Three loss factors are defined for a master harmonic oscillator (HO); the I-loss factor, the U-loss factor, and the effective loss factor. A conductance (β) is conventionally defined as the ratio of the power imparted to a dynamic system by an external drive to the stored energy that this input power generates. The conductance (β) is related to the loss factor (η) by the frequency (ω); β=(ωη). In light of this definition, it is shown that all three loss factors are identical for an isolated master HO at resonance. Differences arise among these loss factors when the master HO is coupled to satellite harmonic oscillators (HO’s). The first two loss factors retain their definitive format in the sense that the stored energy is reckoned only in the master HO; the energy stored in the coupled satellite HO’s and in the couplings is discounted. The effective loss factor, on the other hand, is defined by accounting for the total stored energy that the external drive applied to the master HO generates in the complex. The complex here is composed of the master HO, the satellite HO’s, and the in situ couplings. In those situations in which the portion of the total energy stored in the satellite HO’s and in the couplings substantially exceeds the stored energy in the master HO, the I-loss factor and the U-loss factor may substantially exaggerate the true loss factor of the coupled master HO. Situations of this type are illustrated by data obtained in computational experiments, and it is argued that the true loss factor of the master HO in the complex as a whole is the effective loss factor.

1.
R. H. Lyon, Statistical Energy Analysis of Dynamic Systems: Theory and Applications (MIT, Cambridge, 1975);
R. H. Lyon and R. G. DeJong, Theory and Application of Statistical Energy Analysis (Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 1995).
2.
C.
Soize
, “
Probabilistic structural modeling in linear dynamic analysis of complex mechanical systems
,”
Rech. Aerosp.
1986-3
,
23
48
(
1986
);
C.
Soize
, “
A model and numerical method in the medium frequency range for vibroacoustic predictions using the theory of structural fuzzy
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
94
,
849
865
(
1993
).
3.
P. W. Smith, Jr. and R. H. Lyon, Sound and Structural Vibration, NASA CR-160 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, 1965).
4.
R. H.
Lyon
, “
Statistical energy analysis and structural fuzzy
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
97
,
2878
2881
(
1995
).
5.
P. W.
Smith
,Jr.
, “
Statistical models of coupled dynamic systems and transition from weak to strong coupling
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
65
,
695
698
(
1979
);
K. L.
Chandiramani
, “
Some simple models describing the transition from weak to strong coupling in statistical energy analysis
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
63
,
1081
1083
(
1978
).
6.
J. Dickey and G. Maidanik, “Mechanical and radiated dissipations in external driven panels,” Proceedings of Internoise 89, 397–402 (1989).
7.
L. Meirovitch, Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics (Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn, 1980).
8.
C. Lesuer, Rayonnement Acoustique des Structures (Editions Eyrolles, Paris, 1988).
9.
G.
Maidanik
and
J.
Dickey
, “
Design criteria for the damping effectiveness of structural fuzzies
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
100
,
2029
2033
(
1996
);
and “On the fuzz in a structural fuzzy,” Proceedings of Internoise 96, Vol. 3, 1297–1302 (1996).
10.
A. D.
Pierce
,
V. W.
Sparrow
, and
D. A.
Russell
, “
Fundamental structural acoustics idealizations for structures with fuzzy internals
,”
Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. J. Vib. Acoust.
117
,
1
10
(
1995
).
11.
M.
Strasberg
and
D.
Feit
, “
Vibration damping of large structures induced by attached small resonant substructures
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
99
,
335
344
(
1996
).
12.
M.
Strasberg
, “
Continuous structures as ‘fuzzy’ substructures
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
100
,
3456
3459
(
1996
).
13.
G.
Maidanik
, “
Power dissipation in a sprung mass attached to a master structure
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
98
,
3527
3533
(
1995
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.