Advertisement

International Journal of Automotive Technology

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 699–705 | Cite as

Objective evaluation of the sound quality of the warning sound of electric vehicles with a consideration of the masking effect: Annoyance and detectability

  • Sang Kwon Lee
  • Seung Min Lee
  • Taejin Shin
  • Manug Han
Article

Abstract

This study developed a method to evaluate the sound quality of the warning sound masked by background noise considering the masking effect. The warning sound of an electric vehicle is required by law for the safety of pedestrians. Therefore, the warning sound becomes an additional noise pollution source if it is designed as an annoyance. On the other hand, if the sound is designed with a low sound pressure level, pedestrians will not recognize the approach of vehicle due to background noise. To avoid nose pollution and permit the detectability of an approaching vehicle, a method for evaluating the annoyance and detectability of an electric vehicle is required. In this paper, the whine index evaluating the whine sound masked by the background was developed and used as a sound metric. This metric was employed for the development of an annoyance index and detectability index for electric vehicles.

Key words

Annoyance Detectability Electric vehicle Masking effect Sound quality Whine index 

Nomenclature

A

constant related to the amplitude of a monopole source

Prms

mean squared value of the sound pressure

q

source strength of a mono pole source

ρ

density of air

c

speed of sound

k

wave number

r

distance from the source to the listener

θ

directivity of sound presure

v

speed of the vehicle

L(f)

sound pressure level (SPL) of the waveform

LE,n

frequency masking curve of nth masker

I

noise intensity present in the critical band

LTH(f)

hearing threshold the frequency f

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Engler, O. (2016). Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG coupé electric drive: NVH development and sound design of an electric sports car. SAE Paper No. 2016-01-1783.Google Scholar
  2. Garay-Vega, L., Hastings, A., Pollard, J. K., Zuschalg, M. and Stearns, M. D. (2010). Quieter Cars and the Safety of Blind Pedestrians: Phase I. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.Google Scholar
  3. Japan Automobile Standards Internationalization Centre (2009). A Study on Approach Warning Systems for Hybrid Vehicle in Motor Mode. 49th UNECE/WP/GRB.Google Scholar
  4. Jacobsen, G., Ih, J. G., Song, W. and Macdonald, E. (2016). Predicting detectability and annoyance of EV warning sounds using partial loudness. Proc. 45th Int. Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, 1706–1715.Google Scholar
  5. Kang, H. S., Shin, T. J., Lee, S. K. and Park, D. C. (2015). Design optimization of a dual-shell car horn for improved sound quality based on numerical and experimental methods. Applied Acoustics, 90, 160–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kinsler, L. E., Frey, A. R., Coppens, A. B. and Sanders, J. V. (2000). Fundamentals of Acoustics. 4th edn. John Wiley & Sons. New York, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Lee, S. K. (2016). Objective evaluation of sound quality in an electric vehicle based on effect of temporal and spectral masking. Proc. FISITA 2016, BEXCO, Korea.Google Scholar
  8. Lee, S. K., Kim, H. W. and Na, E. W. (2010). Improvement of impact noise in a passenger car utilizing, sound metric based on wavelet transform. J. Sound and Vibration 329, 17, 3606–3619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee, S. M. and Lee, S. K. (2014). Objective evaluation of human perception of automotive sound based on physiological signal of human brain. Int. J. Automotive Technology 15, 2, 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nyeste, P. and Wogalter, M. S. (2008). On adding sound to quiet vehicles. Proc. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 52, 21, 1747–1750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Otto, N., Amman, S., Eaton, C. and Lake, S. (1999). Guidelines for jury evaluations of automotive sounds. SAE Paper No. 1999-01-1822.Google Scholar
  12. Quiet Road Transport Vehicles (QRTV) (2010). Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedures for the GRB Working Group on Quiet Road Transport Vehicles (QRTV). GRB Informal Group on Quiet Road Transport Vehicles (QRTV): Working Papers of the 1st Informal Meeting.Google Scholar
  13. Robart, R., Parizet, E., Chamard, J. C., Janssens, K. and Biancardi, F. (2013). eVADER: A perceptual approach to finding minimum warning sound requirements for quiet cars. AIA-DAGA 2013 Conf. Acoustics, 1.Google Scholar
  14. Singh, S., Payne, S. R. and Jennings, P. A. (2014). Toward a methodology for assessing electric vehicle exterior sounds. IEEE Trans. Intelligent Transportation Systems 15, 4, 1790–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Terhardt, E., Stoll, G. and Seewann, M. (1982). Algorithm for extraction of pitch and pitch salience from complex tonal signals. J. Acoustical Society of America 71, 3, 679–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Yasui, N. and Miura, M. (2016). Effect of amplitude envelope on detectability of warning sound for quiet vehicle. Inter-Noise 2016, 1698–1705.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Automotive Engineers and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sang Kwon Lee
    • 1
  • Seung Min Lee
    • 1
  • Taejin Shin
    • 1
  • Manug Han
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringInha UniversityIncheonKorea

Personalised recommendations