the wall journaltm

The Wall JournalTMTHE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Issue No.

42January to May

2001

Cover Photo

Location: Interstates 76 and 295Camden/Cherry Hill areas, New Jersey

Owner: State of New jersey, Departmentof Transportation

Architect: Gannet-Fleming, Inc., CampHill, Pennsylvania

DesignEngineers:Buchart-Horn,Inc. &BASCO Associates York, Pennsylvania

Material Supplier: Concrete SafetySystems Bethel, Pennsylvania

GeneralContractor: DriscollConstruction Company SpringHouse,Pennsylvania

COLOR PkoDucr APPLIcA11ON:Building Material: Concrete panels and

posts with integral colorColor Specification: To specify

Bayferrox ® see Sweets, Architects’First Source, andwww.BayerUS.com/pigments

FULL STORYIN OUR NEXTISSUE

Dear Soren,

You may or may not remember me,but I’ve represented Bayer Corporationat your various meetings. Because oforganizational changes, I’ll no longerbe able to continue my membershipand the ‘friends” status on the TRBCommittee. I’m now selling BayScapecolorant to the wood and rubbermulch industry. BayScape is madefrom the same Bayferrox Bayer makesfor the construction industry that usesthis pigment to color concrete noisebarriers - among other things. Here’sthe web site:www.BayScapeColors.com Bayer, Ibelieve, is also represented by PaulCroushore.

Soren, I want you to know it’s beena great personal and professional satis-faction to work with you and the TRB.I’ve learned a lot, and enjoyed the

company of the other members.Please extend my good-byes to every-one.

I wish you health, happiness, andconti nued success.

Kriem MichelBayer Corporation5 N Jasper AvenueMargate NJ 08402Tel:609-823-1010Fax:609-823-8802

Mr. Soren Pedersen:

A copy of your Nov/Dec issue waspassed around our office, and I readthe article on Page 9 about how thegauge of railroad track came about.

• SeniorAirport NoiseConsultant• SeniorVibration Specialist• SeniorArchitecturalAcousticsConsultant• Video, SoundandAudiovisualSystemConsultants

AcentechIncorporated33 Moulton Street • Cambridge, MA 02138

1429E. ThousandOaksBlvd. • ThousandOaks,CA 91362Phone:617.499.8000• Fax: 617.499.8074

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Consultants in:

Continued on page5

• Noise and Vibration Control• Environmental andIndustrialAcoustics• ArchitecturalAcoustics• AudiovisualandSoundSystemDesign• Building Dynamics

EmploymentOpportunities:

Pleasevisit our website for moreinformation.Email: [email protected]

We arean equalopportunityemployer

Acentech

2 The Wall journal January to May 2001 Issue No. 42

The Wall Journal1l~InternationalIonmala lisra9)ortalionRelatuJEnvimnrne,1a1~um

Volume Xli 2001Issue No. 42

The Wall Journal is published up tosix times a year. Issues are mailed bi-monthly on or about the middle of thefirst month in the designated two-month issue date~

The Wall Journal is a publication ofThe Wall Journal. Editorial, subscrip-tion and advertising offices are locatedat 26 Warrender Ave., Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada, M9B 5Z2.Telephone us at (416) 231-4514 or fax(416) 231-4564. Email us at info@the~walljournal.cont Submissions ofpapers, articles, stories, events,announcements, letters, and photo-graphs for publication should beaddressed to TheWall Journal, and for-warded to the above address.

All material submitted becomes theproperty of The Wall Journal, and maybe edited for length, clarity and accu-racy. Material will not be returnedwithout special arrangements prior tosubmission. The Wall Journal will notbe responsible for lost or damagedmaterials.

Published articles, comments, let-ters, papers and advertisements do notnecessarily represent the views and/orendorsements of The Wall Journal. Theauthors of submitted material are sole-ly responsible for the truth and accura-cy of their submissions, and The WallJournal cannot be held liable for anydamages suffered by our readers as aresult of their use of published materi-al.

Circulation is made to governmentagencies, institutions, consultants, con-tractors vendors and others with aninterest in transporation-related envi-ronmental issues. Readership is pri-marily in the United States andCanada, with growing interest inEurope, Asia and the Pacific Rim.

Printed in canada by AcMlnc.copyright 2001The Wall journal

For subscription and advertisinginforamation, see Page 16.

n more thanne occation,

I have beenreminded that I neg-lected to note in thelast issue, the effortsofone of the organizersof the 2000 TRBAl F04 Summer meet-ing in New York City. That person wasMatt Murrillo, of Lewis Goodfriend andAssociates. His selfless efforts to ensuretop-notch, quality presentations werequit evident during the sessions and werewell appreciated and recognized by all.

More good news, Mart has volun-teered to organize the presentation ses-sions again for this years summer meetingin New Orleans. Thank you Mart for allyour efforts. They will not go unnoticed.

For more details on the meeting, seetheTRB Al F04 News item on page 22 orvisit The Wall Journal website at:www.thewalljournal.com for completeprogram details and registration forms.

Progress on expanding the information

Lewis S. Goodfriend & AssociatesA ~ CONSULTINGENGINEERSIN ACOUSTICSV ~V’ www.lsga.com

760ROUTElOWESTWHIPPANY,NJ07981

voice: 973-560-0090fax: 973-560-1270

e-mail:[email protected]

on The Wall Journal website has takenmajor leaps in the last few weeks. The listof back issues and articles has beenupdated with, at least one article fromeach issue available for downloading. Inaddition more details are available onupcoming events.

Make sure you visit the site on a regu-lar basis to catch all the new develop-ments. Also, to participate in theTransportation Noise Forum which canbe accessed through the “link” page.Also included in the links is FHWA TrafficNoise Barrier Design Handbook.

Unfortunately, we are running latewith the issues this year. As a result, thisissue combines what should have beenthe Januray/February 2001 theMarch/April 2001 and part of theMay/June 2001 issues. This does notaffect your subscriptions nor any advertis-ing agreements. Both are based on issuenumbers rather than length of time.Barring any unforseen problems, weshould be back on track by theJuly/August Issue (Issue 44)

THE EDITOR’S I~0 RN ER by Soren Pedersen

Matt Murillo, VP of Lewis S.GoodfriendandAssociateshasvolun-teeredto organizethe presentationsfor the2001 TRB A1FO4 SummerMeeting to be held in New Orleans

Experts?Noneof our menare “experts.”We havemostunfortunatelyfound it necessary to get rid of aman as soonas hethinks himselfan expertbecauseno oneever

considershimselfexpertif hereal-ly knows hisjob. A manwho

knows a job seessomuchmoretobe donethanhe hasdone,that he

is alwayspressingforwardandnevergives up aninstantof

thoughtto how goodandhowefficient he is. Thinking always

ahead,thinking alwaysof tiying

to do more,brings a stateofmindin which nothingis impossible.

The momentonegets into the

“expert” stateof mindagreatnumberof thingsbecomeimpos-

sible.

-HenryFord Sr.

The Wall Journal January to May 2001 Issue No. 42 3

A couple of things you may findinteresting:

First, the Solid Rocket Boosters onthe Space Shuttle are a bit over 10 feetin diameter, not “just a little wider”than railroad track gauge, althoughclearances through tunnels probably

does have an impact on how big theyare. Clearance from the centerline istypically 8-1/2 feet, although mostrolling stock is around 10 feet wide.

Which brings us to the second thing:Why are they balancing a machineweighing 420,000 pounds and 10 feetwide on a platform only 5 feet wide?Actually, many different gauges havebeen tried: 2 foot, 2-1/2 foot, threefoot, meter, 3-1/2 foot, and 6 foot cometo mm. The American South had a dif-ferent gauge than the North during theCivil War -- they changed over on one

weekend. A bad train wreck tookplace because one railroad had a trackgauge 1/2 inch different from the carthat was using it.

Turns out the five foot center-to-cen-ter of the rails is the best compromisebetween cheap construction (narrowertrack, cheaper to build) and carryingcapacity of the trains. “If it’s stupid butworks, it isn’t stupid”

Oh -- and the reason that they usedthe same distance between the wheelsof the old English wagons was not, I’veheard, because they were using thesame jigs. I understand that they wereusing the wagons themselves as thefirst rolling stock.

Really enjoyed the magazine. Keepup the fine work.

Chas. H. Hague, PE, SERailroad Structural EngineerAlfred Beseech & Co.

LETTERS TO THE

EDITORConrinued from page 2

Visit us on-line at

Join in the Noise biscussionForumAccess the FHWA Highway Noise Barrier DesignHandbook

Canada Post Agreern~ts USASurfaceIncentiveLettermailAgreementNumber 1862820PublicationAgreementNumber: 04598989

STONEWALL SERIES~1CK,A5t-1LA~$TONE501/ND~EfLEQ71YE$01/NDAg�0~pTft/E

FADDISCONCRETEPRODUCTS

PA7TE~NED~0’fl1SIDESLOW LIFE-aYCLE eO$T1NTEc~R.ALaOLO~

c~c13515KINGS HIGHWAYDOWNINGTOWN,PA 19335(800)777-7973(610)269-4685(610)[email protected]

4 The Wall Journal January to May 2001 Issue No. 42

CLASSIFIED

ConsultantsAcentechIncorporated

.33 Moulton St., Cambridge, MA 02138.1429 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.,

Thousand Oaks, CA 91362Tel: 617.499.8000 • Fax: 617.499.8074

Bowiby & Associates,Inc.Transportation NoiseAnalysis

FHWA TNM Training504 Autumn Springs Court, # 11,Franklin, Tennessee 37067-8278

Tel: (615)771-3006 Fax: (603) 676-2219ww~bassod~wm

LewisS. Goodfriend & AssociatesCONSULTING ENGINEERS IN

ACOUSTICS760 Route 10 W~

Whippany, NJ 07981Tel: 973-560-0090 Fax: 973-560-1270

e-mail: info~1sga.~rn

ManufacWrersConcreteSolutionsInc.

Don’t just reflect noise, absorb it withSoundSorb

3300 Bee Caves Road, Suite 650Austin, Texas 78746

Tel: 512/327-8481 Fax 512/327-5111www.sotJndsorb.com

Durisol Inc.67 Frid Street,

Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8P 4M3Telephone: 905-521-0999

Fax: 905-521-8658www.durisol.com

“GREEN” - Retaining/Sound Wall SystemEVERGREEN WALL SYSTEM N.A.

716-762-8314www.evergreenwall.com

•EVERGREEN-GEO 5’-16’‘EVERGREEN-MACRO5’-45’•EVERGREEN-EVERWALL Closed face

UPCOMING EVENTS

August 28-30, ~2OO1 October 29-31, 2001INTER-NO/SE2001, NOISE-CON 01,The Hague, The Netherlands. Portland, Maine, USA.

Contad Contact: 914 462-4006 or Fax: 914 462-4006.e-mail: [email protected]

january 13-17, 2002September 2-7, 2001 87th Transpoitation Research BoardAnnual17th !r#.ërnational Congress on Acoustics, Meetin&

Rome, Italy. Washington. D.C. USA.

Contact: Fax: +39 06 4424 0183; Contact: 202 334-2934 or Fax: 202 334-2003

October 1-3, 2001Canadian Acoustical Assoc. Meeting It you have an event you would/ike to have listed

- . - hero, please ontact us tor details.Altiston, Ontario, canada.

Contact 905 660-2444

October 7-12, 2001FHWA TNM 1.1 Training CourseFranklin, Tennessee, USA.

Course conducted by Bowiby & Associates, Inc.Contact: 615.771.3006 or Fax: 603.676.2219:e-mail: [email protected]

ADVERTISEMENTS D iii I i Ii

$OUPWWAUS

FENCESTOHE”

• Same Texture and Pattern on Both Sides• Integral Color• 5 Foot x 1 Foot Panels Meet Invisibly

800.024.0255www. DesignerConcrete.com

Classified Ad Rates:as low as $35.00 per inch, per issue. Formore information on all our ad rates,phasewntact us at

info.thewalljournal.com orTel:416-231-4514 Fax: 416-231-4564


A Surveyof StateDOTsViews RegardingPavement/TireNoise

by: Roger L. Wayson,Associate Professor;

Universityof Central Florida,Civil& EnvironmentalEngineerin,g,

P0. Box 162450;Orlando, Florida 32816-2450;

tel: 407 823-2480;fax: 407 823-3315;

email: wayson~pegasus.cc.uct:edu

Abstract.

N oise caused by the interactionof the pavement surface andmotor vehicle tires is an area

that has seen recent increased interestin the United States. There is substan-tial proof in the literature that changesin pavement type and surface texturecan reduce sound levels for highwayneighbors., In general, reported reduc-tions in sound levels in Europe seem tobe greater than those achieved in theUnited States for certain pavementconditions. This conflict in results hassparked many state departments oftransportation (DOTs) to investresearch dollars to further quantifyboth the benefits and deficits of usingalternative pavement types or texturesfor noise reduction. However, eventhough the state DOTs represent one ifnot the major stakeholders of this noiseabatement technique, coordination inresearch efforts between the states hasbeen lacking.

SoundZero~barriers are light-weight, S pounds per square foot,making them the perfect solutionfor installations on existing struc-tures not designed to support con—ventional barriers. Integral safetyrigging can be engineered into thepanels for an extra measure ofsafety where impact considerationsmust be taken into account.Unlimited color, texture and designflexibility assures architecturalintegrity with any community. Thebarriers are custom made for-~“-nryir5tallation, with full wall

~ thic~iess

This same conclusion was reachedat a special session on pavement’tirenoise organized by the Committee onTransportation Noise and Vibration(Al F04) at the Transportation ResearchBoard Annual Meeting in January,1999. At that time, a working groupwas formed to investigate research onpavement/tire noise. Table 1 lists themembers of that working group. Thefirst task of the working group was tosurvey the state DOTs in an effort todetermine the relative importance ofseveral key parameters dealing withsuch research. This paper analyzesthese replies and reports on the results.The opinions stated in this work arethose of the author and should not beconsidered the formal stance of theTransportation Research Board (TRB).Implications of these results are alsodiscussed in light of a recent synthesislon the topic completed by the author.

Methodology

In an effort to determine the overallconsensus of the state DOTs a blindsurvey was mailed to each noise abate-ment officer of each state and PuertoRico. After the listed deadline, usingthe postmarks on the envelopes todetermine which states that hadresponded, telephone calls were madeto all remaining states to try andencourage more participation. Thirty-six states, or approximately 70% of thestates, replied. While the authorwould have preferred even morereplies, a seventy percent sample rateof the entire population is still thoughtto indicate the overall trends quitewell.

The survey consisted of eight ques-tions. A complete copy of the survey isshown as Figure 1. It was intended tokeep the survey short, simple and con-centrate only on major issues.However, to avoid possible skewing of

Continued onpage 7


to t~e~e e~ ~

or co~l~

The ~ght,r &terr,ati~,e~rth~g~way

Pavement/Tm~NoiseContinued from page 6

the results multiple opportunities werealso included for the respondents towrite in comments.

Each response was tabulated andformatted in a commercially availablespreadsheet. Care was taken to avoidinput that would have skewed results.For example, if a question response didnot comply with the requested formatthe replies were carefully reviewedand only entered if it increased thedata base without skewing the results.In Question 4, if the categories werenot properly ranked, the results couldnot be included in the final analysiswithout skewing the results.Fortunately, this occurred very infre-quently. Due to omission or changingof data, not all categories always addto the number of respondents.

After all data was included and ver-ified, overall analyses were performedand results plotted. In some cases theanalysis was simply adding upresponses in a category. In others,such as Question 4, trends were evalu-ated. The results of this analysis arepresented in the next section of thisreport.

Results

The results of each question are firstexplored and then conclusions basedon overall trends are presented.

Question 1.Should pavement type be consid-

ered during noise abatement analysisfor highway projects?

The respondent was asked to answer

simply YES or NO to this question.Twenty-three (23) respondents said yeswhile thirteen (13) replied no. Thiswould tend to indicate by the marginof responses (72 % for) that the gener-al consensus is that pavement typeshould be considered. Many com-ments were also submitted with theanswer to this question. Many echoedthe same ideas. Four major ideasgroups were submitted and are: 1) asimilar question on pavement textureshould have also been included in thesurvey since this is also very important;2) pavement changes should only beconsidered for noise abatement if reli-able data is available; 3) the decreasein abatement effectiveness or changesof the acoustic generation mechanismwith time must also be considered;and, 4) other mitigation methodsshould work with pavement selection.

Question 2.How much sound level reduction,

in dB(A), would warrant changingpavement types?

The requested response to this ques-tion was a number value. Suppliedvalues ranged from 1 to 6 dB(A) ofabatement or noise reduction required

to warrant changing pavement types.The average was 3.9 dB(A). Figure 2shows the frequency distribution. Onerespondent did list 20 dB(A) but statedthe high value was given because inthe respondent’s opinion, use of pave-ment for noise reduction is never war-ranted. This extreme value was notused in the overall analysis.

Question 3.What is the greatest impediment in

your state to using alternate pavementtypes for noise abatement?

Respondents were asked to selectfrom the following choices: Federalconcurrence; State policy (written orunwritten); Cost; Maintenance;Reliable data on noise reduction;Safety concerns; or, Other. Figure 3shows the frequency distribution ofresponses. While it would be risky toassume an exact ranking of all the cat-egories some trends are apparent.Most apparent is that the lack of reli-able data for noise reduction frompavement surfaces is the greatestimpediment. The second tier ofresponses includes cost and mainte-nance with all other categories in athird tier when ranked in groups.

Reduction Req’d to Change Pavement

20 ______________

~ 15 -C0Q.U,a) __________________~~100I-

.0 ____________Ez

0I

dB(A)2 3 4 6

Figure2. Numberof Responses

Continued onpage 8


Pavement1Tu~eNoise Continued from page 7 HighwayNoise causedby Pavement/TireInteractionA Surveyfrom Trb CommitteeA1fI~4

1Imow, #nootboonono~,,But thin,,, i,bypometon3wJ,nv,i,lod~onook, it ,~ni,kno.4oninS lypoiokno Woo.nndynnoinput. 9’LESSERESPONI)EYJUIX24,19995)RESULTSMAY BE DiSCUSSEDATTHETEESUMMEItMEETING09’ MP04~

inn tonyptninnui Yno — Ni

2, ~.18(4) pplyuwnbno).

3 Wln.oin S onpo4Jmnntinynw0mm in mningoimnn*ttpnon-mont typnofnnnnionnbnoomone

c~,o.,,PtdtmInncuonnnt,,

— Sunnpdiçy(onitnnnn,nwminn,t

5coin

-

— R,flnbln4n~nnnob,to4notinn

— Otbon-piomtopnd~’

4. WEntI, S owomowni,noo4boyooo1mmrdin8

po.vmuontISo monion? (Plo omniminomtnt (U tonJnvmo,111),SobSbolt

8*99

gotnoootnnoL)Cotn~,~iooo.ni*o.,.nilook bommonomotmonpmtotooointn

— EonS,oitoo.tattoo,,,pnv.mnotommoEno,

— Smnpuduatoolobmg.Dnvolopn***moa vomenooypoa(og,takE Soomio.pbok)Co..,~,o.i,,,ainoolin,(nkoo~ptatimuity)nod poom-lymonomowatno.Enobli,bmornofmonmonmonmn,mob,4,,j,,ot.

— lopontoam.volmidtjatonlanloonla,DnoàlopmontaiFlb,tb,,,tnd/a,4no4a,

— lompootoan,ommd aoaomodl,ynnoioomdoeupon (a,g,amm.1do4dom>~

tonpoctoanmamnodknelt tomponodby vebklnm~poo(t48.00000mo-kiln o~bonmymn.d4.

Sn(enyom,ldoonmiouottmltooao.opttnaoootypo,—

TMni,noatanooad mommoonmoicoSin ofoko,oottepoomo

— OtboomplootoopenWy

2, i~~ of onE,,omob,tbt,amommtnooontbinobigbom~n~pnvomnooIdonnolnoemoomobin,

chaanoa.,,_Th,mom,io*poa.on*S

Madnon*olyimpoto,ot.No*nemnpo,*oat.

— ton,,, mite Sot

U.~oo*ono,beElt*oa, p noo.n*I~inoatimbetootS-tandy

cb,cbon,,ThnaagbTSB,A1P04Th,oogbPj9’W4

— TheonpbUmmivnemityCnmmonoe— Tlmoan

5bnodanmitog on.(ng.ANSI).

Thnommgtmimm*ommodaatda jonmiommo(nno~,1SO)— Onbor,pk,poojl~-

7 99km,om4n *booldAlfO4tmk.n Sngpovmnto,/~ioonob,omonni.ind~oU$?

cbncsnit mi,m,tpp~.Thnkakoppoon

8oanp,

lainnaodondnooiasj,aao.,Foeteolpoint tin otottt.Momma,Othnnplenoo,pndfy

9. Do yao.bo.nt Soottatomonem0O qmmmmianaiba.)nombiabebooldbadionnotodat*b,TRB,41904tomotanona, agoogaodlogpnvomnooe/Sonabol

Wynn boo,ommy9oo*daom,yo,,e*nyn oootmm0000omo(RognoWoyma.,)byPl*000 Ott 407823-2480

Moo~bneoof mbnTRB41904wo48oggooopunpatomnoetoioonoi,n.GooggPlomaing~Valpol4o*ioetl LobsRagnoWo

3waUnivoobofCoomool9’looi4o

RoboetEooebnod.PoetlonUohoeobyJobnJatSel,HNTEMkSmoelMoNinno

9-.lJoiveo,kyn(T,noo

KnePakob.Mao~4nodStoooHlgbnmyAmtamiolatenmioo99199intimat, iSonoEnmgiaonthm~9n~

Greatest Impediment

U)a)U)C0

(1)ci)

~1-01.~ci).0Ez

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Figure3. The Greatest Impediment to Implementation

and/or standards.9. Impacts on soundlevels caused by

various tire types (e.g., studdedtires).

10. Impacts on sound levels comparedby vehicle types (e.g., automobilevs. heavy truck).

1 1.Safety considerations of alternatepavement types.

12.Maintenance and pavement serv-ice life ofalternatepavement types.

13. Other: please specify

It should be noted that the providedcategories were not numbered asshown here to avoid potential bias inresponses. However, numbers havebeen given to the responses in this

Question 4.What is the greatest research need

in your State regarding pavement/tfrenoise?

For this question, the respondentswere asked to rank the relative impor-tance of twelve different categories ofresearch needs with the number one(1) given to the greatest research need.An opportunity was also provided forcomments on topics that may not havebeen included but important to a state.The list of provided categories includ-ed:

1. Comparison of sound levels fromcommon pavement surfaces.

2. Results of less common pavementsurfaces (e.g., exposed aggregate).

3. Impacts due to tining.4. Development of new pavement

types (e.g., rubberizedasphalt).5. Comparison of trailer (close-prox-

imity) andpass-by measurements.6. Establishment of measurement

method criteria.7. Impacts on vehicle interior levels.8. Development of Federal criteria

Now*bon,wooeetot Itod not99 Soonoetnoiflo0000tiim** ann000Ptgt.

Ploomnsoodyoooeoopoamonoiom*moil. omit.noin,,POE MAIL U*odm.npdo,odontilop,oommii no

Do RogooLW.y,aaciofeE.,ni~

0.00

.0

o.,olEnginonmiagUaivoeoityotconmoolPimido.SO, Ban162499Oel.od,,PL32816-2410

POEEMAILloadso, wny,aaRpogn*o,,oa,*otfodtm

FORPAX~Do RogeoLWoyoonUnlvom4kyofCeono.1PloolmIa407823-33(4

‘iJuiiisoisound experience

www.dur~soLcom

Continued on page 9


Pavement/Tnt~NoiseContinued from page 8

paper to allow understanding of Figure4. Figure 4 shows each listed categoryreferenced by the corresponding num-ber on the abscissa. Allowing thenumber 1 to be used as the best rank-ing allows individuals to understandthe ranking process more easily.However, it does not assist in graphicalrepresentation. Accordingly, data for-mailing was used to better present theresults. The ordinate of Figure 4 is apoint score that was derived by addingall the scores by category to determinethe maximum point total in each cate-gory. Adding one to this sum for eachcategory so that no values of zerowould occur, the actual values in eachcategory were then subtracted from themaximum value. This left the numberone need with the highest numericvalue, etc., and allowed for a morerepresentative presentation of theresu Its.

A review of Figure 4 shows that ingeneral, four categories of responsescould be determined. Using thisapproach, in the first tier of researchneeds would be: comparisons of soundlevels from common pavement sur-faces, safety considerationsof alternatepavement types, and maintenance andpavement service life of alternate pave-ment types (categories 1, 11 and 12,respectively). The second tier wouldconsist of: establishment of measure-ment method criteria, development ofFederal criteria and/or standards, andimpacts on sound levels compared by

Figure4. ResearchAreaNeeds

vehicle types (e.g., automobile vs.heavy truck) (categories 6, 8 and 10respectively). The third tier wouldinclude: results of less common pave-ment surfaces (e.g., exposed aggre-gate), impacts due to tining, develop-ment of new pavement types (e.g., rub-berized asphalt) and impacts on soundlevels caused by various tire types(e.g., studded tires) (categories 2, 3, 4and 9, respectively). Finally the fourthtier would include: comparison of trail-er (close-proximity) and pass-by meas-urements and impacts on vehicle inte-rior levels (categories 5 and 7).

In reviewing these tiers of responses,it can be seen that the first tier rein-forces the answers provided inQuestion 3 (first and second tierresponses). As such, impediments toimplementation and research needsmirror each other. It is also apparent

Figure 5. RelativeRankingofPavement/TireNoiseResearch

that the lowest ranked need, as couldbe expected, was the sound inside thevehicle. Of interest were two repeatedcategories supplied in the “other’selection: cost and longevity.

Question 5.In terms of other noise abatement

research for highways, pavement/tirenoise research is: The most important;Extremely important; Moderatelyimportant; Not very important; or, Laston the list.

A selection of one of the providedcategory was requested on the survey.It can be seen from Figure 5 that aboutone-half of the state DOTs thought theresearch need for pavement/tire noisewas moderate (the center category).All responses when ‘averaged” showthis central tendency. It could be con-cluded then that on a national level theresearch is needed, but not consideredthe most important noise researchneed.

Question 6.How should U.S. research efforts on

pavement/tfre noise be coordinated?The respondents were asked to

select one from the following cate-gories: through TRB, Al F04; throughFHWA; through University Centers;

Continued on page 13

Test drive theFHWA Highway Nol~ ~arrl~r D~lgriH~ndb~k

US Depanteeoot(C~version) on the web ot: of

www.Thewolljournol.com Mmiein*rattao

Lewis S. Goodfriend & AssociatesA ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERSIN ACOUSTICS

V V’~°~°~ www.lsga.com

OTtansportation noiseanalysis

• Environmental& industrialnoise~inalysss& control

Licensed Engineers

760 ROUTE lOWESTWHIPPANY,NJ07981

voice:973-560-0090fax: 973-560-1270

e-mail: info®lsga.com

Research Needs

200

150

~1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Category

Relative Importance

(2 22t/,) ~~2%~) (1389%)


Th~No~ ~rr~r Con~tru~t~nF~r~c~tAn updated look at potential noise barrier projects in the making. Thissurvey was provided by LEAP Assoc. International of

Florida, consultants to the precast concrete industry for projects in the transportation construction field.

For further infomation, contact Cindy Thomas, LE,4PAssociates International 11602 N 51st St, Suite 100, Tempkr Terrance, FL 33617, Tel. 813 988-6870*Parv 3 willbepublishedin thenextissue. Past1 waspublishedin the Nov/Dec2000issue (SW). The entiresurteyis availableon The wail Journalwebsfteat www.thewalljournal.com

2000 Soundwall Activity Survey (PART 2 of 3*)

StateDistrict!Region Location

BidDate Cycle Materils H X L Project Contact Info

IA -235 DesMoinesIA

-235 DesMoinesIA

-235 DesMoinesIA

-235DesMoines IA

235 DesMoinesIA

2001

2001

2003

2004

2005

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

PrecastConcret 4.5mx 1.33kmPanels

PrecastConcret 4.5mx 333mPanels

PrecastConcret 4.5m x 3.333kmPanels



Tony Gustafson,800 Lincoln Way,Ames, IA 50010,P:515-239-1430

Tony Gustafson,800 Lincoln Way, Ames, IA 50010,P:515-239-1430

Tony Gustafson,800 Lincoln Way,Ames, IA 50010,P:515-239-1430

Tony Gustafson,800 LincolnWay,Ames, IA 50010,P:515-239-1430

TonyGustafson,800 LincolnWay, Ames, IA 50010,P:515-239-1430

KS Des. No projectsto bid, in Des.orPD&E

KY 9-121.00KY 11 (Bath/Montgomery) 11-00

10-00

10-00

Unknown

Bid

Bid

Bid

Design

PrecastConcret 2 walls 6’ x 20’Panels each

PrecastConcret 12’ x 3,108’Panels

PrecastConcret 12’ x 4,135’Panels

Unknown Unknown

Mr. Omohundro,P0 Box 347, Flemingsburg,KY41041 P:606-845-2551

David Kratt, P0Box 37090,Louisville, KY 40233P:502-367-6411

David Kratt, P0 Box 37090, Louisville, KY 40233P:502-367-6411

Bill Gulick, Div. Of Des.,StateOffice Bldg. Frankfort,KY 40622P:502-564-3280

LA Des

Des

Des

Des

1-10 in New Orleans

1-10 & 1-12 BatonRouge

EssenLaneInterchange

Old HammondHwy, Baton RougePhase1

12-00

10-00

10-02

10-01

Bid

Des.

Des

Des.

Concrete 22’ x 2.2 miles

Concrete 24’- 26’ x 10miles

Concrete Unknown

Concrete 12’ - 14’ x 5milestotal forproject

JeffBurst,P0 Box 94245, BatonRouge,LA 70804-9245 P: 225-379-1356,F: 504-379-1351orReneChopinat BurkeKleinpeterInc. 504-486-5901

Jeff Burst,POBox 94245,Baton Rouge,LA 70804-9245 P: 504-379-1356,F: 504-379-1351or PhilipMeyersat GEC P: 225-612-3106

Philip Meyersat GECP: 225-612-3106or DebbieGuestat LA DOT P: 775-379-1534

JeffBurst,POBox 94245,Baton Rouge,LA 70804-9245 P:504-379-1356,F:504-379-1351 or JeromeLohmannat PECP: 225-612-3106

ME Hwy Des.

Turnpike

No projectsto bid, in Des.or PD&E


MD Env. Des.

Env. Des.

Env. Des.

Env. Des.

Env. Des.

Env. Des.

Env, Des.

Env. Des.

Env. Des.

Env. Des.

Env. Des.

US-29 HowardCountyColumbiaHills

1-495 PrinceGeorge’sCountyAuthVillage, Princeton/AndrewsManor

1-495 MontgomeryCountyWildwoodManor

1-495 MontgomeryCountyLongwood,

Bradley Manor, BarnettRd.

1-495 MontgomeryCountyForestGlen

1-495 MontgomeryCountyParkViewEstates

1-495 MontgomeryCountyBurningTreeEstates

US5O AnneArundelCountyRiverview/Lindamoor

1-83 Baltimore CountyLongford North

US5O PrinceGeorge’sCountyPrincetonSq. Ardmore

MD 695, Anne ArundelCountyHarrisHeightsMorris Hill

12-00

9-00

10-00

10-00

11-00

11-00

1-01

4-01

04-01

05-01

09-00

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Concrete 2,000LF

Concrete 4,000LF

Concrete 4,000LF

Concrete 8,000LF

Concrete 1,000 LF

Concrete 1,000LF

Concrete 6,000LF

Concrete 6,000LF

Concrete 3,000LF

Concrete 4,000 LF

Concrete 3,000LF

FredEisen,ProjectManager,707N. CalvertSt.,Baltimore,MD 21202P: 410-545-8598

FredEisen,ProjectManager,707 N. CalvertSt.,Baltimore,MD 21202P:410-545-8598

FredEisen,ProjectManager,707 N. CalvertSt.,Baltimore,MD 21202P: 410-545-8598

FredEisen,ProjectManager,707 N. CalvertSt.,

Baltimore,MD 21202 P:410-545-8598

FredEisen,ProjectManager,707 N. CalvertSt.,Baltimore,MD 21202 P:410-545-8598


FredEisen,ProjectManager,707 N. CalvertSt.,Baltimore,MD 21202 P:410-545-8598



FredFisen,ProjectManager,707 N. CalvertSt.,Baltimore,MD 21202P: 410-545-8598


~10 The Wall Journal January to May 2001 Issue No. 42

District!Region Location


Env.Division

Env.Division

Env.Division

Wakefield/Quincy

Boston(Dorchester)

Weymouth-Dukbury Rte. 3

Unknown

2001

2005-10

Bid

PD&E

PD&E

Concrete

ConcreteorWood

Concrete

14’ x 6000’

18’ x 1000’

UnderStudy

Michael Paienwonsky,10 ParkPlaza,Room 4260,

Boston,MA 02116,P: 617-973-8245

Michael Paienwonsky,10 ParkPlaza,Room 4260,Boston,MA 02116,P: 617-973-8245

Michael Paienwonsky,10 ParkPlaza,Room 4260,Boston,MA 02116,P: 617-973-8245

Univ.

North

North

Grand

SW


M-6/U5131 Interchange

M24

No projectsto bid, in Des.orPD&E

1-94 in City of Kalamazoo

Jan-OS

Jan-03

Jan-10

Des.

PD&E

PD&E

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

2m- 6mx5184m

3m - 4.5mx205m

Unknown

MohamadAlghurabi P: 517-373-7674

GeralynAyersP: 517-335-2635

JohnPolasek,1501 E. Kilgore Rd., Kalamazoo,MI

49001

Metro

Metro

Metro

Metro

Metro

Metro

Stage1 TH100GoldenValley Glenwoodto Duluth

StageII Crystal TH100Duluthto 40thAve.

Mississippi Ridge

1-35 W

StageIll & IVTH 100 40th to Franceandthento Robbinstate

TH61/1494Wakota Bridge

3-00

3-00

11-00

3-00

Ill - 2001IV -2002

2003

Bid

Bid

Bid

Bid

Des.

PD&E

BlueWoodLaminate

Blue WoodLaminate

BlueWoodLaminate

BlueWoodLaminate

BlueWoodLaminate

Unknown

6m x 4068m

6m x 3646m

10’- 15’ x 2500’

10’- 20’ x10,000’

Unknown

Unknown

JamesHansen,1500W.Co Rd. B-2, Roseville,MN55113P:651-582-1392 F: 651-582-1368

JamesHansen,1500W.Co Rd. 8-2, Roseville,MN55113P:651-582-1392F: 651-582-1368

JamesHansen,1500 W. Co Rd. B-2, Roseville, MN55113P:651-582-1392 F: 651-582-1368

JamesHansen,1500W.Co Rd. B-2, Roseville,MN55113P:651-582-1392F: 651-582-1368

JamesHansen,1500 W. Co Rd. B-2, Roseville,MN55113P:651-582-1392F: 651-582-1368

JamesHansen,1500W.Co Rd. B-2, Roseville,MN55113P:651-582-1392 F: 651-582-1368

6

6

1-435 & Rte 350 Interchange

1-43S- 1-470 - Rte 71 Interchange

1-70 @ Rte 94.

Route364

2002-03

2003-04

2004

02/01

PD&E

PD&E

PD&E

Bid

Unknown

Unknown

Concrete

Concrete

Unknown

Unknown

8’-l 0’ x 1,500’

2.4m - 5.5m x6,000m

SteveHamadi P:816-622-0474

SteveHamadi P:816-622-0474

BarryBergman,1590 WoodlakeDr. Chesterfield,MO63017 P: 314-340-4390

BarryBergman,1590 WoodlakeDr. Chesterfield,MO63017P: 314-340-4390


GreatFalls

Env. Svcs.



City ofSalisbury

Rdwy Des.

Rdwy Des.

Rdwy Des.

Rdwy Des.

Rdwy Des.

Rdwy Des.

Rdwy Des.

Rdwy Des.

Rdwy Des.

Rdwy Des.

Rdwy Des.

Rdwy Des.

Rdwy Des.

Rdwy Des.

Rdwy Des.

1-85, SalisburyNC 1-2511 CA

1-360DB DurhamCounty

l-2511CA RowanCounty

R-2633CANewHanoverCounty

R-2547CWake County

R-2246BCabarrusCounty

l-306C DurhamCounty

R-20809AWake County

R-20809AWake County

U-2524AB Guilford County

U-2524ACGuilford County

R-2248D

R-513CRobesonCounty

U-2524BAGuilford County

U-2519DA CumberlandCounty

U-3101CWakeCounty

11-00

11-00

11-00

09-00

06-03

After 2006Plans-i2/03

05-02

After 2006

After 2006

11-04

11-04

01-02

01-02

05-02

05-02

10-02

Des.

Bid

Bid

Bid

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

PD&E

Unknown

Brick

Pile Panelw/StoneFinish

Pile Panel

Pile Panel

Pile Panel

Brick

Concrete

Earth

Unknown

Unknown

Pile Panel

Pile Panel

Pile Panel

Pile Panel

Pile Panel

Unknown

19.4’ x 7,193’

16’ x 5,250’

16’ x 2,150’

? x 630m

? x 1,500’

15.9’ x 5,095’

3.4m x 1 20m

3.6m x 660m

8mx 3,950m

6m x 3,940m

1 2’-l 4’ x 4,130’

10’ x 425’

6m x 1,640m

6mx 1 ,920m

4m-6.5mx3,992m

Dan Mikkelson,City Engineer,P0 Box479, Salisbury,NC 28146P: 704-638-5200

Ron Allen, 1000 Birch RidgeDr., Raleigh,NC 27610

RogerThomas,1000 Birch RidgeDr., Raleigh,NC 27610

CathyHouser,1000 Birch RidgeDr., Raleigh,NC 27610

Kathy Lassiter,1000 Birch RidgeDr., Raleigh,NC 27610

GregBrew, 1000 Birch RidgeDr., Raleigh, NC 27610

RonAllen, 1000 Birch Ridge Dr., Raleigh,NC 27610

RonAllen, 1000 Birch RidgeDr., Raleigh,NC 27610

RonAllen, 1000 Birch RidgeDr., Raleigh,NC 27610

CathyHouser,1000 Birch RidgeDr., Raleigh,NC27610

CathyHouser,1000 Birch RidgeDr., Raleigh,NC 27610

ScottBlevins, 1000 Birch RidgeDr.,Raleigh,NC 27610




Jimmy Goodnight,1000 Birch RidgeDr., Raleigh,NC27610

No projectsto bid, in Des.Or PD&E

Dept. OfRds.

No projectsto bid, in Des. Or PD&E



Th~N~i~B~rr~rCon~tru~ii~nF~re~~t Continued from page 11

StateDistrict!Region Location


NH Manchester/AuburnNH Rte 101

edford NH Route101

Manchester1-293

Manchester1-293

Manchester1-293

Manchester1-293

Manchester/AuburnNH Route 101

Manchester1-293

10/01

Unknown

04/01

04/01

04/01

04/01

10/01

04/03

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

Des.

PD&E

Concretepostsw/ wood panels



Concretepostsw/wood panels




Concretepostsw/wood panels

12’- 14’ xl ,737’

5’- 16’ x 1,600’

6’ - 27’ x 1,800’

11’ - 28’ x 1,770

10’- 21’ x 2,300’

13’ - 20’ x 1,350’

12’ - 20’ x 2,022

- 18’ x 1,650’

CharlieHood, P0 Box483, Concord,NH 03302-

0483 P: 603-271-3226,F: 603-271-7199

CharlieHood, P0 Box 483, Concord,NH 03302-0483 P: 603-271-3226,F: 603-271-7199

Charlie Hood,P0 Box 483, Concord,NH 03302-

0483 P: 603-271-3226,F: 603-271-7199

Charlie Hood,P0 Box 483, Concord,NH 03302-

0483 P: 603-271-3226,F:603-271-7199

CharlieHood, P0 Box483, Concord,NH 03302-0483 P: 603-271-3226,F: 603-271-7199




NJ

HwyAuth.

1-80 (20)

1-80 (I)

1-80/95


Precast

Precast

Precast

18’- 22’ x ?

18’- 22’ x?

18’- 22’x ?

BobLee P:609-530-3813

BobLee P:609-530-3813

BobLee P:609-530-3813

NM CN2860- 1-40 10-00 Precast!PrestressedBarriers

12’- 15’ x23,000’

DennisValdez,7500 E. FrontageRd., Albuquerque,NM 87109P: 505-841-2712

NY 1

2

3

6

10

10

10

10


JuddRd. Rte.8 - Mid Set Rd.

No projectsto bid, in Des. orPD&E

1-290 YoungmanMemorial Hwy Amherst& Tona

Horseheads

Long Island Xway - Exit 36-40

SeafordOysterBay BetweenPSP&SouthernPkwy

Long Island XwayServiceRd. Exit 63 - 66

Long Island Xway ServiceRd.Exit 66-67

Winter -

00

Unknown

Unknown

12/00

12/00

07/02

12/02

Des.

PD&E

PD&E

Des.

Des.

PD&E

PD&E

ConcreteYet ToBe Detailed

Unknown

Unknown

Precast

Concrete

PrecastConcrete

PrecastConcrete

PrecastConcrete

S.Smx 650m

Unknown

3-4mx bOOm

6.1m x 3,532m

6.1m x 2,618m

5.4m x 300m

5.4m x 1 ,275m

PatriciaBliss, Regional Des.Eng.,207 GeneseeSt.Utica NY 13501.P: 315-793-2729,F:315-793-2400

SylviaJ. Jones,125 MainSt., Buffalo, NY 14203P:716-847-3421

Paul McAnany, 107 Broadway,Hornell, NY 14843,P:607-324-8438

Darrel I. Kost, StateOffice Bldg, VeteransHwy,

Hauppage,NY 11788P:516-952-6652F: 516-952-6939

DarrelJ. Kost, StateOfficeBldg, VeteransHwy.Hauppage,NY 11788P:516-952-6652F:516-952-6939

DarrelJ. Kost, StateOfficeBldg, VeteransHwy,Hauppage,NY 11788P:516-952-6652F: 516-952-6939

DarrelJ.Kost, StateOfficeBldg, VeteransHwy,Hauppage,NY 11788P:516-952-6652F: 516-952-6939

ND No projectsto bid, in Des,orPD&E

01-1 8

8

8

2

3

1

10

11

CLE-275-5-35

CLE/Ham-275-0-98/000

Ham/But-75-22-848/600

LUE - MaaumeeRiver

1-71 MedinaCo.




Westlake

Mentor

02-02

Jan-02

Unknown

FY 2003

S-DO

11-00

Summer-2003

PD&E

PD&E

Des.

PD&E

Bid

Des.

PD&E

Concrete/SoundAbsorb

Concrete/SoundAbsorb

Concrete/Lanscaping

Unknown

Concrete

Concrete

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

20’ x 7000’

10’ - 16’ x 3400’

Unknown

HansJindal P:513-932-3030

HansJindalP:S13-932-3030

GregWiekensonP:513-942-4700

David L. Lewis, FE.,District Env. Coordinator317 E. PoeRd.,Bowling GreenOH, 43402F: 419-353-1831,F :419-353.1468

Ken Wright, Plan. Dept., 906 N. ClarkeSt., Ashland,OH 44805 P:419-281-0513F: 419-281-0874

Mark Alan Carpenter,S500TransportationBlvd.,Garfield Heights,OH 44125P:216-S81-2333 x448F: 216-581-8

Mark Alan Carpenter,SSOOTransportationBlvd.,Garfield Heights,OH 4412SP: 216-S81-2333 x448F:216-581-8


Pavement/TueNoiseContinued from page 9

through national organizations (e.g.,ANSI); through international organiza-tions (e.g., ISO) or other.

The results here were somewhat sur-prising (See Firgure 6) with TRB Al F04be the most selected answer by far.FHWA was a distant second. Of inter-

est is that one response to other cate-gory was a combination of multipleorganizations. This is an interestingsuggestion because although coordina-tion would be difficult, a better use ofresources may occur.

Question 7.What role should A 1F04 take

regarding pavement / tire noiseresearch in the U.S.?

For this question, the individualresponding to the survey was request-ed to check all that applied for the fol-lowing choices: the lead; supportgroup; information clearinghouse; for-mal point of contact; none; and, other.

A review of Figure 7 shows that theAl F04 Committee on TransportationNoise and Vibration of TRB should bea leader, have a support group, andfunction as an information clearinghouse. No respondent thought Al F04should not have a role in the process.

Question 8.Do you have other comments or

questions that you think should be dis-cussed at the TRB, A 1F04 summermeeting regarding pavement / tirenoise?

The responses to this open endedquestion were many and varied. Themajor points made were again that reli-able numbers are needed, life cyclecosts must be considered and safety

Continued onpage 14

Coordination Lead20

ci)Q) 15(a)C0ci.(I)a)~ 100

a).0

z

0

Figure 6. Coordination Organization

PRECAST SOUNDWALL SYSTEMSWITH

FINISHES ON BOTH SIDES

ReflectiveOr Absorptive

OptimumNoiseAttenuation

Array OfColors& Textures

WithstandsThe TestOf TimeFromNaturalElementsMaintainingFinish

&StructuralIntegrity

Impressive Features,Durability & Beauty

On Both Sides

Concrete Impressions ~A t~ eeolp,,esscoee,oeToth.’wA,e, me

1-800-383-2123www.concreteimpressions.net

Make An ImpressionOn Your

Motorists & Residents

The Wall Journal January to May 2001 Issue No. 42

Pavement/TireNoise AIFO4 RoleContinued from page 13

aspects should always be considered.One interesting comment about safetyaspects was that if a quiet pavementsurface is any less safe, should it everbe built?

Conclusions from Survey

Proven survey methods were usedduring the analysis of the survey resultsto help determine the general opinionsof the state DOTs as related to pave-ment / tire noise abatement implemen-tation and research. Seventy-two (72)percent of the respondents thought thatpavement types (and surfaces) shouldbe considered for noise abatement.The needed reduction, in the opinionof the state DOTs, on how muchreduction should occur before pave-

ment surfaces are considered duringabatement was 3.9 dB(A). It should benoted that this goal is being realized inmany parts of the world as reported inthe literature. Reliable data on whichto make decisions was a key need.

Continued onpage 15

Soundsolutionsfor the transportation industry.


25

~ 20a)U)C0~.15a)

1:

0

Figure 7 — A1fi)4 Role

Visit us on-line at

LWWW.THEWALLJOLJRNAL.COM

Pavement/TireNoiseContinued from page 14

Also in this upper echelon of needswas cost data, data on the longevity ofacoustic treatments, and maintenanceinformation. The general trend is thatresearch is needed for pavement / tirenoise (moderate) but it is not the mostimportant nor the least important.Respondents generally felt that Al F04should take the lead in coordinatingthis research, supply support to theDOTs, and work as an informationclearing house.

Implications of TheseConclusions

The first implication from this workis that Al F04 needs to take a lead roleto help coordinate the research effortin the United States. This process hasbeen started but the’ level of activityshould be increased ~if this abatementtechnique is to be used.

The second implication is that stateDOTs are reluctant to explore thisabatement technique because of a lackof solid numbers. Variances in resultsfrom the same pavement treatmentsand surfaces have been documented.Europe would seem to have more suc-cess in reducing noise using pavementsurface and types than the UnitedStates. As described in the recentlycompleted NCHRP synthesisl thiscould be a result of variances in mate-rials, workmanship, and vehicle types.The solution to this problem would beto first normalize all data taken wherepossible to better explore why the suc-cesses and failures have occurred.Second, the normalized data should beput into a larger data base to providemore reliable data. The data basewould also help to point out whereresearch dollars should be spent tosupplement the available information.A data base similar for that recentlydone to determine reference energymean emission levels for the TrafficNoise Model would provide muchmore reliability. This would allow

overcoming a major impediment to theuse of this abatement measure.

An observation during the review ofthe questionnaires is that there seemsto be a lot of mis-information amongthe DOTs. This again emphasizes theneed for information distribution. Thismis-information seems to be particular-ly true regarding longevity of theacoustic surface treatment. Thelongevity and cost issues need to bebetter explored. Consider the follow-ing. Research has shown that whilesudden changes can occur, in generalopen graded asphalt surface treatmentmay act like dense graded after aboutsix yearsof service. Is the cost warrant-ed for this increased noise reductionover the short life between resurfacing?If we assume that the “old rule ofthumb” that every additional 1.5 dB ofinsertion loss requires about one addi-tional meter of wall height, and thatthe average cost of a barrier wall in theUnited States is $1 74 per square meterthen if the minimum desired abate-ment goal of 3.9 dB(A) is reached, thenover $452 per meter of roadway wouldbe available for the second overlay. Bythe time the third overlay is due itwould be time for normal resurfacingor if trends continue, major reconstruc-tion. These type of details should notbe overlooked during cost analysis andthe “whole picture” needs to beexplored.

Also, development of pavement sur-faces continue and more abatement isneeded in many areas where barriersare not reasonable or feasible. Quieterpavement may provide help and workin coordination with other abatementmeasures.

Ascanbe seenfromthisdiscussion,more work is neededon thispossibleabatementmeasureofthe future.

t’u’asoisound performance

www.durisol.com

TransportationResean~hBoardand

CanadianAcousticalAssociation

To Co-SponsorAcousticsConferencein Canada

October1,2and3,2001

The AcousticsConferenceinCanada2001 will be held at theNottawasagaInn locatedin

Alliston, Ontario, which is approximately45 minutes to an hour from the TorontoAirport. The conferencewill commenceon Monday October 1, 2001 andend onWednesdayOctober 3, 2001. Membersof theCanadian AcousticalAssociation(CAA) locatedin the Greater TorontoAreawill organizetheconferencespon-soredby the CanadianAcousticalAssociationwith the TransportationNoise sessionsCo-Sponsoredby theTransportation ResearchBoard (TRB).

The following technical areas arepro-posedto be included:

Industrial NoiseBuilding AcousticsandVibrationOutdoor SoundPropagationSpeechPerceptionOccupational Hearing LossHearing ProtectionAcoustic MaterialsUnderwaterAcousticsPhysiologicalAcousticsSoundQualityLegislation/Environmental NoiseComputerApplicationsCanadianStandards InstrumentationTransportation Related NoiseandVibriationCommunity Noise

Musical Acoustics

The emphasisfor the 2001Conferencewill beto ensurethat allareasof acousticsare represented.Thesessionswill include openingplenarylec-tures, invited andcontributed papers,panel discussionsand exhibits. In orderto ensurethat all areasof acousticsarerepresentedthe technical chairs are put-ting together a groupof highly skilled

Continuedon page 16


Continued from page 15

and motivated individuals to act as ses-

sion chairs. Theycan only be successfiilif the membership, including students,attend the conferenceand presentpapers.

AbstractsAbstracts of amaximumof 250 words

must be submitted by June 1, 2001.Theabstract shouldbe prepared and sent inaccordancewith the instructions appear-ing in this issueof CanadianAcoustics.

Submissionby e-mail is strongly encour-aged; files can be prepared in any wordprocessingsoftware. For thosewithoutaccessto e-mail, digital files on diskette

or papercopyshouldbemailedto theaddressgiven beiow. Notification ofacceptanceof abstractswill be sent to theauthors by June 20, 2001 along with aregistration form. Summarypapers aredue by July 31, 2001. This deadlinewillbe strictly enforced in order to meetthepublication scheduleof the proceedingsissueof Canadian Acoustics.

StudentsStudent participation at the CAA

2001 Conferenceis strongly encouraged.Awards areavailable to studentswhosepresentationsat the Conferencearejudged to be particularly noteworthy. Toqualify studentsmust apply by enclosingan Annual Student PresentationAwardform with their abstract. Students pre-sentingpapers may also apply for atravelsubsidy to attend the Conferenceif theylive at least 150 km from Alliston,Ontario. To apply for this subsidy, stu-dents must submit an Application forStudent Travel Subsidyincluded in thisissue.

AccommodationsAccommodationsand meetingspace

for the delegatesof the 2001 Conferencewill be at the NottawasagaInn(www.NottawasagaResort.com)locatedjust north of Toronto, Ontario. The

Conferencerate will be $110.00pernight. To reserveyour accommodation,pleasecontactthe Inn directly at (416)364-5068.

It is important to note that the roomsare only guaranteedfor the CAAConferenceup to July 1, 2001.After thatdate the rooms are subject to availability.This is extremelyimportant becausethere are not many alternative accommo-dations in the area.

ExhibitsA permanentexhibition showcasing

the latest technologyin acousticsandvibration equipment, instrumentation,materialsandsoftwarewill be opencon-tinuously during the Conference.

Spacewill be available for exhibits bycompaniesand organizations in the field

of acoustics.Sponsorshipof the breaksand/or lunches is also welcome.If youare interested in either of theseopportu-nities pleasecontact Dalila Giusti.

Important Dates

June1, 2001Deadlinefor submissionof abstracts

June20,2001Notification of acceptanceof abstracts

July1, 2001Deadline for guaranteedrooms

July31,2001Deadline for receipt of summary

papers& early registrationOctober1 to 3, 2001

Acoustics Conferencein Canada 2001

Conferencechair:Dalila Giusti, Jade AcousticsInc.545 North RivermedeRd. Ste203Concord, Ontario L4K 4H1(905) 660-2444,Fax: (905) 660-4110e-mail: [email protected]

Technical chairsTim Kelsall, Hatch AssociatesLtd.45 Meadowcliffe Dr.,Mississauga,Ontario,

Canada L5K 2R7(905) 403-3932,Fax: (905) 855-8270e-mail: [email protected]

andAlberto Behar,NoiseControl2800 SpeaknianDr.Scarborough, Ontario, Ml M 2X8Tel/fax: (416) 265-1816e-mail: [email protected]

Transportation Noise sessionschair

Soren Pedersen,TheWall Journal26 Warrender Aye,

Etobicoke, Ontario, CanadaM9B5Z2

Telephone (416) 231-4514,

For additional information visitwww.caa2001.com

orwww.thewalljournal.com

AcousticsConference

SubscriptionsSubscriptionsto The Wall Journal are free of chargein theUnited Statesand Canadato

I .~. . , Z±~S-~~O.5

%.Sfl.SS.O 0.1114 1.111_Il UflL%..Ittfl, LU ~UVVLLL

p

vate individuals)areavailableat thefollowing rates:

1 year (6 issues) 2 years (12 issues)U.S. Subscribers: $30.00(US$) $57.00 (US$)Canadian Subscribers: S48.00 (Cdn$) $92.00(Cdn$) including gst

All others $53.00 (US$) not available

Back Issues (#1 to #41)U.S. orders: $6.00 each (US$)Canadian orders: $10.00 each (Cdn$) including gst.All others $8.00 each (USS)

Pleasecontact useor refer to our website at www.thewalljournal.com for a completelisting of all thearticles in our back issues,

Advertising RatesDisplay and website advertising ratesand sizesarecontainedin our Advertising Rate

ri

Pleasesendall orders andenquiriesto:

Tel: (416)231-4514Fax~(416)231-4564 Email: [email protected]


f TRANSPDRTA11DN RESEARCH BC3ARD CDMMrrrEE Al F04 NEwS 1Mike StaianoReceivesHarter Rupert Award for BestPaper

Special Report from the 80thAnnual Meetingof the TRB

January7-11, 2001,

Washington,DC.

M Ike Stainao was honored atthe Al F04 committee’s annu-al dinner in Washington DC,

as this year’s recipient of the HarterRupert Award for the best paper ontransportation-related noise.Congratulations Mike!!!

Entitled “Comparison of Light-Railand Bus Transit Noise ImpactEstimates per FTA and APTACriteria”, the paper examines theGeorgetown Branch Transitway! Trailwhich was proposed as a combinedtransportation facility and hiker/bikertrail using a former railroad right-of-way. The Transitway would link theBethesda and Silver Spring, Md. cen-tral business districts and be developedby the Maryland Mass

Transit Administration (MTA) togeth-er with the Montgomery Co.Department of Transportation. At thetime of this evaluation, three alterna-tives were considered:

o Railway serviced by light-rail vehi-cles.

o Busway serviced by diesel buses,or

o Busway serviced by dual-propul-sion (electric motor/diesel engine)buses,

The origin of the Transitway propos-al dates to 1985 when CSX, which hadbeen using the Georgetown Branchline for freight operations since 1910,announced the cessation of service.Montgomery Co. acquired the right-of-way in 1988. The Montgomery CountyCouncil in 1989 approved the com-bined trolley/trail use of the right-of-way. Work was begun on the projectby MTA in 1990 but was halted due to

budget constraints. In 1994, the studieswere reactivated by MTA with theintent of obtaining federal funding--necessitating the preparation of a DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement(DEIS). The initial environmental noiseevaluation was performed using theAmerican Public Transit Association(APTA) Guidelines. When workresumed, the Federal TransitAdministration (FTA) GuidanceManual was available. Consequently,noise impacts were assessed via meth-

ods from both documents to maintaincontinuity with previous work.


Mike Staiano receivingthe HarterRupert Awardfor BestPaper for 2001 during the TRB meet-ing in Washington, DC.

t)uizisoiabsorbtionwith style

(905)521-0999

The Wall Journal January to May 20&1 Issue No. 42

TRB A 1 F1J4 NEws C~nt~kvipa~e77

Rudy Hendriks Awarded Official TRB Emeritus Status

Rudy Hendriks (left) receivinga token ofappreciation from GreggFleming (right) dur-ing the award ceremony

D uring the main committee sessionon Thursday, TRB officials immor-talized long-time AlF04 committee

member Rudy Hendriks. Rudy was provid-ed official TRB emeritus status. Some ofRudy’s many accomplishments are listed inthe letter that was drafted on behalf of thecommittee by Keith Jones. This letter alongwith the committee’s unanimous vote (infavor) led to Rudy being awarded TRBemeritus status. Rudy joins GrantAnderson and Eric Stusnick as the commit-tee’s only members with emeritus status.

Anyone wishing to nominate other indi-viduals for emeritus status should contactGregg Fleming at (617) 494-2372. As a com-mittee, Gregg has established a goal ofnominating at least one member each year.

GreggFleming A 1F04 Chairman

T RB will hold a researchneeds

conferencein the fall of 2001.As you know, very few com-

mittee members have been able toattend past conferences.Consequently,I think it is importantfor us as a committee to have ourstatementsin fairly good shape prior

to the fall conferencesoattendeescanbestrepresent the committee. You will seethisreflected in the attached material. Alsoattached, you will find severalstatements

as they currently exist. Note the com-pletenessofthe attachedstatementsarebyno meansconsistent,but I have included

them to assist folks in preparing com-ments for the Summer meeting in NewOrleans. If you have any suggestionsforimprovements, pleasesubmit them to me

before July 1, 2001, if you are not attend-

ThomasL Weck August24,2000TRB Section F Chai~on

DearMr. Weck,

It is a pleasurefor theCommitteeA1FO4, Transportation-RelatedNoiseandVibration, oftheTransportationResearchBoard(TRB), tonominateMr. RudyHendrilcs for EmeritusMembership.Mr.Hendrikshasbeenanactiveparticipantfortwo decadesin TRB noisecommitteeactivities. During thisperiodhis conscientiousapproachhasnotonly resultedin numerouscontributionsto theCommitteebutalso tomanyrelatedtransportationnoiseresearchandpolicy activitiesthroughoutthe UnitedStates,particu-larly in theStateofCalifornia. It shouldbementionedthat his contributions have beenconsistentlyofhighmerit, stringentlyobservingthebasicprinciplesofscimtific investigation.

In the last 20 years, Mr. Hendriks hasbeena regularparticipant at theTRE annualmeetings,aswell asthesummer meetingsof A1FO4. Following are examplepresentations,papers and other activitieshe has par-

ticipated in orprovided under theaegisof TRB:

“Active NoiseControlTests”,73rd Annuai MeetingoftheTransportation ResearchBoard, Januai3

r

1994,1992Field Evaluation ofAcousticalPerformanceof ParallelHighway NoiseBarriers in California. It

waspublished in Transportation ResearchRecord1366,“Heavy Truck NoiseEmission Levelson Gradesin California”, 65th Annual Meetingof the

Transportation ResearchBoard, Januasy1986. It waspublished in Transportation ResearchRecord1058.“CaltransExperienceswith EarthborneVibration” (with Harano M), 64thAnnual Meetingof the

Transportation ResearchBoard, January 1985. . It waspublished in Transportation ResearchRecord

1033.“CaliforniaVehide NoiseEmissionLevels” 64thAnnualMeetingoftheTransportation ResearchBoard,January 1985. It was published in Transportation ResearchRecord10331982Evaluation ofNoiseBarriers.(with Harano M), It was publishedin Transportation Research

Record865.“Measuring ExcessAttenuation of Traffic NoiseDue toGroundEffects, or In search ofthe Elusive

Alpha”, 1993summermeetingJuly!1-14, 1993,Berkeley, California.

As anAssociateTransportation Engineer at California Departmentof Transportation(Caltrans), Mr.Hendriks, in addition to playing a key role in a number of educationalstudiesin the area oftransportation.related noise,wastheauthor ofthe TechnicalNoiseSupplementthatwas published along with TrafficNoiseAnalysisProtocol by Caltrans.

Mr. Hendeiks is regarded by his peersas a premier researcherin thefield oftransportation.relatedacoustics. He haseagerlysharedhis inexhaustivecreativity,methodsofinnovationandscientificrigorwiththeTIllS Noisecommunity. On behalfofcommitteeA1FO4, it is my truepleasureand privilege to nomi-nateMr. Rudy Hmdriks for theTRB EmeritusMembership.

If you anyquestions regardingthisnomination, pleasecontactme at thetelephonenumber listed below.

ResearchNeedsStatementsto be Readyby Fall 2001

Continuedon page 19


TRB Al F04 NEwscbnlinLdnm1pa,,~e19

ing the meeting.

A1FO4 RESEARCHNEEDS

STATEMENTS (DRAFT)I. HIGHWAYNOISEThe following presentsa compilation ofproposedresearchneedsstatementsrelat-ed to the subjectofhighwaynoise. Thiscompilation includes 1) needsalreadyidentified in the last TRBConferenceonEnvironmental Research Needs inTransportation hdd in November,1996,but not yetaddressed,and2) newlypro-

posedneedsstatements.

Carry-over Items from 1996ConferenceReport

1. Atmospheric Effects on HighwayTraffic NoisePropagation

Problem Statement: With the immi-nent release of the Federal HighwayAdministration’s Traffic Noise Model(FHWA TNM), atmospheric effectsremain the largestsourceof error in high-way noise modeling. The absence ofatmospheric effects in the TNM degradethe accuracy of predictions directly(through refraction) and indirectly, sinceatmosphericsare interrelated with groundeffects, as well as noise barrier insertionloss.

Research Objective: The objective ofthis research is to develop appropriatealgorithms that can be included in the

TNM to allow for more accuratemodel-ing of atmosphericeffects onnoisepropa-gation.2. Benefits of Reduced Vehicle Noise

(This is to be incorporated into needsstatementre: tire noise)

Problem Statement: Traffic noise isbothersome to adjoining uses and is apoint of resistancein expanding roadwaycapacity. Noisemitigation currently con-sists of noise barriers, with varying effec-tivenessand questionableaestheticconse-quences.

ResearchObjective: Identify and meas-ure the benefits of quieter vehicles.Technologyexiststhat could be employedto produce significantly quieter vehicles.

If a substantial portion of the fleet weremade quieter, traffic congestionwouldbecomelessbothersome, a broader rangeof adjacent uses would be appropriate,

and noise barriers would not be needed.Information on these and other factorswould be useful in the eventof considera-tion of a new noise standard for vehicles.3. Defining Substantial Noise Impacts(This topic has apparently beenaddressed)

Problem Statement: In addressingnoise impacts of proposed highway proj-ects, substantial increases must beaddressed. However,FFIWA has no crite-ria to define substantial increases. TheStateHighwayAgencies(SHAS) have var-ied values.

Research Objective: Assess howFHWA’s Washington, Regional, andDivision Offices define substantialincreasesin noise. Also, review the SI-IAcriteria. Make the information available,perhaps to obtain a consensuson a range

of dB increasesto causeaconsideration ofabatement.4.Measurementof the Effect of HighwayNoise Barriers on Air PollutantConcentrations

Problem Statement: Air pollution andnoisefrom highways are transported intothe adjoining neighborhoods. Barriershave been and are being installed toreduce the noise levels. These barriersalso have an effect on the transport of airpollution into the adjacent neighbor-hoods; however, the magnitude of theinfluence of thesebarriers has not, to ourknowledge, been measured.

Rrsearch Objective: Measure air pollu-t:uln concentrations (i.e., carbon monox-

ide) on both sidesof selectednoisebarri-ers and, preferably, obtain concentrationdata for thoseareas before the noisebarri-ers were installed. The CO concentrationwould be measuredvia bagsampling (i.e.later analysis by non-dispersive infrared

spectroscopy) and battery-operated sam-pling pumps. The measuredCO concen-trations could be comparedwith existing

air pollution dispersion models to deter-mine what modifications would be

required of these models to take intoaccountthe installation ofthe noise barri-ers. Also, it would be possibleto incorpo-rate the measurementof noise levelsinto

this researchproject.5. Mitigation of Nighttime Construction

Noise (Clarification of specific areasofneed is required; i.e. identification ofsources,mitigation, noiseand vibration?In addition, referencewas made to an

nchrp synthesis report as a possibleresource.)

Problem Statement: Many states per-form constructionwork at night to reducetraffic congestion.Noisefrom theseactiv-ities significantly affect nearby residentsin urban areas.

Research Objective: Determine cost-effective, temporary methods to reducenoise from construction operation andequipment-especially “impact” type con-

struction methods.6. Noiseand Vibration Monitoring Priorto, During, and After Construction (Arevised statement will be submitted byMr. WinLindemanon this topic - seeendlist.)

Problem Statement: Many times, noiseand vibration are monitored and/or pre-dicted during the E.I.S. process duringconstruction. After construction, noiseand vibration are not consideredunlessacomplaint is registered.

Research Objective: Review and cata-logue existing methodologiesfor quanti-fying and assigning values to wetlandattributes. Make field investigations,

apply the methodologies,make pre- andpost-construction evaluations, and com-

pare the methodologies.7. Physics of Noise Within the UrbanHighway Center (abridged from 1996report)

Problem Statement: The number andtypes of vehicles traveling our highwayshas created a corresponding increase ofnoise generated. Noiseabatement tech-niques have been developedto reduce theimpacts of noisegenerationwithin trans-portation corridors. The continuingincreaseof noise within the corridor hasbeen considered too complex to modeleffectively in three-dimensional space.The transportation corridor is traditional-ly treated as two-dimensional rather than

a three-dimensionalspacefor noiseabate-ment engineering. Research is neededtocharacterizethe dynamicsof highwaycor-ridor noise. This researchwould analyze

the physics of urban highway noise as toits typical specific componentsand their

frequency,intensity, pitch, andduration.Analytic characterizations of noiseshouldconsider highway corridor itself as three-dimensionalspaceoverlapping contiguousproperty. Thiswould beasimilar model-ing approach to air pollution studies

Continued onpage 20


TRB Al F1J4 NEwsci~nu~dncvnp~ge19

assessingpollution indices extendingbeyond the highway corridor.

Research Objective: The investigationof urban highway noise physics wouldinclude: 1) Empirical measurementandcharacterization of componentnoisesgen-erated within urban transportation corri-dors using selectedcorridors with a vari-ety of typical noise abatementtreatmentsin place. Measurementswould be con-ducted both at ground level and aboveground to establish the three-dimensionalphysics of the soundwaves.2) Identifying

theelementsof the noisegeneratedwhichhave greatest potential for abatementresearch, those which have the leastopportunityfor control beyond thosereg-ulations currently in force, and thosewhich havethe most enduring effectwhen

reduced. 3) Creation of a “noise sourcemodel” for the type and duration of the

noise components identified, treatingthem as sound waves spreading dynami-cally through spaceas a function of time.

4) Utilization of a spatial informationmodeling system to develop dynamicmaps of componentsound wavesmovingthrough space. Noise abatement proce-dures would be modeled as surfaces ofvaryingdegreesof “roughness” which thesoundwavesflow.8. Projected Traffic Volume andAttendance Noise Level Verification(The consensusof thegroup was to dropthis statement.)

Problem Statement: State HighwayDepartments and TransportationAuthorities are constructing increasingnumbers of noise barriers to mitigate

highway project impacts. The design isbased, in part. on traffic volumespredict-ed to 20 years beyond construction. Arethe predicted levelsaccurateand if so, are

the correspondingnoiselevelsaccurate?ResearchObjective: Conduct literature

review of traffic prediction verificationsfor interstate highway projects. Conducttraffic volumeand mix classifications oninterstate highways which are in opera-tion at least twenty (20) years andcom-

pare the results j volumes predicted inthe design phase.~If possible,this shouldbe done where noise barriers have beenconstructed so the predicted traffic vol-

umesand noiselevelscan,becomparedto

20

actual counts and readings. The study’sgoalwould be to determineif our predic-tion methods are reliable, or to identifywhat factors should be modified toimprove prediction technology.9. Using RecycledMaterials in NoiseWallConstruction

Research Objective: Develop a guid-

ance manual for municipalities and smallbusiness enterprises to promote thegreater development and utilization ofcommonlyavailable andrecycledmateri-als as noise barriers. The manual shouldinclude adescription of materials suitablefor use as barriers; discuss methods forforming materials into suitable shapesforuse as barriers; and provide a guide oncostcomparison to aid selection.

New Items1. Highway Traffic NoiseEmissionsfromthe Underside of Bridge Structures

Problem Statement: Receptors adja-centto bridge structuresare often subject-ed to undesirable noise levels even afternoise barriers are constructed on thestructure. It is unclear whether suchemissionsare causedby vibration of thestructure deck, and whether differentstructure designs(open beam, box girder,reinforced concrete slab, etc.) may be afactor. The problem is to determine themechanismsand/or sources of the noiseemissions,and if there are ways to miti-gate the situation. A related side issuerelatesto the degreeof influence that mayexist due to the openmedian areabetweenparallel bridges, and how this may influ-enceoverall levelsas well.

Research Objective: Determine thesourceor sourcesof noise/vibration emis-sionsfrom bridge structures, and quantifydifferences that may be associatedwithvarious bridge designs. Determine feasi-ble mitigation measures, which may

include a determination of the bestdesignapproachesto minimize structure noise.

Submittedby: HarveyKnauer,EnvironmentalAcoustics

2. Method for In-Situ Testing of NoiseBarrier SoundAbsorption Qualities

Problem Statement: During the con-struction of a noise barrier, the quality

and physicalcharacteristicsof everycom-ponent that arrives or is constructed onsite, can and usuallyare verified by theowner. This verification can take theform of either visual examination, struc-


turalcalculations,or labtesting. Theonlycharacteristic assumedto meet acceptancecriteria without testing on a regularbasisis sound absorption. This property isusually only verified by lab testing when

the product is introduced to the agencyfor initial acceptance.Ideally, it would bepreferable to be able to test soundabsorp-tion of awall systemfor eachinstallation.This can not be done currently in the

absenceof an efficient and effectivemethodof in-situ acousticaltesting,eitherat the manufacturing plant, as product is

delivered, or after installation. An in-situtesting methodwould also assistin moni-toring the performance of installed soundabsorptive barriers as they age,and couldserveas a tool to detectearly deteriorationof absorptive materials.

ResearchObjective: Developan effi-cientand effectivemethodfor field testingnoisebarrier systemsfor sound absorptionqualities.

Submittedby:SorenPedersen,The Wall Journal

3. Develop Standards for Tire/NoiseCharacteristics of Pavements

Problem Statement: There have been

at least6-9 dBA differencesin pavementsbasedontheir characteristics. A draft ISOstandard has been developedwithout anyUS testing. There is no standard tire fornoise testing. Quiet pavements can bedevelopedwithout affecting skid resist-ance.

i~esearchObjective: Developstandardsfor testing and characterizing tire/noiseproperties of pavements.

Submittedby: MichadMcNerney,UniversityofTexas

4. Tire/Road NoiseTire/road interaction noise is the pri-

mary source of noise at highway speedsfor passengercars and trucksandone oftheprimary causesof environmentalnoisein cities. European trials, which havecon-

centrated primarily on pavement solu-tions, have found that a 10 dB reductionin noise generationis possiblewith some

advancedporous highway and rubberizedhighway concepts. This eliminates orreduces the need for noise barriers andwill reduce public resistanceto futureincreasesin highwaydensity.

Europeantechnologyis still indevelop-ment to improve durability and furtheroptimize the noise reduction effect. In


TRB Al F04 NEwsGitinuedñmipage19

parallel, US researcheffort is required to:o Adapt European technology to the

US. European approachesdo not directlytranslateto US constructiontechniquesor

durability and safety standards.Adaptationandtestingof theseapproach-esfor US applicationis needed.

oThere is potential additional benefitin looking at the fundamentals of tirebehaviorandtire/roadinteractionto bet-ter understandnoisegenerationto furtheroptimize tire/road behavior to reducenoise. Betterunderstandingof thenoisegenerationmechanismis required.

Submittedby Bob Bernhard,

Purdue UniversityInstitute forSafe,Quiet, andDurable Highways

5. Title: Highway Construction Noiseand Vibration Impact Criteria andMitigation techniques

Problem Statement: Most stateDOTsaddress construction noise andvibrationimpacts on a case by case basis as theyarise, usually during the constructionphase. It is desirable that early identifica-tion andmitigation for potential impactsbe addressedin theProject

Developmentstage. However,specific

criteria to identify potential impacts havenot beendevelopedon anational or inter-national basis. Therefore, researchneedsto be conducted to addressthis void.

Research Objective: The objective ofthis research project would be to reviewexisting highway construction noise andvibration impact criteria that are beingused throughout the US andother coun-tries andthen proposea setof criteria thatcan be applied uniformly across the US,similar to the NAC developedby FHWAfor traffic noiseimpact assessment.

Submittedby: WINLINDEMAN,Florida DOT

6. Highway vehicle sourcenoisedistribu-tion (i.e., expansion of Florida AdanticWork)7. TNM performance improvement withirregular terrain

Submittedby:Mike Staiano,StaianoEngineering

8.Jake brake data synthesisSubmittedbyMikeStaiano,StaianoEngineering

II. RAIL NOISE

1. Transfer Mobility Test MethodsFor example, we have found that you

can get awaywith a relatively low coher-ence in transfer functions and still havegooddata as longasyou havea large num-ber of averages. That is, how low can thesignal be in the noise floor and still beacceptable? In addition, we have beenthinking about using shakerswith aswept-sinesignal or the use of MLS orother modern signal processing tech-niquesasalternativetest methods

SubmittedbyDaveCoate,Acentech

2. Locomotive Warning Horn NoiseCriteria Development

Acentech and several other consult-ing/researchgroups have beenworking onmajor railroad merger projects over thelast severalyears. In particular,Acentechworked on the Union Pacific/SouthernPacific Merger and conductedthe follow-on noise mitigation studies in Wichita,Kansasand Reno, Nevada. Major con-

cernsregarding locomotivewarning hornnoise were raised in these two cities.Recently we completed the ConrailAcquisition ElS-one of the largest noiseElS efforts to date-thestudy areawas theeasternhalf of the U.S. More recently we

worked onthe Canadian National/IllinoisCentral and the BNSF/CN Merger. Thespecific noise issue at the heart of these

studies is locomotive warning hornsoundings at grade crossings whereincreasesin train traffic (hence horn

soundings) could cause a noise impact.The distance to the 65 dBA Ldn noisecontour can extend as far as 500 to 1000feet from the grade crossing and canencompassalarge number of homes.TheSurface Transportation Board (STB-the

oversight agencyfor these mergers) cur-rently usesanoiseanalysisthreshold of65dBA Ldn and a 3 dBA Ldn increase.However, the STB environmental rulesdo not refer to this threshold as a thresh-old for significant noise impact. Duringthe courseof our studies,we were askedby the STB to research if thesecriteriacould be used to determine significantimpacts, or if another more suitable crite-ria should be used. The FAA usesa 1.5dBA Ldn

increaseat 65 dBA Ldn as significance

criteria. The 1.5 dBA Ldn increase isbased on a 3 percent increase in peoplehighly annoyed. We applied the same3percent increase to the rail “Schultz”

curvesat 65 CIBA Ldn and found that theallowableincreasewould rangefrom 2 to

4.2 dBA. That is, thedose-responsedatadoes support the premise that railroadnoise is lessannoying than aircraft noise,

and also supports the 651÷3dBA Ldnthreshold currently usedby STB.

We reviewed the does-responsedatauponwhich the Schultz curve and its vari-ations are based and none included loco-motive warning horn noise. We thinkthat is a major gap in the supportingresearch for these merger projects. Itcould be, for example, that the “startle

effect” of thesehorns would result in a 1dBA allowable increase. Or perhaps theLdn is the wrong metric to use. Webelieve that a comprehensiveattitudinalsurvey/noise measurement programshould be conducted to address theseissues

SubmittedbyDaveCoate,Acentech3. Vibration “Schultz” CurveDevelopment

Acentech has been conducting vibra-tion studies for the MBTA to address

recent claims of increasedvibration byBeacon Hill residents in Boston. The

MBTA uses a prioritization method torankorder mitigation effectiveness/severi-ty of the problem for the Red Line, BlueLine, and Attelboro Commuter Line. Averyimportant keypoint in theseretrofit(analogousto theType II studiesfor high-way noise) projects is the determination

of the mitigation effectiveness,or “bangfor the buck.” The noisemitigation prior-itization is relatively straightforward sinceit relies on the well-established “Schultz”curve for noise. However, a well-estab-lished dose-responsecurve does not existfor vibration. Intuitively, people’s reac-tion to vibration should be analogoustonoise--i.e.,energy should correlate betterwith annoyance than maximum level.

However, existing vibration standards aresimply based on maximum level. Wethink that this constitutesa major hole inthe supportive researchfor the transporta-

tion noiseandvibration field. We recom-mend that a comprehensive attitudinal

survey/vibration program be conductedtoprovide this neededbasicresearch

SubmittedbyDaveCoate,Acentech

4. Data synthesis for vibration insertionloss afforded tie and ballast trackwork

Cbntinued onpage 22


TRB Al F04 NEwsOlffnLLd/Iompa.ge 21

with ballast mats,tie boots, and trenchesSubmittedby Mike Staiano,

StaianoEngineering5. Tire Shreds for Ground VibrationControl

SubmittedbyJim Nelson, WilsonIhrig6. Effects of Wheel Hardness andMetallurgy on Wheel Squeal Noise

ControlSubmittedbyJim Ndson, Wilson Ihrig

7. Incorporation of Rail NoisePredictionin TNM

SubmittedbyJim Ndson, Wilson Ihrig8. Effectivenessof Quiet Zones

Submitted by Jim Nelson,Wilson Ihrig9. High Speed Train Wheel/Rail NoiseControl

SubmittedbyJimNelson, WdsonIhrig10. Rail Corrugation NoiseControl

SubmittedbyJimNdson,Wilson Ihrig11. Update of Attitudinal Response toWheelRail Noisein Transit Corridors

SubmittedbyJim Nelson,Wilson Ihrig12. Wheel Rail SquealSubmittedbyJimNelson,Wilson Ihrig

HI. AIRCRAFT NOISE1. Researchon Helicopter noise impactsto the community

Helicopter and tiltrotor aircraft present

more complex noise characteristics thando fixed wing aircraft. This complexitydirectly impacts the manner in whichtheir noise must be modeled. Part of thecomplexity is the highly directional natureof the generatednoise. For instance theadvancing side (side on which the rotor ismoving forward) is usually louder thanthe retreating side (side on which therotor is moving backwards). Also rotarywing noiseis dependenton the flight con-dition, suchas descent,and the resultantblade-vortex interaction (BVI). BVI pro-duceslouder levelsforward of the aircraftthan to it’s sidesor rear. Current aircraftnoise models, such as the FAA’sIntegrated Noise Model (INM), theMilitary’s NoiseMap, and the FAA’sHelicopter NoiseModel (HNM), do notinclude these important dependencies.NASA’s Rotorcraft NoiseModel (RNM)does include these characteristics if it isreflected in the source noise data that is

inputted into the program. The RNMsourcedata requirements are significantlymore complicated than those for fixedwinged aircraft. Thus, research isrequired to develop sourcedata for rotarywing aircraft so that their unique noise

characteristics can be appropriately mod-eledand their noise impacts can be prop-erly accounted for in community noiseimpactsassessments(Submitted by Micah

Downing, Wyle Labs).2. Enroute AircraftNoise

SubmittedbyNealPhilips,MWAA3. Low Frequency Noise (dose response,criteria, etc.)

Submitted by Grant Anderson,HMMH4. Low Level Noise MeasurementandImpact Criteria beyond65 dB DNL

Submittedby Micah Downing, WyleLabs5. Reverse Thrust noise and directivitybehind start of takeoff roll

Submitted by Mike McNearny,University of Texas

6. Aircraft sourcenoise reduction7. Using GPS to reduce aircraft noiseimpacts

8. Useof newrouting structures and oper-ational proceduresto reduce aircraft noise

IV. OTHERPLACEHOLDERS1. Land use compatibility

2. National park noiseneeds3. Definition of LAeqlhr criteria for off-

peak periods (e.g., evening, night, andearlymorning)SubmittedbyMikeStaiano,StaianoEngineering

4. Simple construction site noise predic-tion procedure (e.g., TNM geometryinput interface with simpler propaga-

This year’s annual summer meetingwill be held at the Omni RoyalOrleans Hotel right in the heart of

the French Quarter. A block of roomshas been reserved for meeting partici-pants at a special rate of $89.00 plus taxfor single and $99.00 fordouble accom-modations, per night. The rate and roomavailability are guaranteed up to June20, 2001 - so please make your hotelreservations early and be sure to men-tion that you are attending the “TRBConference.” For reservations call 1-800-THE-OMNI or 504-529-5333.

Anyone interested in either attendingthe meeting, securing exhibit space orsponsoring special events (breaks,reception, lunches, etc.) are asked tocontact Andrea Goldstein at theVolpe Center at (617) 494-2018 as

soon as possible since opportunities arelimited. Those wishing to provide pres-entation of papers are asked to contactMall Murello of Lewis S. Goodfriend& Associates at (973) 560-0090

This year, barrier manufacturers, sup-pliers and contractors are invited to takepart in a very special “Virtual NoiseBarrier Tour” and give presentations onacoustical and non-acoustical issues andtheir experiences related to barrier man-ufacturing, construction, and mainte-nance (an open panel discussion wouldfollow). This Virtual Tour will be hostedby Soren Pedersen (The Wall Journal)and Harvey Knauer (EnvironmentalAcoustics, Inc.) Anyone interested inpresenting are asked to contact Soren formore details at (416) 231-4514.

TRB A1FO4 COMMITTEE 2001 SUMMER MEETINGNew Orleans, Louisiana - July 22-25, 2001

For the latestin formation on thesummer meeting,

visit theThe Wall Journal atwww.thewafljoumal.com

t1u~ilsoia unique produd

a unique company(905)521.0999 www.durisol.com


. COLLABORATION - THE NEXT STEP IN e-COMMERcE by Steven Desrocher JNobody can complain that information

isn’t available. There is now somethinglike 1.5 billion pages on the web -

enough information tofill a bookshelf morethan1,300 kilometres long. And that does not countthe vast number of pages in the hidden web -

pagesnot yet catalogued by search engines. No,information is decidedly not the problem.Finding the right information is something else.

The information highway is paved with goodintentions. What it really needs are some goodroad maps. And that’s where collaborationcomes in.

Creating the Map: When The RoadAuthority (also known as TRA) was first estab-

lished by Ontario Good Roads Association in1997, its role was that of an information portal -

a point of entry to the world wide web wherecustomers and suppliers could exchange infor-mation about products and services for publicworks.

It was, says Steve Desrocher, who managesThe Road Authority a much-needed service.Members could search for information on, say,guide rails, and find not only technical informa-tion and standards but also a list of memberssupplying the product with links to their websites.

“People need information that is pertinent,”claims Desrocher. “It’s fine to do a search on theweb for information about asphalt cement sup-pliers. Not much use to find that the supplier isin Australia. Using TRA, our members wereconfident that our database had products andservices designed to meet Ontario requirements- information that they could act on.”

When TRA first went live, it averaged nomore than 20 hits a day. By 1999, The RoadAuthority had 1,200 members and was receiv-ing up to 50,000 hits a year.

Next Step - Collaboration: Informationportals do a good job of providing access toinformation but make few claims about theapplicability of the information.

By the middle of 2000, The Road Authorityrecognized that it now had the critical massneeded to take information management to thenext level.

‘There’s almost too much information avail-able, certainly too much for any one person ororganization to assimilate,” says Desrocher. “Theidea of collaboration makes a lot of sense. Iforganizations with a common interest sharetheir knowledge and experience, it becomes amuch easier job to pull the best informationtogether.”

With the private sector already on board asmembers, The Road Authority was now readyto link up municipal users. Four regional munic-ipalities (Durham, Peel, Halton and York), threecities (Toronto, Mississauga and Brampton) andthe Ontario Ministry of Transportation have

agreed to use the system.The Road Authority will now act not just as a

portal through which customers and supplierscan exchange information but also as a deposi-tory for testing, standards and relevant technicaldocuments within a comprehensive database.

A municipality, for example, will now beable to maintain its own supplier database onThe Road Authority’s server and link those prod-ucts and services to relevant technical specifica-tions and approval lists. Using this information,the municipality can manage the complete pro-curement cycle from searching for suppliers topurchasing on-line.

Products and services on the MTO’sDesignated Sources of Material list are automat-ically included in the approved suppliers list.Suppliers can also request that the OntarioProvincial Standards Product ManagementCommittee review their products. If the PMCaccepts the product, it automatically gets an“excepted for use” designation in TRA’s data-base.

It is a mutually beneficial process, says JoeBucik, Manager of the Highway Design Officein MTO’s Engineering Standards Branch.

‘We have been using The Road Authority forsometime as a source of information on suppli-ers, although that is no guarantee that the MTOwill accept them as designated suppliers,” saysBucik. “In turn, people can look at our annualDSM publication to see which suppliers haveproducts that we deem acceptable for our use.

“Sharing a common database with otheragencies and municipalities will certainly savetime in the search process and ensure that thedatabase is up to date. One specific feature thatwe like is that there are two doors into thedata-base - the publicdoor and our own private areawhere we can maintain the information that weneed specifically for our projects and contracts.”

As with the MTO, says Desrocher, eachmunicipality will have the option to have itsown private approved suppliers list within TheRoad Authority and, at its discretion, can sharethat information with other municipalities.

‘Which, of course, we hope they do,” headds. “Making the system work depends in largemeasure on people’s willingness to co-operateand collaborate.”

Saving time and money through collabora-tion was certainly part of Durham’s motivationin joining the TRA in its expanded role. At theurging of Tony Prevedel (Chair of the OPSProduct Management Committee, and Directorof Transportation and Construction Services inDurham), Durham wasthe first regional munic-ipality to commit to using the collaborative sys-tem.

Durham has an associated chain of materialsuppliers and approved products that it will nowbe posting on the IRA site, says Allan Henning,

Senior Contracts Technician for the Region ofDurham and responsible for the tendering of allinfrastructure contracts.

‘Through mergers and some of the otherdownsizing and downloading activity ofthe lastwhile, our approved suppliers list has becomesomewhat outdated,” says Henning. ‘This willact as an impetus to get our products updatedand should be a tremendous opportunity forvendors to make new customer contacts rela-tively easily and inexpensively.”

“Each municipality, to one degree or another,maintains its own standards for many productsand services and that takes a lot of time andeffort,” he adds. “It seems to make more sensetohave a single database maintained by TRArather than each of us having one in our deskdrawer. Each municipality would still have thefreedom to select the vendors and the productsthat they want to use butwe would be collabo-rating and saving time and effort in the informa-tion management side.”

And that is precisely how The RoadAuthority expects municipalities and agencies toreact once they see the benefits of the new sys-tem, concludes Steve Desrocher.

Nobody would deny that, between munici-palities, there can be a healthy sense of compe-tition and some strong rivalries, he says. But withdownsizing and shrinking budgets, everymunicipality and agency is looking for ways tomaintain or improve services without increasingcosts.

“Collaboration through the medium of e-

commerce is clearly a way to accomplish this.”

Backgrounder

The Road AuthorityWeb site: www.roadauthority.comEstablished: 1997Private sector members: 1400Public sector members: MTO and

Ontario municipalities# of products in database: 2400Product approval: managed by

Ontario Provincial StandardsProduct Management Committee

Fees: Companies: $275 a yearMunicipalities: free

TRA Services:-Information on products, services and

technical solutions-public works related information-access current standards-discussion forums-product review and classification-promotion of collaboration amongst

infrastructure owners and the pri-vate sector


Bowiby & FHWA TNM Training!Associates, Inc. Music City in the tall!Why you should attend our course —

* You need to! TNM replacesSTAMINA 2.0/OPTIMA in December2002 for traffic noisework.* Great learning environment! Only onestudent per computer. Real world case studies. Comprehensive training

notebook. Covers TNM 1.Oband1.1.* The instructors! Drs. William Bowiby and Roger L. Wayson have over 54 years experience in the field.* We’ve trained Over 300 people, including staff from over 30 State DOTs.

‘This course is a must for both beginners and advanced traffic noise model- insthjctors...” - Vicky Jewell-Guena, Idaho DOTes.’ — Rob Kolmansber~,McCormick-Taylor

“I have attended many courses and seminars throughout my ca~and this“A very comprehensive and intensetraining course that is sure tocony state course, basedon quality and content, surpasses any others I have seen.” -

DOTs, consultants and other interested parties into noise prediction for the Matt Riddell, Parsons Bnnckerhoff21st century.” -- EMn Pinckney, Ohio DOT

“Outstanding course. At the condusion, any student should feel confident‘The step-by-step approach in this training course is ina~diblyhelpful...the they know the features, capabilities, and limitations ofThM. - Douglaslecture and disoissions are very thorough.” — Barbara McCalIum, PBS&J Wolf, Vanasse Hangen Brusthn, Inc

“Excellent! A must for any traffic noise analyst” — Jeff Anderson, Carter & “I wouldn’t trade Bill or Roger for anyone...” — Andy Kuchta, Michael Jr.,Bur~ Inc.“,4s a new noise analyst, I appreciated the knowledge and expertise of the

Our first twelve courses were all sell-outs. Donnt miss out, register early!f~J October 9-12, Franklin, TN (Optional Traffic Noise Fundamentals, Oct. 7-8) I~

To register or for more information, contact us by: Phone: (615) 771-3006, Fax: (603) 676-2219,e-mail: [email protected], or visit our web site: www.bowlbyassociates.com

Bowlby & Associates,Inc., 504Autumn Springs Court, # 11, Franklin,Tennessee37067

the wall journaltm

Documents