4.2 Article

Measurement and prediction of road traffic noise at different building floor levels in Hong Kong

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0143624410361223

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Hong Kong, approximately one million people are affected by severe road traffic noise. It is crucial to estimate the vertical distribution of traffic noise levels at different levels in high-rise buildings during the planning and design stages for new residential buildings. The Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) has been adopted in Hong Kong to estimate traffic noise from the road. However, there have been criticisms of the CRTN model's accuracy and suitability for predicting road traffic noise in Hong Kong. This study examines and evaluates the accuracy of the CRTN method in predicting the vertical distribution of traffic noise level LA10 at different floor levels of a 20-storey residential building in Hong Kong. Also, measurements have been conducted of the traffic noise levels at each floor level of the building. Both the predicted and measured LA10 show a similar trend: the higher the floor level, the lower the traffic noise levels. However, the predicted LA10 at the building fac, ade has a tendency of overestimation, especially at the higher floor levels, with a mean difference of +2.0 dBA between the predicted and measured results. A correlation coefficient (R-2) of 0.9331 between the predicted and the measured LA10 indicates that the predicted levels correlate closely with the measured levels. The CRTN is therefore a useful tool in predicting traffic noise levels at different floor levels during the building planning stage. Practical application: This study provides an evaluation of the accuracy of the CRTN method in predicting the vertical distribution of traffic noise level at different floor levels of a residential building. It suggests that the CRTN is a useful tool in predicting traffic noise levels at different floor levels during the building planning stage.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据