A study on modelling road traffic noise under heterogeneous

traffic conditions
9.1 Introduction
All the developing nations, including India, face the problem related to vehicular noise due to
a continuous exponential increase in the number of vehicles plying on the roads, which
ultimately increases the environmental noise levels (Singh et al. 2016). It has been estimated
that more than 50% of the environmental noise is contributed from road traffic (El-Fadel et al.
2002; Banerjee et al. 2008; Tandel et al. 2011). Traffic noise causes deterioration of people’s
comfort and quality of life, residing close to the transportation infrastructure (Banerjee 2012).
Although transportation infrastructure is the essential requisite for any developing society, its
negative aspects have received no or little attention as it provides means for satisfying the
mobility and accessibility demand (Hamad et al. 2017). This has led to a range of
environmental problems, including traffic noise. Authorities worldwide have focused more on
the issues related to air, water, and soil pollution, but noise pollution hasn’t received its due
share (Kumar et al. 2011), which may be due to the property of being invisible besides having
profound implications only in the long run (Lercher 1996; Dratva et al. 2010; Foraster et al.
2014; Seidler et al. 2016b). However, recent research has projected noise as a severe pollutant
that can cause both physiological and psychological effects. The effects include ‘annoyance’
(Ouis 2001), ‘hypertension’ (Barregard et al. 2009b; Chang et al. 2011b), ‘sleep disturbance’
(Jakovljević et al. 2006; Halperin 2014), ‘hearing mechanism dysfunction’ (Barrigón Morillas
et al. 2002), ‘myocardial infarction’ (Babisch et al. 2005; Selander et al. 2009; Paunovic and
Belojević 2014), ‘cardiovascular diseases’ (Davies and Kamp 2012; Munzel et al. 2014, 2018;
Begou et al. 2020), metabolic diseases like ‘diabetes’ (Mette et al. 2013; Dzhambov 2015), and
‘psychotropic medication use’ (Okokon et al. 2018), etc. Based on the studies reported and
growing evidence, the focus has shifted towards transportation-related noise pollution for its
proper control and management.

9.1.1 Some of the developed traffic noise models

Traffic noise models play an essential role in designing acoustic-friendly roads and assessing
traffic noise’s impact on the residents living near the transportation infrastructure like
highways, major roads, etc. (Pamanikabud and Tansatcha 2003; Rajakumara and Mahalinge
Gowda 2009). Several mathematical models have been developed worldwide to estimate RTN

196
(road traffic noise) levels, using the data for the parameters used for modelling purposes.
However, given the noise’s stochastic nature, it can be described quantitatively using the
estimate of certain indices, and its actual value is known only to mother nature (Farrelly and
Brambilla 2003). The development of traffic noise models is not a new procedure, and
continuous improvements have occurred over time. These include considering the vehicular
noise in a different perspective (i.e., rolling noise and engine noise), the effect of road
pavements, the effect of temperature, the effect of screening from the nearby walls, ground
effects, and atmospheric absorption. Improvements have also occurred in terms of the methods
used for developing models. In addition to generally used regression analysis (Rajakumara and
Mahalinge Gowda 2009; Agarwal and Swami 2011a), techniques such as artificial neural
networks (ANN) (Cammarata et al. 1995; Givargis and Karimi 2010), Genetic algorithms (GA)
(Gündoğdu et al. 2005; Rahmani et al. 2011), Decision trees (DT) (Quinlan 1986), and Random
forests (RF) (Singh et al. 2016) have been successfully used.

Different traffic noise models like FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), CoRTN
(Calculation of Road Traffic Noise), RLS-90, etc. predict the noise levels based on the
corrections applied to a mean reference energy level (A-weighted peak pass-by noise level
generated by a single moving vehicle at a distance of 15m using a sound level meter placed at
the height of 1.5m above the ground) (Steele 2001). These models have been applied to the
traffic scenarios of the developed countries (for which they were originally developed)
successfully for a long period with data about the relevant parameters. Modifications in some
of these models for specific regions have also been made (Givargis and Mahmoodi 2008).
Some of the parameters usually considered include ‘traffic volume’ (Gulliver et al. 2015), the
‘distance of measuring point from traffic lane’, ‘vehicular speed’ (Johnson and Saunders 1968;
Kumar et al. 2014), ‘percentage of heavy vehicles’ (To et al. 2002), ‘road pavement surface’
(Cho and Mun 2008), ‘gradient’ (Tang and Tong 2004), ‘reflection from surrounding surfaces’
(Thorsson and Ögren 2005), ‘equivalent number of vehicles’ (Rahmani et al. 2011), driver
characteristics like ‘gender’, ‘skill’, ‘reaction time’ (Calvo et al. 2012), ‘road bumps’ (Radhiah
Bachok et al. 2017), and ‘acceleration/deceleration’, ‘traffic congestion’, ‘traffic signals’, etc.
(StoIlova and StoIlov 1998; Can et al. 2008).

These parameters have been used worldwide by researchers for traffic noise modelling.
Modelling the dynamic aspects of traffic noise arising due to vehicle interaction and congestion
near roundabouts was done by Chevallier et al. (Chevallier et al. 2009). The model uses a traffic
flow simulation tool along with a sound propagation model and noise emission laws. Monte

197
Carlo technique-based noise prediction model was developed to include the uncertainty during
the estimation of traffic noise (Lam and Tam 1998). A statistical model for urban settings was
developed by Calixto et al. (Calixto et al. 2003). Based on neural networks, a model was
developed for Indian traffic conditions by Kumar et al. (Kumar et al. 2014). The model
achieved a good fit but lacked the usage of a large sample size. Another model based on neural
networks was developed for New Delhi, India (Garg et al. 2015). The study utilized the
classified traffic volume and classified vehicular speeds as the relevant parameters. A
comparison between linear regression and neural network methods of prediction revealed that
neural networks outperformed the linear regression technique. A study conducted in Patiala,
Punjab, was done using four soft computing techniques of neural networks, decision trees,
random forests, and generalized linear models (Singh et al. 2016). The parameters used
included traffic volume, traffic speed, and the percentage of heavy vehicles. The study revealed
that the random forest approach was best suited for the study area’s traffic conditions. A study
carried out in Nagpur, India used multiple linear regression for modelling the road traffic noise.
The parameters included were traffic volume, speed and honking of light and heavy vehicles.
The model provided an improvement in the noise prediction due to inclusion of honking as a
parameter (Thakre et al. 2020). An open-source noise model using GIS (Geographic
information system) for 2 British cities of Leicester and Norwich was developed by Gulliver
et al. (Gulliver et al. 2015). Another model based on GIS was developed for road conditions in
China (Li et al. 2002). The European Commission has undertaken the CNOSSOS-EU
(Common noise assessment methods in Europe) project, making it mandatory for all the
European member states to adopt a standard noise evaluation method out of a series of
suggested models (Kephalopoulos et al. 2014). The models are to be evaluated based on
‘simplicity’, ‘accuracy’, ‘precision’, ‘computational speed’, and ‘flexibility’. A review on the
principal traffic noise models like FHWA, CoRTN, RLS-90, ASJ RTN-2008, NMPB-routes
2008, CNOSSOS-EU model, etc. has been presented by Garg and Maji (Garg and Maji 2014).
Comparisons have been made based on source modelling and sound propagation algorithm.

Genetic algorithms have also been used for modelling traffic noise. A study conducted in
Erzurum city in eastern Turkey modelled traffic noise based on classified traffic volume, the
maximum allowable noise level for a vehicle, road gradient, and building height to road width
ratio (Gündoğdu et al. 2005). Another study conducted in Mashhad, Iran, used genetic
algorithms for predicting noise levels using vehicle composition, speed, and traffic volume as
the relevant parameters. The models were validated with in-field measurements (Rahmani et

198
al. 2011). The traffic noise prediction model for Thailand was developed by Suksaard et al.
(Suksaard et al. 1999). The model was based on classifying the vehicles as light and heavy
vehicles and used vehicular speed as the relevant parameter. The model was found to be
applicable up to 10 lane highways, up to a distance of 12m vertically, and up to a speed limit
of 30 kmph to 140 kmph. The literature review reveals that different models have been
developed for the prediction of RTN levels. The problems that arise while applying the standard
models used for deveoped countries in developing countries is the variation in the local
conditions that can affect the RTN. The nature of pavement surfaces, aged vehicles,
heterogeneous traffic conditions, speed constraints, pavement width, and percentage of heavy
vehicles differ from those used to develop some of the most commonly used models (Sisman
and Unver 2011). Studies conducted by Prabat and Nagarnaik (Parbat and Nagarnaik 2008)
concluded that India's traffic scenario is characterized by conditions like high levels of
congestion, high noise levels, low traffic facilities, and these differ significantly from the
conditions prevalent in European countries.

9.2 Objectives of the study

The main objective of the study was to develop mathematical models based on the usage of
GTA ( Graph-Theoretic Approach) for predicting the three most commonly used noise indices
i.e., L10,1h, L90,1h, and Leq,1h. A brief introduction to GTA is given in the next section.

9.3 Graph-Theoretic Approach

The approach consists of identifying the traffic noise as a system that is composed of several
sub-systems. These sub-systems are further comprised of parameters, and it is the interaction
between these parameters that results in the outcome. There are several advantages of using
GTA over other methods. Some of these advantages include:

• Many of the traditional models were developed to give the overall impact of the
parameters considered. However, the traffic noise system is comprised of various sub-
systems that influence one another, and their interaction should not be ignored. This
fact is readily incorporated in GTA.
• It is simple, easy to use, and flexible in its application to various scenarios, where the
direct application of traditional models may not be apt.
• It has the flexibility of including subjective inputs, human opinions, and the fuzziness
of real-life scenarios.

199
 • Being a matrix method, GTA can be utilized for computer programming when the
number of variables and database is extensive.

All the sub-system variables considered and their interactions with each other are
represented in the form of a matrix known as PFM (permanent function matrix). The model,
along with the relevant parameters, is described in the form of a block diagram, and then based
on intuition, previous works, and expert opinion, weights for the interaction terms are assigned
(Prabhakaran et al. 2006; Ratha and Agrawal 2015). The inconsistencies that may arise due to
improper human judgement are taken care of using the Eigenvalue approach, as has been
proved in the pioneering work of Hwang and Yoon (Hwang and Yoon 1981). The PFM is then
updated, and permanent of the updated matrix is calculated as shown in Equation 9.1:

n
Perm( A) =  (ai, (i) ), where , ( 9.1 )
 Sn i =1

 represents the product function;  (i ) represents the ith member of the ‘n’ permutation
groups;  represents the sum of the terms where each term is the product of ai , (i ) for i = ‘1’

to ‘n’ for a ‘n x n’ matrix. The sum extends over all elements σ of the symmetric group Sn; i.e.,
over all the permutations of the numbers 1, 2…n.

9.4 Methodology of the study

A systems approach has been utilized for modelling traffic noise. Usually, the RTN system
consists of various sub-systems that contribute to the area's overall acoustic scenario. The sub-
systems are themselves comprising of parameters that would influence the total noise produced.
The traffic noise system, along with its relevant sub-systems, is shown in Figure 9.1 below.

In the present study, five road traffic sub-system parameters were considered for modelling
traffic noise. The parameters were selected based on the literature review, which revealed that
traffic noise levels are mostly modelled using parameters like ‘traffic volume’, ‘traffic speed’,
‘number of heavy vehicles’, ‘road width’, ‘gradient’, etc. The selected parameters included
traffic volume per hour (S1) (excluding the volume of heavy vehicles like buses, trucks),
carriageway width, in meters (S2), average traffic speed, in kmph (S3), number of heavy
vehicles (S4) per hour, and number of honking events (S5) per hour. The selected study sites
had a significant volume of heavy vehicles, hence it was chosen as a separate variable. A
flowchart representing the step-by-step methodology of the GTA is shown in Figure 9.2.

200
 Road traffic noise system

Environment Traffic
Road traffic Human
al network &
subsystem subsystem
subsystem Urban
Subsystem

Traffic Driver’s Skill; Ground Highways;

Volume; Driver’s age; effects; City roads;
Traffic speed, Reaction time; Humidity; Traffic
Acceleration; Experience; Atmospheric signals; Grade
Deceleration; Personality. attenuation; separators;
Honking; Temperature; Commercial
Road gradient; Rainfall; areas; Type of
Volume of the Greenery housing.
heavy vehicles

Figure 9.1 Components of road traffic noise system along with the respective parameters

9.4.1 Construction of the block diagram of the model

Five roadway sections of different zones were selected for the study. Two were from
commercial zones, one was from a silence zone, one was from a residential zone, and one was
a mixed residential cum commercial zone. The parameters selected for modelling purposes
were arranged in such a way that the interactions between the relevant parameters were
indicated using unidirectional and bidirectional arrows. From the literature as well as the real-
life observations, the interactions between the parameters were considered. For example, both
traffic volume (S1) and traffic speed (S3) interact with each other with higher traffic volume
leading to higher speed, and conversely speed also affects volume, so both are linked with the
help of a bidirectional connector. The interaction between them is shown as ‘e13’ and
‘e31’.Traffic volume (S1) can affect the number of horns per hour (S4) but the reverse interaction
is not present, hence both the variables are connected with a unidirectional connector and ‘e14’
represents the interaction between them. Street width (S2) can affect the number of vehicles per
hour (S1) with the narrow street leading to lesser traffic volume and wider streets leading to
higher traffic volumes. The reverse interaction is not present hence both these variables are
connected with a unidrectional connector and ‘e21’ represents the interaction between them.

201
 Selection of model parameters from the traffic subsystem

Development of block diagram representing the interactions among

the variables

Representing the block diagram in a (5 x 5) matrix form for

mathematical calculations

Assigning weights to diagonal elements of the matrix representing the

parameters based on the field data and also assigning the weight to
off-diagonal elements which represents the interactions

Eigenvalue and Eigenvector formulation for the PFM so that any

human judgemental error in assigning the weights to the interactions
between variables is taken care off

Updating the PFM by multiplying the columns with eigenvector

corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue.

Calculation of the permanent noise index of the updated matrix

using Equation (9.1)

Figure 9.2 Flowchart of the various steps followed during the formulation of the models

Street width (S2) can affect the number of horn (S4) events reported in a given interval of time,
with wider streets often reporting more honking due to higher traffic volumes. The reverse
interaction is not feasible and hence both the variables have been connected with a
unidirectional connector and ‘e24’ represents the interaction between them. Wider streets often
lead to higher traffic speeds and narrower streets leading to lower traffic speeds, this is why
street width (S2) and traffic speed (S3) have been connected with a unidirectional connector

202
‘e23’ representing the interaction between them. The number of heavy vehicles does not affect
any of the variables and as such the variable was not connected with any other variable. The
block diagram showing the variables of the study and their interactions is shown in Figure 9.3.

Traffic volume per hour

e31 (S1) e14

e13

Average speed of Number of horns per

vehicles (S3) hour (S4)
e21

e23 Street width (S2) e24

Number of heavy
vehicles (S5)

Figure 9.3 Block diagram representing the model parameters along with the interactions
9.4.2 Data collection
All five selected sites were initially surveyed for one week to select the morning, afternoon,
and evening rush hours. The selection of the time periods was done in order to develop models
for the worst-case scenario of traffic noise levels. Data collection was performed for three
months, from 1st Oct 2019 to 31st Dec 2019. Traffic volumes were obtained through video
recordings, and average speed was also obtained from video graphic measurements by marking
an initial distance of 50 m over the road surface. Time taken to cross the markings was obtained
from the video timer. Knowing both distance and time, speed was calculated. The number of
horns blown per hour was also obtained from the recordings. Traffic noise measurements were
taken using Casella CEL-633C class 1 sound level meter, which was calibrated using Casella
CEL-120/1 class 1 acoustic calibrator. The measurements were made as per ISO 1996-1 (ISO
2003). Noise descriptors Leq,1h dB(A), L10,1h dB(A), and L90,1h dB(A) were selected as the
relevant noise parameters. Their values were directly obtained from the sound level meter
software.

203
 9.5 Development of permanent function matrix for study sites
For developing PFM, there is a need to assign weights to the main parameters represented along
the diagonal and the interaction terms considered along the off-diagonal elements. The data of
3 months’ duration was averaged and then used for assigning the weights. The data values of
3 rush hours are shown in Table 9.1, Table 9.2, and Table 9.3.

Table 9.1 Average values for morning rush hour (9.30 am to 10.30 am) data
Site S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Weight assigned for Si
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

HRa 337 5.6 18.4 134 2 3 4 1 5 1

MCb 519 5.4 20.3 89 22 5 4 2 3 2
OTRc 243 4.9 38.2 48 107 1 1 5 1 5
d
BR 344 5.9 19.6 107 43 3 4 2 4 3
AGRe 471 6.2 33.4 68 88 4 5 4 2 4
a: Hospital road; b: Main chowk; c: Old town road; d: Bookshop road; e: Azad gunj road

Table 9.2 Average values for afternoon rush hour (12.30 pm to 1.30 pm) data
Site S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Weight assigned for Si
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

HRa 258 5.6 20.3 106 4 2 4 2 4 1

MCb 333 5.4 19.7 92 32 5 4 2 3 2
c
OTR 150 4.9 35.6 56 118 1 1 5 1 4
BRd 307 5.9 17.8 118 32 4 4 1 5 2
AGRe 288 6.2 32.6 88 123 3 5 4 3 5
a: Hospital road; b: Main chowk; c: Old town road; d: Bookshop road; e: Azad gunj road

Table 9.3 Average values for evening rush hour (4.30 pm to 5.30 pm) data
Site S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Weight assigned for Si
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

HRa 350 5.6 16.8 110 8 3 4 2 3 1

MCb 381 5.4 12.3 142 42 4 4 1 4 2
c
OTR 207 4.9 34.8 48 145 1 1 5 1 5
BRd 344 5.9 15.3 159 43 3 4 2 5 2
AGRe 399 6.2 21.8 133 131 5 5 4 4 4
a: Hospital road; b: Main chowk; c: Old town road; d: Bookshop road; e: Azad gunj road

204
The variable with the highest value was assigned a weight of 5, and the one with the lowest
value was assigned a weight of 1 (Nigel Cross 2000). For the remaining values, interpolation
was used to assign the weights.

For morning rush hour, traffic volume per hour ranged from (243 to 519). Thus, a weighting
of 5 is assigned to the main chowk site, and a weighting of 1 is given to the old town road. The
number of heavy vehicles ranged from (2 to 107), and thus a weight of 1 is assigned to the
hospital road, and a weight of 5 is assigned to the old town road. The average speed values
ranged from (18.4 to 38.2) kmph. Hence, 1 is assigned to hospital road, and 5 is assigned to the
old town road. The width of road pavements ranged from (4.9 to 6.2) m, so weights of 1 and 5
are assigned to old town road and azad gunj road, respectively. A similar approach is applied
while assigning the weights for the other two rush hours.

The values of interactions are based on logical reasoning and correlational analysis (Nicol
and Wilson 2004). As traffic volume and average speed are strongly related, a weight of 4 is
assigned to their interaction. The relation with other parameters is non-existent, and as such, a
weight of 1 is assigned to them. Generally, there is a tendency among drivers that they drive at
higher speeds if the pavement is of sufficient width thus, a weight of 3 has been assigned to
their interaction. Street width and the number of heavy vehicles may be related to some extent,
so 2 is given to their interaction. Street width is strongly related to traffic volume, hence the
weight of 4 is assigned. Street width is also related to traffic speed moderately therefore, a
weight of 3 has been given. Street width is not associated with the number of horns, and thus a
weight of 1 has been assigned. The speed of the vehicle is strongly related to traffic volume
hence the weight of 4 has been set. A non-existent relation was considered for all other
parameters, and thus a weight of 1 has been assigned. The number of horns is not related to
any of the other parameters, and therefore the weight of 1 was set for the interactions. The
number of heavy vehicles can affect vehicular speeds. Generally, heavy traffic leads to the
lowering of traffic stream speed due to the reluctance of other vehicles to perform overtaking
maneuvers, however, the relation is not a very strong one and thus a weight of 2 was assigned
for their interaction. Interactions with other variables were considered to be non-existent.
Therefore, a value of 1 has been set. The procedure adopted for assigning the weights was taken
from Nigel's work (Nigel Cross 2000). The eigenvalue formulation is done as:
( A −  I )  wT = 0, where , ( 9.2 )

205
A is the PFM of a given site; I is an identity matrix; λ is the eigenvalue spectrum, wT is the
eigenvector's transpose. The solution of Equation 9.2 yields (A - λ I) = 0, thus a spectrum of
eigenvalues are obtained. Corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue, the eigenvector is

 wi = 1 . wi is eigenvector used to modify the i

th
calculated, such that column of PFM. After

updating the PFM, the matrix's permanent is calculated, represented as PNI (permanent noise
index) from Equation (9.1). The initial and the updated PFM for morning rush hour is shown
in Table 9.4. Similarly, PFM’s obtained for afternoon and evening rush hours are shown in
Table 9.5 and Table 9.6 respectively. The obtained noise parameters including hourly
equivalent noise level, Leq,1h dB(A), background noise level, L90,1h, dB(A), and maximum noise
level, L10,1h dB(A), are then correlated with the obtained PNI values to check the
appropriateness of the PNI as a representation of the overall acoustic environment. The values
of the noise parameters and PNI are shown in Table 9.7.

9.6 Results
The variation of PNI with noise parameters for the three rush hours for the data collected is
shown below in Figure 9.4, Figure 9.5, and Figure 9.6. The usage of PNI was found to correlate
well with all three selected noise parameters. To verify and measure this correlation, Pearson’s
correlation coefficient and linear regression were performed between the observed values for
the selected noise indices and PNI. The results for the correlation between PNI values and noise
levels for the three rush hours are shown in Table 9.8. A logarithmic transformation was applied
for PNI so that uniformity with noise levels is maintained (which are also measured on a
logarithmic scale). The results obtained from linear regression are shown in Table 9.9 and they
clearly show a high value of R, R2, and adjusted R2. This means that using the five parameters
incorporated in PNI, 92%, 79.5%, and 85.2% of the variance in Leq,1h values for the morning,
afternoon, and evening rush hour can be explained. Variation of 90.7%, 74.2%, and 96% in
L10,1h can be explained using PNI for the morning, afternoon, and evening rush hours,
respectively. Variation of 98%, 91%, and 80.6% in L90,1h can be accounted for, using PNI for
the morning, afternoon, and evening rush hours, respectively.
9.6.1 Validation of the developed models
To validate the developed models, data collection for the same sites was done for nine months
from Jan to Sep 2020. Average values for three months each were used for testing the models.
This was done because the data collection for model development was done for three months.
The results of the same are shown in Table 9.10. The results were further evaluated by plotting

206
Table 9.4 Initial and updated Permanent function matrix for the morning rush hour

Site Initial PFM Eigenvalues Updated PFM

( i )
PFM (HR) =
3 1 4 1 1  1 = −2.168  0.609 0.321 0.680 0.184 0.124
  0.812
4 4 3 1 2   2 = 0.329   1.284 0.510 0.184 0.248
HRa   3 = 2.362 
4 1 1 1 1 0.812 0.321 0.170 0.184 0.124
     
1 1 1 5 1  4 = 4.020   0.203 0.321 0.170 0.920 0.124
1   = 9.458   0.203 0.321 0.340 0.184 0.124
1 2 1 1   5 

PFM (MC) =
5 1 4 1 1 1 = −0.861  1.245 0.310 0.756 0.121 0.128
4  
 4 3 1 2  2 = 1.174 
0.996
 1.240 0.567 0.121 0.256
MCb
4 1 2 1 1 3 = 10.259  0.996 0.310 0.378 0.121 0.128
     
1 1 1 3 1 4 = 2.71 + 0.23i  0.249 0.310 0.189 0.363 0.128
1 1 2 1 2   = 2.71 − 0.23i  0.249 0.310 0.378 0.121 0.256
 5 

PFM (OTR) =
1 1 4 1 1  1 = 9.834   0.183 0.234 1.060 0.102 0.217 
4  
 1 3 1 2   2 = 4.093 
0.732
 0.234 0.795 0.102 0.434
OTRc
4 1 5 1 1  3 = −1.711 0.732 0.234 1.325 0.102 0.217 
     
1 1 1 1 1  4 = 0.784   0.183 0.234 0.265 0.102 0.217 
 1 1 2 1 5    = 0.000   0.183 0.234 0.530 0.102 1.085 
 5 

PFM (BR) =
3 1 4 1 1  1 = 9.735  0.600 0.315 0.732 0.148 0.153
  0.800
4 4 3 1 2   2 = −1.538  1.260 0.549 0.148 0.306
BRd 
4 1 2 1 1  3 = 2.804  0.800 0.315 0.366 0.148 0.153
     
1 1 1 4 1  4 = 3.000  0.200 0.315 0.183 0.592 0.153
1 1 2 1 3    = 2.000  0.200 0.315 0.366 0.148 0.459
 5 

PFM (AGR) =
4 1 4 1 1  1 = 0.000  0.836 0.324 0.836 0.102 0.155
4  
 5 3 1 2   2 = 10.784 
0.836
 1.620 0.627 0.102 0.310
AGRe
4 1 4 1 1  3 = 3.634  0.836 0.324 0.836 0.102 0.155
     
1 1 1 2 1  4 = 1.582  0.209 0.324 0.209 0.204 0.155
1 1 2 1 4    = 3.000  0.209 0.324 0.418 0.102 0.620
 5 
a: Hospital road; b: Main chowk; c: Old town road; d: Bookshop road; e: Azad gunj road.

207
Table 9.5 Initial and updated Permanent function matrix for the afternoon rush hour

Site Initial PFM Eigenvalues Updated PFM

( i )
PFM (HR) =
2 1 4 1 1  1 = −2.000  0.456 0.317 0.756 0.145 0.120
4  
 4 3 1 2   2 = 3.000 
0.912
 1.268 0.567 0.145 0.240
HRa
4 1 2 1 1  3 = 0.262  0.912 0.317 0.378 0.145 0.120
     
1 1 1 4 1  4 = 2.481   0.228 0317 0.189 0.580 0.120
1 1 2 1 1    = 9.262   0.228 0.317 0.378 0.145 0.120
 5 

PFM (MC) =
5 1 4 1 1 1 = 10.260  1.250 0.310 0.756 0.121 0.128
4  
 4 3 1 2  2 = −0.861 
1.000
 1.240 0.567 0.121 0.256
MCb
4 1 2 1 1 3 = 2.714 + 0.23i  1.000 0.310 0.378 0.121 0.128
     
1 1 1 3 1 4 = 2.714 − 0.23i  0.250 0.310 0.189 0.363 0.128
1 1 2 1 2   = 1.175  0.250 0.310 0.378 0.121 0.256
 5 

PFM (OTR) =
1 1 4 1 1  1 = 0.000  0.189 0.239 1.104 0.103 0.191
4  
 1 3 1 2   2 = −1.709 
0.756
 0.239 0.828 0.103 0.382
OTRc
4 1 5 1 1  3 = 0.708  0.756 0.239 1.380 0.103 0.191
     
1 1 1 1 1  4 = 3.335  0.189 0.239 0.276 0.103 0.191
 1 1 2 1 4    = 9.667  0.189 0.239 0.552 0.103 0.764
 5 

PFM (BR) =
4 1 4 1 1  1 = −1.840   0.528 0.310 0.672 0.171 0.132
   0.528
4 4 3 1 2   2 = 1.232   1.240 0.504 0.171 0.264
BRd 
4 1 1 1 1  3 = 2.631   0.528 0.310 0.168 0.171 0.132
     
1 1 1 5 1  4 = 4.121  0.132 0.310 0.168 0.855 0.132
1 1 2 1 2    = 9.861  0.132 0.310 0.336 0.171 0.264
 5 

PFM (AGR) =
3 1 4 1 1  1 = 11.018   0.555 0.320 0.808 0.115 0.180
4  
 5 3 1 2   2 = −0.158
0.740
 1.600 0.606 0.115 0.360
AGRe
4 1 4 1 1  3 = 4.259  0.740 0.320 0.808 0.115 0.180
     
1 1 1 3 1  4 = 3.197   0.185 0.320 0.202 0.345 0.180
1 1 2 1 5    = 2.683   0.185 0.320 0.404 0.115 0.900
 5 

a: Hospital road; b: Main chowk; c: Old town road; d: Bookshop road; e: Azad gunj road

208
Table 9.6 Initial and updated Permanent function matrix for the evening rush hour

Site Initial PFM Eigenvalues Updated PFM

( i )
PFM (HR) =
0.636 0.333 0.772 0.134 0.126
3 1 4 1 1 1 = 9.449   0.848
4   1.332 0.579 0.134 0.252
 4 3 1 2  2 = −1.551 

HRa  0.848 0.333 0.386 0.134 0.126
4 1 2 1 1 3 = 0.270   
    0.212 0.333 0.193 0.402 0.126
1 1 1 3 1 4 = 2.415 + 0.47 i  0.212 0.333 0.386 0.134 0.126
1 1 2 1 1   = 2.415 − 0.47 i 
 5 

PFM (MC) =
0.900 0.319 0.688 0.148 0.134
4 1 4 1 1  1 = 3.000  0.900
4   1.276 0.516 0.148 0.268
 4 3 1 2   2 = −1.842 

MCb 0.900 0.319 0.172 0.148 0.134
4 1 1 1 1  3 = 2.897   
     0.225 0.319 0.172 0.592 0.134
1 1 1 4 1  4 = 1.212   0.225 0.319 0.344 0.148 0.268
1 1 2 1 2    = 9.734 
 5 

PFM (OTR) =
 0.183 0.234 1.060 0.102 0.217 
1 1 4 1 1  1 = 0.000  0.732
4   0.234 0.795 0.102 0.434
 1 3 1 2   2 = −1.711

OTRc 0.732 0.234 1.325 0.102 0.217 
4 1 5 1 1  3 = 0.784   
     0.183 0.234 0.265 0.102 0.217 
1 1 1 1 1  4 = 4.093   0.183 0.234 0.530 0.102 1.080 
 1 1 2 1 5    = 9.834 
 5 

PFM (BR) =
0.600 0.315 0.728 0.174 0.135
3 1 4 1 1  1 = −1.543 0.800
4   1.260 0.546 0.174 0.270
 4 3 1 2   2 = 4.067 

BRd 0.800 0.315 0.364 0.174 0.135
4 1 2 1 1  3 = 9.764   
    0.200 0.315 0.182 0.870 0.135
1 1 1 5 1  4 = 2.507  0.200 0.315 0.364 0.174 0.270
1 1 2 1 2    = 1.204 
 5 

PFM (AGR) =
1.110 0.307 0.808 0.121 0.146
5 1 4 1 1  1 = 3.000   0.888
4   1.535 0.606 0.121 0.292
 5 3 1 2   2 = 0.460 

AGRe  0.888 0.307 0.808 0.121 0.146
4 1 4 1 1  3 = 3.632   
    0.222 0.307 0.202 0.484 0.146
1 1 1 4 1  4 = 3.681  0.222 0.307 0.404 0.121 0.584
1 1 2 1 4    = 11.227 
 5 
a: Hospital road; b: Main chowk; c: Old town road; d: Bookshop road; e: Azad gunj road

209
Table 9.7 Average values of the Permanent noise index and noise indices
Morning Afternoon Evening
Site
(9.30 to 10.30 ) am (12.30 to 1.30) pm (4.30 to 5.30) pm

Leq, 1h L10, 1h L90, 1h Leq, 1h L10, 1h L90, 1h Leq, 1h L10, 1h L90, 1h

PNIa PNIa PNIa
dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

HR 0.613 66.93 73.95 63.77 0.585 66.32 74.63 64.51 0.441 67.62 73.16 63.93

MC 0.643 67.04 74.64 63.87 0.645 66.21 76.53 65.39 0.704 68.92 75.86 66.16

OTR 0.405 65.72 73.25 62.41 0.35 65.32 71.8 62.26 0.404 67.21 73.32 64.21

BR 0.714 67.93 74.88 64.36 0.521 65.99 76.38 63.84 0.832 68.58 77.23 66.64

AGR 0.909 69.24 75.8 65.35 0.664 66.08 76.95 64.68 0.928 68.97 77.25 65.97
a: Permanent noise index
the measured values against the predicted values, as shown in Figure 9.7. The R2 values
revealed a good agreement between the measured and predicted values.
9.6.2 Usage of other sub-systems
In this study, only a single sub-system was used. The addition of more sub-systems can be done
using the GTA. This involves integrating other sub-systems by calculating PNI values for all
other sub-systems and then forming another PFM using PNI values as the diagonal elements
and the interactions of the sub-systems as the off-diagonal elements. Such an analysis can result
in better predictions.
9.7 Discussion
The development of noise models is not a new procedure as far as developed countries are
concerned. However, for developing nations like India, more emphasis needs to be given to the
environmental noise modelling, of which traffic noise forms a significant contributor. The
study presented a new and parsimonious procedure for predicting RTN levels. RTN model
plays a vital role in designing new roads by estimating the expected noise levels and assessing
the changes that may occur due to the anticipated changes in any contributing variables over a
given period. A systems approach has been adopted in the study. RTN system is comprised of
various sub-systems like road traffic sub-system, human sub-system, environmental sub-
system, traffic network, and urban sub-system. In the present study, five parameters from the
traffic sub-system were considered. These included traffic volume, traffic speed, the volume
of heavy vehicles, pavement width, and honking. The inclusion of honking was done because

210
 PNI Leq
1 70

0.8 69

Leq, dB(A)
68
0.6
PNI

67
0.4
66
0.2 65
0 64
HR MC OTR BR AGR
Site
(a)
PNI Leq
1 70

0.8 69
68

Leq, dB(A)
0.6
PNI

67
0.4
66
0.2 65
0 64
HR MC OTR BR AGR
Site (b)

1 PNI Leq 70

0.8 69
Leq, dB(A)

68
0.6
67
PNI

0.4
66
0.2 65
0 64
HR MC OTR BR AGR
Site (c)

Figure 9.4 Variation of Leq,1h with PNI for the selected sites during the morning (a), afternoon (b), and
evening (c) rush hour

211
 PNI L10
1 76

0.8 75
74

L10 dB(A)
0.6
73
PNI

0.4
72
0.2 71
0 70
HR MC OTR BR AGR
Site
(a)

PNI L10
1
0.9 79
0.8 77
0.7 75

L10, dB(A)
0.6
PNI

0.5 73
0.4 71
0.3 69
0.2
0.1 67
0 65
HR MC OTR BR AGR
Site
(b)

PNI L10
1 80

0.8 78
L10, dB(A)

0.6 76
PNI

0.4 74

0.2 72

0 70
HR MC OTR BR AGR
Site (c)
Figure 9.5 Variation of L10,1h with PNI for the selected sites during the morning (a), afternoon (b),
and evening (c) rush hour

212
 PNI L90
1 67
66
0.8
65

L90, dB(A)
0.6 64
PNI

0.4 63
62
0.2
61
0 60
HR MC OTR BR AGR
Site (a)

PNI L90
0.7 67
0.6 66
0.5 65

L90, dB(A)
0.4 64
PNI

0.3 63
0.2 62
0.1 61
0 60
HR MC OTR BR AGR
Site
(b)

PNI L90
1 67

0.8 66
65
L90, dB(A)

0.6
PNI

64
0.4
63
0.2 62
0 61
HR MC OTR BR AGR
Site
(c)
Figure 9.6 Variation of L90,1h with PNI for the selected sites during the morning (a), afternoon (b), and
evening (c) rush hour

213
Table 9.8 Correlation between PNI (Permanent Noise Index) and the noise indices
Morning time
Leq, 1h dB(A) L10, 1h dB(A) L90, 1h dB(A)
PNI 0.942* 0.978* 0.913*
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.004 <0.001
Afternoon time
Leq, 1h dB(A) L10, 1h dB(A) L90, 1h dB(A)
PNI 0.892* 0.883* 0.961*
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.042 0.047 0.008
Evening time
Leq, 1h dB(A) L10, 1h dB(A) L90, 1h dB(A)
PNI 0.918* 0.874* 0.899*
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.028 0.002 0.038
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 9.9 The output of the linear regression for the noise indices (Leq, L10, and L90)
Ln Equation R R2 p-value for coefficients

Intercept log PNI

Leq Leq,1h = 9.91 log PNI + 69.324 0.969 0.938 < 0.000 0.007

Leq Leq,1h = 3.19 log PNI + 66.840 0.920 0.846 < 0.000 0.027

Leq Leq,1h = 4.62 log PNI + 69.197 0.943 0.889 < 0.000 0.016

L10 L10,1h = 7.28 log PNI + 75.938 0.964 0.930 < 0.000 0.008

L10 L10,1h = 16.92 log PNI + 79.795 0.898 0.806 < 0.000 0.038

L10 L10,1h = 12.24 log PNI + 77.846 0.988 0.977 < 0.000 0.002

L90 L90,1h = 8.30 log PNI + 65.587 0.996 0.992 < 0.000 0.000

L90 L90,1h = 10.14 log PNI + 66.854 0.966 0.933 < 0.000 0.008

L90 L90,1h = 6.95 log PNI + 66.791 0.924 0.854 < 0.000 0.025

it is the main characteristic of road traffic in developing countries, including India. Besides,
some studies have also shown improvements in traffic noise modelling by including honking
as a parameter (Sharma et al. 2014; Vijay et al. 2014, 2015; Kalaiselvi and Ramachandraiah
2016). All the variables were incorporated in matrix form by assigning the wieghts to the
selected parameters, represented along the matrix’s diagonal, and weights were assigned to the

214
Table 9.10 Comparison of measured noise levels and predicted noise levels
Time January to March
Site Leq,1h dB(A) L90,1h dB(A) L10,1h dB(A)
Measured Predicted Measured Predicted Measured Predicted
HR 65.53 66.88 62.38 64.16 73.85 74.64
MC 65.10 66.58 62.01 63.73 72.68 74.02
OTR 66.58 67.37 62.87 64.86 73.88 75.64
BR 65.85 66.66 65.26 63.85 72.65 74.18
AGR 65.22 66.81 62.86 64.05 73.32 74.48
Time April to June
Site Leq,1h dB(A) L90,1h dB(A) L10,1h dB(A)
Measured Predicted Measured Predicted Measured Predicted
HR 63.65 65.32 61.29 63.17 72.29 73.22
MC 65.81 67.42 62.38 64.92 73.98 75.73
OTR 65.86 66.82 62.34 64.07 72.38 72.38
BR 66.12 67.92 64.12 65.65 75.38 75.38
AGR 66.55 67.13 63.38 64.51 74.23 74.23
Time July to September
Site Leq,1h dB(A) L90,1h dB(A) L10,1h dB(A)
Measured Predicted Measured Predicted Measured Predicted
HR 66.38 67.43 62.24 64.94 72.88 75.76
MC 66.01 67.98 63.89 65.73 74.89 76.89
OTR 65.38 66.97 63.38 64.27 73.22 74.80
BR 65.03 66.65 62.12 63.84 73.27 74.17
AGR 66.89 67.79 64.52 65.46 74.38 76.49

variables' interactions, represented by the off-diagonal elements. Assignment of weights for

the main parameters was done based on the data collected from the field, and for interactions,
the weights were decided based on intuition and established knowledge. As the development
of PFM involved human factor, PFM was updated using the eigenvalue formulation, and the
permanent of the updated matrix, represented as PNI, was calculated. The usage of PNI was
validated using graphical analysis. The study's traffic noise parameters were equivalent noise
level Leq,1h, and percentile values L10,1h, and L90,1h. Models were developed by performing
simple linear regression between noise parameters and PNI values. All the models resulted in
a good fit for the collected data. The validity of the models was tested for nine months. The
models showed a reasonably good fit, although a decrease in the R2 values was obtained.

215
 68.5

68

Predicted Leq1 1h , dB(A) 67.5

67
y = 0.7008x + 20.982
66.5 R² = 0.7147
66

65.5 (a)
65
63 64 65 66 67 68
Measured Leq, 1h , dB(A)

66
65.5
Predicted L90, 1h , dB(A)

65
64.5
64 y = 0.6848x + 21.493
R² = 0.6794
63.5
63
62.5 (b)

62
61 61.5 62 62.5 63 63.5 64 64.5 65
Measured L90, 1h , dB(A)

77.5
77
Predicted L10, 1h ,dB(A)

76.5
76
75.5
75 y = 0.9935x + 2.0196
R² = 0.713
74.5
74
73.5 (c)
73
72 72.5 73 73.5 74 74.5 75 75.5 76
Measured L10, 1h , dB(A)

Figure 9.7 Plot of measured and predicted values of Leq,1h , L90,1h , and L10,1h

216
The models were found to overestimate the noise parameters' values, which ranged from (0.58
to 2.88) dB(A). This shows that the models performed reasonably well over the given period.
However, the inclusion of other sub-systems can help in the further improvement of the models.

9.8 Summary
A traffic noise system involves several sub-systems like road traffic sub-system, human sub-
system, environmental sub-system, traffic network sub-system, and urban prosperity sub-
system. As per the World Health Organization, nearly 1.6 million London inhabitants are
exposed to noise levels > 55dB(A) every day, which is more than the upper limit responsible
for causing severe health issues (Halonen et al. 2015a). Given that resource availability in
developed countries is much larger than available in developing countries, it becomes
imperative for the relevant authorities in developing countries to adopt a more scientific
approach while designing the new areas or redesigning the existing infrastructure. Although
attention has been given to most of the environmental pollutants, noise pollution remains
unattended. In this direction, the present study aimed to develop road traffic noise models using
the graph-theoretic approach involving the parameters related to the road traffic sub-system.
The road traffic sub-system variables selected for the modelling purposes included vehicular
speed, traffic volume, carriageway width, number of heavy vehicles, and number of honking
events. The interaction of the selected variables considered in the form of permanent noise
function is given in the matrix form. Eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors are
calculated for removing any human judgemental error. The permanent noise function matrix
was then updated using the eigenvectors, which was ultimately utilized for obtaining the
permanent noise index. Data regarding the selected variables were collected for three months,
and the noise parameters included in the study were equivalent noise level (Leq,1h), maximum
noise level (L10,1h), and background noise level (L90,1h). A logarithmic transformation was
applied to the permanent noise index and linear regression models were developed for Leq,1h,
L90,1h, and L10,1h respectively. The models were validated using the data collected from the
same locations for nine months. The models were found to provide satisfactory results,
although the results were somewhat overestimated. Most developed countries have formulated
their traffic noise models, but developing countries have been utilizing either the models used
in developed countries by introducing some modifications as per the local conditions.
However, such a practice isn’t feasible everywhere, and as such, studies should be conducted
at micro-levels. The current study is one such step in this direction. The models developed can
be modified to better model the traffic noise levels. However, as an initial step this can prove

217
beneficial for the authorities in envisaging the current and future acoustical scenario of the
study areas. As per the observed data, noise levels in all the zones exceeded the safer limits set
by both international and national regulatory authorities. The study can thus be utilized for
testing the various countermeasures as well.

218