ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

A review of the measurement procedure of the ISO 1996 standard. Relationship with the European Noise Directive

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Accuracy in the knowledge of the sound field incident on a façade is essential for proper planning of control actions. Independently of the chosen method for noise mapping, if we wish to know the exposed population, it is essential to measure the incident noise level on the façade. Regarding the geometry of the measuring point in relation to the façade and other elements of the environment, the normative part of the ISO 1996-2 standard only makes reference to the distance between the microphone and the façade. The rest of the geometric aspects that could influence the result of a measurement are not considered in the standard. Although some of these aspects are considered in Annex B, the annex is only informative. The ISO 1996 standard is considered in the European Noise Directive as a reference in the elaboration of strategic noise maps, the main tool for assessing the exposure of the population to noise pollution.
Content may be subject to copyright.
A review of the measurement procedure of the ISO 1996 standard.
Relationship with the European Noise Directive
Juan Miguel Barrigón Morillas
a,
, David Montes González
a
, Guillermo Rey Gozalo
b
a
Departamento de Física Aplicada, E. Politécnica, Universidad de Extremadura, Avda. de la Universidad s/n, 10003 Cáceres, Spain
b
Universidad Autónoma de Chile, 5 Poniente 1670, 3460000 Talca, Chile
HIGHLIGHTS
ISO 1996-2 standard and the accuracy
of estimations of noise doses were
reviewed.
A wide variation among standard
corrections and experimental results
was published.
Unexpected increases of sound level
with height have been reported in
literature.
Detailed studies regarding the standard
and its Annex B (informative) are
necessary.
Results of the application of the European
Noise Directive could be being affected.
GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 1 February 2016
Received in revised form 8 April 2016
Accepted 27 April 2016
Available online 17 May 2016
Editor: D. Barcelo
Accuracy in the knowledge of the sound eld incident on a façade is essential for proper planning of control ac-
tions. Independently of the chosen method for noise mapping, if we wish to know the exposed population, it is
essentialto measure the incident noiselevel on the façade. Regarding the geometryof the measuring point in re-
lation to the façade and otherelements of theenvironment, the normative part of the ISO 1996-2 standard only
makes reference to the distance between the microphone and the façade. The rest ofthe geometricaspects that
could inuence the result of a measurement are not considered in the standard. Although some of these aspects
are considered in Annex B, the annex is only informative. The ISO 1996 standard is considered in the European
Noise Directive as a reference in the elaboration of strategic noise maps, the main tool for assessing the exposure
of the population to noise pollution.
This work presents a detailed review of the literature and proposes research strategies in order to study the re-
lationships between the ISO 1996-2 standard measurements procedure and the accuracy of the estimations of
noise dosesreceived by people obtained by theapplication of the European NoiseDirective. The published results
show signicant relative differences with respect to the values proposed by the standard for the corrections and
indicate the possibility of the inuence of these results on the accurate development of strategic maps.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Keywords:
Noise pollution
Urban noise measurements
Environmental noise standards
Trafcnoise
Geometric urban conguration
Science of the Total Environment 565 (2016) 595606
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: barrigon@unex.es (J.M. Barrigón Morillas).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.207
0048-9697/© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Science of the Total Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv
Contents
1. Introduction.............................................................. 596
2. TheISO1996-2standardandthemeasurementofnoisepollutioninurbanenvironments........................... 597
3. Themicrophonelocationwithrespecttothebuildingfaçade........................................ 598
3.1. The position with the microphone ush mounted on the reectingsurface............................... 598
3.2. The position with the microphone located in front of the reectingsurface............................... 599
4. Thepositionofthemicrophonewithrespecttothesoundsource...................................... 602
5. Theheightofthemicrophone...................................................... 602
6. Conclusions............................................................... 604
Acknowledgements ............................................................. 605
References.................................................................. 605
1. Introduction
Worldwide economic and social development occurred over the last
decades. Among other consequences, this has led to a signicant in-
crease in the number of people living in cities (Buhaug and Urdal,
2013; Henderson and Gun, 2007; Mulligan and Crampton, 2005) and
in the use of transport infrastructure. As a result, a progressive increase
in noise levels in economically developing countries (Zannin and
Sant'Ana, 2011), and, possibly in other related environmental problems
(Can et al., 2011; Fernández-Camacho et al., 2015) has taken place. In
developed countries, the situation can be considered stabilized, as in
case of Europe, where estimations indicate that more than 125 million
people could actually be exposed to road trafc noise above 55 dB L
den
(day-evening-nightlevel indicator), including more than 37 million
exposed to noise levels above 65 dB L
den
(EEA, 2014).
In the 1990s, some studies detailed the harmful effect of acoustic
pollution on the health of human beings (Passchier-Vermeer and
Passchier, 2000). This includes annoyance (Arana and García, 1998;
Fidell et al., 1991; Fields, 1998; Guski, 1999) and sleep disturbance
(Carter, 1996; Öhrström, 1990, 1991, 1995; Thiessen, 1988). Such feel-
ings of displeasure show a relation with adverse effects on humanemo-
tions, leading to anger, disappointment (Fields, 1998) and even stress
(Evans et al., 1995, 2001). Stress hormones have the potential to in-
crease the incidence risk of cardiovascular diseases (Babisch et al.,
1990, 1994; Ising et al., 1999). Also, in the same years, the rst studies
were published that disclosedthe approximate percentages of the Euro-
pean population who are exposed to day and night levels higher than
55 dBA (Berglund et al., 1999; Lambert and Vallet, 1994). In the margins
of uncertainty of these studies, they indicate that about 40% of the pop-
ulation in the European Union is exposed to road trafc noise with an
equivalent sound pressure level exceeding 55 dBA daytime; and 20% is
exposed to levels exceeding 65 dBA. More than 30% are exposed at
night to L
eq
exceeding 55 dBA which are disturbing to sleep. The emer-
gence of this large number of studies in different countries allowed car-
rying out a meta-analysis and some synthesis curves emerged, which
can be used for the prediction of the percentage of annoyed subjects
(Miedema and Oudshoorn, 2001; Miedema and Vos, 1998). According
to these curves, the estimations indicated approximately 23%, 18% and
10% of highly annoyed receivers for L
den
of 65 dB in the cases of aircraft,
road trafc and railway respectively.
Taking into account the evident adverse effects of environmental
noise, the European Commission recognized community noiseas an en-
vironmental problem, and an international focus on the problem was
initiated. Therefore, environmental noise emerged as a major issue in
environmental legislation and policy (EC, 1996).
The establishment of the European Noise Directive (EC, 2002)
represented a signicant improvement in awareness among the general
public and policymakers about the knowledge of the acoustic situation
in the cities of the member states (Murphy and King, 2010). Neverthe-
less, the European Noise Directive has not only had an impact in
European countries (D'Alessandro and Schiavoni, 2015; Licitra and
Ascari, 2014; Kephalopoulos et al., 2014; Vogiatzis and Remy, 2014)
but has also been used as a reference by various studies made in cities
around the world (Chang et al., 2012; Suárez and Barros, 2014; Zuo
et al., 2014).
Accuracy in the knowledge of the acoustic situation is essential for
the identication of the sites concerned. And, as a consequence, it is
also very relevant for proper planning of control actions for each situa-
tion. Moreover, this knowledge of the acoustic situation can help us to
ght other serious environmental problems because of the relationship
of sound levels with other atmospheric pollutants (Allen et al., 2009;
Morelli et al., 2015; Vlachokostas et al., 2012). In order to conduct stud-
ies of the acoustic situationand its effects on theinhabitants of cities and
for the planning of possible solutions, an important option to consider is
noise mapping. In this
direction, according to the European Noise Directive, noise mapping is
the main tool for the assessment of human exposure to environmental
noise pollution. Consequently, searching for the obtention of better
noise maps means better assessments of exposed population and,
therefore, an improving in the design of action plans.
To obtain a noise map, different methods or strategies can be consid-
ered. Generally, we can differentiate between computerized methods
based on models of sound eld propagation and studies carried out
with in situmeasurements. These methods differ largely from each
other in methodological aspects associated with the selection of sam-
pling points. However, even when a computerized method is used,
in situmeasurements are necessary for calibration or validation
(WG-AEN, 2007). In connection with this topic, the ISO 1996 interna-
tional standard (ISO 1996-1, 2003; ISO 1996-2, 2007) describes aspects
related to the calculation and measurement procedure of the sound
pressure level outdoors, and it is used as a reference for noise mapping
by the European Noise Directive. Although this paper focuses on the
study of the application of the corrections proposed in ISO 1996 stan-
dard, similar considerations for trafc noise measurements are included
in NT ACOU 039 (NT ACOU 039, 2002). In addition, some standards (ISO
140-5, 1998; ISO 16283-3, 2016; EN 12354-3, 2000) and papers
(Berardi, 2013; Berardi et al., 2011) take into consideration the reec-
tions on thebuildingsurface for façade sound insulation measurements.
Independently of the chosen method for noise mapping, if we wish
to know the population exposed to noise, the fundamental question is
to evaluate the incident noise level on the façade to the desired height.
It is known that the incident sound level depends on manyfactors, both
temporaland spatial. Therefore, to get a suitable assessment, it is impor-
tant to consider not only the characteristics of the sound source but also
the situation of the evaluation point regarding the source and the specif-
ic urban environment of each street or façade that we intend to evalu-
ate. In this way, for each conguration, the sound energy incident on
the façade of the building under consideration is evaluated as accurately
as possible.
ISO 1996-2 guidelines are often followed to obtain measurement
noise mapping or for the calibration and validation of calculated noise
maps. But what is the level of accuracy that we can obtain with the
596 J.M. Barrigón Morillas et al. / Science of the Total Environment 565 (2016) 595606
use of the recommendations provided by the standard? Does the stan-
dard consider the variability that exists in urban environments? These
aspects are essential if we wish to obtain accurate noise maps and effec-
tively reduce the impact of noise pollution on the population.Note that
a recent publication by the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2011)
ranked noise pollution as second among a series of environmental
stressors for the public health impact in a selection of European coun-
tries. Indeed, contrary to the trend for other environmental stressors,
which are declining, noise exposure is actually increasing in Europe
(WHO, 2011).
In this way, some essential aspects, which could be interrelated,
must be taken into account, and they should be considered when the
measuring point is chosen and at the time of applying any corrections
to the value of the measured noise level:
1. The geometry of the measurement point in relation to the different
elements of the surroundings:
a. With respect to the façade, both in height and distance to it.
b. With respect to the sound source (distance, viewing angle).
c. With respect to the different elements of the urban environ-
ment (street width, building height, terrain features, reecting
surfaces).
d. With respect to the geometry and the characteristics of the
façade (angle in relation to the source, building materials,
irregularities or presence of arcades, balconies).
2. The characteristics of the sound source under evaluation (source
type, spectrum, temporality, intensity, geometry).
Inthefollowingsections,howtheseaspectsareconsideredin
the ISO 1996-2 standard will be analysed. And a review of the
literature will be made to show the studies that different authors car-
ried out in relation to these issues in real measurement conditions
and the conclusions that have been reached. Section 2 discusses the
corrections proposed by the ISO 1996-2 standard in its normative
part for acoustic measurements in urban environments and the
conditions stipulated in Annex B (informative). In Section 3,each
of the cases of the corrections proposed by the standard is studied.
A literature review is carried out about the works related to these
topics. In Section 4, the possible relation between the corrections
to be applied and the distance between the microphone and
the sound source is analysed. Finally, Section 5 deals with a study
about the effect of the height of the microphone on the value of the
noise level.
2. The ISO 1996-2 standard and the measurement of noise pollution
in urban environments
Regarding the geometry of the measuring point in relation to the
façade and other elements of the environment, the normative part of
the ISO 1996-2 standard only makes reference to the distance between
the microphone and the façade. The rest of the previously mentioned
geometric aspects that could have an inuence on the result of a mea-
surement are not considered in the standard. Also, it does not determine
the distance at whichthe microphone must be located in respect to the
building façade in a clear way, leaving this choice to scientic and tech-
nical criteria. In relation to this issue, in order to take into account the
effects of reection for the building façade, the standard proposes
some corrections to be applied to the values of the measured noise
levels. The ISO 1996-2 standard makes a distinction between three
cases:
a) A position with the microphone ush mounted on the reecting
surface: 6dB.
b) A position with the microphone located between 0.5 and 2 m in
front of the reecting surface: 3dB.
c) A free eld position (reference condition): 0 dB.
Note that, in this proposal for corrections, there may be some doubts
since:
There is only one value, 3 dB, for a wide area of distance from the
façade, between 0.5 and 2 m.
It is not clearwhat must be done if the measurement is performed fur-
ther than 2 m because the standard does not propose any correction.
Do these distances to the façade correspond to a free eld?
In order for a proper understanding of thesethree issues, it is neces-
sary to consult Annex B of the standard. This appendix does not belong
to the normative part of ISO 1996-2; it is included in the standard with
an informative character. For the rst case, some conditions are de-
scribed for which the indicated value is expected, and some situations
are mentioned for which it is not appropriate to measure this whole
range of distances. And, for the second case, some conditions for
which the measurement point can be considered in a free eld are spec-
ied, but this range of distances to the evaluated building façade cannot
be considered as included in the standard.
Secondly, the standard points out that the proposed corrections may
not match the results in real measurement conditions in an urban envi-
ronment. Lower or higher deviations from the values indicated can be
obtained in practice. Again, although the normative part of ISO 1996-2
makes somereferences to the conditions for whichthe proposed correc-
tions are veried, in Annex B (informative), various considerations that
should be taken into account are listed in detail. However, as will be
shown, in many cases, these conditions cannot be veried in a real
urban environment.
In these areas, it is of great interest to conduct a detailed review of
the literature and to propose research strategies that allow to delimit
these uncertainties in order to improve the accuracy of the estimations
of noise doses received by people in their homes and workplaces and in
hospitals, nursing homes, schools, etc.
On the other hand, in connection with the characteristics of the
sound source under evaluation, ISO 1996-2 establishes, in its normative
part, some aspects to be considered, but all of them concern the repre-
sentativeness of the measure regarding the average conditions of the
source in the environment and the variations in weather conditions.
Nothing is indicated about the possibility that the corrections depend
on the features of the source. As we will see later, there are studies
that suggest a dependency in this regard.
It may also beof interest to note that, so far, the possibility of an in-
teraction between geometric and temporal aspects has not been raised.
This means that some geometrical elements inuential on the nal
value of the incident sound level on the façade may have signicant var-
iations over time. These elements must also be considered for the mea-
surements or calculations to be representative of the average situation
of the environment under evaluation.
Different sources of uncertainty should be considered in assessing
the exposure of the population to noise pollution. ISO 1996-2 standard
estimates a minimum uncertainty of 2 dB for measured noise levels,
which is associated with factors such as instrumentation, operating con-
ditions (repeatability), weather and terrain conditions and residual
sound. In the case of computerized noise maps, those uncertainties
due to the digital terrain model (Arana et al., 2011), the software used
(Arana et al., 2009), etc. will be added.
This paper focuses on the aspects related to the geometry of the
measurement point and road trafc as a sound source. Aspects associat-
ed with the temporality of the sound source represent an independent
and wide ranging line of work. For example, spatial and temporal pat-
terns of noise exposure due to road trafc in a city of a developing coun-
try (Pakistan) were studied by Mehdi et al. (2011). A measurement
methodology to know the evolution of daytime building façade noise
levels by road trafc in a city of a developed country (Belgium) was in-
vestigated by Van Renterghem et al. (2012). The effects of singularnoisy
597J.M. Barrigón Morillas et al. / Science of the Total Environment 565 (2016) 595606
events on long-term noise indicators were studied by Prieto Gajardo et
al. (2014). The relation between categorisation method and the tempo-
ral variability of urban noise was studied by Rey Gozalo et al. (2015).A
model for estimating annual levels of urban trafc based on Fourier
analysis noise was proposed by Barrigón Morillas et al. (2015).The
pilot project on the establishment of National Ambient Noise Monitor-
ing Network across some cities in a developing country (India) is de-
scribed by Garg et al. (2016).
In this eld of work ISO 1996 standard, parts 1 and 2, are currently
under revision. Draft ISO 1996-2 (ISO 1996-2, 2011) recommend a
methodology for the calculation of uncertainty. Following the guide-
lines of draft ISO 1996-2, Alves and Waddington (2014) indicates that,
in their eld measurements, the magnitude of the uncertainty associat-
ed with a short term measurement of L
Aeq,1h
is 4.2 dB for road trafc
noise (95% condence). In connection with this topic, the inuence of
short-term sampling parameters on the uncertainty of the L
den
environ-
mental noise indicator is studied according with draft ISO 1996-2 in
other work (Mateus et al., 2015a), which indicates that it is possible to
derive a two variable power lawrepresenting the uncertainty of the de-
termined values as a function of the two samplingparameters: duration
of sampling episode and number of episodes.
3. The microphone location with respect to the building façade
The ISO 1996-2 standard proposes corrections to be applied to the
values of the measured noise levels. These corrections are determined
depending on the distance between the microphone and the back sur-
face, as indicated in Section 2.
The aim of this proposal is to correct the effects of increased noise
levels due to sound reections on the surface. In this way, the real
value of the incident sound eld on the façade (free eld) is obtained.
These corrections have been analysed by some authors in urban en-
vironments by in situmeasurements or simulations. It is interesting to
indicate that the different papers published in this respect, in general,
have focused on studying the corrections, depending on the distance
to the building façade. But they have not carried out a detailed study
of whether the indications of Annex B (informative) are veried or not.
3.1. The position with the microphone ush mounted on the reecting
surface
Although the standard establishes a correction of 6dBbetweena
microphone ush mounted on the façade and a microphone in a free
eld, it also indicates that this is an ideal case, so lower deviations
from this value do occur in practice.
In respect of the mounting of the microphone on the reective sur-
face, only what is previously indicated appears in the normative part.
It is necessary to look over Annex B (informative) to nd two basic op-
tions to place the microphone:
a) On a plate placed on the surface.
b) On the surface itself.
In the rst option, a microphone with a 13 mm (1/2 in.) diameter
should be used in the case of road trafc noise and broadband. The mi-
crophone can be mounted parallel to the plate or with the microphone
membrane ush with the surface of the mounting plate. For assembly,
certain conditions relating to the characteristics of the plate and the
mounting must be respected. In relation to the façade, it must be at,
within 1.0 m of the microphone and with a tolerance of ±0.05 m, and
the distance from the microphone to the edges of the surface must be
higher than 1.0 m.
In the second case, it is indicated that the surface must be made of
concrete, stone, glass, wood or a similar hard material. In addition, the
reecting surface must be at, within 1.0 m of microphone and with a
tolerance of ±0.01 m. Annex B also states that, in this case, for octave-
band measurements, a microphone of 13 mm diameter or smaller
should be used. If the frequency range is expanded above 4 kHz, a
6 mm microphone should be used.
The indicated correction of 6 dB was analysed by different papers
in urban environments.
In the work done by Memoli et al. (2008), acoustic measurements
were carried out for a period of 15 min for streets with different geom-
etries: ve urban roads with type U and two urban roads with type L.
Road trafc was considered as the sound source and four microphones
were used. They were placed at a 4.0 m height to simultaneously mea-
sure different distances from the façade. A range of distances from
6.6 m to 34.0 m between the source and the façade was used. In this
paper, a difference of 5.7 dB ± 0.8 (95%condence) is obtained between
the measured sound level with one of the microphones placed on the
reective surface on a plate and the measured sound level with one of
the microphones placed in free eld conditions. Although the resulting
difference is globally consistent with the correction proposed by the
ISO 1996-2 standard, within the range indicated by the authors, differ-
ences higher than 1 dB between what it is indicated in the standard
and the measured values can be observed.
In connection with this topic, Mateus et al. (2015b) conducted si-
multaneous measurements for 47 months with three microphones:
one of them in a free eld (3.5 m above the cornice of the building), an-
other ush mounted on the façade using a metal plate and the last one
placed on the glass of a window of the same wall. The distance between
the microphone in the free eld and the horizontal line connecting the
other two devices on the façade was 6.3 m. In this case, an urban street
with an L prole was selected, and road trafc wastaken into account as
the sound source. The distance between the source and the sound level
meters was 150 m. Therefore, the results of two options to place the mi-
crophone ush mounted on the façade as indicated by ISO 1996-2 were
analysed in this paper. The results show that, if the microphone is
mounted directly on the window, the difference between the sound
levels varies from 4.0 dB to 4.4 dB, whereas, if a plate of reective mate-
rial is used, the difference is 4.9 dB. Based on these results, it is stated
that if a 6 dB correction is applied following the standard guidelines,
signicant errors could be introduced in some cases.
Therefore, studies that analyse the differences between the sound
levels measured in free eld conditions and with the microphone locat-
ed on a reective surface show disparity values that, depending on the
case, may involve differences of up to 2 dB regarding the correction of
6 dB established by the ISO 1996-2 standard, as shown in Table 1.
These results may have an important impact on the results obtained
to date under the application of the European Noise Directive. As this
conguration is usually used to locate thereceptors in simulated strate-
gic noise maps, it is important to know what geometrical factors are
causing these results and whether these experimental results are
being considered or not in the application of the propagation models.
Consequently, it is essential to increase the number of studies in this
line of work by taking into account the urban reality of European cities.
Table 1
Differences between the sound levels measured in free eld conditions and with the mi-
crophone located on a reective surface in case of an extended source (see Fig. 1).
Reference Microphone RO
(m)
d
(m)
a
(m)
h (m) Correction
(dB)
Memoli et al. (2008) Façade 6.634 0 6.634 4.0 5.7 ± 0.8
Free
Mateus et al. (2015b) Façade 150 0 150 15.2 4.9
Free
Mateus et al. (2015b) Glass 150 0 150 15.2 4.04.4
Free
598 J.M. Barrigón Morillas et al. / Science of the Total Environment 565 (2016) 595606
3.2. The position with the microphone located in front of the reecting
surface
The normative part of the ISO 1996-2 standard excludes measures in
the range of distances from the façade up to 0.5 m. However, some re-
searchers have studied this range of distances. For instance, Memoli et
al. (2008) conducted a study that analysed the differences in sound levels
obtained between a microphone located on the façade and another one
situated at very small distances from it. For this purpose, a speaker with
an MLS signal was used as a sound source. The results show that the cor-
rection near the metal plate at distances between 0.01 and 0.02 m from it
changes very quickly with distance, variations of up to approximately 0.6
dB are obtained. In an analogous way, a study was conducted where the
range of distances to the façade was 0.25 to 0.5 m and in which two dis-
tances between the sound source and the façade were considered: 10.1
and 13.1 m. When the sound source was located at a distance of 10.1 m,
sound level differences between the two microphones were about
1.0 dB at 0.25 m and 0.4 dB at 0.5 m, whereas, for a distance of 13.1 m,
the results were approximately 1.9 dB at 0.25 m and 1.3 dB at 0.5 m.
In another work by Hopkins and Lam (2009) the range between 0.1
and 0.5 m for the distance between the microphone and the reective
surface is analysed. A comparison of the variation of sound pressure
level predicted by the method of the integral equation (IEM) and that
measured in a scale model 1:5 in a semi-anechoic chamber with a
point sou rce for different si zes of reective surface is shown. Differences
between the nite and semi-innite reectors are most noticeable at
frequencies below 300 Hz.
In this respect, the ISO 1996-2 standard states, The difference be-
tween the sound pressure level at a microphone placed 2 m in front of
the façade and at a free-eld microphone is close to 3 dB in an ideal
case where no other vertical reecting obstacle inuences sound prop-
agation to the studiedreceiver. In complex situations, e.g. high building
density on the site, canyon street, etc., this difference can be much
higher.Therefore, the standard itself indicates the difculty of accu-
rately knowing the value of the difference between the incident sound
eld on the façade and the one effectively measured in these conditions.
Consequently, it indirectly indicates the need to develop research in this
line. The importance of this measurement conguration must be con-
sidered. It is quite used in the assessment of noise exposure in urban
areas and, also, as a reference to validate noise maps at selected sites.
Annex B (informative) of the ISO 1996-2 standard lists a series of spec-
ications regarding the distances among the microphone, reecting sur-
face and sound source for which a correction of 3 dB would be applied:
The façade should be at with a tolerance of ±0.3 m.
In order to avoid the edge effects, minimum distances between the
image of the microphone on the reective surface (point 0) and the
closest edges of the reecting surface are set up: b (horizontal dis-
tance) and c (vertical distance) (see Fig. 1). These distances must sat-
isfy some conditions:
b4d ð1Þ
c2d ð2Þ
where d is the perpendicular distance from the microphone to the
façade.
To guarantee that the incident and reected sounds have the same
magnitude, in the case of the extended source (road trafc), the crite-
rion of Eq. (3) must be satised. This equation relates the distances a
and d, taken along the dividing line of viewing angle αas shown in
Fig. 1. Assuming that Mis the point on the dividing line of angle α
at a distance d from the façade, dcan be dened as the distance be-
tween Mand the façade, and acan be dened as the distance be-
tween Mand the sound source.
d00:1a3Þ
To ensure that the microphone is placed at an enough distance from
the area of the correction of 6 dB near the façade in the case of an
extended source (road trafc), Eq. (4) should be taken into consider-
ation when an analysis is performed on broadband, and Eq. (5) should
be taken into consideration when an analysis is performed on octave
bands.
d00:5m ð4Þ
d01:6m ð5Þ
To guarantee that the microphone is in a free eld, Eq. (6) should be
considered:
d02a0:ð6Þ
Taking into account these considerations included in the informative
part of the standard, the distance between the façade and the sound
source limits the possibilities to place the microphone with respect to
the evaluated façade. In Fig. 2, different options for the microphone lo-
cation are presented for the distances façade-microphone and micro-
phone-sound source depending on the total distance between the
façade and the sound source. To develop these gures, a minimum dis-
tance of 2.0 m between the microphone and the sound source (the ref-
erence point of the sound source is the nearest vehicle wheel (Jonasson,
2006)) has been considered.
In Fig. 2:
The solid line just on the axis X in Fig. 2 (a) represents the measure-
ment position on the façade, d= 0 m. This measurement position is
represented by the solid line of the unit slope in Fig. 2(b).
The shaded area at the bottom of Fig. 2(a) represents the options for
measuring from 0.5 to2 m, which corresponds to the shadedarea at
the top of Fig. 2(b).
The shaded area at the top of Fig. 2(a) represents the measurements
in free eld conditions. The measurements are also represented by
the shaded area at the bottom of Fig. 2(b).
Considering equations 3, 4 and 6, whose implications are shown in
Fig. 2, it is deduced that:
The measurement at distances lower than 0.5 m from the façade is
explicitly excluded.
Fig. 1. Microphone near the reecting surface (ISO 1996-2, 2007).
599J.M. Barrigón Morillas et al. / Science of the Total Environment 565 (2016) 595606
For distances from the façade to the sound source below 5.5 m, only
the option for measuringwith the microphone ush mounted on the
façade guarantees that the correction indicated by the standard, in
this case of 6 dB, will be veried.
For distances of between 5.5 m and 22 m from the façade to the traf-
c line, in addition to the option for measuring on the façade, the ef-
fective range of distance from the façade to place the microphone in
the area of 0.5 to 2 m increases. However, only for a distance of 22 m
or higher from the façade to the sound source, a measurement car-
ried out with a microphone located 2 m of the façade ensure the cor-
rection of 3 dB indicated by the standard. For greater distances
than 22 m between the façade and the sound source being
evaluated, any option provided by the standard could be used to
place the microphone to guarantee the corrections indicated by the
standard. In this respect, it should be observed that, for the range
of distances from 0.5 to 2 m from the façade to the microphone, in
the work made by Memoli et al. (2008), a dependence of the correc-
tion due to reection on the façade with respect to the distance be-
tween the sound source and the façade is found.
For the distance between the microphone and the sound source in-
dicated, to nd an area for measurements that veries the free
eld condition, it is necessary that the sound source is located at
least 6 m from the façade or other inuential reective surface be-
hind the microphone. It must be claried that this area for measure-
ments is not valid in the ISO 1996-2 standard approach to assess the
incident sound eld on the buildingfaçade, butit is valid on a façade
near the measuring point and placed at an equal distance from the
sound source. Naturally, in free eld conditions, for distances further
than 4 m from the microphone to the building façade being evaluat-
ed, the value of the measured sound eld does not correspond to the
value of the incident eld on the façade because an attenuation by
geometric divergence would take place in the propagation from
the measuring point to the reecting surface.
Just as with the previous correction, this correction of 3 dB has been
analysed by different authors in urban environments.
Considering vehicles as a sound source on highways and main streets
of Toronto, Hall et al. (1984) conducted a study of the differences among
the sound pressure levels measured on the outside of 33 dwellings. To
this end, a comparison of the measurements performed at 2.0 m from
the façades and the surfaces was made, so the microphone was placed di-
rectly on the windows in the last case. The results show that, on average,
a correction of 3 dB between the two measuring points is appropriate, ex-
cept at low frequencies. In this work, there is no indication about the pos-
sible variability detected in this mean value. But it is specied that, for
frequencies below 200 Hz, the obtained values uctuate signicantly
above and below the 3 dB indicated, reaching values of 1.7 dB and
7.3 dB at the third octave bands of 40 Hz and 50 Hz respectively.
Quirt (1985) carried out a study to investigate the behaviour of the
sound eld near the exterior surfaces of buildings. For this purpose, he
used a mathematical model to predict noise levels. In the verication,
a series of measurements was made in a semi-anechoic acoustic
chamber with a controlled sound source and another series of in situ
measurements were made with a controlled sound source and road
trafc noise. In this study, it is indicatedthat the assumptionthat the en-
ergy is doubled (+ 3 dB) at 2 m from thesurface ofthe buildingis a rea-
sonable approximation for an extended source such as road trafcand
for third octave bands above 100 Hz. This result is consistent with that
specied by the ISO 1996-2 standard in Annex B (informative) with re-
gard to the appearance of coherence effects at low frequencies and the
indication of a minimum distance of 1.6 m for measurements in octave
bands (Eq. (5)).
Both the studies of Hall et al. (1984) and Quirt (1985) were per-
formed before the development of the ISO 1996-2 standard (ISO 1996-
2, 1987), but they agree that, on average, a correction of 3dBinthe
range between 0.5 and 2 m in front of the reecting surface is suitable.
After the development of the latest version of the ISO 1996-2 stan-
dard (ISO 1996-2, 2007), Memoli et al. (2008) tested the acoustic
corrections due to reections from the back wall. In each of the measur-
ing points, the distance from the microphone to the façade (d) was var-
ied, establishing at least three values: 0.5, 1 and 2 m. The objective was
to compare the average of the values obtained in the range of 0.5 to 2 m
from the façade and the value established in ISO 1996-2 standard. Using
road trafc as a sound source, some values in the range of 6.6 to 34.0 m
were used for the distance from the source to the façade (D). However,
the values of the distance between the microphone and the sound
source (D-d) for each measurement point are not explicitly stated. The
Fig. 2. Relationship between the distances façade-microphone and façade-sound source
(a) and relationship between the distances microphone-sound source and façade
sound-source (b) according to the measurement areas regulated in Annex B
(informative) of ISO 1996-2 standard.
600 J.M. Barrigón Morillas et al. / Science of the Total Environment 565 (2016) 595606
results shown in the study are those obtained for the total streets stud-
ied, and there is no breakdown to distinguish the partial values for roads
with U and L typologies or to distinguish different values of the distance
between the sound source and the microphone. In this study, a differ-
ence of 3.0 ± 0.8 dB (95% condence) is obtained between the micro-
phone located in the range 0.52.0 m and another microphone placed
in a free eld. There is a difference of 2.7 ± 0.6 dB (95% condence) be-
tween the microphone located in the range 0.52.0 m and a receiver
ush mounted on the reecting surface. On average, the results show
a match with those values proposed by the ISO 1996-2 standard. But it
can be observed that there is a certain variability in the experimental
values for the measurement conditions used in this study involving de-
viations of up to 1 dB with respect to the proposed value. In fact, in this
work, using an MLS point source, it is found that, until distances greater
than 1.0 m, there are not differences of 3.0 dB between the microphone
ush mounted on the façade and the microphone located at some dis-
tance from the surface.
Hopkins and Lam (2009) also study the effects of diffraction on the
sound eld in front of nite size reectors in the range between 1 and
2 m for the distance between the microphone and the reective surface.
Important uctuations can be reached in connection with different
source-reector-receiver geometry. The effects are signicant until
100 Hz if reector is larger than 4 × 4 m, but even up to 630 Hz for
2×2mreector.
In another study, Jagniatinskis and Fiks (2014) realized noise mea-
surements for a year. In this case, as in the previous one, road trafc
was used as a sound source. A location with a high ow of vehicles
was selected where the distance between the microphone and the
sound source was 250 m. Two microphones were used to measure si-
multaneously and were connected to the same station. One of them
was located 2 m from the façade, and the other one was placed on a
plate in one window of the wall. The rst of the conclusions drawn
from this study is that, in overall terms, the difference between the an-
nual values of the day-evening-night (L
den
) sound level registered by
both microphones is about 3 dB. In this way, the result matches the
correction proposed by the ISO 1996-2 standard in the case of a micro-
phone located between 0.5 and 2 m in front of a reective surface. An-
other nding of this work is that the average difference in measured
sound levels between both sound level meters is up to 2 dB lower at
night than in the daytime. This fact could be related to the ow of vehi-
cles in both periods and, therefore, the characteristics of the studied
source.
Another paper that is of interest in this regard is the work of Montes
González et al. (2015) in which the effect of varying the distance be-
tween the microphone and the building reective surface is studied in
urban environments. The work was carried out in different parts of a
city in a range of distances from 8.2 m to 28.4 m between the façade
and the centre of a set of trafc lanes (reference sound source). Two
microphones were used to measure simultaneously. The reference mi-
crophone was located 2 m from the building façade, and mobile micro-
phone was placed at different distances from it (0 m, 0.5 m, 1.2 m and
3.0 m). Analyses were conducted with microphones situated at the
heights that the ISO 1996-2 standard established for noise mapping:
1.5 m and 4.0 m. In the paper, an explicit reference is made to Annex
B (informative) of the standard and to compliance with some of the as-
pects mentioned in Annex. Also, the effect of the distance between the
microphone and the noise source is analysed. The results show that
the correction values for reection in real measurement conditions in
urban areasare lower than those recommended by the ISO 1996-2 stan-
dard. In the case of microphones located at a 1.5 m height, the differ-
ences between sound levels obtained on the façade and 2.0 m from it
are 1.1 dB if a correction due to the distance to the sound source is not
applied and 1.7 dB if the correction is applied. In the case of the micro-
phone located 4.0 m high, thesedifferences are 2.0 dB and 2.6 dB respec-
tively. Therefore, the results obtained in this study show signicant
differences between the corrections indicated in the standard and the
measured differences. Furthermore, in this range of façade-microphone
distances, an appreciable inuence is observed on the outcome associat-
ed with the distance between the sound source and the façade under
evaluation. In addition, this study indicates the possibility that inevita-
ble urban congurations (parking lines) in the streets of our cities
could have a not insignicant effect on the results of the measurements
and, consequently,could have a result not considered at present in noise
maps elaborated under the European Noise Directive. It shouldbe noted
that, if this effect exists, it could involve a variability factor in time on the
setting of the calculation model.
The differences between the sound levels measured with the micro-
phone located on a reective surface and near façade in the case of an
extended source are summarized in Table 2.
Another situation of a lack of denition that arises in the application
of the corrections proposed by the ISO 1996-2 standard is the existence
of a single correction value for a very wide area between thedistances of
0.5 and 2 m. Perhaps, this is the reason why most of the above men-
tioned studies compare only the mean values obtained in this range of
distances. Although, for example, in the study of Memoli et al. (2008),
the average correction of the positions of 0.5, 1 and 2 m show a coef-
cient of variation of approximately 22%. In the work of Montes
González et al. (2015), a comparison is made between the sound values
obtained at 0.5 and 1.2 m from the reecting surface with respect to
those registered at 2 m. The most signicant differences were found at
a height of 4.0 m. At this point, in the measurements performed be-
tween 0.5 and 2 m from the façade, differences of 0.6 ± 0.2 dB (without
correction for distance from the source) and 1.1 ± 0.2 dB (with correc-
tion for distance from the source) were obtained.
Accordingly, for the results obtained in different studies, a wide var-
iation wasfound regarding the correction that would correspond when
the measurement is made between 0.5 and 2 m from the façade under
evaluation. This variation could be motivated by very diverse circum-
stances, and it seems to be associated with the complex urban environ-
ment of our cities. This can be caused because the urban environment
implies the existence of distances between source and façade that, for
certain measurement congurations, does not allow compliance with
the recommendations of ISO 1996-2, or the sound eld can be inu-
enced in its propagation by urban congurations (size and shape of
the façades) or by urban elements (parking lanes) that, in some cases,
could become variable in time. The sound source might be rather close
to the façade under evaluation or be inuenced in its propagation by
urban congurations. And, in some cases, it could become variable in
time. Both aspects can have repercussions on the accuracy of the noise
maps developed up to now under the European Noise Directive.
Therefore, it is concluded that it is necessary to increase the number
of studies, which check the correction to be made in the case of
Table 2
Differences between thesound levels measured with the microphone located on a reec-
tive surface and near façade in case of an extended source (see Fig. 1).
Reference Microphone RO
(m)
d
(m)
a
(m)
h
(m)
Correction
(dB)
Hall et al. (1984) Near façade No data 2 No data No
data
3.2 ± 0.2
Façade 0 No data
Memoli et al.
(2008)
Near façade 6.634 0.5,
1.0,
2.0
4.633.5 4.0 3.0 ± 0.8
Free 6.634
Memoli et al.
(2008)
Near façade 6.634 0.5,
1.0,
2.0
4.633.5 4.0 2.7 ± 0.6
Façade 0 6.634
Jagniatinskis and
Fiks (2014)
Glass 250 0 250 No
data
3
Near façade 2 248
Montes González
et al. (2015)
Near façade 8.228.4 2 6.226.4 1.5 1.11.7
(±0.2)Façade 0 8.228.4
Montes González
et al. (2015)
Near façade 8.228.4 2 6.226.4 4.0 2.02.6
(±0.4)Façade 0 8.228.4
601J.M. Barrigón Morillas et al. / Science of the Total Environment 565 (2016) 595606
measurements performed at a distance from the façade between 0.5
and 2 m depending on the variety of urban congurations and distances
to the sound source that can be found. It is very necessary that, if
analysing the specic effectsof different geometric urban congurations
is wanted, new studies analyse and indicate results independently for
the different congurations of the environment and the different micro-
phone positions, which have been used.
Finally,situations that may be of interestis what must be done if the
measurement is made more than 2 m from the building façade but fails
to full the free eld condition (Eq. (6)). This area is not considered in
the ISO 1996 standard and has not been previously studied in detail.
However, it can be of great interest to measure noiselevels in urban en-
vironments. Since this area does not meet the free eld condition, it is
still inuenced by the building façade. So, perhaps some correction
term will allow evaluating the free sound eld incident on a façade.
Therefore, it is of interest to conduct studies in this new line of
work. This possibility has been analysed by Montes Gonzalez et al.
(2015) in a study of the differences between two microphones located
2 and 3 m from the façade, using road trafc as the reference noise
source. The results show a slight increase in the sound level in the
microphone situated at 3 m, although it becomes negligible when
applying a correction due to the difference in distance to the source
between these two positions. These resultsmay indicate the possibility
of using distances between the façade under evaluation and a measur-
ing point larger than 2 m to evaluate the incident sound eld on the
façade.
4. The position of the microphone with respect to the sound source
Annex B (informative) of the ISO 1996-2 standard, as has been men-
tioned above, in the case of a microphone in a free eld (Eq. (6)), as
when it is positioned at a distance between 0.5 and 2 m from a reective
surface (Eq. (3)), established relations between the distances micro-
phone-sound source and microphone-reective surface (see Fig. 2). In
this regard, the standard does not take into account any kind of depen-
dence of the proposed corrections on the distance between the micro-
phone and the sound source, probably because it considered an
effective compliance with the conditions indicated by these equations.
However, due to the great variability in the geometry of streets in real
conditions, it is not possible to verify the condition stated in Eq. (3).
For this reason, it is interesting to analyse the effect that the distance be-
tween the façade and the sound source has on the corrections to be ap-
plied. This would provide checks of the calculation models that are
made through measures in this range of distances.
In relation to this aspect, Memoli et al. (2008) refers to the impor-
tance of registering the distance between the sound source and micro-
phone as well as the distance between the façade and the sound
source (parameter D). The variation of parameter D is associated with
a variation in the distance between the sound source and the micro-
phone, and, due to the different distances between sound sources and
dwellings that exist between northern Europe and southern Europe, it
is considered necessary to take it into account in these types of studies.
In this way, Memoli et al. (2008), using a loudspeaker with an MLS
signal as a sound source, check the differences of 3.0 dB with respect
to a microphone located on the façade. A very interesting aspect was
found, the dependence of these differences on the distance between
the sound source and the measurement point. Differences of 3.0 dB
were found when the sound source was located at a distance of
13.1 m from the reecting surface. However, if the source was placed
at a distance of 10.1 m, the average difference did not exceed 2.5 dB.
Picaut et al. (2005) analyse the sound propagation in urban areas in
an experimental study. They use an impulsive sound source and an
array of microphones located at heights between 1.2 and 6.0 m on a
street with a U prole whose buildings are approximately 18 m high.
The obtained values during testing indicate a decrease in sound level
as the distance between the source and the array increases, reaching
approximately 11 dB at the 1 kHz octave band between the microphone
positions located 6 and 50 m from the source.
Lee and Kang (2015) conducted a simulation work in order to study
the behaviour of the sound eld in urban streets. In particular, they used
a technique based on a calculation method that combines ray tracing
and modelling by source image. The results show, for the case of a
point source, an attenuation of the sound pressure level as the distance
between the source and receiver increases. It is more signicant in a
near eld, especially in the case of narrow streets. However, in the
case of a line source, for representing road trafc noise, the obtained
values of sound pressure level are relatively constant as the distance be-
tween source and receiver increases, both in narrow and wide streets.
In the study of Montes González et al. (2015), a correction due to the
distance to the sound source is applied in the analysis of each of the
blocks of acoustic measurements (Harris, 1991). These normalized
sound values due to the distance to the sound source were compared
with those sound values not normalized. Overall, it appears that nor-
malized sound values show a qualitative behaviour accordingto expec-
tations and are closer to the results indicated in the ISO 1996-2
standard.
Therefore, no detailed study of the impact that the distance between
the source and façade has on the correction to apply has been made,
whether complying with the conditions established in AnnexB or omit-
ting them. But, according to results published so far, the existence of an
effect due to distance on these corrections seems to be detected. Owing
to normal urban congurations that exist in Europe, this fact could have
signicant effects on the assessment of noise impact on the population
in the application ofthe EuropeanNoise Directive if the calibration pro-
cess of the simulated results with the measured sound levels is
considered.
5. The height of the microphone
The ISO 1996-2 standard provides that, for noise mapping, the fol-
lowing microphone heights must be used:
a) 4.0 ± 0.5 m in residential areas with multistorey buildings.
b) 1.2 ± 0.1 m or 1.5 ± 0.1 in residential areas with one oor buildings
and recreational areas.
In relation to this topic, the European Noise Directive states
that, when calculations are carried out for developing strategic
noise maps in relation to noise exposure, the assessment points must
be 4.0 m ± 0.2 m in height above ground level. Similarly, it states
that, when measurements for noise mapping are made, other heights
may be chosen, but they must not be lower than 1.5 m above the
ground, and results should be corrected in accordance with an equiva-
lent height of 4.0 m. However, no correction method is proposed in
this regard.
In this way, the ANSI S12.18. (1994) standard proposes a micro-
phone height between 1.2 and 1.8 m above ground level to perform
acoustic measurements outdoors while the ANSI S12.9-3 (1993) stan-
dard establishes a height between 1.0 and 2.0 m. On the other hand,
the FHWA-PD-96-046 (1996) report of the US Department of Transpor-
tation proposes a microphoneheight of 1.5 m as a preferred position, es-
tablishing other possible options of from between 4.5 m and 7.5 m for
areas of multistorey buildings.
The actual measurement conditions in an urban environment do not
always allow placing the measuring device at the height of 4.0 m as
specied by the ISO 1996-2 standard. Therefore, as neither the Europe-
an Noise Directive nor the ISO 1996-2 standard make any mention of
the use of possible corrections if the measures are carried out at differ-
ent heights, this is considered an area to investigate and analyse that
is of great interest.
602 J.M. Barrigón Morillas et al. / Science of the Total Environment 565 (2016) 595606
In connection with this aspect, the Guide du Bruit des Transports
Terrestrial: Prevision des Niveaux Sonores(CETUR, 1980)xes the fol-
lowing corrections (K
h
)forUprole streets:
kh¼2h4ðÞ
lif hN4mð7Þ
kh¼0if h4mð8Þ
where lis the distance between the façades of both sides ofthe street,
and his the height above ground at which the measuring microphone
is located.
The corrections proposed by the Guide du Bruit des Transports Ter-
restrial: Prevision des Niveaux Sonores, which provide a decrease in
sound level as the microphone height increases above 4.0 m, have
been taken, among others, as a reference in different studies (Rey
Gozalo et al., 2013, 2014) to normalize the long-term sound measure-
ments made on balconies of apartments located higher than 4.0 m.
However, this guide does not propose any corrections for microphones
situated between 1.5 and 4.0 m.
In relation to this matter, in Nicol and Wilson (2004), the vertical
variation of the noise level is analysed in urban streets with a U prole.
To do this, taking road trafc as the reference sound source, several
streets of the city of Athens were selected with different relationships
between the average height of buildings and the width of the street. Si-
multaneous measurements of 15 min were made with three micro-
phones at a distance of 1 m from the building façade. One of the
microphones was placed on the street and the others, with different
congurations, were placed on two oors of the building. The results
show a decrease in sound level as the height increases. Based on the
data reported in this study, an average wasmade of the obtained differ-
ences among the sound value registered by the microphone located at
street level and those registered by microphones located on different
oors of the building at heights of 8, 11.5, 15, 18.5 and 22 m. The results
show a decrease of 2.3 dB, 3.1 dB,3.5 dB, 2.1 dB and 7.8 respectively with
height, so the trend is in line with what is established in the Guide du
Bruit des Transports Terrestrial: Prevision des Niveaux Sonoresin rela-
tion with a decrease of sound level as height increase above 4 m al-
though the measured decrease in this paper is results greater than
that proposed in the standard. The results found by the authors for
two of the streets studied in this work are shown in Fig. 3.
Shortly after the publication of the work of Nicol and Wilson (2004),
Soler Rocasalbas et al. (2005) focused their analysis on the differences of
microphones located at heights between 1.5 and 4.0 m. They assessed
noise levels in different circumstances based on the slope of the street,
the distance from the building façade and trafcow. The results
show that, on average, the microphone situated at 1.5 m registered
0.2 dB more than the microphone at 4.0 m (see Fig. 3). So, the difference
is very small between the two locations according to what is indicated
in the Guide du Bruit des Transports Terrestrial: Prevision des Niveaux
Sonores(CETUR, 1980).
Also, in the same direction, some studies have been conducted by
combining simulation software and experimental measurements in
order to study the behaviour of the sound level on the façade in streets
with road trafcconditions(Janczur et al. 2006a, 2006b, 2009; Walerian
et al., 2011). Generally, in these works, the eld test conrmed the val-
idation software for the range of higher oors. However, for the range of
lowest oors, an overestimation of the sound level is observed.
Firstly, Janczur et al. (2006a) conducted a study to predict the distri-
bution of noise levels on the façade of buildings by simulation software
(PROP11), and these estimates were experimentally veried (Janczur et
al., 2006b). The agreement between measurement and simulation re-
sults was tested for different directivity characteristics of an equivalent
point source representing the vehicles. The study was made in an urban
street with a width of 43.4 m with buildings on both sides with heights
of 25.8 and 32.4 m. The microphones were placed at heights of 2.0, 5.3,
8.6, 14.6, 19.1, 22.4and 25.7 m and at a distance of 0.5 m from the façade
of the highest building. The experimental results due to current trafc
show that, between 2.0 and 5.3 m, there is an average increase of
noise levels of 0.5 dB. This increase, not foreseen in the standard,
could have an inuence on noise mapping. For heights between 5.3
and 8.6 m and 8.6 and 14.6 m, there are mean decreases of 0.5
and 0.4 dB respectively, which are in line with the estimates of Eq. (7)
(see Fig. 3).
In an analogous way to the previous work, Janczur et al. (2009)
analysed a new urban environment by carrying out a comparison of
the data obtained through simulation and acoustic measurements. In
this case, a series of microphones were placed in each of the 10 oors
of the façade of a 34 m high building located in the vicinity of a road
in a street with an L typology. Measurements of 10 min were performed
to determine the equivalent noise level by a four channel digital
analyser. The measurements were divided into three groups of
Fig. 3. Sound level variation depending on the height of microphone.
603J.M. Barrigón Morillas et al. / Science of the Total Environment 565 (2016) 595606
simultaneous measures. In the rst one, receivers in oors 1 to 4 are in-
cluded; in thesecond one, oors 4 to 7 areincluded and, in the third one,
receivers in oors 7 to 10 are included. To this end, the microphones
were placed 1 m from the building façade and 1.5 m above the corre-
sponding oor. The experimental results show an increase in noise
levels of approximately 1.5 dB between the heights of 5.6 and 13.9 m
and 0.7 dB between the heights of 13.9 and 22.2 m. This increase in
sound level is opposite what is expected, even just for reasons of geo-
metrical divergence. Above 22.2 m, sound levels begin to decrease as
altitude increases (see Fig. 3).
Walerian et al. (2011) carried out a new study similar to the prior
one. In this instance, the urban environment is the same as that used
in the work of Janczur et al. (2009), but, instead of placing the micro-
phones next to the façade of the building, they were located in a zone
near the road. In this study, four microphones were situated at the re-
spective heights of 1.4, 2.8, 4.2 and 5.6 m in two vertical lines next to
a pedestrian bridge, one on each side of the road. Measurements of
10 min were performed to determine the equivalent noise level by a
four channel digital analyser and were divided into twogroups of simul-
taneous measurements, one on each vertical line. The experimental re-
sults show that, for one of the vertical lines, the measured noise level
increases with heightfrom 1.4 m to 4.2 m for a total of 0.5 dB, decreasing
by about 1.0 dB between 4.2 and 5.6 m. However, for the second line,
located 1 m closer to the road (5.95 m), the sound level values remain
nearly constant from 1.4 m to 4.2 m high, showing a fall of 1.0 dB be-
tween 4.2 and 5.6 m (see Fig. 3).
In this respect, the work of Montes González et al. (2015) studies the
effect of varying the height of the microphone at different points in a
city with two sound level meters using simultaneous measurements.
For this purpose, a reference microphone was placed 4.0 m high and an-
other microphone was placing at different heights (1.2 m, 1.5 m, 2.5 m
and 6.0 m), performing measurements of 15 min. In all cases, the micro-
phones were placed at 3.0 m from the building façade. The values ob-
tained in broadband for the differences of sound levels measured by
both microphones, with and without the application of a correction
due to the distance to the sound source (Harris, 1991), indicate that,
just considering the proximity to the source as the height of measure-
ments decreases, the obtained values have different signs. The results
achieved for the differences of sound level between the mobile micro-
phone located at heights of 1.2 m, 1.5 m, 2.5 m and 6.0 m and the refer-
ence microphone located at 4.0 m are 0.7 dB, 0.8 dB, 0.2 dB and
0.4 dB respectively. Therefore, the microphone registered, on average,
higher sound values as the height increased in spite of being at a greater
distance from the source. In the case of applying a correction due to the
distance to the source, the values obtained are 0.9 dB, 1.0 dB,
0.4 dB and 0.7 dB respectively. Thus, the sound level increase with
height is kept. As this paper does not show measured sound levels, the
results cannot be included in Fig. 3.
In addition to variation of sound level depending on the heightof mi-
crophonein analysed studies, the correction proposed in the Guide du
Bruit des Transports Terrestrial: Prevision des Niveaux Sonoresin case
of U prole streets are shown in Fig. 3.
The fact that recent studies show an increase in noise levels between
1.5 and 4.0 m can lead to underestimations of sound exposure levels
represented in the strategic noise maps of cities around the world
following the instructions of the European Noise Directive and the
ISO-1996-2 standard. Furthermore, this trend appears to exceed 4.0 m,
which would contradict the corrections due to the height of the micro-
phoneproposedbytheGuide du Bruit des Transports Terrestrial: Pre-
vision des Niveaux Sonores.
6. Conclusions
This work presents a detailed review of the literature and proposes
research strategies in order to study the relationships between the ISO
1996-2 standard measurements procedure and the accuracy of the
estimations of noise doses received by people obtained by the applica-
tion of the European Noise Directive.
The ISO 1996-2 standard proposes corrections to be applied to the
values of themeasured noise levels. The aim of this proposal is to correct
the effects of increased noiselevels dueto sound reections on surfaces.
In this way, the real value of the incident sound eld on the façade
(free eld) is obtained. These corrections have been analysed by some
authors in urban environments using in situmeasurements or
simulations.
The different papers published in this respect, in general, have fo-
cused on studying the corrections depending on the distance to the
building façade, but they have not carried outa detailed study regarding
to what extent the indications of Annex B (informative) are veried or
not.
The most relevant results published, which may have a signicant
impact on the results obtained up to now for the implementation of
the European Noise Directive, are summarized below:
The studies conducted to analyse the differences between the mea-
sured sound level in the free eld and with the microphone located
on the reective surface present adisparity in values. Depending on
the case, this may involve differences of up to 2 dB relative to the
6 dB correction indicated by the ISO 1996-2 standard. It should
be remembered that this conguration is usually employed in the
realization of strategy noise maps through simulation to locate re-
ceivers.
In the studies realized for analysing the correction, which would be
applied when the measurement is made between 0.5 and 2 m
from the façade under evaluation, the results of different works
have a wide variation. This variation can be greater than 1 dB rela-
tive to the 3 dB proposed in the standard.
The studies carried out with respect to the sound level variation de-
pending on the height of the microphone also show quite different
results. In some cases, they correspond with that expected, and, in
other cases, increases of sound level with heighthave been detected,
which would directly contradict the expected results considering
the geometric divergence of the sound wave.
Besides the mentioned results, some possibilities are not considered
until the moment arises. On the one hand, the corrections applied could
be related to the ow of vehicles and, therefore, tothe characteristicsof
the sound source to be studied. On theother hand, it may be that the in-
cident sound eld in the façade can be studied directly by measure-
ments at larger distances than 2 m.
The differences found between the corrections proposed by the
standard and the experimental results could be caused by very diverse
circumstances, and they seem to be associated with the quite complex
conguration of the urban environment of our cities. The sound source
can be rather close to the façade under evaluation or inuenced in its
propagation by urban congurations. It could even, in some cases, be-
come variable in time. Therefore, considering the results shown above,
different lines of research arise:
It is of great importance to know what geometric factors cause the
differences found between the correction values proposed by the
standard and the experimental results and to what extent these ex-
perimental results are being considered in the application of the
propagation models.
It is essential to increase the number of studies in this line of work by
taking into account the urban reality of European cities, that is, the
wide variety of urban congurations and distances to the sound
source that can be found.
It is necessary that, if analysing the specic effects of different geo-
metric urban congurations is wanted, that new studies analyse
and indicate results independently for the different congurations
604 J.M. Barrigón Morillas et al. / Science of the Total Environment 565 (2016) 595606
of the environment and the different microphone positions, which
have been used.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the funded project TRA2015-70487-R
(MINECO/FEDER, UE). This work was also partially supported by the Na-
tional Commission for Scientic and Technological Research (CONICYT)
through Nacional Fund for Scientic and Technological Development
(FONDECYT) for research initiation No 11140043.
References
Allen, R.W., Davies,H., Cohen, M.A., Mallach, G., Kaufman, J.D., Adar, S.D., 2009. The spatial
relationship between trafc-generated air pollution and noise in 2 US cities. Environ.
Res. 109, 334342.
Alves, S., Waddington, D., 2014. Estimation of uncertainty using revised draft ISO 1996-2.
Acoust Bull 39, 3441.
ANSI S12.18., 1994. Procedures for outdoor measurement of sound pressure level. New
York, USA, Acoustical Society of America.
ANSI S12.9-3, 1993. . Quantities and procedures for description and measurement of en-
vironmental sound. Part 3: short-term measurements with an observer present. New
York, USA, Acoustical Society of America.
Arana, M., Garcia, A., 1998. A social survey on the effects of environmental noise on the
residents of Pamplona, Spain. Appl. Acoust. 53, 245253.
Arana, M., San Martín, R., Nagore, I., Pérez, D., 2009. Using noise mapping to evaluate the
percentage of people affected by noise. Acta Acust 95, 550554.
Arana, M., San Martín, R., Nagore, I., Pérez, D., 2011. What precision in the digital terrain
model is required for noise mapping? Appl. Acoust. 72, 522526.
Babisch, W., Ising, H., Gallacher, J.E.J., Elwood, P.C., Sweetnam, P.M., Yarnell, J.W.G., et al.,
1990. Trafc noise, work noise and cardiovascular risk factors: the caerphilly and
speedwell collaborative heart disease studies. Environ. Int. 16, 425435.
Babisch, W., Ising, H., Kruppa, B., Wiens, D., 1994. The incidence of myocardial infaction
and its relation to road trafc noise the Berlin case-control studies. Environ. Int.
20, 469474.
BarrigónMorillas, J.M., Ortiz Caraballo, C., Prieto, G.C.,2015. The temporal structure of pol-
lution levels in developed cities. Sci. Total Environ. 517, 3137.
Berardi, U., 2013. The position of the instruments for the sound insulation measurement
of building façades: from ISO 140-5 to ISO 16283-3. Noise Control Eng J 61, 111.
Berardi, U., Cirillo, E., Martellotta, F., 2011. Interference effects in eld measurements of
airborne sound insulation of building façades. Noise Control Eng J 59, 165176.
Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., Schwela, D.H., 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. Geneva,
Switzerland, World Health Organisation.
Buhaug, H., Urdal, H., 2013. An urbanization bomb? Population growth and social disor-
der in cities. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23, 110.
Can, A., Rademaker, M., Van Renterghem, T., Mishra, V., Van Poppel, M., Touha,A.,
Theunis,J., De Baets, B., Botteldooren, D., 2011. Correlation analysis of noiseand ultra-
ne particle counts in a street canyon. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 564572.
Carter, N.L., 1996. Transportation noise, sleep, and possible after-effects. Environ. Int. 22,
105116.
CETUR, 1980. (Centre d'Etudes des transports Urbains). Guide du bruit des transports
Terrestres. Prévision des niveaux sonores. CETUR, France.
Chang, T.Y., Lin, H.C., Yang, W.T., Bao, B.Y., Chan, C.C., 2012. Amodied Nordic prediction
model of road trafc noise in a Taiwanese citywith signicant motorcycle trafc. Sci.
Total Environ. 432, 375381.
D'Alessandro, F., Schiavoni, S., 2015. A review and comparative analysis of European pri-
ority indices for noise action plans. Sci. Total Environ. 518519, 290301.
EC (European Commission), 1996. Green Paper on Future Noise Policy. COM (96)540. Eu-
ropean Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
EC (European Commission), 2002. Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and
management of environmental noise. Ofc J Euro Commun L 189, 1226 (Brussels,
Belgium: European Commission).
EEA (European Environment Agency), 2014. Noise in Europe 2014. Publications Ofce of
the European Union, Luxembourg.
EN 12354-3, 2000. Building Acoustics Estimation of Acoustic Performance of Buildings
From the Performance of Elements. Part 3. Airborne Sound Insulation Against Out-
door Sound. European Committee for Standardization, Bruxellees.
Evans, G.W., Hygge, S., Bullinger, M., 1995. Chronic noise and psychological stress.
Psychol. Sci. 6, 333338.
Evans, G.W., Lercher,P., Meis, M., Ising, H.,Kolfer, W.W., 2001.Community noise exposure
and stress in children. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 10231027.
Fernández-Camacho, R., Brito Cabeza, I., Aroba, J., Gómez-Bravo, F., Rodríguez, S., de la
Rosa, J., 2015. Assessment of ultrane particles and noise measurements using
fuzzy logic and data mining techniques. Sci. Total Environ. 512513, 103113.
FHWA-PD-96-046, 1996. Measurement of Highway-Related Noise. US Department of
Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, Washington D.C.,
USA.
Fidell, S., Barber, D.S., Schultz, T.J., 1991. Updating a dosageeffect relationship for the
prevalence of annoyance due to general transportation noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 89,
221233.
Fields, J.M., 1998. Reactions to environmental noise in an ambient noise context in resi-
dential areas. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104, 22452260.
Garg, N., Sinha, A.K., Gandhi, V., Bhardwaj, R.M., Akolkar, A.B., 2016. A pilot study on the
establishment of national ambient noise monitoring network across the major cities
of India. Appl. Acoust. 103, 2029.
Guski, R., 1999. Personal and social variables as co-determinants of noise annoyance.
Noise Health 1, 4556.
Hall, F.L., Papakyriakou, M.J., Quirt, J.D., 1984. Comparison of outdoor microphone loca-
tions for measuring sound insulation of building façades. J. Sound Vib. 92, 559567.
Harris, C.M., 1991. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. New York,
USA, Ed. McGrawHill.
Henderson, J.V., Gun, W.H., 2007. Urbanization and city growth: the role of institutions.
Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 37, 283313.
Hopkins, C., Lam, Y., 2009. Sound elds near building facades comparison of nite and
semi-innite reectors on a rigid ground plane. Appl. Acoust. 70, 300308.
Ising, H., Babisch, W., Kruppa, B., 1999. Noise-induced endocrine effects and cardiovascu-
lar risk. Noise Health 4, 3748.
ISO 140-5, 1998. Acoustics Measurement of Sound Insulation in Buildings and of Building
Elements. Part 5: Field Measurements of Airborne Sound Insulation of Façade Elements
and Façades. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 16283-3, 2016. Acoustics Field measurement of sound insulation in buildings and
of building elements. Part 3: Façade sound insulation. International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 1996-1, 2003. Acoustics Description, Measurement and Assessment of Environ-
mental Noise. Part 1: Basis Quantities and Assessment Procedures. International Or-
ganization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 1996-2, 1987. Description and measurement ofenvironmental noise. Part 2: Acquisi-
tion of data pertinent to land use. International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 1996-2, 2007. Acoustics Description, Measurement and Assessment of Environ-
mental Noise. Part 2: Determination of Environmental Noise Levels. International Or-
ganization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 1996-2, 2011. Acoustics Description, Measurement and Assessment of Environ-
mental Noise Part 2: Determination of Environmental Noise Levels (11-02-02)
2nd Working Draft. ISO TC43 SC1 Working Group 45.
Jagniatinskis, A., Fiks, B., 2014. Assessment of environmental noise from long-term win-
dow microphone measurements. Appl. Acoust. 76, 377385.
Janczur, R., Walerian, E., Czechowicz, M., 2006a. Inuence of vehicle noise emission direc-
tivity on sound level distribution in a canyon street, part I: simulation program test.
Appl. Acoust. 67, 643658.
Janczur, R., Walerian, E., Meissner, M., Czechowicz, M., 2006b. Inuence of vehicle noise
emissiondirectivity on soundlevel distributionin a canyon street, part II: experimen-
tal verication. Appl. Acoust. 67, 659679.
Janczur, R., Walerian, E., Meissner, M., Czechowicz, M., 2009. Application of simulation
program to specic urban situation. Appl. Acoust. 70, 973985.
Jonasson, H.G., 2006. Acoustic Source Modelling of Nordic Road Vehicles. SP Swedish Na-
tional Testing and Research Institute, Boras, Sweden.
Kephalopoulos, S., Paviotti, M., Anfosso-Lédée, F., Van Maercke, D., Shilton, S., Jones, N.,
2014. Advances in the development of common noise assessment methods in Eu-
rope: the CNOSSOS-EU framework for strategic environmental noise mapping. Sci.
Total Environ. 482483, 400410.
Lambert, J., Vallet, M., 1994. Study related to the preparation of a communication on a fu-
ture EC noise policy, LEN Report No. 9420. Institue National de Recherche sur les
Transport et leur Sécurité, Bron, France.
Lee, P.J., Kang, J., 2015. Effect of height-to-width ratio on the sound propagation in urban
streets. Acta Acustic 101, 7387.
Licitra,G., Ascari, E., 2014. Gden: an indicatorfor European noise maps comparison and to
support action plans. Sci. Total Environ. 482483, 411419.
Mateus M, Carrilho JD, Da Silva MG. Inuence of short-term sampling parameters on the
uncertainty of the Lden environmental noise indicator. J. Phys. 2015a(Conference Se-
ries):588; id. 012026.
Mateus, M.,Carrilho, J.D., Da Silva,M.G., 2015b. An experimental analysis of the correction
factors adopted on environmental noise measurements performed with window-
mounted microphones. Appl. Acoust. 87, 212218.
Mehdi, M.R., Kim, M., Seong, J.C., Arsalan, M.H., 2011. Spatio-temporal patterns of road
trafc noise pollution in Karachi, Pakistan. Environ. Int. 37, 97104.
Memoli, G., Paviotti, M., Kephalopoulos, S., Licitra, G., 2008. Testing the acoustical correc-
tions for reections on a façade. Appl. Acoust. 69, 479495.
Miedema, H.M.E., Oudshoorn, C.G.M., 2001. Annoyance from transportation noise: rela-
tionships with exposure metrics DNL and DENL and their condence intervals. Envi-
ron. Health Perspect. 109, 409416.
Miedema,H.M.E., Vos, H., 1998.Exposureresponse relationships fortransportation noise.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104, 34323445.
Montes González, D., Barrigón Morillas, J.M., Rey, G.G., 2015. Inuence of equipment loca-
tion on results of urban noise measurements. Appl. Acoust. 90, 6473.
Morelli, X., Foraster, M., Aguilera, I., Basagana, X., Corradi, E., Deltell, A., etal., 2015. Short-
term associations between trafc-related noise, particle number and trafcow in
three European cities. Atmos. Environ. 103, 2533.
Mulligan, G.F., Crampton, J.P., 2005. Population growth in the world's largest cities. Cities
22, 365380.
Murphy, E., King, E.A., 2010. Strategic environmental noise mapping: methodological is-
sues concerning the implementation of the EU Environmental Noise Directive and
their policy implications. Environ. Int. 36, 290298.
Nicol, F., Wilson, M., 2004. The effectof street dimensions and trafcdensityonthenoise
level and natural ventilation potential in urban canyons. Energ and Build 36,
423434.
605J.M. Barrigón Morillas et al. / Science of the Total Environment 565 (2016) 595606
NT ACOU 039, 2002.Road Trafc: Measurement of Noise Emission Engineering Method.
Nordtest Tekniikantie 12, Espoo, Finland.
Öhrström, E., 1990. Effects of noise during sleep with reference to noise sensitivity and
habituation. Environ. Int. 16, 477482.
Öhrström, E., 1991. Psycho-social effects of trafc noise exposure. J. Sound Vib. 151,
513517.
Öhrström,E., 1995. Effects of low levels of roadtrafc noise during the night: a laboratory
study on number of events, maximum noise levels and noise sensitivity. J.Sound Vib.
179, 603615.
Passchier-Vermeer, W., Passchier, W.P., 2000. Noise exposure and public health. Environ.
Health Perspect. 108, 123131.
Picaut, J., Le Pollès, T., L'Hermite,P., Gary, V., 2005. Experimental study of sound propaga-
tion in a street. Appl. Acoust. 66, 149173.
Prieto Gajardo, C., Barrigón Morillas, J.M., Gómez Escobar, V., Víchez-Gómez, R., Rey, G.G.,
2014. Effects of singular noisy events on long-term environmental noise measure-
ments. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 23, 20072017.
Quirt, J.D., 1985. Sound elds near exterior building surfaces. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 77,
557566.
Rey Gozalo, G., Barrigón Morillas, J.M., Gómez, E.V., 2014. Analyzing nocturnal noise strat-
ication. Sci. Total Environ. 479480, 3947.
Rey Gozalo, G., Barrigón Morillas, J.M., Gómez Escobar, V., Vílchez-Gómez, R., Méndez
Sierra, J.A., Carmona del Río, F.J., Prieto Gajardo, C., 2013. Study of the categorisation
method using long-term measurements. Arch Acoust 38, 397405.
Rey Gozalo, G.,Barrigón Morillas, J.M., Prieto, G.C., 2015. Urba n noise functional stratica-
tion for estimating average annual sound level. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 137, 31983208.
Soler Rocasalbas, S., Torregrosa Avilés, S., Rossell Turull, I., Arnet, V.I., 2005. Comparativa
entre medidas de ruido urbano a 1.5 y 4 m.Proceeding of National Congress of Acous-
tic Tecniacústica.
Suárez, E.,Barros, J.L., 2014. Trafc noisemapping of the city of Santiago de Chile.Sci. Total
Environ. 466467, 539546.
Thiessen, G.J., 1988. Effect of trafcnoise on the cyclical nature of sleep. J. Acoust.Soc. Am.
84, 17411743.
Van Renterghem, T., Botteldooren, D., Dekoninck, L., 2012. Evolution of building façade
road trafc noise levels in Flanders. J. Environ. Monit. 14, 677686.
Vlachokostas, C., Achillas, C., Michailidou, A.V., Moussiopoulos, N., 2012. Measuring com-
bined exposure to environmental pressures in urban areas: an air quality and noise
pollution assessment approach. Environ. Int. 39, 818.
Vogiatzis, K., Remy, N., 2014. From environmental noise abatement to soundscape crea-
tion through strategic noise mapping in medium urban agglomerations in South Eu-
rope. Sci. Total Environ. 482483, 420431.
Walerian, E., Janczur, R., Czechowicz, M., Smirnowa, J., 2011. Validation of a complex
urban noise model close to a road. Appl. Acoust. 72, 790802.
WG-AEN (Working Group Assessment of Exposure to Noise), 2007. Good practice guide
for strategic noise mapping and the production associated data on noise exposure.
Version 2. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium (Position Paper 2).
WHO (World Health Organization), 2011. Burden of Disease From Environmental Noise.
Quantication of Healthy Life Years Lost in EUROPE. WHO Regional Ofce for Europe,
Denmark.
Zannin, P.H.T., Sant'Ana, D.Q.D., 2011. Noise mapping at different stages of a freeway re-
development project a case study in Brazil. Appl. Acoust. 72, 479486.
Zuo, F., Li, Y., Johnson, S., Johnson, J., Varughese, S., Copes, R., et al., 2014. Temporal and
spatial variability of trafc-related noise in the City of Toronto, Canada. Sci. Total En-
viron. 472, 11001107.
606 J.M. Barrigón Morillas et al. / Science of the Total Environment 565 (2016) 595606
... A box plot of the answers for the subjective variables (a)-(i) is shown in Figure 2. The acoustic objective variables were collected by means of a class 1 sound level meter-analyser and were classified into three categories based on their association with different aspects of the sound energy (see Table 2). In situ measurements over 15 min were carried out using a microphone 1.5 m above ground level [50] and, where possible, free field conditions were considered [51]. In cases where the microphone had to be placed at a distance of between 0.5 and 2 m from building façades, a correction of −3 dB was made following the guidelines of the ISO 1996-2 standard [51][52][53]. ...
... The acoustic objective variables were collected by means of a class 1 sound level meter-analyser and were classified into three categories based on their association with different aspects of the sound energy (see Table 2). In situ measurements over 15 min were carried out using a microphone 1.5 m above ground level [50] and, where possible, free field conditions were considered [51]. In cases where the microphone had to be placed at a distance of between 0.5 and 2 m from building façades, a correction of −3 dB was made following the guidelines of the ISO 1996-2 standard [51][52][53]. ...
... In situ measurements over 15 min were carried out using a microphone 1.5 m above ground level [50] and, where possible, free field conditions were considered [51]. In cases where the microphone had to be placed at a distance of between 0.5 and 2 m from building façades, a correction of −3 dB was made following the guidelines of the ISO 1996-2 standard [51][52][53]. The distance between the microphone and the closest point of the main sound source (road traffic) was 2 m, and there were no obstacles between the source and receiver [54]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The impact of environmental noise on the health and well-being of people living in cities is an issue that has been addressed in the scientific literature to try to develop effective environmental policies. In this context, road traffic is the main source of noise in urban environments, but it is not the only source of noise that pedestrians hear. This paper presents an experimental study using in situ surveys and acoustic measurements to analyse the capacity of acoustic variables related to sound energy to estimate the occurrence and importance of noise effects in urban environments. The results revealed that average sound energy indicators can be considered most significant in terms of the perception of the noise effects studied on pedestrians. When estimating noise effects from them, frequency weightings related to flat or nearly flat spectra (Z and C weightings) were found to provide better results than an A weighting; however, it was also concluded that if the average energy is considered, the use of a temporal I weighting did not lead to improvements. The perception of how noisy a street is, it is strongly associated with a low frequency, and annoyance was the effect that generally showed the strongest significant correlations with acoustic indicators. The indicators of minimum sound levels explained a larger proportion of the variability of noise effects than the indicators of maximum energy; they were even better in this regard than any of the average energy indicators in terms of explaining the variability of startle and annoyance in the ears, and they were found to be equivalent when interruption of a telephone conversation was assessed. Both acoustic variables associated with sound energy in different parts of the audible spectrum and Leq in each one-third octave band showed significant correlations with the effects of noise on pedestrians. Similarities in the structure of the spectra were found between some of these effects.
... Measurements were performed using a Bruel & Kjaer type 2250 sound level meter, calibrated and configured to record the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level (LAeq). For the location of the microphone in the measurement points, the provisions of the SR ISO 1996 standard were considered, its height being 1.4 m from the ground, in a vertical orientation [16]. For each measurement a report was completed with the following information: the date and time interval of the measurement, atmospheric conditions, description of the measurement location including a map, traffic data, the equivalent continuous sound level associated with the measurement period (LAeq), the peak sound pressure level with 'C' frequency weighting (LCpeak), and any observations regarding events or particularities occurring during the measurement period. ...
Conference Paper
The outdoor music festivals play an important role in the development and improvement of urban activities, stimulating cultural vitality, promoting the area, creating connections among participants, but at the same time, they raise concerns about the impact on environment and residents. This paper presents an analysis of noise pollution resulting from the organization of outdoor music festivals, using the Untold festival as a case study. Untold is the only festival in Europe held in the central area of a city with more than 250 thousand inhabitants. Over the last three editions of the festival, noise measurements were conducted in areas surrounding the festival venue, tracking the evolution of noise levels and assessing their impact on the residential areas nearby. The study highlights temporal and spatial aspects of noise pollution during the festival and analyses scenarios related to different location and power of sound sources. Beyond assessing a noise pollution situation, the paper highlights aspects related to the necessity of noise management measures for music festivals, aiming to reduce noise pollution and ensure the well-being of residents in urban areas.
... Sound measurements were taken simultaneously with the surveys. The sound descriptor Leq (dBA) was measured with a sound-level meter (Brüel & Kjaer 2238) and with binaural recording device (Noise Book from Head Acoustics) following the ISO 1996-2 standard guidelines [17,18]. ...
... In this regard, it suggests that additional contributions to uncertainty should be added, such as that associated with the selection of microphone location. This interesting topic was taken into account in a recent work [17] that proposes research strategies in order to study the relationships between the ISO 1996-2 standard measurements procedure and the accuracy of the estimations of noise doses received by people obtained by the application of the European Noise Directive. ...
... As an extension to measurements that enable validation of data for acoustic mapping [22][23][24], the standard [20] is used as a set of recommendations when carrying out control measurements for maintaining permissible noise levels in the environment [25][26][27][28]. Having the above in mind, the guidelines provided in the standard [20] have become the subject of interest for many researchers [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]. The validity of including a −3 or −5.7 dB correction due to the location of the microphone relative to the façade was examined. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper presents a study of the effect of the type of exterior cladding material of a building façade on the amount of sound reflection. It was verified whether there is a sound field undisturbed by reflections, similar to the free field, at a distance of 3 m from the building façade. Sound reflections from three building façade structures were tested: clinker brick, mineral plaster, and hard HPL. An equal geometry of the measuring field at selected real objects was used. It was determined that the differences in sound level results measured at distances up to 2 m and more than 2 m from the building façade are lower than the −3 dB correction specified in ISO 1996-2. Significant differences were observed comparing the measured sound level values in the undisturbed sound field with the levels recorded at a distance of 3 m from the building façade. It was proposed that the results of measurements made to control the levels of permissible noise in the environment should not be subject to the −3 dB correction.
... Then, the sound level was recorded using CEL-450, with a measurement range of 40-120 and a precision of 0.1 dB. The sound device was placed at a distance of one meter from the roadside [36] and 1.2 meters from the ground [37] in the middle of the road [38]. Leq (A) was constantly recorded for 15 minutes at each location [37]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Noise pollution is one of the consequences of urbanization that can cause environmental disturbances in urban areas. Urban ecosystems provide noise reduction services through Urban Green infrastructures (UGIs). Many studies have been conducted to evaluate and model traffic noise, but none have addressed the flow, supply, and demand of noise reduction ecosystem services. The main purpose of this paper is to present a new methodology for estimating flow, supply, and demand for noise reduction in Hamadan city that has not been mentioned in any paper so far. UGIs were classified into six main categories: agricultural lands, gardens, parks, abandoned lands, single trees, and street trees. A total of 57 sampling stations for sound measurement were made in August 2018. The current map of noise pollution (flow) was created using the Kriging method. The amount of supply was measured up to a distance of 50 meters from the main roads based on two approaches (the distance effect and the sound barrier effect). To quantify the demand, the current sound intensity level in the noise-sensitive land uses was compared with standards. Zonal statistics was used for spatial analysis of supply-demand in the urban neighborhood as a working unit. Results showed that at distances of 5m, 10m, 15m, and 20m, the average noise reduction was found to be 1.61, 2.83, 3.92, and 5.33 dB, respectively. Sound barriers at distances of 5m and 10m resulted in an average sound reduction of 1.61 and 2.83 dB, respectively. Individual trees, strip trees, abandoned lands, parks, and gardens led to a decrease in traffic noise by 0.3, 1, 0.1, 3.5, and 4.5 dB, respectively. The clustering analysis revealed a significant spatial clustering of noise pollution in Hamedan. The results and new methodology of this research can be used in similar areas to estimate the supply and demand of noise reduction and also for decision-makers to take management actions to increase supply and meet the demand for noise reduction service.
Article
Full-text available
Urban parks play a vital role in enhancing the quality of life in cities by providing serene, healthy natural environments. Among their numerous benefits, urban parks significantly influence the auditory experience of visitors. This study investigates the impact of landscape elements within urban parks on perceived soundscapes, focusing on Putroe Phang Park, one of the largest urban parks in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Our methodology combines landscape observations, soundwalk data collection, visitor questionnaires, and sound measurements, including Sound Pressure Level (SPL) and Ambisonic recordings. We used a UNI-T UT sound level meter and a Zoom H1N digital audio recorder for data collection. The SPL distribution within the park was visualized using contour maps generated using Surfer software (version 23.3.202). Our findings reveal that while some landscape elements contribute positively to a pleasant soundscape, others, notably traffic noise, detract from the overall experience. However, the park’s Leq remained between 58 and 68dB(A), below the upper threshold of 70 dB(A). Our findings suggest that enhancing the diversity and quality of landscape elements can mitigate undesirable sounds and improve the park’s auditory environment.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The aim of this paper is to examine methods for the estimation of the uncertainty associated with environmental acoustic measurements. It is considered best practice that any measurement should be accompanied by a quantitative indication of its quality, that is, the uncertainty of the measurement. However, probably due to the lack of guidance in standards, it is not yet routinely considered. ISO 1996-2:2007 “Acoustics - Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise -Part 2: Determination of environmental noise levels” presents guidelines on how to determine the measurement uncertainty associated with environmental acoustic measurements, although the presentation of this value is not yet mandatory. However, this international standard is to be revised (stage 90.92 at 18 February 2014). From discussion with members of the ISO Standard working group, the working draft ISO 1996-2:2011(11-02-02 2nd working draft) follows the uncertainty calculation methodology recommended in the IMAGINE documents and specifically states that the estimation of measurement uncertainty should be reported. This section remains unchanged on the last revisions of the standard. This paper presents a method, based on the ISO working document, to perform this calculation as well as two worked examples (road traffic noise and railway traffic noise). The worked examples are also analysed using the method detailed by Craven and Kerry and the results according to both methods will be compared. In concluding, this paper presents a reflection on why an estimate of the uncertainty of the measurement is essential in environmental acoustics, comments on the approach currently being followed by the main European and International standards, and finally summarises methods to minimise the uncertainty associated with environmental noise level measurements.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The present study deals with the influence of the sampling parameters on the uncertainty of noise equivalent level in environmental noise measurements. The study has been carried out through the test of different sampling strategies doing resampling trials over continuous monitoring noise files obtained previously in an urban location in the city of Coimbra, in Portugal. On short term measurements, not only the duration of the sampling episodes but also its number have influence on the uncertainty of the result. This influence is higher for the time periods where sound levels suffer a greater variation, such as during the night period. In this period, in case both parameters (duration and number of sampling episodes) are not carefully selected, the uncertainty level can reach too high values contributing to a loss of precision of the measurements. With the obtained data it was investigated the sampling parameters influence on the long term noise indicator uncertainty, calculated according the Draft 1st CD ISO 1996-2:2012 proposed method. It has been verified that this method allows the possibility of defining a general methodology which enables the setting of the parameters once the precision level is fixed. For the three reference periods defined for environmental noise (day, evening and night), it was possible to derive a two variable power law representing the uncertainty of the determined L_eq values as a function of the two sampling parameters: duration of sampling episode and number of episodes.
Article
The "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise" has been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and thus entered into force. The aim of this Directive shall be to define a common approach intended to avoid, prevent or reduce the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise. It shall also aim at providing a basis for developing Community measures to reduce noise emitted by the major sources. The requirements of the Directive are presented and discussed and first ideas concerning the transposition in national legislation are given.
Article
The paper describes the pilot project on the establishment of National Ambient Noise Monitoring Network (NANMN) across seven major cities in India for continuous noise monitoring throughout the year. The annual average Lday (06-22 h) and Lnight (22-06 h) values observed since past three years are described. The long-term noise monitoring shows that ambient noise levels have marginally increased since past three years in the 35 locations under study in which 14 locations are in commercial zone, 5 in Industrial, 7 in residential and 9 in silence zones. The study is very helpful in ascertaining the magnitude of annual average ambient noise levels, planning for noise abatement action plans and formulation of revised ambient noise standards in Indian scenario.
Article
Road traffic noise causes many health problems and the deterioration of the quality of urban life; thus, adequate spatial noise and temporal assessment methods are required. Different methods have been proposed for the spatial evaluation of noise in cities, including the categorization method. Until now, this method has only been applied for the study of spatial variability with measurements taken over a week. In this work, continuous measurements of 1 year carried out in 21 different locations in Madrid (Spain), which has more than three million inhabitants, were analyzed. The annual average sound levels and the temporal variability were studied in the proposed categories. The results show that the three proposed categories highlight the spatial noise stratification of the studied city in each period of the day (day, evening, and night) and in the overall indicators (L Adn, L Aden, and L A24). Also, significant differences between the diurnal and nocturnal sound levels show functional stratification in these categories. Therefore, this functional stratification offers advantages from both spatial and temporal perspectives by reducing the sampling points and the measurement time.
Article
The limits of the procedure for the measurement of the sound insulation of building façades represent the main subject of this paper.To calculate the façade insulation, standard ISO 140-5 requires that the difference between outdoor and indoor sound pressure levels is determined. However, the measurement of outdoor pressure levels presents several critical challenges, not fully considered in the standard. In fact, the placement of an external source and receiver according to ISO 140-5 is flexible to permit adapting the measurement configuration to specific building characteristics. Unfortunately, according to the relative external source and receiver positions, destructive interferences among waves may occur in different frequency bands. Comparisons between different source-receiver combinations are hence investigated theoretically, before being compared with field measurements. The paper investigates circumstances which might lead to destructive interferences in the external final sound field. The increasing attention of reproducibility in building acoustics suggests an investigation of possible measurement errors that may occur. The influence of interference effects on the single number rating of the sound insulation is finally given.
Article
This important document replaces the 1980 Environmental Health Criteria No.12 – Noise. It is destined to become widely used and quoted in relation to environmental noise problems. All who have even a passing involvement in this area must become familiar with it and with its recommended levels. The Report considers noise sources and their measurement, adverse effects on health and noise management, whilst introducing a new set of recommendations and guideline values to take account of changes in knowledge and expectations over the past 20 years. Attention is drawn to inadequacies of equivalent level for intermittent noises, to the need to consider effects of low frequency noise and to the rights of vulnerable sub-groups. The Guide can be viewed in full on the World Health Organisation website – www.who.org