Article citation information:
Figlus, T., Gnap,
J., Skrúcaný, T., Szafraniec,
P. Analysis of the influence of different means of transport on the level of
traffic noise. Scientific Journal of
Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport. 2017, 97, 27-38. ISSN: 0209-3324.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2017.97.3.
Tomasz FIGLUS[1], Jozef GNAP[2], Tomáš SKRÚCANÝ[3],
Piotr SZAFRANIEC[4]
ANALYSIS
OF THE INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT MEANS OF TRANSPORT ON THE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC NOISE
Summary. One
of the factors influencing the level of traffic noise is the type of vehicles
moving on the roads. The paper presents comprehensive research, as conducted by
the authors, which sought to assess the traffic noise level generated by
different means of transport. A comparison is made between the noise generated
by personal cars, a truck and different types of motorcycle. The maximum
sound level and the equivalent sound level emitted by the investigated means of
transport were analysed in the entire frequency band and in the individual 1/3
octave bands. Based on the research, conclusions have been formulated regarding
the influence of the different types of means of transport and their speeds on
traffic noise near a road, along with possible ways to reduce its level.
Keywords: truck; personal car; motorcycle;
noise; traffic speed
1. INTRODUCTION
Noise is one of the most negative effects of using cars. Traffic noise
negatively affects the environment in the vicinity of the road, while often
significantly reducing the quality of life in human habitats [12,32,37]. Its
level is influenced by a number of factors, including the most important ones:
-
traffic speed and intensity
-
typology of traffic streams
-
road surface type and condition
-
type of car tyres
-
type of motor in the car.
In [23,42], noise is defined as a type of environmental pollution, which
disturbs normal living functions by influencing conversations and sleep
quality, or by causing changes in human health. In [41], it was assessed that
social costs of environmental noise may reach as much as 2% of GDP.
In order to improve the situation, the respective legislation is being
constantly modified so as to improve the acoustic climate in the vicinity of
roads from a long-term perspective. Currently, the basic regulations presented
in [24] govern the permissible limits of noise in the vicinity of roads,
depending, among others, on the time of day and night, as well as on the
purpose of the buildings and places surrounding the road. In cases where the
permissible traffic noise is exceeded, measures should be taken related to the
construction of the road and its surroundings. The solution that is most often
recommended involves the use of acoustic barriers, less so any reduction in
traffic speed or a change in the type of road surface. Research on the possible
solutions to be applied in order to reduce the negative impact of road traffic
on the environment can be found, inter alia, in: [2,6,11,20,21,26,28,29,33,35,36,38]
about the effectiveness of acoustic barriers; [,4,5,8,9,16,17,18,30,31] about
the effects of traffic intensity and car movement speed; and in [1,510,14,15,19,22,23,40,44]
concerning the influence of different types of road surface on the noise level,
including in [14,22], which considers the use of so-called quiet surfaces.
Another group of laws governing the level of traffic noise includes
regulations related to permissible sound levels emitted by vehicles. These
regulations apply to approval tests [27] and to the periodic inspection of
vehicles at testing stations [25]. The former are toughened every few years by
relevant EU laws, the latest of which were introduced by a regulation of the
European Commission in 2014 [27]. These laws will considerably reduce the level
of noise emitted by vehicles in three successive stages: 2016, 2020 and 2024.
In order to reduce the negative impact of traffic noise on the
environment, models are being created to forecast traffic noise. The models are
described in detail, inter alia, in [7,13,34,43].
The paper presents comprehensive research, as
conducted by the authors, which sought to assess the traffic noise level
generated by different means of transport. A comparison is made between the
noise generated by personal cars, a truck and different types of motorcycles.
The maximum sound level and the equivalent sound level emitted by the
investigated means of transport were analysed in the entire frequency band and
in the individual 1/3 octave bands. Based on the research, conclusions have
been formulated regarding the influence of the different types of means of
transport and their speeds on the traffic noise near a road, as well as
possible ways to reduce its level.
2. METHOD OF CONDUCTING ROAD TESTS
To evaluate the influence of
different means of transport on the level of traffic noise, vehicles
representative of typical personal cars, trucks and motorcycles were chosen.
Measurements were conducted separately for each of the vehicles, so as to
ensure identical conditions, without the influence of variable environmental
conditions and traffic intensity on the recorded noise level. Tests were
performed at a road section made of asphalt, in a good technical condition.
The measurements of traffic noise
were performed for the following vehicles (Fig. 1):
·
Personal
cars:
-
I
- a medium class estate car with a self-ignition engine of a new design; at
constant speeds of 52, 75 and 98 km/h (which corresponded to the constant
rotational speed of the engine of about 2,200 min-1).
-
II
- a compact van with a self-ignition engine of an old design; at constant
speeds of 53, 75 and 93 km/h (which corresponded to the constant rotational
speed of the engine of about 2,000 min-1)
·
A
truck:
-
A
tractor unit with a curtain-side semi-trailer; at constant speeds of 50, 70 and
90 km/h (which corresponded to the constant rotational speed of the engine of
about 1,100 min-1 (at 50 and 70) and 1,300 min-1 (at 90),
in 10th, 11th and 12th gear)
·
Motorcycles:
-
A
tourist motorcycle with an engine cubic capacity of about 600 cm3 *
-
A
sports motorcycle with an engine cubic capacity of about 600 cm3 *
-
A
cruiser with an engine cubic capacity of about 600 cm3 *
-
* Measurements for the
motorcycles were taken at constant speeds of 50, 70 and 90 km/h, respectively,
in third gear
The vehicles tested were in a good
technical condition.
The measurements were taken using
the modified controlled pass-by method (CPB), at a distance of 7.5 m from the
centre of the vehicle movement line, with a microphone placed at a height of
1.2 m (Fig. 2) and a constant speed maintained for the vehicle being tested [27].
During the experiment, at least three runs of the vehicle, meaningful in terms
of the measurement, were performed with each of the vehicles, and the measured
values were averaged.
A Bruel
& Kjaer 2250 digital sound analyser with an
anti-wind attachment was used for this purpose. The analyser used during the
measurements is presented in Fig. 3. The measurements were performed in the
frequency range from 12.5 Hz to 20 kHz and in 1/3 octave bands. The maximum
sound level, LAFmax, and the equivalent
sound level, LAeq, were recorded for the
vehicles passing by the sound recording point at a 50-m distance. The results
were adjusted by means of correction curve A. The tests were conducted in good
weather conditions, with the recorded levels of environmental sound lower by at
least 15 dB(A) than the values recorded for the tested vehicles.
Fig. 1. Means of transport used in
the tests
Fig. 2. Method of measurement
Fig. 3. View of the Bruel & Kjaer 2250 sound
analyser in one of the places
where measurements were taken
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fig. 4 presents the recorded
maximum, LAFmax, and the equivalent, LAeq, sound levels generated by the means of
transport subjected to tests at different traffic speeds.
The results show that the maximum
sound level, LAFmax, recorded at a
distance of 7.5 m from vehicles passing by at a constant speed, depended to a
large degree on the type of vehicle. The tests show that the highest sound
level was recorded for the truck with a semi-trailer. Each time, the value of
the recorded sound level exceeded 80 dB(A) and was higher by 5-10 dB(A) than in
the case of the other vehicles.
a)
b)
Fig. 4. Measurement results of
maximum, LAFmax, and equivalent, LAeq, sound levels generated by different means of
transport
The tests also showed that
motorcycles generate a significant maximum sound level; in this case, the
recorded maximum sound levels depended on the type of tested motorcycle. It can
be observed that the sports motorcycle and the cruiser generated similar sound
levels with values exceeding 75 dB(A), while the tourist-type motorcycle showed
a much lower sound emission level (above 71 dB(A)). In this case, the maximum
sound level was similar to the sound level generated by the tested personal cars.
The maximum sound level generated by
personal cars was the lowest among the investigated means of transport and
reached values above 72 dB(A). When comparing the test results for the
different types of personal cars, it can be noted that the compact van
generated a higher sound level than the medium-class estate car, whose sound
level value slightly exceeded 1 dB(A).
When analysing the recorded values
of the maximum sound level, it can be noted that they assumed the permissible
values [24,27] or exceeded them already at a traffic speed of 50 km/h.
Analysis of the results of tests
conducted to determine the influence of the vehicle speed on the maximum
traffic noise level leads to the conclusion that an increase in the vehicle
speed from 50 to 70 km/h induces an increase in the sound level by about 3-4
dB(A), and by about 2-5 dB(A) from 70 to 90 km/h, depending on the means of
transport under consideration.
When analysing the influence of
sound levels on the environment, the equivalent sound levels generated by the
vehicles, LAeq, were compared within the
range of their movement in the vicinity of the noise analyser (Fig. 4b). The
tests show that, similar to the maximum sound level, the highest noise emission
was characteristic of the truck with a semi-trailer. The recorded values of LAeq were above 72 dB(A). For personal cars and
motorcycles, the recorded values were similar in a majority of cases; however,
they were even lower than for the truck, reaching more than 66 dB(A). Only for
the tourist motorcycle were the observed values of the equivalent sound level
much lower, i.e., above 62 dB(A). Comparing the recorded equivalent sound
levels during a single driving event involving the vehicle with permissible
levels, which may occur in selected points of the environment, and with the
influence of noise on people [24], it can be concluded that the sound levels
recorded in the immediate vicinity of the road considerably exceeded the
accepted standards, regardless of the means of transport under consideration. By
referring the recorded sound level values to an 8- or 16-h exposure time, it
can be noted that the actual exposure to traffic noise depends on the intensity
of traffic, its structure type and its speed.
Further
analyses involved frequency distributions of noise generated by the tested
means of transport. Figs. 5 and 6 show the characteristics of the maximum sound
level, LAFmax, recorded in 1/3 octave
bands.
The noise generated by the personal
cars and the truck was the highest in the frequency range of about 1 kHz. Above
and below this frequency, a considerable decrease in the noise level can be
observed. There is a second maximum visible in the characteristic curves, in
the frequency range of 50, 63 and 80Hz, which corresponds to the frequencies of
combustion processes in the engines of the tested vehicles (rotational speeds
of personal car engines: 2,000-2,200 min-1; those of the truck
engine: 1,100-1,300 min-1).
In the case of the frequency
characteristics recorded for the motorcycles, it can be noted that the maximum
levels of the generated noise occurred in a wider frequency range, i.e., from
the combustion frequency to the frequency range in the order of several
kilohertz (combustion frequencies increased with an increasing traffic speed,
since the tested motorcycles allowed us to take measurements at the considered
traffic speeds in one gear only).
a)
b)
c)
Fig. 5. Measurement results of the
maximum sound level, LAFmax, in 1/3 octave
bands for personal cars I (a) and II (b), and for the truck with a semi-trailer
(c)
a)
b)
c)
Fig. 6. Measurement results of the
maximum sound level, LAFmax, in 1/3 octave
bands for the tourist motorcycle (a), sports motorcycle (b), and cruiser (c)
The 1/3 octave band characteristics
of the sound level presented in Figs. 5 and 6 also allow us to assess the
influence of changes in the speed of the tested vehicles throughout the
frequency range. Thus, a conclusion can be drawn from these results whereby,
for the tested personal cars and the truck, an increase in speed induced an
increase in noise in a range above the frequency of the combustion processes
taking place in their engines. However, the highest increase in the generated
noise was observed in the frequency range above 0.8-1.0 kHz, depending on the
type of tested vehicle. In the case of the tested motorcycles, a clear increase
in noise was observed along with an increasing vehicle speed in the frequency
range above the combustion frequency.
4. CONCLUSION
As part of the study, an evaluation
was made of the influence of different means of transport on the level of
traffic noise recorded in the immediate vicinity of a road. The obtained test
results confirm that noise generated by trucks was the highest among the
analysed vehicles, reaching the following values: LAFmax>80
dB(A) and LAeq>72 dB(A). Motorcycles,
in particular, the sports and cruiser types, also generated considerable
traffic noise, reaching values of LAFmax>75
dB(A) and LAeq>66 dB(A), i.e., higher
than for the personal cars. The performed tests lead to the conclusion that,
for the personal cars and the truck with a semi-trailer, the maximum traffic
noise occurred in the frequency range of about 1 kHz, while a local maximum of
a lower value was observed, corresponding to the frequency of combustion
processes. In the case of the motorcycles, the frequency distribution of the
generated noise was more uniform, with the recorded noise showing higher values
in a wider frequency range. Sound level maxima were also visible, which could
be observed in the frequency distributions, corresponding to the frequency of
combustion processes in the motorcycle engines.
The test results allow us to
conclude that an increase in the vehicle speed by 20 km/h causes an increase in
traffic noise by 2-5 dB(A), depending on the characteristics of traffic
streams. An increase in the speed, in the case of cars, induces an increase in
noise, first of all, in the range of higher frequencies, i.e., above 1 kHz,
while, in the case of motorcycles, such an increase is observed in frequency
bands above the frequency of combustion processes in the engines.
References
1.
Alaswadko Nahla, Rayya Hassan, Bayar
Mohammed. 2017. “Multilevel modelling of rutting progression for low-volume
roads”. Road & Transport Research: A
Journal of Australian and New Zealand Research and Practice 26(2): 22-35.
ISSN: 1037-5783.
2.
Augustynska D., W. Zawieski. 1999. Ochrona przed hałasem i drganiami w
środowisku pracy. [In Polish: Protection Against Noise and Vibration in
the Working Environment.] Warsaw: CIOP. ISBN: 83-87354-88-0.
3.
Bartłomiejczyk M., M. Połom. 2016. “Multiaspect
measurement analysis of breaking energy recovery”. Energy Conversion and Management Vol. 127: 35-42. ISSN: 0196-8904.
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2016.08.089.
4.
Bartłomiejczyk M., S. Mirchevski. 2014. “Reducing of energy consumption in public
transport - results of experimental exploitation of super capacitor energy bank
in Gdynia trolleybus system”. In 16th
International Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference and Exposition
(PEMC), 21-24 September 2014, Gazi Univ.
Electronic ISBN: 978-1-4799-2060-0. DOI: 10.1109/EPEPEMC.2014.6980616.
5.
Boora A., I.
Ghosh, S. Chandra. 2017. “Clutstering technique: an
analytical tool in traffic engeneering to evaluate
the pertormace of two-line highways”. European Transport\Transporti
Europei 66(1). ISSN 1825-3997.
6.
Cheng W.F., C.F.
Ng. 2001. “The acoustic performance of an inclined barrier for high-rise
residents”. Journal of Sound and
Vibration 242 (2): 295-308. ISSN: 0022-460X.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jsvi.2000.3352.
7.
Department of
Transport and the Welsh Office. 1988. Calculation
of Road Traffic Noise. HMSO, London. ISBN 0115508473.
8.
Dratva J., E. Zemp, D. F. Dietrich,
P.-O. Bridevaux, T. Rochat et al. 2010. “Impact of road traffic noise annoyance
on health-related quality of life: results from a population-based study”. Quality of Life Research 19 (1): 37-46. ISSN: 0962-9343. DOI:
10.1007/s11136-009-9571-2.
9.
Drozdziel P., I. Rybicka, R. Madlenak, A. Andrusiuk, D. Siluch. 2017. “The engine set damage assessment in the
public transport vehicles”. Advances in
Science and Technology Research Journal 11(1): 117-127.
ISSN: 2299-8624. DOI: 10.12913/22998624/66502
10.
Echevarria Sanchez, G. M.,
T. Van Renterghem, P. Thomas, D. Botteldooren.
2016. “The effect of street canyon design on traffic noise exposure along
roads”. Building and Environment 97:
96-110. ISSN: 0360-1323. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.11.033.
11.
Engel Z.W., J. Sadowski. 2005. Ochrona środowiska przed hałasem w Polsce w świetle przepisów europejskich [In Polish: Environmental Protection Against Noise in Poland in Light of the
Provisions of European Legislation.] Warsaw: CIOP.
12.
Faberi M., M. Martuzzi, F. Pirrami. 2004. Assessing
the Health Impact and Social Costs of Mopeds: Feasibility Study in Rome.
World Health Organization.
13.
FHWA, Office of
Natural & Human Environment, US Department of Transportation Federal
Highway Administration. 2003. FHWA
Traffic Noise Model.
14.
Gardziejczyk W. 2016. “The effect of time on acoustic
durability of low noise pavements - The case studies in Poland”. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment 44: 93-104.
ISSN: 1361-9209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.02.006.
15.
Ibarra D., R.
Ramirez-Mendoza, S. Ibarra. 2016. “Characterization of the road surfaces in real time”. Applied Acoustics 105: 93-98.
ISSN: 0003-682X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2015.10.023.
16.
Lalor N., H. H. Priebsch.
2007. “The prediction of low- and mid-frequency internal road vehicle noise: a
literature survey”. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers: Part D 221 (3): 245-269. ISSN:
0954-4070. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1243/09544070JAUTO199.
17.
Lu M.-H., M. U. Jen. 2010. “Source identification and reduction of engine noise”. Noise Control Engineering Journal 58 (3): 251-258. ISSN 0736-2501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3397/1.3427147.
18.
Makarewicz R., P. Kokowski. 2007. “Prediction of noise changes due to traffic speed control”. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 122 (4): 2074-2081. ISSN
0001-4966. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2769972
19.
Mei L., X. Huang,
G. Xue. 2016. “Effect of double layer porous asphalt
pavement of urban streets on noise reduction”. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5: 183-196.
ISSN: 2212-6090. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.02.001.
20.
Monazzam M.R. et al. 2011.
“Performance of passive and reactive profiled median barriers in traffic noise
reduction”. Journal of Zhejiang
University-SCIENCE A (Applied Physics & Engineering) 12 (1): 78-86.
ISSN1673-565X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.A1000065.
21.
Naish Daniel A, Matthew Fleet, Devaraj Arumugam. 2017.
“Feasibility assessment of various TL-5 safety noise barrier (SNB) designs”. Road
& Transport Research: A Journal of Australian and New Zealand Research
and Practice 26(2): 5-21. ISSN: 1037-5783.
22.
Nelson P.M., P.G. Abbott. 1987. “Low noise road surfaces“. Applied Acoustics 21 (2):
119-137. ISSN: 0003-682X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-682X(87)90005-3.
23.
“Noise
legislation”. Available at:
http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/about-us/legislation/noise-legislation#noiseregs.
24.
Rozporządzenie
Ministra Środowiska
nr 1109 z dnia 8 października 2012. [In Polish:
Ordinance of the Environment Minister
(Poland) No. 1109; dated 8 October 2012.]
25.
Rozporządzenie
Ministra Transportu nr
51 z dnia 22 sierpnia 2013. [In Polish: Ordinance of The Transport Minister (Poland)
No. 951; dated 22 August 2013.]
26.
Paslawski, J. 2008. “Highway noise management using advisory
system”. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 2-4 (35): 275-295. ISSN: 0957-4352 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEP.2008.021361.
27.
Regulation (EU)
No. 540/2014; dated 16 April 2014.
28.
Ross B.M., T. Wolde. 2001. “Noise from traffic as a worldwide policy problem“. Noise Control Engineering Journal 49 (4): 159-161. ISSN: 0736-2501. DOI:
10.3397/1.2839651.
29.
Sadowski
J. 1982. Podstawy akustyki urbanistycznej.
[In Polish: Basics
of Urban Acoustics.] Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Arkady.
30.
Salomons E.M., M. Berghauser Pont. 2012. “Urban traffic noise and the relation to urban density, form, and traffic
elasticity”. Landscape and Urban Planning 108 (1): 2-16. ISSN: 0169-2046. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.017.
31.
Sandberg U. 2001.
“Tyre/road noise - myths and realities”. In The
2001 International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering, The
Hague, 27-30 August 2001, The
Netherlands.
32.
Sandberg U. 2002.
“Noise emission from powered two-wheeled vehicles - position paper”. Linköping,
Sweden: Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI).
33.
Skanberg A., E. Ohrstrom.
2002. “Adverse health effects in relation to urban residential soundscapes”. Journal of Sound and Vibration 250 (1):
151-155. ISSN: 0022-460X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jsvi.2001.3894.
34.
Sooriyaarachchi R.T., D.U.J. Sonnadara. 2006. “Development of a road traffic noise
prediction model”. In Proceedings of the
Technical Sessions Institute of Physics, Sri Lanka 22: 17-22.
35.
St. Pierre Jr.
R.L., G.H. Koopmann. 1995. “A design method for
minimizing the sound power radiated from plates by adding optimally sized,
discrete masses”. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 117: 243-251. ISSN:1048-9002. DOI:
doi:10.1115/1.2838669.
36.
Van Renterghem
T., D. Botteldooren, M. Hornikx, P. Jean, J. Defrance, Y. Smyrnova. 2012. “Road traffic noise reduction by vegetated low noise barriers in urban
streets”. In Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Noise
Control, Prague, Czech Republic: 944-948. ISBN:
9788001050132.
37.
Vogiatzis K.E. 2011.
“Strategic environmental noise mapping & action plans in Athens Ring Road (Atiiki Odos) - Greece”. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and
Development 10 (7): 315-324. ISSN: 1790-5079.
38.
Watts G.R., N.S.
Godfrey. 1999. “Effects on roadside noise levels of sound absorptive materials
in noise barriers”. Applied Acoustics
58 (4): 385-402. ISSN: 0003-682X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-682X(99)00007-9.
39.
Watts G.R., D.H.
Crombie, D.C. Hothersall. 1994. “Acoustic performance
of new design of traffic noise barriers: full scale tests”. Journal of Sound and Vibration 177 (3):
289-305. ISSN: 0022-460X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jsvi.1994.1435.
40.
Wattsa G.R., S.N. Chandler-Wildeb, P.A. Morgan. 1999. “The combined effects of porous
asphalt surfacing and barriers on traffic noise”. Applied Acoustics 58: 351-377. ISSN: 0003-682X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-682X(98)00045-0.
41.
WHO. 1997. Prevention of Noise-induced Hearing Loss.
WHO-PDH Informal Consultation Report, Geneva.
42.
WHO. 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise, Edited by Birgitta Berglund, World Health Organization. Geneva:
Thomas Lindvall and Dietrich Schwela.
43.
Yamamoto K. 2010.
“Special issue on road traffic noise prediction methods”. Acoustical Science and Technology 31 (1). ISSN: 1346-3969. DOI:
http://doi.org/10.1250/ast.31.1.
44.
Yannis, G. et al. 2013. “Road safety
performance indicators for the interurban road network”. Accident Analysis and Prevention 60: 384-395. ISSN: 0001-4575.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.11.012.
Received 05.09.2017; accepted in revised form 07.11.2017
Scientific Journal of Silesian
University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License