Test-to-model correlation

Mechanical model validation with geometry-linked UFF data

Export XYZ geometry, tri-axial velocity waveforms and frequency response functions (FRFs) in one UFF file. Import the test model directly into your modal-analysis workflow and compare measured and predicted response.
Every waveform and FRF remains tied to its measurement point and direction, ready for mode-shape animation, FRF overlays, MAC, COMAC and model updating.
Share your application needs
Explore systems
model validation fea contours

One UFF handoff

One file carries the test geometry, response directions and dynamic data.

Geometry, waveforms and FRFs

XYZ coordinates, tri-axial velocity waveforms and FRFs remain associated with each measurement record.

Experimental modal analysis

A direct path from test to FE correlation

Experimental modal analysis compares natural frequencies, mode shapes, damping and FRF magnitude and phase on a geometry-aware test model. The UFF export removes the reconstruction step between measurement and correlation.

1. Define

Set the geometry, test points, response directions and excitation reference.

2. Measure

Capture dense non-contact velocity data and combine it with force, acceleration, displacement or strain references.

3. Correlate

Review modes, frequency and damping estimates, FRF overlays, MAC, COMAC and other correlation indicators.

4. Update

Focus the model on the joints, boundaries, material properties and local stiffness that drive the mismatch.

Geometry-aware data

Keep response location and direction intact

Separate geometry, channels and direction definitions force analysts to rebuild the test model before correlation begins. A coherent UFF handoff avoids that work.
Ommatidia exports XYZ geometry coordinates, tri-axial velocity waveforms and FRFs linked to the same measurement points.

Link point and response

Geometry and response records arrive together, so channels do not need to be reconstructed against coordinates.

Preserve direction

XYZ output identifies the response direction at each test degree of freedom.

Start analysis sooner

Import the test model and move into visualisation, parameter estimation and correlation.

Dense measurement coverage

See the regions that drive the mismatch

Model differences often sit at a joint, rib, bonded interface, mounting feature, cut-out or boundary. Dense measurement points reveal local response on complex structures and compact components without sensor mass or cabling shaping the test.
complex structure industrial motor

Complex structures

Cover panels, assemblies, frames and larger structures with the spatial detail needed to interpret the measured response.

small components electronics board

Small components

Measure local mode shapes where conventional sensor placement is intrusive, impractical or too sparse.

small components power electronics
Local response

Measure small features without a dense sensor array

Coils, power-electronic assemblies, fasteners, bonded regions and compact substructures can carry local behaviour that a sparse grid misses. Geometry-linked tri-axial velocity data shows that response without loading the test article with sensors.
Built for hybrid test setups

Use Laser RADAR for coverage and retain the complete test model

Laser RADAR supplies dense non-contact response measurements. Pair it with impact-hammer or shaker forces, accelerometers, displacement probes, strain sensors and operational references as the test requires. Ommatidia places the measured vibration field into that wider test model.

UFF export

Transport test geometry and structural-dynamics data into the modal and correlation environment your team uses.

Geometry-aware review

Open a test model with points, directions, waveforms and FRFs linked before animation or correlation begins.

Your analysis workflow

Keep your existing analysis package, naming conventions and validation criteria.

Continue the workflow

Resources for the next model-validation decision

Move from test planning into a proven workflow, a comparable application or the measurement platform that fits the structure.

Full-field modal-analysis workflow guide

Follow the end-to-end workflow from excitation and FRF acquisition through curve fitting, MAC review and UFF export.

Impact-test application note

See an impact-hammer test on a concrete slab using 65 simultaneous response measurements and geometry context.

PCB vibration application note

Explore high-density response measurement on populated electronics where local component behaviour drives qualification risk.

Choose the measurement system

Products and application context

Q2 Laser RADAR

For complex parts, dense dynamic coverage and integrated 3D geometry in one measurement workflow.

Q1 Laser RADAR

For large or difficult-to-access structures that need stand-off geometry capture and vibration insight.

Acoustics, noise and vibration applications

Browse vibration, modal-testing and NVH applications by engineering question, structure and measurement constraint.

Questions from model-validation teams

Practical answers before you plan the test

The export can keep measurement geometry, coordinates and Q-Series vibration results together for compatible downstream tools, including response and FRF data when the test provides the required input reference. Confirm the exact UFF dataset, units, coordinate convention and receiving-tool requirements for the software release and workflow.

An FRF relates measured structural response to a measured input across frequency. In an impact or shaker modal test it helps identify resonances, estimate modal parameters and compare the test response with a finite-element model. An output-only vibration spectrum is not automatically an FRF.

Yes, when the hammer force is acquired as the time-aligned input reference and Laser RADAR records the vibration response over the selected geometry. Triggering, timing, coordinate directions, bandwidth, windowing and force quality must be controlled before calculating or exporting FRFs.

Match the coordinate system, measurement locations, response directions, units, boundary and operating conditions, frequency range and quantity being compared. Clear correspondence makes differences in natural frequency, damping, mode shape and FRF meaningful instead of artefacts of setup or mapping.

Yes. Engineers can review measured FRFs or identified modal parameters, compare them with model predictions and use the observed differences to guide updates. The software does not validate or update the model automatically; parameter selection, acceptance criteria and engineering interpretation remain part of the analysis.

No. UFF is an exchange format that can shorten the handoff of compatible geometry and measurement data. Modal identification, correlation, model updating, uncertainty review and reporting still require suitable downstream software, a defined method and qualified engineering judgement.

Plan the correlation test

Build the measurement plan around the model decision

Tell us the structure, expected modes, test environment and analysis workflow. We will help define the coverage and data handoff needed for your correlation work.
Share your application needs