Single-Number Quantities of Heavyweight Impact Sound Insulation

Abstract

This study aims to determine which single-number quantities (SNQs)ofheavyweight impact sounds are the most appropriate for explaining subjective response. Twohundred and elevenparticipants participated in the listening experiment in Korea (Experiment I) to assess heavyweight impact sounds generated by ar ubber ball and an adult jumping in heavyweight and lightweight buildings. As mall-scale listening test (Experiment II)w as then performed in the UK to validate Experiment Iw ith 43 European participants. Fora ll the sounds with different sound sources and building types, L iA,Fmax wasthe best SNQ although other predictors also showed relatively high correlation coefficients with annoyance ratings. Experiment II confirmed the findings of Experiment I, implying that L iA,Fmax is the most effective SNQ across ethnicity.

Background Noise, Noise Sensitivity, and Attitudes towards Neighbours, and a Subjective Experiment Using a Rubber Ball Impact Sound

“…Recently, a simple survey method using rubber ball impact sounds was standardised for on-site quality control [ 10 ]. To provide a single number quantity (SNQ) for rubber ball impact sounds, measures such as L iA ,Fmax have been proposed by recording rubber ball impact sounds in apartment buildings made of concrete or wood, measuring subjective responses (e.g., semantic differential), and analysing the correlation between the responses and various single number quantities [ 11 ]; these methods were subsequently standardised in ISO 717-2 [ 3 ]. A technical specification was standardised in the international standards that defines grades from A to F for air-borne sounds, lightweight impact sounds, and building service equipment-related noise [ 12 ].…”

Subjective evaluation of floor impact noise using the tapping machine and a non-standardized source

“…In that context, the disturbance caused by audio equipment with an improved low-frequency response, electrical devices, mechanical services, and mainly lightweight construction, results in the aggravation of impact noise in residential buildings (Araújo, Paul, & Vergara, 2016;Späh et al, 2013;Hagberg, 2010). Among all those noises, human walking noise is considered the most annoying in residential buildings (Jeon, Jeong, Vorlaender, & Thaden, 2004;Jeon, Ryu, & Lee, 2010;Hagberg, 2010;Park, Lee, & Yang, 2016).…”

“…The International Organization for Standardization recommends that a standardized tapping machine should be used as part of floor impact insulation measurements. The tapping machine was initially developed in Germany and standardized in 1953, and is, until today, recommended by ISO 10140 and ISO 717 for field and laboratory measurements (Jeon et al, 2004). Since its standardization, various studies have been conducted trying to identify the most ideal approach to assess physical and auditory attributes of floor impact noise (Gerretsen, 1976), and it is assumed that using the tapping machine to assess impact noise, the acoustical performance of different types of floors is always the same, regardless of the source and the type of floor under test, yet, this approach is not accurate (Scholl, 2001).…”

“…Some studies concluded that the floor impact evaluation carried out using the tapping machine does not precisely emulate the acoustical attributes of human footsteps, or low-frequency impact noise, that is, the most annoying in residential buildings (Shi, Johansson, & Sundback, 1997;Warnock, 2000;Souza & Gibbs, 2001;Jeon, 2001;Scholl, 2001;Bradley, 2004;Jeon et al, 2004;Jeon & Sato, 2008;Kim, Jeong, Yang, & Sohn, 2009;Schoenwald, Nightingale, Zeitler, & King, 2010;Yoo, Lee, Lee, & Jeon, 2010). Shi et al (1997) conveyed a study to decide the correlation between human footsteps and other standardized and non-standardized impact noise sources.…”

“…ISO 717 presents a strategy to acquire a single number quantity to evaluate the performance of a specific floor system. The strategy presented in the standard is most appropriate for rating hard and heavy floor systems, however, Jeon et al (2004) found that it produces uncertainties when the floors under examination are lightweight floor and soft floor covers, thereafter showing a gap in knowledge about various arrangements.…”