NOISE FROM TRANSPORTATIONS IN CITIES ACTION PLANS AND BARRIER DESIGN Sergio Luzzi

Sergio Luzzi - Transport Noise reduction and control USURT University - Ekaterinburg - 2012 1

NOISE FROM TRANSPORTATIONS IN CITIESNOISE FROM TRANSPORTATIONS IN CITIES

ACTION PLANS AND BARRIER DESIGNACTION PLANS AND BARRIER DESIGN

Sergio LuzziSergio LuzziUniversity of FlorenceUniversity of Florence

Vie En.Ro.Se. Ingegneria srlVie En.Ro.Se. Ingegneria srl


URBAN AREASCities occupy only 2% of the world’s surface but consume up to 75% of natural resources. More than 70% of European citizens live in urban areas today, and urban dwellers are expected to increase to 80% of the total population by 2020. The "cost" of one extremely annoyed person has been estimated to be approximately 1.600 € per year. The annoyance caused by road traffic noise, corresponds to a cost of more than 800 million €.

Continuous night-time road traffic noise affects 20 % of world inhabitants at levels above 55 dB(A), the threshold at which World Health Organisation considers sleep may be disturbed.

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74>75


Noise exposure in EU (2011)

Within agglomerations


Noise reduction can be at source, along the propagation, at the receiver. In the EU, there is a great trend to consider noise reduction at source at first. The EU has financed numerous research projects to reduce noise at source (e.g.: development of new asphalts, new tyres, electric vehicles, railway wheel and rail vibration dampers, new brake blocks of freight trains, high bypass ratio aircraft engines). (e.g.: STAIRRS, PERSUADE, RATIN, QCITY, SILENCE, X-NOISE). Noise reduction can be in the propagation path, by means of traditional noise barriers. Research projects on improved efficient noise barriers were financed. (e.g.: QUIESST)The EU supports and has financed research projects on the management of noise in urban areas by means of:

LIFE - (e.g.: development of best management of noise in the city, recommendations for local authorities, quiet areas within cities HUSH, QUADMAP, NADIA, SMILE).FP7 (e.g.: development of quiet areas and techniques for quiet areas within cities, CITYHUSH).Exceptionally by direct service contract (e.g.: EffNOISE).

Noise reduction at the receiver is also possible, but NOT at the focus of EU measures.


What has happened with noise in EU Legislation?

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 …

END entered into force

MS national transposition

1st set: noise sources

ENDRM: relational database to structure the information

2nd set: noise strategic maps

3rd set: noise action plans

4th set: all noise sources

5th set: all noise strategic maps

Data delivered 6th set: all noise action plans

2) C-NOSSOS: Common Assessment Methods

END review process


Article 1Objectives1. The aim of this Directive shall be to define a common approach intended to

avoid, prevent or reduce on a prioritised basis the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise. To that end the following actions shall be implemented progressively:

(a) the determination of exposure to environmental noise, through noise mapping, by methods of assessment common to the Member States;

(b) ensuring that information on environmental noise and its effects is made available to the public;

(c) adoption of action plans by the Member States, based upon noise-mapping results, with a view to preventing and reducing environmental noise where necessary and particularly where exposure levels can induce harmful effects on human health and to preserving environmental noise quality where it is good.

Article 8Action plans1. Member States shall ensure that no later than 18 July 2008 the competent

authorities have drawn up action plans designed to manage, within their territories, noise issues and effects, including noise reduction if necessary. The measures within the plans are at the discretion of the competent authorities, but should notably address priorities which may be identified by the exceeding of any relevant limit value or by other criteria chosen by the Member States and apply in particular to the most important areas as established by strategic noise mapping.

2. Member States shall ensure that, no later than 18 July 2013, the competent authorities have drawn up action plans notably to address priorities which may be identified by the exceeding of any relevant limit value or by other criteria chosen by the Member States for the agglomerations and for the major roads as well as the major railways within their territories.

ANNEX VMINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ACTION PLANSreferred to in Article 8

1. An action plan must at least include the following elements:- a description of the agglomeration, the major roads, the major railways or major airports and other noise sources taken into account, -a summary of the results of the noise mapping,- an evaluation of the estimated number of people exposed to noise, identification of problems and situations that need to be improved,- any noise-reduction measures already in force and any projects in preparation,- actions which the competent authorities intend to take in the next five years, including any measures to preserve quiet areas,- long-term strategy,- financial information (if available): budgets, cost-effectiveness assessment, cost-benefit assessment,- provisions envisaged for evaluating the implementation and the results of the action plan.

ANNEX VMINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ACTION PLANSreferred to in Article 8

2. The actions which the competent authorities intend to take in the fields within their competence may for example include:- traffic planning,-land-use planning,- technical measures at noise sources,- selection of quieter sources,- reduction of sound transmission,- regulatory or economic measures or incentives.

3. Each action plan should contain estimates in terms of the reduction of the number of people affected (annoyed, sleep disturbed, or other).

ACTION PLANS FOR NOISE REDUCTION AND CONTROL

Directive 2002/49/EC (Environmental Noise Directive)


Directive 2002/49/ECAims

The aim of this Directive shall be …(should have been…)

… to define a common approach intended to avoid, prevent or reduce on a prioritised basis the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise.

ACTION PLANS

a) Determination of exposure to environmental noise, through noise mapping, by methods of assessment common to the Member States;

b) Information on environmental noise and its effects has to be made available to the public;

c) Action plans to prevent and reduce environmental noise and to preserve environmental noise quality where it is good.

d) Public has to be consulted about action plans. Results of participation have to be taken into account in the process of action planning.

e) Noise mapping + action planning data has to be sent to the Commission

Requirements


Directive 2002/49/EC

Timetable

END requirements have to be fulfilled acc. to the following timetable:

Area / source to be investigated Strategic noise maps Action plans

Agglomerations>250,000 inhabitants 30 June 2007 18 July 2008>100,000 inhabitants 30 June 2012 18 July 2013

Major roads>6,000,000 vehicle passages per year 30 June 2007 18 July 2008>3,000,000 vehicle passages per year 30 June 2012 18 July 2013

Major railways>60,000 train passages per year 30 June 2007 18 July 2008>30,000 train passages per year 30 June 2012 18 July 2013

Major airports>50,000 movements per year 30 June 2007 18 July 2008

ACTION PLANS


INPUT: noise maps

INPUT: noise maps

INPUT: sensitive

receivers

INPUT: sensitive

receivers

ACOUSTICMODEL

ACOUSTICMODEL

SPLfacade points

SPLfacade points INPUT:

road, railways, airports

INPUT:road, railways,

airports

HOTSPOT DETECTIONPROCEDURE

HOTSPOT DETECTIONPROCEDURE QUIET AREAS DETECTION PROCEDURE

QUIET AREAS DETECTION PROCEDURE

HOTSPOTSHOTSPOTS

QUIET AREAS

QUIET AREAS

Leq,D ≤ QUALITY

REF. LEVEL

Leq,D ≤ QUALITY

REF. LEVEL

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF NOISE

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF NOISEINDEX OF CRITICITY

DEFINITION

INDEX OF CRITICITY DEFINITION

INPUT: school

gardens

INPUT: school

gardens

INPUT:

squares

INPUT:

squares

INPUT: public

gardens

INPUT: public

gardens

INPUT:

play-grounds

INPUT:

play-grounds

INPUT: parks

INPUT: parks

Urban agglomeration action planning procedure

ACTION PLANS


HOTSPOT DETECTIONPROCEDURE

HOTSPOT DETECTIONPROCEDURE QUIET AREAS DETECTION PROCEDURE

QUIET AREAS DETECTION PROCEDURE

HOTSPOTS

HOTSPOTS

QUIET AREAS

QUIET AREAS

Leq,D ≤ QUALITY

REF. LEVEL

Leq,D ≤ QUALITY

REF. LEVELQUIET AREAS

TO BEPRESERVED

QUIET AREASTO BE

PRESERVEDQUIET AREASTO BE

REDESIGNED

QUIET AREASTO BE

REDESIGNED

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF SOUNDSCAPES

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF SOUNDSCAPES



HANDBOOKOF GENERAL SOLUTIONS

HANDBOOKOF GENERAL SOLUTIONS

no

ACTION PLANNINGACTION PLANNING

OPERATIVE PLANS

(Solutions)

OPERATIVE PLANS

(Solutions)



yes

MONITORINGMONITORING

STRATEGICACTION PLAN

(Actions)

STRATEGICACTION PLAN

(Actions)

SOLUTIONS DESIGNINGSOLUTIONS DESIGNING

ACTION PLANS


Actions can be direct or strategic.

DIRECT ACTIONSnoise barriers, tunnels, low-noise paving, windows, etc.

STRATEGIC ACTIONS public transport improvement, walking and cycling roads, speed reduction, road travel restrictions and parking by fees.

Local regulation can assist these objectives.

Actions for Noise Reduction

ACTION PLANS


Barrier efficency depends on:

Position: distance from source;

Height: source must be not “visible” from all receivers

Lunghezza: lateral diffraction effects must be considered

Materials (quantity and density): reduce the amount of energy that impacts the receiver

HANDBOOK OF GENERAL SOLUTIONS Technical Record for Noise Barrier

Metallic Panel Wooden panel

Transparent materials

Concrete Reinforced terrein

Vegetation “Cotto” Bricks

Typologies of Noise Barrier

ACTION PLANS


TERRITORIAL PLACEMENT

SOUNDSCAPES FOR QUIET AREAS - FLORENCE


Quiet areas in FlorenceHotspot

s

In

Florence



Instumentation for soundwalks

Binaurali Earphones

Microtrack Recorder

application of soundscapes based methodology

Sound Meter


Fortezza GardensTERRITORIAL PLACEMENT

TRAFFIC LIGHT INTERSECTION

FILIPPO STROZZI AVENUE

FOUNTAIN

TRADE SHOW AREA



Fortezza Gardens

area 4

area 1

area 3

area 2

LOCATION OF ACOUSTICALLY FUNCTIONAL AREAS



Cursore: 22/01/2009 16:21:46 - 16:21:47 LAIeq=62.5 dB LAFmax=62.2 dB LCpicco=89.9 dB LAFmin=61.1 dB

=mis002 in Calcoli

16:22:00 16:23:00 16:24:00 16:25:00 16:26:00 16:27:00 16:28:00 16:29:00

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

16:22:00 16:23:00 16:24:00 16:25:00 16:26:00 16:27:00 16:28:00 16:29:00

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

sotto-area 4 ambulanza

dB

LAIeq

Cursore: 22/01/2009 16:06:12 - 16:06:13 LAIeq=65.5 dB LAFmax=65.6 dB LCpicco=84.5 dB LAFmin=64.7 dB

%mis001 in Calcoli

16:08:00 16:10:00 16:12:00 16:14:00 16:16:00 16:18:00

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

16:08:00 16:10:00 16:12:00 16:14:00 16:16:00 16:18:00

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

sotto-area 1 sotto-area 2 sotto-area 3

dB

LAIeq

SCENARIO SC05 - FORTEZZA DA BASSO

Reffering time

12.00Referring time

16.00

LAeq [dB(A)] LAeq [dB(A)]

Subarea 1 65.2 66.6

Subarea 2 64.2 63.0

Subarea 3 62.3 63.3

Subarea 4 71.0 76.4

NOISE MEASUREMENTSFortezza Gardens



0

10

20

30

40

50

16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1 k 2 k 4 k 8 k 16 k#2 1/3 Ott 630Hz 125ms dB dBVEN 23/01/09 17h00m41s000 17.2 VEN 23/01/09 17h10m41s375 23.9

Segnale

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

17h01 17h02 17h03 17h04 17h05 17h06 17h07 17h08 17h09 17h10

area 1 area 2 area 3

horn

Notes area 1- ground noise: fountain and traffic

twittering

Notes area 2 – ground noise: traffic

horn

voices

twittering

horn

voices

voicesvoices

SOUNDWALKSFortezza Gardens

0

10

20

30

40

50

16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1 k 2 k 4 k 8 k 16 k

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

17h01 17h02 17h03 17h04 17h05 17h06 17h07 17h08 17h09 17h10

50

60

70



M. Shafer: “The tuning of the world”Vancouver Press, 1977

Menzel, Haufe, Fastl: “Colour-influences on loudness judgements” Proceedings of ICA 2010 , Sydney

PerceptionPerception


ACOUSTICAL DESIGN OF BARRIERSACOUSTICAL DESIGN OF BARRIERS


STANDARD STANDARD PROCEDUREPROCEDURE

for acoustic design of for acoustic design of railway noise barriersrailway noise barriers


ACOUSTIC CHARACTERIZATION OF SOURCES

overview of trains, noise and velocity measurements data processing

ACOUSTIC CHARACTERIZATION OF SOURCES

overview of trains, noise and velocity measurements data processing

ACQUISITION OF TERRITORIAL DATA

3D vector cartography, topographic surveys, maps and characterization of the rail line, database of the receivers

ACQUISITION OF TERRITORIAL DATA

3D vector cartography, topographic surveys, maps and characterization of the rail line, database of the receivers

NOISE LIMITS TO RECEIVERSEXCEEDED

?

NOISE LIMITS TO RECEIVERSEXCEEDED

?

INPUT DATA CORRECTION


noCALIBRATION

via comparison with measured data

CALIBRATION via comparison with

measured data

CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CALCULATION MODEL

CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CALCULATION MODEL

BARRIER DESIGN choice of typology and calculation of acoustic and structural dimensions

BARRIER DESIGN choice of typology and calculation of acoustic and structural dimensions

RESULTSnoise at receivers’

facades ante operam


facades ante operam

yes

INSERTION OF BARRIER IN THE MODEL AND SIMULATIONSINSERTION OF BARRIER IN THE MODEL AND SIMULATIONS



yesnoRESULTSnoise at receivers’

facades post operam


facades post operam

STANDARD STANDARD PROCEDUREPROCEDURE

for acoustic design of for acoustic design of

railway noise barriersrailway noise barriers


The barrier is composed of:

• supporting basement inclined of 12° towards the railroad, with medium sound absorbing surface (height 2.00 meters over the track level),

• superior heavily absorbing layer realized with 0.50 m modules reaching the maximum permitted height of 7.50 m, according to the acoustic design.

BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE acousticalacoustical

new RFI standard


BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE prospectprospect


BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE modulesmodules


• supporting basement in cast

reinforced concrete into external

quarter-deck

• steel vertical rod fixed to the

foundation plinth

• foundation on single plinths

• subfoundation of injected micro

piles

BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE structuralstructural


BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE structuralstructural

• pre-fabricated supporting

basement in reinforced concrete

• steel vertical rod fixed to the

foundation plinth

• foundation on single plinths

• subfoundation of injected micro

piles


BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE architecture architecture

Florence barriers structural standards Vertical views of a barrier inserted along an existing railroad – interference with electric pole


BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE BARRIERS FOR RAILWAY NOISE architecture architecture

Florence barriers structural standards Portal


1. Recent and homogeneous cartographic data

2. Topographical Plotting3. Measurement Points4. Measurements Campaigns5. Railway Stations6. Overlapping transport noise7. Sources Characterization8. Trains Classification9. Freight Trains Characterization10. Compatible and sustainable barriers11. Optimal and sub-optimal barriers heights

12. Increasing heights algorithm13. Composition of railway noise. 14. Secondary sources contribution15. Harmonization

PROBLEMS IN APPLICATION PURSUIT OF SOLUTIONS


Some examples of operational difficulties:

• interferences with signal structures (elevation)• signal visibility: to improve the signal visibility is

possible to remove the overhang or moving

back the barrier

PROBLEMS IN APPLICATION



• interferences with signal & power line structures (foundation)


P.F.

P.F.



• interferences with power line structures (elevation)

Ass

e de

l bin

ario

P.F.



Action Plans are designed to manage, within their territories, noise issues and effects, including noise reduction if necessary, and shall aim to protect quiet areas against an increase in noise.

CONCLUSIONS

Railway Noise is one of the most important source of annoyance to be reduced in the interest of safeguarding the environment.

The reasons are:• Simplicity of execution technologies;• Relevant acoustical effectiveness;• Durability.

Noise barriers are at the moment the most widespread acoustical mitigation intervention typology used for the railway infrastructure.

Models of noise barrier design have to be : stressed by applying them on critical scenarios, adapted to national and local standards and political choices, improved with rules of compatibility and sustainability.


Thank you!Thank you!

[email protected]@[email protected]@vienrose.it

NOISE FROM TRANSPORTATIONS IN CITIES ACTION PLANS AND BARRIER DESIGN Sergio Luzzi

Documents

Transcript of NOISE FROM TRANSPORTATIONS IN CITIES ACTION PLANS AND BARRIER DESIGN Sergio Luzzi