1 / 32

The History of Pavement Noise and New Directions in Arizona

barth
Download Presentation

The History of Pavement Noise and New Directions in Arizona

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. The History of Pavement Noise and New Directions in Arizona

    2. Noise Issues Are Not New 8000 BC Worlds First Major Town-Jericho 5000 BC Wheel Invented 4000 BC Mesopotamia 800 BC Iron Tires Introduced 44 BC First Noise Regulation 1869 London Report 1870s Use of Wood Blocks 1888 Pneumatic Tire Invented One of the activities that needed to occur before movement of loads was the domestication of animals. By 5000 BC cattle had become the haulers of choice. There is evidence of sleighs and sleds in use around 6000 BC and 5000 BC respectively. The sleight was used on ice and snow and the sled on dry land. Steerable front axles existed by 500 BC and some believe as far back as 1500 BC. This made a major improvement in transport as wagons could get out of ruts and around corners. The first Roman Code in 450 BC specified a width of 300 mm for footpaths, 900mm for bridal paths, and 1200 mm for carriage ways. Under these conditions a fairly standard vehicle width was 2 m. A good indicator of the constancy of this width is found in wheel ruts on Cretan roads from around 2000 BC. The ruts suggest a transverse wheel spacing or guage of 1.4 meters. Vehicles found in a Russian excavation from around 2000BC indicate a wheel spacing of 1.3 meters A number of Greek and Maltese roads built prior to 1000 BC had ruts purposely built in. Since wagons were not steerable then they used the ruts to control steering and safety. In Greece this particularly occurred on percipitous ledges and curves. The older greek roads tended to have rut spacings of 1.3 m but the newer greek roads had 1.4 m. A typical guage for 19th century animal drawn vehicles was 1.4-1.5m. And a common rail guage was and still is 56.5 inches (1.44m). Julius Ceaser passed the first noise regulation. The regulation forbid wheeled vehicles withing the city from sunrise to until one hour before dusk. Those that entered during the night and were still whithin the city at sunrise must halt and sit empty until the appointed hour. This lead the Roman author Martial to write: “the noise on the streets at night sounded as if the whole of Rome was traveling through my bedroom” London 1869—British Physician wrote: The roar of London by day was almost terrible—a never varying deep rumble that made a background to all other sounds…..the wagons with iron tired wheels made a din that prevented conversation while they passed by One of the activities that needed to occur before movement of loads was the domestication of animals. By 5000 BC cattle had become the haulers of choice. There is evidence of sleighs and sleds in use around 6000 BC and 5000 BC respectively. The sleight was used on ice and snow and the sled on dry land. Steerable front axles existed by 500 BC and some believe as far back as 1500 BC. This made a major improvement in transport as wagons could get out of ruts and around corners. The first Roman Code in 450 BC specified a width of 300 mm for footpaths, 900mm for bridal paths, and 1200 mm for carriage ways. Under these conditions a fairly standard vehicle width was 2 m. A good indicator of the constancy of this width is found in wheel ruts on Cretan roads from around 2000 BC. The ruts suggest a transverse wheel spacing or guage of 1.4 meters. Vehicles found in a Russian excavation from around 2000BC indicate a wheel spacing of 1.3 meters A number of Greek and Maltese roads built prior to 1000 BC had ruts purposely built in. Since wagons were not steerable then they used the ruts to control steering and safety. In Greece this particularly occurred on percipitous ledges and curves. The older greek roads tended to have rut spacings of 1.3 m but the newer greek roads had 1.4 m. A typical guage for 19th century animal drawn vehicles was 1.4-1.5m. And a common rail guage was and still is 56.5 inches (1.44m). Julius Ceaser passed the first noise regulation. The regulation forbid wheeled vehicles withing the city from sunrise to until one hour before dusk. Those that entered during the night and were still whithin the city at sunrise must halt and sit empty until the appointed hour. This lead the Roman author Martial to write: “the noise on the streets at night sounded as if the whole of Rome was traveling through my bedroom” London 1869—British Physician wrote: The roar of London by day was almost terrible—a never varying deep rumble that made a background to all other sounds…..the wagons with iron tired wheels made a din that prevented conversation while they passed by

    3. Roman Wagon Circa 100AD

    4. Noise Issues Are Not New The first indications of manufactured roads are of stone paved streets in Ur in the Middle East around 4000 BC. Cobble Stones are river run material that are typically placed with their long dimension downward and then a filler is placed between the stones to lock them in place. The first indications of manufactured roads are of stone paved streets in Ur in the Middle East around 4000 BC. Cobble Stones are river run material that are typically placed with their long dimension downward and then a filler is placed between the stones to lock them in place.

    5. 1897 Survey of 122 Cities with Paved Streets and Pop. > 10,000

    6. Additional Surface Types

    7. What is Noise, How is it Controlled, and How Does it Affect Our Lives I would include this section to make everyone aware of sound measurement and what it is as most probably are not familiar with it. If you think there are too many slides you could pull this section out. I would include this section to make everyone aware of sound measurement and what it is as most probably are not familiar with it. If you think there are too many slides you could pull this section out.

    8. You should mention that a tranquil setting would be about 30-40 dBA and that most people consider the transition from a quiet location to a noisey location to be from 50 to 70 dBA. The federal standard for noise mitigation is at 67 dBA. Arizona has the lowest mitigation value in the US at 64 dBA. Health affects are believed to occur at average daily exposures in excess of 65dbaYou should mention that a tranquil setting would be about 30-40 dBA and that most people consider the transition from a quiet location to a noisey location to be from 50 to 70 dBA. The federal standard for noise mitigation is at 67 dBA. Arizona has the lowest mitigation value in the US at 64 dBA. Health affects are believed to occur at average daily exposures in excess of 65dba

    9. Doubling Traffic adds 3dBA If you started out with a freeway (shown in upper left photo) and measured its noise level (eg 65) and then doubled its traffic volume (lower left photo) you would only increase the noise level 3dBA. This is due to the logarithm nature of the noise measurement scale. However, this is also a good time to remind them of the growth in Phoenix and that the freeway systems cannot double in capacity every twenty years but traffic will. This is why noise is such an issue in the Phoenix area.If you started out with a freeway (shown in upper left photo) and measured its noise level (eg 65) and then doubled its traffic volume (lower left photo) you would only increase the noise level 3dBA. This is due to the logarithm nature of the noise measurement scale. However, this is also a good time to remind them of the growth in Phoenix and that the freeway systems cannot double in capacity every twenty years but traffic will. This is why noise is such an issue in the Phoenix area.

    10. How Is It Controlled At the Source Vehicle & Tire Emissions Through Distance 3 dBA Reduction for Each Doubling of Distance 25ft=70dBA, 50ft=67dBA, 100 ft=64 Through Obstructions Berms, Walls, And Combination of both

    11. Controlled At the Source Autos principally generate noise from their tires. Trucks generate their noise emissions from the three locations shown. The stack (eg exhaust) is particularly important because of its higher projection point and this makes mitigation more difficult. An important point to make here is that the noise issues we are generally confronted with on the Phoenix network are auto generated noised from the tires. That is the principal culprit. At locations with high percentages of truck traffic different measures may or may be necessary. Autos principally generate noise from their tires. Trucks generate their noise emissions from the three locations shown. The stack (eg exhaust) is particularly important because of its higher projection point and this makes mitigation more difficult. An important point to make here is that the noise issues we are generally confronted with on the Phoenix network are auto generated noised from the tires. That is the principal culprit. At locations with high percentages of truck traffic different measures may or may be necessary.

    12. Controlled Through Obstructions 1 dBA for each 2 ft of Wall Above The important message is that the line of site has to be broken. Once it is broken there is a 5 dBA reduction. If the line of sight is not broken the mitigation is not effective. So if you can see the noise source, don’t believe the noise mitigation strategy unless it is sheer distance. The other rule of thumb is that once the line of sight has been broken, for each additional 2 ft of wall height the there is a 1 dBA reduction in noise. So the 4 dBA credit we are taking represents about 8 ft in additional wall height.The important message is that the line of site has to be broken. Once it is broken there is a 5 dBA reduction. If the line of sight is not broken the mitigation is not effective. So if you can see the noise source, don’t believe the noise mitigation strategy unless it is sheer distance. The other rule of thumb is that once the line of sight has been broken, for each additional 2 ft of wall height the there is a 1 dBA reduction in noise. So the 4 dBA credit we are taking represents about 8 ft in additional wall height.

    13. Ways of Measuring Sound Wayside (Far Field) Close Proximity (Near Field) Noise Intensity (Near Field) The top photo show a typical Wayside measurement. In this country this means you put one microphone 50 ft from the center of the travel lane positioned at 5 ft above the ground. In Europe they place it at 25 ft (7.5 meters). There are two locations in the photo because that is how we do it. The close proximity methods refers to the trailer in the middle picture. It measures directly at the tire/pavement interface. The lowest photo is of the noise intensity measurement system developed by General Motors and introduced by Caltran’s into the transportation community through Illingsworth and Rodkin. The apparatus shown in this photo requires two passes of the vehicle to complete the measurement. The TWO microphones are positioned horizontally. Later you will see a photo of the ADOT noise intensity probe and it uses four microphones positioned vertically so that the measurements can be obtained in one pass. You might want to point out why the two noise intensity apparatus they see in the presentation differ.The top photo show a typical Wayside measurement. In this country this means you put one microphone 50 ft from the center of the travel lane positioned at 5 ft above the ground. In Europe they place it at 25 ft (7.5 meters). There are two locations in the photo because that is how we do it. The close proximity methods refers to the trailer in the middle picture. It measures directly at the tire/pavement interface. The lowest photo is of the noise intensity measurement system developed by General Motors and introduced by Caltran’s into the transportation community through Illingsworth and Rodkin. The apparatus shown in this photo requires two passes of the vehicle to complete the measurement. The TWO microphones are positioned horizontally. Later you will see a photo of the ADOT noise intensity probe and it uses four microphones positioned vertically so that the measurements can be obtained in one pass. You might want to point out why the two noise intensity apparatus they see in the presentation differ.

    14. ADOT ISO CPX Trailer This photo shows the trailer in the middle. This is our current near field test device. It is set up to measure both CPX and noise intensity on the same wheel. (passenger side) The photos at the bottom indicate the history of the instrumentation in Arizona. Starting in 1995 with the feeble low budget attempt using a megaphone mounted on an axle, to our first attempt using a Ľ military trailer and then to the commercial trailer and then realizing we needed an ISO trailer. Our ISO trailer was constructed by NCAT and delivered in the spring of 2002. In spring of 2003 we added the noise intensity device on the trailer so we could take concurrent measurements on the same wheel. This provides the benchmarking between the noise intensity and CPX methods. We hope in 2004 to be able to abandon the CPX method and the trailer and go to the noise intensity alone. This has huge operational advantages. This slide is ahead of the history part but I think people need to see the systems defined to understand the history portion. That is why I included this here.This photo shows the trailer in the middle. This is our current near field test device. It is set up to measure both CPX and noise intensity on the same wheel. (passenger side) The photos at the bottom indicate the history of the instrumentation in Arizona. Starting in 1995 with the feeble low budget attempt using a megaphone mounted on an axle, to our first attempt using a Ľ military trailer and then to the commercial trailer and then realizing we needed an ISO trailer. Our ISO trailer was constructed by NCAT and delivered in the spring of 2002. In spring of 2003 we added the noise intensity device on the trailer so we could take concurrent measurements on the same wheel. This provides the benchmarking between the noise intensity and CPX methods. We hope in 2004 to be able to abandon the CPX method and the trailer and go to the noise intensity alone. This has huge operational advantages. This slide is ahead of the history part but I think people need to see the systems defined to understand the history portion. That is why I included this here.

    15. Noise Intensity This is ADOT’s current noise intensity apparatus. Note it uses two probes (four microphones) vertically mounted. We are the queer bird on this one from the other two devices in the country and also with what general motors did. Ours is this way to allow complete measurement in one pass.This is ADOT’s current noise intensity apparatus. Note it uses two probes (four microphones) vertically mounted. We are the queer bird on this one from the other two devices in the country and also with what general motors did. Ours is this way to allow complete measurement in one pass.

    16. The Arizona Noise Thing

    17. ADOT Uses ARFC to Provide Quiet Pavements ADOT is Spending $34M to Overlay PCCP in the Phoenix Metropolitan The ARFC is Minus 9.5mm & 9-9.5% Binder 12.5 mm Thick When Used on Flexible Pavement 25 mm Thick When Used on PCCP ADOT Uses Pavement Type (ARFC) as a Noise Mitigation Strategy (4 dBA)

    18. How Did We Get Here? The Technical Journey Begins!

    20. The Technical Journey? Development of Improved OGFC for Use in Snow Country (1970s-80s) Improved OGFC Used to Resist Reflective Cracking (1980s-90s) Improved OGFC Used as PCCP Overlay (1980s-2000s) Benefit For Smoothness (1990s) Benefit for Noise (1990s-2000s)

    21. The Social Journey Begins 1990 Industry Study 1995 ADOT initiates first formal research 2002 ISO Noise Trailer Constructed 2002 Collaborative Research with Caltran’s & NCAT 2002 Network Level Evaluation of ARFC 2002 PCCP Surface Texture Experiments 2002 ADOT Elects to Use ARFC for Noise 2003 ADOT’s Quiet Pavement Pilot Program This slide is an overview of the evolution process: 1990 study--As early as 1990, a study was conducted for International Surfacing to validate the noise reduction properties of the ARFC overlay placed on I-19 in 1988. The study reported that a 6.7 dBA reduction was obtained at a distance of 35 ft from the roadway. Although this overlay had been placed to restore ride quality, the public and the industry quickly noticed the attendant noise mitigation properties-- 1995 JHK Study will be discussed in subsequent slides—2002 Noise trailer previously shown--2002 Collaborative research will be discussed in subsequent slides All the remaining slieds will be discussed in subsequent slides. They are just provided here to show the timeline and to put in one picture the evolutionThis slide is an overview of the evolution process: 1990 study--As early as 1990, a study was conducted for International Surfacing to validate the noise reduction properties of the ARFC overlay placed on I-19 in 1988. The study reported that a 6.7 dBA reduction was obtained at a distance of 35 ft from the roadway. Although this overlay had been placed to restore ride quality, the public and the industry quickly noticed the attendant noise mitigation properties-- 1995 JHK Study will be discussed in subsequent slides—2002 Noise trailer previously shown--2002 Collaborative research will be discussed in subsequent slides All the remaining slieds will be discussed in subsequent slides. They are just provided here to show the timeline and to put in one picture the evolution

    22. Population Growth of Arizona The Phoenix Metropolitan Area, where this research is focused, consists of 3.3 million people. The area has doubled in population every 20 years for the last five decades. This is unprecedented in the US. The projected maximum population is 10-12 million. This ever expanding growth has placed a lot of pressure on the transportation system and has brought to focus quality of life issues. This has resulted in the need to address noise issues differently than has traditionally been accomplishedThe Phoenix Metropolitan Area, where this research is focused, consists of 3.3 million people. The area has doubled in population every 20 years for the last five decades. This is unprecedented in the US. The projected maximum population is 10-12 million. This ever expanding growth has placed a lot of pressure on the transportation system and has brought to focus quality of life issues. This has resulted in the need to address noise issues differently than has traditionally been accomplished

    23. The March to the Arizona Quiet Pavement Pilot Program

    24. (1) Network Level Evaluation of ARFC Surfaces During the late 1990s and early 2000s, public sentiment for quiet pavements grew increasingly more vocal and assertive. Recognizing this, ADOT believed they needed to use pavement surface type as a noise mitigation strategy. However, the FHWA requirements did not allow pavement type as a mitigation strategy. The non-acceptance of pavement surface type, to a large extent, is based upon the belief that “quiet pavements” lose their noise attenuation characteristics after 3 to 5 years and hence are not a permanent solution.  To counter the common belief regarding changes in ARFC characteristics, ADOT developed a test matrix based upon existing ARFC surfaced roadways. Since the application of the ARFC surfaces for noise properties would be confined primarily to the Phoenix area, only projects constructed in the desert climate were evaluated. The PMS system was used to develop a population of projects ranging between three and twelve years in age. The projects were then grouped by age distribution, and, in the summer of 2002, tested using both CPX and noise intensity measurement techniques.   The results of the CPX network evaluation are shown in Figure 4. The data indicate a weak relationship between noise level and pavement age. Extrapolating this relationship, the ARFC surfaces would have attained a value of approximately 93 dBA at construction and would increase approximately 5.5 dBA over ten years. More importantly, the pavements’ acoustic life typically ranged between 94 and 98 dBA. Noise intensity measurements, obtained at the same time on the opposite wheel, suggested that there was no difference in noise characteristics as a function of age. However, ADOT considered the CPX values to be a conservative approach and ultimately use it During the late 1990s and early 2000s, public sentiment for quiet pavements grew increasingly more vocal and assertive. Recognizing this, ADOT believed they needed to use pavement surface type as a noise mitigation strategy. However, the FHWA requirements did not allow pavement type as a mitigation strategy. The non-acceptance of pavement surface type, to a large extent, is based upon the belief that “quiet pavements” lose their noise attenuation characteristics after 3 to 5 years and hence are not a permanent solution.  To counter the common belief regarding changes in ARFC characteristics, ADOT developed a test matrix based upon existing ARFC surfaced roadways. Since the application of the ARFC surfaces for noise properties would be confined primarily to the Phoenix area, only projects constructed in the desert climate were evaluated. The PMS system was used to develop a population of projects ranging between three and twelve years in age. The projects were then grouped by age distribution, and, in the summer of 2002, tested using both CPX and noise intensity measurement techniques.   The results of the CPX network evaluation are shown in Figure 4. The data indicate a weak relationship between noise level and pavement age. Extrapolating this relationship, the ARFC surfaces would have attained a value of approximately 93 dBA at construction and would increase approximately 5.5 dBA over ten years. More importantly, the pavements’ acoustic life typically ranged between 94 and 98 dBA. Noise intensity measurements, obtained at the same time on the opposite wheel, suggested that there was no difference in noise characteristics as a function of age. However, ADOT considered the CPX values to be a conservative approach and ultimately use it

    25. (2) Evaluation of PCCP Tining Methods During the spring of 2002, ADOT attempted to reduce PCCP pavement surface noise by altering the tining procedures used to texture. Previous research suggested that random transverse tining and longitudinal tining produced quieter pavement surfaces than uniformly spaced transverse tining. ADOT replaced the standard uniformly-spaced transverse tining with a uniformly-spaced longitudinal tining and a randomly-spaced transverse tining test sections. The photos above show the three different surfaces. Both roadside and roadway based measurements were obtained at three roadway locations. For the roadside measurements three classes of vehicles were driven by the microphone locations The results are shown in the next figure.During the spring of 2002, ADOT attempted to reduce PCCP pavement surface noise by altering the tining procedures used to texture. Previous research suggested that random transverse tining and longitudinal tining produced quieter pavement surfaces than uniformly spaced transverse tining. ADOT replaced the standard uniformly-spaced transverse tining with a uniformly-spaced longitudinal tining and a randomly-spaced transverse tining test sections. The photos above show the three different surfaces. Both roadside and roadway based measurements were obtained at three roadway locations. For the roadside measurements three classes of vehicles were driven by the microphone locations The results are shown in the next figure.

    26. (3) Comparison of Different Mixes

    27. Quiet Pavement Pilot Program Site 1 designates ADOT’s typical pavement management system data collection activity. That is, at each milepost, the specified pavement attribute is measured in the travel lane. This testing would occur for all milepost locations included within the construction of the quiet pavement overlays. Minimal environmental data would be collected at these sites.   Site 2 designates the sites that would typically be called conformance or compliance testing in ADOT’s current program using wayside (far field), noise measurements. These sites are where ADOT would conduct before and after studies to evaluate how the residences are impacted.   Site 3 designates the research grade sites used primarily for wayside noise measurements. These are the locations that most closely resemble the “Ideal Conditions”. These are the sites where relationships between near field and far field correlations will be attempted and are the highest quality field measurement sites. At Site 3 locations, acoustical, meteorological, traffic, and pavement data will be collected. The site 3 locations are indicated on the map as well as the mile post locations that are the site one locationsSite 1 designates ADOT’s typical pavement management system data collection activity. That is, at each milepost, the specified pavement attribute is measured in the travel lane. This testing would occur for all milepost locations included within the construction of the quiet pavement overlays. Minimal environmental data would be collected at these sites.   Site 2 designates the sites that would typically be called conformance or compliance testing in ADOT’s current program using wayside (far field), noise measurements. These sites are where ADOT would conduct before and after studies to evaluate how the residences are impacted.   Site 3 designates the research grade sites used primarily for wayside noise measurements. These are the locations that most closely resemble the “Ideal Conditions”. These are the sites where relationships between near field and far field correlations will be attempted and are the highest quality field measurement sites. At Site 3 locations, acoustical, meteorological, traffic, and pavement data will be collected. The site 3 locations are indicated on the map as well as the mile post locations that are the site one locations

    28. Lessons Learned To Date Comparison of Various Surface Types Comparison of Measurement Systems Environmental Effects We Have Only Just Begun the JOURNEY! Although the ARFC overlay program has only recently commenced, several observations can be made relative to the performance of the evaluated surface types. As shown in Table 2, there is over a 10 dBA spread between the noisiest and the quietist surface types. This represents a noise level that is twice as loud.   The average ARFC value shown in Table 2 is lower than anticipated based upon the results of the network level analysis previously reported. This is presumably due to the fact that ARFC overlays are constructed one inch thick on PCCP instead of 1/2 inch thick as on flexible pavementsAlthough the ARFC overlay program has only recently commenced, several observations can be made relative to the performance of the evaluated surface types. As shown in Table 2, there is over a 10 dBA spread between the noisiest and the quietist surface types. This represents a noise level that is twice as loud.   The average ARFC value shown in Table 2 is lower than anticipated based upon the results of the network level analysis previously reported. This is presumably due to the fact that ARFC overlays are constructed one inch thick on PCCP instead of 1/2 inch thick as on flexible pavements

    29. Noise Levels By Surface Type

    30. Mix Design Procedures One of the things that we think is important is to be able to try and design for noise as part of the mix design procedures, just like for durability, or strength. We will be addressing this and the next slide indicates the two tests that we are looking at. No results yet on this testingOne of the things that we think is important is to be able to try and design for noise as part of the mix design procedures, just like for durability, or strength. We will be addressing this and the next slide indicates the two tests that we are looking at. No results yet on this testing

    31. Laboratory Tests Impedance Tube (Mobile) Complex Modulus Test-Loss Function Permeability/Infiltration Air Flow

    32. In Summary Surface Type Does Matter-Noise Should be Controlled at the Source Noise Should be Managed Just Like Friction, Roughness, Rutting, and Cracking People Do Care How They Live-It’s a Quality of Life Issue!!!

    33. Thank You This slide show that for the first 6,000 years that noise was generated at the tire pavement interface. Then for most of the 1900’s the noise source switched to the engine and exhaust. However, it has switched back to the tire pavement interface and as such needs to be considered in the design stages.This slide show that for the first 6,000 years that noise was generated at the tire pavement interface. Then for most of the 1900’s the noise source switched to the engine and exhaust. However, it has switched back to the tire pavement interface and as such needs to be considered in the design stages.

More Related