MONITORING PROCEDURE IN THE VEHICLE NOISE … · MONITORING PROCEDURE IN THE VEHICLE ... ECE R 51...

Contract number : UTAC_ACEA07 Monitoring Technical Proposal

MONITORING PROCEDURE IN THE VEHICLE NOISE REGULATION

ECE R 51 monitoring database

and cost/benefit analyses

Version : Final Report

Prepared for : European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA)

Report number : UTAC_10/06370

Date: 2010 August 27th Level of confidentiality: Public

Written by Company

Louis-Ferdinand PARDO UTAC SAS Autodrome de Linas-Montlhéry

BP 20212 MONTLHERY CEDEX

Heinz STEVEN TUEV Nord Mobilitaet GmbH & Co.KG

Adlerstrasse 7, D-45307 Essen

Mobilität

Attachment 1

ECE R 51 noise monitoring database and cost/benefit analyses

Final report / August 2010 /139

Mobilität

The report which concerns contract UTAC_ACEA07 was financed by ACEA. The report consists of a main document written by the following authors:

Heinz STEVEN, consultant engineer for TUEV Nord Mobilitaet GmbH & CO.KG, [email protected] Louis-Ferdinand PARDO, Manager of Acoustic unit, [email protected]

The authors were supported by the following experts in the field of automotive industry:

Emmanuel LESCAUT, 2i Spec

ACEA Working Group Noise and WG-CVN

Any views expressed are not necessarily those of ACEA.



Mobilität

CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary .................................................. 4

2. Background and introduction.................................. 7

3. Objectives.................................................................. 7

4. Current and new ECE51 testing methods ............... 7

5. Data collection and analysis .................................... 8

6. Scenarios................................................................. 13

7. Benefit analysis....................................................... 15

8. Industry consultation.............................................. 21

9. Cost analysis........................................................... 22

10. Impact assessment - Cost/benefit figures ............ 27

11. Conclusions ............................................................ 31

Acknowledgements .............................................................. 33

References............................................................................. 33

List of Abbreviations

ANNEX A: Description of the Tranecam Model ANNEX B: Data Collection and Analysis ANNEX C: Benefit Analysis ANNEX D: Industry consultation and analysis of industrial costs ANNEX E: Automotive Noise Reduction Costs Model Approaches and Results



Mobilität

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction

In 2007/2008, UNECE and the European Commission launched a monitoring procedure for two years’ application. The purpose of this procedure is to enable the European Commission and UNECE/WP29/GRB to establish new limit values to be applied on the new test method ECE51 (method B). To provide relevant conclusions and recommendations, ACEA contracted with UTAC and TUEV Nord to perform this study in parallel with the European Commission’s consultant. The study of the project consists of the following items: data collection, data analysis and proposals for new subcategories, consultations with stakeholders and calculation of cost-effectiveness for further limit value reductions.

1.2 Results from the analysis of the database

During the monitoring procedure, both ECE R51 method A and B were performed and the results were analyzed to propose new subcategories and current equivalent limits. As it is proven that both methods are not correlated, comparisons were done on method B. Frequency distribution, average, maximum and minimum noise level were calculated for different subcategories using several parameters such as power-to-mass ratio, rated engine power, rated engine speed, vehicle mass etc. in order to propose subcategories and current equivalent limits for these subcategories. The results are shown in the following table (PMR means rated power divided by kerb mass + 75 kg, GVM means gross vehicle mass, S means rated engine speed and Pn means rated engine power).

On Road Off Road 1)

M1-1 pmr <125 kW/t 72 74M1-2 125 kW/t < pmr <= 150 kW/t 73 74M1-3 pmr > 150 kW/t 75 75

N1/M2-A1 GVM <= 2500 kg 72 74N1/M2-A2 GVM > 2500 kg 74 75

N2/M2-B1 rated speed > 3000 min-1

76 77

N2/M2-B2 rated speed <= 3000 min-178 79

N3-1 2 axles, Pn <= 180 kW 79 80N3-2 2 axles, 180 kW < Pn <= 250 kW 81 82N3-3 2 axles, Pn > 250 kW 82 83N3-4 > 2 axles 84 85M3-1 Pn < 180 kW 76 77M3-2 180 kW < Pn <= 250 kW 78 79M3-3 Pn > 250 kW 80 81

M1

N1/M2-A

N2/M2-B

N3

Equivalent limit values in dB(A)

M3

1) off road as defined in R.E.3 and in addition have a wading depth exceeding 500 mm and a hill climbing ability exceeding 35°

SubcategoryCategory

Table 1-1: Proposal for new vehicles’ subcategories and current equivalent limit values



Mobilität

1.3 Results from the consultations with stakeholders

The representatives’ stakeholders (manufacturers, suppliers, etc.) were consulted. Individual manufacturers’ concerns collected enabled a common point of view to be reached of the automotive industry linked to EC concerns.

The leading requirement for external noise is the regulation. It distinguishes between each noise source (tyre, engine, exhaust, transmission, etc.) and has to be balanced with the other specifications (interior noise, safety, pollution/emissions, thermal, volume, weight, staff, competitiveness, etc.). Solutions to be found range from simple modifications of components to major modifications of systems. In all cases, development is needed because technologies are not already available for more than 1 or 2 dB reduction. Stringent requirements would modify vehicle architecture. The timeframe and reduction required need to take into account development phase process and design. For the different scenarios, 1, 2 or 3 stages were considered: - First calculation step: 2 years after the adoption of the regulation, - Second calculation step: 5 years for M1/N1/M2-A and 7 years for M2-B/M3/N2/N3 after regulation adoption, - Third calculation step: 10 years for M1/N1/M2-A and 12 years for M2-B/M3/N2/N3 after regulation adoption. The reduction level (0, 1 or 2 dB) of each step depends mainly on the cost and industry’s capacity to achieve the goal.

1.4 Results from cost-effectiveness calculations

Impacts of 5 scenarios were estimated and compared to a “do nothing” scenario. Vehicle noise limit reductions range from 1 to 6 dB in 1, 2 or 3 steps as defined in the following table.

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Scenario 0

Scenario 1 -1 dB (201x+2)

Scenario 2 -2 dB (201x+2) - -

Scenario 3 -2 dB (201x+2) -2 dB (201x+10/12) (2) -

Scenario 4 -2 dB (201x+2) -2 dB (201x+5/7) (1) -1 dB (201x+10/12) (2)


(1) 5 years for M1/N1/M2-A and 7 years for M2-B,/M3/N2,/N3(2) 10 years for M1/N1/M2-A and 12 years for M2-B,/M3/N2,/N3

Noise reduction for each stage

Current equivalent limits values (CEL)

Table 1-2: Scenarios of cost/benefit calculation



Mobilität

Cost-effectiveness for industry, the environment, citizens and consumers is estimated related to the limit steps of the table above. It is measured by reduction of noise exposure, proportion of vehicles that have to be improved, manufacturers’ investments, cost for customers, benefit in monetary terms and cost/benefit ratio. The results are summarized in the following table:

Scenario* 2 3 4 5

Legal vehicle noise limits reduction 2 dB 4 dB 5 dB 6 dB

Environmental noise exposure reduction 0,2 dB 1,4 dB 2,1 dB 2,8 dB

Proportion of vehicles impacted 18% 66% 85% 92%

Cost over 20 years in billions € 3 22 63 112

Benefit over 20 years in billions € 5 19 44 52

Cost benefit ratio (C/B) 0,7 1,1 1,4 2,2

*scenario 1 (1dB reduction) gives no significant improvement and has been skipped.

Table 1-3 : Results of CBA analysis

Even if valuation of the benefit in financial terms permits comparison between costs of legal vehicle noise limit reductions and the benefit of environmental noise exposure reductions, all others concerns and criteria presented in the report have to be taken into account to define the noise reduction option to be chosen by policy makers.



Mobilität

2. Background and introduction

The European Commission introduced a monitoring procedure in the vehicle noise regulation, i.e. the noise tests during type approval have to be measured according to the current measurement method (method A) as well as according to the newly accepted measurement method (method B). The monitoring procedure is introduced in ECE R51 (starting July 2007) and in the amending directive 2007/34/EC (starting July 2008). The monitoring took 3 years (two years in both regulations). The monitoring data had been collected from type approval testing and reported in an electronic format from each manufacturer to draw up a proposal for future limits based on an analysis of the database and an impact assessment. To perform analyses, the automotive industry had looked for consultants from UTAC and TUEV NORD.

3. Objectives

The first objective of this study is to propose new vehicle subcategories on the basis of the ECE N/M classes and an analysis of the monitoring database. This will allow scenarios of limit values to be proposed based on the new test method to perform impact assessment analysis.

To develop an action plan for vehicle noise regulation, policy makers need to understand industry constraints related to each measure or program and the capacity of manufacturers to achieve the objectives required. The second objective of this study is therefore the transcription of the automotive industry’s point of view through consultations with the stakeholders involved in vehicle noise reduction.

The third objective was the impact assessment analysis to present policy makers with tools for choosing the option(s) where the benefits of noise reduction are clearly higher than the costs of noise mitigation.

4. Current and new ECE51 testing methods

4.1 Current ECE R 51 method A

The current ECE51 has been in force since 1970 (Directive 70/157/EC) and amended several times since. During 40 years of application, different limits, reduction stages and modifications of the test method have been decided for a total of around 10 dB(A) reduction from 1970 to 1992 (last stage for limits).

The current ECE51 method A is based on a full throttle acceleration test starting from 50 km/h or less over a distance of 20 m plus vehicle length for all categories. Since the technical design of vehicles has changed significantly over the last decades, the correlation between the test conditions for type approval and the in-use conditions for normal urban driving has



Mobilität

increasingly diminished. As a result, the link between the noise reduction for type approval conditions and real world in-use operation has also weakened. New test conditions were therefore required to be more representative of normal urban driving behavior.

4.2 New ECE R 51 method B

The new ECE51 method, based on ISO 362.2007, was prepared by ISO/TC22 "Road vehicles" and ISO/TC43/SC1 "Noise" and amended by WP29 in 2007 to be implemented in Directive 2007/34/EC. Development and evaluation were notably carried out in 2004 for technical accuracy and practical considerations by over 180 vehicles included in a first monitoring test program.

The measurement procedure is based on an estimation of partial throttle operation at 50 km/h on PP’ line for light vehicles (M1, N1 and M2< 3.5t) and a full throttle test at 35hm/h on BB’ line for heavy vehicles (M2> 3.5t, N2, M3, N3) which represents normal urban driving behavior. It ensures a better consideration of all sources emitted by road vehicles in urban traffic than the present method. So, a decrease of limits regarding this new method will impact noise exposure in urban areas more efficiently than method A. .

5. Data collection and analysis

5.1 Overview

In parallel with authorities’ collection of monitoring data, manufacturers provided the consultants with appropriate type approval testing data to prepare an equivalent database for ACEA. Data from 1186 vehicles was collected. 126 datasets had to be disregarded (20 duplicates and 106 vehicles with measurement conditions outside the tolerances or other inconsistencies). The remaining 1060 datasets were used for the analysis. Table 5-1 gives an overview of the vehicle categories.

Some vehicles were certified in different categories (e.g. M1/N1 or N1/N2 or N2/N3). Whenever the methods between the categories differed, more than one sheet for the method B results was issued and the vehicles were assigned to the different categories accordingly.

The first step after transfer into the Access database was to check for plausibility and consistency. An unexpectedly high amount of the data had to be corrected due to obvious mistakes. The further analysis was performed using the corrected data.

The analyses were performed separately for the vehicle categories as defined in UN-ECE’s Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3). The details of the analysis and the results are described in Annex B. Chapter 5.2 summarizes the results and proposals for subcategories and equivalent limit values.

The proposals of equivalent limit values are based on cumulative frequency distributions and averages of the method B results (Lurban). The limit value proposal was chosen from the 90% to 95% range of the frequency distributions. The differences in average values were used to validate/justify differences in the proposed limits between subcategories.



Mobilität

.

On Road Off RoadM1-1 pmr <125 kW/t 463 49M1-2 125 kW/t < pmr <= 150 kW/t 31 1M1-3 pmr > 150 kW/t 40 1

N1/M2-A1 GVM <= 2500 kg 49 1N1/M2-A2 GVM > 2500 kg 52 14N2/M2-B1 rated speed > 3000 min-1

30 7N2/M2-B2 rated speed <= 3000 min-1

32 8N3-1 2 axles, Pn <= 180 kW 11N3-2 2 axles, 180 kW < Pn <= 250 kW 51 14N3-3 2 axles, Pn > 250 kW 66 34N3-4 > 2 axles 23 25M3-1 Pn < 180 kW 13 3M3-2 180 kW < Pn <= 250 kW 23M3-3 Pn > 250 kW 19

Sum 903 157Total 1060

Category Subcategorynumber of vehicles in database

M1

N1/M2-A

N2/M2-B

N3

M3

Table 5-1: Number of vehicles in ACEA’s monitoring database

5.2 Proposals for vehicle subcategories and equivalent limit values

Proposal of new vehicle subcategories of the ECE N/M classes are based on analysis of the monitoring database explain below:

On Road Off Road 1)


N1/M2-A1 GVM <= 2500 kg 72 74N1/M2-A2 GVM > 2500 kg 74 75

N2/M2-B1 rated speed > 3000 min-176 77

N2/M2-B2 rated speed <= 3000 min-1

78 79N3-1 2 axles, Pn <= 180 kW 79 80N3-2 2 axles, 180 kW < Pn <= 250 kW 81 82N3-3 2 axles, Pn > 250 kW 82 83N3-4 > 2 axles 84 85M3-1 Pn < 180 kW 76 77M3-2 180 kW < Pn <= 250 kW 78 79M3-3 Pn > 250 kW 80 81

M1

N1/M2-A

N2/M2-B

N3


M3


SubcategoryCategory

Table 5-2: Proposal for new subcategories and equivalent limit values for method B



Mobilität

M1 vehicles During the development phase of method B, it was already agreed that the existing vehicle subcategories with different noise limits and further allowances for off road vehicles and direct injection Diesel engines should be reviewed and amended. With respect to the extra 1 dB for vehicles with direct injection Diesel engines: neither the method B nor method A results show a significant difference between Petrol and Diesel engines. That means this extra 1 dB should be skipped.

With respect to the two manual transmission subgroups tested in 2nd and 3rd gear and in 3rd gear only: the difference in gear use and 1 extra dB for the limit value is based on the concept that high-powered cars with a low market share could get more allowance than normal cars, because they do not contribute to the overall noise exposure. But since the rated power values of the vehicles have increased significantly over the last decades, a low market share is no longer ensured for vehicles having rated power values above 140 kW and rated power–to-maximum mass ratios of more than 75 kW/t. Since method B already requires the rated power-to-kerb mass + 75 kg power-to-mass ratio (pmr) for the determination of the measurement conditions and the calculation of the final result, this parameter should be used for amendments. Looking at the sales statistics from 2007 (see Figure B 8) a pmr of 125 kW/t would be appropriate as borderline, because then less than 1% of the vehicles would be considered high-powered vehicles and subject to extra tolerances.

New subcategories and proposals for equivalent limit values are shown in Table 5-2. In order to avoid sports utility vehicles and so-called “crossover” vehicles being classified as off road vehicles, two additional requirements to the R.E.3 are proposed as described in the footnote of the table.

N1/M2-A vehicles N1 vehicles are used for the carriage of goods and M2-A vehicles are used for the carriage of passengers having more than 9 seats, both with GVM up to 3500 kg. The current method differentiates two subcategories, one with GVM up to 2000 kg and one with GVM above 2000 kg. The limit values are 76 and 77 dB(A) respectively with an additional 1 dB(A) for direct injection Diesel engines.

The N1/M2-a sample contained M1 derivates (N1 coming from M1 or M1 certified as N1) and “real” N1 vehicles, not coming from M1 vehicles. The analysis showed significant differences in Lurban between both subcategories. The test mass is a good discriminator between the two subcategories with 1800 kg as borderline. The vehicle manufacturers prefer the existing separation parameter gross vehicle mass (GVM) but with a borderline of 2500 kg instead of 2000 kg for the existing method, in order to take into account the trends in technical design within the last two decades. At the first glance a GVM borderline of 2500 kg seems to be in good accordance with the test mass borderline of 1800 kg, but this needs to be further verified, because GVM was not delivered in the data collection sheets.

Corresponding subcategories and proposals for equivalent limit values are shown in Table 5-2.



Mobilität

N2/M2-B vehicles N2 vehicles are used for the carriage of goods with 3500 kg < GVW <= 12000 kg. M2-B vehicles are used for the carriage of passengers having more than 9 seats with 3500 kg < GVW <= 5000 kg. The current method pools these vehicles with N3 and M3 vehicles and applies different limit values based on rated power (less than 75 kW, 75 kW up to less than 150 kW and 150 kW or higher). This system needs to be amended anyway because N2 and N3 vehicles have different test conditions in method B. In addition, the rated power borderlines are no longer state-of-the-art due to the trend for higher rated power values. In the monitoring database, there are only two N2/M2-B vehicles with rated power below 75 kW, both coming from N1.

In method A the tests are designed in that way that rated speed s is reached within the test track for vehicles with manual transmissions. Method B requires full load acceleration tests with the following side conditions: when the reference point passes line BB’ (the end of the test track), the engine speed n_BB’ shall be between 70 % and 74 % of speed s, at which point the engine develops its rated maximum power, and the vehicle speed shall be 35 km/h ± 5 km/h. Some vehicles in the database have engine speeds n_BB’ outside the above mentioned tolerance band. Most of them exceed the upper limit. In four extreme cases rated speed was exceeded. In order to avoid that these vehicles determine the limit proposal, all vehicles outside the engine speed tolerance band were excluded from the further analysis. The database contains 62 N2/M2-B vehicles with valid results. All 11 M2-B vehicles are modified versions of N1 or M2-A vehicles. This is obvious because the GVM limitation of 5000 kg is close to the M2-A limitation of 3500 kg. Another 19 N2 vehicles are also N1 derivates. The remaining 32 N2 vehicles could be considered as N3 derivates. The assessment criterion is the engine. The N1 derivates have passenger car based engines with rated speed values above 3000 min-1. The N3 derivates have truck engines with rated speed values below 3000 min-1. Corresponding subcategories and proposals for equivalent limit values are shown in Table 5-2.

N3 vehicles N3 vehicles are used for the carriage of goods having a GVM > 12000 kg. The current method differentiates three limit value classes based on rated power (less than 75 kW, 75 kW up to less than 150 kW and 150 kW or higher). The method requires full load acceleration measurements in consecutive gears until the engine speed at BB’ (end of the test track) no longer reaches rated speed. The starting gear and the engine speed at AA’ (beginning of the test track) are different for vehicles with rated power up to 225 kW and above.

Method B requires full load acceleration tests with the following side conditions: when the reference point passes line BB’ (the end of the test track), the engine speed n_BB’ shall be between 85 % and 89 % of speed s, at which point the engine develops its rated maximum power, and the vehicle speed shall be 35 km/h ± 5 km/h. Another difference to method A is the tyre definition. In method A, steer axle rib tyres can be used and the tread depth could be minimum. In method B, tyres representative for the axle must be used and the tread depth must be between maximum and 80%. Consequently 77% of the N3 vehicles were equipped with traction tyres on the drive axle(s).



Mobilität

Some vehicles in the database have engine speeds n_BB’ outside the above mentioned tolerance band. In order to avoid that these vehicles determine the limit proposal, all vehicles outside the engine speed tolerance band were excluded from the further analysis.

The monitoring database contains 152 N3 vehicles with valid results and with rated power values between 132 kW and 537 kW. Only 4 vehicles have rated power values below 150 kW and 36 vehicles have rated power values between 150 and 225 kW. This means that 73% of the sample has rated power values above 225 kW.

Two analysis results need to be highlighted: the differences between the transmission types are higher than those between the drive axle tyre types. The differences between traction tyres and rib tyres are 1 dB on average.

The subgroups with manual transmission are more similar than the subgroups with automatic transmission. A significant part of the method B results is higher than the corresponding method A results. The only exception is the subgroup with manual transmission and rib tyres, for which the regression line is almost 1 dB below the one by one line. For manual transmission vehicles, the method B result can be up to 2 dB(A) higher than the method A result, while for automatic transmission vehicles the difference can be up to 7 dB. For vehicles with manual transmissions, three rated power ranges could be separated with respect to Lurban. For vehicles with automatic transmissions, an additional influence of the number of axles was significant but one of the rated power classes could be skipped. The extreme high Lurban values for vehicles with automatic transmission and 3 axles need further investigation as they cannot be explained by acceleration effects. For the benefit calculation, the following mixed schema was used:

• N3-1, rated power <= 180 kW: 79 dB(A)

• N3-2, 2 axles, 180 kW < rated power <= 250 kW: 81 dB(A),

• N3-3, 2 axles, rated power > 250 kW: 82 dB(A),

• N3-4, more than 2 axles: 84 dB(A). This formula is also proposed in Table 5-2.

The database contains 73 N3 off road vehicles with valid results. For this subgroup, the differences between vehicles with manual and automatic transmissions is much smaller than for on road vehicles, but only for those results close to the one by one line (+/- 1.5 dB). Another group of results is 2 to 3 dB below the one by one line. These results also need further investigation.

The only off road subgroup with a higher sample size is the group with manual transmission and rated power values above 250 kW. The comparison with the corresponding on road subcategory justifies an extra allowance of 1 dB(A) for off road vehicles. It is recommended that this allowance be applied to all N3 subgroups for reasons of consistency.



Mobilität

M3 vehicles M3 vehicles are used for the transportation of passengers having more than 9 seats and GVM > 5000 kg. The database contains 43 vehicles with valid results. Another 13 vehicles were added from the Circa database for the frequency distribution and average Lurban calculation. The method B test conditions are the same as for N3 vehicles except for the vehicle load. A tendency for higher method B results for vehicles with automatic transmissions compared to manual transmission can also be seen for M3 vehicles, but the majority of the results lies below the one by one line. The traction tyre subsample is too small to assess any tyre influence. The proposed rated power class schema is identical to the N3 category. The proposed limit values are shown in Table 5-2. All vehicles with rated power values up to 180 kW have rated engine speed values above 3000 min-1, , while all N3 vehicles in this rated power class have rated engine speed values below 3000 min-1. This explains the 3 dB difference in the limit value proposals. Unfortunately the database contains only 3 M3 off road vehicles, all of them coming from M2-B vehicles. In order to be consistent with the N3 category, an extra allowance of 1 dB is proposed for M3 off road vehicles.

The M3-2 subcategory (180 kW < rated power <= 250 kW) needs further explanations / comments. This category contains 15 vehicles, 12 of them are standard versions of public transport buses, all equipped with automatic transmission. 2 coaches with Lurban values of 80,6 dB(A) were excluded because n_BB’ was 109% of rated engine speed which is far above the upper tolerance (89%). The remaining vehicle with manual transmission is a country bus. The method A results for the urban buses are predominantly below this limit (5 buses with 75 dB, 2 vehicles with 76 dB and 3 vehicles with 77 dB). These low method A results are caused by customer requirements that are more stringent than the current legal limit values. Although the current method is advantageous for vehicles with automatic transmissions compared to manual transmissions, 75 to 77 dB require additional noise reduction measures compared to 80 dB versions. This has to be considered when further reduction steps are discussed.

6. Scenarios

Cost-benefit analysis is a prescriptive technique. It is used to illustrate the findings of cost-benefit analyses of vehicle noise measures, showing which measures are found to be the most cost-effective. To inform policy makers on welfare and economic impacts, policy requirements are stated in financial terms and alternative options are considered:

• Do nothing (staying at the current equivalent limits values - CEL),

• 5 scenarios for noise limit reduction: from one to three stages, from 1 dB to 6 dB,



Mobilität

The scenario stages were chosen to be in line with industrial development cycles and capacity for industry to achieve the goals (see Annex D). They are defined from the application year of the new regulation (201x) and from current equivalent limits.

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Scenario 0

Scenario 1 -1 dB (201x+2)

Scenario 2 -2 dB (201x+2) - -

Scenario 3 -2 dB (201x+2) -2 dB (201x+10/12) (2) -



(1) 5 years for M1/N1/M2-A and 7 years for M2-B,/M3/N2,/N3(2) 10 years for M1/N1/M2-A and 12 years for M2-B,/M3/N2,/N3

Noise reduction for each stage

Current equivalent limits values (CEL)

Table 6-1: Scenarios of cost/benefit calculation

The following figures show alternative options to be applied for all sub-categories (choosing 2011 as the application years of the new regulation):

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Years

Lim

its le

vel

Scenaro 0Scenaro 1Scenaro 2Scenaro 3Scenaro 4Scenaro 5

1 dB

CEL

Stage 1

Stage 2 Stage 2

Stage 3

Figure 6-1 : Scenarios for M1, N1, M2-A



Mobilität

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Years

Lim

its le

vel

Scenaro 0Scenaro 1Scenaro 2Scenaro 3Scenaro 4Scenaro 5

1 dB

CEL

Stage 1

Stage 2 Stage 2

Stage 3

Figure 6-2 : Scenarios for M2-B, M3,N2, N3

7. Benefit analysis

The benefit analysis involves the following steps:

1. Determination of the effects of the different scenarios on the noise emission of different vehicle categories.

2. Implementation of these new emission stages in the TRANECAM model and calculation of the effects on Leq for different road categories using typical traffic volume and fleet share values. A description of the TRANECAM model can be found in Annex A.

3. Transformation of noise reduction levels into monetary benefits.

7.1 Determination of the effects of the different scenarios on the noise emission of different vehicle categories

The first step involves the following tasks:

• Determination of the percentage of vehicles whose noise emission need to be reduced according to the different scenarios for each category.

• Determination of the effects of the reduction measures on the noise emission behavior under real world driving conditions.

The limit value reduction scenarios are already shown in Table 6-1. The equivalent limit values and their determination can be found in Annex B.



Mobilität

The calculation of the actual noise reduction for vehicle categories is based on the frequency distributions of Lurban in the monitoring database. For M1 vehicles this distribution was combined with a distribution of vehicle production in 2007 into power to mass ratio classes derived from the AAA database (AAA - Association Auxiliaire de l’Automobile). It was further assumed that M1 off orad vehicles have a share of around 4% on the whole M1 fleet.

For N1 and M2 vehicles up to 3500 kg GVM was assumed that N1/M2-A1 vehicles have a share of 30% and N1/M2-A2 a share of 70%.

Since the scenario calculations were performed by the TRANECAM model, the N2/N3 vehicle classes needed to be distributed to rigid trucks and trailer trucks. It was assumed that rigid trucks consist of N2/M2-B1, N2/M2-B2 and N3-2 vehicles with equal cat shares of 1/3. N3-1 vehicles were not considered because their market share is negligible. For trailer trucks was assumed that this subgroup consists of N3-3 and N3-4 vehicles with a cat share of 75% for N3-3 and 25% for N3-4. The resulting shares and reduction percentages are shown in Table C-5. Only on road vehicles were considered. Finally, the resulting noise reduction was calculated (see Table 7-1).

veh_cat scenarioDelta_Leq in dB(A)

0 dB(A) -1 dB(A) -2 dB(A) -3 dB(A) -4 dB(A) -5 dB(A) -6 dB(A)

Scenario 1 -0.13 85.17% 14.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%M1 Scenario 2 -0.38 71.16% 14.01% 14.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Scenario 3 -1.49 25.86% 22.14% 23.16% 14.01% 14.83% 0.00% 0.00%Scenario 4 -2.34 9.24% 16.62% 22.14% 23.16% 14.01% 14.83% 0.00%Scenario 5 -3.27 3.65% 5.59% 16.62% 22.14% 23.16% 14.01% 14.83%

Scenario 1 -0.07 92.42% 7.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%N1 Scenario 2 -0.24 79.75% 12.67% 7.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Scenario 1 -0.21 77.39% 22.61% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%rigid truck Scenario 2 -0.58 57.26% 20.13% 22.61% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Scenario 1 -0.24 74.01% 25.99% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%trailer truck Scenario 2 -0.77 41.21% 32.81% 25.99% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Table 7-1: resulting noise reduction (Leq) for the Tranecam vehicle categories

7.2 Implementation into the Tranecam Model

The noise reduction was calculated for all scenarios and for all road categories of the model using typical traffic volumes and compositions. It was assumed that for rigid trucks and trailer trucks, the reduction is related to propulsion noise only. This was also the case for M1 and N1 for scenario 2. For the scenarios 3 to 5, it was assumed that the rolling noise needs to be reduced also for M1 and N1 vehicles as well.

Stone mastic asphalt 0/11 was chosen as the road surface, since this surface has become a representative surface in many European regions in the meantime.



Mobilität

For the further calculation the results were aggregated to urban, rural and motorway by averaging the reductions achieved within these classes. It was then assumed that 10% of the people affected by Lden values above 55 dB(A) live near motorways, 20% near rural roads and 70% in urban areas. The results are shown in Table 7-2. Exposure classes below 55 dB were disregarded.

road category scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4 scenario 5urban -0.2 -1.5 -2.3 -3.1rural -0.1 -1.2 -1.8 -2.5

motorway -0.1 -0.9 -1.2 -1.6overall -0.2 -1.4 -2.1 -2.8

Delta-Lden in dB(A)

Table 7-2: Aggregated noise reduction values

The table above contains information about the noise reduction, when all vehicles in the fleet have to comply with the new limit values. In order to get an assessment of the time needed to reach this condition the Tranecam model was modified in such a way that the phase in timeframe could be determined.

The calculation was based on registration rates for new vehicles and on assumptions about the percentages of new vehicles that have to comply with the new limit values, as follows:

New vehicles registration rates: 7,7% for M1, 7,2% for N1 and rigid trucks and 9,5% for trailer trucks. It was further assumed that in the first year of introduction of new limit values only 50% of the new registered vehicles have to comply with these limit values, in the second year 75% and from the third year on 100%. The date of entry into force of the scenarios was set at 2013 for the first stage.

Figure 7-1 shows the reduction in Lden as functions of the time (year).



Mobilität

0

1

2

3

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Del

ta-L

den

(red

uctio

n) in

dB

(A)

year

scenario 2

scenario 3

scenario 4

scenario 5

Figure 7-1: Reduction in Lden as functions of the time (year) for the different scenarios

7.3 Transformation of noise reduction levels into monetary benefits

In order to assess the cost-effectiveness of noise reduction measures, the costs need to be compared to the benefits, expressed in monetary values. The benefit calculation is based on the well known and established monetary willingness to pay a value of 25 € for 1 dB noise reduction per household per year, which is applicable to households that are affected by Lden above 55 dB(A) (see [5]). For the EU 27 an average number of 2.5 persons per household was assumed, which results in a monetary value of 10.00 € per person per dB per year. The resulting cumulative benefit in € per person per year is shown in Figure 7-2.



Mobilität

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

cum

ulat

ive

bene

fit p

er p

erso

n in

year

scenario 2

scenario 3

scenario 4

scenario 5

Figure 7-2 : Cumulative benefit in € per person per year for EU 27

The results of the noise mapping within the framework of the EU environmental noise directive (END) were used in order to determine the number of people in the EU 27 affected by Lden > 55 dB(A). A good summary of these results is provided on the CIRCA website (EIONET-CIRCLE:ETC Land Use and Spatial Information, END_DF4_results_090531_ETCLUSI.xls). Following the requirements of the END, the number of people affected by more than 55 dB Lden needs to be reported for all urban areas with more than 250,000 inhabitants and for all major roads outside urban areas with more than 6 million vehicles per year (more than 16,438 vehicles per day).

This summary (status 31.05.2009) shows that 41,2 Mio out of 75,1 Mio people (55%) living in urban areas are affected by more than 55 dB Lden. But the current data covers only 62% of all urban areas in the EU 27. So the resulting number for all urban areas would be 66,5 Mio. The number of people living near major roads with more than 6 million vehicles per year totals 41 Mio. But, here also, the statistics are incomplete and the data from France was not considered because the information about the length of the roads was not provided. The remaining data covers only 51% of all major roads in the EU 27. So, the resulting number for all major roads would be 80,5 Mio. These statistics do not consider cities with fewer than 250,000 inhabitants. For Germany, it is known that 21% of the population lives in cities with more than 250,000 inhabitants, 10% in cities with between 100,000 and 250,000 inhabitants and 26% in towns with between 20,000 and 100,000 inhabitants.



Mobilität

Since no corresponding statistics were found for the EU 27, these percentages were applied to the 500 million inhabitants of the EU 27. For cities with between 100,000 and 250,000 inhabitants, it was assumed that the percentage of people affected by more than 55 dB Lden is slightly lower than for urban areas with over 250,000 inhabitants (50% instead of 55%). The resulting number of affected people for all cities with between 100,000 and 250,000 inhabitants would therefore be 25,000,000. For cities with between 20,000 and 100,000 inhabitants, it was assumed that the percentage of people affected by more than 55 dB Lden is significantly lower (25%). This results in a total number of 32 Mio people for this class. Adding up the number of affected people in all classes results in a sum of 204,5 Mio people or 41% of the total population.

With these side conditions, the reduction values shown in Figure 7-1 were transformed into monetary benefits. The results are shown in Figure 7-3. If one had applied the UK method for benefit calculation as described in the Transport Analysis Guidance (see [6]), the benefit would be roughly twice as high as described here, because Lden values below 55 dB (down to 45 dB) would not be disregarded and the willingness to pay values are not constant but increase with increasing Lden.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

cum

ulat

ive

bene

fit (

EU

27)

in B

illio

n

year

scenario 2

scenario 3

scenario 4

scenario 5

Figure 7-3 : Cumulative benefit in billion € for the different scenarios and the EU 27



Mobilität

8. Industry consultation

Industry consultation results presented in this chapter are described in detail in Annex D. The consultation results provide important input for the cost analysis.

8.1 Importance of consultation and stakeholders consulted

In the impact assessment study, consultation with stakeholders is a necessary stage to understand the ins and outs of a future legal request. Individual manufacturers’ concerns were collected by an independent organization, allowing an impartial common point of view of the automotive industry to be reached, linked to EC concerns. Consultation with stakeholders is vital for evaluating the impacts and costs of all today’s known possible technical solutions; taking into account the development phase process and design. Impact evaluation of noise reduction measures must consider environmental, safety and competitiveness concerns. Major representatives’ stakeholders were consulted: automotive manufacturers (passenger car, LDV, HDV and coaches/busses), suppliers (tyre industry, insulation, exhaust, etc.), project managers, R&D consultant, etc.

8.2 Industry concerns

The leading requirement for exterior noise is the regulation. Overall exterior noise specifications distinguish between each noise source (tyre, engine, exhaust, transmission, etc.). For each system, manufacturers or suppliers have to specially balance noise specifications with the others (interior noise, safety, pollution/emissions, thermal, volume, weight, competitiveness, etc.). Nowadays, to improve vehicle noise, manufacturers work on subsystems to find solutions which have very low impact on other services at very low cost. Stringent requirements would modify the impact of exterior noise on vehicle architecture. Acoustics packages and noise reduction requests will mainly depend on noise level, timeframe required and the technical capacity of the noise department to improve noise performance and to influence improvement of systems. Development phase process and design are clearly closely tied in with costs evaluation. The timeframe and reduction required need to take into account development phase process and design. Depending on the noise reduction request, the scenarios chosen on chapter 6 are representative of industry concerns.

8.3 Review of technical solutions

The review of technical solutions is based on current knowledge. Solutions proposed range from a simple modification of components (for vehicles with a light acoustic package) to a major modification of systems (for vehicles with a high acoustic package):



Mobilität

- Engine/transmission: from adding shields or absorbers to a redesign of the power train.

- Exhaust: from a simple increase in volume or geometry modification of the line and mufflers to a redesign of the underbody and the engine mapping.

- Tyre: from environment improvement to tyre structure redesign.

Solutions may be classified into Post-treatment or Source improvement. In all cases, development is needed because technologies are not already available for more than 1 or 2 dB reduction (this includes system redesign, which is difficult today to manage for noise, especially because of conflicts with emissions/pollution, safety or competitiveness).

9. Cost analysis

Cost analysis approaches and results presented in this part are described in detail in Annexes D and E.

9.1 Estimation of noise reduction and costs of technical solutions

Estimation of efficiency is based directly on vehicle noise reduction or indirectly on sources (exhaust, tyre and engine) associated with representative sources noise distribution. Evaluation of costs is based on the life-time of a new vehicle type divided into investment costs (Research and development, men and prototypes, production-tool investment and impact-redesign for adaptation of associated systems) and production costs (part used for noise reduction, time production-additional men-time to install parts, impact -additional associated system).

9.2 Constructions of costs curves

Values of cost versus noise reduction derived from part/production and investments are arranged by cost level. The efficiency and costs of each one enable cost curves to be applied per regression functions. Cumulated curves are plotted for a starting noise level related to current equivalent limit.

Cumulative Cost Curves are 3rd order polynomials functions expressed as: y = a x3 + b x2 + c x

with x the noise reduction in dB(A) from starting noise level and y the costs in €



Mobilität

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

dBA reduction

Co

st (

per

dB

red

uct

ion)

CEL

CEL-1

CEL-2

CEL-3

CEL-4

Figure 9-1: Costs curves for M1, N1, M2-A

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000

3 500

4 000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

dBA reduction

Cos

t (

per

dB

red

uct

ion)

CEL

CEL-1

CEL-2

CEL-3

CEL-4

Figure 9-2: Costs curves for M2-B, M3, N2, N3



Mobilität

9.3 Evolutions of costs curves

Evolution of costs due to increase or decrease of the development period Development cost is estimated using the development timeframe in line with industrial development phases. If limit stages are shorter than these time periods, costs will increase.

Evolution of costs over the years Cost is maintained (but reduced) over the years. When a vehicle type is replaced by a new one, the exterior noise solutions must be adapted to a new design and new constraints:

- investment is always needed to adapt solutions to the new vehicle type, - part / production is always necessary to achieve the noise level required.

In any cases, with or without reduction stage, solutions from a vehicle type have to be improved for its replacement type.

Industry considers that cost of solutions previously design will be reduced by 30% at each complete redesign without new reduction requirement. So evolution of costs over the years will manage to take into account the increase of knowledge, industrial costs reduction and the need to adapt or improve technical solutions from a vehicle type to its replacement type.

9.4 Vehicle fleet to be improved

Fleet concerned and vehicles impacted The fleet concerned is based on the annual registration of PC, LDV, HDV, and percentage of subcategories inside M1, N1, M2, M3, N2, N3. Same distribution was used for benefit and cost calculation (see chapter 7). Within this concerned fleet, only vehicles with Lurban above limit will be impacted by noise reduction. Vehicles impacted have to be improved to reach the limit. Improvement will consist of reducing noise levels of vehicles impacted just to the limit value required. The number of vehicles impacted within each sub-category is estimated using the distribution of Lurban within sub-categories given by the monitoring database.



Mobilität

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage of vehicle impacted 8% 18% 66% 85% 92%

Table 9-1: Proportion of vehicle impacted by limit reduction

9.4.1 Impact of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 M1/N1 is considered to benefit from the lower noise limits of new tyre regulation. However, low noise OEM tyres do already exist and the benefit is estimated to be only 0.5 dB on average, which will occur after 2016. So, for calculation, noise distribution of M1, N1 and M2-A was weighted to take into account the impact of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009. Other categories than M1/N1 do not benefit from the lower noise limits from (EC) No 661/2009.

9.4.2 Evolution of vehicle fleet over the years Noise distribution will be considered to be influenced only by limits stage as defined. No influence of weight/power evolution, introduction stringent emission or safety regulation will be taken into account: Costs is estimated only for exterior noise improvement maintaining other requirements such as emission and safety regulations. It may significantly increase if stringent specifications are required on these regulations. .

It is also assumed that the number of vehicles registered will be considered as constant during the study period (over 30 years).

9.5 Industry and customers costs

The cost for compliance with the new ECE51 regulation will fall on:

- the automotive industry to reduce noise level on additional investments, parts and time-production needed,

- customers on vehicle price’s increase. It is assumed that manufacturer costs will be completely passed on to customers with de-phasing for investment costs. This over-cost is transmitted during the selling period which occurs several years after the beginning of the development period. Industry has to advance money to pay for development of solutions which may represent significant investments.

The increase in vehicle price for customers is equal to the increase in price for manufacturers multiplied by 1.7, with account taken of the purchase channel (transport, sellers, etc.) and the taxes.



Mobilität

9.6 Outputs of costs analysis

Cost analysis approach is looked at from both sides to understand constraints: automotive industry and customers

1) Advance of money (investment cost) as the maximum cumulative cost for industry:

Table 9-2: Investments costs for industry

2) Customer cost as the cumulative cost on the 20th year following application of the new regulation to compare to the benefit monetary evaluation to calculate the cost benefit ratios:

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Year

Cu

mul

ativ

e co

st (

EU

27)

in B

illio

n

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Figure 9-3: Cumulative cost in billion € for the different scenarios and the EU 27



Mobilität

10. Impact assessment - Cost/benefit figures

The results of impact assessments stated in monetary terms are deduced from cost analysis and benefit analysis parts. The aim of cost-benefit analysis is to estimate the benefit for the environment and citizens related to the potential and the sufficient timeframe for the automotive industry to improve vehicle noise. Comparison between the costs of legal vehicle noise limit reduction and the benefits of environmental noise exposure reduction is one of the criteria used for this goal.

10.1 Environmental impact of scenarios

5 scenarios defined in chapter 6 were analyzed and compared to a “do nothing” scenario. Scenario 1 has no significant effect and no benefit for the environment or citizens is measured. For the others the following figures show the effect over the years:

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2011

2012201

320

1420

152016

201720

1820

19202

0202

120

2220

23202

4202

520

2620

27202

8202

920

3020

31203

2203

320

342035

2036203

7

Years

Red

uct

ion

dB(A

)

Delta-Lden

Delta limi t MN1

Delta limi t MN23

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016201

720

18201

92020

2021

20222023

2024

20252026

2027

20282029

2030

20312032

2033

20342035

2036

2037

Years

Re

duct

ion

dB(A

)

Delta-Lden

Delta limit MN1

Delta limit MN23

Figure 10-1: Reduction Lden and limits Scenario 2


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2011201

2201

3201

42015

201620

1720

1820

1920

20202

1202

2202

3202

42025

202620

2720

2820

2920

30203

1203

2203

3203

42035

2036

2037

Years

Red

uctio

n dB

(A)

Delta-Lden

Delta limit MN1

Delta limit MN23

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016201

720

18201

92020

2021

20222023

2024

20252026

2027

20282029

2030

20312032

2033

20342035

2036

2037

Years

Re

duct

ion

dB(A

)

scenario 5

Delta limi t MN1

Delta limi t MN23





Mobilität

The frull effect of limit reduction will felt around 13 years after the last stage required for each scenario:

Reduction limits

Reduction Lden

In dB(A) Scenario 2 2 0,2 Scenario 3 4 1,4 Scenario 4 5 2,1 Scenario 5 6 2,8

Table 10-1: Effect on noise reduction on Lden

10.2 Cost and benefit comparison

The following figures show the evolution of cumulated cost and benefit over the years for each scenario:

Scenario 2

0

25000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Cum

ula

ted

cos

t an

d be

nefi

t (m

illio

ns

)

Cumulated cost (millions )Cumulated benefit (millions )

Scenario 3

0

25000

50000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Cu

mul

ated

cos

t an

d b

ene

fit (

mill

ion

s )


Figure 10-5: Cost benefit figure for scenario 2 Figure 10-6: Cost benefit figure for scenario 3



Mobilität

The following figures show evolution of cost benefit ratio (cost divide by benefit) over the years :

Scenario 4

0

25000

50000

75000

100000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Cu

mul

ated

co

st (

per

per

son

)


Scenario 4

0

25000

50000

75000

100000

125000

150000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Cu

mu

late

d co

st (

per

per

son)

Cumulated cost (millions )Cumulated benefit (mill ions )

Figure 10-7: Cost benefit figure for scenario 4

Figure 10-8: Cost benefit figure for scenario 5

0,1

1

10

2013 2018 2023 2028 2033

cum

ula

ted

ben

efit

/ cu

mu

late

d co

st

scenario 2scenario 3scenario 4scenario 5

Costs > Benefits

Benefits > Costs

Figure 10-9: annual cost benefit ratio



Mobilität

After 20 years of application:

Cost (C) Benefit (B)

Scenario 2 3 445 5 035 0,68Scenario 3 21 536 19 169 1,12Scenario 4 62 595 43 504 1,44Scenario 5 112 178 51 836 2,16

in millions Ratio (C/B*)

* Cost divide by benefit Table 10-1: Cumulated cost and benefit after 20 years of application

Benefit affects, in term of willingness to pay, part of the population exposed to Lden over 55 dB(A) – 204.500 million people. Cost impacts in terms of vehicle price increases, automotive consumers – fewer than 17,600 million private drivers, companies, government departments, etc.

Monetary values for cost and benefit are similar (ratio from 0.7 to 2.2) but effort and profit is not distributed on the same groups or number of people.

0,1

1

10

2013 2018 2023 2028 2033

cum

ula

ted

ben

efit

/ cu

mu

late

d c

ost

scenario 2scenario 3scenario 4scenario 5

Costs > Benefits

Benefits > Costs

Figure 10-10: cumulated cost benefit ratio



Mobilität

11. Conclusions

The work described in this study provides conclusions related to the objectives set in chapter 2 of this report. Several exchanges with stakeholders offer possibilities to clearly understand the ins and outs for industry. A review of the main conclusions, done in this part, illustrates the opportunities, constraints and impacts of lowering vehicle noise limits.

Analysis of the database The monitoring database analysis enables new subcategories to be proposed in line with the new test method and current equivalent limits to overview policy options for noise reduction limits. The main conclusions from this part are:

- Differences between noise level method A and B may vary from -8 dB to +7 dB. The correlation between both methods is too weak (less than 50%) so that the analysis had to be done with method B results only.

- Subcategories and current equivalent limits shown in chapter 5 of this report were built from frequency distribution, maximum, minimum and average noise levels of each category. Criteria used are power-to-mass ratio (M1), vehicle mass N1), engine power, rated engine speed, and number of axles (other than M1 and N1).

- M1, N1 and M2-A are considered to benefit from the lower noise limits of new tyre regulation (around 0.5 dB average) which occurs after 2016. Other categories have no benefit from the lower noise limits from (EC) No 661/2009.

Stakeholder consultation Transcription of the automotive industry’s point of view is necessary to manage a new regulation. Consultations with stakeholders are a useful step towards understanding industry constraints related to each measure, its capacity to achieve the objectives and costs associated. The main conclusions from this part are:

- The cost of changing the limit level will fall on automotive industries (manufacturers, suppliers, etc.). Over-costs correspond to additional development of technical solutions and additional parts/production needed. Additional costs are also necessary to maintain other performances such as emission/pollution, safety, competitiveness, etc.

- The necessary development is not already available for more than 1 or 2 dB reductions and stringent requirements would modify vehicle architecture. The timeframe required needs to take into account development phase process and design: different stages are considered from 2 years to 10 years after application of the regulation with progressive reduction.



Mobilität

- Cost curves were defined from consultation as a third polynomial function of reduction request and starting noise level related to current equivalent limit (see chapter 9).

Cost-effectiveness of legal vehicle noise limit reductions This part considers the overall benefits and associated costs of implementing the proposed noise limit reduction (from 1 to 6 dB(A)). Results are established in monetary terms to be compared. Some other concerns that have been discussed in previous parts must also be taken into account for the action plan. The main conclusions from this part are:

- Number of vehicles impacted by noise limit reduction ranges from 8% for 1 dB to 92% for 6 dB reduction. Even if the final cost will be passed on to customers, it will necessitate investments for at least 6 years following the last limit stage. It represents until 4 % of all investments made by the whole automotive industry.

- The changes that are proposed to the regulation will provide for lower public noise exposure from 0.2 in the lower end to 2.8 dB(A) in the upper end. The benefit will not be felt until 13 years after the last limit stage required.

- The changes that are proposed to the regulation will induce a cost of 3 billion € to 112 billion € and benefit from 5 billion € to 52 billion €. Cost benefit ratios (C/B) range from 0.7 to 2.2.

Some criteria are summarised in the following table:

Scenario* 2 3 4 5

Legal vehicle noise limit reduction 2 dB 4 dB 5 dB 6 dB

Environmental noise exposure reduction 0,2 dB 1,4 dB 2,1 dB 2,8 dB

Proportion of vehicles impacted 18% 66% 85% 92%

Cost over 20 years in billion € 3 22 63 112

Benefit over 20 years in billion € 5 19 44 52

Cost benefit ratio (C/ B) 0,7 1,1 1,4 2,2

*scenario 1 (1dB reduction) gives no significant improvement. It is not retained.

Table 11-1 : Results of CBA analysis



Mobilität

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of ACEA, ETRTO, other stakeholders and consultants who provided data, inputs, knowledge or ideas reflected in this report. Discussions with these experts were open and useful.

References

[1] Addendum 50: Regulation No. 51, Revision 1 - Amendment 3, Supplement 5 to the 02 series of amendments - Date of entry into force: 18 June 2007, Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles having at least four wheels with regard to their noise emissions

[2] Commission directive 2007/34/EC of 14 June 2007 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical progress, Council Directive 70/157/EEC concerning the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles

[3] Regulation (EC) no 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefore

[4] P A Morgan, P M Nelson (TRL Limited) and H Steven (RWTÜV), integrated assessment of noise reduction measures in the road transport sector, etd/fif.20020051, by order of the Enterprise DG, European Commission. The study described in this report was commissioned by the European Working Group 8 (Road Traffic).

[5] Valuation of Noise, position paper of the Working Group on Health and Socio-Economic Aspects, December 2003

[6] Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG), Unit 3.3.2, The Noise Sub-Objective, UK Department for Transport, November 2006

Some others references are detailed in Annexes.



Mobilität

List of Abbreviations

CEL – Current Equivalent Limits values AAA – Association Auxiliaire de l Automobile

AT – automatic transmission A_wot_ref – target full load acceleration for method B (M1 and N1/M2-A)

GVM – gross vehicle mass

Kp– factor for the determination of the final result for method B (M1 and N1/M2-A) m0 – kerb mass of the vehicle

MT – manual transmission Lcrs – constant speed test result for method B (M1 and N1/M2-A)

Lden– L day/evening/night, equivalent noise level indicator combining the equivalent noise levels with different weightingsfor the different time periods

Lurban – final result of method B

Lwot – wide open throttle acceleration test result for method B (M1 and N1/M2-A) Pn– rated (maximum) engine power

pmr – power to mass ratio (rated power in W divided by (m0 + 75) in kg

R.E.3 –Consolidated resolution on the construction of vehicles s – rated engine speed, where the engine delivers its maximum power

UN-ECE – United Nations Economic Commission for Europe PC – Passenger Car

LDV – Light Duty Vehicle

HDV – Heavy Duty Vehicle


Annexes to final report / August 2010 /139

Mobilität

ANNEX A

A. Description of the Tranecam Model

The Tranecam model was originally developed for the German Federal Environment agency and was updated with funding of the EU-commission and the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority. The model calculates the Leq for each hour of the day separately for a workday, a Saturday and a Sunday. Within a road category the traffic situation varies in relation to the actual hourly traffic volume. The traffic volume is separated into different categories and subcategories and within these subcategories into different emission stages (related to different type approval limit values). The contributions of the different emission stages to the Leq are summarised for each hour of the day and afterwards summarised to Lday, Levening, Lnight and Lden. The calculation is carried out separately for propulsion noise, rolling noise and total noise. The user has the possibility to modify the databases and define/modify vehicle layers and modify the weighting factors.

The vehicle categories and subcategories are shown Table A 1, the emission stages are shown in Figure A 1.

Vehicle category Sub-category Vehicle category Sub-category

Passenger car (M1) Petrol, < 1400 cm3 Rigid truck ≤ 7.5 tonnes Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)

Passenger car (M1) Petrol, 1400 – 2000 cm3 Rigid truck 7.5 – 14 tonnes GVWPassenger car (M1) Petrol, > 2000 cm3 Rigid truck 14 – 20 tonnes GVWPassenger car (M1) Diesel ≤ 2000 cm3 Rigid truck 20 – 28 tonnes GVWPassenger car (M1) Diesel, 2000 cm3 Rigid truck < 7.5 tonnes, traction tyres

Passenger car (M1) Petrol, > 2000 cm3, high performance

Rigid truck 7.5 – 14 tonnes, traction tyres

Passenger car (M1) Diesel > 2000 cm3, high performance Rigid truck 14 – 20 tonnes, traction tyres

Light duty vehicle (N1) Petrol Rigid truck 20 – 28 tonnes, traction tyresLight duty vehicle (N1) Diesel Trailer truck ≤ 32 tonnes GVW

Public transport bus ≤ 20 tonnes GVW, standard Trailer truck > 32 tonnes GVWPublic transport bus > 20 tonnes GVW, articulated Trailer truck ≤ 32 tonnes, traction tyres

Trailer truck > 32 tonnes, traction tyresMotorcycle ≤ 150 cm3 Motorcycle ≤ 150 cm3, rep/illegal silencersMotorcycle > 150 cm3 Motorcycle > 150 cm3, rep/illegal silencers

added categories/subcat.

Vehicle category Sub-category Vehicle category Sub-category

Passenger car (M1) Petrol, < 1400 cm3 Rigid truck ≤ 7.5 tonnes Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)

Passenger car (M1) Petrol, 1400 – 2000 cm3 Rigid truck 7.5 – 14 tonnes GVWPassenger car (M1) Petrol, > 2000 cm3 Rigid truck 14 – 20 tonnes GVWPassenger car (M1) Diesel ≤ 2000 cm3 Rigid truck 20 – 28 tonnes GVWPassenger car (M1) Diesel, 2000 cm3 Rigid truck < 7.5 tonnes, traction tyres

Passenger car (M1) Petrol, > 2000 cm3, high performance

Rigid truck 7.5 – 14 tonnes, traction tyres

Passenger car (M1) Diesel > 2000 cm3, high performance Rigid truck 14 – 20 tonnes, traction tyres

Light duty vehicle (N1) Petrol Rigid truck 20 – 28 tonnes, traction tyresLight duty vehicle (N1) Diesel Trailer truck ≤ 32 tonnes GVW

Public transport bus ≤ 20 tonnes GVW, standard Trailer truck > 32 tonnes GVWPublic transport bus > 20 tonnes GVW, articulated Trailer truck ≤ 32 tonnes, traction tyres

Trailer truck > 32 tonnes, traction tyresMotorcycle ≤ 150 cm3 Motorcycle ≤ 150 cm3, rep/illegal silencersMotorcycle > 150 cm3 Motorcycle > 150 cm3, rep/illegal silencers

added categories/subcat.

Table A 1 : The vehicle categories and subcategories of the Tranecam model



Mobilität

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

year

typ

e ap

pro

val

no

ise

limit

sin

dB

(A)

Cars

heavy goods vehicles, Pn < 75 kW

heavy goods vehicles, 75 kW <= Pn < 150 kW

heavy goods vehicles, Pn >= 150 kW

84/372/EEC, changed measuring method



70/157/EEC

77/212/EEC

84/424/EEC

92/97/EEC

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

year

typ

e ap

pro

val

no

ise

limit

sin

dB

(A)

Cars







70/157/EEC

77/212/EEC

84/424/EEC

92/97/EEC

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

year

typ

e ap

pro

val

no

ise

limit

sin

dB

(A)

Cars






81/334/EEC, changed measuring method65

70

75

80

85

90

95

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

year

typ

e ap

pro

val

no

ise

limit

sin

dB

(A)

Cars







70/157/EEC

77/212/EEC

84/424/EEC

92/97/EEC

Figure A 1 : The emission stages of the Tranecam model

The propulsion noise is depending on vehicle category, subcategory, emission stage, engine speed and engine load on a linear base. The tyre/road noise is depending on vehicle cat./subcat. (Tyre types and dimensions) road surface and vehicle speed on a logarithmic base. The weighting factors for vehicle layers are reference year dependent and calculated from the following parameter:

• Percentage of vehicle subcategory on vehicle fleet ,

• Percentage of petrol/Diesel engines in the car and LDV fleet,

• Percentage of rigid trucks/trailer trucks for HDV,

• Percentage of rib/traction tyres for HDV,

• Percentage of motorcycles/scooters with tampered silencers. The model contains noise emission factors for the different vehicle categories, subcategories and emission stages. For each of these combinations specific emission factors for different road categories and traffic situations have been calculated on the basis of representative driving pattern (second by second vehicle speed curves). The road categories and traffic situations per road category are shown in Table A 2 and Table A 3.

Further information can be get from the author ([email protected])



Mobilität

No Road categories1 motorway, without speed limit2 motorway, speed limit 120 km/h3 motorway, speed limit 100 km/h4 motorway, speed limit 80 km/h5 motorway, speed limit 60 km/h6 rural, speed limit 100 km/h7 rural, speed limit 80/90 km/h8 rural, speed limit 70 km/h9 urban, main streets, speed limit 60/70 km/h10 urban, main streets, speed limit 50 km/h, right of way11 urban, main streets, speed limit 50 km/h, traffic lights12 urban, city centre13 residential streets, speed limit 50 km/h14 residential streets, speed limit 30 km/h

Table A 2 : road categories of the Tranecam model

Road cat No traffic situationsfree

densestop & go

freesmall interactions

medium interactionsstrong interactions

stop & go

9 to 14

1 to 8

Table A 3 : Traffic situations per road category



Mobilität

ANNEX B

B. Data Collection and Analysis

7.1 Data Collection and examination

The data collection was performed by using an Excel collection file which was based on the collection file from the Commissions website, but was modified in order to allow a less time consumptive transfer of the data to an Access database. Examples are shown in Table B 1 to Table B 4. The sheet for N3 and m3 vehicles has the same format as shown in Table B 4, but the engine speeds at the end of the test track (n_BB’) are higher than for N2/M2-B vehicles.

Some vehicles were certified in different categories (e.g. M1/N1 or N1/N2 or N2/N3). Whenever the methods between the categories differed, more than one sheet for the method B results were delivered and the vehicles were assigned to the different categories accordingly. The first step after the transfer into the Access database was the check for plausibility and consistency. An unexpected high amount of the data had to be corrected due to obvious mistakes. Table B 5 shows an example for the method B results of a N3 vehicle. The reported final result is 82.2 dB(A), the correct value is 83.5 dB(A).

The further analysis was performed using the corrected data.



Mobilität

Colour codes: Description

Trade mark Vehicle type (commercial name) (1)

Categorie

at rpm Pmax ¾ (rpm)

Pmax ½ (rpm)

at rpm

Axle 1 Tyre mark Tyre type Tyre size


Axle 3 (if applicable) Tyre mark Tyre type Tyre size








Insolation Engine hood Below engine

Pre-Katalyst Main-Katalyst DPF Resonator

Intake silencer Centre silencer Rear silencer

Method A

Comment :

(3) If results differ between method A and B, both values shall be indicated

(1) Please note that “vehicle type” refers to the manufacturer type code and preferably to the commercial name of the vehicle, but not to internal codes.

Engine type

Engine torque max (Nm)

No. of axles

Engine power max (kW)

Noise shields under cab (if applicable)

Noise shields under chassis (if applicable)

Body type

Vehicle

Model year

Identification no.

Input data, text Input data, numbers

Gear ratio

Gearbox type ( MT or AT or CVT)

Monitoring Procedure

according to EC Directive 70/157/EEC and UN/ECE Regulation 51

Formulas

(2) For M1, N1, M2 < 3,5 t

Method B

Stationary Test results

Vehicle mass measurement Method A including driver (kg)

Vehicle mass measurement Method B including driver (kg)

Vehicle length (m)

Noise Reduction System

PMR Method B (kW/t) (2)

Axle ratio

Stationary vehicle noise Lstat (dB(A)) (3)

Test Track

Absorption Factor % Void content %

Exhaust System Drawing No.

Off Road Vehicle ( yes or no)

Engine Capacity (cm³)

Engine position (front or mid or rear)

PMR Method A (kW/t) (2)

Method A

Transfer gearbox gear ratio

No. of driving axles

Noise shields above chassis (if

Noise shields behind cab (if applicable)

Further noise shields (if applicable)

Gear

in case of AT or CVT, are devices or measures to control transmission

operation used? (yes or no)

Drive axle

No. of gears

Transfer gearbox version

Method B, if different from method A

Table B 1 : Data collection file, vehicle description



Mobilität


Lmax left Lmax right

km/h dB(A) dB(A) km/h e.g. 0.75 km/h e.g. 0.88

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

N AA' / S V BB' N BB' / S Intermediate result (Maximum)

Wind direction (°)

-1.0

Measurement

dB(A)/E

Gear selected Run

V AA'

Target

True meter readingV AA'

-1.0

-1.0

Final result (dB(A)/E) : Limit value (dB(A)/E) :

-1.0

-1.0

-1.0

Input data, text Input data, numbers

METHOD A(old measurement method according to Annex 3)

Date (dd.mm.yy)

Formulas Input data, date

Ambient noise (dB(A))

Actual after (dB(A))

Ambient conditions

Wind speed (m/s) Air humidity (%)

Calibration of analyser

Test track temperature (°C)Air Temperature (°C) Air pressure (hPa)

Target (dB(A)) Actual before (dB(A))

Table B 2 : data collection file, results of method A



Mobilität


L max left

L max Right

L max left

L max Right

dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) km/h km/h km/h min-1 m m/s² dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

1

2

3

4

average

1

2

3

4

average

kp test

kp_ref

True meter reading

WOT

n_BB' a wot

True meter reading V BB'

Pos. of pre-acceleration from

AA'

Ambient conditions

Gear selected (i)

Gear selectedL max

left corr

Gear selected (i+1)

Air pressure

Air humidity

Final Result Lurban (dB(A)):

L max right corr

V AA' V PP'

Intermediate Results:

RunL max left

corrL max

right corr

Target acceleration a urban (m/s²)

Reference acceleration a wot ref (m/s²)

Achieved acceleration a wot

k

Target: (dB(A)) Actual before

Date (dd.mm.yy)


Air Temperature (°C)

Wind speed (m/s)

CRS

Measurement

Wind direction (°)

Formulas Input data, dateInput data, text put data, numb

METHOD B, vehicle category M1, M2 <= 3,5 t gross vehicle mass, N1(new measurement method according to Annex 10)

LWOTRep (dB(A))

LCRSRep (dB(A))



Test track temperature (°C)

Table B 3 : data collection file, results of method B, M1 and N1/M2-A vehicles



Mobilität

Colour codesDescription

dB(A) dB(A) km/h km/h

1

2

3

4

average

1

2

3

4

average

WOT

V AA' V BB' N BB' L max

right corrL max

left corrTrue meter reading

min-1

METHOD B, vehicle category M2 > 3,5 t gross vehicle mass, N2(new measurement method according to Annex 10)


L max left L max right

Gear selected Run

dB(A) dB(A)


Tested Vehicle weight (kg)


Ambient conditions

Formulas Input data, dateInput data, text Input data, numbers

Wind speed (m/s) Air humidity (%)

Measurement

Vehicle load (kg)

Wind direction (°)

Final Result L (dB(A)):

Air pressure (hPa)Test track temperature (°C)

Date (dd.mm.yy)

Target: (dB(A)) Actual before (dB(A))

Air Temperature (°C)

Table B 4 : data collection file, results of method B, N2 and M2-B vehicles



Mobilität

L max left

L max Right

V AA' V PP' (1) V BB' N BB'

(2) a wot (1)Pos. of pre-acceleration from AA' (1)

L max left

L max Right

dB(A) dB(A) kph kph kph rpm m/s² m dB(A) dB(A)

1 83.3 83.2 21 34.3 1633

2 83.5 83.5 21.1 35.2 1679

3 83.3 83.4 20.9 34.6 1653

4 83.6 83.8 21.3 35 1666

1

2

3

4

Intermediate Result (1) LWOTRep (dB(A)) LCRSRep (dB(A))

LURBAN (dB(A)) Final Result (2)

WOT

L (dB(A))Final Result (1)

Gear selected Run

CRS (1)

8

82.2

weergfer

Table B 5 : Example of a results sheet for method B for a N3 vehicle



Mobilität

7.2 Analysis of the results and proposal for vehicle classes and equivalent limit values

M1 vehicles

Since it can be expected that the noise emission “behaviour” of the vehicles tested within the monitoring procedure are adjusted to the current method A, the total M1 on road vehicle sample (535 vehicles) was separated into the following subgroups:

• Manual transmission, 2nd and 3rd gear tests for method A (288 vehicles),

• Manual transmission, 3rd gear tests only for method A (54 vehicles),

• Automatic transmission, power to mass ratio <= 100 kW/t (140 vehicles),

• Automatic transmission, power to mass ratio > 100 kW/t (53 vehicles) The split of the subcategory with automatic transmissions reflects approximately the power to mass ratio borderline for the two manual transmission subclasses. Another criterion for vehicles with automatic transmissions was, whether control devices to lock gear ratios have been used or not.

The gear use for method B is determined by the reference acceleration a_wot_ref, which is a function of the power to mass ratio of the vehicle:

a_wot_ref = 1.59*log(pmr) – 1.41 in m/s² equation B 1

If a_wot_ref is reached in a specific gear i within a tolerance of +/- 5%, the noise tests are performed in this gear. If not, two gears are chosen for the tests (i and i+1), one (gear i) with an acceleration above a_wot_ref and one (gear i+1) with an acceleration below. The final result is then calculated as weighted average from these two gears with the achieved acceleration values as weighting factors. But the acceleration in gear ishould not exceed 2 m/s². If this is the case the measurements are only performed in gear i+1 with an acceleration below a_wot_ref. For vehicles with automatic transmissions the manufacturers are allowed to choose gear ratios with accelerations higher than 2 m/s² in order to avoid the use of control devices to lock gear ratios. For M1 and N1 vehicles wide open throttle acceleration and constant speed tests are performed in gears that are determined as described before. The final result Lurban is calculated from the constant speed test result Lcrs and the wide open throttle (wot) test result Lwot as described in the following equation:

Lurban = (1 – kp)*Lwot + kp*Lcrs equation B 2

with kp = (1 – a_urban/a_wot) equation B 3

a_urban = 0.63*log(pmr) – 0.09 in m/s² equation B 4

The rationale behind these equations is the approximation of a partial load acceleration which is representative for urban driving. The fact that the partial load for accelerations inurban



Mobilität

streets is lower for high powered vehicles is considered by the power to mass ratio dependency.

42% (223 vehicles) of the M1 on road sample performed a 2 gears test for method B. For these vehicles the acceleration in gear i was above the reference acceleration a_wot_ref and the acceleration in gear i+1 was below.

58% of the sample (303 vehicles) performed a 1 gear test. 96 of these vehicles (18% of the total sample) achieved acceleration values a_wotwithin the tolerance. 61 vehicles (12% of the total sample) achieved a_wotvaluesabove 1.05*a_wot_ref and 146 vehicles (28% of the total sample) achieved a_wotvaluesbelow 0.95*a_wot_ref. The results are shown inFigure B 1. The vast majority of vehicles with a_wot above the tolerance was equipped with automatic transmissions without a control device to lock gear ratios. On the other hand, it should be of concern that high powered vehicles quite often have a_wot values close to a_urban, which would mean that kp is close to 0 and wide open throttle acceleration would be representative for urban driving. That is certainly not the case and not in line with the original intention of the developers of this method.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

power to mass ratio in kW/t

acce

lera

tion

in m

/s²

a_urbana_wot_refAT without control deviceAT with control deviceMT

Figure B 1 : reference and achieved accelerations versus power to mass ratio for M1 vehicles

tested in 1 gear only for method B (AT – automatic, MT - manual transmission)

Figure B 2 shows the gear use for method B for the two method A subgroups with manual transmission. Vehicles tested in 2nd and 3rd gear in method A are most frequently tested in 3rd and 4th gear, vehicles tested in 3rd gear only in method A are most frequently tested in 4th gear,



Mobilität

but 6 out of these 48 vehicles were tested in 5th gear and 3 even in 6th gear, which was the highest gear.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2nd gear 2nd and 3rdgear

3rd gear 3rd and 4thgear

4th gear 4th and 5thgear

5th gear 6th gear

gear use for method B

method A: 2nd and 3rd gearmethod A: 3rd gear only

Figure B 2 : Gear use for method B for the two method A subgroups with manual transmission

With this background the following subgroups were analysed for method B:

• Manual transmission, 2 gears tests (means a_wot = a_wot_ref),

• Manual transmission, 1 gear tests with o a_wot within the tolerance (0.95*a_wot_ref to 1.05*a_wot_ref),

o a_wot below 0.95*a_wot_ref, o a_wot above 1.05*a_wot_ref

• Automatic transmission with control devices to lock gear ratios with o power to mass ratio <= 100 kW/t and

� a_wot within the tolerance (0.95*a_wot_ref to 1.05*a_wot_ref), � a_wot below 0.95*a_wot_ref,

� a_wot above 1.05*a_wot_ref

o power to mass ratio > 100 kW/t and � a_wot within the tolerance (0.95*a_wot_ref to 1.05*a_wot_ref),

� a_wot below 0.95*a_wot_ref,



Mobilität

� a_wot above 1.05*a_wot_ref

• Automatic transmission without control devices to lock gear ratios and

o , power to mass ratio <= 100 kW/t with � a_wot within the tolerance (0.95*a_wot_ref to 1.05*a_wot_ref),

� a_wot below 0.95*a_wot_ref,

� a_wot above 1.05*a_wot_ref o power to mass ratio > 100 kW/t and

� a_wot within the tolerance (0.95*a_wot_ref to 1.05*a_wot_ref), � a_wot below 0.95*a_wot_ref,

� a_wot above 1.05*a_wot_ref The number of vehicles and average results for methods A and B are summarised in Table B 6. 143 vehicles (28% of the whole sample) have a_wot values below 0.95*a_wot_ref. Within the groups manual, 3rd gear for method A and automatic, power to mass ratio (pmr) > 100 kW/t the subgroup with a_wot below the tolerance has the highest sample share. The main reason is the acceleration limitation to 2 m/s² and these test conditions are in line with the regulation. But there are a lot of cases with vehicles with manual transmissions and pmr below 70 kW/t, tested in 4th gear for method B, with a_wot values far below the lower tolerance. For these vehicles it can be doubted that the regulation has been applied correctly. The same situation is given for some vehicles with automatic transmissions. On the other hand, the results in Table B 6 show, that these groups do not necessarily benefit from the low acceleration values with respect to the method B results, because the kp factor compensates the advantage of a high gear ratio to a certain extend.

Another important result in Table B 6 is the difference between the two subgroups for manual transmission vehicles. The average difference in the results for vehicles tested in 2nd and 3rd gear in method A and vehicles tested in 3rd gear only is roughly 2 dB(A) for both methods. In order to get a clearer picture the individual results are plotted against each other for the subgroups in Figure B 3 to Figure B 6.

Figure B 3 shows the results for vehicles with manual transmissions, tested in 2nd and 3rd gear for method A, separated for different acceleration classes of method B. There is a correlation between methods A and B, but more than 50% of the variations of the results for method B is not related to method A. In addition to that a slight advantage of 0.5 dB can be found for the regression line of vehicles with a_wot below the tolerance compared to the regression line of vehicles with a_wot within the tolerance. Figure B 4 shows the results for vehicles with manual transmissions, tested in 3rd gear only for method A. The subgroup with a_wot within the tolerance has nearly the same regression line as the same subgroup for vehicles tested in 2nd and 3rd gear for method A, while the subgroup with a_wot below the tolerance shows a much more incoherent picture and a much higher variation range of the method B results.



Mobilität

Trans-mission

method Apower to

mass ratiomethod B

number of

vehicles

L_ave_A in dB(A)

L_ave_B in dB(A)

Difference B - A in dB(A)

2 gears 185 73.1 69.6 -3.51 gear, a_wot within tolerance 49 72.7 69.2 -3.51 gear, a_wot below tolerance 47 73.2 69.2 -4.01 gear, a_wot above tolerance 8 71.4 67.4 -4.0

all 289 73.0 69.4 -3.62 gears 4 73.3 70.4 -2.9

1 gear, a_wot within tolerance 8 74.1 70.2 -3.91 gear, a_wot below tolerance 33 75.3 72.0 -3.31 gear, a_wot above tolerance 2 75.1 72.1 -3

all 47 74.9 71.6 -3.4a_wot within tolerance 26 71.9 69.4 -2.5a_wot below tolerance 28 71.0 69.4 -1.6a_wot above tolerance 4 72.4 68.2 -4.2




all 22 73.5 72.2 -1.2

manual

2nd and 3rd gear

3rd gear

with control devices

without control devices

automatic

<= 100 kW/t

> 100 kW/t

<= 100 kW/t

> 100 kW/t

Table B 6 : Comparison of average results for methods A and B for different subgroups of M1

on road vehicles (no subtraction and rounding applied for method A)

Figure B 5 shows the results for vehicles with automatic transmissions and pmr <= 100 kW/t. First of all, vehicles with automatic transmissions without control devices to lock gear ratios have higher method B results than those with control devices. Secondly, for both cases a significant number of vehicles can be seen, for which the method B results are higher than the method A results. This is almost not the case for manual transmissions and indicates that these vehicles are not properly adjusted to method B. These vehicles should be disregarded for the limit value analysis.

Figure B 6 shows the results for vehicles with automatic transmissions and pmr > 100 kW/t. The adjustment to method B is better than for vehicles with pmr <= 100 kW/t. The method B results for vehicles with a control device to lock gears fit better to the manual gearbox sample shown for comparison. The results for vehicles without such control device have a regression line roughly 1 dB below the 1 by 1 line (same result in both methods) with a pretty high correlation coefficient. One may conclude that the method B results of this group at the high end of the variation range can be lowered to the range for vehicles with control devices just by applying such a device.



Mobilität

y = 0.7236x + 16.669

R2 = 0.4794

y = 0.7366x + 15.275

R2 = 0.3721

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

68 70 72 74 76 78

measurement result method A in dB(A)

Lurb

an (

resu

lt m

etho

d B

) in

dB(A

)

M1, MT, method A: 2nd and 3rd gear,method B: 2 gears test or 1 gear buta_wot within tolerance

M1, MT, method A: 2nd and 3rd gear,method B: 1 gear test, a_wot belowtolerance

M1, MT, method A: 2nd and 3rd gear,method B: 1 gear test, a_wot abovetolerance

Linear (M1, MT, method A: 2nd and 3rdgear, method B: 2 gears test or 1 gearbut a_wot within tolerance)

Linear (M1, MT, method A: 2nd and 3rdgear, method B: 1 gear test, a_wotbelow tolerance)

Figure B 3 : Measurement results for methods A (without subtraction of 1 dB and rounding) and

B for on road M1 vehicles with manual transmissions, tested in 2nd and 3rd gear for method A

y = 0.7236x + 16.669R2 = 0.4794

y = 0.6284x + 23.914R2 = 0.777

y = 1.4844x - 39.824R2 = 0.3913

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

68 70 72 74 76 78


Lurb

an (

resu

lt m

etho

d B

) in

dB(A

)

M1, MT, method A: 2nd and 3rdgear, method B: 2 gears test or 1gear but a_wot within tolerance

M1, MT, method A: 3rd gear,method B: 2 gears test or 1 geartest and a_wot within toleranceor above

M1, MT, method A: 3rd gear,method B: 1 gear test and a_wotbelow tolerance

Linear (M1, MT, method A: 2ndand 3rd gear, method B: 2 gearstest or 1 gear but a_wot withintolerance)

Linear (M1, MT, method A: 3rdgear, method B: 2 gears test or 1gear test and a_wot withintolerance or above)

Linear (M1, MT, method A: 3rdgear, method B: 1 gear test anda_wot below tolerance)


B for on road M1 vehicles with manual transmissions, tested in 3rd gear only for method A



Mobilität

y = 0.7236x + 16.669R2 = 0.4794

y = 0.2684x + 50.124R2 = 0.1415

y = 0.5587x + 30.127R2 = 0.332860

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

66 68 70 72 74 76 78


Lurb

an (r

esul

t met

hod

B) i

n dB

(A)


M1, AT with control devices, pmr<= 100 kW/t

M1, AT without control device,pmr <= 100 kW/t


Linear (M1, AT with controldevices, pmr <= 100 kW/t)

Linear (M1, AT without controldevice, pmr <= 100 kW/t)


B for on road M1 vehicles with automatic transmissions and pmr <= 100 kW/t

y = 0.7236x + 16.669R2 = 0.4794

y = 1.0565x - 5.3608

R2 = 0.75y = 0.4013x + 40.729

R2 = 0.2

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

68 70 72 74 76 78


Lurb

an (

resu

lt m

etho

d B

) in

dB(A

)


M1, AT with control device, pmr >100 kW/t

M1, AT without control device, pmr> 100 kW/t


Linear (M1, AT without controldevice, pmr > 100 kW/t)

Linear (M1, AT with control device,pmr > 100 kW/t)


B for on road M1 vehicles with automatic transmissions and pmr > 100 kW/t



Mobilität

A corresponding analysis was performed for the 53 M1 off road vehicles, but this analysis suffers from the much lower sample size. The results are shown in Table B 7 and Figure B 7. Again, there are some vehicles whose method B results exceed the method A results. The method B results of the off road subclasses are between 1 and 2 dB higher than those of the corresponding on road subclasses.

Trans-mission

method Apower to

mass ratiomethod B

number of

vehicles

L_ave_A in dB(A)

L_ave_B in dB(A)

Difference B - A in dB(A)

2 gears 11 74.4 70.8 -3.61 gear, a_wot within tolerance 2 74.5 69.6 -4.91 gear, a_wot below tolerance 3 75.3 68.9 -6.41 gear, a_wot above tolerance 1 73.5 69.1 -4.4

all 17 74.5 70.2 -4.32 gears 0

1 gear, a_wot within tolerance 01 gear, a_wot below tolerance 1 74.0 74.9 0.91 gear, a_wot above tolerance 0

all 1 0.0 0.0 0.0a_wot within tolerance 8 73.2 70.7 -2.5a_wot below tolerance 4 73.8 71.0 -2.8a_wot above tolerance 0 0

all 12 73.4 70.8 -2.6a_wot within tolerance 1 73.2 73.7 0.5a_wot below tolerance 5 74.3 72.2 -2.1a_wot above tolerance 0 0


all 16 73.5 71.7 -1.9a_wot within tolerance 0 0a_wot below tolerance 1 75.4 75.0 -0.4a_wot above tolerance 0 0

all 1 75.4 75.0 -0.4

automatic

with control devices

<= 100 kW/t

> 100 kW/t

without control devices

<= 100 kW/t

> 100 kW/t

manual

2nd and 3rd gear

3rd gear

Table B 7 : Comparison of average results for methods A and B for different subgroups of M1

off road vehicles (no subtraction and rounding applied for method A)



Mobilität

y = 0.7236x + 16.669

R2 = 0.4794

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

68 70 72 74 76 78


Lurb

an (

resu

lt m

etho

d B

) in

dB(A

)

M1, MT, method A: 2nd and 3rd gear,method B: 2 gears test or 1 gear buta_wot within toleranceM1or, MT, method A: 2nd and 3rd gear,method B: 2 gears or a_wot within orabove toleranceM1or, MT, method A: 2nd and 3rd gear,method B: 1 gear, a_wot belowtoleranceM1or, MT, method A: 3rd gear, methodB: 1 gear, a_wot below tolerance

M1or, AT with control device, pmr <=100 kW/t, a_wot within tolerance

M1or, AT with control device, pmr <=100 kW/t, a_wot below tolerance

M1or, AT with control device, pmr > 100kW/t, a_wot within tolerance

M1or, AT with control device, pmr > 100kW/t, a_wot below tolerance

M1or, AT without control device, pmr <=100 kW/t, a_wot within or abovetoleranceM1or, AT without control device, pmr <=100 kW/t, a_wot below tolerance

M1or, AT without control device, pmr >100 kW/t, a_wot below tolerance

Linear (M1, MT, method A: 2nd and 3rdgear, method B: 2 gears test or 1 gear


B for off road M1 vehicles

During the development phase of method B is was already agreed that the existing vehicle subclasses with different noise limits and further allowances for off road vehicles and direct injection Diesel engines should be reviewed and amended.

With respect to the extra 1 dB for vehicles with direct injection Diesel engines: Neither the method B nor the method A results show a significant difference between Petrol and Diesel engines in the subgroup tested in 2nd and 3rd gear for method A. That means this extra 1 dB should be skipped.

With respect to the two manual transmission subgroups tested in 2nd and 3rd gear and in 3rd gear only: The difference in gear use and 1 extra dB for the limit value is based on the concept that high powered cars with a low market share could get more allowance than normal cars, because they do not contribute to the overall noise exposure. But since the rated power values of the vehicles increased significantly during the last decades, a low market share is no longer ensured for vehicles having rated power values above 140 kW and rated power to maximum mass ratios of more than 75 kW/t. Since method B requires already the rated power to kerb mass + 75 kg power to mass ratio(pmr) for the determination of the measurement conditions and the calculation of the final result,this parameter should be used for amendments. Looking at the sales statistics from 2007 (see Figure B 8) a pmr of 125 kW/t would be appropriate as borderline, because then less than 1% of the vehicles would be considered as high powered vehicles and subject to extra tolerances.



Mobilität

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 50 100 150 200 250


cum

freq

uenc

y

M1 production volume, 2007

Figure B 8 : power to mass ratio distribution of the M1 production volume in 2007 (from AAA

database)

In Figure B 9 the Lurban values of M1 on road vehicles are plotted versus the power to mass ratio values. Three areas can be differentiated: The area below 120/125 kW/t shows the highest Lurban variation range with about 10 dB from 64 to 74 dB(A) but with averages below 70 dB(A). The area above 150 kW/t has a much lower variation range from 70 to 76 dB(A) with averages above 72 dB(A). The area in between 125 to 150 kW/t is a transition area with a variation range from 68 to 75 dB(A) and average above 70 dB(A).

The rated power is less suitable for this differentiation.

This result leads to the following proposal for M1 vehicle classes:

• M1-A, on road, pmr <= 125 kW/t,

• M1-B, on road, 125 kW/t < pmr <= 150 kW/t,

• M1-C, on and off road, pmr > 150 kW/t,

• M1-D, off road vehicles, pmr <= 150 kW/t. In order to avoid that sport utility vehicles and so called “crossover” vehicles can be classified as off road vehicles, the following requirements shall be applied for M1-D vehicles:

• off road as defined in the UN-ECE consolidated resolution R.E.3 and in addition

• a wading depth exceeding 500 mm,

• a hill climbing ability exceeding 35°



Mobilität

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350


Lurb

an in

dB

(A)

M1, MT, method A, 2nd and 3rd gear

M1, MT, method A, 3rd gear

M1, AT with control device

M1, AT without control device

Lurban_ave

Figure B 9 : Lurban versus power to mass ratio for M1 on road vehicles

Figure B 10 shows the cumulative frequency distributions and average values of Lurban for these classes. If one takes the 90% to 95% values of the distributions as basis for method B limit values equivalent to the current method, this results in the following limit value proposal:

• M1-A: 72 dB(A),

• M1-B: 73 dB(A),

• M1-C: 75 dB(A),

• M1-D: 74 dB(A) The differences in these limits for M1-A to M1-C are fully in line with the differences in the average Lurban values. 49 of the 51 off road M1 vehicles have pmr values up to 125 kW/t, 2 vehicles have pmr values slightly above 125 kW/t. Based on the frequency distributions the equivalent limit value would be 74 dB(A), the average Lurban value of M1-D is 1.5 dB(A) higher than for M1-A. No extra tolerance should be given for off road vehicles with pmr> 150 kW/t.



Mobilität

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78

Lurban in dB(A)

cum

fre

qu

ency

M1-AM1-BM1-CM1-DM1-A averageM1-B averageM1-C averageM1-D average

Figure B 10 : Cumulative frequency distributions and average Lurban values for the three

proposed on road M1 vehicle classes

N1 and M2-A vehicles

N1 vehicles are used for the carriage of goods, M2-A vehicles are used for the carriage of passengers having more than 9 seats, both with GVM up to 3500 kg. The current method differentiates two subclasses, one with GVM up to 2000 kg and one with GVM above 2000 kg. The limit values are 76 and 77 dB(A) respectively with an additional 1 dB(A) for direct injection Diesel engines.

The database contains 103 vehicles with valid results, 22 vehicles with Petrol engines and 81 vehicles with Diesel engines. Unfortunately the GVM values were not reported within the monitoring phase. The test mass for method B was required instead, because the measurement method is the same as for M1 vehicles.

The vehicle sample could be separated into M1 derivates (N1/M2-A coming from M1 or M1 vehicles certified as N1/M2-A) and N1/M2-A not coming from M1 vehicles. Figure B 11 shows the comparison of the results for methods A and B differentiated for these subgroups, Diesel and Petrol engines and different transmission types. 2 N1 vehicles not coming from M1 vehicles with automatic transmissions without control devices have significantly higher Lurban values than method A results. These were excluded from the further analysis.



Mobilität

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

68 70 72 74 76 78 80


test

re

sult

met

hod

B (

Lurb

an)

in d

B(A

)

N1 not coming from M1, Diesel, AT without control

N1 not coming from M1, Diesel, AT with control

N1 not coming from M1, Diesel, MT

N1, not coming from M1, Petrol, AT with control

N1, not coming from M1, Petrol, MT

N1 coming from M1, Diesel, AT with control

N1 coming from M1, Diesel, MT

N1 coming from M1, Petrol, AT with control

N1 coming from M1, Petrol, MT

Figure B 11 : Test results according to methods A and B for N1 and M2-A vehicles (no

subtraction of 1 dB and rounding applied for method A)

As one would expect, the variation range for Lurban of the N1 vehicles coming from M1 vehicles is in good agreement with the M1 variation range. The variation range for N1 not coming from M1 is shifted to higher values by roughly 3 dB. Only 3 of the 22 vehicles with Petrol engines belong to the subgroup not coming from M1. Their Lurban values fits quite well with the values for N1 coming from M1. For this subgroup on average no significant difference between vehicles with Petrol and Diesel engines could be found. Figure B 12 shows the Lurban values for both subgroups versus test mass. The test mass is a good discriminator between them with 1800 kg as borderline. The vehicle manufacturers prefer the existing separation parameter GVM but with a borderline of 2500 kg instead of 2000 kg for the existing method, in order to take into account the trends in technical design within the last two decades. At the first glance a GVM borderline of 2500 kg seems to be in good accordance with the test mass borderline of 1800 kg, but this needs to be further verified, because GVM was not delivered in the data collection sheets.

The frequency distribution curves and the average Lurban values for the two subgroups are shown in Figure B 13. These results lead to the following proposal for equivalent limit values:

• N1/M2-A1, GVM <= 2500 kg: 72 dB(A), same as M1-A vehicles,

• N1/M2-A2, GVM > 2500 kg: 74 dB(A)

The vehicle sample contains also 14 N1 off road vehicles with test mass above 1800 kg. The frequency distribution and average Lurban value is also shown in Figure B 13. The difference to the on road vehicles is obvious and justifies an extra allowance of 1 dB. . For consistency



Mobilität

reasons the limit for N1/M2-A1 off road vehicles should be in line with the M1 category, which means an extra allowance of 2 dB(A).

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

test mass in kg

Lurb

an in

dB

(A)

N1 not coming from M1N1 coming from M1

Figure B 12 : Method B results (Lurban) for N1/M2-A vehicles versus test mass



Mobilität

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78

Lurban in dB(A)

cum

freq

uenc

y

M1-A

N1 not coming from M1

N1 coming from M1

N1 off road, not coming from M1

average, N1 coming from M1

average, N1 not coming from M1

average, N1 off road, not coming fromM1

Figure B 13 : Cumulative frequency distributions and average Lurban values for the two

proposed on road N1/M2-A vehicle classes

N2 and M2-B vehicles

N2 vehicles are used for the carriage of goods with 3500 kg< GVW <= 12000 kg. M2-B vehicles are used for the carriage of passengers having more than 9 seats with 3500 kg< GVW <= 5000 kg. The current method pools these vehicles with N3 and M3 vehicles and applies different limit values based on rated power (less than 75 kW, 75 kW up to less than 150 kW and 150 kW or higher). This system needs to be amended anyway because N2 and N3 vehicles have different test conditions in method B. In addition, the rated power borderlines are also no longer state of the art due to the trend to higher rated power values. In the monitoring database are only 2 N2/M2-B vehicles with rated power below 75 kW, both coming from N1.

In method A the tests are designed in that way that rated speed s is reached within the test track for vehicles with manual transmissions.Method B requires full load acceleration tests with the following side conditions: When the reference point passes line BB’ (the end of the test track), the engine speed n_BB’ shall be between 70 % and 74 % of speed s, at which the engine develops its rated maximum power, and the vehicle speed shall be 35 km/h ± 5 km/h.

Some vehicles in the database have engine speeds n_BB’ outside the above mentioned tolerance band. Most of them exceed the upper limit. In 4 extreme cases rated speed was exceeded. In order to avoid that these vehicles determine the limit proposal, all vehicles outside the engine speed tolerance band were excluded from the further analysis.



Mobilität

The database contains 62 N2/M2-B vehicles with valid results. Vehicles All 11 M2-B vehicles are modified versions of N1 or M2-A vehicles. This is obvious because the GVM limitation of 5000 kg is close to the M2-A limitation of 3500 kg. Another 19 N2 vehicles are also N1 derivates. The remaining 32 N2 vehicles could be considered as N3 derivates. The assessment criterion is the engine. The N1 derivates have passenger car based engines with rated speed values above 3000 min-1. The N3 derivates have truck engines with rated speed values below 3000 min-1.

Consequently the analysis was performed for these two subgroups separately.Figure B 14 shows the comparison of the results of methods A and B for the two subgroups and different transmission types. The major part of the results has lower values for method B than for method A. This can be expected for vehicles with manual transmissions because of the differences in engine speed for both methods. The difference can be up to 8 dB.Three of the vehicles with automatic transmissions have higher values for method B than for method A.

One extreme example is the only vehicle with an automatic transmission with control device, which is marked in Figure B 14 as yellow square. (Automatic transmission with control device means that certain gear ratios can be fixed for the tests.)This vehicle is also certified as N3 vehicle and test results for method A were delivered with manual and automatic transmission. The test results for methods A and B in all modifications are shown in Figure B 15 as function of engine speed. The differences in engine speed between N2 and N3 for method B are 330 min-1 resulting in a 1 dB higher Lurban for N3 compared to N2. But much more impressive is the difference between automatic and manual transmission for method A (1140 min-1 and 5 dB).

Therefore there is no reason to exclude these vehicles from the further analysis.

Figure B 16 shows the Lurban values versus rated engine speed. For N2 coming from N3 a trend to increasing Lurban values with decreasing rated speed values can be seen. But the determining factor could also be the engine capacity which is correlated with rated speed (see Figure B 17.



Mobilität

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82


resu

lt m

etho

d B

(Lur

ban)

in d

B(A

)

N2 coming from N1, AT withoutcontrol device

N2 coming from N1, MT

N2 coming from N3, AT withoutcontrol device

N2 coming from N3, AT with controldevice

N2 coming from N3, MT

Figure B 14 : Test results according to methods A and B for N2 and M2-B vehicles (no

subtraction of 1 dB and rounding applied for method A)

y = 7.3262Ln(x) + 23.487R2 = 0.8642

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

engine speed in min-1

L in

dB

(A)

method A, manual transmission

method A, automatic transmission

N2, method B, automatic transmission

rated power 249 kW,rated speed 2300 min-1

N3, method B, automatic transmission

Figure B 15 : Test results of methods A and B for different vehicle configurations versus engine

speed



Mobilität

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

rated speed in min-1

Lurb

an in

dB

(A)

N2/M2-B coming from N1N2 coming from N3

Figure B 16 : Lurban versus rated speed for N2/M2-B vehicles

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

engine capacity in cm³

rate

d sp

eed

in m

in-1

N2/M2-B coming from N1

N2 coming from N3

Figure B 17 : rated speed versus engine capacity for N2/M2-B vehicles



Mobilität

The frequency distributions and average Lurban values of the two subgroups are shown in Figure B 18. The corresponding results for N1 not coming from M1 are shown for comparison. The results lead to the following proposal for subclasses and equivalent limit values:

• N2/M2-B1, rated speed > 3000 min-1: 76 dB(A),

• N2/M2-B2, rated speed <= 3000 min-1: 78 dB(A) It must be pointed out that the difference in the proposed limit values between N2/M2-B1 and N1/M2-A2 is 2 dB, but the difference of the averages is only 1.1 dB(A). It is the other way round for the comparison between N2/M2-B2 and N2/M2-B1 (2 dB difference in proposed limits but 3.5 dB between the averages). This means that the limit value for N2/M2-B1 could be brought closer to the N1/M2-A2 limit fora long term perspective.

The database contains 4 N2/M2-B1 and 8 N2/M2-B2 off road vehicles. Foe N2/M2-B1 vehicles the average Lurban of the off road vehicles is 0.6 dB higher than for on road vehicles. For N2/M2-B2 the difference is even insignificant (0.1 dB). Nevertheless, with respect to future limit value reductions and for consistency reasons a 1 dB extra allowance for off road vehicles is proposed.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80

Lurban in dB(A)

cum

freq

uenc

y

N1 not coming from M1average, N1 not coming from M1N2/M2-B coming from N1

N2 coming from N3average, N2/M2-B coming from N1average, N2 coming from N3

Figure B 18 : Cumulative frequency distributions and average Lurban values for the two

proposed on road N2/M2-B vehicle classes



Mobilität

N3 vehicles

N3 vehicles are used for the carriage of goods having a GVM >12000 kg. The current method differentiates 3 limit value classes based on rated power (less than 75 kW, 75 kW up to less than 150 kW and 150 kW or higher). The method requires full load acceleration measurements in consecutive gears until the engine speed at BB’ (end of the test track) does not reach rated speed any more. The starting gear and the engine speed at AA’ (beginning of the test track) are different for vehicles with rated power up to 225 kW (starting gear = x/2, n_AA’ = 0.75*s) and above 225 kW (starting gear = x/3, n_AA’ = 0.5*s, x is the total number of forward gears including auxiliary transmissions or multi gear axles).

Method B requires full load acceleration tests with the following side conditions: When the reference point passes line BB’ (the end of the test track), the engine speed n_BB’ shall be between 85 % and 89 % of speed s, at which the engine develops its rated maximum power, and the vehicle speed shall be 35 km/h ± 5 km/h. Some vehicles in the database have engine speeds n_BB’ outside the above mentioned tolerance band. Most of them below the lower limit. Only in one cases rated speed was exceeded. These vehicles were excluded from the further analysis.

The monitoring database contains 152 N3 vehicles with valid results and rated power values between 132 kW and 537 kW. Only 4 vehicles have rated power values below 150 kW, 36 vehicles have rated power values between 150 and 225 kW. This means that 73% of the sample have rated power values above 225 kW. Figure B 19 shows the comparison between the results for methods A and B, differentiated for transmission and drive axle tyre types. Automatic transmission with control device means that certain gear ratios can be fixed for the tests. Two points need to be highlighted: The differences between the transmission types are higher than the differences between the drive axle tyre types. The subgroups with manual transmission are more homogeneous than the subgroups with automatic transmission. A significant part of method B results is higher than the corresponding method A results. The only exception is the subgroup with manual transmission and rib tyres. For this subgroup the regression line is almost 1 dB below the one by one line.

For manual transmission vehicles the method B result can be up to 2 dB(A) higher than the method A result, for automatic transmission vehicles the difference can be up to 7dB.

The method B results are plotted versus engine capacity in Figure B 20 versus rated power in Figure B 21. For vehicles with manual transmissions 3 rated power ranges can be differentiated with respect to Lurban. In order to give a better demonstration of these ranges the Lurban values for manual transmission vehicles are shown again versus rated power in Figure B 22.

Figure B 23 shows the same picture for vehicles with automatic transmission.For these vehicles an influence of the number of axles can be seen, which is not the case for vehicles with manual transmission.

The differences between traction tyres and rib tyres are 1 dB on average. The extreme high Lurban values for vehicles with automatic transmission and 3 axles need further



Mobilität

investigations, they cannot be explained by acceleration effects (see Figure B 24 and Figure B 25).

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

74 76 78 80 82 84 86


resu

lt m

etho

d B

(Lur

ban)

in d

B(A

)

N3, AT without controldevice, traction tyres

N3, AT without controldevice, rib tyres

N3, AT with control device,traction tyres

N3, MT, traction tyres

N3, MT, rib tyres

Figure B 19 : Test results according to methods A and B for N3 vehicles (no subtraction of 1 dB

and rounding applied for method A)



Mobilität

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000


resu

lt m

etho

d B

(Lur

ban)

in d

B(A

)

N3, AT without control device, traction tyres

N3, AT without control device, rib tyres

N3, AT with control device, traction tyres


N3, MT, rib tyres

Figure B 20 : results of method B (Lurban) versus engine capacity for N3 vehicles

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

resu

lt m

etho

d B

(Lu

rban

) in

dB(A

)

rated power in kW

N3, AT without control device, traction tyres

N3, AT without control device, rib tyres

N3, AT with control device, traction tyres


N3, MT, rib tyres

Figure B 21 : results of method B (Lurban) versus rated power for N3 vehicles



Mobilität

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

rated power in kW

Lurb

an in

dB

(A)

N3, MT, 2 axles, traction tyres

N3, MT, 2 axles, rib tyres

N3, MT, more than 2 axles, traction tyres

N3, MT, more than 2 axles, rib tyres

Figure B 22 : results of method B (Lurban) versus rated power for N3 vehicles with manual

transmissions

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

rated power in kW

Lurb

an in

dB

(A)

N3, AT, 2 axles, traction tyres

N3, AT, 2 axles, rib tyres

N3, AT, more than 2 axles, traction tyres

N3, AT, more than 2 axles, rib tyres

Figure B 23 : results of method B (Lurban) versus rated power for N3 vehicles with automatic

transmissions



Mobilität

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

acceleration in m/s²

Lurb

an in

dB

(A)

N3, MT, 2 axles, traction tyres N3, MT, 2 axles, rib tyres

N3, MT, more than 2 axles, traction tyres N3, MT, more than 2 axles, rib tyres

Figure B 24 : results of method B (Lurban) versus acceleration for N3 vehicles with manual

transmissions

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

acceleration in m/s²

Lurb

an in

dB

(A)

N3, AT, 2 axles, traction tyres

N3, AT, 2 axles, rib tyres

N3, AT, more than 2 axles, tractiontyresN3, AT, more than 2 axles, rib tyres

Figure B 25 : results of method B (Lurban) versus acceleration for N3 vehicles with automatic

transmissions



Mobilität

The frequency distributions and average Lurban values are shown in Figure B 26and Figure B 27 for different transmission types/number of axles and rated power classes. The 2 extreme Lurban results (85 and 86 dB) were not considered.

The proposal for rated power classes is as follows:

• Rated power <= 180 kW,

• 180 kW < rated power <= 250 kW,

• Rated power > 250 kW. If one would base the limit value proposal on the results for vehicles with manual transmission only, no further differentiation would be necessary and the result would be:


• N3-2, 180 kW < rated power <= 250 kW: 81 dB(A)

• N3-3, rated power > 250 kW: 83 dB(A).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Lurban in dB(A)

cum

freq

uenc

y

N3, MT, 180 kW < rated power <= 250 kW

N3, MT, rated power > 250 kW

N3, AT, 2 axles, 180 kW < rated power <= 250 kW

N3, AT, 2 axles, rated power > 250 kW

N3, AT, more than 2 axles

ave, MT, 180 kW < rated power <= 250 kW

ave, MT, rated power > 250 kW

ave, AT, 2 axles, 180 kW < rated power <= 250 kW

ave, AT, 2 axles, rated power > 250 kW

ave, AT, more than 2 axles

Figure B 26 : frequency distributions and average Lurban values for N3 vehicles grouped for

transmission type and rated power class



Mobilität

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Lurban in dB(A)

cum

freq

uenc

y

N3, rated power <= 180 kW

N3, 2 axles, 180 kW < rated power <= 250 kW

N3, 2 axles, rated power > 250 kW

N3, more than 2 axles

ave, rated power <= 180 kW

ave, 2 axles, 180 kW < rated power <= 250 kW

ave, 2 axles, rated power > 250 kW

ave, more than 2 axles

Figure B 27 : frequency distributions and average Lurban values for N3 vehicles grouped for

number of axles and rated power class

If the results for vehicles with automatic transmission would be included, a further differentiation for the number of axles would be necessary, but on rated power class could be skipped:


• N3-2, rated power > 180 kW, 2 axles: 82 dB(A)

• N3-3, rated power > 180 kW, more than 2 axles: 84 dB(A).

For the benefit calculation the following mixed schema was used:


• N3-2, 2 axles, 180 kW < rated power <= 250 kW: 81 dB(A),

• N3-3, 2 axles, rated power > 250 kW: 82 dB(A),

• N3-4, more than 2 axles: 84 dB(A).

The database contains 73 N3 off road vehicles with valid results. The comparison between the results of methods A and B is shown in Figure B 28. For this subgroup the differences between vehicles with manual and automatic transmissions is much smaller as for on road vehicles, but only for those results close to the one by one line (+/- 1.5 dB). Another group of results is 2 to 3 dB below the one by one line.



Mobilität

Also these results need further investigations. The only off road subgroup with a higher sample size is the group with manual transmission and rated power values above 250 kW. In Figure B 29 a comparison of frequency distributions and average values with the corresponding on road subgroup is shown. The results justify an extra allowance of 1 dB(A) for off road vehicles. It is proposed to apply the allowance to all N3 subgroups for consistency reasons.

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86


resu

lt m

etho

d B

(Lur

ban)

in d

B(A

)

N3 off road, AT without control device, traction tyres

N3 off road, MT, traction tyres

N3 off road, AT without control device, rib tyres

N3 off road, MT, rib tyres

Figure B 28 : Test results according to methods A and B for N3 off road vehicles (no subtraction

of 1 dB and rounding applied for method A)



Mobilität

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

Lurban in dB(A)

cum

freq

uenc

y

N3, MT, rated power > 250 kW

ave, MT, rated power > 250 kW

N3, off road, rated power > 250 kW

ave, off road, rated power > 250 kW

Figure B 29 : frequency distributions and average Lurban values for on and off road N3 vehicles

with rated power > 250 kW

M3 vehicles

M3 vehicles are used for the transportation of passengers having more than 9 seats and GVM > 5000 kg. The database contains 43 vehicles with valid results. The method B test conditions are the same as for N3 vehicles except for the vehicle load. The comparison between the results of methods A and B is shown in Figure B 30. Also here a tendency to higher method B results for vehicles with automatic transmissions compared to manual transmission can be seen, but the major part of the results are located below the one by one line. The traction tyre subsample is too small to assess any tyre influence.

Figure B 31 shows the Lurban values versus engine capacity, Figure B 32 versus rated power. The same 3 rated power classes can be differentiated as for N3 vehicles. Based on the results in Figure B 32 the following M3 subclasses and equivalent limit values are proposed:

• M3-1, rated power up to 180 kW: 76 dB(A),

• M3-2, 180 kW < rated power <= 250 kW: 78 dB(A),

• M3-3, rated power > 250 kW: 80 dB(A). Unfortunately the database contains only 3 M3 off road vehicles, all of them coming from M2-B vehicles.

In accordance with N3 an extra allowance of 1 dB is proposed for M3 off road vehicles.



Mobilität

The M3-2 subcategory (180 kW < rated power <= 250 kW) needs further explanations/comments. This category contains 15 vehicles, 12 of them are standard versions of public transport buses, all equipped with automatic transmission. 2 coaches with Lurban values of 80,6 dB(A) were excluded because n_BB’ was 109% of rated engine speed which is far above the upper tolerance (89%). The remaining vehicle with manual transmission is a country bus, whose Lurban value (77,9 dB) is within the bandwidth of the urban buses (75,4 dB to 78,2 dB). Its method A result is exactly at the limit of 80 dB(A), while the method A results for the urban buses are predominantly below this limit (5 buses with 75 dB, 2 vehicles with 76 dB and 3 vehicles with 77 dB).These low method A results are caused by customer requirements that are more stringent than the current legal limit values.Although the current method is advantageous for vehicles with automatic transmissions compared to manual transmissions, 75 to 77 dB require additional noise reduction measures compared to 80 dB versions. This has to be considered when further reduction steps are discussed.

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

70 72 74 76 78 80 82


resu

lt m

etho

d B

(Lur

ban)

in d

B(A

)

M3, AT without control, traction tyres

M3, AT without control, rib tyres

M3, MT, traction tyres

M3, MT, rib tyres

Figure B 30 : Test results according to methods A and B for M3 vehicles (no subtraction of 1 dB

and rounding applied for method A)



Mobilität

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000


Lurb

an in

dB

(A)

M3

Figure B 31 : results of method B (Lurban) versus engine capacity for M3 vehicles

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

rated power in kW

Lurb

an in

dB

(A)

Lurban

Figure B 32 : results of method B (Lurban) versus rated power for M3 vehicles



Mobilität

ANNEX C

3 Benefit Analysis

The benefit analysis contains the following steps:

1. Determination of the effects of the different scenarios on the noise emission of different vehicle categories.

2. Implementation of these new emission stages into the TRANECAM model and calculation of the effects on Leq for different road categories using typical traffic volume and fleet share values.

3. Transformation of noise reduction levels into monetary benefits.

C.1 Determination of the effects of the different scenarios on the noise emission of different vehicle categories

The first step contains the following tasks:

• Determination of the percentage of vehicles whose noise emission need to be reduced according to the different scenarios for each category.

• Determination of the effects of the reduction measures on the noise emission behaviour under real world driving conditions.

The limit value scenarios are shown in the following table. The equivalent limit values and their determination can be found in chapter 5 (Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable.) or in Annex B.

scenario 1 scenario 2

step 1 step 1 step 1 step 3 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 1 step 2 step 3

200x +2 200x +2 200x +2200x

+10/12200x +2

200x +5/7

200x +10/12

200x +2200x +5/7

200x +10/12

state of the art,

equivalent limit value for method

B

-2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -1 -2 -2 -2

scenario 4scenario 3 scenario 5Reduction in dB(A)

Table C 1 : Limit value reductions and time schema for the different scenarios



Mobilität

The Calculation of the effective noise reduction for vehicle categories is based on the frequency distributions of Lurban in the monitoring database. For M1 vehicles this distribution was combined with a distribution of vehicle production in 2007 into power to mass ratio classes derived from the AAA database. It was further assumed that M1-D vehicles have a share of 4% on the whole M1 fleet.

The resulting shares are shown in Table C 2. This table contains also the information about the percentages of vehicles whose noise emission need to be reduced by how many decibels for the different scenarios and steps.

Scenario

2Scenario

2Category Lurban step 1 step 1 step 2 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 1 step 1 step 2 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 1 step 2 step 3

new in dB(A) -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -1 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -1 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dBM1-A 64 0.20%M1-A 65 0.94%M1-A 66 2.38%M1-A 67 5.00% -1 5.00%M1-A 68 15.77% -1 -2 15.77% 15.77%M1-A 69 20.93% -1 -1 -2 -1 -3 20.93% 20.93% 20.93% 20.93% 20.93%M1-A 70 22.22% -2 -2 -3 -2 -4 22.22% 22.22% 22.22% 22.22% 22.22%M1-A 71 13.58% -1 -1 -3 -1 -3 -4 -1 -3 -5 13.58% 13.58% 13.58% 13.58% 13.58% 13.58% 13.58% 13.58% 13.58%M1-A 72 14.09% -2 -2 -4 -2 -4 -5 -2 -4 -6 14.09% 14.09% 14.09% 14.09% 14.09% 14.09% 14.09% 14.09% 14.09%M1-B 68 0.04%M1-B 69 0.11% -1 0.11%M1-B 70 0.09% -1 -2 0.09% 0.09%M1-B 71 0.04% -1 -1 -2 -1 -3 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04%M1-B 72 0.02% -2 -2 -3 -2 -4 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02%M1-B 73 0.07% -1 -1 -3 -1 -3 -4 -1 -3 -5 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07%M1-B 74 0.07% -2 -2 -4 -2 -4 -5 -2 -4 -6 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07%M1-D 67 0.07%M1-D 68 0.02%M1-D 69 0.46% -1 0.46%M1-D 70 0.73% -1 -2 0.73% 0.73%M1-D 71 1.14% -1 -1 -2 -1 -3 1.14% 1.14% 1.14% 1.14% 1.14%M1-D 72 0.81% -2 -2 -3 -2 -4 0.81% 0.81% 0.81% 0.81% 0.81%M1-D 73 0.28% -1 -1 -3 -1 -3 -4 -1 -3 -5 0.28% 0.28% 0.28% 0.28% 0.28% 0.28% 0.28% 0.28% 0.28%M1-D 74 0.61% -2 -2 -4 -2 -4 -5 -2 -4 -6 0.61% 0.61% 0.61% 0.61% 0.61% 0.61% 0.61% 0.61% 0.61%M1-C 70 0.02% -1 0.02%M1-C 71 0.04% -1 -2 0.04% 0.04%M1-C 72 0.03% -1 -1 -2 -1 -3 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03%M1-C 73 0.11% -2 -2 -3 -2 -4 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11%M1-C 74 0.08% -1 -1 -3 -1 -3 -4 -1 -3 -5 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% 0.08%M1-C 75 0.06% -2 -2 -4 -2 -4 -5 -2 -4 -6 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06%

Scenario 5Scenario 4Scenario 3 Scenario 4

share

Scenario 5 Scenario 3

Table C 2 : Shares for M1 vehicles on different subclasses and Lurban values

For N1 and M2 vehicles up to 3500 kg GVM was assumed that N1/M2-A1 vehicles have a share of 30% and N1/M2-A2 a share of 70%. The resulting weightings are shown in table 3.

Scen 2 Scen 2

Category Lurban cat final step 1 step 1 step 2 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 1 step 1 step 2 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 1 step 2 step 3new in dB(A) share share share -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -1 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -1 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB

N1/M2-A1 66 6.67% 30% 2.00%N1/M2-A1 67 6.67% 30% 2.00% -1 2.00%N1/M2-A1 68 20.00% 30% 6.00% -2 6.00% 6.00%N1/M2-A1 69 33.33% 30% 10.00% -1 -3 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00%N1/M2-A1 70 20.00% 30% 6.00% -1 -1 -2 -1 -4 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00%N1/M2-A1 71 8.89% 30% 2.67% -2 -2 -3 -2 -5 2.67% 2.67% 2.67% 2.67% 2.67% 2.67% 2.67% 2.67% 2.67%N1/M2-A1 72 4.44% 30% 1.33% -1 -1 -3 -1 -3 -4 -1 -3 -6 1.33% 1.33% 1.33% 1.33% 1.33% 1.33% 1.33% 1.33% 1.33%N1/M2-A2 69 8.93% 70% 6.25% -1 6.25%N1/M2-A2 70 5.36% 70% 3.75% -1 -2 3.75% 3.75%N1/M2-A2 71 28.57% 70% 20.00% -1 -1 -2 -1 -3 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00%N1/M2-A2 72 33.93% 70% 23.75% -2 -2 -3 -2 -4 23.75% 23.75% 23.75% 23.75% 23.75%N1/M2-A2 73 14.29% 70% 10.00% -1 -1 -3 -1 -3 -4 -1 -3 -5 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00%N1/M2-A2 74 8.93% 70% 6.25% -2 -2 -4 -2 -4 -5 -2 -4 -6 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25%

Scenario 5Scenario 4Scenario 4 Scenario 3Scenario 3 Scenario 5

Table C 3 : Shares for N1/M2-A vehicles on different subclasses and Lurban values



Mobilität

Since the scenario calculations were performed by the TRANECAM model, the N2/N3 vehicle classes needed to be distributed to rigid trucks and trailer trucks. It was assumed that rigid trucks consist of N2/M2-B1, N2/M2-B2 and N3-2 vehicles with equal cat shares of 1/3.

N3-1 vehicles were not considered because their fleet share is negligible. The resulting shares and reduction percentages are shown in Table C 4. Only on road vehicles were considered.

Scen 2 Scen 2Category Lurban cat final step 1 step 1 step 2 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 1 step 1 step 2 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 1 step 2 step 3

new in dB(A) share share share -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -1 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -1 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dBN2/M2-B1 70 6.67% 33.3% 2.22%N2/M2-B1 71 26.67% 33.3% 8.89% -1 8.89%N2/M2-B1 72 10.00% 33.3% 3.33% -1 -2 3.33% 3.33%N2/M2-B1 73 20.00% 33.3% 6.67% -1 -1 -2 -1 -3 6.67% 6.67% 6.67% 6.67% 6.67%N2/M2-B1 74 13.33% 33.3% 4.44% -2 -2 -3 -2 -4 4.44% 4.44% 4.44% 4.44% 4.44%N2/M2-B1 75 10.00% 33.3% 3.33% -1 -1 -3 -1 -3 -4 -1 -3 -5 3.33% 3.33% 3.33% 3.33% 3.33% 3.33% 3.33% 3.33% 3.33%N2/M2-B1 76 13.33% 33.3% 4.44% -2 -2 -4 -2 -4 -5 -2 -4 -6 4.44% 4.44% 4.44% 4.44% 4.44% 4.44% 4.44% 4.44% 4.44%N2/M2-B2 74 9.38% 33.3% 3.13% -1 -2 3.13% 3.13%N2/M2-B2 75 12.50% 33.3% 4.17% -1 -1 -2 -1 -3 4.17% 4.17% 4.17% 4.17% 4.17%N2/M2-B2 76 31.25% 33.3% 10.42% -2 -2 -3 -2 -4 10.42% 10.42% 10.42% 10.42% 10.42%N2/M2-B2 77 34.38% 33.3% 11.46% -1 -1 -3 -1 -3 -4 -1 -3 -5 11.46% 11.46% 11.46% 11.46% 11.46% 11.46% 11.46% 11.46% 11.46%N2/M2-B2 78 12.50% 33.3% 4.17% -2 -2 -4 -2 -4 -5 -2 -4 -6 4.17% 4.17% 4.17% 4.17% 4.17% 4.17% 4.17% 4.17% 4.17%

N3-2 76 2.00% 33.3% 0.67% -1 0.67%N3-2 77 4.00% 33.3% 1.33% -1 -2 1.33% 1.33%N3-2 78 20.00% 33.3% 6.67% -1 -1 -2 -1 -3 6.67% 6.67% 6.67% 6.67% 6.67%N3-2 79 16.00% 33.3% 5.33% -2 -2 -3 -2 -4 5.33% 5.33% 5.33% 5.33% 5.33%N3-2 80 16.00% 33.3% 5.33% -1 -1 -3 -1 -3 -4 -1 -3 -5 5.33% 5.33% 5.33% 5.33% 5.33% 5.33% 5.33% 5.33% 5.33%N3-2 81 42.00% 33.3% 14.00% -2 -2 -4 -2 -4 -5 -2 -4 -6 14.00% 14.00% 14.00% 14.00% 14.00% 14.00% 14.00% 14.00% 14.00%

Scenario 5Scenario 3 Scenario 4Scenario 5Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Table C 4 : Shares for N2-A, N2-B and N3-A vehicles, forming the rigid truck subclass of the

Tranecam model, on different subclasses and Lurban values

For trailer trucks was assumed that this subgroup consists of N3-3 and N3-4 vehicles with a cat share of 75% for N3-3 and 25% for N3-4. The resulting shares and reduction percentages are shown in Table C 5. Only on road vehicles were considered.

Scen 2 Scen 2Category Lurban cat final step 1 step 1 step 2 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 1 step 1 step 2 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 1 step 2 step 3

new in dB(A) share share share -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -1 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dB -1 dB -2 dB -2 dB -2 dBN3-3 79 3.03% 75% 2.27% -1 -1 -2 -1 -3 2.27% 2.27% 2.27% 2.27% 2.27%N3-3 80 27.27% 75% 20.45% -2 -2 -3 -2 -4 20.45% 20.45% 20.45% 20.45% 20.45%N3-3 81 39.39% 75% 29.55% -1 -1 -3 -1 -3 -4 -1 -3 -5 29.55% 29.55% 29.55% 29.55% 29.55% 29.55% 29.55% 29.55% 29.55%N3-3 82 30.30% 75% 22.73% -2 -2 -4 -2 -4 -5 -2 -4 -6 22.73% 22.73% 22.73% 22.73% 22.73% 22.73% 22.73% 22.73% 22.73%N3-4 79 13.04% 25% 3.26% -1 3.26%N3-4 80 17.39% 25% 4.35% -1 -2 4.35% 4.35%N3-4 81 21.74% 25% 5.43% -1 -1 -2 -1 -3 5.43% 5.43% 5.43% 5.43% 5.43%N3-4 82 21.74% 25% 5.43% -2 -2 -3 -2 -4 5.43% 5.43% 5.43% 5.43% 5.43%N3-4 83 13.04% 25% 3.26% -1 -1 -3 -1 -3 -4 -1 -3 -5 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26%N3-4 84 13.04% 25% 3.26% -2 -2 -4 -2 -4 -5 -2 -4 -6 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26%

Scenario 5Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Table C 5 : Shares for N3-3 and N3-4 vehicles, forming the trailer truck subclass of the

Tranecam model, on different subclasses and Lurban values

In a last step the resulting noise reduction was calculated (see Table C 6).



Mobilität

veh_cat scenarioDelta_Leq in dB(A)

0 dB(A) -1 dB(A) -2 dB(A) -3 dB(A) -4 dB(A) -5 dB(A) -6 dB(A)

Scenario 1 -0.13 85.17% 14.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%M1 Scenario 2 -0.38 71.16% 14.01% 14.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Scenario 1 -0.07 92.42% 7.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%N1 Scenario 2 -0.24 79.75% 12.67% 7.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Scenario 1 -0.21 77.39% 22.61% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%rigid truck Scenario 2 -0.58 57.26% 20.13% 22.61% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Scenario 1 -0.24 74.01% 25.99% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%trailer truck Scenario 2 -0.77 41.21% 32.81% 25.99% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Table C 6 : resulting noise reduction (Leq) for the Tranecam vehicle categories

7.2 Implementation into the Tranecam Model

For all scenarios the noise reduction was calculated for road categories and traffic volumes and compositions as shown in Table C 7. For rigid trucks and trailer trucks was assumed that the reduction is related to propulsion noise only. This was also the case for M1 and N1 for scenario 2. For the scenarios 3 to 5 was assumed that the rolling noise needs to be reduced also for M1 and N1 vehicles.

Stone mastic asphalt 0/11 was chosen as road surface, since this surface has become a representative surface in many European regions in the meantime. The results are shown in Table C 8.



Mobilität

Road categoryno of lanes

ADTpercent

LDVpercent

HDVresidential streets, speed limit 30 km/h 2 250 3.3% 1.0%residential streets, speed limit 50 km/h 2 500 3.3% 1.0%urban, main streets, speed limit 50 km/h, right of way 2 2000 4.6% 3.0%urban, city centre 2 20000 4.4% 4.0%urban, main streets, speed limit 50 km/h, traffic lights 4 40000 4.5% 5.0%urban, main streets, speed limit 60/70 km/h 4 40000 4.4% 5.0%rural, speed limit 70 km/h 2 15000 4.3% 8.0%rural, speed limit 80/90 km/h 2 15000 4.2% 8.0%rural, speed limit 100 km/h 2 15000 4.0% 10.0%motorway, speed limit 80 km/h 4 40000 4.2% 20.0%motorway, speed limit 100 km/h 4 40000 4.2% 20.0%motorway, speed limit 120 km/h 4 40000 4.2% 20.0%motorway, without speed limit 4 40000 4.2% 20.0%

Table C 7 : Road categories, average daily traffic volume (ADT) and percentages of light duty vehicles (LDV, N1) and heavy duty vehicles (HDV, rigid trucks and trailer trucks) chosen for the

noise reduction calculation

Delta-Lden in dB(A)road category scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4 scenario 5

Urban, residential streets, speed limit 30 -0.2 -1.6 -2.4 -3.3Urban, residential streets, speed limit 50 -0.1 -1.5 -2.3 -3.2Urban main streets, right of way -0.1 -1.4 -2.2 -3.0Urban, city centre -0.3 -1.6 -2.4 -3.2Urban main streets, traffic lights, speed limit 50 -0.3 -1.5 -2.3 -3.1Urban main streets, speed limit > 50 -0.1 -1.3 -2.1 -2.8Rural, 3rd category -0.2 -1.3 -1.9 -2.6Rural, 2nd category -0.1 -1.2 -1.8 -2.4Rural, 1st category -0.1 -1.2 -1.8 -2.4Motorway, speed limit 80 -0.1 -0.8 -1.1 -1.5Motorway, speed limit 100 -0.1 -0.8 -1.2 -1.5Motorway, speed limit 120 -0.1 -0.9 -1.3 -1.7Motorway, no speed limit -0.1 -0.9 -1.3 -1.8 Table C 8 : Effective reduction of Lden for the different scenarios (all steps and all vehicles that

need to be improved replaced in the fleet)

For the further calculation the results in Table C 8 were aggregated to urban, rural and motorway by averaging the reductions achieved within these classes, because the differences within the classes were lower than the differences between the classes . It was then assumed that 10% of the people affected by Lden values above 55 dB(A) live near motorways, 20% near rural roads and 70% in urban areas. The results are shown in Table C 9.



Mobilität

road category scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4 scenario 5urban -0.2 -1.5 -2.3 -3.1rural -0.1 -1.2 -1.8 -2.5

motorway -0.1 -0.9 -1.2 -1.6overall -0.2 -1.4 -2.1 -2.8

Delta-Lden in dB(A)

Table C 9 : Aggregated noise reduction values

The previous table contains information about the noise reduction, when all vehicles in the fleet have to comply with the new limit values. In order to get an assessment of the time needed to reach this condition the TRANECAM model was modified in that way that the phase in time could be determined.

The calculation was based on registration rates for new vehicles and on assumptions about the percentages of new vehicles that have to comply with the new limit values, as follows: New vehicles registration rates:

• 7,7% for M1,

• 7,2% for N1 and rigid trucks and

• 9,5% for trailer trucks It was further assumed that in the first year of introduction of new limit values only 50% of the new registered vehicles have to comply with these limit values, in the second year 75% and from the third year on 100%. The date of entry into force of the scenarios was set to 2013 for the first stage. The following tables show the weightings for the different steps as function of the reference year. Step 0 determines the status quo with equivalent limit values.Figure C 1 shows the reduction in Lden as functions of time(year).



Mobilität

scenario 0veh_cat refyear step 0 step 0 step 1 step 0 step 1 step 3 step 0 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 0 step 1 step 2 step 3

M1 2013 100.0% 96.1% 3.8% 96.1% 3.8% 0.0% 96.1% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 96.1% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0%M1 2014 100.0% 90.4% 9.6% 90.4% 9.6% 0.0% 90.4% 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 90.4% 9.6% 0.0% 0.0%M1 2015 100.0% 82.7% 17.3% 82.7% 17.3% 0.0% 82.7% 17.3% 0.0% 0.0% 82.7% 17.3% 0.0% 0.0%M1 2016 100.0% 75.0% 25.0% 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 71.1% 25.0% 3.8% 0.0% 71.1% 25.0% 3.8% 0.0%M1 2017 100.0% 67.3% 32.7% 67.3% 32.7% 0.0% 57.6% 32.7% 9.6% 0.0% 57.6% 32.7% 9.6% 0.0%M1 2018 100.0% 59.6% 40.4% 59.6% 40.4% 0.0% 42.3% 40.4% 17.3% 0.0% 42.3% 40.4% 17.3% 0.0%M1 2019 100.0% 51.9% 48.1% 51.9% 48.1% 0.0% 26.9% 48.1% 25.0% 0.0% 26.9% 48.1% 25.0% 0.0%M1 2020 100.0% 44.2% 55.8% 44.2% 55.8% 0.0% 11.5% 55.8% 32.7% 0.0% 11.5% 55.8% 32.7% 0.0%M1 2021 100.0% 36.5% 63.5% 36.5% 59.7% 3.8% 0.0% 55.7% 40.4% 3.8% 0.0% 55.7% 40.4% 3.8%M1 2022 100.0% 28.8% 71.2% 28.8% 61.6% 9.6% 0.0% 42.3% 48.1% 9.6% 0.0% 42.3% 48.1% 9.6%M1 2023 100.0% 21.1% 78.9% 21.1% 61.6% 17.3% 0.0% 26.9% 55.8% 17.3% 0.0% 26.9% 55.8% 17.3%M1 2024 100.0% 13.4% 86.6% 13.4% 61.6% 25.0% 0.0% 11.5% 63.5% 25.0% 0.0% 11.5% 63.5% 25.0%M1 2025 100.0% 5.7% 94.3% 5.7% 61.6% 32.7% 0.0% 0.0% 67.3% 32.7% 0.0% 0.0% 67.3% 32.7%M1 2026 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 59.6% 40.4% 0.0% 0.0% 59.6% 40.4% 0.0% 0.0% 59.6% 40.4%M1 2027 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 51.9% 48.1% 0.0% 0.0% 51.9% 48.1% 0.0% 0.0% 51.9% 48.1%M1 2028 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 44.2% 55.8% 0.0% 0.0% 44.2% 55.8% 0.0% 0.0% 44.2% 55.8%M1 2029 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 36.5% 63.5% 0.0% 0.0% 36.5% 63.5% 0.0% 0.0% 36.5% 63.5%M1 2030 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 28.8% 71.2% 0.0% 0.0% 28.8% 71.2% 0.0% 0.0% 28.8% 71.2%M1 2031 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 21.1% 78.9% 0.0% 0.0% 21.1% 78.9% 0.0% 0.0% 21.1% 78.9%M1 2032 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 13.4% 86.6% 0.0% 0.0% 13.4% 86.6% 0.0% 0.0% 13.4% 86.6%M1 2033 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 5.7% 94.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 94.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 94.3%M1 2034 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%M1 2035 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%M1 2036 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%M1 2037 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

scenario 5scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4

Table C 10 : Shares of M1 vehicles belonging to the different limit value steps as function of the

reference year for the different scenarios

scenario 0

veh_cat refyear step 0 step 0 step 1 step 0 step 1 step 3 step 0 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 0 step 1 step 2 step 3N1 2013 100.0% 96.4% 3.6% 96.4% 3.6% 0.0% 96.4% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 96.4% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0%N1 2014 100.0% 91.0% 9.0% 91.0% 9.0% 0.0% 91.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 91.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0%N1 2015 100.0% 83.8% 16.2% 83.8% 16.2% 0.0% 83.8% 16.2% 0.0% 0.0% 83.8% 16.2% 0.0% 0.0%N1 2016 100.0% 76.6% 23.4% 76.6% 23.4% 0.0% 73.0% 23.4% 3.6% 0.0% 73.0% 23.4% 3.6% 0.0%N1 2017 100.0% 69.4% 30.6% 69.4% 30.6% 0.0% 60.4% 30.6% 9.0% 0.0% 60.4% 30.6% 9.0% 0.0%N1 2018 100.0% 62.2% 37.8% 62.2% 37.8% 0.0% 46.0% 37.8% 16.2% 0.0% 46.0% 37.8% 16.2% 0.0%N1 2019 100.0% 55.0% 45.0% 55.0% 45.0% 0.0% 31.6% 45.0% 23.4% 0.0% 31.6% 45.0% 23.4% 0.0%N1 2020 100.0% 47.8% 52.2% 47.8% 52.2% 0.0% 17.2% 52.2% 30.6% 0.0% 17.2% 52.2% 30.6% 0.0%N1 2021 100.0% 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 55.8% 3.6% 0.0% 58.6% 37.8% 3.6% 0.0% 58.6% 37.8% 3.6%N1 2022 100.0% 33.4% 66.6% 33.4% 57.6% 9.0% 0.0% 46.0% 45.0% 9.0% 0.0% 46.0% 45.0% 9.0%N1 2023 100.0% 26.2% 73.8% 26.2% 57.6% 16.2% 0.0% 31.6% 52.2% 16.2% 0.0% 31.6% 52.2% 16.2%N1 2024 100.0% 19.0% 81.0% 19.0% 57.6% 23.4% 0.0% 17.2% 59.4% 23.4% 0.0% 17.2% 59.4% 23.4%N1 2025 100.0% 11.8% 88.2% 11.8% 57.6% 30.6% 0.0% 0.0% 69.4% 30.6% 0.0% 0.0% 69.4% 30.6%N1 2026 100.0% 4.6% 95.4% 4.6% 57.6% 37.8% 0.0% 0.0% 62.2% 37.8% 0.0% 0.0% 62.2% 37.8%N1 2027 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 55.0% 45.0% 0.0% 0.0% 55.0% 45.0% 0.0% 0.0% 55.0% 45.0%N1 2028 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 47.8% 52.2% 0.0% 0.0% 47.8% 52.2% 0.0% 0.0% 47.8% 52.2%N1 2029 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 40.6% 59.4% 0.0% 0.0% 40.6% 59.4% 0.0% 0.0% 40.6% 59.4%N1 2030 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 33.4% 66.6% 0.0% 0.0% 33.4% 66.6% 0.0% 0.0% 33.4% 66.6%N1 2031 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 26.2% 73.8% 0.0% 0.0% 26.2% 73.8% 0.0% 0.0% 26.2% 73.8%N1 2032 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 19.0% 81.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.0% 81.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.0% 81.0%N1 2033 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 11.8% 88.2% 0.0% 0.0% 11.8% 88.2% 0.0% 0.0% 11.8% 88.2%N1 2034 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 4.6% 95.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 95.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 95.4%N1 2035 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%N1 2036 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%N1 2037 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%


Table C 11 : Shares of N1 vehicles belonging to the different limit value steps as function of the




Mobilität

scenario 0veh_cat refyear step 0 step 0 step 1 step 0 step 1 step 3 step 0 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 0 step 1 step 2 step 3

rigid trucks 2013 100.0% 96.4% 3.6% 96.4% 3.6% 0.0% 96.4% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 96.4% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0%rigid trucks 2014 100.0% 91.0% 9.0% 91.0% 9.0% 0.0% 91.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 91.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0%rigid trucks 2015 100.0% 83.8% 16.2% 83.8% 16.2% 0.0% 83.8% 16.2% 0.0% 0.0% 83.8% 16.2% 0.0% 0.0%rigid trucks 2016 100.0% 76.6% 23.4% 76.6% 23.4% 0.0% 76.6% 23.4% 0.0% 0.0% 76.6% 23.4% 0.0% 0.0%rigid trucks 2017 100.0% 69.4% 30.6% 69.4% 30.6% 0.0% 69.4% 30.6% 0.0% 0.0% 69.4% 30.6% 0.0% 0.0%rigid trucks 2018 100.0% 62.2% 37.8% 62.2% 37.8% 0.0% 58.6% 37.8% 3.6% 0.0% 58.6% 37.8% 3.6% 0.0%rigid trucks 2019 100.0% 55.0% 45.0% 55.0% 45.0% 0.0% 46.0% 45.0% 9.0% 0.0% 46.0% 45.0% 9.0% 0.0%rigid trucks 2020 100.0% 47.8% 52.2% 47.8% 52.2% 0.0% 31.6% 52.2% 16.2% 0.0% 31.6% 52.2% 16.2% 0.0%rigid trucks 2021 100.0% 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 0.0% 17.2% 59.4% 23.4% 0.0% 17.2% 59.4% 23.4% 0.0%rigid trucks 2022 100.0% 33.4% 66.6% 33.4% 66.6% 0.0% 2.8% 66.6% 30.6% 0.0% 2.8% 66.6% 30.6% 0.0%rigid trucks 2023 100.0% 26.2% 73.8% 26.2% 70.2% 3.6% 0.0% 58.6% 37.8% 3.6% 0.0% 58.6% 37.8% 3.6%rigid trucks 2024 100.0% 19.0% 81.0% 19.0% 72.0% 9.0% 0.0% 46.0% 45.0% 9.0% 0.0% 46.0% 45.0% 9.0%rigid trucks 2025 100.0% 11.8% 88.2% 11.8% 72.0% 16.2% 0.0% 31.6% 52.2% 16.2% 0.0% 31.6% 52.2% 16.2%rigid trucks 2026 100.0% 4.6% 95.4% 4.6% 72.0% 23.4% 0.0% 17.2% 59.4% 23.4% 0.0% 17.2% 59.4% 23.4%rigid trucks 2027 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 69.4% 30.6% 0.0% 2.8% 66.6% 30.6% 0.0% 2.8% 66.6% 30.6%rigid trucks 2028 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 62.2% 37.8% 0.0% 0.0% 62.2% 37.8% 0.0% 0.0% 62.2% 37.8%rigid trucks 2029 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 55.0% 45.0% 0.0% 0.0% 55.0% 45.0% 0.0% 0.0% 55.0% 45.0%rigid trucks 2030 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 47.8% 52.2% 0.0% 0.0% 47.8% 52.2% 0.0% 0.0% 47.8% 52.2%rigid trucks 2031 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 40.6% 59.4% 0.0% 0.0% 40.6% 59.4% 0.0% 0.0% 40.6% 59.4%rigid trucks 2032 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 33.4% 66.6% 0.0% 0.0% 33.4% 66.6% 0.0% 0.0% 33.4% 66.6%rigid trucks 2033 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 26.2% 73.8% 0.0% 0.0% 26.2% 73.8% 0.0% 0.0% 26.2% 73.8%rigid trucks 2034 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 19.0% 81.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.0% 81.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.0% 81.0%rigid trucks 2035 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 11.8% 88.2% 0.0% 0.0% 11.8% 88.2% 0.0% 0.0% 11.8% 88.2%rigid trucks 2036 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 4.6% 95.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 95.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 95.4%rigid trucks 2037 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%


Table C 12 : Shares of rigid trucks belonging to the different limit value steps as function of the


scenario 0

veh_cat refyear step 0 step 0 step 1 step 0 step 1 step 3 step 0 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 0 step 1 step 2 step 3trailer Tr. 2013 100.0% 95.2% 4.7% 95.2% 4.7% 0.0% 95.2% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 95.2% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0%trailer Tr. 2014 100.0% 88.1% 11.9% 88.1% 11.9% 0.0% 88.1% 11.9% 0.0% 0.0% 88.1% 11.9% 0.0% 0.0%trailer Tr. 2015 100.0% 78.6% 21.4% 78.6% 21.4% 0.0% 78.6% 21.4% 0.0% 0.0% 78.6% 21.4% 0.0% 0.0%trailer Tr. 2016 100.0% 69.1% 30.9% 69.1% 30.9% 0.0% 69.1% 30.9% 0.0% 0.0% 69.1% 30.9% 0.0% 0.0%trailer Tr. 2017 100.0% 59.6% 40.4% 59.6% 40.4% 0.0% 59.6% 40.4% 0.0% 0.0% 59.6% 40.4% 0.0% 0.0%trailer Tr. 2018 100.0% 50.1% 49.9% 50.1% 49.9% 0.0% 45.4% 49.9% 4.7% 0.0% 45.4% 49.9% 4.7% 0.0%trailer Tr. 2019 100.0% 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 0.0% 28.7% 59.4% 11.9% 0.0% 28.7% 59.4% 11.9% 0.0%trailer Tr. 2020 100.0% 31.1% 68.9% 31.1% 68.9% 0.0% 9.7% 68.9% 21.4% 0.0% 9.7% 68.9% 21.4% 0.0%trailer Tr. 2021 100.0% 21.6% 78.4% 21.6% 78.4% 0.0% 0.0% 69.1% 30.9% 0.0% 0.0% 69.1% 30.9% 0.0%trailer Tr. 2022 100.0% 12.1% 87.9% 12.1% 87.9% 0.0% 0.0% 59.6% 40.4% 0.0% 0.0% 59.6% 40.4% 0.0%trailer Tr. 2023 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 95.2% 4.7% 0.0% 45.4% 49.9% 4.7% 0.0% 45.4% 49.9% 4.7%trailer Tr. 2024 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 88.1% 11.9% 0.0% 28.7% 59.4% 11.9% 0.0% 28.7% 59.4% 11.9%trailer Tr. 2025 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 78.6% 21.4% 0.0% 9.7% 68.9% 21.4% 0.0% 9.7% 68.9% 21.4%trailer Tr. 2026 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 69.1% 30.9% 0.0% 0.0% 69.1% 30.9% 0.0% 0.0% 69.1% 30.9%trailer Tr. 2027 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 59.6% 40.4% 0.0% 0.0% 59.6% 40.4% 0.0% 0.0% 59.6% 40.4%trailer Tr. 2028 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 50.1% 49.9% 0.0% 0.0% 50.1% 49.9% 0.0% 0.0% 50.1% 49.9%trailer Tr. 2029 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 40.6% 59.4% 0.0% 0.0% 40.6% 59.4% 0.0% 0.0% 40.6% 59.4%trailer Tr. 2030 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 31.1% 68.9% 0.0% 0.0% 31.1% 68.9% 0.0% 0.0% 31.1% 68.9%trailer Tr. 2031 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 21.6% 78.4% 0.0% 0.0% 21.6% 78.4% 0.0% 0.0% 21.6% 78.4%trailer Tr. 2032 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 12.1% 87.9% 0.0% 0.0% 12.1% 87.9% 0.0% 0.0% 12.1% 87.9%trailer Tr. 2033 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 2.6% 97.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 97.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 97.4%trailer Tr. 2034 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%trailer Tr. 2035 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%trailer Tr. 2036 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%trailer Tr. 2037 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%


Table C 13 : Shares of trailer trucks belonging to the different limit value steps as function of the




Mobilität

0

1

2

3

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Del

ta-L

den

(red

uctio

n) in

dB

(A)

year

scenario 2

scenario 3

scenario 4

scenario 5

Figure C 1 : Reduction in Lden as functions of the reference year for the different scenarios

7.3 Transformation of noise reduction levels into monetary benefits

In order to assess the cost efficiency of noise reductions measures the costs need to be compared to the benefits, expressed in monetary values. The benefit calculation is based on the well known and established monetary willingness to pay value of 25 € for 1 dB noise reduction per household per year, which is applicable to households that are affected by Lden above 55 dB(A) (see [5]). For the EU 27 an average number of 2,5 persons per household was assumed which results in a monetary value of 10,0 € per person per dB per year.

The resulting cumulative benefit in € per person per year is shown in Figure C 2.



Mobilität

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

cum

ulat

ive

bene

fit p

er p

erso

n in

year

scenario 2

scenario 3

scenario 4

scenario 5

Figure C 2 : Cumulative benefit in € per person per year for EU 27

The results of the noise mapping within the frame of the EU environmental noise directive (END) were used in order to determine the number of people in the EU 27 affected by Lden > 55 dB(A). A good summary of these results is provided on the CIRCA website (EIONET-CIRCLE:ETC Land Use and Spatial Information, END_DF4_results_090531_ETCLUSI.xls).

Following the requirements of the END, the number of people affected by more than 55 dB Lden needs to be reported for all agglomerations with more than 250,000 inhabitants and for all major roads outside agglomerations with more than 6 Mio vehicles per year (more than 16438 vehicles per day).

This summary (status 31.05.2009) shows that 41,2 Mio people out of 75,1 Mio people (55%) living in agglomerations are affected by more than 55 dB Lden. But the current data covers only 62% of all agglomerations in the EU 27. So the resulting number for all agglomerations would be 66,5 Mio. The number of people living near major roads with more than 6 Mio. vehicles per year sums up to 41 Mio. But also here the statistics is incomplete and the data from France was not considered because the information about the length of the roads was not provided. The remaining data covers only 51% of all major roads in the EU 27. So, the resulting number for all major roads would be 80,5 Mio. These statistics do not consider cities with inhabitants below 250,000. For Germany it is known that 21% of the population lives in cities with more than 250,000 inhabitants, 10% in cities between 100,000 and 250,000 inhabitants and 26% in cities between 20,000 and 100,000 inhabitants.



Mobilität

Since no corresponding statistics were found for the EU 27, these percentages were applied to the 500 Mio. Inhabitants of the EU 27. For cities between 100,000 and 250,000 inhabitants was assumed that the percentage of people affected to more than 55 dB Lden is slightly lower than for agglomerations above 250,000 inhabitants (50% instead of 55%). So, the resulting number of affected people for all cities between 100,000 and 250,000 inhabitants would be 25 Mio. For cities between 20,000 and 100,000 inhabitants was assumed that the percentage of people affected to more than 55 dB Lden is significantly lower (25%). This results in a total number of 32 Mio people for this class.Summing up the number of affected people in all classes results in a sum of 204,5 Mio people or 41% of the total population.

With these side conditions the reduction values shown in Figure C 1 were transformed into monetary benefits. The results are shown in Figure C 3.

If one would have applied the UK method for benefit calculation as described in the Transport Analysis Guidance (see [6]), the benefit would be roughly twice as high as described here, because Lden values below 55 dB (down to 45 dB) would not be disregarded and the willingness to pay values are not constant but increase with increasing Lden.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

cum

ulat

ive

bene

fit (

EU

27)

in B

illio

n

year

scenario 2

scenario 3

scenario 4

scenario 5

Figure C 3 : Cumulative benefit in million € for the different scenarios and the EU 27



Mobilität

ANNEX D

D. Industry consultation and analysis of industrial costs

D.1 Importance of consultation

The purpose of the consultation is: - to have each manufacturer concerns, - to obtain different possibilities for reducing noise level, - to deduct impacts of these possibilities on cost, environmental, safety, competitiveness.

The approach used by the questionnaire is based on

- Manufacturers organisation, - Manufacturers methodology, - Actual knowledge, - Real cases analysis.

The consultation was not only a series of questions but it is considered as an advanced vehicle phase of project which was used to deliver data to estimated constraints and costs for a new vehicle design with a new compromise.

D.2 Who was consulted? Stakeholders consulted are representative to industries involve on exterior noise:

• 6 passengers car and LDV manufacturers, • 2 HDV manufacturers, • 1 Busses / coach manufacturer, • 3 suppliers (thermal system, exhaust, insulation), • Tyre industry (ETRTO), • ACEA noise working group, • Type approval and development laboratory, • Vehicle project manager, • Research and development consultant.

Industry generally was represented by experts on NVH or system department

Consultation result is a general figure of automotive which allows to estimate costs. Information and data detailed in this annex are given without reference to source(s) interview(s) to keep it anonymously and confidential. Input based on literature, which represents the state of art, is referenced by topics. Others results are based on specific analysis made for this study.



Mobilität

D.3 Generals information

D.3.1 Manufacturer organisation

General organisation

Manufacturers generally are organized vertically by vehicle project and transversally by trades:

- Project team is in charge of the global synthesis on one vehicle line. - Trades work on all vehicle lines.

Synthesis departments work with Project’s Teams to ensure that technical orientations are in line with all requests chosen at the beginning of the project.

Departments involved on vehicle design are:

o Architecture conception synthesis o External styling ; Internal Styling o Vehicle tall data: dimensions, mass, … o Functional car synthesis o Aerodynamics and thermics o Engine o Vehicle safety o NVH o Life on board – ergonomics o Safety of functioning o Road dynamics o Longitudinal dynamics o Electricity & Electronic Architecture o Regulation, Homologations and standards o Costs o …

So, the question of cost is integrated in different department such as synthesis and economy.

NVH department organisation Exterior noise department is generally integrated inside NVH department, if existing, or testing / services department. For some small manufacturers, there is no NVH expert and exterior noise is only managed by department in charge type approval.

As shown in the following figure, when exterior noise department exists, it has relation with synthesis departments and Project team for validation or discuss on specifications to make compromise. It has also relation with trades and/or suppliers to give specifications, integrate system on vehicle.



Mobilität

Figure D 1: Example relation between each department involve in exterior noise

D.3.2 Automotive marketing and competitiveness

Services may be classified into large classes like:

- Style : interior / exterior » - Habitable » habitability, accessibility, volume, payload - Longitudinal dynamic: Regulation, performances, consumption, pollution … - Active safety: Regulation, road behaviour, direction, braking … - Passive safety: Regulation, Euro Cap … - Noise and vibration: Regulation, comfort, design… - Thermal : Engine, habitable, aerothermic - Quality : Durability, reliability - In-use cost : Functional cost, repaired maintenance

These services interact one with the others and had to be balance.

Customer’s translation to technical view is done based on present production, databases, concurrent and expertises.

Balance of services

For each service, marketing / customers fix competitiveness/regulatory requests. For example, best one on its segment, in the average, alone, etc.

Requests are examined several times during project.

Regulations which are taking into account from the beginning may influence the objective especially toward market destination (Europe, Japan …).



Mobilität

Balance depends on each project toward vehicle waiting. For example: - sporty car : light, aero dynamism, motorisations, style …

- luxuary vehicle: Confort, quiet, motorisations, style…

- Monospace: habitability, modularity… - Urban small vehicle: low cost, consumption, handling …

- LDV: Low cost, useful volume, use-costs, durability … - …

Choices will give at the end the competitiveness of the vehicle toward concurrent.

Manufacturer strategy considers for each vehicle segment and model a position regarding others manufacturers.

Declination according to system engineering To define and spread out a SYSTEM, the DEVELOPMENT PROCESS is divided in PHASES as following:

- Requirements (analysis with customers, marketing, synthesis, …), - Specifications (technical transcription of requirements) - Architecture (functional and organic conceptions) - Building (constituents, sub-system, integration) - Validation (evaluation, optimisation, verification)

Declination of marketing requirements and validations is well represents by V-shaped cycle. Services that have to be saleable to the customers are declined and besides evaluated by functions and sub functions.

Figure D 2: V-Shaped cycle

In the first part of the V-shaped cycle (the pre-project), the technical choice and architecture are fundamental and are executed taking into accounts economic costs and capacity to achieve



Mobilität

requests: functional feasibility, technical feasibility, industrial feasibility, Quality, safety of functioning and possible delay of realization.

A technical specification is declined from the vehicle to the components. The complete cycle had to be verified horizontally and vertically. V-cycle is not single but spread on time by succession of verifications all along the project.

Coherence and validation is under the responsibility of the above level.

Exterior noise declination

These development process phases are declined for exterior noise:

- Requirements (by authority and customers) : Regulation ECE51, comfort, design, etc. - Specifications (by NVH synthesis): Overall noise level limit, system or sub system

noise level and transfer functions … - Architecture (by all synthesis, trades and suppliers): Functional allocation to

components.

Figure D 3: Example of declination cycle

a) Technical transcription for the regulation or marketing criteria’s The leading requirement for exterior noise is the regulation.

Some experiences show that only in few cases (like urban busses or some urban duty vehicles), additional requirements on exterior noise has no commercial interest. Requirements for these vehicles may be given by operators or government departments who want to put these vehicles in there town or network.



Mobilität

b) Declination of overall specifications to each noise source Overall exterior noise specification is declined to each noise source (tyre, engine, exhaust, transmission,…). For each system, manufacturers or suppliers have to manage noise specifications with the others constraints. Following table gives an illustration of different specifications in relation to exterior which have to be fulfilled by manufacturer to be approved by authorities and competitive.

Table D 1: Illustration of different specifications in relation with exterior noise

System Noise specifications Environmental

specifications

Safety specifications

Others marketing

specifications

Tyre - Exterior noise on cruise condition - Exterior noise on torque condition - Interior noise on different conditions (smooth surface, rough surface, impacts, low and high speed, …)

- Rolling resistance - Recycling

- Adherence-wet grip - Endurance- fatigue - Resistance to aquaplaning - Adherence-dry grip

- Cost - Comfort - Handling, - wear life

Engine - Exterior noise, - Interior noise on different conditions (cruise, full throttle, stationary, …)

- Emissions of CO2 and consumption, - Pollutions (CO, HC, NOx, particles, …) - Recycling

- Impact (front and pedestrian) - Thermal - Endurance- fatigue

- Cost - comfort - Power and torque (especially for LDV and HDV) - Volume - Maintenance

Exhaust - Exterior noise, - Interior noise on different conditions (cruise, full throttle, stationary, …)

- Emissions of CO2, consumption, pollutions (back pressure)

- Endurance- fatigue

- Cost - comfort - Power and torque (especially for LDV and HDV) - Volume - Maintenance

Transmission

- Exterior noise, - Interior noise

- Emissions of CO2, consumption, - pollutions

- Endurance- fatigue - Cost - comfort - Power and torque (especially for LDV and HDV)



Mobilität

c) Balance between exterior noise and interior noise specifications There is no real conflict between exterior and interior noise, but noise distribution differs because of different conditions, transfers, etc. Further, it is mainly dependant of structure born.

To work on exterior reduction, manufacturers try first to work on sources which may be reduced with best efficiency and with minimum effort and cost.

Because of different noise source distribution, transfer path and frequency range, exterior noise reduction can not be equivalent for interior noise:

- A lot of basis solutions consist to improve transfer function by shield of absorbing. These treatments are optimised to add filter between noise source and 7.5 m microphone. - Noise source distribution and frequency range are not same for interior and exterior noise. Source with the highest level in the exterior noise is usually not the same for interior noise. - Medium and high frequency range are quite well and easier filtered for interior noise in contrary to exterior noise (insulation of driver and passengers compartment is already quite well optimized). It means that reduction of medium and high frequency for exterior will not be effective for interior noise.

So, impact of exterior noise reduction on interior noise is not really effective and customers will not consider that as a significant marketing argument.

d) Balance between cruise tyre noise and torque tyre noise

For tyre’s type approval, tyres are tested on a constant rolling at 70 km/h with engine off. For vehicle’s type approval, the tyre is a part of the vehicle which is tested on an accelerated pass-by at 35 km/h.

Noise level due to torque condition may be 10 dB(A) higher than noise level coast-down condition. Coast-down and torque noise are not lead by the same noise generation phenomena and may be in conflict. e) Balance between exterior noise and environmental specifications

Evolution of pollutant emission standards drives manufacturers to improve engine and post treatment:

• Combustion and injection strategies have to be improved to reduce emission/pollution. Such improvement is generally not in line with noise reduction because of the impulsiveness resulting.

• Engine map are driven essentially by torque and emission/pollution not by noise.

• Catalyst may have a positive impact on noise because of its filter capacity but it reduce margin for increase of back pressure using a better adapted device like silencer muffler.

• To reduce tyre noise, manufacturers have to unbalance services which include rolling resistance. It has a negative effect on exterior noise.



Mobilität

• An efficient vehicle on emission / pollution may be 1 dB noisy. As pollution / emission leads on gear ratio and gear shifting, exterior noise are really dependant to environmental policy and can’t manage noise requirement with transmission.

To manage balance between pollution / emissions and performances, engine, transmission and software, power train design will become more and more complex (downsizing, hybridizing, turbocharger, intelligent gearbox …). NVH department might have no more chance to influence engine and transmission design.

f) Balance between exterior noise and thermal

Post treatment for noise have tendency to increase temperature in engine compartment because of the needed for noise to encapsulated engine sources to limit leak. This increase of temperature can’t be accepted for safety and pollution/emissions. g) Balance between exterior noise and safety

Safety governs, with some others marketing criteria’s, vehicle architecture basis.

- To increase efficiency of noise post treatment (exhaust silencer and shields / absorbing, manufacturers may increase volume and also need to redesign vehicle to leave volume for noise reduction (on engine compartment and under body). For example, solution to reduce noise consisting to increase the width of absorber under hood to limit diffuse fields inside engine compartment is possible only if a sufficient space is keeping between engine and hood for pedestrian safety.

- To reduce tyre noise, manufacturer have to unbalance services which include wet/dry grip, braking, handling, …

h) Balance between exterior noise and volumes and weight

Volume and weight governs marketing: Noise reduction solutions consist to spend in most case weight and volume normally available for passengers, baggage, goods capacity, fuel tank capacity, etc. It will reduce competitiveness of the vehicle. i) Others concerned on exterior noise reduction

• Additional requirement need additional qualified staff: - Researchers to find new materials, process …

- Engineers to adapt such inventions to product …

- Engineers and technician to test efficiency of solutions, durability, impact on others services, etc.

Developments on all vehicle lines are managed in parallel but de-phased one from the other. This means that for some line, manufacturer will have sufficient time to find solution but for some other, manufacturer will not have enough time.

To manage noise reduction, manufacturers and suppliers had to find new resources which had to be specialized on noise.



Mobilität

Figure D 4: Car time frame – Renault example

• Regulation 2001/85/CE requires film on absorber for fire safety. It reduces efficiency of device. Absorbers without film permit 1 dB reduction more and other solutions for fire safety exist.

• For some busses and coach manufacturers which assembled system bought to

others manufacturers (engine, transmission …) it is very difficult to reduce noise at source. So only treatment will possible with knowing limitations.

• Off road vehicle has additional constraints due additional severe uses. They are build for specific works (very high power and torque, 4 or more traction wheels, durability, etc) which limit noise reduction possibility (absorbers and shield are not recommend, tyre are noisy by design, etc).

• Maintenance and repair for HDV: For maintenance or a repair, shields and

absorbing need to be remove. Often, after these interventions, such devices are not return which deteriorate in-use exterior noise. In Austria, encapsulation list are available on each vehicle to permit to police force to control them.

• Because of modularity strategy, manufacturers which had to improve some

vehicle type may include for all other types improvement which will represent a cost increase without any possibility to valorise it for them customers. It might represent a decrease of competitiveness.

D.4 Exterior noise reduction

D.4.1 General Aspects to reduce exterior noise level

Noise reduction level strategy

The capacity to reaching the aim depends on:



Mobilität

- noise reduction request and timeframe associated, - starting Lurban and current acoustic package, - noise sources distribution, - costs of solutions, - possibility for exterior noise department to modify systems impacted, - …

Noise reduction request and timeframe associated

Complete development time frame is around 7 years for light vehicles and around 10 years for heavy vehicles. Partial development (facelift) time frame is around 3 years for light vehicles and around 6 years for heavy vehicles. As shown on figure D-6, different phases have to be considered in this development period. Possibility for manufacturer to manage noise reduction depends on project phase considered.

Figure D 5: Total development phase

The timeframe to improve each vehicle depends on the starting level and the noise reduction required:

• A period of development of 2 years permits for industry only a simple facelift of model concerned. It consists to add some noise reduction device with a minimum impact on others performances (ex. : Simple shield under engine).

• A period of development of 5(for light vehicle)/7 (for heavy vehicle) years permits for industry modifications of few systems on vehicle types concerned. It needs to build a partial redesign of noise reduction device or sources. Impact on others performances become important and need adaptation (Ex.: Encapsulation, modification of cooling system).

• A period of development of 10/12 years permits for industry stringent modifications of systems on vehicle type concerned. It needs to build a stringent partial redesign of noise reduction device or sources. Impact on others performances become very important and need a new development (Ex.: New engine).



Mobilität

Regulation stages had to be in line with this industrial reality: - First stage: 2 years after regulation adoption with 2 dB maximum reduction

- Second stage: 5 years for M1/N1/M2-A and 7 years for M2-B, M3, N2, N3 after regulation adoption with 2 dB more maximum reduction. - Third stage: 10 years for M1/N1/M2-A and 12 years for M2-B, M3, N2, N3 after regulation adoption / 2 dB more maximum reduction.

Following table describe possible reduction to be required in relation with timeframe:

Reductions for M1/N1

1-2 dB(A) 3-4 dB(A) 5-6 dB(A)

Current Limit ≤ L urban < Current limit - 2dBA ~ 2 years ~ 5 years ~ 10 years

Current limit - 2dBA ≤ L urban < Current limit - 4dBA ~ 5 years ~ 10 years

Current limit - 4dBA ≤ L urban < Current limit - 6dBA ~ 10 years

Reductions required for MN23

1-2 dB(A) 3-4 dB(A) 5-6 dB(A)

Current Limit ≤ L urban < Current limit - 2dBA ~ 2 years ~ 7 years ~ 12 years

Current limit - 2dBA ≤ L urban < Current limit - 4dBA ~ 7 years ~ 12 years

Current limit - 4dBA ≤ L urban < Current limit - 6dBA ~ 12 years

Table D 2: timeframe for improvement

These timeframe and reduction have to be study considering each vehicle classes regarding technical possibility and costs associated.

Starting Lurban and acoustic package

Monitoring dBase shows different level of urban noise level into each sub category: Diversity of Levels into a sub category depends on:

- vehicle segment (economic, luxury, …), - price, - engine power and capacity, - weight, - tyre size (depending on weight) and design, - …



Mobilität

Any vehicle type can’t be compared to low noise a vehicle type show in this dBase because noise is a consequence of others services which are different for all vehicle type. This mean that manufactures can’t reduce noise without offset other services.

So, to simplify costs estimation, it is consider that starting L urban is in close relation to acoustic package (noise reduction devices).

Noise sources distribution (according to ECE51 method B) Noise distribution source are usually done for tyre and propulsion noise sources. Even if there is none typical noise source distribution, tendency shown on the following table can be observed:

M1N1 NM23

% of Propulsion noise on L urban

% of Tyre noise on L urban

% of Propulsion noise on L urban

% of Tyre noise on L urban

L urban around max. level

75 % 25% 90 % 10%

L urban around Mean level

50% 50% 80% 20%

L urban around min. level

25% 75% 70% 30%

Table D 3: Noise source distribution from 2004 ACEA Dbase

For a vehicle project, manufacturer has to decline each sources:

- Propulsion : Engine, Exhaust, transmission, - tyre: Coast and torque noise.

Examples are given in following for three M1 vehicles and one HDV:



Mobilität

Figure D 6: Noise distribution on M1

Engine

ExhaustIntake

ransmission

Tyre Engine

Exhaust

Intake

Transmission

Tyre

Figure D 7: Noise distribution on HDV

There is no real dominant source, which might be over a wide range responsible for the noise emissions. Further, each source has to be split into a lot of sub-sources.

D.4.2 NVH Diagnostic For each vehicle type concerned by noise level reduction, diagnostic is the necessary stage to find solutions. This diagnostic is based on an identification step and a sizing step:

- Identification of each noise and vibration generator mechanism, transfer path and radiated element.

- Determination of dominant sources to overall level. - Establishment of a list of possible actions on dominant sources on generator

mechanism, transfer and radiation. - Integration of solution in compatibility with the state of art and with the others

restrains (environment, security, cost, etc). - Sizing each solution to evaluate its efficiency in relation with costs, safety,

environment, etc.

Real veh 1

60%

28%

12%

L tyre

L engine

L exhaust

Real veh 2

60%15%

25%

L tyre

L engine

L exhaust

Real veh 3

40%

45%

15%

L tyre

L engine

L exhaust



Mobilität

Generator, transfer and radiation mechanisms: Generator mechanisms are cause by mechanical effort (efforts due to shock, rotating or mobile mass and their fluctuation) and acoustical pressure (airflow, pneumatic or hydraulic circuit and high speed displacement). Transfer mechanisms are structure born (structure deformation, vibration), air born (noise pressure propagation) or a mix of both. Radiations mechanisms are caused by vibration wave’s transformation to acoustics’ wave.

When a noise sources is reduced, another one become dominant and its reduction had to be made without increase the first one. This is a real difficulty for engineers.

D.4.3 Solutions to reduce exterior noise level Nowadays, to improve vehicle noise, manufacturer work on subsystems to find solutions with very low impact on other services and very low cost.

Review of technical solutions type Solutions may be classified into post-treatment or Source improvement.

Solutions’ evaluation to reduce exterior noise level is based on following points:

• Solutions proposed are based on present knowledge • Solutions proposed goes from a simple modification of components (for vehicles with

a light acoustic package) to a strong modification of systems (for vehicles with a high acoustic package) :

a) ENGINE : from adding shields or absorbers to a redesign of the engine b) EXHAUST : from a simple increase volume or a geometry modification of

the line and mufflers to a redesign of the underbody and the engine mapping c) TYRE : from environment improvement to redesign.

• Evaluation includes redesign of systems (engine, underbody, …) due to conflicts with noise and emissions/pollution, safety and competitiveness.

Nota: As it is difficult to have information on future material and technology (because of confidentiality and competitiveness), cost estimation on this study is based on present knowledge and work load estimation on research and development. Some new technologies which have a real impact like electrical propulsion but with a high cost for manufacturer and customer are not estimate because of difficulties to separate noise budget to others.

Post treatment solutions Post treatment consists to filter air born or vibrating sources by absorbing materials, shields, mufflers … a) Engine treatment:

- Compartment absorption



Mobilität

- Under hood absorption - Shield under engine and gear box, - Encapsulation - Intake silencer …

b) Exhaust treatment: - stamped muffler instead of crimped muffler - Muffler volume - Adding pre-silencer …

c) Tyre treatment: - Tyre cover - Arche lining … All these solutions may have also impacts on other service and may induce a re-design of systems.

Sources improvement Source improvement consists to redesign sub system, system or complete vehicle to reduction noise sources. a) Engine improvement

- Increase of stiffness (part shape, groove, ..) of block, cylinder, cover, - Optimization of equipment fixing on block, cover and geometry, - Improvement materials, - Increase of rigid bearing to limit deformations, - Reduction vibration (injection pump, block …), - Reduction impact pressure wave impacts from pump to injectors, - Reduction acyclism, - Optimization effort on brace, rod, …, - Improvement injection and combustion strategy and piloting, - Improvement tooth profile and material Sheave/drive belt, - Reduction friction, - Optimization cooling, exhaust decoupling and Improve shape and materials on turbocharger, …

b) Exhaust - Bimodal exhaust system - Collector design, - Outlet jet flow reduction, …



Mobilität

c) Transmission

- Gear design, - Increase stiffness (part shape, groove, ..), - Optimise equipment fixing on block, cover and geometry, … d) Tyre

- New tread pattern design with void decrease, - Improvement of tread material, - Thicker under-tread, - Low rigidity tread compound of internal structure …

All these solutions may have also impacts on other service and may induce a re-design of systems.

D.4.4 Costs and efficiency estimations of solutions

Estimation of efficiency is based directly on vehicle noise reduction or indirectly on source reduction associated, with representatives’ source noise distribution.

Estimation of cost is based vehicle’s life-time of a new model divided onto its development period and its production/selling period.

Development period

For exterior noise department, development period consists for expert to find, and new solutions taking into others services required (as weight reduction, thermal, emission/ pollution reduction, safety, etc).

Costs associated to investments include: - research and development (men and prototypes), - benches, - development and manufacturing of production tools,

During this period, industry needs a sufficient timeframe to improve exterior noise in relation to technical capacity reaching the aim. Costs for investments are counted by car line and distributed on all vehicles produced:

100 000 vehicles sells / years over 5 years. Costs for investments are multiply by 1,1 to take into account monetary advance (10% interest).



Mobilität

Production period Production period consist to build each improved vehicle.

Costs associated include:

- Part used for noise, - Additional men-time production to install these parts, - Additional or new parts to maintain level of others services required (as weight

reduction, thermal, emission/ pollution reduction, safety …).

Part and Production costs are counted per vehicle during production period.

Estimation of solutions - Consultation output Data’s given by manufacturer and suppliers are very different:

- Solutions with or without noise performance associated, - Solutions with noise performance on source or on vehicle (on ECE51 method A or B), - Solutions with incomplete costs (costs on parts only, overtime for investments, …), - Solutions with or without impact associated (with or without costs), - A simple value of cost per dB without solutions associated and starting noise level, …

All these data combined permit to build an overall cost estimation for different type of solutions of all following items:

- Parts (for noise and associated system impacted) - R&D (men and prototype),

- Production investment (tools), - Production time (additional men-time to install parts)

- Others impact (investment and / or part, production)

Current equivalent noise level (or Equivalent limit values) Estimation of cost and benefit is made on ECE51 method B. As current limits are today only on ECE51 method A, equivalent limit values has to be estimated using monitoring database to build noise reduction level scenarios for analysis.

So Current Equivalent limit is deduced from analysis passing of vehicle noise l ECE51 method B.

Estimation of solutions – solutions classification

As application of solutions depends mainly on cost, it is consider that they will be classified by cost order and distribute onto several classes depending on starting L urban:



Mobilität

Table D 4: Vehicle class related to CEL

This classification assumes that there is a relation between noise package and L urban.

a) Costs for M1, N1 and M2-A categories

Values of cost versus noise reduction derived from part / production and development are arranged by costs level. Description, efficiency and costs are given in the following table:

Table D 5: Solutions and costs associated (mean values)

Class 1 2 3 4 5 6

L urban CEL CEL - 1dBA

CEL - 2dBA

CEL - 3dBA

CEL – 4dBA

CEL - 5dBA



Mobilität

Cumulated curve is plotted by third degree polynomial regression function using each data combined, as shown in the following figure:

0,0

100,0

200,0

300,0

400,0

500,0

600,0

700,0

800,0

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0

Reduction from CEL

Cu

mu

ltiv

e co

st

/ ve

hic

le

Figure D 8: Cumulative cost with reduction from CEL (M1,N1 and M2-A)

Cost and efficiency of solutions are considered to be equivalent for all light vehicles (M1, N1, M2-A categories).

Contribution of investments on overall cost is estimated using the following figure:

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5

dB reduction from CEL

% in

vest

men

t

Figure D 9: Percentage of investment costs

b) Costs for other categories than for M1, N1 and M2-A As less data has collect from Heavy vehicle industry than for light vehicle industry, offset of M1/N1/M2-A cumulative cost curves is used for M2-B, M3, N2, N3 cumulative cost curves. Offset is made using data from heavy vehicle industry consultation.



Mobilität

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0

Reduction from CEL

Cu

mu

ltiv

e co

st

/ ve

hic

le

Figure D 10: Cumulative cost with reduction from CEL (M2-B, M3, N2 and N3)

Cost and efficiency of solutions are considered to be equivalent for all heavy vehicles (M2-B, M3, N2 and N3 categories). M1, N1 and M2-A percentage of investment costs curves are also used for N2, M2, N3 and M3.

Evolution of costs due to increase or decrease of the development period Development cost is estimated using normal timeframe in line with industrial development phases:

• 2 years simple facelift, • 5 (for light vehicle) / 7 (for heavy vehicle) years for significant modifications, • 10 (for light vehicle) / 12 (for heavy vehicle) years for stringent modifications.

If limit stage are smaller to these time period, cost will increase and if limit stage are larger to these time period, cost will decrease:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Development period (years)

Co

sts

rela

ted

to

de

v p

erio

d %

no

rmal

dev

per

iod

Simple faceliftSignificant modificationsStringent modifications

Figure D 11: Evolution of cost related to normal development period



Mobilität

Evolution of costs curves

Cost is maintained (but reduced) over the years. When a vehicle type is replaced by a new one, the exterior noise solutions must be adapted to a new design and a new constraints:

- investment is always needed to adapt solutions to the new vehicle type, - part and production is always necessary to maintain the noise level required.

Solutions from a vehicle type have to be improved for the replacement type even if no limit reduction is required. In any cases, with or without reduction stage, investment is necessary to maintain and to improve noise level. Industry considers that cost of solutions previously design will be reduced by 30% after each introduction of new limit (or after end of vehicle lifecycle without limit’s decrease) for vehicle type replacement.

D.4.5 Impact of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 EC REGULATION 661-2009 manages noise reduction limits for C1, C2 and C3 tyre based on ECE117 testing. These new limits will impact tyre noise at 80 kph or 70 kph and may impact vehicle noise ECE51.

M1, N1 and M2-A categories

M1, N1 and M2-A categories are considered benefiting from the lower noise limits of new tyre noise regulation (EC) No 661/2009. However, low noise OEM tyres already exist and the benefits need further analysis to be estimate:

Using 2004 ACEA database, which include tyre noise level at 50 km/h, L urban can be estimated with tyre noise correction and compared to L urban given by its database with tyre correction. First, tyre noise level at 50 km/h is extrapolated at 80 km/h to be compared to limits lines:

• Logarithmic function L tyre 80 kph = L tyre 50 kph + 30 * log10 (80/50) is used, • Measured values are corrected for instrument tolerance (-1dB) and are rounded down

to the nearest whole value. No temperature correction is used. Current and future limits are describe on the following table:



Mobilität

Width class Current limits EC proposal

135 - 145 72 70

155 - 165 73 70

175 - 185 74 70

195 - 215 75 71

225 - 245 76 71

255 - 275 76 72

C1 PC tires

> 275 76 74

Table D 6: Current and future limits for tyre

L urban with tyre correction is estimated using L urban without tyre correction and L tyre 50 km/h without correction to calculate propulsion noise to be recombined to L tyre 50 km/h with correction.

66,0

67,0

68,0

69,0

70,0

71,0

72,0

73,0

74,0

75,0

0 50 100 150 200 250

PMR

L ur

ban

L urban without correction

L urban with tyre correction

Figure D 12: Impact of tyre regulation on M1N1 / L urban



Mobilität

On 2004 ACEA database, following remarks can be given as globally representative to 2010 state:

• 35% of OEM tyre are not impacted by the new regulation (EC) No 661/2009, • 34% of OEM have to be reduced only by 1 dB, • 25% of OEM have to be reduced only by 2 dB, • 6% of OEM have to be reduced only by 3 or 4 dB, • Correction on L tyre 50 km/h goes from 0 dB(A) to 4 dB(A), • Correction on L urban goes from 0 dB(A) to 2,4 dB(A).

A normal cumulated frequency distribution related to Current Equivalent Limit shows that:

• Impact is not significant for vehicle close to the limit and for those far from the limit. • Impact is around 0,5 dB on average.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CEL CEL-1 CEL-2 CEL-3 CEL-4 CEL-5 CEL-6 CEL-7 CEL-8

L urban dB(A)

cum

ula

ted

freq

uenc

y d

istr

ibut

ion

L urban without tyre correction

L urban with tyre correction

Figure D 13: Impact of tyre regulation on M1N1 / Frequency distribution

A weighting will be applied on M1, N1 and M2-A noise distribution to take into account Impact of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009

M2-B, M3, N2 and N3 categories

For other categories than M1, N1 and M2-A, no benefit from the lower noise limits from new regulation (EC) No 661/2009. The main reason is that cruise noise is not the representative phenomena which occurs during pass by noise test at 35 km/h full throttle. Only torque noise is influent.

No weighting will be applied on M2-B, M3, N2 and N3 noise distribution to take into account Impact of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009



Mobilität

D.5 References for this annex

- Torque Influence on C3 category tyres, Informal Document No. GRB-51-13 Geneva WP29 / GRB 51st session, February 15-17, 2010, ETRTO.

- Vibro-acoustique des moteurs automobiles, technique de l’ingénieur, 2008 - Acoustique et Technique n°30 « Méthodologie d’étude de la qualité du bruit de combustion d’un moteur diesel a partir de l’analyse de sa pression cylindre »

- SIA recueils de conférence 2004, 2006, 2008 - Evaluation du bruit de combustion des moteurs diesel multi injection, groupe D2T

- FEHRL report SI2 40 82 10 Tyre/road noise, 2006 - SILVIA-TUW-039-02-WP5-120304, SILVIA Deliverable 07: Recommendations on Specifications for Tyre and Vehicle Requirements, 2006

- SILVIA-TOI-004-01-WP3-030505 SILVIA PROJECT DELIVERABLE Cost-benefit analysis, 2006

- IMAGINE Improved Methods for the Assessment of the Generic Impact of Noise in the Environment WP5: Road noise sources Sound power measurements on heavy vehicles to study propulsion noise, 2005

- Modified vehicle guidelines 2006 Technical guidelines for air and noise emission requirements for modified in-service vehicles, EPA Victoria, Publication 1031, February 2006

- Reducing Combustion Noise, FEV, 2005 - Target Setting Procedures for Vehicle Powerplant Noise Reduction, Paul W. Zeng, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan, 2003

- UNECE, OICA Presentation GRB Inf Grp - Rome 2005 - Vehicle Noise Report For The Ministry Of Transport: Review of Methods Used For The Control Of Excessive Noise From New Zealand Road Vehicles, Malcolm Hunt Associates, Noise & Environmental Consultants, 2005

- Cost and efficiency performance of automobile engine Plants, Boston consulting group, 2001 - A Nordic perspective on noise reduction at the sources, TOI, 2005

- OICA ACEA Vehicle Database, 2004 (http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grb/R51_DB.html)

- Integrated assessment of noise reduction measures in the road transport sector, TRL and RWTUEV, 2003 - Life cycle design management in the automobile sector A framework, M.Sc. Graziano Carli, M.Sc. Raffaele Scialdoni Ecolabel, Prof. Dr. Massimo Tronci, 2003 - Acoustic concept of new engine 2013 for truck application, Deutz, 2006



Mobilität

- Low-noise Urban Truck (LUT) project, Volvo, 2008 - GRBIG-ASEP-05-007 - (CLEPA)ASEP 9NOV06 Potentials of exhaust systems with valves, Bosal, 2008

Some of these references, not directly used for this annex, inspired this work.



Mobilität

ANNEX E

E. Automotive Noise Reduction Costs Model Approaches and Results

E.1 Introduction This Automotive Noise Reduction Costs Model consists to calculate the over-cost due to noise reduction of 4 wheels and more road vehicles.

The over-cost due to noise reduction limits level is declined for automotive industry (manufacturers and suppliers) and customers:

• Industry has over-costs due to investment to find and adapted new solutions and over-cost due to the production of these solutions,

• Cost may be finally assumed by Customers on vehicle price’s increase. The evaluation for industry is based on new limit stage and vehicle life-cycle which is divided into a development and a selling/production period. All new vehicle registered in Europe had to fulfil future ECE51 requirements. Estimation of fleet concerned and impacted is based on Eu27 new registrations and subcategories combined with frequency distributions of Lurban in the monitoring database.

Limit stages, vehicle’s lifecycle (development and production) and evolutions are combined to quantified costs over the years. Over-cost per vehicle are estimated by checking and quantifying solutions (made by industry consultation – see annex D) and used to plot abacus for M1/N1/M2-A and M2-B/M3/N2/N3. Number of vehicle and the level of reduction requested are combined with cost abacus to estimate overall costs.

E.2 Vehicle’s lifecycle

E.2.1 Development period

A M1/N1/M26A vehicle type/model is considered to be developed into 5 years for a new type/model and 2 years for a simple facelift. A M2-B/M3/N2/N3 vehicle type/model is considered to be developed into 7 years for a new type/model and 2 years for a simple facelift. Over cost due to development is equally distributed on 5 or 2 years before introduction of a new limits or redesign.



Mobilität

For limit stages different from these timeframe, costs have to be weighted (increase for regulated stage shorter than these industrial development phases / decrease for regulated stage longer than these industrial development phases):

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Development period (years)

Co

sts

rela

ted

to

de

v p

erio

d %

no

rmal

dev

per

iod

Simple faceliftSignificant modificationsStringent modifications

Figure E 1: Weighting function for development costs

E.2.2 Selling/production period

All new registered vehicles comply with limit values within 2 years after introduction of a new limit (period from new type to all type application): The first year of introduction of a new limit only 50% of the new registered vehicles comply with these limit values, 75 % the second year and 100% on the third year. If no new limit stage is introduced, period of production is considered to be equal to 7 years for MN1 and 9 years for MN23.

E.3 Vehicle’s fleet concerned and impacted by noise reduction

Inputs used for costs estimation depends on the representativeness of each noise distribution and number of vehicle registered per categories.

E.3.1 Vehicles fleet concerned by noise reduction

All new vehicle types/models sell in European market must be produced in line with the regulation with new limit values. All 27 European countries registration are counted for calculation.



Mobilität

Fleet concerned, used for analysis, is based on annual new registration of PC/LDV/HD, percentage of subcategories inside M1, N1, M2, M3, N2 and N3, Current equivalent limits values and noise repartition inside subcategories are given by monitoring dBase.

Noise distribution may be very different from one category to the other. Disparity may be mainly explained by lot of variety of vehicle designs. This is mainly caused by all the marketing requests.

Noise distribution

Category No of data Noise distribution

M1

M1-A or M1-1 463

M1-B or M1-2 33

M1-C or M1-3 45

M1-D M1-1or 51

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

CEL-8

CEL-7

CEL-6

CEL-5

CEL-4

CEL-3

CEL-2

CEL-1CEL

CEL+1

M1-A

M1-B

M1-C

M1-D

N1M2A

N1M2A1 63

N1M2A2 82

N1M2A2 OR 16 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

CEL-8

CEL-7

CEL-6

CEL-5

CEL-4

CEL-3

CEL-2

CEL-1

CEL

CEL+1

N1M2A-1

N1M2A-2

N1M2A OR

Table E 1: Number of vehicle used to build noise distribution / M1, N1, M2-A



Mobilität

Category No of data Noise distribution

N2M2B

N2M2B1 38

N2M2B2 34

N2M2B1 OR 7

N2M2B2 OR 10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

CEL-8

CEL-7

CEL-6

CEL-5

CEL-4

CEL-3

CEL-2

CEL-1CEL

CEL+1

N2M2B1

N2M2B2

N2M2B1 OR

N2M2B2 OR

N3

N3-1 11

N3-2 61

N3-3 69

N3-4 28

N3-Aor 14

N3-Bor 34

N3-Cor 25

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

N3-1N3-2N3-3N3-4N3-2orN3-3orN3-4or

M3

M3-1 13

M3-2 24

M3-3 19

M3-1or 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

CEL-8

CEL-7

CEL-6

CEL-5

CEL-4

CEL-3

CEL-2

CEL-1 CEL

CEL+1

M3-A

M3-B

M3-C

M3-Aor

Table E 2: Number of vehicle used to build noise distribution / M2-B, M3, N2, N3



Mobilität

Annual new registration of PC, LDV, HD

Fleet concerned is defined by ACEA statistics:

Category Number of vehicle registered per years

M1 15 millions

N1/M2-A 2,2 millions

M2-B/M3/N2/N3 0,44 million

Table E 3: New registered by years in EU27 - 2007

Percentage of subcategories inside European categories used for analysis

Data provide by ACEA, UNECE or AAA does not permit to have percentage of % cat inside each sub categories and noise distribution is not significant for few sub-categories. Simplification used consisted to define representative sub-category to estimate concerned fleet:

• M1 : M1-1, M1-2, M1-3 and M1-1or • N1M2A : N1M2A-1 and N1M2A-2 • N2M2B : N2M2B-1 and N2M2B-2 • N3 : N3-2, N3-3, N3-4

Sub-categories chosen permit to have good representativeness due to the number of sample inside dBase and number of vehicle register inside categories.

Noise distribution of these categories were used to represents all others categories. Percentage used is directly applied on the number of vehicle registered per years per categories defined on table E-2. Even if simplified, fleet concerned gives a significant and realistic estimation.



Mobilität

Category Sub-category Percentage par category

M1-A or M1-1 Pmr <= 125 kW/t 95,10%

M1-B or M1-2 125 kW/t < pmr <= 150 kW/t 0,40%

M1-C or M1-3 pmr > 150 kW/t 0,30% M1

M1-D or M1-1or Off road, pmr <= 150 kW/t 4,10%

N1M2A-1 GVM <= 2500 kg 30,00% N1/M2

N1M2A-2 GVM > 2500 kg 70,00%

N2M2B1 s > 3000 min-1 7,50%

N2M2B2 s <= 3000 min-1 31,40%

N3-2 2 axles, Pn <= 250 kW 19,20%

N3-3 2 axles, Pn > 250 kW 31,80%

NM23

N3-4 > 2 axles 10,20%

Table E 4: Distribution of registered vehicle inside subcategories

Combination of noise distribution and number of vehicles registered per sub-category give a good illustration of the different contribution of each sub-category.

Noise dis tribution

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

L urban

nb o

f veh

(m

illio

ns u

nits

)

M1-A

M1-B

M1-C

M1-D

N2M2B1

N2M2B2

N3-2

N3-3

N3-4

N1M2A-1

N1M2A-2

Figure E 2: Noise distribution of vehicle registered par years



Mobilität

Some remarks can be explained regarding this figure: - M1-A represent the most number of vehicles in use in Eu27 and the most number in

movement, but also the quieter vehicles,

- Other categories as N2, N3 represent very less number of vehicles but also the noisier vehicles,

Current Equivalent Limits (or Equivalent Limit Values or CEL)

Database analysis permits to established current equivalent limit which is the base for scenarios building. Yellow colour sub-line sub-categories used for calculation.

On Road Off Road 1)


N1/M2-A1 GVM <= 2500 kg 72 74N1/M2-A2 GVM > 2500 kg 74 75N2/M2-B1 rated speed > 3000 min-1

76 77

N2/M2-B2 rated speed <= 3000 min-1

78 79N3-1 2 axles, Pn <= 180 kW 79 80N3-2 2 axles, 180 kW < Pn <= 250 kW 81 82N3-3 2 axles, Pn > 250 kW 82 83N3-4 > 2 axles 84 85M3-1 Pn < 180 kW 76 77M3-2 180 kW < Pn <= 250 kW 78 79M3-3 Pn > 250 kW 80 81

M1

N1/M2-A

N2/M2-B

N3


M3


SubcategoryCategory

Table E 5: Sub-categories, CEL and used sub-categories for analysis

Noise repartition inside subcategories given by monitoring dBase

Vehicle types with noise level above current equivalent limits are bring back to the limit line. Noise distributions of M1, N1 and M2-A are weighting to take into account impact of Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 as describe in the annex D.



Mobilität

E.3.2 Vehicles impacted by noise reduction

Inside the concerned fleet by limit reduction, only vehicles with Lurban above limit will be impacted.

Vehicles impacted have to be improved to reach the limit. As the minimum requirement is the limit value, this improvement will consist to reduce noise levels of vehicles impacted just to the limit value required. This means that:

- all vehicles above the limit will be design to be just at the limit; - all vehicles below or equal to the limit will stay at the same level.

64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

L urban dB(A)

Veh

icul

e re

par

titio

n %

Stage 2Stage 1Stage 0

Limit stage 1 Current Equivalent limitLimit stage 2

Figure E 3: Example of production’s evolution on two stages

Number of vehicles impacted inside each sub-category is estimated using distribution of Lurban inside sub-categories given by the monitoring dBase.

Considering each scenarios, following table and figure shows number of vehicle impacted by noise reduction and evolution of fleet:



Mobilität

Figure E 4: Vehicles impacted by noise reduction and evolution of fleet / M1-1




Mobilität


Figure E 7: Vehicles impacted by noise reduction and evolution of fleet / M1-1or



Mobilität

Figure E 8: Vehicles impacted by noise reduction and evolution of fleet / N1M2A-1

Figure E 9: Vehicles impacted by noise reduction and evolution of fleet / N1M2A-2



Mobilität

Figure E 10: Vehicles impacted by noise reduction and evolution of fleet / N2M2B-1

Figure E 11: Vehicles impacted by noise reduction and evolution of fleet / N2M2B-2



Mobilität

Figure E 12: Vehicles impacted by noise reduction and evolution of fleet / N3-2




Mobilität


In an overall view, the proportion of vehicles impacted by noise reduction is described in the following table:

Noise reduction required Total MN

Total M1 Total N1 Total

NM23

Scenario 1 1 dB(A) 8% 8% 3% 24%

Scenario 2 2 dB(A) 18% 18% 16% 50%

Scenario 3 4 dB(A) 66% 63% 78% 87%

Scenario 4 5 dB(A) 85% 84% 89% 95%

Scenario 5 6 dB(A) 93% 92% 98% 100%

Table E 6: Proportion of impacted vehicles per category

Some remarks on population impacted noise reduction:

• Proportion of vehicles impacted is significantly greater for M2-B/N2/N3 than for M/N1. The reason is the narrow range of noise distribution for M2-B, N2, N3 (5 dB average) compare to M1/N1 (7 dB average).



Mobilität

• Contribution of each category is really different. Some categories as M2 and M3 or Off-Road do not significantly contributed to urban noise. But, for these categories, impact of noise reduction may be critical because of the weak number of vehicle produced and investments need (which is this study estimate for a large number of vehicles produced).

• Proportion of vehicles concerned has to be retained to prevent extreme reduction on one sub-category.

E.3.3 Evolution of vehicle fleet

Noise distribution will be considered to be only influenced by limits stage defined. No influence of weight / power evolution, introduction stringent emission or safety regulation will be taken into account (costs estimation include only maintain of today’s specifications). It is also assumed that number of vehicle registered will be considered as constant during the study period.

E.4 Cost curves

E.4.1 Construction of cost curves Derive from industry consultation, technical solutions are classified into groups depending on the present Lurban vs. Current Equivalent Limit (CEL).

Cumulative Cost Curve is defined by regression of single values of costs vs. dB reduction. Cumulative Cost Curves are plotted by a 3rd order polynomials regression expressed as:

y = a x3 + b x2 + c x, with x the noise reduction in dB(A) and y the costs in €

Abacus are plotted for each starting level and reduction level required:



Mobilität

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

dBA reduction

Cos

t (

per

dB

red

uct

ion

)

CEL

CEL-1

CEL-2

CEL-3

CEL-4

Figure E 15: Abacus for M1, N1 and M2-A

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000

3 500

4 000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

dBA reduction

Co

st (

per

dB

red

ucti

on)

CEL

CEL-1

CEL-2

CEL-3

CEL-4

Figure E 16: Abacus for M2-B, M3, N2 and N3



Mobilität

For industry cost’s estimation, weighting due to stage timeframe and percentage of investments’ costs shown Annex D are used. This curve permits to separate investment and part/production costs.

E.4.2 Evolution of costs curves

Evolution over the years depends on:

• the increase of knowledge and industrial costs reduction, • the possibility for industry to integrate technical solutions from a vehicle type to its

replacement type.

Cost of previous solutions will be reduced by 30% after each introduction of new limit (or after end of vehicle lifecycle without limit’s decrease) for vehicle type replacement. And, cost will be reduced by 2% by year for increase of knowledge and industrial costs reduction.

E.5. Industry and customers cost

Costs for noise reduction is assumed by Automotive Industry on additional investments (research and development (men and prototypes, production tools investment, re-design for adaptation of associated systems) parts/production (Part used for noise reduction, additional men-time to install parts, additional associated system).

Costs are assumed by Customers on vehicle price’s increase.

Industry over-cost may be: 1) completely taken in charge by industry for competitiveness , 2) completely transmit to customers, 3) completely transmit to customers with margin if exterior noise is a purchase argument

or if reduction is favourable for interior noise.

All these possibilities are chosen by each manufacturer depending significantly on service, design, market...

As shown by industry consultation part, exterior level is generally not a marketing criterion for manufacturer. This means that second alternative is chosen for the study: Industry costs are completely transmit to customers.

Whereas industry over-cost is declined into investments (before the launch of a new type) and part / production (during the production period), customers has only a view of the increase of the price of the vehicle. Part / production costs are directly transmitted to customers and investments’ costs will be distributed on all vehicles to be sold during production/selling period.

The increase of a vehicle price for a manufacturer corresponds to:



Mobilität

- a distribution of investment cost on all vehicles planned to be sell added, - part / production over-cost for each vehicle.

This increase of vehicle price for customers is equal to the increase of price for manufacturer multiply by a coefficient taken into account the purchase channel (transport, sellers …) and taxes.

This coefficient is taken at 1,7 to the vehicle price.

E. 6 Costs Results

As cost analysis approach is declination for both sides (automotive industry and customers) different viewing had to be considered to understand all constraints.

E.6.1 Costs for industry

Cost for industry represents the industry advance of money. This advance is used for developments before sales of vehicles and completely transmits to customers. So industry will get back this money during the selling period.

This cost item may be compared to the annual investment of € 32.8 billion in 2008 (according to the Scoreboard, the categories ‘automobiles and parts’ and ‘commercial vehicles and trucks’ represented).

0,0

1000,0

2000,0

3000,0

200x

200x+1

200x

+2

200x

+3

200x

+4

200x

+5

200x

+6

200x+7

200x

+8

200x

+9

200x

+10

200x

+11

200x

+12

200x

+13

200x

+14

200x+1

5

Year

Millio

ns

Scenario 1Scenario 2Scenario 3Scenario 4Scenario 5

Figure E 17: Costs for industry for each scenario - annual costs



Mobilität

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

200x

200x

+1

200x

+2

200x

+3

200x

+4

200x

+5

200x

+6

200x

+7

200x

+8

200x

+9

200x

+10

200x

+11

200x

+12

200x

+13

200x

+14

200x

+15

Year

Millio

ns


Figure E 18: Costs for industry for each scenario - Cumulated costs

The criterion used for industry cost is the maximum cumulative cost in millions €. It represents essentially investments made by industry and it will start give a return on investment after several years (when cumulated cost starts to decrease). Average cost per year is estimated using maximum cumulated divided by the number of years of advance of money. Following curves (cumulated cost) detailed advance of money and starting of return on investment for M1, N1/M2-A and M2-B/M3/N2/N3:

INDUSTRY COST

0

1

1

2

2

3

Cu

mu

late

d c

ost

(mill

ions

eu

ros)

MN

M1

N1

NM23

Figure E 19: Industry costs detailed for M1, N1, NM23 (Cumulated costs)

Scenario 1



Mobilität

INDUSTRY COST

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Cum

ula

ted

cos

t (m

illio

ns e

uros

)

MN

M1

N1

NM23


Scenario 2

INDUSTRY COST

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Cum

ulat

ed c

ost

(mill

ions

eur

os)

MN

M1

N1

NM23


Scenario 3



Mobilität


Scenario 4


Scenario 5



Mobilität

Following table summarize, each criterion (cumulated cost, average cost and number of advance of money’s years).

Noise

reduction required

Criterion Total MN Total M1

Total

N1 Total NM23

Maximum cumulated cost (millions €) 2,1 0,1 0,4 1,7

Number of years for advance of money 8,0 1,0 1,0 8,0

Average cost per year (millions €) 0,3 0,1 0,4 0,2 Scenario 1 1 dB(A)

Average cost per year (percentage of automotive annual investment) 0,00%









Maximum cumulated cost (millions €) 8 713,3 5 686,6 1 019,7 2 272,8




Maximum cumulated cost (millions €) 18 189,2 13 030,0 2 153,3 3 510,6


Average cost per year (millions €) 1 212,6 1 002,3 179,4 175,5 Scenario 5 6 dB(A)


Table E 7: Cost for industry results



Mobilität

Some remarks on cost for industry:

• Scenarios 1 and 2 overall costs’ for industry is mainly driven by category N2, N3, M2, M3 because of the proportion of impacted vehicles. For scenarios 3, 4 and 5, M1 are largely impacted and costs become higher because of volume of passenger cars impacted.

• Even if in all cases industry will get back investments, it will take a long time: 6 years after the last limit stage.

• Investments are necessary for industry on Research and Development (for safety, environment, competitiveness, etc), production tools, factories, etc. It concerned OEM and replacement. Investments has to be distributed in all these need and can’t be focus only on one item without induce difficulties on the others.

E.6.2 Cost for customers It is assumed that customers will support at the end over-cost due to noise reduction. So to develop an action plan for vehicle noise regulation, policy makers need to have an estimation of additional charges that will be paid by citizen to have a reduction of noise exposure in their environment. This cost will be compared to the monetary valuation of benefit in order to get an assessment. To be consistent, noise reduction had to give a clearly higher benefit than it will cost.

A convenient criterion is the cumulated cost on sufficient years after the application of the new regulation.

0,0

2000,0

4000,0

6000,0

8000,0

10000,0

200x

200x

+1

200x

+2

200x

+3

200x

+4

200x

+5

200x

+6

200x

+7

200x

+8

200x

+9

200x

+10

200x

+11

200x

+12

200x

+13

200x

+14

200x

+15

200x

+16

200x

+17

200x

+18

200x

+19

200x

+20

200x

+21

200x

+22

Year

Mill

ion

s


Figure E 24: Costs for customers for each scenario - annual costs



Mobilität

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

200x

200x

+1

200x

+2

200x

+3

200x

+4

200x

+5

200x

+6

200x

+7

200x

+8

200x

+9

200x

+10

200x

+11

200x

+12

200x

+13

200x

+14

200x

+15

200x

+16

200x

+17

200x

+18

200x

+19

200x

+20

200x

+21

200x

+22

200x

+23

200x

+24

Year

Mil

lion

s


Figure E 25: Costs for customers for each scenario - Cumulated costs

Following curves (cumulated cost) show cumulated cost curves for customers

CUSTOMERS COSTS

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

200x

200x+1

200x+

2

200x+

3

200x+4

200x

+5

200x+

6

200x+7

200x+8

200x

+9

200x+10

200x+

11

200x+

12

200x+13

200x+14

200x+

15

200x+

16

200x+17

Cu

mu

late

d c

ost

(m

illi

on

s

)

MN

M1

N1

NM23

Figure E 26: Customers costs detailed for M1, N1/M2-A and M2-B/M3/N2/N3 (Cumulated costs)

Scenario 1



Mobilität

CUSTOMERS COSTS

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

200x

200x

+1

200x+

2

200x+3

200x+

4

200x+5

200x+

6

200x+7

200x+8

200x+

9

200x+

10

200x+11

200x+

12

200x+13

200x+

14

200x+15

200x

+16

200x+

17

Cu

mu

late

d c

ost

(m

illi

on

s

)

MN

M1

N1

NM23


Scenario 2

CUSTOMERS COSTS

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

200x

200x+1

200x+

2

200x+3

200x

+4

200x+

5

200x+6

200x+

7

200x+

8

200x+9

200x+10

200x+

11

200x+

12

200x+13

200x+

14

200x+15

200x

+16

200x+

17

Cu

mu

late

d c

ost

(m

illi

on

s )

MN

M1

N1

NM23

Figure E 28 Customers costs detailed for M1, N1/M2-A and M2-B/M3/N2/N3 (Cumulated costs)

Scenario 3



Mobilität

CUSTOMERS COSTS

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

200x

200x+

1

200x+

2

200x+3

200x+

4

200x+5

200x+6

200x+

7

200x+8

200x

+9

200x+10

200x+

11

200x+

12

200x+13

200x+

14

200x+15

200x+16

200x+

17

Cu

mu

late

d c

ost

(m

illi

on

s )

MN

M1

N1

NM23


Scenario 4

CUSTOMERS COSTS

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

200x

200x+1

200x+

2

200x+3

200x+

4

200x+5

200x+

6

200x+7

200x+

8

200x+9

200x+10

200x+

11

200x

+12

200x

+13

200x+

14

200x+15

200x+

16

200x+17

Cu

mu

late

d c

ost

(m

illi

on

s )

MN

M1

N1

NM23


Scenario 5



Mobilität

Following table summarizes cumulated cost over 20 years of application and gives average annual cost:

Total

Noise reduction required

Criterion Total MN Total M1 N1

Total NM23

Scenario 1 1 dB(A)

Cumulated cost over 20 years of

application (millions €)

984 630 68 285

Scenario 2 2 dB(A)



3445 2205 264 974

Scenario 3 4 dB(A)



21536 15229 2354 3951

Scenario 4 5 dB(A)



62595 46757 7716 8121

Scenario 5 6 dB(A)



112178 87939 14103 10135

Table E 8: Cost for customers results



Mobilität

Some remarks on cost for customers:

• Cost is mainly due to M1 category. Proportion of costs due M2-B/M3/N2/N3 is significant for the first dB reduction but decrease after 2 dB reduction. Reasons are the noise distribution shape and the narrow noise level range. N1 contribution is proportional to the number of vehicles registered compared to M1.

Table E 9: Proportion of costs for M1, N1/M2-A and M2-B/M3/N2/N3

• Cost increase significantly increase with the reduction required. It increases in a same order as costs curves (as a third polynomial function).

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Noise reduction required dB(A)

Cu

mu

late

d C

ost

s in

/h

ous

eho

ld If limit stages are smaller than timeframe proposed,

cost will increase

If limit stages are higher than timeframe proposed,

cost will decrease

Figure E 31: Overall-cost related to reduction required



Mobilität

Costs curves have to be weighted to consider timeframe of limit stages: - Increase of costs for limit stages shorter than those chosen for calculation.

- Decrease of costs for limit stages longer than those chosen for calculation

E.6.3 Residual cost Residual cost represents a long terms done to understand cost for customers after the last limit stage. The criterion is the cost each year after 20 years of application without new decrease of limits. After the last limit stage, the cost decrease over the years.

Noise

reduction required

Criterion Total MN Total M1

Total

N1 Total NM23

Scenario 1 1 dB(A) Cost by year after 20 years of

application

(millions €/ year) 21 12 1 7


application

(millions €/ year) 74 44 5 24


application

(millions €/ year) 1201 858 141 201


application

(millions €/ year) 3468 2509 413 545


application

(millions €/ year) 7077 5431 866 779

Table E 10: Residual costs for customers results

Even if no more reduction stage are establish after 201x + 22, costs will continue all over the years.



Mobilität

E.7 References for this annex

- Traffic noise reduction in Europe, Health effects, social costs and technical and policy options to reduce road and rail traffic noise, Delft, August 2007

- Review and analysis of the reduction potential and costs of technological and other measures to reduce CO2-emissions from passenger cars, TNO-IEEP-LAT, 2006 - Analysis and evaluation of road pricing benefits and costs, John Mao-André Dantas -Alan Nicholson, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, 2004 - Noise classification of road pavements, Task 2: Cost-effectiveness of low noise pavements, European Commission Directorate-General Environment June 2006

- Daytime Running Lights (DRL): A review of the reports from the European Commission, TRL , 2006

- European Road Safety Observatory (2006) Cost-benefit analysis, retrieved January 18, 2008 from www.erso.eu

- CityExpress: Cost/Benefit Analysis, 2001

- Cost-Benefit Analysis of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Technology A. Simpson, 2006 - Stratégie pour une mise en oeuvre de l’internalisation des coûts externes, COMMISSION DES COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES, 2008 - Cost Benefit Parameters and Application Rules for Transport Project Appraisal, Goodbody economic consultant, August 2004

- VALUATION OF NOISE, POSITION PAPER of the WORKING GROUP on HEALTH and SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS, 4-December-2003

- UNECE CRP-098 - RIA Benefit cost Spain, June 2005 - Les couts externes des transports, INFRAS, octobre 2004

- UNECE STATISTICS : http://w3.unece.org/pxweb/database/STAT/40-TRTRANS/02-TRRoadFleet/02-TRRoadFleet.asp - ACEA STATISTICS : http://www.acea.be/index.php/collection/statistics

- AAA Statistics 2007

Some of these references, not directly used for this annex, inspirited his work.

MONITORING PROCEDURE IN THE VEHICLE NOISE … · MONITORING PROCEDURE IN THE VEHICLE ... ECE R 51...

Documents

Transcript of MONITORING PROCEDURE IN THE VEHICLE NOISE … · MONITORING PROCEDURE IN THE VEHICLE ... ECE R 51...