Abstract
The main objective of this study is to analyze the differences found in the results of noise mapping using two of the most popular software techniques for the prediction of environmental noise. The location selected to conduct the comparative study is an area encompassed by the ring road that surrounds the city of Pamplona and on a grid, with a total of 6 × 105 points, approximately. In fact, and as the Environmental Noise Directive points out, it is a major road designated by a Member State (Spain). Configuration of the calculation parameters (discretization of the sources, ground absorption, reflection order, etc.) was as equivalent as possible as far as programs allow. In spite of that, a great number of differences appear in the findings. Although in 95.5% of the points the difference in the noise level calculated from the two programs was less than 3 dB, this general statistic result concealed some great differences. These are due to the various algorithms that programs implement to evaluate noise levels. Most differences pertain to highly screened receivers or remote ones. In the former, the algorithm of visibility is the main cause of such differences. In the latter, differences are mainly brought about by a different implementation of the propagation under homogeneous and favorable atmospheric conditions from both software systems.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Arana, M. (2001). Prediction of urban noise. In A. Garcia (Ed.), Environmental urban noise (pp. 149–181). Southampton: WITT. ISBN: 1-85312-752-3.
Arana, M., & Aramendia, E. (2006). Comparison between raster factor and constant angular step in noise mapping. Paper presented at the 6th European conference on noise control Euronoise 2006, Tempere, Finland.
Arana, M., & Garcia, A. (1998). A social survey on the effects of environmental noise on the residents of Pamplona, Spain. Applied Acoustics, 53(4), 245–253. doi:10.1016/S0003-682X(97)00067-4.
Arana, M., San Martin, M. L., Vela, A., & San Martin, R. (2003). Acoustic map of Pamplona, Spain. Percentile of people affected by environmental noise. In D. Almorza, C. A. Brebbia, & R. Hernandez (Eds.), Modelling and experimental measurements in acoustics (pp. 35–44). Southampton: WITT. ISBN: 1-85312-975-5.
Cadna/A v.3.6.118 (2005). DataKustik, instructions for use.
Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (2002).
ISO 9613 (1996). Acoustics—attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors—Part2: General method of calculation. Genève, Switzerland.
Ley 37/2003, de 17 de noviembre, del Ruido (2003). (in Spanish). B.O.E. n° 276, from http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2003/11/18/pdfs/A40494–40505.pdf.
Nouvelle Méthode de Prevision du Bruit NMPB-Routes (1997). (SETRA-CERTULCPC-CSTB).
Popp, C., & Bing, M. (2005). From noise mapping to action planning. Paper presented at the forum acusticum 2005, Budapest, Hungary.
SoundPLAN v.6.4 (2005). Braunstein + Berndt GmbH, Wins–User’s manual: Technical acoustics in SoundPLAN.
Steele, C. (2001). A critical review of some traffic noise prediction models. Applied Acoustics, 62(3), 271–287. doi:10.1016/S0003-682X(00)00030-X.
WG-AEN (2006). Good practice guide for strategic noise mapping and the production of associated data on noise exposure. European commission working group. Assessment of exposure to noise. Final draft v.2. Brussels, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/pdf/wg_aen.pdf.
Yilmaz, G., & Hocanli, Y. (2006). Mapping of noise by using GIS in Şanliurfa. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 121, 103–108. doi:10.1007/s10661-005-9109-1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arana, M., San Martin, R., San Martin, M.L. et al. Strategic noise map of a major road carried out with two environmental prediction software packages. Environ Monit Assess 163, 503–513 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-009-0853-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-009-0853-5