NBSIR 79-1594 /?

Propagation of Urban

Construction Site Noise Along

Street Corridors

Paul R. Donavan

Acoustical Engineering Division

Center for Mechanical Engineering

and Process Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

and

J. Craig Wyvill

Office of Noise Abatement and Control

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 20460

April 1979

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
.

r
NBSIR 79-1594

PROPAGATION OF URBAN

CONSTRUCTION SITE NOISE ALONG

STREET CORRIDORS

Paul R. Donavan

Acoustical Engineering Division

Center for Mechanical Engineering

and Process Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

and

J. Craig Wyvill

Office of Noise Abatement and Control

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 20460

April 1979

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler. Director
ft
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION . 1

2. THE URBAN PROPAGATION MODEL 1

3. COMPUTED VALUES OF NOISE ATTENUATION FOR URBAN CONSTRUCTION SITES. . 3

4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 7

• REFERENCES . ...... 9

FIGURES 10

TABLES 29

\

1. INTRODUCTION

Estimates of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency indicate that

103 million Americans experience environmental or community noise from

various sources including construction sites. 1 In the assessment of

possible impact of urban construction site noise, It Is necessary to have

an estimate of the attenuation of sound along the propagation path between

the source and the receiver. The attenuation of noise from construction

sites in urban areas depends on a number of parameters of which street

geometry is the most significant.

The current report addresses construction site noise propagation along

urban street corridors for two different city block configurations, as well

as five different construction site orientations relative to a major street

intersection. The conceptual propagation model and the computer programs

used to estimate urban street corridor sound propagation are presented

along with the resultant sound fields determined for the ten configurations

studied.

2. THE URBAN PROPAGATION MODEL

Urban sound propagation is complicated by many factors including

spherical divergence, excess ground and atmospheric attenuation, multiple

reflections from building surfaces, shielding by buildings, and scattering

from the building surfaces. Multiple reflection of sound in city streets

creates both local reverberation and the ability of sound to propagate

around comers. The shielding effect of buildings constrains the sound

radiated by individual sources to propagate along street channels while

substantially reducing the sound incident on building surfaces not exposed

to the street channel. The scattering of sound from building surfaces

alters the distribution of sound energy along streets from that predicted

from multiple reflection alone and markedly increases the extent by which

sound propagates around comers

In calculations of the contribution of multiple reflection in urban

sound propagation, it is useful to employ the geometrical acoustics

limit which requires the acoustic wavelength to be much smaller than

the typical geometric length scales associated with the propagation problem.

In a gross sense, this requirement is usually satisfied in urban areas as

the wavelengths of importance to A-weighted sound levels are typically

about 1.3 m (250 Hz.) to .17 m (2000 Hz.) while street dimensions are

generally 15 m (50 ft) or more. With this simplifying assumption, sound

propagation due to specular reflection in idealized street channels has

been studied by several researchers [2-7]. Good quantitative agreement

between the geometric acoustics approximation and acoustic data from

physical scale models for smooth, acoustically hard street channels has also

been demonstrated [2, 7], However, application of this theory to field data of

1
sound propagation in actual city streets (e.g., Refs. 8 and 9) indicates

that the predicted sound levels (using vail absorption coefficients

consistent with exterior building materials) are substantially higher than

those measured [10, 11].

The discrepancy between field data and the specular reflection,

geometric acoustics model of urban sound propagation is attributable to the

scattering of sound from building surfaces. A closer examination of most

building surfaces reveals that the surfaces often contain many

irregularities formed by doorways, window recesses, and other facade

elements. The depth and width of these surface protrusions (and/or

recesses) are typically on the order of the acoustic wavelengths of

interest. Thus, reflection from actual building surfaces is complex and

involves not only a specular component of reflection, but also a scattered

component

The effect of rectangular surface irregularities in modifying the

sound distribution in street channels relative to the smooth wall

idealization has been demonstrated in studies using acoustic models [5, 7].

These studies revealed that the presence of surface protrusions

significantly reduced (5-10 dB) the sound levels in the street channels at

distances of about three or more streets away from the source while the

sound levels near the source were slightly increased (1-2 dB) [7]. This

trend was found to be more nearly consistent with the urban sound

propagation field data reported.

As part of a study to develop a more suitable urban propagation model

which would include surface scattering, an empirical investigation of

reflection and scattering from surfaces with rectangular protrusions was

conducted [11]. This investigation determined that the amount of energy

specularly reflected from such surfaces was dependent on incident angle.

The angularly dependent reflection coefficient (defined as the ratio of the

reflected energy to the incident energy) as determined in this study is

presented in Fig. 1. In addition to determining an angularly dependent

reflection coefficient, the magnitude and angular dependence of the

scattered sound was also obtained. For the range of protrusion

configurations typically occurring on actual building surfaces, it was further shown that reflected and scattered energy were not significantly

dependent on the details of the surface geometry or on frequency for octave

bands of noise between 250 and 2000 hertz.

Using the results of this surface reflection investigation, a comprehensive model of urban sound propagation was developed [11]. This

model is conceptually similar to the geometrical acoustic limit model

discussed earlier; however it incorporates angularly dependent reflection

from building surfaces and accounts for the energy scattered upon

reflection. As part of the development of this model, quantitative

agreement was demonstrated between predicted sound level, field data, and

acoustical model data. The propagation model was used to develop a number

2
of computer programs applicable to propagation cases arising from the common "grid pattern" street configuration. These cases include

propagation from a single intersection, propagation from one intersection

through another, and propagation into the street of the second

intersection. For single intersections, the cases of four-way, tee and

open (half of a four-way) intersections were also programmed. With these

cases, the sound levels in streets surrounding the street containing a noise source can be determined, as illustrated in Fig. 2. In applying

these computer programs it should be noted that the following assumptions

are necessary:

• the streets are continuously lined with buildings

• spacings between adjacent buildings are not greater than

1/4 street widths

• building height is a least 1 street width

. street width is at least 1 order of magnitude greater than

the acoustic wavelength of interest

3. COMPUTED VALUES OF NOISE ATTENUATION FOR URBAN CONSTRUCTION SITES

The computer programs discussed in Section II were used to estimate

noise propagation from construction sites for two different grid pattern

urban street geometries. The first case considered was square city blocks

which were 180 m (600 ft) on end. The second case was rectangular city

blocks which were 90 m (300 ft) wide and 180 m (600 ft) 'long. For the

first case three site locations were used. These sites and the street

geometries are presented in Figs. 3 and 4. The site illustrated In Fig. 3 was located in a street channel while those of Fig. 4 were located in an undeveloped (no buildings) block. For the second block configuration case

two site locations were used as illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6. The site in

Fig. 5 was located at a fourway intersection and the site of Fig. 6 was in

a partially developed block such that buildings were assumed to be present

everywhere in the block accept in the 60 m (200 ft) by 60 m site.

In applying the urban propagation computer programs to some of the

specific construction noise propagation cases of Figs. 3 through 6, some

approximations to site and street geometry were required. For the

propagation cases of Fig. 3, attenuations in all streets except Street lb

could be computed directly. Eecause the existing computer programs do not

include propagation through two intersections, it was necessary to

determine attenuations in Street lb by assuming the intersection of Street

2 was not present and that the only intersecting street between the site

and the receiver street (lb) was the Street 3 intersection. Although the

error associated with this approximation can not be quantitatively assessed

within the scope of present effort, it is anticipated that this

approximation would introduce no more than a 1 or 2 dB error in the

attenuation values in Street lb relative to the actual geometric

configuration. In order to compute attenuations for the sites of Fig. 4,

3
it was necessary to assume the geometry illustrated in Fig. 7. Although

the absence of buildings on either side of the block containing the

construction site physically appears quite different from the geometry of

Fig. 4, acoustically, the absence of these buildings will cause only

minimal effects in Streets 1 and 3 since, because of their orientation,

these buildings do not contribute to the specularly reflected energy in the

streets of interest. The assumed geometry of Fig. 7 is anticipated to have

no more than about 1 dB effect on the attenuation values in Streets 1 and 3

relative to the actual site geometries of Fig. 4. An analogous geometry to

that of Fig. 7 was used to determine attenuation values for Street 2 of

Fig. 4.

For the Case II site and street geometries of Fig. 5, the existing

computer programs could be applied directly to determine attenuation values

in all streets except Streets lc and 3. As was necessary for Street lb of

Site A Case I, to determine attenuation values in Streets lc and 3 of

Fig. 5, it was necessary to omit the intervening intersection of Street 2

with Street 1. Again, the effect of this approximation is (should be)

minimal. In order to apply the computer programs to the propagation cases

of Fig. 6, a similar approximation to that used for Sites B and C of Case I (Fig. 7) was required. However, for this case, since buildings surround

the site, the width of the expanded street containing the site is one street width (23 m) plus the site width (60 m) rather than two streets plus

one block width as was done for Case I. This assumed geometry is presented

in Fig. 8 as it applies to Streets 1, 2 and 3 of Site B, Case II (Fig. 5).

As was stated in regard to the corresponding Case I approximation, it is

anticipated that the assumed geometry of Fig. 8 will not appreciably effect

the calculated attenuation values (no more than about 1 dB) due to the lack

of contribution from the omitted buildings to the reflected energy in

Streets 1, 2, and 3. A geometry analogous to that of Fig. 8 was used to

determine attenuation values in Streets 4 and 5 of Site B, Case II (Fig. 6).

Using the site geometries discussed above as needed, noise attenuation

values for the various sites for each of the block configurations were

computed. The attenuation values for Case I are presented in Tables 1

through 7 for Sites A, B, and C. These attenuation values are applicable

to A-weighted sound level for the construction noise spectral data shown in

Figure 9 and to octave band levels for center frequencies from 250 to 2,000

hertz. It will be noted that distance along streets is presented

normalized by the street width, or 23 m (75 ft)This was done since the

results are equally applicable to any geometrically similar propagation

case (i.e., in Case I, the values given would be identical to any

configuration of square blocks where the ratio of block length to street

width was 8 to 1 and the source location was similar), was 8 to 1 and the source location was similar) . It will also be noted that the distances in

Tables 3, 5, and 6 correspond to the distances along the street from the

perpendicular projection of the site location onto the street centerline.

The attenuation values of Tables 1 through 7 are also plotted in Figs. 10,

4
11, and 12. For these plots, distance is taken to be the distance from the

site to the street channel plus the appropriate distance along the

channel(s). Using this distance measurement, all the attenuation values

for one site could be shown on the same plot. In addition to the urban

attenuation values, the ideal free field attenuation rate of 6 dB per

doubling of distance is also indicated in each of Figs. 10, 11, and 12.

The location of the intersection openings is also provided in the plots

along the distance scale.

The attenuation values for Block Configuration Case II are presented

in Tables 8 through 15. The distance values for Site B were determined in

the same manner as those for Case I, Sites B and C. Attenuation versus

distance from the site for Case II is plotted in Figures 13 through 16 for

Sites A and B. In addition to plotted free field attenuation as in Figures

10-12, the attenuation values for Streets 1 and 4 of Site A and Streets 1

and 4 of Site B are plotted for the case of no intervening intersections

between the site and the receiver point. These values were included to

demonstrate the effect of the intervening intersections on the attenuation

values down the respective streets. Examination of these curves in Figs.

13-16 reveals that the effect of the presence of the intersection is to

increase the attenuation after the intersection by about 1 to 2 dB relative

to no intervening intersection.

Inspection of the attenuation plots in Figs. 10-12 and Figs. 13-16

leads to several conclusions relevant to urban propagation of construction

noise. On those streets where a line-of-sight is maintained with the site

(i.e. Street 1 of Case I, Site A and Streets 1 and 4 of Case II, Site A)

the observed sound level is substantially higher than the corresponding

free-field sound level. This elevation in level ranges from 2 to 10 dB,

depending on distance from the site for these streets. Further, for these

streets, the attenuation versus distance values are nearly identical,

falling within about 1 to 2 dB of each other. For those streets in which

the site is offset from the street channel (i.e. Streets 1 and 2 for Case

I, Sites B and C, and Streets 1 and 4 for Case II Site B) attenuation

versus distance is quite close to attenuation versus distance due to

spherical divergence (6 dB/doubling of distance). For these streets, the

attenuation values are typically within 3 dB of the free-field values and

within 5 dB of each other. Finally, for those streets in which the sound

propagates initially down a street channel and then around a corner

(i.e. for Case I, Streets 2 and 3 for Site A, Street 3 for Sites B and C;

for Case II, Streets 2, 3, and 5 for Sites A and B) the attenuation values

increase very rapidly with distance from the site. In most cases this

attenuation is between 35 and 40 dB at distances of less than 20 street

widths from the site.

Application of the attenuation values in Tables 1-15 and in

Figs. 10-16 can be readily made to determine sound levels in streets due to

a particular known source. The steps required to determine these sound

levels are:

5
1. Calculate the source noise level at one street width. This is

done by subtracting 20 times the logarithm (to the base ten) of

the street width divided by the distance for which the

free-field source level is specified.

2. Determine the normalized distance between the site and the

receiver point of interest by dividing the distance by the

street width.

3. Using the normalized distance, find the attenuation value

corresponding to that distance.

4. Subtract the the attenuation value from the source noise level

at one street width to determine the noise level at the point of

interest.

As an example of this procedure, suppose it is desired to determine the

A-weighted sound level 270 m (900 ft) from the construction site of

Figure 5 in Street 4b. Further, the source is known to have an A-weighted

sound level of 82 dB at 15 m (50 ft) . Following the steps outlined above:

1. The source level at one street width is (expressed in feet) -

82 - 20 LOG ~ = 78.5 dB

2 .

3.

4.

The normalized distance between site and receiver point is

(in feet) - 900 ft

75 ft

12 STREET WIDTHS

From Figure 13, the attenuation at 12 street widths for

Street 4b is about 12 dB

The A-weighted sound level at the receiver point is therefore

78.5 - 12.0 = 66.5 dB

A more direct approach to applying the attenuation values of

Figs. 10-16 is simply to adjust the scales of the plots to correspond to

the specific case of interest. Assuming the same source noise levels as in

the above example, the attenuation values of Fig. 14 have been converted to

A-weighted sound levels as a function of distance in meters and are presented in Fig. 17. It will be noted the 0 dB attenuation value at one

street width in Fig. 14 corresponds to the A-weighted sound level of

78.5 dB at 23 m in Fig. 17 as determined in the previous example.

In addition the propagation cases of Figs. 3-6, an attempt was made to assess the penetration of sound into and through city blocks due to

alleyways in the blocks. An example of the geometry used to attempt such

an assessment is given in Fig. 18 for Block Configuration Case II, Site A.

It should be noted that the assumed alleyway width is 4.6 m (15 ft), which

is not an order of magnitude greater than the longest acoustic wavelength

of interest, that is, 1.3 m for 250 hertz. This criteria is only met at

6
1000 hertz and above. Therefore, the attenuation values determined by the

propagation model can not be confidently applied to 250 and 500 hertz

octave-band sound levels or to A-weighted sound levels for the construction

noises represented in Fig. 9. In order to have reliable prediction of

attenuation values at these frequencies for a 4.6 m alleyway, the existing

propagation model would have to be verified emperically for this case

and/or expanded to include the wave properties of sound propagation for

this narrow channel width.

Although there are limitations on applying the results, the calculated

attenuation values for the alleyway configuration of Fig. 18 are plotted in

Fig. 19. Also plotted in Fig. 19 are the attenuation values in Streets 1

and 4 of Site A Case II in the vicinity where the alleyways intersect each

respective street. It will be noted that the alleyway attenuation values

increase with distance in much the same manner as noted earlier for

Streets 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b of Site A Case II (Fig. 13). The attenuation

values of Fig. 19 indicate, that at least for higher frequencies,

penetration of noise into the block along alleyways may be significant and

may result in some noise impact. However, because of limitations of the

propagation model in predicting A-weighted attenuation for such narrow

channels, no definitive statement about noise levels along alleyways can be

made based on the values of Figure 19.

4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The urban sound propagation model described in Section II of this

report has been applied to several urban configurations to determine

attenuation in street corridors near construction sites. The resultant

sound level attenuation values presented in Section III can be summarized

with several general observations. The first of these observations is that

the sound levels and attenuation rate in the street corridors are dependent

on the position of the construction site relative to the corridor opening.

When the site is located directly in the street opening, the sound level

attenuation rate is about 3.5 dB per doubling of distance along the street.

This rate can be approximated by a cylindrical divergence model of channel

propagation with some excess attenuation as has been indicated in previous

studies [2, 8], Further, because this rate is lower than the spherical

divergence (6 dB/DD) rate that would occur in a idealized open area, the

sound level in the street is higher than would be expected in an open area

by as much as 10 dB at distances greater than about ten street widths.

When the site is offset from the street corridor opening, the sound level

attenuation rate is approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance along the

street and hence more closely approximates the attenuation rate associated

with spherical divergence. For these cases, although the attenuation rates

are similar, the sound levels in the streets are typically offset slightly

higher than would be expected in a free-field environment by as much as 4 dB.

7
The second set of observations concerns propagation through and around

intervening intersections located between the site and the street of

interest. When the propagation path is directly through the intersection,

the sound levels in the street past the intersection are only slightly

lower (1 to 2 dB) than would be expected if the intersection were not

present. However, when the propagation path includes turning a comer at

the . intervening intersection, the sound levels in the street around the

comer are substantially lower than the sound levels in the street for

which the propagation path is directly through the intersection. The

difference in sound level between these two streets is initially about 2 to

5 dB near the intersection decreasing to as much as 15 to 18 dB before the

next intersection.

8
REFERENCES

1. Federal Research, Development and Demonstration Programs in Machinery

and Construction Noise, Federal Interagency Machinery and Construction

Noise Research Panel (Report U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C., February,

1978.)

2 . Schlatter, W. R. , "Sound Power Measurements in a Semi-Confined Space,"

M. Sc. Thesis (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,

Mass., July, 1971.)

3. Pande, L., "Model Study of Aircraft Noise Reverberation in a City

Street," U. S. Department of Transportation Interim Report, Contract

DOT-TSC-93 (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of

Mechanical Engineering, Cambridge, Mass., April, 1972.)

4. Kinney, W. A., and Pierce, A. D., "Helicoptor Noise Experiments in an Urban Environment," 56_, 332-337 (1974).

5. Donavan, P. R. and Lyon, R. H., "A Model Study of the Propagation of

Sound from V/STOL Aircraft into Urban Environs," Proc. Second

Interagency Symposium on University Research in Transporation Noise,

505-519 (North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C., June 1974).

6. Lee, K. P., and Davies, H. G., "Nomogram for Estimating Noise

Propagation in Urban Areas," J. Acous. Soc. Amer. , 56., 1477-1480

(19 75).

7 . Donavan, P. R. , and Lyon, R. H., "Sound Propagation Near Ground Level

in the Vicinity of Street Intersections," Proc. Second Interagency

Symposium on University Research in Transportation Noise, 491-504

(North Carolina University, Raleigh, N. C., June 1974.)

8. Wiener, F. M. , Malme, C. I., and Gogos, C. M. , "Sound Propagation in

Urban Areas," J. Acous. Soc. Amer. 37., 738-747 (1965).

9. Delaney, M. E. , Copeland, W. C. and Payne, R. C., "Propagation of

Traffic Noise in Typical Urban Situations," NPL Acoustics Report, No.

AC 54 (October 1971)

10. Lyon, R. H., "Role of Multiple Reflection and Reverberation in Urban

Noise Propagation," J. Acous. Soc. Amer., 55., 493-503 ( 1974).

11. Donavan, P. R. , "Sound Propagation in Urban Spaces," Sc. D. Thesis

(Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Mechanical

Engineering, Cambridge, Mass., January 1976.)

9
o

cr>

o

00

311370733003 UO7703 T 33^

10

Angle

from

Grazing

Incidence

in

Degrees

Figure

1:

Measured

Reflection

Coefficients

with

Two

Segment

Linear

Approximation

Averaged

for

Frequencies

Corresponding

to

250,

500,

1000,

2000

hertz

(From

Reference

1

, )
INTERSECTION

CONFIGURATION4 -WAY (SHOWN),

OPEN, OR TEE

W,

STREETS FOR WHICH

LEVELS CAN BE

DIRECTLY

DETERMINED

W.R

T

W, VARIABLES

W„

WRw -

c BL -

SOURCE STREET

WIDTH

RECEIVER STREET

WIDTH

CROSS STREET

WIDTH

BLOCK LENGTH

STREET CONTAINING

1

1

CONTRIBUTIONS

FROM SECONDARY

PATHS DETERMINED BY

COMBINATION

OF LEVELS

Figure 2: Applicability of Urban Sound Propagation Computer

Programs (From Reference 11)

11
Site Location

180m( 600ft)

180m

(600ft)

Figure 3 : Geometry and Nomenclature for 31ock Configuration

Case I, Site A.

12
Figure 4 : Geometry and Nomenclature for Block Configuration

Case I, Sites B and C.

13
Street lc

Cll tfl m CN

4-J 4-J <D <u

0) 01

4-J 4-J to CO

Street lb Street la

x>

•U

a)

a) M

4J to

Figure 5 : Geometry and Nomenclature for Block Configuration

Case II, Site A.

14
I

Site

Location

23m

(75ft)

rO<r

0)

0)uu

in

Figure 6 : Geometry and Nomenclature .for Block Configuration

Case II, Site B

15
Figure 7: Assumed Geometry for Computed Attenuation Values for

Block Configuration Case I, Sites B and C.

16
cO rou

<u

a)

Street lb

Street 5a

a

23m

(75ft)

Figure 8: Assumed Geometry for Computed Attenuation Values for

Block Configuration Case II, Site B

17
1/3

Octave

Band

Sound

Pressure

Level

in

dB

re

20

yN/m

Center Frequency in hertz

Figure 9: Envelope of Sound Pressure Levels from 23 Diesel-powered

Items of Construction Equipment as Measured at 15m (50 ft)

18
5

<u>

a>

i-J

c

3o

co

*T3 iH

a) •H

(D f~ • > <u • u +-> m-i o m

u r-~

<i> g

> cn

•H CN

flj •H X

d) 4J Pi -a

•H « ^ n 4J C cu •H Q> 3 -U O CO

•H

•U rH

<03 4-1 C Cfl A) U

U

<

Distance from Site in Street Widths

(1=2 3m [75 ft.])

Figure 10: Attenuation as a Function of Distance for Case I, Site A

19
10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Distance from Site in Street Widths

(l=23m [75 ft.])

igure 11: Attenuation as a Function of Distance for Case I, Site B

20
Attenuation

in

dB

Relative

to

Free

Field

Sound

Level

at

1

Street

Width

(23m

[75

ft.])

Distance from Site in Street Widths

(1=2 3m [75 ft.])

Figure 12: Attenuation as a Function at Distance for Case I, Site C.

21
Attenuation

in

dB

Relative

to

Free

Field.

Sound

Level

at 1

Street

Width

(23m

[75

ft.])

Distance from Site in Street Widths

(l=23m [75 ft.])

Figure 13: Attenuation as a Function of Distance for Case II, Site A,

Streets 1, 2, and 3.

22
Attenuation

in

dB

Relative

to

Free

Field

Sound

Level

at 1

Street

Width

(23m

[75

ft.])

Distance from Site in Street Widths

(1=2 3m [75 ft.])

Figure 14 : .Attenuation as a Function of Distance for Case II, Site A,

Streets 4 and 5.

23
10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Distance from Site in Street Widths

(1=2 3m [75 ft.])

gure 15: Attenuation as a Function of Distance for Case II, Site B,

Streets 1, 2, and 3.

24
10

15

20

25

30

35

AO

1st

Intersection

3 5 7 10 15 20 30

Distance from Site in Street Widths

(1=2 3m [75 ft.])

Figure 16: Attenuation as a Function of Distance for Case II, Site B

Streets 4 and 5.

25
80

75

70

65

60

55

50

Street Aa

Distance from Site in meters

r igure 17: A-Weighted Sound Levels as a Function of Distance for- Case

Site A, Streets A and 5 for a Source Level of 82 dB at 15m

II,

(50 ft)

26
Street 5a Street 5b

Figure 18: Geometry and Nomenclature for Assessment of Sound

Propagation into Blocks Along Alleyways - Case II, Site A

27
0

<y>

<u .JT)C

o

o

CO

5

T3rH

a)

d)

0)P4 u*

10

in

r^-

<u 6

> co

•H CN

4J w

td >—I rC

<U 4-> Cd 'O

•H

•u C d) •H d) Ci C 4-1 O CO t4U r-t cd3 4J C cd

d)

4-1

4-1 <

15

20

Free

Field

25

30 l—

1 1.5 2

Alleyway

Interse ction

TTl

3 5 7 10 15

Distance from Site in Street Widths

(1 = 23m [75 ft])

Figure 19: Attenuation as a Function of Distance for Case II, Site A,

Alleyways 1 and 2 (strictly valid for only octave band sound

pressure levels greater than 500 Hz.)

28
Table 1: Case I, Site A, Street 1 - Attenuation Relative to Free

Field Sound Level At 1 Street Width (75 ft.) as a Function

of Distance From the Site.

Street la Street lb

Distance Attenuation Distance Attenuation

(Street Widths) (dB) (Street Widths) (dB)

5.2 7.3 14.2 12.7

5.5 7.5 14.5 12.9

6.0 8.0 15.0 13.2

6.5 8.2 15.5 13.4

7.0 8.8 16.0 13.8

7.5 9.0 16.5 13.9

8.0 9.4 17.0 14.4

8.5 9.6 17.5 14.3

9.0 10.0 18.0 14.8

9.5 10.4 18.5 14.8

10.0 10.7 19.0 15.1

10.5 11.0 19.5 15.3

11.0 11.3 20.0 15.3

11.5 11.6 20.5 15.8

12.0 11.7 21.0 15.9

12.5 12.0 21.5 16.0

29
Table 2 : Case I, Site A, Streets 2 and 3 - Attenuation Relative to

Free Field Sound Level at 1 Street Width (75 ft.) as a Function of Distance into Side Street

Distance

(Street Widths)

.25

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

Streets 2a & b

Attenuation

(dB)

9.1

10.5

13.0

14.5

15.5

16.8

17.8

18.5

19.5

20.2

21.0

21.6

22.3

23.0

23.4

24.0

Streets 3a & b

Attenuation

(dB)

18.0

19.9

22.7

24.1

25.8

27.0

28.2

29.1

30.0

30.9

31.5

32.0

32.6

33.2

33.7

34.1

s 30
Table 3 : Case I, Site B, Streets 1 and 2 - Attenuation Relative to

Free Field Sound Level at 1 Street Width (75 ft) as a Function of Distance from the Site as Measured Along the

Street

Street

Distance

(Street Widths

la & 2 Attenuation

(dB)

'

Street lb

Distance

(Street Widths)

Attenuation

(dB)

2.6 9.0 12.6 20.9

2.8 8.7 12.8 21.0

3.3 10.5 13.3 21.3

3.8 12.6 13.8 21.6

4.3 12.7 14.3 21.8

4.8 13.7 14.8 21.8

5.3 14.8 15.3 21.7

5.8 15.0 15.8 21.8

6.3 15.2 16.3 21.8

6.8 15.9 16.8 21.8

7.3 16.5 17.3 22.0

7.8 16.7 17.8 22.2

8.3 17.2 18.3 22.3

8.8 17.5 18.8 22.4

9.3 17.8 19.3 22.4

9.8 18.0 19.8 22.6

31
Table 4 : Case I, Site B, Street 3 - Attenuation Relative to Free

Field Sound Level at 1 Street Width (75 ft) as a Function

of Distance into the Side Street

Distance

(Street Widths)

Street 3a

Attenuation

(dB)

Street 3b

Attenuation

(dB)

.25

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

23.8 24.5

25.7 26.4

28.0 29.1

30.4 30.1

31.8 31.2

33.4 32.7

33.6 34.0

35.3 34.1

35.8 35.1

36.3 35.3

37.2 35.7

37.6 36.8

38.1 37.0

38.5 37.7

39.1 37.8

39.5 38.2

32
: 5: Case I, iSite C, Street 1 - Attenuation Relative to Free Field

Sound Level at 1 Street Width (75 ft.) as a Function of

Distance from the Site as Measured Along the Street

Street

.stance

la

Attenuation

Street lb

Distance Attenuation

;et Widths) (dB) (Street Widths) (dB)

2.6 13.6 12.6 24.9

2.8 14.7 12.8 25.0

3.3 16.2 13.3 25.3

3.8 16.4 13.8 25.4

4.3 17.6 14.3 25.7

4.8 17.5 14.8 25.5

5.3 18.6 15.3 25.5

5.8 19.4 15.8 25.5

6.3 20.2 16.3 25.7

6.8 20.6 16.8 25.9

7.3 20.7 17.3 26.1

7.8 21.1 17.8 26.1

8.3 21.3 18.3 26.2

8.8 21.7 18.8 26.3

9.3 22.0 19.3 26.4

9.8 22.5 19.8 26.6

r

33
Table 6* Case I, Site C, Street 2 - Attenuation Relative to Free

Field Sound Level at 1 Street Width (75 ft.) as a Function

of Distance from the Site as Measured Along the Street

Street 2 Distance Attenuation

eet Widths) (dB)

5.25 12.4

5.5 12.7

6.0 12.7

6.5 13.8

7.0 14.1

7.5 14.4

8.0 15.5

8.5 15.6

9.0 15.8

9.5 15.9

10.0 16.1

10.5 - 16.5

11.0 16.7

11.5 17.2

12.0 17.4

12.5 17.5

34
Table 7 : Case I, Site: C, Street 3 - Attenuation Relative to Free

Field Sound Level at 1 Street Width (75 ft.) as a Function of Distance into the Side Street

Street 3a Street 3b

Distance Attenuation Attenuation

reet Widths) (dB) (dB)

.25 26.1 28.8

.5 28.1 30.5

1.0 31.9 34.2

1.5 34.9 37.3

2.0 36.5 37.4

2.5 36.4 38.0

3.0 39.3 40.6

3.5 41.6 42.3

4.0 41.2 41.8

4.5 41.5 41.9

5.0 43.0 43.6

5.5 44.1 43.8

6.0 43.2 43.8

6.5 44.3 44 .

6

7.0 45.2 45.0

7.5 44.7 45.3

35
Table 8: Case II, Site A, Street 1 - Attenuation Relative to Free Field

Sound Level at 1 Street Width (75 ft.) as a Function of Distance

from the Site

Street la Street lb Street lc

Distance Attenuation Distance Attenuation Distance Attenuation

(Street (dB) (Street (dB) (Street (dB)

Widths) Widths) Widths)

.75 -2.8 5.7 8.2 10.7 11.3

1.0 -1.9 6.0 8.4 11.0 11.6

1.5 0.1 6.5 8.7 11.5 11.8

2.0 1.6 7.0 9.0 12.0 12.1

2.5 2.7 7.5 9.4 12.5 12.4

3.0 3.6 8.0 9.8 13.0 12.6

3.5 4.4 8.5 10.1 13.5 12.7

4.0 5.1 9.0 10.5 14.0 13.0

4.5 5.6

36
Table 9: Case II, Site A, Streets 2 and 3 - Attenuation Relative

to Free Field Sound Level at 1 Street Width (75 f t . ) as

a Function of Distance into the Side Street

Streets 2a and b Streets 3a and b

Distance Attenuation Distance Attenuation

(Street Widths) (dB) (Street Widths) (dB)

.3 11.2 .3 15.9

.5 13.4 .5 17.0

1.0 15.0 1.0 18.9

1.5 16.8 1.5 20.3

2.0 17.9 2.0 21.6

2.5 18.8 2.5 22.8

3.0 19.7 3.0 23.8

3.5 20.9 3.5 24.9

4.0 21.8 4.0 26.1

. 4.5 23.0 4.5 27.2

5.0 23.6 5.0 28.3

5.5 24.6 5.5 29.4

6.0 25.6 6.0 30.5

6.5 26.2 6.5 31.5

7.0 26.9 7.0 32.3

7.5 27.7 7.5 33.1

37
Table 10: Case II, Site A, Street 4 - Attenuation Relative to

Free Field Sound Level at 1 Street Width (75 ft.) as a Function of Distance from the Site

Street 4a Street 4b

Distance Attenuation Distance Attenuation

(Street Widths) (dB) (Street Widths) (dB)

.75 -2.8 9.7 10.7

1.0 -1.9 10.0 10.9

1.5 .1 10.5 11.2

2.0 1.6 11.0 11.6

2.5 2.7 11.5 11.9

3.0 3.6 12.0 12.1

3.5 4.4 12.5 12.3

4.0 5.1 13.0 12.6

4.5 5.6 13.5 12.7

5.0 6.1 14.0 12.9

5.5 6.6 14.5 13.4

6.0 7.0 15.0 13.6

6.5 7.4 15.5 13.8

7.0 7.8 16.0 14.1

7.5 8.1 16.5 14.2

17.0 14.6

38
Table 11: Case II, Site A, Street 5 - Attenuation Relative to

Free Field Sound Level at 1 Street Width (75 ft.) as a Function of Distance into the Side Street

Streets 5a and b

Distance Attenuation

(Street Widths) (dB)

.3 14.7

.5 16.6

1.0 18.2

1.5 19.6

2.0 21.0

2.5 22.1

3.0 23.2

3.5 24.3

4.0 25.3

39
Table 12: Case II, Site B, Street 1 - Attenuation Relative to Free Field

Sound Level at 1 Street Width (75 ft.) as a Function of

Distance From the Site as Measured Along the Street

Street la Street lb Street lc

Distance Attenuation Distance Attenuation Distance Attenuation

(Street (dB) (Street (dB) (Street (dB)

Widths) Widths) Widths)

2.6 7.7 7.6 17.4 12.6 19.4

2.8 7.5 7.8 17.2 12.8 19.5

3.3 8.8 8.3 17.7 13.3 19.7

3.8 10.6 8.8 18.2 13.8 20.0

4.3 10.8 9.3 18.2 14.3 20.2

00 11.8 9.8 18.1 14.8 20.4

5.3 13.0 10.3 18.4 15.3 20.8

5.8 13.3 10.8 18.7 15.8 20.9

AO
Table 13: Case II, Site B, Streets 2 and 3 - Attenuation Relative

Free Field Sound Level at 1 Street Width (75 ft.) as a Function of Distance into the Side Street

Street 2a Street 2b Street 3a

Distance Attenuation Attenuat ion Attenuation

reet Widths) (dB) (dB) (dB)

.3 19.1 17.4 22.2

.5 19.5 19.7 24.4

1.0 21.4 20.3 27.5

1.5 23.2 21.6 29.0

2.0 24.3 24.1 30.7

2.5 26.1 25.4 32.6

3.0 27.7 25.2 34.0

3.5 28.3 26.5 34.5

4.0 29.5 27.3 35.7

4.5 30.1 28.2 36.2

5.0 31.2 28.6 37.1

5.5 32.2 29.9 37.9

6.0 32.6 30.4 37.9

6.5 33.3 30.9 38.6

7.0 33.6 31.2 39.1

7.5 34.4 31.8 39.4

Street 3b

Attenuation

(dB)

24.0

26.4

28.1

31.1

32.7

33.7

35.1

36.7

36.5

37.7

38.3

38.7

39.5

39.9

40.7

40.7

41
Table 14 : Case II, Site B, Street 4 - Attenuation Relative to

Free Field Sound Level at 1 Street Width (75 ft.) as a Function of Distance from the Site as Measured Along

the Street

Street 4a Street 4b

stance Attenuation Distance Attenuation

et Widths) (dB) (Street Widths) (dB)

2.6 7.7 11.6 18.9

2.8 7.5 11.8 19.0

3.3 8.8 12.3 19.3

3.8 10.6 12.8 19.8

4.3 10.8 13.3 19.9

4.8 11.8 13.8 20.1

5.3 13.0 14.3 20.3

5.8 13.3 14.8 20.4

6.3 13.4 15.3 20.5

6.8 14.0 15.8 20.6

7.3 14.7 16.3 20.9

7.8 15.1 16.8 21.1

8.3 15.5 17.3 21.4

8.8 16.0 17.8 21.5

9.3 16.4 18.3 21.6

9.8 16.7 18.8 21.9

42
Table 15 : Case II, Site B, Street 5 - Attenuation Relative to

Free Field Sound Level at 1 Street Width (75 ft.) as

a Function of Distance into the Side Street

Distance

(Street Widths)

Street 5a Attenuation

(dB)

Street 5b

Attenuation

(dB)

.3

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

22.9 22.0

24.1 23.4

27.0 26.0

27.9 28.3

29.5 30.1

31.3 31.7

32.7 32.5

33.3 34.4

A 3

B J-l i4A (REV. »-7»)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 79-1594

2. Gov't. Accession No. 3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Propagation of Urban Construction Site Noise Along

Street Corridors

ST AUTHOR(S)

Paul R. Donavan and J. Craig Wyvill

5. Publication Date May 8, 1978

6. Performing Organization Code

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

I

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No. EPA-IAG-D6-07 55

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, state, ZIP)

Office of Noise Abatement and Control

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington. VA 20460

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

| | Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or Jess factual summary of most si ghi ficant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here.)

An existing urban sound propagation model has been applied to the specific

problem of estimating the propagation of noise from urban construction sites

along street corridors. Discussion summarizes the development of the

propagation model and computer programs used to estimate sound propagation. The

propagation model has been applied to five different construction site

orientations resulting from two city block configurations. For each of the site

orientations, the estimated values of attenuation versus distance in the streets

surrounding individual sites are presented. Assuming the sound level at the

construction site is known, the procedure to be used to determine sound levels in

the surrounding streets is also provided.

17. key WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons)

Construction site noise; Environmental noise; Noise, Sound Propagation; Urban

environment; Urban noise

18. AVAILABILITY Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

Sx ^or 0^' c ' al Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS UNCLASSIFIED 43

Q ] Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

.

~ 20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

20. SECURITY CLASS

(•THIS PAGE)

22. Price

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161 UNCLASSIFIED

USCOMM- DC
.