acoustic perception in pavement rating
Post on 12-Jan-2016
27 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Acoustic Perception in Pavement Rating
Bernard Izevbekhai, P.E.Research Operations EngineerMnDOT Office of Materials &
Roads Research
OBJECTIVES• Demystify Acoustic Version of this Puzzle
• Ascertain if Acoustic Perception explained residuals or anomalies in 2010 Pavement Rating
RAISON D’ETRE
We are Subject to the whims of Frequency Domains irrespective Domain (Tactile, Spatial, Time) of Interest
RAISON D’ETRE
Phycoacoustics have always with us.
Some Important Reasons why people ask for noise walls:
•We cannot be Left out.
• We do not want to see the vehicles ( Out of sight is out of Hearing)
•We are tax payers
TIRE PAVEMENT NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
NOISE
Pavement Smoothness IRI (Mega texture)
TEXTURE PAVEMENT SMOOTHNESS AND TIRE PAVEMENT INTERACTION NOISE (TPIN) ARE FUNDAMENTAL TO TIRE PAVEMENT INTERACTION
Macrotexture
DirectionOrientation (Spikiness)Asperity IntervalMicrotexture
LAYOUT OF 31 CONTIGUOUS TEST SECTIONS
Note The order For Later Discussion
ESTABLISHED PHENOMENOLOGICAL MODEL
FORM OF PROPOSED MODEL
OBSI=A+B*((293-T)/T)+ C*(IRI/IRIT)+ [(ASPT/ASP)*(D*DIR
+E)]+ F*(SP)
PROPOSED MODEL OBSI =
99.023+20.164((293-T)/T)+[(ASPT/ASP)(1.513 DIR+0.098)]+
5.849(IRI/IRIT)+1.684 SP Significant Variables P-value needs to be < 0.05. It is noted that p-values for the variables in model are in the range 0<=p<0.0002
Izevbekhai, Khazanovich and Voller (2011)
STRATEGY• 44 Volunteers Equitable Gender and Age
Distribution• No State Employee, No Pavement expert• 2010 Chevrolet Malibu New• Many Runs Rating from 0-10 (Scaled 0-5)• DIV Measured IRI behind the Rating Panels• Preliminary Analysis Reveals anomaly in
IRI MPR Correlation
Section ID
User Rating
Mean MPR
Pavt Type
Mean IRI Mean
RN
Mean 1997 MPR
OBSI Mean
(Runs 1 & 2)
OBSI Mean Run 3
Test Speed
for Run 3 (mph)
1 6.7 3.4 BIT 62.15 3.87 3.6 102.9 102.1 55 2 8.5 4.3 BIT 44.03 4.34 3.9 102.3 101.6 55 3 7.8 3.9 CON 44.07 4.10 4.3 103.3 103.2 60 4 8 4.0 BIT 57.73 4.12 3.7 103.9 104.1 60 5 8.1 4.1 CON 31.60 4.45 4.7 103.7 103.9 60 6 7 3.5 BIT 158.89 3.31 2.4 103.7 96.0 35 7 4.7 2.4 BIT 145.26 2.28 2.5 102.8 97.2 45 8 4.3 2.2 BIT 196.30 1.54 2.0 106.4 105.4 55 9 5.2 2.6 BIT 164.60 1.98 2.3 106.0 105.2 55
10 6 3.0 BIT 108.34 2.35 2.9 105.8 105.2 55 11 6.1 3.1 BIT 118.41 2.69 2.8 105.6 105.2 55 12 5.2 2.6 BIT 147.25 2.15 2.5 105.4 105.4 55 13 4.9 2.5 BIT 155.88 2.15 2.4 106.0 105.0 55 14 5.6 2.8 BIT 130.07 2.36 2.7 105.9 104.9 55 15 7.8 3.9 BIT 65.40 3.98 3.6 102.1 101.3 55 16 7.7 3.9 BIT 63.64 4.14 3.6 103.1 102.6 55 17 6.4 3.2 BIT 87.33 3.40 3.2 103.7 103.3 55 18 6.7 3.4 BIT 82.00 3.42 3.3 103.2 103.0 55 19 5.8 2.9 BIT 91.08 1.96 3.2 103.9 103.8 55 20 7.2 3.6 CON 52.19 3.53 4.1 104.9 106.4 65 21 7.3 3.7 CON 51.73 3.84 4.1 105.0 106.6 65 22 6 3.0 CON 60.62 3.35 3.9 105.6 106.7 65 23 6.5 3.3 CON 60.10 3.67 3.9 105.6 106.9 65 24 6.6 3.3 CON 61.79 3.61 3.9 106.0 106.9 65 25 6.2 3.1 CON 62.32 3.72 3.9 105.9 107.1 65 26 5.9 3.0 CON 62.98 3.63 3.8 105.9 107.1 65 27 6 3.0 CON 69.24 3.38 3.7 105.7 106.8 65 28 6.6 3.3 CON 103.30 3.40 3.0 108.6 110.1 65 29 6.8 3.4 BIT 70.30 3.57 3.5 104.4 103.3 55 30 4.2 2.1 CON 170.51 2.53 2.0 107.4 98.5 30* 31 5.2 2.6 CON 146.66 2.86 2.3 107.2 101.1 30*
RESULTS FROM 31 CONTIGUOUS TEST SECTIONS
RATING PANEL
OBSIIRI
MPR IRI/ RN
ANALYTICAL PATH
On Board Sound Intensity SI level (dB(A))= 10 * log10 ∑ 10 {SI
1/SI
o} )
Where SIi (i=1, 2 , 3, …, 12) are sound intensities in dB at each the 3rd octave frequencies.
SI0 = SI at threshold of human hearing = 10-12 Watts/m2
Measurement of Tire Pavement Noise
Compare to Izevbekhai et al (2011) There may be influential data (AKA outliers
MPR Vs OBSI
OBSI VS RESIDUALS
NO CORRELATION WITH RESIDUALS
Investigate Sequencing
Investigate Sequencing
Anomalies in Sections 6 and 28 Accentuated
DUE DILIGENCE: What of RN?
Anomalies in Sections 6 and 28 Accentuated
DUE DILIGENCE: RN
Conclusion and Recommendation
• This study examined MPR, IRI, and OBSI of 31contiguous sections
• to ascertain the possibility of pavement noise influencing anomalous rating.
• Based on the analysis conducted, no tenable statistically significant evidence that OBSI explains anomalies in MPR.
• Sequencing may have affected some ratings
Conclusion and Recommendation
• Reversed Runs recommended with raters Hood winked (Complete Lane Closure)
• Populate a data base of MPR and OBSI.• No individual study is all encompssing.
Continuing studies Recommended.• Results do not negate the likelihood of
Noise influencing rating in a larger population but in this study it was not significant.
QUESTIONS
I THAN
K THEE
top related