Editor's Note: This is the twenty-seventhin a series of review d tutorial papers ou various aspectsof acoustics.

Noise reduction by barriers

Ulrich J. Kurze
Battelle-lnstitut e. V.. Frankfurt, Germany (Received 11 May 1973) A literature review hs been preparedto summarizethe presentstate of knowledge concerning the attenuationby barriers.Frequentlyusedpredictionmethodsfor the performance of screen-type barriersare analyzedwith respect to errorsresulting from particularsource and receiver positions, from ground reflections,from absorptivepropertiesof the barrier and the ground, and from the influenceof wind. Recently developedformulasdescribingthe diffraction by wedge-shaped and wide barriers are reduced to simplifiedmethodsfor the predictionof the shieldingachievablein comparisonto screen-type barriers. Unsolved problemsapparent from discrepancies of the field performance of barriersand the resultsof theoreticaland model studiesare summarized to outline areasrequiringfurther research. Subject Classification:10.60; 50.75, 50.80; 25.30.

INTRODUCTION

Investigators of the fast group developeda number of

Traf-

In recent years, noise control by barriers has become

a common measure of environmental protection.

rules for the practical designof barriers. -s A superficial weight of at least 10 kg/ma is recommended for
screens to provide a transmission loss of more than 20

fic noise from highways, railroads, and airports, other

outdoor noises from construction machinery or station-

dB. Higher vaiues are not required outdoors, in view

of the practical limitations imposed on the attenuation by all/fraction due to meteorological conditions. Nu-

ary installations, such as large transformers or plants,

md indoor noise in open plan offices and schools can be

shielded by a barrier,
from the source

which intercepts the line-of-sight

The noise at the receiv-

to a receiver.

er is reduced to the snmller portion which arrives via

diffraction over the barrier top or around its ends, via reflection from other buildings, and via scattering and
refraction in the atmosphere. In addition to the mea-

merous charts have been put forward, which show attenuation data in the range from 5 to 20 dB, particuiarly for screen-type barriers with heights between I and4 m, for earth berms, for elevated and depressedhighways, and
for rows of houses.

surable acoustical effect, there is much evidence that

the visual shielding of the noise source by a barrier has a eonsiderable psychological effect. In outdoor noise

The charts combine theoretical approximations with field experience. They are often oversimplified and
leave many questions open. Are the charts suitable for

determining the attenuationof a screen-type barrier for

sound incidence at an oblique angle ? What is the effect
of the barrier material? How does the insertion loss of

control, a row of trees, which is known to have a marginal influence on sound propagation, ranks among the most frequentIy desired protective measures.
An efficient sound barrier must shield the receiver

a barrier dependon the acoustical properties of the

against the predominant portion of the sound energy radiated from the source and dixected toward the reception point. At the same time it has to be acceptable in its visual appearance, structural stability and cost, and from the viewpoints of safety and access. Therefore, it is most desirable to have sound barriers functionally integrated into the environment of noise sources, e.g.,
garages and storage buildings located between a road

ground ? Are there preferable barrier geometries? How is it possibleto determinethe attenuation performance of a wide barrier ? What is the influenceof atmospheric
conditions, e.g., prevailing winds? What are the mech-

anismsunderlyingthe 15-dB "screening"effect observed in urban areas and can it be harnessedby ingeniousdesign? 4 Manyof theseandother questions related to barrier shielding can be tackled without the effort involved

and residential buildings.

such barriers

In general, the shape of

in extensive field measurements, but with theoretical and model studies. One must agree with Scholes s that

will not be that of the commorfiy consid-

"thereis noshortage of papers dealing withthetheoretical aspectsof barrier performance." However, one must addthat not enough use is madeof thesepowerful
tools in the design of barriers and in the evaluation of

ered thin screen; it may rather be a right-angle wedge resulting from a wall of a depressed road, a trapezoid formed by an earth betre, a long building representing a three-sided barrier, or multiple barriers formed by
several parallel rows of houses.

field data. This review paper is aimed at reducingthis

deficiency.
I. SCREEN-TYPE BARRIERS

What do we know about these various types of barriers

and their outdoor shielding effect? The numerous publications on diffraction and noise reduction by barriers can be roughly divided into three groups: one comprises theoretical studies, the second deals with experiments using scaled models, and the third gives results of fullscale experimental investigations of barriers under normat environmental conditions.

The theory of diffraction has its origin in the Huygens-

Fresnel principle, 6 whichis the basisfor Kirchhoff's

and various subsequent approximations of the diffracted

field near the shadow boundary,andin Sommerfeld's

exact solution of the wave equationfor a plane incident wave and a wedge, which started a series of rather com-

plex mathematical treatises. The Iarchhoff approxima-

504

J.Acoust Soc. Am., Vol. 55,No. 3,March 1974

Copyrig. ! 1974 bythe Acoustical Society ofAmerica

504

505

U.J. Kurze: Noise reduction bybarriers

505

tion considers onlythe edgeof the diffractingobstacle,

while Sommerfeld's procedure makes it possible to i2ke the wedgeangle into account. A third methodof deriving approximatesolutionsof comple diffraction problems

finedby sinl='o/A='/B , and0, ', 80, and8 are shown

in the projection plane z = const in Fig. 2Co). For simplifying the analysis, the angle of diffraction is also defined in the projection plane, qo = e0 - 0 - r. Then,
Redfearn's parameter

hasbeendeveloped by Keller.? His geometrical theory of diffraction leadsto relatively simple formulas, which
combinethe practicability of Kirchhoff's approximations with the greater accuracy of the Sommerfeld-type solutions and can be generalized to treat diffraction by threedimensionalobjectsof any smoothshape.

xd' sm
can be introduced into Eq. 1, and one obtains

(2)

A. Semi-infinite rigid screen

Several procedures hzve been proposedto m.ke the

theoreticelresults of the simplestconfiguraUon, i.e.,

a point source and a semi-binite screen, avaLlablefor
the practical design of sound barriers.
1.

More than 30

-20log[l+ sin0/2 1/ riB. sin(e + o/2)J

(3)

yearsago, Redfearn s developed the graphshown in Fig.

It gives the attenuation AL in the shadow zone of a

rigid barrier as a function of an effective barrier height h divided by the soundwavelength;. The parameter of

The first term of Eq. 3 approvals e strait-te potions of Reen's cht wi 1 . Except for large angles of diffraction and about u lens z d zo, e second rm les to a margl error for perpen-

the curves is th angleof diffraction o. The twoparametersh/X and0are readilyavailable from a drawing and
give Redfearn's chart the advantageof being straightfor-

dicu sold incidence. However, the error maybe

subtl the ce of lique sd cidence. order avoid is error, e angle of dIrtion
d term of Eq. 3 is sml for small es
tion but reaches - 6 dB when eider e source

wardly applicableto practical barrier design.

suldnot bedetermed e projecon pte. The'

of diffracor e re-

Sincethe rigorousSommerfeld-type solutiondepends on five rather than two independent lrameters, it is

obvious that approximations are involved in Redfearn's

ceiver are close to e in Fig. 3.

screen.

This is aphicaHy

sho

chart which may lead to major errors. The magnitude of the error for the straight-line portions of the curves in Fig. 1 follows from a comparison with Keller's asymptotic solution:

Curved rt[o

of Ree's

crt

belong smut

gles and/or sl
in e following alical
first term of Eq. 3:

ratios h/k. They c be included

appromation, replaci e

112

AL 201og2 [(2h/X)tan/2] dB (4)

This empiric eression is accurate I entire rge of vues sho in Fig. 1. Wi 1 , it is so coistent wi e rigors wi e e error solution

+cos(eo+O)/2 dB. (1)

A, B, andd are the lengthsshown in Fig. 2(a), f{ is the
angle between the incident ray and the barrier edge de-

recentiy obeyed by Piercem for sourced receiver Iocaons 0 >>X d z >>A, respectrely:

d8

/.0

150'
120' 90 e

3
i0 5

FIG.

1.

Redfearn's

chart for the attenuation

of sound by diffraction from a rigid screen.

20

0o
0

o.I

10

10o

J. Acoust.Soc. Am., Vol. 55, No. 3, March 1974

506

U.J. Kurze: Noisereductionby barriers

506

(a)

B
CEIVR

accounts just for the first term of Eq. 8. The second term must be considered if the diffracted path length A + B is much longer than the direct path length d bebveen source and receiver. When source and receiver

are not relatively close to the screen, the third term yields a correction of 3 dB and cancels the average correction due to the fourth term. 2 Note that the last terms
of Eqs. 3 and 8 are identical.
Maekawa conducted a series of model experiments under geometrical conditions for which the attenuation data obtained scattered slightly around an average value
of zero for the sum of the third nd fourth term in Eq. &

sOURCE BARRIER
0a} oT. r ....-oR
FIG. 2. (a) Perspective view o[ a baie;
plane = const.

$r d

From the results he concluded that one should practically use an attenuation 3 dB lower than that following from a YArchhoff-type asymptotic expansion for small angles of diffraction 0. The value of - 3 dB is consistent with the average value of the angular correction term shown in Fig. 3.

For Fresnel numbers N < 1, Maekawa's experimental

) pjecion in the

curve agrees well with the approximation in Eq. 4 and

with the expression (2h/k)tano/2 replacedby N/2. For

N= 0, when the source, the diffracting edge of the screen, and the receiver are positioned on a straight line, Fig.
4 shows an attenuation of 5 dB instead under conditions of the theoretical which did not meet

=(3- t0 tog{lff(x.) +/(x_)] a+[g(xj

whe=e

(2)
(6)
for fraction over

value of 6 dB.
mental

This difference may be due to experi-

data obtained

x.=

the theoretical requirements '0, r >>X. However, this

is of minor practical importance.

is e spect notlon of peters

a rigid screen-te brier in the direction8 =/2, for norl sold incideuce a for J* z+ o. (neralnoons e given wi Eq. 12. ) The nctions (X) d ( e e aa nctlons of Fresnel tegrs defined a ut Chap. 7 of e NBS Hdbook of
Mathematical Fctims.
Re,cat's ct s rg applicable snd

B. Absorbing screen
A rigid screen that shields a receiver against a noise source also acts as a reflector. A second reflector may then deteriorate the attemiatlon performance of the screen. This situation is typical of barriers on both sides of a road and has been studied in model experi-

o
e mjor disvge of not becidence at obtique Oe wi

e dNfracg
sed

edge of e screen. adtion,

These shortcomgs
cht shown

it is comve

ments.,3,x, In manypractical applications the interaction can be avoidedby using inclined rigid screens. Atternativety, absorbing layers can be put on the barrier
surfaces. For outdoor applications, particularly for shietding against road traffic noise, the absorbing layers

of numerous cues.
scissa beeen of e

been overcomeby a cht proposed by Maewa. n The

nonline len Fig. 4 is e over the ge

mustbe protected from humidity anddust.xs

The effect of an absorptive cover of a screen oh the

Fresnel number= /X,

a sou

where 5 is the dgference

ray diffracted

of e screen d e direct ray from e srce D e receiver when e screen is sent. lic description of ekawa's solution follows from the equivalence

attenuationby diffraction has notbeenstudiedtheoretically. Those results of geometrical optics, whlch some-

times refer to "absorbing" screens,correspond inacous-

2h n/2 =i 5A+B+d T
Corresnding
ior for N 1:

(7)
e asymptlc behavo dB

/.5

90

B5

180

Eq. 3, one fis

e . -2

+ )
l/
Maewa's asympc eression
-5

ALu= 101og(20N)
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 55, No. 3, March 1974

(9)

FIG. 3.

Angular correction term in Eqs. 3 and 8.

507

U.J. Kurze: Noise reduction bybarrierJ

507

dS

'

sound ray emanating from .theimage sourceare equally

diffracted by the screen edge, i.e., if the source is located very close to the screen surface. Then the level increase of 6 dB at the diffracting edge can be accounted

25

for eitherbyconsidering the- 6 dBcorrection termfor

2O

the attenuation shown in Fig. 3 or by referring the attenuation to the actual level at the screen edge, as proposed by Maekawa.

io

In the case of an absorbing screen, the destrucUve interference of a direct ray at grazing incidence with the ray emanating from the image source may resnit in a considerabte attenuation along the path from the source to the diffracting edge, even for weakly absorbing materials. The theoretical prediction of the interference

phenomena is well understood Is andis frequently simplified by the assumption of locally reacting surfaces
5

with a uniform impedance. How_ever, in manypractical

cases with less defined boundary conditions and nonuni-

form directivity of radiation from the source, preference

0
J Slllll I I I I IFll

hs to be given to the Maekawa methodof measuring the

10

0 001

0.1

Sound-pressure. level at the position of the diffracting

edge. The shielding of the barrier is then determined by the sum of the attenuation as shown in Fig. 4 and of

FIG. 4. Maekawa's chart for the soundattenuationby bar-

riers. as ,... Kirehhoff approximation for small angles of diffraction. -- Experimental curve for rigid screens. ---Experimental curve for right-angie wedges.

the d/fference in level measured at the position of the diffracting edge vithoutand with the screen. This procedure does not account for an absorbing layer on the shadow side of the screen where, apart from effects resulting from the directivity of the sound source, a similar excess attenuation must be expected due to the principle of reciprocity. Thus, an absorbing layer on the shadow side of the screen may resnit in underestimat-

tics to the results for a pressure release surface with

the reflection coefficient - 1, but not for the reflection coefficient O. They are of minor practical importance
for sound barriers.

Experimentaldata reportedfrom modelstudiesof ab-

ing the total attenuation by applying the method proposed by Maekawa. On the other hand, the effectiveness of an absorbing layer on the bright side of the screen is over-

sorptive screens byMaekawa n indicate a marginal effect of the absorptive layer for diffraction anglesq<45 . At q= 90 and N >1, the absorptive layer resulted in im-

estimatedif the sodnd rys interfering at the screenedge

are diffracted at substantially different angles. Field

provementsof the attenuation from 5 to 8 dB. Using an

absorptive layer which gave an absorption coefficient

experiences obtainedby applying Maekawa's procedure to more complex environmental conditions will be described later in this paper.

, >0.8, Fleischei 18 found-Iron/field measurements an increasein attenuation of the order of 0 to 5 dB, with
an average value as low as 1.6 dB. From full-scale

C. Screenon a rigid ground

Consideration of a semi-infinite screen is useful for

measurements in the presenceof a wati 3 m hih, Jonas-

son 17 als concluded thatit is generally of minorimportance whether a thinscreenis sound absorbing or not.
An angle of more than 45 formed by the screen and the incident and diffracted sound ray, respectively, is common to all experimental setups, which yield a nsgligible influence of an absorbing screen surface. For

deriving base-line data of diffraction problems. In all practical applications, additional boundary conditions require some modifications of the basic results. The simplest boundary condition is that of a rigid ground on which the screen is erected. Without the screen, the
total sound pressure at the receiver is due to the interference of a direct sound ray and a reflected sound ray. With the screen interposed between the source and the

smaller angies and particularly for grazing soundin-

cidence, Maelwa u andJonasson 59propose. a procedure

for determiningthe_ shieldingeffect of a barrier which
involves the sound pressure at the edge of the screen. The principle underlying this procedure is the decomposition of the total sound field at the diffracting edge
into a direct field without the screen and the field of an

receiver, soundrays with and without ground reflections on either side of the screen, i.e., a total of four sound rays, determine the sound pressure at the receiver.
In the limiting case where both the source and the re-

ceiver are very close to the reflecting plane, all the contributions to the sound pressure at the receiver are co-

image source ac. counting for reflections at thesource

side of the screen.

An ideally reflecting screen causesa pressure dou'bling at its surface. The corresponding level increase by 6 dB is fully effective if the direct sound ray and the
J. Acoust.Soc.Am., VoL 55, No. 3, March 1974

herent. The sound-pressure level increases by 6 dB without the screen, but by 12 dB with the screen on the reflecting ground plane. Thus, the effective attenuation is 6 dB lower than predicted for the semi-infinite screen.
This result is consistent with the fact that a screen of

508

U.J. Kurze:Noisereduction by barrier

508

zeroheight above a reflecting ground gives noattetuation, while a semi-infinite screen with the edge on the
line-of-sight
attenuation

ranges between 0 for N t >>1 and -3 dB for 2V1-0. At receiver locations close to the ground but remote from the

from the source to the receiver

of 6 dB.

gives an

The limiting case is considered in the design charts

for barrier attenuation by Fehrt9 andby Lukasikand Nolle2; bothof thesechartsare based roughly onthe
Fresnel number 3/. Fehr' s curve is shifted by -6 dB against the Kirchhoff-type curve for very small angles
of diffraction. For larger angles of diffraction and 3/

screen, 3/2--0, the autocorrelation functions are eqbal to 1, and the error =3 dB, i.e., the attenuation is overestimated by 3 dB. As the receiver moves closer in to the screen, an attenuation maximum is approached for 3/2--1. The corresponding error minimum,

(1lb)

>0.1, the attenuationfollowingfrom Fehr's curve may

be overestimated by 3 dB according to Maekawa's result. The chart presented by Lukasik and Nolte is just a graph

ccuted for A(]) = 10 log + const, d e error

mmum for 2 = 2,

of Eq. 9, which does not accountfor the reduced attenuation above a reflecting ground. Fehr's chart together with a simplified calculation procedure for the path length difference 5 has been

11c)

e plotted i Fig. 5 for puretones andfor -ocvebd noise. It is well o at e interference of

adopted as a British SW-ndard 2 for predictingthe shielding by a screen, even if the source and the receiver are

re tonecomnenWmayresultin lcal sound pressure mima d m behi e screen. It is some-

not locateddirectly on the reflecting ground. [Sincea

linear scale is used for the Fresnel number N, the curve given in the British Standard is indistinguishable from

timesnotreized, however, Wat-ocve-bd noise

may so causeflucatio more th 10 dB at receiver locations close W a reflecting ound. A 11 ocve bd is required to reduce e flucaons in
noise level below 2 dB.

AL = 10 log(ION) dB, which is the asymptoticapproximation of Fehr's curve for N>I]. The validity of such
an approach depends upon the errors possibly caused by neglecting the interference of direct and reflected rays. A check on these errors is made in the following by considering first the simpler case where the source is

The attention by a screen on a refiectg d wi e source located close to e ground is of practical imce for e noise. Field measurements ve

beenrearted by Maekawa, whorecordede soundpressure level e sdow zone of a 2-m-hi d

0. l-m-thick concrete wl at a helot of 1 m ove e reflecting ound. The atteafion da reported are referred to e sou-pressure level at e position of e top of e screen when e screen was absent. Measurements at disces of 1 16 m from e wall and

located directly on the reflecting ground and the receiver is located somewhere above the ground in the screen's
shadow zone. The sound field at the receiver is then

composed of two diffracted rays, one travelling directly from the top of the screen to the receiver with the atten-

uation AL (N), the other being reflected at the ground plane and attenuateddue to diffraction by AL(3/ +N_).
N is the Fresnel number used in the British Standard

wi pure nes e rge from 0.25 to 2 z show considerably flucag levels, but not Hy consistent

and3/2= 25./Xaccounts for the increasein path length

52of the reflected ray. The difference in attenuation
due to different spherical divergence will be neglected. Hence, the total pressure p at the receiver relative to the free-field pressure P0 without the barrier

withe predicted tterns.

meurements
are t corrected at all wi

Moreover, -ocve-bd
fluctuations, which
eoretical inteere

show but marn

ences. view of modelsm by neim,

whichex-

P/PO = 10-'z'1)2 {1 + 10z'(l)"z'(t+2

x 2/ A
tion function of band-limited noise with the center

hibited We interference effects much better agreement wiW e eory, Maekawa's results must be atib-

'
(10)
fre-

10

dR

The equationinvolves cos(3/) as the autocorrelation

function of a planewaveandsin(x)/x as the autocorrelaquencyf, and the bandwidth Af. For pure tones, Af
-10

=0, andfor 1/3-octave-band noise, Af/f,=0.236. Compared to the asymptotic expansion, Eq. 9, the British Standard recommends replacing the square root in .q.
-20

10 by the factor 2/. The error limits can be estimated

as follows.

At receiver locations remote from the ground, 3/2> 1, the autocorrelation function of baud-limited noise ap-

10

proaches zero, and the error

FIG. 5. Plot of the error limits for pure tone (....

octave-band noise ()

) and-

ground interferences given in Eqs. 11b

(hr) = 10log{1+ 10s's's2] dB

,I. Acoust. Soc. Am., VoL 55, No. 3, March 1974

(11a)

and 11c.

509

U.J. Kurze: Noisereductionby barriers

509

uted to various uncontrolled outdoorphenomena, such as absorbingproperties of the ground, distortion in the
atmosphere, and possibly directivity effects of the source and the receiver. Based on his measurements, Maekawa concludedthat it would be appropriate to consider only
uncorrelated contributions to the total sound pressure at the receiver in order to avoid complicated calculations

The summation

of various

contributions

to the total sound

pressure at the receiver on an energy basis is mostly conservative, but may lead to errors in excess of + 5 dB.
The accuracy is much better if numerous sources are

and insiniqcant results of interference patterns. This conclusionis, by ad large, consistent with the pro-

involved. The comparison of results measured by Hapin ]4 in a model with several hundred sound sources and a calculation based on the energy summation and on Mekawa's attenuation chart is shownby the example in
Fig. 6.

cedure recommended by the British Standard, and the

estimates of the soundattenuation produced by a screen on reflecting ground are mostly conservative and particulaxly applicable to broad-band noise.

D. Screen on an absorptive ground

In outdoor applications, e.g., along highways, barriers are frequently erected on a groundwith densely grown grass or on fallow land. Such grounds can only
be approximated by a rigid plane at low frequencies. In the frequency range above 160 Hz or so, one must consider a finite impedance surface. Reflections at the ground can be taken into account by assuming a locally reacting surface with a uniform point impedance. This

Maekawa's proposal to refer the sound attenuation to

the soundpressure at the top of a screen has no bearing on results obtained with a source located directly on the ground. However, if the source is at some distance above a reflecting ground, the reference location may be critical. For example, consider a source located
I m above a reflecting ground and at a distance of 3 m

from a 2-m-high screen, and let the sourceradiate a

pure tone or i-octave-band noise with a center frequency of 170 Hz. The soundpressure at the screen edge has a minimum due to the inter/erence of a direct ray and a groundreflection. By simply referring the soundattenuation in the barrier's shadow zone to this pressure
minimum, one would overestimate the barrier performance. A 27 difference in the angle of diffraction for the two rays may result in a sound pressure at the receiver which is almost exclusively determined by the soundpressure of the direct ray. In Maelmwa's field experiments with both the source and the receiver at

is similar to the procedure described for rigid ground, but involves consideration of a complex reflection coefficient which reduces the amplitude and changes the phase of the reflected wave.
Free-field measurements concerning barriers on ab-

sorptiveground hve beencompared by Jonasson ?,24 andLindbiad 2swith the results of an analysisinvolving
interference phenomena above grass land. The soundpressure levels calculated for receiver positions close to the ground in the barrier's shadow zone depend critically on the point impedance of the ground. Since field data of the ground impedance are dltficult to obtain and generally show some scattering even for a fairly uni-

some distance above a reflecting ground, inter/erence

effects at the barrier edge may have contributed to the

failure of his procedure in some cases, which he explains by the nonuni/orm directivity of the loudspeaker
used.

form ground, Jonasson applied a curve matching procedure to determine the ground impedance from measured

and calculated barrier attenuationdata. These ground

impedance data have been found useful for calcuiating the sound reduction in the shadow zone of finite imped-

In view of the disagreement between Maekawa's sim-

ancewedges. s9
The treatment of interference phenomena remains qualitatively unchanged i/the reflection coefficient 1 for rigid ground is replaced by a complex reflection coef-

plified method for the prediction of shielding by a barrier and numerous results of field nd laboratory model tests with a screen above reflecting ground performed

by Makawa,Hapin, Ringhelm , andothers,it is

concludedthat special attention has to be paid to the problem of pure tone and narrow-band noise shietding.

ficient for finite impedance ground. With practical applications of soundbarriers, however, the quantitative

FIG.

6.

Curves

of constant

excess

at-

tenuation at 500 Hz for an 8-m-high barrier. Section normal to eight-lane

highway.

Data from model test

by Rapin. 14 ....

Calculation with

Maekawa's procedure.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 55, No. 3, March 1974

510

U.J. Kurze:Noiereduction by barriers

510

differences become essential. Close to a rigid surface, the sound pressure always doubles. At some distance from the source, however, the finite impedance of grass land, stubble field, and other outdoor surfaces results
in destructive interferences with a pressure minimum

tion due to the barrier.

Measurements conducted by Ringhelm 3 usingmodel

and full-scale screens do not show the good agreement

with Maekawa's empirical results that was found by

close to the ground, which is very pronounced in the

Scholeset al. 28 An obviousreason is due to the spectral

bandwidth of the noise source or the analyzer. Scholes

frequency rangefrom 200 to 600 Hz. 28,27 A lowbarrier

shielding the receiver against the ground reflection without substantially diffracting the direct ray cancels the
benefits of the destructive interference. The small bar-

used octave bands of noise, while Ringhelm measured in

-ociave bands. Consequently, Hingheim'sresults were

critically affected by ground interferences in the shadow

rier attenuation yields either a marginal or in extreme

zone, while in Scholes' experiment the reduced correlation of direct and reflected rays allowed for an application of Maekawa's proposal to consider incoherent contrlbutions to the sound pressure at the receiver and to add the mean-square pressures.

casesevena negativesound reduction. 24,28 Compared to this effect, interference phenomena of groundreflection on either side of the barrier
role.

usually play a minor

In view of the practical difficulties arising from the influence of finite-impedance ground, various methods have been proposed as simplified procedures for the prediction of the field performance of barriers. Based on experimental data obtained on asphalted ground and on fallow ground, which scattered over a range of about

Further evidence of the importance of the spectral

bandwidth to the barrier attenuation of noise follows

from measurements of A-weighted peaksf roadtraffic noiseas reportedby Scholes et al? 2 The attenuation
data calculated from field data of the broad-band traffic

7 dB, Fleischer 8,29 putIorward a series of curvesfor

the prediction of noise reduction at distances of more than 5 m and up to 200 m from rigid screens. Compared to Maekawa's experimental curve shown in Fig. 4, Fleischer accounts for 1 to 4 dB less attenaution in the range

noise agree within I dB with a design curve derived from Maekawa's chart with the spectrum of motorway noise. Scholes claims that the design curve is applicable to reception positions up to 120 m away from the barrier. Possible errors in the prediction of attenuations are

caused by the effects of wind and, to a lesser extent,

temperature gradient. This is discussed in Sec. LII. From Scholes' paper, which is based on an enormous amount of field data, one may conclude that the com-

of Fresnel numbers 0 <N<10, and he assumes a maximum attenuation of 23 dB for N >10. Other authors have

likewise assumed an upper limit for the attenuation by

barriers outdoor in the rangefrom 15 to 25 dB. 1,s0.3

There is no evidence, however, that the corrections made provide reasonable or conservative estimates in
all practical cases.

plicatedproblemf attenuation by screenson the ground

has been successfully reduced to the evaluation of a design chart showing a single curve. However, one has to realize that the chart implies the particular source spec-

Based on numerous field experiments Scholes, Sal-

vidge, andSargent s,28,2 proposed to distinguish between

the noise tenuation. reduction due to a barrier and the barrier atThe noise reduction is based on measured

levels, with and without a barrier,

and is influenced by

trum, directivity, and location of road traffic noise in England and that it merely yields the A-weighted sound pressure level at typical receiver positions in the shadow zone of a long, screen-type barrier. The results may be different for dominating noise from unmuffled
truck exhausts ending 8 ft or higher above the ground.

the various environmental effects, particularly by wind effects and acoustical properties of the ground. The barrier attenuation is based on measured levels in the presence of a barrier a barrier. and calculated et al. levels in the absence of for Scholes found that the attenuations

In addition, the actual barrier performance in terms of the noise reduction, does not follow from Scholes' chart
and requires further considerations of sound propagation over absorbing ground.

"certain propagation conditions" agree well with the theoretical values, which are based on Maekawa's prediction chart. These propagation conditions obviously require negligible effects of interferences at the barrier top and at the receiver in the harriet's shadow zone.

It seems feasible to develop design charts, similar to that by Scholes, for other specific broad band noises.
Special noise problems involving pure tones or narrow-

For the practical design of soundbarriers,

it follows

band noises, such as transformer hum and specific plant noises, cannot be solved with sufficient accuracy by means of simplified procedures but require more detailed investigations of interference phenomena.

that it is necessary to measure the sound-pressure level at the position of the top of the planned barrier and at the reception point to be shielded in order to predict the

E. Screenof finite length

The finite length of a screen becomes important in many practical applications. From the Kirchhoff approx-

noise reduction of the barrier; and this is the quantity of interest. In many applications with barriers close to sources of known directivity, it may be assumed that the measurement at the position of the top of the planned barrier can be replaced by a calculation, without any loss of accuracy. Using Maekawa's prediction chart for the barrier attenuation, it may then be possible to obtain
relatively reliable data for the sound-pressure level in the barrier's shadow zone, but not for the noise reducJ. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 55, No. 3, March 1974

imationandfrom modelexperiments,Maekawa ; concluded that it is possible to predict the attenuation due to a screen of finite size by apptying the procedure proposed for the calculation of the diffraction over the top edge of
an infinite screen also to the two ends of the screen. For

frequency bands of noise, he recommends disregarding

phase relations between the three contributions to the

511

U.J. Kurze:Noiereduction by barrier

511

sound pressure at thereceiver.Maekawa points out that

groundreflection, related to the soundcontributionsdiffracted aroundthe endsof the screen, generally belong to rays at an oblique angle with the screen edge. His procedure with a reference pressure at the diffracting
edge allows for the approximate consideration of these

term

-,O,o
is zero for sml
tion rm is -6

2r

groundreflections. The methodhas been successfully

applied by Lutz ' for the comparison of predicted attenuation data and results of model tests on a reflecting ground.

greement with rchhf's

dB ff eider e

arotion,
e
source or e

e term
correcreceiver

angles of dEftaction .

Practical conclusions havebeendrawnby Reinhold 3

for the attenuation performance of a finite length barrier which, when infinitely long, reduces theA-weighted

level of road traffic noise by 15 dBA. Reinholdexpects

the attenuation to be reduced to 10 dBA if the line from one end of the semi-infinite barrier to the receiver en-

aroach e wedge surface. ff bo e source d e receiver approach e surface, e correction term rges beeen - 6 for screen, wi e wedge gle J = 2g, d - 12 for a ple, wi e wedge angle
=.

compassesan angle of 45 with the direction perpendicular to the road and that the attenuation is about 12 dBA

For a right-angle wge,

averse lue of - 5 dB h

the correction term some-

where beeen 0 for --0 d - 10.2 lly by ewa

for = /2. An

for an angle of 62 . It is not clear whether these data

been determined erimen-

have been derived from field experiments where ground absorptionwas of major influence. On the basis of sim-

et al. s Basedon e results from nu-

plifiedgeometrical considerations,'s thereduction of

the energy mean level of road traffic noise will be no

more than 7 dBA for an angle of 60 . Higher attenuations are effective for the peak levels of road traffic

merous source d receiver location, which were not decfiy on e wedge suace, Maawa concludest e aention due dfffction by a right-g!e we is abt 2 less tn e attenuaon by a screen. (Note
at e average correction term for a screen is

noise. Designcharts for the reductionof the level L m

- 3 dB). eoretic

eeren

results obned
wge may yield at-

(exceeded 10% of thetime) dueto partial screening of

longroads havebeenpresented by Scholes et l.z The reductioncan be determinedfrom these charts by means of the brrier potential, which is defined as the attenuation performanceof an infinitely longbarrier, andfrom the angle subtended at the receiver by the finite-length
barrier.
II. OTHER

by Jossons9coirm at sourced receiver locations

close e suace of a right-le

tentio

4 7 dB lower th.pricted by Eq. 9.

Ground effects are disregarded.

SHAPES OF BARRIERS

For s Fresnel numbers N, e Iimig case- 0 is not fected by y correction terms. Bo X. and X. arch zero, d e eoretic vue of e atnualion by dEftaction eqs 6 riB, independentof e wedge
gle.
d

From model eerimen

Lutz 3v fnd aenuation

wi
of 5

a right-le
for a receiver

wge apA srce

A. Wedge

1oted close to i surface, sele

The diffraction of soundwaves by a wedgehas been anal7zed by numerous investigators. Of particular interest for the theoretica. prediction is an attenuation

formuln recent/y derived by Pierce9 for the soundfield of a point source.. A specia/form of his results, i.e., the excessattenuationin the shadowzone of a screen, is described by P..q.5. For a wedge, the parametersof
Eq. 6 have to be replaced by

locat e soce pe at some disce beyond e dfrting edge. e eoretic 6-dB mum atnualion in e ne-of-sit fm e source via e edge to e receiver is due e assumption t bo e source e receiver e at a disce ger a wavelen from e dEftacting edge. By a series of numeric clations very carelly conducted mel ex-

percents, Arebaud d Bergssoils so covered e

rge of shorter disces. For rigid wges wi solid

'

(/)sin(/)

'

gles of 0 d
appromatio
The dtions

30, ey checkedtheir results ait

by rchhoff,
in level calculat

Mewa,
e

nd en.
sdow zone are

/2. \2 J cos(//) -cos[(;/)(e -e0) ]J

where

less

3.2 dB for 1 eples

listed.

In modelsdies neim
ss
of the ise ruction

investigated vious
emple
dEferertl measured for o

of barriers ou a reflecting ound.

=((*'+*'o)+ (z -zoO)
the cylindrical

(12c)

wedges
geer wi

-ocve-bandnoise is sho Fig. 7,

eorefical predictions bed on e theories

is the free wedgeangle, and o, 8o, zo and , 8, z are

coordinates of the source and the receiv-

by Pierce9 d wa.

n e

measuredta showa

er, respectively, as indicated in Fig. 2.

The asymptotic expansion of Pierce's formuM is con-

ml iluence of e wedge shape. Consistent wi the conclusio dra from e asymptotic formus, Reim fou e noise reduction by wges be generty a few decibels lower th e noise reduction by

sistentwith a formula derivedby Jonasson seandyields correction terms to the approximationEq. 9, similar to those of Eq. 8, but includingthe angular correction
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., VoL 55, No. 3, March 1974

a screen of e se helot. Fig. 7, e calcuted cve bed on Pierce's eo and e considerao

512

U.J. Kurze: Noise reduction by barriers

512

of interference
measured

effects is in better agreement with the

curve based on Mae-

data than the theoretical

kawa's procedure, which negiects interferences in the

diffracted sound field.

dBA at 40 m from the edge and 4 dBA at 80 m. These values seem to be conservative compared to the 7 to 10 dBA observed at all distances from a highway depressed

by about 4 m. Also, highernoisereductions o(7 to 9

DIN-phon were measured 1 m above grass land at distances of 40 m from 6-m-wide roads depressed between

The noise reduction by a wedge with a finite impedance surface has been investigated theoretically and in field

experiments by Jonasson. s9 The investigations were

aimed at predicting the reduction of tire noise for an asphalted road in a cut instead of a road running on level ground. It was assumed that the roaA side and the shoulder of the depressed road were covered with densely
grown grass. The shoulder and the surrounding ground

1.2 and3 m. * However,at receiverpositions 6m

above the ground, the noise reduction was as small as
6 DIN-phon.
B. Wide barriers

formed a wedgewith a solid angie of about 135. (Based

on experience, noise control engineers frequently recommend wedges with an absorbing ground cover and with an

The prediction of the noise reduction by hills, earth betres, or by rows of houses requires knowledge about diffraction by barriers with curved boundaries and about

double diffraction by three-sided barriero

Very Uttle is known about the attenuation performance of barriers with curved boundaries, except for the qualitative result that the field in the shadow zone decays exponentially, while in the shadow zone at some distance from a sharp edge the radiation varies with inverse dis-

angiesmaller thanthe commonly used147. s9) Theanalysis Jonasson used for his theoretical prediction is based

on the geometrical theory of diffraction described (see Sec. I-B). The edge of the wedge is bakenfor the edge of a screen, which diffracts the rays travelling from the
actual source and a complex image source toward the actual receiver and an image receiver. The location of

rance. 4 From this fact Jones drawsthe importantconclusion that a curved boundary gives a darker shadow than a sharp edge, and he expects the exponential decay
to become effective when the radius of the curvature ex-

images and the complex amplitude of the sound pressure at these images is determined by the surfaces of the wedge and their reflection properties.
The result of this analysis is in good agreement with pure-tone measurements over weakly absorbing ground up to distances of 55.7 m from the edge. Jonasson emphasizes that the agreement is due to the consideration of proper frequency characteristics for the admittance of a locally reacting ground. He concludes that the destructive interferences close to the slightly absorbing surfaces of a wedge make the depression of a road a

ceeds bali a wavelength.

For a screen o[ finite thick-

ness or a three-sided barrier,

one may correspondingly

assume an increase in attenuation, compared to the attenuation by a wedge, when the distance between the two edges exceeds one wavelength. In his first attempt at predicting the magnitnde of the

attenuation by widebarriers, Maekawa 4s proposed to

determine an equivalent height of a thin screen from the intercept of two tangents of the wide barrier running from
the source
the receiver

more efficient measure for traffic noise control at large distances than a barrier of a height equal to the depth of the road. The influence of the absorbing wedge surfaces exceeds the influence of the larger effective shielding

and the receiver

are close

over the surface of the barrier.

But it must also

Obviously, this procedure fails if both the source and

to a thick wall

height of the barrier; this follows from the consideration of the correction term(Eq. 13).

fail in all cases of a curved boundary, since an expo-

nentialdecay cannotbe approximated by an inverse linear

decay. In a later paper,s6Maekawa described the attennation by double diffraction at a wide wall with a

For the'noise reductionof A-weighted road traffic

noise achieved by depressing a point source by 3 m at a distance of 20 m from the edge, Jonasson calculated 3

power Law20 logN (for N> 5), instead of 10 1ogN for

the thin screen. However, his attempt to develop a pre-

BARRIER

100
30
dB

100 --I

FIG. 7. Reductionof -octave-band

noise by wedge-shaped barriers
and under

on a

reflecting ground.
from Pierce's

-- ....

Calculated

formula

consideration of phase relations. Calculated from Maekawa's procedure and without considering wedge angle and phase relations.

= , -O-O- Data from Ringheim's

o
o I I I I I } I I

model experiments for tvo different

wedgeshapes. zl

10 113 OCTAVEBAND CENTER FREQUENCY

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., VoL 55, No. 3, March 1974

513

U. Jo Kurze: Noise reduction bybarriers

513

diction method for the quantitative description of double

/r s >>1, /ra >>1, and w>> 1, where 1is the wave number, = 2 /. The first two are inherent in all approximations of diffraction formulas and have a minor bearing

diffraction was not successfulin all cases investigated.

Modelexperiments performed by Ringheim z with two

different trapezoidal harriers on a reflecting surface
showed that the noise reduction due to these barriers

was smaller thanthe noisereduction by a thin Screenof the sameheight, as longas the plateauwidth of the trapezoid was shorter than one wavelength. The excess at-

on practical noise problems in the frequency range above 100 Hz. The third condition may allow for an application of Pierce's formula in the entire range w> , which has been characterized by Jones as the range of wide barriers.

tenuation for higherfrequencies was marginaland sometimes maskedby interferencephenomena. Sincethe

measured noise reductions did not exceed 25 dB, this result is consistent with Maekawa's data. Compared to the thin-screen theory a considerable increase in attenuation can be expected only in the range AL > 25 dB.

Of particular interest for a simplified evaluation of the

attenuationby wide barriers is Pierce's asymptoticsolution for Ys and Y > 2:

L, =20 log(/)dB +20log(Bs Y)dB.

(15)

Based onmodel experiments in thefrequency range

from 1 to 10kHz, Lutzs4concluded from the comparison
of attenuation data measured in the shadow zone of model

This formula is consistent with the heuristical result that the attenuation by double diffraction equals the sum of the attenuationsdue to two single diffractions, one affecting a ray travelling from the source $ to a receiver

houseson a reflecting ground and calculated with an equivalent screen height, accordingto Maekawa'soriginal proposal for wide barriers, that a correction of + 5 dB
for Eq. 9 is sufficient to describe the double-edge diffraction. Obviously, the validity of this result is rather
limited.

pointR' in theplaneof thebarrier topandat a distance

a from the far edge, and the other affecting a ray travel-

lingfroma source $' in theplane of thebarrier topand

at a distance s from the near edge to the receiver point

/ [see Fig. S(a)].

With two Fresnel numbers N and N characterizing the two diffractions one may use Maekawa's experimental
curve to determine the corresponding attenuations not

A recent analytical approach for the calculation of the

attenuation by a rigid, three-sided barrier is due to

Pierce.9 Guided by concepts inherent in Kellar's7 geometrical theory of diffraction, Pierce constructed a solution for the attenuation by double diffraction. It may
serve as a conservative estimate for actual barriers

only in the asymptotic case of large N, but for all N> 0.

However, it hasto berealized thatthesource point S' andthereceiver point R' are directlyonthesurface of a
diffracting wedge, which, accordingto Eq. 13, requires
a correction of the Kirchhoff formula by at least - 6 dB

Which wholly containthe trapezoidalthree-sidedbarrier

considered. The attenuation formula constructed is

particularly designedfor the limiting cases of small

angles of diffraction at either edge and for the range of
asymptotic expansions:

each, or a correction of the Maekawa result for thin screens by about - 3 dB each, if source and receiver are
not very close to the harrier surface. For consistency

with the limiting case, N.- 0, of the Maekawaresult,

it is proposed to use the correction of - 5 dB for the sum

A: 201og dB - 101og[/(I/>) +(r>) ]

X[/(B<) +gZ(B <)] dB,
where

of the twoattenuations AL (Nl.), eachof which being

determinedby Maekawa'sexperimental curve for

(14a) (14b)

screens:

./La=(/V1)+/(/V2)5dB+201og(L/f)dB. (16)
The feasibility of this formula is demonstrated in Fig. 8(b), where calculations with Eq. 16 are compared with

=[ (rs+' +w) + (zs- zR ); ] l/;

is the path length of the diffracted ray from the source to the receiver, and d is the direct distance measured with-

datameasured by Maekawa e! ., 6andin Fig. 8(c) by

comparisonwith Pierce's exampleof the accurate eval-

out the barrier; f and g are the auxiliary functions of

Fresnel integrals, alre.ady defined for Eq. 5;

uationof Eq. 14. The agreement with Pierce's result

is excellent except for receiver points very close to the
barrier surface. In this case the attenuation calculated

-- + 'rs) +r)J
quantities

(14c) from Eq.

is a parameter characterizing the barrier width w; >

16 is too high by 3 dB, as predictable from Eq. 13.. If both the source and the receiver are very close

and Y< are the greater and smaller, respectively, of the

to therigid surface of a barrier (6 s and <10),the

attenuation calculated from Eq. 16 should even be re-

2rR(w + rs)-]l/a cs(/flR); cs[(r/flR)0i] (14d)' face of the rs:[. L xZ, (r/fl)sin(/fl)
s:L XL J
s, ,

duced by about 5 dB. Sucha correction, however, is irrelevant in practical cases with a finite impedance surharrier.

(/fls) sin (z/fl s)

The application of Eq. 16 to other model barriers ex-

(14e) tenuations which are in close agreement with the data

the barrier width. The reduction in attenuation

perimentally investig2ted by Maekawa!al. 6 yields atreported for wavelengths rangingfrom 1/14 to 0. 5 of

with in-

the source coordinates rs, 8s, and Zs, the receiver coordinates ', 8R, and z, and the barrier parameters

andvare defined in Fig. 8(a). Basic limita-

creasing barrierwidth observed byRingheim 2in the

range of very low frequenciesis neither predictable from

tions for Pierce's formula are given by the conditions

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 55, No. 3, March 1974

514

U.J. Kurze: Noisereduction by barriers

514

Eq. 14 nor from Eq. 16.

However, Eq. 16 can be used

a 4-m-wide barrier.

The path length differences needed

to explain Ringheim's conclusionthat the effect of barrier shape is essentially negligible for a barrier height
of 3 m, a source-to-barrier distance of 20 m, and barrier-to-observer distances greater than 20 m. For example, consider a receiver at a distance of 40 m from a screen and a height 1.5 m below the top edge of the screen. The path length of a ray emanating from a source 3 m below the top edge of the screen is 5= 0. 235m longer by diffraction than the direct path from the source to the receiver. At a frequency of 500 Hz, which is most typical of A-weighted road traffic noise, the Fresnel number of diffraction N= 0. 69, and Fig. 4. yields an attenuation of 12 dB. Now, let the screen be replaced by

for the evaluation of Eq. 16 are 5 = 0. 175 m and 52

= 0. 011m. (Notethat 2(5+ 52)>5 _>5 .+ 52for small anglesof diffraction). Thecorresponding attenuation is
,L = 12.5 dB, which is about the same as for the screen.
Of course, larger differences may occur when ground
reflections cause different interference effects for a

screen and a trapezoidal barrier.

The procedure proposed in Eq. 16 for calculating attennation by wide barriers invites an application to the problem of diffraction by two screens in parallel at a disrance w > ;. If the screen sides facing each other and the ground between the screens are completely absorptive,

(a)

0
30 dBI I I i

50
, I I i

I00
I I

cm
I

130
I

xO

20 kHz

FIG. 8. DoubI diffraction by threesided barrier. (a) Definition of symbols

used in the plane z = const. $' and R' are

the auxiliary source and receiver points used for the calculation of two single dif50
n

fractions.

(b) Attenuation

relative

to the

30
dB

sound pressure at the point X without the barrier in free space. OOOO Experimental values measured with pulsed

tonesby Maekawa. a6
from Eq. 16. Pardmeters:

Calculated
w=0.3 m,

(b)

rs=0.2 m, 0s=67.5 , /)R=45, =270 , tim = 270, zm= z,. (c)Attenuatiou relative
to the free-field
50

sound pressure at a dis-

ranceL = 30Xfrom a point source.

Cal-

culated by Pieroe; 9 ....

calculated from

Eq. 16. Parameters: to=10X, rs=10X ,

wR=10X, /]=45, =270 , R=270,

ZR= Z s.

dB o
o

20

(c)

< 30
z

i 30

/
60 90

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., VoL 55, No. 3, March 1974

515

U.J. Kurze: Noisereductionby barriers

515

one would have to cancel the term - 5 dB in Eq. 16. For reflecting surfaces, however, the same attenuation of 35 dB has been observed in model experiments using two
screens and a three-sided barrier of the same dimen-

patch sizes of the order of one wavelen,th or less, there will be a considerable amount of energy radiated into the geometrical shadow zone.
Except for some detailed studies concerned with the

sions. 4
Field experiences with earth berms and other wide barriers usuatly include the effects of an absorbing ground. A 1-m high earth berm next to a 6-m-wide road resulted in a noise reduction of 4 to 5 DIN-phon at distances of 20 to 40 m from the road.4 In the Same reference, 8 to 12 DIN-phon are reported for the attenuation of road traffic noise close to the ground and 25 to 15 m behind a 2.5-m-high earth berm and at distances of 40
to 30 m from the center lane of a road.

shielding by specialbuildings, 34,x,s0,5 whichmayserve

for comparison with theoretical data or for the description of typical urban situations, the investigations concerned with the shielding by houses have been aimed mostly at obtaining average values for the sound attenuation in urban areas. These average values obtained for the sound attenuation in excess of geometrical spreading

and atmospheric absorption range from 3 to 5 dB per row

of houses, witha maximum of 10dBfor multiple rows,

to 15 to 20 dB for intervening buildings that visually block

highways were measured by Reinhold? The largestvalue is about 20 dBA at a receiver point 5 m below and 10
m behind an 8-m-high earth berm located at a distance

airport 5or a highway, s0 andin exceptional cases to Noise reduction da taforearth berms along multi-lane an 23 dB at large distancesof 250 m from a siren (420 Hz)
mounted on top of a roof.7 The smaller attenuation valUes are foundin residential areas and the larger values
in densely built-up areas with four- and five-story buildings. It wouldbe most valuable to have shielding categories in steps of, say, 3 dB as a function of the type of noise

of 30 m from the center strip of a six-lane divided highway. At heights of 2 m below the top level of the earth berm, the measured noise reductions are about 10 dBA.
Data reported for the attenuation of the energy mean level of road traffic noise by a 16-m-high earth berm located at a distance of 50 m from a highway show a maximum value of 21 dBA at a distance of 110 m which is

sourceandthe type (commercial, residential, multistory) anddensityof buildings. However, the informationavailableis notadequate to derivethe necessary correlations. Less accuratelydescribed categories are
as follows.

directly behind the earth berm, and of 16.5 dBA at a

location50 m further out. Peak levelsfrom single

vehicles experienced an additional attenuation of 4 dBA. The theoretical attenuation of peak levels calculated
with the formula for double diffraction is about 11 dB

Values in the range 3-5 dB give a conservative estimate for the excess attenuation of the median level of

road traffic noise by a first row of residential houses,

which is usually the most effective for attenuation.

higher for a frequency of 500 Hz.

Higher values of 10 dB are more likely to be the average in the shadow zone of individual multi-story houses. A
shielding factor of 10 dBA is also derived from numer-

This large discrepancy may be due to the fact that the earth berm had a wedge of about 2-m height put on top of the 14-m-high trapezoid. Instead of the double dif-

ous measurements of the traffic noise level Ll0, which

fraction assumedfor the calculation, single diffraction at the wedgemight havebeen involved In addition, atmospheric conditionsmust be considered, which usually
make a barrier periments. less effective outdoors than in model ex-

is the level exceeded in 10%of the time, at distances up to 100 m behind a row of houses parallel to a main road.
The value is based on microphone positions 1.2 m above the groundand on gapsbetweentwo-story housesresult-

ing in a 30%openarea at the facades. The shielding

factor is higher for smaller distances if the percentage
of open area is smaller and has a maximum of 17 dBA directly behind a closed row of houses. The shielding factor is lower by 3 dBA at receiver positions 4 m above the ground.

C. Buildings

Investigations have been conducted ontheShielding of

houses and other buildings against noise from low-flying

aircraft, 6against sirensignals, 7and against road

traffic noise. 41,48--52

An attenuation of !5 3 dB at all audio frequencies was

foundby comparingfield data with results from a theoretical model of urban noise. 52 Attenuations in excess of 15 dB can be expected only under particularly unfav-

The problems of acoustical shielding by single buildings require the consideration of the combined effects

of wide barriers, barriers of finite length, and ground interaction. An analysis including all these effects (and the influence of wind and other atmospheric influences, whichwill be discussedin Sec. IH) is complicated enough to justify its replacement by model or field experiments.

orableconditions for sound propagation in built-upareas

with continuous blocks of apartment buildings.
Ill. WIND AND OTHER INFLUENCES OF THE

ATMOSPHERE

These mayallow for investigations of parameters not

included in the theory, such as the directivity of noise

Barrier attenuation measured outdoors are frequently much lower than those predicted by theory or measured
with models in anechoic rooms. Outdoor results for

sourcesand roughbarrier surfaces. Irregularities of a facade, balconies, protrusions, etc. whichare comparable in their dimensionswith the wavelength of sound,
may disturb the phase correlation of waves at diffracting edges of a building. If one has to consider at the diffracting edge a number of incoherently radiating patches with
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 55, No. 3, March 1974

the attenuation by diffraction hardly ever exceed 25 to 30 dB, depending on frequency. Possible mechanisms for the explanation of this behavior are the temperature and wind stratification, turbulences, and the refraction

of soundin the wake of a barrier. 'Wind gradients

516

U.J. Kurze:Noisereduction by barriers

516

caused by friction of the moving mass of air and the ground as well as temperature gradients under conditions of temperature inversion result in the bending of sound waves toward the ground. This tends to reduce

attenuation of the lower frequencies. The increase in octavesband noise level at a 6-m-high receiver behind a

4.9-m-high barrier with downwindof 5 m/sec was marginal at 250 Hz, about 5 dB at 1 kHz, and somewhatmore

the shielding effect of a barrier, particularly at large distances in the downwinddirection, and needs to be

consideredunder prevailing conditions. The effect

should be independent of frequency.
Most of the outdoor measurements show an influence

than 10 dB at 4 kHz, and showedno significant dependence on distance from the barrier in the range from 15 m to 120 m. Upwindblowing from the receiver to the source at a speedof 8 m/sec had no influence on the barrier attenuation, except for situations where the receiver was located in a wind-created shadow zone of [he

of wind which increases with increasing frequency and is detectable even at distances as small as 15 m'28 and
very pronounced at distances of more than 30 m from

sound source.

Then extremely low levels without a bar-

rier were notfurther reduced according to thetheoretical data for barrier attenuation. The pronouncedinfluence of wind direction is not predicted by the theory

a barrier. 20,4?,$5 This influence of wind cannot be related to mirror-like reflections from horizontal strat-

ifications, sinceit hasto be expected that the echo strength tendsto increasewith increasing wavelength, so
as opposed to the observations.

of sound scatteringin the atmosphere and, therefore,

indicates that refraction effects in the wake formed by

a barrier may indeed play a major role.'

Additional
attenuation

The influence of wind is frequently explained by scattering of sound due to turbulences in the atmosphere. For both atmospheric temperature fluctuations and tur-

results
have been

for the influence

derived from

of wind on barrier
measurements of

traffic noisepeaks. 32 The attenuation in level Lm can

be reduced by about 10 dBA at the most for downwind of

bulentvelocityfluctuations, Monin 7 hasshown that the scatteringof sound hasa minimu m in the direction perpendicular to the propagation path. Thus, an increase in sound level in the shadow zone due to scattering from the illuminated region above the reception point is very unlikely. By applying Monin's results to a Kolmogorov spectrum of turbulence, one finds that most of the scat-

5 m/sec, whereasupwind of 5 m/sec increasesthe attenuation by a lesser amount, typically 3 dBA. Scholes
e! dl. argue that the increase in the received traffic

noise level behinda barrier due to a rare strong wind

of 5 m/sec is more typical in the rangeof 5 or 6 dBA

and that the wind noise on building facadeshelps to make the problem less serious. For practical designpurposes,

ter is in the forwardhemisphere, i. e., mostof the '

scattered sound in the barrier's shadow zone should ar-

{he extreme situations are disregarded, and the effect

of windsblowingat 2 to 3 m/sec from a road to the re-

rive from the same direction

as the diffracted

sound.

ceiverare included in a 'design chartfor barriersbya

reduction of 2 dB in attenuation relative
situation.

For a Kolmogorov spectrum of turbulence, the scattered power increases weakly by 1 dB per doubling of
frequency. Together with the stronger 3-dB increase in barrier attenuation the data reported by Lukasik and

to the no-wind

IV.

CONCLUDING

REMARKS

Nolle 2for the frequency characteristicof the influence

of atmospheric turbulences on reduction of barrier at-

In the course of the development of procedures and

tenuation can be sufficiently explained. At 10 mph wi.nd velocity, the reduction increases from 0 dB at 200 Hz

design charts for the prediction of acoustical shielding

by barriers during the last 30 years two diverging ten-

to 13 dB at 6400 Hz. For wind velocities <5 mph, Lukasik et al. neglect the influenceof turbulence, and at 20 mph, the reduction is 2 dB at 100 Hz and 4 to 7 dB higher than the respective values for 10 mph at higher
frequencies. The practical limitation of 25 or 30 dB for barrier attenuation outdoors cannot be explained by the theoretical results for the scattering of sound in the earth's atmo-

dencies have emerged. One'is directed toward more detailed considerationsof the barrier shape, its lateral

extension, theacoustical properties of thebarrier material andthe surrounding ground,andatmospheric effects. The other is directed toward an overall descrip-

tion of barrier performance under most typical condi-

tions. Th simplifications 'inherent in overalldescriptions are in line with the demandsfor practicability, but
leave much space for speculation about the possible er-

for typical meteorological data s8 ndfor diffraction angles tion in special cases.' In the detailed consideration s deq >10 is at least two orders of magnitudes lower than required for an explanation of the 30-rib limit. In lookveloped, the practicbility is sometimes obscured by

sphere. The scattered power resulting from this theory

rors involved,andthe aPPlication anddesignoptimiza-

difficultanalyticalprQcedures.
Obviously,neither of the two extreme approaches described is properly matchedto the needsof noise control
engineering, as outlined in the task statement for the

ing for other mechanisms one might possibly consider the refraction of sound into the shadow zone by the wake formed by the barrier in a prevailing wind and phase distortion of the incident sound wave along the diffracting
edge.

Working Group on OutdoorNoise Propagationby the Co-

ordinating Committeeon Environmental Acoustics. '

can be found in

Some support of these considerations

Therefore,

future research is recommended in'the fol-

field data reported by Scholese! al. 5.2s These authors

found strongest effects of wind on the barrier attenuation

lowing on the basis of engineering appr0ahes to some

detailed problems.

at low receptionpointsfar from the barrier and, con-

(1') Ground interaction: The influences of source di,

sistentwith Lukasik et al., 2anoor little effectonthe

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 55, No. 3, March 1974

rectivity and ground interactionon the field performance

517

U.J. Kurze: Noise reduction by barriers

517

of barriers havebeenbypassed by manyinvestigators,

who successfully applied Maekawa's procedure for the prediction of the sound level in the shadow zone of a

refraction in thewake of a barrier plays a majorrole,

it would be important to investigate the feasibilityof barrier shapes providingthe least wind sensitivity.

screen-typebarrier for broad-bandnoises, e.g., .4weightedroad traffic noise. However, the procedure
does not allow for the straight-forward prediction of the
actual noise reduction achieved with a barrier. The es-

1C. G. Gordon, W. J. Galloway, B. A. Kugler, andD. L.

Nelson, "Highway Noise, A Design Guide for Highway Engineers," NCHRP Rep. 117, Highway Research Board (1971).

tablishment of a cataloguewith information about typical source directivities, e.g., horizontal and vertical radiation characteristics of noise from automobiles, and typical attenuationsfor soundpropagation over ground, e. g., fallow land, grass land, and low shrubberies, could help to overcome the shortcomings of Maekawa's method which result from the requirement for measured soundpressure levels, with no barrier, at the location of the diffracting barrier edge and at the reception point.

2W. E. Scholes andJ. W. Sargent,"Designing Against Noise

from Road Traffic," Appl. Aeoust. 4, 203-234 (1971).

aG. Reinhold,"Bau- undverkehrstechnische Massnahmen zum

SehutzgegenVerkehrsHirm (Designingfor the Control of Rod
Traffic Noise by Means of Construction and Traffic Techniques)," Strassenbau und Strassenverkehrstechnik 119, Bundesminister fltr Verkehr, Bonn., Germany (1971).

4R. H. Bolt andE. A. G. Shaw,"Initial Programof theCoordinating Committee on Environmental Acoustics," J. Aeoust. Sec. Am. 50, 443-445 (1971).

(2) Interference phenomena:For pure tonesand narrow-band noises, the insertion loss of barriers on the groundis critically dependenton interference phenomena

qt. E. Scholes, "NoiseReduction by Barriers," Proc. British

Aeoust. See. Meeting (April 1970), Paper 70/67.

6E. Skudrzyk, TheFoundations of Acoustics (Springer, New

York, 1971), Chap XXIV.

characteristic of the source and the reception point. The

interferences can be predicted from data of the source

?J. B. Keller, "Geometrical Theory of Diffraction," J. Opt.

See. Am. 52, 116-130 (1962).

directivity and of the reflection coefficientof a locally

reacting uniform ground. Considering the effort required for suchpredictions the practicability is rather limited, and investigationson acoustical properties of
the ground exceeding those needed for obtaining sound attenuation data should have a low priority.

8S.W. Redfearn, "Some Acoustical Source-Observer Problems," Phil. May. Set. 7, No. 30, 223-236 (1940).

9A. D. Pierce, "Diffraction of Sound Around Corners and Over

Wide Barriers," J. Aeoust. Sec. Am. (to be published).

'M. Abramowitz andJ. A. Stegun, Eds., Handbook of Mathematical Functions (Dover, New York, 1965), Chap. 7.

(3) Barrier shape and material: Theoretical and experimental investigations have shown that the attenua-

llZ. Maekawa, "Noise Reduction byScreens," Mem. Faculty

of Eng., Kobe Univ. 11, 29-53 (1965).

12U. J. KurzeandG. A. Anderson, "Sound Attenuation by

Barriers," Appl. Acoust. 4, 35-53 (1971).

tion of rigid, screen-type barriers is higher by about 2 dB than the attenuationof rigid, right-angie wedges. Smaller attenuationsfoundfor source and receiver positions close to the surface of a right-angie wedgeare not effective with finite impedancesurfaces. The procedures proposedby Jonasson for the evaluationof finite impedance effects needfurther verification, particularly for wide-angie barriers. The investigations shouldbe directed toward more specific descriptions of the limiting
benefits achievable with absorptive covers of barriers. In addition, further research is suggestedfor the evaluation of double diffraction by three-sided barriers on the

laW.Willms and D. Brebeck, "Untersuchungen derSchutzwirkung yon Schallschirmen gegen Lrm mir Hiffe you Modell-

messungen (Investigations on the Shieldingof Sound Barriers by Model Testing)," V ICA, Li[ge, Belgium (1965), Paper
F 41.

14j.M. Rapin,"Eludes desmodes deprotection phoniques aux

abords des voies rapides urbaines," CSTB, Paris 1969), Vol. I.A.
Erprobung absorbierender

(1 July

15G. Reinhold andW. Burger, "Diefunktionelle und betriebliche

L[rmschutzwnde an einer Auto-

bahn (Prformance and Field Testing of Absorbing Sound Barriers Along a Highway), "Strasse and Autobahn 1, 35-43

basis of the newly developedconcepts. The question under what conditions a screen-type barrier erected on
top of an earth berm improves or deteriorates the shielding is of great practical interest.

(Kirschbaum,Bonn, Germany) (1971).

t6F. Fleischer,"Zur Anwendung vonSchallschirmen (Onthe

Application of SoundBarriers),"
136 (1970).

Lirmbek/mpfang 14, 131-

?H.G. Jonasson, "Sound Reduction byBarriersontheGround,"

J. Sound Vib. 22, 113-126 (1972).

(4) Correlation along the diffracting edge: The existing theories of diffraction are based on specified phase correlations of waves along the dfffracting edge. One
possible reason for the lower attenuation observed out-

tSU.Ingard,"OntheReflection of a Spherical Sound Wave From

an Infinite Plane," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 23, 329-335 (1951).

19R.O. Fehr, "The Reduction of IndustrialMachine Noise,"

Proc. 2nd Ann. Nat. Noise Abatement Symposium, Chicago,
93-103 (1951).

doors than predicted from theory and measured in models is the distortion of these correlations, which may be due to the roughness of a building facade or to atmospheric turbulence. Model experiments may help to clear up this problem.

2S. J. Lukasik andA. W. Nolle, Eds., Handbook of Acoustic

Noise Control (Vol. 1, "Physical Acoustics,") Suppl. 1, WADC Tech. Rep., 52-204 (1955).

l"Sound Insulation andNoiseReduction," BritishStandard Code of PracticeCP3,(1960), Chap.HI. M. Riagheim, "AnExperimental Investigation of theAttenuation Produced by Noise Screens," Rep. No. LBA 461, NTH, Trondheim, Norway (1972).

(5) Influenceof wind: Apart from refraction of sound

into the barrier's shadow zone by wind and temperature gradients, the influence of atmospheric conditions on the attenuation performance of barriers is not well understood. The scattering due to turbulence near the diffraetIng barrier edge needs further investigations. If
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., VoL 55, No. 3, March 1974

SM.Ringhelm, "TrafficNoiseAttenuation by Screens, a

Preliminary Investigation of Model-Test Techniques," Rep. No. LBA 335, NTH, Trondheim, Norway (1971).

4H. Jonasson, "ThePropagation of Sound OverGround With

and Without Acoustic Barriers," Div. of Bldg. Tech., Lurid

518

U.J. Kurze: Noise reduction by barriers

518

Inst. Technoi. Rep. No. 18, Lund, Sweden(May 1971).

25S.O. Lindblad, "StudiesandMeasurements of Sound Propagation Over Level Ground With and Without Acoustic Barriers," Svensk Akust/kplanering AB, Gteborg, Sweden, Re-

Lib. Comm. No. 1314, Ministry of Tech., Building Research Station, Gaston, Wafford, Hefts., England (Sept. 1965)].

42D.S. Jones,"DiffractionTheory: A Brief Introductory Review," J. Sound Vib. 20, 71-78 (1972).

port L-739 (24 Oct. 1968) (in Swedish); see also Rep. L-739
c (23 March 1970).

3Z. Maekawa,"NoiseReduction by Screens,"Appl. Acoust.

1, 157-173 (1968).

Z6U.Ingard, "The Physicsof Outdoor Sound,"Proc. Fourth

Ann. Noise Abatement Syrup., 11-25 (1953).

44R.H. Lyon, privatecommunication (1972). asS.Ullrich, "Messungen an einemL/rmschutzwall bei Nienberge (Measurements at an Earth Berm Designed for Noise

27W. E. Scholesand H. P. Parkin, "The Effect of Small Changes in Source Height on the Propagation Over Grass Land," J. SoundVib. 6, 424-442 (1967).

Control at Nienberge)," L//rmbek//mpfung16, 141-144 (1972).

46P.H. Parkin andW. E. Scholes,"Oblique Air-to-Ground

Sound Propagation Over Buildings," Acustica
(1958).

28W.E. Schotes, A. C. Salvidge,andJ. W. Sargent,"Field

Performance
(1971).

8, 99-102

of a Noise Barrier,"

J. Sound Vib. 16, 627--642

?H. Goydke, W. Kallenbaeh, andH. J. Schroeder, "Uutersuehungenzur Schallausbreitung yon Sirenensignalen in Siadtund Lnndgebieten (Investigations on the Propagation of Sound Signals from Sirens in Urban and Country Areas)," Aeustiea 20, 276-288 (1968).

ZSF.Fiefschef, Lirmbekmpfung mir Schall schirmen (Noise

Control by SoundBarriers)(Wirme Kdlte Schall, G & H, Ludwigsburg, Germany, Aug. 1971).

8E. J. Rathe, "Noteon Two Common Problemsof Sound Propagation," J. SoundVib. 10, 472-479 (1969).

SF. J. Meister, "Die L//rmd/mmung imStrassenverkehr(Reduet/on of Road Traffic Noise)," VDI--Z.

73 (1964).

3fL. L. Beranek,Ed., NoiseandVibration Control (McGrawHill, New York, 1971), p. 177.

Noise Peaks," Appl. Acoustics 5, 205-222

106, No. 23, 1165--

32W.E. Scholes,A. C. Salvidge,andJ. W. Sargent,"Barriers and Traffic

(1972).

49R.J. Sawley andC. G. Gordon,"A Comprehensive Survey

of the Noise in Communities Around Boeing Field, Seattle," Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Rep. 1709 (Jan. 1969).

33Z. Maekawa, "Noise Reduction by Screenof Finite Size,"

Mem. Fae. Eng., Kobe Univ. 12, 1--12 (1966).

Ref. 31, p. 180. 51M.E. Delany, W. C. Copeland, andR. C. Payne, "Propagation of Traffic Noise in Typical Urban Situations," NPL Aeoust. Rep. Ae 54, Teddington, England (Oct. 1971).

4p. Lutz, "Zur Absehirmwirkung yon Geb//uden (Onthe Shielding of Buildings)," Proe. DAGA--Meeting, Stuttgart, Germany (Sept. 1972).

S2E.A. G. Shaw andN. Olson, "Theoryof Steady-State Urban

Noise From Ideal Homogeneous City," J. Aeoust. Sec. Am.

35U.J. Kurze, "Noisefrom Complex RoadTraffic," J. Sound

Vib. 19, 167-177 (1971).

51, 1781-1793 (1972).

Syrup. on Noise Pre-

6Z. Maekawa,K. Fujiwarn, andM. Morimoto, "SomeProblems of Noise Reduction by Barriers,"

U. Ingard, privatecommunication (1970). scp. A. FrankenandD. E. Bishop,"The Propagation of Sound

From Airport Ground Operations," NASA CR-767, ton D.C. (May 1967). Washing-

vention, Miskolc (1971), Paper No. 4.8.

?K. GSsele andP. Lutz, "hallabstrahlung vonFabrikhallen,

Ergebnisseyon Modelluntersuchungen (Sound Radiation from
Factory Buildings, Results of Model Studies)," Proc. Akustik und SehwingungsteehnikSymposium, Berlin 1970, VDI, Dfisseldorf, Germany, 335--338 (1971).

SSR. H. Bolt, S. J. Lukasik, A. W. NoHe, andA.D. Frost

Eds., Handbook of Acoustic Noise Control, WADC Tech.

Rep. 52-204 (Physical Acoustics, Vol. 1)(Dec. 1952).

SSC. G. Little, "Acoustic Methods for the RemoteProbingof

the Lower Atmosphere," Proe. IEEE 57, 571--578 (1969).
7, 370-373

3sp.Arebaud andA. Bergassoli,"Le problmedudiSdre

en acoustique (The Problem of the Wedge in Acoustics)," Acustiea 27, 291--298 (1972).

SA.S. Menin, "Characteristics of theScattering of Sound in

a Turbulent Atmosphere," Soy. Phys.--Aeoust.
(1962).

39R.Keller, "L//rmemassiouen bei Autobahnen (TheNoiseImpact from Highways)," Automobil Revue 49, Switzerland,
23 (Nov. 1972).

8F. F. Hall Jr., J. W. Wescott, andW.R. Simmons, "Acoustic Sounding of Atmospheric Thermal and Wind Structure," Proc. 7th Int. Syrup. Remote Sensing of Environment, Univ.

4Ref.31, p. 182. 41A.Rucker and G. Gliick, "Die Ausbreitung undD//mpfung

des Strassenverkehrlrms in Bebauungsgebieten,"Strassenbau u. Verkehrstechnik 32 (1964) [Engl. transl.: "The Propagation and Suppression of Road Traffic Noise in Built-Up Areas,"

Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. (17-21 May 1971).

H. G. Jonasson, "Diffraction by Wedges of Finite Acoustic

Impedance with Application to Depressed Roads," J. Sound Vib. 25, 577--585 (1972).

J. AcousCSoc. Am., Vol. 55, No. 3, March 1974