Technical investigations at City cruise terminals

© HPA, Stand: 02/18, HPA-Bildarchiv: Martin Elsen

30.11.2018

Authors: Max Schuster, Paul Schnabel, Thomas Büchler (DW-ShipConsult GmbH)

Anika Beiersdorf, Linda Hastedt (HPA)

GREEN CRUISE PORT is an INTERREG V B project, part-financed by the (European Regional Development Fund and European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument).

Contents

Table of Figures ...... 6 List of Tables ...... 9 List of abbreviations ...... 10 1 Summary ...... 11 2 Introduction ...... 12 3 Scope ...... 14 3.1 Expected results ...... 14 3.2 Investigated noise sources ...... 15 3.2.1 Terminals, cargo handling and pier equipment ...... 15 3.2.2 Cruise ships ...... 17 4 Regulations ...... 21 4.1 Relevant regulations for this study ...... 21 4.1.1 Noise immission regulations ...... 22 4.1.2 Regulations concerning ship noise of seagoing vessels ...... 24 4.1.3 Notations by classification societies ...... 25 4.1.4 Planning approval procedure for future terminals ...... 25 4.2 Ship related regulations applicability in this study ...... 25 4.2.1 Comparison of the different regulations ...... 25 4.2.2 Limitations of regulations ...... 26 4.2.3 Challenges with limitations of regulations ...... 27 4.2.4 Commercial aspects of compliance with noise regulations ...... 27 4.3 Traffic-related regulations applicability in this study ...... 27 4.3.1 Challenges with constraints of regulations ...... 28 4.3.2 Conclusion of noise regulations ...... 28 5 Context to actual research projects and best practice cases ...... 29 5.1 Actual research projects with focus on cruise ships ...... 29 5.1.1 Venice ...... 29 5.1.2 Vancouver ...... 30 5.1.3 New South Wales ...... 30 5.1.4 Spain ...... 32 5.1.5 Hamburg ...... 32 5.2 Research projects with focus on cargo ships ...... 33 5.2.1 Amsterdam ...... 33 5.2.2 Hamburg ...... 33 5.3 Best practice cases ...... 33 Page 2/136

5.3.1 Quiet ship design ...... 33 5.3.2 Noise monitoring ...... 33 5.3.3 Management of terminal operation ...... 34 6 Methodology ...... 35 6.1 Applied standards ...... 35 6.2 Measurement equipment ...... 36 6.3 Measurement locations ...... 37 6.4 Non-standardized data evaluation ...... 41 6.4.1 Tonal adjustment...... 41 6.4.2 Low frequency noise ...... 42 6.5 Modelling of maps ...... 43 6.5.1 Cargo handling and pier equipment ...... 43 6.5.2 Traffic ...... 44 6.5.3 Cruise ship ...... 45 7 Measurement results ...... 47 7.1 Cargo handling and pier equipment ...... 47 7.1.1 Impulsive noise ...... 47 7.1.2 Forklifts ...... 48 7.1.3 Mobile cranes ...... 49 7.1.4 Gangway ...... 50 7.2 Cargo delivery traffic ...... 52 7.3 Barges for supply and disposal ...... 53 7.4 Cruise ships at berth ...... 56 7.4.1 Sound power ...... 56 7.4.2 Tonality ...... 59 7.4.3 Low frequency noise ...... 60 7.4.4 Measurements at the terminal roof ...... 64 7.4.5 Onshore Power Supply ...... 77 7.4.6 LNG fueling at berth ...... 79 8 Sound maps ...... 81 8.1 Verification ...... 81 8.2 Results ...... 82 9 Recommendations for noise reduction measures ...... 84 9.1 Terminal noise sources ...... 84 9.1.1 Electrification of equipment ...... 84 9.1.2 Installation of silencers ...... 85 9.1.3 Smart traffic concepts ...... 85 Page 3/136

9.1.4 Staff training ...... 86 9.1.5 Installation of damping material for metal cargo boxes ...... 86 9.1.6 Installation of noise barriers...... 87 9.1.7 Terminal operation just during day time...... 89 9.2 Ship noise sources ...... 90 9.2.1 Engine exhaust gas noise ...... 90 9.2.2 Ventilation noise...... 94 10 Discussion ...... 97 10.1 Noise sources ...... 97 10.2 Noise immission ...... 99 10.3 Low frequency noise and tonal noise ...... 99 10.4 Mitigation measures...... 100 11 Design aspects of a noise monitoring system ...... 101 11.1 Objective ...... 101 11.2 Evaluation basis: Rating level Lr and average time Tr ...... 103 11.3 Measurement locations for monitoring ...... 104 11.4 Normative background ...... 106 11.5 Monitoring concept ...... 106 11.6 Data evaluation ...... 107 11.6.1 Determination of tonal components KT ...... 107 11.6.2 Additional determination of low-frequency components ...... 107 11.7 Documentation and user communication ...... 107 11.8 Hardware and Technology: ...... 108 11.9 Comparison of emission and immission monitoring ...... 109 11.10 ...... 110 11.11 Conclusion for the noise monitoring system ...... 111 12 Conclusion ...... 111 13 Possible further research activities ...... 113 14 Bibliography ...... 114 15 Appendix ...... 118 15.1 Time series of immission measurements ...... 118 15.2 Sound power levels of noise sources on board ...... 120 15.3 Third octave spectrum tables ...... 122

Page 4/136

15.4 Third octave spectrum tables of sound maps ...... 126 15.5 Sound maps ...... 129 15.5.1 AIDAsol in Altona, only ship, from measurements on 20.08.2017 ...... 129 15.5.2 AIDAsol in Altona (Diesel), all sources, from measurements on 20.08.2017 ...... 130 15.5.3 AIDAsol in Altona (OPS), all sources, from measurements on 23.04.2018 ...... 131 15.5.4 Mein Schiff 3 in Steinwerder, only ship, from measurements on 18.09.2017 ...... 132 15.5.5 Mein Schiff 3 in Steinwerder, all sources, from measurements on 18.09.2017 ...... 133 15.5.6 AIDAprima in Steinwerder, only ship, from measurements on 23.09.2017 ...... 134 15.5.7 AIDAprima in Steinwerder, all sources, from measurements on 23.09.2017 ...... 135 15.5.8 AIDAprima in Steinwerder, all sources, from measurements on 23.09.2017 ...... 136

Page 5/136

Table of Figures Figure 1: Cruise terminals in the ...... 15 Figure 2: Cruise Terminal Altona ...... 16 Figure 3: Cruise Terminal Steinwerder at Kronprinz-Quay ...... 16 Figure 4: Noise sources at the pier and on the cruise ship ...... 18 Figure 5: Noise sources at the waterside of the cruise ship at berth ...... 18 Figure 6: Rules and regulations for noise in ports ...... 21 Figure 7: Overview of international maritime laws ...... 24 Figure 8: Measurement locations 1 - 4 for cuboid-shaped objects ...... 35 Figure 9: Measurement locations 1 and 2 for exhaust gas outlets ...... 36 Figure 10: Immission measurement location of AIDAsol at Cruise Terminal Altona ...... 39 Figure 11: Immission measurement location of Mein Schiff 3 at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder .... 40 Figure 12: Immission measurement locations of AIDAprima at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder ..... 40 Figure 13: On board emission measurement ...... 40 Figure 14: Immission measurement on top of the roof of Cruise Terminal Steinwerder ...... 41 Figure 15: Immission measurements opposite of Auguste-Victoria-Quay ...... 41 Figure 16: Weighting functions ...... 42 Figure 17: Modelled noise sources on AIDAsol ...... 46 Figure 18: Modelled noise sources on Mein Schiff 3 ...... 46 Figure 19: Modelled noise sources on AIDAprima ...... 46 Figure 20: Metal box...... 47 Figure 21: Impulsive Noise due to a clashing metal box at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder ...... 47 Figure 22: Forklifts parked at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder ...... 48 Figure 23: Third octave spectra of forklifts operating at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder ...... 49 Figure 24: Mobile crane at cargo handling operation ...... 49 Figure 25: Third octave spectra of a mobile crane in service at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder ...... 50 Figure 26: Two gangways at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder ...... 50 Figure 27: Third octave spectra of the moving gangway ...... 51 Figure 28: Spatial arrangement (sketch) of immission measurement location and gangway noise source at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder ...... 51 Figure 29: Detail of noise immission on top of the terminal roof and Auguste-Victoria-Quay ..... 52 Figure 30: Reefer (Supply truck with cooling aggregate) ...... 53 Figure 31: Third octave spectrum of a typical reefer in waiting position ...... 53 Figure 32: Bunker barge servicing AIDAprima ...... 54 Figure 33: Noise emitted by a bunker barge alongside AIDAsol ...... 54 Figure 34: Third octave spectra of noise emission of exhaust gas outlet onboard AIDAsol, Mein Schiff 3 and AIDAprima ...... 56 Figure 35: Third octave spectra of noise emission of typical ventilation openings on board ...... 57 Figure 36: Laundry exhaust of Mein Schiff 3 ...... 57 Figure 37: Sound power levels of measured noise sources onboard AIDAsol ...... 58 Figure 38: Sound power levels of measured noise sources onboard Mein Schiff 3 ...... 58 Figure 39: Sound power levels of measured noise sources onboard AIDAprima ...... 59

Page 6/136

Figure 40: Modelled low frequency noise level LCeq – Laeq inside buildings with two types of facades compared ...... 62 Figure 41: AIDAsol: Comparison of time series for broadband level and 63 Hz 1/3 octave ...... 63 Figure 42: Mein Schiff 3: Comparison of time series for broadband level and 16 Hz 1/3 octave .. 63 Figure 43: Statistical evaluation of A-weighted levels on the terminal roof for AIDAsol with on OPS. 64 Figure 44: Statistical evaluation of A-weighted levels on the terminal roof for Mein Schiff 3 ...... 64 Figure 45: Statistical evaluation of A-weighted levels on the terminal roof for AIDAprima ...... 65 Figure 46: Determination of noise events in immission measurements of AIDAsol ...... 66 Figure 47: Determination of noise events in immission measurements of Mein Schiff 3 ...... 67 Figure 48: Determination of noise events in immission measurements of AIDAprima ...... 67 Figure 49: Noise immission measurements at Terminal Altona without AIDAsol at berth (05:45 a.m.) and with AIDAsol at berth (07:45 a.m.)...... 69 Figure 50: Noise immission measurements at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder without Mein Schiff 3 at berth (05:00 a.m.) and with Mein Schiff 3 at berth (06:30 a.m.) ...... 70 Figure 51: Noise immission measurements at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder without AIDAprima at berth (06:30 a.m.) and with AIDAprima at berth (08:00 a.m.) ...... 70 Figure 52: 1/3 octave spectrogram for berthing procedures and terminal operation of AIDAsol, recorded on terminal roof ...... 71 Figure 53: 1/3 octave spectrogram for berthing procedures and terminal operation of Mein Schiff 3, recorded on terminal roof ...... 72 Figure 54: 1/3 octave spectrogram for berthing procedures and terminal operation of AIDAprima, recorded on the terminal roof ...... 72 Figure 55: Statistics of noise immission on top of terminal roof at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder 73 Figure 56: Statistics of noise immission at Auguste-Victoria-Quay ...... 74 Figure 57: Noise immission measurements at Auguste-Victoria-Quay without AIDAprima at berth (06:30 a.m.) and with AIDAprima at berth (08:00 a.m.) ...... 75 Figure 58: View of Kaiser-Wilhelm-Hafen with typical tacking area of the launches...... 76 Figure 59: Frequency distribution of launch rides in the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Hafen...... 76 Figure 60: Detail of noise immission at Auguste-Victoria-Quay...... 77 Figure 61: Third octave spectrum of noise emission of exhaust gas outlet on board AIDAsol with and without OPS ...... 78 Figure 62: Time series of the 63 Hz third octave band and the low frequency noise criteria according to DIN 45680 ...... 78 Figure 63: AIDAsol with OPS ...... 79 Figure 64: AIDAprima: Comparison of time series for broadband level and 31.5 Hz 1/3 octave, taken from immission measurements at the terminal roof ...... 80 Figure 65: Typical electric driven forklift ...... 84 Figure 66: Box for luggage transport ...... 86 Figure 67: Principal sketch of constrained layer damping...... 87 Figure 68: Schematic diagram of noise barrier arrangement...... 88 Figure 69: Attenuation levels of noise barriers with different barrier heights ...... 88 Figure 70: Comparison of exhaust gas sound power of medium speed engines ...... 90

Page 7/136

Figure 71: Silencer characteristics ...... 91 Figure 72: Components of a possible exhaust gas line configuration...... 92 Figure 73: 1/3 octave and FFT spectrum of a rather noisy ventilation unit ...... 94 Figure 74: Installation principle for in-line fan installed in duct ...... 95 Figure 75: Schematic sketch of ventilation fan installed in a separate room ...... 95 Figure 76: Comparison of overall A-weighted sound power levels ...... 97 Figure 77: Comparison of sound power levels for cruise ships and cargo handling equipment ... 98 Figure 78: Examples for microphone positions and reference locations, based on sound map for AIDAsol 105 Figure 79: Flow chart of a possible automated monitoring system ...... 106 Figure 80: Composition of noise from the terminal in presence of various background noise sources 110 Figure 81: Time series of sound pressure levels of Mein Schiff 3 at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder with different averaging time ranges ...... 118

Page 8/136

List of Tables Table 1: Technical data of AIDAsol ...... 19 Table 2: Technical data of TUI Mein Schiff 3 ...... 19 Table 3: Technical data of AIDAprima ...... 19 Table 4: Examples of guideline values for rating levels according to TA Lärm, defined for outside of buildings 23 Table 5: Summary of research projects with focus on radiated noise from cruise ships ...... 29 Table 6: Measurement equipment for noise emission ...... 37 Table 7: Measurement equipment for noise immission on terminal roofs ...... 37 Table 8: Measurement equipment for noise immission at Auguste-Victoria-Quay ...... 37 Table 9: Emission measurement locations...... 38 Table 10: Immission measurement locations ...... 38 Table 11: Measurement dates and subjects ...... 39 Table 12: Tonal adjustment of noise emission from the three measured cruise ships ...... 60 Table 13: Characteristics of noise immission of all three cruise ships from terminal roof measurements ...... 65 Table 14: Comparison of noise immission of measurements to sound map predictions at microphone positions...... 81 Table 15: Comparison of monitoring concepts ...... 102 Table 16: Comparison of practicability of emission and immission monitoring ...... 109 Table 17: Noise sources on board AIDAsol (see Figure 37)...... 120 Table 18: Noise sources on board Mein Schiff 3 (see Figure 38)...... 120 Table 19: Noise sources on board AIDAprima...... 121 Table 20: Third octave spectrum table (sound pressure level re 20 µPa) of cargo handling equipment and delivery traffic (see Figure 23, Figure 25 and Figure 31)...... 122 Table 21: Third octave spectrum table (sound power level re 1 pW) of noise emission sources on board AIDAsol)...... 123 Table 22: Third octave spectrum table (sound power level re 1 pW) of noise emission sources on board Mein Schiff 3 ...... 124 Table 23: Third octave spectrum table (sound power level re 1 pW) of noise emission sources on board AIDAprima...... 125 Table 24: Third octave spectrum table (sound power level [dB(A)] re 1 pW) of noise sources on board AIDAsol, used for modelling sound maps (green = 0 dB(A), red = 90 dB(A))...... 126 Table 25: Third octave spectrum table (sound power level [dB(A)] re 1 pW) of noise sources on board Mein Schiff 3, used for modelling sound maps (green = 0 dB(A), red = 90 dB(A))...... 127 Table 26: Third octave spectrum table (sound power level [dB(A)]) of noise sources on board AIDAprima, used for modelling sound maps (green = 0 dB(A), red = 90 dB(A))...... 128

Page 9/136

List of abbreviations

BImSchG ...... Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz DNV...... Det Norske Veritas EC ...... European Commission END ...... Environmental Noise Directive EU ...... European Union GCP ...... Green Cruise Port GT ...... Gross tonnage HPA ...... Hamburg Port Authority HVAC ...... Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning IMO ...... International Maritime Organization LNG ...... Liquefied Natural Gas MARPOL ...... International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MGO ...... Marine Gas Oil MLC2006...... Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 OPS ...... Onshore Power Supply PA-system ...... Public Address-system PS ...... Portside pW ...... Pikowatt SCR ...... Selective Catalytic Reduction SNR ...... Signal-to-Noise Ratio SOLAS...... International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea SPL ...... Sound Pressure Level STB ...... Starboardside STCW ...... International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers TA Lärm..... Technische Anleitung zum Schutz gegen Lärm – Technical regulation for protection against noise TL ...... Transmission Loss

Page 10/136

1 Summary Cruise shipping is an extraordinarily developing tourism branch in the City of Hamburg. The amount of cruise ship calls in Hamburg increased by 74 % from 2010 to 2016. For 2018 more than 200 calls with more than 800,000 passengers are expected (Bürgerschaft der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg, 2017). Typically, the cruise ships stay for one day with times at berth approximately 10 – 12 hours (from ca. 06:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m.). Only about 5 % stay overnight (López, 2017).

The continuously increasing number of cruise ships as well as related terminal operations and delivery traffic are possible sources of noise emissions that can adversely affect residents. This report investigates the noise emissions of relevant noise sources of a cruise terminal in operation (i.e. cruise ship at berth, cargo handling equipment and passenger/delivery traffic) by acoustic measurements and presents recommendations for noise handling procedures and technical mitigation measures. The investigations focus on the noise emissions of three cruise ships at berth. According to literature, this is assumed to be the terminal’s dominant noise source during operation.

The study presents detailed descriptions of the different noise sources and their impacts on distant receivers. The source descriptions were additionally applied for modelling of sound maps to sketch the spatial distribution of noise from the terminal in operation and from the cruise ship. Effective mitigation measures were proposed based on identified dominant noise sources.

Page 11/136

2 Introduction The City of Hamburg is an attractive port for cruise vessels with about 800,000 passengers and 200 ship calls in season 2017 (Bürgerschaft der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg, 2017). in and from ports as well as from the associated ship traffic has become an increasing issue and can alter terminal infrastructure projects significantly. The situation is especially severe where ports are located either close to or even in city centers such as in the City of Hamburg. To stabilize the noise and air pollution level despite the increasing cruise economy growth, the Hamburg Port Authority (HPA) actively develops mitigation concepts to reduce the emissions of cruise terminals. Some first mitigation measures have already been implemented, for example the installation of an onshore power supply (OPS) station at Cruise Terminal Altona, an LNG Hybrid Barge at Cruise Terminal , and the LNG truck fueling possibility at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder.

Noise from cargo shipping is a major concern for the residents living on the opposite side of the large container terminal facilities (Beiersdorf, 2017). Systematic investigations have been carried out during the last years to identify the dominant noise sources and possible mitigation measures for cargo ships in ports. Such a detailed noise classification for cruise ships is rare. In the frame of this study detailed measurements of individual noise sources on board of three cruise ships as well as at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder were undertaken.

So far, the noise pollution from ships has mostly been associated with cargo vessels, but the increasing number of cruise ships - and possible associated noise problems – led to a proactive analysis of this new issue. Within the GREEN CRUISE PORT (GCP) Interreg project, HPA investigates the noise emissions of a Hamburg City’s cruise terminal in operation, focusing on the noise emissions of three cruise ships at berth.

“Technical noise investigations at a Hamburg City cruise terminal” is part of the Interreg Green Cruise Port project “Emission sources of cruise terminals and measures of reduction”. This study contains a sub-project “Emission sources and possible mitigation measures of cruise terminals”, which complements this study covering air pollution emissions from cruise terminals and cruise ships at berth.

GCP is a project in the EU Interreg Baltic Sea Region Program 2014-2020. Within GCP, port authorities from around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea are working together with other cruise stakeholders to make cruise shipping more innovative, more sustainable and better connected. GCP concentrates on the reduction of cruise vessel emissions in ports and sustainable adaptation of cruise port infrastructure to adapt the latest technical developments in the cruise shipping sector.

The sound power levels of the relevant single noise sources at the cruise terminal (delivery traffic, pier equipment and cargo handling) and onboard the cruise ships (engines, ventilation, HVAC, ship horn, and PA-system were evaluated. Investigated ships were AIDAsol, Mein Schiff 3 and AIDAprima. Special emphasis was given to the investigation of low-frequency noise sources. The measurements included investigations of sound pressure levels to calculate radiated sound power of individual sources. All sources were characterized by third octave spectra as well as by narrow band spectra for identification of their contribution in immission measurements. Noise immission measurements were conducted on

Page 12/136

the terminal roofs, and at one opposite quay to estimate the influence on neighbouring residential areas.

The sound power levels and noise mitigation potentials were evaluated when the cruise ship connected to external energy supply (LNG truck fueling and OPS). Further noise mitigation measures which are already in use were evaluated.

Spatial sound maps of the measured situation (with and without external energy supply by OPS) were calculated and evaluated with regard to the ‘nuisance’ potential for nearby areas. In these maps also related traffic noise was considered. The maps can be used as a management tool during cruise terminal development.

Results were discussed within the context of national and international noise regulations, actual research projects and international best practice cases.

This report includes recommendations for technical mitigation measures for a cruise terminal which is located in the vicinity of a residential area. A potential monitoring system for noise surveillance is proposed and discussed.

Page 13/136

3 Scope

3.1 Expected results This chapter outlines the expectations concerning noise emissions at the cruise terminals in Hamburg with a cruise ship at berth. Expectations were built up by literature and experience. During the study, these hypotheses were reviewed and revised.

Noise emissions due to cruise terminal operation were expected to be non-dominant. Nevertheless, some emissions could be expected due to the large number of passengers using the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder (2017: 604.677 passengers) resulting in significant cargo and luggage handling and large traffic volumes in the terminal area and connection roads.

Compared to other ship types, cruise ships were assumed to be very quiet as strict requirements and regulations have to be fulfilled to guarantee passenger comfort on deck. The so-called “Comfort Classes” defined by classification societies provide noise limits for various locations on deck. 65 dB(A) is the typical limit for open deck recreation areas taken from the DNV Comfort Class of 2014 (DNV, 2014).

In general, signal , alarms and horns at the ship or terminal side were expected to raise the noise immission significantly above the average noise level of a cruise ship at berth or a terminal in operation as their function is to give an alarm signal that needs to be heard when other noise sources are present. Especially the movement of the gangway, coming along with a sounding alarm, was expected to have a strong impact on overall noise immission.

Page 14/136

3.2 Investigated noise sources

3.2.1 Terminals, cargo handling and pier equipment Figure 1 shows the spatial distribution of Cruise Terminal Altona, Cruise Terminal Steinwerder and Cruise Terminal HafenCity in the City of Hamburg. Due to the ships’ time schedule, noise investigations were conducted at Cruise Terminal Altona and Cruise Terminal Steinwerder only.

Figure 1: Cruise terminals in the Port of Hamburg (source: openstreetmap.org). From left to right: Cruise Terminals Altona, Steinwerder and HafenCity

3.2.1.1 Cruise Terminal Altona The Cruise Terminal Altona (Figure 2) was commissioned in June 2011. With a terminal area of 1,800 m², the terminal is able to handle ships with up to 2,500 passengers. The total length of berth is up to 300 m. At this terminal, OPS can be provided to cruise ships at berth via a stationary OPS station. The pier is covered with asphalt. The approximate immission measurement location is marked with a green arrow in Figure 2.

Cargo handling equipment operates at the pier when a cruise ship is at berth. Typically, two to three diesel-driven forklifts (load range 3–5 t) and two mobile cranes are on duty. Reefers with operating cooling aggregates are typically on standby next to the terminal building.

Page 15/136

Figure 2: Cruise Terminal Altona (green arrow points at approximate immission measurement location) (source: openstreetmap.org)

3.2.1.2 Cruise Terminal Steinwerder The Cruise Terminal Steinwerder (Figure 3) was commissioned in June 2015 and consists of two separate terminal buildings. With a terminal area of 9,000 m², the terminal has a capacity for 8,000 passengers. The total length of berth is up to 405 m. 1,500 parking lots are available. The pier is covered with concrete and pavement. The approximate immission measurement locations are marked with a green arrow in Figure 3.

Here, the cargo handling equipment typically consists of two to three diesel-driven forklifts (load range 3 – 5 t) and two mobile cranes.

Figure 3: Cruise Terminal Steinwerder at Kronprinz-Quay with opposed Auguste-Victoria-Quay (green arrow points at approximate immission measurement locations) (source: openstreetmap.org)

At the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder, passengers are able to board via two movable gangways. Figure 26 shows a photograph of these devices, situated on the pier between the terminal building and the cruise ship. The immission measurement location on the terminal roof is shown in Figure 14.

Page 16/136

Launches constitute an additional noise source, especially in Steinwerder. These boats carry out tourist tours within the port area. Commonly, cruise ships are regarded as a tourist attraction. Therefore, many launches sail close to and alongside the docked cruise ship, which contributes to cruise ship related noise.

3.2.2 Cruise ships

3.2.2.1 Noise sources on board of cruise ships Cruise ships require a high amount of electric energy to operate a multitude of machinery on board. In port, electric energy is typically supplied by large sets of diesel generators that generate noise. The second major noise source onshore are the air conditioning systems for the passenger areas. These two sources have to be taken into account in addition to the noise sources onboard:

- Power supply by diesel generators o Engine exhaust gas, typically dominated by low-frequency tones o Fans for engine room air supply, typically dominated by frequencies in the range between 100 and 1,000 Hz as well as continuous band noise - Ventilation o Supply fans o Exhaust gas fans

Further significant noise sources onboard are:

- Entertainment and public addresses on board via the PA-system - Ship horn.

The main investigated noise sources are illustrated in the figures below. On the ship side, this study focuses on exhaust gas and ventilation noise while the horn and PA-systems are only referred to in a qualitative way.

Page 17/136

Figure 4: Noise sources at the pier and on the cruise ship(pier in blue, ship in white)

Figure 5: Noise sources at the waterside of the cruise ship at berth

Page 18/136

3.2.2.2 Investigated cruise ships The three cruise ships AIDAsol, Mein Schiff 3 and AIDAprima were investigated in the frame of this study. Technical specifications of the ships are summarized in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 1: Technical data of AIDAsol Ship type Cruise ship (Sphinx-class) IMO number 9490040 Ship name AIDAsol Ship launch 2011 Length (LOA) ca. 253 m Beam ca. 32 m GT 71,304 Passenger capacity (max) ca. 2,700 Engines 4x Caterpillar-Mak 9M43C (max 9 MW each) Silencer Absorption type Load of running engines at berth 1x 4.6 MW, interim switch to OPS

Table 2: Technical data of TUI Mein Schiff 3 Ship type Cruise ship IMO number 9641730 Ship name Mein Schiff 3 Ship launch 2013 Length (LOA) ca. 293 m Beam ca. 36 m GT 99,526 Passenger capacity (max) ca. 2,500 Engines 2x Wärtsilä 12V46F (max 14.4 MW each) 2x Wärtsilä 8L46F (max 9.6 MW each) Silencer Absorption type Load of running engines at berth 1x 3.4 MW (MGO)

Table 3: Technical data of AIDAprima Ship type Cruise ship (Hyperion-class) IMO number 9636955 Ship name AIDAprima Ship launch 2014 Length (LOA) ca. 300 m

Page 19/136

Beam ca. 38 m BRZ 125,572 Pax capacity (max) ca. 3300 Engines 3x Caterpillar-Mak VM43C (max 10.8 MW each) 1x Caterpillar-Mak VM46DF (max 10.8 MW each) (Dual fuel) Silencer Absorption type Load of running engines at berth 1x 6.4 MW (MGO), interim switch to LNG

Page 20/136

4 Regulations

4.1 Relevant regulations for this study Whereas ports, their infrastructure, road and rail traffic are bound by national and international laws, shipping faces a variety of different regulatory bodies (see Figure 6). These are:

- Laws and regulations by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) applicable to every ship. The four pillars of International Maritime Jurisdiction are: o SOLAS – The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea o MARPOL – The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships o STCW – The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch keeping for Seafarers o MLC2006 – The Maritime Labour Convention of 2006 - The flag state laws - Regulations and notations by the respective Classification Society - Local and federal laws for the port

Within the scope of this GCP study one has to be differentiate between regulations governing the receiver locations (immission levels) and regulations governing noise emissions onshore and those from the ships.

Figure 6: Rules and regulations for noise in ports

Page 21/136

4.1.1 Noise immission regulations

4.1.1.1 Requirements of the European Community (EC) The European Union has issued the Environmental Noise Directive (END) 2002/49/EC (European Parliament, Council of the European Union, 2002) addressing the immission levels to protect citizens from harmful noise emissions. This directive includes the assessment and management of environmental noise. It is the main EU instrument to identify noise pollution levels and to trigger necessary mitigation measures both at member state and at EU level.

The END focuses on three action areas:

- the determination of exposure to environmental noise - ensuring that information on environmental noise and its effects is made available to the public - preventing and reducing environmental noise where necessary and preserving environmental noise quality where it is good The END defines noise indicators, the day-evening-night level Lden and Lnight, which are applied for the preparation and revision of strategic noise maps.

The European Union has issued the “Handbook on the Implementation of EC Environmental Legislation” (Umweltbundesamt, 2015). Section 9 covers noise legislation. This handbook describes subjects to take into account for strategic noise planning. This includes the major noise sources such as main roads with high traffic density, major railways and major airports. The noise emissions from these sources are used for strategic noise mapping which generates rating values over the period of one year.

The following directives are relevant for supply traffic for the cruise terminals in Hamburg:

- The Council Directive 70/157/EEC (Council of the European Union, 1970) introduces limits on sound levels of road vehicles and specifies procedures for measuring sound levels of exhaust gas systems and silencers. This applies to delivery traffic. - The Directive 2000/14/EC (European Parliament, Council of the European Union, 2000) addresses outdoor equipment like mobile cranes and forklifts. The European Directive 2006/87/EC (European Parliament, Council of the European Union, 2006) covers requirements for inland waterway vessels and seagoing ships operating in inland waterway zones (zones are listed in the regulation). Article 8.10 of ED 2006/87/EC defines the noise limit for a vessel in port as 65 dB(A) at a lateral distance of 25 m from the ship’s side. However, seagoing vessels are excluded from this regulation. Because this Directive is mostly focused on inland waterway vessels, a definition of the required height of the measurement position is not included which can be relevant if the dominant noise source on board is located very high, e.g. a funnel outlet at 50 m above quay. If the requirement is to be applied for cruise ships, the measurement should be made at a position abeam of the funnel. The exhaust gas outlet should be in optical line of sight to avoid baffling.

Page 22/136

4.1.1.2 National requirements in Most EU member states have laws and regulations defining noise threshold levels in their countries. In Germany, immissions - including noise - are regulated by § 48 of the Federal Control of Pollution Act (BImSchG). The corresponding administrative protocol is the so called TA Lärm (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, 2017). TA Lärm defines guideline values for noise immission for specific areas based on their common use (e.g. industrial areas, mixed areas, residential areas, etc.). Examples for residential areas in vicinity of cruise terminals are summarized in Table 4. These guideline values are listed according to protection requirement of the neighbourhood.

The guideline values from TA Lärm are rating levels which take into account disturbing properties of received noise levels. The calculation of rating levels is further described in chapter 11.2 on page 103 of this report.

Table 4: Examples of guideline values for rating levels according to TA Lärm, defined for outside of buildings Lday ( 06:00 – 22:00) Lnight (22:00 – 06:00) “Reine Wohngebiete” (purely residential areas) 50 dB(A) 35 dB(A) “Kern-, Dorf-, und Mischgebiet (areas of mixed use) 60 dB(A) 45 dB(A)

In case of ship noise immissions, an important aspect is the mentioned limitation of low-frequency noise (below 90 Hz) within buildings. The regulation has limitations in its scope as it excludes port terminals for seagoing ships and it is not clear if it is fully applicable for cruise terminals.

Page 23/136

4.1.2 Regulations concerning ship noise of seagoing vessels From the four pillars of international maritime law (see Figure 7), only two have an immediate effect on the noise emissions of ships: the International Convention for the safety of life at Sea (SOLAS) and the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC).

Figure 7: Overview of international maritime laws

The Maritime Labour Convention defines limits for noise exposure of seafarers. As seafarers live and work at sea, it must be ensured that the noise exposure during a 24 hours day does not exceed certain limits. The aim of this convention is to protect health and safety of seafarers. The allocation of noise levels mostly covers on board requirements and not the area outside the ship. Therefore, the MLC is not suitable to manage noise in ports.

The IMO Resolution MSC.337(91) (The Maritime Safety Committee, 2012), “Adoption of the code on Noise Levels on Board Ships” has been included in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, SOLAS. The MSC.337(91) is the only regulation which defines mandatory noise threshold levels on board of every sea going vessel with 1,600 GT or more. This regulation mainly covers the noise on board of ships, but also the noise thresholds for open bridge wings are specified. The required level is 70 dB(A). In order to keep this limit, the exhaust gas noise and the engine room ventilation noise in the vicinity of the bridge wings has to be kept below a certain source level. This maximum source level needs to be defined for every single vessel by calculation of noise attenuation in air between source location and bridge wing. In general, the compliance with the 70 dB(A) level is not meaningful for the evaluation of ship noise in general. For ships with bridge wings far away from the funnel this limit can be achieved without much effort. Most disturbing for residents, living in the close vicinity of a berthing

Page 24/136

site, is often the low-frequency noise of the exhaust gas. The disturbing character of these noise emissions is not adequately considered in the 70 dB(A) limit.

4.1.3 Notations by classification societies Every classification society provides guidance and regulations concerning noise on board. Depending on the ship type and the owner’s specifications, certain class notations are applied. For cruise vessels, these cover the open deck space to ascertain comfort for the guests. A typical limit for outside installations like sport decks or swimming pools is 65 dB(A) (Bureau Veritas, 2011) for grade 1 requirements. As some open deck spaces are in close vicinity to the exhaust gas outlet, cruise vessel designers take great care to keep source levels low. Therefore, comfort class notations and owner specifications may be seen as the most powerful regulation to mitigate vessel noise.

4.1.4 Planning approval procedure for future terminals Requirements for emitted noise from the terminal are assessed in the course of planning procedures which are conducted beforehand of the terminal construction. These procedures involve all affected parties, e.g. terminal operators, residents, and relevant parties of the municipal administration. Usually, an individual noise prediction is prepared which should take into account all relevant contributions from cruise ships, terminal operation and delivery traffic. This prediction serves as the basis for discussions whether noise reduction measures are required to reduce immission in affected residential areas.

The immission guidelines of TA Lärm (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, 2017) are typically taken as a valuation basis during the public discussion and are for example applied for non-standardized assessment of noise from seagoing ships in connection with the modification of the water depth of river (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 2017). However, compliance with additional local rules may be necessary in addition to the mandatory requirements of TA Lärm (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, 2017). The acoustic requirements in the planning procedure may therefore deviate locally. Planning of future terminal projects offers the opportunity to implement acoustic requirements that are based on technically sound investigations. For example, the results from this report could be useful to inform public discussion in the course of upcoming planning approval procedures. Measures to bring down noise immissions from cruise terminals may for example include electrically operated forklifts, low- noise cranes, noise attenuating cargo boxes to minimize impulsive noise, or special parking lots for reefers with specific noise protection.

4.2 Ship related regulations applicability in this study

4.2.1 Comparison of the different regulations The only internationally applicable rule for ships in terms of noise is the MSC.337(91) (The Maritime Safety Committee, 2012). The 70 dB(A) limit on bridge wings is not a suitable limit for cruise ships as the majority has closed bridge wings. Even with open bridge wings, a sound level of 70 dB(A) would not be exceeded on the ships of this study. Therefore, the MSC.337(91) (The Maritime Safety Committee, 2012) is evaluated as an unsuitable rule to enforce noise reduction measures on cruise ship operators.

Page 25/136

National rules are also not detailed enough to push noise reduction technologies. A ship operator would rather pay a penalty for failure to comply with one port’s regulations than spending money on measures that are not mandatory for a majority of ports worldwide. Hence, cooperation between international ports on noise reduction regulations might be more effective as traffic between countries will increase in the years to come. As the European Union is a very big and attractive market for cruise ship operators, European rules are most likely to push noise reduction technologies.

Among the different EU Directives, the European Directive 2006/87/EC (European Parliament, Council of the European Union, 2006) can be controlled with relatively low effort by measurements on the terminal roofs where the microphone was located approximately 35 m sideways of the ship.

Furthermore, the class notations on comfortability on open deck space require 65 dB(A) on cruise vessels. As this limit refers to a measurement point on the ship itself, it is stricter than the EU Directive.

Taking all applicable regulations and rules into account, the comfort class notations for cruise ships with the noise level limit for open deck spaces of 65 dB(A) (Bureau Veritas, 2011) is the main driver to limit noise emissions on the ship itself.

4.2.2 Limitations of regulations Although we observe that cruise ships comply with all relevant limits we also note considerable noise contributions in the lower frequency bands (See: AIDAsol, 40 Hz octave band, Figure 77). These low frequency noise emissions are caused by the ignition frequency of the diesel engines. As the noise level limits in the rules and regulations are all given as dB(A), ships still comply with the regulations. The reason is that the low frequency noise contribution is reduced by the “A” filter. However, this filter reflects the audible impression at the measurement location on the ship rather than the effect at larger distance. Especially in residential areas in the vicinity of the terminal, the low frequency noise may be the most disturbing. This different auditory impression is caused by the limited low frequency attenuation of windows: Low frequencies are easily carried through window panes while glass isolates against mid and high frequencies. A rule or regulation to limit contribution of ship-induced low frequency noise onshore is not available.

The ignition frequency causes a tone. A tone is a sound of a distinctive frequency and is distinguished from the ambient sound much better than broadband sound. An important feature of this low frequency noise is the attenuation over distance. Low frequency noise is attenuated less over distance than high frequency noise. This results in a higher potential for annoyance at a certain immission point than contributions from higher frequencies.

Page 26/136

4.2.3 Challenges with limitations of regulations In this study, no complaints were encountered related to low frequency noise by cruise ships despite the fact that such noise can be quite annoying. The most likely reasons are:

- Cruise ship port calls are mostly during the day when the emitted low frequency tone cannot be distinguished from the ambient sound level as well as during the night. - In Hamburg, the amount of berthed cargo vessels in proximity to the cruise vessels as well as their berthing duration is higher. Therefore, the total noise contribution per year, especially in the lower frequency bands, is much higher and causes a higher grade of annoyance than the cruise ship noise contributions. - Most cargo vessels emit a similar or louder low frequency tone compared to cruise vessels. Therefore, the low frequency noise at a certain distance cannot be attributed to the cruise vessel as well as if the cruise vessel would berth in a port without cargo vessels

If a port receives complaints about low frequency noise, it is recommended to assess the cause of that noise by a ship acoustic expert. In most cases, the ignition frequency of the generator engines is dominant in the exhaust gas noise. To reduce this noise, it is recommended to apply a resonator type silencer at the exhaust gas pipe. This silencer can be installed during a regular port call and is estimated to cost between 10,000 EUR and 20,000 EUR including installation.

4.2.4 Commercial aspects of compliance with noise regulations There is a significant difference between cargo ship and cruise ship operators when it comes to dealing with the commercial aspects of compliance with noise regulations. A cargo ship operator needs to offer a most efficient transport of goods between two ports. The emitted noise level of its ship in the port has no implication for the transport efficiency. Therefore, the application of a noise countermeasures on a cargo or container ship would only generate costs without any benefits for cargo rates or fuel efficiency.

On the other hand, cruise ship operators have a high incentive to keep noise emissions at a minimum while berthing as this improves the experience of its passengers. Perceived and actual passenger comfort is an important quality measure. To ensure guest comfort, especially on open deck spaces, only minor noise emissions are tolerable. Guest comfort results in high customer satisfaction and therefore greater value and demand. This intrinsic motivation of cruise ship operators is the main reason why cruise ships are keen to comply with noise regulations.

4.3 Traffic-related regulations applicability in this study It was shown that the dominant noise emissions at a cruise terminal are caused by the vehicles during terminal operation. However, all motorized vehicles need to comply with the Council Directive 70/157/EEC (Council of the European Union, 1970). The applicable limit is 84 dB(A) at 7.5 m. These limits are used during type approval of the vehicles. The measurements of this study showed no indication that these limits were exceeded by the investigated vehicles.

Page 27/136

4.3.1 Challenges with constraints of regulations The regulatory situation for vehicles is easier to understand and apply compared to ships because the owner and operator of a vehicle is mostly located in the same country as the port. The type approval for the vehicle must be valid for the respective country and is controlled by a governmental authority. By these clear responsibilities and applicability, there is no apparent room for evasive actions by the operators. Then again, it would be very hard to constrain vehicle operators with regulatory means to reduce their noise emissions. The obvious way to reduce noise emissions from vehicular traffic is to impose local regulations on these vehicles during port operation e.g. limiting maximum speed and reducing the time frame for arrival prior to departure.

The perception of vehicle noise is different from that caused by the cruise ships. Whereas the ship is operating its generator engines and ventilation systems with a continuous load and at the same location, vehicles move position and vary engine power. Furthermore, the total operation duration of the vehicles is less than the operation of the ship engines itself. Some vehicles have loud alarm tones when reversing. These alarm signals may be perceived as particularly annoying.

4.3.2 Conclusion of noise regulations This study shows that the emitted sound levels of the cruise ship itself do not exceed any regulations. Furthermore, no complaints about low frequency noise by cruise ships were noticed. As the first observation relies on a notation for the cruise ship itself, it is likely that this result can be found in other ports as well.

The relatively low number of complaints about low frequency noise from cruise ships in comparison to complaints about low frequency noise from cargo ships may also be caused by the characteristics and by the spatial arrangement of Hamburg’s port itself. In case these complaints are observed in a quiet port, structural adaptions in the exhaust gas pipe can reduce the dominant low frequency noise. As the cruise ships show a relatively small noise emission, other noise sources related to the ship operation in port become more apparent: Forklifts or mobile cranes show higher sound power levels.

There are only limited possibilities for regulation of terminal-induced noise. Ship noise is covered by international SOLAS regulations (IMO, 1974) and by Comfort Class building specifications of the ship owner.

Since ports are excluded from the framework of TA Lärm (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, 2017), there is only one possibility available to regulate noise from terminal operation by specifying acoustic requirements during the planning approval procedure of future terminals. In the requirements of this planning procedure it could be explicitly defined that the terminal - even though excluded in the text of law - needs to comply with the limits of the Environmental Noise Directive.

Page 28/136

5 Context to actual research projects and best practice cases

5.1 Actual research projects with focus on cruise ships There are reports available for investigation of cruise ship-induced noise levels onshore by several port organizations. Three of them have been chosen to be compared with regard to the execution of the measurement and its evaluation with the investigations in Hamburg (Table 5) because they meet the standards of the measurements conducted on behalf of the Port Authority of Hamburg. Other reports have been mentioned for the sake of completeness.

Table 5: Summary of research projects with focus on radiated noise from cruise ships Port of Port of Port of Venice Vancouver New South Wales

Determination of source sound power Yes No No

Measurement of noise reduction by shore No Yes No power

Measurement of received levels onshore Yes Yes Yes

Calculation of noise maps No No Yes

Definition of mitigation measures No No Yes

Reference (Remigi & (Olszewski & (Thomas & Bella, 2013) Docker, Sleeman, 2016) Community noise and cruise vessels implementing shore power at the Port of Vancouver, 2018)

Contracting authority Venice Port Vancouver Port Authority of Authority Fraser Port New South Wales Authority

5.1.1 Venice Radiated noise of a cruise ship moored in Venice port in Italy was investigated by Bella & Remigi (2013). Radiated sound power of the cruise ship was determined by back calculation from various measurements onshore. The presented overall sound power of the cruise ship is 115 dB(A) re 1 pW

Page 29/136

which is 16 to 18 dB more than that of the cruise ships investigated in this report. The presented spectrum is dominated by broad band components with highest A-weighted levels around 500 Hz.

For comparison the energetic sum of sound powers for Cruise Terminal Altona with AIDAsol at berth, four diesel forklifts, one tall forklift, one mobile crane, and two reefers in operation was calculated. The calculated sum of sound power is 112 dB(A) re 1 pW. There is no obvious reason why the investigated cruise ship in the port of Venice had a much higher sound power. Compared to the cumulated sound power for Cruise Terminal Altona, it appears likely that the evaluation of Bella & Remigi (2013) includes terminal operation. The method for separation from background noise and terminal operation is described only vaguely. In addition, it is not obvious why all sources are summed up in the funnel instead of considering single sources as the funnel is usually the best insulated and therefore one of the quieter sources in port.

Remigi and Bella (2013) concluded that neither total tonnage nor other single numerical values yield sufficient correlation with radiated noise. Other noise sources like distant ships and delivery traffic generate noise contributions which are difficult to separate from cruise ship noise.

5.1.2 Vancouver Olszewski & Docker (2018) investigated noise levels in the port of Vancouver in Canada recorded by a stationary monitoring system. A microphone was deployed for seven months in vicinity of a cruise terminal for this monitoring trial. Apart from cruise vessels and cruise terminal operations, there were many other noise sources present such as road traffic and cargo vessels berthed at a nearby terminal. The cruise terminal in the port of Vancouver is equipped with OPS for the cruise vessels. The resulting large data set allowed comparison of different conditions of the terminal, i.e. with and without cruise ships. Additionally, a comparative analysis was conducted for cruise ships during the switchover to OPS. The conclusions were similar to the findings of the report at hand:

- For an observer position onshore, the OPS reduces contributions of low frequency tonal sounds from the diesel generators’ exhaust. All other frequency bands remain almost unchanged after switchover to OPS. The overall LAeq level is 0.4 dB(A) lower after switchover to OPS. - The most important factor for noise immission at the monitoring station is the time of day. During the night the berth without ship is 4.5 dB quieter than during daytime. The noise level increases only by 1 dB after berthing of the diesel-powered cruise ship.

Noise immission onshore is calculated by Bennett (2016) for one cruise liner only. Specific data of the individual noise sources are taken into account but not presented. Received noise levels are calculated for one specific receiver location in unknown distance. Results are compared for diesel operation and OPS with reduction potential of up to 10 dB(A).

5.1.3 New South Wales The port authority of New South Wales in Australia conducted investigations on the White Bay Cruise Terminal over the period of one year to assess the causes for repeated complaints by residents (Thomas & Sleeman, 2016). The terminal is located in the immediate vicinity of residential areas at a distance of less than 100 m. Received levels in one monitoring location vary between 48 and 66 dB(A).

Page 30/136

These results indicate that the ships investigated in Hamburg range at the lower end of the spectrum, which may explain why there have been relatively few complaints about cruise ships compared to the number of complaints about cruise ships in other ports and compared to the number of complaints about cargo ships in Hamburg.

In New South Wales, a noise management plan was developed which includes recommendations for individual noise limits at the receiver positions. These were categorized in a day – evening – night scheme. They are developed on the basis of mandatory requirements for road and rail projects.

Long-term monitoring was carried out at six positions over the period of one year. Results show that recorded noise is dominated by engine exhaust gas and ventilation fans. These were the cause for most instances when the recommended limits were exceeded. In contrast to the observations in the port of Hamburg, onshore operations were much less dominant. They comprised only approximately 10 % of the times the limits were exceeded.

The method of “operator-attended” monitoring is not further described. It was ensured that the activities took into account potentially extreme situations with particular large or old ships, and key operational activities. The positions of the microphones (inside / outside houses, height) are not described. Measurements were recorded on 12 days in the period of one year.

Specific operational mitigation measures were implemented in the terminal management procedures which led to decreased intensity and frequency of instances when the noise limit was exceeded:

- Training of staff and sub-contractors to increase awareness for noise. Equipment not in use must be turned off. - Maintenance of roads and noise barriers - Stationary equipment must not exceed 92 dB(A) sound power level. - Large diesel forklifts shall not exceed 95 dB(A) sound power. - Terminal activities with associated audible noise in residential premises only allowed in limited periods of time. - Replacement of tonal alarms by broad band signals and flashing lights - Awareness for low-noise equipment during procurement - Noise monitoring and reporting shall be undertaken.

Mitigation by means of additional hardware (noise barriers, onshore power) is not evaluated in the report.

The methodology for evaluation is slightly different to German procedures: The identification of low frequency noise is based on a difference LCeq – LAeq > 15 dB instead of 20 dB which are applied in DIN 45680 (1997). The adjustment factor for low-frequency noise depends on time: Adjustment is 5 dB at night or 2 dB during day. Interpolation from outside to inside is based on calculated transmission loss.

Evaluation is differentiated between intrusive LAeq (15 minutes), amenity LAeq (period) and maximum LA1 (1 minute).

Page 31/136

5.1.4 Spain The report of Technalia research & innovation (2018) summarizes investigations of 11 vessels in a Spanish port whose name is not mentioned.

Sound power levels were determined for individual sources on board. The data set consists of two RoRo vessels, four container vessels and five cruise liners. However, the “simplification” of DIN EN ISO 3746 (2011) is not described. Application for spherical measurement surfaces of engine exhaust gas outlets is not defined either.

Derived sound power levels are higher than the values presented in this report. However, most investigated cruise liners were built before 2009, they were significantly older than the three vessels from this research for which AIDAsol that was launched in 2011 is the oldest one.

An assessment value for low frequency noise and tonal noise is presented. However, the methodology for determining these values is not mentioned. Therefore, comparison with the findings from this report is not possible.

Contribution of exhaust gas noise from container ships is unexpectedly low with sound power levels below 100 dB(A) re 1 pW. However, it is not clear whether these values were measured on board in the vicinity of the exhaust gas pipe.

The reduction potential of OPS with respect to radiated sound power was quantified for all investigated ship types by comparison between the sound power values of exhaust gas and other noise sources. The highest potential is identified for cruise liners with overall reduction between 5.5 dB(A) up to 9.9 dB(A). These values are much higher than the reduction potential presented by the port of Vancouver (Olszewski & Docker, Community noise and cruise vessels implementing shore power at the Port of Vancouver, 2018) and the reduction potential for AIDAsol presented in this report.

Noise from terminal operations is not quantified in the study.

5.1.5 Hamburg In the course of commissioning the Hamburg Cruise Terminal Altona Götz, Broers, & Wagner (2009) conducted onshore noise level measurements before the terminal building was completed. As opposed to this, the terminal building was finished and in service during the measurements presented in this report.

A continuous of ship noise and terminal-induced noise during berthing of AIDAcara at Cruise Terminal Altona was recorded at one position onshore. Additional mobile measurements were recorded in two positions. The ship, launched in 1996, is significantly older than the ships which were investigated in the report at hand.

Significant low frequency noise was detected for the measurement positions inside a building in approximately 150 m distance. The evaluation of the 퐿95 level for measurement locations in approximately 200 m distance revealed 56 dB aft and 62 dB forward respectively. The 퐿95 level at these positions did not increase after berthing of the ship. The rating level Lday was dominated by contributions of the ship’s horn.

Page 32/136

5.2 Research projects with focus on cargo ships

5.2.1 Amsterdam Jansen & Witte (2010) investigated the sound power levels of two container ships berthed in the port of Rotterdam. The overall sound power levels vary between 113 and 120 dB. Radiated sound power was dominated by ventilation.

Possible mitigation measures are proposed in the report for exhaust gas (silencers) and ventilation.

5.2.2 Hamburg Radiated noise of two container vessels was measured in the port of Hamburg with consideration of all relevant noise sources on board. These vessels were known to be rather noisy. For identifying the worst case operating conditions, the measurements were made for several different engine configurations. These were identified as engine exhaust gas, ventilation, and reefer containers. The calculated overall sound power for regular berthing conditions was 113,9 dB(A) and 112,3 dB(A) respectively excluding reefer containers. Additional measurements at a distant receiver position showed significant contribution of the low frequency noise from the engine exhaust gas.

5.3 Best practice cases This chapter introduces examples for best practice cases in the categories ‘ship design’, ‘noise monitoring’ and ‘management’.

5.3.1 Quiet ship design Summaries for noise reduction technologies on board of merchant ships are presented by the classification societies Lloyds Register and DNV GL.

Lloyd’s Register ODS (2010) presents an overview over typical radiated sound power levels. These are in line with our experience for cargo ships. However, cruise liners with their specific needs for noise reduction measures are not explicitly addressed. The report mentions rough estimates for implementation costs for the presented measures. The effectiveness for received noise onshore is evaluated by means of a noise map.

DNV GL (Semrau, Tudrzierz, & Doerk, 2017) compiled an overview over noise reduction potential with reference to container ships in the port of Hamburg. Special attention is given to noise reduction of engine exhaust gas noise by silencers and by additional components like SCR catalyzers. The study includes rough cost estimates and visualization of the noise reduction potential by means of a noise map.

5.3.2 Noise monitoring The measurements of this report show that due to high background noise levels reliable source emission measurements are only possible in close vicinity to the sources. Measurements onshore in combination with back-calculation will not yield reliable source power values.

An example for reasonable long-term monitoring is presented by Olszewski & Docker (2018) as previously mentioned in chapter 5.1.2, p. 30. The long-term acoustic data set includes meta data on

Page 33/136

present noise sources yields valuable information for the evaluation of the contributions of individual ships in comparison to other urban noise sources. However, due to the location of the microphone, this system was not applicable for inspection of compliance with noise limits in residential areas.

5.3.3 Management of terminal operation The data basis of the results in this report is too small to derive general findings on terminal mitigation measures. The mitigation potential of selected measures is especially dependent on their contribution to overall radiated sound power of the whole terminal. For example, the replacement of diesel-driven forklifts by electrically driven forklifts can provide effective noise mitigation as long as the forklifts are not masked by other contributors like noisy mobile cranes. The replacement of forklift types would require management procedures to ensure that noise reduction is also carried out to a certain extent by subcontractors who provide mobile equipment like cranes and reefer trucks.

The Study “NoMEPorts” by Breemen, Popp, Witte, Wolkenfelt, & Wooldridge (2008) summarizes the possibilities for general port noise management and evaluation and includes all ships and onshore noise sources. The proposed management best practice follows a commonly used methodology for management of traffic noise and industrial noise:

1. Assessment of noise sources a. Industrial sources: Ships, terminal equipment b. Road traffic c. Rail traffic 2. Calculation and analysis of noise map for values Lden and Lnight a. Identification of hot spots b. Identification of dominant sources c. Quantification of number of people exposed 3. Development of action plans

A set of mitigation measures is summarized for source mitigation, operational aspects and reduction of noise propagation. Additionally, measures for receivers are presented. The presentation takes into account the costs of different measures as well as trade-offs.

The implementation of noise pollution into management procedures of New South Wales White Bay Cruise Terminal is described on page 30 of this report. The procedures led to significant reduction of the instances when the noise limit was exceeded and can therefore be regarded as a best practice case for management.

Page 34/136

6 Methodology

6.1 Applied standards Regarding emission measurements and sound power level determination of ventilation openings, the DIN EN ISO 3746 (2011) was applied to describe determination of the A-weighted sound power level.

To determine the sound power level Lp, the sound pressure level needs to be measured. It is defined as follows:

With p being the sound pressure and p0 being the reference pressure of 20 µPa.

The time averaged sound pressure level Lp,T is defined as:

To calculate the sound power Level LWA, the sound pressure level needs to be referenced to a surface area. According to the standard, this is done by taking the time averaged measurement surface sound pressure level LpA and adding the surface level of measurement surface S divided by the reference area

S0 of 1 m²:

According to the standard it is assumed that an opening adjoined by two reflective planes can be used to represent the ventilation openings on board. The resulting microphone positions are illustrated in Figure 8. For d a distance of 1 m was used.

Figure 8: Measurement locations 1 - 4 for cuboid-shaped objects according to DIN EN ISO 3746 (2011) adjoined by two reflective planes

Page 35/136

According to DIN EN ISO 3746:2011 (2011), a background noise correction shall be applied to the measured sound pressure levels before calculating the sound power levels. Noise shall be measured two times at each location, once when the investigated noise source is in operation and once when it is switched off. In the context of this measurement campaign, the relevant noise sources could not be switched off as they were vital for proper cruise ship operation. Thus, no background noise correction could be applied. However, as the correction would decrease the levels, omitting the correction results in a conservative estimate.

Regarding noise emissions from exhaust gas, the DIN 45 635-47:1985 (1985) was applied. This standard deals with the determination of noise emission from openings of exhaust gas, funnels or similar, which cannot be measured by the typical method as described above due to their great heights. The microphone positions are illustrated in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Measurement locations 1 and 2 for exhaust gas outlets(DIN 45 635-47:1985, 1985)

The sound power level of each measurement point was determined by the corresponding sound pressure level measurement and surface area. The two resulting sound power levels were energetically added to receive the sound power level of the exhaust gas.

Noise immission measurements were conducted in a non-standardized way, but in accordance with DIN 45680 (1997) (see chapter 6.4.2, p. 42).

6.2 Measurement equipment Noise emissions were measured with portable equipment as listed in Table 6. Noise immissions were measured by the portable equipment listed in Table 7 and Table 8. They comply with precision class 1 defined in IEC 61672-1:2002. The sensitivity of the measurement chain was checked to ascertain that it agrees with a calibration device according to IEC 60941:2003. After completion of all measurements the sensitivity of the equipment was checked again.

Page 36/136

Table 6: Measurement equipment for noise emission Part Maker S/N Date calibration Norsonic Nor140, Class 1 1402977 26.09.2016 (valid for 2 years) Microphone Norsonic Type 1225 91811 26.09.2016 (valid for 2 years) Microphone amplifier Norsonic Type 1209 12401 26.09.2016 (valid for 2 years) Wind screen Norsonic Nor1451, 10 cm Calibrator piston phone Norsonic Type 1251, Class 1 31867 26.09.2016 (valid for 2 years)

Signal analysis details FFT Window Hanning Measurement time 15 sec Averaging mode Exponential Spectrum resolution 1/3 octaves Time constant Fast Windscreen correction Yes, internal

Table 7: Measurement equipment for noise immission on terminal roofs Part Maker S/N Date calibration Sound level meter NTI Audio XL 2-TA, Class 1 A2A-05939-E0 November 2016 (valid for 2 years) Microphone NTI Audio M2230, Class 1 2379 November 2016 (valid for 2 years) Wind screen Norsonic Nor1451 Calibrator piston phone Larson Davis CAL200, Class 1 9941 November 2016 (valid for 2 years)

Table 8: Measurement equipment for noise immission at Auguste-Victoria-Quay Part Maker S/N Date calibration certificate Sound level meter NTI Audio XL 2-TA, Class 1 A2A-11708-E0 September 2017 (valid for 2 years) Microphone NTI Audio M2230, Class 1 6876 September 2017 (valid for 2 years) Wind screen Norsonic Nor1451 Calibrator piston phone Larson Davis CAL200, Class 1 14027 September 2017 (valid for 2 years)

6.3 Measurement locations Measurement locations for the noise emissions on the cruise terminal, of the noise sources on board and of the different noise immission locations as well as the respective investigation dates are listed in the following tables. Source positions are presented in sketch style. Exemplary photographs show measurement procedures.

The immission locations on the terminal rooftops were primarily chosen to compare the influence of onshore noise generation to cruise ship noise. With the chosen measurement locations on the terminal rooftops the ships exhaust gas noise could be captured while noise from terminal operation was perceptible because it was not totally removed by the terminal building. Thus, a comparison of noise immission from all investigated noise sources was possible.

Page 37/136

Table 9: Emission measurement locations On board On the terminal area Exhaust gas Ventilation openings Terminal equipment According to DIN 45635-47 According to DIN EN ISO 3746 Locations in vicinity to forklift, (2 reflecting planes) mobile crane, gangway, reefer 1 m distance to pipe wall 1 m distance to opening 2 measurements of each boundaries source: 70°-80° and 100° - 110° off the pipe centerline 4 measurements of each source: front, left, right, centered above/below Photograph: see Figure 13, Photograph: see Figure 13, left right

Table 10: Immission measurement locations Cruise Terminal Altona Cruise Terminal Steinwerder

Cruise Terminal roof Cruise Terminal roof Auguste-Victoria-Quay

AIDAsol AIDAprima, Mein Schiff 3 AIDAprima

Location on map: see Figure 2 Location on map: Figure 3 Location on map: Figure 3

Location at terminal site: see Location at terminal site: see Location at terminal site: see Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12

Roughly midships Roughly midships Roughly midships

Photograph: Figure 15

Page 38/136

Table 11: Measurement dates and subjects • Onboard noise sources of AIDAsol 20.08.2017 • Immission measurements on roof of Cruise Terminal Altona • Investigation of noise sources at terminal area

• Onboard noise sources of Mein Schiff 3 18.09.2017 • Immission measurement on roof of Cruise Terminal Steinwerder • Investigation of noise sources at terminal area

• Onboard noise sources of AIDAprima 23.09.2017 • Investigation of noise sources at terminal area

• Immission measurement on roof of Cruise Terminal Steinwerder and on 14.10.2017 Auguste-Victoria-Quay with AIDAprima at berth • Investigation of noise reduction by LNG Truck Fueling

• Exhaust gas noise of AIDAsol with and without OPS • measurement on roof of Cruise Terminal Altona with and without OPS 23.04.2018 • Investigation of noise reduction by OPS • Investigation of noise sources at terminal area

Figure 10: Immission measurement location of AIDAsol at Cruise Terminal Altona(Not true to scale)

Page 39/136

Figure 11: Immission measurement location of Mein Schiff 3 at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder(Not true to scale)

Figure 12: Immission measurement locations of AIDAprima at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder(Not true to scale)

Figure 13: On board emission measurementat a ventilation opening (left) and at an exhaust (right)

Page 40/136

Figure 14: Immission measurement on top of the roof of Cruise Terminal Steinwerder(left: terminal building, right: cruise ship, red: immission measurement equipment)

Figure 15: Immission measurements opposite of Auguste-Victoria-Quay

6.4 Non-standardized data evaluation

6.4.1 Tonal adjustment According to DIN 45635-1 (1996), tonality of noise emissions can only be described in a subjective way. For noise immissions, DIN 45681 (2005) provides information about how to quantify tonality. During the measurements tonality of the noise sources was subjectively detected. To enable quantitative evaluation, the tonality analysis of DIN 45681:2005-03 (2005) was applied to measurements of the noise sources. The procedure resulted in tonal adjustment value “Kt”, given in [dB], which is meant to be added to the sound pressure level. The tonal adjustment can amount up to 6 dB. The sources are

Page 41/136

described by their sound power levels, but these correction values demonstrate the tonality of each noise source.

6.4.2 Low frequency noise The impact of low frequency noise as well as the measurement procedure and evaluation of low frequency noise are described in DIN 45680 (1997). The information given in this chapter is based on this standard.

For humans, the auditory threshold of sound is at about 1 Hz and below 20 Hz. There is no distinct auditory sensation. Sound in this frequency range is called infrasound. Above this threshold, noise immissions are sensed as pulsation and vibration. Exposed persons sense pressure in their ears and might feel anxious and unsecure. Secondary effects of infrasound can be rattling of doors, windows or glassware.

At a frequency range between 20 Hz to 60 Hz, noise is audible at appropriate levels. There is only a low perception of pitch. Often, beats are detectable. Exposed persons experience feelings of drumming noise, vibration and pressure in their head. As with infrasound, secondary effects are possible.

There is low frequency noise, as defined in DIN 45680 (1997) if the predominant energy portion is in a frequency range of below 90 Hz. This is the case for

∆퐿푒푞 = 퐿퐶푒푞 − 퐿퐴푒푞 > 20푑퐵

LCeq is the C-weighted equivalent continuous sound level and LAeq is the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level. The corresponding weighting curves are shown in Figure 16. From this graph it is clear that the difference of both weighting functions characterizes the energy portion in the lower range.

Figure 16: Weighting functionsaccording to DIN EN 61672-1

Page 42/136

According to DIN 45680 (1997), noise measurements with expected low frequency noise should be conducted inside affected buildings in closed rooms. However, these measurement locations were not part of the scope of this study. Instead, the evaluation procedure of DIN 45680 (1997) was applied to immission measurements at the defined locations on the roof of the terminal building and the opposed quay. It has to be mentioned, that at outdoor measurement locations no noise damping due to walls or windows occur. According to VDI 2719 (1987), it can be concluded that windows provide significantly less attenuation at low frequencies than at high frequencies. Therefore, the influence of mid- and high frequency noise is more pronounced outdoors. The difference LCeq - LAeq is higher for received levels inside buildings compared to the situation outside. Low frequency noise levels were estimated for rooms inside buildings with two different types of facades. The methodology is described directly in the results chapter 7.4.3.

6.5 Modelling of sound maps Spatial noise maps of a noise situation can be used as a management tool during cruise terminal development as they can display the expected noise impact on the neighbourhood of a cruise terminal in detail. The sound maps developed during this study have been generated by Wölfel Engineering GmbH + Co. KG. The three respective cruise ships, cargo handling and pier equipment (mobile cranes, forklifts and reefers) as well as traffic noise have been considered as noise sources. The noise of pleasure and bunker barges was not included in the sound maps. Sound maps were produced for Cruise Terminal Steinwerder and Cruise Terminal Altona for situations with and without applied noise mitigation measures (use of OPS and electrified forklifts). The software IMMI was used for numerical modelling of sound propagation, taking into account the three-dimensional arrangement of buildings and landscape.

6.5.1 Cargo handling and pier equipment As illustrated in chapter 3.2, pp. 15 ff., a variety of machinery is operating at the cruise terminals in Hamburg. Concerning the cargo handling and pier equipment, the same assumptions were taken when generating sound maps for Cruise Terminal Altona and Cruise Terminal Steinwerder.

It was assumed that two mobile cranes operated at the pier, each one being modelled as a point source. A sound power level of 107 dB(A) was assumed (LAIRM CONSULT GmbH, 2013).

For one reefer, a sound power level of 97 dB(A) was assumed (LAIRM CONSULT GmbH, 2013). The measurement results of the study at hand show sound power levels of 99 dB(A). Because of the background noise situation in these measurements, the literature values were used for sound map modeling. Two reefers were assumed to be operating at the terminal area. They were summed up to one point source, with a resulting sound power level of 100 dB(A).

For the diesel-fueled forklifts a sound power level of 100 dB(A) and for the electric forklifts a sound power level of 90 dB(A) were assumed. Both were derived from Umweltbundesamt (2016). Assuming two forklifts operating at the terminal, the summed-up sound power levels result to 103 dB(A) for the diesel-fueled forklifts and to 93 dB(A) for the electric driven forklifts. The forklifts were modelled as an area source at the pier, with the dimensions of the ship length times the distance between terminal and quay edge.

Page 43/136

To model the sound maps, third octave spectra (sound power level) of the mobile cranes, reefers and forklifts were required. These spectra were obtained by scaling the measured third octave spectra (sound pressure level, see Appendix 15.3) of each source to the total sound power level derived from literature (listed in chapter 7.1).

6.5.2 Traffic Noise emissions from on-road traffic at the terminal area and connecting streets were calculated with the “RLS-90” method (BmJV, 1990). In all regarded cases, a complete change of passengers and a fully booked cruise ship were assumed. Thus, the resulting sound maps have to be considered as conservative and describe a worst-case scenario.

For Cruise Terminal Altona, it was assumed that about 2,200 passengers each depart and arrive for one cruise ship call. This quantity was chosen in accordance to a previous study (MÜLLER-BBM, 2007). In total, 4,400 passengers were processed. This number of passengers corresponds to 49 % of the considered passenger volume for the calculation of sound maps for Cruise Terminal Steinwerder. The traffic volume at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder was scaled by passenger volume, with the following modifications: Just about 225 long term parking lots are available at Cruise Terminal Altona. This limits the number of parking cars at the terminal to 225 for each arrival and departure. The remaining passengers are allocated evenly to collection and delivering traffic and busses, which results to 730 collection and delivering traffic rides and 60 bus rides for each arrival and departure. The number of trucks was estimated to be 40 per day.

The traffic volume at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder was derived from a previous survey concerning this particular terminal (LAIRM CONSULT GmbH, 2013) and is described as follows: It was assumed that for a cruise ship call at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder a maximum number of 4,500 passengers arrive and 4,500 passengers depart. In total, 9,000 passengers are processed. In addition, it was estimated that 50 % of passengers use their own car and park in the terminal area. With an occupation level of 1.9 the number of arriving and departing cars add up to 1,184 each. With a share of 10 % of passengers and an occupation level of 1.5, the collection and delivering traffic adds up to 600 car rides each to and from the terminal area. Collection and delivering traffic includes short term parking and taxis. Assuming the remaining passengers take the bus (40 % of passengers, occupation level of 40) results in 90 bus rides each to and from the terminal area. It is assumed that 80 trucks per day are required for supply and disposal services to the cruise ship. Of these, 50 % are equipped with diesel operated cooling units. An average traffic speed of 30 km/h is assumed.

According to the (BmJV, 1990) with its RLS-90 calculation method, the applied traffic volume has to be distributed over the whole assessment period (standardized day time: 6 a.m. to 22 a.m.). Hence, the resulting noise levels, the so called rating levels, represent all noise emissions from the regarded traffic in this period, averaged over 16 hours. Accordingly, the sound maps, including traffic noise calculated with the RLS-90 method, do neither represent the expected maximum noise levels nor take into account the actual peak times of passenger arrival and departure. This needs to be kept in mind when evaluating the presented sound maps with regard to noise immission.

Page 44/136

6.5.3 Cruise ship To reduce the amount of data the measured noise sources on board the cruise ships have been grouped according to their location and character. The resulting groups add up to eleven point sources for AIDAsol, 11 point sources and 1 line source for Mein Schiff 3 and 9 point sources and 1 line source for AIDAprima. The spatial distribution of the modelled sources on board is illustrated in Figure 17, Figure 18 and Figure 19 accordingly. The corresponding third octave spectra can be found in Appendix 15.4.

Page 45/136

Figure 17: Modelled noise sources on AIDAsol

Figure 18: Modelled noise sources on Mein Schiff 3

Figure 19: Modelled noise sources on AIDAprima

Page 46/136

7 Measurement results

7.1 Cargo handling and pier equipment

7.1.1 Impulsive noise During the measurement campaigns, impulsive noise was audible (e.g. clashing boxes, roaring engines, etc.). Impulsive noise events were also recognized as peaks in the graphs of recorded noise immission at all measuring positions (see Figure 21). A representative event, a clash of a metal box (Figure 20) during cargo handling procedures, was extracted from the immission time series of Mein Schiff 3 (Figure 21) showing a representative clash noise event. Typically, minutes pass by before the next clash happens. The maximum sound pressure level of this one clashing metal box adds up to 72 dB(A).

Figure 20: Metal box, which often produces impulsive noise when lowered to the ground

Figure 21: Impulsive Noise due to a clashing metal box at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder

Page 47/136

7.1.2 Forklifts At Cruise Terminal Steinwerder, diesel-fueled and electric forklifts as pictured in Figure 22 operate. Sound pressure levels in third octaves of both types were recorded while the forklifts operated on the terminal. Sound power levels are not presented, as it was not possible to measure meaningful sound power of the forklifts due to the circumstances on the pier. However, the type plates of the onsite diesel forklifts showed LWA = 97 dB(A) (small to medium size) and LWA = 107 dB(A) (heavy duty size). For the electric forklifts a sound power level of 90 dB(A) was derived from Umweltbundesamt (2016).The third octave spectra of both noise sources (electric and diesel) are represented in Figure 23. The third octave spectrum of the diesel fueled forklift shows a peak at 25 Hz corresponding to the fire frequency of the combustion engine. Obviously, no peak can be detected in this low frequency range in the third octave spectrum of the electric driven forklift as its engine is not combusting fuel. The deviation of the spectra in the upper frequency range cannot be explained without detailed knowledge of the forklift technology. They might also result from different load or driving states. The acoustical advantage of electric forklifts is further illustrated in chapter 9.1.1.

Figure 22: Forklifts parked at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder, waiting for operation

Page 48/136

Figure 23: Third octave spectra of forklifts operating at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder

7.1.3 Mobile cranes Noise emissions from a mobile crane (Figure 24) used for cargo and luggage handling at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder were recorded for two load states. Sound power levels are not presented, as it was not possible to measure meaningful sound power levels of the mobile cranes. However, literature puts the sound power level at LWA = 107 dB(A) (LAIRM CONSULT GmbH, 2013) (compare chapter 6.5.1). Figure 25 shows the third octave spectra of the same mobile crane in the states of “Idling” and “Load Lifting”. It can be observed that peaks appear at frequencies of 31.5 Hz and 63 Hz for both states. The difference in sound pressure level at 31.5 Hz is marginal, whereas the difference at 63 Hz is significant. This can be explained by engine-related frequencies, which have significantly increased noise levels at higher engine loads. Naturally, at higher engine loads the whole spectrum increases in its SPL levels due to the higher engine load. Here, the increase amounts up to 20 dB(A) spectral maximum difference.

Figure 24: Mobile crane at cargo handling operation

Page 49/136

Figure 25: Third octave spectra of a mobile crane in service at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder

7.1.4 Gangway Whenever the gangways (Figure 26) at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder were moved, an alarm signal was given. During this period of time, the subjective impression at the pier was that this alarm was dominant. As a result, special attention was paid to noise immission of movable gangways.

Figure 26: Two gangways at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder

Data evaluation showed that it was not possible to calculate meaningful sound power levels due to the acoustical circumstances on the pier (high background noise). However, to characterize at least the emitted noise frequencies of the gangway, the sound pressure levels at different distances were investigated. Figure 27 displays three third octave spectra, taken from SPL measurements at the pier, in varying distances (15 – 40 m) to the gangway. Naturally, with increasing distance to a noise source the measured levels will decrease. Therefore, only the frequency range with increased SPL levels for decreased distance can have their origin in the noise emission of the moving gangway. Thus, it can be concluded that the gangway emitted noise in the third octave range of 1.6 kHz to 3.15 kHz.

Page 50/136

Figure 27: Third octave spectra of the moving gangway, measured at different distances

Noise immissions from the gangways were recorded to evaluate the influence of the gangway compared to other sources and to demonstrate the shielding effect of the cruise ship at berth. The spatial arrangement of the gangway at the pier is presented in sketch form in Figure 28. The sound pressure immissions were recorded with the microphone on the cruise terminal roof. The noise radiation of the gangway alarm was interrupted by the protruding terminal roof. Partial shielding occurred between the alarm source and the measurement location. Furthermore, noise reflection at the cruise ship hull was likely to happen. These two effects can be seen in Figure 29.

Figure 28: Spatial arrangement (sketch) of immission measurement location and gangway noise source at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder

Page 51/136

From the noise immission recordings it was not possible to conclude, which of the two gangways were moved and emitted the alarm sound. As the two gangways were situated in different distances to the immission measurement location (see Figure 26), this had an influence on the recorded noise levels.

For the gangway noise emission no literature values could be obtained. The detailed SPL recording on the terminal roof and Auguste-Victoria-Quay (Figure 29) shows the impact of the moving gangway on the noise immission levels on the terminal roof. At the displayed time, AIDAprima was at berth. The moving gangway increased the sound pressure level by 3 – 5 dB for short peak values on the terminal roof. The additional noise from the moving gangway resulted in average sound pressure levels of 58 – 60 dB(A).

In Figure 29 it can also be seen that the moving gangway did not increase the sound pressure levels noticeably on the opposite Auguste-Victoria-Quay. This correlates with the subjective impression at that measurement location, where the cruise ship at berth interrupts the free noise propagation from the gangways. The results indicate that these alarm can have a clear directional sound propagation due to shielding and reflection effects and hence, nearby residents might be affected differently by these terminal noises.

Figure 29: Detail of noise immission on top of the terminal roof and Auguste-Victoria-Quay, showing times (light blue) with alarm signals from gangway movement (AIDAprima at berth) 7.2 Cargo delivery traffic Reefer trucks (supply trucks with cooling aggregate) are used to transport cooled goods. Generally, these trucks wait with their engine running next to the terminal building during cruise ship processing procedures (Figure 30). This was observed during the measurement campaign at Cruise Terminal Altona, but can be expected for any other cruise terminal.

Page 52/136

Figure 30: Reefer (Supply truck with cooling aggregate)at Cruise Terminal Altona

The third octave spectrum, resulting from sound pressure level measurements of a typical reefer truck at Cruise Terminal Altona, is shown in Figure 31. The sound power levels of the measured reefer amounts up to LWA = 99 dB(A), which correlates to literature values of 97 dB(A) (compare chapter 6.5.1). The reefers typically run in stationary mode. Therefore, only one load state was measured. Highly significant peaks can be detected at frequencies of 50 Hz and 100 Hz. Diesel fueled cooling aggregates of reefers often operate at the same frequency as electric driven ones, which operate at a grid frequency of 50 Hz. The peaks in the third octave spectrum appear to correlate to this frequency.

Figure 31: Third octave spectrum of a typical reefer in waiting positionat Cruise Terminal Altona

7.3 Barges for supply and disposal For refueling and waste disposal purposes, a bunker barge (Figure 32) typically operates alongside the cruise ship while it is at berth. Besides noise emissions from exhaust gas and ventilation systems, dominant noise sources from the bunker barges result from the bunker pumps. Typically, these pumps produce squeaking sounds with a pronounced tonal character. During this study it was not possible to measure sound power levels of the barges going alongside due to many other noise sources like

Page 53/136

ventilation in close vicinity. For source level descriptions of the barges, measurements onboard the barge would be necessary. They were not part of this study but depict options for further research.

Figure 32: Bunker barge servicing AIDAprimain berthing position at Cuise Terminal Steinwerder

Figure 33 illustrates the bunker barge measurement results. The red line of sound pressure levels was measured at the cruise ship’s railing at deck 5 in the closest possible vicinity to the bunker barge (20 m estimated). It was at least 6 m away from disturbing ventilation openings and - of the three plots in Figure 33 - it is the fewest influenced by other surrounding noise sources. The green levels were measured at a ventilation opening (S100) which is at longitudinal position amidships the bunker barge with a lateral offset to the railing (ca. 6 m). The black levels show the averaged third octave spectra of measurements at two ventilation openings (S100 and S101), which are at longitudinal position amidships the bunker barge with a lateral offset to the railing (ca. 6 m).

Figure 33: Noise emitted by a bunker barge alongside AIDAsol(Averaged third octave spectra and narrow band spectra)

The red plot shows a highly tonal character with the most dominant tones at 246 Hz, 779 Hz and 2,109 Hz. Many of the peaks in the red plot can also be found in the green plot. Third octaves, which

Page 54/136

correspond to the peaks at 246 Hz, 779 Hz and 1,345 Hz, are significantly increased. However, the last two are dominating. A comparison of the green and red plot reveals the tones which were emitted by the bunker barge. As the significant peaks of the red plot can also be seen in the green plot, it can be concluded that they result from the barge. Thus, the increased broadband noise of the green plot does not result from the barge since this broadband noise is more likely pronounced in higher distance to the barge.

Overall, the findings regarding noise emissions from the bunker barge can be summed up as follows: The measured bunker barge contributes noise with a highly tonal character in the mid and high frequency range. Typically, the bunker pumps produce squeaking sounds and are responsible for the pronounced tonal character.

Page 55/136

7.4 Cruise ships at berth

7.4.1 Sound power Measurements to calculate sound power levels of noise sources on board AIDAsol, Mein Schiff 3 and AIDAprima were carried out for representative units of exhaust gas outlets and ventilation opening groups. The summed up overall sound power level amounts up to 102 dB(A) for AIDAsol, 98 dB(A) for Mein Schiff 3 and 100 dB(A) for AIDAprima.

The third octave spectra of sound power of the exhaust gas noise of all three ships are presented in Figure 34. They show peaks at frequencies below 100 Hz, which is typical for engine exhaust gas noise. For AIDAsol, some of these peaks dominate the third octave spectrum. For Mein Schiff 3 and AIDAprima, the peaks are significant but the spectra are dominated by broadband noise in the mid and high frequency regions.

Figure 34: Third octave spectra of noise emission of exhaust gas outlet onboard AIDAsol, Mein Schiff 3 and AIDAprima

Beside the exhaust gas outlets, the remaining sources are ventilation openings. Most of them are situated directly in passenger areas. Two kinds of noise characteristics were observed: ventilation openings emitting noise with tonal character and with broadband character. Figure 35 shows exemplary cases of measurements on board for noise sources with each character. In contrast to the broadband noise source (orange) the noise source with showing tonality (blue) is characterized by peaks in the spectrum (here i.e. at 100 Hz). These peaks result from tones in the noise emission. Tonality of a noise source increases the disturbance effect. For the subjective impression the disturbance effect of a noise source with tonal character can be even higher than a broadband noise source with increased sound power. On all three ships noise sources of both characters were observed.

Page 56/136

Figure 35: Third octave spectra of noise emission of typical ventilation openings on board, showing tonal character (blue) and broadband character (orange)

The sound power levels of all measured noise sources on board the three cruise ships are presented in Figure 37, Figure 38 and Figure 39. The highest contribution to sound power for AIDAsol comes from the diesel generator exhaust (96 dB(A)), for Mein Schiff 3 from the laundry exhaust (94 dB(A), see Figure 36) and for AIDAprima from a ventilation opening (96 dB(A)).

Figure 36: Laundry exhaust of Mein Schiff 3

Page 57/136

Figure 37: Sound power levels of measured noise sources onboard AIDAsol

Figure 38: Sound power levels of measured noise sources onboard Mein Schiff 3

Page 58/136

Figure 39: Sound power levels of measured noise sources onboard AIDAprima

7.4.2 Tonality To characterize the tonal character of noise sources, tonal adjustment values can be determined. Calculations were conducted according to DIN 45681:2005-03 (2005). In a range of 0 – 6 dB the tonal adjustment value quantifies the tonality of a noise source: the higher the adjustment value, the stronger the tonal character. The calculated values of tonal adjustment KT for all three cruise ships are shown in Table 12. The sound power level and the frequency of the dominating tone of each noise source are shown. The remaining sources, which are not displayed in this table, either require no tonal adjustment or lack sufficient data for tonality analysis.

Page 59/136

Table 12: Tonal adjustment of noise emission from the three measured cruise ships Dominating LW Kt LW + Kt Source tone [Hz] [dB(A)] [dB] [dB(A)] AIDAsol Exhaust gas (tones from diesel out of range of DIN standard) 149 96 2 98 PS Outlet 17 635 83 2 85 PS Outlet 22 527 91 1 92 STB Inlet 100 245 87 3 90 STB Inlet 011 360 80 3 83 Emergency Generator Ventilation (aft) 591 85 3 88 Mein Schiff 3 Exhaust gas 702 90 5 95 PS Ventilation AC722 278 71 5 76 STB ERV 2 626 81 5 86 PS ERV 4 210 86 2 88 Laundry Exhaust 181 94 3 97 AIDAprima Exhaust gas 178 90 2 92 PS Ventilation E105 330 96 3 99 STB Ventilation S306 333 82 2 84 STB Ventilation S508 717 91 2 93 PS Ventilation E403 1306 81 3 84

7.4.3 Low frequency noise In every typical noise source measured within this study, noise portions can be found in the low frequency regime. In addition to the rather general description of noise in the low frequency regime, the DIN 45680 (1997) defines low frequency noise as existent, if the predominant energy portion of immission measurements is in a frequency range below 90 Hz (see chapter 6.4.2). According to this standard, this is the case for

∆퐿푒푞 = 퐿퐶푒푞 − 퐿퐴푒푞 > 20 푑퐵

Thus, if this criterion is fulfilled, low frequency noise - as defined in the DIN 45680 (1997) - is relevant.

The evaluation procedure according to DIN 45680 (1997) is based on indoor measurements. There is a procedure defined in VDI 27191 (1987) to convert the outdoor measurements in to indoor sound levels if specifications of the regarded façades are available. Since there are no relevant immission points present in the vicinity of the microphone positions to take into account these specific façades, the received spectra were converted to arbitrary types of facades. Two characteristic attenuation spectra were derived from literature (Jakobsen, 2012) (Hoffmeyer & Jakobsen, 2010), which represent one rather high and one rather low façade attenuation example. By estimating immission levels indoors with assumed façade attenuation, possible level increases by resonance phenomena cannot be taken into account.

1 This technical standard is currently under revision, an official following version is not yet available. Page 60/136

The influence of the cruise ships on noise immission in the low frequency regime can be observed in Figure 40. All estimated low frequency noise levels are above the 20 dB threshold before arrival of the ship. Two possible reasons appear to account for this: Either the estimation by the assumed façade attenuation is conservative, or the background noise at the measurement locations is correspondent for the low frequency noise. Possible background noise sources which would account for low frequency noise are traffic or cargo ships nearby.

The only cruise ship with significant additional low frequency contribution is AIDAsol where OPS proves to be an effective countermeasure against low frequency noise. The other ships do not show clear low frequency signatures upon berthing. Summed up, this means that, according to the conservative prediction with assumed facades attenuations, AIDAsol increases the low frequency noise by about 12 dB, Mein Schiff 3 by about 0 dB and AIDAprima by about 4 dB.

The impact of the cruise ships on third octaves in the low frequency range can be observed in Figure 41 and Figure 42. The presented third octaves correspond to the peaks in the exhaust source level spectra (Figure 34). An increase of about 15 – 20 dB of the third octave level occurs with the cruise ship at berth.

The data show that one of the three cruise ships at berth significantly contributes to noise immission in the low frequency range below 100 Hz. Indoor measurements to evaluate low frequency noise according to DIN 45680 (1997) were not possible in this project, therefore a rough estimation of low frequency indoor noise levels was compiled on the basis of measurements at the terminal roof. This way of analysis is deemed conservative as it tends to over-estimate the relative content of low frequencies in the received spectrum. Other contribution of high frequencies from e.g. road traffic is expected at relevant immission points wherefore the level of the shown curves can be shifted to lower values. The qualitative distribution of level is expected similar so that the results of this analysis indicate an increase of the low-frequency indicator ‘C-A’. Among the three investigated ships the most pronounced increase is found for AIDAsol. However, measurements inside relevant rooms are necessary to determine accurately whether the threshold of 20 dB as defined by DIN 45680 (1997) is exceeded.

Page 61/136

Figure 40: Modelled low frequency noise level LCeq – Laeq inside buildings with two types of facades compared

Page 62/136

Figure 41: AIDAsol: Comparison of time series for broadband level and 63 Hz 1/3 octave(red = time of arrival)

Figure 42: Mein Schiff 3: Comparison of time series for broadband level and 16 Hz 1/3 octave(red = time of arrival, green = indefinite high noise level event)

Page 63/136

7.4.4 Measurements at the terminal roof

7.4.4.1 Time series Measurements of the with all noise sources (ship, terminal operation, delivery traffic) present were conducted on top of the roof of Cruise Terminal Altona (AIDAsol) and Cruise Terminal Steinwerder (Mein Schiff 3, AIDAprima).

Figure 43: Statistical evaluation of A-weighted levels on the terminal roof for AIDAsol with on OPS.

Figure 44: Statistical evaluation of A-weighted levels on the terminal roof for Mein Schiff 3

Page 64/136

Figure 45: Statistical evaluation of A-weighted levels on the terminal roof for AIDAprima

Figure 43, Figure 44 and Figure 45 show the time series of sound pressure levels 퐿퐴푒푞, L95 ( 95% lowest levels) and L1 (1% highest levels) evaluated over 5 min windows. For Mein Schiff 3 and AIDAprima in Steinwerder there are pronounced transient L1 events detected with temporarily 15 to 20 dB higher level than the L95 noise floor. For AIDAsol in Altona the noise floor as well as the maxima in L1 are much smoother with spread less than 10 dB.

The summed-up characteristics of immission data time series of AIDAsol, Mein Schiff 3 and AIDAprima are presented in Table 13. The minimum levels of noise immission with cruise ship at berth are assumed to result from the cruise ship noise sources as these emissions typically are stationary.

Table 13: Characteristics of noise immission of all three cruise ships from terminal roof measurements AIDAsol Mein Schiff 3 AIDAprima Altona, Steinwerder, Steinwerder, terminal roof terminal roof terminal roof Measurements 54 – 56 dB(A) 53 – 56 dB(A) 55 – 57 dB(A) (minimum levels) Measurements 55 – 65 dB(A) 55 – 70 dB(A) 55 – 65 dB(A) (level range, roughly)

7.4.4.2 Significant events The measurements on the roof top show two typical characteristics: a noise floor, which is steady over time, and a short-term noise with increased levels (peaks). The recorded peaks were evaluated by listening to the respective measured noise events individually. This way, some of the peaks could be linked to certain events. In Figure 46, Figure 47 and Figure 48 these peaks are illustrated. For means of

Page 65/136

clarity only the 1 min average and 10 min average levels are plotted. Peaks not shown in these figures arise from typical port and terminal operation procedures, such as clashing of metal boxes, roaring and howling of engines or vehicle horns. Some of the peaks at the time with no cruise ship at berth arose due to passing ships.

Figure 46: Determination of noise events in immission measurements of AIDAsol. A = Announcement via PA-system; B = Flyover of aircraft or helicopter (red = time of arrival)

Page 66/136

Figure 47: Determination of noise events in immission measurements of Mein Schiff 3. A = Announcement via PA-system; B = Flyover of aircraft or helicopter (red = time of arrival)

Figure 48: Determination of noise events in immission measurements of AIDAprima. A = Announcement via PA-system; B = Flyover of aircraft or helicopter; C = Undetermined noise, sounds like pressurized air outlet or cutting steel; D = Distant ship horn; E = Alarm tone via PA-system (red = time of arrival)

Page 67/136

The recordings of each cruise ship at berth show that announcements and alarm tones via the on- board PA-system represent the major amount of high level peaks. The usage of the PA-systems increased the noise immission levels on top of the terminal roofs by about 5 – 10 dB.

Noteworthy are the recorded noise peaks of group “C” as they represent some of the highest SPL values. From listening to the noise recordings, no conclusions could be drawn regarding their origin. However, from a subjective acoustic impression, they sound like a release of pressurized air or cutting metal.

The ships horn of AIDAprima was captured during the immission measurements. The horn significantly increased the noise immission levels on top of the terminal roof by more than 20 dB. It was by far the loudest noise event in the immission measurements for AIDAprima.

7.4.4.3 Spectral character To characterize typical noise immission from the three cruise ships at berth, Figure 49, Figure 50 and Figure 51 show a comparison of narrowband and third octave spectra of immission measurements on top of the terminal roofs. Both spectra are plotted for no cruise ship at berth and for each cruise ship at berth. Narrowband peaks, which were also detected in emission spectra of noise sources on board, are marked with red framed boxes. The spectra were averaged over 20 s and the third octave spectra were calculated from the corresponding narrowband spectra. Each of the narrowband spectra were calculated from times of low disturbing noise, such as voices, announcements via the PA-system, howling of engines, clashing of metal boxes or other noise sources.

The narrowband spectrum of AIDAsol at berth shows three significant peaks at 26 Hz, 39 Hz and 64 Hz as well as further peaks at higher frequencies (see Figure 49). The corresponding third octave levels show peaks at the mentioned frequency, too. Their frequency correlates to peaks in the third octave spectra of emission measurements at the exhaust gas of AIDAsol (compare Figure 34). Further peaks in the narrowband spectrum of no cruise ship at berth, e.g. at about 100 Hz or 400 Hz, were not found to correlate to noise emissions on board. Above 400 Hz, the spectra with AIDAsol at berth show increased levels compared to the situation of no cruise ship at berth, which correlates to the noise emission of the on-board emergency generator ventilation opening.

The narrowband spectrum of Mein Schiff 3 at berth shows significant peaks at a wide frequency range (see Figure 50). The marked peaks (red) show correlations to the peaks in the spectra of emission sources on board Mein Schiff 3. The frequencies of 15 Hz, 25 Hz and 40 Hz correlate directly to the third octave frequency peaks measured at the exhaust gas outlet (compare Figure 34). In the frequency range of 60 Hz to 200 Hz, many peaks appear at the same frequencies with and without Mein Schiff 3 at berth. This is an indication that the increased levels at these peaks do not result from the cruise ship but from another noise source.

The recordings on top of the terminal roof show the most significant peak values at 48 Hz while no cruise ships were at berth (Figure 51). The corresponding third octave level shows a peak at this frequency, too. In contrast, the frequencies of the peaks at 25 Hz, 54 Hz, 61 Hz, 120 Hz, 178 Hz, 296 Hz,

Page 68/136

416 Hz and 663 Hz in the narrowband spectrum of the situation with AIDAprima at berth can be correlated to equivalent peaks in the spectra of the relevant emission sources on board (exhaust gas and ventilation). Therefore, these changes in SPL levels probably arise from distinct noise emissions of AIDAprima. The peaks at the same frequencies in the spectra with and without AIDAprima at berth indicate that this noise contribution does not arise from AIDAprima but from another noise source.

Figure 49: Noise immission measurements at Terminal Altona without AIDAsol at berth (05:45 a.m.) and with AIDAsol at berth (07:45 a.m.), averaged third octave spectra (stepped) and narrow band spectra.

Page 69/136

Figure 50: Noise immission measurements at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder without Mein Schiff 3 at berth (05:00 a.m.) and with Mein Schiff 3 at berth (06:30 a.m.), averaged third octave spectra (stepped) and narrow band spectra.

Terminal Roof

Figure 51: Noise immission measurements at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder without AIDAprima at berth (06:30 a.m.) and with AIDAprima at berth (08:00 a.m.), averaged third octave spectra (stepped) and narrow band spectra.

Page 70/136

Spectrograms provide additional information for interpretation of broadband level time series. While these are very suitable for quantification of sound levels, spectrograms are a practical tool to identify the contribution of individual noise sources. Figure 52, Figure 53 and Figure 54 show overviews of the full measurement times on top of the terminal roofs as a third octave spectrogram.

The arrival of the cruise ship AIDAsol at around 07:00 a.m. is clearly detectable in a broad frequency range. An increase of the significant exhaust gas frequencies (25 Hz, 40 Hz and 63 Hz) is detectable and significant in the spectrogram. The mid and high frequency ranges were lifted with the cruise ship at berth.

The arrival of Mein Schiff 3 at around 05:30 a.m. was clearly detectable in a broad frequency range. An increase of the significant exhaust gas frequencies (16 Hz, 25 Hz and 40 Hz) could not be detected and is not significant in the spectrogram, the mid and high frequency ranges were increased when Mein Schiff 3 was at berth. The origin of this raise cannot be clearly determined. Onboard ventilation as well as cargo handling and pier equipment may contribute to this frequency range.

The arrival of AIDAprima at 06:45 a.m. is detectable in a broad frequency range. The low, mid and high frequency ranges are higher with AIDAprima at berth. Also, there was a steady increase of the 31.5 Hz third octave from 09:45 a.m. to 04:30 p.m., which correlates with the time of LNG fueling as shown before.

Figure 52: 1/3 octave spectrogram for berthing procedures and terminal operation of AIDAsol, recorded on terminal roof

Page 71/136

Figure 53: 1/3 octave spectrogram for berthing procedures and terminal operation of Mein Schiff 3, recorded on terminal roof

Figure 54: 1/3 octave spectrogram for berthing procedures and terminal operation of AIDAprima, recorded on the terminal roof

Page 72/136

7.4.4.4 Comparison of different immission locations Immissison measurements in Steinwerder with AIDAprima at berth were conducted on top of the roof of Cruise Terminal Steinwerder and Auguste-Victoria-Quay. A comparison of both immission measurement locations was intended to help evaluating the impact of noise immission from a cruise ship at berth at more distant locations and to characterize the shielding effect on noise by the cruise ship superstructure. Figure 55 and Figure 56 show the immission measurement time series for both measurement locations. The cruise ships berthing and departure is clearly recognizable in the immission time series for the terminal roof measurements. The immission time series of Auguste-Victoria-Quay’s measurements show no significant shift of sound pressure levels at berthing and departure. Thus, there is no influence of the cruise ship at berth on the energy-equivalent sound pressure levels. One reason for this is the shielding effect of the ship, which does not enable the terminal noise to reach the Auguste-Victoria-Quay. Another reason is the location of the measurement in an industrial port environment, where an already high noise floor covers the noise from the cruise ship.

Figure 55: Statistics of noise immission on top of terminal roof at Cruise Terminal Steinwerder

Page 73/136

Figure 56: Statistics of noise immission at Auguste-Victoria-Quay

Figure 57 shows the narrowband noise character of noise immission measurements at the Auguste-Victoria-Quay. One significant but non-dominant peak at 60 Hz appears while the cruise ship at berth. The dominating peak (tone) at 136 Hz can be observed with and without the cruise ship at berth. Therefore, it is concluded that this tone does not arise from the cruise ship. The high frequency noise floor is lifted with the cruise ship at berth. Due to the late time of day it is likely that this results from the increased urban and port background noise. Overall, there is no significant difference in the narrow-band spectrum at Auguste-Victoria-Quay while there are cruise ships and while there are no cruise ships. This supports the earlier findings from third octave time series analysis.

Page 74/136

Auguste-Victoria-Quay

Figure 57: Noise immission measurements at Auguste-Victoria-Quay without AIDAprima at berth (06:30 a.m.) and with AIDAprima at berth (08:00 a.m.), averaged third octave spectra (stepped) and narrow band spectra.

7.4.4.5 Influence of launches During the investigations of AIDAprima, it could be observed that many small launches navigated into Kaiser-Wilhelm-Hafen, tacked athwart or astern of AIDAprima, and then left the port basin again without berthing. An AIS signal receiver was installed on top of the terminal roof. From the AIS records the times boats turned in the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Hafen were determined. Performing the tacking maneuver, the boats came closest to the end of the port docks and thus close to the immission measurement location at Auguste-Victoria-Quay (see Figure 58).

Page 75/136

End of basin Microphone

Tacking area

Figure 58: View of Kaiser-Wilhelm-Hafen with typical tacking area of the launches.

Figure 59 shows the frequency distribution of launch rides into the port basin. The vessels operated between 10:00 a.m. and 07:00 p.m., with highest numbers between 03:00 p.m. and 04:00 p.m.

Figure 59: Frequency distribution of launch rides in the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Hafen. Data gained from AIS evaluation.

The tacking maneuvers can be clearly detected as peak values in the SPL recordings at Auguste-Victoria-Quay. The events of tacking maneuvers are illustrated by black vertical lines in Figure 60 and demonstrate the significant influence of noise emissions by small launches. It can be observed, that the launches lift noise levels at the measurement location on the Auguste-Victoria-Quay by about 5 – 15 dB. There are many slight time shifts between correlated peak values and a tacking maneuver, which are related to the fact that the location of a turning maneuver is not necessarily the closest point of approach to the measurement location.

Page 76/136

Figure 60: Detail of noise immission at Auguste-Victoria-Quay.Black vertical lines represent the times, at which each launch performed a tack maneuver in the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Hafen.

7.4.5 Onshore Power Supply Noise investigations were performed with special interest in OPS operation of AIDAsol. Measurements were conducted at the exhaust gas outlet and on the rooftop of Cruise Terminal Altona.

Figure 61 illustrates the difference in the third octave spectrum of A-weighted sound power. The three low frequency peaks of the blue line result from a typical engine noise signature (see Figure 61). It shows that the exhaust gas noise is dominated by these low frequency peaks. When OPS is active (orange line), these peaks vanish as the engine is turned off. Because of the ship being in operation, the boiler was active when measurements with OPS were conducted but inactive when conducting measurements without OPS. As OPS can only reduce noise emission at the exhaust gas outlet of the generator engines, the frequencies above 100 Hz clearly show the influence of the running boiler (marked in light red) and therefore cannot be considered when evaluating noise mitigation potential of OPS. However, it still can be observed that OPS reduces low frequency levels in the third octave spectrum by up to about 20 dB(A) (i.e. 19 dB at 16 Hz third octave, 22 dB at 25 Hz third octave, 19 dB at 40 Hz third octave). As the boiler was running, it was not possible to draw a conclusion which frequency range dominates the exhaust gas noise while the generators are switched off.

Page 77/136

Figure 61: Third octave spectrum of noise emission of exhaust gas outlet on board AIDAsol with and without OPS(red = influence of boiler). It should be noted that sound power from the exhaust is different from the first AIDAsol measurement for an unknown reason

The decrease of low frequency noise due to OPS is further backed by a significant decrease of the 63 Hz third octave by about 7 dB(A) at the time of power switch to OPS (see Figure 62). In addition, the low frequency noise criteria of DIN 45680 (1997) LC,eq – LA,eq is illustrated in this graph and shows a level reduction of about 6 dB for the time of active OPS on.

Figure 62: Time series of the 63 Hz third octave band and the low frequency noise criteria according to DIN 45680

Page 78/136

The time of OPS switch is marked in the averaged A-weighted energy-equivalent sound pressure levels of immission measurements of AIDAsol at berth and switching to OPS (Figure 63). No distinct change of sound pressure levels can be recognized. Thus, OPS does not have a significant influence on the A- weighted energy-equivalent sound pressure level LAeq. Interestingly, the noise immission increases from 05:30 a.m. to about 06:45 a.m. by about 7 dB. Afterwards, it decreases until around 08:00 a.m. by about 4 dB. This time range and temporal distribution of noise increase correlates strongly with the typical morning rush hour in the city of Hamburg. Thus, this shift in sound pressure levels likely results from car traffic. Listening to the recordings, it is clear that the increase of levels from about 09:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. was caused by a reefer with running cooling aggregate. This increased the noise immission levels by about 6 dB.

Figure 63: AIDAsol with OPS: Percentiles and impulse noise.

7.4.6 LNG fueling at berth LNG truck fueling was provided to AIDAprima while at berth. A supply truck provided LNG at the pier, which was pumped to the cruise ship and directly burned by the engines without intermediate storage. The onboard fuel change from MGO to LNG was conducted at 09:46 a.m. and back from LNG to MGO at 04:33 p.m. (Friedrich, 2017).

Figure 64 shows the immission measurement time series on the terminal roof at

Cruise Terminal Steinwerder with AIDAprima at berth. LAeq and the 31.5 Hz third octave band are presented. It can be clearly observed, that the LNG fueling does not have a distinct influence on the

LAeq. The third octave band even shows increased levels by about 5 dB. An increase of levels was only detected in this single third octave band. It is not possible to draw any conclusion from the measurement data where these increased levels might come from. One possible explanation might be noise emission from the LNG fuel truck itself.

Page 79/136

Figure 64: AIDAprima: Comparison of time series for broadband level and 31.5 Hz 1/3 octave, taken from immission measurements at the terminal roof(light red = time of arrival/departure, light blue = shift to LNG, light black = shift to MGO).

Page 80/136

8 Sound maps Sound maps were produced for situations displaying just the cruise ships at berth, for situations displaying all terminal noise sources and for situations with applied noise mitigation measures (use of OPS/LNG truck fueling and electrified forklifts) for Cruise Terminal Steinwerder and Cruise Terminal Altona accordingly. The sound maps can be found in Appendix 15.5, pp. 129 ff.

8.1 Verification A comparison of the calculated sound maps for the different immission measurements at the cruise terminals can be found in Table 14.

Table 14: Comparison of noise immission of measurements to sound map predictions at microphone positions. AIDAsol Mein Schiff 3 AIDAprima Altona, Steinwerder, Steinwerder, Auguste-Victoria- terminal roof terminal roof terminal roof Quay Measurements 54 – 56 dB(A) 53 – 56 dB(A) 55 – 57 dB(A) 48 – 50 dB(A) (minimum levels) Sound map, level range at mic position 50 – 55 dB(A) 50 – 55 dB(A) 50 – 55 dB(A) 40 – 45 dB(A) (ship only) Measurements 55 – 65 dB(A) 55 – 70 dB(A) 55 – 65 dB(A) 50 – 65 dB(A) (level range, roughly) Sound map, level range at mic position > 65 dB(A) 60 – 65 dB(A) 60 – 65 dB(A) 45 – 50 dB(A) (all sources)

When comparing the calculated sound maps with the immission measurements, the following considerations need to be kept in mind: The vertical immission measurement positions (measurement height) differ from the calculation height of the sound maps. The measurement positions on top of the terminal roofs (12 m and 14 m respectively) are 3 – 5 m higher than the calculation heights of the sound maps (9 m), the measurement position at the Auguste-Victoria-Quay (3 m) is 6 m lower. Due to this, the sound maps were not calculated for the terminal building area, which instead is treated as an obstacle for noise radiation. To compare the sound maps to the actual measurements, the predicted levels at the microphone position on the rooftops have to be interpolated from measured sound pressure levels surrounding the terminal building. Additionally, due to the terminal building structure the measurement locations on top of the terminal roofs are influenced by noise sources on the pier (forklifts, mobile cranes, etc.) and at the lower decks of the cruise ship. Thus, for a correct comparison of sound maps to measurements, the measured levels would need to be adjusted upwards. Furthermore, not all noise sources present at or close to the measurement locations as well as disturbing surrounding noise sources were modelled in the sound maps. Background noise such as port work, adjacent moored ships with running diesel generators, small launches, aircraft traffic and conservation or clashing metal boxes in the facilities of the terminals were not considered in the sound map calculations.

Page 81/136

Minimum noise levels of the measurements are compared to the ship only sound maps as it is assumed that these noise minimum levels represent the cruise ship’s noise emission without any disturbance from surrounding noise sources. Accordingly, the level ranges of the measurements are compared to the sound maps including all considered sources. For the situation at Auguste-Victoria-Quay, a further relationship can be drawn, as this measurement location is significantly influenced by background noise: the minimum levels of measurements at Auguste-Victoria-Quay during the morning hours represent the time with the lowest background noise. Therefore, a comparison of these levels to the sound map including all regarded sources appears plausible.

Table 14 shows that the representation of the cruise ships in the sound maps match the measurement results well. Except for the Auguste-Victoria-Quay, the measurement results are at the upper limit of the sound map levels. Also, the level ranges of immission measurements mostly comply with the sound map levels. At Cruise Terminal Altona, the sound maps exceed the immission measurements while at Auguste-Victoria-Quay they underestimate the levels. This is due to the considerations mentioned above.

8.2 Results Terminal noises usually only occur when a cruise ship is at berth. Nevertheless, Appendix 15.5.1, 15.5.4 and 15.5.6 show the sound maps for the three investigated cruise ships, displaying the noise sources of the cruise ships themselves and no terminal operation. At a certain distance from the ship, the impact is below 35 dB(A). The distance, when the sound pressure level at the receiver is below 35 dB(A), is 500 m for AIDAsol, 300 m for Mein Schiff 3 and 400 m for AIDAprima. No screening effects of building are included in these calculations. Naturally, these distances would decrease if shielding effects from buildings occurred.

Appendix 15.5.2, 15.5.5 and 15.5.7 show sound maps including all relevant sound sources that occur during terminal operation at Cuise Terminal Steinwerder and Cruise Terminal Altona.

Appendix 15.5.5 documents that the acoustic footprint of Cruise Terminal Steinwerder with Mein Schiff 3 at berth on the north side of the river Elbe is well below 35 dB(A). Even for situations with the highest noise emission levels (cruise ship at berth and terminal in operation), the sound pressure levels of more than 50 dB(A) are restricted to the opposite Kronprinz-Quay and closely surrounding areas.

Appendix 15.5.2 displays the acoustic footprint of Cruise Terminal Altona when the AIDAsol is at berth. The cruise ship has just a minor effect on the overall noise level around the terminal. Traffic noise as well as the noise of forklifts, mobile cranes and reefers have a much more significant impact, which can result in immission levels of 45-50 dB(A) in the closest housing areas. To protect residents from possible harmful noise emissions, the berthing sites at Cruise Terminal Altona and thus the related terminal handling procedures are restricted to day use only and are not used for overnight stays.

When comparing Appendix 15.5.2 to Appendix 15.5.3 it is clear that the noise reduction due to OPS is marginal (at least referred to LA,eq). This correlates with the measurement results which show that the examined cruise ships are not the dominant noise sources of a cruise terminal. Thus, a reduction of the exhaust gas noise only has little effect on noise immission. Low frequency noise is not illustrated Page 82/136

by the sound maps. However, it is expected that OPS has a significant mitigation effect on low frequency noise immission in nearby areas.

From the measurements it appeared that LNG fueling at berth does not contribute to noise mitigation. As a result, no sound maps were produced for this case.

At the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder, the acoustic difference of electric driven forklifts and diesel driven forklifts is perceptible in the soundmaps, but not significant. From the view of emission this seems to be contradictive as the electric forklifts were found to show sound power levels of about 10 dB(A) less. However, the low mitigation of noise immission, which can be observed when comparing the soundmaps of diesel- and electric forklifts, can be explained by the many other loud noise emitters on the terminal area which cover the forklift emissions. The lowering effect can be observed mainly in the north-western area of the terminal as in other areas the noise of the remaining terminal operation sources appears to be more dominant. By the shielding effect of the terminal building the noise mitigation effect is less perceptible behind this building. This has to be considered a specific issue of the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder, as other terminal designs may cause a more pronounced mitigation effect. In general, the terminal layout and shielding/no shielding effects of noise sources have a major impact on the immission threshold levels in the surrounding areas. To lower noise immission caused by the terminal operation, noise emission from all dominant sources need to be decreased. Thus, implementing electric forklifts can be considered as an important first step to reduce noise from terminal operation, which shall be followed by further noise mitigation measures on the remaining noise sources.

Page 83/136

9 Recommendations for noise reduction measures The above documented results show that the cruise ship - at least the ones that were investigated during this Green Cruise Port study - are relatively quiet in comparison to the different noise sources at the terminal. This is mainly due to the requirement for comfort on open deck passenger spaces which defines maximum permissible noise levels on deck (according to Comfort Class Certification, i.e. DNV Comfort Class 2014). The noisiest sources on board of the investigated cruise ships were exhaust gas pipe outlets and small fan units. This chapter presents possible noise reduction measures for those sources which were found on the three investigated cruise ships. Proposed mitigation measures for terminal operation include technical aspects as well as ideas for optimized organization.

9.1 Terminal noise sources These measures are typically found in a variety of applications. Although not claiming to be an exhaustive list, the options presented in following are available to reduce noise immission levels onshore.

9.1.1 Electrification of equipment The electrification of cargo handling equipment reduces the noise emissions due to the absence of combustion processes. To give an example, Linde forklifts with a load rating of 3.5 t have sound levels at the driver’s ear of 77 dB(A) when combustion-driven and 50 dB(A) when electric driven (Linde, 2017, p. 1) (Linde, 2017, p. 2). This is a decrease in sound pressure level of 27 dB. Electric forklifts as shown in Figure 65 already operate at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder. The soundmaps of this report illustrate, that with the actual terminal equipment in Steinwerder the electric forklifts only have a slight influence on noise emission. This influence of electric forklifts would be strongly increased if further sources are reduced in their noise emission. Thus, the switch from diesel forklifts to electric forklifts is a first step to reduce noise emission from the terminal area. Together with an electrification of mobile cranes and other port equipment, significant noise emission reductions are expected.

To increase the implementation of electric forklifts, the terminal operator could introduce regulations forcing the usage of electric forklifts on the terminal area. Furthermore, ships can be addressed to demand only electric forklifts before arriving at berth.

Figure 65: Typical electric driven forklift, operating at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder.

Page 84/136

9.1.2 Installation of silencers The exhaust gas noise of mobile cranes and diesel forklifts can be treated with similar noise mitigation measures as the exhaust gas noise on board of cruise ships by means of silencer (see chapter 9.2.1.1). It is normal to measure the sound power levels of the equipment, which enables the terminal operators to choose quiet equipment from catalogues regardless of technological specification details.

9.1.3 Smart traffic concepts By shifting passenger traffic from private cars to public transport, the traffic volume and thus noise emission from traffic decreases. Efficient Park-and-Ride systems would be a strong incentives for passengers and would reduce noise emission at least locally at the terminal side.

To show reduction potentials of a smart traffic concept, the situation at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder is exemplarily presented: According to the sound maps modelled in this study, a maximum number of 4,500 passengers arrive and 4,500 passengers depart during every turnover. In total, 9,000 passengers are processed. It was assumed that 50 % of passengers use their own car and park at the terminal area. With an occupation level of 1.9 the number of arriving and departing cars add up to 1,184 each. With an amount of 10 % of passengers and an occupation level of 1.5, the collection and delivering traffic adds up to 600 car rides each to and from the terminal area. Collection and delivery traffic includes short term parking and taxis. Assuming the remaining passengers use the bus (40 % of passengers, occupation level of 40) yields 90 bus rides each to and from the terminal area. An average traffic speed of 30 km/h is assumed. This situation is referred to as the “conservative option”.

Compared to this scenario with 40 % of passengers choosing the public transport, a scenario of 80 % of passengers using the smart traffic option, the number of arriving and departing bus rides adds up to 180 each. With 15 % of passengers using their own car, the number of arriving and departing cars add up to 355 each. With a remaining number of 5 % of passengers the collection and delivery traffic adds up to 300 car rides each to and from the terminal area. This situation is referred to as “smart traffic option”.

Both options are compared according to RLS-90 by the equivalent continuous sound pressure level

Lm(25). This level Lm(25) is defined as a distance of 25 m from lane axis at a height of 4 m, on non-corrugated melted asphalt and a slope of less than 5 %. It is defined as

3 1.25 퐿푚(25) = 10 ∗ log [589 ∗ 푛푐푎푟{1 + (0.02 ∗ 푣푐푎푟) } + (204 ∗ 푛푏푢푠 ∗ 푣푏푢푠) ] where n is the number of cars/busses and v is the allowed maximum velocity. Concerning parking spaces, 17 dB have to be added to Lm(25). To differentiate between cars and busses, this addition was only applied to the part of Lm(25) which describe cars. As for the sound maps, the traffic volume is blurred over a 16 h period. The obtained sound pressure level has to be regarded as noise rating level, not as actual immission. It is important to keep in mind that this is an exemplary and simplified calculation. It does not necessarily illustrate the real noise immissions. However, the difference of both options can be analysed by this method.

Page 85/136

For the conservative option, Lm(25) adds up to 69.5 dB(A). For the smart traffic option, Lm(25) results to 67.5 dB(A). Thus, in this example scenario the noise rating level could be decreased by about 2 dB.

9.1.4 Staff training Driver training enables the terminal operator to reduce noise emissions from cargo handling and pier operations. Slower driving and foresighted acceleration/braking reduce the typical roaring noise of forklifts. Especially switching off forklifts, trucks and cranes not in use can decrease noise emission considerably. Further potential lies in the training of cautious lifting and lowering of cargo boxes to reduce the noise production from clashing boxes.

9.1.5 Installation of damping material for metal cargo boxes On cruise terminals, the transport of luggage from the pier onto the cruise ship is generally carried out with luggage boxes for cranes (Figure 66). Often the impact of these boxes, metal boxes or other equipment, which are lowered down to the floor would be decreased by decreasing the velocity of the items being bumped onto the floor. Due to workflow requirements and available cargo handling times, this is typically not feasible.

Figure 66: Box for luggage transport(left) next to forklift on the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder. Blue shaded areas show proposed application of damping material. Please note that additional damping should be installed on the downside of the bottom plate as well. Red objects sketch elastic support feet.

The impact of the luggage boxes on the terminal floor excites vibration of the box structure. Especially for large, straight plates, this goes along with dominant airborne noise radiation as it has been shown in chapter 7.1.1. There are principally two methods available to reduce radiated airborne noise:

1. The reduction of excitation force in the frequency range of the structural response. This is possible using elastic feet to prolong impact time (see text below) 2. The reduction of the structural response by application of additional damping, for example with constrained layer damping.

Page 86/136

Elastic support feet can be installed at the bottom of these items. These can be made of simple natural rubber, soft material of shore hardness of 50° or less is preferred. These bump rubbers increase the timespan, in which the energy of the item is released, thus decreasing the maximum forces. This poses a significant noise reduction potential. The theoretical background is for example shown by Elmer, Betke & Neumann (2007): The maximum impact force is half of the impact duration which is quadrupled at constant impact energy. Thus, the maximum radiated sound pressure is lowered by 3 dB. The impact time span decreases with softer bump rubber materials. Therefore, noise attenuation can be achieved even for higher sound impulses.

Damping material is widely used in many applications to reduce undesired noise radiation from plate structures. This material is found in cars as well as in ships or household appliances like washing machines. This material is either glued on top of a plate (of the luggage box) or placed between this plate and an additional plate (Figure 67). The latter version provides a higher structural damping quality, provides mechanical protection of the damping layer and is therefore the recommended solution for luggage boxes. For items with initially very low damping quality, the constrained layer damping can reduce radiated noise up to 10 dB.

Thin top plate

Damping material

Figure 67: Principal sketch of constrained layer damping.

9.1.6 Installation of noise barriers In case that the emission levels of the noise emitting equipment on the pier and at the terminal area cannot be attenuated sufficiently, the installation of noise barriers are an option to reduce at least the immission for residents at selected locations. The noise barriers impede the sound radiation from the source to the receiver as they block direct sound propagation. The area behind the barrier is called the “acoustic shadow”, where noise levels are decreased. The barriers can be fitted with noise damping material to reduce the reflection at the barrier. Typically, such noise barriers are installed beside highways or railways.

Figure 68 shows an exemplary case of a noise barrier arrangement. In dependence of the barrier height and the regarded frequencies, the corresponding attenuation levels are shown in Figure 69. The attenuation level Dz of the noise barrier is estimated with the following formula:

√2 ∗ 휋 ∗ 푁 퐷푧 = 20 ∗ 퐿표푔 + 5 푑퐵 tanh √2 ∗ 휋 ∗ 푁

Page 87/136

The Fresnel-number N is defined as

2 푁 = ± (푎 + 푏 − 푑) 휆 where λ is the wave length, a is the distance between noise source and the edge of the barrier, b is the distance between the edge of the barrier and the receiver and d is the direct distance between source and receiver. It can be observed that the attenuation level increases with increasing frequency of radiated noise. Thus, noise barriers are more effective in the upper frequency range than in the lower one.

Figure 68: Schematic diagram of noise barrier arrangement.

Figure 69: Attenuation levels of noise barriers with different barrier heights(arrangement according to Figure 68).

The correct placement of noise barriers has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Typically, the terminal building itself acts as a noise barrier to the pier area such as it is the case at the

Page 88/136

Cruise Terminal Steinwerder. It should be determined, if noise propagation around the terminal building needs to be attenuated by an appropriate noise barrier.

Addressing the use of cooling aggregates, the terminal operator has the option to implement a ban on noisy aggregates on the terminal area. Noise attenuated reefers are a viable technique and available on the market, which makes this option a feasible choice. Besides, also alternative cooling units are available like the cryogenic cooling unit technology which can reduce noise emissions by about 20 dB (Dearman Technology Centre, 2017). In case the terminal operator has no influence on the type of used mobile equipment on the terminal area, a parking lot for noisy machinery could be installed below the roof of the terminal. This would attenuate much of the equipment noise and hence it would protect residential areas in the vicinity. This would be especially suitable for reefers, as these are typically parked for some hours at the pier for unloading purposes.

9.1.7 Terminal operation just during day time When a cruise ship is at berth at a cruise terminal, the noise immission in nearby areas is likely to significantly increase. As shown before, reasons for this are the noise sources on the pier and the terminal area as well as onboard the cruise ship. Typically, the terminal operation only is conducted if a cruise ship is at berth. Therefore, the berthing time of a cruise ship determines noise immission even if the cruise ship itself might not be the dominant noise source. It is therefore recommended to only allow cruise ships to berth at daytimes, which would also restrict terminal activities to daytimes.

Page 89/136

9.2 Ship noise sources This chapter summarizes measures for ventilation units and engine exhaust gas. These measures are typically found on cruise ships to reduce passenger disturbance by annoying sounds.

9.2.1 Engine exhaust gas noise Electric energy on board of cruise ships is typically generated by large diesel generators. These consist of medium speed diesel engines and electric generators with several megawatts power each. This type of engine produces exhaust gas noise with high intensity in a broad frequency range (Figure 70). The most pronounced sound occurs at the ignition frequency which is the number of firing cylinders per second. Ignition frequencies of typical engines onboard cruise ships are located in the low frequency regime and typically show tonal character. The graph shows that radiated exhaust gas sound power is uncorrelated to engine size.

Figure 70: Comparison of exhaust gas sound power of medium speed engines (Lloyd’s Register ODS, 2010)

The required noise attenuation depends on the minimum distance between exhaust gas pipe opening and receiver point. An example calculation is presented here to illustrate the challenge of low frequency . The calculation is presented for an energetic average of the source power above.

- On cruise ships, the typical minimum distance is approximately 10 m between exhaust gas pipe opening and receiver (passenger), which amounts up to a 20 dB transmission loss (experience of DW-ShipConsult). - A common threshold requirement for noise on deck is 65 dB(A) for the overall deck noise level (i.e. DNV Comfort Class 2014). The octave level of an exemplary noise spectrum with a shape as shown in Figure 70 should not exceed 60 dB(A) to comply with this requirement (experience of DW-ShipConsult).

The results for two silencer configurations with and without resonator are sketched in Figure 71. The most challenging frequency range is below 125 Hz (the low-frequency noise). In this case, only the

Page 90/136

combination of absorption and resonator silencers would provide a sufficient noise attenuation to comply with comfort class limits.

Figure 71: Silencer characteristics. Left: Example of attenuation spectra for selected silencers, extracted from manufacturers’ data sheets. Right: Resulting received levels in 10 m distance on deck, taking into account directivity.

The measured data of all three investigated cruise ships confirm the importance of low frequency exhaust gas noise control: Overall A-weighted sound power levels of all three investigated cruise ships are dominated by low-frequency tonal noise from the exhaust gas pipe opening.

The required noise attenuation of the silencer also strongly depends on the source level of the diesel generator engine and on the noise attenuation of other components in the exhaust gas line. Figure 72 shows a possible configuration of air quality and noise reduction components on cruise ships. Except for the scrubber, all other components can be found in a typical exhaust gas line of a cruise ship. In most cases, all components are integrated in one exhaust gas line per engine and are arranged in the funnel. Since there are at least three diesel engines installed on board - and in some cases, up to six - this leads to very compressed funnel designs. Retrofitting of one component often requires modification of the whole pipe routing.

Page 91/136

Figure 72: Components of a possible exhaust gas line configuration.

9.2.1.1 Installation of silencers In principle, there are viable technical noise mitigation measures available to attenuate exhaust gas noise very efficiently, so that it is not audible on deck. However, the complexity of the exhaust gas system design increases with the demands for lower radiated noise levels. The most important technical factors, which need to be balanced with acoustic requirements, are:

- Space requirements in the funnel - Back-pressure - Stability (especially important for slender ships) - Costs.

For each respective ship design, a reasonable combination of components must be selected individually with respect to above mentioned restrictions:

- Components designed to attenuate exhaust gas noise: o Absorption silencers o Resonator silencers

- Components for other purposes with noise attenuation effects: o Economizers (Heat exchangers)

Page 92/136

o SCR catalyzers (can be delivered with integrated resonator type silencer that does not take up additional space) o Scrubbers (Attenuation can be very efficient, similar to stand-alone silencer) o Particle filters (only found on vessels running on distillate fuel) o Discontinuities of the pipe: bends, changes of cross section, branches, etc.

Possible silencer types for cruise ship installations are absorption silencers and resonator silencers. Absorption type silencers work by converting sound energy to heat. Resonator silencers work by reflecting the sound energy and thus eliminating certain frequencies. Low-frequency noise can only be attenuated efficiently by application of a resonator silencer. Other components in the exhaust gas line also contribute towards exhaust gas noise attenuation like SCR or scrubber systems.

All listed components require a thorough exhaust gas system design. Therefore, retrofits of vessels are in most cases very complicated, but there are also noise mitigation options available for retrofits in case of acoustic trouble. This is especially valuable for older ships which were usually designed with less strict requirements on radiated noise.

However, all investigations on the three studied cruise vessels show that suitable noise silencing solutions with respect to noise on open deck and noise onshore can be implemented and can work effectively. Besides, the measured data of all three investigated cruise ships confirm the importance of low-frequency exhaust gas noise control: Overall A-weighted sound power levels of all three investigated cruise ships are dominated by low-frequency tonal noise from the exhaust gas pipe opening.

In most cases high noise levels from exhaust gas are radiated by low frequency tones. Low-frequency tones can be very well treated by installation of an additional resonator silencer of branch-type design. If well designed, this silencer can yield additional 20 dB attenuation for selected frequencies (Fuchs, 2010). The additional back-pressure is very low, it accounts for maximum 1 mbar which is acceptable for most installations of medium-speed engines.

9.2.1.2 Onshore Power Supply The installation of OPS is a very promising noise mitigation measure for exhaust gas noise, because the generator engines can be shut off and hence, this noise source is completely turned off. But this measure can only be applied, if the cruise ship as well as the terminal is equipped with compatible systems that are able to provide several Megawatts of continuous load. As it was shown in this report, the three investigated cruise ships do not dominate the sound power level range of noise sources at the terminal. However, they are the most significant low frequency noise emitters. By avoiding the need to run the onboard generator engines due to OPS operation, the noise in the low frequency range would be significantly reduced. It is therefore recommended to use OPS for noise reduction purposes.

It has to be noted that OPS does not affect the operation of ventilation systems. As the ventilation outlets can be the dominating sound sources on board of a vessel, the overall noise level of a cruise ship will not be reduced significantly, if OPS is applied. This was also shown by the measurement results of this study (see chapter 7.4.1). But in every case, the low-frequency noise of diesel generator engines would be diminished.

Page 93/136

In the Port of Hamburg, there are two examples for successful integration of OPS for cruise ships. The Cruise Terminal Altona is equipped with a stationary OPS system, which provides e.g. AIDAsol with electricity from renewable sources. For cruise terminals without such an electric grid connection, other options are available. For example, at Cruise Terminal HafenCity, the LNG-Hybrid Barge Hummel can be connected to the power supply of a vessel.

In this study it was shown that LNG fueling at berth does not have a perceptible noise mitigation effect. For the purpose of noise immission reduction, other measures appear to be more effective.

9.2.2 Ventilation noise Ventilation fans on board ships generate two different types of continuous noise, see Figure 73. In port use, these fans are commonly operated continuously during the full berthing period. The audible impression is determined by:

1. Broad band noise (marked by red shaded area). Perceived as annoying at short distances where the common comfort class noise limits are exceeded. 2. Tonal noise (marked by red circles). Perceived as annoying at larger distances.

Figure 73: 1/3 octave and FFT spectrum of a rather noisy ventilation unit. Recorded in 1 m distance in front of the intake opening.

Ventilation systems are found on board for two different purposes, for which different noise reduction methods are available:

1. Supply of technical spaces: Air for cooling, combustion and general air change. In most cases, these spaces are supplied with pressure ventilation systems. Exhaust gas systems are typically passive. If any, there are only coarse filters present in these systems with low demands for cleaning. 2. Supply of passenger spaces: Air exchange to control air quality, humidity and temperature.

Page 94/136

Most fans are integrated according to one of the following three principles, see figures below:

1. Installation in the ventilation duct (Figure 74), applicable both for engine room ventilation and supply of passenger spaces: 2. Installation in separate fan rooms (Figure 75). These are typically chosen for large fan units to supply engine rooms 3. Installation in air handling units to supply passenger spaces

Duct silencer Acoustic louvre

FLOW

Splitter silencer

(low noise) fan

Figure 74: Installation principle for in-line fan installed in duct

Walls and ceilings in intake room Splitter silencer inside Cladded with absorption or acoustic louvre outside (for example mineral wool)

FLOW

Figure 75: Schematic sketch of ventilation fan installed in a separate room. This design is found on many cargo ships.

Page 95/136

Measures for mitigation of radiated noise on deck are chosen according to the principle of integration. However, regardless of the integration all measures for noise mitigation are categorized as primary and secondary measures:

Primary measures to reduce noise levels at the source:

- Thorough design with focus on low noise emissions (taken into account during purchase). If possible, choose fans with particularly low tonal noise radiation - Good inflow: Avoid obstacles on the suction side, e.g. massive support structures of grids - Ensure correct working point of the fan: All components with influence on back pressure in the duct must be taken into account for calculation of flow resistance.

Secondary measures to reduce noise transmission. The most important secondary measures for ventilation fans are:

- Reasonable fan position which allows attenuation to outside - Silencers installed in ventilation ducts. A broad overview of noise reduction measured, including their effectivity, is summarized in (VDI, 2001) o Splitter type silencers o Duct silencers - Treatment of fan rooms (if present) o Absorption on walls o Avoidance of direct noise transmission from the fan into the intake opening - Silencers installed on intake openings o Acoustic louvres o Acoustic screens o Mushroom caps cladded with absorption for ventilation intakes on top deck.

All noise reduction measures for fans are subject to trade-offs. Besides costs especially the space requirements are governing the choice for the selection of silencers. A less critical parameter is back pressure, which must be considered for very large silencers.

Due to the impact on available space on board only a fraction of the above listed secondary measures is applicable when trouble shooting. In most cases, only silencers on intake openings can be fitted quickly during berthing periods. Other measures, for example the exchange of fan units or the integration of additional duct silencers, are more invasive and have to be conducted during a stay in a shipyard.

Page 96/136

10 Discussion

10.1 Noise sources This project was conducted with background knowledge of different reports about noise from cruise ships in other ports (see section 5.1 in this report). There were ships described without any acoustically disturbing features while in other ports there were reports compiled about severe complaints due to noise which is explicitly addressed to the presence of ships. In most reports it is however unclear in what way nuisance was clearly attributed to the ship and how contribution from terminal operation was distinguished. The most disturbing features in available literature about cruise ships are equally low frequency noise from engine exhaust gas outlet and broad band noise from ventilation fans.

The measurements in the port of Hamburg were categorized in three parts to investigate the cruise ships AIDAsol, Mein Schiff 3 and AIDAprima:

1. Emission of individual sources on board to characterize radiated sound power 2. Sum of emission from all sources on the terminal roof to characterize the combination of ship, terminal operation and delivery traffic 3. In case of AIDAprima: Outside immission on the opposite side of the terminal

The first step for assessment of the ship in presence of other noise sources is made by comparison of the single-numerical dB(A) values for sound power (Figure 76). This compact assessment gives the impression that overall noise is dominated by other sources than the ship, e.g. by mobile cranes and large forklifts. Furthermore, it appears that the ships in Hamburg were up to 17 dB quieter than the reported values from other ports, in this case a result from Venice is shown. One possible reason for this span results from the onboard measurements of this study, which increases the measurement result quality significantly by minimizing the influence of disturbing noise sources such as traffic.

Figure 76: Comparison of overall A-weighted sound power levels

Page 97/136

However, a complete description of the acoustic disturbance potential should additionally take into account frequency characteristics and temporal aspects like impulsiveness and operational periods. This differentiating assessment (Figure 77) reveals two groups of sources:

- A group of pronounced low frequency content where most of the acoustic energy is contained in two frequency bands. In this case, AIDAsol is the only representative in this category - A group dominated by high frequency content with highest levels roughly in the decade between 200 Hz and 2 kHz. These are AIDAprima, Mein Schiff 3 and the mobile crane

The source power spectrum of a reefer truck spectrum contains both features.

Figure 77: Comparison of sound power levels for cruise ships and cargo handling equipment

The auditory impression of measurements on the terminal roof reveals the mixture of all present sources: A significant difference in temporal character of the radiated sounds can be detected: While the ship is a continuous source with only very little level fluctuation of few dB, noise sources on shore are much more varying over time which can increase the disturbing character of a sound. For example, reefer trucks are rather continuous with operating times of several 10 minutes. Cranes and forklifts are very frequently accelerating and decelerating and luggage boxes are banging. Impulsive noise during cargo handling luggage boxes leads to significant penalty factors on the terminal roof. This noise exceeds the average A-weighted equivalent sound pressure levels by roughly 20 dB so that the penalty factor KI for impulsive noise amounts for 4 to 5 dB during the times of cargo handling. Another significant source for transient noise is the on-board PA system.

Page 98/136

10.2 Noise immission The immission measurement of AIDAprima on Auguste-Victoria Quay showed a cruise ship in presence of many other noise sources. On the one hand, there was a cargo vessel with significant low frequency signature present in the vicinity which masked the cruise ship noise, so that low frequency received levels did not change in the course of the berthing cruise ship.

About 70 launches were detected to navigate through the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Hafen along the cruise vessel. They massed from noon to late afternoon. The time of each tacking manoeuver was registered by AIS evaluation. The tacking manoeuvers were performed near the measurement location at Auguste-Victoria-Quay. It could be shown, that many of the peaks in the noise immission time series correlate with the times of tacking manoeuvers and that therefore these peaks correlate to the emitted noise of launches. However, not every peak correlates with a launch. It is concluded that the remaining peaks arise due to background noise of port work. This is supported by listening to the recorded noise immission. In this sense, the harbor cruise ship can be categorized as a secondary noise source which is attracted by the cruise ship.

10.3 Low frequency noise and tonal noise Measurements of low frequency noise inside a suitable building in vicinity of the terminals were not possible in this project. As an approximation, the low frequency parameter LCeq – LAeq was calculated based on the measured 1/3 octave spectra and on literature values for sound transmission of two types of façades. This analysis of measurements relatively close to the source does not take into account frequency-dependent propagation effects. Also, local noise sources like road traffic close to real building is not considered. Therefore, the results are rather conservative, the low frequency level tends to be over-estimated. All estimated low frequency noise levels are above the 20 dB threshold before arrival of the ship. Two possible reasons appear to account for this: Either the estimation by the assumed façade attenuation is conservative, or the background noise at the measurement locations is correspondent for the low frequency noise. Possible background noise sources which would account for low frequency noise are traffic or cargo ships nearby. The difference (LCeq – LAeq) of a cruise ship at berth compared to no cruise ship at berth at the terminal roof added up to 12 dB (AIDAsol), 0 dB (Mein Schiff 3) and 4 dB (AIDAprima).

Radiated sound power of AIDAsol is dominated by few frequency bands below 100 Hz, therefore most acoustic energy of the overall 102 dB re 1 pW is contained in low frequencies. The modelled low frequency noise levels inside buildings show that OPS is an effective mitigation measure for low frequency noise from AIDAsol.

Tonal adjustment was calculated for considered noise sources of all three cruise ships. The maximum adjustment value added up to 3 dB (of a possible range from 0 – 6 dB) for AIDAsol, 5 dB for Mein Schiff 3 and 3 dB for AIDAprima. This implies a rather low to medium tonal character of the evaluated sources. For exhaust gas noise, a tonal adjustment was not applied as it falls out of the defined frequency range. However, only a few noise sources required tonal adjustment. Overall, it can be concluded that the measured noise sources onboard all three ships have a rather low tonal character.

Page 99/136

10.4 Mitigation measures As presented in the results section, OPS is able to reduce low frequency noise by omitting noise emission from running diesel generators. Emissions of both powering states show, that below 100 Hz the significant peaks but also the overall levels are decreased by up to 20 dB (measured at AIDAsol). However, as only the diesel generators are shut off when OPS is active, the ventilation typically keeps running steadily and thus emits noise with the same sound power level as when OPS is inactive.

The low frequency noise criteria of DIN 45680 (LC,eq – LA,eq) shows a level reduction of about 6 dB from the time of active OPS on. However, in the time series of immission sound pressure levels, no decrease or increase was detectable.

Thus, it can be concluded, that OPS is not able to significantly reduce the overall A-weighted equivalent averaged sound pressure level at AIDAsol but the low frequency noise.

With AIDAprima, levels in the 25 Hz and 31.5 Hz frequency band increased by 10 – 15 dB. The phenomenon of significantly increased levels between 9:45 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. was shown to correlate with the LNG fueling. It is concluded that the different noise character at this time range resulted either from different combustion processes in the engine being LNG fueled or from the LNG supply truck. Overall, due to the baffling effect of the ship it can be concluded that the increase is linked to the operational feature of the engine.

Page 100/136

11 Design aspects of a noise monitoring system Noise monitoring systems are proven tools for collecting data and monitoring noise emissions from business sites such as airports and ports. This chapter presents general concepts for noise monitoring systems and discusses features which need to be considered for noise monitoring of cruise terminals.

11.1 Objective Noise monitoring can be conducted either with focus on emission of selected sources or with focus on immission at selected receiver positions. Immission can be evaluated with respect to disturbance of residents according to current legislation or with focus on working safety at the terminal site. In the context of this report, the relevant assessment value for cruise terminals in vicinity of neighbouring areas is residential disturbance due to noise immission. Two different concepts are discussed to obtain the required information:

1. Installation of a monitoring system at the terminal site to measure an approximate value of emission which is converted into immission by modelling of sound propagation. This system predicts contribution of cruise shipping activity to received levels in residential areas. The overall noise level at the receiver location remains unknown due to lack of information on traffic noise and other sources 2. Installation of a monitoring system in the residential area as close as possible to a relevant receiver location for direct measurement of immission. This system measures “true” received levels composed of all relevant source. Contribution of cruise shipping can be identified only to a limited extent.

Some examples of noise monitoring of cruise terminals are found in literature. These include the projects of Remigi and Bella (2013), Olszewski and Docker (2018) and Bennett (2016) described in chapter 5.1 on pp. 29 ff. of this report. All of these activities were either conducted for only one day in vicinity of residential areas or over a longer period of time in the port area. Only the port of Vancouver has a stationary monitoring system in place since 2013, which assesses noise in residential areas over a longer period of time (Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, 2018).

The two monitoring concepts discussed here outlines a system to observe and evaluate terminal- induced immission noise. It includes additional features to implement feedback from the monitoring system into terminal operation. This feedback capability could for example be integrated through a warning system that informs terminal operators about the current noise situation. It would provide high responsiveness for terminal operators to identify and reduce noisy activities before complaints from residents are received.

Since the terminal is one noise source among many others in the neighbouring area (Figure 80, page 110), there is a high probability that noise sources other than the terminal dominate the received levels (i.e. other cargo ships, traffic, etc). For this reason, one of the following capabilities must be provided:

1. The received signal in the residential area has to be analysed regarding the content of acoustic signatures from the terminal and these must be separated from background noise by signal analysis. For example, monitoring of aircraft sound according to DIN 45643 (2011) works

Page 101/136

similar by detection of aircraft noise events. Due to the high diversity of noise sources on the terminal and due to close vicinity of background noise sources, this option is considered unrealistic for terminal-induced noise. It is expected that systems developed for commercial ports require extensive modifications to meet the demands. 2. The terminal-induced received signal is extrapolated from measurements in the vicinity of the terminal where a sufficiently high signal to noise ratio (SNR) can be obtained. This option is considered more realistic. However, it implies possible uncertainties due to the extrapolation procedure and the required SNR.

A monitoring system provides information for practical use as it allows conclusions of which operational consequences can be drawn. This is the case if observed noise levels can be compared to specific thresholds. Terminal activity should be adapted if the thresholds are exceeded.

In the following two possible approaches are introduced and then compared in Table 15:

- Long-term monitoring for research and development may be used to investigate variability of the acoustic situation. Noisy conditions can be identified for further analysis of dominant sources. Then the need for mitigation measures can be discussed based on scientifically sound findings. This type of monitoring system works without evaluation based on feedback mechanism for terminal operators. - Daily monitoring to check whether radiated noise from the terminal complies with guidelines of TA Lärm (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, 2017). If combined with additional short-term evaluation this type of system can be fitted with a feedback mechanism by means of a traffic light or similar warning system to be considered during management of terminal operation.

Table 15: Comparison of monitoring concepts Daily monitoring Long-term monitoring Limit value Yes No Feedback mechanism Yes, e.g. traffic light No Relevant quantity Lr Lp (optional Lr) Focus on Immission in residential area Emission of terminal Identification of sources Optional yes Optional yes

A noise monitoring system consisting of distributed microphones that are continually delivering sound measurements that are fed in an immission modelling software can provide information on the overall acoustic situation. Our study implies that it is not possible to reliably separate acoustic contributions of the cruise ships from the terminal-related noise.

However, a reasonable feedback mechanism would require identification of dominant sources first. Only then operational changes with significant noise reduction potential can be introduced.

The monitoring system should provide simplified, easy-to-understand information for the public as well as detailed data for further analysis by experts. The output shall be structured in:

Page 102/136

1- Single-numerical output which can be compared to limit values. Additional display in traffic light scheme is desired. The single numerical value shall be the one which considers features described in the chapters to follow. 2- Spectral output, for example by means of spectrogram over time

Input data will be proposed in chapter 11.5 in which a possible monitoring concept will be introduced.

The monitoring should operate as automatically as possible. Required user interaction should be limited to input of meta data like number of passengers berthing and type of applied cargo handling equipment. Data evaluation should not require personal resources. Instead a program running in the background would deliver the required output that an operator will be able to evaluate. This is especially challenging with respect to evaluation of validity of the measurements as these have to be as accurate as possible. Further aspects like the impact of Background noise will be discussed in detail in chapter 11.10, pp. 110 ff.

11.2 Evaluation basis: Rating level Lr and average time Tr The relevant legislative framework TA Lärm is described in chapter 4.1.1.2 on page 23 of this report. It defines limit values for noise immission inside residential buildings. Measurement procedures to derive rating values are described in DIN 45645-1 (1996). Some key features are:

- Only for rooms which require a need for protection (“schutzbedürftig”) - The relevant measurement position according to TA Lärm (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, 2017) is 0.5 m outside in front of an open window. The measurement is to be conducted inside only if the window is not equipped with mechanism to open. - The window of a room with highest noise immission with protection need must be chosen.

The day time to determine rating levels is strictly defined by TA Lärm (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, 2017). An average value over 16 hours is considered for the Level Lday during daytime between 06:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. For night time between 10:00 p.m. and 06:00 a.m. only the average value of the noisiest hour is counted. This average time must be used also for sources which are emitting temporarely; their contribution is scaled accordingly. During daytime additional surcharge levels for rest time periods are defined with 6 dB additional level from 06:00 a.m. to 07:00 a.m. and 07:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. as well as on Sundays and national holidays.

In addition, a shorter average time should be chosen for the monitoring to provide best feedback to terminal operators. The predetermined average time of 16 hours for daytime prevents immediate data interpretation. Hence, it is impossible to draw operational consequences in a timely manner, i.e. on the same day. An additional average time below one hour should therefore be chosen. The selection of average time is a trade-off between data smoothing and responsiveness for the person in charge at the terminal:

• The average time should have a maximum length to include multiple, typical activities in one averaging frame: Crane activity, clashing boxes, forklift activity and reefer. • The average time should have a minimum length to enable responsiveness of terminal operators.

Page 103/136

We propose average time of 15 minutes to report average and statistical values by the feedback system.

According to TA Lärm (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, 2017), windows must be generally considered open. Calculation for noise attenuation by windows is only necessary if the windows are always closed. In this case, a procedure e.g. VDI 2719 (1987) should be applied. This procedure covers noise generation and noise reduction in air conditioning systems requiring data input in 1/3 octave resolution, spectral display.

11.3 Measurement locations for monitoring For all measurements it has to be considered that the position of the microphone has been chosen in such way that noise radiation into residential areas is well captured.

The relevant sources are a mixture of moving objects like forklifts and trucks as well as stationary sources like cranes, reefers and waiting vehicles. Many sources change operating state with accordingly their source level over time. Due to this complexity it is recommended to develop a monitoring concept which evaluates the overall output of the terminal rather than individual contributions. Due to the spatial extent of the terminal, multiple monitoring locations might be necessary.

The selection of the microphone position involves a trade-off between SNR of the terminal and representativeness of the measured values. Positions in residential areas are affected by a lot more noise sources than just the terminal. Therefore, the recorded data is not necessarily a measure for received levels from the terminal due to poor SNR. In the vicinity of the terminal the SNR is higher but the measured values can only be interpreted with respect to the residential area based on theoretical transmission losses (TL). In this sense they are not truly the final immissions, but as close as possible because of the SNR.

 Plausibility check: Lresult = Lterminal – Lresident shall be within an expected TL range

TL calculations according to ISO 9613-2 (1999) or by numerical model are necessary to assess transfer functions for typical propagation conditions. Environmental parameters as well as meteorological conditions are considered.

Page 104/136

Cruise terminals are typically elongate and the following aspects have to be considered for planning of measurement locations:

a. Microphone positions should be located close to the terminal to ensure sufficient signal to noise ration of relevant sources in presence of urban ambient noise. b. Generally a quantification of emissions cannot classify noise sources because of the combination of stationary and randomly moving objects. A simple system could therefore take into account equipment specifications provided by the manufacturer. c. Noise levels in residential areas can be estimated from the measurement results in the vicinity of the terminal and from reference TL values (Figure 78). This must be computed for each terminal under consideration of specific requirements. d. Optional: Identification of ambient noise sources, linked to third-party information (e.g. AIS) e. Feedback to decision makers / operational staff or for documentation only

Position 1 for TL reference Position 2 for reference TL

Position 3 for reference TL

Microphone 2 Microphone 1 Microphone 3

Figure 78: Examples for microphone positions and reference locations, based on sound map for AIDAsol

The selection of the microphone locations should take into account

- Baffling and reflection from buildings (horizontal plane and cross section) with respect to noise radiation into residential areas - Preferred operating area of noise sources on the terminal - Vicinity to external noise sources - Number of microphones

Page 105/136

11.4 Normative background To date, there are various standards available to describe procedures for measurements of environmental airborne noise. The most common ones are listed in the DIN category 4564x

• DIN 45641 „Mittelung von Schallpegeln“ • road traffic noise (DIN 45642 „Messung von Verkehrsgeräuschen“) a. two concepts are defined i. direct measurement of average levels. Due to the large diversity of sound sources on the terminal this procedure is preferred. ii. Measurement of individual sound exposure levels from pass-by measurements. This version does not seem applicable for a cruise terminal due to low SNR. b. Section 8.1 applies according to road traffic noise: Average levels shall be measured directly instead of determination of individual sound exposure levels • aircraft noise (DIN 45643:2011-02: Measurement and assessment of aircraft sound) • noise from industry and business sited (DIN 45645: Determination of rating levels from measurement data — Part 1, Noise Immission in the neighbourhood)

11.5 Monitoring concept A possible approach for a monitoring concept consists of the three layers:

1. Data collection 2. Processing 3. User communication

A structure is proposed in Figure 79. Procedures for data evaluation of rating levels are summarized in the appendix of this report.

Layer 1

Layer 2

Layer 3

Figure 79: Flow chart of a possible automated monitoring system

Page 106/136

11.6 Data evaluation

The assessment of rating levels 퐿푟 has to take into account the 퐿푒푞 output of the sound level meter as well as additional parameters to describe the potential for disturbance of residents:

퐿푟 = 퐿푒푞 + 퐾퐼 + 퐾푇

These are:

KI: rating factor for contribution of impulsive sounds. Calculation is described in DIN 45645-1 (1996).

KT: rating factor for tonal components in the measured signal

11.6.1 Determination of tonal components 푲푻 As discussed above, typical cruise ships radiate tonal sounds predominantly at ignition frequency of the diesel generators. Other characteristic tones may occur at blade frequency of fans. However, during our cruise ship investigations these tones from ventilation systems could be shown to be at comparatively low levels. The microphone needs to be located in close vicinity to the ship to detect ship noise in presence of background noise.

There is a standard procedure defined in DIN 45681 (2005) for detection of tones with respect to analysis capabilities of the human ear. The proposed algorithm is valid for the frequency range above 88 Hz. Typical ignition frequency tones are below this frequency. We propose to extent the algorithm down to 30 Hz

11.6.2 Additional determination of low-frequency components Since low-frequency noise is not defined as “K-component” in DIN 45645-1 (1996), we propose a second indicator to take this parameter into account. This would require a second traffic light for control.

As mentioned in chapter 6.4.2, the definition of DIN 45680 (1997) for low-frequency noise is valid only for receiver positions inside rooms. Therefore, an additional transmission loss of windows in relevant immission rooms must be taken into account to generate meaningful low-frequency assessment values, e.g. by calculation according to VDI 2719 (1987).

11.7 Documentation and user communication The monitoring system should conduct automatic documentation of meta data as well as optional, individual user input on demand. Thus, monitoring man hours are reduced.

Mandatory parameters to log automatically

• Weather, e.g. by local weather station in vicinity of microphone: Wind speed, direction, temperature, precipitation • Identity and technical parameters of cruise ship at berth for example through a direct recording of AIS data • Number of passengers that board and disembark

Page 107/136

Mandatory user input is:

• Comments on special events, e.g. external noise • Cargo handling equipment o Number and type of forklifts (diesel / electric) o Mobile Crane o Operating hours • Responsible persons in charge

Optional parameters to log automatically:

• AIS for monitoring of other ship traffic • Identification of air traffic in vicinity by “aircraft AIS” • Road traffic if documentation possible through access to traffic monitoring systems; Alternatively scaling based on passenger numbers • If available: Amount of trucks for ship supply (food and other consumables), e.g. bunkering, waste removal • Recording of CCTV picture on terminal to identify parking positions of reefers. This would require additional image processing software and personnel resources. Alternatively reefers could be equipped with GPS if the same reefers are used all the time

Automatic generation of one report sheet per day is recommended. This includes

• Plot of levels over time (resolution to be determined): 퐿01 (1 % highest values), 퐿퐴푒푞, 퐿퐴퐹푚푎푥, 퐿95 (5 % lowest values) • Optional one spectrogram over the day for illustration of characteristic situations • Statistics for the day: Number of ships, arrivals, departures; unforeseen or special events • Metadata: Ship, terminal equipment, weather • Optional: Characteristics of terminal equipment, e.g. type of forklifts and specified sound power source levels

11.8 Hardware and Technology: The monitoring system should consist of calibrated, type-approved equipment with the following characteristics. This equipment has to be adapted to each terminal. To date, there are several, technically mature systems available which can be configured according to the local requirements of the terminal. The considerations are:

• Microphones for horizontal receivers (outdoor microphones for aircraft noise are not recommended) • Calibration by mobile equipment has to be possible • Weatherproof microphones with wind screens • Microphone height • Online versus offline data evaluation • Numerical displays and traffic light schemes in the terminal control room • Optional web access • Data processing capabilities

Page 108/136

11.9 Comparison of emission and immission monitoring The governing factors to estimate cost of the monitoring system are diverse and highly variable with respect to chosen monitoring concept, size of terminal and number of receiver locations to monitor. Nevertheless, a compilation of governing factors is presented in Table 16 for the purpose of concept development in an early project stage.

In both cases presented in the table, the most practicable application seems to use the monitoring system as an alert system which announces to a responsible person at the terminal that a potentially critical situation is present. This person should firstly check whether the alert can be linked to any specific noise source at the terminal. Secondly, mitigation measures should be checked and the person should be available for discussion with complaining residents, if any.

Table 16: Comparison of practicability of emission and immission monitoring

Factor Monitoring of emissions at Monitoring of Immission in terminal site residential area

Number of microphone Dependent on size and shape of Dependent on number of locations terminal receiver locations

Accuracy See discussion above, High. True received levels are dependent on source measured separation Identification of noise from Only measurement of noise at Only measurement of total terminal activity and from terminal site, identification of received noise. Mixture of cruise ship at berth ship noise only possible by source contribution of unknown statistics origin

Practicability High because monitoring Moderate because many parties position can be chosen by are involved terminal operator

Transparency for “Live noise maps” from cruise Live spot measurements can be communication with public noise can be published. published, see Vancouver port (Olszewski, Docker, & Manvell, 2018)

Availability Needs to be developed Operational systems are individually, long time with available in other ports, short costs according to requirements time and low cost expected for of development individual design

Effort during preparation System development from Discussions with public and scratch, validation of modelling authorities for selection of procedure monitoring locations in residential area

Technical effort during Maintenance of microphones, Maintenance of microphones, operation data management data management

Page 109/136

Logistical effort during Contact person for discussion of Prediction results should be operation if data is published measurement values reviewed before being broadcasted should be available published. Contact person for public discussion should be available

Determination of low Requires involvement of Requires involvement of frequency noise inside residents for determination of residents for determination of residential homes façade attenuation in relevant façade attenuation in relevant receiver locations receiver locations

11.10 Background noise Cruise terminals are typically situated in urbanized areas with many other noise sources such as road traffic, construction sites, port traffic and others. In the vicinity of the terminal this generated an overall situation as sketched in Figure 80. Most sources in this complex situation are strongly dependent on daytime and on location. For this reason, a background noise level to determine the signal to noise ratio of the measurements cannot be measured due to the spatial and temporal situation. Therefore, determination of background noise as required by DIN 45645-1 (1996) is not possible.

The best option to obtain measurements with dominant terminal-induced noise is to place microphones in vicinity of the terminal. An uncertainty remains because the overall noise level in the vicinity of the terminal can be temporarily dominated by noisy external sources like aircraft, noisy ships or construction sites. However, corresponding data can be deleted by evaluation of AIS and meta data.

Construction sites

Merchant ships Cruise ship

Crane Parking Port ferries Forklifts Reefers Trucks Launches Supply barges

Aircraft, helicopter

Misc road traffic

Figure 80: Composition of noise from the terminal in presence of various background noise sources

Page 110/136

11.11 Conclusion for the noise monitoring system The outline of a monitoring system to assess noise disturbance by cruise terminals was summarized to evaluate noise immissions following possible future standards. There are currently no examples available for an operational long-term monitoring system of a cruise terminal. A customized concept has to be developed individually for each individual terminal locations.

12 Conclusion Noise measurements were conducted for three cruise vessels to characterize individual noise sources on board as well as received noise levels in the vicinity of the vessels onshore. Additional acoustic data were recorded to characterize typical noise sources at the terminal during berthing of the cruise ship. The source descriptions of the ship, terminal and delivery traffic were used for modelling of noise maps which reflect spatial effects of cruise-attributed noise sources.

For each vessel the overall sound power level was calculated on the basis of all individually investigated sources such as ventilation openings or engine exhaust gas outlets. The overall sound power levels of all three cruise ships are equal or below 102 dB(A). For AIDAsol the radiated sound power level is dominated by low frequency tones from the exhaust. The highest sound power levels from ventilation were detected for smaller units which were apparently overlooked during the ship-acoustic treatment. All large ventilation units for engine room supply were insulated in a way that they are barely audible in the vicinity of the opening.

Tonal adjustment was calculated for most noise sources. According to definition, tonal adjustment can range from 0 to 6 dB. Calculated adjustment is ranging up to 3 dB for AIDAsol, 5 dB for Mein Schiff 3 and 3 dB for AIDAprima. Although tonal character in rooftop measurements was existent with no cruise ship at berth, the cruise ship at berth intensified the tonality.

The sound power level of forklifts and mobile cranes for cargo handling onshore exceeded the overall sound power level of the cruise ships by up to 10 dB.

Received noise onshore was recorded in two types of positions: For all cruise ships the berthing procedure and the period of time for cargo handling were monitored by a microphone on the terminal roof. For AIDAprima additional immission measurements were conducted in approximately 120 m distance at the Auguste-Victoria-Quay.

Measurements at terminal roofs show sound pressure levels from cruise ships of 54 – 56 dB(A) (AIDAsol), 53 – 56 dB(A) (Mein Schiff 3) and 54 – 57 dB(A) (AIDAprima). The high range of up to 3 dB results from uncertainties due to port noise. The impact of cruise ships is clearly detectable: There were increases in sound pressure level by 6 – 8 dB (AIDAsol), 8 – 11 dB (Mein Schiff 3) and 4 – 7 dB (AIDAprima). Differences in the range of increase arise probably from differing background noise levels. No noticeable steady increase in equivalent continuous sound pressure level could be detected at the opposed Auguste-Victoria-Quay when there was a cruise ship at berth.

Low-frequency noise immission inside arbitrary buildings was estimated based on measurements on the terminal. For AIDAsol the low frequency noise level increases significantly upon berthing, for the Page 111/136

other ships the change of levels due to presence of the ship is barely detectable. However, this conclusion has to be viewed critically, as the standard measurement position applied for the calculation is located untypically close to the noise source and façade attenuation of buildings of actual immission locations can differ from the assumed attenuation spectrum. The presented estimation of immission inside a building cannot replace actual measurements.

Announcements and alarms via the on-board PA-system significantly increased short-term noise immission. These immissions are comparable with the loudest noise emissions of pier work (e.g. clashing of metal boxes).

About 70 launches navigated along the cruise ships at berth on one sunny summer day mostly between noon to late afternoon. The passing launches had a significant impact on noise immission at Auguste-Victoria-Quay.

For the forklifts operating at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder, the difference of electric- to diesel- driven forklifts in the third octave spectra can be documented. We could not detect an increased disturbance potential of diesel-driven forklifts due to significant tonality compared to electric-driven ones. The sound power levels for electric forklifts and diesel forklifts are 90 dB(A) and 100 dB(A), respectively. Mobile cranes were measured both at load lifting and idle operation. No tonality according to standard was detected. A sound power level of 107 dB(A) was derived. Emitted noise from a typical reefer at the terminal area was found to include high tonality in the low to mid frequency range. A correlation of these tones to the electric grid frequency was detected and a sound power level of 97 dB(A) was derived. It was shown that cargo handling at the pier can lead to impulsive noise, e.g. by clashing metal boxes. Clashing metal boxes increased the noise immission momentarily by 15 – 20 dB.

From the calculated sound maps we conclude that during a typical cruise ship call the noise immissions due to the ship play a minor role, although this conclusion is only valid for cruise ships similar to the ones being examined in this study. Instead, cargo handling at the pier and traffic are the main noise contributors. A difference of electric driven forklifts to diesel driven forklifts is perceptible, but not significant. However, the results of the sound maps have to be treated with care, as the estimation regarding traffic does not allow conclusions about noise immissions in peak times such as peak times of passenger departure after disembarking of the ship.

Compared to cargo handling equipment on the terminal area and road traffic the continuous noise emissions from the examined cruise ships are low. From the immission measurements we conclude, that cargo handling and pier work are the dominant continuous noise emitters.

Looking at the recommendations for noise reduction both for on-board and on-shore application it is clear that the presented techniques are already in widespread use and that sufficient experience appears to be at hand.

The regulations concerning cruise ship noise are not very stringent and there appear to be no regulations that are infringed. It seems the most powerful regulations to counter vessel noise are comfort class notations and owner specifications, as the owners of cruise ship have a significant

Page 112/136

economic benefit from quiet ships. As the ships themselves are already very quiet it seems to be most promising to reduce noise emissions due to the onshore operations such as loading, storing and traffic to reduce the overall impact of cruise ship operations on neighbouring areas.

13 Possible further research activities During this study, the noise emissions of modern cruise ships have been examined. Investigated ships were younger than 10 years and were already fitted with noise reduction technology. To get a more differentiated noise evaluation from cruise ships, it would be necessary to conduct investigations also on older ships.

The immission measurements of one cruise ship showed an increase of at least one third octave band when LNG fueling operation were conducted. To minimize the tonality of this, it would be important to determine the precise source of this raise. Therefore, it would be interesting to measure not just the noise immission, but also the noise emission at the sources, e.g. cruise ship’s exhaust gas, while the switch from oil to gas is performed. Although the engine was switched off, the LNG truck itself needs be examined during the fueling operation.

Sound pressure level measurements were conducted at locations in close vicinity to the cruise ship and on the pier including the terminal roof and the neighboring quay. The impact on the neighboring quay would be similar to the impact on residential areas; however, those measurements are still significantly influenced by industrial noise and other disturbances caused by the port. To better evaluate the impact of cruise terminal operation procedures on background noise levels, immission measurements in neighboring residential areas should be conducted. It is recommended to conduct such measurements outdoors as well as indoors of concerned buildings.

Limits for low frequency noise are strictly defined for locations inside buildings. These measurements were not possible in this project, therefore low frequency noise levels inside the buildings were modelled for a relatively large span of façade attenuation characteristics. For future projects it is worthwhile to additionally conduct measurements inside relevant buildings.

During the emission measurements on board the cruise ships of this GCP study, no background noise correction could be applied as it was not feasible to switch off the noise sources while the ship was operated. Thus, the obtained sound power levels have to be regarded as conservative values. To improve the measurement quality, the cruise ship of interest has to be investigated acoustically when not in operating mode, for example when it is being serviced in a dock yard.

Page 113/136

14 Bibliography Beiersdorf, A. (2017). Noise assessment of two container vessels in the Port of Hamburg. Hamburg: HPA.

Bella, A. D., & Remigi, F. (2013, May). Prediction of noise of moored ships. (A. S. America, Ed.) The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. doi:10.1121/1.479945

Bennett, R. (2016). White Bay Cruise Terminal Ship Noise Control by Shore Based Power. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd.

BmJV. (1990). Sechzehnte Verordnung zur Durchführung des Bundesimmissionsschutzgesetzes (Verkehrslärmschutzverordnung - 16. BImSchV).

Breemen, T. v., Popp, C., Witte, R., Wolkenfelt, F., & Wooldridge, C. (2008). Good Practice Guide on Port Area Noise Mapping and Management. Amsterdam: Port of Amsterdam.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt. (2017, 06 01). Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift zur Änderung der Sechsten Allgemeinen Verwaltungsvorschrift zum Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz (Technische Anleitung zum Schutz gegen Lärm–TA Lärm). Retrieved from Verwaltungsvorschriften im Internet: http://www.verwaltungsvorschriften–im– internet.de/bsvwvbund_26081998_IG19980826.htm

Bundesverwaltungsgericht. (2017, 12 19). Urteil vom 19.12.2017 - BVerwG 7 A 7.17. Retrieved 06 21, 2018, from Bundesverwaltungsgericht: https://www.bverwg.de/191217U7A7.17.0

Bureau Veritas. (2011, 07). Rules for the Classification of Steel Ships, Part E - Additional Class Notations, Chapter 6, Sec. 4 "Additional requirements for passenger ships greater than or equal to 65 m in length", part 2 COMF-NOISE. Retrieved from https://docplayer.net/45180776-Rules-for-the-classification-of-steel-ships.html

Bürgerschaft der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg. (2017). Mitteilung des Senats an die Bürgerschaft: Weiterentwicklung des Kreuzschifffahrtsstandortes Hamburg, Haushaltsplan 2017/2018, Einzelplan 7, Änderung des Haushaltsbeschlusses. Hamburg.

Council of the European Union. (1970, 02 06). COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 70/157/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the Member States relating to the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles. Retrieved from EUR-Lex (Access to European Union Law): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1970/157/oj

Dearman Technology Centre. (2017). Dearman zero-emission Transport Refrigeration System. Retrieved November 22, 2017

DIN 45 635-47:1985. (1985). Geräuschmessung an Maschinen - Luftschallemission, Hüllflächen- Verfahren Schornsteine.

DIN 45643. (2011). Measurement and assessment of aircraft sound. : Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. Page 114/136

DIN 45645-1. (1996). Ermittlung von Beurteilungspegeln aus Messungen. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Normungs e.V.

DIN 45680. (1997). Messung und Beurteilung tieffrequenter Geräuschimmissionen. Entwurf vom September 2013.

DIN 45681. (2005). Akustik – Bestimmung der Tonhaltigkeit von Geräuschen und Ermittlung eines Tonzuschlages für die Beurteilung von Geräuschimmissionen. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.

DIN EN ISO 3746:2011. (2011). Akustik - Bestimmung der Schallleistungs- und Schallenergiepegel von Geräuschquellen aus Schalldruckmessungen - Hüllflächenverfahren der Genauigkeitsklasse 3 über einer reflektierenden Ebene (ISO3746:2010).

DIN EN ISO 3746:2011. (2011). Akustik - Bestimmung der Schallleistungs- und Schallenergiepegel von Geräuschquellen aus Schalldruckmessungen - Hüllflächenverfahren der Genauigkeitsklasse 3 über einer reflektierenden Ebene (ISO3746:2010).

DNV. (2014). Comfort Class.

Elmer, K.-H., Betke, K., & Neumann, T. (2007). Standardverfahren zur Ermittlung und Bewertung der Belastung der Meeresumwelt durch die Schallimmission von Offshore-Windenergieanlagen.

European Parliament, Council of the European Union. (2000, 05 08). DIRECTIVE 2000/14/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of te laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors. Retrieved from EUR-Lex (Access to European Union law): https://eur- lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/14/oj

European Parliament, Council of the European Union. (2006, 12 12). 2006/87/EC DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 December 2006 laying down technicalm requirements for inland waterway vessels and repealing COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 82/714/EEC. Retrieved from EUR-Lex (Access to European Union law): https://eur- lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2006/87/oj

European Parliament, Council of the European Union. (2002, 07 18). DIRECTIVE 2002/49/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 189/12 - L 189/25.

Friedrich, U. (. (2017, October 23). E-Mail conversation with Anika Beiersdorf (HPA) and AIDAprima. (P. Schnabel, Interviewer)

Fuchs, H. V. (2010). Schallabsorber und Schalldämpfer. Heidelberg: Springer.

Götz, H., Broers, R., & Wagner, T. (2009). Geräuschemissionen eines Kreuzfahrtterminals - Bericht No. DIV-587/09. Hamburg: Amt für Immissionsschutz und Betriebe - Lärmmessstelle.

Page 115/136

Hoffmeyer, D., & Jakobsen, J. (2010). Sound insulation of dwellings at low frequencies. Journal of low frequency noise, vibration and active control, pp. 15-23.

IMO. (1974, 11 01). International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). Retrieved from International Maratime Organization (IMO): http://library.arcticportal.org/1696/1/SOLAS_consolidated_edition2004.pdf

ISO 9613-2. (1999). Dämpfung des Schalls bei der Ausbreitung im Freien. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.

Jakobsen, J. (2012). Danish regulation of low frequency noise from wind turbines. Journal of low frequency noise, vibration and active control, pp. 239-246.

Jansen, M., & Witte, i. J. (2010). Acoustic investigation Ceres, Report I.2007.1070.00.R002. Amsterdam: DGMR Industrie, Verkeer en Milieu B.V.

LAIRM CONSULT GmbH. (2013). Schalltechnische Untersuchung für das geplante Cruise Center 3 in Hamburg-Steinwerder. Hamburg: Hamburg Port Authority.

Linde. (2017). Diesel-, Erd- und Treibgasstapler Tragfähigkeit 2500 - 3500 kg. Retrieved November 27, 2017, from http://www.linde-mh.de/media/Datasheets/DE/H25- H35/tb_h25_35evo_br393_02_dt_b_0416.pdf

Linde. (2017). Elektro-Stapler Tragfähigkeit 2000 - 3500 kg. Retrieved November 27, 2017, from http://www.linde-mh.de/media/Datasheets/DE/E20-E35/tb_e20r- 35rhl_br387_dt_a_0516.pdf

Lloyd’s Register ODS. (2010). Noise from ships in ports - Possibilities for noise reduction, Environmental Project No. 1330 2010. Danish Minitry of the Environment.

López. (2017, November 27). Personal interview (phone) with David López (Chief Terminal Officer, Cruise Gate Hamburg) led by the author. Schwentinental.

MÜLLER-BBM. (2007). Cruise Center II - Edgar-Engelhard-Kai Neubau eines Liegeplatzes für Kreuzfahrtschiffe. Hamburg.

Olszewski, G., & Docker, B. (2018). Community noise and cruise vessels implementing shore power at the Port of Vancouver. Inter-Noise 2018. Chicago.

Olszewski, G., Docker, B., & Manvell, D. (2018). Community noise and cruise vessels implementing shore power at the Port of Vancouver. INTER-NOISE 2018 - Impact of Noise Control Engineering.

Remigi, F., & Bella, A. D. (2013). Noise impact of ships moored in Venice harbour. IA-DAGA 2013 Merano, (pp. 967 - 968).

Semrau, S., Tudrzierz, T., & Doerk, O. (2017). Exhaust Gas Noise of Diesel Generators of Container Vessels at Berth, Report No. MRGDE719 2017.118, Rev. 0. Hamburg: DNV GL SE.

Page 116/136

Technalia research & innovation. (2018). Assessment of the acoustic benefit of the power supply to ships moored in ports (cold ironing): Summary report. Tecnalia research & innovation.

The Maritime Safety Committee. (2012, 11 30). MSC.337(91) Adoption of the Code on Noise Levels on Board Ships. Retrieved from IMO: http://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Documents/MSC%20- %20Maritime%20Safety/337(91).pdf

Thomas, G., & Sleeman, J. (2016). White Bay Cruise Terminal - Cruise Operations, Final Noise Impact Mitigation Strategy, Report Number 610.13361.00200. Sydney: Port Authority of New South Wales.

Umweltbundesamt. (2015). Handbook on the Implementation of EC Environmental Legislation. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/enlarg/pdf/handbook/handbook.htm

Umweltbundesamt. (2016, August). Forum Schall: Emissionsdatenkatalog 2016. Retrieved December 13, 2017, from http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/umweltthemen/laerm/forum_schall/down loads/Emissionsdatenkatalog_2016.pdf

Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. (2018). Noise monitoring. Retrieved 09 26, 2018, from Port of Vancouver: https://www.portvancouver.com/port-dashboard/noise-monitoring/

VDI. (2001). VDI 2081 Part 1, Noise generation and noise reduction in air conditioning systems.

VDI 2719. (1987). Schalldämmung von Fenstern und deren Zusatzeinrichtungen. VDI-Kommission Lärmminderung.

Page 117/136

15 Appendix

15.1 Time series of immission measurements

Figure 81: Time series of sound pressure levels of Mein Schiff 3 at the Cruise Terminal Steinwerder with different averaging time ranges(red = time of arrival, green = indefinite high noise level event).

Page 118/136

Page 119/136

15.2 Sound power levels of noise sources on board

Table 17: Noise sources on board AIDAsol (see Figure 37). Noise Source Sound Power Level [dB(A)] re 1 pW Exhaust gas 96 PS Outlet 22 91 PS Outlet 17 83 STB Outlet 11 80 STB Inlet 101 88 STB Inlet 102 87 Engine Room Ventilation 73 Emergency Generator Ventilation (side) 89 Emergency Generator Ventilation (aft) 85 PS Sum 98 STB Sum 97

Table 18: Noise sources on board Mein Schiff 3 (see Figure 38). Noise Source Sound Power Level [dB(A)] re 1 pW Exhaust gas 90 Galley Exhaust gas 81 PS Ventilation AC722 71 STB Ventilation AC211 73 PS Ventilation AC732 69 PS Ventilation AC731 69 PS Ventilation AC621 71 PS Ventilation AC622 70 PS Ventilation 5661.043 70 PS Ventilation 5661.041 73 STB ERV 1 74 STB ERV 2 81 STB Ventilation 5661.039 68 PS Ventilation AC311 73 STB Ventilation 5661.012 76 PS ERV 1 80 PS ERV 2 82 PS ERV 3 86 PS ERV 4 86 PS Ventilation S526.1 74 Laundry Exhaust gas 94 PS Sum 97 STB Sum 96

Page 120/136

Table 19: Noise sources on board AIDAprima. Noise Source Sound Power Level [dB(A)] re 1 pW Exhaust gas 90 PS Ventilation E105 96 STB Ventilation S404 85 STB Ventilation S501 74 STB Ventilation S308 76 STB Ventilation S306 82 PS Ventilation E504 94 Mooring Deck Aft Ventilation 89 STB Ventilation S508 91 PS Ventilation E403 81 STB ERV 84 PS ERV 85 PS Sum 99 STB Sum 96

Page 121/136

15.3 Third octave spectrum tables Table 20: Third octave spectrum table (sound pressure level re 20 µPa) of cargo handling equipment and delivery traffic (see Figure 23, Figure 25 and Figure 31). Frequency Mobile Crane Forklifts Reefer Load Lifting Idling Diesel driven Electric driven [dB(A)] [dB(A)] [dB(A)] [dB(A)] [dB(A)] 6.3 Hz -23 -23 -20 -14 -17 8.0 Hz -18 -15 -10 -13 -13 10 Hz -10 -11 -8 -11 -9 12.5 Hz -1 -2 -4 -4 -1 16 Hz 9 4 2 8 2 20 Hz 17 16 13 20 9 25 Hz 24 22 30 21 20 31.5 Hz 34 37 27 28 25 40 Hz 32 33 30 31 45 50 Hz 45 33 39 34 61 63 Hz 54 44 40 41 42 80 Hz 45 41 43 44 53 100 Hz 54 41 46 45 69 125 Hz 63 47 45 47 58 160 Hz 64 54 49 48 59 200 Hz 66 49 49 47 66 250 Hz 64 44 54 46 67 315 Hz 64 51 58 47 68 400 Hz 70 56 65 50 66 500 Hz 67 53 66 53 72 630 Hz 66 54 68 60 75 800 Hz 71 57 63 63 76 1.0 kHz 71 57 62 58 69 1.25 kHz 73 56 62 57 74 1.6 kHz 69 55 61 58 72 2.0 kHz 68 51 64 57 70 2.5 kHz 67 50 61 55 65 3.15 kHz 66 48 63 53 61 4.0 kHz 64 48 57 52 59 5.0 kHz 59 44 53 50 55 6.3 kHz 55 45 53 47 52 8.0 kHz 52 42 50 50 48 10.0 kHz 49 39 49 45 45 12.5 kHz 47 35 46 39 40 16.0 kHz 41 31 33 34 35 20.0 kHz 32 28 23 26 29

Page 122/136

Table 21: Third octave spectrum table (sound power level re 1 pW) of noise emission sources on board AIDAsol). Emergency Ventilation Generator Opening Frequency Exhaust Ventilation STB [dB(A)] [dB(A)] [dB(A)] 6.3 Hz 18 9 2 8.0 Hz 31 17 10 10 Hz 32 19 21 12.5 Hz 56 37 30 16 Hz 59 38 35 20 Hz 57 39 38 25 Hz 76 59 43 31.5 Hz 71 52 44 40 Hz 89 66 47 50 Hz 77 55 50 63 Hz 93 66 56 80 Hz 83 58 56 100 Hz 80 59 59 125 Hz 78 57 59 160 Hz 82 58 62 200 Hz 77 61 63 250 Hz 76 64 68 315 Hz 76 70 66 400 Hz 76 83 67 500 Hz 78 82 70 630 Hz 77 78 75 800 Hz 77 79 81 1.0 kHz 77 77 76 1.25 kHz 77 77 83 1.6 kHz 75 75 80 2.0 kHz 73 73 78 2.5 kHz 70 72 74 3.15 kHz 66 69 70 4.0 kHz 62 68 69 5.0 kHz 58 67 67 6.3 kHz 52 62 62 8.0 kHz 46 57 57 10.0 kHz 39 50 50 12.5 kHz 30 43 43 16.0 kHz 31 34 38 20.0 kHz 29 26 23

Page 123/136

Table 22: Third octave spectrum table (sound power level re 1 pW) of noise emission sources on board Mein Schiff 3 Ventilation Ventilation Frequency Exhaust Opening PS 1 Opening PS 2 [dB(A)] [dB(A)] [dB(A)] 6.3 Hz 7 -6 -2 8.0 Hz 12 2 11 10 Hz 19 12 14 12.5 Hz 39 23 21 16 Hz 58 40 27 20 Hz 50 33 24 25 Hz 66 41 31 31.5 Hz 58 45 32 40 Hz 75 53 39 50 Hz 64 50 45 63 Hz 64 53 52 80 Hz 66 54 54 100 Hz 66 67 53 125 Hz 65 58 53 160 Hz 68 55 53 200 Hz 72 59 59 250 Hz 74 60 60 315 Hz 79 62 59 400 Hz 78 63 61 500 Hz 80 65 61 630 Hz 83 64 62 800 Hz 84 66 62 1.0 kHz 80 64 64 1.25 kHz 79 61 65 1.6 kHz 78 59 65 2.0 kHz 74 57 62 2.5 kHz 70 54 58 3.15 kHz 67 51 58 4.0 kHz 62 46 55 5.0 kHz 56 44 52 6.3 kHz 51 36 48 8.0 kHz 43 31 42 10.0 kHz 37 26 35 12.5 kHz 33 21 27 16.0 kHz 33 16 20 20.0 kHz 31 11 13

Page 124/136

Table 23: Third octave spectrum table (sound power level re 1 pW) of noise emission sources on board AIDAprima. Ventilation Ventilation Frequency Exhaust Opening STB Opening PS [dB(A)] [dB(A)] [dB(A)] 6.3 Hz 6 7 25 8.0 Hz 23 14 31 10 Hz 23 24 38 12.5 Hz 29 32 44 16 Hz 37 42 51 20 Hz 45 38 55 25 Hz 62 44 59 31.5 Hz 55 60 63 40 Hz 65 52 66 50 Hz 74 62 68 63 Hz 72 59 70 80 Hz 75 60 71 100 Hz 73 69 74 125 Hz 79 62 75 160 Hz 78 67 75 200 Hz 77 70 75 250 Hz 77 73 76 315 Hz 77 74 76 400 Hz 78 75 76 500 Hz 81 77 78 630 Hz 80 81 83 800 Hz 80 82 82 1.0 kHz 77 81 86 1.25 kHz 74 81 86 1.6 kHz 72 81 85 2.0 kHz 69 80 84 2.5 kHz 68 79 84 3.15 kHz 67 80 83 4.0 kHz 62 80 79 5.0 kHz 55 79 74 6.3 kHz 50 77 69 8.0 kHz 43 75 66 10.0 kHz 38 70 60 12.5 kHz 27 64 56 16.0 kHz 29 57 51 20.0 kHz 27 67 55

Page 125/136

15.4 Third octave spectrum tables of sound maps Table 24: Third octave spectrum table (sound power level [dB(A)] re 1 pW) of noise sources on board AIDAsol, used for

modelling sound maps (green = 0 dB(A), red = 90 dB(A)).

[Hz]

Frequency Frequency

Exhaust 1 PS Group 2 PS Group 3 PS Group PS ERV 1 STB Group 2 STB Group 3 STB Group 4 STB Group 5 STB Group STB ERV LW 96 83 82 94 94 81 87 92 87 80 80 6,3 18 3 12 15 21 -2 4 6 8 1 20 8 31 14 21 19 29 10 16 14 15 8 28 10 32 17 26 25 32 16 22 24 25 18 32 12,5 56 26 35 32 46 28 34 35 30 23 43 16 59 29 40 39 46 36 42 39 37 30 44 20 57 35 48 41 50 37 43 43 47 40 48 25 76 41 51 49 68 40 46 48 49 42 66 31,5 71 47 53 53 61 40 46 48 50 43 59 40 89 51 57 58 74 48 54 51 53 46 69 50 77 55 61 59 64 48 54 55 57 50 62 63 93 64 64 59 75 52 58 61 62 55 72 80 83 56 66 62 68 57 63 60 61 54 66 100 80 58 67 67 68 57 63 63 63 56 65 125 78 60 66 69 66 60 66 65 62 55 63 160 82 64 68 71 67 61 67 67 63 56 65 200 77 64 67 72 69 61 67 69 65 58 65 250 76 65 71 72 71 63 69 75 67 60 66 315 76 62 71 73 76 64 70 71 74 67 67 400 76 65 76 75 88 63 69 71 77 70 68 500 78 66 79 79 87 65 71 74 73 66 69 630 77 76 80 81 84 68 74 78 75 68 68 800 77 69 76 85 85 70 76 86 77 70 70 1000 77 69 77 81 82 70 76 81 75 68 71 1250 77 75 78 83 83 71 77 87 77 70 71 1600 75 74 80 88 81 71 77 84 77 70 70 2000 73 75 79 85 80 70 76 81 77 70 70 2500 70 73 78 84 78 71 77 78 77 70 66 3150 66 70 76 80 75 71 77 74 75 68 59 4000 62 66 72 77 74 71 77 73 77 70 57 5000 58 62 68 73 72 69 75 71 73 66 55 6300 52 58 63 68 68 66 72 66 69 62 50 8000 46 53 59 64 63 64 70 61 65 58 42 10000 39 46 53 58 56 59 65 54 59 52 35 12500 30 33 46 49 49 53 59 47 52 45 28 16000 31 30 38 40 41 47 53 42 44 37 30 20000 29 25 31 32 34 36 42 28 34 27 28

Page 126/136

Table 25: Third octave spectrum table (sound power level [dB(A)] re 1 pW) of noise sources on board Mein Schiff 3,

used for modelling sound maps (green = 0 dB(A), red = 90 dB(A)).

[Hz]

Frequency Frequency

Exhaust Exhaust Galley Exhaust Laundry PS ERV 1 PS Group 2 PS Group 3 PS Group 4 PS Group STB ERV 1 STB Group 2 STB Group Stern Group LW 90 81 94 90 71 78 74 73 82 68 78 90 6,3 7 0 15 23 -4 8 -6 -2 13 -1 1 7 8 12 6 18 28 3 18 2 11 21 7 9 15 10 19 11 22 34 10 24 12 14 26 14 21 20 12,5 39 17 27 43 19 31 23 21 33 21 26 27 16 58 27 32 48 28 35 40 27 39 27 30 34 20 50 35 35 51 24 36 33 24 40 27 35 34 25 66 40 40 56 31 43 41 31 48 37 38 43 31,5 58 44 47 58 33 46 45 32 49 36 48 47 40 75 50 48 63 39 53 53 39 57 44 52 54 50 64 52 50 67 45 56 50 45 56 45 57 55 63 64 61 56 64 46 56 53 52 57 49 55 61 80 66 59 56 65 47 58 54 54 60 50 61 64 100 66 64 61 68 49 62 67 53 62 51 56 67 125 65 72 67 68 50 58 58 53 62 50 58 64 160 68 70 70 72 52 63 55 53 65 57 63 64 200 72 70 75 78 54 65 59 59 70 59 66 69 250 74 69 81 79 60 66 60 60 69 61 65 76 315 79 70 79 80 60 66 62 59 70 56 69 73 400 78 71 79 83 60 68 63 61 74 56 65 75 500 80 70 84 81 60 70 65 61 71 55 69 81 630 83 71 84 80 60 69 64 62 76 58 68 83 800 84 69 84 80 61 68 66 62 71 55 67 82 1000 80 68 85 78 61 68 64 64 69 55 67 82 1250 79 67 86 77 60 67 61 65 67 53 65 79 1600 78 66 86 74 60 65 59 65 65 52 64 78 2000 74 66 80 70 58 64 57 62 62 50 62 74 2500 70 63 80 67 56 62 54 58 59 47 59 75 3150 67 58 78 64 55 61 51 58 58 45 56 73 4000 62 55 73 59 53 58 46 55 51 42 53 67 5000 56 49 69 56 49 54 44 52 46 40 48 63 6300 51 47 63 52 44 48 36 48 44 39 43 59 8000 43 42 58 48 39 43 31 42 41 35 39 53 10000 37 37 55 45 34 37 26 35 37 30 33 48 12500 33 22 49 39 27 31 21 27 30 23 26 42 16000 33 19 37 33 18 25 16 20 24 17 20 34 20000 31 14 29 27 16 19 11 13 19 10 17 30

Page 127/136

Table 26: Third octave spectrum table (sound power level [dB(A)]) of noise sources on board AIDAprima, used for

modelling sound maps (green = 0 dB(A), red = 90 dB(A)).

[Hz]

Frequency Frequency

Exhaust PS ERV 1 PS Group 2 PS Group 3 PS Group STB ERV 1 STB Group 2 STB Group 3 STB Group Stern Group LW 90 85 94 81 96 84 91 85 83 89 6,3 6 13 25 18 32 14 7 0 19 8 8 23 20 31 23 37 22 14 11 23 10 10 23 22 38 28 43 28 24 16 28 16 12,5 29 28 44 33 48 26 32 18 33 30 16 37 35 51 37 53 35 42 26 38 37 20 45 41 55 41 59 41 38 31 42 38 25 62 46 59 44 63 48 44 34 45 41 31,5 55 48 63 47 65 52 60 42 47 42 40 65 58 66 48 67 56 52 45 48 49 50 74 62 68 51 70 67 62 51 52 49 63 72 66 70 54 71 63 59 45 52 54 80 75 68 71 56 72 68 60 50 54 57 100 73 65 74 59 73 68 69 58 56 64 125 79 72 75 60 77 72 62 59 60 67 160 78 72 75 62 76 71 67 61 59 70 200 77 76 75 61 89 73 70 63 59 70 250 77 70 76 63 84 72 73 65 60 75 315 77 73 76 65 78 71 74 67 65 75 400 78 73 76 66 80 73 75 70 64 77 500 81 75 78 67 82 75 77 72 65 79 630 80 75 83 69 85 74 81 75 71 80 800 80 74 82 70 84 73 82 75 70 81 1000 77 74 86 71 86 72 81 75 74 81 1250 74 73 86 75 86 71 81 75 74 79 1600 72 73 85 71 86 70 81 75 74 77 2000 69 73 84 70 84 69 80 74 74 76 2500 68 71 84 70 83 69 79 74 73 74 3150 67 66 83 66 82 70 80 74 70 72 4000 62 63 79 61 79 63 80 74 68 71 5000 55 59 74 58 75 59 79 72 67 69 6300 50 56 69 53 71 56 77 70 64 67 8000 43 53 66 48 68 52 75 67 61 65 10000 38 49 60 42 64 46 70 63 57 60 12500 27 42 56 38 60 39 64 56 50 54 16000 29 37 51 42 54 36 57 51 42 47 20000 27 29 55 60 47 50 67 65 35 37

Page 128/136

15.5 Sound maps

15.5.1 AIDAsol in Altona, only ship, from measurements on 20.08.2017

Page 129/136

15.5.2 AIDAsol in Altona (Diesel), all sources, from measurements on 20.08.2017

Page 130/136

15.5.3 AIDAsol in Altona (OPS), all sources, from measurements on 23.04.2018

Page 131/136

15.5.4 Mein Schiff 3 in Steinwerder, only ship, from measurements on 18.09.2017

Page 132/136

15.5.5 Mein Schiff 3 in Steinwerder, all sources, from measurements on 18.09.2017

Page 133/136

15.5.6 AIDAprima in Steinwerder, only ship, from measurements on 23.09.2017

Page 134/136

15.5.7 AIDAprima in Steinwerder, all sources, from measurements on 23.09.2017

Page 135/136

15.5.8 AIDAprima in Steinwerder, all sources, from measurements on 23.09.2017 Electric forklifts

Page 136/136