Evaluation of noise barriers.
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Language:

Dates

Publication Date Range:

to

Document Data

Title:

Document Type:

Library

Collection:

Series:

People

Author:

Help
Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Help
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Evaluation of noise barriers.

Filetype[PDF-3.11 MB]


  • English
    • Details You May Also Like

    Details:

    • Creators:
    • Corporate Creators:
      Virginia Highway & Transportation Research Council
    • Subject/TRT Terms:
    • Publication/ Report Number:
      VHTRC 80-R1
    • Resource Type:
      Tech Report
    • Geographical Coverage:
      Virginia
    • Corporate Publisher:
      Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC)
    • Abstract:
      Noise measurements were taken at six barrier sites: two wooden, two metal, and one concrete barrier were studied; the sixth site had no barrier and was studied to determine the ground effect. The approach was to determine insertion losses by taking simultaneous measurements behind the barrier at different elevations over the same point. In this procedure, when the uppermost-microphone is clearly in the line of sight of the traffic, the difference between the level for the uppermost microphone and the level for one of the lower microphones is the insertion loss at the height of the lower microphone. For the measurements, three microphones were positioned at different heights on a 9.1-m (30-ft) pole and a fourth microphone (with its own support) was placed 1.5 m (5 ft) above ground level. Unfortunately, with the microphones so arranged, the uppermost microphone was in line of sight of only the measurement sites close to the barriers. Thus many of the values derived from the analysis of the data must be viewed as differential insertion losses. Both predicted and measured noise levels behind the barriers were compared, and the results led to the conclusion that the barriers were performing as they should be expected to. The principal recommendation that could be made, considering the rather limited scope of this study, was that no policy decisions should be made that would eliminate the use of any material or construction technique on the basis of its performance.
    • Format:
      PDF
    • Collection(s):
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • Download URL:
    • File Type:

    Supporting Files

    • No Additional Files

    More +

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at rosap.ntl.bts.gov

    Version 3.26