DERIVATION OF DESIGN LOADS AND RANDOM

VIBRATION SPECIFICATIONS FOR SPACECRAFT

INSTRUMENTS AND SUB-UNITS
DERIVATION OF DESIGN LOADS AND RANDOM VIBRATION SPECIFICATIONS
FOR SPACECRAFT INSTRUMENTS AND SUB-UNITS
S. Fransen (1), T. Yamawaki (2), H. Akagi (3), M. Eggens (4), C. van Baren (5)
(1)
ESA, Keplerlaan 1, 2201ZK Noordwijk, The Netherlands, Email: sebastiaan.fransen@esa.int
(2)
JAXA, 2-1-1 Sengen Tsukuba-city Ibaraki 305-8505, Japan, Email: yamawaki.toshihiko@jaxa.jp
(3)
JAXA, 2-1-1 Sengen Tsukuba-city Ibaraki 305-8505, Japan, Email: akagi.hiroki@jaxa.jp
(4)
SRON, Landleven 12, 9747AD Groningen, The Netherlands, Email: m.eggens@sron.nl
(5)
SRON, Sorbonnelaan 2, 3584 CA Utrecht, The Netherlands, Email: c.van.baren@sron.nl

ABSTRACT
To realize a large telescope cooled down to 6K in
After a first estimation based on statistics, the design
temperature, SPICA extensively utilizes the Thermal
loads for instruments are generally estimated by coupled
Insulation and Radiative Cooling System (TIRCS),
spacecraft/instrument sine analysis once an FE-model of
which consists of a Sun-Shield, three layers of thermal
the spacecraft is available. When the design loads for
PA P E R

shields, a telescope shell and a b affle, and a series of

the instrument have been derived, the next step in the
mechanical cryo coolers. The Focal Plane Instrument
process is to estimate the random vibration environment
Assembly (FPIA) is supported by kinetic mounts from
at the instrument base and to compute the RMS load at
the SPICA Telescope Assembly (STA), which is again
the centre of gravity of the instrument by means of
supported by truss structure from the Bus Module [1].
vibro-acoustic analysis. Finally the design loads of the
light-weight sub-units of the instrument can be
Initially the random vibration loads specified for the
estimated through random vibration analysis at
SAFARI instrument, depicted in Figure 2, were based
instrument level, taking into account the notches
on the JAXA standard for structure design [2] which
required to protect the instrument interfaces in the hard-
allows to use empirical values in the early phase of
mounted random vibration test. This paper presents the
development when no structural models are available
aforementioned steps of instrument and sub-units loads
yet. The qualification test (QT) random vibration loads
derivation in the preliminary design phase of the
in line with this standard and valid for instruments
spacecraft and identifies the problems that may be
mounted on the exterior of the spacecraft structure by
encountered in terms of design load consistency
brackets or iso-static mounts, are tabulated in Table 1.
between low-frequency and high-frequency
TECHNICAL

environments. The SpicA FAR-infrared Instrument

(SAFARI) which is currently developed for the Space
Infrared Telescope for Cosmology and Astrophysics
(SPICA) will be used as a guiding example.

1. INTRODUCTION
SPICA is a next-generation astronomical mission
proposed by JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration
Agency) with international cooperation and has a 3m-
class cryogenically cooled space telescope. An artistic
view of SPICA in orbit is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 2: CAD model of SAFARI instrument

The vibration loads given in Table 1 are based on the

test measurements of instrument random environments
collected from spacecraft vibro-acoustic tests. However,
it is conservative in that the instrument mass and
location are not defined as parameters for the definition
of this spectrum. Dimensions of the instrument
bearings, bolt pre-loads, unit and sub-unit mass and
volume, and the dissipation of actuators due to friction
are pre-dominantly determined by the random vibration
loads specified for the instrument. In addition the
dimensions of the thermal suspension, e.g. the Kevlar
suspensions used on the cryo-cooler and Focal Plane
Figure 1: Artistic view of SPICA Arrays (FPA) are determined by the vibration loads.

_______________________________________
Proc. ‘13th European Conf. on Spacecraft Structures, Materials & Environmental Testing’,
Braunschweig, Germany, 1–4 April 2014 (ESA SP-727, June 2014)
 Conflicting requirements on strength and thermal loads 3. DYNAMIC MODELS
may lead to an infeasible design in case the vibration
In this section we will present the dynamic models that
loads are specified too conservatively. For this reason
will be used in the vibro-acoustic analysis. A simplified
the derivation of the loads specification shall be
instrument mass-spring model was created with a total
performed as accurately as possible in the early phases
mass of 51.8 kg. It has two main lateral modes at 101Hz
of design, still taking into account adequate margins to
and 110Hz and a main axial mode at 169Hz. All
cover any modelling and/or analysis inaccuracies.
frequencies are higher than 100Hz lateral and 150Hz
axial to avoid coupling of instrument and spacecraft
Frequency Range [Hz] Slope or level
20-80 +6 dB/Oct
modes in the low-frequency domain of the launch
80-270 0.70 g2/Hz vehicle. The model is depicted in Figure 3 and shows
270-413 -6 dB/Oct two suspended structures that are interconnected. The
413-800 0.30 g2/Hz upper structure is the 4K-structure and the lower
800-2000 -8 dB/Oct structure is the 2K-structure which weigh 43.9 and 7.9
Overall level 21.1 grms kg respectively.
Table 1: Random vibration load spectrum – initial
specification (QT)
PA P E R

Hence it was investigated by vibro-acoustic analysis

whether the random environment of the SAFARI
instrument could be reduced taking into account its
specific mass and location in the overall spacecraft
structure. Vibro-acoustic analysis was conducted both at
spacecraft PayLoad Module (PLM) level as well as at
the level of the Instrument Optical Bench (IOB) the
instrument is mounted to. The latter analysis is reported
in this paper as it was found to be a good approximation
of the PLM level analysis. Figure 3: Instrument dynamic model
Subsequently the loads of the instrument sub-units can
be estimated by means of hard-mounted random The instrument model was attached to the finite element
vibrations analysis of the instrument using the model of the IOB by means of spring elements to form
TECHNICAL

aforementioned random vibration environment. Force the Focal Plane Instrument Assembly (FPIA). The
Limited Vibration Testing (FLVT) will be applied to assembly model is depicted in Figure 4 and has a total
avoid overstressing of the iso-static mounts and to mass of 245.8kg. Figure 5 shows the effective modal
reduce the loads seen by the sub-units. At this stage it mass of the FPIA model. In order to show the inside of
should also be verified that the 3σ RMS COG the model the top plate has not been displayed. The
acceleration of the instrument is smaller than the main modes are at 61Hz (lateral), 72Hz (lateral) and
instrument design limit load. 92Hz/93Hz (axial). The SAFARI main axial mode has
dropped from 169Hz to 155Hz. This assembly model
2. INSTRUMENT DESIGN LOADS was subsequently exported to a vibro-acoustic analysis
tool [4].
In order to derive the design loads for the SAFARI
instrument JAXA and ESA performed a sine analysis of
the spacecraft. A conservative modal damping level of
1% was used for this frequency response analysis. The
unnotched sine spectrum specified in the H-IIA User’s
Manual was employed [3]. Eventually the design limit
loads (DLL) presented in Table 2 were derived for the
Focal Plane Unit (FPU), the Digital Control Unit (DCU)
and the Interface Control Unit (ICU):

SAFARI Unit Axial [g] Lateral [g]

Focal Plane Unit 25 25
(FPU)
Digital Control 25 25
Unit (DCU)
Interface Control 25 25
Unit (ICU)
Table 2: Design Limit Loads SAFARI units

Figure 4: FPIA model

 Figure 5: Effective modal mass of FPIA model (XY=lateral,
Z=axial) Figure 6: Method used for recovery of resultant interface
force
4. VIBRO-ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS
PA P E R

For the vibro-acoustic analysis the QT Sound Pressure

Level (SPL) environment specified for the H-IIA 204
launcher was used [3], as tabulated in Table 3. For the
air medium inside and outside the IOB standard air
properties were used such as speed of sound = 340m/s2,
density = 1.27kg/m3 and specific heat ratio = 1.4. All
structural modes of the FPIA up to 800Hz were used in
the vibro-acoustic analysis. A 4dB margin has been
added to all analysis results presented in this paper to
cover any uncertainty in either models or analysis
accuracy.

Octave Band Centre Frequency [Hz] SPL [dB]

TECHNICAL

31.5 131.0
63 132.5
125 137.0 Figure 7: Vibro-acoustic model with plane-wave excitation
250 139.0 and interface force sensors indicated
500 134.5
1000 131.0 The acceleration spectral density (ASD) at the centre
2000 126.0 point interface node is depicted in Figure 8 for all 3
3000 121.0 response directions (X, Y and Z) and includes the
4000 119.0 aforementioned uncertainty margin of 4dB. The original
OASPL 143.5 test spectrum of 21.1g RMS as specified in Table 1 is
Table 3: Sound Pressure Level H-IIA 204 – QT presented in black. It fully envelopes the vibro-acoustic
responses for all directions with large margin at all
Since the instrument model was a fairly simple mass- frequencies. In order to reduce the loads exerted on the
spring model, the accelerations could be recovered for FPU structure during random vibration testing it seems
all instrument nodes. Such nodes include interface justified to construct a less conservative envelope. The
nodes and COG nodes of the 4-K structure and 2K- resulting envelope from this exercise is plotted as the
structure. In addition the interface forces were recovered orange spectrum and represents a 10.3g RMS input.
from the spring elements between instrument and IOB Checking also each individual interface point, it was
as well as between 2K-structure and 4K-structure. concluded that the proposed test spectrum (orange
Furthermore the resultant interface force was computed curve) envelopes all interface accelerations with
from a spring sensor with very weak stiffness, located at sufficient margin and could therefore be adopted as the
the geometric centre of the instrument/IOB interface, new specification for the instrument random vibration
refer to Figure 6. The vibro-acoustic model and data test.
recovery points are depicted in Figure 7. Furthermore it was found that the highest 3σ RMS
acceleration at the COG of the 4K-structure is equal to
5.2g (QT+4dB) in Z-direction, i.e. the out-of-plane
direction. For the COG point of the 2K-structure the
highest 3σ RMS acceleration is equal to 11.1g
(QT+4dB), also in Z-direction.
 This force limit shall cover the FSD computed from
vibro-acoustic analysis. In order to tune the coverage
the semi-empirical constant can be adapted, keeping in
mind the recommended range: 2 < c2 < 5. Figure 9
shows that the interface forces in X-direction computed
from vibro-acoustic analysis are fully covered by the
force limit defined by the 10.3 grms input spectrum and
a semi-empirical constant c2 = 2.5. The same applies for
the Y-direction and Z-direction as presented in Figure
10 and Figure 11 respectively.

Figure 8: ASD at centre point of instrument/IOB interface

PA P E R

(QT+4dB)

5. FORCE LIMITED VIBRATION TESTING

In the preliminary design phase of the instrument, the
sub-unit loads are derived by simulation of the random
vibration test. Because of the impedance mismatch
between a soft-mounted (i.e. mounted on the IOB) and
hard-mounted instrument, overtesting of the SAFARI
interfaces and the instrument’s interior sub-units would
Figure 9: Force limits defined in the lateral X-direction (IP)
occur without any form of notching. For this reason it
was decided to explore the possibilities of notching the
random vibration test (simulation) on the basis of the
TECHNICAL

Force Limited Vibration Testing (FLVT) technique. In

this section we will briefly recall the FLVT approach
and present the force limits constructed on the basis of
the vibro-acoustic analysis results.
ESA has acquired experience with FLVT in the past
[5,6] and recommends this method as a standard
approach for the instrument random vibration test for
the following reasons:
a. In general the iso-static mounts and other
delicate parts of the main structure (such as
parts made out of ceramics) shall be protected
against overstress. In addition overdesign of
the main structure can be avoided using FLVT Figure 10: Force limits defined in the lateral Y-direction (IP)
in the design phase already.
b. Using FLVT, sub-unit load specifications can
be derived without taking into account too
much conservatism. This avoids infeasible sub-
unit designs and minimises sub-unit mass.
ESA applies Force Limited Vibration Testing based on
the so-called NASA Semi-Empirical Method [7] in
which the Force Spectral Density (FSD) limit is defined
as follows:

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹(𝑓𝑓) = 𝑐𝑐 2 × 𝑚𝑚2 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴(𝑓𝑓) 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓 < 𝑓𝑓0

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹(𝑓𝑓) = 𝑐𝑐 2 × 𝑚𝑚2 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴(𝑓𝑓)⁄(𝑓𝑓/𝑓𝑓0 )2 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓 𝑓 𝑓𝑓0

Where:
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = force spectral density at instrument interface
𝑐𝑐 = semi-empirical constant which depends on the Figure 11: Force limits defined in the Z-direction, OOP
configuration (2 < c2 < 5 typically)
𝑓𝑓0 = fundamental frequency in excitation direction The bold blue curve in Figure 9-Figure 11 is the
𝑚𝑚 = total mass of the instrument = 51.8 kg resultant interface force computed from the global
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = acceleration spectral density interface force sensor depicted in Figure 6. The force
 spectra underneath this curve represent the interface
forces computed at each of the 3 individual iso-static
mounts of the instrument, i.e. the interface to the IOB.

6. RANDOM VIBRATION ANALYSIS

In this section we will study the results from the
simulation of the hard-mounted random vibration test,
which will be conducted with and without FLVT to
assess the effect of notching. The 10.3g RMS spectrum
derived in section 4 will be used as an input. We will
verify interface load compatibility as well as design load
compatibility, which normally should go hand in hand. Figure 12: FPU resultant interface force in OOP direction –
Notched and unnotched
In order to limit the amount of information, the out-of-
plane (OOP) response of the instrument due Z-
excitation of the instrument will be discussed, since
PA P E R

those responses are most significant. Obviously cross-

response and excitation in the lateral X- and Y-
directions have been studied as well but are not
presented in this paper for reasons of conciseness.

In Figure 12 the FPU interface forces in OOP direction

are presented for the unnotched (green curve) and
notched (purple curve) random vibration analysis of the
SAFARI FPU in hard-mounted condition. The resultant
interface force derived from the coupled vibro-acoustic
analysis is shown in blue, while the applicable force Figure 13: FPU COG acceleration in OOP direction –
limit is shown in orange. The FLVT notching reduces Notched and unnotched
the RMS resultant interface force from 21.9kN to
4.2kN. The notched resultant interface force (purple 7. DERIVATION OF SUB-UNIT LOADS
TECHNICAL

curve) fully covers the corresponding force computed
from vibro-acoustic analysis (blue curve).
Besides the interface forces, it is also interesting to
verify the compatibility of the random vibration loads at
the COG with the instrument design limit load of 25g
found from sine analysis at spacecraft level (see section
2). In order to perform this check the FPU COG
acceleration is plotted in Figure 13 for the unnotched
(green curve) and notched (purple curve) random
vibration analysis of the SAFARI FPU in hard-mounted
condition. The FLVT notching reduces the RMS COG
acceleration from 41.9g to 8.1g. The 3σ value of the
COG acceleration obtained with FLVT notching is thus
equal to 24.3g, just below the design limit load of 25g.
This means that FLVT notching will avoid overloading
of the FPU when subjected to the newly specified
random vibration spectrum of 10.3g RMS. Since COG
loads and interface forces are related, we can also derive
the COG loads from the RMS resultant interface force
(a=F_RMS/m=F_RMS/51.8kg) which for the unnotched
and notched random vibration test would yield 43.1g
and 8.3g respectively. Indeed those levels are very close
to the values mentioned above (41.9g and 8.1g).
In section 4 we have seen that on the basis of vibro-
acoustic analysis a reduced instrument random vibration
spectrum could be defined which helped to reduce the
instrument as well as the sub-unit loads. In order to
avoid overtesting the FLVT approach was applied in
section 5 when simulating the hard-mounted random
vibration test of the instrument. For the derivation of the
final sub-unit design loads a similar random vibration
analysis as conducted in section 5 is foreseen, replacing
the simplified SAFARI mass-spring model depicted in
Figure 3 with a more detailed instrument FEM, refer to
Figure 14. The output of such analysis would be the 3σ
RMS accelerations at each sub-unit COG (design load),
and in addition the interface PSD (spectrum for random
vibration test). In such analysis the input spectrum of
10.3g RMS will be used in conjunction with FLVT
notching, using the force limits derived in this paper.

Figure 14: Preliminary version of instrument FEM

 8. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper a computational procedure was presented

which aims at the derivation of specifications for
instrument random vibration tests and at the derivation
of instrument sub-unit loads. It was first described how
to derive a reduced input specification for an instrument
random vibration test through coupled instrument/IOB
(FPIA) vibro-acoustic analysis. Subsequently it was
described how to adopt FLVT in order to reduce the
loads seen by the instrument and its sub-units during
random vibration testing, and hence to avoid
overtesting. Using the interface forces computed from
vibro-acoustic analysis as a reference, force limits could
PA P E R

be constructed on the basis of the NASA semi-empirical

method. Those force limits could subsequently be used
in the simulation of the random vibration test of the
instrument with FLVT notching. Finally, such
simulation can be used to demonstrate design load
compatibility of the instrument and to derive the sub-
unit design loads and specifications for sub-unit random
vibration tests.

9. REFERENCES

1. Nakagawa, T., Matsuhara, H., Kawakatsu, Y., &

SPICA Team, The next-generation infrared space
TECHNICAL

telescope SPICA. In Proc. SPIE 8442 ‘Space

Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Optical,
Infrared, and Milimeter Wave’ .
2. JAXA, JERG-2-320A, Standard for Structure
Design, 31 May 2011
3. JAXA, H-IIA User’s Manual, December 2001
4. ESI-group, VA-ONE vibro-acoustic analysis
software
5. J-C. Salvignol et al., Notching During Random
Vibration Test Based on Interface Forces – the
JWST NIRSpec Experience, European Conference
on Spacecraft Structures Materials &
Environmental Testing, 2012.
6. J. Sykes et al., Qualification of the JWST MIRI
Instrument Using Force Limited Vibration,
European Conference on Spacecraft Structures
Materials & Environmental Testing, 2012.
7. NASA, NASA-HDBK-7004C, Force Limited
Vibration Testing, 30 Nov. 2012
 EUROPE ASIA AMERICAS
benelu x germany CHINA SOUTH-EAST ASIA USA
& S C A N D I N AV I A
around ESI Group Netherlands
Radex Innovation Centre
ESI GmbH
Headquarters
Siemensstr. 12
ESI China
Unit 1006-1008,
Metropolis Tower
ESI Group
South-East Asia
ROAP Office
ESI North America
Headquarters
32605 W 12 Mile Road,
the world room 4.57
Rotterdamseweg 183 C
2629 HD Delft
63263 Neu-Isenburg
Germany
T.+49 6102 2067 - 0
No. 2 Haidiandongsanjie,
Haidian District,
Beijing, 100080 - China
N° 20-2 (2nd floor)
Jalan Metro Pudu
Fraser Business Park
Suite 350,
Farmington Hills,
MI 48334-3379
The Netherlands F.+49 6102 2067 - 111 T. +86 (10)-65544907/8/9 55100 Kuala Lumpur, USA
ESI Group T. +31 (0)15 2682501 F. +86 (10)-65544911 Malaysia T. +1 (248) 381-8040
F. +31 (0)15 2682514 ESI GmbH T. +6012 618 1014 F. +1 (248) 381-8998
Headquarters Einsteinring 24 - Haus 4
I ndia
85609 München-Dornach ESI North America
100-102 Avenue de Suffren CZECH REPUBLIC Germany ESI India
SOUTH KOREA 12555 High Bluff Drive
& EASTERN T. +49 89 45 10 888 0 Suite 250
75015 Paris EUROPE F. +49 89 45 10 888 18
Headquarters Hankook ESI San Diego, CA 92130
No. 24-25, Ground floor 4F Ryuhsan B/D, 134-1
France MECAS ESI 27th Cross Banashankri Gayang-dong, Gangseo-gu
USA
ESI GmbH T. +1 (858) 350 0057
Brojova 2113/16 2nd stage Seoul 157-801
T. +33 (0)1 53 65 14 14 326 00 Pilsen Kruppstr. 82-100 / ETEC Bangalore 560 070 South Korea
F. +1 (858) 350 8328
V5-105
F. +33 (0)1 53 65 14 12 Czech Republic
45145 Essen
India T. +82 2 3660 4500 ESI North America
T. +420 377 432 931 T. +91 80 4017 4747 F. +82 2 3662 0084 2880 Zanker Road
F. +420 377 432 930 Germany F. +91 80 4017 4705
T. +49 (0)201 125 072 0 Suite 105
F. +49 (0)201 125 072 24 San Jose, CA 95134
ESI MW India
FRANCE 502, Pentagon 2,
USA
ESI GmbH T. +1 (408) 824 1212
ESI France Magarpatta City F. +1 (408) 824 1216
Jurastr. 8, Pune - 411 013
Headquarters 70565 Stuttgart
Parc d'Affaires Silic Maharashtra ESI North America
Germany India
99, rue des Solets - BP 80112 T. +49 (0) 711 27 303 0 6767 Old Madison Pike
94513 Rungis Cedex - France T. +91-20-26898 Suite 600
F. +49 (0) 711 27 303 110 172/173/175/229
T. +33 (0)1 49 78 28 00 Huntsville, AL 35806
F. +33 (0)1 46 87 72 02 F. +91-20-26898 239 USA
I TA LY T. +1 (256) 713-4700
ESI France J A PA N F. +1 (256) 713-4799
Le Récamier ESI Italia
70, rue Robert Via San Donato 191 ESI Japan
69458 Lyon Cedex 06 40127 Bologna Headquarters SOUTH AMERICA
France Italy 15F and 16F Shinjuku Green
T. +39 0516335577 ESI South America
T. +33 (0)4 78 14 12 00 Tower Bldg, 6-14-1, Av. Pedroso de Morais,
F. +33 (0)4 78 14 12 01 T. +39 0516335578 Nishi-Shinjuku
F. +39 0516335601 1619 cj.312
Shinjuku-ku,Tokyo160-0023 São Paulo
Japan SP CEP 05419-001
S PA I N S Weden T. +81 3 6381 8490 / 8494 Brazil
ESI Group Hispania F. +81 3 6381 8488 / 8489 T./F. +55 (011) 3031-6221
Headquarters Efield ESI
Parque Empresarial Arroyo Sjöängsvägen 15 ESI Japan
de la Vega SE-192 72 Sollentuna Kansai Branch Office
C/ Francisca Delgado, 11. Sweden Nishi-Nihon Sales office
Planta3ª-28108Alcobendas T. +46 8 410 03 511 5F Advance Esaka Bldg,
Madrid - Spain M. +46 70 999 18 71 8-10 Toyotsu-cho
T. +34 91 484 02 56 Suita-shi,
F. +34 91 484 02 55 Osaka 564-0051
SWITZERLAND Japan
ESI Group Hispania, S.L. T. +81 6 6330 2720
Calcom ESI F. +81 6 6330 2740
C/ Balmes, 188 Parc Scientifique EPFL /
Oficinas B188 PSE-A
08006 - Barcelona ESI Japan
CH-1015 Lausanne Chubu Branch Office
Spain Switzerland
T. +34 93 152 10 25 9F Daisan Horiuchi Bldg.
T. +41 21 693 2918 4-6-23, Meieki
F. +34 93 218 01 01 F. +41 21 693 4740 Nakamura-ku, Nagoya-shi,
Aichi 450-0002
UnITED KINGDOM Japan
T. +81 52 589 7100
ESI UK F. +81 52 589 7001
16 Morston Court,
Kingswood Lakeside,
Cannock, WS11 8JB russia
United Kingdom
T +44 (0) 1543397900 ESI Russia
F +44 (0) 1543504898 Vainera str. 51b, 3rd floor
620014, Yekaterinburg
Russian Federation
C. +7 919 361 14 80
T./F. +7 343 311 02 33

about esi G R O U P
ESI is a pioneer and world-leading provider in Virtual Prototyping that takes into account the physics of materials.
info@esi-group.com ESI boasts a unique know-how in Virtual Product Engineering, based on an integrated suite of coherent, industry-
oriented applications. Addressing manufacturing industries, Virtual Product Engineering aims to replace
physical prototypes by realistically simulating a product’s behavior during testing, to fine-tune fabrication and
assembly processes in accordance with desired product performance, and to evaluate the impact of product use
under normal or accidental conditions.
ESI’s solutions fit into a single collaborative and open environment for End-to-End Virtual Prototyping. These
solutions are delivered using the latest technologies, including immersive Virtual Reality, to bring products to
life in 3D; helping customers make the right decisions throughout product development. The company employs
about 950 high-level specialists worldwide covering more than 30 countries. ESI Group is listed in compartment
Copyright © ESI Group, 2014

C of NYSE Euronext Paris.

All PAM- and SYS- product names as well as other products belonging to ESI’s portfolio are tradenames or trademarks of ESI Group, unless specifically mentioned.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners - Specifications are subject to change without notice.

www.esi-group.com