selected in step 4.

(Do this by subjecting the test
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on December 1, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1997-882
need to modify the applied loads both to ensure
model to unit load cases and requesting element
loads.) The product of these two matrices is an
LTM that relates critical stresses and loads to
unit applied static loads.
Returning to our example, which is a stati-
cally determinate planar truss, we can derive
the following equations for the loads in
members 1 through 3 in terms of the four
applied loads:
an adequate test and to minimize the risk of
test failure. The test load for member 1 exceeds
the allowable load from Table 3, resulting in a
negative margin of safety.
7. Modifying the Load Cases
This step involves iterating the load cases
until all the target parameters are achieved
without any being uncomfortably surpassed,

based on computed margins of safety.

3.00 2.00 1.00 0 Automating the LTM equations with a spread-
sheet or other means enables rapid iteration.
1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 For our example, the problem boils down to
-4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 how much shear at station 0, Vy, should co-
exist with the peak bending moment, Mx. The
By multiplying the LTM in this equation by the preliminary load case does not have enough
one in Eq. (1), we get equations for the selected shear; increasing it without raising the bending
critical parameters in terms of the applied moment requires moving the resultant applied
loads: shear vector aft. Table 5 shows one solution
that achieves the target loads, based on
'?*! "3.00 2.00 1.00 0 Pi iteration with Eq. (2).
Via 1.19 0.936 0.686 0.436 P2 TABLE 5. Final Load Case for the Example
(2)
v
y 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P3 Problem. Units: Ib, in-lb.
MX -120 -90 -60 -30 P4. P1 Pz P3 P4
2290 1820 1650 1550
where Fxi is the load in member 1, pta is the
tension in bolt a, and Vy and Mx are the total The above applied loads result in the following
shear and moment at station 0. predicted loads, based on Eq. (2):
Param- Predicted Target
6. Assessing the Preliminary Load Cases eter Load Load Ratio
Here, we simply use the test LTM to calcu- FX1 12,200 12,100 1.00
late the selected load parameters for the Pta 6240 6230 1.00
preliminary load cases. For our example, using Vy 7310 8140 0.90
Eq. (2), the loads defined in Fig. 5 cause the
computed loads in Table 4, as compared with MX -584,000 -585,000 1.00
the target levels.
Modifying a preliminary load case in this
TABLE 4. Predicted Loads Caused by the
Preliminary Load Case. In this
manner is almost always necessary. In this
example, we are trying to achieve the case, the mode shape we tried to simulate was
target values for Fx1, pta, and Mx; total not quite right: the actual shape corresponds to
shear, Vy, is provided for information a coupled mode of the spacecraft/booster
only. Units: Ib, in-lb. system. Or perhaps a quasi-static lateral air
Param- Predicted Target load has been superimposed on the computed
eter Load Load Ratio modal response during launch. In many cases,
FXI 13,500 12,100 1.12 superimposing two mode shapes may give the
6000 6230 0.96 best shape for a static test case to simulate.
Pta
Launch loads consist of responses of multiple
Vy 6000 8140 0.74
modes of vibration combined with quasi-static
MX -585,000 -585,000 1.00 loads caused by thrust and wind gusts.
8. Scrubbing the Load Cases
Note that the preliminary load case would
overtest member 1 and undertest bolt a. We The last step entails balancing the desire
for ideal static representation of dynamic loads

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics