Operational Transfer Path Analysis

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jnlabr/ymssp
Operational transfer path analysis: Theory, guidelines

and tire noise application
D. de Klerk a,b,, A. Ossipov c
a
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanics, Maritime and Material Engineering, Department of Precision and
Microsystems Engineering, Engineering Dynamics, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands
b
Müller-BBM VAS B.V., Zwolle, The Netherlands
c
Goodyear Technical Center, L-7750 Colmar-Berg, Luxembourg
a r t i c l e in fo abstract
Article history: The operational transfer path analysis (OTPA) method is the subject of research in this
Received 12 May 2010 article, which starts with a discussion on it’s theory. Here clear similarities with the
Accepted 16 May 2010 MIMO technique in experimental modal analysis are found. Based on the knowledge of
MIMO, one finds that input signals are allowed to be coherent to a certain extend. As
Keywords: coherence can be larger in OTPA in practice, the method is extended with the singular
Operational transfer path analysis value decomposition method to reduce influences of noise. The article proceeds with a
OTPA discussion on points of attention, or boundary conditions, in practical applications. An
Tire noise analysis on tire noise is included to illustrate the points of attention and the methods
Experimental dynamics
strength in, for example, vehicle TPA on tires.
MIMO
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Cross talk cancelation
CTC
1. Introduction
Operational transfer path analysis (OTPA), using cross talk cancelation (CTC) and singular value decomposition (SVD), is
a signal processing method which finds the linearized transfer function (TF) matrix between a set of chosen input and
output channels from a measurement. The in- and output relations are determined such, that the transfer functions are
linearly independent with respect to each other, hence the name CTC. The resulting transfer functions can be used in a
transfer path analysis (TPA), determining a source’s propagation of noise and the resulting content in the response signal.
The OTPA uses the singular value decomposition (SVD) algorithm to find independent principal components describing the
transfer functions. Indeed, in practice the numerical operations involved to determine the TF matrix between inputs and outputs
often suffer from measurement noise. By rejecting smaller principal components one reduces these influences on the TF estimates.
Basically OTPA find its roots in work of Bendat et al. [2,1], yet evolved from the TPA approaches which are based on FRF
measurements:
The classical TPA approach measuring interface force [19].

The matrix inversion method [22,25,15].
Corresponding author at: Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanics, Maritime and Material Engineering, Department of Precision and
Microsystems Engineering, Engineering Dynamics, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands.
E-mail addresses: D.deKlerk@TUDelft.nl, DdeKlerk@MuellerBBM-VAS.nl (D. de Klerk).
URL: http://www.MuellerBBM-VAS.nl (D. de Klerk).
0888-3270/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2010.05.009
Please cite this article as: D. de Klerk, A. Ossipov, Operational transfer path analysis: Theory, guidelines and tire noise
application, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing (2010), doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2010.05.009
2 D. de Klerk, A. Ossipov / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
The mount stiffness method [24,20].

The gear noise propagation (GNP) or component TPA method [4,6].
These other methods basically consist of two steps. First, frequency response functions (FRF) are determined between
defined input/reference points and chosen output point consisting of sound and/or vibration. They are determined by use
of impulse hammer or shaker(s) if structural vibration is considered or by use of loudspeaker(s) for air-borne vibration.
Secondly, these FRFs are combined with operational forces determined at the reference points1 to generate synthesized
response signals. The synthesized output can thereafter be analyzed, determining the contribution of each propagation
path. The OTPA method uses a one step approach and builds model of a structure without FRF measurements by hammer,
shaker or loudspeaker. Basically, the method uses a response to response transfer function matrix,2 to represent the
propagation paths of the structure. The signals all originate from a measurement of the operating system, so that implicitly
the operating excitations are used to determine the transfer paths.3
Compared to the FRF approaches one can make following remarks:
The OTPA method is very easy and fast to setup as it uses only an operational measurement. A large reduction in
analysis time can therefore be achieved compared with FRF approaches.
As the method uses operational data, operational influences are accounted for.
Especially air-borne noise has a spatially distributed sound field on the excitation source. It is difficult to reproduce this
sound field with loudspeakers, yet OTPA uses the actual excitation source to determine the TF.
As essentially response data is used for input, careful design of the OTPA model and basic understanding of the analyzed
system are required.
The goal of this paper is to obtain a better understanding of the OTPA method, highlighting its capabilities and point of
attention in it’s application. Furthermore, this paper includes an OTPA analysis on tire noise, showing the method’s
strength and illustrating points of attention.
The paper starts with a general framework for the OTPA method in Section 2. Based on the framework, Section 3
presents points of attention in OTPA applications, which by themselves can serve as quality check criteria as well. In
Section 4 the method is applied on a vehicle’s tire noise propagation, highlighting some interesting features. The paper is
concluded with a summary in Section 5.
2. Operational transfer path analysis method framework
The OTPA method, based on CTC/PCA, tries to find the (linearized) transfer function (TF) matrix between a chosen set of
input and output quantities from a measurement. In the following discussion, these sets of input and output quantities can
best be seen as degrees of freedom (DoF) describing the measured object’s excitation (inputs) and the object’s responses
(output) as a linear combination of the chosen/assumed excitations. Section 2.1 describes the determination of the TF
matrix, in a first step, as a least-squares approximation problem. In this view it can be seen that the OTPA method without
singular value decomposition (SVD) is equivalent to the MIMO technique of finding frequency response functions (FRF) if
the same input and output variables are measured. In Section 2.2 the OTPA theory is, however, enhanced with the SVD
method, yielding TF matrix estimation with reduced noise influences.
2.1. OTPA theory with least-squares algorithm
Consider an arbitrary linear(ized) system model described by a set of input and output DoF, represented as
HðjoÞxðjoÞ ¼ yðjoÞ: ð1Þ
Here HðjoÞ is the transfer function matrix linking the vector of input DoF xðjoÞ to the vector of output DoF yðjoÞ. The
dependency on frequency is denoted by ðjoÞ. In NVH problems, the measured signals are typically motions, denoted uðjoÞ,
forces fðjoÞ and sound pressures pðjoÞ. The input and output vectors can thus in general be assembled from these
quantities as
2 3 2 3
ux uy
6f 7 6 fy 7
x ¼ 4 x 5; y ¼ 4 5,
px py
ðkÞ T ðnÞ T
ux ¼ ½uð1Þ
x , . . . ,ux ; uy ¼ ½uð1Þ
y , . . . ,uy ,
1
Each method determines these forces in a different way.
2
also known as transmissibility matrix if acceleration sensors are used.
3
Other work on the study to obtain the MIMO transmissibility matrix from response measurements are found in [9,23,17,21].
D. de Klerk, A. Ossipov / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 3
f x ¼ ½fxð1Þ , . . . ,fxðlÞ T ; f y ¼ ½fyð1Þ , . . . ,fyðoÞ T ,
ðmÞ T ðpÞ T
px ¼ ½pð1Þ
x , . . . ,px ; py ¼ ½pð1Þ
y , . . . ,py , ð2Þ
where the dependency on frequency is omitted for clarity.4 Indices k,l,m denote the number of input channels for the
different quantities and n,o,p the number of output channels for different quantities, respectively. Notice that it is up to the
engineer to define the input and output sets from the measured data. He is not restricted to choose forces as excitations
only, but motion and sound pressure, which are responses from a physical point of view, may also be chosen to model the
system’s behavior. In the latter cases, care should be taken, which will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.
Not all physical quantities have to be present in each set defined in (2), neither do the vectors have the same
dimensions. In fact, usually the number of excitation channels in the input vector x will be larger than the number of DoF
in the response/output vector. In vehicle analysis a typical example is to find the transfer functions between motions
measured on the driveline and the sound pressure at the driver’s ear.
By the construction of (1), the elements of the TF matrix H have the form

y
Hij ¼ i ; kaj: ð3Þ
xj x ¼ 0
k
Typically this matrix element property is used in experimental modal analysis (EMA), where an external applied force f is
applied (e.g. xj), by shaker or impulse hammer, as only input DoF (e.g. xk ¼ 0; kaj) and the resulting responses u of the
system are chosen as outputs (e.g. y). These kind of transfer functions are denoted receptance frequency response function
(FRF) in the literature and have the special property that their frequency peaks show the free system’s eigenfrequencies.
Strictly, one could thus determine a column of the TF matrix in the OTPA method also by exciting the system with only the
input DoF xj, while suppressing all other input excitations. In practice this is very hard to achieve as inputs are not only
forces, but also motions, sound pressures or any kind of quantities. The determination of the transfer functions element
wise will therefore often lead to very difficult, impractical and often impossible experimental setups. Analysis as such will
therefore require a big expense in time and resources.
To overcome this disadvantage, the OTPA method tries to determine all elements of the TF matrix from one
measurement only where all excitations are present at once. This determination is discussed next by first taking the
transpose of Eq. (1) and writing the equation on entry level:
2 3
H11 . . . H1n
6 ^ 7
½xð1Þ , . . . ,xðmÞ 4 ^ & 5 ¼ ½yð1Þ , . . . ,yðnÞ : ð4Þ
Hm1 . . . Hmn
Here m and n denote the number of in- and output DoF. Taking the transpose does not allow the determination of the TF
elements though. In order to do so, notice that during an operational measurement of, for example, a vehicle run-up on a
dynamometer, a set of synchronized measurement blocks will be stored to disk. In general these sets will not have the
same content, as the excitations change continuously during the measurement. If one requires, or defines, the relation
between the input and output DoF as being linear(ized) and constant during the total measurement, Eq. (4) should,
however, hold for each individual measurement block. One could thus extend Eq. (4) writing the equation for all
measurement blocks r, yielding
2 32 3 2 ð1Þ 3
xð1Þ . . . xðmÞ H11 . . . H1n y1 . . . yðnÞ
1
6 1 1
76 6 7
6 ^
4 & ^ 7 54 ^ & ^ 75¼6 4 ^ & ^ 7 5m: ð5Þ
xð1Þ
r . . . xðmÞ
r
Hm1 . . . Hmn yð1Þ
r . . . yðnÞ
r
This formulation, or system model, now requires the transfer functions to be linearly independent with respect to each
other, hence the name cross talk cancelation. Indeed, although the input quantities might (and most often will) be coherent
with respect to each other, the calculation of the transfer function matrix compensates for it.
Here it is assumed that the experiment is performed such that the number of measurement blocks is bigger than the
total amount of in- DoF, e.g. r 4m. This approach makes Eq. (5) a solvable least-squares optimization problem with an
additional residue m for the content which cannot be modelled by the (chosen) set of input DoF.5 Indeed, notice that in
general the individual observations/measurement blocks will contain a distortion due to, for example, measurement noise
or additional unmeasured excitation sources that are not taken into account in the model. Furthermore, the TF of the
system might not be constant during the measurement either, due to nonlinear system behavior of some kind.6 Mentioned
issues make a well constructed experiment and model essential, which will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.
4
It is also allowed to use any other physical quantities, as long as they have the same FFT parameter during measurement.
5
Notice, that if different physical quantities are used one needs to perform a weighted least-squares estimate [7].
6
Possible mechanisms could be a system’s dependency on temperature, applied excitation amplitudes or rotation speed [4].
To solve Eq. (5) one can first simplify its formulation writing it in a more compact way in matrices
XH þ m ¼ Y: ð6Þ
The calculation needs to be performed for each individual frequency line of the FFT spectrum. Solving (6) for each
frequency is now performed, in explicit sense, by pre-multiplying the equation by XT, requiring the residue vector to lay in
the null space of the input DoF, i.e. XT m ¼ 0. The TF matrix is thereafter found as
H ¼ ðXT XÞ1 XT Y ¼ X þ Y, ð7Þ

+
where matrix X is called the ‘‘pseudoinverse’’ of matrix X, readily defined as
X þ 9ðXT XÞ1 XT : ð8Þ

As the TF matrix is now determined (7), one can calculate the residual vector m, which shows the unmodelled part of Y, by
substitution of (7) into (6) yielding after some manipulation
m ¼ ðIXðXT XÞ1 XT ÞY: ð9Þ

If the OTPA method is considered purely as a least-squares calculation, it can be observed that the method is equivalent to
the MIMO technique of finding FRF estimates, if the same input and output variables are chosen. Indeed, observe that XTX
in (7) is in fact the averaged auto power spectrum (APS) matrix Gxx of the input signals and XT Y is the averaged cross
power spectrum (CPS) matrix Gxy between the input and output signals, accept for them not being divided by the number
of measurement blocks. This normalization cancels in the equation though and the OTPA method as a least-squares
method is thus equal to the MIMO technique of determining FRF estimates:
H ¼ ðXT XÞ1 XT Y ¼ G1

xx Gxy , ð10Þ
Gxx 91=rXT X, ð11Þ
Gxy 91=rXT Y, ð12Þ
if only shaker input forces would be used for excitation.

Note that coherence between input signals is often seen as an issue in OTPA [16,12]. Yet, shaker signals will be partly
coherent with respect to each other in MIMO techniques as well. Indeed, as they are all connected to the test structure
simultaneously, their vibrations propagate to one another and are measured by all force sensors. Furthermore a limited
number of measurement blocks is used for the MIMO calculation, rendering some remaining correlation, and thus
coherence, among the excitation signals as well. From a numerical point of view, with today’s 64 bit computer technology,
even very high coherence in either MIMO or OTPA does not pose a problem for the calculation itself. Due to measurement
noise and other disturbances coherence between the shaker forces should not exceed 30–40% for MIMO analysis in practice
though. Indeed, higher values might well lead to inaccurate FRF estimates as the small measurement disturbances get
more influence in (10) and more averages might be required. Important to realize though, is that (10) compensates for
remaining coherence between (shaker) inputs by the off-diagonal terms in Gxx. Therefore theoretically exact FRFs (or TF for
OTPA) are calculated, even if the input signals are almost fully coherent.
The reasoning above also holds for the OTPA calculation (7), although coherence among the input channels might well
exceed 30–40% in practice. In order to reduce the influences of measurement noise in such often occurring events, the
OTPA algorithm is extended with a singular value decomposition in Section 2.2 to overcome this problem. Note once more
that OTPA typically does not determine receptance FRF, but transfer functions also known as transmissibilities. The
transmissibility describes the isolation of a system. Amplitude peaks and drops over a frequency do therefore not
necessarily refer to resonances or anti-resonances of the system.7 Care should therefore be taken in the interpretation of
TFs in OTPA, e.g. it is often better to concentrate on path contributions. This issue will be addressed in more detail in
Section 3.
To summarize, this subsection showed:
The OTPA algorithm has the same basis as the MIMO method in EMA and can be seen as a least-squares estimate.
The OTPA algorithm compensates for cross talk between input channels, hence the name cross talk compensation (CTC).
OTPA and MIMO both allow almost fully coherent input signals in the TF matrix estimation from a theoretical point of
view. In practice measurement noise/errors will become more and more influential on the TF estimation with
increasing coherence though. Therefore coherence should be below 30–40% in MIMO applications and an SVD
technique is required for the OTPA method.
The least-squares residue m in (9) shows how much of the output signal cannot be modelled by the (chosen) input
signals. In OTPA this is an useful property, as one can determine if the (chosen) input signals well model the output
signals.
7
At a resonance frequency of a system, the transmissibility actually represents the ratio between the modal amplitudes of two points.
2.2. OTPA enhancement with singular value decomposition
The explicit determination of the transfer function matrix H by (7) can cause erroneous estimates if input signals are
highly coherent in combination with measurement noise.8 Use is therefore made of singular value decomposition (SVD), to
prevent poor estimates. Indeed matrix X can be expressed by a singular value decomposition as
X ¼ URVT : ð13Þ
U is an r r unitary matrix, R is a r m matrix with nonnegative numbers on the diagonal (as defined for a rectangular
matrix) and zeros off the diagonal. VT denotes the conjugate transpose of V, an m m unitary matrix.9
The SVD is very general in the sense that it can be applied to any r m matrix. A standard eigenvalue decomposition, on
the other hand, can only be applied to certain classes of square matrices. Nevertheless, analytically, the SVD can be
determined by an eigenvalue decomposition by the following relations:
XT X ¼ VRT UT URVT ¼ VðRT RÞVT , ð14Þ
XXT ¼ URVT VRT UT ¼ UðRT RÞUT : ð15Þ

The right hand sides of the relations above therefore describe the eigenvalue decompositions of the left hand sides.
Consequently, the squares of the non-zero singular values of X are equal to the non-zero eigenvalues of either XT X or X XT.
Furthermore, the columns of U (left singular vectors) are eigenvectors of X XT and the columns of V (right singular vectors)
are eigenvectors of XT X.10 A physical way to interpret (13) would be to see matrix V as a set of orthonormal ‘‘input’’ or
‘‘analyzing’’ basis vector directions for X.11 The matrix U contains a set of orthonormal ‘‘output’’ basis vector directions for
X and matrix R contains the singular values, which can be thought of as scalar ‘‘gain controls’’ by which each
corresponding input is multiplied to give a corresponding output. A common convention is to order the values Sii in non-
increasing fashion, in which case the diagonal matrix R is uniquely determined by X.
The singular value decomposition of X can be directly used in the computation of the pseudoinverse X + , yielding
X þ ¼ VR1 UT , ð16Þ
1
where R is the inverse of R. Notice that here it is assumed that the additional rows in R were omitted in the SVD
~ using the
computation making it a square matrix m m. Substitution of (16) in (7) yields an estimate on the TF matrix H
SVD method as12
~ ¼ VR1 UT Y:
H ð17Þ
From an engineering and statistical point of view it was found in applications that smaller singular values are mainly
caused by noise influences and other external disturbances [18]. They are therefore unwanted and should be rejected. Note
that the least-squares fit for the analyzed measurement will be better with all singular values kept though. Yet the amount
of used singular values in the TF calculation of one measurement reveals a tradeoff in the resulting fit on another, similar,
measurement. Indeed, as the noise will be different in both measurements, this cross validation process reveals which of
the smallest singular values are related to the noise influences [8,13,3]. Taking only a reduced set of singular values into
account therefore improves the TF estimates in general.
3. Points of attention in OTPA
In this section different practical considerations on the OTPA and its implementation will be discussed. Here the
following issues are brought forth:
OTPA model design: source, transition and response locations.

Quality of OTPA model using least-squares residue.
Variation in the structure’s excitation.
Notice furthermore that coherence between input/excitation signals, which is often seen as an issue as well, was addressed
in the previous section.
8
The measurement noise is amplified in the inversion term (XT X) 1.
9
Typically the matrix sizes are chosen different, e.g. U has size r r, R has size r m and VT has size m m. This will be explained shortly.
10
Determining the SVD matrices in this way is numerically unstable in practice, especially for singular values close to zero. It is explicit
determination in this sense does therefore not enhance the analysis given in the previous section. Instead, special algorithms such as the (modified)
Golub–Reinsch algorithm and the one-sided Jacobi orthogonalization were developed which overcome possible numerical conditioning problems [11].
11
In linear algebra, two vectors in an inner product space are orthonormal if they are orthogonal (their inner product is 0) and both of unit length
(the norm of each is 1).
12
Notice that with the SVD approximation, the residual content m lays in the null space of UT.
3.1. OTPA model design: source, transition and response locations
Essential for an accurate OTPA system model is a model definition which implicitly represent the systems dynamics best,
yet uses the measured operational response signals only. Vehicle (driveline) components are, for example, often decoupled
from other parts. Measured responses on the engine, for example, will be dominated from the engines combustion and thus
implicitly characterizes the combustion itself. One could also think of responses measured on the rear axle differential or at the
wheel spindle. Such responses will characterize either the internal gear noise excitation or the road input from the tires. Hence
such signal can be well used as input signals/variables. Furthermore a connection point of the driveline to the bodywork
contains a combination of the engine, tire, and gear noise excitation. Therefore such kind of locations cannot be used for source
characterization, yet will tell the engineer at which bodywork connection most noise is propagated.
In general one can classify locations on any structure in source, transition and response positions, as schematically
represented in Fig. 1 for a vehicle. One should not combine channels of different location classes in the input/excitation vector in
the OTPA algorithm. Indeed, as the signals are cross talk canceled by the algorithm, combinations yield illogical results as cause and
effect are mixed. It is our experience that although the true structure excitation is not measured, building models with response
data on well chosen positions as model inputs gives, for example, a good estimation of the structure’s noise propagation in
automotive applications [18]. If one forgets a propagation path, coherent parts are redistributed over the other signals though. To
make a correct interpretation and analysis of a structure in practice, the following considerations may be used as guidelines:
Choosing response data measured on different sources as input signal allows to separate a measured output responses,
at for example the driver’s ear, in the different source contents.
Choosing several responses on one excitation source as input variables allows the identification of how the source’s
excitation propagate into its neighboring component(s).
Using transition locations as OTPA inputs allow one to determine which locations transmit vibration the most. They do
not indicate the origin of the source.
Using additional responses within the structure allows to identify how the vibration is propagated into the vehicle
through succeeding components.
Notice that structures which are well equipped with sensors can be used for multiple OPTA analysis from a single operational
data set. With smaller channel count, one can make multiple setups to determining different items from the guidelines.
3.2. Quality of the OTPA model
One way to test the quality of the OTPA model is to verify if the synthesized responses are similar to the measured
responses. This can be done by observing the least-squares residual m amplitudes (9) or by comparing the measured
responses Y with the synthesized ones according
Y~ ¼ XVR1 UT Y: ð18Þ
Differences in amplitudes of Y and Y~ can be evaluated using any number of singular values in R. Observed discrepancies
are caused by either:
The input and/or output signals contain additional noise content which is filtered by the OTPA algorithm.
The chosen input signals are not the only sources which contribute to the response signal.
Receiver
Transition
Point
Excitation
Source
Fig. 1. It is essential in OTPA to define positions on the system which one classifies in source locations, transition points and response positions. In the
OTPA calculation, one should not combine channels of different location classes in the input vector, as cause and effect are mixed faulty.
Table 1
Measurement details.
Vehicle properties
Type Volkswagen Golf 5
Tires Six different types varying from slick’s to off road profiles and summer to winter tires
Dynamometer properties
Surface Smooth or rough road
Transmission Two wheel drive coastdown
OTPA setup
Sources 3D ICP acc. Sensor at left and right front tire (FL/FR) hubs in global x,y,z directions (X,Y,Z). These global vehicle directions
are X: longitudinal, Y: lateral, Z: vertical. 1/2 in. Microphones at left and right front tires at their lead, side and trail position
(Le,Si,Tr) about 2 m apart and aside from the wheel. Air-borne and structure-borne paths are denoted with (AB) or (SB),
respectively
Transitions None
Receiver Driver’s ear (1x) (MIC)
Measurement settings
Sampling rate 16 000 Hz
Block size 8192 samples
Measurement time 100 s
Acceleration sensors were placed at the wheel connection to the vehicle and the microphones for lead, trail and side positions.
The system might behave nonlinear during the chosen set of measurement blocks. The TF matrix will represent the
average transfer functions during the measurement.
One way to verify if the system behaves nonlinear is to vary the number of measurement blocks taken into account in the
TF matrix estimation. If the TF matrix changes considerably this could indicate nonlinear system behavior.
3.3. Variation in the structure’s excitation
It is important to vary the input quantities of matrix X during the operational measurement as much as possible. Larger
variation minimizes the coherence between the chosen input channels and results in a better conditioning, i.e. higher
values of the lowest singular values, of the input matrix. As such, the noise influence is minimized, yielding accurate TF
matrix estimates.13
In this view a vehicle run-up is, for example, a better operational measurement than a constant speed measurement.
Indeed, during the vehicle run-up excitation sources change continuously in amplitude and direction. It was noticed in [10]
that care should be taken, as higher frequencies are excited by less engine orders, hence less variation might be expected at
higher frequencies. Typically such problems can be traced by a significant drop of the responses’ multiple coherence and a
large residue (9). Yet in general higher frequencies are dominated by air-borne noise, also see the result in the Section 4.
When these signals are also measured, engine order dominance shows not to be a problem.
The question which often rises is what level of variation is required for an accurate OTPA analysis? In [14], where diesel
combustion is analyzed in an OTPA fashion, it is suggested that a condition number of 10–15 dB or less should be sufficient
to reduce influences of noise. However, depending on the level of external noise, number of input channels and coherence
between the input channels, this criteria can only be used as a rule of thumb. It was found, for example, that larger number
of input channels as well as high coherence between excitation signals yield a higher relevant threshold. It means,
typically, that the condition number should be around a factor 100 from 12 input channels upwards.
4. OTPA application on tire noise
This section discusses a tire noise analysis at Goodyear’s test facility in Luxembourg with specifications listed in Table 1.
Here we used a 3D acceleration sensor at each wheel hub. Furthermore we used three microphones for each tire at
approximately 2 m aside of the wheel. Indeed, experience learned that these positions are suited to analyze the air-borne
path up to about 1200 Hz, as later seen in Fig. 2. More microphones are needed for the analysis of higher frequency ranges
13
See discussion in Section 2.1 on the influences of noise in the TF matrix estimation.
dB (A) Source: Tire type 1 dB (A) OTPA synthesis versus measured response
60 50
50 40
Sound Pressure
Sound Pressure
40 30
Front_Driver
P syn_
AB_LF_Side
30 AB_LF_Lead 20
AB_LF_Trail
AB_RF_Side
AB_RF_Lead
20 AB_RF_Trail 10
SB_LF_x
SB_LF_y Measured
10 SB_LF_z
SB_RF_x
0 Synthesis
SB_RF_y Airborn
SB_RF_z StrucBorn
0 -10
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1/min Hz
Fig. 2. (a) The response signal, e.g. the microphone at the driver’s ear, separated in individual path contributions using the OTPA method and resynthesis
of the resulting time signal. (b) Averaged auto power spectra of the synthesized path contributions from the complete vehicle coastdown compared to the
originally measured response.
though, due to the increasing complexity of the sound field.14 The analysis at hand was setup such, that both air-borne and
structure-borne vibration is analyzed with six different tire combinations, all on both rough and smooth road surface.
In Section 4.1 one tire combination, with different tire types left and right, is analyzed on the dynamometer’s smooth road
surface. Thereafter all 12 measurement will be compared to analyze how the OTPA results change with different configurations.
4.1. Analysis of a single measurement
After the OTPA model is calculated according Section 2, one first starts with a comparison of synthesized output
channels and their actually measured ones. Indeed, after the transfer functions are determined from (17) in a least-squares
sense, using them as FIR filters in Eq. (18) allows to synthesize the output channels in Y~ with the originally measured
inputs X. Fig. 2a shows this comparison for an arbitrary tire set. Note that here the overall sound level is depicted during
the coastdown to get a good overview. The figure shows that the total synthesized sound level at the driver’s ear matches
very well with the original measured signal, e.g. the red curves overlap. This indicates, that on an overall level, the OTPA
model is well able to describe the receiving sound pressure at the driver with the six structure-borne and six air-borne
channels. The other curves in blue and gray show the individual path contributions from each of the 12 input/source
channels. Observe that depending on the vehicle speed, individual path dominance vary. The structure-borne excitations in
z-direction clearly have the largest overall impact on the driver’s sound level and are therefore most worthwhile
optimizing. It can be observed though that the left and right excitation not always yield the same contribution, which is
due to the two different tires left and right.15
From Fig. 2a with its overall sound levels one does not have an indication what frequency range should be tackled/
optimized. In a second step one therefore proceeds to compare the frequency content of the synthesized and measured
outputs. In order to do so, all auto power spectrum (APS) measurement blocks of the complete coastdown are averaged.
This gives an overall indication of the model’s fit in frequency over the complete run. As seen in Fig. 2b, the model fits the
measurement well up to a frequency of about 1000 Hz. At higher frequencies, not shown here for clarity, differences get
into play above 1500 Hz. Evaluation of the coherence between the microphones above 1500 Hz also reveals a clear drop.
Therefore one can conclude that the dominant air-borne propagation path cannot be properly measured above 1500 Hz,
spatially, with six microphones next to the vehicle.16 Interesting to note is the different air-borne and structure-borne
dominance over frequency. On average structure-borne vibration dominates up to frequencies of about 700 Hz. At higher
frequencies, air-borne vibration becomes the dominant one for the tested vehicle. As the highest amplitudes occur below
700 Hz, the structure-borne dominance on the overall level, see Fig. 2a, is well explained. Should higher ‘‘whissle’’/tonal
kind of noises be a psycho-acoustical target, this analysis shows that air-borne contributions are most worthwhile
investigating. By now we have an indication that structure-borne vibration is dominant on an overall level, their
dominance occurs at frequencies lower that 700 Hz and from Fig. 2a one knows that the z-direction path is most dominant.
In a third step, Figs. 3(SB) and 3(AB) show the individual air-borne and structure-borne contributions (again on average).
From these figures one can concluded that the right tire has a more dominant impact on the driver. Furthermore the figures
show that the dominance amongst channels change as a function of frequency, which is probably caused by different
14
Note that in case one measures a vehicle with different number of microphones, these measurement’s transfer functions cannot be directly
compared as coherent parts between microphones is distributed differently.
15
In measurements where the same tires were used at each side, the contributions show much better ‘‘symmetry’’.
16
This result shows that the OTPA method can be used for these kind of indications as well.
Sound Pressure [dB (A)] Sound Pressure [dB (A)] Sound Pressure [dB (A)] Sound Pressure [dB (A)]
50
30
SB AB
10 SB_LF_x AB_LF_Side
SB_LF_y AB_LF_Lead
SB SB_LF_z AB_LF_Trail
-10 SB_RF_x AB AB_RF_Side
SB_LF AB_RF_Lead
SB_RF_y AB_LF
SB_RF AB_RF AB_RF_Trail
SB_RF_z
-30
Hz 10 25 63 160 400 Hz Hz
Hz
Sound Pressure [dB (A)] Sound Pressure [dB (A)] Sound Pressure [dB (A)] Sound Pressure [dB (A)]
50
30
10 SB_RF SB_LF
SB_RF_x SB_LF_x AB_RF AB_LF
-10 AB_RFSide_ AB_LF_Side
SB_RF_y SB_LF_y AB_RF_Lead AB_LF_Lead
SB_RF_z SB_LF_z AB_RF_Trail AB_LF_Trail
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Hz (SB) Hz Hz (AB) Hz
Fig. 3. (SB) Contribution of the individual structure-borne paths in the response signal at the driver’s ear in left/right comparison, x,y,z at left tire, x,y,z at
right tire and all represented in 1/3 octaves. (AB) Contribution of the individual air-borne paths in the response signal at the driver’s ear in left/right
comparison, side, lead, trail at left tire, side, lead, trail at right tire and all represented in 1/3 octaves.
Pa [dB (A)] Response at Driver's ear . [-] Singular Values

50 10
30
1 2 3
10
Pa/Pa [dB (lin)] Corresponding Transfer Function
-40
-60
1
-80 1 3
2
Pa [dB (lin)] Excitation SB_ FL_Z
120
100
80
1 2 3
60 0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Hz Hz
Fig. 4. (a) Causal effect of the dominant SB-RF-Z node, separated in excitation, vibration propagation and the resulting response at the driver’s ear.
(b) Singular values when both SB and AB noise paths are used in the TF matrix determination with the two smallest singular values showing an out of
bound character.
vehicle modes or excitation, yet to be investigated. In the final step of this individual analysis, the so called ‘‘causal effect’’
is therefore studied. An example is shown in Fig. 4a for the most dominant excitation node SB_RF_Z. The figure is marked
with three individual frequency lines from which interesting observations can be made:
line 1 At about 100 Hz, in average, the response signal has the highest value over the complete frequency range. From the
excitation and transfer function it can be concluded, that both have high amplitudes. Measures for optimization
clearly require work on both aspects.
line 2 At about 240 Hz, in average, the excitation has a very high amplitude, whereas the vehicle transfer function does
not. The ‘‘resonance’’ peak in the excitation is known to originate from a tire cavity mode. Measures for
optimization require in this case work on the tire.
line 3 At about 410 Hz, in average the vehicle’s transfer function shows a clear ‘‘resonance’’ peak.17 Measures for
optimization require work on the vehicle. In this case a more detailed OTPA would be useful, where sensors are
17
As discussed in 2.1, higher amplitudes do not necessarily indicate a structure resonance.
FRF determined by Impulse Hammer Comparison between TF and FRF

60 60
FRF SB_FL_X -> MIC OTPA SB_FL_Z -> MIC
50 FRF SB_FL_Y -> MIC 50 FRF SB_FL_Z -> MIC
FRF SB_FL_Z -> MIC
40 40
Pa/m/s2 [dB]
Pa/m/s2 [dB]
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
-10 -10
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
[Hz] [Hz]
Fig. 5. (a) The FRF measured with an impulse hammer show a resonance at 410 Hz with the highest amplitude for the z-direction excitation.
(b) Comparison of the OTPA TF with the measured FRF using an impulse hammer. The amplitudes of the TF from the OTPA analysis does not comply to the
correct y-axis values for the sake of clarity, yet the frequency axis does.
placed at transition points of the individual suspension parts. From that measurement more detailed optimization
measures can be conducted as the real mode shape is not known yet. Alternatively a targeted FRF measurement, by
impulse hammer for example, can be conducted for the dominant path only. One saves time as only one (or a few)
path(s) need to be examined, from the vehicle as it is.
Further investigation of line 3 was indeed conducted with an impulse hammer measurement, which yields Figs. 5a and b.
Left all three structure-borne FRF from the left tire are displayed. It can be observed that a resonance is indeed
situated around 410 Hz, confirming the OTPA analysis outcome. On the right, the FRF (e.g. force as input) in
z-direction is compared with the TF (e.g. displacement as input) from the OTPA measurement. Observe that at most FRF
resonances shows great similarity with the transfer functions as well. In summary the OTPA well shows the engineer it’s
optimization options for this tire noise problem, or alternatively which FRFs need to be determined/examined. Interesting
to note is that for the different tires left and right can also be found in the OTPA analysis. Here the right tire shows
to be loudest.
Other analysis tools useful, but not discussed in this paper, are for example analysis on individual tire orders, psycho-
acoustic analysis on the time data like tonality and roughness and as discussed in [5] dominance of excitation sources in a
frequency band specific vehicle speed.
These analysis results were obtained by rejecting the two smallest singular values, Fig. 4b showing all of the singular
values of this measurement. Notice that the two smallest, as well as the two/three largest stand out of the middle ones.
4.2. Analysis of all measurements
In this section a parameter study is conducted to determine how stable the TF matrix determination is with different
setups. First Figs. 6a and b show the analysis results when the air-borne channels are left in the TF matrix calculation.
Clearly in the frequency range where structure-borne noise is dominant no significant differences exist, showing dominant
paths are not affected by small (yet coherent) ones. Also at higher frequencies, where air-borne noise is dominant, no large
differences exist, showing that low coherent paths do not pose a problem. Yet in the frequency range 750–1000 Hz
differences get into existence as coherence between the air-borne and structure-borne channels reach up 40%. This causes
a redistribution of the energy, and stresses the importance of a proper OTPA model.
Secondly a parameter study is conducted with different tires and rough/soft road conditions. Fig. 7 shows how the TF
matrix change. From the figure it can be seen that the transfer functions stay quite constant, although the corresponding
excitation changed quite a bit. This shows that the OTPA method is capable of identifying stable results, and that an
indication of all measurements simultaneously in the TF matrix calculation yields some average estimates. Notice
furthermore, in Fig. 8, that the air-borne path matches well on rough and smooth road at frequencies higher than 100 Hz.
Up to about 100 Hz, high differences are found though. Whereas the structure-borne path does not really change over the
complete frequency range, this example shows the air-borne path behaves different on smooth and rough road. This could
be the case when the noise on the smooth road is unidirectional, whereas the noise on the rough road is omnidirectional.
Indeed, the excitation level, Fig. 8b, is similar up to 60 Hz and then deviates more and more towards 1000 Hz between both
road types.
Pa [dB (A)] SB Contribution with / without AB input Pa/Pa [dB (Lin)] TF with / without AB Source as Input
40 -30
30 -40
20
-50
10
-60
0
-70
-10
-80
-20 Measured total contribution With AB Source - TF FL-Z to Driver
Synthesized total contribution -90 With AB Source - TF FR-Z to Driver
-30 SB contribution without AB input No AB source - TF FL-Z to Driver
SB contribution with AB input No AB source - TF FR-Z to Driver
-40 -100
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Hz Hz
Fig. 6. (a) Difference between the contribution of the structure-borne excitation when the air-borne excitation is or is not taken into account in the OTPA
calculation. (b) The dominant transfer function of the structure-borne path does not change when the air-borne channels are deactivated in the OTPA
algorithm up to 650 Hz, where SB noise is dominant. At higher frequencies, the AB path get dominant and difference is apparent.
Pa/m/s2 [dB] Rough Road - TF SB-RF-Z Pa/m/s2 [dB] Smooth Road - TF SB-RF-Z
-30 -30
5x individual tyres 5x individual tyres
-40 TF from combined tyres -40 TF from combined tyres
-50 -50
-60 -60
-70 -70
-80 -80
-90 -90
-100 -100
-110 -110
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Hz Hz
Pa/Pa [dB] Rough Road - TF AB-RF-S Pa/Pa [dB] Smooth Road - TF AB-RF-S
0 -30
5x individual tyres 5x individual tyres
-10 TF from combined tyres TF from combined tyres
-40
-20
-30 -50
-40
-50 -60
-60
-70
-70
-80 -80
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Hz Hz
Fig. 7. The transfer functions of the dominant path are quite similar for the different tyre types, especially for the structure-borne noise; somewhat larger
differences are found for the air-borne path.
5. Summary and conclusion
Operational TPA finds it’s roots in the work of Bendat [1,2], yet evolved from FRF methods in TPA. Its main benefits are
being faster than FRF based TPA and being operational.
This article shows that the OTPA algorithm, without SVD, is equivalent to the MIMO technique of finding FRFs. Yet, the
OTPA allows for any kind of signal, like sound pressure and acceleration, for the definition of the OTPA model. As this kind
of signals are responses from a physical perspective, this article introduces guidelines for a proper definition. Indeed, one
can group locations on a system in source, transition and response nodes. Furthermore, by the construction of the
algorithm, cross talk between input signals is accounted for.
Pa/Pa [dB (Lin)] Pa/m/s2 [dB]

TF SB-RF-Z & TF AB-RF-S Pa [dB(Lin)] Average excitation AB-RF-S
20 -30 100
Rough Road SB
Smooth Road SB 90
Rough Road AB
0 Smooth Road AB
-50
80
-20 -70 70
60
-40 -90 50
40
-60 -110
30 5x Rough Road AB_RF_S
5x Smooth Road AB_RF_S
-80 -130 20
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Hz Hz
Fig. 8. (a) The transfer functions calculated from all measurements at ones are similar for structure-borne noise on rough and smooth road conditions.
However, between 30 and 150 Hz clear differences are apparent for the air-borne path. (b) The excitation level from the air-borne paths is similar up to
60 Hz, yet deviates at higher frequencies.
The SVD algorithm is required for an accurate transfer function (TF) matrix estimation as coherence between input
signals can be quite large. This does not pose a problem from a theoretical point, yet measurement noise get’s an ever
increasing effect on the TF estimate. Indeed, it was found that measurement noise reveals itself in the smallest singular
values [18].
This article includes a tire noise analysis which shows, for example, that the OTPA method can determine structure-
borne and air-borne dominance easily. Furthermore a parameter study is conducted to examine the effect of forgetting
paths, changes of the TF matrix with different tyre types and road surfaces. The study shows that only in case signals are
forgotten which are coherent and in the same order of magnitude may not be neglected. The structure-borne TF’s do not
depend on the tyre type and road condition much, showing that the OTPA is independent on the operational condition. Yet
the parameter study also reveals that the air-borne path does show a large difference up to about 150 Hz due to the
difference in directionality of the tire on smooth and rough road.
References
[1] J. Bendat, System identification from multiple input/output data, Journal of Sound and Vibration 49 (3) (1976) 293–308.
[2] J. Bendat, A. Piersol, Engineering Applications of Correlation and Spectral Analysis, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1980.
[3] D. de Klerk, Determining the significant number of singular values in experimental dynamic substructuring, in: Proceedings of the 27th International
Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL. Society for Experimental Mechanics, Bethel, CT, 2009.
[4] D. de Klerk, Dynamic response characterization of complex systems through operational identification and dynamic substructuring, Ph.D. Thesis,
Delft University of Technology, 2009.
[5] D. de Klerk, M. Lohrmann, M. Quickert, W. Foken, Application of operational transfer path analysis on a classic car, NAG/DAGA 2009, 2009.
[6] D. de Klerk, D. Rixen, Component transfer path analysis method with compensation for test bench dynamics, Mechanical Systems & Signal
Processing, 2010, doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2010.01.006.
[7] F. Dekking, C. Kraaikamp, H. Lopuhaä, L. Meester, Probability and Statistics for the 21st Century, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The
Netherlands, 2004.
[8] P.A. Devijver, J. Kittler, Pattern Recognition: A Statistical Approach, Prentice-Hall, London, 1982.
[9] D. Ewins, W. Liu, Transmissibility properties of mdof systems, in: Proceedings of 16th IMAC, Santa Barbara, CA, 1998, pp. 847–854.
[10] P. Gajdatsy, K. Janssens, L. Gielen, P. Mas, H.V. der Auweraer, Critical assessment of operational path analysis: mathematical problems of
transmissibility estimation, in: Proceedings of Acoustics’ 2008, 2008, pp. 5461–5466.
[11] G. Golub, W. Kahan, Calculating the singular values and pseudo-inverse of a matrix, Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics:
Series B, Numerical Analysis 2 (2) (1965) 205–224.
[12] K. Janssens, P. Gajdatsy, H.V. der Auweraer, Operational path analysis: a critical review, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Noise &
Vibration Engineering (ISMA). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, BE, 2008, pp. 3657–3672.
[13] R. Kohavi, A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection, in: International Joint Conference on Artificial
Intelligence (IJCAI), Morgan Kaufmann, 1995, pp. 1137–1143.
[14] M. Lee, J.S. Bolton, S. Suh, A procedure for estimating the combustion noise transfer matrix of a diesel engine, in: 15th International Congress on
Sound and Vibration, 2008, pp. 974–981.
[15] M. Lohrmann, T. Hohenberger, Operational transfer path analysis: comparison with conventional methods, DAGA 2008.
[16] F. Magrans, Path analysis, in: Proceedings of the NAG/DAGA Conference, 2009, pp. 768–771.
[17] N. Maia, J. Silva, A. Ribeiro, The transmissibility concept in multi-degree-of-freedom systems, Mechanical Systems & Signal Processing 15 (1) (2001)
129–137.
[18] K.Noumura J. Yoshida Method of Transfer Path Analysis for Interior Vehicle Sound by Actual Measurement, Honda R&D Tech Rev, L0353A, 2006,
vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 136-141, Japan.
[19] J. Plunt, Strategy for transfer path analysis (TPA) applied to vibro-acoustic systems at medium and high frequencies, in: Proceedings of the
23rd International Conference on Noise & Vibration Engineering (ISMA). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, BE, pp. 139–158.
[20] J. Plunt, Finding and fixing vehicle NVH problems with transfer path analysis, Sound and Vibration 39 (11) (2005) 12–17.
[21] A. Ribeiro, J. Silva, N. Maia, M. Fontul, Transmissibility matrix in harmonic and random processes, Journal of Shock and Vibration 11 (5–6) (2004)
563–571.
[22] J. Starkey, G. Merril, On the ill-conditioned nature of indirect force measurement techniques, International Journal of Analytical and Experimental
Modal Analysis 4 (3) (1989) 103–108.
[23] P. Varoto, K. McConnell, Single point vs. multi point acceleration transmissibility concepts in vibration testing, in: Proceedings of the 16th IMAC,
Santa Barbara, CA, 1998, pp. 83–90.
[24] J. Verheij, Multipath sound transfer from resiliently mounted shipboard machinery, Ph.D. Dissertation, Technische Physische Dienst TNO-TH, Delft,
1986.
[25] J. Verheij, Experimental procedures for quantifying sound paths to the interior of road vehicles, in: Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on
Vehicle Comfort, Bologna, Italy, October 14–16 1992, pp. 483–491.

Operational Transfer Path Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Operational Transfer Path Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Operational Transfer Path Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing

Operational transfer path analysis: Theory, guidelines

The classical TPA approach measuring interface force [19].

The mount stiffness method [24,20].

2. Operational transfer path analysis method framework

2.1. OTPA theory with least-squares algorithm

f x ¼ ½fxð1Þ , . . . ,fxðlÞ T ; f y ¼ ½fyð1Þ , . . . ,fyðoÞ T ,

H ¼ ðXT XÞ1 XT Y ¼ X þ Y, ð7Þ

X þ 9ðXT XÞ1 XT : ð8Þ

m ¼ ðIXðXT XÞ1 XT ÞY: ð9Þ

H ¼ ðXT XÞ1 XT Y ¼ G1

Gxx 91=rXT X, ð11Þ

Gxy 91=rXT Y, ð12Þ

if only shaker input forces would be used for excitation.

2.2. OTPA enhancement with singular value decomposition

XT X ¼ VRT UT URVT ¼ VðRT RÞVT , ð14Þ

XXT ¼ URVT VRT UT ¼ UðRT RÞUT : ð15Þ

3. Points of attention in OTPA

OTPA model design: source, transition and response locations.

3.1. OTPA model design: source, transition and response locations

3.2. Quality of the OTPA model

3.3. Variation in the structure’s excitation

4. OTPA application on tire noise

4.1. Analysis of a single measurement

Pa [dB (A)] Response at Driver's ear . [-] Singular Values

FRF determined by Impulse Hammer Comparison between TF and FRF

4.2. Analysis of all measurements

5. Summary and conclusion

Pa/Pa [dB (Lin)] Pa/m/s2 [dB]

You might also like