EURONOISE 2009
October 26-28
ABSTRACT
Initial estimates indicate that over 115 million people dwell within approximately 160 major
cities across the EU for which noise maps and action plans have been prepared for the 1st
round of activities under Directive 2002/49/EC. The results derived from the maps, and
the summary action plans, have now largely been submitted to the Commission, and the
process of drawing comparisons between cities and Member States is being undertaken.
The Directive enabled Member States to use adapted national methods, either statutory or
de facto standards, or the EC recommended Interim methods, themselves adapted from
some existing national methods. The Directive contains a requirement for national
methods to demonstrate equivalence to the recommended Interim methods, and JRC
issued draft protocols designed to evaluate equivalence to the Interim methods. This paper
present results obtained from the use of these protocols in the evaluation of equivalence
between the recommended Interim method for road traffic noise, XPS 31-133 Interim and
compares them with the results obtained using three adapted national methods, and the
draft proposed Harmonoise method. These results may provide an initial estimate of the
uncertainty introduced into the mapping results through the selection of differing methods
of assessment, and draw comparisons with the extent of uncertainty introduced by
differences in the quality of input datasets and other factors.
1. INTRODUCTION
Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relates to the
assessment and management of environmental noise, and is commonly referred to as the
Environmental Noise Directive or END1. The aim of the Directive is: to define a common
approach intended to avoid, prevent or reduce on a prioritised basis the harmful effects,
including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise. And to that end three
stages are set out:
Undertake strategic noise mapping to determine exposure to environmental noise;
1
Ensure information on environmental noise and its effects is made available to the
public;
Adopt action plans, based upon the noise-mapping results, with a view to preventing
and reducing environmental noise where necessary and particularly where
exposure levels can induce harmful effects on human health and to preserving
environmental noise quality where it is good.
The END requires Member States to produce strategic noise maps for the main
sources of environmental noise, i.e. major roads, major railways, major airports and
agglomerations with a population of more than 250,000 persons in 2007 and those with a
population of more than 100,000 persons in 2012 and subsequent rounds. Estimates for
the 2007 mapping indicate that there were in the region of 160 cities to be mapped, and
over 85,000km of major roads.
The Directive sets out a requirement in paragraph 7 Data about environmental noise
levels should therefore be collected, collated or reported in accordance with comparable
criteria, and therefore proposes the development of a common methods of assessment
and recommends the use of EC recommended adopted Interim Methods to be used in the
meantime. Article 6 of the END does allow for the use of existing National Methods
providing that In such case, they must demonstrate that those methods give equivalent
results to the results obtained with the methods set out in paragraph 2.2 of Annex II. The
background to the basic requirement for an assessment of equivalence is discussed
further in the authors accompanying paper2.
In pursuance of an understanding of equivalence between National and Interim
Methods provision was made under a contractual arrangement from DG Environment3 to
DG Joint Research Centre (JRC) to prepare a set of technical protocols. These were
delivered to MS on 4 June 20084. Alongside the delivery of the protocols was an official
requirement to report back the results of an exercise on equivalency by the end of July
2008 either by implementing the JRC protocols or by provide their own proof of
equivalence by a means other than through using the JRC protocols.
In the Final Report on the project5, dated 18 December 2008, JRC noted that MS
showed to be reluctant in facing discussions concerning equivalency and indeed only
seven responses discussing the equivalency issue are provided in Annexes of the Final
Report, none of which have applied the JRC protocols. The authors had become aware of
this reluctance through contact with a number of MS national authorities, and in the
interest of widening the discussion on equivalence determined to undertake the application
of the JRC protocols as an independent undertaking.
2. EQUIVALENCE
It is of note that none of the responses published to date take the one approach
which JRC had proposed through the development of the protocols, namely equivalent in
results generated. Indeed a couple of responses explicitly state that the results of
different national methods could not be equivalent. Even if one were to assess whether
results form a particular national method were indeed equivalent to an adapted Interim
Method, one would first need to determine the true result generated by the adapted
Interim Method for a given situation.
Defra research project NANR 937 developed the first map of uncertainty relating to
noise assessment, which was subsequently included within the WG-AEN Good Practice
Guide v28, p109. Whilst test protocols may seek to restrict the influence of some sources
of uncertainty, others will be almost unavoidable within a test procedure due to the
influence of the methodology, software, user settings and computational model datasets
on the final resultant level.
For example, the recommended interim methods are not accompanied by a set of
documented test cases or any type approval protocol; it is therefore considered likely that
different commercial software packages will produce varying results values when supplied
with the same input datasets. This is down to the influence of imprecise description within
current standards, and the variations between software tools as to how the procedure is
translated into the software tool, and how objects, geometries and assessments are
undertaken within each tool. This is an acknowledged area of uncertainty with a number of
existing national methods providing both test cases and acceptable tolerances for results9.
The JRC protocols attempt to reduce some of these influencing factors, and the approach
taken and results obtained are discussed below.
3. JRC PROTOCOLS
Four protocols were developed, one each for road, rail, industry and aircraft noise
assessments. The authors have restricted their investigations to the protocol for the
assessment of equivalency of road traffic noise methods at this stage.
The report describing the protocols is accompanied by a number of ESRI Shapefiles
providing the model data setting out the protocols for road, rail and industry. There were
two sets of delivered ESRI Shapefiles, for the road protocol these contained the following
seven model scenarios:
19 March 2008: City Depressed, City Embankment, City Flat, Open
Depressed, Open Embankment, Open Flat;
30 May 2008: Open Hills.
Table 1 sets out details of the model objects delivered for each scenario.
Table 1: ESRI Shapefiles delivered by JRC Protocols for each model
Case
City Depressed
City Embankment
City Flat
Barr
Bldg
Gabs
Hlin
Open Depressed
Open Embankment
Open Flat
Open Hills
Recv
Road
A. General description
The road protocol is a test environment for the assessment of road traffic noise. The
Interim Method is the French NMPB-routes-96. There are three main configurations for the
test environment: a motorway in an open situation, a main street representing a city and an
area of hilly terrain with short noise barriers.
The tested cross sections then include a case with a road on flat terrain, one with the
road on an embankment, and a third with the road in a cutting. There are additional
variations within this cases a there may be none, one single or two absorbing or reflecting
noise barriers alongside the road. There is also variation due to the presence of buildings
either parallel or perpendicular to the road.
Finally, the receptor locations may be free field, or 2m from a building faade. The
receptors may have an unscreened view of the road, be behind one barrier, or multiple
barriers.
B. LAeq values to be reported
The protocol requires the calculated LAeq level to be reported. The specific configuration
tables then set out traffic flow per hour, so one is to assume that the specific configuration
calculations will be for a 1 hour period.
C. Shape of the test environment
The majority of situations have a predominantly flat terrain profile apart from the two hilly
scenarios. Buildings are located within the model, and free field receptors are located at
25, 50, 100, 200 and 500m from the road.
D. Noise source descriptions
For the City models, the roads are to be standard two lane highways, with each centreline
in the model representing on carriageway carrying one-way traffic as per the appropriate
direction of flow. The traffic flow is assessed as pulsed and continuous. The composition of
the traffic is 300 vehicles per hour per lane, including 10% heavy vehicles. The vehicle
speed is set at 50 km/h for both light and heavy vehicles, and the road pavement is dense
asphalt concrete.
For the Open models, the roads are to be four lane highways, with each centreline
representing two one-way carriageways plus a narrow emergency lane without traffic.
There is a 2m separation between the directions of flow. The traffic flow is assessed as
steady and continuous. The composition of the traffic is 1000 vehicles per hour per lane,
including 20% heavy vehicles. The vehicle speed is set at 110 km/h for light vehicles and
90 km/h for heavy vehicles, and the road pavement is dense asphalt concrete.
E. Meteorological situations
There are two situations specified: (1) 100% favourable, which is to correspond to a nighttime assessment; and (2) 50% favourable which is to correspond to a daytime or evening
assessment.
F. Cross Sections
There are some 15 different cross sections identified, labelled A through Q. There are
receptors located along each of these cross sections.
G. Configurations
A table sets out a list of global calculation parameters to be used for setting up the method,
where applicable. These include temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, number of
reflections, source search radius distance, and building and barrier absorption coefficients.
H. Specific Configurations
There are some 20 Specific Configurations listed in Appendix 1 which are to be calculated.
For each Specific Condition a number of factors are listed which determines what has to
be assessed. The factors listed are: cross sections to be tested; road height; total number
of lanes; width of lanes; vehicle type; vehicle speed; vehicle flow; steady or pulsed traffic
flow; ground factor; and meteorological conditions.
For each of the 20 Specific Configurations it is necessary to cross reference the
cross sections to be tested against the seven model scenarios in order to determine
which models are to be run, then determine by means of the meteorological correction
whether the Specific Configuration is a 1 hour Lnight or Lday assessment, then the number of
lanes to determine the total flow per emission line.
The receptor locations for all protocol cross sections are located 2m from the building
facades, which is at odds with WG-AEN GPGv2 which recommends 0.1m from building
facades, apart from the assessment of a quiet faade which may be at 2.0m. Receptor
points are said to be located at a height of 4m, however it is not expressly stated that this
is 4m above local ground level, and this becomes relevant when some of the receptors
closest to the emission line are within the footprint of the modelled cutting or embankment,
here a 4m absolute level, and 4m relative level will result in quite different assessment
locations, as illustrated by Figure 1. The END and WG-AEN GPGv2 recommend 4m
relative to local ground, however the protocol test models have 4m absolute height
assigned, even for those within the extent of the cuttings and embankments. Should the
user follow the recommended approach, or the protocol test file?
ministry of environment even designed such a solution explicitly for the purpose of noise
mapping. Whether such a macroscopic approach is equivalent to noise calculations by the
Interim Method, is a question that will not be answered by using the JRC test protocols.
G. Configurations
It is noted that in the global parameters the use of two reflections, rather than first order
reflections, is at odds with the recommendation in 2.43 of GPGv2. Evidence from across
the EC appears to suggest that first order reflections were used almost universally for
strategic noise maps.
The way in which noise calculation software packages deal with reflections against
vertical surfaces is perhaps the most diffuse part of software implementation and a major
source of implementation uncertainty. Calculation methods often give a lot of freedom to
interpretation of how to deal with ray curvature for reflected propagation paths, reflections
from small surfaces etc. In light of this information, the choice of second order reflections is
awkward since it will not lead to testing the variations between methods of assessment,
rather the programmers interpretation and chosen solution will be tested.
H. Specific Configurations
The requirement to cross reference the cross sections with the model scenarios, the
metrology with the day / night assessment period, and the number of lanes with the flow
per lane, can be deciphered with care; however it does not provide a clear and transparent
description of the testing to be undertaken. It may provide for a brief description; however it
does open up a potential for misapplication between testers, thus reducing repeatability.
same protocol, using a different method of assessment, fall within this range the results
could be said to be equivalent.
of scatter, but again a general trend towards calculating lower levels, with the average
difference being -4.9dB.
7. CONCLUSIONS
The END requires Member states to obtain comparable results, either by the use of the
recommended EC Interim Methods, including the necessary adaptations, or by using
Identified National Methods, which have been adapted as necessary and demonstrated to
produce equivalent results to the recommended adapted EC Interim Methods. In light of
the general reluctance of MS to provide proof of equivalence between their selected
National Methods and the Interim Methods, DG Environment commissioned DG JRC to
develop test protocols for the assessment of equivalence.
The final report published by JRC acknowledges that the MS authorities were then
reluctant to apply the protocols as a means of testing equivalence, and due to the lack of
published information the authors determined to apply the JRC protocols as an
independent undertaking in order to widen the discussion on equivalence, software
standards, and the use of test models.
The results obtained through the application of the JRC protocols for road
methodologies indicate that it in practice it is somewhat challenging to determine quite
what the true result is for the EC recommended Interim Method, which in turn makes
comparison with other national methods a complex issue. When comparing the average
result for the Interim Method obtained, with four results for CRTN, RLS90, RMW2006 and
Harmonoise the average difference for RLS90 and CRTN of less than 1.5dB could suggest
a form of equivalence, although the point for point scatter of results presented in Figure 3
would probably suggest otherwise. The results obtained for RMW2006 and Harmonoise
indicate a general bias of lower calculated levels by around 5dB, compared to the average
value of the Interim Method, whilst RMW2006 resulted in less scatter of individual results
than Harmonoise.
Overall, the attempt at undertaking a test on equivalence is to be lauded, and the
process has the potential for producing results which may be able to inform ongoing
discussions regarding comparability of results, and the cross MS analysis being
undertaken by EEA on behalf of the Commission. Unfortunately there have been found to
be unclear descriptions, bugs and inconsistencies within the JRC protocols and the
accompanying reports which makes consistent, repeatable application of the protocols
somewhat challenging.
REFERENCES
1