overview of research programmes operations...pavements are double layer porous asphalt and single...

CEDR Transnational Road Research Programme Call 2012: Noise: Integrating strategic noise management into the operation and maintenance of national road networks funded by Belgium/Flanders, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom

QUESTIM

WP 2.1: Performance, maintenance and materials of low noise surfaces under Scandinavian conditions

Deliverable D2.1 August 2014

QUietness and Economics STimulate Infrastructure Management

Partners:

M+P consulting engineers (coordinator) (NL)

Transport Research Laboratory (UK)

Müller-BBM GmbH (D)

Aalto University (FIN)

CEDR Transnational Research Programme: Call 2012

CEDR Call 2012: Noise

CEDR Call2012: Noise: Integrating strategic noise management into the operation and maintenance of

national road networks

QUESTIM: QUietness and Economics STimulate Infrastructure Management

WP 2.1: Performance, maintenance and materials of low noise surfaces under Scandinavian conditions

Due date of deliverable: 28.02.2014 Actual submission date: 03.08.2014

Start date of project: 01.02.2013 End date of project: 01.11.2014

Author(s) this deliverable: Antti Kuosmanen, Aalto University, Finland

Version: final, 08.2014


Table of contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................. i 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 2 Norway ........................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 General ................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Noise measurements .............................................................................................. 2

2.2.1 Temperature corrections .................................................................................. 2 2.2.2 Reference surface ............................................................................................ 2

2.3 Overview of allocated data sets and examples of graphs ........................................ 3 2.3.1 Dense asphalt concrete and stone mastic asphalt surfaces ............................. 4 2.3.2 Thin layer surfaces ........................................................................................... 8 2.3.3 Single-layer porous asphalt surfaces .............................................................. 10 2.3.4 Double-layer porous asphalt surfaces ............................................................ 11 2.3.5 Highway E16 and E18 .................................................................................... 14

2.4 Analysis ................................................................................................................. 15 2.4.1 Dense asphalt concrete and stone mastic asphalt surfaces with nominal maximum aggregate size 8 mm or less ........................................................................ 15 2.4.2 Thin layers ..................................................................................................... 17 2.4.3 Porous pavements ......................................................................................... 17 2.4.4 SMA11-surfaces ............................................................................................. 19 2.4.5 Highway E16 .................................................................................................. 19 2.4.6 Highway E18 .................................................................................................. 21 2.4.7 Traffic intensity ............................................................................................... 23 2.4.8 Winter maintenance ....................................................................................... 24 2.4.9 Durability ........................................................................................................ 25

2.5 Summary ............................................................................................................... 27 3 Finland ......................................................................................................................... 28

3.1 General ................................................................................................................. 28 3.2 Noise measurements ............................................................................................ 28

3.2.1 Temperature corrections ................................................................................ 28 3.2.2 Reference surface .......................................................................................... 28

3.3 Overview of allocated data sets and examples of graphs ...................................... 29 3.3.1 Stone mastic asphalt surfaces ........................................................................ 29

3.4 Analysis ................................................................................................................. 32 3.4.1 Stone mastic asphalt surfaces ........................................................................ 32 3.4.2 Single-layer porous surfaces .......................................................................... 32 3.4.3 Traffic intensity ............................................................................................... 34 3.4.4 Winter maintenance ....................................................................................... 35 3.4.5 Durability ........................................................................................................ 35

3.5 Summary ............................................................................................................... 37 4 Sweden ........................................................................................................................ 37

4.1 General ................................................................................................................. 37 4.2 Noise measurements ............................................................................................ 38

4.2.1 Reference surface .......................................................................................... 38 4.2.2 E18 ................................................................................................................ 38 4.2.3 E4 botbyrka .................................................................................................... 39 4.2.4 E4 Huskvarna ................................................................................................ 40 4.2.5 E22 Malmö-Lund ............................................................................................ 41 4.2.6 Single layer surfaces ...................................................................................... 41

4.3 Summary ............................................................................................................... 42 5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 43


6 Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................ 44 7 References ................................................................................................................... 44 Annex A: Norwegian low-noise pavements (Environmentally friendly pavements). ............... 1 Annex B: Spectral densities (E16 and E18) .......................................................................... 3 Annex C: Low noise pavements in Finland (HILJA) .............................................................. 5


(i)

Executive summary

This report presents the results from QUESTIM work package 2.3: performance, maintenance and materials of low noise surfaces under winter conditions. The goal of this research was to gather data about quiet pavements in the Nordic countries and study what surface types have been used as quiet surfaces. In addition, the durability and cause of destruction on pavements was covered. Also, the effect of cold winter season on quiet pavements was studied. The data was gathered from Finland, Sweden, and Norway. The most often used low noise pavements are double layer porous asphalt and single layer porous asphalt. In addition, various surface types with small maximum aggregate size are used as quiet pavements. The main cause for repaving pavements in the Nordic countries is rutting, caused by a wide use of studded tyres. In addition, dust from the road wear may lead to a faster clogging of surfaces. In Finland and Norway, the monitoring time in the research programs were too short in order to safely evaluate the service lives of quiet pavements. However, some sections in Finland were destroyed already after two years from the construction. In Norway, service life was estimated to be less than four years for thin layers and more than seven years for porous asphalts. In Sweden, the experiences show that on double layer porous asphalt, the lifetime is less than six years. The noise reducing capabilities of quiet pavements vary depending on the surface type. In general, the initial noise reduction varies between 3-9 dB(A). Regardless of the surface type, the loss on noise reducing qualities is usually the highest during the first winter season. In many cases, the noise levels reached the reference level already after three years from the construction. On icy and snowy conditions, conventional winter maintenance operations include salt spreading and snow ploughing. In Finland, it was reported that in some cases, the edges of snowploughs had been destroyed the surface. In Norway, however, no visual damages were reported on the inspected test sections. Moreover, salting may cause faster clogging of porous surfaces, but that was not observed on the inspected test sections in Norway.


1

1 Introduction

Nordic conditions are difficult for quiet surfaces. Studded tyres and winter maintenance destroy the surface and their noise reducing qualities. Most of the products will lose their acoustic properties in Nordic conditions much faster than in middle and southern European conditions. In this research the following subjects from the Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, and Norway) have been studied:

What products have been used as quiet surfaces

When have the quiet surface been repaved (durability) and why (cause of the destruction)

What special materials or paving techniques have been used because of winter conditions

What kind of winter maintenance techniques have been used

The research started with an inventory about low noise pavements in the Nordic countries. Finnish data is based on the “Hilja” project, conducted between 2001 and 2004 in Finland. Norwegian data is based on the program “Environmentally Friendly Pavements in Norway (EFR)”, conducted by the Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA) in 2004–2009. The most of the information about quiet pavements in Sweden is based on the state-of-the-art report written by Sandberg (2012). Based on the provided information, the following products have been used as quiet pavements in the Nordic countries:

Double layer porous asphalt

Single layer porous asphalt

Rubber asphalt

Dense, semi-open and thin layer surfaces with small maximum aggregate size.

It was found that the main cause for repaving pavements in the Nordic countries is rutting caused by a wide use of studded tyres. Few sections in Finland were destroyed already after two years from the construction. In Norway, the service life was estimated to be less than four years for thin layers and more than seven years for porous asphalts. In Sweden, the experiences show that on double layer porous asphalt, the service lives are less than six years. The noise reducing capabilities of quiet pavements vary depending on the surface type. The highest noise reduction is achieved with double layer porous surfaces: the initial noise reduction varies between 4.5-9 dB(A). Regardless of the surface type, the loss on noise reducing qualities is usually the highest during the first winter season. In this report, the data is analysed in order to find the behaviour of different low noise surfaces as a function of time and traffic intensity. In addition, the winter maintenance and durability of low noise pavements in Nordic conditions are studied.


2

2 Norway

2.1 General

Most of the Norwegian data is based on the program “Environmentally Friendly Pavements in Norway (EFR)”, conducted by the Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA) in 2004–2009. During the project, 36 low-noise pavement test sections with a total length of 37,143 km were constructed (Aksnes, 2009). Since the end of the project, follow-up measurements at some sections have been conducted (Berge et al, 2010).

2.2 Noise measurements

All of the results reported here are based on CPX-method. Measurements have been performed using a reference tyre A, Avon ZV1. However, during the project, measurements with ASTM Standard test tyre, SRTT (Uniroyal Tiger Paw 225/60 R16) were also included. Thus, results from both types of tyre are presented here. For most of the pavements, the measured noise level is a result from arithmetic average of two runs and arithmetic average of two lanes. However, on the following test sections, only a single lane was measured: 1-6, 7-8, 9-12, 22,23, 30, and 31. In addition, the test section no. 32 is about 2.6 km long and too long for continuous measurements with the CPX-equipment. At this location, measurements were done at three sections; one at each start and end, and one in the middle of the test pavement. Each of the sections was approximately 300-500 m long. The average of all the 3 sections constitutes the final level (Berge et al, 2010).

2.2.1 Temperature corrections All the results have been temperature corrected (tair) to + 20 °C, using the following relationships (Berge et al, 2010):

Dense surface layers: -0.06 dB/°C

Porous surface layers: -0.03 dB/°C

2.2.2 Reference surface

According to Aksnes (2009), SMA 11 (How does the sma11 reference surface compare to SMA16 used in Finland and Sweden ? The reference surface used by Sandberg was 2 years old ? The rationale for adding 1.5 db to the reference level is not clear.)is the most common wearing course on high-volume roads in Norway. Therefore, SMA11 pavement older than one year was selected as a reference pavement. In order to set the reference level, several SMA11 surfaces were measured. Based on those results, the following reference levels were set for CPX-method (Berge et al, 2009):

50 km/h: 93.0 dB(A) (Tyre A)

80 km/h: 100.0 dB(A) (Tyre A)

50 km/h: 92.2 dB(A) (Tyre SRTT)


However, as figures 5,6,8, and 19 shows, the above mentioned reference levels correspond approximately to the noise levels at three years old surfaces. At older SMA11 surfaces, the


3

noise levels continue to increase. Thus, it was decided to raise the reference levels with an additional 1.5 dB in this report:

50 km/h: 94.5 dB(A) (Tyre A)

80 km/h: 101.5 dB(A) (Tyre A)



2.3 Overview of allocated data sets and examples of graphs

The results are presented in the numeric format in Annex A. In addition, the spectrums from the test sections at E6 and E18 are presented at appendix B. In figures 1-18, the results are presented graphically. Table 1 shows the overview of the conducted noise measurements in Norway. Since the data contains various surface types and product names, they are explained in table 2. All of the data is gathered from (Berge et al, 2010).

Table 1. Overview of Norwegian low-noise pavements constructed during “Environmentally friendly pavements” –project. * Actual number of repetitions

may be higher, as noise measurements at some test sections have been continued since the end of the project.

Data set Nr of locations Surface type Road type Nr. of repetitions Covered time

Repeated 3 DAC Regional 4* 4 yrs*

Repeated 3 SMA Regional 4* 4 yrs*

Repeated 6 SMA Highway 4* 4 yrs*

Repeated 5 DAC Highway 4* 4 yrs*

Repeated 2 Single-layer porous

Highway 4* 4 yrs*

Repeated 4 Thin layer Regional 3* 3 yrs*

Repeated 1 Single-layer porous

Regional 3* 3 yrs*

Repeated 3 Double-layer porous

Regional 3* 3 yrs*

Repeated 4 SMA Highway 2* 2 yrs*

Repeated 1 Thin layer Regional 2* 2 yrs*

Repeated 3 DAC Regional 2* 2 yrs*


Highway 1* 1 yrs*


Regional 1* 1 yrs*


4

Table 2. Surface types used in EFR-project. Name in Norwegian data Surface type

Ab6 Dense asphalt concrete



Sma8 Stone mastic asphalt

Sma11 Stone mastic asphalt

T8g Dense asphalt concrete

ViaQ8 Thin layer

T8s Thin layer

Novachip8 Thin layer

Wa8 Single-layer porous asphalt

Da11 Single-layer porous asphalt

Da11/Da16 Double-layer porous asphalt

Wa8/Da16 Double-layer porous asphalt

ViaQ11/ViaQ16 Double-layer porous asphalt

Sealastic8 Special dense layer

2.3.1 Dense asphalt concrete and stone mastic asphalt surfaces

Figure 1.CPX-levels for dense asphalt concrete and stone mastic asphalts with

maximum aggregate size 8 mm or less.Measured using tyre A at a speed of 50 km/h.


5

Figure 2. CPX-levels for dense asphalt concrete and stone mastic asphalts with maximumaggregate size 8 mm or less. Measured using SRTT-tyre at a speed of

50 km/h.

Figure 3. CPX-levels for dense asphalt concrete and stone mastic asphalts with maximum aggregate size 8 mm or less. Measured using tyre A at a speed of

80 km/h.


6

Figure 4. CPX-levels for dense asphalt concrete and stone mastic asphalts with maximum aggregate size 8 mm or less. Measured using SRTT-tyre at a speed

of 80 km/h.

92

94

96

98

100

102

0 365 730 1095 1460 1825

CP

X-l

eve

l, [d

B(A

)]

Age [Days]

CPX@80 km/h, Tyre SRTT

Reference Sma6 Sma8 Sma8


7

Figure 5. CPX-levels for dense asphalt concrete and stone mastic asphalts with maximum aggregate size 11 mm. Measured using tyre A at a speed of 50 km/h.

Figure 6. CPX-levels for dense asphalt concrete and stone mastic asphalts with

maximum aggregate size 11 mm. Measured using SRTT- tyre at a speed of 50 km/h.

85

87

89

91

93

95

0 1 2 3

LA ,

[dB

(A)]

Age [Years]

CPX@50 km/h, Tyre A

Ab11 Sma11 Sma11 Sma11 Ab11 Sma11

Reference Sma11 Sma11 Ab11 Sma11 Sma11

Sma11 Ab11 Sma11 Reference Sma11 Sma11

85

87

89

91

93

95

0 1 2 3 4 5

LA ,

[dB

(A)]

Age [Years]


Sma11 Sma11 Reference


8

Figure 7. CPX-levels for dense asphalt concrete and stone mastic asphalts with maximum aggregate size 11 mm. Measured using tyre A at a speed of 80 km/h.

Figure 8. CPX-levels for dense asphalt concrete and stone mastic asphalts with

maximum aggregate size 11 mm. Measured using SRTT-tyre at a speed of 80 km/h.

2.3.2 Thin layer surfaces

92

94

96

98

100

102

0 1 2 3

CP

X-l

eve

l, [d

B(A

)]

Age [Years]

80 km/h, Tyre A

Reference Sma11 Sma11 Ab11 Sma11

92

94

96

98

100

102

0 1 2 3 4 5

CP

X-l

eve

l, [d

B(A

)]

Age [Years]

80 km/h, Tyre SRTT

Reference Sma11 Sma11


9

Figure 9. CPX-levels for Thin asphalt layers. Measured using tyre A at a speed

of 50 km/h.

Figure 10. CPX-levels for Thin asphalt layers. Measured using SRTT- tyre A at a

speed of 50 km/h.

85

87

89

91

93

95

0 1 2 3 4 5

LA ,

[dB

(A)]

Age [Years]


T8s Reference

85

87

89

91

93

95

0 1 2 3

LA ,

[dB

(A)]

Age [Years]

CPX@50 km/h, Tyre A

ViaQ8 T8s Novachip8 T8s Reference T8s T8s


10

2.3.3 Single-layer porous asphalt surfaces

Figure 11. CPX-levels for single-layer porous asphalt. Measured using tyre A at

a speed of 50 km/h.

Figure 12. CPX-levels for single-laye porous asphalt. Measured using SRTT-

tyre at a speed of 50 km/h.

85

87

89

91

93

95

0 1 2 3

CP

X-l

eve

l, [d

B(A

)]

Age [Years]

CPX@50 km/h, Tyre A

Wa8 Da11 Da11 Reference

85

87

89

91

93

95

1 2 3 4 5 6

CP

X-l

eve

l, [d

B(A

)]

Age [Years]


Reference Da11


11

Figure 13. CPX-levels for single-layer porous asphalt. Measured using tyre A at

a speed of 80 km/h.

Figure 14. CPX-levels for single-layer porous asphalt. Measured using SRTT-


2.3.4 Double-layer porous asphalt surfaces

92

94

96

98

100

102

0 1 2 3

CP

X-l

eve

l, [d

B(A

)]

Age [Years]

CPX@80 km/h, Tyre A

Wa8 Da11 Reference Da11

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

0 1 2 3 4 5

CP

X-l

eve

l, [d

B(A

)]

Age [Years]


Da11 Reference


12

Figure 15. CPX-levels for double-layer porous asphalt. Measured using tyre A

at a speed of 50 km/h.

85

87

89

91

93

95

0 1 2 3

CP

X-l

eve

l [d

B(A

)]

Age [Years]

CPX@50 km/h Tyre A

Reference Oppr Da16+ Sl.l. Da 11 Wa8/Da16 DaFib8/DaFib16 Da11/Da16, pmb ViaQ11/ViaQ16


13

Figure 16. CPX-levels for double-layer porous asphalt. Measured using SRTT-


Figure 17. CPX-levels for double-layer porous asphalt. Measured using tyre A

at a speed of 80 km/h.

85

87

89

91

93

95

0 1 2 3 4

CP

X-l

eve

l [d

B(A

)]

Age [Years]

CPX@50 km/h Tyre SRTT

Reference Wa8/Da16 ViaQ11/ViaQ16 DaFib8/DaFib16 Da11/Da16, pmb

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

0 1 2 3

CP

X-l

eve

l [d

B(A

)]

Age [Years]

CPX@80 km/h Tyre A

Wa8/Da16 ViaQ11/ViaQ16 DaFib8/DaFib16 Da11/Da16, pmb Reference


14

Figure 18. CPX-levels for double-layer porous asphalt. Measured using SRTT-


2.3.5 Highway E16 and E18 The results from two highways are presented separately, as the noise measurements on these sections continued after the end of the EFR project. The data from E16 consists of five test sections. Four of them are constructed in 2005. One section (DAC11) was built in 2002. The data from E18 contains five test sections constructed in 2005. One of those sections has SMA16 surface, which definitely cannot be considered as a low-noise pavement. (Berge et al, 2010; Berge, 2013). From 2005-2007, the noise levels were measured using tyre A. From 2008 to 2012, SRTT-tyre was used in measurements. The results measured with tyre A have been corrected to represent tyre SRTT using the following equation (Berge et al, 2009): LAcpx(SRTT)= Lacpx(Avon ) - 0.5 dB(A) For the spectral distributions presented in chapter 2.4.5, 2.4.6 and Annex B, no corrections have been made. Lacpx values are measured over the distance, and not calculated from the 1/3rd octave band spectra values. The data from E18 and E16 was provided by Berge (2013).

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

0 1 2 3 4 5

CP

X-l

eve

l [d

B(A

)]

Age [Years]


Wa8/Da16 ViaQ11/ViaQ16 DaFib8/DaFib16 Da11/Da16, pmb Reference


15

Figure 19. CPX-levels for highways E16 and E18. Measured using SRTT- tyre at

a speed of 80 km/h.

2.4 Analysis

In this section, following factors affecting the noise levels are evaluated:

Type of surface

Traffic intensity

Heavy vehicle intensity

Analysis is mostly done only of the results obtained at a speed of 80 km/h. However, due to speed limits, some sections are only measured at a speed of 50 km/h.

2.4.1 Dense asphalt concrete and stone mastic asphalt surfaces with nominal maximum aggregate size 8 mm or less

Figure 20 shows the noise reduction for the surfaces with maximum aggregate size 8 mm or less. For the surfaces measured with SRTT-tyre, the initial noise reduction is approximately 6.5 dB(A). After the first winter, and wear of studded tires, noise reduction is reduced to level around 1.5-4dB(A). After three years, the change in noise levels is 4-4.5 dB(A).

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Lp[d

B(A

)]

Age [Years]

E18 and E16, CPXX@ 80 km/h

SMA16 2005 SMA11 2005 SMA8 2005 SMA6 2005 SMA11 2005 DAC11 2005

DAC6 2005 DAC8 2005 DAC11 2005 Reference DAC11 2002


16

Figure 20. Noise reduction as a function of time on Sma6 and Sma8 surfaces.

SRTT-tyre. For the values measured using tyre A (Figure 21), the pattern has a similar shape: The initial values are approximately 6.5 dB(A) lower than the reference surface, but after 1 year, the noise levels increased 3 dB(A) on average.

Figure 21. Noise reduction as a function of time on surfaces with maximum

aggregate size 8 mm or less. Tyre A. In general, the noise levels increase the most during the first winter season (2.5-5 dB(A)). Two and three years old surfaces have similar noise reduction properties. After three years, the noise levels are on average only 2.5 dB(A) lower than the reference surface. Moreover, DAC6 and SMA6 surfaces maintain the noise reduction properties slightly better than DAC8 and SMA8 surfaces.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 1 2 3

[dB

(A)]

Age (years)

Noise reduction, Tyre SRTT (80km/h)

Sma6 Sma8 Sma8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3

[dB

(A)]

Age (years)

Noise reduction, Tyre A (80km/h)

Ab6 Ab8 Ab6 T8g Sma8 Sma6 Sma8 Sma8


17

2.4.2 Thin layers In the Norwegian project, thin layers are paved by using a machine, which added some polymer modified binder emulsion in order to glue the top layer to the bottom layer (in addition to regular gluing) (Berge et al, 2009). Air void content of T8s is 15-18 % (Woldene & Telle, 2006). Porosity of other thin layer surface types is not known, However, as ViaQ11 has air void content of 21-23 % (Kolo Veidekke, 2006), it can be assumed that ViaQ8 is porous surface as well. Due to speed limits on thin layer sections, only noise measurements with a speed of 50 km/h were possible. The noise levels (Figure 22) seems to be slightly higher on thin surface layers than on dense surfaces with the same aggregate size. However, as the noise levels were measured with a lower speed, the difference can be considered negligible. The initial values are approximately 5.5 dB(A) lower than the reference surface. After one year, the noise reduction is approximately 2 dB(A). Again, no remarkable difference between one and two-year-old pavements can be obtained.

Figure 22. Noise reduction as a function of time on thin layer surfaces. Tyre A.

2.4.3 Porous pavements The noise reduction properties of porous pavements differ to the other surface types, as figures 23 and 24 show. The most important observation is that there is no so remarkable increase in the noise levels after the first year. The noise levels, measured using tyre A, rise mostly after the third winter season. For example, single layer porous asphalt Wa8 reduces noise over 8 dB(A) compared with the reference surface. After two years, the noise reduction is still over 5 (dB). After the third winter season, the noise reduction collapses, being only 2.6 dB(A) compared with the reference surface.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2

[dB

(A)]

Age [Years]

Noise reduction, Tyre A (50 km/h)

ViaQ8

T8s

Novachip8

T8s


18

Figure 23. Noise reduction as a function of time on porous asphalt. Tyre A. The data measured using SRTT-tyre is presented in Figure 24. The two-layer porous asphalts reach very high noise reduction levels, approximately 6 dB(A) to 10.5 dB(A) right after the construction. After one year, the noise reduction properties are still over 4.5 dB(A). However, after three years the noise reduction is on average less than 2 dB(A) comparing with the reference surface. On porous pavements, the most significant increase in noise levels appear after three years from construction. As stated in (Aksnes et al, 2009), this can be related to the clogging. Surprisingly, there is no remarkable difference between single layer and double layer porous pavements. These results are inconsistent with the experiences in Sweden (Sandberg, 2012).

Figure 24. Noise reduction as a function of time on porous asphalt.SRTT-tyre.

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 1 2 3

[dB

(A)]

Age [years]

Noise reduction, Porous asphalt, tyre A

Wa8 Da11 Da11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2 3

[dB

(A)]

Age [Years]

Noise reduction, Porous asphalt, tyre SRTT

Wa8/Da16 ViaQ11/ViaQ16 DaFib8/DaFib16 Da11


19

2.4.4 SMA11-surfaces Several SMA11-surfaces were constructed during the project “Environmentally Friendly Pavements in Norway”. This surface type was also selected as a reference surface. As mentioned in (Berge et al, 2009), surfaces with chipping sizes 0/11 mm cannot be considered as low noise pavements. The reference levels in the Norwegian project are based on the noise measurements on at least one-year-old AC11 and SMA11 surfaces. In table 3, the evolutions of noise levels on SMA11-surfaces are presented. It shows that also reference surfaces have some noise reduction properties (1.6 dB(A) to 2 dB(A)) comparing with one year old surfaces. Based on that, it might be reasonable to compare the initial noise levels on all surface types to the initial values on the reference surface.

Table 3. The CPX-levels of SMA11 surfaces on Norway. Note that this data contains also few sections constructed prior to the EFR-project.

Tyre SRTT A

Age (years) n Average Std n Average Std

0 3 97,3 0,80 10 98,6 1,20

1 2 99,3 1,13 10 100,2 1,10

2 2 98,8 1,20 6 99,8 1,00

3 2 99,8 1,06 4 100,1 0,50

2.4.5 Highway E16 Figure 25 shows the noise reduction for the test sections on E16. The other DAC11-surface (light blue) has been constructed in 2002, and it is not a part of the EFR-project.

Figure 25. Noise reduction as a function of time on E16.

For the first two years, the noise levels are equal to other dense pavements built during the EFR-project. As there is no data available from the years 2008-2010, it cannot be defined, when DAC6 and DAC8 surfaces have lost their noise reduction properties. However, the DAC11 surface, built in 2002, has lost the noise reduction properties after three years It is

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[dB

(A)}

Age [Years]

Noise reduction, Tyre A (80km/h) E16

DAC6 DAC8 DAC11 DAC11 DAC11


20

worth noting that the noise level of DAC6 surface remains below the reference level after seven years. Figures 26-29 shows spectral distribution for the DAC-surfaces on highway E16. From 2005 to 2007, the measurements have been conducted using Tyre A. 2011-2012 the noise levels were measured using SRTT-tyre, and those spectrums can be found in Annex B.

Figure 26. Spectral distribution of DAC6.


70,0

75,0

80,0

85,0

90,0

95,0

100,0

315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150

Lp[d

B(A

)]

Frequency [Hz]

E16 Hønefoss, DAC 0/6, Tyre A

0 year

1 year

2 years

70,0

75,0

80,0

85,0

90,0

95,0

100,0

315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150

Lp[d

B(A

)]

Frequency [Hz]


0 year

1 year

2 years

Age [Years]


21



Right after the construction, before the first winter season, amplitudes below 1600 Hz are considerably lower than in the later stage. After the first winter season, the growth is most likely related to the roughening of dense surfaces. As stated earlier, there is no remarkable difference between one and two year old pavements, in terms of noise levels. This is the case also with spectral distribution: The amplitudes settled with the same level in all frequencies. Only minor difference can be observed below 1kHz.

2.4.6 Highway E18 Figure 30 shows the noise reduction for the test sections on E18. The most important observation is the clear correlation between the noise levels and the maximum nominal

70,0

75,0

80,0

85,0

90,0

95,0

100,0

315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150

Lp[d

B(A

)]

Frequency [Hz]


0 year

1 year

2 years

70,0

75,0

80,0

85,0

90,0

95,0

100,0

315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150

Lp[d

B(A

)]

Frequency [Hz]

E16 Hønefoss, DAC 0/11, Tyre A (Built 2002)

3 years

4 years

5 years


22

aggregate size. The SMA16 surface has the highest noise levels during the whole period, whereas the SMA6 surface has the lowest noise values.

Figure 30. Noise reduction as a function of time on E18. Interestingly, after seven years noise levels of the SMA6 and SMA8 surfaces still remain below the reference. Giving the fact that the AADT for that highway is relatively high (24 400 vehicles/day), the result can be considered somehow unexpected. In Figure 31 the spectral distributions for the SMA6 surface is illustrated. The shape of three-year-old SMA6 is not in line with the assumption, as the amplitude below 800 Hz is higher than in later measurements. However, this phenomenon occurs in all of the measurements conducted on E18 (see Annex B). The reason for that remains unknown.

Figure 31. Spectral distribution of SMA6.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

[dB

(A)]

Age [Years]

Noise reduction, Tyre A (80km/h) E18

SMA6 SMA8 SMA11 SMA11 SMA16

70,0

75,0

80,0

85,0

90,0

95,0

100,0

315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150

Lp[d

B(A

)]

Frequency [Hz]

E18, Mastermyr, SMA 0/6, SRTT-tyre

3 years

4 years

5 years

6 years

7 years


23

2.4.7 Traffic intensity The correlation between the traffic intensity and the noise levels is investigated by plotting the noise reduction values against annual average daily traffic (AADT). Additionally, the effect of heavy vehicles is determined in the same manner. The results are illustrated in figures 32-35.

Figure 32. Noise reduction as a function of AADT. Tyre A.

Figure 33. Noise reduction as a function of Heavy vehicle amount. Tyre A.

y = 0,0004x - 5,7969 R² = 0,6732

y = 0,0001x + 2,8474 R² = 0,7937

y = 0,0002x + 2,3349 R² = 0,4159

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

No

ise

re

du

ctio

n [

dB

(A)]

AADT [vehicles/day]

Noise reduction after 1 year, tyre A

SMA 0/6, SMA 0/8 DAC 0/6, DAC 0/8 1-L PA 2-L PA

y = 0,003x - 4,0432 R² = 0,321

y = 0,0013x + 2,8474 R² = 0,7937

y = 0,0018x + 2,3349 R² = 0,4159

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0,0 500,0 1000,0 1500,0 2000,0 2500,0 3000,0

No

ise

re

du

ctio

n [

dB

(A)]

Heavy vehicles / day]

Noise reduction after 1 year, tyre A

SMA 0/6, SMA 0/8 DAC 0/6, DAC 0/8 1-L PA 2-L PA


24

Figure 34. Noise reduction as a function of AADT. SRTT tyre.

Figure 35. Noise reduction as a function of Heavy vehicle amount. SRTT tyre. The results obtained using SRTT-tyre indicates moderate correlation between the traffic intensity and the noise levels. On the contrary, the results obtained using tyre A indicates very weak correlation instead. The reason for this large difference remains unknown. In general, no unambiguous conclusions about the effect of traffic intensity should be drawn due to the limited amount of data.

2.4.8 Winter maintenance The contractor and maintenance crew evaluated the winter maintenance operations on two low-noise pavement sections. The first section locates at Rv 170 and the other at the Ev6. Both test sections are double layer porous asphalt. (Aksnes, 2009).

y = 0,0012x - 24,453 R² = 0,9758

y = -0,0002x + 6,35 R² = 0,4967

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000

No

ise

re

du

ctio

n [

dB

(A)]

AADT [vehicles/day]

Noise reduction after 1 year, tyre SRTT

y = 0,0034x - 4,5875 R² = 0,9758

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0,0 500,0 1000,0 1500,0 2000,0 2500,0 3000,0

No

ise

re

du

ctio

n [

dB

(A)]

Heavy vehicles per day

Noise reduction after 1 year, tyre SRTT


25

. In order to keep the surface free of snow and ice, salt has been spread on both test sections. It was found that less salt was needed on porous surfaces than other pavements. Small amount of salt was trapped in the pores of asphalt, thus prolonging the impact of salt. In addition, porous asphalt sections dried more quickly than dense asphalt surfaces. However, in foggy conditions the porous asphalt was found to be more slippery and therefore more salt needed to ensure the safety driving conditions. Use of sand was needed only once during the winter season, which obviously delays the clogging effect comparing with surfaces where traction sand is spread regularly. Neither of the test roads had suffered any visual damages as a result of the winter maintenance operations. (Aksnes, 2009). In addition to the winter maintenance operations, the cleaning of porous pavement was tested on Rv 170. The noise levels were measured before and after the cleaning. No effect on noise as a result of cleaning was obtained. Furthermore, the permeability of the asphalt was measured before and after the cleaning operations. For two of the test sections, the cleaning increased the permeability, but on one of the test sections, the permeability actually decreased. One section had initially very low permeability, and therefore no change was observed. (Aksnes, 2009).

2.4.9 Durability As stated in many sources (Aksnes,2009; Kelkka et al ,2003; Sandberg, 2012), due the use of studded tyres the durability of low-noise pavements in the Nordic countries is weaker than in Central Europe. During the winter season, studs wear the surface causing ruts on the pavements. Thus, rutting is the main reason for the need of resurfacing in Norway. The maintenance standard for asphalt road surfaces in Norway specifies a maximum of 25 mm rut depth at 90 percentile for homogeneous road sections. The EFR-report (Aksnes , 2009) assumes a factor of 1.35 for the relationship between 90 percentile rut depth and the average rut depth, meaning that a resurfacing is required when the average rut depth is 18,5 mm. Figures 36-38 present the results from the rut depth measurements on the test sections. Rutting is the heaviest during the first year of construction. This can be explained by the initial rut depth, caused by deformation on fresh pavement. Based on the rut depths measurements, it was concluded in the EFR-project that the service life of the traditional dense asphalt course is 6.3 years. For thin layers, they calculated the average functional service life of 3.6 years, and 7.3 years for porous asphalt. It is pointed out that those calculations assume that the rut will increase linearly through the years. However, rutting is very complex phenomena with many factors affecting into it, such as traffic intensity, amount of heavy vehicles, and studded tyres. Therefore, calculating the service life based on relatively limited amount of data, one should draw conclusions very carefully.


26

Figure 36. Measured rut depths and AADT on DAC and SMA surfaces.

Figure 37. Measured rut depths and AADT on porous asphalt surfaces.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2 700 2 700 2 700 2 700 2 700 2 700 11 00011 00024 40024 40024 400 4200 4200 4200 11800

Ab6 Ab8 Ab11 Sma6 Sma8 Sma11Sma11Sma11 Sma6 Sma8 Sma11 Ab6 Ab8 Ab11 Ab6

[mm

]

Rut depth, DAC and SMA surfaces

One year old

Two years old

Three years old

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

11800 11800 6500 6500 6500 6500

Wa8 Da11 Da11 Wa8/Da16 ViaQ11/ViaQ16 DaFib8/DaFib16

[mm

]

Rut depth, porous asphalt

One year old

Two years old

Three years old


27

Figure 38. Measured rut depths and AADT on thin layer surfaces.

2.5 Summary

The low noise pavements in Norway are mostly constructed during the project “Environmentally Friendly Pavements in Norway ” in 2005-2008. The following products were used as quiet surfaces:

Dense asphalt concrete surfaces with nominal maximum aggregate size from 6 to 8

mm

Stone mastic asphalt surfaces with nominal maximum aggregate size from 6 to 8 mm

Thin layer surfaces with 8mm nominal maximum aggregate size

Single-layer porous surfaces with nominal maximum aggregate size from 8 to 11 mm

Double-layer porous surfaces with nominal maximum aggregate size from 8 to 16 mm

Noise measurements using CPX-method on at least one-year-old SMA11 surface were used as the reference level. Two different tyre types were used: Avon Z1 (Tyre A) and SRTT-tyre. The following reference level were set :

50 km/h: 94.5 dB(A) (Tyre A)

80 km/h: 101.5 dB(A) (Tyre A)



For dense surfaces with nominal maximum aggregate size from 6 to 8 mm, the initial noise levels are on average 5 dB(A) lower than reference level. After the first winter season, the difference is approximately 2 dB(A). Three-year-old surfaces have approximately 1dB(A) lower noise levels than the reference surface. A new single layer porous surface reduces noise 4-7 dB(A) comparing with the reference surface. After the first winter season, the noise levels are 0.7-2 dB(A) higher. Three-year-old single layer porous surface is approximately 1 dB(A) quieter than the reference surface.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

12400 11075 20300 20300 7000

ViaQ8 T8s Novachip8 T8s T8s

[mm

]

Rut depth, thin layers

One year old

Two years old


28

A new double layer porous surface reduces noise 4.5-9 dB(A) comparing with the reference surface. After the first winter season, the noise levels are 3-4.3 dB(A) lower than the reference surface. On average, three-year-old double layer porous surface is 0.5 dB(A) quieter than the reference surface. Rutting, caused by studded tyres, is the main cause for the resurfacing of pavements in Norway. Based on condition measurements during the first three years of their service-life, the estimated service-life for thin layer surfaces are 3.6 years, 6.3 years for dense asphalt courses, and 7.3 years for porous asphalt surfaces. The winter maintenance operations in Norway include spreading salt and traction sand in snowy and icy conditions. The effect of winter maintenance on low-noise pavements was inspected on two porous asphalt roads. Those surfaces performed well during the winter conditions and no visible damages from the winter operation equipment were reported.

3 Finland

3.1 General

The development of quiet pavements in Finland started in HILJA-project in 2001 (Kelkka et al.,2003). The data presented here are based on that research. Since the end of HILJA-project, many cities have tried quiet pavements, but not all the test have been successful. Nowadays, most of the quiet pavements locate in Helsinki. Helsinki has good experiences about the quiet pavements and the amount is planned to increase in the near future.


The noise measurements reported here have been conducted using modified CPX-method. Only one tyre, ASTM E524-tyre was used.

3.2.1 Temperature corrections All the results have been temperature corrected using the following relationships (Kelkka et al., 2003): L=Lm+0.08ΔT, where L = corrected noise level Lm = Measured noise level ΔT = Difference between the measured temperature and the reference temperature (+20 °C).

3.2.2 Reference surface In Finland, the most common wearing course on high-volume roads is SMA16. In HILJA-project, the noise level on several SMA16-pavements was measured in order to define the reference noise level. Table 4 shows the noise levels for SMA16-surfaces.

Table 4. The results from the noise measurements on SMA16-surface. Location

Age Helsinki

Kaarina Kirkkonummi Average


29

0 91,0 89,1 91,7 90,6

1 93,3 92,4 91,8 92,5

2 92,3 92,4 - 92,35

3.3 Overview of allocated data sets and examples of graphs

The results are presented in the numeric format in Annex C. The overview of the noise measurements in Hilja-project can be seen in Table 5. Most of the products are developed by the contractors involved in the project, and therefore no information about the products is available.

Table 5. Overview of Finnish low-noise pavements constructed during “HILJA” –project.

Data set Nr of locations Surface type Road type Nr. of repetitions Covered time

Repeated 2 SMA6 Urban 3 3 yrs

Repeated 2 SMA6 Urban 2 2 yrs

Repeated 2 Double-layer porous Urban 3 3 yrs

Repeated 4 Double-layer porous Urban 2 2 yrs

Repeated 3 Single-layer semi-open

Urban 3 3 yrs


Urban 2 2 yrs


Highway 1 1 yr

The results on Vt25 are limited to one year. During the first winter, heavy military vehicles partly destroyed the surface and the latter results were decided to exclude from the research. (Kelkka et al., 2003).

3.3.1 Stone mastic asphalt surfaces


30

Figure 39. CPX-levels for SMA6. Measured at a speed of 50 km/h.

Figure 40. CPX-levels for single-layer semi-open surfaces. Measured at a speed

of 50 km/h.

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

0 1 2

LA, [

dB

(A)]

Age [Years]

CPX@50 km/h, tyre ASTM E524

SMA16 SMA 6 SMA 6 SMA 6 SMA6

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

0 1 2

LA, [

dB

(A)]

Age [Years]


SMA16 HILJA OT WHISPERPHALT T HILJA OK WHISPERPHALT T

NOVACHIP NOVACHIP 8 WHISPERPHALT T HILTTI-MIX VIACODRÄN 8

VIACODRÄN 11 SHP-Y SHP-K2


31

Figure 41. CPX-levels for double-layer surfaces. Measured at a speed of 50 km/h.

Figure 42. CPX-levels for semi-open surfaces on highway VT25. Measured at a speed of 50 km/h.

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

0 1 2

LA, [

dB

(A)]

Age [Years]


SMA16

WHISPERPHALT T

HILTTI 3

VIACODRÄN 11A

HILJA T

HILTTI 3

HILJA K

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

LA, [

dB

(A)]

Age: 1 Year



32

3.4 Analysis

In this section, following factors affecting the noise levels are evaluated:

Type of surface

Traffic intensity

Heavy vehicle intensity

The results obtained at a speed of 50 km/h are analyzed.

3.4.1 Stone mastic asphalt surfaces Figure 43 shows the noise reduction for SMA6 surfaces. The initial values are 6-7.5 dB(A) lower than reference level. After the first winter, the noise values increase approximately 2-4 dB(A). The results from two-year-old pavements indicate that the noise levels decrease again. However, the difference is less than 1 dB(A).

Figure 43. Noise reduction as a function of time on Sma6 surfaces.

3.4.2 Single-layer porous surfaces Figure 44 presents the single layer porous surfaces. It clearly shows the large variation in the noise levels. While a surface with the maximum aggregate size of 11mm reduces noise less than 1 dB(A), one surface type reduces noise more than 10 dB(A). The average noise reduction after the construction is 6.3 dB(A). After one year, the average is still 3.4 dB(A).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2

[dB

(A)]

Age [Years]

Noise reduction, SMA6 surfaces

SMA 6 SMA 6 SMA 6 SMA6


33

Figure 44. Noise reduction as a function of time on semi-open single-layer surfaces.

Surprisingly, the double layer porous asphalts reduce noise less than single layer surfaces. Figure 45 shows the noise reduction to the reference surface. On average, the noise levels after the construction are 5.1 dB(A) below the reference surface level. There is, however, large variation between the different products. After the first winter season, the growth in noise levels is quite significant: approximately 2-4.5 dB(A).

Figure 45. Noise reduction as a function of time on double-layer surfaces.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2

[dB

(A)}

Age [Years]

Noise reduction, single-layers

HILJA OT WHISPERPHALT T HILJA OK WHISPERPHALT T

NOVACHIP NOVACHIP 8 WHISPERPHALT T HILTTI-MIX

VIACODRÄN 8 VIACODRÄN 11 SHP-Y SHP-K2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2

[dB

(A)]

Age [Years]

Noise reduction, double-layers

WHISPERPHALT T WHISPERPHALT B HILTTI 3 HILTTI 6 VIACODRÄN 11A VIACOBASE 20B

HILJA T HILJA A II HILTTI 3 HILTTI 6 HILJA K HILJA A


34

3.4.3 Traffic intensity The effect of traffic intensity on the noise levels is evaluated by comparing AADT and the noise reduction of one-year-old pavements (Figure 46). In addition, the number of heavy vehicles are compared with the noise levels (Figure 47).

Figure 46. Noise reduction after one year from construction as a function of

AADT.

Figure 47. Noise reduction after one year from construction as a function of the number of heavy vehicles.

The number of all vehicles correlates better with the noise levels than the number of heavy vehicles. This is obvious in Finland, as 90% of passenger cars are using studded tyres during the winter season (Malmivuo et al, 2010). However, more test sections and noise measurements would be needed to draw further conclusions about the effect of traffic intensity.

y = -0,0004x + 4,9959 R² = 0,4136

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

No

ise

re

du

ctio

n [

dB

(A)]

AADT [Vehicles/day]

Noise reduction after 1 year

y = -0,0048x + 3,925 R² = 0,2273

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 100 200 300 400 500

No

ise

re

du

ctio

n [

dB

(A)]

Heavy vehicles per day

Noise reduction after 1 year


35

3.4.4 Winter maintenance There was no special attention paid to the winter maintenance operation during the Hilja-project. In general, winter maintenance causes extra stresses for pavements in Finland. One example are shown in Figure 48 where the edges of a snowploughs has shaved off material from the quiet surface. Obviously, that destroys the noise reducing the effect of the low noise surface.

Figure 48. Damages on the low-noise pavement, caused by a snowplough. Figure from (Valtonen, 2007).

3.4.5 Durability Rut depths were measured in the test sections on Helsinki, Espoo, and Kaarina. These sections were measured twice per year during the two first year of their service-life. Most of the sections were also measured in the 3rd year. The measured rut depths and AADT are presented in Figure 49.


36

Figure 49. Noise reduction after one year from construction as a function of rut depth.

No remarkable correlation exists between rut depth and noise reduction on one-year-old pavements. In addition, it was found during the Hilja-project, that neither the macro texture nor the friction of the surfaces measured had any clear correlation with the noise levels. (Kelkka et al, 2003).

Figure 50. Measured rut depths on different surface types. The number on x-

axis indicates AADT of each section.

0

5

10

15

20

6080 6953 7260 4748 4362 4021 4701 4360 3986 6858 7188 4336 4336 4336

Doublelayer

Doublelayer

Doublelayer

Doublelayer

Doublelayer

Doublelayer

Singlelayer

Singlelayer

Singlelayer

Singlelayer

Singlelayer

Singlelayer

Singlelayer

Singlelayer

Ru

t d

ep

th (

mm

)

Rut depth

1st summer

1st autumn

2nd spring

2nd autumn

3rd spring

y = -0,1904x + 4,2671 R² = 0,182

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

No

ise

re

du

ctio

n [

dB

(A)]

Rut depth (mm)

Rut depth versus noise reduction after one year


37

Between summer and autumn, rutting was relatively slow on all measured test sections. It proves that deformation caused by heavy vehicles is not the crucial factor for the durability of quiet pavements in Finland.

3.5 Summary

The low noise pavements in Finland were researched the “Hilja” project in 2001-2004. The following products were used as quiet surfaces:

Stone mastic asphalt surfaces with nominal maximum aggregate size 6 mm.

Single layer semi open surfaces

Double layer porous surfaces

Noise measurements using CPX-method and ASTM E524-tyre on SMA16 surface were used as the reference level. The following values as reference level was used in the analysis:

92.3 dB(A) (New surface)

92.4 dB(A) (One year old surface)

92.35 dB(A) (Two-year-old surfaces)

For SMA6 surfaces, the initial noise levels are on average 6.5 dB(A) lower than the reference level. After the first winter season, the difference is only 3-5 dB(A). Two-year-old surfaces have approximately 4 dB(A) lower noise levels than the reference surface. A new single layer semi open porous surface reduces noise 1-10 dB(A) comparing with the reference surface. The values are varying depending on the location and the product type. Most of the surfaces reduce noise from 5 dB(A) to 8 dB(A). After the first winter season, the noise levels were 1.5-5dB(A) below the reference surface. Two-year-old single layer semi open porous surface is approximately 2-4 dB(A) quieter than the reference surface. A new double layer porous surface reduces noise 3-8 dB(A) comparing with the reference surface. After the first winter season, the noise levels are approximately 1-3 dB(A) lower than the reference surface. Some two-year-old double layer porous surfaces were still 1-4 dB(A) quieter than the reference surface. However, on some test sections, studded tyres had worn the whole wearing course.

4 Sweden

4.1 General

The use of low-noise pavements in Sweden was inventoried by VTI in 2008-2009 (Jacobson et al, 2010). In the recent years, the following low-noise surface types have been used in Sweden:


Single layer porous asphalt without rubber

Single layer porous asphalt with rubber

Rubber asphalt

Semi-open thin layer surface with small maximum aggregate size

Double layer surfaces have the total thickness of 70-80 mm. In the bottom layer, the maximum aggregate size of 16 mm is used, while the top layer has a maximum aggregate


38

size from 8-11 mm. Single layer porous asphalt without rubber has been used in Sweden since the 1970s. It usually has void content between 15 and 20%. Recently, several single layer porous asphalt surface with rubber have been constructed. Relatively new concept is a semi-open asphalt surface with maximum aggregate size 8 or 11 mm. Also for this surface type, polymer-modified rubber is added to the binder. These pavements are mainly laid on municipal streets and roads. In addition to the above mentioned surface types, there are several low-noise pavements constructed with steel slag. Due to its porous surface, steel slag reduces noise about 1 dB. (Jacobson et al, 2010).


In this section, a few examples from low-noise pavements on highways are represented. All of the information comes from the report written by Sandberg (2012). In the report, both SPB-results and CPX-results are presented, but here we focus only on the CPX-results.

4.2.1 Reference surface Sandberg (2012) recommends the use of at least two-year-old SMA16 as a reference surface. This surface type is very commonly used in the Swedish road network, especially in high-volume streets and roads. It is noted that newly laid SMA16 surface is too unstable in terms of noise, as noise can increase up to 3 dB during the first month of service-life (Oddershede & Bendtsen , 2011). Moreover, a two-year-old surface has not generally suffered too much damage, such as stone loss or cracks.

4.2.2 E18 Double layer porous asphalt on the E18 between Upplands- Bro and Bålstavägen was constructed in 2003. E18 is a highway 2x2-lane highway with a speed limit of 110 km/h, and AADT of approximately 20 000 vehicles/day. Double layer surface consisted of a 30 mm thick top layer with 11 m maximum aggregate size and a bottom layer with thickness of 50 mm and maximum aggregate size of 16 mm. Figure 51 shows the results from a thin layer surface (Novachip 11) and a single layer porous surface (Duradrain 16) constructed at the same time. (Sandberg, 2012). The results from CPX-measurements are illustrated in Figure 53. Measurements in 2003-2006 were conducted with four reference tyre: Avon/Cooper ZV 1, Avon/Cooper Enviro CR 322, Avon/Cooper Turbogrip CR 65, and Dunlop SP Arctic. In 2008, the original reference tyres were replaced by tyre AAV4 and SRTT-tyre. The air temperature during the 4th measurements in July was 10-15 degrees higher than previous measurements. The measurements on Duradrain 16 were repeated after two months using tyre A and 2.7 dB higher values were obtained. The results measuredon Duradrain 16 in July that year were corrected by this difference. For the other surfaces, 1 dB(A) on the noise levels were added in order to compensate the effect of high air temperature. The reference level (101.6 dB(A))is based on the measurements of at least two-year-old SMA16 surfaces in 2005-2008. (Sandberg, 2012).


39

Figure 51. 80 km/h. Figure from Sandberg (2012).

The noise level of the double layer surfaces increases 1 dB(A) almost linearly. After three years, the noise levels are still almost 3 dB(A) below the reference. It is noteworthy that other quiet pavement types are so ineffective in terms of noise reduction.

4.2.3 E4 Botbyrka In 2005, a 1300 meter long double layer porous surface was constructed by Skanska on E4 between Hallundavägen and Botkyrka. For this section, two different AADTs have been reported: according to Nilsson (2010), AADT is 92000 vehicles per day, but Jakobson (2009) reports AADT of 75 000. The posted speed limit is 90 km/h. The layer thicknesses were the same as in E18, but the binder used was polymer modified. The air void content estimated by CT-scans was 20 %. It is noteworthy that the surface, constructed by Skanska, was laid at night on mid-October. Thus, low air temperature has probably affected the durability of the double layer surface. (Sandberg, 2012). Figure 52 presents the noise reduction, measured by CPX-method using Tyre A. The first measurements were performed one week after the construction, and the next measurements in June and September 2007. In addition to Tyre A, Tyre D, SRTT-tyre, AAV4, and Goodrich Mud Terrain (MT) tyre were partly used. These measurements with additional tyres were utilized first time almost one year after the construction, and annually since then. At the end of the follow-up measurements, no Tyre A, Tyre D, or the MT-tyre were used. (Sandberg, 2012).


40

Figure 52. The large symbols represents the SPB-measurements. The small

symbols corresponds to the CPX-measurements. 80 km/h. Figure from Sandberg (2012).

As Figure 52 shows, the initial noise reduction is very high (8.5 dB(A)). It is 2.5 dB(A) more than on E18. After one year, the noise level has increased approximately 2.5 dB(A). Since then, the increase is on average 2 dB(A) per year. If the evolution is assumed to continue linearly, there is no noise reduction property left after 3.5 year since the construction. This is in line with results obtained from Norway and Finland.

4.2.4 E4 Huskvarna On June 2010, a low-noise pavement with a length of 2700 meters was constructed on E4 between Huskvarna and Jönköping. Double layer porous asphalt was built with a special modified binder in order to ensure the resistance against stone loss. The bottom layer has thickness of 50 mm and 11/16 mm aggregates were used. In the 30-mm-thick top layer, aggregate size 8/11 mm was used. The shoulders and part of the quiet pavement section is single layer porous layer. It is also worth mentioning that the layers were paved on separate days, not almost simultaneously as usual. (Sandberg, 2012). The results from CPX-measurements are presented in table 6. Noise was measured at a speed of 90 km/h and both tyre A and DRTT-tyre were used. The results obtained from SMA16 surfaces were again used as a reference level. (Sandberg, 2012).

Table 6. Noise measurements on E4 Huskvarna. (Sandberg, 2012; 2013). Pavement type July 2010 June 2011 July 2011 June 2012

SRTT AAV4 SRTT AAV4 SRTT AAV4 SRTT

Single layer 2.3 1.1 2.8 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.6

Single layer (Ramp)

2.3 1.1 5.2 4.9 4.6 4.8 n/a

Double layer 7.6 7.3 7.8 7.5 7.8 7.6 7.2


41

The results prove the difference between single layer and double layer porous surfaces. In spite of the same mix design, the double layer reduces noise more than 5 dB(A) comparing with the single layer. Another important observation was that after one year the noise levels remained at the same level. This is reported being the first time in Sweden when no increase in noise occurred on one-year-old porous asphalt (Sandberg, 2012). On July 2011, the measurements were conducted after cleaning the surface, but no effect on the noise levels was observed. Thus, it can be concluded that no clogging appeared in one year old surface.

4.2.5 E22 Malmö-Lund Double layer porous asphalt (PA 16 + Pa 11)-section with AADT of 40 000 vehicles/day was constructed in 2005. The speed limit is 100 km/h, but noise measurements were conducted at a speed of 80 km/h. In 2007, the results obtained with SRTT-tyre indicated 2 dB(A) noise reduction compared with SMA16 surface. Four-years-old surface was measured again in 2009 and noise level was 1 dB(A) below the reference. The measurements were performed also on the shoulders of the road, which has SMA11 surface. Noise reduction on two-year-old surface was 6dB(A) and still 5 dB(A) on four-year-old surface. (Sandberg, 2012).

4.2.6 Single layer surfaces Noise reduction on single layer surfaces in some low-noise pavements are presented in table 7. It includes only highway sections, as urban roads are mostly left out of the scope of this report. Also, only CPX-results measured at a speed of 80 km/h are presented. (Sandberg, 2012).

Table 7 . Single layer surfaces in Sweden. (Sandberg, 2012).

Highway Pavement type Construction year Age Noise reduction

(dB(A))

E18 Bålsta Duradrain (DAC16)

2003 0 year 1.0


2003 1 year 0.8


2003 2 years 1.1


2003 5 years 0.6

E20 Partille DAC16 2006 1 year 0.7

E20 Partille DAC16 2006 3 years -1.2

E6 Ljungskile Variant of DAC16 2008 1 year 0.5

E22 Lund Variant of DAC11 2009 3 months 2.7

E4 Jönköping Variant of DAC11 2010 1 month 1.9

E4 Jönköping Variant of DAC11 2010 1 year 1.9

The measurement results prove that single layer porous surfaces are very ineffective in noise reduction comparing with double layers. Furthermore, it can be concluded that single layer surfaces are not considerable quieter than corresponding DAC surfaces. In order to achieve better noise reduction, Sandberg (2012) suggests using thickness at least 45 mm and air void content 23-26 % on single layer surfaces . Moreover, he prefers maximum aggregate size of 16 mm when the speed limit is 100 km/h or more. For pavements with the speed limit 70-90 km/h, maximum aggregate size should be 11 mm. For the 50 km/h speed limit, the maximum aggregate should not exceed 8 mm. It is also noted that the selection of maximum aggregate size should be dependent on the amount of studded tyres. (Sandberg, 2012).


42

Examples from other low-noise surface type In 2007, asphalt rubber pavements were constructed in order to evaluate the possibility to use them as low-noise pavement. Experiments are still to be continued, but the conclusion drawn from the initial results were not too positive. Dense-graded rubber asphalt had almost negligible noise reduction properties compared with conventional dense-graded asphalts. Comparing with the conventional open-graded asphalts, open-graded rubber asphalt with the maximum aggregate size of 11 mm reduced noise by 2dB, measured using the passenger car tyre. (Viman, 2011). In 2010, Surfaces with small aggregate sizes were constructed on RV 13 near Hörby. DAC8, DAC11, SMA8, and SMA11 surfaces were measured using CPX-method, and the results were compared with the results from SMA16 surface on E22. At the beginning, DAC8 and SMA8 surfaces reduced noise more than 7 dB(A), but after one year, the noise levels were less than 4 dB(A) below the reference level. Also SMA11 surface was very quiet at the beginning, being almost 6 dB(A) below the reference level. After one year, almost the same noise levels as on SMA8 were obtained. SMA11 surface was slightly over 3 dB(A) quieter than SMA16 at the beginning. After one year, however, it was less than 2 dB(A) quieter than SMA16. (Sandberg, 2012).

4.3 Summary

Sweden has a long history on developing low noise surfaces under Nordic conditions. At least following surface types have been used:


Single layer porous asphalt without rubber

Single layer porous asphalt with rubber

Rubber asphalt


In general, results obtained from at least two-year-old SMA16 surfaces have been used as

reference level in noise measurements. In terms of noise, the best results have been

achieved using double layer porous asphalt with maximum aggregate size of 8 mm.

Approximately 9 dB noise reduction on newly laid surfaces has been measured. However,

the wear resistance against studded tyres is weaker with small aggregates. Thus, maximum

aggregate size of 11 mm should be used on roads, where the speed limit exceeds 70 km/h.

Then, the noise reduction of 8 dB at the beginning could be achieved. Also, porous

asphalts with relatively low air void content (20 %), may increase the noise levels up to 5

dB, comparing with a surface with 25 % of air voids. (Sandberg, 2012).

As well in the other Nordic countries, the main cause for damages on pavements is the wear by studded tyres. Wear from the road and tyres is clogging surfaces and rutting roughens surfaces, thus damaging noise reducing capabilities. Rutting usually occurs after the second winter season at the latest. It shortens the service-lives of pavements, and therefore resurfacing is needed after six years at the latest on double surface porous asphalt. On some surfaces, resurfacing was needed after two years of operation. Until the end of service-life, noise levels increase as a function of surface age and accumulated traffic. On roads with AADT of 10 000 vehicles/day, the increase is approximately 1 dB(A) per year, while on roads with AADT of 20 000 vehicles/day, the increase of about 1.5 dB(A) has been obtained. On high-volume roads with AADT of


43

40 000 vehicles/day, the typical increase is approximately 2.5 dB(A) per year. For roads with the speed limit less than 70 km/h, the above-mentioned values are higher. (Sandberg, 2012). Promising results from the ongoing project on E4 at Huskvarna have been reported by Sandberg (2012; 2013). Noise level of double layer porous asphalt was at the beginning 7.6 dB(A) below the reference level. After two years, there was no deterioration observed, as the noise level was still 7.2 dB(A) quieter than the reference surface. (Sandberg, 2013). This is in contrast with all of the previous experiences in the Nordic Countries. In recent years, noise reduction on single layers surfaces has not exceeded 3 dB(A). In addition, despite the same design and materials in the top layer between a single layer and double layer porous, the measured noise levels are completely different. It proves that the noise reduction is mostly presented by the bottom layer. (Sandberg, 2012).

5 Conclusions

The goal of this research was to gather data from the Nordic countries and study the following subjects:

What products have been used as quiet surfaces

When have the quiet surface been repaved (durability) and why (cause of the destruction)

What special materials or paving techniques have been used because of winter conditions

What kind of winter maintenance techniques have been used

Most of the Norwegian data is based on the program “Environmentally Friendly Pavements in Norway (EFR)”, conducted by the Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA) in 2004–2009. During the project, 36 low-noise pavement test sections with a total length of 37,143 km were constructed (Aksnes, 2009). The Finnish data come from “Hilja” project, coordinated by the Laboratory of Highway Engineering at the Helsinki University of Technology in 2001-2004. Information about low noise pavements in Sweden is mostly based on the state-of-the-art report written by Sandberg (2012). In the Nordic countries, the following products have been used as quiet pavements:


Single layer porous asphalt

Rubber asphalt


The main cause for repaving pavements in the Nordic countries is rutting, caused by a wide use of studded tyres. In addition, dust from the road wear may lead to a faster clogging of surfaces. In Finland and Norway, the monitoring time in the research programs were too short in order to evaluate the lifetime of quiet pavements. However, some sections in Finland were destroyed already after two years from the construction. In Norway, predictions about the service life were made based on the conditions measurements of the test sections. It was estimated to be less than four years for thin layers and more than seven years for porous


44

asphalts. In Sweden, the experiences show that on double layer porous asphalt, the lifetime is less than six years. The noise reducing capabilities of quiet pavements vary depending on the surface type. The highest noise reduction is achieved with double layer porous surfaces: the initial noise reduction varies between 4.5-9 dB(A). In most of the surfaces, the loss on noise reducing qualities is highest during the first winter season. Some porous pavement sections, however, suffer more loss during the second winter season. As far as known to the author, no special winter maintenance operations on quiet pavements have been utilized. On icy and snowy conditions, conventional winter maintenance operations include salt spreading and snow ploughing. In Finland, it was reported that in some cases, the edges of snowploughs had been destroyed the surface. In Norway, however, no visual damages were reported on the inspected test sections. Moreover, salting may cause faster clogging of porous surfaces, but that was not observed on the inspected test sections in Norway. On urban roads, sanding is also used in order to ensure the traffic safety on slippery conditions. Apart from clogging, this may lead to a roughening of a surface, due to the grinding impact of sand under the tyres.

6 Acknowledgement

The research presented in this report/paper/deliverable was carried out as part of the CEDR Transnational Road research Programme Call 2012. The funding for the research was provided by the national road administrations of Belgium/Flanders, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom. The authors would like to thank Mr. Truls Berge from SINTEF, and Mr. Ulf Sanberg from VTI for providing data for this report,

7 References

Aksnes, J. (2009):“Environmentally Friendly Pavements Final Report”. Teknologirapport nr. 2578. Statens vegvesen. Oslo, Norway. Berge, T., Haukland, F. & Ustad, A. (2009):”Environmentally friendly pavements: Results from noise measurements 2005-2008”. Sintef. Trondheim, Norway. Berge, T., Haukland, F. & Storeheier, S. (2010): ”CPX-målinger på forsøksdekker 2010”. Sintef. Trondheim, Norway. Berge, T. (2013). “Study into the durability of low noise surfaces under Scandinavian conditions” Personal email sent to: Kuosmanen, A. Aalto University, 17.6.2013. Jacobson, T. & Viman, L. (2010): "Inventering av bullerreducerande beläggningar i Sverige -Utförd 2008/2009 VV/VTI". VTI Utlåtande nr 756, VTI, Linköping, Sweden. Kelkka, M., Hyyppä, I., Raitanen, N., Valtonen J. & Sainio, P. (2003). “Hiljaiset päällysteet - tuotevaatimukset ja mittarit”. Helsinki University of Technology Publications in Highway Engineering. Kolo Veidekke (2006). ” Støysvake vegdekker”. Laboratoriearbeid. Kolo veidekke, Norway. Malmivuo, M. & Luoma, J. (2010). Talvirenkaiden kunnon kehittyminen vuosina 2001-2010, VTT, Finland.


45

Oddershede, J. & Bendtsen, H. (2011): "Initial growth of noise from new road surfaces". Proc. of Forum Acusticum 2011, Aalborg, Danmark. Sandberg, U. (2012): "Lågbullerbeläggningar i Sverige State-of-the-art (Low noise road surfaces in Sweden)". Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), Linköping, Sweden. Sandberg, U (2013): "Lågbullerbeläggning E4 Huskvarna”. Powerpoint presentation. Personal email sent to: Kuosmanen, A. Aalto University, 22.3.2013. Valtonen, J. (2007). Figure from damaged low-noise pavement. Available from: www.nvfnorden.org/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=518 [Accessed on 1.12.2013]. Viman, L. (2011): "Gummiasfaltbeläggning. Sammanställning av utförda mätningar och provningar". VTI Utlåtande 752, Statens väg- och transportforskningsinstitut (VTI). Woldene, A. & Telle, R. (2006). ”Forsknings- og utviklingsarbeid, prosjekt nr. 600740: Støysvake dekker”. Rapport nr.: TEK 059. Lemminkäinen Norge AS, Fjellhamar, Norway


A.1

General information

No Year Location Road no Lane Type of pavement Product name Additive AADT

1 2005 Trondheim Rv715 Both 250 Ordinary Ab6 2 700 10 80



4 2005 Trondheim Rv715 Both 242 Ordinary Sma6 2 700 10 80



7 2005 Melhus E6 1 (left lane, northbound) 260 Ordinary Sma11 1% rubber 11 000 14 90

8 2005 Melhus E6 1 (left lane, northbound) 260 Ordinary Sma11 3% rubber 11 000 14 90

9 2005 Oslo E18 2 (left lane, southbound) 244 Ordinary Sma6 24 400 10 80




13 2005 Hønefoss E16 Both 300 Ordinary Ab6 4200 10 80



16 2005 Stange E6 Both 270 Ordinary Ab6 PmB 11800 10 80

17 2005 Stange E6 Both 268 Ordinary T8g PmB+rubber 11800 10 80

18 2005 Stange E6 Both 380 porous asphalt Wa8 PmB 11800 10 80

19 2005 Stange E6 Both 368 porous asphalt Da11 PmB 11800 10 80

20 2006 Kongsvinger Rv2 Both 710 Thin asphalt course ViaQ8 PmB 12400 10 60

21 2006 Kongsvinger Rv2 Both 350 Thin asphalt course T8s PmB 11075 11 70

22 2006 Oslo Rv161 1+3 (w estbound) 325 Thin asphalt course Novachip8 PmB 20300 7 50

23 2006 Oslo Rv161 1+3 (w estbound) 325 Thin asphalt course T8s PmB 20300 7 50

24 2006 Bjørkelangen Rv170 Both 450 porous asphalt Da11 PmB 6500 10 80

25 2006 Bjørkelangen Rv170 Both 450 porous asphalt Wa8/Da16 PmB 6500 10 80

26 2006 Bjørkelangen Rv170 Both 450 porous asphalt ViaQ11/ViaQ16 PmB 6500 10 80

27 2006 Bjørkelangen Rv170 Both 500 porous asphalt DaFib8/DaFib16 PmB 6500 10 80

28 2007 Stjørdal E6 Both 419 Ordinary Sma8 PmB 17000 14 80

29 2007 Stjørdal E6 Both 420 Ordinary Sma11 PmB 17000 14 80

30 2007 Trondheim E6 2 (left lane, southbound) 280 Ordinary Sma8 PmB 18000-27000 8 80

31 2007 Trondheim E6 2 (left lane, southbound) 1500 Ordinary Sma11 PmB 18000-27000 8 80

32 2007 Elverum Rv20 Both 2575 Thin asphalt course T8s PmB 7000 12 60-80

33 2007 Eidsvåg Rv62 Both 1990 Ordinary Ab6 PmB 3575 13 40-50

34 2007 Rygge Rv118 Both 291 Dense Viastab8 PmB 7900 7 70

35 2007 Bergen Rv582 Both 1000 Dense, special layer Silastic8 PmB 13300 8 60

36 2008 Horg Ev 6 Both 1225 Porous, tw in layer Da16+ Sl.l. Da 11 PmB 8100

37 2008 Vang Rv25 Both 800 Porous, tw in layer Da11/Da16 PmB 11100

Sources:General information: Norwegian Public Road administration, 2009. Environmentally Friendly Pavements, Final Report.

Friction and rut depth measurements: Norwegian Public Road administration, 2009. Miljøvennlige vegdekker Sluttrapport forsøksstrekninger.

Noise measurements: SINTEF IKT,2010. CPX-målinger på forsøksdekker 2010

Heavy

vehicles (%)

Speed limit

(km/h)

Length

(m)

Annex A: Norwegian low-noise pavements (Environmentally friendly pavements).


A.2

Noise measurements 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Method Tyre type 50 km/h 80 km/h LA , dB(A) LA , dB(A) LA , dB(A) LA , dB(A) LA , dB(A) LA , dB(A) LA , dB(A) LA , dB(A) LA , dB(A) LA , dB(A) LA , dB(A) LA , dB(A)

6 11 13 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 85,3 90,4 90,9 91,6

5 6 7 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 87,4 91 91,5 92,1

5 6 7 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 88,9 92,2 93,2 93,9

4 6 7 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 87,8 90,8 91,1 92,2

4 6 8 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 88,4 91,1 91,6 92,2

4 5 6 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 90,7 92,4 93 93,6

4 10 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 93,1 92,4 93,1 92,8 100,2 99,6 100,4 100,4

3 4 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 91,7 92,7 96,2 98,1 98,9 100,5

3 5 CPX SRTT 92,2 99,1 89,8 91 91,7 91,2 93,9 96,6 96,8 97,7 98,1 97,6

2 4 CPX SRTT 92,2 99,1 90,3 91,1 91,9 91,8 94,4 97 97,1 97,9 99,1 98,5

3 5 CPX SRTT 92,2 99,1 91,4 92,3 93,4 93,3 96,5 98,5 97,9 99 100,3 100,2

2 4 CPX SRTT 92,2 99,1 92,1 93,1 94,1 93,8 98,6 99,5 99,1 100,2 101 100,8

5 7 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 89,1 90,9 90,3 94,9 97,8 97,4

6 7 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 89 91,5 91,2 95,3 98,4 98,3

6 6 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 90,4 91,9 91,3 97,1 98,5 98,3

4 9 11 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 90,2 91,3 92,8 96,9 96,8 98,5

8 13 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 90,3 95,1 97,3 97,5

1 6 10 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 89,7 91,8 92,9 94,9 96 98,9

4 6 7 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 89,9 91,5 94,4 96,2 96,5 99,3

4 10 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 89,4 92,4 92,5

5 11 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 89 92,1 92,2

4 6 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 88,7 92,6 92,1

2 3 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 89,2 93,1 92,4

2 4 CPX SRTT 92,2 99,1 88,9 89,4 91,5 92,5 92,8 94,5 96,1 97,9 99,9 99,9

2 4 CPX SRTT 92,2 99,1 87,2 89 90,3 91,2 91,3 92,6 95,7 97,1 98,5 98,4

3 5 CPX SRTT 92,2 99,1 88 88,6 90,3 91,4 91,9 93,7 94,8 97,7 98,6 99

4 7 CPX SRTT 92,2 99,1 84,9 88,7 91,4 91,2 91,2 90,2 95,5 98,8 98,6 98,3

3 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 89,3 92,9 98,8 100,3

3 CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 93,2 94,2 100,1 101,5

3 CPX SRTT 92,2 99,1 88,2 91,3 90,9 90,9 94 99 98,7 98,8

2 CPX SRTT 92,2 99,1 91,3 93,1 92,3 92,4 98,1 100,1 99,6 100,5

6 CPX SRTT 92,2 99,1 88,9 90,7 91 92,5

CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 91,8

CPX SRTT 92,2 99,1 90,7 91,4 91,2

CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 93,7

CPX Avon ZV1 93 100 88,3 94,7

CPX SRTT 92,2 99,1 88,1 89,9 92,2 94,2 96,1 99,1

Sources:General information: Norwegian Public Road administration, 2009. Environmentally Friendly Pavements, Final Report.

Friction and rut depth measurements:Norwegian Public Road administration, 2009. Miljøvennlige vegdekker Sluttrapport forsøksstrekninger.

Noise measurements: SINTEF IKT,2010. CPX-målinger på forsøksdekker 2010

Reference values (dB(A)Rut depth (mm)


A.3

Annex B: Spectral densities (E16 and E18)

E18, Mastermyr 2008 2005 1095 12 SMA 0/16 SMA 0/16 km 1.294 --- 1.577 Average of left and right wheel trackSRTT 80




















E18, Mastermyr 2008 2005 1095 - SMA 0/11 SMA 0/11 Average of left and right wheel trackSRTT 80





E16, Hønefoss 2005 2005 0 15 DAC 0/11 DAC 0/11 km 2.400 --- 2.700 Average of left and right wheel track, Average of left and right laneTYRE A 80



E16, Hønefoss 2011 2005 2190 15 DAC 0/11 DAC 0/11 km 2.400 --- 2.700 Average of left and right wheel track, Average of left and right laneSRTT 80












E16, Hønefoss 2005 2002 1095 63 DAC 0/11 DAC 0/11 Average of left and right wheel track, Average of left and right laneTYRE A 80



E16, Hønefoss 2011 2002 3285 63 DAC 0/11 DAC 0/11 Average of left and right wheel track, Average of left and right laneSRTT 80

E16, Hønefoss 2012 2002 3650 63 DAC 0/11 DAC 0/11 Average of left and right wheel track, Average of left and right laneSRTT 80

CPX-ID measure-ment sectiondriving

directiontyre

measurement

speed road surface discriptionmeasurement date

date of

constructionage [days] project reference

road surface type (EU

classification)


A.4

315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150

E18, Mastermyr 2008 2005 1095 12 -21,0 -17,8 -14,5 -9,4 -3,4 -4,8 -10,0 -12,8 -15,7 -18,2 -22,0 100,2 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2009 2005 1460 12 -24,9 -21,4 -17,8 -12,5 -5,6 -4,7 -8,9 -11,3 -15,0 -17,4 -21,3 101,0 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2010 2005 1825 12 -24,3 -20,9 -17,4 -11,9 -4,9 -5,4 -9,4 -12,1 -15,1 -17,5 -21,4 100,8 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2011 2005 2190 12 -25,1 -21,5 -17,9 -12,9 -6,0 -5,2 -9,0 -11,7 -15,4 -18,0 -22,5 102,5 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2012 2005 2555 12 -25,5 -20,9 -18,4 -11,8 -4,5 -5,3 -11,4 -13,1 -16,0 -19,0 -23,2 102,2 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2008 2005 1095 11 -21,6 -18,6 -15,3 -10,3 -3,8 -4,3 -9,3 -11,9 -14,7 -17,3 -20,7 99,0 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2009 2005 1460 11 -26,0 -22,4 -18,8 -13,6 -6,4 -4,5 -8,6 -10,7 -14,2 -16,5 -20,3 100,3 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2010 2005 1825 11 -25,4 -21,8 -18,3 -12,8 -5,3 -5,2 -9,0 -11,3 -14,3 -16,7 -20,4 100,2 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2011 2005 2190 11 -25,7 -22,1 -18,7 -13,3 -6,4 -5,0 -8,5 -10,9 -14,5 -17,1 -21,3 101,2 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2012 2005 2555 11 -25,9 -21,4 -18,7 -12,0 -4,9 -4,9 -10,9 -12,2 -15,2 -18,0 -22,0 101,1 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2008 2005 1095 10 -21,9 -19,2 -16,1 -10,9 -4,2 -4,4 -8,9 -10,8 -14,2 -16,9 -20,4 97,9 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2009 2005 1460 10 -26,8 -23,6 -20,3 -15,0 -7,1 -5,1 -9,0 -9,8 -13,4 -16,0 -19,8 99,1 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2010 2005 1825 10 -25,4 -22,3 -19,1 -13,5 -5,7 -5,4 -8,7 -9,7 -13,2 -15,9 -19,6 98,5 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2011 2005 2190 10 -26,1 -22,9 -19,6 -14,2 -6,8 -5,1 -8,7 -9,7 -13,0 -16,2 -20,4 99,5 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2012 2005 2555 10 -27,0 -22,7 -20,3 -13,5 -5,4 -5,2 -10,9 -10,5 -13,8 -17,1 -21,1 99,8 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2008 2005 1095 9 -21,5 -19,0 -15,8 -10,6 -4,0 -4,7 -9,0 -11,2 -14,5 -17,2 -20,6 97,7 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2009 2005 1460 9 -26,0 -22,6 -19,3 -14,1 -6,5 -4,8 -8,4 -9,5 -13,0 -15,8 -19,6 98,1 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2010 2005 1825 9 -24,5 -21,9 -18,7 -13,2 -5,5 -5,5 -8,5 -9,9 -13,1 -15,9 -19,5 97,6 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2011 2005 2190 9 -25,9 -22,4 -19,3 -14,3 -6,8 -5,1 -8,6 -9,8 -13,1 -16,3 -20,4 98,8 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2012 2005 2555 9 -26,5 -22,6 -20,2 -13,2 -5,2 -5,2 -10,7 -10,9 -14,1 -17,3 -21,1 99,1 24400 2440

E18, Mastermyr 2008 2005 1095 - -22,9 -20,2 -16,8 -11,4 -4,3 -4,2 -9,1 -11,0 -14,2 -16,7 -20,2 98,8

E18, Mastermyr 2009 2005 1460 - -26,8 -23,5 -19,7 -14,3 -6,8 -4,4 -8,4 -9,8 -13,3 -15,8 -19,6 99,7

E18, Mastermyr 2010 2005 1825 - -25,3 -22,4 -19,1 -13,5 -5,6 -4,9 -8,7 -10,4 -13,4 -15,9 -19,6 99,4

E18, Mastermyr 2011 2005 2190 - -26,3 -22,8 -19,2 -14,1 -6,7 -4,9 -8,5 -10,3 -13,6 -16,4 -20,7 100,7

E18, Mastermyr 2012 2005 2555 - -26,7 -22,4 -19,8 -12,9 -5,2 -5,0 -10,8 -11,4 -14,7 -17,6 -21,5 101,1

E16, Hønefoss 2005 2005 0 15 -27,1 -24,1 -20,4 -17,3 -11,0 -5,5 -7,7 -8,1 -9,4 -13,7 -15,9 97,1 4200 420

E16, Hønefoss 2006 2005 365 15 -23,4 -20,7 -16,7 -14,2 -9,2 -4,1 -7,4 -11,3 -12,8 -15,9 -17,8 98,5 4200 420

E16, Hønefoss 2007 2005 730 15 -23,8 -21,4 -17,1 -14,5 -9,9 -4,6 -6,5 -11,1 -12,6 -16,1 -18,3 98,3 4200 420

E16, Hønefoss 2011 2005 2190 15 -25,3 -21,7 -18,3 -13,5 -6,9 -4,7 -8,3 -10,6 -14,1 -17,0 -21,2 100,2 4200 420

E16, Hønefoss 2012 2005 2555 15 -25,4 -21,2 -18,7 -12,2 -5,0 -4,5 -10,6 -11,9 -15,0 -18,2 -22,5 100,3 4200 420

E16, Hønefoss 2005 2005 0 13 -26,8 -23,4 -20,7 -16,8 -10,0 -6,9 -8,6 -7,7 -8,9 -12,6 -14,8 94,9 4200 420

E16, Hønefoss 2006 2005 365 13 -23,0 -20,4 -16,8 -14,3 -9,3 -4,3 -7,6 -10,4 -12,2 -15,7 -17,6 97,8 4200 420

E16, Hønefoss 2007 2005 730 13 -23,7 -21,5 -17,5 -14,8 -10,1 -4,7 -6,5 -9,4 -10,6 -15,0 -17,4 97,4 4200 420

E16, Hønefoss 2011 2005 2190 13 -26,0 -22,5 -19,3 -14,5 -7,4 -5,2 -8,9 -8,4 -11,1 -15,4 -20,0 99,5 4200 420

E16, Hønefoss 2012 2005 2555 13 -26,1 -22,8 -20,5 -14,2 -6,0 -4,8 -10,0 -8,5 -11,9 -16,5 -21,0 99,6 4200 420

E16, Hønefoss 2005 2005 0 14 -27,8 -24,2 -21,5 -17,8 -11,1 -7,0 -8,8 -7,4 -7,8 -11,9 -14,3 95,3 4200 420

E16, Hønefoss 2006 2005 365 14 -25,4 -22,0 -18,2 -15,2 -10,0 -4,3 -7,6 -10,0 -11,7 -15,6 -17,6 98,4 4200 420

E16, Hønefoss 2007 2005 730 14 -25,1 -22,4 -18,1 -15,2 -10,5 -4,8 -6,5 -10,0 -11,2 -15,6 -18,0 98,3 4200 420

E16, Hønefoss 2011 2005 2190 14 -24,6 -21,1 -18,0 -13,4 -7,1 -5,0 -8,9 -9,5 -12,7 -16,6 -20,9 100,3 4200 420

E16, Hønefoss 2012 2005 2555 14 -24,9 -21,1 -18,8 -12,7 -5,7 -4,6 -10,2 -9,8 -13,1 -17,5 -22,0 100,8 4200 420

E16, Hønefoss 2005 2002 1095 63 -23,7 -20,7 -17,3 -14,9 -9,6 -4,7 -6,9 -9,3 -11,2 -14,8 -17,2 99,7

E16, Hønefoss 2006 2002 1460 63 -22,3 -19,5 -16,1 -14,0 -9,2 -4,5 -6,7 -9,3 -11,0 -14,5 -17,0 99,3

E16, Hønefoss 2007 2002 1825 63 -23,2 -20,3 -16,4 -13,8 -9,6 -4,4 -6,5 -10,4 -12,0 -16,0 -18,5 98,5

E16, Hønefoss 2011 2002 3285 63 -24,1 -20,7 -17,6 -13,0 -6,8 -4,9 -8,9 -11,5 -15,0 -17,6 -21,7 101,0

E16, Hønefoss 2012 2002 3650 63 -24,6 -20,6 -17,9 -12,3 -4,9 -4,8 -10,9 -12,4 -15,2 -18,5 -22,9 101,3

CPX-IDtraffic intensity

light vehicles/day

traffic intensity

heavy vehicles/day

spectral distribution (re 0 dBA) at measurement speed CPX level at

measureme

nt speed

measurement datedate of

constructionage [days] project reference


A.5

Annex C: Low noise pavements in Finland (HILJA)

Type of pavement

No Year Location Road no Road type Length (m)Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 1 Layer 2 AADT

1 2001 Helsinki Meripellontie Urban 200 WHISPERPHALT T WHISPERPHALT B 30 60 6080 3 50

2 2001 Helsinki Meripellontie Urban 200 HILTTI 3 HILTTI 6 30 60 6953 2 50

3 2001 Helsinki Meripellontie Urban 200 VIACODRÄN 11A VIACOBASE 20B 30 60 7260 2 60

4 2001 Helsinki Meripellontie Urban 200 HILJA T HILJA A II 30 60 4748 - 50

5 2001 Helsinki Meripellontie Urban 200 HILTTI 3 HILTTI 6 30 60 4362 1 50

6 2001 Helsinki Meripellontie Urban 200 HILJA K HILJA A 30 60 4021 1 60

7 2001 Helsinki Meripellontie Urban 200 HILJA OT 30 4701 2 50

8 2001 Helsinki Meripellontie Urban 200 WHISPERPHALT T 30 4360 1 50

9 2001 Helsinki Meripellontie Urban 200 SMA 6 30 3986 1 60

10 2001 Helsinki Meripellontie Urban 200 HILJA OK 30 6858 3 50

12 2001 Helsinki Meripellontie Urban 200 SMA 6 30 7188 3 60

15 2001 Kaarina Kaarinantie Urban 200 SMA 6 30 4336 9 60

16 2001 Kaarina Kaarinantie Urban 200 WHISPERPHALT T 30 4336 9 60

17 2001 Kaarina Kaarinantie Urban 200 NOVACHIP 30 4336 9 60

18 2002 Espoo Riihiniityntie Urban 200 NOVACHIP 8 2153 3 50

19 2002 Espoo Riihiniityntie Urban 200 WHISPERPHALT T 2153 3 50

20 2002 Espoo Riihiniityntie Urban 200 HILTTI-MIX 2153 3 50

21 2002 Espoo Riihiniityntie Urban 200 SMA6 2153 3 50

22 2002 Espoo Riihiniityntie Urban 200 VIACODRÄN 8 2175 3 50

23 2002 Espoo Riihiniityntie Urban 200 VIACODRÄN 11 2175 3 50

24 2002 Espoo Riihiniityntie Urban 200 SHP-Y 2175 3 50

25 2002 Espoo Riihiniityntie Urban 200 SHP-K2 2175 3 50

28 2002 Lohja Vt 25 Highway 200 VIACODRÄN 16 3168 14 80

29 2002 Lohja Vt 25 Highway 200 VIACODRÄN 11 3152 13 80

30 2002 Lohja Vt 25 Highway 200 HILTTI A 3168 14 80

31 2002 Lohja Vt 25 Highway 200 HILTTI F 3152 13 80

32 2002 Lohja Vt 25 Highway 200 SHP-KY4 3168 14 80

33 2002 Lohja Vt 25 Highway 200 SHP-K3 3152 13 80

34 2002 Lohja Vt 25 Highway 200 NOVACHIP 8 3168 14 80

35 2002 Lohja Vt 25 Highway 200 NOVACHIP 11 3152 13 80

Source: Kelkka, M. Hyyppä, I. Raitanen, N. Valtonen J. Sainio, P. Hiljaiset päällysteet -tuotevaatimukset ja mittarit. 2003. Helsinki University of Technology Publications in Highw ay Engineering.

Available at: http://civil.aalto.f i/f i/tutkimus/tietekniikka/tutkimus/hilja/

General information

Thickness (mm)

Heavy

vehicles

(%)

Speed limit

(km/h)


A.6

Rut depth (mm)

Type of pavement 2001 2002 2003

No Year Layer 1 Layer 2 Tyre type L(A) Eq [dB]L(A) Eq [dB]L(A) Eq [dB]

1 2001 WHISPERPHALT T WHISPERPHALT B 1 1,3 13,3 13,4 Broken CPX ASTM E524 86,5 90,1 -

2 2001 HILTTI 3 HILTTI 6 0,3 0,8 6 6,2 13,2 CPX ASTM E524 84,4 89,3 -

3 2001 VIACODRÄN 11A VIACOBASE 20B 2,6 2,8 4,8 4,9 6,6 CPX ASTM E524 87,7 91,8 91

4 2001 HILJA T HILJA A II 0,6 1,1 2,9 3,3 5,5 CPX ASTM E524 86,1 90,6 -

5 2001 HILTTI 3 HILTTI 6 0,9 1,9 5,2 5,5 9,4 CPX ASTM E524 82,8 89,3 88,6

6 2001 HILJA K HILJA A 1,7 2,1 3,9 4,2 6,8 CPX ASTM E524 85,3 90,1 -

7 2001 HILJA OT 1,7 2,3 9,5 9,7 16,1 CPX ASTM E524 82,5 88,9 87,8

8 2001 WHISPERPHALT T 1,4 1,9 10,6 10,9 20,6 CPX ASTM E524 84,3 90,8 -

9 2001 SMA 6 1,7 2 3,7 4 5,3 CPX ASTM E524 84,3 88,8 88,4

10 2001 HILJA OK 2,3 2,5 5,9 6,1 10,5 CPX ASTM E524 86,5 89,8 -

12 2001 SMA 6 1,8 2,2 7,7 8,2 13,7 CPX ASTM E524 84,4 89,3 -

15 2001 SMA 6 2 4,1 4,9 6,7 CPX ASTM E524 83 89,1 88,1

16 2001 WHISPERPHALT T 2 5,6 6,3 10,1 CPX ASTM E524 82,8 91 90,5

17 2001 NOVACHIP 2 6,8 7,6 10,7 CPX ASTM E524 85,3 91 89,9

18 2002 NOVACHIP 8 1,7 5,4 CPX ASTM E524 82,5 89,4

19 2002 WHISPERPHALT T 0,9 3,6 CPX ASTM E524 83,8 87,8

20 2002 HILTTI-MIX 1,5 3,1 CPX ASTM E524 85,1 88

21 2002 SMA6 0,7 2,8 CPX ASTM E524 83,7 87,4

22 2002 VIACODRÄN 8 1,4 2,7 CPX ASTM E524 86,1 88,5

23 2002 VIACODRÄN 11 2,4 3,5 CPX ASTM E524 89,9 88,5

24 2002 SHP-Y 1 5,1 CPX ASTM E524 80,4 87,1

25 2002 SHP-K2 1,3 3,5 CPX ASTM E524 82,7 88,3

28 2002 VIACODRÄN 16 2,1 3,6 CPX ASTM E524 91,4

29 2002 VIACODRÄN 11 1,2 4,2 CPX ASTM E524 89,5

30 2002 HILTTI A 1,4 2,3 CPX ASTM E524 89,3

31 2002 HILTTI F 1,2 3,6 CPX ASTM E524 86,3

32 2002 SHP-KY4 1,5 4,1 CPX ASTM E524 85,2

33 2002 SHP-K3 1,3 5,6 CPX ASTM E524 85,5

34 2002 NOVACHIP 8 4 8,6 CPX ASTM E524 85,8

35 2002 NOVACHIP 11 3 9,3 CPX ASTM E524 91,2

Noise measurements

Summer

2001

Autumn

2001

Spring

2002

Autumn

2002

Spring

2003

Measuring

method

overview of research programmes operations...pavements are double layer porous asphalt and single...

Documents