A Simple Frequency Response Function

The following article will attempt to explain the basic theory of the frequency response function.
This basic theory will then be used to calculate the frequency response function between two
points on a structure using an accelerometer to measure the response and a force gauge hammer
to measure the excitation.
Fundamentally a frequency response function is a mathematical representation of the relationship
between the input and the output of a system.
So for example the frequency response function between two points on a structure. It would be
possible to attach an accelerometer at a particular point and excite the structure at another point
with a force gauge instrumented hammer. Then by measuring the excitation force and the
response acceleration the resulting frequency response function would describe as a function of
frequency the relationship between those two points on the structure.
The basic formula for a frequency response function is

Where
And

is the frequency response function.

is the output of the system in the frequency domain.

And where

is the input to the system in the frequency domain.

Frequency response functions are most commonly used for single input and single output analysis,
normally for the calculation of the
or
frequency response functions. These are used
extensively for hammer impact analysis or resonance analysis.
The
frequency response function is used in situations where the output to the system is
expected to be noisy when compared to the input.
The
frequency response function is used in situations where the input to the system is
expected to be noisy when compared to the output.
Additionally there are other possibilities, but they are outside of the scope of this article.
or
can be used for resonance analysis or hammer impact analysis.
commonly used with random excitation.
The breakdown of

is as follows,

is most

Where
And

is the frequency response function.

is the Cross Spectral Density in the frequency domain of

And where

and

is the Auto Spectral Density in the frequency domain of

In very basic terms the frequency response function can be described as

The breakdown of

Where
And

therefore is as follows,

is the frequency response function.

is the Cross Spectral Density in the frequency domain of

And where

and

is the Auto Spectral Density in the frequency domain of

In very basic terms the frequency response function can be described as

In the following example we will discuss and show the calculation of the
response function.

frequency

The excitation or input would be the force gauge instrumented hammer, as shown in Figure 1 as a
time history.

Figure 1: X(t)

In this case the response or output would be the accelerometer, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Y(t)

However as discussed earlier the frequency response function is a frequency domain analysis,
therefore the input and the output to the system must also be frequency spectra. So the force and
acceleration must be first converted into spectra.
The first part of the analysis requires the Cross Spectral Density of the input and output, this
is

. This is calculated using the response as the first input and the excitation as the second

input to the Cross Spectral Density Analysis in DATS the result is shown in Figure 3. Were
being calculated for use with
for example, then the excitation would be the first input and
the response the second input to the Cross Spectral Density Analysis in DATS.

Figure 3: Sxy(f)

Next the Auto Spectral Density of the input, or excitation signal is required. This is calculated
using the Auto Spectral Density Analysis in DATS, this analysis is sometimes known as Auto Power,
the result of which is shown in Figure 4, this is

Figure 4: Sxx(f)

The Cross Spectrum is then divided by the Auto Spectrum and the resulting frequency response
function is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: H1(f)

The response function would normally be shown in modulus & phase form as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: H1(f) shown as modulus & phase

The entire analysis as used in DATS.toolbox is shown in Figure 7, the data flow from the original
input and output, force and response, can be seen through to the frequency response function.

TheDATS software does, of course, provide a single step transfer function analysis. We have
deliberately used the long-hand form below to illustrate the steps in this article.

Figure 7: Complete DATS worksheet (Click to expand)

It is necessary to understand that for the purposes of understanding and clarity in this article
some important steps have been glossed over, windowing of the input for example, to allow the
basic understanding of what makes up the frequency response function.
The following two tabs change content below.

Bio

Latest Posts

James Wren
Application Engineer & Sales Manager at Prosig

James Wren is an Application Engineer and the Sales Manager for Prosig Limited. James graduated
from Portsmouth University in 2001, with a Masters degree in Electronic Engineering. He is a
member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology. He has been involved with motorsport
from a very early age with special interest in data acquisition. James is a founder member of the
Dalmeny Racing team.
Share:

inShare5

More

Related

How Do I Calibrate An Impact Hammer?

In "applications"

What is Resonance? (Part 2)

In "signal processing"

Which Should I Use? Real & imaginary? Or magnitude & phase?

In "signal processing"
acceleration, accelerometer, accelerometers, asd, auto spectrum, cross spectrum, csd,excitation
force, force gauge, frequency domain, frequency response function, frequency response
functions, hammer, impact analysis, nvh, resonance analysis, tfa, transfer function

Amplitude And Energy Correction A Brief Summary

What is the difference between microphone types?

65 thoughts on A Simple Frequency Response

Function
1.

KenMarch 18, 2010 at 9:09 pm

Hello,
Normally people dont expect to see an Autospectrum, or Power Spectral Density on a linear
scale, and it looks so noisy, that I suspect the impact was recorded using a Hanning weighting
a common mistake.
The end result, the transfer function is also odd, to my eyes.
I would have expected a bode plot.
I am aware that linear display is useful for fatigue and stress purposes, but the frequency
range is too high for this to be the application.
Reply

James WrenPost authorMarch 22, 2010 at 10:49 am

2.
Hi Ken,

Thanks for posting on our blog.

Id like to respond to your points if I may.

I understand your point of view, the Power Spectral Density is normally shown on a
logarithmic scale (Y axis) as you suggest.
However for the purposes of this article it is not, we have shown it as linear. Here in this
article we are trying to explain and discuss the basics in a straight forward simple fashion.
With regards to your points about noise and windowing, we apply a window to the force
signal. We also apply a window to the response if it is very noisy, but we prefer not to do this.
The window is an exponential window, like a transient window for example. It is not a hanning
window or similar.
The structure in question is a very simple structure, if a little noisy, and youre correct its not
being used for fatigue analysis.
With regards to the final output, our DATS software can quickly switch between Modulus &
Phase and Real & Imaginary. So it is possible show in the Bode format you mention.
Reply

3.

EapenApril 20, 2010 at 4:24 pm

what can be infered from figure 5,please explain..
Reply

James WrenPost authorApril 20, 2010 at 6:48 pm

4.

Hello Eapen,
Im not sure anything can be inferred from Figure 5, it simply shows the Frequency Response
Function for this particular test.
Reply

5.

kiranApril 20, 2010 at 11:06 pm

how can v obtain auto spectral density of velocity from auto spectral density of the
displacement
Reply

James WrenPost authorApril 26, 2010 at 10:53 am

6.
Hi Kiran,

Thanks for asking a question on our blog.

This conversion is one of the fundamental laws of Newtons physics.
It is possible to convert from Acceleration to Velocity to Displacement using calculus,
specifically integration.
Our Prosig software performs this conversion in an advanced fashion to take account of the
constant and remove this error from the results.
You should keep in mind that the original time series is required for this conversion.
If you would like to discuss this feature further please feel free to contact us directly.
Reply

7.

PaulApril 26, 2010 at 6:18 pm

Hi
Just say you have several accelerometers on a complex vibrating structure. Each
accelerometer has a slightly different frequency spectrum. Lets also pretend that you have a
mic at some distance from this vibrating structure, and that you are trying to locate the
particular component or part of the structure that is responsible for a radiating a particular
tonal frequency. Would the cross spectrum be valuable in identifying which accelerometer is
the culprit of this offending sound?
Many thanks
Reply

8.

James WrenPost authorApril 27, 2010 at 8:11 am

Hello Paul,
Thanks for asking a question on our blog.
We can see that you have a good understanding of what you are trying to do.
In our opinion the Cross Spectrum is a step in the correct direction, but you should go one
step further and calculate the Coherence between each vibration source and the microphone
response, you can do this very easily with a software package like DATS.
To actually rank each vibration with respect to the microphone you should consider something
like the Source Contribution Package, again as part of DATS.
The Source Contribution Analysis uses a method called Singular Value Decomposition. The
Singular Value Decomposition computation produces an eigenvector matrix, this matrix is

used to derive the cross spectra between the vibration references and the measured sound
response. These cross spectra are then used to calculate the Reference Related Auto spectra
at the response position. Each Reference Related Auto spectrum is related to the coherent
contributions from the particular references and source input.
If you would like to discuss this further please feel free to contact us directly.
Reply

9.

AndyJune 24, 2010 at 10:35 am

Going back to Pauls hypothetical situation. Suppose that the accellerometers are measuring
the start of an event that will be producing the noise that is being measured, but that there is
no real reason to expect there to be any frequency correlation between them, would any
conventional analysis work then?
For example, if you have 5 drums and a lightbeam sensor for each drum that triggered just
before the drumstick hit each one, and that the drums are being hit in a regular sequence.
How might one analyse the data (one mic channel and 5 drumstick sensors) to determine
which drum was loudest/highest-pitch etc?
Reply

James WrenPost authorJune 24, 2010 at 10:49 am

10.
Hi Andy,

Thanks for asking a question on our blog.

I think there is some difference between your question and Pauls.
In Pauls case the vibration responses are all related.
In your case they are not.
Therefore the same analysis would not apply.
I think you are trying to find which drum gives a certain frequency response when hit. The
easiest thing to do would be to use a microphone, mounted about the drums and hit each
drum in sequence. Starting and stopping a data capture for each drum. Then simply
frequency analyse each of these data captures. You might need to do it several times to build
up an average for each drum as you may hit it differently each time.
This will give you the full frequency spectrum for each drum.
You wouldnt need any accelerometers at all.
Reply

11.

AndyJune 24, 2010 at 11:41 am

Sorry, perhaps I took my analagous situation too far. This is actually exactly the same
question as Pauls, but we have a slightly different conception of the nature of the data. I
should perhaps have chosen a better analogy, as the trigger pulses occur at 20-150Hz which
would be a pretty inhuman rate of drumstick operation.
Reply

James WrenPost authorJune 24, 2010 at 1:23 pm

12.
Hi Andy,

Thanks for the additional information, but I still dont understand your application and cant
comment on it unless you can explain what your trying to do. Perhaps you could contact us
directly to discuss?
Reply

13.

AshujcMay 4, 2011 at 5:18 am

I am looking for the information about the engine order, used for frequency response analysis.
We are working on frequency response Analysis for the exhaust systems, there we use
different engine orders, i.e. 1st, 1.5, 2nd, 2.5 etc orders. Kindly let me know what is the actual
meaning of this engine order. All I know is, its the disturbances created per rotation of the
crank shaft. I need information.

Ashujc
Reply

A.

James WrenPost authorMay 5, 2011 at 2:29 pm

Hello Ashujc,
Thanks for asking a question on our blog.
An engine order is really two separate words, engine and order
Engine is obvious but order not so.
You could have an order of anything that rotates, not just an engine. For example wind
mill blades have their own orders.
An order is the speed that something happens at.

So if a shaft is rotating at 100 times per second you would have a fundamental frequency
of 100Hz. If there were two blades on opposite sides of the shaft somewhere long its
length, this shaft they would be causing an excitation or noise at 200Hz because there is
two of them. You could say the noise from the blades is a 2nd order noise of the main
shaft.
The same goes for any other number. An order is the relationship to the main
fundamental frequency that occurs in multiples of the fundamental.
Reply

14.

Ya HuangJune 14, 2011 at 10:38 am

James,
Thanks for a clear example.
Would be more useful if you could publish the parameters used by DATS.
e.g.
Sampling rate:
Anti-aliasing filter:
Number data in each FFT:
Windowing:
Ya
Reply

15.

James WrenPost authorJune 15, 2011 at 2:32 pm

Hello Ya Huang,
Thank you for your feedback.
We wanted to keep the article as simple as possible, so we have kept away from any specific
numbers and data, just the main principles.
If you would like to discuss in further detail, please feel free to contact us directly.
Reply

16.

SteveAugust 21, 2011 at 12:04 am

Hi James,

Your example is very instructive. However as a new comer in FRF, I could not figure out how
you obtain the phase for FRF from the steps mentioned in figure 6. Obviously the division can
only give a real number, which is the amplitude of FRF. Thanks.
Reply

17.

James WrenPost authorAugust 22, 2011 at 9:00 am

Hello Steve,
Thank you for asking a question on our blog.
You have closely studied figure-6, which is good to read.
In figure-6 the CSD (Cross Spectral Density) is divided by the ASD (Auto Spectral Density). The
CSD is a complex number, the ASD in a real number.
Any mathematics that involve a complex number will result in a complex answer, so the
answer will have both a real and imaginary part or expressed differently a modulus and
phase.
For example.
Where the CSD is represented by A+ iB, where A is the real part and iB the imaginary part.
And where the ASD is represented by C, where C is real.
The formula in figure-6 would be,
(A+iB) / C
Which is exactly equal to
A/C + i(B/C)
If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask.
Reply

18.

StuartDecember 3, 2011 at 3:46 am

Im reading this because Ive just been sent a newsletter that points to the page.
Are you sure you should really be advising use of H1 and H2 on single tap test recordings?
You see I agree with your first equation H(f)=Y(f)/X(f) but the subsequent equations are
unhelpful if you end up using segment averaging (inherent in the calculation of the power and
cross spectral densities) on a single tap. The windowed data for the force time history

segments will all be zero except for the one window that contains the actual impact. Moreover
the response in the subequent windows has nothing to do with the corresponding force
window leading to potentially significant bias errors in the transfer function.
If you must use segment averaging to obtain transfer functions for tap test data then I think
you need to make it very clear that this is for multiple taps and that the window length used
must exactly correspond to each tap and response time history (i.e. there must be no
segmentation within each time history pair) and the window length must be sufficient to
capture the full decay of the vibration following the tap. Your readers should also know that
the highlighted inappropriateness of segment avergaing for tap test data cannot be overcome
by multiple taps at random intervals that only compounds the errors introducing rippling in
the estimated transfer functions because of the [Fourier transform properties of the] inherent
similarity between one tap and the next.
Reply

James WrenPost authorDecember 5, 2011 at 3:23 pm

19.

Hello Stuart,
Thank you once again for your comments.
First of all I can only comment on the software we produce at Prosig and the methods we
would recommend.
This article is intended to give a basic understanding of the concept of what we call Hammer
Impact tests or you refer to as Tap tests.
For Hammer Impact Analysis we do not use or suggest overlapping segments, we would
indeed suggest this is an incorrect method.
So I agree with your points, it is just you have assumed we use a method we do not use or
recommend.
Our Hammer Impact software uses a Wizard to set-up the sample rates and durations to
match exactly. The data is then processed as one entire block, including a pre-trigger. A force
block and response block, having had force and response windows applied.
Thanks again for your comments.
Reply

20.

Umar ButtApril 13, 2012 at 1:16 am

Hi,
I have done FFT analysis on mild steel beam of 1 meter length and I was looking frequecy of
mild steel on first three modes. After performing the test I have got auto spectrum input

response graph and frequency response(response,force)input (magnitude) working graph.

which graph is best to consider for the frequency?
Umar.
Reply

James WrenPost authorApril 13, 2012 at 8:06 am

21.

Hello Umar,
Thank you for asking a question on our blog.
You question is quite straight forward.
You should have a frequency response curve from each of your accelerometers, these should
give you a basic idea of how the structure is behaving.
If you want to understand further then I would recommend the output over input method as
detailed in the article.
If you have further questions, please ask.
Reply

22.

Umar ButtApril 13, 2012 at 10:46 pm

Hi,
Thanx for the reply, I just want to ask that what is the difference between Autospectrum
response graph and Frequency response graph because they are giving same results.. and
how can i find the length/breadth ratio against frequency plot, of a rectangular beam with the
length= 1m and breadth= 0.039m.
Umar.
Reply

23.

James WrenPost authorApril 16, 2012 at 8:56 am

Hello Again Umar,
You might be asking questions that are too specific for us to do able to answer directly without
more details of your project.
With regards to your question on the difference between an Auto-spectrum Response and a
Frequency Response Function, Ill try to explain step by step.

The Frequency Response Function is a measurement of motion per unit area. It is a Complex
quantity and importantly has phase. The main point for the FRF is that it is related to the input
force that is exciting the structure.
The Auto-spectrum Response is a measurement of the motion only, there is no phase
component. Additionally the Auto-spectrum Response is not related to the input force that is
exciting the structure, but only to the response of the structure.
Reply

24.

krishnaJune 10, 2012 at 10:37 am

Hi,
Is there any way to estimate frf only from output data. Say, I have accelerometer output for
vibration of a bridge under traffic etc over a period of time. Can I generate frf without knowing
force.
Thanks a million,
Krishna
Reply

James WrenPost authorJune 11, 2012 at 1:50 pm

25.

Hello Krishna,
Thank you for asking a question on our blog.
A frequency response function is a measure of an output of a system in response to a given
input.
So in short no, you can not use only responses to create an FRF as detailed above. You can
however calculate the Transmissibility between several accelerometers if you define one of
them as a reference.
But it depends on your objectives and w hat your trying to achieve.
Reply

26.

NikkJuly 6, 2012 at 11:01 pm

Hi James,
Lets say I plan to perform a modal test on a quite complex test article. For this test, I will
have 20 accelerometers scattering around the test article. Now, if I selected one location to
hit with an instrumented hammer to excite the modes. Based on your explanation about the
FRF, in this example, I would have 20 FRFs generated by DAT (each FRF represents the
response relationship between the impact point with respect to one of 20 response points

where the accelerometers are located). Now, my question is: Can the resonance frequencies
of the test article be identified by examining the modulus & phase plots of the FRFs?. If yes,
then how to identify those resonance frequencies?. Thanks.
Reply

James WrenPost authorJuly 9, 2012 at 2:35 pm

A.
Hi Nikk,

Thank you for asking a question on our blog, it is always good to talk to people who are
performing tests, at the coal face we say.
Yes your correct, if your using uni-axis accelerometers and you do as described you will
have 20 frequency response functions. I would suggest that the impact point be near or
on one of the accelerometers, but you do not have to do this.
Yes, your right from the Modulus and Phase plots of the FRFs you will be able to identify
the frequencies of the resonances.
As a rough rule a resonance will show itself as a peak in the Modulus plot and as a flip of
the angle in the Phase plot.
Reply

i.

NikkJuly 10, 2012 at 8:54 pm

James,
Thanks for the response. I have 2 more questions for you:
1) You said: as a rough rule, a resonance will show itself as a peak in the Modulus
plot and as a flip of the angle in the Phase plot. According to this sentence and after
looking at the sample Modulus/Phase Angle plots in Figure 6 posted on your blog
above, the Modulus plot has many peaks and the Phase Angle plot has many flipped
points (0 to 180 degrees), so how do I know which peak in the Modulus plot
associated with a flip of the what angle in the Phase plot is a correct resonant
frequency?
2) Looking at Figures 3 and 5 posted on your blog above, there were 2 different
colored curves (red and blue), and I wonder what did red and blue curve represent?
Reply

a.

James WrenPost authorJuly 11, 2012 at 8:33 am

Hello again Nikk,

Ill address your questions one by one,

1,
There is no right or wrong answer, life is never that simple. But the resonance will
normally be shown by the largest peak in amplitude. Find that peak and then
check the phase if the phase has inverted at this point then you have probably
found the resonant frequency.
Often your better off to view the data in a log form, like that shown here.

Then you can clearly see a resonance and the corresponding change in phase.
Do be aware there is no magic or easy way to do this, you have to understand
the structure your testing and have some ideas yourself before you even do any
testing, testing should validate your ideas not the other way round.
2,
Figures 5 & 6 show the same data.
Figure 5 shows the data in complex form, sometimes known as real and
imaginary form. By default in our DATS software the real part is shown as blue
and the imaginary part is shown in red.
Figure 6 shows the same data in modulus and phase form.
The signals are exactly the same just shown in different ways.
As an engineer you should consider the modulus and phase form.
Reply

27.

rummyOctober 22, 2012 at 5:58 am

Hi James:
This is great! I actually need to calculate the FRF for an experiment. I have the excitation
acceleration signal and an acceleration response singnal in time domain. I am new to signal
processing and would like to know in detail about the meaning and numerical computation of
auto and cross spectrum in order to compute the FRF. I hope you could guide me to something
useful for understanding the underlying concepts. Any insights into computing the FRF for my
case would be great!
Thanks.
Rummy
Reply

James WrenPost authorOctober 23, 2012 at 2:11 pm

A.

Hello Rummy,
Thank you for asking a question on our blog.
To compute the FRF (Frequency Response Function) in your case is quite simple,
Step 1
You convert your time series signals to the frequency domain using an FFT algorithm
Step 2
You divide the response signal by the excitation signal
You then have your resultant FRF
You mention Auto Spectra and Cross Spectra, you could use the following method,
Step 1
Calculate the Cross Spectra of the Excitation and Response
Step 2
Calculate the Auto Spectra of the Excitation
Step 3
Divide the Cross Spectra by the Auto Spectra
You then have your resultant FRF
In our Prosig DATS software we have a simple function that takes a time series or a
frequency spectra excitation and response and produces the FRF for you.
Reply

28.

rummyOctober 31, 2012 at 6:37 pm

hey thanks James. I think I have some good initial idea now to build upon. Cheers!
Reply

David Van AelstDecember 10, 2012 at 1:13 pm

29.

I am new to signal processing and french speaking; so I hope that these two drawbacks will
not make my questions become too stupid.
My problem is about structures on which kind of wind tunnel test has been made. In the
case were a single excitation point is used, say A, then at each frequency w, a transfer
function from the input towards an output quantity B exists, Hab(w) .
Then the power spectral density of the ouput quantity B is said to be Sb(w)=|Hab(w)|.Sa(w)
(Sa being the power spectral density of the input quantity A)
Now what if the input is divided in four points ?
If Saiaj(w) is a cross spectral density of
input j versus input i, can I consider |Sa1a1(w) Sa2a1(w) |
an input cross spestral matrix, being that : [SIN]=|Sa1a2(w) Sa2a2(w) |
and then how can I use it | a4a4 |
to obtain the output responses ? And How ?
Thanks a lot to explain me these basic things,
David
Reply

Adrian LincolnDecember 13, 2012 at 3:53 pm

A.

Hi David,
First of all can I ask if you are measuring forces or just responses? Also do you know if the
input signals(forces) are independent from one another? (If they are independent then the
coherence spectrum between any pair of signals will be approximately zero.) If the input
forces are indeed independent then the output will be a simple summation of the
responses to the individual inputs. However, if the inputs are not completely independent
then the predicted response is not so easy to calculate as it requires the computation of
the partial coherences between the inputs. If you can tell me a little more about your test
situation then I can give you more appropriate advice.
Adrian
Reply

30.

dva2tlseDecember 14, 2012 at 3:10 pm

Hi Adrian,
thanks a lot for having spent some time with my question. As an answer to your first
question, please take in account that I am stress analyst, thus the data Im interested in is
neither forces nor displacement responses, but stresses. But our stress analysis software
knows how to convert displacement responses towards stresses.
Secondly, the sources acting on my structure are not completely independent; they are
aerodynamic noises on different parts of a same structure. It is an aircraft component which
size is slightly smaller than a meter, and six micros have been fixed on it during the wind
tunnel tests, in order to measure the input PSDs.
If I call Sa(w) the input PSD (in Pa/Hz since it is that of an acoustic pressure),
and Sj(w) the output PSD, (in MPa/Hz since it is that of a mechanical stress),
and Hja(w) the transfer function from the pressure towards the stress at rotating frequency
w:
Then for each w, Sj(w)=|Hja(w)|.Sa(w)
And I am interested in the RMS value of that stress over a certain frequency band of the
aerodynamic noise.
Now lets see what happens when there are, say just two input zones, a and b.
There is an input direct PSD over zone a, say Saa(w),
there is another input direct PSD over zone b, say Sbb(w),
there are two input cross PSDs, say Sab(w) and Sba(w) which should be its complex
conjugate. (Tell me please if it is true)
Then for each w, the output PSD is Sout(w)= ?j=a,b ?i=a,b ( hi(w).hj(w)*.Sij(w) )
And I am still interested in the RMS value of that stress over a certain frequency band of the
aerodynamic noise.
Now lets see what happens when there is only one input zone, but two distinct PSDs acting
on it. For simplicity I input within the stress analysis program that I use, that the cross PSDs
are almost zero, say 1.E-12 or 1.E-18 times the product of the two input direct PSDs.
That is the point that I want to know; is it possible to add two PSDs acting on the same
area, with almost zero cross PSDs.
It seems to me that I could.

I am very glad to be able to write such a text as above, as I feel a bit more clever about
signal processing. Please continue telling me if what I wrote above is plenty of sense or not,
and feel free to ask anything if you feel that some questions or answers may make me
progress in that domain.
Thanks again,
David
Reply

31.

JayWMarch 21, 2013 at 4:01 pm

My structure (steel) in question is small, thin and light. I cannot physically attach any
accelerometers, as the mass and cable tensions would alter the frequency response. So I use
non-contact displacement measurements (like Laser or Capacitance Probe or EC probe). Also
I cannot use the typical impact hammer as well I might brake the structure. I can may be
drop a small steel ball on the structure to provide excitation.
Two questions.
1. Since direct excitation measurement (impact hammer) is not possible, can I measure the
impact force by dropping the same ball on top of the accelerometer or load cell on a separate
run?
2. If Q1 is possible, then Id have input data in accelleration, and output data in displacement.
What should I do from here?
Thank you very much for your time.
Reply

James WrenPost authorApril 2, 2013 at 1:57 pm

A.
Hi Jay,

Thanks for asking a question on our blog, it sounds like you have an interesting
application.
We understand the restraints your working too, things in life are never simple and never
have easy to follow guidelines.
1,
Yes, you could drop the steel ball on to the accelerometer, but I thought you said you
could not attach an accelerometer to the structure? I would have thought if you could
attach an accelerometer and drop a ball on it, you could use a very small and light force
hammer. But the accelerometer method is fine if that is all you can do, maybe there is

some practical restrictions that mean you cant perform the test exactly how you would
like to.
2,
There is no issue with the type of data, however acceleration as an input and
displacement as an output would be a Transmissibility function, not a transfer function,
transfer functions should have force in some way. In short, it is not really an issue.
Please feel free to pose further questions if you desire.
Reply

i.

JayWApril 3, 2013 at 2:27 pm

James thank you for reply.
Sorry for the confusion. What I meant by dropping a ball on the accelerometer was,
to setup an accelerometer on a flat table (not on the thin structure in question), and
drop a ball on it to see how much impact the ball dropping can deliver.
Originally, I was thinking of shooting the ball using a BB air gun to deliver the impact.
If I shoot the ball on an accelerometer (provided distance and airpressure would be
consistent), I would know how much impact there is, and assume that the same
amount of impact will occur when I shoot it to my thin structure in question.
I hope this makes sense.
Reply

James WrenPost authorApril 3, 2013 at 3:21 pm

a.
Hi Jay,

Thank you for coming back to us and asking another question.

I understand, thank you for the clarification.
In short no, you can not do that.
You have to measure the excitation into the structure, not the input into another
structure.
For example if you put the accelerometer on a solid rock and dropped the ball
bearing on it, then put the same accelerometer on a fluffy pillow and dropped the
same ball over the same distance on the accelerometer, you would not see the
same duration or magnitude response on the accelerometer. In short the input
into the structure would be different.

I would suggest the best solution for you might be OMA or Operational Modal
Analysis. Often when people are discussing hammer impact testing they
incorrectly refer to hammer impact tests as modal analysis, it is not.
In any case you could place the structure on a shaker table and then use that
shaker control signal as your input, then use the selected sensor to measure the
displacement as a number of points on the structure.
Please let us know if you have further questions at all.
Reply

32.

rummySeptember 22, 2013 at 4:59 pm

Hi James:
I have a question related to FRF computation for transient input-output signals. Would it be OK
to compute the FRF of a system by only considering a certain transient region, instead of the
entire time-history (i.e, before the signals die out) ?
Thanks and regards
Reply

James WrenPost authorSeptember 30, 2013 at 2:16 pm

A.
Hi Rummy,

Thanks for asking another question on our blog.

The short answer is No it would not be OK to only consider the transient region.
The long answer is that you should not do this because the definition of a transfer
function is that your measuring the input and output to a mechanical system. There will
be a phase delay in that system. Thus if you end the time series too early, you may miss
part or all of the response, and thus the frequency response function would be based on
partial and incomplete data.
This is not the only reason that you should analyse the entire time series, but it is the
main reason.
From a signal processing point of view the time series signals should be zero at the start
and zero at the end. If they are not you will get noise at every frequency of the frequency
response function. To get around this windowing is often used to attenuate the responses
down to zero by the end of the time series if they are not there already.
I hope this helps and is clear.
Reply

33.

PrasadFebruary 8, 2014 at 7:13 am

Hi James,
I,m new to signal processing. I would like to know how you calculate the dynamic stiffness,Kd
from this curve. How would you calculate the Kd at any random point on this curve other than
peak responses.
Suppose Im plotting an FRF graph taking magnitude(0-120db) on Y-axis and frequency(0600Hz) on X-axis. I would like to calculate dynamic stiffness,Kd using this graph using least
square method, rms method, average method.
Also how it differs if it is undamped,underdamped,critical damped,overdamped structure. How
to change the spring/bush stiffness values using damping values.
It will be of much help if you can explain this in a simple way with the formula used for
calculating the above.
Thanks and regards
Reply

34.

PrasadFebruary 8, 2014 at 7:16 am

Hi James,
I have forget to say that Im interested in acceleration as output response and
accelerance(acceleration/force) as the magnitude on the Y-axis.
Reply

A.

James WrenPost authorFebruary 12, 2014 at 1:54 pm

Hello Prasad,
Thank you asking some questions on our blog.
You certainly are asking a lot on quite a broad subject. I think your requests might well be
outside the scope of the original article which doesnt cover dynamic stiffness or indeed
stiffness at all.
Im not sure you would calculate a dynamic stiffness curve from a transfer function like
that detailed in the article. Indeed the dynamic stiffness would itself be a transfer
function.
I think for dynamic stiffness you have to consider a few basic principles. The input into a
system is going to be a F (Force) and the output R (Motion) which is measured as a

displacement. The dynamic stiffness of the system is the relationship, or transfer function
between the two parameters listed above.
I would suggest that it may be best to research further in the field of structural dynamics
for further information.
Please feel free to post back what you find.
Reply

35.

MohammedAugust 20, 2014 at 8:13 am

Thank you James for answering my question earlier today , I hope I am not taking lots of your
time .
First of all I would like to congratulate your company to have an outstanding intelligent person
like yourself . From the nature of your answer I can see that given the fact I am student at
Aberdeen university ,
You will note that some of the facts I studied in the past I only understood it from theoretical
point of view with no physical understanding , I am finding your comments are EXTREMELY
useful .
It would be greatly appreciated if you could possibly make useful comment or answering the
questions in simple way .
In the embedded figure you attached Nik , I can see that there are three peaks , two of them
are for the Zeros of the systems and one of them for the Pole where is the resonant peak
occur .In your answer to the question I found in determining the peak ,, the phase will be
inverted .
Question 1) To what extend the phase shift is required for peak resonant is occurred , is it
necessarily to -180 or depend on the order of the system , for example the phase inverted by
-90 ? Also would the sign make difference if it is +180 or +90.
Question 2) Looking at the zero peaks in my system they are below 0 decibel different than
the one on the figure . Do you have any physical comment about those peaks occurring in the
frequency response for the zeros ? I can also see phase shift inversion at those peak ?
Question 3 ) In my system The Bode diagram shows a 180 phase lag at every resonant
frequency and a 180 phase lead at every anti-resonant frequency. This is a characteristic of
collocated systems.? I do not understand this clearly as you have excellent skills in showing
the material in more physical understanding .
Question four )
The in-bandwidth zeros of the system are highly dependent on the out-of-bandwidth poles ?
what does that mean if you have more clarity it would be greatly appreciated
question five )
if I want modify system from containing resonant poles followed by interlaced zeros, to zeros

followed by interlaced poles ? in terms of stability what does that mean , can you please
clarify things for me clearly.
Reply

James WrenPost authorAugust 20, 2014 at 9:57 am

A.

Hello Mohammed,
Thank you for posting some questions on our blog.
We will try to answer your questions as best we can.
1,
The sign doesnt make a difference and it doesnt matter where you start, the inversion
will be just that, 180 degrees.
2,
There are resonances and anti-resonances, it sounds like you have found some antiresonances.
3,
Im not sure I understand your question, it seems more like a statement. Your using a
Bode plot and have noted a phase change along with amplitude peaks. You would appear
to have found resonances.
For your final questions I would refer you to a sister article,
http://blog.prosig.com/2014/04/10/how-do-we-design-or-modify-a-system-to-avoidresonance/
This should give you some basic design pointers.
Reply

36.

DhruvitApril 13, 2015 at 5:04 pm

Hello James,
I am new to practical testing & signal processing.
I have few question about selecting excitation and response points.
1) How do we select excitation and response points for practical component FRF testing? I
mean if I hit structure with hammer in X direction do I need to take response only in X
direction or response in Y,Z directions as well? or Do I need to hit separately in each direction
(Y,Z) and take response in (Y & Z respectively)?
2) Do I need to select input point near mounting point of component while doing component
FRF or at free end of component?

3) Different response points give different amplitude values but peak frequency could be
same (Correct me if I am wrong). How do we make sure which response point gives us proper
frequency and amplitude values?
What is your suggestion?
Thank you,
Dhruvit
Reply

A.

James WrenPost authorApril 20, 2015 at 10:19 am

Hello Dhruvit,
Thank you for posting on our blog.
We would be happy to assist you as much as we can.
Question 1,
There is no right or wrong answer.
Generally one would excite in an axis, perhaps the X axis and measure the response in
one or three axis.
However to be more correct one should measure the response in the three axis and
excite three times, once in each axis, thus you would have 9 FRFs.
These can then be analysed individually or averaged as per the users requirements.
It really depends on the structure your testing, take a point on a bell for example, hitting
the rim of the bell in the X or Y axis would make little difference, but hitting in Z axis
could/would produce difference excitations.
So it depends on the structure or components your working
Question 2,
Personally I would test the entire structure in the free free state (suspended in free air)
first of all and then in its restrained state, that is mounted.
Looking at the differences between these usually provides some interesting discussions.
Question 3,
Amplitude is not relevant in this case, actually the FRFs will be unit less so there is no
concept of amplitude. I refer to the bell or tuning fork example, the amplitude will be
different but the frequency will be the same at any mounting point within reason.
As to the question how do you select a position to give you what you need, you test in all
locations to understand the component, once you understand the component you can
select the best positions for future testing.
Please feel free to ask if you have more questions.

Reply

37.

Sudeep JoshiJuly 23, 2015 at 7:54 am

Dear Mr.James
I have a questioni have tried harmonic analysis of the Cantilever beam in ANSYS. i got FRF
but i need to find the mode shapes through FRF so that i am able to compare the
experimental results.cab you help me in any way
i also have another question, can you throw light on the real and imaginary part of an FRF
Reply

A.

James WrenPost authorJuly 27, 2015 at 8:11 am

Hello Sudeep,
Thank you for posting a question on our blog.
Your asking two questions,
1,
How do you find mode shapes.
2,
Please explain the complex numbers used to store and display an FRF.
Here are your answers,
1,
Usually you would perform a hammer impact test or a tap test, to find the FRFs of a
structure. Then you would animate the data as a wire frame model or mesh.
The animation of this mesh will allow the user to visualise and find the frequencies of
Mode 1, Mode 2 and so on,
To do this with Prosig equipment, a P8000 device is required, with the Prosig Hammer
Impact testing software and the Prosig Structural Animation software suite.
Further, you could use the Prosig Modal analysis software on the FRFs directly from the
Hammer software or another source, and find the modal frequencies and damping factors
directly.
2,
Generally speaking FRFs should be stored as complex numbers, however the human
brain really doesnt understand complex and works in a modulus and phase way.
Hence a complex FRF is usually shown as Mod Phase display, even though it is complex
when stored.

Reply

38.

SalmanJuly 28, 2015 at 6:13 pm

Hi Mr. Wren,
I noticed that in the impact signal there is a negative part to the amplitude right after impact,
resulting from some kind of recoil in the hammer load cell (I guess). Is it normal to get this
considering this is a negative force? I am getting similar results but the negative amplitude is
almost equal to the positive part. Can you please elaborate on this and how to take care of
this in FRF calculation.
Thanks,
Salman
Reply

James WrenPost authorJuly 29, 2015 at 9:14 am

A.
Hi Salman,

Thank you for posting a question on our blog.

I understand your point and I have seen the behaviour your observing several times
before.
First of all, yes, any structure will behaviour a little like a spring, so when you make the
impact with the force gauge instrumented hammer it will bounce a little, this bounce or
ring will be caused by potentially several factors, but will result in a negative spike or
number thereof after a positive spike.
It should be small however and should not adversely effect the results.
This however is not what your seeing, from what you have described a negative spike
that has a magnitude the same as the positive part could well mean there is another
issue.
I have seen this before when the force instrumented hammer is not an isolated sensor
and the structure being impacted is either not (well) grounded or has another ground to
that of the sensor and front end. In short when the hammer is impacted the gauge
electronics actually gets moved to another zero volts and hence the readings are
knocked off. Sometimes I have seen a negative going only pulse as the electronics int he
hammer are overloaded.
It depends if your using a metal tip on the hammer or not, if you are using a conductive
tip try using a rubber tip or none conductive tip, thus there is no electrical connection
between the hammer and test structure.

The best solution would be check and improve the ground for the test structure and the
front end/sensor.
You should get a positive going pulse similar to that in the article in most if not all cases.
Reply

39.

LeeAugust 10, 2015 at 5:56 pm

Hello James,
Great article and blog. I just have a few questions:
1. You mentioned that you windowed the input signal, but not the output. Under what
circumstances would you also window the output?
2. Are there any differences to calculating the FRF using the ratio of FFTs vs. CSD/ASD? Which
do you prefer and why?
3. Im a little confused about using the FRF (e.g., accel/force) vs. the transmissibility
(accel/accel) to calculate structural properties such as damping, etc. In other words, if I do an
impact test and get an FRF in units of (m/s^2)/N, then do a base excitation on the same
structure to get a dimensionless transfer function (dB or gain), will the half-power method
give me the same result for the damping ratio for both tests? If this is outside the scope of
this article, could you point me to a reference that might answer this? Thanks!
Reply

James WrenPost authorSeptember 9, 2015 at 11:36 am

A.
Hello Lee,

Thank you for asking some questions on our blog.

I will try to answer your questions as best I can.
1,
In simple terms I would window in any situation where the structure being testing is still
ringing at the end of the data capture window.
The objective with windowing is to reduce the ringing to zero by the end of the capture
window. So the signal starts and ends at zero in all cases.
So imagine a tuning fork, you impact it and it starts to ring. Your capturing data for a
finite amount of time, the software will have selected a time to capture based on your
requested frequency range and frequency resolution (FFT block size), is the test structure
still ringing? If so you need response windowing. The same applies to the excitation
signal.

Our software walks the user through a dummy test and if the structure is still ringing then
a response window is applied automatically for the user as required, again the same
applies for the excitation.
Generally you would apply the window to the output or response signal and very rarely
the input or excitation signal.
2,
There are differences for sure, that is why there are different ways of making the
calculations.
The most common types are H1 and H2, but there are many, many others.
For example Prosig DATS supports;
H1, H2, H3, H4, Hs, Hv, Hc, Hr and H0.
You will probably be aware of H1 and H2, (there is no need to go into the others here)
H1(f) = Gxy(f)/Gxx(f)
H2(f) = Gyy(f)/Gyx(f)
Where Gxy(f) is the cross spectral density between the response signal y and the
reference signal x, Gyx(f) is the complex conjugate of Gxy(f), Gxx(f) is the auto spectral
density of the reference signal and Gyy(f) is the auto spectral density of the response
signal.
In almost all cases people will know of or use H1 or H2,
H1 is the classical estimator and is used in situations where the output of the system is
expected to be noisy when compared to the input.
H2 is the inverse of H1 and is used in situations where the input of the system is expected
to be noisy when compared to the output.
But when it comes to my personal preference, I like to keep it simple and when dealing
with transient signals I would use,
H(f) = Y(f)/X(f)
Where the resultant transfer function is H(f) and where Y(f) is the Fourier Transform of the
response signal y(t) and X(f) is the Fourier Transform of the reference signal x(t).
In my experience this is a clean and simple solution to a simple problem.
3,
Using the half power method on the FRF is quite common, I cant say I have compared the
base excitation to an FRF when finding damping factors, my assumption would be that
they would be similar but not the same. Do you have some experience of making
comparisons?

Please feel free to ask more questions.

Reply

40.

jasonSeptember 10, 2015 at 11:53 am

Suppose for each accelerometer, there are three axes, X, Y and Z, and Im using an excitation
of both X and Y direction. Should I compute the FRF separately for each axis, or these three
axes need to be integrated before computing the FRF (If so, how to combine them together?)
Reply

A.

James WrenPost authorSeptember 14, 2015 at 8:35 am

Hello Jason,
Thank you for asking a question on our blog.
You raise an interesting point.
If you have a single excitation direction, can you measure the responses of all three axes?
Yes and no. It depends on the situation.
Imagine a bell, if you hit it in any direction it will ring.
But a more complex structure may not, a structure that is very stiff in one of the three
axes for example.
Imagine exciting a tuning fork up its length rather than with any sort of sideways motion.
It would be rather muted.
So there is no correct or incorrect answer, that is there is no black and white.
But there are methods for best practise.
If you excite in one direction and measure the responses of all three directions, you will
obtain three transfer functions.
You should, but rarely happens in the field, excite all three axes separately, and measure
all three responses each time.
Thus you will obtain nine transfer functions.
These are not integrated or averaged, they are a modelling of the structure under test, all
nine of the FRFs are valid.

If you want to keep it simple, which I always recommend, excite one axis and measure
the same axis response, then move on to the next axis of excitation and repeat, thus
youll separately excite each axis and measure one response for each. The result will be
three FRFs.
Reply

41.

Jamie KimSeptember 17, 2015 at 6:50 am

I am trying to formulate a frequency response function for a pipe resonance
analysis. The input is a continuous signal input of a single frequency (say
100 Hz) which is injected down a water-filled pipeline for over 5 minutes.
The output is given as the pressure reading at a chosen point along the
pipeline in a time domain. (i.e. pressure vs time where time is the
recording time).
The question is, what would be a sensible approach in figuring out the
cross spectral density of the input and output, and power spectral density
of the input?
Thanks for your time.
Jamie
Reply

James WrenPost authorSeptember 17, 2015 at 8:36 am

A.
Hi Jamie,

Thank you for asking a question on our blog.

I was recently, just this week, at a conference discussing detection of pipes under ground,
various methods were discussed from vibration, radar, sound and others. Each have their
own advantages and disadvantages.
In your example, I will assume your exciting the pipe with an electromechanical shaker,
you would need to have an accelerometer mounted on the pipe just near the point of
excitation. Just simply measuring the driving signal is not enough, you have to measure
the actual excitation.
If you also measure the pressure at a particular point in the pipe using a pressure sensor,
this would need to be measured synchronously with the excitation, that is no phase
distortion between the sample rate of the two measurement points.
For example you could use a data acquisition system like a Prosig P8000 with a sample
rate of 1024, thus you would have frequency content or bandwidth up to 410Hz.
It is important that the signals are measured synchronously. If they are not, you can not
create the resultant FRF.
Next, you would then be able to use the following formula, as referenced above.

[latex]H(f) = \frac{Y(f)}{X(f)}[/latex]
In terms of actually creating the ASD and the CSD from the time series data, you would
usually use a signal processing software package such as Prosig DATS for example.
This would take care of all the mathematics for you.
If you wanted to work it out step by the step, the formulas shown above should take you
through.
Please feel free to ask if you have more questions at all.
Reply

42.

rajeshSeptember 25, 2015 at 1:03 pm

Hi James,
I have conducted impact hammer test on a structure to find out natural frequency of the
structure with a 2-channel analyser. I have the time series data anf FFT spectrum from the
software given. However i cannot progress futher. I actually need to calculate the FRF for an
experiment.I hope you could guide me to something useful for understanding the underlying
concepts. How would I will identify natural frequency from these graphs and spectrum.
Thanks.
Reply

A.

James WrenPost authorOctober 7, 2015 at 1:57 pm

Hello Rajesh,
Thank you for posting and asking questions on our blog.
We will assume you have a good quality analyser that has created the FRFs for you,
rather than just the spectrums of a response.
You asked how to calculate the FRF yourself?
You can calculate the FRF yourself of any system when you know the input and output as
detailed by the article or the following formula.
For example,
[latex]H(f) = \frac{Y(f)}{X(f)}[/latex]
You also asked how would you identify the natural frequency from these graphs?

The resonance will normally be shown by the largest peak in amplitude. Find that peak
and then check the phase, if the phase has inverted at this point then you have probably
found the resonant frequency.
Often your better off to view the data in a log form.
Do be aware there is no magic or easy way to do this, you have to understand the
structure your testing and have some ideas yourself before you even do any testing,
testing should validate your ideas not the other way round.
Reply

43.

Anders HApril 12, 2016 at 8:18 am

Hello!
I found you blong in search of a small problem I have.
I have performed a modal analysis of a structure, computed my FRF and now I want to adjust
my input PSD spectrum specified at the point of the modal test insertion point.
From what I understand I must then multiply each PSD value by the power of the
corresponding FRF value at that specific frequency to obtain my new PSD at the
measurement location, is ths correct?
Reply

44.

AdrianApril 20, 2016 at 11:13 am

Hi Anders,
After you have computed your Frequency Response Function, [latex]H(f)[/latex], then you are
able to predict what the "spectrum", [latex]Y(f)[/latex] of the output response will be when
excited by a known "spectrum" [latex]X(f)[/latex] at the input (assuming that the input and
output locations are the same as those used for the FRF calculation). In the case where the
"spectrum" [latex]Y(f)[/latex] is a simple Fourier Spectrum which is often the case for short,
transient signals, then the response spectrum is given by
[latex]Y(f) = H(f).X(f)[/latex]
In the case where the input and output response spectra are both spectral densities, Sxx(f)
and [latex]Syy(f)[/latex], and remembering that the transfer function [latex]H(f)[/latex] can be
calculated using either the cross spectral density [latex]S_{xy}(f)[latex] in the case of an
[latex]H_1(f)[/latex] calculation, or [latex]S_{yx}(f)[/latex] in the case of an [latex]H_2(f)
[/latex] calculation, then the required response spectrum that you are trying to calculate is
found from
[latex]S_{yy}(f) = H_2(f).S_{yx}(f) = H_2(f).S_{xy}*(f) = H_2(f).H_1*(f).S_{xx}(f) = |H(f)|
^2.S_{xx}(f)[latex]

where [latex]H1*(f)[/latex] is the complex conjugate of [latex]H_1(f)[/latex], and [latex]H_1(f)

= H_2(f)[/latex],
[latex]Syx(f)[/latex] is the cross spectral density between the output and the input
[latex]Sxy(f)[/latex] is the cross spectral density between the input and the output,
and [latex]Sxx(f)[/latex] is the input spectral density.
Reply

45.

SudiptoMay 4, 2016 at 6:52 am

Hello
I am a newcomer in this field. I have a very simple question. Since FRF=Y(f)/X(f), why dont we
calculate it as FFT(y(t))/FFT(x(t)) instead of crosspower/autopwer?
Reply

A.

James WrenPost authorMay 4, 2016 at 11:16 am

Hello Sudipto,
Thank you for posting on our blog.
Actually the alternative method you suggest is perfectly valid.
In my personal opinion its actually the best way to find the FRF. But sometimes there are
other considerations that mean we favour one method or another.
Prosig products can use many methods,
[latex]H_0[/latex]
[latex]H_1[/latex]
[latex]H_2[/latex]
[latex]H_3[/latex]
[latex]H_4[/latex]
[latex]H_s[/latex]
[latex]H_v[/latex]
[latex]H_c[/latex]
[latex]H_r[/latex]
But the simple output over input is my personal favourite.