An introduction to statistical energy analysis

Courtney B. Burroughs
Graduate Program in Acoustics, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania 16804

Raymond W. Fischer
Noise Control Engineering, Incorporated, Billerica, Massachusetts 01821
Fred R. Kern
Atlantic Applied Research Corporation, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803

~Received 28 April 1993; revised 4 September 1996; accepted 20 November 1996!

The basic concepts and underlying assumptions of Statistical Energy Analysis ~SEA! are reviewed.
Using coupled simple oscillators as models for resonant modes, power balance equations are
derived. Equipartition of energy among modes within a subsystem, and strong versus weak coupling
between subsystems are discussed. Input requirements for exercising SEA power balance equations
are defined and methods of obtaining the required input are outlined. Examples of the applications
of SEA are presented and discussed. © 1997 Acoustical Society of America.
@S0001-4966~97!07404-3#
PACS numbers: 43.10.Ln, 43.40.At @DWM#

INTRODUCTION analysis band. By definition, subsystems are structural or

Designers are often required to comply with noise speci-
fications in a complex system of acoustical and structural
subsystems with several broadband sources of noise and vi-
bration. In such systems, noise problems need to be identi-
fied early in the design stage so that treatments can be effec-
tively integrated into the design. This requires the capability
to accurately predict vibration and noise propagation
throughout a system which involves coupled subsystems. At
frequencies above the first few frequencies of resonance of
subsystems, it is difficult, if not impossible, to use classical
analytic models which involve modal expansions, or numeri-
cal methods which require large numbers of finite elements.
Often it is necessary to predict the average vibration and/or
noise levels in various frequency bands. Thus models that
make predictions at single frequencies need to be exercised
repeatedly to cover the range of frequencies in each fre-
quency band of interest. To address the need to predict av-
erage vibration or noise levels in frequency bands for com-
plex systems of inter-connected subsystems, Statistical
Energy Analysis ~SEA! methods were developed. Since its
early conception, SEA has been widely used, primarily in the
aerospace industry. The purpose of this article is to outline
the basic principles behind SEA, review the development of
SEA, present examples of its application, and examine input
parameters as an introduction to SEA. This article can not
satisfy all of the needs for the development of comprehen-
sive models for the application of SEA to complex systems.
The reader seeking more detailed information is referred to
the book by Lyon and DeJong.1
SEA is statistical in that the frequencies of resonance for
each subsystem are assumed to be uniformly distributed in
frequency within each of the frequency bands used in the
analysis. Since it is assumed that energy resides only in reso-
nance modes, the total energy in each subsystem is the sum
of the energies in the modes. This energy is assumed to be
distributed equally among the modes in each subsystem and
acoustical entities that have modes which are similar in na-
ture and, as will be shown later, have equal modal energies.
Different subsystems typically have different modal ener-
gies. The primary variable of interest in SEA is energy. For
steady-state conditions, a power balance is derived in each
analysis band in which the input power to the subsystem~s! is
either dissipated within the subsystem~s! or coupled to other
subsystems where it is dissipated or radiated to the acoustic
farfield. The energy is distributed among the subsystems to
establish a balance in the power flow into and between sub-
systems such that the subsystem energies times their cou-
pling, damping, and radiation loss factors account for all of
the power input to the subsystems. From subsystem energies,
other parameters, such as average vibration and sound pres-
sure levels, are obtained. Because equal distribution of en-
ergy over space within each subsystem is assumed, only av-
erage vibration and noise levels in each subsystem can be
obtained in each analysis band. Neither frequency distribu-
tions of the levels within each band, nor spatial distributions
of the levels of the modal energy within a subsystem can be
obtained from SEA. In most situations with multiple noise
sources and paths, average levels are all that are required.
This makes SEA an ideal tool that provides the required
information with a minimum level of modeling complexity
and detail. Its relatively simply equations and outputs can
provide insight in developing an understanding of the impor-
tant paths in designing required noise control treatments.
The mathematical basics and assumptions for SEA are
outlined in Sec. I. In Sec. II, methods for obtaining the pa-
rameters required to exercise the power balance equations
used in SEA for predicting the energy distribution within a
system are reviewed. Examples of the application of SEA are
presented in Sec. III, followed by a summary in Sec. IV.
I. BASICS OF SEA
SEA is used to predict the response of a dynamic system
to external power input. A system will refer to the entire

1779 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101 (4), April 1997 0001-4966/97/101(4)/1779/11/$10.00 © 1997 Acoustical Society of America 1779

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 131.156.59.191 On: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:02:03
 complement of coupled structures and acoustic spaces under
consideration. The system is then divided into subsystems
which consist of a collection of similar resonant modes
within a structure or acoustic space. For example, a bounded
acoustic space is usually treated as a subsystem containing
acoustic modes. Bending waves in a plate and longitudinal
waves in the same plate may each be treated as separate sets
of modes and therefore as separate subsystems. Once identi-
fied, subsystems are then coupled via coupling loss factors in
the development of power balance equations that serve as the
backbone of SEA.
The basic concepts of SEA are:
~1! Power flow between subsystems is proportional to the
differences in the modal energies of the coupled sub-
systems. This is supported by mathematical modeling,
outlined below, that begins with the coupling of two
simple oscillators. The coupling of two oscillators be-
comes the building block for coupling of multimode
resonant subsystems where each oscillator serves as a
modal model.
~2! Power input or transmitted to a subsystem is either dis-
sipated in the subsystem or transmitted to adjacent sub-
systems via junctions of structures or interfaces between
structures and acoustic spaces. Thus a complete account
of all of the power is taken.
~3! Energy resides only in resonance modes, so that the
more modes a subsystem has in the analysis band, the
greater the capacity of the subsystem to accept and store
energy. Within each analysis band, the energy in a sub-
system is uniformly divided among the modes. The net
power coupled between subsystems is proportional to the
difference in their modal energies and only passes from
the subsystem with higher modal energy to those of
lower modal energy. When modes have equal energy, it
is referred to as an equipartition of energy.
There are several assumptions that are generally made in
the development of SEA models.
~a! The input power spectra is broadband, i.e. there are no
strong pure tones in the input power spectra.
~b! Energy is not created in the couplings between sub-
systems. Energy may be dissipated in junctions be-
tween subsystems, such as in isolation mounts, but
generally this effect is added to subsystem damping
loss factors.
~c! The damping loss factor is equal for all modes within a
subsystem and analysis band.
~d! Modes within a subsystem do not interact except to
share an equipartition of energy. The coherent effects
between modes are ignored so that power sums apply.
A. Coupled simple oscillator
Two simple oscillators are shown in Fig. 1 coupled via a
spring and gyroscope. The coupling forces transmitted
through the spring are proportional to the differences in the
displacements, j1 and j2 , of the two masses in the oscillators.
Coupling forces transmitted through the gyroscope are pro-
portional to the velocities, j̇ 1 and j̇ 2 , of the two oscillator
1780 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 101, No. 4, April 1997
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 131.156.59.191 On: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:02:03
FIG. 1. Model of coupled simple oscillators.
masses. Arms connecting the oscillator masses to the top of
the gyroscope slide in a fixed trough and are assumed to be
inflexible along their axes. The bottom of the gyroscope is
hinged in a ball socket. The displacement of the mass away
from the base of the oscillator is taken as positive in each
oscillator. A positive velocity for oscillator 1 results in a
positive force on oscillator 2, and a positive velocity for
oscillator 2 results in a negative force on oscillator 1. Adding
the coupling forces by the spring and gyroscope between the
oscillators to the equations of motion for the two oscillators
yields
m 1 j̈ 1 1r 1 j̇ 1 1k 1 j 1 1B j̇ 2 1s 12~ j 2 2 j 1 ! 5F 1 ,
~1!
m 2 j̈ 2 1r 2 j̇ 2 1k 2 j 2 2B j̇ 1 1s 12~ j 1 2 j 2 ! 5F 2 ,
where m 1 and m 2 are the masses of the oscillators, r 1 and
r 2 are the viscous damping coefficients, k 1 and k 2 are the
oscillator spring constants, B is the gyroscopic constant,
s 12 is the coupling spring constant, and F 1 and F 2 are the
magnitudes of the harmonic forces applied to the oscillator
masses. Grouping terms in Eq. ~1! and defining s 1 5k 1
2 s 12 and s 2 5 k 2 2 s 12 , gives
m 1 j̈ 1 1r 1 j̇ 1 1s 1 j 1 1B j̇ 2 1s 12j 2 5F 1 ,
~2!
m 2 j̈ 2 1r 2 j̇ 2 1s 2 j 2 2B j̇ 1 1s 12j 1 5F 2 .
These are the equations given by Cremer et al. ~p. 478!.2
Therefore, we can now follow Cremer et al.
With harmonic time dependence, e i v t , of the applied
forces, Eqs. ~2! reduce to algebraic equations which can be
solved for the velocities of the oscillator masses:
2i v
n 1 5i vj 1 5 $ m 2 ~ v 2 22i v d 2 2 v 22 ! F 1
m 1m 2D~ v !
1 ~ i v B1s 12! F 2 % ,
~3!
2i v
n 2 5i vj 2 5 $ ~ 2i v B1s 12! F 1 1m 1 ~ v 2
m 1m 2D~ v !
22i v d 1 2 v 21 )F 2 % ,
where
S
D ~ v ! 5 v 4 22i v 3 ~ d 1 1 d 2 ! 2 v 2 v 21 1 v 22 14 d 1 d 2
1
B2
m 1m 2 D
12i v ~ d 1 v 22 1 d 2 v 21 ! 2
s 12
m 1m 2
1 v 21 v 22 . ~4!
Burroughs et al.: Energy analysis 1780
 In Eqs. ~3! and ~4!, v i 5 (s i /m i ) 1/2 are the natural frequen- For oscillator 2, the energy is given by Eq. ~10! with the
cies of the uncoupled oscillators, and d i 5 r i /2m i are related indices interchanged. Taking the difference in the energies
to the half-power bandwidths of the oscillators about their gives

F G
natural frequencies. Of interest is the power flow between the
p u F 1u 2 u F 2u 2
oscillators, which can be described as W̄ 1 2W̄ 2 5 2
2D v m 1 d 1 m 2 d 2

F G
P 125 21 Re$ F 12n *
2 %, ~5!
1
2 ~ v 21 2 v 22 ! 2 1 ~ d 1 1 d 2 !~ d 1 v 22 1 d 2 v 21 !
where F 12 is the force applied by oscillator 1 to oscillator 2, 3 ,
given by the last two terms in the second part of Eqs. ~2!, and Q
the star ~*! denotes the complex conjugate. Combined with ~11!
the velocity given in Eqs. ~3!, this yields
where the second term in Eq. ~10! drops out because it is
v 2 s 2121 v 4 B 2 symmetric with respect to the two indices. Dividing Eq. ~11!
P 125 ~ m 2 d 2 u F 1 u 2 2m 1 d 1 u F 2 u 2 ! . ~6! into Eq. ~7! yields
m 21 m 22 u D ~ v ! u 2
This is the power flow at the single frequency, v. For broad- P 125 b ~ W̄ 1 2W̄ 2 ! , ~12!
band excitation, the total power flow given by Eq. ~ 6! must where
be integrated over the frequency bandwidth, Dv, of interest.
If we assume that the natural frequencies of the oscillators 2 ~ d 1 v 22 1 d 2 v 21 ! B 2 1 ~ d 1 1 d 2 ! s 212
b5 .
are far from both limits of the frequency band, then the in- m 1 m 2 ~ v 21 2 v 22 ! 2 12 ~ d 1 1 d 2 !~ d 1 v 22 1 d 2 v 21 !
tegration can be extended to 6` without significant loss in ~13!
accuracy. The integral can be easily evaluated using integral
Equation ~13! is a function of the parameters of the os-
tables @for example, see Ref. 3, p. 218, Eq. 3.112.5#. The
cillators ~d1 , d2 , v1 , and v2! and coupling factors ~B and
result of the integration over frequency is
s 12! and not the energies in the oscillators. The reason we

P 125
p
2F
u F 1u 2 u F 2u 2
2D v d 1 m 1 d 2 m 2 G have gone into so much detail in the development of Eq. ~12!
is because it forms the basis for some of the underlying prin-
ciples of SEA and its derivation illustrates some of the fun-
~ d 1 v 22 1 d 2 v 21 ! B 2 1 ~ d 1 1 d 2 ! s 212 damental assumptions behind SEA. Equation ~12! underpins
3 , ~7!
m 1m 2Q SEA. It shows that power flow between two coupled oscil-
lators, excited by broadband uncorrelated sources, is:
where
~1! Proportional to the differences in the energies in the os-
Q5 ~ v 21 2 v 22 ! 2 14 ~ d 1 1 d 2 !~ d 1 v 22 1 d 2 v 21 ! 1 ~ d 1 1 d 2 ! cillators or, as seen later, the modal energies for multi-

3 S v 21
d2
1
v 22
d1 D B2
m 1m 2
1
~ d 1 1 d 2 ! 2 s 212
d 1d 2m 1m 2
. ~8!
modal subsystems;
~2! The constant relating the power flow to the energy dif-
ferences is a function of the coupling parameters and
In the derivation of Eq. ~7!, it was assumed that the input properties of the oscillators;
forces are independent of frequency, i.e. the excitations are ~3! The direction of power flow is from the oscillator with
broadband with a flat frequency spectra. Next, we would like the higher ~modal! energy to the oscillator with the lower
to relate the power flow between the oscillators, given in Eq. ~modal! energy.
~7!, to the differences in the energies in the two oscillators. Assume that only oscillator 1 is excited by a broadband
The energy, W̄ i , in ith oscillator in Dv bandwidth is given source. Then, the net power flow from oscillator 1 to oscil-
by lator 2 must be dissipated in oscillator 2 to achieve a power

W̄ i 5
mi
2D v
E 2`
1`
n i~ v ! n *
i ~ v !dv. ~9!
balance. Thus
P 125 b ~ W̄ 1 2W̄ 2 ! 5 P 2d . ~14!
In Eq. ~9!, we have made the same assumption on the limits Since
of the bandwidth, relative to the natural frequencies of the
oscillators, made in deriving Eq. ~7! for the power flow. The W̄ i 5 21 m i u n i u 2 , P 2d 5 21 r 2 u n 2 u 2 , ~15!
integral of the terms involving the product F 1 F 2 vanishes Eq. ~14! becomes
when we assume that the input forces are independent. For
oscillator 1, we obtain m 2u n 2u 2 1
5 . ~16!

W̄ 1 5
p
2D v
H F u F 1u
2

m 1d 1
1
2 ~ v 21 2 v 22 ! 1 ~ d 1 1 d 2 !~ d 1 v 22 1 d 2 v 21 !
Q
G m 1u n 1u 2 11r 2 /m 2 b

Since r 2 /m 2 b . 0, Eq. ~16! shows that the energy in the

1
@ s 212~ d 1 1 d 2 ! 1B ~ d 1 v 22 1 d 2 v 21 !#@ m 2 u F 1 u 2 1m 1 u F 2 u 2 #
2m 21 m 22 d 1 d 2 Q
J .
undriven oscillator 2 can not be greater than the energy in the
driven oscillator 1. For small damping in oscillator 2 and
strong coupling between the oscillators, i.e. r 2 /m 2 b ! 1, Eq.
~10! ~16! becomes

1781 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 101, No. 4, April 1997 Burroughs et al.: Energy analysis 1781

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 131.156.59.191 On: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:02:03
 m 2 u n 2 u 2 5m 1 u n 1 u 2 . ~17!
The energy is equally divided between the two oscillators.
The oscillators are said to be strongly or tightly coupled, and,
as Eq. ~17! shows, we have equipartition of energy between
the oscillators when they are strongly coupled. Power can be
viewed as passing back and forth between the oscillators to a
much greater extent than it is dissipated in the oscillators.
For weak coupling and large damping in oscillator 2,
r 2 /m 2 b @ 1, and Eq. ~16! becomes
m 2 u n 2 u 2 !m 1 u n 1 u 2 . ~18!
Little of the power input to oscillator 1 gets into oscillator 2,
and that power that does get into oscillator 2 is quickly dis-
sipated, so that there is little energy built up in oscillator 2.
B. Coupled multiresonant subsystems
Now consider two coupled subsystems. In a given analy-
sis band, subsystem 1 has N 1 modes and subsystem 2 has
N 2 modes. The power flow from the m 1 th mode in sub-
system 1 to the m 2 th mode in subsystem 2 is similar to that
for two coupled oscillators, since each of the two modes act
like a simple oscillator with inertial ~mass!, elastic ~spring!,
and dissipative ~dashpot! elements. Thus
P m 1 m 2 5 b m 1 m 2 ~ W m 1 2W m 2 ! , ~19!
where P m 1 m 2 is the power flow from the m 1 th mode in sub-
system 1 to the m 2 th mode in subsystem 2, b m 1 m 2 is the
coupling parameter analogous to Eq. ~13!, and W m 1 (W m 2 ) is
the modal energy in the m 1 th ~m 2 th! mode in subsystem 1
~subsystem 2!. The bars over the variables in Eq. ~19! denote
an average over a frequency band. If we assume that all of
the modes in subsystem 1 are strongly coupled, then the
energy in subsystem 1 is equally divided among all of the
modes within the analysis band. Strongly coupled modes can
be thought of as modes that are all directly responsive to the
same broadband excitation, such as the acoustic modes in a
room responding to a broadband acoustic source in the room.
The energy is equally divided among the modes when the
damping loss factor is the same for all of the modes.
The coupling of the N 1 modes in subsystem 1 to the
m 2 th mode in subsystem 2 can then be expressed as
P 1m 2 5 ^ b m 1 m 2 & N 1 N 1 ~ W m 1 2W m 2 ! , ~20!
where ^ & N 1 indicates an average over the N 1 modes in sub-
system 1. Extending this to include the N 2 modes in sub-
system 2, we have
P 125 ^ b m 1 m 2 & N 1 N 2 N 1 N 2 ~ W̄ 1 2W̄ 2 ! , ~21!
where P 12 is the net power flow from subsystem 1 to sub-
system 2 in a frequency band. Defining
^ b m1m2& N1N2N 2
h 125 , ~22a!
v W2
and
1782 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 101, No. 4, April 1997
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 131.156.59.191 On: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:02:03
N 1 h 12
h 215 , ~22b!
N2
where v is the center frequency of the analysis band, then
Eq. ~21! can be written as
P 125 v @ h 12W 1 2 h 21W 2 # , ~23!
where W 1 5N 1 W m 1 and W 2 5N 2 W m 2 are the total energies
in subsystems 1 and 2, respectively, and h12 and h21 are the
coupling loss factors. The first term in Eq. ~23! is the power
lost by subsystem 1 to subsystem 2 and the second term in
Eq. ~23! is the power lost by subsystem 2 to subsystem 1.
With the modal densities in subsystems 1 and 2 given by
n 1 5 N 1 /D v and n 2 5 N 2 /D v , respectively, we can write Eq.
~22b! as
n 1 D v h 12 n 1
h 215 5 h . ~24!
n 2D v n 2 12
Thus the coupling loss factor for subsystem 2 to subsystem 1
is greater than for subsystem 1 to 2 when the modal density
in subsystem 1 is greater than the modal density in sub-
system 2. The higher the modal density, the more modes
there are to store energy within a fixed frequency band. Since
modal densities are often easier to estimate than coupling
loss factors, Eq. ~24! can be used to reduce the effort re-
quired in obtaining estimates for the coupling loss factors,
since only one of the two coupling loss factors for two
coupled subsystems needs to be calculated.
The power input to subsystem 1 must either be transmit-
ted to subsystem 2 or dissipated in subsystem 1. That is
P 1input5 P 1d 1 P 12. ~25!
The power dissipated in subsystem 1 is given by
P 1d 5 v h 1 W 1 , ~26!
where h1 is the damping loss factor, which is the ratio of the
power dissipated per radian of motion to the total energy.
Using Eqs. ~23! and ~26! in Eq. ~25!,
P 1input5 v $ ~ h 1 1 h 12! W 1 2 h 21W 2 % . ~27!
Likewise, for the power input to subsystem 2,
P 2input5 v $ ~ h 2 1 h 21! W 2 2 h 12W 1 % . ~28!
Equations ~27! and ~28! are the power balance equations for
two subsystems. In Eqs. ~27! and ~28! the reason for defining
the coupling loss factors as in Eq. ~22! can be seen. The
coupling loss factor serves an analogous role to that of the
damping loss factor. The damping loss factor is a measure of
the rate at which energy is lost or dissipated within a sub-
system, whereas the coupling loss factor is a measure of the
rate at which energy in one subsystem is transmitted, and
thereby lost, to another subsystem through their mutual cou-
pling, when the energy in the other system is zero, i.e. it acts
as an energy sink.
If power is input only to subsystem 1, then Eq. ~28!
leads to
h 12
5 . ~29!
W 1 h 211 h 2
Burroughs et al.: Energy analysis 1782
 This is a useful relation for evaluating treatments for the 1 v 2 F 20 f 2n ~ x 0 !
reduction of energy ~i.e., noise! in subsystem 2. Using Eq. n 25
M (n @~ v 2n 2 v 2 ! 2 1 h 2 v 4n # L n
, ~37!
~24! in Eq. ~29! yields
where we have applied orthogonality @Eq. ~33!#. For uni-
W m2 h 21 formly distributed point sources ~‘‘rain on the roof’’!, we
5 , ~30! integrate over source locations.
W m1 h 211 h 2

which indicates that for h21@h2 , the modal energies in sub-

systems 1 and 2 are nearly equal and the two subsystems
n 25
%
1 1
M S
E(
S n
v 2 F 20 f 2n ~ x 0 ! dx 0
@~ v 2n 2 v 2 ! 2 1 h 2 v 4n # L n
. ~38!

may be combined into one subsystem. Using Eq. ~33!

Equations ~27! and ~28! can be extended to N sub-
systems to obtain the set of N equations given by P. W. v 2 F 20 1
Smith Jr.:4
%
n 25
M2 (n ~ v 2n 2 v 2 ! 2 1 h 2 v 4n
. ~39!

P i,input5 v HS N

D N

h i 1 ( h i j W i 2 ( h ji W j ,
jÞi jÞi
J ~31!
for i 5 1,2,...,N. Equations ~31! are the power balance equa-
tions for N coupled subsystems that form the basis for SEA.
The unknowns are the energies, W i , in the subsystems. The
inputs are the coupling loss factors, h i j , the damping loss
factors, h i , and the power inputs, P i,input. The power balance
Equation ~39! shows that, for independent localized sources
~or random broadband excitation!, the input energy to all
modes is uniform. Also, Eq. ~39! indicates that the response
of a subsystem to random broadband excitation is dominant
at the resonance frequencies, v n .
Averaging over a frequency band v22v15Dv, which
contains the modes n 1 to n 2 , we obtain

E
n2
equations are solved for the energies in each frequency F D2 v 1 v2 v2 dv
analysis band. Each analysis band must be wide enough to n D2 v 5
M2 (
n5n 1 Dv v1 ~ v 2n 2 v 2 ! 2 1 h 2 v 4n
, ~40!
contain several modes in each subsystem.
Two key assumptions made in deriving the power bal- where F D2 v is the average of the forces within the frequency
ance equations were equipartition of energy and that reso- band. Assuming that v n . v , i.e., the range of resonance
nant modes act like simple oscillators. In support of the va- frequencies is small compared to the center frequency of the
lidity of these assumptions, we once again follow Cremer frequency band and that the damping loss factor is small so
et al.,2 and consider a finite subsystem ~e.g., a closed acous- that the half-power bandwidths about resonant peaks remain
tic space or a finite beam, plate, or shell! that has resonant well within the frequency band, then Eq. ~40! becomes
modes, f n (x), such that the response can be expressed in a N2
modal ~eigenfunction! expansion F D2 v p
n D2 v 5
M 2 (
D v n5N 1
2hvn
. ~41!

n~ x !5 (n n n f n~ x ! ~32!
Again, applying the assumption that v n . v for all n

where x denotes spatial location. The mode functions are F D2 v p DN

v D2 v ' . ~42!
orthogonal, i.e. M 2
2hv Dv

E s
m f n ~ x ! f m ~ x ! dx5 H Ln ,
0,
n5m,
nÞm,
~33!
For a simple oscillator,
ivF
n5 . ~43!
where L n is the normalization constant for the nth mode and m @ v 20 2 v 2 1i h v 20 #
m is the mass distribution. For a single localized source mod-
eled by Averaging Eq. ~43! over a frequency band containing the
natural frequency, v0 , yields
p ~ x ! 5F 0 d ~ x2x 0 ! , ~34!
F D2 v
p
we have n D2 v 5 . ~44!
m Dv 2hv0
2

i v F 0f n~ x 0 ! Comparing Eqs. ~42! and ~44! shows that, when a multireso-

n n5 , ~35!
@ v 2n ~ 11i h ! 2 v 2 # nant subsystem is excited by random broadband sources, the
modal response is similar to the response of a simple oscil-
where d~•! is the Dirac delta function. The spatial average of
lator and that the energy is equally distributed among the
the response is
modes, such that the subsystem energy in a frequency band

n 25
1
M
E s
m u n ~ x ! u 2 dx, ~36!
is directly proportional to the number of modes in the band.
This is the basis of Eqs. ~20! and ~21! where we simply
multiplied by the number of modes in each subsystem.
where M is the total mass of the subsystem. Using Eq. ~32! The power transmitted into a subsystem by a pressure
in Eq. ~35!, we obtain field, p(x), is given by

1783 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 101, No. 4, April 1997 Burroughs et al.: Energy analysis 1783

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 131.156.59.191 On: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:02:03
 P5
1
2
Re HE S
p ~ x ! n * ~ x ! dx ,J ~45!

where the star ~*! denotes the conjugate of the complex ve-
locity, n (x), which includes amplitude and phase, and Re~•!
denotes the real part of the complex quantity. Using the same
method used in deriving Eq. ~41! yields
F D v p DN
P Dv5 . ~46!
2 2M D v
This shows that the power transmitted into a subsystem is
proportional to the modal density.
Adding Eqs. ~27! and ~28! for a system with two
coupled subsystems yields
FIG. 2. Illustration of wave-number plot for estimating modal density of a
P 1,input1 P 2,input5 v $ h 1 W 1 1 h 2 W 2 % , ~47! simply-supported rectangular plate of dimensions L x and L y .

which shows that all of the power input to the system is

dissipated. This is a simple power balance and is true regard- tween two subsystems is strong when the ratio of the cou-
less of the strength of the coupling, so that pling to damping loss factors for either subsystem is large.4
h 1 W 1 1 h 2 W 2 5 h 1 W 81 1 h 2 W 82 , ~48!
where the primes denote the energies in the subsystems when II. REQUIRED INPUT FOR POWER BALANCE
the subsystems are strongly coupled. For strong coupling, the EQUATIONS
damping loss factors, h1 and h2 , are much smaller than the The inputs required for the power balance equations are
coupling loss factors, h12 and h21 , so that Eq. ~27! becomes damping and coupling loss factors, subsystem masses, input
P 1,input5 v ~ h 12W 81 2 h 12W 82 ! . ~49! powers, and modal densities. With these inputs, the power
balance equations become algebraic equations with known
In the limit as we increase the coupling loss factors while coefficients which can be solved for the unknown energies in
maintaining a constant input power, Eq. ~49! leads to each of the subsystems. The average vibration and sound
h 12W 81 5 h 21W 82 . ~50! pressures are then computed from predictions of the sub-
system energies. It is assumed that the input powers are
Using Eq. ~22b! known or can be computed based on force or displacement
W 81 W 82 inputs and subsystem admittances. Damping loss factors for
5 , ~51! untreated structures, where the dissipation is in the material
n1 n2
of the structure, must rely on measured data or experience
which is equipartition of energy, which applies to strongly for built-up structures. Mathematical expressions have been
coupled subsystems. developed for coupling loss factors, modal densities, and
From Eq. ~48!, damping loss factors for structures with added damping
treatments. However, space does not permit the discussion of
h2
W 1 5W 18 1 ~ W 28 2W 2 ! . ~52! expressions for the parameters for all types of acoustical
h1 spaces and structures. We will, therefore, restrict ourselves to
Using Eq. ~50! in Eq. ~52!, and the result in Eq. ~28! yields the consideration of rectangular flat plates, straight beams,
and rectangular acoustical spaces.
P 2,input / h 2 2W 82
W 2 2W 82 5 . ~53! A. Modal densities
h 12 / h 1 1 h 21 / h 2 11
Modal densities may be estimated from plots of wave
A similar equation can be derived for the energy in sub-
numbers of resonance in the form of a grid pattern as illus-
system 1, so that,4
trated in Fig. 2 for a simply-supported plate. Since the effect
P i,input / h i 2W i8 of boundary conditions reduces for higher-order modes, the
W i 2W 8i 5 , for i51,2, ~54! simply-supported plate can be a good model for plates for
11 g
purposes of estimating modal densities. The number of
where modes within a frequency band from v1 to v2 is then esti-
h 12 h 21 mated by counting the modes that fall in between the two
g5 1 ~55! circles with radii equal to the wave numbers for freely propa-
h1 h2
gating waves at the upper and lower frequencies of the band.
The transition from weak coupling, where g!1 and Mathematical expressions can also be obtained by dividing
W i 5 P i,input / h i , to strong coupling, where g@1 and the area inside the two circles by the area associated with
W i 5W i8 , can be seen in Eq. ~55! for two coupled sub- each mode. In Fig. 2, this area is p 2 /L x L y 5 p 2 /A, where
systems. Equations ~54! and ~55! show that coupling be- A is the area of the plate.

1784 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 101, No. 4, April 1997 Burroughs et al.: Energy analysis 1784

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 131.156.59.191 On: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:02:03
 With the lower frequency set to zero, an estimate of the
total number of modes, N, that exist below a given frequency
~v! is obtained. The modal density is then
]N~ v !
n~ v !5 . ~56!
]v
Also, the mean-value theory5 may be used to estimate
modal densities from measurements of the drive-point admit-
tance as a function of frequency. The mean value of the
measured drive-point admittance versus frequency (Y c ) is
related to the modal density (n n ) as
pnn
Y c5 , ~57!
2M n
where M n is the modal mass. For one-dimensional struc-
tures, the modal mass is approximately one-half the total
mass for the higher-order modes, and for two-dimensional
structures, one-quarter the total mass.
B. Damping loss factors
Damping loss factors for energy dissipated by the mate-
rial of the structure must rely on measurements or tables of
representative damping loss factors. Typical ranges of damp-
ing loss factors are given in Figure 12.5 of Ref. 6. Damping
treatments, such as free-layer and constrained-layer damping
treatments, are often added to structures to reduce vibrations.
Estimates of damping loss factors for treated structures are
given in Section III.6 of Ref. 3.
C. Coupling loss factors
Coupling between in-plane ~longitudinal and shear! and
bending waves occurs at all junctions of structures except
end-to-end junctions where there is no change in direction.
Longitudinal waves have low dissipative losses, even in the
presence of most damping treatments, and have longer wave-
lengths than bending waves. Thus longitudinal waves can
provide an effective means of transmitting energy in struc-
tures over long distances. The energy in longitudinal waves
can be coupled at junctions to bending waves which are
dominant sources of radiated noise. Therefore, both longitu-
dinal and bending waves need to be considered in the devel-
opment of coupling loss factors for junctions of plates and
beams to represent both multiwave type transmission and
radiation.
There are two approaches for deriving expressions for
coupling loss factors for structures; the modal and wave ap-
proaches. In the modal approach, the coupling between indi-
vidual modes is computed and an average taken over the
modes in each frequency band. In the wave approach, the
coupling loss factor can be related to the power transmissi-
bility for semi-infinite structures, which is often easier to
estimate than the average of the couplings between modes of
finite structures. The power transmitted from the first to the
second structure through the junction is then energy lost by
the first structure via the coupling. Since the coupling loss
factor has been defined as the energy lost per radian of mo-
tion relative to the total energy in the structure, and the
source of energy loss is transmission through the junction at
1785 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 101, No. 4, April 1997
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 131.156.59.191 On: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:02:03
the boundary of the first structure, it is possible to relate the
coupling loss factor to the power transmission coefficient
~t12! as follows,
P trans v h 12W tot v h 12l f
t 125 5 5 , ~58!
P inc W tot~ c g /l f ! cg
where P trans is the power transmitted through the junction,
P inc is the power incident on the junction, l f is the mean-free
path length between incidences on the junction, and c g is the
group velocity, i.e., the velocity of energy propagation. For
beams, c g 52c B where c B is the wave phase speed and
l f 5L, the length of the source beam, so that
2c B
h 125 t . ~59!
v L 12
For plates, l f 5 p A/L 12 , where L 12 is the length of the junc-
tion, so that
2L 12
h 125 t , ~60!
p k p A 12
where k p is the wave number for freely propagating bending
waves in the source plate.
For beams or plates, expressions for the power transmis-
sibility can be obtained by matching the transverse and an-
gular velocities, and the shear forces and bending moments
at the junction, or relating the transmissibility to the blocked
forces generated by the incident wave, the impedances relat-
ing the blocked forces to the velocities at the junction, and
the transmitted waves generated by the velocities at the junc-
tion. In plates, waves that comprise resonance modes are not
all normally incident at junctions nor are all junctions of
right angles. With the inclusion of a large number of modes
in an analysis frequency band, the angles of incidence may
be distributed over all possible incidence angles. In this case,
expressions for the transmissibility as a function of incident
angle must be derived and averaged over all incident angles,
which adds greatly to the complexity of the calculations and
results. Unfortunately, the additional complexities introduced
by oblique incidence preclude simple expressions for the av-
erage transmissibility required for coupling loss factors for
plates coupled at right angles. Although the temptation is to
use normal incident transmissibilities to approximate aver-
aged transmissibilities, coincidences at incident angles,
where wave-number matching occurs, result in high trans-
missibilities. Furthermore, cutoff angles above which trans-
missibility vanishes could result in the introduction of sig-
nificant errors with the use of normal incident
transmissibility in coupling loss factors for plate. An ex-
ample of the transmissibilities for bending-to-bending,
bending-to-longitudinal and bending-to-shear waves for L
junctions of two plates of equal thickness2 is given by Fig. 3.
For the thicknesses of the plates in this example, the
bending-to-bending transmissibility peaks for an incidence
angle of 31 deg. The cutoff angle for bending-to-longitudinal
wave transmissibility is 18 deg and for bending-to-shear
wave transmissibility, 28 deg. This example illustrates the
complexities of the coupling loss factors as a function of
incidence angle and the need to include all angles of inci-
dence in computing coupling loss factor for junctions of
structures.
Burroughs et al.: Energy analysis 1785
 FIG. 3. Power transmissibilities for bending waves incident at a right angle
L junction of two plates as a function of incidence angle.
Because of the complexities involved in deriving mean-
ingful expressions for coupling loss factors for structures,
coupling loss factors have been the subject of a number of
studies and incorporated into SEA computer codes. For more
details, see Refs. 7–24.
The coupling loss factor ( h sa ) for a plate radiating into
an acoustic space is related to the radiation efficiency of the
plate, srad , by
r 0 c 0 S s rad
h sa 5 , ~61!
vMs
where S is the radiating area of the plate and M s the mass of
the plate. Expressions for radiation efficiencies may be found
in Ref. 25, Chapter 2 of Ref. 26, and Section 9.6 of Ref. 6.
D. Assembling an SEA model
The best approach to the definition of subsystems is to
start with subsystems that extend to junctions that cause sig-
nificant reflections. Bear in mind that different wave types
often require subsystems of differing physical size. For ex-
ample, since longitudinal wavelengths are larger than bend-
ing wavelengths, longitudinal subsystems may extend over a
number of bending subsystems. If the coupling loss factors
between two subsystems are such that they are strongly
coupled in both directions, then these subsystems can be
combined into one subsystem without loss of accuracy.
Smaller models of the most complex part of the structure can
sometimes aid in checking for strong coupling and simplifi-
cation of the overall model.
For a first pass, it is useful to hypothesize strong cou-
pling. The relationship between the assumed damping and
coupling loss factors should be reviewed as the model is
developed. The user not familiar with coupling loss factors
should consider bounding these factors as a starting point for
the power balance equations, and refining them as additional
1786 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 101, No. 4, April 1997
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 131.156.59.191 On: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:02:03
FIG. 4. Comparison of SEA and finite element model predictions to mea-
sured vibration levels for a six-plate system.
information becomes available and as the model is exercised
and compared to measurements of predictions for similar
systems.
Larger structures will contain more modes, allowing for
a more accurate analysis at lower frequencies. The results for
smaller structures will only be valid when there are several
modes present, which may be limited to mid- to high-
frequency ranges.
III. EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATIONS OF SEA
For a system of six coupled fat plates, Lu et al.27 con-
ducted measurements on the broadband vibration levels in
1-kHz bands. The measured vibration levels are compared in
Fig. 4 to predictions made using a finite element model and
an SEA model. The configuration of the plates with the drive
and measurement locations are also shown in Fig. 4. A single
shaker was used to excite the system. At frequencies below 7
kHz, the predictions by both the finite element and SEA
models are in good agreement with the measured levels. At 7
kHz and above, the finite element predictions show poor
agreement with the measurements, while the SEA predic-
tions continue to show good agreement. The limitation on
the number of degrees of freedom in the finite element model
led to the poor agreement with the measured levels at 7 kHz
and above. The agreement shown in Fig. 4 illustrates the
validity of SEA broadband predictions at high frequencies
where finite element models are too costly to run. In finite
element models, each plate must have a number of elements
at least four times the number of wavelengths of the plate in
each direction while the number of SEA subsystems is given
by the number of wave types in the structural element, which
is usually less than four.
A scale model of a Diesel engine foundation and ship
bottom structure was modeled with twelve plates by Tratch28
in an SEA model. SEA predictions were generated by Tratch
using bending waves only, and using both bending and lon-
gitudinal waves in the plates and at the junctions. An ex-
Burroughs et al.: Energy analysis 1786
 FIG. 5. Comparison of SEA predictions for a 12-plate system, with and
without longitudinal waves, to measured vibration levels. FIG. 6. Comparisons of SEA predictions with thin and thick plate theory
coupling loss factors to measurements.

ample of comparisons between the SEA predictions and coupling loss factors for the HAYES were based on analytic
measured levels presented by Tratch28 and Lyon29 is given in models.
Fig. 5, along with a sketch of the SEA 12-plate model. At Results from an SEA model were presented by
frequencies above 2 kHz, the SEA predictions made without Burkewitz32 for the propagation of sonar ping noise in the
including longitudinal waves in the plates show poor agree- forward third of the USS GLOVER ~FF 1098!. The concern
ment with the measured levels. As shown in Fig. 5, including was the prediction of airborne noise in ship spaces. A total of
longitudinal waves in the SEA model improved the predic- 425 structural subsystems and 1513 junctions were included
tions to the point where good agreement of the predictions in the model. The first set of predictions, in which only bend-
with the measured levels was obtained up to 20 kHz. Thus ing waves in the structures were included, produced unsatis-
accurate SEA predictions require the inclusion of longitudi- factory agreement with the measured levels for the noise in
nal waves, particularly when the system has several struc- the ship spaces generated by sonar pings. The inclusion of
tural elements and predictions are made at high frequencies. longitudinal waves improved agreement between the SEA
For additional discussion of this model, see Chapter 15 of predictions and measured levels. Figure 8 shows a compari-
Ref. 1. For thick plates at high frequencies, it also becomes
necessary to incorporate thick plate theory to account for the
higher modal densities of bending waves due to the lower
wave speeds which occur in thick plate theory. This is illus-
trated in Fig. 6, where SEA predictions using thin and thick
plate theory coupling loss factors are compared to
measurements.30
Measurements of the transfer functions from the applied
force in machinery spaces to vibrations levels in the hull
plating of the USNS HAYES, a research ship used to conduct
acoustical measurements, are compared to SEA predictions
in Fig. 7.31 The measurements were taken in narrowbands
and the predictions generated for one-third octave bands. Be-
cause both the measurements and SEA predictions are of
transfer functions, the results, except for band averaging, are
not sensitive to bandwidths, so that direct comparisons can
be made in Fig. 7. For the transfer of forces applied by the
propulsor motor and in the generator room to the vibration of
the hull plating, agreement between the measured and pre-
dicted levels in Fig. 7 is good, with only two exceptions;
from 7 to 10 kHz for the propulsion motor transfer function
and from 10 to 20 kHz for the generator room transfer func-
tion, where the differences are slightly above 10 dB. The
structural losses were larger than predicted indicating that the FIG. 7. Comparisons of SEA predictions to measured force-to-vibration
structural loss factors were larger than predicted. All of the transfer functions on the USNS HAYES.

1787 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 101, No. 4, April 1997 Burroughs et al.: Energy analysis 1787

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 131.156.59.191 On: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:02:03

FIG. 8. SEA predictions versus measured cabin noise levels generated by
sonar pings on the USS GLOVER.
son between the predicted and measured levels for twenty
two cases. Agreement within 63 dB occurred when the dots
fall inside the dashed lines in Fig. 8. The range in the mea-
sured levels taken during repeat pings are indicated by the
horizontal lines through the dots. The agreement shown in
Fig. 8 indicates that SEA can be used effectively to predict
noise levels in complex systems with a large number of sub-
systems. However, the SEA model for the GLOVER was de-
veloped by validating coupling and damping loss factors
with measurements conducted on the GLOVER. It would be
risky to use the model developed for the GLOVER for other
similar ships without some experimental verification of loss
factors.
IV. SUMMARY
The basic concepts and assumptions behind Statistical
Energy Analysis ~SEA! are presented. Starting with the
simple oscillator as a model of a resonant mode, coupling
between resonant modes in subsystems is shown to be pro-
portional to the differences in the energies in the modes.
Classical modal expansions are used to justify equipartition
of energy among modes in a subsystem and the assumption
that each mode can be modeled as a simple oscillator. Power
balance equations for coupled subsystems are derived, which
can be solved for the energies in each of the subsystems. The
required inputs to the power balance are the input powers to
subsystems, modal densities, masses and damping loss fac-
tors for each subsystem, and coupling loss factors between
subsystems. Methods for estimating modal densities are pre-
sented. Power inputs are specified by the user of the SEA
power balance equations or computed for simple force or
displacement inputs. Damping loss factors are usually ob-
tained from measurements of the materials or typical struc-
tures used in the subsystems. The derivation of accurate ex-
pressions for coupling loss factors presents the greatest
1788 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 101, No. 4, April 1997
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 131.156.59.191 On: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:02:03
challenge to the SEA user. Coupling loss factors for struc-
tures are related to power transmissibility, which is usually
easier to predict. Coupling between structures often requires
the inclusion of in-plane ~longitudinal and shear! as well as
bending waves which makes the derivation of accurate cou-
pling loss factors beyond the scope of this paper. Compari-
son of predictions from SEA models to measured levels, pre-
sented here, show that SEA is capable of providing accurate
predictions of broadband noise and vibration levels in com-
plex systems.
To be successful in providing accurate predictions, SEA
models must:
~1! Be capable of predicting the input power to all sub-
systems from applied input forces, moments, velocities,
or acoustic pressures. Measurements of input power is
also acceptable but is frequently as difficult as a predic-
tion.
~2! Represent all important mode types which occur within
the modeled subsystem in the frequency range of inter-
est, such as bending ~thin and thick plate and beam!
torsional, transverse shear, and longitudinal for structural
elements; and one, two and, three dimensional modes for
acoustical spaces, and each subsystem must contain sev-
eral modes down to the lowest frequency band of inter-
est.
~3! Have valid coupling loss factors for all mode types
which interact at junctions of subsystems, such as struc-
tural joints, mounts, and radiating surfaces. Damping
loss factors must also be known or predicted.
~4! Provide the output energies or derived vibration levels
for those modes which are of interest, or will be mea-
sured.
Because of the relative simplicity of the SEA equations and
power and energy outputs, SEA models can provide great
insight to the dynamic system and can provide useful guid-
ance for noise control treatment design and optimization.
Several organizations have prepared SEA computer
codes. Three of these codes have been developed commer-
cially. SEAM,33 developed by Cambridge Colloborative Inc.,
was the first SEA computer code to become commercially
available. Recently, AutoSEA,34 developed by Vibro-
Acoustic Sciences Ltd., has been made commercially avail-
able. AARCSEA,35 which has been used in several naval
vehicle and architectural designs, is available on an applica-
tion basis to end user customers.
1
R. H. Lyon and R. G. DeJong, Theory and Application of Statistical En-
ergy Analysis ~Buttersworths-Heimann, Boston, MA, 1995!.
2
L. Cremer, M. Heckl, and E. E. Ungar, Structure-Borne Sound: Structural
Vibrations and Sound Radiation at Audio Frequencies ~Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1988!, 2nd ed.
3
I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Tables of Integral, Series, and Prod-
ucts ~Academic, New York, 1965!.
4
P. W. Smith, Jr., ‘‘Statistical models of coupled dynamical systems and
the transition from weak to strong coupling,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 65,
695–698 ~1979!.
5
E. Skudrzyk, ‘‘The mean-value method of predicting the dynamic re-
sponse of complex vibrators,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 67, 1105–1135
~1980!.
6
L. L. Beranek and I. L. Ver ~Eds.!, Noise and Vibration Control Engi-
neering ~Wiley, New York, 1992!.
Burroughs et al.: Energy analysis 1788
 7 22
J. H. Wendel and B. L. Scott, ‘‘Calculation of SEA Coupling Factors
Using the Wave Approach-Results for Plates,’’ Cambridge Collaborative
Inc. Report 89-10-21610-2 ~1989!.
8
V. V. Tyutekin, ‘‘Reflection and refraction of flexure waves at the bound-
ary of separation formed by two plates,’’ Sov. Phys. Acoust. 8~2!, 180–
183 ~Oct.–Dec. 1962!.
9
S. V. Budrin and A. S. Nikiforov, ‘‘Wave transmission through assorted
plate joints,’’ Sov. Phys. Acoust. 9~4!, 333–336 ~April–June 1964!.
10
T. Kihlman, ‘‘Sound transmission in building structures of concrete,’’ J.
Sound Vib. 11~4!, 435–445 ~1970!.
11
W. Wohle, Th. Beckmann, and H. Schreckenbach, ‘‘Coupling loss factors
for statistical energy analysis of sound transmission at rectangular struc-
tural slab joints, Part I,’’ J. Sound Vib. 77~3!, 323–334 ~1975!.
12
W. Wohle, Th. Beckmann, and H. Schreckenbach, ‘‘Coupling loss factors
for statistical energy analysis of sound transmission at rectangular struc-
tural slab joints, Part II,’’ J. Sound Vib. 77~3!, 335–344 ~1975!.
13
V. A. Veshev and D. P. Kouzov, ‘‘Influence of the medium on the vibra-
tions of plates joined at right angles,’’ Sov. Phys. Acoust. 23~3!, 206–211
~May–June 1977!.
14
Y. Irie and T. Nakamura, ‘‘Random incidence energy transmission of
bending waves at junctions,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Suppl. 1 64, S26
~1978!.
15
G. Rosenhouse, H. Ertel, and F. P. Mechel, ‘‘Theoretical and experimental
investigations of structureborne sound transmission through a ‘‘T’’ joint
in a finite system,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 70, 492–499 ~1981!.
16
M. J. Sablik, ‘‘Coupling loss factors at a beam L-joint revisited,’’ J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 72, 1285–1288 ~1982!.
17
J. F. Doyle and S. Kamle, ‘‘An experimental study of the reflection and
transmission of flexural waves at an arbitrary T-joint,’’ J. Appl. Mech. 54,
136–140 ~1987!.
18
R. C. N. Leung and R. J. Pinnington, ‘‘Wave propagation through right-
angled joints with compliance-flexural incident wave,’’ J. Sound Vib.
31–46 ~1990!.
19
R. S. Langley, ‘‘Elastic wave transmission through plate/beam junctions,’’
J. Sound Vib. 143~2!, 241–253 ~1990!.
20
M. D. McCollum and J. M. Cuschieri, ‘‘Bending and in-plane wave trans-
mission in thick connected plates using statistical energy analysis,’’ J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 88, 1480–1485 ~1990!.
21
J. A. Moore, ‘‘Vibration transmission through frame of beam junctions,’’
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 88, 2766–2776 ~1990!.
1789 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 101, No. 4, April 1997
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 131.156.59.191 On: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:02:03
J. L. Horner and R. G. White, ‘‘Prediction of vibrational power transmis-
sion through bends and joints in beam-like structures,’’ J. Sound Vib.
147~1!, 87–103 ~1991!.
23
I-T. Lu, H. L. Bertoni, and H-Y. Chen, ‘‘Coupling of plate waves at
joints,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 92, 510–526 ~1992!.
24
R. C. N. Leung and R. J. Pinnington, ‘‘Wave propagation through right-
angled joints with compliance: longitudinal incidence wave,’’ J. Sound
Vib. 153~2!, 223–237 ~1992!.
25
G. Maidanik, ‘‘Response of ribbed panels to reverberant acoustic fields,’’
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 34, 809–826 ~1962!.
26
F. Fahy, Sound and Structural Vibration: Radiation, Transmission and
Response ~Academic, New York, 1985!.
27
L. K. H. Lu, W. J. Hawkins, D. F. Downard, and R. G. DeJong, ‘‘Com-
parisons of statistical energy analysis and finite element analysis vibration
predictions with experimental results,’’ Shock and Vib. Bull. 53~4!, 145–
153 ~1983!.
28
J. Tratch, Jr., ‘‘Vibration transmission through machinery foundation and
ship bottom structure,’’ MS thesis, MIT, 1985.
29
R. H. Lyon, ‘‘In-plane contribution to structural noise transmission,’’
Noise Control Eng. J. 26„1…, 22–27 ~1986!.
30
A. C. Aubert, J. H. Wendell, and F. R. Kern, ‘‘AARCSEA statistical
energy analysis program—tutorial manual,’’ AARC Report 126 ~1991!.
31
R. W. Fischer, F. R. Kern, and I. Cross-Whiter, ‘‘Preliminary test report—
impedance measurements on machinery foundations aboard the HAYES,’’
Atlantic Applied Research Corp. Tech. Memo 028 ~1988!.
32
B. L. Burkewitz, ‘‘The update and validation of the USS GLOVER ~FF
1098! statistical energy analysis model for analysis of ping-noise due to
operation of low-frequency, hull-mounted transmitter,’’ BBN Systems and
Technologies, Inc. Report No. 7469 ~1990!.
33
Contact J. Manning, Cambridge Collaborative Inc., 689 Concord Avenue,
Cambridge, MA 02138, Telephone ~617! 876-5777 for more information
on SEAM.
34
Contact P. Bremmer, Vibro-Acoustic Science, Inc., 5355 Mira Sorrento
Place, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92121, Telephone ~619! 597-7535 for
more information on AutoSEA.
35
Contact F. Kern, Atlantic Applied Research Corp., 4 A Street, Burlington,
MA 01803, Telephone ~617! 273-2400 for more information on AARC-
SEA.
Burroughs et al.: Energy analysis 1789