Validation report final

www.imagine-project.org

IMAGINE project no. 503549

Contract Number: SSPI-CT-2003-503549-IMAGINE

IMAGINE Improved Methods for the Assessment of the Generic Impact of Noise in the Environment

Reference results for validating the engineering model WP7: Industrial Noise WP-leader: DGMR Project Co-ordinator: AEA TECHNOLOGY RAIL BV Partners:

CSTB DeBAKOM DGMR EDF Kilde MBBM

Document identity: IMA7TR-060614EDF02 Date: 06-09-26 Level of confidentiality: public Written by

Date (YY-MM-DD)

Reviewed by

Date (YY-MM-DD)

F. JUNKER

06-11-21

P. LAFON

06-12-18


The present publication only reflects the author’ s view s. The Community is not liable for any use t hat may be made of t he information contained herein.

Amendments Version number (file) 01 02

Status

Amendment details

draft final

Remarks after WP7 meeting in Budapest included

Date (YY-MM-DD) 06-09-26 06-11-21

Distribution List Organisation CSTB DeBAKOM DGMR Kilde MBBM

Reference file: Validation report final.doc Author: EDF

Number of copies 1 pdf file 1 pdf file 1 pdf file 1 pdf file 1 pdf file

Page 2 of 99


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document reports the work which has been carried out on the validation of the engineering method applied to industrial cases. It describes how the reference data were collected and some first validation of the HARMONOISE calculations. WP7 has decided to validate two situations that are more specific to industrial noise. The first one is 3D screening effect and the second one is the influence of meteorological changes on the noise impact of large industrial sources. Two measurements campaigns had been led to get the reference data: Clamart measurements (3D screening) and Dampierre measurements (Cooling tower on a nuclear site over 3 weeks). The Clamart measurements have been used to validate the calculations done by ICARE, a software developed at CSTB. The calculations results show a good agreement with the measurements results. ICARE could then be used to validate the lateral diffraction model that should be proposed in future work. Dampierre’s data has been analysed. It has shown a limitation of the Monin-Obukhov theory to describe all the propagation conditions typically for low wind speeds for which the measured standart deviation is important (around 3 dB(A) at 300m of the source). The data were used to calculate the mean value of the Monin-Obukhov parameters corresponding to the SW classes defined in HARMONOISE. Large differences between measured values and reference ones are observed. Some reference spectra associated with some meteorological conditions were extracted from the database to be used as a validation case for the IMAGINE calculation method. Finally, a classification proposed by WP3 was tested. It gave a typical value of 3 dB(A) for the standard deviation in downward refracting conditions and a greater one in less favorable propagation conditions. The IMAGINE calculations were carried out using Predictor software from B&K. The results are satisfying in a whole. The calculations are able to reproduce the variability of the measurements but the error in the worst case can reach 7 dB(A). This kind of model is then more appropriate to perform statistical calculations (long term value from a statistical description of the propagation conditions) than to be used to simulate a frozen situation corresponding to some specific meteorological situation. Some measurements called “loudspeaker measurements” which have been done in the HARMONOISE project have been used to study the short-term variation of the level with the meteorological changes. Once again, the dispersion in one class is important. The selection of narrower classes doesn’t even solve the problem: the dispersion for third octaves can reach values from 5 to 10 dB.


Page 3 of 99


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

3

Table of contents

4

1

7

Introduction

2 3D Screening - Clamart measurements 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Measurement description 2.2.1 Location of source and microphones 2.2.2 Measuring devices 2.2.3 Measured data 2.3 Main Results 2.3.1 Source data 2.3.2 Validity of the measurement 2.3.3 Third octave spectra 2.3.4 Relevant part of the IR 2.3.5 Description of the data files

8 8 8 8 9 10 10 10 11 12 12 13

3 3D Screening – Reference Model 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Validation BEM – ICARE 3.2.1 BEM 2D – ICARE 3.2.2 BEM 3D – ICARE 3.2.3 Results BEM 3D – ICARE 3.3 Conclusion

14 14 15 15 17 18 20

4 3D Screening – Clamart Simulations 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Calculations description 4.3 Results 4.4 Parametric study 4.5 Influence of building I 4.6 Multiple diffraction 4.7 Conclusion

21 21 21 22 26 26 28 28

5 Dampierre Measurements 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Measurement description 5.2.1 Location of microphones 5.2.2 SPL measurement 5.2.3 Sound Power Level measurements 5.2.4 Meteorological measurements

29 29 29 30 31 31 32


Page 4 of 99


Ground Impedance measurements 5.2.5 5.3 Main results 5.3.1 Cooling Towers Sound Power Level 5.3.2 LAeq series 5.3.3 Ground parameters 5.3.4 Data file

32 33 33 34 35 35

6 Reference results from Dampierre measurements 6.1 Comparing measured sound speed profiles with profiles calculated from the representative values 6.2 Comparing representatives values with the measured ones 6.3 Deriving reference spectra associated with meteorological parameters 6.4 Using the D/R classification

36

7 Predictor calculations. 7.1 Input data 7.1.1 Acoustic and Geometry input data 7.1.2 Meteorological input data 7.2 Results

49 49 49 51 51

8 Reference results from Loudspeaker Measurements 8.1 Introduction 8.1.1 Measurements 8.2 Analysis 8.2.1 Sound level 8.2.2 Weather 8.3 Sound levels as a function of Dsr/R 8.4 Samples selected according to meteorological condition 8.4.1 The condition of "Favourable" sound propagation 8.5 "Narrow" weather conditions 8.5.1 2,5 - 7 m/s downwind component. Samples 501 - 538. 8.5.2 4 - 5,5 m/s downwind. Samples 528 - 538. 8.6 Comparison with HARMONOISE P2P 8.6.1 The four Meteorological Classes 8.6.2 The 4 - 5,5 m/s downwind case. Samples 528 - 538. 8.6.3 1 - 2 m/s simple downwind case, samples 617 - 632 8.6.4 Neutral conditions 8.7 Summary

53 53 53 53 54 55 56 57 57 59 60 61 63 63 65 67 68 70

9

71

10

Conclusion References

11 Annex 1 - Full results for Clamart measurements 11.1.1 SPL at Point M1 11.1.2 SPL at Point M2 11.1.3 SPL at Point M3 11.1.4 SPL at Point M4 Reference file: Validation report final.doc Author: EDF

36 41 44 45

72 73 73 75 76 77

Page 5 of 99


11.1.5 11.1.6 11.1.7 11.1.8 11.1.9 11.1.10

SPL at Point M5 SPL at Point M6 SPL at Point Mref Meteorological data Pictures Description of the data files

78 79 80 81 82 83

12 12.1

Annex 2 – Dampierre Data Details about the Excel files

84 84

13

Annex 3 – D/R calculation

86

14

Annex 4 – Predictor Model Data

88

15

Annex 5 – 1/3 oct. results Meas. vs Calc.

95

16

Annex 6

99


Page 6 of 99


1

Introduction

This document reports the work that has been carried out on the validation of the engineering method applied to industrial cases. It describes how reference data were collected and some first validation of the HARMONOISE calculations. WP7 has decided to validate two situations that are more specific to industrial noise. The first one is 3D screening effect and the second one is the influence of meteorological changes on the noise impact of large industrial sources. Two measurements campaign had been led to get the reference data: Clamart measurements (3D screening) and Dampierre measurements (Cooling towers on a nuclear site). The Clamart measurements have been used to validate the calculations done by ICARE, software developed at CSTB. ICARE will be used to validate the lateral diffraction model that should be proposed in future work. Dampierre’s data has been analysed and compared to reference data given in several HARMONOISE reports. Some samples have been selected to be representative of stable meteorological conditions. A classification proposed by WP3 has been applied to the measured data. The selected samples have been used to validate the calculation done by Predictor using the HARMONOISE model. Some measurements called “loudspeaker measurements”, which have been done in the HARMONOISE project, have been used to study the short-term variation of the level with the meteorological changes.


Page 7 of 99


2

3D Screening - Clamart measurements

2.1

Introduction

The measurements took place on the site of Clamart (EDF) around a small building. A picture of the building is shown on figure 1.

figure 1 : Side view of the building (red point is the source position and the black point one microphone position.

2.2 2.2.1

Measurement description Location of source and microphones

A map of the measurement site is shown on figure 2.


Page 8 of 99


N

S Mref *0 M5

H=3,80 m (14,70 x 3,90)

Screen H=0,53 m

H=5,80 m (16,80 x 14,45)

Diesel

H=4,40 m (5,40 x 14,45)

M1

Transformer

30 m

M4

M2 M3 M6 H=4,40 m (8,20 x 5,40)

Office

50 m figure 2 : Location of the measuring points and the source (Overview). A 1/100 map and a coordinates table are given (see Annex 11.1.10)

The height of the source is 1.6 m. There are 6 Measuring points (M1 to M6) and one reference point (Mref). The height of the microphones is 1.6 m. Microphones M5 and M4 are in a single edge diffraction shadow zone for the lateral contribution. Microphones M1, M2, M3 and M6 are in a double edge diffraction zone for the lateral contribution. Remarks : As one can see on the layout and the photo, there are two little obstacles between the source and some of the microphones which are not big enough to affect the propagation : A flower pot of 0.5m height and a light fence. A set of pictures in given in Annex 11.1.9. 2.2.2

Measuring devices

We use a 2 channel Symphonie system from 01 dB (Impulse response using MLS method) together with a 2260 from B&K (Sound Intensity measurements and SPL Level). The level and spectrum at Mref are measured with a SIP95 TR level meter from 01 dB.


Page 9 of 99


The source is a B&K “omnidirectional” one (12 Loudspeakers) and is fed with a MLS sequence generated by the 01dB software

2.2.3

Measured data

Acoustic data -The sound power of the source; - The directivity pattern from SPL on absorbing ground around the source at 1.2 m in the horizontal plane and in the vertical plane (each 22,5°); - Impulse response (IR) at each M point; - 1/3 octave spectrum at each M point. Meteorological data - Wind speed at 2m, temperature and relative humidity

2.3

Main Results

2.3.1

Source data

The sound power level have been measured according to ISO 9614 using a sound intensity probe (2260 system from B&K). The source is fed with the same MLS signal which is used to measure the impulse response. The results are given in below.

f (Hz) 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 LwA

Lw (dB) 67,7 73,5 78,9 82,9 86,7 89,3 90,2 90,5 89,9 89,1 90,5

f (Hz) 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 101,6

Lw (dB) 90,4 89,4 92,3 91,8 91,4 90,8 89,0 87,2 85,0 85,0 78,3

table 1 : Sound power level of the reference source


Page 10 of 99


95

90

Lw (dB)

85

80

75

70

10000

8000

6300

5000

4000

3150

2500

2000

1600

1250

1000

800

630

500

400

315

250

200

160

125

100

80

65

f (Hz)

figure 3 : Sound Power Level of the reference source in third octave band.

During all the measuring periods, the level at Mref was very stable at 92,7 ± 0,1 dB(A) (see Annex 11.1.7) 2.3.2

Validity of the measurement

figure 4 shows the data measured at point M1 (the lower level measured). In low frequencies, the direct measure of the spectrum (M1-2260) is very close to the background noise (M1-BGN) and the standard background noise correction led to an overestimation of the level below 200 Hz (M12260-DN). The spectra derived from the IR (M1-IR) has shape very similar to the shape of the spectra of the sound power level of the source (Lw shape) and we can expect the MLS data to be relevant in low frequencies (from 100 Hz). The validity of the measurement is limited in the high frequencies (typically over 1.25/1.6 kHz) by the directivity pattern of the source and also by the averaging of the short time fluctuations in the high frequency domain (the “random” part of the field is eliminated by the averaging short time sequences with MLS method).


Page 11 of 99


60

55

50

dB

45 M1-IR M1-2260 M1-2260-DN M1-BGN Lw shape

40

35

30

25

8000

5000

3150

2000

1250

800

500

315

200

125

80

50

31,50

20

20

f (Hz)

figure 4 : Comparison of the spectra measured at the point M1.

2.3.3

Third octave spectra

A third octave spectrum is obtained for each point from both the 2260 direct measurement and from a third octave filtering of the IR. The background noise is also measured before each signal measurement. The resulting data are listed in the Annexes (11.1.1 to 11.1.6).

2.3.4

Relevant part of the IR

We estimated the length of the longest path around the screen for each point. Once the maximum traveling time around the screen is fixed (sound speed is fixed to 340 m/s), the IR is time windowed to keep the relevant part. An example is shown on figure 5.


Page 12 of 99


figure 5 : Point M1 - IR (blue) – Time Windowed IR (red).

To derive the third octave spectrum third octave filtering is applied to the windowed IR. The resulting data are listed in the Annexes. 2.3.5

Description of the data files

A description of the data files is given in Annex 11.1.10


Page 13 of 99


3

3D Screening – Reference Model

3.1

Introduction

The first part of this work aims at validating the ICARE code versus the BEM method in the case of the diffraction around a thick screen. Then, ICARE could be used as a reference model for the validation of the engineering method. The geometry of the site of Clamart (see Chapter 2) is used. For all calculations the height of the source and receivers is 1.6 m above ground. The receiver Mref is the measurement reference point. The receiver M1m is located at 1m from the source. M1 to M6 are the measurement points. All calculations have been done for complete reflecting surfaces. The beam-tracing calculations have been performed with the ICARE code developed by CSTB [1][2]. The ICARE program handles diffraction based on the uniform theory of diffraction [3]. The beam-tracing algorithm has been adapted to include double diffraction on a large screen. For some receivers BEM2D comparing calculations could be carried out on a cross section of the site at the source coordinates. BEM2D maps give a view of the vertical behaviour of the acoustic field around the screen. BEM3D calculations allow the comparison of the results of a 3D propagation and to model the point source. BEM3D maps show the acoustic field around the screen in a horizontal plane. The BEM calculations have been performed with the MICADO code developed by CSTB [4][5][6].


Page 14 of 99


3.2 3.2.1

Validation BEM – ICARE BEM 2D – ICARE

Model and calculation parameters For the receivers M1, M2 and M6 BEM2D comparing calculations with ICARE have been carried out on a cross section at the source coordinates (cf.figure 6). The calculated frequency range is from 32 Hz to 8000 Hz with 15 frequencies per octave band and minimum 3 elements per wavelength. The ICARE geometrical reflecting ray paths and two diffractions including the double diffraction on the screen but without lateral diffraction have been taken into account. All surfaces were considered completely reflecting.

figure 6 : Clamart building modelled with ICARE and BEM2D configuration

Results BEM 2D – ICARE figure 7 to figure 9 show the excess attenuation of the receivers M1, M2 and M6. The red plot corresponds to the ICARE results. The blue plot corresponds to the BEM2D calculations. Except for the receiver M1 at high frequencies the plots fit well. Receiver M1 is quite close behind the screen so that some interference can occur at high frequencies (cf. maps in the next paragraph).


Page 15 of 99


Excess attenuation Screen_2D M1 BF

Excess attenuation Screen_2D M2 BF ICARE Calculation

10

ICARE Calculation

10

BEM 2D Calculation

0

0

-10

-10

-20

-20 EA (dB)

EA (dB)

BEM 2D Calculation

-30

-30

-40

-40

-50

-50

-60

-60

-70 32

63

125

250

500 1000 Frequency (Hz)

2000

4000

8000

figure 7: Excess Attenuation for the receiver M1

-70 32

63

125

250


2000

4000


Excess attenuation Screen_2D M6 BF ICARE Calculation

10

BEM 2D Calculation 0

-10

EA (dB)

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

-70 32

63

125

250


2000

4000

8000



8000

Page 16 of 99


Results BEM 2D Map figure 10 to figure 13 show the BEM2D Iso-level contour vertical maps of the excess attenuation. They give a view of the vertical behaviour of the acoustic field around the screen. Some vertical interference can be seen close behind the screen which can explain the differences between BEM2D and ICARE for the receiver M1 at high frequencies.

figure 10: Excess attenuation map at 100 Hz


3.2.2


figure 13 : Excess attenuation map at 2000 Hz

BEM 3D – ICARE

Model and calculation parameter The situation in figure 14 corresponds to the measurements taken at the site in Clamart. Only the screen building has been modelled. The BEM 3D calculations have been performed for a frequency range from 60 Hz to 1290 Hz in steps of 10 Hz. To reduce the calculation time symmetry optimisations have been used. The meshing used had a minimum of 3 elements per wavelength.


Page 17 of 99


The ICARE geometrical reflecting ray paths and two diffractions including the double diffraction on the screen have been taken into account. All surfaces were considered completely reflecting.

figure 14: Screen of the Clamart EDF-site modelled with ICARE and the mesh at 100 Hz for BEM3D

3.2.3

Results BEM 3D – ICARE

figure 15 to figure 21 show the comparison between ICARE and BEM3D calculations results. The red plot corresponds to the ICARE calculations and the blue plot to the BEM3D calculations. For each receiver the excess attenuation is plotted in narrow bands depending on the frequency. The plot fits quite well except for microphone M1. As for BEM2D some vertical interference close behind the screen are the probable reason. For microphone M3 some differences exist between 250 and 500 Hz. The interferences take place at the same frequencies but their levels are different. Excess Attenuation for M1 10

0

0

-10

-10

Excess attenuation (dB)


Excess Attenuation f or Mref 10

-20

-30

-20

-30

-40

-40

BEM 3D

BEM 3D

ICARE

ICARE -50 63

125

250


2000

4000

8000

figure 15 : Excess Attenuation for the receiver Mref


-50 63

125

250


2000

4000

8000


Page 18 of 99


Excess Attenuation for M3 10

0

0

-10

-10




-20

-30

-20

-30

-40

-40

BEM 3D

BEM 3D

ICARE

ICARE -50 63

125

250


2000

4000

-50 63

8000


125

250

2000

4000

8000


Excess Attenuation for M4

Excess Attenuation for M5

10

10

0

0

-10

-10




-20

-30

-40

-20

-30

-40 BEM 3D

BEM 3D

ICARE -50 63

125

ICARE 250


2000

4000

-50 63

8000


125

250


2000

4000

8000




0

-10

-20

-30

-40 BEM 3D ICARE -50 63

125

250


2000

4000

8000


Results BEM 3D Map figure 22 to figure 24 show the BEM3D Iso-level contour horizontal maps of the excess attenuation. They give a view of the behaviour of the acoustic field around the screen. The horizontal cross section has been done at a height of 1.6 m. Reference file: Validation report final.doc Author: EDF

Page 19 of 99





3.3

Conclusion

The ICARE code has been validated with success with the MICADO reference code. Some differences can be seen for microphone M1 which is probably due to vertical interference just behind the screen.


Page 20 of 99


4

3D Screening – Clamart Simulations

4.1

Introduction

The Clamart EDF-Site as shown on figure 1 has been modelled with the beam-tracing code ICARE described in the previous chapter with the goal to compare the results with the measurements done by EDF on site [7].

figure 25: Clamart Complete Site

A parametric study has been done to assess the importance of the simulation model and different calculation parameters for the pertinence of the results.

4.2

Calculations description

A reference microphone (Mref) located close to the source in front of the screen has been used for the calculations and measurements. The spectrum for the reference microphone has been analysed and the source spectrum adjusted by 3 dB so that the calculation results for the reference microphone fit with the measurement results. The sound power of the source at 32, 40, 50 and 63 Hz were not measured. They have been estimated so that they follow approximately the curves of Mref, the closest measurement point. The calculations of the sound pressure level have been done for a range from 32 to 8000 Hz for same 7 receiver positions as measured. The geometrical reflecting ray paths with a maximal path depth of 8 and two diffractions including the double diffraction on the screen building have been taken into account. The beam-tracing algorithm has been adapted to include double diffraction on a large screen. All surfaces were considered complete reflecting. The acoustic calculation has Reference file: Validation report final.doc Author: EDF

Page 21 of 99


been done for a temperature of 13°C and 78% of rela tive humidity. The air absorption has been taken into account. The energy of the ICARE calculations without the building I (yellow) showed too low sound pressure levels, therefore it has been added to the ICARE model.

4.3

Results

The following figures (figure 26 to figure 32) show the results of the sound pressure level in third octave bands from 32 to 8000 Hz. The red plot corresponds to the ICARE calculation. The black plot corresponds to the measurement data. For each plot the dB(A) values have been calculated. SPL Clamart Site Mref TOC 90 80

Sound Presure Level (dB)

70

60 50

40

30 20

10

ICARE 92.5 dB(A) Measurement 92.5 dB(A)

0 32

63

125

250


2000

4000

8000

figure 26: Sound Pressure Level for the receiver Mref in third octave bands


Page 22 of 99


SPL Clamart Site M1 TOC 90 80


70

60 50

40

30 20

10


0 32

63

125

250


2000

4000

8000

figure 27: Sound Pressure Level for the receiver M1 in third octave bands



70

60 50

40

30 20

10


0 32

63

125

250


2000

4000

8000



Page 23 of 99




70

60 50

40

30 20

10

ICARE 60.6 dB(A) Measurement 63 dB(A)

0 32

63

125

250


2000

4000

8000




70

60 50

40

30 20

10


0 32

63

125

250


2000

4000

8000



Page 24 of 99




70

60 50

40

30 20

10


0 32

63

125

250


2000

4000

8000




70

60 50

40

30 20

10


0 32

63

125

250


2000

4000

8000



Page 25 of 99


4.4

Parametric study

Different configuration and calculation parameters have been tested. Calculations have been performed with and without the reflections from building I, with and without including one single reflection. The influence of the multiple diffraction calculation parameters has been accessed. Calculations have been performed with the inclusion, in the calculation parameters, of one simple diffraction, two simple diffractions and the double diffraction on the screen building (cyan).

4.5

Influence of building I

figure 33 to figure 40 show the results of the sound pressure level in third octave bands of the ICARE calculations compared to the measurements. For each plot the dB(A) values have been calculated. The red plot corresponds to the ICARE calculation with one single diffraction without building I in the model. The blue plot shows the results of the ICARE calculation without diffraction including building I in the model. The green plot shows the results of the ICARE calculations with one single diffraction including building I in the model. The black plot corresponds to the measurement data. Because of the geometry of the model and the receiver positions without diffraction and without reflections on building I (yellow) no sound energy reaches the receivers behind the screen. Depending on the receiver position the influence of building I is more or less important. Taking building I in the model into account adds some energy to the energy spectra of receiver M1, M2, M3 and M6. For the receiver M1 located just behind the screen building, no reflecting ray path can be found. Therefore to predict the sound pressure level at this location it is important to calculate the diffraction due to the screen. Receiver M4 and especially M5 are less sensitive to the presence of building I. This is probably due to the absence of reflecting paths on the building I in the ICARE calculation and of the short distance between source and receiver so that the single diffraction on the screen building turns out to be the most important contribution. The results with only one single diffraction give a good fit to the measurements. For receiver M6 the results including building I without diffraction give a good fit except for low frequencies for which some energy is missing. This missing energy is added by including the diffraction. The level differences at M6 can be explained by the major influence of the reflections of building I which has been modelled as a simple parallelepiped. This building is in reality much more complex and so its real contribution to the spectra is lower than calculated because the reflections are more diffuse. A more precise model of building I could give more accurate results especially for receiver M2 and M6 which final calculated sound pressure level are higher than the measurement results.


Page 26 of 99


SPL Clamart Site M1 TOC


90

90 ICARE without building I and with one single dif f raction 43.9 dB(A)

ICARE without building I and with one single dif f raction 53.7 dB(A)

ICARE with building I and without dif f raction -Inf dB(A)

80

ICARE with building I and without dif f raction 58.5 dB(A)

80

ICARE with building I and with one single dif f raction 51.7 dB(A)


Measurement 56.1 dB(A)


70 Sound Presure Level (dB)


70

60 50

40

30

60 50

40

30

20

20

10

10

0 32

63

125

250


2000

4000

0 32

8000


63

125


2000

4000

8000

SPL Clamart Site M4 TOC 90




80


80



Measurement 63 dB(A)






90

60 50

40

30

60 50

40

30

20

20

10

10

0 32

63

125

250


2000

4000

0 32

8000


63

125

250


2000

4000

8000




90

90 ICARE without building I and with one single dif f raction 70.9 dB(A)


ICARE with building I and without dif f raction -Inf dB(A)

80


80







250

60 50

40

30

60 50

40

30

20

20

10

10

0 32

63

125

250


2000

4000

8000



0 32

63

125

250


2000

4000

8000


Page 27 of 99


4.6

Multiple diffraction

figure 39 and figure 40 show the ICARE calculation results for receivers M1 and M3 which are the most sensitive to the different diffraction parameters. For the other receivers (M2, M3 M4, M5 and M6) the differences between one single diffraction and multiple diffraction are very small. The red plot corresponds to the ICARE calculation with one single diffraction. The blue plot shows the results of the ICARE calculation with two single diffractions. The green plot shows the ICARE calculation including the double diffraction on the screen. The black plot corresponds to the measurement data. Multiple diffraction influences the spectra only for the low and mid frequencies. For the receiver M1 located just behind the screen building, to take into account the double diffraction on the screen noticeably improves the results. SPL Clamart Site M3 TOC 90

80

80

70



SPL Clamart Site M1 TOC 90

60 50

40

30 20

60 50

40

30 20

ICARE with one single dif f raction 51.7 dB(A)

ICARE with one single dif f raction 59.4 dB(A)

ICARE with two single dif f ractions 52.5 dB(A)

10

ICARE with two single dif f ractions 60 dB(A)

10

ICARE with double dif f raction on the screen 53.3 dB(A)

ICARE with double dif f raction on the screen 60.6 dB(A)


0 32

63

125

250


Measurement 63 dB(A)

2000

4000

8000


4.7

0 32

63

125

250


2000

4000

8000


Conclusion

The ICARE calculation results fit quite well with the EDF R&D on-site measurements. Especially the shapes of the plots corresponding to the sound pressure level in function of the frequency are similar. The dB(A) values fluctuate between ± 3dB(A) which is probably due to the completely reflecting surfaces and the simplified model of the buildings where no diffusion is taken into account. The ICARE calculation underestimates a bit the dB(A) values except for receiver M6 which is probably due to the simple model used. As observed through building I, the influence of buildings around the site has been shown and should not be underestimated. Even buildings far located from the receivers can give an important contribution in terms of reflective energy compared to the diffracted energy. It has be shown that in most cases for the comparison with the measurements the calculation including one single diffraction is precise enough to obtain a good fit, except for certain positions located just behind the screen.


Page 28 of 99


5

Dampierre Measurements

5.1

Introduction

A measurement campaign has been carried out on Dampierre nuclear site in France. The aim was to measure the variation of the SPL at given distances from two cooling towers. As the towers can be considered as steady sources the changes in the SPL can be mainly attributed to meteorology.

5.2

Measurement description

The following picture shows the nuclear site of Dampierre. The measurements field is located behind the two towers in the background. The campaign had been carried on during 3 weeks th th from 2005 September 6 to 28 by both EDF and Debakom.

figure 41 : Overview of Dampierre’s site


Page 29 of 99


5.2.1

Location of microphones

500m

T1 T2

figure 42 : Location of the microphones

A map of the site is given on the figure above. 5 microphones were used: - Microphones M1-2m & M2-2m are reference microphones, to check that the acoustic emissions are stable; - Microphones M3-4m & M4-4m & M4-10m are located respectively at 304m and 486m from the basis of tower T2. The following table displays the distances between the microphones (M1 to M4) and the towers (T1 & T2). M1 T1 T2

42 m 227 m


M2 153 m 20 m

M3 448 m 304 m

M4 598 m 486 m

Page 30 of 99


5.2.2

SPL measurement

The reference microphones M1 & M2 were placed at a height of 2 m and connected to a 2 channel SALTO system from 01dB. Leq 1s in third octave bands were recorded over the 3 weeks. Microphones M3 and M4 were connected to Debakom systems. They allowed to record Leq 0.1s samples in third octave bands. The following pictures show the towers from the microphones point of view. M1 M2

M3

M4

figure 43 : Microphones point of view

5.2.3

Sound Power Level measurements

The sound emission of the towers is due to the presence of a waterfall at the bottom. Sound intensity spatial averages are done over several “small” surface at the air inlet, the differences are very small. The pressure level over the air inlet can be considered as constant and the power level can be extrapolated from the measurement over a small surface. The geometrical data of the towers are listed below

Air inlet height Total height Diameter Radiating surface


11,5 m 165 m 130 m 4697 m²

Page 31 of 99


figure 44 : Sound Intensity measurements

5.2.4

Meteorological measurements

The basic meteorological data (wind speed, wind direction, temperature, pressure and relative humidity) were recorded at point M4. An 3D ultrasonic anemometer (height 10m) was also connected to the Debakom system at point M4. It allows to measure the Monin-Obukhov parameters (u*, T*, Lmo) and the standard deviation of both the wind speed and the temperature.

5.2.5

Ground Impedance measurements

The principle of measuring the ground impedance is to measure a narrow band spectrum at two microphones to get the level difference spectrum (independent from the source amplitude) . This spectrum is compared to a calculated one using the spherical wave reflection coefficient expression. The model fitting gives a value of the effective flow resistivity σ and the effective thickness e.


Page 32 of 99


Ground Impedance (Beets)

Model fitting (example)

Ground Impedance (Corn)

figure 45 : Ground impedance measurement set-up and model fitting

5.3 5.3.1

Main results Cooling Towers Sound Power Level

The average value and the standard deviation of the sound power level of the two towers are given in the following table. 1/3 oct (Hz) Lw (dB lin) std (dB lin) 125 90,5 * 160 94,0 1,0 200 95,7 0,6 250 97,8 0,8 315 101,0 0,7 400 104,5 0,7 500 106,6 0,8 630 107,5 0,8 800 107,5 0,8 1000 107,1 0,7 1250 107,6 0,6 1600 108,3 0,6 2000 106,8 0,7 2500 106,4 0,8 3150 106,5 0,7 4000 105,6 0,9 5000 105,9 0,9 6300 105,5 0,8 8000 104,0 0,9 10000 102,2 0,9 Global Lw dB(A) std dB(A) 125-10kHz 118,2 0,8 table 2 : Sound Power Level of the towers


Page 33 of 99


5.3.2

LAeq series

The recorded samples were combined to derive a set of more than 2000 15 minute samples. The level at M1 and M2 are very stable as it is shown on figure 46. 81

79

LAeq 15'

77 M2 M1

75

73

71

9/ 6/ 20 05 18 9/ :0 8/ 0 20 05 20 9/ :0 10 0 /2 00 5 22 9/ :0 13 0 /2 00 5 0: 9/ 00 15 /2 00 5 2: 9/ 00 17 /2 00 5 4: 9/ 00 19 /2 00 5 6: 9/ 00 21 /2 00 5 9/ 8: 00 23 /2 00 5 10 9/ :0 25 0 /2 00 5 12 9/ :0 27 0 /2 00 5 14 :0 0

69

Time

figure 46 : LAeq time series of the reference microphones (M1 & M2).

The sudden reduction of the level on M2 is due to the fact that the microphone has been knocked down during a few days. The level has reached its previous values as soon as it has recovered its initial positioning. The sound power level of the towers can be assumed to vary within a maximum range of +- 1 dB(A). The level at microphones M3 and M4 have recorded a large variation of the level as shown on figure 47.


Page 34 of 99


figure 47 : LAeq time series at point M3 & M4. The blue lines show the full series and the red lines show the selected period (nights or days)

5.3.3

Ground parameters

The results for the ground impedance are given in the following table. σ average σ min σ max e average e min Corn field 197 190 210 0,081 0,025 Beet fields 143 109 190 0,063 0,023

e max 0,33 0,25

table 3 : Measured effective flow resistivity (σ σ in kNsm-4) and thickness (e in m)

5.3.4

Data file

The data is grouped in an Excel file named DampierreDataFull.xls. The definition of each column name is given in the Annexes (see §12.1).


Page 35 of 99


6

Reference results from Dampierre measurements

The aim of this chapter is to analyse the measurements data to derive some “reference results”. There are different results from the HARMONOISE project and the other WP of IMAGINE that can be compared to these “reference results”. A first objective is to directly compare the measured sound speed profiles (SSP) with the SSP calculated from the representatives values. A second point is to compare the representatives values for each meteorological classification given in reference HAR32TR-040922-DGMR20. Another interesting experience is to check if the last D/R classification proposed by CSTB in WP3 is appropriate for calculating a long-term level from a reduced number of samples. Finally, the analysis of Dampierre data allows us to derive acoustically homogeneous sets of data associated with representative values of meteorological data.

6.1

Comparing measured sound speed profiles with profiles calculated from the representative values

The measurement of the meteorological parameters have been done by using a 3D sonic anemometer. It allows us to access the required parameter for calculating the sound speed profiles parameters a and b according to the reference HAR32TR-040922-DGMR20 p 35 i.e.:

The Monin Obukhov parameter : u*, T* and Lmo The temperature T0 The wind direction θw

An assumption of the Monin Obukhov similarity theory is that the wind speed must not be too low (let us say >= 1 m/s). Another criterion (z/Lmo>=-0.5) has to be checked in order to use the linearization of the non-linear term of the SSP for unstable cases (day) (see ref HAR29TR041118-TNO10 p26). Using these two criterion leads to the remark that 35,7% of our measured data cannot be described by the Monin Obukhov similarity theory. The following figure compares the mean spectrum (arithmetic) of the rejected data with the mean spectrum of the remaining data 64,3%.


Page 36 of 99


figure 48 : Point M3-4m – Leq Mean Spectra (plain lines) and Mean +/- standard deviation (dashed lines). The rejected data (blue lines) are compared to the data which can be described by the Monin Obukhov theory.


Page 37 of 99


The HARMONOISE work has lead to propose representative values of the parameter listed above for meteorological classification. These parameters are listed in the following tables. table 4 : Wind speed classification (from HAR32TR-040922-DGMR20)

wind speed component at 10 m above wind ground class 0 to 1 m/s W1 1 to 3 m/s W2 3 to 6 m/s W3 6 to 10 m/s W4 > 10 m/s W5

speed

table 5 : Classification of atmospheric stability (from HAR32TR-040922-DGMR20)

time of day day day day night night

cloud cover 0/8 to 2/8 3/8 to 5/8 6/8 to 8/8 5/8 to 8/8 0/8 to 4/8

stability class S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

table 6 : Friction velocity, by wind speed class (from HAR32TR-040922-DGMR20)

wind speed class W1 W2 W3 W4 W5

u* in m/s 0.00 0.13 0.30 0.53 0.87

table 7 : Temperature scale T*, by wind speed class and stability class (from HAR32TR-040922-DGMR20)

W1 W2 W3 W4 W5

S1 -0.4 -0.2 -0.1 -0.05 0.0

S2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.05 0.0 0.0

S3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

S4 +0.2 +0.1 +0.05 0.0 0.0

S5 +0.4 +0.2 +0.1 +0.05 0.0

table 8 : Inverse of the Monin-Obukhov length 1/L, by wind speed class and stability class (from HAR32TR040922-DGMR20)

W1 W2 W3 W4 W5

S1 -0.08 -0.05 -0.02 -0.01 0.0

S2 -0.05 -0.02 -0.01 0.0 0.0

S3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


S4 +0.04 +0.02 +0.01 0.0 0.0

S5 +0.06 +0.04 +0.02 +0.01 0.0

Page 38 of 99


For each measured sample we can derive the wind class W from table 4 and then we can plot the measured profile (cmes(z)) and 5 profiles (cS1(z), …,cS5(z)) corresponding to the five stability class S1 to S5. The fact that the measured profile is within the range of- or close to- the calculated ones indicates that the representative values given in the tables allows us to cover the range of the measured profiles. To check if the profiles are closed we use a quality factor QUAL calculated from : z 1 N cmes ( zi ) − cSn ( zi ) N zi QUAL = z 5 1 N cSj ( zi ) − cSk ( zi ) / 4 N zi j =1;k =1; j ≠ k

∑

∑ ∑

The numerator is equivalent to the mean distance between the measured profile and the closest calculated profile ( cSn ( zi ) ). The denominator is equivalent to the mean distance between the 5 calculated profile. When QUAL is over 1, that means that the measured profile is (in average) too far from the calculated one, regarding the step between two successive calculated profiles. The following figure shows some examples extracted from our database.


Page 39 of 99


QUAL > 1

QUAL 6 (day) > -1 (night)

table 10 : Definition of the 4 classes (M1 to M4) derived from the value of D/R

For each sample, the criterion D/R has been calculated according to the method described in the Annexes (see §13). Data has been classified according to table 10. The results are given in the next figures. To ensure that each sample correspond to a quite stable period, all the samples for which |LA50-LAeq|>1 dB(A) are not taken into account.

figure 56 : LAeq time series at point M3-4m. The blue lines show the full series and the red lines show the selected period according to the D/R classification.

Mean Std

M1 50.7 3.5

M2 55.1 1.6

M3 55.9 1.4

M4 56.1 2.1

table 11 : Statistics for the D/R (M1 to M4) classification at point M3-4m.


Page 46 of 99



Mean Std

M1 47.7 5.3

M2 52.5 2.5

M3 52.7 2.0

M4 53.7 3.3



Page 47 of 99



Mean Std

M1 49.8 3.6

M2 52.8 2.1

M3 53.0 1.8

M4 53.8 2.7



Page 48 of 99


7

Predictor calculations.

On the basis of sound power measurements and maps, noise calculations were done in Predictor. The propagation paths were fed into the HARMONOISE/IMAGINE calculation scheme, provided by CSTB (29-11-2004 version).

7.1 7.1.1

Input data Acoustic and Geometry input data

figure 42 gives the locations of the two cooling towers and the measurement locations. The following Table gives a comparison between the measured distances from the tower and the distances calculated from the model.

Measured Model

CT1 CT2 CT1 CT2

M1 39 223 42 227

M2 139 20 153 20

M3 419 286 448 304

M4 568 457 598 486

table 14 : Measured & calculated distances between the cooling towers (CT1 & CT2) and the measurement points (M1 to M4).

The receiver locations measured and modelled are quite close, for M3 and M4 the error is within 7 %. The sources of the air inlet are placed on 5 heights, divided over the height of 11,5 meters. Each source height is placed eight times around the cooling towers. The sound power levels on top of the cooling towers were not measured. According to EDF the sound power levels will be around 10 dB lower then the sound power levels at ground level. All sources were entered with a sound power of 106 dB(A). So the sound power levels near the ground at the air inlet is 118 dB(A), the two sources on top at the air outlet each with a sound power of 106 dB(A), being 12 dB lower than the sound power at the air inlet.


Page 49 of 99


figure 59 : A 3D view of the model. One can see the sources at the bottom and at the top of the cooling towers.

Beets – σ=145 kRayls

Corn – s=200 kRayls

Compact ground

Trees and Houses Grass

0

125

250

375

500m

figure 60 : the ground regions.

The ground regions were entered as given in figure 60. For the beets field the σ was aproximated with 200 kRayls, grass was interpreted as 80 kRayls and compact ground as 2000 kRayls. Outside the entered ground regions the ground impedance is 200.000 kRayls.


Page 50 of 99


In annex 4 (see §14) you can find all input parameters for buildings, ground regions, sources and receivers. All buildings have a reflection coefficient of 0,8 for all frequencies. One reflection for each propagation path from source to receiver is calculated within a radius of 1000 metres from the source.

7.1.2

Meteorological input data

The calculation input parameters are described as SW classes defined in §6.2. The Wind Direction (WD) is taken as measured. Temperature and Relative Humidity (RH) were used for calculating the air absorption, based on ISO 1996-1. These parameters are not indicated in the results graphs. The air pressure was assumed to be constant at 101,33 kPa. No measurements were made for this data. The influence of the air pressure variations at ground level is very little (according to ISO 1996-1 the accuracy is within 10% as the atmospheric pressure is less than 200 kPa).

7.2

Results

The dB(A) results are given in table 15. For each selected measurement, a calculation has been made in the closest possible meteorological conditions (for wind and stability). The calculated level include both the radiating bottom and the radiating top of the tower. For each measurement, the standard deviation (Std. Meas.) is given. Then, the result of the calculation (Calc.) is compared to the measurement (Meas.). When the absolute value of the difference between the two is smaller the measured standart deviation (figures in green in the Table), the calculation is considered as valid : this is the case for 22 out of the 30 calculations. 50% of the calculations differ by less than 2 dB(A) from the measurement. 10%, 20% and 30% of the calculations respectively for point M3-4m, M4-4m and M4-10m differ by less than 1 dB(A) from the measurement. The results in 1/3 octave bands are given in Annex 5 §15. Most of the results are not affected by the contribution of the top of the tower. This contribution increase the level of less than 1 dB(A) except at point M4-4m in the following cross-wind situations: - WS=4.4m/s WD=228°; - WS=3.4m/s WD=233°; - WS=1.6m/s WD=263°.


Page 51 of 99


table 15 : Comparison between the calculated dB(A) level and the measured ones.


Page 52 of 99


8

Reference results from Loudspeaker Measurements

8.1

Introduction

DeBAKOM performed a large number of detailed measurements on sound propagation over flat terrain for the HARMONOISE project ([8],[9]). On request of IMAGINE working group 7, DeBAKOM have provided detailed sound and weather data in five minute intervals for the whole measurement period. Only the data for 25m, 150m and 300m data are considered here. KILDE Akustikk AS has used these data as a partial validation of the latest available version of the HARMONOISE point-to-point method, Demo v.2.012, [10]. Further details are given in IMA07TR-060615-KILDE04, [11].

8.1.1

Measurements

The measurements were carried out over flat, soft ground (with estimated "softness" =630kRays). The loudspeaker consisted of two speaker units, 0,3m apart, at an average source height of 0,9 m above ground. The crossover frequency was approximately 1300 Hz, and the low frequency unit was mounted below the high frequency unit. The microphones were all placed 4m above the ground surface. The measurement period from Dec.3 to Dec.13, 2003, is covered here. There was no rain in the period. The temperature varied between -6,6 and 11,4 deg C, and rel. humidity between 42,7% and 95,6 %. The measured meteorological parameters follow closely the HARMONOISE requirements, and are described in [9]. Additional, necessary parameters have been calculated from measured values, following the description in [12].

8.2

Analysis

The sound levels and the weather parameters are averaged over the same 5 minute period to show the relationship between sound propagation and weather. The short measurement period makes it possible to compare weather and sound levels during periods with small weather variations. In addition, the large number of "weather samples" can be grouped in wider "Meteo classes" e.g. as proposed in HARMONOISE/IMAGINE. The source is set to deliver a constant output, and does this within fairly narrow limits, but some variations exists [9]. Hence the effect of sound propagation is shown as the difference between the levels measured at the "reference position" at 25m and the other distance (150m and 300m in turn) is used. The constant effect of geometrical spreading, e.g. 20lg(300/25) dB for 300m, is removed. These 5 minute "difference levels" are expressed as energy equivalent levels in 1/3 octave bands from 50Hz to 4000Hz and partly as the total overall A-weighted sound level. The following first figures give and overview over how the sound level and the weather parameters vary from start to finish during the measurement period. Only the five minute periods when both loudspeaker elements were active are included. In addition, periods when the Reference file: Validation report final.doc Author: EDF

Page 53 of 99


recorded sound levels at the microphones were significantly disturbed by background noise, etc, are excluded. The decision was based on a continuous comparison of A-weighted levels.

8.2.1

Sound level

Figure 1 shows how the weather influences the sound propagation over the propagation distance from 25 to 300 meters, for the 1709 five minute samples arranged consecutively according to start time. Attenuation, not including distance 25 - 300 m 10.0

5.0

0.0

Attenuation (dB)

2

102

202

302

402

502

602

702

802

902

1002

1102

1202

1302

1402

1502

1602

1702

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

-20.0

Leq(source) 100 Hz 500 Hz

-25.0

1000 Hz 2000 Hz

-30.0 Sample number

figure 61a: The effect of weather on the sound propagation between the reference position at 25 meter and the measurement position at 300 meters for four 1/3 octave bands and the A-weighted overall level.


Page 54 of 99


Attenuation, not including distance 25 - 150 m 10

5

0

Attenuation (dB)

1

66

131 196 261 326 391 456 521 586 651 716 781 846 911 976 1041 1106 1171 1236 1301 1366 1431 1496 1561 1626

-5

-10

-15

-20 Leq(source) 100 Hz

-25

500 Hz 1 kHz 2 kHz

-30 Sample number

figure 61b: As fig 1a but for 150 meters.

8.2.2

Weather

The detailed weather parameters for the same measurement periods (samples) as in figure 61 are given in [11]. The measured values are used to calculate the parameter Dsr/R which in turn is used for the grouping of samples in "Meteo Classes". figure 62 shows how this parameter varies for the samples of figure 61. Dsr/R at 300 meter 0.4

0.3

0.2

02

52

17

02

16

52

16

02

15

52

15

02

14

52

14

02

13

52

13

02

12

52

12

02

11

52

11

02

10

10

2

2 90

95

2

2 80

85

2

2 70

75

2

2 60

65

2

2 50

55

2

2 40

45

2

2 30

35

2

2 20

25

2

2 10

15

2

0.0 52

Dsr/R

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4 Sample number

figure 62 : The inverse "normalized" radius of propagation (Dsr/R) calculated for the five minute periods shown i figure 61.


Page 55 of 99


8.3

Sound levels as a function of Dsr/R Attenuation, not including distance, 25 - 300 m. A-weighted overall level 4.0 Measured P2P

2.0

0.0 -0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Att (dB)

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0

-10.0

-12.0

-14.0 Dsr/R

figure 63a: The attenuation in the total overall level between 25 and 300m as a function of Dsr/R. Measured values compared with values calculated using HARMONOISE P2P. Attenuation, not including distance, 25 - 150 m. A-weighted overall level 4

2

0

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Att [dB]

-2

-4

Measured P2P

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

Dsr/R

figure 63b: As figure 63a, but for 25-150m

The measured and calculated levels agree in overall terms, but with a greater scatter in measured than calculated values. This is at least partly due to the fact that the calculated values are derived from a random selection of 250 weather conditions with a set of fixed major -5 parameters, [10]. Some turbulence was assumed (C=10 ). The displacement height, D, was assumed equal to zero. The options of incoherence, air absorption and scattering were enabled. Running the random selection process several time showed variations of the calculated levels well within the scatter of measured values. It should also be noted that some of the differences Reference file: Validation report final.doc Author: EDF

Page 56 of 99


between calculated and measured values in figure 63 may be caused by the fact that the source spectrum of the loudspeaker is not completely flat, as assumed in the calculations. Data for individual frequency bands are available for more detailed analyses. For the further analysis, the measured values are sorted according to figure 64, to enable grouping of results in Meteo Classes according to [12].The same is done for 150m, but not shown here. 300 meter Samples sorted as function of increasing Dsr/R 0.4

0.3

0.2

821

490

1659

540

1673

547

610

636

600

392

170

1350

715

1076

362

383

773

805

211

198

329

163

941

317

1119

1469

916

1466

904

1203

1239

160

1268

1316

2

742

1559

1544

0.0 1330

Dsr/R

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4 Sample number

figure 64 : The measurement samples at 300 meters sorted according to increasing value of Dsr/R

8.4

Samples selected according to meteorological condition

The samples were first selected using figure 64 (and a nearly identical figure for 150m, not shown) for choosing ranges of Dsr/R values corresponding to four preliminary "Meteo classes" suggested in IMAGINE WP7,([12],[13]). The results for the propagation from 25 to 150 m are given as "difference spectra" and compared with the similar spectra for 25 to 300m, in figures 65 and 66. The effect of geometrical spreading has been removed, as in figure 61 and in figure 63. For each 1/3 octave band the scatter in measured values are illustrated by showing the maximum and minimum level differences, together with the calculated median value (exceeded by 50% of the samples), and the percentage levels corresponding to the median plus/minus 1 and 2 standard deviations. The corresponding weather conditions are summarized in the Annex D of the main report [11].

8.4.1

The condition of "Favourable" sound propagation

The results for Meteo Class 3 is shown as an example of the uncertainties involved (see figure 65).

Note: The statistics are related to the individual 1/3 octave band and give no indication of the exchange of sound energy that occurs between the bands. This gives the somewhat "false" appearance that the measured spectra have similar shapes. A display of individual spectra, e.g. as in appendix B of the main report, illustrate that this is not necessarily the case.

The median values for this Meteo Class is compared with median of the other classes in figure 66.


Page 57 of 99


15

FAVOURABLE. 25-150 m, 0.04 < Dsr/R < 0.12

10

3150 Hz

4000 Hz

3150 Hz

4000 Hz

2500 Hz

2000 Hz

1600 Hz

1250 Hz

1000 Hz

800 Hz

630 Hz

500 Hz

400 Hz

315 Hz

250 Hz

200 Hz

160 Hz

125 Hz

-5

100 Hz

80 Hz

63 Hz

0 50 Hz

Attenuation not including distance (dB)

5

-10

-15

Maximum Median + 2 st.dev Median + 1 st.dev Median Median - 1 st.dev Median - 2 st.dev Minimum

-20

-25

-30 1/3 oct. band centre frequency (Hz)

15

FAVOURABLE . 25-300 m. 0.04 < Dsr/R < 0.12

10

2500 Hz

2000 Hz

1600 Hz

1250 Hz

1000 Hz

800 Hz

630 Hz

500 Hz

400 Hz

315 Hz

250 Hz

200 Hz

160 Hz

125 Hz

80 Hz

100 Hz

-5

63 Hz

0 50 Hz


5

-10

-15

-20

-25

Maximum Median + 1 st.dev Median + 2 st.dev Median Median - 1 st.dev Median - 2 st.dev Minimum


figure 65 : Difference spectra for a range of very favourable propagation conditions. 150 and 300 m postions. Meteo Class M3.


Page 58 of 99


1/3 octave band level difference (dB)

5.0

0.0

-5.0

Median level differences. 25-300m -10.0

M1. Unfavourable M2. Neutral

-15.0

M3. Favourable M4. Very favourable 800

1000

1250

1600

2000

2500

3150

4000

800

1000

1250

1600

2000

2500

3150

4000

630

500

400

315

250

200

160

125

100

80

63

50

-20.0

1/3 octave band


10.0

Median level differences. 25-150m 5.0

0.0

-5.0

M1. Unfavourable M2. Neutral M3. Favourable

-10.0

M4. Very favourable

630

500

400

315

250

200

160

125

100

80

63

50

-15.0

1/3 octave band figure 66 : Comparison of the median values for 25-300 m, and corresponding median values for 25-150m.

The corresponding median weather conditions are show in Annex 6 §16. The median weather values for each Meteo class is used in the IMAGINE HARMONOISE P2P method to determine the corresponding calculated sound level. Calculated and measured values are compared below.

8.5

"Narrow" weather conditions

The large variation in weather parameters and sound propagation effects within each of the four Meteo Classes shown above, makes a meaningful validation of the HARMONOISE difficult. In Reference file: Validation report final.doc Author: EDF

Page 59 of 99


this chapter a much narrower range of weather conditions has been selected for additional comparison. In each of the cases below, the weather is stable over several 5-minute periods, i.e. all the weather parameters required by the HARMONOISE method are known and nearly constant. The cases can therefore be directly compared with calculated values, without significant influence of statistical effects.

8.5.1

2,5 - 7 m/s downwind component. Samples 501 - 538.

The analysis of chapter 8.2 has been repeated for a case with a clear wind component in the direction of sound propagation. Samples 501 -538 were recorded between the times 02.50 and 08.15 on the 6. Dec. 2003. The temperature and relative humidity increased slightly at first. From 0420, sample 510, the temperature gradually decreased from 8,9 to 6,5 degrees C and the relative humidity from 94 to 72.6 %. The other weather parameters are shown in the main report [11].

Sound

10.0

25 - 300 m. Downwind Samples 501 - 538

8.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

50 1 50 2 50 3 50 4 50 5 50 6 50 7 50 8 50 9 51 0 51 1 51 2 51 3 51 4 51 5 51 6 51 7 51 8 51 9 52 0 52 1 52 2 52 3 52 4 52 5 52 6 52 7 52 8 52 9 53 0 53 1 53 2 53 3 53 4 53 5 53 6 53 7 53 8


6.0

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0

Leq(source) 100 Hz 500 Hz 1000 Hz 2000 Hz

-10.0 Sample number

figure 67 : The effect of weather on the sound propagation between the reference position at 25 meter and the measurement position at 300 meters, for 38 consecutive five minute periods.


Page 60 of 99


Dsr/R 25 - 300 meter 0,800

0,700

0,600

Dsr/R

0,500

0,400

0,300

0,200

0,100

53 7 53 8

53 5 53 6

53 3 53 4

53 1 53 2

52 9 53 0

52 7 52 8

52 5 52 6

52 3 52 4

52 1 52 2

51 9 52 0

51 7 51 8

51 5 51 6

51 3 51 4

51 1 51 2

50 9 51 0

50 7 50 8

50 5 50 6

50 3 50 4

50 1 50 2

0,000

Sample no

figure 68 : The inverse "normalized" radius of propagation (Dsr/R) calculated for the five minute periods shown in figure 67

Spectra for 300 m 25-300m. Samples 501 - 538 10,0

8,0

4,0

2,0

s:4000Hz (dB)

s:3150Hz (dB)

s:2500Hz (dB)

s:2000Hz (dB)

s:1600Hz (dB)

s:1250Hz (dB)

s:1000Hz (dB)

s:800Hz (dB)

s:630Hz (dB)

s:500Hz (dB)

s:400Hz (dB)

s:315Hz (dB)

s:250Hz (dB)

s:200Hz (dB)

s:160Hz (dB)

s:125Hz (dB)

s:100Hz (dB)

s:80Hz (dB)

-2,0

s:63Hz (dB)

0,0 s:50Hz (dB)

Attenuation not including distance, dB

6,0

-4,0

-6,0

-8,0

-10,0 1/3 oct. band centre frequency (Hz)

figure 69 : Difference spectra for the positive (downwind) Dsr/R values of samples 501-538.

8.5.2

4 - 5,5 m/s downwind. Samples 528 - 538.

To reduce the scatter in measured values further, an even narrower range of downwind cases has been selected from the previous samples, i.e. samples 529-538. This results in the following difference spectra for 300 and 150 meters, figures 70a and 70b. They are compared with calculated values in paragraph 8.6.2. The samples were recorded between 06.40 and 08.15 on 6.


Page 61 of 99


Dec. 2003. The temperature gradually decreased from 6,8 to 6,5 degrees C and the relative humidity from 82,9 to 72.6 % from start to finish.

10,0

Measured difference 25-300m 529

5,0

530 531 532 533 10 z 0 H 12 z 5 H 16 z 0 H 20 z 0 H 25 z 0 H 31 z 5 H 40 z 0 H 50 z 0 H 63 z 0 H 80 z 0 1 0 Hz 00 1 2 Hz 50 1 6 Hz 00 20 Hz 00 25 Hz 00 31 Hz 50 40 Hz 00 H z

z

H 80

H 63

50

H

z

0,0

534 535 536 537

-5,0

538

-10,0

figure 70a: Difference spectra for the positive (downwind) Dsr/R values of samples 529-538.

10,0

Measured difference 25-150m 529

5,0

530 531 532 533 10 z 0 H 12 z 5 H 16 z 0 H 20 z 0 H 25 z 0 H 31 z 5 H 40 z 0 H 50 z 0 H 63 z 0 H 80 z 0 1 0 Hz 00 1 2 Hz 50 1 6 Hz 00 20 Hz 00 25 Hz 00 31 Hz 50 40 Hz 00 H z

80

H

H 63

50

H

z

z

0,0

534 535 536 537

-5,0

538

-10,0

figure 70b: Difference spectra for the positive (downwind) Dsr/R values of samples 529-538.

Further

"narrow"

weather

cases

are


considered

in

chapters

(8.6.3

and

8.6.4).

Page 62 of 99


8.6 8.6.1

Comparison with HARMONOISE P2P The four Meteorological Classes

The propagation effects were calculated for each of the four Meteo classes of 8.4, using the median values for the linear and logarithmic sound speed profiles, the average source height -5 0,9m, ground impedance 630 kRayls and some degree of turbulence (C = 10 ). Incoherence, air absorption and scattering were enabled in the calculations. The effect of changing some of these parameters is discussed below. The calculations were done by using P2P [10].

M1. Unfavourable 10.0

4000

3150

2500

2000

1600

1250

1000

800

630

500

400

315

250

200

160

125

100

80

63

0.0 50


5.0

-5.0

-10.0

M1 calc -15.0

M1 meas

-20.0

-25.0 1/3 octave band

figure 71a : Comparison of the median values for 25-300 m from figure 66 with corresponding calculated values. Meteo class M1.


Page 63 of 99


M2 Neutral 10.0

4000

3150

2500

2000

1600

1250

1000

800

630

500

400

315

250

200

160

125

80

100

63

0.0 50


5.0

-5.0

-10.0

M2 calc M2 meas

-15.0

-20.0


figure 71b: Comparison of the median values for 25-300 m from figure 66 with corresponding calculated values. Meteo classe M2.

M3 Favourable 10.0

80 10 0 12 5 16 0 20 0 25 0 31 5 40 0 50 0 63 0 80 0 10 00 12 50 16 00 20 00 25 00 31 50 40 00

63

0.0 50


5.0

-5.0

-10.0

M3 calc -15.0

M3 meas

-20.0


figure 71c: Comparison of the median values for 25-300 m from figure 66 with corresponding calculated values. Meteo class M3.


Page 64 of 99


M4 Very favourable 10.0

80 10 0 12 5 16 0 20 0 25 0 31 5 40 0 50 0 63 0 80 0 10 00 12 50 16 00 20 00 25 00 31 50 40 00

63

0.0 50


5.0

-5.0

-10.0

M4 calc -15.0

M4 meas

-20.0


figure 71d: Comparison of the median values for 25-300 m from figure 66 with corresponding calculated values. Meteo classe M4.

There are large differences between measured and calculated 1/3 octave band levels, but the overall agreement is reasonably good. It should be kept in mind that the measured, statistical median levels, are compared with only a single P2P calculation. As expected, Meteo Class M1 is the exception. It covers unstable weather situations, is difficult to describe meteorologically, and is extremely difficult to model in terms of sound propagation. Fortunately, we also know that this is the weather condition that contributes least to the overall noise level and to the long term, environmental noise exposure. The results indicate that perhaps a higher degree of turbulence, than assumed in the calculations here, should have been used in order to improve the agreement for frequencies above 400Hz. See next chapter for a short discussion of sensitivity to input parameters.

8.6.2

The 4 - 5,5 m/s downwind case. Samples 528 - 538.

This is the case described in chapter 8.5.2. The following, representative sound profile parameters were used in the P2P calculations: A = - 0, 00212. B= 0,90539. The calculations were done using P2P [10]. Turbulence was ignored (C=0). Incoherence, air absorption and scattering were enabled in the calculations. The comparison between measured and calculated values gave the following results.


Page 65 of 99


Average spectra for 150 m 10

Average spectrum, Series 528-538

4000 Hz

3150 Hz

2500 Hz

2000 Hz

1600 Hz

1250 Hz

1000 Hz

800 Hz

630 Hz

500 Hz

400 Hz

315 Hz

250 Hz

200 Hz

160 Hz

125 Hz

100 Hz

80 Hz

63 Hz

0 50 Hz


5

-5

-10

-15

P2P diff 25-150m Measured diff 25-150 m


figure 72a: A comparison between average measured and calculated level differences, 25-150m, for a straight downwind case.


Average spectrum, Series 528-538

4000 Hz

3150 Hz

2500 Hz

2000 Hz

1600 Hz

1250 Hz

1000 Hz

800 Hz

630 Hz

500 Hz

400 Hz

315 Hz

250 Hz

200 Hz

160 Hz

125 Hz

100 Hz

80 Hz

63 Hz

0 50 Hz


5

-5

-10

P2P diff 25-300m Measured diff 25-300 m

-15


figure 72b: A comparison between average measured and calculated level differences, 25-300m for a straight downwind case.


Page 66 of 99


Comments Varying the ground impedance value between 450kRayls and 900kRayls in the calculations, results only in small spectral changes at the reference position, 25 m. The changes are a little greater at 300m, including a 1/3 octave shift of the "dip" frequency around 300-400Hz. The opposite is the case if the source height is varied between 0,75m and 1,05m, the approximate centres of the two loudspeakers. Then the change is most pronounced at 25m. Adjusting the source heights to correspond to the loudspeaker centres for the appropriate frequency ranges does not improve the agreement. The variations caused by changing source height and ground impedance seem to be within the differences shown between calculated and measured levels. Introducing turbulence gives smoother spectra at 300m but does not give at better agreement. Further analysis and physical data would be required to see if it is possible to optimize the comparison. However, the overall agreement is clearly acceptable, and probably as good as one should expect even in situations such as here, when the weather, ground and geometry are known with a high degree of precision. 8.6.3

1 - 2 m/s simple downwind case, samples 617 - 632

The process described above has been repeated for two more cases. The first one is for another downwind situation, the next one for a simple "neutral" weather condition. The comparison between calculated values and measured, average spectra is shown below.

Average spectra for 150 m 10.0

Ave rage spe ctrum. Series617-632 5.0

4000 Hz

3150 Hz

2500 Hz

2000 Hz

1600 Hz

1250 Hz

1000 Hz

800 Hz

630 Hz

500 Hz

400 Hz

315 Hz

250 Hz

200 Hz

160 Hz

125 Hz

100 Hz

80 Hz

63 Hz

50 Hz

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

P2P dif f 25-150 m -15.0

Measured diff 25-150 m

-20.0

figure 73a: A comparison between measured and calculated level differences, 25-150m for a simple downwind case.


Page 67 of 99


Average spectra for 300 m 10.0

5.0

H 50 z 0 H z 63 0 H z 80 0 H z 10 00 H z 12 50 H z 16 00 H z 20 00 H z 25 00 H z 31 50 H z 40 00 H z

H z

40 0

H z

31 5

H z

25 0

H z

20 0

H z

16 0

H z

12 5

H z

H z

10 0

80

63

50

H z

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

Average spectrum. Series 617-632

P2P diff 25-300 m

-15.0

Measured diff 25-300 m

-20.0

figure 73b: A comparison between measured and calculated level differences, 25-300m for a simple downwind case.

8.6.4

Neutral conditions

Starting from the full selection of Meteo Class M2 samples, a narrower range of "neutral" weather conditions have been chosen. The comparison between average spectra is shown below.


Average spectrum, Dsr/R: -0.01 - 0.01

4000 Hz

3150 Hz

2500 Hz

2000 Hz

1600 Hz

1250 Hz

1000 Hz

800 Hz

630 Hz

500 Hz

400 Hz

315 Hz

250 Hz

200 Hz

160 Hz

125 Hz

100 Hz

80 Hz

63 Hz

0 50 Hz


5

-5

-10

-15 P2P diff 25-150 m Measured diff 25-150 m -20 1/3 oct. band centre frequency (Hz)

figure 74a: A comparison between measured and calculated level differences, 25-150m for a narrow range of "neutral" weather conditions.


Page 68 of 99



Average spectrum, Dsr/R: -0.01 - 0.01

4000 Hz

3150 Hz

2500 Hz

2000 Hz

1600 Hz

1250 Hz

1000 Hz

800 Hz

630 Hz

500 Hz

400 Hz

315 Hz

250 Hz

200 Hz

160 Hz

125 Hz

100 Hz

80 Hz

63 Hz

0 50 Hz


5

-5

-10

-15

P2P diff 25-300 m Measured diff 25-300 m


figure 74b: A comparison between measured and calculated level differences, 25-300m for a narrow range of "neutral" weather conditions.


Page 69 of 99


8.7

Summary

The analysis shows the effect of weather on the sound propagation from a basic source over flat ground. The results from the field measurements are compared with calculations using the HARMONOISE point-to-point method, P2P, with improvements incorporated so far during the IMAGINE project. The source for the field measurements was a two-unit loudspeaker, assumed to radiate sound as a "point source", at the distances considered here. The detailed meteorological parameters required by HARMONOISE were recorded simultaneously with the sound measurements. The field tests were done by DeBAKOM as part of the HARMONOISE project, and consisted of sound measurements at 4 distances from the loudspeaker, 25m, 150m, 300m and 600m. Only the three first microphone positions are used here, due to a significant influence of background noise at 600m The analysis and comparison is carried out in several steps: - Firstly to give an overview of the variations in sound levels and weather conditions during the measurement period. Many, but not all, important weather conditions are covered. - Secondly the results are grouped according to the meteorological classes M1, M2, M3 and M4, that have been suggested in IMAGINE. As expected, the results show a large scatter in sound propagation effects within each class. However, the results also show characteristic, overall frequency effects within each class. The median values for the weather and ground influence between the "reference position" at 25 meters and the measuring points at 150 and 300m are used to illustrate this in figure 71. - These median levels are compared with Harmonoise P2P calculations using the recorded, median weather data as input for each of the four Meteo Classes in turn. - Finally, a few very "narrow" weather conditions are selected: In these cases there are small variations in all the key parameters required for the Harmonoise calculations. The results show that: - The overall agreement between measurement and calculation is good. - There are differences of more than 5 dB between measured and calculated 1/3 octave levels in the frequency range 50- 4000 Hz, in all cases considered. However, the differences are such that they are likely to be "cancelled out" in the overall levels. - The "shift" of sound energy between 1/3 octave frequency bands is sensitive to geometrical details, local ground properties and weather, and is extremely difficult to predict. The effect does not seem to be picked up consistently even by such detailed calculation procedures as Harmonoise P2P. - Since the shift of sound energy from one to another 1/3 frequency band has little or no effect on overall levels such as LADEN , it can be considered more as a result of an unnecessarily detailed frequency resolution than of a faulty calculation procedure. - It therefore seems perfectly acceptable to group the sound energy in wider frequency bands (in practice, in whole octaves), when dealing with outdoor sound propagation and the solving of noise environmental problems. The analysis reported here has been carried out by Matias Ringheim and Kjell Olav Aalmo of KILDE Akustikk AS.


Page 70 of 99


9

Conclusion

Reference data (measured and calculated) has been produced by the WP7. Some of them have been used to validation the HARMONOISE calculation method (P2P model). When needed, detailed conclusions are drawn along the report, in each part. The executive summary also presents some of the most important technical conclusions. The general idea is that even by using the classification methods proposed in HARMONOISE and in IMAGINE in WP3, a large dispersion of the results is observed. This is because we have compared the results of the measured and calculated situations one by one assuming that a measure is a frozen situation. Due to the inherent dispersion of the measurements (a fixed meteorological situation doesn’t exist in reality), one can always expect large differences between a model and the measurements. Anyway, the HARMONOISE/IMAGINE model is designed for calculating long-term levels and is able to represent the same kind of variability that we observed in real situations. One can then expect to calculate correct long-term levels by using this kind of model.


Page 71 of 99


10 References [1]

[2]

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

[12] [13]

F. Gaudaire , N. Noe, J. Martin, P. Jean, D. van Maerke, ‘Confort automobile et ferroviaire. ‘Méthode de rayons pour caractériser la propagation acoustique dans les milieux encombrés’, Proceedings SIA, Le Mans (15-16 Nov. 2000) O. Deille, J. Maillard, N. Noe, K. Bouatouch, J. Martin, ‘Real time acoustic rendering of complex environments including diffraction and curved surfaces’, to be published in th Proceedings AES 120 convention (20-23 May 2006) R. Kouyoumjan, P. Pathak, ‘A uniform geometrical theory of diffraction for an edge in a perfectly conducting surface’, proc. IEEE 62, 1448-1461 (1974) P. Jean, ‘A variational approach for the study of outdoor sound propagation and application to railway noise’, J. Sound Vib 212(2), 275-294 (1998) P. Jean, J. Defrance and Y. Gabillet, ‘The important of source type on the assessment of noise barriers’, J. Sound Vib 226(2), 201-216 (1999) E. Premat, J. Defrance, M. Priour, ‘State of the Art of reference models Classical BEM‘, HAR02TR020118CSTB01 (2002) F. Junker, ‘Clamart Measurement report - Memo 4’, IMAGINE (2005) D. Knauss, ‘Loudspeaker measurements Harmonoise’, deBAKOM, IMAG07RP050902dBA01, Odenthal, 2. sept. 2005. D. Knauss (?),‘Work package WP. Description of database’, HAR04MO040507dBA01, Odenthal, 2004. The Harmonoise demo programme. P2P library version 2.012. CSTB Grenoble 2006. Matias Ringheim and Kjell Olav Aalmo, `Validation of the Harmonoise P2P engineering method. Comparison with DeBAKOM loudspeaker measurements´. Kilde Akustikk AS, Voss Nov. 2006. IMA07TR-060615-KILDE04. Dirk van Maercke, ‘Processing meteorological data and determination of long time averaged noise indicators Lden and Lnight ‘. IMAGINE IMA03TR-060610-CSTB01, June 2006. Dirk van Maercke, ‘IMAGINE. WP3: Determination of Lden. Proposal for taking into account meteorological effects in the determination of Lden applicable both to measurement and calculation‘. IMAGINE Memo ‘Meteorological classes.doc‘, CSTB Grenoble, July 2006.


Page 72 of 99


11 Annex 1 - Full results for Clamart measurements 11.1.1 SPL at Point M1

f (Hz) 20 25 31,50 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000

M1-IR 0,0 12,8 18,1 26,2 28,9 33,1 29,7 40,0 44,6 46,6 50,7 50,4 49,8 49,2 46,7 44,6 46,1 45,0 44,7 47,0 47,0 43,5 42,2 38,0 35,4 31,0 26,0 12,6

M1-2260 54,5 55,2 54,7 52,8 54,5 57,2 55,6 53,1 53,9 53,4 51,4 50,9 50,3 49,6 48,0 45,8 47,7 46,9 46,8 48,9 49,9 48,2 47,4 45,0 43,5 40,2 38,6 29,5

M1-BGN 54,5 54,2 52,9 49,1 51,9 54,5 53,1 49,8 46,3 44,0 41,7 40,1 38,4 37,2 37,3 36,9 36,3 36,3 34,8 31,9 28,8 24,8 20,9 17,5 12,4 9,1 7,7 7,3

M1-2260-DN 29,4 48,4 50,1 50,3 51,0 53,9 52,1 50,4 53,1 52,9 50,9 50,5 50,0 49,3 47,6 45,3 47,3 46,4 46,5 48,8 49,9 48,2 47,4 45,0 43,5 40,2 38,6 29,5

M1-IRW 0,0 12,8 17,5 27,2 25,4 29,6 28,1 36,3 41,8 44,7 48,7 47,3 44,0 41,9 40,2 39,1 38,5 38,5 37,1 40,3 42,2 39,6 39,3 35,2 33,5 29,6 24,0 10,7

IR: Third octave filtering of the impulse response; 2260: direct third octave spectrum measurement; BGN: Background noise; 2260-DN: Noise corrected third octave spectrum; IRW: Third octave filtering of the Time Windowed Impulse Response


Page 73 of 99


60

55

50

dB

45 M1-IR M1-2260 M1-2260-DN M1-BGN M1-IRW

40

35

30

25

8000

10000

6300

5000

4000

3150

2500

2000

1600

1250

800

1000

630

500

400

315

250

200

160

125

80

100

63

50

40

25

31,50

20

20

f (Hz)


Page 74 of 99


11.1.2 SPL at Point M2

f (Hz) 20 25 31,50 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000

M2-IR -5,5 14,9 24,5 27,2 27,0 34,6 35,3 38,2 42,9 48,0 47,0 50,1 51,8 49,1 47,6 44,5 46,9 47,1 45,3 46,6 46,1 43,5 42,4 39,0 35,7 29,5 26,6 12,8

M2-2260 51,2 52,2 54,1 55,9 55,0 55,9 55,0 53,2 52,6 51,2 48,8 50,7 52,1 50,0 48,7 45,9 48,2 48,9 47,5 49,8 50,2 49,2 48,0 46,3 45,0 41,9 40,8 31,9

M2-BGN 47,7 49,3 52,1 53,6 52,4 52,7 52,6 50,0 46,6 43,4 41,6 40,2 38,4 37,9 38,1 36,9 36,6 37,1 35,8 33,5 29,9 25,8 21,7 18,7 12,9 9,6 8,3 7,8

M2-2260-DN 48,6 49,1 49,9 51,9 51,7 53,1 51,2 50,3 51,3 50,4 47,9 50,3 51,9 49,7 48,3 45,3 47,9 48,6 47,2 49,7 50,1 49,2 48,0 46,3 45,0 41,9 40,8 31,9

M2-IRW -5,1 14,5 24,7 27,1 25,0 32,0 32,1 35,5 39,3 43,3 42,2 43,2 48,0 42,3 41,4 37,4 37,8 38,7 36,8 42,5 41,4 39,2 39,6 36,1 33,3 27,2 23,8 9,6

IR: Third octave filtering of the impulse response; 2260: direct third octave spectrum measurement; BGN: Background noise; 2260-DN: Noise corrected third octave spectrum; IRW: Third octave filtering of the Time Windowed Impulse Response 60

55

50

dB

45 M2-IR M2-2260 M2-BGN M2-2260-DN M2-IRW

40

35

30

25

8000

10000

6300

5000

4000

3150

2500

2000

1600

1250

800

1000

630

500

400

315

250

200

160

125

80

100

63

50

40

25

31,50

20

20

f (Hz)


Page 75 of 99



f (Hz) 20 25 31,50 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000

M3-IR -0,3 17,3 23,5 29,6 32,5 35,7 38,0 41,9 45,9 50,1 50,9 52,1 51,5 52,9 53,4 54,5 53,0 52,9 50,6 54,7 54,2 50,5 49,7 46,3 41,5 35,6 33,1 19,7

M3-2260 56,1 56,3 55,8 56,0 57,5 56,0 54,4 54,1 53,9 53,2 53,7 54,1 53,6 53,8 54,2 54,8 53,5 53,7 52,4 55,8 56,1 54,0 53,9 52,1 50,0 46,7 46,0 37,9

M3-BGN 52,3 54,1 54,0 59,3 57,4 56,7 60,0 51,3 46,6 45,0 42,7 39,5 38,7 37,3 37,9 38,7 39,1 39,5 38,4 37,2 37,2 31,1 29,9 25,2 19,3 15,8 12,5 10,6

M3-2260-DN 53,7 52,3 51,0

M3-IRW -0,2 16,8 23,6 30,3 30,3 33,1 37,6 40,9 45,4 48,7 47,5 47,6 47,1 49,6 51,3 53,3 50,6 51,3 49,2 52,7 52,3 49,2 48,8 45,1 40,4 34,2 31,6 18,6

39,5

51,0 53,0 52,5 53,4 53,9 53,4 53,7 54,1 54,7 53,4 53,5 52,2 55,8 56,1 54,0 53,9 52,1 50,0 46,7 46,0 37,9


60

55


dB

45

40

35

30

25

8000

10000

6300

5000

4000

3150

2500

2000

1600

1250

800

1000

630

500

400

315

250

200

160

125

80

100

63

50

40

25

31,50

20

20

f (Hz)


Page 76 of 99



f (Hz) 20 25 31,50 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000

M4-IR -2,8 15,2 24,4 23,9 36,2 36,9 40,9 45,7 48,7 52,4 56,0 57,4 55,2 52,8 50,4 52,8 56,7 56,8 52,9 56,9 57,2 55,4 53,4 50,9 48,9 43,3 40,5 27,6

M4-2260 53,9 56,2 55,7 55,7 56,7 56,9 54,5 52,5 51,7 53,5 56,3 57,6 55,3 53,1 51,0 53,2 56,9 57,0 53,5 57,5 58,0 56,4 55,0 52,9 51,7 47,9 47,6 40,4

M4-BGN 56,2 58,3 59,7 59,1 58,7 58,0 55,4 55,3 54,4 52,8 46,4 44,1 40,9 39,6 37,6 37,8 37,7 38,2 36,7 34,7 31,1 26,6 21,6 18,1 13,7 7,9 5,3 4,4

M4-2260-DN

M4-IRW -2,7 15,2 24,6 23,8 35,7 36,9 40,9 45,4 48,2 52,2 55,8 57,2 54,6 51,1 49,5 52,2 56,5 56,6 52,3 56,4 56,8 55,0 53,0 50,6 48,7 43,0 40,4 27,4

44,9 55,8 57,4 55,1 52,9 50,8 53,1 56,9 56,9 53,4 57,4 58,0 56,4 55,0 52,9 51,7 47,9 47,6 40,4


60

55


dB

45

40

35

30

25

8000

10000

6300

5000

4000

3150

2500

2000

1600

1250

800

1000

630

500

400

315

250

200

160

125

80

100

63

50

40

25

31,50

20

20

f (Hz)


Page 77 of 99



f (Hz) 20 25 31,50 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000

M5-IR 6,9 19,4 24,8 31,9 38,9 44,5 47,4 49,3 55,2 54,4 55,1 57,7 64,5 66,4 64,5 58,9 62,5 60,5 60,6 64,3 64,8 61,8 62,0 59,6 58,3 54,1 53,4 41,5

M5-2260 55,6 57,3 56,9 55,5 54,7 57,0 56,7 54,0 55,9 55,0 55,4 58,0 64,4 66,5 64,5 58,9 62,5 60,6 60,7 64,2 64,6 62,1 62,3 60,1 58,8 55,6 55,8 47,6

M5-BGN 56,4 58,6 59,8 58,8 57,9 57,9 56,9 55,7 54,5 53,0 46,5 44,0 41,4 40,2 38,8 39,0 39,8 40,2 38,3 36,2 32,8 27,5 22,6 17,8 13,2 2,0 3,0 4,4

M5-2260-DN

M5-IRW 6,9 19,7 24,4 32,1 39,1 44,4 47,5 48,8 55,1 54,1 54,6 57,2 64,3 66,3 64,4 58,7 62,4 60,3 60,5 64,2 64,6 61,6 61,8 59,4 58,1 54,0 53,4 41,4

50,3 50,8 54,9 57,8 64,4 66,4 64,5 58,8 62,5 60,6 60,7 64,2 64,6 62,1 62,3 60,1 58,8 55,6 55,8 47,6

IR: Third octave filtering of the impulse response; 2260: direct third octave spectrum measurement; BGN: Background noise; 2260-DN: Noise corrected third octave spectrum; IRW: Third octave filtering of the Time Windowed Impulse Response 70 65 60 55

dB

50

M5-IR M5-2260 M5-BGN M5-2260-DN M5-IRW

45 40 35 30 25

8000

10000

6300

5000

4000

3150

2500

2000

1600

1250

800

1000

630

500

400

315

250

200

160

125

80

100

63

50

40

25

31,50

20

20

f (Hz)


Page 78 of 99



f (Hz) 20 25 31,50 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000

M6-IR 3,5 20,2 23,5 23,5 26,6 32,7 33,8 40,0 42,9 45,8 48,7 50,4 51,2 48,6 48,7 46,3 46,5 46,3 45,1 47,2 46,7 45,4 43,1 39,5 35,2 29,3 26,4 14,5

M6-2260 53,2 55,3 55,2 54,9 57,8 55,7 54,5 54,6 53,9 51,8 53,0 53,1 53,3 50,6 50,6 48,0 48,3 48,1 47,4 50,2 50,5 49,9 49,1 47,0 45,2 42,4 41,6 33,1

M6-BGN 51,0 54,9 54,3 59,1 56,6 56,5 57,9 51,6 47,2 46,0 44,0 39,6 38,5 37,7 38,5 39,1 39,2 39,8 38,6 37,6 37,3 32,3 30,7 26,8 22,5 20,6 18,7 15,9

M6-2260-DN 49,3 45,3 48,0

M6-IRW 3,7 20,0 24,0 24,3 22,8 32,4 34,1 36,4 38,4 35,7 43,8 42,4 41,6 40,2 41,3 37,4 39,4 39,8 40,2 43,1 43,9 42,4 40,9 37,1 33,1 26,3 23,6 12,1

51,6

51,6 52,8 50,5 52,5 52,9 53,1 50,4 50,3 47,4 47,7 47,4 46,8 50,0 50,3 49,8 49,0 46,9 45,1 42,4 41,6 33,0


60

55


dB

45

40

35

30

25

8000

10000

6300

5000

4000

3150

2500

2000

1600

1250

800

1000

630

500

400

315

250

200

160

125

80

100

63

50

40

25

31,50

20

20

f (Hz)


Page 79 of 99


11.1.7

SPL at Point Mref

f (Hz) 20 25 31,50 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000

Mref 59,2 58,8 59,2 59,4 59,7 56,7 57,2 66,3 70,2 71,9 80,4 84,3 79,8 81,7 79,7 80,9 79,8 81,5 83,8 83,3 79,1 80,8 79,8 77,5 77,9 79,3 74,2

90

85

80

dB

75

70

Mref

65

60

55

8000

10000

6300

5000

4000

3150

2500

2000

1600

1250

800

1000

630

500

400

315

250

200

160

125

80

100

63

50

40

25

31,50

50

f (Hz)


Page 80 of 99


11.1.8 Meteorological data

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6

T°C 13 13 13 14 14 13

h% 79 79 78 75 75 78

Wind speed 1.8 1.8 1.5 0.9 0.9 1.5


Wind dir. SW SW SW SW SW SW

Page 81 of 99


11.1.9 Pictures M1

M2

M3

M4 and M5

M6

Mref and the Source


Page 82 of 99


11.1.10 Description of the data files Vue en plan + hauteurs.sxd : A map of the site is given in a 1/100 scale in a sxd format (draw tool of the Open Office pack wich can be downloaded on the web). M1-1.wav, M2-1.wav,…, M6-1.wav : IR exported in wavefiles format from the dBFA software. M1-1w.wav, M2-1w.wav,…, M6-1w.wav : Windowed IR exported from MATLAB. The calibrations factors are given in the next Table.

File Name

"Pa" for a digital value of 32767

M1-1w.wav M2-1w.wav M3-1w.wav M4-1w.wav M5-1w.wav M6-1w.wav

2,29086765E-03 2,29086765E-03 2,08929613E-03 2,08929613E-03 6,53130553E-03 6,53130553E-03

IMAGINE-Clamart.xls : Excel folder with all the useful tables. The coordinates table is included.


Page 83 of 99


12 Annex 2 – Dampierre Data 12.1 Details about the Excel files The Excel folder “DampierreDataFull.xls” includes all meteo and acoustic data in 15’ samples. The sheet “Meteo & M3&M4” contains the meteorological and acoustics data measured at points M3 and M4. The table below gives definitions of the columns names. sTime

Measurement start time

eTime

Measurement end time

a

Logarithmic parameter of the lin-log profile

b

Linear parameter of the lin-log profile

c0

Sound speed at z=0m

Aclass

dc/dz - 4m

Classification of the Logarithmic parameter a according to HAR29TR-041118TNO10 Classification of the Linear parameter b according to HAR29TR-041118TNO10 Sound speed gradient (a/z+b) z=4m

dc/dz - 10m

Sound speed gradient (a/z+b) z=10m

4/Lmo

Validity criterion z/Lmo z=4m (see ref HAR29TR-041118-TNO10 p26)

var u (m2/s2)

Standard deviation for the u component of the wind speed

var v (m2/s2)

Standard deviation for the v component of the wind speed

Bclass

var w (m2/s2)

Standard deviation for the w component of the wind speed

ust (m/s)

Friction velocity

uw (m2/s2)

Crosscorrelation uw

vw (m2/s2)

Crosscorrelation vw

Mon_Ob l (m)

Monin Obukhov length (Lmo)

Tst (K)

Temperature scale (T*)

J/N

J=Day ; N=Night

S class

S Stability class (S1 to S5) obtained from model fitting (see §6.1)

W class

W Wind speed class from HARMONOISE

V class

V Wind speed class from HARMONOISE

Qual

Quality criterion (see §6.1)

DRClass1

D/R classification for point M3-4m

DRClass2


DRClass3


M3-4m

Sensor number

StartTime

Measurement start time

EndTime

Measurement end time

Duration (min)

Measurement duration

Leq(source) (dBA)

Source contribution

Leq(total) (dBA)

Global level (source+extraneous)


Page 84 of 99


Leq(extraneous) (dBA) Extraneous noise s:50Hz (dB)

Signal spectrum dB lin at 50 Hz

…

…

s:4000Hz (dB)

Signal spectrum dB lin at 4kHz

e:50Hz (dB)

Extraneous noise spectrum at 50 Hz

…

…

e:4000Hz (dB)

Extraneous noise spectrum at 4 kHz

….

Idem for M4-4m and M4-10m …

The two last sheets “Ref M1” and “Ref M2” contains the acoustics data at the reference microphones, close to the towers. The selected samples described “DampierreSelectedSamples.xls”.

in


§6.3

are

saved

in

an

excel

folder

named

Page 85 of 99


13 Annex 3 – D/R calculation The process for determining D/R goes through the following steps. Determine 1/L, U*; T* Determine A (linear parameter) and B (logarithmic parameter) Determine 1/RA and 1/RB It is thus important to indicate how one determines the meteorological parameters 1/L, U* and T* corresponding to the acoustical measurements. There should be an annexe explaining different ways to do this. Once again, some help from a micro-meteorology specialist may be welcome here… even tough relevant information is easily found from literature on air pollution (remember, I wrote a HARMONOISE memo on this topic). Different methods should be described and their range of validity indicated: Acquisition of meteorological data on the measurement site, e.g. using a 3D wind speed meter (Debakom) gives direct access to the 3 values Flux meter (Arpat) allows for estimation of the 3 values (there is a strong relation between the thermal flux and the value of 1/L and there exist empirical formulae to derive the others). This is more common practice in air pollution monitoring… Simple anemometers give wind speed and direction, the cloud cover can be estimated by visual inspection. Use the tables in the document to estimate 1/L, U* and T* Get wind speed, wind direction and cloud cover from the nearest weather station or airport and use the tables…Remember: raw meteorological observations from airports are freely available on the web... see the HARMONOISE memo. The last two methods shall only work correctly for propagation over large, almost flat areas without obstacles. In other cases (forests, hilly or mountainous terrain, urban,…) the first two methods should be preferred.

Formulae for 1/RA and 1/RB

1 A = R A c0 The formula for RB is in principle valid for B > 0 (taking the gradient at the ray’s turning point). For B < 0 I now use the same procedure as in Nord 2000, i.e. I calculate the value of the gradient at the averaged height between the source and the receiver. Thus:

1 8 = RB Dsr

B 2π c0

1 B = RB c0 Z sr

when B > 0 when B < 0

Z sr =

Zs + Zr 2

In case B > 0, the equivalent gradient should be corrected for source and receiver height (this was found important in WP7 for industrial sources). The procedure is: 2

ZB =

Dsr B = RB 8 RB 2π c0 2

Z 'B = Z B + 2

Z sr Z − sr 4 2

1 8Z ' B = R' B Dsr 2 Reference file: Validation report final.doc Author: EDF

Page 86 of 99


- Then:

1 1 1 = + R R A RB Note: in case of propagation over a deep valley or for an elevated road, it might be more appropriate to define Zsr as the averaged height of the straight ray above the terrain profile… It seems highly likely that we need to further correct 1/R in urban situations taking into account the averaged height of the buildings and thus reducing the meteorological effects in these areas. This seems to be common practice in air pollution models but I have no idea how to do it in acoustics; some “expertise” from micro-meteorologists may be welcome here. For the moment I have implemented the following heuristic correction to deal with this: 1 1 1 = exp ( − ) R' R X² where: Z ray X = Zd

Z ray = Z sr Z ray = Z sr +

when R < 0 D² when R > 0 8R

Here, Zd is the meteorological “displacement height”. In meteorological terms Zd corresponds to the thickness of the lower layer where there are no significant meteorological profiles. For built-up space like urban centres, this is equal to the averaged height of the buildings. In forests it is equivalent to the height of the canopy. When the propagation is taken place below this height, we should have 1/R → 0… As a consequence: there is only one meteorological class to be determined: the M2 class. Note: the “special” form of the low-pass filter exp(-1/X²) has been chosen because it rapidly goes to zero when Zray < Zd i.e. for propagation inside the lower layer…


Page 87 of 99


14 Annex 4 – Predictor Model Data


Page 88 of 99



Page 89 of 99



Page 90 of 99



Page 91 of 99



Page 92 of 99



Page 93 of 99



Page 94 of 99


15 Annex 5 – 1/3 oct. results Meas. vs Calc.


Page 95 of 99



Page 96 of 99



Page 97 of 99



Page 98 of 99


16 Annex 6 Weather parameters corresponding to figure 65 and figure 66. Meteo class M1. Unfavourable M1. Unfavourable M1. Unfavourable M1. Unfavourable M1. Unfavourable M1. Unfavourable M2. Neutral M2. Neutral M2. Neutral M2. Neutral M2. Neutral M2. Neutral M2. Neutral M3. Favourable M3. Favourable M3. Favourable M3. Favourable M3. Favourable M3. Favourable M3. Favourable

No.of Samples

Percentiles

wind speed (m/s)

wind dir. (deg)

rel humidity (%)

Mon_Ob l (m)

Tst (K)

Wind comp.

A

B

c(z)

c var

Dsr/R

2.27 % 15.90 % 50.00 % 84.10 % 97.70 %

Minimum Median - 2 st.dev Median - 1 st.dev Median Median + 1 st.dev Median + 2 st.dev Maximum

0.2 0.7 1.5 2.7 6.0 7.2 7.8

36.4 41.0 59.0 118.1 185.5 204.7 219.0

50.9 57.5 76.4 89.4 91.8 94.3 95.1

-0.2611 -0.0854 -0.0050 0.0029 0.0488 0.2314 1.1403

-0.7366 -0.4066 -0.0193 0.0118 0.0479 0.0985 0.3958

-5.3 -4.7 -2.6 -1.6 -0.8 -0.3 0.6

-0.0754 -0.0682 -0.0265 -0.0073 -0.0032 0.0524 0.2552

-1.4083 -0.8054 -0.5057 -0.2648 -0.1256 -0.0535 -0.0136

330.0 330.6 330.9 331.1 331.2 331.3 331.3

-1.3970 -0.7971 -0.5177 -0.3039 -0.1701 -0.1147 -0.1083

-0.5162 -0.2945 -0.1913 -0.1123 -0.0628 -0.0424 -0.0400

2.27 % 15.90 % 50.00 % 84.10 % 97.70 %


0.0 0.3 0.7 1.5 3.8 7.3 8.1

0.7 10.9 26.2 59.2 215.9 344.6 359.1

45.9 48.9 79.5 85.7 91.8 95.1 95.6

-1.5451 -0.5420 -0.0270 0.0046 0.1778 1.2920 2.9809

-0.3695 -0.1974 -0.0152 0.0058 0.0359 0.0734 0.2472

-2.0 -1.4 -0.7 -0.1 0.5 1.4 5.1

-0.0701 -0.0296 -0.0102 -0.0059 0.0044 0.0417 0.1886

-0.3704 -0.0995 -0.0593 -0.0036 0.0816 0.1606 0.3504

331.3 331.3 331.3 331.4 331.5 331.5 331.5

-0.1079 -0.1042 -0.0821 -0.0015 0.0688 0.1052 0.1079

-0.0399 -0.0385 -0.0303 -0.0005 0.0254 0.0389 0.0399

2.27 % 15.90 % 50.00 % 84.10 % 97.70 %


0.1 0.8 1.6 3.1 5.5 7.5 8.1

2.0 6.1 19.8 234.5 297.3 351.1 358.7

42.7 45.6 74.3 91.2 93.0 95.5 95.6

-1.2844 -0.0201 -0.0057 0.0010 0.0753 0.4530 2.9983

-0.3519 -0.1831 -0.0335 0.0073 0.0539 0.0982 0.1319

-0.9 -0.3 0.5 1.4 2.7 4.4 5.9

-0.0567 -0.0393 -0.0079 -0.0047 0.0317 0.0957 0.1521

-0.0866 -0.0007 0.1329 0.3092 0.6213 0.7915 1.2301

331.5 331.5 331.5 331.6 331.7 331.7 331.7

0.1087 0.1135 0.1370 0.1950 0.2871 0.3176 0.3239

0.0402 0.0419 0.0506 0.0720 0.1061 0.1174 0.1197

2.27 % 15.90 % 50.00 % 84.10 % 97.70 %


0.1 0.4 1.0 3.6 6.2 7.1 8

1.3 4.7 36.7 244.5 336.2 350.2 359.4

71.9 72.9 78.3 86.7 95.3 95.5 95.6

-11.2309 -2.4530 -0.0046 0.0070 0.1071 1.6873 267.3797

-0.3004 -0.1424 -0.0385 0.0608 0.1670 0.3332 0.6647

-1.1 -0.9 0.1 2.5 4.1 5.6 6.7

-0.0334 -0.0236 -0.0023 0.0383 0.3381 1.3994 119.256

-0.3350 -0.1292 0.0296 0.7058 1.0863 1.4102 1.712

331.7 331.7 331.8 331.8 332.2 334.8 623.8

0.3248 0.3273 0.3517 0.4211 0.8262 3.3887 292.4

0.1200 0.1209 0.1299 0.1556 0.3053 1.2521 108.0455

wind speed (m/s) 2.7 1.5 3.1 3.6

wind direction (deg) rel humidity (%) 118.1 89.4 59.2 85.7 234.5 91.2 244.5 86.7

Mon_Ob l (m) 0.0029 0.0046 0.0010 0.0070

Tst (K) 0.0118 0.0058 0.0073 0.0608

Wind comp. -1.6 -0.1 1.4 2.5

A -0.0073 -0.0059 -0.0047 0.0383

B -0.2648 -0.0036 0.3092 0.7058

c(z) 331 331 332 332

c var -0.3039 -0.0015 0.1950 0.4211

Dsr/R -0.11230 -0.00054 0.07204 0.15559

812

399

320

M4. Very favourable M4. Very favourable M4. Very favourable M4. Very favourable M4. Very favourable M4. Very favourable M4. Very favourable

170 Sum 1701 Comments: The wind direction is the"from direction" relative to North. Wind direction 60 degrees corresponds approx. to the sound propagation direction. Wind component (m/s) is in the direction of sound propagation.

Medians Meteo class M1. Unfavourable M2. Neutral M3. Favourable M4. Very favourable

No.of Samples 812 399 320 170

Percentiles 50.00 % Median 50.00 % Median 50.00 % Median 50.00 % Median


Page 99 of 99

Validation report final

Validation report final

Suggest Documents

Final Report Final Report

final final report report - Data.unhcr.org

Validation Report

Final report: Cost-benefit analysis of options for certification, validation ...

Reaching for the Stars Center Validation Study Final Report

Final report: Cost-benefit analysis of options for certification, validation ...

Final Report for Validation of Problem-Solving Measures ... - CRESST

Reaching for the Stars Center Validation Study Final Report

Reaching for the Stars Center Validation Study Final Report

Final Report VALIDATION AND APPLICATION OF HIGHWAY SAFETY ...

Final Report

Final Report

(FINAL REPORT)

Final Report

Final Report

Final Report

Final Report

Final Report

final report

final report

Final Report

final report

Final Report

Final report