Abstract: Ecofriendly building assessment systems include a series of standards to ensure acoustic comfort. Acoustic comfort is affected by multiple factors, such as sound pressure, sound privacy, reverberation time, and speech intelligibility. However, the assessment systems used currently do not ensure a perfect acoustic indoor environment in green buildings. In this study, the acoustic criteria involving 8 green building assessment systems for new non-residential buildings were analyzed comprehensively. The systems included Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), Green Building Certification of the United States (LEED), International Health Building Standards (WELL), Green Star of Australia, Comprehensive Assessment System of Building Environment in Japan (CASBEE), High-quality Environmental Evaluation System of France (HQE), Green Mark of Singapore, and China's Green Building Evaluation Standards (ASGB). The study investigated the acoustic performance of green building assessment systems.. In this study, the acoustic requirements for new nonresidential buildings were analyzed. The comparative study analyzed the acoustic indices to determine the environmental quality and approval of acoustic projects based on individual assessment system. Acoustic indices mainly included indoor noise, outdoor noise, reverberation time, impact of sound insulation, air sound insulation, speech articulation, and vibration. Approval was based on design, acoustic test at completion and occupacy and survey after completion. The acoustics were compared via different assessment systems depending on the least acoustic requirement, appointed acoustic scores, and the proportion of acoustic criteria in the total score. The results showed that no single green assessment system met all the potential acoustic design criteria for green buildings. Many systems lacked key parameters contributing to acoustic quality. Some assessment systems used laboratory test parameters rather than field parameters and did not comply with potential acoustic design criteria, thus reducing the overall building quality. All assessment systems are required to submit initial design documents in some form. BREEANM, WELL and CASBEE require acoustic tests at completion, while WELL and Green Mark require a mandatory occupancy survey by a widely accepted third party. The contribution of acoustics in the assessment system is less than that of acoustic comfort to users. Nearly 50% of the assessment systems lacked the minimum number of acoustic design criteria. The WELL system emphasizes acoustic requirements and the acoustics account for 10.91%. It is strange that LEED, one of the largest and most popular green assessment systems, only accepts 0.91% of acoustics. Although the weights of acoustic scores in the total score and the additional terms in ASGB constitute only 4%, the role of acoustics in green buildings still requires further attention although the acoustic requirements are lower than in other systems.

Key words: acoustic requirements, green building, assessment systems, occupancy survey

摘要： 绿色建筑评价体系由一系列标准组成，建筑必须满足这些标准。绿色建筑提供更好室内环境的目标并没有完全实现，尤其是在声学方面。对8个新建非居住建筑的绿色建筑评价体系的声学要求进行比较研究，旨在考察绿色建筑评价体系如何评估声学性能及对声学的重视程度。比较研究的重点包括用于评估环境质量的声学指标、项目获得认证和认可的途径及每个评价体系对声学的重视程度。研究结果表明：没有一个绿色评价体系能够满足与绿色建筑相关的所有潜在声学设计要求，许多体系忽略了对声学质量有贡献的重要参数，有些评价体系使用实验室测试参数而非现场测试参数，可以规避潜在的声学设计要求，从而将损害建筑的整体质量；所有评价体系都需要提交某种形式的初始设计文件，BREEANM、WELL和CASBEE要求竣工声学测试，WELL和Green Mark要求由公认的第三方进行强制性使用后调查；评价体系中的声学权重值低于声学舒适性对使用者的重要性，一半的评价体系中没有最低声学设计要求，WELL最重视声学要求，声学的权重值为10.91%，奇怪的是，LEED作为最大、最受重视的绿色评价体系之一，只对声学采纳了0.91%的权重。虽然中国ASGB中声学分值在评分项和加分项中的权重为4%，但是由于声学要求比其它评价体系低，声学在绿色建筑中的重视程度依然需要提高。

关键词: 声学要求, 绿色建筑, 评价体系, 使用后调查