Community Response to High-Energy Impulsive Sounds An Assessment of the Field Since 1981 (1996) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Recent Findings
2 Recent Findings
Pages 6-16
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 6... ...
Such information is also reviewed below. SOCIAL SURVEY FINDINGS Figure 2 summarizes the information presently available about the relationship between high-energy impulsive noise exposure and the prevalence of annoyance.
|
From page 7... ...
Bragg data have been adjusted from their previously reported values (CHABA, 1981; Schomer, 1985~. The magnitude of these adjustments is modest for the Okla homa City sonic boom data, but somewhat larger for the Ft.
|
From page 8... ...
nonsocial survey information about the annoyance of high-energy impulsive sounds. For reasons noted in Appendix A, annoyance judgments solicited in such studies cannot be directly compared with information about the prevalence in communities of annoyance with long-term impulsive noise exposure.
|
From page 9... ...
Studies Finding a Greater Rate of Increase in Annoyance for Impulsive Sounds The U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory has sponsored several paired-comparison experiments2 to empirically compare the annoyance of individual blast sounds and nonimpulsive (motor vehicle or artificially produced)
|
From page 10... ...
Note: Blast noise CSEL values in this figure are "pressuredoubled" measurements, whereas vehicle noise ASEL values are "free-field" measurements. line,3 made of blast sounds by about 550 test subjects in experiments conducted at Grafenwohr (Germany)
|
From page 11... ...
describe a set of subjective judgment studies conducted in a small sonic boom simulator and in a larger listening room. Annoyance judgments were solicited by magnitude estimation methods, in which test subjects were asked to assign a numeric value to the judged loudness andlor annoyance of signal presentations.
|
From page 12... ...
of Annoyance and Loudness Judgments for Various Signals with Presentation Level Judged Quantity Exponential Growth Rate of Judged Quantity with CSEL Exponential Growth Rate of Judged Quantity with Stevens MK VII Signals of lesser low-frequency content: Loudness (outdoor N-waves) Loudness (outdoor shaped simulated sonic booms)
|
From page 13... ...
studied the annoyance of simulated artillery firing sequences by instructing test subjects to estimate the magnitude of their annoyance with various artillery-like sounds, recorded aircraft flyover sounds, and other sounds. Schomer (1977, 1978a,b)
|
From page 14... ...
observations about the annoyance of controlled exposure to actual sonic booms yield a relationship similar to that observed by Young. According to Kryter, "the unacceptability of sonic booms, as a function of intensity, increases at about twice again as fast a rate as does the unacceptability of the noise from subsonic aircraft." Judgments of the relative unacceptability of subsonic aircraft flyovers and sonic booms in Kryter et al.'s (1968)
|
From page 15... ...
for the equally annoying aircraft sounds. Figure 6 shows the comparisons made between the CSEL of the sonic boom and ASEL for the equally annoying subsonic aircraft flyover.
|
From page 16... ...
do A-weighted sound levels of nonimpulsive sounds increase at a rate of 2 dB for every 1 dB of the impulsive noise of the same judged loudness or annoyance. At levels greater than 85 dB ASEL for nonimpulsive sounds and 95 dB CSEL for impulsive sounds, the slope of the relationship steepens to approximate an equal increase in both impulsive levels (measured in CSEL)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.