A unique field experiment to assess the noise annoyance caused by - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
a unique field experiment to assess the noise annoyance
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

A unique field experiment to assess the noise annoyance caused by - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jul 08, 2023 357 likes •619 views

A unique field experiment to assess the noise annoyance caused by maglev trains Bert De Coensel, Luc Dekoninck, Tom De Muer, Dick Botteldooren Acoustics Group, Ghent University, Belgium Peter Lercher Division of Social Medicine, Medical

slide-1
SLIDE 1

UNIVERSITEIT GENT

A unique field experiment to assess the noise annoyance caused by maglev trains

Bert De Coensel, Luc Dekoninck, Tom De Muer, Dick Botteldooren

Acoustics Group, Ghent University, Belgium

Peter Lercher

Division of Social Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Austria

Birgitta Berglund, Mats Nilsson

Gösta Eckman Laboratory, Stockholm University, Sweden

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management Directorate-General of Passenger Transport Projectorganization Zuiderzeelijn Den Haag, Nederland

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 2

  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Experiment
  • 3. Results
  • 4. Conclusion

Overview

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 3

Introduction

  • Transportation noise annoyance
  • Trains ≠ highway traffic
  • Railway bonus for LAeq
  • Valid for high-speed trains & maglev trains?
  • Vos (2004), Neugebauer et al. (1997), Fastl et al. (1996)
  • Questions raised
  • Short samples used (45s) → temporal effect obscured
  • Small testperson panel → representativity
  • Nonacoustical factors (e.g. noise sensitivity) not taken into account
  • The experiment presented
  • Conducted in a realistic setting (holiday cottage)
  • Exposure to longer fragments of sound + quiet periods
  • Traffic noise reproduced in ecologically valid way
  • Representative panellists selected using questionnaire
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 4

  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Experiment
  • 3. Results
  • 4. Conclusion

Overview

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 5

Experiment

Field experiment in natural setting Ecologically and socially valid setting Good quality acoustic field reproduction Panel of representative testpersons

  • Natural setting
  • Holiday cottage in Westkapelle

(Zeeland, The Netherlands)

  • Quiet environment
  • Subgroups of panellists seated

in living room

  • Reading magazine, light

conversation, something to drink

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 6

Experiment

Field experiment in natural setting Ecologically and socially valid setting Good quality acoustic field reproduction Panel of representative testpersons

  • Sound reproduction objectives
  • Realistic indoor 3D sound of
  • utdoor pass-by sources
  • Preserve natural feeling inside

experiment room

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 7

playback level binaural recording B

Experiment

Field experiment in natural setting Ecologically and socially valid setting Good quality acoustic field reproduction Panel of representative testpersons

  • Sound reproduction objectives
  • Methodology and validation
  • Assumption: 2-channel recording
  • Checked for low speed trains at

short distance: 2 phases

  • Ideally: A = B

record level binaural recording A

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 8

Experiment

Field experiment in natural setting Ecologically and socially valid setting Good quality acoustic field reproduction Panel of representative testpersons

  • Sound reproduction objectives
  • Methodology and validation
  • Assumption: 2-channel recording
  • Checked for low speed trains at

short distance: 2 phases

  • Ideally: A = B
  • Error within 5 dB in each

tertsband

  • Low frequency

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k 16k frequency [Hz] LAeq,18sec [dB(A)] real reproduced Passage 1 - left ear 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k 16k frequency [Hz] LAeq,23sec [dB(A)] real reproduced Passage 2 - left ear

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 9

Experiment

Field experiment in natural setting Ecologically and socially valid setting Good quality acoustic field reproduction Panel of representative testpersons

  • Sound reproduction objectives
  • Methodology and validation
  • Reproduction setup
  • 2 loudspeakers + subwoofer in

front of slightly opened window

  • Played on PC, equalized

(31 bands) and amplified

  • Façade level + indoor soundfield
  • No visual presentation
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 10

Experiment

Field experiment in natural setting Ecologically and socially valid setting Good quality acoustic field reproduction Panel of representative testpersons

  • Sound reproduction objectives
  • Methodology and validation
  • Reproduction setup
  • Sample collection

distances: 25, 50, 100 and 200 m mic 20 m mic head

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 11

Experiment

Field experiment in natural setting Ecologically and socially valid setting Good quality acoustic field reproduction Panel of representative testpersons

  • Sound reproduction objectives
  • Methodology and validation
  • Reproduction setup
  • Sample collection
  • IC: 140 km/h
  • TGV: 140 & 300 km/h
  • Maglev: 200, 300 & 400 km/h
  • Highway: free flow
  • 45-sec passage fragments cut
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 12

Experiment

Field experiment in natural setting Ecologically and socially valid setting Good quality acoustic field reproduction Panel of representative testpersons

  • Selection of panellists
  • Questionnaire to 1500 people in

neighbourhood of testhouse

  • Representative structure Dutch

population

  • RIVM environmental noise survey
  • Eurobarometer questionnaire
  • Drawing 100 out of 255 replies
  • Age & hearing ability
  • Disimilarity using binary coding
  • Fuzzy resemblance Dutch person

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

noise sensitivity participants reference

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

quality of traffic noise participants reference

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 13

Experiment

Field experiment in natural setting Ecologically and socially valid setting Good quality acoustic field reproduction Panel of representative testpersons

  • Listening test menus
  • Longer exposure → 10 minutes
  • Called “menu”
  • Consists of
  • 2 passages of same train
  • 4 passages of same train
  • 8 minutes continuous highway noise
  • Scaling context for panellists:
  • 7 reference 45-sec fragments
  • Produced of highway noise at 50 m
  • Scaled up and down + spectral
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 14

40 50 60 70 80 90 10

11:50 12:00 12:10 12:20 12:30 Time [s]

Experiment

Field experiment in natural setting Ecologically and socially valid setting Good quality acoustic field reproduction Panel of representative testpersons

  • Listening test menus
  • Outline test
  • ± 5 panellists / session
  • Session façade level
  • 14 minute training session
  • 7 menus of 10 minutes IC/TGV or

Maglev

  • 14 minute training session
  • 7 menus of 10 minutes Maglev or

IC/TGV

  • Conventional listening test

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10:10 10:20 10:30 10:40 10:50 11:00 11:10 11:20 11:30 11:40 11:50 Time [s] 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 8:20 8:30 8:40 8:50 9:00 9:10 9:20 9:30 9:40 9:50 10:00 Time [s] LAeq,1s [dB(A)]

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 15

Experiment

Field experiment in natural setting Ecologically and socially valid setting Good quality acoustic field reproduction Panel of representative testpersons

  • Listening test menus
  • Outline test
  • Perceived noise annoyance
  • Free number estimation
  • Master scaling

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 40 50 60 70 80 90

Road traffic reference sound level [dB(A)] Annoyance A = 70, assessment R = 55, ms annoyance

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 16

  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Experiment
  • 3. Results
  • 4. Conclusion

Overview

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 17

Results

  • Average master scaled annoyance vs LAeq,10min

Sound level (LAeq,10min)

30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Annoyance (master scale)

  • 10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Inter-city Maglev Road-traffic TGV Master function

2 events / 10 minutes

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 18

Results

  • Average master scaled annoyance vs LAeq,10min

Sound level (LAeq,10min)

30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Annoyance (master scale)

  • 10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Inter-city Maglev Road-traffic TGV Master function

4 events / 10 minutes

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 19

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Sound level (LAeq,10min) annoyance (master scale)

Conventional train TGV high speed Maglev high speed

Results

  • Average master scaled annoyance vs LAeq,10min
  • LAeq < 65 dB(A):
  • Maglev ~ IC
  • LAeq > 60 dB(A):
  • Maglev ~ TGV
  • 55 dB(A) → 65 dB(A):
  • Annoyance↓ [T,v,d]
slide-20
SLIDE 20

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 20

Results

  • Average master scaled annoyance vs LAeq,45sec

Sound level (LAeq,45)

30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Annoyance (master scale)

  • 10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Inter-city Maglev Road-traffic TGV Master function

  • Assess loudness

rather than annoyance

  • Train passage at

least as annoying as 45-sec highway

  • LAeq > 60 dB(A):
  • Maglev + TGV hs

> TGV ls + IC

  • LAeq > 65 dB(A):
  • Maglev ~ TGV
slide-21
SLIDE 21

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 21

  • 10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Sound level (LAeq,10min) Annoyance (master scale)

rise speed [ dB/s ]

Results

  • Average master scaled annoyance vs LAeq,10min
  • Upward

bending may be explained by rise time

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 22

Sound level (LAeq,10min)

30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Annnoyance (master scale)

  • 10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Master function

Results

  • Average master scaled annoyance vs LAeq,10min

distance to track

  • Annoyance

less for trains passing at large distance

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 23

  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Experiment
  • 3. Results
  • 4. Conclusion

Overview

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Ghent University – Medical University Innsbruck – Stockholm University 24

Conclusion

  • In “at home like” context, noise annoyance of ≠ types of

trains at the same façade level is not significantly different

  • LAeq < 65 dB(A): Maglev ~ IC
  • LAeq > 60 dB(A): Maglev ~ high speed TGV
  • Railway bonus not observed for distances < 100 m