ML20247G050
| ML20247G050 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1989 |
| From: | Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8639 OL-1-A-011A, OL-1-A-11A, NUDOCS 8905300271 | |
| Download: ML20247G050 (241) | |
Text
W g,. JQ IdN & ffd/V W - O & I 5 /f7 4
- ,,, c
/ '89 NAY 22 P7 :34 OFF.e . ,
00Chf.! #1 , i. , y ig
.n u No; ~
l i
- w(
'x l NUCLEAR S k y s #RE3ULATORY
- fA'2 COMMISSION Dxket No. 5D 'V'4'*/AL Officist Exh. No. _//~N in the ma: tar of A'Adc Swiu 5 " by/d dh Staff - __._ IDENTIFIED 25 j Applicent _ M
_ RECCIVED 73 '
intervenar REJECTED Cont'g Off'r _.
Contractor /be'/N _ DATE - d'k. '
Other -
Witness hK 3 Reporter -- [h<~
G add
._______-___---------D
O.
SEABROOK STATION PUBLIC ALERT AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM FEMA-REP-10 DESIGN REPORT :
l New Hampshire o Yankee O
m
~~~ Wl,iiI "4 'C l';'i
- t'm*****
maimer NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Dccket No. Official Exh. No.
In tne r=t:er of stef; IDENTIFIED April 30,198@ C',r T $!$'to C; i; J 0ffr O . ractor u;er
_.DATE Witness
, . ;';r t e r - -
d t
H-TABLE OF CONTENTS y
p jv. P_ aL' 1
FOREWORDL v Chapter 1., ' ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES 1-1 l~
E NOTIFIC ATION METHODS AND' PROCEDURES 1-2 E.5 . Notification Methods. 1-2.
L
! E.6- Alerting Methods- 1-5
' F EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS 1-10 F.1 Emergency Communications 1 'N .
EXERCISES AND DRILLS 1 L N.I.(a,b) Exercise Definitions and Requirements 1-12 N.2.a . Communication Drills 12 N.3 Scenarios and Objectives 1-13 N.5 Observer and Participant Comments 1-15 Chapter 2. PHYSICAL MEANS 2-l' i
E.6.2.1- SIRENS 2-10
~
E.6.2.1.c System Response Tine 18 E.6.2.1.d Siren Range Calculations 2-20
[~'/\'
(_, E.6.2.1.e Maintenance of Siren System 2-20 2-21 E.6.2.1.f Siren System Testing Program E.6.2.1.g- Operability Reports 2-24 E.6.2.3 TONE-ALERT RADIOS 2-25 E.6.2.4 SPECI AL ALERTING METHODS 2-26 E.6.2.4.2- Institutional Alerting System 2-26 E.6.2.4.2.a Tone-Alert Radios 2-26 E.6.2.4.2.b United States Coast Guard 2-27 E.6.2.4.2.c Department of Interior - Plum Island 2-28 E.6.2.4.3 Airborne Alerting System 2-28 following 2-37 REFERENCES i
>> q:. -;
~ .
3; s D/ ~
f , j L LIST OF APPENDICES _ -
(:lf ;
( 'Q, ,
Appendix A' - SIREN SYSTEM COMPONENT PHOTOGRAPHS Whelen WS-3000 Siren Close-Up Whelen WS-3000 Siren Typical Installation.
VANS with Dual'Whelen WS-4000 Siren System
[C Stowed VANS with Dual Whelen WS-4000 Siren System Raised-r-
L-Dual Whelen WS-4000 Siren System Close-Up Whelen WS-4000 Brochure
/
Appendix B , ACOUSTIC INFORMATION Wyle Research Test Report 88-9(R), Acoustic Evaluation of a Triple WS 3000 and a Prototype WS 4000 Siren
' Wyle Research Test Report 88-4, Acoustic Evaluation of a Whelen WS 4000 Siren Wyle Research Report WR-88-9, Siren Ranging Model 7--
Wyle Research Report WR 88-6(R), Acoustic Evaluation ,
of an' Airborne Alerting System l
(
ii
=-_a___-.- _ _ _ . __ _
LIST OF TABLES'
, . jN l \,y -
L ' Table- : Title Page 1 Cross Reference to Information Relating. 1-17 p ,
to. Evaluation Criteria' E.5 -
i .. 1 . Cross Reference to Information Relating I l-21 to Evaluation Criteria: E.6.
~
3 Cross Reference to Information Relating 'l-23 to Evaluation Criteria F.1 4 ' Cross Reference to Information Relating 1-24 to. Evaluation Criteria N.1(a,b) 1-5 Cross Reference to Information Relating 26'
.b '
to Evaluation Criteria N.2.a
, 1-6 Cross Reference to Information Relating' 1-27 to Evaluation Criteria N.3 -
1-7 Cross Reference to Information Relating 1-28 L to Evaluation Criteria N.5 - .
2-1. Summary of Siren Locations. 2-31
/ 2-34 1 2-2 VANS Route Times i 4 2-3 Siren Operability 2-35 til 1
__________________.__.__m_________.._.___m _mm.mm._ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
) .
4 i
.. . , . LIST. 0F FIGURES
, _ys i ):
'l(_s4J~~
4 V.
Figure. Title Psge 1-1 Seabrook Station Public Alert and 1-30 Notification Sequence - Fast Breaking
.;; 2-l' - Seabrook Station - Siren Coverage for the . 2-36 Public . Alert and Notification System in =
- New Hampshire-2-2 Seabrook Station --Siren Coverage for~ the 2-37 Public Alert and Notification System in
- Massachusetts-
.A-l' Whelen.WS-3000 Siren Close-Up g A ' Whelen WS-3000' Siren Typical Installation H*
A-3 ' VANS ,with Dual Whelen WS-4000 Siren System o Stowed'
'l" 'A-4
. VANS with Dual Whelen WS-4000 Siren System Raised ,
A-5. Dual Whelen WS-4000 Siren System Close-Up A Whelen WS-4000 Brochure l
l
()
iv l
,.. m r SEABROOK STATION
,_s f L j PUBLIC ALERT AND- NOTIFICATION SYSTEM FEHA-REP-10 DESIGN. REPORT FOREWORD This. report describes the Public Alert and Notification System (PANS) that is being implemented around New Hampshire Yankee's (NHY's) Seabrook Station ' at Seabrook , New Hampshire. Such public warning networks are mandated by.the. regulations [1]* established for the licensing of all commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, which ' require that:
"...means to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning .
zone have been established".
,S The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for assuring com-
-(_)[
pliance with these regulations. However, the NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency-(FEHA) have agreed that provisions for. public alert and notification 1will be reviewed by FEMA, and FEMA will then furnish " assess-ments, findings and determinations" to NRC for NRC's use in licensing and regulation of commercial nuclear power plants (2]. Furthermore , the NRC and FEMA have jcintly published " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1)(3), which includes the cri-teria used for evaluating the adequacy of public warning systems, and j
provides technical guidance for the design of such systems [4).
L
- Numbers in brackets refer to references listed at the end of the text. 'l f%
\_-
u
o
'r .The system around Seabrook Station has been designed to meet or exceed-
' [l /\ 4 .
1 f )(_,) l these published criteria, based explicitly upon the NRC/ FEMA technical I
guidance.
FEMA'has further elaborated upon their expectations 'for public warning -
. systems around nuclear power. plants by publishing FEMA-REP-10, " Guide = for the Evaluation of Alert and: Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants" i
"' ~ [5]. FEMA-REP-10 requests the submittal of administrative and design in-formation about a11'public warning systems as a first step in the evaluation process.
This document 'is .the " Design Report" requested in FEMA-REP-10. Chapter 1 describes' how compliance with the items listed in FEMA-REP-10 related to .
administrative. procedures have been achieved, and contains references to -
the locations of those items in the Seabrook Station Radiological Emergency Plan, the State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan, and Q[ D - -
the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities. In general, these items pertain to the administrative plans and procedures to control the operation and use of the public alert and notification system.
Chspter 2 contains inf ormation about the design and performance of the
. physical means implemented to provide public alert and notification.in the event of an emergency at Seabrook Station requiring public alerting.
This report f ollows the f ormat outlined in FEMA-REP-10. The major lettered headings ("E", "F", and "N") correspond to the " Planning Standards" E, F, and N outlined in NUREG-0654; the numbered sub-headings ("E.5", "F.1",
etc.) correlate with the " Evaluation Criteria" detailed in FEMA-REP-10, and i
used by FEMA.as the basis for the evaluation of the public alert and notiff- l L cation aspects of state and local of f site radiological emergency response i
vi
-- -__-___-____O
p3 _ , - - _
l' t-- i o
plans and.for the assessment of alert und notification systems. . This
- . ,J4. _ report describes how the warning system complies with the guidelines con-1 j )
(_./ - tained under the Evaluation Criteria; the numbering system used in this .
-l report thus facilitates FEMA's review of this compliance.
l
/
9 u,) . ;
i 1
O l G'
vil l
1
______.________________u__.______ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ __ _._ J
i
- 1. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES i
,n This chapter dA scribes compliance with the administrative procedure items
'~'
l' requested in FEMA-REP-10, and contains references to the locations of these items in the emergency plans and procedures that have been implemented for the cities and' towns within the Seabrook Station plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (hereinaf ter referred to as the EPZ) by New Hampshire Yankee,~the State of New Hampshire, and for the Comioonwealth of. Massachusetts
' by the New Hampshire Yankee Of f site Response Organization. Figure 1-1 depicts.
the sequence of actions taken to alert and notify the public of a fast-breaking emergency at Seabrook Station.
,n.
.o U 1_1 l
pm y s , , '
(
li
., PLANNING'STA DARD E - NOTIFICATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES N~$ - EVALUATION CRITERION E.5: Notification' Methods d .
The primary means of disseminating.information and instructions to the
,public'is through broadcast of messages'over the Emergency' Broadcast
' System (EBS), a network of commercial radio stations. New Hampshire and Massachusetts portions of the EPZ are covered by separate EBS networks.
In the event that occurrences at Seabrook Station lead to an emergency
' classification of ALERT, the EBS stations in both states are put on standby.- .
! -The.New Hampshire EBS stations may, at the ALERT Level, be activated for issuance of instruction for precautionary closing of beach areas. At the SITE AREA EMERGENCY or GENERAL EMERGENCY level, broadcasts over the EBS are activated for both Massachusetts and New Hampshire in conjunction with siren -
activations.
/
?( .In addition to providing public information and instructional messages,.
the EBS networks in both states are used.in supplementing the siren system coverage for alerting of institutions in the EPZ. These institutions will be offered tone-alert radio receivers that will be activated by a two-tone signal over the EBS network. The'use of institutional tone-alert radio receivers to su ppleme n t siren system coverage is discussed more fully in Chapter 2, Section E.6.2.4.2.
New Hampshire EBS Network In New Hampshire, the Seacoast Operational Area Common Program Control Sta-tion: (CPCS) is WOKQ. WOKQ, a 50,000-watt FM station broadcasting at 97.5 MHz from Dover, NH, operates 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day, seven days a week, and is ,
equipped with a backup power supply. As the CPCS, WOKQ is responsible O 1-2
f or notif ying, via the two-tone EBS signal, the other New Hampshire Sea-J' 'N coast EBS stations in the network. Although not a CPCS station, WMYF
Y provides 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> AM EBS broadcast capability for New Hampshire. WMYF, a 5,000-watt AM station broadcasting at 1540 KHz f rom Exeter, NH, is oper-ational from 5 AM to midnight, seven days a week and is equipped with a backup I ter supply. WMYF has been specially equipped to provide 24-hour, seven day per week EBS coverage by remote activation f rom WOKQ during of f hours.
Activation of the EBS covering the New Hampshire portion of the Seabrook Station EPZ proceeds as follows:
- 1. The New Hampshire State Police Communications Center (NHSPCC) receives notice of an emergency from Seabrook Station.
- 2. The NHSPCC notifies the New Hampshire Of fice of Emergency Management (NHOEM) of the emergency.
- 3. If the eme rgency reaches the ALERT level, the Director 7 .s of the NHOEM, or his designee, notifies the CPCS station,
-l )
- -/ putting it on standby and preparing it for possible broad-cast of public information or instructional messages.
4 The CPCS is monitored by the other New Hampshire EBS stations and broadcasts are simultaneously aired or recorded for subsequent broadcast.
- 5. If beach precautionary actions are recommended or if the emergency reaches SITE AREA EMERGENCY or GENERAL EMERGENCY, the Director of the NHOEM, or his designee, notifies the CPCS to activate the broadcast over the EBS of specific inf ormation or instructional messages.
Figure 1-1 depicts the activation communication sequence for the New Hamp-shire EBS network. The activation of the New Hampshire EBS network is discussed in Volume 1, Section 2.1 of the St&te of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Pesponse Plan.
Massachusetts EBS Network In Massachusetts, the contract EBS radio station is }
k station broadcasting at M f rom 6 Massachusetts. M is 1-3 l
i operational 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day, seven days a week, and is equipped with a
-m backup power supply. provides 6 station broadcasting at M from 6
M. M is operational 24-hours per day, seven days per week and is equipped with a backup power supply.
Activation of the EBS covering the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook Station EPZ proceeds as follows:
- 1. The NHY Offsite Response EOC Contact receives notice of an emergency f rom the Seabrook Station Short-Term Emergency Director (STED).
- 2. In an escalating emergency, af ter the NHY Of f site Response Organization is activated, the NHY Offsite Response Direc-tor (NHYORD) assumes responsibility for EBS activation f rom the Seabrook Station Emergency Response Organization (ERO).
~
- 3. If . the eme rgency reaches the ALERT level, the STED or NHYORD (depending on #2 above) notifies M], putting the station on standby and preparing it for possible broadcast of public inf ormation or inst ructional messages.
\ l If the emergency reaches SITE AREA EMERGENCY or CENERAL V 4.
EMERGENCY, the STED or NHYORD, obtains authorization from of ficials of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to activate the Public Alert and Notification System and notifies W ]
to activate the broadcast over the ELS of specific inf orma-tion or instructional messages.
Figure 1-1 depicts the activation communication sequence for the Massa-chusetts EBS network. The activation of the EBS netwcrk for the Massa-chusetts communities in the EPZ is described more fully in Section 3.2 of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities.
Once the decision has been made by the Director of the NHOEM and the Massa-chusetts Civil Defense Agency Director to activate the EBS networks, the system provides the capability of broadcasting informational and instructional messages within 15 minutes.
.C)'
'% }_4
3
' ' .To ensure that the EBS networks have been proparly setivated and that the
~
~
. correct' mes, sages have been- broadcast, the New Hampshire State Emergency -
,4 ;0perations. Center-(EOC) and the New Hampshire Yankee (NHY) Offsite Response EOC have the capability to monitor the EBS broadcasts. The Director of the L: . .
NHOEM and' the NHY Of f site Response Organization (NHY ORO) Public Notificat; ion Coordinator, or their designees, have been assigned the responsibility to
. ' monitor the EBS broadcasts.
A cross-reference to information in the applicable emergency response plans relating to Evaluation Criterion E.5, is contained in Table 1-1.
EVALUATION' CRITERION E.6: Alerting Methods Evaluation Criterion E.6 requires the establishment of both administrative procedures and_the physical means to provide prompt alert and notification
.to the public. For purposes'of this report, separate discussions are pre-sented on the administrative procedures established and on the physical
[
V' system that' has been -implemented. The administrative procedures are dis-
cussed below, while details of the physical system are described in Chapter 2, Physical Means.
Primary public alerting within the Seabrook~ Station EPZ will be accom-plished through the activation of both pole-mounted and Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS) sirens positioned throughout the EPZ.
g The primary activation points are: Rockingham County Dispatch Center in Brentwood, New Hampshire for the New Hampshire nirens and the NHY Offsite Each Response EOC in Newf ngton, New Hampshire for the Massachusetts sirens.
siren activation point is staffed and operational 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day, seven 0 1-5 l
1 i
____________.________.___..__._______1.______._________ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
days per week. The siren systems may also be activated f rom the Seabrook
~
Station Control Room'.
[} u/
New Hampshire Portien of EPZ In the event that Seabrook Station declares an immediate SITE AREA EMER-GENCY or GENERAL EMERGENCY, the following actions will be taken:
The Seabrook Station Short-Term Emergency Director (STED) will notify the New Hampshire State Police Communications Center which notifies the New Hampshire Of fice of Emergency Management (NHOEM).
The NHOEM will contact the EBS radio station, explain that there is an immediate SITE AREA EMERGENCY (or GENERAL EMERGENCY) and instruct the radio station operator on the appropriate EBS message to com-mence broadcasting.
The NHOEM will instruct the Rockingham County Dispatch Center to
,\
( p) activate the New Hampshire siren system in coordination with the EBS broadcasts.
The NHOEM will notify the U.S. Coast Gnard that there is a SITE AREA EMERGENCY (or GENERAL EMERGENCY) at Seabrook Station and the Coast Guard will establish a waterways five mile safety zone.
An ef fort will be made by the Director of the NHOEM at the NH State EOC to coordinate the activation of the Public Alert and Notification System in New Hampshire at the same time as act.ivation in Massachusetts througn discussions with the NHYORO and i to Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 1 k
l t
l N.,)
1-6 1
o >
< w c
q; g ,
t> ;,.
} Massachusetts Portion of-EPZ' j t -l
- ( ,In thefevent that-Seabrook Station declares an immediate SITE AREA EMERGENCY As'- ~
' or GENERALL EMERGENCY, the following actions' will be taken:
,r The Seabrook Station Short-Term Emergency Director'(STED) will notify the NHY Offsite. Response EOC Contact and establish contact with I: officials'of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts through the Massachusetts State Police with the request for authorization to activate the Public Alert and Notification System.
L . -
The NHY Offsite Response EOC Contact will direct the dispatch of VANS and operators. through communication with each VANS staging area.
Upon receiving authorization, the STED will activate the Massachusetts portion of the Public Alert and Notification System through communi-cation with and direction to the NHY Offsite Response EOC_ Contact.
/'~% .
- Q . The NHY Offsite Response.EOC Contact will contact the lead EBS radio station, explain that there is an immediate SITE AREA EMERGENCY (or GENERAL EMEICENCY) and instruct the radio station operator on the appropriate EBS message to commence broadcast based on direction pro-vided by the Seabrook Station Short Term Emergency Director.
The NHY Offsite Response EOC Contact will remotely activate the VANS sirens.
4.
In the case cf an escalating emergency, after the NHY Offalte Response
.d Orgar,izatioz, is activated the NHY Of f site Response Director will assume Public Alert and Notification System responsibility, including EBS acti-vation, f rom the Seabrook Station Emergency Response Organization (ERO).
j.
1-7
rr-=~-
l ,1 1
)
The VANS vehicles will be dispatched at the ALERT or higher emergency 1
- classification. Upon authorization of the officials of the Commonwealth of wj Massachusetts (as described in Implementing Procedure 2.14, Emergency Response Assessment), he will direct public notifications to be made using the Public Alert and Notification System. The Public Notification Coordinator will communicate with the State of New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massa-l chusetts to coordinate EBS messages and timing of the Massachusetts siren system with that of New Hampshire. The FBS radio station will be provided with the approved EBS message (s) and instructed to commence broadcast. The Communication Coordinator will activate the VANS sirens using the siren activation encoder in the NHY Of f site Response EOC. Backup methods will be available for public alerting, including deployment of backup VANS, and an airborne alert system which consists of a helicoptermounted siren /public address system.
- The N3Y Of f site Response Organization also maintains the capability, as
)
part of the supplemental alerting system, to notify public and private schools, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, medical f acilities, and other special facilities, along with Route Guide door-to-door notifica-tion of the hearing-impaired population as coordinated by the Special Population Coordinator, and the School Coordinator as described in Seabrook Plan For Massachusetts Communities (SPMC) Implementing Procedure 2,1 (Notification of Emergency Response Personnel and Support Organizations),
Implementing Procedure 2.7 (Special Population Coordinator / Special Popula-tion Liaisons), and Implementing Proceduce 1.9 (School Coordinator,Sch.>ol Liaisons).
Additional information regarding public notification is provided in SPMC Sections 3.2 and 3.7, Implementing Procedure 2.12 (Public Information - N(ws 73 v
l-8 r
(
Releases and Rumor Control) Implementing Procedure 2.13 (Public Alert
-.3
> and Notification System including EBS Activation), Implementing Procedure 7
i: 1
'N ' 2.14 (Emergency Response Assessment), Implementing Procedure 2.15 ( Airborne Alert Activation), and Implementing Procedure 2.16 (Vehicular Alert and Notification System).
A cross-reference to inf ormation in the state, local, and utility emergency response plans relating to Evaluation Criterion E.6 is provided in Table 1-2. ;
- s i \
\. /
l l
l l '* (%.
1 . 4 l %-l l-9
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ )
r.
[.'
li L
PLANNING STANDARD F - EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
[~' EVALUATION CRITERION F.1: Emergency Communications N/
A variety of communications equipment is available in both New Hampshire .
I and Massachusetts that will ensure prompt and reliable communications among key personnel involved in rzergency response functions. The State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan, supporting local plans, and the Seabrook Pign for Massachusetts Communities outline the communications equipment available during an emergency at Seabrook Station.
These include:
Nuclear Alert System (NAS);
Civil Defense Radio Network; National Warning System (NAWAS);
State Police Radio Network; Commercial Telephone; p- Amateur Radio Emergency Services ( ARES);
) Radio Amateur Communications Emergency Services (RACES);
Civil Defense National Radid System (CDNARS);
Civil Defense National Teletype System (CDNATS);
Local Community Radio Networks; New Hampshire Yankee Of f site Response Organization Pager System; New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization Emergency Communications System; Medical Radio Frequency (EMS);
Marine Band Radio; Aircraft Radio; Dedicated Ringdown Circuits; Cellular Telephones; American Red Cross Frequency;
['Ni Massachuset ts Governmental Interf ace (MAGI),
e L/
1-10
. nig-L, ,
3 on ; 4 u,< > ,
.,,, N- '
l J !:
~
s .jj! .c.
V .! Communications' links, with backup f acilities, have been established among
.- 4 s . . . .
E7,Ijj l%: Seabrook Station, the EOCs, the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response;
,o# <
' N,hMY {0 organization emergency f acilities, police, fire departments, and public.
- 1. w . . ', :
- health agencies,' the: localities in the EPZ, the host communities, and the other emergency responte organizations. Procedures for the communications' network control and 'use of the commund r t' ions equipment have been established -
'w.. % .
- -).} in the respective plans and procedures.
mi #
e ,
A~ cross-reference to information in the state, local, ~and utility emergency response plans relating to Evaluation Criterion F.1 is provided in Table 1-3. :
I .M g --
I .:.
- ' i.
' t'j .
pilt-
- p. 1-11 3 I c______ '
__.__._._:._1.____._ _ ._ _
-~~
. g. g 57 ,
! e s
a
' PLANNING STANDARD N - EXERCISES AND DRILLS m
?. .
'I /eriodicl drills are conducted _ toi develop and maintain key emergency re-L f[M 1-sponse skills. Excercises are conducted to evaluate major portions ~ of
~
L i the Seabrook Station' and State of New Hampshire Emergency Response Organ-
. ization as we1I as the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organiza-
. tion. Together, exercisesLand drills provide both emergency response .
training and a means for' identifying'and correcting deficiencies in emer-
-gency' preparedness.
EVALUATION CRITERIA N.1.(a,b): Exercise Definitions and Requirements The State of New Hampshire Emergency Response Organization and the New
' Hampshire Yankee Of f site Response Organization 'will participate, in' f ormal exercises devised to test the integrated response of the organizations under simulated emergency conditions. In particular,' the formal- exercises will' be conducted to test' the communication of messages among the 'organiza-p :.
Jg tions,'the response'of individuals to the communiques,.and the process by
- which the decision is made to activate the Public Alert-and Notification
. System.- Included in each exercise are tests of the communications system hardware, the procedures used for the activation of the Public Alert and
- Notification System, the. actual or simulated activation of the system, and
~
the system's ability to provide the alert signal and public information and instructional messages.
A' eross-reference to information in the state, local, and utility. emer-gency response plan 2 relating to Evaluatien Criteria N.I.(a,b) is contained in' Table 1-4.
EVALU/sTION CRITERION N.2.a: Communication Drille Communications drills will be conducted monthly. Communications among i m
1-12 1
m_._._.______m _a_m._ _ _ . _ . m__._.___._m_.m___.m _ __.________..___.m_
s f
p , federal emergency response organizations and states will be tested quar-
,y .
terly. . Full' tests of: communications among emergency operations centers r t.
- ~kJ and field assessment teams will be conducted at least every two years.
j%
the emergency communications systems to be used by the New Hampshire Emer-
~
gency Response (Organization are described in detail in Section 2.2 of the
. NHRE RP. For Massachu'setts, they are described in detail in Section 4.0
.of'the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities.
Most of the equipment used for emergency communication in the State of New Hampshire.is used on a daily basis. Therefore, the scheduled drills.
.are more'useful for testing the users and their procedures than the equip-ment. . Communications equipment used by the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization is tested frequently and used extensively in drills and exercises.
A cross-reference to information in the state, local, and utility emer-l' '
gency ' response plans relating to Evaluation Criterion N.2.a is contained in Table 1-5.
EVALUATION CRITERION N.3: Scenarios and objectives The State of New Hampshire Emergency Response Organization and New Hamp-shire Yankee Offsite Response Organization, will participate in the formal exercises designed to test the organizations' integrated capabilities.
'In each case, state' authorities, in conjunction with utility personnel, will prepare an of fsite exercise scenario to be followed in the EPZ. The scenario will int.lude the following information:
Basic Objectives Objectives will be explained in terms of the emergency response functions i
l
to be exercised. At f ull exercises, the organizations will test all emer-
) gency response f unctions described in their respective plans. In limited x_-
exercises, the organizations will, at a minimum, test notification methods and accident assessment capabilities, with other f unctions tested as scheduled.
Dates, Time Period, Places and Participating Organizations The date and time period described in the scenario will coincide with the scheduling agreed upon with the utility, with the State of New Hampshire, the NRC, and FEMA. The New Hampshire Of fice of Emergency Hanagement and {
Utility of ficials will describe each emergency f acility and the organizations that will participate in the exercise. Full exercises will include each agency in the State of New Hampshire Emergency Response Organization, including the appropriate local emergency response organizations, the New Hampshire' Yankee Of f site Response Organization, and each emergency f acility associated with Seabrook Station. In limited exercises, a smaller portion p_
! a
\m_/ of these organizations may be involved.
Schedule of Real and Simulated Events The schedule of events in the offsite scenario will be built around the initiating events at Seabrook Station. These will include escalation and de-escalation through the Emergency Classification Levels. In addition, l l
both New Hampshire of ficials and the New Hampshire Yankee Of fsite Re-
^
sponse Organization will add suf ficient of f site events to meec che objec- [
tives of the exercise.
1 4
I Narrative _Suomary )
l The scenarios vill include narrative summaries describing the conduct of I
)
l l
the exercise. The summary will include the schedule of real and simulated l 1
events, schedule of anticipated responses, and depth to which activities tN 4
%/
1-14 ;
will bm exarcised or siculstad. The narrativa summary will enable ob-servers and evaluators to trace the course of the exercise and to be c ;_ prepared to observe the emergency response activities at critical mile-u stones during the exercise.
A cross-reference to information in the state, local, and utility emer-i gency response plans relating to Evaluation Criterion N.3 is contained in l
Table 1-6.
EVALUATION CRITERION N.5: Observer and Participant Comments Of ficial observers from federal and state agencies will observe, evaluate, and critique the required exercises. Observers will be provided with ad-vance copies of the scenario and of the plans and procedures to be tested, and will be briefed as to the schedule of events and evaluation criteria for each observer location. Observers will be provided with 4 valuation sheets and guidelines applicable to their locations.
m,
(__,l ; A critique will be conducted after the cor.clusion of each exercise to evaluate the -performance of the state, local,' and utility emergency personnel. This critique will be followed by a formal evaluation of the response capability of each agency in the emergency response organization.
In most cases, FEMA will conduct the critique and supply a written evaluation.
As necessary, the critiquing and evaluation efforts not sponsored by FEHA i will be provided by both New Hampshire emergency management officials and the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization.
New Hampshire emergency nanagement of ficials and che New Hampshire Yar.kee i
Of f site Response Organization will review all observer and evaluator comients on exr.rcises and drills. These comments will be broL6 h t to the attention j~r t
l-15
B,c of the appropriate members of'the respective emergency response organization
- b.
r as well.' Where deficiencies,are cited, the respective organization officials 1'%) will respond to the comments stating their ' concurrence or disposition of L the deficiency. - A schedule for undertaking remedial actions for confirmed b
. deficiencies will 'be prepared and will be provided to FEMA and to the -
members of-.the emergency response organizations . that are charged with the responsibility for undertaking corrective actions. - All' corrective actions will be implemented prior to the subsequent major exercise. The ' remedial actions may include plan revisions,' implementing procedure revisions, upgrading of' facilities or equipment, and additional training'and drills.
Remedia1' actions will be scheduled with priority given to most serious deficiencies. .
Reports. documenting observer and participant comments and the evaluations of. those comments will be.kept on file for five years.
'N '
N < A cross-reference to information in the state, local, and utility.emer-gency response plans. relating to Evaluation Criterion N.5 is contained in Table 1-7.
1-16 4
1 o 4
v l o
V s P t R t 7 E e R s 1 H u N h n c o r a i e
s Ct t s M c n a P e e
M SS
' C s
n o
i 2 t 3 a
- c i
" 6 S 1 n D .
u O . B m H s - m T s l I o E n oI C M a V e
l n c N N P ,o Pi i O O l I I l R t o
T T a E c P
A A .
c R e M C e o HS e R I r L N O
F . I F i h .ta s t NOT p "n S 1 I TO 4 a
- N m I l )
OG" a
.Pei er.
l 1 J
TNI H s
/ E l 2
~ -
L ET : w n o
~ w B CA5 e a V s "n anss h "s j\. A NL N l . n l ope
.. ' T EE E P ,o5 P pmi RR Pi s at E' A e R t1 yeHi F I t E c .
R a R e2 cR n E
R E t HS n eye m wu
- T S N gcN m S I r n( o S R ee C O C mg-R E r s C N e "s tt O l m I
T aE c
ee r s A s il uu U n gadh L a ocec A l l i ca V P ogos E ior s e dl P a t
i ao M s Ri e n d sr O nano oR of p i
t es n area ti Rl Sh s y P S
N kpck 4
5 O I
omno oaeo 6 rH gr 0 t T rb s A b a I awea G
E c V eeme R d E SNES U a R " " " "
N o B
/ r B
_ 0 B-A 1
y E c C P P R E nm N E PE
- # R ee R PR -
gt A
r s E EECC
/ M ey F RR CM E mS E S i P P l
F E R SNSS TC
! ll l
lt l-li,
$g l
V o
+ s P t R t 1 E e . R y s 2 H u N h n c o r a i s Ct e s M c t a P e n M SS e C
s n
o i
2 t a
3- c
" 6 i n
S 1 D - ; u O '. G o n
n H s -
T s l I o E n o C M a V s e l n N N P ',o c i
O O PiB l I I l Rt -
o T T - a E cI P
) A A c R eI d M C e o HS e e R I r L N
_ u O F i
.ta n F I h i NOT s t t I TO p -
"n S n N m I 5 a o OG a l )
(
c TN" I .
H s
l .
.1
.Pei er.
' s ET : w n o2 1 CA5 e a V "n
ans s h "s n
u.. l
- NL EEE N l P
Pi
, o P
R l ope P pmi RR E E E A e R t - s at L F I t E c C yeHi B E R a R e C cR n A R E t HS P n eyem wu T - T S N S S I gcN m S R rn( o O C ee mg-C R s C N E r O
I l me "s tt T aE ee A s c rs U n E il uu gadh L a A l x ocec V P i l i ca d ogos E i ors e n t P e dl P a i E p ao M s R p Ri e n SA d s r O S nano oR ofp i
t esn area ti Rl Sh P s S s y 4 l N kpck 5 a G o oaeo mno 6 u I rH gr 0 d T
- i A b rb G v I awea eeme E i V R d E SNES U n R " " " "
N I E
/ B 0 c A 1 i
- b E P i C P E s N R R n E PE
'" w
- o R PR -
' % A p E EECC M s F RRCM e
E E S H P P F R R SNSS TE
l
% 5 o
( _
1
. V 2 ,
~
s , P t 3 R t 1 E
e .
R s 2 H u N h ,
c 1 r
__ a e s C2 t s M n a PP e M SI C
- s n
- o i
- t
- 2 a 3 c
- i
" 6 n S 1 u
D - ;
m O . G m H s - o T s l I C E n o V M a V 's I e T
N N l
P
,no; .
i c
O O PiB l I I l R t - o T T a E cI P
) A A _
c R eI d M C e o HS .
e e R I r L N - t u O F i
. a n F .I h t i NOT s "n S t I TO p ;
n N m 44 E a l )
o a :C OG TN"- .Pei er.
c H 's l 3 x D f ( - I ET : w n o i 1 CA5 e a V s ,d x "n ans s h "s
- NL N l P
,no1 e n Pi Rd l ope l EE E Pi1 p E n P pmi RR p s at
. E E A e R t E c;A
- e C p yeHi L F t n I
a C p cR B
A E
R R
E t R e8 HS PA n eyem wu T - T S N S gcN m S
S I
R r n( o C
ee mg -
C O ~
R E r s C N e t O l m "s t I aE ee T
s c rs A
il uu U n E gadh L a ocec A l x l i c a V P i ogos E - d i ors e n t P e dl P a i E p ao M s R p Ri e n SA d sr O S na no i
oR ofp t es n ar ea ti Rl Sh sy P S
N k pck omno 4
O 5 s I oa eo 6 e T rH gr 0 r u A b rb
- I awea C
E d
e V eeme R c E SNES U o R " " " "
r B N p B
/
0 A
+ 1 n E
- o C P P s N R E t E PE R a R PR -
v
/s
\
A M
i t
E F
EECC RRCM E c E S H P P F A R SNSS Y:
( l l l
~._ l y
, . f,R .
V o
7 ,
- s P t R
~ t E e R s H .
u -
- N
. h 3 ,
c 1
a r s C2 e s M t a PP n M SI e C
s n
o i
2 t 3 a
- c
" 6 i n
S 1 u
. D -
m O .
m H s T s l V o E n oI C M a V e N N l
P 'Pi.n o i c
O O l
- I I l R t T T a E c o
) A A .
c R e P d M C e o HS e e R I r L N u O F i -
.ta n F :.I h t
i N OT s t I TO p 1 "n S n -
N m 41 a l) o OG" a e
(
c T. N I H
s l 4G
.P r ET: w e
n a
o ei; 1 CA5 NL N l V 's x ni "n ans s h "s
% l EEE RR P
Pi n
, od l ope P pmi sat
'E A e R t e L
B EI E R t
a E cp R ep yeHi cR n A R E t HSA n eyem wu T - T S N gcN m S I r n( o S R G C ee mg-C R E r s C N t I
O -
l e m "s t T 3 aE ee A s c r s U n 1 il uu gadh L a 1 ocec A l l i ca V P n ogos E -
o i or s
- e i dl P a t P t i E c ao M s R e Ri e n SS d s r O S nano oR ofp i
t es n ar ea ti Rl Sh sy P S
N k pck 4
3 S O omno 6 B I oaeo T rHgr 0 E A b rb G f I awea eeme E o V R E SNES U g R " " " "
N n B
/ i B O r A l o
- t E P i C P Y 2 E n N R R o E PE R PR -
N A
- m E E ECC M C F RRCM E O E SHPP F E R SNSS Yo
u l
6 1 o
. V 2 ,
s , P t 3 R t 1 1 E e . . R s 22 H .
u N h n , ,
c o1 r a i e
s Ct2 t s M c n a P eP e M SSI
' C s
n o
i 2 t 3 a
- c i
6 n 1 ;
" B u S . - m D sI o
O s l I H n o C
- T a V n e 1 :
E l . o c N M P ,i i
O Pt I l G l R cI I
T N a E eI o A I c RS P M T e o H e R R r L N' ; m O E i a .ta F
.L h s 2 4.hgh "n S t
, 2 I T" p : 31 nc a
- m 1 .i t l )
OG a 32k a c p
.P er l
TNI : H s 1 1 ; os E 6 ei .
L ET w n 0 0Ri B CAE e a V s1 ,D "n ans s h "s A NL N l - n . P B yrR l ope T -
EEA RRI P
Pi ,o 3. 4 t eE P pmi s at E R e Rt3 nt - yeHi F E t E c . unC E a R e1 l oeC cR n R
T I t HS oCCP n eyem wu
- R S N V S gcN m S C - .
r n( o S '
ee C O N mg-R O E r s C I t
T A l e m "s t U aE ee L s c r s A n E i l uu gadh V a ocec E l x l i ca P i ogos d i or s e n dl P a t P e i I p ao M s R p Ri e n S A d s r O S nano i
oR a. f p
~
s t esn e ar ea i ti Rl t Sh P i S s y N k pck 4
5 l
i O I
omno oa eo
_ 6 b rH gr 0 i T 3
- s A b rb G n I a eemewea E o V w R p E SNES U s R " " " "
e B N B
/ R A 0
1 n
- o E P i C P E t N R
.~
R a E PE
- v R PR -
A i E EECC
. . M t F RRCM E c E S H P P R SNSS F A TS l
_ "" ,4
_ 6 l
, \. 1 o
_ . V
- 2 s , P t 3 R t 1 E
_ e . R s 2 H .
. u N h ,
c 1
._ - a r s C2 e s M t a PP n
, M SI e C
s n
o i
2 t
- 3 a
- c i
6 n
1 ;
" B u S . - m D sI m O s l I o H n o C T a V s e
E l n N M P , o c i
O Pi l
I G l Rt o
T N - a E cV
) A I c R eI P d M T e o HS e R R r L N e s e u O E i a n F L h h .ta i NOA s gh t "n S t
I. T " p ; nc
~ n m '
4 i t a o UG a l kc a l)
.. : . c TN I 6
- H s ,3 G os p
D .Pei er.
ET w n l Ri
^
v.
.(2 l
CAE NL EEA N
e l
P a os V n: i x .D o1 dB yrRd Pi x
"n ans l ope P pmi s h "s RRI Pi1 n4 t eE n E E R e R t E c;p . unC p e nt - e yeHi s at L F E t B E T a R e8 pl oeC p cR n A R I t HS A oCCPA n eye m wu T - R S N V S gcN m S C S r n( o O N ee mg -
C R O s
- C I E r t
T A l e m "s t U aE ee L s c r s A n E il uu a gadh V oce c
- E l x l i c a P i ogos d
e n i ors t P e dl P a i E p ao M s R p Ri e n SA d s r O S nan o i
oR ofp t es n ar ea ti Rl Sh P S s y 4 N k pck 5 s O omno oaeo
. 6 e I rH gr 0 r T
- u A b rb G d I awea ee me E e V R c E SNES U o R " " " "
N r B
/ P B 0 A 1 n o E P
i C P E t N R R a E PE
- v R PR -
EECC
/ V A M
i t
E F RR C M E c E SHP P F A R SNSS IU tl i ! l ; l'
i..[
B 4
e m
. lu
' ' v-. 0 o
~ .V 4 ,
s , P t 2 R
t E R
, e 3 H s N u s h n ,
c o r a i e
s Ct t s M c n a P e e l
M SS C
=.
s n
8 o i
- 3C t 2 - a
,I
" 3 c S - 6I i -
N 6 3 , n O
1 ;
,8 u I
T sI
.BL - 5 -
3I m
m A o C s l I C ,I D C I n o N a V s' x3 sx e' U l n i3 ni c N M P ,o .d od O
O M
l PiCn'.in Rt - est e i
l I
C a E cI pl cp o T R eI poep P' A c
.M Y e o HS AVSA e R C r L N t O N i
.a F E h ;~ t NOG s ; ; "n S ITR p 3
- E m a
I 2.469 a l) l OCM Tb E H 2. 2 2 2
.Pei er.
E s l 2 L
B ET" CA I
w e a n o V sn;;;
222 "n
ans s h "s l A NL : N l l ope T EE1 P ,o357 P pmi RR e Pi Rt222 sat E F E c yeHi F t cR n E A a R e222 n wu
. R I t HS eyem
- R S N gcN m S
S E
T rn(
ee oC O I mg-R R E r s C C e t N
l m "s t O ; aE c
ee rs I s 01 il uu T n 1 .
gadh A a 77 ocec U l 3 l i ca L P ns ogos A eoe iors V e ri r dl P a E t P ut u2 ao M i E gcg s Ri ei7 Rie n SFSF d sr O S nano oRof p i
t esn area tiRl Sh sy P
, S y N kpck 4
5 t O I
omno oaeo 6 i T rHgr 0 l rb A b C
- i b I awea eeme E a V R l E SNES U i R " " " "
a B N B
/ vy 0 At A 1 i
- ,l E C P P ei N R E gb _
aa E PE R R PR - _
ri A
el E EECC M ve F RRCM E SHPP E oR R SNSS _
F C T5 t jIlI!' , li i' l iti ll! I l'
, ll l1,
.0 0 7 7 B 4
,.)
% 0 0 e m
6 6 u
,(Q l
o
. 1 7 V 2 3 s P t , , R t 0 2 E e R
. s 1 K 3K H u N h sx sx c ni ni r
a od od e
s i n i n
" s Ct e Ct e t S a Mcp M cp n T M P ep P ep e N SSA SSA C E
M s E n R o I 8 8 i
. ', 2 3 t
,. U 2 3 Q 3 3 a E - , - , c 6 6 6 6 i
- R n 1 3 1 3 D u m
N .K ,I .K ,
s n
A s 5 - s5I s l I3I l I3 - o S n oI ,I oI I C N a V V ,I O l n3 s n3 e N I P , o3 n , o3 n c O T Pi o Pi o l i
I I l Rt .i Rt .i T N a E cst E cst o
.A I c R el c R el c P M F e o HS oe HS oe e R E r L N VS N VS
. O D i
.ta F h NOE s t 4
. I TS p "n S
- . I m 1 5 I 5 a l OGC a l)
.. - TNR H s l
.1 l
.1
.Pe r E I E s n o3 ei . .
L . ETX w o3 .
i.,!Q B A
CAE NL" N e
l P
a V
, o n
V no "n anss h "s l ope T EE' Pi Ppmi RR :
Pi E e R t R t sat F ) t E c E c yeHi E a R e R e cR n R b, t HS HS n eyem wu
- a S N N S ( gcN m
. S . rn(
ee oC O I. mg-R s
. C N E r "s tt l me 1
A 1 aE ee 1
I R s c rs E n 2 2 il uu a gadh T l 1 1 ocec I
R P n n l i ca ogo3 C o o e i i iors N t Pt Pt dlP a O i E c E c ao M I s R e R e Rie T n SS SS d sr A O S S nano U oR ofp i
L t esn A area V tiRl E Sh sy P S
N kpck 4
5 O I
omno oaeo 6
0 T rHgr
- A b rb G I awea eeme 3 E V R E SNES U R """"
N n B
/ o B 0 i n A 1 t o
- a i E P p t C P E i a N R g\l R c r E PE
- i g R PR i( n A E
M t
r a
t e
n E
F E
E E C- C RRCM SHPP F P I R SNSS O"
i i qI
7 u l _
0 l
V o
6 s P t n R t o E e iK R
_ s t H u cx N h ei ,
c Sd r
a n e
s C e
" s M p t n
S a P p e
T M SA N -
C E s M n E
R o 8 i I
2 3 t U
Q 3 a
_ E -
, c 6 i R 6 1 3 n D u N .K ,I m A s - 5 - m s o S
n a
l I oI 3. I I C
N V ,
e O l n 3 n c
N I P .o63 o i O T Pi i l
I I l Rt e . t T N a E cl sc o
)' A I c R ebl e P d M F e o HS aoS e e R E r l N TV u O D i -
.ta
~ 'n F .
h t i NOE s t I TS p "n S n I m I 5 a o OGC a l )
[ (
c TNR I E H
s l
.1
. .Peier .
ETX w n o3
~ 4 CAE e a V "n ans s h "s
) - NL" N l _n P , o l ope 1 EE P pmi RR Pi s at E E e R t yeHi
- L F - ): t E c cR n B E b, a R e wu A R t HS n
_ T - a S N eyem
( gcN m
_ ' S S . r n( o O I ee mg-C R .
C N E r s e t
__ A 1
. l m "s t I 1 aE ee R s c rs E n 2 i l uu a gadh T l 1
ocec I
R P n l i ca o ogos C i ors e i dl P a N t P t O i E c ao M I s R e Ri e T n SS d s r A O S nano oR of U i p L t es n A ar ea V ti Rl E P Sh S s y 4 N k pck 5 O I
omno oa eo 6
0 T rH gr
- A b rb G
E I
V awea ees e R E SNES U R " " " "
N B
/ B 0 A 1
- E P e C P R
E l N R u E PE
% R PR -
't A
- d e E F
EECC RRCM M h E c E S HPP F S R SNSS TU
- l j
j g
y ^
-r ~
B 4
.. 0 e n ~.
l, .
7 m
u l
p \~ -- _
, o 0 0 V 6 . 7 s P t , , R t E
_ e 0. K' 0. K R s 1 6 H u x x N h ni ni c od od r a . in . i n s Ct e Ct e e s M cp Mcp t a P ep- P ep n M SSA' SSA e
.C r : s n
o
. . 8 '
8 .i
. 2 3 2 3 t
" 3 3 a S - , - , c L 6 6 6' 6 i L 1 3 1 3 n
_ I u e
R . K ,I . ,I m
D s5 - s .5 -
s l I3I l 3I o S - n oI ,I o ,I C N a V -
V O l n3 n ,633 on e N I P ,o3 o c -
P e i O T Pi R t .i Rl .it l I A l t o
T C - a E csc Eb sc P
A I -
c R el e R al e M N e o HS oS HToS e R U r L N V N V O
F M
M i
h .ta s t NOO p "n S 5 I TC I a
- m I 2 l)
O G "- a
.P er l
TNI H s
.1 l -
.1 E : l
" ei .
s L w n o3 o1
~
y \.
)- B A
T ET CA NL2 EE a.
N e
l P
a V
,o n
V .
,3 n anss h "s l ope P pmi RRN Pi P e E . e R t Rl sat F A t E c Eb yeHi a R e R a cR n E
R I
R t HS HT n eyem wu
- E S N N gcN m S T rn( oC S I ee O R mg-R C 1 E r s C' N 2 e t O l m "s t 1 aE ee I
T s . c rs A n 2 il uu gadh U a 1 ocec L l li ca A P n ogos V o i ors E e i dl P a t Pt i E c ao M s R e Ri e n SS d sr O S nano oRof p i
t esn area ti Rl Sh sy P S
N kpck 4
5 O I
omno oaeo 6 T rHgr 0 A b rb C
- I awea eeme E V R E SNES U R " " " "
N n B
/ o B 0 i A 1 t
- a E P p e C P l N R y E i E PE R c u h ]_ i d R PR A
t e E E E C- C
/ M r h F RRCM E a c E SI PP I
F P S R SNSS 7$
.~
j L jll ill I il l liillI1\ll l lllillllll!llll: ll
j
[
- ;7
, B 4
e m
% )' l u
'y 0 o
._ V 7 ',
s , P t 0 R t E e 6K 0. K R H
s 6 ^
u sx x N h ni ni ,
c od od r a i n in e
s Ct e Ct e s Mcp M cp t a P ep P ep n M SSA SSA e C
s
- n o
8 8 i 2 3 2 3 t
" 3 3 a S - , - , c 6 6 i E 6 6 V 1 3 1 3 n I u m
.T . K ,1 .K ,I m
.C s 5 - s5 - i o
.E s l I31 l I3I J n oI ,1 oI ,I C B a V V e O l n3 n n3 n N' P , e3 o , o3 o c Pi i O D Pi
.i I .N l Rt .i t Rt t l o
T A a E csc E csc A c R el e R el e P e M' .S e o HS oS HS oS e R O r L N V N V O
F' I
R i
h .ta s t NOA p "n S 6 I TN I 5 a
- E m I
- 5. ' l)
OGC a
.P _re l
TNS H s l
.1 l
.1 E
L B
ET" CA' I
w e
n a V o3 V
o3 " ei .
ansh n s "s A NL: N l n n l ope T EE3 P , o , o Pi P pmi RR Pi sat E N e R t Rt E c yeHi F t E c E
R A
I a
t R e HS R e HS cR n
eyem wun
- R S N N gcN m S E rn( o S T ee C O I mg-R R Er s C C t N
3 3 l e m "s t O . 1 aEee I s 1
. c rs n 2 2 il uu T gadh A a 1 1 ocec U l n li ca L P n ogos A o' o iors V e i i dlP a E t Pt Pt i E c E c ao M s R e R e Rie n 5S SS d sr O S S nano oRof p i
t esn area ti Rl Sh sy P S
N kpck 5
4 O
I omno oaeo 6 T rHgr 0 A b rb G
- I awea eeme E V R E SNES U R " " " "
N B
/ B 0 A 1 s
- s e E P o v C P i N R E i E PE R r t a c R PR A
n e E E E C- C M e j F RRCM E c b E SHPP F S O R SNSS
',, u
!, i! ll!j! li .
- 3
l
_. .[((%,'::M e * .
0 0 0 o
- V 7 7 ,
g- 7. . ,
- _ '3-s :, , , P R
- 1 t t 0.
- - 0 . 0 - E g.7 g[i e s
6K 6K 6K R H
u
~
sx 's ni x sx ni N
h ni '.
od c
x- od od
- a - i n i n : i n r e
, s Ct e Ct e Ct e s M c p M cp M cp t a P ep P ep P ep n
_1 :
~- . - i : .
C
's j2,. .[ .
S I
~
~
n o
- W 2 8
3 2 8
3 i
t E 3 .
3 a g P M - ,
6 6
i c
O 6 6 n
C 1 3
1 i 3 u
_ u T -
. K ,I .K ,I m m
~ N .
s 5 - s5 -
o p _
A P
s n
l I 3I oI ,I.
lI3I oI ,I C a V Vn3 I
C l n n3 n e N I P , o3 o , o3 o c Pi Pi i O T .i I R l a
Rt E csc
.it Rt E csc t l o
T A P A P c R el e R el e M ;
- e. o HS oS HS oS _~
e R D r L N - V N V O N i
.ta q h F - A t NO s I TR p "n S
..5 7
- E m 1 1 5 1 a l OGV a .5 l )
g; E TNR
. I E H
s l
.1
. l
.1
. l
.1
. .Pei er.
o3 L ETS w n o3 o3 CAB e a V V B
A NL0 N l V_ n n
, o n "n ans l ope s h "s
, o , o
_. . _/
T<
EE" RR P
Pt Pi Pi P pmi s at E e R t Rt Rt F - : t E c E c .E c yeHi n
g- E 5 a R e R e R e HS cR n wu R t HS HS eyeu
- N S N N N m gcN m
_ S S A r n( o
~
O I ee mg-C R R s C E
~ -
E r
, T I
,4 4 _4 l n e "s tt
=
R 1 1 1 aE ee C s . c r s n 2 2 2 il ue a gadh N 1 1 1 ocec O l I P n n n l i ca ogos T o o o A e i i i i ors U t P t Pt Pt dl P a L i E c E c E c ao M
t esn ar ea ti Rl r: Sh sy P
S N kpck 4
5 O omno oa eo 6 I 0 T rH gr
- A b rb C n I awea eeme
- E o V
= R i E SNES U t R " " " "
- _ N n c B
/ o A B 0 i A 1 t n e
- a o v E P t i i C P I
7 E n t t N R
}])(
R A
M E
F D
e m
u c
o l
E a
v u
a C
c e
r r
o E
R E
F E
R PR -
EECC RRCM SHPP SNSS PE
~
3 l 0 0 o V
7 7 ,
s , , P
=. t 0 R t 0 - E e 6E 6K R s H u sx sx N h ni ni ,
c od od a ' i n i n r
' s Ct e Ct e e M cp M cp t s n a P ep P ep M SS A SSA e C
" - s S
n T
_ - o i
N 8 t E 2 3 a M 3 , c M - i O 6 6 n C 1 3 un E '.s K - 5
,I
- m u
A s l I3I o P n oI C a V
,I I
C l n3 n e c
N I P , o3 o i O T Pi i l
I R l R t .t o
T A a E csc P
) A P c R el e d M e o HS oS e e R D r L N - V t u O N i '
. a
. n F A h t i NO s "n S
. ; p t I TR a n E m 1 5 l )
o OGV a
)
(
c TNR I E H s l 1
.Pei er.
ETS w n o3 "n s h .
- 7 CAB e a V anss
- NL0 EE" N l P
,no l ope l P pmi Pi E R. r R' e R t s at yeHi L t E c n B d F 5 a R e l
cR n wu A R t iS eyem T - N S N gcN m S rn( o S A ee C O I mg- .
R R E r s C E e t T
I 4 l m "s t R
aE ee
' s 1
c r s C il uu n 2 gadh N' a 1 ocec O
l l i ca I P n ogos T o ior s A e - i dl P a U t P t ao M L i E c Rie A s R e d s r V n SS nano E O S . oR ofp i
t esn
. area ti Rl Sh s y P S
N kpck 4
5 O I
omno oaeo 6 T rH gr 0 A b rb
- I awea G
E s V eeme R e E SNES U l g R " " ""
N t n B
/ i i B 0 l p A 1 i e
- b e E K C P P i N R
! E s PE
, n d E R
o r R PR -
r' A M
s p o c
E F
E EECC RRCM S HPP E e e SNSS R R R F
IM
.~
t
~O K A
E R . a
. f-=
e 3 !
]
1, g %
i2 "l T l Mm g
~S A &
l.
F a_ -
=
E - n g v.
C N - :
E -
U Q
E S =
N
" a I
O ".. _
C I
T A
2
~
F l
F i T
I I-N O %-
D N
A
=
%"g
=
m,U T "= a R = __
E L
A = :r=_.
C I
L B
U P
N .
O s_=
I T
A T
S am s
?_._ .
y-.
K O
O * ._
R B ,
A .
E S w._ g_ _
I
- , a_;_.y_ .
r.
I E
e_.
R * . ,
~ _
U G
I ft F -
5 5m rm
=.m-
t- 'r -
- 2. .: 'PHYSICA1, MEANS c
hie - This chapter corresponds to Section E.6.1lof FEMA-REP-10, and provides r ./ 1 S details on the physical- means' used to ensure public alert and notification-jg!
within the. plume exposure.' pathway EPZ around Seabrook Station. - A brief
' ove rview of ' the Public Alert and Notification System (PANS) f or Seabrook-L . Station'islfirst presented,'followed by a description of the topographic, p .. ..
L meteorological and demographic features.'of the'EPZ that provide the basis for the selection and placement of ' the means necessary to' ensure f ull :: overage of -
the population within the EPZ. Individual descriptions of the various physical means embodied in 'the system are then presented; each description ~ includes h: .
[
~
discussions of the hardware and control systems employed, systea response l times placement and coverage, and maintenance and testing.
Again, the numbering system used in this chapter follows the scheme outlined in FEMA-REP-10 to f acilitate FEMA review for compliance with the specific re-quirements contained in FEMA-REP-10.
'i h
li !
,q-2.}
.c c
!_..p,
.j c+ r Alert and' Notification'Svstem'0verviEw ': I g-~ '
a >
Y'g,./ k. M') ,
. The ' design objective of the s' e abrook' Station Public Alert and Notification
. System has been to provide coverage to-essentially.100 percent ~of the
$ population within the Seabrook Station EPZ. This has been achieved by f ollowing the guidance in FEMA-REP-10 and Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1,
~ Revisioni1. . Primary.public alerting within the Seabrook Station EPZ will-i be accomplished through the activation of both pole-mounted and Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS) fixed sirens positioned throughout thA EPZ. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 depict the primary alert system coverages for New Hampshire and Massachusetts, respectively.
l e
Af depicted on Figure 2-1, there are five geographical areas in the New Hampshire portion of the Seabrook Station EPZ that are not subjected to ,
E at leas't 60 dBC of siren system coverage. Each of these areas, which have-been field inspected by NHY representatives, are discuss ed below:
- n. '
- Southwest Triangle of Kingston
~
- ;i
.This area is'approximately 13.6 miles USW of Seabrook Station and comprises an area approximately 0.03 square miles. This area is bounded on the south by Route 121 A (North Main Street) in Plaistow, i
NH. This arca is isolated and uninhabited.
Rock Rimmon Hill, Kingston Rock Rimmon Hill and the area to the north and south are at the western edge of the EPZ approximately 12.5 miles WNW of Seabrook Station. The area is approximately 0.21 square miles and starts south of a road from Kingston in the east to Danville in the west. This i
road itself is populated and receives 60 dBC coverage. Rock Rimmon l
Hill is accessible by Rock Rimmon Road, a dirt road to the North and i
2-2 i
1 l
L-_--_________.
jx then south by the access road to the lookout tower. The lookout i-
.V -- ' tower itself lies outside the EPZ. The area is uninhabited.
Newfields, North of the Sousmscott River This area is approximately 10.7 miles NNW of Seabrook Station and is triangular in shape,. comprising approximately 0.04 square miles.
The- northern base of the triangle borders on Boston and Maine Railroad.
The, peak of the triangle extends along a power transmission line right-of-way. The entire area lies to the east of Route 108 and New Street. A field inspection along the railroad tracks and the power transmission line right-of-way verified that the area was uninhabited.
Northwest of the Intersection of Interstate I-95 and Route 51 .
A field inspection verificG that this area, located approximately 4.4 miles NNW of Seabrook Station and comprising an area of approx-i
) ' imately 0.07 square miles, is uninhabited with the exception of the Hampton Toll Booth on the exit ramp. The toll booth is alerted by the NH DOT as part of the NHRERP.
Northwest Corner of Pease Air Force Base This area which is _ located approximately 12.1 miles NNE of Seabrook Station, comprising an area of approximately 0.71 square miles, encompasses rt.nways and access-controlled operations areas.
As depicted on Figure 2-2, there are four geographical areas in the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook Station EPZ that are not subjected to at least 60 dBC of siren system coverage. Each of these areas, which have been field inspected by NHY representatives, are discussed below:
i Parker River National Wildlife Refuge, Newburv This area of approximately 350 f eet length along Plum Island road 1
2-3 I
=----- --- - -
g 1
- p ;;
'Q{ ~j p
[f m .
.j 'at . the Newbury/Rowley corporate boundary is located approximately 9.8 '
L(
f miles SSW of. Seabrook Station and comprises an area of approximately l
l-
"0.08 square miles. . This area does not have permanent ' residents, but '
f j
receives an influx'of. tourists'during the daylight hours.- The. area !
.{
is closed af ter dark. Access in the' area'is restricted toL the road. .
- 1 I
only. This area is controlled by the U.S. Department of..the Interior 4
and receives supplamentalcinstitutional alerting (see Section' E.6.2.4.2.c)'..
South Face'of Crane Neck Hill in West Newbury This area is -located approximately 11 miles SW of Seabrook Station, comprises an area of approximately 0.32 square miles, and-is bounded on the north by Crane- Neck Hill, on the south by the EPZ boundary, on' the east by a dirt road,.and on the west by Georgetown Road.- All .
roads. receive the required 60 dBC sound level coverage. The area on m the south side of the hill is isolated and is uninhabited.
t .
, . West:Newbury, West of Route 113 and South of Pleasant S'treet This area located approximately 11.2 miles SW of Seabrook Station.and comprises an area of 0.10 square miles lies on the west side of a hill 'and extends to the Merrimack River.- The area lies to the south of Pleasant Street in West Newbury. The area has been field verified to-be currently uninhabited, but under development.
Parish Road, Newbury This area is a small triangle to the east of Interstate 95, located approximately 11 miles from Seabrook Station and comprises an area of approximately 0.02 square miles. The area is bounded on the west by 1. arkin St. and on the south by the EPZ. The area has been field verified to be uninhabited.
L ..
2-4
- Q -.
(
ng
"" ; 0n an annual . basis, New Hampshire, Yankee will field inspect each of the -
f, . .
7J :
nineidescribed'areasito' verify that they have remained uninhabited.
)
A tota 1Tof 110; elect ronic siren locations 'are used in' the EPZ t o 'p'erform
.the primary public alerting function.- Of ' these, 94 sirens are permanently .
mounted 'in. the New Hampshire portion of the EPZ. - For Massachusetts, VANS vehicles ~ are deployed to . sixteen acoustic locations f rom'six continuously-me'nned staging areas. One of these sixteen locations is a special case as:
.o discussed below.-
Four VANS vehicles will b ; assigned f or VANS backup and vehicle maintenance' and will be located near Seabrook Station. Upon notification f rom the NHY Offsite Response EOC Contact of a failed VANS, a backup VANS will be deployed to the failed' acoustic location.
Fixed ' sirens in- the State of New Hampshire will be activated f rom the 1(m'l s_,/ _- Rockingham County Dispatch Center in Brentwood, NH. . VANS for Massachusetts are dispatched and activated f rom the NHY Of f site Response EOC in Newington, NH by the NHY CRO.
1 There is a geographical area at the southwest edge of the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ,Joutside the 10-mile radius, that is not subjected to 60-
'dBC coverage by the primary fif teen VANS acoustic locations within 15 minutes.
This geographical a ea is approximately a rectangle bounded on the North-east by the 10-mile radius, the Southwest by the EPZ boundary, the North-west by the Merrimack River, and the Ssacheast by the Western edge of Little Crane Pond.
In accordance with the " Interpretations" section of FEMA Guidance Memo-randum AN-1[6], the populated portions of this geographical area will be
[ )./.-
provided acoustic coverage by a VANS vehicle dispatched f rom staging area 2-5 l
= = L_- ----
y v
a i TL e >
S4 to acoustic' location VL-165. The 3-minute siren activation, for this -
,pq s_) L location will be completed within 20. minutes. . Since VANS vehicles are-lh. deployed at the ALERT emergency ; classification level,' this delayed activ--
h ation will on2 y occur. in an extremely f ast-breaking emergency situation '
4 and is well within the 45-minute time period provided f or in' GM AN-1.
Public information and inst ructional' messages will be broadcast' over the -
Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) Eby designated commercial radio stations
.(see Chapter 1, Section E.5). . A public. education program will be maintained
. to advise people in the EPZ that when the sirens are heard,- they should tune to the designated commercial radio stations- for information about an emergency.
The electronic sirens have' both tone' and public-address capability. . The ~
r 1 siren tone is used to provide.the alert f unction at all siren locations.
-s [Along the public beaches in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, sirens have -
s- / the capability to provide both alerting tones and public-address messages.
A helicopter equipped with loud speakers', capable of tone and voice, is also available to supplement the Massachusetts backup VANS.
c i To supplement siren system coverage, tone-alert radio receivers will be
-offered to institutions within the EPZ. The tone-alert radio receivers o.
in each state will be activated by and receive broadcasts from the desig-nated EBS station in that state.
The United States Coast Guard has agreed to provide public alerting for the waterways and the ocean portion of the EPZ. The Department of Interior has )
agreed to alert people in the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge.
!' ]
Description of the Seabrook Station Emergency Planning Zone {
l
The Seabrook Station EPZ is an irregular shape following jurisdictional s_ -
1
< 2-6
--__:____ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ __ _ _ a
Y \
f boundaries.as ' depicted on the maps provided in Figures. 2-1 and 2-2. ~Both
,q; L ) ' maps'show'the 5 'and'10-mile? radii,from Seabrook Station, the' boundaries of
, .,. the EPZ . the general topography' of ,the area, 'and the roads within' the EPZ.
.The ' maps were produced f rom.a. composite of United ~ States Geographical: Survey topographical maps.
Seabrook Station is "on a coastal plain about 2 miles inland f rom the Atlantic Ocean. Thisl plain,~ extending from'the shore to about'four miles.
inland, . is essentially - flat, . with no hills or valleysi to impede sound prop-
. 'a ga t ion. The coastline itself-is. rocky on the north, changing-to sandy beaches on the south. Over most of the southern half of the EPZ,' the.
beaches are separated - f rom the mainland by-'l-2 miles of uninhabited tidal estuaries and salt marshes.
Inland of the coastal' plain the land gradually rises. .To 'the north a' re '
scattered,'symetrical' hills 200-300 feet in elevation - apparently drumlins a .
To the south, particularly along the Merrimack River L. .J or morainte remnants.
in Amesbury and Merrimac, MA, hills and valleys eroded by drainage'into the river are the major topographic features.
The Merrimack River' flows from west to east through the sout'hern half of the EPZ. In the coastal plain, river banks are wide and shallow; just- east of the City of Newburyport, the tidal flats are over a mile wide. Further
' upstream, the river 'has formed an irregular valley 50-75 f eet deep.
,The Piscataqua River, which is also the Maine-New Hampshire State line, U f orms a portion of the northern boundary of the EPZ. The Piscataqua drains
' Great Bay, also part of the northern boundary of the EPZ.
1 Coastal New Hampshire has a typical, 4-season, northern temperate climate, oo:ified somewhat by the proximity of the ocean. There are three distinct
. {
V' 2-7
types of air masses that' affect the site area:
+ I a. Cold, dry air originating in subarctic North America,
- b. Warm, moist air f rom the Gulf of Mexico or the sub-l tropical Atlantic, and
- c. Cool, damp air moving in f rom the North Atlantic.
As the prevailing flow alof t over New Hampshire is usually of f shore, the first two types of air masses influence the site area more than the third.
Although most of the Seabrook Station EPZ is populated, exceptions are the marsh and water areas along the rivers and coast and a few hilly areas in-accessible by' road in the west and southwest. Year-round residential con-in centrations exist in Hampton Center, about 3-1/2 miles north of the site; Amesbury, 5 miles SW; in Newburyport, about 6-7 miles SSW; in Exete r, 8 miles NW; and in Portsmouth,12 miles and more to the NNE. During the summer, the 12 miles of beaches from Newbury (Plum Island) on the south through Rye Beach on the north are populated by seasonal residents and visitors.
The guidance in FEMA-REP-10 makes a clear distinction between areas where population densities are greater than 2000 persons per square mile and areas where population density is less. Sirens should provide a minieum coverage of 60 dBC in areas having a population density of less than 2000 people per square mile. For densities greater than 2000 people per square mile, the minimum coverage should be 70 dBC.
For the Seabrook Station siren system, a conservative design approach has been used to determine areas within the EPZ which should receive siren coverage of 70 dBC or more.
influx of population during Since the Seabrook Station EPZ has a significant the summer period, a population distribution estimate f or a summer weekend
(\
~( )
\~ /
2-8 i
.e .-
IL
~
condition was used in determining the geographica'1. areas to be covered by V-
/ '
at least 70 dBC. This estimate, which is representative ~of the peak total' population for. the' EPZ, was developed f or Seabrook' Station EPZ evacuation analyses (7)'and.har been confirmed by subsequent population analyses.; Com '
ponents of the population distribution included permanent population, daily' transients representative of a f air weather weekend or holiday, and
- seasonal resident popul ation. Population data were prepared for each of 480 specific grid element areas. The grid elements represent the area defined by one of 32, 11-1/4 degree directional sectors and one of 15 distance areas.
.The distance areas are in 1/2-mile increments f rom 0 to 5 miles and are in 1-mile' increments from 5 to 10 miles. Therefore, the smallest grid element contains 0.02 square miles of area and the largest grid element contains 1.87 .
square miles of area.
Each of the grid elements. was examined f or population density and the geograph-
..A ical area of any. grid element with a population density of over 2,000 persons per square mile was superimposed on a map of the EPZ. Smooth outlines of apparent population densities of greater than 2,000 persons per square mile were then developed based on an examination of the superimposed grid elements and map road configurations. In some cases, a visual field inspection of the actual geographical area was made. These areas of dense population are indicated on Figures 2-1 and 2-2. All of these areas, except for a small area northwest of Seabrook Station between sirens SH-01 and SB-06, are covered by at least 70 dBC. This area is high density due to crowds attending dog races at the Seabrook Greyhound Park. Seabrook Greyhound Park management will be offered a tone alert radio for supplemental notification of an emer-gency at Seabrook Station. f n i 2-9 i
i .j
r,.. i s
'..nvl>*s ... : E.6.2.1'. SIRENS.
w-
' dX '
l N: ,.
il .. E.6.2.1.a.- Siren' Descriptions f.Q;h Three' types of, sire's'. n are employed in the' Public Alert and Notification s
i (System for the'Seabrook Station EPZ:
,, 'l.- Whdien Model WS-3000: . , oscillating .very-high powe r electronic. .
y ,
. sirens, (rated
- at 122 dBC at 550 Hz):
- 2. Whelen Model WS-4000 s . oscillating' ultra-high power electronic sirens,-(rated at'129fdBC at 550 Hz):
, 3.: Dual. Wh ele n. Mo del - WS-4000 : oscillating ultra-high power elec--
tronic siren system (rated at 134 dBC at-550'Hz).
Table' 2-1 L presents 'a list of all siren. and VANS ~ acoustic locations. and' contains for each siren; : unique identifier, siren type, sound output, and mounting-
. height.
'Each siren type is described in detail. below.
~
Li
~
- 1. Whelen Model WS-3000 Electronic: Siren
.jp) a' '~
Ei Ahty (80) of the sirens installed f or the Seabrook Station'Public-Alert and' Notification System are very-high power electronic sirens,
> Model WS-3000, manuf actured.. by Whelen Engineering Company, Inc.
Figure A-1 is a picture of the WS-3000 and Figure A-2 shows a typ-i cal . ins talla t ion. -
' Each WS-3000 siren is capable of f unctioning either as a siren or.as
- a. powerful public address device. In the public-address mode, voice messages received over radio are amplified and broadcast over the i siren speakers. In the siren mode, the output of a tone-generator is amplified and broadcast over the siren speakers. A steady tone of 550 Hz is the alerting sound to be used by the WS-3000 in the event of ;
an emergency at the Seabrook Station. Other signals can be used by l
2-10
i local and/or state governmant egencias for othsr purposes of thair own choosing..
y-. ;
\
/
t The WS-3000 produces a sound output level of 122 dBC at 550 Hz r.t a-
' distance of 100 ft from the siren as demonstrated by data obtained from field measurements presented in Wyle Research Test Report 88-9(R) (see Appendix B).
Each WS-3000 siren.is composed of a loudspes.ker assembly and an electrical cabinet housing the tone generator, power amplifiers, radio receiving unit. . decoder and control circuitry, silent test module, and power supply. The speaker section of each WS-3000 siren consists of a vertically-arranged array of sixteen individual loudspeaker radial horn / drivers acoustically coupled to a single large projector. The siren has an ef fective dispersion angle of 60* in the horizontal plane (that is, the signal broadcast by the siren is no less than 3 dB lower l'~'T than its rated "on axis" performance within 30' to the lef t and right N) of the speaker axis; outside of this 60* angle, sound is radiated by the siren speakers at a lower level). The projector, horn / drivers, and a motor-driven rotator are mounted atop a Class I utility pole.
The loudspeaker drivers are fed by .four power amplifiers, each of which feeds four drivers. Input to the power amplifiers comes either f rom the tone-generator or the radio receiver, depending on which mode of siren operation is being used.
The redundancy of amplifiers and drivers greatly increases siren reliability. Half the amplifiers or drivers would have to f ail before the sound output of the siren would drop by as much as 3 dB.
power to operate each siren is provided by a 24-volt battery / battery l
n
'- '- 2-11
4L charger system located in the electrical cabinst. : Ths' batteries are.
- ;4
% . kept ' f ullyf charged ' by a trickle-charger powered. by a 120-volt , single-'
k ., . phase l connection to . electrical utility power lines.
. The' entire WS-3000 siren design is modular. The, power amplifiers, tone e generator. radio. receiver and decoder, silent test module, t rickle -
charger,;and. batteries,.as well'as the individual. loudspeaker drivers, are housed 'in ' easily replaceable modules to f acilitate field. maintenance '
yp of theJairen.
. To ensure fu11. 360' coverage by the siren, the speaker assembly 'is-oscillated back and forth through an angle of about 360*. The horn rotates 360':in one direction, stops, rotates back to the same position, I
stops, and then rotates in the other direction. This cycle is repeated 2-4 times pe r minute.
To enhance intelligibility of a voice message when the sirens are used in the public-address mode, the horns. are held stationary while the '
~
message is broadcast. .The horns are then rotated 45*, held stationary again, and.the message is re-broadcast.
L The control system f or the WS-3000 is discussed in Section E.6.2.1.b.
- 2. Whelen Model WS-4000 Electronic Siren Fourteen (14) of the sirens installed for the Seabrook Station Public Alert and Notification System are ultra-high-power electronic sirens, Model WS-4000, manuf actured by Whelen Engineering Company, Inc.
Each WS-4000' siren is capable of functioning either as a siren or as a powerf ul public address device. In the public-address mode, voice messages received over radio are amplified and broadcast over the f~ <
2-12
- _ = = _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - .. - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _
siran sp2ikers. - In the siren moda, thi output of 's ton -generstor
~is amplified sti broadcast over the siren speakers. A steady tone of
,-\ _
i
,, I.
550 Hz is the alerting sound to be used by the WS-4000 in the event of 1 an emergency at-the Seabrook Station. Other signals can be used by . ;
l local and/or state government agencies for other purposes of th.eir own l choosing.
The WS-4000 produces a sound output level of 129 dBC at 550 Hz at a distance of 100 ft from the siren as demonstrated by data obtained from field measurements presented in Wyle Research Test Report 86-4 (see Appendix B).
i Each WS-4000 siren is composed of a loudspeaker assembly and an electrical cabinet housing the tone generator, power amplifiers, radio receiving unit, decode r and control circuitry, silent test module, and power supply. The speaker section of each WS-4000 siren consists of a rg
'n vertically-arranged array of eight individual loudspeaker radial horn /
lJ drivers acoustically coupled to a single large projector. The siren has an effective dispersion pattern similar to the WS-3000. The pro-jector, horn / drivers, and a motor-driven rotator are mounted atop a Class I utility pole.
The loudspeaker drivers are fed by eight power amplifiers, each of which feeds one driver. Input to the power amplifiers comes either f rom the tone-generator or the radio receiver, depending on which ;
mode of siren operation is being used.
Power to operate each siren is provided by a 24-volt battery / battery charger system located in the electrical cabinet. The batteries are kept f ully charged by a trickle-charger powered by a 120-volt, single-s phase, connection to electrical utility power lines.
. /~'}
%)
2-13 i
m,m_ _ _ _ _ _
eme -
- *p;s' '
,' .u If 1
f il Mg j The1 entire WS-4000 siren design is modular. The power amplifiers, tons ,H
- 'i ,
.c Tfn j generator, radio receiver.and decoder, silent test module, trickle-y7.J{..
h!\,) charger, and batteries, as well as the individual loudspeaker drivers,
~
w
\' are housed in easily replaceable modules to f acilitate field maintenance of the siren.
M To ensure- full 360' coverage by the siren, the speaker. assembly is o, ,
. oscillated back. and forth through an angle of about 360*. The horn W , A rotates 360' in one direction, stops, rotates back to the same ' position,
-stops, and then rotates in the other direction. This cycle is repeated j w
t> 2-4 time s' pe r mi nu te.
.c To enhance intelligibility of a voice message when the sirens are used in the public-address mede, the horns are held stationary while the ,
-message is broadcast. The horns are then rotated 45',' held stationary again, and the message is re-broadcast.
- f%.
il .
~
- The control system f or the WS-4000 is discussedin Section E.6.2.1.b.
- 3. Dual Whelen Model WS-4000 Electronic Siren System The Dual Whelen WS-4000 sirens, which basically consist of two WS-4000 4 sirens mounted side-by-side, are employed on the Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS) vehicles. The VANS comprise a fleet of com-mercia11y available trucks, each with a telescoping crane capable of raising the centerline of the Dual Whelen WS-4000 siren to a height of 45 feet. Figures A-3 and A-4 are pictures of a VANS vehicle, one picture with the siren system stowed for travel and one picture with the siren system raised. The truck is a heavy-duty vehicle with high ground clearance and dual rear wheels equipped with snow tires. The VANS are maintained at staging areas that are continuously manned.
Y ,l 2-14
'"! ' 5;
a l.
- m
( J.- r d
The Dual Whelen US-4000 siren .is capable ~ of functioning 'either as .
40.
1
+
WrE la.' siren or.as a publie address device. In the ' public-addres s mode, i ( ,
N E'^ voice niessages received over radio are amplified and broadcast ~ over the siren speakers. In the siren mode, the output of a tone-generator is .
~
j amplified and broadcast over the siren speakers. A steady tone of: 550 Hz is used as the alerting sound for the D'ual WS 4000 in the event of .
~
an emergency atl the Seabrook Station.
a
-The Dual WS-4000 is among the .most' po'werf ul electronic siren systems.
c omme rcially.' ava il able. Field. tests conducted by Wyle Laboratories
+ have shown that the 550 Hz tone generated by the Dual WS-4000 when pi, operated:in phase produces a sound level of 134 dBC at 550 Hz at a distance'of 100 feet'from the siren (see Wyle Research Test Report
'88-4 contained in' Appendix B)..
The Dual WS-4000 siren is composed of L a double projector loudspeaker.
1sssemMy (See Figure A-5) and electrical cabinett h'ousing the power amplifiers, tone generator, radio receiving unit, decoder and control circuitry, silent test module, and power supply. The speaker. section "of the Dual WS-4000 siren consists of two vertically arranged arrays of eight individual loudspeaker radial horns / drivers acoustically coupled to each of - the two large projectors. The projectors, radial horns /
drivers and a motor-driven rotator are suspended on the telescoping-crane.
I The loudspeaker radial horns / drivers are fed by 16 power amplifiers, each of which feeds one driver. Input to the power amplifiers comes either from the tone-generator or the radio receiver, depending on o
which mode of siren operation is being used. The redundancy of ampli-fiers and drivers enhances siren reliability.
2-15 1
'! i a
3
.. .___1___.______ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ f
yv - -
!?/
4 3 -
I
')
'wt h2 ' Power to oparate the Dual WS-4000 siren system 'is providad by 'a 24-volt i
y(, battery /ba'ttery. charger system. The battery. charger is' powered by a gasoline-engine; driven' generator. At the staging ' areas, the batteries
- are kept : f ully charged by' a trickle-charge r . powe red by a 120-volt, single phase utility power source. ,
I-The; entire' Dual WS-4000 siren design is modular. : The power amplifiers, W ' tone-generator, radio receiver and- decoder,: silent- test. module and
' batteries, as well as the individual loudspeaker radial horns / drivers,.
are housed in easily. replaceable modules to facilitate maintenance of-(
the siren.
y-
' ' To ~ ensure fu11360* coverage by the siren, the speaker assembly is oscillated' back and forth through an angle.of about 360*. The siren rotates 360* in= one direction, stops, rotates back to the same position, stops, and'then' rotates.360in the other direction. This cycle is repeated 2-4 times per minute.
.To ensure intelligibility of a voice message when the sirens are used in the public-address mode, the sirens are held stationary while the message is broadcast. . The sirens are then rotated 45', held stationary again, and the message is rebroadcast. Thus,.the. message is repeated-
.eight times as the . sirens are swept' through 360'.
The control system for the Dual WS-4000 is discussed in Section -. ]
E.6.2.1.b.
E.6.2.1.b Remote Control of Sirens l l
The fixed sirens for the State of New Hampshire will be activated by radio f rom the Rockingham County Dispatch Center in Brentwood, NH.
O 2-16
.-(.
l i-._.-._ -
':.+-
The VANS for Massachusetts will. ba dispatched f rom their steging areas by the NRY Of f site Response EOC Contact at an. ALERT or higher emergency classi-7\ .
- fication. . The: VANS will be driven to their predetermined acoustf r locations Q
n - and the sirens .will be. placed in an . operable position. . Operable position will" require leveling and stabilizing the' vehicle with the outriggers ,and
. raising the siren to a deployed position.
' The VANS sirens will be capable of receiving an a.tuation signal f or remote tone operation while the vehicle is in transit. This signal will be stored in the siren control circuitry until the " siren raised" interlock is cleared.
. Conversely, if a VANS vehicle is deployed at its acoustic location and the
" siren raised" interlock is' cleared; then the siren is capable of remote actuation from the NHY Offsite Response EOC. This " siren raised" interlock -
prevents the siren f rom sounding until the siren is in a deployed position. *
' The VANS operator'can also manually activate the VANS siren when it is in the deployed position.
x Once: the VANS vehicles are operable at their acoustic locations, siren operation and actuation is equivalent to a pole-mounted siren.
' The remote control system employed for the sirens in the New Hampshire section of the EPZ and the sirens on the VANS for: Massachusetts uses a coded sequence of tones broadcast over separate radio f requencies. .A dual-tone, multi-f requency (DTMF) encoding scheme is used. Each remote control system contains the encoder and radio transmitter used to generate and broadcast the DTMF codes. The electrical cabinet at each siren contains a radio receiver and decoding equipment. The control circuitry in each siren cabinet constantly " listens" for the DTMi codes, and activates the siren af ter it has determined that the siren has been properly addressed and a proper control code has been received. The internal control circuitry will automatically turn the siren of f three minutes af ter activation.
2-17
5 E.6.2,1.c Syst2m Respons? Time
[ 'h E.6.2.1.c.1 New Hampshire Portion of EPZ
'\x_, - /.
Once the Rockingham County Dispatch Center has been directed to activate the New Hampshire siren system, the time required to remotely activate is -
- estimated to be less than two minutes, as follows:
Clear radio channel: 30 sec.
Activate and checkout the siren control system: 60 sec.
Transmit siren activation code: 0.4 sec.
90.4 sec.
The duration of the siren alerting signal is 3 minutes. On the sirens covering the public beach areas, the alerting signal is followed by the .
broadcast of pubile information and inst ruccional messages.
'fg E.6.2.1.c.2 Massachusetts Portion of EPZ ,
)
v To accomplish the alert f unction, the VANS vehicles must be dispatched, t ravel the predetermined route, and be setup in the operable position; at which point the VANS are deployed for remote operation. Except for one location (VL-165), once a decision is made to activate the VANS sirens, the time to activate meets the 15 minute guidance in FEMA-REP-10. The 15 ;
minute time interval is composed of deployment and siren activation time.
Each of these is discussed below.
DEPLOYMENT TIME Deployment time is the combination of the time to dispatch the V ANS vehicles (dispatch time), travel the route (transit time),
and raise the siren at the acoustic location (setup time).
Deployment time is 12 minutes or less (except for VL-16S).
l f
V 2-18 L__1__________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
2 - '-
u s 4 cc -
hg C
^ . Dispatch time [is the' time- required' to' alert 'the. VANS operators,Iand :
S ,
p f g .> s \., ,
- for- the , operators to enter the VANS vehicles, start the . vehicles and a
. exi t the s taging 'a reas'.'
~
5' .
sTransit time is the time required. for the VANS vehicle to travel thet predetermined route f rom the VANS staging area to the acoustic location within posted . speed limits and observing t raf fic laws.
. ; Setup ; time is; the ' time recuired to configure the VANS _ vehicle and J
- siren upon arrival at the acoustic location.- The setup time' includes-r removing the boom stabilization strap, deploying the vehicle outriggers, c; and raising the ' siren to an operable position.
SIREN' ACTIVATION TIME The siren activation time is three minutes.
VANS route times are presented'in Table 2-2. The times were dete rmined, 1
/~'N - .
- l ,)' using vehicles' of .the same weight and f rame class as the . VANS vehicle, by
~
l , .
< traveling the, routes numerous times at early morning, mid-morning, near noon, early evening, and late evening on Monday, midweek, Friday.. and
~
1
. weekends to-develop representative transit'tinas for each route.
J Remote activation' of the VANS sirens by the New Hampshire Yankee Of f site
.k
' Response EOC ' Contact can occur during the period of time that the VANS ]
. vehicles are. being deployed; therefore, the time to remotely activate is 1
not an. additional time to be added to VANS deployment time. This remote q l
activation time consists of:
Clear radio channel: 30 sec.
.i Activate and checkout the ciren r
control system: 60 sec.
Transmit siren activation code: 0.4 sec.
1 ,
f'As _/). 90.4 sec.
2-19
bi?
E.6.2.I'.d '. Siren Range Calculations
,[N The sound: level coverage .(tone) for each siren in the alerting system was
<U) determined utilizing a computer model developed by Wyle Laboratories. This t odel-determines the range of specified siren signal levels based on atten-
.uations along the siren signal path. . Field measurements have been made and the' measured siren sound levels have been compared with those predicted by the model. This comparison illustrates that the predicted levels are con-servative and are, thus, appropriate for the system design.
The 60 dBC and 70 dBC siren tone coverage for the siren alerting system is shown, on Figures 2-1 and 2-2 as sound level contours. To develop these contours, the model calculates the contours for each siren. The 60 dBC and 70 dBC contours for all sirens are then graphically combined into envelopes depicting-the total system coverage.
The range for. voice alerting messages broadcast by the sirens was based on 7
speech intelligibility tests on the sirens employed in the system. This intelligibility test' data was- then used in conjunction with' the sound
~
propagation model to predict the voice alerting range for each siren.
Appendix B contains Wyle Research Report 88-9 which presents the siren ranging' calculation procedures utilized in the system design.
E.6.2.1.e ~ Maintenance of Siren System A regularly scheduled, preventive maintenance program will be initiated f or the sirens and VANS vehicles in the system. Maintenance will also be performed if any cf the regularly scheduled tests (see Section E.6.2.1.f) l J
{
indicate malfunctions. In addition, repairs will be made if it is known i
that something has happened to disable one of the sirens or VANS vehicles (vandalism, lightning s trikes, accidents, e tc. ).
v 2-20
__ ____m._m_- _ - - _ - _ . ____
4 '
lL r ,
n
~
.Pr.ocedures willLbe'available+for the maintenance.of the pole-mounted.
. sirens, VANS vehicles 'and VANS' sirens; covering inspection, repair, and j ((~ h):Y , . Routine maintenance procedures will follow those outlined by testing.
, Uc the. manuf acturers in their foperating and maintenance manuals. In addition' NHY will maintain a- supply of spare parts for the sirens and VANS vehicles, h RT Maintenance data will.be kept for each siren and deployment system, and will 4
be: reviewed 1 regularly to ensure that any deficiencies noted during inspections.:
~
a- .have been corrected.
,3 0" E.6.2.1.f' Siren System Testing Program The l operability of a siren system is considered acceptable when an' average of. 90%.of the. sirens (as determined by a simple average of all regularly conducted.terts) can be demonstrated functional over a 12-month period '
.(FEMA-REP-10, Appendix 4). Detailed procedures for the testing programs will be available for. review at Seabrook Station.
( )
E.6.2.1.f.1= New Hampshire Por" tion of EPZ The testing program forfthe New Hampshire sirens will consist of:
- 1. " Silent tests", conducted every two weeks;
-2. Quarterly activations of tone generator and public address modes 'into load banks; and
- 3. Full-scale siren tests conducted in support of exercises as directed.
Overall operability for the New Hampshire siren system is determined by ]
a simple average of the number of sirens demonstrated f unctional divided by the number of sirens tested.
(, .
2-21
r ac
\
(E.6.2.1.f.2-- Massachusetts Portion of"EPZ'
~/m
.M )1 In order:for the VANS sirens to activate, a sequence of activities must be l'
\,_/C
- completed. .In' additionf to satisfy the 15-minute criteria the activities b
Ut _must be ' completed within a specified time. Fi rs t the VANS operator must be alerted,. start the vehicle and prepare to exit the staging area - DISPATCH TIME.. Next the operator must drive the VANS Vehicle from the staging area
~
to the assigned acoustic location TRANSIT TIME. Af ter the operator parks the- vehicle, he must remove the boom strap, deploy the outriggers and raise the siren to an operable position SETUP TIME. The combination of these b times-is DEPLOYMENT TIMI. After the three deployment activities are completed F:L the' VANS sirens become fixed sirens that can be tested in the normal manner.
Therefore, system operability of the VANS will' be ensured by the separate
~
testing of 1) the deployment timed activities for completion within 12 4 . minutes and 2) the activation function of the siren, i:
f-f ; For_ one .of: the' timed activities, Setup Time, a test criterton of one minute is established.. Different Dispatch and Transit Time-criteria are established f or' each ' acoustic location for the purposes of driver training and qualifi-cation.' However, for the purpose of VANS operability determination, combined Dispatch and Transit Times to all acoustic locations are assigned a test criterion of 11 minutes. Each acoustic location route will'be timed (from driver notification at the staging area through driving to the acoustic location) using a vehicle of the same weight and f rame class as a VANS ]
vehicle. Day of week and time of day of each test will be randomly selected within specified limits. All routes dispatched and driven in 11 minutes or less will be considered successful.
I l
l O
l{
2-22
= _ _ _ _ _____________________________-___-._________________----_____________________-.--_____-_-_________________o
[
,-o Each in-service VANS, vehicle ~ will also be tested 'on an' average of every two
/N weeks. f The siren:on each VANS vehicle will be- raised and subjected to a dj
-silent test' procedure on; the average' of eve ry two weeks. -Quarterly, the -
V ANS sirens- will' be tested by . activating the tone ' generator and' public lIr address mode 1nto a load bank. - Full activation tests will be' performed in
~
- support of exercises as directed.
L
~
ll In ' summary, VANS operability will be demonstrated as follows:
Routes
- On.the average of six times every ' two weeks, a driver for each acoustic- location route will be dispatched to drive the route
. in a vehicle of the same weight and f rame class as a VANS vehicle.
The driver must first prepare his assigned VANS vehicle for ,.
transit and then drive the test vehicle to the acoustic location.
This test will be successful when all actions are completed in f
y .11 minutes for every route except VL-165. The icceptable test criterion for route VL-16S will be 16 minutes.
Vehicles / Sirens On the ave rage of once eve ry two . weeks, each in-service VANS vehicle will be tested. Each VANS vehicle operator will perform a siren setup test with the VANS vehicle and the VANS vehicle siren will be subjected to a silent test proce hre.
For this test to be successful, the VANS vehicle outriggers must operate correctly, the hydraulic crane must raise the siren to the operable height, the crane limit switches must operate correctly, and the siren must respond satisf actorily to the siren test - all within one minute.
p-2-23
I' f,"
p1 <f
.~ 0verall VANS operability will be determined by the product of the simple (Ng averages?of 1). route tests'and 2) vehicles / sirens tests.. Each average
'is computed by dividing the number of successful tests by the total
~
~ t e.ats pe rf ormed. .
The portion of 'this testing program f or timing the VANS routes will be pe rformed 'only f or a 12-month period. . Af ter 12 months'..of route timing
.f ,
data has- been compiled, the routes will be considered certified-f or all -
seasons and traffic conditions. Thereaf ter the ' routes will be inspected f req ue ntly. 'The VANS vehicle / siren' tests.will continue as described.
E.6.2.1.g- Operability Reports.
' A Seabrook Station EPZ siren system has been in operation since late
~
- 1986. This system originally consisted of 147 sirens, 94 in New Hampshire and 53 in Massachusetts. The 53 sirens in Massachusetts were taken out: of
' service between September of 1987 and January of 1988. The siren system.
operability average, calculated according to the FEMA guidance outlined 1 -in Appendix l4 of FEMA-REP-10, for those sirens in-service during the 12-month The H ,
period prior to the submittal of this report has been 99.2 percent.
data are presented in Table 2-3.
~
V 2-24 l
L L$ - - - - -- -___L.'-_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
E.6.2.3 TONE-ALERT RADIOS
. , cq Tone-alert radio receivers will be supplied to major institutional f acil-y a
'~-- I ities in the EPZ to supplement the siren system coverage and to f acilitate emergency planning activities for these institutions. Tone-alert radio receiverc are not part. of the Primary Alert and Notification System for the Seabrook Station. The use of tone-alert radio receivers is discussed in Section E.6.2.4, "Special Alerting Methods".
.,. \
Q ,)
l i
l '
' 2-2 $
1 !
1
y'J 5n. ..
Q 1 kY US ' i ,Ni t ..
E.6'.2.'4: . SPECI AL ALERTING METHODS p '
hl Specia1 alerting methods,' supplemental'to' the primary' system, employed in the-
~
k b- ..Seabrook EPZ are 1) the:use.of tone-alert radio. receivers for institutional.
G
!cj , alerting [ 2) et,ntrol by' the United States Coast Guard of waterways' and the'
% ' ocean' portions of the' EPZ, 3)' control ~of thA Parker River National Wildlife .
Ref uge by the separtment 'of. the Interior,' and 4). an airborne alerting system.
Vy E.6.2.4.2: Institutional' Alerting Syst_em
'E.6.2.4.2.a' , Tono Alert Radios To-supplement the ~ alerting provided by the siren system, tone-alert radio-I
. receivers will be of fered to institutions within the I:PZ. In general, these:.
institutions' include l businesses with 50 or more employees, schools, hospitals, day care centers,inursing homes, campgrounds, and so forth.
. +. - The tone-alert radio receivers' will be activated by' a tone broadcast over .
g.
t he . EBS netwo rk. 'Because two separate EBS f requencies will be used (one
- > each in> New Hampshire and Massachusetts), the radios in' institutions in-each state will' be tuned te their respective EBS f requencies..
Upoy activation . the audio of the receiver will turn on, and emergency messages from the activating station will be audible. Activation will also light a signal lamp on the receiver.
The tone-alert radio ' receivers employed f or institutional alerting in the Seabrook Station EPZ are manuf actured by Johnson Electronics.
The tone-alert radio receivers will normally operate from AC power, but
- will have back-up battery power available in the event of a power f ailure.
./. '
2-26
mmm . ,
l ', ; W ,
T gf / r y' <
sdA '
New;Himpshire. Yankee has assumsdLthe responsibility of of fering tone-alert L
? 'rt an
[MNP radio receivers.to identified institutions. . A register of participants in
?m.s- -
' the' institutional alerting system will.be maintained. A listing of all
/( ,[.
institutions refusing tone-alert radios will also' be maintained.
v-A testing program will be established to' provide recipients the oppor-s tunity- to verifyl the ' operation of the tone-alert radio' receivers. O pe r-
,m ability' tests forfche tone-alert radio receivers will be conducted on a
- weekly basis. . Recipients. will be instructed to . contact. New Hampshire Yankee forf a replacement if- the receiver-does not pick up the message.
The' State of New Hampshire and the NHY ORO will monitor the tone-alert radio receiver tests. In the event the. test malf unctions,' the appropriate organ- -
ization will call the EBS station to determine the cause of the 'f ailure, and immediate' steps will be taken to camedy the situation.
f The New Hampshire Yankee continuing tone alert radio maintenance program l\s- - consists of an annual mailing of a questionnaire and spare battery to all
~
- tone alert radio recipients, reinforcing the proper use of the radios, and -
reat.esting operational data. In addition, a telephone number has been established for questions regarding the use of the radios and to respond to reports' of equipment malf unction. However, it is up to the tone alert radio recipient to ensure the proper operation of each radio. A supply of spare radios will be kept on hand to replace t'aose found defective.
E.6.2.4.2.b United States Coast Guard .
A memorandum of understanding between the State of New Hampshire and the Coast Guard states that Coast Guard response to an emergency at Seabrook q
Station would consist of control, notification, and restriction of water-borne traf fic f rom an established dangerous area which the Coast Guard
[s 2-27 a-- _ _ m__ ._a_
7__
'C:ptain of the Port, Bos' ton, MA would dasignate as a sefety zone (see .
page' C-140 of the "Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Coranunities"). The New Hampshire Of fice of Emergency Management will notify the Coast Guard
)
Marine Saf ety Of fice, Boston, MA or the First Coast Guard District Oper-ations Center of the eme rgency. The Coast Guard will initially establish a five-mile safety zone and will extend the safety zone based on protective measures recommended f or tr.e general population. The First Coast Guard District Operations Center will activate available Coast Guard crews to l
enforce the safety zone.
E.6.2.4.2.0 . Department of the Interior - Plum Island in a recent meeting (4/18/88), the Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Services, has agreed, when requested by the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization,' to close the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge on Plum Island and notif y ref uge visitors to leave the refuge.
,q e/ E.6.2.4.3 Airborne Alerting System An Airborne Alerting System ( AAS) has been developed as a backup system to the backup VANS. The system consists of an acoustical package carried by a helicopter based at Seabrook Station. The acoustical package is capable of both public-address and siren tone modes of operation. The system incorporates high-power amplifiers, control circuits, batteries, and two speaker arrays mounted on the helicopter. The primary array is mounted on the lef t side of the helicopter and consists of 28 loudspeaker. The second array is located beneath the helicopter between the landing skids and consists of eight loud-speakers.
The complete acoustical package has been tested in-flight to verify the extent of acoustical coverage for both tone and voice alerting on the I
Q ,1 2-28 1
9_. . , . . , ,
.)
,1 9 'jN 1 ;, . .
. ground'with the helicopter travelingtat 40 mph at an altitude of 500 ft.
hN a f-
' Voice' alerting. objective was to provide an intelligible message'for's t
'4 ...
peridd iof L30 seconds. . Computer.modeling techniques were used to extra- .i n
.polate the range of coverage beside and below the helicopter. L Appendix' B ;
. contains Wyle Research Report 88-6(R) which' provides a detailed presentation 'f of the. procedures used for determining helicopter alerting coverage.
o
' The helicopter 'is based at Seabrook Station lat a f acility between the north -
Land south access roads. This f acility consists of a heliport of fice, heli-
" 4- . pad and ' adjoining . runway; and helicopter hangar. The helicopter-and pilot j
1
.will be maintained in a constant state of readiness. The helicopter will be preflighted and -inspected daily by the pilot. Preventive maintenance pro-cedures will be ' performed on-site by a licensed mechanic on a regular basis.
Communications required f or the helicopter alerting system will consist-of telephone lines between the NHY Offsite Response EOC and the heliport
_of fice plus a VHF radio system f or communications between the NHY Of f site
~
Response EOC and the helicopter pilot once the helicopter is. airborne.
NHY has contracted with a local vendor to provide the helicopter and pilots on a 24-hour per-day, 7-days-per-week coverage basis. The duty pilot will be based at Seabrook Station at the helicopter f acility. Periodic Seabrook Station emergency plan training for the pilots will be conducted by New Hampshire Yankee.
At the ALERT or higher emergency classification the VANS will be dispatched as part of the primary Public Alert and Notification System. Simultaneously, The-the helicopter pilot will-be placed on standby for backup to the VANS.
. helicopter will be taken out of the helicopter hanger and warmed up in preparation for launch. The helicopter and pilot will remain on standby 2-29 I
Y l :. ___
' i
'.e.
using the: AAS. The helicopter will be dispatched by the NHY Of f site Response EOC, .if._ required, .or it will remain on standby until termination of the
-j --$. ,
't 1 c
radiological eme rgency.
%) .
i x):
i 1-r' l
j' l
2-30 I
l l
L._ __.. i _ _,.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ ________________ .________.__ _ _____ _ ______ _
?
-- 3 ,
7 J., '
re
- ~, ,
.c
_- ---na
, i,
- TABLE 2-1 /- I" yp
[ ,
.{' .
1
SUMMARY
OF SIREN LOCATIONS.
' UNIQUE ' SIREN' SOUND . MOUNTING L
- - IDENTIFIER TYPE ~ OUTPUT- HEIGHT (Tag #); (Model #) (dBC @ 100') (Centerline, f t) l
.BR-Ol' '
/VS-4000' 129 54~ f BR-02.
WS-4000 129 53 BR-03' 475-4000 129 55
.BR-04 '
WS-4000 129 55
,BR-05: WS-3000 122 .52 j EK-01. 475-4000' 129 52 :i
~ 'EK-02 WS-3000- 122 53 I'
EK-03' -WS-3000L 122 53 EK-04 WS-3000- 122 L53'
' 'pEX-01 ;WS-3000. 122 51 EX-02 .WS-3000 122 48 EX-03 , WS-3000. 122 55 EX-04 ~WS-3000- 122 52' EX-05 WS-3000 122 '53 EX-06 'WS-3000 122 52 f WS-4000 -129 54 EX-07.
EX WS-3000 122 54
- WS-3000 122 51 8EX-09. "
EX-10 g WS-3000 122.- 51-gCR-Ol' + "y WS-3000 122- 55 GR-02 WS-3000 .122 52 GR-03 -WS-3000- 122 56 GR-04~ WS-3000 122 55 0
L'l [d.Y
~ HA-01 HA WS-3000 WS-3000 122 122 51 50 HA-03 WS-3000 122 52-HA WS-3000 122 57
- AA-05 ' -WS-4000 129 52 HA WS-3000 122 54 HA-07 WS-3000 122 52 HA-08 WS-3000 122 53 HA-09 WS-3000 122 52 HA-10 WS-3000 122 52 HF-01 WS-3000 122 59 HF-02 WS-3000 122 52 HF-03 WS-3000 122 54 p_HF-04 WS-3000 122 51
.,, - KE 01 Ws-3000 122 53 I KE-02 WS-3000 122 53 KE-03 WS-3000 122 52 LAKE-04 WS-3000 122 53 KE-05 WS-3000 122 53 p KE-06 WS-3000 122 62 KI-01 WS-4000 129 55 KI-02 'WS-4000 129 53 WS-4000 53 KI-03 129
.KI-04 WS-3000 122 53 2-31
m
-)
7s_-
' 1 c.
TABLE 2-1 (Continuzd) i
SUMMARY
OF SIREN LOCATIONS ]
- ') SOUND MOUNTING
\/ -
UNIQUE SIREN TYPE OUTPUT HEIGHT IDENTIFIER (dBC @ 100') (Centerline, f t)
(Tag #) (Model #)
J WS-3000 122 54 NC-01 '
vWS-4000 129 52 NE-01 WS-3000 122 53 NE-02 WS-3000 122 52 NE-03 WS-3000 122 51 NE-04 WS-3000 122 51 NE-05 WS-3000 122 52 NF-01
<WS-4000 129 52 NF-02 WS-3000 122 54' NH-01 WS-3000 122 52 NH-02 WS-3000 122 52 NF-03 WS-3000 122 52 NH-04 WS-3000 122 53 NH-05 WS-3000 122 53 NH-06 122 53 PO-01 WS-3000 WS-3000 122 53 PO-02 122 53 PO-03 WS-3000 WS-3000 122 54 -
PO-04 WS-3000 122 63 PO-05
'WS-3000 122 52 PO-06 122 54 f0-07 WS-3000 WS-3000 122 64 PO-08
/-^3 RY-01 WS-3000 122 59 i l- '
52
' RY-02 WS-3000 122 122 65 RY-03 WS-3000 WS-3000 122 53 RY-04 122 53 RY-05 WS 3000 WS-3000 122 54 RY-06 122 53 RY-07 WS-3000
WS-3000 122 56 SB-01 122 54 SB-02 WS-3000 WS-3000 122 54 eB-03 58 SB-04 WS-3000 122 122 51 SB-05 WS-3000 122 64 SB-06 WS-3000 WS-3000 122 52 SB-07 57 ggSB-08 WS-3000 122 122 51 SH-01 WS-3000 129 51 SH-02 vWS-4000
/WS-4000 129 52 SH-03 122 51 p:SH-04 WS-3000 122 52 ST-01 WS-3000 122 53 ST-02 WS-3000 122 54 ST-03 WS-3000 '
122 51 2 CST-04 WS-3000 122 52 WS-3000 g5ST-05 (m 2-32 I
s , '
, j. t a I n s t-n.
is 3.h .; l. >
o ' TABLE 2-1 s
' ' ' [: ' '
1
. g ;. - '
(Continued).
' , . ~
SUMMARY
OF' SIREN LOCATIONS
' '" " ' MOUNTING UNIQUE SIREN SOUND.
IDENTIFIER' : TYPE- OUTPUT HEIGHT g;j '
(Tag.#)- (Model #). -(dBC @ 100'). (Centerline, ft)-
ST-06 .WS-3000 122 52'
.VL-01 WS-4000 (Dual) 134 45 VL-02 WS-4000 (Dual)- 134 45
.VL-03' 'WS-4000 (Dual)- 134 45
- a VL-04' ~WS-4000 (Dual)' 134 .45
.VL 'WS-4000 (Dual) 134 45' VL-06 WS-4000 (Dual). 134; 45
,VL-07 .WS-4000 (Dual) ~ 134- 45 VL tWS-4000.(Dual) 134 '45 VL WS-4000 (Dual) 1134 45
.VL-10 ' WS-4000 (Dual) 134 45
- v. '
VL-11 WS-4000 (Dual) 134 !45 y VL-12' WS-4000'(Dual)~ 134 45 VL-13 :WS-4000'(Dual). 134 45 VL WS-4000 (Dual) 134 45 VL-15 ~WS-4000 (Dual) 134 45
.VL-16S: WS-4000 (Dual) '134 45 ,
D l
l l
[
2-33 L_ i__ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- x. ,
i TABLE 2-2 I
i k,) ' VANS ROUTE TIMES (Min:Sec) ,
d 1
AVERAGE * -SIREN )
STAGI NG ACOUSTIC DEPLOYMENT ACTIVATION TOTAL AREA LOC ATION TIME TIME TIME S1 VL-01 10:34 3:00 13:34 VL-15 5:01 3:00 8:01 S2 VL-02 6:56 3:00 9:56 VL-03 8:21 3:00 .11:21- ,
VL-04 2:00 3:00 5:00 S3 VL-07 7:07 3:00 10:07 VL-12 10:33 3:00 13:33 VL-13 9:59 3:00 12:59 54 VL-05 2:00 3:00 5:00 VL-09 9:43 3:00 12:43 VL-16S 14:15 3:00 17:15
['k SS VL-06 5:01 3:00 8:01
.d VL-08 8:28 3:00 11:28 S6 VL-10 9:45 3:00 12:45 VL-11 10:05 3:00 13:05 VL-14 2:54 3:00 5:54 l' .
l \
l
- Based on data collected through 4/25/88
. rm, l i
'*# 2-34 I
j L - ____ ___ _
7 .. , -
4 s:
a i l TABL E . 2-3 j p 1 ,
l SIREN OPERABILITY f$
A./ j Percent' Availability on BI-WEEKLY Patrol ; f
' Simple' Averaging for Preceding 12 Months Sirens Fou'nd To Be ,
Inoperable:on FM Tot al Number Percent !?. Month. Inspection or Removed Number : Sirens Sirens- -Average From Service. (Notes)
'Date. - l Sirens Available'l Available l Availability '1 2 -3 4 5-
'1
- 04/10/87 147 146 99.3% 97.1% HF1 04/24/87- 147 145- 98.6%- 97.2% SA3 'NP3 l
- 05/08/87' ,147 144 98.0% 97.2% AM7- NB6 HF4 97.3%
l 05/22/87 147 1 98.6% SB4 ~ P3
. 06/05/87 147 ~ 14 o 99.3% 97.4% BR2
. 06/19/87. -147 146 99.3% 97.5% P6'
- 07/03/87- :147 145 98.6% 97.5% RY7 .KE6-
,147- 97.6% EX5 d
'07/17/874 145 98.6% BR2 D_ -
- 07/31/87 147 144 98.0%. 97.6%' HH7 NP2 P2 08/14/87- 147 145 98.6% 97.6% W3 HA8 ,
08/28/87 147 146 99.3% 97.7% W3 09/11/87- 147 147- 100.0% 97.8%
09/25/87 ~ 141 141 100.0% 97.9% (1) y.- 10/09/87 141~ 140 99.3% .98.1% EX4 10/23/87 141 141 100.0% 98.3%
(2)
, b , .
11/06/87~
11/20/87, 140 140 139 138 99.3%
98.6%
98.4%
98.6%
P2 P5- B1
.12/04/87 140 140. 100.0% '98.9%
12/18/87 140 139_ 99.3% 99.1% SA1 ST4 01/01/88- 140 140 100.0% 99.1%
01/15/88 94 94 100.0% 99.2% (3)
- 01/29/88 94 94 100.0% 99.2%
-02/12/88 94 94 100.0%- 99.3%
02/26/88 94 94 100.0% 99.2%
03/11/88 94 94 100.0% 99.2%
94 94 100.0% 99.2%
' 03/25/88 04/08/88 94 94 100.0% 99.2%
NOTES:
(1) 6 Newburyport sirens removed (litigation)
(2) 1 Salisbury siren removed (litigation)
-(3) Remaining MA sirens removed (litigation) j.' .
2-35 L
l -.
L= -__--. _-
3; y.1 - ;;= 2------- _ _ . . . . _ . . .
3:
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED . .
7 SEE APERTURE CARDS 1 NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTdRE CARDS s-l' APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORDS AND REPORTS MANAGEMENT BRANCH 4
i
l
~
List of Raferences
__ [1]. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Section 50.47.
/ l-q,,/
[2] Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Section 350.
y:
l'
[3] " Criteria for the Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency. Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants"; NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1; Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission / Federal Emergency Management Agency; j Washington, DC; November, 1980. '
[4] . "Means for Providing Prompt Alerting and Notification of Re-sponse Organizations and the Population"; Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654 (see Reference [3]).
[5] " Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems for Nuclear Power. Plants"; FEMA-REP-10/ November, 1985; Federal Emergency Management Agency; Washington, DC; November, 1985.
r l
[6] " FEMA' Action to qualify Alert and Notification Systems Against NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 and FEMA-REP-10"; Guidance Memorandum AN-1; Federal Emergency Management Agency; Washington, DC; Apr il 21,1987.
J,,\
_/ [7] " Evacuation and Population Input for CRACIT Consequence Modeling within. the Seabrook Station EPZ"; HMM Document No. 81-336-3; Yankee Atomic Electric Company; Framingham, Massachusetts; February, 1983.
l 1
i (s-)
l
____m___ _
' - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - -
i -
- -~
s3. - 3, . ..
/..p', ,
i ,-
' O; f !',
7 5 3.fce-. ; u .. , ;;.
n ,
- .b; s , , I' 5 [
es -
I
_ h&dll mlf h(.h..-hbf)b: , .. . ,
l% ) " ', - , l pa: J: ,
o-
'r.,;
'It t .(, -
, e.
.' 4 s, .i
- iit. , s
,i:
q-g p;,
,/,,-
- n. >u . . .
- SEABROOK. STATION.PUBLIC ALERT Y '
'AND. NOTIFICATION SYSTEM 1;
7 o ,
~ FEMA-REP-l'0 DESIGN REPORT v.
. ' Appendix A I' SIREN ShSTEM COMPONENT. PHOTOGRAPHS P
t \
t ,
i(
6, m
i Whelen WS-3000. Siren Close-Up Whelen' WS-3000 Siren Typical' Insta11ation -
VANS with Dual Whe$en WS-4000 Siren System Stowed .
VANS with Dual Whelen WS-4000 Siren System Raised
-Dual Whelen.WS-4000. Siren System Close-Up Whelen WS-4000 Brochure
' ~
q 1
E.
(l \
i l
O l i '.
1 l
r,_. --
~~ r c.
w -
_. _ f c._
p e
0
[
O FIGURE A-1: Whelen WS-3000 Siren Close-Up
b O
~
wf.
,1 v
h 1
- L w
I i
)
W i
O
=
i>
i s
4 r;t 5
_us 6e
- ygggg
^
e*~
.e4 v .ew<
.m.r
,..n..e o -
~ ~ _ .m . ;
FIGURE A-2: Whelen WS-3000 Siren Typical Installation
- llll) il' l -
ll;.I I
sx ._,l~ y s, L_o %
o o ,.
js 73 nQ:~.b n [._ .
2
. .pL
- w. , .
a.
i w
T i
=. d 6 .
e
~
g +, t w
o x^ S
.A, : a .
m e
w- a t
s e S y
. 5 n
e g
5 r
i
- S g N 0
0
,g
!! 0 4
I S
f1s t W
n aT s .
e D
l L. h e
i .,,
4 W
t
- l a
, u
- D u
ht
- l [ .
i w
X S
. ,"(c
~
Q - a N
A
' c'* K ,/ ~ J't ]
a
~m l 4 V
3
. f A
~
E N %. R 3_
. U G
(N .. I
_Ve ~', .. '
F
- ~ g' .
1-c
& 4t ,
- 7. {% 9~ u% j "'
q,$ T' gV ;-%)g r M1- " j ~
O.
, [
f.- .
e.
\ l l \
0 s K.$ ,
s:
t i$
p
- o. 4 9-i i & 5 lirr.m .
s u L
'a w.-,,
Y .;;
- q
~ . .=::.-. ,l' 3, 5
, ,g 3_. .
w
- a. __;._ _ - u .-
\
R ' ' ' .~ ' . , _ ;l
- s. ..
. s .7 " fd ij_l 'l+ -l. ,- _' ,-- -
. .y e
..: /
, q h [O d,/ g ,
5 f
v5 s
=,o.
e e - we r' '*
~ , .it*tMd 9 -
.- a .-
gu;.,
iirl .
O nouae A-e as ** " ' *"*'*" **"000 Siren System Raised
- G
\
'N e '
~
?"
\
w-p GM
\
f ept O /
t
\
O e## . Od
$S-# #*"SN G\0@e
\
l i
PIONEERS IN WARNING $1GNALS ok MODEL WS-4000... WHELE!M ENGINEERING COMPANY more powerat130 dBc!!! mus!NE-CLARITY: The WS-4000 is designed for
/y long , throw acoustic projection with an em-phasis on tone and voice clarity.
J /,
1 POWER: The WS 4000 produces 130 dBc N (+/ 1 dBc) at 100 feet on axis, in a free field
( condition when measured using a siren warning frequency not exceeding 550 Hz.
PROJECTION: The WS-4000 utilizes 8 b 3 high powered speaker drivers, with each y driver coupled to a dedicated high-gain -
([- radial horn. All 8 high-gain radial horns m enter a single projector, producing a column
- of sound that carries to the far field without (i' exposing persons in the near field to
' dangerous, high levels of sound.
( #
(i' ' RUGGED: The WS-4000 oscillates throughout 360* using a heavy duty cast aluminum rotor with a fixed gear train.
( eliminating the possibility of "weathervan-y ing.
k CCLJ -
, POSITIVE DIRECTION CONTROL: The WS-4000 is capable of being commanded
- * '%*p by radio control to specifically point North, South, East or West, and the 45' midpoints s= h} between the main compass points, for issu-
. . . . Ing public address messages.
J V ACOUSTICAL PROJECTION: vertical:
19.5*, horizontal: 50*.
WS 4000 SPECIFICATIONS UNIT HBGHT Onches/cm) w1DTH(Inches /cm) oEPTH Onches/cm) WElGHT Obs'kg)(1)
WS 4000 86.0/2* B.5 31.0/78.8 56.0/142.3 375.0/171.1 POLE. TOP MOUNTING BRACKET 30.5/77.5 12.0/30.5 13.5/34.3 70.0/31.8 Ws slREN CASE ASSEMBLY (2) 44.0/111.8 30.0/76.2 13.5/34.3 275.0/124 8 NcTE:(1) 4 4' 4'sNocang penet ados 50 0 ts (22.3C). (2) Hegm anc wegm merde mourmng erannet CW%en Ezreeneg Company Form No $KP CHP, dox 1 A. FIGURE A-6 Whelen WS-4000 Brochure
- j U. .. t A>
s , j p; Ne ,
,m , ', .g
\
, w i
- c.
l;
.?
.j
-SEABROOK STATION PUBLIC ALERT.
, 'AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM i.
-FEMA-REP-10 DESIGN REPORT Appendix B ' . ACOUSTIC INFORMATION
- Wyle Research Tes't Report 88-9(R). Acoustic Evaluation of a Whelen Triple'WS 3000 and a Prototype WS 4000 Siren Wyle Research Test Report 88-4,L Acoustic Evaluation of
.a Whelen WS 4000 Siren Wyle Research Report WR'88-9, Siren Ranging Model Wyle'Research Report WR 88-6(R),' Acoustic Evaluation of an Airborne Alerting System
[
G m.
I s
l
. WYLE RESEARCH . I TEST REPORT SS-9(R)
ACOUSTIC EVALUATION OF A THELEN TRIPLE WS 3000 AND A PROTOTYPE WS 4000 SIREN t
f)
(./ Prepared for:
NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE Division of Public Service of New Hampshire Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 (Under Purchase Order No. 38619-01) s Prepared by:
WYLE RESEARCH El Segundo, California 90245 (3/N 39305-16) l APRIL 1988 1:
v m.... z..
(.
j:
i- 1
/ '{
\
/'
Introduction-
- On March.15 and _16,1988 tests were conducted on two different siren configurations, namely; o An array of three WS 3000 sirens, o' An early prototype of the WS 4000 siren.
These tests established several different parameters for the Whelen sirens: the' additive effects of multiple sirens was further- confirmed, and the promise of a much higher-powered siren was seen. Acoustic measurements were made at a
- close-in position, 100 f t on-axis, and at two remote locations, 4,100 f t and 10,000 f t, as illustrated in Figure 1. All measurements were made in accordance with Seabrook Station procedures using instrumentation which meets the require.
- ments of ANSI S1.4-1983 for Type I sound level meters.
~
Test Conditions
- 73. Tests on the two siren configurations were performed in sequences the triple O configuration was tested on March 15th, while tests on the prototype siren were done on the 16th. Each of the assemblies was mounted on a single rotator which was attached to a' skid on a scissor lift. The scissor lif t was placed at the edge of a' flat hard-packed dirt parking lot with the siren at an elevation of approximately 36 ft. Controls and power for the siren were contained in a truck adjacent to the scissor lif t.
Measurements were made at a close-in location 100 f t on-axis, and at two remote locations 4,100 f t and 10,000 ft distant. Data at each location were recorded on tape and were also measured in real time during each test.- Tests were performed to determine the on-axis elevation at the 100 f t position. For these tests, the siren was pointed to the lef t or right of the line between the siren and the microphone position and then rotated approximately 45 degrees past the microphone, at a rate of about 15 degrees per second, while broadcasting the ]
l desired signal. Thus, the maximum level at that elevation was obtained.
For the close-in measurements a bucket truck was parked at a position north of the siren at a point 100 f t distant on the siren ar', . The microphone at this position was attached to a pole placing it 5 f t from the bucket to avoid acoustic V reflections. j M
LA80RATOA45 1 ,
j
7w: ~.
k ,
Y, ,
.e
'I-Wp s.,
yy_
. At the remote' locations '(at distances of 4',100 and 10,000 f t respectively, mostly over '. flat land. and water), data were recorded on : tape and were also-measured with a Type l' sound level meter. These data were later analyzed to obtain the results presented in'the following section..
hl , "
Test Results b,
Table' l contains the data. derived from the tests performed on the . triple-N 4
csiren configuration.' Tests A through E were performed 'using a low level drive
- signal to verify the similarity of the three sirens in this array. The remaining runs ,
n > 'were made at full power'.to determine the siren rating at 100 f t on-axis. These.
w '
tests verified the capability of the individual WS 3000, and confirmed the differ-ence between one siren and two sirens to be between 4 and 5 dB. The on-axis sound -
, level rating for the WS 3000 in single or multiple arrays would thus be Sound Level Rating -
~
Configuration Frea (Hz) @ 100 ft On-Axis in dB(C) !-
Single WS 3000 550 122
, 680 123 Dual WS 3000 550~ 126 4 Triple WS 3000 - 550 128 A single unit prototype of the WS 4000 siren was tested on March 16,1988. Data from these tests are contained in Table 2. These data were primarily of interest to determine the feasibility of developing a much higher-powered electronic siren.
The data obtained indicated a high probability that the WS 4000, in either a single or dual configuration, would be a desirable alternative for the Seabrook siren alerting system.
a Table _3 presents a summary of the weather data recorded at the Seabrook Station meteorological tower during the 2-day period of the tests when measure-ments were made at both the close-in and remote locations. The wind direction on i
March 15th - from the southeast at approximately 130 degrees - created a crosswind condition relative to the siren propagation direction, which was along a true heading of about 45 degrees. This crosswind sound propagation condition was not expected to significantly affect the sound levels measured at the 4,100 f t and 10,000 f t measurement points. On March 16 the wind was mostly from a direction p
WYlf LAsomatomEs I
2
y }
f I
. -ug jv)c of about 310 degrees, creating a slight upwind condition which should reduce the extended range measured values. Tables 4 and 5 present the data derived from tests where extended range measurements were made. For each of the frequencies 'I used in the test, the C-weighted level at 100 f t on-axis is shown. The last column i shows the average difference between measured and predicted levels based on the use of Wyle's standard siren propagation model. The differences between measured '
and predicted values are due to various atmospheric conditions along the propaga-tion path that cannot be accounted for in a practical siren ranging design model.
. For example, at the .10,000 ft distance, allowing for the difference in source levels, the average sound levels from .the March 15 tests are about 17 dB greater than the sound levels from the March 16 tests - both conducted over the same path. As indicated earlier, upwind sound propagation will cause a higher propagation loss and hence lower sound levels, especially at the extreme distances. These data illustrate some of the inherent variation in siren sound levels at long distances.
Measurements were also made at 4 f t above ground under the siren axis near .
the prototype WS 4000 siren. These measurements, made to determine whether the j level exceeded the limit of 123dB(C) established by FEMA, are illustrated in Table 6. This limit was not exceeded over a distance of 60 f t to 300 ft from the siren pole. For the dual unit configuration of the WS 4000 siren, these levels would be 4 to 3 dB higher, and therefore the 123 dB(C) limit would very likely be reached on the ground at distances from about 150 to 250 f t from the siren, i
\
M Lamonnones l
1 3 )
i
- tb 1; I .I
- L.
- 1 )'4 -
D e v Table 1 Triple Whelen March 15,1988 C-Weighted Sound Levels (dB)
Test Run Time . Description - 100'- 4100' 10,000'
.A- '1 1344 500 Hz, Low Level, Unit R 105.0 2 1345 550 Hz, 106 600 Hz, " "
3 .1346 104 B 1 1347 500 Hz, Low Level, Unit C 104 ~
1348 550 Hz, 104 2
3 1349 600 Hz, 102.5 C 1 1350 500 Hz, Low Level, Unit L 104.5 2 1351 550 Hz, 105.5 3 1353 600 Hz, 103.5 D. 1 1353 500 Hz, Low Level, Units R,C 108 2 1354 550 Hz, 109.5
- 3 1355 600 Hz, " "
A8.5 E 1 1357 500 Hz, "
112.5
-//] 2 1358- 550 Hz, ." 112
-. V 3 1359 600 Hz, 110.5 F 1 1415- 680 Hz, Full Level, Unit R- 122.5 83.6 57.3 2 1417 680 Hz, Full Level, Unit C 122 84.0 62.8 2A 1418 680 Hz, " "
122 91.5 56.2 3 1420 680 Hz, Full Level, Unit L 122 84.5 62.1
< IA 1422 680 Hz, Full Level, Unit R 123 87.4 57.4 C 1 1431 500 Hz, Full Level, Units R,C,L 128 93.1 66.6 1A 1432 500 Hz, " " 128 93.6 74.0 2 1436 550 Hz, " " 128.5 93.1 74.9 3 1440 550 Hz, " "
128 90.5 70.3 4 1444 600 Hz, " "
127 92.7 74.2 H I 1444 500 Hz, Full Level, Unit R 121 89.5 63.6 2 1445 550 Hz, " "
122 78.6 69.9 3 1446 550 Hz, " "
122.5 87.7 65.5 4 1448 600 Hz, " " 121 86.5 62.4 1 1 1452 500 Hz, Full Level, Units R,C 125.5 88 66.4 2 1453 350 Hz, " "
126 91.5 66.3 3 1455 550 Hz, " " 126 94 66.3 4 1457 600 Hz, " "
125.5 93.5 62.5 vms LA80RatosWIS 4
y
lt.
0%
' (,/. ' f Table 2 ~
Whelen Prototype Siren Test Data March 15 and 16,1988
- C-Welshted Sound Levels (dB)
- Test Run Time Description Close-in 4100' 10.000' 3/15/88 A 1 1445 Frequency Scan -
'3/16/88.
B 4 .1450 450 Hz, Low Level 112 5- 1451 500 Hz, 115 550 Hz, - "
6- 1452 114.5 600 Hz, "
7 1453 115 8 1454' 650 Hz, 113 9 1455 700 Hz, 112 C '1 1500 35', 550 Hz, Low Level 115 30', 550 Hz, "
f 2 .1502 115 25', ,550 Hz, "
3 1504 114 -
40', 350 Hz, "
4 1505 113
/ D 1 1507 30', 680 Hz, Full Level 127.5 81 -
f
's E 4' 1510 30', 700 Hz, Full Level 126.5 82 59 L 3 1512 30', 600 Hz, Full Level 126.5 , 87 -
30', 500 Hz, "
2 1513 127 85 67 400 Hz, "
1 1515 30', 124 85 -
F ! 1524 30', 450 Hz, 125 85 65 30', 550 Hz, "
2 1525 126.5 84 67 30', 650 Hz, "
3 1526 127.5 90 63 G 30', 700 Hz, "
1 1530 - 88 60 H, 1 1535 Dual Tone Sweep 126.5 (84) -
O wm LaeOfLAf0ft48 5
i e !
[< ,
)
' . 7"m, ,_
1 1 Q
Table 3 Whelen Triple Siren Tests I Weather Data for j March 15,1988 Ambient Wet Bulb Relative Wind @ 47 Wind @ 209' Tempd Tempf Humidity Speed Direction Speed Direction
. Time *F C *F C (%) (mph) (deg.) (mph) (deg.)
.1330 36.2 2.3 26.4 - 3.1 12 6.5 110 5.7 104 1343 36.8 2.7 26.8 - 2.9 15 5.2 103 4.7 110 1400 36.6 2.6 26.6 - 3.0 15 6.3 107 5.4 111 1415- 36.9 2.7 26.8 ' - 2.9 . 15 5.0 125 5.4 132 1430 37.1 '2.8 27.0 - 2.8 15 5.4 151 5.7 146 1445 36.9 2.7 26.8 - 2.9 15 5.9 124 5.3 139 1500 37.0 2.8 26.9 - 2.8 15 6.3 144 5.9 148
'1515 36.8 2.7 26.7 - 2.9 15 6.0 143 5.2 143
/"N U Weather Data for March 16,1988 Ambient Wet Bulb Relative Wind @ 47 Wind @ 209' Tem p*. Tem p*. Humidity Speed Direction Speed Direction Time *F C. *F C (%) (mph) (deg.) (mph) (deg.)
1430 42.1 5.6 .33.7 0.9 40 8.9 316 11.2 318 1445 42.6 5.9 34.1 1.2 40 7.9 319 9.3 318 1500 42.3 5.7 33.7 0.9 40 11.3 316 14.1 315 1515 42.2 5.7 33.6 0.9 40 10.5 310 12.6 306 1530 43.0 6.1 34.2 1.2 39 8.4 295 11.6 295 1545 43.3 6.3 34.1 1.2 39 11.1 300 14.0 305 1600 43.8 6.6 34.5 1.4 40 11.1 304 13.1 305 f
?
e g . p -
afU ) 3726776381 96500927
~
ri e
f
- B 1 4542602961 923791 1
vD m E (d 222221 221 221 221 1 22 A'
s 3821 46093269544335 a
e 726276440459526662 0' 565656777766666666
)
0 M -
B 0, . . -
d 01 d
( 499990074234928226 s
e r 65556441 0664300995 l
e P 333335535444445444 v
e L
d s n a 6 5541 61 575675 5 5 u
o e 341 4733302987681 43 S 0' M 889889999987888999 .
n 01 e
s i r 4 . ' -
_ l
$ d 944443378508366880 e e v d r 1 1 1 1 2221 0854429887 e t e P 666667777666666666 L -
o h r g e
r i
e i
Se8 W lis d lp9 8 - ex ei 1 C vA e 5 5 5 5 5 4 r r e uT ,
L n- 22223888871 221 5665 l
b s
a01 5
nO e 222222222222222222 a e00h r 0' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
_ T -
M3 cr i S 0 1 dSa AnWM d
t e
ic q)z 0
8 "" "
0 0"
0 5"
000 005" 005" 0 000 0 d ei 6" 5 3 655 653 6 e
r FrG P
L n ,
i o C C t , ,
p i
r RC LR Rs R R s
c t t " iii " " " " it " " " ti " " "
t t t s ii e nn nnn n n D UU UUU U U e 578021 260445682357 m 1 1 1 223334444 4 4 5555 i 444 44 444444444 4444 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T
n u A R A A 2341 234
/ 1 223l 1 l t ///// /////////I 234 1 1 1 t ////
s FFFFFGGGGG1 1 1 f I 1 1 I e
T I2 w
7
nw g
af f ri L- B
. p
) 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 7 5 3 7 2 7 7 8 eD v m (d 1 1 A b .
s a
' e - 9 5
- 7 6
- 5 7 3 6 6 6 0'
0 M
)
B 0, .
(
d 0 1 d s r e - 8 - 3 - 1 1 1 l
e P 5 6 6 6 6 v
e L
d s n a u e 2 7 5 5 5 4 0 o' 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 S 0' M n 01 -
e s .i r 4 .
l S d 4 3 4 3 3 4 5 5 e e 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 v d r e t e P L hg n
n ere i ri e iS W s S 8 l i 08 - ex de01 09 C vA e 5 5 5 5 5 5 r e u 4 .- L n- 7 6 6 7 4 5 6 7 i
sSN a n e 'O 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 b
a eW r0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
~Q h .
<, T Mec pr i
S 0 1 d ya nt AoM t d o erP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t
c q)z 8 0 0 0 3 5 5 5 6 7 6 5 4 5 6 eH i 9 d r .
e F(
r P
n i
o l e
t v p e i
L a
s l l
e u D F e 7 0 2 3 5 4 516 2 2 2 m 0 1 1 1 i 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n
u R 2 3
/t / / / 4 /3 /2 / / /
l l 1 J s e
D E E E E F F F fk T Ei e
o E
v Itt ?
R b,\
. Table 6 -
Ground Level Measurements -
Prototype WS 4000 Siren i1'- Distance C-Weighted 3.c from Siren (f t) Level 0 550 Hz (dB) k 300 109 280 114.? ,
260- 115.8
< 240 118.5 220. 118.5 200 120.2 180- 119.2 160 120.0
, 140 115.4 120 112.5 100 108.5 80- 117.9-p) 60 120.2 I
9 O wvu LasosiATOsuts 9 i
t h
I o
zo l ~7 '
i
% *4+
&O ;y 4 a 1 i
e e
s,.., i. - - FAR 7+ !
v n \t, \
f, e',r .
nnuars LOCA'nON e '
] p \ ,t ' ' \, , ' ' ' \,
f e
A - 8 s/ / t
<t 1 i
u /%% %<. g >
! ./ s .
e !+# y k o>% muuGWIATE manom .,, ,\ s' s. .
,,,,,,, LOCA' DON *g A .
x
%)
e "I '; - \
g, g' l T- sw:~ =- ',- y. !
t M- -
e !
, >0 -
l~.% n 3m&
I o
- \
N
.. 7s nn mu ),, \ s f(. -
A c., ". .~ .'.;
l's A ,\
i n\ t .
%g
%g .'
. \
t #'
Q. W'
- ^ T ' '.-..
\
~
g.
""'" gg#- 9 l * '/
a)
SCALE: IN FEET l *
'k .,
['
TN i l l
%/[4'"a j ~.' ,
- E' 0 1 2 3 4 5.,
LT 0/S'T X 1000 e , \
/
O Figure 1. Measurement Locations for Whelen Triple and Prototype Siren Tests, March 15 and 16,1988. , , , , , , ,
10
p ,
l: :i;
-4
' R TYLE RESEARCH TEST REPORT 88-4 ACOUSTIC EVALUATION
.' ' , OF A THELEN WS 4000 SIREN Prepared for:
,O NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE Division of Public Service of New Hampshire Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 (Under Purchase Order No. 38619-01)
Prepared by:
WYLE RESEARCH El Segundo, California 90245 (3/N 39305-13)
APRIL 1988 I
O '
wm LASORATDmts
c i f
i L
. ,q is )
Introduction A new Whelen prototype electronic siren was tested oi March 25,1988 to determine its acoustic output capabilities. This siret, designated a model WS 4000, consists of two units with eight acoustic drivers on each. The two units can be used individually or mounted side by side as a dual' unit. Acoustic measurements and recordings were made at two close-in locations,100 f t and 230 f t away, and at a remote site 9,000 ft away. All measurements were made using instrumentation which meets the requirements of ANSI S1.4-1983 for Type I sound level meters.
Figure 1 illustrates the area where the tests were conducted and identifies the remote measurement location.
Test Conditions The prototype siren assembly was mounted on a single rotator which was attached to a skid on a scissor lif t. The scissor lif t was placed at the edge of a flat area of hard-packed dirt with the siren at an elevation of _46 f t. Controls and power for the siren were contained in a truck adjacent to the scissor lift.
,q; 5
U Measurements were made at two close-in locations, one at 100 ft ar ' one at 230 ft. Care was taken to position the 100 f t microphone on the s..en axis, whereas it was possible to place the 230 f t microphone at an elevation of only 32 f t, approximately 10 f t below the siren axis. Data at both close-in locations were recorded on tepe and were also measured in real time during each test. The first few tests were performed to determine the on-axis elevation at the 100 f t position. For these tests, the siren was pointed to the lef t or right of the line between the siren and the microphone position and then rotated approximately 45 degrees past the microphone, at a rate of about 15 degrees per second, while broadcasting the desired signal. Thus, ti;e maximum level at each elevation was obtained. These data were then examined to determine the on-axis elevation.
For the close-in measurements, two bucket trucks were parked at positions northeast of the siren to allow the microphones to be positioned at the points 100 f t and 230 f t distant on the siren axis. The microphones at these positions were attached to poles placing them 5 ft from the bucket to avoid acoustic reflections.
I b '
V WYLE LAaOnaf0RES 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - . _ l
m u
i
[ jg E
Q '
At the remote location (a distance of 9,000 f t, mostly over water) data were recorded on tape and were also measured with a Type I sound level meter. These data were later analyzed to obtain the results presented in the following section.' -)
Test Result's - .
Table l lists the tests performed and- the data obtained for each run.
Tests A through F were performed using a low level drive signal to determine the on-axis-elevation and to obtain vertical directivity of the siren. The remaining runs were made at full power to determine the siren rating at 100 ft on-axis.
The WS 4000 siren was designed to have a lower frequency of operation than the standard WS 3000 siren, so measurements were not made at 680 Hz. -Since the primary frequency of interest was 550 Hz, most of the measurements were made at frequencies of 450,550 and 650 Hz. Based upon the results of these measurements, the WS 4000 siren is rated as follows:
Freq. C-Wtd Level Configuration (Hz) at 100 ft on-axis (dBC)
Single Unit - 450 127 O'v 550 129 650 127 Dual Unit 450 132 550 134 650 132 Table 2 presents a summary of the weather data recorded at the Seabrook Station meteorological tower during the time of the full level tests where measurements were made at the close-in and remote locations. The wind direction - from the northeast at approximately 50 degrees - created an upwind condition relative to the siren propagation direction, which was along a true compass heading of aboJt 45 degrees. This upwind sound propagation condition should increase the sound propagation loss at the 9,000 f t measurement point.
Table 3 presents the data derived from tests H and I where the single and dual siren configuration are compared. For each of the three frequencies used in the test, the C-weighted levels at 100 f t on axis are shown. The final three columns show the predicted levels, measured levels, and the difference between the two for the 9,000 f t remote location, based on the use of Wyle's standard siren propagation model. The differences between measured and predicted values are mm LA80RA70 RIES 2
u_________ -_
b --
..:p due to atmospheric conditions in the propagation path. As indicated earlier, upwind. sound propagation will cause a higher propagation loss and hence lower sound levels -'especially at this extreme distance. ' These data illustrate some of the inherent deviation in siren sound levels at long distr.nces.
Measurements were also made at 4 f t above ground under the siren axis near the siren. Thoe measurements, made to determine if the level exceeded the limit of 123 dB(C) established by FEMA, are illustrated in Table 4. This limit was reached or exceeded over a distance of more than 40 ft in the area of approxi-mately 160 f t from the stren pole. For the single unit configuration of the WS 4000 -
siren, these levels would be 4 to 5 dB lower, and therefore the 123 dB(C) limit would not be reached.
O WYLE LatoRAYDasts 3
l 9 -
q? \
\
i N' 8+
s e"
.- JJ 0 t
'. (
- . +s D '{ ..r'
, g -
\, @ -
g '/. 1
\
.'g ',/. .
@ / .j
\* REMUIZ A
s # ( LOCN!10N
&/
A
/p % ,....'. .
t, L, .-
g . . t
=v *
%g f g/ /t\ I s
/
l%
l'
- )h ' \ ~ ~
c+ $ '
= y;,s s...
s
% 's..
N , N-it s 'W ::
u
/] --
xO".I ~
.s ,1 y:
\ , $. e s , 'g :. , /
i, e ___ L X'- - , 8 F ,
- o o- t ,
s ,
o k cLosNN I N/ o toernon. I==' s >
/s\ l %
% 85- \
N' \ g
'g s\
l g ; .n. .;'gAl
[k + d
- A
. r :.;;;/
. .../ ..
,, , _ k '.' . SCALE: IN FEET e . l 5 *--
a unumpy 8s I I 2 7( /
i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 "
. .' - 3 X1000 ;2 gy E
, agyp ~~. .
.. ne. .
~' '
y \ '~ '. .
)\
I Figure 1. Test Area for the Whelen WS 4000 Siren Measurements j l
4 MLASORATDRES
t 7 ,
i
, y .
Table 1
, Whelen WS 4000 Siren Test Data March 25,1988 C-Ttd Levels, dB Close-In Remote Test Run Time Description 100' 230' 9000' A 1312 Determine Axis B: 1 1317 Both Units, Low Level,43 f t, 400 Hz- 102.5 2 1318 450 Hz 103.0 3 1319 500 Hz 105.5 4 1320 350 Hz 105.5 5 1321 600 Hz 104.5 6 1322 650 Hz 105.5 7 1322 700 Hz 105.5 D 1 1326 Unit L, Low Level,43 ft, 400 Hz 104.5 2 1327 450 Hz 106.5 3 1328 500 Hz 110.0 4- 1329 350 Hz 110.5 5 1330 600 Hz 110.5 Not 6 1331 650 Hz 110.5 Measured 7 1322 700 Hz 110.5 g] F 1 1340 Unit R, Low Level,550 Hz, 46 f t 109.0 .
(y/ 2 1340 44 ft .109.5 3 1341 42 f t 110.0 4 1341 40ft 109.5 5 1342 39 f t 110.5 6 1342 38 f t 110.5 7 1343 37 f t 109.5 8 1344 35 f t 110.5 9 1345 " "
33 ft 110.5 10 1347 31 f t 110.5 11 1348 29 f t 110.0 G 1 1420 Unit L, Full Level,43 ft, 450 Hz 125.0 116.5 61 2 " " "
550 Hz 126.5 116.0 '9 3 650 Hz 127.0 117.5 59 ;
i Unit R, Full Level,43 ft,
~
H 1 1425 450 Hz 124.0 116.0 -
2 550 Hz 124.5 116.5 --
3 "
650 Hz 125.0 117.0 -
H 1* 1435 450 Hz 125.5 118.0 62 2* 550 Hz 124.5 118.5 54 3* 650 Hz 126.5 120.5 56 H l' 450 Hz 127.0 118.5 61 2* 550 Hz 127.5 119.0 64 3' " " "
650 Hz 126.5 118.0 62 wm LAa0 RAT 0tWE8 ,
1
. T Table 1 (Continued)
C-Wtd Levels, dB Close-In Remote Test - Run Time Description M 230' 9000' 1- 1 Both Units, Full Level,43 f t, ' 400 Hz 130.0 120.0 66 I' " " "
2 450 Hz 132.0 123.5 64 a " "
3 500 Hz 134.5 124.0 63
" " a 4 550 Hz 133.5 121.5 70 4* " " "
350 Hz .134.0 122.0 66 5 600 Hz 133.5 123.0 61 6 650 Hz 132.5 125.0 62 7 700 Hz 132.5 123.0 64 S 1 Both Units, Full Level,43 f t, 500 Hz** 130.0 124.5 69 2 550 Hz** 132.5 121.5 60 3 600 Hz** 133.5 124.0 60 On-Axis 1 Unit R Full Level,In Bucket, 550 Hz 129.3 Max 2 Both Units, Full Level,In Bucket, 550 Hz 135.0 max .
4 A
' Repeat Dual Frequency 4
vmm LAAOAAf0AaE5 6
l l
.; , u
.t Table 2 Weather Data for WS 4000 Siren Tests Mr.rch 25,1988 Ambient Wet Bulb Relative . Wind @ 43' Wind @ 209' Tempd Temp *. Humidity Speed . Direction Speed Direction Time *F- C *F C (%) (rnph) (deg.) (mph) (deg.)
1300 39.2 4.0 38.4 3.6 98- 11.9 48 14.4 47
'~
1315 39.1 3.9 38.3 3.5 98 12.1 51 13.9 48 1330 .39.2 4.0 38.3 3.5 98 10.6 51 11.2 52 1345 39.5 4.2 38.6- 3.7 98 11.3 50 12.9 51-1400 39.7 4.3 38.9 3.8 98 10.3 49 12.3 49 1415 39.9 4.4 39.1 3.9 99 12.2 51 12.1 53 1430 39.8 4.3 39.0 3.9 99 13.5 52- 11.6 56 1445 39.9 4.4 39.1 3.9 99 11.6 54 9.4 59 1550 40.0 4.4 39.2 4.0 99 11.9 57 9.4 60 1515 39.9 4.4 39.1 3.9 99 12.0 51 11.4 54 1530 40.0 4.4 39.2 4.0 99 11.3 53 10.8 54 1545 39.9 4.4 39.0 3.9 99 11.6 53 9.9 56 1600 40.0 4.4 39.1 3.9 98 11.2 53 9.0 59 i
l 1
O .
,ma, 1
1 7
1
~
{,.
, {
i( -
p v:
v t Table 3 Predicted and Measured Siren Levels Single and Dual WS 4000 Siren March 25,1988 i <
C-Weighted Siren Sound Levels,dB Diff.@
Freq. Siren Level 230' 9000' 9000' Test /Run Desaiption (Hz) 100'on Axis Pred. Meas. Pred. Meas. L ,-L p H/l Single Unit 450 127.0 110 119 61 61 0 H/2 Single Unit 550 127.5 110 119 61 64 3 H/3 Single Unit 650 12(.5 109 118 59 62 3 I/2 Dual Unit 450 132.0 115 124 66 64 -2 I/4 Dual Unit 530 133.5 115 122 67 70 3 -
I/6 Dua! Unit 650 132.5 115 125 65 62 -3 AVG = +0.7 dB -
l i
i l
i
..O- was LASOfLATDfMES 8
g t'
'A.
u Table 4 -
Ground Level Measurements (4 f t above ground under siren axis)
WS 4000 Siren (Dual)
' Distance from C-Ttd Sound Level, dB Siren (ft) (550 Hz Tone) 260 112 240 113 220 114 200 120 180 123 160 123 Level 2123 dB 140 124
~
..r 120 120 ,
100 120 80 121 60 117 40 118 i
?
O wm LASORATQ0HE.8 9
l
-___- - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . i
O
)
I l
i
~
WYLE RESEARCH REPORT WR 88-9
=
SIREN RANGING MODEL ,
1 O V l n
WYLE RESEARCH C 7 l
- -=
1 O ,
)
-== I O-WYLE n="""
L ABOR ATOR IE S O* t-"
.j
l h m.
.come== ..m .. -
~
l l.'
i.
I
_I WYLE RESEARCH REPORT WR 88 *,
SIREN RANGING . MODEL o V Prepared For:
PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE U.S. Route 1, Lafayette Road Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874
]
Purchase Order No. 38619-05 -
1 Prepared By:
WYLE RESEARCH 2001 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, Virginia 22202 g April 1988 O
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
- i y- '
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 . IN TR O D U CTIO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .' . . . .I 2.0 MATHEMATICAL MODELS ' . . . . . . .... ... . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1- Spherical Spreading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Air A bsor ption . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3 Scattering Attenuation ..................... 4 2.4 Excess Ground Attenuation .......-............ 4 2.4.1 Rural / Suburban Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 6.
2.4.2 Ur ban A re as . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4.3 ' Heavily Forested Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 8 2.4.4 W ate r A reas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.5 Barrier Attenuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.6 Attenuation Due to Temperature and Wind Gradients . . . . . . . .- 12 h;)m 3.0 COMPUTER IMPLEMENTATION .................... 15 4.0 . INPUT PAR AMETERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1 Siren Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.2 Meteorological Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.0 VALID ATION OF MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 R EFE R EN C ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R1 3
O wm LAa0Raf0 mas l- i
L.t
' %/-
LIST OF FIGURES Fig..
Page 2-1 Estimated Excess Attenuation Due to Scattering Near Earth's Surface . . . 5 2-2 Empirical Estimates of Excess (Ground) Attenuation in Rural / Suburban Areas (Source Above Roof tops) and the Additional Excess Attenuation Due to Shielding in Urban /High Rise Areas (Source Below Roof tops) . . . . 7 2-3 Excess (Ground) Attenuation in Heavily Forested Areas . . . . . . . . . . 9
. 2-4 ' Barrier Attenuation as a Function of Fresnel Number . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2-5 Effects of Temperature and Wind Gradients on Sound Propagation . . . . . 13 3-1 Comparison of Siren Sound Level Contours With and Without the Eff ects of Barrier Attenuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4-1 Effect of Wind on Sound Level Contour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5-1 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Siren Sound Levels for Indian Point Data .......................... 24
" - 5-2 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Siren Sound Levels for Seabrook Data ........................... 25
(
I LIST & TABLES !
Table N o.
4-1 Acoustic Output of Sirens Used in Seabrook System . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4-2 Average Seasonal Values of Relative Humidity and Temperature !
in Seabrook Area .......................... 20 k-
!! tasonatonies
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ ]
f t,-
\'
- yl .
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report describes the computerized siren ranging model which has been developed by Wyle Laboratories for use in designing public alert and notification systems for nuclear power plants.
The model is capable of taking into account acoustic energy losses due to spherical spreading of the wavefront, air absorption, scattering by turbulence, excess ground attenuation, barrier attenuation, and wind and temperature effects. In order to account for barrier attenuation, the model relles on digital ground elevation data obtained from the National Cartographic Information Center of the United States Department of the Interior.
This data is processed on a mainframe computer system to provide estimates of siren sound level as a function of distance along a sequence of equally spaced radials -
originating at each siren. The resultant sound levels are transferred to a microcomputer on which 60 and 70 dB contours are computed, scaled, and plotted. The plots for each siren in the system are then transferred to a base map.
The model is exercised in an iterative f ashion with the location, height, power level, and frequency of each siren being continually adjusted until acceptable coverage is obtained in all portions of the Emergency Planning Zone.
As will be seen in the discussion to follow, the design of the model and the choice of values for input parameters are such that the siren sound levels are generally under-predicted. This was done by conscious decision since some of the algorithms used in the model are, of ne.cessity, engineering approximations. By using reasonable conservatism in the choice of algorithms and input parameters, a buffer is automatically built into the model to correct for any adverse effects of such approximations. ;
1 This report consists of five sections. Section 1, this Introduction, summarizes the report, Section 2 describes the mathematical algorithms used to model the various i
mechanisms by which sound level decreases with distance from the siren. Section 3 outlines the computer implementation of these algorithms. Section 4 describes the choice I
of input parameters for the Seabrook system. Section 5 presents a validation of the model based on siren sound level measurements made at Seabrook and other nuclear power plants, v
t p / r.
7
[ ,.
- f. 2 f,
& 1 Lkf 2.0 MATHEMATICAL MODELS This section describes the series of mathematical models which have been developed to predict the attenuation that occurs as sound propagates from a siren to a receiver..
. The sound level, L(R), at a distance R from the siren can be expressed as:
(2-1)
. I (R) = L, + Aspread + Aabs + Ascatt + Agrnd + Abarr + Atemp + Awind s
where L, is the source sound pressure level on the siren's axis at a predefined reference distance of 100 feet, A is the attenuation that occurs due to the spherical spreading of spread the sound, A abs- is the attenuation that occurs due to absorption of acoustic energy by the air, A is the attenuation that occurs due to scattering of acoustic energy out scatt of the directional beam of a rotating siren by atmospheric turbulence,
.m is the attenuation that occurs due to absorption of acoustic energy at A
grnd the ground ~ surface as the sound wave propagates in a nearly hori-zontal path, A
bm is the attenuation that occurs as a result of the reflection and diffraction of acoustic energy by barriers formed by hills between the source and receiver, A is the attenuation (or amplification) that occurs as a result of temp refraction by the temperature gradient that exists near the surface of the ground, and A wind is the attenuation (or amplification) that occurs as a result of refraction by the wind speed gradient that exists near the surface of the ground with a wind present.
in general, each of the attenuation terms is a negative number so that the siren sound level diminishes as the distance from the siren increases. In certain cases, however, some of the attenuation terms can have positive values, indicating sound amplification.
O O WYLE !
2 i
1
- ___ __ ._ _ _ _ _ _ ]
}
i LJ The following sections briefly describe the models that were used to estimate the value of each of the attenuation terms in Equation (2-1).
2.1 Spherical Spreadinst At any given distance, R, from a point sound source close to the ground, the total acoustic power output of the source is spread over a hemispherical surface having an area proportional to R 2. Thus the sound energy per unit area reaching the receiver decreases with distance at a rate proportional to 1/R2. This so-called spherical spreading effect causes an attenuation between one distance R, and a second distance R of:
2 A
spread
= -10 log 10 (R /Rh (2-2)
It is this effect that produces the well-known 6 dB per doubling of distance attenuation as one travels away from a point source.
. 2.2 Air Absorption in a still,' uniform atmosphere, sound waves lose energy as they pass through the air (n)~
~
due to minute heating and viscous effects (classical losses) and due to molecular energy e'xchange processes (molecular losses) which are influenced by the amount of moisture in the air. An ANSI standard,I well supported by experimental data,2 is available which makes predictions of this form of sound attenuation relatively straightforward. The loss is defined in terms of a frequency- and weather-dependent atmospheric absorption coefficient in dB per 1,000 feet. The model requires that temperature, relative humidity, and atmospheric pressure be defined.I (Atmospheric pressure has only a minor effect on atmospheric absorption, and a standard sea level atmospheric pressure is generally assumed without any loss in accuracy.)
For example, based on the extreme of the seasonal average values of the temperature and relative humidity for the Seabrook area, as discussed in Section 4.2, below, a 0.99 dB/1,000 ft air absorption coefficient results for a single-tone siren frequency of 550 Hz.
l A J V
3 W.- Y.L E.
n A
2.3 Scatterinst Attenuation Scattering of sound waves occurs in turbulent air and can result in an additional propagation loss for a very directional source such as a rotating siren.3 Measurements of scattering attenuation in horizontal propagation are severely limited. The available data have been obtained under uncontrolled experimental conditions making it difficult to separate out any scattering attenuation' from other effects.3 Furthermore, no evaluation of the effects of directivity of the source appears to have been considered. There is, however, one unique set of data which has provided direct and rather convincing evidence of scattering attenuation of low-frequency sound over a long horizontal path."
The data were obtained from measurements made over a path length of 50,000 feet of the directional sound field radiated by two nominally identical rocket test stands located back to back with the exhaust and resultant directional sound fields from each stand oriented 180 degrees apart. The propagation. soss over the same path from the two separate rocket engine sound sources, fired one right af ter the other, was not the same for the two tests. The difference in propagation loss was an apparent additional excess attenuation for the source whose primary directional sound field was oriented along the measurement path. This phenomena could only be explained as scattering attenuation,
{
and an analysis of the data produced the estimates of scattering loss coefficients as a function of frequency shown in Figure 2-1 by the circle data points. Estimates of scattering attenuation .are also plotted for comparison and show at least an order of 3
magnitude agreement with the indicated data points '3 For example, for a 550 Hz tone, an additional propagation loss of 0.20 dB/1,000 f t must be included for directional sirens to account for scattering attenuation of the directional beam.
2.4 Excess Ground Attenuation When sound waves travel from a source to a receiver over a ground surface, two different ray paths are possible - the first directly from the source to the receiver, the second by reflection from the ground surface. These two waves interact to produce either I
attenuation or amplification. The exact nature of the interaction is a complex function of the source and receiver heights, the source-to-receiver distance, and the impedance properties of the ground surf ace.
Ov W-- Y L E.
O__ - _
7
..r ,
p .l l -: ,
.; 10 , i i ,,,i i i i ig i i i
]
i i
l , .'. .. '1
,
- Delany Estimate 6
. O Brown &'Clifford .
j 1.0 Estimate 3 '-
l
_ ~ q 8
1
.b m -
o c -
o
-- U 1 V,
- c / .
~ ~ ~J* % ,g E
.g
/ ' s-U fo
,/ . ..
,! 0.1 -
f -.
- ' ~
_i 0, ' 9
-t_ - / -
[}
.V
./
f *' **
Estimored From Measurements on '
'- ' Saturn Test:5 1 ~ 2(f /64)2 1/3 dB/1000 ft-
--o=3 .I +(f /64)3, 0.01- ' ' ' ' l ' ' 'I ' ' ' '
1 10 100 1000 Frequency, Hz 1
Figure 2-1. Estimated Excess Attenuation Due to Scattering Near Earth's Surface.
LAsOAAYORES i
- c. .
l .'
I L
- (i i
'w/
' In addition, when considering long-range propagation of sound, shielding and scattering by small buildings and other small surface irregularities can be considered as an additional distance-dependent attenuation factor.
Because .the exact nature of ground surf ace properties and irregularities cannot be I determined a priori, estimates of such ground attenuation terms can only be made by modeling phenomenological data. Four general types of ground cover are included in the modelt rural / suburban, urban, heavily forested, and water.
2.4.1 Rural / Suburban Areas Figure 2-2 shows excess ground attenuation as a function of distance for several rural and suburban areas. This figure is based on published data from which spherical spreading and air attenuation f actors have been removed.6 The best-fit design curve to this data, as shown in Figure 2-2, has the form:
A * ~I3 I 810 (R/100) dB , R < 1700 f t grnd (2-3)
= -16 dB R > 1700 f t i
(N l ,
u
- 2.4.2 drban Areas Due to shielding by buildings, an additional excess attenuation, over and above that defined above, must be included when predicting siren ranges in urban areas where the siren is mounted below rooftops. Sound propagation data for this condition is quite meager, but Reference 6 has provided a reasonable summary of the limited information which can be used to predict total excess attenuation for such areas.
The average additionalincrement in excess attenuation over what is necessary for rural and suburban areas (see Figure 25 in Reference 6) is used here as the basis for predicting this added excess attenuation. (The amount of this additional excess attenuation due to shielding by buildings is also roughly consistent with more recent studies on sound propagation in urban areas.7) The resulting line for the total excess attenuation in such areas is shown in Figure 2-2 by the light dashed line. A simplification of this trend is in the model so as to remove anomalous peaks in the predicted values of excess attenuation between 500 and 3,500 feet. The resulting design curve, shown by the rh b
W --
Y,L E.
6 i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _____m
- e. . - -
l
.+10 i i 9 Rural Areas Wyle Design Curve, Rural / Suburban O Suburban Areas - - Wyle Design Curve, Urban /High Rise og _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - -
g 3 N
- 13 log (R/100) g o
5 -10 - "
'/ 'O 16dB 2-O -p O 30 log (R/100) g G o 'e a _
.-l \ . 12 dB , o V *n '
w
- .20 - \m5 Additional Excess Attenuation Due
~
T'N 12 dB to ShielcTng by Buildings in Urban /.
Estimate of additional excess *s-N High Rise Areas attenuation for Urban /High Rise s ~~~~~~'g N
- p. ' Areas based on applying Del results to Upper Curve.
. .,N o 10,000 20,000 100 1000 R, Distance From Siren in feet Figure 2 2. Empirical Estimates of Ex ess (Ground) Attenuation
.in Rural / Suburban Areas (Source Above Roof tops) and the Additional Excess Attenuation Due to Shielding in Urban /High Rise Areas (Source Below Rooftops).
(Based on Data From Delaney, Reference 6.)
l s
7 Y LA80AAf0a48
u f'~x
\ )
heavy dashed line in Figure 2-2, is exactly 12 dB greater than the upper curve for rural, suburban areas at distances greater than 500 feet, decreasing to an added increment of zero at 100 feet.
l In summary, for sirens in urban areas which are mounted below rooftops, the total attenuation in excess of spherical spreading and air absorption is defined by:
> -30 log (R/100) , dB R < 500 f t A
grnd = < -131 g (R/100) - 12 , dB 500 s R 5.1,700 f t (2-4)
, -28 dB , R > 1,700 f t 2.4.3 Heavily Forested Areas To investigate the magnitude of sound attenuation through heavily forested areas, a series of sound level measurements have been made, the results of which are plotted in Figure 2-3. Spherical spreading and air absorption effects have been removed so that the attenuations represent only the ground effect. The measurement sites included in the figure are in relatively flat areas, so that no barrier effects are present.
(.) Although the amount of data at distances greater than 1,700 feet is sparse, there is indication that the 16 dB attenuation cutoff that appears in Equation (2-3) does not occur.
Thus, for heavily forested areas, the ground attenuation used in the modells:
A " (2-5) grnd ~I3 I 810 (R/100) dB Other data show the same increase in ground attenuation with distance up to about 1,500 feet, at which point the spread in the data becomes so great that no further dependence on distance can be reasonably inferred. However, unless local data are available, Wyle has adopted the more conservative attenuation figures as shown in Figure 2-3 for " heavily forested" areas (defined by Equation (2-5)) as representing the worst case for siren ranging studies.
2.4.4 Water Areas For propagation entirely or mostly over water, there is little or no excess ground attenuation, thus A = 0 dB (2-6) grnd p
v 8
q
.i i
i: ,
i O
li L
+10 , , ,
" Heavily Forested" Algorithm
--- Rural /Suburbon Algorithm 0 ,
! 8 o
- g o O g o l o
.< o 8 o 0 8
1 o R -20 -
Qco -
o 7
[ o e s
40 ' ' ' ' ' ' l ' ' ' ' ' '
100 1000 10,000 R, Distance From Siren in Feet Figure 2-3. Excess (Ground) Attenuation in Heavily Forested Arear.
?
9 N LA80RATORES
y . - - _ _ _ _ _- - _ _ _ _ . ._
i x) .
B 2.5 ' Barrier Attenuation
- Reflection and diffraction of sound by barriers must be considered when siting sirens in hilly areas to account for the barrier attenuation' effects of the hills. Well-developed
' design methods are available for predicting attenuation by thin barriers which essentially 8
. ignore ground reflection effects or which include ground reflection effects on barrier attenuation.9 Since the sirens in the Seabrook area are installed at least 45 feet above the 7
ground and since the treatment of the hills as thin barriers is an approximation, the refinement of including ground reflection effects on barrier attenuation is not warranted.
Figure 2-4 defines the sound attenuation provided by a thin barrier based on the ,
prediction model defined in Reference 8. This classical Fresnel diffraction model is well supported by experimental data measured under ideal conditions. Note that, although the form of the function in this figure (solid line) is a straight line, the horizontal scale is non-linear, to reflect the fact that barrier attenuation is a non-linear function of Fresnel number.
The barrier attenuation model used in this study, shown as a dashed line in Figure 2-4, employs a least-squares fit to the solid curve in the figure and has the form:
- 1 b A = -10 log 10 (70 N) , 12.6 > N > 1.0 barr ,
+ 2 AN - B A = -$ - A barr ,
A = 0.037'i8 , 0.3 s N s 1.0 B = -0.02700 (2-7)
C YB2 + 2 ACN -B A * " O ~~ A barr . .
A = 0.02461 B = 0.00099 , -0.3 < N < 0.3 C= +1 , N>0
= -l , N<0 A = 0 ,N 5 -0.3 barr wm 10
! '- ' .g
'I i
'I
- )%-
1 Nf '
30 i g. gg i ; i i , . . . i.i; i e i q t[= Uc(A + B - D) 25 -
f = . frequency Cutoff 4 e = speed of sound .I A \
Sour / 8 20 - _
,,c,,,,,
Barrier
%
- N is positive !! the line-of-sight Bosed on from source to receiver is broken 0 it is negative otherwise. Moekowo Measurements -
15 -
_ . - Least-Squares Fit IC -
/
Receiver
( Source
> g
~
5 -
Equivalent Barrier of a Hill
/
/
/,I II I I e i I t i i i i i s .1 i e
-03 -0.1.-0.010 0,01 0.1 03 0.5 1.0 2.0 4 .0 6.0 0.010 20 30 40 50 Fresnel Nurnber, N Figure 2-4. Barrier Attenuation as a Function of Fresnel Number.
O 11 M LA80aAfDetiss
i a
\.
V The model represented by this set of equations does not include reduction of ground .
attenuation due to the presence of the barrier or diffraction over the top of the barrier caused by foliage. The effect of these phenomena is generally approximated by imposing-a cutoff on the. barrier attenuation term. Highway noise barrier design geldelines usually suggest a cutoff of -12 to -15 dB, based on field measurements : rom previously j constructed highway noise barriers. These measurements do not, however, include data from extremely high barriers, such as hills or mountains, as is found in the case of siren sound propagation. It is thus more conservative to use a cutoff of -24 dB, which is suggested by Beranek for a thin barrier.10 i To apply this model to hilly terrain, computer software is used to replace the actual ground elevations between the source and receiver with an equivalent thin barrier (see lower inset in Figure 2-4). A sequence of barrier attenuations is computed for all such equivalent barriers located at regular intervals between the source and the receiver.
The maximum value of this sequence is taken as the attenuation of the terrain.
The elevation data required for this computation is obtained from pl:nar standard digital terrain data tapes, available from the National Cartographic Information Center, t U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior. These data were produced by the Defense Mapping Agency Topographic Center from 1:250,000-scale terrain contour maps of the United States and provide a grid of terrain elevation values at 200-foot intervals.
2.6 Attenuation Due to Temperature and Wind Gradients Change over time lo the structure of the vertical temperature and wind profile in the atmosphere produce temporal variations in sound propagation losses. As illustrated in Figure 2-5(a), a negative temperature or wind speed gradient (decreasing with height) causes sound emanating from a source near the ground to bend upwards, resulting in an increase in propagation loss and creation of acoustical shadow zones. On the other hand, as shown in Figure 2-5(b), a positive temperature or wind speed gradient causes sound to bend downward towards the ground. in some cases, with a combined negative and then positive grdient, sound is focused back to the ground at points distard from a receiver resulting in subs,tantial increases in sound level beyond that normally experienced. For vertical gradients in wind velocity, as shown in Figure 2-5(c), a complex shacSw zone forms around the source in a pattern dictated by the mean wind vector.ll,12,13 Although wind speed also has an influence on refraction of sound by wind gradients, it is not as important as wind direction.I3'I* l f
l WYLE 12 1
j-)
+ 1
\.J N w b
/ &k?D (a) Roy Poths in Air When Vertical Wind Velocity (in the Direction of Sound fW (b) Roy Paths in Air When Vertical Wind Velocity (in the Direction of Sound Propagation) or Temperc,ure Grodient Propogotion) or Temperature Grodient-is Negative. Is Positive, e I l Shadow!
Zone :
I l i I Receiver l l u
i.
I Wind
__ __ __ / __ __ !
Source (c) Wind-Generated Shadow Zone.
Figure 2-5. Effects of Temperature and Wind Gradients on Soand Propagation.
\
l o vm1 LA40AATOnttS
- 7. . .
l:
, ,~.
r -(
Since negative temperature gradients as shown in Figure 2-5(a) are more common -
than positive temperature gradients (temperature inversions), ground attenuation data generally contain the effects of negative temperature gradients. Since a temperature inversion will only tend to reduce the attenuation (i.e., increase the sound level at a given point), a conservative estimate of the attenuation due to temperature gradients is already included in the Agrnd m det. Thus the model assigns a zero value to Atemp" This logic cannot be applied to wind speed gradients since the data'on which Agrnd is based was netmally taken during very low wind con'ditions. However, a conservative estimate of this effect is that a 5 dB increase in sound level downwind of the source and a 5 dB decrease in sound level upwind of the source can be expected,' more or less independently of the actual wind speed. Thus the wind attenuation is modeled by:
A = 5 cos $ (2-8) wind where $' is. the angle between the source-receiver line and the direction the wind is blowing toward.
Di v
b '
3 wm....
E n-t Q) 3.0 COMPUTER IMPLEMENTA110N The mathematical algorithms described in Section 2 have been implemented in two FORTRAN programs which are designed to run on a mainframe computer system. The use of a large-scale computer was necessitated by the quantity and format of the digital terrain data available from the National Cartographic Information Center.
The minimum block of data available encompasses one degree of longitude by one degree of latitude. Since terrain elevation data is provided every 200 feet, such an area, at latitudes within the continental United States, contains in excess of two million data
, points. This information is provided on 9-track, one-half-inch magnetic tape. Although only a small subset of this data is required for any given siren, the computer system must be capable of inputting the ' larger amount of data so that the desired subset can be abstracted.
The output provided by the computer sof tware is a series of estimated siren sound levels at regular intervals along a set of equally spaced radials radiating from the siren.
One program, which is used for siren ranging estimates to distances of 10,000 feet, produces levels at 200-foot intervals along 16 radials, each separated by 22.5 degrees.
(d
%.)
- The other program, which is used for siren ranging estimates in excess of 10,000 feet, produces levels at 300-foot intervals siong 72 rad,ials, each separated by 5 degrees.
In addition to the printed output, these programs provide, in a digital file, the distances along each radial at which the 70 and 60 dB sound levels occur. Th:s file is transferred to a microcomputer in which smoothed 70 and 60 dB sound level contours are computed. A cubic spline fitting procedure is employed to define each contour at points between the calculated radials. The resulting smoothed contours can be plotted using either a digital pen plotter or a dot matrix printer.
Since the digital terrain elevation data sometimes differs somewhat from the elevation data provided on standard USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps, which are normally used as the base maps for plotting sound level contours, the resultant 1 contours are overlaid onto these topographic maps and manually examined. Any features of the contours which do not appear to correspond to terrain features on the topographic maps are identified and corrected.
i l
'I wh 15 Y_ ,
l p,
N f, 3c.
V in the absence of br. triers, the soun* ievel decreases uniformly with distance from the siren along each radial. When topographic variations result in barriers that shield the
. receiver from the siren, the sound level will decrease sharply just beyond the barrier,
! effectively reducing the radius of any given contour point along that radial. An example of the effect of barriers on contour shape is given in Figure 3-1.
If the land should rise again beyond the barrier, it is possible to obtain a " hole" in
.the contour where the shielding from the siren is localized to a small range of distances along the radial. In such a case, the sound level estimates along the radial in question (and along adjacent radials) are manually examined to determine if the hole should be ignored. In general, the guidelines used in this judgment are
- a. If the sound level along any radial drops below the contour for 400 feet or less before rising above the value again, the " hole" is ignored and the contour value is assigned to the greater distance.
- b. If the sound level along any radial drops below the contour value for more than 400 feet but less than 1,000 feet bef ore rising above the value again, then
- the " hole" is ignored if the population is low, or xf,
- the contour is pulled in to the distance where the level first drops below the contour value if the population is net low.
- c. If the sound level along any radial drops below the contour for more than 1,000 feet before rising above the value again, the contour is pulled in to the distance where the level first drops below the contour value.
.This procedure results in a conservative estimate of the sound level contours.
.r wm...o
)
k yn 4' J AJ
~ ~ ,
y- s
'i
'- ,/-
' Without.
Barrier Attenuation' ,
[ With
's
\ \
\-
-Barrier Atten
/ ' N l l a f '
) )~
,/ l
\
/ /
r Siren e' .l
/
- .I'.
I I
\
f Ni ;
h)-- \ '. ,
I s' %
ss. / \ , y N
s \N s
1
! 70 dB 1
l 60 dB - - - - - -
Figure 3-1, Comparison of Siren Sound Level Contours With and Without the Effects of Barrier Attenuation.
O 17 E LAsonatones
s 3
-Q '
Q, ,
4.0 INPUT ' PARAMETERS This section describes the values of the input parameters that have been used in
, exercising the computerized model for the Seabrook area. These parameters can be
. organized into.two groups:
- a. Those relating to individual sirens:
- Location as defined by latitude and longitude,
- Siren height abive ground level,
- Acoustic output.as defined by the reference sound level 100 feet from the siren on its axis, Frequency of the tone emitted by the siren, and
- Characteristics of the ground (e.g., rural / suburban, urban, heavily forested, or water)in the vicinity of the siren;
- b. Those relating to area-wide meteorological conditions:
, -q -: Temperature, (j -
Relative humidity, and Wind direction.
4.1 Siren Parameters Each siren location is defined by determining the siren location on a USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map and interpolating the corresponding latitude and longitude from the map coordinates. The siren coordinates are determined to the nearest 3
second of arc. These two input parameters relate the siren position to the grid of ground elevation values that are used by the model for the barrier attenuation calculations.
The measured or proposed siren height above the ground level is also input into the model. This parameter also impacts the barrier attenuation calculation.
The acoustic output of each of the siren models employed in the Seabrook system has been determined by direct measurement of the C-weighted sound level at a distance of 100 feet on the siren's axis. The values employed in the model are shown in Table 4-1.
- i 33 Wi.f.L.E
.... e L_______ -
r j-Ea ;.
f, )=
Table 4-1 i-Acoustic Output of Sirens Used in Seabrook System C-Weighted Level Siren at 100 Feet on Axis WS-3000 122 dB WS-4000 129 dB Dual WS-4000 134 dB These measurements were all made at the tone frequency of 350 Hz, which is utilized in the system.
Finally,'. the ground characteristics assumed for the entire EPZ region are rural /
suburban. ' No areas have sufficiently high structures to be classed as urban. No areas have sufficiently dense foliage to be classed " heavily forested".
g 4.2 - - Meteorological Conditions
' Attenuation resulting from absorption of acoustic energy by the air is a sensitive function of water content (as defined by relative humidity) and temperature. In order to model the worst-case situation, average seasonal values of early-morning and mid-af ternoon humidity / temperature combinations were examined to determine which situa-tion provided the largest air absorption coefficient.
.Such historical data are not available for Seabrook directly, but can be interpolated from values at Boston, Massachusetts, and Portland, Maine.D Table 4-2 shows the
' results of this interpolation. Also shown, for the Seabrook area, are calculated values of the air absorption coefficient corresponding to these humidity / temperature pairs.
.. Clearly, the worst case (i.e., largest value of air absorption coefficient) occurs during a summer af ternoon. The corresponding values of relative humidity and temperature (58 percent,21.6 C) were used as input values to the model.
I b
[ ;
(
"^"' '
19 L
e - - - - - . _ - . - - - _ - - - - _ - - - - _ -- _ -_o l
n.g
..k'.
L 1 a 1
V :y m
m if L, + Table 4-2 Average Seasonal Values of Relative Humidity
.'and Temperature in Seabrook Areal 5 l p
7:00 A.M.' 1:00 P.M.
Locade Mah R.H. T Abs.* R.H. T- Abs.C
(%) ('C) (S/1000 Ft) (%) ('C) (e/1000 Ft)
-Jan 78 -11.3 ---
63' -3.7 ---
Portland, 'Ar P 74 0.2 ---
55 5.8 --- .
ME Jul 80 .' 13.7 --- 59 20.1 ---
Oct ' 85 . 3.0 ---
60 9.2 ---
a
,Jan 72 -8.2 0.69 60 -3.4 0.65 Seab ook '0,53 Apr 71 2.3 '54 7.3 0.61 (Inter-' : Jul.' 77 - 16.2 0.85 58 21.6 0.99 Polated) ' : Oct 81' 5.7 0.58 58 11.0 0.68 J Jani 66 -5.0 --- 57 - 1.2 ---
-; Boston, Apr 68 4.4 --- 54 8.8 ---
'Mb Jul 74 18.6 --- 56 23.2 ---
Oct 77 8.4 --- 57 12.8 ---
1
- Air Absorption Coefficient at 550 Hz as computed according to Reference 1.
As discussed in Section 2.6, the effect of the presence of wind speed gradients is to improve propagation downwind and impede propagation upwind. Thus attenuation in the direction the wind is blowing is decreased; attenuation opposite to that direction is increased; and attenuation at right angles to the wind direction is unaffected from the no-wind case. The net effect is to distort the equal sound level contours, elongating them in the downwind direction and foreshortening them in the upwind direction.
For example, in the absence of barrier effects, equal sound level contours are circular if no wind is present. If a wind (and resultant wind speed gradient) is present, these contours become distorted as shown in Figure 4-1.
O wm 20
...h_-______--__. - _ _ - _ -
%.. .3
- 1 L 7.1,? i . .
.j
- .i-( , ,
I g.
p C
[ 3 PT n
i',;,
N-.
- y. .y .
i .t '
g;,;:
p; i
'} .
Without Wind i
- -
- :- -- : Q~%-.' .
}L } Y >,* .
' WWith' Wind -
p .,.'
f f sl K_ .e-E
.s
/_, , - f \- 4 u II
- , 7.1 .'
1
/ ,.
J. ,
.N
\ \
t
- lI
~ ,'s .
A }l.
't
' I^ l 'g - i Siren f
A 1 l u ,
l ?, r-g.
k_
/
'; J'
. .\ f-
.\-
'\ \ J' #
N ', 7 ,'
\- ' ~/ -
\ N s
~
y/ ,a
%s_,s -
,. . . ~~~.
Wind Direction
.14 Figure 4-1. Effect of Wind on Sound Level Contour.
H I
21 M
LA80Ratcass
, -9
'" " - ' = ' ~ _ , , _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __
J e
, 4-
)-
[
, (
\m/ _
.)
It is difficult to take this effect into account when designing a siren system, since the direction of the wind at a time that an emergency accurs cannot be known a priori.
Using a time-averaged or a most probable wind direction is not appropriate since there is no guarantee that the wind will be blowing in that direction when an emergency occurs.
The most conservative procedure is to compute the individual siren contours assuming the no-wind case but to design the overall system so that adjacent sirens are sufficiently close that, with a wind, any " hole" (. eated by the upwind foreshortening of the contour for a given siren, is filled by the downwind elongation of the contour of the nearest upwind siren. This procedure requires that no-wind siren contours at the edge of the EPZ extend far enough outside the EPZ that, if they are foreshortened by a wind blowing directly into the EPZ, the distorted contour still reeches the edge of the EPZ.
For Seabrook, the currently allowed siren locations along the western edge of the EPZ do not provide excess penetration beyond the EPZ at several locations. However, as will be demonstrated in Section 5, there is an inherent conservatism of 10 dB in the model. Since the inclusion of a wind blowing from west to east into the EPZ would have had the effect of reducing the predicted levels by 5 dB, coverage will extend past.the 1Q t
g edge of the EPZ.
/
) f l C l
22 g LA80flAf08 tees
s ;
, r 4
h 1
8
" { 5,0 ' VAUDATION OF MODEl.,
t' . .
~
The computerized model described above has- been validated by comparing its -
predictions with measurements carried out near sirens at several' nuclear power plants.
[~ comparisons of measured sound levels with predicted sound levels from the model are.
' shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2.
~
Figure 5-1 shows a comparison between measured and predicted sound levels for sirens near the Indian Point plant in New York. Most of this data was taken in very hilly,L heavily forested terrain. Shown for reference on this figure is a 45-degree line indicating g ,
perfect agreement. The average difference between measured and predicted levels is
- 7.2 dB with a standard deviation of 5.3 dB.'
Q The spread in the data is due to atmospheric variations during the measurements and i terrain effects not' accounted for in the propagation models. There is an offset such that measured levels are generally higher than predicted. This result is consistent with the design goals: of the siren' siting model, which endeavors to be conservative in the
[
- prediction of the sound level so as to minimize overprediction of individual siren levels.
p A reasonable design objective is that there be 'no more than a 10 percent probability
/ A . that actuallevels will be less than predicted. . For the ' data set shown in Figure 5-1,11 of the 95 measurements are underpredicted,_ corresponding to an ll.6-percent probability of underprediction.
Figure 5-2 shows similar data for predictions and measurements for sirens tested at 0 the Seabrook plant during tbr period from 3 March to 7 April 1988. The terrain in the test area was flat and rural. Again, as in the case of the Indian Point data, the model -1 underpredicts the sound level, as it was designed to do. The average difference between measured and predicted levels is 10.0 dB with a standard deviation of 8.7 dB. Of the 125
-measurements represented in this figure,10 are underpredicted, corresponding to a rate of 8.0 percent.
In summary, the siren range prediction model presented in this report is shown to provide a reasonable and conservative basis for siting siren positions. Based on the model validation measurements reported herein, the model predicts a shorter range than actually observed about 90 percent of the time.
O wm
- ' ~ >
23
! ! O. 00 8 ' ' d"0 O O c
00 OO O O q) o O O 100.00- O 00 o O 0
CD .
"O 90.00- O, O
So O
J O g T s go k O C:8 oco s 80.00- 0 O
E o O Z
s O 00 O pO
) O O v O CD -
70.00- O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50.00- 100.00 110.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 Predicted Level. dB I
Figure 5-1. Comparison of Measured and Predicted Siren Sound Levels f or Indian Point Data.
J
~.!
24 W
LA80AATOm(3
- _ _ . _ . _ J
, , . cg;.y ,
j,y My i " '
s
{
3~ ; ' , , L4%
s g ( *Jq , y t.,
t
. _.j eu < b
);y : Y, O, g ,
L,
[
t
.g i i _. i. > . i. . . ,
t c go5 -
p --
, { .
.o-,'*
W.h ip. ,
o -
4- ..-
-8 -
c ,
e , ~
o dz
,. , {@S -
1e ~ *.o
, 'j .go. . ,
e> : cc ,o.
p b.
4 Wg g .-
g ;. ,. o *c'o),o O n *o
- 1g'
_. , o o goo: o -
.O
- g. ., .op,e
[ fR .,eq
-' ' 00 ' O.
80
,' 0, _ o c o -
- o ~
- 8. o. 's g' o* 0
- 8. - :.
- , if^ .. Q ; .
o' ..
g -
S u --
I 't I t i I I I t g 100 110- 120 130 30- 40 . 50 60 70 80 90 i.
Predicted . Level, dB .
Figure 5-2. Comparison of Measured and Predicted Siren Sound Levels for Seabrook Data.
{
O u
wv..u...
m
- .mm____.___._.____ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ . _ , _ _ _ , _ _ _ __ __ __ - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
v .y- . 4 pP '
~
I {
cn 4
- n REFERENCES 3
11 American National Standards Institute, "American National Standard Method for the .
Calculation of the Absorption ' of Sound by: the Atmosphere", ANSI S1.26-1978 (ASA 23-1978).
- 2. - S'utherland, L.C., " Review of Experimental Data in Support of t a. Proposed New Method for Computing Atmospheric Absorption Losses", DOT-TST-75-87, May 1975.
I "- Brown,' E.H., and Clifford, S.F., "On the Attenuation of' Sound by Turbulence",
3.
3. Acoust. Soc. Am., 60, pp.' 788-794,1976.
~
M 4. Sutherland,' L.C., " Scattering Attenuation of Sound ln the Lower Atmosphere",
- 3. Acoust. Soc. Am., g, p.129(A),'1971.
/5. Sutherland,' L.C. (Ed.), " Sonic and. Vibration Environments for Ground Facilities - A Design Manual, Chapter 7F Propagation Effects of Acoustic Waves", Wyle Research
- Report WR 68-2, March 1968.
- 6. Delany,' M.E., " Range Prediction for Siren Sources", National Physical Laboratory - --
2 NPL Aero Special Report 033, November 1969.
E j. ,
- 7. Lyon, .. R.H., 4 " Role of Multiple Reflections. and Reverberation in Urban Noise.
Propagation",3. Acoust. Soc. Am., 55,493-503,1974.
L ' ' 8. Mackawa, Z., " Noise Reduction by Screens", Memoirs of Faculty of Engineering, Kobe University, Japan, No. 11,1965.
- 9. Isel, T., Embleton, T.F.W., and Piercy, 3.E., " Influence of Reflections at the Ground on Insertion Loss of Barriers",' 3. Acoust. Soc. Am., g, p. 559,1978.
- 10. Beranek, L.L., Noise and Vibration Control, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,1971, p.177.
- 11. ' Pridmore-Brown, D.C., and Ingard, U.," Sound Propagation into the Shadow Zone in a Temperature-Stratified Atmosphere Above a Plane Boundary", 3. Acoust. Soc. Am.,
27,p.36,1955.
7 Pridmore-Brown, D.C., " Propagation of Sound into a Wind-Created Shadow Zone",
- 12. . NACA Report RM 37B25,1957.
- 13. Tedrick, R.N., and Polly, R.C., " Measured Acoustic Propagation Parameters in the Mississippi Test Operations Area", NASA TM X-1132, August 1965.
- 14. Jenkins, R.H., and Johnson, J.B., "The Assessment and Monitoring of the Contribu-tion From a Large Petrochemical Complex to Neighborhood Noise Levels", Noise Control Vibration and Insulation, November / December 1976.
ij. " Statistical Abstract of the United States", U.S. Department of Commerce,1978.
- dp 1 WYLE R1
= - _ _ _ __ J
O I
WYLE RESEARCH REPORT ,
WR 88-6 (R)
ACOUSTIC EVALUATION OF AN AIRBORNE ALERTING SYSTEM . "' 9 O y n
WYLE RESEARCH O7
. - i O
O WYLE =;w-LABORATORIES G"1#
b --
y
)
.(
-l P
WYLE RESEARCH' REPORT TR 88-6 (R)
ACOUSTIC EVALUATION OF AN '
AIRBORNE ALERTING SYSTEM ,
p Prepared for:
A"/ NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE' Division of Public Service of New Hampshire Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 (Under Purchase Order No. 38619-04)
Prepared by:
R. Brown L. C. Sutherland C. Moulton WYLE RESEARCH El Segundo, California 90245 (3/N 39305-!!)
APRIL 1988
-_- __ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ -__ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ -
l
~.
"N TABLE OF CONTENTS P, age 1.0 ' INTRODUCTORY
SUMMARY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.1 . A!rborae System Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.2 Preliminary Estimate of Coverage of Airborne Alert and Notification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2.
2.0 , AIRBORNE SYSTEM ACOUSTIC TESTS. . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.11 Test Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 1 2.2 Helicopter / Loudspeaker Configuration . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 .
2.3 ' . Speech Intelligibility Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 2.4 Sound Level Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 3.0 TEST RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-1 3.1 Speech Inte!!igibility'- Modified Rhyme Words . . . . ,. . 3- 1 ' .
3.2 Speech Intelligibility - Sentence Tests . . . . . . . . . '. 3-5 l 3.3 ' Helicopter Noise Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 3.4 Source Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17 j 4.0 EVALUATION OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.1 Validity of Sentence Intelligibility Tests . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.2 Direct Evidence of System Coverage .........4-2 4.3 . Comparison of Time Histories ............. 4-5 4.4 Expected Coverage for Presentation of a Notification M essa ge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 4.5 Estimated Coverage for Presentation of Siren Alerting Tone ......................... 4-8 4.6 PotentialInfluence of Weather on System Coverage . . . 411 4.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13 REFERENCES ........................R-1 APPENDIX A Helicopter Test Preparation ...........A-1 APPENDIX B Measurement of Speech Intelligibility . . . . . . . B-1 APPENDIX C Acoustic Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 APPENDIX D Laboratory Intelligibility Evaluation of Field I. Recordings of MRT and Sentence Lists . . . . . . . D-1 APPENDIX E Wyle Research Technical Note TN 88-2 . . . . . . E-1 1 L440AATC8t48 il L -_ --- - _.
.~
LIST OF TABLES P_ age _
l' Airborne Alert and Notification System Design Parameters as Tes'tsd by PSNH ...................... 1-2 2 Performance of Airborne Alerting System as Tested in
. February 1988 ............._.......... 1-3 3- Test Sequence - Helicopter Tests of Airborne Alerting System . 2-3 4 Measured Relationship Between S/N and MRT Scores from November 3,1987 and February 24,1988 Tests . . . . . . . . . 3-3
- 5 Sum' mary Acoustic Data from Intelligibility Tests, 2/24/88 . . . 3-9 6 Summary SI Scores from Maximum Value of Running Average and from Values Displaced .One Sentence from that Maximum . . . 3-11 7 Comparison of Laboratory and Field Scoring of Sentence Intelligibility Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-3 8 Summary of System Coverage Parameters . . . . . . . . . . 4-12 p,
r O .
x LA80AAF0aet5 111
'i
- _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - _ _ _ - - - _ - _ - - - - _ - - _ - - - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ - _ _
4 4
^
4 h LIST OF FIGURES
- P.,gg 1' - Helicopter Tracks and Measurement Locations for Tests of -
Airborne Alerting System on February 24 and 45,1988 . :.' . . . ; 2-2 2 Loudspeaker Arrays on Left Side and Underneath Bell Jet Ranger Helicopter . . ... . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 2-6 .
3' ; Comparison of November 1987 and February 1988 Data for MRT
'i Scores Relative to Signal-to-Noise Ratio of A-Weighted Levels . '. 3-2 .
4- Time Histories of A-Weighted Noise Levels at Site E2 for .
, Helicopter Alerting Test, Runs A-7 and A-6, . . . . . . . . . 3-8;
-5 . Summary Plot of Sentence Intelligibility Scores from Table 6 vs Signal-to-Noise Ratio . . '. .
. , . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . 3- 12 6 Noise Characteristics of the Helicopter in Terms of a) the
- Reference Maximum Level at 1000 f t vs Elevation Angle in the
- Vertical Plane, and b) Relative Directivity of the Helicopter'. -
Noise in the Azimuth Plane . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . = . 3 '7 Comparison of the Revised Model for the Directivity in the Vertical Plane of the 4 x 7 Speaker Array with Additional Data m
O '
.8 Obtained in the Current Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Measured and Empirical Prediction Model for Relative Directivity 3 19 of 1 x 4 Loudspeaker Array . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . 3-20
.e 9: !!!ustration of Predicted Composite Time History of Sound Coverage at One Site (E2) from the Three Speakers While Airborne at 500 f t Altitude on Track 1. . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23 10 . Measured Relationship Between 51 and Sideline Distance for Talker A and Talker B Compared to the Acoustic and Intelligibility Prediction Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
!! Comparison'of Four Test / Site Combinations of Measured and -
Predicted Time Histories of Sound Levels and Helicopters Plus Ambient Background Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 12 Coverage Footprint for Speech Intelligibility for the Condition .
that the Signal-to-Noise Ratio Exceeds 12 dB for a) Background 1 Noise = 50 dB(A), and b) Background Noise = 60 dB(A) .... . . 4-9 i
i i
wm Lae0RATOASS iv l
_ _ = _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
. (S I'
't q) '
!.0 INTRODUCTORY
SUMMARY
A series of tests were conducted on February 24 and 25,1988, to determine the effectiveness of an expanded helicopter-mounted loudspeaker system to alert the public in the event of an emergency at Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. This system is an enhanced version of one that was tested in November 1987 and reported in Reference 1. The enhancement consisted of adding'two smaller 1 x 4 horn speaker arrays under the helicopter. These additional loudspeakers are aimed 1 20 to either side of the helicopter heading and downward at an angle of 5 below the horizontal. They were added to the larger system utilized for the earlier tests which consisted of a 4 x 7 horn array aimed to the lef t side of the helicopter and downward at a 5 angle. Tests were performed to measure three essential parameters:
- 1. Acoustic characteristics of the airborne sound source to be used for generation of an alerting siren tone or a notification voice' message.
- 2. Siren and voice signal levels on the ground and, for the voice signals, the resulting intelligibility of speech transmission from the helicopter.
(/ The latter was evaluated by inte!!1gibility tests using Modified Rhyme Test (MRT) words and single sentences in the form of simple questions.
- 3. Masking noise levels generated by the helicopter.
The combination of these parameters defines the characteristics which limit the system effectiveness. Other variables such as weather, helicopter operating modes, ambient levels at ground locations, etc., are also discussed in this report.
1.1 Airborne System Parameters 29 flyby and hover tests were conducted during the 2-day period to evaluate loudspeaker output and directivity, helicopter masking noise levels, and speech intelligibility. These flight tests were augmented by ground tests of sound directivity conducted on the additional loudspeakers employed on the helicopter.
The following table summarizes the key design parameters of the enhanced system as tested on February 24 and 25,1988.
O vmr LA40RATORE8 1-1
, g.
- _/-
l' V .
l- . Table 1 Airborne Alert and Notification System Design Parameters as Tested by PSNH Parameter PSNH System Aircraf t Type Helicopter (Bell Jet Ranger)
Aircraf t Speed 40 mph Aircraf t Altitude 500 ft Left Side Forward r Loudspeaker Systems AEM 3150 watt AEM (1x4, 7" Bells)
Loudspeaker Axis 90* to lef t + 20 (2 units)
Direction re: {
Flight Direction f -5 down -5' down
~
/1 Azimuth ~
+28"/1 +9 0
~
Coverage Angles f Vertical + 15"/2 + 39'/2 '
- G
() Loudspeaker Output 118 dB I3 104 dB /3 Tone -
Level at 100 f t l Voice - 120 dB(A) 106 dB(A)
Notes:
- 1) "3 dB down" coverage M angle in plane containing helicopter flight path and observer.
- 2) "3 dB down" coverage M angle in vertical plane containing speaker axis.
- 3) The siren tone generator and loudspeaker system are able to generate a siren fundamental tone approximately 2 dB below the maximum A-weighted output level for voice signals.
1.2 Preliminary Estimate of Coverate of Airborne Alert and Notification System j Based on the above system design parameters and the results of the tests conducted on November 4 and 5,1987, and on February 24 and 25,1988, it was l anticipated that system performance could be reliably summarized in terms of the lateral width of the band on each side of the helicopter for which the tone or voice
.O L) m, 1-2 i
1
3-(-i. J C 's
~
signal' exceeds a criterion level,'and the duration for which this condition occurs.
Based on the subjective speech intelligibility tests, the expected system.perfor-mance is .specified in Table 2 for the enhanced system evaluated in this report.
Table 2 Performance of Airborne Alerting System as Tested in February 1988
<. Width of Coverage Band, f t Criterion Level Exceeded . Ambient Level Signal - by Signal 50 dB(A) 60 dB(AT Tone- ' 70 dB(C) I 6,700 6,700
- (680 Hz) 60 dB(C)ll . 11,200 9,500 Voice S/N 12 dB I2 7,300 4,300
- Notes:
1): In addition, C' -welp.ted siren sound level exceeds average (ambient +
helicopter) noise level (L,9) in 630 Hz one-third octave band by at?
least 10 dB. Both criterta are to be met for a duration of at least
.30 seconds.
~
2)- - Signal-to-noise (5/N) ratio, in . decibels, exceeded for at least 30 seconds to achieve 95 percent intelligibility for known sentences based on actual field measurements at Seabrook Station.
For presentation of a voice message which lasts no more than 30 seconds for two successive presentations, the intelligibility of the messages for an average listener outdoors is expected to be 95 percent within the effective average band specified above for the two different ambient background noise levels of 50 and 60 dB(A).
For siren tone alerting, four coverage bandwidths are specified, for the two FEMA level criteria (60 and 70 dB(C) and for two ambient background levels of 50 and 60 dB(A).
During operation, the actual coverage achieved may be reduced depending on wind direction and speed. This sensitivity to wind will be more pronounced for the outer edge of the coverage band on the lef t side of the aircraf t. Thus, the preceding estimates assume that while a speech message or stren signal is being delivered, the wind is coming from a direction between 0 degrees and 180 degrees relative to the helicopter heading, that is, the wind should be from either of the O two quadrants on the right side of the helicopter.
M.
1-3 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ J
I r
.h V'
The remainder of this report contains:
~
.o Details of the tests conducted (Section 2) o: Results of the tests (Section 3) o ~ Evaluation of the system coverage based on the test results (Section 4)
. i Additional details of the tests and system analysis are presented in the following-Appendices: .
Appendix At Helicopter Test Preparation Appendix B: Measurement of Speech Intelligibility 1
Appendix C: Acoustic Test Data Appendix D: ' Laboratory Intelligibility Tests of Field Recordings of MRT and Sentence Lists . ,
Appendix E: Wyle Research Technical Note TN 88-2, Analysis of Loud-speaker Coverege by an Airborne Alerting System t
O wn, W OAAfonsts 1-4 ,
l
_- - --- . - - - - - - - - - - - - J
I m .s l
-73l). -
2.0 AIRBORNE SYSTEM ACOUSTIC TESTS A series of tests were performed to determine the area of acoustic coverage
-and the message intelligibility of the airborne acoustic system. For all tests, the helicopter flew at an altitude of 500 ft. It was positioned or flown in patterns' to allow measurements to be made at a selected-variety of distances from three ground locations. Five subjects and two test engineers were located at each.of ,
these locations to obtain data during the tests. Figure 1 illustrates the arrange-
- ment of helicopter locations or flight tracks and the ground positions used for the tests on February 24 and 25,1988.' All tests were conducted under the direction of Public Service 'of New Hampshire (P5NH), utilizing a. 5eabrook Station test procedure. ? The following sections describe the test operations and the system characteristics.
1 2.1 ' Test Operations .-
F Subjective speech intelligibility tests and acoustic measurements were
. carried out over a 2-day period. Referring to Figure 1, tracks 1, 2, and 3 were.
utilized for most of the tests. Thew tracks were traversed, for most of the tests, from northeast to ' southwest at a ground speed of 40 mph.'. '(One test of the helicopter ambient noise was conducted on track 2 at helicopter ground speeds of 10,- 40 and 70 mph.) The parts of tracks indicated by solid lines show locations where the helicopter broadcast test signals consisting of sentences or broadband (pink) noise. For other tests, the helicopter remained at a fixed position in a hover mode.1.ocations HE5 and HE6, shown in Figure 1, were utilized as the hover points where a list of MRT words were broadcast from the helicopter. To provide some indication of the potential influence of wind and aircraf t direction on sound
- propagation, a flyby was made on track 4 with the helicopter flying in a NNE direction 'while broadcasting a pink noise signal. Acoustic measurements and subjective message inte!!!gibility tests were conducted at the ground locations designated in Figure 1 as 53, E2, and E3. Table 3 lists the series of individual runs performed during the 2-day period. The test material, which was prerecorded on cassette tapes, consisted of the following:
Pink Noise - Broadband random noise with equal energy in each octave or one-third octave band. The sound level spectrum received on the ground was a modification of this ideal pink noise spectrum, due to w
m, .
2-1
i
% v O e g
~ i.
\
r
\ '/..\ .
s 4
f Y , .s . . ( , A. .
\
I 1
11 e'
~ p \/ fi i N !
p s/\g 4 g }s.,,/ 's , /'s.,
~ 's , -
('% ^\
,M l
^
nu fS % ,^.A s
s
'42:
\ A~l ~ . e .- f, I a
i/
g as _' /3% -
nu . - i yfl p V E q'
w '
, Es b, i- .
O 85 - \
/
. it's.ls
, 'g\
P
- ,.. s' E3
- }
- 3 . ,~ . .,. r ,,
Tj Q'W ,. .. . .-
m *** 1
\s ../:sI ,/
,i S
" I .
,,/' f' y
..,a .~.- SCM IN FEET' l/ ' *go T _g T c
- o u s **e
- ALT O/N ' ' ' ,,
A
,9 l
p ,
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 g.
. . Ll% 7. i-Figure 1. Helicopter Tracks and Measurement Locations for Tests of Airborne O Alerting System on February 24 and 25,1988 i
M......
l 4
C i
(3
[
,) Table 3 Test Sequence - Helicopter Tests of Airborne Alerting System Tests on February 24, 1988 Tests on February 25,1988 Test A Flyby ori Track 1 (Heading SW) Test G Flyby on Track 2 (Heading SW) 1119' Run ! Helicopter Ambient - 1115 Run1 Helicopter Ambient 1128 Run 2 A-Weighted Pink Noise Ground Speed 40 mph 1138 Run 3 Messages (Cassette 1) 1121 Run 2 Helicopter Ambient:
1145 Run 4 Messages (Cassette 9) Ground Speed = 70 mph 1154 Run5 Siren Tone 1125 Run 3 Helicopter Ambient:
Ground Speed = 10 mph Test B Hover at HE5 1202 Run1 MRT (25 words) Test A Flyby on Track 1 (Headng SW) 1132 Run 8 Helicopter Ambient
!!38 Run 9 BB Pink Noise Test C Flyby on Track .2 (Heading SW) 1225 Run1 Helicopter Ambient Test C Flyby on Track ,2.(Headng SW) 1232 Run 2 A-Weighted Pink Noise 1358 Run 3 Messages (Cassette 2) 1144 Run 6 Helicopter Ambient 1405 Run 4 Messages (Cassette 10) 1149 Run 7 BB Pink Noise 1412 Run 5 Siren Tone Test E Flyby on Track 3 (Heading SW)
Test D. Hover at HE6 (Headng SW) 1155 Run 6 Helicopter Ambient 1432 Run 1 MRT Test (25 words) 1202 Run 7 BB Pink Noise Test E Flyby on Track 3 (Heading SW) 1446 Run 1 Helicopter Ambient 1458 Run 2 A-Weighted Pink Noise 1504 Run 3 Messages (Cassette 3) 1522 Run 4 Siren Tone 1513 Run 5 Messages (Cassette 0)
Test A Flyby on Track 1 (Heading SW) 1533 Run 6 Messages (Cassette 5) 1537 Run 7 Messages (Cassette 4)
Test F Flyby on Track 4 (Heading NNE) 1543 Run1 A-Weighted Pink Noise
. ' Time of test A.
war las e&TORGS 2-3
il !
, m
, frequency-dependent loudspeaker and sound propagation characteris-tics. Tests were also performed with the pink noise input signal modified by an A-weighting filter. However, the unweighted pink noise signal produced the highest acoustic output from the loud-
. speakers. The pink noise signal .was used to simulate a speech j
L spectrum for measurement purposes.
Speech Signals - Broadcast speech information consisted 'of Modified Rhyme Test (MRT) word ilsts and short sentences prerecorded on tape by trained male talkers. The MRT words and the sentences are well-known test materials for evaluating speech intelligibility of 3
communication systems '" and hearing ability for speech."'5 The-MRT word ilsts consist of a succession of one-syllable words scored by the subjects selecting the correct word from a preprinted list of five similar (rhyming) words. The test sentences delivered consisted of
. short unambiguous (i.e., "known sentences") questions with *well-known answers. A full description of the speech test material is contained in Appendix B.
r k Siren - A single tone with a 680 Hz fundamental frequency.
Helicopter Ambient - Special runs were made to determine the level of the helicopter self-noise level in the absence of broadcast sound signals.
The sentence intelligibility tests were performed during flybys of the helicopter on tracks 1, 2, and 3. A series of 15 questions were broadcast during these tests.
Questions were read at intervals of approximately 5 seconds. In order to fully achieve the design criteria of the systems, subjects on the ground would need to respond to five questions (25 seconds duration) correctly during the flyby. This 25 second duration corresponds to the expected duration of two repetitions of an actual warning message.
During all tests, radio communication was maintained between the Test Director, the helicopter, and each of the three measurement locations. Coordi-nation of the start and stop times of each run was thus guaranteed to assure that data obtained were correctly identified. Communications also allowed tests to be delayed when interfering events such as aircraft flyovers could mask the test O vm1, 2- 4
(%
Q) signals to be evaluated. These precautions, however, did not completely eliminate interference from automobile passbis and other community activities.
- 2. i hfcopter/I.oudspeaker Configuration 1 N .ielicopter was a' standard Bell Jet Ranger with the amplifiers and bat;e. a located in the cabin behind the pilot. Controls for the system were mounted near the forward right seat to make them accessible to the copilot / flight director. l. loudspeakers were mounted in a configuration adapted to the mechanical constraints of the helicopter airframe but designed to achieve wide coverage on the ground when the belicopter is flying at low altitudes. Photographs of the .
helicopter and speaker installation are shown in Figure 2.
The primary loudspeaker consists of 28 drivers mounted on the lef t side of the helicopter in a 4 wide x 7 high array. The mouth of each driver's horn is 4 and 9/16 inches square. This array is driven with a 3150 watt battery-powered amplifier. The loudspeaker was muunted in the lef t rear doorway pointing 90 to the lef t of the helicopter heading and slightly down at a 5-degree angle.
I A second set of two loudspeaker arrays was mounted under the helicopter between the landing skids. Each of these spe,aker arrays consisted of four in-line drivers with 7-inch square horns. The two four-driver speaker arrays were pointed
!ef t and right at f,20 degrees from the helicopter's heading. They also were tilted downward at a 3-degree angle. Their orientation was devised to provide acoustic coverage in front of the helicopter where the helicopter emblent levels are lower.
Each of the smaller arrays was driven by a 450 watt ampilfier. There are a total of nine 450 watt amplifiers driving the loudspeaker systems.
2.3 Speech Intelligibility Tests Fif teen subjects, taken from the Seabrook Station work force, were utilized I
for the speech intelligibility tests. Although most were men, their average age and estimated hearing ability were considered to be reprenntative of the average population in the area. They were distributed in groups of five persons per group and taken to the selected measurement locations. Each group was monitored by a team leader who maintained communications, distributed test materials, and assured that all test scores were obtained independently. Details regarding these tests and she subject locations are contained in Appendix B.
O wm Lae08tA70fMES 2-5
. .j
}gg~' ..
^
~
' '/' ek.. .__ .
~. . ,c :,.,
f..z ,; ..
.y: : /s . 2,. v '
' % '"~
g ,[ V
~ e J
t __
, i, gy - -
1 I.
,- 4
. ~
.. , g ,, ,s. * , .. t 7 4 ', .,,s ,
( % * . . .
o .
t@.
._. / .-
M s . .
i.
?'#
M -
vt w' '
- .l, i &# y'r..
- 3 n,
&, . ~
M [ v y ,a ucy, gt
. [1 . %
=. .
4
.>>d,~...
.R, .~y p?
~h,ffCh;a?,. hY *N 'ef.;pg
~'
4 -
Figure 2. Loudspeaker Arrays on Left Side and Underneath Bell Jet Ranger Helicopter.
O~
M. ... .
2-6 j
i 1
i i
I
'O On February 23,1988, the day prior to the speech intelligibility tests, L subjects were briefed as to the nature of the tests and familiarized with the score sheets. All subjects had previously performed tests of this type so they were familiar with their required duties. They were instructed to be' attentive, avoid ;
distractions, .try to be relaxed and, for the MRT words, guess as to the word presented when necessary. A standard correction for guessing was applied to the resultant scores. For the test sentences, the subjects were instructed not to guess.
Individual cassette recordings of the MRT word lists and test sentences were available for selection prior to the field tests. The cassettes were selected on the day of testing and given to the flight director just before the helicopter's dep arture. The subjects had no prior knowledge of the content of the MRT word list er the questions to be presented during the sentence tests.
It should be pointed out here that speech intelligibility tests needed to be conducted in the field due to the unusual type of signal presentation,tonditions involved with an airborne alerting system. The well-known methods for predicting 2
speech intelligibility of communication systems ,4 cannot be reliably applied in this case for two basic reasons:
- 1. The speech signal heard on the ground inherently changes overall level with time as the helicopter-mounted loudspeaker moves in flight.
- 2. Sound propagation over long distances from a moving airborne source causes fluctuations in level and quality of the received speech signal.
Neither of these characteristics (the first associated with the source and the second associated with sound propagation) are normally present for operation of the usual ground-based paging or public-address systems. Thus, the existing well-2 developed speech communication evaluation methods ,4 must be augmented with speech communication tests of the airborne system under actual field operat!ng conditions. This necessity has been borne out since a key end result of these field tests was to establish a signal-to noise requirement that is significantly greater than would be expected for a notmal ground-based paging or public-address estem.
2.4 Sourvj Level Measurements Sound levels at the three observer (or listener) locations E2, E3, and 53 (see Figure 1) were recorded on three separate magnetic tape recorders and measured 2- 7 vnu a mas J
l I
)
- Lk/
h with sound level meters during each test. The beginning of each run was identified over the radio to each team and the three tape recorders were turned on at the time of the radio message. Sound level meter measurements with the meters set to " Slow" response and "A-Weighting" were made starting with the beginning of the i
run. These sound level meter readings were taken at 5-second intervals during runs where constant level (i.e., broadband noise) signals were broadcast. For the MRT word and sentence tests, sound level meter readings of the approximate maximum A-weighted sound level were made in the field for each MRT word and sentence presentation and the levels were entered on a data sheet. These direct measure-ments of speech signal levels in the field were only obtained to provide " quick look" observations and to provide a secondary check on the laboratory analysis of the -
tape recorded data.
. Subsequent to the field tests, the data that were recorded on tape in the field were analyzed in the laboratory with a spectrum analyzer or level recorder to define spectral content.or time histories of " steady state" (i.e., broadband noise) test signals. Graphic level time histories of A-weighted sound levels were also obtained for the MRT word and sentence tests. For these speech intelligibility
.L
[ tests, the graphic level records were obtained with a pen writing speed corre-sponding to a " slow" time constant on a sound level meter. Speech " signal" and ambient noise levels were then obtained directly from these charts.
f G
V
\
V Y. LE, 2- 8
\
m.
~
a l:
f i6) 1 2
3.0 TEST RESULTS I Results were obtained from four different types of tests: intelligibility tests using MRT words,inte!!!gibility tests using single simple sentences, helicopter noise level-tests, and loudspeaker system acoustic tests. Results from these tests are presented in the following sections.
3.1 Speech Intelligibility - Modified Rhyme Words The intelligibility measurements using MRT words were carried out with the helicopter in hover mode. The test results could thus be directly compared with the results obtained using the same technique in the November 1987 tests. Each hover intelligibility test consisted of a presentation of 25 words to the groups of five subjects at the three test locations identified in Section 2. Each test lasted about 3 to 4 minutes - much lunger than an expected notification message length of about 25 seconds (for the message presented twice).
Scores from the hover MRT tests were corrected (see Appendix B) to q account for.the effect of guessing when scoring this multiple choice test." The U corrected word scores from the MRT tests were th(n plotted as a function of the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N),in decibels, averaged over the entire list of 25 words at l each location. From related studies on speech intelligibility in noise, it has been found that an empirical linear relationship can be obtained between the S/N ratio of A-weighted sound levels and the log of the percent error in MRT scores. A best-fit line was determined in this manner for the November 1987 tests to define a relationship between S/N ratio and MRT. This regression line is illustrated in Figure 3 along with the new regressien line which includes the more recent data from the February 1988 tests. Since the previous Modified Rhyme word tests
' involved more subjects (26 in November 1987 versus 15 in February 1988), more test conditions or data points (eight in November 1987 versus six in February 1988),
and more reliable data in the desired MRT score range above 80 percent, the new regression line was constructed by weighting the November 1987 data by a factor of 2 to 1, e.g., (26/15)(8/6) = 2.3. Results frum these two different series of MRT hover tests are shown in Table 4. The tabulated values of signal-to-noise ratio and corrected MRT scores were used to construct Figure 3. Note that the S/N ratio values listed incorporate small adjustments to the total measured signa!
/N plus noise (S+N) levels to obtain a correct estimate of the true signal value. This wv...tm
. u 3-1
,\
.y 8
1 e) .
)
) o t
r to )o i t
o o a t a
p D D
6 R e
I
=
r 7_ d
. 1 e'
s s 8 e i
o i
h 9 n 1 i O .
O N-
~ t b o
( :
4 7 8 o o vm . 1 1
l t
a 8 8 N ( C(
9 9 1 1
\ ~
ig n
e e - dB S.
=. .
v b n n I
- 1 o
o e iL L N
- i t
- N F )
e n n s i v
d d
- - o o i i s s s s o\ l1 0 v l
e e
l t
a e
e er e e L R r
u u gr g r NO_ s
'er s as e e a d a
e e R R O \ h t
e S
o c
MM- N l 8 g i
e T
- W- R oo - .
(
A M
- r o
N o I6 e s
f i a o t
- O N *
/
N l
D 8
a a
A i4 n 8' g 9 i 1 S y 3 r a
u r
- l2 b e
F d
n a
I0 7 8
9 7 \ 1 r
e 2 b a l
- ml s ee v
- oev 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 NL 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 f d 1 oe t nh og si ier aW p-R iEoO h e $ g , -
mA of Co 3
e r
u g
i l F
. C, ,
i{g Y"
- lllllil[l! i!j l >l ! ' l l l
- 4 '
] ( g. i d
- i) -'
':r f.
l(,) ' . Table 4
.~
L Measured Relationship Between S/N and MRT Scores from .
Novernber 5,1987 and February 24,1988 Tests
-- TE!T --- 5+N N 3(1) S/N No.of ------ MPT 3 COPE <t ----
dEtA) ------ dB Words BAW (Ref 1) Cret'o Egrs n
-Lay - lite Wrong s2) i 3 n.
Nov 5 1-E2 72 57 71.9 14.9 2.2 91.2' 87.9- '89.4 '. B 14 1987- 1-E3 '59 53 57.7 4.7 10.6 57.6 40.6 49 1 50 +
- i. E5 59 48 58.6 10.6 4.6 81.6 :74.2 77.9 73 -'
f .' '1 -N 1 - 70 59- 69.6 *0.6
. 2.4 90.4 86.6 e8.5 79 -
': 1 63 54 62.4 8.4 6.8 72.8 61.9 67.4 72.*
4-E3 61- 54 60.0 6.0 6.0 76,0 66.4- 71.2 62.6 l 4-E5 69 $4 68.9 14.9 3.2 87.2 82.1 84.6 85.4
\;> 4-N1 73 63 72.5 9.5 4.2 83.2 76.5 79.8 76.5
~
' Feb 24 B-E2 66.8' 57.3 66.3. 9. 7.8 68.8 *62.6 174.?
1988 E-E5 52.5 47.0 51.1 4.1 15.0 40.0 28.0 $1.4
- P-33 ~47.9 45.7 43.6 -2.1 20.8 16,8 0.2 -3.3
- L-E2 56.0 49.8 54.8 5.0 5.4 78.4 74.1 57.1
,- 4 -l D-E3 60.8 51.6 60.2 8.6 9.8 60.8 53.0 73.5
- V;/. D-53 51.9 .
47.2 50.1 2.9 16.0 36.0 23.2 43,4 t11 Signcl level (5), calculated by energy subtraction of the measure 3 average ambient noise level (N) frem the measured averag+ signel plus r.oise (S+N).
(2i The corrected MPT scores are based on the proper version of the correction equation which is erroneously-shown in'Bef. 1 (3) Valuee computed from the best-fit regression line to the dats from both tests. .This line is defined by:
% M (1.92-0.0575 5/N) l O
3- 3 i
bl _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
9 1
.- 1
'O table incorporates two corrections to the previous data from the November 1987 3
~
tests: (1) values for the S/N ratio for Test 4, sites E3 and E5 were corrected from 7.3 to 6.0 dB and 13.4 to 14.9 dB respectively (these two values in Table 3 of Reference 1 tiere in error - they were not consistent with signal and noise level values in T~able C-3 of Reference 1) and (2) the corrected MRT scores use the proper form for the correction equation as specified in Appendix B. The form used !
in Reference I was based on an erroneous expression in Reference 2.- This correction-increased the earlier MRT scores from the November 1987 tests by an average of seven percent.
In any event,it is clear that the more recent MRT test data agree quite we!!
with the earlier data. The new regression line of MRT words was then used along 2
with the relationship between MRT words and known sentences to estimate percent sentence intelligibility (SI) during a flyby.
The resulting equation for the new regression line relating signal-to-noise ratio of the A-weighted levels to MRT score is g!ven by:
/^% MRT(%) = 100 - 10(1.92 - 0.0575 5/N) , % (1) kJ The MRT scores predicted by this expression are listed in the last column of Table 4.
Analysis of the relationship between MRT scores and SI for "known sentences," shown graphically in Figure 15 of Reference 1, led to the following empirical expression to relate MRT scores and SI scores for known sentences for MRT scores greater than 60 percent:
2 SI = 0.717 + 110.9X + 266X - 514.4X + 236.3X" 3
(2) .
where X equals MRT (%)/100 and is greater than 0.60.
These two equations can be combined and a predicted relationship defined between intelligibility for known sentences (SI) and signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). A suitable empirical approximation to this relationship for values of the signal-to-noise ratio equal to or greater than 5 dB is provided by the following cubic l equation.
2 3
, S1(%) = 100 - 10(1.94 - 0.16 Y + 0.00676 Y - 0.000125 Y )(3)
V M
LA-M.E OlhES 3- 4
I' J' i k
n
( n (.
. 1 U
where Y = the signal-to-noise ratio in decibels between the A-weighted
- speech sound level and the A-weighted ambient masking noise level, i
This expression will be used later to compare with actually measured data relating
$1 and signal'-to-noise ratio. It should be pointed out that this empirical expression i has no theoretical foundation but is a useful form for critical evaluation of speech communication under conditions where SI must be close to 100 percent, as is the case here where emphasis is necessarily placed on the error rate or (100 - SI), %
The use of known sentences as test materiai, as opposed to unknown E sentences,is considered suitable for this program based on the assumption that the people to be alerted by this system will periodically receive pub!!c information to reinforce their knowledge of the nature of a potential real notification message. A practical criterion level for SI of 95 percent for known sentences was used for the system design. This value is consistent with generally accepted criteria for good speech inte!!igibility.2 The new regression line in Figure 3 shows that an 87 percent correct MRT
-O Q score is expected when the S/N ratio reaches 14.0 dB, exactly the same as the value of 14 dB reported in Reference 1 based on the November 1987 data. Thus, according to the relationship in Eqs.(1) and (2) between MRT, SI (known sentences),
and signal-to-noise ratio, a value of 14 dB is expected to provide a 95 percent SI score. Clearly, however, considering the scatter of data in Figure 3 and the tenuous relationship between MRT and SI scores based on the limited evidence in Reference 2, this 14 dB sigaal-to-noise ratio target !s only a , rough estimate.
Corroboration of this estimate was the objective of the viditional test conducted for this program which was designec to establish, by direct measurement, the sipal-to-noise ratio required, under field conditions, to achieve a 95 percent inte!!1gibility score for known sentences. Once this signal-to-noise retlo was established, the actual width of the coverage band on the ground provided by the airborne voice message system could be defined. Results of this additional intelligibility test are discussed next.
3.2 Speech Intelligibility - Sentence Tests To measure sentence intelligibility of the airborne system directly in the field, a careful choice of test material was necessary.
t W 't 2 LA408 WNES 3- 5
L.
l 4
o f ~x 1 r
,; );
- %)
It was.of course not feasible to employ actual alerting messages since there would be no way to prevent possible " false alarm" reactions of uncertain conse-quences by people outside the Seabrook Station area whc might hear the tests. In
. lleu of employing such messages, an alternative form of sentence test material was selected on ihe basis of the following criteria.
oj The sentences should consist of clearly recognizable and understand-
. able text material. This basic characteristic would thus correspond to the anticipated high degree of recognizability of actual warning messages which will have been periodically publicized to the area residents.
o The scoring of the subjective responses to the sentence tests should not require judgment by a highly trained panel. (Procedures which I require such skilled judgment for scoring have been employed in the "
past in some types of more complex sentence testing.')
o The test material should, if possible, employ sentences previously em utilized in auditory or speech communications testing.
)
Simple sentences in the form of readily understandable questions requiring only a single word response, developed by Hudgins, et al.5 for hearing acuity tests of speech, were selected as the only well-known test sentences which would meet all of the above criteria. l The sentences used, whic.h are listed in Appendix B along with a more I detailed description cf the sentes:ce test procedure, were selected from a wt of 196 simple questions given in Reference 5. Two trained talkers were employed to Iecord a tota of eight separate lists of 15 questions each. The questions were presented at an average rate ci about one question every 5 to 6 seconds. This rate of presentation allowed a subject to write down the answer to each of at least five questions in approximately 25 seconds - the minimum duration anticipated for an i actual warniUS message. A totallist of 15 questions provided a total duration of at least 75 seconds for presentation of each sentence test. This duration was consistent with the maximum length of time that a sentence test could be reasonably conducted on or near Seabrook Station property for a helicopter flying
- f. at the design target speed of 40 miles per hour (see Reference 1).
w n LAM *1 met $
3- 6
- . _ _ . i
i i
. i 1
/~'s .
Q) -
Figure 4 provides a representative example of the time history of A-
' weighted levels measured at one site (E2) during two of the tests (A6 and A7). This figure indicates the change in the peak speech levels and ambient background or helicopter noise levels observed during a typical flyby.
From the graphic records similar to that shown in Figure 4, it was possible to develop time history data on the average maximum A-weighted speech sound levels for each sentence and ambient noise levels between sentences from all of the flyby sentence intelligibility tests and the average A-weighted helicopter self-noise and pink noise levels from the other flyby tests.
A detailed tabulation of the results for the sentence tests, broken down by test run, measurement site, subject (listener) and sentence number is provided in Table B-4 at the end of Appendix B. This table includes a listing of running averages of both sentence intelligibility scores arithmetical!!y averaged over five sentences (or three sentences for the first three and last three senteh'ces of each group of '15), and the corresponding running ' averages of the signal plus noise, ambient noise levels only (between sentences) and the signal-to-noise ratio.
A
() A summary of the acoustic data from both the MRT and sentence tests is provided in Table 3. For the sentence tests, (A, C and E), the sound levels listed for noise only (N) and signal plus noise (S+N) are the maximum values of the running arithmetical averages over five sentences (about 25 seconds) ebtained from the detailed data in Table B-4 in Appendix B. The speech signal levels (S) are computed from these values by subtracting (on an energy basis) the noise from the signal plus noise. The signal-to-noise ratio is then simply the difference, in decibels, between tae signal (Si and noise (N) levels. For analysis of the sentence intelligibility test data, these maximum running average values of signal-to-noise ratio were coupled with the corresponding running average values of 51 from the de$ ailed data in Table B-4 of Appendix B to provitte a single data point for average sentence intelhgibility over a 25 second window for each test / site combination.
These SI-S/N data pairs for the time period of inaximum intelligibt?y were augmented by two additional data points, when available, consisting of the running average signal-to-noise ratio and corresponding Si values at a time corresponding to the sentence presented just before, and just af ter the one for which the i
maximum running average SI was obtained. This provided essentially three related pairs of data points of Si versus S/N for most of the test / site combinations. These MLM<
E
- stl 37
1l1lilii l i o _.-
E
' d
, n a
- )
- L p o
. t
(
3_
1= 7
. i r A
,, udj t
s n
u R
w
_ _ - t .
Ad s _
- e
- . r., -
i T
g
- i W
M =
k i t
n r
e m ;
i u
l A
b t r
e -
- ag ;
%r p o _
s ic k
a e
q- ! LW l l
e M = _e l
P L A.f_ \=
- r h s 1 -
. f o
- c i wN e o ]
A e + 2
-. p -
!ii E 4
r -
- S 4 f " / e o
" t i
- ' W - i V S t
a h
?
~
~
l 4
E x H
e c
f
%=
% l s
e v
e
- - )
d 5 -
e s
$ L e
0 s
- s l
\
3 l
- %=Y
?
i N
o a (~ -
' l A
f N ! d e
~P
}D - .l\ l a W h i
t g
e w _
- a. -
+
- A
. W
?
v l n/
M '
f o
s e
m-
- - = L=
i) r n oi o A
.- . t st
.- . it l
o
- E= _l A. A f
e(
m6 b
, . p 2' i-TA y x 4 e
_ [ r u
m m ig o
F I E E -
EEE -
oB I d g :
.,gs.
6.) Table 5 Suinmary Acoustic Data from Intelligibility Tests Alt : '500 ft. .
Max A Wtd Sound Levels
' Hor:- Angles Slant N $+N 5 5/N
- Tes t. Fun Time Trac.k 'Hdng . Site' Dist Her: Vert Range ---- dB(A)
dE'
?"
. A; 3 11^9 1 233 E2 -1200 -90* 23 1300 57;0 64.4 63.5 6.f
~E3 -7500 -90* ~4 7517 47. 0 55.6 55.0 8.*
$3 -500 -sC* 45 7 C57 49.7 52.7 49.7 v.
A 4 1145~ 1 233 'E2 -1200 -90* 23 1300 63.0 75.4 75.1 12,1- .
I E3 -7500 -90* 4 7517 -- --
53: -500 -90* 45 707 57.8 67.4 66.9 9.1 A' 6 1523 1 233 E2 -1200 -90* 23 1300 64.2. 78.4 78.2 14 . '.
'E3 -7500 -90* 4 7517 -- --
$3 -500 -90* 45 707 64.4 74.4 73.9 9.5 A 7 1537 1 '233 'E2 -1200 -90* 23 1300 52.4 67.6 67.5
- 15.1 E3 -7500 -?0* 4 7517 -- --
$3 -Sa3 -90* 45 707 66.6 78.8 78.5 11.9-
, 'tO 5' 1 1202 HE5 233 'E2' -2700 -25 10 2746 57.3 6*s . 8 66.3 9.0
( ,/ E3 -7900 -110 4 7916 47.0 52.5 51.1 41 53 -5100 -5 6 5124 45.7 47,8 43.6 -2.1
-' 3 1356 2 233 E2 300 90* 59 583 57.0 67.6 67.. 10.2 4.;
E3 -6200 -90* 5 6220 52.6 58.2 56.*
'33 1000 90* 27 1118 52.8 63.0 62.6 9.2 C 4 14v5 2 233 E2 300 90= 59 583 60.8 73.8 73.6 12.5 1 E3 -6200 -90* 5 6220 49.4 63.0 62.8 13.4 53 1000 90* 27 1118 52.0 63.6 63.3 11.3 1432 HE6 233 E2 3000 20 9 3041 49.8 56.0 54.8 5.0 L 1 3.6 E3 -5700 -110 5 5722 M .6 60.8 60.2 S3 5700 15 5 5722 47.2 51.9 50.1 0.1 L
1200 90* 23 1300 53 , 63.6 63.1 9.3 E 3 1504 3 233 E2 '3 1 E3 -5300 -90* 5 5324 54.0 62.0 61.3 .
S3 1900 90* 15 1965 40.2 57.6 57 1 8.9 E 5 1513 3 233 E2 1200 90* 23 1300 49.8 59.4 58.9 9.1 E3 --5300 -90* 5 5324 55.6 61.6 60.3 4.7 8.6 33 1900 90* 15 1965 49.6 58.8 58.2
- Herizontal angle between aircraft heading and propagation path at F . :.nt cf 01.:sest Approachp (CFA) while broadensting
./
b 3- 9
L data are ilsted in Table 6. They have been used to construct a plot of the measured values of 51 versus signal-to-noise ratio for comparison with the predicted trend defined earlier in Eq. (3).
The resulting plot is shown in Figure 5 in terms of percent error (100 - SI) on a log scale versus signal-to-noise ratio. Note that different symbols have been used to designate the measured results from Talker A and Talker B. These field data seem to indicate very clearly that there was a substantial difference in 51 scores between the two talkers. At the higher signal-to-noise ratios, SI scores for -
' Talker B tend to have a much higher error rate than Talker A. This distinction was not so apparent in the laboratory scoring of these field data. For the field data, -
the Si scores for Talker B were an average of about 7 percentage points lower than for Talker A. For five out of the six tests which allowed a comparison between scores for the same test site and flight path, the SI scores for Talker B were an average of 12 percentage points lower. For these same five pairs of tests, the laboratory sceres for Talker B were an average of only 5 percentage points lower than for Talker A. In any event, the consistent pattern of higher SI scores for
/~N Talker A is considered a realistic and not unexpected effect similar to the well-known influence of a talker's voice quality on speech communication under adverse conditions." Since actual emergency messages to be employed in this system will l
l be prerecorded, it is considered appropriate to assume that the talker to be-employed for making these recordings will be carefully chosen. In other words, the higher 51 scores obtained with Talker A are used from here on as representative of
} the ultimate capability of the complete airborne system.
With this viewpoint, a careful examination of Figure 5 indicates that, on the average, the desired design target of 95 percent intelligibility of known sentences is achieved with Talker A, with an average signal-to-noise ratio of less than 14 dB.
j (Note tha for purpcses of plott4ng the data la Figure 5, those six points for which the SI score was 100 percent are actually shown as if the 51 score was 98 percent, i.e., 2 percent error. This was an arbitrary but necessary approximation to accommodate the log scale usa' for the ordinate values in Figure 5.) Note that there are several data points in this category corresponding to an SI score of 100 percent but covering a signal-to-noise ratio of about 8 to 15 dB. The predicted relationship between 51 and S/N, derived directly from the rel;stionship between 51 1
O WE LAeCe 48 3- 10
n-_-_.- .- ._.
4 3
r fQ k)- Table 6 Summary SI Scores in Percent and Corresponding Signal-to-Noise Ratio, in Decibels, from Maximum Value of Running Average and from Yalues Displaced gone Sentence from that Maximum
- l '
- i. Max. Value t,,, t,,,+ 1_
Talcer Test Run Site SI, sin SI 5/N SI S/N A A- 3 E2 64 6.5 64 6.8 64 7.3 E3 92 8.0 76 5.8 88 8.0 53 0 0 0 - 0 --
B A 4 E2 92 12.1 80 13.0 87 11.7 E3 100 - - -
68 -
$3 56 9.1 36 7.7 53 9.5
=.
A A 6 E2 100 14.0 96 13.0 96 14.9
- E3 41 - - - 30 -
NJ 53 100 9.5 92 9.1 96 10.6 A A 7 E2 100 15.1 92 15.5 92 14.7 E3 45 -
35 - 35 -
S3 92 11.9 92 12.1 93 12.1 A C 3 E2 100 10.2 100 9.3 100 11.3 E3 92 4.2 88 3.6 84 6.5 53 100 9.8 96 8.4 95 10.6 B C 4 E2 92 12.8 88 13.0 88 11.5 E3 72 13.0 72 13.6 72 12.6 S3 68 11.3 48 9.1 93 12.8 A E 3 E2 100 9.3 100 8.4 100 9.2 E3 88 7.3 84 6.8 68 7.7 53 64 8.9 56 7.5 67 9.9 B E 5 E2 88 9.1 84 7.7 84 9.8 l- E3 65 4.7 75 8.0 50 3.6 S3 76 8.6 56 9.1 72 7.7 i
wzLAka 18 3-11 L__n_____________.____. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _
) ,
)
r o
A t N r r
p e E R g E
i l
i r N 7 i - 0 t
n K s o 0 2 e L n T 0 cr A i a 'n 1
e T t g P r lo i = f o e s 8 o f
R D e N l' S
i 1
s e I r m n S o r i
L / f e T s T N R % t 6 n
n i
OM I
O i o
1 i
(
S O p 6 S m O E o r O o l e
R f t 4 b G .
% O a I a D 1 T
E DE >
o R
R T
C 0 o o N m o
A I
_o .
B r
D .
f E E E N / i2 1 d s NI R (
e o ,
r L P o N ON O I
T o
c A S O R y O 0 O i t 1
O D E i l
, I S i b
O o I I
I O i g
o N i O O N O O O i8 O l
l t
e Oo O T I n
O L ei o D A ct N na E
O T i6 G I
S t
eR ne es i So fN o \ O A B o-o
\ n R E
R E
i4 i
t t Fng ol -
a
\
\ K L
A K
L A
T yi rS a s T mu i2 O O msr ue Sv 1 - - . - - - -
- 0 l - - - - - - - 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 2 1 e
r 0 8 6 4 3 2 1 1 u
- g _
1 _
i F _
g ,E -
+
t i
'G
'r llilllt
i F 1 .
.j de l yq trI.j j
x
~
k./y-and MRT scores and between MRT and S/N, was defined earlier (see Eq.3)in terms of 'a cubic equation. However, the scatter in the data in Figure 5, even considering
.)
h ) . Just Talker A, is too large to justify anything other than a simple linear regression -
line to provide a direct estimate of the SI-5/N relationship. Such a line is also shown in Fijure 5 in addition to the estimated relationship from Figure 3. The two q f lines agree'very well in the region of 5 to 20 percent error in SI scores.- However, for the low SI error rate of 5 percent, corresponding to the design target of 95 -
percent 51,~ the linear regression line through the data in Figure 5 for Talker A L Indicates a slightly lower S/N ratio of about 12 dB (actually.11.7 dB) than the 14 dB figure estimated previously. This linear regression line is defined by i Ik SI = 100 - 10 .l.66 - 0.0826 - (S/N)) (4)
To summarize to this point, a direct measure of the relationship between Si and S/N of A-weighted sound levels was achieved. The resulting value of 12 dB for the c S/N required to achieve the design target of 95 percent 51 for this airborne system is very close to the previous estimate of 14 dB. i J.G lt now remains to determine the range on the ground for which this 12 dB D signal-to-noise ratio is, in fact, achieved.
3.3 Helicopter Noise Data Special tests were again run, as for the November 1987 tests, to determine the A-weighted masking noise level. generated by the helicopter during flyby.
These-data were utilized to refine the prediction mocel for this self-noise level which,in turn,is used to predict helicopter masking noiss levels at any location an the ground. The simplified mode; for the helicopter ncise signatere utilized b Reference I assumed no directionality to the helicopter noise signature. For this report, it was necessary to define helicopter marking noise more accurately close j' to and forward of the helicopter, where coverage by the two added I x 4 speaker arrayo is critical. Thus, the f!!ght data taken from both the previous test (Reference 1) and this test were examined more carefully for directionality
- characteristics of the helicopter noise signature on the ground.
A general model for the A-weighted helicopter noise level, Lh (t) of the helicopter at any time t was assumed to have the same form as the expression f
developed in the next section for sound level on the ground for the loudspeaker
, signals. Thus, in addition to spreading aad air absorption loss included in the W
E o ;
3- 13 !
1
- u. .
I t 4
4 jfx V
previous: helicopter noise model in Ref erence 1, the measured flyby helicopter .
noise data . was evaluated to1 derive di'ectivity indices DI(G h
) and DI(A I I '
h directionalityf of the helicopter signature in the vertical plane for an elevation -
angle Gh and.in the. azimuth plane for an azimuth angle Ah.- (The azimuth plane contains the slant range propagation vectoi at any time t and the minimum slant g ' range .line at the point of closest approach. The azirr.uth angle is the angle between these'two lines.)
The results of this evaluation are !!!ustrated in Figure 6a and 6b.- Figure 6a -
shows the values of the measured helicopter source level corrected for. spreading-loss and air absorption to a reference distance of 1000 ft, plotted as a function of the elevation angle Gh.*
The data :in Figure 6a correspond to the maximum noise levels at the sideline at the time of closest approach. Analysis of these data made it,possible to
~ define the following parts of a helicopter noise model:
o Reference level, L, = 70 dB(A) at 1000 f t o Air ab' sorption loss coefficient = 0.29 dB/1000 f t o' Directivity index, Di(0,) = -0.06
- 0, for vertical plane (5) where 0, = - the elevation ange between the line of sight to the helicopter and a herizonta plane
= sin ~I (Height / Slant Range)
Note that these values for L, and the air absorption coefficient for the helicopter noise are close to the values (69.0 dB(A) and 0.3 dB/1000 ft) used in Reference 1.
It remains only to define a directivity index for the azimuth plane of the helicopter sound propagation. This was accomplished by applying the preceding model to the measured helicopter coise time history data.
I The result of this process is shown in Figure 6b in terms of the relative '
sound levels, corrected for spreading, air absorption loss and vertical plane directivity, as a function of the azimuth angle. For plotting purposes, the data were all normalized to have an average relative maximum level of zero near time O ,
1 3- 14
l 1 ec <
, , _ a) Vertical Plane r- 22 - + WAX, Lent on Right Side (2,'1998 Tests)
(,/ 40 - 0 WAX. Leal on Laft See (2/1988 Tests) 7 78 - A MAX, Leal on left S.ee (11/1987 Tests) 76 - {
J
~ l
$. A .A A !
s 72 -
O 8 7o - &
,E ..-
a
, u- t A .- ~
) "- A j $2 -
Regrimsion Line, La e 10C0 ft. o.o4(De . Anglej oo -
56 - -
66 -
64 , , , , , ,
0 20 40 GO ELEVATION ANGLE, DEGREES I'
10
/' b) Azimuth Plane 5-(_)%..
0 ' ' A -
j v' g- "
g -w '9 4 A g S x e'
~ ~
o o o 4 0 U
h . o, 8*x 4
+,oa x,&
Y, +
O 50 y
- x
{ O
- g 0 Sits L;?, Test A-e A Sits $3, Te4: A-e
+ ,, . Test C-4 X , Test C-6
-2$- ,,
0 ,, . Test E-4 9 ,, , Test E-4
-30 i i i . . . . .
i
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 6o AZiWUTH ANGLE, DEGREIS Figure 6. Noise Characteristics of the Helicopter in Terms of a) the Reference Maximum Level at 1000 f t Versus Elevation Angle in the Vertical Plane, and b) Relative Directivity of the Helicopter Noise in the Azimuth f) Plane. The latter compares the experimental values for directivity in V the azimuth plane derived from the flight data to the conservative prediction model adopted for design purposes. W 3-13
C g
I m
- f )
'J of CPA. The scatter in the data is substantial but a definite-decrease in sound level for azimuth angles greater than about +350 (or less than -35") is apparent.
This decrease is attributed to the directivity of the helicopter in the azimuth plane. Based.on a very conservative envelope to fit the upper bound of these data,
.the Directivity Index DI(Ah) for the helicopter noise in the azimuth plane was defined empirically by:
Di(B h = 10 log (ANA* + A h where A = 2400 m = 2.0 n = 2.2 and Ah = the angle between the slant range vector from the 1elicopter 3 to the observer at time t and this same vector at time t a 0 (at the point of closest approach)
.p h = tan
-I Vt[hH2y2 Vt = product of helicopter speed and time from closest approach (CPA)
H = height of helicopter Y = sideline distance from helicopter ground track to observer.
[ Based on this estimated directivity correction in the azimuth plane, the helicopter sound levels would be about 10 dB lower directly forward or af t of the helicopter at the same slant range, relative to the level at the side at the time of closest approach.
A term for lateral attenuation was included in the earlier model in Reference a to allow for the possible additional attenuation for sound propagation f
of the loudspeaker signal at near grazing incidence over the ground. This additional attenuation could be caused primarily by ground absorption. However, a
- p. careful evaluation of the helicopter flyby test data without any signal generation, k, and when pink noise signals were broadcast, was carried out. Neither of these sets i
of data showed any measurable effect of ground attenuation on the A-weighted
,q This absence of any ground attenuation effect on A-weighted Q sound levels.
t l
W-3-!6
L
(- .
helicopter and speech sound levels is attributed to the fact that any ground attenuation, if it occurs, would tend to be significant at frequencies outside the range which dominates the A-weighted signal or noise levels. Thus, for the refined voice coverage prediction model employed in this report, no lateral attenuation was include'd for either the helicopter noise signature or the speech signal.
3.4 Source Characteristics The acoustic signal delivered to the ground by the three element loud-speaker system employed in this test program has a complex time pattern on the ground, especially in areas forward of the helicopter due to the superposition of the .,
i sound radiation from each of the three elements of the loudspeaker system. A 1 more complex loudspeaker coverage prediction model than was used previously in Reference I was required to handle this situation. A preliminary version of this J model was reported earlier in Wyle Technical Note 88-2," Analysis of Loudspeaker Coverage by an Airborne AlertinE System ." For convenience, this Technical Note is included in its entirety herein as Appendix E. The only change in this i preliminary prediction model for the multiple speaker array is in the directivity I 1 V indices for the smaller 1 x 4 speaker array.
The predicted time history of sound levels for one loudspeaker or for the helicopter ambient noise levels are computed with the same expression that was used in Reference 1. This expression, given below, defines the average signallevel l L(d,t) es a function of time t for an observer at a sideline distance d from the ground track of the helicopter which is traveling at a speed V,
.f L(d,t) = L, - 201og (SR/r,) - a (SR -r,) /1,000 + DI(oc) + DI(B) (7) where L, =
reference on-axis source level at reference distance r, of 100 f t 2
SR = slant range equals (H +d2 (y,)2f , it a = attenuation coefficient due to air absorption i DI(oc), DI(B) = Directivity Indices for the vertical and azimuth angles oc and B, respectively, for the sound source.
f3 V
WYLE LASCAA708hES 3-17
l (A -)
-v-Relative Directivity Indices for Loudspeakers As indicated in Section 3 of Appendix E, the relative directivity indices for the 4 x 7 speaker array were modified slightly from the values given in Reference I based on a more careful evaluation of the previous flight data. These revised values for DI(oc) and Di(A) for this primary array are given by Eq.15 and 16 on page 8 of Appendix E, and are illustrated in Figure 1 on page 9 of Appendix E.
Additional data on the vertical directivity index of this large array were derived from the tests reported herein and these data are shown in Figure 7 to be in general agreement with the latest model for the vertical directivity of the 4 x 7 loudspeaker array.
For the added pair of I x 4 loudspeaker arrays aimed forward of the helicopter, the initial estimates given in Appendix E (Eq.17 and 18) have been modified on the basis of subsequent directivity measurements conduc,ted on the ground by Wyle on these AEM loudspeakers.
These revised models for DI(oc) and DI(A) for these small speakers are D defined in the same following general empirical form as before but with revised constants.
The general form is:
Di(0) == 10 log A/(A* + G**) , dB (8) when G = oc or A, the directivity angles in the vertical and azimuth pienes j j, respectively (see Appendix E for a full description of the geo-metry involved)
For <x, A = 3.52 x 108 , m = 0.722, n u 5.20 ;
For A, A = 36, n; = 1.11, n = 1.69 The predicted directivity indices based on these models are compared in Figure 8 I
to the measured data upon which they are based.
At the frequency of the siren tone (680 Hz), the effective directivity pattern of both the large (4 x 7) and the smaller (! x 4) speaker arrays could provide a wider coverage band than for speech signals. The latter are dominated by higher frequencies in the loudspeaker output which tend to have a narrower wm LASORef0NES 3-18
, NlQ_
'y
) 1 t
0 r 1 o
- p 3
i 7 e r
3 -
P is h .
- (
W T, Q e
H 0
2 5
2 f
+l
> ~
E -
5
'o h
o - t
- 0 0
2 i lp lp .'- - 1 A A \ : 0
_ hk z
M-l -
o l i
3 L h p O r t O ; 0 s
e P l A
I T
CI I
T C
I
\
\
3 t e r
g l, e D D L l O E P
E R
- \'\ Ns'V 0 D
A ; 4 l
l C P P s
\ x e n
C I
D a I E - -
\
\
N i 3 0 l P
- q P .
T P r ~
l a
R -
0 i c
E l
[N V
- 2 t
r V j t
V e
w n i
N I
8 7 l e
8 8 ;0 g 9 9 1 n
i 1 1 A
- . i8 ,
T b. v a I
e o h
- l p W
T U F
f i i t l A
D D C
E E R ;4 P
E U S
U S
R I
A E E A ;3 M M D 0 Ou V O ;2
- V
- 3 l
y 0 5 a 5 0 5 0 5 3 2 g 1 1 0 0 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p
, , " Ja
- j O, be bl9 r'_a t d t
t t t 8 i i
I
(? s A/) I I# 1
/
rl a i 6 : I l 6 a g
~
0 , -
3
,. o .-
I -10 - -
- i
. o e
a:
-15 - '
o
-20 . Empirical Prediction Models t 9 0 - Vertical _ Angle O O - Azimuth Angle
' ' ' f ' ' ' ' 1
-25 2 4 6 10 20 40 (0 100 ot or A, Angle, Degrees Figure 8. Measured and Empirical Prediction Model for Relative Directivity of ;
lx4 Loudspeaker Array.
O -
WYLE LAaOnarcass 3-20
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ - 1
m
{
i
,m
,: \
l beam width. However, a limited analysis of the siren flyby data does not show any significant difference in the directivity in the vertical plane. Furthermore, due to the tendency for long range sound propagation of tone signals to be accompanied by considerable signal fluctuation, the same directivity patterns just defined for speech signals will also be employed for siren tone signals as a conservative design procedure.
Atmospheric Absorption The other significant parameter, the atmospheric absorption coefficient, has been evaluated for atmospheric attenuation of A-weighted levels of the broadband pink noise levels for tests A-9, C-7 and E-7 on February 25,1988. These tests are believed to provide a more reliable basis for projecting the coverage of the loudspeaker system for speech since the spectrum and level of the loudspeaker output signals for speech and broadband pink noise are very similar.
For the cold, dry weather conditions existing on February 24 and 25, the f
computed atmospheric attenuation coefficient for speech or broadband pink noise signals corresponding to the measured weather conditions at a 150 f t elevation at n}
( Seabrook Station (see Appendix C) was about 4.5 dB per 1,000 f t - much higher than the value of 1.77 dB per 1,000 f t encountered for the November 1987 tests.
Thus, for & maximum sound propagation distance of, say, 6,000 ft, this difference in atmospheric attenuation could result in a difference in sound levels between the November 1987 and the February 1988 of as much as 16 dB. Analysis of the actual excess attenuation due to atmospheric attenuation indicated by the data does not bear out thie pessimistic calculation. A more realistic figure for the effective atmospheric attenuation coefficient for A-weighted levels of speech (and broad-band) pink noise was obtained by analysis of the maximum pink noise levels on the ground at the point of clonst approach. For this analysis, the observed maximum A-weighted levels were corrected for spreading loss and source directivity. The residual excess attenuation can be ascribed to atmospheric attenuation and the resulting average value derived from the data was 2.9 dB per 1,000 f t. This value will be used herein for comparing measured versus predicted sound levels for the February 1988 tests. The difference between the higher computed value (4.5 dB per 1000 f t) for air absorption of the 150 ft height and the effective value found by evaluation of the measured excess attenuation rate in the long range propagation data is attributed in part to the influence of humidity gradients over the propagation path. The relative humidity of about 15 percent indicated by the wm 3-21
U l
i l . V) - 150 f t meteorological data is in'a very low range where small changes in humidity can cause larger changes in air absorption.
For propagation of siren tones, the atmospheric absorption loss at the tone fundamental frequency of 680 Hz was determined to be 2.1 dB per 1,000 f t based on the same type of analysis of the actual field data carried out for the speech signals. The data used to derive this effective absorption loss for the siren tone 1 are summarized in Table C-4 of Appendix C. Note that this is a higher (more conservative) value for the atmospheric absorption coefficient than was'used in Reference 1.
Source Reference Levels The final parameter that must be established for each of the speaker arrays is the on-axis reference level at a di tance of 100 f t. For the large 4 x 7 array, this was shown in Reference 1 to be li iB(A) for speech signals and 115 dB(C) for pure tone signals. The additional data taken during this program indi,cated that a more realistic value for the reference based level for the inne signal is also about 120 dB(C). For design purposes, a safety margin of 2 dB is employed so the reference level for siren tones for the 4 x 7 array will be !!8 dB(C).
(V] For the small 1 x 4 arrays, separate " laboratory" type testing demonstrated that the on-axis sound level rating of these units was, as expected,106 dB(A) at 100 f t for voice signals. A rating of 104 dB(C)is used for the siren tone signal for these units.
The frequency response characteristics of the 4 x 7 loudspeaker system was described in Reference 1. Limited data on the frequency response characteristics i of the smaller 1 x 4 arrays indicates that their response is similar to that of the 4 x 7 array that was presented in Reference 1. ;
Prediction Model for Multiple Array By combining the methods briefly. summarized here for predict'ag the coverage for one loudspeaker unit (see Appendix E for complete details) with a superposition principle involving simply adding the signals from each speaker on an energy basis, the net coverage of all three elements of the total speaker system can be evaluated. Overall coverage in areas close to the helicopter is critically dependent on this composite summation, so that the type of comprehensive model outlined in Appendix E is required to provide a valid system design. An example of O the net time history of coverage at one position from all three speakers is shown in Figure 9.
Mumu u
3-22
. ,,L.-
_f
,! l'
.S f 99 cr f%
8 i 4 I $ '
50 ~ -
' Q B'
5 E l
3 Combined g l L
70 d f e Speaker 1
,1,
.(4 x 7 array to left) 9 k [+ 't 6 1 A
o y-
- h. . I e
5 y' 8
/e 8
/,#<%. q
\
\.
c'c" I
$ . p 'peaker 2
?') -' p**#
I (1 x 4 array M % peakerS 3 (1 x 4 array to the left) to the right) 3 i
\
O)
( '\ , \ i 40 i i , i , , 4 i i 4 i i i i
-90 -to -40 -20 0 20 40 *0 TlWE FROW CLOSEST APPROACH, Sconds Figure 9. !!!ustration of Predicted Composite Time History of Sound Coverage at one Site (E2) from the Three Speakers While Airborne at 500 f t Altitude on Track 1 (Observer 1200 ft to left of track). I l
O' W -- Y L E.
3-23 l
t
/M I; k 4.0 ' EVALUATION OF 3YSTEM PERFORMANCE
- h. The overall performance of the airborne alert 'and notification system can
- be predicted over a full range of observer positions with the use of the prediction models for the loudspeaker output which were outlined in Section 3. A generalized
- prediction model is necessary for, evaluating system coverage since it would have been quite impossible, within a practical field test program, to obtain data from a sufficient number of measurement points to fully define the expected coverage of q the airborne system solely on the basis of field measurements. This is especially
'i true with the more complex coverage provided by the three loudspeaker arrays.
The evaluation of the altborne alerting system is considered from three different viewpoints:
o Supporting evidence for the validity of the field speech intelligibility tests. .-
o Further evidence of the validity of the loudspeaker coverage predic-tion model by comparing the measured and predicted time histories of '-
the speech signals for equivalent signals and the helicopter masking i noise signals. !
l; o Finally, a mapping out of the anticipated average in terms of the
[ duration for which the signal is expected to exceed the design criteria !
as a function of sideline position. This final step in the evaluation will allow specification of the area covered by the airborne warning system on any given flight track.
' 4.1 Validity of Sentence Intelligibility Tests As indicated earlier in Sectia 3, the intelligibility tests conducted in the field in very cold weather were validated independently by carrying out a completely independent test of the same sound signals heard in the field but tape-recorded and played back in a laboratory setting. Over the propagation distances involved for the critical conditions, subtle differences between the acoustic signal heard directly by subjects in the field and the binaurally-recorded signal heard over earphones in the laboratory will be minimal. Such differences would arise from high frequency diffraction effects at the head of a listener that were not duplicated for the laboratory recordings. As noted in the full description of the 1
i n) i
%.r 4-1
i y
.l.j p
.q N ' N.)
laboratory tests in Appendix D, a few of the recorded signals suffered from a p possible wind noise picked up by the microphones. .
A comparison of the sentence inte!!1gibility scores from the laboratory and field tests.ls provided in Table 7. This table lists the maximum value of the running (five sentence) average SI scores (designated 3fmax) from the 18 test / site combinations which were evaluated in the laboratory. The average difference between these figures for the laboratory and field tests was about ! percent with a standard deviation of about 13 percent. In 13 of the 18 comparisons, the maximum running average scores occurred over approximately the same or identical five-sentence average window. If the running averages are compared for the identical -
five-sentence averages as observed for the field tests, the average difference Timax decreased from 1.2 percent to -3.9' percent with a slightly lower standard deviation of ,12 3 percent. ' Either way, the difference between the laboratory and field tests would not be statistically significant. It is especially important to note that the agreement between laboratory and field tests was even better for those cases of primary interest where the maximum running average SI mre was better
- than 90 percent. In summary, the inherently difficult conditions involved in C administering a sentence intelligibility test in the field apparently had no signi-ficant effect on the outcome; if anything, the field test scores may have been, on the average, slightly higher, possibly due to the lack of any minor flaws in fidelity of the recordings or presence of masking noise (e.g., wind noise on the microphone) not heard by the subjects in the field.
4.2 Direct Evidence of System Coverage A very direct way te examine the effective range of the loudspeaker system is provided by simply examining the SI scores as a function of horizontal distance between the observers and the flight track, since it was clearly established earlier that signal-to-noise ratio must be close to 12 dB to achieve the desired 95 percent sentence intelligibility target. Thus, in order to !!!ustrate the influence of just range on 51, only locations for which the measured speech signal-to-noise ratio was within 5 dB of this target, or greater than 7 dB, were considered. The data are shown in Figure 10 along with a comparison to the predicted trend in SI score for Talker A based on the design model outlined herein. The abscissa scale is the horizontal (sideline) distance on either side of the flight track. Although there are relatively few data points at the extreme rar ges, the field data are consistent with vmz LADOAATDaES 4- 2
n Q ,/. l Table 7 l I
Comparison of Laboratory and Field Scoring of Sentence Intelligibility Tests i d
.,.- Laboratory Tests Field Tests Dift 3 maxIII Q.f(2) y max -
q, p 33 max(3) j Site . Test % -
E2 A-6 100 7-8 100 7 0 A-7 100 6 100 6 0
' C -3 98.3 10 100 8 -1.7 C-4 98.3 11 92 11 6.3 E-3 68.9 14 100 13 11.1 E-5 73.3 10 88 6 -14.7 E3' A-6 27 3 41 2 -
-14 A-7 17. 9 45 4 -28 C-3 85 & 92 9 -7 C-4 80 4 72 4 8
- E-3 100 14 88 9 12
( E-5 72 10 75 2 -3 53 A-6 88.9 14 100 9 -11.1 A-7 95 12 92 13 3 C-3 72 12 100 12 28 C-4 97.2 14 93 14 4.2 E-3 73 13 56 10 17 E-5 87 -10 76 10- 11 Average 1.2%
Standard Deviation 113.2 %
Notes (1) - Maximum value of moving a-@metic average of SI scores over five sentences (over three sentence at end points).
(2) Question number at center p6 int of this moving average.
l (3) Emax (Laboratory) -Emax (Field), %.
/O
.g WYLE LAtoAAtofuts 4- 3
O 2 e
d i
S o e t a h ,
ig R -
o E O
o-O-.
a e ,
O d iS t
f '
e , 2 L
)
ft
(
k
, c ar
)T s
d
. nm i -4ao sr u f
-o hc e
(T n
) a y t l
s O n iD o
A la t
r 6 n e , - o O k l a i z
r a o
_ T
( H
_ d e ,
_ t
. c e
D i d
e 8
r r P e , 8 k
l
- a
_ T
_ =
E
- 0
- 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 9 8 7 6 5 1 1 t
t 2E 5
- ;l
m x 1
. b l
l9 o f-q i s.
KJ y the predicted trend for the clearly preferred Talker A. Very good SI scores are obtained for distances of about 1,000 f t to the right of the track and to at least 6,000 f t to the lef t of the track. {
I
. 4.3 Comparison of Time Histories A detailed test of the prediction model is provided by comparing predicted versus measured time histories of representative sites. Four such comparisons are -j F shown in Figure 11 between the predicted speech plus- noise '(helicopter plus 50 dB(A) ambient) level,' the helicopter plus ' ambient only, and the' corresponding measured data. For the measured speech levels, it was found that the broadband
- pink noise levels were very nearly the same and, hence, provided a more comp!ste time history of data to represent the speech levels over a longer period of time than the 80 to 90 second duration of the sentence tests. Thus, for these comparisons, the broadband pink noise levels are used as a surrogate for.the speech levels. Figure lla shows the first comparison at Site E2, Tests A-6 and A-9, including a comparison between both the actual speech and the pink noise ley?l.
Figure lib through lid show the comparison between measured and pre-V- dicted values for three other sites - altogether covering a fairly representative range of propagation distances.
In general, the comparisons show reasonable agreement between the expected complex time history pattern and the actual measured levels. It must be emphasized that subtle differences between measurement and prediction associ-ated with wind or temperature-induced refraction effects in the long range sound propagation and deviations of the helicopter from its nominal heading or differences between the assumed single atmospheric absorption coefficient at the time of the test and the actual average value over the entire propagation path are not modeled. In any event, these comparisons provide a critical test of the details of the model and indicate that the model should be able to give reasonable predictions of the overall coverage. j 4.4 Expected Coverage for Presentation of a Notification Message As clearly indicated in Section 3, satisf actory intelligibility of a notification message is expected when the voice signal is at least 12 dB higher than the total helicopter plus ambient background masking nolse. Furthermore, this criterion wnm LA60mAtomes 4-5
)
90 A l
[ ,
D neocsured Ank Nose to picnulate 'ece els N
/ }.
< . (g - x w.oeu,.d 59aci+ 5'a h g. a) Test A-6, and p,,d. $.gnot + No.m
\ Site E2 7
60 - , % g g,,,,,pwr+ Ame , f[/ \
(
A prod. Mecoper + Amt>ent , g J
w d 70 '-
",., c3 rl 8 /[ \
\ Y-)
s S
k so -
[ \
/ \
g
's. \
4 50 -
do , , , , , , , , , , , ,
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40, 40 TlWE FROW CLD$ CST APPROACH. escends 90
,O ' D MacmJ,ed Ank None to simulate e lawWs V ----**d SW* N*** b) Test C-6, and
,g _
i u.onu,,d Hencepter + Ane.nt Site S2 8 a Pred. Helicopter + Amtwent
% Y = +1.000 ft J
W w _
h 70 -
c 's k
b 8 40 -
- \
5 V ,
I
- $0 4 Ao , , , , , , , , , , .
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 TIME FROW cLDSEST APPROA@, seconds Figure 11. Comparison for Four Test / Site Combinations of Measured and Predicted Time Histories of Sound Levels and Helicopter Plus Ambient Background t Noise. Part (a) shows both speech and pink noise together while the remainder use only the more complete pink noise time histories as a surrogate for the speech levels. M LAs0AA70846 46
m 8 .
i 90
. ry .o unoww mkNomeee.mJoe. w .
C) Test C-7, and
-.. ), ---- p
- d. s9nol + Nose O Site E2
. 60 -
"***"*""'****"I -
"'=a "* p=' ~ ~~ f l , , . +3o0 ge i
0 70 - y/ %s O 60 -
=
E
/-
j / 6 50 - M '%
40 i i i a e i e i i i , ,
-60 -60 '-40 -20 0 20 40 00 TiteE FROW CLOSEST APPROACH, menons. .
90 0 - - - ~ - . -
Aw. sgnoi + No 60 -
+ unosuw H kampeer + A4.ne d-) Test E-7, and 3 Site E3
% a prod. H.ieopes, . A%.ne d Y = -5,300 ft d 70 - g a
5 8'
3 60 -
=
E .... .... .
V g T _.
50 -
( 4e , , , , , , , , , , , ,
-60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 TiuE FROW CLDSEST APPROACH. .econde Figure 11 (Continued) wvu 4A40AAfDs 47 L____________
(:
,n.
L) i level must be equated or exceeded for a sufficient time period for any observer to be exposed to at least two presentations of the message. This is expected to take no more than 25 seconds based on alerting messages that have been considered.
For design, a. safety margin of 5 seconds is added to the required duration for which the signal-to-noise. ratio must exceed 12 dB. (This 20 percent increase in the required time only decreases the coverage ' width by about 3 percent - a prudent trade-off in design margin.)
Thus, effective coverage of the system is best defined in terms of the width of a band on the ground that lies parallel to the helicopter ground track within which the signallevel and time duration criteria are satisfied. With the use of the prediction model described in Section 3 of this report, this coverage can be shown graphically in the form of a time-sideline distance fomp;nt as illustrated in Figure 12. This shows the predicted time of occurrence, relative to the time of closest approach when the speech signal-to-masking-noise ratio is expected to, first and last, exceed 12 dB as a function of sideline distance from the track. The difference in time between these space-time boundaries must equal or exceed the Q
Q - 30 second design criteria. One can thus find that for the conditions treated here, the helicopter is predicted to cover a band extending from 6,300 ft to the ! cit side of the helicopter to 1,000 f t to the right of the helicopter, for a total coverage width of 7,300 f t. This result is consistent with the actual SI field tests, as indicated earlier in Figure 10, and supports the prediction model at all positions far from and close to the flight track. Note that one data point in Figure 10 indicated an Si score of 100 percent was measured at a sideline distance on the right side of 1,200 f t. This would be the approximate outer boundary of coverage to the right side,11 a minimum time duration of 25 seconds had been used. However, the very !
rapid drop-off in predicted coverage beyond 1,000 f t supports the need to retain 1,000 ft as a prudent design value for the range on this side.
4.5 Estimated Coveraae for Presentation of Siren Alerting T- e To estimate coverage for presentation of a siren alerting tone signal, the same process as outlined above is fo!! owed except that the attenuation coefficient for atmospheric absorption, a, is reduced to 2.1 dB per 1,000 f t due to the lower frequency (680 Hz) of the tone compared to speech frequencies.
.[g ~N WYLE LA40Baf0A48 4-8 w- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
60 .
3g , 'a) , Background Noise - 50 dB(A)
,r \
-l%_/l 40 -
N
\.
30 -
20 -
n
,e to -
w A4 .
o 2
u .
[ FomoM l 4 \
\
m/ /
Ldt $de Rght Sees
-mo , i i i . . 1
-7 -5 -3 -1 1 (ThowsoMs)
SIDEJNE DISTANCE (f t) ,
60 SU '
f% 'b) Background Noise = 60 dB(A)
\ 40 -
30 -
20 -
g 10 -
< A1 u
o N
& FonNmlt
~
l L. aft Sde R g ht Saos
-Go i i i i i i i
-7 -S -3 -1 1 (Thowooms)
SIDQJNE DISTANCE (f t)
Figure 12. Coverage Footprint for Speech Intelligibility for the Condition that the Signal-to-Noise Ratio Exceeds 12 dB for a) Background Noise = 50 dB(A),
and b) Background Noise = 60 dB(A).
La80AAfomma 49 L___._______- _ _ _ - -
g g. .
W y,,' _
i n yl
^
- x. ,
or ,
I a
.N_ '
a l -{p ,
ll} Criterion levels for the siren tone were specified in terms of:
-o . Achieving a s!nn sound level of 70 dB(C)(for areas of high population density,' as required by FEMA-REP-10),g o o .. Achieving a siren sound level.of 60 dB(C)in areas of lower population ' l
', density (less than 2,000 per square mile), and, for either case, .
~
o Achieving a level of '10 dB above the total masking noise level in the one-third octave' band (630 Hz) containing the siren fundamental tone-of 680 Hz.
For this latter criterion, due to the additional influence of the helicopter on the masking noise level,it was felt prudent'to use the (energy) average noise level to define this masking noise instead of. the L90 statistical level of just outdoor I
a.nbient background noise that is normally used for siting fixed sirens. Further-more, since -the siren tone must be audible above whatever backgr9mnd noise is -
- present to be effective, the condition that the effective signal-to-noise ratio be equal to or greater than 10 dB is included here, due to the added masking effect of
- the helicopter noise, as a second requirement for either the 70 dB(C) or 60 dB(C) .
criterion. .
s -
The specific shape of helicopter noise and outdoor ambient-noise spectra show that the difference between the one-third octave band level and the corresponding A-weighted level is about the same (-9 dB) for either spectrum.
Allowing for a 2 dB safety margin, the criterion for. an effective signal-to-noise ratio for siren tones translates to a difference in A-weighted levels of +10 - 9
+2 +3 dB (i.e., the C-weighted siren sound level of the 680 Hz tone must be +3 dB 7 above the A-weighted level of the helicopter and outdoor noise).
The duration for a tone signal for an airborne alerting system is not explicitly called out by FEMA regulations but, in FEMA-REP-10' (paragraph E.6.2.2), it is stated that for a mobile alerting' system, the design report should
' include ". . .a discussion of how a vehicle's planned speed provides an effective p
signal duration to alert the intended population . . ." It should be pointed out that many actual measurements by Wyle of the siren signals from rotating or stationary sirens are far from steady at distances near the outer edge of siren coverage. In fact, data indicate that 70 to 80% of the time, the siren levels fa!! below their (energy) average values at these farthest distances. Nevertheless, for design wm LABORATORIES 4-10
- 1 .
---m___..._.__m _ . _
i m.
'[a}-
purposes, it was assumed that the tone must meet the above level criterion for a period of st least 30 seconds. .
To summarize, coverage of a siren tone signal is based on compilance with the following criteria:
o C-weighted sound level exceeding either 60 or 70 dB(C), and -l
- o. Signal-to-noise ratio between C-weighted siren level and A-weighud background noise level equal or greater than 3 dB (equivalent to an effective signal-to-noise ratio of 10 dB), aj o Compliance with these two level criteria for a period of at lesst !
30 seconds. !i Table 8 lists the resultant estimates of coverage by the system for both voice messages and siren tone alerting which meet the criteria outlined above. Results from this table have been presented in Table 2 of the introductory sum" mary. ,
For e siren tone the field tests and system coverage. prediction model
, indicates the width of the coverage band varies from 6,700 f t to 11,200 f t for the d,3 two FEMA signal level conditions of 60 dB(C) and 70 dB(C) and two representative
' ambient levels,50 dB(A) and 60 dB(A).
Some minor improvements in the system coverage may be possible by modifying the configuration of the two added I x 4 speaker arrays without adding payload or electrical power requirements. These improvements can now be easily evaluated with the use of the design model validated in this report. However, talker selection and message preparation should receive first priority in furthering I the development of this airborne alerting system.
4.6 PotentialInfluence of Teather an System Coveraae )
Two aspects of weather will influence the potential coverage of this airborne systems the wind and the temperature / humidity conditions.
l Within the operating wind speed envelope of the helicopter, wind blowing toward the loudspeaker in flight will tend to cause adverse effects on the sound propagation and may thus reduce the loudspeaker coverage. A very limited I evaluation of this potential refraction effect was evaluated in Reference I and the f following conclusions were reached.
N
(~J w
WYLE LAeORafont$
l 4-11 l
l L. _ - _ _ _ - - - _ -
Table 8 Summary of System Coverage Parameters (A) TOTAL DURAi!0N VER' SUS SIDELINE DISTANCE DURIN6 WHICH VOICE OR SIREN SIShAL LEVELS EXCEE9 THEIR RESPECTIVE CRITER10N FOR TWO DIFFERENT AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS, AND.
SUMMARY
OF RESULTING COVERAGE WIDTH
Signal Duration, Seconds --------------------
Sideline --- 50 dB(A) Ambient Levels ----- :: --- 60 dB(A) Anbient Levels ---
Distance Voice ---- Siren Tone ---- : Voice ----
Siren Tone ----
ft. S/N)12 dB )70 dB(C) )60dB(C) :: $/N)12dB>70dB(C) )60 dB(C)
-9000 34 ::
-8000 96 ::
-7000 120 :: 82
-6000 53 135 :: 104
-5000 78 66 145 :: 66 . 116
-4000 91 80 145 :: 52 B0
- 122
-3000 94 84 145 :: 64 84 122
-2000 90 80 145 :: 64 78 116
- 34 60 94 6 -1000 0
1000 76 33 60 34 112 68 60 ,
34 56 2000 52 ::
=
(B) WIDTH OF COVERA 6E BAND, ft.
Sideline ::
Minisus -6,300 -6,000 -9,000 :: -4,600 -5,800 -7,900 4:
Maxinus 1,000 700 2,200 :: -300 900 1.600 TOTAL WIDTH 7,300 6,700 11,200 :: 4,300 6,700 9,500 O wns -
4-12
43 .
z ,$.
l
- 7. , ,
(
.X
(
m)s,
J i
By operating the helicopter at approximately a 500 ft altitude and flying, to ,
the extent possible, so that sound propagation from the left side of the helicopter is not' upwind, any sound refraction effects of the wind will be minimized and any '
potential deleterious effects on coverage area will be kept to a practical minimum with little' expected influence on performance.
The effect of temperature / humidity conditions can be very significant at the outer boundary of the coverage range. For purposes of the evaluation, in this section, and for the numbers listed in Table 8, the weather conditions evaluated for the February 1988 test were chosen for the sake of conservatism in the design.
4.7 Summary A detailed speech intelligibility and acoustic measurement study was carried out to support the prediction of the full range of coverage for voice messages and siren alerting tones for the modified airborne alerting system , described in E Section 2.
The experimental field study indicated that satisfactory speech intelli-i gibility coverage extending over a potential area from 1,000 f t to the right of the aircraf t track to about 6,300 ft to the lef t was,in fact, achieved.
The critical need to employ a highly' trained and intelligible talker was clearly demonstrated by a not unexpected but marked talker effect in this study.
Other details as to the operating procedure of the system were covered in detailin Section 4 of Reference 1.
/D WYLE LAeoftAtostlE3 4-13
p 9
F V'
REFERENCES
- 1. Brown, R. and Sutherland, L. C., " Evaluation of an Airborne Alerting System," Wyie Laboratories Research Report WR 87-10 for New Hampshire-Yankee (1987).
- 2. Anonymous, " Methods for the Calculation of the Articulation Index,"
American National Standard 53.5-1969.
- 3. . House, A. . S., et. al., " Articulation - Testing Methods: Consonantal Differentiation with a Clow ' : esponse Set," 3. Acoust. Soc. Am. 37: 158-166 (1965).
4.. Kryter, K. D. " Speech Communication," Chapter 5 in Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design _, Van Cott, H. P. and Kinkade, R. G. (eds.),
McGraw Hill & Co. (1969).
- 5. Hudgins, G. V., et al., "The Development of Recorded Auditory Tests for Measuring Hearing Loss for Speech," Laryngoscope 57:57-89 (1947).
. }
- 6. . Anonymous, ." Method - for the Calculation of Sound Absorp' tion by' the l Atmosphere," American National Standard $1.26-1978. -'
- 7. Piercy, J. E., Embleton, T. F. W., and Sutherland, L. C., " Review of Sound Propagation in the Atmosphere," 3. Acoust. Soc. Am. 61:1403-1418 (1977).
- 8. Anonymous, " Prediction Method for Lateral Attenuation of Airplane Noise During Takeoff and Landing," SAE AIR 1751 (1981).
- 9. Anonymous, " Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants," Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-REP-10 (1985).
i O R- 1 M LABOAAf0m48 f N_- __ __ _ - -_ __ __ .
i l
l
, 4 u l APPENDIX A 1 1
Helicopter Test Preparation Prior to the tests, preparations were made for obtaining subjective data and i measuring acoustic levels at the test locations. Personnel were briefed to assure -
that all activities would be performed in accordance with Seabrook Station l procedures. This appendix describes the preparations and the limitations placed upon the test operations. !
A.1 . Pretest Subject Briefinns :
The following instructions were given to the subjects on the day before the test.
A . l .1 All Tests .
- 1. Prior to the test, make sure you have the proper score sheet, a clipboard, and a pen. .
.Le/]. 2. Sit quietly at the designated location.
- 3. Relax but remain attentive.
- 4. Do not-watch the other subjects or try to obtain answers .from anyone else.
- 5. Do not make comments or show excessive emotion during the tests.
- 6. Follow instructions of the Field Team Leader.
A.I.2 MRT Tests A series of words will be presented while ths helicopter hovers at a fixed location. You are to select the word from a group of six words that rhyme with each other. The word presented is contained in a carrier phrase as follows:
" Number one is pane."
(Answer Sheet) 1. pave pace J pale pane y- pay page
-k v),
WYLE LA408taf0att$
A-1
g
[ .g- -
k)l s " Number two is bug."
- 2. buck bus bug but bun buff etc.
- 1. You are o circle the word contained in the carrier phrase.
2.' If you are not sure of the answer, guess and circle the word you think it might have been.
- 3. If you guess, do not change your mind.
A.I.3 Sentence Tests A series of short questions will be broadcast from a helicopter sound system while it is ' making passbys in the vicinity of the Seabrook facility. These questions require a one-word answer. Following are a few exa'mples of the
- i. questions.
1
. J' _
t t U Questions Answers ,
Does honey come from bees? Yes
.What do you saw wood with? Saw Does a cat eat bricks or mice? Mice Do palm trees grow in Alaska? No What number comes af ter five? 6 Do you write with a chair or a pen? Pen What color is milk? White How much are 2 and !? 3 What do you write on a blackboard with? Chalk i
- 1. If the question is heard but not understood, write NH on the answer line.
- 2. If the question is heard and you do not know the answer, write NK on the answer line.
- 3. Upon hearing a question, immediately write down your best estimate of the carrect answer. Do not hesitate - only 2 or 3 seconds are j.~
l (j' available for answering.
M, 1
l A-2
)
)
i I
J l
l L / '; .
i
- 4. Do not try to' write the question, write only the answer.
- 5. When the next. question begins, do not continue to think about the previous question. If you are unable to write an answer, leave the ilne
. blank.
A.2 Measwement Tedmician Instructions The following instructions were given to the measurement technicians on
. the day prior to the test.
- 1. Prior to the tests, obtain three analog recording data -heets and six -
Sound Level Meter (SLM) measurement data sheets.
- 2. Fill in all b' lanks on the data sheet heading.
- 3. Upon arrival at the designated site, set up the dual microphones on the tripod,. connect the cables to the recorder and then turn on the recorder to standby. Check battery condition.
- 4. Orient the line joining the pair of microphones parallel to the flight l tracks and indicate on the Run Log whether Mic 1 or 2 corresponds to the right or left ear for each Test and Run.
L .
Annotate each channel and record the acoustic calibration on tape.
3.
Make appropriate entries in the Run Log.
- 6. Before the tests, turn on the sound level meter and calibrate it.
Check on the battery condition.
- 7. Start the tape recording before the beginning of the run and annotate the time and Test /Run number.
- 8. Measure the ambient level when the helicopter is inaudible. Observe the average minimum sound level and write down as the ambient.
- 9. During each run observe your watch and every five seconds look at the SLM display and write down the observed value. Write this " snapshot" value to the nearest dB.
- 10. If possible, mark an arrow on the value read at the closest point of approach (CPA) of the helicopter.
- 11. The tape may be lef t running if runs are close together.
LAtostatosnes A-3
m . v.g ,,
i,
( - <
n;
& ,h .
h g -
4
,o
\v
- 12. . Following all tests, record a post calibration signal on tape and log the Q4 ,
. post calibration Indication of the SLM.
P;Y A.3 '- Helicopter Operations W '
[J , The pilot was instructed to receive' directions for test operations from the y . Test Director. The pilot was responsible for safe operation of the helicopter at all 1 L times. The following flight parameters were to be maintained during the tests with
- any deviations to be approved by the Test Director.
l o- Ground Speed ' 403 3 mph
((
o' - Altitude 5003 25 feet
',5 o- ' Track Position (Lateral) 3 50 feet q o . Heading Within 3 12 degrees of track orientation
- o Pitch Angle Between 0 and 7 degrees down-tp 7 . The actual flight parameters were recorded in a log maintained by the on-board flight director. The flight director was also. responsible for operation of the
. :( acoustic system'and for playing the cassette tapes which contained the material.
c(
,1 Tests were not to be performed if the wind' speed was greater than 15 mph.
'. A.4 . 'Acoustic Measurement Requirements Data were recorded on magnetic tape at each of the three locations using instrumentation meeting the requirements of ANSI S1.4-1983 for Type 1 sound level meters. At each location a pair of B&K M-inch condenser microphones, placed 5 inches apart to obtain a binaural effect, were connected to two channels of a Nagra IV SJ tape recorder. Recorded data .were later analyzed to determine
- signal and noise levels and the tapes were also used for subjective evaluation in the laboratory (see Appendix D).
Acoustic measurements were also made on-site using Larson-Davis LD 700 sound level meters. These measurements were made as back-ups to the tape recorded data.
During the actual tests, due to the moderate winds involved, the helicopter heading j
_ . . . - was consistently approximately 3 degrees to the right of its f!!ght track and I to 2 4 D- - degrees down.
Q LA40AAfonets A-4 mama._m -_2-__ ____.a_ _ _um_ . _ _ _ _-__.__m. -
. _ _ _._-_,_._w' __
r- - <. -
a p
q
~
4 L.r l
y-% l
' N.l-APPENDIX B 1 Measurement of Speech Intelligibility I
l
' 1 l
!. The , speech Intelligibility tests were conducted in the vicinity of the Seabrook Station using a) Modified Rhyme tests as before, and b) new test material consisting of short sentences.
B.1 Modified Rhyme Tests _ ,
l The Mo'd ified Rhyme Test (MRT) was repeated for the February 1988 tests to provide a link with the November 1987 data. On the day prior to the test, subjects , were briefed and given instructions as described in Appendix B of Reference 1.
Figures B-1 and B-2 illustrate the score sheets used for the tests and the
~
correct word is circled for each group of words. The shortened list of MRT words I tested consisted of two groups, each containing 25 sets of words (with six words in each set). The two lists of 25 sets of words are shown in Figures B-1 and B-2. This p
j list of MRT words was not the same set of words as had been tested in November 1987. This eliminated any possibility of learning influencing those subjects who were also involved in the earlier tests. l Results from these two tests are summarized in Table B-1. The table includes the subjects' sex and their hearing ability, self-judged on the following scale Very Good, Above Average, Average, or Less than Average. All but two of ,)
the subjects indicated that their hearing ability was average or above average. The other two subjects did not respond to this question. The site where the team was located, identified on Figure 1 of the report, is listed together with the approxi-mate range from the hellcopter and angles relative to the loudspeaker axis. Raw test scores are corrected, to account for the chance of guessing the answer, by using the formula applicable to a list of 25 words."*
Corrected MRT Score = (Number right - Number wrong) x 4, %
The raw and corrected test scores obtained from each subject for these MRT tests are summarized in Table B-1. There is no indication in those data that one or mort W
l O
A/
The form of this equation in Reference 4 contains a typographical error - the correct form is as above with the constant "4" equal to 100 divided by the number of words in a test list. MLA40AA70mES B-1
7- .
c c - , ,
, q. >
gjh ,, b
~.2
( '
4
- l '
1 ' of the subjects provided anomalous scores that were either well above or below the
. team average.1These data are further summarized in Section 3 of the report and
' tied to th'e corresponding measures of average signal-to-noise ratio.
1
- B.2 Sentenen Tests ] 1
. The rationale behind the sentence material selected for this part of 'the d intelligibility testing was discussed in Section 3.2 of this report. The sentence test material employed consisted of eight separate lists of 15 questions each and was presented in the sequence defined in Table B-2. The eight separate lists include' .
two lists of :the same questions (lists 2.1 and 2.2) reordered in- a new random . l
[,* sequence. This repetition of the same words in a different order was recorded by a I different talker.
The eight lists'of questions are given in Table B-3 along with the obvious
~
answers. Only.nine out,of the list of 6 x 15 = 90 unique ' questions have'more than -
one obvious answer. :
Each subject was given a prepared form with 15 blank spaces to record his -
.or her answers. Prior to undertaking the field tests, these subjects, who were also
\JL . used for. the MRT test, were given instructions as described in Appendix A. This briefing included. instructions for responding and protocol for the test that was similar to that used for the MRT tests described in detailin Reference 1. The only difference was that the subject had no preprinted list of responses to choose from J . and was instructed not to guess and thus leave a blank space if he or she did not understand the question.
The detailed results of the sentence tests for each test run, subject, sentence, and site is given in Table B-4. Underneath each block matrix of raw scores of correct responses by subject number and question number are the following additional rows of summary data:
}
o Number of correct answers for all five subjects for each question.
l f .,[ o Percent correct responses for each question (Total Correct Responses /5) x 100.
o Running arithmetic averages of correct responses over each set of five questions. This gives a better indication of speech intelligibility over a span of about 25 seconds corresponding to the expected length of a l .
mu B-2 h I
__ ________- \
7.... ;
k, v.
- i I
+
y y sh I
yy
$/ ~
real message. (At the beginning and end of each list, only three questions are averaged.) _ In all cases, the running average value is drectly under the middle question of the three or five questions being averaged. With this scheme for constructing the running averages, no -
1
" running average score is possible at the position of the first and last p question. However, it can be shown that with this scheme, the first 'I E and last four questions are represented more fairly than with a running average always based on five questions.
In o The same running average score converted to a percent correct.
!' o . The mean peak A-weighted sound levels for each sentence (including the imbedded noise level) designated as signal plus noise (S+N).
o The mean ambient noise levels (N) observed between each sentence.
(These latter two sound levels are read from the type of g,raphic level ;
charts illustrated in Section 3.2.)
o The same type of running arithmetic averages of the signal plus noise (S+N) and Noise (N) are listed in these two rows.
o The last row gives the effective running average signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), in decibels, equal to the difference between the signal (S)'
. (computed by energy subtraction of the noise (N) from the signal plus noise (S+N) and the noise levels in the preceding two rows).
Laboratory Validation Due to the unusual nature of this overall intelligibility testing process, it was felt desirable to have an independent assessment of the intelligibility of the sounds recorded in the field but played back in the laboratory under more controlled conditions. The procedures employed for this laboratory validation of the intelligibility testing, and the results obtained, are described in detail in Appendix D. A summary of the results, which were very similar to those obtained from the field tests, is given in Section 3.2.
The test material used for these laboratory tests consisted of binaural signals recorded with a pair of M inch condenser microphones spaced 5 inches apart and oriented to give as flat an overall frequency response as possible. For the laboratory tests, these binaural recordings were played back over a pair of high
( quality earphones for each subject as described in more detail in Appendix D.
wvu L A80A ATOastS B-3
O Name: Test V +
MST SCORE M (Circle word spoken in carrier phrase)
< l
- 1. pave pace 11. fit wit
@hit
- 21. hsoil soil i le cyane fell page kit bit coil boil l
- 2. buck bug bus 12. cave cane
@cape
- 22. r big jig hun uf came case fig pig .
~
3.
math map mad
- 13. seem seep seek seen
- 23. tease team teak i
met mass seethe @ teach tear !
- 4. @ lane late iake
- 14. re t s
best west
- 24. sold , co d gold -
l 1ame lay vest nest hold told
- 5. w paw 15. rang (h 25.pay@ day L ( aw
.aw raw saw aang gang ung fang may way say
- 6. pin Cwin 16. got hot fin tan lot din sin not
- 7. sa c
sans sad
- 17. pop mop
@anop sag sat top hop
- 8. bat Cass 18. kid king bad ban kiss back bath kith
- 9. heat neat 19. kick feat beat sick meat @ wick ,
- 10. pill 20. fib pit pip fill fit Figure B-1. MRT Words for Test B for February 1988 Tests B-4
4 k- ,
7p ,
b u, .
i Name: Test I
,t ,.A}E A TEST SCORE MT
. l (Circle word spoken in carrier phrase)
- \;
- 26. hark park bark rk
- 36. din i
dill did
- 46. tame came Q same mark ~
- rk @ip c dig fame game .
- 27. hop lip 37. shook cook 47. sin si sip hook sick si i tip book took sing sit
- 28. @
just rust bust .
- 38. pat
@ pang pass
- 48. peat-peak h peas dust gust pan path peace peach
- 29. . @
name safe sake.
- 39. duck dull
- 49. hbill .- !ill will sale save dug dun hill kill
.g - . 30. beat- beach 40. men then 30. bent tent bean beak @ den sent rent b- bead @ pen ten @ went t gun pun pufi bun run
- 32. map sub
@ sum
- 42. Crate rake race rave msd sung ray raze
- 33. tale 43. cut sale cuff u pa . gale cud cuss
- 34. tack tam
@ tan
- 44. wed ed fed red tab tap led
- 35. Qav heap heat hear
- 45. hl eel keel peel heath heal reel feel Figure B-2. MRT Words for Test D for February 1988 Tests B-3 j
. c.
4 i.
Table B-1 Results of. Modified Rhyme Tests on February 24,1988
- Test No. B , Helicopter at Position HE5 --
Subj Hearing Slant ----- Angles----- No. - - - - - S cor e - - - - -
No. Sex Ability Site Range Horz. Vert. Wrong Raw Correct 1' M Ab" Avg -
24 4.0 -15.2 2 M' ? -
19 24.0 8.8 i~
3 M- Ab Avg 53 5124 -3 6 24 4.0 -15.2 4 M Ab Avg -
21 16.0 -0.8 5 M 7 -
16 36.0 23.2 AVERAGES 20.8 16.8 0.2 6 M V Good -
6 76.0 71.2 7 M Ab Avg -
9 64.0 56.8 8 M Avg .E 2 2746 -25 10 9 64.0 56.8 9 F Avg -
9 64.0 56.8 10 M Ab Avg - 6 76.0 71.2 -
AVERAGES 7.8 68.8 62.6 11 M Ab Avg - 17 32.0 18.4 12 M Ab Avg - 14 44.0 32.8 13 F V Good. E3 7916 -110 4 17 32.0 18.4 r 14 M Ab Avg - 11 56.0 47.2
( 15 M Avg - 16 36.0 23.2' AVERAGES 15.0 40.0 28.0 l
--Test No. D- , Helicopter at Position HE6-1 M Ab Avg - 15 40.0 28.0 2 M 7 - 17 32.0 18.4 3 M Ab Avg S3 5722 18 5 19 24.0 8.8 4 M Ab Avg -
12 52.0 42.4 5 M 7 -
17 32.0 18.4 AVERACES 16.0 36.0 23.2
( 6 M V Good - 6 76.0 71.2 l 7 M Ab Avg - 6 76.0 71.2 8 M Avg E2 3041- 20 9 3 88.0 85.6 9 F Avg - 7 72.0 66.4 10 M Ab Avg - 5 80.0 76.0 AVERAGES 5.4 78.4 74.1 11 M Ab Avg - 12 52.0 42.4 12 M Ab Avg - 10 60.0 52.0 l 13 F V Good E3 5722 -110 5 10 60.0 32.0 14 M Ab Avg - 6 76.0 71.2 15 M Avg - 11 56.0 47.2 AVERAGES 9.8 60.8. 53.0 v
W- Y L.E..
B-6
_ _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - - --- - _ ___-------_a
-'~
ip 3
r.,
>I Sg, .. '
li 4 .-
l->
i.':.
h I: c. , Table B-2 p Sequence of Sentence Test Presentations List Sentence .
' Tape:
4 . Test . Run No. Order Talker No.
A 3' l.1 1 A 1 4 2.1 2 B 9 a' .: .
C- '3 1.2. 1 A.
2 4' 2.2- 2 B 10 E 3 1.3 .1 A' 3
, .5 2.3 2 B- 0-
.t
< :. N.,
I.. A. 6 2.2 1 A 5 m 7 2,i g A g
)
,' I t'
O wa, s.
B-7
[ ,
4 TchlaB-3 I .
List of Test Sentences
,, y
{
N TEST A. RUN 3. TAPE 'l ~.
LIST #1.1 . O'RDER l~ SPEAKER A
- 1. What day comes af ter Sunday? Monday
- 2. ' What number comes after 117 12
- 3. . Do you drive in~a house or a car? Car
- 4. . Which is 'more, 4' or 77 7-
- 5. What is the color of grass? Green
- 6. What numb'er comes between 6 and 8? 7
- 7. What month comes af ter January?. February
- 8. What do your eyelids cover? Eyes 9.- In what country is Chicago? USA, America
- 10. What do you smell with? - ' Nose
- 11. What letter comes after W7 X
- 12.
What is the opposite of new? Old -
<13. .What letter comes between A and C? B
' 14. What is the opposite of strong? Weak em..
Paper, Leather
,(N J): 15. What are books made of?
f TEST C,'RUN 3. TAPE 2 LIST #1.2 : ORDER 1 SPEAKER A 1.' What color is snow? White s 2. What letter comes before B7 A
- 3. How many days are there in a week? 7
- 4. Where do you wear a hat? Head
- 5. What letter comes before C7 B
'6.- What number comes after 37 4 7.. What country is Tokyo in? 3apan
- 8. .What day comes before Tuesday? Monday
- 9. What number comes after 77 8 10.- . What month comes af ter February? March
- 11. ~ How much is 4'and 6? 10
- 12. What do you cut bread with? Knife
- 14. hatt the col r of coal? lack
- 15. Which is smaller, a dog or a house? Dog Lae0AA70mett B-8
_ _ _ _ __ _ _ )
Table B-3 (Continued)
TEST E, RUN 3, TAPE 3 O . LIST # 1.3 ORDER'l 'S P E A K E R A
- 1. What is the opposite 'of white? - Black
- 2. What becomes between 2 and 4? 3
- 3. What do you hear with? Ears
- 4. What do you de to unlock a door? Key
- 5. What letter comes before D? - C
- 6. What is the opposite of wet? Dry 7.. What number comes before 12? 11
- 8. What day comes before Wednesday? Tuesday-
- 9. What do you spread butter with? Knife -
- 10. How much are 9 and 107 19
- 11. What is the color of ketchup? Red
- 12. What is the opposite of young? Old
- 13. What month comes af ter March? April
- 14. What do you light a fire with? Matd
- 15. What number comes before 10? 9
,n. . .
TEST A, RUN 7, TAPE 4 LIST #2.1 ORDER 1 SPEAKER A -
- 1. What letter comes after B? C
- 2. - How many toes are there on each foot? 5
- 3. What is the opposite of dry? Wet 4 .What number comes before 3? 2
- 3. What day comes af ter Thursday? Friday
- 6. What is the color of butter? Yellow
- 7. What country is Moscow in? Russia, USSR
- 8. How many months art there in a year? 12
- 9. What is the opposite of tail? Short
- 10. What day comes af ter Tuesday? Wednesday
- 11. What color are teeth? White
- 12. . What letter comes before E? D
- 13. What number comes af ter 5? 6 14 What letter comes af ter C? D
- 15. What do you tell the date by? Calendar vms LMATQfitEl B-9
^
k t
g .
I F ' Table B-3 (Continued)
, .. < TEST A, RUN 6, TAPE 5
. s.
I 1.!ST #2.2 ORDER 1 SPEAKER A
- 1. What is the opposite of love? Hate p ,
- 2. What month comes after June? July g, 3. How much is 1 and 87 - '9 g ' 4. Does an owl lay books or an egg? Egg
- 5. What number comes before 207 19
- 6. Which is darker, night or day? Night
- 7. What letter comes after D? E 4 8. What is the opposite of short? Tall, Long
- 9. What is the color of blood? Red
- 10. How many hours are there in a day? 24
- a. 11. What day comes after Wednesday? Thursday
- 12. What do you tie a package with? String, Cord
- 13. ~ What is the opposite of top? Bottom
- 14. Does a cow eat hay or stones? Hay-
- 15. What do you shoot an arrow witn? Bow TEST A, RUN 4, TAPE 9 kU)
LIST #2.1 ORDER 2 SPEAKER B 1.. What letter comes before E? D
- 2. What number comes af ter 5? 6
- 3. How many toes are there on each foot? 5
- 4. . What is the opposite of tall? Short
- 5. How many months are there in a year? 12
- 6. What do you tell the date by? Calendar
- 7. What number comes before 3? 2
- 8. What is the color of butter? Yellow
- 9. What country is Moscow in? Russia, USSR
- 10. What letter comes af ter B7 C
!!. What day comes after Tuesday? Wednesday
- 12. What day comes.after Thursday? Friday
- 13. What letter comes af ter C7 D
- 14. What color are teeth? White
- 15. What is the opposite of dry? Wet v.m.,.s..
B-10
m"'
i; ,
rv
- )
i
-?
(Centinusd)
TEST C,' RUN 4 T APE 101 ,
[
LIST #2.2 ' ORDER 2' SPEAKER B -
p L 1. .. What day comes after Wednesday?. Thursday
- 2. Does an owl lay books or an egg? Egg
- 3. What is the color of blood? Red-4.. Does a cow eat hay or stones? ' Hay
- 5. .What month comes after June? July
- 6. . How much is 1 and 8?. 9 l' 7.. What is the opposite of short? Tall, Long
- 8. What is the opposite of love? Hate 9.- ' What do you' tie a package with? String, Cord g 10.' L What is.the opposite of top? Bottom
' 11. ' ' What letter comes af ter D? E 12.' What do you shoot an arrow with?.
Bow ':
- 13. . How many hours are there in a day? 24 ')
- 14. - Which is darker, night or day?.- Night ,
, 15. What number comes before 207 19
.p
- TEST E. RUN 5. TAPE O
'\
LIST #2.3 ORDER 2 SPEAKER B 1, What is the opposite of pretty? Ugly, Homely ;
- 2. What letter comes af ter E? F
- 3. What are windows made of? Glass 4 What number comes between 19 and 21? 20
- 5. Does a cat have fur or feathers? Fur 6.- What color is a ping-pong ball? White
- 7. Is a polar bear white or green? White
- 8. How rnany seconds in a minute? 60
- 9. How many minutes in an hour? 60
- 10. What number comes between 5 and 7? 6
- 11. In what country is London? England ;
- 12. What shines in the sky at night? Moon, Stars l
- 13. What day comes before Friday? Thursday
- 14. What day comes af ter Thursday? Friday j
- 15. How many legs does a man have? 2 wm LA40AA70me15 B-11
4 Table B-4 1 Detailed Data Matrix of Word Scores and Acoustic Levels for Sentence Intelligibility Tests 4
SDf?DG *EIT 4($1TI tiest on 2-2440) l IW) l Test base 4 3 : fut haber 6-4
- 4. late 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 7 DIAL i 1 2 3 4 56 7 8 91011121314 15 *;*at '
I : _1 I i ! I 1 l' 1 I i 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 1 1-1 :2 2 . 1 I ! 1 1 1 6 1 11 1 1 1 1 ! 11 1'l !!
3 E-2 1 'l 1 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 4 : 1 1 1 1 1 5 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I j 1:
5 : 1 1 1 3 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1I 14 terrect ans. Es) 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 3 5 3 4 1 3 25 ! 2 5 4 3 5 2 5 4 5 2 5 5 3 5 5 60
,, ,, 1) 0 0 0 0 W 20 20 0 20 d ico W W 20 to 33 : 40100 to W 100 40100 00100 40100100 60100100 to Apninq !,vg.
- Sua 0.00.60.01.01.01.21.22.02.43.23.23.22.7 : L7 3.0 3.I LI 3.0 4.2 3.6 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.3
,, ,, 1) 0 12 16 20 20 24 24 40 40 M s4 64 5 i 73 76 76 76 76 M 72 M M 10 00 f217 Acoustte Date !
Sig.*ese (5+eo ) E 52 2 54 S M 3 H is g g 74 : E 54 57 615 e 62 70 65 71 75 79 Il 73 69 j man tul ) 505050503 53051 2 2 S ;! 57 62 H ! 40 30 515 E 5 57 5 57 5 63 2 H 62 61 ;
2 2 E 16 5 60 63 H el 91 Anning overage :M : 5 57 5 61 M M 67 0 72 74 76 75 74
,, ,, :n 5 50 51 51 5 N 5 57 2 II : SD 512 54 5 2 57 p 2 62 63 63 62
,, ,, :5/N 1 0 2 3 4 5 7 7 7 to i 3 5 6 7 I I 9 9, 11 12 11 12 12 I' 6.0 : 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 9 7.0 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! ! 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 7
(
I.0 E-3 9.0 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 10 I I 9 1 i
1
! i 1
11 1
1 1 1 1 1 I s i
j L 10.0 i i 1 l' i 1 i i 1 1 1 10 l 1 1 1 '1 1 ! l 7 terrect Ans. bs) 0 $ 5 1 5 5 5 3 5 4 5 0 4'0 1 40 1 5 5 520 1.4 0 4 2 3 5 1 1 1 39
, , , , 1 > 0100100 20100100100 to 100 30100 0 10 0 20 H : 100 100 100 40 02010 0 0040 2100202020 C Aantag Avg. Sue 3.3 L2 4.2 4.2 3.14.6 4.4 4.4 3.4 3.6 2.6 2.01.7 5.03.42.62.41.41.12.22.62.I102.42.21.0
, , . . . 1) 67 e4 k k 76 92 5 B 2 72 2 40 33 : 100 40 2 40 3 36 44 = 56 60 41 44 20 Acoustis $ste
$tg +ees (Hi ) 61 56 62 5 55 57 54 5 54 5 h el 5 51 5: I teenstarably aars intrierence fres posig betw 15) ) 47474734644472444446554045 : ester vesteles i Anninq 6 orage H P 3 57 57 3 5 5 3 $ 5 5 40
,, ,, tu 31494930474747312 2 5 5 l
,, ,, :5/t I I I 6 I I 7 4 2 -l -i 2 : ;
I 11.0 l t ! ! 1 1 1 4 12.0 : b : 1 I I 2 13.0 53 0 : 1 1 1 3 14.0 0 : 1 1 2 15.0 : 0 : 1 I 2 1 l
Corrett he jus) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 5 14
, , , , 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 100 20 40 100 19 ,
ihanang Avg. les 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.21.21.41.82.82.7
, , , , 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 24 5 36 Se ;
Acesstic lata : j 5tg.sett ($.co ) 49545 : 30 52 54 60 67 70 69 71 .
Natu (N) > 40 30 51 1 44747 4495455606060 lhenty 6,orage :5a 2 : 52 57 61 64 67 70
,, ,, :a 50 : 47 50 2 5e 5 oo l
O. ,, ,, $,- k 0 3 5 7 I ' 10 B-12 mee t
\
. __-_-_____-___A
V Table B-4 (Continued)
.:l.;%} :
V ENTDG TEST IEllitt tiest a 2-24-5)
SubJ Test Ismeer 6-t fest theer 6 7 No. lits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121314 15 fr4L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ;4 15 72'AL
.1 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 13 ! ! 1 1 1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; 1 1:
! ! 1 1 1, , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 l t 1 1 1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 14 3 t-2 1 1 l' 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 : 1 1 J l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1; 4 1 1 1.1 1 1 1. I i 1 1 1 1 1 14 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 : 1 1-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 13 11 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 : 13 Correct ans. h> 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 1 2 : 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 d 1 > 10 10100 N 100100100100100 10100100100 2 20 17 l 100100 40100100100100100 W 100100100100100 60 91 l lbnning neg. les 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.0 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.4 3.I L0 -
4.04.44.44.45.04.64.64.64.64.65.04.64.3
,, .. 1> 87 N 92 % 96100 % % 96 % N 76 60 l ID R 5 5100 92 92 92 92 92100 C 87 knustat Data :
Sig.+tse tH) > H 70 71 73 7611 81 U U 73 u 67 2 u W 67 H 70 7174 B2 53 E2 M 72 el 72 H 62 C '
lause (N) ) E 5 W 63 W M M 63 Q 5 5 51 30 30 # ! 54 57 2 63 E 63 H 65 63 57 33 2 50 50 49 =
hning overage :M d 71 74 76 FI 3 3 75 72 70 67 65 W 8 8 70 73 76 3 to M 76 74 7160 u 63
,, ,, :N 57 W C H H H 63 W $7 5 52 50' 50 l 57 54 6163 H H Q W 5 55 5 51 50
,, . , , :$/N !! !! 12 ;2 13 14 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 ? 11 10 12 13 15 16 17 le 16 15 !! IS 13 WB g 6.0 : 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 7.0 : 1.1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 B.0 E-3 1 1 I I i 1 4 f.0 : (Seject not veemt 1 :ldject not preset 1
/~- 10.0 1 0
1 : 1 0
)
1 1 1 1 5
(~ ,
Correct bs, lus) i 3'1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 l 0 2 0 4 1 2 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 1 0 16 1 ) 75 25 25 . 0 25 0 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 30 0 100 25 50 0E C 75 0333 0 27 l Ihnning 6 g. - ha 1.71.20.60.40.20.20.00.40.40.40.40.40.0 :' O.71.41.81.41.60.81.20.I1.01.01.20.60.7 l' ,, ,, 1) 42 30 !! 10 5 5' 0 to 10 10 to 10 0 : 17 35 45 35 to 20 2 20 3 2 % !$ 1*
kestic Data :
Sag.+ tee 'H) ) ( range of voice lowls el 5 W dl ) : ( range of vmco levels of 57 61 e i totes (4) > ( range of backgrant noise leels of 5 u dI 1 : I range of tactgrens noise levels of 2 - 70 4 )
bnning overage H :
,, ... !N :
,, ,, :$/u i l
l 11.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 to 12.0 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 : 11 1 1 1 . I 1 1 110 5-3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !! : 1 I I i 1 1 1 1 I i l 14.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !! : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 15.0 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Correct bs. Sun) 0 0 2 0 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 54 : 0 0 0 5 4 3 3 3 1 3 4 5 5 4 5 47
,, ,, 3) 0 0 to 0100 W lt 100100100100 10100100100 72 1 0 0 0100 00 W W W 20100 ID 10010010100 g ihnning avg. - Sus 0.71.4 2.0 LO 3.6 4.6 4.6 5.0 4.8 4.14.8 4.8 5.0 : 0.01.12.4 3.016 2.0 3.0 3.2 L6 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.7
,, ,, 1) !! 3 40 W 72 92 92100 % % % % 100 0 36 48 W 72 56 to H 721012 92 93 kaustic Data :
Sig.*tes (H) i 50 52 2 57 67 70 70 73 M 30 82 M U 74 : 4 49 52 h H 71 71 75 U 77 12 83 76 76 messe is) ) 45 4 47 48 57 61 63 H u 2 2 67 C W 45464647525 562 HuHduH Ibnning overage :H 34 56 W 64 67 72 74 U M 79 3 77 ! 30 54 5 63 67 72 74 76 M N 79 7B
,, ,, :a 30 49 2 59 62 H u 67 u 2 63 l 4 47 49 52 5 5 61 M u 67 67 e p ,, .. :$/h ! 7 8 8 I t to 11 12 13 13 13 : 2 6 9111213131213121212
'd B-13 M,-
u_____
1 1
1 i
l J, Table B-4 (Continued)
, i w)
%)
EiffDCI ft37 IEllLT5 (fest a 2-24 5)
'% fat ur ; *, l Tat maner C 4 ho. 8tte 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 7074L ,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I t 10 !! 12 13 14 13 fDt4L i 1 1 1. 1 1 1! ! !.I 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i !!
2 : ; 1 1 I l'1 1 I i i 1 1 12 : 1. I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 3 E-2 : 1 1 1 1 1 ! ! 1 I i !! I i ! ! 1 1 11 1 1 4 4 : I I i ! ! ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i 14 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 5 i 1 1 1 l' i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 15 : 1 1 11 1 lI l' 8 Carrect 44. Sua) 3 1 5 4 55 5 5 55 '
5 3 5 5 ei 1 0 3 1 4 4 0 4 5 5 3 5 5 4 4 46
,, .. 1 ) 60 20 100 10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 60 100 100 5 ! 20 06020 W 80 0 N 100100 6010010010 to 64 bnning avg. Eun 3.0164.04.04.05.01.05.0504.64.64.64.3 1 1.31.82.42.42.63.43.63.44.44.64.44.24.3
,, ,, t) e n so % % 100100100100 v2 n 92 r7 : 27 7e as e 32 m n d 5 v2 5 es s7 .
A:sustic bte i Sig.*eu (H) > 54 2 52 52 54 h 57 0 70 3 75 U 74 73 71 ! 2 M E 57 E 5 W 63 h 74 74 7I U 75 74 -!
he:u (m) ) 47 4 47 47 48 48 51 54 57 2 M M M M d I 4 47 47 46 47 el 5 31 M 3 Q H E H d bnning Average lH 53 C 2 54 h 2 64 3 72 74 7 . 73 : 53 34 5 $ M 44 64 67 7174 76 76 75
,, ,, .! N 47 47 47 40 50 52 54 37 40 63 2 a 67 i 47 47 47 48 48 5 5 5 5 6164 u W
,, ,, $N 5 4 5 5 6 I 9101111 9 7 4 i 5 7 8 I 10 10 12 12 13 13 12 9 7 l .
60 t ! ! 1 1 1 1-1 1 1 1 10 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 7.0 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
. . 8.0 (-3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 11 1 1 1 e
/ t.0 ; 1 1 1 .I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 i ! I i 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 k/ 10.0 : -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 i 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 4 Correct 4s. bn> 4 2 5 0 4 4 5 3 55 5 3 0 3 0 4 50 4 4 5 5 0 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 4 44
,, ,, 1880 40100 0 m 10100 W 100100100 W 0 60 0 64 ! !00 0 W 80100100 0 60 20 40 60 60 60 40 to 59 Anning Avg. ha 3.73.03.03.63.24.24.44.64.23.63.22.21.0 1 3.03.63.63.63.42.02.21.82.42.42.63.03.0
., ,, 1) 73 8 d 72 64 84 5 92 84 72 64 M 20 1 M 72 72 72 d h 44 h 48 48 2 60 60 4castic hte 1 5tg.+eu (M) > d Q 61 Q 'I 57 5 5 h 5 5 5 N h 5 l tl 49 64 2 S 61 5 61 Q R 5 M 54 M W uniu (N) > 54 2 54 to 12 50 M 55 30 5 M 30 $1 51 51 1 S E 33 47 4 46 e 70 51 61 47 4 61 47 47 Anning Average :H Q Q W 5 5 5 5 5 5 57 57 57 $ i 67 64 Q el 60 to 60 60 60 5 5 5 5
,, ,, :N 5425455253535331230551 : 5351 # #51522 5 554535052
,, ,, $h 8 6 4 2 1 3 4 4 7 6 6 6 3 : 13 14 13 13 4 7 3 2'2 3 3 7 5 l
l 1
11.0 l 1 1 1 1 1 5 : 11 1 1 4 i 12.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 t 1 1 1 3 l 13.0 5-3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 l 1 1 1 3 l 14.0 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 7 ' i 1 1 1 4
!$.0 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ) : 1 1 1 3 Carrect 4s. ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 5 17 l
,, ,, 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 100100100100100 10 44 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 40 10 100 100 "3 banif g Avg. - hs 0.00.00.00.00.00.8l.I2.8184.05.04.84.7 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.20.61.42.43.44.7
,, ., 1) 0 0 0 0 0 16 h h 76 % 100 % f3 ; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 12 3 40 W T3 Acmatic bte l
$1g.* ens tH) > 47 47 47 46 30 2 h 57 2 2 65 a 72 48 47 40 40 M 5 30 54 54 h a 67 0 70 botu (N) ) 47 47 4 46 46 47 48 40 W $0 51 54 54 5 61 : 474464 4474747484747254542 bnning Average lH 47 48 49 31 53 % R 61 0 h 2 : 40 48 41 of 5 51 E E 5 W 64 67 4 47 47 48 46 49 50 Q U 55 57 46 4 46 47 47 47 47 48 50 !! C 54
'O
, ,, ,, iu : I
.. .. $h o 5 -1 1 3 5 7 8 to 11 11 '
-3321 0 2 4 6 8 9 11 13 B-14 N6an==u L---___-____-- . _ _ _ i
4 i
Table B-4 (Continued)
- p.,
, 4 Gi ENTDEI !!31 EALTS (test on 2-2448) sus; test haber E 3 7est hacer E 5 tc. 6tte 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 !! 12 13 14 15 ':T!4. 1.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415?;*
1 : 1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 2 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 12 3[-2'11 1 1 1 1 1:1 1 1 1 1 12 : ! I I I i 1 1 1 11 to 4 : i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 e 5 ! 1 11 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 13 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 terrect ,, ,,
Ans. hs) 5 5 0 5 2 4 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 W : 4 3 4 4 5 5 3 5 3 2 2 5 3 0 0 41 I >100100 0100 40 ID 100100 W 100100100100100100 E I 10 60 N 10100100 60100 2 # 40100 60 0 0 e4 j Anning 6 g. Sus 3.33.43.23.24.23.04.44.64.64.65.05.05.0 1 3.74.04.24.24.44.23.63.03.43.02.42.01.0
,, ,, 1) 67 d 64 64 M 76 5 92 92 92100100100 : 73 80 M M E M 72 to a 60 4140 20 kaust1C Date :
Sig + tie (H) > 47 48 49 49 30 2 2 52 52 2 5 2 63 E E I 4 50 M E 57 H F M 65 W $4 59 57 2 54 eine IN) ; C 4 C C 4 4 4 el el M 30 53 E E S I C 4 47 4 H M 30 53 55 5 2 2 52 52 51 Anning Average :M 48 49 50 2 51 52 2 54 S 5 61 M 65 : 51 33 5 57 5 6163 M M C 2 5 5
,, ,, :N 45 45 C C 4 47 47 el 50 5152 54 E : 4 47 40 M N 51 2 55 S h 2 2 52
,, ,, :$/N 1 1 3 4 4 3 4 4 6 7 8 9 9 ! 3 4 7 8 9 10 t 7 7 5 3 2 1 6 : 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !! 1 1 1 1 1 1 *1 11 I 7 1 1 i 1 11 1 1 1 9 l 1 1 1 1 11 e 8 E-3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 9 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 I i 14 : l lubject net preest 1 0 10 : 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 : 1 1 11 1 1 6
' Carrect ks. Sun) 4 4 2 5 3 4 5 4 4 4 5 0 4 4 5 57 : 3 2 4 0 4 0 23 3 2 2 30 0 0 28
,, ,, 1 ) IO 10 40 100 60 00 100 10 10 00 100 0 10 00 100 76 : 75 50 100 0 100 057575505075 0 0 0 47 Anning 6vg. - Eus 3.33.63.63.84.24.04.24.43.43.43.43.64.3 : 3.0 2.6 2.0101.8 L4 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.01.41.0 c.0
,, ,, ;; 67 72 '*2 76 M ID M Il d d W 72 87 : 75 65 50 30 C 60 50 60 65 2 % 3 0 knustat Date :
Sig.*Nu (H) , e 67 2 2 d C 64 62 C C 2 M Q M C : 0 61 Q 3 65 5 63 M 67 H 67 h 2 64 C hw (N) > E 57 57 54 E E 55 55 h 53 51 51 53 2 2 : 532 26554542575 5 261626362 knning Average :H 67 65 W 64 63 Q Q Q d 62 Q M Q C C 61 41 62 63 63 65 65 u 65 65 64
,, ,, N h 55 55 55 54 5 5 54 5 53 2 2 53 ! 53 S 56 h 57 S $ 5 5 to 6162 62
,, ,, :$/N 10 10 9 I 7 6 7 7 I I 9 9 I i I $ 4 4 3 7 6 6 6 5 20-4 11 : 1 1 11 1 5 : 1 1 1 3 12 : 1 1 2 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 13 5-3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 l
14 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 : I I i 1 11 e 15 : 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! e terrect Ans, fia) 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 3 4 2 2 3 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 3 4 2 5 4 1 0 29
,, ,, 1 ) 20 0 0 20 0 0 40 40 2 # 80 # 40 M 100 37 I 0 0 0 0 100 0 0100 60 ID 40100 93 20 0 39 knning Avg.
- Le 0.30.40.20.61.01.42.02.02.02.82.83.23.3 1 0.01.01.01.0 2.0 2.6 2.4 2.8 LL 3.6 L2 2.41.7
,, ,, :) 7 I 4 12 m a e s s s s H p : 0 m 20 a 40 m a E 76 72 64 48 m kastic Date :
I.g.*Nie (H) > 49 4 48 51 50 48 51 51 54 5 $ 57 5 62 : 47 2 49 49 2 U 54 57 5 60 2 5 J9 0 60 tine (N) ) c 4 4 44 44 44 4 44 47 4 47 40 M 49 : 44 44 u 44 4 4 47 47 M 49 50 2 53 2 52 Awmnt everap lH 40 M 49 2 50 51 2 2 5 h 5 5 : 495052554S575 5 559559
,, ,, iN C C 44 44 44 4444647484149 : 44 44 C C 4 47 41 C 50 51 512 52
,, ., 'S/N 3 4 3 5 5 5 6 7 7 7 9 to : 4 4 6 6 7 8 9 9 9 I 7 e 5 B-15 MLA60RafDRdb
z L {j.
APPENDIX C Acoustic Test Data '
This appendix contains the' test data obtained on both February 24 and 25, Q 1988 during evaluation of the airborne alerting system. Table C-1 lists the l weather conditions on the two test days.
Most of the usable additional acoustic data measured or recorded during the tests on these two days that have not already been presented in Appendix B are contained in Table C-2. These data consist of a tabulation of the time histories of the acoustic levels measured on February 25 during the siren pure tone tests (Tests A-5, C-5, and E-4) and the brndband pink noise tests (Tests A-9, C-7 and E-7) -
~
and the ambient (helicopter self-noise) Mats (Tests G, A-8, C-6 and E-6). In all-cases, these time histeries were obtained from graphic records of the recorded data played back in the laboratory using a graphic writing speed corresponding to a
" slow" time constant of a sound level meter.
b Table C-3 summarizes the key data from the tests reported in Reference 1 and herein, which were used to determine the reference level, effective atmo- !
spheric absorption, and directivity of helicopter noise in the vertical plane.
Table C-4 provides the same type of information for analysis of the siren signal from the 4 x 7 loudspeaker array.
G O
WYLE LABORATORIES C-1
k - +
<r 4
,/-'
L-V.
Table C-1 Weather Data at Seabrook Station Helicopter Tests - 2/24/88 Temperature 0150'(*F) Wind 0 43' Wind 0 209' Dry Wet Bfb Bb Dewpint Speed Direction Speed Direction Time (T) ) (T) (mph) (deg) (mph) (deg)-
1100 33.1 23.8 -9.2 9.6 285 12.1 281 1115 34.2' 24.6 -7.8 9.2 296 10.5 292 1130 34.4 24.8 -7.9 9.2' 296 10.5 292 1145 34.1 24.5 -8.3 8.7 300 9.9 300 1200' 34.2 24.6 -8.8 9.0 286 10.8 281 I 1215 33.7 24.2 -9.6 9.6 297 12.0* 287
' 1230 34.9 25.0 -8,5 10.3 277 12.9 270 1245 34.5 24.7 -9.2 10.4 285 13.0 284 (j 1300 34.2 24.5 -9.5 8.3 290 9.9 285
, k/ 1315 34.7- 24.9 -8.5 9.3 286 11.1 283 1330 34.3 24.6 -9.2 8.6 291 10.1 284 1345 35.2 25.3 -8.2 8.9 280 11.5 283 l
1400 34.9 25.0 -8.6 10.5 275 13.5 268 1415 35.6 25.6 -7.8 7.4 255 8.3 261 1430 36.I 25.9 -7.2 9.2 261 11.2 263 1445- 35.3 25.3 -8.4 10.2 256 11.9 262 1500 35.1 25.1 -8.9 9.6 266 12.8 268 1515 35.9 25.8 -7.7 9.4 252 12.0 249 1530 36.3 26.0 -7.6 10.4 273 12.6 271 1545 36.1 25.8 -8.0 8.2 295 10.2 284 1600 35.3 25.2 -9.5 7.7 280 10.7 281 1615 35.2 25.2 -9.2 5.4 277 6.9 278 0 wm,...
C-2 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __________-_-______w
r
. 1 l
.l 1
. (~Y )
.Q) 4 1
l Table C-1 (Continued)
Helicopter Tests - 2/25/88 Temperature @ 150'(*F) Wind 0 43' ylnd @ 201P Dry Wet Bgb b Speed Direction Speed Direction Time W) F) Dewp)
W int (mph) - (des) (mph) (deg) 1115 30.0 21.5 -11.5 8.5 233 9.9 235 1121 30.1 21.6 -11.6 8.4 240 9.8 241 1125 30.1 21.6 -11.6 8.3 246 9.7 244 1132 30.2 21.6 -! 1.7 . 8.2 255 9.5 251 1138 30.5 21.8 -11.6 8.8 248 10.6 251 1144 30.7 22.0 -11.5 8.8 248 10.6" 251 1149 30.8 2".1 -11.5 8.7 250 10.5 254 1155 31.9 22.1 -11.4 8.7 252 10.4 256 1202 31.0 22.2 -11.4 8.6 255 10.3 260 i
O w
a, ~s, C-3
fi
- d. .
Table C-2
' D) ^ Time Histories at a) Site E2, b) Site E3, and c) Site 53 of Measured Acoustic Levels -
for Siren (Pure Tone) Tests, Broadband Pink Noise Tests, and Helicopter (Self-Noise) Ambient Noise Testa a) Pink Noise and Helicopter Ambient Noise at Site' E2
! ; Test : Test : Test :
- A-5 A-9 A-8 : C-5 C-7 C-6 : E-4 E-7 E-6 :
- Ties :------------------la-----------------:------------------:
- free Stron Pink Melo ! Stron Pink Helo : Stron Pink Helo :
- CPA : Tone Noise Asb. l Tone Noise Aeb. l Tone Noise Aab. :
......:<.... g3(A) .... 3:<.. - d8(A) -----):(---- d8(Al -----):
- (geg)_ ..................:..................:..................g )
- :(680h: 1 l(680h:1 l(680ha) :
- -80 :- l 61 : .
-76 : ! ! 61 :
- -71 : 64 : 57 : 59 48 :
- -67 66 : 58 : 58 50 :
- -63 : 67 : 59 : 58 51 :
- -58 i 67 : 60 : 63 51 :
-54 : 68 52 : 62 52 : 64 54 . :
- -50 : 69 53 : 65 54 : 62 57 i
! -45 : 70 59 53 : 67 54 : 65 54 :
! -41 : 71 61 53 : 69 56 : 69 54 48 :
^
- -37 : 73 55 56 : 71 57 50 : 71 62 48 :
< . -32 : 74 66 58 : 74 58 50 : 74 57 49 :
(m-)s : -28 : 76 74 61 : 77 60 51 : 75 65 49 : I
- -24 : 77 67 64 : 80 66 55 : 76 68 50 :
- -19 : 78 73 65 : 79 69 60 : 69 68 52 :
-15 : 80 78 66 : 80 75 63 : 63 64 54 i
- -11 : 82 77 67 : 81 78 66 : 60 63 58 :
- -6 : 84 82 68 : 81 80 69 : 59 65 58 :
i -2 : 86 85 68 : 75 77 70 57 58 56 :
- 2: 87 84 68 : 71 76 70 off 55 57 :
- 7l 85 78 67 : 66 74 67 : 54 57 :
11 : 87 74 64 : off 72 65 : 55 53 :
- 15 : 85 70 62 : 70 61 : 52 53 :
- 20 : off* 68 60 : 69 58 ! 52 53 : i l 24 : 67 57 : 69 54 : 53 50 : J 28 : 54 : 64 52 : 54 52 :
! 33 : 52 : 63 52 52 50 :
- 37 : 51 : 63 50 l 50 49 :
- 41 : 50 : 60 50 : 51 49 1 46 : 60 : :
- 50 : : 60 : :
! 54 ! : 58 : :
- - 59 : 4 : : I
- "off" indicates that a) the siren test was shut down during the preceding time interval, or b) that the siren had reached the level of the helicopter ambient noise (during the preceding time interval) and was no longer discernible.
V, M
LA80matosus C- 4
L '
i I
I Table C.2 (Continued)
I b) Pink Noise and Helicopter Aebient Noise at Site E3
- .........................:..............-...l..................;- {
- ,1. . Test ! Test : Test !
! : A-5 A-9 A-8 i C-5 C-7 C-6 i E-4 E-7 E-6 :
! Ties l------ -----------l------------------l------------------:
- free i.Stren Pink Helo i Siren Pink Helt i Stron Pink Helo :
! CPA I,fone Noise Asb. ! Tone Noise Aab. l Tone Noise Aab.
- ......;<.... dB(A) ----->l(---- dB(Al ----->l(---- dB(A) -----):
!(sec) l-----*------------l------------------ ------------------l 1 f(680ht) 1(680hr) 11680ha) :
-80 1 ! ! !
! -76 : I I -71 : : :
! -67 : : I :
- -63 : : : :
-58 : 66 i !
t -54 1 67 I i . t
- -50 1 66 I : -
1 l -45 1 66 i ! :
-41 'l 66 1 ! !
! -37 66 : :
jT : -32 1 65 1 49 :
\d -28 : 65 59 50 i 50 I I 75 69 50 :
- -24 : 66 60 l 76 '70 50 :
I -19 I 66 60 47 I 76 66 51 i
! -15 65 60 50 66 1 75 70 52 i
- -11 65 59 51 : 67 67 48 : 75 67 52 :
- -6 I 67 60 54 ! 71 67 48 1 74 67 53 :
I -2 1 68 64 50 1 74 66 45 t 74 69 54 :
! 2 68 62 55 1 73 65 48 1 73 69 54'i l' 7: 64 59 53 I 70 60 48 ! 73 66 51 :
! 11 : 62 58 50 67 63 48 : 72 68 50 :
! 15 l 62 58 50 66 60 48 : 72 67 48 1 20 62 58 45 : 65 60 48 I 70 66 49 :
i 24 59 55 46 1 69 59 48 ! 68 63 51 1 20 t 57 56 45 t 70 59 48 i 68 63 51 :
33 1 56 57 47 i 68 59 48 : 71 63 50 :
- 37 1 55 60 47 i 65 58 48 : 70 61 52 :
! 41 : off 57 47 : 63 57 48 : 65 64 47 :
- 46 1 60 48 1 61 57 48 I 66 60 45 :
- 50 1 60 47 1 63 56 48 1 66 56 45 :
1 54 I 59 I 66 55 48 i 62 45 :
- 59 57 1 66 54 I off 46 :
O C- 5 wm **"*
m-
,; t
- j-g f.
, .r \.
O Table C-2 (Continued) 'l r.-
c)Pank Notse and Helstopt0* Ambient Noase at Site 53 I
- Test : . Test : Test
- 1 A '
A-9 's-I C-5 C-7 C-6 : E-4 E-7 E-6 :
Time l------------------:------------------l------------------:
from Siren Pink Helo i Stren Pink Helo : Sire.- Pink. Helo :
- CPA : Tone Noise Asb. : Tone Noise Aab. i Tone Noise Amt.
- ------ (---- dB(A) -----):(---- dt(A) -----):(---- dB(Al -----):
- (sec) l------------------ ------------------:------------------:
- :(680hz) :(600hz) :(6Bohr) :
i -80 l 51 : 57 62 :
- -76 : 51 :- 59 i 60 l
- -71 52 : 64 : 64 :
- -67 53 : 65 : 6W :
- -63 : 55 : 62 : 60 l
- -58 i 56 : 58 50 67 . :
-54 59 48 : 59 54 : 64 :
- -50 l 61 51 : 61 58 : 62 :
-45 : 65 54 : 65 62 64 46 :
-41 : .71 58 56 : 75 67 48 : 70 48 :
- A/ (O) :
-37 :
-32 :
69 79 62 70 57 :
59 :
74 73 68 65 52 :
55 :
66 68 51 :
53 :
- -20 91 69 60 77 68 Se : 73 54 :
-24 : 83 71 65 : 75 72 59 off 55
-! -19 : off 72 66 l off 76 62 56 : I
- -15 : 77 67 : 79 62 : 55 :
- -11 : 79 69 77 65 62 56 :
! -6 : 91 67 74 6B : 63 55 :
1 -2 : 83 70 72 68 : 63 56 :
- 2! 83 69 : 71 68 : 62 57 :
- 7: 78 67 : 68 67 : 60 57 :
- 11 75 64 : 64 63 : 61 57 :
- 15 : 73 63 : 61 60 ! 61 55 :
- 20 : 71 62 60 55 61 56 :
- 24 70 55 : 51 : 63 55 :
- 29 : 70 ! ! 61 56 :
- 33 : : : 57 54 :
37 : : 55 53 :
- 41 ! : : 53 52 :
- 46 : : : 50 :
50 : : : 50 :
$4 : : : :
- 59 : : : :
t U
WYLE LAeORATOnES C- 6
t O Table C-3 Surnmary Acoustic Data from Helicopter Self-Noise Tests - 11/88 and 2/88 Used to Find Directivity of Helicopter Noise in Vertical Plane nors %1es llant naa. A hts lows Lvl i Asf. Lo 81 s ft.(2);
Data . Dey 7eet Aun Elev.7each Meg $1te Diet me**(1) vert. Aence h $4 $(helo): 8(n)*-90*. 8(n) @ *i Pt. he. ft. Dog. he. ft. - Dog. ~ ft. - gb(A) : cim .
i 1 11/5/87 2 1 100 M 199 E2 -9000 -90 10.1 the $1 60 M. 4 ; 69.0 . .
. 2 ; 2 1 500 M IM D -1M00 -90 L8 IMit 50 N 50.0 4 73.1 : .
. 3 ; 2 1 500 M IM E4 -11000 -90 L4 11111 49 50 43.I 1 67.7 . .
. 4 i 2 1 300 M 1M E -1N00 -90 L3 1M10 44 4 41.7 : E. 7 . :
1 5 1 2 't 300 M IM N1 -4100 -90 7.0 4130 47 57 56.5 i 69.8. .
! 6 i 2 1 Soo M IM M -900 -90 29.1 1030 52 M 65.8 E.1 : :
. ! l ! l
. 7 i 2 2 2000 M 1M EF -4000 -90 35.5 3441 51 M 57 4 . M.5 : i
. 8 1 2 22@ M 199 Et -1100 -90 9.6 11%$ 50 52 47.7 : 72.4 . .
i 9 1 2 2 2000 M IM E4 18000 -90 9.3 12J63 44 45 34.1 ; 63.3 ; ;
- 10
- 2 R 2000 M IM h1 -4100 -90 86.0 4562 50 M 58.4 . 72.6 ; .
11 1 2 2 3000 M IM N -900 -90 65.8 2193 53 Q 62.5 . 69.7 i O ;: .
t 12 2/25/M A 8 900 1 813 E2 -1800 -90 at.6 1300 30.0 M.0 67.9 : 70.3 :
1 13 . A 8 S00 1 433 D -7500 -90 3. 4 7517 47.0 5.0 54.3 . 73.7 .
I 14 i A 4 20 1 233 C 900 -90 46.0 707 M.0 70,0 69.9 : E.8: .
( 15 : C 6 500 2 833 82 300 90 M.0 M3 30.0 70.0 70.0 ; . 65.2 1 16 : C & Soo 2 333 M 1000 to 86.6 1118 44.0 64.0 M. 0 . : 69.0
- I ; : :
1 17 i E 6 500 3 233 E2 1200 90 22.6 1300 44.0 57.0 E4i . 56.8 .
i 18 i E 6 500 3 233 D -5300 -90 5. 4 5324 45.0 54.0 53.4 i 69.2 . i
- 19 i E 6 500 3 233 N 1900 90 14.7 1965 4.0 57.0 E6i i 62.8 i
. l 6 (1) Hortiontal angle totmeen aircraft headtng and prootgation path at CSA uhale trosecasting easech.
(2) krference Ltwl for He!! copter Notes at 1000 ft.
Corrected for eerseeing lose are assosaherte assorotton alth an attenuation coeffsetent of 0.29 W/1000 ft.
O wu LA& ORA?0 nits C- 7
r ..
l .i 4
e ii
]y yp .
Q Table C-4 q Summary Acoustic Data from Siren Signal Tests - 11/.5/87 and 2/24/88 Used to Find Reference Level and Directivity in Vertical Plane of 4 x 7 Loudspeaker Array i
L .
' Ier Angles Slaat Iss. A Vtd $!Ill l hl. Lo & HO ft.(2), dl(C) !
hta hr fest ha lies.fract Site Het Eeraliert. taase I 5+1 Lil, ; -(I : H') -l 90'<l(*H'll : +90'l p t .~ lo. ft. Io. ft. kg . - ft. - d(l) -- - l 11/87 l 2/ll ; 11/81 l 2/88.l-1 !!/5/87 5 1 500 11 82 -24H H 6.8 2452 55 85 15.0l121.2l l l l 2 ; 51 5H tl I3 Il5H H -2.3 19512 55 $1 66.7 l !!5.6 l - l ';' l 3 l 5 1 5H H I4 -l!!H -H 2.6 !!!!O 51 lo. 59.4 l 121.6 l l l l 4 l 51 500 II. 15 HH H 2.0 H13 48 64 63.9l!!0.9l l l l
! 5 l 51 500 11 I6 l!!H H 2.7 !!!!0 47 51 H.5 l 111.9 l l l l
.6 l 51 500 11 53 SH H 24.1 IIH 53 H 66.0l112.9l l' l l 7 l 7 1 5H His I4 74H -95 1.1 7417 H H 57.3l l l l l-8- l 7 1 500 114: 85 5HO -65 1.7 5425 18 73 14.ll l l 115.61 l 9 l 71 5H Ilta H 4HO 65 1.4 H16 . 49 51 46.7l l l 100.1l l 10 l 1. 1 5H III: II 33H 10 3.6 33H 64 62 57.7l l l 51.1l l
- 11. l 7 3 5H Ills I2 31H 47 4.2 lid H 73 72.9l l l- 112.1l l 12 ~ l 7 3 5H Ill: 16 1H00 -64 2.9 lHH 41 52 50.3l l t' !!5.4l l 13 7. 3 $H 1838 11. flH -35 1.0 till 52 64 63.7l l l 115.0l l l H l 7 3 5H 113 $3 46H 10 2.1 4031 53 68 67.9l l l 110.4l l 15 l .I 5H 11 84 -12100 90 2.6 !!!!O 5e 58 51.3l119.4l l l l
. ('] 16 -l 8 5H 1A 11 41H H 2.0 41H 60 77 76.9 119.7 l l l v ......................................................................................l.......l.......l...........l........,
17 2/24/88 i 5 5H I 82 1200 -H 17.6 1H0 $0 11 17.0l l111.5l l l
' il l C5 5H 2 I! 300 - to H.0' 543 50 10 80.0l t l l 160l 19 l 14 5H 3 52 12H H .17.6 13H 48 15 15.0l l l l 99.5l 20 ; i 5 500 1 13 15H H 1.2 1511 47 68 68.0l l!!O.Bl l l
- 21. l C5 5H 2 13 8200 H 0.4 6220 46 10 10.0l l118.4l l !
22 l I 4 500 3 13 ' 53H 90 0.4 5324 45 16 16.0l l121.2l l ,
23 ! 1 5 H0 1 $3 5H H 46.0 fit 55 13 13.0l l101.0l l .:
24 l C5 500 2 $3 10H H 21.6 1118 45 77 77.0l ; l l 99.1; 25 I4 5H 3 $3 lHO H 8.7 lH5 46 13 73.0l l l l 102.'.l s loverPosition
.(1) lorisostalanglebeteeenalteraftheadingaadpropagation path at CFA shile broadcasting $1188 tone.
(2)laterenceLevelfor$1181Soerceat100ft.
Corrected for spreading loss and atmospheric absorption eith as attentiation coefficient of 1.82 dI/10H ft.
11/87 Absorp. Coeff.1.25 dl/1ft falseofAlphaselected 2/88 ibsorp. Coeff. 2.1 H/Ift for lia 5the of Pts with Oe :<6' and(for2/88dataonly),itg. Lo : 1 H dl(C) 11/87 its i,3 41H ft:116.0 dl(C) (3 [ dri) + 1.6 8 6 6H I: )
Std. hv. : 2.25 8 1: 6
) 2/88 Avg to i 100 ft:120.1 810) [dl(i)+1.6dii6801:)
's/ Std. h e. : 1.23 d I: 3 C- 8 E.
s
,e 9
' ()' APPENDDC D: j i
3 Laboratory Intelligibility Evaluation of Field Recordings of
]
MRT and Sentence Lists D.I.0 METHOD )
D.I.1 Stimull '
the lists of 5s pie inter o ative t e d ser ed in tal ndi The sentences were selected at random from the Hudgins Auditory Test 112 ,
l (Reference 5) and recorded by, two trained male talkers. These lists were then broadcast over loudspeakers mounted in a helicopter and recorded at severalground locations during flyby of the helicopter as described in Section 2 of the main text.
Sound levels were recorded simultaneously, and recording levels were referenced to a known calibration signal (1000 Hz tone at 94 dB(A)). Magnetic tape l'ecordings reproduced from the oridinal field recordings were used for these laboratory tests.
Fifty words from the Modified Rhyme Test were also included for analysis, t'
D.I.2 Subiects Subjects were 12' normal-hearing adult listeners who ranged in age from 17 to 48 years. The group was equally divided among genders with six male and six female listeners. All subjects were paid.
D.I.3 Apparatus The recorded stimulus materials were presented using a Revox PS99 reel-to-reel tape recorder terminating in TDH-39 earphones encased in an MX-41AR cushion af ter appropriate attenuation / amplification in a Grason-Stadler 162 speech !
audiometer. The 1000 Hz reference was calibrated in an NBS9A standard coupler to 94 dB(A). ~
i D.I.4 Procedure 1
Individual test recordings were attenuated 10-20 dB depending on the gain
- djustments required at the time of the original in situ recordings to maximize signal-to-noise ratio. Exact attenuation levels (as referenced to the calibration tone) varied across conditions and were supplied with the stimulus tapes. This LO
- D- 1 wu
'a = = 5
-a w w
.j
.c M X.
I \
W ,
b '
'L arrangement allowed realistic reproduction'of speech peak levels that' actually occurred in the field. Peak levels varied between 74 and 84 dB(A). d
- l
' Speech stimuli. were presented to the listeners binaurally as they sat in ~a-Ldouble-walled sound-insulated test chamber. Responses were written on answer.
forms supp!!ed for each condition.
D.1.5' M Eighteen. flyby conditions were evaluated in the laboratory, consisting of three tracks, three observation points on the ground (sites E2, E3, and 53), with two replications of each .(3x3x2) consisting of test runs' A-6, A-7, C-3, C-4, E-3 and
~
a E-5. - The ordering of ' these conditions was perfectly counterbalanced. Four subjects heard the tapes from site E2 first, four heard E3 first, and four heard 53
.first. Then the conditioru were repeated two more times such 'that no subject heard the same location twice. The three field measurement sites p'roduced six unique orderings of presentations and two subjects were assigned to each order.
- Word samples taken from the Modified Rhyme Test described in Appendix B.
Q/- were also evaluated. Recordings from both tests B and D at site E2 were evaluated but only test D was available at s!te E3 due to recording difficulties. MRT
~
recordings from location $3 were not suitable for testing due to excessive l . background noise. Since test D was presented twice (once at each location), six subjects heard tapes from test D, site E2 first and test D, site E3 second, while the other six subjects heard the opposite order. All MRT conditions were presented randomly with the other flyby conditions and were never presented in immediate :
4 succession to one another.
I
^ s D.2.0 RESULTS D.2.1 ' Overall Inte111mibility - Sentence Material Overall sentence intelligibility measures (not moving average, but the average for an entire !!st) indicate that site E2 for tests A-6 and A-7 was the only site which showed high inte!!igibility for the entire lists. Listeners for site E2, test A-6 averaged 87 percent, while a replication site E2, test A-7 produced the 85 percent overall. Overall scores for site E2, tests C-3 and C-4 were 35 and 60 percent, respectively. Overall intelligibility for tests E-3 and E-5 produced the lowest scores at site E2,in the low to mid 40 percent range. Figure D-1 presents a wm LABORATOsnE5 D-2
= _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
a i
i h' histogram representation of flight tests A, C and E (both the individual lists and
)1 the average) for site E2. l l
Site E3 produced overall SI scores between 11 and 74 percent. 51 scores for 1 flight path A-(tests A-6 and A-7) were low, primarily due to what we assume was contamination of the recorded signals by wind noise. Tests C and E produced scores between about 30 and 75 percent generally. These results are presented in Figure D-2.
I Site 53 produced overall 51 scores between 30 and 63 percent overall. Tests A-6 and A-7 were the most intelligible, above 60 percent. Flight tests E-3 and E-4 yleided SI scores of about 50 percent, and tests C-3 and C-4 produced scores in the 30 percent range. These data are given in Figure D-3.
D.2.2 Moving Averages in 25 Second Windows - Sentence Material ,
Test items were originally recorded such that' they occurred at approxi-mately every 5 to 6 seconds. Of particular interest was the average intelligibility over a 25 second interval for the various test sites. Thus, moving averages were
( computed across subsets of five questions (three questions at the beginning and end) in each list in exactly the manner as explained in Appendix B for scoring the field tests.
Figure D-4 shows these moving averages at site E2 for all three flight paths (six tests). Ncte that due to inherently small differences in the timing of the initiation of message broadcasting for each test, it is not appropriate to average results over the two replications of each flight path. This could only be done by shif ting the data of one test so that the sentence presentation sequences at the time of closest approach for each test were made coincident. From this figure it is clear that the averages over sentences 4 through 11 for both tests A-6 and A-7 show Si scores well above 90 percent, with a few running averages at 100 percent.
There is about a full minute of time where inte!!igibility is better than 90 percent.
Flight tests C-3 and C - produced several windows w4th scores above 90 percent.
At site E2 intelligibility associated with path C rises and fails much more rapidly than path A secres, although there is still about a 40 second window of very good intelligibility. Flight tests E-3 and E-3 have a similar pattern as for tests C-3 and C-4, although ceiling performance only reaches about 80 percent for a few O windows.
vmz LascelA70 sues D-3
?
-1 p ,
. .X h
The moving averages for the other sites for each test show varied results as -
anticipated by the varying maximum signal-to-noise ratios tabulated in Appendix B.
q:l
- Table D-1 contains a complete list of all the moving average Si scores for all three
.{
sitesand six test. 1 D.2.3 Modifled Rhyme Test Results As noted previously, only partial data from the Modified Rhyme Tests were.
usable. Site E2, (items 1-25 for test B-1) produced intelligibility of 63.7 percent on the average, with a standard deviation of 8 percentage points. A second list
-(items 26-50, labeled DI)_at the same location produced an average intelligibility.
of 40.7 percent, with a somewhat larger standard deviation of 14.6 percent.
MRT results from site E3 (only test D-1 data were usable) produced mean intelligibility of 50 percent, with a 10 percent standard deviation.
The 53 site tapes were only partial, and generally unintelligible f.or' reasons
~ '
that may- stem from . recording difficulties. Two suNects wer'. tested at this location anyway, and produced very poor scores.
D.3.0 DISCUSSION From these data it is reasonable to assume that a single message already known to'the listener will be highly intelligible under the hover conditions in which the . MRT' was presented (at ground location E2). Similarly, for the Hudgins Auditory Test #12 sentences, intelligibility estimates from the current data would suggest very high intelligibility for a limited test vocabulary or sentences known to the listeners when scores obtained on these data are above 70-80 percent.
Section 3 of the main text defines the more detailed expected relationship between MRT and SI scores.
There were some specific test items that seemed difficult for all listeners, although the reasons are not clear, There are several possibilities; the item itself was difficult; there may have been an interfering noise in the environment (e.g.,
wind, coughs, intermittent poor audio fidelity on the original tape, birds, passing I automobiles, passing aircraft other than the test vehicle, etc.); or individual talker characteristics may interact with any of the previous points. However, the multiple test lists and randomization along with the five sentence moving averages should minimize any difficulties associated with individual sentences or disturbances during any one sentence.
wm g, ,
, s
'I L ]
'v
. Some of the test questions required discrimination of single letters, which is sometimes difficult. However, the errors may not reflect the letter itself, but rather another key word in the sentence such 'as ."before" or "af ter". In addition, this type of question is.not always difficult, and sometimes is quite intelligible regardless. 'If these items are removed from the data, some points will increase -
~
while others will go down on the moving average data. Again, the moving average-technique, randomization, and multiple presentations smooth any specific item irregularities. Post hoc attributions as to the cause of specific item difficulties are not at all clear-cut.
Finally. a few words on the counterbalancing of experimental laboratory testing design are in order. There were six listening sequences, balanced so that each measurement site is presented in all possible orders an equal number of times.
Representing site E2 by 1, site E3 by 2 and site 33 by 3, the presentation orders are as follows: /
Subject #
1 2 3 1,2 1 3 2 9,10 2 1 3 7,8 3 1 2 5,6 3 2 1 3,4 3 2 i 11,12 Two individual subjects were assigned to each sequence. Notice that if only data from the first column is considered, it is as if the 12 subjects were divided into thee groups with four subjects listening at each ground location. The remaining columns are essentially replications. The purpose of counterbalancing is first, to allow one to examine any possible practice effects, and second, to distribute them (if they are present) across all conditions equally. The data was first examined for practice effects. No practice effect was evident, so all presentations were averaged together; there was no consistent pattern up or down in terms of percentage scores. This procedure provides 12 observations per condition rather than four.
Differences between individual talkers do not appear immediately evident in the overall scores in this laboratory test. The places to make this comparison in vms LAa0AATS 25 D-5 l
Li 1
y, L 1 these data are between tests C-3 and C-4 and between tests E-3 and E-5. From Figures D-1 to D-3 there is a small difference between voices with the average score for talker A (tests C-3 and E-3) being slightly higher (only.1.6 percentage points in total) than ' '.-:\.'- B. However, as shown earlier In' Section 3, this difference was accentue.. r; the field te'sts for reasons which are not apparent.
Nevertheless the effect of talkers is considered very significant for this program since there is no requirement to prove high inte!!1gibility for a random selection of talkers. Indeed, talker selection may very well be optimized with the use of simplified laboratory replications of the type of sentence testing carried out in this program. .
In summary, the data collected in this laboratory experiment is believed quite sound. The conclusions stated in this report are conservative and, with the exception of the effect of the talkers, there should be no problem generalizing the findings. .-
L I
l O vm, s D-6
. = .
g W 4 1
TABLE D-1 l
, -g
.i )
SUMMARY
OF RUNNING. AVERAGE SI SCORES FROM LABORATORY
' (./ -TESTS FOR ALL THREE SITES (1)
SITE SENT. ------------- TEST ---------------
No. No. A-6 A-7 C-3 C-4 E-3 E-5 E2 2 97 67 3 11 8 67
- 3 87 80 2- 20 7 80
- 4 88 87 20 23 7 87
- 5' -88 88 32 23 15 -88 h I' 6 '88 .100. 50 25~ 15 100-
! : ~7 100 93 70 43 30 93 43 93
- 8 100 93 90 50
- 9' 98 93 92 67 58 93 l- 10 98 92 98 87 62 92
- 11 . 98 ~ 90 97 98 77 90
- 12 90 97 93 97 80 97 13 73 83 85 90 85 83
- - 14 58 75 78 83 89 75 SITE SENT. ------------- TEST ---------------
No. No. A-6 A-7 C-3 C-4 E-3 E
- E3- 2 19 17 47 75 69 69
- 3 27 10 42 80 62 60
- 4 25 13 52 80 52 45
'[ : =5' 25' 15 70 80 50 45
\ : 6 18 13 60 63 62 48
- 7 12 ' 13 80 60 52 67
- 8 3 15 85 55 72 62
- 9 10 17 83 47 87 65 10 7 10 78 45 80 72
- 11. 7 8 73 45 80 53
- 12 7 8 68 50 90 35
- 13 7 7 53 47 90 22
- 14 0 3 36 SF 100 3 '
SITE SENT. ------- a---- TEST ---------------
No. No. A-6 A-7 C-3 C-4 E-3 E-5 53 2 8 14- 0 0 22 6 ,
t 3 23 30 0 0 27 22 !
- 4 38 38 3 0 30 25 5 53 53 5 0 25 3B 6 68 58 8 3 38 53
- 7 77 48 20 5 45 73
- 0 78 60 40 10 50 72
- 9 83 72 57 17 62 83 !
10 77 73 $7 30 72 87 l 11 77 70 65 47 63 85
- 12 85 95 72 63 63 65
- 13 83 93 65 78 73 53 l 14 89 94 56 97 69 36 (1) Average over 5 sentences (average over 3 for sentences 1 to 3 and 13 to 15)
D-7
af'..! ,
-]
u
' y- -
" s> '
uq 3..
W ::if ~
- w.<
i ,.s 'J
'- o.s Vggg -
,;. MSSSM ;
MSSsn hm _
1 i
~
. ,;~'
MMM @MM @ m 1 ,, @MM @MM @Esm
- VA MM VAMM VAMM A
- , MMM VsMM VsMM "
, M SSSE A ESSSM ESSSW C- E Q 1st list . G 2nd E eve 1st 4,2nd Figure D-1. Histogram of Average 51 Scores at Site E2 for All Six Tests.
.8
..? i
.6 --
5 ..$
.4
' .3
., VAMM VA M #i
., VAMM @MtM
, E3M A M@M M@M C E j Q ist fest C 2nd r E evg ist & 2nd Figure D-2. Histogram of Average $1 Scores at Site E3 for All Six Tests.
D-8 M Lamonatones u_________________________.
I .
-1 i
t
- (~).
" L ,J:
0.7
- .cg W- .
,, h '
l e.4
\
o.s rfyrf; y [h c.2 .
c.t N -
\
N !
'N h o
- c r
( g 2n, #S* *** g
'k)J E Z) i. n.i ,,, , ,,,
Figure D-3. Histogram of Average SI Scores at Site 53 for All Six Tests.
w a.,. r..
D-9
.(A
- 5 1
~
4
. ,,1
, 3
, 1
~
, 2 1
~
1 1
6 7 3 4 3 5
, 0
_ A A C C E E 1
0 + 0 A 'X V , 9 a ,
, 8
.pv p ,
, 7
- , 6
- m , 5 N
E S
m " , 4 3
, 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1
t t dEoon M t i h
o.g
1 4
,[v 'h
)
1 APPENDIX E WYLE RESEARCH .
TECHNICAL NOTE TN 84-2 ANALYSIS OF LOUDSPEAKER COVERAGE -
BY AN ' AIRBORNE ALERTING SYSTEM Prepared for .
New Hampshire Yankee Route 1, Lafayette Rd.
Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 Prepared by:
Louis C. Sutherland WYLE RESEARCH 128 Maryland Street El Segundo, California 90245 (3/N 39305-07) ,
1 February 1988
i
+
I l
SUMMARY
An- airborne alerting system design was developed. for New Hampshire j Yankee ' for the potential app!! cation .of establishing an alert and notification !
system around Seabrook Nuclear Plant in Seabrook, New Hampshire. As part of that design process, it was necessary to develop a model for prediction of sound coverage by an array of airborne loudspeakers. . The model, described in this technical note, made It possible to estimate the area covered simultaneously by an .
array of three different loudspeaker systems which had different directivity patterns and orientations. The model was conveniently implemented with the use of a LOTUS 1-2-3 spreadsheet program to define the maximum width of the coverage band for which the sound levels exceeded a given criterion level.
yA i
4 w
m, .
' na i
i
,. , 1
'1 i
g I = r3
.Q TABLE OF CONTENTS Section P,,,a,, ge, l 1
1.0 INTR OD UCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 2.0 GEOMETRIC MODEL FOR DIRECTIVITY ANGLES . . . . . . . 1 l 1
2.1 A zimuth Angle A . <. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 ' Vertical Angle cx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.0 RELATIVE DIRECTIVITY INDICES OF SPEAKERS ....... 7 3.1 Relative Directivity Indices for 4x7 Array . . . . . . . . 8 3.2 Relative Directivity Indices for lx4 Array . . . . . . . . 8 3.3 Sound Levels on the Ground .............. 11
- REFERENCES ........................ 12 i
LIST OF FIGURES fi1EE P,gge 1 Comparison of Measured Directivity with Empirical Models for 4x7 Array of 4"x4" Horns a)in Vertical Plane Containing Centers of 7 Horns, and b)in Orthogonal Plane Containing Centers of 4 Horns ..................... 9
-2 Comparison of Measured Directivity with Empirical Models for 1x4 Array of 7"x7" Horns a)in Vertical Plane Containing Centers of 4 Horns, and b)in Orthogonal Plane ......... 10 8
.f i
t 333
I.
i j
I v-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
j A model is described in this report for evaluation of the area covered by an airborne loudspeaker-driven system that can present either a voice " notification" I message or a tone " alerting" signal as required by FEMA for nuclear power plants.I The model was developed to be a general one, capable of predicting the sound
]
levels on the ground as a function of time for an arbitrary array of three separate 1 loudspeaker systems, each with its own orientation, reference sound output, and !
directivity pattern. Given the latter key characteristic of any one of the systems, the principal challenge in development of the model was to translate the directivity characteristics with respect to one set of coordinates tied to the speaker axis to the corresponding directivity for an arbitrary direction of this speaker axis on the airborne platform (a helicopter). This required evaluation of the three-dimensional analytical geometry involved for this case. .-
The directivity characteristics actually employed for this model were based on a combination of analytical models and measured data for a particular set of n
loudspeakers considered in the design.
(V)
The fo!!owing analysis defines a general solution for evaluating the sound level on the ground from one airborne loudspeaker system. For a multiple array of loudspeakers, the model is simply applied repeatedly as necessary and the total sound level on the ground computed by an energy summation of the level from each speaker. (The individual speaker arrays are separated sufficiently so that there would be no significant coherent summation of the instantaneous sound pressures, with the result that energy summation of the sound intensities is a;,propriate.) In general, however, the system is designed so that there is very little overlap in sound coverage by more than one speaker array so that in most cases, the sound I level on the ground at any one position is dominated by the output from just one loudspeaker array.
2.0 GEOMETRIC MODEL FOR DIRECTIVITY ANGLES l Referring to Sketch A, consider a sound source 5 traveling with a velocity V j along a horizontal path located at an elevation H above the ground. Let the l coordinate system be fixed on the ground with the origin directly underneath the 1
source at the time (t=0) when the source is at the point of closest approach. The O
l wm 1
I i 1
If
[. -
f" y
I- ' ground track underneath the moving source will be the X axis and an observer O is located along the Y axis at a distance Y, to the side of the ground track. All of -
the points of interest are identified by numbers, so that a line is identified by two end point numbers and a plane by three numbers which define the points lying in the plane..
The source 5 (at point (2)) is a loudspeaker with a centerline, or axis of i
symmetry (line (23)) which is pointed down, below the horizontal, by an angle oc, and rotated to the right of the source velocity vector (i.e., the flight path) by an angle 43. As indicated in Sketch B, the loudspeaker source can be considered as a rectangular surface lying in a plane containing the orthogonal lines (25) and (29),
both of which are perpendicular to the source axis (23). The directivity pattern of the source is specified for the sound levels along any source-receiver vector in terms of two angles, oc and B as defined in the following.
Z o
Sketch A N g : Y, :
-(V7 5,2 /9 y _ R f
-7 l vt f
n % i Ss 3 0
Y6 yo j
O 3 6 1 o %
Sketch C Yt [ Plan View Sketch B 5 /
3 g
. 2 , N /
c _
10 Y6 : (08) + (16) = h' + (43)/ sins, O
wu..
j 1
(j' '
2.1 Azimuth Annie A j a
The plane (125) contains' the source axis (23) and the line (25) at right angles to the speaker axis which is also one line forming (or parallel to) one line of.
symmetry of:the rectangular source opening. This plane also contains the receiver and has been rotated about the line (25) by an angle 4 relative to its position as the-plane (235) where it contains the speaker axis. This angle A is measured in the plane (236) which is the other orthogonal plane through the speaker axis which also contains the other line of symmetry (29) of the source opening. The procedure for.
finding the angle A is straightforward but involved. It . requires defining the ,
equations for the two planes (125) and (236), deriving the equation for their line of intersection (27) from this expression and a corresponding expression for the f.ource center!!ne.
A plane through points (125) has the determinant equation: ,.
X Y Z l X Y Z !
I I I p X Y 2
= 0 (1) !
I N/ 2 2 2 X Y Z 1 -
3 3 3 i
where X;, Yg and Z; are the three coordinates of the ith Points 1,2 and 5.
Since the coordinates of point (2) can be defined in terms of the altitude H and time t, the problem reduces to finding the coordinates of point (7). Then A will be given by the inverse tangent tan ~I(37/23) where (37) and (23) denote the length of the respective lines. Thus, since Z 0 for point (7), we need only carry out the algebra from Eq. (1) for the coordinates X and Y.
Thus, expanding Eq. (1) but letting Z=0, X(Y 232+YZ3g+Y225-YZ32-YZ33-Y2) 21
-Y(XZ32+X233+X225-XZ32-X23 5 - X %g 2 ) (2)
-(XY225+XYIg2+XYZ233-XY23 3 3 21 - X Y 22g3-XYZg 3 2)= 0 I
q j I
i u___________
- q-l Points 1,2 and 5 have the coordinates. l X 3 = Z = 0, Yj a Y, N,
3 90-as X2= Vt,Y2 =0,Z2=H H
a X3 = Vt - H tan oc, cos A Y3 = -H tan oc, sin A, 1.ine (45) = H / tan (90 - oc,)
=
23=0 H / cot oc,
= H tan oc s Thus, Eq. (2) reduces to 2 2 X ( Y,H + H tan oc, sin A, ) - Y ( -VtH+H tan oc, cos A, ) ,
2
- ( Y, H Vt - Y, H tan oc, cos A ) = 0 (3)
Factoring out Y, and H, the equation for the line (15) which contains point (7) and which lies in the plane (125) at Z s 0 is X(1+ tan oc, sin A, ) + Y ( Y -
tan oc, cos A, )
- ( Vt - H tan oc, cos A, ) = 0 (4)
Similarly, from Eq. (1) with Z= 0, line (36), which also contains point (7) and lies in plane (236), has the equation X(Y223+YZ62+Y236-YI63-YZ26~Y32 I
- Y (X I23+X262 4 X236-X263-X26-X2) 32 (5)
-(X Y Z236+XY2 623+XYz-XYZ632-XY2326-XY22 362 6 3 ) == 0 O
wa,.s
!l ,
m.
E ,
k A_f In this case, recognizing that X 2
=
Vt,Y2=0,22=H H cos A 5 H sin A X
3= Vt + ,Y3:
tan oc
- s. tan oc s'Z:0 '3 X6 = 0 7
Y Y' 6= (08) + (86) =
un A, + (43)/ sin A, E 1 . .
=
sin A, ,Y* *** Os+ H/ tan oc, Z = 0 6
', then Eq. (5) reduces to (af ter considerable algebraic simplification):
X tan ocs
- C'8 Os +Y tan oc, tan A, + sin A, ,.
( ) H tan oc, + Vt / cos A, + Yt cos A, + u" a = 0. (6) nU The intersection of lines (13) and (36)is the point (7). The coordinates of point (7),
X 7and Y ,7will be defined by the simultaneous solution of Eq. (4) and Eq. (6), which can be expressed in the form
^1 X7+BY7 3 = -D3 (7)
A2X7+B2 Y7 = -D2 Solving this pair of equations for X7 and Y7 ,
X 7 = (D3 B 2 - D2 B g ]/(A2Bg-Ag B) 2 (I)
Y 7=(A D2 ~ ^2 D]/[A 2 01~A1 0]
g g 2 (9}
The angle A can now be defined as the inverse tangent A = tan-I (5 37 /523)
(10) where 5 37 and5 refer t the lengths of the corresponding lines (37) and (23).
23 t
~Ov WYLE 5
1 l
9 These lengths 537 ands 23.are given by 5
5 37
= (X3 - X7 )2 (y3 , y y)2 5 = (X 23 2 - X3 )2 + (Y2-Y3 From the preceding equations, the coordinates Xg , Yg for i = 2,3 and 7 become X2=Vt , Y=0 2
X3 = Vt + H cos A,/tana, , Y3= Hsino,/ tan a, and X 7= DB32~0021 I A21 0 ~ ^1B2
= - : .
Y 7= ADg 2 ~ ^201 / ^2 Bg - A Bg2 '
where Ag = (1 + f tan a, sin A,) tan a s+ cos A3)
A2=(
O B g = (f - f tan a, cos A,) B 2= tan a, tan A, + sin A,)
o o D3= - (Vt-H tan a, cos A,) D2*~ H **""s
- c sA s+ Vt c s A, + tan a
. s.
Thus, substituting the above relationships into Eq. (11) and (10), the angle A is obtained.
2.2 Vertical Angle a This angle is measured in the same vertical plane (235) as the vertical tilt angle a,. It is the angle between the speaker axis and the intersection of this vertical plane (235) and the plane (1210) which is plane (237) rotated about the other source line (29) until it passes through the observer at point 1.
The angle is readily obtained from two views - the plan view shown earlier in Sketch C and a vertical ehvation looking at the vertical plane (235) (or (2 510)).
O wvu, 6
2 l 90-as .
H a
e Let the line (4-10) be S4-10. Then, one can write: I
= 10 4 3
' ' ~ ~
' S 440 8 a s tan 1 S4 .10 H
0 - a ,) (12) ,
Yo j From the plan view S4-10 = (Y, - II3) no,) 'I" Os
' Yt Plan . .
View
- ~I Y - Vt/tano
. . a = tan ( g 5 ) sinh + a, - 9 0' 4'
10 .
kiO. ~
,3 Y, sin A, - V t cos A,"
or a = tan H + *s - 90, (14)
~I As expected, for A, = 90$ oc : tan + a - 90 in summary, Eq. (10) and (14), evaluated efficiently with a spreadsheet, define the directivity angles necessary for evaluating the directivity index and the souno levels at the receiver for the moving sources.
3.0 RELATIVE DIRECTIVITY INDICES OF SPEAKERS The loudspeaker units planned for the system under consideration were to consist of a 4x7 array of miniature (4.56 inch by 4.56 inch horn mouth opening) horn-loaded drivers described in detail in Reference 3 and two separate smaller lx4 arrays of larger horns, each with a 7x7 inch horn mouth opening. Both types of speakers are special high-powered units manufactured by Applied Elect. o Mechanics,Inc. (AEM) of Alexandria, Virginia. For purposes of this new study, the empirical expressions for the directivity indices of the 4x7 array unit in Reference 3 were modified to provide a more realistic estimate of the relative directivity at values for the directivity angles cx and A much greater than O degrees.
vmz usomatonES 7
pj:
N r 4 1 Ld '
i For the two lx4 arrays, similar empirical expressions for the directivity l
were developed on. the basis of.available measurements:of directivity for other AEM speaker arrays. The resulting expressions are summarized as fo!!ows and are 1
compared in. Figures I and 2 to the available data based, for the 4x7 array,_on the <
- measurements oe:crhd in Reference 3 and, for the lx4 array, on unpublished data ..
provided by AEM.
3.1- Relative Directivity Indees for'4x7 Array For oc < 25',
~ '
Di(oc) = 16 Log , dB sin _ (6 x sin (oc))/ 6 x sin (sin (oc)) (15a)
For oc > 25',
. DI (oc) = 10 Log. (A/ (A* 4 o["**) ) III*)] , dB (15b) where A = . 66.9,' m = 2.01, n = 2.16, and
' For A > 0',
b Di(A)'s 10 Log (A/ (A* + A '*I)III*I) , dB (16)
. where ' A' = 4.14 x 10', m = 0.602, and n 4.48.
3.2 Relative Directivity Indices for ! x 4 Array
- For oc in vertical plane,
, dB (17)
DI(oc) 10 Log }A/ ( a* + o["**} ) (1/m where A = !!,800, m = 1.0, n 2.99, and For A in azimuth (~ horizontal) plane, I III*
dB DI(A) = 10 Log (A/ ( A" + A "**)) , (18) where A = 39.2, m = 3.17, and n = 1.6~.
Note that Eq. (13b) and Eq. (16-18) have no foundation in theory but have been found to provide realistic curve fits to measured directivity data for real horn f
'The orientation angles oc and A were accidentally interchanged for Eq 17 and 18 .
and Figure 2 in the original release of this technical note. This error is corrected O here. ;
8
4 ,
I I
a) DIRECTMTY lN VERTICAL PLANE VD'TICAL PLANE, 4 X 7 Ar w
- ,s a
/ '
\ O WCASURE (At poent of campest opp,gagg-
' PREDICTION, Alphe s 29'
_y p PREDCTION, Alphe > 27 (WR 87-10) e d -S -
j PRC6CT10N. Alpha > 2e (rNo neport) 9 4
h -t o - -
g N 4 0 s
E 6 10 20 30 Ao eD 2 100 16010c ALPHA, ANGLE IN VUGCAL PLANE, DEQIEIS b) DIRECTMTY IN LATERAL PLANE
/]
\ -
1ATERAL PLAPE, 4 s 7 ARRAY 5- + 24-27'. Ronge of Alpha. Dog --- Prediction Model (WR 87-10)
O Revised Model (Thes #eport) o r :
I i, -s -
.+ + ++ +
+
. + +
+
3 y
g
-10 ,- .'.++
+
+
+ 4
+++
e +
+ +
1 + +
+
-20 J ,
+
-30 , , , , , , . . . . . . . i
-60 -40 -40 -20 0 20 40 40 80 Angle SETA, Doyees
-( Figure 1. Comparison of Measured Directivity with Empirical Models for 4x7 Array of 4"x4" Horns a)in Vertical Plane Containing Centers of 7 Horns, and b)in Orthogonal Plane Containing Centers of 4 Horns. g LAe0RatonES 9
m_m_____ . _ _ _ _ - _ . - . _ _ _ . - - - - - - - -
O, -
i E~- ,
'1 '
l
- c) D: PECT!VITY INl. LATERAL DLaf;E l l
LA1ERAL 8LANC. 1 W 4 ' Arew j i:
p;.4 0 'WEASURED l
--- : EWPACAL CURVE Frr
{ l
. %s) a .l I
L d \ N a) Lateral plane, 1 x 4 Array' i n c . . -
g ,
1 N
- -i e -
o s, b %, c .,
., k. 'N.
s ;
4 N
~
g
.N 4
' I
-:t - 1
-=
4 6 4 10 20 30 Ao 60 R? i ct tict s; DETA, ANG.E N LATERAL PLAE. DEGRES ,.
- 'd) DIRECTMTY IN. VERTICAL PLANE
.(S
, s_.l .; 5 vemcAL PLANE. 1 v A Arw 0 WEAsuRED i
- EupipicAL cunvE Frr j
C O r d -S -- N,\b) Vertical plane, 1 xArray 4 I \c I 'N e
-i c -
\N -
4 y
\
-2o- \N ;
N 2
\
-28 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 Go 80100 153 to ALP 6tA, ANGLE IN WEPTICAL PLANC. CC01EE$
- Figure 2. Comparison of Measured Directivity with Empirical Models for lx4 v Array. of 7"x7" Hori, a)in Horizontal (Azimuth) Plane Containing Centers of 4 Horns, and b)in Vertical Plane. g unaumme 10
L .i
.O
~
l loudspeakers, especia!!y at very small and very large angles (i.e., greater than 90').
It should also be noted that these expressions are applied as reasonable estimates -l
'of the directivity for speech sound levels and thus approximate the directivity characteristics of the loudspeaker arrays over the dominant speech frequencies (i.e., 500-20'00 Hz)in the outpu' signal of the AEM loudspeakers.
3.3 Sound Levels on the Ground p With the use of the above expressions, the speech sound levels on the ground for any. arbitrary pointing direction of the speaker axis can be computed. -The equation for the sound level Lg (Y,, t) in decibels at time t at the observer sideline position Y, for the Ith 8Peaker can be expressed as:
' L (Y,,t) = L, - 20 Log (5R/100) - m, (5R-100)/1000 + DI(m) + DI(A) - LA '(19) where L, = Reference sound level of the loudspeaker at 100 f t on axis SR = Slant Range from the source to receiver,it N
2
= Y ,2 (y ,)2 +H cx, = Attenuation coefficient due to atmospheric absorption, dB per 1000 f t DI(oc), Di(3) : Relative directivity ludices given by Eq. (15-18).
LA= Lateral Attenuation due to ground absorption (see Reference 3)
0.93-(1-e-0.000835 d) - (3.96-0.066-@, + 9.9 e-0.13-@e), dB Elevation angle = sin ~I(H/SR), degrees I L $,
d = Horizontal ground distance = ((Vt)2 y c The total sound level on the ground for three loudspeakers is given by their energy summation using Eq. (19) and the appropriate directivity indices for each ig speaker according to its directivity angles, cx g, A gand corresponding alming angles og and A,; for the speaker axis.
m
-- m.
I1
It
. yf ' 4 1
-?;.
ljfR..
\Q?
REFERENCES 1.- Anonymous," Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems for L
1 ~ Nuclear Power Plants," Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-REP-10 (1985).
~
..' 2. Eshback, 0. W., " Handbook of Engineering Fundamentals," Wiley & Sons, 2nd Ed. 1952.
. . -p J 3.
Wyle Research, "Ev:.luation of an Airborne Alerting System," Wyle Research: '
Report WR'87-10, Wyne Laboratories, December 1987.
'(
f e.
I i
l 1
l
.J o4 12 mn
_. - - -- - _ -- -_