2. Evaluation of noise annoyance of port related noise Le Havre 10 March 2010 Johannes Hyrynen VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Machinery and Environmental Acoustics

3. 2 09/08/11 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

4. 3 09/08/11 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

5. 4 09/08/11 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

6. 5 09/08/11 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

7. 6 09/08/11 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

8. 7 09/08/11 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

9. 8 09/08/11 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

10. 9 09/08/11 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

11. 10 09/08/11 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

12. 11 09/08/11 The sound characteristics of the sources  RoRo vessel noise sources  Exhaust  Ventilation  Hydraulics  Total levels L WA 86-106 dB

13. 12 09/08/11 The sound characteristics of the sources  Container handling and ramp sounds  Bangs  Low frequency broadband sound events with some narrowband components

14. 13 09/08/11 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.

15. 14 09/08/11 Noise mapping of Dublin Port  Terrain  Sea was modelled as hard surface, but with reflection 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-, commercial buildings, warehouses, ships)  50 cylinders (oil tanks, chimneys)

16. 15 09/08/11 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.

17. 16 09/08/11 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

18. 17 09/08/11 Noise mapping of Dublin Port  L DEN sound levels in the port of Dublin and its surroundings

19. 18 09/08/11 Noise mapping different scenarios

20. 19 09/08/11 Noise mapping source ranking  The sources can be identified and their contribution ranked at different locations

21. 20 09/08/11 Noise monitoring results verifying mapping results  The noise maps have been verified by noise monitoring measurements  The L den levels were calculated from measurement data over one year period using the definition of L den TurkuRTurkuCTurkuT simulated L den [dB]616353 measured L den [dB]636255

22. 21 09/08/11 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

23. 22 09/08/11 Example on psychoacoustic descriptors

24. 23 09/08/11 Sound pressure level vs. loudness  The samples have all been adjusted to the same level of sound pressure

25. 24 09/08/11 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

26. 25 09/08/11 Psychoacoustic descriptors  The psychoacoustic descriptors for the samples were calculated A-weighted sound pressure levelLoudnessFluctuation strength Roughness TonalitySharpness

27. 26 09/08/11 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. Normal alarm Broadband alarm Container handling Ramp noise Container handling Ramp noise Reach stacker pass Container handling RTG RTG exhaust lift RTG exhaust Reefer Vessel ventilation 1 2 3 4 56 78 9 10 11 12 13

28. 27 09/08/11 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 p B is the B-weighted sound pressure, L N loudness, S sharpness, T tonality, R roughness, and O is skewness

29. 28 09/08/11 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