126/10/2012environmental correction factor26/10/2012environmental correction factor1 environmental...
Post on 26-Mar-2015
243 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
126/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor26/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 1
Environmental correction factor KEnvironmental correction factor K22
226/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 2
SPL vs distance from sound source
Environmental correction factor K2
K2 , also named DLf,Is the difference between the total SPL value and the free-
field SPL value
26/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor
326/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 3
We can compute K2 making the differnce between the formulas of the semireverberant sound field and of the free field:
This formula provides the “theoretical K2” value
Environmental correction factor K2
222 d4
Qlg10
A
4
d4
Qlg10K
V16.0
'ST41lg10 60
AQ
d441lg10K
2
2
Enveloping surface’s area = 2d2
Q=2 (source in a reflecting plane)
A
'S41lg10
26/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor
426/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 4
Experimental resultsExperimental results
526/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 5
These buildings are wide, but not tall
Typical packaging workshops
626/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 6
These buildings are wide, but not tall
Typical packaging workshops
726/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 7
An omnidirectional sound source (dodechaedron, Q=1) is employed
Measurement of sound level vs distance
S.L.M.Dodechaedron
826/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 8
The experimental chart obtained looks as this one:
Measurement of sound level vs distance
Thessaloniki - Livello sonoro in funzione della distanza - Lw = 100 dB(A)
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
1 10 100
distanza (m)
Liv
ello
so
no
ro (
dB
A)
Lsperim Ldir
K factor
926/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 9
Comparison with the theoretical curve
Measurement of sound level vs distance
Thessaloniki - Livello sonoro in funzione della distanza - Lw = 100 dB(A)
70
75
80
85
90
95
1 10 100
distanza (m)
Liv
ello
so
no
ro (
dB
A)
Lsperim Lteor
Here the experimental SPL is significantly larger than the theoretical
one Here instead it is smaller
1026/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 10
The same happens in other similar buildings…Measurement of sound level vs distance
Thessaloniki - SPL decay with distance
70
75
80
85
90
95
1 10 100
distance (m)
SP
L (
dB
A)
Lsperim
Lsabine
Pelfort - SPL decay with distance
70
75
80
85
90
95
1 10 100
distance (m)
SP
L (
dB
A)
Lsperim
Lsabine
Patrasso - SPL decay with distance
70
75
80
85
90
95
1 10 100
distance (m)
SP
L (
dB
A)
Lsperim
Lsabine
Fredericia - SPL decay with distance
70
75
80
85
90
95
1 10 100
distance (m)
SP
L (
dB
A)
Lsperim
Lsabine
1126/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 11
K2 value vs distance
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1 10 100
distanza (m)
K-f
acto
r (d
B)
K sper
K sab
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1 10 100
distanza (m)
K-f
acto
r (d
B)
K sper
K sab
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1 10 100
distanza (m)
K-f
acto
r (d
B)
K sper
K sab
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 10 100
distanza (m)
K-f
acto
r (d
B)
K-sper
K Sab
1226/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 12
K2 at teh workplace (surface S’)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Thessaloniki Pelfort Patrasso Fredericia
K-F
act
or
(dB
A)
Ksperim (dBA)
KSabine (dBA)
Nome V (m3) h (m) Tmed (s) Ksperim (dBA) KSabine (dBA) Thessaloniki 48836 8.3 2.60 2.40 0.48 Pelfort 72000 11.92 2.45 1.45 0.48 Patrasso 32000 8.0 3.10 2.75 0.51 Fredericia 27575 7.62 0.81 1.45 0.40
1326/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 13
Results of the experiments• In many industrial buildings “large and short” the
envioronmental effect measured at the workplace is much larger than what theory predicts
• Often the owner of the factory acts against the supplier of machinery, in the wrong assumption that they are too noisy, whilst the cause of the high SPL value is mostly due to the building, and not to the machines
• This can be ascertainled only performing a direct measurmenet of the enviornmental correction factor K2 at the workplace
• Whenever K2 is very large, it can be expected that the SPL will reduce significantly thanks to an enviromental treatment based on sound absorption
1426/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 14
KK22 estimation based on a new estimation based on a new
empirical formulaempirical formula
1526/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 15
The Farina/Fornari Formula
• The formula was obtained by fitting the experimetal results measured in dozens of industrial workshops:
27.0
37.0
2
teor
d2HT596.1
HT64.516.0
d2T41lg10K
'SHT596.1
HT64.516.0
'ST41lg10K
7.037.0
teor
In which T is the reverberation time, H is the room height and the terms within brackets at denominator represents an “apparent volume” of the large, short building
1626/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 16
Verification of the new formula
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1 10 100
distanza (m)
K-f
acto
r (d
B)
K sper
K teor
K sab
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1 10 100
distanza (m)
K-f
acto
r (d
B)
K sper
K teor
K sab
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1 10 100
distanza (m)
K-f
acto
r (d
B)
K sper
K teor
K sab
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 10 100
distanza (m)
K-f
act
or
(dB
)sperimentale
formula
Sabine
1726/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 17
Evaluation of effectiveness of room treatment
• The Farina/formari formula allows for easy assessment of the effectiveness of a room treatment
• For example, let’s consider a building with these data:
• We now compute the value of K2 twice, before and after the room treatment, employing the Farina/Fornari formula.
Parametro Valore u. di misura Volume Totale V 70.000 m3 Altezza media h 7 m Tempo di riverbero iniziale 3 s Tempo di riverbero trattato 0.7 s
1826/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor04/11/2010 Il Fattore di Correzione Ambientale 18
Evaluation of effectiveness of room treatment
• The Farina/Fornari formula shows a relevant sound reduction due to room absorption treatment: at 10m we get a reduction of 5.5 dB(A) instead of 1.7 dB(A) as forecasted by the Sabine’s formula
Riduzione del livello sonoro totale
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 10 100
Distanza (m)
dB Dl,semiriverberante
DL,Farina/Fornari
1926/10/2012 Environmental Correction Factor 19
Conclusions
• Employing the “traditional” formula for the environmental correction factor causes significant errors in “large and short” buildings, as most factories are.
• Nowadays the new EN 415-9:2009 standard allows for correct experimental extimation of the “true” value of the environmental correction factor
• The direct measurement of K2 is easy and straightforward
• Alternatively, K2. can be estimated quite accurately thanks to the Farina/Fornari formula
• In these buildings, often an absorption treatment produces much better results than what predicted by the traditional formulation
top related