Evaluating Pavement Strategies and Barriers for Noise Mitigation (2013) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 26-39
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 26... ...
26 The Six-Lane Highway Scenario To illustrate application of the methodology developed in this research, the six-lane new highway construction scenario used in the LCCA (Figure 10) was used to evaluate different noise exposure cases representing those of neighborhoods in three states.
|
From page 27... ...
27 receptors is about 63 ft away from the center of the near through lane of travel and another row is at about 235 ft. The existing TNM results with receptor locations being approximated as 50 ft and 250 ft away were used for the analysis.
|
From page 28... ...
28 Source: Data from Donavan and Rymer (58) , Donavan (59)
|
From page 29... ...
29 • PCC pavement with initial ground texture and rehabilitation every 20 years by grinding (designated as "Ground PCC" in the following tables) • PCC pavement with random transverse tines and a 20-year rehabilitation cycle (designated as "RT PCC" in the following tables)
|
From page 30... ...
30 The use of 8 ft high barriers on one side of the highway was considered for all pavements and 12 ft high barriers were also considered for the HMA and RT PCC pavements. The calculated traffic noise levels at 50 ft and 250 ft together with the overall pavement–barrier system noise reductions relative to the HMA, LT PCC, and RT PCC pavements are shown in Table 8.
|
From page 31... ...
31 calculated with WSDOT and Caltrans methods; the NPV was below the allowed amount for all cases except for the ground PCC pavement without a barrier and the random transversally tined PCC pavement. In these cases, the noise reduction relative to the predicted noise levels for the HMA and LT PCC pavements shown in Table 8 was less than the required 5 dB minimum reduction.
|
From page 32... ...
32 each agency's criteria. Effectiveness as indicated by the difference between the lowest absolute level for any of the alternatives and the level for a specific alternative and the additional cost relative to the lowest cost alternative are also shown to allow consideration of cost and effectiveness.
|
From page 33... ...
33 will become only 2 dB quieter than the HMA baseline with no abatement. However, there is no acoustic longevity in performance of the HMA as its acoustic performance is taken to be the same as TNM Average Pavement (i.e., 0 dB/year)
|
From page 34... ...
34 except the ground PCC pavement without a barrier. Although the design goals are not achieved, the analysis was carried through to completion.
|
From page 35... ...
35 project and the abatement strategy considering MDOT criteria (the allowances using Caltrans and WSDOT criteria are also shown)
|
From page 36... ...
36 Boston. In this case, receptors with about the same density are located on both sides of the highway.
|
From page 37... ...
37 and northbound sides of the highway as the results are independent of the number of receptors. For the HMA/LT PCC baseline, only the HMA with 12 ft barriers, the RAC(O)
|
From page 38... ...
38 of benefited receptors. For the southbound side, all alternatives except ground PCC without a barrier provided sufficient allowances to be cost reasonable for both MDOT and WSDOT criteria.
|
From page 39... ...
39 Summary and Discussion The preceding examples illustrated the applicability of the methodology for evaluating noise abatement alternatives using barriers, quieter pavement, and combinations of both. It showed that acoustic feasibility for alternatives could be evaluated in a similar manner to that currently used for barriers alone.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.