1
Pavement Surface Type as a Noise Mitigation StrategyPavement Surface Type as a Noise Mitigation Strategy
2
Arizona InformationArizona Information
ÜElevation 100 ft to 13,000 ftÜRainfall 2-3 inches to 30 inchesÜTraffic Loading 2-3 Million ESALSÜ96% of the Network is Asphalt ConcreteÜPopulation of 5 millionÜSixth Largest City In US
3
“Missed By That Much”--Land Based Attacks“Missed By That Much”--Land Based Attacks
Aerial Attack (Turkey Buzzard)Aerial Attack (Turkey Buzzard)
4
Fishin Ain’t as Easy in ArizonaFishin Ain’t as Easy in Arizona
Noise TrailerNoise Trailer
5
Pavement Surface Type as a Noise Mitigation StrategyPavement Surface Type as a Noise Mitigation Strategy
Myth Number 1: Rubberized Open Graded Friction Course (AR-ACFC) Loses its Noise Attenuation Characteristics with Time
Myth Number 1: Rubberized Open Graded Friction Course (AR-ACFC) Loses its Noise Attenuation Characteristics with Time
6
Change in AR-ACFC Noise Properties with TimeChange in AR-ACFC Noise Properties with Time
AR_ACFC Noise Levels Versus Pavement Age
y = 0.5453x + 93.279R2 = 0.5805
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Pavement Age
CP
X N
oise
Lev
els
dBA
CPX Noise LevelsVs RoughnessCPX Noise LevelsVs Roughness
CPX Noise Levels Vs Roughness for I-8
y = 0.1446x + 92.692R2 = 0.2498
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
AR-ACFC Roughness (Mayes In/Mi)
CPX
Noi
se L
evel
(dB
A)
7
Myth Number 2All Wearing Course Surfaces Perform the Same in Regards to Noise Characteristics
Myth Number 2All Wearing Course Surfaces Perform the Same in Regards to Noise Characteristics
Wearing CourseExperimentWearing CourseExperiment
190.7
4
190.74ACFC SMA 3
1/2"
3 1/2"
(3/4") (3/4") 3"3" 19
1.02
190.45AR-ACFC ACFC 3
1/2"
3 1/2"
(3/4") (3/4") 3"3" 19
1.31
190.17SMA AR-ACFC 3
1/2"
3 1/2"
(3/4") (3/4") 3"3" 19
1.59
189.89PEM P-ACFC 3
1/2"
3 1/2"
(1 1/4") (3/4") 3"3" 19
1.88
189.60P-ACFC PEM 3
1/2"
3 1/2"
(3/4") (1 1/4") 3"3" 19
2.16
189.32ACFC SMA 2
1/2"
4 1/2"
(3/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19
2.44
189.03AR-ACFC P-ACFC 2
1/2"
4 1/2"
(3/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19
2.73
188.75SMA PEM 2
1/2"
4 1/2"
(3/4") (1 1/4") 2"4" 19
3.01
188.47P-ACFC ACFC 2
1/2"
4 1/2"
(3/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19
3.30
188.18PEM AR-ACFC 2
1/2"
4 1/2"
(1 1/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19
3.58
187.90ACFC ACFC 2
1/2"
4 1/2"
(3/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19
3.86
187.61PEM PEM 2
1/2"
4 1/2"
(1 1/4") (1 1/4") 2"4" 19
4.15
187.33AR-ACFC P-ACFC 2
1/2"
4 1/2"
(3/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19
4.43
187.05SMA SMA 2
1/2"
4 1/2"
(3/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19
4.72
186.76P-ACFC AR-ACFC 2
1/2"
4 1/2"
(3/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19
5.00
186.48AR-ACFC AR-ACFC
3 1/
(1/2") (1/2") 3 1/3" 19 186. 3
q SMA
q PEM
q AR-ACFC
q P-ACFC
q ACFC
8
CPX Noise Levels for SurfacesCPX Noise Levels for Surfaces
96.0PEM
95.0AR-ACFC
95.9SMA
CPX Noise Level Reading (dBA)
Wearing Course Surface Type
Sound Intensity Results for All SurfacesSound Intensity Results for All Surfaces
Tire/Pavement Noise Sound IntensityArizona I-10 Test Sections
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
RefSe
ct 1Se
ct 2Se
ct 3Se
ct 4Se
ct 5Se
ct 6Se
ct 7Se
ct 8Se
ct 9
Sect 1
0Se
ct 11Se
ct 12
Sect 1
3Se
ct 14Se
ct 15
Sect 1
6
Sect 1
7Se
ct 18
Sect 1
9
Sect 2
0Se
ct 21
Sect 2
2Se
ct 23
Sect 2
4Se
ct 25Se
ct 26
Sect 2
7
Sect 2
8Se
ct 29
Ove
rall
So
un
d I
nte
nsi
ty L
evel
, d
BA
9
Tire/Pavement Noise Sound IntensityArizona I-10 Test Sections
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
500 630 800 1 1.25 1.6 2 2.5 3.15 4 5
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz
Sou
nd In
tens
ity L
evel
, dB
ARef
Sect 1
Sect 2Sect 3
Sect 4Sect 5
Sect 6Sect 7
Sect 8Sect 9
Sect 10
Sect 11Sect 12
Sect 13Sect 14
Sect 15Sect 16
Sect 17Sect 18
Sect 19
Sect 20Sect 21
Sect 22Sect 23
Sect 24Sect 25
Sect 26Sect 27
Sect 28Sect 29
Myth Number 3:Pavement Type Does Not Affect Noise Generation Characteristics
Myth Number 3:Pavement Type Does Not Affect Noise Generation Characteristics
10
Tire/Pavement Noise Sound IntensityArizona I-10 Pavements
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
500 630 800 1 1.25 1.6 2 2.5 3.15 4 5
So
un
d In
ten
sity
Lev
el, d
BA
MP 124 (1992)
MP 127 (1992)
MP 112 (1995)
Avg MP 59 & 61 (1993)
MP 95 (1995)
MP 106 PCC
MP 106 PCC #2
MP 106 PCC #3
Myth Number 4 (Challenge):Random Transverse Tining Improves Noise Properties
Myth Number 4 (Challenge):Random Transverse Tining Improves Noise Properties
Corollary:Texture Methods Can Improve Noise
Characteristics
11
PCCP Tining ExperimentPCCP Tining Experiment
Evaluated Three Tining TypesEvaluated Three Tining Types
LongitudinalUniform Transverse Random
Transverse
12
CPX Noise Levels as a Function of Texture Type and SpeedCPX Noise Levels as a Function of Texture Type and Speed
Uncorected CPX dBA Levels as a Function of Texture Type and Speed
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
40 50 60 70 80
Speed (MPH)
No
ise
Lev
els
(db
A)
RandomTransverse
Longitudinal
ADOT Std.Transverse
Volpe Pass-by Results for 50 ftVolpe Pass-by Results for 50 ftADOT PCC Pavement Study
Other Vehicles (Subaru) 09/2002
R2 = 0.3435
R2 = 0.4014
R2 = 0.5732
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
30 40 50 60 70 80
vehicle speed (mph)
Lm
ax (d
BA
)
RS1 random transverse, autos RS2 uniform longitudinal, autos RS3 uniform transverse, autosRS1 random transverse, medium truck RS2 uniform longitudinal, medium truck RS3 uniform transverse, medium truckRS1 random transverse, heavy trucks RS2 uniform longitudinal, heavy trucks RS3 uniform transverse, heavy trucksLinear (RS1 random transverse, autos) Linear (RS2 uniform longitudinal, autos) Linear (RS3 uniform transverse, autos)Linear (RS2 uniform longitudinal, autos) Linear (RS3 uniform transverse, autos) Linear (RS1 random transverse, autos)
13
Myth Number 5:You Can’t Use Roadway Based Measurements to Predict Roadside Noise Levels
Myth Number 5:You Can’t Use Roadway Based Measurements to Predict Roadside Noise Levels
All Individual Pass-by Results at Transverse Tining SiteAll Individual Pass-by Results at Transverse Tining Site
All Individual Passby Events at Site RS1Random Transverse Tining
50
60
70
80
90
100
11:57
:37
12:19
:16
12:22
:19
12:25
:17
12:28
:16
12:31
:17
12:34
:23
12:37:
20
12:40
:15
12:43:
21
12:47
:18
13:22
:07
13:25
:13
13:31
:09
13:34
:10
13:37
:14
13:40:
10
13:43
:08
13:54
:13
13:57
:13
14:00
:10
14:39
:18
Time of Event
Lm
ax, d
BA
25 f t50 f t100 f t
70 mph60 mph
14
Sound Level Vs DistanceSound Level Vs DistanceSound Level vs. Distance for 60 mph
Arizona SR202 PCC Evaluat ion - Al l Si tes + Offset Sound Intensi ty
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
10 100Distance, f t
Lmax
, dB
A
RS1- 60 mph RS2- 60 mph RS3- 60 mph
RS1 Intensity RS2 Intensity RS3 Intensity
Log. (1/r**2)
Comparison of Roadway Based (CPX) to Roadside Based (Traditional) Measurement
Comparison of Roadway Based (CPX) to Roadside Based (Traditional) Measurement
ÜTexas 78-80%ÜArizona 73-78%
ÜGM 75%ÜRecent Study 90%
15
What Happens When You Cover Up Uniformly Tined PCCP with One Inch of AR-ACFC
What Happens When You Cover Up Uniformly Tined PCCP with One Inch of AR-ACFC
CPX Spectrum ResultsCPX Spectrum Results
Hz300 400 500 1 k 2 k 3 k Lin
dB
20
40
60
80
100
120
C:( Lin Hz; 101.70 dB / 2.00E-05 Pa; 2.432E+00 Pa) Averaged Spectrum Ch1 MicF
Hz300 400 500 1 k 2 k 3 k 4 k Lin
dB
20
40
60
80
100
120
C:( Lin Hz; 101.87 dB / 2.00E-05 Pa; 2.480E+00 Pa) Averaged Spectrum Ch1 MicF
16
SR 101 Before and After ResultsSR 101 Before and After Results
Hz300 400 500 1 k 2 k 3 k 4 k Lin
dB
20
40
60
80
100
120
C:( Lin Hz; 104.73 dB / 2.00E-05 Pa; 3.448E+00 Pa) Averaged Spectrum Ch1 MicF
Hz300 400 500 1 k 2 k 3 k 4 k Lin
dB
40
60
80
100
120
C:( Lin Hz; 92.44 dB / 2.00E-05 Pa; 837.6E-03 Pa) Averaged Spectrum Ch1 MicF
In SummaryIn Summary
ÜSurface Type Does MatterÜRoadway Based Measurements Can Be UsedÜNoise Should be Managed Just Like Friction,
Roughness, Rutting, and CrackingÜ It’s a Quality of Life Issue
17
Mix Design Procedures For NoiseMix Design Procedures For Noise
The End---But Keep FocusedThe End---But Keep Focused
18
Comparison of NI & CPX ResultsComparison of NI & CPX ResultsTire/Pavement Comparisons on I-10 Test Sections
Using CPX and Intensity Methods
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
Sect #2 GDY Sect #13 GDY Sect #26 GDY Sect #2 Mich Sect #13 Mich Sect #26 Mich
So
un
d L
evel
, dB
Sound IntensityCPX Sound Pressure (GDY)
Top Related