Applied Acoustics 104 (2016) 158171

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Acoustics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apacoust

Airborne noise emissions from ships: Experimental characterization

of the source and propagation over land
Aglaia Badino a, Davide Borelli b,, Tomaso Gaggero c, Enrico Rizzuto d, Corrado Schenone b
a

Consorzio Servizi Navali ed Industriali S.c.a.r.l., Italy

University of Genoa, DIME Department of Mechanics, Energetics, Management and Transportation, Italy
c
University of Genoa, DITEN Department of Electrical, Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering and Naval Architecture, Italy
d
University of Genoa, DICCA Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Italy
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 26 December 2014
Received in revised form 6 November 2015
Accepted 10 November 2015
Available online 28 November 2015
Keywords:
Noise pollution modeling
Port noise
Airborne ship noise

a b s t r a c t
In noise mapping of urban areas main sources for nuisance and sleep disturbance are roads, railways,
airports and industrial plants. However, when a noise analysis of port cities is carried out, also harbor
activities are to be considered as significant contributors to the soundscape. Within the harbor, ships,
when berthed at wharfs and possibly busy in loading or unloading operations, represent significant
sources of noise. In these conditions, in fact, some of the ships plants are running and high airborne noise
levels may be radiated. Ships are not traditionally characterized as noise sources and their dimensions
and complexity pose a challenge for the description of the acoustical field in urban areas around the port.
The work presents a hybrid experimentalcomputational approach for the acoustical characterization of
ships applied to a test case represented by a multipurpose ship. For the same ship, the propagation field is
studied numerically to include an urban area around the port. The same experimental campaign is also
used to introduce a new measurement procedure for an effective characterization of the ship source.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Main sources of noise pollution in cities are usually road and
rail traffic, airports and industrial plants; for port cities, another
typology is to be taken into account, represented by shipping
traffic and harbor activities. Airborne noise is emitted by ships
during port approaching and maneuvering, but also when vessels
are berthed at wharfs, busy in loading or unloading operations.
In these operating conditions, which can last for several hours
(or days), auxiliary engines and ventilation systems are running,
generating significant noise levels. They can affect inhabitants of
the surrounding areas, especially in those cases in which the port
is located inside a highly populated urban zone. The problem has
been raised in several occasions, with complaints sent to municipalities by citizens living in areas close to harbors (see [27,2]).
It is to be noted that the technical problem is further complicated in this case by the fact that different Institutions may be
involved in the assessment of the situation and in finding solutions. From those dealing with ships (IMO, Classification Societies,
Coast Guard) to those concerned in the harbor activities (Port

Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0103532863.

E-mail address: davide.borelli@unige.it (D. Borelli).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2015.11.005
0003-682X/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authorities) to those deputed to land activities (Municipalities,

Health care institutions. . .) overlapping and sometimes even lack
of jurisdiction took place.
Anyway, the acoustic impact of ports is gaining more and more
attention both at a technical and pre-normative level, as a consequence of the increasing sensitivity of citizens to noise pollution.
During the last years several European projects and networks, like
Eco.Port [11], EcoPorts [12], NoMEPorts [20], SIMPYC [25] and
HADA [14], have tried to define guidelines in order to characterize
the noise due to ports on the basis of the European Directive
2002/49/EC [13] (usually called Environmental Noise Directive,
hereafter referred to as the END).
The partners involved in these projects have been, however,
only marginally involved into the problem of modeling ships as
noise sources, while concerned more on the way of evaluating
the impact of the whole port activity on the area around the
harbor.
On the other hand, significant efforts have been dedicated in the
last decades by international Normative Bodies to the control and
mitigation of the effects of emissions due to ships. For what concerns specifically the noise impact of ships, as pointed out in
Badino et al. [3], the situation of the normative framework is pretty
much different with regard to the various types of ambient where
the impact is evaluated. The noise radiation toward spaces internal

A. Badino et al. / Applied Acoustics 104 (2016) 158171

to the vessel has been covered for a long time by Norms regarding
the preservation of acceptable working conditions for the crew on
board [15]. Starting in the nineties, requirements (generally termed Comfort Classes) have been issued by Classification Societies,
having the target of assessing the comfort of passengers and crew
as regards noise levels on board (as well as vibration levels and
other comfort aspects). Finally, the subject of noise radiated by
ships into water started to be considered only recently at IMO,
(see e.g. [16]) and gained momentum also at European level with
the launch of dedicated research programs [22,1,24].
As mentioned in Badino et al. [3], the control of airborne emissions from ships and the assessment of their impact has not been
faced so far at an international level, despite the fact that such
impact may affect a large number of inhabitants of areas near ports
or channels. On the other hand, when faced, the problem has been
essentially tackled at a local level and with different approaches by
local administrations, driven by complaints sent out by citizens
affected by noise radiation.
As pointed out in the quoted paper, the lack of coverage of this
aspect by international Normative Bodies is probably due to the
fact that the assessment of the ship noise impact depends not only
on the ship characteristics, but also on local aspects (port and
urban layout, orography, local noise limits and regulations, etc.).
Accordingly, the Bodies involved in the assessment and the control
of noise impact include quite different institutions both at international and local level: the International Maritime Organisation
(IMO), Classification Societies, Coast Guards (for ships), Port
Authorities (for harbors), Municipalities, health care institutions
and other local authorities (for urban areas). This situation complicates the assessment of ship noise impact and prevents a coordinated normative approach for port noise control.
The present paper capitalizes the experience gained within the
SILENV project in terms of characterization of the ship noise source
in view of its utilization in the context of the Strategic Noise Mapping (SNM), which is presently considered as the most suitable tool
for acoustic planning (see [4,20]).

159

(a) ship sailing along the coast (possibly at reduced speed, when
approaching the harbor or passing through channels or
straits)
(b) ship maneuvering (entering/exiting the harbor)
(c) ship at quay (no cargo processing)
(d) ship loading or unloading (equipment for cargo processing
in function).
For a sailing ship, the main propulsion engines and the related
exhaust gas discharges represent the most important source. The
exposure time for a receiver ashore in a fixed position is generally
relatively short and the distance not very small, even though no
shielding effects are present from the source to a building facing
the coastline.
When the ship is maneuvering, the main engines are working in
off-design conditions (worse than design conditions from several
viewpoints, in particular as regards airborne noise radiation). In
addition, other maneuvering equipment are in function (bow and
stern thrusters, auxiliary azimuthal propulsors, winches, windlasses, etc.). The distance to shore is closer, the duration of the
maneuver relatively short (order of minutes).
In cases (c) and (d) mentioned above, the main engines are
likely to be not operating, while many auxiliaries are running.
Electric power generation is on, but also ventilation of garages
(for ferries) and air conditioning (for passenger ships) are running.
In addition, loading and unloading activities may be characterized
by specific noise components due to the operation of cranes or
buckets, to vehicles on ramps, or to other charging/discharging
means not belonging to the ship plants (which may produce
impulsive noise or anyway with peculiar frequency content and/
or duration).
In the present context, the focus, both for numerical simulations
and on site measurements, is on operating condition (c) above,
whose noise emissions are in principle stationary for long periods
of time and identifiable in a similar way for all types of ship, cargo
handling equipment being on the contrary more dependent on the
specific features of the single ship.

2. General characteristics of the ship as a noise source

3. Modeling the ship as a complex source of airborne noise

The ship is quite a complex source of airborne noise. Many elementary sources on board, each one with different characteristics,
contribute to the general noise emission. Structure-borne sources
internal to the ship (in particular the propulsion engines) excite
vibrations in the hull (or in portions of the structure), which, in
turn, can generate noise in air. This radiation mechanism, however,
affects significantly people on board the vessel (in the internal
spaces or on the decks), but is not very effective toward external
spaces. Sources radiating airborne noise directly in communication
with the external ambient influence more the noise impact outside
the vessel, even though placed inside the vessel.
The funnel represent an example of these sources, where
exhaust gases at high speed are discharged in the atmosphere, or
by inlet/outlet ducts of heating, ventilation and air-conditioning
(HVAC) systems. Further sources onboard can be represented by
cranes, winches, mechanical equipment and auxiliary engines,
which may play a different role depending on the category and
on the design of the ship. Since the above-mentioned single
sources are distributed along the entire ship, they generate a complex 3D noise field around the unit, always characterized by strong
directivity patterns [5].
In addition, different operating conditions can be identified for
the ship, each one characterized by different sources active on
board and/or by a different relative importance of their contributions to the total emission. Operating conditions relevant to the
assessment of noise impact in populated areas ashore can be:

In the paper, the effectiveness in analyzing ship noise propagation of a commercial ray-tracing simulator has been tested. The
vessel is modeled as a complex noise source, i.e. as a combination
of different elementary sources (point and area sources). The activity was carried out in different steps (see also [7]): acquisition and
processing of the input data, implementation of the ship model
with the software, model validation by comparison with near field
measurements and derivation of (relatively) far field results. These
numerical results were validated by comparison with measured
sound pressure levels in several positions around the ship. The
noise propagation model was implemented taking into account
the operating condition of a berthed ship at wharf and considering
noise sources on the ship as stationary sources. The ISO 96132:1996 standard [17] for industrial sources was used as a reference
for the propagation model, because the noise is mainly radiated by
the ship through openings in the hull, intake ducts and exhaust
outlets of the engine room or of the HVAC systems.
The sound field radiated by the ship far away in an urban context was then simulated, in order to evaluate the effects on residential areas of a port city.
3.1. On site measurements
Experimental data for the development and validation of the
model were provided by partners involved in the SILENV Project
[23].

160

A. Badino et al. / Applied Acoustics 104 (2016) 158171

The measurements were carried out on a berthed ship, with

only the machinery inherent to this operating condition running
in stationary conditions [10].
Two different kinds of measurements were used: near the
sources on board and on the quay along the noise propagation
paths. Measures near the main sources were taken at 1 m from
the openings, as suggested in ISO 2922:2000 standard [18]. As
regards on-the-quay measures, microphones were placed in correspondence of the nodal points of three different grids:

an horizontal grid along the entire length of the ship at a constant height of 1.2 m and at 3 different distances from the hull
side (Fig. 1a);

two vertical grids perpendicular to the plane of symmetry of the
vessel and placed near the main sources (each with 9 points,
placed at 3 different heights and 3 different distances from
the side: Fig. 1b).
In all the locations the background noise was measured, too.
Only signals higher than 10 dB above the background were taken
into account. When the difference was between 6 dB and 10 dB,
a reduction of 1 dB was applied to the measured value. If the difference was lower than 6 dB, measurements were not used in the
validation.
3.2. Numerical model
In general, commercial ray-tracing software contain specific
modules for the description of different noise source typologies
such as roads, railways, aircrafts, industrial plants and, generally, for elementary sources such as point, line and area
sources. A specific module for ships, is, to the authors knowledge, not available at the moment. The different surfaces of the
ship were therefore created using the general purpose tools

provided by the software itself. These tools do not allow to

create complex shapes; therefore, it was necessary to simplify
to some extent the ship outer profile. The simplified geometry
of the ship was imported in the simulation software and the
other obstacles that were present in the field were turned into
objects available in the softwares database, e.g. buildings,
walls or floating screens. In Fig. 2 the 3D view of the ship is
shown.
The characterization of the elementary sources composing the
complex ship source was carried out on the basis of the available
dedicated measurements. Using sound pressure measurements
taken at 1 m from the local sources of the ship, it was possible to
quantify their sound power levels. In this case, 7 main sources
were identified in the superstructure and in the middle of the ship:
the funnel, 2 ventilation fans of the engine room and 4 ventilation
fans near the cargo holds. The funnel was considered as a point
source with spherical propagation placed on the top of the funnel
structure, whereas the other sources, like the fans, were considered
as area sources.
The used software is based on a sector method where, instead of
having sound rays generating from sources as usual, they start
from the various receivers. The models geometry is so scanned
using a constant increment angle that is set by default equal to
1. These so called search angles look for sources, screens, reflections, etc., and modify the ground attenuation, giving more accurate and slower calculations if the increment is set smaller than
1. If a source is found within the search direction the software calculates the fraction of the source contained in the sector and processes it. Since the adopted calculation method is able to describe
as stationary sources only point sources, the area sources were
therefore divided into triangles and in the center of gravity of such
triangles a point source was located in order to obtain a point
source distribution equivalent to the original area source in terms
of overall sound power.

Fig. 1. Multipurpose ship: horizontal measurement grid along the ship (a) and vertical grid near the main sources (b) (see [23]).

A. Badino et al. / Applied Acoustics 104 (2016) 158171

161

Fig. 2. 3D view of the ship (in the simulation ambient).

Simulations were carried out by computing A-weighted SPL in

the same positions where on-site measurements took place.
The simulation settings were chosen in order to take into
account side diffractions and a single reflection along the transmission path. An angular resolution of 1 was chosen as a good compromise between calculation time and accuracy. Levels in dB(A)
were predicted, following the requirements of the END for Lden
and Lnight computation.
As described in Annex IV of the END, strategic noise maps for
agglomerations shall put a special emphasis on the noise emitted
by, among others, Industrial activity sites, including ports. In
Annex II of the same Directive it is stated that the recommended
interim computation method for industrial noise is the ISO 96132:1996 standard [17], and therefore the outdoor noise propagation
of the ships noise sources was analyzed in this study by means of
the algorithms defined in this standard.
3.3. Validation of the model
Based on the on field measurements, three different test steps
were made to validate the Multipurpose Ship modeling:

the validation of the sound pressure levels close to the sources;

the validation of the noise field along the ship length, taking
into account a horizontal grid at 1.2 m from the ground level;

the validation of the noise propagation at different heights and
distances, taking into account two grids laying on a plane perpendicular to the ship symmetry plane placed near the ventilation fans of the engine room and near the ventilation fans of the
cargo holds (see Fig. 1).
In the first test step, the sound pressure levels close to the
sources were verified comparing the calculated and measured
levels at a distance of 1 m from sources. The differences were smaller than 1.2 dB. This test verified if the simplifications and hypothesis, introduced for the sources characterization in the model, were
correct in order to describe the behavior of the real noise sources of
the ship. In Fig. 3 the sound pressure levels, measured at a distance
of 1 m, were reported in 1/3 octave bands. These values were used
for the calculation of the sound power levels of each source in 1/3
octave bands.
The second test was carried out comparing the calculated and
measured values in the 30 nodal points of the horizontal grid

(Fig. 1a), which is placed along the ship length at a height of

1.2 m above the wharf. The differences between the calculated
and the measured values are comprised between 2 dB in the
majority of cases, while only 3 differences (points B2, C4, C5)
resulted greater than 2 dB (see Table 1 and Fig. 4). No difference
exceeded 3 dB. The Mean Absolute Error and the Standard Deviation, calculated on the whole set of data, were respectively equal
to 1.1 dB(A) and 1.3 dB(A).
The third test allowed to assess the simulated noise propagation
along two planes perpendicular to the ship axis (the considered
points are shown in Fig. 1b). The differences between calculated
and measured sound pressure levels are reported in Tables 2 and
3 respectively for the grid near the fans of the engine room and
for the grid near the fans of the cargo holds.
Fig. 5 shows that the highest difference was observed in correspondence of the receiver I.1 in the engine room fans grid and it
was negative. In the first column all differences were negative,
much smaller in the case of receivers I.2 and I.3 than for receiver
I.1. The mean absolute error between measured and calculated
levels regarding the 9 nodal points of this grid was equal to
2.1 dB(A), whereas the standard deviation was equal to 2.8 dB(A).
Among the grid points number 2 (all placed at a distance of 11 m
from the hull) at the three different heights, the mean error was
3 dB, whereas in the grid points number 3 (19 m far from the hull)
at the three different heights, the mean error was 1 dB. The larger
errors in the cross grid near the cargo holds (Table 3 and Fig. 5) were
observed in the third row (upper level), and particularly in positions
III.2 and III.3. Except for these positions, differences were generally
quite small. The Mean Absolute Error between measured and calculated levels in reference to the 18 nodal points of the two grids was
equal to 2 dB, whereas the Standard Deviation was equal to 2.7 dB.
Finally, the whole set of data relative to the second and third
test steps was analyzed. Looking at Fig. 6 it can be seen that most
of the data are bounded by 3 dB and 3 dB. None of the differences
is higher than 6 dB. In order to assess the accuracy of the predictive model two criteria were adopted: the fraction of data predicted within 3%, called k, and the percent absolute mean error, e:


N 

1X
calculated value  measured value%

N i1 
measured value

For the current simulations k and e resulted respectively 75.5%.

and 0.005%.

162

A. Badino et al. / Applied Acoustics 104 (2016) 158171

Fig. 3. Sound pressure levels measured at a distance of 1 m from the various sources.

The model seems to work quite well, in spite of the complexity

of the geometry and the number of noise sources. As a summary
analysis, Fig. 7 presents the comparison between measured and
predicted sound pressure levels for all the test steps.
The dashed lines indicate a difference between predicted and
experimental values within 3%, whereas the continuous line is
the bisector, corresponding to a perfect correlation between the
two sets. General results indicate that, in spite of the limits of
the software, an accurate calibration of the model can carry reliable predictions of noise levels emitted from ships. Fig. 8 reports

some results of the simulations in the form of horizontal and vertical noise color maps.
3.4. Features of the noise field radiated by ships
Looking at Fig. 8 and the sound pressure levels (Tables 13)
measured on the grids reported in Fig. 1, it is quite clear that the
near field sound radiation in the proximity of the ship is complex
and need to be carefully described. The complexity arises from
the presence on board of different sources interacting with several

A. Badino et al. / Applied Acoustics 104 (2016) 158171

Table 1
Comparison between calculated and measured sound pressure levels (horizontal grid
at 1.2 m from the ground, Fig. 1a).
Grid point

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10

Leq (dB(A))
Calculated

Measured

Difference

54.4
61.6
60.8
57.5
55.9
59.3
68.3
63.8
58.4
56.5
56.6
60
65
64.5
61.6
60.5
60.4
66.4
63.4
60.9
56.5
59
64
64.3
62.1
61.4
60.4
64.3
61.8
59.6
55.8

55.3
60
59.3
58.3
56.4
59.9
67.1
63.1
58.1
55.2
55.3
57.3
64.6
65.1
62.8
62.4
61.8
64.4
62.1
60.1
56
57.9
63.5
64.9
64.7
63.7
60.6
63.2
61.8
61.1
57.6

0.9
1.6
1.5
0.8
0.5
0.6
1.2
0.7
0.3
1.3
1.3
2.7
0.4
0.6
1.2
1.9
1.4
2
1.3
0.8
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.6
2.6
2.3
0.2
1.1
0
1.5
1.8

reflecting surfaces and with a number of diffracting edges existing

on board and, possibly, on shore.
The influence of the shadowing effect of the side-deck connection on the propagation of noise from a source placed on the deck is
visible both in Fig. 8 and in Tables 2 and 3. The shape of the shadow
cones is different in the two sections, and the sound field appears

163

not be regular even at 19 m from the side (in the fore section the
pressure levels keep on increasing with the distance from the ship
up to 19 m).
In Fig. 9 a sketch is presented for the quantification of the influence of the shadowing effect of the side-deck connection on the
propagation of noise from a source placed 1 m over the deck. The
distance d (see Fig. 9), that represents the limit of the shadow zone
(or alternatively the minimum measure distance in order to avoid
the shadowing of the ship side), can be easily evaluated by the
following expression:

B
 D  T  h
2

T = draught, D = depth, B = beam, h = quay height.

In Fig. 10 the possible extension of the shadow cone is represented for three different types of ships in function of the beam
of the ship. In order to use the expression of Eq. (2), the
statistically-based dimensional ratios of Table 4 inherent to ships
belonging to different typologies have been adopted (from [21]).
As shown in Fig. 6, the lateral extension of the shadow cone
increases more than linearly as the beam increases, reaching quite
high distances for the wider ships, highlighting again the problem
connected with carrying out measurements at low levels from the
ground. As a matter of fact, in most ports and harbors it is almost
impossible to find areas free of obstacles at such a large distance
from the ship side.
The situation may be different if measurements are carried out
in the far field: at larger distances from the hull, the radiation
features more regular patterns. On the other hand, the distance
from which a sound source can be considered as a point-source
ranges between 3 and 10 times the largest dimension of the source
depending on sound spectra and source features [6,26]. In the case
of ships, whatever size factor is taken, it would bring the measurement location so far away that it could be quite difficult to get a
high enough signal to noise ratio. This analysis suggests that
measurements for a ship will be carried out in the near in most
of the cases field and therefore a suitable spatial distribution
(in particular in the vertical direction) of the survey positions is

Fig. 4. Comparison between calculated and measured sound pressure levels (horizontal grid at 1.2 m from the ground, Fig. 1a).

164

A. Badino et al. / Applied Acoustics 104 (2016) 158171

Table 2
Comparison between calculated and measured sound pressure levels (vertical grid, Fig. 1b near engine room fans).
Position

I.1

I.2

I.3

II.1

II.2

II.3

III.1

III.2

III.3

Height above the wharf (m)

Distance from the hull (m)
Calculated SPL (dB(A))
Measured SPL (dB(A))
Difference (dB(A))

1.2
1.0
63.0
68.9
5.9

1.2
11.0
70.2
67.2
3.0

1.2
19.0
64.5
62.8
1.7

3.0
1.0
69.7
69.8
0.1

3.0
11.0
70.7
67.9
2.8

3.0
19.0
64.8
65.2
0.4

6.0
1.0
74.9
75.6
0.7

6.0
11.0
71.4
68.3
3.1

6.0
19.0
65.4
64.6
0.8

Table 3
Comparison between calculated and measured sound pressure levels (vertical grid, Fig. 1b near cargo holds fans).
Position

I.1

I.2

I.3

II.1

II.2

II.3

III.1

III.2

III.3

Height above the wharf (m)

Distance from the hull (m)
Calculated SPL (dB(A))
Measured SPL (dB(A))
Difference (dB(A))

1.2
1.0
62.4
62.2
0.2

1.2
11.0
64.2
65.6
1.4

1.2
19.0
63.9
65.9
2.0

3.0
1.0
64.9
65.1
0.2

3.0
11.0
66.3
66.2
0.1

3.0
19.0
65.7
64.5
1.2

6.0
1.0
72.5
71.8
0.7

6.0
11.0
71.2
65.5
5.7

6.0
19.0
69.3
64.0
5.3

to be adopted to capture the actual characteristics of the radiation

field.
4. Application of the airborne ship noise source model to a real
urban context
After the model validation carried out on the radiated field in
the proximity of the ship, noise propagation toward an urban area
was simulated in order to demonstrate the capability of the model
to assess the effects on the resident population. An urban area
located in the Municipality of Genoa (Italy) was chosen as propagation field. In that area several complaints were actually coming
from residents because of noise produced by the ships berthed in
the port nearby. People complained about ships noise, especially
during nighttime, when it is not masked by the other noise sources,

as railway and road traffic. The noise impact is highly influenced by

the ground morphology: annoyed people live in the hilly area of
the neighborhood, in view of the harbor and exposed in a straight
line to the ship emissions. Notwithstanding the large distance
between port wharfs and hilly residential buildings (as large as
1 km), the elevated position of the sources and the absence of
obstructions along sound paths caused high noise levels on buildings facades and a consequent nuisance.
4.1. Description of the urban area
The wharf modeled in our simulations is a large platform,
1700 m long and 550 m large, placed parallel to the coast. The
wharf is utilized as storage area for containers. Different cranes
are placed along the quay for the loading/unloading of container

Fig. 5. Comparison between calculated and measured sound pressure levels: left column near calgo hold fans; right column near cargo hold fans (vertical grid, Fig. 1b).

A. Badino et al. / Applied Acoustics 104 (2016) 158171

165

Measured Values [dB(A)]

Fig. 6. Histogram of the difference between measured and predicted values for the whole set of data.

75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Calculated Values [dB(A)]

Fig. 7. Comparison between measured and predicted sound pressure levels.

ships. In front of the wharf, an area of the port is intended to be

used by recreational crafts, fishing vessels and fishermens sheds.
The residential area, which is separated from the harbor by a main
road, begins immediately in front of the port area. Crossing the
road and proceeding away from the sea in the inhabited area, a flat
area is met first; then, at a distance varying from 0.2 to 0.6 km, the
ground rises to a hilly residential area (Fig. 11). The east side of the

urban area is steeper than the west side and is occupied mainly by
houses, whereas the west side presents a mix of different land
uses: residential buildings are mixed with public buildings, commercial stores, churches, industrial sheds. In Fig. 12 a 3D view of
the area considered in this study is reported as modeled in the
simulation. In the view, residential buildings are colored in beige
with red roof, whereas auxiliary buildings are gray.

166

A. Badino et al. / Applied Acoustics 104 (2016) 158171

Fig. 8. Outdoor noise propagation maps.

Fig. 9. Sketch of the shadow zone generated by the hulls side for a source on the deck.

4.2. Analysis of the results

The simulation results were not compared to systematic experimental surveys in the examined zone, but were used to check if
complaints filed from citizens living on the hill in front of the harbor (Urban Hill Area of Figs. 11 and 12) could actually be due to
ships that often moor in the position shown in Fig. 12. The comparison is therefore carried out on a qualitative basis, as the source
characteristics are not related to the specific case. The simulation
is here presented as illustrative of what can be a practical application of this type of models.
The complaints were inherent nighttime period, in which, as
above mentioned, other sources of noise related e.g. to traffic are
likely to be less active. The noise coming from the ship, on the contrary, is to be considered as stationary on the 24 h.

In the simulations carried out, the noise sources were considered always active during nighttime. Further, the following settings of parameters were used in input: the angle increment was
set equal to 1 and the reflection order was set equal to 3 because
an urban area, with several vertical surfaces, was taken into
account in the model. This time the max search radius was set
equal to 1000 m, the tolerance was set equal to 0.0 dB, the weighting A was chosen, the source side reflection and the enable side
diffraction were selected.
The two horizontal maps in Fig. 13 display the noise propagation field from the ship to the urban area. Fig. 13a refers to a height
of 4 m above the ground level, whereas Fig. 13b describes level
curves at 9 m above the ground. A square grid with mesh dimension 5 m was adopted for both horizontal maps. Chromatic scale
varies with range steps of 5 dB(A). The comparison between maps

A. Badino et al. / Applied Acoustics 104 (2016) 158171

167

Fig. 10. Extension of the shadow zone in function of the ship beam for different ship types.

Table 4
Statistical dimensions ratios of three different ship types [21].

L/D
L/B
B/T
D/B

Cargo

Bulk

Container

11.5
6
2.2
0.52

12
6.5
2.6
0.54

11
6
2.2
0.55

indicates higher noise levels at 9 m above the ground, since the

main sources are placed high in the superstructure of the ship.
Moreover, in the lower area, the buildings closest to the harbor
screen the buildings placed behind, whereas facades in the hills
are directly exposed to ship noise sources (funnel, air outlets, fans,
etc.). These elements can explain why the hilly zone is more
affected by the ship noise than the plane zone, even if the distance
from the ship is larger. On one hand, the absence of obstructions
along sound paths permits noise to reach far receivers, on the other
hand, the lower plane area reflects sound, thus increasing sound
pressure levels on the hill.

In both horizontal maps level curves are fragmented, especially

in the starboard side of the ship (south direction). This fragmentation can be explained by the presence of several reflecting surfaces,
which are more numerous on starboard side because of the asymmetrical geometry of ship superstructures.
In order to better analyze noise propagation, vertical maps were
also generated. In Fig. 14 a vertical map, which cuts the ship next
to the ventilation fans of the cargo holds and crosses the east side
of the hill zone, is shown. Fig. 14 clearly indicates that noise
propagation toward the hill zone is not obstructed by any screen.
Sound rays directly hit the facades of these buildings facing the
port, thus determining annoyance in the resident population.

4.3. Comments
In spite of the specific approach, from this example of potential
application of ships modeling techniques, some general results,
however, can be obtained. In particular, a few comments can be

Fig. 11. Satellite view of the urban area examined in present study.

168

A. Badino et al. / Applied Acoustics 104 (2016) 158171

Fig. 12. 3D view of the urban area examined in present study.

Fig. 13. Horizontal maps of the ship noise propagation at two different heights: (a) 4 m from the ground; (b) 9 m from the ground.

drawn from the development and first application of the model

concerning ship noise propagation:
the ship is a source characterized by a very complex geometry,
also for rather small vessels. Many reflecting surfaces of different dimensions are present onboard, which generate many

reflected waves. A model (even though simplified) of the geometry of the ship outer surface is needed, particularly if the focus
of the investigation is in the near field;
at least in the present case, it was possible to implement an
effective model of ship noise radiation by using current commercial software in spite of the need for a rough simplification

A. Badino et al. / Applied Acoustics 104 (2016) 158171

169

Fig. 14. Vertical map of the noise field.

of the ship geometry. Great attention must be paid to a proper

definition of input data, both in terms of drawings of the ship
shape and of characterization of the sources;
a specific software module for ship and harbor noise is not
currently available and users of noise mapping commercial software have to deal with the lack of a specific module to predict
the noise field in a complex environment as a harbor, so that
they must adapt general-purpose simulators;
an important aspect is represented by the height of the sources
(in particular the funnel), which reduces the ground effect and
the shielding effects by buildings and increases ship noise
impact on tall buildings or on hills close to the port;
vertical maps revealed to be particularly helpful in order to
analyze the noise propagation, even beyond what commonly
occurs for road and railway noise. A real 3D analysis of the
sound field is needed for a thorough comprehension of ship
noise impact.
When comparing simulated and surveyed data, an encouraging
fitting has been obtained in the proximity of the modeled ship.
When enlarging the simulation to a larger area (in a specific location), a qualitative correspondence between predictions of high
levels and areas where the noise impact was more perceived is
found.
More general conclusions on the subject require, however, to
extend the comparison between simulations and experimental
surveys to other cases (possibly other ship types) and to quantitative comparisons also at larger distances from the ship. The integration of ship noise with the other sources emitting in port
(cranes, shipyards, trucks, trains, etc.) is a further challenge to be
faced.

5. Control of the impact of airborne noise from ships

What above highlights the importance of assessing the impact
of airborne noise emitted by ships on people living in urban areas
close to ports and harbors. The study can be addressed in several
ways (direct or indirect methods) and using a number of different
standards [9].

5.1. Strategies for noise control

In principle, to reach the goal of controlling the impact of airborne ship noise on close living areas, limit levels could be set
directly at the receiving position, where the limitation of noise
effects is needed. This is the strategy followed by the Directive
2002/49/EC, which is however best suited for the assessment of
an existing fixed plant, when details of the areas surrounding the
source are available.
From the view point of setting targets for ship design, an
approach based on the limitation of the emission at source is more
suitable, even though the final impact of noise radiation will
depend also on the surrounding environment. Characterizing and
limiting the emission source is, in short, only a part of the whole
problem of assessing and controlling noise effects, but, on the other
hand, it is the only one that can be carried out at the design phase
of the system which represents the source.
It is also worthwhile noting that characterizing the ship source,
i.e. dealing with a known source, allows to pursue the final goal of
limiting the noise impact also by means of operative constraints. In
the case of the ship, speed limitations, distance from the shore,
manoeuvring speed, time limitations, location within the harbor
can be imposed depending on the source power. A proper characterization and control of the ship source levels is therefore to be
intended as a key point for the control of port noise.
5.2. SILENV Measurement procedure
The strategy adopted in the SILENV project to characterize the
ship while moored at quay [23] is similar to the one adopted in
[19] for large sources. In the analyzed case, however, no closed
measurement surface was adopted (no need for an evaluation of
the sound power emitted by the ship).
Based on both technical and practical aspects, the measurements surface was placed at 10 m from the ship. This was the
result of a compromise between competing requirements. On
one hand, the need for a short distance to achieve easy accessibility
and avoid reflections from surfaces external to the ship such as
buildings and walls that can be present near the quay. On the other
hand, the need not to get too close and therefore run into

170

A. Badino et al. / Applied Acoustics 104 (2016) 158171

resolution problems in the measurement grid, as the pressure field

tends to become less homogeneous and needs a more detailed
description. Furthermore, cranes are often located in ports along
quays at that range of distances from the ship side and they can
be used to move a microphone array in measurement positions
along a regular grid.
The distance of 10 m was set with a small tolerance (0.5 m) in
order to avoid the use of corrections to report the levels to the reference distance: the adoption of this type of corrections would
have implied the definition of a transmission loss law, which is
not easily definable in the near field of the ship.
The measurement surface resulted to be composed of four
vertical planes (two parallel to the ships symmetry plane
and two perpendicular to it) at the reference distance of
10 0.5 m.
Provisions about the extension of the grid in the longitudinal
and transversal directions were also given, depending on the ship
dimensions. In particular, a suitable vertical extension was considered to cover the above mentioned shadowing of the main deck

on the emissions coming from upper positions. This was felt to

be an important aspect also because in some cases the receiving
position may be placed at higher levels than the ship deck (on
higher floors of buildings, or on hills surrounding the harbor).
Fig. 15 sketches a part of the grid proposed for a merchant
ship. Characterization tests were suggested on both sides of
the ship, due to the possible asymmetry of the sound field
radiated.
As regards the resolution of the grid, a balance was found
between accuracy and measurement efforts, setting values for
the distance between the measurement points of a regular grid
based on the dimension of the source and on the position of the
measurement surface.
The measurement procedure above described could be carried
out typically in the shipyard where the vessel is built. For example,
the number of measurement points for a passenger ship with
L = 300 m, B = 35 m and D = 60 m, is around 500. A possible practical strategy consists in using a microphone array suspended from a
crane (see Fig. 16a). Alternatively, it is possible to take advantage of

Fig. 15. Grid of points depending on the longitudinal profile of the ship.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 16. Possible measurements arrangement: (a) using a suspended array; (b) fixing the microphones to the crane in accessible areas.

A. Badino et al. / Applied Acoustics 104 (2016) 158171

the possibility of accessing different vertical positions on board the

crane as shown in Fig. 16b [8].
This procedure allows to measure an entire vertical column of
points at the same moment, with considerable savings of time. The
other points along the ship side can be easily surveyed by moving
the crane on the rails along the ship length without changing the
crane configuration.
6. Conclusions
The paper presents problems and methods for the assessment
and control of airborne noise emissions from ships at wharf.
Numerical simulations of the propagation in the near field are
discussed in terms of input and output data and of modeling
parameters and are validated with available experimental data.
A limited number of dedicated onsite measurements together
with adaptations of the code to the specific case allowed to obtain
an effective model for the ship in a similar way as for industrial
sources.
The far field propagation in a realistic scenario (Port of Genoa) is
also covered, to show the potentiality of commercially available
models in assessing the impact of ship noise on a geographically
complex area around the harbor.
The aspect of a proper experimental characterization is also
discussed, with reference to the specific features of the ship source.
An improved experimental procedure is proposed, including a few
practical considerations, able to provide a more complete and
effective description of the source in propagation models. The
same procedure can also be used to set, for new vessels, limits at
the source for controlling purposes.
Acknowledgments
This work was developed in the frame of the collaborative project SILENVShips oriented Innovative soLutions to rEduce Noise &
Vibrations, funded by the E.U. within the Call FP7-SST-2008-RTD-1
Grant Agreement SCP8-GA-2009-234182. In particular, the authors
want to thank the High Technological Park HTP and Technical
University of Varna TUV for providing the measurement data.
References
[1] Achieve QUieter Oceans by shipping noise footprint reduction, FP7; 2012.
<http://www.aquo.eu/>.
[2] Badino A, Borelli D, Gaggero T, Rizzuto E, Schenone C. Noise emitted from
ships: impact inside and outside the vessels. Procedia Soc Behav Sci
2012;48:86879.
[3] Badino A, Borelli D, Gaggero T, Rizzuto E, Schenone C. Normative framework
for ship noise: present situation and future trends. Noise Control Eng J 2012;60
(6):74062.

171

[4] Badino A, Borelli D, Gaggero T, Rizzuto E, Schenone C. Analysis of airborne

noise emitted from ships. In: Rizzuto E, Guedes Soares C, editors. Sustainable
maritime transportation and exploitation of sea resources, vol. 2. Leiden: CRC
Press/Balkema; 2012. p. 100110.
[5] Badino A, Borelli D, Gaggero T, Rizzuto E, Schenone C. Acoustical impact of the
ship source. In: Proceedings of the 21st international congress on sound and
vibration, Beijing, China; 1317 July, 2014.
[6] Beranek LL, Mellow TJ. Acoustics: sound fields and transducers. Academic
Press; 2012. p. 157.
[7] Biot M, Moro L. Methods and criteria to manage airborne outdoor ship noise.
In: Guedes Soares C, Fricke W, editors. Advances in marine
structures. Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema; 2011.
[8] Borelli D, Gaggero T, Rizzuto E, Schenone C. Measurements of airborne noise
emitted by a ship at quay. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international congress
on sound and vibration, Florence, Italy; 1216 July, 2015.
[9] Di Bella A. Evaluation methods of external airborne noise emissions of moored
cruise ships: an overview. In: Proceedings of the 21st international congress on
sound and vibration, Beijing, China; 1317 July, 2014.
[10] Draganchev H, Valchev S, Pirovsky C. Experimental and theoretical research of
noise emitted by merchant ships in port. In: Proceedings of the 19th
international congress on sound & vibration, Vilnius, Lithuania; 812 July,
2012.
[11] Eco.Port 2006. Eco.Port Project (cod. 41). EU Co-financed project through the
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the framework of the Adriatic
New Neighbourhood Program INTER-REG/CARDS-PHARE 20002006. <https://
www.port.venice.it/it/progetto-eco-port.html> (in Italian).
[12] EcoPorts 2011. EcoPorts Project, Information exchange and impact assessment
for enhanced environmental-conscious operations in European ports and
terminals, FP5. <http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/87079_en.html>.
[13] END 2002. Directive 2002/49/EC of The European Parliament and of The
Council. European Union relating to the assessment and management of
environmental noise; 25 June 2002.
[14] Herramienta Automtica de Diagnstico Ambiental (Automatic Tool for
environmental diagnosis), LIFE02 ENV/E/000274; 2005.
[15] IMO 1981. Resolution A.468(XII): code on noise levels on board ships.
[16] IMO 2014. Document MEPC.1/Circ.833. Guidelines for the reduction of
underwater noise from commercial shipping to address adverse impacts on
marine life; 2014.
[17] ISO 1996. ISO 96132:1996 Acoustics Attenuation of sound during
propagation outdoors Part 2: General method of calculation.
[18] ISO 2000. ISO 2922:2000, Measurement of airborne sound emitted by vessels
on inland waterways and harbour.
[19] ISO 2010. ISO 3746:2010. Determination of sound power levels of noise
sources using sound pressure Survey method using an enveloping
measurement surface over a reflecting plane.
[20] NoMEPorts 2008. Noise Management in European Ports, LIFE05 ENV/NL/
000018, Good Practice Guide on Port Area Noise Mapping and Management.
Technical Annex; 2008.
[21] Rawson KJ, Tupper EC. Basic ship theory, vol. 2. Butterworth-Heinemann;
2001. p. 650.
[22] SILENV 2009. Ships oriented Innovative soLutions to rEduce Noise and
Vibrations, FP7; 2009. <http://www.silenv.eu/>.
[23] SILENV 2012. Noise and Vibration label proposal, Deliverable 5.2 of SILENV
project available from: <http://www.silenv.eu/green_label/D5.2_green_label_
rev_2.pdf>.
[24] SONIC 2012. Suppression of underwater noise induced by cavitation, FP7;
2012. <http://www.sonic-project.eu/>.
[25] SIMPYC 2008. Sistema de Integracin Medioambiental de Puertos y Ciudades
(Environmental integration for ports and cities), LIFE04 ENV/ES/000216; 2008.
[26] Toole FE. Sound reproduction: the acoustics and psychoacoustics of
loudspeakers and rooms. Focal Press; 2013. p. 3657.
[27] Witte R. Noise from moored ships. In: Proceedings of internoise conference
2010, Lisbon, Portugal; 1316 June 2010.