applied
sciences
Article
Noise Source Identification in Training Facilities and Gyms
Jakub Wróbel 1, * and Damian Pietrusiak 2






Citation: Wróbel, J.; Pietrusiak, D.
Noise Source Identification in
Training Facilities and Gyms. Appl.
Sci. 2022, 12, 54. https://doi.org/
10.3390/app12010054
Academic Editor: Habil.
Michel Darmon
Received: 16 October 2021
Accepted: 14 December 2021
Published: 22 December 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12010054
1 Department of Technical Systems Operation and Maintenance, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Łukasiewicza 7/9, 50-371 Wroclaw, Poland
2 Department of Machine Design and Research, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Wroclaw University of
Science and Technology, Łukasiewicza 7/9, 50-371 Wroclaw, Poland; damian.pietrusiak@pwr.edu.pl
* Correspondence: jakub.wrobel@pwr.edu.pl
Abstract: This paper deals with noise problems in industrial sites adapted for commercial training
venues. The room acoustics of such an object were analyzed in the scope of the reverberation time and
potential acoustic adaptation measures are indicated. Identification and classification of noise sources
in training facilities and gyms was carried out based on the acoustic measurements. The influence
of rubber padding on impact and noise reduction was investigated in the case of chosen noise-
intensive exercise activities performed in a previously described acoustic environment. Potential
noise reduction measures are proposed in the form of excitation reduction, vibration isolation, and
room acoustics adaptation.
Keywords: noise; impacts; training venues; cross training; functional training; sound pressure
level; psychoacoustics
1. Introduction
The noise, vibrations, and impacts issue in so-called sport and fitness centers is an
actual and growing problem. The development of industrialization and globalization
has moved a significantly large part of the population to cities. The natural environment
for the human body to stay in good physical condition has thus been moved from the
physically demanding (relatively) country sides to the comfortable and easy good-access
city environment. To counteract the situation of a drop in human body fitness and wellness,
the fitness centers business is a developing and growing business branch [1]. Consequently,
sport centers in the cities have started to cover a large amount of space. The perfect location
for such a place, from the business point of view, is buildings in close vicinity of offices and
residential areas.
Another factor is the great rise in the popularity of cross training and functional
training fitness centers, where weights are not used in a so-called “quasi-static” way (like
in a classic gym). Dynamic ballistic lifts of free weights, box jumps, or slams are commonly
performed [1]. Research has proved that heavy concrete floors are characterized by the best
performance in the low frequencies but in a wide range of frequencies, damped lightweight
floors give the best overall performance [2,3]. In the worst cases, where no proper bumpers
and structure protections are adapted, destruction of the load-bearing structure can be
observed (Figure 1). This gives a clear picture that the proximity of the heavy weights
dropping around offices and residential buildings increases technical and environmental
conflict. When “exercise-borne noise” is additionally combined with excessively loud
music, which is common in sport centers, this may even result in hearing damage [4].
Torre and Howell [5] reported peak noise levels between 90.5 and 99.7 dB(A) and the
overall mean noise level of aerobics classes was 87.1 dB(A), indicating that the music during
exercise was the main source of noise. Another study of the noise level during aerobics
classes, carried out by Nassar [6], found a mean noise level at 89.6 dB(A). Beach and Nie [4]
reported average levels of over 93.1 dB(A) during high-intensity fitness activity. Yaremchuk
and Kaczor [7] indicated that noise levels during aerobic classes often exceeded the levels
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 54 2 of 12

recommended for occupational noise exposure, with average noise levels ranging from
78 to 106 dB(A). Maffei et al. [8] found that about 20–25% of physical education teachers
could achieve a weekly noise exposure higher than 80 dB(A) induced by sport activity and
schools. P˛ekala and Leśna [9] registered sound levels during warm-up without equipment
of 50 to 80 dB(A), exercises with balls of 55 to 90 dB(A), team matches of 77 to 93 dB(A),
and other activities of 70 to 90 dB(A). More recently, Al-Arja [10] reported the average noise
exposure for sports instructors of 92.6 dB(A), and most of the measurement values were
above the occupational exposure limit of 85.0 dB(A).
Although the research presented above does present data regarding noise levels
during fitness activities, it is not clear how to differentiate between noise caused by music
and movement patterns performed by participants. Loud music during exercise can be
easily reduced while noise caused by dynamic lifts, box jumps, or slams has not yet been
identified nor is it easy to reduce. The localization of sources, acoustics, and vibration
isolation in fitness centers should be investigated in three parallel directions: first, structure-
borne noise and vibration and its transfer to the surrounding buildings; and second, noise
analysis according to common rules and standards to allow legal operation of the sport
centers [11,12]. This point proves to be complicated in many countries and regions due
to the lack specific standards and test procedures for fitness centers [13]. General test
standards for the measurement of room acoustic parameters cover performance spaces [14],
ordinary rooms [15], and open plan offices [16]. Kaewunruen and Lei [17] proposed that
measurements should be conducted using gym users’ smartphones. This enables access to
the “real life gym”, not disturbed by measurement equipment. However, it is far from any
standardized method.
The third direction, although not popular and common in the sport business, is the real
psycho comfort [18,19] of the gym users. Psychoacoustics, in comparison to the standard
approach, which focuses on the determination of the sound pressure level and absorption
of the impact energy or isolation of the vibration and noise energy, defines engineering
measurement factors to measure human comfort specifically. The selected factors are listed
and described below:
• Loudness—measure of human perception of the sound pressure level with respect to
the tone frequency.
• Sharpness—measure of high-frequency tone components in the noise spectrum.
• Booming—measure of low-frequency tones in the noise spectrum.
• Roughness—measure of high-frequency modulation.
• Fluctuation strength—measure of low-frequency modulation.
• Tone to noise ratio—measure of the tonal component with respect to the background/noise.
• Prominence ratio—measure of the characteristic band with respect to defined bands of
the background/noise.
• Tonality—measure of the tonal to non-tonal components of noise
Dedicated Olympic weightlifting centers are not located close to offices and residential
buildings as now, cross training and functional training fitness centers are more common.
The rise in the popularity of dynamic and ballistic movements in these objects requires an
assessment of its influence with respect to the dynamic and acoustic phenomena.
The aim of this study was to identify and analyze major sources of noise and shock
sources. The measurements taken covered both acoustics and vibrations. The authors
present an assessment of the sound pressure level and impact generation on the floor by
the selected dynamic and ballistic exercises.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12
Appl.
Appl.Sci. 2022,12,
Sci.2022, 12,54
x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of
of 12
12

Figure 1. Destroyed fitness center floor.

Figure1.1.Destroyed
Figure Destroyedfitness
fitnesscenter
centerfloor.
floor.
2. Research Object Description
2.2.Research
Research Object
Object
The acoustic Description
Description were conducted in a CrossFit box created in an adapted
measurements
industrial
The site. The
Theacoustic
acoustic fitness club is
measurements
measurements partconducted
were
were of a terraced
conducted inaawarehouse-like
in CrossFit
CrossFitbox
boxcreatedbuilding.
created in
inananThe main
adapted
adapted
part of thesite.
industrial
industrial CrossFit
site. The box is aclub
The fitness
fitness 1000
club isism2 open
part
part ofaspace
of aterracedphysical
terraced exercise area.
warehouse-like
warehouse-like The 42 m
building.
building. Thelong,
The main
main24
part of the CrossFit box is a 1000 m 2 open space physical exercise area. The 42 m long,
m wide, and 5 m high space is equipped with standard CrossFit box
part of the CrossFit box is a 1000 m open space physical exercise area. The 42 m long, 24
2 equipment, such as
24 m wide,
pull-up and
stations,5 m high
bikes space
and is
rowers, equipped with
weightlifting standard CrossFit
platforms, plyo
m wide, and 5 m high space is equipped with standard CrossFit box equipment, such as box
boxes, equipment,
as well as such as
smaller
pull-up
pull-upstations,
equipment, suchbikes
stations, bikes and
androwers,
as barbells, weightlifting
kettlebells,
rowers, dumbbells,
weightlifting platforms, plyo
medicine
platforms, boxes,
plyoballs,
boxes, as
aswell
etc., wellas
placed assmaller
in racks
smaller
equipment,
and
equipment, such
customsuch as
stands. barbells, kettlebells,
The open
as barbells, dumbbells,
space area
kettlebells, medicine
is divided
dumbbells, balls, etc.,
into subareas
medicine placed
balls, etc.,byplacedin racks
the group and
in racksof
custom
equipment
and customstands.
and The
the open
stands. Thespace
physical area
activity
open istype
space divided
area beinto
to is subareas
performed
divided by thethan
intorather
subareasgroupby of
physical
theequipment
barriers,
group of
and
suchtheas physical
walls oractivity type
enclosures. to
Thebe performed
only rather
additional than physical
construction
equipment and the physical activity type to be performed rather than physical barriers, barriers,
elements such
except as walls
for the
or enclosures.
walls,
such asroof,
walls The
and only
orfloor additional
are fourThe
enclosures. construction
pillars
only supporting
additional elements
the roof except
structure
construction for (Figure
the walls,
elements 2). roof,
except The and
formain
the
floor
part
walls,are four
ofroof, pillars
the floor
and is supporting
tailed
floor arewith
four0.02 the roof
m thick
pillars structure
NBR shore
supporting (Figure 2). The
A 75 structure
the roof main
rubber panels part
(Figure of
(Figure the
2). The floor
3) while
main
isother
tailed
part with
ofbuilding
the 0.02
floor ism thickwith
surfaces
tailed NBR
are shore
covered
0.02 A 75 NBR
with
m thick rubber panels
conventional
shore (Figure
paint.
A 75 rubber 3)panels
The while othersetup
presented
(Figure building
is a
3) while
surfaces
good are covered
other representation
building surfaces with conventional
of an
are average paint.
covered trending The presented setup
training facility,
with conventional is
which
paint. The a good representation
can be found
presented setup is all-
a
of an average
around the trending training facility, which can be found all-around the globe.
globe.
good representation of an average trending training facility, which can be found all-
around the globe.

Figure2.2.Industrial
Figure Industrialsite
siteadapted
adaptedto
toaaCrossFit
CrossFitbox.
box.
Figure 2. Industrial site adapted to a CrossFit box.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 12

Appl.
Appl.Sci. 2022,12,
Sci.2022, 12,54
x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of1212
4 of

Figure 3. Industrial site adapted to a CrossFit box: weightlifting platforms and plyometric boxes.
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Industrial
Industrial site
site adapted
adapted to
to aa CrossFit
CrossFit box:
box: weightlifting
weightliftingplatforms
platformsand
andplyometric
plyometricboxes.
boxes.
Reverberation time measurements were conducted with use of an approximated
impulse excitation in time
Reverberation
Reverberation the form
time of a large balloon
measurements
measurements were blast [20] at
were conducted
conducted an unoccupied
with
with use
useofofan state. Due to
anapproximated
approximated
the unusual
impulse case/type
impulse excitation
excitation in of
in the enclosure
theform and
formofofaalarge the
largeballoonpreliminary
balloon blast
blast [20]nature
at at
[20] anan of the
unoccupied investigations,
unoccupied state. DueDue
state. a
to
balloon
thethe
to blast was
unusual
unusual chosenofinstead
case/type
case/type enclosure of a and
of enclosure Dodecahedron
andthethepreliminaryspeaker
preliminary dueof
nature
nature tothe
thethe
of ease of use anda
investigations,
investigations,
successful
aballoon
balloonblastapplication
blastwas by
waschosen other
choseninstead researchers [21,22,23,24].
insteadofofa aDodecahedron
Dodecahedronspeaker Measurements
speakerdue at
duetotothe six
theease points
easeofofuse atand
use the
and
area of physical exercise
successful application
successful led to a value of
application by other researchers [21–24]. the average reverberation
[21–24]. Measurements
Measurementsatatsix time t_60
sixpoints [8,22,23]
pointsatatthetheareaof
area
2.95
of s. Measurements
of physical
physical exercise
exercise ledwere
led to conducted
to aa value
value of in
of the six points,
the average evenly
average reverberation distributed
reverberation time time t_60across
t_60 [8,22,23]the training
[8,22,23] ofof 2.95
2.95 s.
venue. The distance
s. Measurements
Measurements were between
wereconducted neighboring
conducted in six sixpoints
in points, points, was
evenly 10 m,distributed
evenly two columns
distributed across with
across
the three
the
training rows
training
venue.
ofThe
points,
venue.
distanceanddistance
The the average
between between distance
neighboring to thewas
neighboring
points nearest
points
10 m, wall
wastwo 10was equal
m, two
columns to 5three
columns
with m.withThe
rows averaged
three rows
of points,
sound
and pressure
of points,
the and level
average the decay
average
distance toisthepresented
distance
nearest in Figure
towall
the nearest 4. wall
was equal to 5was
m. equal to 5 m. sound
The averaged The averaged
pressure
levelA decay
sound simple is reverberation
pressure level decay
presented istime
in Figure calculation
presented
4. in Figurewas4.conducted using the Norris–Eyring
expressionA simple
A and Fitzroy
simple reverberationrelationship
reverberation time in order
time calculation
calculation was to compare
was conductedthe measured
conducted using
using the the values. Surface
Norris–Eyring
Norris–Eyring
acoustic
expression
expression absorption
and valuesrelationship
and Fitzroy (Table 1) for
relationship inthe
in order
order walls,
to celling, flooring,
to compare
compare the
the measureddoors,values.
measured and windows
values. Surface
Surface
were
acousticchosen
acoustic based values
absorption
absorption on values
values (Table
(Table presented
1)
1) for thein
for the the celling,
walls,
walls, literature
celling, [25,26].
flooring,
flooring, Noise
doors,
doors, andreduction
and windows
windows
coefficients
werechosen
were chosenNRC
based were
based calculated
on
on values values basedinon
presented
presented thethe
in acoustic absorption
the literature
literature [25,26]. [25,26].
Noise coefficients at four
Noise coefficients
reduction reduction
middle
NRC octave
coefficients
were bandwere
NRC
calculated frequencies
calculated
based (250,
on the based500,1000,
acoustic the and
on absorption 2000
acoustic Hz) for the
absorption
coefficients room’s
atcoefficients
four middlesurfaces,
atoctave
four
middle
doors,
band and octave band
windows.
frequencies (250,frequencies
500,1000, and (250,2000500,1000,
Hz) for the androom’s
2000 Hz) for the
surfaces, room’s
doors, andsurfaces,
windows.
doors, and windows.
Acoustic pressure level (dB)
Acoustic pressure level (dB)

Time (s)
Time (s)
Averagedsound
Figure4.4.Averaged
Figure soundpressure
pressurelevel
leveldecay.
decay.
Figure 4. Averaged sound pressure level decay.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 54 5 of 12

Using the Norris–Eyring expression [26], the estimated reverberation time was equal
to 33.020 s. The reverberation time calculated with Fitzroy relationship [26] was equal
to 33.104 s. The difference between the measured and calculated reverberation time can
be caused by differences in sound absorption parameters, geometrical differences of the
room, modifications applied to some sections of the roof where additional insulation was
introduced, and lastly by the numerous exercise equipment and weightlifting platforms,
which introduce additional absorbing surfaces. The reverberation time calculation did
not include additional equipment, such as sand bags, medicine balls, rubber and foam
components of other fitness devices, bumper plates, and weightlifting platform rubber
panels, which can often add some sound absorption to the analyzed room.

Table 1. Material type noise reduction coefficients (NRCs) defined in the calculations.

Surface Name Material Type Surface NRC Values

Floor 0.02 m thick hard rubber panels 0.03
Plywood, 5 mm 50 mm airspace filled with
Ceiling 0.15
glass wool
Walls Gypsum panels on studs 0.08
Doors Wood hollow core door 0.15
Windows Large panes, plate glass 0.04

3. Identification of the Main Noise-Generating Exercises

Most of the noise and vibration problems in fitness centers and CrossFit boxes have
an impact type nature. Heavy weights, such as loaded barbells, impact the flooring as
a natural result of the exercise, i.e., Olympic lifts are often dropped from the racked or
locked position directly to the ground. Another common cause of heavy floor impact is
the dropping of external weight in the form of dumbbells, kettlebells, or barbells due to
an improperly executed movement pattern [27] or sloppiness of the trainee. The latter
case is quite common during group workouts, where the number of repetitions adds a
competitive factor, shifting the focus to the repetitions rather than to proper movement
patterns. Combining the above with the presence of multiple club members attending
the workout simultaneously, it is common to observe high noise levels, especially during
group workouts.
Barbell pulls and lifts as well as plyo box exercises were mentioned by several gym
owners and multiple trainees as especially loud exercises. In general terms, the mass
and velocity will define the amount of energy that needs to be dissipated during impact,
whether it is the external load or the weight of the trainee. A good representation of noise
generated during common barbell exercises is the drop of the loaded barbell from the
overhead locked position onto the ground. The second investigated case is the drop of the
loaded barbell from the overhead locked position onto the plywood jerk blocks presented
in Figure 5. Another investigated case is the common drop of a loaded barbell from the
locked position of a dead lift onto the floor.
Weights applied to the barbell during measurements were chosen as a representation
of the commonly used average weight used during group workouts: 90 kg for deadlifts
and 60 kg in the case of other Olympic lifts. Most fitness centers equipped with Olympic
barbells use bumper plates similar to the ones presented in Figure 5. Bumper plates have a
steel core disc vulcanized in rubber or polyurethane, which increases the durability as well
as the impact resistance and presumably reduces the force during impact. The second set
of measurements was conducted during box jumps done on a plywood plyometric box,
which were identified by users as a noisy exercise.
Appl.
Appl.Sci. 2022,12,
Sci.2022, 12,54
x FOR PEER REVIEW 66 of 12
12

Figure5.
Figure 5. Weightlifting
Weightliftingbarbell
barbellloaded
loadedwith
withbumper
bumperplates
platesplaced
placedon
onplywood
plywoodjerk
jerkboxes.
boxes.Reprinted
Reprinted with the permission of Reference [28]. Copyright 2008
with the permission of Reference [28]. Copyright 2008 Fringe Sport.Fringe Sport.

Weights
4. Acoustic applied to the barbell during measurements were chosen as a representation
Measurements
of the commonly used average
Acoustic measurements wereweight used
carried outduring
with agroup
class 1workouts:
sound level 90 meter.
kg for The
deadlifts
ana-
and 60
lyzer kg in the case
microphone wasofplaced
other Olympic lifts.of
at a distance Most
2 m fitness
from thecenters
noiseequipped
source and with Olympic
a height of
barbells
1.5 m, whichuse bumper
represents plates similar to
the average the ones
spacing presented
between in Figure
trainees during 5. exercise.
Bumper plates have
Equivalent
a steel core A-weighted
continuous disc vulcanized in rubber
sound level LAeqor polyurethane,
and peak sound which
levelincreases
LApeakthe durability as
measurements
well as the impact resistance and presumably reduces the force
were carried out over 4 s. Vibration measurements were carried out with a 4 channel during impact. The second
24-bit
set of measurements was conducted during box jumps done on
data analysis system. Acceleration measurements in the vertical direction (perpendicular a plywood plyometric
box,
to thewhich were identified
floor surface) were takenby users as a noisy to
simultaneously exercise.
the acoustic measurements, with the use
of two piezoelectric accelerometers placed in front of the plate impact points directly on the
4. Acoustic
floor, Measurements
at a distance of 2 m from each side of the barbell. The registered background LAeq
was equal to 48.5.
Acoustic measurements were carried out with a class 1 sound level meter. The
The first
analyzer measurements
microphone wereatcarried
was placed out of
a distance while
2 m afrom
weight lifter performed
the noise source and the jerk
a height
part
of 1.5of the
m, clean
whichand jerk lift. the
represents Theaverage
loaded barbell
spacingweighting
between 60 kg was
trainees pickedexercise.
during by the
lifter from the
Equivalent jerk boxes,A-weighted
continuous racked intosound the clean position,
level LAeq andand jerked
peak soundto the topleveloverhead
LApeak
lockout.
measurements were carried out over 4 s. Vibration measurements were carried outboxes.
From the top position, the barbell was released to freely drop onto the jerk with
In
a 4thechannel
second 24-bit
measurement, it dropped
data analysis system.ontoAcceleration
jerk boxes with high-density
measurements in acrylonitrile
the vertical
butadiene rubber paddingtoonthe
direction (perpendicular thefloor
platesurface)
landingwere surface andsimultaneously
taken in the last case,to onto
thethe hard
acoustic
rubber-covered floor. Acceleration data acquisition was started by an
measurements, with the use of two piezoelectric accelerometers placed in front of the plate 0.2 s pre-trigger on
one of the accelerometers. Figure 6 presents the sound pressure level decay
impact points directly on the floor, at a distance of 2 m from each side of the barbell. The acquired during
each measurement.
registered background It can be was
LAeq seenequal
that the highest sound pressure level was registered
to 48.5.
during the barbell drop onto bare jerk
The first measurements were carried out while boxes. The acoustic
a weightsignal decay is lower
lifter performed thanpart
the jerk in
the other measured cases. Due to the hard surface of the plywood and
of the clean and jerk lift. The loaded barbell weighting 60 kg was picked by the lifter from the lack of energy
dissipation phenomena, a bar rebound can be observed at around 0.6 s of the measurement,
the jerk boxes, racked into the clean position, and jerked to the top overhead lockout. From
causing a second significant impact excitation on the jerk boxes and an increase in the
the top position, the barbell was released to freely drop onto the jerk boxes. In the second
sound pressure level and the LApeak was equal to 126.4 dB(A). The application of rubber
measurement, it dropped onto jerk boxes with high-density acrylonitrile butadiene rubber
pads on the top of the boxes resulted in a stronger overall decay of the acoustic signal. The
padding on the plate landing surface and in the last case, onto the hard rubber-covered
rebounding of the barbell was strongly reduced, which limited additional impacts onto the
floor. Acceleration data acquisition was started by an 0.2 s pre-trigger on one of the
jerk boxes. The LApeak was equal to 112.9 dB(A). In the last investigated case, where the
accelerometers. Figure 6 presents the sound pressure level decay acquired during each
barbell was dropped from the overhead locked position directly onto the hard rubber floor,
measurement. It can be seen that the highest sound pressure level was registered during
this resulted in the lowest sound pressure levels and slightly better signal decay than in
the barbell drop onto bare jerk boxes. The acoustic signal decay is lower than in the other
the case of jerk boxes with rubber padding, and visibly better than in the case of bare jerk
measured cases. Due to the hard surface of the plywood and the lack of energy dissipation
boxes. Additional impacts caused by rebounds, visible around 0.4 s and 0.6 s, did introduce
phenomena, a bar rebound can be observed at around 0.6 s of the measurement, causing
a second significant impact excitation on the jerk boxes and an increase in the sound
 pressure level and the LApeak was equal to 126.4 dB(A). The application of rubber pads
on the top of the boxes resulted in a stronger overall decay of the acoustic signal. The
rebounding of the barbell was strongly reduced, which limited additional impacts onto
the jerk boxes. The LApeak was equal to 112.9 dB(A). In the last investigated case, where
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 54 the barbell was dropped from the overhead locked position directly onto the hard rubber 7 of 12
floor, this resulted in the lowest sound pressure levels and slightly better signal decay
than in the case of jerk boxes with rubber padding, and visibly better than in the case of
bare jerk boxes. Additional impacts caused by rebounds, visible around 0.4 s and 0.6 s,
an increase of the acoustic pressure level; however, the overall levels were still lower than
did introduce an increase of the acoustic pressure level; however, the overall levels were
in other cases, with an LApeak value of 99.0 dB(A).
still lower than in other cases, with an LApeak value of 99.0 dB(A).

Acoustic pressure level (dB)

Acousticpressure
Figure6.6.Acoustic
Figure pressurelevel
leveldecay
decayregistered
registeredfor
fordifferent
different types
types of
of barbell
barbell impact
impact excitation.
excitation.

The LAeq value during the drop onto the jerk boxes was equal to 90.5 dB(A). The appli-
The LAeq value during the drop onto the jerk boxes was equal to 90.5 dB(A). The
cation of additional rubber padding did reduce the LAeq to 84.7 dB(A), allowing a 5.8 dB(A)
application of additional rubber padding did reduce the LAeq to 84.7 dB(A), allowing a
reduction. The direct overhead barbell drop onto the rubber flooring of the room generated
5.8 dB(A) reduction. The direct overhead barbell drop onto the rubber flooring of the room
an LAeq value of 76.6 dB(A).
generated an LAeq value of 76.6 dB(A).
The acceleration signals acquired simultaneously to the sound pressure are presented
The acceleration signals acquired simultaneously to the sound pressure are presented
in Figure 7. The highest acceleration values are visible in the case of the barbell drop onto
in Figure 7. The highest acceleration values are visible in the case of the barbell drop onto
the jerk boxes. The application of rubber padding decreased the peak acceleration and
the jerk boxes.
reduced The application
the rebounding of rubber
of the barbell. padding decreased
Counterintuitively, thethe peak acceleration
barbell’s impact fromand the
reduced the rebounding of the barbell. Counterintuitively, the
overhead locked position onto the ground corresponded with the lowest acceleration barbell’s impact frompeak
the
overhead
values, with locked position
visible onto theofground
rebounding corresponded with the lowest acceleration peak
the barbell.
values, Thewith visible
second setrebounding
of measurementsof the barbell.
were carried during a 90 kg barbell deadlift. The
The second set of measurements
acoustic pressure was recorded simultaneously were carried during
to the a 90 kg barbell
acceleration data, asdeadlift.
describedThe in
acoustic pressure was recorded simultaneously to the acceleration
the previously discussed measurements. The LApeak and LAeq values were defined for data, as described in
the
bothpreviously discussed
landing surfaces. Themeasurements.
first measurementsThe LApeak
focusedand LAeq values
on measuring thewere defined for
acceleration at a
both landing surfaces. The first measurements focused on measuring
distance of 2 m from each side of the barbell. The bar was lifted into the deadlift lockupthe acceleration at a
distance
position of 2 mwhich
from from theeachbarbell
side ofwasthereleased
barbell. to
The barfreely
drop was lifted
onto into the deadlift
the hard lockup
rubber flooring,
position
and in the from which
case the second
of the barbell was
part released to drop freely onto
of the measurements onto the
thehard
rubber rubber
padsflooring,
used in
and in themeasurements,
previous case of the second placedpart of the
directly on measurements
the rubber floor.onto the8 rubber
Figure presentspads used in
the influence
previous
of the additional rubber padding on the acceleration signals generated during the 90the
measurements, placed directly on the rubber floor. Figure 8 presents kg
influence of the drop.
loaded barbell additional rubber padding
The LApeak was equal ontothe acceleration
118.5 dB(A) in thesignals
casegenerated
of the directduring
floor
the 90 and
drop, kg loaded barbell
102.8 dB(A) in drop.
the caseThe ofLApeak was equal
an additional layer to
of 118.5 dB(A) in
high-density the case
rubber foam.of the
The
direct floor layer
additional drop,of and 102.8also
rubber dB(A) in the decreased
strongly case of an the
additional
reboundinglayerof
ofthe
high-density rubber
barbell, aiding the
decreases in LAeq values.
The LAeq value during a direct drop onto the hard rubber flooring was equal to
79.7 dB(A). The application of additional heavy-density NBR foam reduced the LAeq to
73.1 dB(A), allowing a 6.6 dB(A) reduction.
 foam. The additional layer of rubber also strongly decreased the rebounding of the barbell,
foam.
aidingThe
theadditional
decreases layer of rubber
in LAeq values.also strongly decreased the rebounding of the barbell,
aiding the decreases in LAeq values.
The LAeq value during a direct drop onto the hard rubber flooring was equal to 79.7
TheThe
dB(A). LAeq value during
application a direct drop
of additional onto the hard
heavy-density NBRrubber
foamflooring
reducedwas
the equal
LAeq to
to879.7
73.1
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 54 of 12
dB(A).
dB(A), The application
allowing of additional
a 6.6 dB(A) reduction.heavy-density NBR foam reduced the LAeq to 73.1
dB(A), allowing a 6.6 dB(A) reduction.

(g)(g)
Acceleration
Acceleration

Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure
Figure 7.
7. Acceleration
Accelerationgenerated at at
generated thethe
floor during
floor a barrel
during dropdrop
a barrel of 60of
kg60from
kg the overhead
from the overhead
Figure
locked 7. Acceleration
position.
locked position. generated at the floor during a barrel drop of 60 kg from the overhead
locked position.

Figure 8. Acceleration
Acceleration generated at the floor during a barrel drop of a 90 kg deadlift barbell drop.
drop.
Figure 8. Acceleration generated at the floor during a barrel drop of a 90 kg deadlift barbell drop.
5. Classification
5. Classification of
of Noise
Noise Sources
Sources
5. Classification
The acousticof Noise Sources
measurements conducted during
The acoustic measurements conducted during common
common exercises
exercises chosen
chosen based
based onon
our own
our The observations
own acoustic are summarized
measurements
observations in
conducted
are summarized Figure 9 in each
during9 common
in Figure case as an
exercises
in each case average
as an chosen of
averagebased three
on
of three
measured
our
measured occurrences.are
own observations
occurrences. Acoustic measurements
summarized
Acoustic were
in Figurewere
measurements conducted
9 inconducted during
each case during barbell drops
as an average
barbell drops
of as
three
as
in previous
measured present measurements
occurrences. and during awere
Acoustic measurements plyometric box jump
conducted duringofbarbell
an 80 kg trainee,
drops as
with the height of the plyo box set to 61 cm. All measurements were carried out at a 2 m
distance from the source. It can be assumed that the trainees preforming the exercises may
be exposed to higher levels.
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of

in previous present measurements and during a plyometric box jump of an 80 kg train

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 54 with the height of the plyo box set to 61 cm. All measurements were carried
9 of 12out at a 2
distance from the source. It can be assumed that the trainees preforming the exercises m
be exposed to higher levels.

LApeak LAeq
130

120

110

100

90
dB(A)

80

70

60

50

40
Overhead jerk Deadlift drop – Overhead jerk Deadlift drop on Box Jump Overhead flor
block drop – 90 kg block drop on rubber pad 90kg drop – 60kg
60kg rubber pad –
60kg

Figureof
Figure 9. Classification 9. possible
Classification
noiseofsources.
possible noise sources.

The highest LAeq The and

highest LAeqwere
LApeak and LApeak
registeredwere registered
during during the
the dropping ofdropping
the 60 kgof the 60
barbell onto the barbell ontoThe
jerk boxes. the second
jerk boxes. The second
highest highest
levels were levels were
observed in theobserved in 90
case of the thekg
case of the
kg deadlift
deadlift top position barbelltopdrop.
position
Thebarbell drop. The data
data presented presented
in Figure in Figure
9 should 9 should
be used be used as
as an
indicator of potential exercises causing increased noise emissions. From the perspective of perspect
indicator of potential exercises causing increased noise emissions. From the
group workouts,ofthegroup workouts,
deadlift shouldthebedeadlift should
considered be considered
as potentially as potentially
noisy. Jerk boxes noisy. Jerk boxes
are used
used mostly by one trainee only, rather than in a group workout
mostly by one trainee only, rather than in a group workout session. Deadlifts, box jumps, session. Deadlifts, b
jumps, and snatches or clean and jerks are commonly implemented
and snatches or clean and jerks are commonly implemented in group workouts. The legal in group workou
The legal
limit values applicable limit
for thisvalues applicable
case study for this
are LAeq D <case study A-weighted
55 dB(A) are LAeq D <Leq 55 dB(A)
soundA-weight
Leq sound level during the day time and LAeq N < 45 dB(A) A-weighted Leq sound le
level during the day time and LAeq N < 45 dB(A) A-weighted Leq sound level during the
during the night time.
night time.

6. Discussion and6. Discussion

Guidelines and
forGuidelines for Noise Reduction
Noise Reduction
The is
The presented case presented case is a good representation
a good representation of an average of an average
CrossFit box.CrossFit box. The identif
The identified
and classified noise sources are representative of other similar facilities. It is clear t
and classified noise sources are representative of other similar facilities. It is clear that
acoustic levels will differ between enclosures, but the dominant noise sources will rem
acoustic levels will differ between enclosures, but the dominant noise sources will remain
similar. The conducted measurements indicate potential health hazards can be caused
similar. The conducted measurements indicate potential health hazards can be caused
the investigated exercises. High LApeak values paired with poor room acoustics c
by the investigated exercises. High LApeak values paired with poor room acoustics can
potentially have a harmful influence on the wellbeing of trainees as well as reducing
potentially have a harmful influence on the wellbeing of trainees as well as reducing the
life comfort of other residents, and most certainly can initiate noise-related complains
life comfort of other residents, and most certainly can initiate noise-related complains of
others or nearby building users. Additional long-term acoustic measurements are need
others or nearbytobuilding users. Additional long-term acoustic measurements are needed
fully identify the potential hazards and define their influence on health, comfort, a
to fully identifywellbeing.
the potential hazards
Acoustic and defineshould
measurements their influence
be carriedon health,
out comfort,
over longer and times,
exposure
wellbeing. Acoustic measurements should be carried out over longer
example, during an average business day of a training venue. exposure times, for
example, during an average business day of a training venue.
Noise problems are most effectively solved at the source. All barbell movem
Noise problems
patternsare investigated
most effectively
abovesolved
causedat the source. noise
excessive All barbell
levels,movement
which couldpat-be reduc
terns investigated above caused
significantly excessive
or even noise levels,
disregarded whichfully
if the trainee could be reduced
controlled significantly
each stage of the movem
or even disregarded
pattern.if the traineeoffully
Dropping controlled
the barbell each stage
from locked of the
positions movement
should not takepattern.
place in the case
Dropping of the barbell from locked positions should not take place in the case of light
weights, such as ones used during group exercises. The lack of barbell control on the
eccentric part of the movement pattern not only compromises the training effects, but also
causes the barbells to be dropped onto the ground or training equipment, such as stands
or jerk boxes, to cause noise, which should not be emitted in the first place. An additional
benefit of proper exercise form is reduced stress on the weightlifting equipment. Proper
education on this matter, with an emphasis on the personal benefits of the trainee due to
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 54 10 of 12

proper movement form, should be promoted in all facilities equipped with barrels and
weights. Plyometric box jump exercises tend to be noisy as well, but in this case, the landing
of the trainee on the box is a major part of the exercise and only modification of the plyobox
structure and materials can help with noise reduction at the source.
The implementation of acoustic materials with a high absorption coefficient is proven
to reduce the reverberation time significantly. This solution is especially suited in the case of
large open areas, such as the one presented in Figure 2, where the positioning and possible
areas of application of the acoustic material are not limited as in the case of residential
buildings and offices.
Vibration isolation is a way to reduce the transmission of excitation signals onto other
potential noise-emitting surfaces. Vibration isolation, used in mechanical engineering
to reduce vibrations transmitted from the vibration source to other machine elements,
devices, or buildings, has been studied by numerous researchers [29,30]. Passive vibration
isolation systems in the form of foam or soft rubber [31,32] are used as well as semi-
active [33–36] or active ones [33,37,38]. The application of passive vibration isolation as
presented in this paper seems to be the best solution for heavy weight-induced impact, due
to both economical and practical reasons. Weightlifting platforms equipped with damping
materials resistant to mechanical wear, when effective, in many cases are expensive and
suited to accommodating one lifer during training, so application for group exercise is
especially costly. Areas predestinated for group workouts especially prone to strong and
periodic impacts should incorporate additional passive vibration isolation in the form of
damping mats.

7. Conclusions
Acoustic adaptation of training areas is especially important in the case of large
industrial spaces that have been converted to training centers. A lack of materials and
elements with decent absorption coefficients coupled with large room volumes causes long
reverberation times. Events, such as the impact of bar plates on the floor, can resonate
with the room, causing the sound level to decay slowly, and strongly contributing to the
higher equivalent sound pressure levels. This problem should be addressed, especially in
the case of long reverberation times combined with multiple impact sources due to group
workouts, which contribute to the noise level The measured acoustic values presented in
Figure 9 are induced directly by the physical activity performed by the trainee. Additional
noise sources, such as music or other random occurrences, were not present. The registered
acoustic values for the specific occurrences range from 73.1 to 90.5 dB(A) in the case of LAeq
and 99.0 to 126.4 dB(A) in the case of LApeak. During group workouts, due to multiple
active sources, LAeq values are expected to increase, potentially having a negative effect
on health.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.W. and D.P.; methodology, J.W. and D.P.; formal analysis,
J.W. and D.P.; investigation, J.W. and D.P.; data curation, J.W.; writing—original draft preparation,
J.W.; writing—review and editing, J.W. and D.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 54 11 of 12

References
1. International Fitness Industry Trend Report, ACE, IHRSA, ClubInte. 2015. Available online: https://acewebcontent.azureedge.
net/assetportfoliodownloads/Industry-Trends-2015.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2021).
2. Masoumi, H.; Pinto, P.; Carels, P. Improvements in Acoustical Performance of Lightweight Floating Floors for Gym/Sports
Applications. In Proceedings of the Euronosie, Crete, Greece, 27–31 May 2018.
3. Hayne, M. In-Situ Testing of Gym Floor Impact Isolation. In Proceedings of the Acoustics, Hunter Valley, Australia, 15–18
November 2015.
4. Beach, E.F.; Nie, V. Noise Levels in Fitness Classes Are Still Too High: Evidence From 1997–1998 and 2009–2011. Arch. Environ.
Occup. Health 2014, 69, 223–230. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Torre, P., 3rd; Howell, J.C. Noise levels during aerobics and the potential effects on distortion product otoacoustic emissions.
J. Commun. Disord. 2008, 41, 501–511. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Nassar, G. The human temporary threshold shift after exposure to 60 minutes’ noise in an aerobics class. Br. J. Audiol. 2001, 35,
99–101. [CrossRef]
7. Yaremchuk, K.L.; Kaczor, J.C. Noise Levels in the Health Club Setting. Ear Nose Throat J. 1999, 78, 54–57. [CrossRef]
8. Maffei, L.; Iannace, G.; Masullo, M.; Nataletti, P. Noise Exposure in School Gymnasia and Swimming Pools. Noise Control Eng. J.
2009, 57, 603–612. [CrossRef]
9. P˛ekala, P.; Leśna, P. Reverberation noise exposure in polish school gyms. In Proceedings of the 52nd Open Seminar on Acoustics
Joint with Polish-Scandinavian Structured Conference on Acoustics, Poznań, Poland, 11–15 September 2005.
10. Al-Arja, O.A. Acoustic Environment and Noise Exposure in Fitness Halls. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6349. [CrossRef]
11. Woodhams, S.; Rogers, P.; Matheson, C.; Rubio, S. Standardising structure-borne noise assessment with heavy impacts for
potential gyms in lightweght mixed use structures. In Proceedings of the Euronosie, Crete, Greece, 27–31 May 2018.
12. Gartenburg, P. Comparing low frequency impact noise using a tapping machine and heavy/hard impact source on various fitness
floor assemblies. In Proceedings of the Internoise, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 16–19 November 2014.
13. McNulty, M. Gyms—Noise and Vibration. IOA Acoustics Bulletin. 2016, Volume 41, pp. 40–43. Available online: https://www.ioa.
org.uk/sites/default/files/Acoustics%20Bulletin%20November-December%202016_0.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2021).
14. ISO 3382-1:2009; Acoustics—Measurement of Room Acoustic Parameters—Part 1: Performance Spaces. International Organization
for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
15. ISO 3382-2:2008; Acoustics—Measurement of Room Acoustic Parameters—Part 2: Reverberation Time in Ordinary Rooms.
International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
16. ISO 3382-3:2012; Acoustics—Measurement of Room Acoustic Parameters—Part 3: Open Plan Offices. International Organization
for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.
17. Kaewunruen, S.; Lei, C. Smartphone Sensing and Identification of Shock Noise and Vibration Induced by Gym Activities. Acoust.
Aust. 2020, 48, 349–361. [CrossRef]
18. Ozga, A. Scientific Ideas Included in the Concepts of Bioacoustics, Acoustic Ecology, Ecoacoustics, Soundscape Ecology, and
Vibroacoustics. Arch. Acoust. 2017, 42, 415–421. [CrossRef]
19. Ozimek, E. Sound and Its Perception; National Publishing House: Warsaw, Poland, 2018.
20. Everest, F.A. Master Handbook of Acoustics, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2001.
21. Iannace, G.; Trematerra, A. The acoustics of the caves. Appl. Acoust. 2014, 86, 42–46. [CrossRef]
22. Jambrosic, K.; Horvat, M.; Domitrovic, H. Reverberation time measuring methods. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 123, 3617. [CrossRef]
23. Iannace, G.; Trematerra, A.; Qandil, A. The Acoustics of the Catacombs. Arch. Acoust. 2014, 39, 583–590. [CrossRef]
24. Ciaburro, G.; Iannace, G. Acoustic Characterization of Rooms Using Reverberation Time Estimation Based on Supervised
Learning Algorithm. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1661. [CrossRef]
25. Norton, M.; Karczub, D. Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration Analysis for Engineers, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 2003.
26. Barron, R.F. Industrial Noise Control and Acoustics; Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2001.
27. Rippetoe, M.; Kilgore, L. Starting Strength: Basic Barbell Training; Aasgaard Company: Wichita Falls, TX, USA, 2007.
28. FringeSport 2020. Available online: https://www.fringesport.com (accessed on 4 December 2020).
29. Ibrahim, R.A. Recent advances in nonlinear passive vibration isolators. J. Sound Vib. 2008, 314, 371–452. [CrossRef]
30. Scheidler, J.J.; Asnani, V.M. A review of noise and vibration control technologies for rotorcraft transmissions. In Proceedings of
the INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, InterNoise16, Hamburg, Germany, 21–24 August
2016; pp. 3378–3389.
31. Pritz, T. Dynamic Young’s Modulus and Loss Factor Of Plastic Foams For Impact Sound Isolation. J. Sound Vib. 1994, 178, 315–322.
[CrossRef]
32. Hui, C.K.; Ng, C.F. New floating floor design with optimum isolator location. J. Sound Vib. 2007, 303, 221–238. [CrossRef]
33. Karnopp, D. Active and Semi-Active Vibration Isolation. J. Vib. Acoust. 1995, 117, 177–185. [CrossRef]
34. Min, C.; Dahlmann, M.; Sattel, T. A semi-active shock isolation concept with a serial-stiffness-switch system. J. Sound Vib. 2019,
445, 117–131. [CrossRef]
35. Jalili, N. A Comparative Study and Analysis of Semi-Active Vibration-Control Systems. J. Vib. Acoust. 2002, 124, 593–605.
[CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 54 12 of 12

36. Choi, Y.-T.; Wereley, N.M.; Jeon, Y.-S. Semi-Active Vibration Isolation Using Magnetorheological Isolators. J. Aircr. 2005, 42,
1244–1251. [CrossRef]
37. Porumamilla, H.; Kelkar, A.G.; Vogel, J.M. Modeling and Verification of an Innovative Active Pneumatic Vibration Isolation
System. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 2008, 130, 031001. [CrossRef]
38. Rasid, S.M.R.; Mizuno, T.; Ishino, Y.; Takasaki, M.; Hara, M.; Yamaguchi, D. Design and control of active vibration isolation
system with an active dynamic vibration absorber operating as accelerometer. J. Sound Vib. 2019, 438, 175–190. [CrossRef]