Better Roads Digital Magazine
Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/412488
Better Roads November 2014 13 PAVE WITH PRIDE The F1000 paver – low deck, full visibility and exceptional accuracy for a high-quality mat worth bragging about. Please contact your local Atlas Copco distributor. www.atlascopco.us 7H[W,1)2WRRUYLVLWZZZEHWWHUURDGVFRPLQIR fic generated noise associated with freeways for a location and situation. McAvoy and Theberge found the following: • Clear (Transparent) walls. The life cycle cost analysis found that clear noise abatement walls produce a 0.38 insertion loss (sound attenuation) per dollar of cost. This is among the lowest of the materials tested. Clear noise abatement wall have tremendous advantages in the reduc- tion of visual impacts based upon their ability to prevent hiding scenic views or retail areas. • Concrete noise abatement walls yielded a mean inser- tion loss of 18.54 dB. Concrete noise walls tend to take the appearance of many forms, depending on the desired appearance of the state or local municipality; therefore, their versatility in appearance can improve the high- way roadside for both the driving public and residents. Concrete has a high structural strength and is resistant to vehicle impact damage. The life cycle cost analysis found that concrete noise abatement walls produce a 0.61 inser- tion loss per dollar of cost. This is the second highest of the materials tested. Due to the performance, durability and life cycle cost analysis, concrete walls should con- tinue to be used widely across Ohio. • Earthen berms. The life cycle cost analysis found that earthen berm noise abatement walls produce a 0.72 insertion loss per dollar of cost, highest of the materi- als tested. Earthen berm installation requires substantial land to develop the height necessary for noise abatement due to side slope restrictions for safe roadway departures of vehicles, and constructability. Earthen berms require landscaping or at least frequent mowing maintenance. Earthen berms should be further evaluated to find an ap- propriate for construction to reduce the variability in the noise reduction at the receptor. • Fiberglass is a lightweight material, generally shatter- resistant in the case of vehicle impact and has the ability to take the appearance of many forms. But it may shrink and leave cracks in the wall, thereby limiting the noise reduction potential. Fiberglass can also deteriorate causing concerns to rise with appearance and material strength. The life cycle cost analysis found that fiberglass noise abatement walls produce a 0.45 insertion loss per