Table 1: Mode Shape Pairs for the FEM and the First (500 fps) Impact Test Pair FEA Mode # FEA Freq. (Hz) 3DPT Mode # 3DPT Freq. (Hz) Diff. (%) MAC 1 1 26.03 1 25.79 0.94 99.9+ 2 3 77.68 2 78.03 -0.44 99.8 3 5 158.01 3 158.16 -0.09 98.1 Table 2: MAC Matrix comparing the FEM and the First (500 fps) Impact Test Modal Assurance Criteria 3D Point-Tracking 25.79 Hz 78.03 Hz 158.16 Hz FEM 26.03 Hz 99.99+ 0.10 11.30 77.68 Hz 0.10 99.80 0.20 158.01 Hz 10.30 0.00 98.10 Table 3: POC matrix comparing the FEM and the First (500 fps) Impact Test Pseudo-Orthogonality Check 3D Point-Tracking 25.79 Hz 78.03 Hz 158.16 Hz FEM 26.03 Hz 1.0143 -.0105 .0045 77.68 Hz -.0104 1.0200 -.0198 158.01 Hz -.0089 .0128 .9681 Despite the phase-lag between the input and outputs, the results of the oblique impact modal test are excellent. Tables 4 through 6 summarize the mode shape pairs and MAC and POC matrices, respectively. Though the 5th mode was not measured, the 2 additional in-plane modes were measured very clearly. When comparing the 3D point-tracking mode shapes with the FEM, the diagonal MAC values through the first 4 consecutive modes are at least 98.9% with a maximum offdiagonal value of 0.4%. The POC matrix also indicates a very high level of correlation to the FEM. At most, the diagonal terms deviate from 1 by 0.16% and the maximum off-diagonal term is 6.69%. Table 4: Mode Shape Pairs for the FEM and the 250 fps Oblique Impact Test Pair FEA Mode # FEA Freq. (Hz) 3DPT Mode # 3DPT Freq. (Hz) Diff. (%) MAC 1 1 26.03 1 25.94 0.35 99.8 2 2 70.69 2 63.94 9.55 99.6 3 3 77.68 3 78.19 -0.65 98.9 4 4 108.8 4 98.69 9.29 99.6 Table 5: MAC Matrix for the FEM and the 250 fps Oblique Impact Test Modal Assurance Criteria 3D Point-Tracking 25.94 63.94 78.19 98.69 FEM 26.03 99.8 0 0.2 0 70.69 0.1 99.6 0 0 77.68 0.2 0 98.9 0 108.8 0.1 0.4 0 99.6 247
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTMzNzEzMQ==