Towards common noise assessment methods in EU Dr. Stylianos Kephalopoulos European Commission

1. Meeting of the EIONET National Reference Centres for Noise 14-15October 2009, Copenhagen Towards common noise assessment methods in EU Dr.StylianosKephalopoulos European Commission DG Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer Protection 21027-Ispra(VA), ITALY

2. Common assessment methods are foreseen by the END In article 6 of the Directive it is stated that: “common assessment methods for the determination of Lden and Lnight shall be established by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 13(2) [regulatory committee] through a revision of Annex II”. • for ensuring consistency for noise exposure data among Europe • to achieve accuracy, precision and credibility of the assessment performed throughout the EU and in the estimation of the population exposure

3. Roadmap towards common noise assessment methods in EU DG JRC on behalf of DG ENV and in collaboration with EEA and a Network of European noise experts so far have undertaken the following steps: Workshop on “The target quality and input values requirements for European noise mapping” Elaborate a ‘fit for purpose’ framework for common noise assessment methods A literature survey on existing noise mapping methods available in Europe, USA and Japan Requirements and criteria to be applied for the selection of the common assessment methods Evaluation of and pre-selection among existing noise assessment methods

4. 1. Workshop on “The target quality and input values requirements for European noise mapping” Conclusions and recommendations (1/3) • Reliable and comparable results at EU level should be obtained through establishing common assessment methods. • The reliability and comparability of results should be maximised through setting up a guidance on the competent use of noise assessment methods accompanied by a quality system in relation to: • the relevant quality and quantity of input data; • the use, extraction, and management of input databases; • the calculation settings in software; • the software use and the modelling techniques used. • Reporting mechanism to report noise maps and population exposure should be made mandatory.

5. 1. Workshop on “The target quality and input values requirements for European noise mapping” Conclusions and recommendations (2/3) • The quality system to introduce regarding input data collection and use should specifically comprise the following elements: • Specifications for GIS input/output data and data collection • Specification on degree of detail of the input data tailored for different noise mapping needs, e.g., strategic (global) noise mapping versus detailed (local) noise mapping for action planning • A standard scheme to be followed for the collection of information on the datasets used and dataprocessing procedures used • Specific conditions related to the definition and usage of “default” input data • A fixed methodology to attribute population exposure to noise levels • An EU calculation code (both, for strategic and detailed noise mapping) should be established and updated centrally and periodically by the EC in collaboration with the software developers.

6. 1. Workshop on “The target quality and input values requirements for European noise mapping” Conclusions and recommendations (3/3) • There is a need to constitute an open and public database of global input values to be used together with the common assessment methods, that is centrally managed and periodically updated by the EC on the basis of contributions from the EU MS • The same degree of “comparable” results for all four calculation methods (i.e., road, railway, industrial and aircraft) should be ensured • An integration of the noise GIS data into the set-ups under the INSPIRE directive (Annexes I to III) is envisaged.

7. 2. “Fit for purpose” framework for common noise assessment methods (1/3) • 1st Purpose: overall impact assessment of exposure to noise 1. Support to the EU level policy:  Strategic noise maps (simplified assessment methods with reasonable data approximations) • 2nd Purpose: precise determination of exposure levels to noise 1. Support to the EU level policy:  More sophisticated assessment methods with detailed input values to: • Provide the basis for source noise legislation (e.g. tyre noise, vehicle pass by noise, road surfaces descriptions, rail vehicle interoperability, aircraft fleet restrictions)

8. 2. “Fit for purpose” framework for common noise assessment methods (2/3) • 2nd Purpose: precise determination of exposure levels to noise 1. Support to the EU level policy:  More sophisticated assessment methods with detailed input values to: • Support the assessment of impact of policy alternatives (“what-if” scenarios) 2. Support EU MS policy aspects: • vehicle restrictions • tyre restrictions or special types • traffic calming • promotion of electric / hybrid vehicles • promotion of vehicle fleet change through financial incentives to scrap older cars, older trains, older aircrafts • noise-differentiated track and airport access charging • action plan policies etc

9. 2. “Fit for purpose” framework for common noise assessment methods (3/3) • 2nd Purpose: precise determination of exposure levels to noise 3. Local action plans policy aspects: • local actions such as those within the ‘Silence’ handbook • road surface changes • different types of barriers (in general, e.g. berms, walls, embankments etc.), their materials, shapes, sizes, acoustical performance or other functionalities (e.g.: absorbent/reflective, curved, tilted, complex overhanging, with photovoltaic devices and with top devices). • rail grinding, rail vehicle brake changes, tuned rail absorbers, mitigation of rail curve squeal • transferring night time rail and aircraft movements to the day • switch to different type of cars and trains (e.g.: electric/hybrid cars, diesel to electric locomotives) • low emission zones • calculations for quiet areas in open countryside

10. 3. Literature survey of existing methods in EU, US and Japan • Investigate on the source and propagation elements of the methods in terms of: • theoretical assumptions and mathematical formulations • degree of applicability • range of validity • development and updating plans over time • documentation • Sources of information used: • peer-reviewed journals • conference proceedings (e.g. JASA, Journal of Sound & Vibration, ACTA ACUSTICA, Euronoise and Internoise) • directly from the developers for unpublished material

11. 3. Literature survey of existing methods in EU, US and Japan

12. 4. Requirements / criteria for the selection of the common noise assessment methods (1/3)

13. 4. Requirements / criteria for the selection of the common noise assessment methods (2/3)

14. 4. Requirements / criteria for the selection of the common noise assessment methods (3/3)

15. 5. Evaluation of and pre-selection among existing noise assessment methods (1/5) Based on the agreed criteria, the evaluation exercise qualified the following methods as the most appropriate to be further processed for preparing the common methods: • HARMONOISE/IMAGINE and NORD2000 for road, railway and industrial noise • Further investigation on ECAC-Doc29 and AzB has to be performed for aircraft noise, since both methods fulfil most but not all the essential requirements outlined during the previous technical discussions held among the noise experts. • Other methods were also qualified because they contain components resulted from research investigations recently concluded that could eventually be used in the common method: • ASJ RTN 2009 and NMPB 2008 for road traffic noise, • RVS and Schall03 for railway noise and • ISO 9613 for industrial noise

16. 5. Evaluation of and pre-selection among existing noise assessment methods (2/5) The pre-selected methods were further processed in a Workshop took place on 8-9 September 2009 in Brussels on the basis: • Table describing the components of the qualified noise assessment methods for both, the propagation and the source specific parts

17. 5. Evaluation of and pre-selection among existing noise assessment methods (3/5) PROPAGATION SPECIFIC A.1 - Geometrical divergence A.2 - Atmospheric absorption A.3 - Terrain profile A.4 - Ground effect A.5 - Reflections A.6 - Diffractions / screening obstacles A.7 - Modelling of meteorological influence ROAD SOURCE SPECIFIC B.1 - Classification of vehicles B.2 - Speed dependence B.3 - Acceleration/deceleration (Traffic flow) B.4 - Gradients B.5 - Road surface type correction B.6 - Tyre type correction B.7 - Engine noise/Exhaust noise B.8 - Aerodynamic noise B.9 – Bridges B.10 – Tunnels B.11 – Viaducts B.12 – Crossings B.13 - Segmentation of the source B.14 - Source(s) position

18. 5. Evaluation of and pre-selection among existing noise assessment methods (4/5) RAILWAY SOURCE SPECIFIC C.1 - Wheel roughness C.2 - Rail roughness C.3 - Classification of vehicles/ locomotives C.4 - Rolling noise / speed dependence C.5 - Engine noise / speed dependence C.6 - Aerodynamic noise / speed dependence C.7 - Squeal noise C.8 - Braking noise C.9 - Track/support structure classification C.10 - Bridges C.11 – Tunnels C.12 – Viaducts C.13 – Crossings C.14 - Segmentation of the source C.15 - Source(s) position INDUSTRIAL SOURCE SPECIFIC D.1 - Point source definition D.2 - Line source definition D.3 - Area source definition D.4 - Sound power and directivity (database) AIRCRAFT SOURCE SPECIFIC E.1 - Segmentation (function of aircraft performance and track) E.2 - Aircraft performance and flight profile as a function of air parameters, aircraft type, engine type, TOW (database) E.3 - Aircraft noise as function of performance (database) E.4 - Source directivity E.5 - Dispersion of tracks E.6 - Ground operations

19. The way forward (1/3) • The following tasks will be performed in the period October-December 2009: • An ad-hoc Workshop on aircraft noise will be organised before the end of 2009 for achieving consensus among the experts for the components to be used in the common noise assessment methods. The discussions should be based on ECAC doc. 29 and AzB. • Benchmarking/testings should be performed and/or ad-hoc meetings should be organised for the following components: • For the sound propagation part: • A4. ‘ground effect’ (benchmark among Harmonoise/Imagine, Nord2000, NMPB) • A5. ‘reflections’ (implementation of Nord2000 formula to be tested by software developers) • A6. ‘diffraction & screening obstacles’ (test comparison of Harmonoise/Imagine, NMPB)

20. The way forward (2/3) • For the road traffic source part: • B4. ‘gradients’ (benchmark among Harmonoise/Imagine and NMPB) • B9, B10, B11 ‘bridges, tunnels, viaducts’ (ad hoc group of road traffic noise experts of Harmonise/Imagine for investigating on the inclusion of the Japanese approach) • B13. ‘segmentation of the source’ (ad hoc meeting with software developers and benchmarking of existing software) • B14. ‘source(s) position’ (benchmarking and ad hoc meeting between Harmonoise/Imagine and NMPB) • For the railway traffic source part: • C5. ‘engine noise’, C7. ‘squeel noise’, C.10 ‘bridges’,C.15 ‘source position’ (ad hoc group of railway noise experts of Harmonoise/Imagine and Shall03 to discuss the implementation aspects)

21. The way forward (3/3) • For the industrial source part: • D1. to D4. (to be discussed in an ad hoc group among software developers) B. The following tasks will be performed in the period November 2009 – April 2010: • A draft of the common noise assessment methods will be prepared for road traffic, railway traffic and industrial noise. • Preparation of good practice guidelines for appropriate use of the common noise assessment methods in relation to the target quality and input values requirements for European noise mapping should be prepared preferably in parallel with the drafting of the common noise assessment methods.

22. Reports can be retrieved through DG ENV’s Website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/