Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
TNO report
MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554
Author(s)
M. Dittrich (TNO)
H.J. Beckmann (TV-Nord)
P. Cellard (LNE)
A. Bowker (VCA)
Assignor
Project number
033.11768
Number of pages
Number of appendices
T +31 15 269 20 00
F +31 15 269 21 11
info@tno.nl
2 / 235
3 / 235
Summary
The NOMEVAL project is a study on the experience in the implementation and
administration of Directive 2000/14/EC relating to the noise emission in the
environment by equipment for use outdoors.
The main objectives of the study are the following:
- to review the existing available noise data and to assess the comparison of
measured and guaranteed noise levels, feasibility of stage I limits, stage II
limits and stricter limits. This is done only on the basis of a statistical analysis;
- to formulate a statement of the need for revision of the lists in Articles 12 and
13, especially whether new equipment should be added in either Article 12 or
Article 13;
- to formulate a statement of the need and possibilities for revision of the limit
values laid down in Article 12 taking into account technological development;
- to formulate a statement setting out an integrated range of instruments to be
used in continuing the reduction of noise by equipment.
From the assessment of the database it can be concluded that it could be used for the
statistical analysis, although for some equipment types, insufficient data is present.
Some data errors were eliminated from the analysis were possible. However it was not
always clear whether actual entered level were correct or not, although generally the
equipment types and models seemed correct. Such errors could be prevented in future
by automated data input checking.
Some general shortcomings of the database are:
- the technical parameter often missing and not always defined, especially for article 13
equipment;
- a lot of data from important manufacturers are obviously missing;
- electrical and combustion engine powered equipment is often mixed in the database;
- for the quality of data, essential parameters should be included in the DOC.
The results of the statistical analysis were used where possible and considered
acceptable as a background reference for the proposals for limit changes.
Two consultations were performed, one with environmental NGOs, national and
municipal autorities, notified bodies and market surveillance authorities, the second
with manufacturing companies and industry associations.
The environmental and industry consultations have some results in common. In
particular the lack of market surveillance and enforcement, the clarity of noise marking
and shortcomings in some of the test codes seem to be agreed on. Suggestions for
several new equipment types and a number of limit proposals were derived from the
environmental consultation, some of which were retained in later proposals.
The market surveillance of the directive is generally considered insufficient and leads to
unfair competition from non-compliant suppliers who make less costs. Many
respondents would prefer a simplification of the directive. Uncertainty is an issue which
manufacturers would like to have clearer rules for and would prefer to handle it
themselves. The EC database in its current form to contain many errors and needs
improving in the form of an IT tool as is currently underway.
4 / 235
Most companies state that there is little demand for quieter equipment and therefore
little direct financial benefit. However R&D on noise reduction is performed in many
companies and many known noise reduction solutions are applied.
For many equipment types and for new ones, improvements to the test cycles or test
codes have been made.
The overall environmental impact has been assessed for all the equipment types in the
directive and for potential new equipment types. Based on this, 12 high and medium
priority types for Article 12 limit changes were identified. For the remaining Article 12
types, limit changes are expected to have much less impact. For Article 13 equipment, a
group of 18 equipment types has been identified that clearly would be worth moving to
Article 12. For potentially new equipment types, 9 out of 21 were shown to be potential
candidates for addition to the Article 13 list, based on the expected environmental
impact. Limit changes of 3 dB or moving equipment from article 13 to 12, is most
effective for those types with a high environmental impact, as it affects most people.
A general analysis of available technical knowledge and progress was made.
The common noise sources and relevant noise control measures for the equipment in the
directive and potential new equipment were reviewed. Future trends and developments,
common constraints and design conflicts such as noise emission versus cooling
requirements in combustion engines were reviewed. Also links to other European
directives are covered, especially the Exhaust Directive and the Machinery Directive.
For moving equipment into Article 13 or from Article 13 to article 12, the technical
impact is generally small, as labelling or initial limits are only intended to result in
applying known techniques and existing components for noise reduction, and to
eliminate unnecessarily noisy equipment. Introduction of stage II limits for current
Article 12 equipment would have strongest technical impact on combustion engine
concrete breakers and picks, steel-tracked dozers and loaders. Currently there is more
research required to reduce steel track noise further before introducing the stage II limit.
For the other equipment with indicative stage II noise limits, such as lawnmowers, lawn
trimmers, vibratory plates, lift trucks and compacting screed paver finishers, the
technical impact is considered moderate, as noise control solutions are considered
feasible although not always straightforward.
Based on general considerations, the directive and its noise emission limits can be
considered significant for the European economy. The performed cost-benefit analysis
illustrates that the benefits of noise reduction clearly outweigh the costs for the
equipment types which have a medium to high environmental impact. The costs are in
the end borne by the purchaser or user of equipment. In those cases where limits are not
applied or tightened where it is needed, the citizens and employers pay the price, often
indirectly, in terms of sleep disturbance, concentration loss, fatigue, annoyance and
stress and reduced speed intelligibility. The benefits to citizens are estimated at around
10 Euros per person per year once the foreseen changes to the directive have taken
effect. For equipment types with a low environmental impact it is clearly not
economically worthwhile changing the limits.
Most importantly, without market surveillance the Directive is ineffective as costs are
incurred by industry complying to the Directive, whilst at the same time the may loose
market share to non-compliant companies.
5 / 235
The following equipment list revisions are proposed, based on all the considerations
available from the statistical, environmental, technical and economic analyses, the
consultations and the background documents.
New in Article 13
Mobile waste breakers and sieves (screens) (after 5 years), Mobile cranes for harbours
and terminals (bridge/gantry cranes), Road sweepers without aspirators.
Move from Article 13 to Article 12
Aerial access platforms CE powered, Brush cutters, Building site circular saw bench;
Combined high pressure flushers and suction vehicles, High pressure flushers, Suction
vehicles, combined; Cooling equipment on vehicles, Chain saws, portable, Drill rigs,
Glass recycling containers, Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers, Hedge trimmers CE
powered, High pressure water jet machines, upto 3 kW, electric), Hydraulic hammers,
Joint cutters, Leaf blowers and Leaf collectors, combined, Mobile waste containers,
Piling equipment (vibratory), Power generators (>_ 400 kW), Power sweepers, Refuse
collection vehicles, Road milling machines, Scarifiers CE powered, Shredders/chippers,
Truck mixers, Water pump units.
New in Article 12
Snowmobiles (after 5 years) and Mobile waste breakers and screens (wood, concrete)
(after 8 years).
Removal from the directive
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with electric motor), Building site band saw
machine, Compaction machines (explosion rammers), Concrete breakers and picks,
handheld, <3 kg, Construction winches (all), Conveyor belts, Landfill compactors,
loader-type with bucket (< 500 kW), Motor hoes (<3 kW), Pipelayers, Piste
Caterpillars, Trenchers.
Noise limit proposals were made for all equipment to be moved to Article 12, for
snowmobiles, waste breakers and screens, for handheld stone saws, and for the current
Article 12 equipment. Eleven equipment types are proposed to be moved from the
directive, of which three from Article 12.
Detailed proposals are given for all equipment types in Chapter 10. General instruments
for noise reduction are given including: improved DOC, improved marking, proposals
to improve market surveillance, technical R&D topics, information to the public.
6 / 235
Contents
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3
1
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Consultation ................................................................................................................. 36
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 36
Consultation of environmental stakeholders.................................................................. 36
Conclusions from the environmental consultation......................................................... 57
Consultation of Industry and Industry associations ....................................................... 58
Conclusions from the industry consultation................................................................... 76
General conclusions from the consultations .................................................................. 77
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
7 / 235
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 125
General economic considerations ................................................................................ 125
Market situation ........................................................................................................... 126
Overall impacts ............................................................................................................ 129
Main options and economic impacts............................................................................ 134
Costs for manufacturers and customers ....................................................................... 134
Benefits in terms of monetorised noise reduction........................................................ 136
Cost-benefit calculation ............................................................................................... 139
Conclusions on the economic impact .......................................................................... 145
8
8.1
8.2
8.3
Phase 1.2 Statement on the need to revise the lists of Article 12 and Article 13 .. 146
Introduction and approach ........................................................................................... 146
New equipment types................................................................................................... 147
Proposals for Article 12 and 13 list revisions .............................................................. 149
9
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
Phase 1.3 Statement on the need and possibilities to revise the limit values laid
down in Article 12 ...................................................................................................... 151
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 151
Compliance to stage I and II limits .............................................................................. 151
Need and possibilities to revise the limits.................................................................... 151
Limit proposals ............................................................................................................ 152
10
10.1
10.2
11
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.8
11.9
11.10
11.11
12
References................................................................................................................... 246
13
Signature..................................................................................................................... 254
Appendices
A Review of test codes, further proposals
B Proposal for a new standard for noise measurement for snowmobiles
8 / 235
9 / 235
Introduction
European Directive 2000/14/EC [1] requires noise marking for 57 types of equipment
used outdoors, and additionally, sets noise limits for 22 of these. It brings together a
number of previous separate Directives covering noise emission from some types of
machinery such as lawnmowers, compressors and construction equipment, adding
several new ones, such as cooling equipment on vehicles, glass recycling containers and
piling equipment.
Article 1 of the Directive states:
The aim of this Directive is to harmonise the laws of the Member States relating to
noise emission standards, conformity assessment procedures, marking, technical
documentation and collection of data concerning the noise emission in the environment
of equipment for use outdoors. It will contribute to the smooth functioning of the
internal market, while protecting human health and well-being.
The provision of noise information is also consistent with the requirements of the
Machinery Directive 98/37/EC [2] and CE-marking. The benefits from quieter
machinery not only benefit the environment but also the workplace, both for the
operator and the bystander of machinery. European Directive 2003/10/EC [3]
recommends users to select work equipment so that noise exposure is effectively
reduced.
All equipment listed in the 2000/14/EC Directive must be marked with a guaranteed
sound power level, which is based on a measurement performed according to the
methods specified by the Directive. Equipment types subject to noise marking only are
known as Article 13 equipment, whereas equipment types also subject to noise limits
are known as Article 12 equipment. These limits are for the guaranteed noise level,
which is higher than the measured level to take measurement and production
uncertainties into account. Both measured and guaranteed levels are registered and
should be submitted to the Commission in Declarations of Conformity (DOC) [4].
Since Directive 2000/14/EC has come into force in January 2002, the Commission has
collected Declarations of Conformity, and assembled thousands of measured and
guaranteed noise levels in a database which has now been made available on the
Internet.
Directive 2005/88/EC [5] is an amendment to 2000/14, adapting the stage II limits for
Article 12 equipment, some of which are indicative. In this Directive the following is
stated:
The experience of the first five years of application of Directive 2000/14/EC has
demonstrated that more time is needed to fulfill the provisions under Articles 16 and 20
thereof and highlighted the need to review that Directive with a view to its possible
amendment, in particular with respect to the stage II limits referred to therein. It is
therefore necessary to extend by two years the deadline for submission of the report to
the European Parliament and to the Council on the Commissions experience in
implementing and administering Directive 2000/14/EC as referred to in Article 20(1) of
that Directive.
10 / 235
Limit values for Article 12 equipment are listed in table 1.1. The full list of equipment
types in the Directive can be found in the tables in chapter 2. The equipment types can
be grouped into the following application areas:
-
construction;
road building and maintenance;
horticulture and forestry, both private and professional;
municipal services;
energy supply and cooling systems.
Means of transportation of people and goods by road, rail, water or air are excluded
from this Directive. Also equipment for military, police and emergency services and
agricultural machinery such as tractors, attachments and harvesters are not included.
Table 1.1: Limits for Article 12 equipment (from Directive 2005/88/EC [5])
11 / 235
12 / 235
2.1
13 / 235
2.1.1
General review
A version of the EC machinery noise database [8] was provided by the Commission in
the form of a spreadsheet, dated January 5th, 2007. This database was examined and it
was found that in general, the database is usable but for some equipment types little
data is present. Also in a limited number of cases fields are not always filled or
incorrectly filled. For Article 13 equipment the technical parameter is generally
missing. For some Article 12 equipment the guaranteed levels are all rather similar
and/or close to the limit. Many companies seem to be missing from the EC database,
which is either due to non-submission of DOCs or due to the fact that the DOC was
only submitted to the national authority and not to the EC.
The extract from the database as provided by the EC contained 19080 records including
most of the 57 equipment types. 17866 records could be used for the statistical analysis,
after eliminating faulty or double entries. A summary table of the entries in the database
with overall statistics is given in table 1. Here it can clearly be seen in the shaded fields
that for some equipment types, the number of measured or declared data, the number of
models, the number of suppliers or the number of technical parameters is too low.
Especially article 13 equipment does not always include the value of the technical
parameter. In some cases more than one measured value per model is given.
In table 2, an overview of data records is presented, sorted by year of declaration and
indicating the number of measured values and parameter values per equipment type.
Equipment types with too low amounts of data are indicated by shading in the table.
Detailed comments are given in the following on the amount of data, its validity and
suitability for the analysis.
14 / 235
Table 2.1: Summary of database entries and analysis of the EC database per January 2007. Blue shaded
fileds indicate the Article 12 equipment. Orange shaded fields indicate a relatively low number, red shaded
fields are extremely low or zero.
Eq
no.
1
2
3a
3b
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
10
11
12a
12b
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36a
36b
37
38
39
40
41a
41b
42
43
44
45a
45b
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Row
Number of
Number of admissible Number of
% with Number of Number of
number
power guaranteed parameter measured measured
in Art 12 Number Number
Number of parameter
Art.
values
levels sound levels
value values per values per
limits
of
of sound power
Equipment name
12/13
model
supplier
available
available available
table suppliers models measurements available
Aerial access platforms with combustion engine
13
20
129
154
66
0
154
43%
1.2
7.7
Brush cutters
13
24
206
223
118
0
223
53%
1.1
9.3
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combustion-engine driven)
12
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
100%
1.0
2.0
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with electric motor)
13
1
2
2
2
0
2
100%
1.0
2.0
Building site band saw machine
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0.0
0.0
Building site circular saw bench
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0.0
0.0
Chain saws, portable
13
28
216
278
69
0
277
25%
1.3
9.9
Combined high pressure flushers and suction vehicles
13
6
83
107
0
0
107
0%
1.3
17.8
Compaction machines (explosion rammers only)
13
1
11
11
11
0
11
100%
1.0
11.0
1
43
1639
2938
2875
2872
2938
98%
1.8
68.3
Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibrating rollers, vibratory plates 12
Compressors (< 350 kw)
12
8
30
397
642
553
552
640
86%
1.6
21.4
Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
12
5
19
220
247
221
221
247
89%
1.1
13.0
Concrete or mortar mixers
13
12
57
78
12
0
78
15%
1.4
6.5
Construction winches (combustion-engine driven)
12
4
3
119
119
119
119
119
100%
1.0
39.7
Construction winches (electrically driven)
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0.0
0.0
Conveying and spraying machines for concrete and mortar
13
10
50
76
68
0
76
89%
1.5
7.6
Conveyor belts
13
3
9
9
1
0
9
11%
1.0
3.0
Cooling equipment on vehicles
13
1
5
5
4
0
5
80%
1.0
5.0
Dozers (< 500 kw)
12
2
10
65
77
76
76
77
99%
1.2
7.7
Drill rigs
13
13
132
156
149
0
156
96%
1.2
12.0
Dumpers (< 500 kw)
12
3
32
153
211
157
157
211
74%
1.4
6.6
Equipment for loading and unloading silos or tanks on trucks
13
6
42
47
0
0
45
0%
1.1
7.8
Excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 kw)
12
4
53
692
906
885
885
904
98%
1.3
17.1
Excavator-loaders (< 500 kw)
12
2
29
181
217
216
216
215
100%
1.2
7.5
Glass recycling containers
13
6
25
25
0
0
25
0%
1.0
4.2
Graders (< 500 kw)
12
3
6
29
33
33
33
33
100%
1.1
5.5
Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers
13
24
111
122
28
0
122
23%
1.1
5.1
Hedge trimmers
13
43
285
350
71
0
349
20%
1.2
8.1
High pressure flushers
13
7
27
29
0
0
29
0%
1.1
4.1
High pressure water jet machines
13
18
137
154
18
0
154
12%
1.1
8.6
Hydraulic hammers
13
19
122
139
66
0
131
47%
1.1
7.3
Hydraulic power packs
12
3
20
36
42
36
36
39
86%
1.2
2.1
Joint cutters
13
7
72
84
32
0
84
38%
1.2
12.0
Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 500 kw)
12
3
15
87
89
66
66
89
74%
1.0
5.9
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry equipment)
12
9
77
1675
1955
1643
1930
1952
84%
1.2
25.4
Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers
12
9
27
215
279
110
275
278
39%
1.3
10.3
Leaf blowers
13
29
102
126
9
0
126
7%
1.2
4.3
Leaf collectors
13
12
28
36
2
0
36
6%
1.3
3.0
Lift trucks, CE driven, counterbalanced (rough terrain/construction)
12
3
34
792
958
434
434
956
45%
1.2
28.2
Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (others excl. Container handling)
13
3
17
18
3
0
18
17%
1.1
6.0
Loaders (< 500 kw)
12
2
67
773
1068
921
921
1067
86%
1.4
15.9
Mobile cranes
12
3
30
272
302
273
273
301
90%
1.1
10.1
Mobile waste containers
13
7
22
23
0
0
23
0%
1.0
3.3
Motor hoes (< 3 kw)
12
4
11
37
38
21
21
38
55%
1.0
3.5
Paver-finishers (equipped with a high-compaction screed)
13
2
14
15
10
0
15
67%
1.1
7.5
Paver-finishers (excl. paver-finishers with high-compaction screed)
12
3
14
142
166
162
162
166
98%
1.2
11.9
Piling equipment
13
1
1
1
0
0
1
0%
1.0
1.0
Pipelayers
13
2
6
7
7
0
7
100%
1.2
3.5
Piste caterpillars
13
1
4
4
4
0
4
100%
1.0
4.0
Power generators (< 400 kw)
12
7
34
411
537
382
382
535
71%
1.3
15.8
Power generators (>_ 400 kw)
13
7
33
49
7
0
48
14%
1.5
7.0
Power sweepers
13
9
68
73
2
0
73
3%
1.1
8.1
Refuse collection vehicles
13
9
3611
3763
12
0
3762
0%
1.0
418.1
Road milling machines
13
5
15
15
9
0
15
60%
1.0
3.0
Scarifiers
13
19
65
83
34
0
76
41%
1.3
4.4
Shredders chippers
13
26
187
235
97
0
233
41%
1.3
9.0
Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-propelled, excl. attachments)
13
10
49
49
13
0
49
27%
1.0
4.9
Suction vehicles
13
3
30
31
0
0
31
0%
1.0
10.3
Tower cranes
12
6
6
83
95
87
87
95
92%
1.1
15.8
Trenchers
13
3
20
20
20
0
20
100%
1.0
6.7
Truck mixers
13
12
41
46
22
0
46
48%
1.1
3.8
Water pump units (not for use under water)
13
22
189
275
67
0
275
24%
1.5
12.5
Welding generators
12
7
5
19
25
21
21
25
84%
1.3
5.0
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL
0
0
0
25
6
27
62
31
3
154
0
0
0
81
54
46
39
1
2
223
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 119
90
18
26
21
4
279
0
0
0
0
2
4
49
45
7
107
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
11
1
0
0 382 871 474 582 446 183
2939
0
1
0
53 207 194
39 127
22
643
0
0
1
33 100
40
4
48
22
248
0
0
0
6
38
14
4
2
14
78
0
0
0
0
0 117
1
0
1
119
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
23
27
4
18
2
77
0
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
0
5
0
0
0
2
29
6
21
6
13
77
0
0
0
2
33
24
44
22
31
156
0
0
0
14
77
45
25
31
19
211
0
0
0
0
1
5
19
13
9
47
0
0
0 103 311 189 115 100
88
906
0
0
0
33
56
62
11
34
21
217
0
0
0
0
15
0
5
2
3
25
0
0
0
0
11
13
0
0
9
33
0
0
0
67
34
9
7
5
0
122
0
0
2 107 122
41
43
23
14
352
0
0
0
15
1
4
6
3
0
29
0
0
0
1
46
25
40
23
19
154
0
0
0
0
71
9
11
18
30
139
0
0
0
1
11
6
6
2
16
42
0
0
0
8
16
0
30
2
28
84
0
0
0
24
36
4
12
10
3
89
0
0
0 171 690 420 155 390 129
1955
0
0
0
28 108
66
20
48
9
279
0
0
3
62
17
11
13
17
6
129
0
0
0
6
8
3
8
8
3
36
0
0
0
26 277 300 201 135
20
959
0
0
0
0
2
13
0
1
2
18
0
0
0
73 291 284 215 122
84
1069
1
0
0
0 149
41
35
33
44
303
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
11
0
23
0
0
0
2
9
7
7
4
9
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
1
15
0
0
0
3
40
47
16
42
18
166
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
3
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
91 245
27
50
78
46
537
0
0
0
0
4
4
3
5
33
49
0
0
0
13
0
53
0
5
2
73
0
0
1
11 884 950 983 935
1
3765
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
8
2
15
0
0
0
8
32
18
7
18
0
83
0
0
0
43
66
75
28
15
8
235
0
0
0
1
11
13
19
3
2
49
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
14
0
31
0
0
0
0
4
70
16
5
0
95
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
9
2
20
0
0
0
0
9
7
5
0
25
46
0
0
0 109
32
7
72
41
14
275
0
0
0
2
18
2
2
1
0
25
2
1
9 1727 5176 3837 3105 2999 1025 17881
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL
0
0
0
25
2
22
0
17
0
66
0
0
0
39
45
34
3
0
0
121
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
21
0
0
4
1
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
11
1
0
0 368 868 469 606 441 173
2926
0
1
0
58 167 176
41 121
18
582
0
0
0
18
98
40
4
46
15
221
0
0
0
0
3
2
3
0
4
12
0
0
0
0
0 117
1
0
1
119
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
26
3
18
2
68
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
3
30
5
21
6
13
78
0
0
0
0
32
33
43
20
32
160
0
0
0
0
72
29
18
23
19
161
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 100 298 201 123
99
86
907
0
0
0
33
60
82
14
34
21
244
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
13
0
0
10
34
0
0
0
1
26
1
1
0
0
29
0
0
0
7
42
6
1
10
5
71
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
9
4
20
0
0
0
0
30
3
2
10
21
66
0
0
0
1
11
3
8
2
13
38
0
0
0
0
1
0
8
0
25
34
0
0
0
1
36
6
13
10
3
69
0
0
0 116 608 386 118 352
89
1669
0
0
0
6
45
14
1
38
6
110
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
4
9
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
14 256 124
32
28
11
465
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
73 212 266 181 124
84
940
1
0
0
0 180
42
34
31
18
306
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
6
2
2
7
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
1
10
0
0
0
3
40
47
15
40
18
163
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
3
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
93 191
25
23
48
15
395
0
0
0
0
3
2
1
1
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
10
1
1
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
5
2
9
0
0
0
0
21
4
1
8
0
34
0
0
0
9
44
40
0
5
1
99
0
0
0
0
6
3
1
1
2
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
67
19
5
0
94
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
9
2
20
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
15
22
0
0
0
16
10
18
14
34
9
101
0
0
0
2
15
3
2
1
0
23
2
1
0 1040 3543 2337 1373 1616 754 10666
15 / 235
Equipment name
art. 12/13 1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL
Aerial access platforms with combustion engine
13
0
0
0
25
6
30
93
32
3
189
Brush cutters
13
0
0
0
81
57
46
44
1
2
231
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combustion-engine driven)
12
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
5
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with electric motor)
13
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
Building site band saw machine
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Building site circular saw bench
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chain saws, portable
13
0
0
1 119
90
19
33
22
4
288
Combined high pressure flushers and suction vehicles
13
0
0
0
0
2
8 102
47
7
166
Compaction machines (explosion rammers only)
13
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
11
12
1
0
0 382 871 821 686 457 190
3408
Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibrating rollers, vibrato
Compressors (< 350 kW)
12
0
1
0
96 217 194
43 127
23
701
Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
12
0
0
1
33 100
41
4
48
22
249
Concrete or mortar mixers
13
0
0
0
6
38
14
4
2
14
78
Construction winches (combustion-engine driven)
12
0
0
0
0
0 117
1
0
1
119
Construction winches (electrically driven)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Conveying and spraying machines for concrete and mortar
13
0
0
1
2
23
27
4
18
2
77
Conveyor belts
13
0
0
0
0
0
26
17
0
1
44
Cooling equipment on vehicles
13
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
0
5
Dozers (< 500 kW)
12
0
0
0
3
30
6
21
6
13
79
0
0
0
2
33
34
47
27
33
176
Drill rigs
13
Dumpers (< 500 kW)
12
0
0
0
14
78
46
25
33
21
217
Equipment for loading and unloading silos or tanks on trucks
13
0
0
0
1
1
6
19
15
10
52
Excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 kW)
12
0
0
0 103 323 201 123 102
88
940
Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW)
12
0
0
0
33
71
82
14
34
22
256
Glass recycling containers
13
0
0
0
0
15
0
5
2
3
25
Graders (< 500 kW)
12
0
0
0
0
11
13
0
0
10
34
Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers
13
0
0
0
69
35
12
8
5
0
129
Hedge trimmers
13
0
0
2 112 124
41
45
23
14
361
0
0
0
15
9
4
6
3
0
37
High pressure flushers
13
High pressure water jet machines
13
0
0
0
1
48
26
41
23
19
158
Hydraulic hammers
13
0
0
0
0
71
9
12
18
31
141
Hydraulic power packs
12
0
0
0
1
11
6
8
2
16
44
Joint cutters
13
0
0
0
8
16
0
32
2
28
86
Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 500 kW)
12
0
0
0
24
36
6
13
10
3
92
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry equipment)
12
0
0
0 180 715 429 169 391 129
2013
Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers
12
0
0
0
28 108
67
23
48
9
283
Leaf blowers
13
0
0
3
62
19
12
14
17
7
134
0
0
0
6
8
3
8
8
4
37
Leaf collectors
13
Lift trucks, CE driven, counterbalanced (rough terrain/construction)
12
0
0
0
26 280 330 205 137
21
999
Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (others excl. Container handlin
13
0
0
0
0
2
13
0
1
2
18
Loaders (< 500 kW)
12
0
0
0
76 307 298 215 126
84
1106
Mobile cranes
12
1
0
0
0 180
42
36
33
44
336
Mobile waste containers
13
0
0
0
0
9
1
12
11
0
33
Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
12
0
0
0
2
9
7
7
4
9
38
Paver-finishers (equipped with a high-compaction screed)
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
1
15
Paver-finishers (excl. paver-finishers with high-compaction screed)
12
0
0
0
3
40
50
17
42
18
170
Piling equipment
13
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
4
Pipelayers
13
0
0
0
0
4
0
3
0
0
7
Piste caterpillars
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
Power generators (< 400 kW)
12
0
0
0
93 253
27
54
78
46
551
Power generators (>_ 400 kW)
13
0
0
0
0
4
4
3
5
33
49
Power sweepers
13
0
0
0
13
0
53
0
5
2
73
1
11 949 952 984 936
1
3834
Refuse collection vehicles
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
8
2
15
Road milling machines
13
Scarifiers
13
0
0
0
8
32
22
7
18
0
87
Shredders chippers
13
1
0
0
43
72
76
32
17
8
249
13
0
0
0
1
11
13
19
3
2
49
Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-propelled, excl. atta
Suction vehicles
13
0
0
0
0
0
1
29
14
0
44
Tower cranes
12
0
0
0
0
4
83
22
5
0
114
Trenchers
13
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
9
2
20
Truck mixers
13
0
0
0
0
9
7
5
0
26
47
Water pump units (not for use under water)
13
0
0
0 109
41
25
72
48
14
309
Welding generators
12
0
0
0
2
33
3
2
1
0
41
TOTAL
3
1
9 1793 5420 4364 3402 3042 1045 19079
Eq. no.
1
2
3a
3b
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
10
11
12a
12b
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36a
36b
37
38
39
40
41a
41b
42
43
44
45a
45b
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Number of records
2.1.2
16 / 235
Amount of data
The amount of data per equipment type varies considerably. Most equipment entries are
from 2001-2006. The following was found.
- The database does not give a representative picture of the market, many brands
are missing.
- Many smaller manufacturers do not provide data to the EC.
- For refuse vehicles and for compaction machines too many equivalent model
types are declared, all with the same sound power level;
- For Article 12 equipment: parameter information is missing for some types, in
particular lawntrimmers, lift trucks and welding generators.
- For Article 13 equipment: No data is present at all on circular saw and band
saw machines.
- The following is often unclear:
name and address of the person who keeps the technical documentation.
conformity assessment procedure followed, and, where appropriate, name
and address of the notified body involved.
In 12 cases, a too low number of models or manufacturers is present (much more is on
the market), for
- builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combustion-engine driven)
- builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with electric motor)
- band saw machines
- circular saw benches
- compaction machines (explosion rammers only)
- construction winches, electrically driven
- conveyor belts
- cooling equipment on vehicles
- paver-finishers (equipped with a high-compaction screed)
- piste caterpillars
- piling equipment
- pipelayers.
For the purposes of the statistical analysis, these equipment types have a rather low
number of entries, 20 or less. Also the following 3 types have a too small number of
entries:
- lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterbalanced (Art. 13)
- road milling machines
- trenchers.
So for 15 equipment types, the amount of data is too low for the statistical analysis.
For some types such as lift trucks for example, this is surprising, as these are very
numerous in the market.
It was concluded that additional data from other sources (VCA, TV-Nord, LNE and
NL database) was required to properly perform the analysis, especially for the
equipment types lacking data. However, only a limited amount of external data actually
could be used to supplement the database, partly due to similar limitations of external
data, partly to avoid doubling of information and also because notified bodies could
only pass on customer data with permission from the manufacturers.
17 / 235
2.1.3
Data validity
In a limited number of cases, errors are present in the data. In some cases these errors
could be easily corrected typographically, in others data is actually faulty or missing.
The errors are the following:
- The technical parameter is often not included, especially for Article 13
equipment. A consequence is that difficult to use this data to derive limits
based on the technical parameter;
- Some syntax errors are present in the field netpower_noise_value:
- both dot . and comma , separators are used; Units such as kW are
sometimes included in the number for mechanical power;
- some values are incorrect (widely out of range);
- sometimes the admissible sound power level is not stated;
- sometimes a value of 0 is given for measured or guaranteed sound power
level for Article 12 equipment;
- the technical parameter is sometimes stated as kW where it should be cm (e.g.
lawnmowers);
- in some cases the measured level is higher than the guaranteed level.
- For cooling equipment on vehicles, a serious error is present: the 5 data entries
belong to mobile cranes, not cooling equipment.
2.1.4
Other observations
The following additional observations were made in the database:
- for Article 12 equipment dozers, loaders and excavator-loaders, different limits
are set for tracked and wheeled equipment, but no indication of this
subtype is in the database.
- for lawn edge trimmers, lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterbalanced
(excluding 'other counterbalanced l....), and for welding generators
information on the limit is poor.
- no noise limits are given in the database for equipment, which was amended by
the 2005/88/EC directive, where the set noise limit was applied in two stages.
- under cooling equipment, several of the few available entries are wrong as they
belong to mobile cranes.
In conclusion, for those equipment types where a sufficient amount of data is present,
the statistical analysis can be performed. For the others, additional data is required. In
all cases where the error was clear, a correction was made, otherwise the erroneous data
was omitted from the analysis. The errors found in the database could be prevented in
future by automated checking during input.
2.1.5
2.2
18 / 235
The second step was to analyse the data for each equipment type to examine
- the measured values and their spread; this is indicative of measurement
uncertainty and differences in the application of noise control; the measured
values can be used to estimate what limits might be achievable with currently
applied technology;
- the guaranteed values and their spread; this is indicative of compliance to the
limits, uncertainty in measurement and production and how the manufacturers
choose the guaranteed value (e.g. close to limit);
- the difference between measured and guaranteed values; this is indicative of
the margin taken by manufacturers, and suggests potentially available scope for
noise reduction and limit changes, although uncertainty in measurement and
production also play a role here;
- overall level averages and spread; this is indicative for potential noise reduction
and limit changes.
- a number of other statistical indicators for each equipment type in Articles 12
and 13.
The results of these analyses are presented in the following sections. For the sake of
compactness, all the statistical graphs are not included in this report but some examples
are given.The graphs on which the analyses were based includes the following:
-
spread/distribution plots for each year (2001-2006) for the difference between
measured and guaranteed values; this illustrates the margin taken for the
guaranteed level and the potential for noise reduction, also the trend over time.
plots for measured level data, against the technical parameter, together with
curves corresponding to 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% pass rates. The 50% pass
rate curve corresponds approximately to the average curve. The measured data
is used to assess the amount of available data and its distribution, and the
potential future limit taking noise reduction into account. Where the technical
parameter is missing, an average and the variation is determined over the whole
dataset. This at least gives an indication of the levels and their variation.
plots for guaranteed level data, against the technical parameter, together with
stage I and stage II limits and potentially stricter limits based on the measured
data; this illustrates the feasibility of the stage I, stage II and potential new
limits.
The statistical software package GENSTAT [10] was used by TNO to perform the
various analyses and presentation. The statistical analysis is formulated in such a way as
to enable statements on the limits and equipment lists.
Evaluation of the stage I and stage II limits is done in relation to the guaranteed levels,
also in a separate comparison with data from 2006.
Potential other limits for article 12 equipment and potential new limits for article 13
equipment are generated from the measured data, adding a margin for measurement and
production uncertainty. For article 12 equipment, alternative limits follow the same
shape as the stage I and II limits, just the relative level is different.
The percentage of existing equipment that should satisfy new limits is a choice that
depends on the approach to limit setting. From an environmental viewpoint, limits
could be set to approve only equipment that is quieter than the average currently on the
19 / 235
market. In that case, around 30% pass rate might be required. At the other extreme, if
no additional cost is allowed, a much higher pass rate might be taken, for example 90%.
In that case, little or no noise reduction would be expected in practice and the Directive
would be ineffective. Therefore, the potential limits resulting from 30%/50%/70%/90%
pass rate were investigated.
Proposals for new limits for Article 13 equipment are based on a regression line of
measured values Lmeas,avg , in some cases without the technical parameter if it was not
available. In principal, all equipment types could be moved from Article 13 to Article
12, and given a noise limit based on the average of the measurements plus an
uncertainty margin of 2 dB. This would require that the test codes are improved where
necessary.
The general approach for limit proposal can be expressed as follows:
Llim,new = Lx% + 2
(2.1)
Llim,new is the new limit, either as a single value or as function of the technical
parameter. Guaranteed levels are checked against this limit.
Lx% is the curve below which x% of the measured data lies. This curve is either given as
a single value (horizontal line) or as as function of the technical parameter, usually
resulting in a stepped positive slope. The 2 dB margin is to produce a limit level that
can be compared with the guaranteed level.
The form of the limit curve is the same as stage I and II limits for Article 12 equipment.
For new limits of Article 13 equipment a similar limit was chosen, i.e. of the form
A + B lg (parameter).
2.3
20 / 235
Table 2.3: Difference between measured and guaranteed values for all equipment types.
Orange shaded fields indicate comparitively large differences or in the case of number of
values, a small number.
Eq.no.
3a
8b
9
10
12
16
18
20
21
23
29
31
32
33
36a
37
38
40
41b
45a
53
57
1
2
3b
4
5
6
7
8a
11
13
14
15
17
19
22
24
25
26
27
28
30
34
35
36b
39
41a
42
43
44
45b
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
54
55
56
Equipment name
Art.
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combustion-engine driven)
12
Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibrating rollers, vibratory plates)
12
Compressors (< 350 kW)
12
Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
12
Construction winches (combustion-engine driven)
12
Dozers (< 500 kW)
12
Dumpers (< 500 kW)
12
Excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 kW)
12
Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW)
12
Graders (< 500 kW)
12
Hydraulic power packs
12
Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 500 kW)
12
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry equipment)
12
Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers
12
Lift trucks, CE driven, counterbalanced (rough terrain/construction)
12
Loaders (< 500 kW)
12
Mobile cranes
12
Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
12
Paver-finishers (excl. paver-finishers with high-compaction screed)
12
Power generators (< 400 kW)
12
Tower cranes
12
Welding generators
12
Aerial access platforms with combustion engine
13
Brush cutters
13
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with electric motor)
13
Building site band saw machine
13
Building site circular saw bench
13
Chain saws, portable
13
Combined high pressure flushers and suction vehicles
13
Compaction machines (explosion rammers only)
13
Concrete or mortar mixers
13
Conveying and spraying machines for concrete and mortar
13
Conveyor belts
13
Cooling equipment on vehicles
13
Drill rigs
13
Equipment for loading and unloading silos or tanks on trucks
13
Glass recycling containers
13
Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers
13
Hedge trimmers
13
High pressure flushers
13
High pressure water jet machines
13
Hydraulic hammers
13
Joint cutters
13
Leaf blowers
13
Leaf collectors
13
Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (others excl. Container handling)
13
Mobile waste containers
13
Paver-finishers (equipped with a high-compaction screed)
13
Piling equipment
13
Pipelayers
13
Piste caterpillars
13
Power generators (>_ 400 kW)
13
Power sweepers
13
Refuse collection vehicles
13
Road milling machines
13
Scarifiers
13
Shredders chippers
13
Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-propelled, excl. attachments)
13
Suction vehicles
13
Trenchers
13
Truck mixers
13
Water pump units (not for use under water)
13
%
%
Number of
Standard
% of guaranteed guaranteed
values
measured
Mean Minimum Maximum deviation of
guaranteed
minus
minus
minus difference difference difference differences values above measured measured
(dBA)
(dBA)
guaranteed
(dBA)
(dBA)
measured
> 2 dBA
> 5 dBA
4
2.0
1
4
1.4
0
25.0
0.0
2042
1.9
0
10
1.4
0
14.9
3.6
467
2.9
-3
20
3.5
0.2
28.1
20.3
240
2.9
0
11
2.4
0
46.2
15.4
119
1.6
0
15
2.0
0
11.8
1.7
72
1.9
0
5
1.2
0
26.4
0.0
193
2.2
0
12
2.5
0
26.4
7.3
798
1.1
-9
4
0.8
0.1
2.5
0.0
188
1.5
0
6
1.0
0
12.2
0.5
33
1.7
0
5
1.1
0
18.2
0.0
36
1.8
0
5
1.4
0
38.9
0.0
89
1.1
0
4
1.0
0
9.0
0.0
1784
1.8
0
20
1.7
0
19.2
2.9
252
2.9
0
25
3.3
0
35.3
15.1
821
2.3
-1
18
1.3
0.1
63.0
0.5
890
1.2
0
5
1.1
0
9.9
0.0
285
2.2
-1
8
1.5
0.4
35.8
4.9
48
2.0
0
8
1.5
0
18.8
6.2
156
1.6
0
9
1.3
0
15.4
1.9
505
1.1
-7
24
1.8
0.2
6.7
2.0
87
2.7
1
7
1.2
0
35.6
1.1
34
0.1
0
1
0.3
0
0.0
0.0
136
1.9
0
6
1.4
0
38.2
2.2
209
2.3
0
21
2.1
0
24.9
2.4
2
3.5
3
4
0.7
0
100.0
0.0
0
0
233
2.0
0
10
1.7
0
32.6
3.4
83
1.0
0
2
0.2
0
0.0
0.0
11
1.5
1
2
0.5
0
0.0
0.0
78
2.5
1
8
1.3
0
51.3
2.6
58
3.0
0
15
3.2
0
44.8
12.1
9
2.2
1
3
0.7
0
33.3
0.0
6
5.0
2
7
2.4
0
66.7
66.7
138
2.0
0
5
1.0
0
29.0
0.0
40
1.1
1
4
0.5
0
2.5
0.0
25
2.9
2
4
0.5
0
80.0
0.0
111
3.0
0
16
2.1
0
56.8
9.0
328
2.9
0
25
2.2
0
54.6
7.0
28
1.8
1
7
1.3
0
17.9
3.6
141
3.7
0
17
3.2
0
51.8
19.1
120
3.4
1
9
1.6
0
68.3
11.7
76
1.2
0
3
0.7
0
10.5
0.0
111
2.6
0
21
2.4
0
44.1
5.4
33
3.0
1
12
2.5
0
60.6
6.1
17
2.9
2
3
0.3
0
88.2
0.0
22
3.3
0
24
4.9
0
59.1
9.1
16
2.5
2
5
1.0
0
25.0
0.0
2
4.0
4
4
0.0
0
100.0
0.0
6
2.8
1
5
2.0
0
50.0
0.0
4
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
40
0.7
0
3
0.8
0
5.0
0.0
78
2.9
1
15
2.5
0
53.8
2.6
5594
4.5
0
16
3.3
0
74.4
27.0
15
2.3
2
4
0.6
0
26.7
0.0
67
2.8
0
21
2.6
0
49.3
6.0
216
3.3
0
43
6.8
0
38.4
4.6
81
2.4
0
10
1.7
0
40.7
2.5
30
1.1
0
6
0.9
0
3.3
3.3
21
1.4
0
4
1.0
0
14.3
0.0
41
2.8
0
5
1.4
0
63.4
0.0
214
3.0
0
13
1.8
0
56.1
5.1
The equipment types for wich more than 10% of the values have a difference larger
than 5 dB are the following:
-
lawn trimmers and lawn edge trimmers (no. 33, Art. 12, 252 samples)
compressors <350 kW (no. 9, Art. 12, 467 samples)
concrete breakers and picks, hand-held (no. 10, Art. 12, 240 samples)
conveying and spraying machines for concrete and mortar (no. 13, Art. 13, 58
samples)
cooling equipment on vehicles (no. 15, Art. 13, 6 samples)
high pressure water jet machines (no. 27, Art. 13, 141 samples)
hydraulic hammers (no. 28, Art. 13, 120 samples)
refuse collection vehicles (no. 47, Art. 13, 5594 samples)
21 / 235
These equipment types may have a large margin applied due to measurement or
production uncertainty, but may also have potential for stricter noise limits (at least the
Article 12 equipment). Another reason may be that the limit value is declared, even
where the equipment is electrically powered. In general a larger uncertainty margin is
used for Article 13 equipment.
The difference between measured and guaranteed values can be plotted for each
equipment type in the form of a box plot, showing the median or mean value, the
min/max spread and the distribution (25%-75% range) of the difference for each year.
An example is given in figure 2.1. It can be seen that the spread decreases in time,
although the mean value remains about the same. As such plots did not reveal any
significant trends, they are not included in this report, and it sufficed to tabulate the
results of this analysis.
Figure 2.1 Box plot of guaranteed minus measured levels, for compressors (< 350 kW), N=467 samples,
including the mean value, the 25%-75% distribution (box) and the minimum and maximum
values for each year (vertical line).
From a visual comparison of the differences plotted in these graphs the following trends
were found (Article 12 types in bold):
- a general decrease in the difference and the spread for equipment types
2, 7, 10, 13, 17, 18, 22, 24, 27, 30, 36a, 41a, 45b, 46, 48, 49, 52, 56
- a general increase in the difference and the spread for equipment types
1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 40, 41b, 51, 54, 55
- a constant trend for equipment types
8b, 9, 19, 20, 28, 33, 35, 36b, 37, 38, 39, 45a, 47, 50, 53, 57.
- No trend for types 8a and 12; others lack sufficient data.
22 / 235
These trends do not seem to be sufficiently clear to draw conclusions on. The average
difference between guaranteed and measured values over all equipment types is 1.8 dB
for Article 12 equipment and 2.6 dB for Article 13 equipment.
2.4
23 / 235
Table 2.4: Measured values and pass rate curves for Article 12 equipment types. The lower table is for 2006
data only. The columns above or below stage II indicate the number of dB difference with the stage II
limits. Light green shaded fields indicate an equal or lower value than the stage II limits.
Eq.
no.
3a
8b
9
10
12
16
18
21
20
23
29
31
33
32
36a
37
38
40
41b
45a
53
57
Equipment name
builders' hoists for the transport of goods (comb
compaction machines (only vibrating and non-v
compressors (< 350 kW)
concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
construction winches (combustion-engine driven
dozers (< 500 kW)
dumpers (< 500 kW)
excavator-loaders (< 500 kW)
excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 k
graders (< 500 kW)
hydraulic power packs
landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 5
lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers
lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry
lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterba
loaders (< 500 kW)
mobile cranes
motor hoes (< 3 kW)
paver-finishers (excluding paver-finishers equip
power generators (< 400 kW)
tower cranes
welding generators
Art
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Eq.
no. Equipment name
Art
3a Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (comb 12
8b Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-v 12
9 Compressors (< 350 kW)
12
10 Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
12
12 Construction winches (combustion-engine driven 12
16 Dozers (< 500 kW)
12
18 Dumpers (< 500 kW)
12
21 Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW)
12
20 Excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 k 12
23 Graders (< 500 kW)
12
29 Hydraulic power packs
12
31 Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 5 12
33 Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers
12
32 Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry 12
36a Lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterba 12
37 Loaders (< 500 kW)
12
38 Mobile cranes
12
40 Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
12
41b Paver-finishers (excluding paver-finishers equipp 12
45a Power generators (< 400 kW)
12
53 Tower cranes
12
57 Welding generators
12
number
of
measure
ments
4
1976
403
216
119
69
140
189
790
33
33
66
103
1499
305
778
257
21
153
363
83
34
number
of
measure
ments
1
113
17
13
1
11
14
21
82
9
13
3
6
84
9
57
17
7
18
15
0
0
new 90%
new 70%
new 50%
new 30%
curve: dB
curve:dB
curve: dB
curve: dB
above or
above or
above or
above or
below % below
below % below
below % below
below % below
stage II new 90%
stage II new 70%
stage II new 50%
stage II new 50%
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
5
100.0
4
75.0
4
75.0
2
50.0
2
99.5
1
88.5
0
52.9
-2
32.8
1
91.6
1
91.6
-1
55.3
-7
31.5
1
95.8
0
77.8
-1
60.2
-3
31.9
3
94.1
1
79.8
0
66.4
-5
37.0
2
97.1
2
97.1
1
50.7
0
31.9
2
91.4
1
72.1
0
55.0
-2
31.4
-1
91.0
-2
72.0
-4
51.9
-5
41.3
2
95.1
1
77.3
0
56.2
-1
33.9
2
97.0
2
97.0
1
69.7
0
30.3
2
90.9
0
72.7
-1
63.6
-3
39.4
5
90.9
3
89.4
2
56.1
1
30.3
2
99.0
1
81.6
0
58.3
-3
30.1
1
92.7
1
92.7
0
55.1
-1
34.6
5
94.1
3
82.6
2
67.9
1
46.2
1
97.6
0
88.4
-1
65.8
-3
38.6
1
97.3
-1
82.5
-2
64.2
-4
36.6
7
90.5
2
76.2
1
66.7
1
66.7
4
90.2
2
76.5
2
76.5
1
34.6
2
99.4
1
77.1
1
77.1
-1
35.5
0
97.6
0
97.6
-5
57.8
-11
31.3
2
91.2
2
91.2
2
91.2
-2
32.4
mean
89.0
104.7
95.9
104.4
109.0
107.7
104.1
100.5
98.6
102.1
98.2
99.0
81.7
96.5
103.3
101.5
101.6
97.9
107.7
91.8
new 90%
new 70%
new 50%
new 30%
curve: dB
curve:dB
curve: dB
curve: dB
above or
above or
above or
above or
below % below
below % below
below % below
below % below
stage II new 90%
stage II new 70%
stage II new 50%
stage II new 50%
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
-4
100.0
-4
100.0
-4
100.0
-4
100.0
2
99.1
1
89.4
0
59.3
-2
31.9
0
100.0
-1
76.5
-1
76.5
-2
47.1
1
100.0
-1
84.6
-1
84.6
-2
38.5
3
100.0
3
100.0
3
100.0
3
100.0
8
100.0
0
72.7
0
72.7
-1
45.5
0
100.0
0
100.0
-1
64.3
-2
42.9
-2
90.5
-3
76.2
-4
57.1
-6
33.3
0
95.1
-1
80.5
-1
80.5
-2
31.7
2
100.0
-3
77.8
-3
77.8
-3
77.8
-1
100.0
-3
76.9
-3
76.9
-3
76.9
-2
100.0
-2
100.0
-2
100.0
-2
100.0
0
100.0
-2
83.3
-7
50.0
-26
33.3
2
96.4
1
86.9
-1
63.1
-3
32.1
2
100.0
0
77.8
0
77.8
0
77.8
-2
93.0
-2
93.0
-3
59.6
-4
31.6
3
100.0
-1
70.6
-2
64.7
-4
47.1
9
100.0
7
71.4
6
57.1
6
57.1
8
94.4
2
83.3
1
55.6
0
38.9
0
93.3
-1
73.3
-1
73.3
-3
46.7
min
89
97
86
101
109
104
92
93
92
98
95
99
60
85
93
98
96
81
104
69
max
89
110
99
108
109
111
110
107
109
105
101
99
94
104
110
107
107
105
117
98
std
0.0
2.6
3.2
2.4
0.0
2.2
5.6
3.6
4.5
2.5
1.8
0.0
14
4.2
4.8
2.1
3.1
8.8
3.4
9.0
24 / 235
Table 2.5: Guaranteed values and limit compliance for Article 12 equipment types. The
lower table is for 2006 data only. The L30%-L90% limits are taken from the measured values
with 2 dB added. Light green shading indicates 30-50% compliance, dark green shading
indicates more than 50% compliance.
Eq.
no.
3a
8b
9
10
12
16
18
21
20
23
29
31
33
32
36a
37
38
40
41b
45a
53
57
Equipment name
Art.
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (comb 12
Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-v 12
Compressors (< 350 kW)
12
Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
12
Construction winches (combustion-engine drive 12
Dozers (< 500 kW)
12
Dumpers (< 500 kW)
12
Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW)
12
Excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 k 12
Graders (< 500 kW)
12
Hydraulic power packs
12
Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 12
Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers
12
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestr 12
Lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterba 12
Loaders (< 500 kW)
12
Mobile cranes
12
Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
12
Paver-finishers (excluding paver-finishers equip 12
Power generators (< 400 kW)
12
Tower cranes
12
Welding generators
12
Number of
guaranteed
values
4
2017
406
216
119
71
143
204
804
34
33
69
102
1514
322
790
287
21
154
373
90
34
Eq.
no.
3a
8b
9
10
12
16
18
21
20
23
29
31
33
32
36a
37
38
40
41b
45a
53
57
Equipment name
Art
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combu 12
Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vib 12
Compressors (< 350 kW)
12
Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
12
Construction winches (combustion-engine driven) 12
Dozers (< 500 kW)
12
Dumpers (< 500 kW)
12
Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW)
12
Excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 kW 12
Graders (< 500 kW)
12
Hydraulic power packs
12
Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 50 12
Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers
12
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry 12
Lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterbala 12
Loaders (< 500 kW)
12
Mobile cranes
12
Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
12
Paver-finishers (excluding paver-finishers equippe 12
Power generators (< 400 kW)
12
Tower cranes
12
Welding generators
12
Number of
measurements
1
114
18
13
1
11
16
19
81
10
13
3
6
84
9
57
17
7
18
15
0
0
std
5,0
2,5
4,0
2,3
3,4
3,8
4,3
4,1
4,7
2,9
2,8
2,2
3,0
4,4
4,0
2,9
2,6
6,5
2,8
3,7
4,2
3,1
%
meeting
stage I
limit
50,0
99,2
98,8
89,4
80,7
97,2
100,0
100,0
99,9
100,0
97,0
87,0
99,0
95,8
78,9
100,0
99,0
76,2
76,6
99,2
100,0
88,2
%
meeting
stage II % meeting % meeting % meeting % meeting
limit
limit L90
limit L70
limit L50
limit L30
25,0
100,0
75,0
75,0
50,0
32,1
99,7
99,2
45,7
32,1
44,1
100,0
100,0
52,2
20,2
26,4
89,4
89,4
38,4
12,5
43,7
95,8
80,7
78,2
27,7
11,3
97,2
97,2
97,2
22,5
35,7
100,0
100,0
53,8
35,7
79,9
99,5
79,9
69,1
49,0
34,6
99,9
99,9
73,6
52,5
29,4
100,0
100,0
100,0
50,0
60,6
97,0
66,7
66,7
24,2
17,4
98,6
89,9
87,0
87,0
38,2
99,0
99,0
99,0
24,5
20,8
95,9
95,9
95,8
24,4
23,3
97,2
87,9
82,3
78,9
65,2
100,0
96,5
95,8
50,6
71,4
99,0
77,7
71,4
29,6
19,0
90,5
76,2
76,2
76,2
1,3
90,9
79,9
79,9
76,6
35,9
100,0
99,7
99,7
45,3
66,7
100,0
100,0
56,7
3,3
32,4
100,0
100,0
100,0
32,4
mean
93.0
107.0
98.2
106.3
111.0
111.6
106.1
101.9
99.5
104.9
100.7
101.7
91.2
99.9
104.9
102.4
103.4
100.4
109.8
95.1
% meeting
std stage I limit
0.0
100.0
2.4
100.0
0.8
100.0
1.9
100.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
81.8
3.6
100.0
3.2
100.0
4.7
100.0
3.2
100.0
0.9
100.0
2.3
100.0
3.8
100.0
3.8
88.1
3.9
100.0
2.0
100.0
3.4
82.4
8.1
28.6
3.6
72.2
2.0
100.0
min
93
99
97
104
111
108
101
95
88
99
99
99
85
89
101
99
97
85
105
91
max
93
111
100
109
111
116
110
108
109
107
102
103
96
105
111
108
109
105
120
97
The Article 12 equipment tends to generally fulfil the stage I limits, with pass rates of
well above 70% (for guaranteed levels). The only exception is type 3a, with a 50% pass
rate, which may be caused by the low number of available values. Therefore the stage I
limits can be considered feasible. For the stage II limits, pass rates (guaranteed levels)
of more than 50% are only achieved by equipment types 21, 29, 37, 38 and 53 (all
construction machines). For these, stricter limits are feasible. Pass rates of above 30%50% are achieved for the types 8b, 9, 12, 18, 20, 33, 45a and 57. For these types the
stage II limits could be considered feasible. Types 3a, 10, 16, 23, 31, 32, 36a, 40 and
41b have less than 30% pass rate for stage II and therefore stage II may not yet be
feasible for these.
The compliance is even better if only 2006 data is taken, for as far as data is available:
Types 10, 23 and 36a are shown to be feasible based on 2006 data.
Possible limit changes based on the statistical analysis are given in table 2.6.
25 / 235
The graphical data is presented for each equipment type in chapter 10. Measured data is
set out as a function of the technical parameter together with the L30%, L50%, L70%, L90%
curves. Guaranteed levels are set out as a function of the technical parameter together
with the stage II and stage II limit curves, and with the L30%, L50%, L70%, L90% curves
plus 2 dB. All the pass rate and limit curves are rounded to the nearest whole number,
and follow the same curve shape as in the Directive. Both the measured and guaranteed
levels are indicated by a number, which corresponds to the year of declaration (1=
2001, 2=2002 etc.).
An example of the data is shown for Article 12 compressors (<350 kW) in figures 2.2
and 2.3 below. In this particular case the L70% and L90% lines coincide. This is possible
due to the particular data distribution with many values on or near the limit and due to
rounding of values.
Figure 2.2 Measured sound power levels of 403 samples set out against the technical parameter
with the L30%, L50%, L70%, L90% curves for compressors (< 350 KW).
The numbers on each measurement point indicate the year (2001-2006).
26 / 235
27 / 235
Figure 2.3 Guaranteed level data of 406 samples set out against the technical parameter with the L30%, L50%,
L70%, L90% curves+ 2dB and the stage I and stage II limit curves for compressors (< 350 KW).
The numbers on each measurement point indicate the year (2001-2006).
28 / 235
In table 2.6 the feasibility of the stage I and stage II limits is given for pass rates of 30%
and 50% in the measured data; this was performed for both the whole dataset and again
for only the 2006 (stage II) data. The potential new limits are given as an addition to the
stage II limits. The feasibility is derived where possible from 2006 data, and where
insufficient data for 2006 was available, from the whole dataset.
In the column on the far right, the recommendations for limit changes are given, based
on the findings.
Table 2.6 Feasibility of the stage I and stage II limits, and potential new limits based on pass rates of 50%
and 30%. Potential new limits are indicated as a difference to stage II limits. Concluded
possible limits are given in the right hand column.
Eq.
no.
3a
8b
9
10
12
16
18
21
20
23
29
31
33
32
36a
37
38
40
41b
45a
53
57
Stage I Number
limit of 2001Equipment
feasibility 6 data
4
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combustion-Yes
1976
Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibratingYes
Compressors (< 350 kW)
Yes
403
Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
Yes
216
Construction winches (combustion-engine driven)
Yes
119
Dozers (< 500 kW)
Yes
69
Dumpers (< 500 kW)
Yes
140
Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW)
Yes
189
Excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 kW)
Yes
790
Graders (< 500 kW)
Yes
33
Hydraulic power packs
Yes
33
Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 500 kWYes
66
Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers
Yes
103
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry equip Yes
1499
Lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterbalancedYes
305
Loaders (< 500 kW)
Yes
778
Mobile cranes
Yes
257
Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
Yes
21
Paver-finishers (excluding paver-finishers equipped wit Yes
153
Power generators (< 400 kW)
Yes
363
Tower cranes
Yes
83
Welding generators
Yes
34
From this table it can be seen that the stage II limits are feasible for some of the
equipment types.
- for types 21, 23, 29, 33, 37, 38 and 53 stage II limits are feasible;
- stricter limits than stage II are also feasible for these types, as indicated in table
2.6.
- for types 8b, 9, 10, 12, 18, 20, 32, 45a and 57 the stage II limits are feasible if a
30% pass rate is applied; in that case, also stricter limits than stage II may be
feasible, as indicated in table 2.6;
- for types 16, 31, 36a, 40 and 41b the stage II limits may not yet be feasible, but
further analysis of the data and other considerations may disprove this;
- for type 3a, no conclusions can be drawn due to lack of data.
It should be noted, that the technical feasibility and implementation level of noise
control measures has not yet been taken into consideration here, and that in some cases
the stage II limits or even stricter limits than listed here may be possible. There may
also however be technical or economic limitations.
2.5
29 / 235
particular negative slopes were not allowed and in this case, flat limit curves were
generated.
In table 2.7, the mean values, min/max values, the standard deviation, the median
(baseline) curve as A + B lg(parameter) are listed, together with pass rates for L30%,
L50%, L70% and L90% curves based on measured values from the database. Next to each
of these, the difference in dB relative to the baseline is given. The actual limit is then
obtained by adding 2 dB to these values.
In table 2.8 the pass rates for guaranteed values are given for these new potential limits.
A limit based on the L50% curve would seem to be appropriate here as these would be
new limits.
An example of available measured data and guaranteed level data together with new
potential limits for Article 13 equipment is given in figure 2.4, showing the measured
data marked by year, the mean regression curve and the L30%, L50%, L70% and L90%
curves. An example of the presentation of guaranteed level data and potential new
limits is shown in figure 2.5.
New potential noise limits for all Article 13 equipment purely based on the statistical
analysis are proposed as set out in table 2.9. Here, environmental, technical or economic
factors are yet taken into account.
30 / 235
Table 2.7: Measured values and potential new limits for Article 13 equipment types.
Median (baseline) = A+B lg(parameter). Green shaded fields have a pass rate of 50% or higher. The columns titled
New x% limit indicate the number of dB to be added to the baseline to obtain the Lx% curve. Zero or negative
differences are marked light green. Orange shaded fields have insufficient samples to determine a limit.
Eq.
no. Equipment name
Art
1 Aerial access platforms with combustion engine
13
2 Brush cutters
13
3b Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with electric mo 13
4 Building site band saw machine
13
5 Building site circular saw bench
13
6 Chain saws, portable
13
7 Combined high pressure flushers and suction vehicles
13
8a Compaction machines (explosion rammers only)
13
11 Concrete or mortar mixers
13
13 Conveying and spraying machines for concrete and morta 13
14 Conveyor belts
13
15 Cooling equipment on vehicles
13
17 Drill rigs
13
19 Equipment for loading and unloading silos or tanks on truc 13
22 Glass recycling containers
13
24 Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers
13
25 Hedge trimmers
13
26 High pressure flushers
13
27 High pressure water jet machines
13
28 Hydraulic hammers
13
30 Joint cutters
13
34 Leaf blowers
13
35 Leaf collectors
13
36b Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (others excl. Contain 13
39 Mobile waste containers
13
41a Paver-finishers (equipped with a high-compaction screed) 13
42 Piling equipment
13
43 Pipelayers
13
44 Piste caterpillars
13
45b Power generators (>_ 400 kw)
13
46 Power sweepers
13
47 Refuse collection vehicles
13
48 Road milling machines
13
49 Scarifiers
13
50 Shredders chippers
13
51 Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-propelled 13
52 Suction vehicles
13
54 Trenchers
13
55 Truck mixers
13
56 Water pump units (not for use under water)
13
number
of
measure
ments mean min max std
A
136 93.0 78 112 8.1 99.6
209 107.9 95 118 4.8 106.0
2 89.5 80 99 13.4 89.5
233
83
11
78
36
9
0
132
42
31
27
329
28
141
61
76
111
33
17
22
12
2
6
4
40
78
5595
15
67
217
81
30
20
41
214
new 90%
new 70%
new 50%
new 30%
limit: dBA
limit: dBA
limit: dBA
limit: dBA
above or % meeting above or % meeting above or % meeting above or % meeting
below new 90%
below new 70%
below new 50%
below new 30%
B baseline
limit baseline
limit baseline
limit baseline
limit
0
5
92.6
-3
73.5
-8
52.2
-12
36.0
0
7
96.2
6
85.2
3
52.6
-2
36.8
0
9
100.0
9
100.0
9
100.0
-10
50.0
106.8 90
108.4 75
102.7 98
99.7 72
87.7 64
108.1 103
6
3
1
16
9
10
94.4
94.0
90.9
98.7
94.4
100.0
2
1
1
9
5
7
71.2
71.1
90.9
75.6
75.0
77.8
-2
1
0
1
1
5
53.6
71.1
54.5
51.3
58.3
55.6
-6
0
-1
0
-4
2
35.2
43.4
45.5
37.2
30.6
33.3
110.7
108.0
92.2
108.0
96.6
97.6
103.8
109.9
107.0
102.2
100.8
102.9
95.6
107.7
115.5
114.2
106.2
95.1
97.9
104.5
110.5
91.7
103.1
102.6
107.2
105.4
108.0
100.6
127
111
99
113
108
111
123
132
115
115
109
111
105
109
129
124
107
102
115
112
118
102
123
108
113
112
113
115
8
2
7
4
7
10
24
5
6
5
9
12
6
2
0
2
1
3
11
2
2
5
11
2
4
4
1
16
90.2
92.9
100.0
100.0
94.2
96.4
91.5
90.2
97.4
90.1
100.0
100.0
90.9
91.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
95.0
92.3
99.9
93.3
94.0
92.6
91.4
93.3
100.0
90.2
98.6
2
1
4
2
3
3
20
1
2
2
5
6
4
1
0
2
0
2
9
-2
-1
2
0
1
1
2
1
12
72.7
78.6
80.6
74.1
72.3
75.0
75.9
73.8
76.3
73.0
72.7
70.6
72.7
83.3
100.0
100.0
75.0
87.5
80.8
73.8
80.0
82.1
70.0
71.6
73.3
90.0
90.2
73.8
0
0
1
-1
-2
-2
17
-2
2
0
2
3
2
1
-27
0
0
1
-2
-2
-1
-1
-2
-1
1
0
-2
12
50.8
59.5
51.6
51.9
50.2
53.6
51.1
54.1
76.3
50.5
51.5
58.8
63.6
83.3
50.0
66.7
75.0
60.0
52.6
73.8
80.0
53.7
61.3
53.1
73.3
55.0
53.7
73.8
-3
-1
-5
-3
-4
-3
13
-4
-1
-2
-1
1
-3
0
-27
-1
0
-1
-13
-2
-1
-4
-9
-3
-1
-2
-3
8
34.8
45.2
32.3
40.7
32.2
35.7
32.6
36.1
34.2
36.9
36.4
47.1
31.8
50.0
50.0
33.3
75.0
32.5
34.6
73.8
80.0
31.3
30.9
33.3
40.0
30.0
41.5
33.2
98
105
84
103
77
83
75
95
95
81
66
94
78
102
102
104
106
88
70
93
106
79
82
89
103
98
84
62
6.8
1.7
5.3
4.0
5.4
7.6
9.4
11.5
4.9
4.8
9.9
4.5
7.0
2.7
19.1
9.2
0.5
3.3
11.7
3.3
2.6
5.4
9.8
3.7
2.6
4.1
6.9
10.5
99.8
108.0
92.2
110.9
96.5
97.6
88.7
92.7
106.7
101.7
100.3
98.5
95.6
86.1
129.0
38.2
106.3
94.9
100.0
107.4
111.1
92.8
106.5
103.9
107.2
96.7
111.3
92.9
5.28
0
0
18.58
0
0
0
10.46
0
0
0
0
0
10.63
0
34.85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.29
0
0
31 / 235
Table 2.8: Pass rates of potential new limits for Article 13 equipment types. Green shaded fields have a pass rate of
50% or higher. Orange shaded fields have insufficient samples to determine a limit.
Eq.
no. Equipment name
Art
1
Aerial access platforms with combustion eng 13
2
Brush cutters
13
3b Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (w 13
4
Building site band saw machine
13
5
Building site circular saw bench
13
6
Chain saws, portable
13
7
Combined high pressure flushers and suctio 13
8a Compaction machines (explosion rammers o 13
11 Concrete or mortar mixers
13
13 Conveying and spraying machines for concr 13
14 Conveyor belts
13
15 Cooling equipment on vehicles
13
17 Drill rigs
13
19 Equipment for loading and unloading silos o 13
22 Glass recycling containers
13
24 Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers
13
25 Hedge trimmers
13
26 High pressure flushers
13
27 High pressure water jet machines
13
28 Hydraulic hammers
13
30 Joint cutters
13
34 Leaf blowers
13
35 Leaf collectors
13
36b Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (other 13
39 Mobile waste containers
13
41a Paver-finishers (equipped with a high-compa 13
42 Piling equipment
13
43 Pipelayers
13
44 Piste caterpillars
13
45b Power generators (>_ 400 kw)
13
46 Power sweepers
13
47 Refuse collection vehicles
13
48 Road milling machines
13
49 Scarifiers
13
50 Shredders chippers
13
51 Snow-removing machines with rotating tools 13
52 Suction vehicles
13
54 Trenchers
13
55 Truck mixers
13
56 Water pump units (not for use under water) 13
number
of
measure
ments
148
215
2
0
0
235
130
11
78
36
43
0
142
42
25
28
333
35
145
55
78
112
33
17
32
12
5
6
4
40
78
5660
15
71
224
81
42
20
42
247
108.8
109.2
104.2
102.2
90.9
110.9
94
76
99
73
77
99
112.6
108.9
96.1
110.4
99.5
101.5
107.5
112.1
108.1
104.8
103.7
105.8
94.9
110.1
109.2
117.0
106.2
95.8
100.8
109.0
112.8
94.6
106.2
105.1
108.3
106.9
110.9
103.6
99
102
88
106
85
85
77
98
96
93
78
96
82
105
97
108
106
89
84
98
110
85
91
91
95
98
86
63
118 6.2
123 4.0
108 2.4
123 10.0
106 11.2
120 4.1
130
112
102
116
109
117
126
136
116
120
112
114
107
112
133
125
107
104
116
113
120
104
126
110
114
113
117
120
6.9
2.0
5.1
4.0
5.0
8.4
9.1
10.8
4.8
4.9
7.9
4.6
8.6
2.4
13.8
7.3
0.5
3.1
10.0
0.4
2.4
4.8
9.8
4.2
3.3
4.1
7.2
10.8
90.6
96.2
90.9
96.2
88.9
90.7
70.2
85.4
90.9
73.1
66.7
72.1
53.2
85.4
63.6
51.3
50.0
39.5
37.9
74.6
54.5
35.9
22.2
14.0
90.1
100.0
80.0
100.0
88.6
85.7
93.1
90.9
97.4
80.4
81.8
88.2
90.6
83.3
80.0
66.7
100.0
95.0
91.0
99.9
93.3
88.7
89.3
74.1
97.6
95.0
73.8
83.8
71.8
92.9
56.0
71.4
68.2
65.7
68.3
67.3
84.6
62.5
75.8
64.7
90.6
75.0
80.0
66.7
100.0
95.0
84.6
0.9
73.3
74.6
67.9
63.0
78.6
90.0
73.8
47.0
54.9
78.6
36.0
42.9
41.7
45.7
37.9
36.4
84.6
49.1
51.5
47.1
53.1
75.0
20.0
16.7
100.0
95.0
48.7
0.9
73.3
43.7
59.8
50.6
78.6
70.0
42.9
47.0
33.8
59.5
28.0
28.6
9.3
34.3
26.2
30.9
35.9
33.0
15.2
5.9
50.0
50.0
20.0
16.7
100.0
45.0
10.3
0.9
73.3
23.9
27.2
28.4
45.2
30.0
16.7
30.8
32 / 235
Figure 2.4 Measured levels for hydraulic hammers, with regression curve (baseline) and L30%, L50%, L70% and
L90% curves.
33 / 235
Figure 2.5 Guaranteed levels for hydraulic hammers, with potential limits based on L30%, L50%, L70% and L90%
curves.
34 / 235
Table 2.9 Potential new limits for Article 13 equipment in the form A + B lg(parameter).
Orange shaded fields indicate that insufficient data is present and a limit is to be determined
when more data is available. Bold text indicates recommended potential limits.
Eq. no.
1
2
3b
4
5
6
7
8a
11
12b
13
14
15
17
19
22
24
25
26
27
28
30
34
35
36b
39
41a
42
43
44
45b
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
54
55
56
2.6
Equipment
Aerial access platforms with combustion
Brush cutters
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods
Building site band saw machine
Building site circular saw bench
Chain saws, portable
Combined high pressure flushers and su
Compaction machines (explosion ramme
Concrete or mortar mixers
Construction winches (electrically driven)
Conveying and spraying machines for co
Conveyor belts
Cooling equipment on vehicles
Drill rigs
Equipment for loading and unloading silo
Glass recycling containers
Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers
Hedge trimmers
High pressure flushers
High pressure water jet machines
Hydraulic hammers
Joint cutters
Leaf blowers
Leaf collectors
Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (ot
Mobile waste containers
Paver-finishers (equipped with a high-co
Piling equipment
Pipelayers
Piste caterpillars
Power generators (>_ 400 kw)
Power sweepers
Refuse collection vehicles
Road milling machines
Scarifiers
Shredders chippers
Snow-removing machines with rotating to
Suction vehicles
Trenchers
Truck mixers
Water pump units (not for use under wat
Art Baseline A
13
99.6
13
106.0
13
89.5
13
13
13
108.8
13
108.4
13
102.7
13
98.2
13
13
72.9
13
13
13
99.8
13
108.0
13
92.2
13
110.9
13
96.5
13
97.6
13
88.7
13
92.7
13
106.7
13
101.7
13
100.3
13
98.5
13
95.6
13
86.1
13
13
13
13
94.9
13
100.0
13
107.4
13
111.1
13
92.8
13
106.5
13
103.9
13
107.2
13
96.7
13
111.3
13
92.9
B
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
108.8
111.4
104.7
101.2
104.8
110.4
103.7
100.2
19.2
75.9
70.9
5.3
0.0
0.0
18.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.6
101.8
110.0
95.2
111.9
96.5
97.6
107.7
92.7
110.7
103.7
104.3
103.5
99.6
89.1
98.8
109.0
89.2
109.9
94.5
96.6
103.7
90.7
107.7
101.7
101.3
101.5
94.6
88.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.0
0.0
97.9
100.0
107.4
112.1
93.8
106.5
104.9
110.2
98.7
111.3
106.9
95.9
89.0
107.4
112.1
90.8
99.5
102.9
108.2
96.7
110.3
102.9
35 / 235
- the technical parameter often missing and not always defined, especially for article 13
equipment;
- a lot of data from important manufacturers are obviously missing;
- electrical and combustion engine powered equipment is often mixed in the database;
- for the quality of data, essential parameters should be included in the DOC.
Based on the results of the statistical analysis, the following background indications
could be given.
The stage I limits forArticle 12 equipment seem feasible. The stage II limits seem
feasible for some of the equipment types:
- for types 21, 23, 29, 33, 37, 38 and 53 stage II limits are feasible;
- stricter limits than stage II are also feasible for these types, as indicated in table
2.6.
- for types 8b, 9, 10, 12, 18, 20, 32, 45a and 57 the stage II limits are feasible if a
30% pass rate is applied; in that case, also stricter limits than stage II may be
feasible, as indicated in table 2.6;
- for types 16, 31, 36a, 40 and 41b the stage II limits may not yet be feasible, but
further analysis of the data and other considerations may disprove this;
- for type 3a, no conclusions can be drawn due to lack of data.
The technical feasibility and implementation level of noise control measures is not yet
taken into consideration here, and the impact assessments are essential to draw final
conclusions on the limits (see following chapters).
For the Article 13 equipment, some potential limits are proposed in table 2.9, based on
the available measured data with a 50% pass rate. This was only possible for equipment
types with sufficient measured data. Also here, these findings serve only as a
background reference in limit setting.
Consultation
3.1
Introduction
36 / 235
The consultation of stakeholders was divided in two parts: the first round involved
environmental NGOs, authorities and notified bodies; the second involved
manufacturers of outdoor equipment and industry associations. The results of these
consultations are presented in the following sections. Also some of the relevant
background documents are discussed here.
3.2
3.2.1
37 / 235
From the total of 57 machine types, 24 types were not mentioned at all in answer to the
questions about noise impact and complaints. However, 10 equipment types were
mentioned that are currently not included in the Directive. The most prominent one of
these was externally mounted air-conditioning and cooling equipment for buildings. It
is debatable whether this type of equipment should be included in the list of machines
under Directive 2000/14/EC, because it is not mobile and it is fixed to a building.
Therefore one could argue that it belongs to the Construction Products Directive [11].
In view of the observed environmental noise problem caused by this equipment type
some regulatory action would be strongly advisable.
The answers of all respondents to the questions c.- g. are gathered in Table 3.2:
Equipment Overview Consultation results concerning changes in the equipment list.
This summary table gives for each equipment type the number of times this type was
mentioned in response to one of the questions c. to g. By comparing the numbers a
rating of the different equipment types is derived with regard to the need for change of
their current position and treatment in the Directive.
Moving an equipment type from Article 12 to Article 13 was only suggested twice, but
the opposite movement (Article 13 to Article 12) was suggested 86 times, with the
following equipment types ranking highest:
-
These types are notably mainly consumer products for gardening, with the exception of
cooling equipment on vehicles.
In 21 cases it was suggested to remove an equipment type from the Directive, but this
was often in contrast with suggestions to move the same type from Article 13 to Article
12. Additionally, 30 new types of equipment were suggested as addition to the existing
list in the Directive, of which cooling and air conditioning equipment was mentioned
most frequently. These suggestions are discussed further in section 3.10.
The results of the answers on other questions are discussed separately for each organisation
type in the next sections.
38 / 235
Article
12/13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
13
12
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
13
12
12
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
12
12
13
13
12
13
12
12
13
12
13
12
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
12
Most
complaints
Critical for
env. Noise
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
5
1
1
6
1
1
4
5
3
6
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
5
3
1
4
2
1
1
2
2
2
5
2
1
2
2
2
Combined
env. Score
1
2
3
0
0
5
7
0
4
6
4
12
3
3
0
2
0
4
3
0
3
0
4
5
1
2
2
2
0
2
5
2
3
0
5
2
9
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
2
2
11
0
0
2
0
3
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
39 / 235
Type of equipment
Article
12/13
Remove
from list
1
2
3a
3b
4
5
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
7
8a
8b
9
10
11
12a
12b
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36a
36b
37
38
39
40
41a
41b
42
43
44
13
13
12
12
12
13
12
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
13
12
12
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
12
12
13
13
12
13
12
12
13
12
13
12
13
13
13
45a
12
45b
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
12
Move
Art. 12
-->
Art. 13
Move
Art.13
-->
Art. 12
1
5
New /
sharpened
limits
Suggested new
limit value
105 + 6 * log P
110 + 2 * log P
109 + 2,4*P (IC)
104 (electr)
109
109
7
1
1 (< 3 kg)
1
1
1
1
109
7
4
2
5
1
105 + 6 * log P
109
109
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
5
exclude 30%
exclude 30%
109
109
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
3
1
6
6
4
1
1
2
3.2.2
40 / 235
Environmental NGOs
The number of respondents in this group was 9, with an emphasis on organisations from
Germany and Austria. The respondents in this group were considered as key
information sources with regard to the environmental impact of outdoor machinery
noise. Seven of the nine organisations reported to receive complaints about outdoor
machinery noise, but none of them keeps a systematic data base of these complaints.
Only 2 of the respondents held the opinion that the noise marking on the machines is
clear to consumers and only 3 of them believed that the public understands the labeling
system. A few suggestions were made to replace the noise emission labeling by a
simpler classification label that expresses the relative position of a machine in
comparison to its competitors.
The opinion of the respondents about the gravity of the noise impact of the different
machine types is included in table 3.1 and commented upon in section 3.1.
Five of the nine respondents have a noise policy which is employed within their field of
activities, sometimes related to national legislation.
Five respondents mentioned that there is no active market surveillance in their member
state and four did not know about it. None of the respondents was positive about the
way the market surveillance is carried out.
Several respondents expressed concern about the effectiveness of the Directive, mostly
due to the lack of market surveillance and to the lack of public awareness of outdoor
equipment noise. It was also noted that the guaranteed level in many cases does not
express the actual noise emission but is equal to the limit value from the Directive or
gives some value that is agreed between the competitors in the market. This reduces the
effectiveness of noise marking and the possibility to choose a low noise machine.
Several suggestions were made to put more emphasis on regulations and limitations for
use (limits on duration of use; bans for certain hours of the day) instead of testing and
certification of the noise emission. For some consumers a gardening tool with an
indication that it is low noise may be used more at all hours, regardless of the
annoyance it may cause.
The answers of this group concerning the desired changes in the equipment list are
included in table 3.2.
3.2.3
Notified bodies
With a total number of 17 the response from the notified bodies was satisfactory.
Furthermore, the amount of information that could be retrieved from the questionnaires
was also large. Most of the notified bodies (16) are notified as testing laboratory and as
certification body, applying the conformity assessment methods of Annexes VI and VII.
10 of the notified bodies perform certifications according to Annex VIII.
For conformity assessment according to Annex VI the number of tested samples
required for certification varies between 1 and more than 5.
11 notified bodies also carry out conformity assessment according to Annex V for
article 13 equipment. The number of samples tested varies between 1 and 5 and the
uncertainty margin added to the test value varies between 1 and 3,8 dB.
11 respondents reported that they check the EC database. Their average judgment about
the correctness of the data yields a rating of 52%.
41 / 235
Within the group of Notified Bodies, technical problems concerning the definitions of
the machine categories and the test codes were investigated. These questions resulted in
the reporting of a serious number of problems. The machines types for which these
problems were reported are given in Table 3.3. The main causes for definition problems
are ambiguity of the type definitions (a lift truck with a bucket could be similar to a
loader) or a too small distinction between 2 sub-categories, which can lead to confusion,
e.g. lift trucks for rough terrain and lift trucks for other purposes.
The test code problems may have the following reasons:
- test conditions are not always representative for normal use;
- prescribed test conditions cannot be realized in practice;
- test conditions are not prescribed in an unambiguous way;
- test conditions do not cover all variations in use;
- the noise caused by the operating process of a machine (material handling)
exceeds the noise originating from the machine itself and disturbs the
measurement accuracy;
- the prescribed operating speed or engine speed according to the speed
specified by the manufacturer leaves room for abuse: by specifying a reduced
speed the noise emission drops below the level that will occur during normal
working conditions.
Several suggestions for machine types to be included in a Round Robin test were made
and are noted in Table 3.3.
13 of the notified bodies considered the Stage I, Stage II or other limits feasible in a
technical sense, while an equal number expected that stricter limits would require the
manufacturers to take additional noise control measures.
8 respondents gave an opinion about the percentage of the noisiest equipment that
should be excluded by stricter limits. From this group 3 would prefer to exclude the
noisiest 10 %, 4 would prefer 30 % and 1 mentioned both percentages.
9 Notified Bodies would agree to moving all machine types from article 13 to article 12;
6 Notified Bodies would agree to apply 3 dB stricter limits in general and 5 Notified
Bodies would favour stricter limits than Stage II. 5 Notified Bodies indicated that the
noise levels should be driven down by the Directive by 3 dB over a period varying
between 2 and 10 years, while the others did not prefer a change or did not respond to
this question. All suggestions for changes in the list of machines are included in table
3.2.
The equipment types with one of the following problems:
- definition ambiguities,
- measurement conditions in test code,
- equipment not properly handled by manufacturers,
- or reduced speed settings during test
are set out in Table 3.3.
42 / 235
Table 3.3 Consultation results on problems with definitions, test codes, improper handling or testing
Eq.
no.
Type of equipment
1
2
3a
3b
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
10
11
12a
12b
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36a
36b
37
38
39
40
41a
41b
42
43
44
45a
45b
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Article
12/13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
13
12
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
13
12
12
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
12
12
13
13
12
13
12
12
13
12
13
12
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
12
Problem
category
definition
Problem
test code
Round
Not
Reduce
Robin
properly
speed
test
handled setting for
recom- by manutest
mended facturer
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
3.2.4
43 / 235
Municipal Authorities
The response from the municipal authorities of the larger European cities was very low;
only 4 completed questionnaires were received, despite some effort to stimulate
reactions from the contact persons. Some of these needed more time to respond, which
was not available.
All four municipalities receive complaints and two of them are collect them in a
systematic way.
Half of the respondents considered the labelling system and the noise marking to be
clear to the public. Three of the municipalities have a noise abatement policy towards
the public and also have a purchasing policy in favour of quieter equipment. One of the
municipalities verifies the specified noise emission of newly purchased machines with
noise measurements.
Three respondents did not know how the market surveillance in their member state was
organised or which authority was responsible for it. The answers of this group
concerning the desired changes in the list of machines are included in table 3.2.
3.2.5
Ministries
The Ministries of Environment of six EU member states responded to the Ministry
questionnaire. Their opinion about the effectiveness of the Directive was quite diverse,
ranging from No significant effects to Good instrument, could be used more
rationally and effectively.
Only two Ministries beleived that the noise marking and the labeling system was clear
to the public. A suggestion for a more transparent labeling system, similar to the energy
consumption of household appliances, was made. Three Ministries reported to have a
policy to reduce outdoor equipment noise. The most specific answer concerning the
methodology behind it was that the authorities give a permit for the time schedule of the
professional use of outdoor equipment based on the employed techniques. Time limits
are also imposed for the use of garden equipment.
In 4 of the 6 member states market surveillance is reported to be operational, but only
one of these member states also responded to the market surveillance questionnaire.
Only two respondents gave an opinion about the percentage of the noisiest equipment
that should be excluded by stricter limits: one indicated a preference for 10 % while the
other preferred 70 %. Two Ministries would agree to moving all machine types from
article 13 to article 12; 2 would agree to apply 3 dB stricter limits in general and 2
Ministries would favour stricter limits than Stage II. One Ministry indicated that the
noise levels should be driven down by the Directive with 3 dB over a period of 4 years,
while the others did not prefer a change or did not respond to this question.
On the topic of changes in the list of machines very little specific response was received
from this group of respondents. Some general suggestions were made for extension of
the list with additional equipment used in residential areas and to introduce limit values
for all Article 13 equipment.
3.2.6
44 / 235
3.2.7
45 / 235
3.2.7.1
3.2.7.2
46 / 235
Table 3.4 Overview of technical issues related to the amendment of the Directive, from WG7 in 2004.
47 / 235
These points are relevant for this study in the following ways:
- A halving of the noise annoyance could be interpreted as a reduction in the
number of disturbed people by 50% or a noise reduction of at least 3 dB for the
most relevant sources. However, this may well imply that a much larger noise
reduction is required for the important (numerous and noisy) sources.
- The link to real world noise reduction, the taking into account of process noise
and secondary sound radiation and the improvement of legislation can be
achieved by improving test codes and test cycles, which is also part of this
study. Also a subdivision of current equipment types would be necessary.
It should however be added that test codes closer to real conditions may be
much more expesive and less reproducible.
- Technical parameters for existing and new equipment will be identified or
redefined where necessary.
- Perception of combined sources and national and local legislation are outside
of the scope of this study.
3.2.7.3
UBA study
Under assignment of the German Umwelbundesamt (Federal Environmental Agency) in
2006 a study was executed by TV-Nord and DLG [14]. A report with the title
Examination of the technical and scientific support provided for the updating of the EC
directive 2000/14/EC and its implementation in national law (32. BimSchv) is
available in German.
As part of the examination, market investigations were conducted to establish the status
of the marking of equipment, the competent supervisory authorities were questioned as
to the market supervision measures they conducted, noise emission measurements were
conducted on 22 devices by 3 measuring institutes and the results were compared.
The measurement procedure for shredders was checked with respect to reproducibility
and a modified measurement procedure was proposed. Proposals for new types of
equipment to be included in the Directive were drawn up, and equipment types were
proposed for transfer from Article 13 to Article 12. Alongside proposals for user
benefits from the use of low-noise equipment, proposals were also put forward for limit
values for low-noise equipment. In addition, general problems with implementation of
the Directive were highlighted.
Concerning the market surveillance it was observed that large differences exist between
the Bundeslnder (German Federal States) and between the European member states
with regard to the market surveillance strategies and practices. It is concluded that
without harmonization of the market surveillance throughout the EU, the goals of
Directive 2000/14/EC will not be achievable.
For the evaluation of the test procedures and the uncertainties 22 machines were
investigated: 12 lawn mowers, 4 grass trimmers, power generators, leaf collector, 1
motor hoe, 1 hedge trimmer, 1 shredder / chipper. For most of the machines the
measured noise emission values were compliant with the guaranteed sound levels and
the limit values. However for 7 of the samples, the guaranteed values and the limit
values were exceeded considerably (2 5 dB). The measurements had been carried out
by 3 different institutes and differences in the results of up to 2,5 dB(A) occurred
between these, mainly caused by the difference between indoor and outdoor
measurements. The current measurement standards do not deal with this difference in a
correct way.
48 / 235
The test procedure for the shredders / chippers appeared to be somewhat ambiguous.
Proposals are given for a stricter specification of the dimensions and the moisture
content of the wood to be chipped. This proposal will lead to a significantly better
reproducibility of the tests.
The report proposes to include the following new equipment types in the Directive:
tree stump cutters, telescopic pruners and power sweepers without aspirators. Also
proposals for measurement procedures are made.
For existing machine types under Article 13, proposals are presented to bring them
under Article 12 with the limit values given in table 3.5. If the proposed revision of the
test procedure for shredders / chippers is adopted, this limit value should be adapted in
accordance with new measurement data.
Table 3.5 Proposed new sound power limits for several equipment types together with suggested limits to define
low noise equipment.
Limit
[dB(A)]
98
108
110 + 1,93 P
99 + 6,3 P
108
108
Low noise
limit
[dB(A)]
93
93
102
102
96
93
In the consultation, the UBA responded to the questionnaire with an updated proposal
for limit values for these equipment types.
In order to promote the use of low noise equipment the study proposes to define low
noise equipment in the following way: the sound power level LWA should always be
lower than 103 dB(A). In addition to this, the limit values for individual equipment
should be adapted to the current limit values and the state of the art of low noise
technology as given in table 3.5 in the right hand column.
Further stimulation of the use of low noise equipment could be achieved by giving user
advantages to the purchasers of low noise equipment. These advantages could either be
a less restrictive regulation for the allowed time periods of use or the introduction of tax
incentives similar to the tax benefit system for professional purchasers in the
Netherlands.
In the last chapter of the report a number of regulatory issues are discussed that occur in
the implementation of the Directive in the EU and in Germany in particular.
3.2.7.4
49 / 235
quieter equipment. It is updated regularly. Lower noise limits are given than those in the
Directive. It is a way of stimulating the use of quieter equipment without forcing the
market immediately to provide only quieter machines. A comparison between the stage
I, stage II and VAMIL noise limits is given in table 3.6. This illustrates that the VAMIL
limits, i.e. stage II or stricter, are feasible for at least part of the market as they are
already applicable.
Table 3.6 Noise limits according to the Dutch VAMIL incentive programme
Eq.
no. Equipment name
52
53
Suction vehicles
Tower cranes
57
mobile, on tires
stationary, on rails or on tracks
Welding generators
3.2.7.5
Vamil
2003
95+2logP
95+2logP
Vamil
2004+2005
95+2logP
95+2logP
Vamil
2006+2007
95+2logP
95+2logP
79+11logP
100+2logP
100+2logP
100+2logP
79+11logP
100+2logP
100+2logP
100+2logP
82+9logP
100+2logP
100+2logP
100+2logP
82+9logP
100
100
83+9logP
98
103
98
103
98
103
98
102
87+8logP
87+8logP
87+8logP
87+8logP
74+16logP 100
74+16logP 100
104
85+11logP
104
104
85+11logP
101
82+11logP
101
101
82+11logP
104
104
85+11logP
85+11logP
85+11logP
85+11logP
101
101
82+11logP
82+11logP
104
85+11logP
104
85+11logP
104
85+11logP
97+logPel
101
82+11logP
101
82+11logP
101
82+11logP
95+logPel
103
103
101
101
82+11logP 90+5logP
100
81+11logP
89+logPel
89+logPel
87+logPel
87+logPel
98+logPel
96+logPel
89+logPel
89+logPel
87+logPel
87+logPel
97+logPel
95+logPel
89+logPel
89+logPel
87+logPel
87+logPel
89+logPel
85+11logP
96
117
120
98
89+logPel
85+11logP
96
117
120
98
87+logPel
85+11logP
96
117
120
98
87+logPel
85+11logP
96
117
117
98
13
13
13
13 inlet < 200 mm
inlet > 200 mm
13
12
12 Pel < 2
2 < Pel < 10
10 < Pel
Vamil
2002
95+2logP
95+2logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
100
100
80+11logP
100
80+11logP
98+logP
98+logP
97+logPel
96+logP
96+logP
95+logPel
96
96
96
96
89+logPel
89+logPel
87+logPel
87+logPel
98+logPel
97+logPel
96+logPel
95+logPel
89+logPel
89+logPel
89+logPel
89+logPel
87+logPel
87+logPel
87+logPel
87+logPel
Aboba/Keboma/VROM report
In 2002, a report was written by Aboma/Keboma for the Dutch Ministry of VROM on
the progress on the reduction of noise emission levels from equipment and the effects of
the Dutch financial incentive available for purchasing quieter equipment [16]. The
report contains detailed data on the noise production of construction equipment,
50 / 235
municipal equipment and other equipment between 1986 and 2001. The data was used
to examine the extent to which noise from construction equipment and municipal
equipment was affected by the statutory requirements on noise emission and incentive
schemes. The study drew on data from noise measurements by Aboma+Keboma, on
information regarding the use of incentives and for some types of construction
equipment on results of type-examinations from elsewhere in Europe.
Initially, in the considered period, statutory regulations had a limited effect on the noise
roduction of construction equipment. The main effect of the regulations was that the
noisiest types were excluded from the market. With the introduction of the directive
2000/14/EC regarding equipment for use outdoors more types of equipment became
subject to noise emission limit values and many other types of equipment had to be
marked with a sound power level, guaranteed by the manufacturer. The statutory
regulations to date already had a clear effect on the design of construction equipment.
Economical incentives played an important role in stimulating relatively quieter
construction equipment, forklift trucks and municipal equipment. In 1991, the
possibility was introduced of arbitrary depreciation of relatively quiet construction
equipment, wood chippers and forklift trucks (VAMIL). In 2000 an additional
economical incentive titled MIA was introduced. The technical requirements for
equipment are identical for VAMIL and for MIA. These financial incentives clearly
appear to have had a stimulating effect on reducing noise emission levels of equipment
in the market.
3.2.7.6
3.2.7.7
51 / 235
Table 3.7 Two approaches for noise reduction on lawnmowers (taken from [#]).*Assumption: the length of
time between the end of the development stage and marketing of the product is around 1 year.
Approach
Optimisation:
- components
- overall design
- operating
conditions
Development of tools
Optimisation of
blades/casing
Noise
reduction
(dBA)
2 to 3
1 to 2
2004 to 2005*
3 to 4
2 to 3
2 to 4
2004 to 2005
2007 to 2010*
The study states that the combustion engine is the dominant source for cutting widths
less than 50 cm. To reduce the engine noise, enclosure or a improvements in engine
design such as camshaft and valve layout, air/fuel mixture, component optimisation and
choice of materials are options. Combined with enclosure, these could result in a few
dB reduction.
For blade noise which is important for the widths above 50 cm, optimised blade design
is expected to result in reductions upto around 3 dB. Optimisation of the blade/deck
assembly may offer addition reduction of upto 3-4 dB, if new computational tools can
be applied to work on the non-stationary pressure fields.
It is estimated that assembly methods, including separation of components may result in
upto 1 dB noise reduction. In those cases where the casing is contributing to the sound
radiation, extra damping may be applied to reduce its noise.
A balancing of the source contributions from the various sources is considered to
possibly result in reductions of 2-3 dB for many lawnmowers.
Reduction of the blade speed is not considered a worthwhile option as it has already
been applied in the past to fulfil the stage I noise limits. For rotary blades, the noise
tends to vary by about 1 dB per 100 rpm ( 60 lg rpm ).
It is noted that mulching lawnmowers, which do not eject the grass, produce less noise
than others, where there is an opening through which noise is radiated.
3.2.7.8
Position paper from WG7 on the Implications for Directive 2000/14/EC resulting from
the Study on Lawnmower noise reduction
This position paper by WG7 [21] evaluates the implications of the lawnmower study, in
particular which option for limit proposals should be chosen. The options considered
were: 1) retain stage I; 2) implement stage II; 3) set tighter levels for stage II; 4)
reconsider present categories. Option 2 was chosen, as for many years the limits
remained unchanged. This paper also gives some insight into the original considerations
behind the directive, especially that it was intended to gradually result in removing
noisy equipment from the market. New limits cannot be only based on the quietest
52 / 235
machines, but also not simply on the arithmetic average of all guaranteed or measured
data. So an evaluation was made of the noise reduction technology available to all
manufacturers on the market. A future stage III was considered feasible at an
unspecified date. Workable alternatives for the current categories were not yet
identified.
3.2.7.9
3.2.7.10
53 / 235
measures. Also the cost aspects have been investigated. These studies were particularly
in relation to occupational noise, but also are relevant for environmental noise.
Main types of piling machines are hammers (hydraulic, diesel, pneumatic, gravity)
vibration machines, hydraulic and pneumatic static push/pull machines. These may
include noise control devices such as shrouds, shock and vibration absorbers and others.
A characteristic issue is that noise is often also radiated from the pile itself, varying
with the length in the ground and with the pile material, i.e. concrete or steel. Typical
sound pressure levels at 15 m distance are given for various types if piling machines. In
terms of sound power the levels are between 100-135 dB(A) depending on the type of
machine. Especially hammer systems are noisiest.
3.2.7.11
3.2.7.12
3.2.7.13
Studies on chainsaws
In Belgium, several studies [29,30,31,32] were performed on chainsaws in relation to
the directive, in particular on typical sound power levels, the performance of the
measurement method and on a round robin test. Limit proposals are given and findings
on the repeatibility and reproducibility of the measurement method are presented.
3.2.7.14
3.2.7.15
54 / 235
Type of equipment
Lawnmowers
Lawn trimmers/lawn
edge trimmers
Cutting width L in
cm
Stage II
as from
3 January 2006
L 50
50 < L 70
70 < L 120
L > 120
96
100
100
105
94
98
98
103
L 30
L > 30
96
96
92
96
In a letter from the German Ministry of Environment the following is stated (selection
of translated text):
- Since most of the time the outdoor equipment will only be operated at one and
the same locality intermittently, we are not so much confronted with an impact
such as traffic noise but rather with acute annoyance and/or disturbance, not
taking into account the impact on the workers in the professional range of use
(here the EC Machinery directive would apply, in particular).
- Aside from numerous complaints received by UBA and by the Ministry, there
are also complaints at the police department and the municipal departments of
public order, the number of which is unknown to us. The German federal states
(Lnder) are in charge of this matter.
- Market surveillance does take place, although it still can and must be improved.
- The benefits to the end-user are of importance for the development and
marketing of low-noise equipment (see German law 32. BImSchV). This aspect
should be considered in the amendment of the Outdoor Directive. Here, the
comprehensibility of the marking should be considered, as a mere delaration of
the dB level does not mean much to the layman. Maybe the significance could
be explained by means of a scale (akin to the energy consumption of household
appliances). Besides that, the comprehensibility of the marking is debatable,
since the layman is not informed about the type of equipment. A reference to
the Outdoor Directive and the appropriate number of the annex could clarify
55 / 235
As noise complaints of leaf blowers are among the most frequent, its regulation
in the directive is considered insufficient and it should be tightened by
introducing permissible sound power levels and/or possible time restrictions for
operation, e.g. recommendation to use the devices only from 9:00 to 11:30 and
from 14:00 to 17:00.
The directive should be complemented with an incentive regulation that
differentiates between state of the art (Stand der Technik) and latest state of the
art (neuster Stand der Technik), similar to the label "Blauer Engel" of the
German Bundesumweltamt. Maybe the system could be adapted to the already
defined two stages in the directive (Stage I: mandatory; stage II: indicative).
56 / 235
Table 3.9 Consultation results concerning environmental impact and suggested addition of equipment types
currently not included in the Directive.
Eq.
no.
Type of equipment
Most
Critical for
complaints env. Noise
5
2
1
1
1
art 13
art 13
art 13
art 12
2
2
2
1
art 13
art 13
art 13
art 13
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
art 12
art 12
art 13
art 13
art 13
art 13
83+11*log P
art 13
art 13
art 12
1
1
art 13
art 13
Problem
category
definition
Problem
test code
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
art 12
art 12
Several equipment types are considered realistic options to be added to the directive,
normally to the Article 13 list first, and possibly later given limits as Article 12 types.
Some logical additions are also given. All these proposals are listed in table 3.10.
Table 3.10 New equipment list for Article 13, resulting from the NGO/No/Bo/Authorities consultation and logical
addtions. An indication of average sound power levels in the field and typical environment type (see next chapter)
are indicated.
Eq.no. New Equipment name
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
85 C
85 F
110 D + F
120 D + F
110 C+D
100 C+D
100 D
105 D+F
100 D+E
95 C
100 C
110 F
110 F
96 F
90 F
95 B
110 B+F
110 D+F
110 D+F
120 D
120 D
100 A
57 / 235
3.2.9
3.3
58 / 235
the UBA recommendation for the definition of low noise equipment with a
sound power level of below 103 dB(A);
the choice by WG7 to recommend stage II limits for lawnmowers ;
the balancing of new limits between low noise technology and the multitude of
data from existing noisier equipment on the market (WG7 paper);
the existing lower noise limits in the Dutch MIA/VAMIL programme;
the CALM recommendations, amongst which the ambition to halve the noise
from outdoor equipment by 2020;
the importance of European noise emission limits as an instrument
complementary to local operational noise control and planning.
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
59 / 235
3.4.4
60 / 235
AT ; 1
UK; 7
DE; 15
SE; 2
NL; 3
I; 3
F; 7
JP; 1
FEM - Materials
handling (EU); 3
CeCe Construction
equipment (EU
1
VDMA - German
Engineering
Federation; 3
FGR - Garden
machinery (D); 1
EGMF Garden
machinery (EU);
1
Company size
Small; 8
Large; 20
Medium; 14
Industry sectors
Logistics/
Mat.Handling; 8
Horticultural; 7
Construction; 26
Municipal; 5
3.4.5
61 / 235
3.4.6
3.4.7
EC database
The following questions were asked concerning the EC database:
1. Do you check the database?
2. Are the data reported correctly?
3. Are you satisfied with the EC database, and if not, what improvements do you
propose?
4. Should the manufacturer input his own data?
78% of respondents check the database (Q1) sometimes or at regular intervals. On the
correct reporting of data (Q2), 24% state it is incorrectly reported, 62% state it is
sometimes correctly reported, 7% always and 7% not always. This does not mean that
all the data is incorrecty reported, but that there are often errors present or that the data
is sometimes not reported or reported late.
93% of respondents are not satisfied with the database, either with its content or with
the way it is set up or maintained. 67% of respondents believed that the manufacturer
should be allowed to enter and correct his own data, 30% did not believe this should be
allowed and 4% did not know. The concern was expressed that incorrect data may be
entered by some manufacturers.
62 / 235
Table 3.11 Results of the industry consultation: Suggested shortcomings in the directive and possible alternatives
for these, with the number of times the issue was mentioned by respondents (count). Shaded items were mentioned
3 times or more. Note: not all alternative options listed are necessarily solutions to identified shortcomings.
Shortcomings
Categories and definitions
Categories
Definitions, also to cope with future types
Database/data collection
DOC issues
DOC and data collection confusion
count
Alternative options
count
7
6
9
2
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
1
4
3
2
13
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
8
2
Test codes
Test not representative for real noise
Engine power definition inconsistent
No account of process noise
Unclarity on fan speed
Tools separate from machine (e.g. piling)
Mistakes in test codes (e.g. towercranes)
Uncertainties
Uncertainties-no benefit, unnecessary burden,
unclear/interpretation
10
6
2
1
1
1
18
9
5
2
1
1
5
2
1
1
63 / 235
Several of these points are already taken into account by the new IT tool made available
by the Commission in 2007. It was also remarked by several respondents that the newer
versions of the database are an improvement on the earlier versions.
3.4.8
Category/equipment definitions
On category defintions the following remarks were made. For all categories (5
respondents) it was suggested that equipment terminology and structures from ISO
standards should be used, including ISO 6155, ISO 15878 and others. This would also
permit better analysis of the database. Refinement of categories would enable
graduation of noise limits in the future. Individual categories mentioned included:
- combine equipment types 7,26 and 52 into 1 equipment type;
- for concrete picks and breakers (10), only consider impact range above 20 J;
smaller tools are mainly used indoors;
- for type 20, excavators, also name transfer systems for scrap handling;
- for type 22, glass containers, exclude underground containers;
- for type 31, landfill compactors, the bucket is not significant;
- for type 33, lawn trimmers/lawn edge trimmers, separate the limits from those
of lawnmowers;
- for type 36a, forklift trucks, the definition is unclear and this type could
possibly be merged with loaders;
- for type 40, motor hoes, a separate power group for mini tillers is required with
a noise limit at 93 dB(A);
- for type 41b, paver finishers with high compaction screed, the definition of
high compaction is unclear, use ISO definition;
- for type 50, shredders/chippers, separate these into two separate equipment
types;
- for types 8b, 16,18,20, 37,41 and 42 category definitions need improving.
3.4.9
Market aspects
The following questions were asked on market figures:
1. Overall number of equipment in use in the EU, for each type you produce.
2. Number of equipment sold by all manufacturers in the EU together, for your
for each type you produce.
3. Your market share in the EU.
As this information is company-sensitive and was not always answered or not clearly
answered in all cases, it is not presented here but has been used where possible to
support estimates for total machine populations in the EU.
The following qualitative questions about the market were asked; responses are given
after each question.
4. Is there a market demand for quieter equipment?
Yes: 36%, no: 60%, dont know: 4%. It was remarked by several respondents
that this market is limited and often related to incentive programmes (Blue
Angle and VAMIL) or special customer needs such as sensitive areas like
hospitals.
5. Do you put low noise equipment on the market? Yes: 34%, no: 66%.
64 / 235
Technical aspects
The following questions were asked concerning technical aspects:
1. Do you consider stage I, II or other limits technically feasible?
2. Would stricter limits require that you take additional noise control measures?
3. Would stricter limits also reduce workplace noise exposure?
4. Do you see any technical progress that may enable quieter equipment?
5. Do you put R&D effort into developing quieter products?
6. Which developments do you believe would enable significantly quieter
equipment?
7. Which noise target do you design for, at or below the limit (in dB)?
8. Which typical noise control solutions do you apply?
9. What are the main noise sources?
10. Which of these is most important?
11. Are you highly dependent on suppliers for the noise of components?
12. Which measures do you take to avoid engine speed changes?
65 / 235
As it would go too far here to analyse responses for each equipment type, the general
response counted over all types is summarised, which does provide a broad picture of
the technical aspects.
The stage I, II or other limits are considered technically feasible by 32% of respondents
(Q1), not feasible by 45% and 22% gave no answer or did not know. In thoses cases
that the stage II limits are not considered feasible, reasons given were limitations due to
process noise, engine design constraints and the new exhaust directive (stages 3B and
4), technical barriers and trade-offs with performance. It was remarked that for stage II,
more complex solutions are required than for stage I. For some equipment types such
compaction machines and others with high process or workpiece noise, no solutions
were considered currently available to fulfil stage II limits. For some equipment
categories within a certain power range, the stage II limits were considered feasible,
whereas the remainder was not. This suggests that a more detailed review of those
equipment types where part of the equipment range might fulfil the limits (especially
those with indicative stage II limits), could be worthwhile.
90% of respondents indicated that additional noise control measures would be required
to fulfil stricter limits (Q2).
49% believe that stricter limits would also result in a reduction of workplace noise
exposure (Q3). 20% believed this is not the case and 31% did not know or did not
answer. A lack of workplace noise reduction for some equipment types could be due to
the use of cabins or the combination with other sources (e.g. compressor noise often
exceded by concrete breaker noise).
43% see technical progress that may enable development of quieter equipment (Q4), in
particular quieter components. It was mentioned that continued R&D efforts should
result in further progress in the long term. 47% see no progress and 10% did not know.
The majority of respondents, 94% stated that they put R&D effort into developing
quieter products (Q5).
The following technical developments were considered to enable significantly quieter
equipment (Q6):
- quieter engines (11)
- quieter fan technology or cooling systems (4)
- quieter hydraulic components (4)
- quieter gear transmissions (4)
- electronic speed control and engine management (2)
- exhaust technology (2)
- enclosures (2)
- vibration isolation (1)
- new materials (1)
- new blade shapes (1)
- new concept machines (2)
- quieter electric motors (1)
- energy recovery (1)
- improved energy efficiency (1)
- water cooling (1)
- lower heat rejection from diesel engines (1)
- process noise management (1)
- none currently known or dont know (10)
66 / 235
Some of the above points are worth highlighting although they were only mentioned
once; for example, the issue of new concept machines is relevant if a technical barrier
for further noise reduction has been reached. Improved energy efficiency, energy
recovery and lower engine heat rejection are developments that may well also lead to
noise reduction. Electronic speed control, engine and process management are also
relevant options for noise reduction.
Respondents design for differing targets below the noise limits (Q7), shown in table
3.12. This shows that most, but not all, take a margin into account. It was sometimes
stated that designing exactly to the limit is the case where no further reduction is
currently feasible or where performance might be affected.
Table 3.12 Noise level design targets below the limits
dB below limit
Number of
respondents
-1
-1.5
-2
-3
-4
Typical noise control measures are applied by most companies (Q8), including
- operational measures such as speed/pressure/torque/power regulators (79%)
- intrinsically quieter components (79%)
- vibration isolators (84%)
- enclosures and shielding (93%)
- damping layers or materials (90%)
- absorbtion and insulation materials (90%)
- layout/geometry/directivity (78%)
- mass and stiffness control (73%)
Other measures mentioned included
- aerodynamic blades and nylon line shapes
- quieter gearboxes and tooth profile
- hydraulic pulsation and vibration suppressor hoses
- component sizing
- reduced structural resonance
- exhaust and intake acoustics
- regulated fans and optimised cooling system
- electronic control systems.
The main noise sources (Q9) depend on the equipment type, but there was a clear
tendency towards engine, fan and hydraulics noise. In order of response numbers, the
main sources are: engines (47), fans (32), hydraulics/pumps (25), exhaust (8), blades
(7), gear transmissions (6), process noise (6), impact noise (4), motors (2), tracks (2),
intakes (2), compaction drums (2), tool cutting or workpiece noise (2), vibrating parts or
body (2), driveline (2), rotating drum/cutter (1), tamping bars (1), compressor (1),
water jet (1), brushes (1), running gear (1), air or vacuum pumps (1).
In terms of ranking (Q10), sometimes all noise sources in a given machine are of
similar importance (11), but the ranking is often model and machine dependent.
Engines were mentioned as the source found to be most dominant (19), followed by
blades (6) and fans (5).
67 / 235
85% of respondents stated that they are highly dependent on the suppliers for the noise
levels of their components (Q11).
Various measures are taken by manufacturers to avoid tampering or changes in engine
speed (Q12). Where applicable and possible, these included electronic speed control or
locking, sealing of adjustments and fixation screws, fixation of the throttle or its cable,
engine governors, special tools for settings, adjustment free engines or general design.
Also operating instructions combined with the warranty was mentioned as a measure.
3.4.11
Economic aspects
On economic aspects, the following questions were asked.
1. What is the typical price of equipment in the market?
2. What is the economic impact of the directive in % of product cost?
3. Is there any competitive benefit of quieter products on the market?
4. What type of costs are incurred in relation to the directive?
5. Can these be quantified as a percentage of product cost?
6. What is the average cost of testing?
7. What is the average cost of certifying?
8. Are these costs also combined with other product development aspects?
9. What economic benefits would changing the equipment list have?
10. What economic benefits would modifying noise limits have?
Prices of equipment (Q1) in the market vary hugely, from less than 100 Euros for some
consumer garden tools, to upto over 1 million Euros for large construction equipment.
Indicative prices were provided for equipment types, which are not given here for
reasons of confidentiality. Average prices were derived to be used as input to the
economic impact analysis.
The economic impact in percentage of product cost (Q2) also varied substantially, from
about 1% to 25%. The impact tends to be lower for capital products, for large product
series and for large companies. These costs are sometimes combined with other
development costs, for example reduction of workplace noise, exhaust emissions and
safety improvement (Q8).
39% of respondents indicated there is some competetive benefit from putting quieter
products on the market. 57% did not and 4% did not know (Q3).
Various types of costs to the directive were mentioned (Q4), including
R&D, testing, administration, certification, conformity assessment, notified body fees,
materials, design and production, resolution of other constraints, parts obselescence,
training and communication. These cost types are given a quantitative estimate in
chapter 7, based on the respondents cost estimates (Q5).
Typical costs for testing (Q6) were stated between 300-45000 Euro per model, above
10000 Euro if development and facilities costs are included. Typical costs for
certification are between 40-4000 Euro per model, and potentially higher if special
facilities or procedures are required.
Almost no economic benefits were mentioned for changing the equipment list (Q9) or
changing limits (Q10), unless it concerned removing equipment or retaining stage I
limits. A possible benefit was mentioned of reducing the numbers of non-compliant
imports from low cost countries (only if market surveillance is applied).
68 / 235
3.4.12
Environmental aspects
Environmental aspects such as typical usage times and operating conditions were
queried to support the input data for the environmental impact analysis. These are not
presented here.
3.4.13
Test codes
Remarks on improvements in the test codes are taken into account in chapter 7. It was
frequently recommended to adopt EN standards or to adjust the test cycle and improve
definitions. Improvements were suggested for equipment types 8b, 9, 10, 16, 18, 20, 21,
23, 27, 32, 33, 36a, 36b, 37, 38, 41a, 41b, 43, 45a, 45b, 47, 48, 50, 55.
3.4.14
Testing
For testing, most manufacturers take 5 pieces of equipment. Some take 3 pieces or less,
and others take more, especially for large production volumes. Conformity of
production checks are performed by most companies at least once a year and in some
cases more frequently, for example before batch testing or after final inspection of a
model series. In one third of the cases the DOC is not submitted to the EC, as shown in
table 3.13. In practice the number of non-submitted or incorrectly submitted DOCs may
be much larger, as this figure is based on the respondents to the inquiry.
Table 3.13 Submission of the DOC to authorities, number of respondents
Authority
Respondents
National
authority
1
Notified
body
6
EC
3
EC and
National
authority
25
None
2
No
answer
6
Client
only
1
Number
of
responses
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
3.4.16
69 / 235
Percentage
exclusion
%
Respondents
0%
10
30
50
70
Dont
know
No
answer
Case
by case
Question
unclear
28%
2%
19%
4%
2%
2%
7%
21%
11%
5%
73% does not agree to moving all article 13 equipment to article 12, only 13 % does
agree and the remainer did not know or did not answer (Q2). It was remarked that this
should only be done if necessary, if it justifies the increased effort and if it can be done
at a reasonable price.
68% does not agree to the introduction of the stage II limits in general, only one
respondent does and the rest did not know or did not answer (Q3).
82% of respondents indicated that no stricter limits than stage II should be introduced,
the remainder did not know or answer (Q4).
61% of respondents believe that the Directive should not drive down noise levels, 4%
stated 1 dB, 11% stated 3 dB and the remainder did not know or did not answer (Q5).
74% of respondents gave no suggestion on timescales (Q6), but 8% suggested 5 years,
8% suggested 10 years, 4 % 6 years, 4% 3 years and 1% 2 years.
Types of equipment mentioned to be removed from the directive (Q7) were (times
mentioned in brackets):
- 3a builders hoists (1);
- 8b compaction machines, due to process noise, and the low cost-benefit ratio (2);
- 9 compressors (< 350 kW), as driven tools make more noise and high effort and cost is
required to reduce by 1-2 dB more;
- 10, small breakers < 20J (2);
- 28 hydraulic hammers, because process noise dominates (1);
70 / 235
71 / 235
3.4.17
72 / 235
solution for the future but is not yet commonplace as power availability is considered
most important. There are not yet machines on the market with a silent mode. Most
noise control is based on quieter fans and installed sound absorption materials in the
engine enclosure. Hydraulics components and transmissions are usually standard
supplier components without special noise reduction features.
Concerning the in-situ noise production, the industry considers the manner of usage of
equipment very important. Maintenance can significantly affect noise levels over time,
but also the simple closing of engine hoods or adjustment of track tension and cleaning
of the machine may influence the noise level. If the cooling capacity of the engine is
reduced, this can lead to increased rpm and higher noise levels. The construction
equipment is not always properly selected for the application it is used for, also
resulting in higher noise levels. For all these reasons, jobsite management is
considered to be an important way to control in situ noise levels.
3.4.18
3.4.19
3.4.20
3.4.21
73 / 235
years). Therefore CeCe proposed to maintain the stage I limits for the duration of stage
II. The previous R&D effort on this topic is emphasised (10 million Euro), as are the
difficulties of reduced component life, wear of rubber and damping material, weight
increase, mud packing problems, complex manufacturing and cost increase of around
7%.
For excavators with power > 250 kW it is stated that they represent only 0.3% of all
earthmoving equipment and also have a very limited usage time in urban areas. Also the
process noise often exceeds the equipment noise. Here it was also proposed to retain
stage I limits.
For wheeled loaders, wheeled dozers and loader-type landfill compactors with engine
power > 250 kW it was stated that these only represent 0.6% of earthmoving equipment
and are mainly used in remote areas. It was proposed to retain stage I limits.
A transition period of 1 year until January 1st 2007 was proposed for earthmoving
equipment with engines 75-130 kW (39% of the total CeCe earthmoving population), to
reduce the burden to manufacturers. For the smaller equipment which is 53% of the
equipment population, and for the larger equipment which is 8%, the transition was not
required.
For hand-guided compaction equipment the inclusion of process noise in the
measurement was considered a problem, and it was proposed either to subtract 3 dB
from the measured value, retain stage I limits or to move it to Article 13. The non
availability of quieter engines and the difficulty of reducing the process noise without
losing performance were emphasised.
For hand-held concrete breakers an issue was identified with the gasoline powered
breakers, which have additional weight compared with compressor-driven breakers. It
was therefore proposed to either move this to article 13, or to reclassify them to the
same limits as for breakers with m>= 30: 96+ 11 lg m for stage I and 2 dB lower for
stage II. This group is stated to be a low population group, but not as a percentage.
Noise reduction is stated to be likely lead to weight increase or performance loss, which
are both unacceptable.
For paver-finishers it is stated that these represent only a small group of equipment with
less than 1000 units annual production, and that the exposure time for citizens is very
low due to the short presence and long idle time. There are 3 types identified:
Precompacting screed paver finishers, where engine noise is dominant, compacting
screed paver finishers, and high compaction screed paver finishers, both of which have
impact noise as the main source. These last two types are 20% of the total population.
Proposals included adding a new category of compaction machines, or identifying
compacting screed paver finishers as a compaction machine, or replacing the definition
of paver finishers by three separate definitions.
3.4.22
74 / 235
3.4.23
3.4.24
3.4.25
75 / 235
agenda, and a number of position papers on the impacts of various directives have been
produced. The general economic situation is stated to be good, with a growth rate of
6.6% in 2006 for Orgalime industries, the highest since 2000. Orgalime works together
with European institutions on a number of directives which affect the industry.
One important issue is the New Approach and market surveillance (NAMS). Orgalime
produced some position papers on CE marking and conformity assessement and placing
on the market. The Commission has been requested to provide a common definition for
- determining when a product is placed on the market;
- equal treatment for imported and EU-manufactured products;
- covering all product legislation, including other areas such as the environment.
The new Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC is now to be transposed by the member
states by June 2008, and Orgalime is working to ensure a smooth introduction. Other
Directives which have been reviewed and commented by Orgalime include the Eco
Design Requirements for Energy Using Products (EuP), the WEEE directive [42]
(2002/96/EC Waste electrical and electronic equipment), the REACH directive
(Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals).
3.4.26
76 / 235
specific frequency range. The use of CFD computational methods was considered, but a
full 3D model with prohibitive calculation times is required. Therefore the experimental
approach was adhered to. A parametric model was developed to predict the noise
spectrum from blade diameter, thickness, width, cross-sectional area and rpm. A
database was created for 32 blades.
The relative contributions of engine airborne, engine structureborne and exhaust noise
were investigated. It was found that engine airborne noise was most commonly
dominant above structureborne and exhaust noise. Measurement methods were
proposed to perform this type of analysis.
A limited investigation was done into transmission noise. It was found that in some
cases, it can be important or at least comparable to blade and engine noise.
Finally, acoustic virtual prototyping tools and models were developed for different
types of mowers, based on experimental data. This allows to study the effect of
changing parameters in the noise level and simulated audible sound signals.
3.5
77 / 235
with performance. Especially equipment types given indicative limits in the 2005/88/EC
directive have technical barriers in certain power ranges.
A whole series of future technical developments was given for further noise reduction.
Further remarks were made on the need to link new limits and changes to the Directive
to other Directives, in particular the Engine Exhaust directive, especially in terms of
time schedules. There are doubts about the need and effectiveness of some of the limits.
Stricter limits are expected to lead to a higher price level and in some cases removal
from the market would be cheaper.
The CeCe and FEM position papers give proposals for alternative limits or transition
periods, with an indication of the technical and economic barriers. The Lamonov report
on lawnmower noise gives an analysis of the various noise sources, their influence
parameters and noise control options. The limited progess on reduction blade/deck
noise is the main argument stated against stage II limits for lawnmowers.
3.6
4.1
Introduction
78 / 235
The environmental impact of the directive in terms of stage I, stage II and other limits is
assessed in this chapter. Also the environmental impact of moving equipment from
Article 13 to Article 12 and new equipment in Article 13 is assessed. The impact of
changes to the Directive can only be assessed if the initial environmental impact is
known for all equipment types. A first step is therefore to perform this analysis and then
apply it to limit and equipment list changes. The relative importance of each equipment
type in terms of environmental impact provides a priority list which can be used to
determine which changes to the directive are needed most. It should be emphasised that
little has been done in the past to obtain an overall picture of the environmental impact
of the directive, and a first global assessment is made here.
4.1.1
4.1.2
Impacts
Compared with other environmental factors, environmental noise is probably the one
that affects the largest number of Europeans [44]. The main health risks of noise are
annoyance, interference with social behaviour and speech communication, sleep
disturbance and all its consequences, cardiovascular effects, hormonal responses and
poor performance at work or school. Many of these effects are similar to occupational
noise, with the exception of sleep disturbance and hearing loss (main risk for
occupational noise) as shown in table 4.1. For outdoor machinery, the long term effects
are only possible by longer exposure from a machine or from a variety of machines
operating periodically. For outdoor machinery, the cumulative effect may be most
relevant, i.e. the combined noise experienced at home, at work and in outdoor areas in
general.
Table 4.1 Health effects of environmental and occupational noise
Environmental noise
x
x
x
x
x
x
79 / 235
Occupational noise
x
x
x
x
x
x
4.1.3
4.1.4
These trends are not all simple to quantify, but are observable in daily life and point
generally to a significant increase in outdoor equipment noise.
4.1.5
80 / 235
such as LDEN as done in noise mapping of roads, railways, airports or industry. Another
approach is to assess the number or seriously annoyed people based on complaints or
questionnaires. This is often done for a much wider variety of noise sources, such as
noise from entertainment systems, noise from neighbours, mopeds, military aircraft and
others. A somewhat new approach was developed for this study, to provide a suitable
environmental indicator for outdoor machinery, taking its particular characterstics into
account. This includes the average noise level, the typical duration of use, the character
of the sound, the typical working environment, the population of equipment in the EU
and other factors. The environmental indicator can be used to rank the relative impact of
all the equipment types.
The inputs for the environmental assessment are the following:
- Background information on environmental analysis methods including relevant
reports, standards and articles;
- The proposed limit list and equipment list based on the statistical analysis and
the NGO/Authorities/NoBo consultation;
- Average guaranteed levels for each equipment type from the database;
- Other statistical data on equipment such as population in the EU, time, duration
and location of usage, type of noise produced.
4.2
Background information
A number of literature sources are available relating to environmental impact of outdoor
machinery noise. Some relevant ones are discussed here.
4.2.1
RIVM/TNO reports
In the Netherlands, comparitive impact studies of environmental noise sources are
performed at regular intervals by TNO and RIVM to monitor the situation.
A study has been performed in 2003 to assess the numbers of seriously annoyed people
for different sources of noise [45], including road vehicles and mopeds, railways,
commercial and miltary aircraft, construction machinery, industrial sites and noise from
neighbors (stereo/tv). The results are shown in figure 4.1. Construction machinery does
not rank very high in comparison with for example mopeds or road traffic noise, but is
comparable to railway noise. Neighbour noise (stereo/tv) scores moderately in
comparison with other sources. It should however be noted that the comparison was
made for seriously annoyed people; a much larger number of people may be affected to
a slightly less degree, although with the same relative importance between source types.
81 / 235
Figure 4.1 Percentage of highly annoyed people in the Netherlands by various sound sources.
For outdoor equipment, the general implication is that although it is not the most
important noise source, it is significant. Noise in residential areas can be particularly
critical, especially when the equipment is operating close to dwellings. This is
especially the case for garden equipment and municipal vehicles, but also for
construction sites next to residential areas.
Where construction or goods handling equipment is working as part of an industrial
activity, it will often be included in the environmental assessment required by local
authorities, or more recently as required by the Environmental Noise Directive (END
[46,47] ) for noise mapping of large agglomerations. In addition, action plans could
include the stipulation of use of quieter or noise marked machinery for sensitive
locations.
4.2.2
Aboma/Keboma/VROM study
In the previously cited report by Aboma/Keboma/VROM from 2002 [16], besides an
overview of noise emission levels, also an approximate environmental impact is
estimated using the Dutch population of machines and their average sound power level.
This is done by calculating the area in square kilometers over which a noise level above
50 dB(A) would be produced, based on the effective area for a single machine,
multiplied by the population. Although this is a good first approach it does not yet
include numbers of affected people, type of operating environment, usage time or sound
characteristics.
82 / 235
4.3
Environmental indicator
4.3.1
Concept
An environmental indicator EI is proposed for the purpose of this study which takes
into account several significant parameters affecting the exposure and perception of
outdoor equipment noise in various surroundings.
4.3.2
n t
n
LWA, rated, yeareq = LWA,guaranteed + Cevening/ni ght + Ctonal/imp + Cintermitte nt + Copcon + 10 lg months days dayuse
364 24 60
where
nmonths
ndays
tdayuse
Cevening/night
Ctonal/imp
Cintermittent
Copcon
4.3.3
83 / 235
Figure 4.2 Illustration of a typical urban area in category A with the resulting sound level distributions for a
source of 100 dB(A) sound power.
84 / 235
Figure 4.3 Illustration of a typical urban area in category B with the resulting sound level distributions for a
source of 100 dB(A) sound power.
Figure 4.4 Illustration of a typical urban area in category C with the resulting sound level distributions for a
source of 100 dB(A) sound power.
85 / 235
Figure 4.5 Illustration of a typical urban area in category D with the resulting sound level distributions for a
source of 100 dB(A) sound power.
Figure 4.6 Illustration of a typical urban area in category E with the resulting sound level distributions for a
source of 100 dB(A) sound power.
86 / 235
The resulting distributions of inhabitants in each situation (see fig. 4.7) is then shifted
for each type of equipment in accordance with the appropriate LWA, rated, yeareq giving the
distribution Dequip,situ,i . This distribution is normalized by the total of inhabitants
considered in the noise mapping procedure. The calculations were performed in 1 dB
steps, the final distribution is based on sound level classes of 5 dB.
Number of inhabitants
1000
100
Atot-cum
10
Btot-cum
Ctot-cum
Dtot-cum
Etot-cum
1
50
55
60
65
70
75
For each equipment type those numbers of people were multiplied by the amount of
equipment in use within the EU. This gives the relative number of people, percentage of
the total number of people for all situations considered, experiencing a given year
averaged equivalent sound level. Combining the level and percentage according to
energy summation, results in the relevant Environmental Impact indicator, the (relative)
energy-averaged sound level that inhabitants in the EU25 experience on an average day
in the year due to the considered equipment:
10
where
Nequip,situ
Li
Dequip, situ,i
87 / 235
For each type of equipment one or two dominant environmental situations were
selected. If more than one of those situations is applicable, the final indicator is the
energy sum of the two partial indicators.
It was found that for the environments considered, a 3 dB reduction in sound power
level resulted in on average in 35% less exposed people.
4.3.4
Input data
The input data used for each equipment type is listed in table 4.1. All the inputs are
based on best estimates of the parameters from different sources.
Equipment population numbers are estimated from various sources, such as national
estimates, human population, sales figures per annum, probable ratios between
equipment types and average life. No great accuracy is possible here, but is also not
required; it suffices to know the order of magnitude. For example, there are tens of
millions of lawnmowers, millions of power generators, hundreds of thousands of
hydraulic hammers, tens of thousands of piling equipment and thousands of landfill
compactors. In some cases, data has been scaled up from the Netherlands using the
human polulation ratio of 456 million (EU25) to 16 million (Netherlands).
It should be noted that all elements of the environmental indicator are in logarithmic
form, such as number of people or number of equipment, reducing the sensitivity to
small changes.
88 / 235
Table 4.2 Overview of the input data for the Environmental Impact indicator for each type of equipment
and the apporpriate surroundings.
Eq.
no.
1
2
3a
3b
4
5
6
LWA,g Cop
Equipment
Ce/n
Ct/p
Cint
3
3
0
0
0
5
6
6
100
93
110
110
112
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
0
0
6
6
6
110
104
107
97
107
104
97
92
110
111
105
110
113
105
100
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
3
0
3
0
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
3
3
3
20
21
22
3
0
0
0
0
5
3
6
107
107
100
109
93
3
0
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
3
6
6
3
6
3
0
3
0
0
0
5
0
5
6
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
3
6
6
6
6
35
105
106
103
106
106
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
6
6
3
3
6
40
41a
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
41b
42
43
3
3
0
0
5
0
6
3
28
29
30
36a
Lift trucks, CE (rough terrain/construction) - 36a
36bLift trucks, CE (others excl. Container handling) - 36b
37
Loaders (< 500 kW) - 37
38
Mobile cranes - 38
39
Mobile waste containers - 39
44
45a
45b
46
47
48
Piste caterpillars - 44
Power generators (< 400 kW) - 45a
Power generators (>_ 400 kw) - 45b
Power sweepers - 46
Refuse collection vehicles - 47
Road milling machines - 48
106
97
96
101
109
113
3
0
0
3
0
3
5
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
3
49
Scarifiers - 49
95
50
51
52
53
54
3
0
3
0
0
0
5
0
0
3
3
3
55
56
3
0
0
5
0
0
3
0
57
nday
tuse
Env %use
23
24
25
26
27
nmont
Welding generators - 57
97
10
8
8
10
10
10
10
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
12
12
10
8
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
8
8
4
4
4
4
10
10
10
10
12
12
6
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
10
12
12
10
10
4
4
4
4
4
4
10
10
10
10
10
12
4
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
20
10
20
15
15
20
20
25
20
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
25
15
10
1
10
10
1
20
20
20
20
20
2
20
1
1
20
1
20
20
20
20
20
5
30
5
15
15
15
15
20
20
20
30
30
30
20
20
15
15
10
1
10
1
5
5
10
20
20
20
20
30
30
20
60
240
240
60
60
60
60
60
60
240
60
60
240
120
120
60
60
120
240
720
240
240
240
120
120
120
120
240
60
60
240
60
60
60
60
60
120
120
120
120
240
60
60
30
60
60
60
60
240
240
240
60
2
60
120
120
120
120
120
60
60
60
240
480
480
240
360
240
240
60
60
120
120
120
120
60
60
120
120
120
960
960
360
D
B
F
D
D
D
D
B
F
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
D
F
D
F
D
E
C
D
B
A
C
D
A
D
D
D
F
F
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
D
D
D
D
C
E
F
D
F
D
F
D
D
F
F
D
D
C
C
D
F
B
A
B
A
C
F
C
D
D
F
D
D
F
D
100%
50%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
50%
75%
25%
100%
75%
25%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
25%
100%
100%
75%
25%
100%
75%
25%
100%
50%
50%
50%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
90%
10%
100%
50%
50%
50%
50%
100%
50%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
50%
75%
25%
75%
25%
50%
50%
100%
100%
50%
50%
100%
50%
50%
100%
in
NEU25
use
(1000x)
(%)
200 75%
2000 75%
75%
50 75%
50 75%
25 75%
200 75%
2000 75%
75%
20 75%
10 75%
90 75%
200 75%
400 75%
200 75%
25 75%
25 75%
50 75%
50 75%
1000 75%
14 75%
10 75%
29 75%
100 75%
75%
692 75%
692 75%
162 75%
2000 75%
75%
5 75%
5000 75%
5000 75%
50 75%
500 75%
75%
400 75%
100 75%
50 75%
75%
5 75%
50000 75%
50000 75%
5000 75%
3000 75%
75%
3000 75%
75%
225 75%
800 75%
326 75%
100 75%
100000 75%
75%
1000 75%
10 75%
75%
10 75%
75%
20 75%
50 75%
75%
5 75%
2000 75%
200 75%
30 75%
100 75%
40 75%
75%
1000 75%
75%
1000 75%
75%
10 75%
75%
10 75%
20 75%
20 75%
75%
50 75%
1000 75%
75%
1000 75%
4.3.5
89 / 235
Results
In figure 4.8 and 4.9 the overview is presented of the ranking of all types of equipment
based on averaged guaranteed sound power level (fig. 4.8) and the environmental
impact indicator (fig. 4.9). The range in dB for the various equipment types varies
substantially: for the sound power level it is 33 dB(A) and for the Environmental
Impact indicator 63 dB. This is caused by the effect of sound characteristics (10 dB
range), population of equipment (range 40 dB), usage time (range 30 dB) and the
variation in environment (less than 10 dB).
A major result is that the ranking in sound power levels is completely different to the
ranking in environmental impact, which is understandable when considering that some
equipment types (e.g. lawnmowers) are far more numerous than others (e.g. piste
caterpillars).
For the average sound power levels as shown in figure 4.8, the top 10 include piling
machines and other noisy construction equipment.
The top 10 equipment types in environmental impact are mobile waste containers,
hydraulic hammers, brush cutters, piling equipment, cooling equipment on vehicles,
refuse collection vehicles, grass trimmers, lawnmowers, chain saws, and lift trucks.
Most of these are either very numerous, have a long usage time and/or a high noise
level combined with poor sound characteristics. Instead of considering the top 10, it is
probably better to consider all equipment with an indicator value above 50 dB as most
relevant for stricter limits. All equipment below 30 dB might be considered of low
importance for any effort in terms of Article 12 limits. This includes construction
winches, electric builders hoists, paver finishers (all types), explosion rammers, snowremoving machines, tower cranes, piste caterpillars, landfill compactors and motor
hoes.
These results seem consistent with some of the findings from the environmental
consultation.
It could well be argued that a further analysis of subtypes of equipment in power classes
or drive systems would be useful, but this would go beyond the scope of this study.
90 / 235
80
90
100
110
LWA [dB(A)]
Figure 4.8 Ranking of equipment according to the average guaranteed sound power level.
120
130
91 / 235
30
40
50
60
70
80
4.4
92 / 235
4.5
93 / 235
installations, vehicle mounted loader cranes, tractors for construction sites/water pumps
(also municipal uses).
Significantly, all the others score too low in terms of environmental impact. This in part
due to low numbers of equipment and low usage time related to seasonal use.
It might however be argued that some of these types can be highly relevant for certain
local communities.
94 / 235
Table 4.3 Overview of the input data for the Environmental Impact indicator for new equipment types and
the appropriate surroundings.
Eq.
no.
LWA,g
Equipment
85
85
Mobile sieve installations - 102 110
Cop
Ce/n
Ct/p
Cint
nm
nd
tuse
Env
%use
in use
(%)
NEU25
(1000x)
100
15
720 C
100%
10000
75%
101
12
20
360 F
100%
20
75%
10
20
240 D
50%
20
75%
10
20
240 F
50%
10
20
240 D
50%
20
75%
10
20
240 F
50%
10
20
60 C
50%
10
20
60 D
50%
102
102
103
120
110
103
104
104
105
100
105
106
107
100
Bridge /gantry cranes (harbours/ portal cranes) - 107 105
Non-fixed lifting gear, own power source. - 106
107
108
100
108
109
110
111
Snowmobiles - 111
112
113
114
115
116
95
100
110
110
96
90
95
110
120
121
50%
10000
75%
10
20
60 D
100%
20
75%
20
75%
10
20
240 D
50%
12
15
240 F
50%
10
20
30 D
50%
10
20
30 E
50%
20
240 C
100%
75%
75%
1000
75%
20
75%
75%
12
12
20
240 C
100%
20
75%
10
120 F
100%
150
75%
10
60 F
100%
100
75%
10
60 F
100%
10
75%
30
30 F
100%
75%
60 B
100%
100
75%
60 B
50%
20
75%
60 F
50%
10
20
240 D
50%
75%
75%
10
75%
110
110
120
Stone chainsaw - 120 120
Swimming pool pumps - 121 100
50%
20 D
75%
12
15
240 F
50%
10
20
240 D
50%
12
15
240 F
50%
10
20
60 D
100%
10
20
60 D
100%
75%
480 A
100%
50
75%
118
119
10 E
20
75%
75%
117
118
20
75%
50
116
117
12
10
75%
75%
75%
Stone chainsaw Stone circular saw Mobile waste breakers (wood, concrete) Reach stacker Straddle carrier Tree stump grinder Quad (off-road) Snowmobiles Tractors for construction / water pumps Mobile sieve installations Bridge /gantry cranes (harbours/ portal cranes) Swimming pool pumps Street washing machine Vehicle mounted loader cranes Non-fixed lifting gear, own power source. Reverse movement alarm signals (all machines) Golf green edger Telescopic pruner Road sweepers, no aspirators (motorized broom) Bird scare canons Heat pumps Airco/ ventilation equipment -
120
119
103
118
117
116
112
111
104
102
107
121
110
108
106
105
113
115
109
114
101
100
95 / 235
80
90
100
110
120
130
LW A [dB(A)]
Figure 4.10 Ranking of new equipment types according to the estimated average guaranteed sound power level.
- 105
- 100
- 119
- 103
- 120
- 108
- 107
- 102
- 104
- 118
- 110
- 106
- 115
- 121
- 109
- 111
- 112
- 117
- 116
- 101
- 113
- 114
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 4.11
80
4.6
96 / 235
4.7
5.1
Introduction
97 / 235
It takes 25 pages of the current directive to define as precisely as possible the test
conditions for each equipment type in Annex III. The scope of these definitions and the
deviations from the ISO and CEN standards contained therein are frequently criticised.
The same holds true, in a sense, for those 8 pages of Annex II where engine definitions
have been stated. This scale was considered as a requirement at the time the directive
was first released, since for many groups no standard definitions and applicable test
conditions were available or these did not correspond to the directives principles.
Test cycles were not supposed to have phases of idle operation (even though they
dominate in practical operation of the equipment), to allow easier comparison, and the
process noise was also to be eliminated.
In the meantime, some C-Type standards have been adapted to the requirements of the
directive and could now be applied; for other equipment groups revisions and/or new
listings have been prepared.
Deviations from standards are still partly necessary in order to obtain a better
reproducibility of the measurement values as could be feasible with the application of
the currently applicable standards, especially if the leeway contained therein would be
fully used. It is favourable to manufacturers, operators and authorities if uncertainty K
can be kept as low as possible.
There are several issues related to the test cycles that affect the measurement
uncertainty, including
- determination procedure of the K-factor itself;
- temperature range;
- influence of the environmental correction K2A;
- reproducibility of the loading and operating conditions;
- the sound radiation due to the process or work piece;
- multiple sources and./or complex work cycle.
The relation between the measured sound power level and the level occurring under real
field conditions is not always straightforward. Firstly, it may not always be easy to recreate the conditions found under normal field conditions. Secondly, if these conditions
are created, the reproducibility may be too low due to a large spread in the noise levels
in these conditions.
A number of equipment types are in the Article 13 group due to the fact that the
measurement method still has too large uncertainty to be able to reliably set limits. A
good example of this is the test code for shredders/chippers, where the type of material
used in the test can significantly affect the results by several dB.
For these reasons, a number of improvements for test codes with reference to current
standards and standard proposals, where possible, are recommended in the following.
Annex II and III of the directive could be shortened by compiling the data in tables.
However, since in some places amendments with long text portions still are necessary
that would have to be depicted in additional annexes, this might not be clear enough.
98 / 235
Since the test conditions partly have a direct impact on the test result, the comparison
with a limit could also be affected. Here the parliaments proviso for eventual
amendments would apply. For the same reason then too, if more recently issued
standards can be referenced, the used standard will have to be codified with its year of
issue.
5.2
No.
5.2.1
Keyword/
concerning
General findings on test codes valid for more than one equipment type.
Reference
Problem/
in the
Insufficient Because
Directive
Proposed Solution
Further
Remarks
Landfill
Annex I,
compactor
Definitions,
no. 31
directive
compactors should be
materials
5.2.2
Net power
Annex III,
Power declaration in EC
Part A, 2.2
Electronic
Annex III,
5.2.4
the power.
5.2.5
at dynamic
tests
Travel speed
ISO 6395
Statistics,
Annex III,
Acceptance of repeatability
Max of 2
Part A
highest
standard deviation of
repeatability sr only.
Standards like
ISO 7574 and
ISO 8471 define
repeatability sr as
being included into
standard deviation of
reproducibility R
5.2.7
Measured
Article 3 e + f
and
uncertainty K a uniform
Guaranteed
Sound Power
down. In addition, a
Level
verification procedure
99 / 235
Environment
Annex III,
The usage of
al Correction
Part A, 6
zero
corrections is difficult
and requires a
considerable amount
must be made.
of experience.
K2A
Reference
None in the
Temperature
directive,
a restriction of temperature
is influencing the
ISO 3744
range is necessary.
Rules for
none
Market
Surveillance
5.2.11
Measurement
s by Market
Surveillance
Verification
none
by the manufacturer.
5.2.12
Help of
None, Blue
Different position of
Notified
Guide
accreditation authorities
Bodies at
Market
involved in MS or not.
Surveillance
5.2.13
Round Robin
none
Test
Current proposal to
calculate uncertainty K is
2007
reproducibility R.
5.2.14
Uncertainty
Annex VII;
Wording imprecise,
Annex VII is
K and Single
ISO 4871
different interpretation in
something like an
the MS
official verification,
Verification
Annex VII
state replacing
function. If a
manufacturer uses a
single unit
Unit
measurement under
100 / 235
Annex V, VI or VIII,
he has to add an
uncertainty K of
K = 1.5 * R
5.2.15
The subcontracting of
of Notified
alien laboratories
Bodies
throughout EC
abroad of EC should
be restricted or bound
to strict observation
Qualification
Annex IX
(China!).
5.2.16
Admittance to be an NB
of
different in the MS
Accreditation
throughout EC
Qualification
Article 15
Bodies for
Notified
Bodies
5.2.17
Inconsistent
none
Demands of
construction engineers
Noise and
increased demand on
in the industry to do
Gas Emission
Legislation
coordinated.
COM.
levels.
5.2.18
5.2.19
5.2.20
Receipt for
Sending the
in the database
EC database, any
DoC to COM
national database is
superfluous.
For some equipment there is For this equipment binding equipping should be
Alternatively set a
Binding
none
none
Construction
Regulation
noise reduction.
be achieved by this
construction (or
obligatory.
others)
Single Unit
Annexes V
A manufacturer
Declaration
and VII
and Annex V
constructed on specific
waste collecting
vehicles in the
database.
ISO 3746
Annex III,
Part A
should be withdrawn
least engineering
survey measurement
the manufacturer.
calculate an uncertainty K
taken.
Increased R-values
Further step: In
power level
guaranteed has to be
power declaration?
Labelling the
product
Article 11 (3)
are necessary.
101 / 235
other performance
data.
5.2.23
Combined
none
products
or even combinations of
5.2.24
Idling
Annex III
A question of
philosophy
test codes
A uniform engine definition of power (same as for traffic type approval) should be used
with reference to an EU directive or an EN or ISO standard. For intermittently operating
and reversing fans, new provisions need to be made.
5.3
Proposed test code improvements and test codes for new equipment types
Improvements for particular test codes and proposed test codes for new equipment
types are listed in table 5.2.
102 / 235
Table 5.2 Test code improvements and test code proposals for new equipment types (contd. on next page)
Eq.
no.
Equipment name
Art
Remarks
1
2
3a
3b
4
5
6
7
No
ISO 22868 (2005-02)
No
No
No
No
ISO 22868 (2005-02)
No
8a
8b
9
10
No
EN 500-4:2006
no
EN 60745-2-6: 3 kg should
be excluded, beacause these
small tools are used only
private and mainly indoors
11
12a
12b
13
14
15
16
17
18
13
12
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
No
No
No
Revise testcode
No
PrEN 12102:2005
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05
No
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
13
12
12
13
12
13
13
13
Revise testcode
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05
no
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05
ISO 22868 (2005-02)
ISO 10517
No
27
13
28
Hydraulic hammers
13
29
30
31
12
13
12
32
33
34
35
36a
36b
37
38
39
Change measurement
surface to hemisphere,
nozzle outside
CEN/TS 13778:2004
exclude big hammers only
used in mining
No
EN 13862:2001
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05,
consider all landfill
compactors also without
bucket
No
No
Pr EN 15503
Combine as one group
Pr EN 15503
Remove exceptions
Combine in one group
Remove exceptions
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05
EN 13000:2004
Results are not reproducible,
develop new test cycle
40
41a
41b
42
43
44
Pipelayers
Piste caterpillars
13
13
45a
45b
46
12
13
13
47
13
48
13
No
EN 500-6:2006
EN 500-6:2006
EN 996 A2:2003
CEN
work
program
m M_373
TC 144
TC 142
TC 142
TC 144
7, 26 and 52 should be combined
into 1 group
TC 151
TC 151
But withdraw low idle mode and
calculate 90% driving and 10%
stationary work cycle
TC 144
TC 144
7, 26 and 52 should be combined
into 1 group
TC 151
TC 151
TC 144
TC 144
TC 151
TC 151
TC 151
TC 151
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05
PrEN 15059:2004 / ISO DIS
TC 151
6393
ISO 8528-10:1998
ISO 8528-10:1998
Precise speed setting
Division into 3 subgrops using the
definitions in PrEN 15429-1/IEC
60336-2-72: road sweeper,
industrial sweeper, pedestrian
controlled motorized broom (see
109)
New EN 101-4, under
preparation
EN 500-2:2006
no, definition of engine
power acc ISO 9249:1997
TC 151
49
Scarifiers
50
51
52
Shredders chippers
13
Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-propelled, excl. atta13
Suction vehicles
13
EN 13684:2007 ?
remove electric powered
from directive
EN13683; EN13525
No
No
53
54
55
56
Tower cranes
Trenchers
Truck mixers
Water pump units (not for use under water)
12
13
13
13
No
No
No
EN 12639:2000
57
100
Welding generators
Air conditioning and ventilation equipment
12
13
101
Heat pumps
13
ISO 8528-10:1998
EN ISO 12102draft Nov 2005 Same physical principal. So a
common defintion and test code
EN ISO 12102draft Nov 2005 should be suitabe.
102
13
ISO 3744
103
13
104
13
ISO 3744
105
106
107
13
13
13
ISO 3744
ISO 3744
ISO 3744
108
13
109
13
110
13
111
112
Snowmobiles
Quad (off-road)
13
13
113
114
115
13
13
13
116
13
117
118
119
120
121
Straddle carrier
Reach stacker
Stone circular saw
Stone chainsaw
Swimming pool pumps
13
13
13
13
13
General
13
103 / 235
TC 144
7, 26 and 52 should be combined
into 1 group
TC 197
ISO 3744:2007
TC 197
5.4
104 / 235
Use
Definition
Article
Directive
test code
Construction site
Industrial
Container handlings:
Lift trucks
Loaders
Rough terrain
(in competition)
Lift trucks
Rough
terrain
<=10 t
>10 t
Straddle carriers
& Reach stackers
12
12
13
12
ISO 6395
EN 12053 modified
In addition to the objective to have a representative test, simple and usable for the
broadest possible range of machines, it is important not to further distort the
competition with the loaders. Some lift trucks equipped with a bucket conform to the
two definitions, but the loader test is more favorable. In detail, the different test
conditions are compared in table 5.4 below:
Table 5.4 Comparison of test conditions for lift trucks and loaders
Test
conditions
and weights:
Lift with a
load
Lift cycle
Only one up
Full acceleration
from 3 machine
lengths.
Only forward
Loader
50% lifting
50% driving
Without
Up and down, 3
times
Travel speed
limited to 8 km/h
Forward and
backward
moving
Microphones 6 on hemispherical 4 at 1.5 m height
6 on
positions
surface
hemispherical
surface
* These mixed cycles are duty to evaluate the noise exposure of a worker
105 / 235
6.1
Introduction
106 / 235
107 / 235
For some products in particular, technical barriers to further noise reduction are
encountered.
The various equipment types in the directive have a number of noise sources and
potential noise control measures in common. These sources and measures are first listed
and described.
As a next step, the technical trends and future developments are reviewed, to provide
insight into the possibilities for noise reduction in the near or further future.
As outdoor machinery is also subject to other European directives, some of the
associated technical issues are outlined, to the extent that there may be a clear link to
noise reduction.
Then, for those equipment types that come into question for new limits or tighter limits,
a review is given as to what the current state of technical progress is, i.e. to what extent
known technology has been applied to reduce noise emission.
6.2
6.2.1
General
For all of the equipment in the directive, a number of noise sources are relevant, many
of which which were also mentioned in the industry consultation. These are:
internal combustion engines (+exhaust and intake), fans (mostly of a cooling system),
hydraulics components including pumps, motors, valves and hoses, gear transmissions,
electric motors, compressors, pumps, compaction drums(impact), rolling noise, tracks
(impact), rotating drums/cutters, tamping bars (impact), blades (aerodynamic), and
process noise including impact, cutting, brushes and water jets. Typical influence
parameters and noise control measures are listed in table 6.1.
Most of these components or processes are active noise sources, which means they are
the root cause of the noise. The actual sound radiation may also be indirectly radiated
by other (passive) machine parts, such as the bodywork, enclosures, silencers, hoses,
plating or other structural parts.
108 / 235
Table 6.1 Overview of noise characteristics of components commonly found in equipment from the directive.
Components
Noise generation
Noise Radiation
Main
parameters
influence Noise
measures
control
variation, Engine block, exhaust and Engine rpm, load, stroke Electronic
speed
control,
contact, inlet and via mounts and volume, number of cylinders, shielding, ignition type and
attached components.
type.
timing,
pressure
curve,
balancing,
exhaust/intake
silencer optimisation.
Cooling fans and suction Turbulence
and
blade Via ducts and openings.
Fan
speed,
diameter, Flow
streamlining,
blade
devices
interaction
efficiency,
blade
shape, design, diameter increase,
obstacles.
speed reduction, efficiency
increase.
Cutting blades (aerodynamic Blade/deck
interaction, Turbulent
airflow,
via Tip speed, blade geometry, Optimal blade shape, reduced
noise)
turbulence
openings.
deck geometry
deck
interaction,
speed
reduction, alternative cutting
principle.
Hydraulic pumps and motors, Pressure
pulsation,
fluid Housing, piping, hoses and Rpm, pressure load, flow rate, Pump
type
selection,
valves, pipes and hoses
turbulence, mechnical contact attached components.
pump type.
pulsation
filters
and
absorbers,
valve/piping
Gear transmissions
Gear forces
Housing
and
attached Rpm and tooth number of Gear type selection, gear
components.
fastest stage, load, gear type tooth shape optimisation and
and quality
quality,
reduction
of
transmission error.
frequency
controlled
Electric motors
Often cooling fan, also Cooling vents and housing, Rpm and Torque, type of For
electronic
filters;
electromagnetic
attached components.
motor, number of fields, motors:
motor type selection; see also
current
fans.
Compressors
Pressure
variation, Direct, via outlet, inlet and via Rpm, pressure load, stroke Type selection, valve timing,
mechanical
contact, mounts and and attached volume, number of cylinders, pressure curve, balancing,
outlet/intake
silencer
type
components.
unbalance forces
optimisation.
Pumps
Pressure
variation, Housing
and
attached Rpm, type, flow velocities, Pump type selection, flow
mechanical
contact, components.
flowrate, pressure.
streamlining, reduction in rpm
turbulence
or local flow velocities.
Cutting
and
impacting Impact forces
Impacting components and Masses and velocities of Reduce
impact
speed,
elements/tools
attached components
impact, contact elasticity
minimise impacting masses,
cushion impact, eliminate
impact, detach or isolate
coupled
components.
Alternative processes.
Brushes
Friction forces
Brush
Stiffness, area, rpm
Reduce contact speed or rpm,
soften bristles, shield brush.
Water jets
Turbulence
Turbulent airflow
Flow velocity, flowrate, orifice Reduce turbulence by special
geomerty,
jet
geometry, nozzles, reduce flow velocity.
Alternative processes.
obstacles
Rolling noise
Surface roughness
Contacting parts
Roughness, speed, contact Reduce
rolling
speed,
stiffness,
geometry
and smoother contact surfaces,
damping
flexible contact point, smaller
rolling body.
Elastic mounts
Not applicable
Sometimes from mount itself Stiffness (dynamic), mobility Ensure
stiff/flexible/stiff
ratio
transition between component
and machine
Support frames and plates
Not applicable
Beams and plates
Material,
thickness
and Reduce radiating area, detach
geometry, damping
or isolate from vibration where
possible. Reduce radiation
efficiency, increase damping if
undamped.
Enclosures and covers
Not applicable
Outer casing and openings
Covered area, open area, Minimise leakage, include
absorbent area
absorbtion
for
open
enclosures.
Exhaust/outlets and intakes Potentially flow noise
Orifice and casing
Volume, cross-section ratio, Selection and tuning for
with silencers
internal
absorption, specific engine and operating
condition is important.
impedance
109 / 235
In table 6.2 and 6.3 an overview of relevant noise sources is given for each equipment
type.
For active components, the key to noise reduction is the appropriate choice of
- quietest working principle;
- quietest component model and sizing;
- running speed and operating conditions;
- vibration isolation and mounting conditions;
- enclosure and shielding.
Errors such as component misalagnment, unbalance, too large tolerances, loose parts,
structural resonances and acoustically leaky enclosures should be avoided.
For passive noise control, generally acoustical devices are added to the machine such
as enclosures, silencers, damping systems, absorbtion materials, sound insulation
materials, vibration isolators, shock and vibration absorbers. These often introduce
weight and other design issues, and are best optimised to be in balance with other
design parameters.
Some noise reduction can often also be achieved by paying attention to layout,
geometry and directivity of components. Control of mass and stiffness of components
and the links between them can also sometimes offer potential noise reductions.
In all cases, it is essential to tackle the loudest source(s) first. As this can vary per
equipment type, model and even operating condition, this always needs careful analysis.
In an excavator for example, the engine noise, fan noise and hydraulic noise can all be
at a similar level, and in that case all need to be reduced together.
110 / 235
Table 6.2 Overview of noise sources for equipment in the directive. Key to noise sources:
E=engine (+exhaust and intake), F=Fan (cooling system), H=Hydraulics, G=Gears, T=Tracks, P=Process, B=Blade
I=Impact, C=cutting, M=Electic motor, CP=compressor, BR=Brushes, W=Water jet, R=Rolling noise, PU=Pump.
Process
noise
during
Eq.
Drive type as in
Noise source during Noise
no. Equipment name
Directive Process noise type
test
operation sources
1
Aerial access platforms with combustion engine
CE
no
Engine
E/F/H
2
Brush cutters
CE
Cutting+blade rotationo
Engine
E/B/C
3a Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combustion-engineCE
no
Engine
E/H/P
3b Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with electric motor) Electric
no
Engine
E/H/P
4
Building site band saw machine
Electric
Sawing
yes
Engine
B/C
5
Building site circular saw bench
Electric
Sawing
yes
Sawing
B/C
6
Chain saws, portable
CE/Electric
Sawing
yes
Engine/Sawing
E/B/C
7
Combined high pressure flushers and suction vehicles
CE
Flushing/suction
no
Engine/flushing
E/H
8a Compaction machines (explosion rammers only)
Explosion
Compaction
yes
Engine
E/P
8b Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibrating rollersCE/External
Compaction
yes/no Engine/compaction
E/P
9
Compressors (< 350 kW)
CE/Electric
no
Engine/Compressor
E/CP/F
10 Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
CE/pneumatic/elecBreaking
no
Breaking
E/F/I/P
11 Concrete or mortar mixers
CE/Electric
Mixing
yes
Engine/Material mixing
P
12a Construction winches (combustion-engine driven)
CE
no
Engine
E/G
12b Construction winches (electrically driven)
Electric
no
Engine
M/G
13 Conveying and spraying machines for concrete and mortar CE/Electric
Concrete spraying yes
Engine
E/F/P
14 Conveyor belts
CE/Electric
no
Engine/Rolls
E/F/G
15 Cooling equipment on vehicles
CE/External
no
Engine/Compressor
E/F
16 Dozers (< 500 kW)
CE
no
Engine
E/F/T
17 Drill rigs
CE/External
no
Engine/Drilling
H/G
18 Dumpers (< 500 kW)
CE
no
Engine
E/H/P
19 Equipment for loading and unloading silos or tanks on trucks Electric/Truck Engine
no
Engine/Compressor
E/P
20 Excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 kW)
CE
no
Engine/Digging
E/H/F
21 Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW)
CE
no
Engine/Digging
E/H/F
22 Glass recycling containers
None
Glass breaking
yes
Glass breaking
I
23 Graders (< 500 kW)
CE
Cutting/spreading no
Engine
E/F
24 Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers
CE
Cutting and blade ro no
Engine/Rotation of tool
E/C
25 Hedge trimmers
CE/Electric
Cutting
no
Engine/Blades
E/C
26 High pressure flushers
CE
Flushing
no
Engine/Compressor/Nozzle E/H
27 High pressure water jet machines
CE/Electric
Water jet
no
Engine/Compressor/Water JeM/W
28 Hydraulic hammers
Hydraulic
Hammering
no
hammering
I/P
29 Hydraulic power packs
CE
no
Hydraulic
E/F/H
30 Joint cutters
CE
Cutting
no
cutting
E/P
31 Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 500 kW)
CE
no
Engine
E/F/H
32 Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry equipment,
CE/Electric
Cutting and blade ro no
Engine/Blade Rotation
B/E/H
33 Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers
Electric
Cutting and blade ro no
Blade Rotation
B/E
34 Leaf blowers
CE/Electric
Airflow
no
Engine/Airflow
F
35 Leaf collectors
CE/Electric
Airflow
no
Engine/Airflow
F
36a Lift trucks, CE driven, counterbalanced (excluding 'other coun CE
Fork impacts
no
Engine/fork
E/F/G
36b Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (others excl. Container CE
Fork impacts
no
Engine/fork
E/F/G
37 Loaders (< 500 kW)
CE
Bin impacts
no
Engine/bin
E/H/F/P
38 Mobile cranes
CE
no
Engine/Hydraulic
E/H/F
39 Mobile waste containers
None
Impacts
no
Wheels
I/R
40 Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
CE
no
Engine
E
41a Paver-finishers (equipped with a high-compaction screed)
CE
Tracks
yes
Engine/Equipment
E
41b Paver-finishers (excluding paver-finishers equipped with a hig CE
Tracks
yes
Engine/Equipment
E
42 Piling equipment
Various
Impacts
yes
piling
E/H/F
43 Pipelayers
CE
no
Engine
E/F/T
44 Piste caterpillars
CE
no
Engine
E/F
45a Power generators (< 400 kW)
CE
no
Engine
E/F
45b Power generators (>_ 400 kw)
CE
no
Engine
E/F
46 Power sweepers
CE
Sweeping
no
Engine/Sweeper/suction unit E/F/BR
47 Refuse collection vehicles
CE
Impacts
yes
Engine/Compactor/Collecting E/I/H
48 Road milling machines
CE
Milling
no
Engine/milling
E/C/P
49 Scarifiers
CE/Electric
no
Engine
B/E
50 Shredders chippers
CE/Electric
Shredding/chipping yes
Shredding/chipping
E/P
51 Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-propelled, eCE
Snowblowing
no
Engine/snow blowing
E/F
52 Suction vehicles
CE
Suction
no
Engine/suction unit
E/H
53 Tower cranes
CE/Electric
no
Engine/Break
M/G
54 Trenchers
CE
Impacts/friction
no
Engine
E/F/P
55 Truck mixers
CE
Mixing
no
Engine/mixing
E/F/P
56 Water pump units (not for use under water)
CE/Electric
no
Engine/Pump
E/F
57 Welding generators
CE/Electric
no
Engine
E/F
111 / 235
Table 6.3 Overview of noise sources for possible new equipment types. Key to noise sources:
E=engine (+exhaust and intake), F=Fan (cooling system), H=Hydraulics, G=Gears, T=Tracks, P=Process, B=Blade
I=Impact, C=cutting, M=Electic motor, CP=compressor, BR=Brushes, W=Water jet, R=Rolling noise, PU=Pump.
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
Electric
Air conditioning and ventilation equipment
Electric
Heat pumps
CE/Electric
Mobile sieve installations
CE/Electric
Mobile waste breakers (wood, concrete)
CE
Tractors used in construction and for driving water pumps
Electric
Reverse movement alarm signals (on aal machines)
Non-fixed lifting gear (magnets, vaccuum). own power source ?
Bridge and gantry cranes (used in harbour and portal cranes) Electric
CE/Electric
Vehicle mounted loader cranes
CE
Road sweepers without aspirators (motorized broom)
CE
Street washing machine
CE
Snowmobiles
CE
Quad (off-road)
CE
Golf green edger
Electric
Bird scare canons
CE/Electric
Telescopic pruner
CE
Tree stump grinder
CE
Straddle carrier
CE
Reach stacker
CE/Electric
Stone circular saw
CE
Stone chainsaw
Electric
Swimming pool pumps
6.2.2
Sieving
Waste crushing
Container impact
Sweeping
Sweeping
Grinding
Container impact
Container impact
Cutting
Cutting
Compressor
Pump
Engine/sieving
Engine/Breaking
Engine
Beeper
Engine
Trolly/Winch/Spreader
Engine
Engine/sweeper
Engine/sweeper/Water jet?
Engine
Engine
Engine
Shot
Engine/blade
Engine/grinding
Engine/hydraulics
Engine/hydraulics
Engine/sawing
Engine/sawing
Engine/pump
F
PU/E/F
E/F/P
E/F/I/P
E/F
P
E/F
R/I/G/M
E/H
E/BR
E/BR
E
E
E
P
E/B
E/C
E/H
E/H
E/C
E/C
E/PU
Combustion Engines
As combustion engines are a major noise source they are given more attention here.
For handheld and small equipment, mostly petrol engines are used, often 2-stroke
engines for the lighter handheld equipment such as chainsaws, hedge trimmers and
brush cutters. The requirements of peak power, compact size and low weight are reason
to use compact 2-stroke engines. For combustion engine powered lawnmowers,
currently mostly 4-stroke petrol engines are used. 4-stroke engines tend to be quieter
than 2-stroke engines as they have lower shaft speed for the same power. This implies
that over recent years the engine noise has reduced due to the application of 4-stroke
engines.
There are 4-stroke petrol engines on the market advertised as low noise or silent
versions. These tend to be well-enclosed units. Several manufacturers supply these to
the European market.
For medium and large equipment, mostly diesel engines are applied. These do not tend
to be of especially quiet design, and do not tend to have features used in the automotive
sector such as common rail injection. The reason for this is lack of demand for quieter
engines from the OEMs on a suffiently large scale, but also the available space for
enclosures and sound insulation in many machines. The engines used for outdoor
machinery are also applied in other markets such as marine engines, fixed power
generators and others.
For noise emission, the type of engine, the cooling system, its size, its operating regime
and especially engine shaft speed are main influence parameters. As there are three
main noise radiators, the engine block including the fan, the inlet and the exhaust, all of
these have to be reduced to a sufficiently low noise level, for the specified usage
pattern. The engine block needs an effective enclosure with sufficient absorbtion inside
as there are usually openings present.
112 / 235
Electronic engine management is a technique that can reduce noise. For outdoor
equipment this has to be balanced with the requirement for sufficient power when it is
needed.
Noise generation in combustion engines originates from the combustion pressure curve,
forces on the crankshaft, valve impacts, and various other internal friction forces and
impacts such as piston slap. The combustion noise is emitted via the exhaust and intake,
for which properly tuned silencers are required. Broadband flow noise can also be
emitted by the exhaust.
Due to the many mechanical sources the engine block is a major noise source itself.
Plate-like components such as oil sumps and valve covers can contribute significantly
to the noise radiation, and should be well damped to avoid this. Much of the noise
reduction technology required is already widely applied in the automotive industry.
Combustion engines, both small spark ignition engines and diesel engines are also
subject to the European exhaust emission directive, which is regularly amended. The
stage 3B and stage 4 requirements will lead to application of exhaust filters and other
combustion conditions which may increase cooling requirements and thereby noise
emission. It is not yet clear to what extent this will make the stage II noise limits harder
to fulfil, according to industry.
Issues for the near future are the introduction of biofuels and hybrid drive systems.
Hybrid systems are now beginning to appear in some construction machines and forklift
trucks, which with correct engine management can be potentially much quieter than
existing equipment.
Outdoor equipment manufactured by SMEs is often built upon a base vehicle supplied
by the large truck manufacturing companies. They are designed in order to fulfil traffic
noise regulations, tested in a pass-by procedure where the engine does not have to run at
maximum speed. In the final application built by the SME, the engine is running at
stationary high idle mode. If there would be a stricter limitation of sound power level at
high idle for trucks, it would be much easier for SMEs to reduce the noise level of their
products. Due to the small number of units bought by SMEs they have no chance to
demand low noise vehicle units at the big truck manufacturers.
Broadly speaking, for each application, engine type and parameters can be optimised to
suit the task and also to fulfil the noise requirements. For handheld and compact
equipment there is a space and weight limitation and power requirement which need to
be taken into account. It may be possible to apply some of the low noise technology
developed in the automotive industry. Automotive diesel engines have become quieter
in recent years. But as long as the component requirements are not determined by the
outdoor equipment sector, it remains difficult to reduce engine noise at the source.
6.2.3
Cooling fans
Cooling fans are another major noise source often applied in combination with a
combustion engine. The fan can in some cases dominate engine noise, if it is for
example controlled by the cooling requirement and running at high speed. Fans which
are electronically controlled can provide a means of noise reduction, as fans driven
directly by the engine shaft are always running.
113 / 235
Hydraulics
Hydraulic systems if present can often contribute to the overall noise level, especially
tonal noise. This is mainly generated in the hydropumps en hydromotors, but due to the
good fluid coupling, propagates through all the piping, hoses and valves, which also
radiate noise in turn. If the hydraulic components are not well isolated from the
structure, there may also be structureborne noise. The hydraulic pulsation can
sometimes be reduced by applying resonance dampers, which have to be tuned and
need to be compatible with the system without reducing performance.
The type of hydropump is highly relevant for the noise emission, as there are different
types with different characteristics, such as piston pumps, vane pumps, gear pumps and
screw pumps. The noisiest of these, the piston pump, is often applied due to its high
efficiency and pressure characteristics.
If the hydraulic power source is well enclosed and isolated such as is often now the case
for hydraulic power packs, then noise levels can be reduced. Possibilities to reduce
hydraulic noise by means of dampers seem not always to be used by industry.
6.2.5
114 / 235
sometimes be optimised to reduce noise as this affects the action smoothness. The
loading of gears is important as it affects the gear interation and thereby the noise.
Dynamic and irregular loading may easily lead to wear and increased noise levels,
especially if shaft misalignment occurs.
6.2.6
Figure 6.1 Blade-deck interaction is considered an important aerodynamic noise source; the blade
performs both a cutting action and a grass-removal function by the airflow. The wing passing the
opening generates tonal noise; the blade movement causes broadband noise.
Since the earlier directives on lawnmower noise, there have been intensive discussions
on the possibilities to lower the noise emissions of lawnmowers. The most common
technology works with a rotating blade. The industrys point of view is that the noise is
solely determined by the aerodynamics of the (bent) blade, in interaction with the deck.
In using flat blades a reduction could be achieved however, but then there would be no
grass cutting collection, a feature that is considered important for the user. Reducing the
rotational speed is out of the question, since this would reduce the cutting quality; the
blade tip speed therefore cannot be lowered.
115 / 235
There does not seem to be an objective definition of good cutting quality. The question
should be posed to what extent a reduction of cutting quality could be acceptable in
return for noise reduction. Also it may be possible to improve alternative cutting
methods such as the cylinder mower or others to provide better cutting quality. Even the
type of lawn may be a factor worth consideration here. If the noise is mainly caused by
the blade, it should be questioned why there are mowers with the same cutting width
but different sound power levels.
The quieter 4-stroke engine is now widely applied for lawnmowers. Given the fact that
at the time of the introduction of the directive 4-stroke engines were not always applied,
and therefore the engine noise was more important, it should now be possible to reduce
by 1 or 2 dB.
There are questions as to whether the industry point of view is correct in all respects.
The lawnmower market is characterized by tough price competition. For mowing
equipment featuring more elaborate design with dampened body parts, hydraulic power
transmission and/or low-noise engines, there is little market. In the Lamonov project
[21], the lawnmower industry invested significantly into the research on noise emission.
The results of this research have only been made partly available for this report in an
extract form of an executive summary and during some discussions with EGMF. The
CETIM report of 2002 [20] remains the last independent survey of this topic. This
report had been interpreted in different ways. It does conclude that some further
reduction should be possible by applying basic low noise design principles.
Since doubts remain that noise reduction is not possible, and since there is no distinct
proof of feasibility either, it is recommended to do away with large jumps in the limits
(upto 5 dB) and to apply instead a non-compromising limit formula that is oriented
towards the cutting width, as is the case with other equipment groups:
LWAlim = 71 + 15 lg L.
This limit curve is calculated in such a way that an estimated 75% of the equipment in
the EC database will meet the requirements. After 4 years another verification can
render proof if there is additional potential for reductions. At the same time,
independent research on for example applicability of alternative cutting methods and
the aerodynamic noise reduction should be performed. It should also be verified for
which categories of lawnmowers the aerodynmaic noise is most dominant.
The current directive excludes attached equipment. This has led to the fact that in the
upper cutting width segment a number of lawn tractors are being placed officially on
the market as a garden tractor with mowing unit attachment, in order to by-pass the
noise directive. This gap can be closed by subjecting the attached mowing units to the
test and declaration obligations. For measurement purposes, the mowing attachment can
be powered at its highest allowable rpm by an electric motor. The limits should be
identical to those of a regular lawnmower.
In the event that other equipment is attached to a garden tractor and mowing unit
combination, the same meaning should apply for these components. Grass collectors
belong to the same definition of leaf collectors; however, they have been excluded as
attachment equipment at this time. They could also be measured with an electric motor
and be declared.
116 / 235
In the end, under the current regulation, a combination of attached equipment with an
LWA = 108 dB (and higher!) can drive through the city parks. Therefore, considerable
doubt as to the meaning and sense of these exceptions will occur.
Notified Bodies have been reporting that lawn mowers with rpms have been presented
that did fulfil the limits, but that certainly could not mow any lawns. Whenever the
directive requires that measurements must be conducted at the highest rpms, the
following wording should be used for the measurement prescriptions: at the highest
speed for designated use of the operation of the working equipment. Furthermore, the
directive should oblige that the following operating instructions should be incorporated
in the safety instructions: In case of exceeding the highest speed for designated use of
the operation of the working equipment, the operating license will become void. The
respective rotating speed must be stated.
In conclusion, in some cutting width ranges, a reduction towards stage II seems
possible. It is recommended to replace the large steps in the limits by a limit calculation
following the curring width more closely.
6.2.7
Process noise
Some of the highest noise levels are caused by process noise, in particular impact and
cutting processes. The noise from such processes is often radiated by the equipment or
tool, and the workpiece. Circular saws are an example for which the tool, i.e. the
sawblade, is the main sound radiator. This is so dominant in comparison to the drive
noise, that it would seem most appropriate to limit the noise emission of sawblades. For
other impacting equipment such as piling hammers, the impact noise can be radiated by
both the hammer and the pile. As it is possible to counter noise radiation from the pile,
it is also worth reducing the noise from the piling equipment itself. For concrete
breakers, picks and hydraulic hammers noise is often generated by the workpiece, but
also the chisel itself radiates noise. Here again it is therefore worthwhile to limit the
noise from the tool, even if in some situations the workpiece noise can be dominant.
Compaction machinery with vibratory plates is a special case of impact noise, where the
compaction plate can radiate noise strongly. Here it should be investigated whether
improvements are possible.
But for all of the equipment with process noise, application of some of the basic
principles for low noise design should allow at least a few dB noise reduction. The
alternative is to seek new working principles and to adjust the process where possible to
reduce the noise level.
6.2.8
117 / 235
The continuous increase of power and performance is very important for future noise
policy. It should be considered whether the setting of upper sound power limits for
some equipment types for which this may be an issue. For example, LWAmax = 112
dB(A) in 5 years, 109 in 2020, except for impact piling, hydraulic hammers and forestry
shredding. This might encourage industry to consider new technologies before
increasing performance whilst further impacting the environment with higher noise
levels.
6.2.9
6.2.10
6.3
6.3.1
Technical trends
There are some clear trends identifiable for certain types of equipment, which are often
linked to other requirements such as occupational safety, exhaust emission,
performance and efficiency. Some examples are given here, but with further
examination probably more trends can be found and new trends will occur in future.
1. Introduction of smaller machines or new machine types where heavy manual work
can be reduced or eliminated. Some good examples of this are the introduction of
compact excavators and loaders, remotely controlled hydraulic hammers, new
horticultural equipment such as power pruners and tree stump grinders.
2. Introduction of more electrically powered equipment, for example electric concrete
breakers, replacing pneumatic ones.
3. Combination of quiet hydraulic power packs with hydraulic equipment such as
hydraulic breakers instead of pneumatic powering seems to be a new trend. Hydraulics
has the advantage that impact forces can be transmitted more smoothly and better
controlled. This reduces structure-borne transmission and the overall vibration levels.
3. Dissappearance of certain equipment types from the market, for safety or other
reasons, for example explosion rammers.
4. Switch from 2-stroke engines to 4-stroke engines on lawnmowers and some other
equipment.
118 / 235
Future options
Due to the future more stringent exhaust regulations, it can be expected that new
developments will occur in relation to combustion engine design, both for small and
larger engines. If this leads to an increase in noise, this will become a focus point.
Quieter cooling technology and engine and fan speed management may be one of the
ways forward to deal with this.
If battery life and capacity increases and the size is reduced, this may lead to more and
quieter electrically powered equipment on the market, reducing the numbers of
combustion engine powered equipment.
Hybrid drives, if shown to be viable and economic may also have a significant impact
on noise levels of machinery with variable work cycles.
6.4
cooling requirements vs. noise, especially for fans and engine enclosures;
performance vs. noise, e.g. blade speed vs. quality of cut, for lawnmowers.
weight and size vs. noise, especially for compact and handheld equipment and
for exhaust silencer size;
balancing different noise sources, such as process and tool noise vs. engine
noise.
6.5
6.5.1
Machinery Directive
The most important other directive in relation to noise is the Machinery Directive
95/16/EC [2], amended by 2006/42/EC, on minimum machinery safety including noise.
For this directive, the noise at the relevant operator position(s) has to be measured
according to the appropriate standard(s). The measurement report is part of the
compulsory Technical Construction File (TCF) and the noise level must be stated in the
instruction manual. If the sound pressure level exceeds 80 dB(A), then also the sound
power level must be measured and stated. If the peak C-weighted sound pressure level
exceeds 130 dB(C), then this must also be measured and stated.
The Machinery Directive also requires that
119 / 235
Machinery must be designed and constructed in such a way that risks resulting from
the emission of airborne noise are reduced to the lowest level, taking account of
technical progress and the availability of means of reducing noise, in particular at
source. The level of noise emission may be assessed with reference to comparative
emission data for similar machinery.
The manual must also include instructions relating to installation and assembly for
reducing noise or vibration.
The consequences of this directive are that most manufacturers have to measure the
operator noise levels and for noisier machines also the sound power level. So many
companies are already dealing with the noise issue, and noise reduction, especially
where high noise levels are concerned. The solutions to reduce operator noise are not
always the same as to reduce environmental noise, as the operator can be protected by
cabins, placed further away from the machine or shielded locally. However, measures to
reduce environmental noise will often result in lower noise at operator positions.
6.5.2
6.5.3
6.5.4
Other Directives
Several other Directives may indirectly be related to noise emission of outdoor
equipment. These are listed below.
- Directive 70/157/EC on type approval of vehicles (last amendment 2007/34/EC)
which may affect availability of truck chassis with reduced noise emission. It is relevant
in the sense that trucks at and around construction sites often operate at high rpm,
whereas the pass-by acceleration test is not at high rpm. Another issue is that the limit
values for truck pass-by noise is engine related; as quieter truck engines become
available, this should also have spin-off for non-road mobile machinery.
120 / 235
6.6
6.7
6.7.1
121 / 235
Table 6.4 History of noise limits for equipment types in earlier directives (1984-2001)
Eq
no. Equipment name
10
20
21
32
37
Directive
number
19972001
84/533/EEC 101
102
104
106
84/537/EEC 110
113
116
116
100
100
102
104
108
111
114
114
100
100
102
104
108
111
114
114
86/662/EEC
89/514/EEC
95/27/EC
106
108
112
118
min(96; 83+11logP)
min(96; 83+11logP)
min(96; 83+11logP)
min(96; 83+11logP)
min(93; 80+11logP)
min(93; 80+11logP)
min(93; 80+11logP)
min(93; 80+11logP)
86/662/EEC
89/514/EEC
95/27/EC
106
108
113
118
96
100
100
105
min(104; 85+11logP)
min(104; 85+11logP)
min(104; 85+11logP)
min(104; 85+11logP)
96
100
100
105
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(104; 85+11logP)
min(104; 85+11logP)
min(104; 85+11logP)
min(104; 85+11logP)
min(107; 87+11logP)
min(107; 87+11logP)
min(107; 87+11logP)
min(107; 87+11logP)
102
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(104; 84+11logP)
min(104; 84+11logP)
min(104; 84+11logP)
min(104; 84+11logP)
84/538/EEC 96
100
100
105
84/536/EEC 104
106
108
113
118
106
108
113
118
102
104
100
100
103
100
100
105
100
100
45b Power generators (>_ 400 kW) 13 240 kVA < Pel
53 Tower cranes
12
57 Welding generators
12 I < 200 A
I > 200 A
84/536/EEC 105
84/534/EEC
84/535/EEC 104
101
100
100
101
100
100
100
101
100
45a
6.7.2
2002
86/662/EEC
89/514/EEC
95/27/EC
86/662/EEC
89/514/EEC
95/27/EC
102
122 / 235
A general assumption on the process of limit evolution is given in figure 6.1 below.
No limit
Only noise
labeling
0-3 dB
Limit
2-3 dB
Tighter limit
2-3 dB
2-3 dB
Figure 6.2 Evolution from new equipment type, to article 13 (labelling) to limits (Art. 12) and tighter
limits, with typical reduction indicated.
6.8
6.8.1
Walk-behind vibrating rollers, vibratory plates (> 3kW) and vibratory rammers
These all have impact noise although the main radiation comes from the machine itself.
A brief technical investigation should reveal whether the plate radiation can be reduced
or whether the other radiating components such as the engine or the vibration
mechanism can be reduced in noise level without affecting the functional lower
frequency vibration. If this is possible then stage II limits should be feasible. Until then,
a reduction 1 dB below stage I seems feasible.
Vibratory plates have been exempt from the enforcement of stage II with the argument
that process noise evoked during the test from the test ground would impede all efforts
to reduce the noise levels. A German manufacturer developed a new test procedure
suitable to show compliance with stage II. Other major companies in this sector insist
on the established test code being used nowadays, because tests for declarations of
hand-arm vibration also use this method.
But the main argument is, that in practical use, noise emission of stage II compliant
vibratory plates would not differ from that of stage I equipment. If so, noise measured
would only show the low frequency single tone emitted by the test ground. This is not
the case, as the plate, the casing and the engine still remain relevant sound sources.
This was the reason to finally propose a reduction by 1 dB and retain the proven test
code.
6.8.2
6.8.3
123 / 235
6.8.4
6.8.5
6.8.6
Lawnmowers
See 6.2.6.
6.8.7
6.9
6.10
6.10.1
Snowmobiles
A snowmobile could be defined as an engine driven track-equipped vehicle with a
maximum service weight of 400 kilograms built to transport persons or freight across
snow and ice. The sound power level of snow mobiles may exceed 110 dB. Besides
people movement, this equipment is also used as a sports and recreational vehicle in the
same way as motorbikes, ATVs (quads) or jetskis. Particularly for this group of users,
engine noise is a question of image.
Snowmobiles are off-road vehicles, but not covered by directive 97/24/EC limiting the
noise emission of road vehicles. Noise tests of road vehicles are pursuant to ISO 362,
124 / 235
describing a pass-by test of an accelerated vehicle. The maximum sound pressure level
at a distance of 7.5 m to the track has to meet the limits. There is a useful Nordic
proposal (see appendix B) adapting this kind of pass-by test to the special conditions of
snowmobiles. The test could be done on snow as well as on grass.
In contrast, directive 2000/14/EC refers to sound power measurements based on ISO
3744. All tools, descriptions, test procedures, limits and labelling are based on sound
power levels.
Integration of a pass-by test into the outdoor noise directive seems not quite consistent.
But the advantage would be to have an established test procedure, limits founded on this
procedure and realistic results. A disadvantage is the need to accept a break with the
system of the outdoor noise directive. So as not to increase the text length by importing
the wording of the Nordic proposal, the transfer to an EN standard (EN 632-3x) is
advised. If this cannot be achieved in time, the Nordic proposal should become an
appendix of the directive.
A sound power level is obtained by replacing the surface sound pressure level LpAf of
ISO 3744 has by the energy equivalent average LpAFmax eq of two measured LpAFmax of
the pass-by test. The microphone distance of 7.5 m to the track is used as hemisphere
radius, LS = 25.5 dB. Measured sound power level for snowmobiles results in
LWA = LpAFmax eq + LS. Taking the uncertainty K into consideration, limits stage III and
IV should be LWAlim = 107 dB and 105 dB.
An alternative might be a separate European directive for snowmobiles supplementing
97/27/EC.
The technical impact of setting noise limits for snowmobiles may be the increased
application of 4-stroke instaed of 2-stroke petrol engines.
6.11
General conclusions
For moving equipment into Article 13 or from Article 13 to article 12, the technical
impact is generally small, as labelling or initial limits are only intended to result in
applying known techniques and existing components for noise reduction, and to
eliminate unnecessarily noisy equipment. Introduction of stage II limits for current
Article 12 equipment would have strongest technical impact on combustion engine
concrete breakers and picks, steel-tracked dozers and loaders. Currently there is more
research required to reduce steel track noise further before introducing the stage II limit.
For the other equipment with indicative stage II noise limits, such as lawnmowers, lawn
trimmers, vibratory plates, lift trucks and compacting screed paver finishers, the
technical impact is considered moderate, as noise control solutions are considered
feasible although not always straightforward.
Conclusions on each individual equipment type are included in chapter 10.
7.1
Introduction
125 / 235
The economic impact of the directive in terms of introducing new equipment in Article
13, of moving equipment from Article 13 to Article 12, of changing noise limits and of
removing equipment from the directive is assessed in this chapter.
Firstly some general considerations are presented on economic aspects of the Directive
and its justification in section 7.2. This is followed in section 7.3 by an overview of the
market situation indicating some of the key market characteristics and trends. In 7.4, the
impacts as described in the Impact Assessment Guidelines of the Commission [56] are
discussed, some of which are given further attention. The main impacts in the form of
specific costs for industry and users and benefits for citizens are defined in 7.5 and 7.6,
followed by a cost-benefit analysis for the three main options in section 7.7.
Conclusions on the economic impact are drawn in section 7.8.
The analysis is consistent with European Commission guidelines on impact analysis,
including economic impact. Impact assessment is defined therein (page 4) as a set of
logical steps which structure the preparation of policy proposals. It involves building on
and developing the practices that already accompany the process of policy development
by deepening the analysis and formalising the results in an autonomous report.
Responsibility for developing the impact assessment lies with the service in charge of
developing the proposal. Further it is stated (page 29) that as a rule, the economic
impacts of a policy, whether it is aimed at achieving economic, social or environmental
objectives, are transmitted to the economy through changes in prices and costs. These
changes affect the behaviour of (some) economic actors, which in turn affect firms,
households and public authorities.
7.2
126 / 235
manyears per year in each member state, would be very modest in comparison to its
potential benefits.
The current environmental situation will improve if the directive is periodically
reviewed, and where necessary and possible limits are tightened. The growth in the
market is such that the numbers of equipment are increasing, new equipment types are
appearing and population density in increasing.
It could also be questioned why European noise emission limits are necessary; it is also
an option to only have noise reception limits, although these are always local or national
and cannot be regulated at European level. However due to the mobile nature of outdoor
machinery and its very diverse usage, limiting the emission is really by far the best way
to reduce the noise. European or international noise emission limits are also in force for
all the transportation noise sources (road/rail/air).
In the industry consultation, it was often mentioned that there was little or very limited
demand for quieter machinery. This is a logical consequence of the fact that the user is
not directly confronted with the effects or costs of noise disturbance, in the way the
affected people in the vicinity are. The European regulation is therefore an appropriate
means of protecting the population. Local regulations, if present, tend to vary
significantly and do not always offer the appropriate protection, especially if they are
not properly enforced. An alternative option is state incentives, such as for example
VAT or other tax reductions on quieter equipment. This can provide the required
economic impulse to encourage manufacturers to put quieter equipment on the market.
For industry, a clear and understandable set of noise requirements with a clear timetable
is needed. This will allow timely preparation for future models also in relation to other
environmental and safety requirements.
Throughout this chapter, benefits for citizens are measured through a lowering of
noise levels, which in itself is a reduction of the environmental impact including
annoyance and all its associated effects. Annoyance is considered here as a cost factor
to society.
7.3
Market situation
The market situation for the equipment in the Directive can firstly be related to the
overall economic situation: after a recession in the first years of the new millenium, the
economy in most EU countries is reviving since 2005 and growth is seen in both the
consumer and professional markets, both in trade and industry [57]. The equipment in
the Directive is produced within the engineering sector, which has seen an estimated
growth of 6.6% in 2006 (source: Orgalime). Also an increase in employment of around
0.5% was observed in 2006. Prospects for 2007 seem similar, although it is not clear
whether this will continue in the following years. Key sectors for the equipment in the
directive are the construction sector, the transport and logistics sector, the horticultural
sector and the public services sector.
Customers and users can be found in industry, leasing and rental companies, local
authorities (cities and towns), service companies, construction companies and
contractors, individual consumers and others.
127 / 235
From the industry consultation it was found that small, medium and large companies
are all represented for most equipment types, 20% were small companies, 33% were
medium sized, in total more than 50% SMEs. However, many of these companies are
owned or part-owned by larger companies or holdings.
Estimates for equipment populations in the EU 25 are given in table 4.2. Given an
average estimated lifetime of 10 years, approximate annual sales numbers for the EU
can be made.
In both professional and consumer markets there seems to be a demand for more
automation, to reduce manual labour, to save time, to work more efficiently and more
safely. This results in an increase in the numbers of new equipment, for example miniexcavators, special garden tools such as power pruners and others.
At the same time there is enormous price pressure on the market due to cheap imports
from East Asia, resulting in a flood of cheaper consumer products also sold in EU
supermarkets, hardware stores and discount shops. Price is often the leading purchase
motive as opposed to quality. This is exacerbated by advertising products at bargain
prices. Also construction machinery imported from the Far East can be purchased via
internet. The industry consultation indicated that this equipment is often non-compliant.
There is nevertheless still some demand for quality, in terms of performance, efficiency,
durability, energy consumption, ergonomics, and other factors. Noise does not often
tend to be a key demand, although many companies offer a low noise version of their
products for special customer groups. Noise is frequently included in product ratings in
consumer magazines.
There is a difficulty for many OEMs to reduce noise as they have little control over the
noise performance of components from suppliers. This is especially an issue for SMEs.
Also the required development time for new products or modified products is constantly
under pressure. Noise reduction is often not realized due to a combination of economic
and technical reasons. For SMEs, access to know-how for noise control or alternative
drive systems can play a role in the ability to redesign or newly design a system.
Industry is however putting substantial effort into compliance with all the EU
Directives on safety and environmental aspects, although it was stated in the
consultation that there is often unfair competition from suppliers of non-compliant
products. Higher prices for quieter products means that market surveillance becomes
even more important to avoid unfair competition from non-compliant sources.
7.3.1
128 / 235
demand for the same reasons as given above, as construction activities also increase. A
distinction is made between the following product groups:
- Road equipment (11%)
- Concrete equipment (12%)
- Tower cranes (5%)
- Crushing, washing, sizing equipment (8%)
- Earthmoving equipment (63%)
The percentage in brackets is the percentage in turnover as in 2005.
Between 2002-2006 the sales have increased between 30-70% depending on the
equipment type. Total sales of earthmoving equipment, the most common type, were at
142000 units in western Europe in 2006. 27% of these were mini-excavators. Europe
accounts for around 28% of the world market for earthmoving equipment.
A large proportion of European manufacturers produce for the market within the
European Union, which means that their competitive position might not significantly be
altered by changed legislation.
Most construction equipment is used professionally and is considered a capital
investment. It is often rented or leased and there is a strong second-hand market,
particularly for small contractors and especially in the new EU member states.
There are some trends towards non-construction applications of this machinery and in
some cases introduction in the consumer market, for example walk-behind compaction
machines. Mini-excavators are a noticeable trend, allowing automation of what was
previously manual labour, for example trenching in streets and digging in small
enclosed areas.
7.3.2
7.3.3
129 / 235
Other low cost garden tools have become widely available, especially under price
pressure of imports from East Asia. Also new power tools have appeared in recent
years, such as the power pruner and the tree stump grinder and multi-purpose
attachments. The low cost of some of these tools has resulted in increased numbers in
use. Milliones of these tools are sold each year on the European market, with
chainsaws, leafblowers and collectors, hedgetrimmers, lawntrimmers, brush cutters,
shredders/chippers and scarifiers each all well into the millions sold annually.
The increasing wealth levels in new member states will gradually result in increasing
numbers of consumer garden tools in those countries. The same can be expected for
professional horticultural equipment, as municipalities and service companies
endeavour to increase efficiency and reduce health risks of manual labour.
7.3.4
7.4
Overall impacts
Potential economic impacts as listed in the guidelines for impact assessment are
analysed in table 7.1. These are rather wide-ranging, therefore an indicative answer is
given to each of the relevant questions. The option as mentioned in the guidelines (see
table 7.1) refers in this case to changing limits or equipment lists. Following this table,
impacts on employment, SMEs, supply and demand reactions, timescale, product
quality and the single market are discussed. The additional costs for industry and
consumers and the benefits for citizens are proposed as the most relevant impacts,
which are worked out in more detail in the following sections.
130 / 235
Table 7.1 Summary of various economic impacts of changing the directive (limits and equipment list
changes), with questions from Guidelines on economic impact analysis.
Impacts on:
Competitiveness,
trade and investment
flows
Competition in the
internal market
Administrative costs
on businesses
Property rights
2. No
3. No
4. Possibly non-compliant products will be
withdrawn, to be replaced by compliant ones.
5. Increased regulation for getting equipment
compliant
6. Probably not directly, as many other factors
involved.
Impacts on:
Innovation and
research
Consumers and
households
131 / 235
5. Does it have significant consequences for the 5. Not really, it is expected that price rises will
financial situation of individuals / households,
be moderate.
both immediately and in the long run?
6. Does it affect the economic protection of the
family and of children?
Specific regions or
1. Does the option have significant effects on
sectors
certain sectors?
2. Will it have a specific impact on certain
regions, for instance in terms of jobs created or
lost?
3. Does it have specific consequences for
SMEs?
Third countries and
1. Does the option affect EU trade policy and its
international relations international obligations, including in the WTO?
2. Does it affect EU foreign policy and EU/EC
development policy?
3. Does the option affect third countries with
which the EU has preferential trade
arrangements?
4. Does the option affect developing, least
developed and middle income countries?
6. No.
1. Compared with other regulations, limited
effects.
2. No
4. No
7.4.1
132 / 235
Impact on employment
It is estimated that about 1 million people find employment in the manufacturing of the
different equipment types in the European Union. The ways in which a changed
directive could affect employment are for example:
- if market surveillance is insufficient, more unfair competition can occur
leading to reduced market share and thereby losses;
- if the effort to develop quieter models is too large or unsuccessful at a given
point in time, some models might have to be withdrawn leading to lower
market share; new or stricter limits may be difficult to achieve for some
companies, however the knowledge on noise control is available and such
companies also have to deal with all requirements from other directives.
- if the demand for compliant equipment increases, employment could increase;
- if quieter equipment is combined with other innovations, employment could
increase.
There are potentially both positive and negative impacts related to company turnover
and thereby also employment. The net effect of changes to the directive on employment
is considered to be low, as other factors such as the economic situation are more
important.
7.4.2
Impact on SMEs
As there are many SMEs producing outdoor machinery, the impact of the directive for
such companies needs consideration. Factors such as administrative burden, R&D,
production changes and testing all lead to additional effort especially for smaller
companies and especially if a new limit or labelling requirement is introduced. Large
companies are usually better able to anticipate and cope with new regulations as they
have more resources including investment, manpower and know-how. Notably SMEs
may be most dependent on external component suppliers, such as for engines, fans,
pumps, hydraulics, transmissions and others. SMEs often have little influence on their
suppliers concerning noise performance of components. On the other hand, smaller
companies may be more flexible in adjusting to new requirements as the production
means tend to be on a smaller scale. The impacts are expected to be highest for the
smaller companies with small product series in the lower price range.
It is important that the right information and knowledge is made available to SMEs,
both on noise control options and the practical issues on DOC compilation and
submission.
7.4.3
7.4.4
133 / 235
improvements). This higher quality standard could offset the price increase so that the
demand decrease is reduced. Within Europe, different markets can be identified; there is
a tendency that second hand equipment is exported from Western Europe to Central and
Eastern Europe. It is also expected that until the Central and Eastern European countries
have reached the same welfare level as Western European countries, demand will be
more flexible, i.e. in case of a price change a stronger demand reaction is expected in
these countries.
Notably for consumer products there is an increasing demand for low price equipment.
From the consultation it emerged that some products from the Far East but also other
countries fulfil this demand, but are frequently not compliant. There is also a segment
within the consumer market that demands more powerful and more professional
equipment to reduce working time; consequently the equipment needs to be reliable.
7.4.5
7.4.6
7.4.7
7.5
7.5.1
Main options
134 / 235
For each equipment type it is therefore assumed that a change in either the equipment
list or in the limits will result in a similar net noise reduction of about 2-3 dB. If the
article number (13/12) or the limit remains unchanged, then the economic impact is
considered nil. In this way, the analysis can be simplified for each equipment type to
change or no change.
7.6
135 / 235
Costs
R&D
Testing
Administration
Certification
Conformity assessment
NoBo fees
Materials
Design/Production
Other constraints resolution
Parts obselescence
Training/communication
Introduction
into Art 13 (only Art 13 to Art 12
labelling)
(new limit)
++
+
+
+
++
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Tighter limit
(Art 12)
++
+
++
++
+
++
+
+
It is estimated that the ratio of costs between the 3 options is as 1:5:4. To be able to
estimate the additional costs a formula is proposed, taking the above mentioned factors
into account:
Ca = Sdir * ( 30 2 lg (NC) 2 lg (NP) 2 lg (CP) )
(7.1)
where
Ca = costs due to the change in the directive (Euros),
Sdir = percentage costs due to option: 10% for Article 13 introduction, 50% for Article
12 introduction and 40% for stage II or stricter limits,
NC = company size in number of employees,
NP = quantity of products of a particular series,
CP = cost of the product (Euros).
This formula gives a relationship which seems to be broadly in line with costs
mentioned in the consultation. The results for various situations are given in table 7.3
below. They should be considered as indicative and may differ significantly in
individual cases.
In some cases it may be difficult for SMEs to comply with new or stricter limits,
especially for low priced products and smaller production quantities. An increase in
product price will tend to make the competition situation more difficult.
136 / 235
Table 7.3 Percentage additional costs in price due to changes in the directive, based on formula (7.1), for
each option of change to the directive, and for various cost, series size and company size.
7.7
Introduction
into Art 13
Art 13 to Art
(only
12 (new
Tighter limit
labelling)
limit)
(Art 12)
1,9
9,3
7,4
1,7
8,3
6,6
1,5
7,3
5,8
1,3
6,3
5,0
1,1
5,3
4,2
1,5
7,3
5,8
1,3
6,3
5,0
1,1
5,3
4,2
0,9
4,3
3,4
0,7
3,3
2,6
1,1
5,3
4,2
0,9
4,3
3,4
0,7
3,3
2,6
0,5
2,3
1,8
0,3
1,3
1,0
137 / 235
This may be the case if there is a more flexible depreciation regime or if there is high
economic growth.
The benefits of the various options are mainly related to an environmental noise
reduction of on average 3 dB per equipment type that is introduced (see 7.5.1), given
new or stricter limits in the directive. It is fairly complex to monetarise the benefits for
outdoor equipment, so it is done here in analogy with transportation noise.
For transport infrastructure that affects the noise level in nearby areas, the effects on
noise are included in the cost benefit analysis (CBA) of most countries. All countries
but three within the EU take this effect into account in some form in the appraisal. 13
Countries include the effect on noise levels with a monetary value (see table 7.4 below).
Table 7.4
There is a clear regional tendency in the treatment of noise. None of the countries in the
south include noise with a monetory value, whereas all but three countries in the north
include noise in the CBA. Around half of the countries in Eastern Europe include noise
with a monetary value.
7.7.1
The table is for EU25; for Bulgaria and Romania no information is available within HEATCO, MCA =
multicriteria analysis, QM = Quantitive measurement, QA = Qualitative Assessment
138 / 235
diseases, which both lead to premature deaths (measured in years of life lost) and
hospital treatment. In Switzerland, health costs are equivalent to one seventh of the
costs of noise annoyance (measured by hedonic pricing).
7.7.2
7.7.3
Hedonic pricing can be summarized as using the different characteristics of a traded good to estimate the
value of a non-traded good. For example, the value of a piece of lakefront could be calculated by comparing
the price of a house on the lakefront with the price of a similar house located elsewhere.
3
This approach involves surveying people to identify their preference for trading off costs and benefits
against stated hypothetical scenarios.
139 / 235
250
200
150
100
50
0
40
45
50
55
60
65
Environmental Impact indicator EI [dBA]
70
75
80
Figure 7.1 Cost factors (Central values) for noise exposure (2002 PPP, factor costs, per year per
person exposed) for EU25 unweighted average (including the extrapolated costs below 51 dB)
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
Cost-benefit calculation
In the previous section the calculation method for the benefits for one year was set out.
When carrying out a cost-benefit-analysis of the implementation of a new directive,
benefits will stretch out into the future. In addition it should be noted that once the
directive enters into force, not all equipment will be immediately replaced. In this
section first the total benefits are determined, then the total cost of the implementation,
and the total costs are compared to the total benefits.
7.8.1
Benefits
The benefits are expressed in terms of reduced external costs due to noise from outdoor
equipment. These are not directly available, therefore they have to be derived from
similar estimates for other sources, in particular transportation noise sources. A recent
140 / 235
Table 7.5
7.8.2
141 / 235
Benefits on a
yearly basis
Discounted
Million per year
Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y5
Y6
Y7
Y8
Y9
Y10
Y11
Y12
Y13
Y14
Y15
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y19
Y20
Total
4313
8374
12195
15786
19158
22320
25282
28052
30639
33052
32089
31155
30247
29366
28511
27681
26874
26092
25332
24594
481111
Costs
The costs of changing the directive will have different origins:
a) The higher production costs resulting in a higher unit price of the equipment; these
are annually recurring costs;
b) The development costs, these are in principle incidental costs made in the first year
when developing quieter equipment;
c) The costs of enforcement of the regulation, these are important as with the changed
directive it may be more attractive to put non-compliant equipment on the market.
These costs vary per country as in some countries market surveillance is in place
whilst in other EC countries it is virtually absent. These are annually recurring
costs.
The costs for the above 3 items are based on figure 7.3. The middle column
(Additional cost in price) is used and the costs are based on the number of equipment
present in the EU. The cost of R&D will be only partly accruable to the directive, as
R&D not only targets noise reduction but also other product improvements, that could
for example lead to increased comfort and lower energy use.
7.8.3
Cost-benefit analysis
From the above total benefits and costs, the overall benefit-cost ratio is clearly higher
than 1 for the majority of equipment types, which means that from an economic point of
view, the directive is worth implementing in terms of stage II and moving equipment
with high environmental impact from Article 13 to Article 12. The societal value of a
142 / 235
quieter machine fleet outweighs the monetary costs of production and enforcement,
although the distribution of these costs could be an issue still to be resolved.
The benefits and costs are set out for each equipment type in tables 7.7-7.8.
For each equipment type the log of the Benefit-Cost ratio is presented in figure 7.2.
Some equipment types have no benefits (B/C ratio=0); this has two possible
explanations. Firstly the environment the equipment operates in: if machines operate in
environment F they have no benefits, because this is a rural area and very few people
are affected. Economic benefits of noise reduction in rural areas have not been
quantified here. A second explanation can be found in already very low Environmental
Impact indicators (below 40 dB(A) ): lowering these levels with more than 3 dB will
produce no benefits from an economic point of view.
It can also be seen that there are a few equipment types with a BC ratio lower than 1;
this indicates that the costs of limit or article changes for these equipment types are
higher than the benefits. Therefore it can be concluded that changes for these equipment
types would not be economically viable. In general it can be concluded that
implementation of the proposed changes to the directive have major societal benefits
which in most cases far outweigh the incurred costs in terms of increased price or
required implementation effort.
The benefits and costs that are involved with the directive seem very large, however if
the total population of Europe is taken into account, it can be calculated that the benefits
for an average EU citizen in the first year would result in 9,74. In table 7.6 a
differentiation is made for the different costs per EU citizen in relation to the various
costs due to changing the directive. This figure can be found by dividing the earlier
given amount of 481 billion Euros (table 7.6) by the total population of 497 million
citizens (1st January 2006).
Table 7.6
9,74
0,01
0,59
0,19
Total benefits
Costs adding equipment
Costs switching articles
Costs changing limits
143 / 235
Table 7.7
144 / 235
Calculated benefits and costs for equipment currently in the directive, in millions of Euros.
Equipment type
Benefits M Costs M
Aerial access platforms, combustion engine - 1
277
32
Brush cutters - 2
13179
9
Builders' hoists, goods (CE driven) - 3a
48
5
Builders' hoists, goods (electric motor) - 3b
0
5
Building site band saw machine - 4
542
1
Building site circular saw bench - 5
5006
4
Chain saws, portable - 6
7518
4
Combined high pressure flushers/suction vehicles - 7
132
26
Compaction machines (explosion rammers) - 8a
0
1
Compaction machines (rollers, vibratory plates) - 8b
84
39
Compressors (< 350 kW) - 9
120
4
Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held - 10
2724
8
Concrete or mortar mixers - 11
132
3
Construction winches (CE driven) - 12a
0
1
Construction winches (electric) - 12b
0
1
Conveying / spraying machines, concrete/mortar - 13
182
13
Conveyor belts - 14
5720
7
Cooling equipment on vehicles - 15
3632
32
Dozers (< 500 kW) - 16
169
15
Drill rigs - 17
157
11
Dumpers (< 500 kW) - 18
182
5
Equipment loading/unloading silos /tanks - 19
108
5
Excavators, hydraulic / rope (< 500 kW) - 20
1091
220
Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW) - 21
4587
70
Glass recycling containers - 22
8571
1720
Graders (< 500 kW) - 23
194
3
Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers - 24
13445
18
Hedge trimmers - 25
2640
11
High pressure flushers - 26
120
26
High pressure water jet machines - 27
580
2
Hydraulic hammers - 28
5734
13
Hydraulic power packs - 29
96
11
Joint cutters - 30
1270
0
Landfill compactors, loader+bucket (< 500 kW) - 31
0
3
Lawnmowers (excl agricul/forestry equip) - 32
8348
292
Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers - 33
2005
9
Leaf blowers - 34
4590
5
Leaf collectors - 35
4590
5
Lift trucks, CE (rough terrain/construction) - 36a
1817
89
Lift trucks, CE (others excl. Container handling) - 36b
2724
318
Loaders (< 500 kW) - 37
1634
280
Mobile cranes - 38
481
129
Mobile waste containers - 39
40009
219
Motor hoes (< 3 kW) - 40
0
6
Paver-finishers (high-compaction screed) - 41a
0
9
Paver-finishers (others) - 41b
0
9
Piling equipment - 42
4822
69
Pipelayers - 43
0
65
Piste caterpillars - 44
0
5
Power generators (< 400 kW) - 45a
1634
106
Power generators (>_ 400 kw) - 45b
481
86
Power sweepers - 46
525
26
Refuse collection vehicles - 47
3271
86
Road milling machines - 48
2084
34
Scarifiers - 49
580
2
Shredders chippers - 50
8571
2
Snow-removing machines, rotating tools - 51
0
0
Suction vehicles - 52
60
13
Tower cranes - 53
0
22
Trenchers - 54
0
9
Truck mixers - 55
1634
22
Water pump (not for under water) - 56
2360
106
Welding generators - 57
0
53
Table 7.8
Calculated benefits and costs for potential new equipment, in millions of Euros.
Equipment type
Airco/ ventilation equipment - 100
Heat pumps - 101
Mobile sieve installations - 102
Mobile waste breakers (wood, concrete) - 103
Tractors for construction / water pumps - 104
Reverse movement alarm signals (all machines) - 105
Non-fixed lifting gear, own power source. - 106
Bridge /gantry cranes (harbours/ portal cranes) - 107
Vehicle mounted loader cranes - 108
oad sweepers without aspirators (motorized broom) - 109
Street washing machine - 110
Snowmobiles - 111
Quad (off-road) - 112
Golf green edger - 113
Bird scare canons - 114
Telescopic pruner - 115
Tree stump grinder - 116
Straddle carrier - 117
Reach stacker - 118
Stone circular saw - 119
Stone chainsaw - 120
Swimming pool pumps - 121
7.9
145 / 235
Benefits M Costs M
9893
95
0
0
906
7
2178
34
1320
16
5123
11
108
0
906
106
906
40
262
1
437
0
0
6
0
3
0
0
0
0
194
1
0
1
0
3
132
3
2360
0
1817
0
268
0
146 / 235
8.1
147 / 235
Equipment type
A Severe local
noise problem in one
member state?
yes
no
Low or very low
Environmental
Impact EI
medium
12
12
Now in Article
13
new
Now in Article
P
Q
Reduced
relevance?
13
Reduced
relevance?
yes
F
Technically
feasible?
yes
no
no
H
R&D
13 or new
12
Now in Article
new
13 or new
yes
I
Economically
feasible?
yes
no
G
no
Technically
feasible?
yes
no
J
Economically
feasible?
yes
12
Now in Article
R
Remove from
directive
L
LWA Label
only
Article 13
Retain Limits
Stage I or II1
Define new
Limits
Stage III (5 years)
O
Define Limits
Stage III (5 years)
Stage IV2 (8 years)
1)
Figure 8.1 Decision scheme for equipment list and limit revision.
8.2
8.2.1
8.2.2
148 / 235
Tree stump grinders also have such low environmental impact that they are
considered not worth including.
Street washing machines are also considered to have insufficient numbers and
impact.
The ATV or quad is often licensed for use on public roads and should be
tested in the same manner as a road vehicle, with a pass-by test. Although it is
also used for off-road recreational or professional purposes, it is more logical to
include it in a road vehicle directive.
Tractors used for construction and powering water pumps are covered by
the existing regulations for agricultural tractors, although not well for high rpm
conditions.
Non-fixed lifting gear (vacuum, magnetic and other) with its own power
source: this group is insufficiently defined.
Vehicle-mounted loader cranes are fixed attachments to vehicles, and
although they are very numerous, they are often hydraulically powered and
have relatively low noise levels. Most noise comes from the vehicle engine at
high rpm.
Reverse movement alarm systems have a very high environmental impact as
they are on so many machines, especially constuction machines, and vehicles
and cause many complaints. They need to be replaced by alternative warning
and vision systems, in part already available on the market [#]. Reverse alarm
systems can be considered attachments or electrical components added to the
vehicle or machine. They should receive further attention in a different
regulatory context, possible another directive or a standard.
8.3
149 / 235
8.3.1
New in Article 13
- Mobile waste breakers and sieves (screens)
- Mobile cranes for harbours and terminals (bridge/gantry cranes)
- Road sweepers without aspirators
8.3.2
8.3.3
New in Article 12
- Snowmobiles (after 5 years)
- Mobile waste breakers and screens (wood, concrete) (after 8 years)
8.3.4
- Pipelayers
- Piste Caterpillars
- Trenchers.
150 / 235
9.1
Introduction
151 / 235
In this chapter a statement is made on the need and possibilities to revise the limit
values of existing or new Article 12 equipment. The qualitative decision scheme
presented in the previous chapter (figure 8.1) is used to determine the need and
feasibility. However, this scheme cannot be applied rigidly to all equipment groups.
Therefore, for the additionally recommended individual limit values, consideration was
given to results of statistical analysis, to questioning, to background knowledge arrived
at during consultations and to diverse policy documents and reports as well the
environmental and economic impact assessments.
If limit proposals were to be based only on the statistical analysis of the EU database,
this would partially result in a considerable reduction potential (as presented in the
interim report). However, the data collection is incomplete with respect to the large
number of equipment and performance variants put on the market. However, since limit
values must apply to all equipment defined in the equipment group, frequently the
limits cannot be lowered to the desirable extent for some areas. Furthermore, it is not
always possible to use the few low noise equipment types being offered on the market
(NL VAMIL, DE Blue Angel) as universally valid benchmark, since this equipment has
been reduced in its performance to some extent in order to comply with noise
requirements.
9.2
9.3
152 / 235
there are new variants of equipment on the market. A new feasible technological
development for the equipment groups listed in Article 12 that could (or should) lead to
a revision of the limits is currently not recognizable. The sole development which might
eventually lead to a lowering is the introduction of the hybrid drive in the construction
equipment sector. Preliminary development engineering studies have been presented
during the BAUMA 2007 exhibition in Munich, Germany, where some manufacturers
indicated during discussions that they are working on this.
The study of the environmental impact in Chapter 4 indicates, that much equipment
with an envrionmental indicator EI of high or very high is listed in Article 13, or has
not been registered at all so far. Of the equipment subject to limits, only lawnmowers,
lift trucks, concrete breakers, power generators < 400 kW and loaders have been listed
there; most of the equipment groups under Article 12 have been allocated the EI
assessment of medium.
Equipment of Article 12 can scarcely be found in the upper classes of strong argument
for reduction and economically desirable (exceptions: lawn trimmer/lawn edge
trimmers, concrete hammers and picks, excavator loaders, graders, dumpers). Thus, for
most of the equipment listed under Article 12, retention of the limits of Step I and/or
Step II of 2005/88/EC valid up to now is recommended. If in individual cases a
different recommendation is given, the reasons are listed in Chapter 10.
An EI assessment of low or very low does not result in a recommendation to
eliminate the current limits (transition from Article 12 to Article 13), since then further
imports of cheap products can be expected, but some manufaturers may then also omit
noise reduction measures, resulting in noisier products. Manufacturers producing
quality equipment may then be forced by cost competition to abandon the standard so
far achieved in the European Union.
The implemented limits of stages I and II have resulted in a distinct reduction of noise
emissions, in particular of investment goods. A need for noise reduction is now required
for equipment groups listed in Article 13 or for those that have not been registered at
all. Therefore, a recommendation for reduction is made for equipment that has been
listed up to now in Article 12 and a few selected groups, providing this has an
environmental benefit, is technically feasible and makes good economic sense.
9.4
Limit proposals
A complete overview of limit proposals and Article moves is given in table 9.1 below.
A colour coding is applied to illustrate the type of change: orange for tighter limits,
yellow for new limits, light green for no change in current directive, dark green for
removal from the directive.
153 / 235
Table 9.1 Proposals for limit changes based on all the analyses
(continued, and colour coding on next page)
Eq.
no.
1
2
3a
3b
4
5
6a
6b
7
8a
8b
8c
9
10a
10b
10c
10d
11
12a
12b
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25a
25b
26
27a
27b
28
29a
29b
29c
30
31
32a
32b
32c
32c
33
34a
34b
35a
35b
36a
36b
37a
37b
37c
38
39
40
41a
41b
42a
42b
43
44
Equipment
Range, subgroup
Current limit
Aerial access platforms with combustion engine
Art. 13
Brush cutters
Art. 13
93; 80 + 11 lg P
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combusti
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with elec
Art. 13
Building site band saw machine
Art. 13
Building site circular saw bench
Art. 13
Chain saws, portable
CE driven
Art. 13
Chain saws, portable
Electrically driven
Art. 13
Art. 13
Combined high pressure flushers and suction vehic
Compaction machines
Explosion rammers only Art. 13
Compaction machines
Walkbeh. vibr.rollers+pla 108; 109; 89 + 11
Compaction machines
Ride on vibr. rollers
105; 106; 86 + 11
Compressors (< 350 kW)
97; 95 + 2 lg P
Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
CE driven 15kg<m<30kg 94 + 11 lg m
Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
Others m < 15 kg
105
Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
15 kg < m < 30 kg
92 + ll lg P
Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
30 kg < m
94 + ll lg P
Concrete or mortar mixers
Art. 13
Construction winches (combustion-engine driven)
93; 80 + 11 lg P
Construction winches (electrically driven)
Art. 13
Art. 13
Conveying and spraying machines for concrete and
Conveyor belts
Art. 13
Cooling equipment on vehicles
Art. 13
Dozers (< 500 kW)
106; 97 + 11 lg P
Drill rigs
Art. 13
Dumpers (< 500 kW)
101; 82 + 11 lg P
Equipment for loading and unloading silos or tanks
Art. 13
Excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 kW)
93; 80 + 11 lg P
Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW)
103; 84 + 11 lg P
Glass recycling containers
Art. 13
Graders (< 500 kW)
101; 82 + 11 lg P
Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers
Art. 13
Hedge trimmers
CE driven
Art. 13
Hedge trimmers
Electrically powered
Art. 13
High pressure flushers
Art. 13
High pressure water jet machines
Electr. powered <3kW Art. 13
High pressure water jet machines
Others
Art. 13
Hydraulic hammers
Art. 13
P < 40 kW
101
Hydraulic power packs
40 kW < P < 55 kW
101
Hydraulic power packs
Hydraulic power packs
78 < P
82 + 11 lg P
Joint cutters
Art. 13
Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 500
101; 82 + 11 lg P
96
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry eqL < 50
98
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry eq50 < L < 70
100
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry eq< 70 cm; < 120 cm
105
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry eq> 120 cm
Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers
96
Leaf blowers
CE powered
Art. 13
Leaf blowers
Electrically powered
Art. 13
Leaf collectors
CE powered
Art. 13
Leaf collectors
Electrically powered
Art. 13
104
Lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterbalan P < 55
Lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterbalan P > 55
85 + 11 lg P
Loaders (< 500 kW)
On wheels,rubber tracked101; 82 + 11 lg P
Loaders (< 500 kW)
steel tracked P 55 kW 103
Loaders (< 500 kW)
steel tracked P > 55 kW 87 + 11 lg P
Mobile cranes
101; 82 + 11 lg P
Mobile waste containers
Art. 13
Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
P < 3 kW
93
Paver-finishers (equipped with a high-compaction s
Art. 13
Paver-finishers (without a high-compaction screed)
104; 85 + 11 lg P
Piling equipment
Impacting
Art. 13
Piling equipment
Vibrating
Art. 13
Pipelayers
Art. 13
Piste caterpillars
Art. 13
Final proposal
101; 82+11 lg P
105 + 6 lg P; 103 + 6 lg P
Stage II
Remove from directive
Remove from directive
110
110 + 2 lg P; 108 + 2 lg P
104
109
Remove from directive
Stage I-1
Stage II
Stage II
Stage II
Stage II
Stage II
Stage II
Art. 13
Remove from directive
Remove from directive
Art. 13
Remove from directive
100 + 2 lg P; 98 + 2 lg P
Stage I
99; 86 + 11 lgP
Stage II
Art. 13
Stage II
Stage II
100
Stage II
105 + 6 lg P; 103 + 6 lg P
109
Art. 13
109
95
Art. 13
93 + 11 lg P; 90+11 lg P
99
82 + 11 lg P (stage II)
Stage II
111
Remove from directive
71 + 15 lg L
71 + 15 lg L
71 + 15 lg L
71 + 15 lg L
91
104
99
104
99
101
82 + 11 lg P
Stage II
Stage II
Stage I
Stage II
100; 95
Remove from directive
Art. 13
Stage I
Art. 13
115; 112
Remove from directive
Remove from directive
Further comment
if any
Reduced relevance
Not relevant for noise
Combine with 115, 120
Combine 7, 26 and 52 in 1 group
Only a few left on the market
R&D feasibility for vibratory plates
Exclude m < 3 kg
R&D on process noise
R&D on process noise
Reduce baseline
Combine in 1 group
1 group for all equipment with
moving and lifting function
proposed including loaders, fork
lifts, telescopic handlers,
straddle carriers, reach
Improve test code
Not relevant for noise
R&D
154 / 235
Range, subgroup
Pel < 2
Current limit
95+lgPel
96+lgPel
10 < Pel
Power generators (< 400 kW)
95+lgPel
Power generators (>_ 400 kw)
Art. 13
Power sweepers
Art. 13
Refuse collection vehicles
Art. 13
Road milling machines
Art. 13
Scarifiers
CE powered
Art. 13
Scarifiers
Electrically powered
Art. 13
Inlet < 200 mm, CE drive Art. 13
Shredders chippers
Inlet < 200 mm, electric Art. 13
Shredders chippers
Shredders chippers
Inlet > 200 mm
Art. 13
Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-p
Art. 13
Suction vehicles
Art. 13
Tower cranes
96+lgP
Trenchers
Art. 13
Truck mixers
Art. 13
Water pump units (not for use under water)
Art. 13
Pel < 2
Welding generators
95+lgPel
2 < Pel < 10
57b Welding generators
96+lgPel
10 < Pel
57c Welding generators
95+lgPel
100 Airco/ ventilation equipment
new
101 Heat pumps
new
102 Mobile sieve installations
new
103 Mobile waste breakers (wood, concrete)
new
104 Tractors for construction / water pumps
new
105 Reverse movement alarm signals (all machines)
new
106 Non-fixed lifting gear, own power source
new
107 Bridge /gantry cranes (harbours/ portal cranes)
new
108 Vehicle mounted loader cranes
new
109 Road sweepers, no aspirators (motorized broom)
new
110 Street washing machine
new
111 Snowmobiles
new
112 Quad (off-road)
new
113 Golf green edger
new
114 Bird scare canons
new
115 Telescopic pruner
new
116 Tree stump grinder
new
117 Straddle carrier
new
118 Reach stacker
new
119 Stone circular saw
new
120 Stone chainsaw
new
121 Swimming pool pumps
new
45c
45d
46
47
48
49a
49b
50a
50b
50c
51
52
53
54
55
56
57a
Final proposal
Further comment
if any
90
93
93 + 2 lg Pel
93 + 2 lg Pel
100; 90+11lgP
107; 104
105; 86 + 11 lg P
97 + 2 lg P
Art. 13
109
99
86 + 11 lg P; at least 109
Art. 13
109
stage II
Remove from directive
101; 85 + 11 lg P
99; 82 + 11 lg P
90
93
Combine with welding generators
in 1 group. New formula.
93 + 2 lg Pel
To be investigated
R & D by UBA, Germany
To be investigated
Art. 13; 84 + 11 lg P
Art. 13; 84 + 11 lg P
Not to be included
Not to be included
Not to be included
Art. 13
Not to be included
Art. 13
Not to be included
107; 105
Not to be included
Include in EU road vehicle limits.
Not to be included
Not to be included
Include with chain saws
Not to be included
Include with lift trucks
Include with lift trucks
Include with circular saws
Include with chain saws
Included in waterpumps 56
Tighter limits
New limits (Art.13 before)
No change current directive
Remove from directive
10
10.1
155 / 235
In this chapter the findings and recommendations for each equipment type, including
potential new types for the directive, are presented. Besides this, some general
suggestions for European noise abatement policy are given. Where relevant, reference is
made to other parts of the report. Also some special issues of some products are
discussed here in more detail than is possible in the tables. The findings are based on
each impact assessment of the study and displayed at the end of this chapter.
10.1.1
156 / 235
Market situation
157 / 235
2. Brush cutters
158 / 235
159 / 235
160 / 235
161 / 235
5a. Building site circular saw and 119. Stone circular saw
162 / 235
Market situation
Technical progress to date
Current and future technical progress
Technical impact (required
modifications/developments)
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
Research proposals
Other remarks
163 / 235
Remarks/changes in definition
Remarks/changes in subcategories
Technical parameter
Drive types (electrical/CE/other)
Main noise sources
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
Process noise relevant/dominant
Typical field operation (high/medium/low
Typical areas of use
Estimated EU25 equipment population
Typical usage
Acoustical characteristics
Range of sound power level in practice
Range of guaranteed sound power levels
See above
Unit kW
Range(s)
Installed power
CE and electrical
Engine (+exhaust+intake), blade, chain and cutting process
Mostly well below machine noise
Relevant but not dominant
Dynamic
Suburban/Urban/Rural
2,000,000
Months
5 Days
20 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
0 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
Tonality
100-125 (data on stone chain saws and telescopic pruners unknown)
101-118 (data on stone chain saws and telescopic pruners unknown)
Chain saw for wood: 69, very high
Chain saw for stone: 61, high
Telescopic pruners: 44; low (increase expected)
2.0
0
EU manufactured labelled others unknown
Art. 12
Chain saws for wood: Art. 13.; chain saws for stone and pruners: new
CE: 110 + 2 lg P; 108 + 2 lg P; Electric: 104 (decision ABEGJO)
Chainsaws for stone:
Art. 13 for 5 years than decision on limits (decision ABEFHKL)
5 years / 8 years
ISO 22868:2005 (constant load by a brake)
Very large numbers on the market, comparable to lawnmowers. Variety
of applications, consumer and professional.
Hard low price competition from far east with short life time for private
use.
Also electrical chainsaws available. Use of available small petrol engine
technology.
Quieter engines required. More electrically powered units.
Environmental impact
(High/medium/low)
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
Typical difference field - guaranteed
Current compliance (labelling, DOC,
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
Current limit if any (Art 12)
Market situation
Other remarks
164 / 235
Market situation
Technical progress to date
Current and future technical progress
Technical impact (required
modifications/developments)
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
Research proposals
Other remarks
165 / 235
If removed from the Directive they might return, but this is improbable
due to safety regulations.
166 / 235
A machine which compacts materials, e.g. rock fills, soil or asphalt surfacing,
through a rolling, tamping or vibrating action of the working tool
None
None
P8, 8<P70,
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(s) P>70
CE-petrol/diesel, 2 or 4-stroke,
Vibratory plate, vibration mechanism or piston, Engine
Main noise sources
(+exhaust+intake). Radiation from plate, other platework or roller.
Ground sometimes contributes to dB(A) level, but mostly machine itself.
Groundborne vibrations cause secondary radiation in nearby buildings,
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
but mostly at lower frequencies.
Process noise relevant/dominant
Often, especially on hard surfaces.
Typical field operation (high/medium/low High rpm
Typical areas of use
Urban/suburban/rural
Estimated EU25 equipment population
90,000
Typical usage
10 Days
10 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Months
Acoustical characteristics
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
Range of sound power level in practice 95-125 (high levels for vibratory plates on hard surfaces)
Range of guaranteed sound power levels 98-113
Environmental impact
44, low, but possible increasing due to new consumer market (plates)
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
1.9
Typical difference field - guaranteed
0
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) Labelled
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
Art. 12.
Current limit if any (Art 12)
105; 106; 86+11 lg P (indicative for plates)
Rollers and rammers stage II, vibratory rollers, rammers and plates stage
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) I - 1dB: 107, 108, 85 + 11 lg P; (decision: ABDM)
Recommended timetable
Review progress on plates after 5 years.
Recommendation test code/cycle
EN 500-4:2006, no change (see chapter 10.1.2)
Growth in construction market. Vibratory plates also on consumer
Market situation
market. Non CE-marked vibratory plates offered in the Internet.
Rammers and rollers are quieter, also electronic control of vibration level
Technical progress to date
introduced. Application of hydraulics.
Further measures on vibratory plates to minimise noise also on hard
Current and future technical progress
surfaces: plate damping, vibration mechanism.
Technical impact (required
Material or joint damping; shielding; vibration isolation; quieter engines
modifications/developments)
and vibratory machnisms.
Although low environmental impact, benefits still considered to balance
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
with costs, especially if numbers of equipment increase.
Contribution analysis on vibratory plates. Alternative compaction
Research proposals
principles.
Remote controlled compactors are often noisier due to looser noise
requirement at operator position.
Other remarks
See also Chapter 10.1.2
Technical parameter
Drive types (electrical/CE/other)
167 / 235
<picture m
168 / 235
169 / 235
170 / 235
171 / 235
172 / 235
Remarks/changes in definition
Remarks/changes in subcategories
To be investigated; Flow
rate, concrete pumps
perhaps hydraulic power,
pneumatic operating
m/h
mortar pumps with
kW
Technical parameter
installed power?
Unit kW hydr.
Range(s)
Drive types (electrical/CE/other)
CE-diesel
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fans, pump/hydraulics
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
No
Process noise relevant/dominant
No
Typical field operation (high/medium/low high
Typical areas of use
Urban/suburban
Estimated EU25 equipment population
50,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
0
Acoustical characteristics
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
Range of sound power level in practice 100-130
Range of guaranteed sound power levels 77-105
Environmental impact
51, low
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
3.0
Typical difference field - guaranteed
0
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) Labelled, some DOCs
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
Art. 13
Current limit if any (Art 12)
Art. 13
Recommended limits
Art. 13 (decision ABDFHKL)
Recommended timetable
Current test code is demanding to test with "concrete". Apart from the
fact of environmental problems to deposite the "test-material" of this
test, it procedure makes the product dirty so that it couldn't be selled to
customers anymore. Concrete pumps should be tested with water only,
conveying and spraying machines for mortair with a mixture of sand and
water. "Time out" of 5 s isn't comprhensible.
No EN or ISO available at time, industry initiative to integrate concreate
pumps into EN 12001 A1 (but work didn't start jet).
Many different types and versions could perhaps not be covered by one
Recommendation test cycle
unique test code.
Market situation
Growth in construction market.
Technical progress to date
Housing of engines
Current and future technical progress
Quieter engines
Technical impact (required
modifications/developments)
Quieter engines
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
Benefits outweigh costs.
Test code has to be developed further with participation of the
Research proposals
manufacturers
Confusion concerning the technical parameter caused by translation
Other remarks
problems. Max output or max power?
173 / 235
174 / 235
<picture m
A cargo space refrigeration unit on vehicle categories N2, N3, O3 and
Current definition (Directive)
O4 as defined by Directive 70/156/EEC.
Remarks/changes in definition
None
Remarks/changes in subcategories
None
Technical parameter
Unit kW
Range(s)
Installed power
Drive types (electrical/CE/other)
CE-Diesel; also eutectic and alternative drive systems.
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fans
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
No
Process noise relevant/dominant
No
Typical field operation (high/medium/low High rpm
Typical areas of use
Urban/suburban
Estimated EU25 equipment population
1,000,000
Typical usage
Months
12 Days
25 Minutes
720 Eve/Night
5
Acoustical characteristics
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
Range of sound power level in practice 90-110
Range of guaranteed sound power levels Insufficient data
70, very high. Numerous refrigeration vehicles in circulation. Also
Environmental impact
operates in night hours. The high position, 3 m above the ground, leads
(High/medium/low)
to wide noise propagation..
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
5.0
Typical difference field - guaranteed
0
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) No data in EC database, labelling poor.
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
Art 12.
Current limit if any (Art 12)
None, Art. 13.
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 100 + 2 lg P ; 98 + 2 lg P (decision: ABEGJO)
Recommended timetable
5 / 8 years
Recommendation test code/cycle
PrEN 12102:2005
Large number of cooling units installed, approx 1 in 15 trucks/trailers.
Growth in road traffic and numbers of trucks. Demand due to national
Market situation
and local regulations, for example Dutch peak programme.
Quieter cooling equipment is on the market. Under-chassis models,
Technical progress to date
eutectic systems and others. There is some market demand.
Current and future technical progress
Other alternative quieter cooling systems.
Technical impact (required
Quieter engines, alternative power supply systems, eutectic cooling and
modifications/developments)
others. R&D effort from manufacturers and engine suppliers.
Major benefits for citizens due to high environmental impact. Low noise
technology already partly exists, manufacturer-supplier cooperation
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
important.
Research proposals
Quieter compact engines/fans.
Other remarks
Legislation exists in NL (Peak programme).
175 / 235
176 / 235
177 / 235
178 / 235
179 / 235
180 / 235
181 / 235
182 / 235
Market situation
Other remarks
183 / 235
184 / 235
185 / 235
Market situation
Technical progress to date
Current and future technical progress
Technical impact (required
modifications/developments)
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
Research proposals
Other remarks
186 / 235
Other remarks
187 / 235
Market situation
Technical progress to date
Equipment which uses the hydraulic power source source of the carrier
machine to accelerate a piston which then hits a tool.
None
Exclude large hammers only used for mining
Range(s)
Unit kg
Mass m
Hydraulic power supply
Impact
Yes, in combination with noise from hammer
Dominant
Not applicable
Urban/suburban
400,000
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
0
0 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
Tonality
105-140
98-136
75, very high
3.4
3
Partly. There are copies (unfair competition) of the well known brands.
Art. 12
None, Art. 13.
93+10 lg m / 90 + 10 lg m (decision: ABEGJO)
5 years/8 years
CEN/TS 13778:2004 Equivalent to the present directive test
Growth in construction market. Products marketed as quieter available.
Hydraulic hammers are increasingly replacing handheld breakers.
Damping, shielding and vibration control applied.
Progress may be limited with given process. Possibly better electronic
control and shielding devices, hammer materials. Alternative breaking
processes may be developed.
Improved damping and shielding, possibly isolation and electronic
control.
Large benefits for citizens, R&D costs for industry; should be possible
for industry or for higher price.
Alternative processes, materials and design for impact equipment.
Attention should also be given to workpiece shielding if possible.
188 / 235
189 / 235
190 / 235
191 / 235
32. Lawnmowers
A walk-behind or ride-on grass cutting machine or a machine with grasscutting attachment(s) where the cutting
Currrent directive excludes attached and agricultural mowers
Attached lawnmowers and attached blower units have significant noise
Remarks/changes in subcategories
emission and are not covered by the directive
25 - 50; 50 - 70;
Technical parameter
Unit cm
Cutting width
Range 70 - 120; > 120
Drive types (electrical/CE/other)
Petrol 2- and 4-stroke, diesel 4-stroke, electric.
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake) and blade /deck; gear boxes for larger
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
No
Process noise relevant/dominant
No
Typical field operation (high/medium/low High
Typical areas of use
All
Estimated EU25 equipment population
50,000,000
Typical usage
Months
8 Days
2 / 20 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Acoustical characteristics
5 Impact
0 Intermittent
6
Tonality
Range of sound power level in practice 76 - 108
Range of guaranteed sound power levels 76 - 105
Environmental impact
70, Very high; garden equipment with a high rate of annoyance for
(High/medium/low)
neighbourhood.
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
1.8
Typical difference field - guaranteed
0
Speed does not always comply with rated speed; incorrect marking,
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) especially from far east
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
Article 12
Current limit if any (Art 12)
Stage I, stage II for 50 to 70 cm only
Dependence of cutting width LWAlim = 71 + 15 * log L
Recommended limits
(decision ABEGHKM, special situation)
Recommended timetable
2 years, reexamination after 4 years
ISO 11094:1991
For the ride-on machines, with or without the collector including a
Recommendation test cycle (summary) suction unit ?
Hard price competition and low demand for low noise equipment; unfair
competition from far east. Many SMEs but also large companies. Some
Market situation
equipment marketed as low noise.
2-stroke engines replaced by 4-stroke engines. Some R&D done on
Technical progress to date
lawnmower noise, in particular blade noise and contribution analysis.
Maximum speed has to be fixed without possibility of change by the
user; more electric mowers by enhenced battery technology; alternative
cutting technologies. Optimise blade-deck designs to reduce blade
Current and future technical progress
noise.
Current definition (Directive)
Remarks/changes in definition
Research proposals
Other remarks
192 / 235
193 / 235
194 / 235
Market situation
Technical progress to date
Current and future technical progress
Technical impact (required
modifications/developments)
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
Research proposals
Other remarks
195 / 235
Market situation
A powered machine suitable for collecting leaves and other debris using
a suction device consisting of a power source ....
None, but combine with leaf blowers.
None
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(s)
CE-petrol, electric
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fan
No
No
High
Urban/suburban/rural
3,000,000
Months
4 Days
1 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
5 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
100-115
99-110
62, high, often around dwellings
3.0
0
unknown
Art. 12
None, Art. 13
CE: 104, electric: 99 (Decision: ABEGJO)
5 years
PrEN 15503
It is a more favourable test code than the present one. There is an
average of 1/6 idling (low) and 5/6 racing (throttle fully open)
Relatively new equipment type, sold in large numbers in recent years.
Noticably noisy, so possible market for quieter versions. Far east cheap
imports. There are two subcategories : the portable collectors which are
more suitable for domestic use, the non-portable which are attachments
to a truck.
Little.
196 / 235
Make only one category with the two presents, 36a and 36b, adding
container handlers. The industrial trucks used indoor are excluded
because electrical. The present limit of 10t for industrial (article 13 to 12)
is not relevant. The containers handlers are straddle carriers or reach
Remarks/changes in definition
stackers,
With a telescopic arm and a bucket, they are loaders. The declared
Remarks/changes in subcategories
noise levels must be comparable,
Technical parameter
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(sP55;P>55
Drive types (electrical/CE/other)
CE
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fans, hydraulic
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
No
Process noise relevant/dominant
No
Typical field operation (high/medium/low Dynamic rpm
Typical areas of use
Urban/suburban/rural
Estimated EU25 equipment population
225 000 + 800 000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Acoustical characteristics
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
6
Range of sound power level in practice 94 - 111
Range of guaranteed sound power levels 96 - 114
Environmental impact
60-65, high, together possibly higher
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
2.3
Typical difference field - guaranteed
0
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) Sufficient
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
Art 12
Current limit if any (Art 12)
101; 82 +11 lg P
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) stage II (decision ABEGJKM for 36a or 36b)
Recommended timetable
The directive test code must be modified, adding a 8 km/h speed limit
for drive condition and some information on the height level during the
Recommendation test code/cycle
lift condition,
Growth in construction market (rough terrain) because they are
multipurpose. Quieter models on the market, including first hybrid
Market situation
drives.
Technical progress to date
Quieter and well enclosed engines.
Current and future technical progress
Quieter engines and alternative drive systems.
Technical impact (required
modifications/developments)
Effect of exhaust emission directive.
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
Benefits outweigh costs. Limited, due to price range of equipment.
Research proposals
Other remarks
197 / 235
A self-propelled wheeled or crawler machine having an integral frontmounted bucket-supporting structure and linkage..
None
None
Unit kW
Range P55;P>55
Installed power
CE-diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fan, hydraulics
Seldom
Bucket can radiate noise if scraped or impacted.
Dynamic
Urban/suburban/rural
326,000
10 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Months
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
Tonality
95-120
96-114
59, high
1.2
3
Sufficient
Art. 12
101; 82 + 11 P; 103; 84 + 11 P (indicative, for tracked loaders)
100; 81 + 11 lg P (decision: ABEGJO, for tracked loaders ABEFHKM)
5 years
ISO DIS 6395:2006 (no essential changes to current edition)
Many manufacturers. Increase in compact loaders. Growth in construction
market.
Better engine enclosures, quieter fans, hydraulics dampers.
First hybrid drive systems coming on the market. Possibly more electronic
control, engine and cooling management, quieter hydraulics. New
materials and solutions for quieter tracks.
Stage II limits may conflict with Exhaust directive requirements. Little
space available for noise reduction in mini-loaders. Further R&D effort
required to achieve stage II limits for tracked loaders.
Benefits outweigh costs.
Quieter engines, cooling systems and engine management. Reduction of
track noise by new materials or design solutions.
Possibly R&D required if difficulties encountered with Exhaust Directive
requirements.
198 / 235
199 / 235
Market situation
Technical progress to date
Current and future technical progress
Technical impact (required
modifications/developments)
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
Research proposals
Other remarks
200 / 235
201 / 235
Market situation
Technical progress to date
202 / 235
203 / 235
204 / 235
205 / 235
Other remarks
Market situation
206 / 235
43. Pipelayers
207 / 235
208 / 235
Market situation
Other remarks
Noise is frequently given as a sales argument and there are many low
noise models available on the market. Therefore there is demand.
Application of quieter 4 stroke engines and optimised enclosures and
silencers. Significant progress has been made due to market demand.
Further reductions may be difficult for some model types. Alternative
fuels, alternative engine types.
Sufficiently quiet generators are available on the market. Lower noise
levels can be achieved by additional enclosure/silencers, but at slightly
higher price. New exhaust emission regulations may cause some
design conflicts to retain current levels.
Small impact, given that many quiet models are already on the market.
Benefits for citizens outweigh costs.
Current limit calculation seems not to be suitable: limits for small
generators are unnecessarily high compared to that what's technical
feasible, but some difficulties to comply with generators near to 400 kW.
Unnecessarily noisy models should be excluded from the market. There
are some combined products (welding and power gerators) on the
market. Withdraw the limit of 400 kW (see 45b).
209 / 235
210 / 235
211 / 235
Market situation
Other remarks
212 / 235
Remarks/changes in definition
None
Remarks/changes in subcategories
Technical parameter
Drive types (electrical/CE/other)
None
Unit kW
Range
Installed power
CE-Diesel
Impacts by falling material/Bin against lift/Engine
Main noise sources
(+exhaust+intake)/hydraulics
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
No
Process noise relevant/dominant
Yes
Typical field operation (high/medium/low Dynamic
Typical areas of use
Urban/suburban
Estimated EU25 equipment population
100.000
Typical usage
Months
12 Days
20 Minutes
360 Eve/Night
5
Acoustical characteristics
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
6
Range of sound power level in practice 90 - 120
Range of guaranteed sound power levels 101 -113
Environmental impact
Very high, early morning and sometimes evening operation
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
4.5
Typical difference field - guaranteed
0
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) Labelled
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
Art 13 -> 12
Current limit if any (Art 12)
None (article 13)
Recommended limits
107 decision (ABEFIN)
Recommended timetable
5 years
Recommendation test cycle
EN 101-4 (under preparation)
Growth (more recycling and waste separation). There is some demand
Market situation
in the market for quieter vehicles and some state incentives
Technical progress to date
Current and future technical progress
Technical impact (required
modifications/developments)
213 / 235
Research proposals
Other remarks
214 / 235
49. Scarifiers
215 / 235
50. Shredders/chippers
Research proposals
None.
Other remarks
216 / 235
51. Snow-removing engine with rotating tools (self propelled, excl. attachments)
<picture m
A machine with which snow can be removed from traffic areas by
Current definition (Directive)
rotating means, accelerated and ejected by blower means.
Remarks/changes in definition
Include snow ploughs and snow sweepers?
Remarks/changes in subcategories
None
Technical parameter
Unit kW
Range
Installed power
Drive types (electrical/CE/other)
CE, petrol, diesel
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), blower, blade scraping, snow blowing
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
None
Process noise relevant/dominant
Not dominant
Typical field operation (high/medium/low High rpm
Typical areas of use
Urban, suburban, rural
Estimated EU25 equipment population
10,000, probably much higher
Typical usage
Months
4 Days
5 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
Acoustical characteristics
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
Range of sound power level in practice 100-120
Range of guaranteed sound power levels 103 - 110
Environmental impact
31, very low
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
2.4
Typical difference field - guaranteed
3
Current compliance (labelling, DOC,
None, Art. 13
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
No change, Art. 13
Current limit if any (Art 12)
Art. 13
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) None (Decision: ABCQL)
Recommended timetable
Recommendation test code/cycle
No EN or ISO standard available, no change
Market situation
Increased number in tourist areas; also private use.
Technical progress to date
Current engine technology
Current and future technical progress
Quieter engines, blowers.
Technical impact (required
modifications/developments)
Application of low noise design principles.
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
Benefits not expected to outweight costs.
Research proposals
Other remarks
217 / 235
218 / 235
<picture m
A slewing jib crane with the jib located at the top of a tower which stays
Current definition (Directive)
approximately vertical in the working position.
Remarks/changes in definition
None
Remarks/changes in subcategories
None
Technical parameter
Installed power
Unit kW
Range
Drive types (electrical/CE/other)
Mostly electric, but a few CE powered.
Main noise sources
Electric motor, gear transmission
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
No
Process noise relevant/dominant
No
Typical field operation (high/medium/low Normal rpm
Typical areas of use
Urban/Suburban
Estimated EU25 equipment population
20,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Acoustical characteristics
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
Range of sound power level in practice 80-105
Range of guaranteed sound power levels 84-100
Environmental impact
31, very low; relatively low numbers and low noise levels
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
2.7
Typical difference field - guaranteed
0
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) Sufficient
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
Art. 12
Current limit if any (Art 12)
96 + lg P
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 96 + lg P (decision: ABCPM)
Recommended timetable
no change
Recommendation test code/cycle
No EN or ISO available, no change
Growth in construction market, increase in high buildings. More folding
Market situation
cranes coming on the market.
Technical progress to date
Quieter gear transmissions, more electric drives, smoother operation.
Limited as noise levels are already low. In some cases better isolation
Current and future technical progress
or higher quality of the transmission.
Technical impact (required
modifications/developments)
Possibly quieter gear transmissions.
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
Costs probably exceed benefits
Research proposals
Other remarks
New mobile tower cranes powered by vehicle engine
219 / 235
54. Trenchers
<picture m
A self-propelled, ride-on or pedestrian-controlled, crawler or wheeled
machine, having a front- or rear-mounted excavator linkage and
Current definition (Directive)
attachment, primarily designed to produce trenches
Remarks/changes in definition
None
Remarks/changes in subcategories
None
Technical parameter
Unit kW
Range
Installed power
Drive types (electrical/CE/other)
CE, diesel and petrol
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fan, scraping/impacting
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
None
Process noise relevant/dominant
Scrapping
Typical field operation (high/medium/low High rpm
Typical areas of use
Urban, suburban, rural
Estimated EU25 equipment population
20,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
Acoustical characteristics
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
Range of sound power level in practice 100-125
Range of guaranteed sound power levels 98 - 113
Environmental impact
44, low
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
1.4
Typical difference field - guaranteed
3
Current compliance (labelling, DOC,
None, Art. 13
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
Art. 13
Current limit if any (Art 12)
n.a.
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter)
Recommended timetable
Recommendation test code/cycle
Market situation
Technical progress to date
Current and future technical progress
Technical impact (required
modifications/developments)
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
Research proposals
Other remarks
220 / 235
221 / 235
Technical parameter
Drive types (electrical/CE/other)
Main noise sources
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
Process noise relevant/dominant
Typical field operation (high/medium/low
Typical areas of use
Estimated EU25 equipment population
Typical usage
Acoustical characteristics
Range of sound power level in practice
Range of guaranteed sound power levels
Environmental impact
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
Typical difference field - guaranteed
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits)
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
Current limit if any (Art 12)
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter)
Recommended timetable
Installed power
EN 12639:2000
Growth in construction sector. Wide application range. Large numbers
for both home and professional use. Growing number of garden pools
and ponds with growing economy. Also cheap imports.
Quieter pumps and engines, more electrically powered pumps.
Mostly application of known technology, such as encosures, quieter
pump and drive types.
Market situation
Technical progress to date
Current and future technical progress
Technical impact (required
modifications/developments)
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
Research proposals
Other remarks
Unit
kW
Range P > 35 kW
960 Eve/Night
0
222 / 235
223 / 235
224 / 235
Installed power
Unit kW
Range
CE-Diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fans, hydraulics, crusher, screens, rubble
Sometimes rubble or material impacting, however, machinery platework
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
may radiate noise.
Process noise relevant/dominant
In some cases.
Typical field operation (high/medium/low High rpm.
Typical areas of use
Urban/suburban/rural
Estimated EU25 equipment population
20,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Acoustical characteristics
Tonality
5 Impact
5 Intermittent
3
Range of sound power level in practice 100-130
Range of guaranteed sound power levels n.a.
Environmental impact
63 (55 for sieves/screens); high/medium
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
n.a.
Typical difference field - guaranteed
n.a.
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) n.a.
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
Art. 13 / Art. 12
Current limit if any (Art 12)
None
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 84 + 11 lg P (decision: ABEFIN / ABDL)
Recommended timetable
Art. 13 in 5 years / Art. 12 after 8 years
No EN or ISO standard available only German DIN 45635-31. Mobile
Breakers must be measured under the conditions of intended use.
Recommendation test code/cycle
Engines have to run at least at the speed of rated power.
Inceased use due to benefits of local debris recycling and increased
recycling, saving on material transportation. Some machines on market
as 'low noise'. Variety of SMEs and large companies producing, both in
Market situation
EU and outside EU.
Technical progress to date
Unclear due to large variety in market.
Current and future technical progress
Quieter engines and processes, process noise optimisation
Technical impact (required
Quieter engines/exhaust, process optimisation also for noise, impact
modifications/developments)
reduction/ isolation/damping and/or shielding.
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
Benefits outweigh costs
Research proposals
Further acoustic analysis required fro various machine types.
Standardisation urgently needed!
Other remarks
Market is also significant for mining/quarry sector.
225 / 235
<picture m
Wheeled portal, gantry or boom cranes, running on a track or hard
surface.
New type
Installed power
Unit kW
Range
Electric or CE-diesel
Winch enclosure: motor/engine, alternator/converters, gears, cooling
fans; trolley: rolling noise, cable runner impacts; container: impacts with
Main noise sources
spreader and ground.
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
Impact noise from containers
Process noise relevant/dominant
Trolley, winch, spreader
Typical field operation (high/medium/low Work cycle including trolley movement, hoisting and lifting, spreader
idling / dynamic)
onto container, crane moving.
Typical areas of use
Urban or rural
Estimated EU25 equipment population
20,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
5
Acoustical characteristics
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
Range of sound power level in practice 95-115
Range of guaranteed sound power levels n.a.
Environmental impact
55, medium; harbours and terminals in town/city centres; vicinity of
(High/medium/low)
terminals to residential areas can be a problem.
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
n.a.
Typical difference field - guaranteed
n.a.
Current compliance (labelling, DOC,
n.a.
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
New, Art. 13 (Decision: ABDQL)
Current limit if any (Art 12)
n.a.
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) n.a.
Recommended timetable
To be investigated; mobile harbour cranes like mobile cranes(38).
No EN or ISO standard available for portal cranes only German
Recommendation test code/cycle
DIN 54635-61:1990
Growth in transportation of containers by water and rail. Manufacturers
already have market requirements for noise, but lack of common
Market situation
standards. Cheaper imports from far east.
Enclosed machine room, smooth trolley wheels and rails, damped
structures, electronic control for hoisting and stabilising, padded cable
Technical progress to date
runners.
Further reduction of drive and transmission, electrical, winch and trolley
Current and future technical progress
noise, reduction of impacts.
Technical impact (required
Small effort required, mainly measuring according to the standard;
modifications/developments)
implementing available solutions and good design.
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
Benefits outweigh costs.
Research proposals
Other remarks
226 / 235
Remarks/changes in definition
Remarks/changes in subcategories
Technical parameter
Drive types (electrical/CE/other)
Main noise sources
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
Process noise relevant/dominant
Typical field operation (high/medium/low
Typical areas of use
Estimated EU25 equipment population
Typical usage
Acoustical characteristics
Range of sound power level in practice
Range of guaranteed sound power levels
Environmental impact
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
Typical difference field - guaranteed
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits)
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
Current limit if any (Art 12)
Recommended limits
Recommended timetable
Market situation
Technical progress to date
Current and future technical progress
Technical impact (required
modifications/developments)
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
Research proposals
Other remarks
None
The EN 12733 definition for motorized brooms should be used:
A pedestrian controlled, self-propelled machine, with front mounted
sweeping attachments, with sweeping and/or collecting system.
This self-propelled machine is controlled by the operator walking behind
the unit.
None
Unit kW
Range <10 kW; 10 kW
Installed power
CE-petrol/diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake)
No
No
High rpm
Urban/suburban
20,000 (growth expected)
Months
12 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
95-110
43, Low, but potentially increasing
Unknown
Unknown
New
Art 13
None, Art 13 (decision: ABCL)
None
227 / 235
111. Snowmobiles
None
Market situation
Remarks/changes in definition
Remarks/changes in subcategories
Technical parameter
Drive types (electrical/CE/other)
Main noise sources
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
Process noise relevant/dominant
Typical field operation (high/medium/low
Typical areas of use
Estimated EU25 equipment population
Typical usage
Acoustical characteristics
Range of sound power level in practice
Range of guaranteed sound power levels
Environmental impact
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
Typical difference field - guaranteed
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits)
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
Current limit if any (Art 12)
Recommended limits
Recommended timetable
10.2
228 / 235
General Instruments
General instruments for reduction of noise from outdoor equipment are given in this
section. These instruments cover a broad range, not only research proposals but also
financial, technical, legislative and other types of instruments. A compact overview of
proposed instruments is given in table 10.1. Some of the most relevant instruments are
discussed in the following subsections.
10.2.1
229 / 235
Table 10.1 General instruments for reduction of noise from outdoor equipment.
Instrument
Main effect
Key players
Better market
surveillance
Technical/financial/p EU/National
olitical/regulatory/co
mmunication
Political/regulatory
EU/National
Currently
implemented
UK, B,
1
Automated data
2 collection
Revised Model DOC
with enhanced
information.
Correct values in EC
database
Assist Market
Surveillance
Authorities to test
product correctly.
Better consumer
information.
Information to industry More complete data
to provide declared
data to EC
Simplified or improved Better understanding
noise marking system by the purchaser and
the public of the noise
emission
New approach
Simplify regulation;
Directive; synergy with simplify amendment
process
other directives
Voluntary agreements Speeding up of overall
noise abatement,
more progress on
noise reduction
EU
Technical
EU
EU
Market Surveillance
authorities.
Consumers
Technical/Regulatory
EU
UK database , Where
enhanced data is
stated
Communication
EU/National
Technical/regulatory
EU
Regulatory/political
EU
Industry/contractors/G
ovt.
Political
EU/National
Govt./Industry
Financial
EU/National
Govt./ industry/
experts
Communication /
technical
EU/National
Financial
National
NL(VAMIL), D (Blue
Angel)
Local authorities
Regulatory
National
NL,D,F.
Contractors/local
authorities
Regulatory/technical
National
NL,D,F.
Technical
National
D,NL,I,.
Regulatory
National
NL (Peak)
Regulatory
National
EU, Industry
Example Machinery
Directive or Railway
noise TSI
10
11
Member states
EU (CALM, Nomeval
etc)
12
Procurement of
quieter equipment
Overall noise
reduction
13
Noise reception limits Limiting noise in the
neighbourhood
14
Noise emission ceiling
15 Leq or Lmax
Monitoring
16
Public
consultation(online
17 questionnaires)
Collection of
complaints
18
Local authorities,
contractors,
companies
Govt./Municipal
auth./contractors/oper
ators
Govt./Municipal auth.
Municipal auth./
contractors
Govt/EU/local
authorities
Techn./regul.
National
F,
Communication /
technical
EU/National
Partly
Govt./local authorities
Technical
EU/National
230 / 235
Integrated programme
on tackling all aspects
of outdoor equipment
noise:
behaviour/planning/qui
eter
equipment/communic
ation/implementation
Stronger positive
environmental impact
by improved
understanding and
solutions
EU/National
19
Indicative noise
prediction scheme to
improve interface
20 manufacturers/users
Research on improved
measurement
methods and
uncertainty
21
Research on noise vs.
usage/wear and life of
22 machinery
Research on
annoyance and
environmental impact
23 metrics and effects
Database of in situ
sound power levels
24
Creating an incentive
to the manufacturers
for competition by
noise emission: Feed
back by the market of
i. e. longer usage-time
by lower level
25
Consideration of all
noise sources without
political preference
(i.e. agriculture)
26
Creating an incentive
to the manufacturers
for voluntary noise
27 certification
Enable users to
predict approximate in
situ noise emission
Industry
Technical
EU/National
Lower uncertainty,
more representative
methods
Nobos/Research orgs.
Technical
EU/National
Research orgs.
Technical
EU/National
Improved
understanding of
environmental impacts
Research orgs.
Technical
EU/National
Consultants
Technical
EU/National
Market
EU/National
Political,
Administrative
EU/National
Concentration of
market surveilence to
non-certified products
Administrative/Market
EU
B,
D,
Another would be to have more comprehensive information on the DOC such as the
engine speed at which the noise reading was taken. This would enable verification tests
by market surveillance authorities to ensure that equipment parameters critical for
compliance are more easily verified. All European Type approved motorcycles for
example carry a noise marking at a specific identified engine speed on the data plate of
the vehicle. Such marking can assist in the surveillance checking activity as this
information is not always present in the Technical file despite its importance in the
measured result.
Without information on the critical parameters, such as net installed power, mass, or
cutting width of blade added to the DOC, the analysis of compliance by market
surveillance authorities is severely weakened. Similarly analysis of the central database
for the purposes of examination of potential future noise reduction possibilities is also
hampered. VCA along with Enforcement officers from Belgium and Sweden have
231 / 235
proposed a new model DOC to address this concern and the content of this is shown at
figure 10.1 below.
The advantages of the Figure 10.1 MODEL DOC as developed by UK/Belgium and
Sweden are as follows :
Numeric coding on left makes for easier information location and aids relevant
information translation into other EU languages.
Numeric coding will also facilitate an easier move to a database entry system
populated by the manufacturer in the future in order to reduce transcription
errors and provide real time updates.
The addition of Serial number is optional but is relevant relevant for single
unit verification.
The Conformity Assessment procedure used is clarified to both the user and
reader of form by tick boxes and added explanation.
232 / 235
233 / 235
10.2.2
Notified Bodies
The Notified Bodies must be called upon by the manufacturer according to the directive
if a product subject to limits listed under Article 12 will be placed on the market,
whereby the manufacturer presently can select between 3 different conformity
assessment procedures pursuant to Annex VI, VII or VIII.
For the 27 member states and Norway, presently 73 bodies have been notified for the
2000/14/EC. Frequently, they are a part of larger test organizations, yet they usually
still are rather small organizational units with 1 2 persons who aside from performing
this task for the government also pursue other acoustic technical assignments in order to
ensure economical survival.
The acoustical technical expertise of the NBs is assessed as highly competent.
However, since the number of notified bodies in some of the Member States does not
represent a meaningful relation to the number of manufacturers operating, the
experience of applying the directive has not been uniform. A distinct irregularity can
also be observed as far as working conditions are concerned. Of the 18 NBs that
participated in the NOMEVAL survey, only one third (1/3) are subjected to
accreditation by an independent accreditation body for the legally ruled areas and
thereby render proof of compliance with ISO 17025 for test laboratories and ISO 45011
and/or ISO 54012 standards for the certification. Most of the accreditations that are
being addressed by environmental ministries and/or ministries for economics are those
who do not always require compliance with a.m. standards. In some Member States it is
also possible to act as certifying body without having to render proof of competence for
testing. Therefore, during the course of a revision of the directive, the accreditation
procedure must be regulated more precisely and, most of all, a uniform accreditation
procedure by an independent accreditation office pursuant to the international
234 / 235
Noise Policy
As equipment is frequently used at various locations in succession or is used at one
location only for a very short time, considerable noise disturbance occurs without being
taken into account in noise reception limits. This is one of the reasons for the existence
of the Outdoor Machinery Noise Directive. Since this equipment even though part of
it is not covered by the definition of the Machinery Directive is subject to the free
movement of goods within the European Union, noise emission limits are a meaningful
approach to the actual immission reduction envisaged. The importance of these limits
becomes even greater with larger population density (number affected) and greater
prosperity (number of construction sites, equipped with power tools and recreational
machinery). There is no reason to reduce noise if there is no disturbance.
235 / 235
The CALM-project has set as its goal lately to cut the annoyance to 50% by the year
2020. But annoyance is always a subjective impression of a person affected: it is
influenced by the personal situation, attitude and psychological factors. So it would be
necessary first to define annoyance by objective and reproducible criteria before
trying to put this into legislation. Limiting of the sound power level is probably the
simplest approach. The environmental impact indicator contains some new elements
related to annoyance and may be part of a future solution for this question.
Another advantage of limiting the sound power level of outdoor noise equipment is
simply the listing of relevant machinery groups. It may be used by the Member States to
issue operating restrictions during the phase of transposition into national law and to
grant low-noise equipment longer operating times.
10.2.4
10.2.5
236 / 235
A wider public online survey on outdoor machinery noise would be a useful tool to
establish a broader picture of real annoyance in Europe, and to cross-check with an
updated environmental indicator scorecard.
10.2.6
11
237 / 235
11.1
11.2
Consultations
Two consultations were performed, one with environmental stakeholders such as
NGOs, national and municipal autorities, notified bodies and market surveillance
authorities, the second with manufacturing companies and industry associations.
The environmental and industry consultations have some results in common. In
particular the lack of market surveillance and enforcement, the clarity of noise marking
and shortcomings in some of the test codes seem to be agreed on.
11.2.1
Environmental
A questionnaire relating to the impact of the directive, noise limits, known complaints
and other aspects was answered to by 43 respondents, some of whom were interviewed.
Several relevant reports were reviewed, including the WG7 position paper, the CALM
position paper, the UBA study, the lawnmower study and its implications, the Dutch
MIA/VAMIL incentive programme, the Dutch guidelines on construction site noise,
and many other documents, all providing information in relation to noise limits.
Suggestions for 21 potential new equipment types and a number of limit proposals were
derived from the environmental consultation, some of which were retained in later
proposals.
11.2.2
238 / 235
Industry
A questionnaire was answered by 42 companies and 14 industry associations, some of
whom were interviewed. The responses can be summarised as follows.
The market surveillance of the directive is generally considered insufficient and leads to
unfair competition from non-compliant suppliers who make less costs. Many
respondents would prefer a simplification of the directive. Uncertainty is an issue which
manufacturers would like to have clearer rules for and would prefer to handle it
themselves. The EC database in its current form to contain many errors and needs
improving in the form of an IT tool as is currently underway. Equipment and category
definitions need improving for several equipment types. Most respondents were against
adding more information to the DOC and considered the directive a significant
administrative burden resulting in costs due to administration, testing, uncertainty,
R&D, certification and other aspects. The noise marking system could be made more
clear for the market and the public, as there is often confusion between sound pressure
and sound power levels. An example of such a marking is that used for computer
equipment, given in Bels instead of decibels (ISO 9296).
Most companies state that there is little demand for quieter equipment and therefore
little direct financial benefit. However R&D on noise reduction is performed in many
companies and many known noise reduction solutions are applied.
Some problems with test codes were identified, for example the lack of a consistent
definition for the engine power and the fact that the test is not always representative for
noise in the field. There is a preference for use of EN standards where possible.
Most companies see little scope for further noise reduction than stage II or would rather
see equipment from Article 12 into Article 13 or removed from the directive. There
were no proposals on new limits or equipment types made by industry. 32% considered
the stage II limits feasible. The main barriers identified are process noise, engine design
constraints, the new Exhaust directive stages 3B and 4, technical barriers and trade-offs
with performance. Especially equipment types given indicative limits in the 2005/88/EC
directive have technical barriers in certain power ranges.
A number of future technical developments was given for further noise reduction.
Further remarks were made on the need to link new limits and changes to the Directive
to other Directives, in particular the Engine Exhaust directive, especially in terms of
time schedules. There are doubts about the need and effectiveness of some of the limits.
Stricter limits are expected to lead to a higher price level and in some cases removal
from the market would be cheaper.
The CeCe and FEM position papers give proposals for alternative limits or transition
periods, with an indication of the technical and economic barriers. The Lamonov report
on lawnmower noise gives an analysis of the various noise sources, their influence
parameters and noise control options. The limited progess on reduction blade/deck
noise is the main argument stated against stage II limits for lawnmowers.
11.3
Environmental impact
With the environmental impact indicator, a new approach was chosen to find out which
equipment contributes considerably to the noise exposure of the population. For the first
239 / 235
time, not only the median sound power level, but also the number of units in operation
throughout Europe, their approximate duration of operation, the sound content and the
usual vicinity to those affected and other factors are considered. The quality of these
calculations can only be as good as the data that is made available. Five categories were
formed that roughly describe the environmental impact. The precise result for each
individual equipment group can certainly open for discussion, but there is a remarkable
tendency: the equipment groups with a noise emission limit are mostly in the medium
group now, whereas most equipment that was only required to apply marking is
allocated to the categories of very high and high.
This suggested that it is more important to introduce a targeted reduction for equipment
currently in Article 13that has a strong environmental impact, than to lower the limit for
equipment that will be found in the medium range after the implementation of stage II.
It is also therefore not surprising that the environmental consutlation also revealed
many Article 13 equipment types as a source of noise complaints.
Twelve high and medium priority types for Article 12 limit changes were identified. For
the remaining Article 12 types, limit changes are expected to have much less impact.
For Article 13 equipment, a group of 18 equipment types were identified that clearly
would be worth moving to Article 12. For potentially new equipment types, 9 out of 21
were shown to be potential candidates for addition to the Article 13 list, based on the
expected environmental impact.
Equipment that is not considered as a machine in the sense of the Machinery Directive
can nevertheless be a substantial source of noise impact (glass recycling containers,
mobile waste containers) and is justifiably included in the directive.
In spite of the known shortcomings (that can be eliminated), the environmental impact
indicator EI represents an effective tool for long-term and more well-targeted noise
abatement policy. The input data for the EI needs to be improved. To achieve this,
reliable data is necessary, data that only the manufacturers and their associations can
deliver. Furthermore, actual periods of operation, the differences between declared
sound power level and noise emissions in practice, a more precise distribution of
equipment numbers on sound power level categories in studies should be examined as
well as the replacement of the annoyance impact by objective psycho-acoustic factors.
The current definition of the environmental impact indicator does not give a strong
weighting to rural areas. If this is deemed important in future, a modification will be
required to somehow take sparsely populated, but sensitive and rural areas into account.
11.4
Test codes
Since the entry into force of the directive, new international standards have been
established for a number of equipment, and others are at the final stage of being
approved and/or being discussed. They partly reflect the original measurement
procedure pursuant to 2000/14/EC.
Wherever an EN or ISO standard is available, it should be applied, even if it does not
totally correspond with the principals of the directive, for example, because it includes
idle periods as well. The report contains comprehensive detailed statements on test
codes and whether a conversion of measured values is necessary for the new or changed
240 / 235
test codes.
The test procedures are still inadequate for many Article 13 equipment types. Prior to
the implementation of limits the measurement method should be evaluated with the
industry and their associations in order to be able to obtain reliable results from
measurements that can be carried out.
11.5
Technical impact
A general analysis of available technical knowledge and availability was made.
The common noise sources and relevant noise control measures for the equipment in the
directive and potential new equipment were reviewed. Future trends and developments,
common constraints and design conflicts such as noise emission versus cooling
requirements in combution engines were discussed. Also links to other European
directives are covered, especially the Exhaust Directive and the Machinery Directive.
For moving equipment into Article 13 or from Article 13 to article 12, the technical
impact in terms of product redesign is generally small, as labelling or initial limits are
only intended to result in applying known techniques and existing components for noise
reduction, and to eliminate unnecessarily noisy equipment. Introduction of stage II
limits for current Article 12 equipment would have strongest technical impact on
combustion engine concrete breakers and picks, steel-tracked dozers and loaders.
Currently there is more research required to reduce steel track noise further before
introducing the stage II limit.
For the other equipment with indicative stage II noise limits, such as lawnmowers, lawn
trimmers, vibratory plates, lift trucks and compacting screed paver finishers, the
technical impact is considered moderate, as noise control solutions are considered
feasible although not always straightforward.
In many cases, accumulators with more performance and less weight would enable
electrical and thus, a quieter operation and support the usage of hybrid drives.
Application of liquid sound insulation in hydraulic systems and development of lownoise hydraulic in power transmission is undervalued.
11.6
Economic impact
An economic impact assessment was performed based on the European guidelines for
impact assessment.
Based on general considerations, the directive and its noise emission limits can be
considered significant for the European economy. The performed cost-benefit analysis
illustrates that the benefits of noise reduction clearly outweigh the costs for the
equipment types which have a medium to high environmental impact. The costs are in
the end borne by the purchaser or user of equipment. In those cases where limits are not
applied or tightened where it is needed, the citizens and employers pay the price, often
indirectly, in terms of sleep disturbance, concentration loss, fatigue, annoyance and
stress and reduced speed intelligibility. The benefits to citizens are estimated at around
10 Euros per person per year once the foreseen changes to the directive have taken
effect. For equipment types with a low environmental impact it is clearly not
economically worthwhile changing the limits.
241 / 235
Aspects of consequential costs for the economy such as damage to public health by
noise, degradation of working conditions, reduction of viability and decline in value of
private properties has often been underestimated and must be brought forward in terms
of effective policy.
Without market surveillance, the directive is ineffective as costs are incurred by
industry complying to the directive, whilst at the same time they may loose market
share to non-compliant companies.
11.7
11.7.1
New in Article 13
Mobile waste breakers and sieves (screens) (after 5 years), Mobile cranes for harbours
and terminals (bridge/gantry cranes), Road sweepers without aspirators.
11.7.2
11.7.3
New in Article 12
Snowmobiles (after 5 years) and Mobile waste breakers and screens (wood, concrete)
(after 8 years).
11.7.4
11.8
Noise limits
Noise limit proposals were made for all equipment to be moved to Article 12, for
snowmobiles, and for mobile waste breakers and screens. For current Article 12
equipment only slight changes of the limits have been recommended. This concerns in
particular lawn mowers, for which an improved dependence of the limits on the cutting
width has been proposed, and power and welding generators, for which unnecessarily
high limits exist in the low power range. Five current Article 12 types are proposed to
be removed from the directive. More details are given in Chapter 9 and the data sheets
in chapter 10.
11.9
242 / 235
Research proposals
Detailed proposals are given for all equipment types in Chapter 10. General instruments
for noise reduction are given including:
- improved DOC
- improved marking
- proposals to improve market surveillance
- technical R&D topics
- information to the public.
- Assessment of annoyance
- Improvements for EI Assessment.
Generally, an orientation toward the development of new less noisy work processes
(e.g. cutting of stone, wood, grass) seems to be necessary in the technical field, whilst in
environmental acoustics more emphasis should be set to develop an interdisciplinary
accepted measure of Annoyance, which can be used in various rules and regulations
(laws, ordinances, and standards). New definitions of Noisy Machinery as well as of
Low noise machinery are required.
11.10
11.10.1
11.10.2
11.10.3
243 / 235
Simplification
Machinery and equipment covered by the outdoor noise directive includes a very wide
range of different working principles, purposes of use, sizes and power sources. It is
sold both on the consumer and professional markets. A simple all-inclusive test
procedure and limit system covering all equipment is not possible (as is the case for
machinery safety). Nevertheless some simplifications seem feasible:
- more and consistent application of existing standards;
- grouping, especially where the market provides universal machinery (some proposals
have been made);
- universal, power dependent limit where combustion engine is the dominaant sound
source. To be coherent, this universal power dependent limit has to be associated with
the simplest universal test code, already given in the directive in "Equipment tested free
of load";
- forwarding of DoC to Member States can be abolished (EC data base is sufficient)
- define a baseline limit, a range of limit formula and/or a max limit;
- to have a (large) raising fixed value of the difference between the level measured on
only one machine and guaranteed level taking into account of uncertainties and
production spread. If the manufacturer wishes ir is obliged to exceed this do better,
more measurements have to be carried out and the results treated statistically.
In principle it is conceivable to have an tighter link to the machinery directive and to
cover All equipment that can be operated outdoors and emits a guaranteed sound
pressure level of LpA 80 dB at the work station or bystander position and including
them as subject to marking (Article 13) only. The noise test is obligatory for the
Machinery Directive. The advantage is that separate definitions and possibly also test
codes for this equipment can be abolished in a directive. A disadvantage is that the
database will become unclear, since the description of the equipment type must be left
up to the manufacturer if no harmonized standard is available. Even for Article 12
products it seems to be feasible to work with a published list of harmonized standards as
the Machinery Directive does. Standards (fixed to an year of edition) provide
definitions and test codes exact enough (or better) to be basis for a law.
Industry often requests more precise wording, but this is unfortunately often does not
lead to the also desired simplification.
11.10.4
SMEs
Smaller manufacturers most certainly encounter other difficulties in applying the
directive than large combines with own staff for standards and product certification.
However, they also are substantially more flexible than the latter, when it comes to
implementing modifications and frequently they are more innovative with respect to the
application of new technologies. But with respect to noise emission there is a strong
dependency on suppliers of engines, vehicle chassis and hydraulic components. Since
only low quantities are ordered there is little negotiation space for SMEs to specify low
noise components from their suppliers. Stricter demands with regard to noise emissions
from engines and chassis (measurements at high idle according to the EC method
instead of homologation procedures) can support the SMEs and result in long-term
noise reductions.
SMEs are known to be more prepared to deliver customised products. The noise
performance level then will have to be determined each time individually, and a product
certification according to Annex VII will have to be carried out occasionally. Since
these customized products are of a greater value to the end customer, this is not
considered as an obstacle and will be calculated as item in transit, whereas large
244 / 235
manufacturers are not in a position to offer customised products at all. The Notified
Bodies could develop procedures to accommodate manufactures with low lot sizes (n <
100/a) of equipment subject to declaration within the interpretation range of the EC
test modules with respect to test expense. However, obstacles could be encountered
with regard to the national accreditation authorities.
11.10.5
Measures proposed
From the assessment of the environmental impact indicator (EI) it could be concluded
that to aim the European noise protection goal (cut he annoyance to the half until 2020)
the focus of noise reduction has to be set to machinery groups not yet covered by the
directive (e.g. stone circular saws) or those listed in Article 13.
For several Article 12 equipment with limits and low environmental impact it makes no
sense to tighten them, so it was not proposed. Welding- and power generators should be
combined in 1 group. In the lower power class of this equipment it is technically
feasible to reduce the limits as sufficiently illustrated by the database.
For the new hydraulic power packs there should also be a lowering of the baseline. For
lawnmowers a new limit curve is recommended, one that is closer to the cutting width
and thus would present a compromise of stage I and stage II. All equipment with a
counter-weight, that lifts, transports and re-deposits something at another (possibly
higher) position is technically similar and should be classified in one group with a
uniform measurement method and the same limits. Details should be discussed with the
manufacturers. The industry also requires discussions on an improved measurement
method for vibratory plates. Here, a lowering of stage I by 1 dB is proposed based on
the measurement method used to date.
For much of the current Article 13 equipment, limits are proposed, for EI very high,
in 2 steps. Due to the unreliability of the database (missing reference values), only an
integral maximum value can be suggested. In as far as no resilient EN or ISO standards
can be applied for measurements, a validation of the outdoor noise test codes under
participation of the industry and notified bodies is indispensable prior to the
implementation of the limits. To some extent, reference values must be checked to the
extent as to whether they have been listed as being reasonable for all subgroups (e.g.
cement pumps) as stated in this report.
In general, a uniform method for Uncertainty K and the procedure of measurementtechnical verification within the framework of market surveillance, measures are long
overdue.
For consumer products a new type of labelling similar the EC power consumption label
seems necessary for better understanding by non-acousticians. It should also be visible
on the package. Opening the possibility of voluntary product certification under Article
13 equipment may relieve market surveillance to discern quality checked products or
generally the value of certification (upgrading of NBs) may be recommitted.
A better coordination is needed with other directives such as gas emissions, vehicle
noise, HDTs, and in particular the Machinery Directive. Perhaps the environmental
emblem can be used to mark low noise products and give them a monetary benefit to
stimulate a market of less noisy products.
11.11
245 / 235
Key recommendations
The following key recommendations are made, based on the the findings of the study.
1. Market surveillance is essential for the directive to be effective.
2. Focus should be put onto equipment with a high or very high environmental impact.
3. EN- or ISO standards should be used wherever possible.
4. The noise label should be made more understandable for consumers.
5. The market for low noise products should be stimulated.
6. Noise reduction should be balanced with requirements for gas emission, public health
and costs.
7. Similar equipment types should be combined into groups.
8. Non-standardised test codes and definitions should be improved in cooperation with
industry and notofied bodies.
9. Lawnmower limits may be reduced by an improved formula and further research is
needed.
10.Engine and truck manufacturers should be stimulated to offer more silent engines
and carrier vehicles.
12
246 / 235
References
[1] Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 May 2000
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States to noise emission in the
environment by equipment for use outdoors. 3.7.2000 Official Journal of the
European Communities L162
[2] Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery. This
Directive consolidated the original Directive 89/392/CEE, amended by Directives
91/368/EEC, 93/44/EEC and 93/68/EEC
[3] Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 February
2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of
workers to risks arising from physical agents (noise). 15.2..2003 Official Journal
of the European Communities L42/38
[4] European Commission (Directorate General Environment, Directorate C,
Environment and Health), EC Declaration of Conformity ECDoCs for 2000/14,
European Commission, DG-ENV, Brussels, Environmental Noise/B.M.R.D
(2003)
[5] Directive 2005/88/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 december
2005 amending Directive 2000/14/EC on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States to noise emission in the environment by equipment for use
outdoors. L344/44 27.12.2005
[6] TNO Proposal for Tender ENTR/05/105, TNO project no. 033.11768, April 13,
2006.
[7] General Invitation to Tender ENTR/05/105, Specifications, EU DG Enterprise,
Brussels, January 2006.
[8] EU Noise Database, website DG Enterprise,
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/mechan_equipment/noise/citizen/index.htm
[9] ISO 11689 Acoustics procedure for the comparison of noise emission data for
machinery and equipment, December 1996
th
247 / 235
248 / 235
249 / 235
[39] European Power Tool Association (EPTA), On the definition of tool categories,
2002
[40] European Federation of Materials Handling and Storage Equipment (FEM),
position paper, 2004
[41] Orgalime, the European Engineering Industries Association, Annual report 2006.
[42] Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 January
2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment . 13.2..2003 Official Journal of
the European Communities L37/24
[43] M. Bockhoff (Cetim, France), Lawn Mower Noise and Vibration (LaMoNoV),
Executive Summary 2007.
[44] European Environment Agency (EC-DG Joint Research Centre), Environment and
Health, EEA Report no 10/2005, ISNN 1725-9177
[45] E.A.M. Franssen e.a. , Hinder door Milieufactoren en de beoordeling van de
leefomgeving in Nederland Inventarisatie verstoringen 2003 (Disturbance due to
environmental factors and the assessement of the living environment in the
Netherlands Inventory of disturbances), RIVM report 81512001001,
RIVM/TNO July 2004.
[46] Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 June 2002
relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise. 18.7.2002
Official Journal of the European Communities L189/12
[47] Commission of the European Communities, Report from the Commission to the
European Parliament and the Council concerning xisting Community measures
relating to sources of environmental noise, persuant to article 10.1 of Directive
2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise.
Brussel, 10.3.2004
[48] ISO Acoustics 1996-1:2003 - Description, measurement and assessment of
environmental noise -- Part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures
[49] ISO Acoustics 1996-2:2007- Description, measurement and assessment of
environmental noise -- Part 2: Determination of environmental noise levels
[50] ISO/TR 11 688-1 and -2 (1995). Recommended practice for the design of lownoise machinery and equipment.
[51] M. Crocker e.a. Handbook of noise control engineering, 2007.
[52] R. White, J. Walker, Noise and Vibration.
[53] F.G. Kollmann, R. Angert, T. Schsser, Praktische Maschinenakustik,
Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg, 2005
250 / 235
[54] Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 May 2003
on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport.
17.5.2003 Official Journal of the European Communities L123/42
[55] Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July 2005
establishing a framework for the setting of Ecodesign for energy using products
and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and
2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and the Council 22.7..2005 Official
Journal of the European Communities L191/29
[56] European Commission: Impact Assessment Guidelines of the Commission
SEC(2005) 791
[57] Panorama of Transport, Eurostat 2007.
[58] Eurostat Statistics in focus Theme 4 18/2003: Machinery and equipment
industries in the EU.
[59] HEATCO (Developing Harmonised European Approaches for Transport Costing
and Project Assessment Specific Support Action) PRIORITY SSP 3.2: The
development of tools, indicators and operational parameters for assessing
sustainable transport and energy systems performance (economic, environmental
and social); Deliverable 1 Current practice in project appraisal in Europe Analysis
of country reports, 31 January 2005 http://heatco.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/
[60] Peter Bickel, Institut fr Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle Energieanwendung,
Universitt Stuttgart, Germany, Derivation of fall-back values for impacts due to
noise, Annex E to HEATCO Deliverable 5, Stuttgart, 2006.
[61] DAY, B. (2001): The theory of Hedonic Markets: Obtaining welfare measures for
changes in environmental quality using hedonic market data. March 12th 2001,
Economics for the Environment Consultancy (Eftec), London.
[62] UNITE webpage: www.its.leeds.ac.uk\research.htm
[63] S.Navrud (Agricultural University of Norway), The State-Of-The-Art on
Economic Valuation of Noise, Final Report to Eurpean Commission DG
Environment April 14th 2002
[64] WORKING GROUP ON HEALTH AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS
(2003): Valuation of Noise. Position paper of the Working group on health and
socio-economic aspects.
[65] C.Schreier (IWW Universitat Karlruhe, INFRAS Zurich), External costs of
Transport, Update Study, October 2004, Infras/IWW Zurich/Karlsruhe, October
2004
251 / 235
Standards
[66] ISO Acoustics 4871 Declaration and verification of noise emission values of
machinery and equipment, International Standard, second edition
[67] ISO Acoustics 11094 Test code for the measurement of airborne noise emitted by
power lawn mowers, lawn tractors, lawn and garden tractors, professional
mowers, and lawn and garden tractors with moving attachments. International
Standard, first edition, 1991-11-01
Articles
[68] J.Jaques (INRS), K.Skovgaard-Nielsen (AkustikNet),P.Kurtz (BauA), Current
Contents of Uncertainty of Noise Testcodes for Machinery Families, dB, INCEEUROPE, CIDB Symposium Le Mans (France) 27-29June2005.
[69] C.Dussaugey (CISMA), G.Billy (UNACOMA), Noise Declaration Uncertainties,
an Industry pproach, dB, INCE-EUROPE, CIDB Symposium Le Mans (France)
27-29June2005
[70] H.J.Beckmann, M.Reimann (TV NORD CERT), Different Models Calculating
Uncertainty K within Directive 2000/14/EC- a Comparison, dB, INCE-EUROPE,
CIDB Symposium Le Mans (France) 27-29June2005
[71] E.Carletti (IMAMOTOR), Towards a Harmonised Procedure for the Declaration
of Sound Power Levels within Directive 2000/14/EC- the Position the Notified
Bodies Statistics-Sub-Group, dB, INCE-EUROPE, CIDB Symposium Le Mans
(France) 27-29June2005
[72] M.Bockhoff (CETIM), Declaration and Control of Noise Values: Towards Shared
Uncertainties, dB, INCE-EUROPE, CIDB Symposium Le Mans (France) 2729June2005
[73] V.Lahodny (TZUS), The First Command Using of Measurement Uncertainties and
Coming Mistakes, dB, INCE-EUROPE, CIDB Symposium Le Mans (France) 2729June2005
[74] W.Probst (ACCON), Measurement of the Emission Sound Pressure Level
Revision of the ISO 11200 Series, dB, INCE-EUROPE, CIDB Symposium Le
Mans (France) 27-29June2005
[75] M.Ludkovnikova (Federal Public Service of Health, Food Chain Safey and
Environment, DG Environment, Belgium), On Statistical Concepts of Noise
Declaration, dB, INCE-EUROPE, CIDB Symposium Le Mans (France) 2729June2005
[76] L.Jacobs (Ministerie VROM, NL), EU Richtlijn Omgevingslawaai, 29 september
2004.
[77] J.Jacques (INRS, FR), Noise and Standardization, Focussing on Machinery and
Workplace Domains, Joint Baltic-Nordic Acoustics Meeting, 2004, Mariehamn
252 / 235
[78] M.van den Berg (Ministerie VROM, NL), The Ultimate Goal of Noise Control at
the Source
[79] M.G. Dittrich, Analysis of noise control measures on Outdoor Machinery using
EQUIP+, Proceedings International Conference on Sound and Vibration, Vienna
2006.
Reports and studies
[80] R.Martin (Agence de la Sante et des Services Sociaux de Chaudieres-Appalaches),
Bruits et Vibrations emis par des scies en chaine (tronconneuses) selon les
specifications declarees par les fabricants, Levis, 20 juillet 2006
[81] M.Vianio, eo, A billion Euro Question: How much should we pay for noise
control and how much is it worth?, Workshop on costs & benefits analysis in
noise policy, Internoise 2001, The Hague, Final Report 2001
[82] IFO Institut fur Wirtschaftsforschung (Munchen), Monitoring the evolution in the
competitiveness of the EU mechanical engineering industry, (ETD/95/84040),
study prepared for the European Commission by, 20 january 1997
[83] M.Brennan (AEA Technology Rail, London), Structure of Costs and Charges
Review Environmental Costs of Rail Transport, , Final Report to the Office of
Rail Regulation, 31 August 2005
[84] NAVRUD, S. (2002): The State of the Art on Economic Valuation of Noise.
Report prepared for the European Commission, DG Environment. April 14th
2002. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/noise/020414noisereport.pdf
[85] W. Buitenhuis, Analyse beleidseffecten mobiele werktuigen 1986 1999, Report
on the effects of outdoor machinery noise policy; in Dutch, by Aboma/Keboma for
Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial planning and the Environment (VROM),
2000.
[86] E. Schneider (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work), Noise in figures,
Risk Observatory, Thematic Report
[87] H.Wallentowitz, (IKA-RWTH Achen), Study on the Time Scales for Availabilty
and Implementation for New Future Key Technologies for the Reduction of Road
Traffic Noise in the EU, Bericht 33290
[88] De Kluizenaar, Y., Passchier-Vermeer, W., Miedema, H.M.E. (2001) Adverse
effects of noise exposure on health - a state of the art summary. TNO report
2001.171, Leiden.
[89] S.L.Paikalla, e.o. (Working Group 5 Abatement), Inventory of Noise Mitigation
Methods, study prepared for the European Commission, Directorate-General
Environment, Ploicy Area Noise, 18 july 2002
253 / 235
[90] Bickel, P., Schmid, S.., Friedrich, R. (2005) Environmental Costs, in: Nash, C. and
Matthews, B. (eds.) Measuring the Marginal Social Cost of Transport, Research in
Transportation Economics, Volume 14, 185-209. Elsevier Ltd. Oxford, 2005. ISSN:
0739-8859/doi:10.1016/S0739-8859(05)14007-4.
Position Papers
[91] G.Billi, e.o. (Working Group on Outdoor Machinery), Position Paper on
Guidelines for the application of the European Parliament and the Council
Directive 2000/14/EC. on the approximation of the laws of the Member States to
noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors , A report
produced for the European Commission, december 2001
[92] C.Baret, G.Boreanaz (CENTRO RICHERCHE FIAT), Study on the status of
research related to the noise of outdoor equipment in operation. Technical Report.,
September 2003, CALM Network.
[100] J.Affenzeller (AVL List, Austria), CALM An EU Network for Strategic
Planning of Future Noise Research, A.Rust (AVL), , Euronoise Naples, 2003
Other
[101] CECE, European Challenges for the Construction Equipment Industry and
CECEs Point of View, 2006
Equipment, Komatsu: the sun also rises. WorldHighways, September 2006 e18.
13 Signature
Delft, 19 September2007
P. Hendriksen
Manager Acoustics (TNO)
Authors
P. Cellard (LNE)
A. Bowker (VCA)
254 / 235
Appendix A | 1/11
ISO 22868
low idle, full load and
high idle without load, all
same time weighting
low idle and full load, all
same time weighting
low idle and high idle
without load, all same
time weighting
2000/14/EC
full load and high idle
without load, all same
time weighting
full load and high idle
without load, all same
time weighting
high idle without load
The new test code will cause lower sound power levels because measurements are
carried out also in high idle and low idle mode.
Appendix A | 2/11
7 - Combined high pressure flushers and suction vehicles, 26 - High pressure flushers,
52 - Suction vehicles
The noise sources and the measurement method of these three machine types are
very similar. So the types can be combined in one group. This will reduce the
description of Test Code in the Directive. The following text could be possible:
7 High pressure flushers, suction vehicles and combined machines
Basic noise emission standard
EN ISO 3744
Operating conditions during test
Test under load
The high pressure flusher shall be tested in a stationary position. The engine and
auxiliary units operate at the speed provided by the manufacturer for the operation
of the working equipment; the high pressure pump(s) is (are) operating at its (their)
maximum speed and operating pressure provided by the manufacturer. Using an
adapted nozzle the pressure reduction valve shall be just on the point of reacting.
The flow noise of the nozzle shall not have any influence on the results of the
measurements
The suction vehicle shall be tested in a stationary position. The engine and auxiliary
units operate at the speed provided by the manufacturer for the operation of the
working equipment; the vacuum pump(s) is (are) operating at its (their) maximum
speed provided by the manufacturer. The suction equipment is operated in such a
way that the internal pressure is equal to atmospheric pressure (0 % vacuum). The
flow noise of the suction nozzle shall not have any influence on the results of the
measurements
Period of observation
The period of observation shall at least be 30 seconds
Appendix A | 3/11
16 - Dozers (< 500 kW), 18 - Dumpers (< 500 kW), 20 - Excavators, hydraulic or ropeoperated (< 500 kW), 21 - Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW), 23 Graders, 31 - Landfill
compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 500 kW), 37 - Loaders (< 500 kW), 42
Pipelayers, 43 Pipelayers
Appendix A | 4/11
25 Hedge Trimmer
ISO DIS 10517
The ISO 10517 should be used with following deviations:
The environmental correction K2A should be considered in any case, also if it is
lower than 2 dB.
28 Hydraulic hammers
CEN/TS 13778:2004
The description of the test code is the same as in 2000/14/EC. The text in
2000/14/EC can be shortened:
28 Hydraulic Hammers
Basic noise emission standard
EN ISO 3744
Operating conditions during test
Test under load
EN 13778
Period of observation
The period of observation shall be at least 15 seconds
30 Joint Cutters
EN 13862:2001
The description of the test code is the same as in 2000/14/EC. The text in
2000/14/EC can be shortened:
30 Joint Cutters
Basic noise emission standard
EN ISO 3744
Operating conditions during test
EN 13862
Period of observation
The period of observation shall be at least 15 seconds
Appendix A | 5/11
38 Mobile Cranes
EN 13000:2004
The description of the test code is the same as in 2000/14/EC. The text in
2000/14/EC can be shortened:
38 Mobile Cranes
Basic noise emission standard
EN ISO 3744
Operating conditions during test
EN 13000
Appendix A | 6/11
41 Paver Finishers
EN 500-6:2006
The description of the test code is the same as in 2000/14/EC. The text in
2000/14/EC can be shortened:
41 Paver Finishers
Basic noise emission standard
EN ISO 3744
Operating conditions during test
EN 500-6
Appendix A | 7/11
49 Scarifiers
EN 13684
The test code of new EN13684 is different from the valid test code of ISO 11094.
The found Sound Power Levels will be different.
The Test code could be very short. The environmental correction K2A should not be
disregarded as in the valid Test code of 2000/14/EC.
49 Scarifiers
Basic noise emission standard
EN ISO 3744
Operating conditions during test
EN 13684
50 Shredders, Chippers
EN 13683, EN 13525
The garden used shredders should be separated from the wood-chippers. For garden
used shredders the measurement method of EN 13683 and for wood-chippers the
EN 13525 should be used.
Both test methods will cause different sound power levels compared to the valid test
method.
50 Shredder / Chippers
Basic noise emission standard
EN ISO 3744
Operating conditions during test
Garden Shredders / Chippers : EN 13684
Wood Chippers: EN 13252
Appendix A | 8/11
Appendix A | 9/11
Detailed text for cells Proposed Solutions of the table 5.1 in chapter 5.2
5.2.7 Calculating Uncertainty K
For the declaration of a mean sound power level LWAm measured, five pieces of
equipment must be measured. For the listing of the value in the DoC, the calculated
value will be rounded to the next whole number. From the technical documentation, the
not rounded value must be apparent.
With reference to ISO 7574 uncertainty K must be calculated as follows:
K = 1.5 * t.
The total standard deviation t can be calculated based on a sample with the size of at
least 5 machines:
t = R + p
The standard deviation of reproducibility R should be determined for each group of
equipment in Annex III. This provision is in reference to round robin tests and takes the
principle of shared risk into account.
The standard deviation of production p may be determined on base of a sample of the
first 5 machines produced (sp) using a safety factor SF. The safety factor SF depends of
the sample size n and of the relation of the value of the standard deviation of
production sp to the standard deviation of reproducibility R:
n
sp R
sp > R
5 -7
1.3
1.5
8 - 12
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.1
In any case, the validity of the declaration must be confirmed by means of regular
verifications, as a rule, annually, whereby the results obtained shall be referred to for
updating the statistics.
The guaranteed sound power level is calculated as:
LWAd = LWAm + K
For listing the calculated value on the equipment (label) and in the DoC it will be
rounded to the next whole number. The technical documentation must feature the not
rounded result. The manufacturer may select an uncertainty that is higher than the one
calculated; however, the increase may not exceed 2 dB.
Appendix A | 10/11
Appendix A | 11/11
Visit the manufacturers/importers and check the DoC compare with data base
Having surveillance measurement if there are doubts left or even without any
reason
Appendix B | 1/6
1.1
General
This Nordic standard specifies an engineering method for measuring the noise emission
of accelerating snowmobiles.
The method is designed to meet the requirements of simplicity as far as they are
consistent with reproducibility of results and realism in the operating conditions of the
vehicle.
The specifications are intended to reproduce the highest noise level with full utilization
of the engine power available.
This method can be used for:
- type approval measurements of vehicles,
- verification measurements, and
- measurements for production control
1.2
Measurement uncertainty
Normative references
Definitions
3.1
Appendix B | 2/6
Snowmobile
Engine driven track equipped vehicle with a maximum service weight of 400 kilograms
built to transport persons or freight across snow and ice.
3.2
The maximum sound pressure level using frequency weighting A and time weighting F,
according to IEC 651. The reference sound pressure is 20 Pa (20x 10-6 Pa)
3.3
Measurement area
The area formed by the start point, the end point, and the microphone locations. (see
fig.1)
Instrumentation
4.1
The sound level meter (or equivalent measuring system) including the microphone and
the cable, shall meet the requirements of a type 1 instrument according to IEC 651. The
acoustical calibrator shall meet or exceed the requirements of class 1 calibrators
according to IEC 942.
At the beginning and end of each measurement series, the instruments shall be
calibrated with an acoustical calibrator. The calibration results shall be recorded in the
test protocol and the test shall be considered invalid if the two calibration results differ
more than 0,3 dB.
A windscreen shall be used and it should be of a type specified by the manufacturer as
suitable for the particular microphone. It should be ascertained from the manufacturer
that the use of windscreen does not influence the accuracy of the sound level meter
significantly under the ambient conditions of test.
At intervals of not more than 2 years, the sound level meter shall be calibrated for
compliance with IEC 651. At interval of not more than 1 year, the acoustical calibrator
shall be calibrated for compliance with IEC 942.
Some measuring equipment, especially old sound calibrators not complying with class 1
of IEC 942, is likely to be affected by air temperatures near and below 0C. Special
precautions must be taken to ensure the reliability of the sound calibration and sound
levels meter readings.
4.2
Other instrumentation
4.2.1
Appendix B | 3/6
The speed of the vehicle during the approach shall be measured with instruments with
an accuracy of 10 % or better.
Note:
The vehicle speed meter can be used, if it is checked before the test. The check of the
speed meter can be done by measuring the passing time when the vehicle is passing the
measurement area (20 m) with constant speed according to 6.4.1.
4.2.2
Meteorological instruments
Thermometer
Wind vane
5.
5.1
Test site
The test site shall be an open plane with a plane surface and free from reflecting objects.
The surface of the ground shall be covered with compacted snow.
These conditions are deemed to be satisfied if the following requirements are met
Within a radius of 50 m around the centre of the trick the space shall be free from large
sound reflecting objects suck as fences, rocks or buildings (see fig.1).
The surface of the ground within the measurement area, including vehicle path, shall be
covered with at least 5 cm of snow sufficiently compacted to support the vehicle
without
An alternative surface of turf, primarily grass up to a maximum height of 10 cm may be
used.
This surface shall be dry.
The surface of the vehicle path shall be retained as flat as possible. If the vehicle has
penetrated the snow surface, the consecutive maximum and minimum points of the
surface and the depth of the vehicle path and surrounding surface should not be higher
than 10 cm.
As an alternative surface of the turf, primarily grass up to a maximum height of 10 cm
may be used. This surface shall be dry.
Notes:
It is recommended that the snow surface in the measurement area shall be packed
with a vehicle one day before the tests.
While making sound level measurements, only the person reading the meter, shall be
at the measurement area.
Appendix B | 4/6
The sound pressure level can be up to 3 dB higher when using the alternative surface
of turf.
5.2
Meteorological conditions
Background noise
The background noise (including wind noise) shall be at least 10 dB below the noise
level from the vehicle under test.
6
Test procedure
6.1
Microphone positions
The distance from the microphone positions to the reference line CC (se figure 1) on the
vehicle path shall be 7,5 m.
Locate the microphone 1,2 m above the surface of the snow. Unless otherwise indicated
by the manufacturer of the sound level meter, the reference axis of the microphone (se
IEC 651) shall be horizontal and directed perpendicularly to the path of the vehicle (line
CC).
Appendix B | 5/6
The vehicle path should be marked with cones or marking pins on both sides of the
centre line in three sections, at line A-A, B-B and on the middle of the measurement
area. The width of the vehicle path should be the vehicle width plus 0,6 m.
6.2
Number of measurements
Readings to be taken
Record the A-weighted maximum sound pressure level, LpAmax.F, during each passage of
the vehicle between the two lines AA and BB (se figure 1). If a peak obviously out of
character with the normal sound level is observed, discard the measurement
Repeat the tons until three consecutive readings within a 2,0 dB range per vehicle side
have been obtained.
The sound level for each side of the vehicle shall be the arithmetic average of all three
readings, rounded to nearest integer.
The sound level reported shall be the one for the side of the vehicle with the highest
mean value.
Note:
0,5 dB shall be rounded up to the. nearest highest integer.
6.4
Make the measurements on vehicles unladen except for the driver and, except for the
case of non-separable vehicles, without sleigh.
Before the measurements are started, the engine shall be brought to its normal operating
conditions with respect of temperature. The vehicle shall be supplied with fuel, sparking
plugs, carburettor (s), exhaust systems, etc., as recommended by the manufacturer.
6.5
Operating conditions
6.5.1
General conditions
The vehicle shall approach the line AA with the path of its centre line following as
closely as possible the line CC as specified below. The centre line of the vehicle must
not deviate more than 0,3 m from either side of the centreline of the vehicle path.
The vehicle shall approach the line AA at uniform vehicle speed corresponding to one
of the following:
- 50 km/h, or
- a of maximum vehicle speed
whichever is the lowest
When the front of the vehicle reaches the line AA, the throttle shall be fully opened as
rapidly as possible and held fully open until the rear of the vehicle reaches line BB. The
throttle shall then be closed as rapidly as possible.
Appendix B | 6/6
The reference point of the vehicle, to indicate where the vehicle is at the acceleration
line AA, shall be the front of the vehicle ski(s).
6.5.2
Vehicles fitted with a gear-box shall be tested at the highest gear. In all cases the special
selector's positions for slow movements shall be excluded.
7
Information to be reported
b)
c)
Place, date when the measurements were performed, and the name and person
responsible for the test
d)
e)
Weather conditions
h)
i)
The maximum A-weighted sound pressure level of the vehicle according to 6.3,
in decibels
h)
The maximum A-weighted sound pressure level of the background noise in
decibels.