Low Frequency Noise Annoyance Assessment by Low Frequency Noise Rating (LFNR) Curves

Broner, Norm; Leventhall, H.G.

doi:10.1177/026309238300200103

Cited by 31 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of criteria has been developed for assessment of low frequency noise (Broner, Leventhall, 1983). In recent years, some European countries have adopted national criteria for low frequency noise, including Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Netherland and Poland.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study and Assessment of Low Frequency Noise in Occupational Settings

Shehap

Shawky

El-Basheer

2016

Archives of Acoustics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low frequency noise is one of the most harmful factors occurring in human working and living environment. Low frequency noise components from 20 to 250 Hz are often the cause of employee complaints. Noise from power stations is an actual problem for large cities, including Cairo. The noise from equipments of station could be a serious problem for station and for environmental area. The development of power stations in Cairo leads to appearing a wide range of gas turbines which are strong source of noise. Two measurement techniques using C-weighted along side the A-weighted scale are explored. C-weighting is far more sensitive to detect low frequency sound. Spectrum analysis in the low frequency range is done in order to identify a significant tonal component. Field studies were supported by a questionnaire to determine whether sociological or other factors might influence the results by using annoyance rating mean value. Subjects included in the study were 153 (mean = 36.86, SD = 8.49) male employees at the three electrical power stations. The (C-A) level difference is an appropriate metric for indicating a potential low frequency noise problem. A-weighting characteristics seem to be able to predict quite accurately annoyance experienced from LFN at workplaces. The aim of the present study is to find simple and reliable method for assessing low frequency noise in occupational environment to prevent its effects on work performance for the workers. The proposed method has to be compared with European methods.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study and Assessment of Low Frequency Noise in Occupational Settings

Shehap

Shawky

El-Basheer

2016

Archives of Acoustics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result, it is considered that there is a significant limitation in the long term averaging of LFN noise levels, as this approach results in the loss of information on fluctuations e.g. Broner and Leventhall, (1983) and Blazier and Ebbing, (1992), Leventhall (2003).…”

Section: Lfn Perception and Assessment 31 Perception And Annoyancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…When assessing noise, the most common method is to use the A-weighting. Based on empirical evidence and many documented cases (Broner and Leventhall, 1983, Leventhall 2003, Moorhouse et al 2005, it is very clear is that the A-weighted SPL alone is not successful in assessing the response to LFN (and to infrasound). The major reason for this is that A-weighting network significantly decreases the contribution of low frequency energy in a sound due to the reduced loudness sensitivity of our hearing at low frequencies.…”

Section: Which Noise Metric?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Simple Criterion for Low Frequency Noise Emission Assessment

Broner

2010

Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many sources of Low Frequency Noise (LFN) in the environment and complaints about the effect of higher level LFN in the form in the form of "rumble", a "feeling of pressure" and the resultant headaches and nausea have been known for decades. A number of different European methods have been suggested for assessment of LFN, all based on measured indoor noise levels. The administrative procedures used in individual countries to enforce any LFN criteria are quite different but they are all generally based on the assumption that the annoyance due to LFN is dependent on the relative SPL when compared to the threshold of audibility. In terms of simplicity of application, the determination of an overall noise level that could be used for assessment of LFN would be the optimum approach rather than requiring any detailed spectrum analysis and calculations. Ideally, LFN criteria should be set indoors where the LFN complaints normally occur. However, in planning terms, it is much easier to set criteria for the outside of residences. In this paper, we therefore propose criteria for the prevention of LFN complaints for both residential and commercial permisies based on the measured overall C-weighted SPL. We also consider the impact of LFN SPL fluctuations.

show abstract

“…The performance of these objective methods however, has not been evaluated in the previous studies for tones just above the threshold and for combinations of two tones, which may cause a "throbbing". As it has been suggested that low frequency tones just above the threshold have been found to cause annoyance, and "throbbing" increases the annoyance [12,13], the prediction from the objective methods has to be investigated for pure tones and combinations of two tones.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Annoyance of Low Frequency Tones and Objective Evaluation Methods

Subedi

Yamaguchi

Matsumoto

et al. 2005

Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Annoyance of low frequency pure and combined tones was measured in a laboratory experiment. Three low frequency tones at frequencies of 31.5, 50 and 80 Hz at four sound pressure levels, from about 6 dB to 24 dB above average hearing threshold, were selected as pure tones. The combined tones were combinations of two tones: the four levels of 31.5, 50 and 80 Hz tones and a constant level 40 Hz tone. The results showed that the rate of increase in annoyance of pure tones with increase in the sound pressure level was higher at lower frequencies, as reported in previous studies. The results for the combined tones showed that the increase in the annoyance of the combined tone compared to the annoyance of pure tone was dependent on the level difference of the two tones and their frequency separation. These results were compared with the evaluation obtained from different objective methods. The three methods were Moore's loudness model, the low frequency A-weighting and the total energy summation used as objective evaluation methods. Among the methods, the low frequency A-weighting gave the best correlation.

show abstract

Low Frequency Noise Annoyance Assessment by Low Frequency Noise Rating (LFNR) Curves

Cited by 31 publications

References 7 publications

Study and Assessment of Low Frequency Noise in Occupational Settings

Study and Assessment of Low Frequency Noise in Occupational Settings

A Simple Criterion for Low Frequency Noise Emission Assessment

Annoyance of Low Frequency Tones and Objective Evaluation Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About