×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Vibration Comparison

Vibration Comparison

Vibration Comparison

(OP)
I'm an ME that has very limited experience in vibration analysis.  I was recently handed a project to evaluate the effectiveness of a vibration damping mount.  

We had two tests done to the UUT per MIL-STD-810F(Fig 514.5C-1).  The first test had the UUT mounted directly to the shaker table.  The second test had the UUT mounted to the vibration damping mount, which was mounted directly to the shaker table.  

All in all, I got 6 sets of data (3 axes with vibe mount, 3 axes without).  The plots I got were in g^2/hz as a function of hz.  Also included in each chart is a g(rms) value.  It is my understanding that this value is the area under this curve.  Is that correct?  Also, is the relationship between the g(rms) values a good indicator of the effectiveness of the mount?  For example, one axis had a value of 2.70 g(rms) without the mount and 1.66 g(rms) with the mount.  Can I use these numbers as a valid comparison to present to others?  Thank you.

RE: Vibration Comparison

It's part of the story, but overlaying the plots and looking at key frequencies will also yeild useful data (reduction of peaks, shifting of resonances, etc.).

Good luck.

RE: Vibration Comparison

FRANK:  Not surprisingly this may not be as easy as it seems.  First what is meant by "evaluate the effectivenss of a vibration mount"?  Overlaying the PSD plots may give an indication but they will vary with time so it will not be a strictly direct comparison.  Typically they have a 3 db (50 % power) tolerance, but the shaker does not shutdown until they reach typically 6 db.  Therefore there can be a significant variation.  Each plot should have the overall Grms printied on it.  That is the the overall energy where the accelerometer is placed. Again there will be  difference between the plots.  How was the location of the acclerometers detremined?  Where is the contol accelerometer on the table of the UUT?  Can you post the PSD plots to a website?  I assume that the same UUT was used with the same accelerometers in the same location of the UUT.  

Regards
Dave

RE: Vibration Comparison

A vibration mount should isolate vibrations from the machine/engine/vibrating part from the rest of the installation. So, basiscally, there should be a considerate difference between vibration on and below the mounts.
Some basic aspects to consider:
 - no resonance in the resiliently mounted instlalation.
 - Displacements within certain specified tolerances (which can be altererd by changing stiffness of the support.
  - Allowable displacements during transients.

RE: Vibration Comparison

don't forget that in this kinda test it all depends on frequency (if it's low - no worries), when you mount your UUT directly to the shaker table, there is some damping occurs(which is gonna depend on coupled diameters and tipe of mounting... I assume you used greese). Funny you should mention this, but just couple of weeks ago, this guy from B&K gave me this paper. long story short it says that if your standard reference's resonant frequency is lower than 33kHz, then at 10kHz during the test your error might be up to 30%. Mounting is really important aspect of any vibration data aquisition.

RE: Vibration Comparison

Denis81, if the frequencies are low, there are still things to worry about. Low frequencies means large amplitudes. This isn't favorable for piping and other components connected to the a resiliently mounted installations. We have have examined an engine fire which started due to broken feul lines, despite the use(or in fact because the use) of bellows. This because of resonance of a resiliently mounted diesel engine which was excited during engine misfiring.
The mean thing is: avoid resonance by tuning mounts and possible exciting forces.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources