road surface texture - nordfou surface... · because they are the sections applied for field...

ROAD SURFACE TEXTURE - LOW NOISE AND LOW ROLLING RESISTANCECPX TRAILER COMPARISON - COPENHAGEN 2009

DANISH ROAD INSTITUTEREPORT 188 - 2010

AUTHORS:

Jørgen Kragh, Bent Andersen, Jens Oddershede

DATED:

December 2010

LAYOUT:

Svenning Olm

PHOTO:

Jørgen Kragh

ISBN ELECTRONIC:

978-87-92094-71-1

COPYRIGHT:

Road Directorate, 2010

PUBLISHED:

Road Directorate, Danish Road Institute

ROAD SURFACE TEXTURE - LOW NOISE AND LOW ROLLING RESISTANCECPX trailer comparison - Copenhagen 2009Report 188 - 2010

3

CONTENTS

PREFACE 4

FORORD 5

SUMMARY 6

RESUMÉ 7

1. BACKGROUND AND AIM 8

2. SELECTED SECTIONS OF ROAD 9

3. MEASUREMENT METHOD 10

4. TRAILERS AND TEST TYRES 11

5. RESULTS 12

5.1 Comparison of SRTTs 12

5.2 Comparison of trailers 15

5.2.1 SRTT results with three trailers 15 5.2.2 Avon AV4 results with three trailers 18

6. TYRE HARDNESS MEASUREMENT 22

7. DISCUSSION 24

7.1 Comparison of SRTTs 24

7.2 Comparison of trailers 24

8. CONCLUSIONS 28

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 29

10. REFERENCES 30

APPENDIX A 32

APPENDIX B 34

APPENDIX C 44

4

PREFACE

The present report documents results of a series of noise measurements made on test sections of roads in Copenhagen in September 2009 with three CPX trailers operated by measuring teams from the Danish Road Institute (DRI), SINTEF ICT Acoustics (STF) and the Technical University of Gdansk (TUG). The measurements were carried out as part of the NordFoU project “Road surface texture for low noise and low rolling resistance” scheduled for 2009 – 2012. The project steering group consists of

Jostein Aksnes, Norwegian Public Road Administration Jakob Fryd, Danish Road Directorate Pereric Westergren, Swedish Transport Administration

The teams carrying out the measurements and analyses were

DRI Bent Andersen, Jens Oddershede STF Truls Berge, Odd Durban Hansen TUG Jerzy Ejsmont, Piotr Mioduszewski, Grzegorz Ronowski

The present report was written by Jørgen Kragh, Danish Road Director-ate/Road Institute. Quality control was performed by Bent Andersen and Jens Oddershede, DRI.

5

FORORD

Rapporten dokumenterer resultater af CPX-støjmålinger udført i september 2009 på teststrækninger på veje i og omkring København med tre forskellige trailere. Målingerne blev udført af Vejdirektoratet/Vejteknisk Institut (DRI), SINTEF IKT Akustik (STF) og Det tekniske Universitet i Gdansk (TUG). Målingerne er et led i NordFoU projektet ”Overfladetekstur af vejbelægninger med lavt støjniveau og lav rullemodstand”, som efter planen skal gennemfø-res i tidsrummet 2009 – 2012. Projektets styregruppe består af

Jostein Aksnes (formand), Statens Vegvesen Jakob Fryd, Vejdirektoratet Pereric Westergren, Trafikverket

Dataindsamlingen og analysen af de indsamlede data blev udført af

DRI Bent Andersen, Jens Oddershede STF Truls Berge, Odd Durban Hansen TUG Jerzy Ejsmont, Piotr Mioduszewski, Grzegorz Ronowski

6

SUMMARY

A series of measurements was carried out as part of a Nordic project aiming at road surface texture yielding low levels of traffic noise and low tyre rolling resistance. Three CPX-trailers operated by measuring teams from DRI, SINTEF and TUG measured the noise levels from selected reference tyres rolling on seven test sections of motorway M10 South of Copenhagen and on seven test sections of urban streets in Copenhagen. Additionally, TUG measured the noise levels from each of four individual Standard Reference Test Tyres (SRTTs) belonging to DRI, STF and TUG, re-spectively, by running these tyres repeatedly on each of the seven test sec-tions of motorway M10. The overall conclusion is that the three trailers gave essentially the same measurement results when using similar tyres. On roads with different wear in the wheel tracks and between the wheel tracks, respectively, the lateral position of the tyres is important. The TUG trailer yielded 1 dB lower noise levels from the SRTT on M10 than the DRI trailer. The authors believe that the reason for this is a combination of the in-dividual TUG SRT tyre being less noisy than the DRI tyre even if their tread rubber was equally hard, and that the TUG tyre rolled slightly nearer to the less worn lane centre than the DRI tyre mounted on the DRI trailer. The STF SRTTs yielded slightly higher noise levels than the DRI SRTTs, probably be-cause their tread was 3 Shore A units harder than the DRI tyre tread. The Avon AV4 tyres showed differences between individual tyres, even though their rubber hardness was similar and they were equally old. Meas-ures to avoid significant differences between individual tyres would be useful in CPX measurements.

7

RESUMÉ

Dette nordiske projekt har som mål at finde frem til vejbelægninger, som giver lave niveauer af trafikstøj og samtidigt sikrer lav rullemodstand. En delopgave i projektet bestod i at sammenligne resultater af støjmålinger udført med tre forskellige måletrailere. De tre CPX-trailere fra Vejteknisk Institut (VI), fra SINTEF IKT Akustik (STF) og fra Det tekniske Universitet i Gdansk (TUG) målte støjen fra udvalgte referencedæk mens de rullede gentagne gange hen over syv udvalgte vejstrækninger på motorvej M10 syd for København og hen over syv udvalgte vejstrækninger i København. TUG gennemførte derudover med sin trailer en supplerende serie målinger med fire forskellige referencedæk (Standard Reference Test Tyres, SRTT) til-hørende henholdsvis VI, STF og TUG. TUG målte støjen ved gentagne gen-nemkørsler af de udvalgte vejstrækninger af motorvej M10 med hvert af disse fire dæk. Hovedkonklusionen er, at resultaterne af målingerne med de tre trailere stem-te rimeligt godt overens, når de anvendte referencedæk var ens. På veje hvor der er forskel på vejoverfladen i hjulsporene og overfladen mel-lem hjulsporene er det af betydning for måleresultatet, nøjagtigt hvor på vej-belægningen trailerens hjul ruller. TUG-traileren med SRTT gav 1 dB lavere støjniveauer end VI-traileren på strækningerne på M10. Efter forfatterens op-fattelse skal dette forklares ved en kombination af at TUGs SRTT dels var lidt mindre støjende end VIs dæk, selvom deres slidbaner var lige hårde, dels i gennemsnit rullede lidt nærmere den mindre slidte midte af vognbanen end VI-trailerens dæk. STF-traileren med SRTT gav gennemgående lidt højere støjniveauer end VI-traileren. Dette skyldes formentlig at gummiet på slidbanen af STFs SRTT var 3 Shore A enheder hårdere end på VIs dæk. Med referencedæk af model Avon AV4 blev der fundet forskelle i støjen fra forskellige individuelle dæk, uanset at de var af samme alder og havde den samme Shore A hårdhed. Hvis denne model af dæk skal kunne bruges som referencedæk ved CPX-målinger vil det være nødvendigt at finde metoder til at undgå eller korrigere for væsentlige forskelle mellem individuelle dæks egenskaber.

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND AIM

8

1. BACKGROUND AND AIM

Task 3 of the NordFoU project “Road surface texture for low noise and low rolling resistance” consists of two subtasks, quoted here from the original pro-ject description: Subtask 3.1. “Each project partner shall select groups of surfaces representa-

tive for various families of pavement, and for surfaces of differ-ent age within the same pavement family, and measure: a) sur-face texture, b) CPX and SPB noise levels, and – if feasible - c) rolling resistance”

Note 1: VTI has had rolling resistance measurement carried out in Sweden

in another project than this NordFou project.

Subtask 3.2. “A comparison between noise levels measured with CPX trailers

by 1) DRI, 2) VTI (represented by TUG) and 3) VV1) (repre-sented by STF) on selected test sections of road in Copenha-gen.”

The present report deals with Subtask 3.2, comparison of noise levels meas-ured with CPX trailers on selected test sections of road in and near Copenha-gen.

Note 2: On these test sections DRI, VTI and VV has also measured surface

texture to compare their texture measuring instrument properties (in Task 2

of the NordFoU project [1]), and TUG has measured rolling resistance [2].

1) Norwegian Public Roads Administration

CHAPTER 2 SELECTED SECTIONS OF ROAD

9

2. SELECTED SECTIONS OF ROAD

The test sections selected for the comparison of CPX noise levels are defined in Figure A1 – A2 in Appendix A. These sections were selected as represent-ing noise reducing surfaces because they have been thoroughly studied and because they are the sections applied for field calibration of CPX trailers in the Danish SRS system for classifying road surface noise characteristics. These calibration sections were supplemented in the present measurement series by some older rough surfaces to widen the studied range of surface textures. Table 1 summarizes information on their time of construction and their exposure to traffic.

Table 1. Test section time of construction and traffic load

Built Speed limit AADT/lane Heavies Site

[year] [km/h] [veh/24h] [%]

M10 2004-05 110 15000 15

Kongelundsvej 2003 60 5000 6

Vigerslevvej 2004 50 7500 7

CHAPTER 3 MEASUREMENT METHOD

10

3. MEASUREMENT METHOD

Measurements were made according to the draft standard ISO/CD 11819-2 [3]. Each trailer was run repeatedly over the selected test sections (typically at least three times on each section). In a few cases results from only two runs were approved, but in many cases results from five or six runs were included. The number of approved runs on each individual section is documented in Appendix B. The target speed was 80 km/h on M10 and 50 km/h on the city street sections.

CHAPTER 4 TRAILERS AND TEST TYRES

11

4. TRAILERS AND TEST TYRES

Three CPX trailers participated in the measurement series. Photographs are shown in Figure 13 on p. 25 and in Figure 14 on p. 31, respectively. The DRI trailer is open and has two test wheels. The STF trailer also has two test wheels but has an enclosure. The TUG trailer has one test wheel and an en-closure. It was decided that all teams should use the same types and dimensions of test tyres denoted P1 and H1 by ISO/TC 43/SC 1/WG 33: Tyre P1: SRTT as defined in ASTM F2493, P225/60R16, 97S Tyre H1: Avon AV4, 195R14C 8PR 106/104N The SRTT is a standard reference test tyre defined in the ASTM standard F2493 and has been selected as a reference for CPX noise testing. The Avon AV4 is a market tyre which has been considered as a supplementary refer-ence for CPX noise testing. The tyre tread patterns are shown in Figure 1. The intention was to apply tyres in new but run-in condition (at the start of the experiment) and from the same batch (within the type). It turned out, however, that the STF P1 tyres had been manufactured two years earlier than the DRI and TUG P1 tyres, and that STF’s P1 tyres were slightly harder than the DRI and TUG tyres, cf. Section 6 and Appendix C.

Figure 2. Tread patterne of test tyres SRTT(left) and Avon AV4 (right)

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS

12

5. RESULTS

5.1 COMPARISON OF SRTTS

TUG measured CPX noise levels on the M10 test sections with four different SRTTs mounted consecutively on the TUG trailer, three new tyres purchased for these measurements, and one tyre a few years older. The results are given in Table 2 and in Figure 3. Each noise level is the average from three or two runs on each test section. The figure shows individual results for the DRI, STF, and TUG SRTTs (on the y-axis) as a function of the average noise lev-els from all four tyres (on the x-axis). The tyre differences seem to be systematic rather than a result of random er-rors. The surface noise characteristics are ranked in the same way by all four tyres. Averaged over all surfaces, the old TUG tyre yielded 0.5 dB higher noise levels than the average for all four tyres, the STF tyre 0.2 dB higher, the DRI tyre 0.1 dB lower and the TUG tyre 0.6 dB lower than average, cf. Table 3.

Table 2. LCPX measured on M10 test sections with each of four SRTTs mounted on the TUG trailer, and their average. TUG_N means new TUG tyre, TUG_O means old TUG tyre

LCPX [dB]

Surface/Tyre DRI_R STF_R TUG_N TUG_O Avg

UTLAC 8 100.5 100.9 100.1 101.1 100.6

SMA 6p 99.0 99.3 98.6 99.8 99.2

AC 11o 100.6 100.8 100.1 101.0 100.6

HRA 11/16 101.8 101.9 101.2 102.4 101.8

AC 11d 99.6 99.8 98.8 100.0 99.6

SMA 8 99.3 99.6 98.9 99.9 99.4

AC 8o 98.3 98.5 97.8 99.3 98.5

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS

13

Table 3. Difference between LCPX on each test section for each tyre and the average from Table 2 for all four SRTTs

Difference [dB]

Surface DRI_R STF_R TUG_N TUG_O

UTLAC 8 -0.1 0.2 -0.5 0.4

SMA 6p -0.2 0.2 -0.6 0.6

AC 11o -0.1 0.2 -0.5 0.3

HRA 11/16 0.0 0.1 -0.7 0.5

AC 11d 0.1 0.3 -0.8 0.4

SMA 8 -0.1 0.2 -0.5 0.4

AC 8o -0.2 0.1 -0.7 0.8

Average -0.1 0.2 -0.6 0.5

Std.dev 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.16

The A-weighted frequency spectra of the noise levels measured at each tyre on each test section are shown in Appendix B. Figure 4 shows the spectrum averaged over all test sections for each of the four tyres mounted succes-sively on the TUG trailer. All spectra peak at 800 Hz and the range of noise levels at this frequency is 0.6 dB. The largest range of variation is 2 dB and occurs at 400 Hz and at 1250 – 1600 Hz.

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS

14

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

97 98 99 100 101 102 103

Average [dB]

DRI / STF / TUG [dB]

TUG P1 Old M10 HRA 16STF P1 M10 HRA 16DRI P1 M10 HRA 16TUG P1 New M10 HRA 16TUG P1 Old M10 AC 11oSTF P1 M10 AC 11oDRI P1 M10 AC 11oTUG P1 New M10 AC 11oTUG P1Old M10 UTLAC 8STF P1 M10 UTLAC 8DRI P1 M10 UTLAC 8TUG P1 New M10 UTLAC 8TUG P1 Old M10 AC 11dSTF P1 M10 AC 11dDRI P1 M10 AC 11dTUG P1 New M10 AC 11dTUG P1 Old M10 SMA 8STF P1 M10 SMA 8DRI P1 M10 SMA 8TUG P1 New M10 SMA 8TUG P1 Old M10 SMA 6pSTF P1 M10 SMA 6pDRI P1 M10 SMA 6pTUG P1 New M10 SMA 6pTUG P1 Old M10 AC 8oSTF P1 M10 AC 8oDRI P1 M10 AC 8oTUG P1 New M10 AC 8o

SRTT_R

Figure 3. CPX noise levels measured with the TUG trailer with four different SRTTs on the seven test sections on M10. The x-values are the average values for all four tyres while DRI, STF and TUG tyre results are the y-axis values

M10 AVG_ALL SRTT_R

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

200 315 500 800 1250 2000 3150 5000

Frequency [Hz]

LCPX [dB] TUG SRTT_O LA = 100,5 dBSTF SRTT_R LA = 100,1 dBDRI SRTT_R LA = 99,9 dBTUG SRTT_N LA = 99,3 dB

Figure 4. Average over all M10 sections of the A-weighted LCPX 1/3 octave band frequency spectrum for each of the four SRTTs when mounted on the TUG trailer

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS

15

5.2 COMPARISON OF TRAILERS

The results of all measurements made with the three trailers can be found in Table B.1 - Table B.14 in Appendix B. An overview of these values is pre-sented in Figure 5 - Figure 10. 5.2.1 SRTT RESULTS WITH THREE TRAILERS

Figure 5 shows the connection between the average (shown on the x-axis) of the noise levels measured with the DRI, STF and TUG trailers in the right wheel track with their individual results shown on the y-axis. The TUG trailer results measured with the new SRTT have been included here, while the re-sults of measurements with the old TUG SRTT have been omitted. These data have been corrected to 20 °C air temperature using the correction minus 0.05 dB per °C for the Avon tyres and minus 0.03 dB per °C for the SRTTs. STF data point symbols are “filled”, DRI data point symbols are “crosses” and TUG data point symbols are “empty”. The noise levels in Figure 5 were measured by DRI and STF with their SRTT mounted on the right side of the trailer and by TUG with its new SRTT. The upper part of Figure 5 shows results from test sections on M10 (80 km/h), the bottom part shows the results from Kongelundsvej and Vigerslevvej (50 km/h). In Table 4 an attempt has been made to summarize the results from Figure 5. The table shows the deviation for each SRTT from the average for all three SRTTs, averaged over seven 80 km/h test sections and over seven 50 km/h test sections, respectively. DRI measured 0.2 dB above the average at 80 km/h and 0.2 dB below the average at 50 km/h. The corresponding de-viations were +0.5 dB and +0.7 dB for STF and -0.7 dB and -0.5 dB for TUG. Figure 6 shows the A-weighted 1/3 octave band frequency spectrum aver-aged over all test sections for each of the three trailers with SRTT_R. On M10 the DRI and TUG spectra peaked at 800 Hz while the STF spectrum peaked at 1000 Hz. The TUG spectrum is lower at 1000 Hz and higher frequencies than the DRI and STF spectrum which are at the same level at 1250 Hz and higher frequencies. The STF spectrum displays the highest values at 1 kHz while there is a trend for the DRI spectrum to yield the highest values at 630 Hz and lower frequencies. The spectra from the 50 km/h sections are similar, but with a trend for DRI to measure noise levels more similar to those meas-ured by SINTEF and TUG at low frequencies. Figure 7 shows CPX noise levels measured by STF and DRI, respectively, with their left tyre (SRTT_L) as a function of the CPX noise level measured with their right tyre (SRTT_R). The noise levels measured with the two SRTT are almost the same, with a slight trend for DRI to measure higher noise lev-els at the left tyre than at the right tyre. The maximum difference of 0.7 dB was seen in the results from the porous asphalt (TLPA) but the average is half of this. This indicates that the road surface was almost the same in the two wheel tracks.

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS

16

97

99

101

103

97 99 101 103

Average [dB]

DRI / STF / TUG [dB]STF P1 M10 HRA 16DRI P1 M10 HRA 16TUG P1 M10 HRA 16STF P1 M10 AC 11oDRI P1 M10 AC 11oTUG P1 M10 AC 11oSTF P1 M10 UTLAC 8DRI P1 M10 UTLAC 8TUG P1 M10 UTLAC 8STF P1 M10 AC 11dDRI P1 M10 AC 11dTUG P1 M10 AC 11dSTF P1 M10 SMA 8DRI P1 M10 SMA 8TUG P1 M10 SMA 8STF P1 M10 SMA 6pDRI M10 P1 SMA 6pTUG P1 M10 SMA 6pSTF P1 M10 AC 8oTUG P1 M10 AC 8oDRI P1 M10 AC 8o

SRTT_R

88

90

92

88 90 92

Average [dB]

DRI / STF / TUG [dB]STF P1 kgl AC 11d SDRI P1 kgl AC 11d STUG P1 kgl AC 11d S

STF P1 kgl AC 11d NDRI P1 kgl AC 11d N

TUG P1 kgl AC 11d NSTF P1 kgl UTLAC 6DRI P1 kgl UTLAC 6

TUG P1 kgl UTLAC 6STF P1 kgl AC 6oDRI P1 kgl AC 6o

TUG P1 kgl AC 6oSTF P1 kgl SMA 6+

DRI P1 kgl SMA 6+TUG P1 kgl SMA 6+STF P1 kgl AC 8d

DRI P1 kgl AC 8dTUG P1 kgl AC 8dSTF P1 vig TLPA

DRI P1 vig TLPATUG P1 vig TLPA

SRTT_R

Figure 5. Noise levels from SRTT measured by DRI, STF, and by TUG in the right wheel track, as a function of the average for all three SRTTs. Top: 80 km/h; Bottom: 50 km/h sections. Note the different scales

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS

17

Avg_M10_SRTT_R

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

200 315 500 800 1250 200 3150 5000

Frequency [Hz]

LCPX [dB]

STF SRTT_R LA = 100,8 dBDRI SRTT_R LA = 100,6 dBTUG SRTT_R LA = 99,3 dB

Avg_kgl/vig_SRTT_R

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

200 315 500 800 1250 200 3150 5000

Frequency [Hz]

LCPX [dB]

STF SRTT_R LA = 90,4 dBDRI SRTT_R LA = 89,6 dBTUG SRTT_R LA = 89,3 dB

Figure 6. Average over all 80 km/h (top) and 50 km/h (bottom) test sections of the A-weighted LCPX frequency spectrum for each of the trailers with SRTT_R (right wheel track)

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS

18

Table 4. The average difference m over test sections and standard deviation s of differences from the average for all tyres

SRTT 80 km/h 50 km/h

m [dB] s [dB] m [dB] s [dB]

DRI_R +0.2 0.18 -0.2 0.31

STF_R +0.5 0.19 +0.7 0.36

TUG New -0.7 0.17 -0.5 0.37

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104

SRTT Right [dB]

SRTT Left [dB]STF P1 M10 HRA 16DRI P1 M10 HRA 16STF P1 M10 AC 11oDRI P1 M10 AC 11oSTF P1 M10 UTLAC 8DRI P1 M10 UTLAC 8STF P1 M10 AC 11dDRI P1 M10 AC 11dSTF P1 M10 SMA 8DRI P1 M10 SMA8STF P1 M10 SMA 6pDRI P1 M10 SMA 6PSTF P1 M10 AC 8oDRI P1 M10 AC 8oSTF P1 kgl AC 11d SDRI P1 kgl AC 11d SSTF P1 kgl AC 11d NDRI P1 kgl AC 11d NSTF P1 kgl UTLAC 6DRI P1 kgl UTLAC 6STF P1 kgl AC 6oDRI P1 kgl AC 6oSTF P1 kgl SMA 6+DRI P1 kgl SMA 6+STF P1 kgl AC 8dDRI P1 kgl AC 8dSTF P1 vig TLPADRI P1 vig TLPA

Figure 7. CPX noise levels measured by STF and DRI, respectively, with their SRTT_L (left wheel track) as a function of the CPX noise level measured with their SRTT_R (right wheel track)

5.2.2 AVON AV4 RESULTS WITH THREE TRAILERS

Noise levels from the Avon AV4 tyres, measured by DRI and STF with the tyre mounted on the right side of the trailer and by TUG, are shown in Figure 8 as a function of the average noise level for all of these three tyres. The av-erage STF result deviates by minus 0.1 dB from the average, DRI by + 0.3 dB and TUG by minus 0.2 dB, cf. Table 5.

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS

19

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

88 90 92 94 96 98 100

Average [dB]

DRI / STF / TUG [dB]STF H1 M10 HRA 16DRI H1 M10 HRA 16TUG H1 M10 HRA 16STF H1 M10 AC 11oDRI H1 M10 AC 11oTUG H1 M10 AC 11oSTF H1 M10 UTLAC 8DRI H1 M10 UTLAC 8TUG H1 M10 UTLAC 8STF H1 M10 AC 11dDRI H1 M10 AC 11dTUG H1 M10 AC 11dSTF H1 M10 SMA 8DRI H1 M10 SMA 8TUG H1 M10 SMA 8STF H1 M10 SMA 6pDRI H1 M10 SMA 6pTUG H1 M10 SMA 6pSTF H1 M10 AC 8oDRI H1 M10 AC 8oTUG H1 M10 AC 8oSTF H1 kgl AC 11d SDRI H1 AC 11d STUG H1 kgl AC 11d SSTF H1 kgl AC 11d NDRI H1 kgl AC 11d NTUG H1 kgl AC 11d NSTF H1 kgl UTLAC 6DRI H1 kgl UTLAC 6TUG H1 kgl UTLAC 6STF H1 kgl AC 6oDRI H1 kgl AC 6oTUG H1 kgl AC 6oSTF H1 kgl SMA 6+DRI H1 kgl SMA 6+TUG H1 kgl SMA 6+STF H1 kgl AC 8dDRI H1 kgl AC 8dTUG H1 kgl AC 8dSTF H1 vig TLPADRI H1 vig TLPATUG H1 vig TLPA

AVON_R

Figure 8. Noise levels from Avon AV4 measured by DRI, STF, and by TUG in the right wheel track as a function of the average for all three Avon AV4 tyres

Table 5. Average difference m over test sections and standard deviation s of differences from the average for all three Avon AV4 tyres. The DRI and STF tyres were mounted in the right side of the trailer

Avon AV4 80 km/h 50 km/h

m [dB] s [dB] m [dB] s [dB]

DRI_R 0.3 0.17 0.2 0.07

STF_R -0.1 0.17 0.0 0.09

TUG New -0.2 0.11 -0.2 0.11

Figure 9 shows the CPX noise levels measured by STF and DRI, respectively, with their Avon AV4_L (in the left wheel track) as a function of the CPX noise level measured with their Avon AV4_R (in the right wheel track). There is a trend for STF to measure higher noise levels at the right than at the left Avon tyre. For DRI, the trend was the opposite, and not so strong. Note: DRI measured on the DOT side of the left tyre (Avon AV4_L) and on the other side

of the right tyre (Avon A4_R). TUG measured on the DOT side of its Avon AV4. STF

measured on the side opposite the DOT side of both tyres, see further in section 7.2.

The Avon AV4 tyre is not a directional tyre.

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS

20

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104

Avon Right [dB]

Avon Left [dB]STF H1 M10 HRA 16DRI H1 M10 HRA 16STF H1 M10 AC 11oDRI H1 M10 AC 11oSTF H1 M10 UTLAC 8DRI H1 M10 UTLAC 8STF H1 M10 AC 11dDRI H1 M10 AC 11dSTF H1 M10 SMA 8DRI H1 M10 SMA8STF H1 M10 SMA 6pDRI H1 M10 SMA 6PSTF H1 M10 AC 8oDRI H1 M10 AC 8oSTF H1 kgl AC 11d SDRI H1 kgl AC 11d SSTF H1 kgl AC 11d NDRI H1 kgl AC 11d NSTF H1 kgl UTLAC 6DRI H1 kgl UTLAC 6STF H1 kgl AC 6oDRI H1 kgl AC 6oSTF H1 kgl SMA 6+DRI H1 kgl SMA 6+STF H1 kgl AC 8dDRI H1 kgl AC 8dSTF H1 vig TLPADRI H1 vig TLPA

Figure 9. CPX noise levels measured by STF and DRI, respectively, with their Avon AV4_L in the left wheel track as a function of the CPX noise level measured with their Avon AV4_R in the right wheel track

Figure 10 shows the A-weighted 1/3 octave band frequency spectrum aver-aged over all test sections for each of the three trailers with Avon AV4_R. All spectra are similar with a peak at 800 Hz, but the TUG spectrum has a “dip” at 1000 Hz. A detailed review of the spectra (not shown here) revealed that this was the case in all six spectra from Kongelundsvej and in six out of seven spectra from M10 (HRA 16 was the exception). Such a dip is not seen in the SRTT spectra in Figure 6.

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS

21

Avg_M10_AVON_R

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

200 315 500 800 1250 200 3150 5000

Frequency [Hz]

LCPX [dB]

STF AVON_R LA = 99 dBDRI AVON_R LA = 99,6 dBTUG AVON_R LA = 98,9 dB

Avg_kgl/vig_AVON_R

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

200 315 500 800 1250 200 3150 5000

Frequency [Hz]

LCPX [dB]

STF AVON_R LA = 89,6 dBDRI AVON_R LA = 90 dBTUG AVON_R LA = 89,4 dB

Figure 10. Average over all 80 km/h (top) and 50 km/h (bottom) test sections of the A-weighted LCPX frequency spectrum for each of the trailers with Avon_R (right wheel track)

CHAPTER 6 TYRE HARDNESS MEASUREMENTS

22

6. TYRE HARDNESS MEASUREMENT

One person from each team measured the hardness of (almost) every indi-vidual tyre belonging to all teams, using Type A durometers [4] belonging to DRI or TUG, cf. Figure 11. The durometer needle deflects to an initial maximum when put on the tread. The scale was read within 2 seconds after the presser foot had made contact with the tread. The presser foot was applied rapidly to the centre of the tyre tread rib, keeping the foot parallel to the tread surface. Enough pressure was applied to obtain firm contact between the presser foot and the tread surface. DRI and STF measured according to the methodology described in an ISO/TC 43/SC1/WG 33 document from 2009 [5] at a number of points on the tread:

• Outer rib of tyre tread: four equi-spaced points around the tread

• Inner centre rib of tyre tread: four equi-spaced points around the tread.

Note: “Outer” refers to the side of the tyre where the DOT number is applied.

At each position independent measurements were taken until four consecu-tive readings differed by no more than two Shore A units. These four consecu-tive measurements were averaged as Shore A values for one position. There were eight measurement points (four on each rib) and an average, a maxi-mum and a minimum of these averages were reported as the overall shore hardness value.

Figure 11. DRI durometer, operated by Annette Neidel (right).

CHAPTER 6 TYRE HARDNESS MEASUREMENTS

23

TUG applied a slightly different procedure. Averaging the four consecutive re-sults in each position was made directly by the operator and only this average value from each measurement point was noted. The tyre temperatures were the same when the hardness was measured as the tyres had been stored overnight in the same room at DRI. The air tem-perature was between 20 °C and 21 °C during the hardness measurement. The results are given in Table C.1 in Appendix C and summarized in Figure 12. The main result was that the STF P1 tyres (SRTT) were 3 Shore A units harder than the DRI and TUG P1 tyres, which were equally hard, see Appen-dix C. The H1 tyres (Avon AV4) were all approximately equally hard. The hardness of the old TUG SRTT was 72 Shore A [6], that is 10 Shore A units harder than the new DRI and TUG SRTTs.

Measured by

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

P1

DR

I_R

P1

DR

I_L

P1

STF

_R

P1

STF

_L

P1

TUG

H1

DR

I_R

H1

DR

I_L

H1

STF

_R

H1

STF

_L

H1

TUG

Shore ADRISTFTUG

Figure 12. Measured hardness of tyre tread of reference tyres P1 (SRTT) and H1 (Avon AV4), re-spectively

CHAPTER 7 DISCUSSION

24

7. DISCUSSION

7.1 COMPARISON OF SRTTS

The higher noise levels measured with the old TUG SRTT (Table 2 – Table 3 and Figure 3 - Figure 4) can probably be explained by the higher Shore A value, and the same is the case for the STF SRTT, cf. Section 6 and Appen-dix C. However, the difference of 0.5 dB observed between noise levels measured with the DRI and the new TUG SRTT cannot be explained by dif-ferent hardness values. The DRI tyre was equally hard as the new TUG tyre. Another study [7] showed that between 12 different SRTTs from the same batch the variability in CPX noise levels on dense asphalt concrete corre-sponded to a standard deviation of 0,1 dB or a range in noise levels of ap-proximately 0,4 dB. Thus we must account for a sample-to-sample variation of tyre rolling noise levels (due to production tolerances) in the order of 0.5 dB for SRTTs, and it may be an unfortunate but natural coincidence that the two tyres in the present investigation differed in the way seen in the tables and figures. 7.2 COMPARISON OF TRAILERS

Results in Table 4 and Figure 5 - Figure 6 indicate, that the DRI SRTT mounted on the DRI trailer yielded 1 dB higher noise levels than the TUG tyre mounted on the TUG trailer. The tyres were from the same batch and equally hard. With the tyres mounted on the TUG trailer, cf. Table 3, the DRI tyre yielded only 0.5 dB higher noise level than the TUG tyre. An earlier investigation of the differences of noise levels measured with differ-ent CPX trailers [8] indicated an average reproducibility of results from twenty-five test tracks of 0,7 dB at 50 km/h and 0,8 dB at 80 km/h while the average repeatability of results from each trailer was 0,3 dB. This latter observation is in agreement with the results found in the present investigation, cf. Table 3 and Table 4.


25

The differences between the two ways of measuring the noise level with the TUG trailer and the DRI trailers are:

● running path ● temperature (different days) ● reflections from enclosure (the TUG trailer has an enclosure, but TUG does not correct for its effect; the DRI trailer is open, and no correction is relevant; the STF trailer has an enclosure, and STF corrects for its effect) ● wind generated noise (more wind with- out than with enclosure) ● microphone positioning and analysis system ● general uncertainty (repeatability of measurements). Figure 13 shows photographs of the trailers during the measurements on M10. The TUG trailer tyre probably drives a bit closer to the middle of the lane than the DRI and STF trail-ers. When the surface in the wheel track is different from the surface between wheel tracks, this will cause differences in measured noise levels. This may be the major cause for the larger deviations seen between noise lev-els from the SRTTs when mounted on two dif-ferent trailers than when mounted on the same trailer. The running path will not be ex-actly the same in different runs. Probably they shift by ± 0,2 m or so, both for one-wheel and two-wheel trailers, in wide lanes on highways.

Figure 13. DRI trailer (top); STF trailer (middle) and TUG trailer (bottom) driving on M10

The temperature corrections applied here are minus 0.05 dB per °C for the Avon AV4 tyres. This has been general practice for years. Recently it was pointed out that for the SRTT this correction should rather be minus 0.03 dB per °C [9], and this correction has been applied here for the SRTT results. Table 6 shows the reported air temperatures. Their variation is so small that whether one or the other correction is applied it would only affect the compari-sons by a tenth of a decibel or so.


26

Table 6. Air temperatures during measurement

Sections DRI STF TUG

M10 SRTT 15.2 19.0 25.6 – 26.5

Avon 15.3 19.0 17.7 – 18.6

Kongelundsvej SRTT 18.5 21.0 20.4 – 21.2

Avon 15.5 21.0 20.4 – 21.2

Vigerslevvej SRTT 18.1 21.0 20.8

Avon 15.9 21.0 20.2

We cannot explain the differences in spectrum shape in Figure 6. With SRTT, the STF spectrum peaked at 1000 Hz while DRI and TUG spectra peaked at 800 Hz. This effect did not occur with the Avon AV4 tyres in Figure 10. The STF SRTTs were 2 years older and 3 shore A units harder than the DRI and TUG SRTTs, but when measured with the TUG trailer all these SRTTs gave the same spectrum shape, see Figure 4. The spectrum shapes in Figure 6 and Figure 10 indicate that the DRI open trailer spectrum is not significantly more influenced by wind noise or other ex-traneous noise sources (at low frequencies) than the closed trailer spectra. There is smaller variation in results from different trailers with the Avon AV 4 tyre in Figure 8 than with the SRTTs in Figure 5. This is probably because the Avon AV4 tyre is less sensitive to road surface variation than the SRTT. The total range of noise levels on the M10 test sections was 4.7 dB with the SRTT and 2.5 dB with the Avon tyre. The corresponding standard deviations were 1.0 dB and 0.6 dB, respectively. On the 50 km/h test sections there was less variation between surfaces. The range and standard deviations were ap-proximately the same with the two tyres (range: 2.2 - 2.1 dB; standard devia-tion: 0.6 – 0.7 dB). STF measured higher noise levels at the right than at the left Avon tyre, see Figure 9. The average difference was 0.7 dB. These noise levels were meas-ured on the side opposite the DOT side of both tyres. When combined with the trend in Figure 7 for the wheel tracks to have almost the same CPX levels with SRT tyres, this suggests that there is a difference between the individual STF Avon tyres. For DRI, the trend was opposite and not so strong: The noise levels meas-ured at the right tyre were lower than those measured at the left tyre. The av-erage was 0.2 dB. The higher noise levels in the left wheel track were meas-ured on the DOT side of the tyre, the lower noise levels at the right tyre were measured on the “non DOT” side.


27

Recently it was recommended [10] to require the microphones to be posi-tioned at a specific sidewall (e.g. the one with the DOT number). The noise from two Avon AV4 tyres rolling on the drum facility at BASt showed differ-ences of 0.7 dB and 1.2 dB, respectively, with the highest noise levels on the DOT side [11]. A trend, though not so strong, for higher noise levels on the DOT side was also seen in the DRI results. Tests at TUG have indicated that Avon tyres may differ by up to 2 dB, de-pending on at which side measurements are made and on production toler-ances. ISO works on this and may suggest measures to avoid large differ-ences. However, some confusion may occur since DOT numbers may be stated on both sides.

CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS

28

8. CONCLUSIONS

The measurements revealed that all three trailers gave the same measure-ment results, within reasonable tolerances, as long as their tyres were similar. Higher noise levels may be measured when test tyre rubber gets harder. The Avon AV4 tyres showed differences between individual tyres, despite having similar rubber stiffness and being of the same age. Measures are needed to prevent significant differences between individual tyres for this make of tyre to influence results of CPX measurements. On roads with different wear in the wheel tracks and between the wheel tracks, the lateral position of the tyres is important: The authors believe that the reason why the TUG trailer yielded 1 dB lower noise levels from the SRTT on M10 than the DRI trailer, is a combination of the individual TUG SRTT tyre being a little less noisy than the individual DRI tyre even though their tread rubber had the same Shore A hardness, and that the TUG tyre on he average rolled slightly nearer to the less worn lane centre than the DRI tyre on the DRI trailer.

CHAPTER 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

29

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The project work is financed by NordFoU, a strategic cooperation between the road administrations in the Nordic countries to coordinate and co-finance joint research projects. The data collection and analysis was carried out by (see Figure 14, left to right)

DRI Jens Oddershede, Bent Andersen, STF Odd Durban Hansen, Truls Berge TUG Grzegorz Ronowski, Jerzy Ejsmont, Piotr Mioduszewski

Ulf Sandberg and Piotr Mioduszewski contributed comments to a draft of this report. Bent Andersen and Jens Oddershede have quality controlled the document.

CHAPTER 10 REFERENCES

30

10. REFERENCES

[1] SINTEF report on texture calibration measurements September 2009 in Copenhagen (to be published)

[2] J. Kragh, “Rolling resistance – Copenhagen 2009. NordFoU project “Road surface texture - Low noise and low rolling resistance””, Danish Road Directorate/Road Institute Technical Note 77 – 2010www.roadinstitute.dk

[3] ”ISO/CD 11819-2:2000. Acoustics – Measurement of the influence of road surfaces on traf-fic noise – Part 2: The close-proximity method, ISO, 2000-12-13

[4] ISO 868 (2003): “Plastics and ebonite – Determination of indentation hardness by means of a durometer (Shore hardness)”

[5] Annex X (normative) Procedure for the measurement of rubber hardness of reference tyres. ISO/TC 43/SC 1/WG 38 document dated 20 April 2009 <shore hardness of test tyres_draft v3.doc>

[6] J. Ejsmont, TUG, personal communication to J. Kragh, DRI; April 2010

[7] W. Schwanen et al., “Comparison of potential CPX-tyres. Variability within AVON AV4 and SRTT tyre type”, IPG 1.4 Robust CPX project, Report No. M+P.DWW.07.04.2, 27 July 2007

[8] M.S. Roovers, “Round-Robin test for measurements devices on road acoustics”, SILVIA Project Report, SILVIA- M+P-009-03-WP2-230605

[9] Hans Bendtsen et al., “Temperature influence on road traffic noise”, Report 169, Danish road Institute, 2009 www.roadinstitute.dk

[10] M. Zöller, BASt, mail to ISO WG 33, January 2010

[11] M. Zöller, BASt, personal communication to J. Kragh, DRI, April 2010

CHAPTER 10 REFERENCES

31

Figure 14. The measuring teams September 2009 from DRI (top), STF (middle), and TUG (bottom), cf. p. 32

32

APPENDIX A

TEST SECTIONS

29.500

29.900

30.800

31.200

33.000

33.400

35.000

34.600

32.000

31.600

31.200

30.800

30.000

29.600

29.000

30.000

31.000

32.000

33.000

34.000

35.000

Exit #30 and turnN

UTLAC 8 / TB 8k / Combifalt 8

SMA 6P

AC 11o

SMA 8

AC 8o / Microville 8

Exit #32 and turn

AC 11d

HRA 11/16 (ABS

Figure A.1 Test sections on M10

33

560

400

340

160

120

20 20

120

160

340

400

560

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700 Dilatation joint: 706 mN

SMA 6+

AB 8t

AC 11d

UTLAC 6 / TB 6k

Mid Løjtegårdsvej = - 71 m

AC 6o

AC 11d

Dilatation joint: 704 m

0 = North end of "1st Planting Pocket"

Figure A.2. Test sections on Kongelundsvej

34

APPENDIX B

TRAILER MEASUREMENTS RESULTS

Table B.1 - Table B.14 give the results of measurements made with the three trailers with SRTT (denoted P1) and with Avon AV4 tyres (denoted H1). The frequency spectra measured by TUG on the M10 test sections using with four different SRTTs are shown in Figure B.1 - Figure B.7.

35

Table B.1. M10 UTLAC 8

Wheel Ref Overall Stdv Avg Stdv Tyre Surf Air Total

Surface Reference Track Speed Lp,A Lp,A Speed Speed Temp Temp Temp measurement Zero Start Stop No.

type tyre L/R [km/h] [dB] [dB] 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 200 2500 3150 4000 5000 [km/h] [km/h] [C°] [C°] [C°] length [m] [km] [m] [m] RunsUTLAC 8 DRI H1-R R 80 99,4 0,2 71,4 74,6 76,2 80,6 84,4 91,5 94,5 92,1 90,8 87,9 83,6 79,4 76,0 72,0 69,3 82,7 0,9 22,8 18,3 15,3 1200 29500 29500 29900 3UTLAC 8 DRI H1-L L 80 99,9 0,2 74,6 76,5 77,7 81,6 85,4 92,1 95,0 92,6 91,2 88,3 84,8 80,3 76,0 71,8 69,3 82,7 0,9 21,7 18,3 15,3 1200 29500 29500 29900 3UTLAC 8 DRI P1-R R 80 101,2 0,2 72,7 76,1 78,4 83,7 86,6 92,1 96,8 94,1 92,4 89,9 84,9 79,7 75,7 72,2 69,6 81,6 0,9 21,3 17,8 15,2 1200 29500 29500 29900 3UTLAC 8 DRI P1-L L 80 101,2 0,2 73,8 76,7 78,8 83,9 86,6 91,9 96,8 94,4 92,3 89,9 85,6 80,8 76,6 72,7 69,8 81,6 0,9 20,4 24,1 15,2 1200 29500 29500 29900 3UTLAC 8 STF H1-R R 80 99,1 0,3 76,7 80,0 84,0 90,9 94,7 92,3 90,5 86,7 83,0 79,1 75,6 71,3 69,1 81,8 0,3 20,0 19,0 840 29500 29500 29900 2UTLAC 8 STF H1-L L 80 98,6 0,3 77,0 80,1 83,8 90,7 93,4 91,9 90,4 87,2 83,1 79,1 75,4 71,8 69,3 81,8 0,3 20,0 19,0 840 29500 29500 29900 2UTLAC 8 STF P1-R R 80 101,1 0,6 77,8 81,2 84,5 88,8 96,0 96,0 93,1 90,7 86,4 81,9 77,1 73,4 70,3 81,7 0,1 20,0 19,0 1260 29500 29500 29900 3UTLAC 8 STF P1-L L 80 101,0 0,4 77,9 81,6 85,0 89,4 95,7 95,9 93,0 90,5 85,9 81,2 76,5 73,4 69,9 81,7 0,1 20,0 19,0 1260 29500 29500 29900 3UTLAC 8 TUG H1 80 98,6 0,3 70,9 74,1 73,8 78,4 83,0 90,4 94,6 90,0 90,1 86,5 82,6 78,9 75,9 72,2 70,1 80,1 0,3 22,1 18,2 1200 0 400 3UTLAC 8 TUG P1 80 100,1 0,2 70,9 74,2 75,8 80,0 83,0 89,7 96,7 92,8 90,4 87,7 83,9 79,7 76,1 72,2 68,7 80,0 0,1 30,3 26,5 800 0 400 2

LpA [dB] per 1/3 octave band, centre frequency [Hz]

Table B.2. M10 SMA 6p



type tyre L/R [km/h] [dB] [dB] 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 200 2500 3150 4000 5000 [km/h] [km/h] [C°] [C°] [C°] length [m] [km] [m] [m] RunsSMA 6p DRI H1-R R 80 99,7 0,2 70,7 73,0 74,5 78,9 83,4 90,4 95,4 91,4 90,9 90,2 85,2 82,1 79,5 76,0 74,0 83,8 0,4 22,8 18,3 15,3 1200 29500 30800 31200 3SMA 6p DRI H1-L L 80 99,4 0,2 72,1 74,1 75,4 79,6 84,1 90,6 94,6 91,0 90,9 89,5 85,9 83,1 80,0 76,0 73,7 83,8 0,4 21,7 18,3 15,3 1200 29500 30800 31200 3SMA 6p DRI P1-R R 80 100,0 0,1 71,3 74,4 76,9 81,6 83,7 88,5 94,1 93,4 91,3 91,9 88,0 83,7 80,2 77,4 74,5 81,2 0,4 21,3 17,8 15,2 1200 29500 30800 31200 3SMA 6p DRI P1-L L 80 100,1 0,2 73,2 75,5 78,0 82,6 84,2 89,0 94,7 93,5 91,0 91,2 87,4 83,4 80,4 77,7 74,7 81,2 0,4 20,4 24,1 15,2 1200 29500 30800 31200 3SMA 6p STF H1-R R 80 98,6 0,3 72,8 75,5 80,4 88,4 94,8 90,7 90,1 88,2 84,1 81,5 78,5 74,2 72,6 82,1 0,4 20,0 19,0 800 29500 30800 31200 2SMA 6p STF H1-L L 80 97,2 0,5 73,0 76,3 80,5 87,7 92,1 90,0 89,6 87,6 83,3 80,3 77,6 73,9 71,8 82,1 0,4 20,0 19,0 800 29500 30800 31200 2SMA 6p STF P1-R R 80 99,9 0,4 75,2 78,3 81,4 85,3 92,5 95,3 92,0 91,4 88,9 84,9 80,2 77,0 74,0 81,5 0,4 20,0 19,0 1220 29500 30800 31200 3SMA 6p STF P1-L L 80 99,9 0,3 75,7 78,9 82,0 86,3 92,8 95,3 91,9 90,9 87,7 83,7 79,7 77,1 73,2 81,5 0,4 20,0 19,0 1220 29500 30800 31200 3SMA 6p TUG H1 80 98,9 0,1 68,2 72,6 71,3 76,0 81,7 90,5 95,0 88,9 91,2 87,4 83,1 80,5 77,5 73,8 73,1 80,1 0,5 21,7 18,4 1200 0 400 3SMA 6p TUG P1 80 98,8 0,3 68,1 72,7 73,4 77,6 80,2 86,5 94,0 92,3 89,9 89,2 85,3 81,3 77,9 75,1 72,2 80,3 0,5 30,4 26,2 1200 0 400 3


Table B.3. M10 AC 11o



type tyre L/R [km/h] [dB] [dB] 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 200 2500 3150 4000 5000 [km/h] [km/h] [C°] [C°] [C°] length [m] [km] [m] [m] RunsAC 11o DRI H1-R R 80 99,7 0,2 71,6 74,8 76,1 80,3 84,2 90,7 94,8 92,8 90,4 89,7 86,1 82,5 80,2 76,6 75,0 81,3 2,6 22,8 18,3 15,3 1200 29500 33000 33400 3AC 11o DRI H1-L L 80 100,5 0,3 73,8 76,2 77,0 81,1 85,0 91,2 95,4 93,8 91,0 90,0 87,4 84,5 81,2 77,2 75,2 81,3 2,6 21,7 18,3 15,3 1200 29500 33000 33400 3AC 11o DRI P1-R R 80 101,1 0,2 73,0 76,0 78,2 83,1 85,6 90,2 95,3 95,4 92,9 90,8 87,7 84,7 81,4 78,3 76,1 80,3 2,6 21,3 17,8 15,2 1200 29500 33000 33400 3AC 11o DRI P1-L L 80 101,5 0,2 74,7 77,2 79,0 83,6 86,1 90,5 95,6 95,8 93,3 91,1 88,3 85,3 82,2 79,0 76,4 80,3 2,6 20,4 24,1 15,2 1200 29500 33000 33400 3AC 11o STF H1-R R 80 99,3 0,3 75,8 79,5 83,6 90,1 94,8 92,9 89,9 87,9 85,3 81,9 79,2 74,9 73,7 78,0 1,3 20,0 19,0 780 29500 33000 33400 2AC 11o STF H1-L L 80 98,9 0,5 76,0 79,6 83,5 89,8 93,3 92,9 90,0 88,4 85,7 81,8 79,2 75,3 73,8 78,0 1,3 20,0 19,0 780 29500 33000 33400 2AC 11o STF P1-R R 80 101,7 0,4 77,7 81,0 84,0 87,9 94,5 97,4 94,4 91,6 88,6 85,7 81,5 77,9 75,4 81,4 0,2 20,0 19,0 800 29500 33000 33400 2AC 11o STF P1-L L 80 101,6 0,5 78,2 81,2 84,4 88,2 94,0 97,4 94,3 91,5 88,3 85,5 81,6 78,6 75,3 81,4 0,2 20,0 19,0 800 29500 33000 33400 2AC 11o TUG H1 80 99,2 0,2 72,5 74,7 74,9 79,3 83,7 90,4 95,4 90,4 89,8 87,6 84,3 80,8 78,2 74,6 74,1 79,7 0,4 21,2 18,1 1200 0 400 3AC 11o TUG P1 80 100,3 0,3 71,9 74,7 76,3 80,4 83,0 89,3 96,0 94,1 90,9 88,0 85,4 82,6 79,2 75,7 73,2 80,3 0,5 30,1 26,3 1200 0 400 3


35

36

Table B.4. M10 HRA 16



type tyre L/R [km/h] [dB] [dB] 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 200 2500 3150 4000 5000 [km/h] [km/h] [C°] [C°] [C°] length [m] [km] [m] [m] RunsHRA 16 DRI H1-R R 80 100,0 0,1 71,6 75,9 77,9 82,7 86,3 92,0 94,3 93,9 90,0 88,6 86,7 82,0 79,5 75,6 74,5 84,3 1,3 22,8 18,3 15,3 1200 35000 35000 34600 3HRA 16 DRI H1-L L 80 101,0 0,2 73,5 76,9 77,9 82,3 86,5 92,3 95,4 95,2 90,8 89,3 87,8 84,2 81,1 76,3 74,7 84,3 1,3 21,7 18,3 15,3 1200 35000 35000 34600 3HRA 16 DRI P1-R R 80 101,8 0,2 73,1 77,0 79,4 85,0 87,6 92,1 96,5 96,0 92,4 89,9 87,2 84,7 81,2 77,0 74,9 81,7 1,3 21,3 17,8 15,2 1200 35000 35000 34600 3HRA 16 DRI P1-L L 80 102,1 0,2 73,5 77,3 79,0 84,4 87,7 92,2 96,7 96,6 93,0 90,4 88,2 85,5 82,3 77,9 75,3 81,7 1,3 20,4 24,1 15,2 1200 35000 35000 34600 3HRA 16 STF H1-R R 80 99,8 0,3 78,6 82,3 85,6 90,9 94,8 94,1 89,3 87,1 86,1 81,5 79,0 74,6 73,7 80,8 0,2 20,0 19,0 1300 35000 35000 34600 3HRA 16 STF H1-L L 80 99,7 0,4 78,0 81,5 85,2 91,1 93,9 94,2 89,9 88,1 86,6 81,9 79,4 75,2 73,8 80,8 0,2 20,0 19,0 1300 35000 35000 34600 3HRA 16 STF P1-R R 80 102,5 0,3 79,9 83,3 86,6 90,2 96,4 98,3 94,2 90,8 87,5 85,3 81,5 77,0 74,4 81,6 0,3 20,0 19,0 1260 35000 35000 34600 3HRA 16 STF P1-L L 80 102,4 0,2 79,7 82,8 86,6 90,2 95,7 98,4 94,0 91,3 87,7 85,6 82,0 78,1 74,6 81,6 0,3 20,0 19,0 1260 35000 35000 34600 3HRA 16 TUG H1 80 99,8 0,0 74,6 76,8 78,2 82,4 86,1 91,4 95,4 91,9 89,5 87,6 86,1 80,8 78,6 74,9 74,2 80,7 0,8 21,6 18,6 1200 0 400 3HRA 16 TUG P1 80 101,3 0,2 74,3 76,9 79,0 83,3 86,3 91,9 97,5 94,5 90,4 87,8 85,6 83,0 79,8 75,4 72,8 80,4 0,5 29,9 26,4 1200 0 400 3


Table B.5. M10 AC 11d



type tyre L/R [km/h] [dB] [dB] 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 200 2500 3150 4000 5000 [km/h] [km/h] [C°] [C°] [C°] length [m] [km] [m] [m] RunsAC 11d DRI H1-R R 80 99,7 0,1 67,9 71,8 73,4 78,3 82,5 90,0 95,3 92,3 90,6 90,3 86,1 82,8 80,0 76,3 74,5 84,3 1,3 22,8 18,3 15,3 1200 35000 32000 31600 3AC 11d DRI H1-L L 80 99,8 0,2 69,8 72,9 74,2 78,8 83,0 90,0 95,3 92,3 90,5 90,1 87,1 84,4 81,0 76,9 74,7 84,3 1,3 21,7 18,3 15,3 1200 35000 32000 31600 3AC 11d DRI P1-R R 80 100,1 0,2 69,8 73,4 75,5 80,7 83,3 88,3 94,1 94,4 91,8 90,9 87,8 84,3 81,0 78,0 75,4 80,2 1,3 21,3 17,8 15,2 1200 35000 32000 31600 3AC 11d DRI P1-L L 80 100,3 0,1 70,4 73,8 75,9 80,8 83,4 88,4 94,2 94,8 91,9 90,8 88,0 84,7 81,6 78,6 75,8 80,2 1,3 20,4 24,1 15,2 1200 35000 32000 31600 3AC 11d STF H1-R R 80 99,1 0,3 72,6 76,1 81,0 88,6 95,4 91,7 89,9 88,5 84,7 82,0 79,1 74,5 73,2 81,1 0,3 20,0 19,0 1240 35000 32000 31600 3AC 11d STF H1-L L 80 97,7 0,5 72,7 76,1 80,5 87,7 92,6 91,0 89,4 88,2 84,4 81,2 78,6 74,6 73,1 81,1 0,3 20,0 19,0 1240 35000 32000 31600 3AC 11d STF P1-R R 80 100,4 0,3 74,6 77,8 81,1 85,4 92,5 96,2 93,0 91,1 88,7 85,1 80,8 77,4 74,7 81,8 0,3 20,0 19,0 1200 35000 32000 31600 3AC 11d STF P1-L L 80 100,2 0,5 74,4 77,7 81,3 85,7 92,4 96,1 92,8 90,5 87,8 84,5 80,6 77,9 74,2 81,8 0,3 20,0 19,0 1200 35000 32000 31600 3AC 11d TUG H1 80 99,1 0,1 68,6 72,8 71,7 76,4 82,0 90,3 95,4 89,4 90,6 87,7 83,4 81,1 78,0 74,2 73,7 80,2 1,0 20,4 17,7 1200 0 400 3AC 11d TUG P1 80 99,0 0,1 68,1 72,5 73,1 77,3 80,1 86,7 94,0 93,1 89,9 88,6 85,5 82,1 78,5 75,5 73,1 80,3 0,3 29,4 25,8 800 0 400 2


Table B.6. M10 SMA 8



type tyre L/R [km/h] [dB] [dB] 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 200 2500 3150 4000 5000 [km/h] [km/h] [C°] [C°] [C°] length [m] [km] [m] [m] RunsSMA 8 DRI H1-R R 80 98,9 0,2 68,7 72,5 73,9 78,6 82,9 90,5 94,4 91,4 90,3 88,0 84,0 80,4 77,8 74,1 72,1 83,8 0,6 22,8 18,3 15,3 1200 35000 31200 30800 3SMA 8 DRI H1-L L 80 99,2 0,1 70,7 73,6 74,7 79,5 83,6 90,7 94,4 91,5 90,7 88,3 85,0 81,8 78,6 74,5 72,3 83,8 0,6 21,7 18,3 15,3 1200 35000 31200 30800 3SMA 8 DRI P1-R R 80 100,0 0,3 70,0 74,1 76,0 81,1 83,9 89,3 95,2 93,5 91,4 89,8 85,6 81,9 78,9 75,7 72,9 81,4 0,6 21,3 17,8 15,2 1200 35000 31200 30800 3SMA 8 DRI P1-L L 80 100,3 0,2 71,4 74,9 76,5 81,5 84,3 89,7 95,5 94,0 91,6 90,0 86,0 82,4 79,5 76,5 73,5 81,4 0,6 20,4 24,1 15,2 1200 35000 31200 30800 3SMA 8 STF H1-R R 80 98,6 0,4 73,9 77,5 82,1 89,6 94,5 91,5 90,1 86,8 83,4 80,2 77,5 73,3 71,4 81,3 0,4 20,0 19,0 800 35000 31200 30800 2SMA 8 STF H1-L L 80 97,9 0,6 74,4 77,9 82,0 89,1 92,7 90,9 90,1 87,4 83,3 80,1 77,3 73,9 72,0 81,3 0,4 20,0 19,0 800 35000 31200 30800 2SMA 8 STF P1-R R 80 99,9 0,5 74,8 78,1 81,4 86,0 93,6 95,3 92,3 90,4 86,8 83,2 79,1 75,6 72,3 81,9 0,2 20,0 19,0 1200 35000 31200 30800 3SMA 8 STF P1-L L 80 99,9 0,6 74,7 78,0 81,7 86,5 93,8 95,4 92,2 90,1 86,1 82,4 78,7 76,1 72,3 81,9 0,2 20,0 19,0 1200 35000 31200 30800 3SMA 8 TUG H1 80 98,4 0,1 69,4 73,1 72,2 77,1 82,6 90,0 94,5 89,4 90,3 86,3 82,4 79,5 76,6 73,2 72,2 80,4 0,4 20,3 17,8 800 0 400 2SMA 8 TUG P1 80 99,0 0,3 68,9 73,0 73,9 78,0 80,9 87,8 95,2 92,1 89,6 87,5 83,8 80,0 76,9 73,8 70,9 80,2 0,3 29,9 25,6 800 0 400 2


36

37

Table B.7. M10 AC 8o





Table B.8. Kongelundsvej SMA 6+



type tyre L/R [km/h] [dB] [dB] 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 200 2500 3150 4000 5000 [km/h] [km/h] [C°] [C°] [C°] length [m] [km] [m] [m] RunsSMA 6+ DRI H1-R R 50 89,8 0,1 61,5 64,5 66,2 73,5 80,2 80,7 83,6 81,9 81,5 80,2 75,9 72,4 70,1 66,0 64,4 50,8 0,6 22,0 17,6 15,5 480 0 560 400 3SMA 6+ DRI H1-L L 50 89,7 0,2 61,0 64,6 66,1 71,6 77,4 80,6 84,4 82,4 81,1 79,2 76,3 73,7 70,8 66,1 64,4 50,8 0,6 21,2 17,6 15,5 480 0 560 400 3SMA 6+ DRI P1-R R 50 89,6 0,1 64,5 66,0 66,8 71,5 75,6 78,6 82,9 83,0 81,5 80,8 77,8 74,2 70,4 67,1 64,3 50,2 0,5 25,3 24,1 18,5 640 0 560 400 4SMA 6+ DRI P1-L L 50 89,8 0,1 63,4 65,2 66,7 71,8 77,1 79,6 83,4 83,6 81,4 80,2 77,3 74,1 70,6 67,6 64,6 50,2 0,5 24,1 24,1 18,5 640 0 560 400 4SMA 6+ STF H1-R R 50 89,6 0,1 64,5 71,4 78,8 81,3 83,7 82,0 81,7 78,8 75,1 71,9 69,5 65,1 63,5 51,8 0,2 27,0 21,0 480 0 560 400 3SMA 6+ STF H1-L L 50 89,0 0,2 64,7 69,4 75,5 80,1 83,2 82,6 80,6 78,6 74,5 71,2 69,0 65,2 63,3 51,8 0,2 27,0 21,0 480 0 560 400 3SMA 6+ STF P1-R R 50 90,2 0,2 65,7 70,2 74,3 77,6 83,4 84,9 81,8 81,4 78,2 74,8 70,0 66,7 63,8 51,4 0,6 27,0 21,0 480 0 560 400 3SMA 6+ STF P1-L L 50 90,2 0,1 66,0 71,3 75,3 78,7 83,2 85,2 81,7 80,8 77,5 74,3 70,1 67,8 64,3 51,4 0,6 27,0 21,0 480 0 560 400 3SMA 6+ TUG H1 50 89,4 0,2 60,8 62,6 65,3 72,3 78,9 80,5 83,6 80,3 82,2 78,8 74,3 71,4 68,3 63,8 63,5 49,8 2,3 28,2 20,9 1020 150 320 6SMA 6+ TUG P1 50 89,3 0,2 62,6 62,9 64,4 69,2 73,5 78,0 84,3 82,0 80,9 79,7 76,5 72,8 68,9 65,5 62,8 49,7 0,9 29,3 20,9 850 150 320 5


Table B.9. Kongelundsvej AC 8t



type tyre L/R [km/h] [dB] [dB] 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 200 2500 3150 4000 5000 [km/h] [km/h] [C°] [C°] [C°] length [m] [km] [m] [m] RunsAB 8t DRI H1-R R 50 90,0 0,2 60,4 63,7 65,5 73,6 80,0 80,5 83,8 82,1 81,5 80,9 76,3 72,9 70,6 66,3 64,8 50,5 0,5 22,0 17,6 15,5 540 340 160 3AB 8t DRI H1-L L 50 89,9 0,1 60,4 64,3 65,7 71,3 77,2 80,3 84,8 82,6 81,0 79,7 76,7 74,2 71,2 66,3 64,7 50,5 0,5 21,2 17,6 15,5 540 340 160 3AB 8t DRI P1-R R 50 89,8 0,1 63,5 65,2 66,1 71,1 75,2 78,4 82,6 83,5 81,6 81,5 78,7 75,0 71,0 67,6 65,1 50,5 0,5 25,3 24,1 18,5 720 340 160 4AB 8t DRI P1-L L 50 90,0 0,1 63,2 65,0 66,4 71,6 77,1 79,6 83,3 84,2 81,5 80,6 77,9 74,6 71,0 67,9 65,1 50,5 0,5 24,1 24,1 18,5 720 340 160 4AB 8t STF H1-R R 50 90,0 0,2 63,5 71,0 79,3 81,4 84,3 82,1 82,0 79,9 75,7 72,9 70,3 65,6 64,2 52,1 0,3 27,0 21,0 580 340 160 3AB 8t STF H1-L L 50 89,2 0,2 63,9 68,8 75,5 80,0 83,5 82,9 80,7 79,4 75,1 72,1 69,8 65,8 64,0 52,1 0,3 27,0 21,0 580 340 160 3AB 8t STF P1-R R 50 90,1 0,6 65,9 70,6 74,6 78,0 83,6 84,7 81,9 81,1 77,8 74,3 69,7 66,4 63,1 50,3 0,3 27,0 21,0 560 340 160 3AB 8t STF P1-L L 50 90,1 0,3 66,0 71,0 75,2 78,7 83,4 84,9 81,7 80,7 77,3 74,1 70,0 67,6 63,8 50,3 0,3 27,0 21,0 560 340 160 3AB 8t TUG H1 50 89,6 0,1 60,5 62,2 65,4 72,5 78,5 80,2 84,0 80,6 82,6 79,1 74,4 71,8 68,5 64,0 63,5 49,5 1,4 28,0 20,8 1140 380 570 6AB 8t TUG P1 50 89,0 0,1 62,4 62,4 63,6 68,7 73,5 77,5 83,5 81,8 80,6 80,3 76,8 73,0 68,9 65,6 63,1 49,7 0,6 29,3 21,1 760 380 570 4


37

38

Table B.10. Kongelundsvej AC 11d S



type tyre L/R [km/h] [dB] [dB] 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 [km/h] [km/h] [C°] [C°] [C°] length [m] [km] [m] [m] RunsAC 11d S DRI H1-R R 50 90,4 0,2 61,9 65,0 66,5 73,8 80,2 81,3 84,4 82,3 81,7 81,3 76,8 73,3 71,0 66,8 65,3 50,7 0,4 22,0 17,6 15,5 300 0 120 20 3AC 11d S DRI H1-L L 50 90,2 0,2 61,0 65,0 66,5 71,8 77,4 80,8 85,2 82,7 81,2 79,8 76,9 74,4 71,5 66,6 65,0 50,7 0,4 21,2 17,6 15,5 300 0 120 20 3AC 11d S DRI P1-R R 50 90,6 0,1 65,6 67,2 68,0 72,9 76,4 79,9 83,9 84,5 82,4 81,6 78,7 75,3 71,4 68,1 65,7 49,6 1,2 25,3 24,1 18,5 400 0 120 20 4AC 11d S DRI P1-L L 50 90,6 0,1 64,0 66,3 67,6 73,1 77,6 80,4 83,9 84,8 82,1 80,6 77,9 74,7 71,2 68,1 65,3 49,6 1,2 24,1 24,1 18,5 400 0 120 20 4AC 11d S STF H1-R R 50 90,2 0,2 66,1 72,4 78,7 81,4 85,3 82,1 81,8 79,9 75,6 72,9 70,4 65,7 64,6 49,6 1,3 27,0 21,0 80 0 120 20 1AC 11d S STF H1-L L 50 89,6 0,2 65,6 70,5 75,7 80,5 84,5 83,1 80,3 79,2 75,0 71,7 69,5 65,4 63,9 49,6 1,3 27,0 21,0 80 0 120 20 1AC 11d S STF P1-R R 50 91,2 0,3 65,2 70,3 74,7 78,2 84,2 86,1 83,1 82,3 79,4 76,1 71,4 68,0 65,4 50,5 0,7 27,0 21,0 340 0 120 20 3AC 11d S STF P1-L L 50 91,5 0,4 67,0 72,3 76,1 79,6 84,4 86,8 83,4 81,7 78,4 75,5 71,3 68,8 65,6 50,5 0,7 27,0 21,0 340 0 120 20 3AC 11d S TUG H1 50 89,9 0,1 62,0 63,4 66,7 74,1 78,1 80,8 84,8 80,6 82,2 79,3 74,6 71,9 68,8 64,3 64,0 47,7 5,0 28,0 20,7 500 620 720 5AC 11d S TUG P1 50 89,7 0,2 63,3 63,4 65,2 70,2 74,1 78,5 84,6 82,8 81,1 80,4 77,0 73,4 69,4 66,0 63,5 49,0 3,3 29,5 21,2 400 620 720 4


Table B.11. Kongelundsvej AC 11d N



type tyre L/R [km/h] [dB] [dB] 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 200 2500 3150 4000 5000 [km/h] [km/h] [C°] [C°] [C°] length [m] [km] [m] [m] RunsAC 11d N DRI H1-R R 50 90,2 0,1 59,5 63,3 65,4 73,4 80,0 80,8 84,3 82,2 81,5 81,2 76,4 73,0 70,4 65,7 64,3 50,7 0,5 22,0 17,6 15,5 300 0 20 120 3AC 11d N DRI H1-L L 50 90,3 0,0 60,5 64,2 65,6 71,4 77,4 80,2 85,3 82,7 81,2 80,5 77,2 74,9 71,7 66,7 65,0 50,7 0,5 21,2 17,6 15,5 300 0 20 120 3AC 11d N DRI P1-R R 50 89,7 0,1 62,7 64,7 66,2 71,3 75,4 78,6 82,7 83,7 81,6 81,0 78,2 74,5 70,2 66,6 64,1 50,7 0,5 25,3 24,1 18,5 300 0 20 120 3AC 11d N DRI P1-L L 50 90,2 0,1 63,3 64,9 66,3 71,5 77,0 79,6 83,1 84,4 81,5 80,9 78,3 74,8 70,9 67,8 65,1 50,7 0,5 24,1 24,1 18,5 300 0 20 120 3AC 11d N STF H1-R R 50 90,0 0,2 63,0 70,1 78,8 82,4 84,2 82,1 81,8 79,9 75,6 72,4 69,8 64,9 63,4 55,8 0,3 24,0 21,0 320 0 20 120 3AC 11d N STF H1-L L 50 89,3 0,2 63,7 68,2 74,8 80,3 83,3 82,8 81,2 80,1 75,3 72,4 70,3 66,0 64,1 55,8 0,3 24,0 21,0 320 0 20 120 3AC 11d N STF P1-R R 50 91,4 0,4 67,1 71,3 75,0 79,0 84,4 86,3 83,1 82,3 79,1 75,9 71,4 67,7 65,3 54,2 0,6 24,0 21,0 320 0 20 120 3AC 11d N STF P1-L L 50 91,3 0,5 66,5 71,1 75,0 79,6 84,0 86,6 83,1 81,7 78,5 75,6 71,3 68,9 65,8 54,2 0,6 24,0 21,0 320 0 20 120 3AC 11d N TUG H1 50 90,0 0,2 60,9 63,1 65,2 71,9 79,8 81,6 84,1 80,4 82,9 79,4 74,6 72,2 68,9 64,4 63,8 51,2 3,6 28,7 20,8 550 20 130 5AC 11d N TUG P1 50 89,6 0,2 63,1 63,3 64,7 69,9 74,1 78,4 84,5 82,5 80,9 80,3 76,8 73,2 69,0 65,6 63,1 50,4 1,9 29,9 21,0 660 20 130 6


Table B.12. Kongelundsvej AC 6o





38

39

Table B.13. Kongelundsvej UTLAC 6



type tyre L/R [km/h] [dB] [dB] 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 200 2500 3150 4000 5000 [km/h] [km/h] [C°] [C°] [C°] length [m] [km] [m] [m] RunsUTLAC 6 DRI H1-R R 50 89,5 0,2 58,6 63,2 65,0 73,1 79,1 80,0 83,4 82,0 81,3 80,1 75,7 72,1 69,5 65,0 63,2 50,7 0,4 22,0 17,6 15,5 480 0 400 560 3UTLAC 6 DRI H1-L L 50 89,8 0,1 60,6 63,9 65,5 71,3 77,0 79,8 84,4 82,6 81,1 79,8 76,7 74,1 71,0 66,2 64,6 50,7 0,4 21,2 17,6 15,5 480 0 400 560 3UTLAC 6 DRI P1-R R 50 89,0 0,1 62,6 64,6 65,5 70,5 75,1 78,0 82,2 82,5 81,1 80,3 77,5 73,7 69,7 65,9 62,8 50,4 0,1 25,3 24,1 18,5 640 0 400 560 4UTLAC 6 DRI P1-L L 50 89,5 0,1 63,2 64,5 65,5 70,6 76,1 78,9 82,6 83,4 81,3 80,4 77,8 74,4 70,7 67,5 64,4 50,4 0,1 24,1 24,1 18,5 640 0 400 560 4UTLAC 6 STF H1-R R 50 89,6 0,2 64,7 72,1 78,4 80,9 84,3 81,9 81,4 78,8 74,9 71,5 68,9 64,3 62,6 49,6 0,6 24,0 21,0 480 0 400 560 3UTLAC 6 STF H1-L L 50 89,2 0,2 64,4 69,9 75,8 79,7 83,9 82,6 80,8 79,1 74,7 71,4 69,4 65,3 63,4 49,6 0,6 24,0 21,0 480 0 400 560 3UTLAC 6 STF P1-R R 50 90,6 0,3 65,7 69,7 74,1 77,7 83,5 85,6 82,0 82,1 79,1 75,7 70,9 67,9 65,4 52,3 0,1 24,0 21,0 520 0 400 560 3UTLAC 6 STF P1-L L 50 90,6 0,3 66,0 71,5 75,4 78,7 83,3 85,9 82,2 80,9 77,8 74,7 70,4 68,2 65,0 52,3 0,1 24,0 21,0 520 0 400 560 3UTLAC 6 TUG H1 50 89,2 0,1 60,3 61,9 64,8 72,3 79,0 80,0 83,3 80,3 82,4 78,6 74,0 71,3 68,1 63,5 63,1 49,9 0,7 29,0 20,4 1020 420 590 6UTLAC 6 TUG P1 50 88,7 0,2 62,7 62,3 63,5 68,3 72,9 77,3 83,4 81,3 80,5 79,9 76,4 72,8 68,7 65,3 62,6 50,5 2,5 29,7 20,7 850 420 590 5


Table B.14. Vigerslevvej PA 8 / PA 16



type tyre L/R [km/h] [dB] [dB] 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 200 2500 3150 4000 5000 [km/h] [km/h] [C°] [C°] [C°] length [m] [km] [m] [m] RunsPA 8 / PA 16 DRI H1-R R 50 88,6 0,9 63,3 66,9 67,2 72,9 77,4 80,0 82,0 81,6 80,1 78,1 75,1 71,3 69,0 65,0 63,3 49,9 0,8 21,7 16,9 15,9 840 0 0 280 3PA 8 / PA 16 DRI H1-L L 50 89,4 0,5 63,5 67,2 67,6 72,6 77,0 80,4 83,2 82,9 80,6 78,3 76,2 73,5 70,5 65,9 64,1 49,9 0,8 20,6 16,9 15,9 840 0 0 280 3PA 8 / PA 16 DRI P1-R R 50 88,8 1,1 65,9 67,5 68,8 73,4 76,5 78,8 81,9 82,1 81,2 78,7 75,8 72,9 69,6 65,6 62,7 47,8 1,3 23,4 21,2 18,1 1400 0 0 280 5PA 8 / PA 16 DRI P1-L L 50 89,5 0,6 65,5 67,4 68,6 73,4 77,0 79,7 82,8 82,9 81,6 79,2 76,7 73,8 70,6 67,1 64,1 47,8 1,3 22,2 21,2 18,1 1400 0 0 280 5PA 8 / PA 16 STF H1-R R 50 88,3 1,0 66,6 71,9 76,7 79,5 82,3 82,0 79,7 76,9 74,5 70,9 68,6 64,4 63,0 51,1 1,2 27,0 21,0 1080 0 0 280 3PA 8 / PA 16 STF H1-L L 50 88,7 0,6 66,5 71,0 75,7 79,8 82,4 82,8 80,2 77,8 74,9 71,2 69,1 65,5 64,0 51,1 1,2 27,0 21,0 1080 0 0 280 3PA 8 / PA 16 STF P1-R R 50 89,6 1,1 68,7 73,4 76,0 78,1 82,9 83,9 82,1 79,5 76,3 73,7 69,9 66,3 63,2 49,5 0,5 27,0 21,0 1040 0 0 280 3PA 8 / PA 16 STF P1-L L 50 89,8 0,7 68,5 73,6 76,3 78,7 82,8 84,2 82,1 79,8 76,5 74,0 70,4 67,9 64,2 49,5 0,5 27,0 21,0 1040 0 0 280 3PA 8 / PA 16 TUG H1 50 88,5 0,1 64,0 65,1 66,5 72,3 77,2 79,7 82,9 80,6 80,1 77,3 74,0 70,1 67,3 63,4 62,8 50,5 1,5 26,4 20,2 900 0 300 3PA 8 / PA 16 TUG P1 50 89,5 0,2 65,0 65,7 67,5 72,1 74,9 79,6 84,5 82,1 81,3 78,6 75,8 72,5 69,2 65,6 62,9 49,6 0,7 26,9 20,8 900 0 300 3


39

40

FREQUENCY SPECTRA – TUG TRAILER ON M10 AT 80 KM/H WITH FOUR DIFFERENT SRTTS

Figure B.1 - Figure B.7 show the A-weighted frequency spectra and overall A-weighted CPX noise levels measured on M10 with each of four different SRTTs. Each figure shows the results from one of the seven test sections. These results have not been corrected for temperature influence. The air temperature was between 22 °C and 27 °C.

M10 UTLAC 8 SRTT_R

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

200 315 500 800 1250 2000 3150 5000

Frequency [Hz]

LCPX [dB]

TUG_O LA = 101,1 dBSTF_R LA = 100,9 dBDRI_R LA = 100,5 dBTUG_N LA = 100,1 dB

Figure B.1. UTLAC 8

M10 SMA 6p SRTT_R

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

200 315 500 800 1250 2000 3150 5000

Frequency [Hz]

LCPX [dB]

TUG_O LA = 99,8 dBSTF_R LA = 99,3 dBDRI_R LA = 99 dBTUG_N LA = 98,6 dB

Figure B.2. SMA 6p

41

M10 AC 11o SRTT_R

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

200 315 500 800 1250 2000 3150 5000

Frequency [Hz]

LCPX [dB]

TUG_O LA = 101 dBSTF_R LA = 100,8 dBDRI_R LA = 100,6 dBTUG_N LA = 100,1 dB

Figure B.3. AC 11o

M10 HRA 16 SRTT_R

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

200 315 500 800 1250 2000 3150 5000

Frequency [Hz]

LCPX [dB]


Figure B.4. HRA 16

42

M10 AC 11d SRTT_R

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

200 315 500 800 1250 2000 3150 5000

Frequency [Hz]

LCPX [dB]

TUG_O LA = 100 dBSTF_R LA = 99,8 dBDRI_R LA = 99,6 dBTUG_N LA = 98,8 dB

Figure B.5. AC 11d

M10 SMA 8 SRTT_R

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

200 315 500 800 1250 2000 3150 5000

Frequency [Hz]

LCPX [dB]


Figure B.6. SMA 8

43

M10 AC 8o SRTT_R

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

200 315 500 800 1250 2000 3150 5000

Frequency [Hz]

LCPX [dB]


Figure B.7 AC 8o

44

APPENDIX C

SHORE A MEASUREMENT RESULTS

The results of tread hardness measurements are shown in Table C.1. The tyre manufacturing dates were

SRTT: P1_DRI and P1_TUG: Week 46, 2008 SRTT: P1_STF: Week 42, 2006 Avon AV4: H1_DRI, H1_STF and H1_TUG: week 13, 2008.

45

Table C.1. Measured tread hardness

Pos No. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Tyre Outer (shoulder) blocks Avg Inner (centre) blocks Avg Max Avg Min Operator #1; Zwick durometer, DRI P1 DRI_R 62,5 62,8 62,8 62,8 62,7 62,5 62,0 62,3 61,5 62,1 62,8 62,4 61,5 P1 DRI_L 63,0 62,8 62,0 62,8 62,6 62,3 61,8 61,5 61,8 61,8 63,0 62,2 61,5 P1 STF_R 65,8 65,5 65,3 66,8 65,8 66,3 65,8 65,5 64,0 65,4 66,8 65,6 64,0 P1 STF_L 67,0 66,5 66,5 65,5 66,4 66,8 65,5 66,0 66,3 66,1 67,0 66,3 65,5 P1 TUG 62,5 61,5 61,8 62,0 61,9 62,0 62,5 61,0 60,8 61,6 62,5 61,8 60,8 H1 DRI_R 60,3 60,3 60,0 60,5 60,3 61,0 60,8 60,8 60,8 60,8 61,0 60,5 60,0 H1 DRI_L 61,5 60,8 60,3 60,5 60,8 59,8 60,5 60,5 61,0 60,4 61,5 60,6 59,8 H1 STF_R 61,5 60,3 60,5 60,5 60,7 61,3 60,8 60,8 60,8 60,9 61,5 60,8 60,3 H1 STF_L 60,5 60,5 60,8 61,3 60,8 60,5 60,3 60,3 60,5 60,4 61,3 60,6 60,3 H1 TUG 61,8 61,3 61,3 61,3 61,4 60,5 61,0 61,5 61,8 61,2 61,8 61,3 60,5

Operator #1; Bareiss durometer, VTI/TUG P1 DRI_L 60,8 61,5 61,5 61,5 61,3 61,3 61,0 61,0 60,8 61,0 61,5 61,2 60,8

Operator #2; Bareiss durometer, VTI/TUG P1 DRI_R 60,8 60,3 59,8 60,0 60,2 59,5 59,5 60,5 60,3 59,9 60,8 60,1 59,5 P1 DRI_L 64,0 64,8 62,0 64,3 63,8 63,8 61,3 61,8 62,5 62,3 64,8 63,0 61,3 P1 STF_R 61,5 60,3 63,3 64,5 62,4 64,3 64,3 64,5 63,3 64,1 64,5 63,2 60,3 P1 STF_L 65,5 68,8 66,8 67,0 67,0 66,0 66,0 65,5 65,3 65,7 68,8 66,3 65,3 P1 TUG 60,0 60,3 60,8 60,8 60,4 61,0 61,0 61,3 60,8 61,0 61,0 60,7 60,0 H1 STF_R 63,5 62,0 63,3 61,0 62,4 60,3 61,3 60,3 61,0 60,7 63,5 61,6 60,3 H1 STF_L 60,5 60,8 63,5 63,8 62,1 59,5 60,3 60,5 60,5 60,2 63,8 61,2 59,5 H1 TUG 60,0 58,8 59,5 61,3 59,9 59,8 58,8 58,0 58,0 58,6 61,3 59,3 58,0 Operator #3; Bareiss durometer, VTI/TUG P1 DRI_R 62 61 61 61 61,3 61 61 61 61 61,0 62,0 61,1 61,0 P1 DRI_L 63 62 62 63 62,5 62 61 61 60 61,0 63,0 61,8 60,0 P1 STF_R 66 65 66 66 65,8 65 65 64 65 64,8 66,0 65,3 64,0 P1 STF_L 65 65 65 65 65,0 64 64 65 65 64,5 65,0 64,8 64,0 P1 TUG 63 62 63 61 62,3 61 61 62 61 61,3 63,0 61,8 61,0 H1 DRI_R 60 60 60 59 59,8 60 60 59 60 59,8 60,0 59,8 59,0 H1 DRI_L 60 60 61 61 60,5 61 60 60 61 60,5 61,0 60,5 60,0 H1 STF_R 60 60 60 60 60,0 60 60 61 60 60,3 60,0 60,1 60,0 H1 STF_L 60 60 61 60 60,3 60 60 60 59 59,8 60,3 60,0 59,0 H1 TUG 61 61 61 60 60,8 61 61 60 60 60,5 61,0 60,6 60,0

46

Table C.2 shows the differences between the average Shore A value meas-ured by different operators. For the SRTT and Avon AV4 tyres, respectively, the differences for the STF and the corresponding DRI tyre and the differ-ences for the TUG and the corresponding DRI tyre are given. On the average, the STF SRTTs were 3 Shore A units harder than the DRI and TUG SRTTs. All three Avon AV4 tyres were equally hard.

Table C.2 Differences between Shore A hardness measured by different operators

Tyre Operator DRI STF TUG Avg

STF-DRI

P1_R 3.1 2.2 4.5 3.3

P1_L 3.8 3.3 2.5 3.2

TUG-DRI

SRTT

P1_R -0.8 0.3 1.0 0.2

STF-DRI

H1_R 0.4 0.3 0.3

H1_L 0.0 0.3 0.1

TUG-DRI

Avon

H1_R 0.6 1.0 0.8

Figure C.1 and Figure C.2 compares operators and instruments. C.1 shows the shore A values of DRI SRTT_L measured by each of three op-erators with the durometer belonging to TUG. Operator # 2 measured 1.8 Shore A units higher value than operator # 1 and operator # 2 measured 0.6 Shore A units higher value than operator # 1. As shown in Figure C.2 operator # 1 measured 1.0 higher Shore A value for the DRI SRTT_L with the DRI du-rometer than with the TUG durometer.

47

60,0

60,5

61,0

61,5

62,0

62,5

63,0

63,5

64,0

Operator # 1 Operator # 2 Operator # 3

Shore ATyre: DRI SRTT_LDurometer: TUG

Figure C.1 Operator influence, cf. text

Durometer60,0

60,5

61,0

61,5

62,0

62,5

63,0

63,5

64,0

DRI TUG

Shore ATyre: DRI SRTT_L

Figure C.2 Instrument influence; shore A hardness of DRI SRTT_L measured by operator #1 with the DRI and with the TUG durometer, respectively

Rapport / Report

Nr. No.

Titel/Title Forfatter/Author

170 ABM type c til broer Indstampningstemperaturens indflydelse på materialeparametre ved Marshall-fremstilling og - prøvning.

Erik Nielsen

171 Acoustic aging of asphalt pavements A Californian / Danish comparison

Hans BendtsenQing Lu

Erwin Kohler

172 Vejteknisk Instituts ringprøvning - Asfalt Undersøgelse af udvikling i spredning i perioden 1994-2008/2009

Erik Nielsen

173 Highway noise abatement Planning tools and Danish examples

Hans Bendtsen

174 Noise Barrier Design Danish and some European Examples

Hans Bendtsen

175 Paper Temperature influence on noise measurements EURONOISE 2009 - Edinburgh

Hans BendtsenQing Lu

Erwin KohlerBruce Rymer

176 Bituminous binders - Results of Danish Round Robins for CEN test methods from 2000-2009

Erik Nielsen

177 Ageing of bituminous binders Erik Nielsen

178 DVS-DRI. Super Quiet Traffic International search for pavement providing 10 dB noise reduction

Jørgen Kragh

179 Støjreduktion med tolags drænasfalt Øster Søgade – de første otte år

Lars EllebjergHans Bendtsen

180 Traffic Flow and noise – A method study Gilles Pigasse

181 The Blue Spot Concept Methods to predict and handle flooding on highways

Klas Hansson, VTI, SwedenFredrik Hellman, VTI, Sweden

Marianne Grauert, DRIMichael Larsen, DRI

182 Background Report Literature, questionnaire and data collection for blue spot identification

Marianne Grauert, DRIKlas Hansson, VTI, Sweden

Fredrik Hellman, VTI, Sweden

183 The Blue Spot Model Development of a screening method to assess flood risk on highways

Michael Larsen, DRI

184 Inspection and Maintenance Guide for reducing vulnerability due to flooding of roads

Fredrik Hellman, VTI, SwedenKnud A. Pihl, DRI

Klas Hansson VTI, Sweden

185 Blue Spot Konceptet Metode til udpegning og håndtering af oversvømmelser på motorveje

Klas Hansson, VTI, SwedenFredrik Hellman, VTI, Sweden

Marianne Grauert, DRIMichael Larsen, DRI

186 Surface dressings optimized for low tyre/road noise. Paper for Inter·Noise 2010 in Lisbon, Portugal

Bent AndersenHans Bendtsen

187 Beboernes opfattelse af støjen ved Motorring 3. Undersøgelse før og efter udvidelsen af M3 Sammenfatningsrapport

Hans BendtsenEmine Celik Christensen

188 Road surface texture - low noise and low rolling resistance CPX trailer comparison - Copenhagen 2009

Jørgen KraghBent Andersen

Jens Oddershede

The Danish Road Directorate has local offi ces in Aalborg, Fløng, Herlev, Her-ning, Middelfart, Næstved, Skanderborg and it’s head offi ce in Copenhagen.

Find more information on roaddirectorate.dk.

ROAD DIRECTORATEGuldalderen 12, FløngDK-2640 HedehusenePhone +45 7244 7000

[email protected]

road surface texture - nordfou surface... · because they are the sections applied for field...

Documents