Noise Classification Road Pavements (Technical) (1)

European CommissionDirectorate-General Environment Noise classification of road pavements Task 1: Technical background information Draft report June 2006 Report no. 1 Issue no. 5 Date of issue 12/06/2006 Prepared G. Descornet / L. Goubert Checked Approved DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 Contents 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................3 2 TRAFFIC NOISE AND ROAD SURFACES ....................................................................................4 2.1 2.2 2.3 3 LOW-NOISE ROAD SURFACES ...................................................................................................11 3.1 3.2 3.3 4 TEXTURE-OPTIMIZED ONLY .........................................................................................................11 POROUS SURFACES ......................................................................................................................13 ELASTIC SURFACES .....................................................................................................................15 MEASUREMENT METHODS AND STANDARDS .....................................................................18 4.1 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 5 WHY ABATE TRAFFIC NOISE? ........................................................................................................4 AVAILABLE TOOLS FOR TRAFFIC NOISE ABATEMENT .....................................................................6 THE INFLUENCE OF THE ROAD SURFACE ........................................................................................8 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................18 NOISE MEASUREMENTS METHODS ...............................................................................................18 Controlled pass-by (CPB)......................................................................................................18 Statistical pass-by (SPB)........................................................................................................19 Close proximity (CPX)...........................................................................................................19 Comparison between noise measurement methods................................................................20 AUXILIARY MEASUREMENT METHODS ........................................................................................21 Surface texture.......................................................................................................................21 Sound absorption ...................................................................................................................21 Mechanical impedance ..........................................................................................................22 STANDARDIZATION .....................................................................................................................22 Noise measurement methods..................................................................................................23 Auxiliary measurement methods ............................................................................................23 NOISE CLASSIFICATION OF ROAD PAVEMENTS.................................................................25 5.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................25 5.2 STATE-OF-THE-ART AT NATIONAL LEVEL ....................................................................................25 5.2.1 Austria ...................................................................................................................................25 5.2.2 Belgium..................................................................................................................................26 5.2.3 France....................................................................................................................................27 5.2.4 Germany ................................................................................................................................28 5.2.5 Hungary .................................................................................................................................28 5.2.6 Italy........................................................................................................................................29 5.2.7 Japan .....................................................................................................................................30 5.2.8 The Netherlands.....................................................................................................................30 5.2.9 Slovenia .................................................................................................................................32 5.2.10 Spain .................................................................................................................................33 5.2.11 Switzerland........................................................................................................................34 5.2.12 United Kingdom ................................................................................................................34 5.2.13 USA ...................................................................................................................................35 5.2.14 Nordic countries ...............................................................................................................35 5.3 EUROPEAN PROJECTS ..................................................................................................................37 5.3.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................37 5.3.2 HARMONOISE ......................................................................................................................37 5.3.3 SILVIA ...................................................................................................................................39 5.4 DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................................41 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................46 7 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................49 8 SYMBOLS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................57 G. Descornet – L. Goubert 2/58 DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 1 Introduction Recent estimates indicate that more than 30% of EU citizens are exposed to road traffic noise levels above that viewed acceptable by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and that about 10% of the population report severe sleep disturbance because of transport noise at night [116]. In addition to the general disruption of activities and quality of life, there are additional adverse health and financial effects. According to OECD [117], the threshold of annoyance is 55 dB(A) in terms of average traffic noise level outside and the threshold of unacceptability is only 10 dB(A) higher: 65 dB(A). Now, the difference in vehicle noise emission between a noisy and a silent road surface can be much more than 10 dB(A), which means that the road surface alone could make the difference between a comfortably quiet road and a disturbingly noisy road. Thanks to legislation and technological progress, the noise from cars has been reduced by 85% since 1970 and the noise from lorries by 90%. Despite that, no significant relief of the exposure to road traffic noise has been recorded over the years. The growth and spread of traffic have offset the technological improvements. Another important factor is the dominance of tyre noise above quite low speeds (50 km/h). Now, noise abatement is more effective by reducing the emission at the source. That is why the Green Paper of 1996 states that the next phase of action to reduce road traffic noise will address tyre noise and promote low noise surfaces through Community funding [65]. Directive 2001/43/EC [109] provides for the testing and limiting of tyre rolling noise levels, and for their phased reduction. Limits differentiate between vehicle type (cars, vans and trucks) and tyre width (5 classes), and will be enforced by including tyre rolling noise tests in European Community type-approval certificate requirements, which must be met for any new tyre being placed on the European market [108]. No such regulation exists yet for road surfacings. A major problem to be overcome is the fact that a road surfacing is not a ready-made product. Tests made on the components are of no use with respect to noise. The noise performance will be essentially determined by the resulting superficial characteristics, which in turn will highly depend on the conditions and circumstances of the mixing and laying processes. Therefore, classifying or labelling such a product requires specific procedures based on specific testing methods to be developed, validated and standardized before an harmonized classification system can be proposed at European level. The purpose of this report is to overview the progress made so far in that direction and to derive recommendations on the efforts that remain to be accomplished. G. Descornet – L. Goubert 3/58 DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 2 Traffic noise and road surfaces 2.1 Why abate traffic noise? According to the WHO [64], noise can have a wide variety of adverse effects on human health and/or well-being: • • • • • • • • Pain and hearing fatigue Hearing impairment including tinnitus Annoyance Interferences with social behaviour (aggressiveness, protest and helplessness) Sleep disturbances and all its consequences on a long and short basis Cardiovascular effects Hormonal responses (stress hormones) and their possible consequences on human metabolism (nutrition) and immune system Performance at work and/or school decrements For the European Union alone (excluding the NMS’s), it has been estimated that 80 million people are exposed to noise levels which are considered to cause one or more of these adverse noise effects. 170 million more people live in so called grey areas, where the high noise levels are likely to cause serious annoyance [65]. The “general” annoyance effect is considered as the most important effect of environmental noise pollution, and therefore it is widely considered as the basic health effect which should be controlled in the general population [66]. Sleep disturbance is considered as the second important effect of noise on human well-being, but recent research [67] shows that cardiovascular effects cannot be omitted: noise appears to affect the prevalence of myocardial infarctions at 60 dB(A) and higher1. Environmental noise does not only affect human health and/or well-being, it is also expensive. Estimates of costs of noise range between 0.2 and 2 % of the gross domestic product [65]. This corresponds for the E.U. with a minimal cost of 12 billion € [66]. Different sources contribute to the excessive exposure of European citizens to noise, but transportation noise and in particular road traffic noise is by far predominant. Figure 1 shows the relative contribution of the main sources of noise, according to a study in the Flanders region in Belgium [68]. 1 Lday = 60 dB(A) is considered as the “no observed adverse effect level” for myocardial infarctions G. Descornet – L. Goubert 4/58 DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 9 16 7 neighbours industry 3 7 11 construction 5 3 agriculture road traffic air traffic rail traffic commercial activities recreational activities 40 Figure 1 - Relative contribution to nuisance by different sources of noise in Flanders According to this study, 40 % of the people highly annoyed by noise are annoyed by traffic noise. Figure 2 shows the development of the relative contribution to nuisance of the different noise sources in The Netherlands [69]. It appears that road traffic noise is not only the most important source, but also that its contribution is increasing. 30 percentage highly annoyed 25 20 1993 1998 15 2003 10 5 0 road traf f ic rail traf f ic air traf f ic industry recreation neighbours Figure 2 - Development of the relative contribution of different noise sources to nuisance G. Descornet – L. Goubert 5/58 For a further discussion. the noise aspect has only recently been “discovered” by land use planners. For an extensive review. this type of measures has in general only effect after a long time. training and education. • Socio-economic measures This type of measures includes noise awareness rising. Available tools are: • Legal measures This type of measures is possible on the European (European Product standards. • Source-oriented measures Several sources can be located in motor-driven vehicles and motorcycles.a densely populated area exposed to a high traffic noise level – have been inherited. Although they are necessary to incite stakeholders to do efforts to reduce noise. heavy vehicles and motorcycles. but this tool has of course its limits. An overview of traffic flow measures and their potential G.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 2. but turn out to have a positive effect on traffic noise (see also [119]).g. This is especially the case for densely populated countries like Belgium and the Netherlands. Some examples of noise sources are: o Tyre/road noise o Engine noise o Exhaust noise o Aerodynamical noise This category of measures has relations with “legal measures” and “infrastructural measures” (tyre/road interaction. vans. see [119]. Unfortunately. Goubert 6/58 . For each type of vehicle. • Traffic management (see also [65]) One can reduce the noise of a road by influencing the speed and/or traffic flow. by a clever tuning of the traffic lights. One has to distinguish between cars. the regional and the local level. see also [119]. in order to avoid as much as possible stop-and-go traffic. Another example of traffic management are measures which induce the traffic flow to become more fluent. control and behaviour sanctions. the Member State. the Tyre Noise Directive and the European Noise Directive). For these existing black points other measures will be necessary.g. see further). air pollution reduction or traffic safety. a lot of noise exposure and annoyance can be avoided in this in a rather cheap way. Descornet – L. hence in Europe a lot of historically grown black points .2 Available tools for traffic noise abatement There are different means to reduce the traffic noise level at or in the dwellings. Speed reduction is one way to reduce the noise. e. • Land use By taking into account the traffic noise aspect while designing new cities and roads. economic stimulations and sanctions and eco-taxing. These types of measures are often introduced with another primary goal. e. the ranking of the sources may be different. Table 2. G. The three methods have their advantages and disadvantages (see Table 2).Comparison of three possible measures to abate road traffic noise Low noise road surface Acts on noise generation Moderate noise reduction (typically 3 up to 6 dB(A) for current generation of low noise surfaces) Not intrusive Reduces noise in open air Relatively cheap Medium lifetime Not vulnerable to vandalism Maintenance required Noise screens Acts on noise propagation High noise reduction possible (typically 7 to 12 dB(A)) Façade insulation Acts on noise propagation High noise reduction possible (typically 10 to 20 dB(A)) Intrusive Reduces noise in open air. Table 1 – Potential noise reduction of traffic flow measures Traffic management measure Potential noise reduction (LAeq) Traffic calming / Environmentally adapted through roads up to 4 dB(A) 30 km/h zone up to 2 dB(A) Roundabouts up to 4 dB(A) Round-top/circle-top road humps up to 2 dB(A) • Infrastructural Measures There are several infrastructural measures possible: a low noise road surface (which prevents tire/road noise to be generated). Goubert 7/58 . but mainly at short distance of the source Expensive (extra construction) Long lifetime possible Often vulnerable to vandalism (graffiti) Maintenance required Not intrusive Reduces noise indoor only and with windows closed Generally most expensive solution Long lifetime Not vulnerable to vandalism No maintenance required A tool to compare the effectiveness of different noise abatement measures was developed in the frame of the SILVIA-project [33]. For an extensive review of possible traffic related measures. noise barriers and façade insulation (which both reduce noise propagation to the neighbours of the road. Descornet – L.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 noise reduction is given in Table 1 [70]. see [120]. exhaust noise …) have been efficiently dealt with by car manufacturers in the last decades. Aero dynamical noise sources include the so called air pumping. Descornet – L. when one found that coarse irregularities4 on the road surface are a negative factor as they induce tire vibrations. For definitions see [78]. A breakthrough of the understanding on the influence of the road surface on the noise generation and amplification came in the beginning of the 1980’s [73]. For “new” cars2. as in this case air can flow away vertically through the pores before it is 2 cars built later after 1996 for extensive reviews. For older cars. the fine texture allows it to flow away silently between the fine horizontal channels formed by the tire tread and the irregularities. Goubert 8/58 . amplifying the noise in a certain direction. A micro movement effect is the stick/slip tread elements motions relative to the road surface. consisting of the noisy pushing away of air on the leading edge of the contact zone between tire and road surface and the noisy sucking of air on the rear edge. see e. causing the tread elements to vibrate tangentially An adhesion effect is the stick/snap effect of the sudden loosening of the tire tread from the road surface. 5 With horizontal dimensions of typically 2-3 mm. This is the same phenomenon which is wanted with the conical part of e.5 up to 5 cm). comparable to the sudden loosening of a suction cup.g. 71. depending both on tire and road surface properties3: • • • • • Noise is partly generated by impacts and shocks on the tire. which radiate noise on their turn. Fine texture is not necessary in the case of porous surfaces. corresponding to the dimensions of the tire/road contact zone. 3 G. This unfavorable irregularities belong to the so called megatexture region (5 cm up to 50 cm) and partially also to the macrotexture region (0. This is due to the fact that other noise sources (like power train noise. [35. Tire/road noise is a complex addition of several mechanisms of noise generation and amplification.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 2. also belonging to the macrotexture range.g. These shocks make the tire vibrate and radiate noise. Noise being generated near the edge of the tire/road surface contact area is reflected several times between the tire tread and the road surface. Fine irregularities5 on the other hand were found to have a favourable influence on the noise generation. a trumpet or a megaphone. caused by road surface irregularities or irregularities on the tire tread. Before the air can be trapped and compressed in the tread pattern and consequently escape in a noisy way. The horn effect is a noise amplification mechanism. this limit lies between 30 and 50 km/h [35]. the worst being irregularities with horizontal dimensions of about 8 cm. as they prevent air pumping. tire/road noise is already predominant at speeds between 15 and 35 km/h. 72] 4 with horizontal dimensions (“texture wavelength”) of a approximately 1 cm up to a few tens of cm.3 The influence of the road surface The noise generated by the interaction of the tires and the road surface is for passenger cars nowadays the predominant noise source at very low speeds. Vibrations of the tire tread spread to the sidewalls. Also the resonances in the tire cavity and in tread pattern canals can be considered as aero dynamical noise sources. namely its stiffness. including a high content of interconnecting voids. Descornet – L. no significant increase of tire/road noise has been found [76]. but only approximate corrections factors exist. also called “mechanical impedance”. Water on the road surface may significantly influence the tire/road noise. preferably higher o Porous layer thickness of 40 mm or higher o Flow resistance of 20 to 50 kNsm-4 for high speed roads and 12-30 kNsm4 for low speed roads Since the 1980’s. Porous surfaces can be made to absorb sound by a proper design. As low noise road surfaces with texture and noise absorption which does approximate the “ideal” situation quite well. several solutions have been developed to approximate these requirements in practice. a sufficient layer thickness and a flow resistance which is not too high. which is however not yet studied in a quantitative way. The basic requirements for a low noise road surface may be summarized in the following rules of thumb [35]: • • For dense wearing courses o Minimal megatexture and minimal macrotexture in the texture wavelength 10 – 50 mm o Maximal macrotexture in the wavelength 1 – 8 mm For porous road surfaces o Minimal megatexture and minimal macrotexture in the texture wavelength 10 – 50 mm o Void content of at least 10 % by volume. mechanical impedance is currently the only parameter with which large additional tire/road noise reductions may be obtained in practice. Besides texture and noise absorption. Very fine texture (microtexture) also has some influence on the tire/road noise [35]. which can be considered as important advantage for this type of road surface in rainy climates.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 compressed. taking into account also other requirements like skidding resistance and durability. On porous surfaces. No studies are available in which the amount of water on the surface has been quantified. It is showed that if the stiffness of the road surface is of the same order of magnitude as the tire. huge noise reductions can be obtained (in the order of 10 up to 12 dB(A)). The corrections factors [75] for dense asphalt concrete (DAC) and Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) road surfaces are given in Table 2. a third basic parameter of the road surface influences the tire/road noise generation. due to the lack of proper measurement techniques to quantify microtexure. G. Goubert 9/58 . 10 dB(A)/°C on the result of a noisiness measurement of the statistical pass-by level. making noise radiation by tire vibration less efficient. the tires become less noisy the higher their temperature. The effect is typical -0. due to the weakening of the rubber. G.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 Table 3 -Correction factors for humidity on DAC and SMA-surfaces Amount of water on road surface dry humid (drizzle) 0-60 km/h reference + 2 dB(A) 61-80 km/h reference + 1 dB(A) 81-130 km/h reference + 0 dB(A) wet (moderate rainfall) wet (heavy rainfall) + 4 dB(A) + 6 dB(A) + 3 dB(A) + 4 dB(A) + 2 dB(A) + 3 dB(A) Temperature has also an influence on the tire/road noise generation. Goubert 10/58 .05 up to -0. Descornet – L. A table with state-of-the-art correction factors is given in reference [77]. depending on the tire and the road surface texture. Generally. DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 3 Low-noise road surfaces This chapter describes the practical realizations of low-noise road surfaces. 3. durable skidding resistance. consisting of milled steel slag aggregates (1-4 mm) bound in a layer of epoxy resin [81]. 6 Polished Stone Value G. A disadvantage is that it is quite expensive. A surface dressing with 1-3 mm chippings bound with a polyurethane binder gave after two years of operation a noise reduction of 3-4 dB(A). if the following conditions are satisfied: o Smoothening of the wet surface must be done by means of a longitudinal smoother (not by a traditional transversal one which often induces waves in the megatexture range in the surface) o Appropriate aggregate grading must be used in order to obtain a closely packed array of small stones at the surface. Descornet – L. milled steel slag) can be used. in order to reduce the rolling noise on noisy cement concrete surfaces [80]. due to the smoothening of the megatexture by the initially very liquid resin and the good fine macrotexture of the closely packed fine array of small stones. the foil is removed and the upper layer (of a few mm) of cement. 2/4 calcined bauxite) [78]. As chippings. Properties: This surface type is durable and has a high. small size aggregates (e.g.g.1 Texture-optimized only • Resin-bound surface dressing Definition: a high performance surface dressing which consists of a layer of resinous binder densely spread with high PSV6. The surface is very quiet. Properties: very durable surface with reasonable acoustical properties. which is not hardened. After one up to two days. highway exits etc. which makes it especially suitable for use in bends. is removed with brushes or water under pressure. crushed natural rock as well as an artificial aggregate (e. A similar surface dressing was later applied in Austria. some experiments [79] were conducted in Belgium with surface treatment techniques in order to approximate the “ideal” texture. An example is the so called Italgrip. History: After the discovery of the surface characteristics which influence tire/road noise generation in the second half of the ‘70ties. Goubert 11/58 . • Exposed aggregates cement concrete Definition: this type of cement concrete undergoes a special treatment immediately after the construction: the still wet cement concrete is sprayed with a retarding agent and covered with a tin foil. it may be ground again. forming thin (typically 3 mm wide) parallel. History: This type of surface has been applied since the beginning of the 1990’s in Austria [82]. The under layer being strength optimized and the upper layer texture optimized. research was done afterwards about the optimization of this road surface type [85]. Especially in the Netherlands. After the wearing away of the texture. • Thin layers Definition: A thin layer can be defined as an integrated.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 Optimized exposed aggregate cement concrete my yield a reduction of up to 3 dB(A) with respect to the reference surface. Descornet – L. Because it is not easy to design a cement mixture which is at the same time strong and texture optimized. This cycle may be repeated three or four times [87]. where the lifetime is only one to two years. excluding mastic asphalt [88]. History: Grinding of cement concrete was done for the first time in California in 1965 and has been done a lot in the USA and occasionally in Europe [35]. one sometimes applies two layers. More expensive aggregates may in that case used for the upper layer without making the surface extremely expensive. A ground cement concrete surface is generally much less noisy than cement concrete before the grinding (about 5 dB(A) [78]). a dense asphalt concrete with 11 to 16 aggregates. • Ground cement concrete Definition: the grinding of a concrete surface is done by means of set of closely spaced diamond disks. Goubert 12/58 . Hence it is not really a low noise surface in the sense of the definition given in the beginning of this chapter. Belgium [83] and the Netherlands [84]. and its noisiness may be of the same order of a reference dense asphalt concrete surface. The closed packing leaves the edges between the grooves smooth. but which is still in a technically good condition. independently functioning wearing course consisting of a warmly produced bituminous mixture. A disadvantage is the relatively high cost (about 1 €/m²/mm depth) [78]. The new texture may last for about ten years. It is in fact a set of different types of surfacings and includes three subcategories: o Very thin surfacings: thickness between 20 and 30 mm (definition according to [90]) o Ultra thin surfacings: thickness between 12 and 18 mm (as defined in [35]) o Micro surfacings: thickness between 6 and 12 mm (as defined in [35]) G. provided it is not in a region or country where studded tires are used in winter times. as most of the peaks split in the process. Properties: This is an attractive way to reduce the noise of an existing cement concrete road with a lot of megatexture. longitudinal grooves. G. which leads to a noise reduction of on average 3 dB(A) at higher speeds. Properties: The low noise aspect of porous asphalt is due to its good absorption of both rolling and power train noise. Due to their stony skeleton. Nevertheless. the porous version is very effective to prevent air pumping [92].2 Porous surfaces • Single layer porous asphalt Definition: this is a wearing course with a high stone content (typically 81-85%) with a typical grading of 0/14 with a gap at 2/7 resulting in a high void content (typically 20 %). There is a large variety on the acoustical performances of single layer porous asphalt. Hence it cannot always be considered as a low noise road surface. In certain cases. Descornet – L. also including coldly produced bituminous mixtures and surfacings on resinous basis (which were discussed above). Porous asphalt has some advantages compared to dense wearing courses: during rain the water does not form a film on the road surface. 95. History: Thin layers have been used in France since de mid 1990ties. the quietest road surface so far (see below). To the very thin surfacings belong: o SMA-type layers (open-graded but semi-dense) o Porous layers Properties [91]: Thin layers are a compromise between the acoustical performances of single or two-layer porous asphalt and the durability of normal SMA. especially in The Netherlands.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 Sometimes a broader definition is used [78]. Goubert 13/58 . The use of the coarse aggregates leads to a surface texture with some megatexture and is hence far from ideal. the absorption peak in the absorption curve lies at a frequency which is too high (around 2000 Hz) in order to play a significant tool. Mixtures are often reinforced by addition of elastomers or fibres. reasonable durability and quite good acoustical properties) for the two-layer porous asphalt. avoiding the dangerous 7 Innovatie Programma Geluid (“Noise Innovation Programme”). According to French results. There is some renewed interest in this type of surfaces. in other cases one measured an increase of the rolling noise of up to 3 dB(A) [94. 3. as they are considered in the frame of the IPG as a valuable alternative (reasonable costs for construction and maintenance. generally small aggregate sizes are used. they resist well to rutting. Noise reduction is due to this good texture and not to noise absorption: due to the low layer thickness. The Dutch IPG7 reports a reduction of 4 up to 7 dB (A) for porous thin layers and 3 up to 5 dB (A) for the SMA-type mixtures [91]. noise reduction of thin layers is between 0 and 3 dB (A) with respect to the reference surface dense asphalt concrete [93]. Thickness is about 4 cm [78]. a higher noise reduction (up to 9 dB(A)) has been reported. 96]. In order to get an optimized texture. From the mid 1990ties. especially in those regions with a lot of rainfall. Also winter maintenance problems have been reported. In the frame of the Noise Innovation Program. The absence of an increase of noise in rainy conditions is an important advantage. G. Belgium. especially in France.6 dB(A) for passenger cars at 50 km/h [97]. History: Porous asphalt has been used especially on highways since the beginning of the 1980ties in a number of countries. 0/16. The acoustical performance is initially excellent: the noise reduction is 4 . it is the standard road surface for highways since the end of the 80ties [92]. about 100 sections have as well been realized in Japan. decreasing its acoustical performances with roughly almost 1 dB(A)/year [100] and it’s sensitive to ravelling. E. due to a high void content (typically 25 – 30 %). in the Netherlands. The versions with the finest aggregates (2/4. but it is more sensitive to ravelling.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 splash and spray effect and the reflecting of lights is avoided. History: the concept of two-layer porous asphalt has been developed in the Netherlands and the first section of this road surface type was built there in the beginning of the 1990ties.5 dB(A) better than those with coarser aggregates (4/8) [98]. but sometimes even 2/4 or 2/6) with a typical thickness of 2. The good acoustical properties are combined with the series advantages which were mentioned for the single layer porous asphalt above. about 10% of the highway network of AUTOSTRADE has been provided with a porous asphalt wearing course [78]. about 20 mainly test sections were built in several other European countries. Due to its stony skeleton. 11/16) and a typical thickness of 4. Nevertheless. decreasing the acoustical performance of the road surface. From 2001 on. Numerous other sections have been built on highways. • Two-layer porous asphalt Definition: two layer porous asphalt consists of a sub layer of porous asphalt with a coarse grading (typically 0/14. there are indications that the technical lifetime of the two layer porous asphalt in the Netherlands is increasing by the technical improvements [101]. Unfortunately. See [101] for a survey.5 cm.g. with on top a wearing course with a fine aggregate (typical 4/8. Italy and the Netherlands.5 cm. Goubert 14/58 . one aims even at noise reductions of 7 up to 9 dB(A) for “optimized two layer porous asphalt” [99]. Properties: two-layer porous asphalt combines an optimized surface texture (densely packed grid of fine aggregates) with an optimized noise absorption in the appropriate range of the noise spectrum (between 500 and 1000 Hz). and two-layer porous asphalt is among the quietest road surfaces which are actually in use. porous asphalt resists very well to rutting. Another problem is the clogging of the pores. Descornet – L. 2/6) on the top layer perform on average about 1. and since then about 40 sections are built in the Netherlands on local and secondary roads. also the two drawbacks for single layer porous asphalt exist for two layer porous asphalt: it has the tendency to clog. In Italy. sometimes even slightly better [102]. Construction is also quite delicate: it is more difficult to avoid megatexture as the surface is not rolled like a bituminous surface. Properties: Acoustical performance of porous cement concrete is of the same order as porous asphalt [35]. Descornet – L. with built in Helmholtz resonators of about 500 cm³. The idea was picked up in the late 1990’s in Italy.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 • Porous cement concrete Definition: Porous cement concrete is made with almost the same mixture as porous asphalt.US-project) was not convincing. the Netherlands and France since the end of the 1980ties.U. This type of road surface is very expensive. which resulted in the only full scale realization so far on the motorway Anagni-Rome (see above). 3. partly due to the use of polymer additives in the mixture. the only once it has been realized in full scale (on the highway between Rome and Anagni in Italy in the frame of the EC funded SI.R. so far the extremely expensive construction doesn’t seem to be justified by an extraordinary noise performance. One expects a better durability and less clogging than with porous asphalt. Goubert 15/58 . Properties: Although earlier laboratory results with this concept were quite promising8. History: Porous cement concrete sections have been built in several countries. but as binder one uses cement instead of bitumen. A variant is Modieslab. but this has not been proven yet experimentally. which has been developed by a Dutch firm: the road is built with prefabricated two layer porous cement concrete slabs. History: This pavement was developed by Ejsmont in the 1980’s during a scholarship at the University of Götingen. and around 1990 some limited trials were made at VTI in Sweden [35]. especially in the USA.3 Elastic surfaces • Rubberized asphalt Definition: dense asphalt concrete or SMA surface with a certain percentage of rubber granulates added to the mix 8 See discussion in [78] G. but which was basically 1 – 2 dB(A) less good than the performance of the adjacent “ordinary” two layer porous asphalt [104] hence. They are self supporting and especially designed for use in areas with unstable underground [103]. Noise measurements revealed a good noise performance. • Euphonic pavements Definition: a road surface with on top a porous wearing course of 40-60 mm with underneath a continuously reinforced concrete slab. Germany. wear resistance. there was until 2002 no conclusive evidence that the adding of small quantities of rubber to a bituminous wearing course would significantly reduce the noisiness of it [35]. An extensive state of the art of this surface type can be found in reference [54]. Descornet – L. Donovan [105] did in 2004 a comparative measurement campaign both in the USA (Arizona & California) and Europe with his CPX-like measurement device based on sound intensity technique. History: The process of rubberized asphalt was originally developed in Sweden. A limited experiment in 1989 in Norway was aborted after the destruction of the test section by a snow plough. See further [35]. This is the so called “dry” process. • Poro-elastic surfaces Definition: A poro-elastic road surface (PERS) is a wearing course for roads with a very high content of interconnecting voids so as to facilitate the passage of air and water through it. glued together with a polyurethane or another artificial resin. The asphalt-rubber mixture contains typically between 14 percent and 20 percent rubber by weight of the total asphalt-rubber mixture [106]. The RAC is a non porous SMA like wearing course with a thickness of 2. The actual formulations are also quite expensive. The wet process is sometimes used to improve binder quality in porous surfaces.5 dB(A) and for the so called Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC) between 95. The typical glue for this is epoxy resin.5 and 97.5 cm and containing 8 up to 10 % binder. which are glued to the hard sub layer. sometimes stony aggregates. cost and fire G. typically 7 %) to modify the binder (the “wet” process).DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 Properties: Rubber may be added as granules to a bituminous mix (typical 3 to 6 % by total weight). He found noise levels for two layer porous asphalt between 94. Properties: The typical mixture for a PERS consists nowadays of cubic and/or fibre-like rubber particles (new rubber or from scrapped tires). sand or another friction enhancing agent.5 and 96.5 dB(A). In the USA it is called Plusride. concentrating on remaining problems like adhesion to base course. where it was called RUBIT. wet friction. Goubert 16/58 . According to Sandberg. This type of road surface is still in an experimental stadium. due to the high content of costly ingredients (resin). History: PERS has been invented at the end of the 1970ties in Sweden by Mr. and one speaks about “rubberized asphalt” Rubber may also be added as a powder (up to 15 %. Since 1994 the Public Works Research Institute of Japan is also doing research on PERS and since 2000 there is collaboration with the Swedish VTI. The design air void content is at least 20% by volume and the design rubber content is at least 20 % by weight. Reported problems are insufficient binding to the hard sub layer. Early trials have been done in Sweden in the 1980ties. PERS shows generally extremely high noise reductions (typically 10 up to 12 dB(A)). On the other hand. while at the same time the surface is elastic due to the use of rubber (or other elastic products) as a main aggregate. damage by snow ploughs and insufficient skidding resistance. Nilsson. R. Typical thickness is 3-4 cm. The PERS can be made on site or be prefabricated as mats. The Asphalt-Rubber is described in an ASTM-standard (ASTM D8-88). Descornet – L. Goubert 17/58 . After some experiments with limited success since then. as the surface type is extremely interesting from an acoustical point of view and it offers a variety of additional advantages (like the possibility to recycle worn tires). G.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 resistance. Japan and possibly also in some other countries. most likely research will be continued in Sweden. In this case. the test conditions may widely vary.2. there are two published procedures: the BRRC method [16] using a single car and the so-called French-German Procedure relying on a set of four representative car/tyre combinations [17. It can then be used to study the contributions of various factors to the vehicle noise levels as determined by the latter standards. The latter is applied in France and Germany to characterise the acoustic performance of a road surface with respect to tyre noise. not with trucks. 40]. etc. hence. different gear ratios may be selected. G. the method is compatible with ISO 362 [41] and ISO 7188 [42]. Depending on the aim of the measurements.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 4 Measurement methods and standards 4. it is called « coast-by » instead of « pass-by » method.2 m above ground. Both procedures may be – and have been – used to measure tyre noise only by turning off the engine when the vehicle approaches the microphone. to specifically study tyre noise. There are three basic methods for determining the noise performance of a road surface: • • • The Controlled Pass-By method (CPB) The Statistical Pass-By method (SPB) The Close Proximity method (CPX) and three auxiliary measurement methods for determining noise-relevant surface characteristics: • • • Surface texture measurement Sound absorption measurement Mechanical impedance measurement The latter series can serve either as substitutes or as complements to the basic methods. Measurements are performed with a limited set of light vehicles. The vehicles here have been purposely chosen as reference vehicle/tyre combinations.5 m meter from the centre line of the measured lane and at 1. measurements have to be corrected for speed in order to be able to be compared on an equal speed basis. however. Descornet – L. the term « controlled ». The vehicle speed may be chosen. Goubert 18/58 .2 Noise measurements methods 4. In cruising conditions. The operating conditions of the vehicle may for instance be normal cruising or coasting by. Since the microphone position is the same. 4. The surface may be wetted if one wishes to study the effect of rain. we are reviewing the measurement methods and standards that are currently used to evaluate the influence of a road surface on traffic noise. the peak noise level of vehicles is measured when they pass in front of a microphone fixed at 7. engine off.1 Introduction In this chapter.1 Controlled pass-by (CPB) In this method. To our knowledge. G. The work is still presently on-going. however. The tyre can be either on one of the wheels of a normal vehicle or of a special trailer. one or several microphones are placed very close – typically 20 cm from the tyre side wall . the reference speeds and the weights assigned to light. 45. One measures the peak noise level of each individual vehicle picked out of the undisturbed traffic along with its speed by means of a radar tachometer. Descornet – L. Plotting noise level versus log(speed) for different categories of vehicles and calculating the regression line allows characterising each vehicle category by an average noise level at any reference speed.to the tyre for measuring near-field tyre noise emission while rolling. the outcomes of which have consistently shown serious discrepancies between the different devices. That is why work has been carried out in the UK to develop an extension to the standard SPB method to allow its use over a wider range of site conditions [62.2. From the reported values. in Germany. one may define SPB indices specific to different traffic conditions like.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 4. In either case. medium. the standard proposes to characterise the road surface by a «Statistical Bass-By Index (SPBI)» which is an aggregate (overall) level of road surface influence on traffic noise for a mix of different categories of vehicles. in United Kingdom. Quite a number of CPX vehicles or trailers have been developed in Europe. there are presently such devices in service in The Netherlands. medium and heavy vehicles being adapted to be representative of three road categories. This method uses a reflective backing board placed directly behind the receiver microphone. Such an approach is being considered for adoption by the ISO Working Group that is responsible for revision of the ISO standard describing the SPB method. which is often impossible in urban streets. Several comparisons (Round Robin Tests) have been carried out [33. A certain minimum number of vehicles in each category is required to get an acceptable significance interval and for the characteristic level to be reasonably representative of that category. 47. severe protection measures must be taken to prevent the measurement to be influenced by wind turbulence. all different. That method has become an ISO standard [43] and is being taken into consideration by CEN/TC227/WG5 to be taken over as a European standard. Specifications have been developed in an ISO Committee Draft. Twenty-one trailers and four instrumented cars had been identified in 1998 [44]. The most critical ones bear on the choice of the reference tyre(s) and on the precise microphone position(s) because it has been observed that the latter have a very important influence on the measurement results.3 Close proximity (CPX) In this method. the measured vehicles are those freely running into the traffic stream.and high-speed roads. 4. noise from traffic and noises from the vehicle or from the trailer or both. 48]. To our knowledge. 46. By adapting the reference speeds and weights of the different categories. Goubert 19/58 . in Poland and in France. The method requires the site to be free of sound reflecting objects over a large area round the microphone.2 Statistical pass-by (SPB) The noise measurement set-up is exactly as in the CPB method. urban versus rural for instance.2. in Austria. namely: low-. The minimum numbers of vehicles per category and the reference speeds per category in relation to the type of road envisaged are prescribed. 63]. The representativity issue is almost completely solved by the SPB method since it takes into account all types of vehicles in normal driving condition. Recent comparisons carried out in the frame of SILVIA have shown that the correlation is generally poor between SPB and CPX results and the regression equations appear significantly different for different CPX devices (Table 4) [33]. how to determine the intrinsic background noise of a CPX device remains a difficulty. However.73 Also because no propagation effects are taken into account like sound absorption by porous surfaces which are then likely to be underestimated regarding their noise reduction potential.3 SPB = 0.47 1.63 0.2.95 Residual σ (dBA) 0. The majority of existing CPX test devices is for car tyres. where human receivers are. However. can be very different from the near field due to interference between correlated sources. G.9 dBA SPB = 1.40 0. since it relies on an arbitrary set of vehicles.28.22·CPX --. The differences are assumed to be averaged out thanks to the minimum.10·CPX --.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 4.9 Corr. However. Coef. Descornet – L.42. In addition.22·CPX --.70 1. Lorry tyres are not easy to test.56 0. sound frequency and acoustical impedance (absorption) of the road. One of the main problems with the near-field procedure is to obtain measured values well related to pass-by values. The difference between near-field and far-field comes out to be significantly dependent on speed. The CPX method obviously lacks reproducibility (between different pieces of equipment) and representativity (of the actual traffic noise).4 Comparison between noise measurement methods The main interest of the CPX method is that it can be implemented in urban situations: it is not disturbed by acoustic reflections of nearby buildings like the pass-by procedure. R2 0.79·CPX + 2. its representativity remains questionable.0 SPB = 1. Goubert 20/58 . statistically significant number of vehicles specified to be measured in each category. methods using microphones close to the tyre lack of realism because the far field. The CPB method seems more realistic than the CPX method since it can take into account the total noise of vehicles.40. The only caveat is about the repeatability and reproducibility if one considers that the sample of vehicles is always different form one measurement to another. Another advantage is that the road surface can be tested in a continuous way while the pass-by method is only representative of the spot facing the fixed microphone.96 0. even though SILVIA has developed a procedure. tyre. it is to be noted that. Table 4 – Results of comparisons between SPB and CPX by different laboratories CPX equipment Arsenal (AT) DWW (NL) M+P (NL) TUG (PL) Regression equation SPB = 1. one might argue that comparisons between roads in different countries or regions could be affected by differences in some characteristics of the vehicle fleets. 113. as it does not cover the important megatexture range. as well as dynamic devices capable of measuring at traffic speed. • Harmonisation of the characterisation of texture by means of spectral analysis.1 of IPG [63].3. measure and go). 52. That type of equipment is subject to a set of ISO standards either already published or in development [51. There are static versions. Descornet – L. they have identified the following sub-projects: • A literature survey to describe the current status of normative standard measurement methods. However.2 Sound absorption The sound absorption coefficient is the fraction of sound energy absorbed by a material when a sound wave is reflected by its surface. Two variants of the method are ISO standard [37. macrotexture is still often measured (essentially for work acceptance testing) by means of the so-called “Sand Patch” or a similar “volumetric method”. the main surface characteristics that determine tyre/road noise are macro. The sample. • A European assessment method (from the SILVIA project) for evaluating the noise effects of road surfaces (product labelling. Goubert 21/58 . 56].1 Surface texture As stated in Chapter 4. It can be measured by various methods: • the so-called impedance tube method also referred to as the “Kundt’s tube”: the basic principle is that when the lateral dimensions of a tube are small compared to the wavelength of the acoustic signal.and megatexture. • Study of rolling resistance. It generally depends on the frequency of the sound considered (or its spectrum when it is not a pure sound) and the angle of incidence of the sound wave. monitoring). conformity of production. 4. only planes waves will propagate. G. standardised measurement and assessment methods which will improve the exchange and use of measurement data and which can be used in the technical content of regulations and legislation. • Overcoming problems with the current CPX method. Their goal is to define a set of unambiguous.3. it is not sufficient with respect to noise. The method is an ISO [49] as well as a CEN standard [50]. Modern profiling devices using lasers are now able to measure the whole range of macro. See §4. The absorption coefficient is derived from the shift of the nodes of the stationary wave in presence of the sample.4.and megatexture at once. transportable or mobile (stop. placed at one end of the tube is submitted to normal incident wave fronts. 114]. 53. To achieve that goal.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 That problems remain to be solved is illustrated by Project group 5. • A study of the relationship between SPB and CPX measurement results.2. 4. The sound absorption coefficient of a surface is usually evaluated for plane wave incidence conditions.3 Auxiliary measurement methods 4. Despite modern methods are widely available. normal or oblique incidences can be considered. It has been further demonstrated by SILVIA that. which is not practical. a test method for its stiffness will become necessary. the reverberant room method: in a room with very reflective walls (no absorption) the spatial sound distribution becomes diffuse. a tentative measurement method has been tested [33]. It can be either mounted on a static frame or attached to a van. repeated measurements). the surface material must have a stiffness comparable to that of the tyre. This impulse method is in fact an ISO standard [36] adapted from the AFNOR standard S 31-089 for the on-site determination of the absorption coefficient of absorbing materials used in the construction of noise screens. The absorption coefficient is derived from the decrease of the reverberation time and from the relative area of the sample and the room walls. It uses a transportable tube to be applied vertically onto the surface. For simplicity and understanding one uses the term “stiffness”. It has been shown that. For road surfacing materials. The external point source method is the most suitable for field use. That condition is now met with the so-called “Poro-elastic road surface” (PERS) made of rubber from scrap tyres. A sample placed in such a room is submitted to an acoustically diffuse field (random incidence distribution of plane waves). in SILVIA. Further developments are still needed for a method to be ready for standardisation.3 Mechanical impedance Mechanical impedance is the complex ratio between the dynamic force and the resulting displacement of a surface submitted to that force.3. For the tube method. The method is an ISO/CEN standard [57]. Descornet – L. G. The stiffness of the pavement has sometimes been put forward as the reason for the difference of noisiness between Cement Concrete and Asphalt.4 Standardization This chapter reviews the progress achieved in the relevant international (ISO) and European (CEN) standardization. Depending on the relative positions of the source and the microphone. using the reverberant room method requires a rather large flat sample of the road surface to be either prepared in the laboratory or taken out of the road itself. in which case the measurements can be made moving (stop. if that innovative material proves effective and starts spreading. 4. Now. Such mobile systems are already in service in Italy [59] and in UK [60]. Goubert 22/58 . 4. an in situ version has been developed in the Netherlands [58]. measure and go) or dynamic (non-stop. That is why. a sample must be bored out of the road surface in the form of a core of appropriate diameter. for a road surface stiffness to have any significant influence on tyre/road noise. once the influence of texture is accounted for. the spherical wave front geometry can be approximated by a plane wave front. However.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 • • the external point source method: if a point source is far enough from the measured surface. there is no significant difference in noise performance between the two materials [61]. Finally. At that time. A method for determining megatexture is presently taken into consideration by CEN after an ISO Committee Draft (ISO/CD 13473-5:2005) not yet turned into a standard. which can be converted into MTD values. There is no standard applicable to the measurement of road pavement surface stiffness in a way relevant to noise. Therefore.4. The SPB method is standardized as ISO 11819-1:1997 [43].2 Auxiliary measurement methods Regarding the auxiliary methods. The essential issue pertains to the representativity and the enduring availability of the types of reference tyres to be used. 4. The CPX method has been in development for several years. macrotexture was measured by means of the so-called Sand Patch Test delivering a Mean Texture Depth (MTD). including a reference surface (ISO 10844:1994). representativity and reproducibility of the method are questionable. Descornet – L. That test is still in use for some purposes related to skid resistance and also to noise as in the HAPAS scheme (see § 5. let us quote as a reminder that ISO standards do exist that specify the test procedure for determining the noise emitted by road vehicles in completely controlled conditions and environment. namely ISO 134732:2002 and ISO 13473-3:2002. That new technology soon required some clarification regarding new specific terms. It is presently in the revision process by ISO Working Group ISO/TC43/SC1/WG33. A committee draft has been circulated for some years. However. as precise determination of noise- G. CPB is not to be recommended for standardization because the results are essentially dependent of a few vehicles. However. In the beginning of the studies on tyre/road noise. MPD has been standardized first by ISO (ISO 13473-1:1997) and taken over later by CEN (EN ISO 13473-1:2001). The Sand Patch Test is standardized at European level in EN 13036-1:2001 where it has been re-worded as Volumetric Patch Test because it makes use of glass beads instead of sand. later research resorting to spectral analysis of surface profiles showed that simple measures like MTD and MPD were not sufficient to characterize the surface influence on tyre/road noise.2.12).DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 4. namely ISO/CD 11819-2:2000 [38]. This is provided by two associated standards. namely in UK in the early 1970’s. This is for type approval purpose of either vehicles (ISO 362:1998 and ISO 7188:1994) or tyres (ISO 13325:2003). Megatexture was identified as another very important factor (see Chapter 2). even only one in some reports. Modern technology using lasers is capable of determining even at traffic speed the so-called Mean Profile Depth (MPD).1 Noise measurement methods Regarding the determination of the noise performance of a road surface based on vehicle noise measurements.4. profile data processing. only texture and sound absorption have been subject to international or European standardization. Working Group ISO/TC43/SC1/WG33 is presently trying to overcome the difficulties. Goubert 23/58 . macrotexture was first suspected to be the main factor determining tyre/road noise on different surfaces. two methods are to be taken into consideration: SPB and CPX. The CPB method as such is not standardized at international nor European level. specifications for the prolfilometers and their classification. Descornet – L. Table 5 – Present state of progress of the relevant standardization. Two slightly different methods are standardized: ISO 10534-1:1996 and ISO 10534-2:1998. Working Groups ISO/TC43/SC1/WG39 and CEN/TC227/WG5 are presently dealing with road surface texture measurements. Goubert Comments Currently under revision Currently under revision In development [57] [56] [37] [36] [111] [112] [50] In development In development [51] [52] [53] [113] In development In development.and megatexture calls for spectral analysis of the road surface profile.& megatexture Macro. It consists of comparing an acoustic signal reflected by the surface to the signal sent onto the surface. In search of more practical. one m2). Subject Reference surface Vehicle noise Vehicle noise Tyre/road noise Surface influence Surface influence Ref. ISO 354:2003 or EN 20354:1993 can be used. [49] [41] [42] [115] [43] [38] Macro.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 relevant macro. the measurement can be made mobile. Two slightly different versions of a draft standard are presently under development (ISO/CD 13472-2:2005 and ISO/CD 13472-3:2005). The so-called “Extended Surface Method” is specified in ISO 13472-1:2002. an ISO Technical Specification for pavement profiles spectral analysis is under development (ISO/CD TS 13473-4:2004).g. therefore. Under consideration to be taken over by CEN. in-situ method uses a variant of the impedance tube so-called “Guard tube” applied directly on the road surface. 24/58 .& megatexture Macro. Another non-destructive. some new methods have been or are being developed. Sound absorption of road material samples can be determined in a reverberation room provided they cover a sufficient area (e. using a loudspeaker and a microphone. Working Group ISO/TC43/SC1/WG38 is presently dealing with sound absorption measurement methods applicable to road surfaces. Cores can be either made in the laboratory or bored out of the road surface and fitted into a so-called Kundt’s tube or impedance tube in order to determine their sound absorption spectrum. Table 5 summarizes the present state of progress of standardization. nondestructive methods in-situ. As there is no contact with the surface.& megatexture Document ISO 10844:1994 ISO 362:1998 ISO 7188:1994 ISO 13325:2003 ISO 11819-1:1997 ISO/CD 11819-2:2000 ISO 354:2003 EN 20354:1993 ISO 10534-1:1996 ISO 10534-2:1998 ISO 13472-1:2002 ISO/CD 13472-2:2005 ISO/CD 13472-3:2005 EN 13036-1:2001 ISO 13473-1:1997 EN ISO 13473-1:2004 ISO 13473-2:2002 ISO 13473-3:2002 ISO/CD TS 13473-4:2004 Megatexture ISO/CD 13473-5:2005 [114] Sound absorption Sound absorption Sound absorption Sound absorption Sound absorption Sound absorption Macrotexture Macrotexture G. Descornet – L. Measurements were carried out using four methods. namely: trailer complying with RVS11. trailer complying with ISO/CD 11819-2 [38] G.2 State-of-the-art at national level 5. Subsequently. 5.1 Introduction We have identified sixteen countries among which twelve EU Member States that are applying some kind of noise classification of road surfaces for different purposes. The measurement campaign covered 11 road sections with different surface materials. The road surface corrections Csurf used in RVS is dependent on vehicle category and vehicle speed as shown in Table 6 [1]. guidelines were issued describing a measurement method using a homemade trailer [2] that was used in an investigation by ARSENAL Research [3]. Goubert 25/58 . In addition.2. a model is used that is called RVS 3.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 5 Noise classification of road pavements 5. we are quoting two recently completed European projects that have brought interesting contributions to the subject.02. Table 6 . We are reviewing hereafter the available information from each of those countries.066 delivering ”LMA-values”.Road surface correction in the Austrian model RVS3.1 Austria In Austria.02 Those values are based on SPB and CPB measurements converted in Leq values. Table 8 – Corrections applied by the Brussels Region Surface type Porous asphalt SMA Asphalt concrete Gussasphalt Surface dressing Cement concrete (slabs & blocks) Cobble stones 9 30 km/h 40 km/h 70 km/h -1.7 - 9 Porous asphalt 2 101.5 103. Goubert 26/58 .0 +2. From those results. B.9 - 8 Porous asphalt 1 103. The ranking of surfaces happens to be much dependent of the measurement method as Figure 3 shows.1 103.0 +3.95<R2<0.6 102.5 102.0 +4. C. D) delivering “CPXI4-values” or tyres E & D delivering “CPXI2-values” and SPB according to ISO11819-1 [43] delivering “SPBIvalues”.7 3 Cement concrete 103.0 0. the Brussels Institute for Managing the Environment (IBGE-BIM) applies corrections determined for the 5 types of surfaces encountered in the Brussels Region (Table 8) [110].066-IV LMA ISO/CD11819-2 CPX4 CPX2 ISO11819-1 SPBI 1 Exposed aggregate cement concrete 1 101.5 - 103. The results are given in Table 7.0 +2.5 +2.4 102.3 103.2 102.3 86.4 85.8 11 Asphalt concrete 2 103.9 4 Thin layer 1 102.9 84.0 0.0 50 km/h -2.0 +6.6 - 6 SMA 1 99.6 5 Thin layer 2 101.0 +1.5 102. see § 5.4 7 SMA 2 102. Table 7 – Summary of Austrian measurement results [3] Road surface Type N° RVS11.0 +2. G.4 84.97) while the correlations between any trailer and SPB method are rather poor (0.8 87.8 5. the correlations between trailers appear to be excellent (0.0 0.4).30).5 84.3 104.0 - 103.0 0.3 - 103.5 85.0 +1.0 100 km/h 0.2.26<R2<0.3 102.2 Belgium Referring to the German calculation scheme (RLS-90.0 -2.5 10 Asphalt concrete 1 102.8 86.2 103.0 0.5 +4.8 103.0 +3.0 +6.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 either using all four tyres (E9.0 An alternative for ISO tyre A.7 - 104.8 2 Exposed aggregate cement concrete 2 100.5 +3.2 104.5 103. Descornet – L.2. 0 log(V/90) 88.5 m) versus speed. Descornet – L. 5.3 + 32. 6]. surface category and vehicle category. formulas predicting the level of the rolling noise component have been established for different categories of surfaces versus vehicle category and speed as in Table 9.2 log(V/90) 77.0 log(V/90) 87.6 log(V/90) The surface categories include the following (Table 10): Table 10 – Road surface categories in the French updated calculation method R1 Very thin asphalt layer 0/6 (types 1 & 2) Ultra thin asphalt layer 0/6 Porous asphalt 0/10 Very thin asphalt layer 0/10 (type 2) R2 Very thin asphalt layer 0/10 (type 1) Dense asphalt concrete 0/10 Cold mix Ultra thin asphalt layer 0/10 R3 Cement concrete Very thin asphalt layer 0/14 Dense asphalt concrete 0/14 Surface dressing 6/10 & 10/14 It is to be noted that there is no reference surface.5 log(V/90) 80. namely by including that influence and also taking into account the evolution of vehicle technology [5. SPBI is the SPB Index according to ISO 11819-1 [43].2 + 31. LMA is the Austrian CPX trailer with 16 dB(A) subtracted to the CPX level. So far. Presently. Table 9 – Rolling noise level (LAmax at 7. Goubert 27/58 . the calculation method developed in the seventies [4] does not consider the influence of the road surface. G.2 log(V/90) Heavy vehicles 83.8 + 30.2. The speed range is 5 to 130 km/h for light vehicles and 5 to 100 km/h for heavy vehicles Surface category R1 R2 R3 Light vehicles 73. work is in progress with a view to updating the procedure.7 + 31. The formulas are not corrections: they give the contribution of tyre/road noise in terms of noise levels.8 + 26.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 89 88 dB(A) 87 SPBI 86 LMA-16 dB(A) 85 84 83 6 9 4 1 11 2 3 10 Surface n° Figure 3 – Ranking of surfaces versus the measurement method in the Austrian noise measurement campaign [3].2 + 32.3 France In France. 0 +3. 14/1991” [34] presented in table 11b. They specify the investigation and calculation methods for establishing strategic noise maps.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 5.5 +4.2.0 There are additional surface corrections included in “Allgemeines Rundschreiben Straßenbau Nr. G.5 Hungary Guidelines have been recently issued by the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water [9]. 5.Road surface correction according to the German prediction model DStrO in dB(A) at posted speed limit of Road surface 1 2 3 4 Non-grooved Gussasphalt Asphalt concrete Stone mastic asphalt Cement concrete Grooved Gussasphalt Paving stones with even surface Miscellaneous paving stones 30 km/h 40 km/h 50 km/h 0 0 0 +1.5 +2. Table 11a . The correction applies equally to daytime.2. The indicator is LAeq at 7. Descornet – L.0 -2.5 m.0 -4.4 Germany The German guidelines “Richtlinien für den Lärmschutz an Strassen. textured with burlap Asphalt concrete ≤ 0/11 and stone mastic asphalt 0/8 and 0/11 without loose chippings Open porous asphalt with a void content ≥ 15 % after construction with grain size 0/11 Open porous asphalt with a void content ≥ 15 % after construction with grain size 0/8 DStrO in dB(A) for rural roads with speeds > 60 km/h +1. 1990” (RLS90) include the surface corrections (“DStrO”) n° 1-4 presented in Table 11a in their prediction model [7]. Table 11b – Road surface correction according to the German prediction model Road surface 5 6 7 8 9 Cement concrete after “ZTV Beton 78” with steel brush with longitudinal smoothing Cement concrete after “ZTV Beton 78” without steel brush with longitudinal smoothing. 1992”) [8].0 The corrections can be determined using either the SPB or the CPB method according to GEStrO-92 (“Geräuschemission von Strassenoberflächen.0 +1.0 +6. They include corrections to be applied on the traffic noise level as in Table 12.0 -2. Goubert 28/58 . evening and night traffic noise levels.5 +3.0 +2.0 -5.0 +2. 6 Italy In Italy. not just a flat correction for the A-weighted overall level.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 Although it is not explicitly quoted as such. These include a road surface correction table. one for driving 5 % uphill and another for driving 5 % downhill.9 +6. as the two last lines.8 5.7 +7.9 +4.2. a correction for longitudinal road gradient. Descornet – L. which appears in Table 13. It also includes. the reference surface can be considered here as a Dense Asphalt Concrete similar to many other reference surfaces. Goubert 29/58 . 2/5) Dense asphalt concrete (0/16) Surface-dressed asphalt concrete (0/16) Dense asphalt concrete (0/20) Cement concrete Cracked asphalt concrete Dense asphalt concrete (0/16) older than 4 years Surface-dressed asphalt concrete (0/16) older than 4 years Dense asphalt concrete (0/20) older than 4 years Fretted or plucked cement concrete Small sett paving Ornamental paving blocks Ceramic blocks Chipped sand asphalt (0/16) Chipped sand asphalt (0/20) Correction dB(A) 0 +2. This table is unique in that it includes corrections in octave bands. Table 12 – Road surface corrections in the guidelines of the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water Road surfaces Category A B C D E Types Dense asphalt concrete (0/8) Dense asphalt concrete (0/12) Stone mastic asphalt (0/8) Mastic asphalt (0/8) Mastic asphalt (0/12) Modified thin asphalts layers Dense asphalt concrete with polymer-modified binder Mastic asphalt with polymer-modified binder Thin asphalts layers older than 4 years Stone mastic asphalt (0/12) Modified stone mastic asphalt (0/12) Surface-dressed asphalt concrete (0/12) Dense asphalt concrete with polymer-modified binder older than 4 years Mastic asphalt with polymer-modified binder older than 4 years Single and double surface dressing (5/8. G. there are software models for noise prediction by the name Citymap and Disiapyr [10]. 1 -1. since on smooth surfaces both mechanisms are excited to a very high degree.4 +3.4 -2.6 71.3 +1.4 +2. The classification of surfaces with this tyre does not correlate so well with the SPB method.1 +1.6 +1. the former being the most used for noise reduction. within the porous asphalt surface group.1 5.0 +1.2. This model contains a surface correction. the main subject of the system.8 +0.5 log(V ) + 3. asphalt.6 +1. Tyre/road noise levels are measured by means of special vans (“Road Acoustic Checker”) equipped with a special tyre as a fifth wheel.9 Drainage asphalt pavement -0.1 +2.4 76. tested relations show a reasonable correlation CPX-SPB [32]. However. The tread pattern consists of large “suction cups” on one side of the tyre and large “crossbar lugs” on the other side.1 +2. It is also given by octave-bands if one uses the full procedure. asphalt.7 87.Road surface correction in the Italian model Citymap [10].2 -1. One of the improvements considered is to take the age of the surface into account.2 -1.7 +0. The last two lines are corrections for longitudinal road gradient 63 Hz 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1 kHz 2 kHz 4 kHz 8 kHz dB(A) Conventional asphalt pavement (reference) Road surface 81.0 -0. but only for porous asphalt pavements (PA 0/13.4 81.8 +1.3 +1.7 Japan The model used in Japan is called the ASJ Model.1 -1. The correction is valid over the speed range 40-140 km/h for light vehicles and 40-120 km/h for heavy vehicles.8 -2.1 -0.1 81. Descornet – L.2 75.8 -1.2 +2.2.8 70.8 The Netherlands The Dutch official specifications for noise calculation and measurement [13] provides for a correction term for the road surface influence called “Croad”. and it is as follows [12]: Correction = −3. It is defined as follows: G. Goubert 30/58 .1 +1.3 Paving stones +1.2 +0. usually having about 20 % voids in new condition) in relation to "normal" dense asphalt pavements (DAC 0/13).3 +1. both the vibrational impact mechanism and the air-pumping mechanism are excited in a maximum way. The method resembles the CPX method.2 Conv. It is as a function of vehicle category and speed if one uses the simplified procedure.5 % Ì -1.4 Conv. In this way. 5. gradient + 5 % Ê +2.1 +2.1 73.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 Table 13 . gradient .5 +1.3 -0.3 -1.2 (1) Where V is the vehicle speed in [km/h].2 +2.3 -1. The latest version is from 1998 [11]. The Japanese are going to revise this model. The tyre is a normal Bridgestone tyre for which the normal tread has been buffed-off and a new tread has been fitted with a very special tread pattern. 52 -8.78 -1.29 -5.5 b dB(A) 33.59 -10.94 -0.76 -4.i = ∆Lm .18 -4. which is a smooth. Tables 15 & 16 list Croad values for light and medium/heavy vehicles respectively [15]. That correction is to be applied with respect to a reference surface.93 -2.48 -8.41 -5.8 80.i + bm log⎜⎜ m ⎝ V0.04 -13. speed of the reference surface: L = a + b log(V/V0) a dB(A) Light vehicles Medium heavy vehicles Heavy vehicles 74.00 -8. dense asphalt concrete.5 V0 (km/h) 80 70 70 The measurement method specified to determine Croad is the SPB with a microphone height of 5 m.72 -7.0 20.39 -1. Descornet – L.38 -3.V.m = ∆Lm + bm log⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟ ⎝ V0. That surface is specified by means of its reference values given in Table 14 [14].48 10 ZSA is a product name of the company KWS.05 -6.9 83.09 70 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 40 40 50 40 40 40 130 60 60 80 80 50 60 60 50 50 80 50 50 50 2.24 -6.open ZSA .61 -5.29 4.m (2) ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (3) where m and i are respectively the subscripts for vehicle category and frequency band (octaves). which means “Very Silent Asphalt” ZSM is a product name of the company Temmink Infra B.08 -6.71 -6.00 -2.89 -3.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 Simplified procedure: Full procedure: ⎛V ⎞ C road .36 -2. Table 14 – Reference values of the parameters in the equation of the noise level vs.02 -5.62 -7.01 -6.21 70 70 80 120 -0.m .9 22.21 -5.63 5.00 -5.10 -3. ZSM stands for “Zeer Stil Mastiek”.81 0. Table 15 – Corrections for the road surface to be used in the Dutch noise calculation procedure for light vehicles N° 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Product type Reference surface Single layer porous asphalt Double layer porous asphalt Double layer porous asphalt (fine) SMA 0/6 Exposed aggregates cement concrete Exposed aggregates cement concrete (optimized) Finely brushed cement 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Surface treatment common pavement blocks Silent pavement blocks Thin layers 1 Thin layers 2 ZSA10 . Goubert 31/58 .42 b 0.91 1.00 -2. ZSA stands for “Zeer Stil Asfalt”.m ⎠ ⎛V C road .63 -1.semi dense Dubofalt Nobelpave 11 ZSM Micropave SilentSTONE Viagrip Geosilent asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt cement cement cement asphalt / cement blocks blocks asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt blocks asphalt blocks Vmin 40 50 50 50 40 50 Vmax 130 130 130 120 80 130 ∆L 0.60 -8.83 -4.07 1. which means “Very silent mastic” 11 G.64 -6.43 -6. DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Micro-Top 0/6 Micro-Top 0/8 Stilstone Redufalt Accoduit Novachip Tapisville Fluisterfalt Microville Microflex 0/6 Decipave Twinlay-m (*) Silent Mastic Bruitville Duolay asphalt asphalt blocks asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt 50 50 40 50 50 60 40 50 40 50 40 40 50 40 110 60 70 50 60 80 80 50 90 50 80 60 50 60 60 120 -5.70 4.66 -0.27 0.98 4.28 -1. Descornet – L.12 -4.86 -6.24 -5.01 6.67 -1.97 -3.65 -5.25 -5.73 5.81 -5.63 -6.66 -2.00 0.97 1.00 0.00 -3.87 -6.00 0. according to which the corrections listed in Table 17 have been determined.01 70 70 80 90 -1.89 -4.58 -3.43 -4.90 -6.73 -3.28 -5.73 -6.00 0. 19] Surface types Porous asphalt Stone mastic asphalt New asphalt concrete Asphalt concrete with bigger chipping sizes Old cement concrete Flat paving stones Damaged stone paving 12 Correction (B(A) -3 -2 0 +2 +3 +3 +6 2 See note . The method is entirely based on German guidelines RLS – 90.26 70 40 40 40 40 50 80 100 60 60 80 80 60 80 -0.00 -0.44 -4.61 -4.02 -6.33 7.85 -4.60 -5.08 -3.2.64 b 0. Table 17 – Road surface corrections specified in the Slovenian method for evaluating traffic noise impact on the environment [18. they use the regulation that defines the method of evaluation of traffic noise impact on the environment [18].63 -9. G.01 -1.36 -6.41 -5.53 -2.18 -1.36 -4.92 -0.05 1. Goubert 32/58 . Table 16 – Corrections for the road surface to be used in the Dutch noise calculation procedure for medium and heavy vehicles N° 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Product type Reference surface Single layer porous asphalt Double layer porous asphalt Double layer porous asphalt (fine) SMA 0/6 Exposed aggregates cement concrete Exposed aggregates cement concrete (optimized) Finely brushed cement 8 9 10 11 12 14 34 Surface treatment Common pavement blocks Silent pavement blocks Thin layers 1 Thin layers 2 ZSA12-semi dense Twinlay-m asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt cement cement cement asphalt / cement blocks blocks asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt Vmin 40 70 70 50 50 70 Vmax 90 100 100 90 70 100 ∆L 0.9 Slovenia For taking the influence of road surfaces on traffic noise emission.27 (*) Also valid for 110 km/h.67 -2.78 -7.36 -5.29 -11.06 -6.11 -4.96 -5.00 -6. 2 -2.7 79. SMA’s.1 -6.5 12 1 Nr. Correction terms for road surface "noisiness" in calculations (noise mapping) have been proposed [23] (Table 19). Descornet – L. It says that.7 70. namely: • • The standard about rehabilitation of pavements for the Road State Network [21] includes a paragraph in the section about resurfacing.1 -2. Table 18 – Comparison between subsequent measurement results and guidelines AC SD SD-AC SMA SMA-AC PA PA-AC 50 Speed (km/h) 71.0 -3.7 75.6 65. there are some mentions in two standards.6 -2. However. they can be used in urban areas with ADT>2000 vehicles/day if noise reduction is needed.4 75. Porous asphalts and Dense asphalts [20]. it appears that the correction is fairly well confirmed for SMA but not for PA. always taking into account the other surface characteristics of these mixes.9 Guideline N. it is possible to use porous asphalt or some SMA.3 -1.7 78.5 -7. in case the rolling noise should be reduced. -2.0 81. the noise-reducing performance of which is significantly underestimated by the guidelines (Table 18).0 5.5 -6.0 70 77. Table 19 – Proposed noise corrections for road surfaces in Spain Surface types Porous asphalt Smooth asphalt concrete Cement concrete Rough asphalt concrete Bald paving blocks Harsh paving blocks G.0 -1.A.2 110 83.2 -1.8 -1. Goubert 0-60 km/h -1 0 Correction dB(A) 61-80 km/h -2 0 81-130 km/h -3 0 2 2 2 3 6 3 6 3 6 33/58 .6 75.3 69. The standard for designing pavements in the Andalucia Region Road Network [22] says that. of sections 16 2 Average -1.5 -7. which appear to have been take over from the Commission Recommendation of 6 August 2003 [107].7 -2.7 -6.1 70. although in general it's not advisable to use porous asphalt (because of climatic constraints).0 73.10 Spain There is no specific regulation about road surface influence on traffic noise.2.4 -1.8 90 80.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 From a subsequent measurement campaign covering Surface dressings.8 81. 12 United Kingdom In the method used in the U. they are planning to start a research about the absorption measurement of different kind of pavements using MLS13 techniques. 0/16) Mastic asphalt (0/8. 0/11) 15 Grainy asphalt mix 16 Asphalt mix added with tar (0/10) Surface dressing (6/11) Asphalt mix added with tar (0/16) Sett paving Correction dB(A) -4 -1 0 +1 +6 Table 20 is said to be valid for pavements between 3 and 20 year old. 5. Table 20 – Corrections for the road surface in the Swiss “SonRoad” calculation model Surface type Porous asphalt (0/8. In the future. 0/11) 14 « Macro-rough » asphalt (0/8. 0/11.2. For impervious bituminous and 13 “Maximum Length Sequences” according to ISO 13472-1 [36]. measurements of rolling noise using the CPX method are underway. 0/11) Asphalt concrete (0/8. It means that the CRTN needs access to a measured or predicted texture depth.K.20 dB(A) Correction = 10 log (20 MTD + 60) .2.. Goubert 34/58 .11 Switzerland The Swiss noise calculation model “SonRoad” includes corrections for the road surface as in Table 20 [24].DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 Now.20 dB(A) (4) (5) where MTD is the texture depth measured by the sand-patch test. 0/16) Surface dressing (3/6) Stone mastic asphalt (0/8. For road surfaces and traffic conditions which do not conform to these requirements a separate correction to the basic noise level is required. 0/11. termed CRTN17. Descornet – L. It is warned that the correction for the sett paving applies to tyre/road noise only while the other corrections are for the global vehicle noise. “Asphalt macro-rugueux” 15 “Enrobé bitumineux grenu” 16 “Enrobé avec adjonction de goudron” 17 Calculation of Road Traffic Noise. In our opinion. 5. the correction is expressed as follows [25]: For roads which are impervious to surface water and where the traffic speed (V) is >75 km/h the following correction to the basic noise level is required: for concrete surfaces: for bituminous surfaces: Correction = 10 log (90 MTD + 30) . tyre/road noise anyway determines the global noise level in this case. 14 G. “the introduction of new proprietary and the failure of previous empirical relationship to accurately predict noise levels from measurements of road surface characteristics has led to the consideration of direct measurement of noise” [26].9 (6) for high speeds. Table 21 .2. Finland and Iceland) have had a common prediction model. Goubert 35/58 .3 (7) for medium speeds.8 ×10 L veh.578 × 10 10 L veh. Roads surfaced with pervious macadam have different acoustic properties from the surfaces described above. 3. Descornet – L.66 0 0 0 Nordic countries Since first introduced in the 1970's.72 -1.Correction in the US TNM model in dB(A) compared to the reference case Automobiles Reference: A mix of DAC and PCC surfaces Dense asphalt concrete Portland Cement Concrete Open-graded asphalt 5.2.H1 + 0.59 +0. Later on.L RSI H = 10 log10 ( 7. Denmark. Norway. and RSI M = 10 log10 ( 11.5 dB(A) should be subtracted from the basic noise level for all traffic speeds. 1 dB(A) should be subtracted from the basic noise level when the traffic speed (V) is <75 km/h.15 -0.H 2 10 ) .8 × 10 10 L veh.L 10 + 0. according to which the influence of the road surface on traffic noise is determined using the SPB method. G. The latest one is from 1996 [28] and has an optional road surface correction according to Table 22.H2 + 10 10 ) .64 +1. The same correction applies for all speeds.65 +2.157 ×10 L veh.47 -1. A mix of DAC and PCC constitutes the reference surface.13 USA In the Traffic Noise Model (TNM) used in the USA. 5.95. For roads surfaced with these materials.92. 18 Higway Authorities Product Approval Scheme. the road surface correction is presented in Table 21 [27].DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 concrete road surfaces.14 Heavy trucks Motorcycles 0 Medium trucks & busses 0 0 0 -0. The result is expressed in terms of Road Surface Influence as follows: L veh. This correction comes from [29] where its background is also described (see also [35]). the five Nordic countries (Sweden.629 ×10 Lveh . H 1 10 + 0. This has been implemented in the HAPAS18 type approval system.36 -2.20 -0. Table 22 . max 6-9 mm Do.a 12.b 12. concr. Descornet – L.. Goubert 0-5 % 6-100 % 1-20 <1 1-20 <1 1-20 <1 1-20 <1 0-20 1-20 <1 1-20 <1 1-20 <1 1-20 <1 1-20 <1 3-7 1-2 <1 3-7 1-2 <1 0-40 0-40 0-5 0-90 0-20 20-100 % Asph. cobble stones (older type) Cement block pavement (interlocking) 6-19 % 1.b 11.c 13. newly laid Mastic asphalt (max 8-10 mm) Do. max 10-12 mm Do. newly laid Cem. smooth ≤ 20-80 mm Cem.b 5. double (Y2).b 3.a 3. The newest version of the source model [Source modelling report 060102.c 12. dense.b 2. This means that the very detailed list in the 1996 version will be replaced with a less detailed one. dense. newly laid Porous asph. ≤ 12-18 mm Cem. dense. chipping size also indicated here) o 6-19 % N 81-130 km/h 0-5 % 0-60 km/h ref 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 -2 +1 +1 +2 0 0 0 -1 0 +1 0 0 0 -1 -2 0 -1 -3 +2 +1 -1 +3 0 ref 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 +1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 0 -1 -3 +1 +1 -1 +3 0 ref -1 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -1 -3 +1 +1 -1 +2 0 ref -2 -1 -2 +1 +1 -1 -2 +2 +2 +3 0 0 -1 -1 +1 +1 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -1 -2 -4 +2 +2 -2 +5 0 ref -1 0 -1 0 0 -1 -2 +1 +1 +1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 -1 -2 -4 +2 +2 -2 +4 0 ref -1 0 -1 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 -1 -2 -1 -2 -1 -1 -3 -1 -2 -5 +2 +2 -2 +3 0 ref -2 -1 -2 +1 +1 -1 -2 +2 +2 +2 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 -3 -5 +2 +2 -1 +5 0 ref -2 -1 -2 0 0 -1 -2 +1 +1 +1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 -3 -2 -3 -5 +2 +2 -1 +4 0 36/58 ..a 2. max 10-12 mm Do. only for distribution between project partners] is very brief concerning road surface characterisation.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 A new model called Nord2000 is presently being developed. smooth. smooth (≤12-16 mm) Do. newly laid Chipped asphalt (BCS) ("hot rolled asph.a 4. 17.. version 1996 Correction term in dB(A) for a certain % of heavy vehicles Road surface 61-80 km/h G. "medium aged" Do. single (Y1).b 4.b 7. It is scheduled to be completed by 31 March 2006.b 8. max 16-20 mm Do. 15.a 9.Road surface correction table in the Nordic model. smooth (≤ 8-10 mm) Do.a 6. single (Y1). newly laid Chip seal. max 14-16mm (≥20%voids) Do. concr. single (Y1). 6. "medium aged" Do. concr. newly laid Porous asph. 16..a 1. 14. concr. newly laid Chip seal. max 16-20 mm Do. double (Y2).a 7.a 11.. newly laid Asph.b 11. The road categories will be as in Table 23 [30].") Chip seal. newly laid Chip seal. dense. newly laid Mastic asphalt (max 12-16 mm) Do. 0-5 % Age [year] 20-100 % Type (max. max 8-12 mm (≥20% voids) Do. concr.a 8.a 10.b 10.b 9.. ground (grinding not worn) Paving stones. newly laid Chip seal.. max 14-16 mm (>20 % voids) Porous asph. and states have different preferences and policies. See further another technical report within HARMONOISE... Then.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 Table 23 . single (Y1). SMA 0/13. cobble stones (older type) Cement block pavement (interlocking) 5.3.") Chip seal. dealing specifically with this issue [31]. max 16-20 mm Chip seal.1 Introduction This chapter reviews the recently completed or still ongoing European projects dealing with the road surface influence on traffic noise. double (Y2). max 10-12 mm Chip seal.3. dense. max 8-12 mm (>20 % voids) Cem. DAC 0/12.Road categories in the Nord2000 model Main category 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sub category 1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b 3c 3d 4a 4b 5a 5b 6a 6b 6c 7 8 Name Asph.. max 6-9 mm Chip seal. G. it is impossible to define one and only one reference surface. It is (basically) close to a DAC 0/13 or an SMA 0/13. dense. SMA 0/16 A “Golden reference” is defined within this reference cluster.. double (Y2). SMA 0/14. which is the ideal reference surface on which the basic values of HARMONOISE are based. DAC 0/13. single (Y1). one may make small corrections that normalize the actually chosen reference surface to the “Golden reference”. single (Y1). max 12-18 mm Cem. smooth.. 5. SMA 0/12. Instead. concr.3 European projects 5. DAC 0/14. concr. smooth max 20-80 mm Cem. smooth (≤ 8-10 mm) Mastic asphalt (SMA) (max 12-16 mm) Mastic asphalt (SMA) (max 8-10 mm) Chipped asphalt (BCS) ("hot rolled asph. depending on the actual reference surface used in a particular country and in a particular situation. max 16-20 mm Chip seal. concr. it is proposed to define a “cluster” of reference surfaces having fairly similar noise characteristics as follows: DAC 0/11. Descornet – L. concr. Since the reference surface type must be one that is reasonably common in each member state. ground (grinding not worn) Paving stones. dense.2 HARMONOISE HARMONOISE proposes rather detailed correction terms or formulae for the influence of the road surface on vehicle noise emission.. max 10-12 mm Porous asph. smooth (≤12-16 mm) Asph. Goubert 37/58 . concr. DAC 0/16 SMA 0/11. dense.. 016t 2 )) (9) where t ≤ 7 years. m K = temperature coefficient = air temperature Tatm = reference air temperature Tatm.25t − 0. 0 Some road surface correction coefficients are given in an appendix as tentative default values for the following surfaces: • • • • • • • • • PA 6/16 2 layer PA transversely brushed concrete exposed aggregate concrete SMA 0/6 surface dressing 1/3 paving stones HRA 20 block paving.m + K (Tatm − Tatm . i. In addition.org/] gives the noise emission from vehicles on the standard reference at standard temperature. Descornet – L.0 ) (8) where: surf m i = road surface type = vehicle category = third-octave frequency band n° αsurf. Goubert 38/58 .i + β surf .i = α surf . corrections are given for the ageing porous surfaces: ∆Lt = ∆L0 (1 − (0.i log vm v ref .m .DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 The HARMONOISE engineering method for predicting road traffic noise [39http://www. m i = road surface correction coefficients for m-vehicles and ifrequency band = speed of m-vehicles vm = reference speed for m-vehicles vref. and for wetness (for light vehicles only): 110 f ∆Lwet = X f log( ) + Y f log( ) v 2000 (10) where: G.m . m. The correction for the road surface is given by the following formula in dB: C surf .imagine-project.m . βsurf. There are two possible labelling procedures: LABEL1 (preferred): Assessment based on SPB and CPX measurements.like Croad for instance – but. Yf = frequency dependent coefficients v = vehicles speed f = frequency 5. “Rigid” surfaces are defined as normal asphalt and concrete. i.Recommended labelling system for assessing the acoustic performance of different types of road surfaces . For the purposes of assessing conformity-of-production (COP). However.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 Xf. being much stiffer than tyres. Both noise labels are based on SPB.3. which has been chosen in SILVIA as the reference noise classification method because of its representativity.3 SILVIA SILVIA does not propose specific corrections. Descornet – L. Table 24 . LABEL2: Assessment based on SPB measurements and measurements of intrinsic properties of the road surface. more importantly. whereas surfaces with a noise LABEL2 certification are assessed according to the relevant measurement of the intrinsic properties of the surface used in deriving the noise label. texture and sound absorption (plus mechanical impedance if relevant).Determining the noise label Label ID LABEL1 LABEL2 Method of assessment for different road surfaces Dense Graded Open Graded Rigid Rigid Elastic SPB SPB SPB CPX CPX CPX SPB SPB SPB Texture Texture Texture G. The proposed classification system [33] identifies specific measurement procedures necessary for labelling the acoustic performance of a road surface. that project has developed a comprehensive scheme for not only determining correction terms . Goubert 39/58 . surfaces with a noise LABEL1 certification are to be assessed using the CPX method.e. because of the practical constraints that make the SPB method generally unsuitable for conformity of production testing in the field (see Chapter 4). e. for labelling a specific surfacing technology and for subsequently contractually checking the conformity of production of that technology once applied on the road. the labelling procedure includes associated measurements that will be used as substitutes to SPB in the COP procedure. Table 24 summarises the recommended method of assessment for noise labelling and Table 25 summarises the recommended method for assessing COP.g. The underlying assumption is that it is sufficient to use either CPX or the relevant intrinsic surface characteristics of a given material to guarantee the conformity of its noise performance in terms of SPB. instead. DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 Absorption Absorption Mechanical Impedance Table 25 .0 1. less than 3 years old Porous asphalt twin layer.4 EU WG 8 The classification proposed in Table 26 is apparently based on a mix of German and British data.7 -2.8 1. 3-5 years old Surface dressing 0/11 Uneven pavement stones Gussasphalt Cement concrete.0 1.Assessing COP Label ID LABEL1 LABEL2 Method of assessment for different road surfaces Dense Graded Open Graded Rigid Rigid Elastic CPX CPX CPX Texture Texture Texture Absorption Absorption Mechanical Impedance 5.1 -2. 3-5 years old Asphalt concrete 0/11 Stone mastic asphalt 0/11 Porous asphalt 0/11. less than 3 years old Porous asphalt 0/11.0 0. more than 5 years old Cement concrete. Road surface type Porous asphalt twin layer. exposed aggregate Cement concrete.2 1.0 0.0 -3.3 2. It has been proposed in a report commissioned by the European Working Group 8 on traffic noise that was delivered to DG ENT in 2003 [71].0 0.0 0.4 1. 3-5 years old Porous asphalt 0/16.0 -0. Goubert Light vehicles -6.5 6. burlap treated Hot rolled asphalt Asphalt concrete 0/16 Porous asphalt 0/8.0 -2. more than 5 years old Cement concrete.0 0.3 -0.5 4.0 1.0 0.0 -0.0 -3.0 0.0 -1. Descornet – L.4 0.5 -3. The reference surface is Asphalt Concrete 0/11 and the reference speed is 50 km/h.4 1.3 1.0 0. 3-5 years old Porous asphalt 0/11. less than 3 years old Even pavement stones Grip-surface Porous asphalt 0/8. more than 5 years old Porous asphalt 0/16.0 -3. transversely brushed G.5 -1.0 -1.0 2. less than 3 years old Porous asphalt twin layer.0 -5.5 0.7 Heavy vehicles -4.9 3.7 -2.7 2.1 40/58 . longitudinally brushed Porous asphalt 0/8.Recommended labelling system for assessing the acoustic performance of different types of road surfaces .0 1.8 3.3 -3.0 0.3. more than 5 years old Porous asphalt 0/16.0 -3.0 2.0 -2. Table 26 – Correction terms in dB(A) proposed by EffNoise [120].0 -4.3 0. 5. the categories are as given in English in the source documents.3. the same classification again has been taken over by the European Commission Working Group on Assessment of Exposure to Noise [74]. Descornet – L. The publishable part of the otherwise confidential final technical report [123] claims that the objective has been met but does not tell with which solution. 5.8 SILENCE The European project SILENCE is also presently developing such a correction table in its Sub-Project F “Road Surfaces”.5 ROTRANOMO The ROTRANOMO Project (“Road Traffic Noise Modelling”) has elaborated a tool to calculate road related noise emissions in order to meet future standards of the EU Noise Directive "Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise" [121]. Goubert 41/58 . It is intended to be adapted to urban conditions.3. 5.9 SIRUUS The objectives of the SIRUUS project (“Silent Road for Urban and extra-Urban Use”) were to develop new solutions for low-noise surfaces capable of reducing traffic noise by 3 dB(A) on motorways and 5 dB(A) in urban areas.3. 5. among which two sophisticated. the names of the different surfacing materials and techniques are not always comparable or translatable. Considering measures on the noise sources.3.3. the rankings are in G. so-called “euphonic” and “ecotechnic” pavement structures and the already known two-layer porous asphalt. The reference surfaces were. 20).6 EffNoise EffNoise is a “Service contract relating to the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures” carried out in cooperation with EU WG HSEA “Health and Socio-Economic Aspects”. 16.4 Discussion Across countries. The calculations actually take into account the road surface by means of the classification developed by WG 8 (Table 26). like between popular materials and technologies like DAC. SMA. In the Dutch and Swiss tables (Tables 15. In all other tables.7 EU WG-AEN Finally. Three types of low-noise pavements were tested on an Italian motorway. PA. EACC for instance. Work Package 4 “Noise classification” [86]. low gear setting driving conditions.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 5. 5. respectively a “traditional porous asphalt type road surface” on motorways and a “traditional dense bitumen road surface” in urban areas. When the comparison seems possible. which means that the surface influence will also be considered for low-speed. The comparison is still more difficult when proprietary names are used. the surfacing types have been translated by us. they exhibit a classification identical to the one given in Table 26 [120]. > 60 km/h All 0/12 mm All 0/13 mm. With those remarks in view. See also [33]. Although. Light veh. Descornet – L. the ranking could obviously not be adapted to urban conditions. Actually.61 -3 -6.9 -3.5 EACC-DAC 0 -2. 16 mm.7 / +0. However. All max.3 -3. 21) have any significance.5 / -0. 90 km/h Light veh.42 Remarks Light veh. < 60 km/h > 80 km/h Light veh. Among the factors that influence the precision of the classification.9 -1 -3 -4 -1. 50 km/h SPBI LMA All 0/10 mm.3 / -1. it is not clear whether it also applies to urban conditions where not only low speeds but also low gear settings are used. Even the first decimal is probably not significant either. In addition. Differences are in dB(A). in some cases. we can quote the variability of road surfacing materials mainly regarding texture depending on the characteristics of ingredients. Table 27 – Comparison between rankings of “popular” surfacing types.3 -1. 16. the ranking is given for different speeds including low speeds. 50 km/h 30-50 km/h All 0/11 mm. when there is a reference surface. Light veh.1 0 0 / +1 PA-DAC -1 -3.0 / 0. G. There is also a lack of comparability between different classifications due to the use of different measurement and evaluation methods.55 -1 / 0 -0. it is consistently a dense asphalt concrete or a combination of DAC and some other common surface like in USA and in the HARMONOISE proposal.0 -1. see [33]). Goubert 42/58 . in general. nowhere is the precision stated except in the procedures proposed by SILVIA where tolerances are indicated on the Labelling and COP results (not reported here.4 / -1. etc. 90 km/h All 0/10 mm.0 -2.6 -2.0 +2.07 / +1. 50 km/h All 0/13 mm. Country AT AT AT FR FR DE DE HU IT JP JP NL SI SI ES ES CH US NO Reference Table 6 Table 7 Table 7 Tables 9&10 Tables 9&10 Table 11a Table 11b Table 12 Table 13 Formula 1 Formula 1 Table 15 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 SMA-DAC -3.4 -2.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 general poorly consistent as Table 27 shows. Light veh.3 0 0.4 -3. characteristics of traffic and climatic effects on ageing. it is questionable whether the two decimals given in the Dutch and American tables (Tables 15.8 / -1.9 -2 -2.0 -2.7 -3. unless it is rounded to the closest half unit. laying circumstances. In that respect it is to be highlighted that CPX and SPB are not equivalent as the Austrian data shown in Table 7. when a ranking is given in terms of an index including a certain proportion of heavy vehicles like with SPBI or Leq. G. the same conclusion can be drawn: it seems illusory to assign a “noisiness” level to a given surfacing type. the classifications available so far are generally based on data collected several years ago. other technologies . Figure 4 is a first classification attempt based of tyre/road noise measurements carried out with a car on several dozens of pavement “types” in Belgium in the late seventies. there is a need for extending the data base to urban conditions including low speeds and low gear settings.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 Until the procedures proposed by SILVIA are applied routinely. Goubert 43/58 . In addition. In the meantime.like for instance thin layers . Descornet – L. there is a need for supplementing the tables in that respect. The reason is likely that the acoustic performance of a road surface is not Cobble stones Cement concrete Surface dressings Asphalt concrete Resinous slurry Porous asphalt 65 70 75 80 85 90 dB(A) Figure 4 – Early attempt to classify road surfaces in Belgium based on CPB levels of a car coasting at 80 km/h. which can moreover be different across borders. Figure 5 is a more recent classification established in France and based on cars pass-by noise.have become popular. So. since urban conditions are probably not well represented by the available classifications. Even though the categories are much more narrowly defined than in the Belgian study. a compilation of existing correction terms could be used as default values for comparable surfacing types. often under proprietary names as in the Dutch classification (Tables 15 & 16). The fact is that the range of variation within a given type generally exceeds the average differences between types. However. The main problem with classifying road surfaces regarding noise is the wide variability within a given category of materials. engine off [79]. Comparison measurements reported by the Dutch IPG project [63] further demonstrate the variability of the initial noise performance in terms of SPB noise level reduction19 of the same type of pavement – actually a double-layer porous asphalt – laid by the same contractor and different contractors at different places. Descornet – L. macro. which will determine the most noise-relevant surface characteristics i. along any apparently homogeneous road section. Only two contractors out of eight were able to reproduce the same pavement performance within a range of 1 dB(A) for both cars and lorries.e. the noise level – as measured by means of a CPX-type equipment – usually varies by some dB(A)’s. over time. There is a significant influence of the laying process and circumstances. 19 With respect to a reference level corresponding to a standard Dense Asphalt Concrete. Finally. The differences within the set of surfaces built by the same contractor can be up to 2 dB(A) for cars (Figure 6) and more than 3 dB(A) for lorries (Figure 7). In addition. wear due to weather and traffic . The maximum differences between different contractors are also about 2 to 3 dB(A). Goubert 44/58 .and megatexture.will also affect the noise performance to some extent.and clogging of porous layers . G.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 Figure 5 – French classification based on cars passing by at 90 km/h [118] only determined by its compound. Figure 7 . Each contractor was requested to reproduce the same pavement on four different motorways: A28.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 Figure 6 – Initial noise reductions in terms of SPB average pass-by level for light vehicles travelling at 110 km/h on different sections in double-layer porous asphalt in Netherlands [63]. A and B built a 2/6mm top layer. Each contractor was requested to reproduce the same pavement on four different motorways: A28. Goubert 45/58 . C to H built a 4/8mm top layer. A15 and A59. Descornet – L. G. A30. C to H built a 4/8mm top layer. A and B built a 2/6mm top layer. A to H are different contractors. A15 and A59. A to H are different contractors. A30.Initial noise reductions in terms of SPB average pass-by level for heavy vehicles travelling at 80 km/h on different sections in double-layer porous asphalt in Netherlands [63]. The procedures proposed by SILVIA are compatible with the Dutch system as they provide CRoad and the COP procedure accepts the use of CPX measurements. other sources of vehicle noise that could be influenced by the surface characteristics are not considered. However. To that end. we can but recommend concentrating on the validation at European level of a classification system such as the one developed by SILVIA. Goubert 46/58 . the concept is to associate a type approval procedure and conformity of production procedure.e. Indeed. using CPX measurements. the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are the only Member States having a regulation specifying noise performance for road surfaces and how to check them in situ. was introduced in the Netherlands in the late 1990s [89] to act as both a type approval scheme. The test procedure developed by TRL for this type approval largely follows the ISO SPB method. In 1998. However. In the United Kingdom. • it is poorly correlated with far-field measurements. when high precision is not required. some countries are beginning to operate schemes that effectively act as type approval procedures for road surfaces.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 6 Conclusions and recommendations When noise classification of road surfaces are required for calculation purposes or as rough guidance to road authorities. i. To our knowledge. • it is very sensitive to the exact location of the microphones because of the complex radiation pattern around a tyre. but uses three classes of vehicle instead of the two classes normally used. the Highways Agency Products Approval (HAPAS) was developed primarily with the aim of assessing the fitness for purpose of different road surface products. A similar scheme. It has become very popular essentially because it is much more practical than CPB or SPB. Descornet – L. New road surfaces have to comply with the requirements of HAPAS in order to achieve certification for use in road constructions and maintenance programs. and it was decided at the time to include an optional noise test. the Dutch as well as the British systems essentially rely on CPX measurements to make the link between the type approval and the COP tests. • on porous surfaces. There is no type approval procedure for road surfaces that applies across the European Union. based around the ISO SPB method. But its representativity is highly questionable because: • it measures only tyre noise. it is not exaggerated to state that CPX can be considered as a makeshift. G. Basically. we cannot see any other solution in the short run than to make the best use of existing data as those reported in Chapter 5. and for ensuring conformity of production. that kind of data will have to be more reliable and precise. • its representativity of truck tyre noise is doubtful until a CPX for truck tyres is developed. which does not seem realistic. In the longer run. namely for contractual purposes. it does not take into account propagation effects. the scheme was extended to cover the type approval of proprietary thin surfacing materials. known as the CRoad scheme. which explains the discrepancies between the measurement results when comparing different devices. However. G.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 • on porous surfaces. it is subject to constraints that prevents it to be used everywhere. tolerances should be set at realistic values taking into account the intrinsic variability of the acoustic performance of road surfacing types. In an attempt to better secure the reproducibility between different variants of CPX equipment. stiffness) into noise levels or noise reduction levels or indices. 2. urban) depending on the main relevant traffic characteristics (proportion of heavies.e. 3. in view of their similarity. Summing up. A CEN standard for CPX equipment should be taken over from . Goubert 47/58 . could be assumed to deliver identical results. the SILVIA project proposes a set of certification procedures that have been published in a booklet by the Gdansk Technical University [122] to ensure the conformity of a given device to the basic specifications of the ISO standard. Let us finally point out that.the ISO draft and include the certification procedures developed by SILVIA or a reference to it. The draft ISO standard for the determination of megatexture should be taken over as a CEN standard as soon as the ISO standard is issued. It still needs to include the stiffness influence. Therefore. Such models already exist. in contracts. absorption. which makes it possible to derive the noise level of any real traffic. more or less at the position of the exposed façades. rural. texture.or inspired by . Such tolerances are suggested in the SILVIA labelling and COP procedures. This could work provided a robust model is available to convert the relevant characteristics (i. Therefore. it does not take into account the possible absorption of power train noise. SPB is the only truly representative method since it is actually measured at the road side. a big problem with CPX is the wide diversity of the already existing equipment. Descornet – L. it is flexible in the use of the results: it can be adapted to any kind of road (motorway. Reproducibility problems have moreover been observed between devices that. it tests only a spot on the road. That is why SILVIA has introduced the concept of auxiliary testing methods that could be used as “proxies” for CPX and SPB. It takes into account the whole range of vehicle types and speeds. here are our recommended next steps for setting up a European noise classification system for road surfaces: 1) Standardization: 1. Apart from the reference tyres issue. It is not generally applicable in urban areas. it is neither practical nor cost-effective for acceptance or COP tests since it would have to be repeated many times along the road section. The revised ISO standard for the SPB method should be taken over as a CEN standard as soon as it is issued. Moreover. SILVIA has developed one. which can typically reach several dB(A)’s in terms of vehicle noise levels. based both on statistical data and on computer simulations [33]. average speed). Descornet – L. This effort would take several years and would need strong support from the Commission. 5. a CEN standard should be developed on how to measure and evaluate the mechanical impedance of road surfaces in a way relevant to noise. It includes a series of workshops to disseminate the results of SILVIA in the countries that were not involved in SILVIA and setting up a European Group of Users. The model proposed by SILVIA relating the road surface influence on vehicle noise to texture. 2) Research and development: 7. The ISO standard for sound absorption measurement in situ using the extended surface method should be taken over as a CEN standard.e. Part 1 would describe the labelling procedure and part 2 would describe the associated COP procedure. To that end. Those eight objectives can be pursued in parallel. and validated. 8. As such a research project similar in nature to SIRUUS (involving laboratory research on materials. One can found on SILVIA but further validation could prove useful. namely “INQUEST – Information Network on Quiet European (road) Surfacing Technology”. let us take the SIRUUS budget as a first guess. Measurement methods for stiffness – more precisely: mechanical impedance – should be further developed and validated as really noise relevant.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 4. i. sound absorption and stiffness should be completed to include stiffness.5 million € over 4 years. The first issue does not need to include stiffness. A CEN standard should be developed on how to characterize road surfacings with respect to noise as proposed by SILVIA. 3. Later on. those Member States that are not yet acquainted with the issue should be encouraged to put the procedures on trial in order for their representatives in a future CEN group to gain specific expertise and to possibly help improve the procedures. possibly building on the method proposed by SILVIA. if at all. preliminary tests on small-scale experimental sections and full-scale experimental road sections). 6. The development of a standard on stiffness (step 6) will of course depend on the research results (steps 7 & 8). The necessary research must include further development of the technology of the PERS and full-scale experiments for testing the acoustic effectiveness and durability of different PERS solutions. Goubert 48/58 . G. It would then be referred to in the next issue of the labelling and COP standard. a project is currently being in negotiation stage with the Commission. Steps 1 to 5 don’t require much pre-normative work. Steps 6 to 8 should start as soon as possible. Therefore. DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 7 References [1] Anonymous. Den Haag. 1984 G.277.Part 2: Calculation model of sound power levels of road vehicles". Germany. April 2004.eng. Ede (NL). Sdu. T. « Mode opératoire – mesure du bruit de contact pneu/route ».. CRR. [12] Oshino. “The procedure for updating the vehicle noise emission values of the French « Guide du Bruit des Transports Terrestres»”. : « De methode Cwegdek 2002 voor wegverkeersgeluid ». [5] Besnard F. Endbericht. "Road traffic noise prediction model 'asj model 1998' proposed by the acoustical society of japan . Note Technique.. EURONOISE. Proc. Nice. [8] Anonymous. Bruxelles. Novembre 2002. Ohnishi.stillerverkeer. “Baudurchführung – Grundlagen – Prüfverfahren – Feldprüfungen – Rollgeräuschmessung”. "Road traffic noise prediction model 'ASJ Model 1998' proposed by the Acoustical Society of Japan .. CROW. Tachibana. Goubert 49/58 . Postfach 210360. of INTER-NOISE 2000. H.066. [3] Haider M. Proc. [4] Anonymous. Guidelines 25/2004 (XII.. Contract B4-3040/2001/329750/MAR/C1. Ministère de l’Equipement.part 1: Its structure and the flow of calculation". Anlage zum ARS 16/1992.unipr. [9] Anonymous. of INTER-NOISE 2000. des Transports.en meetvoorschrift verkeerslawaai”. Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water. Naples.nl [16] Anonymous. 1ste en 2de lid. [2] Anonymous. Publicatie 200. H. 5000 Köln 21. France. “The procedure for updating the vehicle noise emission values of the French « Guide du Bruit »”. H. et al. “Verfahren zur Messung der Geräuschemission von Strassenoberflächen (GEStrO-92)”. Two reports within the main title are of interest here. [7] Anonymous. namely “Final draft report” and “Road Traffic Noise – Noise emission: databases”. Ausgabe 1990. "Guide du Bruit des Transports Terrestres – Prévision des niveaux sonores". MF 50/84. Novembre 1980. Y.. [6] Besnard F. 2003. Der Bundesminister für Verkehr. “Decree on the content. Kono. Descornet – L. “Adaptation and revision of the interim noise computation methods for the purpose of strategic noise mapping”.. 1992. RVS 11. Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie/Ministère des Transports/CETUR. "Richtlinien für den Lärmschutz an Strassen (RLS-90)". 1981.. Nice. “Rollgeräuschmessung – Optimierung von erfahren und Grenzwerten”. du Logement. DG Environment. [10] http://pcangelo. [13] Anonymous. Paris. et al. Wien. Wien. Regeling als bedoelt in artikel 102. du Tourisme et de la Mer. “Reken. Strassenforschung 3.it [11] Tachibana. [14] Eijbersen et al. 2004.and form-related requirements for strategic noise maps serving for the assessment and management of environmental noise as well as the calculation and investigation methods implemented for the preparation of strategic noise maps”. France.20). Bundesministerium für Verkehr.. [15] http://www. Arsenal Research. Sone.. Bauministerium für Wirschaftliche Angelegenheiten. European Commission. van de Wet geluidhinder. April 1997. S. Brussels. FEHRL Report 2006/02. Der Bundesminister für Verkehr. Nov. Technical Report. Réduire le bruit pneumatique/chaussée. HMSO. Morgan P. [26] Phillips S. VTI Meddelande 706. London. Andalucía (Spain). Ministerio de Fomento. [20] Ramsak M. 2001. 2003. "Nord 2000. "Rehabilitación de Firmes".Nordic Prediction Method (TemaNord)". Final Technical Report. Consejería de Obras Públicas y Transportes. Slovenian Official Gazette n°45:1995. 1991. “Classification of low noise road surfacings”. Mateos M. U. Kokot D. 1999. 1988.. 27-30 August 2001. Linköping.. Junta de Andalucía. “Considerations with regard to reference surface in HARMONOISE”.. “Low-noise road surface classification and procurement system in Japan”.. [27] Sandberg U. Berne.-Dec. [30] Jonasson. Report 1996:525. Dept. G. Delanne Y. [32] Sandberg U. Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI). Firenze.. Borås. [33] SILVIA. “New technologies and model tools for roads”.640:2003. The Hague. Swedish National Testing and Research Institute (SP). [19] Anonymous. 1993... SP Report 2001:10..: "Comparative study of traffic noise emission for characteristic types of asphalt mixtures in Slovenia"... H.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 [17] Bar P. Slovenian Technical Specification TS 06. RUTAS. [22] Anonymous. ARS Nr. Nordic Council of Ministers. "Calculation of Road Traffic Noise". Descornet – L. 27-29 October 2004.R. [31] Sandberg U. New Nordic Prediction Method for Road Traffic Noise". Sweden. [34] Anonymous.Å. Brussels (including an appended CD-ROM with complementary technical documents). Kollamthodi S. INTERNOISE 2001. Goubert 50/58 . 2004. Madrid (Spain). 30/06/2005. collection du LCPC. Tušar M.A. [23] Alfèrez J. Storeheier. "Korrigering i den nordiska trafikbullermodellen för inverkan av vägyta".. [25] Anonymous. : « Elaboracion de mapas estrategicos de ruido de carreteras ». 2004. “Road Surface Categorization and Correction in HARMONOISE – Basic Considerations”. [21] Anonymous. Copenhagen... Echazaretta F. Dirección General de Carreteras. HAR11TR-030116-VTI05. "Road Traffic Noise . “Guidance manual for the implementation of low-noise road surfaces”.J. Presses de l’ENPC. S. December 2003. of Transport. Netherlands. Norma 6. [18] Anonymous. 2003. "Allgemeines Rundschreiben Straßenbau...K. SIIV 2004.. Private communication. « Instrucción para el Diseño de Firmes de la Red de Carreteras de Andalucía ». 14/1991". 1993. HAR11TR-030715-VTI01.3 IC. S. [24] Heutschi K. OFEFP. Dirección General de Carreteras. « SonRoad – Modèle de calcul du trafic routier ». Welsh Office. 1996. [29] Sandberg U. Denmark..D.G. Cahier de l’Environnement n°366. [28] Anonymous. USA. Technical Report HAR32TR-040922-DGMR20 (Deliverable D18). Ejsmont J. pp. Noise control engineering journal. Classification of road surfaces with respect to traffic noise by using the trailer method. 1986 [49] ISO 10844:1994 – Acoustics – Specification of test tracks for the purpose of measuring noise emitted by road vehicles – Annex A: Measurement of pavement surface macrotexture using a volumetric patch technique. 205-216..A.org).Part 2: Terminology and basic requirements related to pavement texture profile analysis” G.Test methods .Part 1: Extended surface method”.A. “Engineering method for road traffic and railway noise after validation and finetuning”. INFORMEX. Soulage D.Part 1: Measurement of pavement surface macrotexture depth using a volumetric patch technique” [51] ISO 13473-1:1997 « Characterisation of pavement texture by use of surface profiles -–Part 1 : Determination of Mean Profile Depth » [52] ISO 13473-2:2002 “Characterization of pavement texture by use of surface profiles -.. “Acoustics -. trailer and laboratory drum. 1998.. SE-59040. Development of three methods for measurement of tyre/road noise emission: coast-by. 1992-01-09. Goubert 51/58 . [37] ISO 10534-2:1996 « Acoustics – Determination of sound absorption coefficient and impedance in impedance tube method – Part 2: Transfer function method » [38] ISO/CD 11819-2: 2000. Technische Universität. 1990..Measurement of sound absorption properties of road surfaces in situ -.. 1997 [48] Sandberg U. 1992 [47] Caestecker C. Infrastructuur in het leefmilieu. April 5-8. Gothenburg. Vol. Reifengeräuschmessungen im Nahfeld und im Fernfeld zur Beurteilung der akustischen Eigenschaften von Fahrbahnen. Descornet – L. 23. [41] ISO 362:1981 « Acoustics – Measurement of noise emitted by accelerating road vehicles – Engineering method ». [36] ISO 13472-1:2002.imagine-project. Berlin. Report No. SE. 1992 [46] Springborn M. pp. “Tyre/Road Noise Reference Book”. [39] HARMONOISE. [50] CEN 13036-1:2001 “Road and airfield surface characteristics . Harg. Estimate procedure of vehicle noise on road surfaces ... Kisa.. 8-10 August. n° 3. 20-33. Technical University Gdansk. Ypsilanti. [42] ISO 7188:1985 «Acoustics – Measurement of noise emitted by passenger cars under conditions representative of urban driving». Noise trailers of the world – Tools for Tire/Road noise measurements with the closeproximity method. Noise-Con. n° 1/97. “Acoustics -.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 [35] Sandberg U. International tyre/road noise conference. Proefvakken van geluidsarme cementbeton verhardingen. [43] ISO 11819-1:1997 «Acoustics – Method for measuring the influence of road surfaces on traffic noise – Part 1: Statistical Pass-By method».Measurement of the influence of road surfaces on traffic noise -Part 2: Close-proximity method”. [45] Ejsmont J. Van Messem M. Sweden (2002). Second international symposium on roads surface characteristics. [40] Beaumont J. 20 January 2005 (http://www.. Ejsmont J..French/German procedure.. [44] Sandberg U. . Oct. Zürich.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 [53] ISO 13473-3:2002 “Characterization of pavement texture by use of surface profiles -.htm [65] EU Green Paper on future http://europa. 57. RIVM-report n° 815120001/2004. Bilthoven (2004) G.1. W.harmonoise.nonoise.htm noise policy (1996). deliverable SILVIA-project n° SILVIA-VTI-005-02-WP4-141005 (2005) [55] http://www. Updated Strategy Paper of the CALM Network. Archives of the Center for Sensory Research.umweltbundesamt. B. M+P raadgevende ingenieurs b. January 2006 (downloadable from http://www. ETH Mitteilung « Reifengeraeusch und Strassenbau ».de) [68] Anonymous.R .) “Community Noise”.. TRL Unpublished Project Report PR/SE/164/00. “Transportation Noise and Cardiovascular Risk”. MVM. Vol. Crowthorne. Goubert 52/58 . Dongen JEF. Ruysbroek JMH. B. Tyre/road noise generating mechanisms. Nilsson. nr.int/en/record/green/gp9611/noisesum. recent practical achievements in Belgium. December 2003 [61] Descornet G.. Descornet – L.org [56] ISO 10534-1:1996 « Acoustics – Determination of sound absorption coefficient and impedance in impedance tube method – Part 1: Method using standing wave ratio » [57] ISO 354:1985 (EN 20354:1993) «Acoustics – Measurement of sound absorption in a reverberant room» [58] von Meier A.g.euro. Stockholm (1995). November 2005. to be downloaded from http://www. 1995 [60] Morgan P. An extensive study about the adverse effects of noise on man is e. WaBoLu-Hefte. 2004.calmnetwork. System for measuring the absorption coefficient α in situ. Berglund.1. noise versus skid resistance. MIRA-T 2001 Milieu. noise/texture relationship. 1984 [62] Kollamthodi S. International Seminar. See http://www. Recherche en matière de routes et de transports routiers. TRL Limited. Dose-effect Curve and Risk Estimation. Stellato RK. 1995 [59] “La réduction du bruit aux abords des voies routières ». R: “Design Guidelines for Construction and Maintenance of Poroelastic Road Surfaces”. (ed. Number 12. Volume 64. “Hinder door milieufactoren en de beoordeling van de leefomgeving in Nederland” (“Nuisance by environmental factors and the evaluation of the living environment in The Netherlands”). U. Van Keulen W.. Phillips S M and Balsom M H (2000).int/Noise. Watts G.v.org/library/whonoise/whonoise.eu. Dutch National Institute for Public Health and Environment. T.en natuurrapport Milieumaatschappij en Garant. Leuven/ Apeldoorn (2001) Vlaanderen: thema’s. Issue 1.A.. Federal Environment Agency of Germany. [64] http://www. Vlaamse [69] Franssen EAM.com [67] Babisch. Aalsmeer. Factors affecting SPB measurements: Development of the backing board method. [63] IPG Scientific Strategy Document. DWW-2005-70. OCDE...who. Stockholm University and Karolinska Institute. “A novel approach to the acoustic characterisation of porous road surfaces”. UK. see [66] Anonymous. Applied Acoustics.Part 3: Specification and classification of profilometers” [54] Sandberg. 2.94. Kalman. Lindvall. Vos H. Review and Synthesis of Epidemiological Studies. Goubert 53/58 . Danish Road Institute (2005) [71] Morgan PA. downloadable from http://www. PR SE/652/03 ETD/FIF. 5 (1988) [77] Sandberg. BRRC (2000) [79] Descornet. European Commission (2003) [72] Beckenbauer T. Proc. TRL Limited/TÜV Fahrzeug GmbH. doc.silence-ip. [75] Sandberg. and Sandberg.. Cement. 13 January 2006. Sweden (2001). “Efficiency in noise reduction of pervious coated macadam”. G. SILVIA deliverable.a. U. Project Report. Descornet. “Good practice guide for strategic noise mapping and the production of associated data on noise exposure”. novembre 1998. International Road and Traffic Conference. Bruxelles. Forschungsbericht FE-Nr. “Open beton voor minder verkeersgeluid”. G. number SILVIA-DTF-DRI-008-11-WP5020205-D12 Traffic Management.italgrip. Dossier n°18. Position paper. “Noise reducing concrete surfaces – State of the art 1992” In Heft 409.com (in Italian) [82] Sommer.se/info/rapporter/edefault. Berlin. U. “Traffic Noise and Road Surfaces: State of the Art”.. e. CROW. “Road Surface Influence on Tire/Road Noise – Part I”. G. ”Semi-generic temperature corrections for tyre/road noise”. VTI Notat 30-2000. Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI) Linköping. “Revêtements en béton silencieux”. et al. Proc.vti. Nelson PM and Steven H. 03-293/1995 MRB Bundesanstalt für Strassenwegen (Federal Highway Research Institute of Germany) [73] Sandberg. n°3/90 (1990) [83] FEBELCEM. Road and Traffic 2000. G. “Road Surface Influence on Tire/Road Noise – Part II”..asp [76] G. e. n° 3 (1990) [85] Anonymous. “Einfluss der Fahrbahntextur auf das Reifen-Fahrbahn-Geraüsch”. “Integrated assessment of noise reduction measures in the road transport sector”. Proceedings of the International Tire Noise Conference.org G.a.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 [70] Bendtsen H. SIRUUS-project. of Internoise 80. H. Stockholm (1979) [80] Sommer. ”Optimalisatie van uitgeborsteld beton en bepaling van Cwegdek” (“Optimization of exposed aggregate cement concrete and dertermination of Croad”). INTERNOISE 2004. the Netherlands (2003) [86] http://www. Strassenforschung. Miami (1980) [74] Anonymous. Descornet. report 03-09. 168-1980. “Experimental study of the rolling noise of a test car on various existing road surfaces in Belgium”. Vol. STU-information No.. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten.20020051. Ede. U. Descornet – L. [84] Spits. U. PL.. prepared for Enterprise DG. Prague (2004) [78] Descornet. Vienna (1992) [81] http://www. Zement & Beton. “Vägytans inverkan på trafikbulleremissionen – korrektionstabel för effektsambandmodeller”. European Commission WG-AEN.Recommendations on additional noise reducing measures”. Descornet. H. „Herabsetzung des rollgeräusches bei betonfahrbahndecken“. NUTEK. “Traffic management and noise reducing pavements . J: „Traffic noise at two-layer porous asphalt – Øster Søgade. Dutch Noise Innovation Program (2005). Report Number IPG-RAP 04. “Banden en wegdekken” (“Tires and Road surfaces”) HMB Lawaaibeheersing. Khazanovitch. Revue Générale des Routes et Aérodromes. LCPC. Breukelen. Danish Road Institute. G. Proceedings of Inter-Noise 2001. Darter. ”Longevity of Diamond-Grooved Concrete Pavements”. W. L. Abadie R. S. Year N° 6”.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 [87] Rao. “Bituminous mixtures — Material specifications — Part 2: Asphalt concrete for very thin layers” [91] Up to date information about thin layers can be found on the web site of the Dutch Noise Innovation Program: www. Demi-journée d’étude CRR. especially in the “State of the Art Dunne Deklagen” and in the DRI-report “International Experiences with Thin Layer Pavements” (November 2005). downloadable from http://www.Y. “Type approval and COP tests for low noise road surfaces”. Internoise 2005. “Couches de roulement très minces et ultra-minces en matériaux bitumineux à chaud. Dutch Noise Innovation Program. Y. “Two layer porous asphalt: an international survey”. C. “Les enrobes drainants – Propriétés acoustiques”. 55-71.vejdirektoratet. [101] Goubert.dk/publikationer/VInot030/index. Yu. “Two layer porous asphalt: an international survey in the frame of the Dutch Noise Innovation Program (IPG)”. the Netherlands (2004). GJ. L. Sweden (1990) [97] “State of the Art: Advies 2-laags ZOAB”. International tyre/road noise conference. V. R.nl [99] “State of the Art: akoestisch geoptimaliseerde wegdekken”. [90] prEN 13108:2005. “Test sections of noiseless cement concrete pavements”.VBwasfalt.nl.nl [100] Kragh. n° 207 (1997) [94] Descornet. Legonin R. L.nl. Rio de Janeiro (2005).htm. “Macrotexture and low frequency tyre/road noise correlation”. Vereniging tot Bevordering van Werken in Asfalt. [98] Goubert. Descornet – L.org [89] van Blokland. [92] Van Keulen. Dutch Noise Innovation Program. Hooghwerff. Kuijpers. downloadable from www. Goubert 54/58 . G. Brussels (1988) [95] Delanne. downloadable from www. Netherlands 541-546. (2003) [93] Brosseaud .innovatieprogrammageluid. downloadable from www. Afdeling Wegen Vlaams-Brabant (Flemish Brabant Road Administration) (1996) [103] ”State of the art: Modieslab – Derde generatie stil wegdek (Third generation road surface)”. The Hague. H. Hofman.innovatieprogrammageluid. MI. 78th TRB meeting. Washington DC (1999) [88] “Richtlijn dunne asfaltdeklagen”.innovatieprogrammageluid. Technical Note 30 (2005). pp. TRB paper 991220. P. A. “Efficacité acoustique des enrobes drainants”. Dutch Noise Innovation Program. which can be downloaded from this site. J. Bilan d’emploi et comportement». Test report.innovatieprogrammageluid. downloadable from www. see www. Gothenburg. n° 653 (1988) [96] Legeay.innovatieprogrammageluid. Bulletin de liaison des laboratories des Ponts et Chaussées.00505 (2005) [102] Caestecker.nl. The. Conférence INFRA. PR. [119] Popp. [112] ISO/CD 13472-3:2005 “Acoustics -. Illingworth & Rodkin. P. Wetzel.. Canada-Québec. Copenhagen. prepared for The California Department of Transportation (2005) [106] http://www.. Prall..Coast-by methods for measurement of tyre-to-road sound emission” [116] European Environment Agency. H. Bonacker.2004 [109] Directive 2001/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 amending Council Directive 92/23/EEC relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting.-G. H. K.Part 4 : Spectral analysis of surface profiles” [114] ISO/CD 13473-5:2005 (EN ISO 13473-5:2006) « Characterisation of pavement texture by use of surface profiles . 4. Richard. OCDE. Montréal. Inc. Wende. Paris. C. J.2001 [110] Bourbon. C.. COM(2004)160.03. M. C. SIRUUS (Silent Road for Urban and Extra-Urban Use)-project (2002) [105] Donovan. the NITE-study. 1986. J.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 [104] Goubert. Rapport vulgarisé LIFE98 ENV/000/248. 2004 [121] Steven. Brussels. “Statistical Pass-By Vehicle Noise Measurements on Full Scale implementation on expressway test site and urban test site”. 10. Krapf. Official Journal of the European Union n° OJ L 212/49. Mummenthey R. Final Report – Volume II (Annex 3). G.D.. [107] Commission Recommendation 2003/613/EC. 2004 [120] Popp. Heidebrunn.. EffNoise. Descornet – L. Wetzel. Richard. “Cartographie du bruit routier – L’expérience bruxelloise”.. Final Report – Volume I..Measurement of sound absorption properties of road surfaces in situ -. U.. “Presentation of Work Package 40 – Vehicle Noise Emission Model” at ROTRANOMO Workshop. “Comparative Measurements of Tire/Pavement Noise in Europe and the United States”.rubberizedasphalt.. Steven.2003 [108] Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council.-G..08. Steven.Measurement of sound absorption properties of road surfaces in situ -. L. E. Ensais and Anfosso-Lédée..org/rac/racspecs/index. Heidebrunn. Official Journal of the European Union n° OJ L 211. [117] OCDE... Contre le bruit – Renforcer les politiques de lutte contre le bruit. [113] ISO/ TS 13473-4:2004 « Characterisation of pavement texture by use of surface profiles .. IBGE.. H. EEA Environmental Assessment Report No. H..rotranomo. “Service contract relating to the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures”. Europe’s environment: The third assessment. 22.com).. 10. C. 2003 [111] ISO/CD 13472-2:2005 “Acoustics -. [118] Brosseaud. K. EEA. Denmark. E..8. Noël.Part 2: Spot method using a sealed tube”. U.Part 5: “Determination of megatexture” [115] ISO 13325:2003 “Tyres -. Krapf. Bonacker. 2003. Prall. Brussels. 26-28 novembre 2001. H. 17 November 2004 (www. Goubert 55/58 .Part 3: Spot method for highly reflective surfaces”.htm. C. M. Brussels... Wende. “Les revêtements de chaussées limitant le bruit de roulement – exemple de partenariat et de coopération entre l’administration et les entreprises françaises”. EffNoise. “Service contract relating to the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures”. SIRUUS.. 2005. Gdansk. J. 27 June 2003.DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 [122] Ejsmont. “Development of procedures for certifying noise testing equipement”. [123] Luminari. Descornet – L. Goubert 56/58 . Gdansk University of Technology Publishers. M. G.. Final Technical report (Executive publishable summary).A. Descornet – L. Goubert 57/58 .DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 8 Symbols and acronyms AC ADT AFNOR ASJ CEN COP CPB CPX CPXI Croad CRTN Csurf DAC dB(A) DLPAC DStrO EACC EC EU GEStrO HRA IPG ISO LAeq LAmax Leq LMA MLS MPD MTD NMS OECD PA PAC PCC PERS PSV RAC RLS RSI RVS Asphalt Concrete Average Daily Traffic Association Française de Normalisation Acoustical Society of Japan Comité Européen de Normalisation Conformity of Production Controlled Pass-By (method) Close Proximity (method) Close Proximity Index (derived from a CPX measurement) Correction for the road surface influence (Dutch method) Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (UK method) Correction for the road surface influence (Austrian method) Dense Asphalt Concrete A-weighted decibel (unit of noise level) Double-Layer Porous Asphalt Concrete Differenz / Strassenoberflache Exposed Aggregate Cement Concrete Euopean Commission European Union Geräuschemission von Strassenoberflächen Hot Rolled Asphalt Innovatie Programma Geluid International Standardization Organization A-weighted equivalent sound level A-weighted peak noise level Equivalent sound level Lärmmessung Anhänger Maximum Length Sequences (ISO 13472-1) Mean Profile Depth (of surface macrotexture) Mean Texture Depth (of surface macrotexture) New Member State (in EU) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Porous Asphalt Porous Asphalt Concrete Portland Cement Concrete (in USA) Poro-Elastic Road Surface Polished Stone Value Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (in USA) Richtlinien für den Lärmschutz an Strassen (Germany) Road Surface Influence (term in calculations. UK) Richtlinien und Vorschriften für den Strassenbau (Austria) G. DG-ENV_Noise_Classification_Road_Pavements_ Task 1 Report _05 SD SMA SPB SPBI TAC TNM VTAC WHO Surface Dressing Stone Mastic Asphalt Statistical Pass-By (Measurement method) Statistical Pass-By Index (derived from an SPB measurement) Thin Asphalt Concrete Traffic Noise Model (USA) Very Thin Asphalt Concrete World Health Organization G. Goubert 58/58 . Descornet – L.