COOLING TOWERS - SOURCE PREDICTION, MODELLING, SPECIFICATION AND NOISE CONTROL

Mark C. Derrick, MBA, Ph.D., P.Eng. HFP Acoustical Consultants Ltd. #1140, 10201 Southport Road S.W. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2W 4X9 Phone: (403) 259-3600 Fax: (403) 259-4190 e-mail: mark@hfpacoustical.com

ABSTRACT Wet cell cooling towers are one of the principal methods of rejecting heat from the process and energy industries systems. This paper examines a model to predict the Sound Power Levels of the principal noise sources and looks at a method of acoustic modelling wet cell cooling towers using the SoundPLAN computer noise model. Furthermore the paper examines the issue of the specification of noise limits for wet cell towers, and identifies the options for noise mitigation for wet cell cooling towers. Much of the material presented here is applicable for wet/dry and dry cooling systems. The only aspect not considered is that noise due to the fin tubes of dry cooling towers, caused by the airflow through the tubes. 1 COMPONENTS OF A COOLING TOWER

Figure 1 shows a cross section through a typical wet cell cooling tower as found in many petrochemical, power, utility and other industrial facilities. The major components are: fan drive motor gearbox stack tower structure spray nozzles/trays water supply pipework water pond

Figure 1

Cooling Tower Section

PRINCIPAL NOISE SOURCES

The principal noise source in a wet cell cooling tower are: fan noise watersplash. The secondary noise sources are: motor noise gearbox noise. Each noise source will be examined in detail, noise generation mechanisms and prediction characteristics are discussed and the propagation path for each noise source will be analyzed and suitable noise mitigation strategies will be introduced. 2.1 Fan Noise

The characteristics and prediction methods for fan noise are well understood, and there exist many theoretical and parametric models to predict not only the overall level of fan noise but also the spectral content of that noise. Of the simple formulae used for predicting the noise generated by a fan the basic models only consider the tip speed of the fan and the absorbed power of the fan. This model is applicable for simple flat, non-aerodynamic blades, such as are fitted to a basic cooling tower where noise control is not an issue. The model is given as: Equation 1 PWL fan = 30log(t) + 10log(Q) + 37.1 where PWL fan Fan Sound Power Level T Fan tip speed (m/s) Q Absorbed power (kW) The octave band correction factors are given as in row 1 of Table 2.1. In addition a +5 dB correction terms can be added to the relevant octave band to take account of the fan blade passing frequency, where f blade = number of blades x the rotational speed. A more sophisticated model for more advanced designed fan blades are based on a formula of the following form: Equation 2 PWL fan = C + 30 log (t) + 10 log (QP / 1000) 5 log(d) + K where d Fan diameter (m) t Fan tip speed (m/s) Q Absorbed power (kW) P Pressure drop (Pa) K Correction factors for inlet and outlet obstructions, plenum shape blade, angle (dB) C Characteristic fan noise level (dB)

Table 2.1

Octave Band Correction Factors

31.5 -5 -31 -5 -14.2 -14 63 -7 -25 -5 -11.2 -14 125 -5 -19 -5 -19.4 -9.2 -11 250 -7 -13 -3 -19.8 -7.2 -9 500 -10 -12 -6 -13 -7.2 -6 1000 -13 -11 -8 -8.4 -7.2 -6 2000 -18 -6 -9 -5.7 -8.2 -7 4000 -27 -6 -10 -4.3 -14.2 -12 8000 -33 -4 -11 -7.2 -18.2 -20

Row Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fan correction factor [1] Water Splash Octave Band Correction Factors [1] Cooling Tower Plenum Attenuation Factors [1] Natural Draft Water Splash Octave Band Correction Factors [14] Medium Power Gearbox [15] Electric Motor [2]

A similar series of octave band correction factors are added to the overall Sound Power Level term to determine the individual octave band Sound Power Levels. 2.2 Watersplash Noise

Wang [1] has presented an equation quantifying the Sound Power Level of the falling water inside a wet cell cooling tower in terms of the volume flow rate of cooling water through the cooling tower cell. The equation is based on extensive field tests on a set of cooling towers. Equation 3 PWL Watersplash = 10log(V) + 91 PWL Overall Watersplash Sound Power Level where
Watersplash

Volume flow rate of Cooling Water (m3/s)

The octave band correction terms are given in row 2 of Table 2.1. Ellis [14] has also obtained an equation quantifying the noise due to the watersplash on large natural draft tower. He concluded that: Equation 4 Wac = M h [0.95 x 10 -5 (T/h)2 + 1.8 x 10-5 (D/h) 2] A-weighted acoustic power where Wac M Flow rate of cooling water (kg/s) H Distance the water falls T Depth of packing below ring beam D Height from pond to base of packing The octave band correction terms are given in row 4 of Table 2.1. 2.3 Gear Box Noise

There is very little published information detailing methods to predict the noise generated by a gearbox. One method of calculating the 1 m Sound Pressure Level of a gearbox is based on the following equation.

Equation 5 SPL gearbox = 78 + 4 log Q + 3 log R SPL 1 m Gearbox Sound Pressure Level where
gearbox

Q R

Absorbed Power (kW) Rotational Speed of Output Shaft (RPM)

Row 5 of Table 2.1 details the octave band Sound Pressure Level correction factors. To derive the Sound Power Level an estimation of the physical size of the gearbox is required. The Sound Power Level is then calculated by adding the 1m conformal area correction factor to the individual octave band noise levels, i.e. 10log (1m conformal area) + SPLgearbox. 2.4 Electric Motor Noise

There are many methods detailing ways to predict the noise generated by an electric motor. Typically the methods calculate the 1m Sound Pressure Level from a motor. Cooling towers will normally use a TEFC electric motor over 40 kW and under 300 kW, the relevant equation to calculate the 1m Sound Pressure Level is: Equation 6 SPL motor = 28 + 10 log Q + 15 log R where SPL motor 1 m Motor Sound Pressure Level Q Absorbed Power (kW) R Rotational Speed (RPM) Row 6 of Table 2.1 details the octave band Sound Pressure Level correction factors. To derive the Sound Power Level an estimation of the physical size of the motor is required and the Sound Power Level is calculated by adding the 1m conformal area correction factor to the octave band Sound Pressure Levels, i.e. 10log(1m Conformal area) + SPL motor. 3 COOLING TOWER NOISE MODEL DATA

To accurately model a cooling tower, the tower must be broken into three discrete components, the outlet stack, the cooling tower inlet section and the electric motor. The outlet stack can be considered as a point source, corrected for 90 directivity. The inlet section can be considered as an area source, covering the appropriate area of the air inlet of the cooling tower. The motor can be considered a simple point source. This paper shall consider a cooling tower built in the SoundPLAN noise modelling software. The model is based on a real cooling tower constructed from the following single cell unit cooling tower. The cooling tower plenum chamber is 15.2 m high and the air inlet has a height of 12.8 m. The cell has a 16 m by 14.5 m footprint. The cooling tower has an 8.5 m [28 ft] diameter fan with 8 low technology "basic blades," having a tip speed of 61 m/s [12,050 ft/min]. The fan stack is 5 m high. There is a flow of 0.63 m3/s [10,000 GPM] of cooling water. The drive motor is 115 kW [185 BHP] and the gearbox output shaft rotates at 120 RPM.
4

3.1

Directivity Considerations

The current version of SoundPLAN does not allow for three dimensional stack directivity factors. The stack noise source must therefore be modelled as a horizontally directivity corrected noise source as opposed to using an omni-directional noise source. Typically a 90 directivity correction factor is chosen for distant receptors (1,000 m +), unless the critical receptor points are close to the noise sources, or located on adjacent elevated terrain. A review of the published data on directivity correction factors indicates that the magnitude of these correction characteristics is subject to many debates. Table 3.1 shows the variation in correction terms for directivity factors for a 90 correction factor. It can be seen that there is a large variation in the magnitude of the directivity correction factors.
Table 3.1 Directivity Correction Factors 90, 10 m diameter Stack
31.5 -2 63 -2 -3 -2 -3 -2 -5 -12 -10.1 125 -4 -4 -3 -3 -3 -7 -15 -13.6 250 -4 -6 -5 -3 -4 -8 -18 -17.4 500 -9 -8 -8 -9 -7 -10 -21 -20.8 1000 -9 -10 -10 -9 -9 -10 -22 -26.7 2000 -14 -12 -12.5 -14 -9 -10 -22 -26.7 4000 -14 -14 -12.5 -14 -9 -10 -22 -26.7 8000 -14 -16 -12.5 -14 -9 -10 -22 -26.7

Angle (0 is vertical) PRC 1 Laymon-Miller 2 BS 4485:Part 3:1988 4 BBN AGA 5 Hessler 6 Wang 8 Gas Turbine Engineering Handbook 3 Bies & Hansen 7

-1 -4 -6.8

Notes: 1 For a stack greater that 10ft diameter (3m). 2 For a large stack. 3 For an exhaust stack. 4 For cooling towers unspecified dimension. 5 For a stack over 10 ft x 10 ft. 6 For a small stack, unspecified diameter. 7 Based on Strouhal number, Ns=fd/c. 10m diameter, c = 323 m/s 8 See reference 1

3.2

Example Cooling Tower Stack

The cooling tower stack consists of two noise major noise sources, the fan and the gearbox, in addition the watersplash noise can also propagate out of the stack. The total cooling tower stack Sound Power Level is given in row 1 of Table 3.2, it is calculated as follows: The predicted stack Sound Power Level of our model fan is 106.5 dBA using Equation 1. The octave band spectrum is given in row 1 of Table 3.2 and is obtained by using the octave band correction factors in row 2 of Table 2.1. The gearbox Sound Pressure Level is obtained using Equation 5. Assuming a 1m conformal measurement area of 20 m2, the pressure to power conversion factor is 13 dB. This factor is added to the octave band components. The gearbox noise contribution in the stack is obtained by subtracting 3 dB from each octave band component, as only half the noise energy will propagate out of the stack, the remainder will propagate via the inlet. The resulting Sound Power Level spectrum is given in row 3 of Table 3.2.

Table 3.2

90 Directivity Corrected Cooling Tower Stack and Electric Motor Sound Power Levels
31.5 105.1 105.1 76.5 52.0 96.6 63 101.1 101.1 77.5 56.0 96.6 125 102.1 102.1 78.5 61.0 99.6 250 98.2 98.1 78.5 67.0 101.6 500 94.2 94.1 77.5 64.0 104.6 1000 89.3 89.1 75.5 61.0 104.6 2000 84.6 84.1 74.5 62.0 103.6 4000 76.2 75.1 68.5 64.0 98.6 8000 71.5 69.1 64.5 65.0 90.6 dBA 95.9 95.7 80.9 70.4 109.3 dB 108.6 108.6 85.7 72.5 110.8

Description Predicted Outlet Sound Power Level Fan Contribution Gearbox Contribution Watersplash Contribution Motor

The watersplash contribution through the stack is estimated by assessing the Sound Pressure Level due to the watersplash at the base of the stack, correcting for the plenum attenuation, and then determining the Sound Power Level by correcting for the surface area of the stack base. The resulting Sound Power Level spectrum is given in row 4 of Table 3.2. The total is calculated by summing the individual components.

It must be noted that all the data in Table 3.2 is corrected for 90 directivity, by applying the 90 Wang directivity correction factor given in Table 3.1. The electric drive motor is modelled using equation 6, assuming a 1m conformal measurement area of 20 m2, the pressure to power conversion factor is 13 dB. The motor noise Sound Power Level spectrum is given in row 5 of Table 3.2. Cooling Tower Inlet Noise

3.3

The cooling tower inlet noise is composed of three components, watersplash noise, fan noise and gearbox noise. The total cooling tower inlet Sound Power Level is given in row 1 of Table 3.3, it is calculated as follows: The predicted Sound Power Level of the fan is as calculated for the stack fan Sound Power Level. The contribution of the fan at the inlet of the cooling tower is determined by applying the octave band correction factors in row 3 of Table 2.1. The Sound Power Level/m2 is then determined by correcting for the inlet area of both sides of the single cell tower (two faces each 14.5 m by 12.8 m). The resulting Sound Power Level/m2 octave band spectrum is given in row 2 of Table 3.2.

The gearbox predicted Sound Power Level is as calculated for the stack gearbox Sound Power Level. The contribution of the gearbox at the inlet of the cooling tower is determined by applying the octave band correction factors in row 3 of Table 2.1. The Sound Power Level/m2 is then determined by correcting for the inlet area, as per the fan data. The resulting Sound Power Level/m2 spectrum is given in row 3 of Table 3.2.
Total Sound Power Level for the Inlet of a Cooling Tower
31.5 83.4 83.4 50.9 44.4 63 83.4 83.4 53.9 50.4 125 82.5 82.5 55.9 56.4 250 81.6 81.5 59.9 62.4 500 74.1 73.7 56.9 63.4 1000 70.4 68.9 54.9 64.4 2000 68.0 62.5 52.9 66.4 4000 69.9 59.4 45.9 69.4 8000 71.6 56.9 40.9 71.4 dBA 79.0 76.7 60.1 75.0 dB 89.2 89.0 64.5 75.3

Table 3.3

Description Predicted Inlet Sound Power Level Fan Contribution Gearbox Contribution Watersplash Contribution

The watersplash contribution is calculated using Equation 3. The Sound Power Level/m2 is then determined by correcting for the inlet area, as per the fan data. The resulting Sound Power Level/m2 spectrum is given in row 4 of Table 3.2. The total Inlet Sound Power Level/m2 is calculated by summing the individual component contribution. MODELLING THE COOLING TOWER Sound Transmission Paths

4 4.1

Noise emanating from the fan can propagate from the fan to a distant receptor by one of two paths, either by way of the stack outlet or by way of the cooling tower air inlet. Noise propagating from the stack to a receptor point, assumed to be at grade, will be subject to an end reflection loss caused by the stack exit, this loss is negligible. The most significant loss is the directivity correction factor due to the characteristic dimension of the source. This is normally derived from the angle from the vertical axis of the fan. The noise from the fan will then be subject to the normal propagation losses. These losses can be allocated as follows: distance dissipation (which is the geometrical dissipation of sound with respect to distance); ground attenuation (which is the effect of sound absorption by the ground as sound passes over various types of open terrain); atmospheric absorption (which is the effect of sound absorption by the atmosphere between source and receiver); barrier attenuation (which is a noise shielding effect caused by intervening buildings, landforms, etc. between source and receiver); wind effects (which enhance sound propagation in downwind directions and attenuate sound propagation in upwind directions); and temperature gradient effects (which enhance sound propagation under atmospheric inversion conditions and attenuate sound propagation under atmospheric lapse conditions).
7

Temperature and relative humidity do have effects on some of the variables mentioned, although they are not in themselves a consideration with respect to sound propagation. Hence the effect of the noise from the fan and other cooling tower noise sources can be readily assessed from knowledge of the above factors. The SoundPLAN noise model takes into account all of the above factors. Noise propagating from the fan via the air inlet walls to a receptor point, assumed to be at grade, will be subject to a loss caused by the noise transmission path from the inlet to the fan. The cooling tower plenum is normally filled with a water dispersion media, structural walls, and baffles. This attenuation is difficult to theoretically determine, however field measurements have shown that this loss is of the order of 3-11 dB over the mid to upper octave bands. The low to mid frequency noise from the fan is significantly affected by the towers internal structure. The noise from the fan will then be subject to the normal propagation losses detailed above. 4.2 Far Field Propagation

Having obtained an estimate of the major and secondary noise sources for a cooling tower, it is now possible to build a model of the cooling tower. The model was built in SoundPLAN, and consists of a four-cell wet cooling tower, oriented west east. The terrain is flat, there are no obstacles or barriers, and the atmosphere is calm and modelled under a typical spring condition. The fan outlet Sound Power Level is taken from row 1 of Table 3.2 and the cooling tower inlet Sound Power Level is taken from Table 3.3. The outlet is modelled as a point source, corrected for 90 directivity. This will introduce an error in the source Sound Power Level for locations relatively close to the tower, however in the far field this error is minimal. The error at locations relatively close is caused by the effective over-estimation of the stack Sound Power Level due to a non-correction for the change in directivity. The cooling tower inlet is modelled as an area source. The drive motor is modelled as a point source. 4.3 Results from the SoundPLAN model

A contour plot depicting the predicted Sound Pressure Levels to the South of our cooling tower is presented in Figure 2. The contour is based on a 5 m by 5 m calculation grid. The contour shows the effect of the electric motors to the north of the cooling tower, indicating that they should be orientated away from local residences. Figure 3 presents the SoundPLAN predicted overall A-weighted Sound Pressure Level at various distances from the inlet face from 10 m up to a distance of 5,120 m. In addition to the overall Sound Pressure Level, the relative contribution of the fan and the watersplash is presented. Figure 4 presents similar information, however the relative contribution of the inlet and outlet are presented.

70 65 55 75 70 65 60 75 65 55

55

Figure 2

Noise Contour Plot Around a 4 Cell Cooling Tower

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0 SPL dBA total fan contribution 40.0 total w atersplash contribution total 30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0 1 -10.0 d istan ce (m ) 10 100 1000 10000

Figure 3

Distance vs. Overall Contribution Total of Fan and Watersplash 9

9 0 .0

8 0 .0

7 0 .0

6 0 .0

5 0 .0 SPL dBA in le t 4 0 .0 o u tle t to ta l 3 0 .0

2 0 .0

1 0 .0

0 .0 1 -1 0 .0 d is ta n c e (m ) 10 100 1000 10000

Figure 4

Distance vs. Overall Contribution

As would be expected, the contribution from the inlet dominates the Sound Pressure Level at all distances. It can be seen that from Figure 3 that at distances less than 320 m, the watersplash noise dominates, at greater distances the cooling tower fan noise dominates, with the greatest contribution via the inlet. This is because the atmosphere more readily absorbs the high frequency noise from the watersplash. The thought that there is more fan noise radiated from the inlet than the stack outlet is counter intuitive, however by comparing the 90 directivity factor proposed by Wang with the fan plenum attenuation factor, it can be seen that possible more acoustical energy is lost due to the stack directivity. The situation is further complicated by the ground effect, which will have significant effects in the various octave bands.

9 0 .0

8 0 .0

7 0 .0

6 0 .0

SPL dBA

120.0
5 0 .0

M o d e lle d D a ta M e a s u re d D a ta G e a rb o x Fan W a te rs p la s h

4 0 .0

100.0
3 0 .0

2 0 .0

80.0 M easured D ata M odelled D ata 60.0 0 .0

3 1 .5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 dBA dB O c ta v e B a n d (H z )

1 0 .0

SPL dB

F an G earbox W atersplash

40.0

Figure 5
20.0

Modelled vs. Measured Inlet Noise

0.0 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000

10
4000 8000 dBA dB O ctave B and H z

4.4

Comparison of Modelled to Measured Data for the inlet and Outlet of a Typical Wet Cell Tower

Figure 5 shows a graph comparing the modelled inlet of a cooling tower cell to the real cooling tower cell. The predicted model data correlate well to the measured cooling tower cell data. Figure 6 compares the modelled stack outlet data to measured data. 5 NOISE CONTROL OPTIONS FOR WET CELL COOLING TOWERS

There are several techniques for noise control applicable for cooling towers, some are applicable at the design stage, others can be used to mitigate a potential noise problem, where possible a cost estimate has been estimated for the mitigation measure. 5.1 Location Locating the cooling tower further away from the community. Orienting the tower inlet louvers away from the community, or selecting a cooling tower with a single inlet face, however cell performance may be penalized. Locating the towers behind major barriers/buildings/berms. COST - "Free" - locating the cooling towers in a remote location, notwithstanding the cost of the extra pipework required. Inlet Silencer

The following location factors can be used to minimize the impact of cooling towers:

5.2

The noise radiated by the inlet louver in the near to medium distance is dominated by the watersplash noise. As the magnitude of the noise is a function of the volume flow rate of cooling water, the only way to reduce the noise is by reducing the volume of cooling water. This clearly is not a viable solution. Hence the only way to reduce the inlet noise is to fit a parallel baffle silencer, i.e. an inlet silencer wall. As the frequencies of interest are high, the silencers working length will be small, however they will be required to cover the entire inlet area. For far-field silencing requirements where the fan noise will dominate, the inlet silencer will need to be larger as the fan frequencies are lower. 5.3 require a larger site footprint - space constraints COST- high. Stack Silencers

If the noise requirement is very onerous, then stack silencers may be required to silence the fan, and these would be used in parallel with inlet silencers. Structural considerations- is the cooling tower cell strong enough?

11

 5.4

COST - high. Low Noise Fans (includes low noise gearbox and motor replacement or enclosure)

By replacing the base design fan with a low noise fan a reduction in the noise from the cell can be achieved. The low noise fan may run at a lower speed for the same duty. This is achieved by having a fan with aerodynamically shaped blades. up to 14-15 bladed fans can be used depending on the size and fan design special "high solidity" fans may also be considered (4-7 blades) depending on the size as the fan rotational speed is reduced the drive and / or motor will have to be replaced, quiet motor and / or drives may also need to be considered if low noise fans are used, quieter drive trains may be required operating costs may increase as the fan absorbed power of high performance low noise fans is normally greater a high performance fan with 10-15 dB less noise can be installed for the same performance, based on a standard 6 bladed fan COST - moderate to high depending on the reduction required. (for the most efficient low noise fan a cost factor of 3-400% based on the cost of a base design fan, at approximately 10 dB reduction the drive motor and gearbox will be replaced). Oversize Plant

5.5

As the fan noise is a function of 30 x log (tip speed), reducing the tip speed to ever slower speeds will reduce the noise radiated by the fan (up to a limit). By selecting oversized plant or increasing the number of cells a reduction in the noise radiated by the cooling tower can be achieved. This option is only going to be addressed when the installation of the best fan technology is not sufficient to achieve the noise target. 5.6 COST - very high. Reduce Fan Speed at Night

By using variable frequency drives and running the fans at slower speeds at night, significant reduction in fan speed can be achieved, a 50% reduction in fan speed will result in a 15 dB reduction in fan noise. However the watersplash noise may be the limiting factor. 5.7 Limits the maximum cooling load of the cell COST- low - requires variable frequency drives. Barriers

The construction of a noise wall may be considered in extreme cases. The height of the barrier must be sufficient to hide the inlet louver.

12

 6 6.1

The wall must be sufficiently far away from the louver so as to not impede the flow of air (twice the height of the louver) COST high. SPECIFYING COOLING TOWER NOISE LIMITS The Distance Method

For a typical design of a cooling tower, the vendor may offer a performance guarantee based on a design criteria, for example 55 dBA at 122 m. For non-critical installations this may be adequate. However for critical noise situations, a more comprehensive noise specification is required. The problems inherent in the distance method are summarized as follows, these problems are generic and can be applied to other forms of process equipment. Equipment manufacturers have not obtained accurate data on the noise generated by their mechanical equipment. Fan noise data obtained from a test rig may not be applicable to the application of that fan in a particular cooling tower cell, for example, inlet flow conditions might not be applicable. Packagers assembling components into larger packages have not assessed the interrelationships of noise generated by sub-vendor components or noise attenuated by connected peripheral equipment. Vendors may not properly take into account the effects of sound propagation between the noise source location and the noise sensitive location yielding inaccurate sound propagation predictions. Cooling tower vendors may use geometrical spreading to predict far field noise and not take into account other attenuation mechanisms, thus potentially supplying an overspecified fan. Allowances may not have been made for other noise sources on the site that will contribute to noise levels at sensitive locations. In compliance testing, when standing back at distances away from the cooling tower accurately determining the contribution from the cooling tower can be difficult, thus suspected failed noise guarantees cannot be readily proven. This is particularly true for applications at large facilities with a significant number of noise sources. The Component Method

6.2

Where a noise sensitive application is being specified a more comprehensive noise specification is required, especially if the noise sensitive area is greater than 500m from the cooling tower. As indicated, the fan noise is anticipated to be the dominant component at the receptor. In such cases using a specification that is reliant on the watersplash noise level is not logical. A more applicable specification would identify the allowable fan Sound Power Level and the allowable inlet Sound Power Level. By using computer models, the allowable Sound Power Level for the cooling tower can be determined, this in turn can be converted into the stack and inlet contributions, and thus an allowable fan, gearbox, motor and watersplash Sound Power Level can be determined. Having

13

determined the allowable Sound Power Level per source, the computer model can be used to determine the predicted near field Sound Pressure Levels around the cooling tower. These predicted levels could then be used as a basis for setting the limits suitable for compliance testing.

14

7
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

REFERENCES
"Induced Draft Cooling Tower Noise and Its Control", J.S. Wang, CTI Paper TP161A (Jan19977) "Engineering Noise Control Theory and Practice", D.A.Bies, C.H.Hansen, 2nd Edition, E&F Spon 1996 "Advanced Low Noise Air Cooling Fans", H.F. van der Spek., Noise-Con 97, (June 1997) "Issues in Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Noise", R.W. Jameson, Noise-Con 97, (June 1997) "Cooling Tower Noise", I. Dyer, L.N. Miller, Noise Control, Vol. 5 (May 1955) "Code for Measurement of Sound from Cooling Towers", CTI-Code ATC-128, (Jan 1981) "Noise Prediction Techniques for Siting Large Natural Draft and Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers", G.A. Capilano, W.E. Bradley, APC Paper 38th Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. (Apr 1976) "Operating Experiences with fans assisted Natural Draft Cooling Towers", M.R. Lefevre, J. Gilbert. APC Paper 38th Annual Meeting, Chicago IL. (Apr 1976) "Noise Emission Characteristics of Circular Mechanical, Natural and Fan-Assist Natural Draft Cooling Towers with Silencers", G.A. Capano, APC Paper 39th Annual Meeting, Chicago IL. (Apr 1977)

10. "Reduction of Noise Generation of Cooling Fans". H.F. van der Spek. Inter Noise-93, (Aug 1993) 11. "Characteristics of Water Noise Radiated by a Wet/Dry Cooling Tower", A.E. Hribar, Inter Noise76, (Apr 1976) 12. "Noise Control for Mechanical and Ventilation Systems", ASHRAE Handbook Chapter 98. 13. "Noise Control Guidelines For Compressor Stations", Pipeline Research Committee (PRC) report. Project PR-223-9415 (Nov 1995) 14. "Cooling Tower Noise Generation and Radiation", R.M. Ellis, J. Sound Vib. 14 (2), pp171-182 (1971) 15. "Secrets of Noise Control", A Thumann, R.K. Miller, 2nd Edition, The Fairmont Press, (1976) 16. HFP Lecture Notes on Industrial Noise. 17. "Noise from Natural Draft Cooling Towers", W.L. Reinicke, E.P. Riedel, Noise Control Engineering, (July/Aug 1980) 18. "Environmental Considerations for Cooling Towers", G.R. Mirsky, J.P. Libert, K. Bryant, ASHRAE Journal (June 1992) 19. "Cooling Tower Noise", G.R. Mirsky, CTI Paper TP95-01, 1995 CTI Annual Meeting, Fort Worth TX. (Feb 1995) 20. "Reduction of Noise Generation by Cooling Fans", H.F. van der Spek, CTI Paper TP93-03, 1993 CTI Annual Meeting, New Orleans LA, (Feb 1993)

15