Modelling the excitation force of a standard

tapping machine on lightweight floor structures

by

Andreas Rabold, Martin Buchschmid, Alexander Düster,

Gerhard Müller, Ernst Rank

Reprinted from

JOURNAL OF
BUILDING ACOUSTICS
Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2010

MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO. LTD.

5 Wates Way, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9TB, United Kingdom
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2010 Pages 175–197 175

Modelling the excitation force of a standard

tapping machine on lightweight floor structures
Andreas Rabold3*, Martin Buchschmid2, Alexander Düster4,
Gerhard Müller2, Ernst Rank1
1Lehrstuhl
für Computation in Engineering
2Lehrstuhl für Baumechanik, Department of Civil Engineering and Geodesy,
Technische Universität München, Arcisstr. 21, 80290 München, Germany
3ift Centre for Acoustics, Theodor-Gietl-Str. 7-9, 83026 Rosenheim, Germany
4Numerische Strukturanalyse mit Anwendungen in der Schiffstechnik (M-10), Technische

Universität Hamburg-Harburg, Schwarzenbergstr. 95c, 21073 Hamburg, Germany

(Received 12 August 2010 and accepted 10 November 2010)

ABSTRACT
Up to now the research and development in the field of building acoustics is based mainly on
measurements. In consequence the development and optimization of a new building component
is a very tedious and expensive task. A considerable reduction of these costs could be achieved,
if the optimization relying on measurements would be replaced - at least to some extent - by a
computational prediction model. For these models it is necessary to represent not only the
component and the adjacent rooms but also the excitation in a suitable way. This paper gives an
overview of models for the excitation generated by a standard tapping machine taking into
account the interaction between the impacting steel cylinders of the tapping machine and the
vibrating surface of the floor.

Key words: Standard tapping machine, excitation force, lightweight floor, interaction, improved
excitation model

1. INTRODUCTION
In order to meet the sound insulation requirements of modern living, the optimization
of lightweight floor structures is necessary. Until now this process has mainly been
based on measurements, using a standard tapping machine which excites the floor
according to ISO 140-6 [1]. To avoid tedious setups of measurements it is inevitable for
optimization processes to develop a detailed description of the excitation with the help
of numerical simulations. Several approaches for modeling the excitation of a standard

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rabold@[Link]
176 Modelling the excitation force of a standard
tapping machine on lightweight floor structures

tapping machine have already been published. These range from very simple
descriptions of the excitation force by an impulse to current models which include the
complete admittance of the floor and the excitation source. Nevertheless all these
models neglect the relative velocity between the exciting hammer and the vibrating
structure, which leads to significant errors in the case of lightweight floor structures.
This paper will first give an overview of these models, and then introduce a modified
model, developed in a recent project [2], which considers the time dependency of the
excitation process until the floor-vibrations reach a steady state. The findings in the time
domain were used for a simplified model in the frequency domain which considers the
interaction between the impacting hammer and the vibrating floor. Therefore, the
improved model shows a significantly higher degree of accuracy than previous
publications. This approach to excitation can be used in a computational optimization
model, in which the structural components interact with adjacent rooms in order to
consider the effect of room resonances due to the coupling with the acoustic volume.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives an overview of the most important
excitation models building on each other. Section 3 describes the improved model, first
in the time domain then in the frequency domain. Section 4 compares the improved
model and the measurement results. The discussion of the model is placed in section 5.
Section 6 concludes by summarizing the main features of the proposed model.

2. THEORY
2.1 Model based on Cremer
The tapping machine consists of 5 steel cylinders (hammers) falling down onto the floor
from a height h = 0.04 m with an (overall) frequency of fs = 1/T = 10 Hz. The hammer
impact speed results from the free fall as follows: v̂0 =

2gh =0.886 ms–1. The impulse
resulting from the hammer impact excites the floor vibrations generating the impact
sound transmission through the floor. Figure 1 shows a standard tapping machine as well
as the time history and the spectrum of the excitation force according to Cremer [3].

Figure 1. Standard tapping machine (a) with time history (b) and spectrum (c) of
the excitation force according to [3]

A Fourier series (equation (1)) is used to develop the time response of the excitation
force F(t). The timing t = 0 is chosen in such a way, that the maximum of the excitation
force occurs precisely at that moment. Assuming a symmetric time history it is possible
to reduce the Fourier series to its cosine components.1
1The factor 2 in eqn(1) , which results from the reduction of the double-sided sum (–∞ < n < ∞) to a one-sided

sum (0 < n < ∞), in [3] was included in the calculation of the Fourier coefficients (see eqn(2)).
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2010 177

∞  ∞ ∞
F (t ) = Re ∑ Fn e jω nt  = ∑ Fn cos (ω n t ) = 2∑ Fn cos (ω n t ) + F0 (1)
 −∞  −∞ n =1

The circular frequency ωn is expressed as ωn = n 2π/T. The Fourier coefficients Fn

are determined as in equation (2):

F (t ) cos (ω n t ) dt
1 T
Fn =
T ∫ 0
(2)

If the contact period of the hammer with the floor is very short compared to the time
period between two impacts, then F(t) is already sufficiently decayed before cos(ωnt) is
significantly different from +1. This means that the Fourier coefficients can be
expressed as the momentum I of the steel cylinder.
1 T I
Fn ≈
T ∫ 0
F (t ) dt =
T
(3)

It follows that the amplitude of the excitation force Fn is constant over the frequency.
According to [3] this approximation can only be applied up to frequency f ≈ 1/Tc,
whereby Tc represents the contact time between the hammer’s and the floor surface. The
momentum of the steel cylinder results from its mass M0 and the speed at the point of
impact v̂0. The lower limit (I = M0v̂ 0) applies for ideal plastic impacts, the upper limit
(I = 2M0v̂ 0) for ideal elastic impacts.
The approximation according to [3] is well suited for floors with low admittances
(mobilities) and hard surfaces, as those are likely to show less reaction effect to the
impact of the hammer.
A comprehensive description of the impact process over time, without the
restrictions mentioned above, can also be found in [3] for the impact of a ball on a plate.
It is used as the basis for the improved model in the time domain described hereinafter.
In this context, the calculation of the Fourier coefficients of the force spectrum is not
limited to a certain impact process but can be carried out for nearly any excitation as
long as its time response is known. Table 1 shows examples of the time and frequency
paths of the excitation force for various excitations.

2.2 Model based on Vér

A solution for elastic floor surfaces with the contact stiffness Kc was proposed by [4]
who deduced the force versus time path from the velocity of an impacting hammer (4)
which he assumed to be known.
The hammer impacts the floor with a impact speed of v̂0, remains in contact with the
floor surface during the impact F(t) for half a vibration period and then leaves the floor
with the same speed (in the opposite direction). The contact period Tc is calculated as
in equation (5) from the contact stiffness Kc of the floor surface and the mass of the
hammer M0. After the contact period (t > Tc/2) the value for F(t) = 0.
 Table 1. Force path in the time- and the frequency domain for different excitations according to [3]
178

Type Time history Momentum Spectrum Spectrum

Pulse I = ∫ F (t )dt F (ω ) = I

sin(ω∆ / 2 )
F (ω ) = I
Rectangular pulse I = ∫ F (t )dt = Fm ∆ ω∆ / 2
tapping machine on lightweight floor structures
Modelling the excitation force of a standard

Fs sin(ω∆ / 2 )
F (ω ) =
‘linear’ unloading ω ω∆ / 2
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2010 179

v(t) -v0 F(t)

v0 M0

Kc
t t
-Tc/2 0 Tc/2 -Tc/2 0 Tc/2

v0

Figure 2. Derivation of the excitation force F(t) from the velocity path v(t)

F ( t ) = M 0 vˆ0 ω c cos (ω c t ) (4)

Kc 1 2π
ωc = ; Tc = (5)
M0 2 ωc
Inserting equation (4) in equation (2) and integrating over the contact period yields:

M 0 vˆ0 ω c cos (ω c t ) cos (ω n t ) dtt

1 Tc / 2
Fn =
T ∫ − Tc / 2
(6)

Just like the approximation according to Cremer the practical application of this
model is restricted to floors with low admittances as these are not reflected in the
model. For these floor admittances to be taken into account, the following models work
with appropriate impedances at the interface.

2.3 Model based on Scholl and Maysenhölder

Scholl and Maysenhölder [5] applied the above-mentioned models to light-weight
floors with a higher admittance. The mass of the floor M1 is considered in the
calculation of the circular eigenfrequency as in equation (7). In addition to the contact
stiffness Kc of the floor surface, the stiffness of the excitation K0 is included in order to
be able to model also other excitations (rubber ball, human foot), as well as those from
the tapping machine.

K 1 1
ωc = ; K= ; M= (7)
M 1 1 1 1
+ +
Kc K0 M 0 M1
180 Modelling the excitation force of a standard
tapping machine on lightweight floor structures

Figure 3. Model for the excitation of light-weight floors according to [5]

According to [3] the contact stiffness Kc of the floor surface is determined using the
shear modulus G and the Poisson ratio µ of the floor surface, as well as the radius r of
the hammer (diameter of the cylinder):
Gr
Kc ≈ a ; a = π ,..., 4 (8)
1− µ
A more detailed discussion of the contact stiffness and the contact area can be found
in [6, 7].
The model focuses on the description of the contact stiffness of the floor surface and
different excitations, which made it possible to compare the excitation of a floor by a
standard tapping machine to that by a walking person. The floor itself is included only
with its overall mass and is thus inadequately described as the participation of the floor
mass in the different eigenmodes varies. The stiffness and damping of the floor are not
taken into account.

Figure 4. Form factor for calculating the contact stiffness in relation to the force
distribution during the excitation

2.4 Model based on Brunskog and Hammer

Brunskog and Hammer [8] have developed a model for the spectrum of the excitation
which takes the admittance of the floor fully into account. The excitation force is
derived from the equilibrium of forces during the contact of the hammer with the floor
(Figure 5 (a) - (c)). In order to obtain a time-invariant description, the mass of the
hammer (M0) in the transition from Figure 5(b) to Figure 5(c) is considered as firmly
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2010 181

fixed to the floor, and the excitation is carried out with the as yet unknown impact force
F0. In this case, the admittance Y of the system is composed of a local and a global part.

Figure 5. Model for the excitation of a floor by the impact from a tapping machine
according to [8]

With the Fourier coefficients F′n(ω, n) of the time-invariant reaction force F′(t) of the
floor and the inertia force Mojωnv of the hammer, the following equation results in the
frequency range:
∞
F ′(t ) = ∑ F′ e n
jω n t
, F0,n − Fn′ = jω n M 0 v (9)
n =−∞

Considering v = F′nY in equation, F′n results in:

F0,n
Fn′ = (10)
1 + jω n M 0Y
The value for F0 results from the postulate that, directly after the Dirac impulse, M0
moves with the initial velocity v(0) = v̂ 0, i.e. with the hammer’s fall velocity directly
before the impact. As only half of the (infinitesimally short) impulse is in the time
interval under consideration (t > 0), in [8] it is assumed for the calculation that the actual
initial velocity is v(0)= v̂ 0/2:
1 ∞
v(t = 0 ) =
2π ∫ −∞
v(ω ) dω = vˆ0 / 2 (11)

For the calculation of the actual reaction force Fn, F′n is inverse transformed into the
time domain and its force/time path is cut off at the first zero-crossing of the force
function - which coincides with the hammer lifting off from the floor. Now the part up
to the first zero-crossing is inverse transformed into the frequency range, resulting in
Fn.
182 Modelling the excitation force of a standard
tapping machine on lightweight floor structures

It follows that this model can be applied to all types of floors and floor finishes since
not only the global admittances of the floors are taken into account but also the local
admittances of the floor surfaces. An overview of possible applications of the excitation
models described above is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Overview of possible applications

of the excitation models described above

Model based on:

Cremer Vér Scholl Brunskog

[3] [4] et al. [5] et al. [8]

floor with low admittance (YG → 0)

and hard surface (Tc → 0) ● ● ● ●
floor with low admittance (YG → 0)
and elastic component surface (Tc → 0) ● ● ●
excitation with different contact
stiffness Kc (hammer - foot) ● ●
floor with higher admittance (YG >> 0) ●

However, the excitation spectra of the tapping machine on lightweight floors

calculated in accordance with Brunskog and Hammer do not show the expected
correlation to measured values. The computed results are very close to the limit values
for the ideal plastic impact (see [8]). This does not agree with measured values for
lightweight floors [10] which show significantly higher values in the excitation
spectrum. A possible reason for these discrepancies is the approximation of the initial
velocity v(0)= v̂0/2 and the assumption that the component surface is at rest before the
impact. The impact sound transmission is measured when the floor is in its steady state.
Therefore, a relative velocity between the impacting hammer and the vibrating floor
(due to previous hammer impacts) must be expected. This effect shall be studied in
more detail in the following chapter.

3. MODEL IMPROVEMENT
3.1 Modelling the excitation force in the time domain
In order to get a better understanding of the interaction between the floor and the
impacting hammer, we first take a look at the impact in the time domain. Based on the
results in the time domain, the calculation in the frequency domain will be extended to
include the phenomenon of the relative velocity between the floor and the hammer.
For the time-related modelling of the impact it is possible to use a model by Cremer
and Heckl [3] which describes the impact of a ball on a plate with an additional flexible
covering. Figure 6 shows the model applied to an excitation of a light-weight floor by
a tapping machine (with additional damping at the point of contact taken into account).
The response of the floor is described by a global part (admittance YG of the floor)
and the deformation part at the point of impact (local admittance YL). The local
admittance is the result of the mass of the hammer M0, the damping Cc and the stiffness
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2010 183

M0
YL v0 F0

vL Cc Kc Fc
vG Mi
YG FG
Ci Ki

Figure 6. Improved model for the excitation of the i different eigenmodes of a floor
by the hammer impact from a tapping machine (i = 1,2,3, ..., n)

Kc at the point of contact. The global admittance results from the sum of modal mass
– – –
M i, damping C i and stiffness Ki values.
Based on the equilibrium of the impacting hammer F0(t) and the counteracting
contact force of the floor Fc(t), the equation for the time-related velocity of the hammer
v0(t) results after applying an integration over time, where t = 0 marks the time when
the hammer is released:
dv0 1 t
Fc (t ) = F0 (t ) = M 0 g − M 0
dt
⇒ v0 (t ) = gt −
M0 ∫ 0
Fc (t q ) dt q + Cint (12)

The integration constant Cint can be determined from the initial conditions. Since the
tapping machine rests on the vibrating floor, the hammer moves - before being released
for the drop - initially at the same speed as the floor (vG (t)). The integration constant
can therefore approximately be expressed as Cint = v0,t0 with v0,t0 = vG (t = 0 + (m-1)T).
For the first impact (m = 1) v0,t0 = 0 holds.
In the next step the velocity of the vibrating floor has to be determined. Since the
floor surface at the point of contact moves at the same velocity as the hammer, one
observes:

v0 (t ) = vL (t ) + vG (t ) (13)

The velocity of the floor surface consists of the local deformation component at the
point of impact vL(t) and the global component vG(t) of the floor. The local component
results from the force of impact Fc(t):
t
Fc (t ) = K c ∫ vL (t q ) dt q + Cc vL (14)
0

The global component of the floor vibration is derived with the help of the modal
analysis. In the time domain, the overall vibration can be derived from superposition
of the impulse responses for each eigenmode ϕi of the floor. The real impact at the point
 184 Modelling the excitation force of a standard
tapping machine on lightweight floor structures

of excitation x0, y0 is composed out of ideal individual impulses using the Duhamel
integral [9].
∞
Fc (t q )∑ h
i (t − t q )dt q
t
vG (t ) = ∫ 0
i =1
(15)

1 M Ci
hi (t ) = e− Diω it sin(ω i t ); M i = 2 i ; Di = (16)
M iω i ϕ i ( x0 , y0 ) 2 M iω i

[ cos(ω i t ) − Di sin(ω i t )]
1 − Diω it
h
i (t ) = e (17)
Mi
Thus the problem can be solved numerically for m time steps and Neigen eigenmodes
(ϕi) of the floor. Evaluating the velocity of the hammer and the floor surface during the
impact, we obtain the following equation for the µ-th period of time ∆t:

v0 ( µ∆t ) = vc ( µ∆t ) resp. v0 ( µ∆t ) = vL ( µ∆t ) + vG ( µ∆t ) (18)

After inserting equations (12), (14) and (15) in equation (18) and expressing in
discrete time steps, the following equation results:
µ −1
 
µ −1
Fc,ν Fc,µ  Fc , µ − K c ∑ vL ,ν ∆t µ −1


N eigen


gµ∆t − ∑ ∆t − ∆t + v0,t0 = ν =1
+ ∑  Fc,ν ∆t ∑ h
i (( µ − ν )∆t )  
ν =1 M 0 M0  Cc + K c ∆t 
ν =1  i =1  
 
 
(19)

and after a simple mathematical transposition:

µ −1
 
 c,µ
F − K c ∑ vL ,ν ∆t 
 µ −1
Fc,ν  µ −1


N eigen


Fc,µ ∆t = M 0  gµ∆t − ∑ ∆t + v0,t0  − M 0  ν =1
+ ∑  Fc,ν ∆t ∑ h
i (( µ − ν )∆t )  
 ν =1 M 0   Cc + K c ∆t 
ν =1  i =1  
 
 
(20)

Thus in equation (20) the partial impulse (∆I = Fc,µ∆t) is calculated for each time
step. The time step ∆t has to be selected such that the partial impulse can be
appropriately modelled by a Dirac impulse. This means that the duration of the impulse
must be short enough so that the change of velocity of the floor’s vibration resulting
from the impulse is negligible during the time step (∆vG (∆t) → 0).2

2Contrary to this approach, in [3] this is taken account of by assuming a ‘half’ impulse for the actual time
period.
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2010 185

Using the time-dependent representation of the impact, it is now possible to simplify

the previous models. Calculating with equation (20), choosing a very high contact
stiffness (Kc → ∞) and assuming the admittance of the floor is very small (1/Mi → 0),
one obtains the same results as with the original model according to Cremer, which
simplifies the complete impact process to a Dirac impulse (Figure 7(a)). If a realistic
contact stiffness is taken into account in the calculation, the results fit in with the
modelling according to Vér (Figure 7(b)). The change of the vibration velocity of the
floor vG during the impact remains negligible due to the low floor admittance. If also
the floor admittance (for light-weight floors) is taken into account we arrive at the
model by Brunskog and Hammer (Figure 7(c)). If, in addition, the relative velocity
between floor and hammer, which is the result of previous impacts, is considered we
arrive at Figure 7(d).

Figure 7. Models of the excitation with different levels of simplification, computed

with Equation (20): (a) Kc → ∞, 1/Mi → 0, vG (t = 0) = 0 (b) 1/Mi → 0,
vG(t = 0) = 0 (c) vG(t = 0) = 0 (d) vG (t = 0) ≠ 0

Figure 7(d) shows that the excitation force - depending on the phase shift between
the velocities of hammer and floor - can differ significantly from the results of the other
models up to now. In the following the influence of the relative velocity is discussed for
different types of floors. Table 3 shows an example of the calculation of the vibration
velocity at the point of excitation for two eigenmodes and floor types with different
admittances.
It follows that the relative velocity between floor and hammer is relevant when the
vibration resulting from the previous impact has not yet completely subsided at the time
of the next impact. This is primarily the case with light-weight floors (large admittance)
and low-frequency vibrations (taking a long time to completely subside).
Now a complete computation in the time domain would be possible for a defined
‘measuring interval’, followed by an inverse transformation into the frequency domain.
However, this procedure involves a considerable numerical effort and requires a high
186 Modelling the excitation force of a standard
tapping machine on lightweight floor structures

Table 3. Effect of relative velocity with different admittances and frequencies

ωi = 2π 30 Hz ωi = 2π 200 Hz

low admittance

high admittance

degree of accuracy of the eigenfrequencies in order to represent the relative velocity

between floor and hammer correctly. For this reason a simplified computation in the
frequency domain is proposed as an alternative.

3.2 Modelling the excitation force in the frequency domain

It is possible to describe the interaction between hammer and floor, presented in the
time domain, in the frequency domain approximatively in an iterative process. To do
that, a time-invariant description in the frequency domain is aimed by the model shown
in Figure 6. As in [3] and [8] this is done by introducing an impact force F0,n on the
hammer (M0) which is fixed to the structure, where the index n marks the number of the
Fourier coefficient:

F0,n

M0
v0,n F0,n - M0 jωnv0,n

vL,n Cc Kc YL,n Fc,n = Fn

vG,n Mi
YG,n FG,n
Ci Ki

Figure 8. Model for the excitation force in the frequency domain

BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2010 187

From Figure 8 follows:

Fn = F0,n − M 0 jω n v0,n where v0,n = vL ,n + vG ,n = FnYL ,n + FnYG ,n (21)

After inserting and rearranging the following equation holds, during the contact:
Fn = F0,n − FnYL ,n M 0 jω n − FnYG ,n M 0 jω n
     (22)
Fn , L Fn ,G

The contact force Fn can be split up into a local component Fn,L and a global
component Fn,G. Fn is calculated from the force F0,n, which is reduced depending on the
local admittance YL,n and the global admittance YG,n. If both, the local and global
admittance vanish, then Fn = F0,n, resulting in F0,n as the spectrum of an ideal elastic
impact as shown in the simplified frequency-related model according to Cremer [3]. If
only the global admittance vanishes, then Fn = Fn,L and Fn can be calculated using the
model according to Vér [4] which takes into account the time variance that has been
neglected in equation (22). Here, where both admittances are relevant, the local
component Fn,L is calculated in the first step using a modified model according to Vér
and then the whole force Fn is calculated in the steady state with the help of an iterative
procedure.
The modification of the model for the local component Fn,L requires the inclusion of
the relative velocity vR between the impacting hammer and the vibrating floor,
described in the previous section, as well as the local damping effect Dc = Cc/ (2ωcM0).

vR(t)
v0,t0+v0 M0
v^R e-Dc ωcTc
vR Dc
vG t
-Tc/2 0 Tc/2

v^R
Figure 9. Relative velocity path vR(t)

According to Figure 9, the peak value of the relative velocity v̂ R of the floor and the
impacting hammer is made up of the velocity at the end of the free fall v̂ 0 plus the initial
speed of the hammer when released from the mechanism v̂ 0,t0 and also the already
existing vibration velocity of the floor vG,m of the mth impact of the hammer:

vˆR,m = vˆ0 + v0,t0 − vG ,m (23)

188 Modelling the excitation force of a standard
tapping machine on lightweight floor structures

The relative velocity vR is given as:

vR,m (t ) = vˆR,m e − Dc ω c t sin (ω c t ) (24)

From this the local component Fn,L,m can be derived for the mth impact of the
hammer:
1 Tn / 2 1 Tc / 2
Fn, L ,m =
Tn ∫ − Tn / 2
FL (t )e − jω nt dt =
Tn ∫ − Tc / 2
M 0 v
R,m (t )e − jω nt dt (25)

In equations (24) and (25) the assumption was made, that the contact period Tc =
π/ωc is not significantly influenced by the global admittance of the floor. Fn,L,m is
initially calculated for a single impact. For this, Tn should be selected such that the
vibration of the respective structure has already decayed at the end of the period Tn. For
the structures under consideration in this paper this was Tn = 0.5 s, i.e. the interval
between the repeated impacts of a (single) hammer. From this can be derived the nth
circular frequency ωn = n 2π/Tn = n4 π Hz.
For the first impact v̂ R = v̂ 0 holds. In order to avoid another Fourier transformation
in the subsequent steps of computation, it is possible to calculate Fn,L,m for the
subsequent impacts from the result of the first impact by inserting equation (24) in
equation (25):
vˆR,m
Fn, L ,m = Fn, L ,1 (26)
vˆ0
The global component of the excitation force for a structure with neigen degrees of
freedom is calculated from the global admittance YG,i and the displacements of the
eigenmodes ϕi of the floor at the point of excitation (x0, y0):
neigen

Fn,G = M 0 Fn jω n ∑ YG ,n,i ϕ i2 ( x0 , y0 ) (27)

i =1

For the first impact of the hammer on the floor, which is still at rest, one obtains after
inserting equation (27) in equation (28):
Fn, L ,1
Fn,1 = neigen (28)
1 + M 0 jω n ∑ YG ,n,i ϕ ( x0 , y0 ) 2
i
i =1

From the second to the mth impact on the structure the relative velocity between the
floor, which is now vibrating already, and the impacting hammer have to be taken into
account:
vˆR
Fn, L ,1
vˆ0
Fn,m = neigen
(29)
1 + M 0 jω n ∑ YG ,n,i ϕ i2 ( x0 , y0 )
i =1
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2010 189

The relative velocity v̂ R is calculated according to equation (23) from the velocity of
the hammer at the end of the free fall v̂ 0 plus the initial speed of the hammer when
released from the mechanism v0,t0 and the already existing velocity of the floor vG,m. The
velocity vG,m of the floor at the time of impact is obtained by adding the components of
the individual eigenmodes. The components of the individual eigenmodes are
calculated out of the velocity vG,m-1,i immediately after the last impact, taking into
account the damping Di during the free vibration between two impacts.
neigen

vG ,m = ∑ vˆG ,m −1,i e − Diω iT cos(ω i T + α G ,m −1,i ) (30)

i =1

In equation (30) v̂ G,m-1,i and αG,m-1,i represents the amplitude and the phase of vG,m-1,i
respectively. vG,m-1,i is calculated out of the spectral components as follows for the time
Tc immediately after the last impact (m-1):
nmax
vG ,m −1,i = 2 ∑ vG ,m −1,i ,n e jω nTc (31)
n =1

The Fourier coefficient of the vibration velocity vG,m-1,i,n is calculated from the (still
existing) vibration velocity vG,m-2,i,n of previous impacts (from m > 2) and the excitation
force Fn,m-1 of the preceding hammer impact.

vG ,m −1,i ,n = vG ,m − 2,i ,n e − Diω iT e jω iT + Fn,m −1YG ,n,iϕ i2 ( x0 , y0 ) (32)

The initial velocity v0,t0 of the hammer (when it is released from the mechanism) is
calculated in the same way for the time of release (T – Tfall):
neigen

v0,t0 = ∑ vˆG ,m −1,i e − Diω i (T −Tfall ) cos(ω i (T − Tfall ) + α G ,m −1,i ) (33)

i =1

The time of the free fall between the release from the mechanism and the impact, for
the first impact is: Tfall = 2 s0 / g ≈ 0.09 s. For the subsequent impacts Tfall is also
assumed to be constant.
The transient process described in equations (25) to (33) is calculated until the
structure has reached the steady state. An overview of the iteration scheme used for the
calculation is shown in Figure 10.
The amplitude of the vibration velocity vn(xl, yl) at any point (xl, yl), which is
required for the spectral analysis, can now be calculated directly from the (converged)
vibration velocity at the point of excitation vG,i,n (x0, y0) according to equation (31) and
the deflection of the eigenmode ϕi at point (xl, yl):
neigen
vG ,i ,n ( x0 , y0 )
vn ( xl , yl ) = ∑ ϕ (x , y )
ϕ i ( x0 , y0 ) i l l
(34)
i =1
190 Modelling the excitation force of a standard
tapping machine on lightweight floor structures

Figure 10. Iteration scheme for calculating the spectrum of the excitation
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2010 191

4. RESULTS
4.1 Examples for the computation in time and frequency domain
As a first example the excitation force in time and frequency domain is computed for a
tapping machine standing on a single degree of freedom system with an additional
flexible covering on top. The system and the associated input data for the calculation
are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Model and input data for the calculation

T = 0.1 s, Tn = 0.5 s
M 0 = 0.5 kg
vˆ0 = 0.886 ms −1
K c = 9.4 × 10 6 Nm −1
Dc = 0.015
M 1 = 1.49 kg
ω 1 = K1 / M 1 = 2π 76 Hz
ϕ1 = 1 / M 1 = 0.82
D1 = C1 / 2 M 1ω 1 = 0.019
nmax = 2500
neigen = 1

Equation (20) was used for the calculation for the first 10 hammer impacts in the
time domain. Figure 11, curve (i) shows the calculation results for the first and second
impact as well as the change of the maximum of the excitation force ∆Fc,max during the
transient process (impact m from 1 to 10).
The calculation in the frequency domain was carried out using eqns (25) to (33). The
calculation of the contact period Tc and circular eigenfrequency ωc was carried out by
an approximation using equation (5).
In order to be able to compare the results, an inverse transformation into the time
domain was carried out. The inverse transformed excitation force (curve (ii)) shows
clear differences compared to the direct calculation in the time domain (curve (i)). The
reason for this deviation is the assumption that the global admittance does not affect the
contact period significantly, which was made for the sake of simplification (see
equations (24) and (25). If however the calculation is carried out with the correct
contact period (curve (iii)), a good correlation results.
Comparing the results in the frequency domain (curves (ii) and (iii) in Figure 11
below) one recognizes that the deviations resulting from the simplification are only
noticeable in the high frequency range which is not relevant for this project. Thus the
simplified calculation method is a good approximation for the lower frequency range.
The presentation of the transient process (Figure 11(c)) illustrates the effect of the
relative velocity between component and hammer. In this example the difference
between the maximum excitation force (∆Fc,max) at the 1st impact (M1 still at rest) and
192 Modelling the excitation force of a standard
tapping machine on lightweight floor structures

the 10th impact (M1 in steady state) is approx. 250 N, which is approx. 15% of the
excitation force.

Figure 11. Transient process of excitation. Comparison of the calculations in the

time domain (top) and in the frequency domain (below) for the excitation
force of a hammer. (a) and (b): calculation for the 1st and 2nd impact. (c)
the change of the maximum excitation force ∆Fmax during the transient
process. The calculation was carried out: (i) in the time domain using
equation (20), (ii) in the frequency domain using equations (25) to (33),
with subsequent inverse transformation, (iii) as in (ii) but with corrected
contact period. For better comparability of the results in time and
frequency domain the calculation starts, in contrast to 9, at t = 0 for both
models.

4.2 Comparison with measurement results

Below, the excitation spectrum obtained by the computation is compared with measured
results. The measurements were carried out in the ift Centre for Acoustics using a real
time analyser (type: Norsonic 830) and a force transducer (type: B&K 8230-003) which
was placed beneath one hammer of the tapping machine. The drop height was set to
0.04 m. The other four hammers were not in contact with the test specimen. The
excitation frequency for the measurement therefore was: 2 Hz or Tn = T = 0,5 s.
Figure 12 (a) shows the comparison of the calculated excitation spectrum with
measured values for a nearly ideal elastic impact. To achieve this, a force transducer
was installed on a sufficiently heavy and rigid concrete block and excited directly.
Figure 12 (b) shows the comparison for a situation with a local admittance larger than
zero. To achieve this, various chipboard samples (thickness 19 - 25 mm) were mounted
on the force transducer. The excitation was applied to the chipboard samples. Equation
(25) was used for the calculation, with the following input values:
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2010 193

Table 5. Input data for the calculation, see Figure 12

excitation on force transducer excitation on chipboard

mass of hammer M0 0.5 kg 0.5 kg

radius of hammer r 0.015 m 0.015 m
repetition time Tn = T 0.5 s 0.5 s
shear modulus G 8.75 × 1010 N m–2 1.40 × 108 Nm–2
Poisson’s ratio ν 0.2 0.3
local-damping Dc 0.006 0.015

Figure 12. Comparison of computed and measured values of the spectrum of

excitation force: (a) A nearly ideal elastic impact, (b) impact on chipboard.

Figure 13 shows the comparison in a configuration with a global admittance larger

than zero. In this configuration, the tapping machine was standing on to a timber beam
floor (v0,t0 ≠ 0). The force transducer was mounted on the floor with a sufficiently large
contact area and excited directly (YL → 0). The measured values for different positions
of the standard tapping machine are shown on the left-hand side illustrate the influence
of the different exciting points. On the right-hand side the comparison between
measured and calculated values for the first eigenmode of the boarding on the timber
beam floor is given.
Equations (25) to (33) were used for the calculation, with the following input
parameters:

Table 6. Input data for the calculation, see Figure 13

mass of hammer M0 0.5 kg

radius of hammer r 0.015 m
repetition time Tn = T 0.5 s
shear modulus G 8.75 × 1010 Nm–2
Poisson’s ratio µ 0.2
local damping Dc 0.006
modal damping Di 0.04
eigenfrequency f0 80 Hz
elongation of ϕ(x0,y0) 0.82
number of impacts m 10
194 Modelling the excitation force of a standard
tapping machine on lightweight floor structures

Figure 13. Comparison of the calculation with measured values of the excitation
spectrum on a timber beam floor: (a) Measured values for different
positions of force, (b) Comparison between measured and calculated
values for the first eigenmode of the spruce boarding on a timber beam
floor.

4.3 Calculation for a timber beam floor

In this final example, the excitation force is calculated for a timber beam floor
consisting of timber beams and 22 mm thick chipboard. In the computation, done with
the Finite Element code AdhoC [13], the structure is discretized with a fully three-
dimensional approach, where anisotropic high-order solid finite elements are applied
allowing different polynomial degrees for each direction of the element [12]. The
contact conditions between the beams and the chipboard where modelled in several
ways varying stepwise between clamped and simply supported. The modelling was
validated by comparison of computed and measured eigenfrequencies [11]. For the
calculation of the excitation force, the spatial distribution of the tapping machine
positions on the floor and the different points of excitation of the different steel
cylinders of the tapping machine were taken into account. Equations (25) to (33) were
used for the calculation, with the following input values:

Input data for the calculation, see Figure 14

mass of hammer M0 0.5 kg

radius of hammer r 0.015 m
repetition time Tn 0.5 s
(overall-) frequency fs = 1/T 10 Hz
shear modulus G 1.40 × 108 Nm–2
Poisson’s ratio µ 0.3
local damping Dc 0.015
number of impacts m 5

Note that in equation (31) the velocity for the point of contact of the next impact has
to be calculated. The calculation was carried out for 250 eigenvalues (eigenmodes and
eigenfrequencies) of the floor and for four tapping machine positions with five
excitation points each. The modal damping was determined according to [11]. Figure
14 shows the four tapping machine positions on the timber beam floor and the
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2010 195

calculated excitation spectra (minimum and maximum) are presented. There ocure
peaks in the frequency band from 80-200 Hz which are higher than the low frequency
limit. The peaks results out of the consideration of the relative velocity vR in the
improved model. This phenomenon can also be observed in the measurements as shown
in Figure 13.

Figure 14. Calculation of the excitation spectrum on a timber beam floor. The
different tapping machine positions on the floor are shown on the left; on
the right the calculated spectra of the individual hammers (minimum and
maximum).

Considering the global admittance and relative velocity changes the excitation force
by max. ±50% in this example (depending on the point of excitation/measuring and the
eigenmode respectively). Effects of this order of size can only be observed for very
light-weight floors, such as the timber beam floor shown here. In floor constructions
with higher mass used in practice including a floating floor screed the illustrated effect
plays only a minor role due to the much lower admittance of these floors.

5. DISCUSSION
As mentioned above, the process of optimization of lightweight floor structures has
mainly been based mainly on measurements using the standard tapping machine. In
order to avoid tedious measurement setups, several approaches simulating the
excitation of the tapping machine have been developed.
However in all these models the relative velocity between the exciting hammer and
the vibrating structure is neglected, which leads to significant errors in the case of
lightweight floor structures. In this paper a more realistic model for the calculation of
the excitation force in the time domain and the frequency domain was introduced. The
findings in the time domain were transformed into a simplified model in the frequency
domain, leading to a significant reduction of the numerical calculation effort. Special
focus was placed on an accurate description of the time dependency of the force and the
interaction between the impacting hammer and the vibrating surface of the floor. Still
the model requires a few approximations in order to simplify the simulation. Firstly, it
is assumed that the contact time is determined by the local admittance of the contact
196 Modelling the excitation force of a standard
tapping machine on lightweight floor structures

point only. This results in an error particularly in the higher frequency range. To
investigate the effect of this approximation the simplified approach was compared to
exact calculations carried out in the time domain. It was shown that the excitation
spectra derived from simplified computation correlate closely with the reference values
in the frequency range, relevant for this problem. Secondly, the contact point velocity
of the previous impact was used in order to approximate the initial speed of the falling
hammer when released from the mechanism. Here, a further refinement might be
achieved by using the resulting velocity of the hammer derived from the velocity of the
tapping machine at its supporting points. Finally the simulation model was validated by
comparing results with measurements. A good agreement was observed and the model,
whose prediction even follows resonant peaks, seems to be promising.

6. CONCLUSION
The simplified simulation method introduced in this paper provides a realistic model for
the time dependent interaction between the tapping machine and lightweight floor
constructions. The excitation spectra can be predicted within sufficient accuracy for the
frequency range of interest. As the method provides a practical solution it can be
applied for impact sound prediction of lightweight floors in FEM models or analytical
models.

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the helpful discussions, in particular with Ulrich Schanda
(University of applied science, Rosenheim), Andreas Mayr (University of applied
science, Rosenheim) and Joachim Hessinger (ift Rosenheim). The financial support
provided by the AiF and the coordination of the project by the Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Holzforschung (DGfH) is also thankfully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
[1] EN ISO 140-06, Acoustics - Measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of
building elements - Part 6: Laboratory measurements of impact sound insulation
of floors, 1998-12.
[2] Rabold, A., Rank, E., Untersuchung der akustischen Wechselwirkungen von
Holzdecken und Deckenauflage zur Entwicklung neuartiger
Schallschutzmaflnahmen (Investigation of the acoustic interaction between floor
and topping for developing new improvements of sound insulation); Teilbericht:
Anwendung der Finiten Elemente Methode auf die Trittschallberechnung (partial
report: FEM based prediction model for impact sound level), Technical report,
chair for Computation in Engineering, TU München, 2009.
[3] Cremer, L., Heckl, M., Körperschall: Physikalische Grundlagen und technische
Anwendungen (Structure-borne Sound: Structural vibrations and sound radiation
at audio frequencies), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1996.
[4] Vér, I.L., Impact noise isolation of composite floors, The journal of the Acoustic
Society of America, 1971, 50, 1043-1050.
BUILDING ACOUSTICS · Volume 17 · Number 3 · 2010 197

[5] Scholl, W., Maysenhölder, W., Impact sound insulation of timber floors:
Interaction between source, floor coverings and bearing floor, Journal of Building
Acoustics, 1999, 6, 43-61.
[6] Petersson, B.A.T., Heckl, M., Concentrated excitation of structures, Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 1996, 196, 295-321.
[7] Brunskog, J. and Hammer, P. Rigid indenter excitation of plates, Acta Acustica -
Acustica, 2003, 89, 460 - 470.
[8] Brunskog, J., Hammer, P., The interaction between the ISO tapping machine and
lightweight floors, Acta Acustica - Acustica, 89, 2003, 296 - 308.
[9] White, R.G., Walker, J.G., Noise and Vibration, John Wiley and Sons, 1982.
[10] Rabold, A., Düster, A., Rank, E., Anwendung der Finiten Elemente Methode auf
die Trittschallberechnung von Holzdecken (FEM based prediction model for the
impact sound transmission of timber floors), DAGA’07, 2007, 261-262.
[11] Rabold, A., Düster, A., Berücksichtigung der Dämpfung bei der
Trittschallberechnung auf Basis der Finite Elemente Methode (Consideration of
damping at the FEM based impact sound prediction), DAGA’08, 2008, 411-412.
[12] Düster,A., Bröker, H., Rank, E., The p-version of the finite element method for
three-dimensional curved thin walled structures, International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 52, 2001, 673-703.
[13] Düster, A.; Bröker, H.; Heidkamp, H.; Heisserer, U.; Kollmannsberger, S.;
Krause, R.; Muthler, A.; Niggl, A.; Nübel, V.; Rabold, A; Rücker, M.; Scholz, D.
AdhoC4 User’s Guide, 2006