4.5 Article

Evaluation of road traffic noise abatement by vegetation treatment in a 1:10 urban scale model

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 138, 期 6, 页码 3884-3895

出版社

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.4937769

关键词

-

资金

  1. International Research & Development Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  2. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) of Korea [2011-0001776]
  3. European Community [234306]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2011-0001776] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A 1: 10 scale of a street canyon and courtyard was constructed to evaluate sound propagation when various vegetation treatments including trees, shrubs, vegetated facades, and green roofs were installed in the urban environment. Noise reductions in the street canyon and courtyard were measured for both single and combined vegetation treatments. Vegetated facades mitigated the overall noise level up to 1.6 dBA in the street canyon, and greening facades were effective to reduce low frequency noise levels below 1 kHz. Trees increased the noise level at high frequency bands to some extent in the street canyon, while the noise level over 1 kHz decreased in the courtyard after installing the street trees. This is because tree crowns diffused and reflected high frequency sounds into the street canyon. Green roofs offered significant noise abatement over 1 kHz in the courtyard, while the vegetated facade was effective to reduce noise levels at low frequencies. In terms of the integrated effects of vegetation treatments, a combined vegetation treatment was less effective than the sum of single treatments in the street canyon. The maximum noise reduction observed for all combinations of vegetation treatments provided 3.4 dBA of insertion loss in the courtyard. (C) 2015 Acoustical Society of America.

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

4.5
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