TABLE 4 Circumstances Favoring Alternate Methods of Predicting the Prevalence of Impulse-Noise-Induced Annoyance in Communities

Circumstances and Knowledge of Noise Exposure

Recommended Prediction Method

No measurements or other information available about range or variance of distribution of impulsive sound levels (as when CSEL values of individual impulses are not captured or preserved, or cannot be reliably or cost-effectively recovered)

No alternative to reliance on equal energy hypothesis; base predictions on Method 1 (using CDNL as a predictor variable)

Small range/little variability in distribution of impulsive sound levels (as from a single, nearly constant source of impulse noise little affected by long-range propagation)

Equal-energy hypothesis is adequate; predictions may be based on Method 1; predictions made by Method 2 (based on CIDNL) may not differ greatly

Detailed knowledge of individual impulsive noise event levels, and/or large variability (σ ≥ 5 dB) in distribution of impulsive sound levels (as from multiple or complex impulsive noise sources, or from impulses greatly affected by long-range propagation)

Predictions preferably based on Method 2; predictions may differ considerably from those based on CDNL, depending on absolute levels and variance of CSEL values

Highly variable noise environment containing a mixture of impulsive and nonimpulsive sounds; measurements or other information available about levels of individual impulsive noise events

Predictions preferably based on Method 2; predictions may differ considerably from those of Method 1, depending on absolute levels and variance of CSEL values

Method 2 (level-dependent summation): The prevalence of a consequential degree of annoyance due to high-energy impulsive noise exposure may alternately be predicted by cumulating CSELs of individual impulsive sounds in a manner consistent with the annoyance weighting identified in Chapter 3, in the section on the level-dependent summation approach.

  1. Community response to sonic booms can be assessed using either of the above two procedures. Method 2 is preferable for assessment of community response to explosive noises from artillery or mining noise, especially when more detailed information is available about the distribution of CSEL values of individual high-energy noise events.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement