Institute of Acoustics: ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

Volume 47 No 5 September/October 2021

How the Environment Agency audits noise impact assessments Page 14

The best possible start to a career: The ﬁ rst acoustics technician apprenticeships Page 24

COVER STORY: IOA Early Careers Group: How acoustics took one member to New Zealand Page 20

Instrumentation Corner: Health and whole life cost beneﬁ ts of highways noise barriers Page 36

ACOUSTICS ACOUSTICS

BULLETIN BULLETIN

« Institute of ‘S Acoustics

NoiseMap

e five Mapping the way to a quieter future . .. with new enhancements for high-speed rail

www.noisemap.com

email: rogertompsett@noisemap.com tel: +44 20 3355 9734

N oiseMap

Noise and Vibration Instrumentation

Multichannel Acquisition Analysis Software NVH Acoustic Imaging Sensors Electroacoustics Building Acoustics

Human Vibration Air Quality Monitoring Noise & Vibration Meters R&D and Production Testing Cloud-based Environmental Monitoring

www.acsoft.co.uk 01234 639550 sales@acsoft.co.uk

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN

Contacts Publisher Juliet Loiselle

Contributions, letters and information on new products to: Nicky Rogers Email: nickyr@warnersgroup.co.uk Tel: 01778 391128

Acoustics Bulletin Volume 47 No 5 September/October 2021

30 Selling STEM with ‘Science Sizzles’

Institute aﬀ airs

5 President’s letter

34 Position of AVO with respect to ProPG

6 IOA awards entry deadline

8 Engineering Division

59 Proﬁ le: Saluting Geoﬀ Kerry, as he says he’s retiring

oN (@ \nstitute of G Acoustics

10 IOA diversity, inclusion and equality update

Advertising: Dennis Baylis MIOA Email: dennis.baylis@ioa.org.uk Tel: 00 33 (0)5 62 70 99 25

12 New members

Technical

20 COVER STORY IOA Early Careers Group

48 Aviation noise management and research: reﬂ ections and challenges in light of the pandemic (part 2)

28 Meet the IOA support staﬀ (part 2)

Published and produced by: The Institute of Acoustics Silbury Court, 406 Silbury Boulevard, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire MK9 2AF Tel: 0300 999 9675

40 IOA secondary school competition for the International Year of Sound

Regular

12 2021 events

36 Instrumentation Corner: Health and whole life cost beneﬁ ts of highways noise barriers

42 New IOA membership video

44 The IOA archives

66 IOA Branch news

Edited, designed and printed by: Warners Group Publications The Maltings West Street Bourne Lincs

62 New products

Features

67 News

14 How the Environment Agency audits noise impact assessments

68 Industry updates

70 Institute diary

24 The best possible start to a career: Acoustics technician apprenticeships

This publication is printed by Warners 01778 395111

PE10 9PH

Views expressed in Acoustics Bulletin are not necessarily the oﬃ cial view of the Institute, nor do individual contributions reﬂ ect the opinions of the Editor. While every care has been taken in the preparation of this journal, the publishers cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of the information herein, or any consequence arising from them. Multiple copying of the contents or parts thereof without permission is in breach of copyright.

Technical articles review procedure All technical contributions are reviewed by an expert identiﬁ ed by publications committee. This review picks up key points that may need clarifying before publication, and is not an in-depth peer review.

Cover image:

The image on the cover shows Richard Deane at work – measuring noise and vibration from rockbreaking in a TV studio.

The Institute of Acoustics is the UK’s professional body for those working in acoustics, noise and vibration. It was formed in 1974 from the amalgamation of the Acoustics Group of the Institute of Physics and the British Acoustical Society. The Institute of Acoustics is a nominated body of the Engineering Council, oﬀ ering registration at Chartered and Incorporated Engineer levels. The Institute has over 3000 members working in a diverse range of research, educational, governmental and industrial organisations. This multidisciplinary culture provides a productive environment for cross-fertilisation of ideas and initiatives. The range of interests of members within the world of acoustics is equally wide, embracing such aspects as aerodynamics, architectural acoustics, building acoustics, electroacoustic, engineering dynamics, noise and vibration, hearing, speech, physical acoustics, underwater acoustics, together with a variety of environmental aspects. The Institute is a Registered Charity no. 267026

Permission is usually given upon written application to the Institute to copy illustrations or short extracts from the text or individual contributions, provided that the sources (and where appropriate the copyright) are acknowledged.

oN (@ \nstitute of G Acoustics

The Institute of Acoustics does not necessarily endorse the products or the claims made by the advertisers in the Acoustics Bulletin or on literature inserted therein.

Annual Subscription (6 issues) £134.00 Single copy £23.00

@2021 The Institute of Acoustics

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021 3

See noise differently with Cirrus Research

Noise pollution is the second biggest environmental cause of health problems according to the World Health Organisation. Which is why Cirrus Research is committed to the development of innovative solutions to help reduce noise pollution and its effect on the environment.

Tackling noise pollution should be as easy and accessible as possible. Our solutions are built with ease-of-use at their heart, while never sacrificing of technical quality or acoustic accuracy.

Get the full picture: cirrusresearch.com/environmental-noise

sales@cirrusresearch.com www.cirrusresearch.com +44 1723 891655

LETTER FROM MILTON KEYNES

Dear Member

The word ‘noise’ appears once in Part 1: ‘ All new streets should include street trees to improve streets’ popularity and walkability, reduce air pollution and mitigate noise .’ (Page 31). ‘Noise’ appears four times in the guidance notes and the word ‘noises’ appears once, on page 4, where it states: ‘ Character includes all of the elements that go to make a place, how it looks and feels, its geography and landscape, its noises and smells, activity, people and businesses .’ Surely ‘soundscape’ would have been a better word in this context? The word ‘sound’ does not appear in either document. Neither does the word ‘acoustic’. So, all our eﬀ orts to encourage the use of Good Acoustic Design in new homes, through, for example, the ProPG document (which has been mentioned in Government planning guidance since 2019) and the AVO guide, have not found the necessary traction in Government Design Guidance. Ironically, under the health and wellbeing section of the guidance notes, there are ﬁ ve bullet points on good design for lighting. And yet none on Good Acoustic Design. Unfortunately, the Institute missed the consultation on the NMDC when it came out in January 2021. (We were busy at that time responding to the consultation on the Building Regulations). That meant we did miss our opportunity to inﬂ uence to content of the NMDC. As was mentioned at the AGM, Mary Stevens has joined the team at IOA HQ, part time, with the role of helping us spot when such consultations come out and also assisting us with the responses. Hopefully we will not miss anything important in the future.

he gradual easing of the COVID restrictions has enabled spectators to attend sporting events once more. Most notable were the crowds who attended the football at the Euros but, of particular interest to me, was the ability to attend professional cricket matches once more.

Sound or noise? One of the features of these events, identiﬁ ed by the commentators, was the welcome return of crowd noise. And that brought to mind the challenge we have in the profession about the use of the words ‘sound’ and ‘noise’. I suspect that most of you who have written noise impact assessment reports have started them with a sentence along the lines of: ‘Noise is regarded as unwanted sound’ . At the start of my career, ‘noise’ was the word always used. We undertook background noise measurements and did noise assessments, although it was always made clear that sound levels meters measured sound . But with the increased interest in concepts such as soundscape and the management of the sound environment, we have to be more careful over the use of language. What we hear is sound . It only becomes noise when it has an adverse eﬀ ect on us (either cognitively or not). The use of the word ‘sound’ in the title of the 2014 version of BS4142 – Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound properly identiﬁ ed this distinction – the sound is rated and assessed to determine if it is noise causing an adverse impact. Thus, when commentators talk about “the fantastic noise from the crowd” – isn’t that tautological? It is hard, though, to maintain the correct language. We make background sound measurements to assist with a noise impact assessment. But for predictions – is it correct to call the methodology Calculation of Road Traﬃ c Noise? Should it not be ‘sound’ that might be noise? Or is sound from road traﬃ c always noise? The Oxford English Dictionary gives as one of its deﬁ nitions of ‘noise’: In a neutral sense, ‘a sound of any kind (deﬁ ned by the context)’ sourced as late Middle English. Maybe the words noise and sound are interchangeable after all.

Acoustics 2021 Acoustics 2021 is being held on 11 and 12 October. As you should know this is going to be a hybrid event at several locations across the country. Delegates will able to attend online from their home or oﬃ ce, but also, and, we hope preferably, be able to attend in person and at either a speaking hub or listening hub. I recently had the pleasure of going to our Milton Keynes oﬃ ce for the ﬁ rst time in nearly 18 months to join Chris Barlow, Robin Woodward, Alistair Somerville, Linda Canty and Alex Shaida in testing the technology we plan to use. Martin Lester was our notional remote delegate joining us from Northern Ireland. It worked very well. If you haven’t already done so, please keep the 11 and 12 October clear for the conference and also watch out for opportunities to help with the running of the event.

National Model Design Code (NMDC) The NMDC for England was published in July 2021. It sets out ‘ design considerations which local planning authorities will be expected to take into account when developing local design codes and guides and when determining planning applications .’ The code itself comes in two parts – Part 1 ‘The Coding Process’ and Part 2 ‘The Guidance Notes for Design Codes’.

In the meantime, stay safe

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021 5

FEATURE

IOA AWARDS entry deadline

The IOA annually honours people whose contributions to acoustics or to the Institute have been particularly noteworthy.

• The Rayleigh Medal This is the IOA’s premier award, given to persons of undoubted renown for outstanding contributions to acoustics without regard to age.

he medals and awards programme is wide-ranging in its acknowledgment of academic achievement, practical engineering applications and innovations, student achievement, contributions to the Institute and to the world of science and technology. The 2022 IOA awards comprise:

• The Tyndall Medal is awarded biannually to a UK acoustician, preferably under the age of 40, for achievement and services in the ﬁ eld of acoustics.

• The AB Wood Medal (UK/Europe acoustician in 2022) is aimed at researchers aged under 40, whose work is associated with the sea.

Nomination forms are at https://www.ioa.org.uk/about-us/awards and if you are entering the 2022 IOA awards, all submissions must be in by 1 October 2021 at the latest.

• The Institute of Acoustics Engineering Medal is awarded in even-numbered years to registered engineers at Chartered, Incorporated or Engineering Technician grade in recognition of their outstanding contribution in the ﬁ eld of acoustical engineering.

Decisions will made by Christmas and the winners will be announced early 2022.

6 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

• The Peter Lord Award is given annually for a building, project or product that showcases outstanding and innovative acoustic design.

signiﬁ cant contributions to education in acoustics. The award may be for a single outstanding or signiﬁ cant contribution to acoustics education and training or a sustained long-term activity in this respect.

• The RWB Stephens Medal (2023)

was named after Dr Ray Stephens, the ﬁ rst President of the IOA. It is awarded in odd-numbered years for outstanding contributions to acoustics research or education.

• The Peter Barnett Memorial Award recognises advancements and technical excellence in the ﬁ elds of electroacoustics, speech intelligibility, and education in acoustics and electroacoustics.

• The IOA Young Persons Award for Innovation in Acoustical Engineering (sponsored by Cirrus) is awarded every two years and recognises excellence and achievement in acoustical engineering among those who are aged under 35, or early on in their careers in industry. (The next time the Young Persons Award for Innovation in Acoustical Engineering will be awarded is 2024).

• The Sustainability Award is open to individuals, or teams, who are able to demonstrate and provide evidence of one or more of the following: * An exemplar contribution towards the delivery of sustainability; * Demonstration of value in all three key areas (societal, economic and environmental) * Demonstration of a signiﬁ cant contribution – through education, design, construction practices or guidance – that promotes the implementation of sustainability through acoustics

• The Award for Promoting Acoustics to the Public has been created to encourage activity that generates greater awareness of the importance of acoustics to people without acoustical expertise.

• The Dr Bob Peters Education Award is a new award. It is to celebrate the memory of the late Dr Bob Peters and to recognise excellence in the design, plan, delivery, management of acoustics education, or other

More information and nomination forms are at https://www.ioa.org.uk/about-us/awards Nominations should be submitted by 1 October 2021 to ioa@ioa.org.uk

This award is given on a rolling basis to those who reach the bar.

The deadline for nominations for 2022 awards and medals is 1 October 2021, and it’s coming up fast. IOA AWARDS

Don’t miss out, to nominate go to www.ioa.org.uk/about-us/awards

PXX References xxxxxxxxxx contact

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021 7

INSTITUTE AFFAIRS Engineering Division

The IOA Engineering Division will support you through the process to help you become one of almost 225,000 registrants that hold international professional recognition.

By Blane Judd BEng FCGI CEng FIET FCIBSE, Engineering Manager

ockdown rules are slowly lifting, but at present we are still working from home. The interviews we held in June went very well and you can read about Adam Hill, one of the successful candidates, on page 10. Candidates are provided with guidance material when they ﬁ rst apply, and we are always ready to comment on the content of their professional review report prior to them submitting the ﬁ nal draft. We continue to draw up the documentation to comply with the new UK-SPEC version four and we are starting implementation very soon. If you want to learn more about the new version, you can ﬁ nd out more detail on the Engineering Council website at https://bit.ly/3cEALQu . Those already working on their submission will be able to use UK-SPEC version three up to the end of the year. We will be encouraging candidates from now onwards to work to version four. The Engineering Council are expecting us to have made the transition by December 2021.

individual route. Each institute has an Engineering Council liaison oﬃ cer who comes from another Institute as a volunteer to help and support colleagues. Malcom Carr-West from the Institute of Agricultural Engineers has been attending meetings of the Engineering Committee as our new oﬃ cer and he has asked to sit in on the next round of interviews, so some of you may get the chance to meet him in October. We have already ﬁ lled the places for the October interviews so the next set will be in February 2022. We hold a number of interview events through the year, depending on the number of candidates we have coming forward for registration. If you are interested in taking the next step to becoming a professionally registered engineer, contact us on acousticsengineering@ioa.org.uk sending a copy of your CV and copies of certiﬁ cates and transcripts of your qualiﬁ cations. It is important that we have all of your further and higher education certiﬁ cates, not just your highest attainment.

2. individual route , which requires further preparatory work from you before submitting evidence of your competence. Remember that we are here to help you get through the process and advice and support is oﬀ ered to every candidate personally. For the individual route, the Institute accepts a number of courses in relevant subjects such as audio technology from certain academic centres, as being equivalent to accredited courses for the purposes of EC registration, without the need for further assessment. The Institute recognises the IOA Diploma course and the several masters courses linked to it as providing evidence if you are looking to gain CEng registration. You could also oﬀ er a PhD qualiﬁ cation, depending upon the content of the associated taught element. We can also oﬀ er support for registration via a ‘technical report’ route, if you do not have the relevant qualiﬁ cations to help you demonstrate you are working as a professional engineer in acoustics. The election process is overseen by the Institute’s Engineering Division Committee, which is made up of volunteers from the membership, to whom we are extremely grateful. They represent the 300 or so members holding EC registration. They provide the essential peer review process that aﬃ rms that you are at the appropriate level for recognition as an Engineering Council Registered Professional Engineer. The opportunity is there, and we are ready to support you through it, so that you can become one of almost 225,000 registrants that hold International professional recognition.

Interviews We are working hard to keep response times down to a minimum while working remotely, and Emma is doing a great job helping with this. Neil Ferguson continues to help us with academic equivalence support for those candidates who do not have exemplifying qualiﬁ cations. You can check for yourself if your qualiﬁ cations meet the required speciﬁ cation by visiting www.engc.org.uk . But please don’t panic if your speciﬁ c qualiﬁ cation is not listed, as we can still help you through the process on the

Academic qualiﬁ cations The requirements for academic qualiﬁ cations for CEng and IEng changed in 1999. Pre-1999 an honours degree at 2:2 or above was required for CEng or a higher diploma/certiﬁ cate for IEng. Post-1999 this changed and for CEng a master’s degree was required or an ordinary degree for IEng. There are two routes: 1. standard route if you have the appropriate EC-accredited qualiﬁ cation (also referred to as an exemplifying qualiﬁ cation) in acoustics; and the

8 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

Engineerin: wens ?

NOR145 SOUND LEVEL METER FOR BUILDING ACOUSTICS SIMPLE | MODERN |EFFICIENT

CAMPBELL ASSOCIATES SOUND, VIBRATION & AIR SOLUTIONS

Sut ¥« Al

INSTITUTE AFFAIRS

BB Exginepting Council

Engineering Council successful candidate

The Engineering Council is the UK regulatory body for the engineering profession. It holds the national registers of Engineering Technicians (EngTech), Incorporated Engineers (IEng), Chartered Engineers (CEng) and Information and Communications Technology Technicians (ICTTech).

Adam Hill I

Adam Hill CEng Adam is Associate Professor of Electroacoustics at the University of Derby where he runs the MSc Audio Engineering programme. He received a PhD from the University of Essex (2012), an MSc in Acoustics and Music Technology from the University of Edinburgh (2008) and a BSE in Electrical Engineering from Miami University (2007). Since 2003, he has worked seasonally as a live sound engineer for Gand Concert Sound (Chicago, USA) where he has designed and operated sound systems for over 1,000 artists. In 2019, Adam was presented with the IOA Young Persons’ Award for Innovation in Acoustical Engineering. Adam said: “Coming into the CEng process without accredited

t also sets and maintains the internationally recognised standards of professional competence and ethics that govern the award and retention of these titles. This ensures that employers, government and wider society can have conﬁ dence in the knowledge, experience and commitment of professionally registered engineers and technicians. The IOA is pleased to announce that Adam Hill has attained the standard required for admission to the national register at Chartered Engineer level.

degrees, I foresaw quite a complicated set of tasks ahead of me. The documentation and guidance Blane provided, however, clearly set out what was required, including exemplars for each core document. This allowed me to focus my eﬀ orts and draft all the necessary documents in a relatively short time. “The interview felt like an informal chat amongst colleagues interested in my recent projects. Having done the appropriate preparations under Blane’s guidance, the interview couldn’t have gone better. Overall, the CEng process provided me with a chance to critically evaluate my current professional standing and revise my CPD plans to address areas for improvement.”

Diversity, inclusion and equality update

By Angela Lamacraft, Diversity, Inclusion and Equality Working Group Chair

n the July/August 2021 issue of Acoustics Bulletin (page 28) I provided a summary of some of the diversity issues facing the Institute of Acoustics. We have now set up a Working Group to progress diversity, inclusion and equality within the Institute and would love to hear from anyone who is interested in joining. We are particularly hoping to hear from people who don’t typically get involved with Institute activities and we’re happy to discuss anything

that may have prevented you from participating previously to see how we can accommodate you. We are also hoping to improve the racial diversity of the Working Group so that we can better understand potential issues facing people of colour within the Institute and the acoustics industry more broadly. If you would like to join the Working Group or discuss the opportunity further; please email us at: diversity@ioa.org.uk

In the next issue of the Acoustics Bulletin, we will provide proﬁ les of the members of the Working Group so that you know who is on the team.

10 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

Wallsorba TM

Acoustic Panels

Soundsorba manufacture and supply a wide range of acoustic panels for reducing sound in buildings.

yo - es

www.soundsorba.com

• Wide range of modern vibrant colours • Custom sizes can be manufactured • Soft fabric facings • Class A performance

Wavesorba TM

Woodsorba TM

Acoustic Panels

• Futuristic shape

• Lightweight

• Beauty of real wood facings

• Modern face patterns

• Soothing wave pattern

• High acoustic performance

• High impact resistance

• Maintenance free

#8 a

Cloudsorba TM

Soundsorba’s highly skilled and experienced acoustic engineers will be pleased to help with any application of our acoustic products for your project.

Please contact us by calling 01494 536888 or emailing info@soundsorba.com for any questions you may have.

SOUNDSORBA LIMITED , 27-29 DESBOROUGH STREET, HIGH WYCOMBE, BUCKS HP11 2LZ, UK

TEL: +44 (0)1494 536888 FAX: +44 (0)1494 536818 EMAIL: info@soundsorba.com

• Wider range of different shapes available

• High acoustic rating

• Suitable for a wide range of building interiors

INSTITUTE AFFAIRS

TIT

E A

INSTITUTE AFFAIRS

Approved membership applications

The Membership Committee reviewed 68 application forms on 22 April by the online system, 29 corporate applications have recently been approved by the Council following the recommendations of the Membership Committee. The committee saw 18 new candidates joining the IOA and 24 members upgraded their membership.

FIOA Gillian Clarke Colin Cobbing Richard Craster Hilary Notley

MIOA Joseph Allen Thomas Brooks Luke Brough James Cousins William Fairman Calum Ferreira Boniface Hima Heather Isherwood Simon Jeﬀ erson Stephen Magee Antonio Martinez Samuel Monk Samuel Oates Joe Oxenham Christopher Richardson Ilona Rudnicka Harry Russell-Lees Alejandro Santana Roque James Shaw Shaun Sloan Jeeva Srilal James Stead Gareth Thompson

Scott Tunnah William Twigg Jacob Tyler

AMIOA

Jo Criddle Daniel Elvidge Sarah Green Uchita Jhaveri George Karpouzas Conor McLean Dominic Young

TechIOA Kieran Abadle Sarah Barnes Kalumin De Silva Ben MacIsaac Thomas Price Sean Rocks Adam Shaw

Aﬃ liate Matt Hayes

2021/22 Conference programme

Understandably, the 2021/22 conference programme is likely to be aﬀ ected by the COVID-19 virus.

2021

2022

ACOUSTICS 2021 11-12 October 2021 Regional Hubs

HEAR FOR TOMORROW 30 March 2022 Royal Academy of Music, London Organised by the IOA Musical Acoustics Group and Hearing Conservation Association

REPRODUCED SOUND 2021 16-18 November 2021 The Bristol Hotel, Bristol Organised by the IOA Electroacoustics Group

ICUA 2022 20-24 June 2022 Grand Harbour Hotel, Southampton Organised by the IOA Underwater Acoustics Group

INTER–NOISE 2022 20-24 August 2022 SECC, Glasgow

12 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

Total cloud based monitoring solutions

Noise. Dust. Vibration

• Cloud based data analysis and display • Class 1 noise measurement • Tri-axial vibration measurement • Dust including PM10, PM2.5, PM 1 & TSP • PPV peak particle velocity • VDV vibration dose value • FFT dominant frequency calculation • Advanced triggers and alarms

SvanNET is the latest web portal that supports multi- point connection for all Svantek monitoring stations for noise, vibration and dust. The web user interface is easy to use and intuitive to operate and allows maximum ﬂ exibility for on-line and off-line reporting. Svantek monitoring stations are designed and built to work in the rigours of a construction site. They use military standard connectors and have communication options to ﬁ t with the most remote site.

For further information and a demonstration call us now 01234 639551 or email us sales@svantek.co.uk

5 ©

FEATURE

How the Environment Agency audits noise impact assessments

Paul Doyle, Technical Advisor and Noise Lead at the Environment Agency’s Air Quality Modelling & Assessment Unit (AQMAU), explains what happens to noise impact assessments when they are submitted to the Environment Agency.

s a Regulator, the Environment Agency (EA) audits noise impact assessments (NIAs), which are submitted in support of environmental permit applications for sites in England. Audits are undertaken by the Air Quality Modelling and Assessment Unit (AQMAU), a specialist team which analyses acoustic and air quality assessments. AQMAU prepared this article to provide a ‘behind the scenes’ look at their approach to auditing an NIA, and to give some insight into how their audit conclusions facilitate the permitting process. This article is one of several initiatives currently being worked on by AQMAU, with the aim of improving communications between the EA and acoustic consultants. As part of changes to the EA pre- application process, AQMAU will be publishing guidance later in 2021, which sets out report formats for NIAs and noise management plans (NMPs). AQMAU is also planning a presentation in early 2022, with the Association of Noise Consultants (ANC).

Additional noise specialists are based in the National Services Environment and Business (E&B) team which provides strategic guidance in relation to policy and operational compliance. AQMAU oﬀ ers technical advice on acoustic and air quality issues in relation to applications for environmental permits, as part of the pre-application process. AQMAU helps to ensure that acoustic and air quality modelling and assessments for permit applications, compliance, enforcement and incident investigations are consistent, of a high standard and based on sound science. AQMAU comprises a diverse technical team of 13 people with varied backgrounds, such as engineers and ex-consultants. Staﬀ either have master’s degrees in acoustics or IOA Diplomas. Historically, AQMAU was more focused on air quality, but in recent years, acoustics has become an equal consideration.

The EA often receives NIAs, which have been prepared for planning applications and often refer to noise limits or guidance from British Standards such as BS8233: 2014 1

, BS5228-1: 2009+A1:2014 2 or guidance from the World Health Organization 3,4 When determining an environmental permit application, the EA does not set limits, and requires the impact of external sound emissions to be assessed at the nearest noise sensitive receptors (NSRs), in accordance with BS4142: 2014 + A1: 2019 5 only. Our standard permit condition requires that the operator must “prevent or where that is not practicable, to minimise, the noise and vibration” . This ensures that our regulation process is consistent with the aims of the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) 6 .

Pre-application considerations and EA guidance It is important to note that an NIA is not always required, depending on the proposed use and the wider context of the surrounding area. Applicants for environmental permits should initially consult with the Risk Assessments for your Environmental Permit guidance 7 . For variations, if the changed element in the permit variation does not indicate a signiﬁ cant diﬀ erence in impact compared to existing operations, a BS4142 assessment is generally P16

Permitting v planning There are key diﬀ erences between requirements for permitting and planning . Environmental permitting determines whether an operation can be managed such that pollution is prevented or minimised, while planning determines whether the proposed operation is a suitable land use.

What is the AQMAU? The AQMAU team is part of the National Permitting Service (NPS) in the EA, which is responsible for determining permit applications.

References 1 BS8233: 2014. Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings. British Standards Institute. 2 BS5228-1: 2009 + A1: 2014. Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Noise. British Standards Institute. 3 Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region (2018). World Health Organization. 4 Community Guidelines for Community Noise (1999). World Health Organization. 5 BS4142: 2014 + A1: 2019. Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound. British Standards Institute. 6 Noise Policy Statement for England (2010), DEFRA. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/noise-policy-statement-for-england 7 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/risk-assessments-for-your-environmental-permit#risks-from-your-site

14 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

Sound Masking

from aet.gb ltd

Open plan offices benefit from Sound Masking

mM bill TT Na | ui

Cellular offices achieve better speech privacy with Sound Masking

Sound Masking is a cost effective solution to the problem of improving speech privacy in today’s modern office environment. Best installed during office fit out but often installed as retrofit, Sound Masking from AET has improved the office environment for many international companies throughout Europe over the last 20 years.

An investment in increasing privacy of speech is certainly cost effective, with Sound Masking one of the easiest ways of achieving this aim. Sound Masking systems along with acoustic panels and acoustic door seals are increasingly used to achieve the desired level of privacy by a number of our major clients including: • Vodafone World HQ • Procter & Gamble • Swiss Re • Mobil Exxon HQ • Elizabeth Arden • Barclays Bank • Freshfields • KPMG • PWC • BP

In today’s office speech privacy becomes a key aim and open plan offices can suffer from two speech problems: • Other people’s conversations can be an irritating distraction • Confidential conversations can be almost impossible to conduct

Similar problems also exist in cellular offices. Apart from noise breakthrough via partitions, flanking over, under and around them, other problem areas include light fixtures, air conditioning systems and services trunking. Sound masking compensates for these problems.

Sound Masking is now available with a host of extras including: • PA, either all call or zone by zone call • Dual level options for audio visual room etc • Automatic ramping to conserve energy and produce profiled masking • Fault reporting • Automated amplifier changeover

www.aet.co.uk

AET.GB Ltd., 82, Basepoint, Andersons Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO14 5FE Tel: 0044 (0)8453 700 400 sales@aet.co.uk

Sound Masking is also known as sound conditioning or white noise systems

FEATURE

Pre-audit ‘completeness checks’ Not all NIAs submitted to the EA are audited by AQMAU. Audits are undertaken for relatively complex sites, or where site sound emissions are not considered be ‘low risk’. For sites which require an audit, initial ‘completeness checks’ are undertaken to determine whether the NIA has included the information required for a BS4142 assessment. In the last year, further information such as operational times, HGV routes, missing sound source and raw survey data was requested for 40% of submissions. 30% required a resubmission of the NIA, due to requests for additional baseline survey work, noise modelling or calculations, and the use of incorrect sound source data. Requests for further information are issued to the applicant in a Schedule 5 notice, and can also be issued during the auditing stage if additional discrepancies become evident.

• L A90 data; • source data; • L Aeq speciﬁ c levels and modelling settings; • acoustic feature corrections (AFCs); • rating levels and determination of impact; • context; • uncertainties; and • conclusions. Below are some insights into how AQMAU analyses each element of the NIA during the audit.

LA90 background survey data • is L A90 data representative of times/days when site will operate? Weekday data is often used for sites that will operate 24/7; • data should be less than two years old. If older data is used, a good quantitative argument is required (e.g., traﬃ c ﬂ ow data, evidence for no change in major local sources); • if the application is for a variation to an existing site, the LA90 should not include the operational site. If the site can’t be ‘switched oﬀ ’, ﬁ nd other representative receptors and justify (BS4142 Section 8.1.2); and • meteorological data is often not measured at the measurement microphone position, which invalidates the reliability of background sound data. Use of website data from nearby weather station will not be representative of localised conditions near the site and receptors. Justiﬁ cation should be provided where it has not been possible to measure meteorological data. • AQMAU risk-based consideration: Are meteorological conditions likely to aﬀ ect how sound emissions are propagated from the site to NSRs? How would a diﬀ erent background sound level aﬀ ect the NIA conclusions?

not required. For all sites which require an NIA, an NMP will also be required, with the NIA conclusions informing the content. Details of technical requirements for calculations and modelling submitted in support of NIA submissions are available at the NIAs involving calculations or modelling guidance 8 page. The EA currently oﬀ ers an enhanced pre-application service, where advice can be requested for speciﬁ c permit applications. As well as determining whether a NIA is required for a site, this can also include a desktop review of assessment proposals and/ or meeting(s) between the EA, applicant and consultant. As part of future changes to the pre- application service, AQMAU will be publishing documents which provide simpliﬁ ed templates for NIAs and NMPs. These will be provided to applicants directly. Additionally, the H3 guidance 9 which acoustic consultants will be familiar with, was replaced in July 2021 by the Noise and vibration management: environmental permits guidance 10 , and provides further information on the content of NIAs and NMPs.

Continued from p14

AQMAU detailed audit – overview Once a submission is considered to be suﬃ ciently complete, the detailed AQMAU audit takes place. The EA deals with signiﬁ cant application volumes, so the audit is placed in a queue until AQMAU has capacity. The audit comprises an interrogation of all aspects of the NIA submission, where AQMAU checks whether they agree with the consultant’s assumptions and conclusions for each element. Where there is a potential for variation to the consultant’s inputs, AQMAU tests sensitivity to the use of alternative data. This can mean testing sensitivity to the use of a lower background sound level at an NSR, higher sound power levels for sources, alternative receptor heights, modelling settings such as ground absorption, building absorption/ reﬂ ection etc. The audit follows a risk-based approach, where the risk of each element is identiﬁ ed and used to determine an overall level of risk which sound emissions from the site present at NSRs. The following elements are analysed:

Sound source data • has the submission included manufacturer’s data for sources? Often this is not the case, but this data can be available; • is source data in octave bands? A single value is often used, P18

References 8 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/noise-impact-assessments-involving-calculations-or-modelling 9 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-permitting-h3-part-2-noise-assessment-and-control. (Note this is now superseded) 10 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/noise-and-vibration-management-environmental-permits

16 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

MAKING YOUR WORLD A QUIETER PLACE

Resolve common ‘cross-talk’ issues and reduce sound transmission via hidden voids with the SIDERISE® Ceiling Void Barrier range.

SIDERISE ® high performance Ceiling Void Barrier range delivers effective noise control, combining sound-absorbing and high-mass barrier materials.

• SIDERISE® mineral CBX and foam FLX flexible quilts

• SIDERISE® CVB rigid slab

• SIDERISE® AVC die-cut closures for profiled structural metal decks

• ⅓rd octave acoustic and reaction to fire test data

• Dedicated technical team of acoustic engineers to assist with your project

SIDERISE® CBX

SIDERISE® CVB

SIDERISE® FLX

SIDERISE® AVC

We’re here to help

T: +44 (0)1473 827695 F: +44 (0)1473 827179 E: info@siderise.com www.siderise.com

FEATURE

Continued from p16

which can result in inaccurate predictions, e.g., when sources emit more low frequency energy, have tonal characteristics and/or are located indoors; • if data has been measured on site, has the consultant measured too close (1m) to a large source, which may propagate as an area source? Physical dimensions should be provided for all plant; • if measurements have been made at a ‘similar site’, provide justiﬁ cation; and • are on-time corrections realistic? • AQMAU risk-based considerations: Are the source levels realistic for the types of activity proposed? How do diﬀ erent source levels (single LW or octave band data) aﬀ ect the NIA conclusions?

each assessment element, e.g., variables with background survey, source data, calculations/modelling methodology. E.g., if background sound levels have not been determined robustly, AQMAU could take a conservative view of the potential impact on rating sound levels, and overall impact. • AQMAU risk-based considerations: Has uncertainty been discussed robustly? Could uncertainty be lower or higher than what is stated in the NIA? Does the uncertainty make the site more or less of a risk than the NIA states?

distinguishable industrial noise, unless it can be demonstrated that this is not justiﬁ ed. • AQMAU risk-based considerations: Has the NIA compared the speciﬁ c sound levels to the residual L Aeq to determine audibility of features at NSRs? Do we agree with the AFCs? If not, what impact does this have on the NIA conclusions?

Rating Sound Level • LAeq speciﬁ c level + AFCs at NSR. • AQMAU risk-based considerations: Do our rating levels and numerical impact diﬀ er from the NIA? How does this aﬀ ect the level of risk the rating levels from the NIA present?

Audit conclusions • does AQMAU agree with the NIA conclusions? • can AQMAU advise the permitting oﬃ cer that the NIA conclusions can be used to inform the permitting decision? o yes – permit can be issued on basis of NIA/ NMP; o no – permit cannot be issued on basis of NIA/NMP. • Recommendations o common: Noise Management Plan to target dominant plant; o worst-case: applicant to revise NIA (further survey work, calculations/ modelling mitigation).

Determining the impact • below adverse (low)/adverse/ signiﬁ cant impact (depending on context); and • low impact does not mean that there is no impact, applicant must still take all reasonable steps to minimise impact. • AQMAU risk-based considerations: Do we predict similar impact to NIA? Do site sound emissions present a lower or higher risk than the NIA states?

L Aeq speciﬁ c levels and modelling settings • AQMAU must be able to check submitted calculations/models, hence requirements for QSI data exchange ﬁ le, and spreadsheets with all data necessary to replicate consultant calculations; • input data used to create 3D computer model using high- resolution LIDAR data; • sensitivity is tested to source parameters, screening assumptions; • AQMAU standard modelling settings: order of reﬂ ection 3, building absorption coeﬃ cient 0.1, and receptor heights of 1.5m, 4m and above (where relevant); and • consider that barrier attenuation calculations based on the methodology in BS5228-1 may underestimate the eﬃ cacy of mitigation measures. • AQMAU risk-based considerations: Can we replicate the speciﬁ c sound levels presented in the NIA? With our sensitivity checks, are we predicting signiﬁ cantly diﬀ erent speciﬁ c sound levels? If so, how will this aﬀ ect the NIA conclusions?

Context • discussion of context is often brief, but is one of the key elements of the assessment, requiring a robust discussion; • context discussion should include comparison of site speciﬁ c to residual L Aeq , and judge how the proposed operations will ﬁ t into the existing sound climate; and • for variations, has the site been operating without complaint for a period of time? • AQMAU risk-based considerations: Is context discussion robust? How will existing sound climate aﬀ ect the impact from site emissions? Does the context make the site more or less of a risk than the NIA states? Uncertainty • discussion of uncertainty is often not included, but is one of the key elements; and • NIA should include a robust discussion of the uncertainty of

Conclusion AQMAU hopes that this article will go some way to help acoustic consultants to understand EA requirements for noise impact assessments which are submitted in support of environmental permit applications. By creating an awareness of the work AQMAU undertakes in the EA and providing a ‘behind the scenes’ look into the auditing process, this will help acoustic consultants to understand why certain information is required. By being transparent with the guidance, requirements and auditing process, AQMAU wishes to ensure a more eﬃ cient permitting process that will assist consultants in terms of successful submissions and help operators in getting permits approved.

Acoustic Feature Corrections (AFCs) • AFCs not always appropriately assigned, worst-case corrections often applied when feature may not be clearly audible at NSR(s); • NIA should compare the speciﬁ c (from site) and residual L Aeq from other sources, to determine whether certain features may be audible at receptors; and • EA expect +3 dB(A) ‘other’ correction to be applied for readily

About the authors: Paul is Noise Lead of the AQMAU team at the Environment Agency, auditing noise impact assessments and providing technical advice in relation to noise issues. He has a BSc in Music Systems Engineering from the University of the West of England and an MSc in Sound and Vibration Studies from the University of Southampton. Prior to joining the EA, Paul worked for independent and multi-disciplinary acoustic consultancies for nine years, gaining hands-on experience in environmental and architectural acoustics.

18 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

Power and intensity

HBK’s Hand-Held family offers a comprehensive range of functionality for pro

for product noise

assessment.

The new 2245 Product Noise app provides a simple cost-effective system for:

• Easy acquisition and reporting of sound power levels in accordance to ISO 3744 & 3746

E i iti d ti f d l l i d t ISO 3744 & 3746

• Determination of noise emissions for machinery and equipment

• Measurement of sound pressure levels for workstations and toys

• Declaring product compliance with noise speciﬁ cations for legislation or commendation

• Comparing noise emissions of machinery and equipment for benchmarking

B&K 2245 sound level meter

Hand-held 2270 Sound Intensity system makes it easy for one person to:

• Perform intensity based Noise mapping for noise source identiﬁ cation

• Measure sound power compliant with ISO 9614–1, 9614–2, ANSI S12.12 and ECMA 160

Hand held sound intensity kit

For more information contact: Tel: +44 (0) 1223 389 800 Email: ukinfo@bksv.com

INSTITUTE AFFAIRS

COVER STORY

IOA Early Careers Group

Sun or rain, lockdown or not, Early Careers Group (ECG) members, as always, have been busy!

By Tom Galikowski, Group Chair

events and watch over the interests of the student body. As part of this drive, we will be welcoming representatives of UKAN+ and IOA Diploma courses at our ECG committee. We have also been collating views and feedback from various groups from the Institute as well as universities and IOA Diploma centres. We will provide an update on this work in due course.

ECG webinar: ‘Upgrading your membership’ A webinar on 24 June 2021 was dedicated to upgrading IOA membership. The presentation was given by David Trew (BAP) who sits on the IOA Membership Committee and chairs Central Branch. The talk was framed around key questions of what, why, how, and when. What? David outlined membership options and discussed key diﬀ erences between them. Attention was drawn to the cost of AMIOA (associate) membership increasing to match the MIOA (member) grade fees after ﬁ ve years. Why? Corporate membership of the IOA is widely recognised in the industry and can be used to demonstrate a suitable level of qualiﬁ cations to satisfy some of the acoustic assessment methods (such as BREEAM). It is also commonly needed to comply with Local Authority requirements. For this reason, many employers require candidates to have (or be willing to apply for) IOA membership. How? The IOA website oﬀ ers detailed guidance about the application process. David stressed an importance of the term ‘responsible work’ in the context of applications for corporate

ikhil Mistry represented the IOA at Inter-Institutional Career Path Virtual Event organised by the IOA ECG, Institution of Structural Engineers, Institution of Chemical Engineers, Institution of Civil Engineers, Institution of Mechanical Engineers and the Institution of Engineering and Technology. The event showcased the disciplines and career pathways available within the engineering industry. Alec Korchev was the ECG coordinator and is currently working on the IOA involvement in CHAIN, an inter-institutional event organised by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. As part of the Acoustics 2021 conference, the ECG and UKAN+ will host a session building on last year’s theme of collaboration between industry and academia.

Researchers, engineers and consultants will present their experiences of eﬀ ective collaboration, followed by an informal panel discussion on the theme. We will talk also about areas of future research in acoustics. This event will be free to all.

Above: Richard Deane at work – measuring noise and vibration from rockbreaking in a TV studio

Student representative The ECG wants to include student members on the committee. Despite being the third largest group in the IOA (324 members), students are currently not formally represented on any committee and we feel there is much more that could be done in terms of engagement and involvement with the IOA and students earlier on in their careers. Our vision is for the reps to act as a link between the IOA, UKAN+, other students and universities, help promote student membership and

P22

20 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

ANC

International Women in Engineering Day

ANC Acoustic Awards 2021

Female acousticians from across the Association of Noise Consultants (ANC) network came together to mark International Women in Engineering Day (INWED).

Save the date for our annual Conference and Awards

olleagues in the industry collaborated to celebrate the event, with activities including a social media ‘take over’ held over three days in the run-up to the day. Sarah Barnes, assistant acoustic consultant at Adnitt Acoustics, Angela Lamacraft, principal acoustic consultant at ACCON UK and Vicky Stewart, associate acoustic consultant at Atkins, each hosted the ANC channels for a day. As well as documenting their work in acoustics, they introduced content from fellow female ANC members, including Sue Bird MBE, Anne Budd, Helen Sheldon, Eleanor Girdziusz and Jo Miller. The collaboration concluded with a presentation to members, which was held as part of the ANC’s interim meeting, which took place on 23 June, the day of INWED.

25th November 2021 Austin Court, Birmingham

If you are working on interesting projects this year, now is the time to think about entering the awards.

The 2021 categories are:

• Acoustics for Inclusion • Building Acoustics • Environmental Noise (Infrastructure) • Environmental Noise (Non- Infrastructure) • Innovation • Vibration Prediction and Control

STEM careers Sarah Barnes, Vicky Stewart, Eleanor Girdziusz, Louise Beamish, Reena Mahtani and Anne Budd gave the presentation to members, showing prominent issues including the gender pay gap, and potential reasons why young women are not joining the industry and exploring STEM careers. Vicky Stewart, who chairs the ANC’s Future Acousticians committee, which is tasked with promoting equality, inclusion and diversity in the sector, said: “INWED is an important day for every woman working in STEM and the social media take over and the presentation to members gave us a great platform to talk about it to a wide audience. “Through videos, case studies and slides on social media and our talk at the interim meeting we were able to show the huge impact women make in acoustics.”

You can obtain an entry form here :

https://theanc.co.uk/anc-awards/

To find out more about joining ANC go to www.theanc.co.uk/membership

www.association-of-noise-consultants.co.uk

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021 21

INSTITUTE AFFAIRS

Continued from p20

grades. The applicant should be involved in the decision-making process related to acoustics or its applications such as education, research, development, design of surveys, experiments or procedures, writing of professional reports and preparation of briefs or evidence. Use of standard procedures and undertaking routine acoustics measurements will not in itself be suﬃ cient for corporate membership. When? In some membership cases (e.g. MIOA and TechIOA), a minimum period of relevant experience is required following a period of formal education in acoustics. The presentation was followed by Q&A. Particularly hotly debated were questions concerning meeting requirements of relevant experience in cases when the job requirements make it diﬃ cult or impossible, and ﬁ nding suitable proposers when working alone or in a small team. In such cases, contacting the Membership Committee and IOA local branches is advisable. A recording of the webinar and the presentation are available at: https://tinyurl.com/2a57dfd8

£X thousand on additional room treatment for a small change in an acoustic parameter which may be foreign to them. I am excited to see consultancies around the world employing new technology to auralise these acoustic environments and diﬀ erences for clients. Being able to hear the diﬀ erence you are paying for is a powerful tool for communication. “Working in acoustics has also provided me with the opportunity to travel across the world. In 2019 I bought a one-way ticket to New Zealand and found work in Auckland. With the new territory came new challenges. Given the lack of earthquakes in the UK, I had never had to work with seismic engineers. Meeting impact insulation criteria while appeasing an engineer who wants everything rigidly ﬁ xed together can be diﬃ cult, especially when combined with a nationwide preference for lightweight ﬂ oor slabs. Then there are the complications in mitigating construction noise when all earthworks have to contend with a land made of volcanoes, and controlling rain noise in a city where a week’s worth of rain falls in an hour. But with these new challenges come new perspectives. Now my time abroad is coming to an end, my biggest takeaway is to not assume old solutions ﬁ t new problems and to approach every problem from a fresh perspective.”

In this issue, Richard Deane of Marshall Day Acoustics describes how his work in acoustics took him to all the way to New Zealand. “I discovered acoustics by accident at an open day at Southampton University. I had just ﬁ nished a tour of the mechanical engineering department when I spotted a sign advertising acoustical engineering. I had been brieﬂ y exposed to the convergence of maths and music at school through wave physics and a small maths project on harmonic series, but had never imagined there was enough content in this ﬁ eld to ﬁ ll four years of study. I followed the sign, and am so grateful I did. “My course at Southampton University showed me the depth and range of acoustics. Biomedical applications of acoustic signal processing, marine mammal calls and SONAR, and aerodynamic noise generated at a cyclist’s ear were just some of the topics covered. My thesis even had me roaming the forests of Hampshire at night to record owl calls (the identiﬁ cation of male Tawny Owls through analysis of speciﬁ c vocalisation content for the purpose of population monitoring). “In my ﬁ nal year, I took particular interest in architectural acoustics and how geometry and material selection could alter the aural experience of the users of a space. Finding work as a consultant allowed me to apply these concepts to the design of spaces new and old, commercial and public, intended for critical listening or for conversation amongst a lively atmosphere. This work also taught me how important communication is. When you are surrounded by acousticians, it is easy to believe acoustics is the most important element of any design. However, it can be a challenge convincing a client to spend

Early careers – acoustic consultancy in New Zealand In this column, we highlight a wide range of skills, sectors and regions where early career professionals come from.

Below: Richard Deane of Marshall Day Acoustics

Join the ECG The ECG is open to all members of the Institute (both corporate and non-corporate) who shall normally be under 35 years of age or within ﬁ rst ﬁ ve years of their career. The group is always keen to hear from members and non-members alike. To join the Early Careers Group, to ﬁnd out more information or to voice your concerns, visit https://www. ioa.org.uk/early-careers-group

CPD The ECG is always on the lookout for CPD ideas – please email us on earlycareers@ioa.org.uk if there is a technical, career or education- related topic you would like us to discuss

ECG vacancies There are ECG vacancies at Central Branch, North West, Research Committee and Physical Acoustics Group – if you are interested, please get in touch with the ECG or the relevant groups directly.

22 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

simulation case study Hearing aids can’t solve the cocktail party problem...yet

Many people are able to naturally solve the cocktail party problem without thinking much about it. Hearing aids are not there yet. Understanding how the human brain processes sound in loud environments can lead to advancements in hearing aid designs.

learn more comsol.blog/cocktail-party-problem

The COMSOL Multiphysics® software is used for simulating designs, devices and processes in all fields of engineering, manufacturing and scientific research.

APPRENTICESHIPS

Acoustics technician apprenticeships

The ﬁ rst acoustics technician apprenticeships start this month and the ﬁ rst intake will qualify in two years’ time with a level 4 qualiﬁ cation (equivalent to the ﬁ rst year of a degree) and successful apprentices will be able to hold the designation, TechIOA.

he scheme has been developed as an employer-led, industry initiative, with support from the IOA and the Association of Noise Consultants (ANC) and very appropriately, starts during the extended International Year of Sound. The IOA has been conﬁ rmed by the Institute of Apprenticeships and Technical Education as an end point assessment organisation and successful apprentices will be eligible to register with the Engineering Council, at EngTech level. The end point assessment is a critical part of the apprenticeship; it assesses the knowledge, skills and behaviours that the apprentice has

learned throughout the programme and conﬁ rms that they are occupationally competent. Grading is based upon two components: 1. Project and presentation; and 2. Presentation and questioning. Assessments need to be completed within six months of the apprenticeship end date. Richard Grove, Acoustics Director at BDP, is Chair of the working group which has developed the apprenticeship. He said: “The new apprenticeship will help deliver the acousticians of the future, which are needed across a range of industries to meet demand. It will also bring beneﬁ ts to the higher education sector, by acting as a feeder for

degree courses, either under the apprenticeship route or as a sponsored degree by a company. Apprentices will have a clear, deﬁ ned career path and the programme will oﬀ er opportunities for diversity and inclusion within the acoustics industry.”

Why hire an apprentice There are some compelling and sound reasons why apprentices can make a strong addition to your company’s recruitment policy and will also enable employers to be actively involved in the education and skills development of a diverse range of people. 1. Taking on an apprentice will enable you to grow your own talent, develop your company’s skills base; and boost the skills of the workforce. 2. Apprenticeships oﬀ er a new path into acoustics: balancing the science (critical thinking and theory) and the art (practical experience and real- world application). 3. The ﬁ gures add up: organisations with a payroll of more than £3m pay into the Government apprenticeship levy and can get an allowance of £11,000 per apprentice. Businesses that do not pay this levy receive up to 95% funded by the Government. P26

Left: Drone testing will be part of the acoustics technician apprenticeships at LSBU

24 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

•

APPRENTICESHIPS

How to hire an apprentice Your company hires an apprentice like any other employee, so advertise as you would for any other position within your company. You should draw up an apprenticeship agreement which sets out the skills, trade of occupation your apprentice is being trained for, the name of the apprenticeship, the start and end dates and the amount of training you will give them. Write a commitment statement, to be signed by the apprentice and the training provider, this will include the planned content and training schedule, what is expected and oﬀ ered by the employer, the apprentice and the training provider, and a procedure for resolving complaints. Help is available at every step, you can write your own agreement or download one from www.gov. uk/government/publications/ apprenticeship-agreement- template The same applies to the commitment statement, write your own or download one from

www.gov.uk/government/ publications/apprenticeships-oﬀ - the-job-training There are plenty of helpful tips at www.gov.uk/employing-an- apprentice

on 20 September 2021. The course is aimed at technician apprentice engineers who are looking to develop their skills and it will be the ﬁ rst ever occupational course in acoustics taught at level 4 in the UK. The course will feature a strong practical focus by having a substantial part of contact time dedicated to undertaking a wide variety of demonstrations, real-world applications, practical assignments and laboratory-based experiments. It will equip apprentices with the technical, professional, management and communication skills to be eﬀ ective employees and members of the acoustic industry and/or its aﬃ liated sectors. Steve said: “This apprenticeship will increase the number of suitable trained acousticians and the programme includes many acoustic design tools and complements the IOA Diploma in Noise Control. “If you are an employer in a ﬁ eld related to acoustics, we strongly recommend developing your employees through this carefully designed scheme.”

Continued from p24

Best possible start to a career To ensure that apprentices get the best opportunities and experiences at the beginning of their career in acoustics, the apprenticeship scheme is delivered in partnership with London South Bank University (LSBU) and will be a mix of online lessons and attendance at labs. For many years, the UK acoustic industry has consistently reported and continues to report the insuﬃ cient number of acoustic qualiﬁ ed candidates to ﬁ ll the job vacancies available and LSBU has been running acoustics courses for more than 45 years now, and produces more qualiﬁ ed acousticians than any other institute in the country. Professor Steve Dance of LSBU says that they are delighted to be the ﬁ rst to oﬀ er the new acoustics technician apprenticeship, starting

For more information see www.lsbu.ac.uk/study/course-ﬁ nder/acoustics-technician-apprenticeship

26 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

OPTIMAL UX & UI Design

td A CaF Y

Structural analysis with HEAD acoustics – the new ArtemiS SUITE 12.5 software package makes modal and operational vibration analyses effortless, intuitive and efﬁ cient. Ingeniously simple.

www.head-acoustics.com 

INSTITUTE AFFAIRS

Meet the IOA front line staﬀ (part two)

There is an enthusiastic and loyal core of people and companies who support the IOA’s business operation and the Institute’s 3,000+ members. Here, you can ﬁ nd out a little more about them. We published part one of this series in the July/August 2021 issue.

Keith Attenborough, IOA Education Manager Keith has been the part-time IOA Education Manager since 2007, having previously been Chief Examiner for the Diploma. During the lockdown year, Keith was busy overseeing the blended learning version of the Diploma. With that and his ‘Introduction to the Diploma’ video on YouTube he feels that the Diploma candidates probably see too much of him. In his spare time Keith has published the second edition of his book ‘Predicting Outdoor Sound’ (Taylor and Francis 2021). Lockdown severely curtailed his amateur musical activities (three choirs and an orchestra) but some of his music making is on YouTube https://youtu.be/ukWm8R3nFak

John Pritchard, Chair of IOA Education Committee John has been a senior lecturer in Acoustics and Noise Control for 30 years at the University of Derby. He took over the chair of the Education Committee in 2020, and is currently overseeing new short course developments (including Report Writing) that will be of beneﬁ t to existing members. He is also actively involved with many other IOA committees and is one of the external examiners for the IOA diploma course. Apart from acoustics, John’s academic interests also include environmental management and sustainable energy resources. He sits on various IOA committees including Environmental Noise Management, Workplace Noise Risk Assessment and Tutors and Examiners. If he gets any spare time, John enjoys walking, keeping ﬁ t, spending time with his family and eating chocolate! Nicky Rogers, Acoustics Bulletin editor Nicky has been editing B2B magazines for Warners Group Publications for more than 20 years and Acoustics Bulletin since 2018. Still new(ish) to the ﬁ eld of acoustics, she has now ﬁ rmly grasped the diﬀ erence between noise and sound and is more than equipped to tackle Highways England over the wrong surfacing they used on the A1, which runs only a ﬁ eld away at the back of her house, thus, disturbing sleep. Previous careers include a hectic few years running her own hot air balloon rides business, (pilot’s license now lapsed) and a stint as a sales rep for a dental company, in the days before female sales reps were a thing.

Mary Stevens, IOA Policy Support As Information Oﬃ cer at the National Society for Clean Air, Mary heard a lot of noise complaints. Having lived next door to a squat that hosted all-night dub sessions, she was keen to take up the cause of noise suﬀ erers. This soon led to coordinating national Noise Action Week and working with noise management professionals across the UK and EU on policy. In 2010 she received the IOA award for Promoting Acoustics to the Public. She now supports IOA in bringing acoustics to the attention of policy-makers. To escape noise, Mary enjoys walking and cycling on the South Downs, and is looking forward to the sound of music as live gigs return.

28 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

Parvez Saleh, Managing Director at Veda Consulting Company Parvez formed Veda Consulting Company in 2011 and he helps IOA to identify eﬃ cient operating models, taking their organisational goals into consideration.

Pathum Don, Customer Success Manager at Veda Consulting Company Veda Consulting Company provides customer relationship management (CRM) solutions to the not-for-proﬁ t sector and works with clients all over the world. Veda designs and supports the complete IOA online presence, including the learning platform and the media library and they developed the updated look on the website.

Jared Carty, Senior Network Consultant at Cerulean Solutions Limited Jared leads the data centre/ hosting team at Cerulean that manages and supports the IT setup at the IOA. With a focus on uptime and security, he and his team ensure that the IOA remains operational and secure. Apart from 18 years of IT support, Cerulean were instrumental in helping to integrate the CRM and ERP systems, streamlining the operations of the organisation. Jared’s conﬁ dence and laughter always warms the back oﬃ ce team at the IOA.

Andrew Tomlinson, Film maker Since 2018, Andrew has been creating videos for the IOA and he also ﬁ lms the learning modules for the Diploma in Acoustics & Noise Control. He runs the video production agency, Seekalook Digital Video, where he focuses on helping businesses in the education, technology, manufacturing and construction sectors. He says that he “enjoys making videos on subjects that are diﬃ cult to explain” to make the topics accessible and more understandable. In his spare time, he enjoys gardening, travelling and football.

Paul Smith, Creative Director at marketing and brand agency, Sun Street Paul designed the updated look of the IOA website (including the new ‘sound wave’ element) to be more responsive by considering the messaging structure and tone, moving the focus away from the science and towards the human beneﬁ t of the science. Paul introduced a brighter, fresher colour palette together with a contemporary geometric font to unify all IOA communications platforms. A series of other small changes made a big overall diﬀ erence, to show the IOA as an exciting organisation with a great sense of purpose and energy. Most recently, he designed the ﬂ yer and poster for the IOA’s secondary schools competition. Paul is a highly experienced and award-winning designer and strategist and has worked across diﬀ erent markets and industry sectors worldwide.

Paul McKenzie, Design Director at Paul McKenzie Studio One of Paul’s ﬁ rst projects for the IOA several years ago was to re-design the Institute’s Acoustics logo, which is still used on branded media. He helps with IOA conferences and advertising; for the conferences he designs and produces branded literature and other marketing communications for delegates, such as programmes and guides, while for marketing and advertising he works on the adverts that appear in trade publications and on social media. These are all directed towards building awareness of the IOA, helping to attract new members and promoting speciﬁ c events, seminars and courses.

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021 29

STEM

Selling STEM with Science Sizzles

IOA Acoustic STEM ambassadors continue to promote acoustics to schools through a variety of means. One of these is a collaboration with the Winchester Science Centre, which is focusing on acoustics this October.

By Richard Collman

Adventures in nature The indoor/outdoor experimentation zone, Bio:Space, lets visitors have a go at challenges themed around the Science Centre’s location in the South Downs National Park to ﬁ nd out more about the birds, bugs and plants of this ecologically important area.

Winchester Science Centre ©Harvey Mills

UK’s largest standalone planetarium The 360° screen puts visitors right in the action as they ‘ﬂ y’ through the solar system and discover more about the stars, constellations and planets. There are shows created for younger audiences, families and those with sensory sensitivities.

Become an Acoustic Explorer The new live science show, Acoustic Explorers is the ﬁ nal show in WSC’s 2021 Year of Sound celebrations. On weekends and school P32

inchester Science Centre (WSC) has developed a range of formats to present diﬀ erent types of STEM information, such as:

Immersive exhibits • A new interactive sound, hearing and vibration experience encourages visitors to venture into a 10m long guitar, they can climb inside a giant ear and try their hand at British Sign Language. • Explorer:Space allows an interactive mission through the solar system; exploring everything from robots and coding to black holes and human space ﬂ ight.

Spectacular live science The Science Centre’s free live shows include exciting demonstrations, explosive ‘wow’ moments and audience participation.

The Planetarium at Winchester Science Centre ©Harvey Mills

30 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

WANT A QUALIFICATION THAT ASSURES YOU OF GOOD JOB PROSPECTS?

Established for more than 40 years, the Institute provides graduates, and those with a proven interest in acoustics, the chance to become a recognised member of a vibrant and active global network with regular UK meetings and CPD.

• Environmental Noise: Measurement, Prediction and Control • Noise and Vibration Control Engineering

The Diploma in Acoustics and Noise Control includes the General Principles of Acoustics, Laboratory and Experimental Methods and a Project.

The Diploma is taught in centres across the UK or through distance learning with live tutorials – find out more: www.ioa.org.uk/education-and-training

Choose Specialist Modules from: • Building Acoustics • Regulation and Assessment of Noise

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.ioa.org.uk E: education@ioa.org.uk T: +44 (0)300 999 9675 Institute of Acoustics, Silbury Court, 406 Silbury Boulevard, Milton Keynes MK9 2AF

NOISESCOUT - A SOLUTION THAT SIMPLY WORKS

Unattended Noise Mo nitoring Live level reporting and alerts.

New Instrument Hire Service - Now Available

2) iy

NTi Audio UK · Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK Phone + 44 1438 870 632 · uk@nti-audio.com

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021 31

www.noisescout.com

STEM

Continued from p30

Above left: Explorer:Space ©Harvey Mills

holidays between Saturday 25 September and Sunday 21 November, visitors are invited to put their investigation skills to the test and become an acoustic explorer, ﬁ nd out what an acoustic engineer does, discover what reverberation is and how we can use it to control sound.

the pupils can do themselves with readily available materials. Perhaps making a basic musical instrument for example. • Stand up science – active learning where the pupils are learning while doing something active. Perhaps, if there is access to a reasonably quiet, very large open space, they could investigate the speed of sound, or reﬂ ections and echoes, or the eﬀ ect of acoustic barriers. • 60 second scientist – pupils make a spinner that lands on one of several subjects e.g. a regular hexagon gives six outcomes, each of which is a topic that the pupil should then try to talk or share

facts about for 60 seconds. It can be made easier by working in pairs, or harder by extending the time period. • Science Sparks – with Snap, or related item cards. • Guides – provide relevant and interesting information on speciﬁ c topics, which can be referred to as appropriate, for example, explaining the Doppler eﬀ ect using the frequency shift of the siren when an emergency services vehicle passes a listener. These are only some ideas. Hopefully between several thousand acousticians we can come up with many more? We can all be unoﬃ cial STEM ambassadors!

Above right: Science Live at Winchester Science Centre ©Harvey Mills

STEM resources IOA STEM ambassadors had a brainstorming session recently to look at how best to use these diﬀ erent formats and what type of acoustic material is most suited to each. This will be useful not only for our work with WSC but also to improve the breadth and quality of STEM resources we can use in the future too.

The IOA STEM committee are working with Engineering UK, Bradford Science Festival (October 2021) and Winchester Science Centre (also October 2021). They are all looking for willing volunteers for in person and pre-recorded input to inspire young people into careers in acoustics. If you are up to the challenge please get in touch at STEM@ioa.org.uk

If you want to ﬁ nd out more about the STEM resources the IOA already has and is developing, or would like to become a STEM ambassador, promoting acoustics to the next generation, please email the STEM committee at STEM@ioa.org.uk

• Science Sizzles – engaging, fun experiments that the pupils can do themselves at home, school or college. • WOW videos – surprising, informative activity that the pupils cannot do themselves, as the activity may require specialist equipment. An example could be using an acoustic camera to show sound generation distribution visually for a complex source. • Curiosity challenges – interesting experiments based on surprising facts. If not too passée, perhaps a tin can and string telephone may be appropriate, explaining how sound is transmitted along the string as vibration etc. • Let’s try it video – a step-by- step guide through a suitably straightforward experiment that

32 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

Cloud-based Monitoring High quality, with exceptional value for money

Y DIN'45669-:200 Intutive cloud-based platform, R7Verreten is |v) Compliant 24/7 data access, meas remote configuration, Y. Simuitaneous PPV and Updates and Y Simple, ightweight VDV measurement hardwere monitor management Full user customisation Included email and SMS. 7 Etfortless plug and play alerts’ with unlimited Y Two-year calibration installtion S interval recipients and users, ‘Unique automatic axis alignment Y Easy instalation and maintenance 7 integrated 46 and WiFi Y Ormnidots 46 telemetry ‘communications Automated CSV and perawere. PDF reporting UK & ROI Sales, Support & Calibration a/\\e EEMC wwweememontorscouk info@eemc-monitors.co.uk | 0208 Ol2 7933 MONITORS Suite 5, 5a Lombard Road, Wimbledon, SWi9 3TZ

Honeycomb Platform

SWARM Vibration Sensor

HIVE Dust Monitoring

Innovative, straightforward and practical monitoring solutions

OPINION

ProPG and AVO – response to article published in July/August 2021 Acoustics Bulletin

In the July/August issue of Acoustics Bulletin, we published an article written by three members of the working group responsible for the ProPG. Here, two of the major authors of the AVO Guide, Jack Harvie-Clark and Anthony Chilton, who is Chair of the AVO Committee, respond to that article. They write:

Position of AVO with respect to ProPG The AVO is clear, from para. 1.19 quoted below, that it seeks to support the guidance in the ProPG:

he article appears to present the AVO Guide and the ProPG as if they are competing guidance documents – which they are not. In our view, that article makes some inaccurate and misleading claims that appear to undermine the application of the AVO Guide. Some of these are discussed below, in pursuit of clarity and transparency for acoustics practitioners.

• Paragraph 2.34: ‘design the accommodation so that it provides good standards of acoustics, ventilation and thermal comfort’ • Paragraph 2.36: ‘[where a] scheme is reliant on open windows to mitigate overheating, it is also necessary to consider the potential noise impact during the overheating condition. In this case a more detailed assessment of the potential impact on occupants should be provided in the ADS’.

1.19 The ProPG emphasises the importance and principles of good acoustic design; ... 1.20 In particular, the paragraphs 2.34 – 2.36 of the ProPG indicate that an integrated design approach must be taken to acoustic, ventilation and thermal comfort conditions:

FEATURE

The ProPG: Planning & Noise, May 2017 (‘ProPG’) is jointly published guidance issued by the CIEH, IOA and the ANC. The Acoustics Ventilation and Overheating Residential Design Guide, Version 1.1, 2020 (‘AVOG’) was published jointly by the ANC and the IOA. ProPG and AVOG

FEATURE

FEATUR

FEATU

EATU

level of NNG sta conside for publi eﬀ ects o proportio highly an There is cardiova From a level of n “ increasi health re greater th situation t (our emph therefore considere is likely th occur more

Below: A summary of the overall ProPG approach is provided in Figure 4. Process The ProPG advocates a systematic, proportionate, risk based, two-stage, approach. Stage 1 is an initial noise risk assessment of the proposed development site; and Stage 2 sets out a systematic consideration of four key elements for higher noise exposure sites. Where Stage 2 is applicable it leads to recommendations for the decision maker. In simple terms the choice of recommendation is as follows: grant without conditions, grant with conditions, ‘avoid’ or ‘prevent’. In the case of environmental noise ingress, the AVOG also describes a two-level assessment procedure for the overheating condition. The ﬁ rst level is a site risk assessment based on external noise levels and the assumption that opening windows are the primary means of mitigating overheating. The second level assessment considers the potential for adverse eﬀ ect on occupants based on internal ambient noise level. The Level 2 assessment is recommended for ‘High’ risk sites. For ‘Low’ and ‘Medium’ risk sites, a Level 2 assessment can optionally be undertaken to give more conﬁ dence regarding the suitability of internal noise conditions. This may be particularly appropriate for sites in the ‘Medium’ risk category. The Level 2 assessment suggests that assessment of the adverse eﬀ ect from noise exposure should include an estimate of how frequently and for what duration the overheating condition occurs. No guidance is provided however on what durations and levels of frequency will be considered to be appropriate. Rather, the Level 2 assessment provides qualitative guidance to apply a sliding scale for acceptable levels of internal noise based upon the frequency and duration over which the overheating condition occurs (see ﬁ gure 3-2 reproduced from AVOG). The practitioner then has to use this information to inform an assessment of adverse eﬀ ects on the occupants: however, no further guidance is given about the way in which this information should be used as part of the decision making and design process. In particular, the document provides no guidance on how to assess the risks to health and quality of life of following the AVOG guidance.

FEATURE

vided in Figu

a typical annual period. Even though thermal dynamic models are complex it is not possible to predict exactly how people will behave in reality. Assuming that windows are only opened when overheating occurs is inappropriate. 9. There is little if no evidence to support the assertion that the adaptive comfort model can be used to assess the impact of noise. This is especially true at night does because there is little awareness in the general population of the harmful eﬀ ects of exposure to noise at night. It would be wrong therefore to assume that the occupants of dwellings can make properly informed choices about the trade-oﬀ between acoustic and thermal conditions. 10. CIBSE TM59 does not consider the adverse eﬀ ects of noise. It considers overheating in isolation and provides pass/ fail criteria for thermal comfort. There is no mechanism to relax the criteria for overheating to allow a balance between overheating and noise. Practitioners should be aware of the limitations of TM59 when applied in areas of medium and high exposures to noise and be cautious about relaxing the noise standards in order to achieve strict pass/fail criteria for overheating. Such an approach is not supported by the available evidence.

a typical annual p

period. Even

though thermal dyn

STAGE 1: INITIAL SITE RISK ASSESSMENT

overheating condition

ynamic models

to assume closed windows when a mechanical ventilation system 5

MENT

are complex it is not

ot possible

ventilation and overheating. The ProPG also addresses external noise amenity. By contrast, the AVOG deals with internal noise and speciﬁ cally acoustics, ventilation and overheating and is intended to supplement the ProPG. Importantly, the AVOG only applies to situations where good acoustic design cannot be achieved with windows open through consideration of site layout and other design options that might control internal noise levels. The starting position for AVOG is to consider mitigation of noise impact on new residential development after good acoustic design has been applied, site-wide, as described in the ProPG. The AVOG therefore only considers design options that relate to the building envelope. The AVOG aims to ﬁ ll the gap left between other guidance in achieving comfortable, climate resilient, sustainable dwellings. The basis for this claim is not clear however, not least because the ProPG also considers sustainable design objectives as part of other relevant factors. The table below summarises the key aspects of scope and application of the two documents.

Internal ambient noise level [Note 2]

to predict exactly how

Right: Table 3-3 Guidance for Level 2 assessment of noise from transport noise sources [Note 1] relating to overheating condition

If the internal L Aeq levels exceed the target levels by more than 10 dB, ProPG advises that: ‘they are highly likely to be regarded as “unacceptable” by most people, particularly if such levels occur more than occasionally. Every eﬀ ort should be made to avoid relevant rooms experiencing “unacceptable” noise levels at all and where such levels are likely to occur frequently, the development should be prevented in its proposed form.’ Again, the frequency and duration must be considered as part of a judgment on the acceptability of the situation and the need to refuse the development. The AVOG recommends that the desirable noise standards can be relaxed during the overheating condition on the basis that: ‘the overheating condition occurs for only part of the time. During this period, occupants may accept a trade- oﬀ between acoustic and thermal conditions, given that they have some control over their environment. In other words, occupants may, at their own discretion, be more willing to accept higher short-term noise levels in order to achieve better thermal comfort. The importance of control is relevant to daytime exposure, but not to night time exposure where the consideration is sleep disturbance.’ There is little if any robust scientiﬁ c evidence to support this assertion at this time. For the daytime period, the upper category of >50 dB is deﬁ ned on the basis that L Aeq,T 50 dB represents the upper end of the range for reliable speech communication. For the night-time period, the upper category of >42 dB is deﬁ ned with reference to the WHO Night Noise Guidelines for Europe. The individual noise event Lmax value of 65 dB refers to the level that has been shown in Basner et al (2006) to result in longer duration awakenings that are more likely to be remembered the next day. The criterion is further qualiﬁ ed in the notes and explains that: ‘The L AF,max indicator associated with the upper category is intended for road traﬃ c; it may be more appropriate to use the “one additional noise- induced awakening” method for noise from rail traﬃ c or aircraft.’ The noise standards are not directly comparable because the documents use diﬀ erent terminology. Neither is there any

w people

is used to provide background ventilation, in accordance with Part F of the Building Regulations and without any consideration of overheating. Assuming windows closed may only be appropriate when integrated and good acoustic design cannot achieve suitable acoustic conditions with windows open. Both documents recognise that the overheating conditions must be accounted for. People may open windows for a variety of reasons. Controlling thermal comfort only represents one of several reasons why occupants may choose to have window open. For example, connection with the outside, sense of fresh air, and sense of control over one’s environment. The AVOG explicitly states that consideration of these factors is beyond the scope of the guidance. ProPG addresses internal noise in the context of other design aspects aﬀ ecting the health and quality of life of the inhabitants and other sustainable design objectives. In other words, it is based on a holistic design approach. The design aspects referred to includes

nce

will behave in reality. A

Examples of Out L Aeq,T [Note 3] during L Aeq, 8h during Individual noise events during 07:00 – 23:00 23:00 – 07:00 23:00 – 07:00

Assuming

Negligible Risk

that windows are only o

Low Risk Medium Risk

High Risk

opened

when overheating occurs

sport

[Note 6] [Note 4]

s inappropriate.

Avoiding periods o windows because for sleep in difficu prematu in gettin of life d in acous

Noise causes a material change in behaviour e.g. having to keep windows closed most of the time

There is little if no evidence to

here is little if no evidence

support the assertion that the

pport the assertion that the

Colin Cobbing, Dani Fiumicelli, Somayya Yaqub were members of the Working Group responsible for the production of the ProPG and are CIEH members, with a background in environmental health.

> 50 dB > 42 dB Normally exceeds 65 dB L AF,max

STAGE 2: FULL ASSESSMENT

adap

ptive comfort model can

be use

sed to assess the impact

of noise

e. This is especially true

ELEMENT 1 GOOD ACOUSTIC DESIGN

SIGN

at night d

does because there is

little awar

ELEMENT 2 Internal Noise Level Guidelines

reness in the general

ELEMENT 3 External Amenity Area Noise Assessment

At high signific is expe conside for lim

ELEMENT 4 Assessment of Other Relevant Issues

population

Assessm

n of the harmful eﬀ ects

the noise thresholds in the ProPG as recommended in the AVOG. 7. It is appropriate, where possible, that noise should be assessed with windows open to avoid risk of overheating and the overheating design strategy relies on windows being open to control indoor temperatures. Overheating is not, however, the only factor that should be considered. The occupants of dwellings and other buildings may choose to open windows for a variety of reasons as well as controlling thermal comfort. Residents in noisy locations will therefore be exposed to higher noise levels when windows are open. This is a choice that residents should be allowed to make. However, the potential impacts on health and quality of life need to be allowed for when deciding if housing in such circumstances is appropriate, and design and construction optimised to permit natural ventilation and control of overheating before relying on an approach based on closed windows and non- natural ventilation and control of overheating. 8. In the absence of robust data on the frequency and durations that windows are kept open for diﬀ erent designs of dwelling, it is recommended that the information reported in the WHO Night Noise Guidelines or other general occupancy data is used to consider the duration of windows open/ closed over P54

Rele

any consistency between the documents on how the frequency and duration of internal noise levels should be considered. In other words, there is no alignment how frequency and duration of internal noise levels should be interpreted. 4. The AVOG levels are signiﬁ cantly greater than the levels recommended by the ProPG. A level of noise exposure that is “ increasingly dangerous ” for public health represents a level that is greater than a SOAEL and is a situation that could be unacceptable, as deﬁ ned by Planning Practice Guidance. According to the ProPG, the upper levels speciﬁ ed in Table 3-3 of the AVOG could give rise to unacceptable levels of noise if they occurred more than occasionally 2 . 5. From a public health perspective, all possible adverse eﬀ ects on sleep should be considered. The advice given in the AVOG on the assessment of L AF,max levels, which is based on recalled awakenings, should be used with extreme caution as signiﬁ cant adverse eﬀ ects on health and quality of life can occur at levels lower than this threshold. 6. In noisy locations, before reverting to closed windows and non-natural means of ventilation and control of overheating, practical solutions including non-standard construction types should be considered alternative to the approach of diverging from

of exposure

e to noise at night.

his article analyses common ground and diﬀ erence between ProPG and AVOG. It identiﬁ es important areas of divergence between the guidance documents and aims to provide insights into how the two guidance documents can be used alongside each other to achieve consistent outcomes. The aim of this article is to provoke discussion and debate on some of the issues identiﬁ ed; such debate is intended to improve the two documents so that use of them together is more coherent than currently.

It would be wr

wrong therefore to

ACOUSTIC DESIGN STATEMENT

assume that the

As nois behavi e.g. tu televis loudly for cer ones w conce report the ac the dw perce

he occupants of

Consider A detailed adverse eﬀ is given in A and the arti disturbance (Cobbing, 2 There is c chronically sleep is asso negative hea Studies ha aﬀ ect sleep i eﬀ ects (e.g. a sleep state ch body movem autonomic res eﬀ ects (e.g. sl performance, and long-term reported chron cardiovascula increased bloo attacks). This is the schematic It is important t diﬀ erent types have been exam sleep disturban external averag L night ; and object which uses poly to record biophy that occur during in sleep stages w linked to individu such as L Asmax . Re self-reported slee and objective sle can diﬀ er as indiv always aware of awakenings. Aver such as L Aeq,T may assessing noise im disturbance, as no

Increasing likelihood of impact on reliable speech communication during the day or sleep disturbance at night

dwellings can m

make properly

RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER A. Grant without noise conditions B. Grant with noise conditions C. Avoid (significant adverse effects) D. Prevent (unacceptable adverse effects)

informed choices

N MAKER

s about the

ons

trade-oﬀ between a

Increasing noise level

acoustic and

thermal conditions.

fects)

effects)

10.

CIBSE TM59 does not

ot consider

Figure 4 Summary of overall ProPG app h

the adverse eﬀ ects of n

Below: Figure 3-1 Two-level noise assessment procedure - overheating condition

cedure - overheatin

ssment procedure - overheating condition

noise.

It considers overheating

g in

isolation and provides pas

At low behav unles for m

Level 1

ass/ fail

criteria for thermal comfort.

Site Risk Assessment Based on external free-field noise levels. Refer to Table 3-2

t. There

is no mechanism to relax the

e levels.

criteria for overheating to allow

Noise cause attitu respo acou not s chan

a balance between overheating

High Risk Level 2 Recommended Low or Medium Risk Level 2 optional Negligible Risk Level 2 not required

Do not normally exceed L AF,max 45 dB more than 10 times a night

Noise can be heard, but does not cause any change in behaviour

Negligible R

and noise. Practitioners should

Level 2 not req

be aware of the limitations of

≤ 35 dB ≤ 30 dB

TM59 when applied in areas

of medium and high exposures

Key points The key ﬁ ndings of this paper are summarised below: 1. Both documents aim to achieve integrated design 1 and good acoustic design and recognise that the overheating conditions must be accounted for. 2. The AVOG only applies to situations where good acoustic design cannot be achieved with windows open through consideration of site layout and other design options that might control internal noise levels. The starting position for AVOG is to consider mitigation of noise impact on new residential development after good acoustic design has been applied, site- wide, as described in the ProPG. 3. The noise standards are not directly comparable because the documents use diﬀ erent terminology. Neither is there

Level 2

to noise and be cautious about

Note 1 The noise levels suggested in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 assume a steady road traffic for other types of transport.

Assessment of Adverse Effect Based on internal ambient noise level and duration Refer to Table 3-3 and Figure 3-2

relaxing the noise standards in

Right: Table 1: Scope of ProPG and AVOG

Rig

ight:

Present Level 1 assess

Present Level 1 assessment to include details of external noise levels and method by which they have been determined

Aspect ProPG AVOG

order to achieve strict pass/fail

Table

include details of exter

le 1: Scope of

protection to he the ProPG depe and frequency might occur. In levels are signi than the levels recommend co as deﬁ ned by P Guidance, if th than occasiona reasonably be that, according upper levels s 3-3 of the AVO unacceptable occurred more It is not that upper levels d could be cons unacceptable any period of internal/ exte an open wind levels greate the day and represent ext 63 dB day an external day considered b a level that i to health. An

consistency between the documents on how the frequency and duration of internal noise levels should be considered. In other words, there is no alignment how frequency and duration of internal noise levels should be interpreted. The ProPG suggests that internal L Aeq,T greater than 40 dB during the day (living rooms) and 35 dB at night could be unreasonable and should be avoided if the levels were expected to occur frequently. The use of the word avoid is deliberate and links to the noise objectives set out in the NPSE and policy in the NPPF and the PPG (which references the ProPG). The AVOG suggests that the upper internal ambient levels greater than 50 dB during the day and 42 dB at night could be considered to represent SOAEL values, depending on the frequency and duration. In policy terms the NPSE recommends that SOAEL values should be avoided and are therefore comparable to the ProPG levels set at 5 dB above the WHO CNG levels. Thus, it can be seen that the AVOG could potentially give rise to a signiﬁ cantly lower level of

levels and method by w

ProPG

G and AVOG

criteria for overheating. Such an

have been determ

Sources Predominantly transportation noise and some commercial or industrial noise when it is not dominant

approach is not supported by the

Transportation noise

Comparison of the noise standards Both guidance documents use the internal noise criteria derived from WHO Community Noise Guidelines 1999 and BS8233 as a starting point for desirable internal noise standards. The ProPG allows for a relaxation of the desirable standards when it is not possible to meet internal target levels with windows open. It states: Where development is considered necessary or desirable, despite external noise levels above WHO guidelines, the internal L Aeq target levels may be relaxed by up to 5 dB and reasonable internal conditions still achieved. The more often internal L Aeq levels start to exceed the internal L Aeq target levels by more than 5 dB, the more that most people are likely to regard them as “unreasonable”. Where such exceedances are predicted, applicants should be required to show how the relevant number of rooms aﬀ ected has been kept to a minimum.’ It can be seen that it is a question of degree in terms of the noise level, the extent of exceedances as a proportion of the development, and the frequency of occurrence if the situation is to be considered unreasonable or not. The reference to frequency and duration can be used to link the noise assessment to the overheating assessment. P56

available evidence.

Present Level 2 assessment to include the following minimum information:

mation:

Scope There are many similarities between the guidance documents. Both consider acoustic issues associated with providing new housing in noisy locations; however, there are also material diﬀ erences. Both documents aim to achieve integrated design 3 and good acoustic design 4 , while recognising that windows may need to be opened to control overheating and that this can lead to adverse noise impacts. Unlike the current version of BS8233:2014, neither document advocates that it is appropriate

Scope

• Statement of the overheating criteria being applied.

• Description of the provisons for meeeting the stated overheating criteria. This should include, where relevent, the area of facade opening.

There are many similarities between

criteria. This should include, where re

Application All residential development Only parts of residential development not meeting good acoustic design in accordance with ProPG

the guidance documents. Both

• Details of the likely internal ambient noise levels whilst using provisions for mitigating overheating, and the method used to predict these.

visions for mitigating overheating, and

consider acoustic issues associated

• Estimation of how frequently and for what duration such provisions are required to mitigate overheating.

ons are required to mitigate overheatin

with providing new housing in noisy

• Consideration of the effect of individual noise events.

locations; however, there are also

• Assessment of adverse effect on occupants.

material diﬀ erences.

Situations Internal and external noise Internal only

Both documents aim to achieve

integrated design

and good

acoustic design

Factors All aspects of the built environment aﬀ ecting living conditions

Increasing Adverse Effect

verse Effect

, while recognising

that windows may need to be

Acoustics, ventilation and overheating

opened to control overheating and

that this can lead to adverse noise

Sustainability objectives including climate change

Internal ambient noise level from

Yes, covered under other relevant issues Yes, indirectly

impacts. Unlike the current version

SOAEL

of BS8233:2014, neither document

Reducing Adverse Effect

advocates that it is appropriate

transport sources

Noise from mechanical systems No Yes

I a

3 Integrated design is a comprehensive holistic approach to design which brings together specialisms usually considered separately. It attempts to take into consideration all the factors and adjustments necessary to a decision making process. 4 ProPG – “A good acoustic design will be one that continues to minimise noise impacts and to avoid signiﬁ cant noise eﬀ ects for the lifetime of the development or as long as is practicable taking into account other economic, environmental and social impacts.” 5 There is a distinction between ventilation and overheating. Background ventilation as per AD-F - is separate to the overheating, which would require much higher levels of ventilation to achieve comfortable temperatures during summer (and is not considered in AD-F). Background ventilation is the rate that is needed all year round for good air quality, prevent humidity, mould and mildew etc - additional boost ventilation and open windows for overheating is just during the summer when it’s hot. Background ventilation is provided all year round to ensure that homes are suﬃ ciently ventilated.

3 Integrated design is a comprehensive holistic approach to design which brin

the factors and adjustments necessary to a decision making process.

1 Integrated design is a comprehensive holistic approach to design which brings together specialisms usually considered separately. It attempts to take into consideration all the factors and adjustments necessary to a decision making process. 2 For example, 5 or 6 times per year.

4 ProPG – “A good acoustic design will be one that continues to minimise nois

LOAEL

AEL

leve tran so

as is practicable taking into account other economic, environmental and soci

No Adverse Effect

se Effect

5 There is a distinction between ventilation and overheating. Background ventila

ventilation to achieve comfortable temperatures during summer (and is not con

quality, prevent humidity, mould and mildew etc - additional boost ventilation

Left: Figure 3-2 Qualitative guidance on combined eﬀ ect of internal ambient noise level and duration for the overheating situation

Most of the time Rarely

ventilation is provided all year round to ensure that homes are suﬃ ciently ven

Duration for which the ‘overheating condition’ occurs

r which the

52 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN JULY / AUGUST 2021

Most of

ondition’ occurs

29/06/2021 13:00 29/06/2021 13:00

54 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN JULY / AUGUST 2021

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN JULY / AUGUST 2021

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN JULY / AUGUST 2021 55

ProPG.indd 55 ProPG.indd 55

ProPG.indd 54 ProPG.indd 54

56 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN JULY / AUGUST 2021

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN JULY / AUGUST 2021

34 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

declared: ...the assessment of the relationship between diﬀ erent types of single-event noise indicators and long-term health outcomes at the population level remains tentative. The guidelines therefore make no recommendations for single-event noise indicators.

1.21 In addition, paragraph 2.38 says: ‘Where mechanical services are used as part of the ventilation or thermal comfort strategy for the scheme, the impact of noise generated by these systems on occupants should also be assessed’. 1.22 The AVO Guide provides a practical method to address these requirements. There is no ambiguity or competition in the AVO Guide that it should be used in preference to the ProPG.

The AVO Guide also makes clear that there are areas that would beneﬁ t from further research study and hope that this study will be forthcoming.

Lack of information regarding duration The article criticised the lack of quantitative information regarding duration in the AVO Guide. Quantitative guidance is not included because, whilst convinced that duration is an important factor, the authors concluded that there was insuﬃ cient robust evidence for quantitative values. Really, this criticism is just a statement that more research study is necessary in this area, as already clearly stated in the AVO Guide. The ProPG includes qualitative statements relating to duration, that are included in the article e.g. ‘the more often’, ‘more than occasionally’ and ‘likely to occur frequently’. The article put these forwards as evidence that the ProPG provides a link to the question of duration that the AVO Guide tackles. It seems that the AVO approach is supported by the ProPG and also that there is also agreement that quantitative guidance would be preferable, if there was a suﬃ ciently strong evidential basis. The article suggested that the AVO Guide posits a linear relationship between acoustics and temperature. This is not the case and Figure 3-2 of the AVO Guide is deliberately shown without linear axes.

Design guidance The AVO Guide oﬀ ers criteria, which will always be open to criticism – too high, too low, impractical, insuﬃ ciently evidenced etc. Prior to the AVO Guide, the question of noise conditions for occupants when relying on opening windows for thermal comfort went unaddressed. Designers and regulators both need clear and unambiguous guidelines to support design and decision making.

Lack of evidence The article asserted many times that the AVO Guide has a lack of evidence to support the guidance it contains. The authors of the AVO Guide explicitly set out the basis for the guidance with clear references to existing research and guidance, including noting gaps in research that could inform future revisions. This is not the case in the ProPG, however, which puts forward 5 and 10 dB relaxations to the guideline levels with no supporting discussion, evidence or justiﬁ cation. The ProPG committee members have conﬁ rmed that these numbers are based on their expert opinion rather than any epidemiological evidence. We concur that expert opinion is necessary, following the precautionary principle where there is an absence of evidence, but this should be declared as such.

Next steps A joint working group is being formed now between the IOA, CIEH and ANC, in order to better integrate the ProPG and AVO Guide. The ﬁ rst step is intended to be a statement jointly issued by all three organisations. This will indicate that the AVO guidance shouldn’t be the starting point in the design of mitigation of noise impact on new residential development. Instead, the AVO guidance should be used after reasonably practicable attempts to use Good Acoustic Design to achieve the internal target levels recommended by the ProPG have been exhausted. There is a positive intent from members of both the ProPG committee and the AVO committee, representing the three organisations, to work together to consider further how to best integrate the advice within the two documents, and present it more clearly. It is disappointing that the authors of the recent article have implied that there is such a gulf between the two documents. That article might be used by some who wish to avoid doing anything to address the problem, to the detriment of the future occupants. The authors of that article were consulted on the AVO Draft, but up to the time of writing have not responded. The AVO Committee remains open to communication and constructive feedback and will always enter into dialogue to improve the two documents.

55 dB, which the WHO ates: ‘The situation is red increasingly dangerous ic health. Adverse health occur frequently, a sizeable on of the population is nnoyed and sleep-disturbed. evidence that the risk of scular disease increases.’ a policy perspective, a oise exposure that is ngly dangerous ” for public presents a level that is han a SOAEL and is a hat should be prevented hasis). It is recommended that such levels should be d to be unacceptable if it at such levels are likely to e than occasionally.

55 d

dB, which the WHO

night are intermittent not continuous, which means that the same Lnight value can result from diﬀ ering numbers of events. The two types of sleep disturbance should both be considered in assessment and may have separate implications for guidance. Disturbance of the sleep cycle that causes biological awakenings can be a signiﬁ cant adverse eﬀ ect as deﬁ ned in the NPPG Noise Exposure Categories when such arousals cause sleep disturbance on a regular basis, as this leads to poor sleep quality due to fragmentation of the sleep cycle. Researchers ( 1 Eus J.W. Van Someren, 2015) note that ‘Although superﬁ cially more subtle than total sleep deprivation (TSD), chronic sleep disruption has far-reaching consequences starting from the eﬀ ects on brain cells and ending with recent insights in the mechanisms involved in the chronically disrupted sleep experienced by people suﬀ ering from insomnia, one of the most common disorders. In some cases, negative consequences result from the fragmentation of the normal sleep pattern into short sleep bouts frequently interrupted by brief awakenings, even if the total daily amount of sleep is not decreased.’ The same researchers go on to say: “The relevance of ﬁ ndings from experimental studies is supported by observational studies on the consequences of naturally occurring sleep disruption,

nig

ght are inter

ates

es:

‘The situation is

whether due to environmental and societal demands or pathological conditions such as sleep-disordered breathing or insomnia. The resulting insights lay ground for a mechanistic understanding of the epidemiological ﬁ nding that disrupted sleep contributes to the major health challenges facing our aging society, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, neurodegeneration, and depression.” Consequently, as well as assessing the “unacceptable” adverse eﬀ ect of self-reported sleep disturbance, it is also important to consider impacts of noise on sleep at noise levels that induce biological awakenings i.e. objective sleep disturbance but can have signiﬁ cant adverse eﬀ ects in terms of sleep disturbance which in the long-term could cause fragmenting sleep due to interference with the sleep cycle on a regular basis. Basner et al [2006] proposed a health protection scheme for the Leipzig/Halle airport in Germany to manage the risk of sleep disturbances associated with aircraft noise. Basner et al recommended that: • on average there should be less than one additional EEG awakening induced by aircraft per night 6 , and • awakenings recalled the following morning should be prevented as much as possible, and • there should be no relevant impairment to the process of falling asleep again. P58

which means

red increasingly dangerous

Approach to L max The approach to assessment of noise from events, L max , is described in the paper presented at the 2019 IOA Annual Conference, ‘Assessing L max for residential developments: the proposed AVO Guide approach’. ( https://tinyurl. com/xpt8dhzv ) This discusses the constraints of using the ‘one additional awakening’ method, as well as threshold value methods. There was consensus from the audience and acoustic practitioners more widely that quantitative guidance on assessing L max was desirable. To develop evidence- based guidance for assessing L max is a task that should not be underestimated; the WHO 2018 Environmental Noise Guidelines ( https://tinyurl.com/yxvyt7hn )

value can resu

ic health. Adverse health

numbers of ev

occur frequently, a sizeable

of sleep distur

on of the population is

be considered

nnoyed and sleep-disturbed

comes [Note 5]

may have sepa

evidence that the risk of

for guidance.

scular disease increases.

s.’

Disturbance

a policy perspective, a

certain activities during of intrusion. Having to keep closed most of the time of the noise. Potential disturbance resulting ulty in getting to sleep, ure awakening and difficulty ng back to sleep. Quality minished due to change stic character of the area.

that causes bio

oise exposure that is

can be a signiﬁ

ngly dangerous

” for

r public

as deﬁ ned in th

presents a level tha

at is

Exposure Cate

teg

han a SOAEL and i

is a

arousals cau

ause

hat should be pr

prevented

a regular ba

basis,

hasis). It is recom

ommended

sleep qua

ality du

that such leve

els should be

of the sle

er noise levels, more ant behavioural change cted and may only be ered suitable if occurring ted periods.

leep cyc

d to be unac

cceptable if it

(

Eus J.W

.W. Van So

at such leve

vels are likely to

that

‘A

Although s

e than occ

ccasionally.

subtle

tle than total

e levels increase, small our changes are expected ning up the volume on the on; speaking a little more having to close windows tain activities, for example which require a high level of ntration. Potential for some ed sleep disturbance. Affects oustic environment inside welling such that there is a ved change in quality of life.

(TSD

SD), chronic sle

ation of L max criteria consideration of the ﬀects of sleep disturbance Appendix A of ProPG cle on zero sleep e from aircraft noise 021) lear evidence that disturbed or curtailed ociated with a number of alth outcomes. ve shown that noise can n terms of immediate rousal responses, hanges, awakenings, ents, total wake time, sponses), after- eepiness, daytime cognitive function) eﬀ ects (e.g. self- nic sleep disturbance; r eﬀ ects such as od pressure, heart s summarised in by Basner (2018). o realise that two of sleep outcomes mined. Self-reported ce which is linked to e metrics such as ive sleep disturbance somnography (PSG) ysiological changes g sleep and changes which has been ual noise events eports between ep disturbance ep disturbance viduals are not or recall biological rage metrics not be best for mpacts on sleep oise events in the

ation o

of L

criteria

as far-reaching

max

consi

sideration of the

starting from the

ﬀects

cts of sleep disturbance

cells and ending

ppendix A of ProPG

in the mechanism

cle on zero sleep

the chronically dis

e from aircraft noise

experienced by pe

021)

from insomnia, on

lear evidence that

wer noise levels, limited vioural change is expected s conditions are prevalent ost of the time. [Note 8]

common disorders

disturbed or curtailed

disturbed or curtaile

negative conseque

ociated with a num

mber of

the fragmentation

alth outcomes.

sleep pattern into s

e can be heard, but does not e any change in behaviour, ude, or other physiological onse [Note 9] . Can slightly affect the stic character of the area but such that there is a perceived ge in the quality of life.

ve shown that n

t noise can

frequently interrup

n terms of imm

mmediat

awakenings, even

rousal resp

sponses,

amount of sleep is

hanges, a

awakenings,

The same resear

ents, to

total wake time,

to say: “The relevan

spons

nses), after-

from experimental s

noise source but may be adapted

eepiness, daytime

supported by obser

cognitive function)

ealth and QoL than ending on the duration these ambient levels fact, the AVOG ﬁ cantly greater that ProPG would uld be unacceptable, Planning Practice ey occurred more ally. It can be concluded therefore g to the ProPG, the peciﬁ ed in Table OG could give rise to levels of noise if they e than occasionally. surprising that the deﬁ ned in Table 3-3 sidered to be e if they persisted for time. Allowing an rnal noise correction for dow, internal ambient r than 50 dB during 42 dB at night would ternal noise levels of nd 55 dB night. An time level of 65 dB is by many to represent s considered harmful n external night-time

studies on the conse

eﬀ ects (e.g. self-

naturally occurring s

nic sleep disturbance;

r eﬀ ects such as

od pressure, heart

Individual Moderators • Noise Sensitivity • Age etc.

Ind

Noise Exposure Characteristics • L max or SEL • Rise Time etc.

s summarised in

Situational Moderators • Current Sleep Stage • Sleep Time etc.

Mod

by Basner (2018).

• Noise

o realise that two

• Ag

of sleep outcomes

mined. Self-reported

Physiologic Reactions Relate to Single Noise Events • Cerebral and Autonomic Arousals • (Sleep Stage Changes, Awakenings, Body Movements, Blood Pressure m etc.)

ce which is linked to

e metrics such as

• (Sleep

ive sleep disturbance

somnography (PSG)

ysiological changes

Disturbance/Fragmentation of Sleep Structure (Whole Night) • Sleep Duration n , Awakening Frequency m , Arousal Frequency m • Time Spent in Deep Sleep n , in REM Sleep n , Awake m , etc.

Dist

g sleep and changes

• Sle

which has been

•

ual noise events

eports between

Short-term Eﬀ ects • Performance n • Sleepiness m etc.

ep disturbance

Long-term Eﬀ ects • High Blood Pressure m • Myocardial Infarction m etc.

ep disturbance

•

viduals are not

or recall biological

Figure 1. Eﬀ ects of noise on sleep. It is hypothesised that health consequences will develop if sleep is relevantly disturbed by noise over long time periods (dashed lines: ﬁ gure reproduced from Basner et al. [25])

Figure 1.

Eﬀ ects of no

rage metrics

sleep is relevantly dis

not be best for

from Basner et al. [25]

mpacts on sleep

oise events in the

6 On average 365 days per year

6 On average 365 days per y

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN JULY / AUGUST 2021 57

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021 35

INSTITUTE AFFAIRS

Health and whole life cost beneﬁ ts of highways noise barriers

INSTRUMENTATION CORNER

As with any asset on the highways network, it is common sense to allow for realistic maintenance costs when choosing and procuring a noise barrier system. But a short-term approach of focusing on newly installed prices alone creates a false economy and potentially stores up ﬁ nancial hardship for the future.

By Giles Parker, Sound Barrier Solutions Ltd

he Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) document CD 355 covers ‘the application of whole- life cost for design and maintenance of highways structures’ . Appendix B gives an example of a lifecycle appraisal for a highways structure stating that a 60-year period is normally required.

considers the safety beneﬁ ts of choosing assets with a higher design life. As an example, it states in Table E/A.1 ‘choose barrier design life taking into account both working life costs and the safety issues associated with in service maintenance of the system.’ DMRB document LD 119, Roadside environmental mitigation and enhancement , chapter 5: Noise Barrier Design – para 5.9 requires that noise barriers ‘have a non-acoustic durability of at least 20 years’ . By the 60th year of its lifecycle, such a noise barrier could be being installed for the fourth time; having required full replacement three times already! Will the speciﬁ er take into account the whole life costs associated with all these anticipated replacements? Following rigorous testing of installed barrier systems, the Transport Research Laboratory published a project report – PPR 490 on the Acoustic durability of timber noise barriers on England’s strategic road network. The test results suggest that the acoustic performance of timber absorptive barriers degrade in acoustic performance by approximately 7 dB after only ﬁ ve years. Over the same timeframe, single-skin timber reﬂ ective barriers to degrade by the order of 4-7 dB but starting from a much lower initial sound insulation level. When barriers degrade so quickly it becomes essential to ﬁ nancially quantify the eﬀ ects of durability when choosing between noise barrier systems based on their

whole life cost beneﬁ ts and long- term acoustic performance.

Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) workbook The adverse impact of road traﬃ c noise on public health is long appreciated. Being able to quantify in ﬁ nancial terms not only the perceived annoyance but also the long-term damage to health due to traﬃ c noise helps to justify why one particular noise barrier design will beneﬁ t the community more than another over its lifecycle. DEFRA has produced guidance on assessing the impacts of transport- related noise using an ‘impact pathway’ approach and covering a range of impacts on: annoyance, sleep disturbance, and health impacts, including heart disease (acute myocardial infraction, or AMI) stress and dementia. The TAG noise workbook in the WebTAG appraisal analysis provides a way of determining the impact of highway noise on these health aspects and compares the overall (holistic) cost beneﬁ t over a 60-year lifecycle of diﬀ erent mitigation measures; such as alternative noise barrier designs.

Maintenance free? Few noise barrier systems currently installed on the UK network can be considered maintenance-free and are certainly not designed for a 60-year life. At the very least, any highways noise barrier designer/ speciﬁ er should be providing a comparative cost appraisal for the lifecycle of the noise barrier that includes for the initial installed cost; PLUS • the reinstallation cost; PLUS • the clearance and removal cost of the existing degraded system; PLUS • any traﬃ c management cost associated with the replacement each time the barrier needs replacing.

Noise modelling To help illustrate how the health and whole-life cost beneﬁ ts of noise barriers might be compared, a hypothetical road traﬃ c noise model was produced using CadnaA to predict how noise propagates from a dual carriageway towards a nominal 300-house residential scheme. P38

This is apart from any localised repair work that might be required on an ad hoc basis, not to mention the impact on road traﬃ c ﬂ ows or journey time reliability each time a replacement is required.

Further guidance DMRB document GD 304 Designing health and safety into maintenance

36 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

SonaSpray K-13 in world famous film studios acoustics

INSTITUTE AFFAIRS

Continued from p36

The houses were spread over a 600m length adjacent to one carriageway, each house with a receiver on its most exposed ﬁ rst ﬂ oor façade. To be generic, the model was assumed ﬂ at. Using Calculation of Road Traﬃ c Noise (CRTN), diﬀ erent barrier design scenarios and types were compared to determine the average noise reductions due to barriers ranging from 600-1000m long and from 2-6m in height. The exercise was then repeated assuming 300 houses on either side of the carriageway for parallel noise barriers of the same dimensions. Based on the health aspects listed above, the TAG noise workbook in the WebTAG analysis can determine the ﬁ nancial health beneﬁ t of these noise reductions for diﬀ erent barrier heights, lengths and conﬁ gurations. This ﬁ nancial health beneﬁ t is referred to as the net present value (NPV). If TAG assumes that these noise reductions are maintained over a 60-year lifecycle, then this maintenance will obviously require some barrier types to be replaced a lot more frequently than others. By selecting diﬀ erent barrier types and material, a detailed cost comparison could then be made, knowing the typical installed costs of each barrier type, the expected number of replacements over a 60-year cycle to maintain performance, the cost of full reinstallation, the clearance and removal cost of the existing degraded system and any traﬃ c management cost associated with the replacement. In so doing, one can obtain a more realistic 60-year whole life cost comparison for diﬀ erent barrier scheme options. The TAG noise workbook then generates a beneﬁ t to cost ratio by dividing the net present value by the whole life cost to determine which option oﬀ ers the best long- term value to the country both acoustically and in health terms.

INSTRUMENTATION CORNER

Single barrier comparisons As an example, using the modelled performance of 800m long single barriers, a whole-life cost comparison was be made for a typical single-skinned timber reﬂ ective design and a timber absorptive design, which tend to represent lower durability products and a physically and acoustically more durable system such as a metal absorptive barrier design.

CRTN is a blunt instrument and assumes that all the barriers give the same level of attenuation when new, however, when one takes into account the diﬀ erent maintenance expectations for each barrier type and includes for the overall cost of replacements over a 60-year lifecycle to maintain that performance, the beneﬁ t to cost ratios may diﬀ er enormously.

Net present value (ﬁ nancial health beneﬁ t) over a 60-year lifecycle

Barrier cost over a 60-year lifecycle = beneﬁ t to cost ratio

38 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

For every barrier height from 2-6m a more durable system such as metal absorptive would normally be expected to give the greatest beneﬁ t to cost ratio. For the 3m high barrier design it could be almost double that of the same timber absorptive over 60 years. It is also worth noticing that, because of its superior durability, a 6m high metal absorptive system would not only provide twice the acoustic noise reduction of the timber options and protect 60% more properties, it would do so while still maintaining a considerably greater beneﬁ t to cost ratio over a 60 year lifecycle than a 3m high timber absorptive system.

Below: Properties beneﬁ tting are those where the façade noise level reduced by 3dB or more

Single Barrier 3x800m 3x800m 3x800m 6x800m

Whole life Timber S/S Timber Metal Metal

Performance Factor REF ABS ABS ABS

Average Reduction (dB) 2.6 2.6 2.6 5.3

Properties beneﬁ tting 174 174 174 277

Beneﬁ t to Cost Ratio 2.6 1.8 3.1 2.6

Parallel barrier comparisons The comparison diﬀ erence is even more stark for the 800m long parallel barrier scenarios. Here, metal absorptive barrier designs maintain a high beneﬁ t to cost ratio from heights of 2-6m whereas less durable timber options, though typically cheaper when ﬁ rst installed, demonstrate in the long run that they represent lower value for money to the country in terms of public health and the acoustic environment.

Again, building a taller, durable barrier system is shown to give a much greater noise attenuation for far more people and a greater overall sustained health beneﬁ t than low-cost systems that may be more prone to rapid deterioration.

Parallel Barriers 3x800m 3x800m 3x800m 6x800m

Whole life Timber S/S Timber Metal Metal

Performance Factor REF ABS ABS ABS

Average Reduction (dB) 1.5 2.6 2.6 5.3

Properties beneﬁ tting 228 343 343 554

Beneﬁ t to Cost Ratio 1.8 1.8 3.1 2.6

Things to consider Scenarios diﬀ er and road-to- residential schemes are not normally as uniform as this, however, the principles remain true. There will be diﬀ erent barrier material types that are more durable than others, timber- concrete-based absorptive barriers have been shown to be among the most durable systems both acoustically and structurally.

Realistic assumptions have been made regarding the lifecycle of diﬀ erent barrier types and the costs associated with each complete replacement. So, whether you agree or disagree with some of the values in these comparisons, when you specify, ask yourself: • How are you determining the whole life cost of a highways noise barrier? • How are your factoring in for the

durability of road traﬃ c noise barriers when you specify them? • Do you allow for realistic rates for maintenance, replacement, removal and traﬃ c management? • Rail barriers will require a similar approach – what would be the cost of access each time a barrier needs removing and replacing and are those being considered when pricing for a long-term barrier scheme?

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021 39

INSTITUTE AFFAIRS

IOA secondary school competition for the International Year of Sound

2020 should have been the International Year of Sound (IYS). As the pandemic scuppered a lot of the plans, the IYS has been extended to include 2021 too.

By Angela Lamacraft, ACCON UK Ltd

he IOA marked the IYS by launching a competition for secondary school pupils as an opportunity to introduce them to the concept of soundscapes and encourage them to listen more carefully to the world around them. Small teams of pupils were asked to produce a map of their local area (covering 1 km 2 ), indicating the diﬀ erent sounds that they could hear at diﬀ erent places. The map had to be accompanied by a supporting description of at least ﬁ ve separate sites (e.g. road junction, park, playground etc), a list of the sounds that could be heard at each of the sites, and photographs or drawings of the diﬀ erent sound sources made up the soundscape at each place.

Test your acoustic skills

Explore your local area in a way you may never have before.

Prizes to be won!

2021 is the International Year of Sound (IYS). The Institute of Acoustics is marking the IYS by holding a competition for secondary schools as an opportunity to introduce students to the concept of soundscape and encourage them to listen more carefully to the world around them.

Innovative entries The majority of the entries were submitted as electronic documents with embedded photographs and sounds. Considering that embedding media wasn’t suggested in the brief, it was a really innovative approach. The deadline for entries was 31 July 2021 and we received seven entries (which is really good for a new initiative, especially one launched in such challenging times for schools!)

The winners will be invited to the annual awards ceremony held by the Noise Abatement Society at the House of Commons in October 2021 (COVID permitting), with the school receiving a prize of £500 plus an engraved crystal trophy.

There is no limit on the number of entries from a school.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us at

SchoolsIYS@ioa.org.uk

Annual competition The judging panel is now working through the entries to determine a winner. The winning team will be invited to the annual John Connell Awards ceremony, held by the Noise Abatement Society at the House of Commons in October 2021 (COVID permitting) and receive £500 for their school and an engraved crystal trophy. The IOA will hold the competition annually and will launch a related competition for primary schools in 2022.

The Competition

The Deadline

Activity: Make a Sound Walk This school competition is for a small team of students to produce a map of their local area, indicating the different sounds that can be heard at different places. Students can be from different years and classes, however they need to be from the same school.

The deadline for entries will be 31st July 2021. Entries will be judged by a panel of experts. The decision of the judging panel will be final.

Visit ioa.org.uk for further details

40 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

01242 801995

workplaceinteriorshop.co.uk

team@workplaceinteriorshop.co.uk

DO YOU SUPPLY ACOUSTIC PRODUCTS?

FMleitro

Browse hundreds of acoustic products at:

Interface’

workplaceinteriorshop.co.uk

Delivered in as little as 2-3 days, with experts on hand for help and advice.

Suitable for a range of applications & sectors, including: Offices, Healthcare, Leisure, Hospitality, and Education.

// zentia |

FREE Acoustics Surveys

Leading Manufacturers

Expert Advice

Supply & Fit Services

Delivery Nationwide From 2-3 Days

Credit Accounts Available

stylecreen

Workplace Interior Shop is part of the Workplace Interiors Company Cheltenham Ltd group. Company Number: 02820824 | Oak Farm, Chargrove Lane, Cheltenham, GL51 4XB.

snemeeting (co

INSTITUTE AFFAIRS

Earlier this year, we developed a video to promote the values of IOA membership, speciﬁ cally, why someone may choose to join the Institute. New IOA membership video

The careful editing resulted in a video that closely aligns itself with the IOA’s values and approach, and ensures an informal (accessible) as well as, in parts, an appropriate semi-formal tone as beneﬁ ts the Institute. Watch the video here: https://vimeo.com/585309012/ d4db93baae

Your feedback The ﬁ ve-minute video covers a lot of important information. We acknowledged that if someone was keen to watch a video on IOA membership, they were already likely to be interested in joining, so the video goes into detail to provide useful insights into what existing IOA members are up to and how the Institute operates its membership programme. The video, which sits on the IOA website, YouTube and our diﬀ erent social media channels, outlines the beneﬁ ts of joining the IOA according to the diﬀ erent contributors. It will be updated at intervals, and we look forward to receiving your feedback.

With the ongoing pandemic this year, we made a new video based on a series of interviews conducted online. Interviewees included those who have a hand in shaping and managing the membership intake and we were keen to promote the important qualities of diversity and inclusion in our membership aims. The video opens with our President, Stephen Turner, brieﬂ y explaining what the IOA is. Several contributors, including our IOA Membership Chair, Paul Shields, are seen backing this up and adding their own thoughts. The video describes the diﬀ erent membership levels and how the application process works for those interested in joining. Although the information on diﬀ erent grades of membership is already available on the IOA website, understanding these levels and how to reach them can be confusing, especially if someone is new to the Institute. It was therefore important to make sure that this video helped demystify the diﬀ erent grades of IOA membership and what is required to attain them.

pertaining to their involvement in the IOA membership process. Parts of the video were ﬁ lmed live using commercial video conferencing platforms like Zoom, while some contributors preferred to send their pre-recorded contributions. These were collated by video editor, Andrew Tomlinson (Seekalook), who has worked on several IOA projects over the past few years, and has helped to shape the IOA’s expanding video content portfolio.

More member beneﬁ ts You can read more about IOA member beneﬁ ts on page 16 of the March/April 2021 issue of Acoustics Bulletin.

Contributors and editing There was no pre-determined script, as it was important that contributors provided their own personal insights in the interviews, so they were all were sent a series of pre-determined questions

IOA equality policy

The IOA equality policy statement is at https://www.ioa.org.uk/about-us/policy-statements

42 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

MASON UK LTD

Vibration Control Products & Acoustic Floor Systems

Floating ﬂ oor samples – reducing project risk

Due to difﬁ culties in predicting resultant noise levels from impact, in-situ testing can reduce the uncertainty.

We at Mason UK are focused on providing correctly engineering solutions and thus have been supporting acoustic drop tests for prospective projects for many years. Being able to test an impact and vibration mitigation system on site helps reduce project risk by yielding objective performance data which, in our experience, helps tune speciﬁ c requirements and boosts end user/client conﬁ dence. This is especially true in applications such as gymnasia and exercise studios.

Free weights area of a Gymnasium

▲

The recent Covid pandemic and associated social distancing has hindered such site tests and hence why we are now offering to supply acousticians with their own test bases. Both the lightweight spring and rubber construction types are purposely made to be easily transportable, like for like in construction make-up and robust enough to withstand years of testing.

Mason UK Test Base assembly line

▲

We prefer to directly support any new project where possible however, we would be pleased to supply test bases to any consultant that would like to perform independent testing. If interested, please do get in touch with us.

On-site testing for a prospective gymnasium

▲

A world leader in noise & vibration control products for over fifty years setting the standard for consultants & architects. Our floating floors, walls & suspended ceilings provide total acoustic isolation, and are just some of the many products and services we can supply.

TYPICAL APPLICATIONS: • Music Rooms • Night Clubs • Plant Rooms • Recording Studios • Bowling Alleys • Building Isolation • Cinemas • Gymansia • Laboratories • M+E Isolation • Suspended Ceilings • Industrial • Piping Systems

www.masonuk.co.uk

+44 (0)1252 716610 info@masonuk.co.uk Unit 6 Abbey Business Park, Monks Walk, Farnham, Surrey GU9 8HT

INSTITUTE AFFAIRS

Acoustics archive

This article is to remind IOA members of the existence of the national acoustics archive, which is held in the archiving facilities of the University of Southampton library. The archive is part of the Special Collections Division, which is housed on level 4 of the Hartley Library on the University’s Highﬁ eld site.

By Bridget Shield MBE

he archive was established in the early 2000s, in order to preserve for posterity the papers, letters, records, workings etc of noted acousticians and/or of acoustically signiﬁ cant projects. The original donations to the archive were mainly papers and records of acoustic consultants who had been involved in the design of the Royal Festival Hall (RFH). When carrying out research

should try to ﬁ nd a more suitable storage location. After contacting several libraries and archives, the University of Southampton library, which has a very large archive department, agreed that they would house the acoustics papers. The whole university archive is very large; it contains around seven million manuscript items and 50,000 printed books. Most items date from the 19th and 20th century, although the earliest item dates from the P46

into the history of the RFH design in 2000-2001, I was approached by several families of the original acoustics team who were anxious that a permanent home should be found for boxes of papers that had been hidden away in attics or garages for many years. Much of this material was oﬀ ered to the Institute of Acoustics but, as the IOA did not have proper archiving facilities, the then IOA librarian, Alison Hill, advised that we

Right: Hartley Library

44 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

Industry leaders choose SoundPLAN You should too!

SoundPLAN noise 8.2

SoundPLAN essential 5.1

The world-beating. all-round version of the software! Powerful, tailored to your specific needs with a simple to use interface, advanced data management capabilities and first-class graphic outputs.

The high-value, entry level version of the software, ideal for ocassional or simple projects has just been updated:

• Compitable with NoizCalc (audiotechnik)

soundplan-uk.com

•The latest ISO building acoustic standard now incorporated

4 spr rey Day “qe

Introducing the new Room Acoustics Software, SAROOMA!

Sarooma Acoustics Software

Summary of features

•

Sarooma is a room acoustics database and calculator (based on Sabine) containing more than 3,200 sound-absorbing products from many notable manufacturers. The software comes as a Windows application and is integrated in the SoundPLAN absorption library.

Use measured reverberation time (additional direct import from Norsonic or NTI)

•

Enter user defined absorbers

•

Result documentation as MS word document

•

Public database continuously updated

“The Original Noise Modelling Software”

UK distributor

INSTITUTE AFFAIRS

Continued from p44

12th century. Important collections include papers of the ﬁ rst Duke of Wellington, Lord Palmerston and Earl Mountbatten of Burma. To date, the acoustics archive contains papers of Hope Bagenal, Peter Parkin and Hugh Creighton, among others. A summary of the acoustics material held is shown in the table below.

Summary of acoustics material in archive

Archive reference number Title Dates of material Number of boxes Examples of material

MS 337 Papers of Dr Raymond Stephens and the British Acoustical Society 1920-1984 9 Correspondence and papers relating to academic career at Chelsea Polytechnic and Imperial College. Research papers. Papers relating to British Acoustical Society and Institute of Acoustics.

Papers and tape recordings relating to work on a variety of buildings including Royal Festival Hall, Chalk Farm Round House, Fairﬁ eld Hall, Colston Hall, St Paul’s Cathedral, Salisbury Cathedral, Sadler’s Wells Theatre, Wimbledon tennis courts, Belgrade Theatre. Correspondence, books, lecture notes, laboratory notes. Papers and reports on assisted resonance. Press cuttings on the Royal Festival Hall.

MS 339 Papers of Peter Parkin 1940-1982 24

Files including correspondence, working papers, plans, technical data relating to a huge body of work in the UK and around the world. Notebooks, notes, articles and papers on acoustics. Copies and transcripts of correspondence, including with Wallace Sabine, Sir Adrian Boult, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Leo Beranek. Copies of autobiographical writings, short stories, poetry and articles. Details of jobs undertaken from 1930s to 1970s.

MS 340 Papers of (Philip) Hope Edward Bagenal 1867-1868 1903-1975 24

Calculations, reports and technical drawings relating to projects including Bath Abbey, Barbican Centre, Chichester Festival Theatre, Crucible Theatre, Liverpool Anglican and Metropolitan Cathedrals, Queen Elizabeth Hall, Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Sadler’s Wells Theatre, St Paul’s Cathedral, Salisbury Cathedral. Publications by Creighton on the design of buildings, sound insulation and noise.

MS 341 Working papers of Hugh Creighton 1950-1988 21

Articles and papers on general acoustics plus auditoria, concert halls, theatres, cinemas, conference halls, churches and cathedrals; aircraft and transport noise; noise control; broadcasting and television studios; sound insulation and vibration control in buildings.

MS 342 Working papers of Keith Rose 1914-1997 7

MS 373 Papers of P.E.Doak relating to the Turner Sims Memorial Hall 1969-1977 1 Correspondence, notes of meetings, notes, plans, questionnaires photographs and tape recordings relating to design and construction of Turner Sims Memorial Hall.

Searchable The archive has an excellent searchable website, and it is possible to download pdfs containing details of all the material in the various collections. To do this go to the Southampton University library website https://www.southampton. ac.uk/library/index.page ) and click on the following links:

downloadable pdfs which list every item or group of items in that person’s collection.

Adding to the archive If you or your colleagues know of any collections of papers which you think would be of interest, please email the archive at Archives@ soton.ac.uk .

They will advise on whether or not the material is suitable, and, if so, arrange collection of it. There is no need to sort out the papers in advance as the library will do all the necessary sorting and cataloguing. If you would like to discuss it ﬁ rst, before contacting the archive, then please email me on shieldbm@lsbu.ac.uk , or the IOA oﬃ ce.

Special collections > Manuscript collections > Manuscript guide > Browsable guide

When you click on the manuscript collection number of the particular individual that you are interested in, you will see a short biography of them and a broad description of what the collection contains. At the bottom of the page are

46 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

oe Heheed:

TUL)

‘il

CMS Danskin Acoustics is part of the

www.PerformanceTechnologyGroup.com

TECHNICAL

Aviation noise management and research: reﬂ ections and challenges in light of the pandemic (PART 2)

In the ﬁ rst part of our article, (published in the July/August 2021 issue of Acoustics Bulletin on page 62), we suggested that as aviation grows back post-pandemic, there should be an opportunity to reduce noise and build trust, leading to a more sustainable future for aviation. That opportunity starts now.

By Nicole Porter, Robin Monaghan, Chris Wood and Jamie Easton, Anderson Acoustics Ltd

e started to reﬂ ect on lessons from this pandemic experience and apply them to aviation noise management. We were reminded that throughout this pandemic that Government decisions and actions are to be based on what the science says (the scientiﬁ c evidence). We need to learn from events to increase our understanding and potentially help us take appropriate actions or decisions in future. These principles are being applied to the pandemic challenges and, on reﬂ ection, also need to be played out in developing our understanding of many complex topics, including eﬀ ective aviation noise management. We also need to learn from this and keep building our scientiﬁ c evidence to ensure this is not a lost opportunity. We identiﬁ ed some upcoming challenges and tasks that could be considered in the eﬀ ective management of aviation noise as the industry recovers following the pandemic.

The rest of part 1 of this article focused on the challenge of enhancing and moving the conversation forwards. First and foremost, we need to consider both deﬁ ning the noise problem and the associated objective for any noise management actions. (This is in line with the requirements of EU 598 ¹ requiring a ‘noise abatement objective’ to be set for an airport). Part 1 of this article stated that we also have to consider the most appropriate descriptors/metrics to help describe the noise situation/ answer the questions, eﬀ ective presentation of these descriptors, conveying the narrative with a

clear story of how all the elements ﬁ t together, with clear messages, and allowing for feedback and continued conversation. In this second part of this article, we will consider the remaining challenges:

Challenge: recognising the importance of non-acoustic factors in eﬀ ective aviation noise management (and how these may have changed) We have all reacted to the pandemic in diﬀ erent ways and with diﬀ erent levels of impact on our health, wellbeing and quality of life. Our level of individual response P50

References 1 REGULATION (EU) No 598/2014 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 April 2014 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports within a Balanced Approach and repealing Directive 2002/30/EC, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0598.

48 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

Challenges post-COVID Ey Es

LVS] rac

Enhance your career prospects in acoustics

The IOA runs a range of certificated short courses nationwide, assessing competence in the areas shown. The courses run twice a year at accredited training centres across the UK (courses are held prior to exam dates and usually run for around five days).

To find out what’s right for you and where in the UK the courses are running, contact the IOA at:

Silbury Court, 406 Silbury Boulevard Milton Keynes MK9 2AF UK Telephone: +44 (0) 300 999 9675 education@ioa.org.uk www.ioa.org.uk

Try ODEON 16 www.odeon.dk

’ Lf)

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021 49

TECHNICAL

Continued from p48

to the impacts of the pandemic has been dependent on many variables, such as diﬀ erences in coping strategies and thresholds, personalities, sensitivities, family support, levels of housing, access to outdoor space, aﬄ uence, ethnicity, health inequalities, age, attitudes, mental health status, uncertainty of future, fear, rights for choice, need for trust in decision makers, fairness, belief system, vulnerabilities, levels of communication and so on.

in determining an annoyance response to a noise source. Considering annoyance due to aircraft noise as a technical problem is only addressing one side of the noise challenge. The industry needs to provide eﬀ ective noise management with workable solutions for all stakeholders, and, previously, we suggested a new perspective was required . Non- acoustic factors are signiﬁ cant in determining the level of annoyance to aircraft noise events and must be given a raised priority in the design of noise management strategies. Pre-pandemic, our work focused on the speciﬁ c challenge of understanding the role of non-acoustic factors and how to integrate these within an airports noise management strategy ⁴ . We previously identiﬁ ed these non-acoustic factors that could signiﬁ cantly aﬀ ect an adverse response, based on an extensive

review of available literature. But, have expectations now changed? And could this result in a new baseline for future assessment comparisons as a result of changes in expectations and attitudes? In fact, a key challenge now is to consider whether mitigating these non-acoustic factors can actually reduce impacts and improve health outcomes. On the topic of dose-response relationships, others have also been pausing for thought during this work hiatus and have considered the robustness and use of such relationships in environmental noise management ⁵ . They seem to agree with the need to take non-acoustic factors into account and that future work needs to change direction . They suggest that a new approach to understanding community attitudes to aircraft noise on a relative or comparative basis would also enable researchers P52

See reference 2

Coronavirus: ‘Profound’ mental health impact

prompts calls for urgent research (BBC) ³

It is therefore not surprising that that we have learnt that the same is true of our response to other stimuli, such as environmental or aviation noise. There are many factors that determine the level of response. In fact, research has shown that non-acoustic factors may be at least just as important as acoustic factors

Below/right: ©Anderson Acoustics Limited

Non-Acoustic Factors 1h Noise Management Svategy How to Prioritise? Can we modify it? ad ts

References 2 Coronavirus: The world in lockdown in maps and charts (BBC), https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-52103747 3 Coronavirus: ‘Profound’ mental health impact prompts calls for urgent research (BBC), https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52295894 4 D. Sanchez, J. Naumann, N. Porter and A. Knowles, “Current issues in aviation noise management: A non-acoustic factors perspective”, Proceedings from ICSV 22, Florence, Italy, 12-16 July 2015 5 Ian Flindell, Paul Le Masurier, Harry Le Masurier, Resolving uncertainties in understanding community attitudes to aircraft noise, Applied Acoustics 178 (2021) 108032

50 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

Exposure

to a wider

variety of

projects?

j ?

What are

you looking

y g

for in your

f i

Acoustics

A i

Greater career prospects?

career?

PENGUIN =<

Or is it a wider range of duties and responsibilities?

A greater

range of

duties and

i d

responsibilities?

Whatever the reason, Penguin

, g

Recruitment are here to help!

R i h h l !

Penguin Recruitment is a multi-disciplined Engineering and Environmental Recruitment Consultancy established in 2004. We offer nationwide and international job opportunities for anyone looking to kick start or develop their profession.

With extensive knowledge in the Acoustics and Air Quality Industry, we are proud to offer an energetic can-do approach whilst providing a friendly, professional and knowledgeable service at all times.

If you’re a growing business looking to access a wider pool of candidates to help with your expansion plans, then please get in touch!

Penguin Recruitment advertise on more job boards than any other specialist recruitment agency within the acoustics industry, and have a well-established and expansive network of candidates accumulated over 16 years of service, allowing us to provide leading advice on the current candidate market.

For more information please contact Amir Gharaati or Charlotte Lavender on 01792 365000 , or email amir.gharaati@penguinrecruitment.co.uk and charlotte.lavender@penguinrecruitment.co.uk

www.penguinrecruitment.co.uk

TECHNICAL

Continued from p52

In summary, therefore, we reconﬁ rm that there is an important challenge of improving our understanding the role of non-acoustic factors and how to integrate these eﬀ ectively within an airports noise management strategy moving forward.

‘challenge’ in this article as learned from the pandemic parallel. Without this, airports and policymakers could ﬁ nd themselves addressing matters of little concern or value. The EU project, ANIMA, ⁶ is also looking at the understanding of the role of non-acoustic factors in aviation noise annoyance, with the project focused around how to alleviate the annoyance endured by communities through non-acoustical factors rather than by lowering noise itself. In the work, the researchers regard communication as an intervention in its own right.

and policymakers to gain greater insight into the underlying inﬂ uences on attitudes and tolerances and their [realistic] preferences for future aircraft noise and any other associated consequences that are judged important by communities.

Framework for providing practical guidance Pre-pandemic we introduced an ‘onion rings’ conceptual framework for providing practical guidance on how to integrate and address the non-acoustic factors within an airport’s noise management strategy (presented in the ﬁ gure below). This shows the adverse response in the centre, surrounded by core feelings that could lead to that response. The third ring presents principles that have been shown to aﬀ ect or shape those feelings. The outer circle presents some of the initiatives and actions that, in consideration of those principles, could help to reduce the adverse response. We would note that the overriding principle for an eﬀ ective non-acoustic strategy would be ‘open engagement’ to understand and address local community priorities – a topic we touched on in the previous

Challenge: developing and evaluating eﬀ ective interventions One deﬁ nition of intervention is: the act of interfering with the outcome or course especially of a condition or process (as to prevent harm or improve functioning) .

Below: Diﬀ erent pandemic interventions

P54

References 6 https://anima-project.eu/

52 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

FOR THIS PROJECT

Manufacturing solutions for architectural acoustics and vibration problems since 1969 .

EP 400 + Sylomer ® New Sylomer ® compound

EP 400 + Sylomer ®

1 2 Modified dimensions

ELASTIC SUSPENSION OF A MULTI-SPORTS ROOM OVER A LIBRARY

Complete report

Time-lapse installation video

In order to improve the campus life, the University of Deusto decided to add a Library and a multi-sport room at its headquarters in San Sebastian (Spain). Having limited space, it was decided that the multi-sport room is to be located on the upper floor and the library on the lower floor, facing a challenge of conditioning & acoustic insulation.

INSTALLATION LAYOUT

AMC MECANOCAUCHO was contacted to provide guidance and support; the AMC MECANOCAUCHO team carried out the corresponding calculations and simulations to find the appropriate product that would meet the high demands of the specifications and durability.

EP500

EP400 + Sylomer ®

The anti-vibration support had to allow the room to obtain the highest possible volume, for this AMC-MECANOCAUCHO had to develop a new Floor Support based on its FZH + Sylomer® , altering dimensions and adding a new, more resilient micro-cellular PU compound from Getzner Werkstoffe GmbH . The installation was completed with AMC mounts type EP400 for the wall surface and AMC mounts type EP500 for the connecting areas between the wall and the ceiling or the concrete slab and the wall.

Sports Hall

Acoustical isolation results from impact noise are shown below:

80,0

FREQ

Hz L´nt ± U

Ref curve Results

70,0

100 ≥ 31,4 ± 1,4

FZH + Sylomer ®

125 32,2 ± 1,3

60,0

160 32,4 ± 1,3

200 30,1 ± 1,2

50,0

250 26,7 ± 1,3

L´nt (dB)

315 27,8 ± 1,4

40,0

400 24,7 ± 1,3

500 23,6 ± 1,3

30,0

630 21,4 ±1,3

800 19,4 ± 1,3

20,0

1000 18,3 ± 1,6

1250 19,3 ± 1,4

10,0

1600 17,6 ± 1,5

Study Room

2000 15,3 ± 1,6

0,0 100 160 250 400 630 1000 1600 2500 4000

2500 ≥ 9,7 ± 1,5

Frequency (Hz)

3150 ≥ 4,3 ± 1,2

4000 ≥ 4,3 ± 1,2

L´nt, W (CI) ≥ 24 24 ± 0,9 (0) dB L´nt, W (CI) ≥ 24 24 ± 0,9 (0) dB

5000 ≥ 5,4 ± 1,2

Certifications www.mecanocaucho.com www.akustik.com

Bipin J Mistry Technical Sales Manager Lewis Metcalf Applications Engineer

www.mecanocaucho.com www.akustik.com

bjmistry@amc-ui.co.uk

lmetcalf@amcsa.es

158 Kedleston RoadLeicester, Leicestershire, LE5 5BL +44 07711 349 425 +44 0116 2219659

27 Blackfriars Road, Syston, Leicester LE7 2DS

+44 (0) 7523 118 007

TECHNICAL

Continued from p52

During the pandemic we have witnessed a number of interventions: However, the intervention that has really interested us is the introduction of vaccinations. At the time of writing, the vaccination programme in the UK is being deemed a huge success. What led to this accomplishment, and what lessons could we learn from it? As a potential vaccine recipient, we are likely to ask a large number of questions such as:

Below: Potential questions that may be asked about a vaccination

• Do I have a choice?

• Is it safe?

• What is the best one?

• Will it protect me or what is the level of protection it oﬀ ers?

• How much does it cost and is it cost eﬀ ective?

• How will it impact my health in short, medium and long term?

• Does one size ﬁ t all or does it protect just the vulnerable groups?

• How will it be administered and by whom?

• Does its performance decrease over time?

• What are the side eﬀ ects or unintended

• Does it need regular boosters?

• What is the scientiﬁ c evidence showing it works

• Should I delay - Are later versions more eﬀ ective?

and can I really trust it?

• Risks to others - does it stop me impacting, or can it protect, other people?

• Can it be supplied or sourced locally and how does that aﬀ ect the local economy?

• How can it be eﬀ ectively be rolled out in a timely manner?

• What is the critical path to delivery?

• How do we judge its success?

Investing in mitigation The aviation industry is under ﬁ nancial pressure and, when in a position to move forward with investing in mitigation, it must consider the most cost-eﬀ ective intervention options. Research is lacking in this area (just as research was lacking in ways of mitgating impacts of COVID-19), do airports really know if their mitigation eﬀ orts are/were reducing overall impacts? For example, airports have spent considerable sums on noise insulation, but how eﬀ ective has this been? Has this intervention met (or does it continue to meet) the needs demanded of it? A challenge, therefore, is to enable the aviation industry to make informed decisions on how best to spend its reduced funds in controlling its noise impacts. Another key lesson taken from the vaccination programme is the speed at which the vaccines were

These questions all centre around the eﬀ ectiveness of the vaccine as a successful intervention to meet the objective of protecting us against COVID-19. These questions are not dissimilar to those we would ask for many other interventions – medical or otherwise. We can learn from the vaccination experience that this line of questions could also be similar when considering the eﬀ ectiveness and value of noise reduction interventions against impacts from exposure to aviation noise. This could be both in terms of acoustic or quality of life impacts reductions as well as (optimistically) improvements in health outcomes and tolerance. This, of course, relates to meeting an agreed objective for any noise management actions. What are the most eﬀ ective intervention options to meet the objective?

Potential Reasons for Rapid Process:

• people were working towards and believed in a common goal ,

• the success of the outcome not just important but critical in nature,

• many of the top brains across the wolrd worked together rather than competed,

• previous approaches evaluated,

• innovative approaches considered,

• information and lessons were shared,

• funds were maximised

• bureaucracy was minimised

• barriers were overcome quickly and

• the world was not judging the outcomes but were depending on them.

54 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

developed, tested and rolled out; a timescale that would have been deemed impossible only a few years ago. We can learn from this about some potential ways of optimising the research and development of eﬀ ective interventions (accepting of course that the world is not depending on outcome in same way!).

as a result of the pandemic? In its aviation noise lockdown survey ⁷ , ICCAN reported that:

publish some of these ﬁ ndings in the future. The challenge here, then, is to better establish the baseline for future assessment comparisons and understand future inﬂ uences on it over time. This will include tasks to better understand existing complaint data and understand changing attitudes to aircraft noise. This is essential for assessing airspace change and it requires longitudinal data.

• Of those surveyed, those bothered by aviation noise during the day and evening fell from 66% before lockdown to 28% during lockdown.

• 48% of respondents agreed that they do not mind if aviation noise goes back to what it was before lockdown, while 38% disagreed. • 66% of respondents agreed that the environment should be given higher priority than supporting the recovery of the aviation industry, while only 15% disagreed.

Interventions We have certainly learnt from the pandemic that intervention eﬀ ectiveness is best evaluated over a timeline from before to after the intervention has been implemented. For aircraft noise management, this requires longitudinal studies to establish baselines (acoustic and non-acoustic) and related changes. This oﬀ ers the chance to evaluate baseline data and establish the characteristics of the ambient or background noise environment. For example, we can continue to monitor and collate data on the noise environment for later analysis, but we are missing out on collating information on current and passing attitudes, opinions and other subjective perceptions, wellbeing or quality of life data. The research fraternity have been crying out for longitudinal studies to better study change (far superior in many ways to cross sectional analysis), but now we have that chance, we might be missing the boat – a lost opportunity. This needs to track the changing trends as they happen, on a regular basis, not just before the pandemic and after a ‘full’ recovery.

Challenge: increasing our understanding of eﬀ ects of noise from future airspace design and use Airspace has to be managed so that those using it can do so safely and eﬃ ciently. Airspace is being modernised and the process continues despite the pandemic. The reformation of UK airspace policy aims to make the most of advances in technology while helping to manage negative impacts, such as noise. Changes to the design of UK airspace are proposed by an airspace change sponsor (anyone can become an airspace change sponsor and CAP 1616 8 is a CAA document that sets out the process for change sponsors to follow). However, at the time of writing this article, no full CAP 1616 airspace redesigns have been completed. The modernisation includes the use of Performance-Based Navigation (PBN), which is a capability meaning that aircraft can now be ﬂ own much more consistently on speciﬁ ed paths; giving the airport greater control over the noise impacts of aircraft. Purported beneﬁ ts of PBN include savings in fuel and fuel burn, eﬀ ective ending of holding stacks and decreased delays. However, PBN raises issues such as:

We certainly agree with ICCAN that ‘tracking people’s views about the impact of noise on them will be crucial in building a sustainable recovery, where noise and its eﬀ ects are at the heart of decisions about aviation’.

Changing expectations Will there be a new baseline to use in future assessment comparisons as a result of changes in expectations and attitudes? If so, how will this be deﬁ ned, and will it change after we move to a ‘recovered state’? This has far-reaching implications, particularly in relation to how we assess the impacts of change in the future, which is very pertinent for planned airspace change. Such assessments not only need to look at overall noise levels, but also the change in noise exposure that diﬀ erent communities might experience. As mentioned earlier, longitudinal studies could help provide information on changing attitudes to aircraft noise. There have been few studies looking at the time it takes to adapt and habituate to aircraft noise – another gap in our knowledge. It is probably worth considering some of the data that is already collated, such as complaint data. One of our colleagues at Anderson Acoustics has already been making headway into exploring this data (not just limited to aircraft noise sources, but domestic noise as well), and is already seeing some interesting trends. We hope to

The challenge is to ensure we do not miss this opportunity to study noise environment and impacts as more changes occur moving forward, as well as understand and learn from the eﬀ ects of the pandemic on noise exposure to date.

Challenge: establishing a new baseline (a new normal?) The average daily ﬂ ights at Heathrow in March 2020 reduced by more than 85% compared to 2019, and complaints, on average, were down by 50%, so, have expectations and attitudes changed

• concentration vs dispersion; • what constitutes sharing and fairness; • what is relief; • how to deal with diﬀ erent areas of population density; • how to deal with a new noise; and • how to provide consistency. P56

References 7 ICCAN survey on people’s experience of aviation noise during lockdown, October 8, 2020, https://iccan.gov.uk/aviation-noise-lockdown-survey/ 8 CAP1616: Airspace change: Guidance on the regulatory process for changing the notiﬁ ed airspace design and planned and permanent redistribution of air traﬃ c, and on providing airspace information, CAA, March 2021, https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAA_Airspace%20Change%20Doc_Mar2021.pdf

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021 55

TECHNICAL

Challenge: introducing an eﬀ ective respite strategy – has our appreciation of respite changed? The impacts of using PBN capability depend on how it is used through adopting diﬀ erent: • routes; • alternation/respite procedures; • dispersion patterns; and • operating procedures.

It is likely that the noise implications of airspace design principles are not fully understood, and we need to consider how we design sustainable airspace to share the beneﬁ ts of PBN. The challenge is to develop this understanding and, in doing so, learning how to incorporate eﬀ ective airspace optioneering and evaluation tools. This needs to consider best practice on noise envelopes and the implementation of EU 598. Much progress was made on this before the pandemic in the Heathrow expansion work, and we need to make sure that the lessons that were learnt from that work are not lost!

aircraft noise). One area that was at the forefront of research before the pandemic was eﬀ ective respite. The concept of providing respite from aircraft noise had taken on increasing importance as a useful and eﬀ ective strategy for providing a break from aviation noise. Another key challenge, therefore, is to consider how to introduce an eﬀ ective respite strategy. Heathrow Airport Ltd (HAL) identiﬁ ed a need to improve its understanding of respite from aviation noise, and Anderson Acoustics worked with them on their respite research work programme. The overall objective was ‘to better understand the

In particular, it gives added impetus to assessing the value to residents of sharing aircraft noise between communities so that at any given time, some communities experience respite (i.e. airport- managed perceptible relief from

56 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

Periods of time Predictability ze WS Community Respite N »))

SNe, CaS

family and appreciate the outdoors. Many enjoyed the peace brought about by cessation of intrusive environmental noise. The pandemic taught us a little about the beneﬁ ts of respite. Of course, respite from a stimulus such as environmental noise can be time, situationally and personally dependent (the non- acoustic factors). Its importance and perceived beneﬁ t may have changed over time as the impact and implications for the reason for ‘respite’ evolved, such as those due to habituation and adaptation, personal impacts of conditions leading to this respite etc. An important challenge is therefore to continue our work into understanding eﬀ ective respite and how to best implement an eﬀ ective respite strategy in designing future airspace. Early tasks would be to

key characteristics of an eﬀ ective respite strategy for Heathrow Airport and its local communities, consistent with eﬃ cient operations’. Some of this work has been published 9 and a consolidation report was planned before the pandemic. However, this was put on hold during the hiatus. Before the pandemic, we were reﬂ ecting on some questions being asked by a range of stakeholders including: • What do we understand respite to actually mean? • How is it best measured, subjectively perceived and described? • What are the options for delivering respite? • How is respite appraised or evaluated? • How is it best reported and communicated? • What are the pros and cons of delivering managed respite? • How do we ensure respite is delivered eﬀ ectively moving forward?

• complete a consolidation report; • update the current state of the art; and • set out priorities for ﬁ lling in gaps in knowledge.

But has our expectation or appreciation of respite now changed as a consequence of the pandemic? For some, the pandemic brought about a change or a respite from normal busy life. It oﬀ ered a chance to regroup and pause for thought, look at life diﬀ erently, spend quality time with immediate

This would help our understanding and further assemble the pieces of the ‘respite puzzle’. We would have to take into account how expectations may have changed and respond to the demands of delivering a new airspace consistent with the eﬀ ective management of its consequences. P58

—

References 9 Heathrow’s Respite Research, https://www.heathrow.com/company/local-community/noise/making-heathrow-quieter/respite-research

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021 57

TECHNICAL

Challenge: reconsider the research roadmap and reset priorities to reﬂ ect post-covid need In 2017, Anderson Acoustics was involved with HAL and its work with other airports, in partnership with ACI-Europe, to consider how best to inﬂ uence the international research agenda – ultimately aiming to enhance the quality of life around airports and recognising the need to focus on the local communities. Together, we presented a research roadmap to identify research gaps and to build consensus on priority areas for study 10 – as presented below:

Final comments The aviation industry collapsed as a result of the worldwide pandemic. It devasted travel, industry expansion and innovative ground-breaking research. In this two part article we have reﬂ ected on the lessons taken from the pandemic experience and identiﬁ ed some upcoming challenges and tasks that could be considered in the eﬀ ective management of aviation noise as the industry recovers. There will be many views on actions and priorities moving forward, and here we have presented some views as food for thought. We will continue to publish our thoughts on our website www. andersonacoustics. co.uk/our-news and we would like to continue the conversation and hear your ideas.

This article has touched on a number of these issues as forthcoming challenges as we recover from the breakdown of the aviation industry. It may now be time to reconsider and reenergise the elements of the research roadmap – discuss and reset priorities with interested stakeholders on the development of a strategic plan to help on the road to building back better. This article has talked about need for scientiﬁ c evidence to underpin decisions and also lessons learnt about how to potentially optimise research. Before the pandemic,

research was still rather piecemeal and perhaps more reactive than proactive in design – imagine a set of arrows all moving in diﬀ erent directions. What if these were aligned and coalesced in the same strong and powerful direction? We need to consider how we help build knowledge for the future, how to best to protect the future health wellbeing and quality of life for us and others, and consider what scientiﬁ c evidence we need to make informed decisions in the future. Experience has shown that we need to work together towards common goals to maximise success.

References 10 N Porter, R. Norman ‘Research Roadmap for Aviation Noise’, Internoise 2018, Chicago 2018.

58 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

ouauir OF LIFE (q@t) Indicators & Score Card assessing the positive and negative. impacts of aviation f t (COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS) “Tool / Methodeloyy EeFECTIVENESS & VAL |) yon-ncowstic racroes |] SUILDING erFecrie OF nse REDUCTION thee od nstt ushanastomcones || Re.kTanons we gna or meng tn WTeRVENTIONS jl COMMUNITIES = || are oper te Ae eeative atts || -tesprny ad ai +g agg feet init ets eat || erat omy and || we neal rondo Oe caanaten prcohure taaae] | eorioers: po aaa, it tng sscwameaces = eas sue aroun || tenner Cy Nott rhreila Crores CammcaTons ‘arenes || MTN ‘pha tre Feteweey t ‘won mrt | | oe fen Praierrsy lo le ‘Anderson Acoustics

PROFILE

Saluting Geoﬀ Kerry as he says he’s retiring…

As Geoﬀ Kerry is set to hang up his lab coat for good, his many colleagues wanted to pay tribute to him for all his years at Salford, with a review of his career and many achievements.

In 1969, Geoﬀ joined Peter Lord and colleagues at the University of Salford as Scientiﬁ c Oﬃ cer in the newly formed Department of Applied Acoustics. At Salford, working with Peter Lord and later with Peter Wheeler, Geoﬀ oversaw the design, construction and commissioning of three successive generations of acoustic test facilities, taking responsibility for UKAS accreditation and the numerous commercial and governmental research and development projects awarded to the department, and helping to build its international reputation for teaching, research and consultancy. Speak with any outdoor sound propagation researcher in the world and they will praise the excellence of Salford’s ﬁ eld measurement personnel and capabilities over the decades. These qualities are a direct result of Geoﬀ ’s uncompromising and meticulous attention to preparation, execution and comprehensive reporting of noise propagation ﬁ eld trials.

Geoﬀ has been the person perhaps most responsible for documenting and communicating the history of not only the IOA, but acoustics itself. The development of acoustics in the UK has run hand-in-hand with Geoﬀ ’s career; and as everyone who has ever spoken to him knows very well, he is an impressive advocate. Geoﬀ has been linked with acoustics at the University of Salford since 1963. Even though he formally retired in 2005, Geoﬀ never quite left and has continued to play an invaluable role in the commercial laboratories he was responsible for establishing with Peter Lord. His expertise, attention to detail, enthusiasm and guidance has been an ever-present feature of acoustics

Above left: Presenting a paper at an IOA conference

at Salford for 58 years. However, the time has come for Geoﬀ to retire, and this year he will step away from his ﬁ nal role as internal auditor of the UKAS laboratories at Salford. We will be surprised if he manages it completely but know it will give him more time to enjoy his walking trips (and his wife, Joan, will be relieved so long as he stays out of her kitchen!)

Above: Vignette for President’s letters (Acoustics Bulletins 2000-2002)

Above right: President’s speech at early 2000s IOA spring conference

Geoﬀ ’s career Geoﬀ gained a BSc in applied physics from the University of Salford in 1967 while working at Hawker Siddeley Aviation at Woodford. At Hawker Siddeley, Geoﬀ would often take to the air armed with a sound level meter, having successfully completed the ﬂ ight observer course at RAF Boscombe Down.

P60

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021 59

PROFILE

IOA Alongside his work at Salford, Geoﬀ has been a constant at the IOA since its foundation in 1974 and has served in many roles, including President from 2002-2004. Geoﬀ was a founder member of the Institute’s North West Branch and of the Industrial Noise Group (now the Noise and Vibration Engineering Group), and was elected a Fellow of the Institute in 1981, he has served the IOA tirelessly for many years on the Membership Committee. As President, he served through a key period of the Institute’s development. He was Vice President, Groups and Branches from 1985 to 1990, Treasurer from 1990 until 1998 and then Vice President again from 2011 to 2016, the period which saw the inauguration and early years of the Senior Members’ Group. During this period Geoﬀ also provided the impetus to ensure that the IOA history book was collated and published. In 2008 he was awarded an Honorary Fellowship and in recognition of his long and distinguished service to the Institute and his valuable contribution to the development of acoustics as a profession, the Institute introduced the Geoﬀ Kerry Distinguished Service Medal with Geoﬀ as the ﬁ rst recipient.

Beginning in 1977 with work for ICI, impulse noise research at Salford continues to this day. Between 1987 and 1996, Geoﬀ led the teams from the University of Salford that carried out a series of ﬁ eld trials for the MOD, RAF and DRA. The measurements were primarily aimed at providing data for investigations into the eﬀ ect of meteorology and topography/ ground conditions on the propagation of impulse sound over both short and long distances. The purpose of the research was to provide a tool for the management of explosive noise on and around military and PE ranges. The sources mainly comprised explosive charges in the weight range 125g to 64kg and several of the trials investigated the application of the scaling laws to the waveforms generated by such charges in the ‘high acoustic noise region’ from 100 dB to 160 dB (re 20 uPa). Extensive meteorological measurements were also made on each trial. The main series of trials were carried out on the ranges at Porton Down and Shoeburyness, the former with typical rolling chalk downland and the latter with ﬂ at, open farmland. Several trials at Shoeburyness investigated propagation across water, both short range across a lagoon and long range across the sea. A special trial held at RAF Binbrook looked at propagation of blast noise across a hard surface and a number of trials investigated the eﬀ ect of changes of surface on waveforms. The second series was carried out in Norway, at the invitation of

the Norwegian Government and with the assistance of several international groups of researchers. The Norwegian trials were held in forested hilly terrain but a number of short-range trials were carried out on ﬂ at land under more controlled conditions. This series was supported by an extensive set of measurements to characterise the ground surface including detailed measurements of ground impedance and the inﬂ uence of snow and ice in winter conditions, as well as measurements to quantify the nature of the ground cover and trees etc. There was also a detailed topographical survey of the sites and full sets of meteorological measurements were made during the trials.

Mentoring Geoﬀ passed on his ethos for painstaking planning and laborious attention to detail to Salford’s generations of researchers. This ethos requires comprehensive ﬁ eld trial plans and rigorous shakedown trials before travelling to site. Between 1999 and 2005, Geoﬀ ’s mentoring was vital to a series of highly successful environmental projects in collaboration with Qinetiq and the RAF, and from 2005 with Defra on the management of human response to vibration and noise. At the same time, laboratory and ﬁ eld work continued Geoﬀ ’s work to manage hearing impacts from blast noise. Investigations to improve the management of blast noise impacts building on Geoﬀ ’s legacy continues to this day with the wefPhD research of Salford’s Gethin Manuel working with the company, DNV.

UKAS He has always been active in British and International Standards development, and since his retirement from the university he continuesd to act for UKAS until 2019 as a specialist technical assessor.

Far left: Discussing Acoustics Bulletin matters with the then editor, Ian Bennett

Left: Past presidents in the Salford anechoic toom, (L_R) Terry Jones, Geoﬀ Kerry, Ian Campbell and Peter Wheeler

60 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

In 1994, Geoﬀ gained Chartered Engineer status through the Institute and was also awarded CPhys and FInstP through the Institute of Physics.

What his colleagues say Peter Wheeler: I ﬁ rst met Geoﬀ at the IOA then continued our friendship when I came to Salford. Geoﬀ was one of the most eﬃ cient members and colleagues of the department. We spent many happy years holidaying with Geoﬀ and Joan and also going to several conferences together.

facilities enable us to attract world- class talent. From Geoﬀ and the late Peter Lord we inherited a model of using the labs for commercial work when not being used for research and teaching. This was consolidated by gaining accreditation for the commercial activities, giving them real credibility. This way of working was decades ahead of its time and even today, the university aspires to reproduce this formula in other disciplines. But things might have been very diﬀ erent; when I joined Salford in 2004, we were about to move to new labs. It did not become evident until later just how close we came to not getting funding for new facilities and it was only an intervention from Geoﬀ at a crucial time that made the diﬀ erence. 17 years later, we are again planning a move to new labs. Thanks to his legacy we are much better placed now – let’s hope we can live up to Geoﬀ ’s standards.

lectures in the Meadow Road labs, which included such tasks as measuring the absorption coeﬃ cient of various materials (by a rather laborious process), we had to use much more modest-looking and presumably student-proof equipment. Little could I have known at that point, that in later years, I would be back at Salford (wearing a diﬀ erent hat – by chance a green one) visiting Geoﬀ to discuss later versions of those very instruments – or as I came to know them “green boxes”. It’s quite ironic really. I now understand why Geoﬀ was so keen to keep us away from those instruments and why they were precious. In those pre-personal computer days, precise measuring instruments represented a very diﬀ erent £ to function proposition to what they do today. Since ﬁ rst meeting Geoﬀ , some 45 years ago, and after many meetings at Salford (in three diﬀ erent Acoustics Department buildings) and at IOA-related events; including the NW Branch, I have come to like and respect him in equal measure. I have particularly enjoyed learning from Geoﬀ about the early days of acoustics at Salford, and the interactions between the then key players in acoustics in academia and industry. The greatest irony, is that the best person to ask for really interesting and doubtless amusing anecdotes, is Geoﬀ himself!

Above: With colleague, David Warrington, being ﬁ lmed by a BBC ‘Tomorrow;s World’ crew at Shoeburyness

Dave Saunders, Head of the Department of Acoustics from 1997 to 2000 and Head of the School of Acoustics and Electronic Engineering from 2000 to 2002: My overriding memory of Geoﬀ is his enthusiasm, attention to detail and being a passionate advocate for acoustics. You knew that if you were going on a ﬁ eld trip with Geoﬀ you would have all the equipment that was required plus at least one back up set. He was a joy to work with. Please give him my best wishes and tell him it’s about bloody time.

Keith Vickers, Bruel & Kjaer: Unfortunately, I can’t call to mind any particularly funny anecdotes regarding Geoﬀ . That doesn’t mean there haven’t been any, it just means I can’t remember them – which is a shame, as I am sure there must have been many, particularly at the now legendary annual IOA conferences in Windermere. I ﬁ rst met Geoﬀ when I came to Salford’s Meadow Road back in the autumn of 1976, having found myself, quite by surprise, on a then new undergraduate course called Electroacoustics. This came about totally on the basis of Peter Lord brieﬂ y popping his head round the door of a lecture room in Maxwell, which at the time was ﬁ lled by around 80 rather over-excitable electrical engineering science students, of whom I was one (but that’s another story). I remember forming the opinion quite early on, that one of Geoﬀ ’s roles must have been to keep us lowly undergraduates from ever touching any of the department’s clearly valuable measuring equipment – which for some reason seemed largely to be green- coloured. When we had practical

Stephen Turner, current IOA President: I cannot remember a time when Geoﬀ ’s name was not associated in my mind with the Institute. I had the pleasure of serving on Council with him and even today, even though the day-to-day running of the IOA occurs without him being present, the “Geoﬀ Kerry Principle” is still regularly mentioned. (You’ll have to ask him about that). His interest in the Institute has not waned with him recently expressing concern about the relative lack of activity in the Institute’s North-West Branch. He has also been a regular attendee at our on-line Members’ Forum, imparting words of wisdom to those assembled. Thank you Geoﬀ , for all you have done – and I look forward to catching up with you again when the Forum resumes this autumn.

Professor Andy Moorhouse, current Laboratory Director of the University of Salford Acoustic Test & Calibration Laboratory: I was always aware of just how much we owed to Geoﬀ and, in particular, for his contribution to the acoustics labs. The labs have always been so central to acoustics at Salford – they form a focus around which the whole group coheres and the

Geoﬀ was always grateful for the guidance and tremendous support from his colleagues at Salford.

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021 61

PRODUCTS

Innovation and enterprise in design StoSilent Distance System brings peace and quiet

StoSilent Distance

StoSilent Distance System brings peace and quiet

System brings peace

and quiet

Above: Sto’s StoSilent Distance acoustic system has been installed at the new Prof. Lord Bhattacharyya Building, home of the National Automotive Innovation Centre on the University of Warwick campus

The need for carefully designed and balanced acoustics within a vast open space has led to an acoustic system from Sto being speciﬁ ed for a major automotive research and development centre in the Midlands. The StoSilent Distance system has been installed at the new Prof. Lord Bhattacharyya Building, home of the National Automotive Innovation Centre (NAIC), on the University of Warwick campus. The NAIC is a unique research and development facility where academic and industrial teams work together to develop the future of transport. “The architects, Cullinan Studio, wanted to encourage people to come together for research, demonstrations, meetings and breakout sessions, so acoustics were a key consideration within this multiple-use building”, explains Sto Technical Consultant for Acoustics, James Gosling. “It was especially important in the large, open atrium area which forms the centrepiece of the building. This was designed to be a ﬂ exible space, and so it was a requirement to correctly balance the challenges of attenuation, reverberation, speech intelligibility and foot traﬃ c. The aim was to create an acoustic environment that was reliable and practical, while also achieving a very distinctive design aesthetic.” Over 2,000m² of the StoSilent Distance system was installed around the curving balustrades and street level ceilings, which feature in the multi-level atrium area. The StoSilent Distance system includes the Sto minimal void SW150 metal proﬁ le sub-construction, which can be installed and adjusted to suit a very wide variety of application requirements. The acoustic boards are made from 96% recycled glass, making them lightweight and easy to install. They provide excellent acoustics, and provide a modern, clean, monolithic appearance. The boards are ﬁ xed to the sub-construction, creating a seamless surface, appealing to both the architect and client and perfect for the type of dramatic architecture featured in the NAIC atrium. The system was completed with the application of StoSilent Décor M. This spray-applied ﬁ nish can be tinted to match an extensive range of shades from the StoColor system, allowing architects and designers to incorporate an acoustic solution which complements their visual design aesthetic. StoSilent Décor M is easy to refurbish, and being both inert and Natureplus approved it is also environmentally friendly. This was a particularly appropriate consideration for this project, as the NAIC facility will be used to research technological advances that help the environment, such as reducing dependency on fossil fuels and reducing CO 2 emissions.

Troldekt’s wood wool acoustic ceiling panels have made a major contribution to the Enterprise Centre at the University of East Anglia. Dubbed the greenest building in the UK, it is also one of the most sustainable. Designed by sustainable architects, Architype, in collaboration with contractor, Morgan Sindall, it is recognised as the ﬁ rst large scale project to target both Passivhaus Certiﬁ cation and BREEAM Outstanding and one which meets the highest energy and environmental standards. The rationale behind the decision was to make the Centre a live and educational demonstrator of the performance of renewable materials. Here it would be possible to see any changes over time and to understand their impact, including energy eﬃ ciency and carbon oﬀ setting. The building has become a source of knowledge for designers and builders. Founded on the Cradle-to-Cradle design concept, Troldtekt’s natural and inherently sustainable panels are available in a variety of diﬀ erent surfaces and colours and contribute positively to a building’s BREEAM, DGNB and LEED ratings. In addition to their high sound absorption and tactile surface, they oﬀ er high durability and low-cost lifecycle performance. Available in various sizes and in four grades from extreme ﬁ ne to coarse, the panels can be left untreated or painted in virtually any RAL colour.

62 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

eS — be aa i] a |

How an engineer deals with an elephant in the room

Adam Fox, Director of vibration isolation specialist, Mason UK, explains that in the early 1960s, engineers set out to solve precisely this kind of problem. Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) wanted to install a new studio that was capable of handling a room full of live elephants, so the acoustic consultants working on the project contacted Norm Mason. Norm, who dedicated his life to acoustic engineering, developed the concept of a jack-up ﬂ oating ﬂ oor. Although never patented, the design formed the industry’s template for this eﬃ cient and swift construction method. A ﬂ oating ﬂ oor is a purpose-built ﬂ oor designed to limit the transmission of noise and vibration. There are no rigid or solid connections between the ﬂ oating ﬂ oor and the structural ﬂ oor beneath it and although there are many ﬂ oating ﬂ oor types, they fall into two main categories: • reinforced concrete jack-up ﬂ oating ﬂ oors are systems constructed on the slab and then raised, or jacked up, to the desired height; and • timber or formwork ﬂ oating ﬂ oors usually involve multiple layers of board, supported by low proﬁ le rubber or spring elements. The latter system has been around longer, but is more costly in resources and time and carries greater acoustic risk.

What do you do with an elephant in the room? When most of us face this question, we are only talking about a metaphorical elephant. For engineers at Mason Industries however, it was the prospect of a live elephant in a TV studio that helped inspire the invention of the jack-up ﬂ oating ﬂ oor. The largest male elephants can weigh up to 15,000 lbs so having a live elephant in the room can create a signiﬁ cant engineering problem, if you need to isolate the impact or vibration that such a large animal might transmit through the building.

Today, ﬂ oating ﬂ oors are used for many purposes and are recommended where there is a need to reduce the transmission of noise, vibration or impact. For example, a gym being built in a residential building, recording studios built near a tube line or, in rare circumstances, an elephant in the room.

VicStudio VMT Box aims to make a studio sustainable

Vicoustic’s VicStudio VMT Box, is an upgradable acoustic kit for home and project studios with the latest virtual material technology (VMT). It is designed to maximise the acoustic conditions of a room used for a project studio, without compromising health and comfort. The Flat Panel VMT available on this kit is a sustainable alternative to standard absorbing foams. Vicoustic developed VMT with a holistic approach by fully integrating its acoustic performance with other sustainability goals, such as human health (air quality), human safety (ﬁ re), and the use of recycled materials (VMT is made of VicPET Wool, produced mostly from recycled plastic) that are also recyclable. VicStudio VMT Box improves room acoustics using six Flat Panel VMT with VicSpacer Plus for enhanced absorption performance, and four units of Multifuser DC2 for sound diﬀ usion. It’s available in three diﬀ erent ﬁ nishes (grey, black and white).

Vicoustic’s VicStudio VMT Box in grey

tic

s kit

ith

man

and

made

ble.

Vv we q

P64

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021 63

PRODUCTS

HEAD acoustics releases intuitive structural analysis software package

environment. In addition to eﬃ ciently performing modal and operational deﬂ ection shape analyses (ODS), ArtemiS SUITE enables users to animate vibration shapes and compare numerical simulation data with real measured data (shape comparison). Dr Aulis Telle, Managing Director Sound, Vibration and Perception at HEAD acoustics GmbH, said: “The analysis of vibration shapes provides information on the sources and transmission paths of acoustic phenomena and noise and makes it possible to identify and eliminate structural weak points and to improve durability, for example. “Structural analysis must therefore be incorporated into any development process as early as possible; in an early phase based on simulation models and later on for veriﬁ cation with the prototype.” At the core of the new software solution are vivid representations in the form of a powerful 3D visualisation. It can be used to analyse the dynamic behavior of components quickly and, above all, plastically. Transfer functions can be animated and compared with measurements and simulation data in the form of 3D oscillating shapes in the shape comparison tool. An integrated and universally applicable measuring point library makes data acquisition time-saving and economical. The examination of ODS or impact measurement data in the interactive software environment is easy and intuitive.

With release 12.5 of the ArtemiS SUITE software for sound and vibration analysis, HEAD acoustics has launched an integrated modal analysis tool, thus completing its structural analysis package. With this tool, troubleshooters, simulation and project engineers can use all relevant analyses related to structural dynamic issues directly in one interactive software

ACOUSTICS 2021 11-12 October 2021 Hybrid Conference

The Institute of Acoustic’s Annual Conference will be held over two days with sessions on Building Acoustics, Physical Acoustics, Environmental Noise, Musical, Speech & Hearing and Noise & Vibration Engineering.

The programme is available on the IOA website www.ioa.org.uk

Delegates will be able to join remotely by Zoom or at a local hub, the list of hubs will be published along with registration details on the IOA website.

64 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

oN (@ \nstitute of G Acoustics

Barrisol ® Acoustic Solutions up to a w 1.0 walls, ceilings, rafts & C li m ®

Barrisol Pure C li m ®

Our unique Barrisol Pure C li m ® solution allows you to air condition and ventilate your rooms in a homogeneous way and without draughts. With the Pure C li m ® option, the ambient air can also be purified thanks to UVC lamps. Ceiling air conditioning, silent, invisible and homogeneous. Thermal comfort Class A cold

and Class A warm according to ISO 7730.

1 st place in Sustainability in partnership with Baitykool

1 st place in Energy Efficiency in partnership with Baitykool Label of Excellence JANUS 2017 of the Franch Institute of Design

Special Jury Award Recognition Procedure

Barrisol C li m ® Acoustics ® & L ight L ines ® Arch. : ZAmpone architectuur Pure Luminous, acoustic and printed. 100% recyclable

Documentation Acoustics ®

Documentation

C li m ® Barrisol C li m ® Présentation

Barrisol ® Acoustic Light ®

Microsorber ®

Arch. : SSH International, Architects

Arch. : Ingenhoven architects GmbH

Documentation Acoustic Light ®

Documentation Microsorber ®

Hen Las

Arco lis ® frames & Light Acoustic Arch. : Parq Proyecto Arquietectura

Barrisol ® Acoustic Mirror Interior Design : by Saguez & Partners - Arch. : Agence 2/3/4

® | bs WORLD LEADER OF STRETCHED CEILING

Documentation Arco lis ®

Documentation Mirror ®

www.barrisol.com

BRANCH NEWS / SPECIALIST GROUP

BRANCH NEWS Senior Members’ Group

SOUTHERN BRANCH NEWS

By Sebastian Woodhams

On Wednesday 7 July the Southern Branch hosted the gym acoustics working group who presented a draft of the upcoming Gym Acoustics Guidance, a candidate to be the second ProPG after Planning & Noise in 2017. The guidance comes at the moment that changes of use planning classes mean that locations for gyms in close proximity to residents in lightweight buildings is becoming more of a challenge. The guidance seeks to bring together the practical approaches of well-respected practitioners into a standardised methodology, and blends with a simpliﬁ ed prediction method to provide the current state of knowledge for assessment of gyms. The presentation was led by the Chair of the working group, Peter Rogers of Sustainable Acoustics, with sections on criteria, practical testing methodology and prediction methodology presented by Anthony Robinson (Westminster City Council), James Stokes (RBA Acoustics) and Martin McNulty (Hoare Lea) respectively. The document aims to provide a robust method aiming particularly to assess the viability of sites and to create consistency in testing and reporting. The guidance will be made available soon to IOA members for review and comment before the ﬁ nal version is published later this year.

By Mike Sugiura

The Senior Members’ Group (SMG) held a virtual meeting on 26 July 2021 with a very interesting presentation from Steve Barnes, GRAMM UK. GRAMM UK are noise barrier specialists who have engaged in the design, supply and installation of barriers in the infrastructure, transportation and industrial sectors for more than 27 years. Steve covered many aspects of acoustic barriers covering best practice, the compliance of barriers for use on UK highways and roads, the structural requirements of noise barriers, the various materials available and the beneﬁ ts each possess oﬀ ering sustainable solutions. The talk discussed the development of combined noise barrier systems, which deliver a combination of sound reduction, air pollution removal, vehicle safety, and greener and more eﬃ cient barriers. There is a gradual move away from the traditional timber noise barriers to more sustainable long-life (upwards of 60 years) maintenance free barriers thus reducing the environmental impact and carbon footprint. Steve’s talk also gave an overview of the development of acoustics – including where it has failed. Steve highlighted that in many cases there are sites with non-compliant noise barriers in England and also sites where it has succeeded. The talk highlighted that many acoustic reports lack suﬃ cient advice/direction, information and the detail on the design and performance required from a proposed barrier system. The next SMG meeting and AGM will be held on 20 September 2021.

EASTERN BRANCH NEWS

Turn to page 36 for the Instrumentation Corner article on the health and whole life cost beneﬁ ts of highways noise barriers

INSTITUTE AFFAIRS

Health and whole life cost beneﬁ ts of highways noise barriers

By Josie Nixon

INSTRUMENTATION CORNER

The Eastern Region Branch recently held an online meeting on ‘The Quiet Project’, which was expertly delivered by Professor Stephen Dance, who has our thanks. The event was held remotely on Thursday 24 June 2021 and attended by 25 members. The meeting was a great way to look back over the past year and a half at how the pandemic has aﬀ ected our relationship with noise. The presentation explored how noise levels changed with the diﬀ erent lockdowns and how quiet levels were in the ﬁ rst lockdown compared to the latter. The presentation provided attendees with the chance to think about how ‘quiet’ can be achieve within society going forwards and provided thought-provoking ideas, such as should there be an annual day of quiet as a memorial for those that have been lost, providing time for contemplation and remembrance for when it was quiet? The Eastern Branch is currently on the summer break but committee members are looking forward to providing more events in the autumn and, ﬁ ngers crossed, they may even be in person!

By Giles Parker, Sound Barrier Solutions Ltd

whole life cost beneﬁ ts and long- term acoustic performance.

Further guidance DMRB document GD 304 Designing health and safety into maintenance

36 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

66 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

GENERAL NEWS

NEWS

Mind music

IOA member, Cam Salisbury and his friend, Dom Taylor, have held a ‘digital bake sale’ to raise funds for mental health charity, Mind ( www.mind.org.uk ) because, they worked out, music travels better than cakes over the internet. Mind provides advice and support to empower anyone experiencing a change to their mental health. The charity campaigns to improve services, raise awareness and promote understanding. Cam said: “Rather than bake brownies to raise funds and take them to what may still be a mainly empty oﬃ ce, we took a diﬀ erent, digital approach. “As way of thanking the supportive people I have had surrounding me throughout this diﬃ cult pandemic period, I worked with my good friend, Dom, to write and record a piece of music, Feel Alive , during the lockdown period to keep ourselves sane if nothing else.” “ Feel Alive is listed on iTunes, Amazon, Spotify, Deezer and YouTube. All proceeds are being donated to MIND, so each time the track is added to a playlist and somebody listens, it generates money for a fantastic cause and helps to support the conversations surrounding mental health and wellbeing as we begin to emerge from what has been a very testing time.”

Pioneering ‘sound blinds’ to be trialed

A new material that allows scientists to turn plastic sheets into noise cancelling panels is to be trialed in UK hospitals and beside motorways. The plastic panels have the same noise reduction eﬀ ect as two inches of plywood but weigh four to six times less. The company behind the Sonoblind panels, Metasonixx, is a spin- out from the Universities of Sussex and Bristol. One of the founders of the company, Dr Gianluca Memoli, from the School of Engineering of Informatics of the University of Sussex, said: “Our panels are much lighter than traditional solutions for noise abatement and, if required, can even let air and light through. Some of the panels can be used as grilles to silence air conditioning units and extractor fans or as part of blinds, to keep the noise out while the window stays open.”

For sale (due to retirement)

Listen here: https://youtu.be/gqovsy6dRsk www.justgiving.com/fundraising/digitalbakesale

• CEL 593 sound level meter kit • CEL 593 series 2 with environmental, building acoustics and faststore modules • CEL type 250 half-inch pre-polarised microphone • CEL 284/2 acoustic calibrator • Carrying case, cables and manuals

For further information contact Graham Rock on 01823 335862 or graham@rockacoustics.co.uk

David Watts CEng FIOA becomes AIRO’s Technical Director

Predictor-LimA users

David Watts has joined AIRO’s Board as Technical Director. David’s career at AIRO started as an Assistant Engineer in 1990 shortly after graduation and progressed to Principal Consultant by 2003. His professional development has encompassed all aspects of AIRO’s consultancy and testing activities, further education and training through the IOA including the Diploma in Acoustics and Noise Control, qualifying as a Chartered Engineer and attaining Fellowship of the Institute. David has also made signiﬁ cant contributions in the voluntary sector including IOA committees at national and branch level, together with Association of Noise Consultants and BSi committee work. AIRO’s MD and former IOA President, Dr Tony Jones HonFIOA, has welcomed David’s appointment as strengthening AIRO’s board of directors and looks forward to David continuing to apply his dedication and enthusiasm to progress both AIRO’s ongoing development and the profession of acoustics in general.

Softnoise has taken over support and sales of Predictor-LimA products from EMS-B&K/ Envirosuite. This means that all Predictor-LimA users can now contact Softnoise directly for support and sales at https://softnoise.com/

ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021 67

INDUSTRY UPDATES

Phil Evans joins Savills

Jordi Femenia joins vibration control specialist, Mason UK

Phil Evans, formerly at RPS and founder of Evans Acoustics, has now joined Savills Planning and Environment Team to expand its environmental capability. Savills operates the largest planning consultancy in the UK and Phil has established an acoustics, sound and vibration team that will initially be based in Brighton before expanding into the Leeds and Manchester oﬃ ces.

Acoustics and vibration specialist, Mason UK, has appointed Jordi Femenia as its new Sales Manager. Jordi brings both technical knowledge of acoustics and extensive experience in sales and customer supporting roles. He began his career as an acoustic engineer and has since amassed two decades of experience in the sector. In addition to his engineering background, Jordi also holds a master’s degree in Business Administration. He has vast experience in a sales environment, having brought his energy and enthusiasm for acoustics into sales roles and used his technical knowledge of acoustics to build relationships with customers.

Jordi Femenia

Phil Evans

NTi opens oﬃ ces in France

Campbell Associates NEW CadnaA training Campbell Associates training for CadnaA noise prediction software was inevitably interrupted by pandemic safety measures, and their 2020 face-to- face programme was cancelled. However, they have now created an online training programme, that can be delivered eﬀ ectively via a live webinar platform. Topics covered in the ﬁ rst sessions, delivered in March, included the basics of sound calculation, modelling, source types and results, and included data import, object handling and project organisation, modelling radiating buildings, outdoor sound systems, bridges, barriers and tunnels. Delegate notes and training ﬁ les were provided and the sessions were CPD certiﬁ ed. The CadnaA live webinar training is being repeated this September. If you would like to be advised of future training dates, please email Jo May on joanne@campbell-associates.co.uk

NTi Audio has opened new oﬃ ces in Limonest near Lyon, France, with Erik Aﬂ alo at the helm. Erik brings 30 years’ experience and expertise in acoustic measurement solutions which he will use to build the NTi Audio brand and provide expert support to customers in France. Erik will be primarily responsible for the industrial markets and applications related to noise measurements and room and building acoustics.

David Watts CEng FIOA becomes AIRO’s Technical Director

Acoustic Associates Sussex Ltd is now an employee owned company

David Watts has joined AIRO’s board as Technical Director. His career at AIRO started as an assistant engineer in 1990 shortly after graduation and progressed to Principal Consultant by 2003. His professional development has encompassed all aspects of AIRO’s consultancy and testing activities, further education and training through the IOA including the Diploma in Acoustics and Noise Control, qualifying as a Chartered Engineer and attaining Fellowship of the Institute. David has also made signiﬁ cant contributions in the voluntary sector including IOA committees at national and branch level, together with Association of Noise Consultants and BSi committee work.

— =

Acoustic Associates Sussex Ltd

David Watts

After more than 25 years of consultancy practise under the leadership of Peter Attwood, Acoustic Associates Sussex Ltd has now transitioned into an employee ownership trust. The employees are the majority owners of the company via the holding company Aco u st ic Asso ciates Trus tees Ltd. Peter will still be a part of the company and wi ll co n t in u e t o wo rk on a part-time basis while George and Scott, as fellow directors, will steer the day-to-day operations along with Sue, the oﬃ ce manager.

• Acoustic, Fire, Structural and Physical test laboratory

• Site acoustic pre-completion testing

The Building Test Centre Fire Acoustics Structures T: 0115 945 1564 www.btconline.co.uk btc.testing@saint-gobain.com

0296

68 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

ADVERTISING FEATURE

The ideal setting for a wedding ceremony made more peaceful with secondary glazing D

eep in the heart of Reading, close to Reading Abbey in Berkshire, is the historic Reading Town Hall. This magniﬁ cent Grade II Listed building was built in phases between 1786 and 1897. The main façade was designed in 1875 by renowned architect, Alfred Waterhouse, in the Victorian Gothic style; this particular area of the building is Grade II*. The Town Hall’s Grade II Listed facilities oﬀ er space for conferencing, weddings, parties and Christmas events. One such area, the Registry Oﬃ ce’s Ceremony Room, in the Grade II* part of the building required better acoustic insulation on seven of the primary windows, to ensure minimal breakthrough of outside noise during wedding registries. As the building is Listed, the traditional single glazed sash windows were retained as an important architectural feature and secondary glazing was chosen as a way of dealing with mitigating noise from the busy thoroughfare. Selectaglaze worked closely with main contractor, Lakehouse, and Reading Borough Council to devise appropriate designs. These needed to be engineered to meet the acoustic requirements but also had to be as unobtrusive as possible. 23 units were installed to seven enormous original windows in the Ceremonies Room. The very large gothic arched primary windows were just over four metres high, so had to be treated with a combination of units to ensure the perfect acoustic insulation. Each opening was treated with a combination of three or four transom coupled secondary glazed units, with a Series 42 curved ﬁ xed light system aﬃ xed at the top. The slimline Series 10 horizo ntal sliding units were speciﬁ ed for the lower units on the

wider windows, whereas the Series 45 side hung casement was selected for the narrower windows. This ensured that sightlines from the primary windows were not compromised irrespective of their diﬀ ering widths. 6.4mm acoustic laminate glass was speciﬁ ed for each and a cavity of 100mm from the original windows ensured that the secondary glazing units reduced noise levels by between 40-45 dB. An additional beneﬁ t of this treatment was that the thermal controls were also enhanced, making the room warmer.

Contact Selectaglaze on: Tel: 01727 837271 Email: enquiries@selectaglaze.co.uk www.selectaglaze.co.uk

UKAS accredited calibration facility, see UKAS website for scope of UKAS accredited calibrations offered: anv.ms/ukas

SALES - HIRE - CALIBRATION

One-Stop Shop for Acoustic & Vibration Calibration

bration Calibration

• Sound Level Meters • Acoustic Calibrators & Pistonphones • Microphones* • Octave/Third Octave Filters • Accelerometers* • Vibration Meters* • Tapping Machines • Reverberation

FOCUSED ON: - Fast Turnaround - Competitively Priced - Customer Service

“We are very pleased with the excellent service we received from ANV in recent months. Most notably, they provided an efficient and hassle free calibration service with which we couldn’t have been more satisfied.” - Jack Richardson Hilson Moran Partnership Ltd

GEES

*not accredited by UKAS

WWW.NOISE-AND-VIBRATION.CO.UK | CALIBRATION@ANV.UK.COM | 01908 642846

AC OUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBE R 202 1 69

INSTITUTE DIARY

Council of the Institute of Acoustics is pleased to acknowledge the valuable support of these organisations Institute Sponsor Members

Founding Key Sponsors

Key Sponsor

Acreﬁ ne Engineering Services Ltd Advanced Noise Solutions Ltd AECOM AMC Mecanocaucho AMS Acoustics ANV Measurement Systems Apex Acoustics Arup Acoustics Bickerdike Allen Partners LLP Campbell Associates Cellecta Ltd Christie & Grey Ltd Clement Acoustics CMS Danskin Acoustics

Direct Acoustic Solutions Ltd Echo Barrier Ltd EMTEC Products Ltd Farrat Isolevel Ltd Finch Consulting Gracey & Associates Hann Tucker Associates Hayes McKenzie Partnership Hilson Moran Partnership Ltd Isomass Ltd KP Acoustics Ltd Mason UK Limited Monarﬂ oor Acoustic Systems Ltd Noise Solutions

noise.co.uk Nova Acoustics NPL (National Physical Laboratory) Pliteq (UK) RBA Acoustics RSK Acoustics Limited Rockfon Saint-Gobain Ecophon Ltd Sandy Brown Ltd Sharps Redmore Siderise Group SITMA Sound Reduction Systems Ltd

Spectrum Acoustic Consultants Ltd Stantec UK Waterman Infrastructure & Environment Limited WSP Zentia (Armstrong Ceiling Solutions)

Applications for Sponsor Membership of the Institute should be sent to Membership at the Milton Keynes oﬃ ce. Details can be found on the IOA website. Members are reminded that ONLY Sponsor Members are entitled to use the Sponsor IOA logo in their publications, whether paper or electronic (including web pages).

Committee meetings 2021

Institute Council

Honorary Oﬃ cers

DAY DATE TIME MEETING

President S W Turner HonFIOA ST Acoustics President Elect A Somerville HonFIOA Immediate Past President Prof B Gibbs FIOA Liverpool University Hon Secretary F Rogerson MIOA Arup Acoustics Hon Treasurer Dr M R Lester HonFIOA Lester Acoustics LLP Vice Presidents J Hill MIOA AAF Ltd Dr P A Lepper MIOA Loughborough University G A Parry FIOA ACCON UK

Wednesday 8 September 10.30 Executive

Wednesday 22 September 10.30 Council

Tuesday 28 September 11.00 CPD Committee

Thursday 14 October 11.00 Publications

Tuesday 19 October 10.30 Engineering

Wednesday 20 October 10.30 Engineering

Thursday 21 October 10.30 Meetings

Briiel & Kjaer =

Thursday 28 October 10.30 Membership

Tuesday 2 November 10.30 Research Co-ordination(London)

Tuesday 9 November 10.30 CCWPNA Examiners

Ordinary Members

Tuesday 9 November 13.30 CCWPNA Committee

Dr K R Holland MIOA ISVR V L Stewart MIOA Atkins Acoustics Dr C Barlow MIOA Solent University Dr B Fenech MIOA Public Health England A Lamacraft MIOA ACCON UK R Mahtani MIOA Sandy Brown Associates Dr Y Liu FIOA AECOM Dr H S Sagoo MIOA

Wednesday 10 November 09.30 CCBAM Examiners

Wednesday 10 November 10.30 CCENM Examiners

Wednesday 10 November 13.30 CCENM Committee

Thursday 11 November 10.30 Diploma Tutors and Examiners

PUCirrus

Thursday 11 November 13.30 Education

Tuesday 23 November 10.30 ASBA Examiners (Edinburgh)

Tuesday 23 November 13.30 ASBA Committee (Edinburgh)

Chief Executive

Wednesday 24 November 10.30 Executive

A Chesney Institute of Acoustics

Wednesday 8 December 10.30 Council

70 ACOUSTICS BULLETIN SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2021

Gracey & Associates

Setting Hire Standards

We have been hiring sound and vibration measuring equipment to UK industry and businesses for almost 50 years.

We believe we enjoy a reputation for great service and we always strive to put our customers’ needs first.

We stock an extensive range of equipment from manufacturers like: Bruel & Kjaer, Norsonic, Svantek, NTi, Vibrock,

Davis, Casella and Larson Davis.

Our web-site offers a great deal of information, and our team are just one phone call away from helping you with your hire needs.

We look forward to hearing from you.

CALIBRATION SERVICES

CAMPBELL ASSOCIATES SOUND, VIBRATION & AIR SOLUTIONS

1. HASSLE-FREE COLLECTION & DELIVERY SERVICE

2. UKAS CERTIFIED LAB

3. COMPETITIVE CALIBRATION CONTRACTS

0789

CALL US TODAY : 01371 871030 hotline@campbell-associates.co.uk

Oy, Ke RY: “Gh th N

SALES - HIRE - CALIBRATION

UKAS accredited calibration facility, see UKAS website for scope of UKAS accredited calibrations offered: anv.ms/ukas

T HE E NVIRONMENTAL I NSTRUMENTATION S PECIALISTS

A vailable for Purchase & Hire

Noise, Vibration, Dust & Weather all on one website

• A Truly Web-based Solution

• No Software Required

• Fully Certified & Site Proven Hardware

Simultaneous, MCerts PM10 & 2.5 Dust Monitoring based on the TSI DustTrack TM DRX

ma ttan v (Mana ger) Logout Home Accounts V iew Pr ojects Mana ge Monitor s

0 & 2.5

Projects >> ANV Permanent System >> ANV Of ﬁce

Registered Address: Beaufort Court, 17 Roebuck W ay, Milton Keynes, MK5 8HL, U.K.

ANV Office

ring

The Main Building

a* t Le * i

Noise

Loading Bay

Vibration

TSI

Goods In/Out

"2 ~~ f

XV-2P 00170003

Dust

E S -642 Dust

Weather

DRX

WS 600 Weather

Cre ate Monitor Position

13. Mar 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 14. Mar

L ZF90 L ZFmax L Zeq

20K

12.5K

3.15K

1.25K

800

500

315

200

125

31.5

12.5

13. Mar 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 14. Mar

0db 50db 100db

18/03/13 12:17:00 GMT - 18/03/13 12:18:00 GMT

120

100