首页> 外文期刊>Acta acustica united with acustica >Revision of ISO 717: Why not use impact sound reduction indices instead of impact sound pressure levels?
【24h】

Revision of ISO 717: Why not use impact sound reduction indices instead of impact sound pressure levels?

机译:修订ISO 717:为什么不使用撞击声降低指数而不是撞击声压水平?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In the current edition of ISO 717 airborne and impact sound insulation are described in an oppositional way: Airborne sound insulation is expressed in terms of a 'sound reduction index', impact sound insulation, however, as an 'impact sound pressure level'. The fussiness of two different approaches for comparable properties of building elements is furthermore increased by the duality or mixture of reference curve comparison and A-weighting methods. The implicit and exclusive application of the tapping machine for the impact sound pressure level prevents any flexibility in the impact source characteristics, other than with airborne sound reduction indices, where traffic noise and 'living' noise from the neighbour can be used likewise for building element characterisation. This paper proposes to replace the impact sound pressure level by a new quantity called "impact sound reduction index". A detailed introduction into the background of this paper is given in [1].
机译:在当前版本的ISO 717中,以相反的方式描述了空气传播和撞击声的隔绝:空气传播的隔绝声以“降声指数”表示,而撞击的隔绝声则表示为“撞击声压级”。通过参考曲线比较和A加权方法的二元性或混合性,进一步提高了两种不同方法对建筑元素可比特性的繁琐性。攻丝机在冲击声压级上的隐式和排他性应用会阻止冲击源特性的任何灵活性,但机载降噪指标除外,在降噪指标中,来自邻居的交通噪声和“生活”噪声也可用于建筑元素表征。本文提出用称为“冲击声降低指数”的新量代替冲击声压级。 [1]中详细介绍了本文的背景。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号