the method and system , according to the present invention , is used to develop and measure complex flexural wavenumbers and the corresponding wave propagation coefficients of a beam undergoing transverse motion . an inverse method has been developed using seven transfer function measurements . these seven transfer function measurements are combined to yield closed form values of flexural wavenumber and wave propagation coefficients at any given test frequency . finally , young &# 39 ; s modulus , spring stiffnesses , dashpot damping values , and boundary condition parameters , among other parameters , are calculated from the flexural wavenumber and wave propagation coefficients . according to an exemplary test configuration 10 , fig1 a shaker table 12 initiates transverse motion 14 into a beam 16 . the beam 16 is connected to the shaker table 12 with a spring 18 and dashpot 20 at each end 22 . fig1 represents a double translational spring and damper input configuration . other test configurations are also possible , including the shaker table 12 inputting energy into only one end 22 of the beam 16 with the other end terminated to ground 24 directly , as shown in fig2 or terminated to ground 24 with a spring 18 and dashpot 20 , as shown in fig3 or terminated to ground 24 and the shaker 12 directly , as shown in fig4 . fig2 represents a single translational spring and damper input configuration with the other end pinned . fig3 represents a single translational spring and damper input configuration with the other end having a translational spring and damper . fig4 represents a single pin input configuration with the other end pinned . these approaches are intended for use when a beam 16 is to undergo motion in the transverse direction 14 . this system typically arises in cars , ships , aircraft , bridges , buildings and other common structures . in any of the embodiments shown in fig1 - 4 sensors 26 such as accelerators are positioned equally along beam 22 . as discussed above , a minimum of seven such sensors 22 are required . optionally , a reference sensor 28 can be joined to shaker table 12 to read the input motion 14 . the input motion 14 can also be read directly from the shaker table 12 controls . for simplicity , the present invention will be described as it relates to the derivation of the linear equations of motion of the system with a spring 18 and dashpot 20 boundary condition at each end 22 , but this is for exemplary purposes only , and is not intended to be a limitation . the system model of the beam is the bernoulli - euler beam equation written as ei = ∂ 4  u  ( x , t ) ∂ x 4 + ρ   a b  ∂ 2  u  ( x , t ) ∂ t 2 = 0 , ( 1 ) where x is the distance along the length of the beam in meters , t is time in seconds , u is the displacement of the beam in the ( transverse ) y direction in meters , e is the unknown frequency - dependent , complex young &# 39 ; s modulus ( n / m 2 ), i is the moment of inertia ( m 4 ), ρ is the density ( kg / m 3 ), and a b is the cross - sectional area of the beam ( m 2 ). implicit in equation ( 1 ) is the assumption that plane sections remain planar during bending ( or transverse motion ). additionally , young &# 39 ; s modulus , the moment of inertia , the density , and the cross sectional area are constant across the entire length of the beam . the displacement is modeled as a steady state response and is expressed as where ω is the frequency of excitation ( rad / s ), u ( x , ω ) is the temporal fourier transform of the transverse displacement , and i is the square root of − 1 . the temporal solution to equation ( 1 ), derived using equation ( 2 ) and written in terms of trigonometric functions , is u ( x , ω )= a ( ω ) cos [ α ( ω ) x ]+ b ( ω ) sin [ α ( ω ) x ]+ c ( ω ) cos h [ α ( ω ) x ]+ d ( ω ) sin h [ α ( ω ) x ]′ ( 3 ) where a ( ω ), b ( ω ), c ( ω ), and d ( ω ) are wave propagation coefficients and α ( ω ) is the flexural wavenumber given by α  ( ω ) = [ ω 2 ( ei / ρ   a b ) ] 1 / 4 . ( 4 ) for brevity , the ω dependence is omitted from the wave propagation coefficients and the flexural wavenumber during the remainder of the disclosure and α ( ω ) is references as α . note that equations ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) are independent of boundary conditions , and the inverse model developed in the next section does not need boundary condition specifications . boundary conditions are chosen , however , to show that the boundary parameters can be estimated and to run a realistic simulation . one of the most typical test configurations is the beam mounted to shock mounts on each end that are attached to a shaker table that generates a vibrational input , as shown in fig1 . using the middle of the beam as the coordinate system origin , these boundary conditions are modeled as ∂ 2  u  ( - l / 2 , t ) ∂ x 2 = 0 , ( 5 ) - ei  ∂ 2  u  ( - l / 2 , t ) ∂ x 3 = k 1  [ u  ( - l / 2 , t ) - v  ( t ) ] + c 1  [ ∂ u  ( - l / 2 , t ) ∂ t - ∂ v  ( t ) ∂ t ] , ( 6 ) ∂ 2  u  ( l / 2 , t ) ∂ x 2 = 0 , ( 7 ) - ei  ∂ 3  u  ( l / 2 , t ) ∂ x 3 = k 2  [ u  ( l / 2 , t ) - v  ( t ) ] + c 2  [ ∂ u  ( l / 2 , t ) ∂ t - ∂ v  ( t ) ∂ t ] , ( 8 ) inserting equation ( 3 ) into equation ( 5 ), ( 6 ), ( 7 ), ( 8 ), and ( 9 ) yields the solution to the wave propagation coefficients . inserting these back into equation ( 3 ) is the displacement of the system , and is sometimes called the forward solution . the wave coefficient a is a t = [ ( k 1 +    ω   c 1 ) - ( k 2 +    ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  cos  ( α  l 2 )  cosh  ( α  l 2 )  sinh  ( α  l 2 ) - [ ( k 1 +    ω   c 1 ) - ( k 2 +    ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  sin  ( α  l 2 )  cosh 2  ( α  l 2 ) - 4  ( k 1 +    ω   c 1 )  ( k 2 +    ω   c 2 )  sin  ( α  l 2 )  cosh  ( α  l 2 )  sinh  ( α  l 2 ) , ( 11 ) a b = 2  ( ei   α 3 ) 2  sin 2  ( α  l 2 )  cosh  ( α  l 2 ) - 2  [ ( k 1 +    ω   c 1 ) - ( k 2 +    ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  sin 2  ( α  l 2 )  cosh  ( α  l 2 )  sinh  ( α  l 2 ) - 2  ( ei   α 3 ) 2  cos 2  ( α  l 2 )  sinh 2  ( α  l 2 ) - 2  [ ( k 1 +    ω   c 1 ) - ( k 2 +    ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  cos  ( α  l 2 )  sin  ( α  l 2 )  sinh 2  ( α  l 2 ) + 2  [ ( k 1 +    ω   c 1 ) - ( k 2     ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  cos 2  ( α  l 2 )  cosh  ( α  l 2 )  sinh  ( α  l 2 ) - 2  [ ( k 1 +    ω   c 1 ) - ( k 2 +    ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  cos  ( α  l 2 )  sin  ( α  l 2 )  cosh 2  ( α  l 2 ) - 8  ( k 1 +    ω   c 1 )  ( k 2 +    ω   c 2 )  cos  ( α  l 2 )  sin  ( α  l 2 )  cosh  ( α  l 2 )  sinh  ( α  l 2 ) ( 12 ) b t = - [ ( k 1 +    ω   c 1 ) + ( k 2     ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  sin  ( α  l 2 )  cosh  ( α  l 2 )  sinh  ( α  l 2 ) - [ ( k 1 +    ω   c 1 ) + ( k 2 +    ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  cos  ( α  l 2 )  sinh 2  ( α  l 2 ) , ( 14 ) b b = 2  ( ei   α 3 ) 2  cos 2  ( α  l 2 )  sinh 2  ( α  l 2 ) - 2  [ ( k 1 +    ω   c 1 ) - ( k 2 +    ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  cos 2  ( α  l 2 )  cosh  ( α  l 2 )  sinh  ( α  l 2 ) - 2  ( ei   α 3 ) 2  sin 2  ( α  l 2 )  cosh 2  ( α  l 2 ) + 2  [ ( k 1 +    ω   c 1 ) - ( k 2 +    ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  cos  ( α  l 2 )  sin  ( α  l 2 )  cosh 2  ( α  l 2 ) + 2  [ ( k 1 +    ω   c 1 ) - ( k 2 +    ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  sin 2  ( α  l 2 )  cosh  ( α  l 2 )  sinh  ( α  l 2 ) + 2  [ ( k 1 +    ω   c 1 ) - ( k 2 +    ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  cos  ( α  l 2 )  sin  ( α  l 2 )  sinh 2  ( α  l 2 ) + 8  ( k 1 +    ω   c 1 )  ( k 2 +    ω   c 2 )  cos  ( α  l 2 )  sin  ( α  l 2 )  cosh  ( α  l 2 )  sinh  ( α  l 2 ) ( 15 ) c t = [ ( k 1 + i   ω   c 1 ) - ( k 2 + i   ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  cos 2  ( α  l 2 )  sinh  ( α  l 2 ) - [ ( k 1 + i   ω   c 1 ) - ( k 2 + i   ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  cos  ( α  l 2 )  sin  ( α  l 2 )  cosh  ( α  l 2 ) - 4  ( k 1 + i   ω   c 1 )  ( k 2 + i   ω   c 2 ) ]  cos  ( α  l 2 )  sin  ( α  l 2 )  sinh  ( α  l 2 ) . ( 17 ) d t = - [ ( k 1 + i   ω   c 1 ) + ( k 2 + i   ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  sin 2  ( α  l 2 )  cosh  ( α  l 2 ) - [ ( k 1 + i   ω   c 1 ) + ( k 2 + i   ω   c 2 ) ]  ( ei   α 3 )  cos  ( α  l 2 )  sin  ( α  l 2 )  sinh  ( α  l 2 ) . ( 19 ) these coefficients are used for the simulation below . if the beam model corresponds to fig2 , or 4 , then the boundary conditions given in equations ( 5 )-( 8 ) change slightly as do the wave propagation coefficients . equation ( 3 ) has five unknowns and is nonlinear with respect to the unknown flexural wavenumber . it will be shown that using seven independent , equally spaced measurements , that the five unknowns can be estimated with closed form solutions . furthermore , in the next section , it will be shown that the components that comprise the beams mounting system can also be estimated . seven frequency domain transfer functions of displacement are now measured . these consist of the measurement at some location divided by a common measurement . typically this would be an accelerometer at a measurement location and an accelerometer at the base of a shaker table . these seven measurements are set equal the theoretical expression given in equation ( 3 ) and are listed as t - 3 = u - 3  ( - 3   δ , ω ) v 0  ( ω ) = a   cos  ( 3   α   δ ) - b   sin  ( 3   α   δ ) + c   cosh  ( 3   α   δ ) - d   sinh  ( 3   αδ ) , ( 20 ) t - 2 = u - 2  ( - 2   δ , ω ) v 0  ( ω ) = a   cos  ( 2   α   δ ) - b   sin  ( 2   α   δ ) + c   cosh  ( 2   α   δ ) - d   sinh  ( 2   αδ ) , ( 21 ) t - 1 = u - 1  ( -  δ , ω ) v 0  ( ω ) = a   cos  ( α   δ ) - b   sin  ( α   δ ) + c   cosh  ( α   δ ) - d   sinh  ( αδ ) , ( 22 ) t 0 = u 0  ( 0 , ω ) v 0  ( ω ) = a + c , ( 23 ) t 1 = u 1  ( δ , ω ) v 0  ( ω )  a   cos  ( αδ ) + b   sin  ( α   δ ) + c   cosh  ( αδ ) + d   sinh  ( α   δ ) , ( 24 ) t 2 = u 2  ( 2  δ , ω ) v 0  ( ω )  a   cos  ( 2  αδ ) + b   sin  ( 2  α   δ ) + c   cosh  ( 2  αδ ) + d   sinh  ( 2  α   δ ) ,  and ( 25 ) t 3 = u 3  ( 3  δ , ω ) v 0  ( ω )  a   cos  ( 3  αδ ) + b   sin  ( 3  α   δ ) + c   cosh  ( 3  αδ ) + d   sinh  ( 3  α   δ ) , ( 26 ) where δ is the sensor to sensor separation distance ( m ) and v 0 ( ω ) is the reference measurement . note that the units of the transfer functions given in equations ( 20 )-( 26 ) are dimensionless . equation ( 22 ) is now subtracted from equation ( 24 ), equation ( 21 ) is subtracted from equation ( 25 ), and equation ( 20 ) is subtracted from equation ( 26 ), yielding the following three equations : b   sin  ( α   δ ) + d   sinh  ( α   δ ) = t 1 - t - 1 2 , ( 27 ) b   sin  ( 2  α   δ ) + d   sinh  ( 2  α   δ ) = t 2 - t - 2 2 , and ( 28 ) b   sin  ( 3  α   δ ) + d   sinh  ( 3  α   δ ) = t 3 - t - 3 2 . ( 29 ) cosh  ( αδ )  cos  ( αδ ) - [  t 2 - t - 2 2  ( t 1 - t - 1 ) ] [  cosh  ( αδ ) + cos  ( αδ ) ] + [  t 3 - t - 3 + t 1 - t - 1 4  ( t 1 - t - 1 ) ] = 0 . ( 30 ) equation ( 22 ) is now added to equation ( 24 ) and equation ( 21 ) is added to equation ( 25 ), yielding the following two equations : a   cos  ( αδ ) + c   cosh  ( αδ ) = t 1 + t - 1 2 , ( 31 ) a   cos  ( 2  αδ ) + c   cosh  ( 2  αδ ) = t 2 + t - 2 2 . ( 32 ) equations ( 23 ), ( 31 ), and ( 32 ) are now combined to yield the following equation : cosh  ( αδ )  cos  ( αδ ) - [  t 2 - t - 2 2  t 0 ] [  cosh  ( αδ ) + cos  ( αδ ) ] + [  t 2 + t - 2 + 2  t 0 4  t 0 ) ] = 0 . ( 33 ) equation ( 30 ) and ( 33 ) are now combined , and the result is a binomial expression with respect to the cosine function , and is written as a = 4 t 1 2 − 4 t − 1 2 + 4 t − 2 t 0 − 4 t 0 t 2 , ( 35 ) b = 2 t − 2 t − 1 − 2 t − 2 t 1 + 2 t − 1 t 0 2 t 0 t 1 + 2 t − 1 t 2 − 2 t 1 t 2 + 2 t 0 t 3 − 2 t − 3 t 0 , ( 36 ) c = t − 1 2 − t 1 2 + t 2 2 − t − 2 2 + t − 3 t − 1 − t − 1 t 3 + t − 3 t 1 − t 1 t 3 + 2 t 0 t 2 − 2 t − 2 t 0 . ( 37 ) cos  ( αδ ) = - b ± b 2 - 4   ac 2  a = φ , ( 38 ) where φ is typically a complex number . equation ( 38 ) is two solutions to equation ( 34 ). one , however , will have an absolute value less than one and that is the root that is further manipulated . the inversion of equation ( 38 ) allows the complex flexural wavenumber α to be solved as a function of φ at every frequency in which a measurement is made . the solution to the real part of α is re  ( α ) = { 1 2  δ  arc   cos  ( s ) + n   π 2  δ n   even 1 2  δ  arc   cos  ( - s ) + n   π 2  δ n   odd , ( 39 ) s = [ re  ( φ ) ] 2 + [ im  ( φ ) ] 2 - { [ re  ( φ ) ] 2 + [ im  ( φ ) ] 2 } 2 - { 2  [ re  ( φ ) ] 2 - 2  [ im  ( φ ) ] 2 - 1 } , ( 40 ) n is a non - negative integer and the capital a denotes the principal value of the inverse cosine function . the value of n is determined from the function s , which is a periodically varying cosine function with respect to frequency . at zero frequency , n is 0 . every time s cycles through π radians ( 180 degrees ), n is increased by 1 . when the solution to the real part of α is found , the solution to the imaginary part of α is then written as im  ( α ) = 1 δ  log e  { re  ( φ ) cos  [ re  ( α )  δ ] - im  ( φ ) sin  [ re  ( α )  δ ] } . ( 41 ) once the real and imaginary parts of wavenumber α are known , the complex valued modulus of elasticity can be determined at each frequency with e  ( ω ) = re  [ e  ( ω ) ] + i   im  [ e  ( ω ) ] = ρ   a b  ω 2 i  [ re  ( α ) + i   im  ( α ) ] 4 . ( 42 ) assuming that the density , area , and moment of inertia of the beam are known . equations ( 20 )-( 42 ) produce an estimate young &# 39 ; s modulus at every frequency in which a measurement is conducted . b = 2  ( t 1 - t - 1 )  cosh  ( αδ ) - ( t 2 - t - 2 ) 4   sin  ( αδ )  [ cosh  ( αδ ) - cos  ( αδ ) ] ( 43 ) d = ( t 2 - t - 2 ) - 2  ( t 1 - t - 1 )  cos  ( αδ ) 4   sinh  ( αδ )  [ cosh  ( αδ ) - cos  ( αδ ) ] . ( 44 ) a = 2  t 0  cosh  ( αδ ) - ( t 1 + t - 1 ) 2  [ cosh  ( αδ ) - cos  ( αδ ) ] ( 45 ) c = ( t 1 + t - 1 ) - 2  t 0  cos  ( αδ ) 2  [ cosh  ( αδ ) - cos  ( αδ ) ] . ( 46 ) equations ( 43 )-( 46 ) are the estimates of the complex wave propagation coefficients . these are normally considered less important than the estimate of the flexural wavenumber . it will be shown , however , that these coefficients can be used to estimate the boundary condition parameters of the beam . inserting equations ( 2 ), ( 3 ), ( 4 ), and ( 9 ) into equation ( 6 ) and solving for the boundary parameters at x =− l / 2 yields k 1 = re  { ( ei   α 3 )  ⌊ a   sin  ( α  l 2 ) + b   cos  ( α  l 2 ) + c   sinh  ( α  l 2 ) - d   cosh  ( α  l 2 ) ⌋ [ a   cos  ( α  l 2 ) - b   sin  ( α  l 2 ) + c   cosh  ( α  l 2 ) - d   sinh  ( α  l 2 ) - 1 ] } ( 47 ) c 1 = 1 ω  im  { ( ei   α 3 ) [ a   sin  ( α  l 2 ) + b   cos  ( α  l 2 ) + c   sinh  ( α  l 2 ) - d   cosh  ( α  l 2 ) ] [ a   cos  ( α  l 2 ) - b   sin  ( α  l 2 ) + c   cosh  ( α  l 2 ) - d   sinh  ( α  l 2 ) - 1 ] } . ( 48 ) similarly , inserting equations ( 2 ), ( 3 ), ( 4 ), and ( 9 ) into equation ( 8 ) and solving for the boundary parameters at x = l / 2 yields k 2 = re  { ( - ei   α 3 ) [ a   sin  ( α  l 2 ) - b   cos  ( α  l 2 ) + c   sinh  ( α  l 2 ) + d   cosh  ( α  l 2 ) ] [ a   cos  ( α  l 2 ) + b   sin  ( α  l 2 ) + c   cosh  ( α  l 2 ) + d   sinh  ( α  l 2 ) - 1 ] } ( 49 ) c 2 = 1 ω  im  { ( - ei   α 3 ) [ a   sin  ( α  l 2 ) - b   cos  ( α  l 2 ) + c   sinh  ( α  l 2 ) + d   cosh  ( α  l 2 ) ] [ a   cos  ( α  l 2 ) + b   sin  ( α  l 2 ) + c   cosh  ( α  l 2 ) + d   sinh  ( α  l 2 ) - 1 ] } . ( 50 ) thus , once the flexural wavenumber and wave coefficients are estimated , the properties of the springs and dashpots at the boundaries can be calculated . numerical simulations conducted to determine the effectiveness of this method use the following parameters to define a baseline problem : re ( e )=( 3 · 10 10 + 10 7 f ) n / m 2 , im ( e )=( 3 · 10 9 + 10 6 f ) n / m 2 , ρ = 5000 kg / m 3 , a b = 0 . 02 m 2 , i = 6 . 67 × 10 − 5 m 4 , l = 3 m , δ = 0 . 5 m , k 1 = 50000 n / m , c 1 = 4000 n · s / m , k 2 = 60000 n / m , and c 2 = 5000 n · s / m where f is frequency in hz . fig5 a and 5b represent a typical transfer function of the beam displacement measured at x = 0 m , which is the middle of the beam , divided by base displacement . the top plot , fig5 a , is the magnitude versus frequency and the bottom plot , fig5 b , is the phase angle versus frequency . this figure was constructed by inserting the above parameters into equations ( 3 ), ( 4 ), ( 10 ), ( 11 ), ( 12 ), ( 13 ), ( 14 ), ( 15 ), ( 16 ), ( 17 ), ( 18 ), and ( 19 ) and calculating the solution ( a forward model ). [ 0099 ] fig6 graphs the function s versus frequency . it was calculated by inserting the left - hand side of equations ( 20 )-( 26 ) into equations ( 34 )-( 40 ) and represents the first step of the inverse method calculations . fig7 a and 7b represent the flexural wavenumber versus frequency . the top plot , fig7 a , is the real part and the bottom plot , fig7 b , is the imaginary part . the values created using equation ( 4 ) ( the forward solution ) are shown as solid lines and the values calculated ( or estimated ) using equations ( 34 )-( 41 ) ( the inverse solution ) are shown with x &# 39 ; s and o &# 39 ; s . note that there is total agreement among the forward and inverse solutions . fig8 - 11 are the wave propagation coefficients a , b , c , and d versus frequency , respectively . the top plots are the magnitudes and the bottom plots are the phase angles . the values created using equation ( 10 )-( 19 ) ( the forward solution ) are shown as solid lines and the values calculated using equations ( 43 )-( 46 ) ( the inverse solution ) are shown with x &# 39 ; s and o &# 39 ; s . fig1 a and fig1 b graph the real and imaginary parts of young &# 39 ; s modulus versus frequency . the actual values are shown as solid lines and the values calculated using equation ( 42 ) are shown with x &# 39 ; s and o &# 39 ; s . fig1 is the boundary condition parameters of mount one versus frequency . the top plot is the stiffness and the bottom plot is the damping . the actual values are shown as solid lines and the values calculated using equations ( 47 ) and ( 48 ) are shown with x &# 39 ; s and o &# 39 ; s . fig1 is the boundary condition parameters of mount two versus frequency . the top plot , fig1 a , is the stiffness and the bottom plot , fig1 b , is the damping . the actual values are shown as solid lines and the values calculated using equations ( 49 ) and ( 50 ) are shown with x &# 39 ; s and o &# 39 ; s . in light of the above , it is therefore understood that within the scope of the appended claims , the invention may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described .