vibration case).
0
Histogram
10
C
-1 R
10
G
-2
10
Normalized Counts
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
-6
10
-7
10
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Amplitude (units)
Figure A-16: Stationary Vibration Probability Density Function Estimates

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423

35
30
25
20
Amplitude s (g)
15
10
-5
-10
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Normal Quantiles
Figure A-17: Stationary Vibration q-q Plot for s Versus Gaussian
5. Annex B defines the FOT distribution for difference time trace assessment. This
assessment empirically defines the fraction of time the error lies outside (or inside)
given error amplitude bounds. This assessment is mathematically equivalent to a
probability density (or distribution) assessment but more transparent and easier to
interpret for an allowable error tolerance specification. Since TWR is time based, an
allowable error of x-percent of the time the error amplitude may exceed y-percent of
the root-energy-amplitude level (REA) of the deterministic reference time trace is easily
visualized. Figures A-18a, b, and c display the time-varying error in g’s for the
stationary segment along with the REA percentage error plotted against the FOT
quantiles. For the example under consideration the REA for the reference is
1.85 g-rms. Both two-sided and one-sided analyses are considered. The FOT ranges
from 0.0 to 1.0 over approximately plus and minus 10% of the REA. Figure A-18a
displays FOT quantiles for 10% to 10% REA error percentage. Figure A-18b displays
the REA random error -5% to 5% for FOT quantiles from approximately 0.1 to 0.9 and
Figure A-18c considers one-sided error for 10% REA error percentage and the 0.90
FOT quantile. A two-sided tolerance specification might, for example, require not more
than 10% (0.10 FOT quantile) of test time to lie outside the REA amplitude percentage
bounds of -5% and 5%. Tolerance is in terms of what percentage of time is the error
allowed to be larger than a certain percentage of REA as a reference amplitude.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
Figure A-18a: FOT Error Assessment – 10% REA Error Fraction-of-Time (FOT)

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
Figure A-18b: FOT Error Assessment - 5% REA FOT Error Bounds
Figure A-18c: FOT Error Assessment - One-sided 10% REA FOT Error Bounds

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
6. In Figure A-19, a composite of the ASD estimates for r and c is provided. The
ASD estimates between r and c are essentially equivalent. For time trace s, there is
non-flat spectrum that normally would not be present if the replication error were of a
strong Gaussian character, i.e., s was band-limited white noise. The processing
parameters are an analysis bandwidth of 5 Hz applying a Hamming window with 50
percent overlap.
Stationary Vibration ASD

-20
dB ref = 1 g2/Hz
-30
-40
-50 ref
ctl
-60
1 2 3
10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)
Stationary Vibration ASD Difference
2
dB ref = 1 g2/Hz
-2
1 2 3
10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure A-19a: Composite ASD Estimates for r and c

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
Error Stationary Vibration ASD

-20
-25
-30
-35
dB ref = 1 g2/Hz
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
1 2 3
10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure A-19b: ASD Estimate for s
7. From the above statistics, it might be concluded that no valid distinction can be
made between r and c under the stationary model assumption even though the non-
Gaussian distribution of error s is difficult to interpret. It would appear that tolerances
for this particular segment could be established as maximum 2 dB for the ASD
estimates, based on the information in Figure A-19. This concludes replication error
processing and tolerance development for the stationary vibration sub-event.
A.8. TPP SHOCK
1. Figure A-20 displays the shock time traces that will be processed for replication
error assessment. Note that time trace, s, is not nominal in the area of maximum
shock. The maximum/minimum values for each trace are given by r: -22.84/35.24;
c(H): -24.28/39.76; and s(H): -4.11/4.78.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
r(H) : Reference Shock

Amplitude (g)
50
-50
18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6
Time (sec)
c(H) : Control Shock
Amplitude (g)
50
-50
18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6
Time (sec)
s(H) : Difference Shock
Amplitude (g)
10
-10
18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6
Time (sec)
Figure A-20: Shock Time Traces - r, c, and s
2. The replication error is assessed under the shock assumption as follows:
a. An r versus c cross plot is generated.
b. The s qq-plot is generated to examine the difference time trace for

normality.
(1) Pseudo-velocity SRS assessment for r and c.
(2) ESD estimates are determined for r, c, and s under a shock time
trace assumption.
3. For the shock segment, a cross plot of r versus c provides useful information
with regard to the positive and negative peaks. However, from the form of the r and c
time traces, it is obvious that histograms and empirical q-q plots versus the Gaussian
will yield little useful information. Figure A-21 provides a cross-plot of r versus c.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
Figure A-21: r Versus c Cross-Plot
4. Even though “s” will not display Gaussian character, some indication of its non-
Gaussian character can be useful. Figure A-22 provides a q-q plot of s versus the
Gaussian distribution. Clearly, the sample quantiles from “s” in the tails far exceed any
Gaussian model that can be fit to s.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423

19.4
19.2
19
18.8
Amplitude s (g)
18.6
18.4
18.2
18
17.8
17.6
17.4
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Normal Quantiles
Figure A-22: Shock q-q Plot for s Versus Gaussian
5. A common way of comparing shock information is through the SRS, in particular

the recommended pseudo-velocity SRS estimate (Method 403). For the r and c time
traces, a composite overlay of the pseudo-velocity SRS estimates for both shocks is
useful. Figure A-23 provides this comparison in addition to a maximax acceleration
SRS comparison. Since the SRS is an integration/smoothing process, it is expected
that the reference and control information will be highly correlated when viewed in an
SRS format. For these figures no wavelet correction was attempted for low frequency
correction since such a correction applied individually may lead to a less transparent
comparison.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
10
00
in
3
00
0
10
10
g
10
1 in
g
0.0
10
00
n
2
10 i
0g
101g
in
01
0.0
10
1
00
n
10
1i
g
0.1
1in
g
00
0.0
0
10
0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10
Figure A-23a: Composite Pseudo-Velocity Maximax Pseudo-Velocity SRS for

r and c
3
SRS : xra/xca
10
R
C
2
10
Amplitude (units)
1
10
0
10
-1
10
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
Figure A-23b: Composite Maximax Acceleration SRS for r and c
6. Since ESD estimates provide a way of comparing shock type events, Figure A-
24 provides a composite of r and c ESD estimates, while Figure A-25 provides the ESD
estimate for “s.” It is clear from both of these plots that the most substantial error is

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
found in the low frequency region. This is not surprising since the transfer function
used to compensate the entire time trace was likely not optimal for the shock.
Shock ESD
0
dB ref = 1 g2-sec/Hz
ref
-20 ctl
-40
-60
1 2 3
10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)
Shock ESD Difference
10
-5
-10
1 2 3
10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure A-24: ESD Estimates for r and c
Shock ESD
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
1 2 3
10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure A-25: ESD Estimate for s

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
A.9. POST-TEST PROCESSING FOR STA
1. TPP replication error assessment is most stringent for specifying tolerance

criteria being that the tolerance criteria must be satisfied for the correlated time points,
point-by-point. Replication error averages for STA is most easily defined for application
to s, as opposed to application to r and c individually, and then seeking to compare
STA r estimates with STA c estimates. Annex B discusses some complications with
individual STA application. For Annex A post-test processing, using STA directly
centers upon the statistical characteristics of s under short-time averaging. Figures A-
26 and A-27 display short-time averaging for the mean and root-mean-square of time
trace s over the entire time trace displayed in Figure A-3(d)-(f) for 0.05 and 0.20 second
averaging times. An averaging time of 0.05 seconds for a bandwidth of 2000 Hz
provides 5 percent normalized random error in the root-mean-square estimate, and an
averaging time of 0.20 seconds for the SESA bandwidth provides a 5 percent
normalized random error in the mean-square estimate. For AC coupled
instrumentation measurements, the short-time average mean is near zero - not
particularly meaningful, but is computed for completeness. It is clear from these figures
that the rate of change of the time trace is too great in the transient vibration, and shock
tails of the time trace to provide meaningful estimates by averaging in time. Thus,
tolerance information in these two tails requires another basis, e.g., TPP.
Mean : Difference mean (.05)

1
0.5
Ampltiude (g)
-0.5
-1
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
Mean : Difference mean (.20)
1
0.5
Ampltiude (g)
-0.5
-1
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
Figure A-26: Short-Time Averaging for Difference Mean

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
RMS : Difference mean (.05)

3
Ampltiude (g)
0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
RMS : Difference mean (.20)
3
Ampltiude (g)
0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
Figure A-27: Short-Time Averaging for Difference Root-Mean-Square
2. Justification for using short-time average estimates for error assessment is that
for stationary random processing, the principal comparison with the ASD estimate in
the frequency domain is an average, and for shock processing, the principal
comparison with the SRS estimate in the single-degree of freedom natural frequency
domain is an integrated (or averaged) nonlinear type estimate. Annex B defines time
average estimates in continuous form, and in digital form for a rudimentary description
of the underlying non-stationary random process. The averaging time is arbitrary, but
generally will be such that the normalized bias error is a minimum, and the normalized
statistical error in the root-mean-square estimate under Gaussian assumptions is no
more than 0.05. The expressions for the normalized root-mean-square error and
normalized mean-square error are provided in Annex B.
3. This concludes Annex A and processing of selected information supplied for

SESA TWR. As technology evolves, the information in this Annex will also evolve.
Significant evolution needs to take place in understanding the extent of signal
compensation, how it is performed, what its limitations are, and just general overall
TWR control strategy understanding. This evolution will feed directly into the
development of realistic tolerance limits based upon replication error assessment.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
ANNEX B SUMMARY OF POST-TEST ANALYSIS PROCESSING

PROCEDURES AND TEST TOLERANCE SPECIFICATION
B.1. INTRODUCTION
1. The purpose of this Annex is to provide a basis for establishing tolerance
assessment for single-exciter/single-axis (SESA) time waveform replication (TWR)
laboratory tests independent of the vendor software. In paragraph B.4 of this Annex a
test tolerance rationale is provided. In the future, vendors may incorporate such
tolerance assessment options for the convenience of the test laboratory and
determination if test specifications are satisfied. For now test tolerance assessment
relative to a specification beyond the vendor software will require a trained analyst and
off-line processing of digital sequences through custom software, e.g., MATLAB,
LABVIEW, etc. Paragraph B.2 provides standard terminology for SESA TWR. The
formulas in paragraph B.3 may assist in the design of custom software. This Annex
does not summarize vendor assessment for replication error. In general, a vendor
provides an estimate of the comparison between the reference and control time traces
based upon time averaging over a specified time history segment. This time averaging
generally takes no account of the form of the time trace, is performed in order to assess
error as the test progresses in time (probably for control issues), and provides a
rationale for aborting the test if the error exceeds certain prescribed limits. However,
since vendor software is fundamental to test control this blocksize should be noted and
considered the maximum block size to be used in post-processing error assessment
under short-time-averaging (STA).
2. This Annex assumes that the “reference” time trace is band limited and of a
deterministic in nature even though it may be a sample time trace from a field measured
random process. This Annex assumes that the “control” time trace is stochastic in
nature. This defines a SESA model whereby a deterministic time trace is input to a
“random system” that provides a stochastic output. The randomness of the system
comes from all the unquantified details of the reproduction of the deterministic input
time trace including boundary conditions, compensation, system noise etc. The
distinction between a “deterministic” and a “stochastic” reference time trace is subtle.
The easiest way to visualize this distinction is to think in terms of a regression model
for which there is an independent variable selected ahead of time and a dependent
variable that reflects a dependence upon the value of the independent variable. In
data analysis when both variables are associated the relationship between them is a
“structural” relationship as opposed to a “regression” relationship since both variables
in the “structural” relationship are subject to estimation and random error. A second
subtle feature of the processing is that a “statistical basis” as opposed to a “probabilistic
basis” is assumed. The statistical basis allows for “time averages” as opposed to
requiring “ensemble averages” for a probabilistic basis. This seems natural since
seldom is it useful to consider SESA TWR reference and control time traces in terms
of ensembles.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
3. In description of the assessment to follow, this Annex assumes that the

bandwidth for comparison i.e., error between the reference trace, r(t), and the control
time trace, c(t), is comparable. It is important that the test personnel understand clearly
the bandwidth of all time traces from field measurement, unprocessed control time
trace and the error time trace, s(t), defined below. See Annex A paragraph A.4.2 for a
more detailed discussion of time trace band limit considerations.
B.2. TERMINOLOGY
1. In this Annex replication error assessment or equivalently test tolerance

assessment refers to examining the properties of the difference (as a function of time)
between the TWR” input” and the TWR “output”. TWR “test specification” refers to
using the results of the error assessment to determine if the laboratory TWR test
replicated the “input” satisfactorily i.e., if “test tolerances” common to other Methods
are satisfied for TWR. For Method 423 there are potentially five categories related to
test specification.
2. In this paragraph, the continuous analog time traces are represented by lower
case letter as a function of time, t. The upper case associated letters represent the
random variables obtained by sampling the properly signal conditioned analog time
traces. The TWR reference time trace, r(t), is considered to be band limited and
deterministic in nature. It is specified in a digital file with required oversampling for
replication. The TWR control time trace, c(t), is stochastic as a function of the test
configuration including compensation strategy and system noise. The difference
between the control and reference time traces, s(t), is stochastic in nature and is the
primary time trace to be used in the TWR error assessment and tolerance specification.
3. For R deterministic and S and C stochastic variables and a physical

correspondence between r(t) and c(t), i.e., c(t) output resulting from TWR then define
a. R associated with r  t  as R  r n , n  1,2,..., N
b. C associated with c  t  as C  c n , n  1,2,..., N and
c. S associated with s  t   c  t   r  t  S  s n   c n   r n , n  1,2,3,..., N

If the two continuous time traces r(t) and c(t) are identical according to “time-point by
time-point” (TPP), then the time trace represented by the reference time trace has been
replicated exactly in the laboratory. Generally the reference and control time traces
are not TPP identical and “statistics” must be introduced to quantify s(t). Stochastic S
has no preconceived theoretical probability distribution function (in fact s(t) or S
provides an “optimum” estimate for error assessment in the sense that the statistics of
gross averages are of lesser importance in error assessment. As has been
demonstrated in Annex A, S is generally neither Gaussian distributed nor stationary.
Once S has been determined and parameters of R known, R and C will play a lesser
role for tolerance assessment except for Category III and Category IV specification in
paragraph B.4.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
B.3. REPLICATION ERROR (TEST TOLERANCE) ASSESSMENT

EXPRESSIONS
1. For replication error assessment, it may be useful to nonuniformly time weight

or “window” s(t) over a time interval before making error estimates but the rationale for
such weighting is beyond the scope of discussion here. For the replication error
assessment to follow, two options are available:
a. examining the statistical properties of sequence S directly in an overall or

“global” sense
b. examining sequence S under “short-time averaging” (STA) yielding

stochastic variable SA for statistical assessment where SA represents a
“local” average and the total set of “local” averages summarizes S
2. The stochastic estimates SA have bias error and random error, but it is assumed
that judicious selection of the “window” has representative random error and minimum
bias error.
3. The time averaging procedure can be applied to functions of s(t) such as the
instantaneous mean-square level of s(t), i.e., s2(t). In using STA for replication error
assessment, the summary statistics need to be clearly defined, and any note made of
dependence introduced in the averaging process e.g., serial correlation of shifted
average values.
Since it is assumed that for E   the expectation operator on stochastic variables and
S  C  R , then E S  E C  R  E C  R .
 
E SA   E S  E C  R      
 E C  R  E C  R  E C  RA  CA  RA .
4. Replication error assessment precedes TWR tolerance specification, however

replication error assessment must relate directly to tolerance specification. For
example, tolerance specification for TWR is not viable for “single point” error
assessment i.e., maximum of S but maximum of S may be a meaningful parameter. In
addition the deterministic reference, R, is generally oversampled by a factor of ten or
more based upon TWR requirements. It is safe to assume that a “nominal window” for
error assessment could be a uniform time interval with the number of points equal the
oversample factor. This implies that “smoothed” error estimates applied to sequence
S are fundamental in replication error assessment and subsequent tolerance
specification. As noted above generally the smoothing window should not exceed the
vendor control blocksize. The oversample factor and this blocksize provide bounds on
STA averaging time selection.
5. In the expressions to follow, processing will take place over a uniform time
interval T  Ti 1  Ti  . Formulas provided will be expressed in a continuous form

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
followed by a discrete digital form. In general, the error statistics for the estimators will
be provided for the ideal case in which s(t) is bandwidth limited white noise of
bandwidth B. The role the error statistics for the estimators play is to insure that
artificial estimation errors in replication error assessment are minimal when compared
to the replication errors to be used in tolerance specification. As mentioned above,
seldom is the character of s(t) so simple, so that the processing error statistics are
approximate for other than bandwidth limited white noise. Normalized random errors
are provided for most estimates. Bias error occurs whenever averaging takes place,
however for averaging windows on the order of the oversample factor bias error should
be minimal. Whenever practical bias errors in the estimates for the error assessment
need to be minimized. If there exists questions relative to the size of normalized bias
and random errors, much more detailed processing beyond the scope of this Annex
may need to be employed (paragraph 7.1, reference 1).
6. In description of the error assessment expressions, the designation “local” or

“global” is made. The term “local” refers to a statistic that is useful for processing short
segments of time-varying traces, while the term “global” refers to a statistic that is better
suited to summarizing overall time traces. For example, the collection of STA for S
root-mean-square provides “local” estimates related to a potential tolerance
specification. The cumulative probability density function estimate for S describes error
as being perhaps Gaussian or non-Gaussian. This is a “global” assessment from which
a tolerance specification might be based upon the distributional form of the estimate.
Generic variables
x  t   x n , n  1,2,..., N  , y  t   y n , n  1,2,..., N  and z t   z n , n  1,2,..., N 
are employed in the formulas whereby r(t), c(t), and s(t) may be substituted at will
depending upon interpretation. In the formulas to follow M will be an “index” related to
the time sample interval for the time average estimate (it is a time shift parameter for
averaging) and N a will be the number of time points averaged over. Na 2 is the
greatest integer designation for Na 2 . It is assumed that M  Na 2  Na 2  1 where
generally M is an odd number to prevent any phase shift introduced in the processing.
7. There are three cases in which joint consideration of deterministic R and

stochastic C may be useful. In the first case a scatterplot constructed by plotting the
point  r (n ), c(n )  in the plane will reveal valuable information relative to a single plot of
the error s(n). In the second case since computation of an ASD/ESD estimate over a
deterministic time trace has some meaning the comparison of the ASD/ESD estimates
for r(n) and c(n) may provide meaningful information in relation to the ASD/ESD for
s(n). In particular the deterministic estimate is divided into the stochastic estimate to
examine the ratio in the frequency domain. Finally, comparison of SRS estimates for
r(n) versus c(n) along with an SRS estimate for s(n) i.e., the “noise” can be useful.
For easy reference the following table is provided:

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
Table B-I: Summary of Error Assessment Expressions
E1 MEAN (local & global) S

E2 ROOT-MEAN-SQUARE & MEAN-SQUARE (local & global) S
COVARIANCE, CORRELATION and SCATTER-PLOT (global) R and
E3
C
PROBABILITY DENSITY,CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY and
E4
QUANTILE (global) S
E5 FRACTION-OF-TIME (global) S
E6 ASD/ESD/PERIODOGRAM (global) R and C
E7 SHOCK RESPONSE SPECTRA (global) R and C
8. Expressions E1 through E7 are potentially useful for TWR tolerance

specification. Future editions of this method and MIL-STD-810 will likely refine and
add to these expressions as SESA TWR testing becomes more common and
experience with both replication error assessment and subsequent test specification
becomes more common. Generally E1, E2 E5, E6, and E7 will directly relate to
tolerance specification. E3 and E4 provide good qualitative information but will not
directly relate to tolerance specification.
E1: MEAN (local & global)
A collection of STA for s(n) provides an indication of any potential “shift” in very low
frequency information contained in r(t) under TWR. A zero mean error is desirable
otherwise bias may be present. The mean estimate for x  t  is defined as follows:
Ti M Na 2
1
ˆ x  t i    x  t dt  m
ˆx 
i
Na

i  M  Na 2 1
x ti  (1)
Ti 1
The normalized random error in the mean estimate in units of root-mean-square is

defined as
1 x 
  ˆ x     for x  0, B , overall bandwidth of x(t), and T, averaging time. (2)
2BT  x 
Note that this is related to the confidence interval with confidence coefficient 1  
on the mean of a population (not necessarily a time history) obtained by a sample
of size N, i.e.,
  x z 2  x z 2 
CI x ;1   x   x  x  .
 N N 

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
E2: ROOT-MEAN-SQUARE and MEAN-SQUARE (local & global)
A collection of STA root-mean-square levels in time is fundamental for replication error

assessment and probably is closely aligned with vendor TWR error assessment. It is
basically a “rms” error. The mean-square error assessment is included for
completeness but is generally not particularly useful.
The root-mean-square of x  t  with zero mean over a short interval of time is computed
as follows:
Ti  a  M N 2
2 1 2
ˆ x  t i   T    xi 
 x t    dt  x x  i 
t    x  t i   mx 
Na  1 i M  Na 2 1  i 
(3)
i 1
and the normalized random error for the root-mean-square estimate is given by,
1
 ˆ x   for B , overall bandwidth of x(t), and T, averaging time.
2 BT
This estimate is essentially an estimate of the standard deviation of the time trace over
a short time interval.
The mean-square of x  t  with zero mean over a short interval of time is computed as
follows:
Ti M Na 2
1
ˆ x2  t i    x 2  t dt  std x2  t i  
Na

i  M  Na 2 1
x 2 ti  (4)
Ti 1
For overall bandwidth B in Hz and averaging time T in seconds, the normalized random
error for the mean-square estimate is given by
1
 ˆ 2x   . (5)
BT
This estimate is essentially an estimate of the variance of the time trace over a short
time interval.
That is the confidence interval with confidence coefficient 1   on the standard
deviation of a population (not necessarily a time history) obtained by a sample of size
N, i.e.,
 ns 2 ns 2 
CI ;1   2   x2  2  for n  N - 1.
 n; 2 n;1 2 
For application for B  2000Hz and T  0.01 or 0.1 seconds the normalized random error
for a mean comparable to the standard deviation, root-mean-square and mean-square
is 0.16, 0.11, 0.22 respectively for averaging time of 0.01 seconds, and 0.05, 0.04, 0.07
respectively for averaging time of 0.1 seconds. To obtain a meaningful characterization
of x(t), it is important the normalized random error be minimized by as long an
averaging time as is consistent with nominal bias error.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
E3: COVARIANCE, CORRELATION, and SCATTER-PLOT (global and local)
Generally, covariance and correlation can be viewed as meaningful in the case of

regression between a deterministic and a random time trace i.e., r(t) and c(t). Since
s(t)=c(t)-r(t) no new information is added by computing the correlation or covariance
between r(t) and s(t). Covariance and correlation should be viewed in terms of a
“regression fit” of r(n) to c(n). This particular replication error assessment is somewhat
qualitative thus not particularly useful for tolerance specification; e.g., specifying a
correlation coefficient for tolerance would be too gross a parameter to be meaningful.
The covariance relationship between two time traces over a short interval of time (local
covariance), or over the entire time trace (global covariance) is computed in the time
domain as follows:
1 N
cov  x, y     xi  x  y i  y 
N i 1
(6)
This quantity can be normalized to provide the local or global correlation coefficient
that can be expressed as follows:
N
x i  x  y i  y 
rxy  i 1
12
(7)
N N
2
   xi  x    y i  y  
2
 i 1 i 1 
The time trace basis for these expressions from traditional data analysis is as follows.
For two arbitrary random processes xk  t  and y k  t  whose sample functions are
indexed on k and for which the ensemble means are defined by
x  t   E  xk  t  and  y  t   E  yk t  where expectation is over index k then the cross
covariance function at arbitrary fixed values of t1  t and t2  t   is given by
Cxy  t, t     E  xk  t   x  t    y k  t     y  t     . (8)
If   0 then Cxy  t , t   E  xk  t   x  t   y k  t   y  t    Cxy  t  , and this is of the form of

the covariance expression above only where the expected value is not over an
ensemble indexed on k, but over a finite time interval of length Nt . The expression
for rxy is merely a “normalized” version of the expression for cov  x, y  defined above.
When the k th sample functions xk  i t  and y k  i t  for i  1,2,..., N are plotted on the x and
y axes, respectively, the resulting plot is termed a “scatter-plot.” The “scatter-plot”
depicts the degree of covariance or correlation between two time traces. For rxy in the
neighborhood of zero there tends to be no correlation between time traces, and the
“scatter-plot” reveals an ellipse with major and minor axes approximately equal. For a
distribution of rxy close to either –1 or +1, there is substantial correlation between the
time traces, and the “scatter-plot” provides an ellipse with a very small minor axis. In
general “scatter-plot” information at the amplitude extremes is of most interest since
this defines the correspondence between time trace peaks and valleys.

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
E4: PROBABILITY DENSITY, CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY, and QUANTILE

(global)
A probability density function estimate is generally termed a histogram. A useful

indicator of the form of time trace amplitudes is the histogram and its counterpart, the
cumulative histogram. Generally, this analysis display is useful only for stationary time
traces of substantial duration, e.g., 5 seconds or more. Time traces with even small
time-varying root-mean-square levels almost always invalidate this procedure unless
some finite distribution mixture can be specified. The histogram is useful usually when
it is compared to a theoretical probability density function of an assumed form, e.g., the
Normal probability density function. With time trace amplitude bins along the horizontal
axis, and “bin counts” along the vertical axis, the logarithm of the bin counts may be
used to examine the (1) shape of the histogram for the mid bin ranges, and (2)
difference in tails for the small amplitude and the large amplitude bins. Because the
probability structure of the difference can be so important in assessing the nature of
TWR error, a rather complete discussion of its statistics is provided here. The
probability density and probability estimate of x  t  are defined as follows:
W
From paragraph 7.1, reference 1, the probability of x(t) taking values between a 
2
W
and a  during time interval T (where “ a ” is amplitude level and “W” is a width
2
designation for a time trace amplitude) is estimated as:
 W   W  1 T
Pˆx a,W   Pr obability  a -   x t    a      t i  a (9)
 2   2  T i T
Ta
with Px a,W   lim Pˆx a,W   lim . The probability density px  a  is defined as:
T  T  T
Px a,W  Pˆx a,W  Pˆx a,W  Ta

px  a   lim  lim  lim pˆ  a  where pˆ  a    . (10)
W 0 W T  W T  W TW
W 0 W 0
From this development, the cumulative probability density and probability density are
related as follows:
a N
Pˆx a    pˆ  d  Pˆ a   pˆ a a
x x x i
(11)
 i 1
The normalized mean square random error for the probability density estimate is given
from paragraph 7.1, reference 1 as follows:
c2
where, for continuous bandwidth with noise c  0.3 . Since
2BTWpx  a 
probability density estimates are particularly susceptible to bias
error, the mean square bias error is given as

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
2
W 4  px  a  
  . for px  a  the second derivative of evaluated px at “a” (12)
576  px  a  
It may be useful to compare the probability structure of x  t  directly to a known

probability structure such as the Normal probability density/distribution. This can be
done in this formulation by merely plotting the estimated probability structure of x  t 
along with the selected theoretical probability structure. There are both parametric and
nonparametric statistical tests that allow comparison of probability structures at
selected levels of significance. In particular, the nonparametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test provides a basis for comparison of two sample probability distribution estimates or
one sample probability distribution estimate with a theoretical probability distribution
estimate. It is possible to use statistical hypothesis testing for purposes of tolerance
specification provided the properties of such statistical tests are well understood and
such tolerance specification is meaningful.
A strong visual test for equivalence of reference and control distributions is a plot of
the quantiles of the two time history trace cumulative distribution probability functions,
and is termed a quantile-quantile (q-q) plot. The quantile is defined in terms of the
probability distribution function as follows:
For the probability distribution function F with probability density function f , the q th
quantile of F , xq is defined as follows:
xq xˆq
 
qF   f  x dx where 0  qF  1   qF   fˆ  xi xi where 0  qF  1  (13)
 
  i 1 
and similarly, for the probability distribution G with probability density function g , the
q th quantile of G, y q is defined as:
yq yˆq
 
qG   g  y dy where 0  qG  1 

 qG   gˆ  y i y i where 0  qG  1 
 (14)
 i 1 
For a given quantile q , the plot of xˆ q versus yˆ q on a rectangular axis is termed a “ q  q

plot.” F and G may be both analytical, both empirical (estimated from data), or a
combination of analytical and empirical.
Examination of the “tails” or extreme values (peaks and valleys) along with the fit to a
theoretical Gaussian distribution function, provides the most useful information.
Application of this procedure is most common for plotting the quantiles of the
distribution of s  t  against those of the Gaussian distribution function. It is also useful
for empirical estimates of r  t  and c  t  against one another, or r  t  and c  t  separately
against the Gaussian distribution quantiles. It is important to remember that in all such
plots, particularly between r  t  and c  t  time correlation information is lost. It is noted

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
that once the “probability” function of s  t  is established then higher order moments
related to skewness or kurtosis can be established.
E5: FRACTION-OF-TIME (global)
Closely related to the probability/quantile amplitude assessment in E4 is the Fraction-

of-Time (FOT) assessment. For the FOT estimate of the error is above a certain
magnitude and is assessed more intuitively and directly. It is also important to note
that for FOT assessment, generally no theoretical distributional form is attached to the
FOT estimate e.g., FOT is never spoken of as being Gaussian distributed, etc. For
statistical analysis of time series the FOT assessment replaces the more traditional
probability analysis, however, FOT distribution is a valid probability distribution
function. For processing on a statistical basis the Fraction-of-Time (FOT) is defined as
follows:
measure u  t, t  T  : x u     1 t T
FT  t; ; x     U   x u  du (15)
measure u  t, t  T  T t
where
1  0
U    
0 elsewhere
For the error time trace, s(t), FOT allows assessment of the percentage of time the
error is above a certain level and a correct display would indicate the times along the
reference time trace r(t) for which this occurs. Generally, this is summarized in a single
plot similar to the probability based cumulative distribution function estimate. Thus if
FT  t ; 1; s   0.05 and FT  t; 2 ; s   0.05 then s  t  lies between 1 and  2

ninety percent of the TWR test time where it is assumed 1 and  2
can be related to some level of the reference e.g., the range of the reference,
for purposes of developing a test specification on replication error.
E6: ASD/ESD/PERIODOGRAM (global)
For a deterministic time trace such as r(t) a frequency domain estimate is meaningful
and similar to the fitting of a Fourier series to an analytically defined function. Visual
comparison between frequency domain estimates for r(t) and c(t) can be made and the
ratio of the estimates at each frequency line provided by ratioing the computed
quantities (this must never be interpreted as a “transfer function estimate” between the
reference and the control time traces).It might be noted that for TWR the “transfer
function estimate” is provided in the vendor software in the form of the frequency
domain Fourier “drive signal compensation” function. The frequency domain estimates
provide for tolerance specification that is directly related to tolerance specifications in
Method 401. The basic definition of the windowed two-sided periodogram for an N
point digital sequence  xt , t  1,2,..., N in continuous frequency form is as follows:

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
2
t N
Pˆ    f   w x e (16)
p  i 2 ft t
t t for - .5  f  .5
N t 1
Generally the two-sided periodogram is made one sided by multiplying by a factor of 2

with 0  f  0.5 , and the periodogram is sampled at discrete frequencies,
fi for i  0,1,2,..., N 2 with a uniform spacing of f  1 Nt . The ASD and ESD can be
defined in terms of the sampled periodogram. An ASD estimate is typically a time
average sampled periodogram estimate over a limited time interval, with an applied
window to reduce spectrum leakage. For stationary time traces the ASD represents a
powerful means of comparison between r  t  and c  t  , and a display of the frequency
content in s  t  . Paragraph 7.1, reference 1, provides information on ASD processing
of stationary time traces including normalized random and bias error estimates. For
analysis filter bandwidth Be in Hz, and averaging time T in seconds, the normalized
random error for the ASD estimate is given by
1
 r Gˆ xx  f    (17)
BeT
while the normalized bias error is given by

B B 
 b Gˆ xx  fr   r tan1  e   1 (18)
Be  Br 
where
Br  2 fr is an estimate of the half-power bandwidth of a resonant peak.
An ESD estimate is typically a scaled periodogram, scaled by multiplying the
periodogram by the duration of the time trace N t , over a very short transient time trace
that cannot be characterized by an ASD estimate. A uniform or end tapered uniform
time window is generally placed over the significant portion of the time trace. For
transient TWR time traces, ESD estimates are useful for comparing r(t) and c(t) in
addition to examining the character of s(t).
E7: SRS – Shock Response Spectra (global)
As in the case of the frequency domain estimates in E6 a comparison between SRS

estimates for deterministic r(t) and stochastic c(t) can be made. The SRS estimate for
the error time trace s(t) is related to an SRS estimate for pre-shock and post-shock
considered to be random in nature (see Method 403). The SRS may be expressed as
a time domain convolution of an impulse response function that has the character of
the response to base-input of the mass of a single-degree-of-freedom mechanical
system, with a certain percentage of critical damping. The SRS estimate is a function
of the output of the mass displacement, velocity, and acceleration. If the maximum
absolute acceleration (positive or negative) is selected over the time interval of
excitation, and plotted versus the undamped natural frequency of the single-degree-
of-freedom system, the resulting plot over a selected set of frequencies is referred to

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
as a maximax shock response spectrum. It is becoming increasingly evident that for

most cases of mechanical shock the pseudo-velocity SRS estimate is a more indicative
measure of potential for mechanical damage (because mechanical damage is related
to mechanical stress that, in turn, is proportional to relative velocity of a mass-spring-
damper system). Various references provide the details of SRS computation. For
transient time trace TWR comparison, the SRS of r(t) and c(t) is useful and
demonstrates the faithfulness of shock reproduction under TWR. Computing the SRS
for s(t) is less useful and difficult to interpret since random variable S should represent
a noise source but not Normal distributed. The mathematics for the SRS computation
over a transient x  t  for 0  t  Tr is given as follows:
T 
SRS  fn ,     y  t, fn ,       hfn ,  t    x  d  for 0  Tr  T
0 
where,
SRS  fn  - the magnitude of the SRS at natural frequency fn
 - a nonlinear functional operating on the resulting convolution y (t, fn , )

hfn ,  t    - impulse function response for a damped single-degree-of-freedom
system with base input and undamped natural frequency f n having
damping ratio  .
x   - finite input record 0  t  Tr
T - time of response assessment where generally Tr  T
Natural frequency, f n , can extend beyond the sampling frequency of x(t). The SRS
estimate is computed through filtering a transient time record, and does not have a
clear random error or bias error criterion. Numerically, the time trace sample rate
should be ten times the bandwidth of the time trace in order to provide an acceptable
error in the estimates (approximately 5 percent error).
B.4. REPLICATION ERROR TOLERANCE SPECIFICATION
1. From the analyst point of view it is highly desirable to attempt to apply each of
the expressions in paragraph B.3 to assess the replication error. However, when it
comes to TWR test tolerance specification only a few of these expressions can be
easily interpreted after application. For example, requiring s(t) to be zero mean
Gaussian with a specified standard deviation as a fraction of the peak values in r(t), for
a test to be within tolerance is unrealistic. Requiring correlation between r(t) and s(t)
to be a set value e.g., 0.975, is likewise not practical nor meaningful. The TWR test
tolerance specifications below should be easily interpreted and reflect the descriptive
convenience of the expressions in paragraph B.3. Generally for post-analysis
processing to determine test tolerance compliance it is highly desirable that replication
error tolerance specifications be tailored to the form of the time history being replicated
and formally agreed to before testing. The varied form of r(t), i.e., stationary,

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
nonstationary, shock, Gaussian, non-Gaussian or any combination of all of these,

requires replication error tolerance specification to be tailored based upon the form of
r(t). such tolerance specification is complicated by the fact that almost assuredly some
form of windowing and averaging will need to be applied for which random and bias
processing errors are not easily determined to be nominal. It is usually unclear as to
the reference for the specification and if multiple references need to be provided as a
function of the form of r(t). In this case then there may be multiple replication error
assessments and subsequent tolerance specifications.
2. For the suggested replication error test tolerances it is assumed that the
measure of r(t) is a form of general amplitude “rms” level derived by computing the
“average energy” of r(t) in terms of units-squared and then taking the square-root of
this value. For Time Domain Moments this relates to the “root-energy-amplitude”
except the rms duration of r(t) becomes the time averaging factor. For well-defined
transient vibration forms of r(t) or forms of r(t) for which root-mean-square duration is
meaningful it is suggested that the reference of the specification be the “root-energy-
amplitude”. For the tolerance specifications proposed below the reference “root-
energy-amplitude” (REA) is provided by the following expression:
1 T 2 1 N 2
REA 
T 0
r  t  dt   r  ti 
N i 1
where removal of the overall mean of r(t) before computing REA is left to the form of
r(t) and discretion of the analyst. This is a very general root-mean-square r(t) signal
level and for multiple test tolerance specifications may be applied over segments of
r(t). (Other possible reference scaling, for example, might be the reference range
which is generally very sensitive to outliers.)
3. There are five general categories of replication error tolerance specifications

proposed here:
The first category relates directly to s(t) and is referenced for convenience to the overall
“root-mean-square” level of r(t) defined as REA above. Of the two specifications the
root-mean-square error is the most significant.
Category I. The mean error, for which the STA is estimated for the oversample time
interval factor on r(t), shall not exceed more than 1% of the rms amplitude of r(t), REA,
over more than 5% (or 0.95 quantile) of the duration of r(t).
The root-mean-square error, for which the STA is estimated for the oversample time
interval factor on r(t), shall not exceed more than 10% of the rms amplitude of r(t) ,
REA, over more than 5% (or 0.95 quantile) of the time.
The second category relates to (1) stationary random portions of r(t), (2) a periodogram
estimate i.e., ESD, over r(t) or (3) some combination of (1) and (2). For Fourier based
processing of r(t) and c(t) an ASD, a periodogram or an ESD estimate is assumed

ANNEX B TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 423
available for r(t) and c(t). This includes stationary random vibration – Gaussian or non-
Gaussian and shock specified in terms of an ESD estimate.
Category II. For portions of frequency domain the replication error related to the ASD
or periodogram (ESD) shall not exceed the tolerance limits proposed for stationary
random vibration when deterministic r(t) is considered the reference (see Method 401).
For the third category whereby a “Product Model” may be fit to r(t) of the form of a
transient vibration then it is assumed that the analysis has defined r(t) in terms of a PM
with a time domain rms estimate and an appropriately scaled normalized ASD
estimate.
Category III. For the frequency domain portion of the PM, tolerance specification
according to the Category II will apply. For the time domain portion of the PM tolerance
specification according to Category I will apply.
The fourth category relates directly or r(t) as the form of a “shock” for which SRS
estimates provide the most meaningful information.
Category IV. For shock the tolerance specification shall be in accord with that in
Method 403. That is the tolerance specification shall not exceed the tolerance
proposed for the SRS in Method 403 where deterministic r(t) is considered the
reference against c(t).
The fifth category is very general and is based upon the FOT probability distribution as
applied to the error s(t). FOT is able to quantify the time for which the error is at or
above a specified quantile level.
Category V. The 5th and 95th quantile of the FOT related to s(t) (for which no STA has
been computed) shall not exceed more than 10% of the plus and minus rms amplitude
of r(t).

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
METHOD 424
MATERIEL STORAGE AND TRANSIT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE ............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. APPLICATION........................................................................................... 1-1
1.3. LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................ 1-1
CHAPTER 2 TEST GUIDANCE............................................................................... 2-1
2.2. SEQUENCE .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.5. CLIMATIC CONDITIONING ...................................................................... 2-2
3.1. GENERAL ................................................................................................. 3-1
CHAPTER 4 INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN TEST INSTRUCTION ........... 4-1
4.1. GENERAL ................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2. COMPULSORY ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.3. IF REQUIRED ........................................................................................... 4-1
5.1. PREPARATION FOR TEST ...................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1. Loading Devices ................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.2. Climatic Conditioning.......................................................................... 5-1
5.1.3. Checks ............................................................................................... 5-1
5.2. PROCEDURES ......................................................................................... 5-1
5.2.1. Procedure I - Materiel Lifting .............................................................. 5-1
5.2.2. Procedure II - Materiel Tiedown ......................................................... 5-2
5.2.3. Procedure III – Materiel Stacking & Side End Loading ....................... 5-2
5.2.4. Procedure IV – Materiel Bending ....................................................... 5-3
5.2.5. Procedure V – Materiel Racking ......................................................... 5-3
6.1. GENERAL GUIDANCE ............................................................................. 6-1
CHAPTER 7 REFERENCE/RELATED DOCUMENTS ............................................ 7-1
7.1. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS.................................................................. 7-1
7.2. RELATED DOCUMENTS .......................................................................... 7-1
ANNEX A GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST SEVERITY........................................... A-1
A.1. GENERAL ..................................................................................................... A-1
ANNEX A TABLES
A-1. Procedure I - Materiel Lifting ..................................................................... A-2
A-2. Procedure II - Materiel Tiedown ................................................................ A-3
A-3. Procedure III - Materiel Stacking & Side End Loading............................... A-4
A-4. Procedure IV - Materiel Bending ............................................................... A-5
A-5. Procedure V- Materiel Racking.................................................................. A-5
AECTP-400
METHOD 424
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AECTP-400
METHOD 424
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE
1.1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this test method is to represent the loads incurred by materiel, including
containers, during specified storage and transit (tiedown, lifting, stacking, racking)
conditions.
1.2. APPLICATION
This test method is applicable where materiel is required to demonstrate its adequacy
to resist the specified loads without unacceptable degradation of the structural and/or
functional performance. The method is applicable to materiel structural elements that
may be subjected to:
a. Tiedown or lifting loads to attachments on materiel such as handles, eye-

bolts, shackles, fork lift attachments or provision for grabs, as well as
materiel which is not provided with any specific lifting device.
b. Compressive loads applied to materiel on the bottom of a stack of

identical materiel.
c. Side or end compression loads that are applied while materiel is being
lifted by a net. This is not applicable for materiel that has a gross mass
of 120 kg (264 lbs) or more, or a volume of 0.28 m 3 or more.
d. Bending loads caused by its own mass and/or by top loading with other
materiel of different mass and proportions. This is normally only for
materiel whose length is larger than four times the smallest cross
sectional dimension.
e. Twisting loads applied while materiel is not evenly supported. This is

normally limited to materiel in excess of 225 kg (495 lbs) gross weight.
1.3. LIMITATIONS
These tests are not applicable for the simulation of rapidly applied loads that may occur
during drop or snatch conditions that could arise during the lifting, handling and
stacking of materiel. When several items are to be handled as a single load, the Test
Instruction must state the test requirements. This test does not address materiel
performance while it is stacked, tied down or lifted.

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
Where practical in-service measured data should be acquired to tailor the materiel test.
As a minimum the exposure duration and frequency information based on the Life Cycle
Environmental Profile (LCEP) are needed. In addition information on specific load
configurations, materials or equipment, procedures, point loads, restraint tension and
heights should be obtained.
2.2. SEQUENCE
The order of application of this test should be compatible with the LCEP. When combined
environments are identified and considered to have a potential effect on the materiel they
should be included in this test. Representative climatic data can be found in AECTP-230
Leaflet 2311 if measured data are not available.
that could occur when materiel and its attachments are subjected to loads from
stacking or transit.
a. Failure of attachments or structural elements,
b. Failure or displacement of local structural or load spreading elements,
c. Loosening of screws, rivets, fastenings, etc.,
d. Unsecured furniture and fittings,
e. Deterioration of climatic protection,
f. Damage to protective coatings.
Some types of materiel can, over prolonged periods, buckle or partially collapse when
stored in conditions of high relative humidity, or when wet from exposure to the
weather.
The choice of test procedures is governed by the configuration of the materiel and the
way it is subjected to loads. Five procedures are presented as follows:
a. Procedure I Materiel Lifting

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
b. Procedure II Materiel Tiedown
c. Procedure III Materiel Stacking & Side End Loading
d. Procedure IV Materiel Bending
e. Procedure V Materiel Racking
Depending on the expected conditions during the materiel lifetime one, several or all
procedures can be applied.
2.5. CLIMATIC CONDITIONING
This test should, wherever practical, be conducted in a chamber with the test item
stabilised at the required conditions. If size limitations or safety hazards prevent this,
the stabilised test item should be removed from the chamber, the test conducted as
quickly as possible and the room ambient conditions recorded. Subsequent pre-
conditioning of the test item may again be required if the climatic conditions of the test
item exceed the tolerances in the Test Instructions during the test.

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
3.1. GENERAL
This test should be performed in accordance with the severities of Annex A which
presents values that have been derived based on common equipment information.
When it is known that materials used in the construction of the materiel are sensitive
to wide ranges of temperature or humidity, appropriate climatic conditions should be
used.

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
4.1. GENERAL
For each transportation and stowage mode (according to LCEP) the Test Instruction
should include the following for each test procedure addressed:
4.2. COMPULSORY
a. The identification, definition and gross weight of the test item.
b. The type of test: development, qualification.
c. The visual or other examinations required, and the phase of the test in
which they are to be conducted.
d. The test item faces to which the test is to be applied.
e. The definition of the failure criteria.
f. The loading and environmental conditions at which testing is to be carried

out and the associated durations.
g. The test tolerances.
h. All deviations (with rationale) from this test method.
4.3. IF REQUIRED
a. The test surface, if other than a hard level surface or supports.
b. The load distributions, if adverse conditions need to be tested.

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
5.1.1. Loading Devices
Each loading device used for these tests should have suitable safe working load
carrying capacity.
5.1.2. Climatic Conditioning
If climatic conditioning is required, the test item should be conditioned to the required
conditions for 16 hours, or until the temperature of the test item has stabilised,
whichever is the shorter period. See also AECTP-300 Method 300.
5.1.3. Checks
Initial, during test, and final checks are to be conducted as specified in the Test
Instruction.
5.2. PROCEDURES
5.2.1. Procedure I - Materiel Lifting
Step 1. Unless otherwise specified in the Test Instruction position the pre-
conditioned test item on a hard and level test surface.
Step 2. Apply the test load as specified in the Test Instruction in accordance
with the loading conditions defined in Annex A Table A-1. The test
load should be distributed to maintain the normal centre of gravity
as far as possible.
Step 3. Lift the test item and load in accordance with the lifting methods as
defined in Annex A Table A-1, and maintain clear of the ground for
the period specified in the Test Instruction.
Step 4. Repeat step 2 and 3 for all appropriate test item orientations. If
testing outside a climatic conditioned environment, re-stabilise the
test item at the required climatic conditions between each test
orientation.

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
5.2.2. Procedure II - Materiel Tiedown
Step 1. Unless otherwise specified in the Test Instruction, position the test
item on a hard and level test surface and secure it sufficiently to
prevent movement.
Step 2. Apply the test load(s) in the direction(s) and time period specified in
the Test Instruction. See the test loads in Annex A Table A-2. The
static test loads should be applied orthogonally to each attachment,
one at a time.
Step 3. Repeat step 2 for all attachments and appropriate test item
orientations. If testing outside a climatic conditioned environment,
re-stabilise the test item at the required climatic conditions between
each test orientation.
5.2.3. Procedure III – Materiel Stacking & Side End Loading
Step 1. Unless otherwise specified in the Test Instruction position the pre-
conditioned test item on a hard test surface. To simulate the actual
load distribution and interface between the item and the upper /
lower level a minimum of two test items should be used.
a. For simulating palletised stacks, this pallet may need to be

included in the test.
b. Where uneven compressive loads could arise from stacking

on uneven surfaces during shipping or staggered stacking
could arise during in-service conditions, these conditions
should be simulated in the test.
c. Where materiel can be expected to be stacked in more than

one orientation, all materiel sides relevant to these
orientations should be subjected to this stacking test.
Step 2. Conduct the appropriate compression load on the surface of the test
item using the load and duration specified in the Test Instruction in
accordance with Annex A Table A-3.
Step 3. Repeat step 2 for all appropriate test item orientations. If testing
outside a climatic conditioned environment, re-stabilise the test item
at the required climatic conditions between each test orientation.

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
5.2.4. Procedure IV – Materiel Bending
Step 1. Unless otherwise specified in the Test Instruction, support the pre-
conditioned test item on each end over an area equal to half the
cross sectional area of the test item. Where the materiel normally
rests on supports and/or is positioned in a particular orientation
during transit, these conditions should be simulated in the test.
Step 2. Apply the test load over a centre span area of the test item, to the
upper surface of the test item using the load and duration specified
in the Test Instruction in accordance with Annex A Table A-4. The
centre span area shall extend the full transverse width of the test
item and the area shall be equal to the cross sectional area of the
test item.
5.2.5. Procedure V – Materiel Racking
Step 1. Unless otherwise specified in the Test Instruction, position the pre-
conditioned test item on a hard and level test surface. Where the
materiel normally rests on supports and/or is positioned in a
particular orientation during transit, these conditions should be
simulated in the test.
Step 2. Apply the test load specified in the Test Instruction in accordance
with the loading conditions defined in Annex A Table A-5.

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
6.1. GENERAL GUIDANCE
The test item performance should meet all appropriate Test Instruction requirements
following the application of the test loading and environmental conditions. Unless
otherwise specified in the Test Instruction the materiel, their attachments and tiedown or
lifting arrangements are expected to survive the test without degradation and the materiel
should remain safe and fit-for-purpose on completion of the test.

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
a. MIL-STD-209, Interface Standard for Lifting and Tiedown Provisions, USA

Department of Defense.
None.

AECTP-400
METHOD 424
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 424
ANNEX A GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL TEST SEVERITY
A.1. GENERAL
stages of a program, and the information is vital to the design of the materiel. If there
is the possibility of obtaining measurement data on the materiel platform, the severities
specific platforms and operating conditions is contained in AECTP-200. The initial test
severities provided in the following tables should be tempered with engineering

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 424
Table A-1: Procedure I - Materiel Lifting
Load
Materiel Lift Method Notes
Factor
Sequentially lift the test item from each

single handle for the duration specified.
Return the item between each lift. If
Materiel Fitted with
3 testing outside a climatic conditioned a, b
Handles
environment, re-stabilise the test item
at the required climatic conditions
between lifts.
Attach slings to all lifting points with the

Materiel Fitted with
2 appropriate arrangements and lift the a, b, c
Lifting Attachments
item for the duration specified.
Use a fork lift truck with the forks

Materiel Fitted with extended to at least two thirds of the
Fork Lifting 1.25 underside dimensions of the base of a, b
Facilities the specimen across which the forks
are carrying out the lift.
Materiel Providing
Grabs applied at the designated grab
for the Use of 2 a, b
points.
Grabs
Two slings under the test item

Materiel with No positioned at approximately one sixth
3 a, b, c
Lifting Devices of the length of the container from each
end.
Notes to Table A-1:

a. The test load is the gross weight of the materiel (materiel weight plus the
weight of the contents in the case of a container test) multiplied by the load
factor.
b. Minimum Test Duration for each lift = 5 minutes
c. Where slings are used, the angles between the legs of a two legged sling
and the diagonal opposite legs of a four legged sling should not be more
than 90 degrees and not less than 60 degrees. The test load shall not
interfere with the attachment and alignment of the slings.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 424
Table A-2: Procedure II - Materiel Tiedown
Minimum Test
Direction Test Load Climatic
Duration
Condition
(Minutes)
Forward/aft 4 x MSW
(Longitudinal axis of 5
N
equipment)
2 x MSW Prevailing Site

Downward 5
N Conditions
Lateral 1.5 x MSW

5
(in each direction) N
Notes to Table A-2:
a. MSW = Maximum weight of item (including payload in the case of container

test).
b. N = Number of attachments effectively resisting motion in that axis.
c. Apply load orthogonally, each attachment at a time.
d. Table developed from MIL-STD-209

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 424
Table A-3: Procedure III - Materiel Stacking & Side End Loading
Minimum
Simulation Test Procedure Test Load Test
Duration
For vertical stacking, subject the upper

surface of the test item to the
compressive load as mentioned.
Materiel Compressive
Stacking load is equal
to the amount
of items
stacked to a
total height
not exceeding
2 m (6.6 ft) for
For net loading simulation, subject the containers up
8 days
side or end faces of the test item to half to 15 kg
of the test load as described. A suitable (33 lbs) gross
horizontal loading device should be weight each,
used if the test item is sensitive to or 6 m (19.7
equipment orientation or to ft) for materiel
Side End gravitational effects. over 15 kg
Loading (33 lbs) gross
weight each.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 424
Table A-4: Procedure IV - Materiel Bending
Minimum
Test Setup Test Load
Test Duration
Apply the test load over a centre span Bending load is three
area of the test item. For an item in a (3) times the
long rectangular box, with a maximum weight of
rectangular cross section, and item (including
5 min
dimensions of Length x Width x Height payload in the case
( L x W x H ) the centre span area is W of container test).
x H. The end support area shall each
be one half the W x H area.
Table A-5: Procedure V- Materiel Racking
Minimum
Test Procedure Test Load
Test Duration
With the test item standing upon its face
on a hard, level surface, a base corner
shall be lifted and supported at the
specified height for the required duration. Height = 300 mm 5 min for each
The test item shall then be lowered and (12 inches) corner
the test repeated on the diagonally
opposite corner. The two remaining
corners shall then be similarly treated.

ANNEX A TO
AECTP-400
METHOD 424
INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECTP-400(D)(1)

Aectp-400 Edd V1 e

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aectp-400 Edd V1 e

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATO STANDARD

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

ALLIED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND TEST PUBLICATIONS

RESERVED FOR NATIONAL LETTER OF PROMULGATION

CHAPTER RECORD OF RESERVATION BY NATIONS

III Edition D Version 1

RECORD OF SPECIFIC RESERVATIONS

[nation] [detail of reservation]

RECORD OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

VII Edition D Version 1

VIII Edition D Version 1

CHAPTER 1 SCOPE............................................................................................... 1-1

1. AECTP-400 is one of five documents included in STANAG 4370. It is important

1. AECTP-400 Test Methods address mechanical environments, both individually

2. In developing a test programme, consideration is to be given to the anticipated

3. The list of AECTP-400 Test Methods in Table 1 reflects those currently

1-1 Edition D Version 1

a. Weapon effects, other than EMP,

b. Munitions safety tests covering abnormal environments,

d. Suitability of clothing or fabric items intended for military use,

e. Environmental stress screening (ESS) methods and procedures.

Table 1: Index of Mechanical Test Methods

1-2 Edition D Version 1

CHAPTER 2 TEST GUIDANCE

2.1. USE OF MEASURED DATA

a. Use the anticipated life cycle sequence of events as a general sequence

b. Relate cumulative effects on performance and durability of a materiel

2.3. EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT

1. Interpretation of the effects of an environmental test depends on the purpose of

2-1 Edition D Version 1

a. Deviation of monitored functional parameter levels beyond acceptable

b. Not fulfilling safety requirements or developing safety hazards.

c. Not fulfilling specific materiel requirements.

e. Deviation from established environmental impact requirements. (For

f. Additional failure criteria as specified in the materiel specification.

a. Structural and component fatigue.

b. Optical and sensor misalignment.

c. Collapse, rupturing and cracking.

f. Intermittent electrical contacts.

g. Mutual contact and short circuiting of electrical components.

i. Loosening of particles or parts that may become lodged in circuits or

j. Excessive electrical noise.

2-2 Edition D Version 1

2.4. MATERIEL OPERATION

a. The materiel should be operated continuously with performance

b. The materiel should be operated intermittently and allowed to stabilise,

2.5. CLIMATIC CONDITIONING

1. If required by the Environmental Test Instruction, the materiel should be pre-

2. In situations when testing is undertaken during constant temperature conditioning;

3. In situations when testing is undertaken during a temperature conditioning cycle,

2-3 Edition D Version 1

2-4 Edition D Version 1

CHAPTER 3 TEST INFORMATION

3.1. DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL TEST PLANS

a. Probability of occurrence of specific environmental forcing functions,

b. Occurrence of similar environmental stresses in more than one life profile

c. Experience from other materiel similarly deployed/tested.

d. Expected environmental effects and materiel failure modes.

e. Expected effects on hardware performance and mission success.

f. Likelihood of problem disclosure by a specific laboratory test method

3.2. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN TEST INSTRUCTION

a. Test facilities and instrumentation.

b. Required test procedure(s).