You are on page 1of 26

Appendix 3

Possibilities to Reduce Noise Emission from the Tyre/Road Interaction with Emphasis on the Swedish Situation
Ulf Sandberg Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI) and Chalmers University of Technology 2007-02-05

This report is part of the project Vgfordons bulleremission mjligheter och hinder fr vsentlig minskning, funded by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Naturvrdsverket.

CONTENTS
1. 2. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................3 NOISE REDUCTION BY MEASURES RELATED TO TYRES ...................................3 2.1 Variation in noise level between current tyres .........................................................3 2.2 Tightening the EU tyre noise limits (Directive 2001/43/EC)....................................4 2.3 Influence of measurement method...........................................................................5 2.4 Possibility to reduce noise emission by tyre selection within present technology .....5 2.5 Possibility to reduce noise emission by improved tyre technology...........................7 2.6 Limit the use of studded tyres .................................................................................9 2.7 Conflicts with other parameters.............................................................................10 2.8 Summary of tyre effects ........................................................................................11 3. NOISE REDUCTION BY MEASURES RELATED TO ROAD SURFACES..............12 3.1 Special characteristics of road surfaces in Sweden compared to other European countries...........................................................................................................................12 3.2 Are Swedish road surfaces the worst in Europe from an acoustical standpoint?.....13 3.3 Surfaces with low noise characteristics and their usefulness in Sweden .................14 3.4 Potential traffic noise reduction in Sweden of existing road surfaces .....................14 3.5 The potential for improvements with present knowledge and technology ..............14 3.3 Existing surfaces worldwide with low noise characteristics ...................................16 3.4 Potential traffic noise reduction in Sweden of existing road surfaces .....................17 3.5 The potential for improvements with better knowledge but essentially present technology, or due to different policy ...............................................................................19 3.6 The potential for improvements with futuristic designs .........................................19 4. TYRE/ROAD NOISE REDUCTION BY MEASURES ON VEHICLES......................20 5. NOISE REDUCTION BY COMBINED TYRE/ROAD MEASURES ..........................20 6. THE SWEDISH ACTION PLAN AGAINST NOISE 1993 ..........................................21 7. CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................23 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................24 9. REFERENCES.............................................................................................................25

1.

INTRODUCTION

Within the project Vgfordons bulleremission mjligheter och hinder fr vsentlig minskning, which is currently conducted by Chalmers by commission of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvrdsverket) as a pilot study, the potential for substantial noise reductions by measures related to tyres and road surfaces are explored. This report is part of the ongoing pilot study.

2. NOISE REDUCTION BY MEASURES RELATED TO TYRES


2.1 Variation in noise level between current tyres

The variation in noise level within various tyre classes was studied in [Sandberg, 2006a]. The data compiled there seemed to be rather consistent, suggesting that if one includes several hundreds of tyres in the tests, the variation (range) will be 6-8 dB within a certain subcategory of car tyres and about 10 dB within the total car tyre category (category C1 in formal tyre terminology). Generally, tyres are not interchangeable between the subcategories, which means that the range a vehicle manufacturer or owner can play with is 6-8 dB. For truck tyres (category C3), it was concluded that the range was about 10 dB considering the total truck tyre category. However, much of this range is the difference between drive axle tyres and tyres for steering and trailer axles. If one would look at only one of these two categories. The range seems to be about 5 dB within the steering and trailer axle category (tyres for steering and trailer axles do not differ much) and about 7 dB within the drive axle category. The study in [Sandberg, 2006a], concluded that the variation is somewhat increased by considering also retreaded tyres, since the majority of retreaded tyres have noise characteristics rather similar to those of new tyres, but a part of the retreaded tyres are noisier than new tyres. It appeared that the retreaded tyres tested in a German study (made by commission of BASt) were about 2 dB(A) noisier than the tested new tyres with regard to the normal tyre class. For the "Snow" or "M+S" class, the retreaded tyres were 3-4 dB(A) noisier than the tested new tyres. However, no retreaded tyre exceeded the EU noise limit. According to communication with BASt, the reported noise increase over new tyres shall not be taken as representative of all retreaded tyres in these categories. The tyres selected in the study were probably produced using some less modern tread moulds, not corresponding to present state-of-the art. Since retreaded tyres in Sweden are produced mainly in Sweden with modern equipment, there is no reason to believe that the retreaded tyres in Sweden would increase the range of noise levels within a tyre class more than marginally. It may be reasonable to assume that the variation within each subcategory is increased by 1 dB when considering both new and retreaded tyres. Assuming that all European tyres are safe, this of course suggests that there is quite a potential to reduce noise emission without obtaining unsafe tyres simply by trying to apply the best currently available technology. The entire range of variation cannot be utilized for this, since within each subcategory there are tyres optimized for various purposes, but a major part of it should be available.
3

Finally, it can be mentioned that a list of measured noise levels of C1, C2 and C3 tyres, made by TV and Mller-BBM in Germany and M+P in the Netherlands, is published on a Dutch website [IPG, 2005].

2.2

Tightening the EU tyre noise limits (Directive 2001/43/EC)

A study by FEHRL for the EU Commission proposed a substantial tightening in tyre noise limits, see Tables. 1-2. Table 1: Proposed tyre noise limits for C1 tyres (rounding to nearest integer). Note: Darkness of shade is proportional to the expected number of tyres in the category around 2010 Relative decrease compared to current limit value 0.5 - 2.5 2.5 3.5 2.5 0.5 Relative decrease compared to current limit value 2.5 - 4.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 2.5

New tyre Nominal section category width (mm) C1a_new C1b_new C1c_new C1d_new C1e_new 185 > 185 215 > 215 245 > 245 275 > 275

First step (2008) 73 74 74 75 77

Second step (2012)

71 72 72 73 75

Table 2: Proposed noise limits for C2 (van) and C3 (truck) tyres (rounding to nearest integer) Relative decrease compared to current limit value 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 Relative decrease compared to current limit value 5.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 6.5 5.5

Tyre Nominal section category width (mm) C2 Normal Snow (M+S) Special C3 Normal Snow (M+S) Special

First step (2008) 73 74 76 73 75 77

Second step (2012) 71 72 74 71 73 75

The proposal is currently being reviewed by the Commission. The tyre industry is extremely negative to the proposal. It is probable that the Commission will not follow the proposal due to the resistance of the tyre industry and the lack of lobbying in favour of the proposal to counteract the industry lobbying.

2.3

Influence of measurement method

The data referred to above have been measured with either the coast-by or CPX methods. The choice of method is not considered to affect the data significantly in the respects which are important here.

2.4 Possibility to reduce noise emission by tyre selection within present technology
Based on the variation within tyre categories, the following noise reductions seem to be technically possible (but not necessarily politically possible). First, two scenarios are outlined in which the tyre noise limits are tightened: Scenario 1a: Tightening the EU tyre noise limits (Directive 2001/43/EC) as proposed by the FEHRL study [FEHRL, 2006] and assuming that the road surface is an ISO 10844 surface or another surface for which tyres are ranked in a similar way. In the assumption it is included that retreaded tyres are treated in the same way (today, retreaded tyres are not subject to any noise limits). Reduction in maximum noise levels, car tyres: 3 dB Reduction in equivalent noise levels, Lden, car tyres: 1.5 dB Reduction in maximum noise levels, truck tyres: 4 dB Reduction in equivalent noise levels, Lden, truck tyres: 2 dB Scenario 1b: Same as 1a, but assuming that the road surface is typical of Swedish conditions; i.e. mainly an SMA0/16 (ABS16). Reduction in maximum noise levels, car tyres: 2 dB Reduction in equivalent noise levels, Lden, car tyres: 1.0 dB Reduction in maximum noise levels, truck tyres: 2.5 dB Reduction in equivalent noise levels, Lden, truck tyres: 1.0 dB It may seem to some that these reductions are disappointingly low. However, greater reductions from the proposals are not realistic. One of the major reasons is that many of the present tyres (at least 50 %) already meet the new and tighter limits; thus not all tyres need to be exchanged. The reason why reductions are lower for Swedish road surfaces is that the road surface used in the testing is a much smoother one than the Road Administration would use presently, due to the wear of studded tyres. On our rougher surfaces the difference in noise levels of tyres will be lower than on the smoother ISO surface.

Note that the above noise reductions are valid for the case when most old tyres have been exchanged to the new ones, which will happen around 2020. In the meantime, the noise will be reduced gradually down to the new levels. In a long-term perspective, the Directive is proposed to include also measurements on a surface similar to the ones typical of Swedish road surfaces. When such a modification in the Directive is made, if ever, and the noise limits are adjusted accordingly, the Scenario 1b may shift to Scenario 1a. This would be a rather effective solution. Another possibility is that the Swedish road surfacing policy is changed in order than much smoother surfaces are used. This would require a substantial reduction in the use of studded tyres. Now, two new scenarios are outlined in which one is consistently using the best available tyres; i.e. these with the lowest noise emission: Scenario 2a: Using only the tyres with the lowest noise emission among the present ones (within 1 dB of the quietest tyre) and assuming that the road surface is an ISO 10844 surface or another surface for which tyres are ranked in a similar way. In the assumption it is included that retreaded tyres are treated in the same way (today, retreaded tyres are not subject to any noise limits). Reduction in maximum noise levels, car tyres: 5 dB Reduction in equivalent noise levels, Lden, car tyres: 2.5 dB Reduction in maximum noise levels, truck tyres: 7 dB Reduction in equivalent noise levels, Lden, truck tyres: 3.5 dB Scenario 2b: Same as 2a, but assuming that the road surface is typical of Swedish conditions; i.e. mainly an SMA0/16 (ABS16). Reduction in maximum noise levels, car tyres: 3 dB Reduction in equivalent noise levels, Lden, car tyres: 1.5 dB Reduction in maximum noise levels, truck tyres: 4 dB Reduction in equivalent noise levels, Lden, truck tyres: 2.0 dB It is assumed in all the calculations above that tyres which have been in use do not change significantly in their noise emission. This is in practice not true. However, we do not presently know if they are becoming quieter or noisier with time and if the ranking between them is unchanged with wear and ageing. Whatever, the case is, it is likely that the effects above will be lower rather than higher when considering tyres in various conditions. This has not been taken into account here. Note that the above estimations are far less optimistic than the unrealistic estimations in [Thorsson et al, 2006], where in its Table 9.1 it is estimated that tyre noise can be reduced by 5-7 dB by a tyre selection which is not even as tough as in the Scenario 2 above.

2.5 Possibility to reduce noise emission by improved tyre technology


The state-of-the-art report made by this author [Sandberg, 2006a] for the FEHRL study [FEHRL, 2006] contains a review of the potential for noise reduction by improved tyre constructions and by futuristic solutions. A somewhat later paper has extended this [Sandberg, 2006b]. The abstract from the latter paper is reproduced below: This paper describes some trends in tyre design and performance based on a tyre development by traditional means, as well as looking at some innovations which may provide breakthroughs that could have substantial effects on vehicle design. The author especially focus on the development driven by increasing demands on less environmental pollution, such as lower noise and lower rolling resistance. It is concluded that tyres featuring low noise and low rolling resistance will be required in the near future and that the interest in and need for improved characteristics in this respect will receive much more attention and priority in the tyres of the next 10 years than for present market tyres. There are indeed possibilities to reduce noise and rolling resistance further than today by traditional tyre design measures; in particular if the extreme high-speed demands (speeds in excess of 200 km/h) can be abandoned. It is further concluded that there are several possibilities for a breakthrough in tyre design for low noise and low rolling resistance within the next 10 years or so, provided sufficient resources are spent on developing the concepts presented. The same paper contains the following description of noise reduction possibilities by improving present tyre designs with known technology and materials: Using traditional technology, the author suggests the following options as a few examples for reduction of noise: Adapting winter tyres for all-year use: The principles used in construction of winter tyres may be partly adapted to summer tyres; in order that summer tyres may obtain some of the favourable noise characteristics of winter tyres; yet having handling and wet friction properties acceptable for summer use. This may include using smaller tread elements, more frequent siping and softer rubber compounds. Some compromises like these mentioned above are already seen in the all-weather designs being so popular in the USA. Can some winter tyres even be used the entire year? To answer this question, it is interesting that the author knows some tyre experts working for tyre companies who use "pure" winter tyres all the year. This is not to say that all or most winter tyres would be suitable also for summer use, but it suggests that at least some of them are so; probably with some sacrifices, for example wear.

Reducing the air/rubber ratio in the tread pattern: In the SILENCE project one of the possibilities being explored is the reduction of the air/rubber ratio in the tread pattern; for example by reducing the width of channels in the tread pattern. It has been found that a combination of softer rubber and lower air/rubber ratio may influence tyre/road noise emission on an ISO surface by about 6 dB(A). If, todays common ratio of 30 % is replaced with 20 % this would give a potential noise reduction of 3 dB(A). Work will continue; for example to see how a reduction from 30 to 20 % may be combined with acceptable hydroplaning characteristics (this may be difficult for high-performance cars). Using softer rubber compounds: Typically, winter tyres may have a Shore hardness of 55-60. It has been well demonstrated that softer rubber compounds result in lower noise emission, other things being equal. If tyres did not have to be produced for such high speed categories as today, softer compounds may be used. Softer tyre rubber compounds are already used in Japan and in USA, but in Europe they are considered less acceptable due to the high maximum speeds on certain motorways. If, for example, the greenhouse effect will force also Europe to introduce maximum speed limits on all motorways, the situation might approach that in Japan and USA. The options for lower rolling resistance: The examples above have potentially lower rolling resistance in common to the lower noise emission. However, the rubber compound is of extra importance here and additions such as silica mean progress to this performance parameter. The quiet tyre with no market: An example of a successful noise reduction design was presented in [Saemann et al, 2001]. Dr Saemann and his colleagues had produced, by means of traditional measures, a truck tyre that was equally quiet as a slick tyre. However, although the tyre had fully acceptable properties in other respects than noise, it was found that this tyre was not desired or needed by the vehicle industry, partly due to its visual appearance, partly due to that there was no need for any quieter tyre by the vehicle industry. This author thinks that such neglect of quiet designs will be impossible in the future. The possibility to construct quieter tyres will improve substantially if maximum speed limits are introduced on ALL European roads. If this is done, the quieter tyre designs already on the market in Japan can be used also in Europe. So far, vehicle manufacturers in Europe do not want to use the Japanese quieter tyres since it would mean a sacrifice of performance at ultrahigh speeds (say above 150 km/h). To introduce such a general European speed limit should be the first and very urgent ambition of Swedish politicians and road and traffic administrators working internationally. This author estimates the potential noise reduction of a general European speed limit, in terms of making it possible to optimize tyres in a more environmentally friendly way, at approximately 2 dB, as measured on an ISO surface. This would potentially have a similar effect on the entire tyre market; thus having an effect on Lden which is similar to that of Scenario 1. A general European speed limit would have the effect of seriously reducing the incentives of offering ultra-high performance cars (with high performance in commercial arguing is generally meant extreme power, extreme acceleration and high-speed road-holding). This is related to the fashion and visual appearance of tyres, since the industry and various journalists have cheated the public that high safety performance by tyres can be met only by wider tyres.

But there are also other tyre trends related to fashion and visual appearance, as reported in [Sandberg, 2006a], and which are generally in conflict with noise reduction efforts. If these trends can be broken and optimization of tyres can be made based on technical performance such as noise, rolling resistance, wear and safety (at speeds legal in Sweden) without limitations caused by visual appearance or fashion, the author estimates that there is an increased potential for tyre noise reduction by perhaps 1 dB, on top of the other possibilities mentioned above. It shall be noted that the effects of limited speeds and limited influence of fashion and appearance would only affect summer tyres. Winter tyres are already subject to lower speed ratings and are very little affected by fashion and appearance in comparison to their summer counterparts. As for futuristic designs, the author estimates the potential noise reductions as follows, compared to the average tyre today (see further [Sandberg, 2006b]): Tyre with porous tread: 3 dB on an ISO surface and similar smooth surfaces, and 5 dB on rougher surfaces such as the present dominating surface on Swedish roads. Such tyres could perhaps be on the market within 5-8 years. Tyre composite wheel or the Michelin TWEEL: 6 dB on an ISO surface and similar smooth surfaces, and 10 dB on rougher surfaces such as the present dominating surface on Swedish roads. Such tyres and wheels could perhaps be on the market earliest within 10-15 years.

2.6

Limit the use of studded tyres

In winter-time, road traffic noise levels in Sweden are increased due to the use of studs in winter tyres. For studded tyres, the only presently known way to reduce tyre/road noise is by limiting the number of such tyres (or the number of studs) used in traffic. Effects of studs are reported in [Gustafsson et al, 2006], where the following table appears. It is a further development from [Sandberg & Ejsmont, 2002]. Table 3: Increase in noise level for studded winter tyres compared to non-studded tyres. The latter includes both summer tyres and winter tyres which are not intended to be studded. The two columns at the right assume that studs in average condition are used. Increase in noise level for studded winter tyres compared to non-studded tyres Vehicle noise Average traffic noise Average traffic noise New studs 0-5 % heavy vehicles 6-25 % heavy vehicles ca 6 dB(A) 4 dB(A) 2 dB(A) ca 4 dB(A) 3 dB(A) 2 dB(A) ca 8 dB(A) 5 dB(A) 3 dB(A) ca 6 dB(A) 4 dB(A) 2 dB(A) ca 5 dB(A) 3 dB(A) 2 dB(A) ca 5 dB(A) 2 dB(A) 1-2 dB(A)

Speed range 30-40 km/h accel. 41-60 km/h accel. 30-40 km/h const. 41-60 km/h const. 61-80 km/h 81-130 km/h

Since studs in traffic are in new condition only for a short time, it is the two right columns that are of interest. These would be the effects if studs were forbidden to use in Sweden. If stud usage were reduced from the present 80 % (in middle Sweden) to (say) 20 %, it is the estimation of this author that the effect would be approximately a halving of the values in the two columns. This would be about 1-2.5 dB, depending on the heavy vehicle proportion, where for the most common heavy vehicle proportions, which is about 10-15 %, the effects would be at most 1-1.5 dB. Note that this is far lower effects than those assumed in [Thorsson et al, 2006] where effects of 3 dB are predicted for a stud usage change from 80 to 20 %. The table above assumes that there is no secondary effect if the number of studs on the roads is reduced; for example, increased use of salt will create more wet surface conditions, which will counteract the noise reduction of not using studs. Note that another effect of reduced studded tyre usage is that other road surface types than the presently most popular ones will become more interesting; see the road chapters in this report.

2.7

Conflicts with other parameters

The state-of-the-art report made by this author [Sandberg, 2006a] for the FEHRL study [FEHRL, 2006] also contains the most comprehensive review of possible conflicts that has ever been published. The rest of this section contains summaries with conclusions related to potential conflicts between various parameters from that report (first about technical parameters and then about fashion and visual appearance): The picture from this Chapter comes out quite clear and consistent: Although some design properties of tyres seem to be in conflict when designing for noise reduction by conventional pattern and rubber changes, no significant conflicts have been detected on market tyres in practice. None of the reviewed studies could detect a significant conflict between requirements for low noise and wet braking or aquaplaning performance. One of them, based on a very small sample seemed to indicate such a conflict but when studying the data from another perspective it turned out that the assumed conflict could be explained by a tyre width influence. None of the reviewed studies could detect a significant conflict between requirements for low noise and low rolling resistance. Several low noise tyres that also meet high standards in other respects than noise, such as safety and rolling resistance, are available. The key point according to the industry is advanced technology: advanced technology will provide better performance for multiple parameters simultaneously. It will widen the area of the polar diagram of Fig. 26, not just pull out one of the items.

It follows that the limits with regard to skid resistance and rolling resistance which are planned for introduction within the near future cannot be justified from the point of view of noise; i.e., there is no reason based on currently available data to expect that the noise limits will mean that tyres with inferior performance concerning safety and rolling resistance will

10

come into the market. Nevertheless, there might of course be other reasons for introducing such limits, but this is not a subject of this report. This author recalls a comment made by the Michelin representative at one of the ERGANoise meetings in the early 1990's when it was discussed whether noise limits would need to be accompanied by wet grip limits in order to avoid sacrifices of safety for low noise tyres. Mr Andr Schneider of Michelin said approximately "We would never supply to the market a tyre which would have poor wet grip performance since this parameter is so crucial to us". The implication was that tyres meeting a noise limit will not result in a sacrifice of wet grip and that wet grip limits are not really necessary. At least with respect to the possible sacrifice of wet grip, history has now shown that Mr Schneider's prediction was correct. Trade-off with fashion and styling? When studying tyre brochures and websites it is obvious that the visual appearance of tyres, especially the tread patterns, is an important design issue; i.e. fashion plays a significant role in tyre design. Just a couple of examples are given here to illustrate the problem. Fig. 44 shows a picture from Tire Technology International, according to which a tyre tread which looks like almost the worst one can imagine from an acoustical point of view has been designed based on resemblance with sport shoes. Another example, Fig. 45, is from the same page in Tire Technology International, showing a text describing how visual appearance has influence the tread design of a Japanese tyre. Similar things can be found among almost all tyre manufacturers. One conclusion from this would be that there should logically be a potential for better acoustical characteristics of tyres if visual appearance would not have an influence on tread pattern design. Furthermore, styling trends such as plus-sizing need to be counteracted. It would be better if technological performance rather than styling and fashion would lead the development.

2.8

Summary of tyre effects

The potential for noise reductions by measures related to tyres and Swedish conditions is summarized in Table 4 below. By Swedish conditions are meant road surfaces which are normally used in Sweden. When combining the mentioned measures (except using the quietest of today's tyres), it is estimated that tyre/road noise may be reduced by 4.0 dB(A) for cars and 3.0 for truck tyres expressed as equivalent levels. This will require a considerable pressure by legal actions; i.e. a European speed limit and tighter noise limits beyond the present proposals. In winter time approximately one third of these reductions are possible, unless one forbids the use of studs totally. Note that such reductions will be effective, as tyre/road noise reductions, in every location nationwide.

11

Table 4: Summary of the effect of tyre measures related to Swedish conditions Measure Tightening the tyre noise limits accord. to [FEHRL, 2006] Using only the quietest of todays tyres (Scenario 2) European general speed limit Fashion and visual appearance not allowed to affect tyre design Limit the use of studded tyres to 20 % in winter Forbid studded tyres Effect on maximum noise levels Car Truck tyres tyres 2.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 2 4 4.0 0 0 0 0 Effect on equivalent noise levels Car Truck tyres tyres 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.0-1.5 2.0-3.0 2.0 0 0 0 0 Not effective for winter tyres Not effective for winter tyres Only in winter time Only in winter time Notes

3. NOISE REDUCTION BY MEASURES RELATED TO ROAD SURFACES


3.1 Special characteristics of road surfaces in Sweden compared to other European countries

The climate in Sweden has led to the requirement of using special winter tyres under winter road conditions and the acceptance of the use of studs in our winter tyres. This has some implications for the road surfacing policy: In order to limit the wear of the studs on the road surfaces, the surfaces must be designed with a relatively large aggregate (chippings, stones). The maximum chipping size on high- and medium speed roads is therefore generally 16 mm, which is much higher than the 8 or 11 mm most frequently used in countries where studs are not used. Even when using 16 mm maximum chipping sizes, the wear of the studs is substantial and totally dominates the road wear by tyres as seen as an annual average. The wear is even worse when the surfaces are wet, as they are a significant part of the winter due to the use of salt and due to the condensation of humid air on the cold surfaces. This means that there is a lot of particle production along our roads, both from road material and tyre and stud material. In combination with the wetness, these particles easily get stuck in the pores of porous asphalt surfaces used for noise reduction purposes rather than being blown away as dust in a dry and sunny climate. So called clogging therefore occurs in Sweden as well as in Norway and Finland more rapidly than in countries with a warmer climate.

12

Both these effects contribute to the difficulties to reduce noise emission by road surface design in Sweden. Conditions are similar in Norway and Finland. In Denmark, conditions are much better, but it seems that Denmark has more problems with clogging than for example the Netherlands. This might be due to the more northern location with less sunshine in winter time and more need for deicing by salt than southern or middle European countries, which might tend to collect more dirt particles in the porosities of road surfaces. Recently, in Norway, limitations in the use of studs has reduced the importance of the above mentioned problems, but it is yet too early to see significant and clear effects of this. Sweden also has some advantages in road surface construction, namely plenty of high-quality aggregate; i.e. chippings with high resistance against the wear of the studs and with good microtexture; the latter very important for friction and thus safety. Even in comparison to our neighbour Norway, this is a clear advantage for Swedish road construction. However, this is not to say that it is an advantage for noise reduction, it could rather be the contrary. Another small advantage might be that the colder climate can tolerate a softer binder than warmer climates. In warmer climate a soft binder might cause a "melting" of the surface in sunny and hot weather which would not likely occur in Sweden. Recent measurements by VTI and TUG have indicated that a softer binder is acoustically favourable. Despite the high-quality aggregates we have in Sweden, and despite the use of larger chippings, the road wear in Sweden is higher than in more southern locations (for the same amount of traffic). Therefore, it is common that a typical lifetime of a road surface may be 610 years in Sweden, whereas it might be 12-20 years in a middle-European country. This is of course a heavy economic burden, but it has the secondary advantage that the exchange of surfaces when the policy is changed might occur more rapidly than in more southern European countries. Road wear causes ruts, and ruts mean that tyres running in them, or on the edges of the ruts, are subject to side forces to a larger extent than on surfaces with less ruts. We know that increased side forces increases noise emission [Sandberg & Ejsmont, 2002]. It follows that Sweden might have a penalty in tyre/road noise emission which may amount to perhaps 1 dB due to the increased rutting following the increased studded tyre wear.

3.2

Are Swedish road surfaces the worst in Europe from an acoustical standpoint?

When comparing tyre/road noise measurements in various countries; especially with the CPX method, it has been noticed that Swedish road surfaces generally give a higher traffic noise emission than surfaces dominating in more southern countries. Fig. 1 illustrates this. Note that the highest bar in the left half of the diagram is the most common Swedish road surface. It is only exceeded by paving stone surfaces, cement block surfaces and a special cement concrete surface.

13

3.3

Surfaces with low noise characteristics and their usefulness in Sweden

3.4

Potential traffic noise reduction in Sweden of existing road surfaces

3.5

The potential for improvements with present knowledge and technology

Fig. 1: Comparison of A-weighted sound levels (CPXI) measured by TUG with the CPX method on different surfaces. Test tyres in accordance with ISO/CD11819-2. In addition, the Mean Profile Depth (MPD) of the macrotexture of each surface is indicated by red diamonds connected with red lines. Each bar is filled with a photo of the surface. When developing the new Nordic noise prediction model Nord2000, it was noticed that Denmark had significantly quieter surfaces than Sweden and Finland and that Norway was somewhere in-between. It has also been measured that Norwegian road surfaces are substantially "noisier" than similar surface types in the Netherlands and the U.K. [Berge, 2007]. One DAC 0/16 (ABT16) which was measured with the CPX method at 80 km/h under the same conditions with the same tyre gave a noise level which was 4 dB(A) higher in Norway than in the Netherlands. Furthermore, an SMA 0/14 (ABS14) gave a noise level which was 3 dB(A) higher in Norway than in the U.K. Measurements by SINTEF in Norway on Swedish and Norwegian roads [Berge, 2006] have indicated a noise penalty of Swedish roads compared to similar Norwegian ones of 1-2 dB, see Fig. 2. It is concluded that Sweden indeed seems to have the noisiest surfaces in Europe.

14

Fig. 2: Comparison of A-weighted sound levels (CPX method for one ref tyre) measured by SINTEF in Sweden and Norway on comparable surfaces. From [Berge, 2006].

15

3.3

Existing surfaces worldwide with low noise characteristics

The following surface types, among the presently available ones in Europe, are useful for reduction of traffic noise (in order from moderate to the best): Diamond grinding: For existing cement concrete surfaces, be they transversely tined or very smooth-textured, diamond grinding which creates narrow longitudinal grooves is a useful measure. Durability is fine, except if studs are used on tyres in wintertime. Potential noise reduction: 1-2 dB in relation to a dense asphalt concrete with max. 11 mm chippings, 3-5 dB in relation to a tined cement concrete. Exposed aggregate: An alternative solution, for a new cement concrete, is to use the exposed aggregate technique, provided a maximum aggregate size of 8 mm is used. Swedish experience with this (e.g. wet friction, durability and noise) is very positive. On roads for medium and low speeds, this author would recommend even 5 or 6 mm, although it may not have been tried so far. Potential noise reduction: 1-2 dB in relation to a dense asphalt concrete, 3-5 dB in relation to a tined cement concrete. Small-aggregate surface dressings: An alternative measure at medium and low speeds, either on a smooth cement concrete or a smooth asphalt surface, is to lay a surface dressing (chip seal) which has very small chippings (preferably in the range 1-5 mm). There are several proprietary methods of this type, such as Shellgrip, Epoxygrip and Italgrip [HITEC, 2004], many of which have the major object of increasing friction. For example, the Wisconsin DoT recently presented excellent improvements in accident rates in a trial with Italgrip. If, and only if, such surfaces are laid on a very smooth base without becoming depressed, they may almost compete with porous surfaces in terms of noise reduction. Potential noise reduction: 1-5 dB in relation to a dense asphalt concrete. Thin surfacings: There is now a multitude of thin surfacings offered on the market; many of which have good acoustic characteristics. In the EU project SILVIA, such surfaces appeared to reduce noise by 3-6 dB in new or fairly new condition in comparison to dense asphalt concrete with medium aggregate size [SILVIA, 2005]. Improved concepts were recently proposed by a Danish road contractor and this is just one of many examples. Part of these favourable values is due to a moderate porosity in new condition, part is due to macrotexture being optimized for low noise. What the performance is when they become older is not yet sufficiently tested, but this author thinks that they will gradually become noisier with time, almost like porous surfaces. Thin surfacings are most useful on low- or medium-speed roads and streets, but some of them may also be used on motorways. More recent results suggest lower noise reductions than the optimistic values first reported [Bendtsen, 2006]. Potential noise reduction: 2-4 dB in relation to a dense asphalt concrete. Asphalt rubber: In Arizona, and also in California, Texas and some other North American states (but also in Portugal), adding a large proportion of rubber particles obtained from recycled tyre rubber to the binder and applying a very high content of binder to a dense asphalt mix has given excellent noise, friction and durability properties. Potential noise reduction: A qualified guess is that the addition of rubber gives 1-2 dB extra noise reduction in relation to a dense or porous asphalt concrete without the rubber.

16

Single-layer porous surfaces: This is the traditional low noise surface, being tested since the late 1970s. Noise reduction in new condition is excellent provided the air voids exceed about 20 % and thickness exceeds about 40 mm. However, the problem is the reduced efficiency due to clogging. The pores are self-cleaned in the wheel tracks for high-speed traffic in wet conditions. Potential noise reduction: 1-7 dB in relation to a dense asphalt concrete, diminishing by about 1 dB per year; but faster on low-speed roads. Most countries use a small aggregate (max 5 or 8 mm), while recently completed Danish and ongoing Swedish tests indicate that using larger aggregates will give better durability and over a life-cycle seems to out-perform the smaller aggregates. Some road authorities consider this surface type as approximately 50 % more expensive as conventional dense asphalt surfaces over a life-cycle. In Japan and the Netherlands, for example, this surface type is very widely applied. Double-layer porous surfaces: By putting a second porous layer with smaller chippings on top of a first porous layer with large chippings the acoustic efficiency is increased further. These surfaces are currently under trials in several countries; most of all in the Netherlands [Goubert et al, 2005]. For example, an ongoing motorway trial in Sweden has indicated excellent performance during the first three years of operation, which is remarkable in the Swedish climate. Yet, the maximum chipping size in the Swedish top layer is 11 mm; whereas many countries make attempts with much smaller chippings, such as maximum 4 mm. Potential noise reduction: 3-8 dB in relation to a dense asphalt concrete, diminishing by about 1 dB per year; but faster on low-speed roads.

3.4

Potential traffic noise reduction in Sweden of existing road surfaces

In a report under production for the Swedish Road Administration, a comprehensive table proposing correction factors for Swedish road surfaces in the traffic noise prediction model has been produced [Sandberg, 2007]. A corresponding presentation of the most important surfaces with focus on application in Sweden follows in Table 5 below. The values are estimations by this author. Note that the asphalt rubber surfaces are not yet tested in Sweden. The same applies to the thin surfacings with 6 mm max chipping size and the surface dressing bound with epoxy. Mostly, thin surfacings in Sweden have had max 11 mm chippings. The surface dressing would have high durability despite its small chippings due to the very strong binder. But in Sweden it is "politically incorrect" to use epoxy. When it comes to choosing the most efficient surface one must consider the traffic conditions, such as average speed, mix of light and heavy vehicles, traffic volume (AADT), etc. The expected lifetime in the table refers to a heavy trafficked highway or street; similar to the traffic on E4 Stockholm-Sdertlje at Botkyrka and with a level road without sharp curves. This would be rather typical of a serious traffic noise exposed case. Cost level refers to the initial laying cost, whereas the total lifecycle cost also must consider the lifetime. It would be desirable to develop the table into a more quantified version.

17

Table 5: The author's estimation of the noise reduction of the most promising existing road surfaces in Swedish conditions (area covering the part of Sweden including cities such as Gteborg - Stockholm - Sundsvall). Surface SMA 0/16 SMA 0/11 SMA 0/8 DAC 0/11 DAC 0/8 Thin surfacings 0/6 Surface dressing 4/6 Epoxy binder Asphalt rubber 0/11 dense Asphalt rubber 0/11 porous (20 %) Porous asphalt 16mm 25 %, single layer Porous asphalt 11mm 25 %, single layer Porous asphalt 8mm 25 %, single layer Porous asphalt 11mm 25 %, double layer Porous asphalt 8mm 25 %, double layer Projected lifetime 8 years 6 years 4 years 5 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 8 years 6 years 5 years 4 years 3 years 4 years 3 years Noise Average noise reduction reduction over when new a lifecycle Ref Ref 1 dB 2 dB 1.5 dB 2.5 dB 4 dB 5 dB 3 dB 7 dB 5 dB 6 dB 7 dB 7 dB 8 dB 1 dB 2 dB 1.5 dB 2.5 dB 3 dB 4 dB 3 dB 5 dB 3 dB 4 dB 5 dB 5 dB 6 dB Cost level Ref Same as ref Same as ref Same as ref Same as ref Low High Medium High High High High Very high Very high For urban use For urban use For urban use For urban use For urban use Notes Most common Swedish surface

A road administrator would probably react spontaneously to the table that it would be totally unrealistic to use a surface which would have only 30-50 % of the lifetime of an SMA 0/16. However, when considering the economic evaluation of the reduced noise exposure, it may well come out that the surface with the short lifetime might be justified. This is something to consider more closely by means if the new evaluation tool that is being developed by the Road Administration [Westergren & Elsander, 2007]. The table further assumes a condition where studded tyres are used approximately as currently (about 80 % in winter time), and in a region in Sweden not including northern or inland Norrland and neither Skne. For Skne, the expected lifetimes would be longer and noise reduction over the lifetime somewhat higher than in the table. The note "for urban use" means that the surface is suitable at speeds of 50-70 km/h, but would not be durable for higher speeds.
18

The author thinks that the thin surfacings and the asphalt rubber hold a high benefit/cost potential. It may be concluded that substantial noise reductions are indeed possible, but it will require much higher costs than today. It may well mean 4 times as high annual costs for the most advanced cases compared to the reference. These costs shall be compared to the economic evaluation of the noise reductions.

3.5

The potential for improvements with better knowledge but essentially present technology, or due to different policy

If the proportion of studded tyres can be brought down to (say) 20-25 %, the use of most of the low noise surfaces in Table 5 would be more economical, due to lower wear and slower clogging [Gustafsson et al, 2006]. A total elimination of studded tyres would be even better for this reason, but is probably politically impossible. The disadvantage would be a poorer traffic safety, mainly due to more polished and slippery surfaces. It is likely that further R&D will make it possible to extend the lifetime of the low noise surfaces, to make them less sensitive to clogging, and that softer binders may reduce noise. The porous surfaces will be possible to produce with a higher void content but with maintained durability. The development will probably be made in small steps. The author estimates that the development will be utilized more to extend the lifetime than to increase noise reduction. It is the author's estimation that such development within the next 10 years may cut the gap in lifetime between the low noise surfaces and the reference (SMA 0/16) to approximately half of that listed in Table 5.

3.6

The potential for improvements with futuristic designs

Futuristic designs potentially useful in about 6-12 years time include poroelastic surfaces (rubber content 75-90 % of the total mix) [Sandberg & Kalman, 2005] or asphalt rubber surfaces with a much higher rubber content (10-25 % of the total mix) but not really poroelastic. The potential noise reduction with the former category is approx. 12 dB and with the latter about 8 dB, in new condition; and about 2 dB less in lifecycle average. It is not yet known if the durability may meet sufficient requirements.

19

4. TYRE/ROAD NOISE REDUCTION BY MEASURES ON VEHICLES


Tyre/road noise can be affected not only by measures on the tyres, but also by measures on vehicles. For example, this may include: Make the vehicles lighter, in order that smaller tyres may be used (this does not apply to trucks). In particular, eliminate the use of SUV:s for purposes which are not technically or economically justified. The potential effect of this is estimated at approx. 1.0 dB(A). Automatic transmissions may be optimized for low-noise operation. The potential effect of this is estimated at 0 - 1.0 dB(A). Wheel alignment can be better controlled; for example checked at the annual vehicle tests. The potential effect of this is estimated at 0 - 1.0 dB(A). Wheel housing absorbers and covers on the rims might reduce noise by up to 5 dB(A) according to Section 24.1.2 in [Sandberg & Ejsmont, 2002]. One should not expect that the absorbers will retain their efficiency for a long time, however, due to problems with dirt accumulation.
Finally, screening may be made by fitting an enclosure/skirt around the major parts of the wheel. The

potential effect of this is estimated at 0 - 4 dB(A).

5. NOISE REDUCTION BY COMBINED TYRE/ROAD MEASURES


The potential for noise reduction in dB values is nominally higher for measures related to the road surfaces than to measures related to the tyres. However, when assessing the measures on tyres compared to road surfaces, one must consider the different "coverage" of the two types of measures. While tyre improvements can benefit the entire country, change to a more expensive low noise surface will benefit only the noise exposed people living along that particular road or street. It will mean that a measure with a higher noise reduction in dB but with benefit to a relatively small number of people might be less justified than a measure with a lower noise reduction but benefiting to all people in the community. In practice, in order to achieve sufficient noise reduction in the society one must apply all available measures, not just tyre or road measures, but both. If the Swedish road surfacing policy is changed in order that much smoother surfaces are used, (which would require a substantial reduction in the use of studded tyres), the efficiency of the tyre noise limits will be much better. This subject must be further dealt with in a later version of this report.

20

6.

THE SWEDISH ACTION PLAN AGAINST NOISE 1993

In 1993, an action plan against noise was published [SoU 1993:65]. Most parts in SoU 1993:65 were written by Prof Tor Kihlman, but this author wrote an appendix on measures against tyre/road noise [Sandberg, 1993a]. As part of this Swedish general noise action plan, this author proposed a comprehensive action plan against tyre/road noise. A conference paper based on the action plan was also produced [Sandberg, 1993b]. A couple of tables from the latter are reproduced below, mainly for historical reasons. The aim was to obtain a 15 dB(A) reduction in overall road traffic noise (at certain locations) by applying all known measures. The target year was 2015, i.e. 22 years after the paper was published. In order to reach the overall goal in 2015 and the "sub-goals" of Table 6 an international action plan should have been established and enforced. Such an action plan was suggested and is reproduced here in Table 7. Note that the "Vehicle" part does not deal with vehicle noise reductions; rather it deals with measures on vehicles which would affect tyre/road noise. Table 6: Example of how a long-term goal of 11-15 dB(A) of reduction of tyre/road noise can be reached by breaking it into "sub-goals" and balancing various noise reduction measures (the author's view). Reproduced from [Sandberg, 1993b].
Tyre changes: Selection among different types/makes Reduced width Softer material (rubber or synthetic rubber) Improved carcass (from the noise point of view) Different tread pattern Total, tyres Road surface changes: (Note: Most of them are not additive) Selection among different types (excl. porous surfaces) Use of porous asphalt or concrete, (new condition) As above, but average value over the entire life cycle Optimisation of surface texture Improved maintenance for roads with serious noise disturbances Total, road: General (average) - " : Local measures Vehicle changes: Lighter vehicles (excl. trucks) Noise optimised automatic transmission Control of wheel alignment Screening of wheels by enclosure/skirt Technical limitation of speed. See Driving changes below. Total, vehicles (average vehicle) Driving changes: Lower speed (local measure) Total, drivers (local measures) GRAND TOTAL: GRAND TOTAL: General General and local measures

2 1-2 0-2 0-2 1 7 dB(A) 1-2 (4-8) 2-4 0-2 0-1 2 dB(A) 4 dB(A) 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-4 2 2 2 dB(A)

dB(A)

11 dB(A) 15 dB(A)

21

Table 7: Suggested "International Tyre/Road Noise Action Plan" for achieving the goal of 15 dB(A) tyre/road noise reduction by the year 2015. Reproduced from [Sandberg, 1993b].
Tyres: Noise reduction goal/action plan discussed in ERGA-Noise III and ECE/WP29/GRB ISO/TC31/WG3 presents an ISO Committee Draft for a meas. method for tyre noise Work in progress to determine suitable noise emission limiting values for noise from tyres, based on the measuring method proposed by ISO ISO/TC31 and ISO/TC43 decide on a measuring method (as of above), ISO/DIS ERGA-Noise III and ECE/WP29/GRB accepts the ISO draft in principle and starts to discuss noise levels for the first emission limits The measuring method is printed by ISO Emission limits for tyres (type testing) are decided. Enforced from 1997-01-01 First Tyre Noise Directive (EC) or Regulation (ECE) are implemented. Limit = X dB Max. speed limit in Europe is agreed to be 130 km/h. This will change the optimisation of vehicles/tyres and make possible tyres which are quieter (less wide, softer) First revision of the method proposed by ISO (as of above) is made. The improved method comes into force. E.g. it implies a better reference surface. Second step in emission limit comes into force. Limiting level = X - 2 dB Third step in emission limit comes into force. Limiting level = X - 4 dB Forth step in emission limit comes into force. Limiting level = X - 6 dB Fifth step in emission limit comes into force. Limiting level = X - 8 dB Sixth and last (?) step in emission limit comes into force. Limiting level = X - 10 dB Road surfaces: Work is progressing to prolong the acoustical lifetime of porous surfaces and implement, on trafficked roads, surfaces which utilise noise optimised textures ISO/TC43/SC1/WG33 presents a Committee Draft re. a meas. method for road surf. Criteria for noise classes of road surfaces are decided on (in ISO or CEN/TC227?). Includes definition of "low noise road surfaces" ISO/TC43/SC1/WG38 presents a CD re. a meas. method for sound absorption of roads The measuring method for classification of road surfaces re. noise emission is printed by ISO. From now on, it is possible to compare "noisiness" of road surfaces National road & environment authorities decide on how, where and when to use low noise surfaces. This is the first possibility to introduce some regulation or practice Requirements re. the use of low noise surfacings are introduced or tightened Requirements are tightened further Vehicles: Authorities encourage (much more than now) the use of the lightest possible vehicles (except trucks) and noise optimised automatic transmission. (This may be more directed towards owners/drivers than towards the industry) Wheel alignment is checked, as part of periodical vehicle inspection By some means, screening of tyres by partial enclosures or skirts is encouraged on certain vehicles (does e.g. not refer to trucks in connection with construction work) Drivers: Systems (operated by remote sensing) maximising speed (and engine rpm ?) on stretches of roads where noise is a serious problem are required on new vehicles, enabling effective speed restrictions

1993-95 1994 1994-95 1995 1995 1995-96 1996 1997 1997 1997-98 2000 2000 2003 2007 2011 2015 1993-99 1994 1995 1995 1995-96 1996 2000 2005 1995 1997 2000 2000

Part of this action plan has been carried out; for example many of the ISO methods and actions are completed. For most other things, a full decade or more has been lost due to lack of activity. Note that the tyre noise reductions by tyres in Table 6 in 1993 was estimated at 7 dB(A), which is much more than the estimated reduction in 2007 in Table 4. The major part of this discrepancy is due to that in 1993 it was not known that a noise reduction achieved on an ISO surface will correspond to a much lower noise reduction on typical Swedish surfaces.
22

7.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential for tyre/road noise reductions by measures related to tyres and Swedish conditions, as summarized in Table 4, is estimated to be a reduction in equivalent levels of around 1.0 dB(A), both for car and truck tyres if the new limits in the Directive 2001/43/EC suggested by FEHRL (the second step) are applied. This of course does not happen immediately, but first after the old tyres have been replaced with the new ones. Maximum tyre/road noise levels will be reduced approximately twice as much. By using only the quietest tyres of today, the tyre/road noise equivalent levels are estimated to be reduced by 1.5 dB(A) for cars and 2.0 dB(A) for truck tyres; again twice as much if maximum levels are considered instead. The introduction of a maximum speed limit valid for any European road and an associated maximum speed limiter in cars at (say) 170 km/h is estimated to reduce both maximum and equivalent levels for car tyre/road noise by an extra 2.0 dB(A); provided that there is pressure by legal measures to reduce the limiting values accordingly. If one could find a way preventing fashion and appearance to affect tyre design, a reduction of another 1 dB(A) would be possible to obtain (for car tyres). For winter tyres (non-studded) the reductions are much more limited since fashion and appearance do not play such a significant role and winter tyres are already subject to lower speed ratings. Therefore, only the tightenings as suggested by FEHRL would be effective; i.e. 1.0 dB(A) for car and for truck tyres. For studded tyres, the only presently known way to reduce tyre/road noise is by limiting the number of such tyres (or the number of studs) used in traffic. A limitation to 20 % of studded tyre use in winter is estimated to reduce noise by 1-1.5 dB(A). The limits for tyres are based on the ISO 10844 surface. If the limits could be based also on a surface typical of Sweden, for example an SMA 0/14 or an SMA 0/11, the above mentioned noise reductions may be substantially more effective. When combining the mentioned measures (except using the quietest of today's tyres), it is estimated that tyre/road noise may be reduced by 4.0 dB(A) for cars and 3.0 for truck tyres expressed as equivalent levels. This will require a considerable pressure by legal actions; i.e. a European speed limit and tighter noise limits beyond the present proposals. In winter time approximately one third of these reductions are possible, unless one forbids the use of studs totally. Note that such reductions will be effective, as tyre/road noise reductions, in every location nationwide. Stringent measures on vehicles which influence tyre/road noise, such as reducing the weight of vehicles and fitting screens or enclosures at or around the tyres of some vehicles, may contribute by perhaps an average of 2 dB(A). With regard to measures on the road surfaces; note that the estimated effects refer only to the surroundings of the particular road or street where the surface change is made. The effects are listed only for tyre/road noise and concern average lifetime reductions. When considering also

23

power unit noise of vehicles, the effects diminish; at least for medium and low s-peed roads and streets. Under these conditions, it is concluded that a change in road surface may lead to the following noise reductions: A change in use from the normally used SMA 0/16 (ABS16) to an SMA 0/11 (ABS11) may reduce tyre/road noise by approximately 1 dB(A). A change to SMA 0/8 (ABS8) will give another dB(A) of noise reduction. A change to DAC 0/11 or DAC 0/8 (ABT11 or ABT8) will give slightly better noise reductions. The cost will be a reduction in lifetime by 2-5 years in typical situations. A change to special thin surfacings (tunnskiktsbelggning) optimized for noise reduction may give up to 3 dB(A) of noise reduction. Using porous asphalt of the types currently under testing is estimated to give a noise reduction of 3-5 dB(A); however, at a substantially higher cost for the surface and a reduced lifetime. The lifetime reduction for the surfaces giving the highest noise reduction may amount to a halving compared to an SMA 0/16. It is also speculated that the addition of rubber in both dense and porous surfaces may add 1-2 dB(A) of extra noise reduction. Furthermore, it shall be noted that if the use of studded tyres can be limited, the change to surfaces with smaller maximum aggregate size can be made with much smaller losses in lifetime. If Sweden can forbid the use of studded tyres on the major road network, the road surface policy may change so radically that we can apply the same policy as in Denmark and Austria (to name just a few countries), implying that the noisy SMA 0/16 and even SMA 0/11 may be abandoned, and in noise-sensitive areas, one can consistently use a maximum aggregate size of 8 mm or less. It appears that the highest reductions may be obtained by road surface measures. These are unique to Sweden, since the normally used surfaces are possible the noisiest in Europe. However, the effects are valid only locally around roads or streets where the surfaces are exchanged; whereas the measures related to tyres and vehicles are effective anywhere. It is suggested to work out an updated action plan against tyre/road noise, corresponding to the action plan presented in 1993 and to try implementing it internationally.

8.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is acknowledged that this work has been made within the author's project as an adjunct professor at Chalmers, sponsored by the Swedish Road Administration.

24

9.

REFERENCES

Bendtsen, Hans (2006): Noise-reducing thin layers for highways. Proc of Inter-Noise 2006, Honolulu, USA, 2006. Berge, Truls (2006): Forelpige resultater fra CPX-mlinger p svenske vegdekker, oktober 2005. SINTEF Notat 90-NO05183, SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway. Berge, Truls (2007): Table and bar diagram received by personal communication with Mr Truls Berge, SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway. FEHRL (2006): Tyre/Road Noise Volume 1 Final Report. Final Report SI2.408210, FEHRL, Brussels. Downloadable from: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/projects/report_tyre_road_noise1.pdf Goubert, Luc; Hooghwerff, Jan; The, Peter; Hofman, Rob (2005): "Two-layer porous asphalt: an international survey in the frame of the Noise Innovation Programme (IPG)". Proc. of Inter-Noise 2005, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Gustafsson, Mats, et al (+ 14 co-authors) (2006): "Effekter av vinterdck - En kunskapsversikt". VTI report 543, Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), Linkping, Sweden. HITEC (2004): "Evaluation of the Italgrip Overlay System Interim Report". CERF Report June 2004, the Highway Innovative Technology Center (HITEC), part of the Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF), USA. IPG (2005): "IPG-lijst Stille Personenwagenbanden" and "IPG-lijst Stille Bestel- en vrachtwagenwagenbanden". Two pdf files for download on the Dutch IPG website http://www.innovatieprogrammageluid.nl/navigatie.html Saemann, E.-U.; Liederer, W.; Schmidt, H.; Fornefeld, W. (2001): Tire/road noise causes, influences, potential for improvements and target conflicts. Presentation by Continental Tyres in Hanover, Germany, at Workshop "Further Noise Reduction for Motorised Road Vehicles", organized by Umweltbundesamt, 17-18 September 2001 in Berlin, Germany. Sandberg, Ulf (1993a): "tgrder mot dck/vgbanebuller (Measures Against Tyre/Road Noise)". Report for the Governmental Investigation "Handlingsplan mot buller" (Action Plan Against Noise), Edited by Prof Tor Kihlman, SoU 1993:65 Bilagedel, Milj- och naturresursdepartementet, Stockholm (in Swedish). Sandberg, Ulf (1993b): Action Plan against Exterior Tyre/Road Noise". Proc. of Inter-Noise 93, Leuven, Brussels. Sandberg, Ulf (2006a): Tyre/Road Noise Volume 2 Appendices Appendix A: Literature Survey. Final Report SI2.408210, FEHRL, Brussels. Downloadable from: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/projects/report_tyre_road_noise2.pdf

25

Sandberg, Ulf (2006b): Development and innovations regarding future tyres -- Challenges for the automotive industry. Proc. of ICAT 2006, International Conference on Automotive Technologies, Istanbul, Turkey, November 17, 2006. Sandberg, Ulf (2007): Vgytans inverkan p trafikbulleremission och rullmotstnd. Report under production, will probably become VTI Notat, Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), Linkping, Sweden. Sandberg, Ulf; Ejsmont, Jerzy A. (2002): "Tyre/Road Noise Reference Book". Informex, SE-59040 Kisa, Sweden (www.informex.info). Sandberg, Ulf; Kalman, Bjorn (2005): "The Poroelastic Road Surface Results of an Experiment in Stockholm". Proc. of Forum Acusticum 2005, Budapest, Hungary, August 2005 (www.fa2005.org). SILVIA (2005): The website of the SILVIA project is http://www.trl.co.uk/silvia/ Thorsson, Pontus; Kgeson, Per; Hallberg, Johanna (2006): "Tystare parker och friluftsomrden - Om methoder att dmpa vgtrafikbuller vid kllan". Report published by Grna Bilister, Vgverket, Miljfrvaltningen i Stockholm, Miljfrvaltningen i Gteborg. Westergren, Pereric; Elsander, Jesper (2007): Presentation at Transportforum 2007, Linkping, Sweden (will be available on the VTI website).

26

You might also like