Elsevier

Applied Acoustics

Volume 90, 1 April 2015, Pages 64-73
Applied Acoustics

The influence of microphone location on the results of urban noise measurements

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.11.001Get rights and content

Abstract

When carrying out acoustical measurements in order to construct an urban noise map, the ISO 1996 international standard is usually taken as a reference. However, this standard does not determine the precise location where we should place the measuring equipment. Instead, in some cases the standard offers corrections for the measured sound pressure level to assure reproducibility and comparability in the results.

In this paper, we have carried out simultaneous measurements with two sound-level meters to study the effect of varying the location of the measuring equipment in terms of its height and the distance to the rear façade.

The results indicate the need to apply some corrections due to reflexions on the façade with lower values than those recommended by the standard. In addition, it has been found necessary to make corrections for the distance to the source. Discrepancies between the standard and the results could be explained by the existence of screening effects associated with the parking lanes.

Introduction

In recent decades, society has become conscious of the drawbacks that modern development has introduced in the daily lives of its citizens. Among these is noise, which is a secondary effect of the important increase in the population of our cities and in the communications necessary between their citizens. Due to its known significant effects on population [23], [22], [7], [10] and considering that noise pollution affects a large part of the world population, noise represents a risk to our health and quality of life [5], [28].

Thus, noise must be studied and characterized in order to assist the authorities in protecting the citizens. As the measurement methodology can have an important influence on the noise level measured, standards have been proposed to ensure reproducible and comparable results in the measurements carried out by different technicians or in different locations. In that way, the ISO 1996 standards [13], [14] must be a clear reference. Many studies that use this international standard to measure and assess environmental noise can be found in the scientific literature [21], [19], [8].

In the ISO 1996-2 standard [14] some considerations referring to the location of the microphone relative to reflecting surfaces are included in Annex B. In the standard, no restrictions are given about the distance of the microphone from a reflecting surface. However, because the reflexion of noise from a surface can increase the noise level measured, some corrections in the measured noise levels are proposed as a function of the position of the microphone with respect to the façade of the buildings.

In previous research, some authors have made comparisons between these proposed corrections and the results obtained in actual measurement conditions [11], [25], [24], [20], [16], [18].

First, Hall carried out a study [11] regarding the differences between sound pressure levels of traffic noise at 2.0 m from a façade and the sound levels at its surface, for a series of measurements at 33 different houses. It was suggested that a 3 dB correction between measurement locations was appropriate on average.

A subsequent study conducted by Quirt [25] using two kinds of sound sources, road traffic noise (outdoors) and a loudspeaker (in anechoic room), indicated that in many practical measurement situations, the 3 dB and 6 dB approximations were not appropriated. However, the assumption of energy doubling at 2 m from a building’s surface is a reasonable approximation for a distributed source, such as road traffic.

Recently, Memoli et al. [20] studied the corrections for reflections on a façade. The sound levels from microphones placed at distances of 0.5 m, 1.0 m and 2.0 m from the façade wall, mounted directly on the façade wall and placed in free field, were compared for road traffic noise. The differences between the average sound levels obtained from the microphones placed near from façade wall (0.5 m, 1.0 m and 2.0 m) or mounted directly on the façade was 3 dB. These results are similar to the results obtained in Jagniatinskis and Fiks’ study [16] on long-term environmental noise assessment. In the study by Jagniatinskis and Fiks, the microphone near from façade was placed only two meters from the reflecting surface.

Also, in Memoli’s study [20], the sound levels obtained from the microphone mounted directly on the façade wall and from the microphone placed in the free field were compared. The façade correction was 5.8 ± 0.9 dB and the inferior limit of this confidence interval coincides with the results obtained in a similar study [18]. Mateus et al. indicated that, especially for large distances between the noise source and the receiver, the assumed value of 6 dB might introduce significant errors in the results.

The studies by Jagniatinskis and Fiks [16] and Mateus et al. [18] only evaluate the corrections of a microphone mounted directly on the façade wall at distances of 150 m and 250 m from road traffic noise sources respectively. Relative to the urban forms of southern European cities (narrow streets, reflective façades, construction density, etc.), the façades are closer to road traffic noise sources, and this feature could influence the sound propagation in urban areas. In relation to this topic, Picaut analyses in an experimental work [24] how the sound is propagated in an urban street using an impulsive sound source, reaching the conclusion that the sound field is uniform within a cross section of the street.

Moreover, the ISO 1996-2 standard [14] provides different possibilities as to the height at which you can place the microphone to make noise maps. However, it makes no mention as to the corrections to be applied in each of these cases, nor does the European Directive [4].

In connection with this issue, different studies [26], [27] use the corrections proposed by the French standard “Guide du Bruit des Transports Terrestrial: Prevision des Niveaux Sonores” [3] and ISO 9613-2 standard [15] in order to normalize the acoustic long-term measurements performed on balconies of dwellings situated at higher altitudes to four meters.

The aim of the present work is to study the differences that may exist between the values of the sound levels measured outdoors with the measuring equipment in different positions with regard to the façade or the ground. Accordingly, we analyse the necessary corrections to ensure reproducible and comparable results in the urban noise measurements carried out by different technicians or in different locations.

For this work, six different locations were chosen in the city of Cáceres (Spain), all of them different with respect to the street and traffic flow characteristics. The measurements were carried out simultaneously with two sound-level meters to analyse the ISO 1996-2 corrections. To that end, measurements were performed at different distances from the façade (0 to 3.0 m) and at different heights (1.2 to 6.0 m) to study the effect of outdoor reflexion.

Section 2 describes the methods used. Section 3 presents the results and discussion. Finally, Section 4 gives the principal conclusions of the study.

Section snippets

Sampling points selection

For the purpose of the present study, sampling locations were selected throughout the city of Cáceres (Spain). In previous studies, information about the acoustical levels in both the historic center and the entire city can be found [1], [2], [9], [27].

In the selection of the sampling points we pay special attention to the considerations of Annex B of the ISO 1996-2 standard (microphone positions from reflective surfaces) with regard to the following:

  • Size and structural features of the façade:

Results and discussion

As stated below, the results are shown as a function of the measurement groups A, B and C. In each of these groups, we analysed first the differences in the mean values of the bandwidth equivalent sound level and then the differences in the mean values per octave bands frequency.

Conclusions

For normal measurement situations in urban areas, in terms of meeting the requirements specified by the ISO 1996-2 standard in Annex B, we have studied the necessary corrections that must be made in order for the measurements carried out at different equipment positions with respect to the façade to be comparable between different measurement points.

To study the effect of reflexion from the façade, a reference distance to the façade of 2.0 meters has been considered, and to study the effect of

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Autonomous Region of Extremadura, GR10175. The authors wish to thank Mr. C. Montes for assisting in carrying out the experiments.

References (29)

  • J. Picaut et al.

    Experimental study of sound propagation in a street

    Appl Acoust

    (2005)
  • G. Rey Gozalo et al.

    Analysing nocturnal noise stratification

    Sci Total Environ

    (2014)
  • J.M. Barrigón Morillas et al.

    Effects of leisure activity related noise in residential zones

    Build Acoust

    (2005)
  • CETUR (Centre d’Etudes des Transports Urbains). Guide du Bruit des Transports Terrestres. Prévision des niveaux...
  • Cited by (32)

    • Development and validation of a portable test stand for sound measurement near the building façade

      2023, Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement Confederation
    • A proposal for producing calculated noise mapping defining the sound power levels of roads by street stratification

      2021, Environmental Pollution
      Citation Excerpt :

      The relationships between sound levels by street category and city size were also ascertained (Barrigón Morillas et al., 2010). The criterion regarding the microphone’s location is fundamental during the process of measuring urban noise (Mateus et al., 2015; Montes González et al., 2015). Several studies investigated the influence of microphone position on the corrections to be applied (Jagniatinskis and Fiks, 2014; Memoli et al., 2008; Montes González et al., 2018a, 2018b, Montes González et al., 2020a).

    • Traffic noise assessment based on mobile measurements

      2021, Environmental Impact Assessment Review
    • Microphone position and noise exposure assessment of building façades

      2020, Applied Acoustics
      Citation Excerpt :

      A table is presented in Annex B that gives the uncertainty standard for corrections to the reflections of different microphone locations relative to vertical reflecting surfaces for a road traffic sound source. This topic has been the subject of study in many papers where road traffic is considered the main source [16–21], and also in cases where sound impacts on the façades of buildings at very different angles, for example in the case of aircraft noise [22]. Hall et al. [16], Quirt [17] and Jagniatinskis et al. [18] conclude that a value of 3 dB for the correction is usually suitable when the microphone is 2.0 m from the façade.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text