Evaluation of noise annoyance of port related noise

Le Havre 10 March 2010Johannes Hyrynen

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

Machinery and Environmental Acoustics

209/08/11

Outline

Introduction and general remarks of EFFORTS WP Noise Annoyance of Ports

Sound power levels of port sound sources Ranking of the sound sources Special characteristics of the sources Noise mapping of port noise Environmental noise monitoring of ports Noise annoyance studies of port noise sources Conclusions

29 July 2009 30 July 2009 31 July 2009 1 August 2009 2 August 2009 3 August 2009 4 August

Leqlin

LeqA

79.4

59.9

31 July 2009 8:00

309/08/11

EFFORTS WP 2.4 Noise Annoyance of Ports

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

FMI Finnish Meteorological Institute

Port of Turku, Finland

Port of Dublin, Ireland

Port of LeHavre, France

409/08/11

EFFORTS WP 2.4 Noise Annoyance of Ports

2007 - 2009 Test case ports: Port of Turku and

port of Dublin Port specific challenges Review on the typical noise

sources and their locations and nature - measurements

Analysis on the prevailing weather conditions

Long-term measurements of noise and weather conditions

Noise mapping Annoyance research

509/08/11

Introduction Different operations and terminals, typical

port noise sources– Ships– Straddle carriers – Reach stackers– Gantry cranes– Terminal tractors– Container handling– Ship to shore ramps– Reefers– Road and rail traffic

Ports are often located near or even in city centres

In some case the average noise levels do not exceed recommendation values but people still are annoyed by the noise

Specific studies on annoyance are needed

609/08/11

Special characteristics of the sources

The sources are typically large and consist of several different sources or excitations within the main source

The sub sources can locate at a distance from each other at different heights

Different equipment manufactures or types can give different results

Equipment operate at different modes give different results

709/08/11

Source ranking sound power levels

The A-weighted sound power levels presented for each individual source

The highest levels are generated by the RTGs

The lower levels are due to ventilation and exhaust

A-weighted sound power levels of individual sources

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

Re

efe

rs

Ex

ha

us

t s

tac

kv

en

tila

tio

n

RT

G e

xh

au

st

Hy

dra

ulic

ro

om

ve

nti

lati

on

RT

G2

en

gin

eid

le

Au

xili

ary

en

gin

ee

xh

au

st

Co

nta

ine

rh

an

dlin

g

RT

G 2

en

gin

e li

ft

Re

ac

h s

tac

ke

rp

as

s-b

y

Ga

ntr

y c

ran

eP

ow

er

RT

G b

ea

co

n

Ra

mp

no

ise

Str

ad

dle

ca

rrie

rp

as

s-b

y

RT

G 1

en

gin

e li

ft

RT

G 1

en

gin

eid

le

LW

[d

B]

LWA

809/08/11

Source ranking Unbiased Annoyance

• The unbiased annoyance values calculated from the sound samples

• The highest values are generated by the beacons

• The lower values are related to ventilation, and RTGs

Unbiased Annoyance Indices of individual sources

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

En

gin

e r

oo

mv

en

tila

tio

n

Co

nta

ine

rh

an

dlin

g

RT

G2

en

gin

e id

le

Re

efe

rs

Re

ac

h s

tac

ke

rp

as

s-b

y

Hy

dra

ulic

ro

om

ve

nti

lati

on

RT

G 2

en

gin

e li

ft

Au

xili

ary

en

gin

ee

xh

au

st

RT

G e

xh

au

st

Ga

ntr

y c

ran

eP

ow

er

Ex

ha

us

t s

tac

kv

en

tila

tio

n

RT

G 1

en

gin

e id

le

RT

G 1

en

gin

e li

ft

RT

G 1

be

ac

on

Ga

ntr

y c

ran

e

be

ac

on

UB

A [

Au

]

909/08/11

The sound characteristics of the sources

Several sub sources of RTGs Power unit Alarm Exhaust

Different operation conditions idling - lifting containers modes

Various makes – significant differences

LW [dB] LWA [dB]

idle 120 118 engine

lift 120 117

idle 120 102 exhaust

lift 120 102

RTG PLS

beacon 115 115

idle 114 105 RTG DFT engine

lift 117 109

1009/08/11

The sound characteristics of the sources

Four different makes Some differences in

the levels the difference between the highest and lowest levels being 3 dB

LW [dB] LWA [dB] CT 97 93 TK Black 97 90 TK White 97 92 D 96 91

1109/08/11

The sound characteristics of the sources

RoRo vessel noise sources Exhaust Ventilation Hydraulics Total levels LWA 86-106 dB

LW [dB] LWA [dB]

Engine room ventilation 102 86

Hydraulics room ventilation 110 104

Bow cable hydraulics 103 93

Aux exhaust 124 106

Exhaust ventilation 112 100

1209/08/11

The sound characteristics of the sources

Container handling and ramp sounds

Bangs Low frequency broadband

sound events with some narrowband components

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

25

31.5 40 50 63 80 100

125

160

200

250

315

400

500

630

800

1000

1250

1600

2000

2500

3150

4000

5000

6300

8000

1000

0

1250

0

1600

0

f[ Hz]

LW

[d

B, r

e 1p

W]

Container bang

ramp 1

ramp 2

Gantry containerhandling

LW [dB] LWA [dB] container

handling event 115±5 107±5

LW [dB] LWA [dB]

container pickup 123±3 116±3 container handling with reach stacker

container set to ground

123±5 110±5

LW [dB] LWA [dB] Ramp 1 ramp noise 119±5 112±5 Ramp 2 ramp noise 121±6 115±6

LW [dB] LWA [dB] with

trailer 114±3 109±3

without trailer

112±4 106±4

1309/08/11

Noise mapping of ports

The objective was to calculate the noise immission in the neighbourhood of the ports of Dublin and Turku and evaluate noise annoyance caused to residents living in nearby areas

Calculations were carried out by using noise mapping software. Producing accurate noise map is a demanding task where

comprehensive source data and its correct implementation plays a crucial role.

1409/08/11

Noise mapping of Dublin Port

Terrain Sea was modelled as hard surface,

but withreflection loss of 1 dB

Various hard surfaces like concrete or asphalt are modelled as hard surfaces

Forests are modelled as foliage and their height was chosen to be 20 m.

Lawn is modelled as soft surface No topography was imported, since

import data was not valid for noise mapping program

Obstacles 680 buildings (residential-,

commercialbuildings, warehouses, ships)

50 cylinders (oil tanks, chimneys)

1509/08/11

Noise mapping of Dublin Port

Sources Point sources (gantries, cranes and

exhaust pipes from ships) Line sources (reach stackers, straddle

carriers, goods handling trucks and gantry cranes)

Area sources (reefers, reach stackers and terminal tractors)

The sound power level was measured in situ for nearly all source types

The sound power data from noise data banks and literature was used for other sources.

1609/08/11

Noise mapping of Dublin Port

Operation time for the machinery of the ports was derived from ship activity logs and consulting with the port personnel

Operation times: 100% of full time

Engines of RTG-DFT and RTG-PLS

50% of full time Fork lift trucks Reach stackers

20% of full time Exhaust of RTG-DFT

and RTG-PLS Reefers

Same as ship Electric cranes Gantry cranes

Name of Port Sum

of al

l shi

ps

Bre

ak B

ulk

Bul

k Li

quid

Bul

k So

lid

Fish

Ves

sel

Iris

h Li

ghts

Ves

sel

LoLo

RoR

o Car

Car

rier

s

RoR

o Cru

ise

Line

rs

RoR

o Fa

st F

erry

RoR

o Fr

eigh

t/Pa

ssen

ger

Wor

k Ves

sel

D 282 0 0 0 0 0 278 2 2 0 0 0E 80 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 0N 131 0 0 0 0 0 130 1 0 0 0 0D 444 0 0 0 0 0 444 0 0 0 0 0E 126 0 0 0 0 0 126 0 0 0 0 0N 207 0 0 0 0 0 207 0 0 0 0 0D 182 21 0 86 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 74E 57 6 0 26 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 25N 112 11 0 51 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 49

Alex Basin East 38

Alex Basin East 40

Alex Quay West 29

1709/08/11

Noise mapping of Dublin Port

LDEN sound levels in the port of Dublin and its surroundings

10

10

10

5

10 108104101224

1lg10

nighteveningday LLL

denL

1809/08/11

Noise mapping different scenariosNormal

Road removed

Higher barrier

Even higher barrier

Some sources attenuated

Sound level scenario – how to achieve

1909/08/11

Noise mapping source ranking

The sources can be identified and their contribution ranked at different locations

Source Partial Level

Name ID

Lden Ld Le Ln

Gantry_crane2 21 62 56 55 54

Container_handling 56 58 51 51 51

Gantry_crane_ 4 23 51 46 46 45

ship_exhaust_ 2 43 51 56 45 44

Main Road 118 51 57 53 45

Source Partial Level

Name ID

Lden Ld Le Ln

Road 118 61 57 53 55

ship_exhaust_RoRo 55 54 50 51 47

gantry_crane_2 21 49 44 43 43

ship_exhaust_C, 36 49 44 45 41

loading_ship_RoRo 20 48 44 45 41

2009/08/11

Noise monitoring results verifying mapping results

The noise maps have been verified by noise monitoring measurements

The Lden levels were calculated from measurement data over one year period using the definition of Lden

10

10

10

5

10 108104101224

1lg10

nighteveningday LLL

denL

TurkuR TurkuC TurkuT

simulated Lden [dB] 61 63 53

measured Lden [dB] 63 62 55

2109/08/11

Noise annoyance research

Noise annoyance was studied by evaluating the sound sources by calculating additional psychoacoustic descriptors

Sound samples were played back to 100 test persons

Analysis was carried out from the tests and annoyance models created

8178116117112124120Loudness 10 % [sone]

0000000Sensory Pleasantness [pu]

452341969491441927649Unbiased Annoyance [au]

5.978.060.654.194.987.399.32Roughness [asper]

0.000.001.110.490.470.090.14Tonality [tu]

1.240.392.070.610.541.720.28Fluctuation Strength [vacil]

1.221.121.750.660.601.461.38Sharpness [acum]

7574111111109119114Loudness [sone]

liftidledriveliftidleliftidleOperation

1beacon

exhaust1location

RTG DFTRTG PSLEquipment

8178116117112124120Loudness 10 % [sone]

0000000Sensory Pleasantness [pu]

452341969491441927649Unbiased Annoyance [au]

5.978.060.654.194.987.399.32Roughness [asper]

0.000.001.110.490.470.090.14Tonality [tu]

1.240.392.070.610.541.720.28Fluctuation Strength [vacil]

1.221.121.750.660.601.461.38Sharpness [acum]

7574111111109119114Loudness [sone]

liftidledriveliftidleliftidleOperation

1beacon

exhaust1location

RTG DFTRTG PSLEquipment

2209/08/11

Example on psychoacoustic descriptors

78 dB38

0,3967 au

LpAeqLoudness sone

Sharpness acumUnbiased Annoyance

78 dB50

0,89125 au

LpAeqLoudness sone

Sharpness acumUnbiased Annoyance

2309/08/11

Sound pressure level vs. loudness

The samples have all been adjusted to the same level of sound pressure

2409/08/11

Listening tests

100 persons participated the tests in Dublin, Turku and Tampere, Finland

14 different samples were used A pair comparison for ten different

samples was used All the samples are tested against

each other in both directions 90 sample pairs have been presented

during the test. Each sample lasted 5 seconds The gain for all the samples was

adjusted so, that their A-weighted values were similar

Sample Description Note

Ac01 Dublin, normal alarm beacon sound

Ac02 Dublin, "non-disturbing" beacon, rolling of Gantry Whining of wiring at backround

Ac04 Turku, reach stacker container pick up from trailer Container handling noise

Ac05 Dublin, container handling

Ac06 Dublin, container lifting, whining of the wiring Strong generator room sound and container handling

Ac07 Turku, Terminal tractor out of the ship mainly accelerating sound (transmission)

Terminal tractor into the ship strong ramp sound

Ac08 Dublin, terminal tractor out Strong ramp sounds

Ac09 Turku, by pass reach stacker

Ac10 Dublin, cooling fan noise, diesel engine noise Stronger sound

Ac11 Dublin, exhaust noise combined with diesel engine clearly observed

Lifting mode

Ac12 Dublin, low frequency exhaust noise Cooling fan far in the background

Ac13 Dublin, broadband fan sound Compressor buzzing also dominant

Ac14 Turku, exhaust stack ventilation fan including tonal sound

2509/08/11

Psychoacoustic descriptors

The psychoacoustic descriptors for the samples were calculated

Ac0

1.w

av

Ac0

2.w

av

Ac0

4.w

av

Ac0

5.w

av

Ac0

6.w

av

Ac0

7.w

av

Ac0

8.w

av

Ac0

9.w

av

Ac1

0.w

av

Ac1

1.w

av

Ac1

2.w

av

Ac1

3.w

av

Ac1

4.w

av

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

A w

eig

hte

d s

ou

nd

pre

ssu

re le

vel,

dB

Ac0

1.w

av

Ac0

2.w

av

Ac0

4.w

av

Ac0

5.w

av

Ac0

6.w

av

Ac0

7.w

av

Ac0

8.w

av

Ac0

9.w

av

Ac1

0.w

av

Ac1

1.w

av

Ac1

2.w

av

Ac1

3.w

av

Ac1

4.w

av

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Lo

ud

ne

ss,

son

e

Ac0

1.w

av

Ac0

2.w

av

Ac0

4.w

av

Ac0

5.w

av

Ac0

6.w

av

Ac0

7.w

av

Ac0

8.w

av

Ac0

9.w

av

Ac1

0.w

av

Ac1

1.w

av

Ac1

2.w

av

Ac1

3.w

av

Ac1

4.w

av

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Ro

ug

hn

ess

, a

spe

r

Ac0

1.w

av

Ac0

2.w

av

Ac0

4.w

av

Ac0

5.w

av

Ac0

6.w

av

Ac0

7.w

av

Ac0

8.w

av

Ac0

9.w

av

Ac1

0.w

av

Ac1

1.w

av

Ac1

2.w

av

Ac1

3.w

av

Ac1

4.w

av

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

To

na

lity,

tu

Ac0

1.w

av

Ac0

2.w

av

Ac0

4.w

av

Ac0

5.w

av

Ac0

6.w

av

Ac0

7.w

av

Ac0

8.w

av

Ac0

9.w

av

Ac1

0.w

av

Ac1

1.w

av

Ac1

2.w

av

Ac1

3.w

av

Ac1

4.w

av

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Flu

ctu

atio

n s

tre

ng

th,

vaci

l

Ac0

1.w

av

Ac0

2.w

av

Ac0

4.w

av

Ac0

5.w

av

Ac0

6.w

av

Ac0

7.w

av

Ac0

8.w

av

Ac0

9.w

av

Ac1

0.w

av

Ac1

1.w

av

Ac1

2.w

av

Ac1

3.w

av

Ac1

4.w

av

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Sh

arp

ne

ss,

acu

m

A-weighted sound pressure level Loudness Fluctuation strength

Roughness Tonality Sharpness

2609/08/11

Annoyance score

The most annoying sounds were caused by container handling, alarms and ramp sounds

The least annoying noise was considered to be low frequency exhaust noise and some fan noise.

Ac0

1.w

av

Ac0

2.w

av

Ac0

4.w

av

Ac0

5.w

av

Ac0

6.w

av

Ac0

7.w

av

Ac0

8.w

av

Ac0

9.w

av

Ac1

0.w

av

Ac1

1.w

av

Ac1

2.w

av

Ac1

3.w

av

Ac1

4.w

av

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

No

rma

lize

d a

nn

oya

nce

sco

re

No

rma

l a

larm

Bro

ad

ba

nd

a

larm

Co

nta

ine

r h

an

dli

ng

Ra

mp

no

ise

Co

nta

ine

r h

an

dli

ng

Ra

mp

no

ise

Re

ac

h s

tac

ke

r p

as

s

Co

nta

ine

r h

an

dli

ng

RT

G

RT

G e

xh

au

st

lift

RT

G e

xh

au

st

Re

efe

r

Ve

ss

el

ve

nti

lati

on

1

2

3 456

78 910

111213

2709/08/11

The annoyance models

The annoyance model has been created according to the statistical analysis.

The model for the sources is defined by the shown correlations as a function of the different psychoacoustic descriptors, where pB is the B-weighted sound pressure, LN loudness, S sharpness, T tonality, R roughness, and O is skewness

3.1·Pa

2

0.91·acum

2

2

Annoyance(p )

Annoyance(L ) · 10.48·sone sone

Annoyance(S)

Annoyance(T) 1.98· 2.24·tu tu

0.68·asperAnnoyance(R)

Annoyance(O ) 1.27· 0.7

10.7

6·

BpB

N NN

S

S S S

e

L L

e

T T

R

O O

2809/08/11

Conclusions

Sound power measurements were carried out for port noise sources

The highest A-weighted sound power levels were generated by the RTG and straddle carrier equipment

Noise mapping was carried out for two test case ports Dublin and Turku

Long-term noise monitoring was carried out in two ports Listening tests were organized using 100 test persons The most annoying sound according to the listening tests were the

alarm sounds and container handling sounds Further work will be focused on the noise monitoring results and

annoyance models, but also with equipment manufacturers to make the machinery quieter