This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

**Barrier Insertion Loss Measurements
**

Undertaken at Leeds Metropolitan University, Portland Crescent, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS1 3HB

Wednesday18thDecember 2013

Student Number: 77144104

IOA Diploma 2013-14 Summary

Student Number: 77144104

This report describes the processes involved when undertaking insertion loss measurements using a white noise source for three sizes of acoustic barriers (100mm, 200mm and 300mm height). Various configurations were tested to understand if the measured insertion loss values were comparable with the insertion loss prediction models of (Maekawa, 1968) and (Kurze and Anderson, 1971). It was found that correlation in octave bands was poor whilst there was good agreement in broadband insertion loss. The measurements confirmed the theories of (Maekawa, 1968) and (Kurze and Anderson, 1971) in that when one considers designing an acoustical barrier the height and diffraction paths are of vital importance as is the distance from the source and/or receiver to the barrier. Measurements also confirmed that acoustical barriers are not effective at low frequencies (<250Hz) due to the wavelength of the sound being greater than the dimensions of the barrier and that at higher frequencies (>4000Hz) the sound diffracts over the barrier.

IOA Diploma 2013-14

Student Number: 77144104

Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... iii Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................ iv 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 2. Instrumentation& equipment .............................................................................................. 2 2.1. Sound level meter ........................................................................................................ 2 2.2. Calibrator ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.3. Microphone ................................................................................................................. 2 2.4. Equipment ................................................................................................................... 2 2.5. Materials ...................................................................................................................... 3 3. Measurements ..................................................................................................................... 4 3.1. Measurement layout .................................................................................................... 4 3.2. Measurement procedure .............................................................................................. 5 4. Measurement Results.......................................................................................................... 6 4.1. Insertion Loss results ................................................................................................... 7 5. Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 8 5.1. Comparison models ..................................................................................................... 8 5.1.1. 5.1.2. Maekawa model ....................................................................................................... 8 Kurze and Anderson model ................................................................................... 11

5.2. Prediction model comparison .................................................................................... 11 5.3. Scaled up version of Maekawa and Kurze and Anderson models ............................ 12 6. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 13 6.1. Observations from measurements ............................................................................. 13 6.2. Prediction model conclusions.................................................................................... 15 6.3. Measurement inaccuracies ........................................................................................ 16 6.4. Possible designs......................................................................................................... 17 6.5. Further Work ............................................................................................................. 18 References ................................................................................................................................ 19 Appendices .............................................................................................................................A-1 Appendix A:Measurement results..........................................................................................A-1 Sound Pressure Levels measurements, dB.............................................................................A-1 Insertion Loss measurements,dB ...........................................................................................A-2 Appendix B:Matlab Scripts for Maekawa and Kurze and Anderson Methods .................. B-1 Appendix C:Calculation examples ........................................................................................ C-1 Maekawa Model..................................................................................................................... C-1 i

....................................................................................... C-4 ii ...........IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Kurze and Anderson Model ..

........................................ C-1 ii . 7 Figure 5-1-Path difference ....................... 11 Figure 5-3........................................ 17 Figure C-1-Dimensions of measured barrier ..... dB ................IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 List of Figures Figure 3-1– Side View of measurement .............Scaled up prediction........................................................................................ 15 Figure 6-2 – Broadband overall Insertion Loss............ 12 Figure 6-1.............................................................................. 4 Figure 4-1 – Insertion loss results...................................................... 4 Figure 3-2 –Photograph of measurement layout ......................................................................................................................L ............................................................. dB ..................................................................Noise paths of a barrier ............................... 9 Figure 5-2-I.....L predictions (Maekawa................ 1968) and (Kurze and Anderson........................... 1971) .......................................................... 16 Figure 6-3 – Possible barrier design to increase I...........

.....IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 List of Tables Table A-1 – SPL (No Barrier) .........................A-2 Table A-11 – Insertion Loss (200mm barrier........ 100mm from Loudspeaker Only)...............A-2 Table A-10 – Insertion Loss (100mm barrier.Insertion Loss (Maekawa Model) ...................................................A-3 Table C-1........ 1m from Mic/Loudspeaker) ...........A-1 Table A-3 – SPL (200mm barrier........... 200mm from Loudspeaker Only) .............. 400mm from Loudspeaker Only) ....... 200mm from Loudspeaker Only)................... 1m from Mic/Loudspeaker) ........................................................................ 1m from Mic/Loudspeaker) .............................A-2 Table A-9 – SPL (100mm Barrier.................................................. 1m from Mic/Loudspeaker) ......... 1m from Mic/Loudspeaker) ..........A-1 Table A-6 – SPL (100mm Barrier..... 100mm from Loudspeaker Only) ...... C-4 iii ......... 300mm from Loudspeaker Only) ...........................................A-3 Table A-16 – Insertion Loss (100mm Barrier............................A-1 Table A-4 – SPL (300mm barrier... 400mm from Loudspeaker Only).......A-2 Table A-7 – SPL (100mm Barrier....A-3 Table A-17 – Insertion Loss (100mm Barrier.......................A-2 Table A-12 – Insertion Loss (300mm barrier......... 300mm from Loudspeaker Only)...................... C-3 Table C-2-Insertion Loss (Kurze and Anderson Model) .............. 1m from Mic/Loudspeaker) .....................A-2 Table A-8 – SPL (100mm Barrier....................A-1 Table A-2 – SPL (100mm barrier.......A-1 Table A-5 – SPL (100mm Barrier.................... 500mm from Loudspeaker Only).............. 500mm from Loudspeaker Only) ........A-3 Table A-15 – Insertion Loss (100mm Barrier................................A-3 Table A-14 – Insertion Loss (100mm Barrier.........A-3 Table A-13 – Insertion Loss (100mm Barrier........................................................

IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Nomenclature I.L Mic SLM Insertion Loss. dB Microphone Sound Level Meter iv .

Height.L measurements of the 300mm barrier (derived from the sound pressure level measurements) were compared with the insertion loss prediction models of (Maekawa. Given this the 300mm barrier was chosen for subsequent analysis. To understand the effects of having the noise source closer/further away from the barrier a series of measurements were then undertaken using the 100mm barrier.3m from floor to receiver and source. This was chosen due to there being no line of sight between the source and receiver. Various configurations were tested. West Yorkshire. First of all sound pressure levels were measured without a barrier in place .e.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 1. 1968) and (Kurze and Anderson. Introduction Sound pressure level measurements of a plywood acoustic noise barrier were undertaken within the anechoic chamber at Leeds Metropolitan University. 200mm and 300mm of which all had source to barrier and receiver to barrier distances of 1m and heights of 0. source to receiver and diffraction effects. The I. 1 . Portland Crescent. However the general observations of acoustical barrier theory were observed i.This measurement was then repeated but for barriers of heights 100mm. In hindsight the 100mm barrier should not have been chosen given that there was a direct line of sight between the source and receiver. These involved moving the loudspeaker to as close as 100mm and as far as 500mm away from the barrier (in 100mm stages). Leeds. LS1 3HB. The supplied noise signal was that of white noise. It was found that in octave bands correlation was poor whilst broadband insertion loss gave good agreement. 1971). This was amplified via a power amplifier and relayed through a loudspeaker.

1. Equipment Wharfedale Speaker (White Noise Source Speaker) 30D 6 Unknown Not specified NTI Minarator (Signal Generator) MR Pro Not specified Not specified 2 Manufacturer Model Serial Number Calibration due Manufacturer Model Serial Number Calibration due .4. Instrumentation & equipment Sound level meter Norsonic 118 1 31310 Not specified Manufacturer Model Class type Serial Number Calibration due 2. Calibrator Norsonic 4231 2389088 Not specified Manufacturer Model Serial Number Calibration due 2.2.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 2. Microphone Norsonic Unknown Unknown Not specified Manufacturer Model Serial Number Calibration due 2.3. 2.

Materials 10mm thick.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Manufacturer Model Serial Number Calibration due Bruel & Kjaer Power Amplifier Unknown Unknown Not specified 2.5. 100m plywood board 10mm thick. 300m plywood board Material 1 Material 2 Material 3 3 . 200m plywood board 10mm thick.

Measurements Measurement layout Sound Source Microphone Barrier Figure 3-1– Side View of measurement Figure 3-2 –Photograph of measurement layout 4 .1.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 3. 3.

To understand the effects of having the noise source closer/further away from the barrier a series of measurements were then undertaken using the 100mm barrier. Each barrier size was then tested at a distance of 1m from both the loudspeaker (source) and the Sound Level Meter (SLM). Throughout the measurement process both the SLM and loudspeaker were mounted on a tripod and were not moved. West Yorkshire.2.2). Measurements were made at various distances from the barrier. This was to allow for Insertion Losses (I. the calibration of the SLM described in Section 2. The measurement duration was 10 seconds. (receiver).IOA Diploma 2013-14 3.1 was undertaken using the calibrator (referred to in Section 2. The calibrator level was measured correctly at 114 dB(A). The calibration of the SLM was re-checked successfully on completion of the measurements. 5 . LS1 3HB. These involved moving the loudspeaker to as close as 100mm and as far as 500mm away from the barrier (in 100mm stages). Portland Crescent. Leeds. The supplied noise signal was that of white noise. Prior to the commencing measurements. The first measurements involved measuring the sound pressure level with no barrier present. This was amplified via a power amplifier and relayed through a loudspeaker.L) to be computed. All equipment was inspected prior to and after measurements. Student Number: 77144104 Measurement procedure All measurements sound pressure level measurements were undertaken within the anechoic chamber at Leeds Metropolitan University.

L values were computed. These are illustrated within Figure 4-1. For all measurement results the reader is referred to Appendix A: 6 .IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 4. Measurement Results From the measured sound pressure levels (with and without the barrier present) I.

dB 7 . Insertion Loss results Figure 4-1– Insertion loss results.1.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 4.

L=10log10 ( 3-20N ) dB I.L (in dB) as a function of the Fresnel’s number N. Analysis Comparison models To understand if empirical insertion loss prediction models such as (Maekawa.1.1. 5. An illustration of these zones is given within Figure 5-1. The computed frequency range was 63Hz to 8000Hz. dependent on receiver position. I.2) Maekawa presented his results through the way of a curve representing I.1) (5. Maekawa model (Maekawa. 1 For the complete Matlab script the reader is referred to Appendix B: 8 . 5. The Fresnel’s number being a ratio of the path difference (the difference in distance between the diffracted path and the direct path of sound to the half wavelength). The first formula (Equation (5.1)) was dependent on the receiver being located within the ‘illuminated zone’ (hence there being a direct line of sight between source and receiver) with the second (Equation (5.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 5. For ease of calculation all models were computed within a simple Matlab script1 and only one configuration (300m barrier at 1m from loudspeaker and mic) was chosen for analysis. 1971) are comparable with the computed insertion loss values of Figure 4-1 a series of simple calculations were undertaken. 1968) and (Kurze and Anderson.1.L=10log10 ( 3+20N ) dB (5.2)) being dependant on the receiver being within the ‘shadow zone’ (no direct line of sight). 1968) proposed two formulas for predicting insertion loss.

4) 9 .3) ⎛ 2δ ⎞ N =⎜ ⎟ ⎝ λ ⎠ (5.4) δ = ( a + b) − c (5.3) Where δ is the path difference which is given by Equation (5.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Barrier Illuminated zone Shadow zone b Receiver Source a Hb c Hr Hs ds dr Figure 5-1-Path difference The Fresnel’s number Nis computed from Equation (5.

8) Where c is the speed of sound in metres per second and f is the frequency of interest. thin and rigid and that all predictions are free field (Everaert et al.5 (5.7) The Wavelength λ in metres is easily calculated from: λ =⎜ ⎛c⎞ ⎟ ⎝ f ⎠ (5.. 2010).2) only include reflections on the barrier and diffraction on the top of the barrier.5 (5. Due to this Equations (5. p..5) 2 2 b = ⎡( H b − H r ) + ( d r ) ⎤ ⎣ ⎦ 0. 2 2 a = ⎡( H b − H s ) + ( d s ) ⎤ ⎣ ⎦ 0.6) 2 2 c = ⎡( H r − H s ) + ( d s + d r ) ⎤ ⎣ ⎦ 0. 10 .IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 From Figure 5-1 the path difference δ may be calculated by using Pythagoras theorem for three right angled triangles with a.47). He further assumed that the noise barrier was of finite length and of a sufficient thickness and hence ground or wall transparency is not accounted for. 2011.1) and (5. Hz Maekawa assumed the barrier was semi-infinite. b and c as the hypotenuse (Smith et al.5 (5.

L. 1968) and (Kurze and Anderson.2. Kurze and Anderson model Student Number: 77144104 As with (Maekawa. Prediction model comparison Figure 5-2 is a plot of the computed values of the (Maekawa. 1971) prediction models.3) 5.L predictions (Maekawa.IOA Diploma 2013-14 5.9) Where N is the Fresnel’s number computed from Equation (5. 1971) uses the Fresnel number to calculate I. 1968) the prediction model of (Kurze and Anderson. Figure 5-2-I. 1968) and (Kurze and Anderson.L = 5 + 20 log10 2π ⋅ N tanh 2π ⋅ N (5. For an in-depth explanation/example of how these values were computed the reader is referred to Appendices C1 and C2.2. however it is slightly different in that it introduces a tanh function and a 5dB constant . 1971) 11 . I.1. These values are plotted against the measured values from the anechoic chamber.

Student Number: 77144104 Scaled up version of Maekawa and Kurze and Anderson models To recreate a real barrier situation the values used for the computations given within Appendices C1 and C2 were multiplied by a factor of 10 i.IOA Diploma 2013-14 5.3. the results computed for 10000Hz describe the real life situation at 1000Hz.e. Figure 5-3.Scaled up prediction 12 . The values of this computation are illustrated within Figure 5-3.

6. This is likely to have an effect on the measured I. at 250Hz the wavelength is approximately 1. Again this is likely to have an effect on the measured I. 2008.85): − ( broadband attenution+10 14 ) ) minmass = 3 10 ( ( ) (6. • Previous experiments have indicated that the anechoic chamber is not completely freefield i.L performance to decrease.e. • It was noted that there was a reflective surface under the barrier i. This is due the dimensions of the barrier being small compared to its wavelength i. anechoic chamber is semi-anechoic. 6dB per doubling of distance does not occur. This causes the I.36m which is larger than any dimension of the barrier.e. 2008. The minimum mass maybe calculated from a formula given by (Watson and Downey. Conclusions Observations from measurements The observations that maybe drawn from the measurements are as follows: • • • Insertion Loss increases with height of barrier. From (Watson and Downey.L values. This may have increased the measured levels by up to 3dB.1. the mass per unit area of the barrier material should be large enough to block the required amount of broadband noise. At frequencies below 250Hz the sound is able to diffract around the barrier.e.e.1) 13 . Insertion Loss increases when the barrier is closer to the sound source/receiver.L values.85) the level of sound transmitting through the barrier should be at least 10dB lower than the level of sound passing around the barrier i. p. p. • It was unclear what the sound reduction index of the barrier material was. • At higher frequencies (>4000Hz) the sound appears to diffract over the barrier.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 6.

IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 For example if one wished for 20dB of broadband attenuation the minimum mass per unit area required would be as follows: − ( -20+10 14 ) ) minmass = 3 10 ( ( ( ( ) − ( -10 14 ) ) = 3 10 ( ) = 3 10 −( −0.71) ) = 15. 14 .4 kg m 2 • Whilst undertaking the measurements it was noted that there was potential paths at both the sides and underneath the barrier.

1dB.L models outlined within section 5 there was not a good octave band correlation achieved between the measured and predictive models (Maekawa.7dB with the (Maekawa. n. The measured broadband I.IOA Diploma 2013-14 • Student Number: 77144104 Further to the above there are several paths that the sound can take which will decrease the amount of I. 1968) and (Kurze and Anderson.L was 23.2. However as we can see from Figure 6-2 the agreement between the measured broadband I.L afforded by the barrier. 1971) was computed at 24.4dB where as the model of (Kurze and Anderson. 15 . Some of these paths are illustrated within Figure 6-1 which was extracted from (pcfarina. For the worst case (Maekawa model) this is an increase of 7.L. 1968) and (Kurze and Anderson. This maybe in part due to the inaccuracies outlined above.e.it.d) Diffraction at upper of the screen: i.unipr. 1971) is excellent. the barrier is very long and the effective heights not too high Diffraction at sides of the screen: when the distance between the source and the screen edge is less than 5 times the effective height Passing through the screen Reflection over other surfaces present in proximity: when the location allows it Figure 6-1.Noise paths of a barrier 6.L and the models of (Maekawa.3% from the measured I. 1968) model being 25. 1971).eng. Prediction model conclusions With respect to the I.

Further to this whilst undertaking the measurements there were three adults within the anechoic chamber.L at 15-20dB. Directionality effects were also not considered.3. air pressure were assumed to be negligible. dB The scaled up model predicted a broadband I. humidity. Furthermore the fact that only one measurement at one position was carried out constrains the conclusions that can be drawn. 16 . hence no measurement can be taken to be better than this. p.47) places a limit on barrier I..2dB. Therefore it is likely that the absorption properties of these adults will have had an effect on the measurements. To improve measurement inaccuracies it would be beneficial to measure at varying positions. 6. Measurement inaccuracies As the comparison is between two measurements taken at the same location at relatively the same time the effect of the position and reading on the SLM is minimal. The SLM does however have an inherent inaccuracy of approximately ±1. Effects of temperature.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Figure 6-2 – Broadband overall Insertion Loss.L of 35. For a thin rigid barrier this is not realistic given that (Smith et al.1dB. 2011.

located within the shadow zone.IOA Diploma 2013-14 6.L are: a. Student Number: 77144104 Possible designs Important design parameters can be drawn from this experiment these being: • The more the height of the barrier the greater the I. 2013. Barrier with flat cap d. • For greater I. Typical designs extracted from (Munjal. All flanking/diffraction paths shall be minimised.147) that will increase I.e.L. Thicker barrier b. p.L the barrier should be placed close to the sound source or receiver i. Barrier with forked end (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 6-3 – Possible barrier design to increase I. 2013.(Munjal.L 17 .4.145) puts this limit at 5m. Although there is a limit to this. • • The mass per unit area of barrier should be of a sufficient mass. p. Double barrier c.

1968) and (Kurze and Anderson.e. Student Number: 77144104 Further Work To verify the conclusions and design guidance given above one may wish to undertake further testing. adding absorption to barrier surfaces.IOA Diploma 2013-14 6. 18 . For this one may wish to consult (Li and Wong. Other prediction models maybe analysed to see if they are more accurate than those of (Maekawa.5. 2005) who have reviewed several I.L prediction models and compared these to actual measurements. 1971). This could include testing different barrier materials and configurations i.

pp. [Online]./08_ghiacci_222030. Progneaux. 3rd ed. and Downey. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.S.sciencedirect. Little Red Book of Acoustics 2nd ed. and Hollins..157173. J.eng. (2013). Ph. and Anderson. . Munjal. Z.M.d). [Online]. (1971).IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 References Everaert.B. 19 . Applied Acoustics.unipr.doc.unipr. Great Britain: Blue Tree Acoustics. pcfarina. [Online]. R. Watson. London: World Scientific Publishing. Acoustics and Noise Control.com/science/article/pii/0003682X71900247.it. Li. Partitions. O. 1(3). Available from: https://www. and Bouillard. In: Munjal. Applied Acoustics. A review of commonly used analytical and empirical formulae for predicting sound diffracted by a thin screen. K. Sound attenuation by barriers. Noise reduction by screens. L.sciencedirect. Available from: http://www. A. Simulation of Sound Wave Propagation in Presence ofNoise Barrier by using the Partition of the Unity FiniteElements Method : a comparison with analytical methodsin 2D cases.Y.45-76. G. and Wong. [Accessed 5th January 2014] Kurze. Enclosures and Barriers.M. V. (1968). 4(1). pp.sciencedirect. 66(1). L. [Online]. Peters. (2005). U. (2008). pp. pp. ed.. Maekawa.it/Public/Acoustics-Course/.35-53. (n. Acoustics of Rooms. Noise and Vibration Control.be/past/conf/isma2010/proceedings/papers/isma2010_0182. Available from: http://www. Available from: http://pcfarina. J. H. Applied Acoustics.eng. [Online].isma-isaac.pdf.J.M.R.132-167. (2011). [Accessed 12th January 2014] Smith. Available from: http://www.com/science/article/pii/0003682X68900200. (2010).com/science/article/pii/S0003682X04000842. M. . Noise Barriers.

4 100mm Barrier.8 250 52.2 8000 72.4 Octave Band. Hz 500 1000 2000 53.7 125 36.5 4000 53.9 61.8 250 52.8 8000 61.2 8000 49. dB A-1 . dB Table A-1 – SPL (No Barrier) 63 40. Hz 500 1000 2000 40.5 48.4 250 52. 1m from Mic/Loudspeaker) 63 35.8 58.4 125 37.1 8000 64.9 41.6 250 51.2 200mm Barrier.2 Octave Band.2 300mm Barrier.6 70.1 57.7 250 47 Octave Band. 100mm from Loudspeaker Only) 63 40.8 58. 1m from Mic/Loudspeaker) 63 37. Hz 500 1000 2000 54.2 4000 68.4 Octave Band. dB Table A-4 – SPL (300mm barrier.2 4000 64.dB Table A-2 – SPL (100mm barrier.7 4000 81.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Appendices Appendix A: Measurement results Sound Pressure Levels measurements. dB Table A-3 – SPL (200mm barrier.6 66. Hz 500 1000 2000 53.9 No Barrier.5 Octave Band.9 125 40.7 125 36.1 8000 64.2 100mm Barrier.2 4000 64.1 57. Hz 500 1000 2000 55 63.5 125 37. 1m from Mic/Loudspeaker) 63 35. dB Table A-5 – SPL (100mm Barrier.

200mm from Loudspeaker Only) 63 40.5 100mm Barrier.7 125 0. Hz 500 1000 2000 1.3 Octave Band.9 125 34 250 49. dB Insertion Loss measurements. dB Table A-7 – SPL (100mm Barrier.6 125 35.2 250 -1.6 8000 53. Hz 500 1000 2000 46. Hz 500 1000 2000 49 50. dB A-2 . Hz 500 1000 2000 44.1 2 4. dB Table A-11 – Insertion Loss (200mm barrier.7 200mm Barrier.3 50.1 4000 56.3 49.5 4000 17.9 Octave Band.3 Octave Band.9 125 0.4 8000 11.8 12.5 125 35. dB Table A-9 – SPL (100mm Barrier.1 47 50.1 8000 8. 500mm from Loudspeaker Only) 63 33.7 100mm Barrier.2 Octave Band.2 Octave Band. 400mm from Loudspeaker Only) 63 38.9 250 50.dB Table A-10 – Insertion Loss (100mm barrier. Hz 500 1000 2000 0.5 44. 1m from Mic/Loudspeaker) 63 2.2 4000 57.5 100mm Barrier. Hz 500 1000 2000 47.5 4000 12.1 8000 53.3 100mm Barrier.9 5.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Table A-6 – SPL (100mm Barrier. 300mm from Loudspeaker Only) 63 34.4 125 34. dB Table A-8 – SPL (100mm Barrier.1 8000 52 100mm Barrier.9 4000 56.3 250 48 Octave Band.4 250 50.6 4000 54 8000 53. 1m from Mic/Loudspeaker) 63 4.8 250 -1.8 47.7 51.

3 20 4000 18.1 22.2 8000 19.2 4000 28 8000 23.1 22. dB A-3 . dB Table A-13 – Insertion Loss (100mm Barrier.6 19.9 125 1.5 100mm Barrier.2 Octave Band.9 8000 13. Hz 500 1000 2000 4.4 100mm Barrier.3 21.9 19.2 Octave Band.5 4000 24. 300mm from Loudspeaker Only) 63 5. Hz 500 1000 2000 14. Hz 500 1000 2000 10.4 300mm Barrier. dB Table A-14 – Insertion Loss (100mm Barrier. Hz 500 1000 2000 8.3 20.2 15. dB Table A-17 – Insertion Loss (100mm Barrier. 1m from Mic/Loudspeaker) 63 4 125 0.8 4000 24.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Table A-12 – Insertion Loss (300mm barrier.4 100mm Barrier.1 11.6 4000 25.5 125 -3.1 8000 19. 200mm from Loudspeaker Only) 63 0 125 3. Hz 500 1000 2000 7.1 250 4.1 8000 20.6 100mm Barrier.2 250 0.9 Octave Band.5 19.9 100mm Barrier. Hz 500 1000 2000 6 13.2 Octave Band.5 125 3. dB Table A-15 – Insertion Loss (100mm Barrier. 400mm from Loudspeaker Only) 63 1.1 4000 27. 500mm from Loudspeaker Only) 63 6.3 Octave Band.3 250 3. dB Table A-16 – Insertion Loss (100mm Barrier.7 250 1 Octave Band.8 250 -0.6 8000 19.6 250 1.9 16.8 125 2. 100mm from Loudspeaker Only) 63 -0.

m% lamda=(C. b=((Hb-Hs)^2+(dr)^2)^0. Hz f=[63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000]. ds = input(prompt).5.*log10(3+(20*N)).*PD. prompt = 'Enter height of receiver from ground in m '. Hr = input(prompt). Computed Insertion Loss (Maekawa Method) IL_Maekawa=10. Hs = input(prompt). m% PD=(a+b)-c. c=((Hr-Hs)^2+(ds+dr)^2)^0. Speed of Sound C=340. Prompts for required inputs prompt = 'Enter height of source from ground in m '. B-1 . dr = input(prompt). prompt = 'Enter height of barrier from ground in m '.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Appendix B: Matlab Scripts for Maekawa and Kurze and Anderson Methods Octave Band Frequency's .5. prompt = 'Enter distance of source from the barrier in m '. prompt = 'Enter distance of receiver from the barrier in m './lamda). %Path Difference.5. %Pythrogoras% a=((Hb-Hs)^2+(ds)^2)^0. %Default 340 m/s% Computations %Wavelength. Hb = input(prompt). %Fresnel Number% N=(2./f).

1m from Mic/Loudspeaker (Measured Values) Test_3_IL =[4 0.'YTick'.2.250.'mo'. set(gca..2000.1)). Student Number: 77144104 300mm Barrier. disp(['Insertion Loss (Kurze and Anderson) = '.'Location'.IL_Kurze_Anderson.'LineWidth'.5').25]) xlim([63 8000]).'LineWidth'.2.'b'.IL_Maekawa.8000]) set(gca.2 4.0. ylim([-1 25])./y). y=tanh(x). 1m from Mic/Loudspeaker'.[63.'Calculated Insertion Loss (Kurze and Anderson Method)'.'LineWidth'. .'Measured Insertion Loss (dB)']).0. IL_Kurze_Anderson=5+20*log10(x..'NorthWest').0.1)).(Maekawa Method)'. 'Calculated Insertion Loss.5. Displaying Data disp(['Insertion Loss (Maekawa) = '.500.1 11.*N).5') semilogx(f.4]. Plot of measured Insertion Vs Maekawa and Kurze and Anderson Methods figure(1) clf semilogx(f.[-1.5') hold off xlabel(['\fontsize{14}'.4000.8 -0..IOA Diploma 2013-14 Computed Insertion Loss (Kurze and Anderson Method) x=sqrt(2.15. legend('Measured Insertion Loss for 300mm Barrier. disp(' ')..*pi. ' dB']). num2str(RoundOff(IL_Maekawa. disp(' ').1000.'Octave Band Hz']). B-2 .3 20 18.9 13.'r--'.Test_3_IL .125.'XTick'.2.. ' dB']). num2str(RoundOff(IL_Kurze_Anderson.10.20. grid hold on semilogx(f. ylabel(['\fontsize{14}'.

δ 0.5 = 1.3 − 0.3 − 0.5 = 1.02m C-1 .1m 1m 1m FigureC-1-Dimensions of measured barrier One can use Equations (5.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Appendix C: Maekawa Model Calculation examples Barrier Illuminated zone Shadow zone b Receiver Source a 0.7) to calculate the path difference.02m 2 2 b = ⎡( H b − H r ) + ( d r ) ⎤ ⎣ ⎦ 0.5)(5.1) + (1) ⎤ ⎣ ⎦ 0.1) + (1) ⎤ ⎣ ⎦ 0.5 2 2 a = ⎡( H b − H s ) + ( d s ) ⎤ ⎣ ⎦ 2 2 = ⎡( 0.5 2 2 = ⎡( 0.1m 0.3m c 0.6) and (5.

f is 1000 Hz λ =⎜ ⎛c ⎝f ⎞ ⎛ 340 ⎞ ⎟=⎜ ⎟ = 0.8).5 2 2 = ⎡( 0.3) ⎛ 2δ ⎞ ⎛ 2 × 0.235 ⎝ λ ⎠ ⎝ 0.5 = 4m Now using Equation (5.4) we calculate the path difference δ δ = ( a + b) − c = (1.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 2 2 c = ⎡( H r − H s ) + ( d s + d r ) ⎤ ⎣ ⎦ 0.04m If we assume the speed of sound in air to be 340 m/s then the wavelength.1) + (1+ 1) ⎤ ⎣ ⎦ 0. N from Equation (5.04 ⎞ N =⎜ ⎟=⎜ ⎟ = 0.1 − 0.34 ⎠ C-2 .02 ) − 4 = 0. λ maybe calculated from Equation (5.02 + 1. For this example the frequency of interest.34m ⎠ ⎝ 1000 ⎠ One can then compute the Fresnel Number.

9 Calculated Insertion Loss.5 250 6.L=10log10 ( 3+20N ) = 10log10 ( 3+ ( 20 × 0. Hz 500 1000 2000 7.235 ) ) ≈ 8.2 4000 13.Insertion Loss (Maekawa Model) Octave Band.4 8000 16 C-3 . dB 63 5.8 10.3 8.2 125 5.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 As there is no line of sight the insertion loss at 1000 Hz is computed using Equation (5.2) I.8dB The values at all other frequencies are given within TableC-1 TableC-1.

8 8.2 Calculated Insertion Loss.0 4000 12.21 tanh (1. Hz 500 1000 2000 6.2dB The values at all other frequencies are given within Table C-2 Table C-2-Insertion Loss (Kurze and Anderson Model) Octave Band.2 10.235 = 5 + 20 log10 tanh 2π ⋅ 235 1.21 ⎞ = 5 + 20 log10 ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 0.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Kurze and Anderson Model Student Number: 77144104 If we use the value of N from above the insertion loss (at 1000 Hz) for the Kurze and Anderson model maybe calculated from Equation (5.8 8000 15.3 125 5.2 = 8.7 C-4 .5 250 6.L = 5 + 20 log10 2π ⋅ N tanh 2π ⋅ N 2π ⋅ 0.21) = 5 + 20 log10 ⎛ 1. dB 63 5.838 ⎠ = 5 + 3.9) I.

Report on Barrier Insertion loss

Report on Barrier Insertion loss

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd