ATTENTION: The software behind KU ScholarWorks is being upgraded to a new version. Starting July 15th, users will not be able to log in to the system, add items, nor make any changes until the new version is in place at the end of July. Searching for articles and opening files will continue to work while the system is being updated. If you have any questions, please contact Marianne Reed at .

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorEwing, Mark
dc.contributor.authorDande, Himanshu Amol
dc.description.abstractTo establish the "best" technique to estimate a damping loss factor for mechanically-excited panels, three loss factor estimation techniques--PIM, IRDM, and RDT--are compared. In experimental and computational analyses, panels with two damping levels and three sizes were tested. The loss factor estimates from each of the three techniques are then evaluated in four distinct frequency bands centered at one-third octave frequencies of 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz and 4000 Hz (for computational analysis only). Unlike IRDM and RDT, the quality of PIM-based loss factor estimates have presented a strong correlation between the region of response measurement and it is distance from the excitation location. PIM-based loss factors were significantly underestimated when responses are measured inside the direct field. PIM-based loss factors are relatively accurate only if the measurements are made from wide-spread response locations. For a lightly damped panel, loss factor estimates using PIM, IRDM and RDT with direct averaging agree within reasonable accuracy. For intermediately to highly damped panels, IRDM and RDT with direct averaging under-predicted the loss factor; RDT with an autocorrelation function averaging approach slightly over-predicted the loss factor. Both RDT approaches might be used to set a bound on panel loss factor. Even when significantly fewer response locations are considered, it is evident that loss factor estimates from RDT are as reliable as IRDM and more reliable than PIM especially for highly damped panels. For the analysis of freely hanging plates, excitation "close to an edge", especially for PIM, is not recommended. When analyzing the panel loss factor, arbitrary or central excitation is acceptable.
dc.format.extent203 pages
dc.publisherUniversity of Kansas
dc.rightsThis item is protected by copyright and unless otherwise specified the copyright of this thesis/dissertation is held by the author.
dc.subjectAerospace engineering
dc.subjectFlat panel
dc.subjectImpulse response decay method
dc.subjectPower input method
dc.subjectRadius of direct field
dc.subjectRandom decrement technique
dc.subjectReverberant field
dc.titleEvaluation of Loss Factor Estimation Techniques for Free Hanging Flat Panels Excited Mechanically
dc.contributor.cmtememberHale, Richard
dc.contributor.cmtememberFarokhi, Saeed
dc.contributor.cmtememberTaghavi, Ray
dc.contributor.cmtememberMatamoros, Adolfo
dc.thesis.degreeDisciplineAerospace Engineering
kusw.oapolicyThis item does not meet KU Open Access policy criteria.

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record