BASELINE NOISE MEASUREMENTS Different Techniques Different Results

Similar documents
9. NOISE AND VIBRATION

Monthly Noise Monitoring Assessment

100 Avenue Road, Swiss Cottage, London

ASSESSMENT OF INWARD TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT AT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WONDERFUL BARN, LEIXLIP, CO. KILDARE

Environmental Noise Monitoring. Hanson Quarry Wagga Wagga, NSW. October 2012

Assessment. Assessment. Ripley Valley Amex SUCE Development Stages ROL Phase. Ripley Valley Amex SUCE Development Stages ROL Phase

Assessment - Draft. Assessment - Draft. Ripley Valley Amex SUCE Development Stages ROL Phase

Additional information relevant to Section 7 is presented in Appendix D in Volume 2 of 3 of the EIS.

SELWYN PRIMARY SCHOOL, LONDON ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE SURVEY

Use of long term monitoring data for defining baseline sound levels

F6. Operational Noise

Chiles Ltd. 13 September 2018 Ref: Shearer Consulting Ltd. Dear Craig

A review of the use of different noise prediction models for windfarms and the effects of meteorology

10 Noise and Vibration

Appendix E Details of Noise and Vibration Assessment Methodologies

No significant construction or operational vibration impacts are expected.

The acquisition of baseline noise data at receptor locations, and the analysis of this data, to take account of site-specific wind shear.

Assessment - Draft. Assessment - Draft. Ripley Valley Amex SUCE Development Stages 42A ROL Phase

EDINBURGH TRAM LINES ONE AND TWO

HAINE ROAD, RAMSGATE NOISE ASSESSMENT

USE OF LONG TERM MONITORING DATA FOR DEFINING BASELINE SOUND LEVELS

Environmental Noise Compliance Assessment Bass Point Quarry

Tidbury Green Farmhouse, Tidbury Green. Proposed new Public House Report on existing noise climate 08/12/17 Revision 3 ACOUSTICS

Noise monitoring program for assessing the impact of maximum traffic noise levels

8. Appendix F Acoustic Assessment

Decibell Consulting pty Ltd

Roma to Brisbane Pipeline Dalby Compressor Station Upgrade Environmental Management Plan. Appendix 8. Noise Assessment

Comparison of compliance results obtained from the various wind farm standards used in Australia

BS4142:2014 Assessment for Planning Application

3.5.1 Outdoor Living Areas (OLAs) Indoor Sound Levels... 8

Noise Impact Assessment

6.0. Noise and Vibration.

Planning. Local. 46 Planning

Project: FONTERRA STIRLING. Prepared for: Fonterra Limited PO Box 459 Hamilton Attention: Brigid Buckley. Report No.

South Branch Wind Farm Acoustic Audit - Immission Summary for Public Distribution

Proposed Lidl Food Store Muller Road Bristol. Environmental Noise Report for Planning

8 Noise and Vibration

Midland Metro Extensions Noise and Vibration Policy

Noise impact from Multi Use Games Areas: A Local Authority Perspective

Freight Train Noise Assessments

Oldman 2 Wind Farm Limited

Strategic noise mapping of Adelaide CBD

Impacts of Dredging and Reclamation on Noise and Amenity

Residential Impact Mitigation Guidelines for Construction

Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council. Longitude Festival 15 th to 17 th July Marlay Park, Dublin

Wind Law - - To replace 17, Noise Standards and Setbacks for Wind Energy Conversion

LOTS 2 & 3 ANKETELL ROAD, ANKETELL SUBDIVISION ACOUSTIC ASSESSMENT FOR TERRANOVIS

Status: Rev: Comments Date: Author: Reviewer:

CRANBOURNE LANDFILL. Environmental Noise Assessment. Rp ML. 10 May 2013

GEO: Sustainable Urban Transport Investment Program Tranche 3

Urban Wind Turbines: A Feasibility Study

Analysis of wind turbine low frequency noise prediction accuracy

Noise Impact Assessment. For Proposed Extension to Landfill Operations. Gowy Landfill Site Ince Lane Chester. For. FCC Environment

PROPOSED CO-OPERATIVE SUPERMARKET, KNIGHTON

Rumster Wind Energy Project

Noise and Vibration Management for the Southern Suburbs Railway Project

Stationary Noise Feasibility Assessment. 315 Chapel Street Ottawa, Ontario

Environmental Noise Assessment

Constructing SoundPLAN Models for Noise Studies That Are Consistent With the HUD Noise Guidebook

Stationary Noise Feasibility Assessment. 315 Chapel Street Ottawa, Ontario

Acoustic impact of an urban micro hydro scheme

Status: Rev: Comments Date: Author: Reviewer:

Wambo Coal Mine Annual Report

APPROVED FOR THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING. c/o Macquarie Capital 50 Martin Place Sydney NSW Document Control SHEET 2 OF 51

12. Noise and Vibration

R e p o r t th S e p t e m ber 2016

Gibbet Hill Wind Farm Noise Monitoring Report

This report assesses the outward noise and vibration impact of the proposed development on its surrounding environment.

ORICA VILLAWOOD REMEDIATION

Effect of roadside vegetation on the reduction of traffic noise levels

Mann Avenue Development 87 Mann Avenue Noise Control Study

Noise annoyance caused by large wind turbines a dose-response relationship

EDF EN Canada Development Inc.

Contact: Julie McDonagh. Thursday, 10 September Amex Corporation Level 1, 56 Boundary Street PO Box 3790 South Brisbane QLD 4101

Cost Effective Approaches to Industrial Noise Control

Variations of sound from wind turbines during different weather conditions

For inspection purposes only.

Regulations and Standards

HANNA STREET REZONING APPLICATION Hanna Street Rezoning Rp ML. 19 June 2012

Environmental Baseline Study: Noise. Total E&P Canada Ltd. Calgary, Alberta

NOISE MAPPING AND NOISE ACTION PLANS IN LARGE URBAN AREAS

APPENDIX 8. Noise Impact Assessment

Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants Guideline for Commercial Building Acoustics. May 2011

PROPOSED CO-OPERATIVE CONVENIENCE STORE AT MARINER PH, MORTIMER ROAD, SOUTH SHIELDS NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT. On behalf of: The Co-operative Group

The design of sound insulation measures for dwellings around Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

BS Consultation Institute Of Acoustics Response

A Scoping Study on Assessment Practices for Noise Impacts from Renewable Technologies

Statistical and curve fitting post- process of wind farm noise monitoring data

11.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION

Peak Gold Mines MONTHLY ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SUMMARY REPORT. February 2018

Noise Monitoring Management Plan

NSW WIND ENERGY: NOISE ASSESSMENT BULLETIN CRITIQUE OF THE AUGUST 2016 DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES

Noise Assessment Report

Appendix 2. Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report

ACOUSTIC STUDY OF THE SUNY CANTON WIND TURBINE CANTON, NEW YORK. June 2013

COMFREY WIND PROJECT. NOISE STUDY In Brown and Cottonwood Counties, Minnesota. For WESCO Wind 04/16/12

Kamperman & James Nine-page summary edition Page 1 of 9

Evaluating Ontario Regulations for Siting Turbines. in Context of. Findings from the Health Canada Study

Transcription:

BASELINE NOISE MEASUREMENTS Different Techniques Different Results

Assessment Type & Methodology?

Individual Methodologies: BS 4142 PPG 24 BB93 CRTN/DMRB/Road Noise Insulation Regulations CRN/Railway & Guided Transport Systems Insulation Regulations Wind Farm Noise (ETSU-R-97) Noise Act Annex 2 of MPS 2

Multiple Methodologies Required: Environmental Statements Nuisance Investigations World Heath Organisation Guidelines BS 8233

No Established Methodology: Construction Noise AL-72 Perhaps?

Baseline Assessment of Critical Importance for Comparative as opposed to Absolute Assessment Criteria

Individual Methodologies: BS 4142: Almost Exclusively Comparative PPG 24: Absolute BB93: Absolute CRTN/DMRB/Road NIR: Elements of Both CRN/Railway NIR: Elements of Both Wind Farm Noise (ETSU-R-97): Elements of Both Noise Act: Elements of Both Annex 2 of MPS 2: Elements of Both

BS 4142 Index: L A90,T measured using time-weighting F expressed to the nearest decibel Ensure Time Interval sufficient to obtain a representative value May be necessary to repeat the measurements on a number of occasions to obtain a representative sample (especially if meteorological factors potentially significant) Background to be measured at a time typical of that when source will be operating

BS 4142 continued Index: L A90,T measured using time-weighting F expressed to the nearest decibel Clear? Yes Both L Aeq and L A90 rounded in BS 4142 (see 3.1 and 3.10) In reality consultants often reluctant to round L A90 s & L Aeq s where the assessment result critical e.g. Rating Level 49.5 & Background 45.4 is the margin 5 db (rounded) or 4.1 (unrounded)?

BS 4142 continued Ensure Time Interval sufficient to obtain a representative value Under 6 Specific Noise Level, clear Reference Time Intervals are given - 1 Hour during the day and 5 minutes during the night for the Specific Noise Level There is no similar guidance on the Reference Time Interval for Background Noise Level In the absence of guidance many people assume the same Reference Time Interval Is appropriate for both the Specific Noise Level and the Background Noise Level In the absence of any specific guidance it Reasonable to Use the L A90 1 hour And the L A90, 5 minutes at night? for daytime

Measurement Period and L A90 Not Established Industry Practice to do Long Measurement Periods (e.g. 8 hours) No Analytically Correct Way of Combining Percentiles In practice 1 hour, 15 minute or 5 minute L A90 measurements generally taken Average or Minimum 1 hour, 15 minute or 5 minute used for assessment

Measurement Period and L A90 8 hour L A90 significantly lower than Average (shorter period) L A90 s Minimum shorter period L A90 s significantly lower than 8 Hour L A90 The shorter the measurement period, the higher the average L A90 (~ 1dB 5min vs 1hr) The shorter the measurement period, the lower the minimum L A90 The shorter the measurement period, the higher the maximum L A90

Conclusions: Measurement Period and L A90 No Clear Quantitative Guidance on Measurement Period in BS 4142 The Measurement Period for L A90 affects the results Shorter Measurement Periods Give Higher Average L A90 s and Lower Minima L A90 s

BS 4142 continued May be necessary to repeat the measurements on a number of occasions to obtain a representative sample (especially if meteorological factors potentially significant) Wind L Position L Amax Direction Aeq L A10 L A90 F W 66.3 71.3 67.5 64.6 5 SE 57.0 62.5 58.1 55.7 Difference 9.3 8.8 9.4 8.9 Wind Position L Direction Aeq L Amax F L A10 L A90 W 67.7 72.8 69.0 65.9 6 SE 57.3 62.5 59.0 55.5 Difference 10.4 10.3 10.0 10.4

BS 4142 continued Background to be measured at a time typical of that when source will be operating Figure 2: Long-Term Noise Measurement Results 100 90 80 70 60 LAeq Lamax F LA10 LA90 50 Thur 9/9/04 Fri 10/9/04 Sat 11/9/04 40 30 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00

BS 4142 continued Background to be measured at a time typical of that when source will be operating What s Typical when Background Levels Vary with: Time of Day Weather Day of the Week Time of the Year Time Interval Chosen for L A90 Measurements At no point does BS 4142 advise on the use of minimum rather than typical levels

BS 4142 continued Measured at the assessment position(s) or other positions assumed equivalent Positions that are Outside Buildings Representative of the noise level at buildings where people likely to be affected Free-Field Preferred Measurement Height 1.2 1.5m Where measurements above ground floor necessary - 1 metre from facade Apart from measurements having to be made outside buildings there is considerable latitude for interpretation

BS 4142 continued Does the uncertainty regarding background measurement position matter? Is the free-field level representative of the background level at the building? 2 Busy Road 1 Receptor

BS 4142 continued Does the uncertainty regarding background measurement position matter? Is the free-field level representative of the background level at the building (contd)? Background Noise - Many Distant Sources Specific Noise Facade removes 50% of Soundfield 3 db reduction in background Reflection gives up to 3 db Increase Diffuse Field Equal Probability of Sound Arriving from any Direction Predominantly From a Specific Direction Reflection gives up to 3 db Increase Facade Background Lower than Free-Field Facade Rating Level Higher than Free-Field

Baseline for BS 4142: Summary Critical Element of the Assessment Methodology Considerable Variation Can be Obtained in a Specific Location due to: Measurement Position Measurement Time Interval Weather Conditions The way the Results are Processed and Interpreted

PPG 24 ASSESSMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT More Straightforward than BS 4142 Principally Uses L Aeq Difficulty Arises with Specified Measurement Position in Urban Locations Measurements Often Have to be Taken in Elevated Positions (security) 3 db Facade Correction can Result in Apparently Low Free-Field Levels Likely level at the time of application and any increase that may reasonably be expected in the foreseeable future to be determined Measured Noise Levels should be representative of typical conditions

PPG 24 ASSESSMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Measured Noise Levels should be representative of typical conditions Usually taken to mean mid-week Usually taken to mean dry with light or no wind No Specific Guidance on Measurement Duration Para 8 of Annex 1 confuses some people ( the arithmetic average of recorded readings should be rounded up ) I take this to mean the average of several days readings (not the arithmetic average of short-term L Aeq noise levels to be arithmetically averaged to give the L Aeq, 07:00 23:00 and L Aeq, 23:00 07:00 )

PPG 24 ASSESSMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NEC noise bands source-specific Additional Requirements Must be able to identify principle influences on daytime & night-time L Aeq Need to know how many events exceed 82 db L Amax S at night Unless dominant noise sources indisputable, requires either: Attended daytime and night-time measurements or periodic audio recordings to enable the principle noise sources to be identified and the capturing of events which exceed 82 db L Amax S at night Question: should the 82 db L Amax S criterion be applied to emergency services sirens in urban locations?

STRATEGIES FOR BASELINE ASSESSMENTS Calculations/Modelling Measurements Combination of Measurements & Calculations Most Baseline Assessments Need an Element of both Measurement & Calculation

CALCULATING BASELINE NOISE LEVELS Requires the Availability of: Source Information A validated model Most Applicable to Transportation Noise

CALCULATING BASELINE NOISE LEVELS Limitations: Availability/validity of traffic data Models generally predict only L Aeq or L A10 (no L Amax for PPG 24 or L A90 for 4142) Most applicable where receptors abut a road or railway for instance Difficult to apply to complex situations (multiple sources/traffic lights/junctions) Doesn t take into account other sources which may affect ambients/backgrounds

BASELINE NOISE MEASUREMENTS Most Reliable Longterm Attended Measurements Attended Samples Reliable but only a Very Limited Snapshot Unattended Longterm Measurements Better Picture of Data over a longer period but Doubt Over Identification of Sources

BASELINE NOISE MEASUREMENTS A Practicable Compromise Establish the Diurnal Pattern of Noise Levels with a Long-Term Unattended Monitor (preferably with periodic and event audio recording) Take sample measurements simultaneously at satellite locations Apply the Diurnal Variation from the Long-Term Measurements to the Sample Noise Measurement Results to obtain an Estimate of the Daytime & Night-Time Noise Levels at each Satellite Location

Period Mon 23 Tue 24 Wed 25 Thu 26 Average L Aeq, 07:00 23:00-57.1 55.9 56.0 56.3 L Aeq, 23:00 07:00 51.1 51.7 51.3-51.4 Table 3.1: Daytime and Night-time L Aeq Noise Levels at the Long-term Measurement Position Sample Long- Daytime Night-Time Time L Aeq L Amax S L A10 L A90 Term Position L Aeq L Aeq, 07 :00 23:0 0 L Aeq, 23:00 07:00 12:15 54.8 60.5 57.1 51.9-1.9 54.4 (A) 49.5 (B) Table 3.2: Noise Levels at Position 1 at a Height of 1.5m Sample Long- Daytime Night-Time Time L Aeq L Amax S L A10 L A90 Term Position L Aeq L Aeq, 07 :00 23:0 0 L Aeq, 23:00 07:00 12:45 54.4 61.7 56.0 51.6-1.6 54.7(A) 49.8(B) Table 3.3: Noise Levels at Position 2 at a Height of 1.5m Time L Aeq L Amax S L A10 L Sample Long- Daytime Night-Time A90 Term Position L Aeq L Aeq, 07 :00 23:0 0 L Aeq, 2 3:00 07 :00 13:20 54.7 60.3 56.3 52.6-1.5 54.8 (A) 49.9(B) Table 3.4: Noise Levels at Position 3 at a Height of 1.5m Sample Long- Daytime Night-Time Time L Aeq L Amax S L A10 L A90 Term Position L Aeq L Aeq, 07 :00 23:0 0 L Aeq, 2 3:00 07 :00 14:00 54.6 59.8 56.4 52.3-1.4 54.9(A) 49.5(B) Table 3.5: Noise Levels at Position 4 at a Height of 1.5m Sample Long- Daytime Night-Time Time L Aeq L Amax S L A10 L A90 Term Position L Aeq L Aeq, 07 :00 23:0 0 L Aeq, 23:00 07:00 15:00 54.5 58.6 55.8 52.6-1.6 54.7(A) 49.8(A) Table 3.6: Noise Levels at Position 5 at a Height of 1.5m

BASELINE NOISE MEASUREMENTS Long-Term Plus Satellites Implicit Assumptions & Cautionary Notes The same noise sources must be the principal influence on the indices being assessed The danger of there being extraneous noise events at the unattended location n.b. Birdsong can play havoc with A-weighted SPLs Be aware of the different attenuation rates of different indices Consider a Road:-

BASELINE NOISE MEASUREMENTS L Aeq /L A10 Line Source L Amax /(L A1?) Point Source - 10 log (distance) i.e. 3 db per doubling of distance - 20 log (distance) i.e. 6 db per doubling of distance

BASELINE NOISE MEASUREMENTS Levels ~ 20m from A-Road Levels ~ 100m from A Road

BASELINE NOISE MEASUREMENTS As you get further from a Line Source (e.g. Road) The Noise Indices get Closer Together The Diurnal Variation of the L A90 Decreases The diurnal pattern of the other indices less distinct (influence of local sources) Long-term Position and Satellite Positions should therefore ideally be comparable distances from the main noise source