Thursday Morning, 29 June 2017 Room 207, 7:55 A.M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THURSDAY MORNING, 29 JUNE 2017 ROOM 207, 7:55 A.M. TO 12:20 P.M. Session 5aAAa Architectural Acoustics and ASA Committee on Standards: Uncertainty in Laboratory Building Acoustic Standards Matthew V. Golden, Cochair Pliteq, 616 4th Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 Daniel Urba´n, Cochair A & Z Acoustics, s.r.o., S. H. Vajanske´ho 43, Nove`Za´mky, 94079, Slovakia Chair’s Introduction—7:55 Invited Papers 8:00 5aAAa1. Remarks on the definition of airborne sound insulation and consequences for uncertainties. Volker Wittstock (Physika- lisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Bundesallee 100, Braunschweig 38118, Germany, [email protected]) Airborne sound insulation is explicitly defined as the ratio between incident and transmitted sound power. Since sound power cannot be measured directly, field quantities like sound pressure are measured to derive the desired sound power. The relation between sound pressure and sound power depends on the nature of the sound field, i.e., to which extent it is a diffuse sound field. This is the main reason why it is impossible to derive an analytic equation for the measurement uncertainty of a sound power and thus of a sound insulation. The current practice is to define standardized test facilities for the measurement of airborne sound insulation. The uncertainty of meas- ured sound insulations is then approximated by the standard deviation of reproducibility determined by interlaboratory tests. This is equivalent to changing the definition of airborne sound insulation. It is no longer the sound power ratio but the mean value of the sound insulation measured in very many or all thinkable laboratories meeting the required specifications. Thus, laboratory specifications become part of the definition of airborne sound insulation. The contribution highlights the background of the different definitions and shows consequences for the uncertainty of airborne sound insulation. 8:20 5aAAa2. Some practical issues affecting repeatability and reproducibility in laboratory transmission loss tests. Christoph Hoeller and Jeffrey Mahn (Construction, National Res. Council Canada, 1200 Montreal Rd., Ottawa, ON K1A 0R6, Canada, christoph.hoeller@ nrc.ca) The ASTM standard E90 defines the measurement of transmission loss, equivalent to the sound reduction index defined in ISO 10140. ASTM E90 and ISO 10140 specify requirements for the laboratory, the test procedure and conditions, and for preparation and mounting of the specimen under test. Despite the strict requirements in ISO 10140 and the somewhat less strict requirements in ASTM E90, transmission loss results for nominally identical specimens often vary if measured in different laboratories, and sometimes even if measured again in the same laboratory. In practice, there are many factors that affect the repeatability or reproducibility of a transmis- sion loss test for a given specimen. This presentation will not attempt to systematically cover all different sources of uncertainty, but instead will highlight some practical issues commonly encountered in laboratory transmission loss tests. Examples will be presented for a number of issues, including the effect of leakage through the specimen under test, the effect of varying temperature and humidity in the test chambers, and the effect of re-using gypsum board. 8:40 5aAAa3. Cross-laboratory reproducibility of sound transmission loss testing with the same measurement and installation team. Benjamin Shafer (Tech. Services, PABCO Gypsum, 3905 N 10th St., Tacoma, WA 98406, [email protected]) Previous cross-correlative statistical research studies, combined with the results from past laboratory sound transmission loss round robin testing, illustrate that the laboratory-to-laboratory reproducibility of sound transmission loss testing is inordinately and unaccept- ably low. Industry building construction professionals use the results of laboratory sound transmission loss testing to determine acous- tics-related building code compliance. As such, a forensic analysis of laboratory sound transmission loss is needed to narrow potential causes of cross-laboratory variability to a few primary sources. As a first step in this process, sound transmission loss measurements for two different assemblies are compared between multiple laboratories, each with their own different technicians and installation crews. Two different assemblies are then compared between multiple laboratory facilities with the same measurement and installation crew. The use of the same measurement crew at two different facilities resulted in much better statistical reproducibility than all previous reproducibility studies. 3928 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 141, No. 5, Pt. 2, May 2017 Acoustics ’17 Boston 3928 9:00 5aAAa4. Variations in impact sound level as a function of tapping machine position. John LoVerde and David W. Dong (Venekla- sen Assoc., 1711 16th St., Santa Monica, CA 90404, [email protected]) Impact insulation class testing per ASTM E 492 requires measurement of the sound field at exactly four tapping machine positions. Previous research by the authors [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121, 3113 (2007), J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, 2955 (2007)] indicated that for field tests, the variation between tapping machine positions was small. To our knowledge, a systematic investigation has not been performed for tapping machine positions in the laboratory, and some recent results indicate that the variation may be larger than expected. Large variation in sound level may be inherent to the method, or may point to problems in construction or installation of flooring materials. The variations with tapping machine position are analyzed for a set of laboratory tests, and the previous field test studies are updated with additional data. The authors investigate possible changes to the standards to mandate a maximum allowable variation between tap- ping machine positions, and to require additional positions as necessary. Contributed Paper 9:20 correlations are usually neglected. This has, e.g., led to the expression included in Annex A of ISO 17497-1 to calculate the precision of the mea- 5aAAa5. Importance of correlation between reverberation times for cal- surement of random-incidence scattering coefficients. To determine whether culating the uncertainty of measurements according to ISO 354 and it is actually justified to neglect the input correlations, this contribution Markus Mu¨ller-Trapet (National Res. Council, ISVR, Univ. ISO 17497-1. investigates the correlations between the reverberation times used to deter- of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom, M.F.Muller- mine the random-incidence absorption coefficient (ISO 354) and scattering [email protected]) coefficient (ISO 17497-1) in a reverberation chamber. The data used here The calculation of measurement uncertainties follows the law of error are taken from measurements in a real-scale and a small-scale reverberation propagation as described in the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in chamber. It is found that for ISO 354 correlations can be neglected. How- Measurements (GUM). The result can be expressed as a contribution of the ever, for ISO 17497-1, it is important to take correlations into account to variances of the individual input quantities and an additional term related to obtain the correct measurement uncertainty using error propagation. the correlation between the input quantities. In practical applications, the Invited Papers 9:40 5aAAa6. Addressing the lack of statistical control in acoustical testing laboratories. John LoVerde and David W. Dong (Veneklasen Assoc., 1711 16th St., Santa Monica, CA 90404, [email protected]) In order to be useful in comparing products, evaluating assemblies, or performing research, acoustical laboratory tests must be pre- cise. This means that the “chance” variation due to any external variables must be relatively small and randomly distributed. This defines a measurement method that is in a state of statistical control, in which case the precision of the test method (the size of these small chance variations) can be measured [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130, 2355 (2011)]. The authors have observed many airborne and impact insu- lation tests performed at accredited acoustical laboratories. While controlled behavior is sometimes seen, it is also sometimes observed that a set of results shows unpredictable behavior, abrupt changes, excess scatter, or unexplained variations, which is symptomatic of a loss of statistical control [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 137, 2216 (2015)]. It is not merely that the precision in the measurement is larger than desired; a lack of statistical control means that there are large unknown variables and the precision of the method cannot even be defined. Experiences with laboratories in which this has occurred are shared, and procedures and safeguards to address the issue are discussed. 10:00–10:20 Break 10:20 5aAAa7. Numerical study on the repeatability and reproducibility of laboratory building acoustic measurements. Arne Dijck- mans, Lieven De Geetere, and Bart Ingelaere (Belgian Bldg. Res. Inst., Lombardstraat 42, Brussels B-1000, Belgium, arne.dijckmans@ gmail.com) An important issue in building acoustics is the significant variability in laboratory test results that numerous round robin tests have indicated. The current wish to include the frequency bands 50-80 Hz in the procedures to determine single-number quantities has prompted new discussions. In this paper, wave based models are used to numerically investigate the fundamental repeatability and repro-