See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222688953

Measurement of sound insulation of acoustic louvres by an

impulse method

Article in Applied Acoustics · December 2002

DOI: 10.1016/S0003-682X(02)00049-X

CITATIONS READS

26 5,059

3 authors:

Elvira B. Viveiros B.M. Gibbs

Federal University of Santa Catarina University of Liverpool
24 PUBLICATIONS 101 CITATIONS 156 PUBLICATIONS 1,901 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Samir Gerges
Federal University of Santa Catarina
168 PUBLICATIONS 1,032 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by B.M. Gibbs on 16 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 1301–1313
www.elsevier.com/locate/apacoust

Measurement of sound insulation of acoustic

louvres by an impulse method
E.B. Viveirosa, B.M. Gibbsb,*, S.N.Y. Gergesc
a
Laboratory of Environmental Comfort, Department of Architecture and Urbanism,
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, SC 88.040-900, Brazil
b
Acoustics Research Unit, School of Architecture and Building Engineering,
The University of Liverpool, PO Box 147, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK
c
Laboratory of Industrial Noise, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, SC 88.040-900, Brazil

Received 13 February 2002; received in revised form 7 June 2002; accepted 11 June 2002

Abstract
This paper presents results of a study of the sound attenuation of acoustic louvres. At the
core of the study is an alternative method of measuring sound insulation, impulse response
analysis, which circumvents the limitations imposed by standard and proposed standard
methods. Using the impulse method, the sound transmission coefficient is measured at differ-
ent angles of incidence and the angular dependency of transmission loss obtained. In the low
frequency range, the transmission is governed by a mass layer effect. The value of transmis-
sion loss is independent of angle of incidence. For the mid and high frequencies, diffraction,
interference and absorption determine louvre performance and an angular dependency is
observed. The transmission at the angle of incidence, corresponding to a line-of-sight through
the louvre blades, is the dominant contribution to the angle average value and a single
measurement at the pitch of the louvre approximates the overall transmission loss. For the
case considered, the geometry of the blades has little influence on the transmission at low
frequencies and the mass of the blades has little influence at higher frequencies. In a compa-
nion paper, the impulse data are used to predict the insertion loss provided by the louvre
when installed in a plant room.
# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Acoustic louvres; Impulse method; Sound insulation

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-151-794-4937; fax: +44-151-794-4937.

E-mail address: bmg@liverpool.ac.uk (B.M. Gibbs).

0003-682X/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0003-682X(02)00049-X
1302 E.B. Viveiros et al. / Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 1301–1313

1. Introduction

Acoustics louvres are building elements used to provide natural ventilation and
weather protection whilst simultaneously providing some sound insulation. Louvres
form part of building façades and acoustic enclosures for noise control from build-
ing services and industrial equipment. Commercial louvres follow a standard design
and usually are specified in terms of blade width, blade angle and air gap. A typical
louvre blade is composed of an infill of sound absorption material enclosed by an
upper layer of sheet metal and a perforated sheet underside, as shown in Fig. 1. The
sound insulation of an acoustic louvre generally is not high, particularly at low fre-
quencies, and therefore can be the dominant contribution to the overall performance
of a façade or acoustic enclosure. Although there have been developments in open
screen design in order to achieve increased sound insulation, generally the approa-
ches have been based on engineering experience rather than by research and devel-
opment. Importantly, there is not, at present, a standard measurement method that
allows the effectiveness of prototype louvres to be assessed.
The sound insulation of solid building components is normally presented in terms
of sound transmission loss (TL), also called sound reduction index (SRI). The
assumptions inbuilt into the standard method of measurement do not account for

Fig. 1. Schematic of an acoustic louvre with sign convention for incident angles. Chevron louvre profile
also shown.
 E.B. Viveiros et al. / Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 1301–1313 1303

coupling between source and receiver rooms [1]. The transmission loss is obtained
from level difference across the test component as follows:


S
TL ¼ L1  L2 þ 10log ð1Þ
SS


L1 and L2 are the spatial average sound levels in the source and receiving room,
respectively, S is the area of the element under test, Ss is the total surface area and

the average sound absorption in the receiving room. Eq. (1) is true for components
with values of sound insulation above 15 dB, as little energy returns to the source
room. In fact, this equation is a simplification of the general expression [2]:


S
TL ¼ L1  L2 þ 10log ð2Þ
SS
 þ S 

where  is the element transmission coefficient, the ratio of transmitted to incident

sound power.
The standard expression (1) does not apply if a low sound insulation partition is
to be tested, since S assumes importance and cannot be disregarded. The rever-
beration time of the receiver room will be affected and so will the estimate of receiver
room absorption and thence the transmission loss [3]. These inherent errors are
partly circumvented by including the early part of the decay in estimating receiver
room absorption [4] but the method has proved unsatisfactory because of extra-
polation errors. There remains a need for a test method appropriate for low inser-
tion loss devices. Ideally, the method should not require special acoustic test
facilities.
In this paper, impulse response methods are considered with these aims. Kirchoff
diffraction theory is used to predict the impulse response in order to consider the
controlling factors on transmission. In a companion paper [5], the relationship
between the impulse data and field performance of installed louvres (the insertion
loss) is considered.

2. Impulse response analysis

The impulse measurement method cancels room effects and hence, the effect of
acoustic coupling between source and receiver rooms is removed. The use of impulse
methods to determine the transmission loss of panels was first proposed by Raes [6]
and also has been applied to perforated screens [7]. Increasingly, impulses, which
have high crest factors, are being replaced by relatively low amplitude digitised
quasi-random sequences such as maximum-length sequences (MLS) [8–10]. MLS
allows temporal averaging due to the deterministic nature of the signal and the total
sound energy is not concentrated into narrow impulses so non-linearities are not
excited. Unwanted noise sums to zero when the cross-correlation between input and
output is taken [10].
1304 E.B. Viveiros et al. / Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 1301–1313

The principle of the impulse response method is to remove the room character-
istics from the time domain record, to give the anechoic response of the source–
partition-receiver set-up. The analysis is based on time-of-flight methods, where
each part of the response is identified by its arrival time at the receiving point.
Subsequently, the direct component is isolated through a temporal window (usually
rectangular). After applying the FFT, the signal spectrum is compared with the
spectrum of the reference signal obtained in the unobstructed transmission path.
The sound transmission loss of the partition is directly established, independent of
the acoustical field or any other environment condition where the measurements are
performed. The results correspond to an infinite barrier, as the only component
under analysis is the direct component. If information on a screen with particular
dimensions is desired, the diffracted components around the edges must be
windowed in with the direct component and the finite screen response then is
obtained [11].
In Fig. 2 are two time records, one with and one without a free standing finite
solid barrier in the path. The two signals have been off set, for clarity. In the upper
curve, the unobstructed reference signal consists of the direct component and the
first reflection from the floor of the room. Also evident is an increase in signal 3 ms
after the onset of the direct component. This was caused by reflections from micro-
phone stands, which was removed by wrapping the stands in absorbing foam. The
lower curve consists of the attenuated direct component and the earliest diffracted
component around the panel edges. In this set-up, the earliest diffracted signal had

Fig. 2. Time history of reference impulse response (light line and left hand scale in volts) and amplified
signal with a solid screen in the transmission path (heavy line with off set right hand scale in volts).
 E.B. Viveiros et al. / Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 1301–1313 1305

the same path length as the reflected signal in the upper curve. Both therefore
arrived at the same time.

3. Sound transmission through louvres

For the louvre investigated, the horizontal blades were at an angle of 45 . Sound
passing through the ‘‘channel’’ formed by each pair of blades is absorbed in a
manner similar to a splitter attenuator [12] and the performance of the louvre is
determined by a combination of reflection, absorption, diffraction and interference.
At high frequencies, these effects are strongly frequency dependent and therefore, in
the investigation, narrow-band measurements were carried out from 100 Hz to 5
kHz, with a frequency resolution of 14 Hz. Furthermore, in order to extract direc-
tional characteristics, the transmission coefficient was measured for nine incident
angles, in 15 increments [13].
In Fig. 3 is shown the transmitted part of an impulse, at normal incidence to a
louvre mounted in the aperture of a transmission suite. When compared with the
time history of the solid screen (Fig. 2), the direct component is spread over a longer
period, which must be included in the time window as indicated. The increased
duration of the direct component is because of the delayed arrival of sound that has
passed between louvre blades distant from the source–receiver axis. The delayed
arrivals constructively and destructively interfere, giving rise to the fluctuating sig-
nature. The louvre was mounted in an aperture of a sound transmission suite for
convenience although it has been demonstrated elsewhere that this is not a require-
ment of the method [3,11]. Free standing louvres can be measured, providing they
are surrounded by a baffle of sufficient width to delay the edge diffracted compo-
nents. The baffle must be solid but can be of lightweight construction, provided that
its transmission loss is significantly greater than that of the louvre. A baffle of 20 mm

Fig. 3. Normal incidence impulse response of a louvre, with time window indicated for direct component.
1306 E.B. Viveiros et al. / Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 1301–1313

Fig. 4. Transmission loss of a louvre for incident angles 60 in 15 increments. Upper heavy line, 45 ;
lower heavy line, +45 .

timber and width 1 m was found to be effective and was easily assembled. The
measurement set-up consisted of a small loudspeaker and a 12 mm condenser
microphone. Both source and receiver were positioned 1 m from the louvre, which
was of dimensions 21 m and depth 300 mm. The louvre was mounted sideways so
that the loudspeaker and microphone could be moved easily, in a horizontal plane,
to record transmission loss at various angles of incidence.
In Fig. 4 is the measured transmission loss as a function of incident angle. At
frequencies below 1 kHz, the transmission loss is nearly independent of the incident
angle [14]. Above 1 kHz, the performance is characterised by fluctuations about
plateaux due to destructive and constructive interference from different transmission
paths through the separate blade gaps. The directionality is asymmetric with the
lowest transmission loss at an incident angle of +450 (see Fig. 1) and highest value
at 45 . The former corresponds to a line-of-sight through the louvre and might be
expected to dominate the angle averaged transmission loss; the latter results when
the blades are perpendicular to the transmission path and therefore give maximum
screening. In Fig. 5 is shown the angle average transmission loss and the value at
+450. The curves are within 2 dB below 1000 Hz and within 5 dB above 1000 Hz.
Therefore, for this case, a single line-of-sight measurement is sufficient to represent
the overall transmission loss. This will not be the case for all louvre geometries. A
‘chevron’ louvre (see Fig. 1) does not present a line of sight, at any angle. Therefore,
in this case and others, with complicated paths through the screen, it is necessary to
measure the angular variation of transmission loss.

4. Diffracted field model

As the louvre is composed of solid and open parts, a complex field pattern is gener-
ated behind the screen and the sound behaviour cannot be described by geometric
 E.B. Viveiros et al. / Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 1301–1313 1307

Fig. 5. Transmission loss at incident angle +45 and angle average value.

acoustics alone. Wave effects must be included [15]. The prediction model is based
on Huygens’ principle to which Kirchhoff gave appropriate mathematical treatment
[16]. Previous studies of single leaf picket screens have shown good agreement
between measurement and prediction, based on this theory [17,18].
Consider an infinite opaque screen with an aperture. The disturbance at a point a
on the aperture surface, generated by a sound source, emitting a spherical wave at a
distance rs, is given by:

Ae jkrs
p~ðaÞ ¼ ð3Þ
rs

where A is the source amplitude, k is the wavenumber (k=2/l), and rs is the dis-
tance between source and receiver. The Fresnel–Kirchhoff diffraction equation
expresses the total disturbance at the receiver point as [18]:
ðð
    
A e jkðrs þrr Þ 1 1
p~ðrecÞ ¼ jk  cos s þ jk  cos r ds ð4Þ
4 aperture rs rr rs rr

where rs and rr are the distances from the source and receiver to the elemental areas
ds on the aperture, at angles to the normal of the plane of the aperture of s and r,
respectively. At low frequencies, the louvre openings are small compared with the
wavelength. There is a cut-off frequency below which the louvre can be assumed to
be a partially transmitting solid screen, with an effective surface mass density m0,
given by [15]:


m0 ¼ ðl0 þ 2lÞ ð5Þ

1308 E.B. Viveiros et al. / Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 1301–1313

where  is the density of the air,  is the open area ratio given by b/B, where b is the
gap width and B is the total width of gap and blade, l0 is the gap depth and l is the
end correction. Eq. (5) shows that a small amount of air confined in the slits of the
louvre can contribute to an increased surface mass density and should not be dis-
regarded. The equivalent mass from Eq. (5) was used to calculate a transmission
coefficient,  , given by:

1
 ¼   ð6Þ
!m0 cos 2
1þ
2c

where  is the angle of incidence. The phase shift , between the incident and trans-
mitted waves is of the form:
 
1 !m0 cos
 ¼ tan ð7Þ
2c

The equation governing the low frequency transmission is obtained by including

Eqs. (5)–(7) in (4):
ðð
    
A pffiffiffi j e jkðrs þrr Þ 1 1
p~ðrecÞ ¼  e jk  cos s þ jk  cosr ds ð8Þ
4 louvre rs rr rs rr

At mid- and high-frequencies, provided the screen has sufficient mass, the transmis-
sion through the blades is negligible compared with that through the gaps. The
behaviour of sound waves incident on the openings therefore is modelled by dif-
fraction theory, according to Eq. (8).
The louvre diffraction model was discretised into elements to be less than l/5l/5
and divisible into the blade and gap widths of 100 mm each. An element dimension
6.256.25 mm, was appropriate for frequencies below 5000 Hz.

5. Louvre transmission models

A louvre first was modelled as a thin screen with slits, as shown in Fig. 6. Also
shown is the source and receiver geometry, where the parameters indicated are those
in Eqs. (4) and (8). The Fresnel–Kirchhoff theory yields the complex sound pressure
from which is obtained the predicted transmission loss at 45 shown in Fig. 7. The
mass-layer value dominates the predicted transmission loss below 1 kHz. Above 1
kHz, diffraction effects predominate. However, prediction significantly under-
estimates the measured transmission loss shown in Fig. 10. It has been demon-
strated, by Lyons and Gibbs [18] that the thin-screen model is appropriate for
screens with gaps normal to the screen surface and for gap depths of 100 mm or less.
It is inappropriate for the louvre studied, where the gaps are oblique to the surface
and where the gap depths are of the order of 300 mm.
 E.B. Viveiros et al. / Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 1301–1313 1309

Fig. 6. Louvre modelled as a thin perforated screen.

Fig. 7. Predicted transmission loss according to thin screen model.

Therefore, the louvre was modelled as a slotted secondary source with gap depth
taken into account. In Fig. 8 is a schematic of the model adopted. Eq. (4) is modified
to include the phase change through the louvre gaps of depth l, by adding the func-
tion ejkl, to give:
ðð
    
A e jkðrs þrr Þ 1 1
p~ðrecÞ ¼ jk  cos s þ jk  cos r e jkl ds ð9Þ
4 aperture rs rr rs rr

The amplitude of the sound waves was assumed unchanged due to ‘duct’ propaga-
tion along the louvre slit and modal effects were not included. Fig. 9 shows the
measured transmission loss at 45 and the predicted diffracted component using Eq.
1310 E.B. Viveiros et al. / Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 1301–1313

Fig. 8. Louvre modelled as a thick perforated screen with blade transfer function included.

Fig. 9. Predicted transmission loss according to simple thick screen model.

(9). Again, the fluctuation value results from interference effects and although there
is some similarity in terms of signature, there is a significant difference in level. The
discrepancy was thought to be the result of not including amplitude and phase
changes due to the absorbing material within the louvre blades. In order to include
this effect the sound propagating through the louvre channels was measured as a
frequency dependent complex transfer function, TF(!).
The first approach was to measure the transfer function TFlou by placing micro-
phones in close proximity to the louvre, immediately before and after the screen.
The two microphones were at a set distance of 420 mm. The loudspeaker was at a
 E.B. Viveiros et al. / Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 1301–1313 1311

Fig. 10. Predicted transmission loss according to modified thick screen model.

distance of 3 m so that the incident sound approximated a plane wave and the sound
entered the openings at approximately the same angle. The measurement would thus
be of the amplitude and phase changes through one of the louvre openings. How-
ever, previous measurements of transfer function had indicated that sound trans-
mitted through neighbouring openings affected results for the one under test and
therefore all other gaps were sealed. As for the previous impulse measurements (see
Section 2), a reference measurement TFref was required, to cancel the effect of dis-
tance and system response. The loudspeaker and microphones were positioned as
before but without the louvre. The ratio of TFlou and TFref gives the true transfer
function between the entrance and exit planes, TF(!).
To avoid a probable disturbance of the sound field at the front-face microphone,
due to reflections from the louvre, a simplified way of measuring the louvre transfer
function was proposed, using one microphone only. It assumes that the sound waves
incident at the entrance plane of the perforated screen (see Fig. 8) are reduced only
have only due to the distance travelled, the same as for the reference measurement.
The transfer function is then obtained from the microphone at the exit plane, with
and without the louvre in place. It was further assumed that the transfer function
measured, applied to all other gaps, irrespective of entrance and exit angles. The
simplified method was used for subsequent measurements.
On including the transfer function TF(!), Eq. (9) for the diffracted field produced
by the openings, becomes:

ðð
    
A e jkðrs þrr Þ 1 1
p~ðrecÞ ¼ jk  cos s þ jk  cos r TFð!Þds ð10Þ
4 aperture rs rr rs rr
1312 E.B. Viveiros et al. / Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 1301–1313

In Fig. 10, the measured transmission loss at 45 is shown with predicted values
according to Eq. (10). Again, the mass layer model predicts transmission loss, below
400 Hz. Above 400 Hz, the defraction model predominates. The agreement is within
3 dB, up to 1 kHz. Above 1 kHz, the louvre performance is determined by absorp-
tion, diffraction and interference and the prediction becomes sensitive to louvre
geometry. Whilst the predicted and measured spectral signatures are similar, there
are shifts in the frequencies of the maxima. The predicted peak at 1 kHz corresponds
to a measured peak at 1050 Hz. The second, at 1950 Hz corresponds to a measured
peak at 2500 Hz.

6. Concluding remarks

The problems of measuring the sound transmission through an acoustic louvre

have been described. An improved impulse method is proposed that offers a direct
measure of transmission loss, which is not available using standard methods. The
impulse method can be employed without special acoustics facilities.
The value measured at an incident angle, corresponding to the pitch of the louvre
blades, dominates the angle average value and may be sufficient to estimate the
overall transmission loss. For louvres with chevron blades and other screens, which
do not provide a line-of-sight, there may not be a dominant transmission angle.
However, the method allows the angular variation to be measured quickly and
accurately.
The low frequency performance of acoustic louvres is insensitive to blade geo-
metry and can be described simply in terms of the mass-layer effect, which depends
on perforation ratio and louvre depth. The high frequency performance depends on
geometry and the absorption characteristics of the infill.
The field performance of a louvre is more appropriately described by its insertion
loss than by transmission loss. The insertion loss relates to both the transmission
coefficient and reflection coefficient and in a companion paper the relationship
between these characteristics is explored.

References

[1] ISO 140. Methods of measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements. Revi-
sion 1994/1995.
[2] ASTM E90–75. Standard method for laboratory measurement of airborne sound transmission loss
of building partitions. American Standard for Testing Materials.
[3] Lyons R. Sound insulation of acoustic louvre and open screens. Building Acoustics 1994;1(2):105–24.
[4] Mulholland KA, Parbrook HD. The measurement of sound transmission loss of panels with small
transmission loss. J Sound Vib 1965;2(4):502–9.
[5] Viveiros EB, Gibbs BM. An image model for predicting the field performance of acoustic louvres
from impulse measurements. Applied Acoustics [in press].
[6] Raes AC. A Tentative method for the measurement of sound transmission losses in unfinished
buildings. J Acoust Soc Am 1955;27(1):98–102.
[7] Lyons R. Building elements of low sound insertion loss. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool, 1993.
 E.B. Viveiros et al. / Applied Acoustics 63 (2002) 1301–1313 1313

[8] Borish J, Angell JB. An efficient algorithm for measuring the impulse response using pseudorandom
noise. J Audio Eng Soc 1983;31(7):478–88.
[9] Rife DD, Vanderkooy J. Transfer-function measurement with maximum-length sequences. J Audio
Eng Soc 1989;37(6):419–44.
[10] Vorländer M, Kob M. Practical aspects of MLS measurements in building acoustics. Applied
Acoustics 1997;52(3/4):239–58.
[11] Lyons R, Gibbs BM. Impulse response analysis: an alternative method of measuring sound insula-
tion. Building Acoustics 1996;3(3):187–216.
[12] Fry A, editor. Noise control in building services. Pergamon Press; 1988.
[13] Viveiros, EB. Evaluation of the acoustical performance of louvres by impulse response analysis. PhD
thesis, Federal University of Santa Catarina and Liverpool University, 1998.
[14] Viveiros EB, Gibbs BM, Gerges SNY. Sound insulation of acoustic louvres. Proc. Internoise 1997.
p. 739–42.
[15] Cremer L, Müller H. Principles and applications of room acoustics [T.J. Schultz Trans.], vol. 2.
Applied Science; 1982.
[16] Godman JW. Introduction to Fourier optics. McGraw Hill; 1968 [chapter 3].
[17] Wassilieff C. Improving the noise reduction of picket barriers. J Acoust Soc Am 1988;84(2):645–50.
[18] Lyons R, Gibbs BM. Sound insulation of open screens: measurement by impulse response analysis.
Building Acoustics 1998;4(1):51–72.

View publication stats