声压法与声强法的隔声测量不确定度的对比研究  

Comparison of measurement uncertainty of sound insulation between the sound pressure method and sound intensity method

作　　者：蔡阳生 赵越喆[2] CAI Yangsheng;ZHAO Yuezhe(School of Architecture and Urban Planning Fujian University of Technology,Fuzhou 350118,China;State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science,School of Architecture, South China University of Technology,Guangzhou 510640,China)

机构地区：[1]福建工程学院建筑与城乡规划学院,福州350118 [2]华南理工大学亚热带建筑科学国家重点实验室,广州510640

出　　处：《振动与冲击》2018年第8期42-46,53,共6页Journal of Vibration and Shock

基　　金：国家自然科学基金(51408141);福建省自然科学基金(2017J01473);福建省教育厅科研项目(GY-Z160091);福建工程学院科研启动项目(GY-Z160059)

摘　　要：利用计算隔声单值量及其测量不确定度的方法,根据ISO 12999-1以及GB/T 31004.1—2014给出的标准偏差,分别计算声压法和声强法在普通频率范围(100~5 000 Hz)以及低频扩展范围(50~5 000 Hz)的测量不确定度。结果表明声强法在普通频率范围的不确定度小于声压法,在低频扩展范围时会更显著小于声压法,这体现了声强法有更好的低频段测量鲁棒性,与前人的实验对比研究结果一致。最后对比了两个隔声构件的不确定度,结果显示构件的低频隔声性能较差会产生较大的不确定度。According to the standard deviation given by ISO 12999-1 and GB/T 31004.1-2014,the measurement uncertainty of the sound pressure method and the sound intensity method in the normal frequency range(100-5 000 Hz)and the extended low-frequency range(50-5 000 Hz)were calculated with the approach determining the single-number quantity and its measurement uncertainty.The results show that the uncertainty of the sound intensity method in the normal frequency range is less than the sound pressure method,and less more evidently with the extended low frequency range,which means that the sound intensity method has better low frequency measurement robustness,and consistent with previous experiments results.Finally,comparing the measurement uncertainty of two building elements,the results show the elements with poor low-frequency sound insulation will produce higher uncertainty.

关 键 词：空气声隔声 测量不确定度 声压 声强 

分 类 号：TH212[机械工程—机械制造及自动化] TH213.3