Copyrighted material licensed to BR Demo by Thomson Reuters ( - 8 - IECTR62343-6-5:2014IEC2014 Table1-Rackandboard specifications,conditions ofevaluatinghammerimpactandacquiringdata Item Specification/Conditions Rack size 432 mm (W) ×240 mm (D) ×262 mm (H) Back connectors 2 pins - 96 pins Number of PC boards 20 Striking force (acceleration intensity) H (1 800m/s2-2400m/s2) ~210 G M(1200m/s²-1600m/s)~140G L(300m/s2-400m/s2)~35G Places to strike Top, middle of front panel of board s (Scietic), Inc., Board thickness 1,6mm,1,5mm,1,2mm Location of board Centre, side Number of boards One, full size Directions X, y, z , subscriptions.techstreet.com, Data acquisition 40 μs ×5 000 points (200 ms) Sensing frequency band 10 Hz - 10 kHz Figure 2a shows the measurement results.Here,H denotes a high level of hammer impact (at 210 G). The location of impact is at the centre of the front face of a PC board 1,6 mm thick, located at the centre of the 2o installed PC boards, with data being acquired on tests repeated11 times. Figure 2b shows the Fouriertransformresultsofdata based on the , downloaded on Nov-27-2014 by James Madison. No further r frequency component. 1 .E +0 0 x-axis X axis 1 .E 01 1.E -02 1.E -03 1.:8 -8 -12 0.05 0.1, 0.15 0.2 .E 01 Tin e (>) 12 I.E - 02 sixe ^ 1 .E 03 Pane (al 0 1:E+88 z-axis 4 1.E 01 -8 1.E-02 "12 0.15 02 0.1 1.E 03 Tin e (>) 12 Z axis 1.E 04 reproduction or distribution is permitted. 1 0 1 00 1 000 10000 IEC2034/14 4 -8 -12 0.05 4.15 0 .2 IEC2033/14 Figure 2a-Measurement results Figure 2b-Fourier transformation data Figure2-EvaluationresultsofhammerimpactH The results show vibration time in the range of 100 ms to 200 ms, with vibration amplitude Uncontrolled when print 1o G (in 2 ms to 5 ms).In contrast,Fourier transform results show a number of vibration peaks (at 100 Hz, 250Hz and more than1kHz).Thelargest peak was at 220 Hz to280 Hz. For the z-axis, the peak pulse intensity was roughly o,5 G.Here, the strongest impact was in - 6 - IECTR62343-6-5:2014@IEC 2014 the z-axis, despite the fact that shock had been applied to the x-axis. This is believed to be nsed to BR Demo by T the result of drum vibrations on the PC board. The results of hammer impacts M and L (at peak amplitude forthe z-axis. Next, the dependence on each evaluation condition (e.g., board thickness, board installation location,number of boards installed) was examined.The evaluation showed no significant difference in any of the evaluation conditions.Regarding the dependence on hammer impact strength,the peak shock roughly correlated to impact strength.A small peak of 7o Hz was seen in the y-axis for hammer impact L. For the dependence on board thickness, there were two peaks in the x-axis at thickness of 1,2 mm.The peak also moved slightly to the lower frequency in the z-axis. No difference could be detected in terms of location of PC board installationandboardimpact. ientific), 5.1.2 Evaluation of adjacent board insertion and rack handle impact In addition to evaluating hammer impact, tests were also conducted to evaluate the insertion Inc. of an adjacent PC board and impact on the handle on the front side of the rack. Figure 3 showsphotos oftheevaluationtests. ubscr Figure3-Photos of evaluating adjacent board insertionand rackhandle impact An analysis of data compared the peak amplitudes in the z-axis on the graph showing vibration attenuation before Fourier transformation.This analysis revealed that peak shock for the z-axis was 5,2 G to 6 G for the adjacent board insertion test (similar to the result for hammerimpactH)and1Gto1,4Gfortherackhandleimpacttest(similartotheresultfor hammer impact L). Anexamination of data on thefrequency characteristics after Fouriertransformation did not reveal significant differences from the evaluation of hammer impact. No further 5.2 Step 2 InStep2,adynamic module is attached to a PCboard for whichtheshock sensormonitors odu opticalcharacteristics(loss)weremonitored.Figure4showsphotosofthePCboardwiththe