Shock Handbook Part 2

Shock verification approach at system and sub-system levels

H. Grzeskowiak, HG Consultant
JB. Bernaudin, A. Kiley, Astrium
G. Ladurée, B. Brévart , Thales Alenia Space
S. Kiryenko, ESA
P. Marucchi, Thales Alenia Space
S. Mary, D. Dilhan, CNES

Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment and Verification

13-14 May 2008

Presentation plan
General approach to shock verification
Test rationale
Use of random environment to cover shock environment
Qualification shock for test requirement
Criteria for test facility selection
Shock test monitoring
„ Measurement sensors
„ Accelerometers
„ Strain gages
„ Load cells

„ Data acquisition
„ Specific concerns
„ EMC parasites mitigation
„ Preventive techniques for clean measurement

Pyro shock test procedures

Data analysis tools and data validation
Conclusive remarks

13/05/2008 slide 2/51

 Shock Handbook logic
Handbook Part 1 : Shock Derivation to Subsystem Handbook Part 2 : Shock Verification Approach

Launcher Dynamic General approach

requirement environment Test results
Rationale • Severity criteria
MEFE • Similarity between
Derivation methods Test facilities equipment
Internal shocks
•Heritage Testing
•Numerical Specification • Rationale and
Limitations derivation requirements
S/C architecture
• Testing at S/C level
Margin policy • Testing at unit level Qualif.
FEM Tools for signal status
Isolation aspects Attenuation Hardware processing
Test database rules (EQM, PFM, • Test data validation
QM)

SPACECRAFT SPACECRAFT | UNIT

UNIT
Handbook Part 3 : Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Equipment sensitivity
and failure modes
Equipment
Risk Risk analysis wrt.
data
equipment type FAILED
analysis •Engineering
•Functional
Derivation methods at
component level
13/05/2008 slide 3 /51

General approach to shock

verification

„ Heritage / Similarity
„ Sensitivity to shock
„ Severity criteria

Test campaigns
„ Unit level (qualification)
„ System level (usually acceptance)

If qualification not demonstrated

„ Delta-qualification test
„ Use of other environment (random)
„ Shock isolation solution
„ Shock Damage Risk Assessment
„ Design modification

13/05/2008
1 – General approach to shock verification slide 4 /51
 Test rationale

The qualification methodology generally consists in flight

representative and dimensioning shock tests performed
System
level on STM or PFM with functional ordnance devices.
testing Concerning Ar5, a specific test device, the SHOGUN
system is proposed by the Ar5 LV authorities to cover
the specificity of high energy stage separation shocks.

In case the system level test is a qualifying test, the equipment

qualifying environment can be directly recorded

SHOGUN
In case it is not, the qualification environment device

is derived from the system shock test

Eqt level measurements (SRS ratio method)
testing Qualification then achieved at unit level
(including qualification margin)

13/05/2008
1 – General approach to shock verification slide 5 /51

Shock categories
3 categories of shock inducing different shock severities (level and frequency range)
Near field (close to the shock source – dominated by direct shock wave propagation)
Mid field (combination between shock wave propagation and structural resonances)
Far field (dominated dominated by highest structural modal responses in the low
frequency range – less than 2 kHz)

Near field
shock SRS - Near field shock

Little attenuation
in low freq. range
SRS (q=10)

Far field
shock
SRS - Far field shock

13/05/2008
1 – General approach to shock verification slide 6 /51
 Environmental categories (cont.)
The near-field environment is dominated by direct wave propagation from the
source, causing peak accelerations in excess of 10000 g and 100 kHz and SRS
fitting with a continuous growing tendency (constant average slope).
For very intense sources, such as most line sources, the near-field usually
includes structural locations within approximately 15 cm (6 in.) of the source
(unless there are intervening structural discontinuities). For less intense sources,
such as most point sources, the near-field usually includes locations within
approximately 3 cm (1 in.) of the source. In a good aerospace system design,
there should be no pyroshock-sensitive hardware
exposed to a near-field environment, so that no
near-field SDRA will be required.

13/05/2008
1 – General approach to shock verification slide7 /51

Environmental categories (cont.)

The mid-field environment is characterized by a combination of wave propagation and structural
resonances, causing peak accelerations between 2000 and 50000 g and substantial spectral content
above 10 kHz. For very intense sources, the mid-field usually includes structural locations between
approximately 15 cm and 60 cm (2 ft) of the source (unless there are intervening structural
discontinuities). For less intense sources, the mid-field may extend between 3 cm and 30 cm of the
source.

The far-field environment is dominated by structural resonances, with peak accelerations below 2000 g
and most of the spectral content below 10 kHz. The far-field distances occur outside the mid-field. The
typical far field SRS discloses a knee frequency corresponding to the dominant frequency modal
response
Practically, we consider that we are in a situation of “mid field”
measurement type for example when the points of
measurement are at a distance of 0.6 meter from the source,
this source being constituted by a SHOGUN (30cm for an
explosive nut, a pin puller or a cable cutter)
We are in a situation of “ far field” measurement type for
example when the points of measurement are at a distance of
more than 0.6 meter from the source, this source being
constituted by a SHOGUN (more than 30cm for an explosive
nut, a pin puller or a cable cutter)
13/05/2008
1 – General approach to shock verification slide 8 /51
 Shock sensitive equipment and severity criteria

Decision to perform or waive equipment level shock testing should be based

on:
„ Detailed knowledge on equipment shock sensitivity (see part 3)
„ Severity of shock environment compared to random environment
„ Identification of dominant hardware resonances relative to spectral content of both
random and shock environments

13/05/2008
1 – General approach to shock verification slide 9 /51

Shock sensitive equipment

General severity criteria have been established based upon threshold levels of shock
sensitive components.
In support to decision to perform or to waive equipment level shock testing :

1 - Electronic equipments (NEW !)

Powered-on during shock exposure: Rising slope 6db/Oct, and 200g @ 2kHz
+ Dominant resonances covered by random
Powered-off during shock exposure: Rising slope 6db/Oct, and 500g @ 2kHz
+ Dominant resonances covered by random
2 – Structural items and non sensitive equipment (reflector, antennas, …)
0.8 x f rule (see presentation Handbook Part 3)
Application limited to structural items (no electronic equipment)
3 – Other sensitive units (mechanisms, brittle material, optical systems, connectors …)
No predefined severity criteria - case by case assessment
Identification of dominant resonances relative to random and shock environments
13/05/2008
1 – General approach to shock verification slide 10 /51
 Shock sensitive equipment and severity criteria
„ Detailed knowledge on electronic component shock sensitivity (see part 3)

ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

Relay
Quartz
Transformer and self For each component of the
Hybrid
Tantalum capacitor
sensitive list , the modes of
Alumina failure are described and the
Heavy component threshold sensitivity levels
Rectifier (Type DO4)
Optical components
are given.
Low insertion force DIP socket
Semi conductors (IC) components,
Hybrid components, relays,
capacitors with cavities

13/05/2008
1 – General approach to shock verification slide 11 /51

Use of Random environment to cover shock environment

If we want to compare the severity of a mechanical shock versus a random vibration, a
difficulty arises coming from the statistical aspect of the random vibration (the shock
being deterministic).
In general, the approach, adopted by the Space Community, consists in calculating a
Random Response Spectrum (RRS)* which is defined in considering a factor 3.
* Approximation of Extreme Response Spectrum : see part 2
A simplified approximation is often used and is known as the Miles Formula
where f0 is the natural frequency of the one degree of
π
RRSMiles = 3
freedom system inHz
.f0 .Q.PSD
2 Q is amplification factor of the one DOF system
(Q=10)
PSD is the power spectral density in g2/Hz

This method has the disadvantages:

„ to discard the effect of the test duration: for a random vibration, the longer the time duration of
the random signal, the higher will be the probability to exceed a given level.
„ to discard the fact that the probability distribution of an equipment response doesn’t
automatically depend on the distribution of the input: this distribution of the output generally
exceeds 3σ peaks.
13/05/2008
1 – General approach to shock verification slide 12 /51
Use of Random environment to cover shock environment (cont.)
To overcome these disadvantages, more precise approaches have lead to the definition
of Extreme Response Spectrum (ERS) and of Response Spectrum with Up-crossing
risk (URS) – Complete theory presented in part 2 of the Handbook.

These representations aim at defining analytically the standard deviation of a one

degree of freedom response , as function of the frequency f0, duration T and up-
crossing accepted risk α .

The URS representation is the one of interest for comparing to a shock specification.
The URS can be given with a very good approximation on the assumption of narrow
band response and a Rayleigh’s peak distribution starting from relation

⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
URS = ( 2 π f 0 ) zrms . 2.ln ⎜ RRS 1σ . 2.ln ⎜
2
1/ f 0 .T ⎟ 1/ f 0 .T ⎟
− (1 − α )
⎝ 14 − (1 − α )
1444 24444 3⎠ 1444 ⎝ 1424444 3⎠
Typically higher than 3
13/05/2008
1 – General approach to shock verification slide 13 /51

Use of Random environment to cover shock environment (cont.)

Illustration of RRS-ERS-URS
representations

1. RRSMiles provides a reasonable

approximation of ERS where the PSD
presents a smooth variation. On the
contrary, the approximation by the Miles
Formula becomes crude in the region
where notches have been applied.

2. The gain offered by the ERS and URS

ERS
(with an accepted risk of up crossing of
α = 98%) representations is obvious. As
a general rule, the higher the risk of
overpass, the lower will be the URS. URS
(98%)

3. The observed difference between URS RRS

RRSMiles
(α = 98%) and RRS is about 3dB (URS
> RRS).

13/05/2008
1 – General approach to shock verification slide 14 /51
 Environmental test types
Qualification testing
„ Demonstration of the ability of the eqt to withstand the specified shock environment with sufficient
margins.
„ Margin of 3dB, as a minimum, over the entire frequency band is usually added to the maximum
expected flight environment. Margin linked to the uncertainty of resistance of the equipment, and to
the shock source variability.
„ The qualification test is usually performed at equipment level.
„ A qualification test is always followed by functional tests to ensure the correct working and
performance of the item.
Acceptance testing
„ Applied to flight units to help ensure that a satisfactory quality of workmanship and materials is
maintained. It aims at applying an excitation that simulates the shock environment anticipated in
service, at a less conservative level than qualification test ( not addressing the product variability).
„ Usually executed at spacecraft system level, where the representativeness is the best possible. All
the items are indeed mounted on their real interface support and the shock sources are exactly
those that will be used during flight (i.e. Solar array or antenna pyrotechnic device…).
„ An acceptance test is always followed by functional tests to ensure the correct working and
performance of the item. (i.e. the correct deployment of a solar array wing or the functional
verification of an electronic box…)

13/05/2008
2 – Shock testing Page 15 /51

Qualification shock test requirements

Test levels and forcing function
„ Expected flight levels increased by the qualification margin (minimum of 3dB)
„ Additive request to the specified SRS : obtain a representative transient (exponential decay, with
duration around 20-30ms for far-field)
„ Simultaneous application of the shock freq. components as opposed to a serial application

Number of applications
„ Influence on repeated shock tests on Quartz and Relay (see Handbook Part 3)
„ Gives foundation for 3 shock per axis for mono-axial shock excitation
„ For multi-axial shock excitation (all directions covered at a time), 3 shocks in total

Mounting conditions
„ Representative mounting conditions (mounting points, isolator, bracket, thermal filter)

Other requirements
„ Safety, cleanliness to be guaranteed
„ Equipment energized and monitored where relevant (equipment powered during launch)
13/05/2008
2 – Shock testing Page 16 /51
 Qualification shock test requirements (cont.)
Acquisition – Sensors location
„ Minimum of 2 sensors at opposite corners, for shock uniformity and successful input verifications
„ Warning wrt small cube for tri-axial measurement
„ Located at the closest location wrt the physical interface
„ Cross-axis to be monitored for mono-axial excitation
„ SRS (Q=10) and time histories (RAW data, or with details on the adopted data processing)
„ Sampling frequency to guarantee signal validity up to the desired frequency
Frequency range of [100-10kHz] for far-field environmental category
50kHz sampling rate is therefore a minimum, higher sampling rate for test with a real pyro device source
In case of testing with a real pyro device, SRS up to a minimum of 20kHz (minimum sampling rate of 100-
200kHz)

Equipment Test tolerances (not ± 6dB)

„ Between 0dB / +6dB in the low frequency up to 1kHz
„ And -3dB / +6dB at higher frequencies
„ Tolerance limited as much as possible at specified SRS corner frequency
„ No more than 6dB difference between 2 sensors at opposite corners, and average level within test
tolerance corridor
13/05/2008
2 – Shock testing Page 17 /51

Criteria for test facility selection

Shock environmental category and shock severity
„ Different test facility wrt shock environmental category
„ Use of pyrobench possible for stringent far-field shock environment, pending on the ability of the shock bench to
filter the direct shock waves propagation (filter high frequency excitation above 10kHz)

Forcing function
„ Specified SRS complemented with a request on a representative transient (exponential decay, with duration
around 20-30ms for far-field)
„ Simultaneous application of the shock freq. components as opposed to a serial application

Repeatability
„ Should be much lower than test tolerance (typically ± 1dB)

Shock generation
„ Spatial correlation at various points of I/F excitation
„ Asymmetrical behaviour (min-max temporal)

Test calibration
„ Calibration of shock bench with dummy equipment
„ Calibration campaign concluded with reference shock level, and low energy shock level
„ Low energy shock level repeated with EQM equipment to ensure limited scattering
„ Tuning eventually required before proceeding to reference shock test with EQM equipment

Operational cost
13/05/2008
2 – Shock testing slide 18 /51
 Shock testing - Selecting a Procedure
Four pyroshock test procedures

1. Procedure I - an actual configuration with real pyro source

(expandable tube or similar, cable cutter, ..)
2. Procedure II - a simulated configuration with real pyro source
(expandable tube or similar, cable cutter, ..)
3. Procedure III - Far-field with a mechanical test device
4. Procedure IV - Far-field with an electrodynamic shaker

13/05/2008
2 – Shock testing slide 19 /51

Shock testing - Procedure I (actual configuration with real pyro)

Shock qualification extracted from ARIANE 5 Manual
„ The demonstration of the spacecraft ability to withstand this shock shall be
made through a test and analytic demonstration performed in two steps:
„ A shock test characterization (generating a shock at the interface), during
which interface levels and equipments base levels are measured.
„ This test can be performed on the STM, PFM or on the first flight model, provided that the
spacecraft configuration is representative of the flight model (structure, load paths, equipment
presence and location,…). This test can be performed once, and the verification performed
covers the spacecraft platform as far as no structural modification alters the validity of the
analysis.
„ An analytic demonstration of the qualification of the equipment. This is
obtained by comparing the component unit qualification levels to the
equipment base levels experienced applying the interface shock specified in
chapter 3 for the L/V shock events and in the annexes for the S/C separation
itself, with the addition of a qualification margin of 3 dB, and with the transfer
functions defined during the shock characterization test. This demonstration
could be made by using equivalent rules on other environment qualification
test (i.e. random or sine).

13/05/2008
2 – Shock testing slide 20 /51
Shock testing - Procedure I (actual configuration with real pyro)

13/05/2008
2 – Shock testing slide 21 /51

Shock testing - Procedure II (simulated config. with real pyro)

For equipments which have to be tested

„ Either at a specified SRS in the range 100 Hz to above 10 kHz ( up to 25

kHz ) : concerns for example equipments near the source

„ Or at a specified SRS in the range 10 kHz but where specific reasons exist ,
such as the specified SRS is beyond the SRS’s achievable with a
metal/metal shock machine

13/05/2008
2 – Shock testing slide 22 /51
 Shock testing - Procedure II (simulated config. with real pyro)

Pyrotechnic devices generally consist in a fixture excited by an explosive charge.

Well suited for hardware exposed to near-field pyroshock. However it could also be used
for stringent far-field shock environment, pending on the ability of the shock bench to filter
the direct shock waves propagation (filter high frequency excitation above 10kHz)
Generally based on resonant plate technologies (direct or indirect shock transmission).

Model Shock generator

Resonant Bi plate Plastic explosive
Resonant Bi plate Mild detonating fuses (MDFs)
Resonant plate Mild detonating fuses (MDFs)
Resonant mono / bi plate Pyroshock generators

13/05/2008
2 – Shock testing slide 23 /51

Shock testing - Procedure III ( far field with a mechanical device)

Mechanical impact devices consist in a resonant structure excited by a mechanical impact of
dropping mass, pendulum, projectile, pneumatic piston …

Generally considered as well suited for hardware exposed to far-field shock environment, they
present however some concerns : the IP excitation inputs are much more correlated as they are
in real conditions (conservative) , and the aluminium support that is quite always used is shifting
up the response frequencies in comparison to the composite support used in the real conditions.

Shock
Structure Type
generator

Resonant plate Hammer impact

Tunable plate Air gun

Resonant Bi plate Hammer impact

Hammer impact
Tunable resonant beam
(Flexion)
Air gun

Hammer impact
Hopkinson Bar
(Traction/Compression)
Air gun

13/05/2008
2 – Shock testing slide 24 /51
Shock testing - Procedure III ( far field with a mechanical device)
The plate technology is the most used.
Two sub families can be distinguished: bi or mono plate
Major advantages of such concepts are its low operational cost, predictable behaviour
and easy operation.
The definition of the plate defines the frequency knee of the SRS. The definition of a
plate bench is preliminary driven by the definition of the plate dimension (size and
thickness).

In plane test Out of plane

configuration test
configuration

13/05/2008
2 – Shock testing slide 25 /51

Shock testing - Procedure III (far field with a mechanical device)

Instead of plate, resonant beam can also be used (known as Hopkinson bar).
The equipment is mounted on an extremity of the beam. The impact is done one the other
extremity. The shock response is driven by the traction/compression mode of the beam.
The modification of the main frequency is done by a modification of the length of the beam
or by adding an extra mass which leads to modify the free-free boundary condition to
clamped condition.

13/05/2008
2 – Shock testing slide 26 /51
 Shock testing - Procedure IV (far field with a shaker)
Concern
• The shaker control systems make it possible to realize the shocks on a shaker starting from a
specified SRS. The calculator of the system built starting from this SRS a temporal signal
which it sends on the shaker. This signal is constituted of the sum of simple components of
forms (damped sines, WAVSIN, ZERD, wavelets…) of which the characteristics (amplitude,
logarithmic decrement or damping coefficient, number of periods in the wavelet form …) are
estimated by several iterations so that the SRS of the made up signal is close to the specified
SRS.
• If no precaution is taken, the signal thus built can have characteristics very different from the
shocks at the origin of the specification, with a much lower amplitude and a larger duration
often approximately 10 times.
• Although a priori the equality of the SRS is sufficient (it is the comparison criterion of the
shocks severity), the test program specificator often imposes a complementary parameter, in
general a maximum duration of the shock carried out. To obtain this result, the method can
consist in being unaware of the first points of the SRS since it is them which lead to the
components of greater duration.
• Another manner of removing the problem would be to specify the shock by its SRS traced
until a sufficiently high frequency to reach the static zone in which the amplitude of the SRS
tends towards that of the shock. The specified SRS calculated under these conditions would
impose in fact the amplitude of the shock and would lead to a duration closer to the real one.

13/05/2008
2 – Shock testing slide 27 /51

Shock testing - Procedure IV (far field with a shaker)

Induct’a ring shaker

13/05/2008
2 – Shock testing slide 28 /51
 Accelerometer type and characteristics
Accelerometers most widely used type transducers for measuring shock events.
Not all accelerometers are suitable for shock measurement – Dedicated attention
required for the accelerometers selection as well as for the acquisition chain.

3 Types of accelerometers
„ Piezoelectric (PE) – Shear mode configuration for piezoelectric crystal
is better suited
„ Piezoelectric with built-in electronics (IEPE or ICP-a PCB trademark) - Overall
performance depends on the quality of the piezoelectric sensor design, adding
electronics will not overcome the limitations of a poorly designed sensor.
„ Piezo-resistive (PR) - Silicon strain gauge sensing elements, in a Wheatstone bridge
arrangement

13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 29 /51

Accelerometer types and characteristics (cont.)

When selecting accelerometers, attention to be paid to critical parameters, such as
„ Pyroshock environmental categories (PR for near/mid field – IEPE/PE for far field)
„ Amplitude range and linearity
„ Resonance frequency and mounting effect
„ Electrical (for IEPE) and mechanical filters (*)
„ Transverse sensitivity
„ Base strain sensitivity (*)
„ Eventually temperature sensitivity
(*) Experienced that the absence of a mechanical filter is not always beneficial, and
can alter the base strain sensitivity (measurement affected by dynamic offset).

Detailed guideline for accelerometer selection, installation/bonding,

acquisition chain, cabling, preventive techniques for clean
measurements are presented in the Handbook.

13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 30 /51
 Accelerometer type and characteristics (cont.)

E2220D B&K4393 B&K8309 E2255 B-1 PCB350 B21 PCB350 B03 E7270A-200K E7270A-60kM6

Sensor type PE PE PE IEPE IEPE IEPE PR PR

Sensitivity 3pC/g 3.1pC/g 0.04pC/g 1mV/g 0.05mV/g 0.5mV/g 1± 0.5µV/g 3± 1.5µV/g
g-range ±1000g ±5000g ±15000g ±5000g ±100000g ±10000g ±200000g ±60000g
Max operational ±5000g ±25000g ±100000g ±100000g ±200000g ±50000g
Max shock
Freq. range (±1dB) 1 to 0.1 to 1 to 54kHz 1 to 10kHz 1 to 10kHz 0.4 to 10kHz 0 to 200kHz 0 to 10kHz
10kHz 16.5kHz
Resonance freq. 50kHz 55kHz 180kHz 270kHz 200kHz 100kHz 1200kHz
Electrical filter N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes 13kHz N/A
Mechanical filter N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 23kHz N/A 10kHz
Transverse <5% <4% <5% <5% <7% <7% <5% <5%
sensitivity
Base strain 0.05g/µε 0.0005g/µε 0.2g/µε 0.2g/µε 0.2g/µε 0.002g/µε 2mV/µε N/A
sensitivity

13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 31 /51

Accelerometer type and characteristics (cont.)

1. Low base strain sensitivity accelerometer should be used, thus making the mechanical filter a
good choice,

2. Accelerometers subjected to severe shock environment (near /medium field) should always be
cemented and screwed to the test surface,

3. For Clampband or of Shogun test on a spacecraft (far field), standard PE accelerometers may
be used for general spacecraft instrumentation (far away from the shock source), IEPE design is
recommended close to the spacecraft interface (cemented and screwed).

4. For near field measurement, the Endevco 7270 is the unique device capable of “tackling”
extreme acceleration levels.

5. Resonant frequency as high as possible, or at least decoupled with a ratio of 5 from the
expected upper frequency range of shock environment, in order to avoid saturation (excitation
of accelerometer resonance). In addition the presence of mechanical and/or electrical filters
prevent saturation due to accelerometer resonance.

6. IEPE or PR accelerometers are low impedance output devices and do not suffer from
triboelectric cable noise problems. Where violent cable motions are expected, IEPE or PR
accelerometers should be selected
13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 32 /51
 Shock Testing Monitoring Accelerometers
Type of sensors : laser doppler velocimeter (LDV)
Velocity (m/s)

Acceleration derived from

velocity (m/s) Range 30m/s ( 80kHz)

Range 10m/s ( 1.5MHz)

LDV , the golden reference (capable of IP or OOP) : but sensitive to

defocalisation
13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 33 /51

Strain gages - dimensions

Length Maximal
(mm) frequency
1 500
2 250
3 166
6 83

13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 34/ /51
 Strain gages - bonding
The gauges may be bonded either in room temperature or in elevated temperature. The elevated
temperature requires the gages installed on their support material to be installed in a
thermal enclosure, thus limiting the cases where it could be employed.
Nevertheless, for the purpose of measuring pyroshock deformation responses, it hasn’t had
appeared a significant difference between the room and elevated temperature bonding until at
least 100 kHz.
That is to be compared with the calculation of the resonance frequencies of the mounted gages.
It is in fact the calculation of the resonance frequency of the joint unit of adhesive with the gauge
behaving like an inert mass.
The information for the gages used on R&T with CNES was
Weight of a gauge: some mg
Thickness of the adhesive :
Elevated temperature Adhesive M610 < 10µm
Room temperature Adhesive E10: 100 µm
Stiffness: 3000 M.Pa for araldite
Density: 1200 kg/m3 for araldite
That led to a frequency of resonance of 3 MHz for the elevated temperature adhesive and 1 MHz
for the room temperature adhesive, which is well in agreement with the fact that no difference
was observed up to 100 kHz.

13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 35 /51

Strain gages - Sensitivity

The output voltage of the gage signal conditioning amplifier is
given by the relation
K
Vout = Vbr. A. .ε .10−6
4
Where
„ Vbr is the supply voltage of the gages bridge
„ K is the gage sensitivity
„ A is the conditioning module amplification
„ ε is the deformation

13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 36 /51
 Strain gages

13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 37 /51

Strain gages
many authors have verified either experimentally or theoretically that the stress is
proportional to the velocity at resonance. The pseudo velocity is the parameter
that is proportional to stress, and as such indicates the severity of the shock
signal in a structure.
The maximum stress is given by

σ max = K ρ cvmax
Where
„ σ max is the maximal stress in the structure (in plane longitudinal or transversal)
„ c = wave speed = E ρ (E = Young's modulus, and ρ = density)
„ maxv is the maximum pseudo velocity
„ K = is a shape factor useful for bending waves or bending modal responses . This shape factor has been
evaluated for beams, thin rectangular plates, tapered rods and wedges. Many authors have shown that this
factor could be as high as 10. K=1 for compression waves or modal responses in compression.
• Nota : the location of measurement of σmax and of vmax are not necessary the
same.

13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 38 /51
 PVSS Strain gages
2 Max Compression Max. Bending

m/s Longitudinal direction Longitudinal direction in

in µm/m µm/m

J2 334 301

J8 284 231

J9 267 330

J10 284 264

J11 309 282

J14 (transverse) 247 109

J21 (transverse) 160 126

J22 194 209

J24 (transverse) 204 232

J25 203 231

J26 237 266

J28 331 304

J31 (transverse) 95 79

Computation σ max = K ρ cvmax

For a Pseudo velocity of 2m/s (20% of yield limit
corresponds to 500 µm/m)

Reverse side First side

13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 39 /51

Load cells

The usage of load cells must be made with care as the

boundary conditions can be modified by the presence of the
load cell.

Small slippings that intervene during the force application at the interface between the equipment
and the mounting surface. These slippings are probably not occurring during the real pyro shock.
The characterization of the gages ( relation between the dynamic force applied and the response
e.g the deformations at the different locations ) mounted on the equipment is not hence so
evident. An approach with a FEM could constitute an alternative .

13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 40 /51
 Acquisition chain
In the near field, the basic characteristics of the pyroshock
phenomenon often exceed the capabilities of commercially
available accelerometers
Frequency content is almost 500 kHz
Acceleration level almost : 200 000g as seen by the Endevco
7270 (unique device capable of “tackling” the acceleration
levels of the near field ) , but the associated amplifier or
conditioning module has a high cut off frequency of 100kHz.
Thus leads to estimate the real levels to much higher levels
than measured . Only the Laser Doppler Velocimeter would be
capable of such an amplitude range in a frequency domain up
to 1.5MHz. Too few characterization have been made in near
field with this LDV so far.
13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 41 /51

Concerns with acceleration measurement with transducers : the zero shift

during the shock, or dynamic offset

Possible causes
1. The importance of the amplifier or conditioner bandwidth (see
part 2)
2. The sensitivity of the accelerometer transducer to the
deformation wave
13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 42 /51
 Possible causes of dynamic offset
The sensitivity of the accelerometer transducer to the deformation wave

13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 43 /51

Concerns with strain measurement via cables bonded on the

structure

13/05/2008
Test Monitoring slide 44 /51
 Data Analysis Tools for Shocks
Time history contains all the information but reduction technique is necessary
„ SRS, FFT, Time-Frequency distribution, Wavelet analysis, Prony decomposition, …
SRS and associated limitations
„ allows to characterize the shock severity
Different sine signals 1
Diffe re nt s ine s igna ls
1 10
sine s ine

0.8
sine_damped2
sine_damped5
s ine _da m pe d2
s ine _a m orti5
s ine _a m orti10
Varying amplification
sine_damped10
factor wrt signal form and
0.6
number of periods
0.4

12 dB/oct
0.2
acceleration

S RS
0 10

-0.2
6 dB/oct
Temporal
-0.4 maximum
-0.6
at high
frequency
-0.8

-1
-1 10
2 3 4
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 10 10 10
Time (s) F re que nc y (Hz )

„ SRS is based on the response of a SDOF system with standard Q factor (10) which is not
representative of real multi-DOF systems
„ SRS result depends strongly on the way the different frequency components combine
themselves Î useful to compute SRS with different Q factors
„ Phase or effective duration is lost. It is thus essential to save any time history in order not to
lose any useful information
„ The SRS does not have a unique relationship with the transient signal
13/05/2008
3 – Data analysis tools for Shock slide 45 /51

Data Analysis Tools for Shocks

FFT and associated limitations
„ The frequency resolution is inversely proportional to the time signal duration Î not appropriate
for shock transients
Prony decomposition
„ shock transients may be decomposed as a sum of exponentially damped sine waves

13/05/2008
3 – Data analysis tools for Shock slide 46 /51
 Prony decomposition Example

13/05/2008 slide 47/51

Data Analysis Tools for Shocks

Time-Frequency Analysis and associated limitations
Shannon Fourier
„ Linear Time-Frequency Transform
„ Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT)
z trade-off between time and frequency resolutions
• time resolution Î short window h(t) Freq
• frequency resolution Î long window h(t)
„ Wavelet Transform Time
z Time and frequency resolutions depend on the frequency Gabor Wavelets
z The mother wavelet shall look like to what is intended to be
identified in the time history
„ Quadratic Time-Frequency Transform (Energy Distribution)
„ Spectrogram = |STFT|² Î same limitations than STFT
„ Wigner-Ville Distribution
z Interferences terms make it 600
Signal in time S igna l in time

difficult to visually interpret 300 200 200

Real part

Re al part

0 0 0
exemple_temporel_TFA _prony_data001

-200 -200
-300
-600 -400 -400

0.002500 0.005000 0.007500 WV, log scale, Threshold=5% |S TFT|2 , Lh=60, Nf=1024, log s c ale, Thld=5%
20 20
14741

Digital signal processing tools 6957 15 15

e x e m p le te m p o r e l T F A p r o n y d a ta 0 0 1 W T
Frequency [kHz]

Freque nc y [kHz ]

designed for expertise only 3283 10 10

1550 5 5

13/05/2008 slide 48 /51 775 WT 0

WVD 0
SP
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 23 30 24 31 25 32 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Time [ms] Time [ms ]
 Shock data validation
Quality of shock data to be ascertained based on shock validity criteria (Piersol
criteria)
1 – Visual inspection, for the following anomalies:
„ Obvious wild points, dropouts, magnitude limitations (malfunction),
„ Signal terminations (accelerometer failure or separation from the structure),
„ Sharp, randomly occurring spikes (noise due to a loose connector or other intermittent noise sources),
„ Asymmetrical signal (elec. isolation, grounding problem, accelerometer/amplifier saturation, DC and dynamic
offsets).
In most cases, if a pyroshock signal reveals any of the above anomalies, the data shall be
considered not valid.

Correction for anomalies are possible under great precautions (limited zeroshift, dynamic offset,
power line pick-up…). More details in Handbook Part2.
13/05/2008
3 – Data analysis tools for Shock slide 49 /51

Shock data validation (cont.)

2 – Data analysis – Simplified criteria
For general use, such as derivation of shock specification, simplified criteria are enough for determining validity of
shock data.
„Validity frequency range
Validity frequency range determination depends on signal duration, limitation due to sampling, noise perturbation
or acquisition system inaccuracy
−1
Signal duration: fc = ⎛⎜ signal duration ⎞⎟ corresponds to the lower frequency band, considering a min. of 3 periods
⎝ 3 ⎠
Background noise: Pyroshock considered valid at those frequencies where the noise SRS is more than 6dB below
the pyroshock SRS
Data sampling: At least 6 to 7 points are required to approximate one period of the signal. It limits the validity freq,
range in the upper band (sampling of 50kHz limits the upper band to 7000-8000Hz)
„Final validity criteria – Positive versus negative SRS
Ration btw SRS+ and SRS- should agree at all frequencies, within the validity frequency range, within ±6dB.

3 – Data analysis – Velocity validation

„Velocity signal obtained by integration and should look like a lowpass filtered version of the acceleration signal.
„The signal should be considered invalid if a rapid shift of the velocity mean value is revealed, more precisely if
the mean value of the velocity signal exceeds the peak-to-peak range of the fluctuating portion of the velocity
signal.

13/05/2008
3 – Data analysis tools for Shock slide 50 /51
 Shock data validation (cont.)

Specific problem : Zeroshift of piezoelectric/piezoresistive accelerometers

Best approach to a zero shift problem is prevention

• Rely on best engineering practice
• Causes of zero shift : Wrong selection of transducer - Base strain induced errors - Signal
transmission - Signal conditioner
• Zero shift problem not dominated by a single cause. All the causes must be minimized or
eliminated.

Corrective actions to treat zero-shift problems exist but must be applied on case by case and
with great precaution
• Check if another shock data is not affected by this problem (sensor mounted by pair close to the
source)
• High pass filter (not more than 20Hz or 0.1% of the highest frequency)
• Prony decomposition to remove non-physical Prony modes
• Extract decaying function by classical curve fitting technique (characterise and remove polynomial
function (4th order maximum))
• Calculate the mean over a sliding horizon (range of 100pts) and remove it from the original signal

13/05/2008
3 – Data analysis tools for Shock slide 51 /51

Conclusive remarks
• the SHOCK VERIFICATION APPROACH ( PART 2) WITHIN THE
Mechanical Shock Design and Verification Handbook is in final
phase of consolidation
• Its content passes through :
„ The comparison between random and shock
„ The test monitoring
„ The different test procedures and the associated facilities
„ The data analysis tools for shocks
„ The criteria of shock validation
• It is coherent with the part 1 “Guidelines” and part 3 “SDRA” of
the handbook.

13/05/2008