1

Pavement Surface Type as a Noise Mitigation StrategyPavement Surface Type as a Noise Mitigation Strategy

2

Arizona InformationArizona Information

ÜElevation 100 ft to 13,000 ftÜRainfall 2-3 inches to 30 inchesÜTraffic Loading 2-3 Million ESALSÜ96% of the Network is Asphalt ConcreteÜPopulation of 5 millionÜSixth Largest City In US

3

“Missed By That Much”--Land Based Attacks“Missed By That Much”--Land Based Attacks

Aerial Attack (Turkey Buzzard)Aerial Attack (Turkey Buzzard)

4

Fishin Ain’t as Easy in ArizonaFishin Ain’t as Easy in Arizona

Noise TrailerNoise Trailer

5

Pavement Surface Type as a Noise Mitigation StrategyPavement Surface Type as a Noise Mitigation Strategy

Myth Number 1: Rubberized Open Graded Friction Course (AR-ACFC) Loses its Noise Attenuation Characteristics with Time

Myth Number 1: Rubberized Open Graded Friction Course (AR-ACFC) Loses its Noise Attenuation Characteristics with Time

6

Change in AR-ACFC Noise Properties with TimeChange in AR-ACFC Noise Properties with Time

AR_ACFC Noise Levels Versus Pavement Age

y = 0.5453x + 93.279R2 = 0.5805

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Pavement Age

CP

X N

oise

Lev

els

dBA

CPX Noise LevelsVs RoughnessCPX Noise LevelsVs Roughness

CPX Noise Levels Vs Roughness for I-8

y = 0.1446x + 92.692R2 = 0.2498

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

AR-ACFC Roughness (Mayes In/Mi)

CPX

Noi

se L

evel

(dB

A)

7

Myth Number 2All Wearing Course Surfaces Perform the Same in Regards to Noise Characteristics

Myth Number 2All Wearing Course Surfaces Perform the Same in Regards to Noise Characteristics

Wearing CourseExperimentWearing CourseExperiment

190.7

4

190.74ACFC SMA 3

1/2"

3 1/2"

(3/4") (3/4") 3"3" 19

1.02

190.45AR-ACFC ACFC 3

1/2"

3 1/2"

(3/4") (3/4") 3"3" 19

1.31

190.17SMA AR-ACFC 3

1/2"

3 1/2"

(3/4") (3/4") 3"3" 19

1.59

189.89PEM P-ACFC 3

1/2"

3 1/2"

(1 1/4") (3/4") 3"3" 19

1.88

189.60P-ACFC PEM 3

1/2"

3 1/2"

(3/4") (1 1/4") 3"3" 19

2.16

189.32ACFC SMA 2

1/2"

4 1/2"

(3/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19

2.44

189.03AR-ACFC P-ACFC 2

1/2"

4 1/2"

(3/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19

2.73

188.75SMA PEM 2

1/2"

4 1/2"

(3/4") (1 1/4") 2"4" 19

3.01

188.47P-ACFC ACFC 2

1/2"

4 1/2"

(3/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19

3.30

188.18PEM AR-ACFC 2

1/2"

4 1/2"

(1 1/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19

3.58

187.90ACFC ACFC 2

1/2"

4 1/2"

(3/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19

3.86

187.61PEM PEM 2

1/2"

4 1/2"

(1 1/4") (1 1/4") 2"4" 19

4.15

187.33AR-ACFC P-ACFC 2

1/2"

4 1/2"

(3/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19

4.43

187.05SMA SMA 2

1/2"

4 1/2"

(3/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19

4.72

186.76P-ACFC AR-ACFC 2

1/2"

4 1/2"

(3/4") (3/4") 2"4" 19

5.00

186.48AR-ACFC AR-ACFC

3 1/

(1/2") (1/2") 3 1/3" 19 186. 3

q SMA

q PEM

q AR-ACFC

q P-ACFC

q ACFC

8

CPX Noise Levels for SurfacesCPX Noise Levels for Surfaces

96.0PEM

95.0AR-ACFC

95.9SMA

CPX Noise Level Reading (dBA)

Wearing Course Surface Type

Sound Intensity Results for All SurfacesSound Intensity Results for All Surfaces

Tire/Pavement Noise Sound IntensityArizona I-10 Test Sections

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

106

RefSe

ct 1Se

ct 2Se

ct 3Se

ct 4Se

ct 5Se

ct 6Se

ct 7Se

ct 8Se

ct 9

Sect 1

0Se

ct 11Se

ct 12

Sect 1

3Se

ct 14Se

ct 15

Sect 1

6

Sect 1

7Se

ct 18

Sect 1

9

Sect 2

0Se

ct 21

Sect 2

2Se

ct 23

Sect 2

4Se

ct 25Se

ct 26

Sect 2

7

Sect 2

8Se

ct 29

Ove

rall

So

un

d I

nte

nsi

ty L

evel

, d

BA

9

Tire/Pavement Noise Sound IntensityArizona I-10 Test Sections

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

500 630 800 1 1.25 1.6 2 2.5 3.15 4 5

1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz

Sou

nd In

tens

ity L

evel

, dB

ARef

Sect 1

Sect 2Sect 3

Sect 4Sect 5

Sect 6Sect 7

Sect 8Sect 9

Sect 10

Sect 11Sect 12

Sect 13Sect 14

Sect 15Sect 16

Sect 17Sect 18

Sect 19

Sect 20Sect 21

Sect 22Sect 23

Sect 24Sect 25

Sect 26Sect 27

Sect 28Sect 29

Myth Number 3:Pavement Type Does Not Affect Noise Generation Characteristics

Myth Number 3:Pavement Type Does Not Affect Noise Generation Characteristics

10

Tire/Pavement Noise Sound IntensityArizona I-10 Pavements

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

500 630 800 1 1.25 1.6 2 2.5 3.15 4 5

So

un

d In

ten

sity

Lev

el, d

BA

MP 124 (1992)

MP 127 (1992)

MP 112 (1995)

Avg MP 59 & 61 (1993)

MP 95 (1995)

MP 106 PCC

MP 106 PCC #2

MP 106 PCC #3

Myth Number 4 (Challenge):Random Transverse Tining Improves Noise Properties

Myth Number 4 (Challenge):Random Transverse Tining Improves Noise Properties

Corollary:Texture Methods Can Improve Noise

Characteristics

11

PCCP Tining ExperimentPCCP Tining Experiment

Evaluated Three Tining TypesEvaluated Three Tining Types

LongitudinalUniform Transverse Random

Transverse

12

CPX Noise Levels as a Function of Texture Type and SpeedCPX Noise Levels as a Function of Texture Type and Speed

Uncorected CPX dBA Levels as a Function of Texture Type and Speed

94

96

98

100

102

104

106

108

40 50 60 70 80

Speed (MPH)

No

ise

Lev

els

(db

A)

RandomTransverse

Longitudinal

ADOT Std.Transverse

Volpe Pass-by Results for 50 ftVolpe Pass-by Results for 50 ftADOT PCC Pavement Study

Other Vehicles (Subaru) 09/2002

R2 = 0.3435

R2 = 0.4014

R2 = 0.5732

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

30 40 50 60 70 80

vehicle speed (mph)

Lm

ax (d

BA

)

RS1 random transverse, autos RS2 uniform longitudinal, autos RS3 uniform transverse, autosRS1 random transverse, medium truck RS2 uniform longitudinal, medium truck RS3 uniform transverse, medium truckRS1 random transverse, heavy trucks RS2 uniform longitudinal, heavy trucks RS3 uniform transverse, heavy trucksLinear (RS1 random transverse, autos) Linear (RS2 uniform longitudinal, autos) Linear (RS3 uniform transverse, autos)Linear (RS2 uniform longitudinal, autos) Linear (RS3 uniform transverse, autos) Linear (RS1 random transverse, autos)

13

Myth Number 5:You Can’t Use Roadway Based Measurements to Predict Roadside Noise Levels

Myth Number 5:You Can’t Use Roadway Based Measurements to Predict Roadside Noise Levels

All Individual Pass-by Results at Transverse Tining SiteAll Individual Pass-by Results at Transverse Tining Site

All Individual Passby Events at Site RS1Random Transverse Tining

50

60

70

80

90

100

11:57

:37

12:19

:16

12:22

:19

12:25

:17

12:28

:16

12:31

:17

12:34

:23

12:37:

20

12:40

:15

12:43:

21

12:47

:18

13:22

:07

13:25

:13

13:31

:09

13:34

:10

13:37

:14

13:40:

10

13:43

:08

13:54

:13

13:57

:13

14:00

:10

14:39

:18

Time of Event

Lm

ax, d

BA

25 f t50 f t100 f t

70 mph60 mph

14

Sound Level Vs DistanceSound Level Vs DistanceSound Level vs. Distance for 60 mph

Arizona SR202 PCC Evaluat ion - Al l Si tes + Offset Sound Intensi ty

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

10 100Distance, f t

Lmax

, dB

A

RS1- 60 mph RS2- 60 mph RS3- 60 mph

RS1 Intensity RS2 Intensity RS3 Intensity

Log. (1/r**2)

Comparison of Roadway Based (CPX) to Roadside Based (Traditional) Measurement

Comparison of Roadway Based (CPX) to Roadside Based (Traditional) Measurement

ÜTexas 78-80%ÜArizona 73-78%

ÜGM 75%ÜRecent Study 90%

15

What Happens When You Cover Up Uniformly Tined PCCP with One Inch of AR-ACFC

What Happens When You Cover Up Uniformly Tined PCCP with One Inch of AR-ACFC

CPX Spectrum ResultsCPX Spectrum Results

Hz300 400 500 1 k 2 k 3 k Lin

dB

20

40

60

80

100

120

C:( Lin Hz; 101.70 dB / 2.00E-05 Pa; 2.432E+00 Pa) Averaged Spectrum Ch1 MicF

Hz300 400 500 1 k 2 k 3 k 4 k Lin

dB

20

40

60

80

100

120

C:( Lin Hz; 101.87 dB / 2.00E-05 Pa; 2.480E+00 Pa) Averaged Spectrum Ch1 MicF

16

SR 101 Before and After ResultsSR 101 Before and After Results

Hz300 400 500 1 k 2 k 3 k 4 k Lin

dB

20

40

60

80

100

120

C:( Lin Hz; 104.73 dB / 2.00E-05 Pa; 3.448E+00 Pa) Averaged Spectrum Ch1 MicF

Hz300 400 500 1 k 2 k 3 k 4 k Lin

dB

40

60

80

100

120

C:( Lin Hz; 92.44 dB / 2.00E-05 Pa; 837.6E-03 Pa) Averaged Spectrum Ch1 MicF

In SummaryIn Summary

ÜSurface Type Does MatterÜRoadway Based Measurements Can Be UsedÜNoise Should be Managed Just Like Friction,

Roughness, Rutting, and CrackingÜ It’s a Quality of Life Issue

17

Mix Design Procedures For NoiseMix Design Procedures For Noise

The End---But Keep FocusedThe End---But Keep Focused

18

Comparison of NI & CPX ResultsComparison of NI & CPX ResultsTire/Pavement Comparisons on I-10 Test Sections

Using CPX and Intensity Methods

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

Sect #2 GDY Sect #13 GDY Sect #26 GDY Sect #2 Mich Sect #13 Mich Sect #26 Mich

So

un

d L

evel

, dB

Sound IntensityCPX Sound Pressure (GDY)