Vol II Noise and Vibration Study.p

Project Amakhulu - EIA - Noise and

Vibration Study Sappi Saiccor

09 February 2005

QM

Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3

Remarks Final

Date 9 February 2006

Prepared by Andrew Colthurst

Signature

Checked by Chris Wood

Signature

Authorised by David Maundrill

Signature

Project number 12101531/001

File reference 12101531/R1.v3m

WSP Acoustics Buchanan House 24-30 Holborn London EC1N 2HS Tel: +44 (0)20 7314 5000 Fax: +44 (0)20 7314 5005

Contents

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 2

2 Baseline Conditions 7

3 Noise and Vibration Impacts during Construction 11

4 Noise and Vibration Impacts during Operation 18

5 Residual Effects 31 Appendix A Noise and Vibration Terminology 35 Appendix B Noise and Vibration Standards and Criteria 37 Appendix C Noise Monitoring Locations 45 Appendix D Noise Monitoring Results 46 Appendix E CONCAWE Calculation Sheets 47

12101531 Project Amakhulu - N&V Chapter 1

Executive Summary This assessment has considered the potential impact that noise and vibration emissions

from the proposed development at the Sappi Saiccor site, and from traffic on the main

road and rail access routes into the site from the east, may have on occupiers in affected

residential areas.

Existing levels of ambient and background noise, invariably including the contribution

from the Lignotech plant, have been measured at representative locations around the

site in the morning, daytime, evening and at night. These levels have been rated

according to the guidance in relevant national standards (except for construction where

appropriate British Standards have been employed) and the results of predicted noise

levels for the various noise sources involved in the construction and operation of the new

development compared with these. The results have been assessed using the guidance

in relevant South African National Standards,

Temporary construction noise impacts have been predicted to be from none to slight at

even the closest residential property both for the average and worst case situations.

The adoption of best practicable means and the development of and adherence to an

environmental management plan for the construction programme are proposed to

mitigate these slight impacts.

Vibration arising from construction activity is predicted to be of no significance at any

residential property.

The increase in noise predicted from additional rail freight movements is very small and

predicted to be barely perceptible and of only slight impact.

Heavy vehicle traffic associated with the development will increase by a more significant

35% but in terms of noise and vibration impact this will represent a relatively small

change that is rated as having only a slight impact.

Vibration from road traffic is not anticipated to be a problem at any residential property.

Operational noise from additional freight handling activity on the site will result in no

perceptible change to the existing noise climate at any of the residential receptors.

Noise rating limits for electrical and mechanical plant have been proposed to facilitate

the specification and design of new plant for the proposed development.

1 Introduction 1.1.1 This study considers the potential noise and vibration impacts associated with

the proposed development. The aspects of the development that could give rise to

noise and vibration are the demolition and construction works, additional road and rail

traffic, including heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements, operations within the

development site, such as the arrival and unloading of freight vehicles and operation of

new production plant associated with the increased capacity of the facility. This study

identifies the type, source and significance of the potential noise and vibration impacts

and identifies the measures that should be employed to minimise these impacts.

1.2 INTERPRETING NOISE

1.2.1 Noise is defined as unwanted sound. The human ear is able to respond to

sound in the frequency range 18 Hz (deep bass) to 18,000 Hz (high treble) and over the

audible range of 0 dB (the threshold of perception) to 140 dB (the onset of pain). The

ear does not respond equally to different frequencies of the same magnitude, but is

more responsive to mid-frequencies than to lower or higher frequencies. To quantify

noise in a manner that approximates the response of the human ear, a weighting

(filtering) mechanism is used. This reduces the importance of lower and higher

frequencies, approximating the response of the human ear.

1.2.2 Furthermore, the perception of noise may be determined by a number of other

factors, which may not necessarily be acoustic. Noise can be perceived to be louder or

more noticeable if the source of the noise is observed; e.g. roads, trains, factories,

building sites etc. In general, the impact of noise depends upon its level, the margin by

which it exceeds the background level, its character and its variation over a given period

of time. In some cases, the time of day and other acoustic features such as tonality may

be important, as may the disposition of the affected individual. Any assessment of noise

should give due consideration to all of these factors when assessing the significance of a

noise source. Various noise indices have been derived to describe the fluctuation of

noise levels that vary over time. Usually, these noise indices relate to specific types of

noise, and as such different noise indices are used to describe road traffic noise,

background noise, construction noise, etc.

1.2.3 The weighting mechanism that best corresponds to the response of the human

ear is the ‘A’-weighting scale. This is widely used for environmental noise measurement

and the levels are denoted as dB(A) or dB LAeq,T, LA90,T, etc, according to the parameter

or index being measured.

1.2.4 The noise index used in this report to describe all noise sources is the LAeq,T,

the equivalent continuous noise level. This can be defined as the level of a notional

steady sound that, if continued over the time period (T), would contain the same amount

of sound energy as the actual, possibly fluctuating, sound that was recorded during that

same time period.


1.2.5 The decibel scale is logarithmic rather than linear. As a result of this, a 3 dB

increase in sound level represents a doubling of the sound energy present. Judgement

of sound is subjective, but as a general guide a 10 dB(A) increase can be taken to

represent a doubling of loudness, whilst an increase in the order of 3 dB(A) is generally

regarded as the minimum difference needed to perceive a significant change. The

following Table 1 demonstrates a few examples of noise levels typically experienced

during everyday activities.

Table 1: Typical Sound Levels found in the Environment

Sound Level Example

0 to 10 dB(A) Threshold of hearing

10 to 20 dB(A) Broadcasting studio

20 to 30 dB(A) Quiet bedroom at night

30 to 40 dB(A) Living room during the day

40 to 50 dB(A) Typical office

50 to 60 dB(A) Inside a car

60 to 70 dB(A) Typical high street

70 to 90 dB(A) Inside a factory or noisy pub

100 to 130 dB(A) Pneumatic drill

140 dB(A) Threshold of Pain

1.3 INTERPRETING VIBRATION

1.3.1 Vibration is defined as a repetitive oscillatory motion. Groundborne vibration

can be transmitted to the human body through the supporting surfaces, the feet of a

standing person, the buttocks, back and feet of a seated person or the supporting area

of a recumbent person. In most situations, entry into the human body will be through the

supporting ground or through the supporting floors of a building. Vibration from road

traffic can also be airborne. Such airborne vibration is transmitted as a low-frequency

sound wave and is often perceived when the sound wave causes windows or other

objects to rattle.

1.3.2 Vibration is often complex, containing many frequencies, occurring in many

directions and changing over time. There are many factors that influence human

response to vibration. Physical factors include vibration magnitude, vibration frequency,

vibration axis, duration, point of entry into the human body and posture of the human

body. Other factors include the exposed persons experience, expectation, arousal and

activity.

1.3.3 Experience shows that disturbance or annoyance from vibration in residential

situations is likely to arise when the magnitude of vibration is only slightly in excess of


the threshold of perception. The threshold of perception depends on the frequency of

vibration. The human body is most sensitive to vibration in the frequency range 1 Hz to

80 Hz and especially sensitive to vibration in the range 4 Hz to 8 Hz. As with noise, a

frequency weighting mechanism is used to quantify vibration in a way that best

corresponds to the frequency response of the human body. For occupants within

buildings, the frequency-weighting curve is defined in British Standard BS 6472:1992

‘Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz)’. In general,

vibration is only perceptible in residential situations when the building is close to a

railway, construction site or very close to a road that carries large and heavy vehicles.

1.3.4 A glossary of noise and vibration terminology is provided in Appendix A.

1.4 METHODOLOGY

1.4.1 The assessment considers the noise and vibration that will be generated by

both the construction and use of the development. Throughout, the assessment has

been undertaken with reference to both local and national South African Standards, and

where no local or national guidance exists, appropriate British and other International

guidance on noise impacts. In particular, the assessment is consistent with the

guidance contained within SANS 10103:2004 in respect of the Noise Limitations set for

the development. Appendix B provides more detail on the standards and criteria against

which this assessment has been carried out.

1.4.2 Before conducting the assessment a plan of study for the Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA) was undertaken and submitted to the Department of

Agriculture and Environmental Affairs. That plan of study for the EIA outlined the

assessment methodology in order that the relevant authorities could review the

methodology and ensure that it met with their approval. This methodology was

expanded to incorporate the following:

• that the assessment of noise from road and rail traffic should be based on criteria

developed specifically for road and rail noise and not on the criteria adopted for

industrial noise;

• that the assessment of road and rail noise should consider appropriate time periods

as set out in the relevant criteria;

• that the noise impacts of road traffic should be based on traffic flows derived from

the model used in the Transport Assessment;

• that the traffic noise assessment should consider the Year of Opening (2007) and

15 years after opening (2022);

• that the assessment should consider the intensification of use of the railway;


• that the assessment should consider the potential for vibration impacts during the

construction works; and

• that the assessment should make reference to a ‘code of construction practice’.

1.4.3 These comments have been taken into account during the preparation of the

following assessment.

1.4.4 In drafting this Chapter an assessment has been made of the baseline situation

and the impact of the proposals. Where appropriate, environmental advantages and

disadvantages have been identified and recommendations made for possible mitigation

measures and/or scheme changes to offset potentially adverse environmental impacts.

1.4.5 The potential sources of additional noise and vibration that have been

considered in this assessment include noise and vibration from the site clearance and

construction works, additional road and rail traffic (including HGV and freight

movements), operations within the development site (such as the arrival and unloading

of freight vehicles) and building services plant associated with the extended production

facility.

1.4.6 Existing levels of environmental noise were measured during a noise survey

undertaken on Friday 2 December 2005. The noise survey included the measurement

of morning, daytime, evening and night-time noise levels at each of four different

locations. The noise levels measured during this survey have been used to inform the

assessment. Those properties and locations that could potentially be affected by noise

and vibration during construction activities and production operations on the site were

identified, and topographical information that could affect the propagation of sound was

obtained.

1.4.7 Noise levels from the site clearance and construction of the development have

been calculated using the methodology contained within British Standard BS 5228:

Part 1: 1997 ‘Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites: Part 1: Code

of Practice for Basic Information and Procedures for Noise and Vibration Control’. The

calculated construction noise levels have then been assessed against the guidance

contained within the former UK Department of the Environment Advisory Leaflet (AL) 72:

‘Noise Control on Building Sites’ and other relevant guidance documents. The

assessment of vibration from the construction works has been informed by the guidance

contained within BS 5228: Part 4: 1992: ‘Noise and Vibration Control on Construction

and Open Sites: Part 4: Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control Applicable to

Piling Operations’ and BS 6472: 1992: ‘Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in

Buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz)’.

1.4.8 Calculations using the methodology contained within SANS 10210:2004

“Calculating and predicting road traffic noise” and the UK’s ‘The Calculation of Road

Traffic Noise’ (CRTN) have been used to determine the level of noise generated by road


traffic associated with the development. The predicted noise impacts from road traffic

have been assessed against the criteria suggested in the UK’s Institute of Acoustics /

Institute of Environmental Assessment (IOA/IEMA) Working Party on Noise Impact

Assessment guidelines and by comparison with existing ambient noise levels.

1.4.9 An assessment of the potential for vibration to be generated by any additional

road traffic has been informed by the guidance contained within relevant TRL1 research

reports (as referenced in paragraphs 3.2.2 and 4.3.4 following) and BS 7385: Part 2:

1993 “Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings – Part 2: Guide to damage

levels from groundborne vibration”.

1.4.10 Calculations using the methodology contained within the ‘The Calculation of

Rail Noise’ (CRN) have been used to determine the level of noise generated by rail

movements associated with the development. The predicted noise impacts from rail

traffic have been assessed by comparison with existing background noise levels.

1.4.11 The level of noise generated by on site activities such as the arrival and

unloading of goods vehicles has been quantified from data concerning the anticipated

increase in usage of the site and the results of noise measurements undertaken for

similar activities at other unrelated sites. The assessment of this noise has been

undertaken by comparison with existing ambient noise levels and the guidance

contained within South African National Standard SANS 10103:2004 “The measurement

and rating of environmental noise with respect to land use, health, annoyance and to

speech communication”.

1.4.12 The assessment of noise levels from new mechanical plant that will be included

in the scheme also has been informed by the guidance of SANS 10103:2004.

1.4.13 The assessment of cumulative noise impacts associated with all of the above

has been undertaken in accordance with the draft guidance of the IOA/IEMA document.

1 The UK company TRL is what used to be the UK Government’s Transport and Road Research

Laboratory.


2 Baseline Conditions

2.1 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

2.1.1 The following residential area have been identified as being sensitive to any

noise and vibration that may be generated by the development and are used in the

assessment that follows.

• Magabeni township to the northwest of the Saiccor plant. The southern

side of the township comprises a number of scattered homesteads on the

hillside across the Mkomazi River. These properties, elevated above the

river, have a clear view to the development site. The closest properties,

close to the riverbank, lie within approximately 300 m of the plant.

• Residential properties along Umkomanzi Drift, to the southwest of the

plant. The closest property to the Saiccor plant is approximately 500 m

from the main gate and receptor location S02 (see below) is 1,250 m from

the site’s western boundary, on the hillside from where there is the most

direct view over the plant to the main development area.

• Residential properties on the north-western perimeter of Umkomaas town.

These properties are close to the main access road to the Saiccor plant.

• In addition to the above, there are a number of scattered homesteads on

the hillside to the east across the Mkomazi River. The closest of these lie

approximately 500 m from the eastern boundary of the Saiccor plant.

2.2 AMBIENT NOISE SURVEY

2.2.1 The plant is located at approximately 10 m above mean sea level over

approximately 42 ha. The plant area is level with a slight slope from north to south.

LignoTech, located adjacent to Sappi Saiccor to the north east, is level, whilst the area

further to the east rises slightly before dropping off into the Mkomazi River. On the

opposite bank of the Mkomazi River, the land rises sharply to a height of 106 m above

mean sea level. The areas to the north and west of the plant are gently to steeply

undulating, rising to heights of 15 m (the ridge between the plant and Magabeni).

2.2.2 The surrounding land use includes a mixture of industrial, agricultural and

residential (both high and low density) areas. A band of sugarcane (approximately

30 ha) is farmed between the plant and the Umkomaas River. Small areas of sugarcane

are farmed to the south and east, and informal farming is taking place adjacent to the

banks of the river to the south east of the plant. Pockets of plantation are a feature of

the surrounding landscape, with much more extensive plantations located to the south

east of Sappi Saiccor.


2.2.3 Existing levels of environmental noise were measured during a noise survey

undertaken on Friday 2 December 2005. The noise survey included the measurement

of critical period (morning, daytime, evening and night) noise levels over a typical

24 hour period at each of four different locations.

2.2.4 Noise levels were measured at the following positions:

• Position S01 – North west side of Umkomaas overlooking the bend on the railway line.

• Position S02 – West south west of the Sappi Saiccor site on the Umkomanzi Drift.

• Position S03 – Hillside east of Mkomazi river and the Sappi Saiccor site.

• Position S04 – Magabeni hillside north west of the Sappi Saiccor plant looking across the river.

2.2.5 The noise measurement and assessment locations detailed above are shown

in Appendix C. The instrument used for the survey was a Casella CEL type 430

precision integrating sound level meter, the microphone of which was fitted with a

windshield. All measurement positions were free-field and at a height of 1.5 m above

ground level. The meter was calibrated prior to and upon completion of the survey and

had been calibrated to traceable National and International standards on 5 July 2005 by

an independent laboratory.

2.2.6 The sound level meter was programmed to record a number of different

parameters and indices over discrete 10 minute periods. The sound level meter was set

to the "fast" time weighting.

2.2.7 The indices measured were as follows:

• LAeq,10m The A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level over the

10 minute measurement period.

• LA10,10m The A-weighted noise level exceeded for 10% of the time during the

10 minute measurement period. This index often is used to

describe road traffic noise.

• LA90,10m The A-weighted noise level exceeded for 90% of the time during the

10 minute measurement period. This index often is used to

describe background noise.

• LAmax,10m The maximum value of the A-weighted noise level during the 10 minute measurement period.

• LAmin,10m The minimum value of the A-weighted noise level during the 10 minute measurement period.

2.2.8 The weather during the survey was conducive to the measurement of noise, it

being dry and the west north westerly wind either calm or a breeze.


2.2.9 The full results of the baseline noise survey are presented in Appendix D

including the time of each measurement and relevant weather conditions, etc. A

summary of the measured noise levels is presented in the following Tables. All

measured noise levels are free-field.

Table 2: Summary of Measured Noise Levels at 1.5 m High, Free-Field

Measured Noise Level, dB (free-field)

Location Time of day LAeq,10m LA10,10m LA90,10m LAmax,10m LAmin,10m

Morning 58.0 59.5 47.5 77.9 45.7 Daytime 62.9 66.0 47.5 85.4 44.6 Evening 56.7 57.5 52.5 78.3 49.7

S01

Night 60.2 63.5 48.0 74.7 44.5 Morning 53.3 54.5 52.0 63.4 50.2 Daytime 53.1 55.5 49.5 63.7 47.3 Evening 55.6 57.0 53.0 67.1 51.2

S02

Night 50.8 52.0 48.5 57.2 47.0 Morning 59.9 61.0 58.5 66.6 56.7 Daytime 52.6 54.5 49.5 61.5 47.8 Evening 60.0 61.5 58.5 68.2 57.0

S03

Night 59.0 60.5 57.0 64.6 55.1 Morning 61.6 63.0 56.5 75.5 55.2 Daytime 63.7 65.0 59.0 79.7 56.7 Daytime (1 hour) 60.4 62.0 57.0 76.9 54.4 Evening 62.2 62.5 59.0 88.5 56.7

S04

Night 58.1 59.0 57.0 67.4 55.8

Note: The additional daytime 1 hour period measurement made at Position S04 covered a shift change for staff undertaking the measurements.

2.2.10 The background noise and dominant contribution to the ambient noise at

locations S02, S03 and S04 was found to be from the operation of the Sappi Saiccor

production facility, although some noise from rail and air traffic was audible at the time of

the survey. At S01 vehicular traffic, invariably including LignoTech SA operations, was

the dominant source.

2.2.11 The daytime LAeq,T measurement at location S03, which was some 6 dB(A) to

7 dB(A) less than any of the other measurements at that position, was influenced by the

meteorological conditions prevailing during the daytime when there was a north easterly

(74°) breeze compared with calm conditions for the other periods.

2.3 ASSESSMENT OF BASELINE NOISE LEVELS

2.3.1 In order to provide an assessment of the existing noise climate, reference is

made to the World Health Organisation (WHO) document “Guidelines for Community

Noise” and to SANS 10103:2004 “The measurement and rating of environmental noise

with respect to land use, health, annoyance and to speech communication”.

2.3.2 The World Health Organisation guidelines suggest that, to protect the majority

of people from being seriously annoyed during the daytime, the sound pressure level on

balconies, terraces and outdoor living areas should not exceed 55 dB LAeq,T for a steady,


continuous noise. To protect the majority of people from being moderately annoyed

during the daytime, the outdoor sound pressure level should not exceed 50 dB LAeq.

2.3.3 At both locations S03 and S04 it is apparent from the LAeq, LA90 and LAmin results

that the noise level due to the mill was in excess of 55 dB(A). At location S01 the results

indicate that the steady contribution of noise from the mill was below 50 dB(A) and the

most influential noise source affecting the LAeq, LA10 and LAmax results appears to have

been road traffic. Location S02 was subject to noise levels of between 51 dB(A) and

56 dB(A) LAeq a significant proportion of which apparently arose from the works, the

LA90,T being no more than 3.6 dB below the LAeq,T for the corresponding period for any of

the measurements there.

2.3.4 Taking the LA90,T measured background noise levels as most representative of

the steady noise from the plant, a comparison has been made of the measured existing

noise levels (with a +5 dB(A) tonal character penalty correction, Ct, added) in the nearest

residential districts with the “acceptable rating levels” detailed within Table 2 of

SANS 10103.

Table 3: Noise Rating Levels of Existing Plant Noise

Outdoors equivalent continuous rating level (LReq,T) for noise in dB(A)

Day-night LR,dn

Daytime LReq,d

Night-time LReq,n

Acceptable rating levels for rural districts 45 45 35

Acceptable rating levels for urban districts 55 55 45

Acceptable rating levels for industrial districts 70 70 60

Measured rating level for location S01 59 55 53




Note: Daytime = 06:00 to 22:00 and Night-time = 22:00 to 06:00 (as per SANS 10103, paragraph 3.22)

2.3.5 From this comparison of the measured noise levels with the guidance

contained within the WHO guidelines and SANS 10103, it can be seen that the existing

daytime noise climate in the vicinity of the development site, whilst below the acceptable

rating level for industrial districts is significantly higher than recommended for rural

districts and in almost every case higher than recommended for urban districts,

particularly for the closest homes in an arc from the north west round to the south east of

the plant.

2.4 BASELINE VIBRATION LEVELS

2.4.1 Vibration was not perceptible at any time during the baseline noise survey, as

was expected by virtue of the distance and topography between vibration sources at the


site and potentially sensitive residential properties. Therefore, measurements of existing

levels of vibration were not undertaken.

3 Noise and Vibration Impacts during Construction

3.1.1 It is inevitable with the construction of any new development that there will be

some disturbance caused to those nearby during the site preparation and construction

phases. However, disturbance due to construction is a localised phenomenon and

temporary in nature. In general, only people living within 100 m or so of the construction

works are likely to be seriously bothered by noise; one study has found that whilst half of

people living within 50 m of a site boundary were seriously bothered by construction

works in one form or another, at distances of greater than 100 m from the site boundary

fewer than 20% of people were seriously bothered.

3.1.2 Although there are techniques available to predict the likely noise and vibration

effects from site clearance and construction operations, such as those contained within

BS 5228: Part 1 (1997) and Part 4 (1992) ‘Noise and Vibration Control on Construction

and Open Sites’, they are necessarily based on quite detailed information on the type

and number of plant being used, their location and the length of time they are in

operation. These details are not available at this stage. However, an estimate of the

likely effects of noise from the site clearance and construction phase has been made for

those properties that have been identified as being sensitive to noise and vibration. The

predictions are based on the methodology contained within BS 5228 and are in terms of

the LAeq,T (equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level) over the core working

day. The predictions are worst case in that it is assumed that any mitigation measures

(such as those identified later in this report) have not been implemented.

3.1.3 In order to undertake these predictions, certain assumptions about the

construction activities, the noise sources associated with the works and the factors that

will affect the propagation of noise from the works site to the noise sensitive properties

have been made.

3.1.4 The assumptions about the construction activities that are to be undertaken are

based on WSP Acoustics’ experience of measuring noise levels from other construction

projects.

3.1.5 Noise predictions have been undertaken for five distinct activities or phases of

the works. These are:

• site preparation, including any demolition of existing buildings, earthmoving and site

profiling;

• piling and foundation works;

• concreting works for the ground slabs;


• construction of the new production buildings; and

• installation of new processing plant.

3.1.6 Where possible, source noise data and details of the plant likely to be used

have been taken from measurements undertaken by WSP Acoustics during other

construction works. Where this has not been possible, source noise values have been

taken from the maximum values allowed under the relevant EC Directive or from

BS 5228. The assumed source noise levels are as follows:

• The noise sources associated with the site preparation are assumed to be two

dozers, two excavators and four lorries to remove or distribute spoil. The source

sound power level for these items together, taking into account the likely ‘on-time’ of

the plant, is taken to be 114 dB LWA.

• It is assumed that any piling works that may be necessary for the building

foundations will use a rotary bored or continuous flight auger method. It is therefore

assumed that the noise sources associated with the piling operations will be two

continuous flight auger piling rigs, two (tracked) support cranes, one concrete truck

mixer, one concrete pump, two vibratory pokers, two small generators and a small

site dumper. The source sound power level for these items together, taking into

account the likely ‘on-time’ of the plant, is taken to be 115 dB LWA.

• The noise sources associated with the concreting works for the construction of the

ground slabs/substructure are assumed to be one concrete pump, one lorry

mounted crane, four poker vibrators, a compressor, two small generators and four

concrete truck mixers supplying materials. The source sound power level for these

items together, taking into account the likely ‘on-time’ of the plant, is taken to be

108 dB LWA.

• The noise sources associated with the erection of steel frames for new plant and

buildings and the installation of new plant are assumed to be a mobile crane, a

welding generator, compressor, angle grinder, hammering, electric hand tools, steel

delivery wagons and a site forklift. The source sound power level for these items

together, taking into account the likely ‘on-time’ of the plant, is taken to be

111 dB LWA.

3.1.7 Assumptions about the factors that will affect the propagation of noise are

based on WSP Acoustics’ previous experience of predicting noise from major

construction projects and also of monitoring noise levels from those same construction

projects after the works commence.

3.1.8 Noise propagation is assumed to be hemispherical and with no obstructions

between source and receiver. The intervening ground between the construction site and

the receptor locations is assumed to be acoustically absorbent grass or vegetation. No

attenuation from atmospheric absorption is assumed. The predicted noise levels are


those under neutral weather conditions. A 3 dB(A) façade reflection at receivers is

assumed.

3.1.9 The prediction of noise levels from mobile plant (including dozers, excavators,

and a site dumper) is undertaken using the method for mobile plant in a defined area,

described within BS 5228. For these predictions, it is assumed that the plant traverses a

maximum length of 100 m in any one day.

3.1.10 Noise predictions are made in terms of the ‘worst case’ and ‘average’ LAeq,T

noise levels that will be experienced at each receptor location, where the LAeq,T noise

level represents the average noise level over a typical working day. The predicted ‘worst

case’ noise levels are those that would occur when the construction works are being

undertaken at the closest part of the construction site to the relevant receptor location.

The predicted ‘average’ noise levels are those that would occur when the works are

being undertaken at the approximate centre of the construction site.

3.1.11 A summary of the predicted noise levels at the façade of noise sensitive

properties from construction noise alone is provided in the following tables.

Table 4: Predicted ‘Worst Case’ LAeq,T Construction Noise

Predicted ‘Worst Case’ Noise Level LAeq,T dB, facade

Location Preparation Foundation Concreting Erection

S01 39 40 34 36

S02 48 49 42 44

S03 51 54 48 50

S04 53 54 48 50

Table 5: Predicted ‘Average Case’ LAeq,T Construction Noise

Predicted ‘Average Case’ Noise Level LAeq,T dB, facade

Location Preparation Foundation Concreting Erection

S01 38 39 33 35

S02 46 47 40 43

S03 50 51 45 47

S04 51 52 46 48

3.1.12 To quantify whether the above noise levels represent a significant impact,

reference is made to the former DoE Advisory Leaflet (AL) 72 ‘Noise control on building

sites’. This document implies that for rural areas a level of 70 dB façade LAeq,12h is

appropriate, the 12 hours referring to the length of the working day.


3.1.13 It can be seen from the above table that the predicted noise levels from the

construction works will not exceed 54 dB LAeq,12h at residential properties during any

phase of the works. The ‘average case’ noise levels that would be more typical are

predicted to be no greater than 52 dB LAeq,12h during all phases of the works.

3.1.14 The predicted construction noise levels will also be less than the existing

ambient noise levels at each of the noise sensitive properties. As the table below shows

the changes in existing ambient noise levels that will arise from the additional

construction noise are very slight, even for the worst case. The construction noise has

been added to the existing ambient noise and the change in the latter shown by the

figure in brackets.

Table 6: Predicted ‘Worst Case’ LAeq,T Noise Levels During Construction (Construction + Baseline Noise)

Predicted ‘Worst Case’ Noise Level LAeq,T dB, facade

Location

Façade Baseline LAeq,T dB Preparation Foundation Concreting Erection

S01 65.9 65.9 (0) 65.9 (0) 65.9 (0) 65.9 (0)

S02 56.1 56.7 (1) 56.8 (1) 56.3 (0) 56.4 (0)

S03 55.6 57.0 (1) 58.0 (2) 56.3 (1) 56.6 (1)

S04 63.4 63.8 (0) 63.9 (1) 63.5 (0) 63.6 (0)

Table 7: Predicted ‘Average Case’ LAeq,T Noise Levels During Construction (Construction + Baseline Noise)

Predicted ‘Average Case’ Noise Level LAeq,T dB, facade

Location

Façade Baseline LAeq,T dB Preparation Foundation Concreting Erection

S01 65.9 65.9 (0) 65.9 (0) 65.9 (0) 65.9 (0)

S02 56.1 56.5 (0) 56.6 (1) 56.2 (0) 56.3 (0)

S03 55.6 56.7 (1) 57.0 (1) 55.9 (0) 56.1 (1)

S04 63.4 63.7 (0) 63.7 (0) 63.5 (0) 63.5 (0)

3.1.15 For the nearest residential receptors, taking into account the short-term nature

of the construction works, these effects are considered to represent an impact that is

from no impact to slight impact even under worst case predictions.

3.2 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION

3.2.1 The distance between the construction activity and the nearest residences is

such that it is highly unlikely that vibration will be tangible at any sensitive premises off-

site. The only construction activities that could lead to perceptible levels of vibration

would be the bored piling works.


3.2.2 In order to determine the likely levels of vibration that will be generated by the

construction works, predictions have been carried out according to the methodologies

contained within British Standard BS 5228: Part 4: 1992:’Noise and Vibration Control on

Construction and Open Sites: Part 4: Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control

Applicable to Piling Operations’ and the UK Transport Research Laboratory Report 429:

‘Groundborne Vibration Caused by Mechanised Construction Works’.

3.2.3 The principle behind these prediction methodologies is to use measurement

data from similar operations and to extrapolate the results to other sites, taking into

account, wherever possible, any differences in ground conditions and site geometry.

The measurement data should include the recorded value of the peak particle velocity

(ppv) vibration level at various distances from the vibration source. From these data, the

rate of attenuation of vibration with distance is calculated, allowing the prediction of the

level of vibration in the ground at any given distance from the vibration source. Where

the vibration sensitive receptor is located within a building then the transfer function

between the ground and the internal floors of the building needs to be accounted for.

3.2.4 For the purposes of calculating the vibration impact from the piling works,

measurement data has been taken from BS 5228: Part 4.

3.2.5 For the purposes of calculating the vibration levels affecting people inside

buildings, it is assumed that there will be an attenuation of x0.5 in vibration level as the

vibration propagates from the ground to the building foundations. A worst case

amplification in vibration level of x3 as the vibration propagates from the building

foundation, through the building and on to the internal floors of any two storey

residences has also been calculated. For the worst case assumption this will account

for the fact that some internal floors exhibit a natural frequency in the range 5 Hz to

30 Hz; a range of frequencies at which vibration from the construction works will be

significant.

3.2.6 The predicted maximum level of vibration at each of the vibration sensitive

receptors is detailed in the table below. The predicted vibration levels are those that

would occur when the piling is being undertaken at the closest point to each of the

sensitive receptors. The predictions are in terms of the peak particle velocity (ppv).


Table 8: Predicted Peak Particle Velocity Vibration Levels

ppv Vibration Level (mms-1)

Activity Location S01 Location S02 Location S03 Location S04

Bored Piling – Driving Casing

0.00 at foundations

0.02 on internal floor

0.01 at foundations


0.02 at foundations


0.02 at foundations


Bored Piling – Augering

0.00 at foundations


0.00 at foundations


0.00 at foundations


0.00 at foundations


Bored Piling – Auger Hitting Base of Hole

0.00 at foundations


0.00 at foundations


0.00 at foundations


0.00 at foundations


Bored Piling – Spinning-off

0.00 at foundations


0.00 at foundations


0.00 at foundations


0.00 at foundations


3.2.7 The above predicted levels of vibration have been assessed for both the

potential to cause damage to buildings and for the potential to cause human annoyance.

3.2.8 An assessment of the above vibration levels (as predicted at the foundations)

against the criteria contained within British Standard BS 7385: Part 2: 1993: Evaluation

and Measurement for Vibration in Buildings – Part 2: Guide to Damage Levels from

Groundborne Vibration reveals that the predicted vibration levels are far below those that

could cause even the most minor cosmetic damage.

3.2.9 In order to assess the potential for human annoyance, reference is made to

British Standard BS 6472: 1992: Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings

(1 Hz to 80 Hz). This Standard uses the concept of a vibration dose value (VDV) that an

occupant would receive over the course of a 16 hour day or 8 hour night-time period,

and provides guideline values for which the likelihood of the vibration causing adverse

comment is low, marginal or high.

3.2.10 In order to compare the predicted peak particle velocity (ppv) vibration levels

with the guidance contained in BS 6472, the guideline values of VDV as contained in the

standard have been converted to ppv by assuming that the vibration is continuous,

sinusoidal or near sinusoidal and at a frequency of 8 Hz or greater. This will be the case

for the vibratory roller and also for the bored piling. The table below summarises the

values of the VDV, and the equivalent values of the ppv, above which BS 6472 states

that the likelihood of adverse comment is low, marginal or high.


Table 9: VDV and ppv Vibration Level Ranges Corresponding with Potential Levels of Adverse Comment (Based on BS6472)

Adverse Comment Unlikely Adverse Comment Possible Adverse Comment Probable

Residential Properties

0.4 ms-1.75

VDV

0.56 mms-1

ppv

0.8 ms-1.75

VDV

1.12 mms-1

ppv

0.8 ms-1.75

VDV

1.12 mms-1

ppv

Note: Conversion from VDV to ppv assumes continuous sinusoidal vibration at a frequency of >8 Hz

3.2.11 A comparison of the predicted vibration levels (at the internal floors) with the

above limits reveals that there is a low probability of receiving adverse comments about

vibration. Indeed, in most instances the predicted levels of vibration are below the

threshold of perception. As such, the vibration impact of the construction works is

considered to be negligible.

3.3 NOISE AND VIBRATION MITIGATION DURING CONSTRUCTION

3.3.1 It is recommended that the contract documents supplied to contractors should

require that the effects of environmental noise and vibration be considered during the

design and execution of the works. This might be implemented by means of a noise and

vibration control plan that provides a management system tailored to the specific needs

of the construction works, the site and the surrounding area. As a minimum, any noise

and vibration control plan should cover:

• procedures for ensuring compliance with statutory or other identified noise control

limits, or with local codes of construction practice where they exist;

• general induction training for site operatives to provide a general level of awareness

of noise and vibration issues; and

• liaison with the Local Authority and the community.

3.3.2 The adoption of Best Practicable Means is usually the most effective way of

controlling noise and vibration from construction sites and should be enforced rigorously.

In order to demonstrate the adoption of Best Practicable Means to control noise and

vibration emissions from the site, the following conditions and measures could be

imposed on the construction works.

3.3.3 The contractors should bring to site and employ on the works only the most

environmentally acceptable and quietly operating plant and equipment compatible with

the safe and efficient execution of the works. The noise emitted by any plant item

should be no greater than the relevant values quoted in the current version of BS 5228.

All items of plant operating on the site in intermittent use should be shut down in the

intervening periods between use.

3.3.4 All plant items should be properly maintained and operated according to

manufacturers recommendations in such a manner as to avoid causing excessive noise.

All plant should be sited so that the noise impact at nearby noise sensitive properties is


minimised. Local hoarding, screens or barriers should be erected as necessary to shield

particularly noisy activities.

3.3.5 Problems concerning noise from construction works can sometimes be avoided

by taking a considerate and neighbourly approach to relations with the local residents.

Unless the requirements for traffic management in the area dictate otherwise, works

during the preparatory work (with a duration of several months) will not be undertaken

outside of the usual core hours of the construction industry, which are generally taken to

be 07.00 to 19.00 hours Monday to Friday and 07.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturday.

During the three weeks of the shut down of the plant for final works and tie-ins there will

be some 24-hour, 7-day installation work.

3.3.6 Experience from other sites has shown that by implementing these measures,

typical noise levels from construction works can be reduced by up to 5 dB(A). This

would represent a worthwhile reduction in the impact of the construction works. If these

measures were adopted, it is anticipated that there would be no noise impact at

residential properties.

4 Noise and Vibration Impacts during Operation

4.1 APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT

4.1.1 The potential sources of additional noise and vibration from the operation of the

proposed development include additional road and rail traffic (including HGV

movements), operations within the development site (such as the arrival and unloading

of freight vehicles) and new production plant associated with the increased capacity of

the facility. Each of these potential noise sources is addressed in turn before

considering the cumulative impacts of all of these sources together.

4.1.2 For each source of noise and vibration the assessment considers first the

‘worst case’ impact, assuming that no measures are put in place to reduce noise and

vibration. The assessment then goes on to consider the potential measures that will be

put in place to reduce the levels of noise and vibration generated by the development

and then considers the impacts after the introduction of these mitigation measures.

4.2 NOISE FROM HGV MOVEMENTS ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD

4.2.1 It is usual practice when undertaking a noise impact assessment for roads to

consider traffic flows for both the scheme opening year and the worst-case year in the

first fifteen years after opening. For this particular development the production capacity

is anticipated to remain constant throughout this time scale, therefore traffic flow data

has been provided for the existing situation and for the year of opening (assumed 2007).


The latter is based on the traffic associated with the production of 810,000 tons/annum

of speciality cellulose. Details of the expected traffic flows may be found in the Traffic

Impact Assessment but for convenience are summarised in the following table.

Table 10: Anticipated Road and Rail Traffic Flows

Production case: Present Imvula

570k t/a

Future Amakhulu at Peak Mix

810k t/a

Arriving rail trucks per month1 1,312 1,463

Arriving rail trucks per day1 43 48

Arriving road trucks per day1 183 247

Road trucks in per hour (basis 24 h/d)1 8 10

Road trucks leaving the site per hour1 8 10

Passenger cars per day 386 386

Passenger cars per hour (basis 24 h/d) 16 16

Passenger cars per peak hour2 257 257

Notes: 1 Includes empty trucks arriving and loaded trucks leaving and vice versa. 2 Includes the 30 minutes either side of a shift change.

4.2.2 In order to assess the noise impact of HGV and other vehicle movements on

the main access road into and out of the site, the prediction algorithms contained within

the South African National Standard SANS 10210:2004 ‘Calculating and predicting road

traffic noise’ have been used to calculate the levels of road traffic noise at the most

exposed facades of each of the noise sensitive locations identified earlier.

4.2.3 The prediction methodology contained within SANS 10210 incorporates the

effect of vehicle flow, vehicle speed, percentage of heavy goods vehicles, topography

and ground cover between the road and the receiver and characteristics of the road

surface to calculate the LAeq,1h noise level.

4.2.4 Vehicle speeds on internal site roads and on the external roads assessed are

assumed to be 15 kph and 45 kph respectively. The road surface is assumed to be

random distributed chippings in a bituminous surface as a worst case although generally

roads offsite in the area are either dense bituminous or hot rolled asphalt. The

topography, ground cover, angle of view and distance between road and receptor are

set according to the circumstances for each of the noise sensitive locations. The

calculations are undertaken for a point located at a distance of 1 m in front of the ground

floor window (i.e. at a height of 2 m) on the most exposed façade.

4.2.5 The distance of three of the four assessment locations from the main access

road to the site is sufficient that the contribution of road traffic noise to the overall noise

from the plant is insignificant and therefore excluded from further consideration in this

Environmental Statement.


4.2.6 Prediction location S01 however has properties within approximately 20 m of

the main access route to the site. The predicted noise levels from mill associated traffic

on this access road and affecting adjacent properties are detailed in the following table.

Table 11: Predicted Façade Noise Levels 20 m from Access Road – Without Mitigation

Existing Future Change

Receptor Location LAeq,1h façade (dB)

LAeq,1h façade (dB)

dB(A)

Location S01 average hour 57.4 58.2 +0.8

Location S01 peak hour 60.8 61.0 +0.2

4.2.7 The predicted noise levels from traffic on the access road and from existing

noise sources (based on the lowest measured free-field LAeq,10m of 56.7 dB + a 3 dB

façade correction) are shown in the following tables. Also shown in the tables is the

change in total noise level due to the increased traffic flows of the access road.

Table 12: Measured Existing and Predicted Future LAeq,1h Façade Noise Levels after Increase in Traffic Flows – Without Mitigation

Receptor Location

Lowest ExistingLAeq,1h (dB)

Noise Level

from Mill Traffic LAeq,1h (dB)

ExistingAmbient - no Mill Traffic LAeq,1h (dB)

Existing Ambient

+ Mill Traffic LAeq,1h (dB)

Future Noise Level LAeq,1h (dB)

Change

(dB)

Location S01 average hour 59.7 57.4 55.8 59.7 60.2 +0.5

Location S01 peak hour 59.7 60.8 55.8 62.0 62.2 +0.2

Note: Measured existing noise levels include for a +3dB(A) façade correction. 4.2.8 The calculations have been based on the lowest LAeq,T measured at

location S01. From this has been deducted (logarithmically) the predicted contribution

from Mill related road traffic in an “average hour”. To assess the change that could

occur in a “peak hour” the predicted existing and future traffic noise levels have been

added to the assumed minimum underlying ambient noise in the absence of Mill related

traffic (i.e. 55.8 dB(A)).

4.2.9 It can be seen from the above tables that at the worst affected location, the

dwellings at the north west side of Umkomaas adjacent to the main access road, the

increase in the LA10,18h noise level due to traffic on the new access roads will be up to

0.5 dB in an “average hour”, i.e. during a period between the peak hours that occur with

shift changes. Under the IOA/IEMA guidelines such small changes would be considered

likely to be barely perceptible and represent no more than a slight impact.


4.3 VIBRATION FROM HGV MOVEMENTS ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD

4.3.1 Situations where vibration from the passage of vehicles on a public or private

highway has given rise to either an actionable nuisance or detectable physical damage

to residential property are rarely if ever encountered. Reports relating to studies of the

effects of vibration on residential property published by the company TRL (what used to

be the UK Government’s Transport and Road Research Laboratory) and the experience

of WSP over many years of investigating complaints from residents and property owners

who have experienced vibration both at levels that were described as disturbing and that

they alleged was, or might be, causing structural damage, bear this out.

4.3.2 Human perception of vibration is very sensitive and usually vibration would be

causing real discomfort and concern to someone within a property well before there was

any question of levels reaching the point of damage. From observations made by WSP

during their own investigations and those of TRL studies, the level of vibration generated

in a building by the slamming of doors within a property significantly exceeds that of

even the heaviest road traffic. In most situations the vibration from passing vehicles is

difficult to discriminate when measured within property closest to the road unless there is

a marked discontinuity in the road surface such as a pot hole or other irregularity.

4.3.3 In addition to ground borne vibration, which is that generated by the direct

transmission of energy from passing vehicles to the road surface and thence to the

foundations of a building via the intervening ground, there may sometimes be noticeable

vibration of lighter building elements by low frequency sound from passing vehicles.

Usually this results from bus or lorry traffic rather than lighter vehicles but is the result of

sound pressure exciting the windows of a house for example and not the same

mechanism as for ground borne vibration. The energy imparted to the structure in the

case of low frequency sound is very small but if the windows happen to be loose, ill

fitting sash windows for example, then the windows are quite likely to respond to sound

at their resonant frequency.

4.3.4 To provide an indication of the minimum distance at which building damage

effects might be induced reference may be made to TRL research into vibration from

road humps2 which gives “predicted minimum distances between road humps and

dwellings to avoid vibration exposure”. For a range of soil type the conclusion is that to

avoid minor damage (BS 73853) the distance from the source to the receiver is less than

1 m and that for “superficial cracks from sustained exposure” the distance ranges

between less than 1 m to at most 3 m depending upon the type of soil and type of road

hump. Generally the softer the soil type the greater the vibration transmission. The

2 DoT Traffic Advisory Leaflet 10/00: Road Humps: Discomfort, Noise and Ground-borne Vibration. 3 British Standard 7385: Part 2 provides guide threshold values of vibration exposure which may give

rise to minor cosmetic damage to buildings. The threshold relates to very minor damage such as the formation of hairline cracks on plaster finishes or in mortar joints and the spread of existing cracks.


speed of traffic also has an effect, the greater the speed the greater the vibration when a

vehicle hits the hump.

4.3.5 Road humps are a relatively extreme example of a road irregularity and I would

not expect a road in normal repair to produce ground-borne vibration levels anything like

as high as those from a speed hump.

4.3.6 The effect in any particular location may vary due to the specific ground

conditions, distance from source to receiver, vehicle axle weight, vehicle suspension

type, vehicle speed, smoothness of the road surface and of course the density of traffic

on the road in question. The advice outlined above is generally true for heavily trafficked

roads and for that reason may be assumed to represent worse case in most common

situations.

4.3.7 Only at Umkomaas, where the nearest dwellings to the access road are at a

distance of approximately 20 m, would there be any risk of traffic vibration being

detectable and even then only if there were a significant road surface irregularity in the

vicinity of homes. With effective routine maintenance of the road, it can be assumed that

there will be no change in vibration impact from traffic on the new access road.

4.4 MITIGATION OF NOISE AND VIBRATION FROM ACCESS ROAD

4.4.1 The predicted increase in road traffic noise at the potentially sensitive

location S01 does not indicate the necessity for mitigation measures such as low noise

road surfacing, the erection of noise barriers or the sound insulation of existing

properties. The most practicable means of control of both noise and vibration at

location S01 will be the maintenance of the road surface to avoid the development of

potholes and other surface irregularities which are a potential consequence of increased

HGV traffic. The enforcement of speed limits on the lengths of the road passing closest

to residential property is also an important measure in the control of noise and vibration.

Neither of these measures is directly within the control of the site operators.

4.5 NOISE AND VIBRATION FROM INCREASED RAIL MOVEMENTS

4.5.1 There is no national South African calculation model for the determination of

train noise. However, in this particular case the railway and the sidings already exist and

the trains serving the facility will be similar to those currently operating. For those

reasons it is possible simply to calculate the change in the railway noise level that the

additional rail traffic would produce.

4.5.2 This has been done assuming 43 trains per 24-hour period in the current

situation and 48 trains per 24-hour period under the worst case future scenario.

4.5.3 The predicted noise levels from the railway are detailed in the following table.


Table 13: Predicted Change in Noise Levels from Railway - Without Mitigation

Existing train

numbers Future train

numbers Train noise level

change (dB)

Day Night Day Night Day Night

All receptor locations 29 14 32 16 +0.5 +0.5

4.5.4 These changes are very slight and using the IOA/IEMA guidelines it is

considered that the noise impact from the increased rail flows should be classified as

barely perceptible and of slight impact.

4.6 MITIGATION OF NOISE FROM INCREASED RAIL MOVEMENTS

4.6.1 Generally speaking newer classes of diesel locomotive are quieter as are

rolling stock with disk braking systems. However, for a change in traffic levels of only

12% and a resultant assessment of “slight impact” the consideration of changes to

locomotives or rolling stock would not be justified other than in the normal course of the

specification of new stock when such issues should be reviewed.

4.7 NOISE FROM FREIGHT HANDLING ACTIVITIES

4.7.1 Noise levels from freight handling activities within the site have been predicted

using the noise calculation model presented in the Oil Companies International Study

Group for Conservation of Clean Air and Water - Europe (CONCAWE) report 4/81: “The

Propagation of Noise from Petroleum and Petrochemical Complexes to Neighbouring

Communities”. Although the title of this document refers to petrochemical complexes, it

is the industry standard noise calculation model for the prediction of noise from all multi-

source industrial sites. The CONCAWE model contains algorithms for calculating noise

levels in the octave frequency bands between 63 Hz and 8 kHz.

4.7.2 Source noise emission data for the most significant freight handling activities

have been obtained from measurements undertaken at other sites. The predictions

have considered the noise emissions from the following plant and activities, these being

the most significant noise sources:

• stationary or slow moving locomotives;

• cranes for loading and unloading containers;

• reachstackers for loading and unloading containers; and

• manoeuvring HGV vehicles (including reversing bleepers).

4.7.3 In addition to the above, there is also likely to be some noise from audible

warning and alarm systems; these noise sources are considered separately to the freight

handling activities below.


4.7.4 The relevant noise emission data for the above plant and activities, obtained

from the measurements undertaken at other rail facilities, are as follows.

Table 14: Noise Emission Data for Freight Handling Activities – LW (dB re.10-12W)

Octave Band Centre Frequency

Noise Source 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k A

Stationary Loco 102 94 95 95 90 89 86 75 96

Reachstacker 107 107 109 105 104 101 96 89 109

Crane Lifting 102 98 96 96 94 90 85 82 98

HGV Arriving 103 96 93 96 96 91 84 77 99

HGV Reversing 106 95 98 86 86 84 89 79 95

4.7.5 For the purpose of calculating noise levels at the nearest dwellings, the

following assumptions have been made, chosen to represent a typical scenario in

normal operation.

• The HGVs and reachstackers will have an effective source height of 2.5 m above

local ground level. The locomotives will have an effective source height of 4.5 m.

The crane will have an effective source height of 6.0 m.

• The number of HGVs entering the facility and pulling up before reversing into the

loading bays, being loaded and driving away is taken to be 16 per hour currently and

20 per hour in the future. The effective “on-time” for each HGV pulling up and

driving away is taken to be 5%; i.e. 3 minutes in every hour. The effective on-time

for the reversing bleepers is taken to be 2%; i.e. approximately one minute per

reversing manoeuvre. It is assumed that the HGVs do not have their engines

running whilst they are being loaded.

• It is assumed that there will be a reachstacker and crane operating continuously in

the present situation and two reachstackers and two cranes operating continuously

in the future scenario. It is also assumed that there will be one locomotive stationary

and idling in the facility at any one time currently, and two locomotives in the future,

post development.

• The receptor height for the houses is taken to be 2 m above ground (i.e. equivalent

to a ground floor window).

• Attenuation due to distance is calculated for the simple geometric divergence of

sound waves (point source radiation). This is valid for the given dimensions of the

noise sources relative to the propagation distances involved.

• There is unobstructed propagation of sound between the noise sources and

receivers, except where the noise sources are located behind one of the new or


existing buildings on the site. There will be no acoustic barriers to reduce noise,

other than the buildings.

• All noise sources are assumed to be omni-directional.

• The intervening ground between the noise sources and the receivers is assumed to

be acoustically soft for 80% of the line between the source and location S03, the

River being regarded as reflective.

• Attenuation due to atmospheric absorption is calculated for the worst case

conditions of 30 degrees Celsius and 95% relative humidity.

• Calculations are performed for the CONCAWE meteorological category 6, which

relates to the condition for which the prevailing meteorological conditions has the

most unfavourable effect on the propagation of sound.

• There are no other significant sound attenuation mechanisms.

• All calculations are performed in accordance with the CONCAWE noise propagation

model.

4.7.6 Applying the various “on-times” and vehicles numbers to the data in Table 16

above results in the following noise emission data sets.

Table 15: Noise Emission Data for Existing Freight Handling Activities Corrected for On-time, Source Height and Vehicle Numbers LW (dB re.10-12W)



Stationary Loco 102 94 95 95 90 89 86 75 96

Reachstacker 107 107 109 105 104 101 96 89 109

Crane Lifting 102 98 96 96 94 90 85 82 98

HGV Arriving 102 95 92 95 95 90 83 76 98

HGV Reversing 98 87 90 78 78 76 81 71 87

Table 16: Noise Emission Data for Future Freight Handling Activities Corrected for On-time and Vehicle Numbers LW (dB re.10-12W)



Stationary Loco 105 97 98 98 93 92 89 78 99

Reachstacker 110 110 112 108 107 104 99 92 112

Crane Lifting 105 101 99 99 97 93 88 85 101

HGV Arriving 103 96 93 96 96 91 84 77 99

HGV Reversing 99 88 91 79 79 77 82 72 88


4.7.7 These data have been used as the source noise data for the existing and future

scenarios calculated according to the CONCAWE method.

4.7.8 The predictions have been undertaken for the two noise sensitive receptors

identified previously that are most likely to be affected by activity in the freight handling

area on the east side of the site. The predictions relate to the LAeq,1h noise level, as used

for assessment purposes in South African National Standard SANS 10103:2004 “The

measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to land use, health,

annoyance and to speech communication”.

4.7.9 The results of the noise calculations, in terms of the predicted overall

A-weighted noise level at each receptor location, are summarised in the following tables

and more details of the calculations are provided in Appendix E to this report. The

figures presented in the tables are free-field. A +3dB correction must be applied to

obtain façade levels.

Table 17: Predicted Noise Levels from Freight Handling – without Mitigation

Predicted Source LAeq,1h Noise Level, free-field dB

Existing Future Change

Location S01 19.6 22.4 +2.8 Location S03 43.1 45.8 +2.7

Table 18: Comparison of Noise Levels from Freight Handling with Minimum Existing Ambient Noise Levels – without Mitigation

Predicted Ambient LAeq,1h Noise Level, free-field dB Measured

Ambient LAeq,T in dB Future source Future ambient Change

Location S01 56.7 22.4 56.7 0 Location S03 52.6 45.8 53.4 +0.81

Note: 1 For the more typical minimum ambient LAeq,T of 59.0 dB at location S03 the noise levels from freight handling would have no effect being more than 10 dB(A) less than the existing ambient noise level.

4.7.10 In order to assess the significance of the above predicted noise levels,

reference is made to South African National Standard SANS 10103:2004 “The

measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to land use, health,

annoyance and to speech communication”.

4.7.11 The procedure contained in SANS 10103 for assessing the likelihood of

complaint is to correct the measured or predicted noise level from the source in

question, the ‘specific noise’, immediately outside the dwelling, to better represent any

significant characteristic and then to compare the resultant ‘rating level’, LReq,T, with the

guidance on acceptable rating levels for noise in districts given in Table 2 of the 12101531 Project Amakhulu - N&V Chapter 26

Standard. Where the noise contains ‘audible tones such as whines, whistles, hums,

music, etc,……(e.g. if the noise contains discernible pitch)’ then a correction of +5dB is

added to the ‘specific noise’ level to obtain the ‘rating level’ (see 5.1.6.4 of

SANS 10103).

4.7.12 In Annex E of SANS 10103 guidance is offered on an objective measure to

determine whether a source contains a tonal character where it is not clear by simple

observation. However, given the nature of the plant and activities at Umkomaas it is

considered unlikely that any of the freight handling noise sources will display a tonal

character. The tonal character ‘penalty’ correction Ct =0 has therefore been used in the

assessment as advised in the Standard.

4.7.13 The likelihood of noise provoking complaints is assessed by comparing the

rating level of the new noise with the ‘acceptable rating level’ (see 3.1 of

SANS 10328:2003) for the type of area and for either daytime or night time or a

combined day/night rating level. SANS 10103 states in clause 4.6.4 that:

‘It is probable that the noise is annoying or otherwise intrusive to the community or to a group of persons if the rating level of the ambient noise under investigation exceeds any of the following:

a) the rating level of the residual noise (determined in the absence of the specific noise under investigation); or

b) ’the maximum rating level for the ambient noise given in table 1; or

c) the acceptable rating level for the ambient noise for the applicable environment given in table 2.

The probable community/group responses to the excess (∆LReq,T) is given in table 5. [See Appendix B, 5 of this report].

4.7.14 For both the daytime and night time periods the predicted noise level has been

assumed to be unchanged, other than in terms of its rating by virtue of the +10 dB(A)

correction at night. Day and night are defined in the Standard as generally being 06.00

to 22.00 and 22.00 to 06.00 respectively.

4.7.15 The predicted rating levels from the proposed development are compared with

existing rating levels (taken to be existing ambient noise levels + a Ct of 0) and assessed

according to SANS 10103 in the following tables.


Table 19: SANS 10103 Daytime Noise Rating Assessment – without Mitigation

Noise Level, Free-field dB(A)

SANS 10103 Acceptable

Rating Level LReq,d

Excess of Predicted

∆LReq,T Over Rural District Acceptable

Rating Level LReq,d

Receptor

Rur

al

Urb

an

Indu

stria

l

Future Total

Freight Handling Source Noise Level LAeq,T

Measured Existing Rating Level LReq,T

Predicted Future Rating Level LReq,T

Rural Urban

Excess of Predicted ∆LReq,T Over

Existing Rating Level LReq,T

S01 45 55 70 21.5 57 57 12 2 0

S03 45 55 70 45.8 531 53 8 -2 0

S03 45 55 70 45.8 602 60 15 5 0

Note: 1 Minimum measured LAeq,T.

2 More typical minimum ambient LAeq,T of 60 dB measured at location S03 during the morning and evening periods.

Table 20: SANS 10103 Night Time Noise Rating Assessment – without Mitigation

Noise Level, Free-field dB(A)

SANS 10103 Acceptable

Rating Level LReq,d

Excess of Predicted

∆LReq,T Over Rural District Acceptable

Rating Level LReq,d

Receptor

Rur

al

Urb

an

Indu

stria

l

Future Total

Freight Handling Source Noise Level LAeq,T

Measured Existing Rating Level LReq,T

Predicted Future Rating Level LReq,T

Rural Urban

Excess of Predicted ∆LReq,T Over

Existing Rating Level LReq,T

S01 35 45 60 21.5 60 60 25 15 0

S03 35 45 60 45.8 59 59 24 14 0

4.7.16 The conclusion drawn from the tabulated data is that the excess of the

predicted rating level over the acceptable rating level for a rural district during the day

lies within the estimated community/group response categories ‘little’ to ‘medium’ and for

an urban district is within the ‘little’ category. At night time for a rural district the excess

is clearly within the ‘very strong’ category of estimated community/group response, it is

between ‘medium’ and ‘strong’ for an urban district classification. However, overall there

will be no change in the situation resulting from the additional freight handling

movements associated with the new development.


4.8 MITIGATION OF FREIGHT HANDLING NOISE

4.8.1 The predictions have assumed that all of the truck and rail traffic is within direct

line of sight from location S03. Whilst screening diesel locomotives, for which the

primary noise source will be the cooling fans on the roof (usually taken to be at a height

of 4 m above the rail head and assumed to be 4.5 m for this assessment), can be

difficult there may be scope for providing localised screening of the area used for

unloading delivering trucks. The engine noise source on a truck and indeed on the

reachstacker has been assumed to be 2.5 m high. Either by positioning the unloading

are immediately behind a relatively long building that is at least high enough to obstruct

the line of sight between source and receiver or by providing a purpose built screen the

noise from this activity could be reduced by approximately 10 dB(A) if a line of sight

between the activity and the receiver location were prevented by the screen.

4.8.2 The reachstacker is the most significant single contributor to the noise from

freight handling being nearly 10 dB(A) noisier than any other single vehicle or item of

plant. If the existing reachstacker could be replaced with a super silenced model and

any additional reachstacker similarly specified, then it is very probable that the reduction

in noise from this one source alone could be greatly reduced, probably by as much as

10 dB(A).

4.8.3 For the purpose of these noise predictions it has been assumed that stationary

diesel locomotives in the marshalling yard would be left idling continuously. In practice

this may not be necessary and if engine running time can be minimised this would

reduce the noise level contribution from this source.

4.8.4 Adoption of such mitigation measures would of course have potential effect in

reducing noise from the existing freight handling activity, albeit that its contribution to the

noise emitted from the site as a whole appears to be relatively insignificant.

4.9 NOISE FROM NEW PRODUCTION PLANT

4.9.1 No detailed information is available regarding the noise emission

characteristics of the electrical and mechanical plant that is to be installed as part of the

proposed expansion of the facility. However, Project Amakhulu is understood to allow

Sappi Saiccor to increase their dissolving pulp production from approximately

560 000 tons per annum to about 800 000 tons per annum.

4.9.2 The project will include the following activities:

• New internal road transport logistics and weighbridge;

• Relocation and expansion of the log storage area;

• Installation of a new chipping line

• Conversion of two calcium digesters to liquor storages facilities and one as a spare

magnesium digester;


• Conversion of one calcium digester to a maintenance/swing magnesium/calcium

digester;

• New set of 11 magnesium cooking digesters and associated chip loading and silo;

• New evaporator plants;

• New magnesium oxide and sulphur dioxide recovery plant and boiler;

• New chimney stack;

• New turbine/generator set to match the new recovery boiler capacity;

• New oxygen delignification and bleach plant;

• New pulp drying machine designed for 800 tons per day average;

• Upgrade to the existing chlorine dioxide plant and chillers;

• Addition to Eskom Rayon Substation, transformer yard and switchgear; and

• New air compressors and driers.

4.9.3 It can be assumed that the warehousing and office buildings will require air

extraction units, cooling and ventilation plant, boilers and, possibly, a standby generator.

4.9.4 Since the detailed plant design has not yet been undertaken, it is assumed that

there will be some scope within the design to select suitably selected production plant or

to locate ventilation or other fixed plant so as to be screened from the nearest dwellings

in order that it will have minimal effect on increasing background noise levels at the

dwellings.

4.9.5 Currently noise from the site, as heard at residential property, is dominated by

the sound of the chippers. The noise from these is both tonal and at times impulsive in

character – features which would attract corrections of +5 dB for each when deriving the

rating level using the methodology of SANS 10103. The chippers are clearly the most

significant noise generating items of plant on the site.

4.9.6 It is recommended that the new chipper to be provided as part of the

development proposals should be housed within a high performance acoustic enclosure.

To maintain the sound reducing potential of such a structure it is important that openings

for ventilation as well as for the entry and exit of materials and personnel be provided via

sound attenuated routes. In the case of ventilation this may be by means of proprietary

attenuators but staggered plenum arrangements at openings to the building with the

internal surface of the plenum lined with suitable sound absorbent material may offer a

solution for some or all of these potential acoustic weak points.


4.9.7 In order to ensure that ambient noise levels at the closest dwellings do not

increase significantly, the total combined noise level from all plant would be substantially

lower than the existing LAeq,T noise level at those dwellings. The acceptable rating levels

for rural areas cited in SANS 10103 would be the preferred target level except where

best practicable means and the existing noise levels make such an approach

inappropriate.

4.9.8 In order to set appropriate daytime and night-time noise limits for electrical and

mechanical plant, the lowest recorded LAeq,T daytime and night-time noise levels have

been used, in accordance with SANS 10103.

4.9.9 In order to ensure that existing ambient noise levels do not rise, the plant

should be designed to meet the following noise limits with the proviso that where

practicable meeting the appropriate acceptable noise rating levels for a rural zone in

SANS 10103 should be the aim (i.e. free-field LAeq,T 45 dB(A) by day and 35 dB(A) by

night).

Table 21: Noise Limits for Electrical and Mechanical Plant

Overall Combined Noise Rating Limit for Electrical and Mechanical Plant, LAeq,T (dB), Measured as a Free-field Level

Assessment Location Daytime 06.00 to 22.00 hrs Night-time 22.00 to 06.00 hrs

S01 45 43 S02 47 44 S03 54 52 S04 54 52

4.9.10 This analysis is based on the existing plant noise rating levels given in Table 3

of this report. No night time correction of –10 dB(A) has been applied, the logic being

that this would have no beneficial effect on existing ambient noise levels. However, if

the new plant noise has a distinct impulsive or tonal character, irrespective of whether

this is similar to existing plant, the maximum noise level specified for the relevant item

should be reduced by a further 5 dB(A) to achieve the required rating level.

5 Residual Effects 5.1.1 This assessment has considered the noise and vibration aspects of the

proposed development at the Sappi Saiccor site potentially impinging on the residential

areas around the site and the main road and rail access routes into the site from the

east.

5.1.2 Existing levels of ambient and background noise, invariably including the

exsiting contribution from the Lignotech plant, have been measured at representative


locations around the site in the morning, daytime, evening and at night. These levels

have been rated according to the guidance in relevant national standards (except for

construction where appropriate British Standards have been employed) and the results

of predicted noise levels for the various noise sources involved in the construction and

operation of the new development compared with these. The results have been

assessed using the guidance in relevant South African National Standards,

5.1.3 Construction noise impacts have been predicted to be from none to slight at

even the closest residential property both for the average and worst case situations.

The adoption of best practicable means and the development of and adherence to an

environmental management plan for the construction programme are proposed to

mitigate these slight impacts.

5.1.4 Vibration arising from construction activity is predicted to be of no significance

at any residential property.

5.1.5 The predicted increase in rail freight movements is only 12% and the resultant

noise impact from the increased rail flows will be barely perceptible and of slight impact.

5.1.6 The additional heavy vehicle traffic associated with the development at the

Sappi Saiccor site amounts to a 35% increase in terms of numbers but this is only one

element of the traffic flow on the main access road and is predicted to be barely

perceptible and represent no more than a slight impact. This is based on the impact

predicted for properties at 20 m from the access road which has been taken as

representative of the worst case for the route of the road along the north side of

Umkomaas.

5.1.7 Vibration from road traffic is not anticipated to be a problem at any residential

property, however, it is possible that the additional heavy vehicle traffic will increase the

importance of regular maintenance of the road by the local authority to avoid the

development of surface irregularities that can be the cause of vibration from passing

traffic.

5.1.8 Operational noise from additional freight handling activity on the site will result

in no change to the existing noise climate at any of the residential receptors. Noise from

loading and unloading activity could be minimised by screening local to the source and

between it and potentially sensitive dwellings; this is particularly the case for the east

side of the site where generally there is no intervening site building.

5.1.9 Specification and design of new plant for the site introduced as part of this

development should meet the proposed noise rating limits for electrical and mechanical

plant. These represent the total noise contribution of such sources and have been

determined on the basis of not increasing existing ambient noise rating levels at the

receptor locations considered.


5.1.10 The conclusions of the noise impact assessment have been summarised in the

table on the following page.


Table 22: Summary Impact Table for Noise Issues

Res

idua

l Sig

nific

ance

Se

vere

, Sub

stan

tial,

Mod

erat

e,

Slig

ht o

r Non

e (P

ositi

ve o

r Neg

ativ

e)

Non

e to

slig

ht n

egat

ive

at n

eare

st

resi

dent

ial p

rope

rties

Non

e

Non

e to

slig

ht n

egat

ive

at n

eare

st

resi

dent

ial p

rope

rties

Slig

ht n

egat

ive

Non

e

Slig

ht n

egat

ive

Miti

gatio

n / E

nhan

cem

ent

Mea

sure

s

The

adop

tion

of “b

est p

ract

icab

le

mea

ns” a

nd a

n en

viro

nmen

tal p

lan

for t

he c

onst

ruct

ion

wor

ks

Non

e

Noi

se li

mits

for s

peci

ficat

ion

and

desi

gn o

f fix

ed p

lant

. Lo

cal

scre

enin

g in

frei

ght h

andl

ing

area

Non

e

Roa

d su

rface

mai

nten

ance

Non

e

Sign

ifica

nce

Seve

re, S

ubst

antia

l, M

oder

ate,

Sl

ight

or N

one

(Pos

itive

or N

egat

ive)

Slig

ht n

egat

ive

Non

e

Slig

ht n

egat

ive

Slig

ht n

egat

ive

Non

e

Slig

ht n

egat

ive

Natu

re o

f Im

pact

Pe

rman

ent o

r Te

mpo

rary

Tem

pora

ry

Tem

pora

ry

Perm

anen

t

Perm

anen

t

Perm

anen

t

Perm

anen

t

Pote

ntia

l Im

pact

Noi

se d

urin

g co

nstru

ctio

n of

th

e fa

cilit

y

Vibr

atio

n du

ring

cons

truct

ion

of

the

faci

lity

Noi

se d

urin

g op

erat

ion

of

the

faci

lity

Roa

d tra

ffic

nois

e du

ring

oper

atio

n

Roa

d tra

ffic

vibr

atio

n du

ring

o per

atio

n R

ail t

raffi

c no

ise

durin

g op

erat

ion


Appendix A Noise and Vibration Terminology

Sound Pressure Sound, or sound pressure, is a fluctuation in air pressure over the static ambient pressure.

Sound Pressure Level (Sound Level), LpA

The sound level is the sound pressure relative to a standard reference pressure of 20 µPa (20x10-6 Pascals) on a decibel scale.

Decibel (dB) A scale for comparing the ratios of two quantities, including sound pressure and sound power. The difference in level between two sounds s1 and s2 is given by 20 log10 ( s1 / s2 ). The decibel can also be used to measure absolute quantities by specifying a reference value that fixes one point on the scale. For sound pressure, the reference value is 20 µPa.

A-weighting, dB(A) The unit of sound level, weighted according to the A-scale, which takes into account the increased sensitivity of the human ear at some frequencies.

Noise Level Indices Noise levels usually fluctuate over time, so it is often necessary to consider an average or statistical noise level. This can be done in several ways, so a number of different noise indices have been defined, according to how the averaging or statistics are carried out.

LAeq,T A noise level index called the “equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level” over the time period T. This is the level of a notional steady sound that would contain the same amount of sound energy as the actual, possibly fluctuating, sound that was measured.

LReq,T The “equivalent continuous rating level”, which is the LAeq,T plus specified adjustments for tonal character, impulsiveness of the sound and the time of day.

LR,dn The “equivalent continuous day/night rating level”, which is the LAeq,T over a 24-hour reference time interval plus specified adjustments for tonal character, impulsiveness of the sound and the time of day.

Lmax,T A noise level index defined as the maximum noise level during the period T. Lmax is sometimes used for the assessment of occasional loud noises, which may have little effect on the overall Leq noise level but will still affect the noise environment. Unless described otherwise, it is measured using the 'fast' sound level meter response.

L90,T A noise level index. The noise level exceeded for 90% of the time over the period T. L90 can be considered to be the ‘average minimum’ noise level and is often used to describe the background noise.

L10,T A noise level index. The noise level exceeded for 10% of the time over the period T. L10 can be considered to be the ‘average maximum’ noise level. Generally used in the UK to describe road traffic noise.


Free-Field Far from the presence of sound reflecting objects (except the ground), usually taken to mean at least 3.5 m

Fast Time Weighting An averaging time used in sound level meters. Defined in BS 5969.

Ambient Noise Level The totally encompassing sound in a given situation at a given time, usually composed of sounds from many sources both distant and near (LAeq,T).

Vibration Vibration is an oscillatory motion. The magnitude of vibration can be defined in terms of displacement how far from the equilibrium something moves, velocity (how fast something moves), or acceleration (the rate of change of velocity).

Peak Particle Velocity (ppv)

The maximum instantaneous velocity of a particle at a point during a given time interval, measured in mms-1.

Vibration Dose value (VDV)

A measure of the accumulated level of ground vibration over a period, measured in ms-1.75.


Appendix B Noise and Vibration Standards and Criteria

DOE ADVISORY LEAFLET (AL) 72: NOISE CONTROL ON BUILDING SITES

1.1 A figure that is often quoted as being an acceptable level of noise from construction or roads maintenance sites is LAeq,T 75 dB measured at the external façade of an occupied building over the normal working day. This figure was first suggested in the Wilson Report of the Committee on the Problem of Noise, published in 1963, and subsequently replicated in the DoE Advisory Leaflet (AL) 72 Noise Control on Building Sites. The limits set out in AL 72, which is now out of print, are;

• 70 dB(A) in rural, suburban and urban areas away from main road traffic and industrial noise, and;

• 75 dB(A) in urban areas near main roads and heavy industrial areas.

1.2 The above limits are both measured over a 12-hour working day.

1.3 Given the predominantly rural setting of the site, it is proposed to assess the construction works against a daytime noise level of LAeq,12h 70 dB(A).

BRITISH STANDARD BS 5228: 1992/1997

Code of practice for the control of noise on construction and open sites

2.1 The standard is a substantial series of documents providing methods and data for predicting the noise and vibration levels to be expected from particular construction activities using a limited range of plant selected from the tables of data given for typical or specified circumstances.

2.2 Reference is made to the need for the protection of persons living and working in the vicinity of construction sites and other open sites, as well as for the protection of those working on the sites, from noise and vibration. It recommends procedures for noise and vibration control and aims to assist architects, contractors and site operatives, designers, developers, engineers, local authority environmental health officers and planners, regarding the control of noise and vibration. It draws attention to the provisions in the Control of Pollution Act 1974 relating to the abatement of nuisances caused by noise and vibration. The standard offers examples of good practice, although adherence to its guidance does not ensure immunity from legislative requirements. Although it stops short of recommending precise noise limits, allowing for some flexibility to accommodate particular circumstances, it does give general guidance. The prediction method and the criteria adopted for the assessment of construction noise from the proposed Project Amakhulu development have been based on BS 5228 and commonly adopted construction noise limits.

2.3 Typical control limits for construction noise measured at noise sensitive façades of residential property are as detailed in the following table:


Table 1 Typical construction noise control limits

Day of the Week Working Hours Measurement Period T (hours)

Noise Limit LAeq,T (dB)

Monday to Friday 0700-0800 1 70

Monday to Friday 1800-1900 1 70

Monday to Saturday 0800-1800 10 75

2.4 At all other times no work on the site should be audible at the curtilage of any occupied residential property.

TRL REPORT 429 - GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION CAUSED BY MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION WORKS

3.1 The most recent guidance for the prediction and assessment of construction vibration is contained in TRL Report 429 ‘Groundborne vibration caused by mechanised construction works’. Published in 2000, it details the results of research undertaken by the Transport Research laboratory (TRL) to provide guidance on the control and mitigation of vibration to prevent damage or intrusion without the imposition of over-conservative limits and to aid selection of appropriate plant. The report presents and reviews data mostly in terms of peak particle velocity (ppv) which is a parameter referred to in the current British Standards relating to both building damage criteria and human perception and disturbance. It includes a comparison of various national standards in terms of the recommended ppv limits for z-axis (i.e. parallel to the spine) vibration during the daytime. By reference to the base curves 2 and 4 of Table 5 in British Standard BS 6472 : 1992 the acceptable daytime limit within residential property may be described as being between 0.804 and 1.608 mms-1.

3.2 Vibration from construction activity is transient and tends to be irregular. The following maximum vibration limits have been derived from experience on construction sites where demolition, piling and compaction activities have affected the occupiers of residential property.

3.3 Based on the available guidelines and Standards, for different levels of adverse comment the general ranges of peak particle velocity vibration level associated with potential levels of adverse comment are as follows:

Table 2 Peak particle velocity vibration level ranges corresponding with potential levels of adverse comment

Building Use Adverse

Comment Unlikely

Adverse Comment Possible

Adverse Comment Probable

Residential or Office (day) >0.56 mms-1 ppv >1.12 mms-1 ppv >2.24 mms-1 ppv

3.4 The above assessment is based on the available data on human response to vibration. It does not take into account other factors such as the potential for the vibration to cause objects to rattle, etc.


3.5 For building damage criteria the following table sets out limits for primarily transient vibration above which cosmetic damage could occur. It is drawn from BS 7385: Part 2: 1993 “Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings - guide to damage levels from groundbourne vibration”.

Table 3 Cosmetic damage guide values for transient vibration

Building Type Peak particle velocity (mms-1) in frequency range of predominant pulse

Reinforced or framed structures. Industrial and heavy commercial buildings.

50 mms-1 at 4 Hz and above

4 Hz to 15 Hz 15 Hz and above Unreinforced or light framed structures. Residential or light commercial type buildings.

15 mms-1 at 4 Hz increasing to 20 mms-1 at

15 Hz

20 mms-1 at 15 Hz increasing to 50 mms-1 at

40 Hz and above

3.6 The above vibration limits relate to the maximum ground vibration occurring in any one of three mutually perpendicular axes (one of which will be vertical). As a practicable means of control for construction works the vibration normally would be measured at the foundation of the building being monitored or alternatively a point low on the main load bearing wall at ground level. Where human disturbance is a particular concern then measurements at a point mid span on an upper floor are likely to be more representative if access is available and measurements will not be unduly influenced by activity within the building.

3.7 Criteria for the assessment of vibration are to be found in the following reference sources:

• BS 7385 : Part 1 : 1990 Mechanical vibration and shock – vibration of buildings - guidelines for the measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects on buildings;

• BS 7385 : Part 2 : 1993 Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings - guide to damage levels from groundbourne vibration;

• DIN 4150 : Part 3 : 1986 Structural vibration in buildings - Effects on structures;

• BS 6472 : 1992 : Evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz);

• BS 6841 : 1987 British Standard Guide to measurement and evaluation of human exposure to whole body mechanical vibration and repeated shock; and

• BS 5228 : Part 4 : 1992 British Standard Code of Practice for noise and vibration control applicable to piling operations.

SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL STANDARD SANS 10328 : 2003 Methods for environmental noise impact assessments

4.1 This Standard covers procedures for environmental noise investigations and assessments.

4.2 It sets out the need for and structure of a scoping report and, where relevant, an environmental impact report. The introduction of new noise sources or the upgrading of existing ones are identified as issues that could have acoustical implications, together with the establishment of new noise sensitive development and changes of land use.

4.3 A “plan of study” for discussion and agreement by the interested and affected parties is required as a prelude to the scoping investigation. The scoping investigation


itself involves an estimation of the noise impact based on a series of steps set out in the standard. The results are assessed and tested against two questions:

a) Would the estimated expected rating level of the planned development possibly have a significant effect on the acceptable sound levels in the target area?

b) Would the estimated expected rating level have a significant effect on the planned development?

4.4 If the answers to both questions are negative the acoustical impact is unlikely to be significant and the scoping report would reflect that assessment. Conversely if either answer is in the affirmative the acoustical impact is likely to be significant and alternatives should be considered.

4.5 The environmental noise impact investigation procedure is described in section 7 of the Standard and includes determination of the sound emission from the identified noise sources with references to appropriate procedures provided for:

1 individual static noise sources;

2 combined static noise sources;

3 air traffic;

4 road transport; and

5 rail traffic.

4.6 From these sound emission data the expected rating level is calculated for assessment against appropriate rating level for outdoor conditions (table 2 of SANS 10103:2003 - note that the current version is SANS 10103:2004) any legal requirements or the probable community response judged from table 5 of SANS 10103:2003.

4.7 Again the same questions posed in 4.3 above should be asked and if necessary alternatives investigated.

4.8 Finally the minimum content of the environmental noise impact report is set out.

SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL STANDARD SANS 10103 : 2004 The measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to land use, health, annoyance and to speech communication

5.1 The Standard is intended to ensure that a common method is employed to rate the intrusion of environmental noise with respect to health, land use, annoyance and to speech communication. It provides a general guideline that “no member of the community should be required to reside in areas where the equivalent continuous day/night rating levels exceed 55 dB(A)” and that above these levels members of the community may be affected.

5.2 Guidelines are provided for ambient noise indoors (table 1 of the Standard), acceptable noise in various districts for land use purposes (table of the Standard), noise and speech communication (tables 3 and 4 of the Standard) and assessment of annoyance (table 5 of the Standard – reproduced below).


Table 4: Categories of Community/Group Response (Table 5 of SANS 10103)

1 2 3

Estimated community/group response Excess ∆LReq,T

a dBA Category Description

0 – 10 5 – 15 10 – 20

>15

Little Medium Strong Very Strong

Sporadic complaints Widespread complaints Threats of community/group action Vigorous community/group action

a ∆LReq,T should be calculated from the appropriate of the following:

1) ∆LReq,T = LReq,T of ambient noise under investigation MINUS LReq,T of the residual noise (determined in the absence of the specific noise under investigation).

2) ∆LReq,T = LReq,T of ambient noise under investigation MINUS the maximum rating level for the ambient noise given in table 1.

3) ∆LReq,T = LReq,T of ambient noise under investigation MINUS the acceptable rating level for the applicable district as determined from table 2.

4) ∆LReq,T = Expected increase in LReq,T of ambient noise in an area because of a proposed development under investigation.

NOTE Overlapping ranges for the excess values are given because a spread in the community reaction may be anticipated.

5.3 Finally the Standard sets out the steps in determining the equivalent continuous rating level (LReq,T) and the exposure rating level (LRE,T) including details of measurement and calculation procedures.

SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL STANDARD SANS 10210 : 2004 Calculating and predicting road traffic noise

6.1 The Standard describes a procedure for calculating and predicting road traffic noise under typical South African traffic and sound propagation conditions, in terms of a one-hour-equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level (LAeq,1h) for any chosen time interval (in multiples of one hour). The procedure relates both to traffic operating on uninterrupted flow road facilities and to stop-start conditions on interrupted flow road facilities.

6.2 SANS 10210 sets out a step-by-step method for predicting road traffic noise levels (LAeq,1h) at a distance from the highway. Firstly the “basic noise level” for the traffic flow on the road under a set of standard conditions at a reference distance of 10 m from the source line is calculated. This is then corrected for the significant features of the actual situation under consideration taking into account such factors as traffic speed and percentage heavy vehicles, gradient, road surface texture, road configuration, intervening ground cover between source and receiver, screening (barriers, buildings and topography), angle of view of the traffic and reflections from façades.

IEMA/IOA GUIDELINES FOR NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

7.1 A Consultation Draft of this document was published by a joint working party of the Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA) and the Institute of


Acoustics (IOA) in April 2002. The guidance is intended to cover all aspects of noise impact assessment and set good practice standards for the scope, content and methodology of noise impact assessments.

7.2 The guidelines do not provide precise guidance on what is ‘significant’ on the basis that no two situations will be the same in terms of their noise effects. Nevertheless the guidance does offer an example of how the significance of the basic noise change might be categorised and this is reproduced below. However it stresses that other characteristics of the noise should be taken into account when determining the most appropriate categorisation of any particular noise.

7.3 These findings are not yet complete but, as an example, the working party has indicated that the change in noise level could be assessed against the criteria given in the following table:

Table 5 Example of categorising the significance of the basic noise change

Change in Noise Level dB(A) Subjective Response Significance

0 No change No impact

0.1 - 2.9 Barely perceptible Slight impact

3.0 - 4.9 Noticeable Moderate impact

5.0 - 9.9 Up to a doubling or halving in loudness Substantial impact

10.0 or more More than a doubling or halving in loudness

Severe impact

7.4 The criteria above reflect commonly accepted benchmarks that relate to human perception of sound. A change of 3 dB(A) is generally considered to be the smallest change in noise that is perceptible. A 10 dB(A) change in noise represents a doubling or halving of the noise level. The difference between the minimum perceptible change and the doubling or halving of the noise level is split to provide greater definition to the assessment of changes in noise level.

7.5 It is considered that the criteria specified in the above table provide a good indication as to the likely significance of changes in noise level in this case. Therefore, the noise threshold levels and significance statements above have been used to assess the impact of the construction of the development proposals.

WHO GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNITY NOISE (1999)

8.1 The World Health Organisation has derived guidelines with the aim of protecting people from the harmful effects of noise in non-industrial environments. Table 1 of the WHO document provides guideline values for community noise in specific environments and in the context of this proposed scheme the following would be relevant:


Table 6 WHO Guideline Values for Community Noise in Specific Environments.

Specific environment Critical health effect(s) LAeq (dB) Time base

(hours) LAmax

fast (dB)

Outdoor living area

Serious annoyance, daytime and evening Moderate annoyance, daytime and evening

55

50

16

16

- -

Dwelling, indoors Inside bedrooms

Speech intelligibility & moderate annoyance, daytime & evening Sleep disturbance, night-time

35

30

16 8

-

45

Outside bedrooms

Sleep disturbance, window open (outdoor values)

45 8 60

Industrial, commercial, shopping and traffic areas, indoors and outdoors

Hearing impairment 70 24 110

Public addresses, indoors and outdoors

Hearing impairment 85 1 110

BRITISH STANDARD BS 8233: 1999 Code of practice for sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings

9.1 BS 8233 is a compilation of noise standards and guidelines drawn from a number of authoritative sources which is intended to be used as a design manual for “use by non-specialist designers and constructors of buildings and those concerned with building control, planning and environmental health.” The most appropriate guidance in the present context is that relating to dwellings and offices. In Table 5 of BS 8233 limits of steady noise for good conditions and reasonable conditions, in spaces when they are unoccupied, are given as follows:


Table 7 Guidelines for Indoor Ambient Noise Levels in Spaces when they are Unoccupied

Design range LAeq,T (dB) Criterion Typical situations

Good Reasonable Reasonable speech or telephone communications

Cafeteria, canteen, kitchen Wash-room, toilet Corridor

50 45 45

55 55 55

Reasonable listening conditions for study and work requiring concentration

Library, cellular office Staff room Meeting room, executive office

40 35 35

50 45 40

Reasonable listening conditions

Classroom Lecture theatre

35 30

40 35

Reasonable resting/sleeping conditions

Living rooms Bedrooms a

30 30

40 35

a For a reasonable standard in bedrooms at night, individual noise events (measured with F time-weighting) should not normally exceed 45 dB LAmax.

9.2 It should be noted that primarily these limits are for steady noise such as that due to road traffic, mechanical services or continuously running plant. It should be the noise level in the space during normal hours of occupation but excluding any noise produced by the occupants.

9.3 These internal criteria must be related in some way to corresponding external noise levels in order to be useful and the standard offers typical weighted sound reduction index (Rw) values for the sound insulation of windows (which are always the weakest element of a facade in the acoustic sense):

i) any type of window in a facade when partially open 10-15 dB

ii) single glazed windows (4 mm glass) 22-30 dB

iii) thermal insulating units (6-12-6) 33-35 dB



Appendix C Noise Monitoring Locations

Appendix D Noise Monitoring Results

Sapp

i Sai

ccor

Com

mun

ity N

oise

Sur

vey

Dat

e: 0

2/12

/200

5R

un d

urat

ion:

10

min

utes

Site

Star

tTe

mp

Win

dSo

und

Leve

l Rea

ding

s (d

B)

Com

men

tsTi

me

(°C

)C

ondi

tion

LAFm

xLA

Fmn

LAFe

qLA

F10

LAF9

0S0

101

:52:

0520

Cal

m74

.744

.560

.263

.548

.0Ba

rkin

g do

g, li

ght v

ehic

ular

traf

ficS0

106

:03:

1518

Cal

m77

.945

.758

.059

.547

.5Ve

hicl

e tra

ffic,

aer

opla

neS0

111

:43:

1732

Bree

ze85

.444

.662

.966

.047

.5Ve

hicl

e tra

ffic,

trai

n in

dis

tanc

eS0

120

:30:

0925

Cal

m78

.349

.756

.757

.552

.5Ve

hicl

e tra

ffic

S02

02:1

3:52

20C

alm

57.2

47.0

50.8

52.0

48.5

Mill

in b

ackg

roun

dS0

206

:24:

0118

Cal

m63

.450

.253

.354

.552

.0Bi

rd c

alls

, mill

in b

ackg

roun

dS0

212

:04:

4432

Bree

ze63

.747

.353

.155

.549

.5Ae

ropl

ane,

mill

in b

ackg

roun

dS0

220

:52:

3725

Cal

m67

.151

.255

.657

.053

.0Ae

ropl

ane,

mill

in b

ackg

roun

dS0

302

:37:

1920

Cal

m64

.655

.159

.060

.557

.0M

ill in

bac

kgro

und

S03

06:4

7:15

18Br

eeze

66.6

56.7

59.9

61.0

58.5

Aero

plan

e, m

ill in

bac

kgro

und

S03

12:2

6:35

32Br

eeze

61.5

47.8

52.6

54.5

49.5

Sire

n fro

m m

illS0

321

:15:

2024

Cal

m68

.257

.060

.061

.558

.5M

ill in

bac

kgro

und

S04

02:5

2:01

20C

alm

67.4

55.8

58.1

59.0

57.0

Mill

near

byS0

407

:06:

2818

Bree

ze75

.555

.261

.663

.056

.5Tr

ucks

driv

ing

past

S04

12:4

3:24

32Br

eeze

79.7

56.7

63.7

65.0

59.0

Truc

ks d

rivin

g pa

st, f

ront

-end

load

er o

n sa

ndS0

421

:31:

4824

Cal

m88

.556

.762

.262

.559

.0Li

ght v

ehic

le tr

affic

Shift

Cha

nge

Dat

e: 0

2/12

/200

5R

un d

urat

ion:

1 h

our

Site

Star

tTe

mp

Soun

d Le

vel R

eadi

ngs

(dB

)C

omm

ents

Tim

e(°

C)

LAFm

xLA

Fmn

LAFe

qLA

F10

LAF9

0S0

415

:33:

4830

Bree

ze76

.954

.460

.462

.057

.0Tr

ucks

& li

ght v

ehic

le tr

affic

on

adja

cent

road


Appendix E CONCAWE Calculation Sheets

CO

NC

AWE

RES

ULT

S SH

EET

Loca

tion

S01

Exi

stin

g

Oct

ave

Band

Cen

tre F

requ

ency

(Hz)

dBdB

Usi

ng

Lp

= L

w +

D -

Sum

(K1:

K7)

6312

525

050

010

0020

0040

0080

00lin

A

LwSo

und

Pow

er L

evel

at S

ourc

e (d

B L

inea

r)10

9.0

107.

010

9.0

105.

010

5.0

101.

096

.089

.011

4.6

109.

1

DD

irect

ivity

Inde

x0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Geo

met

ric S

prea

ding

K1

Sour

ce to

Rec

eive

r Dis

tanc

e in

met

res

3100

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

Atm

osph

eric

Abs

orpt

ion

K2

Tem

pera

ture

in d

egre

es C

elci

us (0

-30

in s

teps

of 5

)30

Rel

ativ

e H

umid

ity (5

5-10

0 in

ste

ps o

f 5)

950.

00.

31.

24.

715

.237

.266

.312

5.6

Gro

und

Atte

nuat

ion

K3

Abso

rben

t Gro

und

Cov

er (y

/n)?

yIf

yes,

Per

cent

age

Abso

rben

t?80

6.3

11.0

15.8

8.5

4.4

4.9

5.8

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

orre

ctio

nK

4Pa

squi

ll S

tabi

lity

Cat

egor

y (A

-G, d

efau

lt D

)D

Vect

or W

ind

Spee

d (0

.5m

/s s

teps

, def

ault

0m/s

)3

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

ateg

ory

6-2

.5-4

.2-6

.4-7

.2-5

.0-4

.6-7

.3

Sour

ce a

nd/o

r Rec

eive

r Hei

ght C

orre

ctio

nK

5So

urce

Hei

ght i

n m

etre

s (g

roun

d/ac

tual

)2.

52.

5R

ecei

ver H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

230

-1.8

-2.6

-3.2

-1.1

-0.6

-0.9

-0.4

Barri

er A

ttenu

atio

nK

6Ba

rrier

(y/n

)?n

If ye

s, is

the

barr

ier d

iscr

ete

(y/n

)?n

Barr

ier H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

Barri

er to

Sou

rce

in m

etre

sPa

th D

iffer

ence

n /a

Shad

ow, I

llum

inat

ed o

r Gra

z ing

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

In-p

lant

Scr

eeni

ngK

70.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Sum

(K1:

K7)

82.8

85.4

88.1

85.6

94.8

117.

414

5.3

206.

4

LpPr

edic

ted

Sou

nd P

ress

ure

Leve

l at R

ecei

ver (

free-

field

)26

.221

.620

.919

.410

.20.

00.

00.

028

.918

.8

Note: Calculations are for sources that are 2.5 m above ground level


CO

NC

AWE

RES

ULT

S SH

EET

Loca

tion

S01

Fut

ure Oct

ave

Band

Cen

tre F

requ

ency

(Hz)

dBdB

Usi

ng

Lp

= L

w +

D -

Sum

(K1:

K7)

6312

525

050

010

0020

0040

0080

00lin

A

LwSo

und

Pow

er L

evel

at S

ourc

e (d

B L

inea

r)11

1.0

110.

011

2.0

108.

010

7.0

104.

099

.092

.011

7.3

111.

7

DD

irect

ivity

Inde

x0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Geo

met

ric S

prea

ding

K1

Sour

ce to

Rec

eive

r Dis

tanc

e in

met

res

3100

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

Atm

osph

eric

Abs

orpt

ion

K2

Tem

pera

ture

in d

egre

es C

elci

us (0

-30

in s

teps

of 5

)30

Rel

ativ

e H

umid

ity (5

5-10

0 in

ste

ps o

f 5)

950.

00.

31.

24.

715

.237

.266

.312

5.6

Gro

und

Atte

nuat

ion

K3

Abso

rben

t Gro

und

Cov

er (y

/n)?

yIf

yes,

Per

cent

age

Abso

rben

t?80

6.3

11.0

15.8

8.5

4.4

4.9

5.8

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

orre

ctio

nK

4Pa

squi

ll S

tabi

lity

Cat

egor

y (A

-G, d

efau

lt D

)D

Vect

or W

ind

Spee

d (0

.5m

/s s

teps

, def

ault

0m/s

)3

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

ateg

ory

6-2

.5-4

.2-6

.4-7

.2-5

.0-4

.6-7

.3

Sour

ce a

nd/o

r Rec

eive

r Hei

ght C

orre

ctio

nK

5So

urce

Hei

ght i

n m

etre

s (g

roun

d/ac

tual

)2.

52.

5R

ecei

ver H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

230

-1.8

-2.6

-3.2

-1.1

-0.6

-0.9

-0.4

Barri

er A

ttenu

atio

nK

6Ba

rrier

(y/n

)?n

If ye

s, is

the

barr

ier d

iscr

ete

(y/n

)?n

Barr

ier H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

Barri

er to

Sou

rce

in m

etre

sPa

th D

iffer

ence

n /a

Shad

ow, I

llum

inat

ed o

r Gra

z ing

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

In-p

lant

Scr

eeni

ngK

70.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Sum

(K1:

K7)

82.8

85.4

88.1

85.6

94.8

117.

414

5.3

206.

4

LpPr

edic

ted

Sou

nd P

ress

ure

Leve

l at R

ecei

ver (

free-

field

)28

.224

.623

.922

.412

.20.

00.

00.

031

.421

.6



CO

NC

AWE

RES

ULT

S SH

EET

Loca

tion

S03

Exi

stin

g

Oct

ave

Band

Cen

tre F

requ

ency

(Hz)

dBdB

Usi

ng

Lp

= L

w +

D -

Sum

(K1:

K7)

6312

525

050

010

0020

0040

0080

00lin

A

LwSo

und

Pow

er L

evel

at S

ourc

e (d

B L

inea

r)10

9.0

107.

010

9.0

105.

010

5.0

101.

096

.089

.011

4.6

109.

1

DD

irect

ivity

Inde

x0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Geo

met

ric S

prea

ding

K1

Sour

ce to

Rec

eive

r Dis

tanc

e in

met

res

600

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

Atm

osph

eric

Abs

orpt

ion

K2

Tem

pera

ture

in d

egre

es C

elci

us (0

-30

in s

teps

of 5

)30

Rel

ativ

e H

umid

ity (5

5-10

0 in

ste

ps o

f 5)

950.

00.

10.

20.

92.

97.

212

.824

.3

Gro

und

Atte

nuat

ion

K3

Abso

rben

t Gro

und

Cov

er (y

/n)?

yIf

yes,

Per

cent

age

Abso

rben

t?80

-1.5

4.7

9.8

8.4

4.5

2.4

1.1

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

orre

ctio

nK

4Pa

squi

ll S

tabi

lity

Cat

egor

y (A

-G, d

efau

lt D

)D

Vect

or W

ind

Spee

d (0

.5m

/s s

teps

, def

ault

0m/s

)3

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

ateg

ory

6-2

.5-3

.7-5

.4-6

.1-5

.1-4

.6-6

.8

Sour

ce a

nd/o

r Rec

eive

r Hei

ght C

orre

ctio

nK

5So

urce

Hei

ght i

n m

etre

s (g

roun

d/ac

tual

)2.

52.

5R

ecei

ver H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

230

0.0

-3.7

-6.8

-4.9

-2.2

-0.7

0.0

Barri

er A

ttenu

atio

nK

6Ba

rrier

(y/n

)?n

If ye

s, is

the

barr

ier d

iscr

ete

(y/n

)?n

Barr

ier H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

Barri

er to

Sou

rce

in m

etre

sPa

th D

iffer

ence

n /a

Shad

ow, I

llum

inat

ed o

r Gra

z ing

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

In-p

lant

Scr

eeni

ngK

70.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Sum

(K1:

K7)

62.5

64.0

64.4

64.9

66.7

70.8

73.7

90.9

LpPr

edic

ted

Sou

nd P

ress

ure

Leve

l at R

ecei

ver (

free-

field

)46

.543

.044

.640

.138

.330

.222

.30.

050

.542

.5



CO

NC

AWE

RES

ULT

S SH

EET

Loca

tion

S03

Fut

ure Oct

ave

Band

Cen

tre F

requ

ency

(Hz)

dBdB

Usi

ng

Lp

= L

w +

D -

Sum

(K1:

K7)

6312

525

050

010

0020

0040

0080

00lin

A

LwSo

und

Pow

er L

evel

at S

ourc

e (d

B L

inea

r)11

1.0

110.

011

2.0

108.

010

7.0

104.

099

.092

.011

7.3

111.

7

DD

irect

ivity

Inde

x0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Geo

met

ric S

prea

ding

K1

Sour

ce to

Rec

eive

r Dis

tanc

e in

met

res

600

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

Atm

osph

eric

Abs

orpt

ion

K2

Tem

pera

ture

in d

egre

es C

elci

us (0

-30

in s

teps

of 5

)30

Rel

ativ

e H

umid

ity (5

5-10

0 in

ste

ps o

f 5)

950.

00.

10.

20.

92.

97.

212

.824

.3

Gro

und

Atte

nuat

ion

K3

Abso

rben

t Gro

und

Cov

er (y

/n)?

yIf

yes,

Per

cent

age

Abso

rben

t?80

-1.5

4.7

9.8

8.4

4.5

2.4

1.1

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

orre

ctio

nK

4Pa

squi

ll S

tabi

lity

Cat

egor

y (A

-G, d

efau

lt D

)D

Vect

or W

ind

Spee

d (0

.5m

/s s

teps

, def

ault

0m/s

)3

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

ateg

ory

6-2

.5-3

.7-5

.4-6

.1-5

.1-4

.6-6

.8

Sour

ce a

nd/o

r Rec

eive

r Hei

ght C

orre

ctio

nK

5So

urce

Hei

ght i

n m

etre

s (g

roun

d/ac

tual

)2.

52.

5R

ecei

ver H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

230

0.0

-3.7

-6.8

-4.9

-2.2

-0.7

0.0

Barri

er A

ttenu

atio

nK

6Ba

rrier

(y/n

)?n

If ye

s, is

the

barr

ier d

iscr

ete

(y/n

)?n

Barr

ier H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

Barri

er to

Sou

rce

in m

etre

sPa

th D

iffer

ence

n /a

Shad

ow, I

llum

inat

ed o

r Gra

z ing

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

In-p

lant

Scr

eeni

ngK

70.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Sum

(K1:

K7)

62.5

64.0

64.4

64.9

66.7

70.8

73.7

90.9

LpPr

edic

ted

Sou

nd P

ress

ure

Leve

l at R

ecei

ver (

free-

field

)48

.546

.047

.643

.140

.333

.225

.31.

153

.045

.1



CO

NC

AWE

RES

ULT

S SH

EET

Loca

tion

S01

Exi

stin

g

Oct

ave

Band

Cen

tre F

requ

ency

(Hz)

dBdB

Usi

ng

Lp

= L

w +

D -

Sum

(K1:

K7)

6312

525

050

010

0020

0040

0080

00lin

A

LwSo

und

Pow

er L

evel

at S

ourc

e (d

B L

inea

r)10

2.0

94.0

95.0

95.0

90.0

89.0

86.0

75.0

104.

396

.6

DD

irect

ivity

Inde

x0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Geo

met

ric S

prea

ding

K1

Sour

ce to

Rec

eive

r Dis

tanc

e in

met

res

3100

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

Atm

osph

eric

Abs

orpt

ion

K2

Tem

pera

ture

in d

egre

es C

elci

us (0

-30

in s

teps

of 5

)30

Rel

ativ

e H

umid

ity (5

5-10

0 in

ste

ps o

f 5)

950.

00.

31.

24.

715

.237

.266

.312

5.6

Gro

und

Atte

nuat

ion

K3

Abso

rben

t Gro

und

Cov

er (y

/n)?

yIf

yes,

Per

cent

age

Abso

rben

t?80

6.3

11.0

15.8

8.5

4.4

4.9

5.8

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

orre

ctio

nK

4Pa

squi

ll S

tabi

lity

Cat

egor

y (A

-G, d

efau

lt D

)D

Vect

or W

ind

Spee

d (0

.5m

/s s

teps

, def

ault

0m/s

)3

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

ateg

ory

6-2

.5-4

.2-6

.4-7

.2-5

.0-4

.6-7

.3

Sour

ce a

nd/o

r Rec

eive

r Hei

ght C

orre

ctio

nK

5So

urce

Hei

ght i

n m

etre

s (g

roun

d/ac

tual

)4.

54.

5R

ecei

ver H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

230

-1.9

-2.7

-3.4

-1.2

-0.7

-0.9

-0.4

Barri

er A

ttenu

atio

nK

6Ba

rrier

(y/n

)?n

If ye

s, is

the

barr

ier d

iscr

ete

(y/n

)?n

Barr

ier H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

Barri

er to

Sou

rce

in m

etre

sPa

th D

iffer

ence

n /a

Shad

ow, I

llum

inat

ed o

r Gra

z ing

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

In-p

lant

Scr

eeni

ngK

70.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Sum

(K1:

K7)

82.7

85.2

88.0

85.5

94.7

117.

414

5.3

206.

4

LpPr

edic

ted

Sou

nd P

ress

ure

Leve

l at R

ecei

ver (

free-

field

)19

.38.

87.

09.

50.

00.

00.

00.

020

.38.

3



CO

NC

AWE

RES

ULT

S SH

EET

Loca

tion

S01

Fut

ure Oct

ave

Band

Cen

tre F

requ

ency

(Hz)

dBdB

Usi

ng

Lp

= L

w +

D -

Sum

(K1:

K7)

6312

525

050

010

0020

0040

0080

00lin

A

LwSo

und

Pow

er L

evel

at S

ourc

e (d

B L

inea

r)10

5.0

97.0

98.0

98.0

93.0

92.0

89.0

78.0

107.

399

.6

DD

irect

ivity

Inde

x0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Geo

met

ric S

prea

ding

K1

Sour

ce to

Rec

eive

r Dis

tanc

e in

met

res

3100

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

Atm

osph

eric

Abs

orpt

ion

K2

Tem

pera

ture

in d

egre

es C

elci

us (0

-30

in s

teps

of 5

)30

Rel

ativ

e H

umid

ity (5

5-10

0 in

ste

ps o

f 5)

950.

00.

31.

24.

715

.237

.266

.312

5.6

Gro

und

Atte

nuat

ion

K3

Abso

rben

t Gro

und

Cov

er (y

/n)?

yIf

yes,

Per

cent

age

Abso

rben

t?80

6.3

11.0

15.8

8.5

4.4

4.9

5.8

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

orre

ctio

nK

4Pa

squi

ll S

tabi

lity

Cat

egor

y (A

-G, d

efau

lt D

)D

Vect

or W

ind

Spee

d (0

.5m

/s s

teps

, def

ault

0m/s

)3

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

ateg

ory

6-2

.5-4

.2-6

.4-7

.2-5

.0-4

.6-7

.3

Sour

ce a

nd/o

r Rec

eive

r Hei

ght C

orre

ctio

nK

5So

urce

Hei

ght i

n m

etre

s (g

roun

d/ac

tual

)4.

54.

5R

ecei

ver H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

230

-1.9

-2.7

-3.4

-1.2

-0.7

-0.9

-0.4

Barri

er A

ttenu

atio

nK

6Ba

rrier

(y/n

)?n

If ye

s, is

the

barr

ier d

iscr

ete

(y/n

)?n

Barr

ier H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

Barri

er to

Sou

rce

in m

etre

sPa

th D

iffer

ence

n /a

Shad

ow, I

llum

inat

ed o

r Gra

z ing

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

In-p

lant

Scr

eeni

ngK

70.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Sum

(K1:

K7)

82.7

85.2

88.0

85.5

94.7

117.

414

5.3

206.

4

LpPr

edic

ted

Sou

nd P

ress

ure

Leve

l at R

ecei

ver (

free-

field

)22

.311

.810

.012

.50.

00.

00.

00.

023

.310

.9



CO

NC

AWE

RES

ULT

S SH

EET

Loca

tion

S03

Exi

stin

g

Oct

ave

Band

Cen

tre F

requ

ency

(Hz)

dBdB

Usi

ng

Lp

= L

w +

D -

Sum

(K1:

K7)

6312

525

050

010

0020

0040

0080

00lin

A

LwSo

und

Pow

er L

evel

at S

ourc

e (d

B L

inea

r)10

2.0

94.0

95.0

95.0

90.0

89.0

86.0

75.0

104.

396

.6

DD

irect

ivity

Inde

x0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Geo

met

ric S

prea

din g

K1

Sour

ce to

Rec

eive

r Dis

tanc

e in

met

res

600

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

Atm

osph

eric

Abs

orpt

ion

K2

Tem

pera

ture

in d

egre

es C

elci

us (0

-30

in s

teps

of 5

)30

Rel

ativ

e H

umid

ity (5

5-10

0 in

ste

ps o

f 5)

950.

00.

10.

20.

92.

97.

212

.824

.3

Gro

und

Atte

nuat

ion

K3

Abso

rben

t Gro

und

Cov

er (y

/n)?

yIf

yes,

Per

cent

age

Abso

rben

t?80

-1.5

4.7

9.8

8.4

4.5

2.4

1.1

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

orre

ctio

nK

4Pa

squi

ll S

tabi

lity

Cat

egor

y (A

-G, d

efau

lt D

)D

Vect

or W

ind

Spee

d (0

.5m

/s s

teps

, def

ault

0m/s

)3

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

ateg

ory

6-2

.5-3

.7-5

.4-6

.1-5

.1-4

.6-6

.8

Sour

ce a

nd/o

r Rec

eive

r Hei

ght C

orre

ctio

nK

5So

urce

Hei

ght i

n m

etre

s (g

roun

d/ac

tual

)4.

54.

5R

ecei

ver H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

230

0.0

-3.8

-7.0

-5.0

-2.3

-0.7

0.0

Barri

er A

ttenu

atio

nK

6Ba

rrier

(y/n

)?n

If ye

s, is

the

barr

ier d

iscr

ete

(y/n

)?n

Barr

ier H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

Barri

er to

Sou

rce

in m

etre

sPa

th D

iffer

ence

n /a

Shad

ow, I

llum

inat

ed o

r Gra

z ing

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

In-p

lant

Scr

eeni

ngK

70.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Sum

(K1:

K7)

62.5

63.9

64.2

64.8

66.6

70.8

73.7

90.9

LpPr

edic

ted

Sou

nd P

ress

ure

Leve

l at R

ecei

ver (

free-

field

)39

.530

.130

.830

.223

.418

.212

.30.

040

.930

.2



CO

NC

AWE

RES

ULT

S SH

EET

Loca

tion

S03

Fut

ure Oct

ave

Band

Cen

tre F

requ

enc y

(Hz)

dBdB

Usi

ng

Lp

= L

w +

D -

Sum

(K1:

K7)

6312

525

050

010

0020

0040

0080

00lin

A

LwSo

und

Pow

er L

evel

at S

ourc

e (d

B L

inea

r)10

5.0

97.0

98.0

98.0

93.0

92.0

89.0

78.0

107.

399

.6

DD

irect

ivity

Inde

x0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Geo

met

ric S

prea

din g

K1

Sour

ce to

Rec

eive

r Dis

tanc

e in

met

res

600

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

Atm

osph

eric

Abs

orpt

ion

K2

Tem

pera

ture

in d

egre

es C

elci

us (0

-30

in s

teps

of 5

)30

Rel

ativ

e H

umid

ity (5

5-10

0 in

ste

ps o

f 5)

950.

00.

10.

20.

92.

97.

212

.824

.3

Gro

und

Atte

nuat

ion

K3

Abso

rben

t Gro

und

Cov

er (y

/n)?

yIf

yes,

Per

cent

age

Abso

rben

t?80

-1.5

4.7

9.8

8.4

4.5

2.4

1.1

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

orre

ctio

nK

4Pa

squi

ll S

tabi

lity

Cat

egor

y (A

-G, d

efau

lt D

)D

Vect

or W

ind

Spee

d (0

.5m

/s s

teps

, def

ault

0m/s

)3

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

ateg

ory

6-2

.5-3

.7-5

.4-6

.1-5

.1-4

.6-6

.8

Sour

ce a

nd/o

r Rec

eive

r Hei

ght C

orre

ctio

nK

5So

urce

Hei

ght i

n m

etre

s (g

roun

d/ac

tual

)4.

54.

5R

ecei

ver H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

230

0.0

-3.8

-7.0

-5.0

-2.3

-0.7

0.0

Barri

er A

ttenu

atio

nK

6Ba

rrier

(y/n

)?n

If ye

s, is

the

barr

ier d

iscr

ete

(y/n

)?n

Barr

ier H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

Barri

er to

Sou

rce

in m

etre

sPa

th D

iffer

ence

n /a

Shad

ow, I

llum

inat

ed o

r Gra

z ing

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

In-p

lant

Scr

eeni

ngK

70.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Sum

(K1:

K7)

62.5

63.9

64.2

64.8

66.6

70.8

73.7

90.9

LpPr

edic

ted

Sou

nd P

ress

ure

Leve

l at R

ecei

ver (

free-

field

)42

.533

.133

.833

.226

.421

.215

.30.

043

.933

.2



CO

NC

AWE

RES

ULT

S SH

EET

Loca

tion

S01

Exi

stin

g

Oct

ave

Band

Cen

tre F

requ

ency

(Hz)

dBdB

Usi

ng

Lp

= L

w +

D -

Sum

(K1:

K7)

6312

525

050

010

0020

0040

0080

00lin

A

LwSo

und

Pow

er L

evel

at S

ourc

e (d

B L

inea

r)10

2.0

98.0

96.0

96.0

94.0

90.0

85.0

82.0

105.

398

.5

DD

irect

ivity

Inde

x0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Geo

met

ric S

prea

din g

K1

Sour

ce to

Rec

eive

r Dis

tanc

e in

met

res

3100

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

Atm

osph

eric

Abs

orpt

ion

K2

Tem

pera

ture

in d

egre

es C

elci

us (0

-30

in s

teps

of 5

)30

Rel

ativ

e H

umid

ity (5

5-10

0 in

ste

ps o

f 5)

950.

00.

31.

24.

715

.237

.266

.312

5.6

Gro

und

Atte

nuat

ion

K3

Abso

rben

t Gro

und

Cov

er (y

/n)?

yIf

yes,

Per

cent

age

Abso

rben

t?80

6.3

11.0

15.8

8.5

4.4

4.9

5.8

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

orre

ctio

nK

4Pa

squi

ll S

tabi

lity

Cat

egor

y (A

-G, d

efau

lt D

)D

Vect

or W

ind

Spee

d (0

.5m

/s s

teps

, def

ault

0m/s

)3

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

ateg

ory

6-2

.5-4

.2-6

.4-7

.2-5

.0-4

.6-7

.3

Sour

ce a

nd/o

r Rec

eive

r Hei

ght C

orre

ctio

nK

5So

urce

Hei

ght i

n m

etre

s (g

roun

d/ac

tual

)6

6R

ecei

ver H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

230

-2.0

-2.8

-3.6

-1.2

-0.7

-1.0

-0.5

Barri

er A

ttenu

atio

nK

6Ba

rrier

(y/n

)?n

If ye

s, is

the

barr

ier d

iscr

ete

(y/n

)?n

Barr

ier H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

Barri

er to

Sou

rce

in m

etre

sPa

th D

iffer

ence

n /a

Shad

ow, I

llum

inat

ed o

r Gra

z ing

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

In-p

lant

Scr

eeni

ngK

70.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Sum

(K1:

K7)

82.6

85.1

87.8

85.5

94.7

117.

414

5.3

206.

4

LpPr

edic

ted

Sou

nd P

ress

ure

Leve

l at R

ecei

ver (

free-

field

)19

.412

.98.

210

.50.

00.

00.

00.

020

.99.

0

Note: Calculations are for sources that are 6 m above ground level


CO

NC

AWE

RES

ULT

S SH

EET

Loca

tion

S01

Fut

ure Oct

ave

Band

Cen

tre F

requ

enc y

(Hz)

dBdB

Usi

ng

Lp

= L

w +

D -

Sum

(K1:

K7)

6312

525

050

010

0020

0040

0080

00lin

A

LwSo

und

Pow

er L

evel

at S

ourc

e (d

B L

inea

r)10

5.0

101.

099

.099

.097

.093

.088

.085

.010

8.3

101.

5

DD

irect

ivity

Inde

x0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Geo

met

ric S

prea

din g

K1

Sour

ce to

Rec

eive

r Dis

tanc

e in

met

res

3100

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

Atm

osph

eric

Abs

orpt

ion

K2

Tem

pera

ture

in d

egre

es C

elci

us (0

-30

in s

teps

of 5

)30

Rel

ativ

e H

umid

ity (5

5-10

0 in

ste

ps o

f 5)

950.

00.

31.

24.

715

.237

.266

.312

5.6

Gro

und

Atte

nuat

ion

K3

Abso

rben

t Gro

und

Cov

er (y

/n)?

yIf

yes,

Per

cent

age

Abso

rben

t?80

6.3

11.0

15.8

8.5

4.4

4.9

5.8

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

orre

ctio

nK

4Pa

squi

ll S

tabi

lity

Cat

egor

y (A

-G, d

efau

lt D

)D

Vect

or W

ind

Spee

d (0

.5m

/s s

teps

, def

ault

0m/s

)3

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

ateg

ory

6-2

.5-4

.2-6

.4-7

.2-5

.0-4

.6-7

.3

Sour

ce a

nd/o

r Rec

eive

r Hei

ght C

orre

ctio

nK

5So

urce

Hei

ght i

n m

etre

s (g

roun

d/ac

tual

)6

6R

ecei

ver H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

230

-2.0

-2.8

-3.6

-1.2

-0.7

-1.0

-0.5

Barri

er A

ttenu

atio

nK

6Ba

rrier

(y/n

)?n

If ye

s, is

the

barr

ier d

iscr

ete

(y/n

)?n

Barr

ier H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

Barri

er to

Sou

rce

in m

etre

sPa

th D

iffer

ence

n /a

Shad

ow, I

llum

inat

ed o

r Gra

z ing

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

In-p

lant

Scr

eeni

ngK

70.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Sum

(K1:

K7)

82.6

85.1

87.8

85.5

94.7

117.

414

5.3

206.

4

LpPr

edic

ted

Sou

nd P

ress

ure

Leve

l at R

ecei

ver (

free-

field

)22

.415

.911

.213

.52.

30.

00.

00.

023

.912

.3



CO

NC

AWE

RES

ULT

S SH

EET

Loca

tion

S03

Exi

stin

g

Oct

ave

Band

Cen

tre F

requ

ency

(Hz)

dBdB

Usi

ng

Lp

= L

w +

D -

Sum

(K1:

K7)

6312

525

050

010

0020

0040

0080

00lin

A

LwSo

und

Pow

er L

evel

at S

ourc

e (d

B L

inea

r)10

2.0

98.0

96.0

96.0

94.0

90.0

85.0

82.0

105.

398

.5

DD

irect

ivity

Inde

x0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Geo

met

ric S

prea

din g

K1

Sour

ce to

Rec

eive

r Dis

tanc

e in

met

res

600

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

Atm

osph

eric

Abs

orpt

ion

K2

Tem

pera

ture

in d

egre

es C

elci

us (0

-30

in s

teps

of 5

)30

Rel

ativ

e H

umid

ity (5

5-10

0 in

ste

ps o

f 5)

950.

00.

10.

20.

92.

97.

212

.824

.3

Gro

und

Atte

nuat

ion

K3

Abso

rben

t Gro

und

Cov

er (y

/n)?

yIf

yes,

Per

cent

age

Abso

rben

t?80

-1.5

4.7

9.8

8.4

4.5

2.4

1.1

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

orre

ctio

nK

4Pa

squi

ll S

tabi

lity

Cat

egor

y (A

-G, d

efau

lt D

)D

Vect

or W

ind

Spee

d (0

.5m

/s s

teps

, def

ault

0m/s

)3

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

ateg

ory

6-2

.5-3

.7-5

.4-6

.1-5

.1-4

.6-6

.8

Sour

ce a

nd/o

r Rec

eive

r Hei

ght C

orre

ctio

nK

5So

urce

Hei

ght i

n m

etre

s (g

roun

d/ac

tual

)6

6R

ecei

ver H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

230

0.0

-3.8

-7.1

-5.1

-2.3

-0.7

0.0

Barri

er A

ttenu

atio

nK

6Ba

rrier

(y/n

)?n

If ye

s, is

the

barr

ier d

iscr

ete

(y/n

)?n

Barr

ier H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

Barri

er to

Sou

rce

in m

etre

sPa

th D

iffer

ence

n /a

Shad

ow, I

llum

inat

ed o

r Gra

z ing

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

In-p

lant

Scr

eeni

ngK

70.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Sum

(K1:

K7)

62.5

63.8

64.1

64.7

66.6

70.8

73.7

90.9

LpPr

edic

ted

Sou

nd P

ress

ure

Leve

l at R

ecei

ver (

free-

field

)39

.534

.231

.931

.327

.419

.211

.30.

041

.832

.1



CO

NC

AWE

RES

ULT

S SH

EET

Loca

tion

S03

Fut

ure Oct

ave

Band

Cen

tre F

requ

ency

(Hz)

dBdB

Usi

ng

Lp

= L

w +

D -

Sum

(K1:

K7)

6312

525

050

010

0020

0040

0080

00lin

A

LwSo

und

Pow

er L

evel

at S

ourc

e (d

B L

inea

r)10

5.0

101.

099

.099

.097

.093

.088

.085

.010

8.3

101.

5

DD

irect

ivity

Inde

x0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Geo

met

ric S

prea

din g

K1

Sour

ce to

Rec

eive

r Dis

tanc

e in

met

res

600

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

66.6

Atm

osph

eric

Abs

orpt

ion

K2

Tem

pera

ture

in d

egre

es C

elci

us (0

-30

in s

teps

of 5

)30

Rel

ativ

e H

umid

ity (5

5-10

0 in

ste

ps o

f 5)

950.

00.

10.

20.

92.

97.

212

.824

.3

Gro

und

Atte

nuat

ion

K3

Abso

rben

t Gro

und

Cov

er (y

/n)?

yIf

yes,

Per

cent

age

Abso

rben

t?80

-1.5

4.7

9.8

8.4

4.5

2.4

1.1

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

orre

ctio

nK

4Pa

squi

ll S

tabi

lity

Cat

egor

y (A

-G, d

efau

lt D

)D

Vect

or W

ind

Spee

d (0

.5m

/s s

teps

, def

ault

0m/s

)3

Met

eoro

logi

cal C

ateg

ory

6-2

.5-3

.7-5

.4-6

.1-5

.1-4

.6-6

.8

Sour

ce a

nd/o

r Rec

eive

r Hei

ght C

orre

ctio

nK

5So

urce

Hei

ght i

n m

etre

s (g

roun

d/ac

tual

)6

6R

ecei

ver H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

230

0.0

-3.8

-7.1

-5.1

-2.3

-0.7

0.0

Barri

er A

ttenu

atio

nK

6Ba

rrier

(y/n

)?n

If ye

s, is

the

barr

ier d

iscr

ete

(y/n

)?n

Barr

ier H

eigh

t in

met

res

(gro

und/

actu

al)

Barri

er to

Sou

rce

in m

etre

sPa

th D

iffer

ence

n /a

Shad

ow, I

llum

inat

ed o

r Gra

z ing

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

In-p

lant

Scr

eeni

ngK

70.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Sum

(K1:

K7)

62.5

63.8

64.1

64.7

66.6

70.8

73.7

90.9

LpPr

edic

ted

Sou

nd P

ress

ure

Leve

l at R

ecei

ver (

free-

field

)42

.537

.234

.934

.330

.422

.214

.30.

044

.835

.1



Documents

Vol II Noise and Vibration Study.p