Experimental verification of differences in subjective annoyance responses using a jury test to compare the noise emissions of straight and curved sections of an urban railway
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2016
Experimental verification of differences in subjective annoyance responses using a jury test to compare the noise emissions of straight and curved sections of an urban railway
The urban railway, which has both ground-level and underground sections, is a major means of transportation in the city of Seoul. Environmental noise problems have been encountered in residential areas near the railway on ground-level sections. To assess the extent of this problem, many countries have adopted the method of A-weighted equivalent sound pressure level (LpAeq). However, it may be not reasonable to apply the same evaluation method on all sections of a railway, since the acoustic characteristics of railway noise are highly variable, and its effect on human psychology is complex. Thus, since each person reacts differently to noise, psychological approaches have been utilized to analyze the effects of noise. The aim of this study is to determine an appropriate method for the assessment of railway-generated noise. First, the characteristics of railway-generated noise on straight and curved sections of track were compared by looking at aspects such as the waveforms of the sound pressure and the characteristics of frequency patterns. After that, the subjective annoyance response was analyzed by performing a jury test and a survey in order to understand how people react differently to similar sounds on the two test sections of track.
JobRFS. The influence of subjective reactions to noise on health effects of the noise. Environ Int1996; 22: 93–104.
5.
Abey-WickramaABrookMFGattoniFEGHerridgeCF. Mental hospital admissions and aircraft noise. The Lancet1969; 2: 1257–1277.
6.
MeechamWCSmithHG. Effects of jet aircraft noise on mental hospital admissions. Br J Audiol1977; 11(3): 81–85.
7.
TarnopolskyABarkerSMWigginsRDMcLeanEK. The effect of aircraft noise on mental health of the community. Psychol Med1978; 8(2): 219–233.
8.
KryterKD. Aircraft noise and social factors in psychiatric hospital admission rates: a reexamination of some data. Psychol Med1990; 20: 395–411.
9.
ChoJHKohHIYouWH. Trend of railway noise standards. J Korean Soc Noise Vib Engng2009; 19: 9–15.
10.
HallFLBirnieSETaylorSMPalmerJE. Direct comparison of community response to road traffic noise and to aircraft noise. J Acoust Soc Am1981; 70: 1690–1698.
11.
GriffithsIDReview of community response to noise. In: RossiG (ed). Noise as a public health problem, Milano, Italy: Cenro Ricerche e Studi Amplifon, 1983, pp. 1031–1047.
12.
BradleyJSOn dose response curve of annoyance to aircraft noise. In: KuwqnoS (ed). Inter-noise 94. Noise quantity and quality, Poughkeepsie, NY: Noise Control Foundation, 1994, pp. 235–238.
BerglundBBerglundULindvallT. Scaling loudness noisiness and annoyance of community noise. J Acoust Soc Am1976; 60(5): 1119–1125.
15.
FidellSBarberDSSchultzTJ. Updating a dosage–effect relationship for the prevalence of annoyance due to general transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am1991; 89(1): 221–233.
16.
FieldsJM. Reactions to environmental noise in an ambient noise context in residential areas. J Acoust Soc Am1998; 104: 2245–2260.
17.
KingRPDavisJR. Community noise: health effects and management. Int J Hyg Environ Health2003; 206: 123–131.
18.
MoudonAN. Real noise from the urban environment: how ambient community noise affects health and what can be done about it. Am J Prev Med2009; 37(2): 167–171.
19.
KoJHChangSIKimMH. Transportation noise and exposed population of an urban area in the Republic of Korea. Environ Int2011; 37: 328–334.
20.
World Health Organization. WHO technical meeting on noise and health indicators - second meeting results of the testing and piloting in member states. Meeting report, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
21.
SchultzTJ. Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am1978; 64(2): 377–405.
22.
LimCWKimJHHongJY. The relationship between civil aircraft noise and community annoyance in Korea. J Sound Vib2007; 299(3): 575–586.
23.
MoriharaTSatoTYanoT. Comparison of dose-response relationships between railway and road traffic noises: the moderating effect of distance. J Sound Vib2004; 277: 559–565.
YoonJHYangIHJeongJE. Reliability improvement of a sound quality index for a vehicle HVAC system using a regression and neural network model. Appl Acoust2012; 73: 1099–1103.
LemaitreGSusiniPWinsbergSMcAdamsS. The sound quality of car horns: a psychoacoustical study of timbre. Acta Acustica united with Acustica2007; 93: 457–468.
