Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Technology for a Quieter America
Technology for a Quieter America
Committee on Technology for a Quieter America
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
Technology for a Quieter America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: To arrive at the findings and recommendations of this report, the National Academy of Engineering has used a process that involves careful selection of a balanced and knowledgeable committee, assembly of relevant information, and peer review of the resultant report.
Support for this project was provided by a generous gift from NAE member William W. Lang, the National Academy of Engineering Fund, and the Federal Highway Administration. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the supporting organizations.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Technology for a quieter America / National Academy of Engineering of the National Academies.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-0-309-15632-5 (pbk.) — ISBN 978-0-309-15633-2 (pdf)
1. Noise control—Technological innovations—United States. 2. Noise pollution—United States. I. National Academy of Engineering.
TD893.T43 2011
363.740973—dc22
2010037657
Copies of this report are available from the
National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (888) 624-8373 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); online at http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2010 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Technology for a Quieter America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It isautonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
Technology for a Quieter America
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R5
Technology for a Quieter America
COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA
GEORGE C. MALING, JR. (NAE) (chair),
Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA, Inc. (retired), Harpswell, Maine
ROBERT J. BERNHARD,
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana
ROBERT D. BRUCE,
CSTI Acoustics, Houston, Texas
BETH A. COOPER,
Glenn Research Center, NASA, Cleveland, Ohio
PATRICIA DAVIES,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
CARL E. HANSON,
Harris Miller Miller and Hanson, Burlington, Massachusetts
ROBERT D. HELLWEG, JR. (consultant),
Wellesley, Massachusetts
GERALD C. LAUCHLE,
Pennsylvania State University (retired)
RICHARD H. LYON (NAE),
RH Lyon Corp., Belmont, Massachusetts
IAN A. WAITZ,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
Project Staff
CAROL R. ARENBERG, Senior Editor,
National Academy of Engineering
VIVIENNE CHIN, Administrative Assistant,
Program Office, National Academy of Engineering
LANCE A. DAVIS, Executive Officer,
National Academy of Engineering
PROCTOR P. REID, Director,
Program Office, National Academy of Engineering
RICHARD TABER, Program Officer,
Program Office, National Academy of Engineering (until February 2009)
OCR for page R6
Technology for a Quieter America
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R7
Technology for a Quieter America
Preface
Noise emissions are an issue in industry, in communities, in buildings, and during leisure activities. As such, the audience for a report on noise control is broad and includes the engineering community; the public; government at the federal, state, and local levels; private industry; labor unions; and nonprofit organizations. These stakeholders should find something of interest in this report.
In the past few decades advances have been made in noise control technology, instruments for noise measurement, and criteria for noise control. These advances need to be recognized in our approach to the control of noise and public policy designed to improve the noise climate in the United States. This, together with increasing worldwide interest in reducing noise, makes it necessary to examine American interests in the production of low-noise products with a view toward remaining competitive. Reducing product noise emissions and achieving noise reductions in our factories, office buildings, classrooms, homes, and the environment are challenging problems.
This study was undertaken by the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) to emphasize the importance of engineering to the quality of life in America, in particular the role of noise control technology making possible a quieter environment. This report was prepared by a study committee and five supporting panels of experts appointed by the NAE and reviewed by an independent panel appointed following NAE procedures. Implementation of the recommendations in the report will result in reduction of the noise levels to which Americans are exposed and will improve the ability of American industry to compete in world markets where increasing attention is being paid to the noise emissions of products.
Key areas where recommendations have been made include cost-benefit analysis of noise reduction, especially related to road traffic noise; improved metrics for noise control; lower limits for noise exposures in industry; “buy quiet” programs; wider use of international standards for noise emissions; airplane noise reduction technology; and noise control in structures such as schools, hospitals, and office buildings. Also recommended is improved cooperation between industry and government agencies involved with noise and, in particular, an expanded role for the Environmental Protection Agency, which can be undertaken under existing law.
George C. Maling, Jr.
Chair
Committee on Technology for a Quieter America
OCR for page R8
Technology for a Quieter America
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R9
Technology for a Quieter America
Acknowledgments
This report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the committee and NAE in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The reviewers’ comments and the draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their reviews of this report:
Lewis M. Branscomb, Emeritus, Harvard University, and Adjunct Professor, University of California, San Diego
Mahlon D. Burkhard, Consultant
William Cavanaugh, Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc.
Malcolm J. Crocker, Sound & Vibration Research Laboratory
Tony F.W. Embleton, Retired, National Research Council of Canada
David K. Holger, Iowa State University
Alice Suter, Consultant in Noise and Hearing Conservation
István L. Vér, Consultant in Acoustics, Noise, and Vibration Control
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations and did not see the final draft of the report before its public release. The review of this report was overseen by James L. Flanagan, Retired Vice President for Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Appointed by NAE, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and NAE.
In addition to the reviewers, the committee extends its sincerest gratitude to the members of the five expert panels that supported this study (Appendix K), and to the individuals who participated in the project’s eight fact-finding workshops (Appendix L) for sharing their expertise, insights, and best ideas to the study. The committee also wishes to thank the consultants to the committee—Leo L. Beranek, Stephen H. Crandall, Kenneth M. Eldred, and William W. Lang—who provided invaluable advice throughout the project. The committee also thanks the project staff. NAE executive officer Lance Davis and NAE senior editor Carol Arenberg substantially improved the readability of the report. Study director Richard Taber managed the project through January 2009, and NAE program director Proctor Reid managed the project from February 2009 to completion. Vivienne Chin managed the committee’s and panels’ logistical and administrative needs.
OCR for page R10
Technology for a Quieter America
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R11
Technology for a Quieter America
Contents
Executive Summary
1
1
Introduction
5
A Taxonomy of Noise,
5
Technologies,
7
Competitiveness,
8
Cost-Benefit Analysis,
8
The Role of Government,
8
Education and the Workforce,
9
Summary,
9
2
Community Noise
11
Aircraft Noise,
11
Surface Transportation Noise,
12
Construction Noise,
13
Rail Noise,
13
Noise in Urban Areas,
13
Noise in Quiet Environments,
14
Noise from Industrial Facilities,
14
Wind Turbine Noise,
15
Noise in Buildings,
15
Noise from Consumer Products,
15
Summary,
16
3
Metrics for Assessing Environmental Noise
19
Loudness and A-Weighting,
20
Metrics for Measuring Community Reaction to Noise,
20
Alternative Metrics,
22
Metrics for Communicating with the Public,
23
Noise Metrics for Rural/Naturally Quiet Areas,
24
International Activities Related to Noise Metrics,
24
Summary Findings and Recommendations,
26
4
Control of Hazardous Noise
31
Criteria for Determining Acceptable Risk of Damage,
32
Hazardous Noise Levels in Government and Industry,
32
Hazardous Noise from Consumer Products and Leisure Activities,
33
Impulsive Noise,
35
OCR for page R12
Technology for a Quieter America
Engineering Controls,
36
“Buy Quiet” Programs,
40
Hearing Protection Devices,
42
Hearing Protection Versus (or as Augmentation of) Engineering Noise Control,
43
Hearing Protection Devices: Technologies and Effects on Audibility,
45
Hearing Protection Devices: Effects on Signal and Speech Audibility,
45
Emerging Technologies,
47
Summary,
49
Findings and Recommendations,
49
5
Technology
55
Aerospace and Aeroacoustics,
55
New Technologies for Reducing Noise from Road Traffic,
66
Rail Noise,
71
Noise Control in Buildings,
75
Modeling, Simulation, and Data Management,
80
Consumer Products,
80
Active Noise Control,
83
Summary,
84
6
Standards and Regulations for Product Noise Emissions
89
Immission versus Emission,
90
Determining Product Noise Emissions,
90
International Organization for Standardization,
93
International Electrotechnical Commission,
94
Accreditation and Certification of Noise Emissions,
94
U.S. Accreditation,
94
International Accreditation,
95
Labeling of Noise Emissions,
96
Findings and Recommendations,
98
7
Cost-Benefit Analysis for Noise Control
101
Environmental Economic Analysis,
102
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Aircraft Noise,
103
Cost-Benefit Analysis for Highway Noise,
105
European Cost-Benefit Analyses,
109
Findings and Recommendation,
110
8
The Role of Government
113
Noise-Related Activities by Federal Agencies,
113
Noise-Related Activities by States,
118
Local Noise Control Programs,
118
Summary,
119
Findings and Recommendations,
119
9
Education Supply and Industry Demand for Noise Control Specialists
121
Undergraduate Education in Noise Control Engineering,
121
Graduate Education in Noise Control Engineering,
122
Continuing Education and Skill Development,
123
Supply-Side Challenges,
125
Demand from Industry,
127
Does Demand Exceed Supply?,
128
Findings and Recommendations,
128
OCR for page R13
Technology for a Quieter America
10
Public Information on Noise Control
131
Working Toward an Informed Public,
132
Summary Findings and Recommendations,
134
11
Summary Findings and Recommendations
137
Improve Environmental Noise Metrics,
137
Strengthen the Regulatory Framework for Hazardous Noise,
138
Promote the Use of Engineering Controls to Reduce Hazardous Noise,
138
Develop and Deploy Technologies for Noise Control,
139
Develop Product Noise Emission Standards and Regulations,
140
Use Cost-Benefit Analysis as a Tool for Noise Mitigation,
140
Strengthen the Role of Government,
141
Educate More Noise Control Engineers,
141
Improve Public Information on the Effects of Noise and Noise Control,
142
Appendixes
A Basic Concepts in Acoustics and Noise
145
B International Activities Relative to Quiet Areas
147
C Additional Information on Standards Activities
149
D Relevant Portions of the U.S. Code
153
E Modern Instrumentation for Environmental Noise Measurement
157
F Guidance for Environmental Economics
163
G Regulations and Voluntary Use of Hearing Protection Devices
167
H Acronyms and Abbreviations
171
I Glossary of Selected Terms
175
J Biographical Sketches of Committee Members
181
K Expert Panels
185
L Workshop Agendas
187
OCR for page R14
Technology for a Quieter America
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R15
Technology for a Quieter America
Tables and Figures
TABLES
1-1
Sound Pressure Levels Generated by Various Noise Sources,
6
4-1
Number of Workers Exposed to Noise of >85 dB(A),
31
4-2
Hazardous Noise Exposures as a Function of Exposure Time for 3-dB and 5-dB Exchange Rates (based on exposure to 85 dB for 8 hours),
33
4-3
Action Points, References, and Type of Sound Level,
33
4-4
Worldwide Regulations for Exposures to Hazardous Noise in the Workplace,
34
4-5
Noise Reduction and Productivity in a Beverage Can Manufacturing Plant,
40
5-1
Team Members Available to Work on European Noise Reduction Programs,
64
7-1
Relationship between Day-Night Average Sound Level and Impacts,
104
7-2
Noise Barrier Construction by State, through 2004,
107
7-3
Summary of Barrier Construction and Costs, by State,
107
7-4
Noise Values for Selected European Countries,
111
E-1
Hardware Options for Brüel & Kjær Monitoring Systems,
159
E-2
Software Options for Brüel & Kjær Monitoring Systems,
160
FIGURES
1-1
Comparison of A-weighted sound levels in common outdoor environments,
6
3-1
Variability in survey results. ▼ = road traffic. = air traffic. ♦ = rail traffic,
22
3-2
Three versions of a Schultz curve,
22
3-3
Comparison of the present dose-response curves with results from Miedema and Vos,
26
4-1
Systems approach to reducing noise exposures,
43
4-2
Comparative noise reduction ratings for various earplugs,
44
OCR for page R16
Technology for a Quieter America
4-3
Comparative noise reduction ratings based on manufacturers’ laboratory tests and real-world “field” performance of different types of hearing protection devices,
46
4-4
Spectral attenuation obtained with real-ear attenuation at threshold (REAT) procedures for three conventional passive earplugs (premolded, user-molded foam, and spun fiberglass) and two uniform-attenuation, custom-molded earplugs (ER-15, ER-20),
47
5-1
Breakdown of typical noise sources for fixed-wing aircraft,
56
5-2
Breakdown of typical noise sources for a rotorcraft configuration,
57
5-3
Noise sources for 1960s and 1990s jet engines,
57
5-4
QTD2 noise reduction technologies,
58
5-5
Toboggan landing gear fairings for reducing landing gear noise tested in QTD2,
58
5-6
Goals of the N+1 and N+2 generation aircraft,
59
5-7
Noise reduction objectives and technology plans set by ACARE,
59
5-8
Aircraft noise research initiatives undertaken in Europe under the Framework Programs,
61
5-9
Engine/nacelle noise reduction technologies,
61
5-10
Aircraft noise reduction technologies,
62
5-11
Negatively scarfed intake reflects fan noise away from the ground,
62
5-12
SAX-40 silent aircraft,
62
5-13
SAX-40 engine design,
63
5-14
Schematic drawing of contra-rotating turbo fan design to be studied in VITAL,
63
5-15
Hybrid wing/body aircraft with vertical tails on either side of the engines to shield jet noise,
64
5-16
U.S. average pass-by noise levels under cruise conditions for light vehicles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks measured at a distance of 15 meters,
67
5-17
Typical levels for noise sources in light vehicles,
68
5-18
Acoustic images of typical noise source regions for light vehicles and heavy trucks obtained with acoustic beaming,
68
5-19
Range in one-third octave band sound intensity levels for tires measured at 97 kilometers per hour on a dense, graded, asphalt-concrete roadway,
69
5-20
One-third octave band pass-by noise levels for the same car and tires operating on different pavements at 97 kilometers per hour,
69
5-21
Example of a double-layer porous asphalt pavement used in the Netherlands,
71
6-1
Permissible sound power levels (dB(A)) for lawn mowers, based on width of cut,
92
7-1
Contour map showing noise levels around Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C.,
102
7-2
Relationship between percentage of population highly annoyed and DNL level, in decibels,
104
7-3
(left) Noise depreciation indices (percentage of property value loss per decibel); (right) willingness-to-pay values (Euros/household/dB/year) based on a number of North American, European, Japanese, and Australian studies of aircraft noise,
104
7-4
Cost of barriers per square meter in Maryland for all projects (upper) and for precast concrete (lower),
108
7-5
Cost of barriers per square meter in Virginia for all projects,
108
OCR for page R17
Technology for a Quieter America
9-1
U.S. noise control programs in university departments,
126
E-1
Screen display of discrete frequency analysis for Type 2270 monitor,
157
E-2
Type 2270 meter in use,
158
E-3
Type 3639 monitoring station,
158
G-1
Comparison of hearing protection device NRRs by device type: manufacturers’ laboratory data versus real-world “field” data,
169
OCR for page R18
Technology for a Quieter America
This page intentionally left blank.
