NOISE STUDY DATA
VIV([/X([ilIS :lSIO~
'.
...
"
"
.
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum PZ 06-039
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Kurt Bressner, City Manager
Quintus Greene, Director of Development
Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director
February 21,2006
Rapido Rabbit Carwash (COUS 05-004)
Updated sound analysis and staff recommendation
As requested, the applicant has provided additional information to address a portion of staff
comments on the sound analysis and proposed dryer equipment. This information included
confirmation of the number of blowers, location and layout of the dryer blowers, a description of
additional proposed sound mitigation measures, and updated sound levels projected for the
equipment. The only information not provided is the updated sound analysis indicating how the
consultant has arrived at the total decibels now provided for the project. The applicants have also
confirmed that the tunnel design will not be reoriented, but remain as originally submitted with the
tunnel exit oriented north.
With respect to the objections raised by the owners of the adjacent industrially-zoned property to the
north, based on sound levels and justification documented in the November 17, 2005 letter from the
sound consultant, staff understands that this original information has been superseded by the current
information referenced above and documented under the cover letter from the agent and dated
February 17, 2006. Although ultimate construction on the adjacent property would provide further
sound buffering to the nearby homes, it is not necessary as a means for the project to comply with
current city sound limits.
With respect to the current staff recommendation and conditions of approval, staff now forwards this
project to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval. This updated recommendation
also coincides with the following changes recommended to staff comments:
1. Omit the first sentence in condition #33 to now read: Pro'lido noiso loval data for b,lowdryor
oquipment for 3 distanco equa.' to tho re3r of tho rosidontf31 proportios to tho north. All mechanical
equipment, including the vacuums, should be turned off at closing time each day. This text can be
removed given the additional information provided by the applicant;
2. Omit condition #34 which recommended the placement of a buffer wall along the north
property boundary to further mitigate sound if warranted by the sound analysis. This
recommendation is no longer necessary as sound levels are projected to comply with code
without the need for a buffer wall. Based on sound theory, it is understood that a typical buffer
wall would have had very little effect in reducing sound from this use given the factors and site
characteristics relative to location of the source, proximity to the potential location of the buffer
wall, and the height and length of a typical wall; and
3. The addition of a new condition that would read as follows: If sound levels of the project are
ultimately measured to exceed sound limitations of the code, the owner or operator will either
remove the number of blowers necessary to comply with city sound limits, or apply additional
,i'
sound mitigation measures within the tunnel to accomplish same. Sound readings would be
taken by city personnel certified in using a sound level meter.
If approved, the motion by the Commission should reference current sound information and mitigation
measures documented in the February 17, 2006 letter from the agent, and the current sound
absorption panel and barrier system as shown in the revised detail drawings (see attachments).
Although staff had previously requested updated sound analysis from the consultant, staff is satisfied
with the additional information provided, and the mitigation measures proposed in the tunnel. This
level of satisfaction is based, not on an understanding of the complex sound analysis and
methodology used to show compliance with local codes, but rather on the assumption of credibility
and accuracy of the sound consultant retained by the applicant for this project, and recognition of the
additional mitigation measures proposed for the project which are unprecedented for previous
carwashes in the city. Furthermore, similar to the review of other permitted and conditional uses,
where there remains some level of uncertainty regarding a use or associated impact, even after
precautions and best availability technology has been applied, staff provides further safeguards
through conditions of approval, as indicated by the new condition of approval as described above
under item #3.
If the Commission still requires a more detailed review of the sound analysis and methodology, such
review should be conducted by an independent outside source qualified in this area of expertise.
MR
Attachments
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Rapido Rabbit\Updated staff recommendation.doc
6
Boynton Beach Code
of this Article. (Ord. No. 85-16, ~ 2, 3-19-85;
Ord. No, 86-3, ~ 4, 3-4-86; Ord. No. 89-23, ~ 2,
9-19-89; Ord. No. 01-24, ~ 1,6-5-01)
Note-See the editors notefollowing 915-8.
Sec. 15-8.7. Same-Penalty for violation.
Any person, firm or corporation convicted in a
court of competent jurisdiction of a violation of
sections 15-8 through 15-8.8 shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable by a
fme and/or incarceration as provided by law. The City
of Boynton Beach Code Compliance Board shall have
the authority and jurisdiction to prosecute such
offenses. Each day said violation continues shall be a
separate offense. (Ord. No. 85-16, ~ 2, 3-19-85; Ord.
No. 86-3, ~ 5, 3-4-86; Ord. No. 97-51, ~ 2, 11-18-97)
Note-See the editor's note following 9 15-8.
Sec. 15-8.8. Same-Sound levels by receiving land
use.
(a) Sound limits established No person shall
operate or cause to be operated any source of sound as
enumerated in section 15-8.6, in such a manner as to
create an exterior or interior sound level of any origin
which exceeds the limits set forth for the receiving land
use category in question for more than ten (10) per cent
of any measurement period which shall not be less than
ten (10) minutes when measured at or within the
boundaries of a property or within the confmes of a
building within the receiving land use and as a result of
a source of sound being located on some other
property.
(b) L10 sound level limits. Permissible sound
levels for sounds transmitted to receiving land use
areas shall not exceed the following limits for LI0
sound levels as defmed herein. For the purpose of these
noise control provisions, such sound levels shall be
determined using FAST meter responses:
2001-16
Receiving Land
Use Category
LIO Sound Level
Time Limit (dB) A
7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. 60
10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m. 55
At all times 65
7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. 50
10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m. 45
At all times 55
Exterior Residential
Exterior Commercial
Interior Residential
Interior Commercial
(c) Maximum sound level limits. The maximum
sound level from any applicable sound sources shall not
exceed the LI0 sound level limits by more than the
values listed below:
10 (dB) A from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
5 (dB) A from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
(d) Pure tone and impulse noise. For any source
of sound which .emits a pure tone or an impulse noise,
as defined herem, the sound level limits for LI0 and
maximum sound levels shall be reduced by five (5)
(dB) A. (Ord. No. 85-16, ~ 2, 3-19-85; Ord. No. 85-45,
Attach. (b), 8-20-85; Ord. No. 86-3, ~ 6,3-4-86; Ord.
No. 86-14, ~ 1,8-19-86)
Note-See the editors note following 9 15-8.
Sec. 15-9.
Obstruction of passageways.
It shall be unlawful for any person to place or
er~ct,. upon any pub~ic way or passageway to any
buIldmg, an obstruction of any type, provided this
secti.on shall not prevent the duly authorized or required
placmg of temporary barriers or warning signs for the
purpose of safeguarding the public.
(Code 1958, ~ 17-31)
DEPARTMENT OF DL~ELOPMENT
Memorandum PZ 06-039
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Kurt Bressner, City Manager
Quintus Greene, Director of Development ~
Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director 1'-(/ ~
February 21, 2006
Rapido Rabbit Carwash (COUS 05-004)
Updated sound analysis and staff recommendation
,>
As requested, the applicant has provided additiortal information to address a portion of staff
comments on the sound analysis and proposed dryer equipment. This information included
confirmation of the number of blowers, location and layout of the dryer blowers, a description of
additional proposed sound mitigation measures, and updated sound levels projected for the
equipment. The only information not provided is the updated sound analysis indicating how the
consultant has arrived at the total decibels now provided for the project. The applicants have also
confirmed that the tunnel design will not be reoriented, but remain as originally submitted with the
tunnel exit oriented north.
With respect to the objections raised by the owners of the adjacent industrially-zoned property to the
north, based on sound levels and justification documented in the November 17, 2005 letter from the
sound consultant, staff understands that this original information has been superseded by the current
information referenced above and documented under the cover letter from the agent and dated
February 17, 2006. Although ultimate construction on the adjacent property would provide further
sound buffering to the nearby homes, it is not necessary as a means for the project to comply with
current city sound limits.
With respect to the current staff recommendation and conditions of approval, staff now forwards this
project to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval. This updated recommendation
also coincides with the following changes recommended to staff comments:
1. Omit the first sentence in condition #33 to now read: P..-ovido no.;so Jovo.' ciata for s.'owtJryor
equipmont for :51 fJfstaAse eqf:Jal to tho re3." of the residontb! prOfJorties to tho north. All mechanical
equipment, including the vacuums, should be turned off at closing time each day. This text can be
removed given the additional information provided by the applicant;
2. Omit condition #34 which recommended the placement of a buffer wall along the north
property boundary to further mitigate sound if warranted by the sound analysis. This
recommendation is no longer necessary as sound levels are projected to comply with code
without the need for a buffer wall. Based on sound theory, it is understood that a typical buffer
wall would have had very little effect in reducing sound from this use given the factors and site
characteristics relative to location of the source, proximity to the potential location of the buffer
wall, and the height and length of a typical wall; and
3. The addition of a new condition that would read as follows: If sound levels of the project are
ultimately measured to exceed sound limitations of the code, the OWner or operator will either
remove the number of blowers necessary to comply with city sound limits, or apply additional
sound mitigation meas( s within the tunnel to accomplish s ;e. Sound readings would be
taken by city personne(certified in using a sound level meter.
If approved, the motion by the Commission should reference current sound information and mitigation
measures documented in the February 17, 2006 letter from the agent, and the current sound
absorption panel and barrier system as shown in the revised detail drawings (see attachments).
Although staff had previously requested updated sound analysis from the consultant, staff is satisfied
with the additional information provided, and the mitigation measures proposed in the tunnel. This
level of satisfaction is based, not on an understanding of the complex sound analysis and
methodology used to show compliance with local codes, but rather on the assumption of credibility
and accuracy of the sound consultant retained by the applicant for this project, and recognition of the
additional mitigation measures proposed for the project which are unprecedented for previous
carwashes in the city. Furthermore, similar to the review of other permitted and conditional uses,
where there remains some level of uncertainty regarding a use or associated impact, even after
precautions and best availability technology has been applied, staff provides further safeguards
through conditions of approval, as indicated by thf3 new condition of approval as described above
under item #3. f
If the Commission still requires a more detailed review of the sound analysis and methodology, such
review should be conducted by an independent outside source qualified in this area of expertise.
MR
Attachments
S:\Plannlng\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Rapido Rabbit\Updated staff recommendation.doc
-
MILLER
LAND
PLANNING
CONSULTANTS, INC.
'. ,;'
420 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Suite #201
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
PHONE . 561/736-8838
FAX . 561/736-8079
February 17,2006
Michael Rumpf & Ed Breese
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
Re: Rapido Rabbit Car Wash
Dear Mr. Rumpf and Mr. Breese:
This letter and the attached information provides a response to your February 6, 2006 letter
(attached for reference). Before the responses however, let me clarify that through this exercise,
we have determined that the tunnel orientation will remain as originally submitted. We are also
confirming that there is no change to the blower configuration or type. This design is based on
the 8-blower Sonny's configuration and specifications that were previously provided to you.
1. The project consultants have analyzed the mitigation options and have come up with the
design of sound absorption panels and barriers that are shown on the attached plans from
Noise Reduction Products and Sonny's. As indicated above, we are not proposing a
change to the blowers from what has already been submitted.
The attached plans how a sound absorption panel and barrier system that will be installed
inside the tunnel and above the blower area. The barriers on each end of the system will
extend lower from the roof deck at each end of the bank of blowers. In addition, sound
barriers are being added to the opening of the tunnel to reduce the opening size.
Dimensions, specifications and details are provided on the plans and accompanying
memo from NPR dated February 16,2006. The color copied Sonny's exhibit, Blower - 4-120
HP Type 5, shows the blower configuration and how the sound barriers and panels will be
installed relative to the blower configuration.
2. Attached is a memo from Joe Cuschieri, Acoustics and Vibration Consultant, who
addresses the sound reduction based on the mitigation design outlined in #1 above. You
will see that the sound levels are further reduced from the levels that he anticipated in his
January 31 memo, both of which indicate that the levels will be below the requirements
of the City ordinances
3. In addition to the plan prepared by Noise Reduction Products, attached is a plan
prepared by Sonny's that shows the entire tunnel equipment layout. You will see that the
blowers have been moved deeper into the tunnel (away from the opening) and that the
location of the sound absorption panels are shown inside the tunnel, extending above the
blowers.
,/
We trust that this information addresses your follow up questions/comments from your February 6,
2006 letter. Ten (10) copies of the additional information is being provided so it can be readily
distributed to City staff and Commissioners.
We look forward to having this resolved at the February 21 City Commission meeting. Should there
be any further questions or clarification needed before the meeting, please call. Thanks for your
continued patience through this process.
Sincerely,
Bradley D. Miller, AICP
President
cc: Mark Paulino
Michael S. Weiner, Esq.
Joe Cuschieri
M:\M L P C\PROJECTS\Rapido Rabbit\mike rump! 021606.wpd
01/13/2002 08:09
5617426259
PLANNING
PAGE 01
~""'i"'.\'u';':
/" rr~'
L~ \ ~[( ;' .1. )
0\ I: I(!~
. ../;-- .
) ".,. . . <: .'
/1 ; C., ;.: ~::., .
FACSIMILE
. CITY OF BOYNTON
. BEACH
city !'fall, West ~
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach. Fforkfa 33425
(561' 742-6260
(561) .742..e259 Fax'
From the office of
Planning & Zoning
TO: ~lA!".J' /'1JUaL
DATE: ,fl- 1-~~
~~
7~ - 9()79
FAX:
FROM:
NUMBER OF PAGES: (Including
cover)
.3
REo' ~80 ~~r ~
~
;i
A-11>>f!.Het) ~ t'Ju.L. J!.!;J/1e>tJ ~
hMe>> 41J 7J.h:. ~.~~/1TJf<,.. ~
//IIFt;fl,M.A-l1tJtV. 'p~€ la:JJ-t 71.J.cJt" ~~
PtN"P ~ n ~Ct.t..$&.
~/6
...
J.1SHRDAT"'\PIann~ Temp/8f8e\P&z F,* & D SIank F-.dot
If 1'011 -m. tills fax In 81'1W, or 8lqN1rfence froub/8 wffh hnell1lselon..p,... notl~ our ofllce
1mntedIaf./y, et(&81174UZ8o. ThankyOU. '. '. '.
01/13/2002 08:09
5517425259
PLANNING
PAGE 02
Tb.e City oI.BogDton Beaclz
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISON
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
80ynton Beach, FlorIda 33425-0310
TEL: 561-742-6260
FAX: 561-742.6259
. :'./..~((;1'..- '\. '
I, . I
, \ I ~
""" ,\~ ,.<..',,-
www.boynton-beach.org
February 6/ 2006
Bradley Millerl AICP
Miller Land Planning Consultants, Inc
420 W. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Suite 201
Boynton Beachl FL 33425
RE: Rapido Rabbit
Dear Mr. Miller,
In follow-up to correspondence from you dated January 30, 2006, please
note that staff is looking for clarification of several statements made
in the consultant/s report. They are as follows:
1. The consultant's analysis details a number of potential mitigation
measures. For example, the report states, "...noise mi tigation
procedures consisting of Bound absorption panels within the tunnel
and sound barriers around the blowers OR the tunnel opening are
mitigated". This statement is then followed by/ "Furthermore,
quieter motors that reduce the noise level by 3 dB from those
originally considered WILL BE CONSIDERED for use in the proposed
car wash facility". Lastly the statement is made that, "The noise
mitigation procedures consist of installing sound absorbing
material within the tunnel to increase the sound absorption,
together wi th EITHER. sound barrier panel sat the tunnel opening
closest to the blowers to reduce the tunnel opening from 14 feet
by 12 feet to 12 feet by 10 feet, OR by introducing the combined
sound absorption panels and sound barrier panels in an arrangement
that surrounds the blowers effectively creating an enclosure
around the blowers".
In each of the scenarios noted above (and bolded and underlined
for emphasis), it is unclear exactly which mitigation measures are
to be utilized, and what Was the mitigation methods used to
determine the final decibel levels in his conclusions.
Staff needs to know which mitigation measures the applicant has
agreed to install on this project and the decibel levels baaed on
them. Additionally, if the applicant proposes to utilize different
blowers (as noted above, with a 3 dB noise reduction) than those
in which specifications were previously provided to staff, the new
specifications need to be submitted immediately, for review and
incorporation into your application.
01/13/2002 08:09
5517425259
PLANNING
PAGE 03
. Page 2
February 7,2006
2. As with previous requests, staff would like to see the
calculations from the consultant that lead to the conclusions made
in his analysis.
3. Staff would prefer to see specific application of the mitigation
measures on the carwash drawings (internal and external
applications) to show a before and after image of the sound
mitigation improvements.
Please contact me should you have any questions or if you need further
time to address the request for the additional information,
Respectively,
Ed Breese
Principal Planner
Cc: Michael Rumpf
S,\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJBCTS\R3pido Rabbit\~-6'06 ltr.doc
Joe Cuschieri
Acoustics and Vibration Consultant
2398 NW 38th Street
Boca Raton, Florida, 33431
TEL: 561 2897091
FAX: 561 852 1784
February 17, 2006
Mark Paulino
EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT, LLC
4036 Artesa Drive
Boynton Beach, FL 33436
Re: Boynton Beach Car Wash Facility
Dear Mr. Paulino:
To follow on from the letter of January 31, 2006, which outlined some alternate options for
mitigating the noise emanating from the blower units inside the proposed car wash facility on
Congress Avenue in Boynton Beach Florida, a final design has now been completed and is
being submitted.
The presented design shows the blowers recessed further away from the car wash tunnel
opening with sound absorption material in the intervening space. The design includes noise
barriers at very close proximity to the blowers and significantly more sound absorption material
than considered in earlier analysis to absorb the generated sound before it can escape from
the proposed car wash facility into the surrounding communities. Finally, the opening of the
proposed car wash tunnel from which the noise can escape to the surrounding communities
has been decreased These noise mitigation measures will reduce the noise levels in excess of
those estimated in earlier analysis. A further reduction of the order of 3 dB is estimated, to
bring the overall reduction based on all the added noise mitigation to be on the order of 8 dB.
This would guarantee that the noise from the proposed car wash facility will be within the
maximum permissible sound levels by the City of Boynton Beach Noise Ordinance.
The anticipated sound levels at the property line of the commercial property just north of the
proposed car wash facility with these noise mitigation options will be on the order of 61 dBA,
while the anticipated noise levels at the residential property line to the north of the proposed car
wash facility will be on the order of 51 dBA.
If there any questions on the design please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
J~D
Acoustical Consultant
C.C.: Bradley D. Miller, AICP, MILLER LAND PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
.?
Noise Reduction
Products, Inc.
97 lower Cemetery Road, langdon, NH 03602 USA
Mail to: PO Box 58, Alstead, NH 03602 USA
Telephone - (603)835-6400 Fax - (603)835-2922
E-mail: mail@noisereduction.net
Web site: noisereduction.net
February 16,2006
Subject: SPECIFICATIONS PANELS USED WITH SONNY'S - CarWash Factory - BLOWERS
To: Mr. Mark Paulino - Boynton Beach Carwash
Soecifications:
1. Outside skin - .080" Thick 5052 Aluminum Sheet (1.13 Ib/sq. ft.)
2. Inside skin - .040" Thick 5052 Aluminum Perforated (.3 open)
3. Absorption material - 3" thick acoustical fiberglass
4. Noise Characteristics:
a. Absorption Rating (NRC) - .98 {absorbs nearly all noise that strikes it}
b. Barrier Rating (STC) - 26 {provides a noise difference from side to side of 26 db}
Suaaested Desian Considerations:
1. Size of vehide opening. The more the opening can be "closed-down", the closer the
performance will approximate the STC listed above.
2. Unnecessary openings and cracks to be minimized. Same reasoning as #1.
3. The greater the distance from the last blower to the opening the better. Sound energy will
decay rapidly in an absorption tunnel, leaving less to escape into the exterior environment.
4. General absorption in the blower area will minimize escaping noise. Since noise is "additive",
all blowers - not just those adjacent to the opening - will contribute to the noise level. General
absorption in the blower area will reduce the effects of the "upstream" blowers.
If you need additional information, don't hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully submitted ---------------------------- Tom Esslinger
u
z
(j)
~
U
:J
o
O-.e
0::: u
0.. ~
.......
z ~
OM ~
~~-.e
U~(/)
:J d lJ)
00.... <[ W .---<
W~ ~ I- M
O:::~ ~ ~
W~o
(j) <.)~ !!::
_ z~ I-
o c2~ ~ ~ ~
Z ~~ 0 ~ 8 ~ t!
0111 :g ~ +i ~ .!!!
I- +i;l1~:::;5,
>; >; >; --1 ~
IJ)
6
Q)
Q)"" C\J
+>...J -
Q) (/)<[
OJ"" ""0
+>...J +>C\J C
(/)<[ OJ2
C\J d
4-1{) Q)1f)
~o ~
Q)I{) (/)I C>
I- -
Q..I <[0
<[I- 000 -
00 1J)0 00
C\J~ ..........;
C\J"';
1Il
C ..c
..p
O. Q)
..p C
0:.00 OJ
t.(J'\ -l
I{) o II".
\fl OJ
6 .QU
<In! C
Z d
U'l 0 0...
U'l -~ ~ ""0
~c; ....... t.
.0)-- d
t. t. ""0
Q) OJ. C
..p
.,.8 d d
I....., ~ ..p
(/)
III
+>
Q)
::t.
U
o
~
..Q
())
.~
Q.
E:
o
U
~
+>
.~
Q)
U
o
Q.
.~ -g
-nOJ
-~
OJu
~o
III Q)
Q)+>
C 0
o
ll..
o
<;1'.
o
cD
o
M
.---<
t+-
O <I
.---< .---<
M
.---<
C)
\D
\D
C)
~
d
)
]\.Iessage
Page 1 of 1
f '4'f;' c;
Rumpf, Michael
From: Bradley Miller [bradley@mlpc.net]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 6:38 PM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Subject: Car Wash
Attachments: CWP-05400-B12 Paulino (SETUP).pdf
From the desk of ...
Bradley D. Miller, AICP
MILLER LAND PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
420 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard, #201
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
P 561/736-8838
F 561/736-8079
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Analetto [mailto:AAnaletto@SonnysDirect.COM]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 20066:06 PM
To: mpaulino@prodigy.net
Cc: bradley@mlpc.net; Joe Cuschieri
Subject: FW: paulino
Here are the revised drawings to match Toms.
Anthony Analetto
CCO
IIIW'S The CarWash Factory
(954) 467-1203
(800) 327-8723 Toll-Free USA only
AAnaletto@Sonnysdirect.com
www.sonnysdirect.com
<<CWP-05400-B 12 Paulino (SETUP).pdf>>
2/21/2006
W=i~
~ii'hE
~!111!!
>>~ ~i
~~ h
~~~~~
~~;:j~
~~1~2
ill>>!H
g ~~~
: ~j:la
:.> 2l~!:
~ tiF~
II ~~\i
~ ~~~
~ U;
g iR"
~ ~~i
~ :;:d
~ g.
g.. li;
~U~
~~ ~;
~ ~~
~ ~
F~~;I
"il~
~~~!:I
~n~
~;oit
p~ ~
. ~.
g~~
.~I
i~
~..
~h
eft::!
g"iil
~~~
~il~
~~~
~~~
i:~
..::1
"%5
~i~
>>~~
A~~
~~~
~
1qC1
~~
rC1"'1j
- I
;, 0
.....CJ1
,..J::>.
o
o
I
t::l:l
-
N
I
"'t:I
>
c::
t'"""
.........
Z
o
rn
o go
'"
,.
III
~ ~
BLOWERS
2/17/2008 11:4,7 PM
"DRAFT"
(0 2005 SONNY'S ENTERPRISES, INC.
5605 Hlatu. Road. Tamarac, FL 33321 USA. TEL80Q-327-8723
~
I'
Ul
=1
c::::J co.
11'-6" ~J
c::::J
c::::J
c::::J
c::::J
'!.
I
c::::J '-J
~.
c::::J -<
~
::1
L8'- ~ I
t--- 13'-6" ----J
Ul ~
S~NNyrs
THE CAR WASH FACTORY
http://www.SonnysDlrect.com
DA TE: 12.13.05
REVISION DA TE: 02.17.06
CREA TED BY: LV
REVISED BY: AAW
CHECKED BY:
,-1-'-' f 1
I .
L___;L:_~~~:~~.'~~-
~;!~~I'II
?Ii!~!
~Ua
~115!!
~~ IIi
a~ i~
~~;,5~
Ua;
~~a
~i~~1
~ 5j~
~ II a
~d
i ii1l!~
~ !l;;l~
= u~
lib
~ ~!!l
ill \:-
~i ~il
~q~
~~ ,,;
i ~~
III
~"~~l
"~i!l!
~h[:j
i~~;
. ~;~ .
~~I
I~
"i
;!~n
:::llll
UI
'll~
~2j
~I~
~:~
~~5
n!
i;!g
PilEi
~
~n
~~
.. "1:l
I
;. 0
~C)1
,..j:::o..
o
o
I
tJ:l
-
N
I
"1:l
>
c:::::
t'"""
-
Z
o
00
o p-
O ~
...
::ll
~ ~
BLOWERS
"DRAFT"
C 2005 SONNY'S E:NTERPRISES, INC.
....
Z 0
0 \Dr
....
~ 1\)0
'",
-fll
:5" -i fll .,
<
III 0 fll....
Q:"O (I) -:y
'" 0 p c -.'"
;:::~ ""Ill
a"" p '" "0'"
"t)<r ., :J 0"0
., P oQ.. III P
0" c '" !!!.:J
o J_ :J Q.. ~
"t)'" ~"OQ.."U
., "" P :E P
Q..1Il ,:J ,:J
'" n ~n (1)
n p
A III .... ",-
"lJl3~
P n III N-:t1J
III - -ofl)""'5f()
0
"0 III ~~rr~
0'" 3'~P 0
~. c:- eo I\) ~ ~
<r ru:-;:o-<+
if ~0\1f1)
III '- .... Q..
(I)
....c
oeo
eo
....'"
:Ylll
"'....
Q...,
:r~
'" c
~o.
g'c5
III 0
IIlU
:y'"
o~
'" :J
eo
D:..
<r .
III
a.,
., :y
"0 -,
C/)~Q-
Q:O
",:Jt:rJ
p
D"U .,
~ g J,
~~ f1)
8'
ruo~('Tl
'< x
~~~~
~::::S-3t:::l
~~~D
lJlo..:~
"Q..O
"0 n J>
....0 P ~
~""'5ftiJ>
Q- 0..;;0
ofTl
<r C t:j
P ....c
., IIln
""'5 a:~
iil '" D
., Z
....
'<
"0
'"
Side Po.nel
.,
o
"0
"U
P
:J
~
Q..
o
o
.,
o
"0
'"
:J
3'
eo
2/17/2008 fh4? PIl
SONNY'S
THE CAR WASH FACTORY
http://www.Son"ysOlrect.com
DATE:
REVISION DA TE:
CREA TED BY:
REVISED BY:
CHECKED BY:
5605 Hlatu. Rood, Tomaroc, F'L 33321 USA.. TELBOO-321-8723
7
I}
'. c. f1
I..
''-I
....
~FR , ,aiDS
12.13.05
02.17.06
LV
AAW
~'!\;!:<:r J~i'~D
'!" 'IT
I
~~>l~~1
~~g~g
~~~n%
~11Il;:i!
l\lIli~i
IIi': llB
a~ 3i';\
~;~~~
Ugl~
m~i
~ ~~~
: i~~
~ ~F~
i ~~~
~ ~~~
~ U~
2 'i!2~
~ ~~I
~ ?1~i
. ~.
fi !;
~U~
~~ ~~
~ ~q
I ~
F..q~1
i~i~
;;i<:J8
iUI
'~h.
a~~
~~~
~-<~
"i~
~cn
~~'i!
~~~
E~~
fl'
J~2
~\li
g2~
~~;l
q~"
~l\J
~qll
".~
~~5
~\ll
U~
%~Il
Pga
~
'" D'
\ H
I ",
, ~
I .-/ -
, /
I I .\
, [(0 Oll
I I
, ,
I I
, I
I I I
I I I
I I
I , v,
I I ~ D' 6. ...
I , 0)
I I
I ,
~ I
I
I \ ~b I
I r:t
I ~
I o'
I !
,
I
I ~
I
,
I [(0 Oll ,
, I
I
,
I I
I \
.1 ,
, , I
I
I \,
I ' I
, [(0 Oll D' \'
I I
I
/
/
155.16
'"
-I>.
~
'"
'-.J
~n
~~
" "l:l
~ I
'-'0
c. C)1
~
o
o
I
tI:l
I--'-
N
I
"l:l
~
~ 155.00'
t::: _. -,,-,,-,,-,,-,,-,,-,,-,,-,,-,,-,,-,,-,,-,,-,'-"_"_'1_..-1----------- ---
Z 292'
o
N
N
"J
ii~i;;o n i II i-4
5!ii ~ ~ 5 q
~p p
.u 5 Z
- e -4
I; iI (j)
l i
a
~
~
Ul
0 l>'
'"
... '"
,.
:<l
III '"
I :"
SITE LAYOUT
2/1'7/2008 6:.8 PI(
"DRAFT"
: I [ \
\ I: ~
: I,
SONNyrS
THE CAR WASH FACTORY
http://www.Sonny.Dlrect.com
C 2005 SONNY'S ENTERPRISES, INC. 5605 Hlatu. Rood. Tamarac, F'L 33321 USA. TEL800-327-8723
~ (/'0,
~
.:.
i h:~
~~
I ".....4
-.JHSIJCHfJQf7]
DA TE: 12.13.05
REVISION DA TE: 02.17.06
CREATED BY: LV
REVISED BY: AAW
CHECKED BY:
~mn
~Ill~!!
ilIlli~i
a~ ~S
cJn !~
~~~5~
nUl
~ 5~i
;oj i;:!o
~ ~~i
il ~~i
~ ~~1I
~ n~
~ 12~
~ ~d
~ ,:~I
ill li"
fi ~;
=U~
~~ ~;
~ ~~
~ ~
~"~iil
"'~ !!
!da
~I~I
p~l~ .
~~~
.~3
2~~
;~~
!~~
~~i
E~~
~~"
'i"
~2il
~~~
~~.
~:I
j~~
~~5
ai~
u~
~~~
~
;::;
o
(j0)
0<0
<: I-
~u,0)
rTj '-:u,
d 1 '-J
::0 .J:>._ I-
- 0:. .J:>.
- 0)_ .J:>.
I",
:::: I-
'CXl,~~
1- I
--,~
~n
~~
""'d
<.. I
:do
II' 01
~
o
o
I
t:I:l
........
N
I
""'d
>
c:::
t""'"
-
Z
o
Ul
o po
l\l ~
...
:ll
III '"
I :"
EQUIPMENT LAYOUT
"DRAFT"
.J:>.",
- -1\.)-
~.!... I- I-
,0, "!, a,
.
.
~
,
, "
! Ii
, "
! Ii
I II
1 I!
1 d
- i Ii
IL'l
I I
I I
L_
'I
~
1
'-J
I-
"!,
1
III
.
I\.)
u,
S~NNyrs
THE CAR WASH FACTORY
http://www.SonnysDlrect.com
C 2005 SONNY'S ENTERPRISES. INC. 5605 Hlatu. Road. Tamarac. n.. 33321 USA.. TEL800-327-8723
2/17/2008 .,.. PII
I\.)
I\.)
; @
; '\\
:.
I ~\
I .......-f
MfltM/lJ{IEJOfT)
DATE:
REVISION DA TE:
CREATED BY:
REVISED BY:
CHECKED BY:
12.1J.05
02./7.06
LV
AAW
~~~~u
?~i\l~~
uil!
~ilI zi
~~ Ii
~~~A~
Ugi~
~~di
ii.~i!I
~ !~~
~ .ll~,"
. ~~~
1I ~~~
~ !l;lii
~ U;1
~ l!i~
~ ~~!
i ~!Ji
Ii ~;
~~ ~~
~~ ~;
~ ~Il
I ~
i<\
~~Il;11
"~i~
t~s
iill
?~h .
~~I
~!
~!~
~~i
Q~~
n~
'li'"
~211
~!;~
Il~"
iilll
~Il~
::!5
alii
ni<\
2~g
~'"~
~
~~
~'""d
<..0 I
~o
II' C)1
>+>-
o
o
I
t::l:l
-
N
I
'""d
;J;>
c::::
t'"'"'
.........
'Z
o
Ul
o i"
c.:l ~
,.
III
~ ~
EQ. DESCRIPTION
"DRAFT"
(0 2005 SONNY'S ENTERPRISES. IHC.
(
0~ I
"\:~, ..
"'... '-- II}
~ :"""~~~em~m:
F=fF========'
~=~~========J
I
~
o~
1>",
"
'Ir,.~
"so
"
-""(~
,...,-1;;t.~~-1-o
~~-f~:~~
(:;'S:A;Q..,;;~
;';'fJ:,~~
"l;,J..."-=
"+~ .
I
II
I
"
II
,I
\1
':
I:
,i
~r J~
I 11
C'''-P-? I J i
J~~~ L _ _ J
O~~
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
-''''"
<<""
"
1'",
<"'1>
v~
2/17/2008 6="11 PM.
5605 Hiatus Road, Tamarac:. FL 33321 USA. TEL800-327-8723
>-3
c::
z
Z
t"l
t""
s:
-<
o
c::
>-3
SC>NNY'S
THE CAR WASH FACTORY
htlp:/ /www.SonnysDl~t.com
DATE:
REVISION DA TE:
CREA TED BY:
REVISED BY:
CHECKED BY:
12.13.05
02.17.06
LV
AAW
MILLER
LAND
PLANNING
CONSULTANTS, INC.
420 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Suite #201
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
PHONE . 561/736-8838
FAX. 561/736-8079
January 31, 2006
Michael Rumpf
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
Re: Rapido Rabbit Car Wash
Additional Sound Information
Dear Mr. Rumpf:
In response to our most recent meetings and your correspondence from January 19,2006, attached
is additional sound information for the proposed car wash. The sound information is based on the
car wash tunnel in the original orientation with the traffic flow going north to south. Mr. Cuschieri,
our sound expert, evaluated the orientation that reversed the traffic flow to go from south to north
and felt that, although it would improve the sound relative to the residential area to the north, the
sound levels at the south property line may be too close for you to feel comfortable supporting. This
corresponds with several of the comments that were attached to your January 19 correspondence.
We certainly hope that this information is sufficient for you to support the project as it moves forward
to the City Commission meeting. Should you need any further clarification after reading through
the material, please feel free to call.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
MILLER LAND PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
Bradley D. Miller, AICP
President
cc: Mark Paulino
Michael Weiner, Esq.
Joe Cuschieri, PE, PhD
M:\M L P C\PROJECTS\Rapido Rabbit\rumpf 01 31 06.wpd
.
~ Cuschieri
Acoustics and Vibration Consultant
2398 NW 38th Street
Boca Raton, Florida, 33431
TEL: 561 2897091
FAX: 561 8521784
January 31,2006
Mark Paulino
EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT, LLC
4036 Artesa Drive
Boynton Beach, FL 33436
mpaulino@prodiqV.net
Re: Boynton Beach Car Wash Facility
Dear Mr. Paulino:
This letter provides additional information related to the issues of noise from the proposed
car wash facility on Congress Avenue in Boynton Beach Florida, that were raised by City
staff during a meeting on January 18, 2006.
In regards to the anticipated noise levels from the blowers inside the car wash tunnel, the
report of November 17, 2005 presented anticipated sound levels based on calculations that
considered 3 blowers as this was the number of blowers closest to the car wash facility
opening. Since then the layout has been modified and the current arrangement consists of
8 blowers arranged in 4 rows. The first row that is closest to the facility opening and which is
located some four feet from the opening will have one blower. The second row which is set
back approximately four feet from the first row will have three blowers. The third row, set
back approximately a further 4 feet from the second row will have three additional blowers
and the final row set back approximately a further four feet from the third row (some 16 feet
from the tunnel opening) has the final single blower. That is the blowers in the new
configuration are set in the following pattern, one blower at approximately 4 feet from the
tunnel opening, three blowers at approximately 8 feet from the tunnel opening, three blowers
at approximately 12 feet from the tunnel opening and one final blower at approximately 16
feet from the tunnel opening. Taking into account the distances from the tunnel opening and
calculating the noise level at the opening based on all 8 blowers, the overall noise level from
all 8 blowers would be slightly (1 dB) below that from 3 blower units located at approximately
4 feet from the opening. Hence the conclusions arrived at and documented in the
November 17, 2005 and the December 30, 2005 letters describing the anticipated noise
levels from the operation of the proposed car wash apply for the new configuration of the
blowers.
While it is therefore anticipated that the present layout of the car wash tunnel with traffic flow
to the north would generate noise levels at the residential property line to the north of the
proposed car wash site within the permissible noise levels of the City of Boynton Beach
Noise Ordinance, upon Staffs recommendations, noise mitigation procedures consisting of
sound absorption panels within the tunnel and sound barriers around the blowers or the
.{
. Page 2 of 3 January 31,2006
tunnel opening are implemented. Furthermore, quieter motors that reduce the noise level by
3 dB from those originally considered will be considered for used in the proposed car wash
facility.
The noise mitigation procedures consist of installing sound absorbing material within the
tunnel to increase the sound absorption, together with either sound barrier panels at the
tunnel opening closest to the blowers to reduce the tunnel opening from 14 feet by 12 feet to
12 feet by 10 feet, or by introducing the combined sound absorption panels and sound
barrier panels in an arrangement that surrounds the blowers effectively creating an
enclosure around the blowers. The enclosure layout and the type of panels making the
enclosure are attached for reference. The panels used in the enclosure would have
equivalent acoustic characteristics to those shown in the MODULlNE specification sheet,
which include both noise barrier and absorption characteristics. In fact the MODULlNE
panels can be used to construct the blower enclosure. The MODULlNE barrier panels can
also be used to reduce the opening of the car wash tunnel. The enclosure panels are
perforated with sound absorption material with characteristics similar to those of shown in
the specifications for the NOISE-FOIL behind the perforations. Furthermore, additional
NOISE-FOIL type or equivalent sound absorption panels will be included within the length of
the tunnel and leading to the closest tunnel opening to further reduce the noise from the
blowers. Reducing the opening through which the noise from the blowers can escape either
by reducing the tunnel opening or by enclosing the blowers in an enclosure, absorbing the
contained noise and adding the sound absorbing material will increase the noise level
reduction from that predicted earlier by an additional 4 to 5 dB. The designer and vendor of
the enclosure, NRC, estimates a reduction of 9 to 12 dB as indicated in the attached email
just for the enclosure. This is consistent with the estimated reduction in the noise levels
estimated in our earlier calculations and documented in the earlier reports. Including the
additional sound absorbing material further decreases the reduction in the noise levels to 14
to 15 dB. That is the noise levels at the residential property line to the north of the proposed
car wash site would be now reduced to between 54 and 55 dBA,. which are below the
permissible sound levels of 60 dBA by the City of Boynton Beach Noise Ordinance and
below the ambient sound levels when one considers the noise from traffic on Congress
Avenue. Furthermore, with these noise mitigation measures the anticipated noise levels at
the north property line will be on the order of 65 dB which are at the permissible noise levels
by the City of Boynton Beach Noise Ordinance for commercial receiving property.
Other equipment in the tunnel, such as conveyors, water sprayers, etc. would have an
insignificant contribution to the noise in the tunnel when compared to the noise generated by
the blowers when in operation.
In summary:
. Introducing noise mitigation procedures in the tunnel will result in an additional noise
reduction beyond that determined in earlier analysis by 4 to 5 dBA. The reductions
estimated in our previous analysis are consistent with the independent estimate by
NRC supplier of the acoustical material.
. Introducing the noise mitigation options within the tunnel will reduce the anticipated
noise levels at the residential property line to the north of the proposed car wash site
. Page 3 of 3 January 31,2006
to be on the order of 54 to 55 dBA which are below the noise levels of 60 dBA
permissible by the City of Boynton Beach Noise Ordinance.
. With the noise mitigation procedures in place the anticipated noise level at the north
property line of the proposed car wash site would be on the order of 65 dBA which
would be at the permissible noise levels of 65 dBA by the City of Boynton Beach
Noise Ordinance for a commercial receiving property.
Sincerely,
~CL
Joe Cuschieri, P.E. Ph.D.
Acoustical Consultant
C.C.: Bradley D. Miller, AICP, MILLER LAND PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
Subject:Noise Panel Drawing/Info.
Date:Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:00:08 -0500
From:NRP INC. <noisereduction@hotmai1.com>
To :cuschieri@bellsouth.net
Dear Joe,
Attached please find a panel sectional drawing and material weights.
The noise coming directly from the blowers - blade passage noise, bearings,
etc., - would be reasonably well reduced due to their location. Also as we
discussed, the noise from blowers located farther from the entrance will be
reduced substantially more than those near the opening.
All considered, my estimate is that there will be a reduction of 9 to 12 db
near the exit door, and a similar reduction for employees exposed to blower
noise from the other end of the enclosure. Noise exposure of customers will
be substantial as well, since they will no longer be exposed to noise
reflected back at their cars from hard walls and ceiling.
Regards ------------------------------------------ Tom Esslinger
u
Z
(f)4-
1-4-
U ?
:::J 3:
o 0
OP=l
0:: ~
0..<[
Z , E
o ~ :)~
- OJ c
I- ~ E
U ~ :)
:::Jo~ 0
o P=l .....<[ W ...--<
W~ i- I- ~
~ <( >- <(
0::11. ~ CD 0
(f)
WWo Q:;
(f) <J:g f-
Zz .
- <(~ l!) t ~
o Cl:::b: 0 0 ~ -H
UJw 0 N q 8 Co
z 5~ ~ ~ g ~ ~
I- ~~~--1~
~
~
...--<
CD
M
~
Q)
-
o
o
>
Q)
a:::
...--<
4-
o <[
...--< 0
...--<
...--<
o
Ln
ci
z
<.:l
~
o
~
o
c
o
')
u
z
(f)
t-
U
:J
o
o~
0::: u
0... ~
.........
z ~
001 ~-'
t- ~ ~ <(
u ~ (/)
:J d iJl
00-<[
W~ ~
0::: ~ ~
w fBo
(f) ()~ ~
O~~ 0
0::" to
wt 0 ~ :;;r ~
Z ....J~ 0 N 0 0 ~
o~~~g;'-5
t- i.1~X"g>
o 0 0 -1 <{
-J)
o
OJ -
OJ"..... (\J
OJ +'-.J
OJ""'" (/)<[ ~
+,-.J +,(\J
(/)<[ OJ\Q !;:
(\J a
4-1f) OJ If)
s..0 ..c -
OJ If) (/)I C>
0... I t- .--<
<[0
<[t- L:JOO -
L:J0 -J)o (X)
(\J~ .-40
(\J0
If)
c: s::.
+>
0 0)
+> !;:
0.00 OJ
L(J'I -.J
If) o II"
If)u OJ
0 .QIX !;:
<Iz a
If) 0 Cl.
If) -J) ~
a~
~ a s..
00)-- a
L s.. ~
OJ OJ !;:
+>
o~a a
L...,L +>
(/)
o
'<t
o
cxi
CD
Q)
-
o
o
o
M
>
Q)
a:::
<[
.--.
01
.--.
C)
\D
ci
z
CI
3:
o
\D
C)
~
d
)
w .--.
I- ...01
~ <
o
Ul
+'
OJ
.::r:.
u
o
s..
S)
OJ
c:
Q.
E
o
u
..c
+'
~
OJ
U
o
Q.
c:"O
__ c:
-0 OJ
~..c
OJ u
..c 0
Ul OJ
OJ+'
c: 0
o
0...
Noi5e Reduction Products Inc.
http://www.borerepair.addr.comlNRP/1.htm
NOISE REDUCTION PRODUCTS, INC.
"SOLVING NOISE PROBLEMS SINCE 1975"
Offering custom design, manufacture, and on-site evaluation and
installations. Call us today to speak with our experienced in-house
staff to discuss your particular needs.
Ph: (603) 835-6400 Fax: (603) 835-2922
Ej~t~4IL J!.J...d..D' lloisereductiol1(iiihot11lail.!:.'oJ11.
for information and photos click on one of the buttons below
--
. ..: ."" . ". ...
PANELS ON SALE
Does your shop comply? Click her~!()yiew OSHA limits chart
'::6 H.~ ~.1c{, E L1M ITS
SHOP: 97 Lower Cemetery Road - Langdon, NH 03602
10f2
1/31/20064:01 PM
Noise Reduction Products Inc.
MAIL: PO Box 58
Alstead, NH 03602 USA
Ph: (603) 835-6400 Fax: (603) 835-2922
Ji'J{AlL ljS AT: noisereductioll(ii;hotmpil.co111
20f2
http://www.borerepair.addr.comlNRP/l.htm
1/31/20064:01 PM
nois.e reductien products
..ttp://www.borerepair.addr.com/NRP/PG1A.htm
EZ - OUT NOISE BARRIER PANEL SYSTEM
For complete work area noise isolation.
If you have a large workshop and a particular area
where several noisy machines are used
the EZ - out system works well to keep noise
isolated from the rest of the shop while
maintaining access to the area.
FEATURES:
Available in custom sizes
Suspended top mount
10f2
1/31/20064:02 PM
noise reductiem products
.Up://www.borerepair.addr.com/NRP/PGlA.htm
Easily removable
to view our other PANELS. click on the links below
20f2
INDUSTRIAL SURFACE MOUNTED ABSORPTION PANELS
SURFACE MOUNTED OFFICE NOISE ABSORPTION PANELS
""'" ''''
Does your shop comply? Click here to view OSHA limits chart
':-',H.c. t.l(:'I3E LiMns
1/31/20064:02 PM
nois.e reduction products
..ttp://www.borerepair.addr.comlNRPIPGlD.htm
SUSPENDED ABSORPTION PANELS
For general work area noise / echo reduction
Typical applications: Manufacturing areas, gymnasiums,
auditoriums, indoor swimming areas, classrooms and fire stations.
FEATURES:
Durable metal construction
Size and color to your specifications
Center barrier for added performance
Easy to install
to view our other PANELS. click on the links below
INDUSTRIAL SURFACE MOUNTED ABSORPTION PANELS
SURFACE MOUNTED OFFICE NOISE ABSORPTION PANELS
Does your shop com I ? Click here to view OSHA limits chart
1 of 1
1/31/20064:02 PM
r~-=-->", SUL.L.ETlN 6.0133.2
~11 ARCHITECTURAL NOISE-FOIL:
"laC SOUND ABSORPTION SYSTEMS FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE
NOISE REDUCTION IN HIGH NOISE LEVEL AREAS · ACOUSTiCAl CONOmONING 1hru REVERBERATION CONTROL
. .
PlATE FABRICATION
TANK FABFlCATlON SHOPS
ENGINE TEST FACILITIES
. SCf:!9Ols, THEATERS
PLASMA SPRAY SHOPS
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
BROADCASTlNG/RECORDING STUDIOS
TRANSIT SYSTEMS
ANY LOCATION REQUIRING NOISE
REOUCTlONS UP TO 10 dBA
ACOUSTICALL Y UPGRADING CONCRETE.
STUD. OR SHEETROCK ENCLOSURES
FEATURES:
CONSTRUCTION:
ABUSE RESISTANT METAL JACKETED
HIGH SOUND. ABSORPTION: NRC 0.95
THERMAl INSULATION:
lOW HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS
ATTRACTIVE FINISH OPTIONS:
VINYL - TEct.AA - POL VESTER PAINTS
POWDER COATINGS
1NCOt.t~:
'et.A$JA~:
> ~, ' . n -
I....
Ii
"",..:;;>J::;'~':;, INDUSTRIAL ACOUSTICS COMPANY
How Sound-Absorbing Panels Reduce Plant N'oise Levels
Nol....FonU.l Sound, AbslH'bling Modules are pr9Cli<:s.1 and effective for reducing high ooise levels In inc4,lSlrl<\1 and commercial
tacihti@s. AlfOOugh prl)1llOlng little noise redudion near noise sources. Noise,Foil will benefit workers furtl1er away.
IIHt! SllWlO 41lS.WlPHIl1I
IliIST MICE .fallM WlIl\IlI ..;
~r.ators at a - not helped; personnel ilIt b - OOnefllfrorn reduced
nOise leVEtls as refl>ecle<l SOOl'ld is absorooo 'en route'.. Risk Clf
~ariI'l910l>$ is reduced and sptl'OC:tl irrtelligibdity islmprO\le<l. Noise
reduction of 3 to 5 dB Is typical; as much as 8 to 10 dB In rllghly
reverberanl areas.
Noise-Foi,1 Sound Absorpliron Panel Systems reduCe ref~ed
noise and p~ acoU$lical COodltlorung tor large and small
spaces. Can be atiached to walls or suspended from ceiling.
NOISE-FOIL PANEL TYPES
HF.U
,.....~
Open back - wskied &l~ cOO$ltl.lCliQ"
Face aheeI tully perlo'ette4
Max >M(!ltJ 4.6'!tZ1!)mmJ - 4'I102mml thick
..~~.!t2J!~.(;lf~[!'I!~!~..ll.lbrr:aIlorll.
NAC U7010 t SO Fufty~- tronlan:ltlack...~ ~
ASTM C42::HMa Max width 42'1l&;.. x Z' lhll;k II0l)'11l1676~ 5tmm\
(AppIy!() lotal PilI1"'!!;\J~ac" area. 38' x 02" l( ,,'thICk (S$S l( 1575" 102mm)
.'1!:.E2.t!1~~)____. _ .~~!Il!l,!~.iI!~.,ilII1lld~, !itM&a.luminvm
NAC 095 ~ ASThf C 42s..B4a Closlild back Ilane.:
STC 33 . A..l,lA two room method Max WldltJ 42' .66' l( 2"
ASTM E 413 36'
NAC 070 lof 30
ASTM C 4;?3.B4a
HF.IU
HF.IV
No ,olners requrred
\'Va. mount
Noalf space
Joiners Of Inm ~wea
Ceding hu~
Wa! mount wi1tl air spac"
stlK!, and ceillOQ gOO
Open bado;
Fate sf1eel m8f9\\ned perforations
Maxwidlh 24' 1'61 Omm) - 2'h' t64lM\} thICk
Allai!aible in jJre'linished ma!erJal$,ga!\laniled $\~ 8. <l!\!,"""um
Accelera.led Weather Tesled' - 400C' ~;,.A,STld6 1 t 7
2400 tvi:a.STM G 23
~f fO<' outdoor applications
No ail $pat9
No ~fli rBqlJ>lOoo
NOISE.FOIL INSTALLATIONDET AILS
T1'PE 1 tYPE I TYPE 11
I!IftAMm'EHT ~ CI)HTII;UOV5'
'IT"!1Il
AIil!Sl"ACE~
~
~
. ~
'T1-
I .
I
i
i .
i ~
I ~
i I
I I
iC
I i
! i
I
typ[ V
"'....I._T
'lTl'E III
CE'UN<lGM)
TYPE/v
WAU.MOUKT
TYPE 1\/
STUD MO\JfjJ
TARE 1 - COftmNUOUS. WAU.uOUNTED
TYPES I...... and V
SOUND ABSORP1lON COEFFICIENTS
Noise-Foil'fltl Sound Absorption Systems - Design GuideUnes
..
..
-
(':~,., ...
N ..,. .(l:!7...".,I,:~
.p 086 (I ll'it
-PS 05] 1160
:t'lIt' .....1:I*lltmly
., ._-!:I 024 0,95
.2':lIt_....
.N (l.3..~ O!.i" ,,1..29. <, I ::"',97 _ .J:l_~-----",OO
-P Q4~ (.147 0,64 ,,_,,':~,?L_, ~.~ 0,12, .,JLl'lL..
-p~ (},1'9 (L4!l {j 71 1 ('II (l!<3 (} n o !Ill
NorE co.m"-~I.!IIJfi!<8Hlt........., 1,0 tW<.ll't!tvth dd1r~J t'~ _I\l!d M'JtIl
M"'iW5<J~S.'1:e,AsrMC4.?3, nrt-'-(;,li9m") r>x,oro,;l~ilflM.O:#\'1"""
rx,"""",,,--..;,"I:.fO 95 -s (~lor'104M' fl'K1v(;tNXl ':<4'k:~
13-4
093
1,Ql
1 <?~
on
fr.B6
.13l)
090
Q\I(I
I 2>1,
"e9
106
II;)
--." --,,--,....
084
(},99
,,;..tL_,.......2JI~.,
0,9i!
Q,SOIl 1.00-
<'f'<~.."...................
IIII
.1W;~~~_~~'.....,.~.~"
_~_~lL..".J1.9,._~. _~_~
14\:J,~1 ill 11(; ~40 117: 112 100-
:i'\7i37-'{;':';" ~-' i~ -"'ii"'j.o,." 1"~. ~. '75"
._'~~~L..!~""..},I".._!;I1 !;I:2",,";__:;:~L
-f'S .....LLZ!i;~.~..~" .._~'L _J!!i ,.~...!05 _..~_..
14~' ll3 52 102 105 i &<I ff7
2"'m~l'l.U~..!J.:.1W-1~'h aa~,!!!m.T~..lJ,~~__,
.N 3 (NIl Z4 __.__4!L~.,,".. ,_~_~...J!!L.....,..,Z5, '
" I~ (ts)'..?S 58 Il;{. ..114 ',1(17 . J~?
. ~ J!fi,l ~ , f~, 4~ ~"""~ ,,~~ _~ ~__
. III (457). X? :t2 ~.o . 01 f>I'>, ~
.PS .. ~ {io!" 37 J8 .~ .fJO n.. 65. .
n '4571 :l6 X? 51! SOIl ll<' I'\J
.p
-p
...
TABLE 3 -
CaUNG-HUNG TYPE III
TOTAL ABSORPTlON, SABlNSJPANEl
10 12 9
-N J.f1 .",,,..;2g,,-----. 14....
. .!L.... ..__~. 11
25 ,,'.. 3,1 . " J~
.~L_._..1? 7
"'....'^'m____
.p .!.It " .".~... . ....11 .. ..
15 2C 25 1-1
Z1 30 16
_R___ ,..t:.J ""....'",, ,. ~-
.-PS
(1067) .
6311~j ? '9?~ ~
~"~~..~Il'.II\.i.h(t~.. '''''.~ ~_..___
13 '3301-... ,L..._.._H.__ '.3. .R .1:)., .6
__2.l!.J.~1} _... .5.. .1.2, _., .111.. . ..JJL,..gl 12
.~"L~L., .5.. J.~. ,.?', .21., 27 15
,..!L,. ,,2&.. ~. .~_ ... ....3;1.. 17
10 I:! 11 11 7
11 It) 17 Ill, 11
13 1\1.. ..!.~ __;,';l.. ..._.14
13 <14 2€ 27 16
10 13 !2 11 a
12 It! 19 19 II
J1'___?.l .._~_...1:'!. . P..
14 26 ~ Z8 15
-N
.p
:?':l -,737,
3B (9G:.}
, 57 l'44!lJ ,
J3. .33CJ.
2':1 ',n!!,
. '3$. t~,5L
;,71144j!,
.T
7
7
7
o
h
~,.--
6
-PS
Sound Alnorption 1$ Aftec'ed by P.nef-Module Placement as
demonstrated .n the lAC NVLAP.accreditecl Aero.AcouSllc
Laboratory ,
Celllng-Hung Pa~. were tested in several conhgu,abons as per
ASTM C 423. Sound absOfpOOn per sq It of panel area improved
WIth incteased spacing. In IN Speech Frequencies, 500, 1000,
and 2000 Hz. a 63 in. l1600mm) pane; spacing provides highest
number of Sanrns per module (Sabin or Melric Sabin is the
equiva.lenl of t SQ II or lsq m respectIVely of a perfectly sound
ab$Qrptive surface).
HOW9...er, incteased spaCIng reduces total number 01 panels that
can be fined and sound absorptrve Sablns thai can be pr()VlljeO,
Cos1-effecti11e applicali<lre can be maximized by considering ceilin<)-
hung and/or ~illng.lwalknO\.mted OOl"I!1guratKlos
WallICailing-Mounted Noise-Foil Modu". can be very effective
in long narrow spaces and relatively low ceilings. See Table t for
sound ab$Qrphon coeflicienl$1fI OOl"Itinuous and Table 2 tor Sabins
per array ll'l Intermftlent installations: Table 3 gives SatMns per
module for ceiling-hong arrangements,
Celling-Hung Noise-foll Type tIl Modules can be used to great
advantage where there are large floor areas with widely spaced
watls For COSl-effectlVE! recommendatIons please chock With lAC
Noise-FolI Testing In lAC AlitfO-A.coustie Laboratoty
~
HOW TO Di:SKlNATE ~-FOIL
PANELS
toll' -l -2 ..f'S
COOE FOR flU. PROTECTION
OPTIOftS
N -NellR pl'QlbCIOl
P -N.....apped "'~
PS ~tflllf1'appedlliM!l.t!l
_ by~ spa;;tlf
.
TYPE .
THIClOIESS
.
FlU. PilOTECTlON OPTlON
Specifications for Noise-FoU™ Sound Absorption Systems
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 Scope of Work - This Section covers the furnishing of
materials and products lor the fabrICation of specil!ed sound ab-
sorbing module systems.
'The extent of work shall be as. specified and incl!.lde but not
be U,mJled 10 thetOliOwlng:
-So'Um abSorbing paM) modules.
-Acou$t~ca! Insulation.
-Melal supPOrt systems.
1.2M.anufac:turer 01 sound atlsorblng melalliner panels shall
b!;J l!'ldw.trial Acoustics Company. 1160 Commerce AvanuG,
Sronx. NY 10462. Tel,: (718) 93H~OOO. Fax: in8) 863,1136.
1,3 Product Submittals shall inClude malerlals speciflcahofl$,
installation, ,and mamtenancil hlS!ructions with cleaniog proce-
dutes.
1.4 Certified THtRel)Ol't$ shall be submitted with bid
d@monstrating complilanoo with sound absorption coeffiCiients Qr
Sabins speafied herein and shall hal/e been conducted in a
I'aoorlltory 3.ccreditoo by the National Votootary Laboratory Ac-
cre<itation Program. NVLAP.for Sound Absorption Tests by the
Revllrberalloo Room Method. IISTM C 423,
2.4. Face sheet perforations shall be rouoo aoo dtagooally
I;el1tered with a maximum diameter of 3/,,, in, (4.76mm) on J.I~ in.
(9's3mm) staggered celllef$; open ",reca crt approximately .23%.
2.5. Acoull.tical insulation shall be sound abSOrbing fibetgl<lS$
if1filL U.L. tirec cla$$lrnao with flame spread 25 maximum. smoke
dellelopedSO maximum per ASTM E 84.
2.6 Fit! Protection Options (Select one or both)
2.lJ.11nflllshall be encloSfld In polyethylene wrap as
recommended by acoustical metal liner panel manufacturecr. shafl
be U.L classified with flame spread 25 maximum and smoke
developed 50 per ASThl E 84.
2.6.2 lnfill SlhlIIl be separated from perlorated face ~et
by 'h in. (6.35mm) acoustic reactive sparer.
2.7 All exposed metal trim shaH be minimum 18 gauge
(1 ,31mm) G90 galvanized {per ASTM A 525} sleet
3.0 ACOUSTICAL PERFORMANCE
3.1 PanelModUfe$. ....'hen lested in accordance with ASTM C
423. shan produce minimum (seleCt one ormQre) so!.md abeorptiOl1
coefficients. Table 1; Sabins per panel array . Table 2; or Sabina
per panel, Table 3. as follows:
2.0 MATERIALS
2.1 Face sheets shalt be minimum 20 gauge GOO, 0.0396 in.
n ,Ol'mm). gal1faJ'!ized (per ASTM A 525) pnrfinisned steel or
aluminum (selectons). The face panel shall have sufficient rigidity
to provide panel fiatness not exceeding a denootion of L/240 as .'f15et'/ apprcpr-aie,'Si,,,?s from rOO1'e 1, 2. or 3
measured diagonally acroS$ the panel.
2.2 Pre-finlstled, Material Options (aR NF Types except NNt):
Panels shall be finished with (select one) 8 mil (O.203mm) thiCk 4.0 PANElPENETRATtONS
vinyl, 3 mil (O.076I'r1m) thidl: polyester pOwder, or a 1 mil 4.1 A ehannM-shaped steM molding shall be installed on
(0 .025rnm) polyester baked enamel. All trim pi~ shall be fa<:- panelS- Wherever panels have to be cut to f1t. The mOlding must
tory-painted with a mOdH,jed alkyd-baked ena.l'r1al 10 match close the panel to p<<ldude any tO$$ 01 panel fll! materials. All
prefinished color selected by architect or owner, rein10rClng channels shan be installed so as nol to compromIse
2:.3 Painted Optl<on .(sl1 NF Types): All pa.nala and tl'lm shalt tl'!e acoustic and structural propef1ies of system. Any fasteners
be factory-painted wlm Ii modified alkyd-bak.ed enamel. COlor to whiel'! may be required due 10 field cutting shall be conooaled
be seiected by architect or owner, where....er possible.
All destgnsand specifications SiltJject to change without notice, (Metric- dimensions in parenrheses ( ) nommal,>,
Correl::tioNI FII<:!tliy. Pelm 8IIlld1 C~, Fklric:Ia
~"',.;.;"
OTHER APPLICATIONS
Walhlngton (Del ConventIon Clnltir
INDUSTRIA.L ACOUSTICS COMPANY
BIIIICE 1949 ~ LEADERS IN NOrSE CONTROL ENGINEERING. PRODUCTS ANO SYSTEMS
UNfTlD STATES UNfTIED JltlIlGDOM OlERNAIIY
1100 CO!\IMERCE ...VENVE CEumA~ rnAOiNG ESTATE So.;lwEG 17
BRONX, NEW YOAK 10462.5500 stAINES, MlOOLESEX, '!'W1& 4X$ (l-.!,:;r2 NlcOEAKRVCHffiN
PtroNIO m 51113Hl:lQ(} ~Nlit (O'l'8A>1 ~S&.l!!$' PHONE: (~t6J'1 $4:11
FAXi7tSi8&3.113i.l fAX, i07~1463403. TELEX. 2$516 FAX. 1.02163) 611616
'ttCMNlCALa_A'OONOl ~CfTMI ~ THII_LD
C
lH€ STANOI.~ O~ SKEllCt
~..-o ,.. i.:. !;It..
BlJUETlN 1.(1612.$
NOISE CONTROL by INDUSTRIAL ACOUSTICSCOMPANV
UPDA TED WI"H NEW PA.NELS# FIRE.I BAU/STIC RA TlNGS
Design Rugged Noise Control Structures USIng Acoustically Rated and Fjeld Pl'r.Wen Demountable Components...
AeadllyAssembied, De01OUnted,. Rearranged, and Reassembled Witlioot Loss of Acoustlcs,1 or Structural Performance
O@@
rnoduline
MODUltNE
APPl.JCA liONS
. Solind~root Partitiorni
.. Machinery EneldSu'n
. Factory OIfic!t!i
.. Solind BarTlelli
. OI.tiat AootnIi
. Ouahly.CMtrol Rooms
. Tnl Envl,o,uTlents
.. PfOOucl-Devel<i!P!'l'letri Rooms
. AcoU1lHc:/Th.em1al ?Iooumll
. T'll1!sformll' Statioo$
.. communication c.nlers
.. Ob$efYationlCootrol Aooms
.Po*ef-PtllnIOlllen
.. Tt.Uic-ControJ c.nlers
.. Vibflltion.Test Encml,l'&S
. Radio. Tv, ~dIIlQStu(fios
. CMIJOI PuillUS
. SelF Rooms
.. Conference Rooms
'II' Pflnt1l10 Pfns EnclOsllres
.. Equlpm4lllltP'enthoUS$
.~male: MlNlll4Jllno Machine
~
.. CQiOltno Tower Enclosures
. OUtdoor CMslwctiOfl Offices
.. ~Um4IInt Stor.OIl! Flooms
. and many OI"!lfS
Designing a Moduline Structure is as Simple as A-B-C...
Industrial AcousUcsCompany's Modulin.*' $yst.m featurn modular Nolabield" and Noise.
Lock" components wltb hlgb souncl4ransml.sion-loss and ~nd'absorptlon ,r.lings pfOlllcllng exceflttnt
noise reducUon chara,cleri$tic$.
Components inckKIe wall, roof, and floor panels, doors. windows, wen61,tlon unns and sllttncers. panel
joiners. IfIm and hardware; a.llpart of an .codUcaUy and structurally rated
'Iw.ilding block' system 10r am'ullllude of appHcallOO$.
Straight WaUs - Barriers
A stl8jgMl ~ or bamer IS me
mostba$CoIOOfI.tal~.arm
~$ II a'tamogpoirlt, Tt1.e
!iOUifId.reUtrdanl ~ wan fl1ll)'
~ ~ 013 lull ~lJm. or ill
pat1ial barrit'lt ~ e;o:~
~, Tt1.e~t'\ll'.Il$lml OOfIneQ.e<l
by "H"jOlI'Wr$ and ~mlyjOl11.ed
ltI rho !Ioor by ~tm.n if! fi
~ra~lioordiannl.l,t Seal~ru>I~f$rrl,lCl1Jro5lSlNloowm~
COt\~fl!i aoo fell s1~
Partial Enclosures/Shields
WllIll$ at nghl anglK ltIlI'Ie ba$lC
.,..aP may 00 added by U$ir1g a
l;Qmtl;r jOdltlr If ~ lMfI a nghl
3r1g.1ll amooclllJl'1 lIS desired 311-
!l'lJia, jojffl:lrs arelJ'Slld"
Access to Enc'osedEquipment
000'11, R<l~lt Panels, Wit'\-
dOW$~ I'1O-~ll~nol access
'iI prov'dl'lo w1I11 manlJal 'H
automlllOO$lidlng dOOrs, lril1'!'led
[l~S, tlr a \lOde range ot
111~ slngltJ<. and ~!eal
INlgOOlJc lleaI dOOrs For ~l,
1I1an"hlrd dCH.ible. gl'ill.e<l ""il'l-
oom rangerrorn l:i'in lH2m 13i05xOO'Smrn}t(l2'7U'1 .It 74!).if! (6iB6
x 1 llS::?mmj
D Roof for a Complete Enelosure
Roof amSlrUC!;roo i6 $Imilal to
Ihalu$OO to' ""'311$ Slaf'1d3rd ''''I',
~ef$,rocl dlarmels and <liplOfl
pfO\llOe !Nt ~ IllruCIlJral
aoo aoousflClll ~ and may be
IJ~ fo, most a~ 00
$.~n$ 41' to .20 fl lOO9i6mml
W'he.!'l 1he to(l! mlll>1 mJpport
I'l'lOf!;l ~f! lis QWf\ ~h1, aoo I,or
lh.ari 00 11 (9144mrnLil ~iaI $lf'l.l(::lIJral 'H'1QlOO4 III
"~"lI" 1_ -__ ''''J!W__'',,,,,,...,.~ ",.
Floors and Vibration Control
Wl't!;'r!;l 1il1l'\>CllJrally lransmuted
l'l()jSl) anQIOI Vl~ must b<!
amlrOlled. the e~'e liS built
upori a Moduline ftoor lloaung
upon \l!ibr.al)(lfl iSQlalOfll,.
TrackwaU for Completely
Removable yetCapUve Walls
'l'ril:ClI.wat" compQne11l5 IHe
sIoroo in a ~ !;torage
area wilen rEltl'lQ\lOO born !Nt
structure. These stt,miy, all.s.tGol
iadUrlg pene15 seal ~.lI'Ie
tlltlSbng floor and ll1l!I O'>!etMad
stNclu,al traCk. When 'open'
TrllCkwilll .P3rWs leave no Inp
hazard S~&.. An: ha.am .l$~e Ot)sunngloog.term ~na~
tree acoUll'tic iI1legr1ly
Ventilation
for Complete Enclosures
MOOtJlloo Ver'ltiIalloo SY$lems In
low' and rngl'\'volume flow
deSigns ;lIe oftered If') bolh
~h<OOi' arid 'Nrn~-f.ocl< (:.0<1-
strlJttionS. Air mndll11:ltilrtg IS
ll'\lailabfe lOr personnel s.hellel'$
and lest tlflYlrol1l'llQtlls
I,!ACHiNEIW ENCLOSURE S
PE~ElBrAIJt;UGEti
...with Versatile Components Designed for Ease of Installation
Walls, Ceilings, and Floors
· M;)'~llJ'€ DrQ~ec~l()n I(,r abso'otJQn mat""'!"I,,
pre,-'.'E!'nts ;;"fIlr3.PI"H~nt of voli:ltle Of corrusl'ie !.q",;;is
· OP!d)~,l F~r{~ NOise Loc~ I <:;CJt$trLC~I(}n ':VO\f,de~
(.;rN'ca!.Qr1 ot l :, 1"1 t,re ra~I"'g - .,,1I cnlT'lX',,...,,.nt<;
S!ol~ WI!:!' V.L !aooi.
· He..:w'l'rlLlty appl'catlons - up t::; ':. '11 ,635mm)
pi ate .aull CQ4'1!itrdctlC)fl
· No.""".fotl"" Wu11(1 absorp"on :;,ystBm fP.-Jucei>
r!!'lE<tleran: tx.<<:!-IJP .....thin exi5:ing 'h.i!rtf !;tt~
Doors" Other Accessories
· 5""9r('. and ::lOLbia-le;;r 'ca'Tl-htt r,o-s.,n pef;;.Q!1'
noJ ::lootS. Cleat ~f1,ng to 8 f! ~ 14 't i243fJ ~
42brTltnl S~><il QeSlg"5 10' iF~r open,ngs
;o'"a,ln::ro
· Pan,c na'c:tINwe
· 1.1anva, a11(1 avtorr.a~oo s'n'}'", .lr,c doutJle.;eal
5!i.j,r'19 doors.
· S'''QI{Heaf tnaJm!!!'\""lce <lcr:i!~.!' 000'5
· T f'lC"I"o'd1i lr~H:il.IT1Qjjf1tl'!(j rr>ovabl.} ....all s;.-st.err, .
also w:rr. 1 :;; ht rue rat,ng
· f:lemovabie lX!'l.e' ceta,,:;. - aI' ~'d'c"'d'e 1...d;.)I'V1:
· Acces:> Qiug$ 'or roc.ai il1:Ces.s
· UCUH).gkl.l.tl<i ....."1\10"'" ""'1.5 PfO"":::l<'- ."".c.n iJ('
cess at "0 lOSS oi aCm..s:" '''''''';1''0'
· U L j.ri>.rn1M aO....lr5 - 3 nr;; . 'Jl) Ie .0:2 0,' . 'lO ''1
i 1007 lI. 2~t ~~af Or.;W ~lOEC<<,.'9 64 ." x
~J Iff 1.213.t x :??86mm) OOviCiE"'O?X c!"ar :X>e;"\~
Matenals
· Stan(JIi'O . c.o'O";}!lc-:! $/J(ld :;~!':'D; ;!no :jim'a". Ze<1
pC'r1ora:(<d 5:0':"
OPTIONAL
· AI' 9,,"..an,.,:00 constr:.>e!\(,r.
· AI: stainless COf1Sln,lCfIOn T (PC::' :JO.l 311;' l'iiL.
321 afld ,j.J9
· Stal'H:'(;~ Sl(!Q~ perlO'tiiod o~.:;
Ventilation
· AcaustiCiIdy COl'llP<llil;il,,; !>ySIF'''h . , 00-- 10 .000l
cfm j 170-17000 mJ hr,l
· \\Ide rJ'l"9F.' 01 acoustlC.11ly and cl,:>rodynarr.,caliy
ra!ed silence!!.) ;or n'0l'~di .d~1d r"l()h.t ~)(~-H.1In9
'BQu,mmiJ'nr<;
"4lif:t. -
__,",t
"Utl_,~
....1'll:...L
~
.oo.v.
Installation Information and Sequence
T.....o f"lt't'\ can h;mOlt MoJ...i,fli' ;:')rHpOf'j~"ls.
t' 1'1S,,,1 ,Jo"ts <I" Oltlel van", (vn,pOl)t"f1!;., Il:iiH't!& ~hllJPC>J pre
.~S~~"4-}ml~t~1 ~"1 pdt1e~ hd"'lt~
j Place flOOl ctl.11l,el$ In le"'gt'1~ f'eeuoo IOf toom j;}€'r'rlI1111' An.
chor to 1!QOf
4 Starling ill .. corr.~r ,ttStillt P3nf'IS line 1;:1'''''tS to make Ill' ....rtlr~
. ",,'>Ia" '('ul d"ljli.'l>. P"'~'1i! C!fllll1t;; panels arid jOilllHS Fr:'''sh 0"
...,IM f"tl1!nal rOClr apon
G '''Sia,: accessQ', Hem,> ,n;:iw,j,nQ 10r-;:\1>:! _enlt131'O" SySlt'fT, il'ltj
elE'Cl',{'a' ""Qf'
7 U,,'" "ilSf ~" f,):'0W 0IHadi'd. ';iI\(j illuSltared ,flSlil'ld(.(Yl .n<;iruc
~;;)"$ ~fO.,d,-,d ""lli eactJ srtur:tare
"Here's How" Case Histories Illustrate Moduline Noise Reduction Capability
II
MACHINERY ENCLOSURES
A",ml)lC!r N01$t Rl>(Iue\ion
35 dBA
.~, 'l
STFt\iCrUflES WliH SILENCERS
furnace N01$lt Roduell,'"
23 dSA
TEST FAClllTIES
SQi'5>t! Rl!'duCllOfl
SO dBA
PAflTlAl ENCLOSlIRES
f', '''1'''9 Pr.n Noise R1l1ducli<rn
90aA
Over 100 detailed Cil:~ t'.,<;tnnes tlt'SC'loe a w'de ld..g!' ,,1 smalH"j
''''\i~ scale MQdullne InSlallatiOn!, Hlf;h:,gtlt'l1g me.;h.Hl,,~..I. SHl"c.L,'.il' Mill <lCOu~tlc.al ,r3taclli'1.s11cs Here." Hew 5tGrl(1~"
:us~rdll! ell,c't'f'l1 and e<:of'tcm,r:al '''H,mo-d~ to S;)I".,. your O(h$i' CO"
11(1' p1ot\len'1> telt IJ;, dtJu<l1 me natult' of yo", nOise problem i!l"r:1
we ....iI: ma,j ~'wu >iiPP'Clj).,..t", cas.o h'$tOlIOS
MODULINE- CHECKLIST
t/ Acoustic Perlormance Ratings
MOduhne Panels are available WI1l'1 a wide range of sound-lransmtSSlOo-loss and sound-absorptIOn ratings to accommodate any
no!Se-COntrol requirement:
SOUND TRANSMISSION LOSS. dB
0.....
c.w.... *
~leld Septum
~'1~ld ~iIlar.
M'" Out) Regular
N01Sll.J..odo; I
ND-s.t'.u:.cl< II and
r ;re-No'5~H..oc;.
TrilOo....aH f1~!i1r
Svj:)!?r.NooSl'!-Locl<
Trdcw.....ail Ham
Nl\;$I1~ld Hato
Viiu1l
N 0iE.P. -{.fJdo( III
N~.LOCl<. d MaiO
~!>e..U.lCl\ IV Hare
(;,emil'll R~W
2!:. 27 31 41
27 30 3:2 41 5(1 59 67 71 45 105
18 25 3.5 45 52 51 56 sa 46 10
31 .&4 54 rn 62 G8 48 15
,. __ u_ ~~v~'~'~~'v ~ "'" ~"
::;1.. 38 .4:3 ..48. 5.1 . s:::l . 58 .. 59 51 10
22 33 45 52 .58 !io8 75 65 56 95
, ,
3-4, 39 46 5S t'l2 59. 00 . 64 . <;'. . IS 5
20 36 51 QB 15 B3 84 73 59 11
_,," ~ ~ ~ ~,~ v
24 40 50 57 65 73 80 78 {'it 12
, ~ ~ "~.
21 30 50 00 73 79 80 11 152 "3
~, _~ ,_ '~n ~ _'_~mp_' _"_~"v -.. ^~__....__._
34.48 S8 69 75 82 86 76 70 21
SOUND ABSORPTION COEFFlCJENTS
~... I
GeMW""'* '1. .-
NOlSoI'io(!t(l Regular al'Xl
r rack....." Reg...lar
NOISoI'io(!t(l Seplum
Nooie-Lock I. II
fl'e-~LfJdo( arnl
Supet.N~,LOCl<
NOl~ arw:l r'iiCkwall
Regular Wllh
"1\ ptaloction a'ld 5pa<<!f
Nr)j$t>-lock II.l
Na1se-Fo,11 and II,
<2 1n.-51mm lh1tl
N,;,,:;e-f'a11 I and II
(4'" -102mm llil\)
NOIs&.F01I V
bm.3 'I' ~r.. acn~ om"'.45 fill ti 00 i (r.9fl_IOr, I US'sll'lOO f: .j 13 f ;;c.$'I1 At>.\;t11pl,i()l'li
o.~ 1.20 Ut> 1.09 1.01 1.03 093 (~~
(UO}
O.lIS
C 50 (1.68 1.03 1 OS 1.00 0 99
094 119 Ul 1.00 1.03 lID 1,~ ~~~
056 tl'.t9 1.09 0.97 G.~ Q 90
( U:l()~
095
".. 1-
049 Q.37 (H~3 096099 100
000
095
(DS {) 65 1 20 121 1,07 0.92
0.97 1 39 1,)4 1 29 1.19 1.01
1.3(]
. .
0.24 (Hi5 U3 0,99 094 0,86
1,00
tI' Fire Resistance Ratings
Flre.Noise.L~ Panels are sf1fppeo with U,L lal:lels certifying 1.nour (SOlid Side) aM 1 5-hOur (absorpnve side) ratlng:s, f)oo(s
are certified aoo shipped wi1l'11-, 1.5-. or 3-l1our rating as required, TrackwaJII' available with 1.S-hour rating. See Dnla ShOOI
MOS 1 t 13 for further details.
t/ Blast Resistance
Mocluhoo SlnJCturos and Componoots can be desagnOO to WIttlstand 1 psi (6895No'f'I'ti) blast load. All doors remain operable after blast
t/ Bullet Resistance
Modubnc NoiSEl""Lock Acoustic/8alllstlc Panels arc Underwriters Laboratory listed for bullet resistanc:e in accordance Wllh U,L.
Standard 752, System IS rated for High Power Rille (HPR). Super Power Small Arms (SPSA). High Power Small Arms (HPSA),
and MeclIum Power Sma,l1 Arms (MPSA),
t/ Tax Advantages Reduce Cost
Moduline Structu~s qualify In many appticatlOOs lor tall saVings associated WIth aC(;E!lerated depteoatlon. Other construclioo
componenls such as dry .....all or concrete bIDck do not qualify, Savings with Madullne can amount to 300... to 400'0 of purchase
price. Industrial Acoustics Company recommends conswtatlon wrth tv: or financtal advisors on the specifics of each appficatioo.
V Detailed Moduline Application Manual
Each ModoHne Compooent tS funy described in neany 100 detailed englnooring and application data shoots which make up a
new elCpanOed edlOOn of the Modullf'le Appll('.alion Manual II provlckls enganeering data iI1cludinQ soul'ld tra.ns.mlS$iotIloss, sound
absorption, sizes, weights, materials of construction. and application information utilized In the design and installation of
noise-conlrol stl'1JCtures Request lAC Madutina Applicahoo Manual, Bulletin 6.0502.
t/ Unequalled Engineering and Manufacturing Organizations
Sinoo 1949 Industrial Acoustics C<:tmpany has pioooofed Qxclvs.ively in noisEK:ontrol products and systems for indust'Y, archltec1lJre.
research. aerospace, power geMfatioo. and air oooditionin.g lAC possesses a unique r~ir of practical ~trol ElI'l9ineering
lmoW-how as applied in thousands 01 installaOOns. lAC WIN be pleased 10 maJu:t reoomrnendatJons to meet any acoustlcal criteria and
requirement For unosoaJ problems let lAC's ElI'l9moors and ~ factlmes go to WOIk for you.
:;:. ." " " '-' 4"~, ,<~~,
, ", _ ;', ~ _ ' '~ ,.,..,./1', .1:' A\
INDUSTRIAL ACOUSTICS COMPANY
SINCE ~- LEAOEAS IN NOISE CtWTROl ~EmNG. MODUCTSAND SYSrEMS
___ ...........n_ .......,
neo~~ c:ENt1UIl. 'TMOllIG UfA1'J;: ~"
tIflQNX. NEW'VOM'~ STAINES. \MIDIO(UI1)(, !WI I'" o..'m~
~ (Me..HiIOllIIl ffiONE-lW",4$l$ti1 1"HClNE.: (orl'$3! ~t
FAX;j71t)illA4t. lfM.~~ TlUX:ft5.. FAX: {ll2t1l3)8IDCI1&
11IClfll'1I1111. _ r I 11'.ld'lO'U"f_jDIflI&.~ 11.lIUIiIIIllIrf_......
lit ~ or $WII:E
_W"ull
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Rumpf, Michael
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:40 PM
Bressner, Kurt
Greene, Quintus
RE: Car wash Schedule
L~++-< ·
r~S:..J2
Ccar-.s,"" l ~t-
uec....
~SO~
~pf, Michael
The document received is a letter from Joe Cuschieri, the acoustics consultant. The letter includes information on the
vacuum units (locations and sound impacts) and a statement that sound would be increased by 10dBs above the total
stated in his original November 17th letter; confirmation of 8 dryers/blowers and description of the design (layout
configuration) of the blowers; revised assumptions based on their now only to be one blower at the opening (with the
remaining 7 to be receded behind each other), and a statement that sound levels would be equal to or less than estimated
before assuming 3 blowers at the opening (still claiming that the sound level would comply with code; and the first mention
of a 4-foot high acoustical baffle proposed between the blowers and the tunnel opening which they only state would further
reduce sound below the maximum.
Staff continues to question the use of the Fresnel number or theory to reduce sound based on location of the blowers
behind the wall opening, as staff understands that this theory requires a significant difference between the height of a
buffer wall and the source. Staff still requests that documentation be provided showing how the blowers were combined,
as the results originally indicated a total of 59 dB, just one dB lower than maximum allowed. Staff still notes that the sound
limits would exceed the maximum allowed at the adjacent commercially-zoned property to the north. The only information
regarding noise at the adjacent property is the original document and handwritten calculations showing 79 dB at 50 feet
and 79 dB at 100 feet which would not comply.
That is where we are. They have provided us the response dated December 30th and we'll meet tomorrow to discuss it.
Please return any questions you have. Mike
-----Original Messagem--
From: Bressner, Kurt
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:05 PM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Cc: Greene, Quintus; Costello, Joyce
Subject: RE: Car wash Schedule
Mike,
It will be helpful for you to explain what was delivered by the petitioner and when and what the level of staff review of
the material is as of today. Otherwise, the Commission will think the petitioner is not being responsive. That said, what
did they submit and was the content and quality what we were expecting?
Kurt
From: Rumpf, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:02 PM
To: Bressner, Kurt
Cc: Greene, Quintus
Subject: RE: Car wash Schedule
Kurt,
They delivered a document to us 12/30, by the end of the day, and in response we have prepared and forwarded
written comments. Our questions will be reviewed tomorrow at a meeting with them. It would have happened last week
but Ed Breese, project planner was out on jury duty.
I can explain this to the Commission but will have more information after meeting with them tomorrow.
Please advise, Mike
nmOriginal Messagem--
From: Bressner, Kurt
1
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006"i:25 PM
To: Costello, Joyce; Rumpf, Michael
Subject: RE: Car wash Schedule
Mike,
You will need to report out on this tonight. Have they submitted anything?
From: Costello, Joyce
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 11:22 AM
To: Bressner, Kurt
Subject: FW: Car wash Schedule
-----Original Message-nn
From: Rumpf, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 11:10 AM
To: Costello, Joyce
Subject: RE: Car wash Schedule
I will know more about their position on our comments tomorrow when we meet with them, and will give an update
as soon as possible. This mayor may not occur prior to the February 7th meeting but well prior to the February
21st meeting.
Mike
n---Original Messagen---
From: Costello, Joyce
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:14 AM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Subject: Car wash Schedule
Commissioner Ensler sent the following e-mail to Mr. Bressner. Please provide your input on this ASAP.
Thanks
Joyce
Car Wash - As we discussed, when we table the car wash at the Commission Meeting on Tuesday to the
second meeting in February, will staff be prepared to indicate a "time certain" for submission on any and all
supporting data including any site modifications, It would be helpful if Staff could discuss this with the applicant
prior to the meeting. In the event the applicant can not provide the data in time for Staff's needs, perhaps Staff
and the applicant could agree on a Commission date that is agreeable to all parties.
Joyce CosteC[o
JIc!ministrative JIssistant
City :M.anager's Office
2
~~ -
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum PZ 06-001
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Kurt Bressner, City Manager I6!f
Quintus Greene, Director of Development it3(t(j(0.
Michael Rumpf, Director of Planning & Zoning
January 3, 2006
Car Wash Approvals
Per your request, please find the following information regarding car washes within the City of
Boynton Beach. Please let me know if additional information is needed.
Full Service and
Most Recent Automated Car Wash Approvals
Motor City Full Service Car Wash - 3900 Hypoluxo Rd
(08-43-45-07-20-000-0050 )
Zoning: C-3 (permitted)
Site Plan Approval: July 2, 2002
Permit Issued: #02-3780 10/3/02
No sound analysis submitted/required.
Knuth Road Amoco Station - 3510 W Boynton Beach Blvd
(08-43-45-30-24-000-0010)
w/Accessory Automated Car Wash
Zoning: PCD - Now a legal, non-conforming gas station.
Site Plan Approval: 5-21-1996
Permit Issued: #97-0284 1/27/97
No sound analysis submitted/required.
Main Street Full Service Car Wash - 201 E Boynton Beach Blvd
(08-43-45-21-05-000-0090 )
Zoned: C-3 (permitted use)
Site Plan Approval: Amended for Egress 12/9/1986 (No other approval records found.)
Permit analysis submitted/required
Quantum Park PID Mobil - 850 NW 22nd Ave
(08-43-45-16-33-000-0653 )
Zoning: PID (Permitted per use approval)
Conditional Us'e Approval: 5/4/1999
Permit Issued: # 99-3347 7/22/99
No sound analysis submitted/required.
No sound analysis required for above-referenced projects due to their permitted zoning status.
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\CORRESP\Corresp A thru L\Car Wash Apporvals 1-3-06.doc
Full Service and
Page 1 of2
Breese, Ed
From: Rumpf, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:40 AM
To: Bressner, Kurt
Cc: Greene, Quintus; Breese, Ed
Subject: FW: Car Wash Approvals
Please let me know if you prefer this in a memo format, and if you desire additional projects researched. This
includes all full service stations, and excludes the self-service station on North US-1. The self-service station is
zoned C-4 and is also a permitted use.
Mike
Full Service and
Most Recent Automated Car Wash Approvals
Motor City Full Service Car Wash - 3900 Hypoluxo Rd
(08-43 -45-07 -20-000-0050)
Zoning: C-3 (permitted)
Site Plan Approval: July 2, 2002 City Commission
Permit Issued: #02-3780 10/3/02
No sound analysis submitted/required.
Knuth Road Amoco Station - 3510 W Boynton Beach Blvd
(08-43-45-30-24-000-0010)
w/Accessory Automated Car Wash
Zoning: PCD - Now a legal, non-conforming gas station.
Site Plan Approval: City Commission 5-21-1996
Permit Issued: #97-0284 1/27/97
No sound analysis submitted/required.
Main Street Full Service Car Wash - 201 E Boynton Beach Blvd
(08-43-45-21-05-000-0090)
Zoned C-3 (permitted)
Site Plan Approval: Amended for Egress 12/9/1986 (No other approval records found.)
Permit Issued:? #78-0888 4/26/78
No sound analysis submitted/required
Quantum Park PID Mobil - 850 NW 22nd Ave
(08-43-45-16-33-000-0653)
Zoning: PID (Permitted per use approval)
CaDS Granted City Commission 5/4/1999
Permit Issued: # 99-3347 7/22/99
1/3/2006
Full Service and
Page 2 of2
....
No sound analysis submitted/required.
No sound analysis required for above-referenced projects due to their permitted zoning
status.
S:\Planning\Rumpt\Car Wash Approvals.doc
1/312006
. "'"
Joe ,.,. 1-.--
~uen
Acoustics and Vibration Consultant
2398 NW 38th Street
Boca Raton, Florida, 33431
TEL: 561 2897091
FAX: 561 852 1784
December 30, 2005
Mark Paulino
EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT, LLC
4036 Artesa Drive
Boynton Beach, FL 33436
mpaulino@prodiqY.net
Re: Boynton Beach Car Wash Facility
Dear Mr. Paulino:
As an addendum to my letter of November 17, 2005, the following additional information is
provided in relation to the proposed configuration of the car wash equipment, mainly the
V AC units and the blowers.
The proposed car wash facility will have 20 model 9200 VAC units located on islands next to
the car wash tunnel, with the closest V AC unit located some 255 feet from the residential
property line and the farthest unit located some 375 feet from the residential property line.
The noise levels from the closest V AC unit with attachment open at the residential property
line to the north as reported in the letter of November 17, 2005 is on the order of 46 dBA
which is below the L 10 level of 60 dBA permissible by the City of Boynton Beach Noise
Ordinance. If all 20 VAC units are operated at the same time with attachment open the
noise levels at the residential property line will increase by 10 dB which will still be below the
permissible levels allowed by the City of Boynton Beach Noise Ordinance.
Within the car wash tunnel there will be 8 blowers as per the drawing 'BLOWER-4-120HP
TYPE-5" provided by SONNY'S Enterprises, Inc. The blowers are arranged in 4 rows, with
one blower close to the tunnel opening, then three blowers, then another row of three
blowers and then a final row of one blower. The closest blower is approximately 4 feet from
tunnel opening and the last row blower is approximately 16 feet from the tunnel opening. In
the letter of November 17, 2005, noise level estimates were provided based on three
blowers located at 4 feet from the tunnel opening. With the revised arrangement of blowers,
there is only one blower instead of three with the other blowers receded further away from
the tunnel opening. If one takes into account the increased distances of the blower rows
into the tunnel, the contribution from the blowers further into the tunnel will be insignificant.
The anticipated noise levels at the north residential property line would thus be expected to
be at or below that estimated based on the three blowers, which is within the permissible
L 10 noise level by the City of Boynton Beach Noise Ordinance. Furthermore, it is proposed
"
. Page 2 of 2 December 30, 2005
that an acoustic baffle be located between the blowers and the tunnel opening further
reducing the noise levels from the blowers coming out of the car wash tunnel.
In summary the following main points can be stated:
. The noise level generated by the VAC units, even if all units operate simultaneously
with the attachment open will be below that permissible by the City of Boynton Beach
Noise Ordinance.
. The noise levels form the blowers inside the car wash tunnel, taking into account the
placing of the blowers within the tunnel and the influence of the proposed 4 feet high
acoustic baffle will be below the 60 dBA L 10 noise level permissible by the City of
Boynton Beach Noise Ordinance.
. While the noise levels form the proposed car wash facility may be audible when
traffic on Congress Avenue is low, these do not exceed the noise levels permissible
by the City of Boynton Beach Noise Ordinance. Furthermore, the anticipated noise
levels from the car wash facility would be comparable and most of the time below the
noise levels at the residential properties from traffic on Congress Avenue.
Sincerely,
~~
Joe Cuschieri, P.E. Ph.D.
Acoustical Consultant
C.C.: Bradley D. Miller, AICP, MILLER LAND PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
Do(""c.J""""'~ ".L~j".......... 0"" ):.> rc.._I-c~' ""'J s~.~y--,Q {:-... IA If'h~ / /
1" f Tl -l~ ., ~ \. .~CJ, /I 1"~'- r''"' 'r'c" ~(C::W<::Y-.s
p<>c c.f~~ ~~~ ~ ~~(' -{ ;;~~ b~m(". a--.. -f6~ ( )'\c.'(Se
q,-,e<S-1?'~Y'--'~"9"\ ~e "t'-"'.j.......-fudl.'L. of' s""~ c'^- ,.Il<1~~'^-f tI-.oco.,....+v ( (
\J' J I ",., r C:< ."J<.. (,'H'ff)
-9(,Jk-t <~"Q~'f y-~.c;,~~c-
i2e<'Lfac( leve(s..
+'(~ )1 '"''''' it!': Ir s of it;,J.::: Vs ,6
,(.::~..~..f' (.; ,,Je.r'
/.JC . r" "A . .
G( r 7"'- r 31 Sf ..N". di~ ,,- ,J <::'
~f, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Rumpf, Michael
Thursday, December 15, 2005 10:40 AM
Greene, Quintus
Breese, Ed
Rapido Rabbit Car Wash - acoustical review
Importance:
High
The sound study submitted by the acoustical consultant was reviewed more thoroughly and may contain significant
deficiencies. I have no formal education in acoustics or sound physics but basic accepted accoustic theories have been
reviewed and explained to me, from which the data submitted for the project deviates. For example, in the methodology,
the sound is reduced accounting for the partial tunnel walls around the openings, that would provide a partial "barrier" to
the sound sources (the dryer blowers). However, the magnitude of sound reduction may be exaggerated, in part, since the
noise source and receiver (neighbors) may be above the deffraction point (edge of wall). There is currently, similar to the
other car wash designs in town, no building wall to extend out enough to cover the blower. According to theory and the
applicable models, a sound wall must be significantly greater in length/height to reduce the emitted sound. Alternatively
written, sound waves travel and will bend around fixed objects (deffraction) in addition to being obsorbed and reflected.
Simple graphics using the sound walls placed along major highways can be used to demonstrate this conclusion.
Secondly, and as considered previously, either the sound data is accounting for fewer blowers than planned, or
inaccurately combining the decibel levels generated by multiple sources (more than one blower). The addition
(combination) of blowers is expressed logarithmicly. When the decibels to be generated by 10 blowers (as assumed for
the project) are combined according to this standard/accepted theory, the results are approximately 10 decibels greater
than the totals indicated in the applicants report. The total noise levels would clearly exceed the maximum allowed by city
ordinance. It should be noted that the 69db estimated by the consultant which may be accounting for the noise from one
(1) blower, at a distance of 255 feet from the source, would violate the noise limits of the city.
As for mitigation by project design, sound theories appear to prove that the rotation of the building, smaller tunnel
openings, or a 6-foot high buffer wall would have an insignificant affect on noise levels to be generated by the project.
Of course my understanding and application of acoustical theories and formulas could be faulty; however, these findings at
minimum, warrant a second opinion from a sound or acoustics engineer/expert. If allowed under the current contracts for
engineering services, I would recommend that we look for such expertise within firms currently assisting the city with
consulting or professional services, prior to further review by the City Commission.
Please advise, Mike
1
fl./'
1, ((
The City of BoyntorttJeach
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DMSON
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
TEL: 561-742-6260
FAX: 561-742-6259
:((?~/ ,
i,l,
.' t) ,j
www.boynton-beach.org
December 9,2005
Bradley Miller, AICP
Miller Land Planning Consultants, Inc.
420 Boynton Beach Blvd. Suite 201
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
RE: Rapido Rabbit (COUS 05-004)
Dear Mr. Miller,
As you know, the City Commission tabled the above-referenced project to their January 3, 2006 meeting. The item was
tabled to allow additional time for the applicant to clear up the miscommunication regarding information about the
planned carwash equipment with an emphasis on the total number of blower/dryers, and submit revised sound analysis
on this updated information.
Please provide this information to the Planning & Zoning Division, to the attention of Sherie Coale, Application
Technician, or Ed Breese, Principal Planner. This information should identify all previously-submitted documents
which contain outdated or other information in contrast to the correct information to be submitted. Please also provide a
diagram of the planned equipment, which could be graphics and specifications from the manufacturer that most closely
matches the equipment planned for this tunnel.
This information should also include an updated sound analysis, or a statement from the acoustical consultant that the
sound analysis remains unchanged by the total number of blowers/dryers. The ultimate sound information should
include the maximum decibels anticipated at the property line of the nearby single-family homes, and generated by the
cumulative and simultaneous sound from all vacuum units and dryers. Please note that if you are still considering the
staff recommendation to rotate the tunnel exit southward, this sound analysis should be based on both possible
scenarios.
Lastly, clearly notify staff in writing whether the applicant has agreed to reorient the tunnel away from the nearby
residential neighborhood. To avoid any confusion or miscommunications which have plagued the latter half of this
review process, I respectively request that all information provided to this office be delivered by you, the agent of
record, as indicated on your application. Subsequent requests for additional information by the City Manager or
Commission will be relayed to you as soon as possible. The above-described information should be provided to this
office no latter than December 16th, to allow adequate time for staff review and meeting ofintemal processing for
agenda deadlines.
Sincerely,
~
Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director
S:\Planning\SHARED\ WP\PROJECTS\Rapido Rabbit\December 9 request for info.doc
.....",
Joe CUschieri
Acaustics and \lib.ation Consultant
-*t?F~ ~~
/P ./h<<A ~~/.s : @
Re: Boynton Beach Car Wash Facility
~ ~'1 n/i. ~ I~AfE'
t-J II'f' ~ ~,vIN(, ~
AN.9 ~ (7'lI dh~? @
/s -rm:: 78 ~ ~ ~~
~ A"" H- cJh~ tJ6~_t\.
? 9
1l!lLMf4/9> /Ij ~UF. . ~
~ 1'ZIe '1VJlM.Q.. I!tCI' ~ A- ~
"'VAJ~ ()tIU!!I:.PtrAJ MJI,re 6lJr 1)ff, (
November 17, 2005
Mark Paulino
EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT, LLC
4036 Artesa Drive
Boynton Beach, FL 33436
moaulinolQ>.orodiav. net
Dear Mr. Paulino:
This letter is to report on the findings of the sound level analysis performed for the proposed
site of the Car Wash facility on Congress Avenue north of SW 30th Avenue in Boynton Beach,
Florida. Provided in this letter are the measured sound pressure levels at the property and in
the residential community just north of the proposed site, and estimates of the anticipated
sound levels due to the operation of the car wash facility. Also provided are comparisons of the
anticipated sound levels due to the operation of the car wash facility to the measured
background ambient sound levels and to the permissible noise levels by the City of Boynton
Beach Noise Control Ordinance and the City of Boynton Beach Sound Control Ordinance.
The proposed car wash facility site is located along the east side of Congress Avenue north of
SW 30th Avenue. The proposed carwash site north property line is common to another area
zoned industrial and approximately 200 feet from the south property line of the residential
properties to the north of the site. The site ambient background sound levels has contributions
from traffic noise on Congress Avenue and when traffic is light on Congress Avenue,
contributions from the noise from 1-95 traffic. The anticipated major sources of noise from the
car wash facility, not induding the contribution from additional traffic, are the blower fans at the
exit of the car wash building and the vacuum stations on the east of the car wash building. The
blower fans and the car wash building opening dosest to the blower fans are approximately 55
feet from the site property line and approximately 255 feet from the residential property line to
the north. The closest V AC unit is approximately the same distances, 55 feet and 255 feet
from the site property line and the residential property line respectively. In between the
proposed car wash site and the residential properties to the north is a vacant lot, which if a
building is placed on this lot will act as a sound barrier and it will mitigate the sound transmitted
from the car wash operation to the residential properties.
To characterize the noise levels at the proposed car wash facility, sound level measurements
were performed at two locations, one within the proposed car wash site property and one along
the south property line of the residential properties north of the proposed car wash facility site.
The sound level measurements were performed on a Saturday morning between 9:00 am and
11 :00 am, as this would be considered the most quiet time with regards to noise from traffic on
Congress Avenue and 1-95. The noise levels at the proposed car wash site and at the
. Page 2 of 4 November 17, 2005
residential properties to the north of the proposed site would be expected to be higher on a
weekday due to the increased traffic volume on Congress Avenue and 1-95. The measured
sound pressure levels, A-weighted to compensate for the response of the human hearing and
to be consistent with the City of Boynton Beach Noise Control Ordinance are tabulated in Table
I.
Table 1
L 10 and Lmax Sound Pressure Levels in dBA reference 20 uPa
Proposed Car Wash Facility South Property line of
Site North property line Residential properties north
of pro . site
Li0 Maximum Li0 Maximum
Level (Lmax) Level (Lmax)
Backoround Ambient 53 - 62 65 55 - 61 65
Vac Units* 59-65 59-65 46 - 52 46 - 52
Blower Units* 78 78 69 69
Blower Units within 69 69 59 59
Car Wash buildino*
*The Lmax and L 10 levels from the V AC units and blowers are the same as it is assumed they
operate continuously.
As can be observed from the above table, the typical ambient background L 10 sound levels at
the proposed car wash site are on the order of 53 to 62 dBA with maximum levels of 65 dBA.
The typical ambient background L 10 sound levels along the south property line of the
residential properties just north of the proposed car wash site across from the L-28 Canal are
on the order of 56 to 61 dBA with maximum levels of 65 dBA. These L 10 measurements were
influenced by noise from traffic on Congress Avenue and when the traffic noise from Congress
Avenue subsided, noise from 1-95 traffic was cleany audible.
The anticipated L 10 sound levels from the operation of the V AC units at the property line of the
car wash site, using the data provided by the manufacturer, are on the order of 59 dBA to 65
dBA. At the residential property line the anticipated L 10 levels from the operation of the VAC
units is on the order of 46 dBA to 52 dBA which are below the background ambient L 10 sound
levels. The anticipated L 10 sound levels from the operation of the blower units at the property
line of the car wash site, using the sound level data provided by the manufacturer for the
blower units when free standing, that is without the mitigation provided by the enclosing car
wash building are on the order of 78 dBA. At the residential property line the anticipated L 10
levels from the operation of the blower units based on the manufacturer data is on the order of
69 dBA. Taking into account the shielding provided by the car wash building housing the
blowers, the anticipated L 10 sound levels at the property line of the proposed car wash site, are
on the order of 69 dBA. This is consistent with file data available for other similar car wash
facilities. At the residential property line the anticipated L 10 sound levels are on the order of 59
dBA which are comparable to those of the background ambient L 10 sound levels. Using the
attached chart at the end of this report, one can compare the anticipated sound levels from the
proposed car wash facility to typical daily activities. The anticipated sound levels of 59 dBA at
residential properties to the north of the proposed site are comparable to those of normal
speech or the noise levels in a busy office.
. Page 3 of 4 November 17, 2005
The anticipated L 10 sound levels provided here at the residential properties do not take into
account the added shielding that would be provided by a possible future building located on the
vacant industrial zoned lot just north of the proposed car wash facility site. With the minimal of
shielding the anticipated L 10 sound levels from the operation of the proposed car wash along
the residential properties' property line would be below those of the background ambient.
The City of Boynton Beach Noise Control Ordinance and the City of Boynton Beach Sound
Control Ordinance specify the maximum permissible L 10 sound levels that can be generated
on commercial land use and transmitted to receiving residential land use areas. The
permissible sound levels that cannot be exceeded 10% of the time (L 10) for residential
receiving land use are 60 dBA during daytime hours, that is during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m., and 55 dBA during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Furthermore,
maximum sound levels cannot exceed the L 10 levels by more than 10 dB during daytime hours
and more than 5 dB during nighttime hours. The maximum permissible L 10 sound level on
commercial property for all times is 65 dBA. Additionally, any sound that is plainly audible
beyond a distance of 100 feet from the property line of a commercial zoning district from which
the sound is emanating and is heard in a residential zoning district is considered a sound
disturbance.
At the property line of the receiving residential properties to the north of the proposed site the
anticipated L 10 sound levels from the V AC units and the blower units (when considered inside
the car wash building) are within the daytime permissible levels. The noise generated by the
operation of the car wash facility would be within the permissible limits of the City of Boynton
Beach Noise Control Ordinance north of the residential properties property line provided the
operation of the car wash facility is limited to daytime hours, 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. The
residential properties are more than 100 feet from the north property line of the proposed car
wash facility and at the property line the noise from the proposed car wash facility is at or below
ambient.
In summary, the environmental noise impact from the operation of the proposed car wash
facility on Congress Avenue north of SW 30th Avenue in Boynton Beach, Florida, is anticipated
to be insignificant at the residential properties to the north of the proposed site. The noise from
the facility is below that permissible by the City of Boynton Beach noise ordinance and
comparable to the existing background ambient sound levels. The noise levels at the
residential properties would be expected to be further reduced once the vacant site to the north
of the proposed car wash site would be developed and built.
Please review this information and if you have questions do not hesitate to contact me.
~
J uschieri, P.E. Ph.D.
Acoustical Consultant
C.C.: Bradley D. Miller, AICP, MILLER LAND PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
. Page40f4
November 17, 2005
Sound Pressure Level
140 dB Threshold of Pain
~
80
-~-:-
Average Street Traffic
o Threshold of Hearing
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
City Attorney's Office
Memorandum
To:
Ed Breese, Principal Planner
From:
Jamila Alexander, Assistant City Attorney
fl/l
Date:
September 15, 2005
RE:
Rapido Rabbit Carwash Cross-Access Agreement
This memorandum is in response to your request that the Office of the City Attorney review a
draft of the Cross-Access Agreement relating to the proposed carwash on Congress Avenue
(Rapido Rabbit).
The Cross-Access Agreement was prepared to be executed by the owners of three neighboring
parcels granting an access and ingress and egress easement for vehicular and pedestrian traffic
for the Rapido Rabbit Carwash, as described in the Agreement. Furthermore, the City of
Boynton Beach is not an owner of the subject property and will not be a party to this Agreement.
As such, this Office has reviewed the Cross-Access Agreement and it is our opinion that the
terms of the Agreement are sufficient.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Office of the City Attorney.
JVA
S:\CA \MEMORANTIUM\Breese (Rapido Rabbit).doc
PLANNING AND ZONING
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Cherof, City Attorney
FROM: Ed Breese, Principal Planner ~
DATE: August 25, 2005
SUBJECT: Rapido Rabbit Carwash Cross-Access Agreement
Attached for your review is a copy of a draft cross-access agreement involving the
proposed carwash on Congress Avenue (Rapido Rabbit). Staff, as part of the technical
site plan review process, has requested a cross-access agreement involving three separate,
neighboring parcels, for access and utility purposes. I would appreciate your review of
this information in order that we may pass comments back to the applicant as to
sufficiency. Thank you in advance for your review and do not hesitate to contact me with
any questions you may have.
CROSS-ACCESS AGREEMENT
THIS CROSS-ACCESS AGREEMENT ("Agreement) is made and entered into this _
day of , 2005, by and between BOYNTON PROPERTIES, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company (hereinafter referred to as "BOYNTON") and BOYNTON BEACH CARWASH, LLC a
Florida limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as "CARW ASH") and
, a (hereinafter referred to as
" "). BOYNTON, CARWASH and are sometimes referred
to herein as Owner(s).
" ...
R E C I TAL S:
WHEREAS,
particularly described as Exhibit "B
more
WHEREAS,
particularly described as Exhibit "C"
WHEREAS, BOYNTON, CARWASH and
this Agreement as hereinafter set forth.
desire to enter into
NOW, THEREFORE, BOYNTON, CARWASH and for good
and valuable consideration, including but not limited to the mutual easements, covenants and
restrictions set forth herein, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby agree as
follows:
1. Recitals
The recitals above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated as if
rewritten herein.
2. Cross-Easements
(A) There is hereby granted the following non-e~c1usive access and ingress
and egress easement for use of vehicular and pedestrian traJ:t~c within the area as more
particularly described in Exhibit "0" (the "Cross-Easement") for the benefit of each of the
Owners, their successors, assigns, tenants, customers, agents, employees, guests, licensees
and business invitees, each Owner granting same to the other Owners for and in respect of the
property owned by such Owners which lies within the Cross Easement. The Owners agree not
to build or maintain nor permit to be built or maintained any structure on the Cross-Easement
that would preclude or limit it vehicular and pedestrian traffic of cross-access and for ingress
and egress within the Cross-Easement. All costs and expenses concerning any installation and
construction of the initial installation of the Cross-Easement shall be at the sole cost and
expense of the owner of the Property Owner. The Owners of the
Properties. shall not be required to contribute to the initial
installation of the Cross-Easement.
O:\PAUM002\AUGUST CROSS ACESS EASEMENT.doc
"
(8) No Owner shall permanently or temporarily park or store in the Cross-
Easement any automobile, truck, equipment, or any other personal property, it being intended
that the Cross-Easement shall be free from obstacles and impediments. In the event due to
construction or re-construction any Owner shall find it necessary to temporarily obstruct, block,
close off or impede the flow of pedestrian or vehicular ingress or egress, such Owner shall
provide reasonable advance notice to the affected Owners and shall use reasonable effort to
minimize the effect on the other Owners and endeavor to complete such construction
expeditiously.
... ....
3. Maintenance and Repair
(A) Each Owner shall maintain, operate and repair the landscaping, lighting,
common areas and utility facilities on its respective property which forms a part of the Cross-
Easement, including any buffer areas adjacent to the front of their resp~ve properties, at its
sole cost and expense. Maintenance, operation and repair shall be done in a manner that is in
compliance with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of the appropriate governmental
authorities. Each Owner shall, at its own expense, supervise, operate, manage, repair, replace
and maintain all improved portions of the common area and utility facilities located on its
respective property which forms a part of the Cross-Easement, in good repair and in a safe and
sound condition, free from refuse, rubbish and dirt and in compliance with all governmental
regulations.
(8) Each Owner shall make all necessary repairs and replacements on the
surface of the parking areas and driveways on the portion of the Cross-Easement owned by
such Owner. is responsible for the property in Exhibit "E."
is responsible for the repairs and replacements on the Property in Exhibit
"F." and Exhibit "G. is responsible for the repairs and replacements on the
repairs and replacements on the Property in Exhibit "H".
(C) In the event any improvements within the Cross-Easement are damaged
or destroyed, the Owner of the property on which such damage has occurred shall promptly
cause the repair, restoration or rebuilding thereof to the extent reasonably practical, but such
Owner shall not be precluded from seeking reimbursement from the responsible party or parties
that may have caused such damage or destruction.
4. Term and Duration
(A) The provisions of this Agreement shall b~ ,perpetual. This Agreement
may be released, modified or amended only by the unanimous consent, in writing, of all the
Owners or their respective successors or assigns, as the case may be.
(8) Except as specifically set forth herein, nothing contained in this
Agreement shall confer any rights on any Owners, their successors, assigns, tenants,
customers, agents, employees, licensees or business invitees.
(C) This Agreement shall be and constitute a covenant running with the land
in the specific manner and mode set forth above and shall be binding upon all parties to this
Agreement and their respective successors and assigns and shall inure, to the benefit of and be
enforceable by all parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and assigns.
5. Operations
O:\PAUM002\AUGUST CROSS ACESS EASEMENTdoc 2
(A) Each Owner shall, at its own cost and expense, maintain at all times
public liability insurance in an amount no less than insuring against claims on
account of death, bodily injury or property damage that may arise from or be occasioned by the
condition, use or occupancy of the common area on its respective property. Said insurance
shall be written by a reputable insurance company or companies with limits of not less than One
Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for bodily injury or death of all persons in anyone occurrence
and for damage to property or such other amounts as agreed upon by all Owners. Each
Insurance Policy shall cover the properties in Exhibits "A," "B," and "e" and each Policy shall
name the other Owners as additional an insured. Each Owner shall provide proof of insurance
to each other Owner showing each such Owner as an additional insured.
~..,
(B) Anything in this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, nothing
herein shall prevent any Owner from the construction and completion of buildings or
improvements on such Owner's property as such Owner may desire in ~ 'Owner's sole and
absolute discretion, so long as such buildings and improvements are not located within the
Cross-Easement. In connection with construction and completion of any buildings or
improvements, each property Owner shall be entitled to count such parking spaces as may be
available on such Owner's property but shall not be entitled to count parking available on any
other Owner's property. There shall be no parking within the Cross-Easement. There is no
parking easement.
6. Enforcement
(A) No breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall entitle any Owner to
cancel, rescind or otherwise terminate this Agreement or the applicability to it; but such
limitation shall not affect, in any manner, any other rights or remedies which any Owner may
have hereunder by reason of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement. No breach of the
provisions of this Agreement shall affect or render invalid the lien of any mortgage <;>r deed of
trust made in good faith and for value covering any part of any property. Notwithstanding the
foregoing the provisions, this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any Owner
whose title is acquired by foreclosure or trustee's sale or any grantee by deed in lieu of
foreClosure or trustee's sale.
(B) If any Owner shall default in the performance of any of its obligations
hereunder, then any other Owner shall, in addition to all other remedies they may have at law or
in equity, after thirty (30) days prior written notice (except that no notice shall be required in the
event of an emergency), have the right to perform such obligation pn behalf of such defaulting
party and be reimbursed by such defaulting party for the r~~sonable cost thereof, plus
reasonable collection fees if collection is required. Any such claim for reimbursement shall be
secured by a lien thereof and shall attach to the property owned by the defaulting party effective
upon recording of a notice thereof in the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. The
lien rights granted herein will not affect the easements and other rights granted herein to other
Owners of any property and such rights shall continue in full force and effect.
(C) In the event of a breach, or attempted or threatened breach, of any
obligation of this Agreement, the other Owner(s) shall be entitled forthwith to obtain an
injunction to specifically enforce the performance of such obligation, acknowledging the
inadequacy of legal remedies and the irreparable harm which would be caused by any such
breach being hereby acknowledged; and/or to relief by all other available legal and equitable
remedies from the consequences of such breach. All costs and expenses of any such
O:\PAUM002\AUGUST CROSS ACESS EASEMENT.doc 3
proceeding shall be assessed against the defaulting Owner and shall constitute a lien against
the property owned by such defa.ulting Owner, until paid.
(0) No delay or omission of any Owner in the exercise of any right accruing
upon any default or violation hereof, of any other Owner shall impair any such right or be
construed to be a waiver thereof, and every such right may be exercised at any time during the
continuance of such default or violation. A waiver by any Owner of a breach of, or a default in,
any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement by any other Owner shall not be construed to
be a waiver of any subsequent breach of this Agreement.
J>. ....
(E) Enforcement of this Agreement may be filed in a Court of competent
jurisdiction with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees granted to the prevailing party.
7. Interests of Others
~.-
(A) Any lien so created by this Agreement shall be effective only upon the
recording of such lien and shall be subordinate to any mortgage applicable to such property at
the time of filing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein contained shall be construed as
creating an obligation hereunder upon any mortgagee or holder of other security interest
including deed of trust which is prior to said Mortgagee or holder acquiring title by foreclosure or
otherwise prior to the filing of such lien.
(8) Each Owner shall remove, within thirty (30) days after the filing thereof,
any mechanics', materialmen's or any other similar lien on the other Owners' Properties, or on
its Property if the existence or foreclosure of such lien on its Property would adversely affect the
easement arising by reason of its act or any work or materials which it has ordered. In the event
the defaulting Owner fails to remove any such lien within such thirty (30) day period, any other
Owner may take such action as it or they may deem necessary to remove such lien and
thereafter such Owner shall be entitled to reimbursement from the defaulting Owner. Any lien
rights that arise due to the defaulting actions of any Owner shall also permit such lien rights
against any insurance proceeds, to the extent that such proceeds would or should become
payable.
(C) Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to be a gift or
dedication of any portion to the general public or for any public use or purpose whatsoever, it
being the intention of the parties hereto that nothing in this Agreement, expressed or implied,
shall confer upon any person, except as specifically set forth in the terms and conditions of this
Agreement. Rights to a third party beneficiary are neither intended 1J0r granted.
(D) Each claim of any Owner arising under this Agreement shall be separate
and distinct, and no defense, set-off or counterclaim arising against the enforcement of any lien
or other claim of any Owner shall thereby be or become a defense, set-off, offset or
counterclaim against the enforcement of any other lien or claim.
(E) The Cross-Easement created hereunder shall not be presumed abandoned
by non.,use or the occurrence of damage or destruction of a portion of any Property subject to
the easement unless the Owner benefited by such easement states in writing its intention to
abandon such easement.
O:\PAUM002\AUGUST CROSS ACESS EASEMENT.doc 4
, .
8. Interpretation
(A) If any provision of this Agreement, or portion thereof, or the application
thereof to any person or circumstances, shall, to any extent be held invalid, inoperative or
unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such provision or portion
thereof to any other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby; and each provision
of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
J> ...
(B)
State of Florida.
This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the
(C) The Article headings in this Agreement are for convenience only, shall in
no way define or limit the scope or content of this Agreement, and shall not be considered in
any construction or interpretation of this Agreement or any part hereof. ~. .
(D) Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to make the Own~rs hereto
partners or joint ventures or render any of said Owners liable for the debts or obligations of the
other.
(E) Any Owner may, at any time and from time to. time, in connection with the.
. .
sale or transfer of its property, or in connection with the financing or refinancing of said property
by bona fide mortgage, deed of trust or sale-leaseback made in good faith and for value, deliver
a written notice to the other Owner(s) requesting such other Owner to execute a certificate
certifying that the Owner making such request is not in default in the performance of its
obligations under this Agreement, or, if in default, describing therein the nature and amount of
any default. An Owner shall execute and return such certificate within twenty (20) days
following its request thereof. Failure by an Owner to so execute and return such certificate
within the specified period shall be deemed an admission on such Owner's part that the Owner
requesting the certificate is current and not in default in the performance of such Owner's
obligations under this Agreement.
(F) This Agreement may be amended, modified or terminated by the
unanimous written approval of all Owners and duly recorded in the office of the County
Recorder of Palm Beach County, Florida, and shall not otherwise be amended, modified or
terminated during the term hereof. However, the Owner and Owner may
modify the connection between Exhibit "_" and Exhibit "_" without the consent of the
other owners provided that: (i) the overall connection among the pprcels is maintained; (ii) the
other Owners are notified; and (iii) any modifications are duly recQr~ed.
(G) Wherever in this Agreement it is provided that an action shall be subject
to the consent or approval of the other, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld or delayed provided that any such Agreement does not materially or adversely affect
such Owner's property.
(H) Each Owner agrees that no partner or individual of any Owner shall be
personally liable for any liabilities or be required to personally perform any of the covenants of
this Agreement. Any liability of an Owner is limited to the assets of that Owner.
O:\PAUM002\AUGUST CROSS ACESS EASEMENT.doc 5
9. Notices
(A) All notices and demands herein required shall be in writing and shall be
deemed properly given if sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, and if to
, addressed to:
.. ..,
~"
Each party may change the address to which notices to it are to be sent by notice to the others.
(B) Every notice and demand shall be deemed to have been effective upon
delivery by registered or certified mail, properly addressed as aforesaid, postage prepaid, in the
United States Mail, or three (3) days after posting or via a nationally-recognized overnight
courier services (provided a confirmation is available one {1} day after sent).
10. Indemnification.
(A) Each Owner agrees to hold the other Owners harmless and indemnify such
Owners from any costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of or in
connection with any claims arising out of the use, operations, maintenance and possession of
each other Owner's respective property by any party claiming through such Owner
(B) The
all liens as a result of
Easement.
Owner shall indemnify the other Owners for any and
Owner's construction and/or installation of the Cross-
, , l
rSiqnatures on next paqel
O:\PAUM002\AUGUST CROSS ACESS EASEMENT,doc 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and
year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the
presence of:
.. ..,
Witnessed By:
By:
9RM1
Its:
Printed Name:
Printed Name:
BY:~
Its: .
~
By:
Its:
Printed Name:
, ~
O:\PAUM002\AUGUST CROSS ACESS EASEMENT.doc 7
"
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this _ day of
,as of
My Commission Expires:
Personally Known _ OR Produced Identification
Type of Identification Produced
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF
, 2005 by
~ ....
Signature of Notary Public-State of Florida
Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public
~,^.
The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this _ day of
as of
My Commission Expires:
Personally Known _ OR Produced Identification
Type of Identification Produced
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF
, 2005 by
Signature of Notary Public-State of Florida
Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public
The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this _ day of
as of
My Commission Expires:
Personally Known _ OR Produced Identification
Type ~f Identification Produced
0:\PAUM002\AUGUST CROSS ACESS EASEMENT.doc 8
, 2005 by
" )
Signature of Notary Public-State of Florida
Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public
~f, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Greene, Quintus
Thursday, December 15, 200511:19 AM
Rumpf, Michael
Breese, Ed
RE: Rapido Rabbit Car Wash - acoustical review
My previous suggestion remains.
Q.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rumpf, Michael
Sent: Thursday, December 15,2005 11:16 AM
To: Greene, Quintus
Cc: Breese, Ed
Subject: RE: Rapido Rabbit Car Wash - acoustical review
I should have also indicated that I have not received additional information or any clarification from the agent, as
requested in my correspondence to Bradley Miller on 12/9.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Rumpf, Michael
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 10:40 AM
To: Greene, Quintus
Cc: Breese, Ed
Subject: Rapido Rabbit Car Wash - acoustical review
Importance: High
The sound study submitted by the acoustical consultant was reviewed more thoroughly and may contain
significant deficiencies. I have no formal education in acoustics or sound physics but basic accepted accoustic
theories have been reviewed and explained to me, from which the data submitted for the project deviates. For
example, in the methodology, the sound is reduced accounting for the partial tunnel walls around the openings,
that would provide a partial "barrier" to the sound sources (the dryer blowers). However, the magnitude of sound
reduction may be exaggerated, in part, since the noise source and receiver (neighbors) may be above the
deffraction point (edge of wall). There is currently, similar to the other car wash designs in town, no building wall to
extend out enough to cover the blower. According to theory and the applicable models, a sound wall must be
significantly greater in length/height to reduce the emitted sound. Alternatively written, sound waves travel and will
bend around fixed objects (deffraction) in addition to being obsorbed and reflected. Simple graphics using the
sound walls placed along major highways can be used to demonstrate this conclusion.
Secondly, and as considered previously, either the sound data is accounting for fewer blowers than planned, or
inaccurately combining the decibel levels generated by multiple sources (more than one blower). The addition
(combination) of blowers is expressed logarithmicly. When the decibels to be generated by 10 blowers (as
assumed for the project) are combined according to this standard/accepted theory, the results are approximately
10 decibels greater than the totals indicated in the applicants report. The total noise levels would clearly exceed
the maximum allowed by city ordinance. It should be noted that the 69db estimated by the consultant which may
be accounting for the noise from one (1) blower, at a distance of 255 feet from the source, would violate the noise
limits of the city.
As for mitigation by project design, sound theories appear to prove that the rotation of the building, smaller tunnel
openings, or a 6-foot high buffer wall would have an insignificant affect on noise levels to be generated by the
project.
Of course my understanding and application of acoustical theories and formulas could be faulty; however, these
findings at minimum, warrant a second opinion from a sound or acoustics engineer/expert. If allowed under the
current contracts for engineering services, I would recommend that we look for such expertise within firms
currently assisting the city with consulting or professional services, prior to further review by the City Commission.
1
~f, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Greene, Quintus
Thursday, December 15, 200511 :16 AM
Rumpf, Michael
Breese, Ed
RE: Rapido Rabbit Car Wash - acoustical review
Mike -
I don't have a problem with your conclusion that a second opinion regarding the sound study is desirable prior to going
back to the City Commission. However, my question is who pays for it? In my view it should be the developer and not the
City. It is their responsibility to insure that all questions about their project are answered to the City's satisfaction. I
suggest that you so advise Bradley Miller and get his reaction. Of course, a simple change of one vote on the City
Commission and all of this unnecessary and time consuming extra work goes away - but I guess that is expecting too
much.
Q
-----Original Message-----
From: Rumpf, Michael
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 10:40 AM
To: Greene, Quintus
Cc: Breese, Ed
Subject: Rapido Rabbit Car Wash - acoustical review
Importance: High
The sound study submitted by the acoustical consultant was reviewed more thoroughly and may contain significant
deficiencies. I have no formal education in acoustics or sound physics but basic accepted accoustic theories have
been reviewed and explained to me, from which the data submitted for the project deviates. For example, in the
methodology, the sound is reduced accounting for the partial tunnel walls around the openings, that would provide a
partial"barrier" to the sound sources (the dryer blowers). However, the magnitude of sound reduction may be
exaggerated, in part, since the noise source and receiver (neighbors) may be above the deffraction point (edge of
wall). There is currently, similar to the other car wash designs in town, no building wall to extend out enough to cover
the blower. According to theory and the applicable models, a sound wall must be significantly greater in length/height
to reduce the emitted sound. Alternatively written, sound waves travel and will bend around fixed objects (deffraction)
in addition to being obsorbed and reflected. Simple graphics using the sound walls placed along major highways can
be used to demonstrate this conclusion.
Secondly, and as considered previously, either the sotmd data is accounting for fewer blowers than planned, or
inaccurately combining the decibel levels generated by multiple sources (more than one blower). The addition
(combination) of blowers is expressed logarithmicly. When the decibels to be generated by 10 blowers (as assumed
for the project) are combined according to this standard/accepted theory, the results are approximately 10 decibels
greater than the totals indicated in the applicants report. The total noise levels would clearly exceed the maximum
allowed by city ordinance. It should be noted that the 69db estimated by the consultant which may be accounting for
the noise from one (1) blower, at a distance of 255 feet from the source, would violate the noise limits of the city.
As for mitigation by project design, sound theories appear to prove that the rotation of the building, smaller tunnel
openings, or a 6-foot high buffer wall would have an insignificant affect on noise levels to be generated by the project.
Of course my understanding and application of acoustical theories and formulas could be faulty; however, these
findings at minimum, warrant a second opinion from a sound or acoustics engineer/expert. If allowed under the current
contracts for engineering services, I would recommend that we look for such expertise within firms currently assisting
the city with consulting or professional services, prior to further review by the City Commission.
Please advise, Mike
1
Breese, Ed
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Rumpf, Michael
Tuesday, December 06, 2005 4:48 PM
Bressner, Kurt
Cherof, James; Greene, Quintus; Breese, Ed
Rapido Rabbit project
Importance:
High
Please be informed of the status of our review. Today was no less frustrating than the past two weeks. We have confirmed
the equipment specification indicated in the fax from the manufacturer to the agent (Bradely Miller). The model number
SF1 015TS was explained to us by a representative of Sonny's (the manufacturer). The "SF" is the owners initials, 10
refers to the number of blowers, 15 refers to the horsepower, and "TS" refers to the set-up system which is top scroll. Not
all design arrangements are grapically depicted on the web site. This representative explained that the 135-MT would be
close to the intended equipment system.
Yes, 10 blowers. Not 3, not 2, but 10 dryers. We have relayed our confusion to the agent and now understand that the
accoustical consultant is reviewing it for 10 blowers. We also now know that Sonny's provides sound data for the blowers,
but their information to us and likely to the applicant only shows the three blowers that would be immediately at the tunnel
exit. I would argue that more sound would be emitted from the tunnel than just that equivalent to the number of the nearest
blowers. But at this time we are left with disrepancies and uncertainties. Although I still believe that the ulitmate noise could
be mitigated by orientation, tunnel opening design, wall segments, and even possibly some type of fabric curtain at the
opening to contain tunnel noise during cleaning, we have incomplete information and will continue to recommend to the
Commission that the project be tabled to allow clarification by the applicant and rereview by staff of the sound data and
tunnel equipment.
Mike
1
RAPIDO RABBIT CARW ASH COUS/NWSP COMMENTS
1. The most recent information submitted by the applicant (12-30-05) appears to
retain the original carwash tunnel orientation. Staff previously requested a
definitive response from the applicant as to whether the tunnel would be reversed
and the blowers/dryers located at the south end of the building. Since we are
uncertain if the equipment supplier (Sonny's) had ever seen the proposed re-
orientation of the tunnel before submitting the updated information and
specifications, please clarify if the blowers/dryers are to be placed at the north or
south end of the building.
2. Staff is still uncertain about the proposed 10 dB reduction the sound consultant
utilizes in his calculations, which indicates the blower/dryer noise would be
decreased due to the shielding of the units by being within the carwash structure.
The consultant, in his 11-30-05 handwritten calculations and explanation of his
previously submitted findings, states "There is no way to calculate this reduction,
but if one assumes the blowers are behind a wall section, which is 2 feet wide,
then the noise reduction provided by wall shielding the noise from the blowers is
about 11 dB which is consistent with the observed difference between measured
and calculated without taking into account the shielding". This statement is then
followed by the explanation that "For a two foot high (wide) wall covering the
blowers, the Fresnel Number is between 1 and 2 and using the figure on the
following page, the calculated barrier attenuation is above 1 0 dB". Staffs
research appears to indicate that this reduction can only be assumed when a noise
barrier is employed. The Federal Highway Association! Department of
Transportation utilizes the very same figure incorporated into the consultant's
report, under the heading Noise Barrier Basics. Barriers as opposed to Shielding
would appear to have little to no gaps/openings that would allow sound to leak
through. With the large tunnel opening required to drive a vehicle through, the
layperson would consider any attempt to block the sound from the blowers/dryers
as shielding as opposed to a barrier. As such, the use of a 10 dB noise reduction
being factored in to the equation is questioned, resulting in staff requesting
further explanation of the appropriateness of such a reduction.
3. The use of the 10 dB noise reduction, by the consultant in his original study, for
the blowers/dryers being within the carwash structure, still indicated the proposed
noise level at the property line of the residential properties across the canal to the
north would be 59 dB, one (1) dB below City code requirements. The most recent
submittal from the consultant (12-30-05) states "The noise levels from the
blowers inside the car wash tunnel, taking into account the placing of the blowers
within the tunnel and the influence of the proposed 4 feet high acoustic baffle will
be below the 60 dBA L10 noise level permissible by the City of Boynton Beach
Noise Ordinance". Staff questioned the consultant on his original analysis as to
whether only the blowers/dryers near the tunnel opening account for the noise or
whether it is the accumulation of all of the blowers. The response was that all of
the blowers are taken into account when determining the dB level. Staff would
prefer to see a calculation of the dB level based upon the combined number of
blower/dryers as opposed to a statement that "The noise levels from the blowers
inside the car wash tunnel............... will be below the 60 dBA LI0 noise level
permissible by the City of Boynton Beach Noise Ordinance".
4. Under the Noise Control portion of City code (Section 15-8.8 Sound levels by
receiving land use) sound limits are established according to the type of land use
receiving the sound. In addition to the earlier comments about the residential
property north of the canal, there are also regulations for commercial parcels, like
the vacant tract immediately to the north of the carwash site. According to the
most recent information submitted by the applicant (12-30-05) the first
blower/dryer is approximately 60 feet from the north property line. The table
depicted in Section 15-8.8 of the code indicates a limitation of 65 dBA at all
times for the receiving commercial parcel to the north. The graphic provided with
the Rapido Rabbit logo in the original submittal depicts the blower/dryer noise at
a distance of 50 feet would be 79 dBA and at 100 feet would be 75 dBA, which
does not meet this code requirement. These same figures (79 dBA and 75 dBA)
are part of the consultant's handwritten calculations submitted to staff on 11-30-
05 in response to the City's request for the formulas and calculations used to
reach the conclusions in his study. Again, this would indicate non-compliance
with City code.
5. Once again, going back to the consultant's handwritten calculations submitted to
staff on 11-30-05 in response to the City's request for the formulas and
calculations, the consultant states "From the measured sound levels, at 140 feet
the sound level is 61 dBA and at 60 feet the sound level is 67 to 69 dBA". The
City code would only allow a maximum of 65 dBA at this distance. Since the
consultant's study indicates these are "measured" sound levels, taken in the field
at comparable sites, this would again indicate non-compliance with City code.
The above-mentioned items are either issues requiring further clarification, additional
information from the consultant, or explanation of conformance with City codes from
the consultant or applicant based on the information formally submitted to date and
the corresponding comments generated by staff.
RAPIDO RABBIT CARW ASH COUS/NWSP COMMENTS
1. The most recent information submitted by the applicant (12-30-05) appears to
retain the original carwash tunnel orientation. Staff previously requested a
definitive response from the applicant as to whether the tunnel would be reversed
and the blowers/dryers located at the south end of the building. Since we are
uncertain if the equipment supplier (Sonny's) had ever seen the proposed re-
orientation of the tunnel before submitting the updated information and
specifications, please clarify if the blowers/dryers are to be placed at the north or
south end of the building.
2. Staff is still uncertain about the proposed 10 dB reduction the sound consultant
utilizes in his calculations, which indicates the blower/dryer noise would be
decreased due to the shielding of the units by being within the carwash structure.
The consultant, in his 11-30-05 handwritten calculations and explanation of his
previously submitted findings, states "There is no way to calculate this reduction,
but if one assumes the blowers are behind a wall section, which is 2 feet wide,
then the noise reduction provided by wall shielding the noise from the blowers is
about 11 dB which is consistent with the observed difference between measured
and calculated without taking into account the shielding". This statement is then
followed by the explanation that "For a two foot high (wide) wall covering the
blowers, the Fresnel Number is between 1 and 2 and using the figure on the
following page, the calculated barrier attenuation is above 10 dB". Staffs
research appears to indicate that this reduction can only be assumed when a noise
barrier is employed. The Federal Highway Association! Department of
Transportation utilizes the very same figure incorporated into the consultant's
report, under the heading Noise Barrier Basics. Barriers as opposed to Shielding
would appear to have little to no gaps/openings that would allow sound to leak
through. With the large tunnel opening required to drive a vehicle through, the
layperson would consider any attempt to block the sound from the blowers/dryers
as shielding as opposed to a barrier. As such, the use of a 10 dB noise reduction
being factored in to the equation is questioned, resulting in staff requesting
further explanation of the appropriateness of such a reduction.
3. The use of the 10 dB noise reduction, by the consultant in his original study, for
the blowers/dryers being within the carwash structure, still indicated the proposed
noise level at the property line of the residential properties across the canal to the
north would be 59 dB, one (I) dB below City code requirements. The most recent
submittal from the consultant (12-30-05) states "The noise levels from the
blowers inside the car wash tunnel, taking into account the placing of the blowers
within the tunnel and the influence of the proposed 4 feet high acoustic baffle will
be below the 60 dBA L10 noise level permissible by the City of Boynton Beach
Noise Ordinance". Staff questioned the consultant on his original analysis as to
whether only the blowers/dryers near the tunnel opening account for the noise or
whether it is the accumulation of all of the blowers. The response was that all of
the blowers are taken into account when determining the dB level. Staff would
prefer to see a calculation of the dB level based upon the combined number of
blower/dryers as opposed to a statement that "The noise levels from the blowers
inside the car wash tunnel...............will be below the 60 dBA L10 noise level
permissible by the City of Boynton Beach Noise Ordinance".
4. Under the Noise Control portion of City code (Section 15-8.8 Sound levels by
receiving land use) sound limits are established according to the type of land use
receiving the sound. In addition to the earlier comments about the residential
property north of the canal, there are also regulations for commercial parcels, like
the vacant tract immediately to the north of the carwash site. According to the
most recent information submitted by the applicant (12-30-05) the first
blower/dryer is approximately 60 feet from the north property line. The table
depicted in Section 15-8.8 of the code indicates a limitation of 65 dBA at all
times for the receiving commercial parcel to the north. The graphic provided with
the Rapido Rabbit logo in the original submittal depicts the blower/dryer noise at
a distance of 50 feet would be 79 dBA and at 100 feet would be 75 dBA, which
does not meet this code requirement. These same figures (79 dBA and 75 dBA)
are part of the consultant's handwritten calculations submitted to staff on 11-30-
05 in response to the City's request for the formulas and calculations used to
reach the conclusions in his study. Again, this would indicate non-compliance
with City code.
5. Once again, going back to the consultant's handwritten calculations submitted to
staff on 11-30-05 in response to the City's request for the formulas and
calculations, the consultant states "From the measured sound levels, at 140 feet
the sound level is 61 dBA and at 60 feet the sound level is 67 to 69 dBA". The
City code would only allow a maximum of 65 dBA at this distance. Since the
consultant's study indicates these are "measured" sound levels, taken in the field
at comparable sites, this would again indicate non-compliance with City code.
The above-mentioned items are either issues requiring further clarification, additional
information from the consultant, or explanation of conformance with City codes from
the consultant or applicant based on the information formally submitted to date and
the corresponding comments generated by staff.
RAPIDO RABBIT CARW ASH COUS/NWSP COMMENTS
1. The most recent information submitted by the applicant (12-30-05) appears to
retain the original carwash tunnel orientation. Staff previously requested a
definitive response from the applicant as to whether the tunnel would be reversed
and the blowers/dryers located at the south end of the building. Since we are
uncertain if the equipment supplier (Sonny's) had ever seen the proposed re-
orientation of the tunnel before submitting the updated information and
specifications, please clarify if the blowers/dryers are to be placed at the north or
south end of the building.
2. Staff is still uncertain about the proposed 10 dB reduction the sound consultant
utilizes in his calculations, which indicates the blower/dryer noise would be
decreased due to the shielding of the units by being within the carwash structure.
The consultant, in his 11-30-05 handwritten calculations and explanation of his
previously submitted findings, states "There is no way to calculate this reduction, 2.a..
but if one assumes the blowers are behind a wall section, which is 2 feet wide,
then the noise reduction provided by wall shielding the noise from the blowers is
about 11 dB which is consistent with the observed difference between measured
and calculated without taking into account the shielding". This statement is then
followed by the explanation that "For a two foot high (wide) wall covering the 2.b
blowers, the Fresnel Number is between 1 and 2 and using the figure on the -
following page, the calculated barrier attenuation is above 10 dB". Staff s
research appears to indicate that this reduction can only be assumed when a noise
barrier is employed. The Federal Highway Association! Department of
Transportation utilizes the very same figure incorporated into the consultant's ~ v
report, under the heading Noise Barrier Basics. Barriers as opposed to Shielding z-d
would appear to have little to no gaps/openings that would allow sound to leak -
through. With the large tunnel opening required to drive a vehicle through, the
layperson would consider any attempt to block the sound from the blowers/dryers
as shielding as opposed to a barrier. As such, the use of a 10 dB noise reduction
being factored in to the equation is questioned, resulting in staff requesting
further explanation of the appropriateness of such a reduction.
3. The use of the 10 dB noise reduction, by the consultant in his original study, for
the blowers/dryers being within the carwash structure, still indicated the proposed
noise level at the property line of the residential properties across the canal to the
north would be 59 dB, one (1) dB below City code requirements. The most recent
submittal from the consultant (12-30-05) states "The noise levels from the
blowers inside the car wash tunnel, taking into account the placing of the blowers
within the tunnel and the influence of the proposed 4 feet high acoustic baffle will
be below the 60 dBA L10 noise level permissible by the City of Boynton Beach
Noise Ordinance". Staff questioned the consultant on his original analysis as to
whether only the blowers/dryers near the tunnel opening account for the noise or
I
whether it is the accumulation of all of the blowers. The response was that all of
the blowers are taken into account when determining the dB level. Staff would
prefer to see a calculation of the dB level based upon the combined number of
blower/dryers as opposed to a statement that "The noise levels from the blowers
inside the car wash tunnel............... will be below the 60 dBA L10 noise level
permissible by the City of Boynton Beach Noise Ordinance".
4. Under the Noise Control portion of City code (Section 15-8.8 Sound levels by
receiving land use) sound limits are established according to the type of land use
receiving the sound. In addition to the earlier comments about the residential
property north of the canal, there are also regulations for commercial parcels, like
the vacant tract immediately to the north of the carwash site. According to the
most recent information submitted by the applicant (12-30-05) the first
blower/dryer is approximately 60 feet from the north property line. The table
depicted in Section 15-8.8 of the code indicates a limitation of 65 dBA at all
times for the receiving commercial parcel to the north. The graphic provided with
the Rapido Rabbit logo in the original submittal depicts the blower/dryer noise at
a distance of 50 feet would be 79 dBA and at 100 feet would be 75 dBA, which
does not meet this code requirement. These same figures (79 dBA and 75 dBA)
are part of the consultant's handwritten calculations submitted to staff on 11-30-
05 in response to the City's request for the formulas and calculations used to
reach the conclusions in his study. Again, this would indicate non-compliance
with City code.
4a..
-
4b
4G
5. Once again, going back to the consultant's handwritten calculations submitted to
staff on 11-30-05 in response to the City's request for the formulas and
calculations, the consultant states "From the measured sound levels, at 140 feet
the sound level is 61 dBA and at 60 feet the sound level is 67 to 69 dBA". The
City code would only allow a maximum of 65 dBA at this distance. Since the
consultant's study indicates these are "measured" sound levels, taken in the field
at comparable sites, this would again indicate non-compliance with City code.
The above-mentioned items are either issues requiring further clarification, additional
information from the consultant, or explanation of conformance with City codes from
the consultant or applicant based on the information formally submitted to date and
the corresponding comments generated by staff.
MILLER
LAND
PLANNING
CONSULTANTS, INC.
420 W. BOYNTON BEACH BLVD., STE. 201
BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33435
PHONE . 561 /736-8838
FAX. 561/736-8079
EMAIL .mlpc@mlpc.net
WEB . www.mlpc.net
December 30, 2005
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mike Rumpf. Planning & Zoning Director
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
RE: Rapldo Rabbit Car Wash
CondfHonal Use/Site Plan
Dear Mike:
As previously requested, following is a brief description of the attachments that provide more detail on the
car wash equipment.
1.) An 11"xl7" exhibit labeled Site Layout prepared by Sonny's, dated 12-13-05, that shows the site
configuration including the equipment layout within the tunnel.
2.) An 11"xl7" exhibit Equipment Layout prepared by Sonny's, dated 12-13-06, that shows the
dimensional layout of the equipment within the tunnel.
3.) An 11"xl7" exhibit labeled EQ Description prepared by Sonny's and dated 12-13-05 that describes
the proposed equipment within the tunnel.
4.) Two 8 W' x 11" exhibits labeled 120 HP prepared by Sonny's and dated 12-14-05 that shows the
specific configuration of the proposed 8 blowers. Please note that there will be only 1 blower
closest to the opening rather than 3 blowers as previously proposed. In addition. the applicant has
agreed to add a 4' wide acoustical baffle along the top of the entire width of the exiting end of
the tunnel to further attenuate the sound.
5.) An 8 W' x 11" exhibit labeled Vacuum Motor, that shows specifications for the JE Adams 9200
Vacuum Motor. There will be 2 vacuum units on each of the 10 islands as shown on the site plan.
6.) Letter from Joe Cushieri, Acoustical Consultant, dated 12-30-05. providing additional analysis and
conclusions pertaining to compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance.
We appreciate your coordination of this matter and look forward to resolving these applications before the
City Commission on January 3. 2006.
Sincerely,
CONSULTANTS, INC.
cc: Mark Paulino
Michael Weiner, Esq.
Joe Cushieri, PE. PhD.
Steve Gaudreau
M:\M l P C\PROJECTS\Rapido Rabbit\mike rump! 123005.wpd
T
1
---
_m...-m 'WIll 1_ "'U -1 __ _ _ ~
;,(8 03>D3IO
M W ;,(8 C13SVt3H
,.,7 ;,(8 C13L~
-"'3~ =3J. va NO/SI.13H
!lo.ft 'Zl =3J.va
-....,,---,.-11-
fili{;s
lit "'" ~
I I II i il~IM
.<) I , I
'i, ! II ~
,. n ==. i!~ ~
~ III it~ii "i~1
.
I f- ~Ii !!!il"~i;
- ,d z ~ ~
I ~ ~I.I
fir '!II;ien!1
~ Ilil
iI;il iIM!Ii;~
w ~ ~
C) .: N
____ _________--,.-,.._.. - .._. I_I ._.._.._ .._.._ I' _I' _.._.._ I' _.._.._..
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
/
I
,
1\
I'
, \
I \.
, \
I '
i \
..
~
! - ~-:--f
I ~l:.; ,
I ~- 1
,
I
,
~
,Oo'qqt
aD ((DOl)
<<0 Oll
Jo
:'1".."-
'"
l\1
~;1
!
1-1
~o a)}
~o o}
((0 9j)
((0 0>>
r\
.
i!;i~1
....
,
'" I
=>.
C>
.."
11. ~..
0_'
...
III
I'
1.
I,
II
J
~
:J.8 (]3)03IQ -r-"'~~-II_ Rl_at_GW'Ul "fSIl 1_ ,. -1 __ _ _ I .
MVV :J.8~ AHOJ.:>Vi HSVJl llV:l lIHJ,
117 :J.8 alL V3lD S.lNNCQS
-1I3~ =3I.YONOlSlll3H .. 1R'I ~
QOlTZI =3I.YO M
w-.__
t.....lI I .
~~\\ \ I
.
.
I
-
~
""I
,
<0
,
I
1
I
==1p .
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
lr)
C"\l
,
:1 ~
I,
,
O~a'
11~r---..
--~,I,I
""""
. .
. .
.
~
~
,I
CO
~
.
CQr..,
,I 1
r---.. <D '
f'<J f'r) :: ~
ICO
<01
""0
lr) ,
C"\l
1 '
.
C"\l
C"\l
~
.
<0 ,
,
,
MVV
117
-1I3~
5io'rn:t
;,(8 (]3)03H:)
;'(8~
>48 03l~
~VONOlSlll3lJ
~VO
.....r..........-I'..
fiNi()s
Ba-aE-..-m ,.. ,_ "U -.1 __ _ _
.._~
,
rr- - 1
'11_., J
I I
I I
, ,
ii !
, ,
I i
, :
I !
,
" ,
ill
" ,
I
.
-
.
-
I
I
"
E-
c
;;-
-<
-i
-i
,,,
~
z
z
-
E-
'I I
Lt----J
{lI-
T
!
. '0
.'
,,~
-:."
>~
>:.--->~
.
'.
.,. - -..... SJJINOI IOOC 0
".L.ivaG"
NOI.LdIHJS:!IG 'b:!l
i ~
..
I C'j
~o
o
Z
-
......:l
~
<C
0...
I
C\1
~
o:l
I
o
o
~-
LD ,Ii
o~
I ...,
~~
U~
lS
e!!! .
ssi!=~
WZ::J
0~0
12i
g!!i
~~:::
!l!;~
_lI!lil
'~l5
~g&
I!~
;oOf
:;!~~
!ia0
WN3
ei!~
~ow
Zzw
8s~
0;!~
l:!~-
i~~
8~'"
o ~
. ~eo.
",,-1010
zOC:t::te
cl:!!ii
I;W::Z:W
l5t"gw
u~it~
!:i~~~
iz2S
."a~:I
i!:S!Jc
w
o
l5t! ~
" z.
~cn ~;
!i~ l:l'll
~U ~~
11:0 Z_
!t~ ~~
a_ .
Z~Gl: Ii
Iii I
10; ~
O~:t w
~~t i!:
~~~ i!i
~g~ ~
:~~ ~
-ZZ li
ii:a:1
Illil
OWlS!:a
~U!:Slll:
~!i!~a~
~8i5IE~
",'" E
lj!oil! ~
!l8~:gll!
li~~I~
~~~We
:;!~1:l~i
<<\
1t
\-
~.
}
~
i
~
-J
~
~tc
...-t"'"4
!':I 0
::::::El
tz::I
~
I
~
I
.....
N
o
::r:::
~
~
~
~
t%j
I
CJl
bHP
. ~
,0
~
N DATE:. 12.14.05 ~
S ) N rs ~;:i: ~~:TE:: LV
DRAIm BY: LV
C SOIlMY'S DlTEAPRlSl:s, lMC.. AlL -.rs Il[S[lMD 2000. CHECKED BY:
I
4
t
Si~;~J
il=ail
!~Iu
a~slH
Ill!
lli!
a~1
i il
~ H;
I ;q
~lIq!1
,ah
ilej~
IIII
!~5
!:I
ill
Iii
IlIE
J~I
1!5
il
1=
~;!!
.
~c:::l
~t-
~o
::!1
t%j
~
I
~
I
..-
N
o
=::c:
~
1-'3
.-<
~
tzj
I
CJ1
bOP
1- "'-2" APPROX.i
<.,.,
,-
e
.
T
-
~
"
tn
L
14'-11" APPROX.
{?
~
S ) NNfS ~z:: ~~:TE: ::14.05 ~
DRAI+H BY: LV
0_5 DfTERt'IlIS[S, 1IlC.. AU. ~ _ 2000. CHECKED BY:
m
l:7
I
~
~
.
3
i
5'n 5'0 Co. :ii 5"D c...
!:1I f( . It. III .
0:5 I~ rn Oil ~ii m
~ (II
Ii'" i'" .
II Q..
~I > fa II >-
illS' a. II a.
5.! I>> AI
ID _ 5:S- iJ. Is' S-:l" 3
j;' !T!:fo ;'i en
jc, . .. (') elf C')
;:( II. - if ii m-
.CD --
!;:g. g.g. S>> Ig. g.g.
, IDDI .. DI ::J f~ ~3 ::s
~ ~, ~ fa ;)- UI ~ 13 CD f rn ~ I en ~ rli. CD
I -Ii r: II ...1 UI I i~ II CiI
.. 0 !p'l g. ~ . . a- i GI P ;"I
I Ii II ii { :E i' . !: t I
3 i :I D- III 3 g. m :e
Go ~ f II l 'g II )- i
i. ~ i!. ,. -. iiL i lD ?!:~ !;
! if - Ii ..
ii III III iil !S, :T iI . I I~
:I 9- S- ID !I i :I 9- g. :I
a ;I 3 ; ~ a .... a iJ 3 ~ 3 ....
C III II ! .... Ii I ! ~ 111 ....
l!. :. iiL J Ii .. CD - CD
,J:lo. is ~
.... ....
.. ~
. .
g Q
C Q
:I 3
S- O
0 er
CiI (;I
fj] I~ G) !l IS G) B ~i 0j]
..... at o N
t i e b iD Co
0 N
::I CI - ::So
a.
~C) CD "0
ClII .... ClII 0> I~ at UJ
.... all CI) ~
N pi! .. .... P"
in 2 ~ 8l a; en
.... (if 2 :I ""
1II CD
0_ ~~
...... ~(O q) .. I~ CD ~ II) ~ if'JS
~ CD N pi ~ (II VI
...~ .!. -" (II ~ g ~ i!l -~
CI ... = .!..o
...... ~ ... ,.
"- Ii
~ t ; 8 .. . 8 ~...
:t i......o- IrI1'
~ :.. N C. w 81
101 .. en ~ .-""'1.00 ..... ~
.. ~
", 'CD ........ ,. .... ... ~I CD
-... N I~ ~ I~ ;of ...... ! i ~
...~ ~ J.) .... .... ..... CD
~ ~ ClI 01 .... CD -- IIIiiii W
.
.... .... i/ .... .... _bo "
.. CJl C ~ "Coe
D c~ Ul mQ..
:r. :r.. ~ . :1;1
~ C,.I ~=:;:
III
~n.---I
lv:91 900c-91-J30
i
;;'
.,
..
c
;J
3
.$
-(;-
~
~
!
11
.....
'. ./
Joe Cuschieri
Acoustics and Vibration Consultant
2398 NW 38th Street
Boca Raton, Florida, 33431
TEL: 561 2897091
FAX: 561 852 1784
December 30, 2005
Mark Paulino
EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT, LLC
4036 Artesa Drive
Boynton Beach, FL 33436
mpaulino@prodiQy.net
Re: Boynton Beach Car Wash Facility
Dear Mr. Paulino:
As an addendum to my letter of November 17, 2005, the following additional information is
provided in relation to the proposed configuration of the car wash equipment, mainly the
VAC units and the blowers.
The proposed car wash facility will have 20 model 9200 VAC units located on islands next to
the car wash tunnel, with the closest V AC unit located some 255 feet from the residential
property line and the farthest unit located some 375 feet from the residential property line.
The noise levels from the closest V AC unit with attachment open at the residential property
line to the north as reported in the letter of November 17, 2005 is on the order of 46 dBA
which is below the L 10 level of 60 dBA permissible by the City of Boynton Beach Noise
Ordinance. If all 20 V AC units are operated at the same time with attachment open the
noise levels at the residential property line will increase by 10 dB which will still be below the
permissible levels allowed by the City of Boynton Beach Noise Ordinance.
Within the car wash tunnel there will be 8 blowers as per the drawing 'BLOWER-4-120HP
TYPE-5" provided by SONNY'S Enterprises, Inc. The blowers are arranged in 4 rows, with
one blower close to the tunnel opening, then three blowers, then another row of three
blowers and then a final row of one blower. The closest blower is approximately 4 feet from
tunnel opening and the last row blower is approximately 16 feet from the tunnel opening. In
the letter of November 17, 2005, noise level estimates were provided based on three
blowers located at 4 feet from the tunnel opening. With the revised arrangement of blowers,
there is only one blower instead of three with the other blowers receded further away from
the tunnel opening. If one takes into account the increased distances of the blower rows
into the tunnel, the contribution from the blowers further into the tunnel will be insignificant.
The anticipated noise levels at the north residential property line would thus be expected to
be at or below that estimated based on the three blowers, which is within the permissible
L 10 noise level by the City of Boynton Beach Noise Ordinance. Furthermore, it is proposed
~
r--~---~
I
. Page 2 of 2 December 30, 2005
that an acoustic baffle be located between the blowers and the tunnel opening further
reducing the noise levels from the blowers coming out of the car wash tunnel.
In summary the following main points can be stated:
. The noise level generated by the V AC units, even if all units operate simultaneously
with the attachment open will be below that permissible by the City of Boynton Beach
Noise Ordinance.
· The noise levels form the blowers inside the car wash tunnel, taking into account the
placing of the blowers within the tunnel and the influence of the proposed 4 feet high
acoustic baffle will be below the 60 dBA L 10 noise level permissible by the City of
Boynton Beach Noise Ordinance.
· While the noise levels form the proposed car wash facility may be audible when
traffic on Congress Avenue is low, these do not exceed the noise levels permissible
by the City of Boynton Beach Noise Ordinance. Furthermore, the anticipated noise
levels from the car wash facility would be comparable and most of the time below the
noise levels at the residential properties from traffic on Congress Avenue.
Sincerely,
~
Joe Cuschieri, P.E. Ph.D.
Acoustical Consultant
C.C.: Bradley D. Miller, AICP, MILLER LAND PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
DE~ 01~2005 00:29
5618521784
page 1
2396 '"' ~ Street
Boca Raton. Florida, 33431
TEL: 561 2B9 7091
FAX: 561 8521784
Joe Cuschieri
Acoustics and Vibration
Consultant
Fax
......
FI"OIIIIl: Joe Cuschieri
PagBs: 8 (wu:..(.~...d(.{:1 (~..I/(r ;:Ia.~)
, V
Dats 11130/2005
To; Mr. Ed Breese
Fax: 561-742-6259
R8! Boynton Beach car Wash Facility
CC:
Bradley Miller
[J Urgent M For Review Cl ....... c-.....-nt [] ,..... R8pIy 0 PIe8se Reqde
Please find attached my calculations for the proposed car wash facilily. Give me a call if you have
questions.
DEe 01,2005 00:29
for 1- oJ 7
5618521784 page 2
'\- . .
I '. (', 1 ," ,
tT;;~ -.......-:.. f..{..fA-"7""'7.
"I.e...l: .~'""bl 2. 89 7091.
VA c: U ,oj \ '"\ S
LL9-lA~,.t ~,tu Q~k..., .F""'''"Y' rc1r~ 7 c:,v....c..d t5
ld rn (it~)) +tu (.),{Tr::,.'r~.{! S 0 (.) n J ;p () u_ti~r
i ,:.200 VA c LLt.a./~u;o rs VJ
+0 4' CI v( 6 A Lv\" ~h .5.t."-uJi
( u~~~
~I
~
{z(J
q 3" '1 c:A 6~ wI c ~ltndm.wi:
c!(.HrI..'- tl ",' 'l.4:-t..{....t.
'-T~ c:.'2<.._1!.<.A.d~{ ~ 5oJr>~ j?J.r~S..!:.UT~ I IL f*vx~
. lJJ.vzd I S
Lp LfA) - le..l!:J ( ::brlJ"1
(.A ,"hi-,r...f Lf! .. ft-- -.S(jdrJ /f'';'';- 5cSl.Jr-....-K CtAf'tf (~ cJl51/
(/I
, tft~1 . (1611
Lw l.S ~ ,5~)uy,cI ;POt<Xr (,1/l
1) It..-- Dt.~ ~,~~ fo U, L.e.A..' V....l..r I
t.5. ("U
/J7LuCi/r- 5
I
LVI) :::::
(1-\ 'J) (?
\ \. -' ]
\.~~A
dl3A
l;0/ 0 (';...{~ l:'i. (k, rVl.i;..v.;t:-
~8
w / 5.Q.~o( &t.'~ ~d
b -
55/-::::.
2~5 t =
It. 7 Indi/f"'S ,.{, r;U7 ~.
/ '7.1 YY1.i:lin Ju r--2.~..{,-i!L{juJJ
DEe 01[2005 00:30
5618521784
page 3
'} .'
.l'c-tj( 2 c:'~r I
.~ J oW:? (,) S clll..(-O 'v- ( .
-T~.(:-,s~1 28~7 lo'll
WUcy' fiv f--,.rv>~ I
(f-r:Yv1 !k- c!'i.6";;..e.'1.t LU':'" /--
~ .~(A.J (l/.t;<1 j7r~AA.-) t..~
lJ.t~ 1-71.,1/\ .t.:...JP.
Son ..,nd Prt:q.,J.C,vv....-
1~..A.;'..f'Y d..M
Lv i~~A,~u.:t-
, t"
SO\.!^f..'\ r ".L~(...u
14A_O d.6A-
t.) ~.:l.;.vI ~lll1t.4,
5'5'
t/. '5
05,5
:2 !5Si
L-I8~ (
52.2
._-....--
--- --,--
_[<..../ (I C1lY~?. t1'.hJYU( ,.-:
@ 5~W fif
Lp;:: 'i' 3 q - /oJ'J C.2rr It, 72)
~ I. 5 d SA
r:i\ I ~ ,. - f' J
\...~ ?. ~ b -~.t-
Lp - '13. 'I -./0 -':>J (:::lrr 77 7 ')
LiB. I c{ 64
.L0 /~~ ~~frlL~
(!: 5:>.~ Lp
98 - Ie) IJ (27r 1',-1)
==- (, s, S (",.;.tt3~
c~ .~.ss- ~ Lp
9[; - ,fo-l"j (2.,,- 75:''')
5;)_ 2 ol6~
DEe 01,2005 00:30
5618521784
page 4
Pc~ :J o-l ..,
J-o.Q G.: s. d,H.Ji"~
(..J. ~I- 2&Cj- 7c1/
I ~ J ir:l~ " ". A.
L -'\.. ;-e-r /J"U..?-.-<- ,:;t...u.
IV cfI ~ () rd4h\~ CJ; .
~J ?i-
.1' ~.A-< . (;f(/~.4..J /"-ore4y
8 C./ 15 k::.-Lcl....J !(~
C:l-"Y t;7 4; -hry; 6~'~l{:/\.
""'7Zu II,.(..'-L ~
Le.-L'-f:.io J rzv
/2' ,7
" d 1..'5 (".:t,.L. (..al
() .
.....-c ,V~"'7_~ O...~i:.Jl
,j-_( 4..1..).:~ 11_,~ {'V},A.:~k W'J On a...t- It.v <Se:<'~
fvnv tlA...
J
~fr~(f'1-~
~ j;u...tQ.~ t7v
11.(.;. {,'2j
{~\).~..J
t.ML.Q lM c/..A'~J.
?
e.~*1 /J
7 ~/.'.2 L .~. f / ,1 --" ~'I..'//
9( '.:..J t1.Y/.-(.t':,t.... c.A../(J.(.{ K Y c...In (,.-/
M't/.u~~ r~ ~ ft'L'
I3j!1rv, ~ IJ (;)~ t) rc::~~
""'--
131i{)(J~ /.JO(5~-
'-/z... bJ.ou...rer /1Ja ~ o/a~ (/J !f2'{.r(.,v{' t-L"t '. lefm.-?
C.( 50urd Pk"'''"'''<~-< uvdjo C<h a r!:"""J.-<-":'
0+ ~:;,. /r.vV1.Ul. '.; (~) ohm/J';"" 11.J S(){../I;t~;Jl ,;.~-,,-.;r..H(4--:-.......
0rc1s eLf- 61V () IJuY' c.;it...~; In.,J1 U/.:J I ~~ ~
~ r I /7.--- 4>.P!'Jr cs...J...e. Je-d"'."./.c-. I:;
LD .- Ltt .~
(1); D2..
20 ~J&~)
DEe 0~,2005 00:30
(/C:<''l' Lt. 01 7
(I
5618521784
page 5
~ CUS(~
~-
/..e..C b7:./ - 28? - 7091
f.A/l;l.J...y' J
'Z)..;. CUU;) OJ a,~..-~'
/t...", cL.t"; / a,......, c."? LA." "
fu/ ~y-
nu--1-.fl-1/ S
/
/tv ,'t:!uvvJ !r~Jl
r .JJ~Q ?~_.-<-.h.^v--e..L/ .
a(...u)1
L-f{)
I
C&"u,;j L~,
u1....
6i.-v ~
~?
D I a...t.A._C/
U--Z
Q.J
/z.-oku<r~
~~~~ "J G."U..lJJ/ fV(J.lj?~J.b,
trvl, ',_Y:Ju I/lal I~ F.r-
~7. ,./ Il... ..5CU/'CP (;.; M.llr-
'7Z",-, fc~.,h:rr t:/) 2--0 tv.."
c.~ a... ?C~c~vr
r"
.'
.. .,
" ,...-r ,.'
, '}
(: el.t3
1<:....I2-_t:.-.I...,LA.. Lh..<,;'
o&:.~ of ~:'~C6-.
CiTrry)o...JJ~ ~ q /11.P,l-j. t rfyl ;ie.yAR"~ Iu~ ~", 1'0:')- c.'s .I.s~
tv h (.::cll "fYl.(JlU? tJ11 {7 ~ 4. S- a' -5 r.P.--d(A.{~ t4A .. ,50 t/ ~OI
(;AW~ r'" d..cL'.bkj (J/ c.(j. bMa
7h.."'-t"', th'-Y /zu
LjJ/) I - LfJD 2-
(J.o_j).f n.... (}ro..",'r c:u-.d
rnM.1.# I~fw~'
tr~~
/s ~ (~~ )
dab (Ic~ :1 01
7L
DEe 01,2005 00:30
t'Ci<y 5 o~ 7
. '"
5618521784 page 6
du (( :s(I..{.~ f 'c'
"T v 57:: I -' 7- fc? '1 ~ 70 (1/
C..:; \v eo....... Doh"\.. CJ:;tl.c...J:...~.k.c..;l ;'');~\J'''''cJ ~'-C..cJ
'b l S 1,0..\/\ l,,_.\!
10 I (10
---2~~- bb -,"-- ~P"-~"(tC?~l'J-('?-::-)"~-'~'_' .-
: ~..-=--_ '. (':' -. _):J,j
;-.~, I ~
;::::),--) \ (" . ~ -
~ Lpo ::. '10. /.')-Lc.., ('..,)(i).::. 7 i
2- J.. -.J
I - Iv
i -<:. lo Ill, -:- (. -. r.t., ().L'(') '1'--
+_. r 1~" 1<-- - 1.;0 · '.~ . 'w ,~_.~~::>
I I'-R C' ...,....,j
! I .;:;. (..1' 1"\ - i c; I. , ~~) -= I, ~ . ()I
I ~2 ~ _.W~ Iv ~o_
L{-c
-
dthl
c.~ ~3 A
.2ool
255'
":"', ...,
( "
I,. L( .?.,
1") tJ ;:.v.u.l JoI
,
/ 1
Ll ,(,"c.L:;o
{(<.[v
(.(5)'L ?-.-(. 'r..l/ rt'( Iz. <...}o-'/.
,'1.{C {{.C..t-
fr:l./CY
-(Lv ,5 iu~. I J~ r~ ciJ.J) ,. 4,... ~ jJL~ /~.vrrU{M-"Jli(.~
.
(A,'~\. 'ry ((.n.,.t-y
~.. eJ:(:3 A- ) tc
/l" h...tc I.-,-~."~.. ~i It (..) ~) c<rfkt.(.~;(.I..i:
/ tv Ci/-J/...(..J../ ..fL"..).'t~..v' u""c....f".J (":Ie: t; vt.d ~)
U /I""l.~.Q.4<- w-.~.-d Jc c..' luX 6:.,-c..-t.' Q.J-
5
(,.(J'Y1a..r7tU ~.li;
5~ ~..fo r (;~
V~ {,' I oj L3!l- (:::1.;...'-.J
14 0 p~.I--
~r
Oy..y.. /rr l:;; Q....(;)..<A../V--<-.o-f
--
" .st.) u ~ (RA-....e,~
{" /~.I-
::;0 .~
~ l~
&,.J- 2 ~s-5
it .~
/z.., ..Souhai ~ (;;
6 7 /0 G 9 d 13/1
I-vr-~ ;..:-n'vV\ c~~i;>t).U'e I
(e..(/' c.,va..(..{ -' .d b~
67
61'
It.... -5Dtj ~'1a,.1 U.4"~
s l of6A
sCf rigA
~- /5 AJ (2~:S-) -
60
DEe 01~2005 00:30
5618521784
_ ~~:t:- (, 01 7
Uk Cu s ~~L'
-:-r:.c..( ~0/.-- 2. B'1 - I
2 a..
Cr((~ (}:~.l(_(.<.i...(lj(:d ;f/O-~"? 1 nv .::Sc.;"v..u;/ t:uJd~
<') ( t... b.{e "". -Y CV-.-> I 0 d 6 ~ (...... h'm- fl.--
;/lniJ.,(/JA..J.A/-<'.pf S'tJfM.-t~ tl<k~ ;:~- t;.;rY(')A?lh4 31j-5Ic:'It0..
-
<'~7J.VVJ / J c1 (j
r ~&.~.i'Lf.'"V1' I/) c,,{ u..~ (0 /2.... :5Iw Id..y
IZv b'v...~./ ,-'/0-1 ,.:) ~()U IJ d u;o /~ bf()u~
frrAt"diLd '7
()..1A-: f:.s' ,;
~i2( ~_.V-t' ~ ft.,/,'".) oll.'r~-r._..I- (~.(..J;:i...L1 (7) ca-lcv14..;t; -Ittl;'
)~~i..4.1Aj~ ) bu~t 1 o-N q~J,'?');f...ea it.." ~.J
OJr.R jJ.Q.jtu.~t.d ?A.. u..JaJ.2::SA~ I W/1A..V4 ~ 2 P
un"ck / ~ f1-' ;u.v.:. ir~ ~M f;t.
w'cl(J ..stw Ic{~.J tzu ~~ ~ /1u b.Ia~# fA
~.b c.....J I / d 13 U /1..-'-1.:'1 t. J tAI)L. ~(...; 1't:.'-i....1- ~~./ ~ ~
o b ~$e~ l/1o{.t-<...d c?f..Y-4-/I"" -elA .u; b-<..il-A_i"('JJ.A. (7?'t.Il~..,.....K.J ca.~
(~.t~?t..(La..-~-.oI tA.-Ah C/L.J.. fZl.-k.iA-1e {M.It, tf/~.AOC/-'l1- I&..
.5/w. !~!~.
Lt
-
b..lo (J..JeyS I
,J f:-J ttj t) C <" idJ )
l~/
.
(,Ja...J2J.1 (.c<.Jer"!~ ( t.......
HCi-:JI1.i.J2 lU Uff1'~;"'" k_.{1A..'~~1 / dL.<~ z..
rr---
I'"(::J'"T Vl
t9J.d ~ Ii- ~J GM ~ ~'"'7 f"'~)
ll.'l ~ Lt'.'-?.. .~.a..L.~..t.j.u:I I~c:vvru.../ ~1 t.-~uv, (,.., {.( hM.lJ-
1048,
QEC 01,2005 00:31
5618521784
page 8
~ (.u~~~{'
/i~ .S(;) I 2 ~ Cj .71)<11
1/~1 a 7 cf "--I
(V}( /
i (
-ZI 2 IV 3 u.dth tA; a..U
i-8
t ~
i-It t "/ loct6
G\.t~~ld~~
. -s
.
.1 .u -t.tI .
t.tI U
1t 1.-
PII.-1NibUer \~\
2c
...
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER. LONS
Page 1 of 20
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
This section describes the acoustical considerations associated with highway noise barrier design,
beginning with a brief technical discussion on the fundamentals of highway traffic noise.
3.1 Characteristics of Sound
Highway traffic noise originates primarily from three discrete sources: truck exhaust stacks, vehicle
engines, and tires interacting with the pavement. These sources each produce sound energy that, in
turn, translates into tiny fluctuations in atmospheric pressure as the sources move and vibrate. These
sound pressure fluctuations are most commonly expressed as sound pressure and measured in units
of micro Newtons per square meter (I.IN/m2), or micro Pascals (I.IPa). Typical sound pressure
amplitudes can range from 20 to 200 million I.IPa. Because of this wide range, sound pressure is
measured on a logarithmic scale known as the decibel (dB) scale. On this scale, a value of 0 dB is
equal to a sound pressure level (SPLJ of 20 I.IPa and corresponds to the threshold of hearing for most
humans. A value of 140 dB is equal to an SPL of 200 million I.IPa, which is the threshold of pain for
most humans. ref.17
The following figure shows a scale relating various sounds encountered in daily life and their
approximate decibel values:
TIues hold of Pain
Jet aitC taft at 300 m altitude
High~ ttaffic at 30 m
Qui et testau tant
Residential ate a at night
Rustling ofleaves
Tlueshold of hearing
Figure 5. Decibel scale
To express a sound's energy, or sound pressure in terms of SPL, or dB, the following equation is used:
SPL = 1 0*log10(p/Pref)2 dB
where: p is the sound pressure; and
Pref is the reference sound pressure of 20 I.IPa
Conv~rsely, sound energy is related to SPL as follows:
httn:llwwwcffhw~ not (Jovlp.nvironmp.nt/n('\ic;,:p/1 htm
1 '1/1 '::lI'1('\('\l:
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDERJ .ONS
Page 2 of 20
(pIp ref) 2 = 1 0(SPU1 0)
The above relationships are important in understanding the way decibel levels are combined, Le.,
added or subtracted. That is, because decibels are expressed on a logarithmic scale, they cannot be
combined by simple addition. For example, if a single vehicle pass-by produces an SPL of 60 dB at a
distance of 15 m (50 ft) from a roadway, two identical vehicle pass-bys would not produce an SPL of
120 dB. They would, in fact, produce an SPL of 63 dB. To combine decibels, they must first be
converted to energy, then added or subtracted as appropriate, and reconverted back to decibels. The
following table may be used as an approximation to adding decibel levels (Note: Table approximations
are within f:1 dB of the exact value).
Table 1. Decibel addition approximation.
When two decibel values differ by Add to higher value (dB) I Example I
(dB)
10 to 1 113 1150 + 51 = 54 I
12 to 3 1/2 1162 + 65 = 67 I
14 to 9 1/1 /165 + 71 = 72 I
110 or more 110 1/55 + 65 = 65 I
The above table can also be used to approximate the sum of more than two decibel values. First, rank
the values from low to high, then add the values two at a time. For example:
60 dB + 60 dB + 65 dB + 75 dB
= (60 dB + 60 dB) + 65 dB + 75 dB
= 63 dB + 65 dB + 75 dB
= (63 dB + 65 dB) + 75 dB
= 67 dB + 75 dB
= 76 dB
In the above example, the exact value would be computed as follows:
60 dB + 60 dB + 65 dB + 75 dB = 10*log10 [10(60/10) + 10(60/10) + 10(65/10) +10(75/10)]
= 75.66 dB
The next characteristic of sound is its amplitude, or loudness. As stated earlier, sound sources produce
sound energy that, in turn, translates into tiny fluctuations in atmospheric pressure as the sources move
and vibrate. As the sources move and vibrate, surrounding atoms, or molecules, are temporarily
displaced from their normal configurations thus forming a disturbance that moves away from the sound
source in waves that pulsate out at equal intervals. For simplicity, the outward propagating waves can
be approximated by the trigonometric sine function (see Figure 6). The "height" of the sine wave from
peak to peak is referred to as its amplitude. The length between wave repetitions is referred to as the
wavelength (^). The amplitude determines the strength, or loudness, of the wave.
htto:l/wwwcf.fhwa.dot. g-ov/ environm ent /n('\i c;,:e/1 htm
l"'/l""/"l^^~
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER.
cONS
Page 3 of 20
Finally, another characteristic
of sound is its frequency, or
tonality, measured in Hertz
(Hz), or cycles per second.
Frequency is defined as the
number of cycles of repetition
per second, or the number of
wavelengths that have passed
by a stationary point in one
second.
<E----- Wavelength 1;-) ~
/-... /~,
/ \ i \
I \ I \
I \ /
\ I
\ /
\. /
"-./
"-
\
\
\..
Am plltude
Figure 6. Sound wave amplitude and wavelength
Most humans can hear in a range from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. However, the human ear is not equally
sensitive to all frequencies. To account for this, most transportation-related noise, including highway
traffic noise, is measured using an "A-weighted' response network. A-weighting emphasizes sounds
between 1,000 Hz and 6,300 Hz, and de-emphasizes sounds above and below that range to simulate
the response of the human ear. Figure 7 presents the A-weighting curve as a function of frequency.
Table 2 presents the curve in tabular form for one-third octave band frequencies from 20 to 20,000 Hz.
Sound levels measured using the A-weighting network are expressed in units of dB(A).ref.12
20
-
c:l
:s. 10
N
~
Cl 0
8
...
..E .10
~
11 .20
'm
...
=
:5 .30
.c
=
I .40
.,;}
20 50 100 200 3)0 1000 2000 3)00 10000 20000
Frequencv (Hz)
Figure 7. Frequency A-weighting
I Table 2. Frequency A-weighting. I
One-Third Response, re: One-Third Response, re:
Octave-Band 1000 Hz Octave-Band 1000 Hz
Center Frequency Center
(Hz) Frequency (Hz)
120 11-50.5 II 800 11-0.8 I
125 11-44.7 " 1000 110.0 I
I II II II I
htto:/ /wwwcf.fhwa.dot. ~ov /environment/noise/3. htm
1') /11/')001\
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER. IONS
Page 4 of 20
/31.5 11-39.4 1250 110.6 I
40 11-34.6 1600 1/1.0 I
50 11-30.2 2000 111.2
63 11-26.2 12500 1/1.3
80 11-22.5 3150 1.2
100 11-19.1 4000 1.0
125 /-16.1 5000 0.5
160 -13.4 6300 -0.1
200 -10.9 /8000 /-1.1
250 1-8.6 1110000 11-2.5
315 -6.6 1112500 11-4.3
400 -4.8 1116000 11-6.6
500 -3.2 1120000 11-9.3 I
630 //-1.9 II. II. I
3.2 Noise Descriptors
Noise descriptors provide a mechanism for describing sound for different applications. As stated
previously, sound levels measured for highway traffic noise use an A-weighting filter to more accurately
simulate the response of the human ear. An A-weighted sound level is denoted by the symbol, LA'
Other noise descriptors include the maximum sound level (MXFA or MXSA, denoted by the symbol,
LAFmx or LASmx)' the equivalent sound level for a one-hour period (1 HEQ, denoted by the symbol,
LAeq1 h)' the sound exposure level (SEL, denoted by the symbol, LAE), the day-night average sound
level (DNL, denoted by the symbol, Ldn), the community noise equivalent level (CNEL, denoted by the
symbol, Lden), and the ten-percentile exceeded sound level (denoted by the symbol, L1O).
For highway traffic noise, the LAeq1 h are most often used to describe continuous sounds, such as
relatively dense highway traffic. The LASmx and LAE may be used to describe single events, such as an
individual vehicle pass-by. Note that the LAE is more commonly used to describe an aircraft overflight.
The Ldn and the Lden may be used to describe long-term noise environments (typically 24 hours or
more).
3.3 Sound Propagation
The sound that reaches a receiver is affected by many factors. These factors include:ref.18
. Divergence (Section 3.3.1);
. ,Ground effect (Section 3.3.2);
· Meteorological effects(Section 3.3.3); and
httD:/ /wwwcf.fuwa.dot.g-ov/environment/n('\ic;,:e/1 htm
1 '1/1"" /"'r.^~
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER. IONS
Page 5 of 20
. Shielding by natural and man-made structures, e.g., trees and buildings (Section 3.3.4). Note:
Shielding by man-made noise barriers will be discussed separately in Section 3.4.
3.3.1 Divergence.
Divergence is referred to as the spreading of sound waves from a sound source in a free field
environment. In the case of highway traffic noise, two types of divergence are common, spherical and
cylindrical. Spherical divergence is that which would occur for sound emanating from a point source,
e.g., a single vehicle pass-by. The attenuation of sound over distance due to spherical spreading is
illustrated using the following equation:
L2 = L1 + 20*log10(d1/d2) dB(A)
where: L1 is the sound level at distance d1; and
L2 is the sound level at distance d2
Thus, with this equation, it can be shown that sound levels measured from a point source decrease at a
rate of 6 dB(A) per doubling of distance. For example, if the sound level from a point source at 15 m
was 90 dB(A), at 30 m it would be 84 dB(A) due to divergence, i.e., 90 + 20*log10(15/30).
Cylindrical divergence is that which would occur for sound emanating from a line source, or many point
sources sufficiently close to be effectively considered as a line source, e.g., a continuous stream of
roadway traffic. The attenuation of sound over distance due to cylindrical spreading is illustrated using
the following equation:
L2 = L1 + 10*log10(d1/d2) dB(A)
With this equation, it can be shown that sound levels measured from a line source decrease at a rate of
3 dB(A) per doubling of distance. For example, if the sound level from a line source at 15 m was 90 dB
(A), at 30 m it would be 87 dB(A) due to divergence, Le., 90 + 10*log1Q(15/30).ret.19
3.3.2 Ground Effect.
Ground effect refers to the change in sound level, either positive or negative, due to intervening ground
between source and receiver. Ground effect is a relatively complex acoustic phenomenon, which is a
function of ground characteristics, source-to-receiver geometry, and the spectral characteristics of the
source. Ground types are typically characterized as acoustically hard or acoustically soft. Hard ground
refers to any highly reflective surface in which the phase of the sound energy is essentially preserved
upon reflection; examples include water, asphalt, and concrete. For practical highway applications,
measurements have shown a 1 to 2 dBA increase for the first and second row residences adjacent to
the highway. Soft ground refers to any highly absorptive surface in which the phase of the sound
energy is changed upon reflection; examples include terrain covered with dense vegetation or freshly
fallen snow.ref.19 An acoustically soft ground can cause a significant broadband attenuation (except at
low frequencies).
A commonly used rule-of-thumb is that: (1) for propagation over hard ground, the ground effect is
neglected; and (2) for propagation over acoustically soft ground, for each doubling of distance the soft
ground effect attenuates the sound pressure level at the receiver by an additional 1.5 dB(A). This extra
attenuation applies to only incident angles of 20 degrees or less. For greater angles, the ground
becomes a good reflector and can be considered acoustically hard. Keep in mind that these
relationships are quite empirical but tend to break down for distances greater than about 30.5 to 61 m
(100 to 200 ft). For a more detailed discussion of ground effects, the reader is directed to References
http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/3.htm
1 J/l1!?OO'i
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER. iONS
Page 6 of 20
20_and 2.1.
3.3.3 Atmospheric Effects.
Atmospheric effects refer to: (1) atmospheric absorption, Le., the sound absorption by air and water
vapor; (2) atmospheric refraction, Le., the sound refraction caused by temperature and wind gradients;
and (3) air turbulence. ref. 18 It is recommended that when atmospherics are of potential concern, high-
precision meteorological measurement equipment should be used to record continuous temperature,
relative humidity, and wind data.
. Atmospheric absorption: Atmospheric absorption is a function of the frequency of the sound, the
temperature, the humidity, and the atmospheric pressure between the source and the
receiver. ref. 22 and ref.23 Over distances greater than 30 m (100 ft), the attenuation due to
atmospheric absorption can substantially reduce sound levels, especially at high frequencies
(above 5000 Hz).
. Atmospheric refraction: Atmospheric refraction is the bending of sound waves due to wind and
temperature gradients. Near-ground wind effects are, typically, the most substantial contributor to
sound refraction. Upwind conditions tend to refract sound waves away from the ground resulting
in a decrease in sound levels at a receiver. Conversely, downwind conditions tend to refract
sound waves towards the ground resulting in an increase in sound levels at a receiver. Studies
have shown measured sound levels to be affected by up to 7 dB(A) as a result of wind refraction
within just 100 m from the centerline of the roadway. ref. 24 and ref.25 It is generally recommended
that highway traffic noise measurements be performed when the recorded wind speed is no
greater than 5 m/s (11 mph) to minimize the effects of wind. Further, measurements should not
be performed in conditions where strong winds with small vector components exist in the
direction of propagation. Readers may refer to Reference 18 for more information on performing
highway-related noise measurements.
Temperature effects can also contribute to sound refraction. During daytime weather conditions,
when the air is warmer closer to the ground (temperature decreases with height), sound waves
tend to refract upward away from the ground (temperature lapse). This may result in a decrease
in sound levels at a receiver. Conversely, when the air close to the ground cools during nighttime
weather conditions (temperature increases with height), sound waves tend to refract downward
towards the ground (temperature inversion). This may result in an increase in sound levels at a
receiver.ref.26 Generally, refraction effects due to temperature do not exert a substantial influence
on sound levels within 61 m (200 ft) of the roadway.ref.24
. Air turbulence: Although, its effects on sound levels are more unpredictable than other
atmospheric effects, in certain cases air turbulence has shown an even greater effect on noise
levels than atmospheric refraction within 122 m (400 ft) from a roadway. ref. 25 As stated earlier, it
is generally recommended that highway traffic noise measurements be performed when the
recorded wind speed is no greater than 5 mls to insure minimal effects of wind. Further,
measurements should not be performed in conditions where strong winds with small vector
components exist in the direction of propagation. Readers may refer to Reference 18 for more
information on performing highway-related noise measurements.
3.3.4 Shielding by Natural and Man-Made Structures.
In this section, shielding by structures, such as trees and buildings, will be discussed. The amount of
attenuation provided by these structures is determined by their size and density, and the frequencies of
the sound levels. Note that shielding by noise barriers will be discussed separately in Section 3.4.
Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only have an "out of sight, out of mind" effect.
That is, the perception of highway traffic noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the
httn' IluTUTUT"f fhUT<I rlAt CTAU I Anu;rAnrn Ant In,,; C'A/~ htrn
1 '1/1 '::l/'1()r\l:
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDE~ ~ONS
Page 7 of 20
line-of-sight to nearby residents (Le., "out of sight, out of mind"). However, for vegetation to provide a
substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 5 m (15 ft) in
height, 30 m (100 ft) wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line-of-sight between the
source and the receiver. This size of vegetation area may provide up to 5 dB(A) of noise reduction.
Taller, wider, and denser areas of vegetation may provide even greater noise reduction. The maximum
reduction that can be achieved is approximately 10 dB(A). ref. 5 and ref.23
Shielding by a building is similar to the shielding effects of a short (lengthwise) barrier. Building rows
can act as longer barriers keeping in mind that the gaps between buildings will leak sound through to
the receiver. Generally, assuming an at-grade building row with a building-to-gap ratio of 40 percent to
60 percent, the noise reduction due to this row is approximately 3 dB(A). Further, for each additional
building row, another 1.5 dB(A) noise reduction may be consideredtypical._ref.3 and ref.27 For situations
where the buildings in a building row occupy less than 20 percent of the row area, unless the receiver is
directly behind a building, minimal, or no, attenuation should be assumed. For situations where the
buildings in a building row occupy greater than 80 percent of the row area, it may be assumed that the
leakage of sound due to gaps is minimal. In this case, noise attenuation may be determined by treating
the building row as a noise barrier, which is discussed in Section 3.4.
3.4 Noise Barrier Basics
As shown in Figure 8, noise barriers reduce the sound which enters a community from a busy highway
by either absorbing it (see Section 3.4.1), transmitting it (see Section 3.4.2), reflecting it back across the
highway (see Section 3.5.4), or forcing it to take a longer path. This longer path is referred to as the
diffracted path.
~,
z....
..~
.'
Tn:1I21i.o:n.
Z.:>IC
Diffi"acted Path
----~
"
ShdlO 1ST
z."'"
SOUD:le
Rdl... Ill! II.
...,1.......... '.,
'1"lUI!Imi'tli!ll ..... .....~
Rece.aer
N o~e IJ IIIIier
Figure 8. Barrier absorption, transmission, reflection, and diffraction
Diffraction, or the bending of sound waves around an obstacle, can occur both at the top of the barrier
and around the ends. This bending occurs much like other wave phenomena, such as light and water
waves. Due to the nature of sound waves, diffraction does not bend all frequencies uniformly. Higher
frequencies (shorter wavelengths) are diffracted to a lesser degree; while lower frequencies (longer
wavelengths) are diffracted deeper into the "shadow" zone behind the barrier. As a result, a barrier is,
generally, more effective in attenuating the higher frequencies as compared with the lower frequencies
(see Figure 9).ref.18
httn:/ /wwwcf fhwa.dot. !!ov/ environmentlnoi ~e/1. htm
12/11/)00';
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER. IONS
Page 8 of 20
...
......
'"
...
.....~
Lo w-Fn 'l.-HI(!U5
N orUe BuIi.e:r
Figure 9. Barrier diffraction
An important aspect of diffraction is the path length difference (15) between the diffracted path from
source over the top of the barrier to the receiver, and the direct path from source to receiver as if the
barrier were not present (see Figure 10).
..7
Bocm...
Bocm...
N... BaIIi.a.
N... BaIIi.a.
Puk leJtp d:ifi!D:JtCe ( i)
= a + 110 -I::
Figure 10. Path length difference
The path length difference is used to compute the Fresnel Number (No)' which is a dimensionless value
used in predicting the attenuation provided by a noise barrier positioned between a source and a
receiver. The Fresnel Number is computed as follows:
NO = f:2(150/A) = f:2(f 150 Ic)
where: No is the Fresnel Number determined along the path defined by a particular source-barrier-
receiver geometry;
f: is positive in the case where the line of sight between the source and receiver is lower than the
diffraction point and negative when the line of sight is higher than the diffraction point (see Figure
httn'IIUlUl\1J('ffhUJ~ rl('\t arn,jpn";rr\nm..nt/nr\;""/~ ht,..,.,
1'" /1 ') I"'f\r\~
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER. IONS
10);ref.28
Page 9 of 20
(So is the path length difference determined along the path defined by a particular source-barrier-
receiver geometry;
A is the wavelength of the sound radiated by the source;
f is the frequency of the sound radiated by the source; and
c is the speed of sound.
Note the relationship between the variables in the above equation. If the path length difference
increases, the Fresnel number and, thus, barrier attenuation increases. If the frequency increases,
barrier attenuation increases as well. Figure 11 shows the relationship between barrier attenuation and
Fresnel Number for a frequency of 550 Hz. A 550 Hz frequency is considered fairly representative for
computing barrier attenuation of highway traffic noise.ref.29
-25
....... .ow
!
~ .1~
I .10
i
lEI -~
o
-1
.0.1
-0.01
FD!SJIl!!l N 1UIl1ler
0.01
ld
0.1
10
1'0
Figure 11. Barrier attenuation versus Fresnel Number
3.4.1 Barrier Absorption.
The amount of incident sound that a barrier absorbs is typically expressed in terms of its Noise
Reduction Coefficient (NRc). NRc is defined as the arithmetic average of the Sabine absorotion
coefficients, osab' at 250 Hz, 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, and 2000 Hz:
NRc = % x (0250 + 0500 + 01000 + 02000)
NRc values can range from zero to one; where zero indicates the barrier will reflect all the sound
incident upon it (see also Section 3.5.4.), and one indicates the barrier will absorb all the sound incident
upon it. A typical NRc for an absorptive barrier ranges from 0.6 to 0.9.ref.19
Measurements to determine the osab of a barrier facade
should be made in accordance with the ASTM
Recommended Practice c384 (Impedance Tube Method)
or c423 (Reverberation Room Method). The Impedance
Tube Method can be used to measure the sound
absorption of normal incident sound on a small sample of
httn' IlwwwC'.f fhUTl'I rl('\t on." 1 pn,,;rf"lnm ",nt Inf"l; ""'/? ht....
1 '1/1") 1'1n.n.~
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER. IONS
Page 10 of20
a material. ref. 15 and ref.30 The Reverberation Room
Method (see Figure 12)(note 2) is used to measure the
sound absorption of random incident sound on a larger
sample of a material. Most barrier manufacturers prefer to
use the Reverberation Room Method because of its lack
of constraints on sample size. However, for this Method,
the sample size chosen and method and angle of
mounting may have substantial effects on the determined
absorption coefficients. These concerns are further
addressed in Reference ~.
Figure 12.
Barrier absorption: Reverberation Room
Method
photo #2553
3.4.2 Barrier Sound Transmission.
The amount of incident sound that a barrier transmits can be described by its sound Transmission Loss
(TL). Measurements to determine a barrier's TL should be made in accordance with ASTM
Recommended Practice E413-87.ref.16 TL is determined as follows:
dB(A)
where: SPLs is the sound pressure level (see Section 3.1) on the source side of the barrier; and
SPLr is the sound pressure level on the receiver side of the barrier.
For highway noise barriers, any sound that is transmitted through the barrier can be effectively
neglected since it will be at such a low level relative to the diffracted sound, Le., the sound transmitted
will typically be at least 20 dB(A) below that which is diffracted. That is, if a sound level of 100 dB(A) is
incident upon a barrier and only 1 dB(A) is transmitted, Le, 1 percent of the incident sound's energy,
then a TL of 20 dB(A) is achieved.
As a rule of thumb, any material weighing 20 kg/m2 (4 Ibs/ft2) or more has a transmission loss of at
least 20 dB(A). Such material would be adequate for a noise reduction of at least 10 dB(A) due to
diffraction. Note that a weight of 20 kg/m2 (4 Ibs/ft2) can be attained by lighter and thicker, or heavier
and thinner materials. The greater the density of the material, the thinner the material may be. TL also
depends on the stiffness of the barrier material and frequency of the source. ref. 18
In most cases, the maximum noise reduction that can be achieved by a barrier is 20 dB(A) for thin walls
and 23 dB(A) for berms. Therefore, a material that has a TL of at least 25 dB(A) or greater is desired
and would always be adequate for a noise barrier. The following table gives approximate TL values for
some common materials, tested for typical A-weighted highway traffic frequency spectra. They may be
used as a rough guide in acoustical design of noise barriers. For accurate values, consult material test
reports by accredited laboratories.
Table 3. Approximate sound transmission loss values for common materials.
I Material I Thickness Weight Transmission Loss
kg/m2 (lbs/ft2) (dB(A))
mm (inches)
I Concrete Block, 200mm x II 200mm (8") II 151 (31) 1/34 I
httn' IlwwwC'.f fl1urll rl('\t o('\,,/pn,,;rnnmpnt/nn;,,,,,/':t ht.....
1...... /1 .., I......f\f\~
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER rONS
Page 11 of20
200mm x 405 (8" x 8" x 16") light I II II I
weight
Dense Concrete 100mm (4") 11244 (50) 1/40 I
Light Concrete 150mm (6") 11244 (50) 1139 I
Light Concrete j100mm (4") /1161 (33) 1/36 I
Steel, 18 ga 1/1.27mm (.0.050") 1/10 (2.00) 25
Steel, 20 ga II 0.95mm (0.0375") 7.3 (1.50) 22
Steel, 22 ga 0.79mm (0.0312") 6.1 (1.25) /20
Steel, 24 ga 0.64mm (0.025") 4.9 (1.00) 1/18
Aluminum, Sheet 1.59mm (0.0625") 4.4 (0.9) 1/23
Aluminum, Sheet 3.18mm (0.125") 18.8 (1.8) /125
Aluminum, Sheet 6.35mm (0.25") 17.1 (3.5) /27
I Wood, Fir 12mm (0.5") 8.3 (1.7) 18 I
I Wood, Fir 25mm (1.0") 116.1 (3.3) 21
I Wood, Fir 150mm (2.0") I 32.7 (6.7) 24
Plywood 12mm (0.5") 8.3 (1.7) 20
Plywood 25mm (1.0") 16.1 (3.3) 23
Glass, Safety 3.18mm (0.125") 7.8 (1.6) 22 I
Plexiglass 6mm (0.25") 7.3 (1.5) 22 I
The above table assumes no openings or gaps in the barrier material. Some materials, such as wood,
however, are prone to develop openings or gaps due to shrinkage, warping, splitting, or weathering.
Treatments to reduce/eliminate noise leakage for wood barrier systems are discussed in Section 5.4.1.
Noise leakage due to possible gaps in the horizontal joints between JJanels in a post and panel
"stacked panel" barrier system (see Section 4.1.2.1) should also be given careful consideration. Finally,
some barrier systems are designed with small openings at the base of the barrier to carry water, which
would otherwise pond on one side of the barrier, through the barrier. Two important consideration
associated with these openings are: (1) Ensure that the opening is small [the effect of a continuous gap
of up to 20 cm (7.8 in) at the base of a noise barrier is usually within 1 dB(A)], ref.32 and (2) Ensure that
proper protection in the form of grates or bars is provided to restrict entry by small animals (cats, small
dogs, etc.). Drainage considerations are also discussed in Section 7.1.2 and 7.1.3.
It should be noted that there are other ratings used to express a material's sound transmission
characteristics. One rating in common use is the Sound Transmission Class (STc). STc is a single-
number rating derived by fitting a reference rating curve to the TL values measured for the one-third
octave frequency bands between 125 Hz and 4000 Hz. The reference rating curve is fitted to the TL
values such that the sum of deficiencies (TL values less than the reference rating curve), does not
exceed 32 dB, and no single deficiency is greater than 8 dB. The STc value is the TL value of the
reference contour at 500 Hz. The disadvantage to using the STc rating scheme is that it is designed to
http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.!!ov/environment/noise/3.htm
1? 1111?()(),\
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER.. IONS
Page 12 of20
rate noise reductions in frequencies of normal speech and office areas, and not for the lower
frequencies of highway traffic noise. For frequencies of traffic noise, the STc is typically 5 to 10 dB(A)
greater than the TL and, thus, should only be used as rough guide.
3.5 Barrier-Design Acoustical Considerations
This section describes the various acoustical considerations involved in actual noise barrier design.
Non- acoustical design considerations will be discussed in Sections 4 to 13). The acoustical
considerations include:
. Barrier design goals and insertion 10ss(Section 3.5.1);
. Barrier length (Section 3.5.2);
. Wall versus berm (Section 3.5.3);
. Reflective versus absorptive (Section 3.5.4);
. Other miscellaneous design considerations (Section 3.5.Q).
3.5.1 Barrier Design Goals and Insertion Loss.
The first step in barrier design is to establish the design goals. Design goals may not be limited simply
to noise reduction at receivers, but may also include other considerations of safety and maintenance as
well. These other considerations are discussed later in Sections 4 through 13.
In this section, the acoustical design goals of noise reduction will be discussed. Acoustical design goals
are usually referred to in terms of barrier Insertion Loss (IL). IL is defined as the sound level at a given
receiver before the construction of a barrier minus the sound level at the same receiver after the
construction of the barrier. The construction of a noise barrier usually results in a partial loss of soft-
ground attenuation. This is due to the barrier forcing the sound to take a higher path relative to the
ground plane. Therefore, barrier IL is the net effect of barrier diffraction, combined with this partial loss
of soft-ground attenuation.
Typically, a 5-dB(A) IL can be expected for receivers whose line-of-sight to the roadway is just blocked
by the barrier. A general rule-of-thumb is that each additional 1 m of barrier height above line-of-sight
blockage will provide about 1.5 dB(A) of additional attenuation (see Figure 13).
~--------------------------
Line of Sight
Source Blockage = 5 dB(A)
11 m
t "EllChAddiuonal
~1 m 1 m Height = 1.5 dB(A)
t~____:=:~:_~::n"
Receiver
Noise Barrier
Figure 13. Line-of-sight
Properly-designed noise barriers should attain an IL approaching 10 dB(A), which is equivalent to a
perceived halving in loudness for the first row of homes directly behind the barrier. For those residents
not directly behind the barrier, a noise reduction of 3 to 5 dB(A) can typically be provided, which is just
slightly perceptible to the human ear. Table 4 shows the relationship between barrier IL and design
feasibility. ref. 1
httD:/ /wwwcf.fhwa.dot.Qov /environmentlnoi ~e/1. htm
1,., /1 ':t n(l(l,
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER. IONS
Page 13 of20
Table 4. Relationship between barrier insertion loss and design feasibility.
Barrier Insertion Design Reduction in Sound Relative Reduction in
Loss Feasibility Energy Loudness
15 dB(A) II Simple 1168% I Readily perceptible I
110 dB(A) II Attainable 1/90% Half as loud I
I 15dB(A) II Very difficult 1197% One-third as loud I
120 dB(A) I Nearly 199% II One-fourth as loud I
impossible
3.5.2 Barrier Length.
Noise barriers should be tall enough and long enough so that only a small portion of sound diffracts
around the edges. If a barrier is not long enough, degradations in barrier performance of up to 5 dB(A)
less than the barrier's design noise reduction may be seen for those receivers near the barrier ends. A
rule-of-thumb is that a barrier should be long enough such that the distance between a receiver and a
barrier end is at least four times the perpendicular distance from the receiver to the barrier along a line
drawn between the receiver and the roadway (see Figure 14). Another way of looking at this rule is that
the angle subtended from the receiver to a barrier end should be at least 80 degrees, as measured
from the perpendicular line from the receiver to the roadway.
Roadway
---------------------------------------------------
A
~
Noise
0(
j t
800 : D
....... ~:
'" n~
....,....... ~:
-'''11I
""',
>
,f\ ~80o
D i:\ .,.
.1... .............
v......
0( 4D
lI"III1"~
"..-
,...,,,
~III"'''III',,,
"""iII'"",,,
-......,....
'"
>
4D
Noise-Sensitive Receivers
Figure 14. Barrier length
Sometimes due to the community and roadway
geometry, there is not enough available area to
ensure a proper-length barrier. In those cases,
highway barrier designers may decide to construct
the barrier with the ends curved inward towards
the community (see Figure 15).
http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/3.htm
1 ? 11 ~/?OO"
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER. .IONS
Page 14 of20
Figure 15.
Barrier curved inward towards the community
photo #2617
3.5.3 Wall Versus Berm.
Highway noise barriers are typically characterized as a wall, a berm, or a combination of the two (see
Figure 16). There are advantages and disadvantages to each type. The considerations that are
examined in deciding whether to build a wall or a berm, include available area, materials, costs,
aesthetics, and community concerns. Acoustically, for a given site geometry and comparable barrier
height and length, a berm barrier will typically provide an extra 1 to 3 dB(A) of attenuation. Several
factors contribute to this increase. First, the flat top of a berm diffracts the sound waves twice, resulting
in a longer path-length difference, a larger Fresnel number, and, thus, more attenuation. Second, the
surface of a berm is, essentially, grass-covered acoustically soft earth with side slopes closer to the
sound path, which provides additional attenuation. However, because a berm is wider than a wall (thus,
requiring more land than a wall when constructed) and because the 1 to 3 dB(A) additional attenuation
is, at best, only barely perceptible to the human ear, a berm's acoustical advantage does not
necessarily guarantee its choice versus a wall.
WlillBau:ier
~
Beon. B au:ier
/
\
/'
~
~
CombiJaatioJl
B a.u:ier
Figure 16. Wall, berm and combination noise barriers
3.5.4 Reflective Versus Absorptive.
A barrier without any added absorptive treatment is by default reflective (see also Section 3.4. 1). A
reflective barrier on one side of the roadway can result in some sound energy being reflected back
httn. IIUJUTUJ{'f fln:u!Ol r1('\t o('\"lpn";rrmrru>nt/nn;C',,,J':l htn-.
1'1/1 ") 1'1n.r\~
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER. IONS
Page 15 of20
across the roadway to receivers on the opposite side (see Figure 17).
It is a common phenomenon for residents to perceive a difference in sound after a barrier is installed on
the opposite side of a roadway. Although theory indicates greater increases for a single reflection,
practical highway measurements commonly show not greater than a 1 to 2 dB(A) increase in sound
levels due to the sound reflected off the opposing barrier. While this increase may not be readily
perceptible, residents on the opposite side of the roadway may perceive a change in the quality of the
sound; the signature of the reflected sound may differ from that of the source due to a change in
frequency content upon reflection.
Reflect! d N we
Rece iller
N oue Barli.er
Road. way
Figure 17. Reflective noise paths due to a single barrier
Parallel barriers are two barriers which face each
other on opposite sides of a roadway (see Figure
18). Sound reflected between reflective parallel
barriers may cause degradations in each barrier's
performance due to multiple reflections that diffract
over the individual barriers. These degradations
may be from 2 to as much as 6 dB(A) (see Figure
19). ref.19 That is, a single barrier with an insertion
loss of 10 dB(A) may only realize an effective
reduction of 4 to 8 dB(A) if another barrier is
placed parallel to it on the opposite side of the
highway.
httn' Ilwwwc.f fhWll not (Jov 1 envir('\nm pnt In('\i c;,:p/1 htm
Figure 18.
Parallel noise barriers
photo #2968
1 ")/1 'l/'1{\Ot;.
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER. ~ONS
Page 16 of20
Noise Banier Roadway
Noise Banier
Figure 19. Reflective noise paths due to a parallel barrier
The problems caused by both single and parallel barriers can be minimized using one or a combination
of the following three methods:ref.19
. For parallel barriers, ensure that the distance between the two barriers is at least 10 times their
average height. A 10:1 width-to-height (w/h) ratio will result in an imperceptible degradation in
performance. In recent studies, it was determined that as the wlh ratio increases, the insertion
loss degradation decreases. ref. 24 and ref.33 This decrease can be attributed to: (1) the decrease in
the number of reflections between the barriers; and (2) the weakening of the reflections due to
geometrical spreading and atmospheric absorption. Table 5 provides a guideline of three, general
wlh ratio ranges and the corresponding barrier insertion-loss degradation (all) that can be
expected.
Table 5. Guideline for categorizing parallel barrier sites based on the w/h ratio.
I wlh Ratio II Maximum ~Il in dB(A) Recommendation I
I Less than 10:1 113 or greater Action required to minimize
degradation.
110:1 to 20:1 /I 0 to 3 At most, degradation barely
perceptible; no action required in most
instances.
I Greater than 20: 1 I No measurable No action required. I
degradation
. Apply sound absorptive material on either one or both barrier facades. See also Section 3.4.1.
The decision to add a sound absorptive surface should be determined by weighing benefit versus
cost. That is, what noise abatement benefits can be achieved for how many residents versus the
costs of the application and maintenance of the absorptive treatments?
The answer is most important since the typical costs of noise absorptive material, whether
integrated with the noise barrier at the time of barrier construction, or as a retrofit later on after
,the barrier is constructed, is usually $75 to $118/m2 ($7 to $111ft2). Using an average cost of
$97/m2 ($91ft2) for example, for a 3.6-m (12 ft) high barrier, this would translate into an additional
httn.IIUJUTUJrffln:ml rl('\t o('\"lpn";r("\nmpnt/n("\;"p/~ htm
1 '1/1 '::l/'1f\f\&:.
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDERJ ~ONS
Page 17 of20
$0.4 millionlkm ($0.6 million/mi) in costs. ref.24 , ref.34 . ref.35 , ref.36 and ref.37
· Tilt one or both of the barriers outward away from the road. Previous research has shown that an
angle as small as 7 degrees is effective at minimizing degradations. ref. 33 This solution, however,
must consider locations higher than the opposite barrier because they may be adversely affected
by the reflected sound.
3.5.5 Other Unique Design Considerations.
3.5.5.1 Overlapping Barriers.
Barriers which overlap each other (see Figure 20)
are usually constructed to allow access gaps for
maintenance, safety, and pedestrian purposes
(see Section 9.4.1). A general rule-of-thumb is that
the ratio between overlap distance and gap width
should be at least 4: 1 to ensure negligible
degradation of barrier performance (see Figures
21). If a 4:1 ratio is not feasible, then consideration
should be given to the application of absorptive
material (see Section 3.4. 1) on the barrier surfaces
within the gap area.
Roadwa.y
Figure 20.
Example of overlapping barriers
photo #5902
--------------------------------------------------------.
A Overl ap Ga.p
D Between Noise
'f Barners
<
4D
>
Figure 21. Overlapping barriers
3.5.5.2 "Zig-zag" Barriers.
A barrier using concrete panels arranged in a "zig-
zag-like" or "trapezoidal" configuration (see
Section 4.1.2.3.1) is advantageous because it is
structurally sound without the use of a foundation.
This type of barrier can also be visually pleasing to
mototists because it provides variation in form (see
http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/3.htm
1,)/1':lf")()(),
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDE~ iONS
Figure 22). It does not, however, have any
substantial additional sound attenuation benefits.
3.5.5.3 Tops of Barriers.
There has been limited research into varying the
shape of the top of a barrier (see Figure 23 and
24) for the purpose of shortening barrier heights
and possibly attaining the attenuation
characteristic of a taller barrier. The technical
rationale is that additional attenuation can be
attained by increasing the number of diffractions
occurring at the top of the barrier. Shorter barrier
heights could improve the aesthetic impact on
communities and motorists by preserving more of
the view. ref.18 and ref.38
Page 18 of20
Figure 22.
"Zig-zag" barrier
photo #8057
1 TIT
Convertional T -Profle Y-P rofile .ArrowProfiIe
! 1 }
C'yTllindrical Pear-Shape Curved Hnadner
(F rontal Vi e~
Figure 23.
Special acoustical considerations:
tops of barriers
Studies have shown that a T-profile top barrier (see Figure 25) provides insertion losses comparable to
a conventional top barrier when the difference in their heights is equal to the width of the T-profile top.
When the two barriers are the same height, the T -profile top barrier has been shown to provide an
additional 2.5 dB(A) insertion loss over the conventional top barrier. Y- and arrow-profile tops also
performed better than conventional tops, however, to a lesser degree than the T- profile tops. ref. 39 and
refAO Cylindrical, pear-shape, curved, and Thnadner top barriers have not shown substantial benefits,
unless an absorptive treatment was incorporated into the barrier tops. ref A 1 and ref.42
httD:/ /wwwcf.tbwa.dot.p"ov/environment /noi ~e/1 htm
1 '1/1 ':2/'100"
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER. iONS
Figure 24. Special top of barrier
photo #2395
Page 19 of20
Figure 25. T -profile top barrier
photo #1312
Although there are some acoustical and aesthetic benefits associated with special barrier tops, the cost
of constructing these shapes typically outweigh the cost of simply increasing the barrier's height to
accomplish the same acoustic benefit. ref.43
Section Summary
Acoustical considerations for all noise barriers.
Iltem#j I Sub-Topic II I See
Main Topic Consideration Also
Section
[:J Atmospheric Atmospheric Field measurements should not be performed when 3.3.1
Effects Absorption, wind speeds are greater than 5 mIs, or when strong 14.1.2.1
Refraction, winds with small vector components exist in the 15.1.2
Turbulence direction of propagation.
3-2 Barrier Barrier Barrier panel materials should weigh 20 kg/m2 or EJ
Design Sound more for a transmission loss of at least 20 dB(A).
Goals Transmission
Barrier Ensure barrier height and length are such that only a 1352 I
Length small portion of sound diffracts around the edges
Wallvs. A berm requires more surface area, but provides 1 to 1353 I
Berm 3 dB(A) additional attenuation versus a wall.
Reflective vs. Communities may perceive sound level increases 3.5.4
Absorptive due to reflections. Sound reflected between parallel
barriers may cause degradations in each barrier's
performance from 2 to as much as 6 dB(A), but in
most practical situations, the degradation is smaller.
Overlapping Ensure the ratio between overlap distance and gap ~
Barriers width (between barriers) is at least 4:1.
Special Tops The cost of constructing these special shapes 135.53 I
for Barriers typically outweigh the cost of simply increasing the
barrier's height to accomplish the same acoustic
htto:/ /wwwcf.fhwa.dot.Qov/environment /noi ~f>.n, htm
1'1/1 ") /'1n.n.~
3. ACOUSTICAL CONSIDER IONS
Page 20 of 20
ILII
II
/I benefit.
II
II
httn:/ /wwwcffhwa.dotQov/envimnm entJnoi ~e/i. htm
1 ? /11/?OO"
. .
~ Cuschieri
Acaustics and Viblation Consultant
2398 NW 38th Street
Boca Raton, Florida, 33431
TEL: 561 2897091
FAX: 561 852 1784
November 17, 2005
Mark Paulino
EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT, LLC
4036 Mesa Drive
Boynton Beach, FL 33436
mpaulino@prodiav.net
Re: Boynton Beach Car Wash Facility
Dear Mr. Paulino:
This letter is to report on the findings of the sound level analysis performed for the proposed
site of the Car Wash facility on Congress Avenue north of SW 30Ui Avenue in Boynton Beach,
Florida. Provided in this letter are the measured sound pressure levels at the property and in
the residential community just north of the proposed site, and estimates of the anticipated
sound levels due to the operation of the car wash facility. Also provided are comparisons of the
anticipated sound levels due to the operation of the car wash facility to the measured
background ambient sound levels and to the permissible noise levels by the City of Boynton
Beach Noise Control Ordinance and the City of Boynton Beach Sound Control Ordinance.
The proposed car wash facility site is located along the east side of Congress Avenue north of
SW 30Ui Avenue. The proposed carwash site north property line is common to another area
zoned industrial and approximately 200 feet from the south property line of the residential
properties to the north of the site. The site ambient background sound levels has contributions
from traffic noise on Congress Avenue and when traffic is light on Congress Avenue,
contributions from the noise from 1-95 traffic. The anticipated major sources of noise from the
car wash facility, not including the contribution from additional traffic, are the blower fans at the
exit of the car wash building and the vacuum stations on the east of the car wash building. The
blower fans and the car wash building opening closest to the blower fans are approximately 55
feet from the site property line and approximately 255 feet from the residential property line to
the north. The closest VAC unit is approximately the same distances, 55 feet and 255 feet
from the site property line and the residential property line respectively. In between the
proposed car wash site and the residential properties to the north is a vacant lot, which if a
building is placed on this lot will act as a sound barrier and it will mitigate the sound transmitted
from the car wash operation to the residential properties.
To characterize the noise levels at the proposed car wash facility, sound level measurements
were performed at two locations, one within the proposed car wash site property and one along
the south property line of the residential properties north of the proposed car wash facility site.
The sound level measurements were performed on a Saturday morning between 9:00 am and
11 :00 am, as this would be considered the most quiet time with regards to noise from traffic on
Congress Avenue and 1-95. The noise levels at the proposed car wash site and at the
. Page 2 of 4 November 17, 2005
residential properties to the north of the proposed site would be expected to be higher on a
weekday due to the increased traffic volume on Congress Avenue and 1-95. The measured
sound pressure levels, A-weighted to compensate for the response of the human hearing and
to be consistent with the City of Boynton Beach Noise Control Ordinance are tabulated in Table
I.
Table 1
L 10 and Lmax Sound Pressure Levels in dBA reference 20 IJPa
Proposed Car Wash Facility South Property line of
Site North property line Residential properties north
of proP( sed site
L10 Maximum L10 Maximum
Level (Lmax) Level (Lmax)
Background Ambient 53-62 65 55 - 61 65
Vac Units* 59-65 59-65 46 - 52 46 - 52
Blower Units* 78 78 69 69
Blower Units within 69 69 59 59
Car Wash building*
*The Lmax and L 10 levels from the V AC units and blowers are the same as it is assumed they
operate continuously.
As can be observed from the above table, the typical ambient background L 10 sound levels at
the proposed car wash site are on the order of 53 to 62 dBA with maximum levels of 65 dBA.
The typical ambient background L 10 sound levels along the south property line of the
residential properties just north of the proposed car wash site across from the L-28 Canal are
on the order of 56 to 61 dBA with maximum levels of 65 dBA. These L 10 measurements were
influenced by noise from traffic on Congress Avenue and when the traffic noise from Congress
Avenue subsided, noise from 1-95 traffic was clearly audible.
The anticipated L 10 sound levels from the operation of the V AC units at the property line of the
car wash site, using the data provided by the manufacturer, are on the order of 59 dBA to 65
dBA. At the residential property line the anticipated L 10 levels from the operation of the V AC
units is on the order of 46 dBA to 52 dBA which are below the background ambient L 10 sound
levels. The anticipated L 10 sound levels from the operation of the blower units at the property
line of the car wash site, using the sound level data provided by the manufacturer for the
blower units when free standing, that is without the mitigation provided by the enclosing car
wash building are on the order of 78 dBA. At the residential property line the anticipated L 10
levels from the operation of the blower units based on the manufacturer data is on the order of
69 dBA. Taking into account the shielding provided by the car wash building housing the
blowers, the anticipated L 10 sound levels at the property line of the proposed car wash site, are
on the order of 69 dBA. This is consistent with file data available for other similar car wash
facilities. At the residential property line the anticipated L 10 sound levels are on the order of 59
dBA which are comparable to those of the background ambient L 10 sound levels. Using the
attached chart at the end of this report, one can compare the anticipated sound levels from the
proposed car wash facility to typical daily activities. The anticipated sound levels of 59 dBA at
residential properties to the north of the proposed site are comparable to those of normal
speech or the noise levels in a busy office.
. Page 3 of 4 November 17, 2005
The anticipated L 10 sound levels provided here at the residential properties do not take into
account the added shielding that would be provided by a possible future building located on the
vacant industrial zoned lot just north of the proposed car wash facility site. With the minimal of
shielding the anticipated L 10 sound levels from the operation of the proposed car wash along
the residential properties' property line would be below those of the background ambient.
The City of Boynton Beach Noise Control Ordinance and the City of Boynton Beach Sound
Control Ordinance specify the maximum permissible L 10 sound levels that can be generated
on commercial land use and transmitted to receiving residential land use areas. The
permissible sound levels that cannot be exceeded 10% of the time (L 10) for residential
receiving land use are 60 dBA during daytime hours, that is during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m., and 55 dBA during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Furthermore,
maximum sound levels cannot exceed the L 10 levels by more than 10 dB during daytime hours
and more than 5 dB during nighttime hours. The maximum permissible L 10 sound level on
commercial property for all times is 65 dBA. Additionally, any sound that is plainly audible
beyond a distance of 100 feet from the property line of a commercial zoning district from which
the sound is emanating and is heard in a residential zoning district is considered a sound
disturbance.
At the property line of the receiving residential properties to the north of the proposed site the
anticipated L 10 sound levels from the V AC units and the blower units (when considered inside
the car wash building) are within the daytime permissible levels. The noise generated by the
operation of the car wash facility would be within the permissible limits of the City of Boynton
Beach Noise Control Ordinance north of the residential properties property line provided the
operation of the car wash facility is limited to daytime hours, 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. The
residential properties are more than 100 feet from the north property line of the proposed car
wash facility and at the property line the noise from the proposed car wash facility is at or below
ambient.
In summary, the environmental noise impact from the operation of the proposed car wash
facility on Congress Avenue north of SW 30th Avenue in Boynton Beach, Florida, is anticipated
to be insignificant at the residential properties to the north of the proposed site. The noise from
the facility is below that permissible by the City of Boynton Beach noise ordinance and
comparable to the existing background ambient sound levels. The noise levels at the
residential properties would be expected to be further reduced once the vacant site to the north
of the proposed car wash site would be developed and built.
Please review this information and if you have questions do not hesitate to contact me.
~
J uschieri, P.E. Ph.D.
Acoustical Consultant
C.C.: Bradley D. Miller, AICP, MILLER LAND PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
. Page 4 of4
November 17, 2005
Sound Pressure Level
140 dB Threshold of Pain
~
80
Average Street Traffic
~
20
o Threshold of Hearing
MILLER
LAND
PLANNING
CONSULTANTS, INC.
420 W. BOYTNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, #201
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33435
PHONE . 561/736-8838
FAX . 561/736~79
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date: November 18, 2005
To:
Ed Breese
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PLANNING & ZONING DEPT.
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
Subject:
RAPIDO RABBIT CAR WASH -
SITE PLAN & CONDo USE
We are providing:
I!I Attached
o Under Separate Cover
Via:
o US Mail
I!I Courier IHand Delivery
o Overnight Delivery
o Pick Up
The following:
Copies Date Description
1 Noise study
These are being transmitted as check below:
I!I For your use 0 As requested
o For your reference & file 0
o For your review & comment
Other as indicated below
Remarks:
Attached for your review is the noise study. The color renderings will be delivered to your
office Monday morning (11.21.05). Please let me know if you need anything else.
cc:
From: Nicole R. Simpson
.
J~ (Q/l}/ JtrE ~ f~"/)
n€YU. I/€ WIU- MAtt- M~~I
~.ttf 'aKU~ ~S~
I/A-t-UUMJ ItS w~ ~ ~ .,-
71rm tF oIb'.6 UJe I~ /.Jts~-
~ttnA. ~ 11/2.:; @ ~: 24- 71J
I/EUP8 A'X)/) JI-e $kfJ) rr ~
I I
(;;,{) ovr IN f7t4bk!J!} M..1Wt-. ~
(
Joe Cuschieri
Acaustics and Vibration Consultant
2398 NW 38t/l Street
Boca Raton, Florida, 33431
TEL: 561 289 7091
FAX: 5618521784
November 17, 2005
Mark Paulino
EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT, LLC
4036 Artesa Drive
Boynton Beach, FL 33436
mpaulino@prodiav.net
Re: Boynton Beach Car Wash Facility
Dear Mr. Paulino:
This letter is to report on the findings of the sound level analysis performed for the proposed
site of the Car Wash facility on Congress Avenue north of SW 30th Avenue in Boynton Beach,
Florida. Provided in this letter are the measured sound pressure levels at the property and in
the residential community just north of the proposed site, and estimates of the anticipated
sound levels due to the operation of the car wash facility. Also provided are comparisons of the
anticipated sound levels due to the operation of the car wash facility to the measured
background ambient sound levels and to the permissible noise levels by the City of Boynton
Beach Noise Control Ordinance and the City of Boynton Beach Sound Control Ordinance.
The proposed car wash facility site is located along the east side of Congress Avenue north of
SW 30th Avenue. The proposed carwash site north property line is common to another area
zoned industrial and approximately 200 feet from the south property line of the residential
properties to the north of the site. The site ambient background sound levels has contributions
from traffic noise on Congress Avenue and when traffic is light on Congress Avenue,
contributions from the noise from 1-95 traffic. The anticipated major sources of noise from the
car wash facility, not including the contribution from additional traffic, are the blower fans at the
exit of the car wash building and the vacuum stations on the east of the car wash building. The
blower fans and the car wash building opening closest to the blower fans are approximately 55
feet from the site property line and approximately 255 feet from the residential property line to
the north. The closest V AC unit is approximately the same distances, 55 feet and 255 feet
from the site property line and the residential property line respectively. In between the
proposed car wash site and the residential properties to the north is a vacant lot, which if a
building is placed on this lot will act as a sound barrier and it will mitigate the sound transmitted
from the car wash operation to the residential properties.
To characterize the noise levels at the proposed car wash facility, sound level measurements
were performed at two locations, one within the proposed car wash site property and one along
the south property line of the residential properties north of the proposed car wash facility site.
The sound level measurements were performed on a Saturday morning between 9:00 am and
11 :00 am, as this would be considered the most quiet time with regards to noise from traffic on
Congress Avenue and 1-95. The noise levels at the proposed car wash site and at the
. Page 2 of4 November 17,2005
residential properties to the north of the proposed site would be expected to be higher on a
weekday due to the increased traffic volume on Congress Avenue and 1-95. The measured
sound pressure levels, A-weighted to compensate for the response of the human hearing and
to be consistent with the City of Boynton Beach Noise Control Ordinance are tabulated in Table
I.
Table 1
l10 and lmax Sound Pressure levels in dBA reference 20 IJPa
Proposed Car Wash Facility South Property line of
Site North property line Residential properties north
of pro . site
l10 Maximum l10 Maximum
level (lmax) level (Lmax)
Background Ambient 53-62 65 55 - 61 65
Vac Units* 59-65 59-65 46-52 46 - 52
Blower Units* 78 78 69 69
Blower Units within 69 69 59 59
Car Wash building*
*The Lmax and L 10 levels from the V AC units and blowers are the same as it is assumed they
operate continuously.
As can be observed from the above table, the typical ambient background L 10 sound levels at
the proposed car wash site are on the order of 53 to 62 dBA with maximum levels of 65 dBA
The typical ambient background L 10 sound levels along the south property line of the
residential properties just north of the proposed car wash site across from the L-28 Canal are
on the order of 56 to 61 dBA with maximum levels of 65 dBA These L 10 measurements were
influenced by noise from traffic on Congress Avenue and when the traffic noise from Congress
Avenue subsided, noise from 1-95 traffic was clearly audible.
The anticipated L 10 sound levels from the operation of the V AC units at the property line of the
car wash site, using the data provided by the manufacturer, are on the order of 59 dBA to 65
dBA At the residential property line the anticipated L 10 levels from the operation of the VAC
units is on the order of 46 dBA to 52 dBA which are below the background ambient L 10 sound
levels. The anticipated L 10 sound levels from the operation of the blower units at the property
line of the car wash site, using the sound level data provided by the manufacturer for the
blower units when free standing, that is without the mitigation provided by the enclosing car
wash building are on the order of 78 dBA At the residential property line the anticipated L 10
levels from the operation of the blower units based on the manufacturer data is on the order of
69 dBA Taking into account the shielding provided by the car wash building housing the
blowers, the anticipated L 10 sound levels at the property line of the proposed car wash site, are
on the order of 69 dBA This is consistent with file data available for other similar car wash
facilities. At the residential property line the anticipated L 10 sound levels are on the order of 59
dBA which are comparable to those of the background ambient L 10 sound levels. Using the
attached chart at the end of this report, one can compare the anticipated sound levels from the
proposed car wash facility to typical daily activities. The anticipated sound levels of 59 dBA at
residential properties to the north of the proposed site are comparable to those of normal
speech or the noise levels in a busy office.
. Page 3 of 4 November 17, 2005
The anticipated L 10 sound levels provided here at the residential properties do not take into
account the added shielding that would be provided by a possible future building located on the
vacant industrial zoned lot just north of the proposed car wash facility site. With the minimal of
shielding the anticipated L 10 sound levels from the operation of the proposed car wash along
the residential properties' property line would be below those of the background ambient.
The City of Boynton Beach Noise Control Ordinance and the City of Boynton Beach Sound
Control Ordinance specify the maximum permissible L 10 sound levels that can be generated
on commercial land use and transmitted to receiving residential land use areas. The
permissible sound levels that cannot be exceeded 10% of the time (L10) for residential
receiving land use are 60 dBA during daytime hours, that is during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m., and 55 dBA during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Furthermore,
maximum sound levels cannot exceed the L 10 levels by more than 10 dB during daytime hours
and more than 5 dB during nighttime hours. The maximum permissible L 10 sound level on
commercial property for all times is 65 dBA. Additionally, any sound that is plainly audible
beyond a distance of 100 feet from the property line of a commercial zoning district from which
the sound is emanating and is heard in a residential zoning district is considered a sound
disturbance.
At the property line of the receiving residential properties to the north of the proposed site the
anticipated L 10 sound levels from the V AC units and the blower units (when considered inside
the car wash building) are within the daytime permissible levels. The noise generated by the
operation of the car wash facility would be within the permissible limits of the City of Boynton
Beach Noise Control Ordinance north of the residential properties property line provided the
operation of the car wash facility is limited to daytime hours, 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. The
residential properties are more than 100 feet from the north property line of the proposed car
wash facility and at the property line the noise from the proposed car wash facility is at or below
ambient.
In summary, the environmental noise impact from the operation of the proposed car wash
facility on Congress Avenue north of SW 30th Avenue in Boynton Beach, Florida, is anticipated
to be insignificant at the residential properties to the north of the proposed site. The noise from
the facility is below that permissible by the City of Boynton Beach noise ordinance and
comparable to the existing background ambient sound levels. The noise levels at the
residential properties would be expected to be further reduced once the vacant site to the north
of the proposed car wash site would be developed and built.
Please review this information and if you have questions do not hesitate to contact me.
~
Jo uschieri, P.E. Ph.D.
Acoustical Consultant
C.C.: Bradley D. Miller, AICP, MILLER LAND PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
November 17,2005
Sound Pressure Level
140 dB Threshold of Pain
. Page 4 of4
~
o Threshold of Hearing
MILLER
LAND
PLANNING
CONSULTANTS, INC.
420 W. BOYTNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, #201
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33435
PHONE . 561/736-8838
FAX . 561/736~79
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
/'r1X>1 T7 ~
~~ tAJ(o
(Pt U e;1\J Ct n1
CduM, {Z( ~I ()5
Date: November 18, 2005
To:
Ed Breese
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PLANNING & ZONING DEPT.
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
Sub'ect:
RAPIDO RABBIT CAR WASH -
SITE PLAN & CONDo USE
We are providing:
~ Attached
o Under Separate Cover
Via:
o US Mail
~ Courier/Hand Delivery
o Overnight Delivery
o Pick Up
Th f II
e oowna:
Cooles Date Description
1 Noise studv
These are being transmitted as check below:
~ For your use 0 As requested
o For your reference & file 0
o For your review & comment
Other as indicated below
Remarks:
Attached for your review is the noise study. The color renderings will be delivered to your
office Monday morning (11.21.05). Please let me know if you need anything else.
cc:
From: Nicole R. Simpson
.
Joe CUschieri
Acoustics cnI Vbation ConsuIta1t
2398 NW 38th Street
Boca Raton, Florida, 33431
TEL: 561 289 7091
FAX: 5618521784
November 17, 2005
Mark Paulino
EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT, LLC
4036 Artesa Drive
Boynton Beach, FL 33436
mpaulino(6).prodiav. net
Re: Boynton Beach Car Wash Facility
Dear Mr. Paulino:
This letter is to report on the findings of the sound level analysis performed for the proposed
site of the Car Wash facility on Congress Avenue north of SW 30th Avenue in Boynton Beach,
Florida. Provided in this letter are the measured sound pressure levels at the property and in
the residential community just north of the proposed site, and estimates of the anticipated
sound levels due to the operation of the car wash facility. Also provided are comparisons of the
anticipated sound levels due to the operation of the car wash facility to the measured
background ambient sound levels and to the permissible noise levels by the City of Boynton
Beach Noise Control Ordinance and the City of Boynton Beach Sound Control Ordinance.
The proposed car wash facility site is located along the east side of Congress Avenue north of
SW 30th Avenue. The proposed carwash site north property line is common to another area
zoned industrial and approximately 200 feet from the south property line of the residential
properties to the north of the site. The site ambient background sound levels has contributions
from traffic noise on Congress Avenue and when traffic is light on Congress Avenue,
contributions from the noise from 1-95 traffic. The anticipated major sources of noise from the
car wash facility, not induding the contribution from additional traffic, are the blower fans at the
exit of the car wash building and the vacuum stations on the east of the car wash building. The
blower fans and the car wash building opening closest to the blower fans are approximately 55
feet from the site property line and approximately 255 feet from the residential property line to
the north. The closest V AC unit is approximately the same distances, 55 feet and 255 feet
from the site property line and the residential property line respectively. In between the
proposed car wash site and the residential properties to the north is a vacant lot, which if a
building is placed on this lot will act as a sound barrier and it will mitigate the sound transmitted
from the car wash operation to the residential properties.
To characterize the noise levels at the proposed car wash facility, sound level measurements
were performed at two locations, one within the proposed car wash site property and one along
the south property line of the residential properties north of the proposed car wash facility site.
The sound level measurements were performed on a Saturday moming between 9:00 am and
11 :00 am, as this would be considered the most quiet time with regards to noise from traffic on
Congress Avenue and 1-95. The noise levels at the proposed car wash site and at the
. Page 2 of 4 November 17, 2005
residential properties to the north of the proposed site would be expected to be higher on a
weekday due to the increased traffic volume on Congress Avenue and 1-95. The measured
sound pressure levels, A-weighted to compensate for the response of the human hearing and
to be consistent with the City of Boynton Beach Noise Control Ordinance are tabulated in Table
I.
Table 1
L 10 and Lmax Sound Pressure Levels in dBA reference 20 IJPa
Proposed Car Wash Facility South Property line of
Site North property line Residential properties north
of -" site
L10 Maximum L10 Maximum
Level (Lmax) Level (Lmax)
Backaround Ambient 53-62 65 55 - 61 65
Vac Units* 59 - 65 59-65 46 - 52 46 - 52
Blower Units* 78 78 69 69
Blower Units within 69 69 59 59
Car Wash buildina*
*The Lmax and L 10 levels from the V AC units and blowers are the same as it is assumed they
operate continuously.
As can be observed from the above table, the typical ambient background L 10 sound levels at
the proposed car wash site are on the order of 53 to 62 dBA with maximum levels of 65 dBA.
The typical ambient background L 10 sound levels along the south property line of the
residential properties just north of the proposed car wash site across from the L-28 Canal are
on the order of 56 to 61 dBA with maximum levels of 65 dBA. These L 10 measurements were
influenced by noise from traffic on Congress Avenue and when the traffic noise from Congress
Avenue subsided, noise from 1-95 traffic was clearly audible.
The anticipated L 10 sound levels from the operation of the V AC units at the property line of the
car wash site, using the data provided by the manufacturer, are on the order of 59 dBA to 65
dBA. At the residential property line the anticipated L 10 levels from the operation of the VAC
units is on the order of 46 dBA to 52 dBA which are below the background ambient L 10 sound
levels. The anticipated L 10 sound levels from the operation of the blower units at the property
line of the car wash site, using the sound level data provided by the manufacturer for the
blower units when free standing, that is without the mitigation provided by the enclosing car
wash building are on the order of 78 dBA. At the residential property line the anticipated L 10
levels from the operation of the blower units based on the manufacturer data is on the order of
69 dBA. Taking into account the shielding provided by the car wash building housing the
blowers, the anticipated L 10 sound levels at the property line of the proposed car wash site, are
on the order of 69 dBA. This is consistent with file data available for other similar car wash
facilities. At the residential property line the anticipated L 10 sound levels are on the order of 59
dBA which are comparable to those of the background ambient L 10 sound levels. Using the
attached chart at the end of this report, one can compare the anticipated sound levels from the
proposed car wash facility to typical daily activities. The anticipated sound levels of 59 dBA at
residential properties to the north of the proposed site are comparable to those of normal
speech or the noise levels in a busy office.
. Page 3 of 4 November 17, 2005
The anticipated L 10 sound levels provided here at the residential properties do not take into
account the added shielding that would be provided by a possible future building located on the
vacant industrial zoned lot just north of the proposed car wash facility site. With the minimal of
shielding the anticipated L 10 sound levels from the operation of the proposed car wash along
the residential properties' property line would be below those of the background ambient.
The City of Boynton Beach Noise Control Ordinance and the City of Boynton Beach Sound
Control Ordinance specify the maximum permissible L 10 sound levels that can be generated
on commercial land use and transmitted to receiving residential land use areas. The
permissible sound levels that cannot be exceeded 10% of the time (L 10) for residential
receiving land use are 60 dBA during daytime hours, that is during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m., and 55 dBA during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Furthermore,
maximum sound levels cannot exceed the L 10 levels by more than 10 dB during daytime hours
and more than 5 dB during nighttime hours. The maximum permissible L 10 sound level on
commercial property for all times is 65 dBA. Additionally, any sound that is plainly audible
beyond a distance of 100 feet from the property line of a commercial zoning district from which
the sound is emanating and is heard in a residential zoning district is considered a sound
disturbance.
At the property line of the receiving residential properties to the north of the proposed site the
anticipated L 10 sound levels from the V AC units and the blower units (when considered inside
the car wash building) are within the daytime permissible levels. The noise generated by the
operation of the car wash facility would be within the permissible limits of the City of Boynton
Beach Noise Control Ordinance north of the residential properties property line provided the
operation of the car wash facility is limited to daytime hours, 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. The
residential properties are more than 100 feet from the north property line of the proposed car
wash facility and at the property line the noise from the proposed car wash facility is at or below
ambient.
In summary, the environmental noise impact from the operation of the proposed car wash
facility on Congress Avenue north of SW 30th Avenue in Boynton Beach, Florida, is anticipated
to be insignificant at the residential properties to the north of the proposed site. The noise from
the facility is below that permissible by the City of Boynton Beach noise ordinance and
comparable to the existing background ambient sound levels. The noise levels at the
residential properties would be expected to be further reduced once the vacant site to the north
of the proposed car wash site would be developed and built.
Please review this information and if you have questions do not hesitate to contact me.
J uSchieri, P.E. Ph.D.
Acoustical Consultant
C.C.: Bradley D. Miller, AICP, MILLER LAND PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
. Page 4 of4
November 17, 2005
Sound Pressure Level
140 dB Threshold of Pain
130
>
120
110
.
~ 90'
~
80
Average Street Traffic
100000
~
20
o Threshold of Hearing
MILLER
LAND
PLANNING
CONSULTANTS, INC.
420 W. BOYTNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, #201
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33435
PHONE . 561 /736-8838
FAX. 561/736-8079
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date: November 18, 2005
To:
I Ed Breese-
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PLANNING & ZONING DEPT.
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
Su~ct: __
RAPIDO RABBIT CAR WASH-
SITE PLAN & CONDo USE
We are providing: [!] Attached
o Under Separate Cover
Via: 0 US Mail
[!] Courier IHand Delivery
o Overnight Delivery
o Pick Up
The following:
,
Copies Date Description
1 Noise stud
~= - --=
These are being transmitted as check below:
[!] For your use 0 As requested 0 For your review & comment
o For your reference & file 0 Other as indicated below
Remarks:
---_.._~--_.~ -_.~_.~-_.
'I Attached for your review is the noise study. The color renderings will be delivered to your
office Monday morning (11.21.05). Please let me know if you need anything else.
I
I
l_
cc:
From: Nicole R. Simpson
.
'-00
'"
'<.."
Joe Cusct- -
IIeI1
Acoustics and Vtb.ation Consultant
2398 NW 38111 Street
Boca Raton, Florida, 33431
TEL: 561 289 7091
FAX: 561 8521784
November 17, 2005
Mark Paulino
EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT, LLC
4036 Artesa Drive
Boynton Beach, FL 33436
mpaulino(Q>.prodiav. net
Re: Boynton Beach Car Wash Facility
Dear Mr. Paulino:
This letter is to report on the findings of the sound level analysis performed for the proposed
site of the Car Wash facility on Congress Avenue north of SW 30th Avenue in Boynton Beach,
Florida. Provided in this letter are the measured sound pressure levels at the property and in
the residential community just north of the proposed site, and estimates of the anticipated
sound levels due to the operation of the car wash facility. Also provided are comparisons of the
anticipated sound levels due to the operation of the car wash facility to the measured
background ambient sound levels and to the permissible noise levels by the City of Boynton
Beach Noise Control Ordinance and the City of Boynton Beach Sound Control Ordinance.
The proposed car wash facility site is located along the east side of Congress Avenue north of
SW 30th Avenue. The proposed carwash site north property line is common to another area
zoned industrial and approximately 200 feet from the south property line of the residential
properties to the north of the site. The site ambient background sound levels has contributions
from traffic noise on Congress Avenue and when traffic is light on Congress Avenue,
contributions from the noise from 1-95 traffic. The anticipated major sources of noise from the
car wash facility, not including the contribution from additional traffic, are the blower fans at the
exit of the car wash building and the vacuum stations on the east of the car wash building. The
blower fans and the car wash building opening closest to the blower fans are approximately 55
feet from the site property line and approximately 255 feet from the residential property line to
the north. The closest VAC unit is approximately the same distances, 55 feet and 255 feet
from the site property line and the residential property line respectively. In between the
proposed car wash site and the residential properties to the north is a vacant lot, which if a
building is placed on this lot will act as a sound barrier and it will mitigate the sound transmitted
from the car wash operation to the residential properties.
To characterize the noise levels at the proposed car wash facility, sound level measurements
were performed at two locations, one within the proposed car wash site property and one along
the south property line of the residential properties north of the proposed car wash facility site.
The sound level measurements were performed on a Saturday morning between 9:00 am and
11 :00 am, as this would be considered the most quiet time with regards to noise from traffic on
Congress Avenue and 1-95. The noise levels at the proposed car wash site and at the
. .
,.. .
'..J
. Page 2 of 4 November 17, 2005
residential properties to the north of the proposed site would be expected to be higher on a
weekday due to the increased traffic volume on Congress Avenue and 1-95. The measured
sound pressure levels, A-weighted to compensate for the response of the human hearing and
to be consistent with the City of Boynton Beach Noise Control Ordinance are tabulated in Table
I.
Table 1
L 10 and Lmax Sound Pressure Levels in dBA reference 20 uPa
Proposed Car Wash Facility South Property line of
Site North property line Residential properties north
of prop<.sed site
L10 Maximum L10 Maximum
Level (Lmax) Level (Lmax)
BackQround Ambient 53-62 65 55 - 61 65
Vac Units* 59-65 59-65 46 - 52 46 - 52
Blower Units* 78 78 69 69
Blower Units within 69 69 59 59
Car Wash building*
*The Lmax and L 10 levels from the V AC units and blowers are the same as it is assumed they
operate continuously.
As can be observed from the above table, the typical ambient background L 10 sound levels at
the proposed car wash site are on the order of 53 to 62 dBA with maximum levels of 65 dBA.
The typical ambient background L 10 sound levels along the south property line of the
residential properties just north of the proposed car wash site across from the L -28 Canal are
on the order of 56 to 61 dBA with maximum levels of 65 dBA. These L 10 measurements were
influenced by noise from traffic on Congress Avenue and when the traffic noise from Congress
Avenue subsided, noise from 1-95 traffic was clearly audible.
The anticipated L 10 sound levels from the operation of the V AC units at the property line of the
car wash site, using the data provided by the manufacturer, are on the order of 59 dBA to 65
dBA. At the residential property line the anticipated L 10 levels from the operation of the VAC
units is on the order of 46 dBA to 52 dBA which are below the background ambient L 10 sound
levels. The anticipated L 10 sound levels from the operation of the blower units at the property
line of the car wash site, using the sound level data provided by the manufacturer for the
blower units when free standing, that is without the mitigation provided by the enclosing car
wash building are on the order of 78 dBA. At the residential property line the anticipated L 10
levels from the operation of the blower units based on the manufacturer data is on the order of
69 dBA. Taking into account the shielding provided by the car wash building housing the
blowers, the anticipated L 10 sound levels at the property line of the proposed car wash site, are
on the order of 69 dBA. This is consistent with file data available for other similar car wash
facilities. At the residential property line the anticipated L 10 sound levels are on the order of 59
dBA which are comparable to those of the background ambient L 10 sound levels. Using the
attached chart at the end of this report, one can compare the anticipated sound levels from the
proposed car wash facility to typical daily activities. The anticipated sound levels of 59 dBA at
residential properties to the north of the proposed site are comparable to those of normal
speech or the noise levels in a busy office.
'"
..........
. Page 3 of 4 November 17, 2005
The anticipated L 10 sound levels provided here at the residential properties do not take into
account the added shielding that would be provided by a possible future building located on the
vacant industrial zoned lot just north of the proposed car wash facility site. With the minimal of
shielding the anticipated L 10 sound levels from the operation of the proposed car wash along
the residential properties' property line would be below those of the background ambient.
The City of Boynton Beach Noise Control Ordinance and the City of Boynton Beach Sound
Control Ordinance specify the maximum permissible L 10 sound levels that can be generated
on commercial land use and transmitted to receiving residential land use areas. The
permissible sound levels that cannot be exceeded 10% of the time (L 10) for residential
receiving land use are 60 dBA during daytime hours, that is during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m., and 55 dBA during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Furthermore,
maximum sound levels cannot exceed the L 10 levels by more than 10 dB during daytime hours
and more than 5 dB during nighttime hours. The maximum permissible L 10 sound level on
commercial property for all times is 65 dBA Additionally, any sound that is plainly audible
beyond a distance of 100 feet from the property line of a commercial zoning district from which
the sound is emanating and is heard in a residential zoning district is considered a sound
disturbance.
At the property line of the receiving residential properties to the north of the proposed site the
anticipated L 10 sound levels from the V AC units and the blower units (when considered inside
the car wash building) are within the daytime permissible levels. The noise generated by the
operation of the car wash facility would be within the permissible limits of the City of Boynton
Beach Noise Control Ordinance north of the residential properties property line provided the
operation of the car wash facility is limited to daytime hours, 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. The
residential properties are more than 100 feet from the north property line of the proposed car
wash facility and at the property line the noise from the proposed car wash facility is at or below
ambient.
In summary, the environmental noise impact from the operation of the proposed car wash
facility on Congress Avenue north of SW 30th Avenue in Boynton Beach, Florida, is anticipated
to be insignificant at the residential properties to the north of the proposed site. The noise from
the facility is below that permissible by the City of Boynton Beach noise ordinance and
comparable to the existing background ambient sound levels. The noise levels at the
residential properties would be expected to be further reduced once the vacant site to the north
of the proposed car wash site would be developed and built.
Please review this information and if you have questions do not hesitate to contact me.
Jo uschieri, P.E. Ph.D.
Acoustical Consultant
c.c.: Bradley D. Miller, AICP, MILLER LAND PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
"
"-
. Page 4 of 4
November 17, 2005
Sound Pressure Level
140 dB Threshold of Pain
~
:-..;-
~
20
14'. .
o Threshold of Hearing
,""
MILLER
LAND
PLANNING
CONSULTANTS, INC.
'-'"
420 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Suite #201
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
PHONE . 561/736-8838
FAX . 561/736-8079
october 11, 2005
Ed Breese
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
Re: Rapido Rabbit Car Wash
Site Plan Application
Dear Ed:
Attached for your review and reference is a report on the blowers that will be used in this facility
and related sound information. This report was provided by Steve Gaudreau who is an expert on
car washes and sound and will be available to testify at the upcoming meetings with the Planning
& Development Board and City Commission. In addition to this report, we have engaged an
engineer to take ambient noise levels for this specific site so they can be compared to the data
that we have on the blowers.
In regard to the vacuums, I confirmed with my client that the power to the vacuums will be shut
off when the operation is closed for business. As indicated in the responses to 3rd Review TART
comments, we are committing to the operation hours to be 7 am to 7 pm. Therefore, the vacuums
will not be functional except for open business hours. All services, including the vacuums are paid
for at the menu board in the drive through lanes.
We will continue to follow up on the noise matter and keep you informed of our status.
Sincerely,
MILLER LAND PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
L-
AICP
cc: Mark Paulino
Michael S. Weiner, Esq.
Steven Gaudreau
Joe Pike, PE
M:\M L P C\PROJECTS\Rapido Rabbit\breese lOllOS.wpd
OCT-B4-2005 15:04
" P.02
. ___...1Jh........ .
::>
...&
:;J
V
'I
:J1
ESDI Number 3075 Requester Bamhart Lamlnatlonll~r~~ Rev \
I
Dale Wrlaln 3J31ntlG4 R~' "~D3 Revlslol\"dale
CUSTOMER J.E. Adams 3.0. , Co cencel (void) Not
Dale Required ~O04 Motor Typel Cancel Oalll I
Model Number 119414-00 Brg camtn end lQ-7&C4 gr/l.C/.d CarnIl/eUOtl ~ I j
IpartNl.Imbet Bl'9 fan tt'ld 70-7~4 PBP I
Quantity 3 BAlm mech 33474 Check Off List I~MtrIUn1t llltlna l
SleeIe 1.125 Bluth Grade X-72 a Prato Lab ~ In Unit
VDltage 120 Motor CIa 5.7 T DVacLab I ~ Molor Onlv
F.....uen"" 50JSM Slages 2 "\ ~sl Lab, .0 ASTMCQ8llnput
~ .. o Input.TetlOn Catpel
ScunUllt lMI~ r.bltl.,2OO, 112\Q, anH213 o Box Ttsl
!?JIWillt o End of Hose Box Test (cleel1llr)
~_. ......It'f..alll. U1111a o SId Temperature Tesl(t-rila wi! Te)
D~t:lptlon o{Te6t~9~ o Field only T emper.atura test
o Ullemj)eraluna tut (Thefm<X;ollllle)
So \as! each unit 1 Qv <..D D lEe Temperalurll TIliI
1. Test wil~ hIlS' In Il'llroorn. Will\ al1achment on IIDSe. <!)
2. Test wlh hose In \hit room. Wilh elA 1I1tllGtlmtnl on hose. D UL AplJr0ll81 Series
. ,...... --... "'" Wlh ...""......... "''''''1>''''' olf. @ o Vibl'3Uol1
4. Tnlwltll hoS8 0lJ1$IDElhe mom ",11Il at(ammenlehh<lst . o ;/4' AmI Integllly Test
5. Test with hose OUTSIDE the room with out Ctadlment Qn hose. . l.f) o OA (visual, hIilOl. vtlratlon)
6. Tast wilh h~" OUlSlDE tJl1'OOm. 'Mlh all8chmtnl en hose bill wllh bctt9"l ..aled D 11 o Inrush Current (paak.
o Locked ro\Qr current (rrns)
o RtlIIning 0Vl!lbad test (tempeliture)
o Loeked ~TernperalUI$Ie$I
o Locked Ro\or Evaluation
o Mech. Pelf. (SpeadITcrque)
o Putt HDllepower lest (InertIa)
OESDI Sample 0 Deslgn Rtvi4l/o'td1 Reviewed By: Ifu.lU.1 1 o Peak Horsepower {NIT}
PI!OTOTYPE LAB INFO: R4HlonQ palll7 m o Tempn~e Testlll'\ Oyno
o Humidity Test (CIlmponents 7 days)
A",..llufll Pt No L1633a~1 I FIIJd ft No 3194'(..05 1 o Hun'lidityTestUU017
ArmalllC1 QlV 0 F'.eld Cly 0 o RFI (EN 600141 CISPR 14
Armature Turns 13 . Meld Tums f..----".----- pl_ D lU'1 (EM 60022) CISPR22
86 . D PerturbaliDn (EN 6100;-2-3)
Almalure Gauge 24.0 FleJd Gauge 2D o Flicklll' (EN 61r0>-3-3)
ccinneetlon Diagram 58.J Terminal board? yes o Manu.l Switch T=st(EN 6\000-3-2/31
Shaft 20.1163-11 lamln eUon (Ann and Field) 1 o Sound Teall6-PDslUon)
$DeciallnstI'\lCliol\s I Cllmm 30477 larmnaUon 51" Type; 1 o Saund Evaluatk:n
o NlIlWIt Band Analysis
o Vibrallon Analysis
o McdalAnalysls
o Steel E~aluaUon
DOPE MPH Test
lLife test Info: o OPE AIIfIDw
GLlfe Test o RI.l~ molara 2417 J DOPE TIIl'\P Rise bY Reslstane4
o Beoch Expeded hcJuts: 0 Re.Slll\ for lest: I o OPEPerfomllnCe
o Cleaner Prcje~ life at:
o Shroud Orifice slu; I "'-tlcllll testlnslr\Jl;UonS: I
o Fan load Cycle oofoff:
o Slda IDad Other l
o Sudw (Explain) \ ""'.." I
o Moving Table
o Gyro ~
C>LJll~/OLf-1-t.t!V ( ":
'.'
,
OCT-04-2005
I.
~ ~I
! II
I J!'1
i ~~
& II
i ~I
.Ji
! ~ IiI
ld!ial
.liI!~~!
illldr
!!dl~!
'~"!i
8-,.,.l"'''''''''''
Ii
.!
-.-1
ill
..-
:=1:1
(::J
P.03
.
.....---, i
'" ,il:
, 0
t \ i~
,lh
, .. i
J -
, ~/ ~
'.... - _> 0
...--....... i
I
~
l~
Vo/tl 1:20 T/8111 No TFIOP BP DI.m. 5.7
sp-" 1 lVCup7 No ,.,Jphfflll P bll'l 3.0
51."'. 1 CI....? N~ A/$7 Nil I B.n (Comm) 22
BRGS EllS 1/S V.. 'pollY ",lnC7 No "$10 CI~ArnV 2.2
CIa' 111 DI? No GfOlJ/I C
..---......---
Vacbi/I
Mtdtl 119414-00
15 NUrM'" 6.1004&-2.
luck 1.125
,fl.". 2
ufltoHGllra SOO
At7Jqtu,. 216336-01
AM CeIIge 2.
Ani! ,PC 13
Call" 01.". 51h1
(:cmmul'lOr 30477
81l.n 20.11&3-10
SIIellEd1 No
RolF..f :n120
Fill! 31120
Fill:'
Fon4
,.ht. Flirt 31253
"en Shell 60-3727;60..37;27-4
ell .IIrwier JO.692Cl.1
ICES 1 No
MIlM1f.1 PL.
FE Bl'/rc".' 2Q.tB82
HIoeFF7 No
Brlct .."".
So",. la 1111336..{)1
&top' mooa Design
CumM., LAMB
AehI 319414-05. BtlJ.h 33474
~~ o.u,. 20 olInau 100559~1
Plaid T'C 88 Nyftl"
ell. GRall X-72
r.,..rl'c Clmon 30-59a1
TtI ,,"'Ilf II... r Ventlor TOYO
11I..-r'11o$lIrf Color, Nyfa"
Op'llhtflT~ pol GREEN
TI"" Soan/ 50--4337 & 50--4339 Slrlp' BROWN
s."'. s""". 20.5819
YIlt. ...m.
DHfu_ Tltrv Boll 60-7977-3
Houli1l1~ BO-31Z1... AIS Sir."
F." HilI 7491.' eo"crol Moduli
F." 1IIcI~ WI.I'I.,. 30-22S8 p,.m, Sl<aETON
Pae}tqlng Spot.
CSA1 Ves
F1LEI/IJU1J 2G
Common,. SI<I;l.ETON PERIPHERAL
Moll( /unPll
1lI.1f W.1l3
/tAu......"
s.,.~.,,,.,. "'1nA1n~
r...~
Or~u, .'Yo "'In Amp.
I..."
MAlI' Amp,.
B.5
A..IIIII 'nrv_1I
~J"'rlllIIWlI 72.30434
StabUlly Factor 1.202797
Is mOlor life lcmnl{ c(l,"p(et~?
Sigllflture .
M'n w.rtt
""11 V...
Mln W,tu
II.. WMts
MlnV.Cl
33
1050
Max v.c
... _M'_"'_. ..,.___..,.....'...~ ........ .,....,.,6_ ........ .__.. .__ _._.__... ..., "OM ------...........
At1IIlW"wt 0.1688
ARIofIfES D.94795
FleldwlMwt 0.2347918
FI~LD RES D.5~03
....~....__._.
-.-.---....-...
Siglll2hn't:
Date
Date
If'rdlltsday, Mtlnh 31. 211()4
PlI$eJ rlfl
.. .
",'
OCT-04-2005 15106
CW1
~
i~~
6"'~
0.
I'!
...
o
...
...
...
{;'i
IllI
i
1ft 11
~ . Si
III to- ~
==~ CD ... ~
~ "": ...
~1~ '" iii td
.... <:> .- ~
... ... ,... .- ...
....
M
-.:-
Sf
=:s'" ~ ~ ~ M '"
I!D<l> ..., .. to-
..c:g ! iii gl ~ .,;
~'g 0 '"
0,3'- ..
0
'l'""Cij
st lU
L..-C
0 .
II) ~~~ ~ N ~ \I) ....
- ... It)
to a:l
en ~'Dld ..; :;; !q ... ~
gill N ...
= ,...
...I
(~
0"tJ
N ::I
(7) 0
...J
l!!
.8
0
E
Q
0
.
~
'l'""
"l:t" ... ~ I
CJ) c: c ~ i; c:
'l'"" ~ .. .. ..
'l'"" e J: e E
~j ii "ti '5 !
.c '\! .. i .!l!
...... '5.< ! e 11 < ~
';: < .. }il ..
r 1 i: ! 'i 1 ~
~ . .. 0. '3 u d 1
~ ~ !!l ~ S
CD .g~ ~ CIl .;t e.!l II) ;(
c: '" . "'.,
IV. 5-5 'fi,s
.!! .:;j i~
(,J -..
.. . G:J
.~ S:S .-~
S :; --D
IU )i ~1i!
'C 01"
<( C:l ~~
~"D
. : Ii ~:;
W CO
Z~ Ol-
-j iJc ~~
~ ~j~ ~ ~ $ .... Iil
... '1
.... ~ :g .. Ii
r OJ .a,. en 0 ~
"tI0 ..-
;
~ ~
.s
Q.
~"
o c- 8 ... ... CI
*Q:;,1!~~ "" ~ ~
S:~~lL~ i sf ,.:
<II lJ\
r
E
~
! i!!
.. 0
:t '0
E
(;)
0
.
"l:t
,..
~ 'E ~ S ...
c= OJ;! i! ..
'l'"" E ~ ., ~ ~
'l'"" 0 !j
'-5 1i e 'fi e
.c ,Q III e 2
... 2= ~ i! tD- ~ i!
'j ...< ... ..,.< .
~l: ... ~ .J~ "D ~
.. u
~ .. . 1 1 I
. J Jl q .!'!
U) < !..~ 1II
cu ~~3= erl
a .-
ij~
cu -- j~
.. '"
0 .!IS
III II> ..~
fh :S-s -=1-
E .5'= c ..
-..
&'Q )~ 11
"'0
II( r~
u.i ~~ ' ~~
...- ~i
-; o~
~.:, .' ~
P.06
!l
'1
..
Ii
!
tf
~
a
\II
w
OCT-el4-2005 15:07
P.07
il:g N N ... ... Ie
0 II! In C!
~1..,; .,; s;j ,.;
... ;.; <<i ...
0,3110 ... ..
!ist ~ ~ ;" 8l ~
"Ill ... ~
...
.s t s
t i
.f t t .. . I
.. OJ
.. .. ..
.. ... l
... i i
.. . D Iii
.. .. . z Ii .:.0 J!
. II ,"
ji ~.. ii
1- a)
!; ti iSl !~ Ii
uti '5:2
-:;,; j) ;J ~.5i ':J:C J!
_s Su .s~
~z I! ~~ ~". .~ fi
~!
._ oS .S,$ .. .s ..I
"0 - ....... ~1 -g" I) Ii
~.. i~ I~
jj i. II I~ Ii
_Jl ~1 ...... I! I~
~ :i lSiJ
~ ..;. ~I Z"ii !i_
:I :! O'=- 0:1 01 BI
gl 1 i i l ) i
g i2-5 I ! !
i~ .'e ~ ~ ~
I I ~ -< d!
'l!:i ~'J ~
.; ... j 'J J "'j
.. . I '5 q
~ao {:O "l i I I
I1J ~:i~~m ~ 4; ~
4. .. .. .ii .. ..
~l;~'jl io- N C') .". ... CO
I-
.!~ :5 "" ... q ~
-~ N i!! ~
J!~ '" 12
.'" ~ ..,.
~ ~ ... ... ...
l~ l"- e 10 ... :q
~ f'l ~ ~
Ell> ~ td ~
-<~ ... ...
-i- ...
~
0
:l!e ~ e .,. ~ .,.
..0 e .,. a
'"st Sf Fit ~
j
U
,,""" .... oJ<! .Jl! .... ....
~IUlI2 ::o;..!l .!I S ~ ..!l -
D III .. J ..s II
~.f ~ .t i
li~a
II .. ., U p'
ill;; 1158 C> 0 .,. ! 8
~ 0 .. ~ :+ .,.
109 Ill'"' :Ii"" ... ...
! a .:~ .. - i ... ..
! ~ ~ ..
~ ... ~
:i!:;: ...
... .. .... ... ...
('"
OCT-04-2005
A
. Aud CIaI.K.
Ff",,;l.MrJCH.{/Iz}
f 50.00
f 63.00
f 150.00
J 100,00
J 125.00
2 160.00
3 200.00
3 250.00
3 315.00
" 400.00
4 500.00
4 630.00
5 800.00
5 1000.00
5 12S0.00.
8 1600.00
Ii 20DO.ClO
15 2500.00
7 3150.00
7 4000.00
7 5000.00
8 6300.00
8 eooo.oo
8 10000.00
O)(&rall PWL.(db(a))
Loudne$$ (SONES)
Center
Frequ.n'f8s(hz)
1.0Cl 60.00
2.0Cl El3.00
3.D!) eo.oo
. 4.00 1 00.00
5.DCI 125.00
6.00 11l0.0a
7.0l> 200.00
6.00 250.00
9.00 315.00
10.00 400.00
11.00 500.0D
12.00 630.00
13.00 BOO.OD
14.00 1000.00
15.00 1250.00
16.00 1600.00
17.OD 2000.00
18.00 2500.00
19.00 3150.00
20.00 4000.00
~1.00 5000,00
22.01) . 6300.00
23.00 aooo.oo
24.00 1 DOOO.OO
15:\1l7
P.0S
M. Volkllrt
G. Bamhart
J.E. !\dams
1
GO
1749.7
Nol.. ~v'luiltlon Fila:
on TesUI : 13275 Mtr Mlill :
Test.: 1 Mb'Mfl:
EDSIIII: 3075 EUTMdl:
Orinc8 : W.O. wI An.dvnent Volt.s :
Da14: 411210~ Amp!; ;
Note. : Cleaner centered In the lest chamber.
Inlet.end exhaust in the Ie It chamber SeEt phOICl.
&nuft.:t .1'NIer! ~oo
113 c~....
23.38
33.24
3$.1l7
34.77
47.40
56.3G
51.65
60.a<z
75.89
67.05
70.39
71.33
73.<19
76.81 .
77.60
80.64
87.06
86.65
84.59
85.41
83.10
82.58
71MB
78.33
J.E. Adam$
'\19414-00
Ametek
9200
120
1$.32
8y~
For:
EUT Mfr ~
eUT SIlt :
Freq. :
WaltS :
100
FFT DAhl
1M I.. 15~ IIhov. I_It. unIt,]
'0
'~.l,J I/A~ .
wrWWV 1 . '^
I' ..
- .......
110
I to
....10
!:
" 50
~
30
20
I
2~
4Dl1O
lOCO
F,..qu.nc:y (hzl
113 Oetave Sound Powe!:
1OlI0Il
12ll0ll
IOIlI
...
i 1_
11 2DO.Oll
li
:
:a
""
e
...
..
.!I
=
.
~
-'11I
II:IlI.OO
I_to
:il!O.OO
-
s.1..S.Z 10 20 30 '0 50 eo 'rQ lIOI 10 lllll
U&8 db (rms)
113 Octave Soun~ pr~sur88 ~RAW)
Mlcropl1one Positions
1 2 a i ~ Ii
53.19 50.92 53.tiS 49.61 53.87 53.40
81.61 59.18 62.11 SS.$t 61.75 5~..sS
69.83 :58.&8 60.54 5S.90 S8.8( 56.91
52.93 SO.07 49.90 47.40 53.03 48.78
57.00 51.03 4&.30 55.16 SlUT 53.58
81.26 eo.18 61.15 64.73 58.33 60.52
49.52 53.43 55.28 55.25 54.19 4Q.50
66.03 61.52 6t.06 54.65 57.74 60.4a
79.0& 74.29 73.90 6e.17 M.SS 73.35
66.48 63.68 63.73 93.74 63.41 67.&4
.65.50 64,83 66.56 60.12 61.33 65.91
62.!!1 B3.29 63.34 63.86 64,16 80.43
83.28 81.94 62.97 65.42 63.'il6 84.94
67.61 85.65 GS.88 68.30 68.45 157.70
69.14 65.1l0 66.32 67.613 72.16 71.05
73.54 72.07 69.90 11.17 76.3& 72.43
73.56 73.69 72.0~ 78.25 84.59 73,59
75.72 7...49 73.91 77.32 63.43 15,35
75.84 7".30 74.64 72.30 '78.35 73.12
76;48 75.66 74.07 71.91 '78.01 12.71
74.51 74.13 73.98 71.15 16.19 71.75.
74.15 70UiS 13.78 69.56 715.1ti 70.68 .
71.21 11.77 72.69 66.65 73.78 68.18
70.16 70.02 70.54 55.Se 72.17 6/5.39
ocr-04-2005 1StB7
A
B.IIl4 J;lII1laL
""'-.~(h4
1 50.00
1 63.00
1 80.00
2 100.00
2 125.00
2 160.00
3 200.00
J 250.00
3 315.00
" 400.00
" 500.00
" 630.00
S 800.00
S 1000.00
4 1250.00
tl 1600.00
, 2000.00
e 25ClO.ClO
1 3150.00
1 4000.00
7 5000.00
, 6300.00
. 8000.00
I 10000.00
Ncils& E'I8luatlon File :
DffTntt; 13275 MtrMdl.:
T..t.: 2 MtrM(r:
EDSI.: 3075 EUTMd/!
Orlflce : Sealed Attachment Volts :
D.le~ . 4112/04 Amps:
Holts; Cllllll1tr centered In thlt test chamber.
Inlet and exhaust In 1/\8 test clamber 1M pholo.
_U1l" P..",,~Il(~
111~
20.09
28.12
32.69
33.59
SO.03
.59.66
112.31
51.59
72.29
75.89
80.09
81.55
89.68
81.18
85.53
86.74
86.65
ee.94
88.26
89.50
87.29
B7.aO
84.91
81.86
P.12l9
""__'1_. ._...~It It....... .WII"U.. ua..u I'LUUUJI.
J.E. Adl'lms
119414-00
Arnellllo;
9200
120
11.6'7
J3y;
FDI':
EUT Mrr :
EUT SIN :
Freq. ;
Wllltll:
M. Vollcert
G.Bamllart
J.E. Adams
1
60
1351,6
100
to
~o
FFT Ollt.
!MlI: flj IlbnVtl tAJrt un.w
I ?D
~eo
:R-1lI
q
40
--
I
ALl.... rt
fI ~
-.",. ~.
:!II
:10
Cl
2000
JllOQ'
'requtney I~l
113 Oct21ve Sound Powet.
-
1??oo
12l1O/!
Ollllll
54.tlIl
l 100A1l
.
'i'l ZlIGAlI
i=
... --
i ~15Q."
11 &3lIUO
Overall PWL(!:I~(..)) taJ2Q 10 20 30 40 SII tD 10 1IO to 1IlD
Loudness (SONES) ~ db (rms)
1/3 Octave Sound pressures (RAW
Center MlcrophO"8 Positions
Ff'equenties(hl) .1 i J ~ ..5 .a
1.00 $0.00 49.78 '19.34 50.21 .49.03 49.08 .ca.98
2.00 63.00 57.23 54.16 ss.aG S4.4!l S4.71 55.19
3.0!) 80.00 51Ul1 53.37 53.57 55.70 53.10 53.70
4.00 1QO.00 1I2.63 -48.22 47.09 !tS.'71 49.77 49.25
5.00 125.00 110. DB 153.~ 50.9' 57.77 58.62 58.87
6.00 160.00 64.33 83.83 84.28 155.33 60.01 63.!9
7.00 200.00 49.20 54.80 55.17 58.'19 ~3.92 S1.SS
8.00 2S0.00 50.81 52.43 51.08 51.77 53.06 54.92
9.00 315.00 70.77 '12.23 73.34 70.43 68.85 83.55
10.00 -400.00 75.27 73.24 74.0~ 72.7& 71.65 75.56
11.00 500.00 76.19 74.14 '75.26 69.95 76.28 78.69
12.00 6:10.00 74.01 72.21 71.71 75.SS 70.19 74.58
13.00 800.00 lIO.n 77.49 76;93 82.97 75.76 81.85
14.00 10CO.CO 71.2a 70.64 72.18 e9.S1 73.17 73.26
111.DO 1250.00 74.25 76.12 80.75 73;157 76.14 78.39
18.00 1BOO.00 79.97 80.111 78.83 77.27 79.52 7B.78
1T.OO 2000.00 77.13 78.01 78.13 74.42 79.92 18.50
1r.00 2500.00 79.14 78.50 77.74 74.71 "1:1.12 80.09
19.00 3150.00 '19.54 78.35 1&.44 75.27 81.8S 77.10
20.00 4000.00 80.79 7~.5S 78.15 75.59 82.15 76.60
21.00 SMO.OO 79.16 77..2 17.65 74.63 80.82 75.48
22.00 6300.00 80.78 78.44 71.72 74.86 SUB 75.17
23.00 8000.00 7flo01 74.92 75.53 72.55 80.39 71.93
24.00 10000.00 75.54 7U4 72.42 68.66 76.54 asp .oe
OCT-04-2005 '15:08
A
amd .QIIIll.
~.quMCloII(/l1!J
t 50.00
f 63.00
f 80.00
Z 109.00
2 125.00
Z 180.00
.'J 200.00
.'J 2~O.()0
3 315.00
if. 400.00
4 . 500.00
4 CiaO.DO
5 800.00
5 1000.00
S 1250.00
6 1600.00
5 2000.00
, 2500.00
7 3150,00
7 4000.00
7 5000.00
, e300.00
II 8000.00
II 10000.00
OVIl!r:l1I PW4db(~
Loudn... (SONES)
Cllnlllr
FreqrJeflcJes(hz)
1.00 50.00
2.00 E3.00
3.00 80.00
4.00 100.00
5.00 125.00
&.00 '\60.00
7.00 200,00
8.00 2~O.OO
9.00 315.00
10.00 400.00
11.00 500.00
12.00 630.00
13.00 800.00
14.00 1000,00
15.00 1250.00
18.00 '6[)0.OO
17.00 201>0.00
18.00 2S00.00
'19.00 3150.00
20.00 4000.00
21.~0 5000.00
2.2.00 G300.00
23.00 eooo.oo
24.00 10000,00
"v.........~ . _...... ...,. t.. ..~.IILI... 1_11I1:::1'1'-- ."uu.......
P.10
Noise Evaluallon File:
OfT Test #: 13~'15 Mtr Mdl':
Test i : 3 Mtr Mfr :
EDSI. : 3075, EUT MtII !
Orlnc. : Allaehment r.mo~ed Volts :
Date: 4/12J0.4 Amps:
N~. : Cleaner e~lered In the lest cl1amb"r.
Inlet and exh8Ust III the test chamber II" photo,
AnUM ~.I'! dhl.,
1I3Od...
23.31
33.52
36.75
34.85
47.41
57.25
52.3T
59.40
75.29
67.25
70.19
70.59
72. 6;)
75.35
76.23
7B.69
79.93
81.411
aJ.72
85.09
82.94
82.58
79.77
79.70
J.E. Adams
119414-00
Ametek
9200
120
15.2()
By:
For:
EUT Mfr :
BIT SIN :
F...q. :
Walls :
M. VoIksrt
G. Bamhart
J.E. Adams
1
SO
1732.6
1CII
FU n=\tl
(~Ie 6' ,bov. est unIt)
IICII
.
~ A -- -
,. ~
-
-
- .'
In
-ill
-a-
i500
.IJ
:JO
20
o
2lIllO
~
.'000
Fr~u'llqoChl)
1/:1 Ootava Soun~ Power
toOO
1001lO
12000
'i3' 10..
oS __
.
oS ._
..
lii 4IlUD
iJ. ..
!
k. 1100.-
f ~1""
~ e.xMl.(Ie
~ II 10 n :lO 10 QI CO III eo DO
11..6.2. db (nns)
1/3 OctavB Sound prft~!l:UrfJ. (RAW)
Microphone Positions
1 2 ;I 4- Ii 4
53.sa 51.27 54.11 50.76 54.24 53.75
61.95 59.50 &2.88 56.95 61.99 80.33
59.80 !8.n 60.31 56.89 58.49 56.&5
53.32 50.35 49.94 47.93 52.56 48.&5
5B.91 51.41 49.45 55.20 SUi 53.55
62.16 61;01 62.04 65.73 58.56 61.49
49. 75 53..92 58.50 56.15 54.08 50.5&
64.72 59.61 58.65 55.61 54. liT 61.04
78.32 72.87 11.B2 S7.9() 67.19 74.44
66.39 63.82 6~.ee 84.16 63.'4 S8.17
65.10 64.91 56.45 59.97 615.02 65.83
61.91 82.72 63.:lS 63.33 62.03 60.23
61.51 81.31 62.85 64.59 61.32 65.00
65.61 54.53 65.B5 &..47 66.63 61.21
68.34 65.34 65.51 67.43 65./;7 71.30
72.S~ 72.00 69.65 69.26 70.46 71.33
71.::35 71.82 70.61 68.12 72.78 71.58
73.02 n.67 73.34 GUS 74.44 73.71
74.91 73,98 7-1.50 70.55 76.95 73.33
'16.23 75.89 7-4.62 71.20 16~ije. 72.58
74.30 74.0t 74.49 70.11 75.31 72.77
74.86 74,73 73.43 69.17 74.88 70.27
71.93 72.15 72.09 66.09 73.75 67.19
74.45 70.57 70.80 66.97 72.49 65.61
.....'
DCT-04-2005 15:08
P.11
~~.a,
-
...-.. --.. . TJiF<1 1.
A
J.e. Adams
119414-00
Amelek
9200
12D
15.40
lly:
For:
EUT Mfr;
EUT SfN :
Freq. :
Watts :
1'.1. Volkeut
G. Bemhart
J,E. Ada/Tl5
1
60
17$5.e
!II6d ~
FnquencJoa(hiI:)
., 50.00
., 63.00
., eo,oo
:I 100.00
2 125.00
2 160,00
3 200.00
3 250.00
3 315.00
4 4100.00
4 .500.00
4 (;30.00
5 eoo.oo
S 100D.OO
6 12S0.CO
Ii 1600.00
5 2000.00
6 2500.00
7 3150.QO
7 4000.00
7 soao.co
e e300.00
, 600D.OO
, 10000.00
to
- -.--
III! ,lo... ..
~T ". , '- .1 .
.
--
FFT Olot..
t,.,le IIi .h.._ tllllt unlU
100
III
110
R"
:: 50
40
:Ill
211
D
lllGD
aD
OllOO
FreQulIl\ey (1\:.1
113 Octave Sound PDwar
IODO
l00c0
1:000
to.
,e. 111l1Al1
i 2/10.
a4llO.Ol
.... -All
!. 1MO.
5 3'5IIAlI
:i
U
...
~mJl PWL(d~ ~ III U ~ .., .0 .0 7D e. gD
Lo,;,dness (SONES) B.2...5l. db (rms)
1/3 Octa'(B SDund pm!';liI,~r-lRAWJ
CentlJr MicrOphone PosItions
~quenCles(l1~ J. Z J :f 5 4
1,[)O 50,00 Sa,10 51.46 53.91 50.30 54,45 53.41
2,00 63.00 61.81 60.02 63.07 56.30 62.53 6().19
3,00 80.00 5B.97 58.78 59.52 ' 56.83 58.48 55.94
4,00 ,100.00 52.64 49.12 48.12 ' 46.60 51.91 48.58
5.00 125.00 51.44 52AJ 49.18 S5.61 56.33 53.94
8.00 160.00 61.42 80.48 61.64 65;06 58.02 60.87
7.00 200.00 48,94 53.21 155.97 55,36 53.204 50.01
8,00 250.00 64,36 60.415 59.70 52.83 57.12 57.92
9.00 315.00 77.13 72.97 12.19 63.06 69.31 6UO
10.00 400.00 66.42 64.27 64.33 64.Si 63.78 68.25
11.00 500,00 64.53 64.51 66.49 59.31 '66.33 64.88
12.00 CS30.00 "3.40 114.03 63.715 64.74 64.10 61.21
1MO BOO,OO 59.86 60.83 6~15 63.8; 61.02 64.36
14.0D 1 (lOO.DO 68.72 65.43 68.46 65.60 615.915 67.83
15.00 1250.00 68,48 65.49 66.2~ 67.49 87.07 71.25
18.00 1600.00 72.715 71.41 70.25 71,03 70.07 71.35
17.00 2000.00 71.30 71.41 7120 70.21 73.13 71.55
18.00 ~O.OO 72.36 72.86 7140 72.53 74.58 73.94
19.00 3150.00 75.17 14.82 75.0& 72.68 16.87 73,72
20.00 4000.DO 76.07 78.20 75.04 71.81 77.05 72.74
21.00 5000.00 73.95 .' 74.13 74.92 TO.31 75.62 71.50
22.00 6300.00 73.56 74.88 73.45 69.2B 74.69 69.56
23.00 eooo.oo 70.64 71.75 72.28 67.04 13.56 67.85
24.00 10000.00 as.7fl 70.4$ 71.43 65.07 71.92 115.92
~: .. .
OCT-04-2ee5 15\0S
.A
bn.iI taDtu.
Frequent:JN(hd
1 50.00
1 83,00
1 80.00
2 100.00
2 125.00
2 160.00
3 200.00
3 250.00
3 315.00
. 400.00
. 500.00
. 630.00
5 BOO. 00
5 1000.00
5 1250.00
,. 1600.00
6 2000.DO
6 2500.DO
7 3150.00
7 40oo.DO
7 5000.00
B 6MO.DO
,. 80oo.DO
,. 10000.00
Noise Evaluation FIle :
DftTut'= 13215 MlrMdl.:
.Test' : 5 Mtr Mrr ;
EDSIJ: 3075 ElIT M(;il:
Orlllo. : W. O. wI AI18~ment Volt. :
Date: 4J12104 AmP8:
N Dte. : Cleaner centered III the l~sl ~amber.
Inlet outside Ilfld exhaust 1111he test. ~ami)e( see photo.
lI"u".~""'''':"<IillQ
tl3 Oct-..
23.21
33.67
36.33
33082
47.57
~6.34
51.07
59.09
73.7~
67.33
69.54
71.59
71.Sa
75.e~
76.0a
78.32
79.84
81.80
84.22
8S.0~
82.71
82.44
79.64-
78.33
P.12
..
-- ...-...... --.-- .-..-_-.~
J.E. Adams
119414-00
ArrIetek
9200
120
15.58
By:
For;
, EUT ""r :
EUT SIN :
Freq. \
Walts:
M Vol<ert
G.'Barnhart
J.~ Adams
,
SO
1776.0
lOG
FFT Ollt.
(Mia ,.. IIh_. flll!l~ unn)
-
... l .. .
mAIl U" ,. .. ~ .t. .
l" .
..-...
WlI
-
170
....so
~.
{-
...
liO
ao
a
2000
40C1l1
8lOf
'rlqllenav (hz1
1/3 Delav!! S~J.Ind Powlilr
IDClO
'PClO~
12llC1l1
Scl.IlCI
j 100-00
I 2IlO.OCl
"lJ
Ii -.oa
::J
.".
.
It
1!
""
is
~
ltUO.Oll
311l1lDO
l3IIil.ao
OVerall PWL(db~ .u...u 0 " 20 lIII 4CI !IQ " TO 10 10
Loudness (SONES) IU1 db (rrns)
1/3 Octl!ll(~ SQund preuurBs(RAW)
Center Microphone Positions
Frequencies(hz) 1. Z .:I :4- :i JI
1.00 50.00 52.1!!) -lSO.Ba 53.79 48.76 54.11 53.01
2.00 63.0D 81.115 59.93 63.3t . 56.69 82.05 60.31
3.00 80.00 59.27 56.39 69.90 58.41 68.25 ~6.22
4.01) 1 OO.(JO 51.96 49.02 48.98 48.88 51.8D 48.29
5.00 125.00 5&.48 SUO 048.79 56.40 56.30 54.16
6.00 160.00 61.19 60.05 61.26 64.82 57.58 SO.58
7.00 20D.OO 48.24 52.e9 65,35 54.84 52.50 49.44
8.00 250.00 64.42 60.90 59.31 51.96 58.24 56.40
i.OD 315.00 76.82 73.10 71.49 81."1 70.20 67.&1
10.00 400.00 65.90 84.31 64.61 64.18 63.87 67.97
11.00 !iOG.OO 64.26 64.21 68.45 58.15 68.17 84.M
12.00 630.00 El3.59 63.fi9 153.57 84.04 63.74 SO.s8
13.DO BOO.OO 59.73 50.61 82.33 83.31 61.09 83.61
14,00 , 000.00 t5IUS 64.911 66.29 65.19 66.68 67.64
15.00 1250.0D 68.06 6S.1B 66.54 66.88 68.73 70.9$
16.00 11300.00 12.45 71.64 89.57 69.29 89.73 70.94
17.00 2000.00 71.19 71.28 70.79 68.33 72.94 71.3~
18.00 2500.00 72.58 73.44 73.93 71.32 74.71 73.50
19.00 3150.00 75.09 7".58 7:$.24 72.56 77.02 73.60
2D.00 4000.00 15.80 75.85 74.65 72.25 17.02 72.83
21.00 5000.00 13.~3 .' 74.11 74.58 70.47 75.41 71.06
22.00 6300.00 73.50 74.79 73.68 70.13 74.93 70.41
23.00 6000.00 70,58 71.54 72.71 . 68.01 73.52 87.!!1
24.00 10000,OD 88.76 10.07 71.83 65.75 72.08 65.82
i .
OCT-I34-2005 15:09
.'-
..... Cm1IL
~.-thrJ
" 50.00
" 63.00
.. BO.OO
Z .100.00
:z 125.00
2 160.00
J 200.00
3 250.00
3 315.00
.. 400.00
" . 500.00
" 630.00
S 600.00
6 1000.00
6 1250.00
6 1600.00
6 2000.00
6 2500.00
7 3150.00
7 4000.00
7 5000.00
B 6300.00
8 8000.00
I 10000.00
P.13
A._a. __..._ ....___...
Noise Evaluation FlIII:
OfT' TuU: 13275 NtrMdl':
r..tl# : 6 Po1tiMfr;
EDSI ".: 3075 EUT Mdl :
Orifice: Sealed A1I8ctlmenl VDIIs :
Date; 411210.c Amps;
Not.. ; Cleaner centerad in tho test chamber.
Inlet outsldiJ and exhaust In tl1e tellt chamber !JDe photo.
J.E. Adams
119414.00
Amelek
9tOO
120
12.25
By:
For;
EUT Mfr :
EU'r SfN :
F",q. ~
Watts :
M. Volkert
G. Barnhsi\
J.E. Adams
,
60
1417.(i
. *.tu....lt "..~,.. db{~
fA au,..
20.33
27.84
32.09
33.71
50.60
59.56
51.76
52.97
79.61
76.B8
78.79
83.05
83.39
81.74
84.64
B6.11
8S.96
&7.07
B8.64
89.54
66.95
87.20
84.42
82.44
FFT nata
(MIll I' Ml6\l. te~ unit)
lCO
ID
ID
;'0
!..
ifO
...
.1)
:lO
Zll
o 2000
~' .1
~....
..... ~..... A
.~.
~ ~QO toto ,-
'tDqu.ncy (hz)
1/3 Octavo Sound PlOwer
,~
alI.l1G
! 10(1.
..
.!! 2IllO.OG
i ~..
& olOO.lIII
! 11Cl1."
.i 3111O.IIII
..
(3 1300..
nVArall PWL(db(;l)) B.U.!1. '0 20 ~ oa &0 10 70 .. to 11lC1
Loudness (SONES) :t.1..B.ll db (rms)
1'3 Octa".. Sound pressures (RAW)
Canter Mlcrophorw PPlJiUons
F"'qulJnr;i.~(hzJ 1- Z .1 :i a a
1,00 . :;iO.OO 50.7!l 49.37 ~9.90 49.11 49.96 48.58
2.00 G3.0[) 56.97 53.&8 55.97 54.21 54.21 54.77
3.00 80.00 55.9S 52.85 53.29 66.25 ~2.63 53.06
4.00 100.00 52.31) 48.96 47.40 48.01 50.33 49.60 r
.5.00 125.00 60.51 54.44 49.S1 58.44 59.17 157.73
6.00 150.00 64.21 63.84 63.1ts 68.36 59.71 64.02
7.00 200.00 4S.77 54.25 54.81 55.63 5~4 51.58
8.00 250.00 51.59 52.20 sua 52.74 53.48 ~.6B
9.00 315.00 74.86 67.12 82.07 74.30 78.14 BO.75
10.00 400.00 75.43 72..17 75.55 73.21 72.56 77 .as
11.00 500.00 74.03 73.05 75.0' 67.85 75.45 74.75
12.00 530.00 75.53 75.83 74.58 76.25 73.27 12.50
13.00 800.00 73.94 73.94 73.24 75.62 n.34 73.02
14.00 1000.00 72.59 71.30 72.71 69.83 '14.04 73.D1
15.00 .1250.00 74.58 74.60 79.12 74.21 74.33 71.28
16.00 1600.0Ct 80.07 79.15 77.71, 76.98 79.82 141.0;
1T.00 2t:lOO.OCt 76.73 77.6.1 78.74 75.56 78.75 77.86
18.00 2500.00 78.50 78.60 7U5 77.51 79.32 78.80
1Ea.00 3150.00 79.27 78.57 79.19 77.:.\2 81.96 7lUS
20.00 4000.00 BO.~3 79.92 78.53 76.60 B1.69 71.45
21.00 5000.QO 78.13 .' 71.70 78.43 7&.5B 79.51 74.9S
22.00 6300.00 76.00 78.43 78.13 7B.304 79.57 74.33
23.00 6000.00 74.:l9 74.615 i'6.08 78.44 '17 .89 71.14-
24.00 1 DOOD.CO 71.37 71.33 73.46 71.49 75.10 69.05
r:' ;..
TOTAL P. 13
OCT-04-2005 15:e4
,~ P.02
B.---...............
::>
....
;..U
V
'1
:J1
ESDI h1umber 3075 Requester Bamhaft lamlnationl ~r~~ Rev I'
1
Da" Wrlaan 313112004 RI!A' "DaD3 .1 3.0..'1 Co Revlslorrdllle
Oat. Required 41312004 CUSTOMER J.E. Adams C8Ilcel (void) Not
Motor TVDel Caneel 08\1l I
Model Number 119414-00 Brg comm tIId 10-764 4 {;lo_ct.d Com/lI8UOIl ~ I 1
IParlNl.I1Ibet erg fan tf'Id 70-1644 PBP I
Quantity 3 BlUsh mech 33474 Check Off List 0MtrJUnlt Testina l
Sieck 1.125 Bnuh Grade X-72 Cl Prato Lab ~ In Unit
VD1t.agO 120 MoW CIa 5.7 -T o Vae Lab i ~ Motor OnlY
Fl1IOuenOl 5DIBl> I Slages 2 1 ~st Lab.. '0- ASTMCQs\lnput
~ .. o lnput.Tll1tOn Carpel
Scun"".t 11\1111\ MlMltlU2OO, 92\0, Ill\! 9213 o Box Test
~ o Etld of Hose Box Test (cleal1il')
~1Ihr.l. ....1t'I...1lI111.1/II111i o Sid Tel1IfIllI8t1lre Test(l-fifa wil Tel
D~rtptlon o{Te&I~.: o Field only T emperaturlllesl
o UUemperalUra test ('fhetm<<;oup\e)
~o \aSl each unit 120v u) o lEe Te~talllre Test
1. TlI$! wit~ hose in 1111 rcocn. Will\ attachment on 1ID8t.l. <!)
2. Test with hose in \he 11l0m. With cIA atlllc:t\lntnl 011 hO$&. o UL ApprD~1 Serles
, r.............. - "'. .......... '".... but.... r oil. @ o VibraUon
4. Tnl willi 110$8 0\I1SIDE the mom ",11h aUadlmenl anhclse . o 1/4' AIm Inl~tyTet1
5. T!!!t wilh hOse OlJTSIDE \he room with out ~d'lm8f\t Qn hosl. . (f) o OA (visual, hi-POI. vllratlOn)
6. Test wiltl hc~o OU1Sl0E I1tl'OOm. ~Ullllachmtrll an hose bill wllh batt!lfll naled 0 6 o Inrush Current (peak)
o Locked rotor currenl (rms)
o Running 0Vl!fbad test (temperallJta)
o Locked ~ItlrTernperalul$le$t
o Locked Roler Evaluation
o Mech. Pelf. (SpeedITtwqlJe)
o Peale. HOllepcwer lur(lner11a)
OESDI Sample 0 Design RaYI~lNed1 Revkwed By: 11n11l11 j o Peak HOJse~r (NIT)
ESOTOTYPE LAB INFO: R4HlCln~ pal\J1 m o TemponUll TllIt on Dyno
o Humldi~Test (~mponenls 7 days)
ArmawlIl PI No 2'633a~1 I FIdd f'tNo 31941-<<l5 I o HumidityTestUL 1017
ArmalUrw aJ 0 F".eld Qly 0 o RFI{EN600141 CISPR14
Nm~UJ8 Tllms 13 FieldTums 1------ Ol_ D RFI (EN 60(22) CISPR22
86 D PertlMbalion (EN 610l>1.2-3)
Anna1\Jre Gauge 24.0 fleldGauge 20 o Flick.,.. (EN 611X>>3-3)
ConneetlOll Diagram 58-J Terminal boan17 yes o Manu;" Switdl To&t(EN 610<J0..3..213)
Shaft 2().1163-11 Lamln eUon (Arm and FleI~) I o Sound Teat (6-PDslllon)
o Sound Evaluatk:n
Soecial Instl1Jcrions I C!:lMrn 30477 Lamination SI!ItlI Type: \ o NaITlM Band Analysis
o Vibra~on AnalysIS
o MlldalAnalysls
o Steel E~aluaUon
o OflE MPH Tes!
IUfe test Info: o OPE AirfloW
o Life Test . 0 R\lA motol'l 2417 J o OPE lIMP Rise bY Resistance
o Bencll Expeded houts: 0 R~lscn fer test: I DOPE perlormlnc:e
o Cleaner projeti life at: .
o Shroud Orifics 51"; I Snlldal tesllnslnJl;UonS: I
o Fan IDad Cycle ontolt.
o Side load Other 1
o Sudw (Explain) \_<1
o MovIng Table
CI Gyro ~
OJjll~/Q'+ ~"RV I" .;
".:
<
OCT-04-2005
I
I.
~ ~I
i Ii
~t
i s~
& II
i \!II
'. .Ii
!~I,;II
:: C!III
III!~~!
1~leijb
el~illl
W~l!,lill
ltaRid-
'iiii~H
. 1-,~",...oI""
I
" i
,
, \ h.
I I h
I '" il
I -
'I. ~/ ~
" - _~ eo
-"---" I
i~
~~
P.03
.
~\
~I
nu
Vacbi/I
MGc#f1 119414-00 Vol~ 1:10
E Nurnll" B.10o.ce-z $p_d 1
$,..,1< 1.125 51.11I. ,
$1." 2 BRQS 818
ufrt-Hol/ra 500 Clu, 111
71811" No 1F/0,. BP DI.,.. 5.7
1VCu,,7 No ,.,/pitfflll P L.", 3.0
t;Ja..1I1 No AI&? NI) , SItS (Com",) 22
1/S y.. fpoq ,.,lnl' No lIS1olJl/Arm) 22
DI, No GfOlJ/I C
........-----
RtkI 319414-05 , S,u.h 33474
,..,. GlIvrt 20 ,... 1005598-1
P1s'd TFa 86 Nylon
CJJoIM Grad. X.72
ra,..rl'c Cltf>on 30059&1
TII~""'" Pm' VlIIldor TOYO
","""oslllC Color, Ny tan
OpulnuT~ 001 GREEN
T'Im IJD.n/ 50-4337 8. 50.-4339 strip. BROWN
s.fII. $prlp. 20-5819
Y.lI. 1Id1.
/)Hfv_ TltlV Bo'l 6O-79n-3
Hal/Bing BO.31Z1-4 A/S Sh."
FM N~' 7491-1 ConlrolMDdule
FfIrI NcltW../I.,. ~-22IlB p,.m, SKELETON
p~cJt.tllnl1 SpoC.
CSA1 Yes
FlLfiflUU1J 26
AmIltunt 21e33~1
AIm CeIlll- 2.
Anll 1'0 13 }
CIlIIn 01'". S8..J
(:amIl1l//.lOr :l0471
slI.n 2Q-118!-10
SIl.I(E/If.? No
RoO'''1II f :n120
F...2 31120
PanJ
Fin"
~ht.Filflt 31253
"an Shell 6()..3727jSo.37;2.1-4
CIi .8radr.' >>6G2Q-1
,ceS'1 No
MlINIt,' PI.,
FE "",,,""1 2o.e882
HJ.EFF'1 No
Brlct .,,,m.
s...... ., 1111336-01
~opf G200Q Oeslgn
CUmM" LANa
Cllll1MelllJl SI<l;l.ETQN PERIPHERAL
Mil( Amp,
M.w W.,,,
MuV.."
Sltll,~~,,_ N"'A1n~
lA.~
Orqlc. 0' Ii.
I.r~"
Mln Amps
Mu Amps
8.5
AcllYl 'nrvall
~J"'rlIIIIVSIl 72.30434
SIaIJ/IlIy F.ctor 1.202.797
Mln W.l'If
"'tn V...
Milt W,",
II.. W.otls
Mln V.~
33
1050
"'U vae
..~._~._..-...._--_...._.,.... ........ .........- ,....... --_... .-.-.-.-........ ....--..--............
,linn ",,, Wf.
AR'" ItES 0.94795
0.1685
FJelltw/rawt. 0.2347918
F/~LD RES D.53403
_....~-_....;...-.-"--_.._-_..
...-...--=--..-.
SiCl'Ul/urlJ
Date
Is motor lif(J tt:mnq (;(1/flplett:?
Signatu,e .
Date
If'~d,,(Sikly. Much 31, 21Jt14
Pll~e.t r>fl
,. .
, ~ ,.
"i
>
~
,Ie
-
c
G>
i
L-
ei)
A
e
-6
"ri5
II)
-
~
.5
.... 'Iii
;:)
C lIS
Gl
! j
~ ~
III
) B
III .!!l
II ~
W 0
OCT~-2005 1510G
f
~
-~
-
C"') i~ ~ c)) .... OIl ; ~
&t ~ ... i
6a.a1 ... ~ 'Si
."
...
0- I~R .", $ ~ 1ft Cl
..... C'CI "l .,
N- ... ~ ..
",.0 ,. '" a ~ c:. ~
o CI> ... ..
~"
;
~
Q.
~" '!!~
o C N ~ l"> '" 0 ~
N :s m '" ~ ..
~l1. ..; 1li ,.:
G) 0 0 m .. 1ft
en
l!!
0
.-
c
E
0
0
.
~
....
~ ~ ~ s 1;; ...
i i i! ..
.... .i .. ~ i
~ 0 e
1i e II ii 'fi
.c II .. e! .. I .!
- B= ~ c ra ~ i:!
'j ...< ... .b 0( ..
itl"i ... ~ i 'i 'II !
0> U
l!! lit 0 1 d 1 !
. Ji! JI! .:u
CU ~ U) <: Sri ~ ~
i ~I I!-
I~
CU ~- I~
lit lit
0 J!lSl
.. Il> ..~
fA :S-5 -=2
E SE c:"
-OJ
I'V ]~ 11
'C
<C c~
flGl
u.i ~~ "fl
"'- !i
-; o~
*
f
E
iI
I
:i
= ... .... ~ to- ;,
'!!~ ~ ... ""
.,.; ~ rr:i (:>
!]f: Q ~ ~
... ... ~
C")
""'"
~
=:s... .. lD 1'1 '"
I!t~ .., q :;t ... ....
. ~ 'g g ~ on rJ .,.;
c gJ 0-
O3~ - ...
0
~Ci)
st 0
~C
0 .
en ~!~ g N - III po.
- "! 0 ... III
;G ~ III &1
VI ~""od ~ ...
gal ... ...
...
~c
0"
N :s
en C
..J
l!!
~
E
Q
a
.
~
....
"'It" a 1
en i: e ... g .. i!
.... II '" i ii ~ Ol
..... E E Il E
~j 1i ti 1i !
.c l!! .. i
! C! 11 .lI ~
- -a.cc <
'i < .. ~~ ..
t '} 1: ~ 'i 1 i
l!! ..: ~ 0. ,. .. d -:
u ~ ~ J!l
.. I> ~ III W 4(
CD ~t ell
c:: ....
IV 5'fi '605
,!!. -- i~
(,J 's! -..
It .. G:J
.~ &::S .w.!
.. ;. .liD
lU ii ill
'C 1111
<( C:l ~~
~"tl
uJ : Ii ;a-:;
eo
I.. ..-
~ uc I~~
P.06
!J
'1
.
Iii
!
fi
a
is
III
...
OCT-04-2005 is:a?
P.07
ill2 N N t>- ... ~
q II'! ... C!
t'g.o ... &j cD
~ :0 C ...
0,3.:) ...
list :!I ~ 19' ~ ~
Aofjl S t,i ... Iii
'"
.9 t .9
t 0
a
.!i J'i si . .. I
.. u
.. ... ..
',2 t t .. ... .l
a. .! ~
.. .. .. EO
.. .. . z .:-9 j!
~~ ,"
~:; il .8)
SlI !1 12 ~.!
iit) -5,! ti~
!j ij il "ti,g '=J:C J!
~I .!I~
:l ~! J~ ~.~ ,;'"
.~ .5 S.1i .. '" .s.. .s! ",I
ij ....-;;; Ii ~1 ~I 1~
Ij I~ I~ Ii
I. ~= !.
"11 ~1 ...... I! I~
~i ~& .,
J 81 IZ"iS ..-
:lo! O'~ oJ 01 ~:!
jl i I 1 l I i
- ~
a lO!ij 'fi
~ .. ~ ~ ~
t ... J c:~ -.:; t 0( I
6~ ~'J ~
ii 'e I 'J ... "j
.. . I '5 .II
lI(~ 0 ~C! II ~ q i I
~ III ~
t1I ,2ci~2 -<
~ ~ .. .. j .. *'
~ l;l i i i'" N t') ... ... co
I-
.1""= "'! to .... q lD
..r:lo 0- N ! ~ .t::
3!~ '" J:?
'" ... ...
.... .,., - ...
..... t- o Co ... ~
11.., "'! f'l .... "l
ell) :: ~ on '" ~
<(~ ... ....
c: ...
11-
e
...
0
20 ~ 0 g ~ 0
~o ,0 co
lOst Sl SC ~
.i
u
.II"'" ..., "'" -'" .... .><
i~",~ :o;.!l il .!l ~ .!II ..
0 .. J :~ iI
~t ~ .t ~
I~~a
., .. I. 41 ..,
i~im; lII58 0 <:> "" ! 8
Q a . ~ ~ 0
III w'- ::Ii"" ... ..
i lS oS::; ... ... :;;: ..... ...
~ (l; X ..
j; 2~ ..... :! .... :!
.,.. .. .... .... ...
C.:---
OCT-04-2005
A
. Aud CIDtat.
FrCt;ltlIldH{hz}
f 5Q.OO
1 63.00
f 80.00
J 100.00
Z 1.25.00
2 1 eo.oo
3 20p.OO
3 250.00
3 315.00
,. 400.00
__ 500.00
__ 830.00
5 800.00
5 1000.00
~ 1250.00
8 1 l'iOO.OO
6 2000.00
r 2500.00
7 31S0.no
7 4000.00
7 6000.00
B 6300.00
B tlooo.OO
8 10000.00
Oy~r.llll PWL(db(II))
LaudneS$ (SONES)
Center
FreqlJ.nc(8s{1lz)
tOG 60.00
2.DtI 63.00
3.00 60.00
".DCI 1 00.00
5.0D 125.00
S.DCI 1 BD.OO
7.0Cl 200.00
6.00 250.00
9.00 315.00
10.00 400.00
11.00 50MI)
12.00 630.00
13.00 BOO.OO
14.00 1000.00
15.00 1250.00
16.00 1600.00
17.00 2000.00
1 a.oo 2500.00
19.00 3150.00
20.00 4000.00
~1.0[) 5000,00
22.00 ~300.00
23.00 8000.00
24.00 10000.00
15~'i!f7
P.08
Nol.. ~v.luatlon Fllo :
an Teat" : 13215 MtrMdl':
Test': 1 MtI'Mfr:
EOSI t# : 3075 EUT Mdl :
Orinc. : W.O. wI AlUldvnent Volts :
Dala: 4112JO~ Amp!> ;
Nota.: Cleaner centered In the lestc:hamber.
Inlet..P'lClexhaust in tnale,t chamber lee photo.
.DlIJtllt.~1"! ~(~
1(3 Cc:t.~
23.35
33.24
3$.1l7
34.77
"7.40
56.36
51.ll5
60.6~
75.99
67.05
70.39
11.33
7M9
76.61 .
17.60
80.64
87.08
&6.65
84.59
85.41
83.10
82.58
79.68
7FU3
J.E. Adam$
119414-00
Amelek
9200
120
15.32
M. Vol\(llrt
G. aamhart
J.E. Adams
1
00
'1749.7
By~
For:
EUT Mfr :
eUT SIH :
Freq. ~
WaltS :
'00
FFT DAtil
{MIl: &, ..bov. tAd lI!\1ll
to
-
.t I I.J.. -
~. . ^
1
--
aD
f 70
..... 10
:!:
" 50
~
:Ill
20
a
eoco
F,.qllllncy (hzl
1/3 Octave SDund Power:
100011
121100
~~
4001I
eoJCl
...
:i I_
II 2Illl.1lO
'i:i
:
:.
VI
~
S
=
.
Q
-.ID
....
lllllO....
:11!O.1O
-
S3..!!Z 10 20 ;)0 '0 50 eo ~ " liD 100
I.6&Il db (rms)
1J3 Octav~ Sounq pr~$sur&l!J (~AW}
Mlctophone PositIons
.1 2 .J i :i 8.
53.19 50.92 !5U!5 49.61 53.87 53.40
61.61 59.111 62.11 56.$4 61.75 59.ge
69.83 58. &8 60.54 56.90 58.84 56.91
52.93 50.07 49.90 47.40 53.03 48.76
57.00 51.03 48.30 55.1& 56.77 83.58
61.26 aUfI 61.15 64.73 58.33 60.52
49.52 53.43 55.28 55.25 54.19 4Q.50
66.03 61.52 61.06 54.65 57.74 60.48
79.06 74.28 73.90 6e.17 69.55 73.35
ee.4B 63.GB 63.73 63.74 63.41 67.64
. 65.eO 64,83 66.56 60.12 67.33 65.91
62.S1 B3.29 63.34 63.86 64.18 60.43
83.28 61.94 62.97 65.42 63.~8 114.94
67.61 eS.6S 65.88 66.30 69.45 67.70
69.14- 65.60 66.32 67.8S '12.15 71.05
73.54 72.07 6UO 71.17 76.3& 12.43
73.SS 73.69 72.02 78.25 84.59 73.119
75.72 74.49 73.91 77.32 83.43 15.35
75.84- 74.30 74.64 72.30 18.35 13.72
76.:48 75.611 74.07 71.91 '7a.01 12.71
74.51 74.13 73.98 71.15 76.19 11.75
74."\5 74.S~ 73.78 69.56 715.15 10.68 .
71.21 11.77 72.6e 66.65 '73.78 68.16
70.16 70.02 70.54 65.911 72.17 66.39
OCT-04-2005 15~e'i'
A
B.IIllI ~
FiWIu~~'("~
1 50.00
1 63.00
1 aO.OD
2 100.00
2 125.00
2 160.00
.3 200.00
J 250.00
.J 315.00
" 400.00
" 500.00
" 630.00
8 800.00
a 1000.00
~ 1250.00
6 1eoo.Oo
6 2000.00
e 2500.00
7 3150.00
7 04000.00
7 5000.00
, 8300.00
, 8000.00
B 10000.00
NOise !valuatlon File :
DfT Tnt., ; 13275 . Mtt Mdl" :
Te.t,,: 2 Mtt Mrr:
eosl , : 3075 EUT MdI !
Orlflce : Se~t.d Machment Volts :
D.tt~ , 4112/04 Amps:
Notes; CIIlM" cenlered In thlt test chamber.
Inlet and exhau;t In tt\e lest eh~ber 189 photo.
lilllll.1" ~"'IlI''' ~l('l)
7/,J oem..
20.09
28.12
32.69
33.59
50.03
&9.66
~2.31
51.59
72.29
75.89
80.09
81.65
89.68
81.18
85.53
66.74
86.65
se.94
88.26
89.50
87.29
87.BO
84.91
81.88
P.el9
.....,.-.....'1- I .-........ ~...... .WII..'U,. ua.~u ...UUIII..
J.E. 'Ad;srns
11941+00
Amellllc
92DO
120
11.6'1
ay:
Few;
EUT Mrr ~
EUTSIN :
I=rBq. ;
Wlll1i :
M. Volkert
G. Barnhart
J.E. Adams
1
60
1351.6
100
tD
~D
FFT Oat.
1M", fI: ..b,,,,,. fllld 'mIl)
I !D
_ell
:;'10
q
010
--
I .
^ .If' r' .,
r, "I' " y'.......- ,J.
1/ .~
-
:!II
~
II
2Q<<1
,DOQ'
'..qll.ncy (~&l
1l;l Octave Sound PO~~L
-
1??oo
1211l1l
Ogga
-
! 11lO.G1l
.
~ 2lICl.
i=
... 1toO.
li ~'lMl.lII
..
~ muo
(hrenlll PWL(d~~)} .ilU2Q 10 20 30 40 !oil tel 10 IICI .0 100
Loudness (SONES) ~ db (rms)
1/3 Octav~ Sound pressurf!S (RAW)
Center MI(;rophO"8 Poslllons
Ff'etflJeflcie$(hz) 1 Z J ~ fJ .11
1.00 SO.OO 49. ?8 049.34 50.~7 .49.03 49.08 48.96
2.0G 63.00 57.23 54.1& ss.8S S4."! S4.71 55.19
3.00 80.00 5lUl1 53.37 53.57 55.70 53.10 5:1.70
4.0D 1(10.00 52.63 48.22 47.09 "9.71 "9.77 49.25
5.00 126.00 130.08 153.Zl 50.91 57.77 58.62 58.87
6.00 160.0D 64.33 83.83 84.26 6f}.33 60.01 63.ee
7.00 200.00 49.20 54.80 55.17 58A9 ~3.92 51.59
8.00 2S0.CO 50.81 52.43 51.0e 51.77 53.06 1I4.92
9.00 315.00 70.77 12.23 73.34 70.43 68.85 83.S5
10.00 400.00 '15.27 73.24 74.02 72.7& 71.65 75.58
11.00 500.00 76.19 74.14 75.26 69.95 76.28 78.69
12.00 630.00 74.01 72.21 71.71 75.5S 70.19 74.SB
13.00 BCO .00 &0.77 77.49 76.93 82.97 75.76 81.85
14.00 1000.00 71.29 70.84 72.18 <<19.81 73.17 '13.26
1$.00 1260.00 74.25 78.12 8D.75 73;67 76.14 78.39
18.00 1800,00 79.97 80.18 78.83 77.27 79.52 78.78
17.00 2000.00 77.13 78.01 '18.13 74.42 79.92 7B.50
1MO 2500.00 79.14 78.50 71.74 74.77 "~.12 BD.09
19.00 3150.00 79.54 78.35 78.44 75.27 81.85 71.70
20.00 <lOOO.OO BO.79 7US 73.18 75.59 82.1S 76.80
21.00 5000.00 79.16 .77.CZ 77.65 74.63 80,82 11M3
22.00 6300.00 BO.78 78.44 77.72 74.86 81.08 75.17
23.00 8000.00 78.01 74.92 75.53 72.55 BO.3g 71.93
24.00 10000.00 75.54 71.84 72.42 6S.611 76.5-4 69.0e
OCT-04-2005 '15:08
A
DIIll.lI .IaI1W.
FrIJ!lUWICIIt 8{/1J4
t 50.00
f 83.00
t 80.00
Z 109.00
2 125.00
2 180.00
.1 200.00
.] 250.00
3 315.00
" 400.00
. . 500.00
4 Ci30.00
5 800.00
S 1000.00
S 1250.00
,. 1600.00
5 2000.00
, 2500.00
7 3150,00
7 4000.00
7 5000.00
. 8300.00
a 8000.00
B 10000.00
Nolse EVBluallon File:
orr Test # : 13275 Mtr Mdl . :
Teat j : 3 Mtr Mfr :
EDSI. : 3075' EUT MtII! .
Orlnc. : Al1achmenl,emoYed Volts :
Catt; 4112J0.4 Amps:
III.. : Cleaner e~n\ered In the test c:haml)liIt.
Inlet and exhsuslln th. test c:hamb~r '" phato.
!"'UM ......." d~.)
'13 Ocf....
23.81
33.52
36.75
34.85
47.41
57.25
52.37
59.40
75.29
67.25
70.19
70.59
72. 5:)
75.35
713.23
7B.6~
79.93
81.48
83.72
85.09
82.94
82.58
79.77
79.70
P.10
!'t~........n.... -..~. ..,-t- ..._..v.. ...,..11.... ....u..........
J.e. Adams
119414-DO
Amatek
9200
120
15.20
By:
F I)r:
EUT Mfr :
EUT SIN :
Fttq. :
Walls :
M. Volkert
G. Bamhart
J.E. Adams
1
SO
17J2.6
toI
F~ D:u
(MIa:: 6: .bov. tut unIt)
10
riiJJ/ti ,~ T ~
'I .-
.... ...
- r
III
'79
-ill
2.:
.g~
~1I
:lO
20
o
,o~tlO
2.QIlO
taco
,-
4OGO
.000
F'lIqu'I\~~ Chq
11:J Octave Sountf Power
'ia' ....
oS. 11III..
.
~
u
"
.
iI-
~
i
.
u
'100.00
~U"1IO
e30UI
OVll!rall PWL(db(a)) ~ D 10 n :Ill '0 50 ~ "' eo ~
Loudneas (SONES) a.1..62. db (nns)
1/3 OctavD Sound pressure. (RAW)
Cenlllr Microphone PoslUons
FreqlJellc1es{hz) i .2 .3 4- a s
1.00 50.00 53.58 51.27 ~.11 50.78 54.24 53.75
2.00 63.00 61.9S 59.50 &2.88 56.95 61.99 80.33
3.00 80.00 59.80 58.71 50.31' 56.89 56.49 56.&S
4.00 100.00 53.32 50.35 49.94 47.93 S2.55 48.85
S.OO 125.00 58.91 51.41 49.45 55..20 56.59 53.55
6.00 160.00 52. HI 61 ;01 62.04 65.73 58.56 61.49
7.00 200.00 49.75 53.92 56.50 56.16 54.08 60.56
8.00 250.00 64.72 58.61 58.65 55.61 54.~7 61.04
9.00 315.00 78.32 72.67 71.82 67.96 67.19 74.44
10.00 400.00 66.39 63.82 63.88 84.16 63.14 68.17
11.00 500.00 65.10 64.91 66.45 59.97 615.92- 65.83
12.00 630.00 61.91 132.72 63.:l6 63.33 62.03 60.23
13.00 800.00 ~1.51 81.37 62.8S 64.69 61.32 65.00
14.00 1000,00 65.81 84.83 65.85 64.41 66.63 67.21
15.00 1250.00 69.34 65.S4 65.57 67.43 8MT 71.30
18.00 1600.00 72,95 72.00 69.65 69.25 70.46 71.33
17.00 201>0.00 71.35 71.82 70.61 68.12 72.78 71.56
18.00 2!OO.OO 73.02 72.67 73.34 6US 74.44 73.71
19.00 3150.00 74.91 73.98 74.50 70.55 nus 73,33
20.00 4000.00 '76.0l3 75.89 74.62 71.20 70.n 72.58
21.00 $000.00 74.30 74.0\ 74.49 70.11 15.31 72.77
2.2.00 G300.00 '74.66 74,73 13.43 69.77 14.88 10.27
23.00 8000.00 71.'13 72.15 72.09 68.09 73.75 67.19
24.00 10000,00 74.45 70.57 70.80 66.97 72.48 65.61
'...' >
OCT-04-2005 15:08
A
UlI4 ~
Fnqu.nrJo.{~
1 5[).OO
1 63.00
1 eo.oo
% 100.00
2 125.00
Z 160.00
:J 200.00
3250.\J0
:I 31~.OO
4 ~o.oo
., ~oo.oo
" Ci30.00
5 800.00
5 100D.OO
5 1250.QO
6 1600.00
B 2QO[).OO
B 2500.00
7 3150.CJO
7 400D.00
7 SOGO.CO
, 6300.00
It 6000.00
I 10000.00
NQI,. e:valuaUQn FII. :
011' Te.UW : 13~7S Mtt Mdl 1#:
Te.U: 4 Mtr Mfr:
EDSI. : 3()75 EUT Mdt:
Oriflc:. : Altac"ment removed Volte :
Data: 4/12104 Amps:
Note. ; Cleaner centered In the1eSl dlllmber.
Inlet outsldll and exhau$t In lhe test chamber 8e I photo.
l!I:lflIu"II ~~"'.~ "''1-'
113 ~....
23.65
33.66
36.31
34.08
47.71
55.64
S1.es
59.08
74.12
67.53
69.71
71.91
71.91
75.87
7~.3B
78.80
eO.2a
81.7B
24.19
SG.29
82.91
e2.24
79.42
76.22
P.11
~~..I..
-. -~._. --..-.. ---
J.E. Adams
119414-00
Amelek
9200
120
15.40
lJy:
For:
EUT Mfr;
EUT SIN:
Freq. :
Walls :
M. \lolkart
G; l3amlwt
J.e. AdalT15
1
60
17&5.8
lGO
to
FFT Data
(Nile Il~ .h",,,,, t.", unit)
III
-- 1--'--
... J .,~ ..
~T .. , .- .f
~. .... .
1---
170
~IQ
iJO
40
lIII
211
o
ZDOg
-
&000
"'ell\lDI'I~Y (l\a:1
113 Octave Sound Powar
1000
lQOQCJ
t~O
eo.oe
g 'DIl_
I 200a
8 4GO.ClII
'r _AlII
... 1SODAlII
~ 3'5II.D1
:;;
U 011O.
~~mJl fl'WLtdR(;IU ~ D III '0 ~ 010 .0 .0 7g et liD
Loudness (SONES) BLSZ db (nns)
, . 1/3 Octl!'.(B Sound pl'P-:;"I~r_ lRAW)
Center MlcrGphon. Poslt/ens
~quent:les(l1~) 1- Z .l ~ Ii t
1,DQ 5().OO 53.10 51.46 53.91 50.30 54.45 53.41
2.00 63.00 61.81 60.02 63.07 56.30 62.53 SQ.1!)
a.oo 60.00 5B,97 58.78 59.52 56.83 58.48. 55.94
4,00 .100.00 52.64 4g.1Z 48.12 . 46.60 51.91 48.5B
5,00 125.00 57.44 52.43 49.111 55,61 56.33 53.94
8.00 160.00 61.42 8MB 61,64 65.06 58.02 60.B7
7.00 200.00 48.94 53.27 55.91 5,5,36 53.204 50.01
11.00 250.00 64.36 60.46 59.70 52.83 57.12 57.92
9.00 315.00 77.13 72.91 72.19 53.06 69.31 6~.90
10.00 400.00 65.42 60&.21 64.3) 64.S9 63.78 68.25
11.00 500.00 54.53 84.51 66.49 59.31 '66.33 64.88
12.01) C$30.00 1!13.4G 64.03 6:J.7S 64.74 64.10 61.2'
1:1.00 000..00 59.86 60.113 6~t5 63.S9 61.02 64.36
14.00 1 (lOD.DO 68.72 65.43 6B.~ 65.60 &&.98 67.83
15.00 1 250.00 66.48 65.49 6B21;l 67.49 87.07 71.25
16.00 1600.00 72.78 71.41 70.25 71.03 70.07 71.35
17.00 :2000.00 71.30 71.41 71.20 70.21 73.13 71.55
18.00 ~OO.OO 12.36 72.86 7140 72.53 74.5B 73.94
19.00 a150.00 7S.17 74.82 75.0& 72.68 76.87 73,72
20.00 4000.00 76.07 78.20 75.0. 71.81 17.05 12.704
21.00 5000.00 73.95 .. 74.13 74.92 70,31 75.62 .71.50
22.00 8300.00 73.56 74.88 73.4& 69.2B 74.69 59.Sa
23.00 BOOO.OO 70.64 71.75 72.26 67.04 73.66 67.85
24.00 10000.00 ee.7S 70.4$ 71.43 65.07 71.92 55.92
'.:..'
OCT-B4-2eB5 1510S
.A
JIIn.d .c.amu.
Fraqu/trtr:/..{hId
1 50,00
1 63.00
1 80.00
2 100.00
2 125.00
2 160.00
J 200.00
3 250.00
:1 315.00
. 400.00
.- 500.00
.- 630.00
5 BOO. 00
5 1000.00
5 1250.00
Ii 1600.00
, 2000.00
, 25DO.OO
7 ~1 GO.OO
7 4000.00
7 5000.00
. 6300.00
I 8000.00
I 10000.00
Overall PWL(db(~}
Loudness (SONES)
Cenler
Frequencias{hz)
1.00 50.00
2.00 63.00
3.00 80.00
4.00 100.00
5.00 12$.00
6.00 160.00
7.00 200.00
8.00 250.00
V.OO 315.00
10.00 400.00
11.00 !l00.00
12.00 630.00
13.00 BOO.CO
1".(10 1000.00
15.00 1250.0D
16.00 HlOO.OO
11.00 2000.00
18.00 2500.00
19.00 3150.00
20.00 "1000.00
21.00 5000.00
22.00 6300.00
23.00 6000.00
24.00 10000.00
P.12
-......
. - ..-
............ --'.- .. ..---..
Noise Evaluation FIe :
DrrTnttl: 13215 MlrMdl#:
T.$I': 5 IIIItrMrr:
EDSI , : 3075 EUT Mdl :
Orifice: W.o. wI Altacnment Volb:
Date: 4112/04 Ampe:
Note. I Cleaner centered In the lClst dlamber.
Inld outBlde end .lOlaust In the tesl chamber see photD.
........ ~......,:" oI!Il~
tr.l Oct....
23.21
33.67
36.33
33.82
47.57
56.34
51.07
59.09
73.7~
67.33
69.S4
71.59
71.5111
75.()~
76.08
78.32
79.84
81.80
84.22
85.09
82.71
82.44
79.604-
78.3$
J.E. Adams
119414-00
ArrIetek
9200
120
15.56
By:
For;
EUT Mfr:
EUT SIN :
Freq. ~
Walts:
M Volkert
G:Barnhart
J.E. Adams
..
so
1176.0
lOG
FFT Dllt.
(Mia ;. ab_A fAU un"]
tD
-
~rl. ... ~. .
y... .
A
....-...
10
IN
-;;050
{50
40
~
~
o
2000
.~o
'IIGOO
1211'"
IllOII
'requeuv (1lzJ
1/3 Oetavl! SnJ.lnd ~owlilr
401111
SD,ga
i IOO~
I lllObCI
Ii: 100l.DG
~--
.
It
...
.l!l
I:
~
ItIIG.OlI
"1iIlDO
I3IIil.DD
I.1...U .. ,. 2D llG .0 !Ill CO 7lI 10 10
8.1...ll1 db (rrn.)
1/3 Octl'l~ Spund pressures (RAW)
Microphone PosltJons
1- Z .:l ~ :i .Q
52.89 ';:;0.88 53.79 48.76 54.11 53.01
61.95 59.93 63.31 . 56.69 82.05 60.31
59.27 68.39 69.90 58.41 58.25 56.22
51.96 49.02 46.98 48.&8 .51.80 41!1.29
slue 51.80 4&.79 56.40 56.30 54.16
61.19 60.0$ 61.26 64.82 57.58 60.58
48.24 52.e9 65.35 54.84 52.50 4~.44
64.42 60.90 59.31 51.96 58.24 56.40
76.82 73.10 71.49 91.41 70.20 67.81
65.90 84.31 64.61 64.18 63.87 67.97
64.26 64.21 66.45 58.75 6S.11 84.M
63.59 63.69 83.67 154.04 63.74 80.58
59.73 60.61 62.33 83.31 61.09 63.61
61U8 64.911 66.29 55.19 56.a8 67,$4
68.0C 65.11 66.54 66.88 66.73 70.9lJ
12.-45 7U,( 89.57 69.29 89.73 70.94
71.19 71.28 70.79 68.33 72.94 11.32
72.S/l 73.44 73.93 71.32 74.71 7J.SO
75.09 7".58 7~.24 72.56 77.02 73.60
75.80 75.88 74.65 72.25 17.02 72.83
73.93 .' 74.11 7..S8 70.47 75.41 71.06
73.50 74.79 73.68 70.13 74.93 70.41
70.56 71.54 12.71 . 68.01 73.52 87.111
88.76 70..07 71.83 65.75 72.08 65.82
( .
OCT-04-2085 15:09
.A
...,. CadaL
~.I(hzj
1 50.00
1 63.00
1 80.00
Z .100.00
Z 125.00
Z 160.00
J 200.00
3 250.00
:1 315.00
4 400.00
4 . 500.00
4 630.00
5 600.00
6 1 000.00
5 1250.00
6 1600.00
6 2000.00
6 2500.00
7 3150.00
7 4000.00
7 5000.00
8 6300.00
8 8000.00
II 10000.00
Noise Ev~luaUol't FilII:
DIfTesU: 13275 NlrMdl':
T..U' : 6 J.1trMfr:
EDSI , : 3075 EUT Mill:
Orltic. : Sealed AtIacl'tmenl Volts :
Date: 4112/0<4 Amps;
Not..: CIElllnercenterl!ldinthll tll;lchamber.
Inlllt oul$ldiJ and exhaust In the tellt cha~ SDG photo.
. Ana.fllI ..~... db!_)
v.t au,..
20.33
27.B4
32.09
33.71
50.60
59.56
51.76
52.97
79.61
76.88
78.78
83.05
83.39
81.74
84.64
BI5.11
B5.96
87.07
98.64 .
89.54
86.95
87.20
84.42
82.44
. .
nJJJ .,
,-
... r-..~ -I
.~.
o.
\CD
lIP
10
';70
!IO
.!!.
~ 10
.It
:lO
211
It
"R' 6lI.oa
So tGCI..
..
_ 200.01
l.::
.s 31SO...
II
~ 13Ca..
P.13
- a__.._.. __..._ ....___...
J.E. Adams
119414.00
Amelek
920D
120
12.25
~y:
.For ;
EUT Mrr :
WI' SIN:
Freq. 1
Warts :
M. Volkert
G. BarnhsJt
J.E. Adams
,
60
1417.6
FFT nata
(MIll II! IIlto". te!:t unit)
2000
'llIlll
5<tClO
Fl'Dquanay (hz'
1/3 Octave Sound Power
,-
1200lJ
40110
Overall PWL(db(.>> s.u.o. III 211 :Ill .a iIO 10 70 .. to 1110
Loudness (SONES) :t.18.Z& db (rms)
113 Octave Soundpl:e~!;Ur8S (flAW)
Canter MlcrophorNI Pos!Uons
FtequenC;/lt;(hzJ 1- .2 .1 ~ II G
1,00 . 50.0!) 50.7B 49.37 -1lt.90 49.11 49.96 48.56
2.00 S3.0D 50.97 l!i3.&& 55.91 54.21 54.21 54.77
3.00 80.00 55.9B 52.85 53.29 65.25 52.63 53.06
4.00 100.00 52..39 48.96 47..40 48.01 50.33 49.60 r
.5.00 125.00 60.51 5-4.-44 49.51 58.44 59.17 157.73
6.00 160.00 64.21 63.84 63.1& 68.36 59.11 64.02
1.00 200.00 4B.77 54.25 54.81 55.63 53.24 51.5B
8.00 250.00 51.59 52.20 5UB 52.74 53.48 56.68
9.00 315.00 74.86 67.12 82.07 74.30 78.14 80.75
10.00 400.00 75.43 72.17 75.55 73,21 72.56 T7 .88
11.00 500.00 74.03 73.05 75.0' 67.85 75.45 74.75
12.00 630.00 75.53 75.83 74.58 7B.l!S 73,27 72.50
13.00 800.00 73.94 73.94 73.24 75.62 n.34 73.02
14.00 1000.0D 72.59 71.30 n.71 69.83 '74.04 73.01
15.00 .1250.00 74.58 74.60 79.11 74.21 74.33 78.28
16.00 1600.00 eO.07 79.15 77.74 76.08 78.62 76.09
17'.00 2(100.00 76.73 77.6.1 78.74 75.56 78.75 77.66
18.00 2500.00 78.50 78.60 78.85 77.61 79.32 78.80
1~.OO 3150.00 19.27 78.57 79.19 77.32 81.95 78-25
20.00 4000.00 80.~3 79.82 78.53 78.60 81.69 77.45
21.00 5000.00 78.13 " n.70 78.43 76.56 79.57 74.96
22.00 6300.00 76.00 78.43 78.13 78.34 79.57 74.33
23.00 BOOO,OO 74.39 74.015 7'6.08 78.44 n.89 71.14
24.00 10000.0!> 71.37 71.33 73.46 77.49 75.10 69.05
(" ;..
TOTAL P. 13
OCT-04-2BB5 15:04
" P.02
___--1ft....".....
A
~
--..1
:J1
~SOl Number 3075 Requester Bamharl Larnlnatlonl ~rou~ Re\l I
R!:.U "DUD3 Revl9lon'dale I
Ca" Wlllln 3J31noOJ. 3.0. , Com
Oal. ~ulll!d 41312004 CUSTOMER J.E. Adams CllIlcel (\lold) NoI
Motor TVDel Cancel Oal!! 1
Model Number :119414-00 1 Brg carnm end 7(1.7&44 ~rIl8c/.d ComDI8Uol'I ~ I 1
IPal1Number Brg fan e1Id 70-7644 PBP I
QuanUty 3 BRlsh mElCh 3.3474 Check Off List I~MtrIUn1t lestina 1
Stock 1.125 BnIah Grade X-72 (] Prato Lab J;2l In Unit
Motor OIa 5.7 I DVacLab
VQ1ta~ 1m I ~ Molor Only
-\ ~st Lab..
Fr80uencv 5DJSO I Stages 2 '0 ASTMClIrJlllllnput
~ .. o lnput.TmlOn Carpel
Scun. ""t 111 unIl MMtI. ,200, !I2\O. 8Il\I 9213 o Box Ttst
~ o End of Hose Box Test (cleanar)
\:f~.".,".olofll.llIIlla o Sid Temperature Teal(l-rlsa wi! Te)
~Jjptlon o~Ter;t~9: o Field only T emperaluretesl
o UllelllP1ll8Uv test (ThetmOCoullle)
ISc 1ast ea::h unit 120v <..D o IECTemperaluraTest
1. Te5t wil~ IIos1 il\ 1111 nlOfll. Will\ attachment on 11ll$e. ~
2. TlSt with hose in \he room. Wilh cIA attldlmtnl 0/1 hose. D UL APlXoval Series
1 r..... --...- ... .-.. ......,... ~... @ o VibraUol1
4. Tnlwilh hose 0lI1SIDElhe mom 1I11h aUadlmenlanhcst . o 1/4' Arm InteQl1ly Tet!
5. r~t with hose OUTSIDe the room with OIll ;ttadlmelll em host. .r'\ o QA (visual, hHlOI. vllradon)
6. Tllst with hos!) OUlSlDE tJl1'OClm. 'Mllllllachment on hose bill wl1h bo~!lfII seafed o~ o Inrush Current (peak.
o Locked ro\gf curren! (ms)
o Rlllll1ing 0Vl!lb3d tesl (tempeIiWra)
o Locked ~ItJfTempelalUl$le5t
o Locked Ro\Qr Evaluation
o N1tch. Perf. (SpeedI'Torque)
o Pule. HOllepClWl!r ltst (Inertia)
OESDI Sample 0 Design Rtvr~wed1 Reviewed By: IlnUl_1 I o Peak HOlSepowe.r (NIT)
PROTOTYPE LAB INFO: Re-<lan= palll'7 m o TempollllUf8 hst Cl'IOyno
o HumlclilyTesl l~ponenls 7 days)
Almatv,., Pt No 216336..(11 l FIeJc\ fit No 319414..(J5 I o Hun'lilityTestUL 1017
Annalllrl Qtv 0 F'tefd QI:y 0 o RFI {EN 600141 CISPR 14
ArmalUrB T\lms U FleldTums --- OT'- D RFI (EN 60022) CISPR22
86 D PlIrturbalion (EN 61001-2-3)
A/Tna1\lre Gauge 24.0 l'1eJdGauge 2D o Flicker (EN 6Un>-3-3~
ConneetJOIl DI Bglam 58.J Terminal boann . o ManlJill Switc:h Test (EN 6tO<JO..3."2/31
yn
Shaft 20.1163-11 l.amln eUCllI (Arm and FleJlj) I o Sound Teat {6-PDslllonl
o Soulld Evaluatk:n
$DeciallnstT\lc1iDI1s1 Crimm 30477 lamination 51" Type; \ o NBlTOW Band Analysis
o Vibra~oJ\ Analysis
o MDdalAnalysls
D Steel E~aluaUon
o OPE MPH Test
IUfe test Info: o OPE AIIfiDW
o L.lfe lest o R\ll\ molarl Z4J7 J DOPE TII1'\P Rise \lY Reslst~
o Bencll Expeded hours: 0 Raesen fer lest 1 o OPEPerfolTlllnce
o Cleaner projeci life at:
o SlUoucl Orifice sl~: I';;. edal test InslNi;t!ons: 1
o Fan load Cycle ontoft.
o Slda load Other
o Slid,.,. (explain) \_.,
o MovIng Table
o Gyro ~
OLfII?:. /0'+ }...",~V ( ~
...J
'.' .
~
...&
!-
II
~1
~~
I Ii
i \1
I pfti
~ Iii
U11bl
~!II'iI!!
!I -i!lXa
i~I~"h
e:ss-;11iI1
lIl';i!!Ii'i!ll
a--=-'K ""
"'ib
'!lilt;1
l~t~.4~
D
;
ii!
, 0
,\ h.
I 1 ai
I .._
/ ~
.. ..
i
Vacbill
Merltl 1194,4-00 Vol~ 120 T18111 No TFl8P BP Dram. 5.7
I! HUrM.,. I!-tD04W flp_rI 1 lVCu/l7 No ,.,lphIT.n P L.". 3.0
luck 1.125 SI.III, , (:1...87 N~ A/$7 No t Bin tComm) 22
$tlFf 2 MG$ B/S 1/S Vet 6po~ ".lnI7 No lI5IotaiArm) 22
ur.Houna 500 CIa' 111 D'l No G",IJII C
.---........----
Aml.ture 216336-01 ReUI 319414-05, Blu.h 33474
AIm OeIIg. 24 I'l". a.ure 20 'fR.f 10-5596-1
AnlI 7/10 13 } P1.'d TI'C 86 N~II
CDfIn DI.g. Ss.J t'JIoIle Gradd X.72
Cammu,.IO, :l0477 r.,..rl'c Cltf>otl 30059&1
sll.n 20-11&3-10 Th,,"lII Pm' Vendor TOYO
SII81( EICf' No 111"""0$'" Color, Nylglf
OplnlngT."" po' GREEN
ROI F." 1 :n120
TI"., 80url 50-4337 8. 50--4339 strip' BROWN
Flllt 31120
&m. $prlto. 20.5819
FI,.:,
F.,," Yell. 1111III.
ShL 1'01''' 31253 DHluMl TlIlV Bote 6O-79n-3
'0 Shell 60-3727;60.37'-7-4 Hou."'~ BO.37Z1-4 AIS Sr.I"
CE BrwJr.' JO-692Q-1 F.,. Nil' 7491.1 Col7lro/Modu"
,ca., No Fan NoItWu/l.,. 30.22110 p,.me SKELETON
MlNdal Pl, p~clt.glnfl SpIC.
FE Bncrlc.f 2Q.tS82 CSA1 Yes
Iff.liFF1 No FlLEl/UU l' 26
Brid ...m.
s._ a. 11 e336-D1
EJ<<OP' G2000 Design
cum",., LAMB CIlIl1MOn.. SKel.ETON PERIPHERAL
S."I..,_ M1nAm~
lA.~
Mln W.IU
"'IIIVao
MI/lI Amp.
W... WII~
!lAuV...,
8.5
MI" WltU
/I.. W.ItlI
Mln Vall
33
Otqtcl or !I{p MIlt Amps
I.","
Milt Amps
1050
Max v.c
.. M ._~._...__.. ____..._...... ....-.. ..... .., -- ........ --_... .--. -. -.--... .... .... - -...---........-...
A"IllIIIII",.1I
Amu{,.wt 0.1688
ARM Ifn D.94795
~Jattd tnnnl1 72.30434
FJNtw1,..wL 02347918
FIELD RES O.5~03
StJbUIty FaCfOr f .~D2.797
-'
_....--- ....-....-...----------
Is mOlorlij41lt:mnll ctltlrplett:?
Si8nilhtrt:
Date
Signature'
DQte
1f'~""tsdQy. MIV~" 31. 211114
Pil$et f)f I
\'. ,:
li3
1
~
CD
-
~
OCT~-2005 15t06
CO')
~
&t
'!~$
6D.3i
01
~
...
10
..
....
....
t;i
00
~
~ ~
~ .Iii
0-- ~ $ II> '"
~ l"lI ~~... ... "l lit
N :O>Il..~ .... '6t II> .. i
f 10 a> ~
C>> '1:J 0 en ..
I
~
.s
Q.
~"
g S l!~ ~ 8 S <0 0
~ ~ ot
SlcS!D.~ ~ st ,.:
<II '"
to
~
~
I I!!
:i 0
'0
E
0
0
.
~
i '" ~ .e ...
i Oi! 1 .,
~ .~ .. I
~ e Q Il E
1i e ..-5
.r:. $I .. l!! I!
- E= ! <! ~I f ;:;
'j ...< OJ .J:>< .
~. 'i ~ .J~ ~ ~
u
l!! . Jj q "8 !'! i !
CIJ ~i~ en < fii~ 1II
i c'"
5~
CIJ ~t; 1=
0 .!IS
KI." ..~
fA :S-5 ..511
E ..s.s c ..
-..
il- l]
ro .i!~
'tJ
<C 3~
u.i ~~ ~~
..- ~i
-i o~
., ~ ~
~:~ CD ... ~
... . ...
!]~ ~ .,.; .,.; rri p
<:> .n ...
... .... ... .... ...
CO')
~
Sf
=:t... ot CD N M lJ>
I!.<l> .., co ... ....
"~g ~ on gi ~ ...
~1 0 0>
0.::\.... ..
0
~Ci;'
~ lU
"""-c
0 "
In ~!~ ~ N q Ie ....
- <0 ~
~ ~ rri
(It ~l= 1Q ...
ut .... ....
~ ..I
I~
Q'1:J
N:S
en,9
~
~
E
Q
0
.
"It'
~
'It" B "i
en i: e .., 0 c; i:
~ E II> I i .. III ~
~ E e E
~~ 15 l: "fi '5
.c !! .. i !!
! ;: b !! ~
- i.ot <:
'j < OJ ~i ..
r '} 1: ~ 'i 1 I
~ ~ ~ c! '3 u d -:
.. ~ ~ t'I ~ ~ CI) !
lD ~~ e~ 0(
C .. " -8~
IV. 5-5
u .~j i~
C3
.. " ;!l
.~ &:1; .-11
.;;;. .Ii III
l"lI ii ~li!
"C OJ G
<( 31 ~~
. li;"U ~:;
W 0:: Iii eO
~ z. :...
lie 131:
P.06
s
I
2f
a
5
VI
III
OCT-04-2I2lffi 15:07
P.07
11=. N N t;; ... l!?
(3
~ II! t,j <'! ,.;
OllS :;; G ...
.3 ... ...
"'it1 ~ ~ ;. . :
jD.m 8: ...
COl
.9 t .9
t l
.j i Ji .. II I
. ..
.. . ..
I .. '- .
Do. a. ~ ~ ...
. . II Ei
II .. . 'S Ii ..:-G J!
. .. ."
j :i a:i; Ii ii
~.a 11 I!a
~I til .-
'5,2 fi!
~j -1ii j] ~.5l ~J:i 1'-
.!Is s- .1- !I
g! ~! JJ:l ~!; ll' ~
.~ oS .s.. .Ii J: .EO .g os!
.., - "aiij 11 ..... "'1 'i1i!
e-" i~ 11
jj i~ Ii
! .. i~
.11 8i ...... I! Ii
~ :i ~:lI .,
",..
. ..;., III ''is "I
&o:! O'Ji 0:1 o! B-
~ I i i l "i
g ~ i
g i2fj ! ~ ~
-v... ~ ~
I "~I I:~ 'e 1: -c .!
~'J ~ fit 'J
.", j ... "1
It.. .. . ~ fi q .II
tlf !Do ~q II ~ ~ I
~ III ~
iii -.:ici~S '"
~ ~~ i [ a
Il.:l! II. i'" N t') ... ... co
I-
,!t"": :5 ... oa q <D
-.... N ~ l!! ~
,~ III J2
'" .... ....
~ ... .. ...
ON .... 0 10 ... on
a."l ~ N :i ~ a
Ell> ~
-C... .... ....
0: ...
iii-
..
'D
D
20 8 8 ~ ~ co
..0 ~ a
-sc SI !;1 Ell Sl
J
U
,l<O..>C ~ ..>C Jt! .... .>If.
~~U1!e :oS .!!I .!l ~ B .
0 III .. J ..~ lJ
~.f ~ .i ~
li~a
.t .. ., .. ..
i~lm; ~8 D 0 "" ! 8
QQo ~ + D
'" lilt" s"" ... ...
~:; - - i ... 0-
J a ~ (I; x ..
.. i~ ..... - ... ~
... .,... ... ... ...
c.>
OCT-04-2005
.A
. Iud CaalH.
Fr..~IICIe.(IIz)
f 5().OO
f 63.00
f 80.00
Z 100.00
2 125.00
2 160.00
3 200.01)
,., 250.00
,., 315.00
" 400.00
" 500.00
" 830.00
5 800.00
5 1000.00
IS 1250.00
6 1600.00
Ii 20DO.00
15' 2500.00
7 3150.GO
7 4000.00
7 5000.00
8 5300.00
B t'OOO.OO
8 10000.00
Oy..r.llll PW~db(a))
Loudne$$ (SONES)
Center
Frequ.nclrn(hz)
1.00 SD.OO
2-[)() 63.00
3.01) 80.00
~.OtJ 100.00
S.OD 125.00
6.01) 100.00
7.0() 200.00
B.OtJ 25D.00
9.00 315.00
10.00 400.00
11.00 500.00
12.00 630.00
13.00 BOO.OO
14.00 1000.00
15.00 1250.00
115.00 1600.00
17.OD 2000.00
1a.oO 2500.00
19.00 31~,OO
20.00 4000.00
21.00 5000,00
22.00 \'1300.00
23.00 8000.00
24.00 1 DOOO.OO
1s:en
P.0S
Nolt. f.vlIlulltlon Fila:
on Te.UI : '3275 Mtr Mdt' :
TesUJI: ' 1 'MIJ'Mfl':
EOSII\l : 3075 EUT Mdl :
Orince : W.O. wi A.ltlIdvnel'lt Volt.s :
Data: 4112104 Amps;
Notas : C1lJaner centered In the lest chamber.
Inlat.end exhaust in thele.t chamber lee photo.
S_d .-'" 1Ib(.)
113 o~.w
23.:3B
33.24
3(U7
34.77
47.40
56.36
~1Ji5
60.6;;1
75.99
67.05
70.39
71.33
73.049
78.61 '
77.60
80.64
87.08
66.65
84.59
85.41
83.10
82.5B
79.68
78.33
M. Volkert
G. aamhart
J.E. Ad1ms
1
CO
1749.7
J.E. Adllmli'
119414-00
Ametek
9200
120
15.32
By:
For:
EUT Mft :
eUT SIlt:
F...q.~
WattS :
FFT Olllll
(MIl:: IIi IIbnvII tAli. u.,,~
100
-
.. L I la~~ -
~V~ . - "
.1
- . .....
r I
to
aD
I ?D
....10
Z
e 50
'0
30
20
D
eoco
Fra<tll.ncy (~I
113 Oetave Sound Power;:
lOCIlMI
I~OO
2*
.011O
I9tCI
.... _.
IS. 1_
Zt _io
...
..
..
..
rI
J:
s
=
.
u
-'11I
too.oo
11OlI....
31!Ul
-
s.u.z 0 '0 ao :so '0 50 eo ~ IIIl1 ~ 111I
U&8 db (rms)
113 Octave Soun~ prftSsUrll8 (RAW)
MlctOpttone Positions
1.. Z a l. :i tl
53.19 50.92 !5U5 49.61 53.87 53.40
61.61 59.18 62.11 5S.$i 81.75 59.98
69.83 58.611 60.54 56.90 58.84 56.9 t
52.93 50.07 49.90 47.40 53.03 48.78
57.00 51.03 49.30 55.16 Sl3.77 S3.5e
61.26 6O.t! 61.15 64.1) 58.33 60.52
49.52 53.43 55.28 55.25 54. H) 4Q.50
66.03 61.52 61.06 54.65 51.74 60.46
79.06 74.28 73.90 66.11 69.55 73.35
66.48 63.68 63.73 93.74 63.41 67.64
.65.50 64.83 66.56 60.12 67.33 65.91
62.81 83.29 63.34 63.86 &4.1B 60.43
63.28 81.94 62.97 65.42 63.96 84.94
67.61 !S.6S 65.88 a8.30 ee.45 67.70
69.14 65.60 66.32 67.8& 72.16 71.05
73.54 72.07 69.90 71.17 76.3& 72.43
73.~6 73.69 72.02 78.25 8oloSe 73.69
75.72 74.49 73.91 77.32 83.43 75.35
75.64 7.4.30 1.4-.6.4- 72.30 78.35 13.72
76.:<18 75.68 74.07 71.91 '78.01 72.71
74.51 74.13 73.98 71.15 76.1.9 11.75
74.15 lUll 73.78 69.56 75.16 70.68 .
71.21 11.77 72.69 66.66 73.78 68.18
70.16 70.02 70.54 55.S11 72.17 65.39
DCT-04-2005 15H37
A
8In4 '-IIl1aL
"""tIlf:.t(1J4
1 50.00
1 53.00
1 80.00
2 100.0D
2 125.00
2 160.00
3 200.00
J 250.0D
.3 315.00
<4 400.00
<4 500.00
<4 630.00
5 800.00
S 1000.00
S 1250.00
., 1eOo.OO
., 2000.00
II 2500.00
7 3150.00
7 4000.00
7 5000.00
, 8300.00
, 8000.00
B 10000.00
NOise Evaluation File :
DfTTntt: 13275 MtrMdl.:
Tlat - : 2 Mtr Mrn
EDSI II: 3075 EUT Mdll
Orifice: Seated Allachment Volts:
Date: . 4112/04 Amps:
Notes; Ch,lll1", cenlered 111 thlt tesl chamber.
Inlet and exhaust II11/\a lest ehOl1Tlber'M pholo.
KClIIll"~"."~ll(~
11.J ocrw.
:m.09
28.12
32.69
33.59
50.03
~g.56
1l2.31
51.59
72.29
75.89
80.09
81.65
89.68
81.18
85.53
86.74
86.65
86.94
88.28
89.50
87.29
a7.!~O
84.91
81.B8
P.12l9
'-'-.....-. --...-- It........ 1..fIU.. ua..u ...uuu,..
J.E. Adillms
119414-00
Amel~1l;
9200
120
11.6'1
ay:
FD'I':
EUT Mrr :
EUT SIN :
Frsq. ;
W;a!ta :
.... Volkert
G.Bamhart
J.E. Adams
1
60
1351.8
lOCI
FFT Dlltl
IMII, f1: Ilhn"," hl~ u~
tD
"D
-
I
An.u ..
ri'''' ~ ..
....... :.v...
-
--
I !D
_ eo
illl
~
<llI
:lO
20
Cl
2D()O
fCGQ'
F..qu.ncy (~l
1,;l Octave Sound PQ\Il(~1I:
CIllO
1??oo
UDall
.-
5G.aII
l 10Ull
i ZlIOAlIl
i=
... 1.De
.! ~15Q."
..
~ ....
Overall PWL(tI~(;I.)) .taJ2Q 10 20 lID .0 !loll 4D 10 lID .0 160
Loudness (SONES) ~ db (rms)
1/3 Octave :;Q~nd pressures (RAW)
Center MlcrDphone PosltlDns
Ff'equencia$(hz) .1 i J ~ S .a
1.00 $0.00 49.78 49.34 50.:1/7 . 4~.03 -19.08 .ca.96
2.00 63.00 57.23 54.16 S6.S6 S4.04! 54.71 55.19
Me. 80.00 SlS.;1. 53.37 53.57 55.7() 53.10 53.70
4.0l) 100.00 52.63 -48.22 -47.09 '*9.'11 49.77 49.25
5.00 125.00 80.08 153.Z2 50.91 57.77 58.62 SU7
I.tOO 160.01> 64.33 63.83 64.28 6S.33 EiO.o1 SUB
7.00 200.00 49.20 54.80 55.17 55A9 53.92 5U;9
8.00 2S0.00 50.B1 52.43 51.08 51.77 53.06 54.92
9.00 315.00 70.77 '12.23 73.34 70.43 68.85 83.55
10.00 400.00 75.27 73.24 74.02 72.7& 71.65 75.5B
11.00 500.00 78.19 74.14 7526 69.95 76.28 78.69
12.00 630.00 74.01 72.21 71.71 75.SS 70.19 74.59
13.00 800.00 80.77 77.49 7&.93 82.97 75.76 81.85
14.00 1000.00 71.2\1) 70.64 72.18 tl9.l!I1 73.17 73.26
1$.00 1250.00 74.25 76.12 8D.75 73;157 76.14 '78.39
18.00 1800.00 79.97 80.18 7B.83 77.27 79.52 7B.78
17.00 2000.00 77.13 78.01 78.13 74.42 79.92 78.50
18.00 250D.00 79.14 78.50 77.74 74.77 '10.12 80.09
19.00 3150.00 79.54 78.35 78.44 75.27 81.85 71.70
20.00 400e.CO 80.79 7~.6S 73.18 75.59 82.15 78.60
21.00 5000.00 79.16 77.'2- 77.65 74.63 8O.e2 75.48
22.00 6300.DO 80.78 78.44 77.72 74.86 sua 75.17
23.00 8000.00 78.01 74.9Z 75.53 72.55 80.39 71.93
24.00 10000.00 75.54 71.84 72.42 68.6B 76.54 69.0e
OCT-04-2005 '15:08
A
DAIu& .laIIlaL
Fr"fIU~II{/1l1J
1 50.00
f 83.00
1 80.00
Z 109.00
2 125.00
2 180.00
3 200.00
3 25Q.00
3 315.00
" 400.00
4 . 500.00
.. 630.00
5 aoo.OO
5 1000.00
S 1250.00
S 1600.00
S 2000.00
, 2.500.00
7 :3150,00
7 4000.00
7 5000.00
, e300.00
II 8000.00
8 10000.00
Noise EVBluallon FR. :
On' Test": 13275 Mtr Mdll :
Test.: 3 Mtr Mfr:
EDSI, : 3075' EUT M~I !
Orlflc. : Attachment ,.moved Volts :
Datt; 4/12104 Amps:
Not.. : Cleaner c.lmlered In the test ctlambfilf.
Inlet and exhauslln the test chamber 'M photo,
SnuNl fllLtMAI'! d~.'
'13 Od...
23.81
33.52
36.75
34.85
47.41
57.25
52.37
59.40
75.29
67.25
70.19
70.SIJ
72.6J
75.35
713.23
78.69
79.93
B1.48
83.72
85.09
82.94
82.. S 6
79.77
79.70
P.10
'f",........n.. 1_..... .,.t.... ...~..IU'... "".11"" ."UUUIII.
J.E. Adams
119414-00
Ametek
9200
120
15.20
M. Volkert
G. Bamhart
J.E. Adams
1
SO
1732.6
By:
For;
EUT Mfr :
BIT SIN :
Fttq. :
Walls :
101
Fl!{ b~
(Mlr: 8: _boy. t_t unit)
III
II . ~ -- --
II INVII l' .., ...., V ......... ..
II -
.. ~
- .
-
eo
i79
-60
".i'
Iso
.~
:JIl
'0
o
ZlIlllI
4OGO
tClllO
lCOOO
~ooo
F'Mlu.n,",v Chq
1/3 Octave Soun(:l power
l2000
~
c:
.
:I
...
!
k.
t
.
u
"ir 10..
tS. __
Overall PWL(db(IIl)) !l2.JJ.J 0 10 II :10 40 &II co III eo "
Loudn... (SONES) 11.62. db (nns)
1/3 OctavlI Sound ):tr::",!i:~un'Jfr (RAW)
Cllnler Microphone Posltlons
Frequendes(hz} i Z .3 ~ a B
1.00 SO.DO 53.58 51.27 ~.11 50.78 54.24 53.75
2.00 63.00 61.95 59.50 62.88 56.95 61.99 80.33
3.00 eo.oo 59.80 .58.71 60.31 56.89 ~B."9 56.85
4.00 100.00 53.32 50.35 49.94 41.93 52.55 48.85
S.OO 125.00 515.91 51.41 49.45 55.20 56.59 53.55
6.00 '\60.00 52. HI 61..01 82.04 65.73 58.56 61.49
7.00 200.00 49.75 53.92 58.50 56.15 54.08 50.56
B.OO 250.00 64. 72 59.61 58.65 55.61 54.117 61.04
9.00 315.00 78.32 72.87 71.92 67.9() 67.19 74.44
10.00 400.00 6S.39 63.82 83.98 84.16 63.14 68.17
11.00 500.00 65.10 64.91 66.45 59.97 615.02 65.83
12.00 630.00 61.91 82.72 63.:l8 63.33 62.03 60.23
13.00 800.00 61..51 111.37 62.aS 64.59 61.32 65.00
14.00 1000,00 66.81 54.53 55.lIS SU1 66.63 67.21
15.00 12$0.00 68.34 65.34 65.51 67.43 66.G7 71.30
18.00 161>0.00 72.85 72.00 69.65 69.26 70.46 71.33
17.00 201)0.00 71.35 71.82 70.61 68.12 72.78 71.56
18.00 2S00.00 73.02 72.67 73.:U 69.95 74.44 73.71
19.00 3150.00 74.91 73.98 74.5Q 70.55 76.95 73,33
20.00 4000.00 7&.23 75.$9 7-4.62 71.20 76.1)e. 72.58
21.00 5000.00 74.30 74.0\ . 74.49 70.11 75.31 72.77
22.00 G300.00 74.B6 74,7:1 73.43 IlS.77 74.88 70.27
23.00 8000.00 71.93 72.15 72.09 68.0$1 73.75 67.19
24.00 10000,00 74.45 70.57 70.80 68.97 72.48 65.61
OCT-04-:2005 15:08 P.11
'l\I'~..I.. -. ----. -..-.. - .
A NQlae ~va'uation FU., : J.e. Adams By: M. Volkert
Dtr Te~t III ~ , 3~7S Utt Mdlll ~ 119414-00 For: G. Bamhar1
T e:lt' : 4 Utt Mfr ; Amelek EUT Mfr; J.E. Ada/T15
EDStl : 3075 EUT Mdt: 9200 EUT SIN: 1
OrifiCII : A1taehment relY10Ved Volts: 120 Freq. : CO
Dat_: 4/12/04 Amps: 15.40 Watts : 17&5.6
Note.: c::leanar centered In lhe1eSl cI1amber.
In!et outaidll and ~Khau$t In the test chamber tea photo.
~ ~ Rf'Wft" "~"'.I"'!' dhl~ FFT Dat.
"nqu.nd..{~ 113 o.:c.... (""Ie IIi .hll>,,", t.tlt unIt)
1 5[).OO 23.85 lOG
1 63.00 33.66
1 eo.oo 36.31 10
:z 100.00 34.011 III
2 125.00 47.71
2 160.00 58.64
3 200.00 51.Sa
3 250.00 SIM9
3 315.00 74.12
4 .400.00 67.53
4 ~OO.OO 6!U1
4 (j30.00 71.91 ZIlQO - 5000 toCO ,QOCIIlI '*10
5 1300.00 71.91 FrcqUll"~Y (hlLl
5 100D.00 75,87
5 12S0.00 7&.38 113 Octave Sound PDwaJ:
Ii 1600.00 78,80 - 1O.oe
B 2000.00 eO.2~ ..
.e. 11lC1.oe
5 2500.00 81.7a I :tOo.GI
7 3150.00 134.19 .. CIlCI.lIO
7 4000.00 SG.29 l!I ....DII
7 5000.00 82.91 ....
I 6300.00 82.24 ! 1SOO.lIO
..
I eooo.oo 79.42 . 31511.81
'1;;
I 1eOOO.Oo 78.22 ~ 131W..
~mJl PWL(dI1Ci1>> .u...a.f D 'Il 20 >> .., .0 'D 7D e. 10
LO';ldness (SONES) B.2..5l db (rms)
1/3 Oct"'(JI SDund prF!!::~4r- (R.Aw.)
Cenlllr MicrOphone PositlDns
~quencles(11z) 1. Z .1 ~ 5 B
1.00 ~C).OO 53.10 51.46 53.91 50.30 54.45 53.41
2.00 63.00 61.81 60.02 63.07 5a.30 62.53 6().11)
3.00 60.00 55.97 58;78 59.52 56.83 58.48 55.94
4,00 .100.00 52.64 4!UZ 49.12 46.60 51.91 48.5B
5.00 125.00 51.44 52.43 49.15 55,61 56.33 53.94
6.00 160.00 61.42 80.48 61.64 65.06 58.02 60.B7
7.00 200.00 49.84 53.27 55.91 55,35 53.24 50.01
8.00 250.00 64.36 60.46 59.7D 52.83 57.12 57.92
9.00 315.00 77.13 72.97 12.19 63.06 69.31 ~~.90
10.00 400.00 66.42 64.27 64.>> 64.69 63.78 6B.25
11.00 500.00 64.53 8Hi1 66.49 59.31 '66.33 64.8S
12.00 lS30.00 83.4CS G4.03 63.75 84.74 64.10 61.21
13.00 eoa,OO 59.86 60.83 15~15 63.1$; 61.02 64.36
14.0D 1 000.00 68.72 6$.43 68.46 65.60 615.98 67.83
15.00 1250.00 68,48 65.49 66.2~ 67.49 87.07 71.25
16.00 1600.00 12.18 71.41 70.25 71.03 70.07 71.35
17.00 :2000.00 71.30 71.4t 71.20 70.21 73.13 71.55
18.00 :z500.00 72.36 72.86 73.40 72.53 74.58 73.94
19.00 a1S0.00 75.17 74.82 7.5.0& 72.68 76.87 13,72
20.00 4000.00 76.07 78.20 75.04 71.61 77.05 72.74
21.00 5000.00 73.95 .. 74.13 74.92 70.31 75.62 71.50
22.00 6300.00 73.56 74.88 73.45 69.28 74.69 69.55
23.00 eooo.oo 70.64 71.75 72.28 67.04 73.56 67.85
24.00 10000.00 ae.75 70.4$ 71.43 65.07 71.92 85.92
'.:..'
.A
OCT-04-2005 15\138
I.In.d ~
Freqwnr:i..{hd
1 50.00
1 83.00
1 80.00
2 100.00
2 125.00
2 160.00
" 200.00
3 250.00
J 315.00
. 400.00
4 500.00
4 630.00
5 BOO.oo
5 1000.00
5 1250.00
& 1600.00
6 2000.00
5 25DO.DO
7 3150.00
7 4000.DO
7 5000.00
B 6300.00
a 8000.DO
a 10000.00
Over.1I PWL(~b~
Loudness (SONES)
1.00
2.00
3.00
. 4.00
5.00
8.00
7.00
8.00
8.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.(J0
15.00
18.00
11.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00 .
23.00
24.00
Cenler
Frequencie::(hz)
SO.OO
63.00
SO.OO
100.00
125,00
160.00
200.00
250.00
315.00
400.00
500.00
630.00
800.00
, 000.00
1250.00
1S00.00
~OOO.OO
2500.00
3150.00
4000.00
:>000.00
6300.00
6000,00
10000.00
P.12
----..;;p' .. - a. __a_ .II......... __.._ . .____.
Noise Eva/u~tJon file :
DtrTnU: 13275 MtrMlIl':
Tes.': S MtrMrr:
EDSI , : 3075 EUT Mdl:
Orlfl~ I W.O. wi AI1ac1lment Volls:
Date: 4J12104 Amps :
N Dte. : ClesMr centered In the tlllsl dlamtler.
InlB\ outside end exhaust Il1h tllst ehamoor see pholD.
...u~.. "........~ oItIlQ
tt3 Oct...
23.21
33.67
36.33
3UZ
41.57
56.34
51.07
59.09
73.7~
67.33
59.54
71.59
71.59
75.tl3
76.M
78.32
79.84
B1.80
84.22
85.0~
82.71
82.44
7U4
78.33
J.E. Adams
119414.00
Ametek
9200
120
15.58
By:
For;
EUT Nfr:
EUT SIN :
F req. ~
Welts:
M. Volkert
G:Barnhart
J.E: AclIlIOS
1
SO
1nS.O
100
FFT DBt.
(Mia Ii! .h__ tAu unn)
-
... l .. .
In...... II .. "411' .
II' A
..--
OD
II)
170
.,.,10
.. .
{-
<<J
)0
*'
o
2000
IOCIO
'POQ~
1211Clll
40110
liIlOII
'flquene)' (hz!
1/3 Oetav!! Sound Powl!lr
SD.Da
i 1OO~
-H ~
Ii IOlua
:J
:ir.wG
It 1t11G.lll1
11 ".DO
I:
c3 l3IIll.ao
.t1..i(i 0 ,. 2a :lO 40 511 110 TO ta 10
B.1...ll1 db (rms)
1/3 Oct81(~ Sgund preuur8*{RAW)
Microphone PoslUons
1. Z J ~ ~ .Q
52.69 ~O.B8 53.79 4S.16 54.11 53.01
61.95 59.93 63.31 . 56.69 82.05 60.31
59.27 58,39 69,90 56.41 58.25 56.22
51.96 49.02 .46.98 48.68 51.80 41!1.29
5&..0 51.80 4&.79 56,.0 56.30 54. Hi
61.19 60.05 61.28 64,82 57.5B 60.58
48.24 52.e9 65.35 54. Bot 52.SO. 4'9.44
64.42 60.90 59.31 51.96 58.24 56.40
76.62 73.'10 71.49 81.41 7D.20 67.81
65.90 84.31 64.61 84.18 63.87 &7.97
64.26 64.21 66.45 56.75 68.17 84.M
83.59 63.69 113.87 84.04 63,74 so.sa
59.73 60.81 62.33 83.31 61,09 63.61
6lUS 64.98 00.<19 55.19 65.66 67.64
68.0C 65.18 86.54 66.88 66.73 70.9f$
12..45 7U4 89.57 69.<19 8U3 70.94
71.19 71.28 70.79 68.33 72.94 71.32
72.58 73.~ 73.93 71.32 74.71 73.50
75.09 74.58 7~.24 72.56 77.02 73.S0
75.80 75.81 74.65 72.25 17.02 72.113
73.93 .. 74.11 7~,S8 70.47 75.41 71.06
73.50 74.711 73.68 70.13 74.93 70.41
70.58 71.54 72.71 . 6B.o1 73.52 B7.111
BB.l'EI 70-.07 71.83 65.75 72.08 65.82
I...
OCT-B4-2005 15:89
.A
P.13
-
- &~_.&_.. --..- ....---...
Noise Ev~IU8Ucl'l FIll:
D/TTesU: 13275 MtrMdU:
r..tl: 6 Po1trMfr:
EDSI ".: 3075 EUT Md' :
Orlfic. : Sealed AlIlIcl1menl Volts :
Date: 4112/04 Amps;
Not.. : Clellner centerlld in thll t8l1l chamber.
Inlet outside and exhaust In t/1e te..t chall1bOl' SDG photo.
. .au",. IS~,.. dhr.~
....... ~
~.I(h7J
1 SO.OO
f B3.oo
, BO.OO
2100.00
Z 125.00
Z 160.00
J 200.00
3 :l50.00
3 315.00
4 0400.00
., . 500.00
-4 630.00
S 1l00.00
$ 1000.00
5 1250.00
6 1600.00
6 2000.00
Ii 2500.00
7 3150.00
7 4000.00
7 5000.00
B 6300.00
, 8000.00
I 10000.00
OVA rail PWL(db~))
Loudness (SONES)
1.00 .
2.00
3.00
4.00
.5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
11.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
23.00
24.00
CIIFltar
FRlqu~ncJ.s(hzJ
!;iO.DO
63.0[)
80.00
100.00
125.00
160.00
200.00
250.00
315.00
400.00
500.00
630.00
800.00
1000.00
.1250.00
1600.00
2000.00
2500.00
3150.00
04000.00
5000.00
6300.00
8000.00
10000.00
(A au...
20.33
27.B4
32.09
33.71
50.60
59.56
51.76
52.97
79.51
76.B8
78.78
83.05
83.39
81.74
84.64
86.11
85.96
87.01
88.64
89.54
86.95
87.20
84.42
82.<<
IfUJJ.
~
MlcrophoM POlJllions
1-
5D.71S
56.97
55.9B
52.M
60.51
64.21
48.77
51.59
14.86
75.43
74.03
75.5:)
73.94
72.59
74.58
eO.07
16.73
78.50
79.27
BD.~3
78.13
78.00
74.:)9
71.37
J.E. Adams
119414.00
Amelek
9200
120
12.25
I!r:
For:
EUT Mrr :
WI' SIN:
F,.,q. ~
Watts :
M. Volkert
G. Barnhsl\
J.E. Adams
,
60
1411.6
1CD
IICl
10
'0:"'0
!IO
i"'
.C1
30
Zll
D
FFT n.ta
(Mle I! IIIbo". test unit)
~I .~ .\
.
.... ~ ..
._-
~ooa
UlIlIl
~
Fl'lIqa.ncy (hz)
1/3 Octavo Sound Power
toOO
1_
l.aGW
! act.OO
1IlD..
. 2!IO.0I
~
..
i 'ClQ..
aoD..
~ 1I0ll.00
i )'$0,01
=
. -.
\oJ
ID 2ll ill .0 &0 to 70 .. to 100
db (rms)
1/3 Octa". Soundprl!ssursliI (RAW)
Z .1 .. 12 a
49.37 45t.90 49.11 49.96 48.58
!3.8& 55.97 54.21 54.21 54.77
52;85 ~3.29 66.25 52.63 53.0a
48.96 47.40 48.01 50.33 49.60 r
54.46 49.51 58.44 59.17 51.73
63.84 63.1& 68.35 59.11 64.02
.54.25 54.81 55.63 53.24 51.58
52.20 s.ua 52.14 53.48 156.6B
67.12 82.01 74.30 76.14 80.75
72.17 75.55 73.21 72.56 77 .a8
73.05 75.0' 67.85 75.45 74.75
75.83 74.58 76.25 73.27 72.50
73.94 73.24 75.62 n.34 73.02
71.3Q n.n 69.83 '''4.04 73.01
74.60 79.12 74.21 74.33 7<8.28
79.15 77.74 76.98 78.82 7~1.09
77.61 76.74 75.56 78.15 17.68
78.60 78.115 77.51 79.32 76.1'10
76.57 79.19 77.32 61.95 78.25
79.92 78.53 78.60 81.69 77.45
.' n.70 78.43 7~.SB 79.57 74.9&
78.43 78.13 73.34 79.57 74.33
74.6!! 7'6.08 18..... '17.89 71.14
71.33 73.46 71.49 76.10 69.05
( ;:
TOTAL P. 13
,'.,.,""" ...~. .
: ':" ,., ........,. ,,:r~,f;'~,". .
. ...,.;"".~,,:.:.
'.~l
''.'1
':'1
. ,
i
'1
I
i
i
i
.
i
i
i
I
I
,
,
,
,
i
"J
....j
! .
I
'1.
I
~.~
~~1
;~l
. i
I
"0 I
i
.'1
'1
I
I
!
.~
-
~
-C:
~
.-
~.a
-a
ClJO
. "Cf)
--Q
O.~
<.
~
.~.~
c:.O
Q)
-
-a
" 0
::g :g
<0 a
. ex:> O':l
...
a
~
D
.Q
"'D
R2
...
a
l()
o
:g
l()
.' '"
...
a
C)
~
o
':-0
"tj
a
f'....
c:::
o
..c::
--
C/)
C/)
Q)
--
...
a
I.C)
C"J
"
,~
, -.; "ill> . ...).
\~J9-:"B
"""'''(~
:,'-l",:
, ff>'::_~.
f(( J ., ..._._-.i
3. '
2. i
.-..-: ....
"
:'; "-
.', " ;. ~
~
~.
:,
.,- .......
-" ~.
'- ,!
_.
..
2 __
::-:~
-
"
'f -,.! ':
.' .
~1
, r-'",.
~,
.,. '.
. ....~: "l11J:,
. -~",
18S
..... ....
"'"
:e Q3
-
V)
'""'"
. v.
It) .t::
V.
ttl
~ ~
...
,.. ('!;;l
(.:; .,
~
(I)
....=I-I-LL cO I-
OIULLI-I-L
~ ~ " "
E
:II-cO
.- L
'a ,I-;-
llJ_._
I-l-l-cOLLl-cO
GlLLLI-I-LI-
1:1' I I I I I I I
J.,l1)O0 Ol1)l1)0
- - -' -- -- -- -
I/)
E
(I)
....u
~+J
>ro
U)~
....0
(I)":"
(I) ~
~
U
(I) ~
Q, GI
U) E
.... C'l Cl. u Ul
s:: s::.- .- '-
(I) ,_:I +J (])
E .~: ~ ~
... 'ro
Q,Q.a;UlOS
':; "0 ~ 2 ~ (])
rT f"" _ +J ,_ T1
Ul
'-
Ul .B Ul
'-ro-
(]) _ 0
E (]) '-
,-+J
ro ~ ~
0)
CU
.!::
Ul
ro
S
>UlUl
CU CU
,-~-g.!::.!::
OCUcO~U
>> ,-'-
CU,-'-cO<(
> 0 CU C
C "0 0..-
_L___
-Fi n d Equipment _
CllLllpment And Systems Searer
I
135-MT
Medium
90-MT
95-TB
f~ ji
;:0. ,.,.<, ....r'.. !
, . ~"I
.~ '
~~< p.1 .
~r;N'; ..r 4
.~ui It-
<.J.'
~'t"'~''''.' '..~
-~'~'"..~
.~...:.<..,..... "'..
.,,:,,*,.. ftj.;~' t'
~.............. .
. . '''': ) : . y:
~ ,~"...
.. , :. ~ J..r
,..., .
. .:~ .
. .;ij "''I r
1 ~
find
Car VJash system
Complete
System
Layouts and
Quotes
Small
45-MT
60-MT
60- TF
50- TB
85-MT
,)~.' .:. i .j~-" ~i!ii;j. rl,:~,;t II :... ,:' ~'.,.{,:,:J:, ~,'~' f(:,;'
::.~; i Vt:.I.~J;' ,ll: f
.,
,;' ,;' ,':
. ~~'_ ,~.:J,~','/ i..l.r:!i,'; ,\..t~fi~i ~~}!Lli
>1:' 'f'~'~ lYe;' ~ /; f. .'j ~
- :'} t.' r I' "!' : /(" ...\ l'~: 'f :.' .:"
r ~.
c.r
cars ;','; ';
Large
105-MT
110-MT
120-MT
130-TB
135- TF
135-MT
160-TB
Fleet Systems
Fleet-o-Matic
Equipment Specs
and Pricing
Tunnel Equipment
M itters
Wipe-O-Matic
Side Washers
Foamers
Correlators
Controls
Conveyor
Air Dryers
Under Body Washes
Top Brushes
Rain Arches
Tire Treatments
Arches
High Pressure Wash
Wrap Arounds
Support Equipment
H Press. Pump
C-i---..+-.".........-
1
Car Wash Systems - SONNY'~ r<onveyors
Page 1 of5
Fi nd E,qulpmenl
Equipment And Systems Search
I I
Complete System
Layouts and Quotes
Small
45-MT
60-MT
60-TF
50-TB
85-MT
Medium
90-MT
95-TB
Large
105-MT
llO-MT
120-MT
130-TB
135-TF
135-MT
160-TB
Fleet Systems
Fleet-o-Matic
Equipment Specs
and Pricing
Tunnel Equipment
M itters
Wipe-O-Matic
Side Washers
Foamers
Correlators
Controls
Conveyor
Air Dryers
Under Body Washes
Top Brushes
Rain Arches
Tire Treatments
Arches
High Pressure Wash
Wrap Arounds
Support Equipment
H. Press. Pump Stations
Washer Extractors
Hydraulic Power Packs
Water Reclaim System
Dispenser Station
Prep Unit
Vacuums
Detailing
Air Compressors
,
C4r ._ $~'1Rt
S{mny's 13f1' Light-Touch car wasl
SP'Ider, mlttlu. Mict(J(;lean, Omni, I
Shillet. Wash, W3X, seal, fire strine &
,
(Prlnlable IIemlzed Quote (pelf) -;
Conveyor
System rlllIlIdlNtHIglJ
Pre-Wash
Wash
Rinse
1) 12' wide correlator allows both customers and employees to safe
easily drive onto the conveyor.
2) Roller-on-Demand conveyor with 3 ft 6 in chain spacing delivers
throughput.
3) Exclusive midprofile roller eliminates the potential for vehicles to
a roller.
4) Two dual directional foaming pre-soak arches, and floor mountec
directional foaming bumper applicator loosen and pull dirt from t
vehicle's surface before entering the wash cycle.
S) Foaming Chemical Tire Applicator (CTA) and mag wheel applicat(
detergents to wheels and tires for cleaning.
6) Two Front-To-Back Mitters, both with MicroClean cloth, along wit
To-Side Mitter and OMNI 350 High Pressure arch clean all horizol
surfaces.
7) Double Jog SPYDER, two sets of side washers, and OMNI 350 cle
front, back, and side surfaces.
8 Exclusive HALO Rinse Arch with booster pump points all nozzles'
center of the vehicle to completely rinse detergent.
9) Three gravity fed rain manifolds mounted to a 10 ft. arch apply (
http://www.sonnysdirect.comlsystem _ mode1.asp?modeI=System13 5%2DMT &size=Large
12/6/2005
Car Wash Systems - SONNY'~ r<onveyors
Chemical Mixing Tank
L. Press. Pump Stations
Hot Water Heaters
Services
Drying
Support
$plem qlJDltdIOlt
Qty Item
~ cQRR14X~
~
Page 2 of5
agent, sealer wax, and final fresh water or optional spot-free rin~
10) Exclusive to SONNY'S, designed in conjunction with SIMONIZ, t
Shiner completely automates tire dressing.
11) Triple color foaming arch applies triple foam wax.
12) SPINNER, OMNI, CTA, and Tire brush completely clean wheels i
with no prepping.
13 A 165 HP drying system completely dries the vehicle. 11 compl
adjustable individual blowers force water off the vehicle for mOl
complete drying.
14) 15HP blowers can be substituted with 10HP blowers for more e,
operation with only a slight decrease in performance.
15) Quotation includes all hydraulic power packs, pumps, and air
compressors necessary to operate the system.
16) H-25 Pump stations feature 15 HP electric motors and Wanner
each producing 20 GPM at up to 1000 psi.
17) 72-function car wash computer and motor switching center for
control. SONNY'S 135-MT COMPLETE SYSTEM QUOTATION
CQRRIGUIPI;S
~
CONV135
1135
cQJ'U6SP
~
I;S100
~
626032
~
~
~
tlPGloo:K5oS
WAN01
CONVPULSKIT
12
APAP3FOAMG57
~ APA200FMR/DG57
~ FMRCTA4T
~ MAG100
Description Unit Price
CORRELATOR 12 W X 3L Aligns vehicle with $3,800.01
conveyor. Oversize 12 foot width for faster,
safer loading
RIGID GUIDE APPROACH "Y": UHMW $250.01
covered rails gUide the vehicle safely onto
the conveyor
CONVEYOR 135ft Roller-on-Demand rear $20,295.01
wheel push conveyor with Mid Profile
rollers.
ROLLER SPACING 3' 6" roller spacing $16.31
maximizes vehicle loading for higher
throughput.
ENTRANCE PHOTO EYE SYSTEM Measures $475.01
vehicle and signals car wash computer for
accurate equipment activation.
TIRE SWITCH: Communicates tire position $87.9.
to computer activating wheel and tire
services.
HIGH PRESSURE PREP STATION: 71/2 hp. $2,995.01
pump unit; includes 2 trigger guns, & hoses
ALUMINUM WAND HOLDER: to hold High $59.9
Pressure wand.
CONVEYOR PULSE KIT Tracks vehicle $250.01
position and signals car wash computer for
correct equipment activation.
FOAMING DUAL APPLICATOR ARCH (2) $2,195.01
dual directional foaming pre-soak arches
completely cover front, sides top and rear.
FOAMING DUAL BUMPER APPLICATOR $999.01
Floor mounted dual directional pre-soak
applicator for additional coverage to front &
rear bumpers.
FOAMING DUAL CHEMICAL TIRE $1,099.01
APPLICATOR Chemical tire applicator with
4 foaming trees completely covers tires and
wheels.
MAG WHEEL APPLICATOR Accurately $599.01
applies concentrated cleaner directly to
wheel to remove brake dust.
http://www.sonnysdirect.comlsystem _ model.asp?model=System135%2DMT &size=Large
12/612005
Car Wash Systems - SONNY'~ ""'onveyors
r SFM901/2SF04DJ
SFM901 SPYDER COMBO WITH DOUBLE
JOG EXIT Straight wraps attached to the
entrance and high valume double jog wraps
attached to the exit of an SFM901 front to
bac ...
"NEW" MICROCLEAN CLOTH UPGRADE
Upgrades standard cloth on SFM901 mitter
with high loft, soft Microclean. *Sonny's
Exclusive
96" TIRE BRUSH SYSTEM Thoroughly
cleans tires. Rounded UHMW guides
provide safe operation.
TIRE BRUSH RETRACT KIT Allows for
automatic tire brush retraction when
required.
SFM901 FRONT TO BACK MITTER Single
Basket Front to Back Half Moon mitter
cleans horizontal surfaces without
seperating.
UNDERCARRIAGE MANIFOLD: Floor
mounted spray manifold complete with 12
PVDF nozzles & Solenoid.
18" ROCKER PANEL WASHERS 18" side
washers angled to clean rocker panels.
Rocker Panel Unit 50in WI Top Neoglide.
Price Includes Top Neoglide and Bottom
Cloth
SPINNER PIVOTING WHEEL CLEANER
Spinning Zero-degree plus nozzles pivot to
clean wheels, bumpers and rocker panels.
*Sonny's Exclusive
HIGH PRESSURE VALVE Exclusive high-
ressure multidirectional valve switches
pump water from Omni to Spinners. *
Sonny's Exclusive
OMNI 350 WASH ARCH 3 Pivoting
manifolds with zero-degree plus nozzles
clean front, top, rear, wheels & panels.
*Sonny's Exclusive
HALO PRE-RINSE ARCH Removes all
detergent from the vehicle. Exclusive halo
design increases performance. *Sonny's
Exclusive
HALO BOOSTER PUMP Berkley 7.5
booster pump delivers 30 gpm @ 180 psi to
improve rinse performance.
TRIPLE COLOR FOAMER ARCH Applies 3
color foaming wax I conditioner to vehicles
surface. Includes G-57 Pump Station.
SIDE TO SIDE MITTER SFM804 side-to-
side 4 basket half-moon mitter clean
horizontal surfaces.
DRYING AGENT RAIN MANIFOLD
Applies drying agent to the vehicle surface
without creating a mist.
SEALER WAX RAIN MANIFOLD Applies
sealer protection to the vehicle surface
without creating a mist.
FINAL RINSE RAIN MANIFOLD Applies
final rinse to the vehicle surface, improves
water break. Can be used with Spot-Free.
12 ' CLlOOMCSFM90lUG
r
r
r
r
r
r
TBG200/A
TBGIOORET
SFM901
VNP1Ql/24
SFBA18
sf~Q
11i SPIOOPjPLUS
12 ' SOLl80LOl77
r OMN350/PLUS
r 1:::1,11.1,,201
r
r
r
HVRP7.5
EM R3 E I?IG~Z
SFM804
r RAIN101jASjD
r RAINI01/AS/S
r RAINIOO/AS
http://www.sonnysdirect.com/system model. asp ?model=Svstem 13 5 %2D MT &size= Larlle
Page 3 of5
$37,497.01
$1,088.01
$3,995.01
$600.01
$7,499.01
$349.01
$2,995.01
$5,225.01
$2,395.01
$499.01
$7,345.01
$1,099.01
$2,995.01
$2,895.01
$6,495.01
$349.01
$349.01
$349.01
12/6/2005
E::ar Wash Systems - SONNY'S '""onveyors
[1
[1
[1
[1
[1
RAINMA
RAINMA/CROSS/OPT
DOSD25RE2/RE1500
ISAIQl
TSAPKG-2
[1 SF1115TS
[1
[1
~
[1
[2
[1
[1
HR10-121R/P
AD35
HY575
HYS]SI4E
HY75752FLOW
HY1Q124
Pl15218
[1 f'4JS2181 T
[1
CONTROLLER - 72
[1 MOTOR CONTROL
(Addllem~
0C
Page 4of5
RAIN MANIFOLD MOUNTING ARCH 10
ft. high mounting arch improves
performance. Holds up to 4 rain manifolds.
TIRE SHINE PRE-PLUMB OPTION
Optional arch and supplies for Tire Shine
Applicator installation.
DUAL DISPENSING STATION Dispenses
drying agent and sealer wax through rain
manifolds.
"SIMONIZ" TIRE SHINER Computer $9,995.01
controlled, on-demand applicator of tire
dressing. *Sonny's Exclusive
TIRE SHINE PACKAGE: One 30-Gallon drum $0.01
of Pad Perfect & Electric Promotional sign
included FREE.
5 ARCH 165 HP AIR DRYER SYSTEM $28,875.01
165 hp. Air dryer system includes 7 Top &
4 Side 15 hp. blowers with 5 mounting
arches. (10hp Available upon request)
10 HP COMPRESSOR 10 hp. compressor $3,559.51
delivers 35 CFM. 120 gallon horizontal tank
-Includes motor starter.
$999.01
$499.01
$1,475.01
35 CFM COMPRESSED AIR DRYER 35 CFM
refrigerated air dryer and filter combination
removes air line moisture.
5 HP POWER PACK: 7.5 gpm vane pump $1,204.51
provides hydraulic power to the Tire Brush
and SFBA50 & SFBA18 Side Washers
5 HP POWER PACK- 2 FLOW: 7.5 GPM: $1,314.51
Provides hydraulic power to the Omni
7.5 HP POWER PACK- 2 FLOW 10 1/2 $1,485.01
gpm Hydraulic Power Pack with vane pump
powers both wrap-around washers.
10 HP HYDRAULIC POWER PACK 12.3 $1,512.51
gpm hydraulic vane pump provides
hydraulic power to the conveyor.
SINGLE H-25 PUMPING UNIT Pump Station $4,750.01
with (1) Wanner pump producing 20 GPM
up to 1000 psi water to OMNI/SPINNER.
DOUBLE H-25 PUMPING UNIT: Pump $9,395.01
station with (2) Wanner pumps each
producing 20 gpm, up to 1000 psi water to
OMNI.
TUNNEL CONTROLLER 72 Function $15,985.01
SONNY'S Tunnel Master Car Wash
Computer
M.L.O. MOTOR CONTROL CENTER Safely $21,880.01
and accurately controls all car wash
equipment to maximize cleaning
performance. (Requires main disconnect
and servic ...
$1,329.01
SONNY'S EQUIPMENT TOTAL $231,257.40
r CaIcuIIIte", f Prlnt Quote "'
"\.. ~ <,' ~
All prices & products subject to change without notice.
@2003 SONNY'S ENTERPRISES, INC.
http://www.sonnvsdirect.comlsvstem modeLa~n?m()nel=~v~tem 11 "Din ?nMT ~c;,:;'7P=T "rm>
1 ') /h./')(\(\'
, Car Wash Systems - SONNY'~ r"onveyors
Page 5 of5
RIGHT PRICE. RIGHT QUALITY. RIGHT NOW.
Home I Carwash Systems and Equipment I Parts I Auto Accessories I Professional Detailing I Shop Online
New Customer? I Request a Catalog I About Us I Customer Service I News & Events I Resources I Service & Support I Cor
htto:/ /www.sonnvsdirect.com/svstem model.asD?model=Svstem 135%2DMT &size=Large
12/6/2005
DWG, 12/4/2005 7:33:17 AM, 1:1
,v, '-EL)dV:.1
,z~ (:, l~
,"^".' I<.j
~ ,.....;. 1 i, "...J ' <......;
..
~
((0 Oll
(j) 0
C);O
Z rrl
0
::::!
0
Z
)>
r
I"
N
;l'>-
0
... ... ~
... ...
N
1 ~
0
(J)
2.5'
.......... -u-/::.-i-'.....r.~"f:i';\.....-
tv
<J1_
N
0_
'1'
... ...
:' /i , "U
)>
:;u
()
m
--1< r
-<)>
:ug OJ
C
-s::::::
...
((0 0)1
~----,f- N
- r-0
o
((0 Oll
c'
o
~
N_ ..
1. if /"1 ,.371 f6 ,7
b C:i-+
PRoPERTY LINE
j: ST-"
PROPERTY LINE
.oo'~m
..
~' ((0 Oll
tv
0_
-~ ()
OlOl
co'
Ol~
C/J0l
-C/J
::r
tv
o
N
s~'gg~ 6
- -
...
.j:>.
q,
~
...
, ':-'
:1:;
.~
N,
N_
d-s::::::
DJz-
COIZ :
=8~~1
Sti~o
~~..
I II
1 .;
~~.
Ii
I I
II ~~~i
N-o
-....J rrl
;;U
--1
I I~
Z
Irrl
I:"
['I
f~: I
I
co-s::::::
coO
. Z
N_ C
-s::::::
rrl
Z
--1
\,Q
o
Z
r(~c fi "i!
;,-/ii,~\ (lOCi
;: /(- I -J'-:~,
Bressner. Kurt
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
EnslerB@aol.com
Wednesday, November 30,20056:13 PM
BressnerK@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us
jcherof@cityatty.com; enslerb@aol.com
RE: Car Wash
Section V - Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 2 - Item 2A - Establish a new zoning district, applicable to land with a commercial
or industrial land use plan designation, that provides for industrial types of development
THAT WOULD BE LIMITED TO SUCH USES AS FLEX SPACE, HIGH-TECH, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND
CERTAIN USES THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED ANCILLARY TO THE PROJECT; COMMERCIAL PARKS. The new
district should have stringent development standards to address compatabilit and
aesthetics. AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS NECESSARY FOR CONSISTENCY.
Page 3 Item 3A. Include provisions within the code to ensure that any industrial uses
ALONG THE EDGE OF AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH ANY ADJACENT
RESIDENTIAL USES.
Page 3 Item 3B - Include provlslons within the code to ensure that any uses along the edge
of an industrial zoning district THAT IS CONTIGUOUS TO AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY ARE THE ___
ONLY --- THOSE USES ALLOWED IN NEWLY CREATED COMMERCE PARK DISTRICT --- DISCUSSED IN 2A
ABOVE.
Page 4,Item 6 -Generally, completely rewrite and update the M-l district standards AND
USES to ensure that the regulations are clear, current and consistent.
1
: I
I t. mm,1 !
i .'j.. z
01' ':J;)~. .
! I ~~~' ~~:~ ~ ~
I ,Jr ~ CXJ
I '~~.
, I ,(
i ,~
,." -~ I
LI'
z I
f~
!'~ ,~~ :
d I
, I "C-.l
t~~ ~
! ~ T
i I I i
I~
I '0 0.. 0::
'I ~ ~I ~ ~ Co
i ~I ~ rn ;8
~.
+1
it< i flY
~ (~;:~,o
- -
155.15'
3NIl AHJ3dOtJ;!....
-7
tl
..
"C-.l
c:>
o
(;"',2
{IO OIl
~ ----Y
to -----, .
N f-~
({O OIl
..c
en_
roen
~L()
~O)
roL()
() ..q--
.
~
::::>
u.
Uo..
<(>-
> I-
(()
.....J
W
o
0::
<(
a.. ,. .
o
......
~(LEI
~'j 6 !28.J~
~ M) ~~
t2.~r: .Jk ~
!Alee c:tu/2. ~ ~
Ep
r' '. ,
" ,:
'0
to
N
<.0
0
~ ~ I
N
. . I .
.
'0
...f
N
..I
-l
<(
z
0
i=
U
WZ
0:: (:l
is Vi
, 0'''02021 dS\HS\1M tJ\1]
1:1 'Wi/ LJ:~~:L S002/'7/21 'JM ~
Page 1 of 1
Greene, Quintus
From: Bressner, Kurt
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 20057:58
To: Greene, Quintus
Cc: Cherof, James
Subject: Case CO US 05-004 - Rapido Rabbit
Quintus,
11/30/2005
~ 5~(f is {v<<~;:,y
{/;L ;:q. ~~
(J;U qNC >~II" -K
f 0- ) --f j III~"",-
COil""'" --( ~ ,
(j /~~ I ~ \hc'c5 f~.c/C.'t;.~
!:;>",-,v-~ Jr rI J
~ C~5<C ft, 1~
(1b-- f) I.e ~ ~
f(-.rp'-j -I1e- ~""1)'
~ c-c .;Jv f 1'1 " 1\.; M t..-"'-
Il(cCe:""'-J I; K v<{{ a.~(!?",
~..~~
~fc.-LN-O-.. ~ e~ ;6 e~(,
. S 1./ /..- k:
.z. -r~...-~~ L~ct.. :)C~
=-- ~ JI-'~d el--;f~~.
Kurt
Page 1 of2
,
Rumpf, Michael ~
From: Bressner, Kurt
~"
Sent: Wednesday, November 30,20052:03 PM J 1\
,~ \;
To: Greene, Quintus; Cherof, James; Rumpf, Michael II l\.
Subject: FW: Case COUS 05-004 - Rapido Rabbit - Addendum ~ ;
Just got off the phone with Comm. Ensler. He i still looking for the fOllowing.items of information eith;r fromAhe/f J
file or from the petitioner: -/~f tt CtP ~ C J {<t- t'- .fer . {~~ II ('27/0>" t:>Lc>--r--.
1. Copy of the agreement with the property owner the north that allows the landscaping or wall to be /J#~
installed. Also, does the agreement spe . int a responsibilities?
2. Specifications (not test results) of t vacuum n blowers be installed at the proposed car wash.
3. What were the assumption of operation WI the noise s udy (i.e. al@ofthe 20 vacuums operating,
60%, 40% or what?) Did the noise study take into account the noise profile of the blo~ers. y,,-,>
}A 4. How many blowers are inside the building?
Jo
Comm. Ensler said he has substantive questions regarding the noise study submitted by the petitioner. Have we I
thought about requiring the petitioner pay for a review of the noise study and the specs by a qualified acoustical
engineer? Is this an additional condition of approval? The verification of compliance with the code could be
established before issuance of building permit. L-- ,JL.J ~ f"\.<<.- '( ~~ f:<-",.~ ~ f; h1? o-{ eX.
Finally, Commissioner Ensler has requested that staff prepare copies of the above documents for the other ""(eyi W ~
members of the Commission plus the noise study documents that were submitted by Miller Land Planning. The ~ )/
documents I have are: . Cf'- .svcOC,,>s "f
1. A diagram with the Rapido Rabbit logo on it showing ambient noise profile. .~ Iff ;!.A;f
2. Letter dated 10/11/05 from Bradley Miller showing the noise profile of the blowers. ~ . .' r'
3. Letter dated 11/18/05 transmitting a noise study dated 11/17/05
Because my copies are not very legible, we cannot copy them.
Please have the copies prepared for the pre-agenda meeting along with the answer to the e-mail below.
I know we are all busy but I need your attention to this request.
Thank you,
Kurt Bressner
From: Bressner, Kurt
Sent: Wednesday, November 30,20057:58 AM
To: Greene, Quintus
Cc: Cherof, James
Subject: Case CGUS 05-004 - Rapido Rabbit
Quintus,
Yesterday I learned that the petitioner may be changing the identification of this project from Rapido Rabbit to
something else. Normally, this may not present a problem in a project title other than changing names on plans
and site plans. However, Rapido Rabbit is a franchise car wash operations that may require certain operating
parameters that may affect the layout, function and impact of the site plan.
Please obtain information from the petitioner's agent, Miller Land Planning Consultants to confirm if indeed the
11/30/2005
Page 2 of2
. ..
Rapido Rabbit franchise is to be changed so some other operator. In reviewing information on the Web
(provided to Ed Breese), Rapido Rabbit operates facilities that have one employee, offer an automated menu of
car wash services and free self-service vacuum. This may explain the 20 vacuum machines located on the site
plan. If the franchise changes, the operation and impact will probably be changed making the noise issues, for
example subject to future review.
That said, if the petition changes the operator of the car wash that has a change in the site plan, will this require
the matter to go back through the process or is this to be considered by your staff as a minor site plan
amendment after the Commission disposes of the matter?
Also, Commissioner Ensler has renewed his request for information on the noise profile of the car wash blowers.
He has the data on the vacuum machines but he said that the noise study does not address the blowers. I cannot
independently confirm this.
Finally, in light of the P&D rejecting the staff recommendation on the wall on the north side of the property, what
position will staff be taking at the Commission level? Are we going to re-affirm our position of let it stand?
Thanks,
Kurt
11/3012005
Rumpf, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bressner, Kurt
Wednesday, November 30, 20059:42 PM
Rumpf, Michael
Greene, Quintus; Cherof, James
Fw: Car Wash Blower
Recommend these items be incorporated into memo response as we are able to.
Sent by Kurt Bressner via BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)
-----Original Message-----
From: EnslerB@aol.com <EnslerB@aol.com>
To: BressnerK@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us <BressnerK@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us>
CC: enslerb@aol.com <enslerb@aol.com>; jcherof@cityatty.com <jcherof@cityatty.com>
Sent: Wed Nov 30 18:28:35 2005
Subject: Car Wash Blower
At the P&D meeting, there was testimony that the blowers used to dry cars was louder than
implied by the applicant. I believe it is therefore essential that the applicant provide
to following information:
1. Number of blowers
2. Manufacture if 17"((
3. Model Numbe~
4. A copy of the specification for the
including the distance from the blower
j
"1JCoA.- po{ 0 I/;~
~
blower indicating its acoutical (db) rating
of the acoutical rating.
The last analysis was given to the P&D Board at the meeting. This did not allow them to
review the data. Is is therefore requested that the above be provide at least working two
days in advance of the meeting.
Bob Ensler
1
Breese, Ed
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Breese, Ed
Monday, December 05, 2005 4:24 PM
Costello, Joyce
RE: Rapid Rabbit Car Wash
Joyce,
The additional information provided is the manufacturer and model # for the blower/dryer that the applicant has
indicated they intend to utilize. We have no comment other than this is the information requested to the best of our
knowledge. Also attached is an amended site plan indicating a reversing of the traffic flow through the carwash, which
places the blowers/dryers at the south end of the site, away from the residential to the north and shielded by the entire
length of the carwash building. This is what staff was negotiating with the applicant as noted in Mike Rumpfs previous
cover memo. I am also bringing you an e-mail I received from the applicant's agent regarding the City Manager's inquiry
into the status of the Rapido Rabbit affiliation.
I hope this helps! Thanks, Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Costello, Joyce
Sent: Monday, December 05,200510:38 AM
To: Breese, Ed
Cc: Bressner, Kurt
Subject: Rapid Rabbit Car Wash
Mr. Bressner has the following questions:
. Is staff providing comments?
. Are these the materials that will actually be used in the car wash?
Joyce
1
,
~f, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Rumpf, Michael
Tuesday, December 06, 2005 4:48 PM
Bressner, Kurt
Cherof, James; Greene, Quintus; Breese, Ed
Rapido Rabbit project
Importance:
High
Please be informed of the status of our review. Today was no less frustrating than the past two weeks. We have confirmed
the equipment specification indicated in the fax from the manufacturer to the agent (Bradely Miller). The model number
SF1 015TS was explained to us by a representative of Sonny's (the manufacturer). The "SF" is the owners initials, 10
refers to the number of blowers, 15 refers to the horsepower, and "TS" refers to the set-up system which is top scroll. Not
all design arrangements are grapically depicted on the web site. This representative explained that the 135-MT would be
close to the intended equipment system.
Yes, 10 blowers. Not 3, not 2, but 10 dryers. We have relayed our confusion to the agent and now understand that the
accoustical consultant is reviewing it for 10 blowers. We also now know that Sonny's provides sound data for the blowers,
but their information to us and likely to the applicant only shows the three blowers that would be immediately at the tunnel
exit. I would argue that more sound would be emitted from the tunnel than just that equivalent to the number of the nearest
blowers. But at this time we are left with disrepancies and uncertainties. Although I still believe that the ulitmate noise could
be mitigated by orientation, tunnel opening design, wall segments, and even possibly some type of fabric curtain at the
opening to contain tunnel noise during cleaning, we have incomplete information and will continue to recommend to the
Commission that the project be tabled to allow clarification by the applicant and rereview by staff of the sound data and
tunnel equipment.
Mike
1
Noise Center: Decibel Levels
Page 1 of3
L.EAGU_
FOR THE HARD OF
HEARING
NEW YORK. FLORIDA
~
New York:
50_Bxoadway,-6th Floor, New York, NY 10004
917-305-7700 (Voice).. 917-305-7999 (TTY). 917-305-7888 (Fax)
Since 1910
Florida:
2800W. Oakland Park Blvd., Suite 306, Oakland Park, FL 33311
954-731-7200 (Voice). 954-731-7208 (TTY). 954-485-6336
-
NOISE CENTER OF THE LEAGUE
1 888 NOISE 88
NOISE LEVELS IN OUR ENVIRONMENT FACT SHEET
How Loud is Too Loud? Experts agree that continued exposure to noise above 85 dBA over time, will
cause hearing loss. To know if a sound is loud enough to damage your ears, it is important to know both
the loudness level (measured in decibels, dBA) and the length of exposure to the sound. In general, the
louder the noise, the less time required before hearing loss will occur. According to the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health (1998), the maximum exposure time at 85 dBA is 8 hours. At 110
dBA, the maximum exposure time is one minute and 29 seconds. If you must be exposed to noise, it is
recommended that you limit the exposure time and/or wear hearing protection.
Measure Up and Turn it Down: Decibel Levels Around Us The following are decibe11eve1s of common
noise sources around us. These are typica11eve1s, however, actual noise levels may vary depending on the
particular item. Remember noise levels above 85 dBA will harm hearing over time. Noise levels above
140dBA can cause damage to hearing after just one exposure.
Poillts of Referellce *measured ill dBA or decibels
. 0 The softest sound a person can hear with normal hearing
. 10 normal breathing
. 20 whispering at 5 feet
. 30 soft whisper
. 50 rainfall
. 60 normal conversation
http://www.1hh.org/noise/decibe1.htm
1 0/1 9/200~
Noise Center: Decibel Levels
. 110 shouting in ear
. 120 thunder
Home
. 50 refrigerator
. 50 - 60 electric toothbrush
. 50 - 75 washing machine
. 50 - 75 air conditioner
. 50 - 80 electric shaver
. 55 coffee percolator
. 55 - 70 dishwasher
. 60 sewing machine
. 60 - 85 vacuum cleaner
. 60 - 95 hair dryer
. 65 - 80 alarm clock
. 70 TV audio
. 70 - 80 coffee grinder
. 70 - 95 garbage disposal
. 75 - 85 flush toilet
. 80 pop-up toaster
. 80 doorbell
. 80 ringing telephone
. 80 whistling kettle
. 80 - 90 food mixer or
processor
. 80 - 90 blender
. 80 - 95 garbage disposal
http://www.lhh.org/noise/decibe1.htm
Work
. 40 quiet office, library
. 50 large office
. 65 - 95 power lawn mower
. 80 manual machine, tools
. 85 handsaw
. 90 tractor
. 90 - 115 subway
. 95 electric drill
. 100 factory machinery
. 100 woodworking class
. 105 snow blower
. 110 power saw
. 110 leafblower
. 120 chain saw, hammer on
nail
. 120 pneumatic drills, heavy
machine
. 120 jet plane (at ramp)
. 120 ambulance siren
. 125 chain saw
. 130 jackhammer, power drill
. 130 air raid
· 130 percussion section at
symphony
Page 2 of3
Recreation
. 40 quiet residential area
. 70 freeway traffic
. 85 heavy traffic, nOISY
restaurant
. 90 truck, shouted
conversation
. 95 - 110 motorcycle
. 100 snowmobile
. 100 school dance, boom
box
. 11 0 disco
. 110 busy video arcade
. 110 symphony concert
. 110 car horn
. 110 -120 rock concert
. 112 personal cassette player
on high
. 117 football
(stadium)
game
. 120 band concert
. 125 auto stereo (factory
installed)
. 130 stock car races
. 143 bicycle horn
. 150 firecracker
. 156 cap gun
1 nil onnn.:;:
Noise Center: Decibel Levels
Page 3 of3
. 110 baby crying
. 140 airplane taking off
. 157 balloon pop
. 110 squeaky toy held close
to the ear
. 150 jet engine taking off
. 162 fireworks (at 3 feet)
. 150 artillery fire at 500 feet
. 163 rifle
. 135 noisy squeeze toys
. 180 rocket launching from
pad
. 166 handgun
. 170 shotgun
LEAGUE HOMEPAGE II Noise Center III EMail
~ Copyright 1996-2003 LEAGUE FOR THE HARD OF HEARING
httn'//www lhh ClTu/n('\ic;,:plrlpf'ihpl htm
1 n/1 Q/')nn"
Page 1 of 1
dB
30
Qtlliilht\l&if* 1$1 20
111
:Tllruhold oj MI~
file:/ Ie: \Documents%20and%20Settings\breesee\Local %20Settings\ T emDorarv%201nter... 10/20/2005
Noise Comparison
Noise Sources and Their Effects
Page 1 of2
Noise Source
Decibel
Level
,-,,-,,_~v,,"_,_,,,,,,,,,:..,~,.,~,,"~~,~~"""""'-
Jet take-off (at 25 meters)
Aircraft carrier deck
Jet take-off (at 1 00 meters)
Thunderclap, live rock music, chain saw
Steel mill, riveting, auto horn at 1 meter
Jet take-off (at 305 meters), outboard motor, power lawn mower, motorcycle, farm
tractor, jackhammer, garbage truck
Busy urban street, diesel truck, food blender
Garbage disposal, dishwasher, average factory, freight train
(at 15 meters)
Freeway traffic (at 15 meters), vacuum cleaner
Conversation in restaurant, office, background music
Quiet suburb, conversation at home
Library
Quiet rural area
Whisper, rustling leaves
Breathing
SOURCE: Temple University Department of Civil/Environmental Engineering (www.temple.edu/departments/CETP/environlO.html)
Sound Levels and Relative Loudness of Typical Noise Sources
in Indoor and Outdoor Environments
Noise Effect
150
140
130
120
110
Eardrum rupture
Earphones at high
level
100
Human pain
threshold
Serious hearing
damage
(8 hrs)
Hearing damage (8
hrs)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
o
Possible hearing
damage
Annoying
Quiet
"
"
Very Quiet
"
"
Threshold of hearing
Decible
level
(dB)
Subjective
Loudness
(Relative to
70 dB)
Overall Level Community Noise Levels (Outdoors)
120
32 times
as loud
Uncomfortably Military jet aircraft take-off from
loud aircraft carrier with afterburner at 50 ft
(130 dB)
110
16 times
as loud
Turbo- fan aircraft at takeoff power at
200 ft (118 dB)
httn./lh('\me netvid::. net/~hnh/ilhlevel" html
Home and Industry
Noise Levels
Oxygen torch (121 dB)
Riveting machine
(110 dB); rock band
(108 - 114 dB)
10/1912005
Noise Comparison Page 2 of2
100 "8 times Very loud Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at one
as loud nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing
(106 dB); jet flyover at 1000 feet (103
dB); Bell J-2A helicopter at 100 ft (100
dB)
90 4 times Boeing 737 or DC-9 aircraft at one Newspaper press (97 dB)
as loud nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing
(97 dB); power mower (96 dB);
motorcycle at 25 ft (90 dB)
80 2 times Car wash at 20 ft (89 dB); propeller Food blender (88 dB); milling
as loud plane flyover at 1000 ft (88 dB); diesel machine (85 dB); garbage
truck 40 mph at 50 ft (84 dB); diesel disposal (80 dB)
train at 45 mph at 100 ft (83 dB)
70 Moderately High urban ambient sound Living room music (76 dB);
loud (80 dB); passenger car at radio or TV -audio, vacuum
65 mph at 25 ft (77 dB); cleaner (70 dB)
freeway at 50 ft from pavement edge
10 a.m. (76 dB)
60 Half as Air conditioning unit at 100 ft (60 dB) Cash register at 10 ft (65-70 dB);
loud electric typewriter at 10ft (64
dB); dishwasher (rinse) at 10 ft
(60 dB); conversation (60 dB)
50 One- fourth Quiet Large transformers at 100 ft (50 dB)
as loud
40 Bird calls (44 dB); lowest limit of
urban ambient sound (40 dB)
10 Just audible
0 Threshold of hearing
"""'."""'''''',.-.--- ""=->1,--"
SOURCE: Table B.1, from Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
(August 1992). Source of the information is attributed to Outdoor Noise and the Metropolitan Environment, M.C. Branch et aI., Department
of City Planning, City of Los Angeles, 1970.
http://home.netvista.net/ ~hpb/ dblevels.html
10/19/2005
dB Engineering - Tutorial- Everyday "Toise & Decibel Levels
Tutorial: Everyday Noise List
Page 1 of2
Noise is all around us. Exposure to noise levels above 85 dBA for 8 hours is the
Federal threshold for hearing protection. Levels above 90 dBA can cause
permanent hearing loss with relatively short exposure. The following is a list of
various sounds, their decibel levels, and the recommended exposure time to each.
Sound
rustling leaves
whispering
library
refrigerator
average home
normal conversation
clothes dryer
washing machine
dishwasher
car
vacuum cleaner
mIxer
electric sewing machine
busy traffic
mini-bike
alarm clock
noisy restaurant
office tabulator
outboard motor
passing snowmobile
average factory
electric shaver
screaming child
passing motorcycle
convertible ride on frw
subway train
diesel truck
woodworking shop
pneumatic drill
boiler shop
jackhammer
helicopter
power mower
snowmobile drvrs seat
Decibel Level
20 dB
25 dB
30 dB
45 dB
50 dB
60 dB
60 dB
65 dB
65 dB
70 dB
70 dB
70 dB
70 dB
75 dB
80 dB
80 dB
80 dB
80 dB
80 dB
80 dB
85 dB
85 dB
90 dB
90 dB
95 dB
100 dB
100 dB
100 dB
100 dB
100 dB
100 dB
105 dB
105 dB
11 0 dB
http://www.800nonoise.com/tutorial_noiselist.htm
Time Permitted
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
no limit
8 hours
8 hours
8 hours
8 hours
4 hours
2 hours
2 hours
2 hours
2 hours
2 hours
2 hours
1 hour
1 hour
30 minutes
10/1912005
dB Engineering - Tutorial- Everyday "Toise & Decibel Levels
inboard motorboat
sandblasting
live rock music
auto horn
propeller aircraft
air raid siren
THRESHOLD OF PAIN
gunshot
jet engine
rocket launching
11 0 dB
11 0 dB
90-130 dB
120 dB
120 dB
130 dB
140 dB
140 dB
140 dB
180 dB
Page 2 of2
30 minutes
30 minutes
8-0.3 hours
7.5 mins
7.5 mins
3.75 mins
danger level
danger level
danger level
danger level
Decibels are tricky to measure. A 5 dB noise reduction is about 30% quieter and
represents a 50% decrease in the risk of hearing loss!
rctllIl1...tO...toP..O[p:;tgQ
http://www.800nonoise.com/tutorialnoiselist.htm
10/1912005
)ise
1 Honda Generator Noise Level Common Sound
Mode( dB
Threshold of pain
135 Siren at 100 feet
; 130 Jet plane at 50 feet
120 Auto horn at 3 feet or
rock & roll bar
105 Chain saw
100 Heavy city traffic
EB 11 000 80 Inside a car at 50 mph
i or inside a busy office
i EB6500SX 78
, I I
:EN2500 76 I
levels at rated load.
;EG5000XKl
,
; ES6500K2
176
174.5
EW171Kl 173/75 I
EM5000SXKl 72
i
EG3500XKl 72
EB5000XKl 72
EG2500XKl 70 Vacuum cleaner I
EM3500SXKl 68
EG3000KCAG 68
: EB3500XKl 68
EUI000iA2
EU2000i
EU3000is
165
161
60
59
59
58
Normal speech
,---
iEX5500K2
!
i EX4500SKl
45
Living room,
suburban area
Soft whisper
I Bedroom at night
Woodward Park Homeowners Associ~";on v. Garreks, Inc.
Page 1 of7
The California Environmental Quality Act
30 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,308, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Servo 614, 2000 Daily Journal DAR. 981
WOODWARD PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GARREKS, INC. et aI., Defendants and Appellants.
No. F032200.
Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.
Jan. 20, 2000.
Certified for Partial Publication. [FN*]
FN* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976.1, this opinion is certified for
publication with the exception of Parts I, III, IV, and V.
Homeowners association filed petition for writ of mandate, challenging city's approval of car
wash project located in shopping center bordered by residential neighborhoods. The
Superior Court, Fresno County, No. 605807-7, Lawrence J. O'Neill, J., granted peremptory
writ in part, and ordered city to prepare environmental impact report (EIR) for project
pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). City and developer appealed. The
Court of Appeal, Wiseman, J., held that appeal was not rendered moot by fact that developer
had continued construction and completed project notwithstanding litigation, and without
obtaining an EIR.
Affirmed. *881
COUNSEL
Law offices of Walter W. Whelan and Walter W. Whelan, Fresno, for defendant and appellant
Garreks, Inc.
Hilda Cantu Montoy, City Attorney (Fresno), Robert D. Gabriele, Assistant City Attorney and
Anthony W. Cresap, Deputy City Attorney for defendant and appellant City of Fresno.
Robert J. Rosati, Fresno, for plaintiff and respondent.
OPINION
WISEMAN, J.
A homeowners association challenged in court the approval of a car wash project proposed
by a corporation, located in a shopping center bordered by residential neighborhoods. The
homeowners association *882 claimed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
required the City of Fresno to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) before approving
the project. The trial court agreed and ordered an EIR prepared. Despite the pending lawsuit
and the court's order, the corporation continued with construction and completed the project--
never obtaining an EIR. On appeal, the City of Fresno takes the position that an EIR is no
htto:11 ceres. ca. gov 1 ceq a/ cases12000100-07 -10 ccq a woodward.html
10/1912005
Woodward Park Homeowners Associntion v. Garreks, Inc.
Page 2 of7
longer required because the project is completed. Although the corporation does not
explicitly adopt this position, it does so implicitly by arguing it is absurd to require an EIR
because the project is completed.
The corporation apparently made a calculated business decision to go forward with the
project in spite of protests by residential neighbors, and pending litigation. Now the
corporation must live with the consequences of its financial choice. We affirm the trial court's
decision ordering an EIR be prepared. To the City of Fresno and the corporation we say: It is
never too late.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 19, 1998, the Woodward Park Homeowners Association, Inc. (WPHA) filed a
verified petition for writ of mandate against the City of Fresno (City), Garreks, Inc. (Garreks),
and California Investment, Inc. (California Investment). It challenged the City's approval of
two independent car wash projects, one proposed by Garreks and one by California
Investment. WPHA sought a writ ordering the City to require Garreks and California
Investment to prepare EIRs on their projects. The parties answered and briefed the issues in
the petition.
Pursuant to the court's request, the parties waived oral argument and submitted the matter.
On July 30, 1998, the court filed its decision. It denied the petition as to California
Investment's project, but granted with respect to Garreks' project and ordered the City to
prepare an EIR.
Garreks moved to vacate the decision. In the alternative, Garreks moved for a new trial. The
court relieved WPHA from submitting opposition papers, and denied the motions without oral
argument on the ground they were devoid of merit. Judgment was entered granting the
peremptory writ of mandate in part and denying it in part. With respect to Garreks' project,
the City was directed to 1) address the architectural and aesthetic impacts of the project by a
focused EIR; 2) void its adoption of the negative declaration; and 3) rescind its action
approving the project. The judgment was stayed pending appeal.
Garreks timely filed its notice of appeal, and the City joined.*883
FACTUAL HISTORY
In August 1996, the Fresno City Council approved a 9.42-acre commercial center on the
northeast corner of North Cedar and East Nees Avenues in Fresno, California, with the
exception of a proposed service station, mini-mart and automatic car wash. Later, the
neighboring homeowners and developers of the property filed suit, and both cases settled. In
the developers' action, the parties stipulated the Fresno City Council's actions only resulted
in the denial of a permit to build the car wash, not the service station or the mini- mart. It was
further stipulated that Garreks could resubmit a conditional use permit application for the
automatic car wash no sooner than August 27, 1997.
On August 27,1997, Garreks applied for a conditional use permit to develop an automatic
car wash with vacuum islands, on a .9-acre parcel of the commercial center in dispute (the
project). The City's initial study on the conditional use permit, dated September 24,1997,
provided:
"Operation of the automatic car wash and vacuum islands will produce increases in
neighborhood noise levels, particularly during the hours of operation. Fresno Municipal Code
Section 12-306-N-39 requires that the noise level generated by the car wash facility at the
boundary between the shopping center and existing or planned residential uses shall not
exceed community noise equivalency levels (CNEL) of 60 dB. The shopping center is
surrounded by residential land uses on the north, east, and south and North Cedar and East
Nees Avenues, both arterial streets.
"Staff is recommending in the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit that an
acoustical analysis prepared by a qualified professional be submitted for review and approval
htto://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/cases/2000/00-07 -10 ceqa woodward.html
10/1912005
Woodward Park Homeowners Assocj~";on v. Garreks, Inc.
demonstrating that the noise levels generated by the car wash and vacuums does not
exceed 60dB CNEL at the north, east and south boundaries between the shopping center
and existing residential districts.
Page 3 of7
"In addition, Fresno Municipal Code Section 12-306-N-39 requires that the proposed
automatic car wash and vacuums be located not less than 300 feet from the existing
residential districts located north, east and south of the project.
"Mitigation Measure: Locate the automatic car wash and vacuum islands at least 300 feet
from the residential districts located north, east and south of the property.
"............................................................................ *884 "No public or scenic vista will be
obstructed by the development and no valuable vegetation will be removed. The developer
proposes to use an architectural design which is compatible with surrounding developments."
On October 3, 1997, the City issued a mitigated negative declaration, finding the project
would clearly not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. In an October 8,
1997, memorandum, the City's development department staff stated:
"... The Fresno Municipal Code Section 12-306-N-39 contains the following requirements for
automatic car washes in the C-1 zone district [zoning for Garreks' proposed project]:
"1. The automatic car wash shall be located within a planned unified shopping center of not
less than five acres in area.
"2. The automatic car wash shall be located not less than 300 feet from an existing or
planned residential district.
"3. The noise level generated by the car wash at the boundary between the shopping center
and existing or planned residential uses shall not exceed community noise levels (CNEL) of
60dB.
"4. The facility shall be architecturally compatible with the shopping center in which it is
located and shall be fully enclosed when not in operation.
"As part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Special Permit Conditions of Approval,
the applicant shall be required to comply with the municipal code requirements.
"It should be noted that, officially, the zone districts extend to the middle of the right-of-way;
i.e., the middle of East Nees Avenue. There is an R-1-C/UGM residential zone district south
of East Nees Avenue. East Nees Avenue has a right-of-way of 106 feet. Therefore,
technically there are 53 feet of right-of-way to the residential zone district on the south side of
East Nees Avenue. There are 194 feet from the car wash to the property line and 53 feet to
the center of East Nees Avenue for a total of 247 feet between the car wash and 'an existing
or planned residential district'.
"However, the Development Department has exercised some flexibility in measuring the
distances between automatic car washes and residential districts by measuring from the
proposed car wash to the residential property *885 line to accommodate developments....
Using this logic, the distance from the car wash to the property line of the residential zone
district is 300 feet (194 + 106). Hours of operation for the automatic car wash and vacuum
islands shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m."
Staff recommended approval of a conditional use permit application for the project, and on
October 23, 1997, the director of the development department approved the application,
subject to a number of conditions. Later, the City received 14 letters of appeal from the
surrounding residential property owners protesting the director's approval of the application
and citing the following concerns: 1) less than 300 feet proximity between the project and
their homes; 2) excessive noise generated by the project and its proposed hours of
operation; 3) architectural incompatibility of the service station, mini-mart and car wash with
the rest of the shopping center, and its resulting impact on their homes; and 4) feasibility of
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/cases/2000/00-07-10_ceqa _ woodward.html
10/1912005
Woodward Park Homeowners Associ~tion v. Garreks, Inc.
Page 4 of7
architectural integration of the commercial center given that the 9.42-acre parcel has been
subdivided for purposes of sale, lease or financing of the project.
At the December 3,1997, Fresno City Planning Commission (planning commission) hearing,
development department staff addressed the concerns of the neighboring property owners:
"... The Fresno Municipal Code, section [12-306-N(39)] ... includes a provision that in C-1
districts car washes cannot be located any closer than 300 feet to the nearest residential
district. In this instance, the south boundary or south wall of the car wash building ... is
located exactly 300 feet from the adjacent residential lot line to the south which is the single
family homes that were developed by Spalding Lofton in track 3710. The contention of the
neighborhood is the fact that the 300 foot district boundary actually falls in the middle of
Nees Avenue and technically would mean the car wash was located 247 feet from the
nearest residential district, being that Nees Avenue is 106 feet wide with a 53 foot half width.
So, the contention of the neighborhood is that we have fudged on the interpretation of the
Code. I can tell you that of all car washes we reviewed in the [C]ity of Fresno since the
existence of this code provision, fifteen years now at least, that's the early 1980's, we have
always as a matter of practice interpreted that provision of 300 feet to mean the nearest
residential lot boundary. And we did so in this instance.... We have consistently applied that
300 foot standard in that manner....
"The second contention of the neighborhood relates to the proximity of the vacuum islands
proposed for this particular project. The vacuum islands were always proposed as part of this
project. The developer['s] ... intent *886 was always to put in coin operated vacuums, even if
[the planning commission] take[s] action or the [City] Council consequently takes action to
deny the car wash.... In this particular instance, the neighborhood contends that the vacuum
islands ... are located [closer] than the 300 foot [restriction], in fact much closer. There is one
that's roughly about 90 feet from the nearest property on the south side of Nees Avenue....
The director has ... said if it is [the planning commission's] contention that vacuum islands
are inextricabl[y] tied to a car wash, they should be considered part of the car wash function,
then that will be the policy and the applicant will have to meet that 300 foot restriction.
"There was also concern from the neighborhood about the noise that would be produced by
vacuum motors. It is a concern of Staff.... [Y]ou have to keep in mind that even though a
vacuum island would not normally require any permit, other than perhaps an electrical permit
for the electrical connection, it would have to operate under the control of the city's noise
ordinance.... And it is enforceable if there are complaints.
"The third issue that the appellants raised relates to the integration of the design of the
project into the entire commercial corner. This is a valid concern. The neighbors were
concerned that this particular entire ten acre [site] has been parceled off for purposes of sale,
lease, and financing.... Irrespective of that Staff will require the best way we can the
integration and unification of that center in accordance with the C-1 district standards."
A number of homeowners testified at the hearing regarding their concerns. The planning
commission directed Garreks to conduct a noise study of the project, and to submit it to them
on January 7,1998. In addition, the planning commission requested that development
department staff provide direction regarding whether vacuum facilities are considered an
integral part of an automatic car wash facility. The hearing was continued to January 7, 1998.
On December 29,1997, Garreks submitted the noise study, conducted by Brooks Ransom
Associates (structural and civil engineers), to the development department. Brooks Ransom
investigated the actual noise impact of vacuum islands to adjacent residential property using
data obtained from an existing site. Brooks Ransom concluded the project would have
almost no effect on sound levels at the residential property line during peak and off-peak
traffic conditions.
In the development department's January 7, 1998, report to the planning commission, the
development director determined that vacuum facilities are *887 integral to an automatic car
wash and should be subject to Fresno Municipal Code requirements. "That is, vacuum
islands will have to be placed at least 300 feet from the nearest existing or planned
residential district and the noise emitted from the vacuum motors as well as the car wash
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/cases/2000/00-07-10_ceqa _ woodward.html
10/19/2005
Woodward Park Homeowners Associ;>tion v. Garreks, Inc.
Page 5 of7
.;"
shall not exceed 60 dB/CNEL at the boundary between the C-1 shopping center and existing
or planned residential uses."
At the January 7,1998, planning commission hearing, development department staff stated:
"The applicant has prepared a noise study and it is included in your packet today for your
review. Staff does not have anybody on staff that we would say would be an expert to review
this. We've checked with our Building Division and we really don't have what we would call a
qualified acoustical consultant from the [standpoint] of having extensive experience in
reviewing these noise studies. So [we've] reviewed the noise study and accepted it on its
face value. There are some concerns.... And on the surface the noise study shows that when
thevacuums and car wash operate, combined with the ambient traffic noise, the noise levels
adjacent to nearby residential districts will exceed 60 decibels.... [I]n our noise ordinance, it
speaks to noise regulations that relate to ambient noise levels, and ambient means all
combined noises in a given area. And under that noise ordinance during the [daytime] hours,
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., 60 decibels is the limit for there to be a ... violation of the ordinance."
Neighboring residents were again permitted to express their concerns about the project. The
planning commission approved Garreks' conditional use permit application, subject to a
number of conditions. These included the construction of a five-foot masonry wall in the area
of the vacuum islands and limited hours of operation (8 a.m. to 8 p.m.) of the vacuums.
The motion to hold a public hearing to review the planning commission's action failed before
the Fresno City Council. According to the City, the project was completed and operating prior
to the trial court's July 30, 1998, decision.
DISCUSSION
Both Garreks and the City contend the trial court erred in granting the peremptory writ of
mandate because there was no substantial evidence the project might cause significant
impact to the environment. Garreks also argues the judgment violates its equal protection
rights and the court erred in ordering an EIR in lieu of less onerous remedies. The City
further claims the case is moot because the project has already been constructed and is
operating. *888
I. CEQA principles [FN**]
FN** See footnote *, ante.
II. Mootness
The City remarkably takes the position that this case is moot because the project was
constructed and operating prior to the court's July 30, 1998, decision on WPHA's petition. It
contends environmental review now would not serve any purpose under CEQA. [FN4] The
City's argument is not only against public policy, it is absurd.
FN4. WPHA argues the City has waived this issue by not raising it earlier. The
state of the record does not lend itself to easy resolution of the waiver
argument, as it is difficult to determine precisely when the project was
completed and operated. We therefore elect to address the issue on the merits.
A case is moot when any ruling by this court can have no practical impact or provide the
parties effectual relief. (Downtown Palo Alto Com. for Fair Assessment v. City Council (1986)
180 Cal.App.3d 384, 391, 225 Cal.Rptr. 559.) Courts have applied this rule to CEQA
challenges, but not on the basis the City asserts here. (See, e.g., Environmental Coalition of
Orange County, Inc. v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 164, 171-173,
167 Cal.Rptr. 735 [appeal of denial of petition for writ of mandamus moot where plaintiffs did
not name city as defendant and did not enjoin city's proceeding with proposed project while
mandamus action pending, since judgment cannot be rendered against nonparty to action];
Hixon v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 370, 378,113 Cal.Rptr. 433 [case
moot where project involved replacement of trees and trees already cut down].)
http:// ceres.ca. gov 1 ceqa/ cases12000100-07 -10_ ceq a _ woodward.html
10/1912005
Woodward Park Homeowners Associ(ltion v. Garreks, Inc.
Page 6 of7
This case does not present a situation where a ruling by this court can have no practical
impact or not provide the parties relief. To the contrary, our ruling can afford WPHA effective
relief. As recognized by WPHA, a decision upholding the court's order directing the
preparation of an EIR could result in modification of the project to mitigate adverse impacts
or even removal of the project altogether.
In support of its contention that the case is moot, the City relies principally on Hixon, supra.
In Hixon, the petitioners sought mandamus to compel a county to obtain an EIR in
connection with street and sidewalk improvements that necessitated the removal and
replacement of trees. The court held that because the trees had already been cut down, the
trial court correctly determined that preparation of an EIR for that phase of the project would
be *889 futile. (Hixon, supra, 38 Cal.App.3d at p. 378,113 Cal.Rptr. 433.) The distinction
between Hixon and this case is obvious. In Hixon, the trees were already cut down; thus the
original trees could not be returned. They could only be replaced, which is what the county
had already done. (Id. at p. 376, 113 Cal.Rptr. 433.) Here, in contrast, the project can be
modified, torn down, or eliminated to restore the property to its original condition.
The City claims "[i]t is pointless to require environmental review for a project which has
already been developed, because it would not serve one of the principal purposes of CEQA"-
-that of informing government decision-makers and the public about the potential significant
environmental effects of proposed activities. The City also notes that an EIR is not to be
used for approved projects. What the City fails to recognize is that Garreks proceeded with
construction and completion of the project after WPHA filed its mandamus petition. How can
the City or Garreks now legitimately complain that compliance with the court's order is
unnecessary?
In addition, despite the trial court's order mandating the preparation of an EIR, the City chose
to delay preparation of the EIR and Garreks chose to operate the facility absent the EIR. It
would hardly be sound public policy to allow a party to avoid CEQA by continuing with
construction of a project in the face of litigation, delaying preparation of a court-ordered EIR
pending appeal, and then arguing the case is moot because the project has been completed
and is operating.
For the first time during oral argument, the City noted that the Fresno Municipal Code
provisions relating to automatic car wash projects have been amended. Citing Fairbank v.
City of Mill Valley (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1243,89 Cal.Rptr.2d 233, the City argued that we
should apply the new code provisions. With no reference to the record before us, the City
then claimed that, under the new provisions, Garreks has achieved architectural integration
and a fair argument can no longer be made that the project may cause a significant effect on
the environment. We find Fairbank distinguishable and reject the City's contention.
In Fairbank, the court recognized, as a general matter, amendments to the CEQA Guidelines
should apply prospectively only. However, the court held, under the circumstances of that
case, fairness and the need for finality militated in favor of retroactive application on appeal
of regulations that provided a categorical exemption from the requirements of CEQA. The
court noted the well-settled law in the land use context that, where no vested rights will be
impaired, it is appropriate for an appellate court to apply the law in existence at the time of its
decision rather than at the time an approval was *890 issued. (Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley,
supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1256-1257, fn. 12,89 Cal.Rptr.2d 233.) We find a distinction in
the case where a party to an action has amended its own municipal code provisions, which
directly affects the party's interest in the pending lawsuit. Otherwise, we would be laying a
foundation for great abuse. We would be permitting a municipality to amend its own
ordinances in order to potentially obtain a reversal of a judgment against it.
Garreks chose to continue with the project despite the risk that pending litigation could result
in rescission of the City's action approving it. Apparently the City and Garreks buy into the
philosophy of the mythical captain of the Starship Enterprise, James T. Kirk, who said: "May
fortune favor the foolish." We do not. Garreks' decision to complete and operate the project,
despite the pending litigation, in no way provides an exemption to CEQA.
Therefore, we find the case is not rendered moot.
http:// ceres.ca. gov 1 ceq a/ cases12000100-07 -10_ ceq a _ woodward.html
10/1912005
Woodward Park Homeowners Association v. Garreks, Inc.
III.-V. [FN***]
Page 7 of7
FN*** See footnote *, ante.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed with costs awarded to WPHA.
DIBIASO, Acting P.J., and VARTABEDIAN, J., concur.
END OF DOCUMENT
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
~___._._...~.."_"""_,,,,,_,~,,,,.~",,~,,,,.w~.,,,,__.___~,.w"..~___.. ~MY~'Y__"""~"_'^'_~ ...._~....___~ .. w__,,_~~~Y'_"__~"~',v"_"~"~NNN
I CERES I CEQA Home I CEQA Case Law I Wetlands I LUPIN I
__.".,.,.'_"'^_^~"""'~'_A_..~..._..._________.._~'~~~'___~~_.._,~..._"__,,,,_~.........._~....~y.__........._..~N.w'~____",~__='__'"
Thisjile last modified on: Wednesday, May 25,2005.
Document URL: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/cases/2000/00-07 -10_ ceqa _woodward. html
u.t~ Copyright cg 1998-2003 California Resources Agency. All rights reserved.
http:// ceres.ca. gov 1 ceq al cases/2000100-07 -10_ ceqa _ woodward.html
10/19/2005
Memo 11.3Supl, May 21,02
Page 1 of 4
..
CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
801 North First Street, Room 400
San Jose, California 95110-1795
Hearing Date/Agenda Number
03-27-02 Item:
File Number
PDCOI-03-036
STAFF REPORT
Application Type
Planned Development Rezoning
Council District
9
Planning Area
Cambrian-Pioneer
Assessor's Parcel Number(s)
414-32-005
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Completed by: John W. Baty
Location: Southeast comer of Bascom Avenue and Camden A venue
Gross Acreage: 0.52
Existing Zoning: CP-Commercial
Pedestrian
Proposed Zoning: A(PD) Planned
Development
GENERAL PLAN
Net Acreage: 0.52
Net Density: N / A
Existing Use: Gasoline service station
Proposed Use: Gasoline station with car wash facility
Land UsefTransportation Diagram Designation
General Commercial
Completed by: JWB
Project Conformance:
] Yes [] No
[ ] See Analysis and Recommendations
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
North: Automobile service facility
East: Commercial/office building
Completed by: JWB
CP-Commercial Pedestrian
CP-Commercial Pedestrian /CO-Commercial
Office
South: Commercial/office building
West: Commercial building
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
CP-Commercial Pedestrian
CP-Commercial Pedestrian
Completed by: JWB
[ ] Environmental Impact Report found complete
[ ] Mitigated Negative Declaration
] Exempt
] Environmental Review Incomplete
FILE HISTORY
Completed by: JWB
Date: March 7, 1956
Annexation Title: White Oaks No. I-A
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION
( ) Approval
(X) Approval with Conditions
( ) Denial
Date:
Approved by:
[ ] Action
[ ] Recommendation
APPLICANT/OWNER/DEVELOPER
Mark Dorrell
Chevron Products Co.
6001 Bollinger Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94583
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/cty_clk/5_21_02docs/5_21_02_11.3_Sup1.htm
10/1912005
Memo 11.3Supl, May 21,02
Page 2 of 4
'~ ........
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED
Completed by: JWB
Department of Public Works
See attached memorandum.
Other Departments and Agencies
None received.
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
. City Council Policy 6-10: Drive-Through Uses
. Letter from adjacent property owner: Royal Pools.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Mark Dorrell, is requesting a rezoning of a 0.52 gross acre site from CP-Commercial Pedestrian Zon
District to A(PD) Planned Development to allow the demolition of an existing 2,044 square-foot service station bui
and the construction of aI, 73 8-square foot automatic drive-through car wash facility along the easterly property lin
The existing pump islands and overhead canopy are not proposed to be expanded or modified. Access to the site w
provided through two existing curb cuts. The existing gas station currently operates 24-hours. However, the propo
car wash will operate between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
The subject site is rectilinear in shape with approximately 140 feet of frontage on South Bascom Avenue and 120 f(
frontage on Camden Avenue. Surrounding land uses include office and retail uses to the south, commercial and off
uses to the west across South Bascom Avenue and to the east across Camden Avenue, and an automobile service fa
to the north across the intersection of South Bascom and Camden Avenues.
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed commercial use is consistent with the San Jose 2020 General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram
designation of General Commercial.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study was prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued for the project on December 21,20
indicating that the proposed project will have less than significant impact on the environment. The key environmen
issues addressed are noise and traffic. The Negative Declaration was protested based on noise impacts. The hearin
the matter of the protest will be conducted just prior to the hearing on the rezoning (see related staff report regardin
ND protest).
The proposed car wash is located approximately 200 feet from the nearest single-family detached residence located
south on Calvin Avenue.
A noise assessment was prepared that demonstrates that, with mitigation, project generated noise at adjacent proper
lines can be reduced to levels that meet the City's General Plan Noise standards. The addition of a dryer silencing s
and a noise control barrier along the property line closest to the car wash exit will effectively reduce noise levels at
adjacent property lines to less than significant levels (60 dBA or less).
Car wash noise within the adjacent Royal Pools building to the east and the office building to the south (45 dB DNl
50 dB DNL respectively) will be inaudible.
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/cty_clk/5_21_02docs/5_21_02_11.3_Supl.htm
10/1912005
Memo 11.3Supl, May 21,02 Page 3 of 4
During the proposed hours of op~tion (8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.) project-g~n;;rated noise (60 dBA) will be less than
existing range of ambient noise levels (61.9 dBA to 66.2 dBA) which results primarily from existing traffic on Bas(
and Camden Avenues.
The intersection of South Bascom Avenue and Camden Avenue is currently operating at a Level of Service (LOS)'
the morning and "D" in the evening. The traffic analysis conducted for this project shows that the proposed car was
facility will not significantly impact the intersection of South Bascom and Camden Avenues. The project conforms
Transportation LOS Policy.
ANALYSIS
The proposed project was analyzed for conformance to the following: 1) Zoning Ordinance, 2) Commercial Design
Guidelines, and 3) Council Policy 6-10: Drive-Through Uses.
Zoning Code
The project proposes a total of six (6) parking spaces and complies with the applicable parking requirements of one
per employee, one space adjacent to air/water service and one space for general use. The project conforms to the s~
standards for the CP-Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District. The project does not include repair use.
Commercial Design Guidelines
The proposed automatic, drive-through car wash addition to the existing gasoline station is consistent with the
Commercial Design Guidelines for service stations and car washes in terms of site organization, setbacks, building
design, drive-through orientation, parking and site circulation.
The Commercial Design Guidelines require the drive-through stacking lane to be physically separated from the par]
lot by a landscape strip. Truck circulation patterns and positions for tank filling are proposed to be limited to late
evening hours to avoid conflicts with customer circulation patterns and parking. Due to the location of the undergn
storage tank field beneath the proposed parking, a paint-striped area with curb is provided to separate the parking SI
adjacent to the stacking lane.
Council Policy 6-10: Drive-Through Uses
The proposed drive-through car wash addition to the existing service station is consistent with the Council Policy f(
Drive- Through Uses. The drive-through stacking lane provides adequate capacity for up to five (5) cars. The driv~
through stacking lane is adequately situated to follow the southerly and easterly property lines so as not to cause
overflow onto public streets and parking lot circulation aisles. The site will continue to take access from the existir
curb-cuts on South Bascom Avenue and Camden A venue.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Notices for the environmental review and public hearing were distributed to the owners and tenants of all propertie~
located within 500-feet of the project site. A neighborhood meeting was held on April 18, 2002. Notices for the
community meeting were distributed to owners and occupants of all the properties located within 1000- feet of the p
site. Approximately 14 neighbors attended the community meeting.
The primary concerns raised at the community meeting were the possible increase in noise and traffic generated by
car wash and safety concerns regarding cars dripping soapy water onto the roadway.
Staff s response to these concerns is included in the ND protest staff report attached.
RECOMMENDATION
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/cty_clk/5_21_02docs/5_21_02_l1.3_Supl.htm
10/19/2005
Memo l1.3Supl, May 21,02
Page 4 of 4
The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Planned Development Rezon
the following reasons:
1. The proposed project conforms to the General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram Designation of
N eighborhoodlCommunity Commercial.
2. The proposed project is consistent with applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines.
4. The proposed project is consistent with Council Policy 6-10 pertaining to drive-through uses.
5. The proposed project is compatible with the existing surrounding commercial uses.
6. The proposed project will not impact any nearby residential uses.
Attachments
c: Mark Dorrell, Chevron Products Company, 3160 S. Bascom Avenue, San Jose, CA 95124
Jerry Strangis, 1314 Lincoln Avenue, Suite A, San Jose, CA 95125
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/ctyclk/52102docs/52l0211.3Supl.htm
10/19/2005
Modern Car Care 10/99: Noise Gets tp~ Nod as "Arch Enemy No.1"
Page 1 of6
Your access
to
Goods and
Services
Search:
IGOI
Advanced Search
issue
eM_if
company news
archive
buyer's
e form
products
mldia kit
canuct
wllfe the editor
,.,.,nts
IIsUlntal
Noise Gets the Nod as "Arch
Enemy No.1"
Operators look at various ways to
reduce decibels
By Lisa Arnseth
Controlling noise levels in a tunnel wash is
necessary to protect employees, safeguard
customers, prevent neighbor complaints and
avoid possibly being cited for OSHA violations.
But it isn't always easy.
OSHA regulations state that noise monitoring is
necessary when employees are subject to
noise levels at or above 85 decibels (dB) during
an eight-hour workday. Since the average
industrial dryer measures in between 75 and
110 dB, carwashes may have to conduct tests
to measure sound levels to determine if
employees need to be issued protective
earplugs or if equipment itself needs to be
mod ified.
Joel Jurkens, vice president of Octopus Car
Wash in Albuquerque, NM, says his washes
were actually fined by OSHA for not complying
with noise regulations. OSHA had done
personal sound level monitoring and found that
Jurkens' wash had a sound environment of 97
dB, which was considerably higher than the
limit. "We had a sign that stated that hearing
protection was available," says Jurkens, "but
apparently that's not sufficient. Once you get
over a decibel level of 92 for an eight-hour
period then you have to force the employees to
wear the ear protection." Today Jurkens pays
to have his employees' hearing screened every
six months in a sound-proof trailer.
Changing the facility
10/12/2005
Mister
Carwash
Donating Up
tQ_llOOK for
tJUIOQQDe
Relief
1 0/03/2005
BClRic:,to RCllLbit
Files
Bankruptcy
09/28/2005
Show Vets
You Care On
Nov. 11
09/26/2005
Carnett's
Helping
ttuIrlccm~
\(jetim$
AIQ.acj ia nVVil1$
Q9JJl1._C~_$~
N!J)fe IiQtNJ~1!I!S
cQmpal1yNews
The dryer is generally considered to be the
loudest piece of equipment inside the tunnel.
httn'//www morlemc~rc~re_com/articles/9alfeat1.html?wts=20041228095446&hc=316&req=design+an... 10/19/2005
Modern Car Care 10/99: Noise Gets tJ,a Nod as "Arch Enemy No.1"
Page 2 of6
,C
1nteJlicast
.
Although many of today's models have been
quieted down, some still sound much like a
hurricane.
Operators can take some sound-deadening
steps during construction. By lining the walls of
the tunnel with sound-muffling materials and re-
arranging their set-up, the stormy sounds can
often be lowered to a dull roar.
In some locations, operators who could not
meet compliance have been forced to buy all
new blowers. But often adding baffles to the
dryers themselves or insulating the walls
against sound is enough to do the trick. Bob
Paisner of the ScrubaDub Auto Wash Centers
in Natick, MA heard complaints from residents
across the street that one of his washes was
too noisy. In response he added plastic baffles
to the blower system. Since that time, he says
the manufacturers have jumped onto the noise-
reduction train and manufacture their systems
with sound baffles already incorporated.
Paisner also found that curtain doors he had
installed to keep cold air out of the tunnel were
also helping to quiet sound. "When the door
opens again, yes it's noisy. But when it's closed
it has a huge effect on deadening sound
outside," he says.
Using paneling on the walls can help as well.
During construction phases of new washes,
installing very thick insulation and then
attaching sound board underneath drywall will
help contain tunnel noise. It's important not to
overlook the ceiling as well, and acoustical
sound tiles are often enough to act as a sound
barrier. Metal strips designed to attach to
drywall through the studs work well at reducing
sound's ability to travel through walls.
If changing the walls of the facility is not
feasible or simply does not cut noise enough,
many operators are opting to move the motor of
the dryers to another location so that the sound
environment of the tunnel is not as harsh. At
the Quality Car Washes in Holland, MI, owner
Tom Essenburg has dryers that pump out 160
horsepower using four 40-horsepower motors.
To handle the excessive noise, at different
locations he has placed some of the dryers in
the basement or in side equipment rooms or
httn://www.moderncarcare.com/articles/9al featl.html?wts=2004l228095446&hc=316&req=design+an... 10/1912005
Modern Car Care 10/99: Noise Gets fro Nod as "Arch Enemy No.1"
storage rooms.
Page 3 of6
"The equipment room has insulation on the wall
to deaden sound, and the ceiling has been
insulated--this has been very effective for noise
reduction," he notes. In addition to cutting
sound, having the motors in separate rooms
makes for easier access and servicing.
Essenburg says he has never had a problem
with OSHA and believes his dryer configuration
makes for a strong system. "We are very happy
with this arrangement," he says.
Jurkens says he knows of several operators
who have gone the re-configuration route. "You
take the impellers and the motors and you build
that separate room that's soundproof, and then
you just duct it out to the wash area," says
Jurkens.
OSHA says noise can be measured using
monitoring equipment that can be purchased or
rented from safety equipment companies. The
two types of monitoring include area
monitoring, which is appropriate when noise
level remains constant and employees stay in
relatively the same place, and personal
monitoring. In personal monitoring, the
employee wears a microphone on his or her
clothing called a dosimeter, which measures
and records sound level throughout the day.
(This personal monitoring can also be done
with a sound level meter, but this tends to be
more complicated since this method calls for an
individual to carry the meter and follow the
employee.)
While this type of monitoring does not need to
be done on a regular basis, OSHA says re-
monitoring must be done if there is new
equipment or changes in equipment that may
affect employees' hearing.
Dryer Noise--A Necessary
Evil?
By Tracy Charuhas
Stricter noise pollution standards in
many states and overall concern for
http://www.moderncarcare.com/articles/9al featl.html?wts=20041228095446&hc=3l6&req=design+an... 10/19/2005
Modern Car Care 10/99: Noise Gets tlH> Nod as "Arch Enemy No.1"
Page 4 of6
customer and employee comfort are making
dryer silencers and other noise suppressing
methods a necessity. Silencers, sound
dampening wall/ceiling materials and location of
dryers in a tunnel all affect dryer noise levels.
While silencers will reduce the noise level in a
carwash tunnel, installing one will also reduce
the efficiency of the drying unit. Manufacturers
are constantly striving to offer operators
silencers that cut the noise without sacrificing
drying capabilities.
Mac McElroy, CEO of Proto-Vest, Inc. in
Glendale, AZ, says his company's silencers cut
noise in all three areas of the dryer--the intake,
the cover and the outlet.
"We are presently working on some additional
silencing," McElroy says. "We can build a dryer
with silencing in mind where the customer only
hears the air coming out of the nozzles--you
can't hear the motor at all. When you're
designing a blower you have to be able to
design the silencing package so that it doesn't
take away from the performance of the dryer."
McElroy says Proto-Vest's silencer package
reduces noise decibel levels on Proto-Vest
dryers by 10 decibels--that's 10 times quieter
than the unsilenced model.
There are other things an operator can do to
reduce noise for employees and customers.
David VanBruggen, chief engineer for Superior
Car Wash Systems, in Phoenix, AZ, says
Superior's silencers are placed about 3 to 5
inches in front of the inlet. The silencers contain
sound absorbing and sound dampening
materials--the combination of which makes the
silencers most effective, he says.
VanBruggen says there are a variety of factors
that contribute to noise in a carwash tunnel.
"Obviously the more motors you have the more
noise you tend to have," VanBruggen says.
"There are so many things that happen in the
wash that affect results when you're trying to
deal with sound. Resonance off walls--anything
of that nature can really impact how well
something works or doesn't work."
httn'//www m()il~mr.~rr.::m~ r.()m/~rtlr.l~~/9~l fe~tl_html?wt~=2004122R095446&hc=316&rea=desiQ:n+an... 10/19/2005
Modern Car Care 10/99: Noise Gets 11"" Nod as "Arch Enemy No.1"
Page 5 of6
For example, VanBruggen says block walls
absorb more sound than metal walls. The
proximity of the dryer to doors and walls can
also make a difference in noise levels, he says.
"Having more enclosure to a dryer is helpful.
Typically most dryers today are not really
enclosed," VanBruggen says. "Sound
dampening type material, accoustical tiles and
baffles can also help contain sound in an area."
Dean Ducoing, inside sales support for
Belanger, Inc., Northville, MI, says, "The farther
inside the building you go (with the dryer) the
more chance the noise has of being somewhat
absorbed by the building," Ducoing says. "The
problem is that most carwashes have cinder
block walls, cement ceilings and all of them
have cement floors. In that case you have all
four surfaces that just bounce sound around."
Ducoing says he has seen some operators put
sound dampening materials on the walls and
hang panels in different areas of the carwash to
absorb the sound. But Ducoing says these
types of materials work best in larger tunnels
since they are likely to get wet in smaller
tunnels--becoming a harbor for bacteria.
Several years ago, carwash operators didn't
face the noise concerns they face today,
McElroy says.
"OSHA is starting to look more closely at the
carwash industry," McElroy says. "It's becoming
an issue when people try to put in a new
installation. They're running into something we
didn't see 10 years ago. Many operators are
calling us to get our (dryer noise statistics) in
order to get permits from the cities."
While noise pollution is a concern in all 50
states, nowhere is it taken more seriously than
in California. McElroy says some California
counties have dB requirements that are actually
lower than OSHA requires.
"When we first started this, it seemed like
California was far more prevalent (in noise
control) than other areas," McElroy says.
"We're running into more of that now in Florida,
Arizona, Washington D.C. and Vermont."
httn://www.modemcarcare.com/articles/9al feat1.html?wts=20041228095446&hc=3l6&req=design+an... 10/1912005
Modern Car Care 10/99: Noise Gets tr.~ Nod as "Arch Enemy No.1"
Page 6 of6
. ~
How Loud is Loud?
The decibel (dB) is the smallest single unit of
loudness. So how do dryers measure up in this
loud world?
An office, without 135 dB.
music or radio playing
Proto-Vest silenced 170 dB.
dryer model
IBusy street 1180 dB.
IJackhammer 11120 dB.
IBoeing 747 at take-off 11140 dB.
NASA space shuttle at 1200 dB.
lift-off Source: Doctor Decibel's Car Audio Lab,
www.CQnnec.ti,cQm.
ClicJLI1Qr~JQP-YICha$Qn~nrint$
Click here to Subscribe
Ads by Gooooooale
t-.tQi$.~prQb!em$.$Qlyed
Learn what the pro's use. Expert advice.
www.quietsolution.com
Industrial Noise Control
Sound proofing, acoustic materials. Barriers, walls, curtains,
chambers
www.eNoiseControl.com
NoiseCQotrol
Variety of Noise Control Products & Services - Search
Locally.
www.ThomasNet.com
Noise Reduction
For All Noise Reduction Needs Full Range Of Products
Here.
www.faster-results.com
Copyright @ 2005 by YjJ9.9..P~Qljshinq.
Please read our leqal paqe before using this site.
hth,,//mUTUr 1'l'1C\rlf'rn('~r('~rf' ('()m/mii('le~/9::11 featl.html?wts=2004l228095446&hc=316&req=design+an... 10/1912005
Car Wash Glossary
Page 1 of 4
Thinking about investing in a car wash
business? Everything you ever wanted
to know is right here,
Get the tools and expertise you need
to help your car wash business thrive!
FREE DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY
Want to know if your location will be a
good one for a car wash business?
Get a free demographic survey!
Helpful Resources
Acid: A chemical substance whose properties include the ability to react
with bases or alkalies in water solutions to form salts.
.... Glossary
EAQ
Ask the._Wgstl_~nJ.t
Alkali: A chemical substance (such as hydroxide or carbonate of sodium or potassium) which
reacts and neutralizes an acid.
Alkalinity: A property of water soluble substances (or mixtures) causing the concentration of
hydroxyl ions (OH-) in water solutions to be higher than the concentration of hydrogen ions
(H+).
Biodegradability: The capability of organic matter to be decomposed by biological processes.
_ Boom: In a self-service wash, the arm extension that holds a hose and nozzle for washing the
vehicle. The boom can be wall-mounted for 1800 movement or ceiling-mounted for 3600
movement.
.. .
HAVE A QUESTION?.
ASK THE WASH GURU! ..
BTU: British Thermal Units, a measure of energy.
Caustic: A strong alkali. When used alone the term usually refers to caustic soda (sodium
hydroxide).
Centrifugal Separator: Device to remove large dirt particles from reclaim water flow.
Cfm: Cubic feet per minute.
Chemical Metering and Feed System: Apparatus for delivering chemicals from the
equipment room to the application in the wash bay.
Chlorination: Process of adding chlorine to water to inhibit bacterial growth.
Cloth Friction Wash: Using wash material against the vehicle's surface to remove dirt.
Correlator: In-ground device to align the vehicle wheels with a wash conveyor by providing a
mechanism for the vehicle to slide laterally. The Correlator is located at the beginning of the
entrance of the conveyor.
Detergency: The ability to clean or remove soil. Generally detergency is associated with the
action of a cleaning agent such as soap, detergent, alkaline salt, or a combination.
Dissolved Solids: Fine particles of dirt and other debris in water not distinctly visible to the
naked eye.
Exterior Wash: Carwash service that includes only a cleaning of the outside of the car. Often
this refers to an unattended wash, where no detailing services are offered.
FNPT: Female National Pipe Thread
Foam: Bubbles formed on liquids by the process of agitation.
http://www.hillandfoss.com/glossary.html
10/19/2005
Car Wash Glossary
Page 2 of 4
FOB: "Free on board" means that the seller delivers when the goods are loaded. This means
that the buyer has to bear all costs and risks of "loss of' or "damage" to the goods from that
point..
Front-to-Rear Cloth Mitter Curtains: Cleaning material moving parallel with the travel of the
vehicle.
Full-Service Wash: A conveyorized or tunnel wash that provides a complete wash, vacuuming
and drying, usually by hand.
FWP: Front Wheel Pull
Gantry: A framework that spans a distance, often moving on wheels.
Greaseless: Not requiring lubrication.
Hand Wash (conveyorized): A conveyor wash with workers wearing large mitts that wash
the vehicle, rather than using mechanical mitters and side washers.
Hard Surface Cleaner: A product formulated for cleaning painted surfaces, washable floor
coverings, plastics, metals, porcelain, and other surfaces.
Hp: Horsepower
Hz: Hertz
Kwh: Kilowatt per hour
lubricity: The measure of resistance to friction on a surface.
Micron: One millionth of a meter.
Mitter: Machine that suspends and oscillates wash material on the horizontal surfaces of a
vehicle to effect cleaning of the top surfaces of an automobile
Motor Control Center: Enclosure containing starters, switching, and overload protection
devices for electric motors which are utilized throughout a carwash system to operate various
motors on different devices and machines.
Opaque: Not letting light pass through; not transparent or translucent
Over-and-Under Conveyor: Type of conveyor that has hidden pushers continuously traveling
on a level under the surface. Only when a pusher is needed to push a car is one lifted into the
working position.
Ozonation: Process of injecting ozone into water to inhibit bacterial growth.
Palletized: Self-contained in a single unit, mounted on a skid.
pH: A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution, numerically equal to 7 for neutral
solutions, increasing with increasing alkalinity and decreasing with increasing acidity. The pH
scale commonly in use ranges from 0 to 14. [p(otential of) H(ydrogen).]
PlC: Programmable Logic Controller.
Polish Wax: Foam applicator which applies a colored chemical to the vehicle as it passes
through the wash bay. Provides extra service that generates additional revenue and is eye
pleasing to the motorist.
http://www.hillandfoss.com/glossary.html
10/19/2005
Car Wash Glossary
Page 3 of 4
POS: Point of Sale.
Psi: Per square inch of air pressure.
Reverse Osmosis: The removal of organic and suspended impurities from water by the use of
one or more semi-permeable membranes.
Rinse Aid: Wax-like chemical applied to the vehicle surface after the final rinse for easier water
removal during the drying process.
Rocker Panel: Portion of a vehicle's side that is below a straight line between the tops of both
tires.
Roll Bar Assembly: Rotating device that spans the correlator and directs a vehicle's tires onto
the wash conveyor.
Roller-on-Demand: Carwash conveyor operational feature that moves a pusher into working
position on the conveyor track to move a car through the carwash.
Rollover Wash: The type of wash where the customer drives into position and sits stationary
while the equipment moves over and around the car.
Rust Inhibitor: A chemical applicator for the under side of the vehicle in the wash process that
inhibits rust formation.
RWP: Rear Wheel Push
Self-Lubricating: Pre-lubricated and not requiring additional lubrication.
Self-Service Wash: A wash where the customer performs all the labor. Generally, the
customer drives into a bay and washes the car by means of a high pressure hose and a foaming
brush.
Silencer: Pan-like dryer attachments filled with acoustical foam that cover the dryer producer
inlets to reduce noise levels.
Spot-free: Carwash industry term synonymous with reverse osmosis.
Translucent: Letting light pass through while diffusing it.
Triple Polish: Foam applicator which applies three different colored chemicals to the vehicle as
it passes through the wash bay. Extra service that generates additional revenue and is eye
pleasing to the customer.
UHMW polyethylene: Ultra High Molecular Weight polyethylene, a type of plastic.
Undercarriage Wash Applicator: Device to deliver high volumes of wash water to the
underside of vehicles to remove mud and salt. Can also be used as a rust inhibitor applicator.
Wash Material: Industry term for cloth used for cleaning in a friction wash.
Water Hardness: Soluble metal salts, (principally those of calcium and magnesium, and
sometimes iron and manganese) that when present in water in sufficient amounts create
cleaning problems. These metal salts remain on a vehicle after the water evaporates leaving
white spots.
Weep System: A system using dripping water to prevent freezing in hoses in cold climates.
Wetting Agent: A substance that reduces the surface tension of a liquid, causing the liquid to
spread across or penetrate more easily the surface of a solid.
http://www.hillandfoss.com/glossary .html
10/19/2005
Car Wash Glossary
Page 4 of 4
Wheel and Tire Chemical Applicator: Device for spraying cleaning solution onto wheels and
tires.
Wrap Around Washers: Rotating brushes attached to knuckling arms for cleaning the front,
sides and rear of vehicles.
..
folum to top of page
rh ,_ 11 );,~r>$.~~,,:-~'-: l.>:.-:-."i~ ....',<,!';'t~; ;::;:;::t)) J :-:1;<~.;'-<; ~iH.K.;,~~<;;1 y<, ,:;~;, ~;,-~ .<::::): f>:~ ":<:J9:'~.;jX';:x':~, li:*~:::., ~:::::))./'l
H&F Car Wash Business Home I H&F Car Wash Systems Profile i Investing in Car Wash Franchises I Starting a Carwash Business
Automatic Car Wash I Touch-Free Car Wash I Touch Car Wash I Self-Serve Car Wash I Advantages over Carwash Franchises I Resources
Starting a Car Wash _ Success Stories I Demographic Survey I Free Guide I Current Ca0Nash System Owners I Car Wash Equipment
Car Wash Supplies I Carwash Service I Marketing Contact Us I Privacy Policy i Links
http://www.hillandfoss.com/glossary .html
10/19/2005
Noise Comparison
Page 1 of2
Noise Sources and Their Effects
Noise Source
Decibel
Level Noise Effect
150 Eardrum rupture
140 Earphones at high
level
130
120
110 Human pain
threshold
Serious hearing
100 damage
(8 hrs)
90 Hearing damage
(8 hrs)
80 Possible hearing
damage
70 Annoying
60 Quiet
50 "
40 "
30 Very Quiet
20 "
10 "
0 Threshold of
hearing
Jet take-off (at 25 meters)
Aircraft carrier deck
Jet take-o ff (at 100 meters)
Thunderclap, live rock music, chain saw
Steel mill, riveting, auto horn at 1 meter
Jet take-ofT (at 305 meters), outboard motor, power lawn mower,
motorcycle, farm tractor, jackhammer, garbage truck
Busy urban street, diesel truck, food blender
Garbage disposal, dishwasher, average factory, freight train
(at 15 meters)
Freeway traffic (at 15 meters), vacuum cleaner
Conversation in restaurant, office, background music
Quiet suburb, conversation at home
Library
Quiet rural area
Whisper, rustling leaves
Breathing
SOURCE: Temple University Department of Civil/Environmental Engineering
(www. temple .edu/ departments/CETP / environ I O.html)
Sound Levels and Relative Loudness of Typical Noise Sources
in Indoor and Outdoor Environments
Decible
level
(dB)
Subjective
Loudness
(Relative to
70 dB)
Overall Level
Community Noise Levels
(Outdoors)
Home and Industry
Noise Levels
120
32 times
Uncomfortably Military jet aircraft take-off
Oxygen torch (121 dB)
http://home.netvista.net/ ~hpb/ dblevels.html
10/19/2005
Noise Comparison
Page 2 of2
as loud loud from aircraft carrier with
afterburner at 50 ft (130 dB)
110 16 times Turbo- fan aircraft at takeoff Riveting machine
as loud power at 200 ft (118 dB) (110 dB); rock band
(108 - 114 dB)
100 8 times Very loud Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at
as loud one nautical mile (6080 ft)
before landing (106 dB); jet
f1yover at 1000 feet (103 dB);
Bell J - 2A helicopter at 100 ft
(100 dB)
90 4 times Boeing 737 or DC-9 aircraft at Newspaper press (97 dB)
as loud one nautical mile (6080 ft)
before landing (97 dB); power
mower (96 dB); motorcycle at
25 ft (90 dB)
80 2 times Car wash at 20 ft (89 dB); Food blender (88 dB);
as loud propeller plane flyover at 1000 milling machine (85 dB);
ft (88 dB); diesel truck 40 mph garbage disposal (80 dB)
at 50 ft (84 dB); diesel train at
45 mph at 100 ft (83 dB)
70 Moderately High urban ambient sound Living room music (76
loud (80 dB); passenger car at dB); radio or TV -audio,
65 mph at 25 ft (77 dB); vacuum cleaner (70 dB)
freeway at 50 ft from pavement
edge 10 a.m. (76 dB)
60 Half as Air conditioning unit at 100 ft Cash register at 10ft (65-
loud (60 dB) 70 dB); electric typewriter
at 10 ft (64 dB);
dishwasher (rinse) at 10 ft
(60 dB); conversation (60
dB)
50 One- fourth Quiet Large transformers at 100 ft
as loud (50 dB)
40 Bird calls (44 dB); lowest limit
of urban ambient sound (40
dB)
10 Just audible
0 Threshold of hearing
SOURCE: Table B.l, from Federal Agency Review of Selected A irport Noise Analysis Issues, Federal Interagency
Committee on Noise (August 1992). Source of the information is attributed to Outdoor Noise and the Metropolitan
Environment, M.C. Branch et aI., Department of City Planning, City of Los Angeles, 1970.
http://home.netvista.net/ ~hpb/ dblevels.html
10/19/2005
Noise Comparisons
Page 1 of2
Noise Sources and Their Effects
Noise Source Decibel comment
level
Jet take-off (at 25 meters) 150 Eardrum rupture
Aircraft carrier deck 140
Military jet aircraft take-off from aircraft carrier 130
with afterburner at 50 ft (130 dB).
Thunderclap, chain saw. Oxygen torch (121 120 Painful. 32 times as
dB). loud as 70 dB.
Steel mill, auto horn at 1 meter. Turbo-fan 110 Average human
aircraft at takeoff power at 200 ft (118 dB). pain threshold. 16
Riveting machine (110 dB); live rock music times as loud as 70
(108 - 114 dB). dB.
Jet take-off (at 305 meters), use of outboard 100 8 times as loud as
motor, power lawn mower, motorcycle, farm 70 dB. Serious
tractor, jackhammer, garbage truck. Boeing damage possible in
707 or DC-8 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 8 hr exposure
ft) before landing (106 dB); jet f1yover at 1000
feet (103 dB); Bell J-2A helicopter at 100 ft
(100 dB).
Boeing 737 or DC-9 aircraft at one nautical 90 4 times as loud as
mile (6080 ft) before landing (97 dB); power 70 dB. Likely
mower (96 dB); motorcycle at 25 ft (90 dB). damage 8 hr exp
Newspaper press (97 dB).
Garbage disposal, dishwasher, average 80 2 times as loud as
factory, freight train (at 15 meters). Car wash 70 dB. Possible
at 20 ft (89 dB); propeller plane flyover at 1000 damage in 8 h
ft (88 dB); diesel truck 40 mph at 50 ft (84 dB); expos u re.
diesel train at 45 mph at 100 ft (83 dB). Food
blender (88 dB); milling machine (85 dB);
garbage disposal (80 dB).
Passenger car at 65 mph at 25 ft (77 dB); 70 Arbitrary base of
freeway at 50 ft from pavement edge 10 a.m. comparison. Upper
(76 dB). Living room music (76 dB); radio or 70s are annoyingly
TV-audio, vacuum cleaner (70 dB). loud to some
people.
Conversation in restaurant, office, background 60 Half as loud as 70
music, Air conditioning unit at 100 ft dB. Fairly quiet
Quiet suburb, conversation at home. Large 50 One-fourth as loud
electrical transformers at 100 ft as 70 dB.
Library, bird calls (44 dB); lowest limit of urban 40 One-eighth as loud
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm
10/19/2005
Noise Comparisons
Page 2 of2
ambient sound as 70 dB.
Quiet rural area 30 One-sixteenth as
loud as 70 dB. Very
Quiet
Whisper, rustling leaves 20
Breathing 10 Barely audible
[modified from http://www.wenet.netJ~hpb/dblevels.html] on 2/2000. SOURCES: Temple University Department of Civil/Environmental
Engineering (www.temple.edu/departments/CETP/environ10.html). and Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues,
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (August 1992). Source of the information is attributed to Outdoor Noise and the Metropolitan
Environment, M.C. Branch et aI., Department of City Planning, City of Los Angeles, 1970.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm
10/19/2005
Lab Safety Supply - EZ Facts ~"fety Info - Document #267, Comparati' ~ Noise and Ligh... Page 1 of 4
1-800-356-0783
~~ Industrial & Safety Supplies
L; \ \;'
Home
'Win a $250 shopping spree
'Exclusive email offers
Info Library
Federal Register
EZ Facts
Documents
TECH lines
Newsletters
Safety FAQ
Safety at Home
Industry Events
Safety Links
Saf-T-News
Free Info:
By Mail
Downloads
Help With
Downloads
Email For:
Product or
Regulatory Support
Need
Assistance?
Contact Us
How Do I....
* Sign I n I Why Register? I
Search:" r
Customizeit
Info Library
About Us
Products
Why register?
'Free e-newsletters
'Custom shopping lists
'Register Now
'Sign In
~facts.
~
~~
Comparative Noise & Light Levels
Document Number: 267
The potential for dangerous noise levels and harmful light levels exists in many
day-to-day personal and workplace activities. The following information pro-vides
a better understanding of the comparison of various noise and light levels to a
number of locations and applications.
Noise levels
Home Products. Etc.
Mowing the Lawn
Alarm Clock
Leaf Blower
Power Tools
Outboard Motor
Snowmobile
Car at 60 mph
Chain Saw
Toy Cap Gun
Automobile Horn
Hunting/Shotgun
Normal Conversation
Portable Sander
Vacuum Cleaner
Washing Machine
Approx. Levels in dB
86
80
105
90
110
90
72
118
163
119
158
65
95
81
75
Industrial/Work Activities
Pneumatic Riveter
Approx. Levels in dB
130
http://www.labsafety.com/refinfo/ezfacts/ezf267.htm
10/19/2005
Fa(
Ma
Re
Ch
Re!
Co
Pel
Pre
Ge
We
Ind
Ins
We
Fla
Ste
Ele
Spi
Co
Ind
Re
Re
Pal
EYI
Re
Pal
Lab Safety Supply - EZ Facts ~nfety Info - Document #267, Comparati' ~ Noise and Ligh... Page 2 of 4
Air Hammer
Spray Painting
Diesel Engine
Drop Hammer
Compressor
Punch Press
Busy Big City Traffic
Office
Jet Engine at 1000 feet away
Jack Hammer
Sand Blasting
Oxygen Torch
100
105
83
110
94
108
95
40
102
130
110
121
Hearing loss (recordable or reportable) is addressed under OSHA in 29 CFR
1904. According to the OSHA regulation, hearing protectors must be made
available to workers exposed at or above the action level of 85 dB. OSHA
requires that hearing protectors be provided and worn by employees when. . .
. noise exposures exceed 90 dB; and
. employees are exposed to greater than 85 dB and have not yet had a
baseline audiogram or have experienced a standard threshold shift (loss of
hearing).
Light Levels
Industrial Tasks and Locations
Factory
Printing Industries
Packing Work
Exit/Entrance
Warehouse
Assembly Line Inspection
Assembly Line
Suggested Foot-Candle*
100-200
100
50
20
200
100
Office
Typing
Drafting
Clerical Work
Warehouse
Corridor
Entrance
200
200
150
20
20
10
Hospital
Eye Inspection
Operating Room
Emergency Room
Exam Room
50
150
20
100
http://www.1absafety.com/refinfo/ezfacts/ezf267.htm
10/19/2005
Lab Safety Supply - EZ Facts ~'lfety Info - Document #267, Comparati,,~ Noise and Ligh... Page 3 of 4
Waiting Room
Stairs
30
10
School
Library
Lab
Auditorium
Class Room
Gymnasium
Wash Room
Stairs
150
150
20
50
30
20
5
* The illumination levels above are suggested and intended to be a minimum on
the task referenced. To assure these values at all times, higher initial levels
should be provided as required per task.
Commonly Asked Questions
Q. What are three indicators that I might be exposed to too much noise?
A. 1. Difficulty understanding normal conversation at work with someone
two feet away.
2. Prolonged ringing in the ears-or other unusual noises-after leaving
work.
3. Trouble hearing TV or speech, but can hear normally again after a
few hours once off the job.
Q. When can a person begin experiencing hearing pain?
A. Depending on an individuals hearing sensitivity, a person can begin
experiencing hearing pain between 125-160 dB.
Q. When does OSHA require employers to implement a hearing
conservation program?
A. In the United States, whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed
an eight-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dB.
Q. What are three forms of hearing protection?
A. Earplugs, earmuffs and hearing bands.
References
Patty's Industrial Hygiene & Toxicology, Third Revised Edition, 1978.
Safety Technician's Handbook, Webber Publishing, 1996.
Lab Safety Supply Insights, May 1992 Volume 1, Issue 1
Plant Engineering, July 18, 1991
FREE Technical Support
When you have a question, you can rely on our team of technical experts. They'll
http://www.labsafety.com/refinfo/ezfacts/ezf267.htm
10/19/2005
Lab Safety Supply - EZ Facts C''lfety Info - Document #267, Comparat: Noise and Ligh... Page 4 of 4
answer your questions about product specifications, chemical compatibility,
regulatory issues, and general worker safety and health.
Call our Safety TECHline™ Technical Support toll-free: 800-356-2501 (6 a.m. to
9 p.m. CT, Monday - Friday). Or e-mail our Technical Support Staff at
techsvc@labsafety.com anytime!
FREE Catalog
For products to meet all your workplace safety and industrial needs, turn to Lab
Safety Supply. In it you'll find thousands of safety and industrial products, plus a
complete service package and our 100% guarantee to stand behind them.
Click here to select a catalog and fill out a request form on-line, or call today to
reserve your free copy: 800-356-0783 (7 a.m. to 9 p.m. CT, Monday - Friday).
Please Note: The information contained in this publication is intended for general
information purposes only. This publication is not a substitute for review of the
applicable government regulations and standards, and should not be construed
as legal advice or opinion. Readers with specific questions should refer to the
cited regulation or consult with an attorney.
Home lOur Guarantee I Privacy Statement I Terms of Access I Trademarks I Contact Us I Sitemap
Questions and Orders: Call 1-800-356-0783 or Fax 1-800-543-9910
@ 2005 Lab Safety Supply Inc.
http://www.labsafety.comlrefinfo/ezfacts/ezf267.htm
10/19/2005
Page 1 of8
\
.
Ultimate Sound Pressure Level Decibel Table , COPYWRITE WILLIAM HAMBY 2004
Decibel's ( db
are units of ratio's and in this table are expressed in atmospheric
(N) NORMALIZED TOTAL AIR POWER ENERGY LEVEL SOUND PLUS ANY WIND, WATTS OR JOULES P
(p) ACTUAL PEAK PRESSURE METER READINGS i.e. A FORCE PER UNIT AREA
(NP) = NORMALIZED PRESSURE USED IN EXPLOSIVE MEASUREMENTS, BLAST WIND IS NOT INCLUDE
(Q) = BLAST WIND DYNAMIC PRESSURE CREATED BY THE PEAK SHOCK FRONT OVERPRESSURE (P)
REF. = REFERENCE NUMBER OF DATA SOURCE AND YEAR IN APPENDIX BELOW
DECIBEL LEVEL (N = NORMALIZED) ( P = ACTUAL PRESSURE) (NP = BOMB PRESSURE) CAUSE OR E
-30 (N) ONE HUMAN TALKING 20 MILES AWAY ( 60 DB / METER AT A DISTANCE OF 20 MILES )-
-4 TO +4 (N) THE TICKING OF AN ORDINARY WRISTWATCH AT 1 METER -REF.1 2003
o (N) BEGINNING OF HEARING, A MOSQUITO 10 FEET AWAY, THE EAR DRUM MOVES LESS
THAN 1 / 100 THE LENGTH OF AN AIR MOLECULE (N)
3.5 (P) 1E-10 METERS OF MERCURY = 0.0000000001 METERS OF MERCURY
10 (P) ABSOLUTE SILENCE, ATT-BELL LABORATORY " QUIET ROOM "
13 (p) ORDINARY LIGHT BULB HUM
15 (N) A PIN DROP FROM A HIEGHT OF 1 CENTIMETER AT A DISTANCE OF 1 METER -REF.1.200
30 (p) TOTALLY QUIET NIGHTIME IN DESERT-IMPOSSIBLE ANYWHERE NEAR CITY
35 (p) ANECHOIC HEARING TEST ROOM -REF.1. 1998
40 A WHISPER, A NORMAL CONVERSATION IS 60 DB, NORMAL SOUND 70 DB -REF.1.1983
73.98(P) = 1 uBAR = 1 microbar pressure
85 BEGINNING OF HEARING DAMAGE, EARPLUGS SHOULD BE WORN
93.98(P) = 1 PASCAL PRESSURE
100 NORMAL AVERAGE CAR OR HOUSE STEREO AT MAXIMUM VOLUME -REF.1.1982
107-104 (p) THE BEGINNING OF PAIN AT THE MOST SENSITIVE FREQUENCY OF 2750 HERTZ -REF
109 ONE SOUND WATT RADIATING AS A PERFECT SPHERE, 4 PI SQUARE METERS -REF.1. 1986
110 A CAR STEREO WITH TWO 6 X 9" SPEAKERS AND 100 WATTS -REF.1.1982
113.81(P) = 1 MILLIMETER WATER
114-107 A VERY LARGE, POWERFUL PORTABLE RADIO REF.1.1982
116 HUMAN BODY BEGINS TO PERCIEVE VIBRATION IN THE LOW FREQUENCIES -REF.1.1986
117-123 HOME STEREO SYSTEM, A VERY LOUD AND POWERFUL 200-2000 WATTS -REF.1.1983
120.24(P) ONE PURE SOUND WATT FLOWING THROUGH 1 SQUARE METER, YOUR ELECTRIC AMPLIFIE
120-130 FRONT ROW AT A ROCK CONCERT- UP TO 200 REFRIGERATOR SIZE SPEAKERS
AND 50000-300000 WATTS OF CLEAN, FULL FREQUENCY SOUND -REF.1.1981
125 DRUM SET-ONLY AT THE MOMENT OF STRIKING, CONTINOUS LEVEL 115
126-130 TYPICAL PROFESSIONAL D.J. SYSTEM -REF.1.1984
127 HUMAN TINNITUS (RINGING IN THE EARS) BEGINS -REF.1.1984
127.48 = 1 pound per square foot
128 (P)HUMAN, LOUDEST SCREAM MEASURED AT A DISTANCE OF 8 FEET 2 INCHES
128 HUMAN HEAD HAIR BEGINS TO DETECT VIBRATION -REF.1.1983
128 HUMAN CAN BEGIN TO DETECT VERY SLOW "BLAST WIND" OF 0.124 METERS/SECOND -REF.1.
130 (N)MARCHING BAND-OVERALL LEVEL AT A DISTANCE, 100-200 MEMBERS -REF.1.1996
132 EARDRUM "FLEX" TOTALLY NOTICEABLE -REF.1.1982
132.4(P) = 1 SOUND WATT MAXIMUM IN A SMALL SEALED BOX BELOW HYDRODYNAMIC CRITICAL LO
133 (N)GUNSHOT- EAR LEVEL, MAY VARY GREATLY TO SIZE AND TYPE OF GUN,
DURATION CONVERTED TO ONE SECOND, PEAK LEVEL MAY REACH 140-160 (p)
133.98 (p) = 1 MILLIBAR PRESSURE
135-122 (p) "VERY LOUD" CAR STEREO, ONLY BASS LEVEL, HIGHS RARELY ABOVE 115(P) -REF.
135-130(N) LARGE TRAIN HORN -REF.1.1985
135 HUMAN, A SLIGHT COOLING EFFECT BEGINS TO BE NOTICED, FROM AIR EXPANSION -REF.1.1
136.498(P) = 1 TORR PRESSURE = 1 MILLIMETER MERCURY
137 HUMAN BODY VIBRATION IS STRONG -REF.1.1983
htto:/ /www.makeitlouder.comlDecibel %20Level %20Chart. txt
10/2012005
Page 2 of8
~
137-140 HUMAN EAR ALL FREQUENCIES ARE PAINFUL -REF.1.1983
140 EXTREMELY DAMAGING TO HEARING NO MATTER HOW SHORT THE TIME EXPOSURE
140 BLAST WIND = U = (PARTICLE VELOCITY) IS 0.49 METERS PER SECOND OR ABOUT 1 MPH
140 HUMAN THROAT AND VOCAL CORD VIBRATION BEGINS -REF.1.1983
141 HUMAN BODY BEGINS TO FEEL NASUEA AFTER A FEW MINUTES -REF.1.1983
141.918(P) = 1 INCH OF WATER PRESSURE
142 HUMAN BODY CHESTPOUNDING IS INTENCE -REF.1.1983
142 (P) INSIDE A CAR WITH TWO PRO 18 INCH WOOFERS AND 300 WATTS EACH -REF.1.1983
143 HUMAN BODY FEELS AS IF SOMEONE JUST FOOTBALL TACKLED YOUR CHEST -REF.1.1983
144 HUMAN NOSE ITCHES -REF.1.1983
145 HUMAN VISION BEGINS TO VIBRATE MAKING IT SLIGHTLY BLURRY, 1-3 DEGREES -REF.1.19
145-136 (P)"COMPETITION" CAR STEREO, SIXTEEN 12 OR EIGHT 15, OR FOUR 18 SPEAKERS -RE
146.1(P) AIR PARTICLE VELOCITY(WIND) IS 1 METER PER SECOND OR ABOUT 2 MILES PER HOUR
147 (N)FORMULA 1 RACE CAR, 700 HORSEPOWER, CHESTPOUNDING AND SUCTION FORCE ON CALM Q
MORNINGS CAN CLEARLY BE HEARD 6 MILES AWAY.-REF.1.1991
148 HUMAN VIBRATION VERY UNCOMFORTABLE AND SLIGHTLY PAINFUL -REF.1.1986
149 HUMAN LUNGS AND BREATHING BEGINS VIBRATING TO THE SOUND -REF.1.1986
150 (N)ROCK CONCERT "THE WHO" TWO 10 STORY STACKS = 144 DOUBLE REFRIDGERATOR SIZED S
150 ROCK CONCERT SPEAKER AT 1600 WATTS ON THE ACTUAL VIBRATING SURFACE -REF.1.1991
150 HUMAN SENSATION OF BEING COMPRESSED AS IF UNDERWATER IS OVERWHELMING -REF.1.1983
150 HUMAN SOUND EXPERIMENTS DOWN TO 1 TO 2 HERTZ - REF.13.
152 HUMAN VIBRATION IS PAINUL AND ALSO FELT IN ALL JOINTS -REF.1.1983
153 HUMAN THROAT IS VIBRATING SO HARD IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO SWALLOW -REF.1.1983
154 TOY BALLOON POPPING, DEPENDS ON TYPE AND HOW LARGE AND HARD TO INFLATE -REF.1.19
155 HUMAN BODY COMPRESSION AND EXPANSION TO VIBRATION IS TO THE "CORE" -REF.1.1983
155 HUMAN COOLING EFFECT IS HIGH, AS A GUESS 10 TO 25 DEGREES FARENHEIT? -REF.1.1983
156 (P)IN A MINI-VAN WITH TWENTY 12" WOOFERS AND 19,000 WATTS OF AMPLIFIER POWER.
EACH SPEAKERS IS DISPLACING (PUMPING BACK AND FORTH) 0.75 INCHES
IF LONG HAIR WOMEN SIT IN IT, HER HAIR WILL FLY OUT OF WINDOW WITH BASS
WINDSHIELD WIPERS FLY OFF VEHICLE 1/2 TO 2 INCHES, DOOR AND FRONT
WINDSHIELD FLEXION MAY BE UP TO +-2 INCHES OR 4 INCHES PEAK TO PEAK
EVEN WITH EARPLUGS (-30 DB) AND HEADMUFFS (-24 DB) = -54 DB IT'S STILL LOUD
156.498(P) = 1 CENTIMETER MERCURY = 0.01 METERS MERCURY
158 HUMAN BODY VIBRATION IS VIOLENT, NAUSEA BECOMES MORE INTENCE -REF.1.1983
158 (P)INSIDE A ROCK CONCERT SPEAKER BOX REFRIDGERATOR SIZE AT MAX. 5000 WATTS -REF
160 (P)FLASHLIGHTS EXHIBIT ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSING-EMP (DIMMING DURING SOUND) -REF.1
162 U.S. FESTIVAL ROCK CONCERT 1983. 10 SEPARATE STACKS, AMPS = 400,000 WATTS (N) -R
163-153 (N) N.H.R.A. DRAGSTERS- 5000 TO 7000 HORSEPOWER, LIQUID NITROGLYCERIN FUEL,
EARTHSHAKING AT 50 FEET, HUMANS FIND IT HARD TO SEE, AND BREATHE 140db(P) -R
163 (P)GLASSBREAKING LEVEL, MINIMUM, IT IS VERY HARD TO BREAK GLASS WINDOWS.
MANY STORIES COME FROM BREAKING GLASS BUT IT IS HIGHLY VARIABLE: IT IS
EASIER TO BREAK IF THE WINDOW ALREADY HAS A CRACK, IS VERY LARGE OR
OLD AND BRITTLE AND NOT CAR SAFETY GLASS WHICH CAN FLEX MASSIVELY
BEFORE BREAKING. AN OPERA SINGER AT 110 DB MAY BREAK A WINEGLASS BUT IT IS A
EXAMPLE OF FREQUENCY RESONANCE, AND NOT HIGH SOUND DB LEVEL -REF.1.1987
163 (N)OCEAN WHALE REFERENCE 2 EXP-5 NEWTONS PER SQUARE METER
164 (P)INTERNAL SOUND PRESSURE OF A LARGE JET AIRPLANE TURBINE MOTOR -REF.1.1993
164.568(P) = 1 INCH MERCURY PRESSURE
165-145 (NP) THE COMMON TYPE OF FIREWORKS AT PROFESSIONAL PYROTECHNIC SHOWS -REF.1.1
165 (N)JET AIRPLANE, BOEING 727-15,000 LBS OF THRUST, DEPENDS ON THE TAKEOFF -REF.1.
165(P) MOTOR DRIVEN PISTON HEADPHONES -REF.16.
166 AIR PARTICLE VELOCITY IS 10 METERS PER SECOND OR ABOUT 20 MILES PER HOUR
170.75 PRESSURE (P) = 1 P.S.I. = 1 POUND PER SQUARE INCH MOST SOUND READINGS
HIGHER THAN THIS REFER TO P.S.I. INSTEAD OF DB. BUILDINGS AND HOUSES
HAVE APPROXIMATELY A 50 % CHANCE OF SURVIVAL REF.2.
171-150 (P)WORLDS LOUDEST CAR STEREOS, UP TO 80 SPEAKERS,32 CAR BATTERYS,
100,000 WATTS, 125-138 (N)
171(P) acoustic air pressure generator -ref.12
172 (N) 727, 737, 747, 757, 767 CRUSING AT 6 MILES HIGH MACH 0.84, AT THE GROUND (SE
172 FOG IS CREATED, DEPENDING ON THE TEMPERATURE, DEW POINT AND HUMIDITY
http://www.makeitlouder.com/Decibel %20Level %20Chart. txt
1012012005
Page 3 of8
173-164 (P)BASS INJECTION TESTS, EXPIERIMENTAL ELECTROMAGNETIC TYPE SPEAKERS -REF.1.
173(P) = hydraulic, whole body dynamic pressure chamber, at 8 hertz -ref.11.
174 AIR BEGINS TO HEAT UP DUE TO COMPRESSION, MOST SHOCK WAVES ARE VERY HOT
174(P) LOUDSPEAKER COUPLED MANOMETER HEADPHONES DOWN TO 1 HERTZ -REF.15.
175 (N) QUARTER DYNAMITE STICK, VERY CLOSE PRESSURE MAY EXCEED 210 db (P)
175.8(P) 1 TON T.N.T. AT 250 FEET
177 (P) 2 P.S.I., DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES ARE SIGNIFICANT, 30% SURVIVAL -REF.2.
180 (P) 1 POUND T.N.T. AT 15 FEET -REF.4.
180 (p) = 3 P.S.I., DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES IS CATASTROPHIC, WHEN A SHOCK -REF.2.
WAVE HITS A STRUCTURE ITS MOMENTUM AND PRESSURE MORE THAN DOUBLES, ESPECIALL
AND CAUSES A LARGE PORTION OF DAMAGE, 15 % OBJECT SURVIVAL -REF.2.
MOTOR DRIVE COUPLED MANOMETER STATIC PRESSURE, 165 DB(P) UP TO 50 HERTZ, -
1 TON T.N.T AT 150 FEET, EXACTLY 182.2 DB -REF.4.
= 6 P.S.I. TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF ALL STRUCTURES, PARTICLE VELOCITY
(BLAST WIND) IS 180 MILES PER HOUR. 0.9 MILES FROM HIROSHIMA ATOMIC BOMB
AND 3.3 MILES FROM 1MEGATON NUCLEAR BOMB, LESS 0.1 % OBJECT SURVIVAL -REF.2.
185.75 (NP) 0.375 POUNDS OF T.N.T. RIECHTER -1.5
186.1(P) 1 POUND T.N.T AT DISTANCE OF 10 FEET -REF.4.
187 (P) 1 TON T.N.T. AT 100 FEET, EXACTLY 186.8 DB -REF.4.
190.60 (NP) RIECHTER SCALE 0 (ZERO) EARTHQUAKE
190.60 (NP) 2.0000 POUNDS T.N.T.
191 (N)BOMB-VERY SMALL 1 LB. OR GRENADE, VERY CLOSE PRESSURE MAY EXCEED 210 db (p)
193.806(P) = 1 KILOGRAM PER SQUARE CENTIMETER
193.979(P) = 1 BAR PRESSURE = 14.504 POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
194.09(P) = 1 (ONE) AIR ATMOSPHERE = 14.6962 POUNDS PER SQUARE
SOUND WAVES DISTORT AND ARE NOW DEFINED AS SHOCK WAVES
194.1 (P)EXACTLY, 1 POUND T.N.T. AT 6 FEET -REF.4.
195-190 (p) HUMAN EARDRUMS RUPTURE 50 % OF TIME -REF.2.
195.2(P) 1 TON T.N.T. AT 60 FEET -REF.4.
200.59 (NP) 63.24 POUNDS OF T.N.T., RIECHTER SCALE 1
202-198 (p) HUMAN DEATH FROM SOUND (SHOCK) WAVE ALONE. DEATH FROM: SCHRAPNEL AT ANY
205.29(NP) 320 POUNDS OF T.N.T. RIECHTER 1.5
207 (N)BOMB, SMALL SIZED 250 POUNDS, 14 FOOT WIDE CRATER, NEARBY MAY EXCEED 238 db (
207.46 (P) = 68.48 P.S.I.= (Q), CRITICAL PRESSURE, THE SHOCK WAVE PRESSURE(P) AND DY
209 (N)BOMB, MEDIUM 500 POUNDS, 18 FOOT WIDE CRATER NEARBY MAY EXCEED 240 db (P) -RE
210 N.A.S.A. 400,000 ACOUSTIC WATTS EXPIERIMENTAL NOISEMAKER 48 FEET ACROSS OF CONCR
210.6 (NP) EARTHQUAKE REICHTER SCALE 2.0
210.6 (NP) 1 TON OF T.N.T. and a 23.40 foot crater
212 (N) SONIC BOOM AVERAGE FROM JET -REF.5.
213 (N) SONIC BOOM GENERATES APPROXIMATELY 1.2 GIGAWATTS OR 1.6 MILLION HORSEPOWER -
213 (N) BOMB 1 TON TNT, 23 FOOT WIDE CRATER OR 175.8 db (p) AT 250 FEET. 213.44 EXAC
214.09(P) = 10 atmospheres, DB(Q) BLAST WIND = 217.439 DB(Q)
215 SPACE SHUTTLE LAUNCH EXHAUST, APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES PER SECOND
215 (N)THUNDER, THE LARGEST POSITIVE GIANTS. ORDINARY THUNDER 165-180 DB.LIGHTNING S
ON OCEAN SURFACE 234db (P) AT 2exp-5 NEWTONS PER SQUARE METER
215 (N) BATTLESHIP NEW JERSEY FIRING ALL 9 SIXTEEN INCH GUNS
216 (P) INSIDE A NORMAL CAR ENGINE CYLINDER WITH A 9 TO 1 COMPRESSION RATIO
216.0 (NP)+-0.3 DB 6.5 TONS OF T.N.T. EXACT EXTREMELY ACCURATE HIGH TECH MEASUREMENT
217.439(Q) = DYNAMIC PRESSURE BLAST WIND FROM A 10 ATMOSPHERE OVERPRESSURE
218.2(NP)sonic boom F-16. at 100 feet high = 3.92 lbs.per square foot = 139.6db, +78
220 ?(N)BOMB, LARGEST USED IN WWII, WIEGHING 11 TONS AND 25 FEET LONG -REF.1.3. 2001
220 (N)SATURN 5 ROCKETSHIP, MELTS CONCRETE AND BURNS GRASS ONE MILE AWAY
REACHED A VELOCITY OF 5 MILES PER SECOND AND MOON ON JULY 20, 1969
220 ?(N)SPACE SHUTTLE LANDING SONIC BOOM WITH VELOCITY OF MACH 20 -REF.1. 1998
225 (p) INSIDE A NORMAL DIESEL MOTOR SEMI-TRUCK CYLINDER 25 TO 1 COMPRESSION
226.59 (NP) TRAIN EXPLOSION 2004 FEB 19 09:37AM NEYSHABUR, IRAN, runaway train, pass
228.1 (P)EXACTLY. 1 POUND OF T.N.T. AT A DISTANCE OF 1 FOOT -REF.4.
229 (N) SEAFLOOR VOLCANIC ERUPTION, REFERENCE 2 EXP-5 NEWTONS PER SQUARE METER
230.59 (NP) EARTHQUAKE RIECHTER 4.0
230.59 (NP) 1000 TONS OF T.N.T.
180 (P)
182 (P)
183 (p)
14.504 P.S.I.
INCH = 14.6962 P.S.I.
AND THEY BEGIN TO FOL
http://www.makeitlouder.com/Decibel %20Level %20Chart. txt
1012012005
Page 4 of8
232 (N)LARGE NON-NUCLEAR EXPLOSION, 500 TONS, 1917 DESTRUCTION OF GERMAN
WWI TUNNELS IN MESSINES RIDGE BELGIUM, HEARD OR FELT IN LONDON (N) -REF.1.,-
234.09(P) = 100 ATMOSPHERES, BLAST WIND = 241.46 DB(Q)
235 (P) 1 TON T.N.T. AT 10 FEET, EXACTLY 235.3 DB -REF.4.
? (N)TORNADO AVERAGE, 5100 TONS OF T.N.T. -REF.1. 2004
235.19 (NP) EARTHQUAKE RIECHTER 5.0
235.19 (NP) 31624 TONS OF T.N.T.
240 (N)ONE KILOTON OF T.N.T EXPLOSIVE, 233 FOOT WIDE CRATER 29 FEET DEEP,10 P.S.I. A
240?(N)TORNADO, FUJITSU 5, ENERGY GUESS BASED ON 300 MILE PER HOUR WIND, 1 MILE WIDE
241.46 (Q) = blast wind pressure from a 100 atm overpressure
243 (N)LARGEST NON-NUCLEAR EXPLOSION EVER, 1947 DESTRUCTION OF NAZI U-BOAT PENS
USED 7100 TONS OF EXPLOSIVE -REF.1. -REF.3.
247 (P) BOMB INSIDE SHOCK WAVE MAXIMUM LIMIT PRESSURE OF T.N.T. EXPLOSIVE -REF.2.4
248 (N)ATOMIC BOMB-HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI JAPAN AUG. 6, 9, 1945.TRAGICALLY KILLED
300,000 PEAPLE. TOTALLY DISINTEGRATED 16 SQUARE MILES, CRACKED DISTANT CONCR
254.09 (P) = 1000 atmospheres overpressure, dynamic pressure = 261.721 db(Q)
255 (N) 600 KILOTONS GROUND BURST CRATER IS 2112 FEET WIDE AND 211 FEET DEEP -REF.2.
257 (N)NUCLEAR BOMB, 1 MEGATON (1 MILLION TONS OF T.N.T.) -REF.2.
? (N)NUCLEAR BOMB "OAK" 8.9 MEGATON, ENEWETAK,JUNE 29 1958,5740 FEET WIDE 204 DEEP
261.721 (Q) = dynamic blast wind pressure generated from a 1000 atmosphere overpress
274.09 (p) = 10000 atmospheres overpressure, dynamic pressure = 282.042 db(Q)
278 (N)NUCLEAR BOMB, "BRAVO" TEST 15 MEGATONS, 1954, BIKINI ATOLL, MARSHALL ISLANDS
? (N)METEOR HITTING EARTH, "ARIZONA CRATER" SPEED WAS 44 MILES PER SECOND
AND ABOUT THE SIZE OF A HOUSE AND MADE A CRATER ONE MILE IN DIAMETER 20 MT T
? (N)NUCLEAR BOMB, 20 MEGATONS, SURFACE BURST CRATER IS 7392 FEET WIDE AND 792 FEE
282 (N)NUCLEAR BOMB, 57 MEGATONS HYDROGEN LARGEST EVER DETONATED, 1961
SHOCK WAVES CIRCLED THE EARTH 3 TIMES, FIRST ORBIT TOOK 36 HR 27 MIN. -REF.2
282.042 db(Q) = dynamic wind pressure from a 10000 atm overpressure source
286 (N)MT. SAINT HELENS VOLCANO ERUPTION-BABY VOLCANO, BLEW DOWN TREES 16
MILES AWAY. COULD BE SEEN FROM OUTER SPACE ON THE SPACE SHUTTLE
BLEW OUT SOME WINDOWS IN SEATTLE-TACOMA 200 MILES AWAY, 163 db (P) -REF.20.
294.09 (P) = 100000 atmosphere overpressure, dynamic pressure = 302.0488 db(Q)
296 (N)EARTHQUAKE 8.6 RIECHTER SCALE- GROUND MOVED UP AND DOWN 13 FEET. -REF.1.3. 19
300 (N)HURRICANE - AVERAGE, EXTREME ENERGY IS "DILUTED" BY COVERING 500,000
SQUARE MILES. ENERGY = APPROX. 1000 NUCLEAR BOMBS A SECOND.
302?(N) TUNGUSTA SIBERIA METEOR, BLEW DOWN HOUSES 600 MILES AWAY -REF.1.3. 1989
302.0488 db(Q) = dynamic pressure from a 100000 atmospheres overpressure
310 (N)KRAKATOA VOLCANO ERUPTION-1883 A.D., CRACKED ONE FOOT THICK CONCRETE
AT 300 MILES, CREATED A 3000 FOOT TIDAL WAVE, HEARD 3100 MILES AWAY,
SOUND PRESSURE CAUSED BAROMETERS TO FLUCTUATE WILDLY AT 100 MILES
INDICATING LEVELS OF AT LEAST 170-190 DB (P) AT THIS DISTANCE OF 100 MILES
EVEN WHEN SHOUTING IN SOMEONES EAR, COULD NOT BE HEARD AT 100 MILES
CAUSED FOG TO APPEAR AND DISAPPEAR INSTANTLY AT HUNDREDS OF MILES
ROCKS WERE THROWN TO A HIEGHT OF 34 MILES. DUST AND DEBRIS FELL CONTINOUSLY
THE EARTH. CREATED ANTI-NODE OF NEGATIVE PRESSURE AT THE EXACT OPPOSITE SIDE
316 (N)VOLCANO ERUPTION SORANTINI, ITALY, 1470 B.C. ALTHOUGH MORE ENERGY THAN KRAKAT
THAN KRAKATOA. 15 CUBIC MILES EJECTED, CREATED TIDAL WAVE 165 FEET
HIGH AT A DISTANCE OF 80 MILES -REF.3.
320 (N)VOLCANO ERUPTION, TAMBORA INDONESIA,1815, EJECTED 36 CUBIC MILES.APPROXIMATEL
14,000 MEGATON NUCLEAR BOMBS OR A 14 GIGATON BOMB BASED ON EJECTED VOLUME,CH
APPENDIX:
As a ATMOSPHERE:
Speed of sound = 343 meters per second
Air density = 1.18 kilograms per cubic meter
Air temperature = 20 degrees celcius
Barometric pressure 1013. 25 millibars
Humidity = 10 to 90 %
http://www.makeitlouder.com/Decibel %20Level %20Chart. txt
10120/2005
Page 5 of8
As a PRESSURE force:
P = PRESSURE OR SHOCK OVERPRESSURE
o db = 2 * 10 E-5 n / m * E +2 = 0.00002 newtons per square meter
6 db = 2 times the pressure
DB CHANGE = 20 * LOGBASE10 (PRESSURE CHANGE)
6.76 * 1
As a POWER flow:
o db = 10 * E-12 W / m * E +2 = 0.000,000,000,001 Watts per square meter
DB CHANGE 10 * LOGBASE10 (POWER CHANGE)
3.01 db 2 times the power
10 db 10 times more power
20 db 100 times the power
30 db 1000 times the power
As a DISTANCE:
o db = 0 db / m = a reference distance of one meter
6 db = half the distance closer
DB CHANGE 20 * LOGBASE10 (DISTANCE CHANGE)
( it may have actually been measured or scientifically converted to an ima
As an AREA:
o db = 0 db / m * E +2 = a reference area of one square meter
3 db = double the area is twice the power
DB CHANGE = 10 * LOGBASE10 (AREA CHANGE)
Many objects such as hurricanes and volcano's are very large their area con
As a VELOCITY = U:
U = 0 db = 4.9414 * 10 E-8 m * s * E-1 = 4.9414 * 10 E-8 meters per second =
6 db = 2 times the velocity
blast wind VELOCITY = U = (5*OVERPRESSURE/7*ATM) * (C/SQUARE ROOT(1+6*OVERPR
blast wind PRESSURE = Q = 2.5 * OVERPRESSURE SQUARED/(7*ATM + OVERPRESSURE)
DB CHANGE = 20 * LOGBASE10 (VELOCITY CHANGE)
but it becomes non-linear and inaccurate progressively above about 170 db.Al
As an EXPLOSIVE BOMB:
all formulas are log base 10
There is: db(N) = distance normalized air TOTAL ENERGY sound pressure plus w
1 TON T.N.T. (trinitrotoulene explosive) = 210.6 db (NP), 23.40 foot crater
6.5 tons T.N.T.= 216.0 db(NP)+-0.3DB (NP = normalized PEAK SHOCK OVERPRESSUR
1 MEGATON T.N.T= 250.6db (NP)
W = WIEGHT OF T.N.T. = YIELD
CHANGE IN DB(P) = 6.67 * LOG (change in wieght of explosive) peak SHOCK OVER
CHANGE IN DB(P) = 20 * LOG (change in CRATER width)
CHANGE IN CRATER WIDTH = (change in explosive WIEGHT) raised to the power of
CHANGE IN DB(P) = -20 * LOG (change in DISTANCE to the power of 3)
http://www.makeitlouder.comlDecibel %20Level%20Chart. txt
10/20/2005
Page 6 of8
W = WIEGHT OF T.N.T. = YIELD
(DISTANCE FROM BOMB1/DISTANCE FROM BOMB2)
D1 = D2 * W TO THE 0.33333 POWER
(W1/W2) TO THE POWER OF 0.33333
DB (NP) = 210.6 + 6.67 * LOG (TONS T.N.T.)
BLAST WIND VELOCITY = U = OVERPRESSURE/((AIR DENCITY = 1.18) * C), BELOW 175
BLAST WIND VELOCITY = U = (5*OVERPRESSURE/7*ATM) * (C/SQUARE ROOT(1+6*OVERPR
MACH NUMBER = M = U/C SQUARE ROOT(1+(6*OVERPRESSURE/7*ATM))
OVERPRESSURE = (SHOCK ATM)-(ATM) = ATM (7*(M SQUARED - 1)/6)
BLAST WIND PRESSURE = 1/2 (AIR DENCITY) * U * U
BLAST WIND PRESSURE = Q = 2.5 * OVERPRESSURE SQUARED/(7*ATM + OVERPRESSURE)
Q under 194 db(P) APPROXIMATES to Q = (atm squared)/2.801
Q between 194 db(p) to 234 db(P) must be CALCULATED from formula
Q between 234 db(P) to 240 db(p) approximates to Q 2.30 * overpressure
Q between 240 db(P) to 250 db(P) approximates to Q = 2.40 * overpressure
Q between 250 db(p) to 260 db(P) approximates to Q = 2.49 * overpressure
Q over 260 db(P) IS BASICALLY Q maximum, Q = 2.5 * overpressure
db(Q) maximum = db(P) + 7.9588 db
db (PR) REFLECTED SHOCK OVERPRESSURE = 2 * OVERPRESSURE + 2.4 * Q
= 2 * OVERPRESSURE(7*ATM + 4*OVERPRESSURE/7*ATM + OVERPRESSURE) =
overpressure units may be newton /square meter or ATM for quicker, simpler r
At very close range so db(P) is more than 207.46, varies +-3.0 db:
DB(P,l ton t.n.t.) 265 - 20 * LOG (meters DISTANCE to the power of 3)
DB(P) = 265 + 6.67 * LOG (TONS OF T.N.T.) - 20 * LOG (meters DISTANCE to the
1 foot crater width = 0.156 pounds of T.N.T., 10 foot crater= 156 pounds, 10
+6.0206 DB(P) CHANGE
+6.67 DB(P) CHANGE
+10.000 DB(P) CHANGE
+8.0017 TIMES MORE EXPLOSIVE WIEGHT
+10.000 TIMES MORE EXPLOSIVE WIEGHT
+31.5682 TIMES MORE EXPLOSIVE WIEGHT
Furthermore, if a noise source is louder than 194.09 db or faster than the s
Allthough it is not very clear, SHOCK fronts degenerate into sound waves, wi
Therefore measured pressure degenerates initially cubicly then squared, i.e
third power to the second power continuosly. The exponents are 3.0000 then 2
As an SPEAKER IN A AIR TIGHT SEALED BOX (ref.1.):
db(H) = HYDRAULIC, HYDRODYNAMIC OR STATIC PRESSURE i.e. CLOSED OR SEALED BOX
ADIABATIC IS WHEN THE COMPRESSION IS FAST LIKE SOUND WHICH IS USUALLY AT LEA
ADIABATIC ISENTROPIC EXPONENT IS 1.4 FOR NORMAL AIR WHICH IS RESPONCIBLE FOR
CHANGE IN DB(H)= -28 LOGBASE10 (CHANGE IN VOLUME BOX) .i.e. +8.43DB PER HALFI
CHANGE IN DB(H)= 28 LOGBASE10 (FREQ. HIGH / FREQ. LOW) .i.e. +8.43DB PER HAL
CHANGE IN DB = 20 LOGBASE10 (CHANGE IN ELECTRICAL AMPERAGE)
CHANGE IN DB = 10 LOGBASE10 (CHANGE IN ELECTRIC POWER INPUT)
(H) PRESSURE INSIDE BOX = (101325 NEWTONS/SQUARE METER) *
((VOLUME START-VOLUME FINISH/VOLUME FINISH))TO THE POWER OF 1.4
DB = 20 LOGBASE10 (PRESSURE / 0.00002)
http://www.makeitlouder.comlDecibel %20Level %20Chart. txt
10/2012005
Page 7 of8
120.05 DB(P) = 1 ACOUSTIC WATT PER SQUARE METER, OUTSIDE BOX
132.4 DB(H) = 1 ACOUSTIC WATT INSIDE BOX, ONLY BASS BELOW CRITICAL FREQUENC
146.1 DB = 404 WATTS/meter square = 404 NEWTONS/meter square
146.1 DB = 1 METER/SECOND AIR PARTICLE OR SPEAKER CONE VELOCITY = U = 1 METE
U = 2 * (PI) * (F) * (AMPLITUDE) = (PRESSURE = newton per meters)/(1.18 * C)
BL WOOFER = NEWTONS / AMPERES OR TESLA METERS I.E. UNIT FORCE PER UNIT ELECT
BL(MAX)= SQUARE ROOT (1/ AREA FACE) * SQUARE ROOT (OHMS)* 14.21 NEWTONS / AM
N(EFFICIENTCY)= ((BL WOOFER/BL MAX))SQUARED. ABSOLUTE MAX. AT OR BELOW RES.
N * WATTS ELECTRICAL = WATTS ACOUSTIC
N = 1.0000 IS JUST THE AIR FORCE ONLY, THE SPEAKER ITSELF HAS ESSENTIALLY "D
AMPLITUDE=SQUARE ROOT ((ELECTRIC WATTS*N/AIR DENSITY*C*AREA*4*PI*PI*F*F))
AIR DENSITY = 1.18 KILOGRAMS PER CUBIC METER
C = SPEED OF SOUND = 343 METERS PER SECOND
PI = 3.1415926
F = FREQUENCY
V = CRITICAL VOLUME
FC = CRITICAL FREQUENCY
As an EARTHQUAKE:
M = energy moment:
LOGBASE10 (ERG) = 11.8 + 1.5 * M
M
2.45? + 0.73? * LOGBASE10 (TONS OF T.N.T. YIELD)
-REF.7.
M 6.61 + 0.71 * LOGBASE10 (GROUND AMPLITUDE DISPLACEMENT FRACTURE HIEGHT I
Or as a rough approximation
(31.623 TO THE POWER OF THE M = RIECHTER NUMBER) / 1000 = TONS OF T.N.T. YIE
In siesmology there are many different ENERGY and SIESMIC MOMENTS (M) like:
Lightning=3.2, tornado=4.7, northridge=6.7, mt.st.helens=7.8, chile1960=9.5,
Almost all sound pressure tables give decibel readings while holding a sound leve
So on this table all the sounds have been converted to their true decibel Ie
Another reason for normalizing conversions are that objects that are very la
Decibel levels higher than the Space Shuttle and Saturn 5 rocket ship's on t
Also, many loud sounds like gun fire or explosives the peak sound level has
REFERENCE APPENDIX:
1.WILLIAM HAMBY, HYPERDYNAMICS, HYPERFORCE, HYPERSOUND GROUP OF COMPANIES
2.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE AND OR ENERGY
3.GUINESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS
4.KINNEY, "EXPLOSIVE SHOCKS IN AIR"
http://www.makeitlouder.comlDecibel%20Level%20Chart. txt 10/20/2005
Page 8 of8
5.UNIVERCITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, WWW.SUPERSONIC.ORG
6. U.S. ARMY: KEITH KOPER, TERRY WALLACE, ROBERT REINKE, JOHN LEVERETTE 2002 MARCH
7. EARTHQUAKE COMMON KNOWLEDGE WORLDWIDE
8.KOOPER DEPT. OF ARMY 2002
9.MOREY, SCHUSTER UNIVERSITY OF UTAH AT SALT LAKE CITY, NOV 18, 1997
10. N.A.S.A. DREYDEN FLIGHT RESEARCH CENTER
11. AIR FORCE, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AEROSPACE LAB. OHIO,U.S.A., JOHNSON, VON GIERKE
12.JOHNSON, 1973
13.BEKESY, 1936
14.BENOX, VON GIERKE, 1953
15.BEKESY,1960
16.NIXON, 1973
19. KRAKATOA ERUPTION BOOK
20.UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1980
http://www.makeitlouder.comlDecibel %20Level %20Chart. txt
10120/2005
Monday. August 08, 2005 2:51 PM
MLPC 5612721042
p.01
..
MI LLER
LAND
PLANNING
CONSULTANTS, INC.
298 PIneapple Grove Way
D81ray B8och, FL 33444
Phon8 561/272.0082
Fax 561/272.1042
Ernl;lil nicole@lmlpc.net
Cate: 8/8/2005
Time: 2:51 :55 PM
Recipient:
Ed Breese
Fax Number: 742-6259
Company:
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
Voice Number: (561) 742-6261
Sent By: Nicole Simpson
Pages: 2
Subject: Rapido Rabbit
Message:
According to comment #52, is this the noice level data that you were looking for for the
blowers? or would you like something more detailed?
Please call.
- At.'Q qa 05 09:358
~O'd
~uc 05 ZOOS 9:4.AM
~
;I
=
,
A-
i"
.r
!
I
f
J
HP LA8EIil..JET 3830
,
\ ~ i
, "~I
\ \.'~' +-
i \.. ~ - ........--l--
.~ ~ :
~ "',~-~
-'"'-., 1
~-----..-
/'
-"
,.,,-r #.rI'
./
--",- ./
-- .
--/' ./
-' ""
-' /"
--
-,-
i
j
-z
-D
I
l
i
I
D
;I
if
;
.... .. CIIJI .....,. _ D:JftI
~._DO
~
-- IIIl.
NIl .to:J 9IIll1:M I JD ~ ....
I I
Q1"'~. :....
~...... ~ ~lU
.lZ1"" CIL&) ~
~VO ~~L~ ~9S ::ldlV>l
p.2
,..1
, I ~_.:
... ......
r. .
--.;
--
..........
-
C,z
I.., tIIuoalU.;~
V>ld ~S:~ soo~ 'ao ~sn6n'v' 'A2PUOV>l
"-
Au, 05 2005 9:44AM
ol.l. ,~"
t:t1
r:-
'0
~
~
I
.s:;::....
C'"
P'l
.J
-
.:c::
"'2j
<:>
/'
/'
./ ./
...".. -
-' ./
--- ./
./
-
---'
~-'
HP LASER JET 3330
~.
\'0
\ .lI~~~
. O'.i~
\ '\.& .. ~'- l
. \ ~,.~ -~-=-..-
'\ \ ),6~
;.\ ~.... .. .........
. ~~ ~- '- .
I', ...~~ --__.~__-
'~a ~,~ I
.~....t).......... .
.........'}.~ '---- . -
~,"-~ ------~
if .
......-
-'-. .
------------
/
.~/
..... /'
.--
.---
I
...
rs
;;
.~
..~.
':2
'0
iJ
g
-
,.
=s
i
o
;I
...:I
g
".
Ilr
~
SOIJND UST 011 SONNYS Am D:aTD
DECIUaIBR. .zODO
{UCHHICAL)
0- _~IIC. " ,.-"'_DINoI_
Wd LO:~ SODZI9/B Z JO Z ~.d
~7E-
M\t.5I'QN IIA
.r.
WAIW" .
,.
) -an
'ngI: ca 'lUlIII nc:mllr
ts5Z6lK:HlS :""J
,If
.-
~
o,,!n"d ~JBI\I :01
LZl/.-ZCl (otG) :l(lI;j
po _ 1
I ._~:
- .:.,.
--.
'0 , ~
--
..~-.,..~
--
.~'Il
!"-.:.. .-
,
J
1Il21! S1!UlO41 :WOJ;j