Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

659

Prediction and mitigation of construction noise in

an urban environment
A. Gilchrist, E.N. Allouche, and D. Cowan

Abstract: A growing number of construction projects are performed in congested urban areas. Often, the surrounding
community finds these projects annoying because of noise, vibration, dust, light, and greenhouse gas emissions. This
paper focuses on one type of irritant, noise. Common noise generators on construction sites are identified, and the ele-
ments of a generic program for mitigating construction-related noise are outlined. Mitigation strategies including source
control, path control, and receiver control are discussed. A deterministic model based on the Monte Carlo simulation
technique is used. It is capable of predicting the magnitude and frequency of noise levels generated by construction
equipment at receptor locations around a construction site during each construction stage. The utilization of the model
as a planning tool for optimizing the composition, geometry, and location of noise barriers around a construction site is
demonstrated via a case history, namely the construction of an eight-storey parking garage in London, Ont. The model
is validated by comparing its predictions to field measurements undertaken during various construction stages. Predic-
tions agree favourably with field measurements.

Key words: construction, noise, mitigation, barriers, modeling, Monte Carlo simulation.
Résumé : Un nombre croissant de projets de construction ont lieu dans les zones urbaines congestionnées. Il arrive sou-
vent que la communauté environnante trouve ces projets contrariants en raison du bruit, des vibrations, de la poussière, de
la lumière et des émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Cet article porte sur un type d’irritant, le bruit. Les générateurs com-
muns de bruit sur les chantiers de constructions sont identifiés et les éléments d’un programme générique d’atténuation
des bruits connexes à la construction sont soulignés. Les stratégies d’atténuation, incluant le contrôle à la source, le con-
trôle d’acheminement et le contrôle du récepteur, sont abordées. Un modèle déterministe basé sur la méthode de Monte
Carlo est utilisé. Il peut prédire l’amplitude et la fréquence des niveaux sonores générés par l’équipement de construction
aux emplacements des récepteurs autour d’un chantier de construction durant chaque étape de construction. L’utilisation
du modèle comme outil de planification pour l’optimisation de la composition, de la géométrie et de l’emplacement des
ouvrages antibruit autour du chantier de construction est démontrée en utilisant une étude de cas : la construction d’un
garage de stationnement de huit étages à London, en Ontario. Le modèle est validé en comparant ses prédictions aux me-
sures sur le terrain prises durant les diverses étapes de construction. Les prédictions semblent être bien coordonnées aux
mesures prises sur le terrain.
Mots clés : construction, bruit, atténuation, barrières, modélisation, méthode de Monte Carlo.

[Traduit par la Rédaction] Gilchrist et al. 672

Background construction of these projects often generates multiple

A growing number of construction projects such as the
widening and rehabilitation of highways, urban renewal pro-
jects, renovation of office and residential buildings, and util-
ity construction take place in congested urban areas. The
Received 21 October 2002. Revision accepted 27 February
2003. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at
http://cjce.nrc.ca on 1 August 2003.
A. Gilchrist and E.N. Allouche.1 Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, The University of Western
Ontario, London, ON N6A 5B9, Canada.
D. Cowan. R.J. Burnside and Associates Limited,
Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J6, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until 31 December 2003.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: eallouche@eng.uwo.ca).
sources of nuisance for the surrounding community.
Major nuisances associated with construction activities are
noise, vibration, illumination (at night), dust, and the emis-
sion of greenhouse gases. Noise is normally caused by the
operation of heavy equipment and backup alarms. Pile driv-
ing, blasting operations, and the use of vibratory rollers are
common causes of noise and vibration complaints. Illumina-
tion is necessary for work that takes place at night and for
the safety of the traveling public, but it can be very disturb-
ing to the surrounding community. Gas emissions and dust
can impair air quality, cause breathing difficulties, produce
unpleasant odours, and contribute to the smog phenomenon
present around many large North American cities (e.g., To-
ronto).
The nuisances generated during the construction process
and their impact vary depending on the nature of the activi-
ties being performed, the equipment being used, and the
physical nature of the surrounding environment (i.e., urban
area versus greenfield conditions).

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 30: 659–672 (2003) doi: 10.1139/L03-019 © 2003 NRC Canada

I:\cjce\cjce3004\L03-019.vp
July 29, 2003 3:35:16 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
660
Sound can be defined as a physical disturbance in a me-
dium that is capable of being detected by the human ear
(C. Harris 1991). Not every sound can be considered noise,
however. Schexnayder and Ernzen (1999) defined noise as
any sound that has the potential to annoy or disturb humans
or cause adverse psychological or physiological effects to
humans. Noise levels that can be heard by humans are com-
monly measured using a logarithmic scale named the decibel
A scale (dBA). Most sounds that humans are capable of
hearing have a range of 10–140 dBA. A whisper is about
30 dBA, conversational speech is about 60 dBA, and
130 dBA is the threshold of physical pain. Environmental
noise fluctuates at high frequencies with time. Thus, for
analysis purposes the environmental noise level is often con-
verted into a single number called the “equivalent” sound
level (Leq). The Leq indicator is defined as the average acous-
tic intensity over time, or the equivalent noise energy level
of a steady, unvarying tone (Burge 2000).
Noise and its mitigation have been studied in detail in
areas such as manufacturing, industrial engineering, and
transportation. In contrast, research on the mitigation of con-
struction-related noise is limited, partially because of the
temporary nature of construction projects and the limited at-
tention given to the adverse impact of the construction pro-
cess on its surroundings. The importance of noise control for
construction projects becomes more evident as reconstruc-
tion is carried out in downtown areas. Current examples
include the Boston Central Artery/Tunnel Project (CA/T)
and the Toronto Waterfront Rehabilitation Project (Brenner
et al. 2002; Thalheimer 2000a). A predictive analysis of
construction noise based on the types of equipment likely to
be used, distances from various work zones to noise recep-
tors, construction schedules, and other factors should be
completed during the design stage of a project. Modeling
and mitigation of noise associated with construction projects
is more complicated, however, than for cases of industrial
and transportation applications because the type, number, lo-
cation, and nature of noise generators constantly change de-
pending on the type and stage of construction. This paper
presents a new approach for the predictive analysis of con-
struction noise using a simulation-based algorithm to predict
the noise level at predetermined locations (“receiving
nodes”) around the perimeter of a construction site during
each stage of construction. Based on the results of the analy-
sis, the need for and potential effectiveness of noise mitiga-
tion measures can be evaluated. Portable noise barrier
systems can be designed based on the data provided by the
model and can be relocated to various locations around the
construction site when noise levels are expected to reach
critical levels. Potential savings are particularly significant
for large linear construction projects such as highway reha-
bilitation or the construction of a light rail transit (LRT) sys-
tem or subway line.
The first part of this paper provides an overview of noise
management for construction projects and includes a discus-
sion of the need for a noise-mitigation plan at construction
sites and an outline of the generic components of such a
plan: a description of machines and activities considered to
be major noise generators, noise regulations in Canadian and
USA municipalities, and mitigation techniques that can be
employed to minimize the negative impact of noise associ-
I:\cjce\cjce3004\L03-019.vp
July 29, 2003 3:35:16 PM
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003
ated with construction activities. A deterministic model ca-
pable of predicting the noise levels generated due to a given
construction project in a particular urban setting is then pre-
sented. The model is demonstrated using the case history of
a newly built eight-storey parking garage structure at Uni-
versity Hospital in London, Ontario. The case history dem-
onstrates that the ability to predict noise levels with
reasonable accuracy at each stage of the construction project
could greatly assist contractors and owners in determining
the need for sound barriers and the optimal geometry and lo-
cation of such structures. The model was validated by com-
paring its predictions with measurements taken during three
stages of the construction process (excavations, foundations,
and slabs) using a Q-100™ noise dosimeter manufactured
by Quest Technologies.
Noise-control program for construction
projects
This section outlines the elements of a noise-management
program used for mitigating noise annoyance caused by
construction activities. A comprehensive noise-mitigation
program should be proactive in nature while allowing en-
forcement of noise criteria limits without incurring costly
claims from contractors. Noise-mitigation considerations
must be assessed during the design phase of the project and
clear performance requirements should be included in the
bid packages. The following paragraphs outline the generic
steps in the development of a comprehensive construction
noise control program.
• During the project design phase, sensitive noise receptors
around the construction site(s) need to be identified. A
sensitive receptor can be defined as “a facility where ex-
cessive construction noise might interfere with people’s
activities” (Brenner et al. 2002) and may include resi-
dences, office buildings, hospitals, and educational institu-
tions. Additional information regarding identification of
sensitive noise receptors can be found in Schexnayder and
Ernzen (1999).
• Background noise levels should be determined for each
sensitive receptor. These noise levels can provide the
baseline for establishing daytime and nighttime allowable
noise criteria limits.
• Predictive analysis of the expected construction noise
should take into account the type and number of equip-
ment units that will be used during each activity, distances
from the construction site to the receptors, and day–night
construction schedules. This aspect is dealt with in greater
detail later in the paper.
• A gap analysis should be performed where anticipated
noise levels are compared with allowable noise criteria
limits, and potential violations are identified and recorded.
• Mitigation measures aimed at reducing the duration and
(or) impact of construction noise need to be identified and
assigned. These include best practices (e.g., perform noisy
operations simultaneously), operational constraints (e.g.,
restricting the use of noisy equipment to daytime hours),
the use of noise barriers and curtain systems, and acousti-
cal treatment of windows in receptors’ buildings. The
mitigation measures deemed most suitable should be in-
corporated into the contract documents. Alternatively, the
© 2003 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Gilchrist et al.
contractor can be asked to provide a noise-control plan us-
ing mitigation measures acceptable to the owner. It is im-
portant to note that a balance should be sought between
noise control and controlling other potentially adverse im-
pacts of construction projects. For example, performing
all construction activities during the daytime can greatly
assist in reducing the noise disturbance to nearby resi-
dences but will contribute to traffic congestion problems.
• Communication, monitoring, and enforcement strategies
should be developed and implemented. Early communica-
tion with the general public is vital in minimizing com-
plaints. The public should be informed of any potential
noise impacts and the measures that will be employed to
reduce those impacts. Noise levels around the construction
site should be monitored on a regular basis. The establish-
ment of a responsive complaint mechanism (e.g., a hot-
line) is a cost-effective method to monitor construction
noise and identify potential problems (Thalheimer 2000b).
Lastly, procedures for handling unacceptable noise levels
should be detailed in the contract documents.
This paper focuses on the predictive analysis of expected
construction noise and the characteristics and anticipated
performance of noise barrier systems.
Noise generators
Activities
Urban construction projects commonly associated with ex-
cessive noise problems include highway rehabilitation pro-
jects, replacement or new construction of large-diameter
buried pipes using the cut-and-cover method, structural mod-
ification of existing buildings, and the construction of rapid-
transit corridors (i.e., light rail trains, subways). Pavement
breaking, bridge deck removal, and pile-driving operations
are leading generators of noise. Earthmoving is also consid-
ered a potential irritant owing to the noise and dust created
by the excavation and dumping operations.
Equipment
Pneumatic equipment such as jackhammers and backup
alarms placed on equipment are among the most prevalent
nuisance generators. Milling and grinding equipment, hoe
rams, earthmoving equipment, crushers, hydro-demolition
equipment, and pavers also create excessive noise levels. A
list of more than 60 different types of construction equip-
ment and their associated noise levels for new (≤5 years) and
used (>5 years) conditions was compiled by the authors
from manufacturers’ testing data and other literature re-
sources (Gilchrist 2002). Data for selected types of equip-
ment are given in Table 1.
Noise regulations
Urban construction can be a major nuisance to the sur-
rounding community, as it affects the residents’ quality of
life (e.g., annoying noise levels) and potentially could dis-
rupt commercial activities (e.g., precise manufacturing
equipment) and health services (operating rooms, sensitive
medical equipment). It could also reduce overall productivity
(the ability of people to perform at their workplace) and may
restrict access to nearby commercial establishments. One op-
I:\cjce\cjce3004\L03-019.vp
July 29, 2003 3:35:16 PM
661
tion available to a municipality to mitigate the impact of ur-
ban construction is the establishment of noise bylaws or or-
dinances that limit the maximum level of noise permitted
within the residential, commercial, and industrial areas of a
city. Maximum noise levels permitted in 40 municipalities
across Canada and the USA have been compiled by Gilchrist
(2002). Data for some medium- and large-sized municipali-
ties are shown in Table 2. The data indicate that small mu-
nicipalities (population < 100 000) commonly restrict the
time when construction activities can occur, not noise levels.
Larger cities tend to specify maximum allowable noise lev-
els. Canadian municipalities commonly specify a single
value for all zones and times, whereas many USA munici-
palities tend to differentiate among residential, industrial,
and commercial zones and specify different daytime and
nighttime maximum levels.
Mitigation techniques
Several strategies can be adopted to minimize the impact
of noise generated by construction equipment and activities
on the surrounding urban environment. These include con-
trolling the noise level at the source, along the transmission
path, and at the receptor (Schexnayder and Ernzen 1999).
Source control
Controlling a noise at the source is the most effective
method of eliminating construction noise nuisances and is
the easiest to oversee at a construction site (Webb 1976).
The advantage of source control is that it reduces noise
emissions in all directions and not just along a single path or
for a particular receptor. Source-control strategies are imple-
mented primarily through contractual means such as techni-
cal specifications and contract clauses. Some strategies that
can be adopted by the contractor include the following:
• Synchronize the timing of noisy operations. The total
noise level produced when several noisy operations occur
simultaneously will not be significantly higher than if
these noisy operations are performed separately. Thus, a
reduction in the duration of disturbance is achieved with
little or no increase in its magnitude.
• Use modern equipment with better engine insulation and
mufflers. Whenever possible, use equipment powered by
electrical motors rather than diesel engines.
• Carefully select the construction methods and materials in
sensitive areas (e.g., concrete bored piles should be used
in place of steel piles; use slurry-wall construction in
place of impact pile driving; use a trenchless construction
method instead of open cut).
• Within logistical constraints, place material storage areas
away from residential areas and sensitive facilities (i.e.,
hospitals, schools).
• Develop alternative practices. For example, backup alarms
can be disconnected during nighttime activities with all
rearward motion of vehicles guided by a dedicated ob-
server.
• Restrict the utilization of a particularly noisy piece of
equipment and (or) operation to daytime hours.
© 2003 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

662 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Table 1. Noise levels generated by selected construction equipment (noise level mea-
sured at 15 m; used equipment >5 years old).
Noise level (dBA)
Equipment New equipment Used equipment Sourcea
Compressor 73 76–80 3, 4
Backhoe 75–80 83–88 1, 3, 5, 6
Concrete mixer 75 85–87 3, 4–6
Concrete pump 75 82–85 1, 3, 4–6
Concrete saw 90 na 1
Concrete vibrator 75 76–80 1, 3
Crane 75 85–90 3, 5
Bulldozer 75 83–88 1–6
Dump truck 84 85–88 1, 3
Excavator 83 85–87 1–4
Grader 72–75 85–90 1, 3–6
Jackhammer 75–80 85–90 1, 3, 5, 6
Loader 80–85 92–95 2, 3
Paver 80–85 95–101 1, 3–5
Rock drill 80–85 95–98 1, 3, 5, 6
Roller 80 88–90 3, 4
Scrapers 78–83 96–98 4–6
Tractor 75 85–90 1, 5, 6
Trencher 83–88 na 4
Vibratory pile driver 95 na 1
Note: na, noise range not available.
a
1, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Section 721-560; 2, City of Hamilton, Ont., Canada, By-
law 79-292; 3, Schexnayder and Ernzen (1999); 4, Eaton (2000); 5, Thumann and Miller (1976);
6, Wilson (1989).

Path control construction site to consider it a feasible control method

Although source-control strategies are effective, they are
insufficient in many cases in reducing the noise to accept-
able levels. Thus, a second mitigation strategy would be to
control the noise along its transmission path. Noise barriers
can provide a substantial reduction in noise levels, but from
a practical point of view barriers must be cost effective and
cannot limit accessibility to the site.
A physical barrier can destroy some of the sound energy
by absorbing the sound and (or) redirecting the sound away
from the receptor. The three strategies for path mitigation
are distance, absorption, and reflection. Practical implemen-
tation of path-control strategy may include one or more of
the following.
• Enclose noisy activities or stationary equipment. Enclo-
sures can provide a 10–20 dBA sound reduction, mainly
via absorption.
• Erect noise barriers or curtains. Barriers can provide a 10–
20 dBA sound reduction through absorption and (or) re-
flection.
• Move the source equipment farther away from the recep-
tor. A 3–6 dBA reduction can be achieved by doubling the
distance between the source and the receptor owing to dis-
sipation and absorption by the ground.
• Active noise control involves artificially creating an equal
but opposite noise wave that is mixed 180° out-of-phase
with the subject noise, thus cancelling the sound wave.
Although this technique offers much promise and is cur-
rently being used experimentally within the aviation in-
dustry, there are too many reflective paths on an open
given today’s technology.
Acoustical barriers
Barriers can be temporary systems that are easy to relo-
cate or semipermanent walls designed to last several years
for projects of long duration. The effectiveness of a barrier
to resist the flow of sound energy is largely determined by
two properties, namely mass and stiffness. The denser the
barrier material, the better it performs.
When a sound wave encounters a barrier, three interac-
tions take place: (i) some of the sound energy is transmitted
through the barrier, (ii) some of the sound energy is ab-
sorbed within the material of the barrier, and (iii) the re-
maining sound energy is reflected back towards the source.
A barrier could be designed to provide up to 15–20 dBA of
noise reduction. The effectiveness of a barrier is limited by
the amount of sound energy that travels over and around it.
Outdoor barriers are effective only within distances of
roughly 60–100 m from the source. As a rule of thumb, the
construction of a barrier should be considered if a noise re-
duction of at least 10 dBA is required. Conversely, if a bar-
rier cannot be designed to achieve a 10 dBA sound
reduction, it is usually not justified.
Barrier effectiveness
To maximize the effectiveness of a barrier it is important
to ensure the following.
• Barrier units should be joined together flush with one an-
other, and any gaps should be sealed. The barrier units

© 2003 NRC Canada

I:\cjce\cjce3004\L03-019.vp
July 29, 2003 3:35:17 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Gilchrist et al. 663

Table 2. Maximum allowable noise levels in selected Canadian and USA municipalities.
Max. noise level (dBA)
a
City Zone Daytime Nighttimeb Restriction timec
Large cities (population > 500 000)
Seattle, Wash. Res. 55 45 2200–0700
Com. 60 60
Ind. 70 70
Baltimore, Md. Res. 90 55
Com. 90 62
Ind. 90 75
Houston, Tex. Res.–Com.–Ind. 65 58 2200–0700
New York, N.Y. Res.–Com.–Ind. 64–74 1800–0700
Los Angeles, Calif. Res.–Com.–Ind. 75 2100–0700
Calgary, Alta. Res.–Com.–Ind. 85 85 2200–0700
Toronto, Ont. Res.–Com.–Ind. 85 1800–0700
Vancouver, B.C. Res.–Com.–Ind. 85 2000–0700
Edmonton, Alta. Res.–Com.–Ind. 85 60
Québec City, Que. Res.–Com.–Ind. 55 50 2300–0700
Medium cities (population 100 000 – 500 000)
New Orleans, La. Res. 70 60 2200–0700
Com. 75 65
Ind. 85 85
Salt Lake City, Utah Res. 55 50 2100–0700
Com. 60 55
Ind. 80 75
Miami City, Fla. Res. 65 1800–0800
Com. 66
Ind. 75
Hamilton, Ont. Res.–Com.–Ind. 85 2300–0700
Winnipeg, Man. Res.–Com.–Ind. na 2200–0700
Halifax, N.S. Res.–Com.–Ind. na 2130–0700
Note: na, no noise limit is specified.
a
Com., commercial; Ind., industrial; Res., residential.
b
If values are listed for nighttime construction, the nighttime is defined by the restricted time.
c
Time restrictions listed are for weekdays and nonstatutory holidays.

should overlap each other at the access points to prevent a
direct line of sight between the noise generator and poten-
tial receptors.
• The length of the barrier should be approximately twice
the distance from the source to the barrier (Thumann and
Miller 1976).
• The barrier should be placed as close to the source of
noise as possible.
A description of several noise barrier types is given in Ta-
ble 3.
Receptor control
The third strategy is to control the noise at the receptor.
This tends to be the most difficult and costly mitigation
technique, as the critical receptor may be humans or preci-
sion equipment that is sensitive to low levels of ambient
noise and vibration. In general, window openings allow most
noise penetration into buildings. A window treatment can
provide an extra 10 dBA of sound reduction inside a build-
ing and is cost effective when only a few receptors require
noise mitigation. In rare cases temporary relocation may be
necessary because of an individual’s medical problems or
when a short-term project is conducted very close to a resi-
dence (Schexnayder and Ernzen 1999).
Quantifying the benefits of noise-reduction
efforts
Man-made barriers are engineered structures. They can be
optimized by deriving a relationship between the cost of the
barrier and its associated benefits, namely a given reduction
in noise level and the associated reduction in annoyance to
receptors. A method that can be used to quantify the rela-
tionship between noise reduction and its associated reduc-
tion in annoyance is the Schultz curve, shown in Fig. 1. For
example, the Schultz curve indicates that a day–night noise
exposure of 65 dBA would prompt 15% of the people sub-
jected to such noise levels to rate their response to the noise
as “annoying”. Thus, the benefit of the barrier benefit (noise
reduction, dBA) can be defined in terms of reduction in the
percentage of people annoyed. When using the Schultz
curve, it is necessary to convert noise levels from Leq to a
measure called the day–night sound level (Ldn). The Ldn is a
representation of the energy sound level for a 24 h period
where 10 dBA is added to nighttime noise events (between

© 2003 NRC Canada

I:\cjce\cjce3004\L03-019.vp
July 29, 2003 3:35:17 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

664 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Table 3. Description of various types of noise barriers.

Type of barrier Description
Natural
Berm Natural appearance and long lifespan; cost-effective when material is available from construc-
tion activities; limited use because of space constraints; needs to be higher to achieve the
same acoustical performance as a vertical wall; typical height 2.4–3.0 m
Post and panel
Wood panel Low initial cost and ease of construction; supported by steel, concrete, or wood columns 2.4–
3.0 m apart; high sound transmission blocking characteristics; made principally from treated
fir plywood panels; thickness varies from 10 to 25 mm and height from 2.4 to 5.0 m
Sheet metal Perforated metal front panel with a solid steel or aluminum back panel; internal space contains
mineral wool or another noise-absorbing material; typical thickness of the panel is 3 mm;
supported by steel or aluminum columns 4–6 m apart
Concrete Low- or high-density reinforced concrete panels with absorptive profiled material on one side;
supported by steel H-columns, concrete columns, or self-supported panels bolted together;
sections 4–6 m long and 140–190 mm thick are available; typical heights from 2.4 to 3.6 m
Glass, acrylic, and polycarbonate Transparent noise barriers; laminated, toughened or reinforced sheets; supported by steel or
aluminum columns; thickness is between 8 and 20 mm; height up to 9 m; characterized by
large spacing between supporting columns; can be curved to add stiffness to the panel; low
visual impact
Curtain
Curtains Reduce noise by up to 10 dBA; three-sided tents are used to enclose specific work operations
such as breaking pavement or stationary equipment such as a generator; can be hung from
existing permanent or temporary structures, thus reducing erection costs

Fig. 1. Shultz curve (after Burge 2000).
2200 and 0700). Ldn is generally 2–6 dBA lower than the
loudest hour Leq in a 24 h cycle (Burge 2000).
Model development: theoretical background
A deterministic model for predicting the noise-emission
levels from construction sites has been developed and codi-
fied by the authors. The model is capable of predicting noise
levels at a large number of predetermined locations (receiv-
ing nodes) surrounding the perimeter of a construction site
during the lifespan of the project. The model accounts for
the following parameters: (i) number, type, and location of
noise sources; (ii) dimensions and layout of the construction
site; (iii) hardness of the ground surface; and (iv) type and
geometry of the noise barriers considered.
The proposed model uses statistical tools to generate the
probability density function (PDF) and the cumulative den-
sity function (CDF) for the anticipated noise level at each re-
ceiving node during each stage of construction. This is in
contrast with the approach used in the Central Artery/Tunnel
(CA/T) Project in Boston, where it was assumed that all
construction equipment operated simultaneously, an assump-
tion that can be considered conservative (Brenner et al.
2002). Knowing the probability of exceeding a given noise
level, the design professional is able to select a more realis-
tic design value rather than the worst-case scenario, resulting
in potentially more economically feasible solutions that pro-
vide satisfactory levels of performance. This section outlines
the mathematical relationships on which the model is based,
and the model algorithm is described in detail in the next
section. The application of the model is demonstrated via a
case history, namely the construction of an eight-storey
parking garage in London, Ont.
The proposed approach computes the instantaneous noise
levels. Equivalent noise levels (i.e., L10), however, can be
easily obtained by implementing the proposed model within
a continuous simulation software package such as the
STELLA model building and simulation tool (Richmond
2001). Also, for simplicity, background noise is not dealt
with explicitly in the discussion; however, for practical pur-
poses it can be accounted for by adding noise sources that
duplicate the resulting background noise level(s) at the re-
ceiver(s).
The following general mathematical relationship for pre-
dicting the resultant noise level from multiple sources in an
open construction site environment was developed by the au-
thors:
L = f s ∑ l ( So − A − B)
i
[1]
where fs is the synchronization function of construction
equipment noise levels; i is the number of pieces of con-
struction equipment operating simultaneously; So is the noise
emission from a given piece of equipment (dBA); A is the
attenuation of noise due to the distance traveled by the
© 2003 NRC Canada

I:\cjce\cjce3004\L03-019.vp
July 29, 2003 3:35:17 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Gilchrist et al. 665

sound energy in open air (dBA); B is the anticipated reduc-
tion of noise due to the proposed sound barrier, if any
(dBA); and L is the anticipated resultant noise level (dBA).
The objective of the designer–planner is to modify the pa-
rameters on the right-hand side of eq. [1] (So, A, B, and i)
such that L ≤ Lmax, the maximum allowable noise limit as
defined by the local noise ordinances or the construction
documents. The value used for the equipment noise emission
level (So) is selected from a database partially given in Ta-
ble 1. The other parameters in eq. [1] are evaluated using
mathematical relationships adapted and (or) modified from
literature sources in the areas of transportation and industrial
engineering.
The air attenuation value (A) is obtained using the follow-
ing dissipation equation (C. Harris 1991):
[2] A = Adiv + Aair + Aground + Arefln
where Adiv is the attenuation due to geometrical divergence,
Aair is the attenuation due to air absorption, Aground is the at-
tenuation due to ground absorption, and Arefln is the reflec-
tion due to differential heights.
Geometrical divergence (Adiv) is the spherical dispersion
of acoustic energy in an unobstructed space from a point
source. The attenuation of an ideal point source due to diver-
gence is given by Wilson (1989):
[3] L2 = L1 + 20 log(r1/r2)
where L2 is the noise level (dBA) at the receptor, L1 is the
noise level (dBA) at the source, r2 is the distance between
the source and the receptor, and r1 is the calibration distance
for L1 (typically 15.2 m). Equation [3] assumes that r2 ≥ r1.
Air absorption (Aair) tends to be quite small except for
very high frequencies and can be neglected at short distances
(e.g., distances less than several hundred metres). Thus, for
the case of construction projects in urban environments Aair
can be considered negligible.
Ground absorption (Aground) largely depends on the type of
ground surface the noise is traveling over. When calculating
the attenuation due to the ground surface, it is important to
consider the hardness of the ground surface and the distance
traveled by the noise. Ground attenuation is rather compli-
cated to calculate; however, a simplified equation can be
derived if the following assumptions are made: (i) the propa-
gation occurs over ground that is nearly all acoustically soft;
(ii) the noise spectrum is particularly broad and smooth, as
frequently is the case for a major noise source that consists
of many different contributing sources (e.g., construction
project); and (iii) only the A-weighted sound level at the re-
ceptor is of interest. The associated simplified general equa-
tion given by C. Harris (1991) is as follows:
[4] Aground = 4.8 – (2hm/r2)(17 + 300/r2)
where hm is the mean height of the propagation path
(metres), and r2 is the distance between the source and the
receiving node (metres).
The term Arefln is the noise increment or reduction due to
the relationship between the source height (hs) and receiving
node height (hr) and can be calculated using the values given
in Fig. 2, where rd is the direct distance from the source to
the receiving node (metres), and rr is the length of the re-
flected sound path (i.e., in case a noise barrier exists).
Fig. 2. The terms hr and hs for determining Arefln (after D. Harris
1991).
A noise barrier at a construction site has a finite length
and height. A barrier can only stop that portion of the noise
energy that contacts it, and other portions of the noise en-
ergy travel over and around the barrier. Noise reduction by
paths passing through the barrier is known as transmission
loss (TL), and noise reduction by the paths over and around
the barrier is known as insertion loss (IL). Noise reduction
by TL is nearly an order of magnitude greater than reduction
by IL. Thus, the contribution of the sound traveling through
the barrier to the total level of noise reaching the receptor
can be considered negligible for engineered noise barriers.
Therefore, the noise reduction due to the presence of a
sound barrier (the term B in eq. [1]) can be approximated us-
ing the following expression (Thumann and Miller 1976):
j
   
B ≅ IL = fs ∑ 10 log3 +
20 f
[5] ( j − d) − Aground 
l   343  
where f is the equipment noise frequency (Hz), j represents
the length of the transmission path over or around the barrier
(paths a, b, or c in Fig. 3), and d is the distance between the
receiving node and the source. Equation [5] is applied to
each of the transmission paths a, b, and c to obtain the noise
level reaching the receptor, with the value of Aground calcu-
lated using eq. [4]. The three transmission paths are then
synchronized at the receptor using the branch method de-
scribed in the following paragraph.
The synchronization function (fs) consists of a sequential
pairwise comparison of two noise source levels at a time,
with a predetermined value added to the highest noise source
based on the absolute noise level difference (dBA) between
the two sources (Thumann and Miller 1976). This process is
known as the branch method. Predetermined values to be
added to the highest noise source for a given difference
range are given in Table 4. An example of the synchroniza-
tion process using the branch method is shown in Fig. 4. The
branch method is used for computing the noise level reach-
© 2003 NRC Canada

I:\cjce\cjce3004\L03-019.vp
July 29, 2003 3:35:17 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
666
Fig. 3. Sound paths used for insertion loss calculations: a (length
of transmission path above the barrier) = a1 + a2, b (length of
transmission path around barrier’s left side) = b1 + b2, c (length
of transmission path around barrier’s right side) = c1 + c2, and
d = direct distance between source and receiver.
Table 4. Values to be added to the highest noise level (after Pel-
ton 1993).
Difference between sound Correction factor to be added to
sources (dBA) higher decibel sound source (dBA)
0 or 1 3 level of noise reduction due to insertion losses. The noise
2 or 3 2 from all sources is then synchronized using the branch
4 to 7 1 method to yield the resultant noise level at the receiving
8 or 9 0.5
10 and up 0 the construction site for 500 simulation cycles using the
Fig. 4. An example of the branch method.
ing a given receptor in the case of multiple transmission
paths due to either a single noise source and a sound barrier
or multiple noise sources. In the case of multiple sources
and a sound barrier, the method is applied twice, once for
computing the noise level at the receiving node due to each
source and once when these values are combined to obtain
the total noise value at the receiver location.
The propagation of sound close to the ground for horizon-
tal distances less than about 100 m is essentially independ-
ent of atmospheric conditions. Noise levels of concern are
usually at relatively short distances in urban construction.
Thus, in this case present atmospheric conditions and wind
effects were ignored.
The sum of the factors listed by eq. [1] should be less
than or equal to the maximum permitted noise level outlined
in the bylaw of the municipality in which the construction is
taking place or in the contract documents.
I:\cjce\cjce3004\L03-019.vp
July 29, 2003 3:35:17 PM
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003
Model layout
A deterministic model to predict noise levels generated by
urban construction projects was formulated and codified us-
ing Microsoft® Excel and C++ programming software. A
flowchart of the model is shown in Fig. 5. The program uses
the mathematical relationships described earlier and infor-
mation from a construction equipment noise emission data-
base to predict noise values around a given construction site
for each phase in the construction process. A second data-
base containing the required user input includes the site lay-
out, type and sequence of construction activities, type of
equipment used during each activity, and approximate posi-
tion at the construction site of each piece of equipment dur-
ing each activity. The program starts with the first
construction activity in the project schedule and randomly
determines the operating status of each machine (operating,
idle, or inactive) depending on predetermined probabilities.
The noise level for each piece of equipment is obtained from
the database and is a function of its operating status. Noise
levels from all sources are then adjusted for attenuation due
to the distance traveled. If a noise barrier is located in the
line of sight between the source and the receiving node, the
noise level is adjusted again to account for the anticipated
node. This algorithm is repeated for each receiving node at
Monte Carlo simulation technique. The resultant noise level
at each receiving node from each cycle is stored and sorted
in ascending order to create the noise level histogram for
each receiving node. The program carries out the previously
described calculations for each stage of the construction pro-
cess, and the results of the analysis are displayed graphically
in Microsoft® Excel.
Case study: eight-storey parking garage
The parking garage structure is located on the campus of
The University of Western Ontario, just north of University
Hospital, on the southeast corner of Windermere Road and
Western Road in London, Ont. It was important to the hospi-
tal administration that the construction of the parking garage
not interfere with normal operations. The administration was
very concerned that operating rooms located closest to the
construction site on the bottom floor of the hospital (south-
east corner, see Fig. 6) would experience vibrations during
compaction processes. Also, concern was expressed regard-
ing the general level of noise in the hospital created as a
result of the construction. The objective of modeling this
project was to ensure the maximum noise level at the hospi-
tal main door would not exceed 70 dBA, a value considered
acceptable by the hospital administration.
The construction of the parking garage was divided into
six stages: excavation, foundations, concrete curtains, col-
umns, slabs, and roof. Schedule information was derived
from the Gantt chart for the project. Ellis-Don Construction
acted as the construction manager for the project and pro-
vided the required information, which included the type and
number of pieces of equipment expected to be used during
© 2003 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Gilchrist et al.
Fig. 5. Flow chart of the construction noise prediction model.
each stage of construction. This information is summarized
in Table 5. Modeling of the excavation stage is described in
detail in the following sections. The results of the analysis
for the maximum noise level values predicted at each of the
48 receiving nodes for each of the six stages of construction
can be found in Gilchrist (2002).
Based on the blueprints of the site layout, a plan view of
the construction site was recreated to scale using AutoCAD®
2000. The equipment used in the excavation stage was
placed on the construction site in the approximate locations
where it would be operating during the actual excavation.
The equipment was assumed to be stationary, since the de-
terministic model is currently unable to account for the
movement of the machines throughout the site during con-
struction.
I:\cjce\cjce3004\L03-019.vp
July 29, 2003 3:35:18 PM
667
The total noise created from the construction site was
computed at four perimeters located 60, 80, 100, and 120 m
from its centre. Each perimeter consisted of 12 equally
spaced nodes for a total of 48 receiving nodes. A Monte
Carlo simulation was implemented in Microsoft® Excel us-
ing the aforementioned procedure to determine the maxi-
mum noise level at the 48 receiving nodes during the
excavation stage. Each construction machine could be in one
of the three states: “operating”, “idle”, or “inactive”. The
probability of a given machine being in a particular state
was determined based on a comprehensive literature review
and consultation with industry experts. The state of a given
machine during each cycle was determined based on a ran-
dom number between 0 and 1 generated by the model. Sta-
tus probabilities for each piece of equipment used in the
© 2003 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
668
Fig. 6. Noise levels (in dBA) for critical receiving nodes for three scenarios: no barrier, barrier layout 1, and barrier layout 2.
excavation phase are given in Table 6. The noise level of an
operating machine was obtained from the equipment noise
emissions database. If the machine was in an idle state, the
noise level used was the operating level less 10 dBA. If the
machine was inactive, the noise level assigned was zero.
Equations [1]–[5] were applied to each machine source
using the estimated distance between the construction ma-
chine and the location of interest following the procedure
described in the previous section and Fig. 5. Five hundred
simulation cycles were performed and yielded a statistically
significant data set that enabled the determination of the un-
derlying distribution for the noise level at each receiving
node.
Analysis results
The results of the analysis revealed that if no barrier was
used, noise levels would exceed the maximum allowable
value of 70 dBA at the hospital main entrance and in the vi-
cinity of the operating rooms (nodes 33, 44, and 45) during
all stages of construction by as much as 14 dBA (see Fig. 6,
“no barrier” scenario). The predicted maximum construction
noise level for the 48 nodes in and around the construction
site was found to be in the range of 73–97 dBA. As for the
nine nodes shown in Fig. 6, the maximum noise level ranged
between 76 (node 46) and 84 dBA (node 33). The following
sections demonstrate the utilization of the model as a design
tool for the optimal placement of acoustical barriers.
Two barrier configurations were considered in the analysis
(see Fig. 6). Barrier layout 1, a 90 m long and 5.0 m tall
wood panel barrier, was inserted on the far side of the inter-
nal road, across from the hospital main building. The second
barrier configuration was of the same dimensions and mate-
rial as barrier 1 except that it had a total length of 130 m and
extended northward along the adjoining internal road. Fig-
ure 6 summarizes the noise level values for selected receiv-
ing nodes for the three scenarios (no barrier, barrier layout 1,
and barrier layout 2). Linear interpolation could be used to
approximate the maximum noise levels at intermediate loca-
tions between pairs of adjacent receiving nodes.
I:\cjce\cjce3004\L03-019.vp
July 29, 2003 3:35:18 PM
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003
The benefits derived in terms of noise reduction for each
barrier alternative for the three critical receiving nodes (33,
44, and 45) selected can be evaluated from Fig. 7. Noise lev-
els at critical nodes 33, 44, and 45 exceeded the 70 dBA
limit when no barrier system was used. When the effect of a
noise barrier was considered, the maximum noise level was
reduced below the allowable limit for the entire duration of
the project for the case of barrier layout 2 for nodes 33 and
45. Barrier layout 1 could be considered to be in compliance
for nodes 33 and 45 if the 90th percentile noise level was
used as the design value (i.e., infrequent exceedance of the
threshold is permitted). The allowable noise level at node 44
is likely to be violated by as much as 7 dBA for both pro-
posed layouts, however. The severity of such a breach can be
evaluated from Fig. 8, which displays the maximum pre-
dicted noise levels for each construction stage at the three
critical nodes for barrier layout 2. It can be seen that stage 6
(roof construction) is the only activity during which the
maximum allowable noise level of 70 dBA is not surpassed
at node 44. Compliance at this location could be improved
by extending the noise barrier eastward. The resulting reduc-
tion in the predicted noise levels for each stage of construc-
tion can then be obtained by rerunning the model.
Model validation
The model was validated by comparing the predicted
maximum noise levels during the excavation, foundations,
and slabs construction stages with noise levels measured in a
nearly identical parking garage structure built at the Victoria
Hospital Campus site in south London, Ont. The site was
away from an arterial road and thus background noise was
considered negligible. The owner, consultant, and general
contractor were the same for both projects. Also, construc-
tion methods, activities, and equipment types were nearly
identical in the two parking garage projects. The only differ-
ence between the two structures was the number of floors,
eight for the University Hospital parking garage and nine for
the Victoria Hospital parking garage. Nodes 33, 44, and 45
were “recreated” at the Victoria Hospital construction site at
the same distances and azimuths from the centre of the park-
© 2003 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Gilchrist et al. 669

Roof
Table 6. Status probabilities for equipment (excava-
tion stage).

×
Status

Slabs
Equipment Operating Idle Inactive

×
×
×

×
×
×
Excavator 0.80 0.15 0.05
Dump truck 0.50 0.20 0.30
Bulldozer 0.65 0.05 0.30
Columns

Dynapac roller 0.70 0.05 0.25

Compressor 0.60 0.05 0.35
×

×
×
×

×
×
×
Concrete saw 0.30 0.10 0.60
Concrete
curtains

ing garage structure as shown in Fig. 6 (105 m and 200° for

node 33; 124 m and 165° for node 44; and 124 m and 195°
×

×
×
×

×
×
×
Table 5. Equipment designation and noise emission levels at the University Hospital and Victoria Hospital parking garage structures.

for node 45).

Foundation

Noise measurement procedure

Sound pressure levels around the parking garage perime-
ter were measured using a Q-100™ noise dosimeter capable
×
×
×
×

×
×
×
×
×
×

of measuring instantaneous air pressure variations associated

with sound and displaying them in A-scale decibel units.
The device, manufactured by Quest Technologies, has an op-
Excavation

erating range of 70–140 dBA. The noise dosimeter was

calibrated and certified by ASC-Master Tek Laboratories,
Mich., prior to commencement of field measurements. Noise
×
×

×
×
×

levels were measured at the three simulated nodal locations

plus nine additional locations around the site perimeter. Data
No. of stage

presented in this paper refer only to the three simulated loca-

tions.
Noise readings were taken during eight site visits over the
unitsa

12 week construction period. Dates were selected randomly

2
2
6
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1

between 28 February and 11 April 2002. Each visit lasted

2 h and was conducted during different parts of the workday.
(measured values)

Several measurements were taken at each node during each

Victoria Hospital

visit. The maximum values recorded for each construction

stage were selected for the purpose of comparison with the
model predictions.
Exact number of units varies somewhat for the two projects considered.
Note: All values were measured at a distance of 15 m from the source.
<70.0
81.2
81.4
77.0
79.7
79.3
83.0
83.8
78.1
89.2
91.4

Results of validation
Maximum noise levels predicted by the deterministic
model for the baseline scenario (no barrier) were compared
University Hospital

with field measurements for three activities, as shown in

Noise level (dBA)

(assumed values)

Fig. 9. Predicted maximum noise levels overestimated actual

noise levels by 0.9 and 2.9 dBA for the excavation and foun-
dation stages, respectively, while underestimating maximum
noise levels during the slab stage by up to 5.0 dBA. These
discrepancies can be at least partially attributed to the fol-
75
87
84
75
75
80
88
90
80
90
90

lowing: (i) overall, the equipment noise level in the database

was conservative compared with the actual noise emission
levels measured in the field (see Table 5); (ii) the model is
Concrete vibrator (electric)
Ready-mix concrete truck

an approximation of physical processes and tends to be con-

Concrete saw (electric)

servative; (iii) handling the formwork, the noisiest activity

Electric tower crane

during the “slabs” construction stage (93 dBA), was not con-
Jackhammer (air)

sidered by the deterministic model; and (iv) due to their

Concrete pumps

Air compressor
Dynapac roller

instantaneous nature, maximum noise levels were more diffi-

Dump truck

cult to predict than equivalent noise levels.

Equipment

Excavator

Bulldozer

Overall, the model predictions agreed favourably with the

field measurements, with the exception of the slabs activity,
a

where noise levels for node 33 were significantly underesti-

© 2003 NRC Canada

I:\cjce\cjce3004\L03-019.vp
July 29, 2003 3:35:18 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

670 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Fig. 7. Maximum (100%) and 90th percentile noise levels for critical receiving nodes for the baseline (no barrier), barrier layout 1,
and barrier layout 2 scenarios.

Fig. 8. Maximum noise values for all six construction stages for critical receiving nodes (barrier layout 2 scenario).

mated because handling the formwork was not accounted for
as a separate noise source.
Summary
Major annoyances associated with construction projects
include noise, vibrations, light, dust, and greenhouse gas
emission. Methods and techniques for mitigating such prob-
lems are crucial requirements for serving the public, con-
ducting business in a responsible manner, and meeting rele-
vant contract and bylaw requirements.
Construction activities that require multiple units of large
machinery such as demolition or earthmoving equipment
create the most nuisances for neighbouring communities.
The best technique for minimizing construction site noise
emissions is to reduce noise emissions at the source through
the careful selection of construction methods, the utilization
of newer equipment, and (or) limiting the hours of operation
for particularly noisy equipment or activities. When source-

© 2003 NRC Canada

I:\cjce\cjce3004\L03-019.vp
July 29, 2003 3:35:18 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Gilchrist et al.
Fig. 9. Comparison of maximum noise levels: field measure-
ments versus model predictions (excavation, foundations, and
slabs stages).
control measures are insufficient to reduce noise levels at
the receptor(s) to acceptable levels, the next best viable op-
tion is mitigation measures along the transmission path and
at the receptor.
This paper describes a deterministic model for predicting
the noise levels that can be anticipated in the vicinity of con-
struction operations. The model uses the branch method to-
gether with standard attenuation and dissipation equations
developed in the areas of transportation and industrial engi-
neering to estimate the instantaneous noise level around a
construction site. The Monte Carlo simulation method is
used to predict 500 possible outcomes using random deter-
mination of the operation status of the various pieces of
equipment involved. The model provides a decision support
tool for determining the need for noise-control measures at
different receptors. When the need for such mitigation mea-
sures is identified, the model provides insight into the an-
ticipated effectiveness of noise barriers with different
I:\cjce\cjce3004\L03-019.vp
July 29, 2003 3:35:19 PM
671
dimensions and geometries placed at various locations
around the construction site.
Preliminary validation of the model reveals reasonable
agreement between the predicted and observed noise values
for the three construction activities considered. The results
of the validation exercise suggest that the model could be
improved if it were to account not only for noise emission
levels from construction equipment but also for emission
levels from activities such as formwork handling. Addi-
tionally, the accuracy and applicability of the predictions
could be improved by calculating the equivalent noise levels
that represent the “mean” noise level over a predetermined
duration (e.g., 10 min). This can best be accomplished by
implementing the model in a continuous simulation environ-
ment. Such an environment would also allow a better repre-
sentation of the interaction among construction equipment
and activities in time and space. Another area of future work
is further validation of the model against field measure-
ments, including projects that incorporate noise barriers with
different dimensions and geometries.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr. Alfonso Balassone of
Ellis Don Construction for his assistance during this re-
search. The financial support of the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) grant
227667RG is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Brenner, B., Thalheimer, E., and Schattanek, G. 2002. Design for
construction mitigation on the Central Artery/Tunnel Project. In
Proceedings of the Annual General Conference of the Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering, Montréal, Que., 5–8 June 2002.
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montréal, Que. Session
GE-015, p. G13.
Burge, P. 2000. Value-based optimization procedures for FWHA
traffic noise model. The Wall Journal [online], No. 40. Available
from http://www.thewalljournal.com/articles/40.asp/ [accessed
July 2001].
Eaton, S. 2000. Construction noise. Engineering section report.
Worker’s Compensation Board of B.C., Vancouver, B.C.
Gilchrist, A. 2002. Modeling the impact of construction projects
on urban environments. M.E.Sc. thesis, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, The University of Western Ontario,
London, Ont.
Harris, C. 1991. Handbook of acoustical measurements and noise
control. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Harris, D. 1991. Noise control manual. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.
Pelton, H. 1993. Noise control management. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Richmond, B. 2001. An introduction to systems thinking: STELLA
Software. High Performance Systems Inc., Suite 300, 45 Lyme
Road, Hanover, N.H.
Schexnayder, C., and Ernzen, J. 1999. Mitigation of nighttime con-
struction noise, vibrations, and other nuisances. The National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis
218, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
© 2003 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

672 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Thalheimer, E. 2000a. Construction noise control program and mi- B anticipated reduction of noise due to proposed sound
tigation strategy at the Central Artery/Tunnel Project. Noise barrier (dBA)
Control Engineering Journal, 48(5): 157–165. b, c length of the transmission path around a noise barrier
Thalheimer, E. 2000b. The importance of community involvement (m)
in a successful construction noise control program. In Proceed- d distance between receiving node and the source (m)
ings of the 139th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, f equipment noise frequency (Hz)
Atlanta, Ga., 30 May – 3 June 2000. Acoustical Society of fs synchronization function of construction equipment
America, Sewickley, Pa. Paper 2aNS2. noise levels
Thumann, A., and Miller, R. 1976. Secrets of noise control. The hm mean height of propagation path (m)
Fairmount Press Inc., Atlanta, Ga. hr height of receiving node (m)
Webb, J.F. 1976. Noise control in industry. Sound Research Labo- hs height of source (m)
ratories Limited, Holbrook Hall Sudbury, Suffolk, U.K. IL insertion loss (dBA)
Wilson, C. 1989. Noise control. Harper & Row, New York. L anticipated resultant noise level (dBA)
Ldn day–night sound level (dBA)
Leq equivalent sound level (dBA)
Lmax maximum allowable noise level (as per ordinates or con-
List of symbols struction documents) (dBA)
rd direct distance from the source to the receiving node
a length of transmission path over the barrier (m) (m)
A attenuation of noise due to the distance traveled by the rr length of the reflected sound path (m)
noise in open air (dBA) r1 calibration distance (typically 15.2 m)
Aair attenuation due to air absorption (dBA) r2 distance from source to receiving node (m)
Adiv attenuation due to geometrical divergence (dBA) So noise emission from construction equipment measured
Aground attenuation due to ground absorption (dBA) at distance r1 (dBA)
Arefln reflection due to differential heights (dBA) TL transmission loss (dBA)

© 2003 NRC Canada

I:\cjce\cjce3004\L03-019.vp
July 29, 2003 3:35:19 PM