MECHANICAL IMPEDANCE: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

DRIVING-POINT AND TRANSFER IMPEDANCE

Filippo Giammaria Praticò, Gianfranco Pellicano and Rosario Fedele

DIIES Department, University Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria, Italy
e-mail: rosario.fedele@unirc.it

In 1914 the mechanical impedance was probably defined for the very first time by professor Arthur
G. Webster. He realized the possibility of using the impedance concept in the study of vibrating me-
chanical systems. Since then, several uses of the mechanical impedance have been implemented, from
biomechanics to engineering (structural health, crack detection, noise reduction, etc.). Using forced
vibration techniques, structures and materials can be investigated. To this end, force is usually applied
by a hammer while acceleration is measured through an accelerometer. In this study, authors focused
the attention on the differences between the axial mechanical impedance (force and acceleration at
the same point), here called driving-point impedance, and the non-axial mechanical impedance (force
and acceleration at different points), here called transfer impedance. Asphalt concrete specimens were
tested in the laboratory, using an impact hammer Brüel & Kjaer Type 8206, an impedance head Brüel
& Kjaer Type 8001 (in order to derive the driving-point impedance) and a piezoelectric accelerometer
Brüel & Kjaer Type 4507 (in order to derive the transfer impedance) located 2 cm far from the hitting
point. Mixtures were produced as a part of the project LIFE “SNEAK” (LIFE20 ENV/IT/000181)
aiming at reducing the noise of asphalt pavements with noise- and vibration- oriented studies. The
influence of Crumb Rubber (CR) on the bituminous mixes was also analyzed. First results demon-
strate that the driving-point impedance yields MIs lower than the transfer impedance. For the depend-
ency on crumb rubber percentage, given the low percentages, results show that CR could cause minor
effects in terms of mechanical impedance. Further studies are needed to address this topic.

Keywords: Mechanical impedance; Vibration system; Low-noise bituminous mixtures; LIFE

project; Crumb rubber.

1
1. Introduction
The structural elements and the materials from which they are made, can be investigated by force
vibration techniques [1] and Frequency Response Functions (FRFs), such as the Mechanical Impedance
[2,3] In 1914, Professor Arthur Gordon Webster was probably the first to define the concept of mechan-
ical impedance and to realize the possibility of using this in the study of vibrating mechanical systems
[4,5]. The mechanical impedance of a structure represents the ratio of a sinusoidal force applied to the
structure, at any point, to the resulting sinusoidal velocity in the direction of the force [6]. If force and
velocity are measured at the same point (axial mechanical impedance), the ratio is defined as driving-
point impedance. Else, if force and velocity are measured at different points (non-axial mechanical im-
pedance), the ratio is defined as transfer impedance [7,8]. In the literature, several uses of mechanical
impedance (and FRFs) can be found: from the determination of moduli [9,10] and resonances [11,12] to
biomechanics [13,14], and engineering (such as structural health [15,16] and cracks detection [17,18]).
In the last years, an increasing number of projects investigated the relationship between mechanical
impedance and noise reduction correlated to road pavements: in the PERSUADE project [19] tests on
PERS (poroelastic road surfaces) were carried out. The transfer mechanical impedance was derived and
resulted 40 dB higher than the driving-point impedance (called direct impedance by the authors of the
project). In the LIFE SOUNDLESS project [20], different ways to modify SMA (stone mastic asphalt)
mixes were taken into account, in order to improve the noise reduction of pavements. It was concluded
that the mechanical impedance was a good proxy in selecting a quieter mixture. In the project LIFE E-
VIA [21] mixtures with crumb rubber were produced, aiming at reducing noise and life cycle cost impact,
FRFs were applied in laboratory tests and on-site. Similarly, noise- and vibration- oriented studies are in
progress as a part of the project LIFE SNEAK, where complex scenarios are going to be investigated
(noise and vibrations deriving from rail tracks and roads).
Apart from mechanics and volumetrics [22], other studies [2] have pointed out that FRFs have a potential
in terms of premium surfaces [23-25] and functional characteristics.

2. Objectives
In the study presented in this paper, authors focused the attention on the differences between the axial
mechanical impedance (in which both force and acceleration are measured at the same point), here called
driving-point impedance, and the non-axial mechanical impedance (in which force and acceleration are
measured at two different points), here called transfer impedance. The effects of the presence of crumb
rubber (2% by mixture weight) on mechanical impedance were also investigated. To this end, the tasks
presented in Fig. 1 were carried out.

Task1
Materials. Boundary conditions analysis. Experimental set up.

Task2
Time-domain analyses. Relationships between methods

Task3
Frequency domain analyses. Impact of method and CR percentage on results

Task4
Conclusions and discussion

Figure 1: Tasks carried out

The 28th International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV28), 24-28 July 2022 2
3. Materials and method
3.1 Materials
The laboratory tests were carried out on asphalt concrete samples with NMAS=6mm (nominal maxi-
mum aggregate size of 6mm), containing crumb rubber (2% by weight of mixtures) or not. In particular,
preliminary tests were performed for: i) dimensional analysis, ii) bulk specific gravity (considering di-
mensions and weight or the Corelok machine - ASTM D6752, ASTM D6857), iii) sand patch test (ASTM
E965-15). In Table 1 the main characteristics of the samples and an overview of the scheduled tests are
reported.

Table 1: Main characteristics of the tested samples

Sample B [%] CR [%] D [mm] Weight [g] Gmb DIM Gmb COR AVCOR MTD
P1 6.4 0 99 382.63 2.115 2.119 11.80 0.322
PCR1 6.4 2 99 344.52 2.019 2.051 13.09 0.277
P2 6.4 0 99 362.83 2.131 2.130 11.30 0.299
PCR2 6.4 2 99 354.58 2.030 2.092 11.37 0.207

Symbols. B: Bitumen by mixture weight; CR: Crumb rubber by mixture weight; D: Diameter; Gmb DIM: Bulk Specific Gravity calculated
considering the dimensions and weight of the sample. Gmb COR: Bulk Specific Gravity measured using the Corelok machine; AVCOR: Air
void content measured using the Corelok machine; MTD = Mean Texture Depth; VMA: Voids in the Mineral Aggregate; VFA: Voids
Filled with Asphalt.

3.2 Boundary conditions

The Mechanical Impedance can be determined considering:
• different types of hammer tips (e.g., plastic or rubber tip);
• different positions of the accelerometer with respect to hammer hit point;
• different intensity of force applied to the sample (based on the falling height of the hammer).

In this study, three main configurations were considered (here called Method1, Method2 and
Method3) in order to derive the Mechanical impedance and to analyse differences between the methods.
These can be summarised as follow:

Method1. A pivot-based device to control the reference falling height of the hammer was created by the
authors. In method 1, this height was set at 18 cm and the tip used for the hammer was in plastic. The
sample was hit in the centre of the upper surface (the load applied was measured through the load cell of
the hammer) while the acceleration was measured with the monoaxial accelerometer. This latter was
glued on sample at about 2cm far from the hitting point. Using this method, the transfer impedance
(complex ratio of force at the point i and velocity at the point j) was derived (see Fig. 2a).

Method2. The configuration for this method was the same of method 1, but the tip used was in rubber
(and not plastic). So, also in this case the transfer impedance was derived (see Fig. 2a).

Method3. In order to obtain the driving-point impedance (complex ratio of force and velocity at the same
point) the hammer (with the rubber tip) hit an impedance head glued over the sample. The impedance
head was used to measure both the load applied and the acceleration, at the same point (see Fig. 2b).

The 28th International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV28), 24-28 July 2022 3
 (a) (b)
Figure 2: (a) configuration for transfer impedance; (b) configuration for driving-point impedance

3.3 Experimental set up

The hardware described below was used to pursue the tasks of the study (c.f. Fig. 1):

1. Impact hammer Bruel & Kjaer Type 8206 (output sensitivity expressed in mV/N or mV/lbf)
with plastic (Delrin) tip for Method1 and rubber (Polyurethane) tip for Methods 2 and 3.
2. Monoaxial accelerometer Bruel & Kjaer Type 4507 (frequency range of 0.3-6000 Hz).
3. Impedance head Bruel & Kjaer Type 8001.
4. Pivot-based device to control the falling height of the hammer.
5. Bruel & Kjaer front-end acquisition board, to convert the time series to frequency responses
(using the Fast Fourier Transform, FFT).
6. Laptop computer.

4. Results
4.1 Time-domain analyses
In Table 2 the average values in time domain of Fmax (N), Amax (m/s2), Vmax (m/s) and the ratio
Fmax/Vmax (N∙s/m) are reported, for each method used. It is noted that the force recorded with the
Method1 is the highest, such as acceleration and velocity: this is due to the different material of the tip
(plastic vs. rubber). The ratio Fmax/Vmax is the highest for the Method2: this is due to the lowest value
of velocity compared to the other methods.

Table 2: Time-based values

Method1 Method2 Method3

Fmax (N) 215.32 38.48 18.97
Amax (m/s2) 69.39 0.47 3.06
Vmax (m/s) 0.0050 0.0005 0.0117
Fmax/Vmax (N s/m) 44371 86388 1654

In Table 3, the correlation between the average values of Fmax, Amax, Vmax and Fmax/Vmax ob-
tained with the Method 3 and the others methods is reported. The Method 3, used to derive the driving-
point impedance, was considered as a reference.

The 28th International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV28), 24-28 July 2022 4
 Table 3: Statistics of signals over time

Method1 Method2 Method3

Fmax (N) Fmax3 ∙ 11.35 Fmax3 ∙ 2.03 Fmax3
Amax (m/s2) Amax3 ∙ 22.67 Amax3 ∙ 0.15 Amax3
Vmax (m/s) Vmax3 ∙ 0.43 Vmax3 ∙ 0.04 Vmax3
Fmax/Vmax (N s/m) Fmax3/Vmax3 ∙ 26.83 Fmax3/Vmax3 ∙ 52.24 Fmax3/Vmax3

So, according to Table 3, it can be summarized that:

Fmax3 = 0.09 Fmax1 = 0.49 Fmax2
Amax3 = 0.04 Amax1 = 6.55 Amax2
Vmax3 = 2.34 Vmax1 = 23.62 Vmax2
Fmax3/Vmax3 = 0.04 Fmax1/Vmax1 = 0.02 Fmax2/Vmax2

4.2 Frequency-domain analyses

1.E+06 Mechanical Impedance P1 1.E+06 Mechanical Impedance PCR1

1.E+05 1.E+05
MI (Ns/m)

1.E+04 MI (Ns/m) 1.E+04

1.E+03 1.E+03
1.E+02 1.E+02
1.E+01 1.E+01
1.E+00 1.E+00
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
Method1 Method2 Method3 Method1 Method2 Method3

1.E+06 Mechanical Impedance P2 1.E+06 Mechanical Impedance PCR2

1.E+05 1.E+05
MI (Ns/m)

MI (Ns/m)

1.E+04 1.E+04
1.E+03 1.E+03
1.E+02 1.E+02
1.E+01 1.E+01
1.E+00 1.E+00
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
Method1 Method2 Method3 Method1 Method2 Method3
Figure 3: Mechanical Impedance comparison in frequency domain
Table 4: Difference (in dB, re 1 N s/m) between transfer and driving-point impedance

Transfer impedance Driving-point impedance Difference

Sample
(average, dB) Method2 (average, dB) Method3 (dB)
P1 78.0 59.5 18.5
PCR1 71.2 59.5 11.7
P2 74.8 61.5 13.3
PCR2 72.2 60.1 12.1

Figure 3 illustrates the Mechanical Impedance (MI) obtained in frequency domain. The MI using
Method 3 (driving-point impedance) appears lower than the remaining MIs (with Methods 1 and 2, trans-
fer impedance), whatever the sample tested.

The 28th International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV28), 24-28 July 2022 5
 In Table 4 the difference in dB (re 1 N s/m) between the transfer and the driving-point impedance is
reported. On average, transfer impedance is higher than driving-point impedance. This can be explained
with the damping of vibration with distance, which implies lower speeds and higher MIs.

4.3 Effect of crumb rubber percentage

1.0E+06 P1 vs. PCR1 - Method1 1.0E+06 P2 vs. PCR2 - Method1

1.0E+05 1.0E+05

MI (N s/m)
MI (N s/m)

1.0E+04 1.0E+04

1.0E+03 1.0E+03

1.0E+02 1.0E+02
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
P1 PCR1 (2% crumb rubber) P2 PCR2 (2% crumb rubber)

1.0E+06
P1 vs. PCR1 - Method2 1.0E+06 P2 vs. PCR2 - Method2
1.0E+05 1.0E+05

MI (N s/m)
MI (N s/m)

1.0E+04 1.0E+04
1.0E+03 1.0E+03
1.0E+02 1.0E+02
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
P1 PCR1 (2% crumb rubber) P2 PCR2 (2% crumb rubber)

P1 vs. PCR1 - Method3 1.0E+06

P2 vs. PCR2 - Method3
1.0E+06
1.0E+05 1.0E+05
MI (N s/m)
MI (N s/m)

1.0E+04 1.0E+04
1.0E+03 1.0E+03
1.0E+02 1.0E+02
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
P1 PCR1 (2% crumb rubber) P2 PCR2 (2% crumb rubber)
Figure 4: MI comparison between 0% crumb rubber (P1 and P2) and 2%CR (P2 and PCR2)

In Fig. 4 a comparison of Mechanical Impedance (in frequency domain) between samples without
crumb rubber (P1 and P2, solid line) and samples with 2% of crumb rubber (P2 and PCR2, dotted line)
is illustrated. Even if uncertainties are given due to the low percentage of rubber, the Mechanical Imped-
ance of the mixtures without crumb rubber could appear slightly higher than the mechanical impedance
of the mixtures with crumb rubber.
In addition, Method2 (transfer impedance) seems to better highlight the effect of crumb rubber on
Mechanical Impedance in the range 0.1-1kHz. Further investigations are needed about this topic. The
damping ratio of each sample, derived with Methods 1-3, are reported in Table 5. The values from 0.075
to 0.105 partly comply with a previous study of the authors [2]. On average, note that mixtures with
crumb rubber (PCR1 and PCR2) have higher values of damping ratio than mixtures without crumb rubber
(P1 and P2). This could strengthen the concept of proportionality between CR percentage and vibration
mitigation (with consequences on rolling noise [6,7].

The 28th International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV28), 24-28 July 2022 6
 Table 5: Damping ratio

Sample Method1 Method2 Method3 Average

P1 0.082 0.079 0.076 0.079
PCR1 0.097 0.088 0.093 0.092
P2 0.078 0.075 0.088 0.080
PCR2 0.102 0.088 0.105 0.098

5. Conclusions
The aim of this study was to focus the attention on the differences between the axial mechanical
impedance (driving-point impedance) and the non-axial mechanical impedance (transfer impedance). In
addition, the effects of the presence of crumb rubber (2% by mixture weight) were considered. According
to the results obtained, the following conclusions can be highlighted:
1) Considering a fixed falling height of the hammer, two factors affect the force applied to the
sample, i.e., the material of the tip and the presence of the impedance head: plastic tips generate
higher forces than rubber tips while lower forces are recorded with the impedance head.
2) The acceleration and velocity of the sample depend on coaxiality (higher values are obtained
under the hammer spot) and hammer tip (plastic tip originate higher accelerations and veloci-
ties than rubber tips).
3) The coaxial method (Method3) allows obtaining the highest velocity. This seems reasonable
because force and acceleration (and velocity) are evaluated both under the hammer hit point.
Furthermore, in the case of velocity, the effect of the null distance (between force and accel-
eration) prevails over the hardness of the hammer tip. This point explains why, using the
Method3 (impedance head-based), lower values of MIs are obtained: the lowest forces are
divided by the highest speed.
4) About the dependency on crumb rubber, given the low percentages, this latter could cause
minor effects. The Mechanical Impedance of the mixtures without crumb rubber appears
slightly higher than the MIs of mixtures with crumb rubber. It seems that in 0-500Hz the effect
is quite negligible. Further investigations are needed to address this topic.
5) Some recommendations are given, as follows: i) Fix the fallen height of the hammer (e.g.,
through a device) to apply the same force for each hammer hit. ii) Use plastic instead of rubber
tip in order to obtain higher values of force with the same height of the hammer. iii) Use the
driving-point impedance because of the dependence of the transfer impedance on the distance
hammer-accelerometer.

REFERENCES
1 Olesen, H.P. (1977) Measurement of the Dynamic Properties of Materials and Structures. Brüel
& Kjær Application Notes.
2 Praticò, F.G., Fedele, R., and Pellicano, G. (2021) Pavement FRFs and noise: A theoretical and
experimental investigation. Construction and Building Materials. 294.
3 Olesen, H.P. and Randall, R.B. (1979) A Guide to Mechanical Impedance and Structural Re-
sponse Techniques Structural Response Techniques. Brüel & Kjaer Application Note 17-179.
4 Webster, A.G. (1919) Acoustical Impedance and the Theory of Horns and of the Phonograph.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 5 (7), 275–282.
5 Gardonio, P. and Brennan, M.J. (2002) On the origins and development of mobility and imped-
ance methods in structural dynamics. Journal of Sound and Vibration. 249 (3), 557–573.
6 Harris, C.M. and Piersol, A.G. (2002) Harris’ shock and vibration handbook.

The 28th International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV28), 24-28 July 2022 7
 7 Gerdeen, J.W. (1975) Mechanical impedance techniques applied to measuring the complex
modulus of bone.
8 Hamet, J.-F. and Klein, P. (2004) Road stiffness influence on rolling noise: Parametric study
using a rolling tire model.
9 Policarpo, H., Neves, M.M., Luis, J., Coelho, B., Neves, M.M., Maia, N.M.M., et al. (2010) On
the determination of dynamic properties of resilient materials using a multilaminated periodic
specimen.
10 van Velsor, J.K., Premkumar, L., Chehab, G., and Rose, J.L. (2011) Measuring the Complex
Modulus of Asphalt Concrete Using Ultrasonic Testing. Journal of Engineering Science and
Technology Review. 4 (2), 160–168.
11 Smith, S.D. and Kazarian, L.E. (1994) The Effects of Acceleration on the Mechanical Imped-
ance Response of a Primate Model Exposed to Sinusoidal Vibration.
12 Griffin, M.J. (2001) WHOLE-BODY VIBRATION. in: Encyclopedia of Vibration, Elsevier,
pp. 1570–1578.
13 Cambpell, J.L. and Jurist, J.M. (1971) Mechanical impedance of the femur: a preliminary re-
port. Journal of Biomechanics. 4 (5), 319–322.
14 Mizrahi, J. (2015) Mechanical impedance and its relations to motor control, limb dynamics,
and motion biomechanics. Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering. 35 (1), 1–20.
15 Gucunski, N., Imani, A., Romero, F., Nazarian, S., Yuan, D., Wiggenhauser, H., et al. (2013)
Nondestructive Testing to Identify Concrete Bridge Deck Deterioration.
16 Brown, D.L., Allemang, R.J., and Phillips, A.W. (2015) Forty years of use and abuse of impact
testing: A practical guide to making good FRF measurements. Conference Proceedings of the
Society for Experimental Mechanics Series. 8 221–241.
17 Tlaisi, A., Haddara, M.R., Akinturk, A., and Swamidas, A.S.J. (2012) Crack Detection In Shafts
Using Mechanical Impedance Measurements. in: 4th International CANDU In-Service Inspec-
tion Workshop and NDT in Canada 2012 Conference, Toronto, Ontario.
18 Pimentel, R., Guedes, T., Melo, L., Ferreira, G., and Gonçalves, M. (2017) Damage detection
assessment in reinforced concrete slabs using impact tests. in: Procedia Engineering, Elsevier
Ltd, pp. 1976–1981.
19 Bendtsen, H., Olesen, E., Pigasse, G., Andersen, B., Raaberg, J., Kalman, B., et al. (2013)
Measurements at the Arnakke test site with small PERS sections.
20 Morcillo, M.A., Hidalgo, M.E., Pastrana, M. del C., García, D., Torres, J., and Arroyo, M.B.
(2019) LIFE SOUNDLESS: New Generation of Eco-Friendly Asphalt with Recycled Materi-
als. Environments. 6 (4), 48.
21 Praticò, F.G., Pellicano, G., and Fedele, R. (2021) Low-noise road mixtures for electric vehi-
cles. in: Madeira, Portugal.
22 Praticò, F.G., Moro, A., and Ammendola, R. (2009) Modeling HMA bulk specific gravities: A
theoretical and experimental investigation. International Journal of Pavement Research and
Technology. 2 (3), 115-122.
23 Praticò, F.G., (2007) Quality and timeliness in highway construction contracts: A new ac-
ceptance model based on both mechanical and surface performance of flexible pavements. Con-
struction and Building Materials. 25 (3), 305-313.
24 Praticò, F.G., Vaiana, R. (2012) Improving infrastructure sustainability in suburban and urban
areas: Is porous asphalt the right answer? And how?. WIT Transactions on the Built Environ-
ment. 128, 673-684.
25 Merenda, M., Praticò, F.G., Fedele, R., Carotenuto, R., and Della Corte, F.G. (2019) A real-
time decision platform for the management of structures and infrastructures. Electronics (Swit-
zerland). 8 (10), 1-22.

The 28th International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV28), 24-28 July 2022 8