You are on page 1of 11


.com (corresponding author) University of Braslia, Campus Gama, Laboratory of Noise Vibration and Harshness, Industrial Special Area, Lote 2 Zip code: 72.444-210, Phone: +55 (61) 8222-6000, Gama/DF, Brazil. Arcanjo Lenzi, Renato S. Thiago de Carvalho Federal University of Santa Catarina, Campus Universitrio Reitor Joo David Ferreira Lima, Laboratory of Vibration and Acoustics, Trindade Zip code: 88.040-970, Florianpolis/SC, Brazil. Abstract. The transfer path analysis is a simple and efficient mathematical tool which is applied in order to lay out the physical linear mechanical systems behavior. It is established on response models, constituted by structure-borne and air-borne transfer functions, defined by the ratio among a set of inputs and outputs. In umpteen practical situations, the inputs and outputs are the only available information, then, the Transfer Path Analysis might cater some useful system information. However, the operational use of the traditional Transfer Path Analysis scheme is rarely possible, due to a lack of air-borne frequency response functions. The alternative Transfer Path Analysis demonstrated in this paper aims to overcome this operational problem, by calculating for an arbitrary microphone position, the air-borne frequency response functions consequently its sounds contributions, thus, representing an advantage in timing and measuring flexibility. Keywords: transfer, path, analysis, force, identification, air-borne, sound, contribution, overcome. 1. Introduction Several mathematical modeling techniques have been developed to investigate the mechanical systems dynamic behavior. Nonetheless, in many practical situations, analytical formulations appear as a seldom applicable tool, due to a lack of physical information or mathematical complexity. Transfer Path Analysis (TPA) is a well-known as a mathematical technique utilized to represent the systems behavior, in the frequency domain [1, 2, 3]. The systems are represented by air-borne and structural-borne frequency response functions, which connect sources to a receiver, that is, the inputs to the outputs of the system, respectively [4]. The entire calculation process dwells in two steps, * ( )+ * ( )+ [ , ( )]* ( )+ ( )-* ( )+ (1) (2)

( ) represents a set of structure-borne frequency response functions of the system, called in this Which the term equation by A-functions, that relates the pseudo-forces, ( ), to the measured responses, ( ). The pseudo-forces are a set of hypothetical concentrated forces that mightily produces a set of response data as close as possible to the measured data in fact, the operational forces are not concentrated, but distributed over the functional surfaces of the systems. The term ( ) represents in a similar way the air-borne frequency response functions of the system, called in this equation by B-functions, which relates the pseudo-forces to the receiver ( ) it is also possible to extend the formulation for multiple receivers, by adapting the size of B-functions. The TPA corresponds to a response model of the system, and its mathematical arrangement is shown later in Fig. 1. Janssen and Verheij [5] have published an application of the TPA method for experimental identification of structure-born sound transmission in ships. Eq. 1 and 2 were combined to evaluate the importance of each respective path represented by any specific receiver location. * ( )+ [ ( )], ( )- * ( )+ (3)

Thus, they have sought after to quantify the contributions of the vibratory energy flow through the propagation paths of the system, without forces calculation forces were required only as an intermediate parameter. As a result, the sum of partial sound contributions, , was compared with the measured response, , indicating good agreement. A similar approach of the method for multiple uncorrelated sources and measured acceleration responses was written by Noumura and Yoshida [6]. * ( )+ , ( )-* ( )+ (4)

The Eq. 4 above relates the responses of the system, ( ), to the receiver, ( ), identically to Eq. 3. The term ( ) represents a set of air-borne frequency response functions of the system, called in this work by H-functions. Hence, the overall noise emitted can be portioned with respect to the vibration transducers, which are supposed to represent each transmission path. The alternative TPA scheme described here makes use of the Eq. 4, but only as an intermediate step to the operational B-functions identification, which are directly related to the applied forces. Due to its simplicity, Eq. 4 has been mentioned here specially to help on the full understanding of the presented mathematics formulation. As it can be seen, the H-functions combine the effects of A-functions and B-functions. If the vibration transducers are placed as close as possible to the operational pseudo forces, Eq. 4 returns a good approximation for the partial sound contributions produced by each operational pseudo force. The bottom line is that, sometimes, it is not possible to access the locations of the operational forces, and then the B-functions are needed, what was demonstrated in Eq. 2. In fact, one might face some problems during the dealing process with correlated sources (applied forces to each path) utilizing Eq. 4, as it can be understood in Eq. 7 and 8, in the following item. When forces are needed in a TPA scheme, it is often applied some force identification method, which might produce numerical instabilities because of its matrices ill-conditionings in presence of operational data. For that black picture, regularization is highly demanded. In the traditional application of the TPA algorithm the B-functions needs to be previously measured in laboratory, as well as the A-functions, before a reasonable operational application. The problem is that the same geometrical and acoustics characteristics of the laboratory must be maintained during operational measurements. This publishing presents an alternative formulation to identify B-functions during system operation, using A-functions and measured vibrational responses only. Finally, combining the identified B-Functions with the identified and regularized operational force data, it is possible to obtain a good approximation to each force contribution over the general measured noise. It is important to mention that the number of vibration transducers limits the number of pseudo operational forces; otherwise the mathematical problem would become rank-deficient and ill-posed, which makes the inverse solution knotty to obtain. Another inherent problem is the ill-conditionings of the frequency response functions, which mightily amplify experimental errors through the solution [7 8]. More information regarding to that sort of problem can be found in some specific biographies [9 12]. 2. Theory 2.1. B-Functions Identification based on System Outputs Considering, for instance, a multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) system, instrumented with vibration transducers and a microphone as a receiver, as demonstrated in Fig. 1 below.

Fig. 1 Schematic representation of the system with

pseudo forces,

accelerometers and one microphone.

According to Eq. 1, the A-functions are the ratios between the system outputs, ( ), and system inputs, ( ), in frequency domain. Accelerations signals are conveniently used as system outputs. Simply stated, the A-functions and B-functions can be written as ( ) ( ) ( ), and ( ) ( ) ( ), respectively. For the case of single excitation, ( ), and a receiver ( ) only, this one can express Eq. 2 as a sum of contributions, which is the number of vibrational transducers, (5)

Note that the argument was omitted by means of simplicity. The Eq. 5 states that the overall emitted noise is the sum of all the sound contributions represented by each vibrational transducer. Following, one obtain the next equation, (6)

( ) ( ) One can obtain an identical equation for which the pseudo forces were replaced by its equivalent terms another pseudo-force ( ), and a receiver ( ), as demonstrated in Eq. 7 next,


Considering a linear time invariant (LTI) system, it is possible to establish ( ) ( ). It means that ( ) is directly proportional to its respective transmission path, conveniently represented by ( ) [4, 18]. Therefore, the terms ( ) ( ) must be invariants for any fixed transducer, indexed by , and of course for a fixed receiver location as well. Now, considering a full excitation state, for a receiver, ( ), Eq. 6 can be expanded to, [ ] [ ]


Note that the subscripts in the term means measured acceleration at the position , due to the pseudo-force at the position. As we can see in Eq. 8, the B-functions can be reconstructed by doing the summation expressed by the Eq. 9 below, (9) The Eq. 9 can be used to operational B-functions, which is convenient to represent each transmission path in terms of its pseudo-forces, which is not the used technique in Eq. 3 and 4. However, it is important to identify the pseudoforces to estimate each partial sound contribution, . The presented formulation shows that any pair of frequency response functions, A, B, or H, might be used to completely characterize the dynamic linear system behavior, in terms of its response modeling. 2.2. Force Identification In practical applications, it is common having no physical or mathematical information available about the systems internal mechanisms. For this type of situation, the systems behavior can be described by certain relations between its inputs and outputs. This mathematical formulation leads to the well-known Response Models. Response Models needs information about the inputs of the system, which are the applied forces. Two indirect methods are used to determine forces for TPA algorithms the complex stiffness method and matrix inversion method [2, 3]. The complex stiffness method consists in determining the displacement response in each direction during systems operation, on both sides of the structural element. In this case, the structural element is treated as an ideal spring. The element stiffness needs to be previously obtained by testing procedure. Therefore, for a given path j, and for each direction, the following equation can be written as demonstrated below, ( ) ( ), ( ) ( )(10)

which ( ) is the operational force transmitted by path j, is the stiffness complex, and are the measured displacements on both sides of the structural element. So when data is obtained experimentally, displacements are obtained by numerical integration of accelerometer signals. The matrix inversion method consist in solving a linear system of equations, like those presented in Eq. 1 and 2, but written as, * ( )+ , ( )- * ( )+ (11) (12) * ( )+ , ( )- * ( )+ Each line of the system defined by Eq. 12 is obtained for one receiver, or microphone. The symbol + means the least square solution. For each receiver, a different set of B-functions needs to be determined, by using the alternative formulation presented by Eq. 9. Generally, forces are obtained by solving Eq. 11 because it requires a reduced set of measurements. Conveniently, most of the force identification problems could be formulated in terms of a linear system of equations [9]. The main problem on dealing with matrix inversion is regarded to its numerical ill-conditioning, which may cause the solution to be computationally instable or meaningless [13 15]. By dealing with noisy data, and ill-conditioned linear system of equations, the identification error might be largely amplified in the solution. The problem needs the application of regularization techniques, in order to reduce the effects of ill-conditioning over the solutions.

2.3 Regularization In mathematics, regularization is a process that provides a feasible solution to a problem by adding some information to the system of equations in order to make its solution easier and uncomplicated. The general objective is to improve the system conditioning, yielding a less error sensitive solution. Many regularization techniques might be found in the bibliography [7, 13, 16]. For the presented application, it was selected one well-appropriated technique for noise elimination from measured frequency response functions, proposed by Sanliturk and Cakar [16], which is settled on truncated singular value decompositions [17 18]. ( ) The relation between an input and an output , the measured frequency response function * +, of samples, and assumed that noise is additive and correlated with the data, * + { } * + (13)

where * + represents the frequency response function components and * + represents the noise in the data. It is demonstrated in in the mentioned biography that is possible to build a Hankel matrix of dimension ,

, -


deliberating and . Considering stochastic processes, the Hankel matrix will contains all information about the system and experimental noise. It is convenient to rewrite the Hankel matrix as a sum of its expectation and its uncertainties. In a SVD form it writes , [ ] [ ] , -[ ][ ] (15)

which [ ] and [ ] represents the expected uncontaminated and the noise data, respectively, contains significant -, which represents the uncontaminated data, and singular values , contains insignificant singular , ( ))-, which represents the noisy data. By truncating the insignificants values , singular values, and remounting the Hankel matrix, it is expected to find noiseless data only. Then, the original frequency response function can be reconstructed directly as: [ ]


The implementation of the method is quite simple, and it has been successfully used to remove noise on experimental datas whichever is the domain of analysis. However, it is important to say that the method efficiency is controlled by the size of the Hankel matrix and the singular value threshold. 3. Experimental Setup The TPA algorithm firstly grants the amplitude of the operational forces and secondly the partial sound contributions, due to each operational force. The partial sound contributions, which is the pseudo- forces amplitudes, multiplied by its respective B-functions, are essential for a response model complete characterization.

Fig. 2 The free aluminum plate with two electrodynamics shakers (left) and two accelerometers (right).

As a practical instance, a free aluminum plate of dimensions was simultaneous excited by two electrodynamic shakers. White noise of the same order of magnitude, however, separated by two different noise generators were supplied to the shakers. See Fig. 2, above. On the other side of the plate, two accelerometers were placed in two arbitrary positions. A microphone was used as a receiver in front of the plate, at the same side of the accelerometers. The experiment was carried out in a hemianechoic chamber for a better control of the uncertainties in the measured reference data. The experiment consists in measuring the same time accelerations, forces and pressures values. Ratios between measured forces and sound pressures are used as references values for B-functions. Ratios between measured accelerations and forces are used as references values for A-functions. Measured sound pressures and forces are used as reference for the sum of the partial sound contributions and operational forces, respectively. The experiments objective is to use the response data, the systems A-functions, accelerations/ sounds pressures to reconstruct the operational forces, and the B-functions, which are essential to reckon the operational force sound contributions and make comparisons to its reference values, the respectively measured data. The whole calculation of the ATPA algorithm is itemized in the steps: 1. A forty five blocks set of measurements was used to determine the H-functions, by solving Eq. 8 and taking the least square solution; The B-functions are reconstructed by solving Eq. 9. In order to reduce the effect of experimental errors, the calculation was performed considering a fifteen-blocks set of measurements, and an averaging process was realized; Forces are identified by solving Eq. 11, taking a different block of measurements (only 1); The total number of operational forces sound contributions (obtained by the sum of partial operational force sounds contributions) can be obtained using Eq. 2, combing the identified operational forces and the identified B-functions; Finally, the total number of operational forces sounds contributions and the B-functions are compared to its measured reference data, obtained from the same block of measurements used to identify the operational forces. The operational forces can be compared to its reference data and obtained from the same block, as well;


3. 4.


In order to test the robustness of the ATPA algorithm (sensibility to uncertainties), the Eq. 1 and 8 were contaminated with noise, as follows: (17) (18)

The symbol ~ denotes uncertainty in data. Another reason for adding noise into the data is the fact that the control in practice of the experiment is seldom. A portion of the measured vibratory energy might come from the ground or from another external source outside the experiment, leading to incorrect estimations for operational forces and Bfunctions. In cases of noise and ill-conditioning presence, regularization is needed in order to find reasonable inverses solutions [8]. As the regularization technique, it was performed the noise elimination from the contaminated frequency response functions, presented in the previous item, before the operational forces identifications, due to its structural frequency response function inversions involvements, which generally are highly ill-conditioned. 4. Results In order to better comprehend the effectiveness and efficiency of the ATPA algorithm, the entire content presented in the previous item was performed considering four different noise conditions: Case 1: Measured data without noise contamination, without regularization. Case 2: Measured data contaminated with multiplicative and additive noise, with regularization and without it; Case one provides a compilation of the ATPA algorithm for an ideal situation, without extra noise in data. The term extra means that the noise couldve been avoided but it was not. The second case firstly provides a critical scene about the problem, with no regularization used over the contaminated response data for the operational forces identification and finally provides the application results that are already regularized by the ATPA algorithm,

which is highly recommended when the presence of extra noise is identified in measured data. The operational forces identification, i.e., in situ applications, is an unavoidable type of noisy engineering experiment. The operational pseudo-forces identification is the main problem of a traditional TPA application. It was considered as extra noise additive and multiplicative signals, expecting to simulate the real world. The additive noise is scaled in a way that its mean deviation turns into the stated percentage of the individual frequency response functions of its mean magnitude. The multiplicative noise is simulated by multiplying the real and imaginary parts of each Frequency response function with random numbers, the mean deviation of which is the stated percentage of the uncontaminated mean magnitude frequency response functions. The same strategy was applied by Sanliturk and Cakar [16].

Fig. 3 Case 1: numerical results for the B-functions identifications, in a narrowband analysis in the frequency range of to , which B1-function relates the operational force 1 (shaker #1) and the B2-function relates the operational force 2 (shaker # 2).

Fig. 4 Case 1: numerical results for the total operational forces sound contribution identification, in a broadband analysis in the frequency range of to .

_________________________________________________________ Broadbands [Hz] 100 125 160 200 250 315 Errors [dBA] 0.85 1.56 0.43 0.73 0.15 0.10 _________________________________________________________ Broadbands [Hz] 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 Erros [dBA] 0.25 0.77 1.56 0.89 0.31 0.29
Tab. 1 Case 1: numerical differences between the total identified and measured sound contributions.

Figure 3 demonstrates the results of B-functions identification. Both B1- and B2-functions, that represents the 1st and 2nd operational forces respectively, matched its references with insignificant errors.

Figure 4 is demonstrating the results of total sound contribution identification, which symptomless matches as expected, with its reference. Tab. 1 is showing us the identification errors in broadband analysis. Note that the maximum error is . The regularization process was used in the second case considering contaminated data in measured A-functions, sound pressures and acceleration responses. This technique consists in the elimination of noise in measured A-functions before step 3, which precedes the operational forces identifications. The whole mathematics is exhibited in item 4 but it was not mentioned in any strategy regarding to the truncation of singular values, resulting from the SVD. Sanliturk and Cakar [16], proposed in their work the study of additives and multiplicative noise behaviors over the Hankel matrix SVD, in order to characterize the insignificants singular values in the entire set . However, when additive and multiplicative noises are added to the measured data, it becomes difficult to truncate it, by looking to each curve and identifying the maximum which relates the smallest significant singular value. The TSVD was graphically applied in the present work. Thus, it was possible to focus the attention on the effects of the truncation over the cleaned curve, that is, the frequency of response function for each number of remaining singular values. As evidenced in Fig. 5 below, it was possible to take a previous look at the cleaned curve, plotted in parallel to the noisy curve, before the approval of the each truncation.

Fig. 5 Strategy applied on the regularization by TSVD. For each set of each frequency response function (FRF) curve it could be possible to check the effects of the singular value truncation, by plotting the cleaned curve, before the final approval.

In the presented instance, only of singular values were necessary to smooth the frequency response curve. In this case, a different number of singular values would produce noticeable rough results. In order to improve the efficiency of regularization, each curve was portioned into four small sets, of points maximum length. After each singular value truncation, the cleaned curve was remounted and updated to its respective position into its respective Afunctions matrix. The strategy is presented above [Fig. 6].

Fig. 6 Schematic representation of the TSVD strategy used for noise elimination of frequency response functions.

It was used 25% of additive and multiplicative noise over the A-functions in the second case, sound pressures and acceleration responses, simulating a poor measurement condition, common faced in operational measurements. The four cleaned structural frequency response functions that constitute the response model of the MIMO system, plus its references values are demonstrated in Fig. 7.




Fig. 7 Cleaned structural frequency response functions (a) , -, (b) , -, (c) , - and (d) , contaminated curve, a truncated (filtered) curve and its reference curve (measured data).

-. Each graphic presents a

Fig. 7 bases that the regularization processes produced satisfactory results for the A-functions. The results of the Bfunctions identification are presented in Fig. 8, obtained by the contaminated data, without regularization. Both B1 and the B2-functions, which relates the operational forces 1st and 2nd, respectively, matched its references as well as in case 1, but with small fluctuations over its mean magnitudes. In presence of of additional and multiplicative errors, it proves that the ATPA algorithm for B-functions calculation is well-conditioned.

Fig. 8 Case 2: numerical results for the B-functions identifications, in a narrowband analysis in the frequency range of , where the B1-function relates the operational force 1 (shaker #1) and the B2-function relates the operational force 2 (shaker # 2).


Finally, the identified total sound contributions for the second case, is presented in Fig. 9. Note that the ATPATSVD algorithm produced an important effect over many of the analyzed frequency broadbands. Likewise, note in Fig. 7b and in Fig. 7d that the TSVD regularization did not produce satisfactory results just below the broadband, cutting off some important information from the structural frequency response functions , - and , -. The impacts of that undesirable truncation can be seen in Fig. 9. Below , the ATPA-TSVD algorithm produced a maximum error of . However, except for below frequencies, the ATPA-TSVD regularization produced relatively good results, reducing the effects of the high noise levels over the solution. Above this frequency the ATPA-TSVD guaranteed a maximum error of .

Fig. 9 Case 2: numerical results for the total operational forces sound contribution identification, in a broadband analysis in frequency range of to . Tab. 2 Case 2: numerical differences between the identified and measured total sound contributions for .

________________________________________________________________ Broadbands [Hz] 100 125 160 200 250 315 Errors in ATPA 0.47 2.33 1.53 8.82 4.76 4.10 Errors in ATPA-TSVD 5.43 0.62 3.75 2.29 0.45 1.66 TSVD Improvements -4.96 1.71 -2.22 6.53 4.31 2.44 ________________________________________________________________ Broadbands [Hz] 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 Erros [dBA] 7.49 4.98 1.59 3.92 0.76 2.23 Errors in ATPA-TSVD 0.24 1.00 1.54 2.00 0.72 0.17 TSVD Improvements 7.25 3.98 0.05 1.92 0.02 2.06

It is demonstrated in Tab. 2 the TSVD regularization improvements, in terms of identified total operation forces sound contributions. The ATPA-TSVD algorithm improves the results at of analyzed frequency broadbands, holding back the curve close its reference. 5. Discussions It is worth pointing out that it was supplied to the shakers white noise signals of the same order of magnitude. In order to check the overall efficiency of the regularization, it was used the expression ( ) ( ) , to calculate the identification errors, before and after noise elimination. The overall efficiency of the TSVD regularization, for both shakers # 1 and # 2 identifications are considered in Tab. 3.
Tab. 3 Results of the operational force identifications before and after the TSVD regularization.

____________________________________________________ Operational Forces Shaker #1 Shaker #2 Errors before Regularization 0.54 0.53 Errors after Regularization 0.19 0.18 Regularization Efficiency 64.11% 65.76%

The presented result in Tab. 3 clearly shows the importance of regularization over the operational forces identification, which is needed to identify sources contributions.
Tab. 4 Results of the B-functions identifications. Operational data with (case 2) and without (case 1) additive noise.

___________________________________________________________________ B-functions identification Path #1 (Shaker #1) Path #2 (Shaker #2) ATPA efficiency in Case 1 99.92% 99.48% ATPA efficiency in Case 2 98.32% 95.61% The results in Tab. 4 were obtained by employing the same expression adopted for Tab. 3, using as reference the committed errors if null B-functions were identified, in both cases. The high efficiencies of the ATPA non-regularized algorithm for case 2 prove that the TSVD regularization algorithm is not substantially necessary for B-functions identifications. 6. Conclusions The Transfer Path Analysis is not properly a method, but a methodology, since it employs alternative identifications in order to solve better the response models of the system. Over the years, umpteen researchers have been studying and improving the use of TPA by applying different mathematical schemes on forces and partial sounds pressures identifications. The presented ATPA algorithm is a new application with the advantage over the traditional TPA schemes of measuring only A-functions in laboratory before the operational test. The B-functions can be totally extracted from the operational measured data and A-functions of the system, for any receiver position. It leads to a greater flexibility, faster testing and operational analysis. The results obtained for B-functions and for the total operational force sound contributions with additional extra noise in the measured data, the responses and A-functions of the system, fit satisfactorily with its references. The presented results demonstrate that the B-functions determination process is not sensible to uncertainties, which were somehow expected, because no inversion matrix process is demanded, but least square algorithms with the possibility of over-determinations. It is important to consider that the analysis of B-functions without operational forces identifications might be enough in numerous discussions about vibrational transfer paths into the system. The B-functions identification is the heart of the ATPA algorithm. The ATPA-TSVD regularized algorithm improved the results on the identification process of the total operation force sound contributions as well, emphasizing the importance of regularization in presence of contaminated measured data. 8. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support by CNPq.

9. References [1] Otsuka T et al. Force identification of an outboard engine by experimental means of linear structure modeling and equivalent force transformation. J Sound and Vib. 308, pp. 541-547, 2007. [2] Padilha PEF, Comparao de Tcnicas de Anlise de Transferncia de Caminhos Vibroacsticos. Eng Doc Thesis. Mechanics Projects Department, Universisty of Campinas. Campinas-SP, Brazil, 2006. [3] LMS, Transfer Path Analysis: The Qualification and Quantification of Vibro-Acoustic Transfer Paths. LMS International. Application Note, LMS, 1995. [4] Fahy F. Foundations of Engineering Acoustics. Elsevier Academic Press Ltd, 2005. [5] Janssens MA and Verheij JW. The Use of an Equivalent Forces Method for the Experimental Quantification of Structural Sound Transmission in Ships. J Sound and Vib. 226, pp. 305-328, 1999. [6] Noumura K and Yoshida J. Method of Transfer Path Analysis for Vehicle Interior Sound With No Excitation Experiment. FISITA F2006D183, 2006. [7] Hansen C. Rank-Deficient and Discrete Ill-Posed Problems Numerical Aspects of Linear Inversion. SIAM Monographs on Modeling and Computation, 1998. [8] Neto S. Problemas Inversos: Conceitos Fundamentais e Aplicaes. Rio de Janeiro State University. Rio de Janeiro/RJ, 2005. [9] Moura HG, Mtodos de Identificao de Foras em Sistemas Vibroacsticos. Eng Doc Thesis. Laboratory of Vibration and Acoustics, Federal University of Santa Catarina. Florianpolis-SC, Brazil, 2010. [10] Ribeiro AMR et al. On the Generalization of the Transmissibility Matrix Concept. J Mec System and Signal Processing 14, 29-35, 2000. [11] Thite AN and Thompson DJ. Selection of Response Measurement Locations To Improve Inverse Force Determination. J App Acoustics 67, pp. 797-818, 2006. [12] Thite AN and Tompson DJ. The Quantification of Structure-Borne Transmission Paths by Inverse Methods Part 2: Use of Regularization Techniques. J of Sound and Vibration 264, pp. 433-451, 2003. [13] Goulb GH and Loan CF. Matrix Computations. J Hopkins, 3rd ed, 1996. [14] Starkey JM and Merrill GL. On the ill-conditioned nature of indirect force-measurement techniques. Inter J Analytical and Exp Modal Analysis 4, pp. 103-108, 1989. [15] Sharkar TK et al. Some Mathematical Considerations with the Inverse Problem. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 2, AP-29, 1981. [16] Sanliturk KY and Cakar O. Noise elimination from measured frequency response functions. Mec System and Sig Processing 19, pp. 615631, 2005. [17] Nascimento V. Notes on Singular Value Decomposition. Course: PEE-5794 Matrix Analysis Tools for Applications in Electrical Engineering, Polytechnic School University of So Paulo, LPS Electronic Systems Engineering Department. So Paulo/SP, Brazil, 2004. [18] Mcconnel K. Vibration Testing: Theory and Practice. JW & Sons, 1995.