Buenos Aires – 5 to 9 September, 2016

st
Acoustics for the 21 Century…

PROCEEDINGS of the 22nd International Congress on Acoustics

Noise Mapping: Paper ICA2016-458

ISO 1996 measurement procedure and the uncertainty

associated in strategic noise maps

David Montes González (a), Juan Miguel Barrigón Morillas (a), Guillermo Rey Gozalo (b),
Pedro Atanasio Moraga(a), Rosendo Vílchez-Gómez(a), Juan Antonio Méndez Sierra a),
Rubén Maderuelo Sanz (c)
(a)
Departamento de Física Aplicada, Universidad de Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain, barrigon@unex.es
(b)
Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Talca, Chile
(c)
Departamento de Tecnologías y Construcción Sostenible, INTROMAC, Cáceres, Spain

Abstract

Strategic noise maps are an essential tool for the evaluation of the exposure of the population to
noise pollution and the elaboration of Action Plans. In this regard, since in situ measures are
required for the elaboration or the calibration and validation of noise maps, the Noise European
Directive considers the standard ISO 1996 as a reference. On the one hand, this standard es-
tablishes in its normative part some corrections as a function of the distance between the mi-
crophone and the rear reflective surface. On the other hand, it contains an Annex B (informa-
tive) in which certain conditions are established for each case in order that the values obtained
by in situ measurements are approximate to these corrections. This paper show a review of the
scientific literature about this topic, in which an analysis of published results and a reflection
about the accuracy of the strategic noise maps carried out under the European Noise Directive
are made.

Keywords: Noise map, ISO 1996, measurement procedure, urban noise.

 nd
22 International Congress on Acoustics, ICA 2016
Buenos Aires – 5 to 9 September, 2016
st
Acoustics for the 21 Century…

ISO 1996 measurement procedure and the uncertainty

associated in strategic noise maps.

1 Introduction
The harmful effects of noise pollution on the health of humans has been shown in numerous
studies, in which it was found that exposure to environmental noise can cause different kinds of
health problems [1-3]. In this sense, any approach to improving this situation and search for
solutions necessarily involves achieving knowledge of reality to reduce levels of noise pollution
as far as possible. This approach has been considered by the European Community [4] and,
therefore, by the countries that comprise, in particular by Spanish legislation [5].
Noise mapping is an important option to be considered for studies about noise pollution and its
effects on the population and for the approach of possible solutions [4-6]. Noise maps, as is
stipulated in the Noise European Directive [4], are the principal instrument to confront environ-
mental noise. For this reason, its development both nationally and internationally is important.
Different methodologies can be considered for the realization of a noise map. Usually, studies
use computational methods and in situ measurements.
Two of the references for noise mapping are ISO 1996-1 and ISO 1996-2 international stand-
ards [7, 6], which have served as a basis for development of national and international legisla-
tion because, among other things, they define aspects associated with the calculation and
measurement methodology of sound pressure level outdoors.
If somebody wishes to know experimentally the noise dose received by citizens in their homes,
the fundamental problem is to evaluate the noise incident on the façade. In this regard, it de-
pends on temporal and spatial factors. Therefore, not only the features of the sound source
would be necessary to be considered for a proper evaluation. In addition, the situation of the
measurement point relative to the source and the specific urban environment of each street or
façade to be evaluated would be important. This means to take into account the effect of the
different elements or configurations of the urban environment on the results of the measure-
ments. In this form, for each measurement configuration, the sound level value that is finally
associated to each measure assess, as accurately as possible, the sound energy incident on
the façade of the house under consideration.
However, ISO 1996-2 standard, as will be discussed below, contains some inaccuracies and
lacks of definition in the measurement procedure in outdoor environments, and in corrections to
be applied, which could be decisive in the results obtained in the development of noise maps
through measures and, therefore, the approach of possible solutions to reduce the levels of
noise in cities.
In this paper, firstly, it is analyzed to what extent and how these aspects are considered in ISO
1996-2 standard. Secondly, a review of the literature is made to know the studies concerning
these aspects and conclusions reached.

2
 nd
22 International Congress on Acoustics, ICA 2016
Buenos Aires – 5 to 9 September, 2016
st
Acoustics for the 21 Century…

2 Revision of ISO 1996-2 standard

2.1 Normative considerations of ISO 1996-2
The first aspect that may be of interest is the fact that ISO 1996-2 standard explicitly does not
establish the distance relative to the reflecting surface at which the microphone should be
placed, which means that this decision would be based on the criteria of the technician. This is
not necessarily a problem. It could even be considered as recognition of urban reality. Given the
urban planning of many streets of our cities, it is difficult to indicate a reference distance for
measurements that, at the same time, does not involve a complex assembly.
Associated with this topic, the standard suggests some corrections that should be applied on
the values of the measured noise levels. The values for these corrections are given depending
on the distance from the façade, with the aim of correcting the noise level increase that reflec-
tion implies respect to sound field effectively incident on façade (free field) and which is really of
interest. The standard considers three cases in which corrections should be used:
a) A position with the microphone flush mounted on the reflecting surface: −6 dB.
b) A position with the microphone located between 0.5 and 2 m in front of the reflecting surface:
−3 dB.
c) A free field position (reference condition): 0 dB.
The corrections indicated by the standard shown a certain lack of definition, because as the
standard itself suggests, these corrections proposed above may not match the results of meas-
urement in real conditions in urban environments. For example, in the case of microphone flush
mounted on the reflective surface, the standard indicates that the difference of 6 dB between a
microphone placed on a façade and one in free field is an ideal case, occurring in practice devi-
ations lower than this value.
In the same direction, when the microphone is placed between 0.5 and 2 m in front of the reflec-
tive surface, the standard states that the difference between the sound pressure level in a mi-
crophone located 2 m in front of the façade and a microphone free field approaches 3 dB for an
ideal case without any vertical reflective obstacle influencing sound propagation to the receiver.
However, this difference may be greater in complex situations, for example, sites with a high
density of buildings, streets, etc. In addition, for this same case, it indicated that under grazing
incidence deviations may be higher.
Finally, for the position of the microphone in free-field, the standard states that either a real or
theoretical case, the sound pressure level corresponding to the free field incident on a building
is calculated by measurements made near the building. This means that those measurements
made in front of the building, in which is verified the free field condition for distance, would not
be covered either in the standard. This fact seems to be clear, since, in this case, the measured
sound field would not be incident on the façade.

3
 nd
22 International Congress on Acoustics, ICA 2016
Buenos Aires – 5 to 9 September, 2016
st
Acoustics for the 21 Century…

2.2 Informative considerations of ISO 1996-2

Although ISO 1996-2 standard makes some vague references in its normative part to the condi-
tions in which the proposed corrections are verified, different considerations are shown in detail
in Annex B (informative) that should be taken into account. They are going to be analyzed for
each of the three cases described above.
In case of microphone mounted directly on a reflective surface, the annex establishes as a first
option to place it on a plate on the surface or with the microphone membrane flush with the sur-
face of the mounting plate.
For assembly, certain conditions must be respected. In relation to the façade, it must be flat
within 1.0 m from the microphone, with a tolerance of ±0.05 m, and the distance from the micro-
phone to the edges of the surface must be higher than 1.0 m. Another aspect to be considered
is that the plate should not be thicker than 25 mm and not less than 0.5 m x 0.7 m dimensions.
It must be made of a rigid material and acoustically hard. Finally, it indicates that the distance
from the microphone to the edges and to the axes of symmetry of the plate must be greater
than 0.1 m.
For this measurement position, the second possible option is to place the microphone directly
on the wall, without the plate, in case of the surface is made of concrete, stone, glass, wood or
similar hard materials. In this case, the reflecting surface must be flat within 1 m from the micro-
phone, with a tolerance of ±0.01 m. In addition, the standard states in Annex B that a micro-
phone of 13 mm in diameter or smaller should be used for measurements without the plate in
octave bands and, if the frequency range exceeds the 4 kHz, a microphone of 6 mm.
When the microphone is placed near the reflecting surface (between 0.5 and 2 m in front of
this), Annex B of the standard indicates that the façade must be flat with a tolerance of ±0.3 m.
Furthermore, in order to avoid edge effects, minimum distances are established (Figure 1) from
point O to the closest edges of the reflecting surface: b (horizontal distance) and c (vertical dis-
tance). These distances must meet conditions given by equations 1 and 2:
b 4d, (1)

c 2d, (2)

where d is the perpendicular distance from the microphone to the façade.

Moreover, the annex of the standard states that to ensure that the incident and reflected sounds
have the same magnitude; the criterion of equation 3 must be met in the case of the extended
source. It relates a' and d', taking these distances along the dividing line of vision angle , as
can be seen in Figure 1. Considering that M' is the point on the dividing line of angle at a dis-
tance d from the façade, d' can be defined as the distance between M' and the façade and a' as
the distance between M' and the sound source:
d' 0.1a'. (3)

4
 nd
22 International Congress on Acoustics, ICA 2016
Buenos Aires – 5 to 9 September, 2016
st
Acoustics for the 21 Century…

Figure 1: Microphone near the reflecting surface [8]

In practice, considering a reflective surface parallel to the linear sound source, in the case of
receiver located between 0.5 and 2 m in front of the façade, this condition means that the per-
pendicular distance between the microphone and the sound source (a') should range at least
between 5 and 20 m. This means that for sources located at distances lower than 5.5 m from
the façade, if the indications of Annex B are followed, measurements on façade should only be
conducted. Moreover, only for sources placed at distances greater than 22 m from the façade, it
would be possible to carry out measurements at any of the distances from the façade consid-
ered in the standard.
Another aspect of Annex B of ISO 1996-2 standard to be considered is that, to ensure that the
microphone is placed at enough distance from the region of +6 dB next to the façade, in case of
extended source it should be taken into account the criterion of equation 4 when a study of
global sound pressure levels is realized or, the criterion of equation 5, if it is carried out in oc-
tave frequency bands:
d' 0.5 m, (4)
d' 1.6 m. (5)
On the other hand, if we wish to perform measurements more than 2 m from the façade, Annex
B of the standard indicates a criterion as a requirement for considering free field conditions. It
indicates that the distance from the microphone to any reflective surface, not including the
ground, should be at least twice the distance from the microphone to the dominant part of the
sound source (equation 6):
d' 2a'. (6)

5
 nd
22 International Congress on Acoustics, ICA 2016
Buenos Aires – 5 to 9 September, 2016
st
Acoustics for the 21 Century…

If these measurements are performed in front the façade, it must be taken into account that if
the microphone is in free field conditions, the measured noise level is not representative directly
of the incident level on the façade. Thus, a correction would be needed. However, no correction
concerning sound propagation is provided in the standard.
For these three measurement positions described above, Annex B of the standard makes a
distinction of the type of sound source under study. Depending on the viewing angle ( ) of the
microphone over the source (Figure 1), it is considered as extended source when is greater
than or equal to 60° and, as a point source if the angle is smaller.

3 Literature review
Differences between the corrections stated by ISO 1996-2 standard and empirical studies [9-11]
could be motivated by various factors, and they seem to be associated with the complex config-
uration of the urban environment of cities. Some papers show a study of the variation of the
sound pressure level in front of reflecting surfaces [12-18]. They suggest the occurrence of
noise level fluctuations near reflective surfaces due to the combination of diffraction and inter-
ference effects of sound waves.
In this line, Hall et al. [12] compare the measured noise level on façades and 2.0 m from them
considering traffic noise as sound source. Outcomes show fluctuations above and below 3 dB,
especially for frequency bands under 200 Hz. In connection with this results, the work published
by Quirt [13] indicate that the assumption that the energy is doubled (+3 dB) at 2 m from the
surface of the building is a reasonable approximation for an extended source such as road traf-
fic and for third octave bands above 100 Hz. It also concludes that, on average, pressure dou-
bling (+6 dB) is a good approximation when the microphone is placed very close to flat building
surfaces.
Hopkins et al. [14] study the above mentioned effects using a microphone placed on a reflecting
surface and other microphone in the range between 0.1 and 2.0 m from it. For this purpose,
measurements of sound pressure level are carried out in a scale model into a semi-anechoic
chamber using a point source and different sizes of reflective surface. The results show differ-
ences between the finite and semi-infinite reflectors, particularly at frequencies below 300 Hz.
This becomes apparent because of the appearance of a comb filter effect whose maximum and
minimum occur at different frequencies and at different levels. It is also noted as the comb filter
effect moves toward lower frequencies as increases the distance between the microphone and
the reflective surface.
Berardi et al. [15] research about the interference effects in field measurements of airborne
sound insulation of building façades. Using a loudspeaker as a sound source, experimental re-
sults show the existence of destructive interferences at frequency bands below 125 Hz. Further
investigations are recommended to better understand the possible influence of different materi-
als and decorations of the façade in modifying the interference pattern.
Olafsen [16] indicate that if calculations are made with a perfectly reflecting façade, no other
reflecting surfaces and a perfect point source in a single position generating the noise, the
“comb filter” effect would show up at around 5000 Hz, with a microphone at a distance of 0.03 m

6
 nd
22 International Congress on Acoustics, ICA 2016
Buenos Aires – 5 to 9 September, 2016
st
Acoustics for the 21 Century…

in front of the façade. This type of calculation indicates that the lowest frequency where comb
filter effects should be expected will go down as the distance from the façade is increased. Even
at 2 m distance in front of the façade, these calculations show a pattern of interference effects in
1/3 octave bands, to some extent influencing the whole building acoustics frequency range from
50 to 5000 Hz.
Beradi [17] use a point source to study
study the position of the instruments for the sound insulation
measurement of building façades. The results of the investigation suggest averaging the exter-
nal SPL measurements among different positions in order to reduce the effects of interference
in front of the façade. In this regard, the paper also cites the incidence angle of sound relative to
the reflective surface as a factor to be considered in this kind of studies, as real sound sources
cause different angles of incidence on the façade.
Another study is done by Olafsen et al. [18] where field measurements of façade sound insula-
tion are carried out using a loudspeaker as a sound source. It concludes that, when possible,
microphone positions on the façade should be preferred. If positions on the façade are not
available, acceptable results can be achieved using microphone positions in front of the façade.
The measurement positions cannot be directly compared. Until further knowledge is collected, it
is suggested that the two positions on or in front are considered to give the same result at fre-
quencies up to and including 160 Hz, and that the position on the façade is considered to give 3
dB higher level than in front from 200 Hz upwards.

4 Conclusions
The results published to date and which may have a significant impact on the results obtained
so far in the implementation of the European Directive for noise mapping are summarized be-
low:
Some papers study differences between the corrections proposed by ISO 1996-2 standard
and experimental results. They show a disparity in values that could involve differences up
to 2 dB relative to the −6 dB correction and 1 dB relative to the −3 dB correction.
Other works suggest the occurrence of noise level fluctuations near reflective surfaces due
to the combination of diffraction and interference effects,
effects, especially in the low-frequency
range. It may involve that the −3 dB correction would not be uniform in all the frequency
bands.

Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by the project TRA2015-70487-R (MINECO/FEDER, UE);
Junta de Extremadura, Consejería de Economía e Infraestructura (GR15063); European Re-
gional Development Fund (ERDF)
ERDF) and the National Commission for Scientific and Technological
Research (CONICYT) through Nacional Fund for Scientific and Technological Development
(FONDECYT) for research initiation (Nº 11140043).

7
 nd
22 International Congress on Acoustics, ICA 2016
Buenos Aires – 5 to 9 September, 2016
st
Acoustics for the 21 Century…

References
[1] Demian, H. Environmental noise and sleep disturbances: A threat to health? Sleep Science, Vol 7(4),
2014, pp 209-212.
[2] Munzel, T.; Gori T.; Babisch, W.; Basner, M. Cardiovascular effects of environmental noise exposure.
European Heart Journal, Vol 35, 2014, pp 829-883.
[3] World Health Organization (WHO). Burden of disease from environmental noise. Quantification of
healthy life years lost in Europe. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Denmark, 2011.
[4] Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the
assessment and management of environmental noise. Official Journal L, 189. The European Parlia-
ment and the Council of the European Union, Brussels, 2012.
[5] Ley 37/2003, de 17 de noviembre, del Ruido. Boletín Oficial del Estado 276 de 18 noviembre 2003,
Spain.
[6] ISO 1996-2. Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise. Part 2: Determination
of environmental noise levels. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (Switzerland),
2007.
[7] ISO 1996-1. Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise. Part 1: Basis quanti-
ties and assessment procedures. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (Switzer-
land), 2003.
[8] NT ACOU 039. Road Traffic: Measurement of Noise immission – Engineering method. Nordtest
Tekniikantie 12, Espoo (Finland), 2002.
[9] Memoli, G.; Paviotti, M.; Kephalopoulos, S.; Licitra, G. Testing the acoustical corrections for reflections
on a façade. Applied Acoustics, Vol 69 (6), 2008, pp 479-495.
[10] Jagniatinskis, A.; Fiks, B. Assessment of environmental noise from long-term window microphone
measurements. Applied Acoustics, Vol 76; 2014, pp 377-385.
[11] Mateus, M.; Carrilho, J.D.; da Silva, M.G. An experimental analysis of the correction factors adopted
on environmental noise measurements performed with window-mounted microphones. Applied
Acoustics, Vol 87, 2015, pp 212-218.
[12] Hall, F.L., Papakyriakou M.J., Quirt J.D. Comparison of outdoor microphone locations for measuring
sound insulation of building façades. Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol 92, 1984, pp 559-567.
[13] Quirt, J.D. Sound fields near exterior building surfaces. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, Vol 77, 1985, pp 557-566.
[14] Hopkins, C.; Lam, Y. Sound fields near building facades – comparison of finite and semi-infinite re-
flectors on a rigid ground plane. Applied Acoustics, Vol 70 (2), 2009, pp 300-308.
[15] Berardi, U.; Cirillo, E.; Martellotta, F. Interference effects in field measurements of airborne sound
insulation of building façades. Noise Control Engineering Journal, Vol 59 (2), 2011, pp 165-176.
[16] Olafsen, S. Sound insulation measurements of facades with variable microphone positions. Proceed-
ings Internoise, Osaka, Japan, September 4-7, 2011.
[17] Berardi U. The position of the instruments for the sound insulation measurement of building façades:
From ISO 140-5 to ISO 16283-3. Noise Control Engineering Journal, Vol 61 (1), 2013, pp 1-11.

8
 nd
22 International Congress on Acoustics, ICA 2016
Buenos Aires – 5 to 9 September, 2016
st
Acoustics for the 21 Century…

[18] Olafsen, S.; Bard, D.; Strand, M.K.; Fernández Espejo, T. Methods of field measurements of façade
sound insulation. Noise Control Engineering Journal, Vol 63 (5), 2015, pp 467-477.