1 s2.0 S2352146517305252 Main

Available
Available online
online at
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Transportation
Transportation Research
Research Procedia
Procedia 00
00 (2017)
(2017) 000–000
000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3383–3397
World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016
A theoretical overview of road hump effects on traffic noise in

improving residential well-being
Khairun Sarah Radhiah Bachokaa*, Abdul Azeez Kadar Hamsabb, Mohd Zin bin
Mohamedbb, Mansor Ibrahimcc
aa
PhD
PhD Student,
Student, Kulliyyah
Kulliyyah of
of Architecture
Architecture and
and Environmental
Environmental Design,
Design, International
International Islamic
Islamic University
University Malaysia,
Malaysia, Jalan
Jalan Gombak,
Gombak, 50728
50728 Kuala
Kuala
Lumpur,
Lumpur, Malaysia
Malaysia
bb
Associate
Associate Professor, Kulliyyah of
Professor, Kulliyyah of Architecture
Architecture and
and Environmental
Islamic University
Malaysia, Jalan
Jalan Gombak,
Gombak, 50728
50728
Kuala
Kuala Lumpur,
Lumpur, Malaysia
Malaysia
cc
Professor,
Professor, Kulliyyah
Kulliyyah of
of Architecture
Architecture and
and Environmental
Islamic University
Malaysia, Jalan Gombak, 50728
Jalan Gombak, 50728 Kuala
Kuala
Lumpur,
Lumpur, Malaysia
Malaysia
Abstract
Abstract
Previous
Previous studies
studies have
have stated
stated that
that an
an urban
urban residential
residential area’s
area’s living
living quality is threatened
quality is threatened by
by noise
noise annoyance,
annoyance, ofof which
which traffic
traffic noise
noise
is
is considered
considered the the main
main contributor.
contributor. This
This paper
paper aims
aims toto discuss
discuss if
if the
the speed-reducing
speed-reducing benefits
benefits of
of existing
existing road
road humps
humps make
make them
them
viable as
viable as aa noise-reducing
noise-reducing measure,
measure, particularly
particularly when
when thethe humps
humps dodo not
not comply
comply with
with existing
existing guidelines.
guidelines. The
The methods
methods used
used were
were
aa literature
literature review
review and
and paired-sample
paired-sample T-tests
T-tests to
to test
test the
the significance
significance of of changes
changes inin traffic
traffic noise
noise at
at selected
selected road
road humps.
humps. The
The
literature and
literature and data
data showed
showed that
that noise
noise levels
levels were
were still
still high
high at
at roads
roads with
with road
road humps,
humps, due
due to
to the
the frequency
frequency ofof vehicle
vehicle accelerations
accelerations
and decelerations
and decelerations near
near the
the road
road humps.
humps. TheThe noise
noise levels
levels are
are also
also above
above the
the permissible
permissible noise
noise level
level for
for Malaysian
Malaysian residential
residential
areas. This
areas. This suggests
suggests that
that road
road humps
humps areare less
less viable
viable especially
especially when
when drivers
drivers change
change their
their speed
speed of
of vehicles
vehicles appreciably
appreciably when
when
approaching the road
approaching the road humps.humps.
©
© 2017
2017 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published byby Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V.
© 2017 The Authors.
Peer-review under Published by
responsibility of Elsevier
WORLD B.V.
CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.
Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD
Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE CONFERENCE ON ON TRANSPORT
TRANSPORT RESEARCH
RESEARCH SOCIETY.
SOCIETY.
Keywords:
Keywords: Road
Road Humps;
Humps; Traffic
Traffic Calming;
Calming; Traffic
Traffic Noise;
Noise; Traffic
Traffic Speed;
Speed; Residential
Residential Area
Area
*
* Corresponding
Corresponding author.
author. Tel.:
Tel.: +60126509991.
+60126509991.
E-mail
E-mail address:
address: khairunsarah@gmail.com
khairunsarah@gmail.com
2214-241X
2214-241X ©© 2017
2017 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V.
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of
of WORLD
WORLD CONFERENCE
CONFERENCE ON ON TRANSPORT
TRANSPORT RESEARCH
RESEARCH SOCIETY.
SOCIETY.
2352-1465 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY.
10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.224
3384 Khairun Sarah Radhiah Bachok et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3383–3397
2 Bachok et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
1. Introduction
Defined as the feeling of displeasure or disturbance caused by unwanted outdoor sounds from human activities,
noise annoyance is perceived as the primary hazard to a residential area’s wellbeing (Botteldooren et al., 2011). This
is in line with the percentage of affected residents increasing in areas with noise levels of more than 65 dB(A). This
situation also afflicts Malaysian urban residential areas, with a 2008 Malaysian Department of Environment study
establishing that daytime and nighttime noise levels in residential areas exceed the permissible limits by 15dB and
23dB respectively (Rosli and Kadar Hamsa, 2013). The main contributor to high noise levels is road traffic
(Kalansuriya et al., 2015), with exposure higher in developing countries as a result of poor regulatory enforcement
and improper planning. Traffic noise levels vary due to a multitude of factors, which are the traffic speed, traffic
volume, traffic composition, driver behaviour, type of vehicle and type of speed reducing measure present
(Desarnaulds et al., 2004; Wewalwala and Sonnadara, 2011; Kalansuriya et al., 2015).
Given the impact a speed reducing measure purportedly has on traffic noise levels, this leads to the question of a
speed reducing measure’s viability in reducing traffic noise. This study focuses on road humps as one of the most
common forms of speed reducers in Malaysian residential areas. However, it was also noted in the previous literature
that Malaysian road humps are installed on an ad-hoc basis, leading to variations in the dimensions and possibly in
the effectiveness. This paper differs from other literature by focusing on the effect of ad-hoc hump installations on
traffic noise levels, through a discussion on the known effects of road humps on traffic noise levels in residential
areas and comparing with the data findings.
2. Background
2.1. Road humps
The road hump is one of the most common forms of traffic calming, which Ashley (1994) stated has multiple
objectives. The objectives of traffic calming are namely to reduce vehicle speeds, improve safety, remove
extraneous traffic and improve the environment by way of reducing noise and air pollution caused by traffic. For the
purpose of this paper, the viability of the road hump in reducing noise pollution is discussed.
A road hump is defined by the Malaysian Highway Planning Unit as a raised area of pavement, with a common
measurement of 3.5-4m length and 6.71-9.14m width. It is classified as a vertical measure, which influences drivers’
speeds through vertical displacement. Hump profiles can be circular, parabolic, sinusoidal or flat-topped (Abdul
Manan and Hoong, 2009). However there are two common issues in Malaysia; the guidelines available in Malaysia
on the installation of road humps are not standardized, and there is a large variation in the existing hump dimensions
and spacing. This lack of standardization may result in driver confusion and a general lack of effectiveness (Abdul
Manan and Hoong, 2009).
A brief overview of Malaysian road hump standards is in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Malaysian road hump standards

Source Dimension Spacing Others
a) Flat-Top Hump 1) Vehicle speed between 30km/h to
Height: 75mm-100mm, Length: 2.5m-4m 60km/h
Malaysian Ministry b) Round-Top Hump 100m 2) Allowed on district road, residential
of Works, 2012 Height: 50mm-100mm, Length: 3.7m-4m road, access road, rural road
c) Sinusoidal Hump 3) Road Geometry: 2-way and 2-lane
Height: 75mm-100mm, Length: 3.8m-4m roads with no kerbs.
4) Should not be located near road
intersections
Khairun Sarah Radhiah Bachok et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017) 3383–3397 3385
Bachok et al./ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3
a) Parabolic Hump 1) Construction tolerance of +3mm

Height: 75mm-100mm, Length: 3.7m- Mentions that a
SIRIM, 2009 4.25m spacing of 90m to
b) Circular Hump 180m reduces 85th
Height: 75mm-100mm, Length: 3.7m- percentile speeds
4.25m by 12km/h to
c) Sinusoidal Hump 15km/h
Height: 75mm-100mm, Length: 3.7m-
4.25m
Table 1 shows the differences in the recommended hump dimensions between the Ministry of Works and SIRIM,
particularly in the height of the round-top or circular hump. The differences can pose some issues in regards to the
installation of road humps and even in the assessment of a hump’s effectiveness, as the guidelines are not standard.
3. Effects of Road Humps on Traffic Noise from Literature
3.1. Theory 1: Speed reduction leads to noise reduction on humps
Increased traffic noise, particularly from tyre-road interactions, is the result of higher vehicle speeds, which
Archer et al. (2008), Gidlöf-Gunnarsson and Öhrström (2007) and Botteldooren et al. (2011) has noted as being a
major issue for residential life quality. It is with this premise that previous studies noted that road humps can reduce
noise levels by reducing vehicle speed. Abbott et al. (1997) used the Statistical Pass-By (SPB) method to ascertain
that the installation of road humps reduced the average noise level by 3.9dB(A) midway and 8.2dB(A) alongside the
hump. Abbott et al. (1997) explained that this corresponds with the speed reductions of 13 km/h and 19km/h
respectively, as the traffic volume and composition had little variation before and after the installation. However, it
should be noted that this result is applicable only for light vehicles. To address this, a track trial was conducted to
ascertain the effects on buses and heavy vehicles. The authors summarized that the noise level reduced by 10.2dB
(A) for cars travelling at 22km/h, 3.8dB (A) for buses travelling at 18 km/h and 2 dB (A) for commercial vehicles.
However, this assumption is limited by the variability in driver behaviour and existing hump dimensions, which
were not specifically discussed in the study. This comparison is also useful only where the ‘before’ data is also made
available.
Bendtsen and Larsen’s (2000) study indicated that noise levels reduced by 2 to 3dB at humps and 1dB at the
midpoint between 2 humps, as compared to noise levels predicted for the road before the hump installation. This
proves their hypothesis that noise is reduced on humps due to the speed reductions. The noise reduction also
coincides with speed reductions ranging from 5 to 14km/h for the roads with speed data before the hump
installations, which had 40, 50 and 60km/h speed limits. A graph comparing the noise levels for locations at and
near the hump with predicted ‘before’ levels showed that the levels were lowest at the hump. However, it was noted
that while the ‘before’ noise levels were predicted, the prediction method was not explained further in the paper. The
dimensions of the humps were also not specified, though the authors mentioned that they fulfilled Danish
requirements.
Despite the speed and noise reduction in Abbott et al.’s (1997) study, the noise levels were still relatively high at
60.9 dB (A), 69.8 dB (A) and 77.6 dB (A) for cars, buses, and commercial vehicles respectively. This indicates that
humps may not necessarily help improve the living condition of residential areas, despite helping to reduce noise
levels. O’Brien and Brindle (1999) and Mao and Koorey (2010) also acknowledged that even though humps were
capable of reducing vehicle noise in the vicinity, the vertical deflections caused by road humps can increase noise
pollution.
3.2. Theory 2: Noise levels increase near humps due to acceleration, deceleration, and aggressive driving
Hidas et al. (1998) and Huang and Cynecki (2001) stated that residents still complained of increased noise levels
after the installation of road humps. This may be explained by additional noise generated near the hump, due to
vehicles braking before and accelerating after passing a road hump (Hidas et al., 1998; O’ Brien and Brindle, 1999;
Wewalwala and Sonnadara, 2011). Wewalwala and Sonnadara’s (2011) study measured noise levels at and after a
road hump, in a total of six locations spaced 20m apart. LAeq was shown to be highest as the vehicles approached
20m after the road hump, with heavy vehicles and three-wheelers found to be the highest contributors to the noise
levels. This study clearly indicated that there is an increase in average noise levels after road humps and that humps
affect noise levels up to 100m away from the device. However, the humps studied had a large spacing of 300m on a
road with 50km/h speed limit. This may limit the study’s generalization, given that other studies recommend closer
spacing distances of 40 to 80m (see Zaidel et al., 1992; Layfield and Webster, 1998; Sundo and Diaz, 2001;
Desarnaulds et al., 2004). The Malaysian speed limit along residential roads with humps is also 35 km/h.
Nevertheless, it is a good indicator of what happens when the road hump installations do not necessarily adhere to
guidelines, which is a common occurrence in Malaysia.
According to Preis et al. (2008), the literature they reviewed concluded that road humps typically reduce
passenger cars’ noise levels by 0.4 to 5 dB and increase the noise levels of heavy trucks. However, their study found
that drivers’ behaviour was also a determining factor, with aggressive driving at humps potentially increasing noise
levels by 6dB (A). Lee et al. (2013) compared the acceleration noise produced when passing selected 3m humps, 4m
humps, speed tables, and chicanes. Their study concluded that the 3m and 4m humps resulted in higher vehicle
acceleration rates and noise levels compared to the other devices, indicating abrupt changes in speed at road humps.
It was also noted that the 4m humps resulted in more uniform vehicle speeds and lower acceleration noise levels as
compared to the 3m humps, due to the vertical displacement being more gradual over a greater hump length;
however the hump heights were not expressly stated.
The second hypothesis of Bendtsen and Larsen’s (2000) study was that noise levels would increase before and
after humps, due to vehicle accelerations and decelerations. This was also proven; at roads with 30 and 40km/h
speed limits, noise levels taken 10m away from the hump were 2 to 4dB higher than at the hump. Another finding
was that for roads with 40, 50 and 60 km/h speed limits, the midpoint noise levels were higher than even the 10m
noise levels. This was not explained further in the paper, but an assumption can be made that the spacing was a
factor for the 50 and 60 km/h roads as the average spacing of the humps was more than 200m.
3.3. Research gap
From the studies reviewed above, one research gap is that several studies did not make specific comments on the
overall dimensions of devices measured in their study. Thus, the relation between the hump geometry and the results
obtained were not entirely discussed. It was also noted that there was a lack of discussion on the effects of
inconsistent road hump dimensions and spacing. However, this may be due to this issue being more prevalent in
developing countries. The following section of this paper aims to address these issues with some field survey
findings.
4. Comparison with Data Findings
This section presents the findings from three sites to discuss Theories 1 and 2 as stated above. To further explain
the differences in traffic noise levels in both areas, the noise data was analysed together with the speed data.
4.1. Site location and characteristics
The selected roads are Jalan P11H/1 (Putrajaya), Persiaran Setiawangsa (Taman Setiawangsa) and Jalan AU1C/1
(Keramat). Persiaran Setiawangsa and Jalan P11H/1 are local collector roads, and Jalan AU1C/1 is a local road. The
location of the three sites is shown in Figure 1, while the characteristics of each road are as per Table 2 below.
Fig.1. Site map with location of selected roads
Table 2. Characteristics of Jalan P11H/1, Persiaran Setiawangsa, and Jalan AU1C/1

Road Road Length Lane Sidewalk/ Traffic Volume Speed Limit Surrounding Land Use
Kerb (12-hr)
Jalan P11H/1 Approx. 220m 2-lane, Yes In: 298 veh. 35 km/h • Residential (Terrace,
2 direction (both sides) Out: 303 veh. Semi-D, apartments)
Persiaran Approx. 1.16km 2-lane, Yes In: 1785 veh. 35 km/h • Residential (Army
Setiawangsa 2 direction (both sides) Out: 1753 veh. quarters, terrace houses)
• Institutional (Mosque)
Jalan AU1C/1 Approx. 432m 2-lane, No In: 1043 veh. 35 km/h • Residential (Bungalows,
2 direction Out: 884 veh. terrace houses)
• Recreational (Park)
The selection of the sites above was based on certain criteria established beforehand in the study. The criteria
were as below:
• Variation in hump dimensions and profiles.
• The site should not be directly adjacent to other land uses, i.e. commercial as this will affect traffic flow.
• Variation in residential housing types and densities, to study the effect of different traffic volumes.
• Road width and presence of parked roads should not be disruptive to the traffic flow.
A variation was identified between the three hump schemes and even within each scheme. The dimensions of the
selected road humps along all three roads can be found in Table 3.
Table 3. Dimensions and spacing of existing road humps in Malaysian urban residential areas
Case Hump Type Hump Height (mm) Length (m) Width (m) Spacing (m)
Jalan P11H/1 Sinuisoidal A 90 3.7 6.1 60
(Putrajaya) B 70 3.8
Persiaran Round A 80 3.2 11.9 92
Setiawangsa B 60 3.4
Jalan AU1C/1 Round A 30 1.7 5.6 78
(Keramat) B 30 1.5
Based on the guidelines discussed in Section 2.1, it can be seen that only Hump A along Jalan P11H/1 conforms
to the SIRIM and Ministry of Works guidelines. As most of the humps listed above are of inadequate dimensions,
this enables this study to focus on the possible effects of ad-hoc road humps on the noise levels.
4.2. Data collection method
The traffic noise and speed measurements were taken over six points on the selected roads, as listed below and
shown in Figures 2 and 3.
• Point 1 (40m before Road Hump A) - To study the effect before vehicles approach deceleration point
• Point 2 (15m before Road Hump A) - To study the effect at the deceleration point. 15m was chosen based on the
work of Zainudin et al. (2014).
• Point 3 (Road Hump A)
• Point 4 (Midpoint between Road Humps A and B) – To study the effect of hump spacing
• Point 5 (Road Hump B)
• Point 6 (15m after Road Hump B)- To study the effect at the acceleration point, 15m was chosen based on the
work of Zainudin et al. (2014).
Fig.2. Illustration of all traffic speed and noise measurement points along the selected roads for (a) Persiaran Setiawangsa and Jalan P11H/1
and (b) Jalan AU1C/1
A 12-hour traffic count study was conducted at the sites beforehand, and the data was used to identify the sample
size for each site using systematic sampling. Vehicles covered in this study were cars, motorcycles, vans, buses, and
lorries; except Jalan P11H/1 with no bus traffic. The speed measurements were taken using Stalker XS Lidar-radar
guns as they passed by the specified points. Noise level measurements were carried out at the road edge and taken at
each point for 12 hours (7 am to 7 pm) at 15-minute intervals. The equipment used were Cirrus Optimus Green CR
172B and CR 171A models, which were calibrated before each measurement using the Cirrus CR:515 Acoustic
Calibrator.
The data was collected for a minimum of 8 hours and maximum of 12 hours, with the rainy weather as a
limitation during the data collection period. Due to the limitation in equipment, the noise level and speed surveys
could not be conducted for all six points consecutively. The authors addressed this issue by conducting the survey at
two points per day, for a total of three days per site. The sequence was as follows:
• Day 1: Point 5 and 6
• Day 2: Point 2 and 3
• Day 3: Point 1 and 4.
4.3. Traffic noise
Table 4 shows the LAeq for all six points measured at Jalan P11H/1, Persiaran Setiawangsa, and Jalan AU1C/1.
This is simply to indicate whether or not the noise levels reduced at the humps and increased at the acceleration and
deceleration points. The data is shown in Figure 3 below.
Table 4. LAeq at Different Hump Locations

Location LAeq (dB)
40m before 15m before Road Hump A Midpoint Road Hump B 15m after
(P1) (P2) (P3) (P4) (P5) (P6)
Jalan P11H/1 58.0 55.2 55.3 56.5 54.2 53.3
Persiaran Setiawangsa 73.8 64.2 63.5 63.4 62.9 63.4
Jalan AU1C/1 64.6 65.8 64.7 64.3 64.4 65.3
LAeq According to Points

80
75 Jalan P11H/1
70
Total LAeq (dB)
65 Persiaran
60 Setiawangsa
55 Jalan AU1C/1
50
45 Noise limit
40
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
Fig. 3. LAeq at selected points along Jalan P11H/1, Persiaran Setiawangsa and Jalan AU1C/1
Figure 3 shows that for Jalan P11H/1, the noise levels were slightly higher at Hump A than at the deceleration
and acceleration points. Audio recordings indicated that the noise levels increased due to vehicles being driven over
the transverse bars, and higher exhaust emissions by certain cars and lorries when passing over the humps. As Hump
A’s dimensions were higher (90mm height but with a shorter length of 3.7m), it was presumed that changes in speed
were more abrupt and thus caused the higher exhaust emissions. It was also presumed that any increase of noise
levels due to vehicles passing over the transverse bars and humps were made even more perceptible by the quieter
noise levels along the road, which was due to the lower traffic volumes in the residential area.
It is also indicative that vehicle speeds are not necessarily representative of noise levels; together with the higher
exhaust emissions, there were also additional sources of noise at Point 3 in the form of street sweepers and
children’s activities, which contributed to the residential area noise levels. This is shown in Figure 4. However, it
was also noted that out of all three areas, the LAeq recorded along Jalan P11H/1 were the lowest and bordered the
maximum permissible limit for daytime.
As for Persiaran Setiawangsa, noise levels were reduced at the humps but increased at the acceleration and
deceleration points. Table 4 shows that the LAeq was higher at Hump A than at Hump B. Hump dimensions may
also be a factor, with Hump A being 20mm higher and 0.2m shorter than Hump B. As in the case of Jalan P11H/1,
the dimensions of Hump A may have caused abrupt changes in speed and resulted in higher noise levels. Figure 3
shows that despite the reductions at the road humps, the LAeq recorded along the selected stretch remained higher
than the permissible noise level.
As stated in Table 3, both selected humps along Jalan AU1C/1 were only of 30mm height while the length
ranged from 1.5 to 1.7m. The impact of the inadequate hump dimensions can be seen in the variation of noise levels.
There were lesser variations in noise levels along Jalan AU1C/1, and the LAeq recorded 15 m after Road Hump B
(Point 6) was higher than the initial LAeq recorded at Point 1. The LAeq recorded at Hump B was also slightly
higher, possibly due to the shorter hump length causing abrupt changes in speed. Overall, the humps on Jalan
AU1C/1 had minimal impact on the noise levels throughout the selected traffic calming scheme. It was also noted
that the LAeq recorded for all points exceeded the permissible noise levels.
It can be seen that Persiaran Setiawangsa recorded higher noise levels at Points 1 and 2, while Jalan AU1C/1
recorded higher noise levels at Points 3 till 6. Upon analysing the noise levels against the speed data, it was found
that this was mainly due to variations in speed reductions at both sites. The LAeq for Point 1 was higher at Persiaran
Setiawangsa due to speeding vehicles and school children’s activities near the location (indicated in Figure 4), while
the LAeq was higher at Persiaran Setiawangsa for Point 2 due to the lower percentages of traffic speed reduction
there. As for Points 3 to 6, the LAeq was higher along Jalan AU1C/1 due to the lower variation in traffic speed
reductions recorded across both selected road humps.
Fig. 4. Sources of additional noise along Jalan P11H/1, Persiaran Setiawangsa and Jalan AU1C/1
4.3.1. Significance of noise reduction over speed humps
The noise data was also checked for statistical differences using paired T-test, and the effect size analysed using
Cohen’s d. All assumptions for normality were satisfied. As this section discusses the significance of noise
reductions over humps, Point 1 was not considered. The data was compared at similar times for all five points,
assuming continuity throughout the data as not much variation was observed in the traffic throughout the survey
period.
a. Jalan P11H/1
A paired T-test was conducted to compare the differences in noise levels at Hump A and B in both directions.
Table 5 shows the results of the paired T-test conducted for the noise data recorded along Jalan P11H/1.
Table 5. Paired Samples Test for Jalan P11H/1

Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval of
Std. Std. Error the Difference Sig. (2-
Hump Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair 1 Noise_p2 - Noise_p3 .16364 2.27002 .39516 -.64128 .96855 .414 32 .682
A Pair 2 Noise_p4 - Noise_p3 1.57273 4.01733 .69933 .14824 2.99721 2.249 32 .032
Pair 3 Noise_p6 - Noise_p5 -.84848 2.16753 .37732 -1.61706 -.07991 -2.249 32 .032
B Pair 4 Noise_p4 - Noise_p5 2.00000 3.67993 .64059 .69515 3.30485 3.122 32 .004
The increase in noise levels at Hump A was statistically insignificant from Point 2 to Point 3, t(32)=0.414,
p=0.682 but the reduction was statistically significant from Point 4 to Point 3, t(32)=2.249, p=0.032. The change in
noise levels at Hump B was statistically significant from Point 6 to Point 5, t(32)=-2.249, p=.032 and from Point 4
to Point 5, t(32)=3.122, p=.004. The changes in noise levels were expected to be minimal, as shown in Table 4.
However it can be seen that the noise level changes at Hump B were statistically significant, while Hump A’s effect
was less significant on the noise levels despite being of adequate dimensions. Hump A’s lack of effect may be
explained by Point 2 being close to a road intersection. The presence of any incoming or outgoing vehicles from the
adjacent road can affect vehicle speeds and thus reduce the effect of Hump A. The lower vehicle speeds along Jalan
P11H/1 would also cause lesser speed reductions at the hump, thus causing the noise level changes to be less
significant.
b. Persiaran Setiawangsa
A paired T-test was conducted to compare the differences in noise levels at both Hump A and Hump B in both
directions. Table 6 shows the T- test results for noise levels recorded along Persiaran Setiawangsa.
Table 6. Paired Samples Test for Persiaran Setiawangsa

Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval
Std. Error of the Difference Sig. (2-
Hump Mean Std. Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair 1 Noise_p2 - Noise_p3 .56389 1.05807 .17635 .20589 .92189 3.198 35 .003
A Pair 2 Noise_p4 - Noise_p3 .26389 3.47482 .57914 -.91182 1.43960 .456 35 .651
Pair 3 Noise_p6 - Noise_p5 .87778 .98738 .16456 .54370 1.21186 5.334 35 .000
B Pair 4 Noise_p4 - Noise_p5 1.01111 2.90062 .48344 .02968 1.99254 2.092 35 .044
The change in noise levels at Hump A was statistically significant from Point 2 to Point 3, t(35)=3.198,
p=0.003 but insignificant from Point 4 to Point 3, t(35)=0.456, p=0.651. While for Hump B, the change in noise
levels was statistically significant from Point 4 to Point 5, t(35)=2.092, p=.044 and from Point 6 to Point 5, t(35)=-
5.334, p=.000. Thus it can be seen that Hump B significantly reduced the noise levels in the Persiaran Setiawangsa
residential area, while Hump A’s effect was less statistically significant. This may be attributed to the longer hump
length of Hump B causing a more gradual impact on the noise emitted by passing vehicles.
c. Jalan AU1C/1
A paired T-test was conducted to compare the differences in noise levels at both Hump A and Hump B in both
directions. Table 7 shows the T- test results for noise levels recorded along Jalan AU1C/1.
Table 7. Paired Samples Test for Jalan AU1C/1

Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval
Std. Error of the Difference
Hump Mean Std. Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1 Noise_P2 - Noise_P3 .92778 1.85297 .30883 .30082 1.55473 3.004 35 .005
A Pair 2 Noise_P4 - Noise_P3 -.33611 2.29448 .38241 -1.11245 .44023 -.879 35 .385
Pair 3 Noise_P6 - Noise_P5 .61389 1.42090 .23682 .13313 1.09465 2.592 35 .014
B Pair 4 Noise_P4 - Noise_P5 .39722 2.50969 .41828 -.45194 1.24638 .950 35 .349
The change in noise levels at Hump A was statistically significant from Point 2 to Point 3, t(35)=3.004,
p=0.005 but insignificant from Point 4 to Point 3, t(35)=-0.879, p=0.385. While for Hump B, the reduction in noise
levels was statistically significant from Point 6 to Point 5, t(35)=2.592, p=.014 but the noise increase from Point 4 to
Point 5 was insignificant, t(35)=0.950, p=.349. It can be seen that for both directions, the changes in noise levels
were insignificant from Point 4 (midpoint). Point 4 is located at an intersection; even though the speeds were taken
only for vehicles not turning into the intersection, the vehicle flow and speeds were still impacted by vehicles
slowing down to turn into the adjoining road. Hence Hump B’s effectiveness is reduced for traffic coming from the
hump midpoint.
4.3.2. Effect size of road humps on noise levels
Based on the results discussed above, it can be seen that only Hump B elicited statistically significant reductions
in both directions for both Jalan P11H/1 and Persiaran Setiawangsa. Jalan AU1C/1 Humps A and B were found to
cause statistically significant reductions only for vehicles travelling inward.
Cohen’s d was calculated to analyze the effect sizes, which can be seen in Table 8 below.
Table 8. Cohen’s d for hump effect size on noise levels

Location Comparison t N Cohen's d
PS B P6-P5 5.334 36 0.889
P11H B P4-P5 3.122 33 0.543470442
PS A P2-P3 3.198 36 0.533
AU1C A P2-P3 3.004 36 0.500666667
AU1C B P6-P5 2.592 36 0.432
P11H A P4-P3 2.249 33 0.391500648
P11H B P5-P6 -2.249 33 -0.39150065
PS B P4-P5 2.092 36 0.348666667
Table 8 shows that Jalan P11H/1 Hump A had a low effect on the noise levels, due to the effect being reduced by
Point 2’s location near an intersection. The effect size of Jalan P11H/1 Hump B ranged from medium (for vehicles
travelling outwards) to low (for vehicles travelling inwards). The effects of the humps along Jalan AU1C/1 also
ranged from low to medium effect, which is notable as both humps were of inadequate dimensions. Hump A on
Persiaran Setiawangsa had a medium effect on the noise level, while Hump B’s effect ranged from strong (for
vehicles travelling outwards) to low (from midpoint to Hump B). The following section will analyze if this is linked
to the traffic speed characteristics of the area.
4.4. Traffic speed and relation with traffic noise
This study also analyses the changes in traffic speeds along the selected points, in order to test Theory 1 by
examining the relation between traffic speed and traffic noise in the residential areas. The 85th percentile speeds for
all vehicles were compared for Jalan P11H/1, Persiaran Setiawangsa and Jalan AU1C/1. Cars and motorcycles were
found to make up the majority of the traffic volume in both sites, based on a traffic count conducted beforehand. The
data shows that the traffic speeds generally decrease at the humps, which agrees with Ewing (1999) and Huang and
Cynecki’s (2001) statement that road humps are effective at reducing the 85th percentile of vehicle speeds.
a. Jalan P11H/1
Table 9. Reduction in average traffic speed at Humps A and B (Jalan P11H/1)

Hump Veh. P2-P3 P4-P3 Hump Veh. P4-P5 P6-P5
CAR -3.0 -9.5 CAR -7.0 -3.7
A M/C -2.8 -8.3 B M/C -4.5 -4.7
VAN -3.0 -10.3 VAN -3.5 -5.0
LORRY -1.3 -9.0 LORRY -9.3 -3.0
Average Red. (km/h) -2.5 -9.3 Average Red. (km/h) -6.1 -4.1
Table 10. Increase in average traffic speed at acceleration, deceleration and mid points (Jalan P11H/1)
CAR 0.9 9.0 CAR 9.1 1.0
M/C 2.6 3.6 M/C 6.3 2.4
A B
VAN 1.3 5.3 VAN 12.0 -0.5
LORRY 2.5 10.0 LORRY 9.5 3.0
Average Inc. (km/h) 1.8 7.0 Average Inc. (km/h) 9.2 1.5
Tables 9 and 10 show the changes in average vehicle speeds along Jalan P11H/1. The average reductions are
indicative of the changes in speed at both Hump A (P3) and Hump B (P5). It can be seen that for vehicles going
inwards, the speed reductions are higher at Hump B than at Hump A. This explains the statistical significance of
noise reductions only at Hump B.
In reference to Table 4, it is seen that there is a slight increase in LAeq at P3 despite the speed reductions. This is
indicative that reduction in speeds does not necessarily result in noise reduction. The vehicle speeds also reduced on
the humps but increased sharply at Point 4 in both directions. This indicates that at 60m, the hump distance
permitted vehicle speeds to increase before slowing down at the following hump. However the speeds recorded
generally did not exceed the speed limit, thus any reduction of speed at the humps would have been of a lesser
magnitude.
b. Persiaran Setiawangsa
Tables 11 and 12 show the changes in average vehicle speeds at Persiaran Setiawangsa. Cars and motorcycles
entering Persiaran Setiawangsa were speeding at Point 2, though the speeds were reduced upon approaching the first
road hump. The higher speeds were due to the wider road span of 11.9m for a two-lane two-way local collector
road. With the hump spacing being 92m, the increase in speeds at Point 4 due to vehicle acceleration was expected.
Motorcycles also accelerated after exiting from a curve to a straight section, resulting in higher motorcycle speeds
exiting Persiaran Setiawangsa at Point 6.
Table 11. Reduction in average traffic speed at Humps A and B (Persiaran Setiawangsa)
CAR -15.4 -14.9 CAR -14.3 -6.9
M/C -9.4 -7.6 M/C -10.5 -5.9
A B
VAN -12.6 -13.7 VAN -13.3 -11.9
LORRY -11.3 -12.0 LORRY -11.8 -7.4
Average Red. -12.2 -12.1 Average Red. -12.4 -8.0
Table 12. Increase in average traffic speed at acceleration, deceleration and mid points (Persiaran Setiawangsa)
CAR 8.4 12.1 CAR 11.6 2.3
M/C 3.8 8.1 M/C 6.3 1.0
A B
VAN 8.2 11.9 VAN 13.1 5.6
LORRY 9.2 13.5 LORRY 10.4 -0.8
Average Inc. 7.4 11.4 Average Inc. 10.3 2.0
c. Jalan AU1C/1
Tables 13 and 14 below show the changes in average traffic speed along Jalan AU1C/1, according to vehicle
type and direction. The 85th percentile speed here ranged 4-8km/h above the speed limit. Motorcycles travelling in
both directions also recorded higher speeds at Point 4, with the 85th percentile speeds higher than the permissible
speed limit. This indicates that at 78m, the hump distance permitted for vehicles to be driven faster than the speed
limit.
Table 13. Reduction in average traffic speed at Humps A and B (Jalan AU1C/1)
CAR -8.1 -4.6 CAR 0.0 -9.9
M/C -6.9 -3.5 M/C 0.2 -7.6
A B
VAN -7.7 -4.8 VAN -0.6 -9.9
LORRY -0.3 -2.5 LORRY -1.9 -10.4
Average Red. -5.7 -3.9 Average Red. -0.6 -9.4
Table 14. Increase in average traffic speed at acceleration, deceleration and mid points (Jalan AU1C/1)
CAR 11.7 6.0 CAR 5.7 9.1
M/C 10.9 2.2 M/C 3.2 4.9
A B
VAN 13.2 6.3 VAN 6.5 9.5
LORRY 9.1 6.3 LORRY 3.4 2.7
Average Inc. 11.2 5.2 Average Inc. 4.7 6.6
4.4.1. Relation between significance of noise reductions and changes in average vehicle speed
To compare the effectiveness of the humps in reducing speed, the Cohen’s d for noise level reductions (Table 8)
was graphically compared with the changes in average speeds. This is shown in Figure 5 below, comprising only of
the sites with statistically significant noise reductions.
Figure 5 indicates that there is a relationship between changes in vehicle speeds with noise reductions, whereby a
lower increase and higher reduction of vehicle speeds will result in a higher effect size for noise reduction. The
effect size for noise reductions is shown to vary at Hump B along Persiaran Setiawangsa, with Out direction
eliciting a strong effect size and In direction shown to have a low effect size. Hump B (Out) is shown to have an
average speed reduction of 8 km/h and an increase of 2 km/h. While Hump B (In) is shown to have the highest
speed reduction out of the sites with statistically significant noise reductions, the increase in speeds is shown to also
be the highest at 10.3 km/h. This has caused Hump B (In) to have a low effect size on noise reduction.
Relation between Noise Reduction Effect Size and

Changes in Average Vehicle Speed
15 1
0,9
10 0,8
5 0,7
0,6
km/h
0 0,5
0,4 COHEN'S D
-5 0,3 REDUCTION (km/h)
-10 0,2
0,1 INCREASE (km/h)
-15 0
Fig. 5. Relation between noise reduction effect size and changes in average vehicle speed
However, the effect size for Persiaran Setiawangsa Hump A (In) and Jalan AU1C/1 Hump A (Out) was lesser
than that of Jalan P11H/1 Hump B (In), despite the higher increase in speeds at P11H. This is because external
sources of noise affected the noise levels at Persiaran Setiawangsa and Jalan AU1C, in the form of schoolchildren
and neighbourhood maintenance activities respectively. Certain changes in noise levels have also found to be
insignificant despite the speed reductions, particularly in the case of Persiaran Setiawangsa Hump A (Out). Hence
speed reduction is not necessarily representative of noise reduction in a residential area, due to the existence of
intermittent external factors.
5. Discussion
This paper discussed the effectiveness of road humps in potentially reducing traffic noise along residential roads.
From the reviewed literatures, it was established that road humps do impact traffic noise levels. However from the
data presented, the variations in LAeq were not necessarily statistically significant.
In regards to Theory 1, which determined that speed reduction causes noise reduction at road humps, it was
demonstrated that speed reduction alone is not necessarily the main predictor of noise reduction at road humps. A
comparison of speed reduction from the data presented above suggests that the noise reduction is better with higher
speed reductions and lower increase in speeds. However in the residential areas, there are still external sources of
noise or exhaust emissions when accelerating. Hump dimensions and locations were found to affect noise levels.
Despite being of adequate dimension, Hump A at Jalan P11H/1 only had a low effect size on noise reductions. This
is because Point 2 was located right before a road intersection, thus vehicles would have slowed down in advance
and caused lesser speed variations at Hump A. As stated in Table 1, the Malaysian guidelines had specifically stated
that road humps should not be located near a road intersection; this study has shown that such a location will reduce
the road hump’s effectiveness on vehicle speeds and flow.
The LAeq was also found to slightly increase where the humps are higher but have a shorter length, causing a
more severe profile that results in abrupt changes of speed. Even though the increase was minimal and thus
statistically insignificant, a longer hump length is recommended so that any changes of speed and noise would be
more gradual. In addition, the impact of humps are minimal at only 30mm height and less than 2m in length, with a
lack of variation in the LAeq levels throughout the traffic calming scheme.
On the other hand, the data validated Theory 2 that indicated noise levels increase near humps due to
acceleration, deceleration and aggressive driving. This can be seen in the higher speeds and noise levels before and
after the humps, and it is even more exaggerated with heavy vehicles or vehicles that emit louder exhaust emissions.
This is the reason why the noise levels were higher at the humps along Jalan P11H/1, based on the captured audio
data, along with the abrupt speed reductions due to the higher hump heights.
If the objective noise and speed reductions were considered, it can be concluded that the road humps along
Persiaran Setiawangsa were more effective in reducing vehicle speeds and noise levels. This can be attributed to the
site characteristics allowing the humps to be more functional. The site is a straight road section with no road
intersections, minimal occurrence of cars parked by the roadside, and the relatively wide road width of 11.9 metres.
This allows for higher initial vehicle speeds and no disturbances to traffic flow by parked cars, or cars entering and
exiting intersections, thus the presence of humps would be more effective as there are no other elements possibly
causing drivers to alter their speeds.
However, when discussing on improving the living quality of a residential area, the road hump would be less
viable as a tool to improve noise levels. Despite the significance of noise level reductions along Persiaran
Setiawangsa and Jalan AU1C/1, the noise levels were found to still exceed the permissible limits. This is proven
with the noise levels remaining above 60dB along Persiaran Setiawangsa and Jalan AU1C/1. Noise levels can also
increase at humps, particularly where the changes in speed are abrupt due to the hump profile. The data also
indicated less statistical significance in the noise level variations despite the speed reductions, with only one site
(Persiaran Setiawangsa Hump B) eliciting a large effect size on noise reductions in one direction.
6. Conclusion
The prevalent issues of increased traffic speed and noise in residential neighbourhoods are sources of annoyance
to residents, thus causing the quality of their living environment to decline. The effect of road humps in reducing
traffic speed is indisputable, and studies have indicated that speed reduction generally leads to traffic noise
reduction. Hence this paper discussed the effectiveness of road humps in potentially reducing traffic noise along
residential roads. However it was found that road humps were less viable as a noise-reducing measure, particularly
due to increased noise emissions caused by vehicles decelerating and accelerating. Site characteristics such as the
location of the humps can also reduce the effectiveness of a road hump that otherwise adheres to the hump
dimension guidelines. The significance of this study is that it provided clarification on the effectiveness of a road
hump in potentially improving the living conditions of a residential area. It should also be noted that these results
may differ from track tests that single out traffic speed and vehicle noise, as the noise levels were inclusive of other
noise sources in residential areas. However it was observed that the other noise sources were intermittent, whereas
traffic is constant and is still a major source of noise. This study is still important in the context of understanding
how road humps perform in actual residential settings, as well as the potential effect of road hump geometrics and
site characteristics on the performance of an existing road hump. Despite focusing on only three roads, the results of
this study can still be representative of similar installations in other urban residential areas.
It also addressed the research gaps identified from the previous studies, which are the considerations of hump
geometry and the effect of hump dimensions inconsistent with the published guidelines. Future studies in this field
can provide more detailed analysis on the variability of road and hump geometrics and surrounding land use
activities, with inclusion of more roads in other residential urban areas. Variability in road gradients can also be
discussed in assessing the effectiveness of road humps, as previous studies were also careful to study humps that
adhere to certain criteria regarding road gradient. The data should also be corroborated with actual residents’
perceptions. It is highly possible that despite the traffic noise and speed reductions as demonstrated by the data, the
noise levels are still unpleasant for residents particularly along Jalan AU1C/1 and Persiaran Setiawangsa.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude and appreciation to Ministry of Science, Technology and
Innovation (MOSTI) for providing the research grant under E-Science fund for this project (project number: 06-01-
08-SF0201).
References
Abbott, P., Taylor, M., Layfield, R. (1997). The effects of traffic calming measures on vehicle and traffic noise. Traffic Engineering & Control
1997. United Kingdom: TRL Limited.
Abdul Manan, M.M., Hoong, A.,P., W., (2009). Development and Evaluation of a Traffic Calming Scheme in the Vicinity of Schools in Malaysia:
A survey in the Klang Valley. Kajang: MIROS.
Archer, J., Fotheringham, N., Symmons, M., Corben, B. (2008). Changes in speed limits and the impact on mobility and the environment. The
Impact of Lowered Speed Limits in Urban and Metropolitan Areas: Monash University Accident Research Centre Report no 276. Australia:
Monash University.
Ashley, C.A. (1994). Traffic and highway engineering for developments. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bendtsen, H., Larsen, L.E. (2000). Noise and nuisance from road humps. Paper presented at the International Congress and Exhibition on Noise
Control Engineering, France.
Botteldooren, D., Dekoninck, L. and Gillis, D. (2011) The influence of traffic noise on appreciation of the living quality of a neighborhood.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8, 777-798.
Desarnaulds, V., Monay,G., Carvalho, A. (2004). Noise reduction by urban traffic management. Paper presented at the International Congress of
Acoustics 2004, Japan.
Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, A., Öhrström, E. (2007). Noise and well-being in urban residential environments: The potential role of perceived availability
to nearby green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 115-126.
Hidas, P., Weerasekera, K., Dunne, M. (1998). Negative effects of mid-block speed control devices and their importance in the overall impact of
traffic calming on the environment. Transportation Research D, 3 (1): 41-50.
Huang, H.F., Cynecki, M.J. (2001). Effects of traffic calming measures on pedestrian and motorist behavior. Transportation Research Record,
1705, 26-31.
Kalansriya, C.M., Pannila, A.S., Sonnadara, D.U.J. (2015). Traffic composition and variability of road traffic noise levels in the vicinity of
Colombo, Sri Lanka. Journal of National Science Foundation Sri Lanka, 43 (2), 135-140.
Layfield, R., Webster, D. (1998). Urban traffic-calming measures: Design, effectiveness, public attitudes and environmental issues (PA 3365/98).
Paper presented at the European Transport Conference, United Kingdom.
Lee, G., Joo, S., Oh, C., Choi, K. (2013). An evaluation framework for traffic calming measures in residential areas. Transportation Research
Part D, 25, 68-76.
Malaysian Ministry of Road Works. (2012). Kaedah Memperlahankan Halaju Kenderaan: Bonggol Jalan. Paper presented at the Seminar Fasiliti
Keselamatan Jalan, Kuala Lumpur.
Mao, J., Koorey, G. (2010). Investigating and modelling the effects of traffic calming devices. IPENZ Transportation Group Conference 2010, 1-
14.
O’Brien, A.P., Brindle, R.E. (1999). Traffic calming applications. In Pline, J.L. (Ed.), Traffic Engineering Handbook (3rd ed). Netherlands:
Elsevier.
Palmiano, H.S.O., Villar, J.C., Quilatan, M.M. (2015). Traffic noise management, perception, and modelling in a university campus. Paper
presented at the EASTS 2015 Conference, Philippines.
Paunović, K., Jakoljević, B., Belojević, G. (2009). Predictors of noise annoyance in noisy and quiet urban streets. Science of the Total
Environment, 407, 3707-3711.
Preis, A., Kazmarek, T., Griefahn, B., Gjestland, T. (2008). The influence of speed bumps on perceived annoyance. Paper presented at the
Acoustics ’08 Paris Conference, France.
Rosli, N.S., Kadar Hamsa, A.A. (2013). Evaluating the effects of road hump on traffic volume and noise level at Taman Keramat residential area,
Kuala Lumpur. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 9, p209.
Sundo, B.M., Diaz, C.E.D. (2011). Effect of hump spacing on speed selection of isolated vehicles: The case of exclusive villages in Metro
Manila. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 3 (2), 409-423.
Wewalwala, S.N., Sonnadara, D.U.J. (2011). Traffic noise enhancement due to speed bumps. Sri Lankan Journal of Physics, 12, 1-6.
Zaidel, D., Hakkert, A.S., Pistiner, A.H. (1992). The use of road humps for moderating speeds on urban streets. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 24 (1), 45-56.
Zainuddin, N.I., Adnan, M.A., Md Diah, J. (2014). Optimization of speed hump geometric design: Case study on residential streets in Malaysia.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, 140.

1 s2.0 S2352146517305252 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

1 s2.0 S2352146517305252 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2352146517305252 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Available

A theoretical overview of road hump effects on traffic noise in

2352-1465 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

2.1. Road humps

Table 1. Malaysian road hump standards

a) Parabolic Hump 1) Construction tolerance of +3mm

3. Effects of Road Humps on Traffic Noise from Literature

3.1. Theory 1: Speed reduction leads to noise reduction on humps

3.3. Research gap

4. Comparison with Data Findings

4.1. Site location and characteristics

Fig.1. Site map with location of selected roads

Table 2. Characteristics of Jalan P11H/1, Persiaran Setiawangsa, and Jalan AU1C/1

4.2. Data collection method

4.3. Traffic noise

Table 4. LAeq at Different Hump Locations

LAeq According to Points

4.3.1. Significance of noise reduction over speed humps

Table 5. Paired Samples Test for Jalan P11H/1

Table 6. Paired Samples Test for Persiaran Setiawangsa

Table 7. Paired Samples Test for Jalan AU1C/1

4.3.2. Effect size of road humps on noise levels

Table 8. Cohen’s d for hump effect size on noise levels

4.4. Traffic speed and relation with traffic noise

Table 9. Reduction in average traffic speed at Humps A and B (Jalan P11H/1)

Relation between Noise Reduction Effect Size and

You might also like