10.24425/aoa.2021.138147
Indoor Sound Pressure Level From Service Equipment in Buildings: Influence of Testing Methods on Measurement Results
The paper presents the influence of test methods on measurement results determined based on an analysis of inter-laboratory comparative studies. The analyses presented in the paper apply to an equivalent sound pressure level determined for a permanent source of sound – an air-conditioning device. The test methods were characterised according to their precision. In order to compare them, their compatibility was analysed based on the methodology described in the literature, alongside a single-factor analysis of variance. It was determined that there were no grounds for rejecting the hypothesis about lack of statistical differences between the results obtained via different methods. Each of the methods is characterised by different precision, so consequently the same result obtained with each method carries a different risk in regards to noise assessment.
The reason for taking up this kind of research was the decision of the Polish Technical Committee in 2018 about introducing new acoustic requirements in Poland concerning the admissible indoor sound pressure levels. It was decided to implement new international methods of testing indoor sound pressure levels emanating from the service equipment in the building. It was necessary to show the differences between the current method and its new counterparts.
Copyright © The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).
References
Batko W.M., Stȩpień B. (2014), Type a standard uncertainty of long-term noise indicators. Archives of Acoustics, 39(1): 25–36, doi: 10.2478/aoa-2014-0004.
Berardi U. (2012), A comparison of measurement standard methods for the sound insulation of building façades, Building Acoustics, 19: 267–282, doi: 10.1260/1351-010X.19.4.267.
Czichos H., Saito T., Smith L. (2011), Springer Handbook of Metrology and Testing, Springer Berlin–Heidelberg, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-16641-9.
Daszykowski M., Kaczmarek K., Vander Heyden Y., Walczak B. (2007), Robust statistics in data analysis – A review: basic concepts, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 85: 203–219, doi: 10.1016/J.CHEMOLAB.2006.06.016.
Di Bella A., Pontarollo C.M., Granzotto N., Remigi F. (2013), Interlaboratory test for field evaluation of noise from equipment in residential buildings, [in:] AIA-DAGA 2013 Merano, Merano, pp. 1880–1883.
EA-4/16 G:2003 (2003), EA guidelines on the expression of uncertainty in quantitative testing, EA, https://european-accreditation.org/publications/ea-4-16-g/ (retrieved 18.01.2021).
Flores M., Fernández-Casal R., Naya S., Tarrío-Saavedra J., Bossano R. (2018), ILS: An R package for statistical analysis in Interlaboratory Studies, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 181: 11–20, doi: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2018.07.013.
ISO-10052 (2004), Acoustics – Field measurements of airborne and impact sound insulation and of service equipment sound – Survey method.
ISO-16032 (2004), Acoustics – Measurement of sound pressure level from service equipment in buildings – Engineering method.
ISO 13528 (2015), Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparison.
ISO 5725-2 (1994), Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results – Part 2: Basic method for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility of a standard measurement method.
Jagan K., Forbes A.B. (2019), Assessing interlaboratory comparison data adjustment procedures, International Journal of Metrology and Quality Engineering, 10: 1–8, doi: 10.1051/ijmqe/2019003.
JCGM 100:2008 (2008), Evaluation of measurement data – Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, JCGM.
JCGM 106:2012 (2012), Evaluation of Measurement Data: The Role of Measurement Uncertainty in Conformity Assessment, JCGM.
JCGM 200:2012 (2008), International vocabulary of metrology – Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM), 3rd ed., JCGM.
Kacker R.N., Kessel R., Sommer K.D. (2010), Assessing differences between results determined according to the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, Journal of Resarch of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 115: 453–459, doi: 10.6028/jres.115.031
Kessel R., Kacker R.N., Sommer K.D. (2011), Combining results from multiple evaluations of the same measurand, Journal of Resarch of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 116: 809–820, doi: 10.6028/jres.116.023
Molenaar J., Cofino W.P., Torfs P.J.J.F. (2018), Efficient and robust analysis of interlaboratory studies, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 175: 65–73, doi: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2018.01.003
NIST/SEMATECH (2013), e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, Ch. 1.3.5.10, http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/ (retrieved 12.08.2020).
PN-B-02151-02 (1987), Building acoustics – Noise protection of apartments in buildings – Permissible values of sound level in apartments [in Polish: Akustyka budowlana – Ochrona przed hałasem pomieszczeń w budynkach – Dopuszczalne wartości poziomu dźwięku w pomieszczeniach].
PN-B-02156 (1987), Building acoustics – Methods for measurement of sound power of A-level in buildings [in Polish: Akustyka budowlana – Metody pomiaru poziomu dźwięku A w budynkach].
Pozzer T., Wunderlich P., Monteneiro C., de Frias J. (2019), Interlaboratory and proficiency tests for field measurements in Brazil, [in:] INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Vol. 259, No. 1, pp. 8120–8130, Institute of Noise Control Engineering, http://www.sea-acustica.es/fileadmin/INTERNOISE_2019/Fchrs/Proceedings/2200.pdf.
Prezelj J., Murovec J. (2017), Traffic noise modelling and measurement: Inter-laboratory comparison, Appllied Acoustics, 127: 160–168, doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2017.06.010.
Przysucha B., Batko W., Szeląg A. (2015), Analysis of the accuracy of uncertainty noise measurement, Archives of Acoustics, 40(2): 183–189, doi: 10.1515/aoa-2015-0020.
Przysucha B., Szeląg A., Pawlik P. (2020), Probability distributions of one-day noise indicators in the process of the type A uncertainty evaluation of long-term noise indicators, Appllied Acoustics, 161: 107158, doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2019.107158.
Scamoni F. et al. (2009), Repeatability and reproducibility of field measurements in buildings, [in:] Proceedings of 8th European Conference on Noise Control 2009, EuroNoise09, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 26–28 October, 2009.
Scrosati C. et al. (2015), Uncertainty of faqade sound insulation meas-urements obtained by a round robin test: The influence of the low frequencies extension, [in:] Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV22), Florence, Italy, pp. 12–16.
Scrosati C. et al. (2020), Towards more reliable measurements of sound absorption coefficient in reverberation rooms: An Inter-Laboratory Test, Appllied Acoustics, 165: 107298, doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2020.107298
Seddeq H.S., Medhat A.A. (2011), Indoor noise measurements evaluations for HVAC-Unit using inter-laboratory comparisons, International Journal of Metrology and Quality Engineering, 2(2): 75–81, doi: 10.1051/ijmqe/2011104
Szewczak E., Bondarzewski A. (2016), Is the assessment of interlaboratory comparison results for a small number of tests and limited number of participants reliable and rational?, Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 21(2): 91–100, doi: 10.1007/s00769-016-1195-y
Trzpiot G. (2015), Some remarks of type III error for directional two-tailed test, Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, 219: 5–16.
Walker W.E. et al. (2003), Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support, Integrated Assessment, 4(3): 5–17, doi: 10.1076/iaij.4.1.5.16466
Wszolek T. (2006), Effect of traffic noise statistical distribution on LAeq, T measurement uncertainty, Archives of Acoustics, 31(3): 311–318.
DOI: 10.24425/aoa.2021.138147