.,

'1 /' 4,

\1

* ! »'r ~j-

". \0

I ,

"I t ) , , '

1'/11>/1 Tm-'7t;?70/

1I11I11111I ~~~rllI11Iflllrf~il~rllrll~~rl~11111111111 3 1176 00501 5905

NASA-TM-76701 19820022888

e NASA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NASA TM-T6701'

INFLUENCE OF THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES IN THE EMERGENCE OF SOUND EVENTS ON THE ANNOYANCE EXPRESSED

Experimental Study

H. Vallet ...

C. LA-8/A- L~

Translation of "Influence du nombre de vehicules et de l'emer­gence des evenements sonores sur la gene exprimee - Etude

experimenta1e," Final report, Mar. 1981, Institut de Recherche des Transports; Centre d'Evaluation et de Recherche des

Nuisances et de l'Energie, Bron Cadex, France, Report AER no. IV.2 (7306), 57 pp.

I ~' y " -"" ..' &nRr " '-.,r'''YJ L~U~ ~.Ll ~'-'v~

Mp,K ;j 'to;';; :

LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER

LlI:3r<:"U. NASA

HAII;l1-'WN, VIRGINIA

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION VlASHINGTON, D.C. 20546 MARCH 1982

I IUIII\I \IU IIII UIII UII\ 11\1\ \1111 lUI lUI NF00267

/l/cf;;- 3tJ 76 [L:

-..

) I

1

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19820022888 2020-07-05T07:34:17+00:00Z

, _ :),.,..'F<\. . .-; ~. , - LAN(';lC't p~"E'AnCH CnnrR

.... ' I! ;-0,' I' !I: .lill':II'Cll'lill!II:I:l':!~11i111l'1 ' I j\ :::1: :: ':.: ~: !!i I;: ! ;::; . : ;: '::;;"1 i ~ ~;i!

• ' , .. ,,,:'1 '1""'1,/1;,1/':::, ,1,,1,11,,:0 h'l , .. ' ~ '3..1'176'005'015905 ,.

J\J - 1.51935

/f.:!\ W

NASA TECHNICAL I£MORitNDUH NASA Ti"i-7670l

" 1-~

INFLUENCE OF THE Nur.mER OF VEHICLES ,IN THE EI'1cRGENCE OF SOUND EVENTS ON THE ANl!QYJ.NCE EXPRESSED

Experimental Study:

"

P J erAS ~' ~:Jx...,rtf! ',\

..........

: G 'L. A B I A L ~,~ C, C) (' f' ed-i (YI\ ---"'"?I

<5ee ~r4vJ ~

"

: .... : ":~I , t ~-:'

.:=.4 '",t ... ~

.'~,'l!~~ .~'/~

'~;~f-' ~!

,

. "

~

..

~ 01'. U(LlIe+ ,

Tran;. ltion of IIInf1uence du ncmbre de vehicules et de l' emcr­gen~e des evenements sonores sur la gene exprimee - Etude

cxpcrimentale," Final report, i-:ar. 1981, In3tltut; de Eecherche des Transports; Centre d'Evaluation et de RecherLhe dec

Nuisanceset de l'Energie, BroIl Cadex., Fr2.nce, Repm·t AER no~ IV.2 (7306), 57 p~.

:~~:f~~;~~:~~ ::.~~~~(;~;~~!..

M,L~K ;J .1 ... ' •• J h .... ...

!ANGLEy Rf.SEAR"::'1-I cs:m:ti lIU.(:.~«. t./\SA

hJ..j""t" r (,i~. VI/<G:N1A

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE A~~;NI3TRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2054G MAR:H 1982

"

".

...... --

I,

'I

..

"-

...

fN,h.· ')r""" /~" ri~ INSTITUT qE RECHERCHE DES TRANSPORTS

. !

/r-~I ~ERNE CENTRE D;t:VALUATION ET DE RECHERCHE DES NUISANCES ET DE L't:NERGIE

/.

. Dear Dr J. FIELDS,

r

Dr J. FIELDS

NASA Langley Research Center

==-";. '. HAMPTON

VIRGINIA 23665

L

, BRaN, Ie .-/f Sr-p lC!P:' . L-.. uU .

Many thanks for your translations.

There is an error in the nO NISI 935 the author is G.LABIALE.

Enclosed a copy of the article published in the J.S.V.

Yours sincerely,

~g/td M.VALLET

-,

...J

I 109, avenue Salvador Allende BP. 75 69672 Bran Cedex France tel. (7) 826.90.93 / telex 900997 / INSEE 3.1332 903

~r>r. etablissement Dublie de caractrre scirntifiolle et trchni()IJr rrr;' ['IClr riP"'r,,1 nO 7n?F:q rill ?n m~r, 107n

..

. ,"

J

,...

;.

1. Repo" No.

NASA TM-76701 2. Gove,nmen' Ace ... ion No.

STMlLlARD TITLF rA~r

--- ~.-;::',-;,;~~'C~IOI'~ ~h. t------- --... ---.-.----,

~. T III. end Sublill" INFLUENCE OF THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES IN THE EMERGENCE OF SOUND EVENTS ON THE ANNOYANCE EXPRESSED

15. F:rarcll,ol982 ---_ .... _--_ ..

t .. Pe"=rmin~ Otw~;'llohCon Ccd.

7. Au,ho,Ia.l-f>L Valle t b-. Institut de Recherche

LA-f6/ttt.:.€ Ill. des Transports ~i ________________ _

Po,loriJin~ 0',;:::nI.301;:)11 RI~:"" N,:,

,-_ 110

• Wo,k Uni' Ne,

. 9. p"Ie,m:ng C'gQt1IZal,an Nome end Add,o ..

·Leo Kanner Associates Redwood City CA 94063

f--. 12. 5"onlo,ing Agoney Ncm. end Add" .. ' National Aeronautics and Space Adminis­tration, Washington, D.C. 20546

1.5. 5l1pplomon'a'y No'"

'11. Cenl,ec, 0' G,en' /I c •

NASW-354l 13. Typ. Df R.po" end Pe,iod Cov.,e~

Translation

1(. Sron.",jn~ A;ln:y Cod.

Translation of "Influence du nombre de vehicules et de l'emer­gence des evenements sonores sur la gene exprimee - Etude experimentale,," Final report" Mar. 1981" Institut de Recherche

. des Transports; Centre d'Evaluation et de Recherche des Nuisances et de 11 Energie" Bron Cadex, France, Report AER no. IV.2- (7306). 57 pp.

16, Abs',oc' A great number of studies have shown that the acousti­cal index Leq was the most representative of the annoyance expressed by populations subjected to traffic noise. Yet" in some situations" it seems as if the Leq lacked precision. Therefore it was necessary to verify this point. Because of this we tested the annoyance expressed in experimental situa­tions where the frequency of the number of heavy vehicles varied from 3 to 30 HV/30 min for different classes of the Leq level at 50" 55, 60 dB(A) of traffic noise. The results showed that: (1) for a constant Leq level the annoyance in­creases as a function of the number of HV up to a certain threshold at which the annoyance is stabilized; (2) for a constant frequency of passage of HV" the annoyance increases with the Leq level; (3) composite indexes of the type Leq + Log NHV" Ll + EMER or Ll + LIO give a predictive value greater than that of the Leq pr Log nHV taken alone.

17. K.y 'I1ord. (selected by Authorll») lB. Di.,rlbuhol'\ S'a'omon' l Unclassified - Unlimited I

~ 19. Socl./'''y Clollil. lollhll 101'0,1) ! :'0. 5OCII"ly Clolld. (oIHIlI-pc •• J : 21. No. 011'0; .. 1 ::2. I Unclass~fied I Unclassified ·1

ltAc;,,. ... ()

"

'I

TABIE OF CONTENTS

SYNTHESIS 1

I.

II.

III.

IV.

Purpose of the Research

Bibliographical Survey and Concern of the Study

A) Research

B) Laboratory Studies

Experimental Methodology . A) Subjects Tested

B) Road Traffic Noise

1. The background noise

2. Truck passage noises

3. Recording and reading of magnetic tapes . C) Laboratory Description

1. The listening room

2. The control room

D) Experirrental Plan . E) EA~erirrental Procedure

F) Computerized and Statistical Treatments . Results .

. 4

4

4

9

11

11

11

11

12

12

13

13

13

13

18

19

22

A) Global Analysis of the Annoyance and of the Expressed Noise. 22

1. Psychological annoyance •

2. Noise

3. Irragined annoyance in the person's apartment

4. The annoyance due to the level of background noise and

22

25

25

the number of passages of H.V. .••.••..•••.• 28

\

"

V.

VI.

B) Statistical Analysis of the Relationship Psychological Annoyance-Acoustical Indexes and Number of H.V.

1. Analysis of the correlation IlB.trix

2. A discrimination analysis

3. Multiple regressions

Discussion - Conclusion • • • .

Prospects for Future Research

Eef.erences

28

30

30

30

44

46

48

SYNTHESIS

INFLUENCE OF THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES IN THE EMERGENCE OF SOUND EVENTS ON THE ANNOYANCE EXPRESSED

M. Vallet

Research Institute of Transport; Evaluation and Research Center of Annoyances and Energy

I. Purpose

/2*

The goal pursued by this research was to study the development of the psychological annoyance as a function of the global noise and of the various frequencies of passages of heaV'J vehicles (H.V.) emerging from continuous traffic noise.

In fact, if a great number of studies have shown that the Leq was the most predict:ve acoustical index to give an account of the annoyance expressed by those populations subjected to traffic noise, one can only conclude that for certain particular situations it seems that this index lacked precision.

In order to verifY this point and possibly improve the predictive value of the Leq by the addition of an index which takes into account the number of vehicles, this research has been undertaken.

II. Experimental Procedure

77 Subjects were tested in a laboratory in 10 traffic noise situations of 30rrdn, composed of linking 3 acoustical Leq levels with 4 frequency levels of H.V. passages (Table I). Thus, each situation was composed of background traffic noise from which the noises of H.V. passage emerged.

After listening in each situation, the subjects indicated the /3 annoyance and noise level on a nine point scale; moreover,notice was -also taken of the imagined annoyance and of the annoyance specifically due to noise from passage of H.V. or to background noise.

* Numbers in the wargin indicate pagination in the foreign text.

1

TflBIE I. EXPERJr.'lENTAL PLAN: NUMBER OF H. V. X IEQ; THE BARRED BASES HAVE Nor BEEN TESTED; T'rtE IEQ OF ONE H. V. WAS 36DB(A) (30 MIN).

[:::.;~~~v 30 I

. ./30 mn 3 5 15

I Leq/30 mn

I~ ~ I

50

55

60 I .. . .. --

III. Results

Among the nurrerous results which we have analyzed we conclude that:

- the annoyance expressed is influenced in a statistically significant way both by the Leq level as well as by the frequency of passage of H.V., but there is no interaction between these 2 variables,

- more precisely (Fig. 1),

• the expressed annoyance increases strongly from 3 to 5 H.V., and then more weakly from 5 to 30 H. V., for the Leqs of 50 and 55 dB(A) ,

. the expressed annoyance increases strongly from 3 to 5 H. V. and then becomes saturated from 5 to 30 H.V., for an Leq of 60 dB(A).

Note de bene

t 1

Key:

2

6

5

lj

3

-;::;:; Figure 1. Development of the psychological annoyance as a function of the Leq and of the nwrber of H.V.

.;::;:::. 2 I I ;.. Nombre de P.L./30 mn

3 5 15 30 (1) Annoyance notation; (2) Nwrber of H.V./30 ron

- the predictive value of Leq on the level of expressed annoyance can /4 be improved clearly by using a composite index of the type:

G (notice of annoyance) = 0.12 Leq + 0.75 Log n H.V. - 2.82

(average annoyance correlation - with LeQ, r = 0.84, - with Log n H.V. r = 0.58, - with composite index, r = 0.97); moreover, other composite indexes of the type (Ll + EMER + cte) or (Ll + LlO + cte) appeared also among the better predictors of the individual annoyance or of the average annoyance.

The curve of developrr.ent of the annoyance as a function of the number of H. V. compares with the logarithmic relation found by Rasrrussen, but does not confirm the inverse U relation proposed by Rylander. These 2 earlier studies had serious deficiencies, and all the interest of our study consists of having isolated an experirr:ental area where the variations in Leq level and the frequency of H.V. are independent of each other, and of showing in these conditions that Leq and the number of H.V. each have effects on the psychological annoyance. As we have seen the Leq levels were between 50 and 60 dB(A) and we can consider that the results which we have obtained are applicable to local roads.

IV. Prospects for Further Research

In order to draw more general conclusions from the actual results it appears to be necessary to extend our study to noise levels higher than Leq 65, 70 and 75 dB(A).

This study opens the door to a series of researches on the composite indexes which in certain particular situations of traffic noise could be more predictive of the expressed annoyance than the Leq index alone.

3

I. Purpose of the Research !...5 The purpose of our research is the study of the psychological

annoyance (also called expressed annoyance) as a function of the number of Heavy Vehicles; it is part of a research program which has as its goal the acoustical analysis of events determining the annoyance in a state of alertness and which specifies a study of annoyance provoked by road vehicles as a function of their number and their emergence. It should be underlined that ~~til now researchers have especially studied the relationship betvJeen levels of annoyance and levels of noise measured by various acoustical indexes such as Leq, LIO, I.NP, InN,... Moreover, the maj ori ty of the Ir.errber countries of the OCDE have chosen to use the index Leq (equivalent acoustical level).

Yet, in3pite of the great predictive value of the Leq, some researches (cf. bibliographical revievl, Labiale [lJ) have shown that this index somewhat lacked p~ecision in giving an account of the expressed annoyance at certain sites expcsed to traffic noise. Because of this, in order to try to improve the predictive precision of the Leq, we have prepared the present study: through sit~tions controlled in the laboratory it develops and tests the hypothesis of the influence of the number of H. V. (those vehicles vJhich produce a considerable expressed annoyance) as a possible prediction of the annoyance either corrplem2nting or combining with the Leq level.

II. Bibliographical Survey and Concern of the Study /6

A certain n~~ber of studies by research as well as in the laboratory have shown the irrportance of a nonacoustical parameter: the number of vehicles or the percentage of the number of Heavy Vehicles or the Log of the number of Hea\? Vehicles in traffic as the indicator of the annoyance.

We will exar.~:ne the results obtained concerning traffic:

A) Research

One of the rr.cst exhaustive studies is that of Langdon (2) in England. He has done a study of 2,933 residents located at 53 different sites in London and its surrounding areas. The noise level, the type of flowing or obstructed traffic, the number of H.vl. and H.V. have been determined.

Concerning t~e research there were several questions and a scale of psychological 8J1.r:~yance of 7 points. Langdon analyzes the results as a function of 2 types of traffic.

- free flowing tra:~fic, 1'lith a flow of 250 to 5,000 vehicles/hour and a noise level of Ll'J* v~rying between 69 and 80 dB(A). He establishes a strong correlation ben'ieen the annoyance and 2 acoustical indexes, the LIO (24,18 or 12 hours), (!' = 0.84) and the Leq (24 hours), (r = 0.84), but

1:LIO = sound level reached or surpassed during 10% of the period of measurement.

4

also between the logarithm of the number of vehicles/hour, (r =0.80).

- non-free flowinv traffic (by traffic jamB, pedestrian crossings, fires etc.); in this s~tuation annoyance due to noise is not evaluated correctly by the LIO or Le~ indexes. On the contrary, the Log of the percentage of heavy vehicles (~ncluding trucks, buses, but also all vehicles with a diesel engine) between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. represents the most valid index (r = 0.74).

It should be errphasized that for free flowing traffic the Log of the number of vehicles is most closely related to the annoyance, while for non­free flo\ving tra:':'ic it is the Log of the percentage of heavy vehicles (Table I).

TABLE I. CORRELATION OF VARIED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS vlITH FOUR 17 MEASURES OF THE COMPOSITION OF THESE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. -

Fr~C"r.,,\\' ?-:on,fr.'c flow " \

Trame "J~::l~I~ Group Indi"idual Grouf> Indi"idull

~o. hC;J'T '·chi.:lcs 0·:01 0'51~ O':OJ log (S". he.:l\·Y ,chides) 0:05 0'57J O·::S I~: HC!:l\"Y \ ehi;.;~cs 0'~3S 0'158 .0:0- 0'1S1 :Iog (~~ hCJ\"y ,chicles) 0'~15 0'156 e 0·:9S

." 2~ 1359 29 1574

I ] • ~ r~'" .' z'

1 •• ' .~"~ cl .-'0 '~ ... . . . p' c·" --' • ';. ,,~, .. 't" .& 'f>-.~ • ~ I' _ .. Co ' o .. ,. ," - . " " ~ .... . . ;l 'I: .. . ./..~: . .

)l' ,E>~'"

~,w<".o: .

.. tf\~

:1 ~~ ..

~ 0-7 0-' 0-, I·g I-I ,-2 I'')

LD9 '4 '-r .-IU ~ "$ '"

All traffic , '-Group I::dh'il!ual

O'SiS 0·197 0·6JJ 0·11~ 0'~6 0':33

@D 0·:93

5J :9::3

Fig. 1. Average notation of dissatisfaction for three sub-populations.

1 -- 0 sensitive; 2 -- ~. neutral; 3 -- • nonsensitive to noise

The fact of :'lhether the subj ects are sensi ti ve to noise in daily life can modify the strength of interrelation between the annoyance and the number of vehicles and therefore it seems irrportant to distinguish these 3 groups (Fig. 1).

In a corrparable study, conducted at various sites in Antwerp and Brussels, MYncke and Cops (3) arrive at the conclusion that the number of vehicles gives an indication of the foreseeable daily annoyance (activity disturbance scale) as good as the Leq, LIO and L50 (r = 0.83).

5

The study of Yeowart et al. (4) is also very interesting because it /8 researches the relationships of various acoustical indexes with the -expressed annoyance (measured by a 7 point scale) in different traffic conditions in the area of ~~chester (27 locations with 30 people). Concerning the annoyance during the day it appears at first sight that no acoustical j~dex (Leq, TNI, LNP, LIO, L50, L90) is sufficiently general to predict the response of annoyance for broad traffic conditions; for instance for Leq (24 hours), r = 0.56 for freeways, and r = 0.92 for free flowing traffic. The influence of the number of vehicles, unfortunately, is not determined for the annoyance during the day.

For the annoyance expressed at night there is practically no si01ificant correlation with the acoustical indexes; the authors propose a new composite index which takes into consideration the acoustical level and the number of heavy vehicles (>1525 kgs): this is the Extended Noise Index (E x LIO) calculated by the formula: E x LIO = LIO (18 h) + 0.13 (number of H.V. between midnight and 6 a.m.). The correlations of the annoyance with this index E x LIO are relatively homogeneous, being r = 0.88 for freeway, r = 0.90 for free flowing traffic, r = 0.75 for obstructed traffic.

Finally, there appeared a clear correlation (r = 0.73) between the percentage of subj ects who declared that night rest was disturbed by the noise and the average number of H.V./h between midnight and 6 a.m. The authors conclude that the number of H. V. at night is an important parameter to predict the annoyance and they foresee other studies.

In Australia, Brown (5) has done research on 818 residents at 19 locations in the cities of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. Traffic, according to the locations, was 4,000 to 5,700 vehicles/day with 1 to 12 percent H.V. and the exterior LIO index varied from 62 to 76 dB(A). In these conditions, the number of H.V. is the parameter which is most closely linked to the expressed annoyance (measured by a global scale with 7 points or by a composite scale defined as the sum of the standardized scores of the notation of each variable studied: interference with conversation, sleep disturbance, closing of windows etc.).

We note that the correlations are stronger with the composite scale /9 of annoyance than with the global scale •• , which seems to indicate a better­precision of the composite scale (Table II).

Brown notes that, as the distribution of the number of H.V. is not uniform, this increases the corresponding correlation artificially; therefore, he selects the Log of the number of H.V. (Log n H.V.) as a better predictor of the annoyance as it thus shows a uniform distribution.

Contrary to other studies, tests of indexes which cowbined Log (n H.V.) + 1 acoustical index (LIO or Leq or LNP, etc ••. ) do not allow predicting the e~~ressed annoyance in a satisfactory manner. Brown emphasizes that the negative result seeWB to be explained by the samples chosen where there appears to be a high correlation between acoustical indexes and measures of traffic density.

6

.

TABLE II. CORRELATIONS OF THE ANNOYANCE WITH THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES AND WITH THE ACOUSTICAL INDEXES.

I Nurrber of vehicles and acoustical-indexes Global-Rcale, 7 points Composite'scale

I ! Q/24h r .. 0.50 r .. 0.63 .

Log Q/24h r .. 0.41 r .. 0.56

/. P.1./24h r .. 0.66 r .. 0.70

n P.L/24h r .. 0.72 r .. 0.79

Lo~. (n.P.L.) r .. 0.52 r .. 0.66

Leq (24h) r .. 0.25 N.S. r .. 0.41

LIO (24h) ·r ., 0.33 N.S. r .. 0.43 -- ---

Finally, the author proposes a hypothesis which takes into account 2 traffic situations:

- intense traffic with background noise composed of mixed car noise over which emerge sound peaks of certain noisy vehicles such as those of H.V.

- light traffic where the sound of each car is individualized and /10 constitutes peaks relating to surrounding nolse.

In the 2 cases, the nwnber of nois~/ vehicles (IIDtorcycles, H. V., cars, ••• ) where the nurrber of noise peaks allowed a better prediction of annoyance than the number of vehicles or of H.V. (Fig. 2) [sic].

/ . peaks NOISE

LEVEL

Ii car ~ .peak~ • ,.. ,... I" I '\

"\"/\ II I' ,<I \.' '/ \/ v', I '~ \.l ,,/ .... ,\ T /... Iy .... :<.. .I y /' '-

I, I \., ,,, " ""'-"" .... " .... < ..... ~ ., ", )., ."y ~"' ... "". ..."v.. ,. _ "

...... < "'/ .. ~ - ~ -TUlE

TII·IE

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Occurrence of level peaks according to 2 situations of (a) heavy or (b) reduced traffic.

7

Suede, Rylander et al (6) in the cities of Stockholm and Visby (city centers and suburbs) have studied the influence of the density of traffic and the noise level on the e::xpressed annoyance. Research was done on 11 groups of 85 subjects (between the ages of 18 and 75). The percentage of people who termed themselves "very annoyed" by the noise has been retained as the rr.easure of annoyance.

The results were as follows:

- whatever the noise level, there is a ~lear correlation between the annoyance and the total mm'ber of vehicles (r = 0.70) as well as between the annoyance and the Log of the number of H. V. (r = 0.75). The strength of these interrelations is comparable to those obtained between the annoyance and the Leq and Ll indexes (respectively r = 0.78 2nd r = 0.69).

- for a peak level of 80 dB(A) for the H.V. and 70 dB(A) for road vehicles/II the correlation between the annoyance and the total number of vehicles -(r = 0.82) and between the annoyance and the number of H.V./24 h (r = 0.98) is even more important.

- yet this saturation phenom:::non did not appear when the noise exposure level is calculated by an index composed as follows: A = Ll + 10 log n H.V.

In a situation of rrore limited urban traffic, Rylander (7) studied the annoyance provoked by the noise of streetcars and trucks in 6 locations (80 subjects/site, ages 18 to 75). The study was done using masked questionnaires which researched annoyance due to the environrr.ent and to vehicle noises. The questions in particular pertained to the interference of noise related to various specific activities: conversation, TV-watching, sleep .•• ; there was also a 3-point global scale of annoyance. The level of traffic varied, for the number of H.V. (trucks and buses) from 50 to 700/24 h, for the number of cars from 65 to 13,500/24 h, for the number of streetcars from 210 to 832/24 h; the global Leq level varied from 53 to 70 dB(A); the peak noise level was 80 dB(A) for streetcars and from 76 to 83 dB(A) for trucks.

The results show that there is no relationship between the Leq level of streetcars and the percentage of very annoyed people while there does exist a slight relationship with the Leq level for rrotor vehicles.

On the contrary, we note a fairly clear relationship between the number of H.V. or the number of streetcars and the percentage of very annoyed people (Fig. 3).

The author emphasizes that the capability of people to distinguish /12 between the various traffic noises and those of streetcars in relation to . annoyance leads him to reject the possibility of using a common acoustical index.

On the other hand, he thinks that for one given location we can have a more cons~derable level of annoyance for streetcars than for H.V., but that for another location this cm) be the opposite. These facts lead to having to

8

be careful in drawing conclusions and they show that a number of variables are still not controlled.

:~ .:>

• 0

~

:f "I • • 0

~ ~ 10,

0 " • , ~I- " • 0

• ~ ...

= .co.:> ~",be' or Irc"' .... .,y.II •• ""Y •• ,,, .... eO:3 c!!:AI

Fig. 3. Relationship of the annoyance with number of streetcars( II • .Ii..) and with the number of H.V. (0, e).

The research done by Roumegpux and Valet (8) on the expressed annoyance due to city buses in 4 cities in France is more conclusive. First of all it appears that bus noise is recognized as such in the traffic flow. Moreover, if bus noise is well tolerated in the street, it is considered very annoying at home. The results (Fig. 4) show that the annoyance increases with the number of buses!h (r = 0.88) or, even more, with the percentage of buses in the traffic (r = 0.98).

'Y. : : ..... .

Eo· ..• -.. -~.~--.... _._. __ .. _.=_. __ .00 ~o '::! -.... ..:.-.--.•.. --~:~-.. -.:-.. -. "1 G ., .......................... : ..... -. . ..:....... "% f r.·· ...... : .... . ....•

.. ..... . ..... . . :.: .. :. " . .. ....... _.. . .. . ....... ;, ..... . 60'" .. '--':-'''-'--i'- .~ 60 ........ - .... ..•. . .,." ._-,.-.•

. :: :.~~;j; ·~~~f-J·J~=~C-i;·:>j~· _j~~~~~~f~~~~-~~ .. I I .. : .

(lL) (1:.)

Fig. 4. Relationship between the annoyance caused by bus noise and the specific parameters q and p.

a. Relationship between annoyance at home and output q of the bus in the street.

B) Laboratory Studies

b. Relationship between annoyance at home and percentage p of buses in the traffic.

Besides these tests in the field, laboratory studies in experimentally controlled situations have tried to compare the predictive value on the /13 annoyance of acoustical indexes and of the traffic output.

9

Rylander et ale (9) have had passage noises listened to in the laboratory of heavy trucks rrixed with a background noise of other road vehicles (emergence of 10 dB(A) of truck noise/bacl<:ground noise, as in usual traffic conditions).

The experimental plan carried out on 150 students (between the ages of 19 and 35) consisted of 2 principal situations:

- an acousti8al situation where the Leq could take on 3 values (57.5; 62.5 and 67.5 dE(t.), vlith a constant nurrber of vehicles (N = 20, with a peak at 70 dB(A»).

- an acoustical situation with a constant Lea (60 dB(A» but with a number of passages Hhich could vary from 1 to 70/45 min (duration of one presentation) .

The results clearly indicate that with a constant number of H. V., there exists a good relationship between the Leq level and the expressed annoyance (measured by a 4 ;oint scale); with a constant Leq level, there exists a curvilinear relat~cnship between the nurrber of H.V. and the annoyance; to be more exact, the percentage of annoyed people increases from 1 to 12 H.V./ 45 min, then decreases to 70 H. v./45 min (Fig. 5a).

Rylffi1der insists on the fact that, since the number of H.V. is no longer constant, ~he interrelationship annoyance-Leq level deteriorates, which limits the validity of usage of the Leq.

In an experir..ent making use of weak noises to simulate traffic noises, Rasmussen (10) set hirrself the task of defining the influence of the traffic density as well cs that of some acoustical indexes on the expressed annoyance. The Leq level varied from 40 to 70 dB(A) with peak levels of 80 dB(A) for the ~rucks and 65 dB(A) for the vehicles. Under these conditions 'I"lith a constant background noise of 40 dB(A) the number of passages of H.V. and V.L. varied at 1, 3, 10, 30, 60 passages/30 min. Ten students did the experiment and a relatively linear relationship was brought out be~1een an annoyance scale with 7 points and the log of the number of passages of vehicles (Fig. 5b). /14

Thus, we thi.v:.k that there are clear differences between the Rylander- /15 and Rasmussen results; 'I1hile Rasmussen finds a linear relationship between -the number of H.V. (1 to 60 H.V./30 min) and the annoyance, Rylander poses an inverted U rela~ionship (the expressed annoyance increasing from 1 to 4 H.V./45 ~ then di..rninishing from 4 H.V. to 70 H.v./45 min).

In order to :r,y to understand these discrepancies, it appears to be necessary to reS~B another laboratory study, the object of the present work, on the relationship expressed annoyance-number of H. V., for several classes of an Leq level 'I·10.ich is held constant.

10

6.:l

" I ~o .. ~ + ~ ~ co e i!

3;)1-~

•

• •• • •

•

'4 6 12 ZO 4: 7J

'['--' . . '1 , ./0/1

£ / .,.;:'-"

). ,:;..;'

~~ 0 .......... 0/: ... .. .Y i 2;-.' .. . t ;-:0

Fig. 5a and 5b. Relationship between the expressed annoyance and the number of passages of H.V. accordingly to Rylander (a) and Rasmussen (b).

(a) Rylander Experiment (b) Rasrrussen Experiment

- constant global Leq = 60 dB(A) - variable global Leq = 40+70 dB(A) - variable background noise Leq = 60+ - constant background noise Leq =

57.8-dB(A) 40 dB(A) - H.V. peak noise = 70 dB(A) - H.V. peak noise = 80 dB(A) - H.V. passage duration = not specified -passage duration = 20s - H.V. noise slope = not specified - H.V. noise slope = 4.3 dB(A)/s - interval between H.V. = not specified - interval between H.V. = equidistant - window attenuation of 5 dB(A) per - no window attenuation

octave - scale of psychological annoyance, - scale of psychological annoyance, 4

points - the percentage of annoyed people is

taken into account en the ordinate

2 points, later reduced to 7 points - the average annoyance notation is

taken into account on the ordinate ~ trucks, ~ . vehicles , ~ trucks with

a light noise level; * mixed traffic

III. Experimental Methodology

A) Subjects Tested

77 Subjects (40 males and 37 females between the ages of 19 and 50, residing in Iijon and surrounding area) were tested in this experiment; they were remunerated for their participation.

B) Road Traffic Noise

/16

The road traffic noise used in this experiment consists of a background noise and noises corning from H.V. recorded on 2 separate magnetic tape tracks.

1. The background noise was recorded in 2 stages:

- one stage Nith "on site" recording \'lith a microphone placed at approxirrately 100 m distance and at 30 m height from an intersection of 6 roads issuing a constant traffic noise (B. and K. rr.icrophone, 1/2", Nagra

11

SIVJ magnetophone, microphone attenuation 80 lin dB).

- one stage in the laboratory: two IPixed versions of the same "on site" recording, displaced by 1 rrdnin time, were recorded sirr.ultaneously on track 2 of a magnetic tape; this rr.ethod rrade it possible to obtain a continuous background noise (extreme level variations: + 2 dB(A)).

2. Truck passage noises were recorded at 25 m from a road with light traffic; two types of truck noises were isolated on the tape-and recorded on separate tapes (truck noises: Leq (30 min) of 46 and 45 dB(A), peak level: 69 dB(A), duration 17.7 and 19.6s).

3. Recording and reading of magnetic tapes: four magnetic tapes were recorded consisting of the background noise on track 2 and the 4 passage frequencies on track 1, different for each tape (3, 5, 15 and 30 H.V. per 30 min; the H.V. passages are equidistant in time with ~ 20% variation).

Fig. 6 shows the acoustical signatures of the H.V. noises and the /17 background noise for 2 acoustical situations. -

-----. -·----·--r-· ===: /::::-.=.==:::.1.:.:.::= _ .. _._,--_._---,-_ .. --:rd) -I·-:-·-:::..==-~l-··-------l.'. -_ .. -" .. -- -- - - .. _-- - ---. Loa1>I'1 -.. '-:=1-:- :-:-: .p._ ',/t - --

---_.. _______________ eo.. ________ ._

I -.- .. - - ... -- ------.---_. __ . _____ .. __ .......... ______________ .... _ ...... .

~ ... - --- ._-------- ----------------- - -- .--.. _-,. - .-. __ ._----_._--------_. __ ... --------------- -- .---, - '--'---" -... -. ---.- . --- -- ------ ... -.....

j-_._._-==-,.- ::--=-=:.~---

--==~.--\---_._- ---"--I~\~~~----- ===- ::~~~= =f..¥~G;A\~~'#!¥~;;;:l··=';W--=-~= ~=~ ~:~.?T~-~ ~:~ .. -"--~~=-~~-' --' -

----_ ... -- -- --­.... _--_ .... --"---

------- .. _ .. _-._----_._-

:===:::=:===~_._ A·--_.~_-_--~~- ____ .:~ ------r ----==-::" ..:":... ~=:-:=::.-~-===.-------

._------------

~:"-~~~.~Jy,~-- .~" - ""f~~':/"'~\,~~~-"~~~~ 7i1,~~:;~~~-;.::;;~ ~x:"'~'nf.2. __ ·_-_-· ____ :! ---:'-~-_s;:-_'--__ -. _.~-"'r-- ._9 __ ._!.olNr~~!.I~:l\U:.,~:~/- \ _.~::-_-====- __ ..:~.:-,-,.~'t

12

Fig. 6. (a) Standard signal; (b, c) Acoustical signature of 2 H.V. emerging from 2 different background levels.

Reading of the magnetic tapes is done using a tVlO-track Nagra SIVJ /18 magnetophone, which permits regulating the sound level of each of the 2 types of noise (particularly the background noise level). At the output of the Nagra, an analysis VIas done of the frequency spectrum of the background noise and the H.V. noise (fig. 7 and 8).

The backgrour.d noise and the H.V. noise were mixed at the input by a series of filters regulated to attain the sound level (Kerno System 737) of 10 dB by octave ~hirds (approxi~ately corresponding to an attenuation of a half-open windovI), and the resulting siV1al was amplified by an attenuated tvlO-­track amplifier (Sony 1140) and transmitted on 2 acoustical rings (JEL model 4311).

C) Laborato~ Description

1. The listenin€ room: the subjects are placed in a large room (4 x 6m) furnished as a VIa:.. ting room, where the traffic noise is diffused thanks to 2 acoustical rings.

The principe.2- characteristics of this listening room consist of:

- insulation with the exterior of 60 dB(A) - insulation with the control room of 50 dB - reverberation t~e is 0.63 on all audible frequencies - background noise of 33 dB(A) due to the air conditioner - constant temperature of 19 ~ 1°C.

2. The control r8om: next to the listening room, it contains the following devices: the Nagra SIVJ magnetophone, the electronic filters and the Sony anplifier connected to the acoustical rings; an ambient rricrophone, B + K model 41-65, 1/2" placed 1 m from the ground in the center of the listening room and connecte~ to a sono~eter B + K type 2607, and to an acoustical index analyzer B + K mo~l 44-26 which permit continued visual control of the noise level in dB(A) and. of the acoustical indexes.

A video carr.era hidden in a piece of furniture in the listening room makes it possible for the researcher to observe the subjects using a television scree~ placed in the control room (Fig. 9).

D) §xperirr.e!1tal Plan /22

The experirr.e!1tal plan consists of crossing the Lea variable of the traffic noise (3 2.evels of 50, 55 and 60 dB(A) per 30 min) with the number of H.V. variable (4 :~equencies 3, 5, 15 and 30 H.V. per 30 min); of these 12 situations, only :0 situations were tested on the subjects (Table III).

The backgro~d. noise above which different frequencies of H.V. emerge takes on the average values of 46.1 + 2 dB(A) for an Leq of 50 dB(A) , 53 + 1.4 for an Leq of 55 d3(A) and 58 dB(A) "+ 1 for an Leq of 60 dB(A); the Leq -(over 30 min) of the passage of a H.V~ is 36 or 35 dB(A). It should be noted that from a gener=.l point of vie\v the Elobal Leq of an acoustical situation is not independer.~ of the noise caused by passages of H.V.; yet, our experiment is voluntarily set in an area of values where there is practically independence between the glob~ Leq and the number of H.V. (Table IV).

13

f--J Vl

------_. ,

--~ . . . IUU I .. I ,'" : I '1'···,I--·'l-··~--·,i'--~'-·'-l·'·-~J'--I--·t····L.-I'-'I"~'~::'I" "''-l'-'I'"L''''~''' .. ' ~'.-.' .. \ ... ,--\ ... ' : ....• ___ • __ 1._ ..•• ___ . _ ._._. _____ ' __ . _.L _____ ._. __ ... _ ... _. __ .... 1 ... 1 • __ '-_. ___ .. : .. ..

, .... -;.--.; -. '''-'I~' ~ 1'--' . ---.- -.-+-- _. -' -.--- -- '-"~'I-- ---~--- -' -.1 -\- .... .. i '-', \--.; ... ;--... - \- . !-... , -s.' ·.-.:::~:':~.f:~:~-'- -:,~--i~ -I~~-, ~I=- ':=i~ ;.-1.--::j J. !~=J:~~·.r~~~t~·:·~~ ~~:.~' :~:-;--~:~~~_!=~·=~-~.::i-r,

/--.l--·-'--' .. -rl---"---'-O' -i'----i--t=FI-'-·.L-~-.. I·- .. !---T·--I·-~--I·--I .. :·-,-- .--: ·l--!· --1- ,I. -'---;-"r' I . I .. . . ., .. ,-- -" j ___ I ---' -- -- ... ,. -"1--" L' . I..... ." -- ,... ,-. . • .., ,

-'1 ·1· : .. I·· ....... - -~·- .. I-· --""LL' -1·-: I "j" ,., I' 1 1 " ! '. , ... t. ·-T-I-.-r=".-=.T==-~t--. ___ l_.'.":'" ___ L_l_ . _____ l_ .. --=---~._ . I __ --=-i-~~I .. i.. -~- -I~-- -. ----1- - dBL-. -.-

f·, .!.-, ..... I---+-·I-+---:-·-I--+-j-- --f---l-.I--l--i·-· I .-I ..... f -I·--I..- I-.. ,--t .. ..I. .. -1 ! -.: . ;'--1'; ;. -It; L~::~_:.-~.!-.J.~~-~g~t ~.!_':::j:"--:-:--!~~(:--, "~F':'--:-!~~-·I. =.:~=~'~ --:! '~'--::~_F-~~~~.,_!~· -!-·~L_:_·_:~ ~.·~~...:....:.~.:L __ ':"'~,._l';

I ... ;. i. I .. ! ., . I i .. ~. I· I'" I.: I . i .. / ,..: - -I" ·1.. I"! . I. I· :. : : I·!· . I .. ' T • 1-' ... 1 . I . ·1·· .. · I -. j---' , ... . I ... , ~I i --. . I . 1 f·· ! --I' ! I. .' ", . " ... .. I .. I . i i ....j ... , ... '. .. I' : rrlj . -- ," I .. : . . ." -- ;. !. I !, : I I

.. ,.. I ...• ! ...••• ···-~·I--··I- .. ··'-··j·-·, .~--..... -:.~ .. ,,- :.,' ~.. .; ~ . ~n -.0. ~"""--'---'-' • .....:-.... -.1- -.-.. ----.--. .. ·--f·--.---· ----·----1------·-· ... -.---- --- .-- .. -..

I··: '~-I---"'-" '1" ""--""'1,·---1'--"---1'" g!--... , .. :~II-L'I"'["'I" ., .. : .. :! dB(A) I ... j. I" ------ ..... ! .. - ·---.---1 .. - --';--0 :~;'-'.'-- !". ~:-.,- ---I'--j" "',' :... . -.. : .. - -1-- -1--- . .. . . " . . . If' -- ; I If',. ..1--- --.. r --. , . -, . I ; . .. j I·· ; ..

... --.. -.1.-.. ____ ... , __ . M.O O .. ln'O O.C\J __ 0 0,0 ~ ('J. ('"\ .......... ,. ......... ..., .. . -;s .... _...: .. _ ... _: ... _t._' __ ... _,.~_ .. ~ \0 .. 0:>' .. O'_N_'_.\o .. _0 ._ ... ~ __ ' ... __ C .... M .. a .......... _ \0 .... _, _____ • ______ ._._.: __ ._. .~ ___ ,_I ____ .... ___ "-.

I : , I! I ' ~! ~ 1 ~, C\J I In: \0 • co . ~;. 1 : , 1 I ' . 'I ."

~::·l~:i:·--i·.·:~ -\·:·:·-1"·· ,'~ .; I· !! : ... ,-: !'I.:::-~.!-' '.:-:' .. ·. __ .; ... :..::::.i __ ' :_--=:.:::~~_t.~~'!~·I;;; ~.:--!':"'l~:~T::_-I'.-.:.r..:.r.~ -- ~.:' - 'i~::.. __ I'\~C\J:~I·'.:!~-.!· .. ! .:'. ;~. ,.:,_,·i . ..:I,-_!:,·::!:~:~1 -30.--·--·....... .... _ ....... _.:-. ______ , _'_ _ . __ . __ . . ... '_ ... __ ~ " .... _' ___ '.-.._t. "'_ 1._. . ____ ' _: __ , --.: ___ - "\')

I ---I"-~-- .. -! .... :--1 __ 1"'1 __ ·_·1.."1-' .. 1 " 'l·jN' ~! .. ·i·-I··;:" '\"1'-1" ; --[' =:-: .. ~--;~ .j' ... ~:- . · .. ::i':~· .=~-j-::~:~~ .. ':.1-- ... ."-: I.: ·~-I-::· lI!l~·:J·::· ~~~"1":' . :.-j- . ...=L_\-'--": ~ -j-'''' ··--1--1--·1--·1 .. ·,·--- --:-.- -- --.. ·1 .. -·1 ..... : ·1--; .. ·. . . j'- rrli··l-·I·· .... ,- "-';' --'1-- ;----J. 0'_,- ..... ----... - -- -.-.--------- . - .-.. _.~---. __ ._ •. _. -. . -JS

'I-'-;'~ ··I'-·l-,,·:·--,'-'!--'i·-··I---!--·-!--_L .. ! --I·· .. ·,·-·!··-I· .. -.!·-.. ·· -I' I;-=T:' i·· i .. · ;--. ··;-----:--1··+--+-·-~ . ..: r~:=--1=='-'=I=-~'I=r=1 =j.=! -I~': '~~·r=-~: --:=~." :.T - ----= F·~~ ::~T'~ . , .~. :=---.--~: ~j::'-i:=;·,,:,~'·~~=r== :~=--r:"",,: !.. . I'-r-· I - -- ··-·-I'-"'·-·-r-"C - -- -... ,-- .. : .. 1 .. -.. : .... --,. .... . --, In·.. ..:-.-.1 .. - .-.1 .... ;--.'.0 ._. .-.~. ___ '_ .• I • . ______ t __ ._I ____ • ___ .:.-_. __ ~. __ t._. ----.-'-'1'---.-_.. I •. _J. __ ·_I.-'~

I f I ' J I I If' I ,I 1 1 I' .',. , """ "! 1 I ,'" .' .... 1--1 .. -·-·-I·---·-·i-·-, ... --. --.-...... , .. ·1· -I I" 1. 1

. ;-j--'j','-,--';--

I ·~.. . i :---- ~_--::'I'-=:-'C-'--' =-~ 1-=1.-':-_. ~~~"'=--r-- .-! ::j~~ 1':=- }.:-J:._' . .-' -L:· .. ~ ~::.I .. ---·I-~: I .~.: I ~. ~ ; ~ .~:!~~.-J:::.: l''-~l'.~'.:·-:.·! r. In''!-- .: ... !--I.-..:.:.L--:-' .-- --. '''·!''----!--'l··;·-·I-.. I--+ !. : ... ! !. ,- '... ·I·\O·:·CO.! ~ .. ;-!. -- .. ·1··1 r

-f,. TN :-·~:;-:-::'I"-I:-=I='j-=-I' ·:-:-1...-1-=---- -::-1'-" "-1=" -:r='I-=-~-I-=:-~-.r·--r:-'!--"1":- :-;~:--- -:-;-:-:r' ---.---:-.. .-. "-,-.-.' -.. (" I~'I--.·_··--·I.I. ,----/--- .-- ... !.-- --1--'''' '--1-' ..... - -.+--'.-. i'I' I i'l'j . ~ .. ; I ··1 .. · I ... ! - .... I·~·--·I·· , ... ----;- -. .. r -- .. " .. , .. 1----.--·- '1--'~-"1-'- I. ... i . 1- .... ! .. \' .. .,.'-.. :--1

-so .I .•. -.:_;":'~~,.':-::"'=:.:':": ._ ~ . .:.... ~==- .. :.J·-·L:.:.:.L:::-'-=-L:..:..J...:.:..!..:.:.....::..:.:.I~.::-'_-=-'_ .. _L~:...: ___ ... -:~:-.:- ..:...:.--' . .:...-'.":':':':'~::.:-=.--.:, ! .... ·+_·I_I ....... ,L.' -+-I·-·:t:,I· .... :--·L.-I-l .. .L .. r-!·-··;· .. I--; .... I .. -·f .. :-·;· ': -':---'-',---i--i-'l

-"i:~.,··:f~! --!:~ : :~: i~I~+ii~f=~II~t~r'!:~~t l~t~I~~!~~?t! ~_t;~i-(\C"' . :~~~:~: ~;!~'. r~ , .", ,-- - .... -- .. '-.... -.-. 1--I--."--1-.EE--=1-1--.'---.--I-., ... -f ... -I-.L ... --1 .. --' .. --·-1 .... · .. 1.._ .. _ .. --1----.,--1 . 40'.: _ .... ' ... _.- . __ -1_1 ___ • I 1_. __ , _'_,. ___ 1_ •• _ •• _ .. _.'0 .... ____ •••• ~."' .. ____ .. I_ ..... ___ ._ •• _ ••• _:_ ••• '--._ .. .:. ___ ....:... .. __ ._ .• _'.')

!If"'n.,n~! "'n' Ij ~ t' ,: 7' ~'. :-: B d d" f' .. 1 ~'. . . an e e requence

Fig. 8. Spectral analysis in octave thirds of the frequencies of the noise of an H.V.

1 -- Frequency band

54LL£ lli CDN7"O~E. .2

4 ......... = ... , -. . at:? ~ ~-~- \~. ' 1 til",.;; •• ."

".10 ~I~

. ::::. !3 -2 t':., .. ~. ~O ®

- tg?

. '~". ID D. ,~;,,~ I' " \....J ,~

t.&/c. ~ o ~I ~)

~' ...... 1

A~~'9'" 6 &lit'. _ ........ , I I J,

5

6>: , . C.reI,.

Fig. 9. Sketch of the listening room and the control room (as seen from above) •

1 -- Control room; 2 --- Air conditioner; 3 -- Equipment; 4 -- Listening room; 5 -- arrbient microphone

16

TABLE III. PLAN OF EXPERIMENT LEQ x nhll; THE BOXES IVIARKED BY A SLANTED LINE HAVE NOT BEEN TES'IED

Leq in

dB(A)

(3Omn)

50

55

60

Number of H. V.

3 5

/ -

15 30

/

I

Thus, we have chosen the global Leq values of the traffic noise, the Leq value of the passage of a truck, the limits of variations of the frequency of passage of the H.V. such that the 2 Leq variables and the number of H.V. varj independently, while always keeping to a background noise level which is perceptively constant for each global Leq value (the average of the rraY.irr:wn and rrJ.nirr:wn differences of the background noise is 2.5 + 0.5 dB(A); this variation is not noticed by the subjects, as a control experirr:ent showed.

TABLE N. A'i~RAGES OF THE ACOUSTICAL LEVELS MEASURED IN THE LISTEl'JING RCOI': FOR EACH THEORETICAL EXPERIIv'JENTAL SITUATION

IR . V./30mn I

3 15 I 5 30 'Leq in ; dB(A) I

i Leq .. 50.7 Leq .. 51. 7 I I

I L01 .. 58.5 LOI .. 65.8

l 50 LOS .. 51.5 LOS .. 58.3 I . LIO .. 51 LIO .. 51.3

! L50 .. 49.8 L50 .. 45.5 : ! L90" 47.7 L90 .. 44.5 I I Leq .. 55.7 Leq .. 55.9 Leq .. 55.6 LeG" 56.1 I"

i , LOI .. 59.8 L01 .. 62.0 L01 .. 65.8 LO! .. 66.S ! i 55 LOS .. 57.3 LOS .. 57.5 LOS = 59.5 LOS .. 62.5

LI0 .. 57.0 LI0 .. 57 LI0 .. 56.3 LI0 .. 59.3

L50 = 55.5 L50 .. 55.5 L50 .. 54 L50 .. 52.5

L90 = 54 L90 .. 54.3 L90 :: 52.5 L90 .. 51.2

Leq '" 60.7" Leq .. 60.5 Leq .. 59.8 Leq .. 59.9

L01 .. 64.0 L01 .. 65 L01 .. 66.5 LOI .. 67.3

60 LOS .. 62.8 LOS .. 62.2 LOS .. 62.8 LOS .. 64

LI0 .. 62.5 LI0 .. 62.3 LI0 .. 60.8 LI0 .. 61.8

LSD .. 61 L50 .. 61 LSD .. 59.0 LSD .. 59

L90 .. 59.5 L90 .. 59.2 L90" 57.5 L90 .. 57.7 -- ------ -

17

E) Experimental Procedure

After they had their hearing ability verified by an audiogram, the subjects (averaging 4 per session) were placed in the "listening room." A notice was read to them and commented upon in order to explain to them the nature of the task they had to carry out (Fig. 10).

Each of the 10 experimental situations lasted 30 min with a break of

/24

10 rn:in between them where the subj ects could leave the room; moreover, after the presentation of 5 situations the subjects were permitted to take a break of 2 hours in order to go out to eat. During the experirrents the subjects were free to relax or to read.

The 10 situations were presented in a different order for each group of subjects (Table V).

At the end of 30 min of traffic noise in each experimental situation, the subjects had to fill out the annoyance questionnaire (Fig. 11) and turn it in to the researcher.

The est~ate of the annoyance and of the noise is done by a 9-point scale.

Seven questions were posed:

- on the expressed annoyance,

- on the expressed noise,

- on the annoyance i~agined by the subjects, as if they were in their own apartITEnt,

· during the day, · during the evening, · at bedtiITE,

~'on annoyance caused specifically by background noise,

- on annoyance caused specifically by the passing by of trucks.

Even though we have only a fev1 indications as to the structure of the scale of expressed annoyance and nOise, we have, in a plan which is corrparable to almost all the studies in this area, treated our results while consideI'ing that the scale of annoyance was to be assimilated to an interval scale, that is to say that the elementary arithrretic operations (adding, subtracting, multiplication) and from there, statistical calculations (averaging, correlations, etc .... ) were used for the annoyance notations.

18

r ! I GENERAL INSTRUCT.L:ONS 1...25

'Ihe experim:;nt in ~'lhich you are participating has as its goal to study the reactions of people to various road traffic noises.

You will be presented vlith various periods of 30 rn:in each of traffic noise.

At the end of each 30 min period of traffic noise we will ask you for your personal j udgrrent on the annoyance you have been exposed to.

You will e ress :!8ur j udgrr.ent on a aduated scale of annoyance of 1 ("not at }~l annoyed" 'Co 9 I extremely armoyed" , circling the number which corr€sponds with your level of personal feeling toward this traffic noise.

Answer naturally, 'dithout too much reflection; what counts is what you personally feel, ~t is your ovm personal judgment; there is no right or wrong judgrrent.

We ask you not to indicate your personal judgment to other people in the session (by words, gestures, emotions, etc ••• ).

During each 30~period of noise you are free to relax or even to read.

'Ihank you for your valuable help in this study.

Fig. 10. Explanation presented to the subjects.

F) Computer~zed and Statistical Treatments

The data:

• noise levels: Leq, Ll, L5, L10, L50, L90 · relative emergence: ~ER = Peak noise H.V.-background noise

background noise • number of H. V. · notatior~ of annoyances

were entered in "Che rrernory in the form of a file (Iris 80 CII-HB corrputer).

Various sta"C~stical treatments were established: \

- calculaticn of the rr.eans and the standard deviations, comparison of the means Cs tude::"C T) and of the variances (Snedecor F) on a Hewlett Packard 9825 computer.

- complex s:atistical treatm:;nts, using the BMDP computer library (University of Cs~ifornia, 1979) on the Iris 80 CII-HB computer: Analysis of variance (P2V), ~2rrelation rratrix (PIM), Simple regressions (PIR), Multiple regressions (P3R;, Algorithm of choice of the best multiple regressions (P9R), Discrimins"Cing analysis (P7M). Finally, the segmentation test of Walter Fisher in "cptirral" l~ classes was used (DEVISU: CIR Arcueil program).

19

I •

20

PERSONAL ESTIIIJATION SHEET f Name: I I I I Day: Hour: l ------------------------------t Situat. exp.

This traffic noise which you will hear is to you:

Nor AT ALL E~LY

ANNOYIHG I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 / 6 I 7 1 8 I 9 I ANNOYING

Nor AT ALL EXTREMELY

NOISY I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 1 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I NOISY

If you would hear this road traffic noise at home in your apartment, would it be:

- during the day:

NOT AT ALL E..XTREMELY

ANNOYING I 1 1 2 1 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I ANNOYING --

- during the evening, in your living room:

NOT AT ALL

ANNOYI1~G 11/213141516/7/8/91 - during the evening, when you are ready to go to bed:

EXTREMELY

ANNOYING

NOT AT ALL EXTREMELY

ANNOYI!~G I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 7 8 I 91 ANNOYING

Do you think that this traffic noise represents

- continued background noise of traffic:

Nor AT ALL EXTREMELY

ANNOYING I 11 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 ANNOYING

- noises of passages of trucks:

NOT AT ALL

ANNOYING! 1 I 2 ,3 I 4 5 I 6 I 7 I __ ? 19 EXTREMELY

-ANNOYING

Fib' 11. (~estionnaire given to the SUbjects.

TABLE V. EQUILIBRATED ORDER OF PRESENTATION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL SITUATIONS (10 SITUATIONS x 20)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2 4 6 8 10 3 5 7 9

3 6 9 4 7 10 2 5 8

4 8 5 9 2 6 )0 3 7

r! Ie 4 9 3 8 2 7 6 J

6 7 2 8 3 9 4 10 -5

7 3 10 6 2 9 5 8 4

8 5 2 10 7 4 9 6 3

9 7 5 3 10 8 6 4 2

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2 10 9 8 7 6

)0 8 6 4 2 ~. 7 5 3

4 9 6 3 8 5 2 10 7

9 5 8 4 7 3 10 6 2

3 9 4 10 5 6 7 2 8

8 2 7 6 5 10 4 9 3

2 6 10 3 7 4 8 5 9

7 10 2 5 8 3 6 9 4

3 5 7 9 2 4 6 8 10

6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5

21

N. Results 1....29

First, we will analyze the results of the annoyance levels obtained as a function of the experimental situations.

Secondly, we will investigate this analysis deeply by statistical studies which have closely examined relationships of the expressed annoyance with the acoustical indexes and the number of H.V.

A) Global Analysis of the Annoyance and of the Expressed Noise.

1. The Psychological Annoyance

- For each experimental situation, defined by an Leq level and a number of passages of H.V., the histograms show a frequency distribution of the annoyance notations which "approxinate" a nornru. law (Fig. 12).

- The variance analysis (Table VI) shows that the Leq level and the number of H.V. are 2 variables each of which has a statistically significant effect (p<0.02) on the expressed annoyance; the interaction of these 2 variables, on the contrary, does not show a significant effect (p>0.05).

TABIE VI. SUMMARY OF THE VARIANCE ANALYSIS SHOWING THE INFLUENCE OF THE VARIABLES IEQ

H. V. AND IEQ x H. V. INTERACTION.

~N~LYSIC OF UARl~NCE FOR 1-5T DEPENDEnT VARIAELE .- GEUE

50ll RCE SU/1 OF I'EGREES OF SIlUM<ES FF:EEIIUli

IiEA1~ SllliHF-:E

F iHiL PROMiilLIT'j

HEAN LEG f'L LEa X- PL ERROR

1[,40.85398 82.98027 4~.23372 11.6il317

2325.6ila;)1

2 3 [.

760

1610.85398 41.~9CtI4

15.07797 1.,.3300 3.06012

536.21 13.5~

<1 • 9:~

.63

To be more exact, if we analyze the development of the annoyance (average notations, Fig. 13) as a function of the number of H.V. and of the Leq,~s~t~:

- for a Leq of 50 dB(A) the annoyance increases in a significant fashion from 3 to 15 H.V. (paired Student t-test, p<0.05),

- for an Leq of 55 dB(A), the annoyance increases linearly from 3 to 30 H.V. (p<0.05),

22

.0000

.0000

.0021

.7048

I'\.)

w

T I . , .... T":':: r! :::r?T:'! :rl;!~;~~~~p{:np;fi :~;if;~r~r:r' :: ;Flpr::r:II'~;V:~i:~:;;;~t::;\r::;I'-.::""'l ::·f-·1·:1·:;.'··-·\n7:r~nr7\7-.:.:~\

EFFECTIFS 1{. .!. 'I' 1./ ~'!' : '::i'" 1::"1 :::1:;.···· '1' '.' . "'j ... Ii ":;, ... , ;::"'1 ":1":: . 'i" '1' :':, . II'" "1 .. ; '.', . \": ., :':,:~ i. "\ ::::; . !": '.\' • !' i.' .. : ,I. ...... , .. :. .' . '.: .. : '1':' :: I.. ·I·.···l. .,.. . ". . .... ;. \. I.': :.1'" : .• :; I . .. .' .: ". .. ,.! .:;:. 1 .;.' ....... I ';; :'" ." .: ,.:' , :.1. '. ... "'1 .... ,. ',' I : ','''' ::. 1 .! I· ,:.!. ~.. I' • , "\ :.::.: •

.. '1 : .. , :'; I .. :: I .J. ·I·III .. :.: .:1:: :,!J ··;'I~L; ";j>:Y' · .. li <ti" ::::' . ,,1:.1: .. : L':: ;;.:' .. ,~ i· .:. ; I ':; ~ . I' .'j .. il• . :1.; I, .!: ·~i .. !::~ '::"':';:1

' ':." \ . .' ,: i: . . . !: : . !. -: ; . : . : ; I: ':: i::: .' . I • ; I • ! .. : ... '. ::: I :: • I:: i' .! ! : : : . : .! .' I :: '.. I' ~ .: : I. . . I • ~ • l ' i.: : .'.!! I : .. "'1· .;. "," 1·.1';·;100' -jo,··;,·';I' ''''1' ; .... , . ''''1'''1:' ... "':"1' ,'.1 :i. ."'" " ."', . ": .

25 . : ... ~ .. !. '. ::. 'r\.::: ,·:::1 f.'!:,:;J.~r ::';:! :~~:::~i':,'::; ,~::.l :J.;·l : .... : .i~;~ ,.:.;d.: :~:!~ :.! .:~:::i·_·i.,.I .:[ .... i:· i· .. _.!. .; .. i .:.1::. !I.:.:i~~ , .. ! . i" ',':, 1"1' I·,·'·: ,'" :0 ,: ":. " '!. : .'. I.. . I :: .. ,. !"I .,:: I'! 1 .: I . .,.:,,:.' .. : ..' . . .:'.:. . i, . i ;:i:'::: .. ,.: ';: :.::' I :. =': ;1·:·::- 'j : . " . !": I . t :. ':!:.'.j';:: '1 ':.";.:j .: .:' :1 ..;:' ! ; ." , . ',' I. ': I.' ••• :: •• ,: •.• i .i I· " .; ••. " .: ',', i ... ! : . .. I I. . : 20 I · . "1 .•. • •. , .... '1' I .... "'1" ..... ,. I .'j", I" ',': :.... ....:., ... . ": I.' i,' . ; . ~:: I ,':'.. • I • . .:. I· .! ::. : 'I'" .':. I . , 'I" I' ,. I ' .. I I; :. f :' :. I . • I . .., .. , .. I ... ,,, .. I. ..• ". ........ .. I' ··i·· •• , •. " I':: ',.',: .. ", ; 1 • . fl. I , 15 .,.. I;. ::1 :: .. ,' ,.:,. .: .. :.' ;';'1 i·;1 . :'1 :. !:.' 1'1:: :.' ,:.. ~ " . . ..... : .!... 00': I . 1 i" ,.. : :., •• : . .: I. '" ,

•.• •.• . . I.. ,.. ,..... '''1'''' ' ... j , •. , "I 1 '''1 .. ,... .... "::.' . :.. ." , . . .... .. I I"·,·· . .; i' Ii' ':':: ~.;I::: ::':'1;;:1":'; :::.:::'!:,' ;;':. : .... ':!' . 'i!'1 ;.. .. 'i.i "j';:;!! e ":";'" ' •• ! .. !" ;' .~:.! 1. :.:.! . !. ,; '::: ';'1 . I 10 ...... \ ... ," ·,·1 .............. I ...... :.: .. -, .:-.. ,. "::r'''':-I .: I": ,,'.,' .... , I . I . I '" .. . . I '. ;.':. ;; .:: '; .": ,:.':'::1 ;,: ::'I: :1 : .. ,:. L:: :::.j,,;",,:'. ". ,':;': .:'!.:: ,:: ; :; .:::' .: :.: '.1 .:. 5 " h . "; . ;.! . I .:., ::,:", ." ,:.:: j. : ':, .• ;;1'; ! ... ' '1:: ':. , .'.: ''': .: ..... ".: .. : 1 "j ;'1

' .: NOTE: DE.GENE.1.21'-:: ; '. i: :',1 ',.'::! :::i . . 1 i ·i· ., j:,;. i .. ,· \' :·E .. :11':'!:: ~ :.~ 1: ;. :1 :!. ~;

l-..L.--'--'-..,.....a-'-6...i-7 ..... '--8-.-9 I'· ,':' ·1 ':'! ':;": .:: ,;.:"';":': 1 2 ; 3 4: . 6' . 8 : \; .1·:":; i: ': .. ; .. !~ ,: .':' i i : ;!":,',I',:' ,': . , '. • '.!\'. '.' .:' .:' !., .\ . '!:.: I· .. i . '. :. 5 17 .,9,:. ".,.:. .. , .! ,": :' ... : I"'!" ... , , ' \ ..' . I .-: . I : ~:! '!.':!: :.\ .;::. :!. .: :: 1 i: .: i ,. ! . . .: .: I.,i.:;·!:.: I :. .: . :' I .!' . : ., :::: !. :': .:: :: !::! ' : ' ; , "I . ·· .. '1 : .. ::':':'1 :"j' '-r e",: j •. ,... .. : :". I: ': "I ":'1: ;:' I ': ". I': I .":; I '.j:; I .:

i J; 1: : ·d:;: ,LL.;:· . .L.U;i,;:i:I.<~i,i!:;i ,j, !).,::!.'!l;:: ·)Jh;: 1\ : < I ,'ii,~'! it',:; , ' ,! l .. j .' I.: .. ,:", ::'. ;.!,,··.I' :.,:. 1

",,:":. I':'! ' .. , .. 1\::::... .'" I ". r.:;'::·~· :Lj: ,1':"" '" I: I . ,,\ .,'.: '., I. : I. : , .. , I.' '," 1',. !!.!:: :;1::','; :j' ,.\., . '.,". ''':.',,: l·j· !'." ::'. " .:: ....... ,. ,'::;':. I:: "1 .1', I:: I : :

.Leq 55:- 3 PL i . '1'< !.:;: ':.:!!, '::j. Leq !5~.~·5::P~ .. ·. ··l·;;,!::r·" "L~q :55; "::,':1 :PL.· i ;;',:: '1·: "i ".: L$q .55,' - 30: I'~., i .:. ':', " ': ":. :.,,", i· I" ;. 1;'· ,t . .r :.. ' '1 .j :,!.'.....:.. I: ,'. ~ ., ' . :1" I:;· . E: .. , ' ... ,. . ...... . • ~: ; , : :: 1 : . : ' , ; , i. '

.! .. ;',':

. . ., ~ I. 1 .. 1 L-..!::I ::I..:'!. :'!: 1 ":! 1 : 1 .. I:· r.'I. : ' .. ;: i' 'j:. 1 ,,: . I.

'1 2.3 4 5 6 i 7: .81.9; "1'::C:il':!~ i 3: ~ 'IY' 6; 7:~ I~ !.) .. i'li · !, ; 213 : 4 .. 1.~ :,6.17;::8: 9·!::: i'~:::: i r.' 2·3 4 i 5:6 :7;,8 9 :i .. ::; .:: :'\ :.: · .. L.f~;!I:H~.- :··~:I!':;I·~:-1::~:,:Y;!;~·j:::·~~·I:; ~::i;I:L~" ·{:·I ~ ;:.::1 ~:~~hl::'ilf~+;;;~!r;'l'j :\,.: "j-:.I":,; :'1 ... j :,,1 <~: ":'1':: d :~; .

. i.1: i';' ;:'~'i : I ::{(I·ri:1'1 ;!!!::ll::~:I:::;(J'l': i ~':I ;':U!\;;~lri 'f"I'.:t;r:Vr ::;!:iL'!'!;~H:I:!:P: . ;.:: !: !. j. ':1 :1 i.'.i·!' ."':~ ;:.!'";./:: , . . . : 1 :' r": i ';1' .; ,;1:.:; ;'J'~: :·:11::; (~:i' '~':'::;; .. ~·j':::r it. ~:(r"H:i ;~i:::(1 ::~!;;.'(;:I::~·n:·\; .:: .: !.:: I';' ~ ~:i l·. :';:~: i.'.:: :\Y<;;

Leq 60 ~ 3 PL .' .:! :;:1': I.'.;'" ·::i:r.~q;IiOI:i":·5 ;PL:. "1' >,,::jl.;:;'I:" . LeQ :6P:J,;I' .15 it'Ll:' .1

1

::;:.1 :'I:i4.- .::I:eq 6Pl"'_:30: 1?I,.L·! · .. :.i:.:i.;i:'1 E:l::r . :.'~' : ! ' .. :~ ~ I"~p-!· :.":.;. ::.p"::!: ,;~';::rlr:i': 'I 'r:;:··.: f~=,::~:i:i ~:j: I ::1:-: ·!i!;:i·:H:q;i~.: ~ri:~!. ~;.:i:· :':, I : ,., .. i:! ',i ;;.!~;~'! .: .::~' ;!I~: :: r '. ': .. ' , . ·;I::,', .. !j' ':!'.':', 'i:""" "1'1· , .... 1 ... ,.!."I .. "., '. ,., ...... :.: .. ::".:.: ..... : :; I ·:·:'I':ll ........ ,:1 .. .

! .:: "::'.1 :~/\' '.(: ::~l~;i' ,::;!E; q\~.~:-~': ~':C:l ~;:ltr ~y: !'::~i'i!'(@; T)!~ql:;l·l~~:: !-'.l:· ::' .';' ;.';; ;:j:J =:{:i' : .:'j ·:·C;. f. I

j: i<! :;' " :.I.!. ;'1 .J:. .. i, . .;1 :",. II ~':r,· ::L'I,!:!. i :' Ii !j!··!H::·;::L. I.. ... i ; .. :!.':... L. :;.!: :: ::, .. j: .:!:./ :,' I

"'-........ -'--L..·_.: .. r;:;;~i=f;;jillj~i:i';' ;':'/!,.. ::"1 :):ru~~ ,'H' :":ij:; 'j; .: :";::m:~I;W1iEj:J'" ;:rti#";"; .. 'r)·:J· 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. L9 .... :.: .. :. _....L...?--'~.6 7.-J3_ 9 ___ 1 ~_.3 4. 5 6 7 1L9 .• __ .. 1 2 3 II 5 6 .( /j 9

Fig. 12. Histogram of the frequencies of annoyance notations as a function of each experimental situation.

1 -- Effects; 2 -- Annoyance notation

- for an Leq of 60 dB(A); the annoyance increases in a significant way from 3 to 5 H.V. (p<O.OS), then to stabilize at from 5 to 30 H.V. (N.S., p>0.05).

We have arbitrarily regrouped the annoyance notations in 3 classes in order to facilitate our later analysis:

- one class termed weak annoyance corrprising the notations 1, 2, 3, - one class termed medium annoyance corrprising the notations 4, 5, 6, - one class termed strong annoyance corrprising the notations 7,8, 9.

'vIe have been able to verify that this division corresponded well enou@:1 vlith the "exact optirral" division in k classes (Table VII) determined by the Walter Fisher algorithm (1958).

class 3 2 1

TABLE VII. SEGr·'lENTATION IN OPTIMAL K CLASSES ACCORDINGLY TO WALTER FISHER.

Note: maximum of classes = 3.

division of 9 observations in 3 classes

3 division sum of cars = 379.20 number of obs. mean stand. deviation boundaries highest val.

309.000 6.773 .844 '9 6 9.000 271.000 4.480 .500 5 4 5.000 190.000 2.521 .694 3 1 3.000

lowest val. 6.000 4.000 1.000

For each annoyance class, Fig. 14 (a, b, c) shows the development of the percentage of annoyed people in each experimental situation. We note that:

- for an Leq of 5G dB(A) , the percentage of slightly annoyed people decreases from 3 to 15 H.V. while the percentage of moderately and very annoyed people increases in parallel.

- for an Leq of 55 d8(A) , the percentage of slightly annoyed people stays constant from 3 to 5 H.V., then decreases strongly from 5 to 15 H.V., and weakly from 15 to 30 H.V.

, the percentage of very annoyed people increases linearly from 3 to 30 H.V.

- for an Leq of 60 dB(A) , the percentage of slightly annoyed people is /32 stable from 3 to 5 H.V., then decreases linearly from 5 to 30 H.V. -

, the percentage of moderately annoyed people decreases from 3 to 5 H.V., then increases from 5 to 15 H.V. to stabilize at between 15 and 30 H.V.

, the percentage of very annoyed people increases from 3 to 5 H.V., stabilizes at from 5 to 15 H.V., and increases slightly from 15 to 30 H.V.

24

. .

Summarizing, there appeared a clear tendency which shows that

- for an Leq of 50 dB(A) and an increase from 3 to 15 H. V., the percentage of sli~~tly annoyed people decreases in favor of the percentage of the moderately and very annoyed people,

- for an Leq of 55 and 60 dB(A) and an increase from 3 to 30 H.V., the per­centage of slightly and moderately annoyed people (to a lesser degree) decreases, resulting in an increase in the percentage of very annoyed people.

We also note ~rat, if the percentages of slightly annoyed people vary between 9% and 50% and the percentages of very annoyed people between 8% and 35%, in contrast the percentage of moderately annoyed people is much higher and varies between 43 and 60%.

2. Noise

The mean noise levels, as a function of the number of H.V. and of the Leq level, are sir.ilar to the levels and to the development of the psychological annoyance (Fig. 13). For each of the experimental situations the paired Studen: tests show that the deviations between the notations of annoyance and the ~otations of noise are not statistically significant (p>0.05).

Fig. 14(d, e, f) shows that when we reduce the noise scale to 3 classes, the percentage of judgp:ents "Slightly noisy," "moderately noisy," "very noisy" develop globally in an identical fashion, respectively, into the judgp:ents: "slightly annoyed," "moderately annoyed," and "very armoyed."

3. Imagined Annoyance in the Person's ApE'..rtment

a) Imagined 2.nnoyance during the day (Fig. 15a)

The corresponCll1g annoyance levels and their development as a function of the number of H. V. and the Leq are identical to the estimated annoyance L35 in an experirrental situation (paired Student t-test:, p>O. 05) •

Thus, everyor.e thought as if the annoyance level which the subjects indicated in the experimental situations was referenced by the latter in the acoustical situat!on of their apartment.

b) Annoyance inagined in the evening

Fig. 150 shot·:s -chat the development of the imagined annoyance in the evening runs parallel i~ith the development of the psychological annoyance in the experimental s!~uation; the levels of imagined annoyance in the evening are displaced upi~ard by a 1.34 notation of rroderate annoyance (paired Student t-test, p<O.05).

25

I\) 0\

Note:e r 1

- .

6

5

4

3

2

.",'. • Leq 60

...... _____ Leq 55 r ----:: • :.----- Leq 50

I, ~

3 5 15 30 Nombre de 2 P.L./30 mn

..

Note de bruyance 3

9 1 »

6

5

4

3

2

Lcq 60 ......-- --r-:::_~ _____ .leq 55

~ ______ 0 Leq 50

3 5 15 30 ~

Nombre de P.L./30 mn

Fig. 13. Development of the expressed annoyance, (a) and noise (b) as a function of the number of H.V. and the Leq.

1 -- annoyance notation; 2 -- number of H.V./30min; 3 -- noise notation

I\.)

-..J

r. de mtes de 100 ~ gene faibIe(1,2.3) 1

(a)

60

50 I

~Leq50 40 1-

30 L

20

~ de notes de ~ de notes de 100 1 gene moyenne (4. 5. 6) 2· 100 .l gene forte (7. 8. 9) 3

~ (b) '1' (c)

60 l ~-.,.- L 55 60 --II eq -" ~ Leq 60

50 t ~ Leq 50 50 . .---

40 1 40

30 30

Leq 55 ~ 20 20

I .______Leq

60

~Leq55

oLeq 60 10 L .. '.1 I )00-, 3 5 15 30 P.L./30 mn . t-I ---.f-- t->-

10 ~50 '

t--->-

10

~ de notes de

60

50

bruyance faible (1, 2. 3) 4 (d)

~Of~ 301 \ '. Leq 50

20 T ~ '--

10 ~ \.------ ----------

. ICLeq 55

-------- Leq 60

3 5. .. 15 . __ .. ~6-

3 5 15 30

~ c)e note de bl"Yance moyenne (I,. 5. 6) 5 -~ 6~) J.eq 5~)e'----::::: "1I~-

"'-Leq 50

70

=R 60'

50

40

30·

20

10

L-+-'I f-------~~ ..3.5 __ ._ ...... J5 __ .. ____ .. 30 .... .

3 5 15 30

~ d,.e notes de bruyance forte (7.8 •. 9) 6

70 I (f)

60

• 50

40

30 ----------=te

q 60

/r--~eq55

L_-------Leq 50

20

10

~~-.---+- ! >-. 3.5 15 30

Fig. 14. Development of the percentage of jUdl?fIEnts "slightly annoyed," "moderately annoyed," "very annoyed" and of the jUdl?fIEnts "slightly noisy," "moderately noisy," "very noisy" as a f\.mction of the Leq and the number of H. V.

1 -- % of notations of slight annoyance (1, 2, 3); 2 -- % of notations of moderate annoyance (4, 5, 6); 3 -- % of notations of strong annoyance (7, 8, 9); 4 -- % of notations of slight noise (1, 2, 3); ~ 5 -- % of notations of moderate noise (4, 5, 6); 6 -- % of notations of strong noi~e - (7,8, 9)

c) Imagined annoyance at bedtime

Fig. 15c shows that the development of the irragined annoyance at bedtime runs parallel with the development of the irragined annoyance during the day and in the evening; yet, the levels of imagined annoyance at bedtime are displaced upward by a 2.19 notation of moderate annoyance for the annoyance notation in an experimental situation (paired Student t-test, p<0.05).

4. The annoyance due to the level of background noise and the number of passages of H.V.

Let us remerrber that the questionnaire also contained 2 other types of evaluations: the annoyance which the subj ects estimated was specifically caused by the background noise (rrarked as Gbf) and the annoyance which the subjects estirrated vlaS specifically caused by the repeated passages of H.V. (rrarked as Gpl), for each of the 10 experimental situations.

Fig. 16a shm.'s the developments of Gbf and of Gpl; we will consider:

- for Gbf, 1linen the background noise increases, this annoyance increases , when the number of H.V. increases, this annoyance increases

globally as well.

In other words, it would seem that the estirration of the annoyance due to background noise is not independent of the number of H.V.,

- for Gpl, v!nen the number of H. V. increases, this annoyance increases as well

, \·;hen the background noise increases, this annoyance is not affected (Fig. 16b); for each frequency of H.V., the Gpl notations are not /37 significantly distinct as a function of the Leq level (paired Student t-test,­p>0.05).

Thus, the estirration of the annoyance as a result of the H.V. is here well ascribed by the subjects to the frequency of passage of the H.V. and it is not affected by the level of the background noise.

B) Statistical Analysis of the Relationship Psychological Annoyance­Acoustical Indexes and Number of H.V.

First, it is in order to study the intensity of the interrelationships of various acoustical indexes (Leq, Ll to L90, EMER) and of frequencies of H.V. (nHV and Log. ~~lT; the percentage of H.V. in the traffic has not been taken as an index since it was possible to calculate this; in fact, our background noise sho'ded a very stable and continuous level where no single vehicle was identified in the traffic annoyance, and secondly, it is in order to study the index or the association of indexes (particularly with the Leq) which allow the best prediction of annoyance.

28

I\) 1..0

Note de gene de jour 1

9

Note de gene en soiree 2 9

Note de gene a l'heure du coucher 3 \

9

8

1

6

5

4

3

2

/--:---... _----:-. le 1 co .hl'

.... _-.---------~ L'l <s, ..

.---___ --. L t 1 So "811

(a)

I' 1 1--3 5 15 30

8

1

6

5

4_

3·

2'

/ ..... ------~-------. .------------.

(b)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

.---. ~o

~----.. J..-'--~ t

(e)

._/ 1 1------- t-- L-, / 1 I 3 515 30 P.L./30 mn 4 3 5 15 30 P.L./30mn4

Fig. 15. Development of the imagined annoyance in the apartment as a function of Leq level and number of H.V.

1 -- Daytime annoyance; 2 -- evening annoyance; 3 -- annoyance at bedtime; 4 -- H.V./30 min.

. .

Let us distinguish two aspects to take into account the expressed annoyance:

- either we relate each level of an acoustical index considered to the individual notations of corresponding annoyance; we speak, then, of the individual annoya~ce (marked as I.A.) since we take into account the dispersion of the individual notations of annoyance for a given acoustical level,

- or we rela:e each level of the acoustical index considered to the mean of the corresponding individual notations of annoyance; we speak, then, of the mean annoyance (rrarked as f1.A.), since we have eliminated the dispersion of the individual notations in order to take into account the mean of those notations for a given acoustical level.

In our calculations we have taken these two types of annoyance into .consideration.

1. Analysis of the correlation matrix !J9 (Brava1s~Pe~son r) of the 2 types of annoyance with the various

indexes (acoustical and frequency of H.V.) shows that the acoustical index L5 gives the strongest interrelationship with the mean annoyance (M.A.) and the individual annoyance (LA.), followed by a second group of indexes: Leq, Ll, LIO and 2-'ER; the indexes nHV and Log nHV give the weakest interrelationship i'lith the annoyance (Tables VIII and IX).

2. A discrimination analysis has been made, step by step, in order to /41 study the index ~lx.ch best discriminates the groups of notations of individual annoya~ce from 1 to 9 (the moderate annoyance cannot be tested since it did not ..Include enough data).

Program BrvIDP-7I·l chooses (step by step) the variables used in the treatment of the linear classification functions. A step forward/return selection is possible; at each stage or step, the variable which allows the greatest separation of the groups is entered (or the variable which allows the least separation is withdrawn) for a discriminating function.

The results (Table X) show that index L5 is the one which allows the best discriminaticn. Thus, the results between the Discriminating Analysis and Correlation Pr21ysis are entirely in agreement.

3. Multiple regressions: the second part of this statistical analysis consisted of studying an inprovernent of the predictive value for annoyance of the Leq index ty adding another variable such as the frequency of the H.V. (nHV and Log rblT). For this purpose, multiple linear regressions of the general form: Z = constant + aX + ax were calculated (where Z is a dependent variable, X, Y are independent variables, a and a are coefficients).

The results show that

- an index corrposed of the general form Leq a + nHVa + cte has a predicti ve value i·:hich is slightly higher than the Leq index or nIN or Log nHV taken alone.

30

W I--'

Note de gene due 1

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

lau bruit de fond

_~O------~--------~ • .- .L(!~ '0 J6A

~... - l~f 5S "M ... ------ Le1SoclBA

I I I 1--'>-

3 5 15 30 Nombre de P.L. 2

-----------------_ .. _"_ .. _-, ..

Note de gene due I au bruit de P.L. 3

8

7

6 ~ 5

4

3

2

--1-1 -I 1--->-3 5 15 30 Nombrc de P.L. 2

Fig. 16. Deve10prrent of the estirrated annoyance due to background noise and to the number of H. V. as a function of the number of H.V. and Leq.

1 -- annoyance due to background noise; 2 -- number of H.V.; 3 -- annoyance due to H.V. noise

TABIE VIII. CORRELATIONS BEI'VlEEN THE ANNOYANCE AND THE INDEXES (THE LIHITS OF CONFIDENCE OF THE CO&'iliLATION COEFFICIENTS ARE INDICATED BY:

"~oyance

IndefCe~. Leq

LJ

L5

LIO

LSO

L90

EMeR

nP.L.

log nP.L.

xxx for p<O.OOl xx for p<O.Ol x for p<O. 5)

,. LA. N.A.

O.274x ,:x O.84ZxX

O.27J xXX O.835xx

O.3J3xXX O.964xXX

O.278xXX O.856xx

O.21OxXX O.644x

O.214xX O.657x

O.274xXX O.83SxX

O.J84xxX O.575x

O.J87xXX O.580x

- there are no statistically significant differences (p>0.05) between the index in the form Leq a + nHVS + cte and the index in the form Leq a + log. nHVS + cte.

- we note interrelationships of various intensities (R, multiple correlation coefficient) of the indexes which are composed with the annoyance, according to the fact that we consider the moderate annoyance (M.A.) and the individual annoyance (I.A.); the same goes for the coefficient of deterwination R2 which expresses the variance percentage explained by the right multiple regression (for I.A., 10% of the variance is explained, for M.A., 95% of the variance is explained).

Let us note that the coefficients of correlation given in Table VIII /43 and Table IX sufficiently resemble "'lhat the psychosociological tests furnished on the annoyance in connection with the Leq level of daytime traffic noises: for LA., f-l = 0.31 Vallet [11J, r = 0.29 Langqon [2J, r = 0.32 Aubree et al, [12J; for M.A. r = 0.88 Langdon [2J, r = 0.76 Yeowart et al, [4J, r = 0.96 Lambert [13J

To f'inish this study, we have researched the best composite index in relation to the annoyance. The Bf-IDP-P9R program ("All possible Subsets Regression") has allowed estiIT'ation of the best regression equations as a function of criteria such as:

32

': OO:::'L " TT 0"5

GI lEQ tlPL L1 L5 ~lO LSO L.90 LOGNPL E/-lER @

w w

? .. 3 4

5 f,

.7 q q

In 11

aw- l

TABLE IX. CORRELATION MATRIX: ACOUSTICAL INDEXES­NUMBER OF H. V. - ANNOYANCE

itA TR/c E. ..... J)£.$ .CORltE!-1T-i otis .. - - --. . -_.. - .. - . : .....

0. LEQ·. NPL . ll~ .LS~. LlO--.;.. ~ ? --) --4· . C;. . (,. . 7

LsO--"':B

L90 __ q

.. ~" .'":"""" .. :"'···~-:-·7·--:-·~--·"--":"···~·. ~:' •. -.~ .. -- - ~.- -:,-:- .-:' ·'-:-----'7'''·

1.r.r.O .'?74 1. :!lH) ... - ... .._ .. _ ..... - ... - --- ... --.lP.4 .ns ·1.nnO·" ~;.

..

LOGNPL .............. 10

• ?71 .......• 444 .... -;.-.• 7t:;O _~ . .,.:-:-I. 000-:--.- ---." .... ., ..... .:-:, .. ; .,'" ... -= .: .. -., .... ,... ' .. ~' ... ' .... _... .. . __ • .313 .: .q~'3 ... ,,' .t:;17.:·:':·:f;·:'-.8?1Z~:; 1.000 ::-.' .. : :. . :' .. .2713 ...• Q·17 ..... -" .;::17-_,._. __ .4I)h __ ,~: ....• Rf,O_ ".' -; 1.(\00 .- -.?):"I .;:114 • 1 R 7 .,,74

.325

.Q43 . -.1It":: .1t;':':".Il?1 .912 ·1.000 .: · .• 9=-0·· ... -.i)73·~·-···.)"9,:···,.- . • n43 ·:-·.···.929 ... ~ .9Q!- ... - ··1.009 .• 1~7 .• Q57· .... ·.~11~· .:.: :.C;It; .152 . :-.16"'·' ·-.)1~ 1.000

·.990 ... '" .J20·.".··-·.44t').-.-. ·.fl31 .953-··.,- .92~·--·.-:-· .q29······ .09S .~Ct2· .• 575· : .. , .• B)5 :.:" .• C)/)4 .956 .644:' .. : .1)57 .580

EMER GM .......... ........... 11 ........... 1

··1.000 .R3~ 1.00n

W J::"

I/flRI"RLE

TABLE X. SUMMARY OF THE DISCRIMINATING ANALYSIS

F" TO ;:-ORcr QF.'~~VF. LEVEL

nC"= fJ 7':Ji?

TOLERIINCE l!­

ll­

f/-

.. --,- .0 ., .... ,.- .

VARII\RLF.:

:1' l::'1') ~.. ; .. 4 ~.r:;lL

.. ..,..,:--:._ .. c>.:- .. -:---.~~.-. ." . .::.' 6 J..1.5-.I . .

--- ... , .... -'-"- 7 Ll 0 ...... ,'

~

.,...-.......... -" A L5fJ o l,QI'l

.. 10 Ln(;I~PL ---.. - -. -.:, '-'- - .... 1 1 F" ~l F.I~ .

F TO nH?CF. EtHER LEVEL

OF= R 7('1 ,. ·R.n? .. 1

· 1.1'.,"9 1 .'- . 8; 1 f.'7

11.Jl3 · q. f,St.

4.919 · 5. 11i {l . :.

3.n4A fJ.?:J4

1 1 1 1 l' . 1 1 -'

TOLEPANCF

1.000()OO 1.1)00000 1.000000 1.OOOOOn.

.. 1.0000(1) 1.n'JOilOO 1.0(")000'1 1.0000nO

.. - 1. CH10l)OO

.~~k.O~~~OO~~~~O~~~~~O~~~O~O.~~~~f.~P&~~04~O~O~U~~.q~~.'U~*~~~~~4~~G~~~~~~~~*~O*oouoo~o

ST~O !,JUMBEP .j I/APIAB~E EMTEQ~D

:j' 6 £LSI . _ ........ -l!:::..:!.I .... ___ _. :- _ ... '-" __ '. _- --: .... ~ .' . ,." _ ..

1/~~It.qLr. F TO c:'O~CE TOLERANCE" b" .: Vt.RJ IIRLF' F TO" FO~CJ: . TOLEPANCF PE"1r)VE LEVEV .. _ .. ··· .,.. ..... ~--.. _._ ... : .. -.... - ....... - .. ENTER' "Lr::VEL" ..

I)~= fJ 71;1 II . fJF= fJ 76n 5 L 1:\' 11.113 '1 .. l'~OOOOOO ·:":""-·'-'-·--~·:·3 1.1='1) ...• - " ... _ .• St;F.,-· 1"

' .... - 4 NPL' . .J91 1 " ' ". , - , ,,-.,.. ..... - .. - t; L] ...... ~ .. ;.:oo .771 1

n . 7 L 10 .443 1 ._.- '-'- .. -'-"-" "f\ L50 .. -,.,. ...... : ..... 490 l'

~. 9 LQq .517 1 •. _. '1f) LomlPL .('05'1" .... . 11 ':\!~P .712 1

U-~TtTT5TIC O~ WJL~S' LA~BO~ AP~QOXJ~~T( F-ST~TJSTIC

.AQ;~q~~ OE~PEE~ OF FPfEOOM 11.113 .... DF.GREES OF FP(EI)Oli

R f\.OO

7~]

761.00

~l?lq'l'

.7S7C;I;~

• 147()t;:'l .?'l329 Q

• (,42::;(,0

.f>1541P.

.7t;qq7f}

.3'4077

rADLE' ... -.------.. -.... -....... _ .. - .. ._--------_ .. -

VAQ! f111Lr ~~TEP~O ~EMovEn

6£rn F VflUIE" Tfl

ENTFQ OR QE'~OVf 11.1127

NUr-13FR OF" U-STATISTIC VAPIAALES TNCLUOEO," ~

) .~q~4

hPPPOXI"'IATf. F-STATISTIC

11.113

OEGREE5 OF' FREEOO"'1

B.on 161.00

TABLE XI. SUTr;rIJJ1Y OF THE MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSIONS (WITH THE MUL'l~[PIE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS R AND THEIR COEFFICIENT OF' DETERMINATION R2) OF THE ANNOYANCE AS A FUNCTION OF THE LEQ AND THE FREQUENCY OF H.V.

J::iultiple-regressions R I Uultiple

R2

I~A •• = -2.36 + 0.12 Leq + 0.027 P.L. 0.31 0.097

1.f.A.- = -2.37 + 0.12 Leq' + 0.027 P.L. 0.96 0.92

LA. a -2.86 + 0.12 Leq + 0.75 Log nP.L. 0.31 0.097

lvl.A. c -2.82 + 0.12 Leq + 0.76 Log nP.L. 0.97 0.95

- the Co of M:lilow - the R2 - the adjusted R2

for indexes 1 to 9 (acoustical and number of H.V.).

It appeared that:

I I

I

/48

- there is no agreement between the individual annoyance and the moderate annoyance in the composite indexes which give the best multiple regression. For I.A. we will retain the expression: LI + LIO (simpler than the last expression where the 8 variables are not independent of one another).

- the Leq associated with another index is not the most predictive one.

35

W 0\

TABLE XII. SUlVlMARY OF THE MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF TYPE LEQ + LOG nlN + C'IE FOR THE IDDERA'IE ANNOYANCE

" Q~~~~~sro~ TTTL~ •••• Of.~E~ryENT VAqI~~LF •••

. . .. . . . • • • •

• ••• co

• • MOderate annoyance

1 f.m: TOL~~~~C~ ••••••••••••••

~LL JArfl cnuSrnnEO AS A SP!r.LE r,POUP

')'IJL T 1 ;>,_;" R

~ULTIOL;" R-~1UARf

A~~LYSIS O~ VAqIA~rr

.97C;n

.9S}7

• • .C\loa

SIn. EQoOR OF fST •. .1313

R~r.QfSSIOM

RESIDIJAL

51J'" OF SOUARES OF" • t··EM! 5QllfiRF F RATIO . P(TAIU :60.J:l;?1 .. :'-

11.227 .... 767

VI\;)II\RLE CO~FFICIE~T .. ~TDo EPpnq

HITE~C~~T -2.Q272SJ U=:rl 1 01 ?S7:l ·00;l i ... O~~4:1L l~ •. 7(,2~ '} .01 ?.

=. 13(1.417·-·.· ,:-: 75'S2.4'31;l .. ~ .-: .00000 .• 017:·::· ... : ..

".;. ~ ••••• .'. - ~ ••• o •••

<;TO. Rtr, COI::FF. -:-- .. -: ....... T ... P(2··TAIl)·· TOLf.t?ANCE

.7R9 · .. 9SJ.1;I44. : .• 000

.49{1 .. 62.115:·.~ .• 000· .9JlR4?'l .9BA4?2

w -..:]

TABLE XIII. SUMMARY OF THE jVIULTIPLE REGRESSION OF TYPE LEQ + LOG nHV + GTE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL ANNOYANCE

• • •• •• • • P~~~~~STnN TITL~ •••• nr~F~~r~T VADI~qL~ ••• •• • • •

Incli. vidual annoyanc.~ ;> IA

Tn~E~~~r~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I'Li_ )l\TtI C'JtJSIDEOF::1) tiS 1\ St\l~Lr:: M?(lIJD

~UI.TT~I_:'- Q VULTTO~~ Q-~nU~Qr

~~hLY51~ o~ VAOTAN~F"

R~R~~SSJO~

Q~~'D~AL

.:'17L!

.10~C:;

5\1'\ o~ SQI/!lRFS 2F,1.24Q

::'~3q. 74P. .

• • • .nlOr.

~Tn. fOQnR OF" ~ST.

OF" ., <.

7~7

r~E:Af-J 5~tJAPr:

13(1.('74 1.!,1.9

t.14~2

F" P.AT T 0 4?.R3Q

P(TAIU .0('1000

~

V6~tt.3Lr:: CO~F"FI:::IPlT STD. J:~"'r)P

STn. p~r,

CnEF"F" T P(2 TAIL) TOLFQANCE

!~TE~C~~T LEn ~ ~O~Y~LJ~

-~.q614;?

• 12S)0:; .• 754q t

.(117

.11,1 .2::;7 .159

7.477 4.F,2~

.000 ·.000

.Qq~4("

.• Qi3~42;:

- _____ .... _ .. ____ ". _, __ . _i_ .. ~~;:.

w co

TABLE XIV. SUMMARY OF THE f.1ULTIPLE REGRESSION OF TYPE LEQ + nHV + erE FOR THE MJDERATE ANNOYANCE

..

P.e::;R~5SInl.l TJTL~. ···:·~ .. :.:.·o· ' .• ' !v·-· ~.:: .. ' ·~~';';-~'··7 .. ··=-::-·fJbderate Ann?~ru~ce :.,:-~ ... , . OE;)E"I"ENT VARIABLE •••••••• '. • • • • •• ..1 i\'lA. . T()LE=?~NC: ••••••.•.••••••..•. : •.•.•.•..• : .... OlO~.-::~: .. ;:"'"=: .. :.~~--::~-::::,.:-: ... - ::.. '_00: ..

t,LL OAT" CONS rDE~£D AS It SI~GLF.: GROUP .: :.... .. c" .... : ' .. _ • ._ - '0- '0 .• _ _ , __ .• __ _ . ,_. _ ... 0...... . ___ ._._ ... ___ .. __ • ______ . ___ •. __ .••... _ ... __ .. _ ... _ • _____ ...

. 4ULTTPL::" R' ' ..• 951.7 :: ::·.C;TO.'ERROR of<[sr .. :::.,·· .. : .. :.L:.;.1·,;33.· : .. .: ..... ~.:

. '-1lJLTJPLf R-SQIJAR-::- ....... ,.. .• 924Q .. : ... -: .. -~~.:.~ ~ .. --:. -.-.---.-::~ '~ •.. ~~~-~~~:; .. :=~_.::~' ... -:- ~ .. ;--:. .-, .. ~

h~IALYSJS OF' VAQIA~Jr.F.,.-.- ... ":,-'''' ...... -:_:.,: ...... :_.,.. .. :.,.. "'-_."'.:" ""'=-'.-':'-:-:"'~'-::_:""" .:-00 .•.. : .

SU).! OF" SOl/ARES ... OF"-·· t-'~AN SQUARE'·:·":..··~ .:. F RATIO:· .. p (TAIl) Rfr.Ql:SSIO~J :~:". ...... 253.476. ".._" ... 2 .: ... ":~. - ·}26. 73~·:.··..,- .:.:47?4.R20· "-:-.• 00000··· -'" RESTnUAL· ... 20.574:' ·767' .Cl27 > ~ ........ ,~ . . . :

........ - .............. --- "'. -. :-:'.'5;'0'- F?·Er.'~·:=~-·"--'--~:· ~--.. -- ... _ ..... :-...... - ... . VARIAijLE·· ~CO:FFTCIE~IT ... ST~. F.RRt;lR -:- ........ C()F..~~: ":~',:::-.":>:'j~; P(2.lAI~,.ToLn~A~lcE.

,-:-:- :". -2.176:; 1 .~.::: " :." ..... --: ..... :.::-.: .: ...... _. . .... -;:~:;-. ,- ·· ..... 7·~.".:.:7 ',..,. , .... ':' .. . ... : .... 12407.:. :' ... ·.Oo? .'_.: .. .778·.'::·77.QSR .. ;: .. ,._.- .000 : ..• QA1645.

TNTEQr.:::OT .. I_En J

.. NPL 4 - • 027I~' . --".-:: ' .• 00 f :. ~.:' .~. ::.' • 4('9 ~.;:;:- ~6. 97~~.:~: : .... ;.~~. 000. : .. : .... : _ QSl645 .

W \D

TABIE XV. SUMMARY OF THE MULTIPIE REGRESSION OF TYPE IEQ + ruN + CTE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL ANNOYANCE

O~~~!~~Tn~ TtTL~ •• 'l,:;)!;"r'~'H \f1\:)II\'RF~

• • •. -. PI R .-;:-::-:;-.' .... .,.. ---'" _.- .,... .• -~~.: ~ ; - Individual- Annoyance

Tn~E~~~~~ • • • • • • • • •.•• .-0 •• : •• (ILL )AT/\ C~~J5IDE:?EI) I\S A 51:!GLF. r,novp·· -

.;~:_::.o_ro~~··:;.~-~:.;: .: ~.:' ~:::- - _ .. ' . . .. : - .. : . -.~. ~.~_ . "-:-"f ~- .~.:.:::-; .. --:-:-*=-:-:=:. '::-';.-." :'.-:..:? '"':'

'.~!JL T T;)L: II .31~1··:~· :···-C;T;').·-Em~OR OF F-;r'--" .. _ .. 1'.747(-.. ·~\.IL T I 01_'" R-S'lUf.R::" .• :; ~ fl,

":'" .... : :. "-:.'7:":~ :'~':'-.. ~ ... - -:--:~;.:-:: ..

:~'. - ... - ...... ;_ . . 1:·IA,-",'S t C; OF VA~I""I":=- . .• . ..• .... .

5'.1'1 O~'5nIJI'RcS'- O~ ·-·--·'··fjl.~~·snll.I\:;'~ F'ot\TIO PeTAIU q:::r.~~S5 J O~i~·.~;:;·; :;:.: ... 2~3 ~ (.0 9 :·:·.~·~r -.. 2 3-~:·-::: .:~:~:. ) 2f.; 7:14 :~. ; ::'. -to). 497 ':'.: ..• 00000' Rc.:C;P)!.JAL ._._. ·2.34R.604 7(-'Q---·· .. -. 3.0t;4--- ....... .

. . : -' ". . .. ~~:::: .. ~~~L'~_~~~;~': ~;[.:.' ~r: .. >~ ~~~: ... ' .. T.· ;:;~~ :L :': .. '.:~~ .:.: .~~ . Vd~[49L;:: . C~.::FF t~ IE~IT T;:.~1 n. ~tR~D~T~l.c~·'?~~Q~~t~~:~]~£{· '~~1r~:'~::P (~~=t~ fL' ·~·~n~F.:~_~~C_( }~I

l~JTEPC::PT

Lra H PL

1 , ... ' t.

.• '_ . .,. 3~Aqi'\ ".::-.. :"

'- ~ ... ~j' :.~~i~{~~li:; -~.-.-- .. . '";T-~~~~~.;-q~~~"'-~.~€ .. :-:: ;.~.:~ .-.-.~.-- -:;.~ .. -... ~ .~.-... -.. ~ .:-:-: ~.-.--~~ --:- .=:"'~

.017 _. __ .. , ··-··.~5j····-··· 7.124 --."- .000 -.- ···:9R2411

~~:-. 9~'6 ~~T][i"2~~~;_~ l.~??r- ::-::~~.4. '.97=~:.~~:-~.~ .• ?b_o_.~S~::2:. Q:~i!l.l 0 .. :

40

Tables XVI to XIX summarize the results.

TABIE XVI. SUMMARY OF THE BEST REGRESSIONS­ANNOYANCE-INDEXES-(THE AFFECTED COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH VARIABLE HAVE BEEN OrvITTIED IN ORDER

TO SIMPLIFY THE PRESENTATION).

~Armoyance

Plotee ~~ LA. M.A. rtp.fr .t:~tter inde'x··

for I variable L5 L5

for 2 variables LI + EMER LI + LIO

•

After analysis· LI+L5+LIO+L50+L9~ of the 9 vanables LI + EMI:R +ENER+nPL+LognPL

/48

"

I

I I I ~

!

'.

TABLE XVI. BETIER REGRESSIONS WITH ONE VARIABLE FOR 'IRE INDIVIDUAL ANNOYANCE AND THE rv:ODEFATE ANNOYANCE.

rOQ ::t.:y SUgSfT SEL~::TED YY YOIJQ rRITEoIMJ. T...ff P-SOUhPE("I. 'ID fI/5T:'1 P-S'lUlIP:";:>. ~ALl'l~JSI CPt MIl) THr:: vl\OIAQr ~ >,J,'1""~C; AQ~

;):IT'IH''). T'"iF ~E,,:o:-SC;T')'J CO::~FICIFHTC; A~II') T-STt.TJSTJCS II'JE ;);)}"T[' TO Pi':: QI r,~T O~ T"i~ VAPI.\QU': NA'.I,::S.

'AA~IY '1T .. Eo S'HC:;f""C; ll,\V ALSO ;::IF P~DI)~TEI) TI-I;\T APF IlnT ,ccn~PA~I~D AY p:-~oEC;SIO~ CO~FFICI~NTS ~MD T-STATIC:;TICS. -~O'':E (I:" TH:S:: C:;U=15:-T5 MA Y ~:: QUIT':: (;(')nn III THOlJ;,H TH;:Y hP~

\lOT '1::,:~SSt.0TLY =J':TT::P T-iA'J t,·JY C;t1gS~T THAT HAC:; 1JOT P.EfN ::lp,I1JT:/.

~.oo StJ~SETS wJTH 1 VARrA~LES •••• I\OJ.lSTr"J .... ---:, ---~-- -.-~- ... -

R- S:;'Ul\::>!:O r?-Sr.llJAPEJ . CP ~.. . Indi vidual. ' Arinbyance - - -- - - .----- --= ----- - -

.~gqOQS • (}:;I69"'O .OR L5 - -._. -'---"-- .. __ ..... - --------------. .

.077202 .O7!>O!'1 17.63 LlO

.075325 .{174121 lQ.42 LEO .- --- - - -- -- ~---- -_ .. __ .. _--- .. _- .......... ... .. ..

.07:;023 • i73F.}Q 19.68 El-IEP --=- ~ _-::--__ .. _ ..... ,,_4 _ .... __ ..

• 073370 .O7~}~4 21.CR Ll

• :14:;914 .;'44f-,7~ 44.41 L9!>'- - ----- --------- .-- .

• 044"70 .!>43';25 45.~O LS3

.')34Q99 .('33743 53.6~ LOG:..)PL

.:133:)35 .(132"'77 54.58 NPL

- __ .• • . __ -=-: __ ~.'_' ____ :- ""11 ~-=-.slJ~S:TS ~II TH ... __ 1 - VAR r ARLF S _ltD If I! Ai)J:JST~J .. -. .. -=-- .--,. .•• ••

R-S:llltl=?::O P.-SO:J/lPEJ Cpo __ ~-=_=_ Mod~ra~e--Annoyance -_.. .. - _ .. _= ---"'': - .....

• ::)(1=><.,111 - .9:?Q:;?& 2446;:.90 L5 . -=-- .:""~-- -=.-=-=:.~-.- --:- ': .. - - --:. - :-_-- :--::-: ---.731190 .71?'i3? 94877 .24. L 1 1)=..., .. -=-_-. -. --=.~ .. _- --- - ---.-- - -_. --.-- - . • 7"37~5 .70~4DS 1'3521.51 LEO_: :;_-=:.:=_ -:" ____ ~== :'~~~' .. =:. -- _-:':: ---:.-- -----:---.703('G7 .70?~2~ 1~3592.75 ;;:'~EO-.:~- .. .".. ~-=------ - -:-- -.S::)7162 .6?6~~3 1~771~.31 L 1 -~-=--=-=--.: __ -.-=-=--:- - '.-_--- =-.

• 43}';)53 .43r5?2 2~3101.01 .L90.y- -.;=-;:~-.::--=---- - -: :=.-=--"

·~1!t.q44 .4}4 n R? ?)q~8~.42 L5t1

.33<"::)63 .316}~O ~3~9~~.~? LO~NPL-

.130ft'll .329?A:;I ?3~360.Q7 NDL ..

41

TABLE XVII. BE'ITER REGRESSIONS WITH 2 VARIABLES FOR THE INDIVIDUAL ANNOYANCE AND THE lVDDERA'IE ANNOYANCE.

---:. ---- -- ------~.,--=-=--_-:-_-;-- ...... - SlJqSE'TS wITH-----2 VARIA~LE5---- - - A~J:JSTr) - -=-=--:. -- =..-;; --; - -- --.:.- --:.. -- -, - ---

R- r;:>J 6.~::D - Q- C;O JA PE;> --:.----=-=- CP--:-;;--- - --- -Indi viduab P.nnoyance __ _ .. .. - .. -- .-- .. --.:.. - -_ .... ~- - --- .... -= -- ----

.* ... -::..------

----- .. :. ~ = --.103051-:.-----.1 (,07?? =--==-=--2.14- VA~I r.BLE -- - - -COEFFI elENT- - T-STATTSTI C- --=--:~-:::--

- ------ --------- ----- ------5 Ll--- ------ - -.11622R - --...: 4.90------~= ----_------=-=;=: - -=:-11- P1ER=::-:----~ _ - 2.A3777 --'--:'---5~04 _-;;--- -- -:--- - _~..o- = - --- INTERCEPT - - -3. 5i,7/:,B - - -.::--:-.:--=-

------;-i O?064 - .1 ? ~5~~----::-- :2~ ;~:- ;~~;:~~~t-------lOE;~~~-I~~; ~ -~ -~~-:;t ST! C --=:=::~-= ---- ------:: ---:--=--=:-===--=.=... --:- 3 -L C" ()---.=-=-:. -:-:--- ~-=-:::.~ (\ Q 4 1 ~ 1 1 - -=--= -c; • 03 ---.=-o:-:::--=--

-- - - --=--- - ---= 5 L 1 - --------- - ---.115673 --- - - -4. A6 - -----=-=-=.::.-::. ---- - - --- ----------------.--,.-- J·.JTER"-PT---- -7 7A1fl1 .---- --------:.--~:.-_ .. _ ..:::"'-= -____ ~~_::.-_-__ : ===_-=_=-==_._l __ .. __ v .. ~- _~ __ :~::=-~-;::~ ___ .. ____ i-.:: -=_-__ -- .. ==--:~~-=~-~ ___ _ :--;102752---- ; 1 00413 -.=-=- -1-;87:- VAR IABL::----: COEF"I=" I CJEI.rr-T-ST A TIST! C ---:-~­

-, - - .; 5 Ll - ---- - .=----- .112600 --' - 4.67' .=--= ::.-=--=--_.l - -=:-- -- -' - --~-:. .i":.-:; .---.. "'- -.;.::;--_-~::.J J ~~~~~E-PT - :=~_o -~-: ~ :~~~~~ .. -:.-: --~:~=5 _-!}~ -::<:::-- == :.:=-_

-'-~---~- - --,,- .---:=~--:-- -- -"=---:-;==-==-":::-=?-:-=---"-=--=-~=:--"''=.--=--::=.: =::~:-~:.-:.~~~~~== ~~-=;:--~-~.:.=:...~-=i-'f.-

--~-. ------ ---------.- . -------- --- - --

---:l-~~~:- - -~-~b?:;-~-=-- ---=-=). 76-VAq-I4R~t-=--- ·=C~-E~~Jci-E~J;--~-~S;;;T~ST-iC::~:::::--_. -:: - .=-_ -:. -:=..--..::-·-_-:.--:----15'1.:1 =-,--:--;;:---:-_.-: -.15n593 -----6.96- -_-=-~_-_

--::----.-. - .- -.- -- Q LC}{l .---- ---- .C~4742" - s.on ---=---= --_- =.:~: ____ ;=~:--:--___ . -~_~->_=;: -_- I:-JTERC::~~:.2-~ -:_ :~.-.:2.(,~~Q-C;=-=;- ~-,-:--_.: ---_~= :..--:=-~~.1 0?~01--_-~-1 ~o 2& L-=-- --1.74·- VARJ ARL::-- - =-- COEFF' J C I EN! T -5T .H! 5T! c~-=-----: -.: - !' L1 -- - ~] t;2344 - -- 7.06 ----:: - -

- -:.- -;,::=-77-=- -_=: -''-':::'-::::--. B LC;(I-- - - =_- - -.Q623476-: .. --=- 5.00 --=--:=-=-:_-.---:'-- =- -, . - ------- INT~RC::?T -.-. '--~.?~271 ---=:-::.:---

. --.-=--~~------ = --=;.~-- -:;.- :=-:.~--:- .... - --- ---'"' . - - -;:.--=:=-----.--~- --000:--: __ ~=.;"

.- 0101177 • .~9~~33 -.53 LDGNOL EI-1Eo -~-.- .. -=. -- .. _ ... - - - ---- --- --.:~-:.-

.100450 .09Qlt'5 .OR LEO LOG~PL -=- -----=-::-:;::--=--- --==.;::..=-- -;- :-- -:---- - .:~- ~ ----. ':' ~ -- -- --;..:--.:.--- :--- - -.-:~:

.099003 .006f)5!t . 1.31 Lc; LOGNPL --

~:~;~;~-;--;- ~:~~6-~ 1; - ~==- ; :5~-~ N~-L-:-=~ ~~ ~.= :'~-'--. ----. ~- --'-:~- :.. --~--- -~=-;~- - :...-.-: --:-~ O~~q~~~-- --~·O;~-s~---~=-::-~-~~~--~C5 7;:;;_~~=~-~ -;~E~ -~- ~-:'::--::-. --- -~-::~~~:.-:- -~:':.:-::~--:;--:'-

::=:-:_:-_- ,u'.* SlI~SETS ~JTTH 2 VARJARLES *~o.

ADJUSTE-) --;;: - :-­R- SDJA.RE)·--- --:-

- ~ .. :--:.--: - -- _ .. - -Q-S'JU~PED - CP -=-_. MJderate Annoyance - -

---:--::-=:-- --- :---~- --=------ -':,- -.- .. -.--.-~-- :---- -'":.":"-:'"': : --::---- -_ ... '":" ---.~75?06 - .Q7614~~ 7765.16 Ll LlO

.=13:):>47 .939~8~ 21r.13.11 LS LOGMPL

.=137452 .9172Q~ 21551.19 ~PL LS ... ":; r: ."'=::-:- ..... 7=.:' .. -- ---~--- ------::;::- -----= -===---.~: --.. - -=--.= .. .:.

.~34.q29 .93475~ 2~561.22 L1 .. LS

.~34139 .933Q67 22844.3, LS .. ':ME:::' -- -----_ ... _-- - --- - .. _---_ ... - -- ---- -------. ---------- ---

.~33479 -- .• 9~33(\:; - 2308,_99 --LfQ ---- -: LS .-- ---~ --=.- -- --

.~32930

.~3:>4gS

42

.93275~ ~3277.58 LS ~ -- --~ - - - - _... .. ~~ -~ .. ~ -;---- ~

.91?3~~ 2~437.?7 L5

Le;o

uo

~

"'

I -I . •

TABLE XVIII. BE'I'l.C"R FEGRESSIONS AFIER ANALYSIS OF ALL THE COMPARISONS WITH 9 VJl.RIABISS) FOR THE INDIVIDUAL AND f'10DERATE ANNOYANCE.

~Tt.TIST!CS r~R '~EST" SL.I::lSET -----. -::.-~ Jndiviuuar. -AJ).noyance-- ---=--~---~: ----A4LL~vlC;1 C:l - -2.14 . ---- - --. ~!hIA=<El) IoiULiIPLE C~K~ELATIOW ·-·-.1t)31jF,--::--:=-:::-=:-~--_~--:"'-==- -_-.---::=-: _-:_ ~-~-~ ~ULTIPL~ COQ~~Lf.T10~! .32101 - -.--=- .-.-- -~.-- -----------.--.---.-. .n.fUSED SI)I)l\R::n 4UL T. C")QR. .10072 .--.• -_ .. -::-: - ::-~-;:~- . -:---=--::-::.-. -.--~ :--"7-'ESJ)1JAL ME:A"J C;OLlAoE 1.0404~6· -- . -- -.- . --. .:.. .---.- ••• --.--

~~~~~*~~ T ~~ROq _ (\~_ ~.S ~~- ~ =-~-= 1 ~ 7:~~~~ .:=~ .~.= -= ... :. '£:3J.:: -; .~.-~.~-.:~~ ~:--~i-~~~ _:~~. '-:--.-;.~.~,-::-IU"E~r\ T:1~ ')EC;P::ES OF' F"::)I::::::Wv -·------·c·----·--:---::-~~- -=-=---~.-.:.-.. ----:- -::;.-=-~ '£"lO Io1 I\l'TQ:l ")E';R:ES OF' F'=?EE01)"'1 "-. 7~7 ..:- ----.:..:--.=-::.:=-- . ..:... .----- - - •. :...- ~--==-..:...-- .. -=--~IG~HF'IC'A"ICE -.- -::.-::~: -- _:--.-:':--;0000-- _. --. _;: - -.--- .. :~-_..:. - -.: .. .-.... : . -- --- -------- - -- - - -- - - - - ---- -. - - -- ----- -- -- ------- -._--- -_.-----~~~~ :~~-~-~~-~-=~~~~~=~= ---- ~---=--~-~ ~ =~= ~~-:-=;=-..:~;.--~ -- ---- ---- -----.. -~ IIA~II\~LE"-··· :?EG~ESSI0"-: - -- STANnll,PO-·STANf1. -.-- T--2TAIL-·::-:-TOt:;;· CONTRIR,

:O~--'JOt.1E - CO~~qCE'I)T ERRO~ COEF".·· STAT.·- 51\,; - EPANCE TO R-SO' -==----- -- ------. -----------_._----- ----- --I~-T~:-CEoT -- :'·-;'3.5 r'7t,Q -.. 1.44%3 - -1.9~R -r. 4 ';) -. -;()16-' ----.. -'---~.-;..-....:..-

""5'""[·1·-----... _ - .:.. -.-- • 1162:2R .- - - -.0217169----·. 1 ~H~ ---'4. QI) -:-.-. C 1)0 - -;AO~46(j - - - - • o· 11 .~ •• :::>. ...:.- .---.. 2 .. ~9777 ····.5711 at) - .192 5. (,4-. 000' .~. A06460 .- .. - -.-;(1'

._--------.-. ----:-:----...... :. ... - ... - ... -... - - - - .

·~~-CD"T~y;:3IJTION"T(I :(-SQUAR::O Ff"\~ EACH ·VA~rABLr--IS "THE" A"IOUNT-·--:-..:· _. :.---.-- .::--' Iy w.nc,", R-S'lllfRt"D w'U!..1) ~E PfI)UC"ED }F" THAT VAr1JAHlF. .·}fPE ---------.--"'---.=-­)['-1~"EJ ~RO" T..fE pr:r;~::sSIOrJ ~(jUATIorJ. --.-- ----.- .---=-~-~ --. ---.. --..: --.-= .-':':"."7_

TtnSTlCS F'(\i~ I ~EST' SU,S~T .-~-=- ~:; .. ~.-. - -~~oderate ArmoY8nce--~.-- .-... ~ ...

'~LLO.]:;I Co -.- ..•.. --. -.--::--7 • .;1:>---.-~---.----::-=----=:--;-·-:;:-::--=----=-:.7"'-Qll"~::J l\ULTIPLE cn~~ELATlO'J .QQ7R~· -- : --.... - .

'ULTIPL£ C:)QPELATI(lN·.- --... --.Q9fj Q 4..,.. . ......".·=-.-=-:-:::.--·----=:-::-.-: ---:-.-.---.---.~-:::-- --: ---= O.lI)C\T:-!) S1UARE"D MULL C .... :(R. .Q97Sf1 -'-:.-.. ::.:. - .'- ':' .. '.. . -'E:;11UAL I\~ Ar~ SQ'JA::>E .• -_-::-:--:-- • (l007';1-;::---=-==--:-=- -.----.. == --= •. _--. - .• --_---:---:--- --.. H'!JA=?I) E;';l~OP 0- EST. . - .027621 ""-::. ... ; .. -~ .-:._- .. --=_. _. . .~~~~~ ~~~ I gEr.O~ES tiF F'P~::o)O'; - .4~ ?-.~.~.~~~~:;~--:::.-.---:~.;.--~~~ .:~-~::;L . ~~=.~ ~--:~ : .. ~~=::::: ~ .. _---: ~~~;~ ~ ~l~~E n~:;.p.E~ 5

_ ~~.:~~~·~~~~~-i~ ;o~~~:=~':-==-7:: ·.::t.:-.: -=:i=-~.- :::.::;:::. ::;-~:.:~-;-:~. ~_ ~ .:= .. ;'¥ ?:=.:::"!f . --_ ..... _- .. - ---~ ... -- .:~ -. ~ ~.::=-=_~d ;;.-;;=::-~ ~:-;:~-~-~-:-: .. - .--.;.--~.--::~~~.~~~ .. ~.- -. ~~ ~ -.-.-'

v~:?r~8-CE--:-- -;r-;;-Q~SSI~~"-- STANOAQO o--STlINn~ -.;: -T- -2T~(I~ ---~~ ·TQ~:-~·CO~TQI~~ D. - 'J .... ·oIE-- - COEFFIcr::\IT;. _ .. _~_.~~~::":'E~~9;.;~~C~~~.~~~.~~AT~'~ __ ~:~.:-~.-~~~~~~E~_T~ ~-_S.QL

~ tHERCEPT -- .- -3.57295·- --=-::--·.07 i·S915-=-5. 986 .-l\6. 05 -- • o(la ===--- .-::--."::-~'-:-:-:: -,. ~I?ll .'\122~35 - .'}00563 Q 21-=":··-.206 ?l.bj:!· .(100-' ·.01n15 ." .-- .• f)(

3 L1· -. - .. -.---- .11~n51 -- .Q022';96.q-=-=-.6~3·- 6(\.rn-· .• oOQ -.-.022134. --:,--- .0) (, LS .... -:. -.r.~7R4Q4- . - .00261943 :.-= -.61'; -·H.~;'·-· .oeo· '::.Ol023Q--· - .OC 7 1.'10- -:: -.-.~::.--·.1264!l5:-·-.:-=·.,)C244134=--~.952--51.78---.GCO:---.010287:-!.~ -.1)( 8 LSO .' ..• '1414917- -. ~0311)234 ': ._- .3SC; 13.12' .,)00 - .• 0031311 ." - .or 9 L90 . - --.C:)53B5-·-::-: .00332209·-_--.7 Q 6. -29.CH-= .COO·;- -.003702::-- -- .or

10 LOGNPL -.167374 .0192738 ·-:"-.10Q _-R.C,~- .0(,0-- .n17715 - .'1( 11 £l1~R --.- -. ·--=-·3. r: 93 B - -:'-. --. 056636C -::::-:-.=. 63:t· - 54.63-_- • 0 :)O·~-. 020722-. -= - .0 r

- --_ .. --:. -: --;..==-=--,..:. ~-:.:.~ .. ~=--= - ..:---------------- ---- --~:--.: .... _ .. - - ----.--- -_.. ----.--------- . -

~~ :~~T~I~UTJn~ Tn ~-S~JhQ~n rOQ EArH VAQT4BL~ IS T~~ AUOU~T Y v!-lI:"" Q-c;~ur.~:D ooI")IILI) 3E: PEDUCED IF T~AT· \/AoTI\RLE ~1~1--E ---" -. ---- -:-''')1./:;:,,) r"Qr)" T""F. o:-r;~=-SSII)IJ r-QtJt.TIO'J. ----

43

,~

"

~

I

! .

V. Discussion - Conclusion

The results of the responses to psychological armoyance as a function of the various experirrental situations are as follows:

- the expressed armoyance is in one statistically significant aspect influenced by the Leq level as well as by the frequency of passages of H.V., but there is no interaction between these 2 variables.

- the subjects do not rrake a distinction between the expressed noise and the expressed armoyance.

- the estirrated armoyance in an experirrental situation is compared with the acoustical situation of their own apartment by the subjects.

- the imagined annoyance in the person's apartment at night and just before going to bed follows a development parallel with the psychological annoyance in an experimental situation, but each time is displaced to a higher level.

- the estirration of the armoyance due to the number of H.V. is specifically identified by the subjects, contrary to the estimation of the annoyance due to background noise, which is not independent of the frequency of passage of the n.V.

- the predictive value of the acoustical Leq index on the level of expressed annoyance could be improved considerably by using a composite index (including the number of H.V. and the Leq), of the general form, G = Leq a + nHVS + cte, or ITDre precisely:

G = 0.12 Leo + O. 027 nHV ..• 2. 36 G = 0.12 LeQ + 0.75 Log nHV - 2.82.

- a better composite index of the expressed annoyance could be for

the individual armoyance IA = aLl + SEMER + cte the moderate armoyance MA = aLl + SLIO + cte.

Yet, let us ncte that the predict: .. 'If:; advantage of these 2 new indexes is not significan-cly different from the index of type G = Leq a + nHVS + cte.

- the graphic analysis of the development of the moderate armoyance as a functio~ of the n~ber of H.V. and the Leq level has shown that:

. 1:he expressed armoyance increases sharply from 3 to 5 H.V. ITDre slig."-1tly fro:;. 5 to 30 H. V. for the Leq of 50 and 55 dB(A) ,

• the expressed armoyance increases sharply from 3 to 5 H.V. is satura-ced from 5 'Co 30 H.V. for a Leq of 60 dB(A).

44

and then /53

and then-

"f

· \ ..

,~

...

I'

...

" ;>0

We think that the "weight" of the influence of the number of H. V., in fact, depends not on the Leq level but on the difference in level between the peak H.V. levels and the background noise level; more precisely, an Leq of 50 dB(A) represents a rroderate difference of 24 dB(A), an Leq of 55 dB(A) a Iwderate difference of 18 dB(A), an Leq of 60 dB(A) a rroderate difference of 12 dE(A).

The schematic curve of development of the annoyance is represented in Fig. 17 .

Note de sene 1

1 :;:;;.,-

·6 ~ Lcq 60 dB(

__ --------------. A) r _____ Leq 50' Leq 55 dB(A) ~ aB(A)

5

!j

3

=- 2 J , i Nombre de P.L./30 mn

3 5 15 30

1 -- annoyance; 2 -- number of H.V./30 min .

Fig. 17. Schematic development of the annoyance as a function of the Leq and of the number of H.V.

This curve of the development of the annoyance approaches the logarithmic relat~onship found by Rasmussen, but it does not seem to confirm the inverted-U relationship proposed by Rylander.

The analysis of their studies leads to the following observations:

As in the experimmt of Rylander, it appears difficult to understand certain parts of the annoyance curve; the percentage of annoyance for 3 H.V./45 minis 5C~, \\'ith 4 H.v./45 min it climbs roughly to 62%, but, in contrast, with 6 ::.V./45 min it descends again to 50%. Rylander notes a very great divers~ty in the answers of the subjects about annoyance for each H.V. density. ~4

Moreover, he shc'.':s that if the relationship annoyance-number of H. V. seems to draw a c'.l:'ve, in contrast, when we test the same with the x2 test, we do not find a s~gn~ficant difference with a straight line.

Finally, let us r.ote that this interpretation of the results would be rrore in agreement \\'~:h the data of the test done by Rylander [6J himself; starting from a st~d.\· done in two Swedish cities, Stockholm and Visby, he has shown that the le\'e2 ('1"' psychological annoyance increased progressively from 1 to 1200 H.V./24 ~, :0 then stabilize at a fixed level of 1200 to 3000 H.V./ 24 h (Fig. 18); i~ 2~~eared here to be a phenomenon of saturation but not of redescent of the a"''::1\..'yance.

45

, \ ..

~ ,~

;>

•

'" ,'"

"$ •• fl . ....... , .. 20

,oco JOCO 2000 ..... , .. ""I·Y21.11 e

Fig. 18. Relationship between the annoyance and the number of H.V. for sites exposed to peak levels of around 80 dB(A).

The major criticism of the Rasmussen experiment comes from the relationship of the number of H.V. with the annoyance, which does not prove the specific effect of the number of events in any way, since the Leq level increases with the number of H. V. In short, to summarize these two experiments, we note that, if Rylander has established a relationship between the annoyance and the number of H.V., we do not have any certainty whether this relationship is in a curve or in a straight line; on the other hand, if Rasmussen seems to have established a straight-line relationship annoyance­number of H.V., nothing prevents us from thinking that there could just as well be a relationship annoyance-Leq level.

Thus, the irrportance of our study consists of having isolated an experimental area where the variations of the Leq level and the frequency of H.V. are independent of each other and in showing in th~se conditions that /55 the Leq and the number of H. V. each have an effect on the psychological -annoyance. More precisely, we hold that:

- for peak sound level emergences of H.V. < 12 dB(A), in relation to ground traffic noise (situations where the Leq ~ 60 dB(A)), it seems that the number of vehicles has only a slight effect on the annoyance and the Leq level suffices as .a predictive index of the annoyance.

- for peak sound level emergences of H.V. > 16 dB(A), in relation to background noise (situations where the Leq levels are 50 and 55 dB(A)), the annoyance develops proportionately to the number of H.V. and in this case a composite acoustical index combining the Leq level and the number of H.V. is a better predictor of the annoyance.

VI. Prospects for Future Research

Our study opens the door to a series of studies on the corrposite indexes which in certain specific situations of traffic noise could be more predictive of the expressed annoyance than the Leq index alone.

To be more exact, if our results have been established for weak and moderate noise levels (Leq from 50 to 60 dB(A)), in order to draw more general conclusions it appears to be necessary to extend this experiment to noise levels higher than Leq 65, 70 and 75 dB(A).

46

~ '.,

..

~

'" ~

<J

It

· ,\ ;'

In the case where our first results were confirmed, research on the better composite indexes, predictors of the annoyance, must be conducted for certain conditions of traffic noise and, in particular, for traffic at night (where the Leq does not seem to be an entirely satisfactory predictor).

47

.,

'.,

"

I

J

." .. ,

" ~

"

~

. " •

REFERENCES 6 6

1. Labiale, G., Influence du nombre de v~hicules et de l'~rrergence des ~ve~ements sonores sur la g~ne [Influence of the number of vehicles and of the emergence of sound events on annoyance], Methodological note, 25 p., Bibliographical study, 52 p.

2. Langdon, F. L., "Noise nuisance caused by road traffic in residential areas," Part I, Sound Vibr.47 (2), 243-263 (1976); Part II, Sound Vibr. 47 (2), 265-282 (1976); Part III, Spund Vibr. 49 (2), 241-256.

3. J'1ync!<:e, H. and A. Cops, "Etude du bruit de la circulation dans les villes et de la g~ne qui en r~sulte pour la population" [Study of traffic noise in the cities and of the resulting annoyance for the population], Report of the K. U. Lenwers laboratory of acoustics and of thermal conductivity, Vol. 13, 74 p.

4 .. Yeowart, N. S., D. J. Wilcox, and A. Vl. Rossal, "Corrmunity reactions to noise from freely flowing traffic, motorway traffic and congested traffic flow," Sound Vibr. 53 (1), 127-147 (1977).

5. Brown, A. L., "Traffic noise annoyance along urban roadways," Report on a survey in Brisbane, Sydney and rllelbourne, ARRB International Report air 206-6, Australian research board, December 1978, 137 p.

6. Rylander, S., S. Sorensen, and A. Kap 1 and , "Traffic noise exposure and annoyance reaction," Sound Vibr. 47 (2), 237-242 (1976) .

7. Rylander, R., M. Bjorkman, and U. Ahrlin, "Tra.rTMay noise in city traffic," Sound Vibr. 51 (3), 353-358 (1977).

8. Roumegoux, J. P., and M. Vallet, "~ne due au bruit des autobus - Niveaux sonores dans les rues emprunt~es par des autobus en circulation en FRANCE," [Annoyance due to bus noise - Sound levels in streets used by buses in France], Interim report I.R.T.-CERNE, April 1977, T.I., 95 p.

9.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

48

Rylander, R., L. Sj5btedt, and M. Njorkman, "Laboratory studies on traffic noise annoyance," Sound Vibr. 52 (3), 415-421 (1977).

Rasmussen, K. B. "Annoyance from simulated road traffic noise," Sound Vibr. 65 (2), 203-214 (1979). --

Vallet, M., M. Maurin, M. A. Page, B. Favre, and G. Pachiaudi, "Annoyance from and habituation to road traffic noise from urban expressways," Sound Vibr. 60 (3), 423-440 (1978).

Aubree, D., Auzou, S., and J. M. Rapin, "Etude de la @~ne due au trafic automobiles urbain" [Study of the annoyance due to urban autorrobile traffic], C.S.T.B., 1979.

Lambert, J., and F. Simonnet, "Comportement dans 1 'habitat soumis au bruit de circulation" [Conduct in residential areas subjected to traffic nOise], IRT Report 47, 1980, 145 p.

End of Document