• Volume/Page
  • Keyword
  • DOI
  • Citation
  • Advanced
   
 
 
 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

SECTION LISTING

BROWSE VOLUMES

Year Range: 
Search Issue | RSS Feeds RSS
Previous Issue Next Issue

Nov 1976

Volume 60, Issue S1, pp. S1-S125

Return to All Sections
back to top
RSS Feeds
back to top Session JJ. Noise VI. Community Noise Assessment, Measurement and Monitoring
Contributed Papers
FREE

Politics and noise control (A)

R. Way and A. E. Perez

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 60, Issue S1, pp. S83-S83 (1976); (1 page)

Online Publication Date: 11 Aug 2005

Full Text: | Download PDF

Show Abstract
The early 1970's saw a proliferation of noise control legislation at all levels of government in this country. Many of these efforts failed and continue to fail, amid continuing public support, as a result of the political system. The 1971 Minnesota Legislature mandated the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) to control noise that “may be injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or could interfere unreasonably with the enjoyment of life or property.” This mandate is supported by one of the most comprehensive examples of noise control legislation in existence. The PCA in responding to the mandate was faced with a State political system burdened with past pollution control legislation, and leery of major commitments to a program which lacked the federal support of previous efforts. In addition, the political system was under pressure from powerful political lobbies to stop any further environmental programs. The noise control program is now in its maturing stages, with results toward a better environment becoming evident. The legislative mandate and historical key events of the program will be discussed.
FREE

Community response to aircraft noise: level versus number relationship (A)

William Connor and Harrold Patterson

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 60, Issue S1, pp. S83-S83 (1976); (1 page)

Online Publication Date: 11 Aug 2005

Full Text: | Download PDF

Show Abstract
Response behavior in terms of a typical scale of individual annoyance was examined for various categories of level and number of aircraft operations. The data base was obtained from social surveys and acoustical measurements around nine airports in the USA during the period 1967–1971. For the sample as a whole, adverse response tended to increase with the energy‐mean perceived noise level of aircraft operations; in relation to numbers of operations, however, response tended to peak in the 100–200 operations per day category rather than increase monotonically. This result does not conform to certain accepted response models, suggesting a need to develop and test other models. [Work supported by NASA.]
FREE

Establishing noise criteria for residential living in areas surrounding commercial aviation airports (A)

J. E. Mabry

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 60, Issue S1, pp. S83-S83 (1976); (1 page)

Online Publication Date: 11 Aug 2005

Full Text: | Download PDF

Show Abstract
Results are provided which contribute to establishment of noise levels that are compatible with residential living activities. Community‐noise simulation systems were placed in the homes of 24 families that were not impacted by airport noise. Each family was exposed to four different airport noise conditions of one week duration. Interference with daily living activities and annoynace responses to the four conditions were obtained. Some results and conclusions are as follows: (1) Noise from other sources within their homes bothered or annoyed the participants as much or more than the flyover noises. (2) Behavioral awakening did not occur for many participants exposed to night flyovers peaking at approximately 70 dBA. It was concluded that the 10 dB penalty applied to night flyovers for NEF and Ldn is too large. (3) For the mix and number of aircraft utilized, it was concluded that a NEF of 32 to 33 is compatible with indoor residential living. [FAA‐RD supported.]
FREE

Variation of community noise sensitivity with time of day (A)

J. B. Ollerhead

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 60, Issue S1, pp. S83-S83 (1976); (1 page)

Online Publication Date: 11 Aug 2005

Full Text: | Download PDF

Show Abstract
It is widely accepted that people are more annoyed by noise during the evening and nighttime hours than during the day period. Accordingly, many community‐noise rating indices involve a division of the 24‐h day into two or three time periods, attaching different weights to events in each. Unfortunately, it has proved very difficult to obtain quantitative measurements of these weightings through social survey studies, and consequently the weightings adopted tend to be based mostly upon intuitive judgments. This paper describes an attempt to obtain direct measurement of relative sensitivity to noise during the three periods. The measurements, which were made as a part of a wider study of the aircraft noise problem, support current estimates of increased sensitivity during the evening, but indicate a surprising immunity to noise during the night.
FREE

TTS from irregular bursts of noise (A)

W. D. Ward, E. M. Cushing, and E. M. Burns

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 60, Issue S1, pp. S83-S83 (1976); (1 page)

Online Publication Date: 11 Aug 2005

Full Text: | Download PDF

Show Abstract
Most studies of the TTS produced by noise have used regular interruptions of the noise; in general, such studies have shown that the TTS is proportional to the on fraction. However, such regularity is not characteristic of most industrial settings. In order to assess the effect of variability in burst and pause durations, the TTS produced in 10 young normal‐hearing adults by 6‐h exposures to magenta noise at 100 dBA, using an average on fraction of 50% but with four different temporal patterns, was measured. Exposure patterns were: (1) on 3 min, off 3 min during entire run; (2) on either 1 or 5 min (50% probability), off either 1 or 5 min, burst and pause durations independently selected; (3) on and off 1 or 5 min, pause duration same as preceding burst duration; and (4) on and off 1 or 5 min, pause duration different from preceding burst duration. No difference in TTS measured 2 or 30 min after exposure was found (maximum average TTS2 was 8 dB at 4 kHz), indicating that an intermittent noise can be adequately characterized by its average on fraction for purposes of exposure standards. [Research supported by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Public Health Service.]
FREE

The annoyance and loudness of magenta noise (A)

E. M. Burns, C. W. Turner, and W. D. Ward

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 60, Issue S1, pp. S83-S84 (1976); (2 pages)

Online Publication Date: 11 Aug 2005

Full Text: | Download PDF

Show Abstract
The relative “annoyance” and “loudness” of magenta noise (a broadband noise whose octave‐band spectrum falls off at the rate of 5 dB per octave) and truncated‐magenta noise (the high‐frequency portion of the magenta noise) were determined using a 2AFC procedure. For moderate intensities (90 dBA, magenta) the relative annoyance and loudness were qualitatively in the direction predicted by the PNdB and Sone scales, respectively. That is, the magenta noise was judged to be significantly more annoying and louder than the truncated‐magenta noise, for the condition in which the energy in the frequency region common to both noises was equal. However, for the same condition at higher intensities (110 dBA, magenta) the truncated‐magenta noise was judged significantly more annoying, while the magenta was judged louder. Thus at high intensities we have the paradoxical situation in which the deletion of a major portion of the energy from the spectrum results in a considerably more annoying noise, a result which is not predicted by PNdB. Possible explanations for these results, along with their relevance to aircraft noise, are discussed.
FREE

The relationship between aircraft noise annoyance and duration above specified noise levels (A)

T. L. Hughes and J. E. Mabry

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 60, Issue S1, pp. S84-S84 (1976); (1 page)

Online Publication Date: 11 Aug 2005

Full Text: | Download PDF

Show Abstract
Relationships were investigated between community response to airport noise and dwell time noise determination methods. Two community response measures were employed. One involved whether or not the respondent disliked his neighborhood due to aircraft noise and the second measure was concerned with whether or not airport noise was perceived as the “MOST serious problem in this community right now?” Seven dwell‐time levels involving the amount of time that the noise was equal‐to‐or‐greater‐than a specified level were investigated. These seven dwell‐time levels were 65 to 95 dBA in 5‐dBA increments. A method for completely describing the noise at each respondent's home was developed and utilized. Some conclusions are as follows: (1) The dwell‐time approach is an effective method for quantifying aircraft noise impact. (2) Dwell‐time determinations based on a particular level do not accurately predict dwell‐time determinations at another level. (3) For detailed land use planning, a method involving cumulative noise impact at a particular point has high utility. [FAA‐EQ supported.]
FREE

Airport noise: A monitoring program and the first steps toward its solution (A)

A. E. Perez

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 60, Issue S1, pp. S84-S84 (1976); (1 page)

Online Publication Date: 11 Aug 2005

Full Text: | Download PDF

Show Abstract
Airport noise is easily the most intensive, publicized, and emotional noise problem facing urban dwellers. The problem is also a magnificent example of federal inaction, and technical doubletalk as a result of its complexity. The Minneapolis—St. Paul International Airport, even though singular in innovative noise abatement procedures developed under public pressures, continued to unacceptably impact the life and property of its neighbors. In facing the problem, the Agency encountered: lack of successful case histories, unmeasurable criteria, unaffordable instrumentation, and noncooperation by federal agencies and industry. Roadblocks were overcome steadily: Noise Standards were adopted in November 1974; automatic noise monitors were developed at reasonable prices ($200 per unit) and 33 units purchased; a monitoring program with the help of 350 families was implemented, the impact of the problem was defined acoustically and demographically, unique operational characteristics of airline companies uncovered and documented and an objective dialogue with the source started. State Regulations on this problem are being developed to control areas where voluntary compliance is not expected and to supplement recent legislative action.
FREE

Noise impact evaluation of a military airbase (A)

E. S. Ivey, G. A. Russell, and A. Hicks

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 60, Issue S1, pp. S84-S84 (1976); (1 page)

Online Publication Date: 11 Aug 2005

Full Text: | Download PDF

Show Abstract
A 24‐h noise survey was conducted in the vicinity of Pease AFB, Portsmouth, NH, using both automatic and manual sampling techniques. The manual sampling procedure used allowed the noise contributions from all military aircraft operations to be distinguished from the residual noise levels. By processing the manually sampled data twice, once with the military aircraft noise signals included and once without, it was possible to define a “with and without noise impact” of the military aircraft operation on the surrounding community. Results of the analysis indicated a good correlation between the manual and automatic sampling methodologies and with CNEL contours previously developed for Pease AFB. Significant differences between the “with and without military aircraft” LEQ and LDN noise levels were found at distances of five miles from the base. The measurement and analysis methodology used in this study provides a unique noise impact assessment tool for community noise studies in the vicinity of operating airports. Although only very simple measurement and data reduction techniques are required, this assessment methodology yields useful “with and without” information. As such, it can be applied in a variety of land use planning situations.
FREE

Development of airport noise contours by extensive noise monitoring and analytical modeling (A)

R. D. Horonjeff

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 60, Issue S1, pp. S84-S84 (1976); (1 page)

Online Publication Date: 11 Aug 2005

Full Text: | Download PDF

Show Abstract
This paper describes one of the first known efforts to combine analytical modeling techniques and extensive field noise monitoring to produce airport noise contours. The objective was to produce community noise equivalent level (CNEL) contours whose accuracy could be enhanced and defended by field measurements. An advanced computer simulation model (developed for the U. S. Air Force) was used in concert with 24‐h noise monitor data at 44 locations surrounding Miramar Naval Air Station at San Diego, CA. A three‐phase study was undertaken to satisfy the objective: (1) develop a preliminary set of contours using the analytical model and the best available data base, (2) use contours to select noise monitor locations and acquire monitor data, and (3) normalize monitor data to typical flying conditions and update noise contours. The paper discusses the variables involved in generating the contours, their ability to be reliably measured at reasonable cost, and their relative impact on contour accuracy.
FREE

Waterfront land use planning (A)

J. K. Parry and H. J. Parry

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 60, Issue S1, pp. S84-S85 (1976); (2 pages)

Online Publication Date: 11 Aug 2005

Full Text: | Download PDF

Show Abstract
Results of a comprehensive study of industrial land use to achieve maximum potential noise comparability with nearby residental communities are presented. Land use plans developed during the study were concerned with a variety of proposed projects at one large waterfront facility operated by the Port of Seattle and covering the time period of 1976–1980. During the study both adverse and beneficial noise impacts were identified using the criteria of the existing conditions at the facility and the Washington State Noise Standards. Emphasis in the paper presented is placed on the cost effectiveness of careful land use planning through a tradeoff comparison between different noise‐abatement approaches. The results and discussions presented are based on measurements of noises made specifically for this study, during previous waterfront noise studies and those reported in the literature. Proposed and potential uses for the waterfront facility are described in the terminal layout plan along with projected construction and facility changes. These include relocation of roads, rail tracks, rail headings, location of ship unloading berths, truck and rail car loading ramps, and building demolitions and replacements.
FREE

Low‐cost community‐noise monitoring system (A)

J. D. Chalupnik

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 60, Issue S1, pp. S85-S85 (1976); (1 page)

Online Publication Date: 11 Aug 2005

Full Text: | Download PDF

Show Abstract
A system for acquiring the statistical data base required to determine 24‐h ambient‐noise descriptors such as the day‐night equivalent A‐weighted sound pressure level (LDN) is described. The system is inexpensive and utilizes standard laboratory instruments extensively. It is designed to take hourly samples of 5–15‐min duration on an analog tape recorder. The data is analyzed in the laboratory on a general purpose digital computer. Results of tests in which the system was compared with an all digital system are given. The system performs as expected and is very easy to use.
FREE

Variables to be considered when predicting the Lcdn of blast noise (A)

N. D. Lewis and G. A. Luz

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 60, Issue S1, pp. S85-S85 (1976); (1 page)

Online Publication Date: 11 Aug 2005

Full Text: | Download PDF

Show Abstract
The C‐weighted day‐night average sound level (Lcdn) is currently being used to evaluate the impact of blast noise on nearby communities. When predicting these Lcdn values, several variables must be considered. The difference between the linear peak level and C‐weighted slow level is not constant as implied in the criteria, but varies with distance from source and weapon‐charge combination. The prediction of the level must also consider more than spherical spreading, it must consider the wind direction and velocity. The time of day when the blast occurs must also be considered, as temperature inversions, occurring primarily when the surface is cooler than the air above it, cause increased sound levels. A final variable considered is the charge weight‐sound level relationship which also varies between weapons. The effects of these variables on the sound level have been observed in blast noise measurements at distances from 150 to 5000 m.
Return to All Sections
Close

Home Publications Meetings Contact ASA Site Map Back to Top

Copyright © Acoustical Society of America

close