19th INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ACOUSTICS MADRID, 2-7 SEPTEMBER 2007

Uncertainty evaluation for airborne noise acoustic insulation measurements

PACS: 43.55.Rg
1

Castillo Cid, Javier1; Sobreira Seoane, Manuel A.2 E.T.S. I de Telecomunicacin.Universidade de Vigo; 36200, Spain; javcastillocid@hotmail.com 2 E.T.S. I de Telecomunicacin. Universidade de Vigo 36200, Spain; msobre@gts.tsc.uvigo.es

ABSTRACT In this paper a evaluation of the uncertainty in acoustic insulation measurements, obtained under the procedure indicated in the standard ISO-140-4 is presented. From the collected data of the sound level meter calibration certificate, the manufacturer specifications, the environmental conditions under which the measures take place, the uncertainty in the Dn, DnT and R is evaluated, following the classic approach indicated by Guide for the expression of the uncertainty (GUM) , statistically supported by the law of propagation of uncertainty and in the fulfilment of the requirements of the central limit theorem, which make easier the evaluation of the uncertainty of the output quantity, in our case the acoustic isolation measurement. Due to the complexity of the function, it is suspected that the initial requirements of the central limit theorem will be difficult to fulfil. Therefore, the uncertainty is calculated using the general method of the law of propagation of distributions, and for its evaluation a Monte Carlo method has been used. From the results obtained using this last method, the differences with the classic method can be appreciated, demonstrating its lack of fulfilment with the requirements exposed in the G.U.M. INTRODUCTION In the last few years, the local authorities in Spain are encouraging that the companies measuring in-situ acoustic insulation should have the accreditation according to the standard UNE-EN-ISO/IEC 17025. Therefore the companies working in acoustics, but without any knowledge of the metrological aspects should perform a complete evaluation of the uncertainties of the in-situ sound insulation measurement. Part of the job is based on the proposal presented at the NPL Report DQL-AC-02, Uncertainties associated with the use of a sound level meter. In some sense, this paper could be considered as an extension job of this report to the application of the evaluation of the acoustic insulation. DERIVATION OF THE EXPANDED UNCERTAINTY The starting point will be the data obtained from the calibration or the metrological verification of the measurement equipment according to the standards UNE-EN 60651 and UNE-EN 60684, and the uncertainty contributions of those data. These factors, together with the manufacturers technical specifications will be the base to calculate the uncertainty associated to the use of the equipment [6]. The functions to be evaluated according to UNE-UN-ISO-140-4 [4] are the Normalized Level Difference (Dn), the Standardized Level Difference (DnT) and the Sound Reduction Index (R). The model functions are expressed in equations (1) to (3) and the influence of the associated uncertainties are included in these expressions.

0,16.V Dn = L1 + i ( L1 ) (L2 + i ( L2 ) ) 10 log T .A 0 0,16.V Dn = L1 + i ( L1 ) (L2 + i ( L2 ) ) 10 log T .A 0

(1)

(2)

 S .T R ' = L1 + i ( L1 ) (L2 + i ( L2 ) ) + 10 log 0,16.V

(3)

Where: u(T), is the uncertainty factor due to the reverberation time measurement and is estimated from the contribution to the repeatability of the number of measurements performed and the resolution of the equipment.. u(V), is the uncertainty related to the measurement of the volume of the receiver room. u(S), ), is the uncertainty related to the measurement of the surface of the panel. L is the averaged squared pressure in each room: L1 (source room), and L2 (receiver room):

1 n Lj / 10 dB L = 10 log n 10 j =1

(4)

Each single SPL measurement performed in each point and every indication of the sound level meter, Li, will contribute to the type A uncertainty. As estimation, the standard deviation will be used. If N different measurements are done:

u ( L) =
The other contributions to the uncertainty are:

s( L j ) N

i ( L) = PFE + PFA + LS + RMS + PT + CA + CC + ES + TS + PS + CS

(5)

where: PFE: is the correction associated with electric calibration of the sound level PFA: is the correction associated with sound calibration of the sound level LS: this correction depends on the linearity of the SLM in the range of reference. RMS: the assessment of the ability of rms detector to provide a true rms value. PT: the correction due to the time weighting (fast or show) CA: the correction related with the calibration of the SLM using the sound calibrator. CC: this contribution depends on the uncertainty associated with the calibration of the sound calibrator. ES: this is the effect of the finite resolution of the display of the SLM. TS: the effect of the temperature PS: it is the correction related to the influence of variations in the atmospheric pressure. CS: the influence of the sound level meter case. The NPL report proposes the classification of these corrections in two cases: a) Those related to the operation of the SLM itself and can be obtained from the values of the electric and acoustic verification of the SLM, according to the standards UNE-EN-50651 and UNE-EN 60684 (PFE, PFA, LS, RMS, PT, CA, CC y E). b) Those related to the SLM in use (TS, PS,y CS). The components of these uncertainties are calculated according to the references [5] y [6] except CS which is taken from the values given in [7]. The table 1 shows the values of each contribution.

2 19th INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ACOUSTICS ICA2007MADRID

Table I- Uncertainties associated to each correction.

PFE

u ( PFE ) =
where UE uncertainty. is the

UE k
expanded

certified

PFA

u ( PFA ) =
where UE uncertainty. is the

UA k
expanded

certified

LS RMS PT

u ( LS ) = L u ( RMS ) = R

L , Standard deviation of the deviations. R , Standard deviation of the deviations.

u ( PT )

FASToSLOW

PT 3

PT , maximum deviation obtained CA

u ( CA ) =
u ( CC ) =

ES 2. 3
UC k

ES is the resolution of the SLM CC

where UC is the expanded uncertainty of the use of the sound calibrator

ES

u ( ES ) = u ( TS ) =

ES

2. 3 M .T 3

TS

M, temperatura coefficient, TMT

PS

u ( PS ) =

M .P
3
U CS k

M pressure coefficient, PMP

CS

u ( CS ) =

UCS, the expanded uncertainty for k=1,65 in each frequency band [7].

Some other contributions could have been taken into account, as the operator influence, humidity, windscreens (which are not actually used during sound insulation measurements), but the authors have considered that with the right measurement procedure, the contribution of these factors could be neglected. The reader should include another influence which could be considered in his/her measurement procedure.

3 19th INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ACOUSTICS ICA2007MADRID

RESULTS AND THE MONTE CARLO SIMULATION. The final combined total uncertainty is obtained just applying the propagation of uncertainties, as pointed in [1]. The expanded uncertainty, U, is obtained multiplying the final combined uncertainty by a coverage factor, k. It is expected that the propagation of uncertainties should work properly in most situations, but it is quite difficult to evaluate the different contributions, and also in many situations, it could not be assessed that the output magnitude will have a normal distribution (which means that the conditions of the central limit theorem could not be fulfilled). Both methods, a Monte Carlo simulation and the propagation of uncertainties, should be used and the results compares. If both are similar, then, the propagation of uncertainties should be used for similar problems. If both methods give different results, Monte Carlo should be then taken as reference. The contributions should be treated in linear scale (not in dB); it could be useful to express as percentage (%). The final combined uncertainty is calculated in natural units, and then converted into dB. The table II shows the values of the components, (in dB) obtained after an airborne noise acoustic insulation measurement, according to ISO 140-4. Table II Values of the components obtained after a measurement frequency 100 Hz 125 Hz 160 Hz 200 Hz 250 Hz 315 Hz 400 Hz 500 Hz u(PFE) 0,075 u(L1) 0,919 0,661 0,654 0,982 0,903 0,738 0,543 0,843 u(LS) 0,044 U(T) 0,95 u(L2) 0,616 0,631 0,470 1,286 0,904 0,466 0,606 0,468 u(RMS) 0,052 u(PFA) 0,150 0,150 0,125 0,125 0,125 0,125 0,125 0,125 u(CS) 0,003 0,003 0,003 0,028 0,028 0,028 0,163 0,163 frequency 630 Hz 800 Hz 1000 Hz 1250 Hz 1600 Hz 2000 Hz 2500 Hz 3150 Hz u(CC) 0,100 u(L1) 0,517 0,628 0,690 0,734 0,654 0,662 0,545 0,554 u(L2) 0,474 0,534 0,603 0,602 0,546 0,528 0,454 0,376 u(PFA) 0,125 0,125 0,125 0,150 0,150 0,150 0,150 0,150 u(TS) 0,006 U(S) 1% u(CS) 0,163 0,194 0,194 0,194 0,105 0,105 0,105 0,026 u(PS) 0,006

u(PT)slow 0,058

u(CA) 0,029 U(V) 1%

u(ES) 0,029

It should be noticed that the sensibility coefficients of the terms U(T),U(V),U(S) are . All the other contributions have sensibility factor 1. We should remind that the contributions to the uncertainty have been calculated as percentage (%). The table III shows the final combined and expanded uncertainty, with 95,45 % confidence interval (k=2). Table III- Final combined uncertainty for Airborne Noise Acoustic Insulation frecuencia 100 Hz 125 Hz 160 Hz 200 Hz 250 Hz 315 Hz 400 Hz 500 Hz U(Dn) 2,1 1,7 1,5 2,9 2,3 1,6 1,4 1,7 U(DnT) 2,1 1,7 1,5 2,9 2,3 1,6 1,4 1,7 U(R) 2,1 1,7 1,5 2,9 2,3 1,6 1,4 1,7 frecuencia 630 Hz 800 Hz 1000 Hz 1250 Hz 1600 Hz 2000 Hz 2500 Hz 3150 Hz U(Dn) 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,7 1,6 1,6 1,3 1,3 U(DnT) 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,7 1,6 1,6 1,3 1,3 U(R) 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,7 1,6 1,6 1,3 1,3

4 19th INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ACOUSTICS ICA2007MADRID

The table IV shows the values obtained after a Monte Carlo simulation in the 1250 Hz frequency band. Just one frequency is shown, because the conclussions are the same for all the other frequencies of interest. With the considered distribution functions for the uncertainty values proposed (in the contribution terms), the same final expanded uncertainty has been obtained, for the same confidence interval. Table IV: Uncertainty at f=1250Hz obtained from a Monte Carlo Simulation 1250 Hz U(Dn)=1,7 U(DnT)=1,7 U(R)=1,7

CONCLUSIONS: It has been shown that the propagation of uncertainties can be used for evaluation of the final combined uncertainty in airborne noise acoustic insulation measurements. The Sound Reduction Index, and the Normalized Level Difference and the Standardized Level Difference has normal distribution as expected, mainly because the main contributions to the final combined uncertainty show normal distribution.
1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0
u( L1 ) u( L2 ) U( T) U( V) U( S) U( R' ) PT CC CA ES TS E A LS PS PF PF RM CS S

Figure 1 Contributions to the final combined uncertainty of R The figure 1 shows the contributions of every component described to the final combined uncertainty. Although these values are evaluated to a particular case, some general concussions can be obtained for the measurement uncertainty in airborne noise acoustic insulation: The final combined uncertainty depends mainly on standard deviation of the magnitudes L1 and L2.The field conditions at the emitter and receiver rooms will be one of the factors that will have a determinant influence on the final uncertainty The main contributions are the uncertainties associated to PFE, PFA, CC. In some frequency band, the uncertainty due to the case influence can be higher than the other SLM uncertainty contributions, so it must be considered. The temperature and pressure variations have a negligible effect on the output magnitudes, unless the measurement is performed under extreme conditions. The uncertainty associated to the RT measurement depends on the number of measurements performed, the dispersion of the measurements and the resolution of the equipment. The figure 1 shows how the contribution of the RT uncertainty, U(T), is quite low compared to other contributions, and quite similar to the contribution of the Volume and Surface measurements. It should also be noticed that the sensibility coefficient to be applied to the RT uncertainty is 1/2. The contribution of the volume of the receiver room and the surface of the partition are quite low and negligible. Both contributions depend only on the resolution of the equipment ( 1 mm). The sensibility coefficient, 1/2, makes its small contribution lower. 5 19th INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ACOUSTICS ICA2007MADRID

The figure 2 shows the density function of R and the quantile =quantile representation of the output magnitude in natural units with a normal distribution with the same standard deviation and average. This representation shows the normal distribution of the magnitude R and, as it has been stated before, the propagation of uncertainties can be used in this case.
QQ Plot of Sample Data versus Standard Normal 16
0.45 0.4

14
0.35

Quantiles of Input Sample

12

0.3 0.25

10
0.2

0.15 0.1

6
0.05

4 -5

-4

-3

-2

-1 0 1 2 Standard Normal Quantiles

0 12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Figure2

Figure 3- Funcin densidad de R

Similar values have been obtained using both methods, Monte Carlo and the propagation of uncertainties for all the frequency bands. References:
[1] International Organization for Standardization: Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in Measurements. 1995 [2] Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Supplement 1: Numerical Methods for the Propagation of Distributions. March 2004. [3] EA: Guide EA-4/02. Expression of the Uncertainty of Measurement in Calibration. December 1999. [4] Norma UNE-EN-ISO-140-4. Field measurement of airborne sound insulation between rooms. April 1999. [5] Jos Alfonso Mondaray, Francisco Javier Yebra, Luis Lorenzo: Empleo en campo de los sonmetros. Factores a considerar y su contribucin a la incertidumbre de medida. May 2005 [6] Richard Payne: NPL report DQL-AC 002. Uncertainties associated with the use of a sound level meter. April 2004. [7] Alfonso Rodrguez, Manuel Sobreira : A numerical study of the influence of the sound level meter case. To be presented at ICA 2007.

6 19th INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ACOUSTICS ICA2007MADRID