Advertisement

Man and Sonic Boom: Environmental Change

  • Charles W. Nixon

Abstract

On the eve of the commercial supersonic transport era widespread concern exists about the possible undesirable effects on people of repeated sonic boom exposures. Many experimental programs and observations of human response to sonic booms have been conducted in an attempt to estimate the nature and extent of these projected exposures. Based upon the integrated body of results from physiological, psychological and sociological response programs conducted in various nations in recent years estimates have been made of the acceptability of frequent, regular commercial supersonic flights over populated areas. In this report, human response studies conducted in France, the United Kingdom and the United States are reviewed and considered in terms of present foundations for criteria for sonic boom acceptability.

Keywords

Rise Time Startle Response Noise Exposure Oklahoma City Aircraft Noise 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bishop, D.E. and R.D. Horonjeff, 1967. Procedures for developing noise exposure forecast areas for aircraft flight operations. Aircraft Development Service, Federal Aviation Agency, DS-67–10.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    *Borsky, P.N. 1965. Community reactions to sonic booms in the Oklahoma City area. National Opinion Research Centre, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory Technical Report 65–37.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broadbent, D.E. and D.W. Robinson, 1964. Subjective assessment of the relative annoyance of simulated sonic bangs and aircraft noise. Journal of Sound and Vibration 1–2, 162.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Brisson, Med. Lt. Col., 1966. Opinion study on the sonic bang, Centre d’etudes et d’instruction psychologiques de l’armee de l’air, Study No. 22 (1966) France. Royal Aircraft Establishment Translation 1159, ARC 27993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    *Kryter, K.D., 1967. Sonic boom experiments at Edwards Air Force Base, Stanford Research Institute, Interim and Final Report, National Sonic Boom Evaluation Office Report 1–67.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kryter, K.D., 1968. Concepts of perceived noisiness, their implementation and application, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 43:344–361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kryter, K.D., 1969. Sonic booms from supersonic transport, Science 163:359–367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lukas, J.S. and K.D. Kryter, 1968. A preliminary study of the awakening and startle effects of simulated sonic booms, Stanford Research Institute Final Report, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Report 1–6193, Langley Station, Hampton, Virginia.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maglieri, D.J., V. Huckel and T.L. Parrott, 1966. Ground measurements of shock-wave pressure for fighter airplanes flying at very low altitudes and comments on associated response phenomena, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Technical Note D-3443, Langley Station, Hampton, Virginia.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nixon, C.W. and H.H. Hubbard, 1965. Results of USAF-NASA-FAA Flight Program to study community responses to sonic booms in the Greater St. Louis area, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Technical Note D-2705, Langley Station, Hampton, Virginia.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    *Nixon, C.W., H.K. Hille, H.C. Sommer and E. Guild, Lt. Col., USAF, 1968. Sonic booms resulting from extremely low-altitude supersonic flight: Measurement and observations on houses, livestock and people, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory Technical Report 68–52.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    *Nixon, C.W., 1969. Human auditory response to an air bag inflation noise, Report Number PB-184–837, Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Va., 22151.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pearsons, K.S. and K.D. Kryter, 1965. Laboratory tests of subjective reactions to sonic boom, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contractors Report 187, Langley Station, Hampton, Virginia.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rice, C.G. and R.R.A. Coles, 1968. Auditory hazards from sonic booms? International Audiology, V11, No. 1.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shepherd, L.J. and W.W. Sutherland, 1968. Relative annoyance and loudness judgments of various simulated sonic boom waveforms, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contractors Report 1–6193, Langley Station, Hampton, Virginia.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sonic Boom Structural Response Test Program, 1965, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, Supersonic Transport Report 65–4, Federal Aviation Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warren, C.H.E., A preliminary analysis of the results of Exercise Crackerjack and their relevance to supersonic transport aircraft, Royal Aircraft Establishment Technical Note Number Aero 2789.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Webb, D.R.B., and C.H.E. Warren, 1967. An investigation of the effects of bangs on the subjective reaction of a community, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 6:375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Webb, O.R.B., and C.H.E. Warren, 1965. Physical characteristics of the sonic bangs and other events at Exercise Westminster, Royal Aircraft Establishment Technical Report 65248.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zepler, E., and J.R.P. Harel, 1965. The loudness of sonic booms and other impulsive sounds, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2: 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1970

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles W. Nixon
    • 1
  1. 1.Aerospace Medical Research LaboratoryWright-Patterson Air Force BaseUSA

Personalised recommendations