Search Results

The classical methods of measuring acoustic absorption coefficient using an impedance tube and a reverberation chamber are well established [1, 2]. However, these methods are not suitable for in-situ applications. The two in-situ methods; single channel microphone (P- probe) and dual channel acoustic pressure and particle velocity (Pu-probe) methods based on measurement of impulse response functions of the material surface under test, provide considerable advantage in data acquisition, signal processing, ease and mobility of measurement setup. This paper evaluates the measurement techniques of these two in-situ methods and provides results of acoustic absorption coefficient of a commercial artificial Astroturf, a Dow quash material, and a grass surface.

Damping measurements on vehicle subsystems are rarely straightforward due to the complexity of the dynamic interaction of system joints, trim, and geometry. Various experimental techniques can be used for damping estimation, such as frequency domain modal analysis curve-fitting methods, time domain decay-rate methods, and other methods based on energy and wave propagation. Each method has its own set of advantages and drawbacks. This paper describes an analytical and an experimental comparison between two, widely used loss factor estimation techniques frequently used in Statistical Energy Analysis (SEA). The single subsystem Power Injection Method (PIM) and the Impulse Response Decay Method (IRDM) were compared using analytical models of a variety of simulated simple spring-mass-damper systems. Frequency averaged loss factor values were estimated from both methods for comparison.