Article

Journal of Vibration and Control

2018, Vol. 24(22) 5225–5232

Applications of noise barriers with a ! The Author(s) 2017

Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
slanted flat-tip jagged cantilever for noise DOI: 10.1177/1077546317747779
journals.sagepub.com/home/jvc
attenuation on a construction site

Wang Zhaomeng , Lim Kian Meng, Prachee Priyadarshinee

and Lee Heow Pueh

Abstract
Construction noise is one of the main sources of noise pollution in many cities, and degrades the comfort level of living
spaces. It was previously reported that a noise barrier with a wide ‘‘cross-sectional profile’’ (e.g., T- or Y-shaped) could
enhance the noise attenuation performance, and the jagged edge ‘‘longitudinal profile’’ on the top edge of the noise
barrier could generate destructive interference sound fields behind the noise barrier, which could further reduce the
noise levels. The present paper attempts to study the noise attenuation performances of jagged edge profiles applied on
the edge of a cantilever, which was mounted at the top of a commercial passive noise barrier. In addition to the numerical
simulations, the full-sized prototypes were also experimentally tested on a construction site with noise generated by a
boring machine. Both numerical simulation and experimental results showed that this barrier with slanted flat-tip jagged
cantilever would perform better than the traditional barrier having a Straight edge cantilever of same height, with a
maximum additional attenuation of 5.0 dBA obtained experimentally. The barrier with a slanted flat-tip jagged cantilever
could also extend the shadow zone behind the barrier to higher levels.

Keywords
Cantilever, construction site, flat tip, jagged edge, longitudinal profile, noise barrier

2013; Kwon et al., 2016). Unfortunately, low-frequency

1. Introduction
The noise pollution due to construction equipment
(Kang et al., 2014; Kwon et al., 2016) and road traffic
(Ohnishi et al., 2004) has become one of the major
sources of complaints and disputes, causing delays
and cost overruns in the construction process. By pre-
venting the direct sound waves from reaching listeners,
passive noise barriers are commonly applied for envir-
onmental noise control (Hutchins et al., 1984a; Han
and Qiu, 2007). However, at low frequencies, the
noise can still reach the listeners by sound diffraction
at the top edge of a barrier which behaves like a virtual
source. This diffracted sound field could cause a dom-
inant effect on the sound level in the shadow zone
behind barrier (Shao et al., 2001). Thus, the traditional
noise barriers are usually less effective for attenuating
the noises at low frequencies, for example, noise fre-
quencies below 500 Hz (Ohnishi et al., 2004;
Francesco et al., 2015), whose wavelengths are compar-
able with the barrier heights (Guo and Pan, 1997, 1998;
Guo et al., 2007; Melnyk et al., 2009; Li-jun and Ping,
noises are one of the major sources of environmental
problems (Guo et al., 2007), for example, traffic noise
(Melnyk et al., 2009), construction noises (Li-jun and
Ping, 2013; Kwon et al., 2016) and aircraft take-off and
landing noises (Guo et al., 2007).
To solve this problem, a large number of experimen-
tal and numerical studies have been conducted to
improve the efficiency of barriers (Ho et al., 1997;
Shao et al., 2001), such as increasing their heights, utiliz-
ing sound absorbing materials and different edge profiles
(e.g., barrier caps). The height of noise barriers could be
increased (Samuels, 2001) to improve the performance,
for example, increased from 2–3 m to 8 m or even higher
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore
Received: 10 July 2017; accepted: 20 November 2017
Corresponding author:
Wang Zhaomeng, Department of Mechanical Engineering, National
University of Singapore, 9 Engineering Drive 1, 117576 Singapore.
Email: mpewzm@nus.edu.sg
5226
(Guo and Pan, 1997; Kuo and Morgan, 1999; Francesco
et al., 2015). However, this method is usually not prac-
tical due to aesthetic considerations, cost, safety and
technical reasons (May and Osman, 1980b; Jung et al.,
2011; Francesco et al., 2015). Some other solutions were
investigated, for example, adding absorbing materials on
the top edge of barrier (e.g., glass wool on a cylinder top
profile as reported by Yamamoto et al., 1989), but the
common sound absorbing materials usually had bad
performances at low frequencies due to their physical
limitations (Francesco et al., 2015). Other methods
were also studied, such as varying the cross-sectional
profiles of the noise barrier, especially at the top edge
sections. For example: mushroom type (glass wool
material, 2 dB) (Shono et al., 1994); T-shaped,
Y-shaped and arrow shaped barriers by experimental
testing (May and Osman, 1980b) and numerical studies
(May and Osman, 1980a; Hothersall et al., 1991;
Duhamel, 1996; Yamamoto, 2015); resonance type geo-
metries which have an acoustical tube with a ¼ wave
length in depth (Okubo et al., 2008); and multiple-edge
noise barriers with additional small side-panels applied
near the top edge (Crombie et al., 1995). However, these
shape designs were restricted due to their big top sizes
(Ohnishi et al., 2004; Kang et al., 2014).
Recently noise attenuation studies have been focus-
ing more on the design of the longitudinal profile at the
top edge of a barrier, which influences the manner in
which the sound is diffracted over the top of a barrier.
The different paths of sound propagation resulted in
varied interference effects of the sound field behind
the barrier. For a traditional barrier with a straight
top edge, the diffracted noise at the top edge would
be assumed as a straight line of sound sources compris-
ing of a long string of highly correlated virtual point
sources (a straight line source). The variation of phases
of diffracting sound along the straight edge was con-
tinuous and smooth, or coherent, and these coherence
characteristics would therefore limit the effectiveness of
the barrier (Ho et al., 1997).
An approach to disrupt the coherence of the dif-
fracted sound was to make the top edge irregular
instead of straight (Ho et al., 1995). The radiations
from the point sources at varied heights at the edge
were not well correlated. Longitudinal profiled
(jagged, or Thnadner) edge barriers (Wirt, 1976) or
random edge barriers (Ho et al., 1997), which could
form a destructive interference sound field, were inves-
tigated and studied (Ho et al., 1997; Shao et al., 2001).
Wirt (1976, 1979) originally mentioned that noise
attenuation by a noise barrier could be improved by
applying a longitudinal profile to the top edge of a bar-
rier, for example, sawtooth top profiles (also known as
‘‘Thnadners’’), which could create a destructive inter-
ference sound field and obtain an attenuation in the
Journal of Vibration and Control 24(22)
range 1.5 to 4.0 dBA, compared with the traditional
flat topped barrier. Similar laboratory models of
‘‘Thnadner’’ style barriers were investigated by May
and Osman (1980b), Hutchins et al. (1984a, 1984b)
and Maekawa and Osaki (1986), but all concluded
that ’’Thnadner’’ barriers exhibited a poorer perform-
ance than conventional barriers of the same height.
Intuitively this would be expected, as sound levels
would increase as more material was removed from
the jagged barrier (Hutchins et al., 1984a). Other
explanations of these differing conclusions were focused
on the nature of the scale modelling processes and, in
particular, how ground absorption effects were
included in the experiments (Samuels, 2001).
There were also reported studies on the effects of the
longitudinal profile of the top edge (Ho et al., 1997).
In contrast, the variation of phases of diffracting sound
along a random edge was random and rough, or less
coherent. Thus, the random variations in phase could
cause more destructive interference to the diffraction
result than the effect of smooth variations (Ho et al.,
1997; Shao et al., 2001). Ho et al. (1995, 1997), Ho and
Busch-Vishniac (1995), Ohm et al. (1997), Rosenberg
and Busch-Vishiniac (1997) and Menounou et al. (1998)
had investigated random edge noise barriers, with posi-
tive noise attenuations obtained especially at high fre-
quencies (>5000 Hz) (Samuels, 2001).
All of those previously investigated jagged edge pro-
files in open literature were applied on the top edge of a
‘‘vertical barrier.’’ As previously mentioned in this
work, the noise barrier with a wide cross-sectional
profile (e.g., T-shape, Y-shape or arrow shaped) could
perform better than the traditional vertical thin noise
barrier, thus a combination of ‘‘jagged edge longitu-
dinal profile’’ and the ‘‘wide cross-sectional profile’’
could be studied for a better attenuation performance.
In this work, a flat-tip jagged edge profile was inves-
tigated and applied on the edge of a commercial canti-
lever (slanted up for 45 degrees, facing the noise source)
which was mounted at the top of a vertical passive noise
barrier. In addition to the numerical simulations, the
experimental studies with full scale prototypes were
also carried out on a construction site. We found that
this barrier with a jagged cantilever performs better
than the traditional commercial barrier with a straight
edge cantilever, with an additional insertion loss of
5 dBA obtained at particular level compared with the
one without a jagged edge profile.
2. Methodology
2.1. Numerical simulations
The numerical simulations of acoustic models with a
large scale of geometries are usually difficult, especially
Zhaomeng et al. 5227

for high frequency ranged noises propagating in a large the same, but the flat-tip jagged edge barrier had a
sized 3D model. Some possible solutions were previ- smaller effective area.
ously suggested, such as the model order reduction Mesh: The vertical part of noise barrier had a mesh
approach (Casciati and Faravelli, 2013, 2014, 2016). size of 55 mm, with a default mesh method of linear
In this work, instead of using the FEM method, a quads. For the cantilever part, the mesh size was
three-dimensional numerical simulation was performed reduced to 35 mm. The meshed geometry of the barrier
using an existing commercial acoustic indirect bound- with a jagged-edge cantilever is shown in Figure 2.
ary element method (BEM) solver LMS Sysnoise
(SIEMENS LMS Virtual Lab, v13.4).
The numerical model is shown in Figure 1a and b,
the noise barriers contained a slanted cantilever
attached to the top edge of the vertical barrier. The
noise barrier geometry had a height of 10 m, a width
of 20 m (at each side of the symmetry plane) and a
thickness of 3 cm. Both kinds of cantilever parts had
a width of 1 m (Figure 1c) and were slanted for 45
degrees above the horizontal plane (Figure 1a and b)
facing the noise source side. A flat-tip jagged edge pro-
file was applied at the cantilever edge as shown in
Figure 1c. The dimensions of this jagged edge profile
were restricted by aesthetic requirements (sharp-edge
profiles would be refused by surrounding residents
due to ‘‘feng shui’’ – a geomancy consideration, as
people nearby do not like to be pointed at by sharp
edges) and also the cost of production: the jagged
edge profile was directly cut out from the original com-
mercial noise panels of the standard sizes. Thus, the Figure 2. The overall view of the meshed geometry with two
total heights/widths of the two cantilevers remained symmetry planes, one noise source and one receiver surface.

Figure 1. 3D Geometry for noise barriers with (a) straight-edge and (b) jagged-edge cantilevers. The figure (c) shows the CAD
drawing (used for prototyping) and dimensions of the cantilever-section only with jagged-edge profile.
5228
Due to the large surface area of the whole barrier and
the limited physical memory (RAM) of the computer
used for simulation, this mesh size could only support a
maximum frequency of 650 Hz.
Noise Source: A monopole point source with amp-
litude of 1 kg/s2 (the white dot as shown in Figure 2)
was located 10 m away in front of the noise barrier, 1 m
above the ground, and 0.001 mm away from the vertical
y-symmetry plane.
Receiver: A rectangular geometry (with a width of
5 m and height of 1 m) was built as the receiver surface
which was parallel to and 6 m away behind the noise
barrier as shown in Figure 2, with varied heights above
the ground along the z direction. Along this receiver
surface, the averaged sound pressure level (SPL) was
calculated at each studied frequency.
2.2. Metrologies for experimental measurements
on the construction site
As shown in Figure 3, the noise measurements were
carried out for two kinds of barriers with different can-
tilevers, all with a receiver-to-barrier horizontal dis-
tance of about 10 m and a noise source-to-barrier
horizontal distance of about 6 m. The noise barrier ori-
ginally had a vertical height of 11 m (for the vertical
part only), plus a cantilever of 1 m width which was
slanted for 45 degrees facing the noise source side. All
the results were simultaneously measured by eight
Figure 3. Photos of barriers with (a) straight-edge cantilever and (b) jagged-edge cantilever. Both the photos were taken at level 12
(4 m height for each level) of Tan Boon Liat Building near construction site of Havelock MRT station in Singapore.
Journal of Vibration and Control 24(22)
sound level meters located at different building levels
inside the nearby Tan Boon Liat building (around 10 m
away from the barrier, directly facing the source),
namely Level 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12, and one more
location of measurements inside the site next to the
targeted machine (around 6 m away). The height of
each level of the building was about 4 m. During the
measurements, all the other machines except the boring
machine (Figure 3) on the construction site were shut
down, and similar power was maintained for the boring
machine in a normal rotary condition (an average of
82 dBA as measured at the location inside the construc-
tion site). At least 10 repeating measurements were car-
ried out for each condition. After expelling one
maximum and one minimum value, the averaged SPL
value was calculated based on the remaining eight
measurement results. The two measurements of differ-
ent barriers were all carried out at around 10 to 11 am,
in order to maintain similar traffic and ambient noise
conditions. Similar weather conditions were observed
for all the two days when the measurements were car-
ried out.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Numerical simulation results
The numerical results of the noise profile is shown in
Figure 4a, for the frequency below 275 Hz, the barrier
Zhaomeng et al.
Figure 4. Numerical simulation results of (a) A-weighted SPL values of straight edge and flat-tip jagged vs frequency. (b) and (c) show
the numerical equivalent sound pressure level results of barriers with different cantilevers, with receiver located at varied heights and
placed (b) 1 m and (c) 6 m horizontally away from the noise barrier.
with a straight edge cantilever was found to perform
worse than the one with a flat-tip jagged edge canti-
lever. However, for higher frequencies (275–650 Hz)
the noise barrier with a Flat-tip jagged edge cantilever
was found to perform better. The simulations with a
frequency higher than 650 Hz were not carried out due
to the limitation of the computational resources.
As shown in Figure 4b,c, the numerical SPL values
equivalent over a frequency ranged from 25 to 650 Hz
indicate that the barrier with a flat-tip jagged edge can-
tilever would perform better than the one with a normal
straight edge cantilever. The reason is that, for a trad-
itional noise barrier with a cantilever of straight edge,
the diffracted noises behind the barrier could be
assumed as a straight-line-source comprising a long
string of highly correlated virtual point sources, and
the phases variation of the diffracting field from this
straight edge is continuous and smooth, or coherent,
which limits the effectiveness of the barrier. However,
with a jagged edge cantilever instead, the edge of the
cantilever would perform as a secondary source at
varied heights along the jagged segments instead of a
straight line. Thus, the diffracted noise would not be
regular, but scatter to multiple directions and interfere
5229
with each other, leading to destructive interference.
Thus, the noise level behind the jagged-edge barrier
would be further reduced.
3.2. Experimental Results Measured
on a Construction Site
Figure 5a shows the experimental noise profiles mea-
sured at building level 3 with different barriers. It can
be concluded that the flat-tip jagged edge cantilever
overall performs better at most of the frequency range.
Figure 5b shows the A-weighted SPLs (average
results of eight repeated measurements) with respect
to receiver heights. For a better comparison, the SPL
values measured nearby the noise source on the spot
inside the construction site were aligned to be the same
at 82 dBA to account for the potential variation of the
noise source. Compared with the barrier with a straight
edge cantilever, a maximum additional attenuation of
about 5.0 dBA can be obtained by the barrier with a
slanted flat-tip jagged cantilever at around 25 m height
(Figure 5c). The differences between the numerical
simulation results and experimental results may be
due to the small frequency range (25–650 Hz) used in
5230 Journal of Vibration and Control 24(22)

Figure 5. The experimental results of: (a) comparison of noise spectrum of two barriers, (b) the aligned SPL results using all the two
barriers together with the case of ‘‘no barrier,’’ (c) the additional attenuation of barriers of slanted flat-tip jagged cantilever compared
with the barrier of straight edge cantilever, and (d) the insertion loss of two barriers compared with the case of ‘‘no barrier.’’

the simulations. In addition, the complex surrounding
conditions (e.g., ground absorption, reflections from
the nearby buildings and other machines) would also
influence the experimental measurements. These are
difficult to be included in the numerical simulations.
Figure 5b also compares the SPL results of ‘‘no bar-
rier’’ (or without any vertical barrier or cantilever) with
two other cases of barriers having a straight edge can-
tilever and flat-tip jagged cantilever. The experimental
SPL curve for the case of ‘‘no Barrier’’ was estimated
based on the behavior of noise attenuation with dis-
tance in the form of inverse-square law and an assump-
tion that at a receiver height of 45 m the A-weighted
equivalent sound pressure level was 78 dBA. Figure 5d
shows the A-weighted insertion loss of the two kinds of
barriers compared with the case of ‘‘no barrier.’’ With a
target insertion loss of 10 dBA (the dashed horizontal
line in Figure 5d), the height of the shadow zone can be
estimated to be at 16.6 and 26.4 m for the barriers with
a straight edge cantilever and with a flat-tip jagged
cantilever, respectively. This indicates that with
jagged-edge barrier, the shadow zone area can be
extended to higher levels.
An explanation is proposed as follows. Compared
with the noise fields diffracted from the top of a trad-
itional straight edge barrier, the jagged edge profile gen-
erates more secondary sources leading to diffracted
noise field behind the barrier that propagate towards
multiple (including higher) directions. The pitch or spa-
cing on the jagged edge is also chosen to cause destruc-
tive interference sound fields behind the barrier. This
destructive interference contributes to the improved
noise attenuation observed at levels just above the
shadow line (26–30 m).
4. Conclusions
In this work, a barrier with a flat-tip jagged edge can-
tilever was investigated, with the cantilever slanted for
45 degrees facing the noise source side. In addition
Zhaomeng et al.
to the numerical simulations, full sized prototypes were
also experimentally tested on a construction site. Both
numerical simulation and experimental results showed
that this barrier with slanted flat-tip jagged cantilever
would perform better than the traditional barrier with a
straight edge cantilever. Measured at varied levels of
a tall building behind the noise barrier, a maximum
additional attenuation of 5.0 dBA was obtained at a
receiver height of approximately 25 m. The shadow
zone behind the barrier was extended to higher levels
using this barrier with a flat-tip jagged cantilever. The
noise attenuation and the increase of the shadow zone
boundary could be explained as follows: with a jagged
edge profile, the diffracted noise fields behind the bar-
rier could form the destructive interference sound fields
behind the barrier.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This work was supported by the Land Transport
Authority of Singapore under the LTA Innovation grant.
ORCID iD
Wang Zhaomeng 0000-0003-2151-4089
References
Casciati F and Faravelli L (2013) Model order reduction
issues for integrated structural control design.
In: Vincenzini P, Casciati F and Rizzo P (eds)
Embodying Intelligence in Structures and Integrated
Systems. Stafa-Zurich: Trans Tech Publications Ltd,
pp. 37–48.
Casciati S and Faravelli L (2014) Quantity vs. quality in the
model order reduction (MOR) of a linear system. Smart
Structures and Systems 13: 99–109.
Casciati F and Faravelli L (2016) Dynamic transient analysis
of systems with material nonlinearity: a model order
reduction approach. Smart Structures and Systems 18:
1–16.
Crombie DH, Hothersall DC and Chandler-Wilde SN (1995)
Multiple-edge noise barriers. Applied Acoustics 44:
353–367.
Duhamel D (1996) Efficient calculation of the three-dimen-
sional sound pressure field around a noise barrier. Journal
of Sound and Vibration 197: 547–571.
Francesco B, Monica C, Lorenzo M, et al. (2015) An active
noise barrier system optimized for reducing outdoor sta-
tionary noise. In Proceedings of the 22nd International
Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV22), Florence,
Italy, 12–16 July 2015.
5231
Guo J and Pan J (1997) Application of active noise control to
noise barriers. Australian Acoustical Society 25: 11–16.
Guo J and Pan J (1998) Increasing the insertion loss of noise
barriers using an active-control system. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 104: 3408–3416.
Guo J, Pan J and Hodgson M (2007) A brief review of active
control of environmental noise and its applications. In
Proceedings of 14th International Congress on Sound and
Vibration 2007, ICSV 2007, Cairns, Australia 9–12 July
2007, Vol. 5, pp. 3742–3749. United States: International
Institute of Acoustics and Vibration.
Han N and Qiu X (2007) A study of sound intensity control
for active noise barriers. Applied Acoustics 68: 1297–1306.
Ho ST and Busch-Vishniac IJ (1995) Model experiment on
noise barriers having a random edge. In Proceedings of
the 130th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America,
St Louis, MO, USA.
Ho S, Busch-Vishniac IJ and Blackstock DT (1995) Noise
barriers with random edge profiles. In Proceedings of the
129th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America,
Washington, DC, USA.
Ho SST, Busch-Vishniac IJ and Blackstock DT (1997) Noise
reduction by a barrier having a random edge profile. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101:
2669–2676.
Hothersall DC, Crombie DH and Chandler-Wilde SN (1991)
The performance of T-profile and associated noise bar-
riers. Applied Acoustics 32: 269–287.
Hutchins DA, Jones HW and Russell LT (1984a) Model stu-
dies of barrier performance in the presence of ground sur-
faces.1. thin, perfectly reflecting barriers. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 75: 1807–1816.
Hutchins DA, Jones HW and Russell LT (1984b) Model stu-
dies of barrier performance in the presence of ground sur-
faces. Part II—Different shapes. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 75: 1817–1826.
Jung TH, Kim JH, Kim KJ, et al. (2011) Active noise reduc-
tion system using multi-channel ANC. New York: IEEE.
Kang W-P, Moon H-R and Lim Y-J (2014) Analysis on tech-
nical trends of active noise cancellation for reducing road
traffic noise. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and
Information Sciences 5: 286–291.
Kuo SM and Morgan DR (1999) Active noise control: a
tutorial review. Proceedings of the IEEE 87: 943–973.
Kwon N, Park M, Lee H-S, et al. (2016) Construction noise
management using active noise control techniques. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 142:
04016014.
Li-jun W and Ping G (2013) A simplified method to calculate
the acoustic pressure of three-dimensional finite-length
noise barriers. Journal of Highway and Transportation
Research and Development (English Edition) 7: 105–110.
Maekawa Z and Osaki S (1986) Application of the line-
integral method for designing a shaped noise barrier.
Proceedings of lnter-Noise 86: 489–494.
May DN and Osman MM (1980a) The performance of sound
absorptive, reflective, and t-profile noise barriers in
Toronto. Journal of Sound and Vibration 71: 65–71.
May DN and Osman NM (1980b) Highway noise barriers:
new shapes. Journal of Sound and Vibration 71: 73–101.
5232
Melnyk M, Ciesielka W and Lobur M (2009) Experimental
estimatuion of noise barriers efficiency. In Proceedings of
MEMSTECH 2009, Zakarpattya, Ukraine, pp. 141–143.
US: IEEE.
Menounou P, Busch-Vishniac IJ and Blackstock DT (1998)
Jagged-edge noise barriers. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America 103: 2759.
Ohm WS, Blackstock DT and Busch-Vishniac IJ (1997)
Numerical simulation of jagged–edge noise barriers. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101(5): 3075–
3075.
Ohnishi K, Saito T, Teranishi S, et al. (2004) Development of
the product-type active soft edge noise barrier. In
Proceedings of the 18th International Congress on
Acoustics (ICA 2004), Kyoto, Japan, 4–9 April 2004,
pp. 1041–1044. US: SAGE.
Okubo T, Yamamoto K, Funahashi O, et al. (2008) Barriers
against road traffic noise: relationship between LAeq
reduction at roadside and LpA reduction determined in
normal-incidence alignment. In Proceedings of Inter-
Noise 2008, Shanghai, China, Vol. 2008, No. 9, pp. 805–
811. US: Institute of Noise Control Engineering.
Rosenberg EJ and Busch-Vishniac IJ (1997) Effectiveness of
random edge barriers: Further studies. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 105: 3158.
Journal of Vibration and Control 24(22)
Samuels S (2001) Recent developments in the design and per-
formance of road traffic noise barriers. Acoustics Australia
29: 73–78.
Shao W, Lee HP and Lim SP (2001) Performance of noise
barriers with random edge profiles. Applied Acoustics 62:
1157–1170.
Shono Y, Yoshida Y and Yamamoto K (1994) Development
of noise abatement devices applied at the top of highway
noise barriers. Journal of JSCE 504: 81–89.
Wirt LS (1976) Control of diffracted sound by means of
thnadners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 60: S22–S22.
Wirt L (1979) The control of diffracted sound by means of
thnadners (shaped noise barriers). Acta Acustica united
with Acustica 42: 73–88.
Yamamoto K (2015) Japanese experience to reduce road traf-
fic noise by barriers with noise reducing devices. In
Proceedings of EuroNoise 2015, European Acoustics
Association, Austria, pp. 33–38.
Yamamoto K, Taya K, Yamashita M, et al. (1989) Reduction
of road traffic noise by absorptive cylinder adapted at the
top of a barrier. In Proceedings of the Inter Noise 89, pp.
349–352. USA: Institute of Noise Control Engineering.