The traffic noise model embedded in ISO 717-1 was originally developed with the 1980s Nordic traffic data, raising concerns regarding its applicability to the contemporary traffic situation. This study conducted field measurement of current traffic noise on representative urban roadways to evaluate the suitability of these legacy rating criteria. Results showed that modern traffic noise spectra exhibited significant divergence from the ISO reference, with discrepancies reaching up to 10 dB at 100 Hz. When applying both spectral datasets to assess the sound insulation performance of windows and composite wall systems, the standard exhibited a consistent tendency to overestimate low-frequency energy components while simultaneously underestimating the actual performance of building elements. Finally, psychoacoustic analysis revealed that the proposed spectral correction term failed to yield a stronger correlation between the sound reduction index and subjective perception compared to the existing reference curve. Collectively, these findings suggest that more accurate traffic noise spectrum corrections should not be rely exclusively on the source characteristics, but must additionally account for human auditory perception mechanisms to maintain their validity.
YangWKangJ.Acoustic comfort evaluation in urban open public spaces. Appl Acoust2005; 66(2): 211–229.
2.
KankaSFredianelliLArtusoF, et al. Evaluation of acoustic comfort and sound energy transmission in a yacht. Energies2023; 16(2): 808.
3.
ChenPDaiYZhenM.Effects of thermal and acoustic environments on human comfort in urban and suburban campuses in the cold region of China. Environ Sci Pollut Res2024; 31(21): 30735–30749.
4.
TongHKangJ.Relationships between noise complaints and socio-economic factors in England. Sustain Cities Soc2021; 65: 102573.
5.
DratvaJPhuleriaHCForasterM, et al. Transportation noise and blood pressure in a population-based sample of adults. Environ Health Perspect2012; 120(1): 50–55.
6.
BluhmGLBerglindNNordlingE, et al. Road traffic noise and hypertension. Occup Environ Med2007; 64(2): 122–126.
7.
RossiLPratoALesinaL, et al. Effects of low-frequency noise on human cognitive performances in laboratory. Build Acoust2018; 25(1): 17–33.
Marquis-FavreCBragaRGourdonE, et al. Estimation of psychoacoustic and noise indices from the sound pressure level of transportation noise sources: investigation of their potential benefit to the prediction of long-term noise annoyance. Appl Acoust2023; 211: 109560.
10.
AsdrubaliFD’AlessandroF.Innovative approaches for noise management in smart cities: a review. Curr Pollut Rep2018; 4(2): 143–153.
11.
LicitraGArtusoFBernardiniM, et al. Acoustic beamforming algorithms and their applications in environmental noise. Curr Pollut Rep2023; 9(3): 486–509.
12.
FredianelliLPedriniGBologneseM, et al. Features for evaluating source localization effectiveness in sound maps from acoustic cameras. Sensors2024; 24(14): 4696.
13.
ISO 717-1:1996. Acoustics – rating of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements – Part 1: airborne sound insulation. International Organization for Standardization, 1996.
14.
ISO 717-1:2020. Acoustics – rating of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements – Part 1: airborne sound insulation. International Organization for Standardization, 2020.
HongistoVOlivaDRekolaL.Subjective and objective rating of the sound insulation of residential building façades against road traffic noise. J Acoust Soc Am2018; 144(2): 1100–1112.
18.
RychtárikováMZelemLChmelíkV, et al. Zwicker’s loudness model as a robust calculation method for assessment of adequacy of airborne sound insulation descriptors for partition walls in dwelling houses. Acta Acust2023; 7: 8.
19.
MonteiroCMachimbarrenaMde la PridaD, et al. Subjective and objective acoustic performance ranking of heavy and light weight walls. Appl Acoust2016; 110: 268–279.
20.
VirjonenPHongistoVMäkeläMM, et al. Optimized reference spectrum for rating the façade sound insulation. J Acoust Soc Am2020; 148(5): 3107–3116.
21.
NeubauerROKangJ.Airborne sound insulation in terms of a loudness model. Appl Acoust2014; 85: 34–45.
22.
de la PridaDPedreroANavacerradaMÁ, et al. Methodology for the subjective evaluation of airborne sound insulation through 2-AC and Thurstonian models. Appl Acoust2020; 157: 107011.
23.
The total number of motor vehicles nationwide has reached 435 million units, the number of drivers has reached 523 million, and the number of new energy vehicles owned has exceeded 20 million units. Ministry of Public Security Traffic Management Bureau of the People’s Republic of China, https://www.mps.gov.cn/n2254098/n4904352/c9384864/content.html (2024, accessed 15 April 2025).
24.
UNSPECIFIED (1990). Transport: Annual Statistics. 1970-1990. European Commission Working Group, 1993. http://aei.pitt.edu/id/eprint/73690 (1993, accessed 18 April 2025).
25.
ChmelíkVRychtárikováMMüllnerH, et al. Methodology for development of airborne sound insulation descriptor valid for light-weight and masonry walls. Appl Acoust2020; 160: 107144.
26.
RychtárikováMRoozenBMüllnerH, et al. Listening test experiments for comparisons of sound transmitted through light weight and heavy weight walls. Akust2013; 19(1): 1–10.
27.
MiskinisKDikaviciusVBliudziusR, et al. Comparison of sound insulation of windows with double glass units. Appl Acoust2015; 92: 42–46.
28.
ISO 1996-2. Acoustics – Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise – Part 2: Determination of sound pressure levels. International Organization for Standardization, 2017.
29.
IEC 60942. Electroacoustics – Sound calibrators. International Electrotechnical Commission, 2017.
30.
International Organization for Standardization. Acoustics — Laboratory measurement of sound insulation of building elements — Part 2: Measurement of airborne sound insulation (ISO 10140-2:2021). ISO, https://www.iso.org/standard/79487.html (2021, accessed 21 April 2025).
31.
TadeuAJBMateusDMR. Sound transmission through single, double and triple glazing. Experimental evaluation. Appl Acoust2001; 62(3): 307–325.
32.
TongYGTangSKKangJ, et al. Full scale field study of sound transmission across plenum windows. Appl Acoust2015; 89: 244–253.
33.
08J931. Building sound insulation and absorption construction method. China Architecture Design & Research Group, 2008.
34.
GB 55015-2021. General code for energy efficiency and renewable energy application in buildings. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, 2021.
35.
GB/T 50378 – 2019. Assessment standard for green building. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, 2024.
36.
SchollWLangJWittstockhV.Rating of sound insulation at present and in future. The revision of ISO 717. Acta Acust United Acust2011; 97(4): 686–698.
37.
IshibashiMPreisASatohF, et al. Relationships between arithmetic averages of sound pressure level calculated in octave bands and Zwicker’s loudness level. Appl Acoust2006; 67(7). 720–730.
38.
YangshengCWeifengCZhihongW, et al. Research on the relationship between sound insulation frequency characteristics and subjective feeling of building components. Noise and Vibration Control2023; 43(02): 237–241.
39.
CaiY.The Impact of China’s Traffic Noise Spectrum on the Single-Number-Quantities (SNQs) evaluation of airborne sound insulation in the new era. In: INTER-NOISE 2022 - the 51st International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, Glasgow, Scotland, 21–24 August 2022, pp.5562–5567(6).
40.
ParmanenJ.Comments on “Subjective and objective rating of Airborne Sound Insulation – Living sounds [Acta Acustica united with Acustica 100 (2014) 848–863]”. Acta Acust United Acust2015; 101(3): 464–466.
41.
ZhengYWangLJZhuX, et al. Spectral characterisation of urban road traffic noise. Environ Sci Techno2023; 36(5): 59–65.
42.
BailhacheSJaglaJGuigou-CarterC. and Environnement et Ambiances: Effet des Basses Fréquences surle Confort Acoustique — Tests Psychoacoustiques; Rapport USC-EA-D1_A2. 1.4 _2, 2014; CSTB- Centre scientifique et technique du bâtiment: Champs-sur-Marne, France, https://cstb.hal.science/hal-01045056v1. (2014, accessed 2 May 2025).
43.
ISO 226. Acoustics – Normal equal-loudness-level contours. International Organization for Standardization, 2003.
44.
HouserDSYostWBurkardR, et al. A review of the history, development and application of auditory weighting functions in humans and marine mammals. J Acoust Soc Am2017; 141(3). 1371–1413.
45.
SuzukiYTakeshimaHKurakataK.Revision of ISO 226 “Normal Equal-Loudness-Level Contours” from 2003 to 2023 edition: the background and results. Acoust Sci Technol2024; 45(1): 1–8.
46.
BazilinskyyPMerino-MartínezRÖzcanE, et al. Exterior sounds for electric and automated vehicles: Loud is effective. Appl Acoust2023; 214: 109673.
47.
SivonenVPEllermeierW.Directional loudness in an anechoic sound field, head-related transfer functions, and binaural summation. J Acoust Soc Am2006; 119(5): 2965–2980.
48.
MooreBC.Development and current status of the “Cambridge” loudness models. Trends Hear2014; 18: 2331216514550620.
49.
HopkinsCTurnerP.Field measurement of airborne sound insulation between rooms with non-diffuse sound fields at low frequencies. Appl Acoust2005; 66(12): 1339–1382.
50.
ISO 12999-1. Acoustics – Determination andapplication of measurement uncertainties in building acoustics – Part 1: sound insulation. International Organization for Standardization, 2020.
51.
DimitrijevićSMMijićMMŠumarac PavlovićDS.Indoor sound level spectra of public entertainment premises for rating airborne sound insulation. J Acoust Soc Am2020; 147(3): EL215–EL220.
