A review of current debates on noise-mapping.ppt

A review of current debates on noise-mapping Professor Jian Kang 康健 School of Architecture, University of Sheffield United Kingdom Important to predict urban noise contribution While noise-mapping widely used, especially in the EU, there are still serious debates about the validity. ResearchersMicro-scale modelling for urban sound propagation Theories and models: Image source method, with or without interferences Ray tracing Radiosity Acoustic particle transport theory Wave-based models finite element method (FEM) boundary element method (BEM) equivalent sources method (ESM) finite difference – time domain method (FDTD) parabolic equation (PE) method PractitionersMacro-scale modelling for urban sound: noise mapping Can be used for very large urban area (whole city) Over 10 software packages developed Consider various sources, various configurations Attractive output With GIS, predict affected population … Every EU city is mapping, now also UK - London done But, based on algorithms from standards, 30 years old, calculator based … Debates: against A letter in Acoustics Bulletin from Professor B. Shield (researcher) ‘very worried by the way in which noise mapping has been accepted, apparently without question, by the acoustics community in the country’ Accuracy - very few were concerned about accuracy and no proofs were achieved to substantiate the claim that ‘the predictions are within 2 or 3 dB of measured levels’. Cost - the acquisition and input of data with the production of a noise map ‘would take many weeks or months of a person’s time’. Necessity of noise mapping - the maps only mapped traffic on major urban roads, but ‘most experienced noise consultants could produce an accurate noise map if given a street map and a red pen’. Policymaking - policy is currently being driven by noise mapping - should be developed independently of noise mapping. Debates: for Tompsett (software developer) Accuracy – software developers were always ‘intensely’ interes