Detection of The Road Traffic Noise: Xipu As A Study Case

IPASJ International Journal of Information Technology (IIJIT)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJIT/IIJIT.htm

A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijit@ipasj.org
Volume 6, Issue 5, May 2018 ISSN 2321-5976
Detection of the road traffic noise: Xipu as a

study case
Sura Mohammed Hamzah1, Ihemaguba Udoka Azubuike John2
1
Researcher, Surveying, Mapping, and Remote Sensing Information Department, Southwest JiaoTong University
Baghdad, Iraq
2
Researcher, Department of Project management. Southwest JiaoTong University
Abuja, Nigeria
ABSTRACT
Noise pollution can be considered as the second most dangerous pollution after air pollution that is encountered in daily life.
Recently, the noise and air pollution rate are increased because of the rapid increase in the number of vehicles.
In this study, traffic noise was detected in the roads of xipu city by the use of sound level meter (NK-2) with accuracy ±1.5 for
the measurement of the noise level which is carried out on a daily basis for more than one month from (Dec. to Feb.) during
working days. Two models were used in this paper (Burgess and NAISS), the results after the comparison between the observed
value with the estimated value and the other two models give acceptable results. With the R2 for all the results gives good
values.
Keywords: traffic noise; Burgess; NAISS; traffic volume; traffic pollution
1. INTRODUCTION
Noise is a word derived from the Latin expression "NAUSES", is a type of pollution that is produced in the form of
waves. The British encyclopedia defines noise as "uninvited voice". The American encyclopedia defines noise as
"undesirable sound". Marriam-Webster describes the noise as "any sound that is undesired or interferes with one's
hearing". Merely unwanted sound [1]. Although noise has harmful effects on the environment, it also has harmful
effects on humans, causing physiological, psychological and organic damages. There are many relics which are listed
below [8],[9],[10]:
1- Physical effect
A- Impact of hearing
B- Impact in the nervous system
C- Impact on working capacity
2- Psychological effect
3- Economic effect
4- Educational force
The primary sources of the noise are the traffic road, aircraft, railways, industries and so on [2]. Road traffic is the most
prominent exporter of noise pollution and accounts for 78% of the noise as can see in figure (1).
Figure 1. Classification of noise sources, according to their spread
Volume 6, Issue 5, May 2018 Page 29

2. METHODOLOGY FOR DATA COLLECTION:

Xipu city roads have been selected as the study area, which is illustrated in Figure (2). The process of data collection
contained includes noise level, traffic volume, road width and presence of heavy and light vehicles.
 Noise level: This is measured using the digital sound level meter (NK-D2), shown in Figure (3). Traffic noise
measurements were more than one month, during the working days only. The level sound meter was about
mounted 0.5m from the pavement road and 1.2m above the ground surface. These are the limitations encountered
according to Farcaş 2008.
Figure 2. Study area
Figure 3. NK-D2 USB sound level meter
 Traffic volume: all small vehicles (two and three) wheels counted as small cars, while trucks and buses were
counted as heavy vehicles. The noise gotten from road traffic is the same as factory noise. The sound pressure of
a 100 km / h car is about 77 dB, so car sounds and noise are very high. The noise of cars is a mixture of sounds
that reaches us everywhere [3]. The table shows the traffic noise, according to different countries [4].
Table 1. Limits of traffic noise in different countries [1]

Country Index Day limit Night limit Rest limit
Australia L10, 18h 50 55
Austria LAeq 50-55 40-45

Canada LAeq 50 50
Denmark LAeq, 24h 55
France LAeq 60-65 55-57
Germany Lr 50-55 40-45
Netherlands LAeq 50 40 45
Spain LAeq 50 50
Sweden LAeq, 24h 55
Switzerland Lr 55 45
UK LAeq 55 42
3. MATHEMATICAL MODEL BACKGROUND:

Leq is the sound level in decibels equivalent to the total A-weighted sound energy measured over a stated period of time
[6]
. Most mathematical models determine the equivalent noise level, Leq, as the most representative physical variable of
noise emissions. The equivalent constant noise level is shown as a stable description of vehicle noise levels [11]. (All the
mathematical models available in the literature, the ones which present this feature are those proposed by Burgess [5],
NAISS [7] and so on. These functional relationships are essentially based on statistical analysis and are reported
below) :
 
Leq  55.5  10.2  log Q  0.3  p  19.3  log L ............................................Burgess (1)
2
Leq 10log( Nc  3.7 Nhv 1.9 Nb)  38.2......................55dBA Leq  65dBA....NAISS (2)
Leq  10  log( Nc  11.7  Nhv  3.1  Nb)  44.3........65dBA  Leq  75dBA....NAISS (3)
Here (p) is the percentage of heavy vehicles, (L) is the road width, (Q) is the total number of vehicles per hour, (Nc) is
the number of light vehicles per hour, (Nm) is the number of motorcycles per hour, (Nhv) is the number of heavy
vehicles per hour, (Nb) is the number of buses per hour.
4. ROAD NOISE MODEL ANALYSIS

The model used to calculate the Leq to estimate the noise level value were compared with the original measured value
to check the accuracy according to the equation below. Figure (3) presents the observed versus estimate noise level
value.
Leq 10Loq(t 110(L110)  t 210(L 210)  t 210(L 210)) /T ..........(4)
Figure 4. Observed Vs. Estimated Noise Levels

The coefficient (R2) is 0.9069, the R2 of 1.0 can be considered as the best value, and any amount above 0.7 can be
considered as good.

The average difference between the mean of the measured (observed) noise level and the mean of estimated noise level
is (0.0101). This comparison of mean is carried-out by hypothesis testing. The null hypothesis was examined by the t-
test; t calculated is (0.952).
t. tabulated @ 1 % level of confidence and 36 degree of freedom is 0.4737
t. tabulated @ 5 % level of confidence and 36 degree of freedom is 0.94741
Table 2. Calculation for Performing t -Test

Observes Noise Estimate Noise Observe – Estimate
Level dBA Level dBA
Sample Size 37 37 37
Mean Value 72.508 72.518 0.0101
Std. Dev. 3.006 2.738
Cal. paired t-test 0.952
Tab. Paired t-test @ 1% 0.4737
level of significant
Tab. Paired t-test @ 5% 0.94741
level of significant
5. COMPARISON BETWEEN NOISE LEVEL, BURGESS, AND NAISS

We referred to the two types of mathematical models used to measure traffic noise prediction as Burgess and NAISS. In
order to study the validity of stable experimental models, the analysis was carried out in comparison with each model
with measured values.
As shown in figure (6) the comparison is between the Leq measured and Leq calculated by the Burgess model. In
Figure (5), it is observed from the graph that there is no difference between the measured value and the calculated
values of Leq, where the difference between the average Leq values is (1.26) dB and the standard deviation (1.32). The
best fitting line between the measured Leq and Leq calculated by the Burgess model gives the value of R-square
(0.9284) which indicates that the correlation is good.
Figure 5. Comparison between observed Leq and calculated Leq for difference models

Figure 6. The scattered plot between observed Leq and calculated Leq for Burgess
The comparison between measured Leq and the calculated Leq by NAISS Model different sites is shown in Figure (7).
It has been seen from the graph that there is no difference between the measured value and calculated value of Leq. The
average difference between the average value of Leq is (4.385) dB and the standard deviation is (1.09). The best fit line
generated between measured Leq and calculated Leq gives the R-squared value of 0.9319 which indicates that the
correlation is good.
Figure 7. The scattered plot between observed Leq and calculated Leq for NAISS
Table 3. The Range of Measured Noise Level, Estimated, burgess and NAISS
Upper limit dB Lower limit dB

Measured 77 65.23
Estimated 77.711 65.976
Burgess 73.42 69.07
NAISS 78.70 75.08
To compare the difference in meaning sample between the measured noise level value
Estimated, Burgess and NAISS, by performing t-test to determine the observed difference is significant or not to reveal
which model among the three models is more suitable in the present Xipu roads environment.
Table 4. The necessary calculations for the paired t-test.

Estimate Estimate
Observes Estimate
Noise Observe – Noise Observe –
Noise Noise Observe –
Level Estimate Level Estimate
Level Level Estimate
Burgess By Burgess NAISS by NAISS
dBA dBA
dBA dBA
Sample Size 37 37 37 37 37 37 37
Mean Value 72.508 72.518 0.0101 71.323 1.185 76.893 -4.385

Std. Dev. 3.006 2.738 0.268 1.42 1.586 1.09 1.916

Cal. Paired t- 0.9653
0.952 0.9635
test
Tab. Paired
t-test @ 5% 1.10914E-15
0.947417891 0.000130037
level of
significant
6. CONCLUSION:
1- The coefficient of correlation (R2) value for observation and estimated noise level by
Burgess is (0. 9284).
2- The coefficient of correlation (R2) value for observation and estimated noise level by
NAISS is (0.9319).
3- The difference in noise level (Leq) mean between observed and estimated value for two models tested by t-test, which
indicates that there is no significant difference between them.
4- A comparison between estimated value, Burgess and NAISS models indicates that among these different models the
Burgess model is accurate in predicting noise level for
xipu city environment.
7. SUGGESTION:
There are some suggested recommendations as the end of this study to reduce this problem now and in the future:
1- To develop this study with more advanced technologies, methods, and devices.
2- Organizing traffic on the most crowded intersections, especially at peak times.
3- Community awareness of the seriousness of this problem and how to work to reduce and prevent them.
4- Increase afforestation on the sides of the road because they have a significant role in absorbing part of the noise
levels.
Reference:
[1] Farcas, F., 2008. Road traffic noise, a study of Skane region Sweden.
[2] AN EFFICIENT METHOD OF PREDICTING TRAFFIC NOISE USING GIS, Jianghua Zhao, Qiming Qin, Chao
Xie, Jianhua Wang, Qinge Meng
[3] Al-Ghonamy, A.I., 2010. Analysis and evaluation of road traffic noise in Al-Dammam: A business city of the
eastern province of KSA. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 3(1), pp.47-55.
[4] Commission, E. saving 20 000 lives on our roads- A shared responsibility. Luxembourg.
[5] Dragan Cvetković, Momir Praščević, Violeta Stojanović, “NAISS - Model for Traffic Noise Prediction”, University
of NIŠ, The scientific journal FACTA UNIVERSITATIS, Series: Working and Living Environmental Protection,
pp. 73 – 81, Vol. 1, No 2, (1997).
[6] http://www.acoustic-glossary.co.uk/leq.htm
[7] J. Quartieri, N. E. Mastorakis, G. Iannone, C. Guarnaccia, S. D’Ambrosio, A. Troisi, TLL Lenza, “A Review of
Traffic Noise Predictive Models”, RECENT ADVANCES in APPLIED and THEORETICAL MECHANICS,
ISBN: 978-960-474-140-3. 2010. The Iraqi Virtual Science Library.
[8] Gasan, Abdullah. The use of geographic information systems in assessing the levels of noise pollution in Gaza
City. Book, 2014.
[9] Al shuky, Mohammed Ali Musleh 2008 - Noise pollution effects and sources. King Saud University, Department of
Biology, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
[10] Tornji, Abdulwahab Abdullah Qassem, 2008. The financial costs of noise pollution and social costs on economic
units. Arab Academy in Denmark
[11] J. Quartieri, N. E. Mastorakis, G. Iannone, C. Guarnaccia, S. D’Ambrosio, A. Troisi, TLL Lenza, “A Review of
Traffic Noise Predictive Models”, RECENT ADVANCES in APPLIED and THEORETICAL MECHANICS,
ISBN: 978-960-474-140-3. 2010. The Iraqi Virtual Science Library.

AUTHORS
*Sura Mohammed Hamzah received the B.S. surveying engineering from Baghdad technical college in 2010 and
Master degrees in surveying and mapping Engineering from Southwest Jiaotong University in 2018.
*Ihemaguba Udoka Azubuike John received bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering from the Federal University
of Science and technology Owerri, Nigeria. Presently undergoing a Master’s degree programme in the department of
project management at Southwest Jiaontong University Xipu, China.

Detection of The Road Traffic Noise: Xipu As A Study Case

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Detection of The Road Traffic Noise: Xipu As A Study Case

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IPASJ International Journal of Information Technology (IIJIT)

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJIT/IIJIT.htm

Detection of the road traffic noise: Xipu as a

Figure 1. Classification of noise sources, according to their spread

Volume 6, Issue 5, May 2018 Page 29

2. METHODOLOGY FOR DATA COLLECTION:

Figure 2. Study area

Figure 3. NK-D2 USB sound level meter

Table 1. Limits of traffic noise in different countries [1]

Austria LAeq 50-55 40-45

3. MATHEMATICAL MODEL BACKGROUND:

4. ROAD NOISE MODEL ANALYSIS

Figure 4. Observed Vs. Estimated Noise Levels

Volume 6, Issue 5, May 2018 Page 31

t. tabulated @ 5 % level of confidence and 36 degree of freedom is 0.94741

Table 2. Calculation for Performing t -Test

5. COMPARISON BETWEEN NOISE LEVEL, BURGESS, AND NAISS

Volume 6, Issue 5, May 2018 Page 32

Upper limit dB Lower limit dB

Table 4. The necessary calculations for the paired t-test.

Volume 6, Issue 5, May 2018 Page 33

Std. Dev. 3.006 2.738 0.268 1.42 1.586 1.09 1.916

Volume 6, Issue 5, May 2018 Page 34

Volume 6, Issue 5, May 2018 Page 35

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen