Natalie D Spivey | Search NASA

NASA NTRS2021

Modal Testing of a Flexible Wing on a Dynamically Active Test Fixture Using the Fixed Base Correction Method

In modal testing and finite element model correlation, analysts desire modal results using free-free or rigid boundary conditions to ease comparisons of test versus analytical data. It is often expensive both in cost and schedule to build and test with boundary conditions that replicate the free-free or rigid boundaries. Static test fixtures for load testing are often large, heavy, and unyielding, and not provide adequate boundaries for modal tests because they are dynamically too flexible and often contain natural frequencies within the test article frequency range of interest. The dynamic coupling between the test article and test fixture complicates the model updating process because significant effort needs to be spent on modeling the test fixture and boundary conditions in addition to the test article. If the modal results could be corrected for fixture coupling, then setups used for other structural testing could be adequate for modal testing and would allow significant schedule and cost savings by eliminating a unique setup for only modal testing. To simplify future modal tests, this report describes a Fixed Base Correction method that was investigated during modal testing of a full-scale, half-span, flexible wing cantilevered from a static test fixture. The results of this Fixed Base Correction approach look very promising. The method aided in producing similar wing modal characteristics for two different physical boundary configurations of a dynamically active test fixture.

Natalie D Spivey↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How to Educate Decision Makers on the Value and Necessity of Modal Testing and Model Correlation: Tips for Young Engineers

Engineers need to effectively communicate the justification and value of their modal testing and model correlation in terminology familiar to decision makers as it relates to the program’s risk tolerance. This communication must relate to the program’s risk tolerance and the metrics used to judge the performance of both the program and individual decision makers. The challenge is the terminologies familiar to engineers and decision makers are quite different and seemingly unrelated. The engineering profession has developed a specific terminology to solve highly technical issues, which are many times themselves unique to very specific engineering problems. It is all too easy for engineers to believe that everyone in their organization, including the decision makers, has an intrinsic understanding of what they do and the value it brings to the program’s success. This is especially true for young engineers who have recently spent the last four plus years in an academic engineering learning environment, which has a highly technical research oriented atmosphere. Effective communication with decision makers is increasingly important as the technical breadth and practical program and project experience level for up and coming decision makers diminishes. It is not unusual for the decision makers to have technical knowledge in a domain different from structural dynamics (e.g., electronics or systems). Competition among satellite manufactures has increased the focus on programmatic cost and ability to deliver on schedule. NASA programs are also seeing more restrictive programmatic cost and schedule constraints, which impact both analysis and testing. It should also be noted that a comprehensive suite of tests are required to verify a satellite’s design capability with some margin. These tests include static strength verification tests, shock, acoustic, and vibration tests (sine and random) of systems, subsystems, and components. Each of these verification tests provide opportunities for model correlation and risk reduction. It is important to recognize dynamic loads/modal test models may not include all of the flight hardware (i.e., harness, coax, waveguides, connectors, etc.) and the previously mentioned tests are still required for qualification/verification of the design. This paper provides tips to young engineers on how to bridge this communications gap, have a better understanding of the environment in which decision makers operate, and assist them to better support successful missions. While this paper primarily focuses on modal testing and model correlation as related to spacecraft missions, the concepts and recommendations presented here are equally applicable to other fields such as aeronautics, automotive, power generation, etc.

Decision Maker↗