Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark; Danish Big Data Centre for Environment and Health (BERTHA) at Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark.
Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark; Global Centre for Clean Air Research (GCARE), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Environ Pollut. 2021 Feb 1;270:116240. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116240. Epub 2020 Dec 7.
Road traffic noise is the most pervasive source of ambient outdoor noise pollution in Europe. Traffic noise prediction models vary in parameterisation and therefore may produce different estimates of noise levels depending on the geographical setting in terms of emissions sources and propagation field. This paper compares three such models: the European standard, Common Noise Assessment Methods for the EU Member States (hereafter, CNOSSOS), Nord2000 and Traffic Noise Exposure (TRANEX) model based on the UK methodology, in terms of their source and propagation characteristics. The tools are also compared by analysing estimated noise (L) from CNOSSOS, Nord2000 (2006 version), and TRANEX for more than one hundred test cases (N = 111) covering a variety of source and receiver configurations (e.g. varying source to receiver distance). The main aim of this approach was to investigate the potential pattern in differences between models' performance for certain types of configurations. Discrepancies in performance may thus be linked to the differences in parameterisations of the CNOSSOS, Nord2000, and TRANEX (e.g. handling of diffraction, refraction). In most cases, both CNOSSOS and TRANEX reproduced L levels of Nord2000 (2006 version) within three to five dBA (CNOSSOS: 87%, TRANEX: 94%). The differences in L levels of CNOSSOS, compared to Nord2000, can be related to several shortcomings of the existing CNOSSOS algorithms (e.g. ground attenuation, multiple diffractions, and mean ground plane). The analyses show that more research is required in order to improve CNOSSOS for its implementation in the EU. In this context, amendments for CNOSSOS proposed by an EU Working Group hold significant potential. Overall, both CNOSSOS and TRANEX produced similar results, with TRANEX reproducing Nord2000 L values slightly better than the CNOSSOS. The lack of measured noise data highlights one of the significant limitations of this study and needs to be addressed in future work.
道路交通噪声是欧洲最普遍的环境噪声污染源。交通噪声预测模型在参数化方面存在差异，因此根据排放源和传播场的地理位置，可能会产生不同的噪声水平估计。本文比较了三种模型：欧洲标准、欧盟成员国共同噪声评估方法（以下简称 CNOSSOS）、Nord2000 和基于英国方法的交通噪声暴露（TRANEX）模型，比较了它们的源和传播特性。还通过分析超过一百个测试案例（N=111）的估计噪声（L）来比较这些工具，这些测试案例涵盖了各种源和接收器配置（例如，源到接收器的距离变化）。该方法的主要目的是研究模型在某些类型的配置下性能差异的潜在模式。因此，性能差异可能与 CNOSSOS、Nord2000 和 TRANEX 的参数化差异（例如，衍射、折射的处理）有关。在大多数情况下，CNOSSOS 和 TRANEX 都在三到五个 dBA 内再现了 Nord2000（2006 版）的 L 水平（CNOSSOS：87%，TRANEX：94%）。与 Nord2000 相比，CNOSSOS 的 L 水平的差异可以归因于现有 CNOSSOS 算法的几个缺陷（例如，地面衰减、多次衍射和平均地面平面）。分析表明，为了在欧盟实施，需要对 CNOSSOS 进行更多的研究。在这种情况下，欧盟工作组提出的对 CNOSSOS 的修订具有很大的潜力。总体而言，CNOSSOS 和 TRANEX 产生了相似的结果，TRANEX 比 CNOSSOS 更能再现 Nord2000 的 L 值。缺乏实测噪声数据突出了本研究的一个显著局限性，需要在未来的工作中解决。
