noise barrier material evaluation selection n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Noise Barrier Material Evaluation & Selection PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Noise Barrier Material Evaluation & Selection

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 15

Noise Barrier Material Evaluation & Selection - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 141 Views
  • Uploaded on

Noise Barrier Material Evaluation & Selection. Mia Waters Washington State Department of Transportation TRB ADC40, Transportation Related Noise & Vibration Williamsburg, VA July 11, 2006. Moving past the State of traditional concrete…. Why? Cost of keeping traditions

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Noise Barrier Material Evaluation & Selection' - MikeCarlo


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
noise barrier material evaluation selection

Noise Barrier Material Evaluation & Selection

Mia Waters

Washington State Department of Transportation

TRB ADC40, Transportation Related Noise & Vibration

Williamsburg, VA

July 11, 2006

moving past the state of traditional concrete
Moving past the State of traditional concrete…
  • Why?
      • Cost of keeping traditions
      • A new world of materials in development
      • Ability to have choices / provisional options
  • What?
      • plastic – metal – composite – wood - transparent – translucent – absorptive – canted – recycled – easily replaced – lower cost – light weight - and more…
  • Where?
      • Vertical and horizontal
  • How?
      • Use the process & criteria that fit your organization…
rating criteria
Rating Criteria?
  • Transmission Loss (TL)
  • Sound Transmission Class (STC)
  • Other?
  • Cost
  • Foundation needs
  • Ease of installation
  • Ease of replacement
  • Graffiti resistance / clean-ability
  • Absorption
  • Aging – longevity - durability
  • Aesthetic characteristics
  • Weight
  • Crash test worthiness
  • Approved by others? Who?
slide4
As you mentioned, the weakness in the STC is that it does not anticipate fully the low frequency content of the traffic noise. Thus, a barrier with an STC 20 rating could produce less than a 20 dBA direct reduction of typical traffic sound passing through it.
  • Ideally, what you want to do is to create a standardized traffic spectrum, compute the overall A-weighted level of that spectrum, the subtract the TL's of the barrier from that spectrum at each frequency, compute the overall A-weighted level of the resulting spectrum, and then take the difference between the two overall A-weighted levels.

(Ref. N Stewart)

selection criteria options
Selection criteria options
  • Europe
  • Japan
  • Canada
  • Various US states
  • A recommended US national criteria?
european selection criteria
European selection criteria
  • EN1793 (5)
  • 1. “Road traffic noise reducing devices — Test method for determining the acoustic performance — Part 1: Intrinsic characteristics of
  • sound absorption”, EN 1793-1 (1997).
  • 2. “Road traffic noise reducing devices — Test method for determining the acoustic performance — Part 1: Intrinsic characteristics of
  • airborne sound insulation”, EN 1793-2 (1997).
  • 3. “Road traffic noise reducing devices — Test method for determining the acoustic performance — Part 1: Normalized traffic noise
  • spectrum”, EN 1793-3 (1997).
  • 4. “Road traffic noise reducing devices — Test method for determining the acoustic performance — Part 5: Intrinsic characteristics - In
  • situ values of sound reflection and airborne sound insulation”, ENV 1793-5 (2002).
  • 5. “Road traffic noise reducing devices — Test method for determining the acoustic performance — Part 4: Intrinsic characteristics - In
  • situ values of sound diffraction”, prENV 1793-4 (2002).
  • EN1794 (2)
  • 1. “Road traffic noise reducing devices — Non-acoustic performance — Part 1: Mechanical performances and stability requirements”,
  • EN 1794-1 (1998).
  • 2. “Road traffic noise reducing devices — Non-acoustic performance — Part 2: General safety and environmental requirements”,
  • EN 1794-2 (1998).
  • EN14388 (1)
  • “Road traffic noise reducing devices — Specifications”, prEN 14388 (2002).
  • EN14389 (2)
  • 1. “Road traffic noise reducing devices — Long term performance or road traffic noise reducing devices — Part 1: Acoustical
  • parameters”, prEN 14389-1 (2002).
  • 2. “Road traffic noise reducing devices — Long term performance or road traffic noise reducing devices — Part 1: Non-acoustical
  • parameters”, prEN 14389-2 (not published).
  • EN14990 draft
  • Precast concrete barriers
  • Where to find discussions of the standards:
  • http://www.cenorm.be/catweb/93.080.30.htm
  • http://www.atech-acoustictechnologies.com/en/at_5_4.cfm
  • http://www.cenorm.be/newapproach/cen/stdlist.asp?dir_area=89/106/EEC&prod_fam=CEN/TC%20229
  • Courtesy of Ulf Sandberg & Jean-Pierre Clairbois
japan
Japan
  • ISO 10847 (1997)
  • Recent interest, noise reducing devices on top of barriers, interested in a modified version of EN 1793-4
  • Reference Kohei Yamamoto
canada
Canada
  • Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z107.9

Focus on material and design…

Takes the noise barrier height into consideration when determining required TL

Note that the Canadian maximum wall height is 5 M (about 16 feet).

united states
United States
  • Nevada (Sound Wall Eval. Manual, STC of 25 dB)
  • Virginia (has approved list, how were products chosen?)
  • Florida (temp. design bulletin C03-04 – identifies specific criteria related and unrelated to noise when evaluating materials. FDOT requires an STC of 20 dB)
  • Wisconsin (TL 20 dB, all frequencies)
what did wsdot want
What did WSDOT want?
  • Simplicity
  • Ease of finding the data in the application/literature
  • Protection of residents (reduce complaints of less protection when using alternative materials)
challenges
Challenges
  • FHWA guidance recommends transmissions loss in dBA (but some note that TL doesn’t exist in dBA)
  • Independent laboratory testing is in dB
  • Sound Transmission Class of 25 dB representative enough? It only uses a few frequencies to calculate it…
debate choices
Debate…choices
  • US and other countries decide on an ISO standard?
  • US National list of approved materials?
  • Low tech - if a product can meet the structural requirements of the AASHTO Guide for the Structural Design of Sound Barriers AND is light tight (the flashlight test) then it will have enough mass to meet low frequency TL requirements and with no gaps in the wall, will meet high frequency TL requirements (ref. Figallo)
  • ANSI 12.8 (1987) Methods for Determination of Insertion Loss of Outdoor Noise Barriers
  • ISO 10847 In-situ determination of insertion loss of outdoor noise barriers of all types
  • CSA Z107.9 – in discussion for adoption by ANSI
  • DIN (EN) 1793 – test method for determining acoustical performance
  • ASTM E1332. The difference is that the spectrum specified in E 1332 is a generalized transportation noise spectrum averaging in some aircraft and rail noise rather than just traffic noise. This rating was developed for exterior walls of buildings subjected to transportation noise. E 1332 requires TL data down to 80 Hz for the rating. Labs do not always report results below 100 or 125 Hz.
thanks for input from
Larry Finegold

Ulf Sandberg

Jean-Pierre Clairbois

Shawn Gilbertson

Jim Laughlin

Soren Pedersen

Tim Kelsall

Chris Menge

Mariano Berrios

Areg Gharabegian

Roger Wayson

Amy Costello

Noral Stewart

Gary Figallo

Bill Bowlby

Ken Polcak

Rich Peppin

Bob Mero

Win Lindeman

Jay Waldschmidt

Patrick Harrison

Dave Goodwin

David Freudenrich

Jim Chambers

Gary Ehrlich

Micah Downing

Thanks for input from…
what did wsdot finally choose for now
What did WSDOT finally choose…for now?
  • Unconditional approval from acoustics group of Transmission Loss (TL) of 20 dB for all measured frequencies
  • Conditional approval – limited use for TL for product with any measured frequency at less than 20 dB, e.g.,
    • Temporary barriers
    • Low truck volume roadways

Flexibility for other parameter depending on project needs, safety, cost, and aesthetic choice.

slide15
To understand the breadth and interest of replies, all messages and advice received by WSDOT on this topic will be put onto the WSDOT website by July 20th at:
  • http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/regions/Northwest/rp&s/environmental/aae/default.htm