BUILDING ACOUSTICS Volume 17 Number 4 2010 Pages 339358 339

Introduction of Effective Analysis Methods for

Construction Noise Assessment
Weixiong Wu
AKRF, Inc., 440 Park Avenue South, 7th floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
wwu@akrf.com

(Received 9 August 2010 and accepted 21 February 2011)

ABSTRACT
Construction noise is one of the most disruptive noise sources in New York City. Large-scale
projects especially can take more than a decade to complete, and often be located in areas with
various sensitive noise receptors. A technological and reliable approach is required for evaluation
of the construction noise and its impact in close proximity. This paper addresses construction noise
analysis methods and mitigations, along with a case of noise study (i.e., Fordham University
Lincoln Center), in accordance with the CEQR Technical Manual requirements and the New York
City Noise Control Code regulations. Analysis methods (i.e., screening, detailed, and refined
analyses) for construction noise assessment were introduced, and various construction mitigation
options (i.e., source, path, and receiver measures) were examined and developed. The results
indicated that the analysis methods were effective to assess noise impacts for large complicated
construction projects, the mitigation measures were practical, and noise impacts at adjacent
sensitive noise receptors were minimized or eliminated. The relevant experiences learned from the
study may be beneficial for use of appropriate analysis methods and practical mitigation measures
for large-scale construction projects in high-density urban environments.

1. INTRODUCTION
Construction noise is one of the most disruptive noise sources in New York City. With
a population of more than eight million and growing, a combination of the population
density, variety of land use types, and urban architecture results in construction sites
often located adjacent to or in proximity to noise-sensitive land uses. While these
projects are being built, on-site construction equipment operation and construction
vehicle movement on surrounding roadways can cause dramatic increases in ambient
noise levels at near noise-sensitive land uses. Noise levels generated by construction
activities are generally expected to achieve up to low 80s dB at adjacent sensitive
receptors. Consequently, construction noise can significantly affect the human activity
and the quality of life of residents.
A noise assessment for the Fordham University Lincoln Center project in Manhattan
was performed in accordance with the CEQR Technical Manual1 requirements and the
340 Introduction of Effective Analysis Methods for Construction
Noise Assessment

New York City Noise Control Code2 regulations. Potential noise impacts at adjacent
noise-sensitive receptors associated with construction activities would vary
dramatically based on the type/quantity of equipment working on the construction site,
the activities being performed, and the shielding effects. It has been a challenge issue
to eliminate potential noise impacts generated by construction noise from large-scale
urban projects. The assessmentincluding screening, detailed and refined analyses
was conduced. The screening analysis result indicated that noise impacts would occur
at all the adjacent noise-sensitive land uses. With implementing noise control measures,
the results from the detailed and refined analyses indicated that noise impacts identified
by the screening analysis could be significantly minimized or eliminated. Noise effects
from construction activities were evaluated using the Computer Aided Noise Abatement
(CadnaA) model3, and vehicular noise levels were calculated using the Traffic Noise
Model4 Version 2.5 (TNM). The results indicated that New York City has stringent
criteria and regulations to limit noise produced by construction activities; the practical
and feasible mitigation measures have been examined and explored; the noise impacts
can be significantly minimized or eliminated by implementing noise control measures;
and the analysis methods are effective to assess noise impacts for large complicated
construction projects.

2. CONSTRUCTION NOISE ASSESSMENT

Recently, New York City has revised its Noise Control Code with more stringent
regulations for construction activities. The revised provision in the Noise Control Code
pertaining to construction activities and noise requirements in the New York City
Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) process (applicable to projects which require
discretionary approvals prior to construction) are expected to have a significant effect
in reducing construction noise levels at adjacent noise-sensitive locations. The CEQR
Technical Manuals methodology and criteria, and the Noise Control Code regulations
are briefly addressed associated with construction noise.

2.1 Noise-Sensitive Receptors

A noise-sensitive location is usually defined as an area where human activity may be
adversely affected when noise, such as construction noise, might interfere with an
individuals quality of life (i.e., interference with sleep, speech intelligibility,
concentration, prayer, or meditation, etc.). These locations may be indoors or outdoors.
Indoor receptors include, but are not limited to, residences, hotels, motels, health care
facilities, nursing homes, schools, houses of worship, court houses, public meeting
facilities, museums, libraries, and theaters. Outdoor receptors include, but are not
limited to, parks, outdoor theaters, golf courses, zoos, campgrounds, and beaches.

2.2 Noise Descriptors

Construction source noise is associated with a variety of mobile and stationary sources,
each having unique noise characteristics and operating for different time periods. Under
the CEQR Technical Manual requirements, the hourly Leq(h) can be used reliably with
these noise sources for noise assessment purposes, and the hourly peak L10(h) can be
BUILDING ACOUSTICS Volume 17 Number 4 2010 341

used for determining interior noise limits when noise impacts occur at sensitive noise
receptors.

2.3 Noise Criteria and Regulations

CEQR Technical ManualConstruction Noise Criteria
The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) adopted the
CEQR noise standards for environmental impact review in 1983, and these standards
were revised in 2001. The CEQR Technical Manual states that significant noise
impacts due to construction would occur only at sensitive receptors that would be
subjected to high construction noise levels for an extensive period of time (i.e.,
two years or longer). The impact criteria contained in the CEQR Technical Manual
are used for assessing impacts from mobile and on-site construction activities as
follows:

If the existing noise levels are less than 60 decibels, the threshold for a signifi-
cant impact would be an increase of at least 5 dB Leq(h).
For the 5 dB threshold to be valid, the resulting proposed action condition noise
level with the proposed action would have to be equal to or less than 65 dB. If
the existing noise level is equal to or greater than 62 dB Leq(h), or if the analy-
sis period is a nighttime period (defined in the CEQR criteria as being between
10:00 PM and 7:00 AM), the incremental significant impact threshold would be
3 dB Leq(h).
If the existing noise level is 61 dB Leq(h), the maximum incremental increase would
be 4 dB, since an increase higher than this would result in a noise level higher than
the 65 dB Leq(h) threshold.

Regarding interior noise limits at sensitive receptor buildings, the CEQR Technical
Manual provides mitigation requirements in terms of the exterior level noise category
and noise from associated construction noise sources, shown in Table 1. The composite
window-wall attenuation values are for residential dwellings. Commercial office spaces
and meeting rooms would be 5 dB less in each category. All the categories require a
closed window situation and alternative ventilation.

Table 1. Required attenuation values to achieve acceptable interior

noise levels.

Marginally Marginally Clearly

acceptable unacceptable unacceptable

Noise level with 65 < L10(h) 70 < L10(h) 75 < L10(h) 80 < L10(h) 85 < L10(h) 90 < L10(h)
proposed action
70
75
80
85
90
5
Window-wall 25 dB 30 dB 35 dB 40 dB 45 dB 50 dB
attenuation
342 Introduction of Effective Analysis Methods for Construction
Noise Assessment

New York City Noise Control CodeRegulations

The New York City Noise Control Code, as amended December 2005 and effective July
1, 20075, requires the adoption and implementation of a noise mitigation plan for each
construction site. Noise barriers must be implemented around the perimeter of the
construction site when within 200 feet of a noise-sensitive receptor. Construction
equipment must meet the noise emission levels set in the New York City Noise Control
Code, and use quieter-type adjustable backup alarms on equipment post 2008. In
general, construction activities are limited to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM
and 6:00 PM. Construction activities occurring after hours (weekdays between
6:00 PM and 7:00 AM, and on weekends) need to be authorized in the following
circumstances:

Emergency conditions;
Public safety;
Construction projects by or on behalf of City agencies;
Construction activities with minimal noise impacts; and
Where undue hardship is demonstrated resulting from unique site characteristics,
unforeseen conditions, scheduling conflicts and/or financial considerations.

2.4 Prediction of Construction Noise

Construction activities for most projects would be expected to result in increased noise
levels as a result of: (1) the operation of construction equipment on-site; and (2) mobile
sources from the movement of construction-related vehicles (i.e., worker trips, and
material and equipment trips) on the surrounding roadways. The effect of each of these
noise sources needs to be evaluated.

Construction Equipment
Noise from the operation of construction equipment on-site at a specific receptor
location near a construction site is calculated by computing the sum of the noise
produced by all pieces of equipment operating at the construction site. For each piece
of equipment, the Leq(h) noise level at a receptor site is calculated using the following
equation.

Leq(h) = E.L. + 10 log (U.F.) 20 log (D/50) A (1)

where:
Leq(h) = the noise level at a peak-hour time period
E.L. = the noise emission level of the equipment at a reference distance of
50 feet6
U.F. = a usage factor that accounts for the fraction of time that the equipment is
in use over the specified time period in full power
D = the distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment in feet
A = the noise attenuation due to screening (i.e., buildings, structures,
barriers, etc.)
BUILDING ACOUSTICS Volume 17 Number 4 2010 343

Mobile Noise
Noise from the construction-related traffic at a specific receptor location near a
construction site is calculated by computing the sum of the noise produced by
automobiles from worker trips and trucks from material delivery trips on the
surrounding roadways. For each type of vehicle, the Leq(h) noise level at a receptor site
is a function of:

The noise emission levels of the type of vehicle (e.g., auto, light-duty truck, heavy-
duty truck, bus, etc.)
Vehicular speed;
The distance between the roadway and the receptor;
Topography and ground effects; and
Shielding.

Combined Construction Sources and Mobile Sources

The total Leq(h) noise levels from construction noise sources can be combined using the
following equations.

Leq ( h ) T = 101g 10 0.1Leq ( h ) E + 10 0.1Leq ( h ) M (2)

Where:
Leq(h)E = predicted hourly average noise level from construction equipment
Leq(h)M = predicted hourly average noise level from mobile

3. A CASE STUDYFORDHAM UNIVERSITY LINCOLN CENTER

3.1 Project Description
The Fordham University Lincoln Center project is a large-scale urban construction
project in New York City. The project included the development of a Master Plan to
provide about 2.35 million square feet of additional gross floor area at Fordhams
Lincoln Center campus on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. The campus occupies a
superblock bounded by Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues and West 60th and 62nd
Streets, immediately south of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts (see Figure 1).
The project site is located in an area with high population densities and many noise-
sensitive receptors including residences, schools, hotels, church, open spaces, etc.

3.2 Construction Schedule and Activities

The proposed project would be constructed by two phases. Phase I would start in 2009
and end in 2014. During this time period, a new Law School and new dormitory space,
a new residential building, and parking spaces are expected to be built. Phase II is
expected to begin in 2016 and end in 2032, to create new space for the Schools of
Business, Social Services, and Education, an expansion of the Quinn Library, a new
theater, additional dormitory facilities, and additional accessory parking spaces for the
Universitys use.
344 Introduction of Effective Analysis Methods for Construction
Noise Assessment

Figure 1. The Fordham University Lincoln Center Project Site.

The construction activities will include demolition, excavation and foundations,

construction of the superstructure of buildings, installation of the exteriors, and interior
finishes. Typical pieces of heavy construction equipment expected for use in demolition
include bulldozers, front-end loaders, and dump trucks. Excavation and foundations
work would use a lot of noisy equipment, such as excavators, hoe rams, rock drills,
drilling rigs, cranes, concrete saws, pumps, motorized concrete buggies, concrete
pumps, concrete trucks, jackhammers, and pneumatic compressors. Superstructure will
include the use of cranes, hoists, excavators, concrete pouring, concrete saws,
pneumatic tools, bar benders, tampers, and rollers. Dump trucks and delivery trucks are
expected to service the site on an intermittent basis as needed. All of these noise sources
were taken into account in this assessment in accordance with the construction
sequence and the equipment schedule provided by the construction contractor (Gotham
Construction).

3.3 Determination of Analysis Years

The first step is to determine the analysis years when the maximum potential for
significant noise impacts expected to occur based on the construction sequence and the
equipment schedule showing the construction equipment required for each phase of
work on a monthly basis. As a result, fourteen years were selected for the construction
noise analyses, which were 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 for Phase I, and 2016,
2017, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2030, 2031, and 2032 for Phase II. For each of the
BUILDING ACOUSTICS Volume 17 Number 4 2010 345

worst-case years, a worst-case month was selected based on the highest overall number
of the noisiest pieces of equipment involved. To be conservative, each worst-case
month was assumed to be representative of noise levels that would occur due to
construction activities for the entire year.

3.4 Selection of Receptor Locations

Six receptor locations (i.e., sites 1 to 6) were selected as noise monitoring sites to
determine baseline noise levels. Twenty-six receptor locations (i.e., sites A to Z) close
to the construction site were selected as discrete noise receptor sites for the construction
noise assessment. These receptor locations are either directly adjacent to the
development site or on streets where construction trucks would pass by. At noise
monitoring locations, receptors were placed at ground level (approximately five feet
above grade). At discrete locations, noise receptors were placed at multiple elevations.
Figure 2 shows the noise receptor locations, and Table 2 lists the monitoring noise
receptor sites, discrete noise receptor sites and associated land uses. The receptor sites
selected for the assessment are representative of locations where maximum project
impacts due to construction noise would be expected.

3.5 Determination of Ambient Noise Levels

Construction activities for the proposed project would generally take place Monday
through Friday. In accordance with New York City Noise Control Code regulations,

Figure 2. Noise receptor locations.

 Table 2. Existing noise levels at receptor locations.
346

Existing noise level

Receptor Site No. Location Land use AM Leq(h)
1 W. 60th St. between Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues Residential/Church 65.1
2 W. 62nd St. between Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues Lincoln Center 69.3
3 Amsterdam Ave. between W. 60th and W. 61st Streets School (P.S. 191) 71.9
4 Columbus Ave. between W. 61st and W. 62nd Streets Residential 68.4
5 Alvin Ailey Place between Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues Residential 63.8
6 Amsterdam Ave. between W. 61st and W. 62nd Streets Residential 71.1
A Alvin Ailey Place between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues Residential (The Alfred) 66.6
B 20 Amsterdam Ave. between W. 60th and W. 61st Streets School (PS 191) 70.1
C Amsterdam Ave. between W. 61st and West 64th Streets Residential 71.6
D 62nd St. between Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues Institutional 67.1
E Columbus Ave. between W. 61st and W. 62nd Streets Residential 72.0
F W. 60th St. between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues Residential 65.5
G Amsterdam Ave. between W. 59th and W. 60th Streets Institutional 71.3
H Amsterdam Ave. between W. 59th and W. 60th Streets Residential 71.6
I Amsterdam Ave. between W. 59th and West 60th Streets Residential 63.2
J Amsterdam Ave. between W. 58th and W. 59th Streets Institutional 71.8
K Amsterdam Ave. between W. 57th and W. 58th Streets Residential 72.0
L Amsterdam Ave. between W. 61st and W. 64th Streets Residential 70.0
M Amsterdam Ave. between W. 61st and W. 64th Streets Residential 62.0
N Amsterdam Ave. between W. 61st and W. 64th Streets Residential 71.5
O W. 62nd St. between Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues Open Space 65.3
Noise Assessment
Introduction of Effective Analysis Methods for Construction
P W. 62nd St. between Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues Institutional 64.9
Q Columbus Ave. between W. 62nd and W. 63rd Streets Residential 71.6
R Columbus Ave. between W. 60th and W. 61st Streets Residential 72.4
S W. 60th St. between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues Church 68.5
T Columbus Ave. between W. 58th and W. 60th Streets Residential 72.8
U Columbus Ave. between W. 58th and W. 60th Streets Residential 72.7
V W. 59th St. between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues Residential 63.1
W W. 57th St. between Columbus Ave. and Broadway Hotels 72.0
X Broadway between Lincoln Place and W. 64th St. Residential 73.4
Y W. 60th St. between Columbus Ave. and Broadway Residential 65.3
Z W. 62nd St. between Columbus Ave. and Broadway Residential 63.6

Note: Noise levels were the AM measured values at Sites 1 to 6, and noise levels were the predicted values at Sites A to Z.
BUILDING ACOUSTICS Volume 17 Number 4 2010
347
348 Introduction of Effective Analysis Methods for Construction
Noise Assessment

construction work would generally begin at 7:00 AM, and would end at 6:00 pm. Noise
monitoring at the six noise receptor locations was performed on May 15 and 25, 2007.
At each of these locations, 20-minute measurements were made during dry weather
conditions for the three weekday peak periodsAM (8:00 to 9:30 AM), midday
(12:00 noon to 1:30 PM), and PM (5:00 to 6:30 PM).
Measurements were performed using Brel & Kjr Noise Level Meters Type 2260,
Brel & Kjr Sound Level Calibrators Type 4231, and Brel & Kjr 1/s-inch
microphones Type 4189. The meters were mounted at a height of 5 feet above the
ground, and were calibrated before and after readings using Brel & Kjr Type 4231
sound level calibrators with the appropriate adaptors. Measurements at each location
were made on the A-scale. A windscreen was used during all sound measurements
except for calibration. Weather conditions were noted to ensure a true reading as
follows: wind speed under 12 mph; relative humidity under 90 percent; and temperature
above 14oF and below 122oF. All measurement procedures conformed to the
requirements of ANSI Standard S1.13-20057.
Ambient Leq(h) noise levels at ground level are also shown in Table 2. At Receptor Sites
1 to 6 (i.e., monitoring receptor locations), ambient noise levels were measured as
baseline values. At other analysis receptors, including at elevated receptor locations,
ambient noise levels were calculated using the TNM model based on existing traffic
components and adjusted by baseline measured values at monitoring receptor locations.
To be conservative, existing noise levels on the AM peak period were used for impact
determination purposes, which would reflect the peak hour for the construction trucks and
the use of large amount of equipment on-site. These ambient existing noise levels were
utilized to determine whether increased noise levels due to construction activities at the
construction site would result in significant noise impacts under the CEQR impact criteria.

3.6 Noise Modeling

Construction activities for the proposed project would be expected to result in
supplemental increase in ambient noise levels at adjacent noise-sensitive receptor
locations as a result of:

The operation of construction equipment on-site;

The movement of construction-related vehicles (i.e., worker trips, and material and
equipment trips) on the surrounding roadways; and
Vehicular traffic increases during construction years on the surrounding roadways.

To determine maximum one-hour equivalent Leq(h) noise levels, the noise assessment
predicted separately the effects of noise from these noise sources. Total Leq(h) noise
levels were obtained by adding noise due to construction activities and increased traffic.

Construction Activities On-Site

Noise effects from construction activitiesincluding the operation of construction
equipment on-site and the movement of construction-related vehicleswere evaluated
using the computer software CadnaA model. The model is based on the acoustic
BUILDING ACOUSTICS Volume 17 Number 4 2010 349

propagation standards promulgated in International Standard ISO 9613-2. It is a

comprehensive three-dimensional model in which noise sources are assembled from
point, line, and/or area components; each emitting sound power in octave bands or
broadband A-weighted format.
For this analysis, the model takes into account the reference sound pressure levels of
the noise sources at 50 feet, attenuation with distance, ground contours, reflections from
barriers and structures, attenuation due to shielding, etc. A construction equipment
library was created based upon the construction equipment emissions levels associated
with their usage factors described previously. Each piece of construction equipment was
tested and calibrated in the model.
A basic geometric model was set-up in CadnaA based on a Geographic Information
System (GIS) data which contained surrounding building footprints and heights, street
locations, and contour elevations. Based upon the construction sequence, the estimated
heights of the project buildings for each of analysis time period were inputted into the
model, and the buildings themselves provided acoustic shielding as noise propagates in
various directions away from the site. Noise receptor locations including multiple
elevations were also inputted into the model. In this manner the positions of various
buildings, receptor locations, and distances could be determined to a high degree of
accuracy.
The construction contactor provided detailed information for equipment schedules,
including equipment type, quantity, size, and locations. Under the construction manager
instructions, approximate locations and areas for pieces of equipment were identified
for each of the analysis months. Types and quantities of equipment were placed at
related positions (i.e., at grade, top of structure, inside structure, and vertical position)
in the model. In this manner the hundreds of pieces of equipment expected for use in
any given month could be entered into the CadnaA model for each phase of work.

Construction-Related Vehicles
Noise sources for construction trucks (concrete trucks, dump trucks, deliveries, etc.)
located on-site were assembled as point sources components, and their arrival and
departure routes were identified as line sources components in CadnaA.

Mobile Sources
In general, traffic volumes are expected to increase every year. Noise from increased
vehicular traffic during the construction years (i.e., from 2009 to 2032) in the study area
was taken into account for the noise assessment. At receptor locations noise levels due
to the increased vehicular traffic for each of analysis years were calculated using the
TNM Version 2.5 based upon related traffic components provided by the traffic analysis
engineer.

3.7 Analyses and Results

Screening Analysis
Using the CadnaA model, a screening analysis was initially performed to determine
potential noise impacts at sensitive receptors in the vicinity area. Typical pieces of
350 Introduction of Effective Analysis Methods for Construction
Noise Assessment

equipment that meets the sound level standards specified in the New York City Noise
Control Code were utilized from the start of the analysis. The screening was performed
in 2009 for Phase I and in 2016 for Phase II, which was identified as the worst case.
The analysis results indicated that noise levels generated by construction activities
could be up to low 80s dB at adjacent land uses. Under the CEQR noise criteria, noise
impacts were expected to occur at all the adjacent sensitive receptor locations.

Detailed Analysis
A strategic approach was developed to determine the practicability and feasibility of
implementing noise control measures to reduce or eliminate potential noise impacts
identified by the screening analysis. This approach employed a wide variety of
measures that exceeded standard construction practices, but the implementation of
which was deemed feasible and practicable to minimize construction noise and reduce
potential noise impacts. This approach included: source controls and path controls.
In terms of source controls (i.e., reducing noise levels at the source or during most
sensitive time periods), the following measures for construction, which go beyond
typical construction techniques, would be implemented:

Where feasible and practicable, construction procedures that reduce noise levels
and equipment (such as concrete trucks, delivery trucks, and trailers) that is quieter
than that required by the New York City Noise Control Code would be used.
As early in the construction period as practicable, diesel or gas-powered equipment
would be replaced with electrical-powered equipment, such as welders, water
pumps, bench saws, and table saws (i.e., early electrification).
Where practicable and feasible, construction sites would be configured to minimize
back-up alarm noise. In addition, delivery trucks would not be allowed to idle more
than three minutes at the construction site, in accordance with New York City
Administration Code 24-163.
Limit equipment on-site (only necessary equipment on-site).
Contractors and subcontractors would be required to properly maintain their equip-
ment and have quality mufflers installed.

In terms of path controls (e.g., placement of equipment, implementation of barriers

or enclosures between equipment and sensitive receptors), the following measures for
construction, which go beyond typical construction techniques, will be implemented to
the extent feasible:
Noisy equipment (such as cranes, concrete pumps, concrete trucks, and delivery
trucks) would be located away from and shielded from sensitive receptor locations.
For example, during the early construction phases of work, delivery and dump trucks,
as well as many construction equipment operations, would be located and utilized
below grade to take advantage of shielding benefits. Once building foundations are
completed, delivery trucks would operate behind noise barriers, where possible.
Noise barriers would be utilized to provide shielding (e.g., the construction sites
would have a minimum 8-foot barrier, with a 15-foot barrier adjacent to residential
BUILDING ACOUSTICS Volume 17 Number 4 2010 351

and other sensitive locations, and, where possible, truck deliveries would take
place behind these barriers once building foundations are completed).
Path noise control measures (i.e., portable noise barriers, panels, enclosures, and
acoustical tents, where feasible) would be used for certain dominant noise equip-
ment (i.e., asphalt pavers, tower cranes, drill rigs, excavators with ram hoe, hoists,
impact wrenches, jack hammers, power trowels, powder actuated devices, rivet
busters, rock drills, concrete saws, and sledge hammers). The details to construct
portable noise barriers, enclosures, tents, etc. are based upon the instructions of
NYCDEP Citywide Construction Noise Mitigation.
Trucking operations would take place on Columbus Avenue or Amsterdam Avenue
rather than on West 60th Street where the ambient noise levels are related lower.
Acoustical curtains would be assumed for internal construction activities in build-
ings on the project site to break the line-of-sight and provide acoustical shielding
between noise sources and sensitive receptors.

Table 3 shows the noise levels for typical construction equipment and the noise levels
for the equipment that would be used by source controls and path controls for construction
of the proposed project. The second column shows the emission level not to be exceeded for
various pieces of construction equipment used for the proposed project as based on the New

Table 3. Typical construction equipment noise emission levels (dB).

Actual
Project equipment Noise reduction noise
Mandated noise noise levels at with path level at
Equipment list levels at 50 feet1 50 feet2 controls3 50 feet

Asphalt Paver 85 75 75
Asphalt Roller 85 74 74
Backhoe/Loader 80 77 77
Compressors 80 67 67
Concrete Pump 82 79 79
Concrete Trucks 85 79 79
Cranes 85 77 77
Cranes 85 75 75
(Tower Cranes)
Delivery Trucks 84 79 79
Drill Rigs 84 74 74
Dump Trucks 84 79 79
Excavator 85 77 77
Excavator with 90 80 80
Hoe Ram
(Continued)
352 Introduction of Effective Analysis Methods for Construction
Noise Assessment

Table 3. Typical construction equipment noise emission levels (dB). (Continued)

Actual
Project equipment Noise reduction noise
Mandated noise noise levels at with path level at
Equipment list Levels at 50 feet1 50 feet2 controls3 50 feet

Fuel Truck 84 79 79
Generators 82 68 68
Impact Wrenches 85 75 75
Jack Hammer 85 82 72 72
Mortar Mixer 80 63 63
Power Trowel 85 75 75
Powder Actuated 85 75 75
Device
Pump (Spray 82 76 76
On Fire Proof)
Pump (Water) 77 76 76
Rivet Buster 85 75 75
Rock Drill 85 75 75
Saw (Chain Saw) 85 75 75
Saw (Concrete 90 85 75 75
Saw)
Saw (Masonry 85 76 76
Bench)
Sledge Hammers 85 75 75
Tractor Trailer 84 79 79

Notes:
1The mandated levels are based on the New York City Noise Control Code and Federal

Transit Administration (FTA) specifications.

2Noise levels for project construction equipment would be achieved by using quieter

equipment, better engine mufflers, and refinements in fan design and improved
hydraulic systems.
3Path controls include noise barriers, enclosures, acoustical panels, and curtains,

whichever feasible and practical, and 10 dB of reduction was assumed.

York City Noise Control Code and Federal Transit Administration (FTA)8 specifications. The
third column shows the emission level not to be exceeded for various pieces of construction
quieter equipment used for the proposed project as based on available and feasible
manufacturers specifications. The fourth column shows a 10 dB path control reduction in
noise levels for each piece of equipment. A construction equipment library reflecting
emission values in the last column was created in CadnaA. In addition, noise barriers as a
part of the construction managers noise plan were inputted into the CadnaA model.
BUILDING ACOUSTICS Volume 17 Number 4 2010 353

A detailed analysis was performed to determine maximum one-hour equivalent Leq(h)

noise levels that would be expected to occur during each year of construction, including
the consideration of the noise abatement measures for source and path controls
specified above. The noise analysis results indicated that maximum predicted noise
levels would exceed the 35 dB CEQR impact criteria during two or more
consecutive years at Receptor Sites A, E, and R. The exceeding of the 3-5 dB CEQR
impact criteria would be due principally to noise generated by on-site construction
activities. At other receptor sites, while increases exceeding the 3-5 dB CEQR impact
criteria for one year or less may be noisy and intrusive, they are not considered to be
significant adverse noise impacts.
Representative predicted noise levels at the impacted receptor location buildings are
provided in Table 4. It is noted that construction effects have been analyzed for all
receptor locations along with a large number of elevated receptor locations on each
building, and the values shown are only representative values of noise levels at each
impacted building.
During Phase 1, construction activities would be expected to result in significant
noise impacts at the following locations:

Receptor A (The Alfred) at locations that have a direct line-of-sight to construction

sites, from the 10th floor to the top residential floor during the years 2009 through 2010.
The maximum predicted increase in noise levels at Receptor A would be 12.7 dB,
expected to occur at the 5th floor in 2009;

During Phase 2, construction activities would be expected to result in significant

noise impacts at the following locations:

Receptor E (the west faades of 41 Columbus Avenue and 44 West 62nd Street) at
locations that have a direct line-of-sight to construction sites, from the 5th floor to
the 20th residential floor during the years 2020 through 2021. The maximum pre-
dicted increase in noise levels at Receptor E was 5.1 dB, expected to occur at the
5th floor to the 10th floor in 2020; and
Receptor R (the west faade of 21 Columbus Avenue) at locations that have a
direct line-of-sight to construction sites, from almost the 10th floor to the 25th res-
idential floor during the years 2016 through 2018. The maximum predicted
increase in noise levels at Receptor R was 5.1 dB, expected to occur at the fifth
floor in 2016.

In addition to the predicted noise levels at receptor sites, noise contours depicting the
incremental noise due to construction activities (both on-site construction equipment
operation and construction-related traffic) were developed for the area surrounding the
development site. One sample of noise contours is presented in Figure 3.
In general, the elevated noise levels that would exceed CEQR impact criteria are
predicted to occur at the upper floors of these three buildings. Although the proposed
project would incorporate noise reduction measures and would produce about 10 dB
lower compared to the screening analysis results, these increases would occur because
 Table 4. Construction noise analysis noise levels in dB.

Noise Elevation Existing Total Total Total Total Total

Receptor (floor) Leq(h) Leq(h) Change Leq(h) Change Leq(h) Change Leq(h) Change Leq(h) Change
354

Phase 1 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

A 1 66.6 69.8 3.2 68.0 1.4 67.9 1.3 67.6 1.0 67.1 0.5
3 66.1 78.6 12.5 68.5 2.4 68.4 2.3 66.6 0.5 66.6 0.5
5 65.9 78.6 12.7 68.7 2.8 68.5 2.6 66.7 0.8 66.4 0.5
10 65.9 76.7 10.8 69.6 3.7 68.2 2.3 66.7 0.8 66.4 0.5
15 65.8 75.1 9.3 70.0 4.2 67.5 1.7 66.6 0.8 66.4 0.6
20 65.9 73.9 8.0 73.2 7.3 67.3 1.4 66.5 0.6 66.5 0.6
25 65.8 72.7 6.9 72.0 6.2 67.0 1.2 66.3 0.5 66.4 0.6
30 65.9 71.7 5.8 71.0 5.1 67.2 1.3 66.4 0.5 66.4 0.5
Top 66.0 70.9 4.9 70.4 4.4 67.3 1.3 66.5 0.5 66.5 0.5

Phase 2 2016 2017 2018 2020 2021

E 1 72.0 73.0 1.0 72.8 0.8 72.8 0.8 73.0 1.0 73.4 1.4
3 71.5 73.2 1.7 72.5 1.0 72.6 1.1 73.8 2.3 74.0 2.5
5 71.1 73.8 2.7 72.6 1.5 72.7 1.6 76.2 5.1 74.9 3.8
10 71.0 74.0 3.0 72.9 1.9 72.9 1.9 76.1 5.1 75.4 4.4
15 71.0 73.7 2.7 73.0 2.0 73.1 2.1 75.2 4.2 75.6 4.6
20 70.9 73.5 2.6 72.9 2.0 72.9 2.0 74.4 3.5 75.2 4.3
Top 70.6 72.7 2.1 72.7 2.1 72.4 1.8 73.4 2.8 73.8 3.2
R 1 72.4 74.8 2.4 73.4 1.0 73.4 1.0 73.2 0.8 73.2 0.8
3 71.9 75.9 4.0 73.4 1.5 73.7 1.8 73.0 1.1 73.0 1.1
5 71.5 76.6 5.1 73.9 2.4 74.6 3.1 73.3 1.8 72.8 1.3
10 71.2 76.1 4.9 74.3 3.1 75.0 3.8 73.2 2.0 72.8 1.6
15 71.5 75.7 4.2 74.2 2.7 74.7 3.2 73.2 1.7 73.2 1.7
20 71.5 75.0 3.5 74.6 3.1 74.5 3.0 73.1 1.6 73.2 1.7
25 71.3 74.5 3.2 74.7 3.4 73.9 2.6 72.8 1.5 73.1 1.8
Noise Assessment
Introduction of Effective Analysis Methods for Construction

30 71.0 73.9 2.9 75.1 4.1 73.4 2.4 72.5 1.5 72.9 1.9
Top 71.0 73.4 2.4 74.0 3.0 73.2 2.2 72.2 1.2 72.7 1.7
Note: Locations where predicted noise levels exceed the 35 dB CEQR impact criteria are shown in bold. To identify where the
exceeding of the impact criteria would occur, all values with one-decimal were used.
BUILDING ACOUSTICS Volume 17 Number 4 2010 355

Figure 3. Construction noise level contours-2009.

there is a direct line-of-sight between receptors on the upper floors to the construction
sites, and the height equipment locations at which construction activities are taking
place.

Refined Analysis
At locations where significant impacts were predicted to occur in the detailed analysis,
a refined analysis was performed for the months before and after the time when the
significant noise level increases were predicted to occur to determine whether the
impacts identified in the detailed analysis would occur continually for at least two or
more consecutive years. According to the CEQR noise impact definition, if the
additional analysis scenarios identified that construction noise impacts, as disclosed in
the detailed analysis, would not occur continually for at least two or more consecutive
years, then the potential impacts identified in the final analysis would not be considered
a significant noise impact.
The refined analyses showed that the exceeding of the impact criteria for two or
more years would not occur continuously at sites E and R, and that the extent of impacts
at site A (The Alford) would be slightly less than previously disclosed in the detailed
analysis. In addition, the analysis was performed to determine whether it would be
356 Introduction of Effective Analysis Methods for Construction
Noise Assessment

feasible to implement additional mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate the impacts

predicted to occur at site A. The analysis indicated that there were not feasible
mitigation measures that would significantly reduce or eliminate the predicted impacts
at these locations.

3.8 Interior Noise Limits

Based upon the refined analysis results, noise impacts were predicted to occur at site A
(The Alford) only. The last step was to examine if any practical mitigation measures
could be implemented to meet the CEQR interior noise limits at the impacted receptors
themselves. A field survey was performed to determine window/wall attenuation values
on this residential building. As a result, where exceedances of the CEQR impact criteria
were predicted to occur at the residential building cited above, the building already has
double-glazed windows and central air conditioning (i.e., alternative ventilation).
Consequently, even during warm weather conditions, interior noise levels would be
approximately 3035 dB less than exterior noise levels. In general, the double-glazed
windows and alternative ventilation at this residential structure should provide a
significant amount of sound attenuation, and should result in interior noise levels during
much of the time that are below 45 dB L10 (the CEQR acceptable interior noise level
criteria). Even though this residence has double-glazed windows and alternative
ventilation (i.e., central air conditioning), during some limited daytime time periods
construction activities would result in interior noise levels that would be above the
45 dB L10 noise level recommended by CEQR for residences and result in significant
adverse noise impacts.

4. CONCLUSION
The study presented the assessment methods and mitigation measures due to
construction activities, along with a case of noise study for a large-scale construction
project (The Fordham University Lincoln Center) in accordance with the applicable
regulations. The results from this study demonstrated that the assessment methods
(i.e., screening, detailed, and refined analyses) were effective for assessment of noise
impacts for large complicated construction projects, and the mitigation measures (i.e.,
source, path, and receiver measures) were practical and feasible. While few studies
have been addressed on noise assessments for construction activities in high-density
urban environments, it is hope that the present paper will be beneficial for
implementation of effective analysis methods and use of practical mitigation measures
for large-scale construction projects. The findings from this study are summarized as
follows:

The screening analysis results indicated that noise levels generated by construction
activities could be up to low 80s dB at adjacent land uses, and noise impacts were
expected to occur at all the adjacent sensitive receptor locations;
The detailed analysis results (with source and path mitigation measures) indicated
that maximum predicted noise levels would exceed the 3-5 dB CEQR impact cri-
teria during two or more consecutive years at Receptor Sites A, E, and R;
BUILDING ACOUSTICS Volume 17 Number 4 2010 357

The refined analysis results showed that the exceeding of the impact criteria for
two or more years would occur continuously at Site A (The Alford) only;
The study explored a method for prediction of noise levels due at multi-story loca-
tions. The results showed that the elevated noise levels that would exceed CEQR
impact criteria were predicted to occur at the upper floors, because there is a direct
line-of-sight between receptors on the upper floors to the construction sites, and the
height equipment locations at which construction activities are taking place; and
The analysis results showed that the double-glazed windows and alternative venti-
lation at residential structures should provide a significant amount of sound atten-
uation and should result in interior noise levels during much of the time that are
below 45 dB L10 (the CEQR acceptable interior noise level criteria).

REFERENCES
1. New York City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual,
Chapter 3R Noise, New York City Department of Environmental Protection, New
York, 2001.
2. New York City Noise Code, New York City Department of Environmental
Protection, 2005.
3. CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement), A computer program in prediction
of environmental noise, developed by DataKustik.
4. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Model (TNM), U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, 2000.
5. Citywide Construction Noise Mitigation, Chapter 28, 28-109, Department of
Environmental Protection of New York City, 2007.
6. Appendix-Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model
Users Guide, Jan.2006.
7. Measurement of Sound Pressure Levels in Air, ANSI/ASA S1.13-2005 (R2010).
8. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), May 2006.