Applied Acoustics, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp.

97-109, 1997
0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
PII: SOOO3-682X(96)00043-6 0003-682X/97/$17.00+ .OO
ELSEVIER

International Standards for the Determination of Sound

Power Levels of Sources Using Sound Intensity
Measurement: an Exposition

F. J. Fahy

Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of Southampton, Southampton,

UK, SO17 1BJ

(Received 7 June 1995; revised version received 17 July 1995; accepted 18 July 1995)

ABSTRACT

The rationale, background and principles of International Standards 9614-1

and 9614-2 for the determination of source sound power from measurements
of sound intensity are described and explained. 0 1997 Elsevier Science
Ltd

Keywords: Sound intensity, sound power, standards.

1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to explain the rationale, technical background

and principles of International Standard IS0 9614-1’ and Draft Interna-
tional Standard ISO-DIS 9614-2,* which are based, respectively, on discrete
point and scanned sampling of sound intensity fields around sources. My
perspective is that of the convener (chairman) of ISO-TC43-SCl-Working
Group 25, which was responsible for developing these standards. The
national representatives of many countries have served on this working party
over a period of 12 years: I gratefully acknowledge their contributions
and their support, but wish to emphasize that any views expressed and
interpretations presented are entirely my own.
A measurement standard which is intended for use by industrial organi-
zations must necessarily represent a compromise between scientific rigour,
practicability and economic feasibility. It is, therefore, vulnerable to criticism
by professional scientists on the one hand, and industrial users on the other.
97
98 F. J. Fuhy

The standards which form the subject of this paper are designed to be
applied to sources in their normal operating environments, which vary
widely in terms of reverberation and background noise. This has necessitated
the incorporation of safeguards against excessive measurement error under
extremely unfavourable conditions; these safeguards may appear to be over-
conservative to those making determinations under favourable conditions.

2 FUNCTION AND PURPOSE OF MEASUREMENT STANDARDS

The principal function of a measurement standard is to provide users with a

complete specification of measurement conditions and procedures, together
with associated data reduction procedures and reporting formats, which will
ensure that the correct application of the standard yields a result, or a set of
results, which lie within a stated range about the true value at a stated level
of confidence: of course, the true value can never be precisely determined.
Naturally, a measurement standard specifies the use of measurement equip-
ment which meets the requirements of international standards appropriate to
that equipment and the quantities to be measured.
The principal purpose of a measurement standard is to ensure that the
results of its application to a number of physically distinct samples are
strictly comparable. The main categories of application of standards for
the determination of source sound power levels are as follows: (i) comparison
of different types of device which have a common function, e.g. lawnmowers;
(ii) determination of compliance or otherwise with regulations; (iii) labelling
of sources in terms of sound power levels; (iv) providing source output data
to be used in the prediction of the acoustic effects of the source operation.

3 STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Given the fact that measurement conditions, and, to some extent, measurement
procedures, can never be exactly reproduced in the process of application of
a standard, it is necessary to distinguish between two forms of statement of
the variability of the results of a number of determinations, namely,
‘repeatability’ and ‘reproducibility’. The following is extracted from the
section entitled ‘Measurement uncertainty’ of the draft scanning standard
ISO-DIS 9614-2. ‘The value of sound power of a noise source determined by
a single application of the procedures of this International Standard is likely
to differ from the true value. The actual difference cannot be evaluated, but
 International standards 99

the confidence that the value determined lies within a certain range about the
true value can be stated, on the reasonable assumption that the values
determined by numerous applications of the procedures are normally
distributed about the true value. Where repeated applications are made to
a given source located at a given test site under nominally identical test
conditions, using the same test procedures and instrumentation, the values so
determined constitute the data set which statistically describes the repeat-
ability of the determination. Where the values are determined from tests
made on the given source at different test sites using physically different
instruments, all of which conform with the requirements of this International
Standard, the data set so obtained statistically describes the reproducibility
of the determination. Reproducibility is affected by variations of environmen-
tal conditions at the test sites and of experimental technique. The standard
deviations do not account for variations of sound power output caused
by changes in operating conditions of a source (e.g. rotational speed, line
voltage) or mounting conditions.’
There are test conditions intermediate to those specified above; for
example, different measurement teams, using different sets of equipment,
may make determinations on a given source operating in a given environ-
ment. Wherever any one component of the process of determination varies
from test to test, the appropriate statistical quantity is ‘reproducibility’. The
variance of reproducibility is likely to exceed that of repeatability.
The statements in the standards of the standard deviation of repro-
ducibility also implicitly include a factor which accounts for the fact that a
test environment actually influences the sound power radiated by a given
source, albeit generally rather weakly, and principally at frequencies below
200 Hz. IS0 9614-l explicitly states that ‘The sound power is the in situ
sound power as determined by the procedure of this part of IS0 9614; it is
physically a function of the environment, and may in some cases differ from
the sound power of the same source determined under other conditions.’

4 ERRORS AND CONFIDENCE ESTIMATES

As mentioned in the previous section, the user of the result of a standard

determination of sound power needs to be supplied with an estimate of the
confidence which can be placed in the result. On the basis of the assumption
that the results of numerous determinations of the sound power of a given
source in accordance with the requirements of the standards are normally
distributed, the 95% confidence interval of a determination can be stated to
be about four times the estimated standard deviation of reproducibility.
100 F. J. Fahy

The difference between the true power of a source and that estimated by an
application of a standard constitutes an estimation error. The total error is
the sum of bias error and random error. The former originates principally
from the phase mismatch between the transducer channels of the intensity
measuring instrument: the latter is a combination of intensity field spatial
sampling error and spectral estimation error; the former of these is a func-
tion of the spatial irregularity of the distribution of the normal intensity
component over the measurement surface; the latter is determined princi-
pally by the bandwidth-averaging time product (B7’) of the intensity estimate
and the coherence between the two microphone signals. The requirements of
the standards are defined so as to restrict the maximum possible bias error to
half the standard deviation of reproducibility. Since the bias error may be
positive or negative, depending on the particular instrument and frequency
band, and may take any value between zero and the maximum allowed,
depending upon the form of the intensity field and the orientation and
location of the probe, it is not unreasonable to consider the bias error to be a
random error in terms of reproducibility: it is, of course, uncorrelated with
the other random errors, which, themselves are mutually uncorrelated.

5 INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE

The two-microphone p-p intensity probe is the most widely used form of
transducer system for intensity measurement. The spectral density of the
time-averaged sound intensity of a time-stationary sound field is propor-
tional to the imaginary part of the cross-spectral density of signals from the
two microphones. 3 Within the frequency range of useful operation, this is
linearly proportional to the product of the square roots of the two pressure
spectral densities and the phase of the cross-spectrum. It is clear that an
instrument will only provide an accurate estimate of sound intensity if the
phase mismatch between its transducer channels is much smaller than
the phase difference between the pressures at the microphone positions, the
normalized error due to phase mismatch being equal to the ratio of the two.
The phase mismatch ‘inherent’ to any instrument (combination of probe and
processor) may be determined by placing the two microphone sensing
elements close together in a small, acoustically excited cavity: the true phase
difference is zero, and any indicated intensity is proportional to the phase
mismatch. The presence of back vents for static pressure equalization can
cause measurement errors if sound transmission through the vent passage
is not adequately attenuated. The International Standard for Intensity
Instruments4 requires tests to be made in a standing wave field to demonstrate
the adequacy of this attenuation.
 International standards 101

It may be shown3 that the normalized bias error of an intensity estimate

produced by phase mismatch is related to the difference of two quantities:
(i) the difference of the indicated sound pressure level and sound intensity
level with the probe placed in a small cavity-the so-called pressure-residual
intensity index (~5,~~);
(ii) the difference of these two quantities as measured at
a point in the sound field of a source under test-the so-called pressure-
intensity index (S,1). A minimum difference of 7 dB ensures a maximum bias
error due to phase mismatch of f 1 dB; a minimum difference of 10 dB
ensures a maximum error of f 0.5 dB. A quantity termed the dynamic
capability Ld is defined in the standards as S,, - K, where K is a bias error
factor selected to be 7 or 10 according to the precision grade of the determi-
nation. The frequency range over which the maximum bias error is less than
a specified amount can be defined by superimposing plots of Ld and S,, as
shown in Fig. 1. This figure also illustrates the principal reason for the
exclusion of direct measurements of sound power in dB(A); Ld varies with
frequency and a direct dB(A) measurement gives no spectral distribution
information.

6 HOW IS0 9614 DIFFERS FROM THE PRESSURE STANDARD

SERIES 3740

The IS0 Standard series 3740-3748 specifies methods for the determination
of the sound power of sources in carefully controlled environments by means

db

t
6
P'O

Frequency

Fig. 1.
102 F. J. Fahy

of measurements of mean-square sound pressure at discrete points on

a measurement surface which envelops the source. Close environmental
control, together with minimal background noise, are essential for the
reliable interpretation of measured mean square sound pressures in terms
of sound intensities. It is impossible to subject many sources of practical
concern to these procedures for one or more of the following reasons:
(i) many sources are too large or heavy to be transported and/or placed in
special acoustic test rooms, and they operate in the presence of other sources,
so that in situ measurement methods cannot be applied; (ii) many sources
operate as essential components of larger systems, from which they cannot
be separated, and of which the noise prevents pressure-based methods from
being used. Consequently, IS0 set up a working group in 1983 to develop a
standard for source sound power determination based upon sound intensity
measurement which may, in principle, be applied in any operational
environment.
Previously established sound power standards (e.g. the IS0 3740 series)
closely prescribe the test environment and require background noise to be
minimized so that confidence ranges for the reproducibility of the result can
be reliably specified. In cases where the environment is not ideal, certain
empirically based approximate correction factors are applied. Application of
the principle of sound power determination which suppresses the influence of
extraneous sources and of non-ideal acoustic environments, allows source
sound power determinations to be made under a wide variety of operational
conditions: it is therefore not appropriate to prescribe the test environment
very closely, since it is not generally under the control of the user of the
standard. As a consequence, the sound power standards IS0 9614-l) 9614-2
differ radically from the 3740 series in not prescribing the acoustic test
environment and placing only rather broadly defined constraints on the user
in the selection of the measurement surface and the spatial sampling array
(or scan path) which are judged to be best suited to the particular geometric
form of source and test environment. In order to ensure that the resulting
sound power estimate has a sufficiently high probability of lying within the
stated range of the true value, these standards require the user to evaluate
certain ‘indicators’ which are used to check certain criteria which form the
basis of the judgement of the acceptability of the quality of the instrumen-
tation and of the test environment. These standards also provide guidance on
means of improving the test conditions and procedures in cases where these
criteria are not satisfied. The diversity of field test conditions precludes the
possibility of a ‘Precision’ (Grade 1) determination, and the IS0 standards
currently specify only ‘Engineering’ (2) and ‘Survey’ (3) grades. [WG25 is
currently considering a proposal for a Precision Grade standard for use only
under controlled laboratory conditions.]
 International standards 103

7 PROCEDURES AND FIELD INDICATORS

7.1. IS0 9614-l: measurement at discrete points

All measurements are made in either one octave or one-third octave

frequency bands: direct measurements in dB(A) are prohibited. The reason
is quite simple: the performance of any instrument in terms of its phase
mismatch (or pressure-residual intensity index) is frequency dependent, as
recognized by the relevant IEC standard for instruments for the measure-
ment of sound intensity.4 Hence it is not possible to limit the associated bias
error to a specific value in the absence of specific knowledge of the intensity
and pressure spectra.
An initial measurement surface, preferably of simple regular geometric
form, is defined by the user of the standard so as to enclose the source under
test at an average distance to its outer surface of no less than 500 mm. This
restriction is imposed in order to ensure that the field is predominantly active
and not affected by near field intensity circulation which produces spatially
alternating regions of outward-going and inward-going intensity, a feature
which greatly increases the normalized intensity estimation error.3
A minimum of one measurement position is assigned to each square metre
of measurement surface: for small surfaces a minimum total number of 10
is specified. Measurements are made of sound pressure level and of the
component level of sound intensity normal to the measurement surface at
each point, from which a number of field indicators are evaluated as described
below.
The International Standards 9614-1 and 9614-2 differ fundamentally from
their North American counterpart ANSI S. 12.12 (1992)5 in specifying a
small number of indicators of which the evaluation is mandatory: the latter
Standard specifies a large number of indicators of which evaluation is
voluntary in many cases. The two parts of standard 9614 employ different
forms of indicator, which will be reviewed separately.
Four indicators are defined in 9614-1 and are listed below.

7.1.1. FI: temporal variability indicator

The principle of sound power determination using intensity measurement is
invalidated if the test source, or significant extraneous sources, or the
acoustic test conditions, alter during a test. The purpose of the evaluation of
F1 is to check the stationarity (steadiness) of the intensity field by making a
series of short-time-average estimates of sound intensity at one point on
the selected measurement surface. Fl may not exceed a prescribed value. A
major shortcoming is that the check is done only immediately prior to, and
immediately after, the test-not during it.
104 F. J. Fuhy

7.1.2. F2: surface pressure-intensity indicator

This is the difference in decibels between the sound pressure level corres-
ponding to the arithmetic average of the estimates of mean square pressure
at the array of measurement points and the sound intensity level corres-
ponding to the arithmetic average of the normal intensities estimates at the
measurement points computed by ignoring the relative signs (directions) of
the individual estimates. It is used to limit the bias error due to instrument
phase mismatch. Fz may not exceed the value of the dynamic capability of
the measuring instrument (Ld) corresponding to the grade of accuracy
required: this is Criterion 1 [Note: it has subsequently been shown that the
following indicator F3, which respects intensity sign, should more correctly
be employed for this purpose].
It should be understood that it is only the global value of $1 which should
be less than Ld; local violation of this condition is not significant.3

7.1.3. F3: negative partial power indicator

This corresponds to F2 except that the sound intensity level corresponds to
the arithmetic average of estimates with the sign respected.
The difference between F3 and F2 is a measure of the ratio of partial sound
power leaving the measurement surface to that entering it (usually due to the
proximity of extraneous sources). Clearly, the difference cannot be reliably
estimated if it is of the same order as the uncertainty of determination of the
component partial sound powers. Both bias and random errors in the sound
power estimate are functions of this ratio: the maximum bias error is limited
by placing a limit of 3 dB on Fx-F2.

7.1.4. F4: Jield non-uniformity indicator

The error in estimating the spatial average of the normal intensity over a
measurement surface (and, hence, the sound power) from a finite number
of point samples is related to the spatial irregularity of the normal intensity.
If the samples are randomly located and statistically independent, the
variance of the estimate of the spatial average is approximately equal to
the variance of the sample set divided by the number of samples: in this case
the approximation will improve and the variance will decrease as the sample
size increases.
F4 is equal to the normalized variance (coefficient of variation) of the
discrete-point samples of normal sound intensity with the sign respected.
Provided that a sufficient number of points are used, this indicator will
normally give a reasonably accurate indication of the actual normalized
spatial variance of the normal intensity field on the chosen measurement
surface. It may thus be used to specify the minimum number of sample points
 International standards 105

N necessary to restrict the uncertainty of the estimates of the spatial-mean to

within acceptable limits on the basis of the condition iV> CFd2, where C is
a factor which varies with frequency band and grade of precision; this
is Criterion 2. This application is based upon a fundamental assumption of
statistical independence of sample estimates which may often not be justified.
F4 will also be very large if the spatial intensity distribution is strongly
bipolar due to the proximity of a strong extraneous source. In such a case it
makes much greater sense to evaluate the coefficients of variation of the
negative and positive intensities separately.
If the samples are not statistically independent, the variance of the estimate
will not vary inversely with the sample size, and may not even decrease as
sample size is increased. Unfortunately, virtually nothing is known about the
spatial correlation characteristics of intensity fields, and hence the indepen-
dence assumption stands for the present. It is widely considered that the
number of measurement points called for by the standard is, in many cases,
rather conservative. However, such a conclusion has often been based upon
experience of sound power determinations under rather favourable conditions.
A considerable body of evidence exists to the contrary, e.g. Hiibner.6
If any of the indicators fail to satisfy the specified conditions, ameliorative
actions must be taken, and the test repeated. These actions are explained in
Section 8.

7.2. IS0 9614-2: measurement by scanning

In the early days of the use of sound intensity for determining source sound
power, there was much discussion, and even controversy, about the relative
merits of scanned and discrete point techniques. On one hand, the spectral
estimation error of an estimate of sound intensity at a fixed point may
generally be reduced to a negligible value within a reasonable averaging time;
but there is substantial uncertainty about the quality of the result as an
estimate of the spatial average of the normal intensity over the segment of
measurement surface associated with that point. On the other hand, the signals
generated by a scanned probe are non-stationary because the intensity varies
with position; spectral estimation is compromised, but the probe does pass
over, or near, all points on a segment, thereby reducing the spatial sampling
error. Theoretical analysis of the errors associated with each technique has
been attempted,7 but there is now ample empirical evidence that the results
of scanned measurements are at least as reliable as those of discrete point
measurements, and the consensus among users is that the scanning technique
is the more practicable of the two.
As with 9614-1, an initial measurement surface is defined around the
source by the user of the standard, but its minimum average distance from
106 F. J. Fahy

the source may be as small as 200 mm, compared with 500 mm for point
measurements. The reason for the relaxation of this proximity limit is that a
scan produces a degree of compensation of near field spatial alternation of
intensity direction which is not available from a point measurement. The
surface is divided up into segments according to a requirement that each
segment can be comfortably scanned by the operator: this does not apply if
mechanical scanning is employed.

7.2.1. F,t: sound$eidpressure-intensity indicator

This indicator corresponds to F3 in cases where the discrete points are asso-
ciated segments of equal area. It is again emphasized that local exceedance of
Ld by S,, is not significant.

7.2.2. F i : negative partial power indicator

This indicator serves the same purpose as the limit on F3-F2 in IS0 9614-l.
They are identical in cases of uniform segment areas.
This standard also specifies a ‘Partial power repeatability check’ by which
two partial power estimates are made for each segment of the measurement
surface using orthogonally oriented scan patterns: it is required that the
difference is smaller than a specified value. This serves to monitor the
stationarity of the intensity field, and not, as widely believed, intended to
improve the confidence in the result. In the process of making measurements
in uncontrolled environments, such as factories, it frequently happens that
sources of noise extraneous to the determination are turned off or on, and
sometimes the acoustic environment is radically altered by the opening of
large doors, movement of materials, etc. Many possible techniques for
monitoring field stationarity were considered by the committee, but the
consensus was that no extra instrumentation or measurements were desir-
able; hence the dependence on the reproducibility of the results of successive
scans. Naturally, significant changes which occur during the time taken to
move from one segment to another will not be detected.

8 AMELIORATIVE ACTIONS

In cases where the field conditions and/or the chosen measurement surface
do not satisfy the criteria specified in the standards, the user is advised to take
certain ameliorative actions. These consist either in moving the measurement
surface (normally toward the source surface), increasing the number of
measurement points in the discrete point method, or installing temporary
screening of extraneous sources.
 International standards 107

The technical reasons for specifying the various actions are complex and
remain to be validated by practice. The sheer complexity of the sound fields
which are generated by sources in their operating environments precludes the
specification of completely reliable strategies for improving the quality of a
sound power determination; however, some general observations can be made.
The reason for increasing the number of measurement points in the
discrete point method, if the initial number is considered to be insufficient to
reduce the variance of the estimate of the sound power to within tolerable
limits because the estimated spatial variance of the normal intensity field is
excessive, is based upon a model of independent point samples of the field, as
explained above. This procedure is intuitively rational, but not necessarily
valid. However, critics of this procedure, who claim that it is impracticable,
should ask themselves what statistically valid alternative strategy could be
employed. The method based upon repeat determination with the same
number of points distributed in a different spatial array, as in ANSI S12.12,
is vulnerable to the same statistical criticism, unless it can be shown that the
two sets of samples are statistically independent: if not, good reproducibility
of an erroneous result may be fortuitous. The jury is out on this question;
only time and accumulated experience will resolve this thorny issue.
The proximity of a strongly radiating extraneous source to a source under
test often generates negative (inward-going) partial sound power through a
section of surface lying between the two. This condition increases both bias
and random errors, and is indicated by a large value of F3--F2 or of Fi . The
negative contribution can normally be reduced by moving the measurement
surface towards the source under test. If this is not effective, or practicable,
the interposition of a temporary screen to reduce the influence of the
extraneous source is recommended. This should be placed close to the
offending source, and not to the measurement surface where it may cause
local problems with S,,.
The presence of a strong reverberant sound field component on the
measurement surface increases S,, and also increases random error. If unac-
ceptably large values of F2, F3 or Fpl can be attributed to this cause, the
adverse effects can be reduced by moving the measurement surface towards
the source under test. Note that the reverberant component is not likely to
create significant differences between F3 and F2.
In cases where violation of the dynamic capability criterion is considered
to be due to strong near-field components on the measurement surface,
and where extraneous sources or reverberation allow, movement of the
measurement surface away from the source may be effective.
In cases where the reproducibility of partial power estimates produced
by scanning is unacceptable, despite a lack of evidence of changing source
outputs or environmental conditions, it is possible that very localized regions
108 F. J. Fahy

of strong radiation exist, which are not equally sensed by each of the two
orthogonal scans. In this case it is advised that the measurement surface is
moved away from the source but that the scanning line density is retained.
The rationale is that radiation normally spreads out with increased distance
from a local source.

9 AIRFLOW

The standards contain an annexe which deals with the effects of airflow on
intensity measurement. This presents a difficult problem, especially in cases
where the source under test is an air-moving device, or is cooled by an
airflow. Of course, natural wind also causes a problem. The physical problem
is that turbulence in an airstream can impose non-acoustic pressure
disturbances on microphones, which can be suppressed to only a limited
extent by the use of windscreens. The two-microphone probe suppresses the
effect of small scale turbulence on the pressure cross-spectrum by virtue of
the fact that the hydrodynamic pressures have a limited correlation length.
However, the resulting intermicrophone coherence is still decreased, with the
attendant increase in random error of an intensity estimate, which can be
reduced by increasing averaging time. Larger scale turbulence pressures are
less well suppressed. The major problems tend to occur at frequencies less
than 250 Hz, and the use of large microphone separation distances can help
considerably.
It would be helpful if a simple test for the influence of turbulence on
intensity measurements could be devised. Research on this subject is in
progress,8 but insufficient validation data was available at the time of devel-
opment of the standards. Hence, a blanket restriction on maximum airspeed
was incorporated.

10 CONCLUSION

It is the hope of the author that this paper will assist the current and future
users of the standards to appreciate the problems faced by the members of
WG25, and the reasoning behind the apparently complicated procedures
adopted. International Standards are routinely reviewed every five years: it is
the earnest wish of the national representatives on WG25 that those who
make use of the current standards will disseminate the fruits of their experience
to them personally, and to the global acoustic community, through conference
papers and other technical communications. Only by such efforts will the
standards be improved and refined, to the benefit of all concerned.
 International standards 109

REFERENCES

1. International Standard IS0 9614-1, Acoustics-determination of the sound

power levels of noise sources by sound intensity measurement. Part I-
measurement at discrete points.
2. International Standard IS0 9614-2, Acoustics-determination of the sound
power levels of noise sources by sound intensity measurement. Part 2-
measurement by scanning.
3. Fahy, F. J., Sound Intensity, 2nd edn. E. & F. N. Spon, London, 1995.
4. International Standard IEC 1043, Instruments for the measurement of sound
intensity.
5. American Standard ANSI S. 12.12, Engineering method for the determination of
sound power levels of noise sources using sound intensity, 1992.
6. Htibner, G., Sound intensity measurement method--errors in determining the
sound power level of machines-correlation with sound field indicators. In
Proceedings of Inter-noise ‘87, ed. Li Peizi. Acoustical Society of China, Beijing,
1987, pp. 1227-1230.
7. Jacobsen, F., Spatial sampling errors in sound power determination based upon
sound intensity measurement. J. Sound V&r., 1991, 145, 129-149.
8. Jacobsen, F., Intensity measurements in the presence of moderate airflow. In
Proceedings of Inter-noise ‘94, ed. S. Kuwano, Yokohama, pp. 1737-1742, 1994.