Sound reflection measurements on noise barriers in critical conditions

Abstract It is often necessary to check the intrinsic acoustic characteristics of installed noise barriers, like sound reflection and airborne sound insulation, to verify their compliance to design specifications or their quality after some years of life. These characteristics may be measured in-situ following CEN/TS 1793-5. These guidelines have been substantially improved in the frame of the European project QUIESST (2009–2012), which is now under consideration by the relevant CEN working groups to produce new European standards. The new method for measuring sound reflection specifies the usage of an electroacoustic sound source and a microphone grid, in order to obtain a set of impulse responses; these are processed by means of improved algorithms to compute the required results. The impulse responses are acquired using MLS (Maximum Length Sequence) or ESS (Exponential Swept-Sine) as test signals. While the acoustical characteristics of a noise barrier obtained using the two signals are generally equivalent, in critical conditions – e.g. excessive background noise or local meteorological variability – some discrepancies may occur. Moreover, different type of background noise (broadband or impulsive) give different effects on the final result, using MLS or ESS test signals. This paper presents a series of experiments designed to put in evidence the differences between Reflection Index measurements performed in the mentioned critical conditions, according to the QUIESST guidelines, done using MLS or ESS signals. The relative advantages and drawbacks are analysed and discussed in detail. Conclusions are drawn on the selection of the best test signal for each situation.

[1]  Massimo Garai,et al.  Measurement of the sound-absorption coefficient in situ: The reflection method using periodic pseudo-random sequences of maximum length , 1993 .

[2]  John Vanderkooy,et al.  Transfer-Function Measurement with Maximum-Length Sequences , 1989 .

[3]  F. Jacobsen,et al.  A new interpretation of distortion artifacts in sweep measurements , 2011 .

[4]  Christ Glorieux,et al.  Repeatability and Reproducibility of In Situ Measurements of Sound Reflection and Airborne Sound Insulation Index of Noise Barriers , 2014 .

[5]  Phil Morgan,et al.  Measurement of airborne sound insulation of timber noise barriers: Comparison of in situ method CEN/TS 1793-5 with laboratory method EN 1793-2 , 2007 .

[6]  Massimo Garai,et al.  In situ measurements of the intrinsic characteristics of the acoustic barriers installed along a new high speed railway line. , 2008 .

[7]  Guy-Bart Stan,et al.  Comparison of different impulse response measurement techniques , 2002 .

[8]  Swen Müller,et al.  Transfer-Function Measurement with Sweeps , 2001 .

[9]  Pierrick Lotton,et al.  Nonlinear System Identification Using Exponential Swept-Sine Signal , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement.

[10]  Michael Vorländer,et al.  Comparison of Noise Compensation Methods for Room Acoustic Impulse Response Evaluations , 2014 .

[11]  M. Schroeder Integrated‐impulse method measuring sound decay without using impulses , 1979 .

[12]  Angelo Farina,et al.  Advancements in Impulse Response Measurements by Sine Sweeps , 2007 .

[13]  Massimo Garai,et al.  Advancements in Sound Reflection and Airborne Sound Insulation Measurement on Noise Barriers , 2013 .

[14]  Garai,et al.  European methodology for testing the airborne sound insulation characteristics of noise barriers in situ: experimental verification and comparison with laboratory data , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Angelo Farina,et al.  Simultaneous Measurement of Impulse Response and Distortion with a Swept-Sine Technique , 2000 .

[16]  Ning Xiang,et al.  On the subtraction method for in-situ reflection and diffusion coefficient measurements. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.