PROGRAMM - DAGA 2012

PROGRAMM - DAGA 2012 PROGRAMM - DAGA 2012

dega.akustik.de
von dega.akustik.de Mehr von diesem Publisher
13.07.2015 Aufrufe

66 DAGA 2012 ProgrammDienstag (bis Mi. 12:00)Geräuschbeurteilung (Poster)A study of acoustic descriptors for an Environmental ImpactAssessment: a case study in Curitiba, BrazilM. Engel, F.H. Ferraz und P.H.T. ZanninFederal University of Parana, BrazilAn analysis was made of acoustic descriptors for the preparation ofan Environmental Impact Study. The parameters evaluated were: noisemeasurement time, the need for triplicate noise measurements, anddetermination of the grid spacing for noise mapping. The noise measurementsfor this study were taken at two distinct points on an avenuewith intense vehicle traffic, for time periods of 10, 15 and 30 min. Thestatistical analysis indicated that a measurement time of 10 min wasadequate for the Environmental Impact Assessment. A linear regressionyielded regression coefficients of 0.94 and 0.97 for the two measuredpoints, indicating that triplicate measures are unnecessary for the noisemeasurements of this case study. Maps were created with 10x10 m,15x15 m, 20x20 m, and 30x30 m grids in order to determine the bestgrid spacing for the noise map of this study. The results indicated thata grid size of 10x10 m is the most representative, since the area underevaluation is located in a densely populated region.Dienstag (bis Mi. 12:00)Geräuschbeurteilung (Poster)Fitness gyms - Evaluation of noise and its perceptionK.L.H. Anjelo, C.R.M. Passero und P.H.T. ZanninFederal University of Parana, BrazilOBJECTIVE: Evaluate the noise levels generated in fitness gym classesand identify the auditory and extra-auditory complaints of gym users.METHOD: The measurements were taken with BK 2238 and BK 2260sound level meters. A questionnaire was applied to ascertain the auditoryand extra-auditory complaints and questions regarding noise frequencyand permanence time. Sampling comprised 24 users dividedamong six fitness gyms. RESULTS: The sound pressure levels variedfrom 73.9 to 94.2dB(A), indicating that the noise levels in some fitnessgyms exceed the limit established by Brazilian legislation on occupationalnoise, which is Leq = 85dB(A). Of the total number of intervieweeswho answered the questionnaire, 88% reported that high sound levelsare stimulating for physical exercising. Only 12% claimed that the noiselevel is disturbing, stating that they have a headache at the end of theirworkout. CONCLUSIONS: Although most of the gym users did not reportbeing disturbed by the noise levels in the fitness gym, these levelsshould be lowered urgently, since the cases evaluated here revealedmeasured noise levels similar to those found in industrial environments.

Programm DAGA 2012 67Dienstag (bis Mi. 12:00)Geräuschbeurteilung (Poster)Characterization of environmental noise on a university campusbased on noise measurements and interviewsM. Engel, F.H. Ferraz und P.H.T. ZanninFederal University of Parana, BrazilThis work involved an evaluation of environmental noise on the campusof the Polytechnic Center of the Federal University of Paraná (Curitiba,Brazil). The methodology was divided into: 1) Subjective part - preparationand application of a questionnaire to a sample of 389 people fromthe campus population to gather information about their reactions to noise,as well as behavioral and demographic data; and 2) Objective part- involving equivalent sound pressure level (LAeq) measurements at 58points on campus, using B&K 2250 and B&K 2260 sound level meters.The LAeq data were compared with the noise emission limits for externalenvironments proposed by Maschke (1999): LAeq = 65 dB(A).The results indicated that 87% of the measured points were below the65 dB(A) limit. Sixty percent of the interviewees perceived no increasein noise pollution on campus, while 39% perceived the opposite. 52%percent of the interviewees stated they did not feel irked by the noise oncampus, while 47% did. The noise on campus caused 43% of the intervieweesto state they had difficulty in concentrating, 25% felt irked, 12%had headaches, and 13% indicated that it did not affect them.Sitzung „Maschinenakustik 1“Di. 15:15 Spectrum B Maschinenakustik 1GenauigkeitsklassenH.-J. MilzG+H Schallschutz GmbHDer Anwender von Messdaten verbindet mit dem Begriff ”Genauigkeitsklasse”deren Vertrauenswürdigkeit. Für ihn steht die Genauigkeitsklasse(GK) 1 für hochgenaue Messergebnisse, die GK 2 für vertrauenerweckendeDaten und die GK 3 für orientierende Werte. Im Gegensatzzum allgemeinen Verständnis klassifizieren die GKs die Messverfahren(von Präzisions- über technische bis Übersichtsverfahren) und orientierensich dabei an den Möglichkeiten der Messmethodik. Dies führt abhängigvon der Messmethodik zu unterschiedlichen Fehlertoleranzbänderninnerhalb einer Genauigkeitsklasse. Für den Anwender ist es teilweiseschwer die Genauigkeit von Messdaten unterschiedlicher Messmethodenzu vergleichen, da normalerweise in den Protokollen die Genauigkeitsklasse,aber nicht das spektrale Fehlertoleranzband (Messungenauigkeit)angegeben wird.

Programm <strong>DAGA</strong> <strong>2012</strong> 67Dienstag (bis Mi. 12:00)Geräuschbeurteilung (Poster)Characterization of environmental noise on a university campusbased on noise measurements and interviewsM. Engel, F.H. Ferraz und P.H.T. ZanninFederal University of Parana, BrazilThis work involved an evaluation of environmental noise on the campusof the Polytechnic Center of the Federal University of Paraná (Curitiba,Brazil). The methodology was divided into: 1) Subjective part - preparationand application of a questionnaire to a sample of 389 people fromthe campus population to gather information about their reactions to noise,as well as behavioral and demographic data; and 2) Objective part- involving equivalent sound pressure level (LAeq) measurements at 58points on campus, using B&K 2250 and B&K 2260 sound level meters.The LAeq data were compared with the noise emission limits for externalenvironments proposed by Maschke (1999): LAeq = 65 dB(A).The results indicated that 87% of the measured points were below the65 dB(A) limit. Sixty percent of the interviewees perceived no increasein noise pollution on campus, while 39% perceived the opposite. 52%percent of the interviewees stated they did not feel irked by the noise oncampus, while 47% did. The noise on campus caused 43% of the intervieweesto state they had difficulty in concentrating, 25% felt irked, 12%had headaches, and 13% indicated that it did not affect them.Sitzung „Maschinenakustik 1“Di. 15:15 Spectrum B Maschinenakustik 1GenauigkeitsklassenH.-J. MilzG+H Schallschutz GmbHDer Anwender von Messdaten verbindet mit dem Begriff ”Genauigkeitsklasse”deren Vertrauenswürdigkeit. Für ihn steht die Genauigkeitsklasse(GK) 1 für hochgenaue Messergebnisse, die GK 2 für vertrauenerweckendeDaten und die GK 3 für orientierende Werte. Im Gegensatzzum allgemeinen Verständnis klassifizieren die GKs die Messverfahren(von Präzisions- über technische bis Übersichtsverfahren) und orientierensich dabei an den Möglichkeiten der Messmethodik. Dies führt abhängigvon der Messmethodik zu unterschiedlichen Fehlertoleranzbänderninnerhalb einer Genauigkeitsklasse. Für den Anwender ist es teilweiseschwer die Genauigkeit von Messdaten unterschiedlicher Messmethodenzu vergleichen, da normalerweise in den Protokollen die Genauigkeitsklasse,aber nicht das spektrale Fehlertoleranzband (Messungenauigkeit)angegeben wird.

Hurra! Ihre Datei wurde hochgeladen und ist bereit für die Veröffentlichung.

Erfolgreich gespeichert!

Leider ist etwas schief gelaufen!