Acoustics 2016 12_06_off_peak_workshop_final

Off-Peak city distribution -- Acoustic study overview --

Romain Rumpler, Peter Göransson, Ragnar Glav, KTH

2016-12-06, Project final workshop - KTH ITRL

1

Objectives of the acoustics in Off-Peak● Implement a cost-effective methodology to evaluate the impact of

night-time deliveries:

➢ Inner-city noise emissions by delivery vehicles

➢ Noise at delivery locations due to goods handling upon delivery

● Analyse the noise measurement data:

➢ Post-processing and formatting of the relevant information

➢ Derivation of noise level indicators reflecting the level of disturbance

➢ Support the analysis with numerical models

● Identify critical sources of noise and the associated

requirements/enablers

● Discuss solutions for a sustainable, silent, urban distribution

2

Outline

I. Methodology: Truck-mounted monitoring equipment

II. Analysis during driving conditions: Approach and inner-city

III. Analysis on-site during deliveries

IV. Main conclusions, questions raised & discussion

3

Approach for the Off-Peak project

4

Approach for the Off-Peak project

I. Approach II. City driving

III. Delivery:Loading/Handling

1. (Front): Source2. (Back): Background

1. (Front): Source2. (Back): Background

1. (Front): Background2. (Back): Source

Embedded system

● Heatmaps (averaged)

● Source level tracking (real-time in principle)

On-site measurements

● Video complementary monitoring

● Sound complementary recordings

● Extensive data analysis

Units

5

Supporting measurements @ Scania

6

Levels in dB, A-weighted

City noise: approaching & inner city

Approach ApproachHybrid Hybrid Hybrid

Delivery (Svea) Delivery (Södra)

7

City noise: Scania truck PIEK system

Driving

Warehouse (M&S)

8

City noise: in principle live monitoring

9

City noise: in principle live monitoring

10

From the Sonitus units to facade levels

11

City noise: approaching & inner city

● Monitoring of the noise source & level variations

● Implementation of a noise mapping tool for qualitative assessment (Google Maps)

● Methodology supported by lab measurements and simulations, possibility to evaluate facade levels

● Automatic detection of unusual levels enabled (e.g. technical failure?)

● Possibility of averaging and postprocessing over several days/weeks/months -> Statistical evaluation

12

Night deliveries on-site measurements

● 1. On the importance of background noise levels

● 2. A comparison between Sveavägen and Vanadisplan

● 3. Influential factors / Critical enablers (operator training, equipment, …)

13

Sveavägen: Delivery noise “masked”

14

Sveavägen: Delivery disturbance

15

Svea vs. Vanadis: Background noise

Lidl - Vanadisplan

Lidl - Sveavägen

16

Svea vs. Vanadis: Delivery noise impact

Vanadisplan Sveavägen

17

Month analysis: Repeated patterns?

Sveavägen noise impact Vanadisplan noise impact

?

18

Some conclusions and questions raised

● A multi-objective methodology to evaluate the impact of night-time

deliveries implemented:

➢ Inner-city noise emissions by delivery vehicles

➢ Noise at delivery locations due to goods handling upon delivery

● Main observations:

➢ A paradox: night-time deliveries OK for noisy areas

➢ Cause of variations of noise level: obviously more than only location

or technology involved

➢ Night-time deliveries possible in quiet neighbourhood but: training,

enabling technology, … and monitoring?

● Acceptable criteria & levels for night time deliveries?

● Necessary conditions for full scale OffPeak implementation?

19

Supplementary slides

1. Sonitus system capabilities / limitations

2. 2D-simulations supporting the back&front approach for delivery noise

3. Dominating frequencies analysis: case study @ Vanadisplan

4. Details weeks 11 & 19 and April @ Sveavägen

5. Full month noise levels @ Sveavägen

6. Noise advisor preliminary analysis @ Svea

20

Sonitus: capabilities and limitations• Off-the-shelf solution (time constraints)

• Mobile unit powered by 12-24V el. source

• Down to minute-averaged noise level measurement

• Levels in dB(A) & dB(C), Fast and Slow time constants (Time weightings):

➢ Equivalent noise level Leq & Max noise level Lmax

➢ Statistical noise levels L10, …, L90

• WiFi capability for on-site data downloading and system updating

• GSM capability for batch data streaming

• Online access to data for post-processing & analysis

• Main limitations:

➢ Minute-averaged levels available as lowest averaging time

➢ No spectrogram available (frequency content)

➢ Need for calibration of levels in controlled environment

21

2D simulations, 2-unit approach“Horizontal” analysis “Vertical” analysis

22

Source

Back unit Front unit

● Frequency range: [50,400] Hz, 1 Hz increments● Source 7 m behind the “truck”● Sound Pressure Level (SPL) collected at back&front unit

locations● Equivalent SPL for the frequency range calculated for

back&front (dB and A-weighted dB)

Back-Front SPL diff: 9.57 dB (16.23 dBA)

SPL @ 350 Hz

● Frequency range: [50,400] Hz, 1 Hz increments● Source 4 m behind the “truck”● Sound Pressure Level (SPL) collected at back&front unit

locations● Equivalent SPL for the frequency range calculated for

back&front (dB and A-weighted dB)

Back-Front SPL diff: 4.32 dB (9 dBA)

SourceBack unit Front unit

Frequency content: case study @ Vanadis

WEEK 19, day 3 WEEK 19, day 1

Is any of these delivery days potentially more disturbing? Noise levels say: equally disturbing...

23

C- and A- weighting: relation to frequency?

A- and C-weighted levels available (C-A) levels relation to frequency

1.dBC-dBA

level

2.frequency

24


WEEK 19, day 3 WEEK 19, day 1

Day 3: bigger frequency gap between back and front unit...

25


Day 3: bigger frequency gap between back and front unit, higher annoyance of the delivery noise

WEEK 19, day 3

WEEK 19, day 1

Front (Background) Back (delivery)

26

Sveavägen: Delivery noise weeks 11&19

WEEK 11 WEEK 19

27

Sveavägen: Month analysis (April, sorted)

Front & Back Back vs Front difference

28

Sonitus systems: Sveavägen - day 1

29


30


31

32



33


34

Impact of noise advisor: Sveavägen

Delivery noise impact, w/ & w/o advisor

35

Delivery noise reduction, w/ & w/o advisor

Impact of noise advisor: Sveavägen

Reference unit levels: amplification!

36

Back unit levels: on averaged unchanged!

Delivery noise impact reduction may be primarily due to increased bkgd noise!

Scania & Volvo Trucks

Delivery

Highway City

CityCity Highway

Delivery

City: <85-95 dB

Hwy: 100-105 dB

City: 85-95 dB

Hwy: 90-95 dB

37

30km E4

2. Vanadisplan •24.00•Cargo space•Unassisted

3. Södra station •02.00•Loading dock•Unassisted

1. Sveavägen •21.30•Sidewalk •Assisted

Volvo FE-hybrid Scania Biogas

Radisson Hotel+Several city-restants

•22-06•Underground & street•Assisted

Off-Peak project: routes & delivery points

38

Engineering

Acoustics 2016 12_06_off_peak_workshop_final