THE INFLUENCE OF BACKGROUND NOISE LEVEL AND SIGNAL DURATION

ON THE JUDGED ANNOYANCE OF AIRCRAFT NOISE

by
G. W. Johnston and A. A. Haasz
L Q ~
August, 1978 UTIAS Report No. 228
CN ISSN 0082-5255
THE INFLUENCE OF BACKGROUND NOISE LEVEL AND SIGNAL DURATION
ON THE JUDGED ANNOYANCE OF AIRCRAFr NOISE
by
G. W. Johnston and A. A. Haasz
Submitted Mareh, 1978
August, 1978 UTIAS Report No. 228
CN ISSN 0082-5255
t
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank W. G. Richarz for his help in the preparation of
the nQise tapes. Also, we wish to express our appreciation to the jury members
whose consciencious efforts have yielded the results presented in this paper.
This research was supported by the Ministry of Transport, Canada.
ii
r---- -------- - ---
Summary
The effects of traffic background noise on the judged noisiness of
aircraft flyover events has been further examined in the present study. A
series of 72 flyover events were assessed by a jury of 35 observers, during
12 separate listening sessions conducted in a controlled test area designed
to simulate typical indoor listening conditions . Each aircraft signal was
superimposed on a controlled random traffic background signal having a dur a-
tion exceeding that of the aircraft event.
The primary conclusions reached in this .investigation show that the
presence of a steady mean traffic background noise can reduce the perceiVed
noisiness of aircraft flyover events, provided that the judgment time avilable
is su:fficiently greater than the . event time (time in excess of background). For
a given pea.k. event level, a reduction in associated background noise of 21 <IDA
is shown to be equivalent subjectively to an increase of 5.5 <IDA in peak. event
level, with fixed background conditions. Best linear data regressions were
found using an index of the form Lo + keLp - Lo), where Lp and Lo are the peak.
signal and mean background levels, respectively. Although the regressions
obtained with the noise pollution index, LNP' for single event judgments
generally showed a lower correlation than the Lo and (Lp - Lo) regression
variables the score data did show a number of significant trends which are
also associated with the LNP index variations camputed for single noise
events.
iii
CONrENrS
Acknowledgements
ii
Sunn:na.ry iii
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
2 . PROCEDURES AND MEn'HODS 3
2.1 Design and Preparation of Noise Tapes 3
2.2 Digitization of Tapes and Index Ca1culations 4
2.3 Preparation of Sound Reproduction System and Jury Listening
Roam 5
2.4 Jury Selection and Judgement Procedures 5
3. RESULTS ANI) DISCUSSION 6
4.
5
3.1 Single Regressions - Single Events
3.2 Double Regression - Single Events
3.3 Statistica1 Analyses
3.4 Session Results and Analyses
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
TABLES
FIGURES
APPENDIX A - INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY MEMBERS
iv
6
7
9
12
13
15
1 . INTRODUCTION MD BACKGROUND
The present methods of rating the communi ty response to aircraft
flyover events and airportnoise levels in gener.al do not explicitly include
the effeds of the community background noise that co-exists with the aircraft
noise signals. The inherent as sumpti on , amply valid during the time frame
prior to late 1960's, was that the aircraft noise events of most concern
dominated the existing background levels by a minimum of 10 dB so that the
total noise annoyance could be determined from the aircraft signals alone.
At sufficient distance from the airport site, this .condition was no longer
fulfilled; however, in these locations the noise problems were also less
severe than nearer to the airport so that the complications introduced by the
background were largely ignored. Beginning ih the middle and late 1960's
aircraft noise suppression activity proceeded with a considerably accelerated
pace. A much improved understanding of the main noise sources together wi th
some improved end products resulted. Continuing into the seventies this
acti vity has permitted a ,second generation of quieted aircraft to be presently
considered with rather remarkable noise red.uctions now feasible. Simultaneously,
new community noise sources have emerged principally due to high speed ground
transportation modes.
The current problem of determining the contribution of aircraft noise
signals to the total community noise response is therefore characterized by
rather substantially differing conditions than those existing at the time when
the C.N.R., N.E.F., N.N.I., etc., indices (see Ref. 7) were first introduced.
In particular the aircraft signal to background noise levels are expeded to
be lower and potentially substantially lower than they were originallY. Thus
level differences as low as 10 ~ 15 dB are feasible at ground locations close
to and at the perimeter of the airport site. Under these condi tions the role
of the background noise must be included in any accurate assessment of' ~ h e
community noise impact due to aircraft opera ti ons .
It is interesting to note that the original C.N.R. index proposed .
in 1953 by Rosenblith and stevens (Ref. 2) for the U.S.A.F. included explicitly
a correction for the background noise. In the development anel evolution of
this index to its present N.E.F. form (on the North American continent) the
explicit background corrections have been dropped (lost) and background con-
siderations are only vaguely and implicitly built into the land use tables
associated withthe N.E.F. index. The first controlled background testing
appears to have been carried out by Pearson (Ref. 3) in 1966. Pearson con-
cluded that the addition of background noise reduced the perceived noisiness
of aircraft flyover by about 5 dB when the aircraft noise and the background
noise were of equal intensity. However, the standard deviation of the results
achieved were of the same order as the effect detected so that Pearson' s
results remained inconclusive. In a later study by Nagel, Parnel and Parry
(Ref. 4), a much greater influence due to background noise was measured. The
data of Ref. 4 indicate a reduction of' about 30 dB for conditions where the
aircraft signal and the background noise level are equal and where both signals
have similar spectral distributions. Finally, the studies of Powell and Rice
(Ref. 5) in 1975 confirmed the earlier quantitative results of Pearson for
randomtraffic noise backgrounds, with individual aircraft flyover events.
Powell and Rice also showed limi ted agreement wi th Robinson' s noise pollution
concepts and his LNP index (Refs. 6, 7, 8) for both the individual noise event
judgments and also a more extended noise exposure occupying approximately 1:2
minutes duration (9 successive events).
1
In addition to these experiment al s'tudies the ex'tensive activi'ties
and proposals by D. W. Robinson with respect to the noise pollution index,
LNP, must be noted (see Refs. 7, 8). The LNP index is completely general in
terms of the types of noise that may be quantita'tively assessed either
separately or concurrently. The role of the background noise may be there-
fore explici tly defined in'terms of 'the index for any number and 'type of
aircraft even'ts. The price of 'this information is the requirement for the
provision of at least an approximation to the ac'tual sound level time his'tory
for 'the noise event or events including the associa'ted background levels.
In view of this background,the sUbjec'tive testing set out in the
present study had the fOllowing main objec'tives:
(i) To define the separate effects of the mean background level and the
signal duration (and any interaction between the two) on the judged
noisiness of single event flyover aircraft events presented in a
traffic (highway) noise background.
(ii) To carry out a quantitative laboratory examination of Robinson' s Noise
Pollution Index for a series of aircraft flyover events superimposed
on a sui'table traffic (highway) noise background having a total 'time
duration of approximately 10 minutes each and covering a practical
range of indoor energy equivalent levels and level (time) deviations.
" The first of the above objec'tives .stems from 'the observation that if the
noise pollution concepts of Robinson are borne out then the signal duration
"time (or more properly ratio of the signal duration to 'the total judgement
time) will centribute to the LNP value and the associated judged noisiness of
the event. Moreover the earlier studies of both Pearson and also Powell and
Rice did not consider this separate variable. In both cases the value of this
ratio (i.e., signal duration divided by to'tal judgement time) although" un-
specified, appears to be fairly close to unity, while in cases of practical
interest this ratio is expec"ted to be very much lower indeed.
The second of the above objec'tives was 'to be achieved by a series
of indoor jury listening tests of the type used by both Pearson (originally)
and by Powell and Rice, but wi'th 'the fOllowing changes:
(i) The jury would be loca'ted in a controlled non-anechoic test area more
closely simulating actual indoor aircraft noise exposure situations.
(ii) The judged aircraft noise events would cover a broader range of indoor
energy equivalent levels and deviations than those used by Powell
and Rice, thus extending 'the range of variation of 'the LNP index more
significantly.
(iii) Traffic noise backgrounds including a larger standard deviation in
levels (typical of medium to intense 'traffic noise environments) would
be utilized.
2
2 PROCEDURES AND MErHODS
2.1 Design and Preparatiori of Noise Tapes
A series of 12 noise tapes were produced for the 1istening tests,
each consisting of a constant mean level traffic background nOise, having a
standard deviation of' levels of 4.0 dBA, with six separate1y recorded aircraf't
f1yover events superimposed The duration of each tape or session (To) used
was 660 seconds, and rthe period associated wi th each aircraft flyover event
(t
o
) was 110 seconds. The total f1yover event time is composed partia1ly of
a period during which the aircraft noise level exceeds the mean background
level (T) and partially of a period without aircraf't signa1 (to-T).
Four mean levels of traffic background noise were selected and
combined with six aircraf't event signals of constant duration and appropriate
level to yie1d a constant Leq va1ue over the entire session, 660 seconds.
Three constant va1ues of Leq (session) and associated aircraft signal duration
were generated in this fashion at levels of 66, 70 and 76 dBA to complete the
definition of the 12 tape set. The selection of the appropriate aircraft
event levels at a given background level (Lo) to yield a constant session Leq
was aided by a simp1e computer program based on a triangular level variation
in time f'or each aircraft noise event. An idea1izd tape design is sketched
be10w with all random level f1uctuations suppressed for simplicity.
Level
Lo
I
I
I I
t- '[ ---+f
1 I
'-'[-1
3 I
I--
t
ol
-I- to
2
.. t- to
3
t-
Ti/toi = constant = 0.20; 0.40; 0.80;
I '[ I
r- 4
I I
-I
t
04
-r-
T
0
t
oi
= 110 sec;
t
0
5
I ,
'[-,
, 6 , time
...
T
o
= 6t 0 = 660 sec.
The nominal peak aircraf't signal levels usedto develop the 12 session noise
tapes covering four levels of mean background noise (Lo) and 3 levels of signal
duration above background (T) are gi ven in the fol10wing tab1e.
3
'-' .'. '
Session Leq and Leq - 66 L - 70 Leq -
76
Signal Duration T = 22 sec T
sec
T = 88 sec
Mean Background
Noise Level
L = 44
66
71 76 66
71 76 91 71 76
0 81 86 86 81 86 91 81 86 91
L
51
66
71 76 66 71 76 86 71 76
=
81 86 81 81 86 86 81 86 0
91
.
L 58
66
71 76 66 71 76 81 71 76
=
81 86 81 86 81 81 86 0 71 91
L = 65
66 71 76 66 71 76 76 71 76
0 81 86 66 81 86 76 81 86 91
The final jury session tapes were prepared by electrically combining
and re-recording preselected field recordings . of suitable aircraft overflight
and traffic background noise events. The final tape recordings were then made
by passing the signal through a 3 dBjoctave attenuating filter to simulate
the expected building transmission loss in the important subjective frequency
range, for typical indoor listening conditions. The field recorded aircraft
overflight signals were obtained at several locations adj acent to the Toronto
International Airport. A number of commercial transport aircraft types were
field recorded including a variety of take-off, approach, holding and en route
flight conditions. Appropriate selections were then made for inclusion in
the final jury tapes. The traffic background noise tapes were also derived
from a series of field measurements taken adjacent to multi-lane, limited
access intercity highway routes. A variety of trucks, buses and al tomobile
signals were thus included in the final traffic signals.
2.2 Digitization of Tapes and Index Calculations
Analogue copies of the final jury tapes were obtained to permit
digital calculation of the necessary signal characteristics implicit to the
appropriate noise indices. The digitization of the frequency weight test '
signal was accomplished by passing the output from the tape recorder (NAGRA)
through a preamplifier unit (XlO gain), through a log voltmeterjconverter
(Hewlett Packard) and then to the AD converter; see bloek diagram below.
NAGRA
Recorder
4
) I 1---....
The analogue signal was sampled by the digitizer at a rate of 1000 samples
per second, corresponding to 500 samples pr second in real time frame .
Thus each complete noise session having a duratin of 660 seconds was
sampled 330,000 times during digitization. in qrder to correctly simulate
the response characteristics of the ear, in the digitization, the frequency
response of the log voltmeter converter was adjusted. The 50 Hz frequency
range setting of the logging unit used (see Fig. 10) was found to be suitable.
The input voltage range of the digitizer used was +1.0/-1.0 volts
which corresponds to a digitized output in the range 0-4,095. Since the
output of the logging unit is constrained to the range 0 to +1.0 volts a
resolution of 0.5 mV, corresponding to 0.05 dB, was obtained in the final
digi tized signal. This data was again tape-recorded for input to sui table
computer routines to develop the necessary sign,al calcuiations. The main
digital calculations involved the evalua'tion of energy equivalent level (L
eq
)
and standard deviation in levels (0'-) for the indi vidual aircraft flyover
events (duration 110 seconds) and for the complete session (six events, 660
seconds).
2.3 Preparation of Sound Reproduction System and Jury Listening Room
A lounge area at the Institute was prepared for the jury evaluations.
Four high quality speaker units capahle of good audio performance in the range
100 Hz-lO,OOO Hz were carefully located at fixed locations in this area. The
speaker locations were chosen so as to provide as uniform a sound pressure
level at the listening positions . as possible. Two of the room walls were
covered by drapes and the floor was carpeted, the remaining room surfaces
were relatively (acoustically) hard. The resulting room reverberation was
therefore low and careful measurements with the listening tapes played through
the final speaker configuration confirmed that variations in the A weighted
signal at all juror posi tions did not exceed 1.5 dB. Jurors were instructed
to utilize the same seat location during all test sessions. The noise isolation
in the listening area was adjusted so that the inherent maximum background level,
without speaker input, was 32 dBA. This level is more than 10 dB below the
mean level of any artificial (traffic) background noise used with the jury
tapes.
2.4 Jury Selection and Judgement Procedures
Five separate groups of seven observers each were separately
selected and used to evaluate all of the 12 prepared noi se tapes. Three of
the groups were composed of graduate students at the Institute, one group was
selected from the staff at the Institute and the final group comprised under-
graduate senior engineering students from the University of Toronto, st. George
Campus. Each juror selected was given an audiometric check prior to the
listening sessions; all jurors were shown to have audiologically normal hearing.
Since the majority of the observers had no previous experience in
judging noise signals of this type, a preliminary learning test sequence was
utilized for allobservers. During the learning sessions the observers were
exposed to typical flyover noise signals as weIl as the extreme noise
conditions inherent in the prepared tapes. The learning sessions also
acquainted the observers with the types of judgements required, the general
character of the noise events and the degree of concentration required. Each
group of observers a'ttended three separate meetings each having a duration of
5
about 90 minutes. The first meeting was devoted to the learning test
sequence; the last two meetings comprised the "live" evaluations and these
eaCh included the evaluation of six noise sessions, with ten minute breaks
scheduled aft er' the second and fourth sessions.
The task of the jurors was to rate, ,on a numerical scale fram 1
to 9 inclusive, their subjective assessment of thei:r "annoyance" reaction
(more precisely their subjective impression of the "perceived noisiness",
as defined by Kryter, Ref. 9) to the aircraft noise signals presented. Jury
ratings were carried out with three different evaluations, as follows:
Part A
Part B
Part C
Each individual aircraft flyover event was judged as it appeared
in the traffic background noise, on a numerical scale from 1 to
9
Each group of six aircraft events (one session) was judged as
they appeared in the traffic background noise also on a numerical
scale fram 1 to 9.
Each group of six aircraft events (one session) and the associated
background noise, as a single extended duration event, was judged
on a scale fram 1 to 9.
Appendix A is a copy af the "Instructions to Jury Members" prepared
for these evaluations. This outlines additional testing details and includes
as well the suggested criteria to be used ,in the assessments of the
noise signals based on the work of Kryter, Ref. 9.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Single Regressions - Single Events
For each of the three signal durations (T) used, four conditions
of background intensity level (L
o
) were tested. Slight variations were
encountered in the test background intensity conditions, at the differing
signal durations; however, by averaging the subjective response of all
observers at all values of Lo, for a given signal duration, the actual test
scores were corrected to the following standard mean background conditions
for all signal durations.
Lo
= 47.5 dBA
Lo
= 54.5 dBA
Lo
= 61.5 dBA
Lo
= 68.5 dBA
The corrected stibjective scores for each session, averaged over all 35
observers for the standardized background levels, are plotted in Figs. l(a),
l(b), l(c) for the signal durations T = 22, 44 and 88 respectively. All
aircraft flyover event signals were presented with a preceding and succeeding
background signal at mean level Lo such that the total judgement time available
6
was 110 seconds. , Thus the ratios of signal duration time to total judgement
time are 0.20, 0.40 and 0.80 for the three aircraft signal durations used.
In addition,a single regression of the mean subjective score on the peak
value of the aircraft signal level has been obtained for each signal duration
and each standardized background level. The regression lines obtained are
included in these same figures together with the values of the associated
correlation coefficients. It is noted that the correlation coefficients
obtained for these single regressions are generally high, but with a consis-
tent trend of a ' reducing correlation with an increasing signal duration.
Thus the ave rage correlation coefficient at T = 22 is 0.98 dropping to 0.95
at T = 44 and 0.93 at T = 88. This general tendency towards a greater
scatter in observer response data with increasing T values was gene rally and
repeatedly encountered in the statistical analysis f test data.
It is noted that for the first two duration values used, T =22
and T ~ 44, the regression lines obtained are ordered progressively with
increasing Lo values such that at a given peak level the averaged subjective
response is always reduced with increasing background levels. At the longest
duration used, T = 88,however, this ordering of the regression lines is not
observed, and in fa ct there is indication of a possible reversal such that
for a given peak aircraft noise level the averaged score now tends to rise
with increasing baCkground levels. The statistical significance of indicated
trends with background level as shown in these figures is discussed below.
3.2 Double Regression - Single Events
It is of considerable interest to determine a suitable index which
incorporates the effects of the background noise and duration effects directly,
and which is itself highly correlated with the subjective response. The noise
pollution index LNP proposed by Robinson (Ref. 7) is one possibly attractive
choice. The LNP index combines the two parameters Leq and cr, for a time
dependent noise pulse, with t
and
= 10 loglO
o
J 10L(t)/10dt
o
t
o
LNP ~ L + 2.56 cr
eq
(1)
(2)
(4 )
with L(t) = arbitrary noise time history defined by level variation with
time, including appropriate frequency weighting,
7
t = time interval during which the signal is evaluated (judged)
o
For a .simple sloping ramp noise as sketched below, the LNP index
can be readily expressed in terms of the pulse characteristics. For the
sketched pulse the LNP index is,
with
Level
{
X + 2x' _ (x. 2+ x' ) ' 2 Jl/2
+ 25.6y -
2- = x 1)
t -'
o
T'
t = x'
o

-...
t.L
.1.
I

'(

Lo
t
0 . -1 j
&
y =-
10
Lp
time
(5)
Values of (LNP - Lo) as functions of the time variable, x, for fixed values
of y (ISL/10) are drawn in Fig. 2 . for the fixed pulse shapes gi ven by T' / T = 0
(triangular); 0.3; 0.6; and 1.0 (square). Values of (LNP - Lp) as functions
of the pulse height variab1e, y, for fixed values of x for the same pulse
shapes are plotted in Fig. 3.
It is seen that for cases where the pulses are not too sharp so
that x' x, and x is small but not too small, .x must be such that x 10-y
(x' 1'::$ x),. then we may write the approximations:
( 6)
(7)
so that
( 8)
for fixed x = T/to with kl = (1 + 2.56 xl/2) and k2 = 10 10glOX. Since
for the cases of interest in this study the effects ofk2 would be expected
to be smal1, relatively, it appears that a simple double regression of the
stibjective scores (averaged over observers) using variables & = (Lp - Lo)
and Lo would throw light on the sui tabili ty of the proposed LNP index.
8
These regression lines are shown in Figs. 4a, 4b and 4c where the averaged .
subject scores, for fixed signal durations of T = 22, 44 and 88 sec,are plotted
against the approximate LNP index Lo + keLp - Lo). (Since all test signals have
been presented for judg.ement with equal total durations (t
o
), constant T values
are taken to imply constant x values as well.) The correlations obtained were
encouragingly high with R values of 0.983, 0.948 and 0.935 for T = 22, 44 and 88
seconds respectively. The dependence on given by the regression lines is,
however, considerably reduced from that given by the approximate LNP, Eq. (8)
above, through the kl coefficient. In fact the kl coefficient obtained for the
T = 88 tests is slightly less than "Unity (0.92) and kl values less than unity do
not appear to follow from any simple approximation for LNP, appropriate to the
present test signals.
To further examine the applicability of the noise pollution level index
in relation to the present score results, the single event data was also processed
using regression variables Leq and cr. The 1eq and cr values were calculated from
the digi tized data obtained from the test session noise tapes. The level fluctua-
tions used to calculate 1eq and cr thus contain the variations associated with
the (random) background traffic noise superimposed on the aircraft signal level
variations. These regressions, shown in Figs. 5a, 5b, 5c, exhibit uniformly
lower correlations than the regression using the simpler 10 and tiL variables,
wi th the redudions being of the order of 10%.
Ignoring the slight dependence of the approximate 1NP relation, (Eq.
(8) on the signal duration variable x, a doUble regression of the subjective
scores for all durati ons, T = 22, 44 and 88 seconds, was again obtained using
variables 10 and &.. This data is plotted in Fig. 6, and i t is seen that a high
correlation is still achieved including all test duration data (R = 0.941). Re-
gression of the srume test data (covering all T values and all 10 values) against
the 1NP variables Le and cr is shown in Fig. 7. Again a rather significant
reduction in correla%ion is noted with these independent variables (1
eq
and 'cr)
wi th respect to the simpler 10 and variables .
3.3 Statistical Analyses
It is of interest to determine whether the trends of the data, with
treatment effects due to background noise (1
0
) and signal duration (T) can be
considered statistically significant considering the sample size and the
inherent variability due to individual juror effects. In the present
ments each juror evaluated six aircraft flyover events, under four differing
conditions of background levels and three differing signal durations. For each
individual observer a single score (corresponding to a hypothetical aircraft
event having a peak magnitude of 82 dBA) and a single slope were obtained. The
single observer score, at 1p = 82 dBA was obtained by a least square fit of the
six point test data for the same ob server . The individual slope score was also
obtained fram the srume least square fitting. These two dependent scores, af ter
correction for small deviations from the standardized background levels =
47.5, L02 = 54.5, 103 = 61.5 and Lo4 = 68.5) were then used to examine the
ficance of trends due to treatments 10 (background level) and T (signal duration) .
First the overall effects of 10 and T and the interaction effects between these
was explored, based on a randamized block factorial design. Table 1 shows the
35 corrected single scores obtained by the individual observers for 12 treatment
combinations of background level and signal duration. The analysis of variances
is then carried out (see Ref. 10) by first completing the 1
0
, + summary table
9
(TabIe II) and then determining the sum of' squares partitioning and the M-S
and FOBS values in Table lIl. Based on the tabulated F values (see Ref'. 10)
at the 0.05 level of signif'icance it is seen that the FOBS values exceed the
f'ormer f'or both the background level treatment (Lo) and the interaction of'
Lo and T ef'f'ects, but not f'or duration (T) treatment ef'f'ects separately.
Since the interaction eff'ects are signif'icant a more detailed analysis of'
simple main ef'f'ects is indicated. Thus the sum of' squares f'or d.eviations
due to background noise ef'f'ects and signal duration ef'f'ects and their
interactions are f'urther subdivided in Table rv. Here the partitioned sums
of' squares f'or the background noise ef'f'ects (at each level of' signal dura-
tion) and the sums of squares f'or the signal duration ef'f'ects (at each level
of' background noise) are given together with the appropriate degrees of'
f'reedom, the MS values, and the calculated FOBS ratios. Based again on the
tabulated F values, Ref. 10, at the 0.05 level of' signif'icance the f'ollowing
conclusions are reached:
(i) The inf'luence of the background noise on the stibjective scores has
statistical significance, at the 0.05 level, at signal duration values
(T) of' 22 and 44 seconds. The inf'luence of' background noise at T = 88
seconds is not statistically signif'icant, at the 0.05 level, based on
present test data.
(ii) The inf'luence of the signal duration (T) is statistically signif'icant
at the lowest and highest background levels investigated but not at
the middle background levels.
As a corollary to these findings it is noted that the trend analysis and
regres sion data already presented show that the ef'f'ects of' background level
at signal durations of T = 22 and T = 44 seconds are such that increasing
background levels yields a reduced subjective response (regression cof'f'i-
cient of' Lo negative). At T = 88, however, the regression coef'f'icient
associated with Lo changes sign and becomes positive (but small) (see
equations of' Fig. 4). The statistical analysis now conf'irms that the small
positive trend with Lo is not statistically signif'icant (at the 0.05 level)
based on existing test data.
In connection with the ef'f'ects of' signal duration T, which are
statistically signif'icant at Lo = 47.5 and Lo = 68.5, it is noted that
these background conditions correspond to conditions of' large ~ signals
and small ~ signals respecti vely, on the noise tapes evaluated by the
jurors. (Figure 8 shows the distribution of' ~ = (Lp-L
o
) values used on
the jury noise tapes for the lowest background, Lo = 47.5 dBA, and f'or the
highest background, Lo = 68.5 dBA, and f'or all f'our backgrounds.) The
stibjective score trends with signal duration at Lo = 47.5 (Table II, Column 1)
can now be compared with the variations of' LNP (f'or any of' the pulse shapes)
plotted in Fig. 2 associated with the duration variable x f'or large y ( ~ )
values, y ~ 1.5 and greater. It is seen that in both cases the dep ende nt
variable passes through a maximum near the middle range values of' the
duration variable. However, when ~ is reduced (y < 1 approximately),
corresponding to the Lo = 68.5 data, the averaged subjective score data
(Table II, Column 4) shows a statistically signif'icant monotonic increase
.with T (f'ixed Lo). The same variation is noted f'or the LNP variation with
x at f'ixed y values, see Fig. 2, f'or values of' y < 1 (approximately). The
variation of' the averaged stibjective score with sIgnal duration at constant
background levels of' 54.5 dB and 61.5 dB, see Table II, Columns 2 and 3,
also shows a relati vely flat maximum, near the middle range of' the signal
10
duration range covered. However, these smaller variations with signal duration,
are not statistically significant, see Table IV. It thus follows that same of
the important trends implicit to the LNP index, for single noise events, are
faithfully reproduced by the significant subjective score results obtained from
the present jury testing.
The individual slope scores have been processed similarly, with
individual slope scores given in Table V, the T, Lo slope sunma.ry data given
in Table VI, and analysis of slope variances given in Table VII. It is seen
that the interaction effects are again significant at the 0.05 level so that
analysis of simple main effects at specific treatment levels is again required.
This main effects analysis is carried out in Table VIII. It is seen that the
variation of the s ~ o p e scores with signal duration (at fixed background levels)
is significant only at the highest background level condition employed, Lo = 68.5
dBA. Similarly, the slope score variations due to background level variations
(at fixed signal durations) is not statistically significant at a signal dur a-
tion of T = 22, is marginally significant at a duration of T = 44, and is clearly
significant at the longest duration of T = 88 seconds.
On the basis of the test data summarized in the statistical tables i t
is straightforward to calculate the change in peak signal level required to
evoke equal subjective response when the aircraft is heard without background
(minimum) and when it is heard with an arbitrary mean background level. Assuming
that the data obtained with the minimum background level used (47.5 dBA) is a
conservative estimate of the response to be expected without background, the
increase in peak signal level for equal stibjective response which is due to the
background, is plotted in Fig. 9. The ordinates in this figure are obtained from
the averaged score data, and the averaged slope data in Tables II and VI respec-
tively. Thus, typically, for a mean background level shift above the minimum of
21 dBA (maximum available herein, fram 47.5 dBA to 68.5 dBA) and T = 22, we
obtain:
Change in peak ,signal l e v ~ l
for equal stibjective response
for 61,0 = 21 dBA, T = 22
[ Row I, Column 135 Row I, Column IV J Table II
}=-----
[
Row I, Column V ] Table VI
35 x 4
= ( 204.6 - 167.3 ) ( 35 x 4 ) '
35 32.173
= 4.7 dBA
Repeating the above calculations for T = 44 seconds an effective signal level change
of 5.5 dBA is obtained for a background level increase af 21 dBA. Additional values
of the ,signal level changes associated with reduced mean background level changes
(for T = 22 and T = 44 seconds) are plotted in Fig. 9. The data plotted in Fig. 9
are in good agreement with earlier ,similar results reported in Refs. 3 and 5; however,
considerable discrepancy is noted with the data reported in Ref. 4. The present
testing appears to most closely match the procedures and results of Powell and Rice
(Ref. 5). In the work of Powell and Rice the role of the test signal duration
was not explicitly examined, a single test signal duration value of about 60
seconds being apparently utilized. In the present testing the total time
11
allowed f'or each aircraf't mEnt, to, was held f'ixed at 110 seconds, so th at the
ratio of' signal time to judgement time, T/t
o
' was 0.20, 0.40 and 0.80 f'or the
three signal durations studied. In the work of' Powell and Rice it appears that
this ratio (T/t
O
) was ab out 0.70 and their results, quantitatively, show good
agr.e.ement wi th the present data (as to the signal level changes to be expected
f'or equal annoyance) f'or T/to = 0.20 and 0.40 only. At T = 88 seconds (and
T/to = 0.80) the present data show no statistically signif'icant trend with
background level at all. In the limiting case T = to, the role of' the back-
ground noise is altered and the trend indicated by the present results (at
T = 88 seconds) appears valid. However, the cases of' practical interest are
expected to lie near the other limit with T/to probably conf'ined to the range
o :s T/tO :s 0.25.
3.4 Session Results and Analyses
Trend analyses carried out with the subjective scores recorded f'or
complete session exposure (Parts B and C of' the "Jury Instructions") using
several sets of' regres sion variables produced disappointingly weak correla-
tions. Correlations obtained were consistently lower than those with the
subjective scores recorded f'or the single event judgements. Trend analysis
results were also inf'erior to those obtained in earlier jury assessments of'
extended duration random noise traf'f'ic signals (Ref's. 11 and 12), carried out
at the Institute. In the earlier studies the noise signals had durations of'
approximately 20 minutes, exceeding the present session times (10 minutes) by
a f'actor of' two. An apparently signif'icant dif'f'erence in the two noise judge-
ment studies, in addi tion to their signal durations, is that .in the present
noise judgement study, the jurors were required to f'irst evaluate individual
sections of' the complete session bef'ore attempting to judge the complete session
as a single noise event. This f'irst evaluation task appears to have had a marked
and deteriorating inf'luence on the second task of' evaluating the entire session
as a single entity. In the earlier study, ho wever , the jurors were required to
carry out a single overall judgement of' the complete noise session. This sim-
plif'ied judgement task appears to permit a noticeably improved score consistency
and the def'inition of' appropriate and significant trends. It is hypothesized
that in the process of' correctly evaluating each of' the f'lyover noise events,
indi vidually, the observer is f'orced to "clear his memory" of' all earlier noise
events. Each event must be seen as a f'resh judgement task with minimum carry-
over f'rom the previous event. If' this "clearing" process is a necessary one
f'or valid single event judgements (or even only partly so), it f'ollows that it
may well be prohibitively dif'f'icult to simultaneously assess both the individual
sections of' a longer duration noise signal and the complete signal as a single
entity during one single exposure.
In the present series of' session judgem.ents, the best session corre-
lations were obtained using an averaged score f'rom results of' Part A (single
event judgement) together with regression variables Leq and CT, evaluated f'or
the complete session. The averaged score used was obtained as the arithmetic
average of' all six single event scores obtained by the same juror in the given
session. Regression of' this derived session score with Leq and session variables
showed a correlation of' 0.75 over all 12 test sessions.
The session correlations achieved and the session trend identif'iable
with the present session results are noted to be signif'icantly weaker than those
reported in Ref'. 5 by Powell and Rice. In th at ref'erence, an extremely high
12
correlation is reported (correlation index of 0.99) utilizing the same derived
session score (an averaged event score) and the LNP index (LNP = Leq + Krr)
calculated for the complete session. In order to identify possibly significant
differences in these two nominally similar test series, the range of test
signal conditions used in both test series is summarized below.
Reference 5
{Powell & Present Tests
L
eq'
dBA (max) 53 '.2 80.0
L
eq'
dBA (nn) 52.2 71.7
cr, dBA (max) 10.2
123
cr, dBA (min) 4.4 4.7
Duration (min) 12.0 10.0
In attempting to campare (and possibly extend) the session results of these
separate tests, the following factors must be carefully considered:
(i) While the range of standard deviations used and total duration of the
test sessions are seen to be very comparable, the Leg range . covered
by the testing of Powell and Rice is quite restricted. (This limitation
has already been clearly identified by the authors.)
(ii) The present testing has been conducted in a less
reverberant, but probably more realistic listening environment than the
tests of Powell and Rice.
(iii) In both tests, results with the actual Subjective scores for the complete
sessions, as a single noise event, were disappointing, leading to weakly
defined or insignificant trends. (This has led to the use of derived
session scores with much improved correlations resulting.) The explana-
tion advanced by Powell and Rice was that jurors were not forewarned of
the requirement for an overall session judgement at the out set . Since
this condition does not apply to the present test series, we are forced
to offer the "memory clearance" concept associated with individual event
judgements, described above, as a more probable explanation of the diffi-
culties experienced in both test series wi th sessional evaluations.
4 . CONCLUSIONS
The effects of traffic background noise on the judged noisiness ' of
aircraft noise events has been further examined in the present study. The
aircraft noise events had varying durations and peak levels. The primary
conclusions reached on the basis of this investigation are as follows:
(i) The presence of a steady traffic background noise reduces the perceived
noisiness of aircraft flyover noise events provided the durations of the
events above the background level is short enough in relation to the total
judgement period available. When the duration of the aircraft event
increases, to occupy most of the judgement period available, this
favourable influence of the steady background noise is no longer retained.
13
(ii) If aircraft f1yover events are judged together with a substantial1y
10nger duration traffic background noise having a mean level equal to
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(Vi)
the peak indoor aircraft level, the subjective response to the f1yover
noise is equivalent to th at obta.i.ned without background noise (background
noise suppressed 21 dBA or more, re1ative to the signal peak) and a peak
aircraft level whicl1 is 5---6 dBA lower (at least). This conclusion is
restricted to conditions where the peak aircraft level (indoor) and the
associated mean background level lie in the approximate range:
45 < L (dBA) _< 68
- p
45< Lo (dBA) ::; 68
as determined by range of background conditions used in the present tests.
At peak aircraft event levels (indoors) above 68-70 dBA the influence of
the mean background level can be at least as great as that indicated in
(ii) above. (Thus an increase in background level of 21 dBA is still
equivalent subjective1y to a decrease in peak level of 'approximately
5-6 dBA.) In fact, for these higher peak event levels the interaction
of the baCkground noise is probably even larger since larger (Lp-L
o
)
values (in excess of the 21 dBA used herein) are then quite realistic and
there is no indication that higher mean background levels than those used
in the present testing (maximum 68 dBA) will not extend the favourable
trends already measured.
Subjective responses obtained for single aircraft events (averaged over
35 jurors) with differing background levels and event durations did not
correlate nearly as strongly with Leq and cr (as implicit to Robinson' s
LNP index) as wi th the simpler Lp and Lo variables .
The best regression of the single event subjective response data over
all signal durations and mean background levels studied was obtained
using regression variables ~ ~ Lp - Lo, and Lo in the form Lo + 1.10
(Lu-L
o
)' 'Covering 12 test sessions (72 aircraft signals), and including
data for 35 observers in each session, a correlation coefficient of
R = 0.941 was obtained using the above index. Higher correlations were
noted using the same index form: {L
o
+ keLp - Lo)} for the short er signal
duration response data, individually.
Corre1ations obtained using the complete session ' response data (approxi-
mate1y 10 minutes duration) were always ,found to be significantly lower
than those obtained using the individual aircraft event response data
(approximately 1.5 minutes duration). The best session correlation
achieved using regression variables Leq and cr showd a maximum value af
R ; 0.747. This was achieved using a derived session response btained
by averaging all the single event scores for a given session. The
difficulties experienced in identifying significant trends for the
longer session exposures is tentatively ascribed, in part, to the
test procedure utilized.
(vii) Although the regressions obtained with the noise p o ~ ~ t i o n index, LNP'
for the single event judgements generally showed a lower correlation
14
......... -----------------------------------------------------,
5.
1-
2.
3
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9
10.
11.
12.
than the simpler N.., and LO variables , the score data did show a nuniber of'
signif'icant trends which are also associated with the LNP index variations
f'0f single noise events. Thus, at low background values where generally
high values of' ~ = Lp - Lo were used in the test sessions, increasing
signal durations f'irst produce an increasing subjective score and f'inally
at large durations a decreasing subjective score. This same f'eature is
noted in the computed variation of' the LNP index at large val.ues of' /5L
f'or a general trapezoidal shaped noise event superimposed on a longer
duration steady background level. Addi tional.ly, at the highest value of'
background used in the testing and the associated lower val.ues of' /5L,
increasing signal. duration al.ways produced an increasing subjective score.
This f'eature is again evident in the computed variation of' the LNP index,
at low ~ values, f'or a general trapezoidal shaped noise event superimposed
on a longer duration steady background level.
REFERENCES
Robinson, D. W.
Rosenblith, W. A.
stevens, K. N.
Pearson, K. s.
Nagel, D. G.
Parnell, J. E.
Parry, H. J.
Powe11 , C. A.
Rice, C. G.
Robinson, D. w.
Robinson, D. W.
Robinson, D. W.
Kryter, K. D.
Kirk, R. E.
Johnston, G. W.
Carothers, R. G.
Johnston, G. W.
Carothers, R. G.
"An Outline Guide to Criteria f'or Limi tation of'
Urban Noise". NPL ARC CP 1112, 1970.
BBN Handbook of' Noise Control, II. "Noise and
Man", Report WADC TR-52-204, 1953.
"The Ef'f'ects of' Duration and Background Noise
Level on Perceived Noisiness". FM Technical
Report ADS-78 (AD 646 025), 1966.
"The Ef'f'ects of' Background Noise Upon Percei ved
Noisiness". FM Technical Report os-67-22,
1967.
"Judgements of' Aircraf't Noise in a Traf'f'ic Noise
Background". Journal. of' Sound and Vibration,
Vol. 38(1), 1975.
"The Concept of' Noise Pollution Level". NPL
Aero Report AC 38, 1969.
"A New Basis f'or Aircraf'tNoise Rating". NPL
Aero Report AC 49, 1971.
"Towards a Unif'ied System of' Noise Assessment".
Journal of' Sound and Vibration, Vol. 14, 1971.
"The Ef'f'ects of' Noise on Man". Academie Press,
New York, 1970.
"Experimental Design Procedures f'or the Behavioral
Sciences 11 Brooks and Co1e, 1968.
"Annoyance Measurements Related to Urban Traf'f'ic
Noise Exposure 11 Research Report 13, 1973, Univ.
of' Toronto/York Univ. Joint Program in Transportation.
"Urban Traf'f'ic Noise Annoyance Measurements and
Derived Indices". Research Report 24, 1974. Univ.
of' Toronto/York Univ. Joint Program in Transportation.
15

r,
7;L
L 1i L
,
,..-; ,
Loq..:'
f f 2
LOl Loa
LC3 Lt.P4 Lel Lo:l. Lo/l
lOl
jk
S1k
( jkSjk)j jk
88l.. 8 3._
22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 44.J 44.U 44. 44.U 88.0 .IJ b.U tib.Ll
47.5 54.5 61.5 68.5 47.5 54.5 61.5 68.5 47.5 54.5 61.5 68.5
4.61 4.80 5.11 4.21 6.74 6.89 4.82 2.30 5.96 6.32 5.94 5.79 63.4-8
335.81
5.21 5.01 4.31 5.83 5.84 5.90 4.99 5.37 5 -33 6.48 4.61 4.48 63.37 334.63
6.25 4.81 4.73 4.11 6.81 5.61 6.68 5.93 5.94 5.45 5.03 5.52 66.87 372.63


H
6.56 5.69 6.89 5.11 6.94 6.82 5.51 3.54 7.50 7.43 5.45 4.83 72.27 435.24
6.78 5.69 6.48 5.59 7.35 6.73 6.08 4.85 6.83 6.17 5.61 5.13 73.29 447.59
6.76 6.14 6.82 5.68 7.49 6.14 5.76 4.76 6.52 6.78 6.11 5.24 74.18 458.55
5.88 5.35 6.15 5.83 6.7(,. 5.67 5.50 4.51 6.62 5.92 4.61 4.18 66.97 373.72
5.97 5.30 4.98 3.20 6.54 5.79 5.32 4.53 5.47 5.57 5-11 5.61 63.39 334.82
6
<:..J.
6.48 6.05 4.60 3.11 6.2(" 5.91 5.39 4.83 5.65 4.81 5.11 4.98 63.17 332.55
4.92 5.19 6.31 7.45 5.37 5.87 4.51 5.09 5.49 5.94 5.95 5.48 67.59 3!jO.70
5.80 5.49 5.38 78 5.83 5.03 5.15 4.25 4.15 3.74 4.61 5.49 59.70 296.99

"
5.54 3.97 5.62 4.07 7.43 6.96 4.96 3.47 7.34 7.20 6.61 6.62 69.81 406.10
5.97 5.70 6.01 6.25 7.28 6.23 6.00 5.40 6.32 7.67 6.78 6.58 76 -.19



..
7.03 6.1 7 5.96 5.54 6.51 5.61 6.24 4.64 6.11 5.65 6.11 5.77 71.33 424.00
6.44 6.28 5.31 5.91 7.09 7.17 5.99 6.92 5.86 6.94 6.86 6.39 77.16 496.16
6.50 6.76 5.99 5.54 7.65 6.94 6.32 6.14 5.38 6.53 6.61 6.34 76.71 490.34
4.41 5.49 6.68 4.32 5.64 5.60 5.40 5.94 3.30 4.98 4.77 5.16 61.69 317.16
5.79 5.69 4.78 4.54 5.64 4.78 4.85 4.04 5.19 6.39 4.44 5.55 61.67 316.89
5.92 4.87 4.32 3.83 5.39 4.79 4.54 4.13 4.84 3.92 4.36 5.28 56.20 263.23
I
5.68 5.78 4.22 3.71 5.82 5.76 5.62 4.89 4.58 3.80 5.36 6.20 61.41 314.31
6.69 5.37 5.43 4.17 6.80 5.78 5.23 5.40 4.10 5.95 6.94 7.20 69.05 397.30
6.86 7.33 5.99 8.12 6.80 7.50 7.70 8.63 3.46 4.04 5.61 7.43 79.47 526.30
6.13 6.52 4.98 3.83 5.28 6.69 6.76 6.43 3.19 2.38 6.11 7.45 65.76 360.39
7.10 6.85 6.16 7.45 5.2G 6.23 7.03 8.20 5.86 5.90 6.78 8.30 81.11 548.28
6.99 6.85 5.45 5.78 7.53 6.83 6.81 6.28 5.47 6.EH 6.28 7.22 78.29 510.81
6.20 5.69 6.03 5.30 6.70 5.68 5.23 5.53 5.73 5.74 5.11 4.75 67.70 381.93
6.02 6.19 4.25 2.16 5.77 5.64 5.27 4.67 5.30 5.46 5.28 4.99 60.98 309.92
2.32 3.35 4.09 3.02 2.43 2.21 4.95 5.26 2.92 2.78 3.11 6.00 42.43 15U.02
4.77 4.02 4.19 3.96 4.91 4.31 3.27 4.38 5.99 4.94 5.36 4.67 54.79 250.18
4.72 3.67 3.00 2.41 3.8G 3.34 2.90 2.65 3.41 2.15 2.61 3.68 38.40 122.89
4.69 3.51 3.37 2.78 4.32 3.93 4.12 2.68 3.39 3.42 3.61 3.98 43.81 159.93
6.04 4.81 4.63 4.91 '+.98 5.59 3.99 5.02 4.26 5.61 5.22 60.33 303.30
5.84 4.83 4.89 4.78 5.55 4.75 5.71 3.69 5.78 5.51 6.44 6.26 64.05 341.86
5.88 4.85 4.29 5.11 5.45 4.56 5.32 4.31 5.57 4.38 5-11 5.83 60.66 306.68
5.B6 4.82 5.28 4.93 5.58 5.19 5.96 5.13 5.33 6.53 5.32 64.96 351.4
LOl
7i 204.602
1i.
211.880
7l
18 't. 7 21
601.204
(ELJ
3442.348
:SSfC3
SOURCE
RLOCI<.S
TR01NT
TAU
LO
TAlJLO
RF.S!OUAL
TOTAL
L

L Lr
<54-
188.897 182.674 167.298 7
l
t3.473
197.829 191.461 172.671 773.840
186.727 190.547 198.930 760.927
573.454 ?64.683 538.900
3131.897 3036.824 2765.837
TABLE II - L , T SUMMARY, PEAK SCORE
o
SS DF Mi
278.506 34 8d91
49.837 11 4.5!U
3.318 2 1.6!39
B.861 3 6.287
27.659 6 4.610
253.662 374 0.678
582.005 419
* SIGNIFICANT AT 0.05 LEVEL
TABLE 111 - ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, PEAK SCORE
s.s. ,o.r.
I1.S.
3.318
2 1.65<;;
76)1.
01
11.293
2 5.647
'TlDLoit,.
1.978
2 0.989
7tD L
CJ3 1.333
2 0.667
7wL
o4
16.371 2 80186
SSLO 18.861
3 6.287
.0 ij) r: 20.434 3 6.811
?;.. 22.700 3 7.567
Lo
3.31:l0 3
\
1.127
TAULO 27.659 6 4.610
RES! DlJAL 253.662 374 0.678
* SIGNIFICANr AT 0.05 LEVEL
TABLE IV - ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE STh1PLE MAIN EFFECTS, PEAK SCORE
2.-
(E%.<+
39
l
+8.229
..
4135.784
&
,
1;,6S.
12.077
2.446
9'.269 ..
6.797.
;;85,
2.446
80325"
1.458
0.983

9.269
10.042 f
11
1.661


E;J
<:
t-t
o
c.....
-4

...


ro
o

...
I
r
LOl
22.0
47.5
0.21
0.20
0.15
0.17
0.20
0.23
0.19
0.27
0.26
0.31
0.27
0.19
0.27
0.21
0.21
0.24
0.16
0.28
0.23
0.14
0.22
0.21
0.27
0.14
0.25
0.20
0.22
0.09
.22
0.18
0.21
0.19
0.22
0.19
0.21
r,
Loz. L03
22.0 22.0
54.5 61.5
0.35 0.19
0.24 0.21
0.13 0.12
0.27 0.11
0.26 0.22
0.35 0.27
0.24 0.21
0.35 0.36
0.34 0.33
0.28 0.26
0.17 0.25
0.12 0.25
0.31 0.18
0.22 0.25
0.28 0.26
0.24 0.22
0.18 0.23
0.27 0.34
0.30 0.22
0.28 0.21
0.29 0.23
0.19 0.17
0.26 0.36
0.23 0.17
0.25 0.25
0.27 0.29
0.27 0.23
0.23 0.14
0.25 0.24
0.22 0.28
0.23 0.30
0.13 0.35
0.19 0.:31
0.23 0.35
0.15 0.25
r:.
..
'Lol
L04 Lo-;.. Low
22.0 44.0 44.0 44.0
68.5 47.5 54.5 61.5
0.35 0.11 0.08 0.30
0.25 0.22 0.13 0.26
0.09 0.20 0.16 0.10
0.10 0.15 0.19 0.27
0.46 0.13 0.13 0.22
0.69 0.17 0.33 0.31
0.23 0.16 0.18 0.26
0.32 0.18 0.21 0.34
0.10 0.22 0.25 0.30
0.11 0.30 0.28 0.27
0.12 0.25 0.22 0.21
0.00 0.16 0.21 0.24
0.45 0.18 0.26 0.35
0.33 0.19 0.22 0.22
0.01 0.13 0.18 0.17
0.35 0.11 0.23 0.17
****
0.2G 0.23 0.17
0.33 0.26 0.22 0.27
0.23 0.20 0.15 0.25
0.34 0.20 0.17 0.24
0.26 0.14 0.22 0.30
0-13 0.14 0.18 0-12
0.25 0.33 0.29 0.23
0.11 0.28 0.26 Oell
0.12 0.12 0.31 0.29
0.58 0.18 0.29 0.30
0.23 0.22 0.33 0.32
****
0.16 0.15 Oel5
0.15 0.11 0.20 0.23
0.01 0.24 0.18 0.22
0.12 U.31 0.23 0.33
0.44 0.28 Oel9 0.23
0.12 0.23 0.24 0.20
0.10 0.27 0.26 0.26
0.47 0.22 0.16 0.24
7;L
....
,.
..

L0
4

L02. 03 L0
4
44.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0
68.5 47.5 54.5 61.5 68.5
,. .J.
0.14 0.14 1).rr 0.1)8 0.19 2.26 0.43
0.30 0.31 0.11 0.29 U.40 2.91 0.70
0.20 0.23 0.28 0.16 0.13 1.96 0.32
0.20 0.11 0.14 0.30 0.39 2.40 0.48
0.29 0.18 OelO 0.25 0.34 2.78 0.64
0.17 0.23 0.21 U.24 0.31 3.50 1.02
0.19 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.29 2.50 0.52
0.29 0.26 0.30 0.33 u.35 3.57 1.06
0.24 0.26 0.27 0.33 0.25 3.13 O.al
0.27 0.25 0.21 0.28 U.24 3.05 0.78
****
0.25 0.30 0.22 0.31 2.48 0.51
0.09 0.23 0-16 0.26 u.27 2.18 0.40
0.23 0.25 0.10 0.15 0.31 3.05 0.78
0.25 0.29 0-19 0.21 0.29 2.86 0.68
0.11 0.22 0.09 0.18 0.25 2.10 0.37
0.20 0.21 0.09 0.19 0.22 2.47
0.16 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.24 1.84 0.28 I
0.25 0.23 0.08 0.19 0.19 2.90 0.70
0.24 0.23 0-14 0.10 0.20 2.50 0.52
0.18 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.28 2.75 0.63
0.14 0.29 0.13 u.16 U.20 0.56
0.07 0.15 Od6 0.22 0.14 1.89 0.30
0.24 0.35 0.31 0.16 0.12 3.16 0.83
0.06 0.22 0.23 0.19 0.10 2.10 0.37
0.18 0.26 0.11 0.22 U.26 2.63 0.58
0.29 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.31 3.37 0.95
0.09 0.27 0.28 0.24 u.39 3.07 0.78
0.26 0.17 0.28 0.21 u.38 2.09 0.37
0.14 0.25 0.21 0.31 0.38 2.68 0.60
0.16 0.31 0.27 0.29 U.37 2.72 0.62
0.18 0.32 O.3u 0.26 U.40 3.19 0.85
0.22 0.35 0.37 0.28 0.33 3.38 0.95
0.18 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.30 2.75 0.63
0.19 0.32 0.31 0.21 0.23 2.91 0.71
0.25 0.27 0.26 0.23 0.24 2.96 0.73
z.
Lel
L L
44

(Er%4 o/'
r,
7.406 8.540 8.624 7.603 32.173 7.393
'7f
7.035 7.530 8.494 6.555 29.t;,15
13
8.469 7.093 7.750 9.587 32.899 7.731

22.911 23.162 24.869 23.745
(LL;
4.999 5.109 5.890 5.370

TABLE VI - L 0' T SUMMARY, SLOPE SCORE
SOURCE SS OF MS

.
BLOCKS 0.613 34 0.018 2.965
TREMNT 0.233 11 O.Ofl
TAU 0.043 2 0.021 3.498
*
LO 0.022 3 0.007 1.190
TAULO 0.169 6 0.028 4.628 ..
RESIOUAL 2.273 374 0.006
TOTAL :3 .118 419
* SIGNIFICANT AT 0.05 LEVEL
TABLE VII - ANALYSIS OF V ARIANCE, SLOPE SCORE
SO(,/RCE.
S.S nr: ,M.s.

SSr 0.043 2 0.021 3.498 ...
r. LOl 0.032 2 0.016 2.604
7' ti) L.oz-
0.031 2 0.016 2.590
7tDLo'3
0.013 2 0_006 1.045
7'eL:,4 0.135 2 0.068
.11.144*
SSLO 0.022 3 0.007 1.190
Lofi> r, 0.034 3 0.011 1.855

0.059 3 O.OlO 3.230
Lom '3
0.098 3 0.033 5.361#
TAULO 0.169 6 0.028 4.628*
RESIDUAL 2.273 374 0.006
* SIGNIFICANT AT 0.05 LEVEL
TABLE VIII - ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SIMPLE MAIN EF'FECTS, SLOPE SCORE
90
8D
70
60
5.0
3.0
T 022
BO
b. L. a 47.!5
o L.-M.5
Rl. a41S = Q995
RL 54.S 0995
RL . . ... S = 0.970
R
L

6
I1.S 0972
L 61.5
L. -68.5
90
S.S
95 100
90
T - 044
B.O
7.0
6
5.0
40
30
BO
L.=47.5
RL. '41S 0977
RL.' SU 094B
RL. ... .s = 0931
RL. ' &ell " 0.942
Lp - dB
A
4 L.-47.5
La' 54.11
L 61.5
OL. -68.&
90 95
FiQ. Ha) REGRE5510NS of MEAN SUBJECTIVE SCORES on PEAK SIGNAL
LEVELS (Si;nal Duralion 22 Seconds \ Tit. 020)
FiQ. Hb) REGRESSION of MEAN SUBJECTIVE SCORES on PEAK SIGNAL
LEVELS (SiQnaIDuration ' 44 Second. \ Tit.' 040)
90
ao
70
S,SMEAN
60
5.0
4.0
30
T ' OBB
2.0'L-_+-....L.. __ --'-__ ----''---'-_"''-__ -'-__ --' __ ---'
65
Fi;. I(e) REGRESSIONS of MEAN SUBJECTIVE SCORES on PEAK SIGNAL
LEVELS (Si;nal Duralion ' BB Seeonds \ Til.' OBO)
.J
I
...
z
..J
o
..J
I
CL
z
..J
601-
501-
40'

60
50
40
Lewl

L.I
-Time
L-30
/
20

10
0.6 08
T/t
o
F'I\j. 2(0) NOISE POLLUTION INDEX - TRIANGULAR PULSE
02 04
--- ----
6L-30
-IT'I-


n ...
_-----__ 20
15
5
0.6 08
T/t
o
-
1.0
10
Fig. 2(c) NOISE POLWTION LEVEL-TRAPEZOIDAL PULSE
0
..J
I
I!
..J
60
Ji+1

TiN
40
30
02 04 06 OB
T/t
o
Fig. 2(b) NOISE POWJTlON INDEX - TRAPEZOIDAL PULSE - ,'re" 0.30
o
..J
I
CL
Z
..J
60
50
40
0.2


Q4 0.6
T/to
TIme
0.8
Fig. 2(d) NOISE POLLUTION INDEX- SQUARE PULSE
1.0
10
40
30
1

201-
I I nm.
I
OGO

10
0..
.-I
0..
Z
...J
Ol
0.06
-10
002
-
-20
-30
Fig. 3(0) NOISE POLLUTION INDEX - TRIANGULAR PULSE
]
LaJ
T' -,-

ror
TIm.

10
0
...J

I

0..
Z
...J
-lOl

0.02
-20
Fig. 3(c) NOISE POl.LUT1ON INDEX - TRAPEZOIDAL PULSE, = 0.60
0..
.-I
I
0..
3.00
z
t.L/IO
...J
0-
.-I
I
3.00

t.L/IO
.-I
40
I
I--T'-t __
301-
Lev-I

rt.,
,
20
10
1.00
- 10
-20
-30
Time
300
t.L/IO
002
Fig. 3(b) NOISE POLWTION INDEX-TRAPEZOIDAL PULSE , T/T=0.30
30r- Level,
20
10
-10
-20
-30
----'tI

Fig. 3(d) NOISE POLLUTION INDEX - SQUARE PULSE
002
3.00
t.LlIO
10
8
70
T'22 Sec
t 110 Sec
+
SS--IO.8I+O.I83 {Lo +l25 (Lp-Lol}
RQ983
80 90
Lo+k (Lp-.Lol
Fig. 4(01 SINGLE EVENT REGRESSION
COLLAPSING La EFFECTS
+
10
8
2
10 .
T =44 Sec
t. - 110 Sec
+
8
....
l5
6
~
0
....
(!)
"'
m:: 4
~
+
2
S.S. --9.3O+QI66 {LO t l29 (Lp-LOl}
R-Q948
70
T-88Sec
t 110 Sec
+. + +
~
+
70 80
Fig. 4(bl
S.S ' -15.5 t 0.262 {LO+Q92 (Lp-LOl}
R' Q935
80
90
Lot k (Lp- Lo I
Fig. 4(cl SINGLE EVENT REGRESSIONS
COLLAPSING La EFFECTS
90 100
Lo+k(Lp-Lol
SINGLE EVENT REGRESSIONS
COLLAPSING Lo EFFECTS
100 (dBAl
"
110 (dBAl
10
8
6
4 '
2
+ +
s. s. -9.41 +0148 {Leq +3.80 CT}
R -08n
80 90 100
(Leq+kCT)
110
FiQ. 5(0) SINGLE EVENT REGRESSIONS
COLLAPSING La EFFECTS
10
8
LU
a: 6
0
~
0
LU
~
a: 4
LU
~
60
10
2
120
5.5 . =-7.51+0.135 {Leq.3.17CT}
R=0811
80 90 100
(Leq+ kCT)
110
Fig. 5(b) SINGLE EVENT REGRESSIONS
COLLAPSING La' EFFECTS
T " 88Sec
t. = 110 Sec
+
+
+
S. S. = - 11.03 + 0205 (Leq+ 0.844 CT)
R' Q921
70 80
(L
eq
+ kCT)
++
+
90
FiQ. SIc) SINGLE EVENT REGRESSIONS
COLLAPSING La EFFECTS
+
+
120
(dBAI
10
8
w
6
cr:
8
Cl)
w
(!)
ct
cr:
4
w
~
2
+
S. S = -12.24 + 0.210 { Lo + 1.10 ( Lp - Lo )}
R = 0.941
70 80 90
Lo+ kelp -L
o
)
100
Fig. 6 SINGLE EVENT REGRESSIONS
COLLAPSING Lo end T' EFFECTS
110
(dBA)
10
8
w 6
cr:
0
u
Cl)
0
w
(!)
ct
cr:
4
w
~
2
70
S.S. = - 9.49 +0.169 (Leq + 1.99 cr )
R = 0.787
80 90
(L
eq
+ kcr)
00
Fig. 7 SINGLE EVENT REGRESSIONS
COLLAPS! NG Lo end l' EFFECTS
"
110
(dBA)

0/10
.IDa
0110
o
0lIO
III
10/20 20/30 30/40
(a ) All Background Levels.

10120
2
.L2'ZZl
20/30
o
30140
(b) High Background Level

10/20 20130 30140
(c) LDw Background Level
n
4O/0ver {Lp - La}
o
40i0v"er. {Lp - La}
Km
4O/0ver {Lp-La}
Fig. 8 DISTRIBUTIONS of NOISE EVENT EXCURSIONS ABOVE
MEAN BACKGROUND ( Lp - Lo )



ILIILI
;:
ot:
..Ju
ILIILI
>-'
lLIa:I

."
8.0
..J ....
6.0
zl-'aI

(/)z
o

4.0
Q.u..
z .
-0
z
5 2.0
P:::

P:::u
u

o
T= 22 Sec
5 10 15 20
INCREASE IN BACKGROUND LEVEL. dBA
ABOVE MINIMUM (47.5) dBA
Rg. 9 EFFECT of MEAN BACKGROUND NOISE LEVEL
on PEAK SIGNAL LEVEL for CONSTANT
SUBJECTIVE RESPONSE
* Cf)
0
Z
0
u
lLI
Cf)
I
lLI
:!:
-
.....
(!)
z
~
.....
lLI
Cf)
~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ~
3
1.0
0.6
"
",
al
1.0
/
5 Hz RANGE /
/
/
/ '
/
/
/
/
"
/
....... /
",'"
UP.
/
",'"
,
/
\
",'"
\
/
K
\
/
./
\
/
././
/
\
/
./
I
/
/
50 Hz RANGE
I' * Time Interval to Within
/ 0.5 dB of Final Value
/
3.0 ...... ...,
30
...,
STEP VOLTAGE -llE (dB),(volts)
Fig. 10 STEP TI ME RESPONSE of LOG. CONVERSION UNIT
( H. P. MODEL 7562A)
50
"I
...------- - --------
APPENDJX A
INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY MEMBERS
1. INTRODUCTION
To assist in refining certain postulates implicit to present
of assessing the comunity noise impact of aircraft and airport operations, a
, set of aircraft noise tapes has been prepared. These tapes will be subjectively
assessed by a jury of qualified listeners.
The tapes consist of a series of aircraft flyover noises as heard
indoors, with each flyover noise of variabIe mean level. The task of the jury
is to rate their subjective impression of the "annoyance" reaction to the
presented aircraft signals Two different types of annoyance ratings will be
made:
(i) Each individual aircraft flyover event will be .judged on a numeri cal
scale from l to 9 (Part A).
Each flyover event, including background noise, has equal time duration
(,... 100 sec).
(1i) Each group of six (6) aircraft events will also be judged on a numerical
scale fr om 1 to 9 (Part B) .
Each group or series of (6) events also have equal, but larger, time
duration (,... 10 min).
(iii) Also, at the end of the session, each group of six (6) a1rcraft events
and the associated background noise will be judged on a scale of 1 to 9
(Part c).
2. RATING OF NOISE EVEN'rS
Part A - Individual Event Judgement s
Each aircraft is precded by, and also succeeded by, a variable
duration of background noise. The six events in any one series are identified
for you by lighted numbers on the clip boards provided. Your judgements of each
event must be made at the conclusion of the event, or as shortly thereafter as
feasib1e, identified in time by the switching of the light on your clip board
to the next (higher) number. (Each aircraft event has equal time duration
['" 100 sec.].)
Part B - "Group of Events" Judgements
At the conclusion of 6 consecutive aircraft events there will be a
short break during which you will be asked to rate the six preceding aircraft
noise events, as a group, as to the annoyance of all aircrafwas a group event
or multiple aircraft event. Use identical criterion as for single event aircraft
judgements (see below).
A-l
PaxtC - Total Session Exposure Judgement
In the same break period used for the judgement in Part B the jury
will rate the total session min) annoyance caused by the total noise
exposure of the session, i.e., the total impact of the background plus the
aircraft signals superimposed.
3. JUDGEMENT CRl'rERIA - PARTS Az B MD C
The quantity which the jury should evaluate in all cases is the
"perceived noisiness" or unwantedness of the noise events or the series of
noise events. In making your judgements of the sound signal consider that
the soundswould occur indoors during a period of normaJ. day' s activi ty
(including such activities as reading, writing, personal conversation, tele-
phoning, etc). Consider that the single event noise might be repeated
approximately 15 to 20 times daily, and the series of six events repeated 2 or
3 times daily. It is required to devote a certain amount of concentration to
each test signal, individually, to reflect on the likely disturbance actual
signals of the same type would evoke if heard during your normal activi-
ties. It is therefore necessary to attempt to project this listening experience
to a number of other but familiar environments for eacb signal.
other descriptors such as disturbing, unwanted, unacceptable, objec-
tionable and noisy cau equally weil be applied to fit the concept of "perceived
noisiness".
4. R.EX:!ORDING OF RATINGS - PARTS Az B MD C
The rating of the noise events and the sertes of events is to be
recorded numericallyon a scale of 1 to 9. The scale is to be interpreted
as follows: first judge whether subjective response is extreme or not. If
it is extreme then either numbers 1, 2 or 3 will be used or 7, 8, 9:--If the
response is not extreme 4, 5 or 6 will be used. Secondly, attempt, wi thin this
initial classification, a secondary refinement to place the judgement as close
as possible to your careful interpretation of the annoyance perceiv:ed. Thus,
Mark 1, 2 or 3 if the noise was judged (as abave criteria) to be non-annoying
(or acceptahle)
Mark 4, 5 or 6 if the noise was judged (as above criteria) to be somewhat/
moderately annoying
Mark 7, 8 or 9 if the noise was judged (as above criteria) to be very or
considerably annoying
5 . JURY MEErINGS
Each jury group will be asked to attend three meetings in the Staff
Lounge at the University of Toronto, Institute for Aerospace Studies. Each
meeting will last about 1 or 1-1/2 hours including two coffee breaks in addi tion
to the listening/judging duties. Each juror will be given a brief audiometric
check at mIAs.
A-2
lJrIAS REPORT NO. 228
Institute for Aerospace studies, Univeraityof Toronto (urIASl
4925 Dufferin Street, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, M3H 5T6
THE OF BACKCROUND NOISE LEVEL Ai'ID SIGm DURArION ON TIIE JUDGED
ANNOYANCE OF AIRCRAFr NOISE
Johnston, G. W., Ha.asz, A. A. 32 pages 10 figures 8 tables
1. Aircra:f't Doise 2. Tra.ff'1c no1se 3. Noise pollut1on index 4. Perce1ved ne1elne
I. Johnaton" G. W., Haasz, A. A. II. l.1.rIAS Report No. 228

The effects of traffic background nois. on the judged noisiness of aircr&ft flyover events has been
further exalllined in the present study. A series of 72 flyover events ware assessed by a jury of 35
observers, during 12 separate listening sessions conducted in a controlled test area designed to
simulate typical indoor listening conditions . Each aircraft signal was superimposed on a controlled
randan traffic background signal having a duration exceeding that of the aircraft event.
The primary conclusions reached in this investigat.1on show that the presenee of a steady mean
traffic bo.ckgro\Uld Doise can reduce the perceived nois1neBs of aircraft nyover events, provided
that the time available is sufficiently greater tban the event time (time in excess of
backgroWld). For a given pealt event level, a reduction in &s8ociated background nol ae of 21 dBA
is sho'Wll to be equivalent subject1vely to en increase of 5.5 dBA in pealt event level, with fixed
background condit1ons . Best 11near data regressions were found uslng an index of the form
Lo + k(Lp - Lol, where Lp and 10 are the pealt signal and mean background l evels, respecti vely .
Although the regressions obtained with the noise pollution index, LNP, for single event judgJnents
generllllY shawcd a lower correlation than tbe Lo and (Lp t Lol regression variables tbe score data
did show" number of significant trends wbich are also associated wi th the LNP index variations
computed 1'or single noise events.
lJrIAS REPORT NO. 228
rnstitute for Aeroapace studies, Univers1ty of Toronto (lJrIAS)
4925 Dufferin street, Downsview , Ontario, Canada, mH 5T6
TIIE INFLIJENCE OF BACKCROUND NOISE IEVEL AND SIGm DURATION ON TIIE JUDGED
ANNOYANCE OF AIRCRAFT NOISE
Johnston, G. w., Haasz, A. A. 32 pages 10 figures 8 tables
1.. Aircraf't no1se 2. Traff'i c no1se 3. Hoise pollution index 4. Perceived noialness
I. Johnston, G. W. Haaaz, A. A. II. tt.rIAS Report No. 228

The sttecta of' tratfic background noise on the judged noisineSB ot aircraft flyover events has beel.
furtber ex8lll1ned in the present study. A series of 72 flyover avent. were ass.ssed by a jury of 35
ob servers , during 12 separate liatening aessions conducted in a controlled test area designed to
simulate typic8.J. indoor liatening conditions . Each aircraft signal waa superimposed on a controlled
randan traffic background signal having a duration exceeding that 01' the aircra1't event.
The primary conclusions reached in tbis investigat10n show that the presence of a steady mean
traffic background noise can reduce the perceived noisiness ot aircraft flyover events, provided
that tbe judgment time availablo is sufficiently greater tban the event time (time in exce .. of
back8round). For a gi ven pealt event l.evel) a reduction in assoclated background noi se of 21 dBA
1s shown to be equival.ent subject1vely to en increase of' 5.5 dBA in pealt event level, with f'ixed
background cond1t101ls. Best llnear data regress10ns were f'ound using an index of the form
Lo + k(Lp - Lo), where Lp and 10 are the pealt signal and mean background levels, respecti vely.
Although the regressions obtained wUh the noise pollution index, LNP, for single event judgments
generally showed a lOl/er correlation than the Lo and (Lp - Lo) regression variables the score data
did show a number of significant trends wbich are also associated wi th tbe LNP index variations
caJiluted for single noise eventa.
Available copies of report: are limited. Return card UTIAS, if you require a copy. Available copies of this are Return this card to UTIAS, if you require a copy.
$ la 2 St _____ .. ss = -% .. _ ft 'E t _ _ 0_-