Uncertainties in Environmental Noise Assessments ISO 1996, Effects of Instrument Class and Residual Sound

Similar documents
INSTRUCTION MANUAL. Microphone Type 4966 for Hand held Analyzer Types 2250, 2250 L and Supplement to Instruction Manual BE 1712

7 th International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise Rotterdam 2 nd to 5 th May 2017

DETERMINATION OF SOUND POWER LEVEL OF A TRANSFORMER

Wind turbine noise at neighbor dwellings, comparing calculations and measurements

Wind tunnel acoustic testing of wind generated noise on building facade elements

Analyzer Specifications Technical Bulletin

MICROPHONE WIND SPEED LIMITS DURING WIND FARM NOISE MEASUREMENTS

CORESTA RECOMMENDED METHOD N 6

Certification of AMS acc. EN 15267, Part 3 - Overview and First Experience -

Full Classification acc. to IEC for SoDAR AQ510 Wind Finder. Vincent Camier, Managing Director, Ammonit Measurement GmbH

REPORT NO : JBE002/8/2015/AfroIndiaNoise: August 2015 SUBJECT : Site noise survey DATE : 12 August Prepared for: AfroIndia Elsie River Industria

INTERNATIONAL OIML R 32 RECOMMENDATION. Rotary piston gas meters and turbine gas meters ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

Calibration Summary of Test Report No.: Sample

In addition to reading this assignment, also read Appendices A and B.

General Accreditation Guidance. User checks and maintenance of laboratory balances

Nitrogen subtraction on reported CO 2 emission using ultrasonic flare gas meter

Wind Turbine Generator System Pika T701 Acoustic Test Report

Remote sensing standards: their current status and significance for offshore projects

Understanding the How, Why, and What of a Safety Integrity Level (SIL)

TG GUIDELINES CONCERNING CALIBRATION INTERVALS AND RECALIBRATION

Meteorological Measurements OWEZ

ESB TONAL NOISE ASSESSMENT. 30 May West Offaly Power Station. Report Author: Stephen Kearney

Meteorological Measurements OWEZ

Status: Rev: Comments Date: Author: Reviewer:

EUROPEAN pr I-ETS TELECOMMUNICATION September 1995 STANDARD

ANSI N323A and ANSI N323B

Influence of non-standard atmospheric conditions on turbine noise levels near wind farms

Installation and Operation Manual

HUMOR 20. High Accuracy Humidity Calibrator. Water T, p1 HUMOR 20 V1.0

A review of Australian wind farm noise assessment procedures

ESTIMATION OF THE DESIGN WIND SPEED BASED ON

The World Of Weather Data

Special edition paper

Oldman 2 Wind Farm Limited

ProSoft Technology, Inc. Summary Regarding Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Directive 017 of May 2007

OIML R 126 RECOMMENDATION. Edition 1998 (E) ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION. Evidential breath analyzers DE MÉTROLOGIE LÉGALE

Mitos Fluika Pressure and Vacuum Pumps Datasheet

Specific Accreditation Criteria Calibration ISO IEC Annex. Mass and related quantities

6th International Meeting

HUMOR 20. High-precision Humidity Calibrator HUMOR 20. Operation

GUIDANCE NOTE FOR NOISE MEASUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH MHSC MILESTONES

Computationally Efficient Determination of Long Term Extreme Out-of-Plane Loads for Offshore Turbines

New Thinking in Control Reliability

Organisation Internationale de Métrologie Légale

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL AMBIENT SOUND MONITORING NETWORK Annual Report For 2010

Influence of wind direction on noise emission and propagation from wind turbines

Test Summary Report Giraffe 2.0 Hybrid Wind-Solar Power Station - for wind: according to IEC Annex M - for solar: measurement report

ENVIRONMENTAL AND POLLUTANTS GAS ANALYZERS

HUMOR 20 HUMOR 20. High-precision Humidity Calibrator. Water T, p1

The OWEZ Meteorological Mast

ATION TITLE. Survey QC, Decision Making, and a Modest Proposal for Error Models. Marc Willerth, MagVAR

Beamex. Calibration White Paper. Weighing scale calibration - How to calibrate weighing instruments

Requirements for the certification of movements and mechanical watches resistant to magnetic fields of 1.5 T ( G)

Investigating the effects of interchanging components used to perform ripple assessments on calibrated vector network analysers

Hardware Triaxial and Consolidation Testing Systems Pressure Measurement and Control

Paper 2.2. Operation of Ultrasonic Flow Meters at Conditions Different Than Their Calibration

Queue analysis for the toll station of the Öresund fixed link. Pontus Matstoms *

OIML R 143 RECOMMENDATION. Edition 2009 (E) ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

Aspects of gravimeter calibration by time domain comparison of gravity records

CONTENTS 2/9 1.1 OEM7474R. Specification for Buzzer. 1. Scope. 2. General. 3. Maximum Rating. 4. Electrical Characteristics. 5.

WMO LABORATORY INTERCOMPARISON OF RAIN INTENSITY GAUGES

The M-Series Eletta Flow Meter High accuracy DP Flow Meter with multiple functions

PTB Ex PT Scheme. Procedure Instruction of program Explosion Pressure - Test Round 2017

Siting classification for Surface. Michel Leroy, Météo-France

Earmuff Comfort Evaluation

Calibrating a Micropipette

Table of contents. I Drawings 33. A1 Design criteria 1 A1.1 Local thermal discomfort indices... 1

At each type of conflict location, the risk is affected by certain parameters:

Control Strategies for operation of pitch regulated turbines above cut-out wind speeds

APPENDIX A

An Inversion of Acoustical Attenuation Measurements to Deduce Bubble Populations

Paper #: POWER

Part 1: General principles

SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION TO ISO/IEC 17025:2017 ANSI/NCSL Z

Traceable calibration of automatic weighing instruments in dynamic operation

MORE THAN ONE INSERTION LOSS, THROUGHOUT THE DAY, FOR THE SAME OUTDOOR NOISE BARRIER

GEA FOR ADVANCED STRUCTURAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

COMFORT ON YACHTS GUIDE FOR SEPTEMBER American Bureau of Shipping Incorporated by Act of Legislature of the State of New York 1862

Continuous Gas Analysis In situ laser gas analyzers TÜV and MCERTS add-on for LDS 6 operating instructions Compact Operating Instructions

Recommended Practices for Calibration Laboratories

VITLAB micropipette. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

(AS AT 31 st MARCH, 2002)

KENYA ACCREDITATION SERVICE

General European OMCL Network (GEON) QUALITY MANAGEMENT DOCUMENT

1 Chapter 8: Root Locus Techniques. Chapter 8. Root Locus Techniques. 2000, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Nise/Control Systems Engineering, 3/e

Intertek Test Report No CRT-003 Project No. G

Genesis MX SLM-Series

Transmitter mod. TR-A/V. SIL Safety Report

A Study of the Normal Turbulence Model in IEC

AN31E Application Note

Equation 1: F spring = kx. Where F is the force of the spring, k is the spring constant and x is the displacement of the spring. Equation 2: F = mg

Standard Test Method for Measuring Insertion Loss of Pneumatic Exhaust Silencers 1

An Update on IEC TC 81 (Lightning Protection)

Accelerometer mod. TA18-S. SIL Safety Report

Overview ASTATT3. Carry out air tightness testing for single dwellings and other small buildings

PRODUCT CONFORMITY CERTIFICATE

Critical Gust Pressures on Tall Building Frames-Review of Codal Provisions

Noise from wind turbines under non-standard conditions

VITLAB Volumetric instruments

Transferpette. Testing Instructions (SOP) 1. Introduction. May 2009

Transcription:

Uncertainties in Environmental Noise Assessments ISO 1996, Effects of Instrument Class and Residual Sound Douglas Manvell, Erik Aflalo Brüel & Kjær Sound & Vibration A/S, Skodsborgvej 307, DK-2850 Nærum, Denmark, {dmanvell, eaflalo}@bksv.com ISO/DIS 1996-2.2 (2005) Acoustics Description, assessment and measurement of environmental noise Determination of environmental noise levels contains guidelines on assessing the uncertainties of the determined sound pressure levels. This depends on the sound source, measurement time interval, weather conditions, distance from the source, measurement method and instrumentation. Guidelines on estimating the measurement are given. Four main sources of (reproducibility, operating conditions, weather and ground conditions, and residual sound) are combined to determine the overall. Reproducibility represents the influence of the operator, equipment at the same place under constant conditions. A value for IEC 61672-1 Electroacoustics Sound level meters Part 1: Specifications class 1 instrumentation is given. Operating conditions are determined from minimum 3, preferably 5, measurements under repeatable conditions and at a position where variations in meteorological conditions have little influence on results. due to weather and ground conditions depends upon the measurement distance and the prevailing meteorology. A method using a simplified meteo window is provided. due to residual sound varies depending on the difference between measured total values and the residual sound but no more specific guidelines on determining the due to residual sound have been developed. This paper proposes a method compliant with ISO 1996 and shows initial results of investigations to determine the effects of instrumentation class. It will be shown that the choice of instrumentation greatly affects the due to residual sound as this approaches the specific sound, and thus is an important influence on overall. 1 Introduction in ISO 1996 ISO 1996 Acoustics Description, assessment and measurement of environmental noise is currently under revision. The 2nd part, ISO/DIS 1996-2.2 Determination of environmental noise levels [1], contains guidelines on assessing and reporting the uncertainties of the determined sound pressure levels. This depends on the sound source and the measurement time interval, the weather conditions, the distance from the source and the measurement method and instrumentation. Some guidelines on how to estimate the measurement are given, with focus on A-weighted equivalent-continuous sound pressure levels only. Four main sources of (reproducibility, operating conditions, weather and ground conditions, and residual sound) are used and combined to determine the overall (see Table 1). Reproducibility represents the influence of different operator, different equipment, same place and everything else constant. A value for instrumentation conforming with IEC 61672-1 Electroacoustics Sound level meters Part 1: Specifications [2] class 1 is given. Operating conditions are determined from at least 3, and preferably 5, measurements under repeatability conditions (the same measurement procedure, the same instruments, the same operator, the same place) and at a position where variations in meteorological conditions have little influence on the results. The due to weather and ground conditions varies depending upon the measurement distance and the prevailing meteorology. A method using a simplified meteo window is provided. The due to residual sound (the total sound remaining at a given position in a given situation when the specific sounds under consideration are suppressed) varies depending on the difference between measured total values and the residual sound. 2 Notes on in ISO 1996 With short-term assessments of the L Aeq of a stable, continuous source, at close range, under favourable meteorological conditions, without noticeable residual sound, the terms could typically be 1, 0.5, 1.5 and 0 db respectively, giving an overall combined of 3.0 db, something that has proven to be realistic [3, 4]. Note that the values reproduced in Table 1 concern L Aeq levels. Higher uncertainties are to be expected on maximum levels, frequency band levels and levels of tonal components in noise.

Table 1: Overview of the measurement for L Aeq deviation of reproducibility 1) due to operating conditions 2) due to weather & ground conditions 3) in db due to residual sound 4) Combined standard σ t in db Expanded measurement in db 2 2 2 2 1,0 X Y Z 1,0 + X + Y + Z ±2 σ t 1) Different operator, different equipment, same place and everything else constant, see ISO 5725. If class 2 sound level meters or directional microphones are used the value will be larger. 2) To be determined from at least 3, and preferably 5 measurements under repeatability conditions (the same measurement procedure, the same instruments, the same operator, the same place) and at a position where variations in meteorological conditions have little influence on the results. For long-term measurements more measurements will be required to determine the repeatability standard deviation. For road traffic noise some guidance on the value of X is given in 6.2. 3) The value will vary depending upon the measurement distance and the prevailing meteorology. A method using a simplified meteo window is provided in Annex A (in this case Y = σ m ). For long-term measurements different weather categories will have to be dealt with separately and then combined together. For short-term measurements variations in ground conditions will be small. However, for long-term measurements, these variations may add considerably to the measurement. 4) The value will vary depending on the difference between measured total values and the residual sound. Table 2: Determining the of short term measurements due to using IEC 61672 class 1 & 2 instrumentation Factor Specifications minus test IEC 61672 Class 1 IEC 61672 Class 2 Expected effect on short-term L Aeq measurements Specifications minus test Expected effect on short-term L Aeq measurements Directional response 1,0 0,7 2,0 1,7 Estimated from different tolerences Frequency weighting 1,0 1,0 1,8 1,8 Estimated from different tolerences Level linearity 0,8 0,5 1,1 0,8 Estimated from different tolerences Notes Toneburst response 0,5 0,5 1,0 1,0 Long tones Power supply voltage 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,2 From IEC 61672 Static pressure 0,7 0,0 1,0 0,0 Included in weather influence Air temperature 0,8 0,0 1,3 0,0 Included in weather influence Humidity 0,8 0,0 1,3 0,0 Included in weather influence A.C. and Radio Frequency fields 1,3 0,0 2,3 0,0 Except near power systems Calibrator 0,25 0,3 0,4 0,4 From calibrator standard Windscreen 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 Estimated from different tolerences Expanded (2σ) 2,6 1,6 4,5 2,9 Combined (σ) 1,3 0,8 2,2 1,5

The method assumes arithmetic averaging and Gaussian distribution. Discussion of this is outside the scope of this paper. In addition, the values reproduced in Table 1 concern the use of Class 1 instrumentation. However, the standard permits the use of instrumentation systems, including the microphone, cable and recorders if any, that conform to the requirements for a class 1 or class 2 instrument laid down in IEC 61672-1. If class 2 sound level meters or directional microphones are used the value will be larger. ISO TC42/SC1 Working Group 45 (WG45), who is responsible for the development of the standard, has spent much time discussing the guidelines regarding the various sources of and the requirements to instrumentation. However, WG45 has not developed more specific guidelines on determining the due to residual sound (the total sound remaining at a given position in a given situation when the specific sounds under consideration are suppressed). This is the challenge that is taken up by the authors. 2.1 Instrumentation Used The value reproduced in Table 1 for the standard deviation of reproducibility when using Class 1 instrumentation was determined through a variety of procedures. Brüel & Kjær confirmed the figure by investigating the expected effect on short-term measurements of the different factors that are tested for in the IEC 61672 Class 1 specifications. The factors were investigated for typical sources expected to be investigated in ISO 1996. The tolerances were adjusted to those that must be used by sound level meter manufacturers to allow type approval and periodic compliance tests at various test houses. In several cases, the overall effect had to be estimated due to the frequency dependent tolerances. The above does not include the effects of selfgenerating noise. This is covered in the due to residual noise (see below). In addition, the above may underestimate the due to the directional response of the instrumentation if the source under investigation covers a wide angle. The overall combined has been estimated to 1.1 db. Thus, 1.0 db is used in ISO 1996. If class 2 sound level meters or directional microphones are used the value will be larger. Studies carried out at Brüel & Kjær have shown these to be double those of Class 1 instrumentation (see Table 2). In addition, the above may underestimate the due to the directional response of the instrumentation if the source under investigation covers a wide angle, causing an increase in the overall combined to 2.2 db. It should be noted that the above covers a smaller range of meteorological conditions than for Class 1 instrumentation. In addition, it also does not include the effects of selfgenerating noise. As it is twice the value of Class 1, and as ISO 1996 uses 1.0 db for Class 1, an of 2 db is used for Class 2 instrumentation in the following study. Using the same assessment example for Class 2 instrumentation, short-term assessments of the L Aeq of a stable, continuous source, at close range, under favourable meteorological conditions, without noticeable residual sound, the terms could typically be 2, 0.5, 1.5 and 0 db respectively, giving an overall combined of 4.0 db. 3 Determining due to Residual Sound The due to residual sound is dependent on the following primary factors: The parameter measured The difference between measured total values and the residual sound The of the assessments of the total values and the residual sound The due to residual sound varies depending on the difference between measured total values and the residual sound. The authors felt that it was important to investigate the influence of instrument class on reproducibility and the residual sound. For this investigation, the chosen parameter is L Aeq. 3.1 The Difference between Measured Total Values and the Residual Sound Figure 1: The effect of residual sound level on measuring specific sound level The due to residual sound varies depending on the difference between measured total values and

the residual sound (including self-generating noise in the instrumentation). It is well-known how the residual sound level influences measurement of the specific sound level. At 10dB below, the influence has traditionally been accepted to be insignificant (it is, in fact 0.5 db see Figure 1). Later we will show how this factor influences the and the determination of the of the assessment. Table 3: Overview of the measurement for residual sound L Aeq deviation of reproducibility 1) due to operating conditions 2) due to weather and ground conditions 3) Combined standard σ t Expanded measurement 1,0 X Y 2 2 2 1,0 + X + Y 1) Different operator, different equipment, same place and everything else constant, see ISO 5725. If class 2 sound level meters or directional microphones are used the value will be larger. 2) To be determined from at least 3, and preferably 5 measurements under repeatability conditions (the same measurement procedure, the same instruments, the same operator, the same place) and at a position where variations in meteorological conditions have little influence on the results. 3) The value will vary depending upon the measurement distance and the prevailing meteorology. A method using a simplified meteo window is provided in Annex A (in this case Y = σ m ). ±2 σ t 3.2 The of Assessments of Total Values and the Residual Sound It is relatively simple to determine the residual sound level and how the attached to the assessment of residual sound level should be determined. One can regard them as specific sound levels (i.e. the one under investigation) and use the method described in ISO 1996 to determine both the level and the associated with the assessment of this level. Thus, with no residual sound level to deal with, Table 1 can be converted into Table 3 for the assessment of the of the assessment of residual sound level. However, it must be noted that the ability to determine the primary source of residual noise levels will determine the ability to determine Y, the standard due to weather and ground conditions. However, it may not be possible to fulfill the requirement in note 2 regarding meteorological conditions at the same time as assessing the residual sound level without the presence of the specific sound source. The user must make the best efforts possible. If it is not possible, to separately determine Y, then X, the standard due to operating conditions, and Y must then be combined in one single, inseparable factor, determined by sound level measurement. As an example, a short-term assessment of the L Aeq of stable, continuous residual sound from a nearby primary source, under favourable meteorological conditions, could give typical terms of 1, 0.5 and 1.5 db respectively, giving an overall combined of 3.0 db. However, this is not the parameter Z. Determining parameter Z and the overall, combined require further steps. So, now we have a specific sound level (i.e. the overall sound level corrected for the residual sound level), and we have an for the residual sound level. We also have a preliminary for the specific sound level that does not yet account for the effects of residual sound. We will typically have 3 to 5 measurements of the overall sound level and 3 to 5 measurements of the residual sound level from which we will determine the of the specific sound level. 3.3 Determining Overall, Combined and Parameter Z In order to determine the for the specific sound level, σ S, the actual measured overall and residual sound levels are combined. In the example shown in Table 2, this resulted in 15 specific sound levels. From these, the for the specific sound level, σ S, can easily be calculated (in Table 4, resulting in 3.3 db). The standard due to residual sound, Z, can be calculated in accordance with equation 1: Z = σ 2 S σ 2 O In the example in Table 2, this results in Z = 1.3 db. This can then be reported in accordance with ISO 1996. (1)

Table 4: Determining the uncertainties for the specific overall sound levels with σ O, residual sound levels with σ R, with a residual sound level 10 db lower than the overall sound level and Class 1 instrumentation Table 6: Determining the uncertainties for the specific overall sound levels with σ O, residual sound levels with σ R, with a residual sound level 10 db lower than the overall sound level and Class 2 instrumentation Class 1 Residual Z Specific 57,0 60,0 63,0 1,30 66,4 65,9 65,3 63,7 67,8 67,4 67,0 66,0 Overall 70,0 69,8 69,5 69,0 72,3 72,1 72,0 71,7 73,6 73,5 73,4 73,2 (σo) 3,00 (σs) 3,27 Table 5: Determining the uncertainties for the specific overall sound levels with σ O, residual sound levels with σ R, with a residual sound level 5 db lower than the overall sound level and Class 1 instrumentation Class 2 Residual Z Specific 56,0 60,0 64,0 2,68 65,2 64,6 63,6 59,0 67,0 66,6 66,0 64,0 Overall 70,0 69,8 69,5 68,7 73,0 72,9 72,8 72,4 74,8 74,7 74,7 74,4 (σo) 4,00 (σs) 4,81 Table 7: Determining the uncertainties for the specific overall sound levels with σ O, residual sound levels with σ R, with a residual sound level 5 db lower than the overall sound level and Class 2 instrumentation Class 1 Residual Z Specific 62,0 65,0 68,0 6,84 66,4 64,4 60,8 50 67,8 66,4 64,5 50 Overall 70,0 69,3 68,3 65,7 72,3 71,8 71,3 70,2 73,6 73,3 73 72,2 (σo) 3,00 (σs) 7,47 Class 2 Residual Z Specific 61,0 65,0 69,0 7,74 65,2 63,1 51,7 50 67,0 65,7 62,7 50 Overall 70,0 69,4 68,3 63,1 73,0 72,7 72,3 70,8 74,8 74,6 74,3 73,5 (σo) 4,00 (σs) 8,72 The above example was for well-controlled measurements with relatively insignificant residual sound levels. In another example shown in Table 3, the residual sound level is only 5 db below the overall sound level. In this case, some residual sound levels are above the overall sound level and the overall sound level cannot be determined. Default overall sound levels 20dB below the reported overall sound level are entered for these combinations (the 50dB entries in Table 5). This gives a more realistic value. If set blank, the results may not be included in the spreadsheet s calculation and the figure decreases. 20 db is chosen as this is the level at which results to 1 decimal place do not change visibly. Here, the for the specific sound level, σ S, is calculated as 7.5 db, resulting in a standard due to residual sound, Z, of 6.8 db.

3.4 The Influence of Instrumentation Class on When Class 1 instrumentation is replaced by Class 2 instrumentation, the uncertainties for overall sound levels, σ O, and for residual sound levels, σ R,, increase from 3.0dB to 4.0 db, as described earlier. The for the specific sound level, σ S, is calculated as 4.8 db, resulting in a standard due to residual sound, Z, of 2.7 db (Table 6). We now change the residual sound level to 5 db below the overall sound level while still using Class 2 instrumentation. The for the specific sound level, σ S, is then calculated as 8.7 db, resulting in a standard due to residual sound, Z, of 7.7 db (Table 7). The influence of the instrumentation on the 2 cases is shown in Table 8. As it can be seen, there is a significant improvement in the with the use of Class 1 instrumentation when residual sound levels are to be taken into account. Table 8: The effect on (σ S ) for the specific sound level and the standard due to residual sound, Z, of using Class 1 and Class 2 instrumentation, and the effect on the expanded measurement Overall-Residual (db) 5 10 Class σ S Z σ S Z 1 7,5 6,8 3,3 1,3 2 8,7 7,7 4,8 2,7 Difference -1,2-0,9-1,5-1,4 Expanded -2,4-3,0 4 An ISO 1996 Compliant Procedure for Determining due to Residual Sound This paper describes a method to determine the due to residual sound that is compliant with ISO 1996. It involves the following steps: 1. Put the overall and the residual sound levels in a table and calculate the specific sound level for each overall-residual sound level result pair. Note: If the overall level is below the residual sound level, then set specific sound level to 20 db below the arithmetic average of the overall sound levels 2. Calculate the of the matrix of the results (σ S ) 3. Calculate the residual noise (Z) by taking the square root of the difference between the square of the of the matrix of the results (σ S ) and the square of the of the overall sound level (σ O ). The paper shows the initial results of investigations to determine the effects of choice of instrumentation class. It can be seen that the choice of instrumentation class greatly affects the due to residual sound, and thus is an important influence on the overall. References [1] ISO/DIS 1996-2.2 - Acoustics Description, assessment and measurement of environmental noise (2005) [2] IEC 61672-1 Electroacoustics Sound level meters Part 1: Specifications (2002) [3] R. Tyler Measuring Noise Outdoors, IOA Acoustics Bulletin, p.40-41 March/April 2000 (2000) [4] Private correspondence with IOA Measuring Noise Outdoors Seminar 2000 participants