226

Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research J SCI IND RES VOL 71 MARCH 2012
Vol. 71, March 2012, pp. 226-234

Passive noise control measures for traffic noise abatement in Delhi, India

Naveen Garg 1,2*, Omkar Sharma 1, Vellur Mohanan1 and Sagar Maji2
1
Acoustics, Ultrasonic, Shock & Vibrations Standards, Apex Level Standards and Industrial Metrology Division,
National Physical Laboratory, CSIR, New Delhi 110 012, India
2
Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi 110 042, India

Received 24 October 2011; revised 12 January 2012; accepted 19 January 2012

This study proposes a comprehensive noise abatement programme following the best practicable and economical option
(BPEO) for implementation in metro city like Delhi for reducing annoyance and ill effects of traffic noise. It reviews potential
applications of noise control barriers and vegetation for reducing road traffic noise and presents a design morphology and decision
matrix using TOPSIS (Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution) approach for selection of appropriate sound
barriers.

Keywords: Best practicable and economical option (BPEO), TOPSIS (Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal
solution), Traffic noise

Introduction Q is daily traffic volume and P is local population density

Total vehicle population in Delhi1 city has amounted
to more than three other metro cities (Mumbai, Kolkata
and Chennai) put together, and has almost doubled from
3.05 million in 1998-99 to 6.30 million in 2008-09, whereas
road network has increased from 28,508 km in 2000-01
to only 30,985 km in 2007-08. Thus, it is imperative to
devise noise control strategies for abatement of traffic
noise for reducing annoyance and health effects caused.
A socio-acoustic survey, which was conducted amongst
520 individuals (age < 30 y) in Delhi city, revealed that
> 50% people are disturbed from road traffic and horn
noise and 17% are annoyed due to aircraft noise
(Fig. 1). Metro trains 2 cause an increase in ambient noise
level by 2-3 dB (A) in medium and high traffic density
areas and thus causes a relatively less impact on
community as compared to road traffic noise. When
exposed to traffic noise, people of Delhi felt as follows:
stressed, 28; mentally tired, 25; irritated and angry, 21;
sleep disturbances, 9; and headache, 7%. Tang 3
investigated correlating noise indices with population
density and traffic volume based on daily noise
measurements at 12 independent sites in Hong Kong
using LAeq, 24 h as L Aeq, 24 h= alog10 Q + blog10 P + c, where
*Author for correspondence
E-mail: ngarg@mail.nplindia.ernet.in
within each km2 of area and constants a, b & c for LAeq, 24 h
have been found to a=2.59, b=2.33 and c=47.7.
Substituting the value of Q as 30,000 and P as 9430 for
Delhi city, value of LAeq, 24 h comes out to be 69 dB(A),
which is rather very high value when compared to Central
Pollution Control Board (CPCB) limits.
This study discusses passive noise control strategies
(application of barriers in conjunction with vegetation)
for traffic noise abatement and formulation of a
comprehensive noise abatement programme in Delhi city.
Noise Abatement Programme and Noise Goal
European noise abatement programmes [HEAVEN4
(Healthier Environment through Abatement of Vehicle
Emission and Noise), SilVia 5 (Sustainable road surfaces
for traffic noise control), CALM6 (Community noise
research strategy plan) and ROTRANOMO 7
(Development of a microscopic road traffic noise model
for the assessment of noise reduction measures)] are
the best inspiration for devising action plan and modalities
of a noise abatement programme in Indian perspectives.
Dutch noise innovation programme 8 (budget, 50 million
Euro) based on the idea of decreasing the number of
houses exposed to a noise level > 70 dB(A) by 100%,
number exposed to a noise level > 65 dB(A) by 90% and
number exposed to a noise level > 60 dB(A) by 50% by
year 2030 is an excellent illustration of such a noise
 GARG et al: PASSIVE NOISE CONTROL MEASURES FOR TRAFFIC NOISE ABATEMENT IN DELHI, INDIA 227

surface are pivotal factors affecting the tyre noise. An

70
optimal combination of tyre and road surface is
60 instrumental in reducing road noise. European studies7
revealed the difference in noise level between quietest
50
and noisiest tyre/road surface combination was 9 dB(A)
% Annoyed

40 for cars and vans and 7 dB(A) for trucks. Low noise
road surfaces can be divided into thin dense surfaces,
30
porous surfaces and poroelastic pavements. Porous
20 asphalt has potential for reduction of vehicle noise by
5-8 dB, while poroelastic pavements that combine porous
10
structure with a soft aggregate showed reductions for
0 normal tires (10-12 dB) and studded tyres (13-15 dB)11 .
Metro Noise

Horn Noise
Industry Noise
Traffic Noise

neighbourhood
Aircraft Noise

Sandberg12 revealed that tyre and road construction result

Noise from
n

n
n

in concentration of major noise generating and influencing

mechanisms (700-1300 Hz), and suggested a softer tyre/
road contact with softer tyre treads as well as road
Fig. 1—Noise annoyance due to various noise sources reported in surface that increase belt stiffness but decrease contact
socio-acoustic survey in Delhi city stiffness and porous road surfaces designed for
favourable sound absorption (800 - 1250 Hz). Reducing
abatement programme with a noise abatement goal. EU vehicle speed by 10 km/h, a noise reduction by 2-3 dB(A)
directive 9 2002/49/EC imposes member countries to is achieved13 . Certification procedures periodically
develop noise maps and action plans and as such it is followed and made mandatory at least twice a year,
imperative in Indian conditions also to conduct frequent wherein noise and emission limits are to be strictly
noise monitoring along with GIS mapping using a adhered for all vehicles plying on Delhi roads can be
validated noise model. very influential step in exercising control at source. Pivotal
Efficient traffic management is one of the vital factors significant in reducing road traffic noise are
reforms to combat the high ambient noise levels in various assimilated in a cause and effect analysis (Fig. 2).
areas of Delhi city. Restrictions in use of horns especially Laboratory experiments14,15 serve as a benchmark
near sensitive spaces like hospitals, schools etc., reducing for ascertaining sound insulation and absorption properties
speed limits, timing traffic lights to achieve smooth traffic of materials, which can be referred by designer for
flow, smooth driving avoiding frequent acceleration & selecting best acoustical materials for achieving a desired
deceleration and prohibiting heavy vehicles in certain road noise reduction. Transmission Loss (TL) is a performance
and streets can be very fruitful in achieving the desired of sound insulation measured in reverberation chambers.
objectives. Land use planning and management is also Sound Transmission Class (STC) is an integer rating of
another factor minimizing traffic noise impact. Placing how well a building partition attenuates airborne sound.
as much distance and non compatible activities like The better the STC of materials, better sound insulation
parking bays, open areas etc between source and receiver it provides. Strengthening facades of dwellings, use of
is also helpful. Noise control at the receiver is another high sound insulative windows and doors, proper
important aspect to focus. The shape, orientation and treatment of ceilings, and re-orientation of interior spaces
location of building and arrangement of internal spaces in dwellings (shielding living rooms etc from external
should be chosen to reduce potential noise problems. noise) prove to the best measures for acoustic comfort.
Reduction of noise by the building itself should only be Success of noise abatement measures requires a strategic
considered as a last resort when insufficient reduction noise abatement planning with formulation of noise
can be made at the source or between the source and abatement goal (Fig 3). Noise zoning based on land use
the building10 . For balconies located well above the level criteria and strict implementation of CPCB noise limits
of road traffic, the underside should be designed to reflect [industrial area, 75 dB(A) Leq; commercial area, 65
the sound away from windows at lower levels or it should dB(A); residential area, 55 dB(A); silence zones, 50
be covered with a sound absorbing material. Tyre width, dB(A)] for during day time and a relaxation of 5 dB(A)
tyre hardness, tread patterns, groove depth and road for night time is to be strictly implemented and enforced
228 J SCI IND RES VOL 71 MARCH 2012

Fig. 2—Cause and effect analysis diagram for road traffic noise abatement

for success of noise abatement programme. A validated
road traffic noise model integrated with GIS interface is
very essential for noise predictions, forecast and
management. Identification of hot spots having Le q
(T ≥ 8 h) more than 60 dB(A) and implementing the best
practicable and economical option (BPEO) among various
alternatives to these hot spots is essentially required for
achieving the targets. Optimistic target value [60 dB(A)]
of noise abatement goal is selected for implementing a
strict and comprehensive noise abatement programme
in each hot spots identified in Delhi city. Performance of
such a noise control programme can be periodically
monitored in terms of noise abatement accomplished in
incremental steps of 5 dB(A).
An alternative option of bypass/highway or a
roundabout is to be decided in case noise control
measures become inadequate to achieve the target of
60 dB(A). Adherence to a noise goal by a stipulated
time and periodic management review of progress brings
synergy to whole program for accomplishing the targets.
Erection of noise barriers should be made mandatory in
future projects planned. An opinion survey16 has also
explicitly presented a clear public perception with a
majority of respondents (80%) demanding for erecting
 GARG et al: PASSIVE NOISE CONTROL MEASURES FOR TRAFFIC NOISE ABATEMENT IN DELHI, INDIA 229

Noise Zoning based on land Use

criteria

Noise Monitoring Noise Predictions from

Validated Model

GIS Interfacing

Formulation of Noise Criteria: Identifying Areas with

L eq > 60 dB (A) (T ≥
? 8 hours)

Adoption of Noise Abatement Package

Alternative option of
Barriers Vegetation Low Noise Efficient traffic management/ Strengthening of
Bypass/highway/
(Absorptive/ & Earth Pavements traffic diversion alternatives/ facades & window glazing
Roundabout for
Reflective/ Berms speed limits & Restrictions of dwellings/Re-location of
diverting traffic
Multiple on Horn Noise & Prohibiting interior spaces in dwellings
edges/Mixed) Heavy vehicles in certain for acoustic comfort
Streets & roads, Timing traffic
Lights

Adoption of Best Practicable & Economical

Option (BPEO)

Yes
Is L eq > 60
dB(A)

Noise
Abatement
Goal

Fig. 3—Flow chart of a noise abatement programme for reducing traffic noise in Delhi city

noise barrier along national highways and willingness
(66%) of respondents for incorporating the concept of
noise barrier in future design or modification of existing
boundary walls.
Barriers Applications & Design Considerations
Noise barriers derive their performance by blocking
the line of sight, thus creating a sound shadow. Cohn17
proposed principal limitation in obtaining high insertion
loss is in maintaining an adequate line-of-sight break.
Major innovative diffraction-edge modifications include
T-shaped barriers, multiple-edge barriers, Y-shaped
barriers, tubular capping, and phase interference devices.
Cohn & Harris 18 studied five special barrier treatments
(absorptive T-top, Y-top, slanted top, single barrier
absorptive, and parallel barrier absorptive) in four US
highway projects, and observed that: i) Absorptive T-top
barriers provide 0.7-1.0 dB per 0.3 m additional
attenuation (with minimum top width of 0.9 m); ii) Y-top
barriers provide 0.4 dB per 0.3 m additional attenuation
(with minimum top width of 0.9 m); iii) Absorptive single
barriers provide 1-2 dB additional attenuation with
minimum 0.9 m absorptive strip at the top; iv) Absorptive
parallel barriers eliminate IL degradation with a minimum
NRC of 0.65; and v) Slanted top barriers provide positive
aesthetic impacts. Fujiwara & Furuta 19 reported a benefit
of 2-3 dB(A) in frequency range 1 - 1.6 kHz due to a 0.5 m
diameter absorptive cylinder capping, equivalent to what
would have been obtained by raising height of a vertical
plane barrier by 2 m. Shima et al20 developed a Y-shape
barrier with two small Y-shapes at the ends of larger Y-
shaped barrier, thus creating four diffracting edges. Sound
230 J SCI IND RES VOL 71 MARCH 2012

Barrier design m orphology

Requirements Types Material a spects Design c onsiderations

Minimum height such
Effectiveness Reflective Steel (galvanized, that line of sight between
Stainless) source & receiver is

Structural Integrity Absorptive Aluminium 1.5 dB(A ) additional noise

reduction for each 1 m
Compatibility with Earth berms/ Polycarbonate/ increase in height after
Environment bio -barriers Acrylic line of sight is intercepted

Proximity to source
Maintenance Mixed Concrete/ Brick
Masonary/GRC or receiver
/Hollow Blocks Should extend 4 times as far as
in each direction as distance
Safety &Durability Multiple Edges Sound Absorbing from receiver to barrier
Materials
Extra diffracting edge
Easy installation Random Edges Earth berms
2
Surface mass atleast 20 kg/m
Corrosion/Ag eing Reactive Proprietary made for adequate T.L
Resistance Acoustic panels
Sound transmission loss of
Economic Dispersive Glass, Wood & barrier material must be at
Considerations (zigzag, wavy Composites least 10 dB higher than the
Castellated) required barrier attenuation.
QRD (Quadratic Residue
Ventilation, Lighting Helium filled Recycled Diffusers) /PRD (Primitive
Drainage issues for temporary materials Residue Diffusers) option
Applications additionally included
Enclosure, T- Profiled barriers with
Inclined, absorptive material are
Cantilever most effective

Fig. 4—Design morphology for sound barriers

edges. Sound absorbing materials can substantially
improve the performance of both single and parallel noise
barriers. Dispersive barriers having contoured surfaces
(zigzag, wavy, castellated) scatter sound waves thus
preventing unwanted reflections and serve as an
alternative solution to performance degradation of barrier
due to reverberant sound field attributed to traffic noise
in parallel barrier configurations or multiple reflections
from high rise buildings.
Design aspects for erection of noise barriers of
optimum dimensions providing a high insertion loss is
essential and depends upon site and situation. Barrier
thickness is insignificant, but diffraction over the top edge
of a barrier is affected by its cross section. Barriers with
cross sections having corners and curved shapes are not
as effective at reducing noise as those with sharp
edges21 . Effectiveness of a thin barrier can be increased
by bringing diffracting edge nearer to the noise source,
thus increasing path difference. Increasing number of
diffracting edges can also improve attenuation
considerably. Transparent barriers, tilted and dispersive
barriers and multiple edge design barriers prove to be
fruitful options for road traffic noise abatement. A design
morphology (Fig. 4) has been formulated from exhaustive
literature survey21,22 for sound barriers. A suitable barrier,
compatible for a particular road network, depends upon
acoustic attenuation, economical, structural, aesthetic
constraints, compatibility with environment, installation,
maintenance and safety aspects. T-shaped barriers with
an absorptive material have a significant potential of
reducing noise levels by 2-3 dB, which could reduce
barrier height by an average 1.5 m, however, they suffer
from persistent maintenance and replacement of
absorbing material after sometime. Evaluation matrix
could be used to score the best practicable option based
on acoustic performance as well as economic,
 GARG et al: PASSIVE NOISE CONTROL MEASURES FOR TRAFFIC NOISE ABATEMENT IN DELHI, INDIA
Table 1—Scale of attribute weights and ratings correlated with linguistic variables as positive trapezoidal fuzzy numbers
Scale of attribute weights
Very Very Low 0.050
Very Low 0.125
Low 0.175
Medium Low 0.225
Medium 0.275
Medium High 0.325
High 0.375
Very High 0.425
Very Very High 0.475
constructability, maintenance and aesthetic
considerations. Arizona Department of Transportation
(ADOT)23 recommends T-top design with absorptive
material over conventional barrier of concrete or
masonry construction.
TOPSIS24 (Technique for Order Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solution), based on the concept that
chosen alternative should have the shortest distance from
positive ideal solution (PIS) and farthest distance from
the negative ideal solution (NIS), is very useful approach
for solving a multiple criteria decision making problem.
TOPSIS method selects the alternative that is closest to
ideal solution and farthest to negative ideal alternative.
An integration of TOPSIS and fuzzy linguistic variables
is proposed to consider both quantitative and qualitative
factors for choosing the best practicable and economical
(BPEO) barrier option amongst the available barriers.
Attribute weights and rating values are assigned to
various available barrier options against the requirements
and finally constructed a decision matrix (DM), which
is further modified to a weighted normalized DM and
distance of each alternative from PIS and NIS is
computed. Relative closeness to ideal solution is
calculated in terms of closeness coefficient for selecting
the most desirable barrier option. Either actual values
of the requirements against various barrier alternatives
or the use of linguistic variables correlated with fuzzy
numbers to identify the ratings and weights could be
input in DM25 . Table 1 shows the scale of attribute
weights and ratings chosen as linguistic variables and
correlated with positive trapezoidal numbers. Jadidi et
al26 proposed a procedure for formulation of a DM and
found the best alternative using TOPSIS approach and
finally calculated the relative closeness coefficient as
 −  term stability of barrier and compatibility with local
 Si 
Ci* =  *
 , 0 ≤ Ci ≤ 1
 S + + Si− 
 i  considerations especially for road traffic noise abatement.
231
Scale of attribute ratings G
Poor (P) 1
Medium Poor (MP) 3
Fair (F) 5
Medium Good (MG) 7
Good 9
Intermediate values 2,4,6,8
where Si+ is distance of each alternative from ideal
solution and Si− distance from negative ideal solution.
When Ci* is bigger, the ranking order of S i is
better. From observed value of closeness coefficient
(Table 2), concrete barriers, transparent barriers, metal/
composite/polycarbonate sheets are the best options for
road traffic noise abatement.
Perforated metal sheeting on one side with inclusion
of absorptive material within and corrugated profile add
more value to insertion loss provided by barrier. However,
conventional concrete or masonry structure serves to be
the best practicable option for highway barriers considering
the long term stability and maintenance free services as
there are some limitations associated with transparent
and polycarbonate barriers. Laminated glass requires
frequent cleaning due to accumulation of dirt, while
polycarbonate sheets become opalescent over time as it
can absorb water. Plastics are prone to damage from fire
and vandalism and some plastics (polyethylene) become
brittle after prolonged exposure to sunlight. Application
of multiple edges noise barriers or profiled noise barriers
having better acoustical performance than conventional
concrete structures can be very effective for specific
applications wherein a single source has to be screened.
Noise barrier designed for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(DMRC)27 consisting of half Y shaped structure that
includes a 2 mm thick aluminium alloy as back plate, 1
mm thick aluminium alloy sheet (30% open) as facing
surface, 50 mm thick glasswool (density 40 kg/m3 )
wrapped in tissue bags and polythene cover and the whole
assembly fixed in GI framework serves as an illustration
of specific source noise mitigation. TOPSIS approach
can be thus helpful for designer for selecting the best
practicable option considering all pros and cons as long
...(1) environment is equally important as the acoustical
232 J SCI IND RES VOL 71 MARCH 2012

Table 2—Design evaluation matrix of a sound barrier using TOPSIS approach

Barrier Type Requirements from a barrier

Closeness Coefficient
issues & Vandalism

Normalized Weight
Compatibility with

Lighting, drainage

using TOPSIS
consideration
Maintenance
environment

Ventilation,
Installation
Durability

Corrosion

Economic
Structural

resistance
Integrity

approach
Safety &

Rank
IL

T-Top barrier G F F MP F MP F MP MP 0.0132 0.355 7

With absorptive
material
Y-Top/ MG MP F MP F MP MP MP MP 0.0126 0.343 8
Half Y
Jagged top MG MG MG F F F MG F F 0.0154 0.50 4
Cylindrical top MG F F MP F MP F F MP 0.0129 0.454 5
Mushroom MG F F MP F MP F MP MP 0.0129 0.414 6
Top
Multiple-edge MG F F MP F F F MP MP 0.0132 0.454 5
top treatment
Absorptive MG MG F F F F MP MP MP 0.0132 0.50 4
barrier
Transparent F MG G MG MG MG G G G 0.0176 0.586 2
Barrier
Concrete MG G G G G F G P MG 0.0204 0.678 1
Barrier/Hollow
concrete blocks
Reflective F MG F MG MG MG F F MG 0.0154 0.50 4
Barrier
Metal/composite/ F MG G G MG G F G MG 0.0171 0.573 3
Polycarbonate
Sheets/sintered
metals/Plastics

Vegetation role at high frequencies 30 . Harris observed that a

Vegetation can be used in urban areas for
transportation noise control as relatively inexpensive and
aesthetically pleasing noise barriers. A minimum of
2-5 m wide dense shrubs followed by medium height
trees are effective in offering 2-5 dB(A) noise reduction
from traffic noise in residential areas28 . Although a degree
of maintenance is required to achieve optimum
performance throughout the life, yet noise barriers are
often associated with vegetation to produce visually
attractive and acoustically effective combinations.
Attenuation offered by trees and shrubs as noise barrier
depends upon their placement, density, tree height and
belt width. Vegetation effect is often described as a mid
and high frequency absorption per meter, which is added
to frequency dependent attenuation due to soft ground29 .
Fricke demonstrated that scattering rather than
absorption is the more important attenuating phenomenon
in the mid frequencies, while absorption plays a dominant
vegetative barrier could be expected to provide an
insertion loss for highway noise of 0.3-0.6 dB per m and
that a belt of mature vegetation could reduce the level
by 4-6 dB (A)31 . Notable experiments conducted under
Indian conditions by Santra et al32 also substantiated the
effectiveness of vegetation for reducing traffic noise.
Tyagi33 concluded that attenuation maxima were
observed at 400 Hz, 3.15 kHz and between 10 and 12.5
kHz, with attenuation increasing with frequencies.
Pathak34 experiments also validated usefulness of
vegetative species (Putranjeva roxburghi, Cestrum
nocturnum, Hibiscus rosasinensis and Murraya
peniculata) in reducing traffic noise in Varanasi.
Depending upon the availability of space and other
statutory requirements, one can work out suitable noise
control packages consisting of earth berms, plantations,
bushes, shrubs, small noise barriers etc. keeping in view
of economy, logistics, aesthetics of surroundings etc. into
 GARG et al: PASSIVE NOISE CONTROL MEASURES FOR TRAFFIC NOISE ABATEMENT IN DELHI, INDIA 233

Table 3—Vegetative noise barriers for urban noise abatement 28,35

Trees Shrubs Ornamental grasses & plant

Bakul (Mimusops elengi)
Banyan (Ficus bengalensis)
Bher (Zizyphus mauritiana)
Ashoka (Polyalthia longifolia)
Anjur (Ficus carica)
Gul Mohr (Delonix regia)
Tulip (Thespesia populnea)
Kadamp
(Anthocephalus cadamba)
Neem (Azadirachta indica)
Pipal (Ficus religiosa)
Tamarind (Tamarindus indica)
Siris (Albizzia lebbek)
Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica)
Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara)
Arizona Cypress
(Cupressus arizonica)
Common Chinafir
(Cunninghamia lanceolata)
White Pine (Pinus strobus)
Virginia Pine (Pinus virginiana)
Leyland cypress
(Cupressocyparis leylandii)
Pinus taeda (Loblolly Pine)
Sweetbay Magnolia
(Magnolia virginiana)
Dawn Redwood
(Metasequoia glyptostroboides)
Bougainvillea Upland Sea Oats
(Bougainvillea spectabilis) (Chasmanthium latifolium)
Basak (Adhatoda vasica) Pampas Grass
Croton (Croton devaricata) (Cortaderia selloana)
Mussaenda Dwarf Pampas Grass
(Mussaenda erythrophylla) (Cortaderia selloana ‘Nana’)
Rangon (Ixora coccinea) Porcupine Grass
Tagar (Miscanthus Sinensis ‘Strictus’ )
(Tabernaemontana coronaria) Zebra Grass
Tecoma (Tecoma stans) (Miscanthus Sinensis‘Zebrinus’)
Lantana (Lantana camara) Switch Grass
Carrisa Holly (Panicum virgatum)
(Ilex cornuta ‘Carissa’) Putranjeva roxburghi
Dwarf Chinese Cestrum nocturnum
(Ilex cornuta ‘Rotunda’) Hibiscus rosasinensis
Fortunes Osmanthus Murraya peniculata
(Osmanthus x fortunei) Ficus benjamina
Dwarf Burford
(Ilex cornuta ‘Dwarf Burford’)
Dwarf Yaupon
(Ilex vomitoria ‘Nana’)
Pfitzer Juniper
(Juniper chinensis ‘Pfitzeriana’)
Chinese Loropetalum
(Loropetalum chinensis)
Dwarf Waxmyrtle
(Myrica cerifera ‘pumilla’)
Madhabilata (Quisqualis indica)

consideration35 . Investigations conducted near Common
Wealth Games (CWG 2010) site in Delhi and a
comprehensive noise abatement plan proposed growing
of a 30 m wide vegetation belt of small trees (av. ht,
5 m) planted along the slope of railway embankment
effective in providing an average 5-8 dB (A) sound
attenuation for train noise. However, a dense but smaller
width of plants (5 m) planted behind a concrete wall (ht,
1.5 m) facing the highway cause an effective sound
attenuation of 8-10 dB (A).
Delhi can boast of an uninterrupted history of official
patronage to maintain its horticultural diversity since the
time of imperial days. The commonest trees of Delhi
include ashok, neem, amaltas, jamun, semul, siris and
gulmohar. Thus, exploiting natural vegetation available
along with earth berms and tress planted in staggered
rows with shrubs planted under trees so as to provide
visual screening could effectively reduce traffic noise
by 3-5 dB(A). Various vegetative species28,35 (Table 3)
could be instrumental for reducing traffic noise.
Ornamental and evergreen trees can be preferred in city
to enhance aesthetics of surroundings, while foliage trees
can be used to decorate pavements and road dividers.
Conclusions
Design aspects and passive noise control strategies
are presented for accomplishing noise abatement
programme. A design morphology and DM using TOPSIS
approach for selection of best practicable noise barrier
in a particular area is presented. Apart from scientific
solutions, administrative measures for noise zoning of
areas, restrictions in horn noise, efficient traffic
management and restricted entry of heavy vehicles in
residential areas for removing traffic congestion are
required. Regulatory incentives at least twice in a year
can also be useful for road traffic noise mitigation.
Responsible public attitude and strict implementation of
noise ordinances formulated by CPCB can be a major
234 J SCI IND RES VOL 71 MARCH 2012
landmark in victory against accentuated traffic noise
levels in metro cities like Delhi. A noise abatement goal
in line with Nordic and Dutch perspectives of decreasing
the number of houses exposed to a noise level > 70 dB
(A) by 100% and number exposed to a noise level > 65
dB (A) by 90% by next decade is to be strictly adopted
for tackling adverse effects of alarming increase in
population and vehicular density in Indian scenario.
Acknowledgments
Authors thank Dr L S Kit, University of Nebraska-
Lincoln, USA and Dr K Shiraishi, Kyushu University,
Japan for making paper more informative. Authors thank
Mr Brijesh and Mrs Vishesh for helping in getting
feedback from respondents for socio acoustic survey.
References
1 State of Environment Report for Delhi, 2010 (Department of
Environment and Forests, New Delhi) 2010. http://
www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect.pdf.
2 Garg N, Sharma O & Maji S, Noise impact assessment of mass
rapid transit systems in Delhi city, Indian J Pure Appl Phys, 49
(2011) 257-262.
3 Tang, S K & Chan W Y, Predictability of noise indices in a high-
rise residential environment (L), J Acoust Soc America, 114 (2003)
1222-1225.
4 http://heaven.rec.org/Deliverables/HEAVEN-
Final%20ReportFull.pdf.
5 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/projects/
silvia.pdf.
6 http://www.alpnap.org/SP_2020_Final.pdf.
7 Morgan P A, Nelson P M & Steven H, Integrated assessment of
noise reduction measures in the road transport sector, TRL Ltd.,
2003. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/
projects/report_noise_reÐ :duction_en.pdf
8 Nijland R, Vos E & Hooghwerff J, Dutch noise innovation pro-
gram road traffic (IPG), in Proc. 32nd Int Congr & Expo on Noise
Cont Engg, Internoise 2003 (Seogwipo, Korea) 2003.
9 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/directive.htm
10 10 Buna S & Burgess M, Methods of controlling traffic noise
impact, in Transportation Noise Reference book, edited by P M
Nelson (Butterworths, London) 1987.
11 Amundsen A H & Klæboe R, A Nordic perspective on noise
reduction at the source, TOI report 806/2005.
12 Sandberg U & Kalman B, The poroelastic road surface-Results
of an experiment in Stockholm, in Proc of Forum Acusticum
2004 (Budapest, Hungary) 2004.
13 Sandberg U, The multi-coincidence peak around 1000 Hz in
tyre/road noise spectra, Euronoise, Naples, 2003.
14 Garg N, Sharma O & Maji S, Design consideration of building
elements for traffic and aircraft noise abatement, Indian J Pure
Appl Phys, 49 (2011) 437-450.
15 Garg N, Sharma O & Maji S, Experimental investigations on
sound insulation through single, double and triple window glaz-
ing for traffic noise abatement, J Sci Ind Res, 70 (2011) 471-478.
16 Mohanan V & Akhtar N, An opinion survey of noise pollution
in the residential premises: Need for noise barriers, Indian J Air
Pollut Cont, 11 (2011) 92-98.
17 Cohn L F & Harris R A, Special noise barrier applications-Phase
1, Report WA-RD 3041 (Washington State Dept of
Transportation, Olympia) 1993.
18 Cohn L & Harris R, Special treatments for highway noise barri-
ers, Inter-noise, 96 (1996) 747-750.
19 Fujiwara K & Furuta N, Sound shielding efficiency of a barrier
with a cylinder at the edge, J Noise Cont Engg, 37 (1991) 5-11.
20 Shima H, Watanabe T, Mizuno A K, Iida K, Matsumoto K et al,
Noise reduction of multiple edge noise barrier, Inter-noise, 96
(1996) 791-794.
21 Guidelines on design of noise barriers, SAR, 2nd issue (Environ-
mental Protection Department, Highways Department, Govt of
Hongkong) Jan 2003.
22 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_barriers/
design_construction/design/design04.cfm
23 Watson D, Evaluation of benefits and opportunities for innova-
tive noise barrier designs, Final report 572 (Arizona Depart-
ment of Transportation) 2006.
24 Hwang C L & Yoon K, Multiple Attribute Decision Making:
Methods and Applications (Springer, Heidelberg) 1987.
25 Shahanaghi K & Yazdian S A, Vendor selection using a new
Fuzzy group TOPSIS approach, J Uncertain Syst, 3 (1999)
221-231.
26 Jadidi O, Hong T S, Firouzi F, Yusuff R M & Zulkifli N, TOPSIS
and fuzzy multi-objective model integration for supplier selec-
tion problem, J Achievements Mater Manuf Engg, 31 (2008)
762-769.
27 Mohanan V & Sharma O, Acoustical design of a noise barrier for
an elevated rail corridor, J Acoust Soc India, 28 (2001) 95-100.
28 Santra S C, Chakrabarty D & Roy B, Urban traffic noise abate-
ment with vegetation barriers, J Acoust Soc India, 26 (1998)
1-10.
29 Huisman W T & Attenborough K, Reverberation and attenuation in a
pine forest, J Acoust Soc America, 90 (1991) 2664-2667.
30 Fricke, F. Sound attenuation in forests, J Sound Vibration, 91
(1984) 149-158.
31 Harris R A, Vegetative barriers: An alternative highway noise
abatement measure, J Noise Control Engg, 27 (1986) 4-8.
32 Tyagi V, Kumar K & Jain V K, A study of the spectral character-
istics of traffic noise attenuation by vegetation belts in Delhi,
Appl Acoust, 67 (2006) 926-35.
33 Pathak V, Tripathi B D & Mishra V K, Dynamics of traffic noise
in a tropical city Varanasi and its abatement through vegetation,
Environ Monit Assess, 146 (2008) 67-75.
34 Noise control measures for proposed Commonwealth Games
Village near Noida Morr, NPL Tech. Report No. AC.C.07(4)-01
(NPL, New Delhi).
35 Green Buffers for Screening and Noise Reduction (Georgia For-
estry Commission, Georgia) http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/
resources/library/greenbuffers-for-screening-and-noise-reduction.