-------
Table 1-1
PROPOSED PROCEOURE/J-331a COMPARISON
(Street)
Kawasaki
Honda
Honda
H-D
H-D
H-D
BMW
Kawasaki
Yamaha
Suzuki
Suzuki
Kawasaki
Suzuki
(Combination)
Yamaha
Honda
Suzuki
Yamaha
Kawasaki
H-D
Yamaha
Motorcycle
Model
KZ 1000
GL 1000
CB 750K
FLH 1200
FXE 1200
XL 1000
R 100/7
KZ 650
XS 650
GS 550
GS 400
KZ 400
GT 380
XT 500
XL 350
TS 400
DT 250
KE 250
SX 175
DT 100
J-331a
(dB)
77.2
76.0
78.4
82.0
83.7
82.3
82.1
77.9
82.8
78.5
79.4
78.9
84.6
79.7
80.8
84.6
83.5
80.9
83.5
79.4
F-76a
(dB)
78.4
77.1
78.5
83.2
83.2
81.7
80.4
77.1
84.0
79.4
78.6
80.2
84.7
76.6
75.1
82.5
82.4
77.0
82.1
78.6
F-76a/
Revised
Procedure
Difference Difference
(dB (dB)*
+1.2
+1.1
+0.1
+1.2
-0.5
-0.6
-1.7
-0.8
+1.2
+0.9
-0.8
+1.3
+0.1
-3.1
-5.7
-2.1
-1.9
-3.9
-1.4
-0.8
-1.0
-1.5
-1.75
-2.5
-1.0
-2.0
-1.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0-
+1.0
+1.5
+1.5
+0.2
+2.5
+1.0
+1.0
+2.0
+2.5
+0.5
J-331a/
Revised
Procedure
Difference
(dB)
+0.2
-0.4
-1.6
-1.3
-1.5
-2.6
-3.2
-1.3
+0.7
+0.9
+0.2
+2.8
+1.6
-2.9
-3.2
-1.1
-0.9
-1.9
+0.9
-0.3
translation for each model based on data displayed in Figures 1-1, 2, and 3.
1-8'
-------
APPENDIX J
EXPLORATION OF A STATIONARY TEST
INCORPORATING AN ELECTRONIC IGNITION DISABLE SYSTEM
-------
INTRODUCTION
In the course of evaluating engine speed measurement techniques and tachometer
accuracy requirements 1n the F76a test procedure (see Appendix H), EPA
examined a technique known as Ignition disable as means of controlling test
closing rpm. In this technique, the specified closing rpm was pre-set In the
Ignition disabling device, causing the engine to be shut off automatically at
the proper point during the acceleration run, rather than requiring the rider
to close the throttle at the proper time. Evaluation Indicated improved
accuracy, repeatability, and reduced test time by use of this technique.
Also, the possibility was indicated for using the Ignition disable technique
in a stationary vehicle test, which might serve as a simpler substitute for
the moving vehicle F76a test. In this concept, the engine would be accelera-
ted against its own Inertia (vehicle stationary) with engine shut-off effected
automatically by the ignition disable device.
The objective of EPA's investigation was to evaluate the use of the ignition
disable technique, both in the F76a moving vehicle test, and in a simulated
F76a stationary vehicle test. The study was to encompass a representative
sample of vehicles, or various engine and ignition types. Also, since a
potentially Important application of the stationary vehicle test method would
be in relation to the after-market exhaust system industry, the study provided
for the direct involvement of the after-market manufacturer and his products,
as well as that of the new vehicle manufacturer and his vehicles.
J-l
-------
Summary of Methods Used in this Study
Vehicle and Aftermarket Product Sample Size and Mix
The vehicle sample consisted of 22 1977/1978 motorcycles in OEM config-
uration, with ten of these vehicles additionally fitted with 21 aftermarket
exhaust system, yielding a total of 43 different vehicle configurations.
The sample encompassed street and off-road motorcycles, displacements of
175 to 1200 cc, two and four stroke engines, 1, 2, 3 and 4 cylinder engines
GDI and breaker-point ignition systems. The vehicles were provided by the
respective manufacturers and/or the local representatives for CanAm, Harley-
Davidson, Hodaka, Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki, and Yamaha motorcycles.
The aftermarket exhaust system sample comprised 21 exhaust configurations
designed specifically for the vehicles on which they were installed. in
general, these systems were designed for improved performance, altered
torque curve for specific applications, lower noise levels, or to permit
optimized performance in combination use (street/off-road) vehicles
Additionally, some of the configurations tested were intended for compe^
tition use only. The aftermarket products were supplied, and installed
by the respective manufacturers and/or dealers: Alphabet, AMF, Bassani*
Hooker, Jardine, Ocelot (Torque Engineering), Real Products and Skyway!
The vehicle and aftermarket product samples were selected to include to
the extent practical, motorcycles and aftermarket exhaust systems having
substantial sales volume, and to include vehicle technical parameters signi-
ficant in the study objectives.
Moving Vehicle Test Procedures
The test procedures employed include:
J331a; conducted in accordance with the SAE procedure.
F76a by gate; correct closing rpm effected by use of an optical speed gate
(Newport Research Corporation #SP145/248 lasers; technique described in
Appendix H).
Note: The closing rpm/displacement relationship employed in F76a tests
reported in Appendices H and J is:
0 - 100 cc : 90% rpm
100 - 700 cc : % rpm = 95 = (0.05 x displacement in cc)
over 700 cc : 60% rpm
F76a by Bike Tach; closing rpm effected manually using indicated readlna
on vehicle tachometer; tachometer calibrated under steady state conditions.
F76a AutoMeter Tach; closing rpm effected manually using indicated readlna
on AutoMeter tachometer Model 439; tachometer calibrated under steady state
conditions.
J-2
-------
F76a by Ignition Disable; closing rpm effected • automatically by ignition
disable using AutoMeter Rev-Control Model 439/451 or Model 455; disable rpm
set under calibrated steady state conditions. The procedure is delineated in
the discussion of the Stationary Noise Emission Test procedure of this
appendix.
Stationary Vehicle Test Procedures The test procedures employed include:
£50; conducted in accordance with the procedure delineated in Appendix A.
Simulated F76a; conducted in accordance with the procedure delineated in
the discussion of the stationary test procedures of this Appendix; the
procedure involved stabilizing the engine rpm at the F76a entering rpm,
full throttle acceleration of the engine (unloaded except for its inertia
and friction), with automatic engine shut-off effected by pre-set ignition
disable at the F76a closing rpm. A variety of microphone positions were
evaluated.
Development/Evaluation of the Test Methods
Using commercially available ignition disabling equipment techniques were
explored for interfacing the disabling device with the various types of
ignition systems to be encountered. Noise levels measured in the F76a
test using the ignition disabling technique were statistically correlated
with those obtained using the optical speed gate which is taken as the
baseline reference method.
The microphone position for the simulated F76a (stationary vehicle) test
was optimized, and noise level measurements obtained by the technique were
statistically correlated with the F76a moving vehicle data (both methods
employing ignition disable).
Tabular comparisons of noise emission data obtained by the various moving
and stationary vehicle test methods delineated in this Appendix have been
made for all of the vehicle and exhaust system configurations tested.
J-3
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Summaries of the Tables
Tables J-l and J-2 present vehicle identification, pertinent parameters
and measured sound levels yielded by the various test procedures employed*
for the stock and modified motorcycles tested. A letter suffix to the
motorcycle No. denotes a vehicle modified by installation of an aftermarket
exhaust system; for example, motorcycle No. 801 (Table J-l) was a Honda
GL1000 in stock configuration, whereas motorcycle 801A (Table J-2) was the
same motorcycle fitted with an aftermarket exhaust system.
The significance of data presented in Tables J-l and J-2 is discussed by
topic in the following paragraphs. y
F76a Measured Levels by Various Techniques
In Appendix H it was shown that measured levels frequently 2 to 3 dB higher
than appropriate could result from tachometer lag, when using the vehicle
tachometer as reference in effecting closing rpm. Precautions were exercised
to achieve accuracy and control of closing rpm within acceptable limits*
specifically, closing rpm in the F76a test should be accurate to + 2X if the
measured noise level is to be accurate to £.0.5 dBA (ref. Appendix H).
Referring to table J-3, the F76a noise levels in the column "dB by Gate"
obtained with closing rpm accuracy of +_ 2%, constitute the reference to
which measurements by other techniques may be compared. Difference levels
obtained "by AutoMeter Tach" were small; this indicated that damping in
that tachometer was near optimum for the F76a application, and reinforced
the earlier findings that accurate F76a readings could be obtained with a
properly damped vehicle tachometer. The difference levels obtained "by
Ignition Disable" (using the same AutoMeter tachometer, but with the Ignition
disable function operative) remained in good correspondence, showing adequacy
of the ignition disable technique. Not reflected in the tabulated figures Is
the improved consistency among repeated passes, and the shorter time required
to conduct the test using the ignition disable technique. Difference levels
obtained "by Motorcycle Tach", for most of the vehicles tested are moderately
good, although there is one notable exception. The previous work (Appendix H)
showed a number of cases where use of the motorcycle tach resulted in 2 and 3
dB discrepancies. Possible explanations of the variability using the vehicle
tachometer are differing acceleration profiles among vehicles, and differing
damping among tachometers. *
J-4
-------
TABLE J-l. 1977 - 1978 MOTORCYCLE (STOCK) NOISE LEVELS
Motorcycle
Number
801
802
804
805
806
807
—
—
81.8
F76a by
Ignition
Disable
75.6
80.2
90.8
78.9
79.2*
88.0
80.3
84.2
83.0
80.9
77.3
79.9
81.9
82.0
81.2
80.3
81.4
81.5
F76a by
Autometer
Tach
—
80.3
90.6
79.6
78.9*
88.3
80.8
83.9
83.0
—
77.4
79.9
81.9
--
—
—
•»•
81.2
F76a by
B1ke
Tach
—
80.2
—
79.6
80.5*
87.4
81.0
83.8
~
81.2
80.9
82.0
~
—
—
—
82.2
F76a
Simulation
at 50 ft.
75.3
81.6
90.9
78.4
81.0*
87.4
82.9
86.9
86.4
84.8
81.7
81.0
85.8
83.4
82.6
82.6
85.9
84.3
F50
—
84.5
99.0
88.0
88.5
94.5
88.0
93.0
96.0
90.5
83.0
93.0
93.5
95.0
90.0
92.5
92.0
94.5
*Tested at 6375 rpm; should be 6750 rpm.
-------
TABLE J-l (Cont'd) 1977 - 1978 MOTORCYCLE (STOCK) NOISE LEVELS
Motorcycle
Number
820
821
822
823
81 OA**
Make/Model Cyl .
Harley SX175 1
Suzuki GS750 4
Can/to 175 Qualifier 1
Hodaka 175 1
Kawasaki 1000LTD 4
Stroke
2
4
2
2
4
Ign.
CDI
COI
Rated
Power
RPM
6800
8500
8500
7100
8000
J331a
82.2
82.0
—
—
..
F76a
by
Gate
83.2
79.4
~
—
85.0
F76a by
Ignition
Disable
82.1
79.6
85.0
81.0
85.0
F76a by
Autometer
Tach
82.3
79.6
—
—
84.8
F76a by
Bike
Tach
83.6
80.0
—
~
84.8
F76a
Simulation
at 50 ft.
84.3
82.9
87.3
81.7
84.7
F50
89.0
90.0
90.0
91.0
99.0
0»
(Modified)
**H1th aftermarket exhaust system
-------
TABLE J-2.1977 - 1978 MOTORCYCLES WITH AFTERMARKET EXHAUST SYSTEMS
Motorcycle.
Number
801 A
801 B
801 C
802A
802B
802C
802D
807A
809A
809B
809C
81 OA
81 4A
814B
81 5A
815B
81 5C
81 8A
821A
821 B
822A
Make/Model
Honda GL1000
Honda GL1000
Honda GL1000
Honda CB550F
Honda CB550F
Honda CB550F
Honda CB550F
Suzuki GT380
Honda MR175
Honda MR175
Honda MR175
Kawasaki 1000LTD
Harley FXE1200
Harley FXE1200
Harley XLH1000
Harley XLH1000
Harley XLH1000
Yamaha RD400
Suzuki GS750
Suzuki GS750
CanAm 175
Exhaust Make/Model
•
• x §
U- >> I/I
v> «Z KO ••
* « • • f» ««
*^ ** K ^
U 01 i
u c 0*0 *c
•r* 41 f"^ *^* O
«»- W» 01 -C
t- 01 O 01 01
U V. O > V)
«• o. 3
o. 01 • c
M u 01 o e
c o
o w^- -o t-
+J 4J -O Ol +*
U Ui— -^
•O 3 »f- -U
« 2 ^5 |
201 *^ O
^
r- >, O 4J O
01 S. I 0«*-
* 3 . 3
i— Ol v O 01
•»• C k "O
•a u. « o. c
C O. M Ol
SO VI r— *»
t «O r~ C
00 CLCO «t t-
F76a * F76a A dB *
re OEM
-0.5
2.4
5.1
5.4
89.3 9.1
88.6 8.4
82.0 1.8
88.8 0.8
84.1 -0.1
83.4 -0.8
95.1 10.9
85.0 2.0
97.0 15.1
93.4 11.5
91.1 9.1
97.2 15.2
95.8 13.8
85.6 4.2
96.6 17.0
87.3 7.9
86.2 1.2
F76a * F50
Simulation
78.0
79.3
81.9
91.5
91.0
91.4
83.1
86.8
85.4
84.4
94.0
84.7
100.9
97.4
90.0
99.2
98.9
86.6
99.8
90.3
87.8
90.0
93.0
94.0
—
96.5
97.0
91.5
93.0
96.5
97.0
106.0
99.0
104.0
106.0
102.0
106.0
106.0
93.0
106.5
99.0
90.5
*By Ignition disable
-------
C_i
I
Motorcycle
Number
802
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
81 OA
812
813
814
819
820
821
TABLE J-3. F76
Make/Model Rated
Power
RPM
Honda CB550F
Yamaha 1T175
Honda CB750F
Suzuki GS400
Suzuki GT380
Honda CJ360T
Honda MR175
Kawasaki KZ1000LTD
Kawasaki K1000LTD
Kawasaki KE250
Kawasaki KZ1000
Harley FXE1200
Harley SX250
Harley SX175
Suzuki GS750
8500
9500
9000
9000
9000
9000
7000
8000
8000
6000
8000
5200
7000
6800
8500
a NOISE
dBA by
Gate
80.9
91.1
79.6
80.0
87.9
80.6
84.0
82.8
85.0
78.2
80.1
82.4
81.8
83.2
79.4
LEVELS BY
A dBA by
Ignition
Disable
-0.7
-0.3
-0.7
-0.8
-0.3
-0.3
0.2
0.2
-0-
-0.9
-0,2
-0.5
-0.3
-1.1
0.2
VARIOUS TECHNIQUES COMPARED TO REFERENCE LEVELS BY SPEED
F76a Level Closing rpm
A dBA by A dBA by rpm by
Autometer Bike Gate
Tach Tach
-0.6
-0.5
-0-
-1.1
-0.7
-0.1
0.2
-0.2
-0.8
-0.2
-0.5
-0.6
-0.9
0.2
-0.7
—
-0-
0'.5
-0.5
9.4
—
1.0
-0.2
3.0
0.8
-0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
5740
8194
5400
6375*
6840
6930
6040
4800
4800
4950
4800
3120
5775
5865
5100
A rpm by
Ignition
Disable
-102
-332
-233
-38
-92
-45
-126
—
-126
-9
-62
—
-190
.-
GATE
A rpm by A rpm by
Autometer B1ke
Tach Tach
86
-362
-89
-113
-136
99
-17
—
-243
145
-103
—
-91
133
286
—
120
271
210
—
246
~
629
385
-71
—
157
207
Note: See also Tables B and D of Appendix H for more comprehensive data on the effect of tachometer
lag on measured F76a sound levels.
-------
The statistical relationship between change 1n noise level ( A dB) and change
in rpm ( A% rpm) was examined, using the data 1n Table J-l together with the
data 1n Appendix H. If values of A dB of 1 and greater are considered,
"x 3 0.24 where "x =AdB/A % rpm
O~s 0.12 CT= standard deviation
77 = 19 7J - number of samples
If values of dB down to 0.5 are Included, the figures become
x" = 0.26
CT= 0.23
7)' 37
The statistics become less significant as lower values of AdB are Introduced,
since repeatability of the noise level measurements better than +0.5 dB should
not be assumed to exist.
Stimulated F76a (Stationary Vehicle) Test Method
Feasibility of employing ignition disable 1n a stationary test which might
serve as a substitute for the moving vehicle test was explored. With the
vehicle placed at the position where it would be at closing rpm in the mov-
ing test, and with the same microphone position as used in the moving test,
noise level monitored as engine rpm was abruptly increased from the initial
F76a rpm., with closing rpm pre-set on the AutoMeter ignition disable unit.
The noise levels measured in this way are shown in Tables J-l and J-2.
Correspondence with the moving vehicle noise levels was sufficiently good that
further consideration for use of the method was warranted. Statistically, the
correlation coefficient was 0.96, with the simulated (stationary vehicle)
level 2 dB higher than the moving vehicle level. This was based on a sample
population of 50 vehicle/exhaust configurations (43 in the current study, plus
7 from Appendix H). After-market exhaust systems were Included in the study in
order to:
a) increase the noise level range for the correlation studies,
and
expose aftermarket manufacturers to the test procedures and to
Involve them in feasibility assessment.
In the aftermarket application, the procedure would be more useful If space
requirements were reduced; that is, if a close-In microphone position could
be used. Accordingly, ten additional microphone positions, in the range 5 to
25 feet from the vehicle, were evaluated. Various microphone heights were
also investigated (noise level being quite dependent on height above the
pavement); the selected heights were those giving the same difference between
reflected and direct path as prevails at the 50 ft. (F76a) microphone position.
Microphone positions employed are shown In Figure J-l.
J-9
-------
£>___
/
FIGURE J-l MICROPHONE POSITIONS, SIMULATED F76a TESTS
J-10
-------
TABLE J-4
CORRELATION OF SIMULATED F76a LEVELS AT CODED LOCATIONS WITH
SIMULATED F76a LEVEL AT THE F76a MICROPHONE POSITION
Test
IMI-C25R21
IMI-C25R9
IMI-C25PA21
IMI-C25P21
IMI-C10R9
IMI-C10PA9
IMI-C10P9
IMI-C3mPA20cm
IMI-C5R4
IMI-C5PA4
IMI-C5P4
rxy
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.88
0.97
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.97
ao
8.64
8.55
11.82
-0.04
15.04
33.41
12.04
17.07
14.98
20.79
14.60
al
0.97
0.98
0.93
1.08
0.99
0.76
1.02
0.96
1.05
0.98
1.06
yx
0.55
0.74
0.79
0.94
0.73
0.88
1.26
0.92
1.04
0.95
1.14
Number
of
Motorcycles
14
14
27
14
14
4
14
23
14
27
14
Code: IMI-C50 Stationary vehicle measurement at the F76a
microphone position
IMI-C25R21 Stationary vehicle measurements at coded positions:
Height of microphone above pavement; inches unless
designated centimeters
R designates on Radial (See Fig. 1)
P designates on Perpendicular (See Fig. 1)
PA designates perpendicular to the motorcycle at
the rear axle
Distance from bike reference; feet unless designated
meters
xy
yx
x
y
= correlation coefficient
3 y intercept
= slope of the regression line (y = aQ +
= standard error estimate of y on x
= Simulated F76a levels at the F76a microphone position
= Simulated F76a levels at the coded positions
J-ll
-------
TABLE J-5
F76a (MOVING VEHICLE) AND SIMULATED F76a (STATIONARY VEHICLE)
NOISE LEVEL CORRELATIONS
Test
xy
0.96
IMI-C50
IMI-C25 R21
IMI-C25R9
IMI-C25PA21 )
IMI-C25P21 )
IMI-C10R9
IMI-C10PA9
IMI-C10P9
IMI-C3mPA20cm
IMI-C10PA9 ) 0.97
IMI-C3mPA20cm)
0.34
20.50
1.02
0.94
yx
1.63
1.59
Number
of
Motorcycles
50
0.97
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.88
0.97
0.96
12.27
14.19
13.06
19.36
26.26
13.70
18.36
0.94
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.88
1.01
0.97
1.22
1.29
1.68
1.37
1.16
1.26
1.67
14
14
41
14
4
14
23
27
IMI-C5P4
IMI-C5PA4
. 0.96
0.95
21.45
25.73
0.99
0.95
1.39
1.91
14
27
Code: IMI-C50 Stationary vehicle measurement at the F76a
microphone position
IMI-C25R21 Stationary vehicle measurements at coded positions:
\\_He1ght of microphone above pavement; Inches unless
designated centimeters
R designates on Radial (See F1g.J-l)
P designates on Perpendicular (See F1g.J-l)
PA designates perpendicular to the motorcycle at
the rear axle
Distance from bike reference; feet unless designated
meters
xy
yx
x
y
• correlation coefficient
* y Intercept
« slope of the regression line (y « aQ +
* standard error estimate of y on x
• F76a moving vehicle noise levels
• Simulated F76a stationary vehicle noise levels at the
coded positions
J-12
-------
Correlation data of these closer-in positions referred to the 50 ft. station-
ary vehicle levels are presented 1n Table J-4, and referred to the moving
vehicle F76a levels are presented in Table J-5.
Referring to Tables J-4 and J-5, the apparent poorer correlation at the C10PA9
position is probably attributable to the small number in the sample. Regard-
Ing choice of microphone position, the statistical analysis indicates that any
of the positions could be employed. However, other factors enter into the
choice:
a) The closer in the microphone, the more sensitive was the measurement
to source location; the predominant source may be exhaust, intake,
or engine.
b) The further the microphone was out, the greater was the space
requirement for test conduct.
Considering the above factors, a 10 ft. distance, on a line from the rear
axle, perpendicular to the vehicle longitudinal axis, 9 inches above the
pavement, appeared to be a good compromise.
The correlation coefficients presented in Tables J-4 and J-5 were computed
using data typified by that presented in Table J-6. Referring to the table,
six readings were first taken at the 50 ft. position on each side of the
vehicle. Subsequent readings at intermediate microphone positions were
then taken only on the side found to be loudest; simultaneous readings were
taken at the 50 ft. position. For Table J-4, individual measurement pairs
were entered Into the correlation computation; that is, four data pairs per
vehicle. For Table J-5, the average of the four stationary values was paired
with the "reported" F76a value; that is, one data pair per vehicle.
Table J-5 provides information to permit estimation of the F76a level by use
of the stationary vehicle test: for example, if the 10 ft. distance, 9 inch
height microphone position is used, the equation of the regression line
Indicates that 14 dB would be subtracted from the stationary vehicle emission
measurement to arrive at the F76a noise emission level. Correlation plots for
the microphone position are presented in Figure J-2 and J-3.
F50 Stationary Vehicle Test Method
In Tables J-l and J-2, the F50 levels may be compared with the F76a levels
for 20 stock and 20 modified motorcycles. The figures yield a correlation
coefficient of 0.87, with a standard error of estimate 3 db, and a nominal
difference of 10 dB between the F50 and F76a levels (Fig. J-4). This correla-
tion was much better than the F50 test has shown with previously evaluated
moving vehicle tests, and was such that the method could potentially be
considered for preliminary screening for new product compliance, or for in-use
enforcement at the state or local level against flagrant violations of noise
regulations.
J-13
-------
TABLE J-6
EXAMPLE OF MEASUREMENT REPEATABILITY
USING IGNITION DISABLE TECHNIQUE
(Motorcycle No. 802)
IMI-C50
IMI-C25R21
IMI-C50
IMI-C25R9
IMI-C50
IMI-C10R9
IMI-C50
IMI-C50
IMI-C25P21
IMI-C50
IMI-C10P9
IMI-C50
IMI-C5P4
IMI-C50
L 80.0
R 81.0
R 87.0
R 81.4
R 95.8
R 82.2
R 95.8'
R 82.2
R 100.4
R 81.2
R 87.6
R 82.1
R 95.3
R 82.2
R 101.6
R 82.1
79.5
81.5
87.6
81.9
90.1
82.5
96.2
82.1
100.6
82.2
87.2
81.9
95.2
81.7
100.6
81.2
79.5
81.6
88.0
82.0
89.5
82.0
96.2
82.1
101.0
81.2
87.8
82.2
95.0
81.4
100.6
81.2
80.1 80.1
82.0 81.9
88.0
82.0
90.2
82.6
95.5
81.9
101.4
82.0
87.9
82.2
95.0
81.6
100.5
81.0
80.4
82.0
J-14
-------
no T
100 • •
•— o
0,0-
I/I
10 OL
VO O
U_ O
T5 E
ro cn
3 x
90
y * 12.04 + 1.02x
rxy = 0.97
80
70
-h-
80
4-
4-
70
Fig. J-2
90
100
Simulated F76a Noise Level
50-ft Microphone Position
CORRELATION OF STATIONARY VEHICLE NOISE LEVELS AT
50 FT. AND 10 FT. (9" ht.) MICROPHONE POSITIONS
(SIMULATED F76a TEST)
J-15
-------
no
100
4)
*
« o.
10 O
r-» t-
•o S
4)
90
80
70
70
y - 13.70 + l.Olx
rxy « 0.97
yx
4-
80 90
Moving Vehicle F76a Noise Level
—4
100
F1g. J-3 CORRELATION OF STATIONARY VEHICLE NOISE LEVELS AT
50 FT. AND 10 FT. (9" ht.) MICROPHONE POSITIONS
(SIMULATED F76a TEST)
J-16
-------
Effect of Gear Selection
The opportunity was taken to test selected vehicles in both 2nd and 3rd gears,
particularly those vehicles reaching specified closing rpm in a 25 ft. to 35
ft. acceleration distance in 2nd gear. Comparative results are shown in Table
J-7; a 1 DB difference appears not uncommon. Except for the Table 0-7 data,
all F76a tests conducted in this study employed 2nd gear unless a 25 ft.
minimum acceleration distance was not attained, in which case the next higher
gear was used; as a result, the great majority of vehicles were tested in 2nd
gear, and no operational difficulties were encountered. A stipulation of a
longer minimum acceleration distance, such as 35 ft. or 50 ft. as considered,
would result in more vehicles encumbered with a 1 dB ambiguity in reported
level (3rd gear vs. 2nd gear), and would also result in substantially higher
speeds and longer acceleration distances, which require greater rider preci-
sion in reaching closing rpm at the specified end point.
Ignition Disable Equipment
The equipment used in this study to effect ignition disable was either the
AutoMeter Model 439 Tachometer together with the Model 451 Rev-Control, or the
Model 455 Rev-Control (which incorporated the tachometer and ignition disable
unit in a single case). The 439/451 required hard-wire connection to the
ignition primary for Tachometer signal, and could be used only on vehicles
having breaker-points ignition systems; the 455 unit incorporated an inductive
pickup, and functioned on all ignition systems. For conventional ignition
systems having breaker points, the inductive pickup (which provided the
tachometer signal) was placed over the wire from the points to the coil
primarily; for CDI systems the inductive pickup was placed over the conductor
from the "trigger coil" or the conductor from the CDI unit to the ignition
coil primary. (On most of the motorcycles tested, the inductive pickup could
be placed over the entire wire bundle incorporating the desire wire, rather
than searching out the specific wire). The disable element was a shorting
switch (activated by the tachometer); for breaker-point systems, it was
connected to short across the "kill button". For vehicles having more than
one pair of points, it was necessary to connect the disabling circuit to each
set of points thru a diode (see Figure J-5) in order to maintain electrical
isolation between pairs of breaker points.
The objective in this part of the study was to demonstrate feasibility of
the ignition disable technique using commercially available equipment, with
application to present generation new motorcycles and aftermarket exhaust
systems subject to regulations. (The scope of the study did not extend to the
comparative evaluation of various devices commercially available). The
equipment employed demonstrated that the ignition disable technique, using the
subject equipment was effective in controlling closing rpm in the moving test,
and in possible making feasible the conduct of a stationary vehicle test which
could substitute for the moving test.
J-17
-------
no T
100 ..
4)
U
•r-
0>
>>
ID
o
in
90 ••
80 ••
70
y * 19.33 + 0.89x
xy '
Syx = 2.98
70 . 80 90 100
Moving Vehicle F76a Noise Level
F1g. J-4 CORRELATION OF STATIONARY VEHICLE NOISE LEVELS
(F50 TEST) AND MOVING VEHICLE F76a TEST
0-18
-------
TABLE J-7 EFFECT OF GEAR SELECTION
[CYCLE NO.
, MANUFACTURER/MODEL F76a by
Ignition Disable
2nd Gear
805
812
815B
816
817
820
821
822
822A
Honda CB750F
Kawasaki KE250
Harley XLH1000
(with after-market exhaust)
Yamaha DT-250
Yamaha XS750 E
Harley SX175
Suzuki GS750
Can Am 175 Qualifier
Can Am 175 Qualifier
dB
78.9
77.3
97.2
81.2
80.3
82.1
79.6
85.0
Accel 01 st
(ft.)
28
28
26
25
40
35
40
37
3rd Geai
dB
--
78.7
96.9
81.8
81.1
82.2
80.0
85.8
r
Accel. D1st
(ft.)
80
67
80
66
70
90
80
80
(with aftermarket exhaust) 86.2 35 87.0 55
0-19
-------
No. 1
Coll
Primary
No. 2
Coll
Primary
No. 3
Coll
Primary
Breaker C±I
Points
1
I
1N2071 Diode V
n
I
V
To Ignition
Disable
Device
FIGURE J-5 METHOD OF CONNECTING DISABLE DEVICE TO MOTORCYCLE
HAVING MORE THAN ONE PAIR OF POINTS
J-20
-------
1101
100.
o> o
0> -M
0) O
«/> O.
ID Q-
erg 90
80"
70
•H-
y * 0.34 + 1.02x
xy
0.96
1.63
•4-
•I-
70
1
CO 90
Moving Vehicle F76a Noise Level
100
F1g. J-6
CORRELATION OF STATIONARY VEHICLE NOISE LEVELS
AT 50 FT. MICROPHONE POSITION (SIMULATED F76a
TEST) AND MOVING VEHICLE F76a TEST LEVELS
J-21
-------
STATIONARY VEHICLE NOISE EMISSION TEST PROCEDURE
(a) Instrumentation
The following instrumentation shall be used, where applicable:
(1) A sound measurement system which meets the Type 2 or S2A
requirements of American National Standards Specification for Sound Level
Meters, ANSI SI.4-1971. As an alternative to making direct measurements
using sound level meter, a microphone or sound level meter may be used with
a magnetic tape recorder and/or a graphic level recorder or indicating instru-
ment provided that the system meets the performance requirements of ANSI
1.4-1971.
(2) An acoustic calibrator with an accuracy of within +_ 0.5 dB
The calibrator shall be checked annually to verify that its output Is within
the specified accuracy.
(3) An engine speed measurement system coupled with an ignition
disable device having the following characteristics:
(i) Capable of being pre-set to disable the ignition at a
specified closing engine speed;
(ii) Positive and continuous cut-off of ignition in all
cylinders, with manual re-set;
(iii) Read-out of steady state engine rpm accurate within
or calibrated to + 2% of true rpm for engine speeds specified in the test*
(ivj Response time to rpm step input in the operating range
not more than 200 milliseconds, measured from step initiation to ignition
disable. Operating range for general application to motorcycles is 2000 to
10,000 rpm, with rpm step magnitudes of 1.2 to 1.9 times the initial rpm
Response time may be verified by use of two signal generators, one set for the
initial rpm, the other set for the disable rpm; the response time to disable
command being measured as the signal to the disable device is switched from
the first generator to the second.
(4) A microphone wind screen which does not affect the microphone
response more than + 0.5 dB in the frequency range 40-6000 Hz, taking into
account the orientation of the microphone.
(5) An anemometer with steady-state accuracy within + 10* »+
30 km/h (19mph). ~ at
(b) Test Site
(1) The test site shall be flat, open surface free of large noise
reflecting surfaces (other than the ground) such as parked vehicles, sign-
boards, buildings, or hillsides, located within a 7 m (23 ft) radius of
the motorcycle being tested and the location of the microphone.
(2) The microphone shall be located on a line perpendicular to
the longitudinal axis of the motorcycle at the rear axle, 3.0 m (9.8 ft }
from the plane of symmetry and at a height of 22 _+_ 1 cm (8.6 + 0.4 \n'\
above the pavement. The microphone shall be oriented with respect to the
source so that the sound strikes the diaphram at the angle for which the
microphone was calibrated to have the flattest frequency response charac
teristies over the frequency range 40 Hz to 6000 Hz.
(3) The surface of the ground within the triangular area formed
by the microphone location and the front and rear extremities of the motor
cycle shall be flat and level ± 5 cm and have a concrete or sealed asphalt
surface.
J-22
-------
(c) Measurement Procedure
"CHThe engine temperature shall be within the normal operating
range prior to conducting the measurement procedure.
(2) The electronic ignition disable device shall be set to require
closing rpm determined according to the motorcycle engine displacement, as
follows:
Closing RPM*
Displacement (cc)* (Percent of Maximum Rated RPM)
0 - 10090
100 - 700 95 - 0.05 x (engine displacement in cc)
700 and above 60
(3) The rider shall sit astride the motorcycle in normal riding
position with both feet on the ground and run the engine with the gearbox in
neutral at a constant engine speed of 50% of maximum rated rpm or percent
closing rpm less ten percentage points, whichever is lower (+_ 2.5% of speci-
fied rpm). With the engine stabilized at this constant engine speed, the test
rider shall then open the throttle fully and as rapidly shut-down at the
pre-set closing rpm. If no neutral is provided the motorcycle shall be
operated either with the rear wheel 5-10 cm (2.0 - 4.0 in) clear of the
ground, or with the drive chain belt removed if the vehicle is so equipped.
(d) Measurement
(1) The sound level meter shall be set for fast response and for
the A-weighting network. The microphone wind screen shall be used. The sound
level meter shall be calibrated as often as is necessary throughout testing to
maintain the accuracy of the measurement system; this shall include pre- and
post-test calibration of each daily sequence of testing.
(2) The sound level meter shall be observed throughout the engine
acceleration period. The highest noise level obtained during the engine
acceleration period shall be recorded.
(3) At least three measurements shall be made on each side of the
motorcycle. Measurements shall be made until three readings from each side
are within 2 dB of each other. The noise level for each side shall be the
average of the highest three readings within 2 dB of each other. The noise
level reported shall be for that side of the motorcycle having the highest
noise level.
(4) While making noise level measurements not more than one person
other than the rider and the observer reading the meter shall be within
7m (23 ft) of the vehicle or microphone, and that person shall be directly
behind the observer reading the meter, on a line through the microphone and
the observer.
(5) The ambient noise level (including wind effects) at the test
site due to sources other than the motorcycle being measured shall be at least
20 dB lower than the noise level at the microphone location produced by the
motorcycle under test.
(6) Wind speed at the site during test shall be less than 30 km/h
(19 mph).
J-23
-------
APPENDIX K
FURTHER STUDY OF THE IGNITION DISABLE DEVICE
-------
APPENDIX K
FURTHER STUDY OF THE
IGNITION DISABLE DEVICE
INTRODUCTION
In previous EPA studies, excellent correlation between the moving vehicle
and stationary vehicle roise tests for a wide range of motorcycles was demon-
strated. The Auto Meter Model 451 Rev-Control ignition disable device was
used for these tests.
The disabling device incorporated two moving elements (the tachometer pointer
and the disable relay) with consequent lag between the preset and actual
shut-down rpms. As a result the device permitted substantial rpm overshoot
for the stationary test, which was undesirable for two reasons: a) for some
motorcycles this results in exceeding red-line rpm, and b) if the noise
standard is based on use of this device, and if a vehicle or aftermarket
manufacturer were to develop and employ a device exhibiting less overshoot, a
lower indicated noise level reading would be obtained.
To overcome this difficulty, the EPA developed a completely electronic
ignition disable device which holds rpm overshoot well within acceptable
values. However, occasionally a motorcycle is encountered on which the device
does not function properly. Therefore, EPA investigated the character of
ignition pulse wave trains exhibited by a broader range of representative
motorcycles.
The results of this study to date explain the nature of the problem
encountered by the completely electronic device, and suggest means by which
the applicability of the device might be extended.
Viability of the stationary vehicle test is contigent on availability of
a reliable, low-cost, easy to use, ignition disable device which does not
exhibit excessive rpm overshoot, and one that will function on all or most
bikes. The completely electronic device, with a suitable sensing pickup, may
eventually offer the basis for the above requirements.
TESTING ACCOMPLISHED
On a group of 36 motorcycles, magnetic tape recordings of the ignition
pulses have been obtained at a nominal 50% rpm and during acceleration,
engine unloaded. Recordings, of both ignition secondary, and ignition
primary, were obtained. The vehicle population comprised 10 Honda bikes,
13 Suzuki, 11 Kawasaki, 1 BMW, and 1 Maico. Engine types include 2 and 4
stroke; single, dual, four and six cylinders. Ignition types represented
encompass conventional coil and points, transistorized breakerless, magneto,
CDI and electronic advance.
The taped signals have been transcribed onto X-Y plots, showing the wave
form and signal strengths exhibited by the various bikes. These plots were
intended to permit definition of performance characteristics required in an
ignition disable device, and the magnetic tape recordings themselves could be
employed for preliminary evaluation of candidate disable devices.
K-l
-------
The group of motorcycles was found to display a tremendous range of
ignition pulse wave shapes and signal amplitudes. This is illustrated by
Charts A thru F, which show in the lower trace the ignition pulse wave train
at a steady low rpm, and in the upper trace, a transient high rpm situation.
Both traces are pulses in the high tension (secondary) side of the ignition
system, sensed by an inductive pickup placed over a spark plug wire:
Chart A. Representative of 4-cyl, 4-stroke motorcycles with "conventional"
ignition. The plug fires on every revolution, although there is a power stroke
on every second revolution only. The disable device must consistently ignore
or consistently read, the redundant spark pulse.
Chart B. This is a transistorized breakerless ignition system on a 4-cyl,
4-stroke bike. Pulse definition is considerable less distinct, and more
"cross-talk" from other spark plug wires is seen.
Chart C. One of the cleanest wave trains encountered, magneto ignition
single cylinder 2-stroke, one pulse per revolution.
Chart D. One of the most complex wave trains encountered; a challenge to the
TgnTtion disable device designer; magneto ignition, single cylinder 2-stroke.
Chart E. This is a 6-cyl 4-stroke; as with the 4-cyl 4-stroke machines, there
is a redundant spark, and considerable cross-talk. This signal would present
difficulties for a disable device.
Chart F. This is the same bike as in previous chart, with a compressed time
scale,showing the variability in the active pulses, redundant pulses, and
cross-talk pulses.
All of the foregoing pulse trains were obtained using an inductive pickup
placed over a spark plug wire. Performance of a capacitance pickup (clamped
onto a spark plug wire) was also subject of a cursory check:
Charts G and H. Using the V-8 engine in a Dodge van, Chart G shows the
ignition pulse train using the inductive pickup. While the signal is fairly
good, cross-talk is in evidence. Chart H shows a spectacularly improved
signal using the capacitance pickup.
Chart I. This is a repeat run on bike No. 30 (Chart E), using the capacitance
pickup in lieu of the inductive pickup. The capacitance pickup incorporated
an in-series neon bulb, which provided a go/no-go type of function. Note the
complete absence of cross-talk, also absence of the redundant pulse. Not
shown by the chart, the device exhibited drop-out, and should be investigated
further.
K-2
-------
-I
I
CO
^|W
AJ.IWW—
yA/v/w- —
Cf/A&T A
-------
mi
-------
A/! 3L HA/tO 430
cn
C4AK.T C
-------
-------
/3IKC. A/S 3O ftZ1300
-------
I
00
3^4T* r
-H K-
Wtt4Wvrt4
r
401,
-------
r»y
-------
I
I—•
o
P/Cttt/P
I
200f
-------
f*
332.2.
m s
-------
APPENDIX L
MOTORCYCLE NOISE
ESTIMATED FROM TIME/DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS
DURING ACCELERATION IN URBAN TRAFFIC SITUATIONS
-------
INTRODUCTION
EPA undertook a test program to define motorcycle acceleration profiles,
and associated noise emissions, as the vehicle operates typically in an
urban traffic situation. Ground rules for the study required that the
rider be unaware that observations were being made, that his vehicle be
unimpeded by other traffic, and that his vehicle be accelerated from stand-
still at a traffic signal or stop sign.
Urban commuting, and urban recreational traffic situations were to be
included, over a range of speed limit zones.
In addition to defining typical acceleration profiles and associated
noise levels, the study examined motorcycle noise emission associated with a
traverse of 100 feet in 4.8 seconds, which in a previous study1 was selected
as an acceleration profile under which "motorcycles can be driven in a reason-
able fashion, keep up with traffic, and minimize excessive noise."
The test work in this Appendix was carried out in Los Angeles and Orange
Counties, California, during August 1978.
Motorcycle Noise Levels, a Report on Field Tests, conducted by the
Illinois Task Force On Noise, June 1975.
L-l
-------
TEST PROCEDURE AND RESULTS*
Test Sites
Sites selected for the observation of acceleration profiles included:
A. Urban commuting traffic, 45 mph zone
B. Urban commuting traffic, 40 mph zone
C. Urban recreational traffic, 35 mph zone
D. Urban recreational traffic, 25 mph zone
These sites are shown in Map L-l and Map 1-2.
Observed Acceleration Profiles
The acceleration profiles were defined in terms of time and distance
from standstill to first and second shift points. Time was measured with a
stop watch, distances with a measuring wheel. No noise measuring equipment
was employed at the observation sites.
The observed acceleration profiles on 153 motorcycles are presented in
Table L-l.
Noise Emissions Associated with Acceleratjoni Profiles
At the McDonnell Douglas (EPA's Contractor) test track, Huntington Beach
California, motorcycles representative of the field motorcycles were operated
under controlled conditions, and noise levels measured over a range of ac-
celeration profiles. The motorcycles employed are listed in Table L-2
together with their J331a noise level, F76b noise level, and the noise level
associated with a 100 foot traverse from standstill in 4.8 seconds.
For these motorcycles, curves of noise level vs traverse time to first
shift point are presented in Figure L-l thru Figure L-ll. The noise level
associated with an acceleration rate corresponding to a traverse of 100 feet
in 5.3 seconds is identified on these plots. (A 4.8 second traverse time
results in noise levels 2 dB higher). The 5.3 second figure is highlighted
since it is the upper bound (lowest acceleration) in the observations at the
commuting traffic sites (only one vehicle exceeding this figure).
While a 100 foot traverse in 4.8 seconds has previously been selected
as prudent (based on automobile driving habits), it is far from typical of
present motorcycle operations. The time/distance data of Table L-l can be
normalized to a 100 ft. distance, yielding the following statistical results*
* Tables and Figures are at the end of this Appendix,
L-2
-------
100' Traverse Time
X O- 7?
Commuting traffic, 45 mph
Commuting traffic, 40 mph
Recreational traffic, 35 mph
Recreational traffic, 25 mph
3.9
4.0
4.4
3.8
0.7
0.5
0.9
0.7
38
51
33
31
where
X = means time for 100"
O~= standard deviation
77 = sample size
traverse, seconds
A traverse time of 4.0 seconds typically is seen (Figure L-l thru L-ll)
to result in noise levels 5 to 6 dB higher than does the 4.8 second traverse.
ISO Noise-Level Grids
Using the data from Figures L-l thru L-ll, lines of constant noise
level can be constructed on plots of traverse time vs traverse distance. As a
useful expedient, the constant noise level lines can be labeled " AdB re F76b
level," instead of noise level. Grids thus constructed are present in Figures
L-12 thru L-19. Superimposed on the grids are the time/distance data points
from the field observations (from Table L-l), from which in-use motorcycle
noise levels in urban traffic acceleration situations can be estimated.
The above construction recognizes that within a category of motorcycles,
although their F76b noise levels may differ, similarity in their noise emis-
sion variance as a function of acceleration may be expected.
Statistical Distribution, Estimated Noise Emission Variance
Using the field data from the iso-noise level grids, (Figure L-12 thru
L-19), statistical distribution charts of in-use motorcycle acceleration
noise levels (presented as variance from their F76b level) can be constructed.
These are presented in Figure L-20 thru L-36. Statistical distributions are
shown first (in Figure L-20 for the total vehicle population, all sites; then
broken down by site type and vehicle size. The distribution of motorcycle
noise during acceleration in the traffic situations tends to center around 4
dB below the F76b level.
Significance of Microphone Measurement Position
In the course of measurements taken under the controlled tests at the
McDonnell Douglas test track, noise levels (using a Honda CB750F) were taken
simultaneously at three microphone positions:
(1) 50' from track centerline, 4' height (shift point 25' past microphone)
10' from track centerline, 4' height (shift point at microphone)
10' from track centerline, 9.6" height (shift point at microphone)
L-3
-------
Positions 1 and 3 have the same direct/reflected path interference
effects, assuming a one-foot source height; position 2 is one that conceivably
might be employed in an enforcement situation. The data obtained from the
three microphones are presented in Table 3. The data show a 13 dB difference
between the 50' and 10' distances (instead of 15 calculated by the inverse
square law), and further show that there is little difference between the 10'
readings at a 4' height and the 9.6" height.
L-4
-------
I.I " ' I ~Md I
j-i - jal.....\ •?*•-• • fr-4-*-??
KwSSH^
S^.te^OS^
^^N^ng-^-x-i -i m.
-
OBSERVATION SITES
COMMUTING TRAFFIC
-------
SEE c*of '6
23
27
^yj^t-tp. rjT^^^|^|§iySi|^, .'
>j>-^- A
21
MAP L-2
OBSERVATION SITES, RECREATIONAL TRAFFIC
-------
TABLE L-l OBSERVED RIDING PATTERNS;
ACCELERATION FROM STOP SIGNAL
A. COMMUTING TRAFFIC, 45 MPH ZONE
Motorcycle
Honda 550
Yamaha 175
Honda 250
Honda 550
Honda CX500
Yamaha 360
Suzuki 750
Harley 1000
Honda 750
Norton 850
Honda 360
Honda 500
Harley 1000
Honda 360
BMW 750
Honda 500
Kawasaki 1000
Yamaha 650
Honda 750
Honda 400
Honda 750
Yamaha 650
Harley 1000
Honda 550
Honda 350
Honda 750
Honda 750
Time/distance to
first shift point
(seconds/ft)
2.5/82
3.0/40
2.0/45
2.2/50
2.0/45
3.0/80
3.5/70
4.6/95
2.5/95
2.5/50
3.0/50
3.0/60
3.0/50
3.5/70
3.1/70
3.3/93
2.5/50
3.2/70
2.5/55
2.0/50
3.2/85
3.0/65
4.0/75
3.3/50
5.0/130
3.0/50
(Continued)
Time/distance to
second shift point
(seconds/ft)
4.0/165
4.2/110
4.2/90
5.3/180
5.5/150
5.2/150
8.2/285
5.5/120
7.2/200
6.2/140
7.2/225
6.2/210
5.8/230
3.5/130
6.2/240
6.5/230
4.8/140
8.2/300
5.0/150
L-7
-------
TABLE L-l OBSERVED RIDING PATTERNS;
(cont'd) ACCELERATION FROM STOP SIGNAL
A. COMMUTING TRAFFIC, 45 MPH ZONE
Motorcycle
Honda 1000
Honda 175
Honda 750
Yamaha 750
BMW 750
Yamaha 650
Yamaha 600
Kawasaki 1000
Kawasaki 1000
Honda 1000
Yamaha 500
Honda 350
Time/distance to
first shift point
(seconds/ft)
.2/60
0/50
0/40
5/60
3.0/70
3.3/95
2.3/55
2.0/40
3.8/90
3.2/90
Time/distance to
second shift point.
(seconds/ft)
4.6/200
4.5/100
6.0/200
6.2/300 (3rd gear)
5.0/205
5.5/240
6.7/200
3.4/100
5.5/100
8.2/350
5.5/185
B. COMMUTING TRAFFIC,
Kawasaki KZ1000
Kawasaki KZ1000
Yamaha 500
Yamaha RD400
Honda 360
Harley 1200
Honda 450
Honda 550
Honda 750
Honda 750
Honda 200
Honda 500
Honda 400
Honda 750
Yamaha 650
Honda 550
Honda 750
40 MPH ZONE
3.8/75
4.9/90
4.0/75
3.7/65
3.5/55
2.5/65
2.9/55
2.9/70
3.1/75
3.3/85
2.1/45
2.8/95
2.4/60
3.2/105
3.0/55
3.5/65
L-8
7.0/190
6.5/165
5.3/145
5.5/155
5.1/135
5.5/165
5.0/155
7.3/250
3.8/75
7.8/300
6.5/210
4.6/135
6.0/340
5.2/190
7.2/300
(Continued)
-------
TABLE L-l OBSERVED RIDING PATTERNS;
(cont'd) ACCELERATION FROM STOP SIGNAL
B. COMMUTING TRAFFIC, 40 MPH ZONE
Motorcycle
Honda 350
Honda 350
Honda 750
Honda 750
Kawasaki 1000
Honda 750
Honda CX500
Kawasaki 400
Suzuki 550
Honda 750
Honda 750
Yamaha 750
Honda 750
Honda 750
Honda 350
Suzuki 750
Honda 400
Norton 850
Honda 175
Kawasaki 900
Honda 305
Honda 400
Trulmph 650
Honda 550
Yamaha 125
Honda 350
Honda 350
Honda 175
Honda (small) 125
Time/distance to
first shift point
(seconds/ft)
3.1/55
2.5/50
4.0/100
4.0/100
4.0/135
4.0/65
2.9/45
4.0/65
4.0/125
3.0/45
2.5/45
3.2/50
2.0/50
3.1/65
2.9/50
3.5/70
3.1/55
3.0/70
2.3/45
2.5/50
3.1/60
2.3/60
3.1/65
2.7/65
1.3/35
2.7/60
2.8/60
2.5/35
1.5/20
L-9
Time/distance to
second shift point
(seconds/ft)
5.2/180
7.0/380
8.0/350
6.7/400
5.2/135
6.5/145
6.8/300
3.8/95
8.0/270
6.3/190
4.2/130
5.4/170
4.7/170
4.9/140
5.1/160
5.2/170
7.6/180
3.9/90
4.1/90
(Continued)
-------
TABLE L-1 OBSERVED RIDING PATTERNS;
(cont'd) ACCELERATION FROM STOP SIGNAL
B. COMMUTING TRAFFIC, 40 MPH ZONE
Motorcycle
Honda 550
Honda 550
Honda 175
Honda Chopper
Honda 750
Honda 500
Time/distance to
first shift point
(seconds/ft)
2.4/50
2.5/60
3.1/55
2.5/60
3.6/65
2.3/50
Time/distance to
second shift point
(seconds/ft)
5.3/170
4.5/140
4.5/120
8.5/390
4.0/150
C. RECREATIONAL TRAFFIC,
Ha r ley Chopper
Honda 550
Honda 500
Honda 650
Harley 1200
Honda 350
Honda 550
Honda 750
Honda 350
Yamaha 750
BMW 900
Kawasaki 1000
Honda 500
Honda 500
Honda 350
Honda Chopper
Honda 350
Honda 750
Honda Chopper
Harley 1000
35 MPH ZONE
2.5/45
2.9/65
4.0/75
2.0/45
2.3/45
3.0/75
3.4/45
3.4/70
4.0/95
7.0/150
3.2/120
2.6/50
3.9/90
3.8/95
3.9/50
2.8/60
1.5/10
3.0/45
6.0/110
6.3/200
5.5/180
7.8/220
4.7/110
4.4/100
6.3/220
5.4/95
8.8/250
5.5/180
8.5/250
6.3/220
8.0/180
7.0/200
5.8/160
10.8/220
(Continued)
L-10
-------
TABLE L-l OBSERVED RIDING PATTERNS;
(cont'd) ACCELERATION FROM STOP SIGNAL
C. RECREATIONAL TRAFFIC, 35 MPH ZONE
Motorcycle
Honda 550
Kawasaki 250
Kawasaki 400
Yamaha 400
Honda Chopper
Kawasaki 400
Yamaha 400
Honda Chopper
Kawasaki 400
Kawasaki 1000
Honda GL1000
Kawasaki 1000
Honda 750
Time/distance to
first shift point
(seconds/ft)
3.2/65
2.5/55
2.6/40
3.4/45
2.6/40
3.4/45
4.6/150
3.9/90
2.9/65
4.0/100
Time/distance to
second shift point
(seconds/ft)
6.8/240
4.5/75
4.0/120
5.0/150
6.2/170
4.0/120
5.0/150
6.2/170
6.3/200
7.0/230
6.8/200
D. RECREATIONAL TRAFFIC, 25 MPH ZONE
Kawasaki 900
Honda 350
Kawasaki 1000
Honda 400
Honda 500
Honda 400
Honda 1000
Kawasaki 1000
Honda 360
Norton 850
Benelli 500
Suzuki 550
2.8/50
2.8/50
6.0/
2.8/50
2.0/40
6.4/145
2.0/40
4.9/110
4.0/85
2.0/35
2.2/45
5.0/90
(Continued)
L-ll
-------
TABLE L-l OBSERVED RIDING PATTERNS;
(cont'd) ACCELERATION FROM STOP SIGNAL
D. RECREATIONAL TRAFFIC, 25 MPH ZONE
Motorcycle
Honda 750
Honda 175
Honda 550
Kawasaki 1000
Triumph 500
Honda 750
Honda 550
Yamaha 650
Yamaha 650
Honda 1000
Kawasaki 400
Norton 850
Triumph 650
Honda 750
Honda 750
Honda 750
Honda 750
Yamaha 100
Honda 750
Hamaha 650
Time/distance to
first shift point
(seconds/ft)
2.8/70
2.3/60
2.6/70
2.6/60
2.2/60
3.0/60
2.4/50
4.2/80
3.5/70 (2nd trial)
3.4/50
2.4/50
3.5/70
4.4/80
2.4/50
2.8/50
3.2/70
2.2/60
1.8/40
3.4/70
3.0/50
Time/distance to
second shift point
(seconds/ft)
L-12
-------
TABLE L-2 MOTORCYCLES USED TO DEVELOP NOISE EMISSION
LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH A RANGE OF ACCELERATION
PROFILES
Motorcycle
Make/Model
Harley Sportster 1000
Harley Sportster 1000
Honda GL1000
Honda CB750F
Honda CB750F
Honda CB750K
Honda CB550
Honda CJ360T
Honda CB125S
Kawasaki KZ900
Kawasaki KZ900
Yamaha XS650
Stock (S)*
or
Modified (M)*
S
M
S
S
M
S
S
S
S
S
M
S
Noise Level dB 9 50'
0331 a
86
98
74
79
99
78
79
79
81
84
86
84
F76b
85
94
76
80
99
80
80
83
85
85
91
84
L(4.8 sec)**
76
87
68
74
95
74
70
74
83
75
76
75
* Represented by owner as being stock or modified.
** Noise Level when motorcycle traverses 100 feet 1n 4.8 seconds
from standstill.
L-13
-------
TABLE L-3 EFFECT OF MICROPHONE POSITION ON MEASURED NOISE EMISSION (dB)
(HONDA CB750F, VARIOUS ACCELERATION PROFILES)
Rider
Rider
; Mic 10' from track center line, 9.6" height
X • Mean of differences.
*• Standard deviation of differences.
>l • Sanple Size
0
50*94'
72.7
-
76.0
77.0
82.1
86.6
73.5
74.0
75.5
78.0
81.3
83.1
85.1
tint.
(D
10'M*
85.2
87.5
90.5
91.1
93.8
99.5
82.4
86.4
88.8
90.0
93.4
96.5
99.5
Q)
10'W
.
87.6
91.0
91.2
94.5
99.0
82.9
87.0
88.8
90.4
93.9
96.5
99.3
X"
a •
»? -
.6" t
4.5
4.3
4.0
3.6
3.4
3.1
6.0
5.5
4.9
4.2
3.8
3.5
3.3
Difference
© - ©
12.75
1.33
38
(D
50*W
74.8
75.6
76.3
79.0
82.9
89.9
76.1
75.9
79.1
80.4
85.1
87.4
Differ
13.
1.
37
@
10'W
89.5
89.0
91.0
92.0
.96.2
100.2
88.1
86.0
92.0
92.6
97.5
100.1
ence
10
24
(D
IO'W.6"
90.2
90.0
91.2
92.6
95.9
100.3
89.6
87.8
93.1
93.3
97.3
100.3
Difference
0.34
0.50
38
t
5.2
5.3
4.7
4.5
3.9
3.7
5.6
5.7
5.3
4.5
4.0
3.5
-------
f.'i i.".: S,"L.
I ( ! < ~ •
I
•i
70' TO FIRST
SHIFT POIHT
130' TO FIRST
SHIFT POIHT
u
Ljl'i- L
t
LLt: ,1
4.5
"1
5.5675
; Time - Sec.
100' TO FIRST
SHIFT POINT
68
Time - Sec.
THE DIFFERENT SYMBOLS REPRESENT DIFFERENT
RIDERS. THE VERTICAL DASHED LINE CORRESPONDS
TO AN ACCELERATION RATE OF 100' IN 5.3 SEC;
THE HORIZONTAL DASHED LINE REFLECTS THE LOWEST
NOISE EMISSION TYPICAL IN A TRAFFIC SITUATION.
F766 LEVEL FOR THIS MOTORCYCLE 85 dB
FIGURE L-l NOISE LEVEL AS A FUNCTION OF TIME AND DISTANCE FROM STANDING
START TO FIRST SHIFT POINT, HARLEY 1000 SPORTSTER
-------
! ! I ! I..
100'TO FIR$J
' ' ' "\ ' ' ' ' I ,! I I I i I
,2.;SLu-U|_i3^...-L4-i4.5;/i : .5.5......
L.. *•$ , ;. , 3.5
i_4_i ;130' TO FIRST L.
' SHIFT POINT i .
THE DIFFERENT SYMBOLS REPRESENT DIFFERENT
RIDERS. THE VERTICAL DASHED LINE CORRESPONDS
L_I 4_a4_- T0 M ACCELERATION RATE OF 100' IN 5.3 SEC;
i _HTJ THE HORIZONTAL DASHED LINE REFLECTS THE LOWEST
""'" ""T iTt NOISE EMISSION TYPICAL IN A TRAFFIC SITUATION
F76b LEVEL FOR THIS MOTORCYCLE 94 dB
__1..U
_ .. .,.-
h :"-N"H
i-| rr i vi ;•
FIGURE L-2 NOISE LEVEL AS A FUNCTION OF TIME AND DISTANCE FROM STANDING I
START TO FIRST SHIFT POINT, HARLEY 1000 SPORTSTER (MODIFIED) <
I j } | | i I ! I i j_j | j ! ;_j i i | j i I j I i i I i I i I- I | i I j I I ! |
-------
__
i f~L~o
~
_ j { ; ^BQ. ._•
-tH- -I-
fl-__. _ J
4J_
», , , T •
^=».._i -i—...-^ -i_f-
SA i .ej-4-iLi-
3.QI LJ._L4io! !• i
_l4JO.; .;_LjS.OJ_4_L.!6iOi.
-
1 j_ IIMC i aec> i j •
r~1 T"" T ["l "•'TT'T'T'i
:-f-W"i-+- 120' -TO FIRST -^
^..^-SHJFT.^INT-I..'
trrrr;'mjj-T-ii:|
i!i!-' i-'l-l-^ii-n
itc
0| ' ! -3.0. : I |4.0 : ! 5.0! | .! I 6.0: ;
Tine - Sec. '
2.0
9.01
4.0i 5.0i L
Tine - Sec.
I _ U. h_.THE DIFFERENT SYMBOLS REPRESENT DIFFERENT RIDERS. THE VERTICAL DASHED LINE CORRESPONDS TO AN \ \ L-!- L I. L. J
I ACCELERATION RATE OF 100' IN 5.3 SEC; THE HORIZONTAL DASHED LINE REFLECTS THE LOHEST BOISE .EMISSION I j__| T |. ' I
' I ' It I'^"CAL .IN A TRAFFIC SITUATION.: j^Ll JlU_i Li'l i ' j i J j ! 1 'j'j } ! ' '' -1 4- 'I}-1"!'J.1-LJ -!
' ' f P**^k • PUPI ITAA T»j»e ftM\vAM«*M^« f •»* ^n I 1 . I i i ! I . I \ • '. I i I I ' I I I ! I 1 ! i
•T?«rL^Xi JlU-i-' i i-f-n-U-i-i-UlU-i Li
WCYCLE 76 dB J_|_|.J.4- j -U -Lj--U- i--'-14-r H-|
F76b LEVEL FOR THIS MOTORCYCLE
I.L.i-J. I i i I i ' i • i i
FIGURE L-3 NOISE LEVEL AS A FUNCTION OF TIME AND DISTANCE FROM STANDING
START TO FIRST SHIFT POINT; HONDA GL1000
_u
-------
00
70' TO FIRST)
SHIFTF POINT
I 100' TO FIRST'SHIFT
! iPOINT I
_|_..L4 I ..
.
5.0 6.0 -j
. - Sec... i. !. i..... j.J ...
tO FIRST_I
THE DIFFERENT SYtBOLS REPRESENT DIFFERENT RIDERS.
THE VERTICAL DASHED LINE CORRESPONDS TO AN ' ;
ACCELERATION RATE OF 100' IN 5.3 SEC; THE HORIZONTAL
DASHED LINE REFLECTS THE LOWEST NOISE EMISSION !
TYPICAL IN A TRAFFIC SITUATION. l ' -•!—•-- — -; , f
..;:•:.:.,. 1..;. ..|...: 4-J—L.-4--I-
F76b LEVEL FOR THIS MOTORCYCLE 85 dB
FIGURE L-4
SOUND LEVEL AS
START TO FIRST
A FUNCTION OF TIME AND DISTANCE FROM STANDING
SHIRT POINT; KAWASAKI KZ900
^
14- -j- -|. -; \ [\-\ |.|-...|-j.f.,.i | j..:. ( .4-4 -;-(-.. .T H.-J
1- I- J..-I. ..!.- -i_l __ i _ L.^ J. J.. !_.L. j. .1 I. i i i _i_,j. ... . .(_.!_ j..j_..L..:...j...l .J._
--J
-------
i.94
-1 ,M
-02.
s
-1-
©P
I
1
O'.JTO
«tr.
j
14"
r
FIRS
POINT
+
~r
-h-
T.
±
EF
-+J
—
I
.._,
:1
j j
I
—• i
"f
- r
q:
"i+r
-------
ro
o
-..•»V©.. . _.-_ -
on •+* r¥+ O1 i SHIFT POINT ; . ' T r _ ' :
30 <—,- |- ++•: 'UI -—• : •' - —'-—r--- -i- - -T a< 80--
i . +N.rt>: ' : i ! : i i i ! i ! • >
64
0
I' t t"
••,« r-T-s i-r^riTirMTH- -t-t--'^^ —i +r^®r ri~|M~r~""~
_76.. •! • '•»-. > !-+ 'v^N^-Jr ' -j-H-H-1 ;.* - ----ff|44--!^S^ l]©-lo-
«72'^m rt~ >r ' i i"' • ~ • i" 1 • RFFIFrTI THF lOWF^T H015F FMI«10!I TYPICA1 'IN A; I
--•' Lj I--:-'+XJ- ^-i-.
i :--S*^t
I
72f •:-- -- '• < :- !
i.. :...!._:.. : :. ,...i
! : I '• i !
REFLECTS THE LOWEST NOISE EMISSION TYPICAL 'IN A!
'" ; TRAFFIC SITUATION.
7 i I F76b LEVEL FOR THIS MOTORCYCLE 80 dB ..
' ... 0i -;
5.0
6.0
7.0.
i i riTr
~ --1-^
6.0
^
--r-H-i^tfl
r4—-
T_I FIGURE L-6 NOISE LEVEL AS A FUNCTION OF TIME AND DISTANCE FROM STANDING _j
..: L__'START TO FIRST SHIFT POINT; HONDA CB750K AND HONDA CB750F, ___
-------
I
ro
Mi • i - | :
r — • 1 V ; ' : i :
[_-jol04
100
1
r •"
|" i 96
~"5
1^3
UJ «A
— v) 88-
-| 5
_iz«.
1 i
L-T 80 -
H-
j. i \ :
! V9
/*• :
- %: »
• j T!K ? •
.ii|:.b-J\<
• [ | r ; . •
]__..L .! !._ .
t 1 - !
•",- : "i j " : ' ' [
•I"!!.
.J.;!,.:., .,,.
L.'. 762-0 j ; 3.0 4.0
L ' V . .
L : . 108
- i.S
, 96
— * _j
" ] 85 92
-j * ea
_. i_.
-!: %
..... . ... ..
L. ^ . V) ... .
. ..; Q\. .. ... . :
. \ ' •
108
70' TO FIRST ° 104
SHIFT POINt «•
. . • "100
.... . 1.
© S
i
/\s>^' ® a>
y ^^^^ •
^^^^ "o 88-
^"^~- ^_ z
. '84 .
1 1 no
L \ 0
9\ • ' •
\ 100' TO FIRST
. \ SHIFT POINT
! ' ' ° \ ' ;
/^ ' *
1 ' ^ ' ^^1 ^^
' ' - '*\ 1
A -J
; : '. ' i ! 1 * -•..
, - i . ' .. • , . . "• •».
! • j , <^ "*~-..
! . ' : : , l • ' ' : :
II 1 1
5.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 4,0 E.O 6.0
Time - Sec. '....''. Time - Sec.
\ 130' TO FIRST THE DIFFERENT SYMBOLS REPRESENT DIFFERENT RIDERS.
' . . X SH1FT POINT TOE VERTICAL DASHED LINE CORRESPONDS TO AM ACCELERATION
i ' i >w
L . at x.
•. 7" *o \^ '
- - i : , -' ^hv • •
..!. i 0^V
..'.:! >s
• - * ' j ^ : (3
. '-j ', ^
1 i i ' ' ' ' !
i j
- . , , 1
1 1
0 4.0 5.9
RATE OF 100' IN 5.3 SEC: THE HORIZONTAL DASHED LINE
REFLECTS THE LOWEST NOISE EMISSION TYPICAL IN
A TRAFFIC SITUATION.
1
0 F76b LEVEL FOR THIS MOTORCYCLE 99 dB
X. i
•— '.* - 7 i ' : • ; : ; .
1 " .••••^ . • ; : . . : : : . .
/^ **" ^fci^,^^^^^ i i
H^^ ......
O
6.0 7.0
: '. '' '
j. 1 ..... , ....!... :T1ne - Sec. . .
i !
1
1 \"i~""' ' f FIGURE L-7 NOISE LEVEL AS A FUNCTION OF TIME AND DISTANCE FROM STANDING
"j" !"i . : i START TO FIRST SHIFT POINT; HONDA CB750F (MODIFIED)
i. ;.......! : • •
' < * i
-:~- --J----' -i— !• • : 1 t ; : ;-
±ijr:r±:~L'.' ;:Jj r"1'"7:
: ; : • • •
... i
* i ' ,
-------
ro
ro
70' TO FIRST
SHIFT POINT
\
100' TO FIRST
SHIFT POINT
0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Time-Sec
6.0
THE DIFFERENT SYMBOLS REPRESENT DIFFERENT RIDERS.
THE VERTICAL DASHED LINE CORRESPONDS TO AN
ACCELERATION RATE OF 100' IN 5.3 SEC; THE HORIZONTAL
DASHED LINE REFLECTS THE LOWEST NOISE EMISSION
TYPICAL IN A TRAFFIC SITUATION
F76b LEVEL FOR THIS MOTORCYCLE 84 dB
FIGURE L-8 NOISE LEVEL AS A FUNCTION OF TIME AND DISTANCE FROM STANDING
START TO FIRST SHIFT POINT; YAMAHA XS650
-------
ro
CO
:
i
I
i
ig 84.
<§ 80.
i ' : >
:S '
-i-1 72-
i a,
;
-jo 68.
( _
t. fiA
. .j_j 2
! 4-
•! ' i •
«*••
- ioo 30
iJ. 76
.1*01
-15 72--
• 01
i *O
1*1 «•-
I Lf2fl
•i —
- j- -
, -ii
! _' ; J | ! ' ' ', i •
- - i~l'H- H- : ' • -: - •' '• -
. |....j J .j.. -.; ...;.:
llT'lJ"' 40' TO FIRST' ? 65'TO FIRST
' JLLT ~] L.r_LSHIFIPOIfIT ' -5 SHIFT POINT
t ' i ' i ! ; - : ' - ; rn \
..,,_; ..i. .... i . . . . j ^»j . . . . •v
, f TfHv . ^^^J. .•,.;;,, • . . I - .
, |a LiJlitK-. | | M ' 1 III
.0._, _ L| 3.0 . J . _.|4.0 1 ;5.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
_' ,--{--: Time-Sec., Ttwe-Sec.
1 ! . 1 i
I ! j ; 100' TO FIRST
-L l._j. \ ... 1 SHIFT P0.INT THE DIFFERENT SYfBOLS REPRESENT DIFFERENT RI1
1 \ \ & ' ' ' THE VERTICAL DASHED LINE CORRESPONDS TO AN
i ' . NX. rt> : " J ACCELERATION RATE OF 100' IN 5.3 SECj THE HOI
; i «. ; i CASHED LINE REFLECTS THE LOWEST NOISE EMISSK
; . ,3 PX. 0 ' TYPICAL IN A TRAFFIC SITUATION.
. .L J i _1 . L : ..iX^ . i :' ' ® . F76b LEVEL FOR THIS MOTORCYCLE 80
-------
I
ro
884
m80
TJ
I
«W
O)
72-
068
64
40* TO 1ST SHIFT POINT <
70' TO FIRST SHIFT POINT
z.o
80
6
• 76
In
it
lee
64
1
1
5.0 6.0
Tine - Sees.
3.0 4.0
100* TO FIRST SHIFT POINT
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
T1«e • Sees.
Til
THE DIFFERENT SYMBOLS REPRESENT DIFFERENT
RIDERS. THE VERTICAL DASHED LINE CORRESPONDS
TO AN ACCELERATION RATE OF 100' IN 5.3 SEC;
THE HORIZONTAL DASHED LINE REFLECTS THE LOWEST
NOISE EMISSION TYPICAL IN A TRAFFIC SITUATION.
F76b LEVEL FOR THIS MOTORCYCLE 83 dB
FIGURE L-10 NOISE LEVEL AS A FUNCTION OF TIME AND DISTANCE FROM STANDING
START TO FIRST SHIFT POINT; HONDA CJ360
-------
I
INJ
5.0
TIME - SEC
THE DIFFERENT SYMBOLS REPRESENT DIFFERENT
RIDERS. THE VERTICAL DASHED LINE CORRESPONDS
TO AN ACCELERATION RATE OF 100' IN 5.3 SEC;
THE HORIZONTAL DASHED LINE REFLECTS THE LOWEST
NOISE EMISSION TYPICAL IN A TRAFFIC SITUATION.
F76b LEVEL FOR THIS MOTORCYCLE 85 dB
•' l i -i L..; . 71* - SEC.
...i ' : ' ! •' ' !
.. iFIGURE L-ll NOISE LEVEL AS A FUNCTION OF TIME AND DISTANCE FROM STANDING
START TO FIRST SHIFT POINT; HONDA CB125S
-------
ro
R fl-
ISO-NOISE LEVEL 6RID WAS DEVELOPED FROM
MEASURED NOISE LEVELS UNDER.CONTROLLED TES1
CONDITIONS USING A HARLEY SPORTSTER 1000.
POINTS ARE ON-THE-ROAD NOISE LEVELS ESTIMATED
FROM ACCELERATION TIME/DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS.
MOTORCYCLES INCLUDED ARE:
HARLEY 1000, HARLEY 1EOO, HARLEY CHOPPER.
Site Type 1
45 mph Commuting
Site Type 2
40 mph Computing
O Site Type 3
35 mph Recreational
Site Type 4
25 mph Recreational
i JL
I
Distance (ft.)
f-rl-
tlJ..
ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION LEVELS BASED ON ACCELERATION FROM
STANDSTILL TIME/DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS; HARLEY-DAVIDSON 1000 AND 1200
-------
ro
ISO-NOISE LEVEL GRID WAS DEVELOPED FROM
MEASURED NOISE LEVELS UNDER CONTROLLED TEST
CONDITIONS USING A HONDA GL1000.
POIKTS Al E ON-THE-ROAD NOISE LEVELS ESTIMATED
FROM ACCELERATION TIME/DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS.
MOTORCYCLE' INCLUDED ARE: HONDA 1000.
LEGEND:
A Site Type 1
45 Mph Commuting
V Site Type 2
40 Mph Commuting
© Site Type 3
35 Mph Recreational
0 Site Type 4
25 Mph Recreational
_ _l
; 70 100 130
{-•-:'•- Distance (ft.)
FIGURE L-13 ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION LEVELS BASED ON ACCELERATION FROM
STANDSTILL TIME/DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS; HONDA GL1000
-,., !-;tf::n;:.' i;
_L_L ;_L_I .'._.'-.. -J :
B
-------
I
I I
ISO-NOISE LEVEL GRID WAS DEVELOPED FROM
MEASURED NOISE LEVELS UNDER CONTROLLED TEST
CONDITIONS USING A KAWASAKI KZ900
POINTS ARE ON-THE-ROAD NOISE LEVELS ESTIMATED
FROM ACCELERATION TIME/DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS;
MOTORCYCLES INCLUDED ARE:
KAWASAKI 900
KAWASAKI 1000
NORTON 850
B*.
.DO'
'V
j
ta
r • '
i .!...;.—!
±
J_
A Site Type 1 t" •
i 45 mph Commuting —
V Site Type 2
i 40 mph Commuting ' :
0 Site Type 3 i
i 35 mph Recreational
CD S1{e Type 4 ; \ . •
'• 25 mph Recreational
I
! 40 •'•!..' 70 I 100: : : i ' ; 133
• : . ! Distance (ft.)
FIGURE L-14 ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION LEVELS BASED ON ACCELERATION FROM
STANDSTILL TIME/DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS; 800-1000 cc BIKES
-------
no
i
7,0
6.0 •••
ISO-NOISE LEVEL GRID WAS DEVELOPED
FROM MEASURED NOISE LEVELS UNDER
CONTROLLED TEST CONDITIONS USING A
HONDA CB 750F and CB750K.
POINTS ARE ON-THE-ROAD NOISE LEVELS
ESTIMATED FROM ACCELERATION TIME/DISTANCE
MEASUREMENTS. MOTORCYCLES INCLUDED ARE:
HONDA CB750, HONDA 750 CHOPPER
YAMAHA 750, BMW 750, SUZUKI 750.
ASlte Type 1
45 mph Connutlng
vsite Type 2
40 mph Commuting
OSite Type 3
35 mph Recreational
BSIte Type 4
25 Mph Recreational
J I
no
120
130
FIGURE L-15
Distance (ft.)
ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION LEVELS BASED ON ACCELERATION FROM
STANDSTILL TIME/DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS; 750 cc BIKES
-------
u
-i-H
. i j
ISO-NOISE LEVEL GRID WAS DEVELOPED
FROM MEASURED NOISE LEVELS UNDER
CONTROLLED TEST CONDITIONS USING A
YAMAHA XS 650.
°T POINTS ARE ON-THE-ROAD NOISE LEVELS
ESTIMATED FROM ACCELERATION TIME/DISTANCE
MEASUREMENTS. MOTORCYCLES INCLUDED ARE:
YAMAHA 600, YAMAHA 650. TRIUMPH 650.
5.0
j .
-i-h? 4.04-
J1-
- i£
-!8
~p 3.0-
2.0
: i
: iU
1
Commuting
ype 2
40 mph Commuting
Site Type
40
O Site Type 3
35 mph Recreational
(3 Site Type 4
25 mph Recreational
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
70
100
I
J -
i
_.i
±h-i
130
j ; Distance (ft.)
(FIGURE L-16 ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION LEVELS BASED ON ACCELERATION FROM
STANDSTILL TIME/DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS; 600-650 cc BIKES
-------
...... v ...
i--':
. , ! ISO-NOISE LEVEL GRID WAS DEVELOPED
! : FROM MEASURED NOISE LEVELS UNDER
I H-f -: CONTROLLED TEST CONDITIONS USING A
4- .L..: l HQNDA CB 550
POINTS ARE ON-THE-ROAD NOISE LEVELS
ESTIMATED FROM ACCELERATION TIME/DISTANCE
MEASUREMENTS. MOTORCYCLES INCLUDED ARE:
HONDA 400, HONDA 450. HONDA 500
HONDA 550, KAWASAKI 400, SUZUKI 550
BENELLI 500, TRIUMPH 500
__ YAMAHA 400, YAMAHA 600
YAMAHA 550.
.L.
1
A Site Type 1
45 mph Commuting :
f Site Type 2
40 mph Commuting
0 Site Type 3
35 mph Recreational
0 Site Type 4
. 25 mph Recreational
_L
I
•100 130
Distance (ft.)
I FIGURE L-17 ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION LEVELS BASED ON ACCELERATION FROM
STANDSTILL TIME/DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS; 450-550 cc BIKES
-------
CO
ro
6.0-.
5.0-
4.0-•
3.0-•
2.0-.
ISO-NOISE LEVEL GRID WAS DEVELOPED
FROM MEASURED NOISE LEVELS UNDER
CONTROLLED TEST CONDITIONS USING A
HONDA CB 550.
Points are on-the-road noise levels
estimated from acceleration time/distance
Measurements. Motorcycles Included are:
Honda 200, Honda 250, Honda 350
Honda 360. Yamaha 350,
Yamaha 260, Kawasaki 250
I
-A
-17
-16
-13 3 j
-11 3.
-9 2
-r I
_. -5
I
-3 5
. - « i
_ _ +3
'~7"~ ._.. +5
Legend:
Site Type 1
45 nph Comnuting
Site Type 2
40 nph Gamut Ing
Site Type 3
35 nph Recreational
a Site Type 4
25 nph Recreational
I _ |
.. J
70
100
Distance (ft)
130
FIGURE L-18
ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION LEVELS BASED ON ACCELERATION FROM
STANDSTILL TIME/DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS; 250-360 cc BIKES
-------
u>
<*>
7.0
6.0
ISO-NOISE LEVEL GRID HAS DEVELOPED
i i i FROM MEASURED NOISE LEVELS UNDER
' CONTROLLED TEST CONDITIONS USING A
HONDA CB 550.
POINTS ARE ON-THE-ROAD NOISE LEVELS ,
ESTIMATED FROM ACCELERATION
TIME/DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS'. X
MOTORCYCLES INCLUDED ARE: X X
YAMAHA 100, YAMAHA 125, .. ' X
YAMAHA 175, HONDA 125, 4
HONDA 175.
70
LE6EMO:
A Site Type I
45 «ph CmMtlng
V Site Type 2
40 aph CoMwtlng
• Site Type 3
35 «ph Recreational
Q Site Type 4
. 25 Mph Recreatloml
100
Oistmct (ft.)
130
FIGURE L-19 ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION LEVELS BASED ON ACCELERATION FROM
STANDSTILL TIME/DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS; 100-175 cc BIKES ;S
-------
14 -
13 -
12 -
11 •
10 -
•o
01
£ q -
o> 3
JD
° 8 -
0)
£ 7 -
0
o
i6'
"6 5-
C
o 4 •
s.
o.
3 -
2 -
1 -
»
i i • i •
-20 -18 ,16-14 -1
2
_'
0
SAMPLE SIZE, 132
5
S
t S
SAMPLE TYPE, 100-1200 cc MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPES: 1 (45 MPH COMMUTING)
2 (40 MPH COMMUTING)
3 (35 MPH RECREATIONAL)
4 (25 MPH RECREATIONAL)
. : '
-8 - -4 -2 d
1
•f +4 +6 +8 +fo
ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE - A dB RE F76b LEVEL
FIGURE L-20 COMPOSITE DISTRIBUTION (ALL MOTORCYCLES, ALL SITE TYPES) OF ESTIMATED
NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE (RE F76b LEVEL)
-------
25
20
c
•o
SAMPLE SIZE, 35
SAMPLE TYPE, 100-1200 CC MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPE 1 (45 MPH COMMUTING)
u>
tTt
0>
to
t/J
-------
25 -•
SAMPLE SIZE, 45
SAMPLE TYPE, 100-1200 cc MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPE 2 (40 MPH COMMUTING)
20 --
O)
I/)
.0
I
CO
O)
£ 15 -
0
s-
o
o
*
^^
O
£ 10 -
u
0)
5 -
c
-------
I
to
25
20 --
O)
.a
o
a>
o
o
SAMPLE SIZE, 24
SAMPLE TYPE, 100-1200 CC MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPE 3 (35 MPH RECREATIONAL)
15
10
a>
o
a>
a.
5 --
-20 -\8 -16 -14 -12
-8 - -t
+4
ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE -AdB RE F76b LEVEL
FIGURE L-23 COMPOSITE DISTRIBUTION (ALL MOTORCYCLES, SITE TYPE 3) OF ESTIMATED
NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE (RE F76b LEVEL)
-------
25-
SAMPLE SIZE, 28
SAMPLE TYPE, 100-1200 CC MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPE 4 (25 MPH RECREATIONAL)
20 -
T3
-------
UJ
25
20
OJ
'5
o
t 10 -
0)
u
o>
0.
5 -
\ \ \ i
' \ \ \ \ \ '• \ i
. > . \ . i Is v \ '.
; ; i i ! i i i
< :-!- n :-! +
.
\\\
'
SAMPLE SIZE, 16
SAMPLE TYPE, 750-1200 CC MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPE 1 (45 MPH COMMUTING) ]
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -io ^8 -6 - -2 0 + +4 +6 +8
ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE -A dB RE F76b LEVEL
FIGURE L-25 DISTRIBUTION (750-1200 cc MOTORCYCLES, SITE TYPE 1) OF ESTIMATED
NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE (RE F76b LEVEL)
-------
25 --
20 --
•o
«/>
o>
o
>»
o
o
10 --
c
o>
u
OJ
o.
5 --
-\ H
4—1-
SAMPLE SIZE, 10
SAMPLE TYPE, 450-650 CC MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPE 1 (45 MPH COMMUTING)
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2
6
'• i ' i , l
; . ; ; . : : .| . : _ .
• : • i
- - ' i l
1 -1 I -
!
1
1
1
i
1
i
!
i
i
i
i
1
1
1
|
i
t
i i .
! 1
.
1
j
j
- 4
1
(
j
• 1
»
1 i 1 • J I
+2 +4 +6 +8
A dB RE F76b LEVEL
i
- i ; •
i_ -i
- -
1
- !
I
l
,
'
_
"
-
!
i
j
• i • '
!
I.
i
i
j \
\ ;
,
i
i
i
i
FIGURE L-26 DISTRIBUTION (450-650 cc MOTORCYCLES, SITE TYPE 1) OF ESTIMATED
NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE (RE F76b LEVEL) : .
-------
25
20
I.
O)
I/)
s
•s 15
10 --
I
01
5 -
..i Vi.\i,....\v\ -,.|.-L' i i :..,. .;..,
1 • \ ; ' I \ •>, ;...< ! .1 IV! i. i i \ V I. i i
I ; i : : . i ' i i i . ! I • . :
t
SAMPLE SIZE, 9
SAMPLE TYPE, 100-400 CC MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPE 1 (45 MPH COMMUTING)
H h
•20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 +2 +4+6 +8 +10
ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE - A dB RE F76b LEVEL
FIGURE L-27 DISTRIBUTION (100-400 cc MOTORCYCLES, SITE TYPE 1) OF ESTIMATED
EMISSION VARIANCE (RE F76b LEVEL)
-------
25 •-
20 --
•o
o>
I
ro
0)
i/i
o
£ 15
u
o
o
H. 10
O
c
u
OJ
o.
5 -
SAMPLE SIZE, 24
SAMPLE TYPE, 750-1200 CC MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPE 2 (40 MPH COMMUTING)
1 1 1-
-18 -16 -14
i — i i
-T2 -lO -8
-
-4
-
1
2
1
+
+
4
: i
; . t -
: : •• • ''• \ ! '
i i
• £ A.O :
TQ • O ' i
ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE - A
-------
I 1 I
25 -
SAMPLE SIZE, 14
SAMPLE TYPE, 450-650 CC MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPE 2 (40 MPH COMMUTING)
20 -
O)
9)
u>
"T
10--
-------
25 ••
SAMPLE SIZE, 7
SAMPLE TYPE, 100-400 CC MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPE 2 (40 MPH COMMUTING)
20 --
T3
0)
V
l/t
JD
O
15 -
u
u
o
•M
fc 10-
c
0)
u
O)
o.
5-
1 1 1 1
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -
i
0 -i -
i i
-4" -'2 6
+;
1 1 1
+4 +6 +8
FIGURE L-30
ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE - A dB RE F76b LEVEL
DISTRIBUTION (100-400 cc MOTORCYCLES, SITE TYPE 2) OF ESTIMATED
NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE (RE F76b LEVEL)
-------
I
*«.
en
25 •
20 -
•o
o>
J_
-------
50--
SAMPLE SIZE, 6
SAMPLE TYPE, 450-650 CC MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPE 3 (35 MPH RECREATIONAL)
40--
•o
0)
0>
I
Jk
Ol
»r»
.O
O
v> 30 -
o
O
O
-U
„_ 20 -
o
c
0>
o
0)
CL-
IO -
•
1 1 1 1 1 1
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -(
•
-4
1 i 1 1 1
20+2+4 +6 +8
FIGURE L-32
ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE - A dB RE F76b LEVEL
DISTRIBUTION (450-650 cc MOTORCYCLES, SITE TYPE 3) OF ESTIMATED
NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE (RE F76b LEVEL)
-------
50 --
SAMPLE SIZE, 6
SAMPLE TYPE, 100-400 CC MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPE 3 (35 MPH RECREATIONAL)
40 --
J_
o>
o
30
O)
0
o
•o
*J
s- 20 -
o
C
0>
i-
o>
o.
10 -
»1 • 1 ..... 1 .
-
1 » 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 II 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 +2 +4 +6 +8
ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE - A dB RE F76b LEVEL
FIGURE L-33 DISTRIBUTION (100-400 cc MOTORCYCLES, SITE TYPE 3) OF ESTIMATED
NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE (RE F76b LEVEL)
-------
30 -
25 -
O>
41
U
i
00
8 10
4)
0.
5 -
SAMPLE SIZE, 13
SAMPLE TYPE, 750-1200 CC MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPE 4 (25 MPH RECREATIONAL)
•20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 +2 +4 +15 +8
ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE - A dB RE F76b LEVEL
FIGURE L-34 DISTRIBUTION (750-1200 cc MOTORCYCLES, SITE TYPE 4) OF ESTIMATED
EMISSION VARIANCE (RE F76b LEVEL)
-------
\
25 -•
20-
SAHPLE SIZE, 12
SAMPLE TYPE, 450-650 CC MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPE 4 (25 MPH RECREATIONAL)
I
to
>
Ol
.0
o
Jg 15 -
O
o
o 10 -
c
0
5
i i i i i
1 i i i i •
i
t
1
IB
• < i
• « i
-39 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0+2+4+6 +8
ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE - A dB RE F76b LEVEL
FIGURE L-35 DISTRIBUTION (450-650 cc MOTORCYCLES, SITE TYPE 4) OF ESTIMATED
NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE (RE F76b LEVEL)
-------
50 --
SAMPLE SIZE, 3
SAMPLE TYPE, 100-400 CC MOTORCYCLES
SITE TYPE 4 (25 MPH RECREATIONAL)
5 40 --
4>
.0
O
S
V*
V
$»•
u
o
o
£ 20 .
0>
o
W
OL
10 -
1 1 1 1 1 1 1—
1 1 1 1 1 ... ... ,
0 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -i 0 +2 +4 +6 -#8
ESTIMATED NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE - A dB RE F76b LEVEL
FIGURE L-36 DISTRIBUTION (100-400 cc MOTORCYCLES, SITE TYPE 4) OF ESTIMATED
NOISE EMISSION VARIANCE (RE F76b LEVEL)
-------
APPENDIX M
FRACTIONAL IMPACT PROCEDURE
-------
APPENDIX M
FRACTIONAL IMPACT PROCEDURE*
An Integral element of an environmental noise assessment Is to determine
or estimate the distribution of the exposed population to given levels of
noise for given lengths of time. Thus, before Implementing a project or
action, one should first characterize the existing noise exposure distribution
of the population 1n the area affected by estimating the number of people
exposed to different magnitudes of noise as described by metrics such as the
Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). Next, the distribution of people who may be
exposed to noise anticipated as a result of adopting various projected alter-
natives should be predicted or estimated. We can judge the environmental
Impact by simply comparing these successive population exposure distributions.
This concept is Illustrated in Figure M-l which compares the estimated distri-
bution of exposure for the population prior to inception of a hypothetical
project (Curve A) with the population distribution after Implementation of
the project (Curve B). For each statistical distribution, numbers of people
are simply plotted against noise exposure, where L^ represents a specific
exposure in decibels to an arbitrary unit of noise. A measure of noise impact
is ascertained by examining the shift in distribution of population exposure
attributable either to increased or lessened project-related noise. Such
comparisons of population exposure distributions allow us to determine the
extent of noise impact in terms of changes 1n the number of people exposed to
different levels of noise.
The intensity or severity of a noise exposure may be evaluated by the
use of suitable noise effects criteria, which exist in the form of dose-
response or cause-effect relationships. Using these criteria, the probability
or magnitude of an anticipated effect can be statistically predicted from
knowledge of the noise exposure incurred. Illustrative examples of the
different forms of noise effects criteria are graphically displayed in Figure
M-2. In general, dose-response functions are statistically derived from noise
effects Information and exhibited as linear or curvilinear relationships, or
combinations thereof. Although these relations generally represent a statis-
tical "average" response, they may also be defined for any given population
percentile. The statistical probability or anticipated magnitude of an effect
at a given noise exposure can be estimated using the appropriate function.
For example, as shown 1n Figure M-2 using the linear function, 1f it 1s
established that a number of people are exposed to a given value of L,, the
Adapted, 1n part, from Goldstein, J., "Assessing the Impact of Transporta-
tion Noise: Human Response Measures," Proceedings of the 1977 National
Conference on
Research Center.
rt, Trom boiastein, j., "Assessing tne impact of Transporta-
Human Response Measures," Proceedings of the 1977 National
Noise Control Engineering, G. C. Ma ling ted.). NASA Lanqlev
p. Hampton. Virginia. 17-15 October 1977; pp. 79-98. SL-L
M-l
-------
8.
X
UJ
£
a
Magnitude or Level of Exposure, Li in dB
FIGURE M-l
.tXAMPLE ILLUSTRATION OF THE NOISE DISTRIBUTION OF
POPULATION AS A FUNCTION OF NOISE EXPOSURE
M-2
-------
Incidence of a specific response occurring within that population would be
statistically predicted at 50 percent.
A more comprehensive assessment of environmental noise may be performed
by cross-tabulating both Indices of extent (number of people exposed) and
Intensity (severity) of Impact. To perform such an assessment we must first
statistically estimate the anticipated magnitude of Impact upon each Individ-
ual exposed at each given level, L., by applying suitable noise effects
criteria. At each level, L^, the Impact upon all people exposed 1s then
obtained by simply comparing the number of people exposed with the magnitude
or probability of the anticipated response. As Illustrated 1n Figure M-l,
the extent of a noise Impact 1s functionally described as a distribution of
exposures. Thus, the total Impact of all exposures 1s a distribution of
people who are affected to varying degrees. This may be expressed by using
an array or matrix 1n which the severity of Impact at each Lj 1s plotted
against the number of people exposed at that level. Table M-l presents a
hypothetical example of such an array.
TABLE M-l
EXAMPLE OF IMPACT MATRIX FOR A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION
Exposure
L1
Lm
L1+2
1-14.7
Number of people
1,200,000
900,000
200,000
50,000
Magnitude or
of Response
4
10
25
50
Probability
1n Percent
2,000 85
An environmental noise assessment usually Involves analysis, evaluation
and comparison of many different planning alternatives. Obviously, comparing
multiple arrays of population Impact Information Is quite cumbersome, and
subsequently evaluating the relative effectiveness of each of the alternatives
generally tends to become rather complex and confusing. These comparisons can
be simplified by resorting to a single number Interpretation or descriptor of
the noise environment which incorporates both attributes of extent and
M-3
-------
I
O
0)
•o
3
I
a
Li
t
100%
•o
3
50%
o
-*
3D
$
1
i
o%
FIGURE M-2
EXAMPLE OF FORMS OF NOISE EFFECTS CRITERIA
(a) LINEAR, (b) POWER, (c) LOGARITHMIC
M-4
-------
Intensity of impact. Accordingly, the National Academy of Sciences, Committee
on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA), has recommended a procedure
for assessing environmental noise impact which mathematically takes into
account both extent and intensity of impact.* This procedure, the fractional
impact method, computes total noise impact by simply counting the number of
people exposed to noise at different levels and statistically weighting each
person by the intensity of response to the noise exposure. The result is a
single number value which represents the overall magnitude of the impact.
The purpose of the fractional impact analysis method is to quantitatively
define the impact of noise upon the population exposed. This, in turn,
facilitates trade-off studies and comparisons of the impact between different
projects or alternative solutions. To accomplish an objective comparative
environmental analysis, the fractional impact method defines a series of
"partial noise impacts" within a number of neighborhoods or groups, each of
which is exposed to a different level of noise. The partial noise impact of
each neighborhood is determined by multiplying the number of people residing
within the neighborhood by the "fractional impact" of that neighborhood, I.e.,
the statistical probability or magnitude of an anticipated response as func-
tionally derived from relevant noise effects criteria. The total community
impact is then determined by simply summing the partial Impacts of all
neighborhoods.
It 1s quite possible, and in some cases very probable, that much of the
noise impact may be found in subneighborhoods exposed to noise levels of only
moderate value. Although people living in proximity to a noise source are
generally more severely Impacted than those people living further away, this
does not imply that the latter should be totally excluded from an assessment
where the purpose is to fully evaluate the magnitude of a noise Impact.
People exposed to lower levels of noise may still experience an adverse
Impact, even though that impact may be small in magnitude. The fractional
impact method considers the total Impact upon all people exposed to noise
recognizing that some individuals Incur a significantly greater noise exposure
than others. The procedure duly ascribes more Importance to the more
severely affected population.
As discussed previously, any procedure which evaluates the Impact of
noise upon people or the environment, as well as the health and behavioral
consequences of noise exposure and resultant community reactions, must encom-
pass two basic elements of the Impact assessment. The Impact of noise may be
intensive (I.e., it may severely affect a few people) or extensive (I.e., 1t
may affect a larger population less severely). Implicit 1n the fractlonal-
1zat1on concept 1s that the magnitude of human response varies comnensurately
with the degree of noise exposure, i.e., the greater the exposure, the more
significant the response. Another major assumption Is that a moderate noise
exposure for a large population has approximately the same noise impact upon
the entire community as would a greater noise exposure upon a smaller number
of people. Although this may be conceptually envisioned as a trade-off
between the intensity and extent of noise Impact, It would be a misapplica-
*"Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements on Noise," Report
of Working Group 69, Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1977. '
M-5
-------
tion of the procedure to disregard those persons severely impacted by noise
In order to enhance the environment of a significantly larger number of people
who are affected to a lesser extent. The fact remains, however, that exposing
many people to noise of a lower level would have roughly the same impact as
exposing a fewer number of people to a greater level of noise when considering
the impact upon the community or population as a whole. Thus, information
regarding the distribution of the population as a function of noise exposure
should always be developed and presented in conjunction with use of the
fractional impact method.
Because noise is an extremely pervasive pollutant, it may adversely
affect people in a number of different ways. Certain effects are well
documented. Noise can:
o cause damage to the ear resulting in permanent hearing loss
o interfere with spoken communication
o disrupt or prevent sleep
o be as source of annoyance.
Other effects of noise are not as well documented but may become increasingly
important as more information is gathered. They Include the nonauditory
health aspects as well as performance and learning effects.
It is important to note, however, that quantitatively documented cause-
effect relationships which may functionally characterize any of these noise
effects may be applied within a fractionalization procedure. The function for
weighting the intensity of noise impact with respect to general adverse
reaction (annoyance) is displayed in Figure M-3.* The nonlinear weighting
function is normalized to unity at L . = 75 dB. For convenience of calcula-
tion, the weighting function may be expressed as representing percentages of
impact in accordance with the following equation:
W(Ldn)
[3.364 x 10 -63
[0.2] [lO0'03!.^] + [1.43 x 10'4]
A simple linear approximation that can be used with reasonable accuracy in
cases where day-night sound levels range between 55 and 80 dB is shown as the
dashed line in Figure M-3, and 1s defined as:
* Ibid.
M-6
-------
CO
•o
II
c
•o
I
(Q
o»
IE
c
,g
*-P
jo
a
o
a.
o
'€
o
a.
2
Q.
3.0
2.5 -
2.0 -
1.5 -
1.0 -
0.5
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Day-Night Average Sound Level - Decibels
FIGURE M-3
WEIGHTING FUNCTION FOR ASSESSING
THE GENERAL ADVERSE RESPONSE TO NOISE
M-7
-------
0.05 (Ldn -55) for Lrfn > 55 {M_2)
0 for Ldn < 55
Using the fractional Impact concept, an index referred to as the
Level-Weighted Population (LWP)* may be derived by multiplying the number of
people exposed to a given level of traffic noise by the fractional or weighted
Impact associated with that level as follows:
LWP1 = W(Ldr/) X Pi (M-3)
where LWP. is the magnitude of the impact on the population exposed at
Ldn ' w^Ldn ^ *s the fract*onal weighting associated with a noise exposure
of L. , and P. is the number of people exposed to Ld .
Because the extent of noise impact is characterized by a distribution of
people all exposed to different levels of noise, the magnitude of the total
Impact may be computed by determining the partial impact at each level and
summing over each of the levels. This may be expressed as:
LWP = SLWP, = Sw(Lrin1) X P. (M-4)
1 1 1 an 1
The average severity of Impact over the entire population may be derived
from the Noise Impact Index (Nil) as follows:
LWP
In this case, Nil represents the normalized percentage of the total population
who describe themselves as highly annoyed. Another concept, the Relative
Change 1n Impact (RCI) Is useful for comparing the relative difference between
two alternatives. This concept takes the form expressed as a percent change
1n Impact:
- LWP1 " LWPJ (M-6)
--
where LWP. and LWP., are the calculated Impacts under two different conditions.
An example of the Fractional Impact calculation procedure is presented
1n Table M-2.
Similarly, using relevant criteria, the fractional Impact procedure
may be employed to calculate relative changes 1n hearing damage risk, sleep
disruption, and speech Interference.
*Terms such as T-
-------
WE M
EXAMPLE OF FRACTIONAL IMPACT CALCULATION
FOR GENERAL ADVERSE RESPONSE
(1)
Exposure
Range
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
(2)
Exposure
Median
57.5
62.5
67.5
72.5
77.5
(3)
Pi
1,200,000
900,000
200,000
50,000
10,000
2,360,000
(4)
W(Ldn)
(Curvilinear)
0.173
0.314
0.528
0.822
1.202
(5)
W(Ldn)
(Linear approx. )
0.125
0.375
0.625
0.875
1.125
(6)
LWPl
(Curvilinear)
(Column (3) x(4))
207,600
282,600
105,600
41,000
12,000
648,920
(7)
LWPl
(Linear)
(Column (3) x (5)
150,000
337,500
125,000
43,750
11,250
667,500
I
to
LWP (Curvilinear) - 648,920
LWP (Linear) = 667,500
Nil (Curvilinear) - 648,920 f 2,360,000 = 0.27
Nil (Linear) = 667,500 f 2,360,000 « 0.28
-------
APPENDIX N
NATIONAL ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE MODEL
-------
APPENDIX N
NATIONAL ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE HODEL
This appendix contains a detailed discussion of the National Roadway
Traffic Noise Exposure Model. The discussion encompasses the data, calcula-
tions, and assumptions that underlie the model. Focus 1s on those details
relevant to considerations of noise emission standards for motor cycles.
This detailed discussion shows the Interrelation of the data groups
presented in Table 5-6 (see Section 5). This Interrelation centers around
people, and how all persons are distributed throughout the United States.
Briefly, each person 1s assigned to one of the 33 pop/density "cells" of
Table 5-6. These cells are defined by (1) the total population 1n the city/
town/area where that person lives, and (2) the population density 1n his
neighborhood within his city /town/area. Then each person 1s matched to all
the roadways within his own pop/density cell, and his total noise from these
roadways 1s predicted.
The discussion that follows Is based on Figures 5-12 through 5-15(see
Section 5). The logic flow proceeds from vehicles, to roadways, to propaga-
tion, to the noise level experienced at each residential location 1n the
United States. The analysis continues with the sorting of all person/noise
pairs, and the conversion from noise levels to Impact estimates. These
Impact estimates are then summed Into total, nationwide Impact.
Full details and references to this discussion are Included 1n the
single volume documentation report of the National Roadway Traffic Noise
Exposure Model (Reference 31).*
Details of Vehicles (Figures 5-12 and 5-13, Key © ).
The mode! contains 14 vehicle types, as listed 1n Table 5-6. For each of
these vehicle types, the model uses for computation a set of noise emission
levels (ELs) that reflect operating modes, speed, and selected years.
Noise emission levels may also be entered for the regulated vehicle of Inter-
est (or other vehicle types, 1f appropriate).
A vehicle's emission level 1s a measure of Its total noise output.
Technically, it 1s the noise level measured at a position perpendicular to the
side of the vehicle and at a distance of 50 feet.
The vehicle emission level 1s a function of vehicle type, operating mode,
and vehicle speed.
References are listed at the end of Section 5.
N-l
-------
r" r
Emission levels = f(vehicle type, operating mode, (N-l)
speed, year)
UL
base year + 4 user-chosen years
Equation N-l shows the functional relationship between emission levels
and the parameters upon which emissions depend. In other words, the noise
emissions vary for each of the 14 vehicle types; for each vehicle type, noise
varies for each of the 4 operating modes; and for each mode, noise varies for
each of the 5 grouped speeds. Since the idle mode has only one speed (zero)
this functional relationship yields 16 emission levels for each vehicle type*
for a total of 224 emission levels. '
These 224 emission levels are used to describe the average emissions of
each type of vehicle operating on roadways in specified years.
The complete set of emission levels used within this regulatory analysis
appear in Table N-l (Reference 7). Each of the noise emission values 1n this
table represents an energy- average level. The energy average represents a
time average of the time-varying emissions for vehicles accelerating and
decelerating. In addition, each energy average emission level is derived from
a level-average emission level and a standard deviation, CT, of the level about
that average. It 1s assumed that the scatter of levels among all the vehicles
of each vehicle type 1s Gaussian, and thus the energy- average emission level
Is computed as (Reference 6):
Energy- average EL » Level-average EL + 0.115O"
Again, as indicated In equation N-l, sixteen emission levels are defined for
each vehicle for each of four selected years.
The future-year emission levels for motorcycles as a function of regula-
tory option, speed, and mode appear in Table N-2. In this Table, baseline
acceleration data are adjusted using equation N-2. Conversions to different
modes and speed ranges are accomplished following the procedures presented in
Reference 7.
In each year of Interest, the model adds new vehicle sales to the vehi-
cles already on the road, and depletes the general population of vehicles by
those that retire from service. Only the new vehicles added each year are
built to the reduced emission standard. For example, new motorcycles added
for the years 1975 through 1981 will have current-value noise emissions, while
those introduced after 1982 will have reduced noise emissions as shown in
Table N-2. In other words, all new vehicle sales conform to the regulated
limit in effect during the year of sale.
N-2
-------
TABLE N-l
Type 1:
BASELINE VEHICLE NOISE EMISSION DATA*
(Source: Reference 54)
Car/8-Cy Under/ Automatic Type 2: Car/6-Cy Under/Automatic
Years>
0-20 MPH
0-30
0-40
0-50
0-60
Years>
20-0 MPH
30-0
40-0
50-0
60-0
<25 MPH
25-34
35-44
45-54
>55
Years>
Acceleration Mode
' 1974 '
59.60
61.50
63.10
64.90
66.80
Deceleration Mode
1 1974 '
50.50
56.10
60.10
63.20
65.80
Cruise Mode
59.80
62.40
66.40
69.50
72.00
Idle Mode
• 1974 '
' 46.00 '
Years>
0-20 MPH
0-30
0-40
0-50
0-60
Years> '
20-0 MPH
30-0
40-0
50-0
60-0
<25 MPH
25-34
35-44
45-54
>550
Years> '
•
Acceleration Mode
1974 '
60.80
62.50
63.90
65.50
67.10
Deceleration Mode
1974 '
50.50
56.10
60.10
63.20
65.80
Cruise Mode
59.80
62.40
66.40
69.50
72.00
Idle Mode
1974 '
46.00 '
•levels at 50 feet from vehicle
-------
TABLE N-l (cont.)
Type 3: Car/6-Cyllnder/Manual
Type 4: Car and Light Truck/4-Cy Under/Automatic
Years>
0-20 MPH
0-30
0-40
0-50
0-60
Years>
20-0 MPH
30-0
40-0
. 50-0
60-0
<25 MPH
25-34
35-44
45-54
>55
Years>
Acceleration Mode
1 1974 '
60.30
62.50
64,00
65.60
67.20
Deceleration Mode
1 1974 '
50.50
56.10
60.10
63.20
65.80
Cruise Mode
59.80
62.40
66.40
69.50
72.00
Idle Mode
1 1974 • • • •
' 46.00 '
Years> '
0-20 MPH
0-30
0-40
0-50
0-60
Years> '
20-0 MPH
30-0
40-0
50-0
60-0
<25 MPH
25-34
35-44
45-54
>550
Years> '
•
Acceleration Mode
1974 '
62.90
64.30
65.40
66.60
68.00
Deceleration Mode
1974 '
50.50
56.10
60.10
63.20 '
65.80 '
Cruise Mode
59.80
62.40
66.40
69.50
72.00
Idle Mode
1974 *
46.00 '
-------
TABLE N-i (cent.)
Type 5: Car and Light Truck/*.-Cylinder/Manual Type 6: light Truck/6-CyMnder
Years>
0-20 MPH
0-30
0-40
0-50
0-60
Years>
20-0 MPH
30-0
40-0
50-0
60-0
Years>
<25 MPH
25-34
35-44
45-54
>55
Years>
Acceleration Mode
, 1974 ....
62.60
64.60
65.90
67.30
68.70
Deceleration Mode
. 1974 ....
51.70
57.30
61.30
64.40
67.00
Cruise Mode
. 1974 ....
61.00
63.60
67.60
70.70
73.20
Idle Mode
. 1974 ....
• 46.00 '
Years> '
0-20 MPH
0-30
0-40
0-50
0-60
Years> '
20-0 MPH
30-0
40-0
50-0
60-0
Years> '
<25 MPH
25-34
35-44
45-54
>550
Years> *
•
Acceleration Mode
1974 '
63.30
65.10
66.50
68.20
69.90
Deceleration Mode
1974 ' '
53.40 '
59.00
63.00 '
66.10 '
68.70
Cruise Mod"
1974 • • • •
62.70
65.30
69.30
72.40
74.90
Idle Mode
1974 '
46.00 '
-------
TABLE N-l (cont.)
Type 7: Car and Light Truck/Diesel
Type 8: Medium Trucks
1
1
1
1
• Years>
•
1 0-20 HPH
1 0-30
1 0-40
1 0-50
1 0-60
•
i
•
i
1 Years>
•
' 20-0 MPH
1 30-0
' 40-0
1 50-0
• 60-0
i
*
i
i
i
Years>
•
' <25 MPH
1 25-34
' 35-44
1 45-54
1 >55
i
i
i
•
i
1 Years>
•
•
Acceleration Mode
_____________________
i 1974 .11,
65.30
66.70
67.50
68.40
69.40
Deceleration Mode
. 1974 . . •
52.30
57.90
61.90
65.00
67.60
Cruise Mode
1 1974 •
61.60
64.20
68.20
71.30
73.80
Idle Mode
• 1974 .11.
' 46.00 '
Years> '
0-20 MPH
0-30
0-40
0-50
0-60
Years> '
20-0 MPH
30-0
40-0
50-0
60-0
Years> '
<25 MPH
25-34
35-44
45-54
>55
Years> '
i
Acceleration
1974 ' 1978 '
75.10 75.10
75.60 75.60
76.20 76.20
76.80 76.80
77.70 77.70
Deceleration
1974 ' 1978 '
65.80 65.80
70.00 70.00
73.00 73.00
75.10 75.10
76.80 76.80
Cruise Modi
1974 1978
77.20 77.20
77.20 77.20
78.10 78.10
80.20 80.20
81.70 81.70
Idle Mod
1974 ' 1978 '
54.00 ' 54.00 '
Mode
1982 ' *
74.80
75.30
75.90
76.60
77.50
Mode
1982 ' '
65.50
69.80
72.70
74.90
76.70
e
1982 ' '
76.90
76.90
77.90
80.00
81.60
e
1982 ' '
54.00 '
-------
TABLE H-l (cont.)
Type 9: Heavy Trucks
Type 10: Intercity Buses
Years>
0-20 MPH
0-30
0-40
.0-50
0-60
Years>
20-0 MPH
30-0
40-0
50-0
60-0
Year$>
<25 MPH
25-34
35-44
45-54
>55
Years
Acceleration Mode
1 1974 ' 1978 ' 1982 ' '
82.70 78.90 75.90
82.80 79.10 76.30
83.00 79.60 77.10
83.40 80.40 78.40
84.00 81.50 80.10
Deceleration Mode
1 1974 ' 1978 ' 1982 ' '
73.90 70.20 67.50 '
77.30 73.90 71.40 '
79.60 76.50 74.40 *
81.40 78.60 77.00 *
82.70 80.40 79.10 '
Cruise Mode
1 1974 ' 1978 * 1982 ' '
83.60 79.80 77.00
83.40 80.00 77.70
84.20 81.50 79.90
85.70 83.70 82.60
86.80 85.60 85.00
Idle Mode
* 1974 ' 1978 ' 1982 '
• 63.00 ' 60.00 * 57.00 * *
Years>
0-20 MPH
0-30
0-40
0-50
0-60
Years> '
20-0 MPH
30-0
40-0
50-0
60-0
Years> '
<25 MPH
25-34
35-44
45-54
>55
Years> '
•
Acceleration Mode
1 1974 ' 1981 ' 1985
81.60 77.80 74.80
82.00 78.30 75.30
82.30 78.60 75.80
82.60 79.00 76.50
82.80 79.60 77.40
Deceleration Mode
1974 § 1981 ' 1985
68.10 64.50 61.80
71.40 68.10 65.70
73.80 70.80 68.90
75.60 73.00 71.50
77.10 75.00 73.90
Cruise Mode
1974 ' 1981 •* 1985
76.00 72.40 69.60
76.00 73.00 71.00
78.40 75.90 74.50
80.20 78.30 77.40
81.70 80.50 80.00
Idle Mode
1974 ' 1981 ' 1985
62.00 ' 59.00 ' 56.00
1 1987 '
71.80
72.40
73.20
74.30
75.60
1 1987
59.30
63.80
67.40
70.50
73.20
1 1987 '
67.10
69.60
73.50
76.80
79.70
* 1987 '
1 53.00 '
-------
TABLE N-l (cent.)
Type 11: Transit Buses
Type 12: School Buses
Acceleration
Years>
0-20 MPH
0-30
0-40
0-50
0-60
' 1974
81.00
81.00
81.10
81.20
81.50
' 1981 '
81.00
81.00
81.10
81.20
81.50
Deceleration
Years>
20-0 MPH
30-0
40-0
50-0
60-0
' 1974
63.70
67.80
70.60
72.90
74.70
' 1981 '
63.70
67.80
70.60
72.90
74.70
Mode
1985
78.20
78.20
78.40
78.70
79.20
Mode
1985
61.30
65.60
68.90
71.50
73.70
* 1987 '
75.20
75.30
75.60
76.20
77.10
' 1987 '
58.90
63.80
67.50
70.50
73.10
Cruise Mode
Years>
<25 MPH
25-34
35-44
45-54
>55
' 1974
73.00
73.00
75.80
78.10
79.90
1 1981 *
73.00
73.00
75.80
78.10
79.90
1985
70.40
71.10
74.50
77.30
79.60
' 1987 '
67.80
69.60
73.60
76.80
79.50
Idle Mode
Years>
1 1974
' 58.00
1 1981 '
' 58.00 '
1985
55.00
' 1982 '
* 52.00 '
Acceleration
Years> '
0-20 MPH
0-30
0-40
0-50
0-60
1974
77.60
78.10
78.40
78.90
79.40
' 1981 '
77.60
78.10
78.40
78.90
79.40
Deceleration
Years> '
20-0 MPH
30-0
40-0
50-0
60-0
1974
63.70
67.80
70.60
72.90
74.70
1 1981 '
63.70
67.80
70.60
72.90
74.70
Mode
1985
74.80
75.30
75.80
76.50
77.40
Mode
1985
61.30
65.60
68.90
71.50
73.70
1 1987 '
71.80
72.40
73.20
74.30
75.60
1 1987 *
58.90
63.80
67.80
70.50
73.10
Cruise Mode
Years> '
<25 MPH
25-34
35-44
45-54
>55
1974
73.00
73.00
75.80
78.10
79.90
' 1981 '
73.00
73.00
75.80
78.10
79.90
1985
70.40
71.10
74.50
77.30
79.60
' 1987 '
67.80
69.60
73.60
76.80
79.50
Idle Mode
Years> '
•
1974
58.00
' 1981 *
1 58.00 '
1985
55.00
' 1987 '
1 52.00 '
-------
TABLE N-l (cont.)
Type 13: Unmodified Motorcycles
Type 14: Modified Motorcycles
1
1
1
' Years>
* 0-20 MPH
* 0-30
' 0-40
• 0-50
' 0-60
;
' Years>
* 20-0 MPH
* 30-0
1 40-0
* 50-0
* 60-0
I
1 <25 MPH
1 25-34
* 35-44
* 45-54
' >55
0
a
0
* Years>
*
*
Acceleration Mode
. 1974 *
72.3
73.9
74.4
74.7
74.9
Deceleration Mode
' 1974 '
61.50
65.90
69.00
71.40
73.40
Cruise Mode
66.90 °
71.30 •
74.40 '
76.90 '
78.90 *
Idle Mode
* 1974 '
' 58.00 «
Years> '
0-20 MPH
0-30
0-40
0-50
0-60
Years> '
20-0 MPH
30-0
40-0
50-0
60-0
<25 MPH
25-34
35-44
45-54
>55
Years> '
Acceleration Mode
1974 '
87.50
89.10
89.60
89.90
90.10
Deceleration Mode
1974 ' ' *
75.70
80.10
83.20
85.60
87.60
Cruise Mode
81.10
85.40
88.60
91.10
93.10
Idle Mode
1974 '
72.00 * * *
*
i e
t
*
t
*
i t
*
I
V
;
*
t
• *
*
-------
TABLE N-2
NOISE LEVELS FOR STREET MOTORCYCLES UNDER
REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
ACCELERATION MODE
REGULATORY
LEVELS
(A-We1ghted)
Speed Range
0-20 MPH
0-30
0-40
0-50
0-60
REGULATORY
LEVELS
(A-We1ghted)
Speed Range
20-0 MPH
30-0
40-0
50-0
60-0
REGULATORY
LEVELS
(A-We1ghted)
Speed Range
<25 MPH
25-34
35-44
45-54
>55
REGULATORY
LEVELS
(A-We1ghted)
BASELINE
72.30
73.90
74.40
74.70
74.90
83 dB
71.50
73.10
73.60
73.90
74.10
80 dB
68.50
70.10
70.60
70.90
71.10
78 dB
66.50
68.10
68.60
68.90
69.10
75 dB
63.50
65.10
65.60
65.90
66.10
65 dB
53.10
55.10
55.60
55.90
56.10
DECELERATION MODE
BASELINE
61.50
65.90
69.00
71.40
73.40
BASELINE
66.90
71.30
74.40
76.90
78.90
BASELINE
58.90
83 dB
60.70
65.10
68.20
70.60
72.60
CRUISE MODE
83 dB
66.10
70.50
73.60
76 10
78.10
IDLE MODE
83 dB
58.30
80 dB
57.70
62.10
65.20
67.60
69.60
80 dB
63.10
67.50
70.60
73.10
75.10
80 dB
55.30
78 dB
55.70
60.10
63.20
65.60
67.60
78 dB
61.10
65.50
68.60
71.10
73.10
78 dB
53.30
75 dB
52.70
57.10
60.20
62.60
64.60
75 dB
58.10
62.50
65.60
68.10
70.10
75 dB
50.30
65 dB
42.70
47.10
50.20
52.60
54.60
65 dB
48.10
52.50
55.60
58.10
60.10
65 dB
40.30
N-10
-------
The sales rate and the vehicle depletion rate are discussed further 1n
the following subsection.
In addition to noise emission levels, the model considers the fraction
of time each vehicle spends in each of the four operating modes. These mode
fractions also depend upon the roadway type, as shown In equation N-3.
^->on1y 10 *-+ 4
Fraction of
time 1n mode =f(vehicle type, operating mode, (N-3)
roadway type)
L
only 2
The functional relationship in equation N-3 yields 80 values. These
values are contained in 14 tables, one of which 1s Included here as Table
N-3. Specifically, Table N-3 documents the mode fractions for both modified
and unmodified motorcycles. The remainder of the tables are contained 1n
Reference 31. This Information contained 1n all 14 tables was extrapolated
from References 33 and 34.
It should be noted that the mode fraction does not vary for all 14
vehicle types. Similarly, as shown 1n Table N-3, 1t does not vary for all of
the roadway types, but regroups all roadways Into two groups for this purpose
(roadways 1, 2, and 3 and roadways 4, 5 and 6).
Details of Roadway (Figures 5-12 and 5-13, Key ©)
The model contains 6 roadway types, as listed 1n Table 5-6. For each of
these roadway types, the model contains six specific pieces of data:
o Fraction of mileage at each speed range
o Average daily traffic
o Traffic mix
o Lane width
o Number of lanes
o Clear-zone width
In actual fact, each roadway has a wide range of speeds associated with
It. Although vehicle speeds vary on each roadway fro* moment to moment, the
program considers only the average speed for any given segment of roadway. In
other words, within each population area the program distributes all the
mileage of a given type of roadway Into the five speed groups, based upon that
mileage's average speed. The result 1s the fraction of roadway mileage in
each of the five speed groups for each population area.
These fractions of mileage contain only those miles that pass through
occupied land areas. Other mileage 1s excluded before distribution Into
speed groups. This mileage exclusion was computed using Figure A.2.2 of
Reference 31.
N-ll
-------
TABLE N-3 Mode Fraction (Percent of Time) In Operating Mode: Motorcycles
ro
Roadway
Type
1
2
3
4
5
6
Acceleration
M=l
4.70
4.70
4.70
15.40
15.40
15.40
OPERATING MODE
Deceleration
M*2
5.36
5.36
5.36
16.00
16.00
16.00
Cruise
M=3
88.88
88.88
88.88
55.10
55.10
55.10
Idle
M=4
1.06
1.06
1.06
13.50
13.50
13.50
Total
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Roadway Type 1 - Interstate Highway
Roadway Type 2 s Freeways and Expressways
Roadway Type 3 = Major Arterlals
Roadway Type 4 = Minor Arterlals
Roadway Type 5 = Collectors
Roadway Type 6 = Local Roads and Streets
-------
Next, the program multiplies these mileage fractions by the total
mileages, to obtain the number of miles of that roadway type 1n the given
spe'ed group on a national basis.
r
Number of miles 1n
a given speed group = f(speed" group, roadway type, (N-4)
population, population density)
U. L
This allocation of roadway mileage by speed group 1s also a function of
the two population groups shown 1n equation N-4. These population groups are
discussed further below.
In all, this functional relationship yields 216 values for each speed
group, for a total of 1080 values. The complete set of values 1s contained
in a set of 20 tables (Reference 31, Table A.3.2), two of which are Included
here In Table N-4.
A partial summary of these 20 tables appear 1n Table N-5. In this table,
the total roadway mileage through occupied land Is split by population and
roadway type. Information concerning speed grouping and grouping by popula-
tion density 1s not presented 1n Table N-5, although Included 1n the 20
tables.
Next, the program contains average dally traffic for each of the roadway
types.
r . r.
Average dally
traffic = f (roadway type, place population, (N-5)
year)
v—>• base year + 8 selected years
For the baseline year, this functional relationship yields 54 values
(Reference 35). These are presented 1n Table N-6.
Each of these traffic values 1s then further divided by vehicle type.
The resulting traffic mixes are presented In Table N-7 (References 47, 49 and
52).
f+- only 8 ,-*- 6
1974 Traffic mix • f(vehicle type, roadway type, (N-6)
population)
only 4
N-13
-------
TABLE N-4
ROADWAY MILEAGE DATA
AVERAGE TRAVEL SPEED 20 MPH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ID
HIGH POPULATION DENSITY AREAS
3
7
1
3
5
5
1
3
0
All K
16
21
4
17
24
29
6
27
0
41
71
11
45
58
67
14
59
8698
37
71
12
42
61
69
15
63
6159
94
172
31
119
149
171
33
140
215859
191
342
59
226
297
341
69
292
230716
ALL J>
28
J " 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6
1
1
7
2
1
1
1
0
144 9064
ID - 2
6529
216768
232533
MEDIUM TO HIGH POPULATION DENSITY AREAS
78
19
6
69
23
18
10
16
0
438
59
31
360
110
99
97
154
0
1085
201
84
963
273
229
210
336
0
989
203
95
886
283
233
228
364
0
2494
491
242
2514
699
579
504
804
0
All K
5090
974
459
4799
1390
1159
1050
1675
0
20
239
1348
ALL J>
J 1 Population over 2 million (M)
J 2 1 M to 2 M
J 3 500K to 1 M
J 4 200K to 500K
J 5 100K to 200K
J 6 50K to 100K
J 7 25K to 50K
J 8 5K to 25K
J 9 Rural
3381
3281
K 1
K 2
K 3
K 4
K 5
K 6
8327
16596
Interstate Highways
Freeways and Expressways
Major Arterials
Minor Arterials
Collectors
Local Roads and Streets
N-14
-------
TMLl H-5 OUtHbutton of Road tWug,«f Average Daily Traffic INW and Da1\y
We* Traced UMKtt by Nace ttie M and Roadway Type
I
H—
in
*
>2M *
«
1M *
to *
2M 4
500K 4
to 4
1M *
200K *
to *
500K 4
100K *
to 4
200K *
50K *
to 4
100K 4
25K 4
to 4
50K 4
5K 4
to 4
25K 4
•
Rural4
4
Miles
ADT
DVMT
Miles
ADT
DVMT
Miles
ADT
DVMT
Miles
ADT
DVMT
Miles
ADT
DVMT
Miles
ADT
DVMT
Miles
ADT
DVMT
Miles
ADT
OVMT
Miles
ADT
DVMT
*
*
* *
* INTERSTATE 4
1,998 4
74,866 4
* 149,582,268 4
1,869 4
60,228 4
4 112,566,132 4
1,477 4
4 46,997 4
4 69,414,569 4
1,743 4
40,367 4
4 70,359,681 4
854 4
32,190 4
4 27,490,260 4
512 4
21,913 4
4 11,219,456 4
397 4
4 23,251 4
4 9,230.647 4
4 899 4
18,206 4
4 16,367.144 4
4 31,744 4
4 13,700 4
4 434.892,800 4 3
OTHER E4WAY 4
4 EXP4WAY 4
1,749 4
66,470 4
116,256,030 4
1,527 4
32,548 4
49,700,796 4
739 4
34,036 4
25,152,604 4
1,076 4
28,812 4
31.001,712 4
803 4
22,984 4
18,456,152 4
600 4
19,971 4
11.982.600 4
447 4
16,875 4
7,543,125 4
1,099 4
13,244 4
13.343,016 4
85,716 4
4,623 4
96.265,068 4 2
ROADWAY '
MAJOR 4
ARTERIALS 4
9,861 4
18,768 4
185,071,248 4
5,156 4
17,397 4
89,698,932 4
4,034 4
16,359 4
65,992,206 4
5,566 4
16,029 4
89,217,414 4
3,851 4
14,984 4
57,352,943 4
3,335 4
12,376 4
41,273,960 4
4,282 4
11,384 4
48,746,298 4
9,652 4
8,922 4
86,115,144 4
155,547 4
2,523 4
192,445,081 4 2
FYPE
MINOR
ARTERIALS
14,103
9,315
131,369,445
10,219
6,898
70,490,662
6,320
8,045
50,844,400
8,569
8,470
75,579,430
5,502
7,301
40,170,102
4,445
6,057
26,923,365
5,377
5,430
29,197,110
12,124
4,255
61,587,620
435,517
899
187, 174,613
*
4 COLLECTORS
4 12,854
3,783
4 48,626,682
10,308
4 3,496
4 36,036,768
7,190
3,760
4 27,034,400
7,897
3,812
4 30,103,364
5,714
4 3,287
4 18,781,918
4,534
2,917
4 13,225,678
4 5,828
2,484
4 14,476,752
13,130
4 1,946
4 25.550,980
307,917
370
4 113,929,290
.1
4 LOCAL
84,247
1,129
4 95,114,863
64.678
4 656
4 42,428,768
47,466
672
4 31,897,152
4 58,252
839
4 48,873,428
36,697
4 649
4 23,816,353
4 29,284
645
4 18,888,180
4 33,454
631
4 21,109,479
4 75,431
495
4 37,338,345
4 1,942,733
98
4 190,387.834
Note: ADT-OVMT/M1les 1s the derived Quality.
-------
TABLE M-6
Average Dally Traffic (ADT)
By Roadway Type (K) and Place Size (J)
Baseline Year 1974
J-l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
J 1
J 2
J 3
J 4
J 5
J 6
J 7
J 6
J 9
K - 1
74866
60228
46997
40367
32190
21913
23251
18206
13700
2
66470
32548
34036
28812
22984
19971
16876
13224
4623
Population over 2
1 M to 2 M
500K to 1 M
200* to 500K
100K to 200K
50K to 100K
25K to 50K
5K to 25K
Rural
3
18768
17397
16359
16029
14984
12376
11384
8922
2523
million (M)
4
9315
6898
8045
8470
7301
6057
5430
4255
889
K
K
K
K
K
K
5
3783
3496
3760
3812
3287
2917
2484
1946
6
1129
656
672
839
649
645
631
495
370 98
1 * Interstate Highways
2 * Freeways and Expressways
3 » Major Arterial s
4 » Minor Arte rials
5 « Collectors
6 * Local Roads and Streets
N-16
-------
TABLE N-7
Percentage Vehicle Mix 1n Traffic Flow by Place Size
and Functional Roadway Classification Baseline Conditions
URBAN PLACES SIZES: Over 2M; 1M-2M; 500K-1M
VEHICLE TYPE
Light Vehicles
Medium Trucks
Heavy Trucks
Intercity Buses
Transit Buses
School Buses
Unmodified
Motorcycles
Modified
Motorcycles
ROADWAY TYPE (INDEX K)
87.62
2.11
9.17
0.03
0.08
0.00
0.88
0.12
87.62
2.11
9.17
0.03
0.08
0.00
0.88
0.12
100.00 100.00
URBAN PLACES SIZES
VEHICLE TYPE
Light Vehicles
Medium Trucks
Heavy Trucks
Intercity Buses
Transit Buses
School Buses
Unmodified
Motorcycles
Modified
Motorcycles
NOTE: Some columns
K 1 « Interstate
K 2 " Freeways an
K 3 • Major Arter
1
87.64
2.11
9.17
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.88
0.12
ROADWAY
2
87.64
2.11
9.17
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.88
0.12
91.82
3.05
4.03
0.03
0.08
0.00
0.88
0.12
100.00
: Over 200*
TYPE (INDEX
3
91.84
3.05
4.03
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.88
0.12
90.52
4.31
3.11
0.00
0.54
0.02
1.32
0.18
100.00
C-500K; 101
K)
4
90.71
4.31
3.11
0.04
0.30
0.08
1.32
0.18
90. bl
3.61
3.82
0.00
0.54
0.02
1.32
0.18
100.00
3K-200K; 50K-
5
90.70
3.61
3.82
0.04
0.30
0.08
1.32
0.18
I 00. 00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
do not add up to exactly 100 because of rounding
Highways K 4 • Minor Arterial s
id Expressways K 5 • Collectors
lals K 6 - Local Roads and st
95.76
1.16
0.99
0.00
0.54
0.02
1.32
0.18
100.00
100K
6
95.98
1.16
0.99
0.04
0.30
0.08
1.32
0.18
100.00
:reets
N-17
-------
VEHICLE TYPE
TABLE N-7 (cont.)
Percentage Vehicle Mix 1n Traffic Flow
by Place Size and Functional Roadway
URBAN PLACES SIZES: 25K-50K; 5K-25K
ROADWAY TYPE (INDEX K)
Light Vehicles
Medium Trucks
Heavy Trucks
Intercity Buses
Transit Buses
School Buses
Unmodified
Motorcycles
Modified
Motorcycles
Light Vehicles
Medium Trucks
Heavy Trucks
Intercity Buses
Transit Buses
School Buses
Unmodified
Motorcycles
Modified
Motorcycles
1
87.67
2.11
9.17
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.88
0.12
100.00
1
79.67
2.74
16.16
0.24
0.00
0.19
0.88
0.12
2
87.67
2.11
9.17
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.88
0.12
3
91.67
3.05
4.03
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.88
0.12
100.00 100. 00
RURAL AREAS
ROADWAY TYPE (INDEX
2
79.67
2.74
16.16
0.24
0.00
0.19
0.88
0.12
3
85.78
3.80
8.99
0.24
0.00
0.19
0.88
0.12
4
90.34
4.31
3.11
0.00
0.21
0.52
1.32
0.18
100.00
K)
4
88.27
4.39
5.14
0.00
0.00
0.70
1.32
0.18
5
90.33
3.61
3.82
0.00
0.21
0.52
1.32
0.18
100.00
5
93.33
0.56
3.91
0.00
0.00
0.70
1.32
0.18
6
95.61
1.16
0.99
0.00
0.21
0.52
1.32
0.18
100.00
6
96.74
0.41
0.65
0.00
0.00
0.70
1.32
0.18
100.00
NOTE: Some columns do not add up to exactly 100 because of rounding
N-18
100.00
-------
These data are sufficient to define vehicle mix for the baseline year
1974. To predict future-year traffic mixes, however, a breakdown of vehicles
by their year of production is carried out. This breakdown resides within
the computer program, and appears here as Tables N-8 and N-9 (see Figure
A-4.2 of Reference 31, derived from References 47 and 48). Table N-8 pro-
vides vehicle information in six vehicle groups, while Table N-9 further
subdivides these groups into the total of 14 as Illustrated in equation
N-7.
s*» 14 ;* 17
1974 vehicle mix = f(veh1cle type, model year) (N-7)
The average daily traffic 1s also derived for future years. First we
account for new vehicles sold each year that Increase the average dally
traffic.
x^-only 4 >-40
Vehicle sales = f(veh1cle type, year) (N-8)
This functional relationship illustrated by equation N-8 represents
growth factors relative to sales 1n 1974 (see Figure A-4.2 of Reference 31 for
growth factors of vehicles other than buses, derived from References 47 and
48).
The projected number of motorcycle sales used 1n this regulatory health
and welfare analysis are discussed in Section 8 of the main text.
For future years, the average dally traffic 1s also depleted as shown by
equation N-9 by those vehicles that retire from service (References 47 and
48).
ronly 2 ^-20
I
vehicles retiring » f(veh1cle type, vehicle age) (N-9)
Examples of this depletion rate are contained In Appendix G of Reference 31.
Table N-10 presents vehicle population by type for each year. This table
takes into account vehicle sales and depletion rates.
In summary, average dally traffic flow plus vehicle mix starts at the
1974 values (baseline) for each roadway (equations N-5, N-6, and N-7). Daily
traffic flow grows according to new-vehicle sales (equation N-8), and 1s
depleted by the number of vehicles retiring (equation N-9). As the traffic
changes in this manner, all new-vehicle sales consist of noise-regulated
vehicles — where such vehicles have been specified (equation N-l).
N-19
-------
TABLE N-8
Baseline Year (1974) Vehicle Population
by Model Year and Vehicle Category
Model
Year
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
Light
Vehicles
13,959,524
14,599,524
13,145,920
11,107,210
11,003,084
11,161,141
10,274,987
8,581,706
8,461,220
7,397,576
5,151,096
3,658,626
2,348,827
1,167,288
883,563
506,559
2,100,082*
Intercity
Trucks Buses
447,576 1,479
457,770 2,246
387,705 1,886
281,879 1,084
274,759 13,905*
291,911
229,451
211,166
211,814
185,276
152,266
121,684
97,573
69 ,094
70,227
59,871
370,391*
Transit School
Buses Buses Motorcycles
12,571 58,226 983,000
6,706 47,511 1,120,000
4,819 38,378 928,000
3,319 28,263 802,000
42,057* 184,460* 541,000
290,000
155,000
72,000
36 ,000
22 ,000
11,009
4,000
2,000*
-
-
-
-
*Population Includes all vehicles in this model year and older.
N-20
-------
TABLE N-9
Distribution of Vehicle Population by Vehicle Type
for Model Years 1974 and Earlier
Vehicle* Fraction of Vehicle Category Population
Type 1 0.4673
Type 2 0.1420
Type 3 0.0167
Type 4 0.0168
Type 5 0.1603
Type 6 0.1514
Type 7 0.0005
Total 1.0000
Type 8 0.6146
Type 9 0.3854
Total 1.0000
Type 10 1.0000
Type 11 1.0000
Type 12 1.0000
Type 13 0.8800
Type 14 0.1200
Total 1.0000
* See Table N-l
N-21
-------
TABLE N-10
VEHICLE POPULATION BY TYPE
1 TYPE ' 1
*
' Cylinders' 8
1 1
' Engine ' Gas
I I
1 Trans- ' Auto-
1 mission ' ma tic
i *
•VEH, Typc>* PC
1
== • UNIT ;
*> ' Year '
I I
1974 ' 58.68
1 1
1981 ' 61.49
1 1
1984 ' 51.70
1 1
1 1986 ' 41.87
I 1
1 1988 ' 32.73
* t
1990 ' 25.16
t I
1 1995 ' 15.84
I »
2000 ' 15.79
1 1
1 2010 ' 19.21
, 2 ,
1 6 '
( I
' Gas '
1 1
1 Auto- '
1 matlc '
I |
1 PC '
3
648
Gas
Man-
ual
PC
4
4
1
' Gas
1
1 Auto-
1 matic
i
1 PC8LT
1 5
1 4
I
' Gas
i
' Man-
' ual
t
1 PCM.T
6
1 648 '
1 i
' Gas '
i i
i i
i t
' LT TRK1
7
Diesel
PC8LT
1 8
t
1
1
1
1
'MED TRK
MILLIONS
1 1
1 1
1 17.83 '
1 1
1 21.84 '
I i
1 Z4.97 '
1 I
1 27.51 '
1 i
1 30.04 '
1 1
1 32.48 '
I i
' 37.58 '
1 I
1 41.73 '
i i
1 50.84 '
2.10
2.77
3.26
3.63
3.99
4.32
5.01
5.56
6.78
1
1
' 7.76
1
1 12.61
I
1 19.55
1 25.65
i
1 31.54
1
' 36.85
1 46.20
I
1 51.79
I
1 63.10
I
I
1 20.13
t
1 22.82
1
1 24.09
1 25.07
I
1 26.17
1
; 27.39
1 30.56
I
1 33.76
1
' 41.15
1 i
1 1
1 19.01 '
1 |
1 26.84 '
I I
1 28.08 '
1 27.76 '
1 I
1 27.16 '
1 I
1 26.58 '
1 1
1 26.86 '
1 I
1 29.28 '
1 i
1 35.67 '
0.06
4.23
12.04
19.09
25.84
31.86
41.96
47.28
57.62
1
1 2.41
1 2.94
1
1 3.24
t
1 3.41
1
' 3.56
1
1 3.71
1
1 4.09
t
1 4.52
1
1 5.51
1 9 '
I i
1 1
1 I
1 t
t I
1 i
'HVY TRK1
1
I
1 1
1 1.51 '
1 1
'( 1.85 '
1 2.03 '
* 1
1 2.14 '
1 1
1 2.23 '
I I
1 2.32 '
' 2.57 '
I |
1 2.83 '
1 1
1 3.45 '
10 '
(
1
1
I
11
1C BUS' TR BUS
THOUSANDS
(
0.21 '
0.17 '
I
0.20 '
1
0.22 '
1
0.23 '
1
0.24 '
0.27 '
1
0.30 '
0.36 '
X 0.
0.69
0.97
1.16
1.28
1.36
1.42
1.54
1.64
1.85
1 12 '
I I
1 1
t 1
1 i
1 I
'SCH BUS1
01 ;
1 1
1 3.57 '
1 5.22 '
1 6.07 '
1 6.41 '
1 1
' 6.61 '
1 I
1 6.74 '
t i
1 7.01 '
1 I
' 7.28 '
1 7.82 '
13
UM MTCY
4.37
5.02
6.29
7.32
8.23
8.94
10.33
11.47
12.16
14 ' ALL TYPES
t 1
1 I
1 1
I 1
1 1
'MD MTCY'
MILLIONS
1 1
' 0.60 '
I 1
1 0.68 '
I 1
'. 0.86 '
1 1
' 1.00 '
1 1
1 1.12 '
1 I
1 1.22 '
1 1.41 '
t 1
' 1.56 '
1 1
' 1.66 '
134.90
163.72
176.86
185.23
193.45
201.68
223.28
246.52
298.14
-------
For the Single Event Response part of the model, the average daily
traffic flow and vehicle mix is used in the same manner as above. However,
the noise impact from only one vehicle type at a time is computed.
The basic roadway configuration appears in Figure N-l. A roadway is
shown to the left, with the adjacent land extending to the right.
Each roadway type consists of a definite number of travel lanes, of
definite width, then a clear zone of definite width, and then occupied
land.
x»only 2
Lane width = f(roadway type) (N-10)
r
only 2
Number of
travel lanes = f(roadway type) (N-ll)
r r
Clear-zone width - f(roadway type, population size, (N-12)
population density)
Lane widths are 15 feet for interstate roadways and 12 feet for a
other roadways. The number of travel lanes 1s two for all local roadways ai
four for all other roadways. The clear-zone widths are more complicate
functions, as indicated in equation N-12. The clear-zone widths used in th
model appear in Table N-ll. The definition of the clear-zone distance is
based upon the best information currently available (References 35, 37, 50).
Clear-zones consist of the area between the roadway pavement and the
adjacent, occupied land. These clear-zones include parking lanes, and
sidewalks. In all but the rural population group, clear-zones also include
front yards of residences -- but only along arterials, collectors, and
local roadways. For interstates and freeways, clear-zones include the
right-of-way adjacent to the roadway pavement.
Details of Propagation (Figures 5-12 and 5-13, Key
Propagation of motorcycle noise from the roadway into the adjacent
occupied land is influenced, in part, by:
N-23
-------
FIGURE N-l
NOISE TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE OF LAND AREA
SOUND LEVEL AT EDGE OF CLEAR ZONE
SOUND LEVEL ATTENUATION
WITH DISTANCE
DISTANCE FROM ROADWAY
NOTE: LAND AREA AND POPULATION IS UNIFORM.Y DISTRIBUTED ON BOTH SIDES OF ROADWAY
-------
TABLE N-ll
CLEAR ZONE DISTANCES (IN FEET) BY ROADWAY TYPE (K).
POPULATION DENSITY CATEGORY (ID). AND POPULATION PLACE SIZE (J)*
Population Place Size, Index J
K ' ID '
1 ' ALL '
2 ' ALL '
3 ' 1 '
1 2 '
1 3 '
1 4 '
4 ' 1 '
' 2 '
• 3 '
1 4 '
5 ' 1 '
, 2 ,
1 3 '
1 4 '
6 ' 1 •
• 2 •
1 3 '
1 4 '
1
50.
30.
10.
15.
20.
30.
10.
15.
20.
30.
5.
10.
15.
20.
5.
10.
15.
20.
2
50.
30.
10.
15.
20.
30.
10.
15.
20.
30.
5.
10.
15.
20.
5.
10.
15.
20.
3
50.
30.
10.
15.
20.
30.
10.
15.
20.
30.
5.
10.
15.
20.
5.
10.
15.
20.
4
50.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
5
50.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
6
50.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
7
50.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
8
50.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
10.
20.
30.
40.
9
50.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
Index K denotes highway type; Index ID denotes population density category*
*See Table 5-6 for roadway type, population place size and population
density groups
N-25
-------
o Distance
o Ground effects
o Shielding
For persons close by a roadway, the roadway appears relatively straight.
The roadway also appears "infinitely long" to nearby persons. Both these
approximations are made for all roadway propagation calculations in the
model. Therefore, the only geometric quantity of concern is the perpendi-
cular distance between the person and the roadway.
The model utilizes a random process to determine the perpendicular
distances between all roadways and all persons. In essence, the model distri-
butes people randomly over a well-defined land area (lying wholly outside the
clear-zones for each roadway), and then the distribution of perpendicular
distances is calculated. The details of this distance calculation are
presented in the following subsection.
Once the distance between any person and roadway is determined, then the
noise propagation can be measured in terms of this distance, the attenuation
characteristics of the intervening ground (the clear-zone), and the shielding
provided by intervening buildings.
To determine ground attenuation the model assumes a noise divergence of
3 dB per distance doubling from the roadway (line sources), and 6 dB per
distance doubling for individual vehicles as they pass by. In addition, the
model assumes an excess ground attenuation of 1.5 dB per distance doubling
over absorptive clear-zones.
x->only 2 /-tonly 2
Ground attenuation = f(roadway type, population groups) (N-13)
Such excess attenuation is assumed for:
o Interstate roadways plus freeways and expressways for place popula-
tion groups over 25,000 people
o Major and minor arterial s plus collectors and local roadways, for
place populations over 500,000 people
Average shielding due to intervening buildings is assumed to depend only
the width of the clear-zone, and the population density as illustrated in
equation N-14.
Building shielding = f(clear-zone width, (N-14)
population density)
N-26
-------
The building shielding and ground attenuation factors are combined with
the 3 dB or 6 dB per distance doubling. The resulting propagation curves are
provided in Figures N-2 and N-3. Figure N-2 applies to roadway line sources
(where the source 1s made up of a stream of vehicles), and is used 1n the
General Adverse Response part of the model. Figure N-3 1s for Individual
vehicle point sources, and 1s used 1n the Single Event Response part of the
model. Attenuation values extracted from these curves are used by the
computer to calculate the propagation of the noise Into occupied land, start-
Ing at the edge of the clear-zone. (See References 7, 31 and 51 for more
detailed discussions of the propagation rates used.)
The Single Event part of the model accounts for building attenuation so
that Indoor noise can be predicted. To estimate Indoor noise levels from
outside noise sources, the sound attenuation offered by building walls and
windows 1s calculated. Although dwelling walls effectively attenuate sound,
windows generally provide poorer sound Insulation from exterior noise. When
windows are open the difference between Indoor and outdoor noise varies from 8
to 25 dB; with windows closed, the attenuation varies from 19 to 34 dB, and
with double-glazed windows, noise may be reduced as much as 45 dB. Average
differences between values for open window and closed window conditions are 15
dB and 25 dB respectively (Reference 53).
The analysis assumes an attenuation value of 15 dB for the suburban
single-family detached and the suburban duplex dwelling areas (assuming window
open conditions), and a value of 20 dB for other dwellings to account for the
attenuation of outdoor noise by the exterior shell of the house (assuming a
mixture of windows open and closed). These attenuation values represent an
average between summer and winter, and new construction and old construction.
r r
Building noise
Isolation = f(populat1on, population density) (N-15)
The building noise Insulation values used in the computer analysis are
presented In Table N-12.
Details of Receivers (Figures 5-12 and 5-13, Key ©)
First, each person 1n the United States 1s assigned to one of the 33
pop/density "cells" of Table 5-6. These cells are defined by (1) the total
population in the city/town/area where that person lives, and (2) the popula-
tion density 1n his neighborhood within Ms city/town/area. These assignments
to pop/density cells reside within the computer program, and appear here in
Table N-13. The land areas of each of these pop/density cells also appear in
the table. The model distributes the 1974 U.S. population of 216.7 million
people over 3.549 million square miles.
N-27
-------
o
N
CC
LU
O
UL
O
LU
O
Q
oo
T3
Ol
10
15
20
25
30
50 FT. CLEAR ZONE
. 40 FT. CLEAR ZONE
30 FT. CLEAR ZONE
HIGH POPULATION DENSITY
'AREAS
POPULATION DENSITY OVER
13,000 PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE
I I I
LJJ
z
o
N
LU
_l
O
LL
O
UJ
O
Q
UJ
00
•o
g
(-
D
Z
LU
<
10
15
20 -
25 -
20 50 100 200 500- 1000
DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT, FEET
30.
I
.50 FT. CLEAR
-40 FT. CLEAR ZONE.
30 FT. CLEAR ZONE
MEDIUM POPULATION DENSITY
AREAS
POPULATION DENSITIES
BETWEEN 6,500 AND 13,000
PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE
I I I
20 50 100 200 500 1000
DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT, FEET
LU
Z
o
N
LU
_J
O
u.
o
LU
§
UJ 75 _
10
03
•o
Z
O
- 20 —
LU
25 —
80 FT. CLEAR ZONE
30 FT. CLEAR ZONE
40 FT. CLEAR ZONE
50 FT. CLEAR ZONE
LOW POPULATION DENSITY AREAS
POPULATION DENSITY LESS THAN
3000 PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE
I I I
20 50 100 200 500 1000
DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT, FEET
FIGURE N-2 SOUND LEVEL ATTENUATION CURVES: LINE SOURCE
N-28
-------
- 0
ui
z
o
N
Ol
_J
o
o. 10
O
01
O
2 15
ai
CQ
•O
Z
g
§
z
01
20
25
30
50 FT. CLEAR ZONE
40 FT. CLEAR ZONE
30 FT. CLEAR ZONE
HIGH POPULATION
.DENSITY AREAS
POPULATION DENSITY
OVER 13,000 PEOPLE
PER SQUARE MILE
I I
20
50
100
200
500 1000
- 0
01
O
N
01
o
o.
O
ui
O
Ol
ffi
z"
o
I-
z
01
<
10
15
20
25
30
I I I
•50 FT. CLEAR ZONE
.40 FT. CLEAR ZONE
.30 FT. CLEAR ZONE
.MEDIUM POPULATION DENSITY
AREAS POPULATION DENSITIES
BETWEEN 6,500 AND 13,000
PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE
i I L_
20
50
100
200
500 1000
DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT, FEET
DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT, FEET
- 0
01
z
o
N
tr
<
01
_i
o
5 10
01
o
o
O!
z
o
§
01
5 -
15
I 20
25
< 30
I I
80 FT. CLEAR ZONE
30 FT. CLEAR ZONE
_40 FT. CLEAR ZONE
50,FT. CLEAR ZON
LOW POPULATION DENSITY AREAS
POPULATION DENSITY LESS THAN
3000 PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE
20 50 100 200 500 1000
DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT, FEET
FIGURE N-3 SOUND LEVEL ATTENUATION CURVES: POINT SOURCE
N-29
-------
TABLE N-12
Building Exterior Noise Reduction (in decibels)
by Place Size (Index J) and Population Density Area (Index ID)
Population
Density
Area
Index, ID
1 High Density
2 Medium to
High Density
3 Medium to
Low Density
4 Low Density
•
•
1
1 Over
1 2M
i
1 20.0
i
1 20.0
i
1 20.0
i
' 20.0
i
2
1 1M
1 2M
1 20.0
i
1 20.0
i
i
1 15.0
i
1 15.0
•
i
i
i
3
1 500K
1 1M
•
1 20.0
i
' 20.0
i
i
' 15.0
i
i
' 15.0
i
i
• i i i
1 Population Place Size, Index J
4 ' 5 ' 6 ' 7
1 200K
' 500K
i
1 20.0
I
1 15.0
i
i
1 15.0
' 15.0
i
i
100K
200K.
20.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
50K
100K
20.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
25K
50K
20.0
20.0
15.0
15.0
i
i
1 8
1 5K
1 25K
1 20.0
i
' 20.0
i
' 15.0
i
i
1 15.0
i
i
i
i
1 9
1 Rural
' Areas
i
1 20.0
i
1 15.0
i
t
1 15.0
i
1 15.0
i
i
i
i
T
i
I
i
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
CO
o
-------
TABLE N-13
DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION AND LAND AREA BY PLACE SIZE
(INDEX J) AND POPULATION DENSITY CATEGORY (INDEX ID)
£
£ 2
| x
= •8 3
o c ••
<->
£ 4
Parameter
Population
Area
P*
Population
Area
(J
Population
Area
P*
Population
Area
P*
1
1
1
5.61
1 134.2
1 64,711
1 22.28
3576
1 12.638
1
' 21.59
8358
1 6.107
1
0.0
' 0.0
1
2
I
IN
-2N
1
2.10
1 272
1 13,451
1
4.08
775
' 9.092
1 11.13
1 5080
1 5,014
1
5.35
4089
' 2,505
3
1
500K
-IN
I
' 0.36
63
1 9,368
1
1 2.04
488
1 6,967
I
1 8.40
' 4426
' 3,842
1
' 5.30
1 4584
1 2,336
4
1
200K
1 -BOOK
1
1 1.61
215
' 9,368
1
' 10.43
' 4558
1 3697.0
1
1 6.75
1 5790
' 2,264
0.0
0.0
1
5
I
100K
1 -200K
1 1.16
279
' 5,831
i
1 2.93
1 1305
1 3,384
1
' 6.84
1 5266
1 2.011
0.0
0.0
1
6
1
50K
1 -100K
1
1.07
329
' 13,091
i
2.12
1115
' 2.863
1
4.53
4195
' 1,612.0
0.0
1 0.0
1 _
7
1
25K
1 -50K
1
1 0.47
58
' 13,091
2.98
8.96
1 8,506
1
3.51
2230
' 4,698
1.92
1 2769
1 2,147
8
1
1 5K
1 -25K
1
1.85
220
1 16,988
4.97
1261
1 10,681
1
8.46
4527
1 6,271
2.70
5820
1 1.673
t
' Urban
' Total
14.23
1 1570.2
1
51 .83
1 13970.0
1
1
71.20
1 39872.0
1
15.27
1 17262.0
1 _
9
I
1
1 Rural
I
' 64.18*
1 3,476,938
18.0
0.0
' 0.0
I
I
' 0.0
0.0
1
0.0
0.0
1
Total Population
Total Area
1
' 49.48
1 12064.2
1
i
' 22.66
1 10216.0
1
1
1 16.09
1 9561.0
1
1 18.78
1 10563.0
1 10.93
1 6850.0
7.71
1 5639.0
8.88
| 5953.0
1
17.98
' 11828.0
1 152.52
1 72674.2
64.18
1 3476938
Total population - 216.70 million
Total land area = 3.549,612.2 square miles
p* • Population/(Area) (Area Factor), Adjusted Population Density In People per Square Mile
-------
In Table N-13, population densities have been computed by dividing the
population by occupied land area. This occupied land area excludes bodies of
water, airports, roadways themselves (including their clear-zones), parking
areas, and open spaces. The conversion from total area to occupied area is
termed the "area factor" within the model. It is the fraction of total land
area that is occupied. By this distribution, the average population density
is 2,099 people per square mile for urban environments and 18 people per
square mile for rural environments (see Figure A.2.2 of Reference 31).
The data in Table N-13 are based upon 1974 populations. For future
years the population densities are assumed to increase as population grows.
r° r
Population
growth factors = f(population, year) (N-16)
The functional relationship of equation N-16 yields the 81 growth factors,
presented in Table N-14. Growth factors were derived from the Bureau of
Census' (Series I) assumption of an immigration and fertility rate based upon
historical trends.
As discussed above, each person is assigned to one of 33 population/
density cells. Each cell also contains a definite mileage value for each of
the six roadway types (see Tables N-4 and N-5). The total mileage within each
cell is used to compute the noise level to which persons 1n that cell are
exposed.
To compute this noise level, the distance between people and roadways
must be estimated. This estimation is done statistically, since the precise
distance distributions are not known.
First the cell's occupied land area is divided by the roadway mileage
within that cell to determine the area allotted to each roadway mile. This
area is then split in half and placed on each side of a one mile length of
roadway, beyond the clear-zone. The far edge of this portion of land area is
shown as the cutoff distance in Figure N-l.
All persons within the cell are then randomly assigned a particular
roadway mile. They are then distributed uniformly on both sides of that one
mile of roadway, between the edge of the clear-zone and the cutoff distance.
This assignment determines each person's "primary" roadway — in essence, the
roadway closest to that person's place of residence.
Statistically, this random distribution of all persons, over a well-
defined area, determines each person's distance to his primary roadway.
Each person is also affected by noise from other roadways within his
cell. These are called "secondary" roadways. To compute secondary-roadway
noise exposure the distance between the receiver and these roadways is also
determined statistically.
N-32
-------
Table N-14
Population Growth Factors by Place Size
For Every Five Years in the Time Stream
PLACE SIZE,
THOUSANDS
YEAR
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2013
VARIABLE
i 1
AREA TYPE, J
1 2 3456789
OVER 1000- 500- 200- 100- 50- 25- 5-
2000 2000 1000 500 200 100 50 25 RURAL
POP(YEAR)/POP(BASELINE)
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.08 1.07 1.07 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.12
1.15 1.14 1.14 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.22
1.22 1.22 1.22 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.31
1.29 1.29 1.29 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.39
1.36 1.36 1.36 1.08 1.08 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.48
1.43 1.44 1.44 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.57
1.50 1.51 1.51 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.65
1.55 1.56 1.56 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.70
ALL J
I
<*>
-------
The assumption is made that each secondary-roadway distance is greater
than the cutoff distance computed for the "primary" roadway. In other words,
it is assumed that each person is within the cutoff distance for one and only
one roadway, his "primary" roadway. All others are further away. This cutoff
distance then provides a minimum distance for the random distribution of
person/secondary-roadway combinations.
The maximum distance between persons and roadways obviously depends upon
the shape of the land area that comprises that person's cell. If the cell is
near-circular in shape, then the maximum distances are not extreme. On the
other hand, if the shape is very long and narrow, then the maximum distances
could be huge. Thus the approximate shape is assumed to be rectangular, and
is bisected by the secondary roadway of interest. The length of the rectan-
gular area is equal to the total length of the secondary roadway in that
cell. The rectangle's width is the cell's area divided by the rectangle's
length, so that the total cell's area is included in the rectangle.
With this cell shape, then, all persons are distributed randomly within
the rectangle, outside the cutoff distance. Statistically, this random
distribution of all persons, over a well-defined area, determines each
person's distance to each secondary roadway and considers the total mileage
for each roadway type within the cell.
The rectangle mathematics are then repeated for all other secondary
roadway types, until distances to all of them are determined in this random
manner.
Out of this statistical process comes a full list of each person's
distances to all roadways in his cell. His distance to his closest roadway
is less than the cutoff distance, while his distances to all other roadways
is larger than this cutoff distance.
Consequently, what is computed is the joint probability distribution of
the set of all distances between each receiver and all roadways within his
pop/density cell. For computational efficiency, the computer determines the
noise level distribution instead of the distance distribution. And it deter-
mines this in 3-decibel increments, rather than in infinitesimal increments.
For the General Adverse Response part of the model, the average outdoor
day-night noise level, Ld , is the measure of noise exposure. This is
calculated for each person at his place of residence. On the other hand, for
the Single Event Response part of the model, several different noise level
values are calculated, as presented in Figure 5-13. These measures are:
Single-event equivalent noise level, Lea/T\:
o Indoors, day and night
o Outdoors, day
Sound exposure level, LS:
o Indoors, day and night
N-34
-------
The single-event equivalent noise level, Lea/j\» 1s used to measure
speech communication interference. The sound exposure level, LS, is used
to measure sleep Interference. To relate these noise levels to potential
impact for a typical 24 hour day a person's activities over that 24 hours
must also be allocated between Indoors and outdoors, and separately for day
and night as illustrated in equation N-17.
r r r
Fraction of
activity times - fdocation, time of day, activity) (N-17)
This activity allocation 1s addressed at Key (T) in Figure 5-13 and 1t is
detailed in Table N-15. Persons are located away from home, or at home
outdoors, or at home Indoors. Then separately by day and night, each person
spends his time at the activities shown to the right of the table.
Separately, then, by these activity groups, the average person's time
has been fractioned as 1n Figure N-4. (See Appendix B of Reference 31 for a
more detailed discussion.) These activity fractions are a composite of
separate fractions for distinct groups of persons within the U.S.: (1)
employed men, (2) employed women, (3) housepersons, and (4) other persons
(persons younger than 17, persons older than 65 and not employed, persons 1n
Institutions, and unemployed persons).
As Figure N-4 Indicates, even during the daytime a small portion of
the population is sleeping. This potential daytime sleep Interference is
accounted for 1n the Impact estimates.
Details of Noise-level Sorting (Figures 5-14 and 5-15, Key (7))
As a result of the noise level predictions, all persons 1n the United
States are paired with their respective noise levels. These person/noise
pairs are then sorted by noise level. The sorting 1s done concurrently
with the prediction procedure.
Details of Conversion from Noise Level to Impact(Figures 5-14 and 5-15, Key(j>
Exposure to a particular noise level does not necessarily mean that
person 1s fully Impacted by that noise (although he may be partially impacted).
Therefore, the number of persons exposed at each noise level Is multiplied
by certain "Impact fractions" or weightings. These fractions are close to zero
for low noise levels, and then increase with noise level, until they reach
unity.
For particular effects of noise on people, the weightings differ. The
fractions result from a large number of attltudlnal surveys and laboratory
studies of the effects of noise on people.
N-35
-------
100
90
80
70
AVERAGE DAILY ACTIVITIES OF
THE UNITED STATES POPULATION
or
o
CD
LU
§
~ 60
Q.
O
Q.
LU
Q_
UJ
o
50
40
30
20
10
I
I
EPA NIGHT
c
SLEEPING (83.57%)
OTHER ACTIVITIES
(12.90%)
TRAVELING (1.28%)
4-
±
I i i i i
SLEEPING (4.34%)
EPA DAY
OTHER ACTIVITIES (73.77%)
TRAVELING (6.52%)
OUTSIDE HOME (0.67%)
WORKING (14.70%)
•WORKING (2.25%)
—I i I L
22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
HOURS OF THE AVERAGE DAY
FIGURE N-4. AVERAGE ACTIVITY PATTERN FOR THE U.S. POPULATION
N-36
-------
TABLE N-15
ACTIVITY GROUPS FOR THE SINGLE EVENT RESPONSE
PERSON'S
LOCATION
TIME OF
DAY
ACTIVITY GROUP
Away from home
At home, outdoors
At home, indoors
Day and Night
Day
Day
Night
Working
Traveling
Walking
Outside-home leisure
activities
Sleeping
Other indoor activities
such as TV viewing,
enjoying other media,
other leisure or semi-
leisure activities,
home and family type
activities, and eating
Sleeping
Other indoor activities
such as TV viewing,
enjoying other media,
other leisure or semi-
leisure activites,
home-and-fami ly-type
activities, and eating
NOTE: Day is the period between 7 am and 10 pm.
Night is the remainder of the 24-hours, 10 pm to 7 am.
N-37
-------
For the General Adverse Response portion of the model, the fractional
weighting Is derived from equation 9 in Section 5, which Is an approximation
to a quadratic equation that is the best fit to a large number of attltudinal
survey results. The weighting values along with noise level and population
Information are used In equation 10 by the model to compute Level Weighted
Population within each noise level band.
For the Single Event Response portion of the model, the most current
estimates of weighting values are presented in equations 14 and 15 (for sleep
interference) and Figures 5-9 and 5-10 (for speech interference). These
weightings are also used in equation 10 along with noise level and population
Information.
For speech interference, the noise descriptor is the single-event
equivalent sound level, L ,..». For sleep interference, it is the sound
exposure level, LS- q
Details of Total Nationwide Impact (Figures 5-14 and 5-15, Key (?))
After impact 1s estimated for each noise level separately, then the
total nationwide Impact is added over all noise levels. This process 1s
overvlewed In Figures 5-14 and 5-15, and is detailed here.
The General Adverse Response depends upon a full year's worth of noise
at the person's home. It 1s assessed from the prediction of yearly-average
L- at the residences of all persons 1n the U.S.
The Single Event Response depends upon an average day's worth of noise,
and the number of Intrusive single events that potentially occur during the
day or night. It also depends upon the activities of people during the day
and night, indoors and outdoors. (See Table N-15).
The estimations within the model do not account for persons when they
are away from their homes (first .group in Table N-15). Omitted are 20.53
percent of the population during the daytime (7 am through 10 pm) while these
people are traveling or working away from home. Similarly omitted are 3.06
percent of the population during the nighttime (See Appendix B of Reference
31).
As shown 1n Table N-16 the model estimates speech interference while the
average person 1s outdoors, or is Indoors but not sleeping. It estimates the
two types of sleep interference while the average person is indoors sleeping.
One activity group 1n Table N-15 is unique -- the group for people
outdoors walking. For these "pedestrains", speech interference is not
evaluated at their residences, but rather is evaluated at the edge of the
clear zone while that person is walking along streets in his neigh borhood.
Speech interference is also estimated outdoors during a person's outside
leisure activities around his home.
N-38
-------
TABLE N-16
LOCATIONS OF ACTIVITES
Sleep Interference
Disruption
Awakening
Speech Interference
Indoors
Outdoors
Pedestrians
People Indoors at home
day/night
People Indoors at home
day/night
People Indoors at home
not sleeping
People outdoors at home
Walking outdoors at the
edge of a clear zone
N-39
-------
APPENDIX 0
NATIONAL MOTORCYCLE NOISE CONTROL EMPHASIS PLAN
SU1WARY
-------
NATIONAL MOTORCYCLE NOISE CONTROL EMPHASIS PLAN
SUMMARY
Motorcycle noise has been rated as the most significant noise problem
in numerous community noise surveys. As a result, a number of States and
communities currently have, programs to control this noise source. Such
controls include limits on vehicle pass-by noise, equipment laws, area and
time controls, nuisance laws, and, in a few cases, new product emission
limits. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in response to the
requirements of the Quiet Communities Act, has identified motorcycles as a
major source of noise and has issued noise limits for newly manufactured
motorcycles and motorcycle replacement exhaust systems. The Agency's
approach in the regulations, which is. outlined below, has been to develop
programs which will supplement and strengthen these on-going attempts by
cities and States to control motorcycle noise.
The primary Federal control which the Agency will provide will be the
promulgation of regulations in setting permissible noise levels. These
regulations, proposed in the Federal Register, March 15, 1978, will provide
uniform levels for new motorcycles sold across the country and will result in
quieter motorcycles being developed and produced. .The benefits of this
action will increase over the next decade as more and more of the motorcycle
fleet is made up of regulated vehicles; nevertheless, some initial benefits
will be gained in the first years of the regulation, particularly when this
action is accompanied by State and local control of pre-regulated vehicles.
Besides controlling all new vehicles to quieter levels, the regulation
contains provisions specifically designed to facilitate State and local
control of replacement exhaust systems.
Under these provisions, manufacturers will be required to label both the
motorcycles and the exhaust systems indicating the types and models of new
(Federally regulated) motorcycles for which the exhaust system is designed,
and whether the system is designed for pre-regulated or competition vehicles.
The manufacturer has to assure that these systems when installed on a regula-
ted motorcycle, will not cause that motorcycle to exceed the Federal stan-
dard. Thus, with proper enabling legislation, State or community police
could enforce "label match-up" controls against vehicle owners who replace
original equipment with noisier exhaust systems. This will not require noise
measurements and, indeed, will not require the vehicle to be in operation or
the driver to be present in order for citations to be made. This should
greatly facilitate motorcycle noise enforcement.
Another feature of the regulations will also supplement the on-going
State and local noise control program. Under the regulation manufacturers of
new motorcycles will be required to identify to EPA those "actions which will
cause the motorcycle noise levels to increase beyond the legal limits. The
Agency will encourage States and localities to adopt programs enforcing
against the most obvious acts of tampering which do not necessarily require
testing to establish a violation, because such regulations are relatively
easy to enforce.
0-1
-------
Besides tailoring its Federal noise emission regulations to facilitate
State and local control, the EPA will further focus its State and local
assistance programs to the area of motorcycle control. The Agency has
already provided financial assistance to 24 States and 23 localities to start
up and operate noise control programs.
The priority source which these States and cities are addressing cur-
rently is motor vehicle noise, including motorcycles. Support is also
provided in motor vehicle control from the EPA Regional Offices, the Regional
Technical Centers, and the ECHO (Each Community Helps Others) peer match.
Such assistance includes funds for personnel and equipment, equipment loan,
assistance in drafting legislation and advice on test methodology and enforce-
ment. In the next two years these EPA support programs are intended to
increasingly be oriented towards more specific motorcycle controls.
EPA's approach in developing tools which States and localities can adopt
has three phases.
The first phase, which is currently in operation, is the development
and publication of model legislation for vehicle operation controls (street
pass-by-limits) and visual inspection of exhaust systems. This is being
carried out in a joint project with the National Association of Noise Control
Officers (NANCO). As indicated earlier, a number of cities have already
adopted these types of control. Assistance to communities and States in
drafting this type of legislation and in carrying out enforcement is also
provided through the ECHO program, Regional Technical Centers and the EPA
Regional Offices.
In the second phase, which will precede the effective date of the
national emission regulation, the EPA will develop model legislation to
implement the "label match up" scheme and anti-tampering controls against new
(regulated) vehicles.
For this model motorcycle noise control legislation, the Agency will
also develop a training manual to be used by police trainers to instruct
officers in enforcing the ordinances. This manual will include discussion of
instrumentation, enforcement procedures and the rationale behind the model
provisions.
In addition, model legislation applicable to pre-regulated motorcycles
will be revised to more specifically set out provisions controlling motor-
cycle modifications, tampering and operations. In all these model laws the
Agency will avoid extensive noise measurement requirements and will include
among its recommendations ordinances which can be enforced without noise
measuring equipment and with only limited additional training for existing
police personnel. The model label "match-up" legislation will also be
drafted to include provisions for possible future Federal labeling require-
ments for automobiles and replacement exhaust systems for these vehicles.
The label match-up and tampering list provisions (described earlier) provide
a logical extension of the existing State and local control structure. As
the percentage of Federally regulated vehicles in the fleet increases, the
importance of these provisions will grow. Another feature of this phase will
be the development by EPA of posters and brochures informing motorcycle
0-2
-------
dealers and repair shops of their responsibilities under the Federal
law. These will be designed in such a way that State and local officials can
add references to applicable State and local laws, and will be made available
to State and local officials who wish to distribute them to local motorcycle
dealers, repair and parts shops. The effectiveness of the motorcycle noise
control program depends, in part, on fully informing potential violators of
the Federal, State and local laws.
Although the EPA's approach includes an emphasis on use by States and
cities of the label match-up and other controls which will not require noise
.measurement tests, some States and communities may desire a stationary test
which correlates well with the Federal pass-by test to facilitate State and
local enforcement against tampering, and in identifying motorcycle exhaust
systems which degrade rapidly in their noise attenuation capabilities.
Accordingly, EPA will coordinate with interested parties the development of a
"short test." If this proves feasible, the Agency will use it to develop and
publish model implementation procedures and operational equipment ordinances
based on this "short test." Such an effort would also include development of
a compatible in-use streetside traffic measurement test. It should be noted,
however, that communities will still be able to use existing operational
ordinances controlling the use of motorcycles. Operational limits are
analagous to street limits which only cover the operator performance and do
not specify equipment limits.
In the development of all model legislation (and particularly the label
"match-up" and anti-tampering provisions) the EPA will seek extensive review
by State and local noise control personnel, police and legal officials and
the industry. If there are difficult points, it may be necessary to field
test some of the model laws prior to publication for voluntary adoption
by interested States and cities.
The primary orientation of most State and local motorcycle noise control
programs is to prevent excessive noise produced by individual motorcyclists.
The programs here outlined assume that this orientation will continue in
most States and cities while the Federal Government will have responsibility
for enforcing the noise emission standards for new motorcycles and replace-
ment exhaust systems, and the labeling provisions which require compliance by
manufacturers. In one or two States, however, where there are currently
noise programs with sufficient equipment and technical expertise, and where
the replacement exhaust manufacturing industry is concentrated, the State may
want to enforce compliance by the manufacturers. Such enforcement would
require adoption of the Federal limits and test procedure. The EPA would
strongly encourage this and will be prepared to assist any State which wishes
to initiate such a program.
EPA's approach to control off-road vehicles at the state and local
level is more oriented toward controlling the time and place of the use of
these vehicles, rather than controlling individual vehicle emission limits.
This is achieved by land use controls and curfews. The street motorcycle
enforcement approach outlined above should facilitate control of illegal use
of these vehicles on streets. EPA will also make available information on
various programs to control use and influence driver habits (such as off-
road and minibike "round-up where younger drivers are instructed in safe
0-3
-------
and legal use of these vehicles). The Agency may also develop legislation
covering land use and area controls. This part of the EPA program will
probably not begin until after the first standards go into effect.
The final feature of the EPA program will be on-going surveillance of
the rate of motorcycle exhaust system (noise related) modifications and
tampering. The Agency expects to initiate this program after the effective
date of the first standards to provide a means of determining the effective-
ness of the State, local, and Federal controls.
EPA's over-all technical assistance objective is to promote at least
400 local programs covering a minimum urbanized population of 72 million and
40 State programs by 1985. The agency's regulatory programs are designed to
fit into this State and local control structure. This is consistent with
Congressional intent, in the Quiet Communities Art, that noise control ought
to be primarily the responsibility of State and local governments. The
Federal motorcycle noise emission levels and the programs described above
will help achieve the goal of a quieter nation through strengthened and
expanded local control of this environmental problem.
*US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICi:l»81 341-082/213 1-3 0-4
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read fHxtniftiom on the reverse before ««i;t/rfi>ij?/
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 550/9-80-218
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Regulatory Analysis Appendices for the Noise Emission
Regulations for Motorcycles and Motorcycle Exhaust
REPORT DATE
December 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANISATION CODE
EPA/200/02
7. A0YPT
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION HtPORT NO
EPA 550/9-80-218
9, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ANR-490)
Washington, DC 20460
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ANR-490)
Washington, DC 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/02
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This document includes detail information that supplements section 1 through 8
of the regulatory analysis. In addition it includes an analysis of State, local,
and foreign motorcycle noise regulations and a summary of the motorcycle national
emphasis plan.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a.
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Ticld/Group
Street Motorcycles, mopeds, off-road
motorcycles, motorcycle exhaust system,
noise emission regulation, environmental
benefits, health and welfare benefits,
economic effects.
19. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tins Rcpurt)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
410
20. SECURITY CLASS iTIiis paycj
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------