CNR-IDASC, Via Fosso del Cavaliere 100, I-00133 Roma, Italy; University of Siena, Via Roma 56, I-53100 Siena, Italy.
CNR-IPCF, Via Moruzzi 1, I-56124 Pisa, Italy.
Sci Total Environ. 2015 Feb 1;505:658-69. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.052. Epub 2014 Oct 29.
The European Noise Directive 2002/49/EC requires to draw up noise action plans. Most of the implemented solutions consist in using barriers, even if some studies evidenced that annoyance could increase after their installation. This action dumps the high frequencies, decreasing the masking effect on low ones. Therefore, people annoyance and complaints may increase despite the mitigation. This can happen even in pedestrian zones near main roads due to the screening effect of first buildings row. In this paper, the authors analyze the post-operam screening effects in terms of low frequency noise. The difference between C- and A-weighted levels is calculated as annoyance indicator (LC-A). Different methods able to map noise with octave bands detail are tested in order to establish differences in the estimates of annoyance exposure. In particular, a comparison is carried out between data from interim method NMPB 96, its updated version 2008, NORD 2000 and those provided by a customized procedure through ISO 9613 propagation and Statistical Pass By measurements. Test sites are simulated in order to validate each model results through measurements. Results are discussed for real locations in Pisa city center and virtual scenarios in a rising scale of complexity.
《欧洲噪声指令 2002/49/EC》要求制定噪声行动计划。已实施的大多数解决方案包括使用隔音屏障，尽管一些研究表明，在安装后可能会增加烦恼。这种做法会丢弃高频，降低对低频的掩蔽效应。因此，尽管有所缓解，人们的烦恼和投诉可能会增加。即使在靠近主要道路的行人区，由于第一排建筑物的屏蔽效应，也可能发生这种情况。在本文中，作者分析了低频噪声的术后屏蔽效应。通过计算 C 加权和 A 加权级别的差值作为烦恼指标（LC-A）来表示。为了确定烦恼暴露的估计值之间的差异，测试了不同的方法，这些方法可以详细地用倍频程带映射噪声。特别地，对中期方法 NMPB 96、其 2008 年更新版本、NORD 2000 的数据与通过 ISO 9613 传播和统计通过测量定制程序提供的数据进行了比较。为了通过测量验证每个模型的结果，对测试地点进行了模拟。结果针对比萨市中心的实际地点和不断增加复杂性的虚拟场景进行了讨论。
