STUDY OF THE NOISE POLLUTION AT CONTAINER TERMINALS AND THE SURROUNDINGS
-
Upload
giuseppe-marsico -
Category
Documents
-
view
26 -
download
0
description
Transcript of STUDY OF THE NOISE POLLUTION AT CONTAINER TERMINALS AND THE SURROUNDINGS
STUDY OF THE NOISE POLLUTION AT CONTAINER TERMINALS
AND THE SURROUNDINGS
FINAL REPORT
METRANS PROJECT 09-09
JULY 2011
I-Hung Khoo, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Electrical Engineering
and
Tang-Hung Nguyen, Ph.D., P.E
Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering & Construction Engineering Management
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH
LONG BEACH, CA 90840
ii
Disclaimer
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the
accuracy of the data and information presented herein. This document is disseminated
under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation
Centers Program, and the California Department of Transportation, and the Center for
International Trade and Transportation (CITT), California State University, Long Beach
(CSULB) in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government, the California
Department of Transportation, and CSULB assume no liability for the contents or use
thereof. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State
of California, CSULB, or the Department of Transportation. This report does not
constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
iii
Abstract
Noise emissions from various transportation modes including seaports have become a
major concern to environmental and governmental agencies in recent years due to the
impact they have on the community. The Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex is the
nation’s largest ocean freight hub and its busiest container port complex. As the container
sector has the highest growth potential, the levels of noise generated by activities at the
container terminals may affect the port personnel as well as the residential neighbors. In
this research effort, the noise distribution at the port of Long Beach was evaluated.
Specifically, the following tasks were accomplished:
Determine, using noise mapping, the level of noise generated by the cargo
handling and transport activities at the container terminals. A noise model of the
port and its surroundings was created, and validated with field measurements.
Assess whether the noise level in any area exceeds the relevant noise regulation or
guideline, and to identify the key noise source in the area.
Determine the noise and activity variations during the period of study.
The developed noise model will be a very valuable tool for the city and port authorities in
making planning decisions as it allows the prediction of the noise impact of future
development projects on the port and the surroundings.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover page ........................................................................................................................... i
Disclaimer .......................................................................................................................... ii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. iii
Table of contents ............................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures .....................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... vii
Disclosure ....................................................................................................................... viii
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... viii
1.0 Background and statement of the problem ....................................................................1
1.1 Impact of noise ...................................................................................................1
1.2 Standard noise levels..........................................................................................2
1.2.1 Definitions of Acoustical Terms .........................................................2
1.2.2 Noise regulations ................................................................................4
1.3 Measurement of noise levels ..............................................................................6
1.4 Noise mapping ...................................................................................................7
1.5 Overview of the Port of Long Beach .................................................................8
1.6 Transportation and industrial noise at ports .....................................................10
1.7 Noise mapping of the port................................................................................11
2.0 Research methodology .................................................................................................13
2.1 Identifying the locations for collection of noise levels ....................................13
2.2 Collecting data .................................................................................................14
2.2.1 Noise data..........................................................................................14
2.2.2 The operational information of the Port ............................................16
2.2.3 The spatial and geographical information for the Port ....................17
2.3 Creating a 3D computer model of the Port of Long Beach .............................20
2.4 Using a computer software to create a noise map ............................................22
2.5 Generating a noise map for the Port of Long Beach ........................................22
3.0 Research results ...........................................................................................................29
3.1 Noise distributions ...........................................................................................29
3.1.1 Hourly noise and activity distribution...............................................29
3.1.2 Daily noise and activity distribution .................................................33
3.1.3 Monthly noise and activity distribution ............................................35
3.1.4 Overall noise and activity distribution ..............................................38
3.2 Noise maps for the Port of Long Beach and validation of results ...................42
3.3 Evaluation of noise impact using noise maps ..................................................44
4.0. Research findings and discussions ..............................................................................48
4.1 Key findings .....................................................................................................48
4.2 Data analysis ....................................................................................................49
4.3 Observations ....................................................................................................50
4.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................51
5.0 Conclusions and Future Research ................................................................................53
Appendix: Data worksheet .................................................................................................55
References ..........................................................................................................................56
v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Port of Long Beach Terminals
Figure 2. Noise measurement locations
Figure 3. Sound meter set up in the field
Figure 4. Portable weather meter
Figure 5. Topographic map of the Port
Figure 6. Digital elevation model of the Port with Pier J extension added
Figure 7. High resolution orthoimagery of the Port
Figure 8. Details of ship at Pier J from the high resolution orthoimager
Figure 9. Digital spatial model of the Port
Figure 10. Two-dimension digital spatial model of the Port with elevation contour
Figure 11. Three-dimension digital spatial model for Pier F
Figure 12. Sound power and spectrum of the various noise sources
Figure 13. Map of ship and cargo handling locations.
Figure 14. Hourly noise distribution for each location and the average
Figure 15. Hourly truck activity for each location and the average
Figure 16. Hourly rail activity for each location
Figure 17. Hourly crane activity for each location
Figure 18. Hourly forklift activity for each location
Figure 19. Hourly yard tractor activity for each location
Figure 20. Daily noise level for each location and the average
Figure 21. Daily truck activity for each location and the average
Figure 22. Daily rail activity for each location
Figure 23. Daily crane activity for each location
Figure 24. Daily forklift activity for each location
Figure 25. Daily yard tractor activity for each location
Figure 26. Monthly noise level for each location and the average
Figure 27. Monthly truck activity for each location and the average
Figure 28. Monthly rail activity for each location
Figure 29. Monthly crane activity for each location
Figure 30. Monthly forklift activity for each location
Figure 31. Monthly yard tractor activity for each location
Figure 32. Overall average noise level for each location
Figure 33. Overall average truck activity for each location
Figure 34. Overall rail activity for each location
Figure 35. Overall average crane activity for each location
Figure 36. Overall average forklift activity for each location
Figure 37. Overall average yard tractor activity for each location
Figure 38. Overall noise map for day period (6am-10pm)
Figure 39. Overall noise map for night period (10pm-6am)
Figure 40. Noise map for day period (6am-10pm) with only truck traffic
Figure 41. Noise map for night period (10pm-6am) with only truck traffic
Figure 42. Noise map for day period (10pm-6am) with only ships and cargo handling
activities
vi
Figure 43. Noise map for night period (10pm-6am) with only ships and cargo handling
activities
Figure 44. Noise map with only train activities
vii
List of Tables
Table 1. Typical Noise Levels in the Environment (US EPA, 1974)
Table 2. Federal (FHWA) Noise Abatement Criteria
Table 3. Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines
Table 4. List of Terminals at the Port of Long Beach
Table 5. Five-year cargo statistics at the Port of Long Beach
Table 6. Number of trucks by time period for each pier
Table 7. Average number of trains per day for each pier
Table 8. Average number of container ships active per hour at each pier
Table 9. Average number of dockside cranes active per hour for each pier
Table 10. Number of cargo handling equipment active per hour by pier and time period
Table 11. Comparison of noise map values with actual field measurements
Table 12. Key findings
viii
Disclosure
Project was funded in entirety under this contract to California Department of
Transportation.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the port authorities of the Port of Long Beach for the
permission to conduct field noise measurements necessary for this project. Special thanks
to Mr. Rick Cameron, Director of Environmental Planning, Port of Long Beach, Mr. Don
Snyder, Director of Trade Relations, Port of Long Beach, and Mr. Mitch Poryazov,
Assistant Terminal Services Manager, Port of Long Beach, for their endorsement and
their invaluable assistance in this research project. Finally, the authors wish to
acknowledge the efforts of Kiran Rajanna, Graduate Research Assistant, and
Undergraduate Research Assistants (Dane Christensen, Eduardo Delgado, Benjamin
Solinsky) for their assistance to this research project.
1
1.0 Background and statement of the problem:
Noise emissions from various transportation modes including seaports have become a
major concern to environmental and governmental agencies in recent years due to the
impact they have on the community. The Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex is the
nation’s largest ocean freight hub and its busiest container port complex. As the container
sector has the highest growth potential, the levels of noise generated by the ships, straddle
carriers, cranes, forklifts, trucks and trains may present a problem. Noise emitted from
container terminals, at high levels and for long periods, may affect the performance of the
different parties involved in the cargo handling activities at the container terminals as
well as the life of the residential neighbors. The European Union leads the rest of the
world in recognizing the negative impact of environmental noise and issuing legislature
to assess and reduce the noise. As a result of EU directive 2002/49/EC, noise mapping
has been done at major European cities such as Paris and Brussels and major seaports
such as Hamburg and Copenhagen. The United States lags behind the European countries
in terms of noise mapping. Currently community noise mapping is not mandated by the
U.S. federal or state governments and noise studies in the U.S. are limited to highway,
railway, and airport noise.
The purpose of this study is to predict and model the noise of container terminals at the
port of Long Beach with the following specific objectives:
To determine, using noise mapping, the level of noise generated by the cargo
handling and transport activities at the container terminals. A noise model of the
port and its surroundings will be created, and validated with field measurements.
To assess whether the noise level in any area exceeds the relevant noise regulation
or guideline, and to identify the key noise source in the area.
To determine, through field measurements, the noise and activity variations
during the period of study.
The developed noise model will be a very valuable tool for the city and port authorities in
making planning decisions as it allows the prediction of the noise impact of future
development projects on the port and the surroundings.
This section will discuss the following: Impact of noise; Noise level standards;
Measurement of noise levels; Noise mapping; Overview of the Port of Long Beach;
Transportation and industrial noise at the Port; and Noise mapping of the port.
1.1 Impact of Noise
Noise is a prevalent pollutant that affects all aspects of life around the globe. Noise can
cause damage to health, interrupt activities, and disrupt normal cognitive process.
Prolonged exposure to noise in excess of 85dBA is known to cause hearing loss. The
stress due to noise can also lead to regulatory diseases. Study has found an increase in
cardiovascular risk with increasing noise levels. The result of a large scale survey also
2
confirms a causal chain between strong noise annoyance and increased morbidity. Adults
who indicated chronically severe annoyance by neighborhood noise were found to have
an increased risk for respiratory disease, as well as depression and migraine. A further
effect of noise is sleep disturbances. Frequent or long awakenings impede the necessary
recovery and rejuvenating effects of sleep, leading to decreased performance capacity,
drowsiness and tiredness during the day. This in the long run can have a detrimental
effect on health.
Noise can also have a negative impact at the workplace. There are numerous reports of
hearing loss produced by exposure to high industrial noise levels. Industrial noise does
more harm than just damaging hearing. Noise in the workplace that is not enough to
damage hearing may still be high enough to interfere with communication and the
hearing of warning signals. In addition, it has been shown that noise causes a greater
frequency of errors in performing everyday tasks and can lead to more workplace
accidents. A study has found that the number of accidents per worker was highest for
young workers in noisy jobs and for those who had the least experience at such jobs.
Noise can also affect the productivity of workers. The effects of noise on performance
efficiency depend on the type of noise and the nature of the task being performed. For
intermittent noise, studies have shown that it impairs the speed of processing new
information and the elucidation of a response. The effect however is only confined to a
short period after the onset of the noise. For loud continuous noise, the effect is most
detrimental for tasks involving monitoring and the use of caution. For moderate intensity
noise, the effect is less serious but it can reinforce the use of a dominant response to
stimuli and make the worker less flexible and adaptive to change.
The problem of noise extends beyond the workplace. During the past few decades,
mobility of people and goods has increased and with it the amount of traffic and the
environment noise levels. City noise levels in all parts of the world are rising, particularly
in the new mega cities. Sound level studies made in cities such as Bangkok and Calcutta
have all shown levels well in excess of what would be considered harmful in the
workplace. Such sound levels interfere with communication and affect the well being of
people exposed to it.
1.2 Standard noise levels
Several organizations have made tremendous efforts to develop noise regulations in
which guidelines about standard noise levels were recommended. Before the noise
regulations are discussed, it would be helpful to provide definitions of basic acoustical
terms and concepts.
1.2.1 Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Decibels (dB): A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to
the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure.
The reference pressure for air is 20 micro Pascals
3
Sound pressure levels: Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed
in micro Pascals (or micro Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure
resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound
pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio
between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e.g., 20 micro
Pascals in air). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound
level meter
Frequency (Hz): The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and
below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 hertz (Hz) and 20,000
Hz. Infrasonic sounds are below 20 Hz, and ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.
Ambient Noise Level: The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal
or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA): The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a
sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-
emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner
similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective
reactions to noise.
Equivalent Noise Level (Leq): The average A-weighted noise level during the
measurement period. The hourly Leq used for this report is denoted as dBA Leq(h).
Sound Level vs Distance
Sound pressure level decreases at a rate of 6dB per doubling of the distance away from
the point source. The atmosphere will also play a role in the attenuation as the distance
increases.
Adding Sound Levels
Combination of sounds from many sources often contribute to the observed total sound
level which can be calculated as follows: 1 2
10 10 1010 log 10 10 ..... 10ndBdB dB
totaldB
where dBtotal is the combined sound level, dB1 is the sound level from the first source,
dB2 is the sound level of the second source, and so on.
Several methods of characterizing sound exist. The most common is the A-weighted
sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which
the human ear is most sensitive. Studies have shown that the A-weighted level is closely
correlated with annoyance. Other frequency weighting networks, such as C weighting or
dBC, have been devised to describe noise levels for specific types of noise (e.g.,
explosives). Table 1 shows typical A-weighted noise levels that occur in human
environments.
4
Table 1. Typical Noise Levels in the Environment (US EPA, 1974)
1.2.2 Noise regulations
In this section, several noise regulations are presented including WHO’s Noise
Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Standards, and City of Los
Angeles Municipal Code. Also, human response to noise is discussed.
WHO’s Noise Guidelines: In 1999, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued
suggested community noise guidelines. It considered various environments, noise levels,
and noise impacts. In outdoor living areas (backyards, for example), a noise level of 50-
55 dBA averaged over the daytime is considered moderately to seriously annoying; levels
above 45 dBA averaged over nighttime hours can disturb sleep; and indoor noise levels
above 35 dBA impact communication in a school classroom.
5
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Standards: These traffic noise
standards are provided as guidance in the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol
(Caltrans, 1998). The FHWA traffic noise standards are not directly applicable to this
project because this is not a Type 1 federally funded highway improvement project. The
FHWA regulations identify Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), according which noise
abatement must be considered for a Type 1 project when the project results in a
substantial noise increase or when the predicted noise levels approach or exceed the noise
abatement criterion for a particular land use. Table 2 presents the noise abatement
criteria, established by FHWA, for various land uses (called activity categories). From
these noise abatement criteria, Caltrans has further defined noise levels “approaching” the
noise abatement criterion to be 1 dBA below the NAC (e.g., 66 dBA is considered to
approach the NAC for Category B activity areas).
Table 2. Federal (FHWA) Noise Abatement Criteria
City of Los Angeles Municipal Code: The City of Los Angeles Municipal Code sets
forth noise regulations as shown in Section 41.40 of the Code. Regarding construction
noise, Section 112.05 of the Code establishes maximum noise levels for powered
equipment or powered hand tools. This section discussed noise limits at a distance of 50
feet: (a) 75 dBA for construction, industrial and agricultural machinery including crawler
tractors, dozers, rotary drills and augers, loaders, power shovels, cranes, derricks, motor
graders, paving machines, off-highway trucks, ditchers, trenchers, compactors, scrapers,
wagons, pavement breakers, depressors, and pneumatic or other powered equipment; (b)
75 dBA for powered equipment of 20 horsepower or less intended for infrequent use in
residential areas including chain saws, log chippers, and powered hand tools; and (c) 65
dBA for powered equipment intended for repetitive use in residential areas including
lawn mowers, backpack mowers, small lawn and garden tools, and riding tractors. Table
3 presents the land use noise compatibility guidelines.
6
Table 3. Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines
Human Response to Noise: The human ear does not judge sound in absolute terms, but
instead senses the intensity of how many times greater one sound is to another. A decibel
is the basic unit of sound level; it denotes a ratio of intensity to a reference sound. Most
sounds that humans are capable of hearing have a decibel (dB) range of 0 to 140. A
whisper is about 30 dB, conversational speech 60 dB, and 130 dB is the threshold of
physical pain. Changes of 3 dBA in the normal environment are widely accepted and are
considered barely noticeable to most people. A change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible,
and an increase of 10 dBA is perceived as being twice as loud.
1.3 Measurements of noise levels
Since noise levels can vary significantly over a short period, they should be described as
their average character or the statistical behavior of their variations. Usually,
environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same
acoustical energy as the average of all the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent
sound/noise descriptor is called Leq.
A common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of
arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level
meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within
approximately plus or minus 1 dBA.
7
1.4 Noise mapping
Noise mapping is the geographic presentation of data related to outdoor sound levels and
sound exposure with associated information on impact to the affected population. It is a
method of presenting complex noise information in a clear and simple way either on a
physical map or in a database. It takes into account the contribution of all noise sources
as well as the effects of obstacles and terrain. The generated noise map can be used to
study the noise impact, to identify noise hot spots, to develop noise reduction measures,
and to monitor trends in the environmental noise.
The production of noise maps can be broadly divided into the following steps:
Collect data for road and rail traffic; noise data for industry.
Create digital models of the buildings, screens, and topography.
Calculate the noise levels using noise propagation models to create the noise
contours.
Due to the development in noise modeling and the processing power of the latest
computer hardware, it is now possible to calculate noise maps for large urban areas using
the available data on buildings, ground profile, road and rail traffic, and other industrial
sources. At least two European noise modeling packages, CadnaA and SoundPLAN, are
now capable of handling different noise sources including road, rail traffic and industrial
equipment. In addition, they offer significant advantages in their fast processing speed
over a virtually unlimited number of receivers, multiprocessor support, built-in CAD
functionality, 3-D viewing, building façade noise predictions, professional graphics and
GIS/CAD-compatible input and output.
Noise mapping has already been done at major European cities such as Paris and Brussels
and major seaports such as Hamburg and Copenhagen. The United States lags behind the
European countries in terms of noise mapping. In effect, the European Union directive
2002/49/EC makes noise mapping mandatory for cities with at least 250,000 inhabitants,
while noise mapping is currently not mandated by the U.S. federal or state governments.
Noise studies in the U.S. are limited to highway, railway, or airport noise. The noise
prediction models used in these studies are limited in scope and do not include noise from
sources other than the infrastructure under study. For example, the Traffic Noise Model
(TNM) provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) can only model traffic
noise and not rail or industrial noise. It was reported that the TNM presents several
drawbacks to easy, realistic noise mapping.
With the understanding from the above general discussion on noise impact, noise
standards, noise measurements, and noise mapping, we now consider the noise study on
the port.
8
1.5 Overview of the Port of Long Beach
The Port of Long Beach was founded in 1911 and has now become one of the world's
busiest seaports, a leading gateway for trade between the United States and Asia. The
Port comprises 3,200 acres of land, 10 piers, and 80 berths with 71 post-panamax gantry
cranes. The terminals at the Port of Long Beach (see Figure 1) can be classified into the
following categories: container, dry bulk, break bulk, liquid bulk, auto and passenger,
which handle a variety of cargo. Among these terminals, the container terminals are
selected as the target of this study due to the fact that 82% of all cargo handling
equipment operated at the Port is used at container terminals. Table 4 provides the list of
the terminals at the Port by cargo type inventoried:
Figure 1. Port of Long Beach Terminals
The Port of Long Beach is recognized internationally as one of the world’s best seaports
and locally as a partner dedicated to helping the community thrive. It supports millions
of jobs nationally and provides consumers and businesses with billions of dollars in
goods each year.
9
In 2009, the Port of Long Beach handled more than five million containers and more than
70 million metric tons of cargo valued at more than $120 millions. On average, it handled
the equivalent of 13,900 twenty-foot containers (TEUs) each day.
Table 4. List of Terminals at the Port of Long Beach
Terminal Cargo Type/Location Container Terminals California United Terminals
International Transportation Service
Long Beach Container Terminal Pacific Container Terminal
SSA Marine – Pier A
SSA Marine – Pier C
Total Terminals International
Pacific Container Terminals
Break-Bulk Terminals
California United Terminals - Break-bulk
Cooper/T. Smith (included with SSA Marine Bulk)
SSA Marine Bulk – Crescent Terminals
Pacific Coast Recycling
Fremont Forest Group
Weyerhaeuser
Connolly-Pacific
Dry Bulk Terminals:
Koch Carbon
G -P Gypsum
Metropolitan Stevedore
Morton Salt
Cemex
Mitsubishi Cement
National Gypsum
Liquid Terminals
BP/ Arco
Chemoil
Baker Commodities
Petro Diamond
Tesoro
Vopak
Auto Terminal
Toyota
Passenger Terminal
Carnival Cruise Terminal
In a report of the Port of Long Beach, a 5-year comparison has been made into the growth
of container sector, as shown in Table 5. It is noticed that the total number of the
equivalent twenty-foot containers (TEUs) has decreased at about 5.1% in the year of
2009 compared to a peak of 7.3 millions in 2007. This change is due primarily to global
economic conditions that negatively impacted trade volume around the world.
10
Table 5. Five-year cargo statistics at the Port of Long Beach
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Volume in
Metric
Tons
80.7 million 85 million 87 million 80 million 70 million
Value in
U.S Dollars
$105.4 billion $140 billion N/A N/A N/A
Containers
in TEUs
6,709,818 7,290,365 7,312,465 6,487,816 5,067,597
The Port of Long Beach pioneered innovative environment protection programs that were
designed to guide efforts to minimize or eliminate negative environmental impacts.
Examples of such programs are the Green Flag vessel speed reduction air quality
program, Green Leases with environmental covenants and the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean
Air Action Plan. While the Port is dedicated to improving air quality, there have not been
any programs or plans to protect the environment from noise pollution due to the
operational activities at the port.
1.6 Transportation and industrial noise at ports
The areas around ports are usually subject to high traffic numbers due to the port and
nearby industrial activities and as a result, nearby residential locations experience
elevated ambient noise levels. Port noise impacts are expected to be significant and noise
assessment will undoubtedly be required.
Noise levels generated during the container terminal operations at ports vary depending
on the type of equipment and the nature of the work being performed. In general, there
are two major aspects of the noise arising from container terminal operations at ports:
(i) Specific penetrating noise sources: these include warning sirens on cranes and
straddle carriers, ship's horns sounded on departure, and train crossing warning bells. The
noise levels resulting from these sources usually cause the greatest concern to residents,
although they do not have much effect on measured noise levels due to their short
duration and intermittent operation.
(ii) General plant noise sources: the operation of container terminals involves the
following main sources of general plant noise: gantry container cranes, ship generators,
road trucks, trains, forklift, yard tractor. Several selected noise sources are discussed
below.
Gantry Container Cranes: Every container crane is equipped with a large
electric motor located at high level which is used to lift the container up and
down. The electric motor usually generates a high sound power level
(approximately 110 to 115 dBA for typical operation) and is the main noise
11
source involved with the container crane. Penetrating noise sources associated
with the cranes are the movement warning devices and the impact of containers
on other surfaces.
Ship Generators: These are large diesel generators that are used to produce the
power required for onboard activities when ships are at berth. The noise levels
resulting from these ship generators vary significantly from ship to ship and have
been found to be in the range of 100 to 115 dBA (Leq). As a result, the Port of
Long Beach is moving aggressively to outfit its container terminals with shore
power. Shore power allows docked ships to plug into land based electric utility
instead of burning diesel fuel to run their auxiliary engines, a source of pollution.
By 2014, at least one berth at every container terminal will have shore power. By
2020, all container berths will have shore power.
Trucks and Trains: These are the two main methods of moving containers away
and into the container terminal. A number of 'truck exchange areas' are located
around the terminal for trucks to park in and load/unload their containers. The
unloading of trains used to involve shunting onsite.
1.7 Noise mapping of the Port
The general noise mapping approach previously discussed can be used for creating the
noise map for the port. Port noise can be predicted accurately provided the necessary
inputs are known. The three major inputs are (i) source noise levels; (ii) ground
topography; and (iii) operational activities.
(i) Source noise levels: The principal noise sources at the port are ships, cranes,
fork lifts, trucks/trains, and container handling equipment. Each of these
sources can be measured under normal working conditions to establish the
sound power level, or alternatively the sound characteristics can be obtained
from the manufacturers. From this the sound level at different distances can be
calculated.
(ii) Ground topography: The ground topography (ground contours and buildings)
must be accurately provided since sound propagation is strongly affected by
the ground contours and buildings between sources and receivers. Usually
ground contours at 10-meter intervals should be obtained and would be
sufficiently precise.
(iii) Operational activities: The information about operational activities at the port
is needed to calculate the overall noise and to develop the port noise
boundaries. These include the ships, cranes, forklifts, trucks, trains, and
container handling equipment activities. Usually, the operational data must be
predicted for future uses of the port. For example, the number of ships that
might visit is first predicted, then the volume of cargo (e.g. the number of
containers that would be handled) can be estimated, and finally the number of
straddle carriers and forklifts that would be in operation, and the number of
trucks and trains required to move that volume of cargo to and from the port
12
can be determined. Unless a reasonable estimate for the operational activities
is obtained, the overall calculated noise will be inaccurate.
Once all the input data is collected, it is entered into a noise modeling software (e.g.,
CadnaA, SoundPLAN). This then predicts the noise over the area of interest and
calculates the noise contours. Basically, the noise modeling software calculates the
average noise from each source to a grid of receiver points, typically spaced 10 meters
apart, for different periods of the day, taking into account the fact that many of the
sources move over a wide area.
The generated noise map can be used to study the noise impact, to identify noise hot
spots, to develop noise reduction measures, and to monitor trends in the environmental
noise. For example, from the noise map of a port, the port authorities will be able to
identify the noise levels for areas where mitigation is needed, and where new and future
development will have the greatest negative impact.
13
2.0 Research methodology
The research methodology to study the noise impacts resulting from operation of the Port
of Long Beach container terminals includes the following activities: Identifying the
locations for collection of noise levels; Collecting data; Creating a 3D computer model of
the Port of Long Beach; Using a computer software to model noise data (noise mapping);
and Generating a noise map for the port of Long Beach.
2.1 Identifying the locations for collection of noise levels
Representative locations were selected around the Port for the measurement of the noise
levels generated from the container handling activities. Due to restrictions from the
terminal operators of the Port, it was not permitted to take the measurements inside the
container terminals. In effect, eight measurement locations were selected outside the
terminals but close enough to the various key noise sources such as the trucks, cargo
handling equipment, and trains. These eight locations are shown on the map in Figure 2.
They include truck entrances, areas next to the container yards where container handling
activities occur, and also the railroads. The locations are scattered around the Port in
order to give a reasonable sampling of the noise levels. The container terminals where the
measurements were conducted include Piers A, C, E, F, G, and J.
Figure 2 – Noise measurement locations
14
2.2 Collecting data
The data collected for this research project include: noise data; the operational
information of the Port; and the spatial information of the Port.
2.2.1 Noise data
The noise sources in the port areas can be broadly grouped into two major categories:
industrial activities and traffic related activities (NoMEPort, 2008).
The data required for modeling industrial noise sources include:
• Sound power level of every relevant industrial source (cargo and container handling
equipment, forklifts, yard tractors, cranes, etc)
• Location of the sources and their movements
• Working hours of every source for each time period (day, evening, night)
The data required for modeling traffic related noise sources are the following:
• Road traffic data: the type of vehicles (light, medium, heavy, trucks, passenger cars),
their number per hour for each time period (day, evening, night), and their average speed.
• Location of roads and the type of road surface (e.g. asphalt, concrete, etc)
• Location of rail tracks
• Railway traffic data: the type of train (cargo, passenger, etc), their number per hour for
each time period (day, evening, night), their average speed
The noise characteristics for industrial sources can be obtained by direct noise
measurements or by using values from available noise source databases. Direct noise
measurement is the most accurate. It is however time consuming and often technically
complicated as the source needs to be isolated from other background noise. The second
method of using values from a database is easier but less accurate and requires the data to
be validated.
In this study, the noise data was collected from November 2009 to June 2010. This
timeframe covers the peak container activity period around November, as well as the
slower periods thereafter; hence, the noise variations can be studied. There are two sets of
data needed for the noise study – the first is the average noise level (Leq), the second is
the activity that is contributing to the noise.
The noise was measured using an integrating sound meter with data logging capability.
The Extech 407780 meter (see Figure 3) was adopted for noise data collection in this
study. A microphone can be attached directly to the sound meter or through an extension
cord. This allows flexibility in the positioning. For example, the meter can be attached to
a tripod or it can be placed inside the car while the microphone is placed on the car’s roof
using the extension cord. The microphone has a wind screen to reduce the disturbance
from wind during measurements. The sound meter was set to provide the A-weighted Leq
average noise for a measurement period of 20 to 30 minutes. At the end of the
15
measurement time, the displayed Leq value was recorded by the research assistant. The
data logged by the meter can also be downloaded to a computer for further analysis.
The noise data was collected as often as possible, preferably daily during the weekends,
for 4 to 6 hours each day. Some readings were also taken during the weekends. In order
to get a good sampling, the research assistant moves around the different locations and
takes readings of 20-30 minutes each. For a 6-hour session, up to 12 readings were taken.
The measurements were done during daylight hours between 8am to 4pm with a focus on
the peak hours around 8am and 1pm where the activity is the highest. Due to the security
at the Port, no readings were taken at night. A data worksheet (a sample copy can be
found in the Appendix) was developed to facilitate the data collection in the field.
The collected data were compiled to provide the hourly, daily, and monthly averages for
the noise levels and amount of activities for each location, which will be presented in
Section 3 of this report. As the noise maps only show the annual average noise, the
hourly, daily and monthly noise averages will be useful in understanding the noise
variations. In addition, the annual average value will be used in validating the noise map
results.
Figure 3 – Sound meter set up in the field
16
2.2.2 The operational information of the port
The operational information of the port such as the number of each noise source and their
locations need to be provided. This data is required for each activity at the port, including
the truck and rail traffic throughout the day and week. The information can be gathered
by actual monitoring or using data from the port authority. The traffic and cargo volume
will be used to determine the level of activities.
During the collection of noise data using the sound meter, the research assistant was also
recording the operational information that may contribute to the noise levels at the
measurement location. The operational information includes the following:
1) Number of trucks observed (loaded or unloaded), and whether they are incoming
or outgoing relative to the truck entrance.
2) Number of cargo handling equipment in operation and the time they are active.
The equipment includes RTG crane, yard tractors, top handlers, and side-picks.
3) The time the railway is active. The number of containers carried by the trains is
also counted.
A video camera was also used to record the on-site activities for verification of collected
data. In addition, any unexpected activities (e.g., construction work) taking place that
might affect the noise measurements were reported, which then can be used to determine
whether the noise reading is reliable.
Figure 4. Portable weather meter
17
Beside the noise and activity data, the meteorological conditions were also recorded at
the start of each measurement using a portable weather station meter, as shown in Figure
4. The data recorded include the temperature, humidity, wind direction, which are
considered as parameters that may affect the noise propagation.
2.2.3 The spatial and geographical information for the Port
The spatial and geographical information for the Port and its surroundings is required for
the creation of the computer model of the Port. The geographical parameters such as
terrain and buildings affect the sound propagation and need to be quantified. Generally,
the geographical data required for the computer model include the following:
• Elevation and spot heights
• Location of noise sources: industry, roads, and railways.
• Residential and industrial buildings (including heights and dimensions)
• Other obstacles in the study area that will affect the sound propagation
• Identification of the ground surface characteristics
Figure 5. Topographic map of the Port
The specific information needed is: the terrain elevation of port; the locations of all the
geographical and spatial features of interest; and the heights of the buildings and other
structures at the Port. The ground topography was obtained through the US Geological
Survey. The USGS has available the traditional topographical maps or the digital
18
elevation models. For the topographical map (Figure 5), the elevation contour lines had to
be digitized manually which is a time consuming work. The digital elevation models are
more convenient. The 1/3-arc second National Elevation Dataset (NED) is used; it has a
resolution of approximately 10 meters. The current NED, however, still does not include
the elevation of the recent extension to Pier J. So this data still needs to be digitized
manually. The updated elevation model with Pier J extension is shown in Figure 6. Both
the spot height elevation map and the color contour elevation map are shown.
Pier J Extension
Figure 6. Digital elevation model of the Port with Pier J extension added
Next, high resolution 0.6m orthoimagery of the entire port (Figure 7) is obtained from
USGS. Using these images, the features of the port such as roads, rails, buildings etc can
then be digitized manually. The images were captured in 2003, so they are recent enough
for this study. The high resolution is needed so that the features of interest would still be
clear when zoomed in during the digitization process. For example, in Figure 8, the
details of a ship at Pier J berth is still very clear when magnified. Due to the high
resolution, however, the image for the port has to be broken up into smaller tiles to
reduce the computer loading time. This is also the reason why the 0.6m resolution images
were chosen over the other available 0.3m ones, due to the smaller file size.
One major advantage of the USGS orthoimages is that they are geo-referenced, i.e. they
include the coordinate systems, ellipsoids, datums necessary to establish the exact spatial
reference for the images. This way, the images will all line up correctly during the
digitization process, which is very important. Similarly, the elevation data is geo-
referenced. During the digitization process, Google, Bing, and AAA maps are used to
identify the names of the roads so that they can be input into the computer model as well.
19
Figure 7. High resolution orthoimagery of the Port
Figure 8. Details of ship at Pier J from the high resolution orthoimagery
Finally, the heights of the buildings and major structures at the port were entered into the
computer model. These are obtained from Google Earth which incorporates the data from
20
CyberCity, a leading 3D geospatial modeling company. To ensure the accuracy of the
information, the heights of a few of the buildings were checked through field observation.
2.3 Creating a 3D computer model of the Port of Long Beach
The noise mapping approach begins with creating a 3D (three dimension) computer
model of the area under study. The 3D computer model of the Port was created by
starting with the elevation data and then the manually digitizing the features of interest
using the orthoimages and the height information.
The complete digitized spatial model of the Port is shown in Figure 9. It includes the
major buildings and structures, as well as roads and railways that are relevant to this
study. The grey and red lines represent the roads and rails respectively. The buildings and
structures are in green. The upper boundary of model is slightly north of Anaheim St. The
left boundary is the edge between the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles.
The right boundary is the Los Angeles River, although some of the roads and buildings
around the Long Beach Marina are included. Note that the roads and buildings around
downtown Long Beach are not digitized since the container activities do not extend to
that area, although the elevation data is included. The area however is included in the
noise propagation simulation. The digital spatial model with elevation contour can be
displayed in 2D (Figure 10) or 3D (Figure 11).
Figure 9. Digital spatial model of the Port
21
Figure 10. Two-dimension digital spatial model of the Port with elevation contour
Figure 11. Three-dimension digital spatial model for Pier F
22
2.4 Using a computer software to create a noise map
In general, the noise mapping approach begins with the digital three-dimension (3D)
spatial and elevation model of the area under study, which can be created by means of a
computer noise modeling software. Next, the various noise sources at the port, such as
road, rail, industrial equipment etc, are added to create the noise model. The noise level
or acoustical characteristic of each source has to be entered into the computer model. The
source can be modeled as a point, line or an area. A point source could be a crane, the
line source could be a railway track, while the area source could be a berth. Area sources
are usually used for regions where various point sources exist and their noise
contributions are hard to separate. After this, the next step is to designate receivers and
grids on the model, which define the points where the calculation of the noise levels will
take place. The receivers could be placed on a regular grid or at specific points of noise
interest such as limits of the port area or at the boundary of residential areas. The distance
between the grid’s receivers (density) could vary according to the application.
In this study, the noise model is developed using the commercial noise modeling software
SoundPLAN from Braunstein & Berndt. This program has the facility to import the
geographical information and also allows the manual digitizing of the spatial data. The
noise sources and activity information are next added to complete the noise model. The
noise model can then be used to compute the noise distribution and the noise map.
There are various standards for calculating the noise propagation; most of them are
available in SoundPLAN. In this study, the RLS-90, Schall-03, and ISO 9613-2 were
used for calculating the road, rail, and industrial noise respectively. They were selected
because they have been tested thoroughly in SoundPLAN. They are also more optimized
in SoundPLAN compared to the other standards and require less simulation time. For
example, the simulation using RLS-90 is 75% faster than NMPB-96, and Schall-03 is
very much faster than RMR-2002. In this large scale simulation, every effort is made to
reduce the simulation time, keeping it under 8 hours. SoundPLAN also includes a
distributed computing feature which allows the computation to be shared among
available networked computers, which significantly reduces the computation time. Once
the simulation is complete, SoundPLAN has extensive graphics capability to display the
noise map results in a regular color map, or in 3D or animated. The results can also be
displayed in detailed lists.
2.5 Generating a noise map for the Port of Long Beach
To complete the noise model, the various noise sources that are active in and around the
container terminals need to be modeled. These noise sources include container trucks,
trains, ships, and cargo handling equipment (cranes, forklifts/sidepicks/top-handlers, and
yard tractors)
The volume of noise generated by the container activities is determined by the quantity of
each noise source and their noise power and characteristics. The contribution of the noise
23
source to the overall noise distribution then depends on the location of the source and
their movement pattern, if mobile, plus the surroundings. So, the noise characteristics and
the operational information of the sources need to be obtained and input into the noise
model. One useful information available from the Port is the air emission study that is
conducted annually. The 2005 Air Emission Inventory Report, in particular, contains
details of the equipment and vehicles used at the port and their operational information.
The Port uses the operational information of the equipment and vehicles to calculate the
pollutants emitted; this information can be used for our noise study as well. This
information together with the field activity data collected was used in the noise model.
Below are the discussions on modeling the noise emissions from trucks/trains and
ships/cargo handling equipment.
Trucks
For the trucks and trains, the calculation standards have built-in assumption on the noise
emission characteristics of the vehicles, so only the operational information is required.
The RLS-90 standard is used to calculate the noise from the truck traffic. The standard
allows the simulation of road noise by modeling standard vehicle types such as cars and
trucks. In this study, we are focusing on the container activities where only trucks are
involved in the movements of containers on the road. So cars are excluded in the
calculation. The parameters required for the model include the number of trucks per hour
and their speed for each road segment used by the trucks in hauling container in and out
of the each terminal. The Emission Report contains the average truck numbers for each of
the major roads for different period of the day. These are adjusted using the actual truck
data collected at the gates. The resulting number of trucks for each pier for different time
period is shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Number of trucks by time period for each pier (derived from field data and Air
Emission Report)
Pier AM (6-9am) MD (9am-3pm) PM (3-7pm) NT (7pm-6am)
A 237 1528 663 717
C 161 873 407 557
E 600 2183 858 884
F 406 1542 672 514
G 374 2321 975 938
J 163 1023 435 451
T 326 1897 744 514
The truck routes are obtained from the field and the data is then compiled for each road
segment and entered into the model.
Trains
The Schall-03 standard is used to calculate the noise from the train activities. The
information needed for the calculations are the number of trains per day, the length of the
24
train, and the speed. The standard also takes into account the different noise level for
different types of trains such as express, freight, commuter trains etc. Freight train is
selected for this calculation. The average number of trains per day carrying containers
and the average length of the trains are obtained from the Air Emission Report. The
number however is for the twin ports. So, the average container volume for each port is
used to divide the train numbers between the two ports, with 14 going to POLB. Next, the
14 trains are then distributed among the different container terminals depending on their
cargo volume. The truck count recorded in the field for each pier, which is a good
estimate of the cargo volume, is used for this purpose. Table 7 shows the data for the
train activities. (Note that Pier C and E do not have rail activities). The information is
entered for each rail segments serving the different terminals. The average speed of the
trains is assumed to be 20mph.
Table 7. Average number of trains per day for each pier
(derived from Air Emission Report and truck data)
Pier Average # of trains
per day
Average length of
train (meters)
A 3 1744
F 3 1760
G 3 2648
J 2 1751
T 3 2165
It is to be noted that the standard requires the number of trains to be an integer value. So
the number is rounded to the nearest integer and the length of the train is adjusted
proportionally so that the noise effect remains the same.
Ships and cargo handling equipment
The ISO 9613-2 standard is used for calculating the noise from the ships and the cargo
handling equipment. Since it is a general standard, the noise power and spectrum of the
source and its operational information need to be provided. In this study, due to
restrictions, it was not possible to measure the noise characteristics of these sources in the
field. So, the noise database, SourceDB, is used instead. SourceDB is an industrial noise
database which contains the noise characteristics of approximately 1,100 sources in over
70 different industries including those needed for our study. The database was developed
for the EU IMAGINE (Improved Methods for the Assessment of the Generic Impact of
Noise in the Environment) project and has been used in the EU NoMEPorts (Noise
Management in European Ports) noise mapping activity which is similar to our project.
The sound characteristics are available for all the sources needed in this study: ships,
dockside cranes, RTG cranes, forklifts/sidepicks/top-handlers, yard tractors. The
spectrum is specified in 1/3 octave band from 25Hz to 10kHz. To reduce the calculation
time, the forklifts/sidepicks/top-handlers are grouped together due to their similarity.
Figure 12 shows the sound power and spectrum of the various noise sources.
25
Sound power and spectrum of ship
Sound power and spectrum of dockside
crane
Sound power and spectrum of forklift
Sound power and spectrum of yard tractor
Sound power and spectrum of RTG crane
Figure 12. Sound power and spectrum of the various noise sources
Due to restrictions, the activities for the ships and cargo handling equipment could only
be recorded for a few of the piers and the data covers only a part of the overall activities.
So, instead the operational information for these sources is derived from the air emission
report and then adjusted using the field data.
For the container ships, the emission report lists the total number at berth in 2005 for the
entire port. This number is scaled to the current year’s level using the cargo volume
statistics and then distributed among the terminals based on the cargo volume of each pier
using the observed truck activities as indicator. The emission report also indicates the
average time at berth. Multiplying this with the number of ships will give the total hours
of operation for the ships. This is then converted to the number of ships active per hour at
26
each pier. The data is shown in Table 8 below. It can be seen that the number of container
ships at berth per hour at each pier is less than 2, which is within the capacity of the piers.
Table 8. Average number of container ships active per hour at each pier
(derived from Emission Report and truck data)
Pier # of ships per hour
A 1.24
C 0.67
E 1.74
F 1.16
G 1.44
J 0.83
T 1.48
On average, 1.4 dockside cranes are needed to load/unload each ship. So the ship data is
multiplied by 1.4 to get the number of dockside cranes active per hour at each pier (Table
9).
Table 9. Average number of dockside cranes active per hour for each pier
(derived from ship data)
Pier # of dockside cranes active
per hour
A 1.74
C 0.94
E 2.44
F 1.63
G 2.03
J 1.16
T 2.08
The air emission report also lists the make and model of each piece of cargo handling
equipment (forklift, RTG crane, side-pick, top handler, yard tractor) in use at each
terminal, and their annual hours of operation. Once again, the values are scaled to the
current year’s level using the cargo volume statistics and then adjusted for each pier using
the observed truck activities as indicator for the cargo volume. The following is the
resulting data. The final values are shown in Table 10 as the number of equipment active
per hour for each pier for different time period. The same time distribution from the truck
data is used here to divide the activities into the different time periods.
Table 10. Number of cargo handling equipment active per hour by pier and time period
(derived from Emission Report and truck data)
RTG Cranes
Pier AM (6-9am) MD (9am-3pm) PM (3-7pm) NT (7pm-6am)
A 2.1 6.8 4.5 1.9
27
C 0 0 0 0
E 2.7 8.8 5.9 2.4
F 1.3 4.2 2.8 1.1
G 2.0 6.5 4.4 1.8
J 0.7 2.1 1.4 0.6
T 1.9 6.1 4.1 1.7
Forklifts/side-picks/top-handlers
Pier AM (6-9am) MD (9am-3pm) PM (3-7pm) NT (7pm-6am)
A 3.6 11.7 7.8 3.2
C 1.5 4.7 3.1 1.3
E 1.9 6.1 4.1 1.7
F 1.3 4.3 2.9 1.2
G 3.2 10.3 6.9 2.8
J 3.0 9.8 6.5 2.7
T 1.9 6.0 4.0 1.6
Yard tractors
Pier AM (6-9am) MD (9am-3pm) PM (3-7pm) NT (7pm-6am)
A 15.9 51.2 34.0 14.0
C 5.0 16.1 10.7 4.4
E 10.0 32.1 21.4 8.8
F 7.6 24.2 16.1 6.6
G 14.8 47.6 31.6 13
J 9.5 30.4 20.2 8.3
T 16.0 51.3 34.1 14.0
To complete the calculation, the locations of the sources need to be specified. Line
sources are used to represent the ships and the cargo handling equipment. The location of
the ships, dockside cranes, and some yard tractors will be next to the berth. The forklifts,
RTG cranes, and yard tractors will be located in the container yard; several line sources
are needed depending on the number of rows of containers in the yard. The line sources
are shown in red in the model of the port (Figure 13). Each line represents just one type
of source. So the activity data in Table 10 needs to be divided by the number of lines
representing the source type in the pier. This value is then entered for that line, together
with the power and spectrum of the source type.
Once all the data are entered in the model, the noise maps for port can be generated. They
are shown in Section 3.
28
Figure 13. Map of ship and cargo handling locations.
29
3.0 Research results
Some selected results of noise mapping studies from this project are highlighted in this
section. These results are: Noise distributions; Noise maps for the Port; and Evaluation of
noise impact using noise maps.
3.1 Noise distributions
The noise and activity information was collected at 8 different locations around the Port
(see Figure 2) for 4 to 6 hours per day, almost every weekday and some weekends from
November 2009 to June 2010, as mentioned in Section 2. Each measurement taken was
around 20 to 30 minutes and then normalized to an hour. The data was then compiled into
hourly, daily, and monthly averages. The noise level is measured in dB(A). The truck
activity is quantified as the number of truck movements per hour. The rail activity is
quantified as the fraction of the hour that the rail is active. The crane, forklift, yard tractor
activities are quantified as the number of equipment that is active per hour. Note that the
forklifts, side-picks, and top-handlers are grouped together as forklifts.
It is to be mentioned that the noise measured at each location is the combination of the
noise from all the sources that are active around the location. The noise from each source
also experienced attenuation with increasing distance from the source. (The basic
concepts of combining noise levels and the noise attenuation due to distance have been
discussed in Section 1). All these factors were taken into account when calculating the
noise map. As such, the annual average value of the measured noise can be used to
validate the noise map. The measurement locations were spread around the port in order
to get a good sampling. In addition to the annual average noise, the calculated hourly,
daily and monthly noise averages are also useful as they provide insights into the noise
variation. They can be used to supplement the noise maps which only show the annual
average noise.
3.1.1 Hourly noise and activity distribution
The average hourly noise measured at each location is shown in Figure 14. Looking at the
average for all the locations (indicated as the blue line), it can be observed that the noise
peaks around 8am (70.3dB), tapers off after that to a minimum of 67.8dB around noon,
and peaks again around 1pm (70.3dB) and 2pm (70.4dB), and tapers off again after that.
This is consistent with the operating characteristics of the container terminals at the port.
Looking at each location, it can be seen that the highest noise is at location 1 around 2pm
(75.8dB) and lowest noise is at location 6 around 3pm (57.6dB). Location 6 experienced
the largest variation throughout the day (11.6dB), while locations 2 and 3 have the
smaller variations, 2.9dB and 2.8dB respectively.
30
57.0
62.0
67.0
72.0
77.0
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Hour of day
Leq
(d
B)
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Average
Figure 14. Hourly noise distribution for each location and the average
The average number of truck movements observed at each location per hour is shown in
Figure 15. Looking at the average for all the locations (indicated as the blue line), it can
be observed that the PM truck activity is higher than the AM truck activity. The lowest
truck activity is around noon time (39 trucks/hr). The peak truck activity is around 1pm
(126 trucks/hr).
Looking at each location, it can be seen that location 7 has the highest truck activity
around 3pm (254 trucks/hr). Location 5 is next with 221 trucks/hr around 1pm. These
occur during the PM hours. During the AM period, locations 5 and 7 again took the top
spots for truck activities.
0
50
100
150
200
250
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Hour of day
Tru
cks p
er
ho
ur
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Average
Figure 15. Hourly truck activity for each location and the average
The train activity per hour is shown in Figure 16. The values shown are the fraction of the
hour that the rail is active. Locations 3, 5, and 7 do not have any rail activity as there are
no railways around their vicinity. The rail is most active around 1pm at Location 1.
Overall, Location 1 also has the most rail activities. This is consistent with the fact that
Location 1 is at the beginning of the rail lines that serve most of the port.
31
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Hour of day
Fra
cti
on
of
ho
ur
rail
is a
cti
ve
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Figure 16. Hourly rail activity for each location
The number of cranes, forklifts, and yard tractors that are active per hour are shown in
Figures 17, 18, and 19, respectively. Note that some values are less than 1 as the
equipment may be active only during part of the hour. Also, it is to be noted that only the
observable activities near the measurement sites are recorded. So the data only represents
part of the overall cargo handling activities at the port.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Hour of day
# o
f cra
nes a
cti
ve p
er
ho
ur Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Average
Figure 17. Hourly crane activity for each location
32
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Hour of day
# o
f fo
rkli
fts a
cti
ve p
er
ho
ur
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Average
Figure 18. Hourly forklift activity for each location
Overall, the cargo handling activities are the highest around 9am and lowest around noon.
Once again, this is consistent with the operating characteristics of container terminals.
The AM period has slightly more activities compared to the PM period. The highest
crane and yard tractor activities are at Location 6, around 9am. The highest forklift
activity is at Location 5, also around 9am. Note that Location 2 is not close to any
container yard, so no cargo handling activity is observed.
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Hour of day
# o
f y
ard
tra
cto
rs a
cti
ve
pe
r h
ou
r
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Average
Figure 19. Hourly yard tractor activity for each location
33
3.1.2 Daily noise and activity distribution
From the hourly data, the daily averages are obtained for the noise and activities. For ease
of comparison, the same per hour unit of measure is used for the activities, i.e. number of
trucks per hour, fraction of the hour the rail is active, number of cargo handling
equipment active per hour. More importantly, since the data is only collected during part
of the day, the use of a per day measure, such as number of trucks per day, would not be
appropriate.
The average daily noise at each location is shown in Figure 20. Looking at the blue line
which indicates the average for all the locations, it can be observed that the noise is very
much higher during the weekdays compared to the weekends. The average noise level has
a slight peak on Wednesday (71.8 dB), but varies only by 0.8dB throughout the
weekdays. The lowest noise is on Sunday (64.1 dB). These again are consistent with the
operating characteristics of the container terminals.
Looking at each location, it can be seen that the highest noise is at Location 1 on
Wednesday (75.7 dB) and the lowest noise on a weekday is at location 8 on Monday
(66.2 dB). Location 5 experienced the largest variation throughout the weekdays (2.6
dB), while Location 2 has the smallest variations, 1dB. If we consider the whole week,
then Location 7 experienced the largest variation (12dB) and Location 3 the smallest
variation (5dB).
57.0
62.0
67.0
72.0
77.0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Day of the week
Avera
ge L
eq
(d
B)
(8am
- 4
pm
) Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Avg all locations
Figure 20. Daily noise level for each location and the average
The daily truck activity at each location is shown in Figure 21. Looking at the blue line
which represents the average for all the locations, it can be observed that the truck
activities are much higher during the weekdays compared to the weekends. The highest
truck activity is on Friday (128 trucks/hr) and the lowest is on Thursday (111 trucks/hr),
for weekdays. If we consider the whole week, then the lowest activity is on Sunday (36
trucks/hr). Looking at each location, it can be seen that location 7 on Friday has the
34
highest truck activity (305 trucks/hr). Next is Location 7 on Wednesday with 263
trucks/hr.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Day of the week
Avera
ge t
rucks p
er
ho
ur
(8am
-4p
m) Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Avg all locations
Figure 21. Daily truck activity for each location and the average
The daily train activity is shown in Figure 22. Locations 3, 5, and 7 do not have any rail
activity as there are no railways around their vicinity. The rail is most active on Thursday
at Location 1. This is followed by Location 2 on Friday.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Day of the week
Fra
c.
of
ho
ur
rail
is
ac
tiv
e (
8a
m-4
pm
)
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Figure 22. Daily rail activity for each location
The daily activities for the cranes, forklifts, and yard tractors are shown in Figures 23, 24,
and 25, respectively. Overall, the cargo handling activities seem to peak on Friday for the
cranes and forklifts, and bottom out on Wednesday.
35
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Day of the week
Avera
ge #
of
cra
nes a
cti
ve
per
ho
ur
(8am
-4p
m) Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Avg of all loc.
Figure 23. Daily crane activity for each location
3.1.3 Monthly noise and activity distribution
The monthly averages are calculated for the noise and activities for the months of
December 2009 through June 2010. The month of November 2009 is omitted as the data
was not collected for the full month. Also note that Location 6 is closed from April
onwards, so no data is recorded for that location during that period.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Day of the week
Av
era
ge #
of
fork
lift
s
acti
ve p
er
ho
ur
(8am
-4p
m)
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Avg of all loc.
Figure 24. Daily forklift activity for each location
36
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Day of the week
Avera
ge #
of
yard
tracto
rs a
cti
ve p
er
ho
ur
(8am
-4p
m)
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Avg of all loc.
Figure 25. Daily yard tractor activity for each location
The average monthly noise at each location is shown in Figure 26. Looking at the blue
line which indicates the average for all the locations, it can be observed that the noise
peaks in January (72.4dB) and drops off to a minimum in March (66.1dB) before rising
steadily again.
Looking at each location, it can be seen that the highest noise is at Location 1 in January
(76.9dB) and lowest noise is at location 7 in March (60.6dB). Location 5 experienced the
largest variation throughout the months (12.6dB), while Location 3 has the smallest
variation, 4.1dB.
The monthly truck activity at each location is shown in Figure 27. Looking at the blue
line which represents the average for all the locations, it can be observed that the average
truck activity is highest in January (166 trucks/hr) and lowest in March (41 trucks/hr).
Looking at each location, it can be seen that location 7 has the highest truck activity in
January and February (325 trucks/hr). Next is Location 5 in January with 297 trucks/hr.
37
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Month
Avera
ge L
eq
(d
B)
(8am
-4p
m)
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Avg of all Loc.
Figure 26. Monthly noise level for each location and the average
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Month
Avera
ge
tru
cks p
er
ho
ur
(8am
-4p
m)
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Avg of all Loc.
Figure 27. Monthly truck activity for each location and the average
The monthly train activity is shown in Figure 28. The rail is most active in April for both
Locations 1 and 2.
38
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Month
Fra
c. O
f h
ou
r ra
il is a
cti
ve
(8am
-4p
m)
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Figure 28. Monthly rail activity for each location
The monthly activities for the cranes, forklifts, and yard tractors are shown in Figures 29,
30, and 31, respectively. Overall, the crane and yard tractor activities appear to peak in
January. The forklift activities peak in January as well as in June.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Month
Avera
ge #
of
cra
nes a
cti
ve p
er
ho
ur
(8am
-4p
m)
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Avg of all Loc.
Figure 29. Monthly crane activity for each location
3.1.4 Overall noise and activity distribution
By taking the average of the monthly data, the overall averages are obtained for the noise
and activities. The average noise level for each location is shown in Figure 32. It can be
39
seen that Location 3 has the highest noise (72.8dB), followed by Location 4 (71.8dB) and
then Location 1 (71.6dB). Locations 6 and 8 have the lowest noise, 65.9dB and 65.8dB
respectively.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Month
Avera
ge #
of
fork
lift
s a
cti
ve p
er
ho
ur
(8am
-4p
m)
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Avg of all Loc.
Figure 30. Monthly forklift activity for each location
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Month
Av
era
ge
# o
f y
ard
tra
cto
rs a
cti
ve
pe
r
ho
ur
(8a
m-4
pm
)
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Avg of all Loc.
Figure 31. Monthly yard tractor activity for each location
The average truck activity for each location is shown in Figure 33. It can be seen that
Location 7 has the highest truck activity (139 trucks/hr), following by Location 5 (113
trucks/hr) and Location 1 (112 trucks/hr). This overall truck activity data is a good
40
indicator of the cargo volume of each container terminal for the current year and is used
to adjust the data for the noise map calculation.
71.6 70.972.8
71.8
68.8
65.9 66.1 65.8
57
62
67
72
77
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Location
Av
era
ge L
eq
(d
B)
(8a
m-4
pm
)
Figure 32. Overall average noise level for each location
112
6481 86
113
36
139
25
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Location
Av
era
ge t
ruc
ks
pe
r h
ou
r
(8a
m-4
pm
)
Figure 33. Overall average truck activity for each location
The overall train activity for each location is shown in Figure 34. Location 1 has the
highest train activity followed by Location 2. Note once again that Locations 3, 5, and 7
have no train activity as they are not close to any rail tracks.
The overall average activities for the cranes, forklifts, and yard tractors are shown in
Figures 35, 36, and 37, respectively. Locations 1 and 6 have the highest crane activities.
Location 1 also has the highest forklift activity and Location 6 has the highest yard
tractor activity.
41
0.18
0.12
0.00
0.10
0.00 0.01 0.00
0.03
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Location
Fra
c.
Of
ho
ur
rail
is
ac
tiv
e
(8a
m-4
pm
)
Figure 34. Overall rail activity for each location
1.18
0.00
0.68 0.62 0.61
1.19
0.48
0.22
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Location
Avera
ge #
of
cra
nes
acti
ve p
er
ho
ur
(8am
-4p
m)
Figure 35. Overall average crane activity for each location
0.10
0.00
0.04 0.05
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.01
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Location
Avera
ge #
of
fork
lift
s
acti
ve p
er
ho
ur
(8am
-4p
m)
Figure 36. Overall average forklift activity for each location
42
0.14
0.000.04 0.06
0.03
0.37
0.08
0.02
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Location
Av
era
ge
# o
f y
ard
tra
cto
rs a
cti
ve
pe
r h
ou
r
(8a
m-4
pm
)
Figure 37. Overall average yard tractor activity for each location
3.2 Noise maps for the Port of Long Beach and validation of results
The overall noise maps of the Port are shown in Figure 38 and Figure 39 respectively for
the day period (6am-10pm) and night period (10pm-6am).
Figure 38. Overall noise map for day period (6am-10pm)
43
Figure 39. Overall noise map for night period (10pm-6am)
The result from the day period noise map is validated using the average noise
measurement for each of the location. The comparison is shown in the table below.
Table 11. Comparison of noise map values with actual field measurements
Location Noise map value
(dB)
Average noise
measured (dB)
Difference (dB)
1 67.2 71.6 -4.4
2 67.3 70.9 -3.6
3 62.5 72.8 -10.3
4 72.6 71.8 +0.8
5 67.2 68.8 -1.6
6 62.5 65.9 -3.4
7 64.9 66.1 -1.2
8 66.7 65.8 +0.9
44
The difference is within the acceptable range for locations 4, 5, 7, and 8. These locations
have few non-container related activity sources. So the noise map results are close to the
actual noise in the field. The criteria for judging the accuracy is based on the uncertainty
in the noise model input data following the approach outlined in European Commission
WG-AEN (2006).
For the other locations, the noise sources not included in the simulation contribute to the
higher noise compared to levels predicted by the noise map. For instance, Locations 1
and 2 are close to the Terminal Island Freeway and the 710 Freeway respectively. So the
non-container traffic that travels on the freeway contributes to the higher measured noise
compared to the predicted values.
Location 3 is 100m south of a truck entrance. The trucks come in from the north and
enter the terminal without passing by location 3. So in the noise simulation, the location
is not next to any truck activity. However, the field measurement is picking up the noise
from the non-container traffic traveling on the road next to the observation location. This
explains why the field noise measurement is so much higher than that predicted by the
noise map. This location should not be used for validating the noise map result.
Location 6 is mainly used to record the cargo handling activities. But often the truck
queue extends to this area when the lines are long. This phenomenon is not included in
the noise map simulation. This can explain why the measured noise is higher than the
predicted noise.
The conclusion is that the measurement locations used in the noise map validation need
to be close to the container related activities as much as possible, and away from any
non-container activities that are not included in the noise map simulation.
3.3 Evaluation of noise impact using noise maps
The noise maps can be used to evaluate the noise impact on the residential area east of
the Los Angeles River and the Queen Mary Hotel next to the cruise terminal. It can be
seen that the noise level for the area next to Cesar Chavez park on the eastern edge of the
LA River do not exceed 60dB during the day period. This is within the Community Noise
Exposure guidelines of the LA municipal code. The noise drops steadily further east. For
the Queen Mary Hotel, the noise level is less than 55dB during the day period, which is
well within the guidelines. During the night period, the area on the edge of the LA river
has noise level less than 55dB, while the Queen Mary Hotel is less than 50dB.
To further analyze which source is dominant, the noise maps are generated for each type
of source acting alone, i.e. truck activities only (Figures 40 and 41), ships and cargo
handling activities only (Figures 42 and 43), and train activities only (Figures 44). From
these noise maps, it is obvious that the truck movement activity is the highest source of
noise, while train activity contributes the least to the overall noise.
45
Looking at the noise map for the truck activities only, it can be seen that the noise is
concentrated on the roads and radiates outwards. Using the Caltrans/FHWA Noise
Abatement Criteria for Category C activities, it can be observed that the noise level is
within the 71dB limit for developed land 50 feet away from the major roads (not counting
the Freeway).
The noise from the cargo handling activities is next checked using the LA municipal code
for industrial equipment noise, which stipulates a limit of 75dB 50 feet away. Using the
noise map for the cargo handling activities, it is easy to see that the noise is well within
the limit.
So, overall, the noise level from the container related activities at the port are within the
relevant noise guidelines and no excessive noise is observed.
Figure 40. Noise map for day period (6am-10pm) with only truck traffic
46
Figure 41. Noise map for night period (10pm-6am) with only truck traffic
Figure 42. Noise map for day period (10pm-6am) with only ships and cargo handling
activities
47
Figure 43. Noise map for night period (10pm-6am) with only ships and cargo handling
activities
Figure 44. Noise map with only train activities
48
4.0. Research findings and discussions
This section will highlight some findings from the research project, which are organized
as follows: first, the key findings from the project are pointed out; second, noise data
analysis is discussed; next, several observations obtained from the project are listed;
finally, recommendations for preventing the noise impact at the Port are presented.
4.1 Key findings
The key findings with respect to different subjects were extracted from Figures 14
through 37 presented in the previous section and are summarized in the table below.
Table 12. Key findings
Subject Key findings
Hourly noise On average, the noise peaks around 8am (70.3dB) and tapers off
after that to a minimum of 67.8dB around noon. It then peaks
again around 1pm (70.3dB) and 2pm (70.4dB), and tapers off
again after that. This is consistent with the operating
characteristics of container terminals at the port.
The highest noise is at Location 1 around 2pm (75.8dB) and
lowest noise is at location 6 around 3pm (57.6dB). Location 6
experienced the largest variation throughout the day (11.6dB),
while Locations 2 and 3 have the smaller variations, 2.9dB and
2.8dB respectively.
Hourly truck
activities On average, the PM truck activity is higher than the AM truck
activity. The peak truck activity is around 1pm (126 trucks/hr).
The lowest truck activity is around noon (39 trucks/hr).
Location 7 has the highest truck activity around 3pm (254
trucks/hr). Location 5 is next with 221 trucks/hr around 1pm.
These are truck entrances.
Hourly train
activities The rail is most active around 1pm at Location 1. Overall,
Location 1 also has the most rail activities.
Hourly cargo
handling
activities
Overall, the cargo handling activities are the highest around 9am
and lowest around noon. The AM period has slightly more
activities compared to the PM period.
The highest crane and yard tractor activities are at Location 6,
around 9am. The highest forklift activity is at Location 5, also
around 9am.
Daily noise On average, the noise is very much higher during the weekdays
compared to the weekends. The noise peaks slightly on
Wednesday (71.8dB), but varies only by 0.8dB throughout the
weekdays. The lowest noise is on Sunday (64.1dB).
The highest noise is at Location 1 on Wednesday (75.7dB) and
the lowest noise on a weekday is at location 8 on Monday
(66.2dB). Location 5 experienced the largest variation throughout
the weekdays (2.6dB), while Location 2 has the smallest
variations, 1dB. If we consider the whole week, then Location 7
49
experienced the largest variation (12dB) and Location 3 the
smallest variation (5dB).
Daily truck
activities
On average, the truck activities are much higher during the
weekdays compared to the weekends. The highest truck activity
is on Friday (128 trucks/hr) and the lowest activity is on Sunday
(36 trucks/hr).
Location 7 on Friday has the highest truck activity (305
trucks/hr).
Daily train
activities The rail is most active on Thursday at Location 1. This is
followed by Location 2 on Friday.
Daily cargo
handling
activities
The cargo handling activities peak on Friday for the cranes and
forklifts, and bottom out on Wednesday.
Monthly noise
(December to
June)
On average, the noise peaks in January (72.4dB) and drops off to
a minimum in March (66.1dB) before rising steadily again.
The highest noise is at Location 1 in January (76.9dB) and lowest
noise is at location 7 in March (60.6dB). Location 5 experienced
the largest variation throughout the months (12.6dB), while
Location 3 has the smallest variation, 4.1dB.
Monthly truck
activities
Overall, the truck activity is highest in January (166 trucks/hr)
and lowest in March (41 trucks/hr).
Location 7 has the highest truck activity in January and February
(325 trucks/hr). Next is Location 5 in January with 297 trucks/hr.
Monthly train
activities. The rail is most active in April for both Locations 1 and 2.
Monthly
cargo
handling
activities.
The crane and yard tractor activities peak in January.
The forklift activities peak in January as well as in June.
Overall noise
Location 3 has the highest noise (72.8dB), followed by Location
4 (71.8dB) and then Location 1 (71.6dB). Locations 6 and 8 have
the lowest noise, 65.9dB and 65.8dB respectively.
Overall truck
activities
Location 7 has the highest truck activity (139 trucks/hr),
following by Location 5 (113 trucks/hr) and Location 1 (112
trucks/hr).
Overall train
activities Location 1 has the highest train activity followed by Location 2.
Overall cargo
handling
activities
Locations 1 and 6 have the highest crane activities. Location 1
also has the highest forklift activity. Location 6 has the highest
yard tractor activity.
4.2 Data analysis
The data obtained from the noise map can be analyzed or inferred for an area in question,
from which the necessary decision support tools may be obtained to formulate and justify
50
an appropriate noise action planning. In this study, the analysis will identify two key
issues: (1) the most significant noise sources, and (2) hot spots and problem areas of
interest. Relevant guidelines, methodologies, and examples of good practices will be
discussed relating to these issues.
Significant noise sources: Significant noise sources are those sources that contribute
greatly to the observed noise levels. These sources can be identified through their
significance as a single source or specific activity, or by their importance as a group of
noise sources such as an industry or a group of activities. In this study, there is no special
focus on any single source or location, only a general understand of the noise
contribution and distribution is sought. Using the noise maps, it was determined that the
highest contribution of noise is from the truck activities. This is followed by the cargo
handling activities. The contribution from the railroad noise is not significant. On further
analysis, it was determined that the noise from the container truck traffic on the roads is
within the Caltrans/FHWA limit of 71dB for developed land, 50 feet away from the roads
(not including the freeways). Also, the noise from the cargo handling activities is well
below the acceptable level of 75dB at a distance of 50feet, as stipulated by the LA
municipal code for industrial equipment.
High priority areas: A high priority area can be identified as a sensitive region, or an area
where the noise levels reach their highest values. Since the Port is located in a
predominantly industrial area, there are few sensitive areas in its immediate vicinity. The
closest ones are the non-industrial areas across the river, to the east of the Port, and the
Queen Mary Hotel next to the cruise terminal. Using the noise map, the impact of noise
on these two areas can be evaluated.
The area to the east of the LA River is the closest non industrial area to the port.
Due to its distance from the Port, the noise level is low as attested by the noise
map. During the day period, the noise is below 60dB. During the night period, it
is below 55dB. These are within the normally acceptable levels based on the noise
compatibility guidelines. The noise drops steadily as the distance increases further
east.
The location of the Queen Mary Hotel is particularly interesting because it is
situated on the Port. The noise level at the location is well within acceptable
limits. Its noise level is 55dB during the day period and 50 dB during the night
period.
4.3 Observations
Several observations obtained from this study are highlighted and discussed below.
Validation of results
It is very important when creating the noise model to ensure the reliability and accuracy
of the input data such as the noise characteristics of the sources and their operational
information. Inaccuracies in the data would result in errors in the noise maps which could
have far reaching consequences such as incorrect action plans.
51
There are several methods of validating a computer noise model. One method is to
validate the input data sets. The other method is to assess the results by measuring the
noise in selected locations and comparing the measured noise levels with the predicted
values from the noise map. The second method can only evaluate the accuracy of noise
maps; it cannot pin-point the cause of any error. The first method is time-consuming but
it can identify the cause of the inaccuracies. In this study, because of restriction, it was
not possible to obtain the noise characteristics and operational details of some of the
noise sources. So, the validation is done through selected measurements of the overall
noise. The noise map is compared with actual field measurements at selected location
throughout the Port. It is observed that the differences are within the acceptable range if
the measurement locations are close to the activities of interest, and away from unrelated
sources that are not included in the noise study.
Lessons learned during data collection: (i) Efficient data collection requires good
collaboration among all the parties involved; (ii) As collecting noise data is a time
consuming task, it is necessary to review, as early as possible, the input data that are
needed and their availability; (iii) Among the different noise sources, the significant ones
should be identified in order to correctly focus the collection effort; (iv) For the noise
measurements used for validation of the results, it is very important to select locations
close to the activities of interest.
4.4 Recommendations
Action plans for noise management: The development of an appropriate noise
management plan to handle the impacts of noise on people and the environment would be
a potential research topic. Noise management is designed to prevent any negative noise
impacts to the Port and its surroundings or to minimize such impact. In addition to the
development of the action plans, their implementation is another key component of
effective noise management. Implementing a noise management program in port areas
could result in many benefits such as enhancing environmental quality of the port
surroundings and raising awareness of safety, health and environmental issues.
Cost/Benefit Analysis: When performing noise management, cost/benefit analysis should
be an integrated part of it. The purpose of the cost/benefit analysis is to demonstrate
which solutions should be implemented, from which the best possible environmental
performance can be achieved at the lowest possible costs.
Noise minimizing measures: Since the analysis shows that the noise is below the
prescribed limits, no mitigating measure is required. However, in case of future port
development or expansion which may result in excessive noise, the following
recommendations should be taken into consideration. These recommendations are
classified as source mitigating measures, propagation measures, and receiver measures
(NoMEPort 2008).
Source mitigating measures can reduce or eliminate noise directly at the source.
The main sources of noises at container terminals are the ships, trucks, trains, and
52
cargo handling equipment. Examples of source mitigating measures for these
noise sources are: installing insulation materials to sound intensive components;
using absorbing building materials; using silent equipment (low noise versions
cost little extra); slowing the speed of putting down a container; using electrical
instead of diesel or diesel-electric moving equipment; planting trees as barrier.
Propagation measures reduce or block the transmission of noise in its pathway
from the source to receiver. Usually, this is achieved by using physical barriers
that attenuate or deflect the noise propagation. The transmission of noise can be
reduced by optimizing the terminal layout, reducing the driving distances for the
cargo handling equipment, using container stacks as barriers, changing the work
schedule, etc.
Receiver measures are considered to be passive measures and may be used in
residential areas to shield the inhabitants from noise disturbances. These passive
measures should be the last option if the noise pollution cannot be reduced after
using source and propagation measures. The installation of passive noise control
measures is based on calculated or measured outside noise levels.
53
5.0 Conclusions and Future Research
The Port of Long Beach is one of the major nodes in the logistic chain and important
economic center in the region. Recently, the Port has implemented several innovative
environment protection programs that provide practical guidance to minimize or
eliminate negative environmental impacts. Noise pollution at the Port, however, was not
addressed in these programs. The areas around the Port are subject to high traffic
numbers due to the port and nearby industrial activities and as a result, nearby residential
locations experience elevated ambient noise levels. Port noise impacts are expected to be
significant and noise assessment as well as mitigation strategies will undoubtedly be
required.
As the container sector of the Port of Long Beach has the highest growth potential, the
levels of noise generated by the ships, straddle carriers, cranes, fork lifts, refrigerated
containers, trucks and trains may present a problem. In addition, noise emitted from
container terminals, at high levels and for long periods, has a negative impact on the
performance of the different parties involved in the cargo handling activities at the
container terminals as well as the life of the residential neighbors. In this study, noise
pollution at the container terminals at the Port was modeled by means of noise mapping.
Noise mapping, a geographic presentation of data related to outdoor sound levels, has
proved to be a valuable tool allowing port managers not only to assess the current noise
situation in the port, but also to examine the potential impact of future development plans
of the port itself and its surroundings. In effect, the port authority can use the noise map
that incorporates future developments outside the port area to predict future noise impact
on new residential areas. With this tool, the port authority can quickly obtain crucial
information for port development and planning applications.
Some selected results of noise mapping studies from this project are highlighted. The
noise maps present the noise distribution in and around the port areas and give an insight
into the relative contribution of different groups of sources (e.g. road traffic, rail traffic
and industrial noise). The noise sources in port areas can be broadly grouped into two
major categories: industrial activities and traffic related activities. The industrial noise
sources include cargo handling, container handling, cranes, vehicles, auxiliary equipment,
etc; whereas the traffic related noise sources are roads, vehicles, railways, trains, etc. In
this study, it was determined that the truck movements are the main contributor of
container activities noise in the Port, followed by cargo handling, and then rail. The noise
levels, however, are all within the relevant noise regulations.
Noise sources should be combined as it is useful to predict the effectiveness of noise
mitigating measures for the different noise sources in the reduction of the total noise
level. The study reveals that the noise distributions displayed with different groups of
sources can assist the port authority both in analyzing noise maps and in identifying hot
spots and problem areas. In addition, such noise distributions are helpful in analyzing the
impact of different sources on any problem area, thus guiding the process of noise action
planning. It is recommended to develop and implement appropriate action plans for noise
management in order to reduce the impact of noise pollution in the port and its
54
surroundings. Noise minimizing measures should be an integrated part of the noise
management program. In this study, the noise maps were used to evaluate the impact on
selected non-industrial areas around and next to the Port, and no excessive noise was
found. So no noise mitigating measures are needed.
Future research: The Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex, the gateway to the Pacific
Rim, is the nation’s largest ocean freight hub and its busiest container port complex. The
twin Ports of the San Pedro Bay are comprised of fourteen individually gated terminals.
As reported in Lea & Harvey (2004), the combined Ports have had a constant rate of
growth every year which exceeded that of the national average and they are designated as
an Inter-modal Corridor of Economic Significance. In addition, the container terminals at
the twin ports are located in a predominantly industrial area, with pockets of residential
activity to the north and north-west of the ports. With a residential area located relatively
close to a large industrial site, there is a need for an appropriate noise study and
management plan to ensure the noise levels in both the residential and port areas do not
exceed a reasonable level. The observations made for the case of Port of Long Beach are
easily applicable to the neighboring LA port terminals. So the future research proposal
will focus on the noise impact of the container terminals at the Port of Los Angeles
together with the noise study for the Port of Long Beach, which in turn provides a
complete study on noise pollution and noise management programs for the twin Ports.
Specifically, potential future research topics are provided below:
Noise mapping of container terminals at the Port of Los Angeles
Noise mapping of container terminals at the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach
Impact of noise: case study on the twin ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach and the
surroundings
Impact of noise on the health of port workers
Development of management plan to handle the impact of port noise on people and
the environment
55
Appendix: Sample data worksheets
Location 1 Average Average activities
Month of Leq noise T R C F/T/S Y
November
December 70.675 1.0785417 0.0111111 0 0.0375 0
January 76.909722 3.5225 0.3162037 1.9930556 0.1148148 0.1634259
February 74.6 2.6211111 0.1194444 2.5305556 0.0611111 0.2472222
March 68.75 1.0583333 0.2388889 0.4972222 0.1083333 0.2333333
April 70.383333 1.0833333 0.4166667 0.6166667 0.1916667 0.1833333
May 69.741667 1.687037 0.112037 1.2125 0.0899691 0.0578704
June 70.357 2.0336 0.0309 1.4104 0.0694 0.1184
Average 71.630903 1.8692072 0.1778935 1.1800595 0.0961199 0.1433697
Location 2 Average Average activities
Month of Leq noise T R C F/T/S Y
November 71.6 0 0 0 0 0
December 72.88 1.367333333 0.026666667 0 0 0
January 73.71875 2.061666667 0.247222222 0 0 0
February 74.69166667 1.703333333 0.066666667 0 0 0
March 66.98888889 0.594444444 0.011111111 0 0 0
April 69.91666667 0.633333333 0.516666667 0 0 0
May 68.46944444 1.139333333 0.069444444 0 0 0
June 68.85694436 1.067734 0 0 0 0
Average 70.89029513 1.070897306 0.117222222 0 0 0
Location 3 Average Average activities
Month of Leq noise T R C F/T/S Y
November 73.3 1.47 0 0 0 0
December 72.09666667 1.174666667 0 0 0 0
January 74.77 2.380666667 0 0.095833333 0.01 0.016666667
February 74.52777778 0.965 0 0.094444444 0.013333333 0
March 71.425 0.730555556 0 1.833333333 0.047222222 0.197222222
April 70.7 1.7335 0 1 0.033333333 0.066666667
May 72.07222222 0.983407407 0 1.012962963 0.005555556 0.040740741
June 73.21333 1.35446 0 1.4076 0.2098 0.0104
Average 72.76312421 1.349032037 0 0.680521759 0.039905556 0.041462037
56
References
Baaj, M., El-Fadel, M., Shazbak, S., & Saliby, E. (2001). “Modeling noise at elevated
highways in urban areas: a practical application” Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, pp169-180.
Babisch W. (2008). “Road traffic noise and cardiovascular risk” Noise and Health
Journal, 10, pp 27-33.
Borst, H., Miedema, H. (2005). “Comparison of Noise Impact Indicators, Calculated on
the Basis of Noise Maps of DENL” Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 91, pp378-385.
Bourbon, C., Noel, P., Mummenthey, R. (2001) “Brussels Life Project: Noise Mapping
As a Tool for Management and Planning Road Traffic Noise in Urban Area” Proceedings
of the International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering
(INTERNOISE 2001).
Broadbent, D. (1979). “Human performance and noise” Handbook of noise control (2nd
ed), McGraw Hill, New York.
Chakrabarty, D., Santra, S., Mukherjee, A., Roy, B., & Das, P. (1997). “Status of road
traffic noise in Calcutta metropolis, India” J. Acoust. Soc., 101, pp943-949.
Cohen, A. (1973). “Industrial noise and medical, absence, and accident record data on
exposed workers” Proc Int Congr on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, pp441-453.
Cohen, A. (1976). “The influence of a company hearing conservation program on extra-
auditory problems in workers” J Safety Res, 8, pp146-162.
European Commission. (2002). “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.
European Commission. (2003). “2003/613/EC Commission recommendations of 6
August 2003 concerning the guidelines on the revised interim computation methods for
industrial noise, aircraft noise, road traffic noise and railway noise, and related emission
data” Official Journal of the European Communities.
European Commission Working Group - Assessment of Exposure to Noise (WG-AEN).
(2006). Good practice guide for strategic noise mapping and the production of
associated data on noise exposure.
Federal Highway Administration. (2004). Federal Highway Administration traffic noise
model user’s guide version 2.5. Washington D.C.
57
Kaliski, K., Duncan, E., & James, C. (2007). “Community and regional noise mapping in
the United States”, Sound and Vibration, pp 14-17.
Lea, J. and Harvey, J.T. (2004). “Data Mining of the Caltrans Pavement Management
System (PMS) Database”, Technical Report to California Department of Transportation,
University of California at Berkeley, CA.
Maschke, C., Hecht, K. (2004). “Stress hormones and sleep disturbances -
electrophysiological and hormonal aspects” Noise and Health Journal, 6, pp 49-54.
Niemann H., Maschke C. (2004). “WHO report on noise effects and morbidity” World
Health Organization.
Niemann, H., Bonnefoy, X., Braubach, M., Hecht, K., Maschke, C., Rodrigues, C., &
Robbel, N. (2008). “Noise-induced annoyance and morbidity results from the pan-
European LARES study” Noise and Health Journal, 8, pp 63-79.
Noise Management in European Ports (2008). “Good Practice Guide on Port Area Noise
Mapping and Management”.
Port of Long Beach (2005). “Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventory – 2005”
Port of Long Beach (2007). “Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventory – 2007”
Port of Long Beach (2008). “Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventory – 2008”
Port of Los Angeles (2006). “Berths 97-109 Container Terminal Project [China Shipping]
Draft EIS/EIR”. http://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment_pn_deir_cs.htm
Port of Los Angeles (2007). “Berths 136-147 [TraPac] Container Terminal Project Draft
EIS/EIR”. http://www.portoflosangeles.org/EIR/TraPac/eir_062907trapac.htm
Smith, A., & Stansfeld, S. (1986). “Aircraft noise exposure, noise sensitivity and
everyday errors” Environ Behav, 18, pp214-226.
Smith A. (1989). “A review of the effects of noise on human Performance” Scand J
Psychol, 30, pp185-206.
Stapelfeldt, H., Jellyman, A. (2001). “Noise Mapping in Large Urban Areas”
Proceedings of the International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering
(INTERNOISE 2001).
Sust, C., & Lazarus, H. (2003). “Signal perception during performance of an activity
under the influence of noise” Noise and Health Journal, 6, pp 51-62.