Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
662 FHWA-RD-76-58
.A3 NOISE BARRIER DESIGN HAMD130 Transportation
• no
KHWA-
RD-
76-58 IGHWAY
Prepared for:
NOTICE
•
Technical Report Documentation Poge
I. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Cotolog No.
FHWA-RD-76-58
4. Title and Subtitle S. Report Dote
February 1976
6. Performing Of goni xo lion Code
NOISE BARRIER DESIGN HANDBOOK
8. Performing Orgonizotion Report No.
7. Author's)
3199
Myles A. Simpson
9. Performing Organi lotion Nome and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
16. Abstract
Dept. of Transportation
MAY 2 1977
Library
The barrier design curve presented in this manual has been approved
the other approved design curves (the NCHRP 117/144, and the Trans-
the figure below. The differences among the curves at large Fresnel
DO
T3
C
O
3
C
0)
<
-
DO
.1 1
li
PREFACE
in
During the course of this project, Dr. Eugene Chen, Dr. Howard
Jongedyk and Dr. Timothy Barry have been Contract Managers.
The author would like to thank them for their support and
guidance throughout the project. Appreciation is also due
to personnel from the Offices of Engineering, Environmental
Policy and Implementation for their useful comments and sugges-
tions.
iv
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page.
PREFACE iii
Page
APPENDICES
REFERENCES
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Vll
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
Page
FIGURE
Vlll
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
Pa^e
FIGURE
IX
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
Page
FIGURE
X
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
Page
FIGURE
XI
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
Page
FIGURE
Xll
NOISE BARRIER DESIGN HANDBOOK
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1-1
.
increases.
reasonable cost.
1-2
Chapter 2 provides a discussion of barrier noise reduc-
tion concepts. Chapter 3 describes various acoustical and
non-acoustical factors which must be considered in the design
of a noise barrier, and provides much of the background for
the design procedure contained in Chapter 4. The design pro-
cedure is a step-by-step process in which alternative barrier
designs are developed and evaluated, followed by selection of
an "optimum" barrier for the site under consideration. Chapter
5 provides examples of the design procedure. Appendices
A, B and C contain reference drawings of noise barriers
constructed of different materials and treatments. Finally,
in Appendix D the design procedure of Chapter 4 is applied
to five existing barriers, to further illustrate the design
steps and the types of results attainable.
1-3
"Noise Barrier Catalogue" (Reference 1-2) documents existing
barriers located throughout the United States in terms of
their physical dimensions, acoustical performance, and design
considerations
The remaining two reports are both concerned with the appli-
cation of absorptive materials on highways to reduce the
noise exposure resulting from multiple reflections. "A
Study of Multiple Sound Reflections in Walled Highways
and Tunnels" (Reference 1-3) discusses an analytical and
scale-model development of predictive procedures to eval-
uate the effects of reflected sound energy, and the benefits
that might accrue from use of absorptive material to reduce
these reflections. "Catalogue of Sound Absorbing Treatments
for Highway Structures" (Reference 1-4) documents those
materials that have been studied for use as sound absorbers
in the highway situation.
1-4
CHAPTER 2
2-1
•
Direct Path
Source
rce t Receiver
Reflected *^ Ptfflra
. cfed
Source
ce • ^=" ~^-^~-f Receiver
Transmitted
E
Diffracted
Path
(bent) •
Rece ver
I
2-2
•
behind the barrier is known as the "shadow zone." The straight
path from the source over the top of the barrier forms the
bounday of this zone.
A
B will be used.) The barrier attenuation A B represented in
Figure 2-4 is in units of dBA, and is applicable to the equiva-
lent noise level L e g. The equivalent level L eq is an energy .
2-3
PATH LENGTH DIFFERENCE 5=A+B-d
•
B
RECEIVER
RECE
SOURCE BARRIER
25
<
CO
"O
2 20 KURZE-ANDERSON
<
CO LINESOURCE CURVE
(REFERENCE 2-1).
•
O 15h
<
D
LLi
10 - ADJUSTED TO PROVIDE'
H A MAXIMUM OF 20 dB
I-
< ATTENUATION
CC
LLI
o:
<
CO
J L
0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50
PATH LENGTH DIFFERENCE 5 IN FEET
2-4
The attenuation of noise described in terms of will be some-
L-,
2-5
•
if)
en
c
CD
CL
o
.c
en
3
o
S-
-a
c:
\ fD
i/i
-a
c
UJ
-a
E
3
O
0) s-
> <c
s_
o a)
0) •i—
s_
s_
\
s
03
CO
•
o
™ /
(J
S_
/ •i
o
+->
I
i-
o
t/0
LO
CO
on
< CI3
•
2-6
large gaps in the barrier (to permit access, for example),
sound from the unshielded section of highway adjacent to
the gap can greatly compromise barrier attenuation, es-
pecially for those receivers close to the opening. The
amount of shielding provided by a finite barrier can be
related to the angle a subtended by the barrier (or by a
section of a barrier) By summing the sound energy con-
.
2-7
The noise reduction provided by a barrier can be severely
compromised if the transmission loss of the material permits
too much noise to pass through the barrier. As a general rule,
if the transmission loss is at least 10 dB above the attenuation
•
resulting from diffraction over the top of the barrier, the
barrier noise reduction will not be significantly affected by
transmission through the barrier (less than 0.5 dB) . For many
common materials used in barrier construction, such as concrete
and masonry blocks, transmission loss values are usually more
than adequate. For less massive materials such as steel, aluminum
and wood, transmission loss values may not be adequate, particularly
for those cases where large attenuations are required.
2-8
•
2-3 Barrier Reflections
2-9
•
-o
QJ
CO
QJ
-Q
O
Q
rC
S-
o
in
c
o
+->
o
QJ
4-
OJ
cc
-a
£=
13
oo
O
QJ
t
i— >i
CL 03
r- S
f— CD
CM
LlJ
a;
CD
2-10
•
number of reflections. As the height of the receiver increases,
the number of contributing image sources decreases, and the
effectiveness of the near barrier decreases. Thus each reflec-
tion becomes relatively less important because the level of
the source itself increases as the shielding is decreased. As
the height is further increased, a point is reached where no
reflections contribute to the level at the receiver.
NRC = + a + a + a
\ (a 25Q 50Q 100Q 2QQQ \
2-11
For very hard reflective surfaces, the absorption coefficients
(and thus NRC) are very small, nearly zero. For materials which
absorb almost all of the incident energy, the absorption coeffi- Uh
cients and the corresponding NRC are nearly one.
2-12
2-4 Multiple Shielding Effects
On the other hand, when more than one barrier is placed between
a roadway and a receiver, the combined effect is not to provide
significantly greater attenuation than the single barrier. For
design purposes, the general procedure is to assume the atten-
uation of the most effective barrier.
2-13
add to the noise from the direct path to increase the level
at the receiver. However, when the ground is soft, there
may be a phase reversal upon reflection such that the noise
from the ground reflection path will destructively interfere
with the noise from the direct path resulting in a reduction
in level at the receiver which could be quite significant.
2-14
2-6 Barrier Insertion Loss
IL = f ( A
B
, TL, ABAR, A
g
, A^ (2-2)
where
2-15
NR = f A , TL, A BAR . (2-3)
(
B J
IL = NR - max
(V
(A_, &„]
a
g)
(2-4)
2-16
CHAPTER 3
3-1
C •—
._
o C C°3
\-S
4->
Q. —cn /-N
__
(oo)
O I) in
v /
+j
u
<U
—N a
—E "D —
03
#
i
— -t-i •
03 Q_ D
oo O CO 03
Q. u • • •
I
f*l
03 0)
JZ •J
t_> Q.
i i
03
c x:
— o
1/3 c
c • —
o l/l
*->
—
o
in
Q.
<D
u
4-1 a,1 ©
00
03 w
oo
a)
o
nj
t_
© +->
o O j-j 03 S-
4-> *->
o -C 03
03 <_)
in in -sr
1_ l_
00
1_
03 '
o
0) 0) z X ra
u- 14-
o O o s
0C
03
Ct
(U
1- — M
o
Q_ fa 01
X ^-\
O •—u J
t\
1
(xJ
\Js LU +j u v to
1*1
h- in <L </) mv oo
<
=>
3
o c
1 4-1
V) <* a>
o o
< < Z oo
_I K
f*1 o
| s-
LU e * e f»l
Q_
O oo
a
03
•
a: s-
03
•r-
s-
a.
J-
(T3
0O
1-^ i
oo _i oo
© z
=>
00
z
O <
o z
•«—
o
— C
03
© s: ZD
— C
l/l
t— t— — 03
(J
s:
C3
< < £ —— O 03 00 < C 4->
l_>
— LU j: CCT
*i *J L
id
O
cc
LU
>-
M X 4->
0) 03
to
o Ll_
t— o O Q
oo — —ai en
c o
oj a)
+-> — M— C— -M
< oo
03
• oo
V
•ST
c_>
o z :rU _i _iO U
ID OO (J 03 03 03 V
z z OO 21 <
1
z: fn
<_>
<;
o • • •<_> •
o o
z o • • • i
r^
z
o
\-
UJ o
WD.
•
(_)
j
— a I < "H
O
z
UJ cD
^
1
cc c D
3-2
Much of the material presented in this chapter thus provides
background and rationale for this design procedure. In apply-
ing the procedure in Chapter 4, then, knowledge of the con-
siderations discussed in this chapter will be invaluable.
3-3
between the roadway and receiver. The design goal insertion
loss may then be expressed as follows:
= NR - max(A , A (3-1)
s Q)
where
max^Ag, A \ (3-3)
Q
3-4
determine L (before) provides useful documentation of pre-barrier
conditions, and can be used to validate the analytical predic-
tions.
3-5
and truck contributions to the total traffic noise environ-
ment. From this information the design goal attenuations
for cars and trucks may be determined from the design goal •
attenuation for the total traffic flow.
Any barrier which breaks the line of sight between the source
and receiver will generally provide 5 dBA attenuation. However,
because of possible loss of ground attenuation, the insertion
loss of such a barrier is often only 1 or 2 dBA. Further,
even if a full 5 dB is obtained, this magnitude of noise re-
duction subjectively does not usually appear to be very
significant. Thus the wisdom of building a barrier to achieve
an attenuation of 5 dB should be carefully considered.
3-6
As a summary of the magnitude of reduction achievable with
noise barriers, Figure 3-2 categorizes barrier attenuation
in 5 dB steps. For comparison purposes, the figure also
indicates the actual reduction in acoustic energy, and the
corresponding subjective assessment of this reduction, for
each attenuation step. Note that a 10 dB reduction in noise
level is necessary to reduce the loudness by half, even
though this corresponds to elimination of 90% of the acous-
tic energy. As can be inferred from the figure, small
differences in attenuation would not evoke significantly
different subjective reactions.
3-7
•
FIGURE 3-2
3-8 •
decreased (or the barrier eliminated entirely) , if other
measures are shown to be more cost-effective. Thus the
highway designer should remain flexible in his approach
so that all options are pursued and analyzed.
3-9
Consider first the parameters of barrier height and location
relative to the roadway. At a fixed distance from the road-
way, increasing the height of the barrier will increase its
attenuation characteristics. This relationship is non-linear,
however; for low values of attenuation, increasing the wall
height a constant amount may provide reasonable increases in
attenuation. For this situation, it would be very cost-
effective to increase wall height, because the attenuation
per foot of height is large. Once the attenuation has in-
creased substantially, however, increasing the height of the
wall may provide very little additional benefit in terms of
increasing attenuation. In this region increasing the height
of the wall the same amount will provide much less benefit.
This situation is illustrated in Figure 3-3. Note however
that despite this non-linear behavior, for rough approximation
purposes a value of 1/2-dB attenuation per incremental foot
of height may be used to estimate the approximate height of
a wall to achieve a desired attenuation, assuming that a wall
which just breaks line-of-sight provides 5 dB attenuation.
3-10
BARRIER
n SECTION
20
TRUCKS «
H
CARS -• • RECEIVER
50' 200'
15 -
CAR
< ATTENUATION
CO
10 -
TRUCK ATTENUATION
1_
03
CO
0.5 dBA ATTENUATION
per FOOT of
BARRIER HEIGHT
10 15 20 25
3-11
•
20'
3-'12
•
In practice, one does not build infinite barriers. Yet the
need for barriers which subtend large angles from observers
is a real one. Consider the situation illustrated in Figure
3-5 in which a barrier of "infinite" length, with a subtended
angle of 180°, would provide an attenuation of 16 dB. The
same barrier subtending an angle of 160° will provide only 11
dB attenuation. Note that for a receiver 500 feet from the
roadway, a barrier which subtends an angle of 160° would be
more than a mile long; still, this barrier has been degraded
by 5 dB because it is too short. How can this situation be
remedied? There are basically two ways. One is to take ad-
vantage of natural terrain conditions and the presence of
structures to provide the necessary "infinite" length, as
shown in Figure 3-6. The other method, which may have to
be used if terrain and structures do not provide the necessary
shielding at the end of the barrier, is to bend the barrier
back toward the community to achieve a larger subtended angle
through much reduced length, as shown in Figure 3-7.
Until now, the discussion has been directed toward the height,
location, and length considerations necessary to achieve a
desired insertion loss for one particular receiver. In the
typical situation, however, there may be many receivers for
whom the barrier is being designed to protect. These are
receivers who are or will be exposed to noise levels higher
than criterion levels, as determined by field measurements
or analytical procedures (resulting perhaps in noise exposure
contours) . Since it clearly is impractical to evaluate the
various design options for every receiver of interest, it is
useful to identify a few "critical receivers" for whom selec-
tion of proper barrier parameters is most crucial. Concep-
tually, these receivers would be picked so that a barrier
3-13
•
-\
11 dB 1.6 dB
3-14
•
-\
-\
3-15
design which achieves the desired noise reduction goals for
these receivers would also meet or exceed desired goals for
all other receivers of interest. Clearly, the smaller the
number of critical receivers necessary to satisfy these re-
•
quirements the better.
3-16
• t\
THESE RECEIVERS
DETERMINE
BARRIER LENGTH
I
f
THESE RECEIVERS DETERMINE THESE RECEIVERS DETERMINE
BARRIER DIMENSIONS TO THE BARRIER DIMENSIONS TO THE
LEFT RIGHT
3-17
i
portion of the barrier. Note that there is no requirement
that a barrier have constant height throughout its entire
length. The necessary height will vary according to the
location and height of the various receivers, as well as
changes in alignment, grade, and cross-section configuration
of the highway. When a community extends for a considerable
distance along the highway, it may be appropriate to divide
the route into sections, and effectively design separate
barriers for each section, with different heights along each.
Knowledge of the highway alignment and elevation will provide
guidance as to whether adjoining sections of receivers will
achieve sufficient benefit from the section of barrier upstream
or downstream, which might be lower than the height of the
barrier immediately between them and the roadway.
3-1
As indicated in Chapter 2, the performance of a barrier
can be seriously limited by transmission through the
barrier and by reflected sound energy due to the presence
of a second barrier on the other side of the highway.
Selection of barrier material with sufficiently high trans-
mission loss characteristics in terms of both the material
itself and the absence of holes or openings in the material
is quite important. Similarly selection of sound absorptive
material treatments for barrier application also deserves
serious consideration.
3-19
Use of only two categories (i.e., including medium trucks with
heavy trucks) would often overpredict the noise level. Because
of the different pecularities inherent in each of the analytical •
prediction methodologies that may be used, it is strongly rec-
commended that the highway designer have a clear understanding
of the strengths and weaknesses of the particular methodology
he is using so that he knows how much faith to place in the
estimated noise levels at receivers.
3-20
Acoustic Barrier
Edge of Lane
Safety Barrier
3-21
In general, the location of a noise barrier with respect
to the traveled way will vary with the shoulder width
required. As indicated in Figure 3-10, the width of the
shoulder will vary from eight feet to twelve feet, depending
upon the roadway characteristics. (Note however that for
elevated structures there should be a minimum of four feet
from the edge of the traveled way for adequate shy distance.)
The location of the walls shown in the figure are for general
conditions; however, each installation should be evaluated
for traffic safety with special emphasis on alignment and
sight distance.
For on- and off-ramps the minimum set back of a noise barrier
is based upon the stopping sight distance, which is a function
of the design speed and radius of curvature of the ramp. For
ramp intersections, proper barrier location is set by the
sight distance corresponding to the time required for a stopped
vehicle to execute a left-turn maneuver (approximately 7.5
seconds) . For intersecting roadways, barrier placement is
determined from stopping sight distance., which depends on
driver reaction time and deceleration rate. Design charts
are included in Chapter 4 to assess proper barrier locations
for these conditions. (Note that barrier termination con-
siderations are discussed below in Sections 3—4 and 3-5.)
3-22
Travelled way, emergency lane, bike lane,
sidewalk, and median Acoustical
vertical
» \ wall
Standard
barrier
wall
STRUCTURE
Acoustical
Acoustical Shoulder Shoulder vertical wall
vertical wall (see table) (see table)
-0
ET3'
Traveled way and median Berm 1g
*
> Paved shoulder width - feet
FREEWAYS
(a) 4 and 6 lanes 10
(b) 8 lanes or more 10
(c) Separate roadways 10
(d) Auxiliary lanes 10
(e) Freeway to freeway connections 10
(f) Ramps 8
3-23
>
Snow removal considerations become a safety factor when the
melting snow forms ice on the roadway surface. In general,
the common practice in snow areas is to design highways with
a minimum shoulder of ten to twelve feet to allow for snow
storage areas when snow cannot be readily pushed over to
the side due to the placement of a noise barrier. In this
situation, it will be necessary for the snow to be first
plowed off the traveled lanes onto the wider shoulders and,
following the storm, load the snow into transport vehicles.
In this case it is important to remove the snow from the
shoulder as soon as possible to minimize the possibility of
melting snow blowing onto the roadway at night and freezing.
The surface treatment of the barrier also has safety impli-
cations. Protrusions on a barrier near a traffic lane, and
facings which can become missiles in a crash situation should
be avoided. See Figure 3-11.
3-24
AVOID LARGE COLUMN
PROTRUSIONS ON WALL ACCEPTABLE
ADJACENT TO TRAFFIC
LANE
M»»ia^^
, , , , , ,
i'^i ivi iSvriYiSviS i'i i i i^''iSviviYi^Vi'iviSviS^
jiEnnxon
^* ijii ii< mv
3-25
In general, maintenance of barrier materials is less costly
if unpainted surfaces such as weathering steel, concrete,
pressure-treated wood, or naturally weathered cedar or red-
wood are used. It is desirable from a visual and maintenance
standpoint to use concrete surfaces which are left natural
such as sandblasted finish and exposed aggreate, or with
integral color, as opposed to painted surfaces which require
continual long-term maintenance.
3-26
WALL
FENCE
3-27
AVOID END WALLS EXPOSED
TO FLOW OF TRAFFIC
PLAN
ACCESS DOOR
3-28
.
3-5 Aesthetics
3-29
Less than 1 . 5 H
ram n on
2 to 4 H
VISUAL DOMINANCE REDUCED -
LANDSCAPING FURTHER REDUCES
BARRIER IMPACT
o i nm 'CD
g
ACCEPTABLE BARRIER RELATIONSHIP
BERM,LANDSCAPING
SOFTEN BARRIER IMPACT
n
DESIRABLE BARRIER RELATIONSHIP
DESIRABLE
3-31
PLAN
•
3-33
•
Relate Materials
3-34
•
1
I 3-35
t
AVOID CONTRASTING
i I I
PAINTED "CANDYSTRIPE"
—i — EFFECT
3-36
.
3-37
Wall
3-38
•
•
»
.
,,,..,., ?
PLAN
3-39
>
t
PLAN
:
---'--' • * •• B ''
ELEVATION
3-4
berm mound. Other concepts include bending back and sloping
the wall, curving the wall back in a transition form, stepping
the wall down in height, and terminating in a wall planter.
The concept of terminating the wall with a planter should be
utilized only in areas where the edges will be protected from
potential conflict with highway traffic. These approaches are
illustrated in Figures 3-23, 3-24, and 3-25.
3-41
•
UNDESIRABLE
•
WALL ENDS IN MOUND
3-42
•
.r-r '
3-43
Planters
z Wall
PLAN
3-44 •
project. However, generalized criteria have been utilized
in the design of all barriers which may be applicable to a
great number of highway design projects. As indicated on
the reference drawings, each wall system has been designed
for heights of five, ten, fifteen, and twenty feet. In
addition, appropriate wall designs are provided for wind
loadings of twenty, thirty, and forty pounds per square foot.
It must be understood by the highway designer that each pro-
ject will need to be designed for the specific wind, soils,
and other conditions encountered for that project unless
the conditions conform to those outlined in the design
criteria indicated on the specific reference drawings.
3-45
The structural design criteria have excluded consideration
of vehicle impact since in many situations, the barrier
wall will be located either behind crash barriers or suffi-
ciently far from the traveled way to eliminate the need for
crash barrier protection. If the local project, due to
•
limited right-of-way, requires the placement of the acoustic
barrier closer than thirty feet from the edge of the traveled
way, the highway designer may wish to either provide a separate
guard rail or crash barrier or, alternatively, utilize the
potential crash situation as the design criteria for structural
design of the acoustic barrier. Snow loads are a localized
condition and should be considered by the highway designer.
Consideration should also be given to providing drainage under
the barrier.
3-46
•
Surface treatments for concrete walls offer the highway-
designer many opportunities for good visual design at a
nominal cost. Several are illustrated in Appendix A in
Figure C-3. The various surface treatments for concrete
walls include forming the concrete with random width boards,
form inserts, utilizing a fine line ribbed texture formed by
inserting a rubber mat prior to pouring the concrete,
and reinforcing bars inserted in the forms for a rough tex-
tured surface finish. Another method of achieving a surface
texture is through use of "Bomanite" which is a franchised
method of press forming concrete slabs. Several patterns
are available using this system. Alternative surface approaches
would include use of an exposed aggregate surface finish or
sandblasting the concrete wall. Due to maintenance considera-
tions, it is generally not desirable to paint the concrete
surface. However, if a colored surface is desired, this can
be achieved either through an integral color additive mixed
with the concrete or through the careful selection of aggregate
and cement-type mixes to present a finished wall surface which
is visually pleasing.
3-47
Variation in the horizontal alignment of the concrete barrier
wall is desirable both from a visual and functional considera-
tion. One method of offsetting bays of the concrete panels
is to place the panel either front-face or rear-face of the
•
concrete piers.
3-48
•
—«»"i»a I
3-49
.
3-50
•
Surface finishes for the steel barriers can be weathering
steel such as "Corten" which is allowed to oxidize and
requires no further maintenance. Care should be taken in
utilizing weathering steel in relationship to concrete, in
that during the initial oxidation period, it can leave streaks.
Alternatively, both the sheet metal decking and the sheet piling
can be painted.
3-51
3-6.5 Earth Berms
3-52
R/W from Edge of Shoulder
Existing Grade
3-53
#
3-55
3-6 6
. Noise Barriers * ny,_ Elevated Str uctures
There are four basic materials which have been considered for
absorption treatments to be used with noise barriers. These
absorption treatments are resonant cavity concrete masonry
units, glass fiber batts, wood fiber planks, and spray-on
treatments such as vermiculite :r oeriite aggregate concrete.
3-55
"
3-56
.
3-57
3-7 Costs
3-51
«
The cost factors indicated on the reference drawings are
based on a cost factor of 1.00 = $1.00 per lineal foot of
barrier wall in 1975 dollars. To provide this cost estimate,
several assumptions have been necessary: costs are based
on San Francisco Bay Region prices; the project size is
3,000 lineal feet; and there has been no allowance for
traffic detouring. The material necessary for construction
of the earth berm is considered to be imported from a distance
of five miles.
3-59
300
c
o
en
<u
BASIC BARRIER «
on
30 %h Horizontal Loading
o
(-)
o
.• Steel
200
CO
s-
o
Q
m
• Concrete
•
Wood
o 100
O
LA-
OS • Masonry
• Berm
+->
o
o
10 15 20
Barrier Height, Ft
3-60
—
200
15 Foot Barrier
175
30 #/$ Horizontal Loading
o
u
t/)
•r—
O C-6
E /C-3,C-4,C-5
m
s_
100 /
u_ • M-2 • C-7 -B-l
c M-3.M-5
<o
• C-l.C-2
I/) •--c
I/)
s-
fO
^— 75 W-l
1
o W-2 • M-l.M-4
Q •w
ID •
r*»
M
o»
^~
n 50
+->
o
o
u_
r_
<o
<L>
E 25
"I—
_l
4->
to
oo
3-61
3-8 Community Participation in the Barrier Design Process
3-62
«
Once the desirability of a noise barrier has been established,
consideration of community additudes and desires will help
set design criteria. If it is known that the community views
its noise exposure as being severe, then reducing that exposure
by a few decibels to meet specific noise standards (although
complying with appropriate regulations) will do little to
solve the community's problem and will only result in a waste
of funds and a loss of credibility.
3-63
(
«
CHAPTER 4
BARRIER DESIGN PROCEDURE
4-1
and indeed the approach to be taken in this chapter, is to
define all reasonable barriers (or, at least, many such
barriers) which will fulfill the required noise reduction,
and provide sufficient information about each barrier to
permit a rational selection of the barrier most appropriate
for a particular set of local conditions.
4-2
«
,
4-3
. .
4-4
.
distance D E as follows:
D = <4 " 1)
E V DN X D
F
4-5
t]t]t[t
48' 1 30" |
48' 1
T
125' o
uj !
_J r"
1— D = 179' '
i E
z: i
LU !
_i |
<
> !
Z3 !
a|
LU
\\\\\\\
1
4-6
I
—
i
U3
S-
>
> U
CD
DC
LO
S-
CD
>
•i
CD
O
CD
CD
>
o
CD
DC
CO
>
CM ±c CD
ac u
o DC
O)
LU
DC
CJ3
o C\J
CD s-
CD
>
CJ3
cd
OO
a
<u
a:
S-
>
CO
o
CD
DC
CO
E +-> CO
St
CO o «=C
CO CQ CO o
4->
CU <^ T3 _J o -a a C\J
— n 1
+-> Al
O
i
QLU CO
_l
CO
_J
CD
<
IT)
<
a:
•2C Z
Q.
+->
CD i — c\jco«53-LO(X>r>»cx)cy>
>
4-7
B includes the effects of shielding between the
1.9 If L
source and receiver, determine the magnitude of the shielding
attenuation A
g
(excluding the shielding from houses and vege-
tation) If the prediction procedure used to determine L B
.
4-8
I
st
CO
a
C3
<3
4-9
1.14 Steps 1.2 through 1.13 should be performed for each
critical receiver from the roadway.
4-10
*
Sight distance measured —y, object
along this
» ». '.. .> <
.
*> • '
. . • .» . . .> •. .» . . »
. .
*
*
'* **«* •'••'«•*•••*•'*••*••*••-*•**••- *••-* •.*••.*••.•'
shoulder
Acoustical
vertical wall
berm
>
5 10 15 20 25 10 15 20 25 35
m= MIDDLE ORDINATE: m« MIDDLE ORDINATE:
CENTERLINE INSIDE LANE TO SIGHT 08STRUCTI0N-FEET CENTERLINE INSIDE LANE TO SIGHT OBSTRUCTION-FEET
4-11
>
"
Q. <+-
4-> -M
E CT> CD 0)
O
«* «3-
E
•1-
S- CD S- CD
CD <+- CD <+-
Q_-r- cn-r-
O
11
CD
CD
II
CD
Q-
O
4->
(/)
S- CO
S- C\J
<C
_Q -^
O
c
.—
a.
Q._Q
O
*-
t
ns
CO
-i£
O
in
a.
•
Q. > E CD rO +-> CD
to S-
3
3 U
e
-Q in ua
c
(13
03
a:
E
C •1- fO +-> CD rO +J
cn C 4-> CD 1— +-> CD
•f— M- •1— w in -Q to 10
tO O E •- A3 -r-
CD T3 CD S- -O CD
-a
-O to S- -O r- J2 c
LjJ Z5 O +-> l/l 4->
ro
_l Q. •1— <+- sz +-> CD -E +->
Q_ E -a en to XI Dllrt C
21 fO (O c -i- 3 •1- 3 o
<
X
en or CD to E S. w E
sz O S-
o
4-
to
c
o
+J
TO
s-
CD
h >>
N 3 •
\
», CD
\\ t+-
*Js
*4
**\
CO
•
V\ \| o
\>M CD
Q.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 p 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 >. E
«J
3N»T 30ISNI JO 3NtlH3lN3:>-3AurO JO 1)11030 -0
X
1333- 3N¥l 30'SNi 30 3Nna3lN)l-sniOfU :d
aa
8 8 8 88 § Ss?
LU
CtL
CD
u z
u
V
>
•H <u 3N>1 301SNI jo IxnoliNIO- )A no JO llooio '0
U >i
a at
4-12
I
»
RSFh -
a.
£
o 4->
O
.<D
to </>
s-
Cl)
4->
o ooo
CO TT LO O
•o ^ CO T LT, o
> E OO
TO
CO
O
LO ^O
OH
CO
s-
o
s-
o
4->
o
+->
>
10
i
4-13
»
Example. See Figure 4-7 for an example of safety con-
siderations for an intersecting ramp.
4-14
>
*
v
\^ Acoustical
vertical
*VmF*&*8Z^fifc
wall
Edge of
Travel Lane V d
MPH (ft.) Ramp ?.—»-
30 330
40 440
50 550
60 660
EXAMPLE:
4-15
>
B - Vehicle Speed on Minor Street in mph
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
hi h 1 j i_j
•
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i i i i i i .- i
1 I
10
20
5-
30
«+-
10
40 o
JC 15
50 -o
0)
E 60 o
o to
70 *-> o
20 -t->
i-
80 <v
0)
s_
o
<4- C
* 25- 90
CO
100
<\J o
a 110 4-
9)
30- 120 o s-
c C OJ
o 130
ro t-
10 s-
O 140
•<- «C
a>
q. 35-
CO 150
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110 120 130140 150
J5
o
Distance D-, in feet from major road
a>
> 40- to barrier
i
< Lane £
u
Q1
vzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzza
Acoustical Barrier a
50
Lane ([
Minor
Road
4-16
— — — —
CD -0
E= c c CD
> o ro
O +->
LT> ro 00 rO
00 u
II 11 o
c: +-> p~ 00
-o T3 I-
-M
CD CD "D O CD fO
O
CD CD Q. C -Q
Q. Q. rO • Cd
GO OO O +-> rC
2 OO O CD CT)
C
+->
-(-> -t-J LD C\J C s_
<d
CD 1
E fD '1
CD >> fO -M
CD
S- c #* » O TD o
+-> ro cu O O CD CD
OO c LD 1 S- -O 00
+J "r™ 1
CD ro s-
s- a r— •r- -C CD
C a> S- to +->
•i— E 1
CD S- c
<T3 •r— cd -C re c
2: s: 00 4-> CD •1—
X o
00
c:
o
•i
+->
ro
S-
CD
-a
o
o
O.,
> JO S6p8 01
PPOJ
133J
JOULUj
111
»;0J j
<-Q
JoLJJE1
3DUB5SIQ
+->
CD
M-
Q.
~ o o 00000 oo o o o o fO
OO
E M-
Q
CD
Q.
en
E
03
X
c
o
"O CXi
4) I
0)
c
CO
_q>
o
!E C3
CO
> 4-17
4-3 Step 3: Determine Geometrical Alternatives
4-18
PLAN
ROADWAY
BARRIER
ANGLE SUBTENDED
LlI
>
u
o
UJ
cr
4-19
FIGURE 4-11
Parameter Definition
•
Line-of-sight, L/S Straight line from the receiver to the source
of noise. For roadway sources, this L/S is
drawn perpendicular to the roadway. At the
source end, the L/S must terminate at the
proper source height: feet for automobiles
and medium trucks, 8 feet for heavy trucks.*
At the receiver end, the L/S must terminate
at ear height (i.e., 5, 15, 25,...) feet
above the ground depending upon the observer
location. The L/S distance is the slant-
length of the L/S, not the horizontal distance
only.
Break in the L/S, B The perpendicular distance from the top of the
barrier to the L/S. If the L/S slants, then
this break distance will slant also. This is
not the height of the barrier above the terrain,
*Note that although the "L/S distance" and "barrier position distance"
vary slightly for high and low sources, in practice either one may be
used. However, the "break in the L/S distance" must be measured ac-
curately for high (heavy truck) and low (automobiles and medium trucks)
sources separately.
4-20
An overview of the Barrier Nomograph is shown in Figure 4-12.
The wavey line in the figure is a representation of the
barrier intruding above the line-of -sight, represented by the
horizontal line on the bottom of the figure. The barrier can
be moved horizontally back and forth, depending upon the
barrier position; this horizontal movement is governed by the
barrier position scale on the bottom of the figure. The
barrier can move up or down, depending upon the barrier break
in line-of-sight; the height of the barrier is determined us-
ing the barrier break scale on the left of the figure. The
top of the barrier falls on a curve of constant attenuation;
this attenuation is translated to a numerical value depending
upon the angle subtended, using the chart on the right of the
figure.
3.1.1 Starting at the bottom, draw a line from the L/S scale
through the Barrier Position scale to Turn A, and project
vertically upwards. This line sets the position of the barrier
relative to the source and the receiver.
3.1.2 Starting at the left, draw a line from the L/S scale
through the Barrier Break in L/S to Turn B, and project
horizontally to the right. Where the two lines meet represents
the top of the barrier.
4-21
CO
< •
CO
L/S
ANGLE
SUBTENDED
BARRIER POSITION
L/S
4-22
I
—
>
c:
o
•r—
+->
w n3
Q. a> 3
09 C
< c
z. *>
o> »-
c o
a>
+j
4->
CC =r
Q
o UJ
s-
o ai
•i
S-
m s-
fO
o CQ
0002 E
CC S-
0)
4->
a>
Q
E oos 0001 s-
OOfr
J 009
o
< ooe
ooz - 009 CL
CD - OOS s-
OOI
- OOfr o
OS
Ofr - OOE
0£
002
a:
001
CD
08
09
OS
Ofr
0£ o
w
o>
if)
Q
°
b- «
o
a 03
<a r i i ' i
i
i i
i
i
o o
>
4-23
3.1.3 Follow the attenuation curve on which the top of the
barrier lies upward and to the right to Turn C, and then
connect with the L/S scale in the center of the nomograph. m
3.1.4 At the intersection of this line with the Pivot line
project a line horizontally to the right until it intersects
with the curve corresponding to the proper Angle Subtended.
4-24
*
SECTION
B (truck)—'
B (cars) —
Roadway
Barrier
4-25
Q. Q.
< ro
S-
o o
o
s-
o S-
s-
(0
QQ
OC I
LJLJ O
DC
cc
<
m
a:
4-26
3 .
3.4 Refer to the Design Goal Worksheet for the Design Goal
reduction. Select a trial Design Goal for truck attenuation,
A (truck) , by subtracting 2 dB from the Design Goal for the
total attenuation.
H = H + AH (4-2)
L/S
4-27
where H L /
S is the height up to the intersection with the
line-of-sight to truck sources, and
H = 2 + AH, AH = (6 - 5) x 2 = 2 ft.
4-28
>
s-
OJ
S-
5-
fO
m
o
Q. o
<
CC
o
o
i.
o
<+-
Q.
cc
UJ S-
cr>
o
cc
cc
< O
CD
LU
CD
w r
> 4-29
3.8 Refer to Figure 4-17 to determine the total attenuation
resulting from the car and truck attenuations defined above.
Since the total attenuation will depend upon the relative
contribution of cars and trucks to the total noise level,
several curves are given in the figure which correspond to
car versus truck contributions ranging from a car-dominated
noise exposure (top curve) to a truck-dominated noise exposure
(bottom curve) . The curves are identified by the difference
between car and truck noise levels, L(car) - L (truck), as well
as by the approximate truck mix and closest appropriate speed.
Using the proper curve and the difference in attenuation for
car and truck sources, determine the difference between the
total attenuation and the truck attenuation, and thus the
total attenuation. If this does not meet the Design Goal,
adjust the trial truck attenuation by the incremental difference
by which the total attenuation does not meet its design level.
Repeat Steps 3.5 through 3.8 until the Design Goals are met.
4-30
C\J CO CO LO o
(J
o o o O i— CO
CO c
o
> X
o o o o
4->
03
s-
Q.
Q. o CVJ o o C
< in
CVJ cu
+J
+->
•a:
V9P '(>|3nj;)-| o co
i
VO
I
CXi
I
- (-»BD)n A V
>
s-
«3
C_3
1
1
'
H 1
1
<4-
— LD O
C
o
•1—
\^
X -M
o
c
3
Lj_
<c
«3" CO
o <o
c «/)
o <c
•I**
+-> c
<TJ
3 o
> C +->
O)
CO +-> «s
+j 3
<c C
CU
o
\
3 +->
I S. <c
h-
S-
1
0)
C\J c •!"
o s-
r- s-
+->
03
3 CQ
C
CU r—
4-> fO
-t->
I-)
o
i— s- \—
fO
CJ>
r^
f -
*3-
cc
LO CO CM
o
4-31
by which the first barrier did not
meet the Design Goal) or 7 dB. This
trial attenuation translates to a new
trial barrier height of 6 feet, with
B = 4 feet. Figure 4-18 shows that
this barrier will provide 7 dB atten-
uation for trucks if it subtends an
angle of 165°. For this angle, the
car attenuation (with B = 9 feet) is
9.5 dB.
4-3-2
I
s-
a;
s-
s-
CQ
+->
O
a. o
<
cc
o
o
Q-
cc
> LU
«3
S-
o
cc
cc
<
GO
CO
C3
> 4-33
Example (continued). As shown on Figure 4-18, by continuing
the 7 dB truck attenuation line down-
ward from 165° to 170°, another barrier
(with break B of 3 feet) can be shown
to provide the same attenuation. (This
is not unexpected since these are the
•
dimensions of the original barrier
used above to illustrate the use of the
Barrier Nomograph, Figure 4-15.)
Similarly, other barriers could be
derived from Figure 4-18.
3.14 If the Design Goal for this receiver is not met, modify
the height or length as necessary to achieve the desired
attenuation.
4-34
«
3.15 If the design of the barrier has been changed, re-
evaluate the barrier attenuation for the close-in receiver.
3.16 Evaluate the design for the closest and farthest receivers
at each end of the community. Adjust barrier length (by using a
section that bends back if necessary) to provide sufficient sub-
tended angle.
3.18 For each newly selected location determine L/S and P and
perform the above analysis from Step 3.5 to yield additional
designs.
4-35
4.1 Consider the need for treatments to improve the weathering
properties of the barrier. Among the factors to be considered
include knowledge of the weather conditions that might occur at
the site, previous maintenance experience in the area, and the •
requirements for cleaning the barrier on either the highway or
community side.
4-36
om
o»
00*
DSC
si KX
i?
Is
to
S-
(U
s-
2 s-
<o
r-M CO
cu
oz-
-OK
S
-
05 H 1/)
4->
U
a>
4-
x:
-t->
CD
m
D c
a Nam
+->
a>
Q
i.
o
H-
-C
Q.
fO
s-
cn
o NHnir^
o
en
a:
CJ3
CO
I I IOI538
N0I9H
4-37
the barrier height, H, in feet; the horizontal distance from
barrier to receiver, D B in feet; and the receiver height
,
•
4.3.2 As shown in the figure, locate the noise source at the
center of the roadway eight feet above ground level. Draw the
sight line from this source over the near barrier; label the
height above road level at which this sight line intersects
the receiver location as H N .
4-38
<
.
4.3.7.2 Draw a straight line from the A B scale for the barrier
attenuation corresponding to a receiver height of zero feet
above road level, through the intersection of the first line
with the pivot line, and continue to Turn A.
4-39
—
CO
CO
•
o
•I
+>
s-
Z5
CD
o
o
s-
•r-
s_
s-
03
CQ
<D
S-
rd
Q_
•
o
Q.
E
(O
X
o
C\J
ID
I N0I93H
N0I93N
•
4-40
4.3.7.4 If the receiver is located in Region I proceed as
follows. If the receiver is located in Region II skip to
4.3.7.8.
4.3.7.7 Read the value of ABAR where this line crosses the
center scale. This value is the barrier degradation for a
receiver height Hr. Skip to Step 4.3.8.
4-41
•
Q.
fO
i.
s-
s-
s-
CO
<D
•
+->
a;
00
CM
UJ
•
4-42
4.3.7.9 Draw a straight line between the points determined
on the Turn B and Turn C lines.
4.3.7.10 Read the value of ABAR where this line crosses the
center scale. For a receiver in Region II the barrier degra-
,
dation is less than or equal to this value read from the nomo-
graph for a receiver height equal to the height of the barrier
H.
4-43
15 I
— — — — — — — — — — —r— —
i i i f i i
\
i i i i !
i i i ———
i i
10
2
-o
<:
—
J I I L J 1 1 L J I I I I I J I
4-44
•
r
15 — — — — — —r~!— — — — — — — — —
i
i i i i i r i i i »
r"*i
i i
10
16, 6.5
CO
CO
< ABAR * 6
for H R = 25
J i l J J l I i
4-45
.
4-46
•
attenuation using the Barrier Nomograph (Figure 4-13) and
then re-evaluate ABAR with the Parallel Barrier Nomograph
(Figure 4-19) to verify that the net noise reduction meets
Design Goals.
4-47
•
0.05 3.0
0.1 2.5
0.3 1.5
0.6 1.0
0.8 0.5
1.0 0.0
4-48
•
<
z
13
• OSD
10
+->
E
CD
E
+J
to
CD
>
•i—
+->
Q.
S-
o
CO
-Q
=c
CD
C
CD
CQ
CD
•
CD
CD
Q
O
4->
Q.
S-
C7>
O
O
CD
CO
IX)
CM
I
CJ3
III NO 93a
1 Ml I N0I93M
N0I93H
»
4-49
4-5 Step 5: Select Design Options
*Note that with the exception of the wood barriers, all the
barriers included in the reference drawings have transmission
losses of 25 dB or better. Depending on the wood used, the TL
of the wood barrier would be in the range from 22 to 26 dB.
4-50
•
FIGURE 4-26
DESIGN OPTION WORKSHEET
LOCATION NUMBER
• Position / Height / Length
/ /
/ / / /
• Aesthet ics
Weather ng
i
Absorpt ion
Other Comments
NOISE REDUCTION
DES GN
1 CODE DESCR PT ON
I I
LIMITED ?
4-51
»
i
f •
i »->
s s
i
Ii SH S 8 in IK
•«. g
5•«
at
* i
• • •
fc
• • • ^»t« en
i •
s
1
£ t % ItC * i 22 ix
fvrf
o n
N o
m pj
tM CM
CI ^ 5r- I- 5-
H
o
s.
«
o
qq
I 1 1 I a.
II 4-sa
•
<1< i
»
oo
i
« r-
oo
s
-•
C
i-
*>
^^ 00
"O UJ
o II
MC oc f
J-
o UJ
—
o
r^
2-i
<t
CM CO
CM
i
** z
t— o •
I-
UJ
oc UJ
c=r
o
1—
c
u_ o
<e
s o » •
W>
fs.
__,
»
fm
c*»
8
oo •
Z3
o :z> <_)UJ o M»
•
VO r— r— •W
•
*M •O
•
X o
•—t «£ a:
oc U- <; cm u5 CM
CM O
u. 1 1 1 1
o
U_ O * 8 •M ro
•o
4 in lo
OO 00
oo o to 00 «M •W •si J *
_j
<.
o o:
UJ
•— a.
• oc
UJ
I-
£
z:
1
TRANSMISSIO
LOSS.dBA
OWN
CM <M CM
•0 CM I/)
n CO CO
CM
ro
V©
co
CKMESS,
NCHES
vo
f— co «r
* a i.
io vo
35 8 2
d
C
s i-
U u
E 8 §
II
ca
JC
J
_J IS)
CC r— c
i— «
+J
s 2 I
oc
UJ
t— £
4-51
•
i. t
i 1i . — —— —
—
O)
s-
ro
O
i
r0
•
r_ S-
r0 o
•l— 4-
u *^--
m
CL to
co co
•1
o
• 4->
^o rd
c
o
o
•1
-C
•(
E
+-> ra
f—
jc a>
o
c
a
•5
T3
o
r—
o
>
CO
o "3
z
CD
O
to -<-«
i— •1— co
*— CO >> C1J
-o UJ E +>
MC o 3
C
S-
(T.
i/i
^
l/l
C£ •i 00 o
o UJ E <d Q.
u
^-^
»— o '•'-
cc i -J 3
on c O
1^
CM
<
CD
«=C
1 CM
«3" h: \-
UJ
»-H
ce
H o
c
o
"3-
cc
r>
UJ
CO
o
h-
u_
o^
o
i—
^3 o UJ
<: a:
CD
r^
1— CM
CM
o
o o
CO
o
CM
o
CO
CO
u. a: u_ • o1
o
u_
rD
h- c
<a
CO <d- co CO CO 00
CO CO
to
_i
<
»-H
a:
o
CJ cc
UJ
a.
•
ui
:z
o
— <C
i
r*
co CO co CO CO CO
CM CM CM CM
CO "O
—
>
CO
CO
o
•3-
I CM
CM
CO
CM
s: * CM CM CM
CO CO
~p* co
§ o
_J
\-
CO
CO CO
UJ UJ <3- <3- «3- 00
^. <_> CO
o 2:
CO CO co
c
>,
**
•o o -a
s- i-
S- -o -o <a (D ro «o
c *— 0) a> o C c o
o —-o o U CO •r- T3 •r- CD
</) <a fO E O E CU
rC 4-> u_ u_ a> fO O rC cu «-
S oc 00
o
E O E o
^-
"^ _J I—
u
fO
CO'—
^ a
^^
CD a> =5 o 3 •!- O i— U T- 00
aj +J -M E 4-> •i- D_ •- H-> to
-M
QJ
^ u
f
•
j^r.
u-
•r
E
rC
*i
to
O
II
5 D.
•i- S-
E TO
3 D-
»->
CO
ra
C
o
H->
00
ra
S-
(TJ
a.
CO
00
fO
fO
t—
CD
o 4-> S_ s- Q. I"-
cc c a> CO CD E CD
o o
c_>
4-54
#
— » i1 1r <) — ' —
•
ai
4->
fO
cn i-
co
i-
O
4J
C7)
CD
O
ro
r0 4-
CO
to T3
O CO
o -o
CO O
c •-
o
to to
o
o CO
fO •!-
E
-a CO
c E
-a
CO ro
o fO s-
ro <+-
<4-
CO
S-
f CO
E
15
to i- C
co c U •!-
£= E
CD
o O 3
U i—
,— CO -a
10
S-
fO
T3
—
UJ
o c O 4-
+J CO
CL
u. O
C C£ CO
o
u
UJ
•—
a • to
»»
a:
-t-J o
oc i~ u
r~.
<c o
CVJ Q. «<
co a. to
ZS to
«tf- z.
— to ro
UJ
DC UJ
or.
o o
u_ O •— cn
ro S-
rj CO r— CM S- CO
CD => CJ Ul CO o o LO LO =3 -O
u_
«=E or
< to CM o -»-> -i-
• cc
o
u.
CO
-J
u_
»— O-
CO CO
O
c_>q;
CM •^ * r-
O
00
CO
1
3
S-
U4-
i-
to
X)
ro
CO CO CM
a —o
•>
CM
z. CO i to
«C o
_l
CO
N
ro to
ro
to i
r— cn
f0 ro
s- ••- S-
CO co
c
s- o
CO CO CO u.
UJ UJ CO
oo CO ro
cr
cj 2: o C r-
O ro
-a
a> o S
CO to CO cn
o
f0
ro to c
-Q ro -i-
4- 4- JO "O
O -c
S-
3
O +J CO to ro
s- •^ i. 4->
-C
LO
3 to s-
a. •<->
S CO
•a
CO
O
+J
to
to
O to CO to C _J
ro
S-
4->
f0
+j O CO
CO r0 4-> x:
c —"O i— 4->
CO ro
t— c
o ^— CO CJ) cn M-
(O CO
S-
•JJ CO
03 Cn ro cn •r- O 4->
re
"r- M-
i
r— £
4-> •i- JZT
X £ S- to U to
CO D)
S- CO 4J
co O
CO o C0 CO U CO to S-
OO
>> cn O
«=c
•— o o
CO to
r0
XX cc 3 2: >— <=c t»-
a; L0 4->
CO
o CM
Q- to
£ CO
» 4-55
the reference drawings) . In selecting additional materials
from this list, consideration must be given to transmission
loss characteristics; the transmission loss of each material *
is shown in the figure. Note that some materials (and es-
pecially wood materials) are prone to develop openings or
gaps in the barrier through weathering. The effect of open-
ings on the TL of the barrier can be determined from Figure
4-2 8, which has been developed for wood materials. (For other
materials, use the curve with the closest TL for 0% open area.)
4-56
'
25
<
CO
"D
4—
0)
0)
**-
o
to iO
to t—
O <
i
Z 5
o Z>
to t—
to u
LU
£
to to
7
<
t— _)
ct:
Q
LU
i—
1— Q THICKNESS
X LU
OF LUMBER
O INI
LU — ( inches
<
£ on
)
< LU
Z
LU
O
z
o
Q
LU
to 10
<
CO
2 4 6 8 10
4-57
FIGURE 4-29 NOISE REDUCTION OF A BARRIER AS A
FUNCTION OF ITS TRANSMISSION LOSS
TRANSMISSION LOSS, dB
Attenuation, dB 10 15 20 25 30
13.8
•
15 8.8 12.0 14.6 14.9
4-58
However, if the barrier has been, designed to
provide 15 dB attenuation because of more
stringent noise reduction goals, Figure 4-29
shows noise reductions of about 12.5 and 14.5
» dB for one-half inch and two inch boards
respectively. In this case the one-half inch
boards degrade barrier performance by 2.5 dB,
which may not be an acceptable situation.
4-59
•
appropriate to eliminate those defiant which could not be
constructed at one of th« alternative locations. The
primary reason that this mifht happen would be the amount
of land required for the construction of an earth berm.
Figure 4-30 indicates the width required for different
height earth berms as a function of tha alope. This table
can be used to eliminate those locations which would not
accommodate earth berms, if this type of barrier is one of
the designs under consideration. Eliminate other material/
location options which are impractical.
4-10
•
I
'It/K 4-30
APPROXIMATE IISKT-OMAY MCESSAIV FOR Ittt CONSTMTIlM
Btrn Httfht
X of Slop* S 10 11
» «-«i
FIGURE 4-31
INDEX TO REFERENCE DRAWINGS
»
Design Code Page Number
Appendix A
Concrete C- C-1,2
Exposed Aggregate 1* C-3
Sandblast 2* C-3
Board Form 3* C-3
Wood Form 4* C-3
Reinforcing Bar 5* C-3
Rubber Mat 6* C-3
Bomanite 7* C-3
Integral Color 8 C-3
Paint 9* C-3
Masonry M- M-1,2
Vertical Scored 1 M-3
6" Slump 2 M-4
4" Slump 3 M-4
Combed 4 M-4
Split Face 5 M-4
Integral Color 6 M-3, M-4
Paint 7* M-3, M-4
Steel S- S-l
•
Sheet Metal Trim 1* S-2
Sheet Metal Trim and Wood 2* S-3
Sheet Metal Trim and Stucco 3* S-4
Paint 4* S-l
Weathering Steel 5 S-l
Wood W- W-l
Earth Berm
2:1 Slope B(2)- B-l
3:1 Slope B(3)- B-l
4:1 Slope B(4)- B-l
Landscape 1 B-l
4-62
•
FIGURE 4-31
INDEX TO REFERENCE DRAWINGS (cont'd)
Paint 1* ES-1
Weathering Steel 2 ES-1
Appendix C
Absorption Treatments
Resonant Cavity Blocks al A-l
Paint (1)* A-l
Wood Fiber Planks a2 A-2
Vermiculite Aggregate a3 A-3
Glass Fiber/Wood Facing a4 A-4
Paint (1) A-4
Glass Fiber/Metal Siding a5
a'5 A-5
I Paint
Weathering Steel
(1)
(2)
A-5
A-5
Glass Fiber/Wood on Steel Barrier a6 A-6
Glass Fiber/Metal on Steel Barrier a7 A-7
4-63
•
. .
4-64
1 — — —— — H— —
' » » — — — —
1
Q. #»
s- +-> cu
o E -o = cu
i-
Ol o V) CD
e
i
fO
e
s-
03 <u \ •i— jz
.Q +-> -Q E • •1— S- = +->
UJ e 03 -t-> *( c_> o c/> 1
<1J
I to
r—
S-
S-
<u
4-
•r*
U
-M
E
r—
•i
03
-a
c
CU
-a
-o
03
-M
E
03 JO
CD
CD
s
at
jr
-i->
to
o
Q-
to
s-
a>
E
-t->
03
S-
cu
JO
4- O) O +-> Q. CD S- (/) S- 4- CU E
O cu Q- •i— CD Q. 4- S- O o cu 13 cu S- Z5
ca S- (/) +J -a <=£ l-H +-> +-> 4- 03 Q- S- +-> E
o
OO
CD
<
4->
03
E 03 cu
S-
O a:
JZ
J3
JZ
cu
to O +->
03 +->
CU o;
-a cc s- c
o '-
o
o <
CO
to
oo 03 -o
e s- cu •
en 4- cu x> C
•r- i— •1— 3 CD
to s- n— •i—
CU 1 CU s- o to
Q 03 •r—
E
CO
,
to -M
o to
r>
03
JD •i—
£Z CU
-o
CU •i—
oo 4-
s- S- -o i- "O •
CM cu O +J cu o +-> CU O CU CU
CO oo JO +-> i e •i— to o-
E 3
I
<
UJ
3 cn
1 •r—
OJ
=t cu
E
i 00
CU
•r
2
I 03 ex.
E e e 4-> X 4-> a. "O «* +J
•r— o 0) •r" 03 03 •r— s-
I
cm
to S- •I"" -o TJ CU m a> s-
•r-" S- +J E s- CU •r— cu
-Q -E X]
X =
•i—
cu
4-
cu
•1—
"O
TJ
+-)
e
cu
CU
Q.
Q.
+->
4- o
+->
o
S-
S-
03
E
3
= i- 03 E «=c 1— +J JO JO e
CU cu cu
a. D- a.
o o o
1
i i
to to to
<c . cu -a CO .
1 1 1
cu cu o cu
_J cu X > -o •)-> o o X >
<c 4-> >^ CM oo «* •r— o cu to cu 2 •1
o
t—l
CXl
cu
s_
s-
c i
A A 9\
T3
E
JD
03
+->
03
\cu
-M
03
\
CU
-o
E
JO
03
UJ
1—
o
E
o
to
cu
cu
oO E
S-
E
s-
E
s-
CU
Q. CU
>
CU
S-
rs
>
CU
i-
3
CU
Q. CU
<c o 03 4-> O CU <u cu a. -E 1 +j 1
-M Q. JZ
s: o E to 2 .a JD JD < -(-> cu o
3
cu u
3
«=c +J
c_> S- S- S- S- s- s- s- cu S- S- &- s- S- CU s-
1— o o o o o o o cu o o +-> o +-> CU o
oo <4- 4- M- <+- l<- <4- l+- oo <+- M- to l«- to oo H-
ct , „ , — , —
CO CM CO "=J-
00 oo
o s: 00 3 CO CO co UJ UJ
4-65
»
transmission loss of the barrier material is not high enough;
(c) the absorptive properties of the barrier surface are not
sufficient to reduce reflections from a double wall configura-
tion.
4-66
3
LOCATION NUMBER
Pos i t i on / Height /Length
MASdMfc^l
M-3^-5" M'3 y £ "-*,£
Cv» 6 L>
lv- 2,23*5 IV- 2.X, ^-a/^3
u/ -^^ -5 w-«,^ \AJ -*ff H
e^e-i^
6^>-/
B^-l; M-3,6
NOISE REDUCTION
DESIGN CODE DESCRIPT ION LIMITED ?
4-67
FIGURE 4-3A
COST FACTOR WORKSHEET
Wind Loading
COST FACTORS •
Weather/
Des ign Loc. Ht. Length Aesthet. Safety Absorptive
TOTAL TOTAL COST
Code No. Ft. Ft. Bas ic Treatmts Barr ier Treatments
•
4-FR
6.3.1 The cost factors are found on the various reference
drawings in Appendix A for the basic constructions and weather/
aesthetic treatments (and similarly in Appendix B for barriers
on elevated structures) , and in Appendix C for absorption treat-
ments. For a particular design, the cost factor is a function
of height of the barrier, and either the wind loading requirement
of the wall or the slope of the earth berm. The correct cost
factor is found by first selecting the appropriate wind loading
(or slope) and then choosing the proper height. Note that the
,
4-69
•
4->
00
0)
O O)
—I O)
>>
s-
o
> <Li
O +->
fO
CD CT1
Cost Factor
4-70
•
3
CF = CF - (H - H) x (CF - CF ) (4-5)
+ + +
5
4-71
•
CF for 20' wall = 111.55
to
CD
O d)
X •
o> >>
o
0) C7>
> a;
o +j
-O A3
to o
+-> +->
CD O)
Cost Factor
4-72
FIGURE 4-37 SAFETY BARRIER COST FACTORS
Cable* 4.80
Concrete 12.08
4-73,
6.4 Sum the individual cost factors and enter the total in the
next column, for each barrier design.
6.5 Refer to Figure 4-38 for relative cost indices for major
•
cities in the United States in 1975. Determine the cost index
for the city closest to the highway project. Determine from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics the local cost index for the
current year and the local cost index for 197 5. The total
cost of the barrier can be estimated as follows:
6.6 These total costs can be used to compare all of the designs
with one another. (The cost factor concept can also be used for
one specific design to evaluate the cost/benefit of modifications
to that design, such as increasing the height by a few feet, in-
creasing or decreasing the length, etc.)
4-74
4
o
z t »iDeO'-MDO*intOMO(Ofoiin^inr-inioo^*oioiD( )MBNeo
, ,
X coc>ooo)0)0)0)oo)ooo>oooooo>o>coooo)o>a)0)o>0)C>o)o>cnoo>OG>o)o>
UJ
» O
Q -O
c
O <y
g£
JZ
5 >; Q.5
^>z o £ £ o<3 8 a q » c c
2z c c
Q- <o ii 0)
7 0- TJ
>
ro
o = - o y: o l."
o
*" - C
-
s £1 rf-s c Q. ID
u.
"
tt a.
—> I*
CO
E 2 3 «i c f
u- c a>
e § _ l- ID
0) 3 O L. I_ t — _5 £1 1
._ ~
e
O o o
-b § 3 c
ID 0) .- ro+^«-<rorororororooocu £ .2
8 O. Q. > ™ O 3
H
<o
£ 5 5 > >
cc cc cc CO CO CO CO CO I- J- -5 S a
5*
CO
O M
4- JO
I' VI 3
CO 0J I/)
z £o _ cJ3
O k. <u
incoiooMini-io^N co *- «- ^-
coffloiO)0)0)0)a)0)coo)0)fflO)OOiO)Oioo)0)'-
(DOio^nN^oooiNinoio
o o 3 r- _ ooocoa)a>a>CT>cr>cocncnr^o> r-»
ir
X u O
UJ
a
z
00
CO
X
UJ
O ID
a
z ° 2
o> o
cc
h- o .E m
co <D
6 c *•
<o -i >- E
O LL ^ c
c £ > 5-=.
O I
0> > o
•-5 c
t/>
ID O ro C O-
5 O JO O 2 I
a>
te — m ^ -H te •
z ^^
CO
c c
> b ro JO Li. j* 5 J -
O _;,"£ .2 X _ T3 "D C ro
ro
>
LU en cc c ID l_
0> 1 o T.
a> .2 c c 2 g
I o u o c
to re
ro
>
a o ID X '«
o c
c ro
^^:_j_i_i_i_i_j
ai
>
to
CD
a>
.5
< 1
8
11 II
5 o
o 3
"5 E 5
ro
3
ro
*ID
X
5 g 5 5
0) 0) a> ai
o
= O j; t t o
*C 3E ^2
ZZOOOa.Q.o.o.CLD.0. £
o
ro
sz
ro
2
i_
C O
"D C
ro w
3
n ro ro
cm ^j 4_#
"D
'>
a,
i".
o
<
>"
c
c
<°
ro
cc
o %
o " 3
a s
=
°-
Ia
0) ..
ID {0
a j>
E ro
o 3
O
z r^^'a)^-ooooooo5p~rMO«Nt~-oocDooooir)r^oLOoocoif)OJ'-LonmcMOr~co^- o =
X noooooicoaicAOoocooooicocooooicAoioocAisoiaioioaioooioioioiaioicoa) Z '5
UJ
O
z — Q.
a) Q.
te a
8 .2
N ro
Ter o DC .E ro
<
ro
> E
E
d>
Alask
•6 ro Ohio
d o c X
O IA
> >
Wyo. Ohio '-E
O g 6 JC c c Jx- i«
5«8
aOO
N.C.
o c X ro T3 Q) (A
Ga.
E
>
ro
c C
to
III.
co
« x"
-^o no 01 a ro
o o c c o H > o
z O
ro vi" "o
-C .2 3 c ro
C ro
D.
aurquerque,
o & o o
chorage,
E c
b c d c tr,
lattanooga, ncinnati,
JO JO
E E
>-.
c o
o > 5 o j: o* a.
ro
8 6 TJ £ o c JO J?
o ro leyenne,
v> +-»
a c
harlotte, eveland,
anta,
Hi
3 3 ro 4-» ro c CO ro " E
c _ -
E en
(/I
o o 3 3 3 r r
ro ro
licago.
= > _3
3
L.
4^ D. ID V- 3
u C p
ro ro id a> O) a> > ro |_ ID -C
<< < CD m CO CO m CD CD UO oooooo cScS DQ QQQ Q UJ UJ LU U- u. OX JL
4-75
»
.
c -2 a,?
f
3 l£ 8*000 &./r £.*7 ?<m #2 7,f66
C -3,3,3 3 /S" &*>«> SS-tf 8.W ?7.f3 ff^fto
m-3,l-s /
;3 7ooo *M3 ?C.of /2-*« fftflf 7^3, 7o0
*-%L J /* iObo 6CT? W& //641 74.-/, 9oo
M-2.L 3 t< Sooft &>.?7 HhS7 /*/.*r <51/,66&
M-3/t '
\
j
$ 4o6& Ml 2.Q./1
4-76
4-7 Step 7: Assess Functional Characteristics
7.2 Along the top of the Worksheet, under the heading "Func-
tional Assessment," several items are listed which refer to
the non-acoustical characteristics, or the functional "perfor-
mance" of the barrier: aesthetics, durability, ease of mainte-
nance, safety, ease of snow removal, and community acceptance.
There is also space for inclusion of other characteristics which
may be important, based on local conditions.
4-77
FIGURE 4-40
DESIGN EVALUATION WORKSHEET
Functional Assessment •
O
c </>
TO 4-J
C Q. y- <D
0) <D
4-> U O
c O
in > < 4->
i/>
-a
O 4-1
r: o >- i/i C o
c E 4-> O 03
o 4-J i+- 0) <_> in
0)
o a: 'c D c
-C 4-J 13 — o a>
03 4-J rtl <u 0) 2 E
O c/l i_ c/l O E 4-" 1— i/i
o (D D TO c O m
De s i g n < Q UJ (/I (_> 1— Commen t s
4-71
7.3.2 Physical durability considerations include the durability
of the barrier material to the effects of moisture, temperature
changes, wind, and the effects of automotive exhausts, dirt, sand,
and salts used in snow removal.
4-79
)
8.2 In the last column indicate whether the Design Goal Noise
Reduction has been achieved by each design option. Enter quali-
fying comments as appropriate.
4-80
—
Functional Assessment
0)
o
c </> <^-
ID *->
c Q. 14- 0)
0)
3;
4-J O
C (D
O (/) ~-
l/> >- > 4-1 "O 03
c
u O
OO
*J l/>
2;
C • •— E O 13
o 4-1 ^~
— 14- 0) (_) I/)
c
— x3
•— >~ cc c
u x:
<D •
XI
O 4-> 3 en
«J 4-J <D <u 0) 2 E <d •—
O <4- O E l- in
Des gn
i
O
_l <
Ul
<U
oD
L- l/l
<o
UJ
ro
to
c
00
O O^
*->
1- O
DJ _,
Commen t s
*-3-,1 *-S /
•r t f t 6 417 "\
t
*-M,r-s /
r t + + Ctt y
C-2,2.,2 a -t t + 13? V
^A* z + 4 t O 70 V
^-a,a,f t + K
3 £28 1
-»-
^"3,3,* 3 -f
+ ity? Y
M'3^-5 1 t r + t + Iff 7
t 1-
Its
*-3,C 2 -r i-
Y
M-3,£ 3 •t- + + + 21/ Y
^"0,3,3-5 / + + a? V
<o-^-S / D - — -t
rr3 Y
U;-a,a.5 a 1- o O aa Y
i O - -
tv-<fc<f LTI 7
^-3.^3 3 + 6 (? (,w y
«*-*,** 3 - — CZL y
8^;-/ 2 •f + O r + 5-73 V
SM-/1r .7
*<.
J,
Ti /h
Cr T -J. titti
\>o y
M-3,6 1
4-81
be used to guide the refinement of the barrier dimensions.
This would involve first computing accurately the attenuation
provided by the selected approximate barrier design, and
then adjusting the dimensions of various sections of the
•
barrier, based on the resulting noise levels at critical
receivers along the route. While this process may take
several iterations before a complete barrier design is
developed which provides the desired attenuation at all
receivers, it is certainly worthwhile to undertake in light
of the potential savings of barrier construction costs for
an overdesigned barrier, as well as the potential benefits
of avoiding an underdesigned barrier.
4-82
9.3 If the selected design option involves one of the
reference drawings, review the particular drawing to ensure
that the assumptions used in the design calculations are
appropriate for the site under consideration. Adjust the
design details on the reference drawings as necessary for
specific conditions at the site.
4-83
•
«
CHAPTER 5
5-1
«
id
c
a;
<j
>1
>>
id
a;
Q.
I/O
a:
ID
CD
«4- a)
O c
1_ _l
1)
^ 1_
c 0)
01 <D
(J Z u-
O
c
i_ «D
O) _l
t-l
c l_
<U (0
<_> Lj_
«
5-2
.
noise levels are not uniform along the back of the community
because of differences in shielding provided by intervening
rows of houses: Receiver experiences essentially no benefits
2
5-3
< —
CO
s-
Q)
> > %
•r—
QJ o Q
(_>
<U
dc
^ \
1
In
*
lo
i.
0)
>
OJ T^ On
u 1
<L)
DC
i.
QJ
•i
>
QJ
•
1
NJ o 4->
QJ
a
a;
•>•
* QJ
.C
to
s-
CO
o
r-
UJ
s_
LU QJ
zc > >
oo
±£
•r—
QJ r^ o CT3
O
C3
Crl
O
a
oj
1
*
3 CD
•r—
_l CO
<
o OJ QJ
Q
o i-
QJ 3*
> to
o i— on v> Oo
»—
CO
UJ
QJ
O
QJ
oc 5
1
1 QJ
OJ
$ I
^
QJ CO
>
•p—
c r^
V ^
QJ
a
QJ
OC
>»
•>*•
\
^ * DC
ZD
CD
<
CO
c—
E CO CO C_> CO CO
<
CO O
QJ
4->
"O _J O
sz
o -o
CM
1
+-> ft a|
OLU CO O
__J
CO QJ
2: < <
cr> DC
2:
DC
QJ
«->
.— ojoo^cncoi^cocn
5-4
<u
rt3
(J
» CO
o o
UJ
>
I
LO o
00
o- L
1 1 1
\->
4->
at
n3
+j
o CO
o o
o
C\J <T3
ro
00
S-
ai
>
co a
o
uj v O)
C£
n
-C
/\ CD
ZJ
/ \ o
/ \
on
> co <c
cc CO
C\j/
c
/- o
o
o •3-
•r—
-M
en C\J
CM
U
<D
CO
/ :
re: CO
00
o
s-
11 o
CO
ro
>-
i \i LO
1
I/O OO
or
o
< o
c_> a:
cc
CJ3
_L
5-5
>
—
d)
r"
S-
S-
(C
CQ
-t->
O
O
03
•i
S-
s-
o
M-
Q.
S-
4-
O
0J
to
ID
LT)
1_U
OH
ZD
CIS
5-6
For this barrier, B = 12 feet for car sources. Applying
the Barrier Nomograph shows that the car attenuation is
10 dB Referring to Figure 4-17, it can
(see Figure 5-4).
be seen that for a 5% truck mix at 55 mph, with a 1.5 dB
difference in car and truck attenuations (10 - 8.5 = 1.5),
the total attenuation is only 0.5 dB above that for trucks
in this case. Thus the total attenuation is 9 dB, which is
1.5 dB too low.
5-7
*
5-8
FIGURE 5-6
Subtended
Angle Length, ft. Height, ft. Length x Height, sq. ft,
5-9
the receiver, from Station 88 to Station 112). Thus, based on
all considerations the 17 foot high, 2400 foot long wall at
this location seems to be the best choice at this point in
the analysis.
Since the roadway curves, the barrier will wrap around Receivers
3 and 4, and thus the wall need not extend a full 1200 feet to
the left to provide the required attenuation for these receivers.
However, the attenuation requirements for Receivers 1 and 2
For Receivers 5 and 6, the wall extends just far enough (to
Station 112) to provide the Design Goal attenuations. If
additional receivers were located to their right, the wall
would have to be extended as necessary, or projected away
from the highway towards the community, to provide the
required subtended angle.
5-10
I
Based on discussions with community groups, the barrier
materials under consideration should include both masonry
blocks and wood. For comparison purposes a basic concrete
wall is also under consideration. Climatic conditions
dictate the need for weathering treatments in the barrier
design. Also, the proximity of the barrier to the highway
indicates the need for a safety barrier.
5-11
DESIGN OPTION WORKSHEET
LOCATION NUK3ER
Pos i t i on / Height / Length
M-U-5
M4 Son &1 M'^-S
AA-3^-5
u;-S-s
U/00& u>-^3-5
u>- ^r-s
c -j^s
coNczere
NOISE REDUCTION
DES GN
1 CODE DESCR PT ION
1
LIMITED ?
5-12
.
IC«Z - 27 7, Too
MH'" S \i 2160 (,H.(£ /**S f3./|
CH.CS <"2.06 -
M-3,4-S ii &1O0 /P.eS tuns 3*3, Vao
11 LH.LS - S^fco
M-V-S £fo* H1.\\ /a.** IIS***
*3H3 - M%(>l>0
lv-3-S /* A16> H1H I**% 1 O0-25
<1>
o
c
TO 4-1
4-J
c a.
0)
0) a)
4->
c
to >- TO > < 4-> -O TO
u 4->
2; >» 1/1 c O
c •— •— E TO CD
O m .
M- <D <_> in
•— •—
O >* or c D C
+-)
0)
_c -Q ±-1 a — O cn
to 4-1 to <U <u 2 E TO -C •
o
o
to
0)
O
1_
D
l/l
TO
14-
ra
O
c
E
O
4->
O ^
h-
Q
i/i
<U _
Commen t s
D es i g n _l < UJ 00 00 h-
M-/,^5 f t t + 9 27* V
H-2X-S 4- f t 4 ?fr5 y
Iv-ISSS t c 4 4 33A w
C-9-S f + 4 33? JL
1
Figures 5-11 and 5-12 show design options and costs, respec-
tively, of various alternative barrier designs which incor-
porate absorptive treatments.
5-15
•
CD
a.
<T3
s-
Qi
•r—
s-
s-
fO
CQ
<D
•
s-
a.
CD
«o o o «
5-16
DESIGN OPTION WORKSHEET
LOCATION NUMBER
Position / Height /Length
M-S-«.'0)
MASONS M-/,*-S-clV
K/- 3-S-CLf
Vuoofc
Vo-l f f- S- «-V
C-8-5-^3
coNcfceie C-%-S-<MT
NOISE REDUCTION
DESIGN CODE DESCRIPT ION LIMITED ?
COST FACTORS
Weather/
Des ign Loc. Ht. Length Aesthet Safety Absorptive
TOTAL TOTAL COST
Code No. Ft. Ft. Bas ic Treatmts Barrier Treatments
5-18
sides of the cut have a 2:1 slope, so that the top of the cut
is 10 feet from the edge of the shoulder.
5-19
1 <
h o
•
C\l
O
\
\ o
o
\
\
\
\ to
\ OJ
CO
o
S-
Q-
CD
CD
J3 S-
E s_
3 fC
•z. CO
o
on <c C T3
<_> o c
CD
o
LU
UJ
C/)
*3- IT-
4->
fO
U~i Q
O +-> >1
O cc 1 Q UJ OO CO
O UJ
1—
UJ OO
C/> OO
cc oo UJ n3
oc UJ o: O
<
en
DC
Q_
Q- CVJ
UJ _i
h- Q <c
o z:
o CJ3
Z
o
CJ3 Ll_ '
o CO
^—
o I—
o
ro
c
'
_l
<:
a:
o o
en
ui
CJ3
O
CXJ
o LO m
+
1aaj ul uo l } eaa l 3 CJ3
5-20
«
—
% fO
CD CD
c •i
i_
S-
<o
OQ
4-> O
JZ o
CD
•r™
i—
to o
cr
to
a; fO
u
u CO
<t
s- CD
o
M-
s- o
o <u
o
Q C
O
i- o
o
o
4->
I o -SZ
to
CD
CO o
<a
o
/ CD
<
i_
Q.
Q.
<
I— <D
+->
(O
c
s-
CD
o
o
CO
UJ
or
zr>
CD
> 5-21
i
•
APPENDIX A
REFERENCE DRAWINGS FOR WALLS AND BERMS
A-l
•
«X
1 o
k Kj
9
<J
i" ^
uk
u
s
T
**J
k 3*'
J
^ I
4: o
1
o
u ?!
2<e
4 s *
K
CM
fc
%
Vn
Jo
9
MJ
Ci
CO
iS
C>
5
§
f<
o
*
hi
b. CM CM CM .S3 o CM CM 0j 5
*
CM
v *)
n •1 <9
"I "> .« •»> "1 "i "1 "1 R)
* % • * % ». *
>*. ft
< It ft «*
5 »o O b b b b o b b
*
.t) 10 * b CO
'Vm
5
.6 * * *
\9 b $ 5 a
o %
CM "1
s S "1
.2 b cm
10
.ti CM CM "o CM Cm CM
3f*
o
u *
Cm
tl
CM
ft-
cm CM
*
r5
*
<o
c^
It
CM
»
«1
">
«
•n
*
CM
*
C.I
*
m
"1
»•
I
ft
•
§ ^ >S r^ I-.
-0
I | 1 |
g | |
* * | |
• •ft C5 t)
*> Cm CM CM CM
•b
2
o
IT»
»s ^ r-» ? V, nt 1^ r- Vn ><i r>. r.
o ft * c * ft * ft * ft »
^ > O 4 > > 4 4
HI i *
II
*
55 b b
S 9 5 Ki
«J <S) CM CM
Cm fi
5J
X
X
3 <t ^ 5 Vi Cm O V, Vi CM «o .
V)
.5 o
~-K
*
to
v, v,
9
Vn
CI
in
la
In
So*
<n v, Vl Vi Vn K K eg
w
«. Q q ^ Q IJ M C5 ci
Q ci
>s
5 ^ O § ^ o ~5
I
£r o-
«
§ $X cr
V n X
$
Vj iS v» M5 O 19 cS M5 > ^> > M-
'o b b
^
o
5 5 So «0 ^1 V *9 "9 ft
"0
1
< .5 Cj
«J • *) * «J t) «J <t> *i U «) )
") "i *> "> "l •n "i "> "> •m "1
•fl "I
ft. ft. * fc <3 •» * H- * » * ft k
II 4 i
Vi cm cm
c;
o
B»v
*
Cm CM
5 CM CM CM CM nj
C5 >!^
X> 1 o u tl tl tl n
<1 c ?! «
n •1 •> «) \3 »i "1 «) "1 «1 "i
9 * * * H>
it (J * It »
S
K * ft «» s Si
"0 - V M V b •^j V ^ ^* V XI
•
V ^3-
V u 1
o b b *? b b b b O << « o
tj. <0 tj c\i % ") $
C.l CM * cm CM CM CM
*" "* *> "" ** " ^ "*"
o
*
CM 5: mi o P, s 5 In § Vn
s o * V, 9 S5
O
CM
•
A-2
3
• *» v.
l* 8 J !n
IPs «
» *i OS
V C °
* o
O O "
•JUS "I 3* c £
^^ •a8.$$|-§Y$vsv§
4^r
.
^-5 «? <o^ O > 5 0^
<g
if"* .."*•?
*«^ x
i O o O
r\ r>
i -
» A-
r
-f-
to
t
O o
©
© 6
•o
o-'
•
'
o to
to
<J
O to^
o
P:
\S o o k
p
a " o t ^ s
8 to \ £
,0 K Vj
v9
O 0)
v9
^
\
*>
^i > 00
© O
csi
*>
O
^
o
® <*5
o
v.
(0
I
©
v9
5>
10
5 5t
© ©s is:
v.
&
$
© 5
CO
© O $
V CM
ex
©
^ vn ^
\ v. CM
A-
1 5
» •?
V?
f -— i o ^r
V
Z.J 5 -J
P §
'° ' Q
i 1 v.j "°
% ^
"* —
i° ^ J I
> 1
"c 1
•
I
«,
*
« -
1 o
— * — O
L
O
1
o
;
' sj 5
' \ .
Q.
^S
c-«»
:
—
•
£
11 1I
N
o 3
H
ill
lis
5^-8 ^"o V.
O o ^ w N
8i> 1 <n
« o
•« ") IS.
to
f^
^ S
Kl
^
lo Ir.
h-
4 Vn
0- kS 5>
a
"1 8! •0 § fi r>)
v»
ua
vi vi
6 o d $ o
i
s
o m 5:
^\)
o frl
f rj
^ « 5^
I M
< 9 9 *
o
«
O o
ca <u
*>
*
"o
m
<3
PI
2
»1
o
O
?
*
o
W
8
o
«l
;»
h
•o
0)
ff
: 9 .9
lr> »s O- o o S o 0- o Cm
5
§ 5: \9
si
4 * % * *
«,
.6 > o vS o o
<3 H "1 1M s 9 CM S
vi
6 -O V vi "J
o .vi
# ri
8 o Ki
.8 5^ 5
I! Cm C\!
o • * «s« fc f* k 5<J
* k * €<,
5
5
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
3»
>< u.
H. *<
S fc Si a X IS Si Si Si
«0 Vn ^ 1*-
»
>o
*
r^
*
r-
*
IS N.
*
f-s K
»
c -K * * * *-
-»
•u Cm Cm 01 Cvj CM M CM CI Cm C\> CM w >
SI
*
v
*^ \s
e "« ^ >s vS is s3
£ ^9
v9 vfl nS
i!
* a 1
C\J
, *x
** "o i?
CSj
JS C»i
Cvj
5 ^ CM
vi S3 vi ^ o \S vi o U u
.
v,
^ o o O o ,6
5 5 5 9* 5
A
-Q *J w *i <y n »l « ; »> e> 0) m
;Q
>
% * ^ ? ? * » 5 * *
1*
_ I
Vi *i V o u vi VJ
y Ci
^ 5
,« ,o
^~
,o ^O ,<5 ,o .« .° -* J3
V3
o >l a a a
Qe *> a OJ Cm CV» S a a v»
*
> » tj-
*J
S-
1
IS c *f > h
Su
» -V *» ^o * » & »
a ** *
>3
*v» *v9 vO V9 t9 ts j
?9 Id * v9 VS ^
*> "? o O
<0
*>o "o *o 'O j
%, ~^) o o to
CJ ^j
5 5 t4 t
s OO o ~<0
$o v! 5
j
-VS
4J
ft * V> ~§ Vo
s « Xn "o v>
a "in ~o lo > <0
I
A-
•si CO
Q
•ft
.5-5 «> It Is ft o
i> «>
ft
..
ft
Vj
•<§ -*«•}; I
-£<ft
Iff* US ft
8-5 4
•>ft^
CO sS
-I
I -»;
||| I i ?
liv". 5
ft
5 >»«$-->
..S
o-v.
« ^£>
5?
S ft
">
«0
-* S 5 £
e>
.c£8*.§ 05
<0
o s ^
a * <:.«
<-
-ok «J-v^6 8 2^°
nr > S 5C v c «j-5
*•£ bo k « C *V o O- o o > £ o
QC < . .
^(J
j?
~5 «J
-0 ^
^
«5 •^
^! vj
^
^
s3 vS *
vS $
^J ^
-J
VJ
rilii s ri -L* vS
^
V
CVJ
$1 I 1 V w
£ o
t
A-
7 1
J
i ..
f
;
: O
-
/
I
\j, ... _.
~I
*
1
\ J \ —p- 5
\ „\
2-8
.0
* O
I
CVJ
v9
5 o
15
1^ *0
o o <0
o
<0
«0 v3
^ Cj R
CM
§ *0 V3Q
vo <o o
>
A-
1
«
o
*£•
~: m
o
<0
o ^>8 7 ^
C5 K^Q O yj
A-
•
9
I o
<0 il-
v £ J?
ls
K^S
o
JO O^K I
o o c;
§
Vi
CM
v9 C\J
o
K 0\
O O
» yj
s o 8 o
vS
N
K Si
o O
I- 8 o 8 o
<0
te
^4
*0 CM
I A-
VU//7/0J 5:*
p J9/C? ?3
* *2tMK
I {Jib Usui cr
til
U"5 V.
uc
38
*$$(> 'SSi*-* oc
<*
^ -J
I Pi? VI
fc ft
Uj
°>
3
;>><i« O *. .,
3 X|tS§NSo "^
^IiqC^
<»-^s':-^
S ? S M>;?£ "DM? S?
c:<: * sSgfls
S*S*2 *> u ..^-^ w
J3 ^- C 1. c
5*«
v|
vl
5
«. .
If »» In
w S
<D
>9
*>
1 "** «M
CO
•n
«9
^ u
N
CM 8
cm
D
"*>
§
Vi
m
S 11
s 5 £
^ k
0. (9
v9 •1 CD
CD 5 1? CO K. la In
CM
«m"
$3 Vj
5sw isu
1.
€ * Q V
5 >9
K*
Y)
en 0. r^
?
5
T N On
^ ^
5
<n vS
*M <«
> «? K ^ Cm
ff> 1^ ««
9B
;
x
kj
-j N "^
8 § 5 §* l > -v.
J | 1 S « ? ^
^ "1 «
«
«> <> ll °0 "1 >
So fa
^ Si c5 8° H
* ^
"s.
^>
* *
}*
=
b *v9 O 9 t>
(9
"b
«9 vS Q
<0
.0
— CM
-5
CM Vj
-9
*
•
O 5 It O O
Q 00 O "eg c Q Cm
O
1**
5
N
5 * *
fc o O O v. O V
* uj
<h in 90 "<o
«0 vS « 4 v<>
<-
«)
<» * •>> V
5 § ?
% Vi JB Jl]
O Si > vo 5 S3 a §
CM % It 5 v>
b
A-10 •
<0 l>
vS
*
I
V9
H
'0
ill 5
C3 ^1
(l)
s-s
"V.
o OH,
1)
^
o
S o
<
u
£O O o
v.
<0
«VJ
V vO <s </>
,o
kj o
R O
* ^^ .,
^ S '5 5 iS «0 * «o
A- 11
A-12
»
>
0) "^ c*
k
&° • v «i » "> v ' ** fc ^ <o
K Ul <0 O V* o
o Hj O So ^ £ e <o C\j
S3 <v.
*>
Cm
% " O R
O v^ 3 <*5
«5
to
^ * * 5 s < -c
*.?* 0_C5 33
s <
o "< u vo o Vo
8
«q[ to <0 *
CM «) vo V9 K
-f
»
A-13
t Vis; 5-^ V i-5;
:**?!« Mi-
»'~,^ o— ueS'i'-
,
k:
o
o
»- •; o ^s c8a ?>;
v^
^ -e
o 1^ *
fl >9
r^
"^
O*
lo
M
<n
*
•1
^0
fl
r>»
v
«N
lo
«M
lo
«t
•»i
v<»
* N
<»
^
lo
tg
In
T-
"1
** to
-
l-
^
O O O lo O
> O
la lo
** In
-* •») > * lo <») * V. "1
In
•Si
~- *< V »> V v M V
^ "i *i tM "i
"5 k
r
fc-8
b "J
In O In
O
<n
c>
V;
«> <6 <n K M
^c a* "> In < «y "> vS ^ tu V 4
U> *0
*> .0
J.U
<v
0-
« 'J-
^f
2
Uj * le is
<*>
-J
« V^ > Vl
* K ^
^ ? ^* ~9
M
a V) <0
•>> •^
^ n!
3: ?;.a
v9
> >0 O <0 §
* * * H H
-5 •s "0 19 00 Q
1
>•» <;
t> O
5 a "1 W $ a §
S! 5 a ^
c
Q VI h-
"in V M 9
1 "0 &s
0^ 5o «
^ ^ ^
O «
ti
«0 y g t}- <* <0 50 V9 * «D * IS
* V s 6
v, V> "jg In
8 * »n P. S| <o t ~io
•
A-14
I
©
o
K
O
<0
§S» v -<
^ *j w,
» |^§
^
$fS-S .c
-V v.9 "0 o *o
^ Qo K *r> *
V. vvj <*>
<0
o v*41 XQ
•0
f: ^ U
qj
^* <r> O
Ct>
Vo
*»
O
v0
»w V.
PJi ^i °0 *
5 <o-P •si
^
<? *»C
-J
o^ Q >J
«<J «n N o
«0
PO
-* o\ «0 I
s-
o <*§ 0* Vi ^
§8 * $
<0 ^K <b
* ^
f < "S *j
* V>
O
5 $ M
I A-15
o
v> .So
•So
x>t
o ^»
o >VP\
K
Os. <N k>
v9 *0
*
r6
3 ^
fi »
£
o
<0 X
^ O
S *l ^ V> ~o •^
A-16
3 > .J M
-. p
1? 5 ? «
1
i
^
J;0"v
£
O 0.<v
» .UN^
<o *>£ o
«»
U l,
£
« S 5s?
Q O is
^8
«j V> VJ
§5-5
, <^>
.$*>>
ok*
8^1 S
-»*
*^ Kk
,
«.Jk<i '>«>.Ji»!i I
O o Q.O$>
-
C^J k
..
O
8^§|§^
«S«S'S5§u8,js
<J Xj «j Hi o o to
J!
"» « 5*
«3
> 8
=0 <0 o C3
» •0
55 0\
vi G
Ol
6
cfi
N. (J
q
< )
8
-V -v
1 •> 1 i
k
CD
*
> i5
N»
3 M & o
o-
I)
in
3 S VM*
£ CM > ad OcC
3
S*
0-
c>:
5 5
5:^
V
> R o
CM
5
<01<
l* 5
0 CM en •5
i<
si
k> <%.
5 CM 8 o CM
as 00 00
£ «5
=0 k •a 00
(9
CO
o- •J k CM
CD
1 5
o
</>
1
~g lo
> Vj O
* 1o § Sg a 3: to fi 3:
"in 9 Cai
» A-17
«
•
APPENDIX B
I
B-l
I 5-
i s
-»-,
( o
tl
- C o I: o
^ C
4 £! o o -
*» s 8 8 s o
AONJ §» r. £ o
5s
0-
CM
(VI
?
"^
1
3 1 - n.
< \j
=3
^3^8 Si
v.
o ? S « O
<5C
CSC ft
i i o« Q § K ki si (^
£ PS?
§=$ ^8 in
w
>
6 C fc . O 5 <5-SJ C M
si «i
S 5 * ~ o k°
* I •
a
VI •v
^S- > i, \9 |s
S 5 S £ ci.*^ 5
-. o *> ^ ^ «> "«, V .o
^ .
« iSf Ss * vS **
G -J
Si.
Qj
^ uj
3 ^^fe8<:
* v « 5 !3
...
S c ^8
.8
8J5| 3^l> Oi
3 o
8.1^8 5; ^3 I! Pi
•£Jo
hi! «
»; k !-
!> 3<
5 ^ J-?
'-5 1|§§
/ ^
S> «j
3*f Q
§J-s3^| I
*-S"S 2-*- -
UJ
^5
-!?
£0
J?
5-
> *<?
B-2
17
• o v ?
«
H
«» o
>
<:
•5*
n o o
"13, §
,o
1?
a
<*
>
UJ
3. 8
VJ C: o
» HO
.3
«v}i
•$5
.
? «
? ^
o s
-1 o •5
o Q
4
"1
QC VY
I
8
IJ,
^
o 1 V
*
lis "f-
vS *\S
^
Vl
4
J* In «•«
^5 %
^
^~j
v>
*3
??
K
Mf III $3 sjs 5* is> VJ
8^
vo
Osto
• > 5^- si" v»-*
*^?
\i
<») s? § K
v^*>
. IS.
o §^^ a o S
Mil -v««|
o s
^i. .X
"1
!• J> S §
>j
«
o O
VJ
5
i ^ 8 O UJ
to o<£ s <*. fi
tv* <\* ^Nt
.-i
f>
(-.
v v>
s •1
o
* H"?
?i
Mi* 1 - * ;s«-t;-
J*
5?"
8 <*.
o
o o ^ ^
«n
-Q.OV-.ji
"» *•
h *> c ^
« ^ K a (\J
.o-q -5
S w
OX
> >- r- ,
o
*<> ^ * * us
3
5°x
CO
vi o j£»o vj J»cfi^) o
kl .
U) $o- 8« <)6 <> V>
:
OJ
» UJ
•;; * * s>
V
o
!»
•v,
? §
• B-3
•
#
APPENDIX C
C-l
o
Q ti • QJ
§-1.5-
?! CM <^
O o
V) * K>
<0
?^ c
>?
v9 C
o
-J
^^
^ *>>
*; £ * -
8£ o
^0 -^ * £*
k •^ 6
ft
Si b
5 ^*«
5
CM
^1^
Cxi «n
Vi
o
V)
>o -v-U
<b
r^ •"0 O V9
o
• ^ *> C>J Vn <0
O "< Cvi «*) ^
- _
«0 Uj
5
x
o
VI
3 5 5 W5
*
U
^ >C
•v.
^>
*»v
Cvj
cv» (0
<0
o
,^
^
7 ^ *o 5 5Q O
CM
C-2
#
N
K
3 ^
^
lq
£^
0)
!
S^
Hj
O
£* -sj
CD
II
<_>
en
^
O «
Z
$9
o 2
<o D
^£
^c
X O •>» >s 0^
*K <s v> ts
CS <> tt> •o
12 i* -v «*> ^
^
*». ^
* VS 1
C-3
•I
4! »
u Q *"*
*i
\j
k £ o
o n
o S .
o
o S
•I
II
>?> o
D
ill <5
XOs*>,S
t>
fc
o
_•
S
•» s
P
3 So CO
O k>t
vi
%J
$ W) I* K
^ c o
cj
o
^ o te $ <j 8** o o
O 5 S * «0
n
C-4
«0
i>
K
VI
*>
VJ
o ^* v>»
.Q
O 5
>c v\j "\ ^*
o v: •*! *
UJ
-J 5j
§
h f
N
to i <0
* *vo 9 *>
b
*;
C-5
—
>^
VI
vi >
J-
*"
©>>)
S ^i
^CS
^
*« * V c» v
rr-r-n-i —— i i
\ i \ < I
jsimi mm
tmu
">
Vi
•
© V)
d* o
2f .*) V
v. "*.
.5
«. O
CM
CM
Mi*
o ^^ .?
<0
<:
. O
vi
t)
o
^
.s is. Vo
Vo
•5 v o ^ ^4
VJ
v.
$
NO <5
h
V) J) VJ
^» -S
^0
kj VI
VJ VI M
v.
W ^V> J?
3
J5J
3* o
T ">
3 ^ >
^ * -5 2
^O v>
C-6
•
»
»
C-7
C-:
APPENDIX D
D-l
APPENDIX D
DESIGN EXAMPLES FOR EXISTING NOISE BARRIERS
D-2
•
EXAMPLE 1; MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA CPROSPECT PARI^)
1-94 CHESTBOUNDl
D-3
ThLe approximate actual cost of tlie 80Q ft. section was $76,000,
based on a height of 21 ft, for this section at $4.53 per sq.
ft. Note that the predicted costs for concrete, masonry and m
wood barrier designs range between $56,000 and $78,000.
Predicted costs for steel barrier designs are significantly
higher, in excess of $100,000.
D-4
•
o
O
a:
Q_
LLI
D
V CO
CO
LU
<
co
LU
-J
o_
c
<
I o
-Q
*-
*»
O
LU
LU
o OH
M •D
c
CO o
^^
Z
o —«ico
Y— o
<
u O D
O
UJ^I
M o
o
l_
o
1_
3 3
o o
CO to CO
D-5
»
DESIGN OPTION WORKSHEET
LOCATION NUMBER
Position / Height / Length
21/ 14 / 800 / / / /
Pre-Cast C-8-S
Concrete C-8,2-S
C-8.6-S
Concrete M-6-S
Masonry M-6.4-S
Block M-6.5-S
Steel S-5-S
S-5.1-S
S-5.3-S
Wood w-3-s
W-5.5-S
W-4.4-S
2
Wi nd Load ngi
k0 lb/ft Safety Barrier YES
NOISE REDUCTION
•
DES GN 1 CODE DESCR 1 PT 1 ON LIMITED ?
Steel w/weathering NO
S-5
LOCATION NUMBER
Position / Height / Length
NOISE REDUCTION
DES GN CODE
1 DESCRI PT ION LIMITED ?
COST FACTORS
Weather/
Des ign Loc. Ht. Length Aesthet. Safety Absorpt ive
TOTAL TOTAL COST
Code No. Ft. Ft. Bas ic Treatmts Barrier Treatments
where: P
R = position of barrier (distance to roadway)
H = barrier height
L = barrier length
D-9
Since a parallel barrier is to be constructed, the need for
applying acoustically absorptive material on the highway
side of the barrier needs to be considered. The nomograph
method of the barrier design procedure estimates a degradation
(ABAR) of 4 dBA for 8 ft. sources (trucks) and 6 dBA for zero
ft. sources (autos), assuming the closest -in barrier location.
Application of absorptive linings is expected to reduce the
degradations to 1 dBA and 3 dBA, respectively. Thus, the total
degradation is reduced from approximately 5 dBA to 2 dBA.
Therefore, absorptive linings are considered in the barrier
design.
D-10
The approximate actual cost of the i860 ft. wall was $188,000
The predicted costs are seen to rise sharply with increasing
D-ll
»
o
CO
UJ
D O
O
to O-
UJ
I—
CO
an
UJ
Q£
<
CD
CM
O-
< •
c
o
_c
t l
O CN
LU
CO ID
o
o *
© +
Is
O :-«£
,_ to
< 8.X
u D O
O c
2i
i/>
D-12
DESIGN OPTION WORKSHEET
LOCATION NUMBER
Position / Height / Length
Block
W-l 2-S-a**
r
W-3.2-a*f W-3,2-aA
2
Wind Loading kO lb/ft Safety Barrier Position 1 only
Aesthet ics YES Absorption YES
Weather ing YES Other Comments
NOISE REDUCTION
DESIGN CODE DESCRI PT ION LIMITED ?
D-13
DESIGN OPTION WORKSHEET
LOCATION NUMBER
Position / Height / Length
NOISE REDUCTION
DES GN
1 CODE DESCR PT ON 1 1
LIMITED ?
B(3)"l Berm w/3 : 1 slope + landscaping (combine with YES (by 2 dB)
d"
TABLE 2-1. EXAMPLE 2 - BARRIER DESIGN OPTIONS (cont '
D-14
.
COST FACTORS
1
f Weather/
Design Loc. Ht. Length Aesthet Safety Absorptive
TOTAL TOTAL COST
Code No. Ft. Ft. Bas ic Treatmts Barrier Treatments
C-8-S-
C-8,5-
C-8,5-
C-8,5-
1
1
.M-al(l) 3 17 1900 71.30 __ 18.96 90.26 128,600
W-3,2-S-
D-15
COST FACTOR WORKSHEET
Wine 1 Loadir '9
COST FACTORS
Weather/ •
Des ign Loc. Ht. Length Aesthet Safety Absorptive
TOTAL TOTAL COST
Code No. Ft. Ft. Bas ic Treatmts Ba r ier Treatments
(B(3)-l 2 6 1900
( ) I )
J
«
TABLE 2-2. EXAMPLE 2 - COST FACTOR DETERMINATION (cont'd)
D-16
EXAMPLE 3: WEST HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
1-84 (EASTBOUND)
where: P
R
= position of barrier (distance to roadway)
H = barrier height
L = barrier length
D-17
indicating source, observer and barrier locations, are given
in Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 presents plan views of the barrier
«
D-li
•
co
LU
O
u
CO
Oi
Q_
LU
a:
<
I
CO
C CO
fe-X LU
» cr
_l
<
\ X
-D
C l
D CO
o
-O LU
4- ^~~
D 4-
LU CO Z)
«* "D
O
o
00
1
^~ ~
it
4-T
D
£
u IT)
">*
u
o CO
c «o
c CO
o
Z u D
4—
o -D to
—
t—
< n<*:
X
D
u O4-
?
O
_i IT
_C
CO
4-
M X CO
©
£ < u
I D-19
•
£3
in ro
£$^
co CO
£3
in co
in
Z
<
Q-
§H -£-
LU
C £5
CO CO
£3
in co •J5
£J3
in co
J—
in
3
O
-Q
O O
*-
vt LU
LU
q;
s <
CQ
3
-i-
u
4)
C
-H H CQ
^ CO
LU
-J
c £$? £ u-> m
£ co Q_
o CO CO in co in
U o o
<
£ m io -I—
X
LU
in CO
£ in co in co
xo CM CO CN
Z z z CO
o o o LU
i I— I—
< <
z u 6
o O o o o
I-
5
o
—I
LU
t
in
D-20
2
1
LOCATION NUMBER
» Position / Height / Length
Block
NOISE REDUCTION
DESIGN CODE DESCRIPT ION LIMITED ?
wood veneer NO
D-21
»
DESIGN OPTION WORKSHEET
LOCATION NUMBER
Position / Height / Length
NOISE REDUCTION
DE5 GN CODE
1 DESCR PT ON
1 1
LIMITED ?
D-22
•
2
11 .
COST FACTORS
Weather/
Des ign Loc. Ht. Length Aesthet Safety Absorptive
TOTAL TOTAL COST
Code No. Ft. Ft. Bas ic Treatmts Barrier Treatments
__ -- 122.51 149,200
S-5 2 1*4 1400 118.96 3.55
-- -- 108.25 131,800
S-5, 3 11.5 1400 92.91 15.34
-- '
-- 63 73,200
B(2)-l 2 14 1400 21.7^ 41.63 - 35
D-23
EXAMPLE 4: SAN GABRIEL, CALIFORNIA
1-10 (WESTBOUND)
D-24
.
D-25
t
LU
o
a;
co
LU
Q£
<
CO
LU
_l
Q- •
<
X
LU
C
D
O I
Z
o
i= -*p
5 J:
o
-
-g >>
1
O -Ci
LU
t_ CO)
CO CO X
•
D-26
1
*-> ~ Co
\
• •i-
oo
D
o
o
CN
LLI
1
O
o
10
o
00 to z
<
CO
o <
o
o
CO
cn
I O)
c
o
<
X
LLI
CN
c I
o
LLI
Z)
O
z o
o u
I—
<
u
o O
o u->
t g
> to CO
v
2.
to
D-27
DESIGN OPTION WORKSHEET
LOCATION NUMBER
Position / Height / Length
•
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3
MATERIAL /2000
10 / 16 / / / /
Pre-Cast C-S
Concrete C-9.9-S
C-4-S
Concrete M-S
Masonry M-7.7-S
Block M-3-S
Steel S-5-S
S-4.4-S
S-5,3-S
Wood W-3-S
W-4.4-S
W-3.2-S
2 YES
Wind Loadinq 30 lb/ft Safety Barrier
Aesthetics YES Absorption NO
NOISE REDUCTION
DESIGN CODE DESCR PT ION
1
LIMITED ?
Concrete untreated NO
C
M Masonry untreated NO
D-28
•
DESIGN OPTION WORKSHEET
LOCATION NUMBER
Position Height Length
I No. 1
/ /
No. 2 No. 3
MATERIAL 10/16 / 2000 /
/ / /
NOISE REDUCTION
DES IGN CODE DESCRI PT ION LIMITED ?
D-29
»
COST FACTOR WORKSHEET
Wine 1 Loading 30 lbs . per sq. ft,
COST FACTORS
Weather/
Des ign Loc Ht. Length Aesthet. Safety Absorptive
TOTAL TOTAL COST
Code No. Ft. Ft. Bas ic Treatmts Barrier Treatments
.....
D-30
EXAMPLE 5: ALLEN PARK, MICHIGAN
1-75 (SOUTHBOUND)
D-31
The predicted costs for the wood barrier options are
seen to be
less than the actual cost. Note also that costs for the steel
barrier options are much higher than the costs for the
other
material types.
D-32
•
•
o
II
LU
D
U
tO
o
Q-
0£.
OH
<
CO
lO
I D-
<
X
DC I
D
O
JQ
LU
o
o
c
D
Z .«£
o
I—
< _¥ to
u
O
c * 1
—«-£.
O) - — - 1
1
<x " o
1
« 4)
o '
O
i_
D
Ji
to
O
to
> D-33
DESIGN OPTION WORKSHEET
LOCATION NUMBER
Position / Height / Length
Pre-Cast C-S
C-2-S
C-3-S
Concrete M-S
Masonry M-l-S
Block M-2-S
Steel S-5-S
S-5.1-S
S-5.2-S
Wood w-3-s
W-5.5-S
W-5.5.1-S
2
Wind Loading 30 lb/ft Safety Barrier YES
C Concrete untreated NO
M Masonry untreated NO
D-34
•
DESIGN OPTION WORKSHEET
LOCATION NUMBER
Position / Height /Length
NOISE REDUCTION
DESIGN CODE DESCRI PT ION LIMITED ?
D-35
COST FACTOR WORKSHEET
Wine Loading 30 lbs. per sq. ft,
COST FACTORS
Weather/
Des ign Loc. Ht. Length Aesthet Safety Absorptive
TOTAL TOTAL COST
Code No. Ft. Ft. Bas ic Treatmts Barrier Treatments
12.08 --
W-5.5-S 12.5 2750 51.67 4.36 68.11 155,500
D-36
REFERENCES
•
»
>
I
•
•
ft
3
O 8
Ok
»
I llll I I!
D0DSSSE3
FHWA
R&D