£EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Noise
Abatement & Control
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 550/9-79-311
May 1979
Noise
NOISE TECHNOLOGY
RESEARCH NEEDS
AND
THE RELATIVE ROLES OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AND
THE PRIVATE SECTOR
-------
NOISE TECHNOLOGY
RESEARCH NEEDS
AND
THE RELATIVE ROLES OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AND
THE PRIVATE SECTOR
May 1979
Proceedings
of the
EPA Noise Technology Research Symposium
January 29-31,1979
Dallas, Texas
Office of NolM Abatement & Control
U.S. Envlromental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
The views, conclusions, and recommendations contained
in this report are those of the Symposium participants and
do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Symposium Recommendations for Noise Research
I. INTRODUCTION
II. SYMPOSIUM RESULTS
A. Machinery and Construction Equipment
Workshop Responses to Issues
B. Surface Transportation Workshop
Responses to Issues
C. Aviation Workshop Responses to Issues
III. KEYNOTE ADDRESSES
APPENDIX A: ATTENDEES
Keynote Speakers
Machinery and Construction Equipment Workshop
Surface Transportation workshop
Aviation Workshop
EPA Symposium Program Staff
Observers
APPENDIX B: SUBGROUP ASSIGNMENTS
Machinery and Construction Equipment Workshop
Surface Transportation Workshop
Aviation Workshop
APPENDIX C: PROGRAM AGENDA
Machinery and Construction Equipment Workshop
Surface Transportation Workshop
Aviation Workshop
Page
Number
v
ix
xv
xx iv
1-1
II-l
11-27
11-45
III-l
A-l
A-3
A-5
A-ll
A-17
A-23
A-25
B-l
B-3
B-9
B-13
C-l
C-3
C-9
C-15
iii
-------
Page
Number
APPENDIX D: ISSUES D-l
Machinery and Construction Equipment Workshop D-3
Surface Transportation Workshop D-5
Aviation Workshop D-7
IV
-------
PREFACE
A special motivation for the Noise Technology Research
Symposium was the Congressional mandate expressed in the
Quiet Communities Act of 1978. The Act emphasized and ex-
panded beyond the authorization of the Noise Control Act of
1972, EPA's charter to conduct and finance noise-control
research.
The Quiet Communities Act directs EPA to: ". . .in
cooperation with other Federal Agencies and through the use
of grants, contracts, and direct Federal actions. . .(b)
conduct or finance research directly or with any public or
private organization or any person on the effects, measure-
ment, and control of noise, including but not limited to
... (2) investigation, development, and demonstration of
noise control technology for products subject to possible
regulation under sections ... of this Act. ..."
In addition to conducting or financing research, the
Noise Control Act of 1972 gave to EPA the responsibility
for coordinating the programs of all Federal Agencies and
Departments relating to noise research. The Act also re-
quired EPA to publish a report of the on-going Federal
research programs that identified their status and progress
and contained an assessment of their contributions to the
national noise effort.
Reports were published in 1977 by three Federal In-
teragency Panels that addressed the technology areas of
-------
machinery and construction equipment, surface transporta-
tion, and aviation.3 These reports reviewed and assessed
from the perspectives of the representatives of the various
Federal Agencies and Departments, the noise technology re-
search programs sponsored by the Federal Government between
fiscal years (FY) 1975 and 1978.
This Symposium was a direct response to the provisions
of the Quiet Communities Act as well as the latest step in
EPA's program of coordinating noise-technology research. The
Symposium brought together a far larger group with greater
diversity of interests and perspectives than just those Fed-
eral Agencies involved in writing the Interagency Panel Re-
ports. Where previously only Federal Agencies were involved,
now emphasis was placed on participation by non-government
private sector entities as well as representatives of other
countries.
This Symposium was carefully focused on identifying
future research needs and not on the suitability or practi-
cality of on-going efforts of the Federal and State govern-
ments to regulate noise emission levels of products, based
on current or available technology. By definition no re-
search or demonstration is necessary to prove the feasibil-
ity of technology which is available—i.e., in limited use
within the industry or in use in similar products—although
demonstrations of the applicability of the technology may
be deemed helpful. This Symposium focused on the need for
developments above and beyond those presently being used or
available and consequently, the Symposium results should
not be read as criticism or comments on any present rule-
making activity.
Federal Research, Development and Demonstration Pro-
grams in Machinery and Construction Noise, prepared by the
Federal Interagency Machinery and Construction Noise Re-
search Panel, EPA 550/9-78-306, Washington, D.C., February
1978.
2Federal Research, Development, and Demonstration
Programs in Surface Transportation Noise, prepared by the
Federal Interagency Surface Transportation Noise Research
Panel, EPA 550/9-78-305, Washington, D.C., February 1978.
Federal Research, Technology, and Demonstration Pro-
grams in Aviation Noise, prepared by the Federal Inter-
agency Aviation Noise Research Panel, EPA 550/9-78-307,
Washington, D.C., March 1978.
VI
-------
The findings resulting from the Symposium apply directly
to technology areas. Matters such as operating procedures
of aircraft, administrative controls in the workplace, and
health effects were not included. More especially in the
case of aviation, the findings relate to the aircraft itself
rather than the total operation; the total systems concept
was not addressed.
The results of the Symposium, as they appear in these
proceedings, will by means of this report be made available
to the Federal Agencies and Departments, to the industries
represented at the Symposium, and to the general public.
It is hoped that the recommendations of this report will be
considered by these entities, and that the report results
will influence the rate of progress in solving technological
problems in noise control through their effects on budgets,
through the establishment of cooperative efforts, and through
the establishment of a basis for the continuing exchange
of ideas and results between the public and private sectors.
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The success achieved at this Symposium, judged in
terms of the cooperation and communication that occurred
between the Federal Government and the private sector, and
the wealth of information obtained with respect to the ob-
jectives is attributable to the enthusiastic support pro-
vided by the advisors and contractors that helped plan this
Symposium, as well as all of the participants.
Particular thanks are extended to the members of the
Project Advisory Committee (PAC), who served as chairmen
and co-chairmen of each of the workshops and the members
of their supporting advisory panel. The PAC gave very gen-
erously of their time during the six months involved in
planning and conducting the symposium. The PAC served as
the principal advisory and supporting group to EPA assisting
in all aspects. In particular, they helped to identify all
of the objectives that needed to be met, the participants
to be invited, and all of the issues that needed to be ad-
dressed, to specify the mechanics of operating, and to manage
the conduct of the symposium. The advisory panel members
provided additional specialized depth and perspective to
the above in each of their respective areas of interest:
Machinery and Construction Equipment
Surface Transportation
Aviation
In addition to their participation in group activities,
individual panel members gave their time freely and en-
thusiastically when special assistance was needed.
IX
-------
The Project Advisory Committee members were:
• Dr. Franklin P. Hart, Director, Center
for Acoustical Studies, North Carolina
State University (Chairman of the Machin-
ery and Construction Equipment Workshop)
• Mr. J. Alton Burks, Supervisory Acoustical
Engineer, Bureau of Mines, Department of
Interior (Co-Chairman of the Machinery and
Construction Equipment Workshop)
• Mr. Terrence A. Dear, Senior Consultant,
Engineering Service Division, E.I. Du Pont
de Nemours & Company (Co-Chairman of the
Machinery and Construction Equipment
Workshop)
• Mr. Edwin G. Rater ing, Director, Vehicular
Noise Control, General Motors Corporation
(Chairman of the Surface Transportation
Workshop)
• Mr. Bernard J. Vierling, Director, Office
of Bus and Paratransit Technology, Urban
Mass Transit Administration, U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation (Co-Chairman of the
Surface Transportation Workshop)
• Dr. Jack L. Kerrebrock, Head, Department of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (Chairman of the
Aviation Workshop)
• Mr. Harvey H. Hubbard, Assistant Division
Chief, Acoustics and Noise Reduction Divi-
sion, NASA Langley Research Center (Co-
Chairman of the Aviation Workshop)
The Advisory panel members were:
Machinery and Construction Workshop Panel
• Mr. Stephen M. Blazek, Assistant Director,
Ship Silencing Division, Research and
-------
Technology Directorate, Naval Sea Systems
Command (SEA 037B), Department of the Navy
• Mr. Robert Bruce, Deputy Division Director,
Physical and Environmental Control, Tech-
nologies Division, Bolt Beranek and Newman,
Incorporated
• Mr. George M. Diehl, Consultant, Ingersoll-
Rand Company"
• Dr. Uno K. Inqard, Department of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
• Mr. John J. McNally, Manager, Product Safe-
ty and Environmental Control, Caterpillar
Tractor Company (Representing Construction
Industry Manufacturers Association (CIMA))
• Mr. Allan Teplitzky/ Manager, Acoustics,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York
Surface Transportation Workshop Panel
• Dr. Erich K. Bender, Manager, Applied
Technology, Bolt Beranek and Newman,
Incorporated
• Dr. Tony F. W. Embleton, National Research
Council, Canada
• Dr. Rpbert Hickling, Departmental Research
Engineer, Engineering Mechanics Department,
General Motors Research Laboratories
• Mr. Eugene Lehr, Chief, Environmental Coor-*
dination Division, U.S. Department of
Transportation
• Mr. Robert L. Mason, Office of Energy and
Environment, Transportation Systems Center,
U.S. Department of Transportation
• Mr. Rodger F. Rinqham, Vice President,
Engineering, International Harvester
• Mr. Ronald J. Wasko, Manager, Acoustics
and Electromagnetic Department, Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Association
xi
-------
Aviation Workshop Panel
Dr. Gordon Banerian, Program Manager, Head
of Acoustics, Research and Technology Divi-
sion, NASA Headquarters
Mr. Walter Collins, Noise Abatement Offi-
cer, Los Angeles Department of Airports
Mr. Charles Cox/ Group Engineer, Acoustics,
Bell Helicopter
Mr. Harry W. Johnson, Program Manager for
General Aviation, NASA Headquarters
Mr» Robert Lee, Manager, Acoustics Design
Technology, Aircraft Engine Group, General
Electric Company
Mr. Aubert L. McPike, Director, Industry
Association Activities, McDonnell-Douglas
Aircraft Corporation
Mr, John Tyler, Consultant, National Or-
ganization to Insure a Sound-Controlled
Environment (NOISE)
The support provided at the Symposium by the subgroup
leaders is very much appreciated (refer to Appendix B).
They effectively guided and persuasively stimulated the
necessary dialogue.
Thanks is extended to the participants for their time
expended, openness in discussion, and support provided.
Without their support this Symposium would not have been a
success. The support of each of the organizations (e.g.,
industrial, Federal, etc.) that enabled their employees or
representatives to contribute their time and efforts in
what we believe was a very important endeavor is also
appreciated.
The cooperation and assistance of the various Federal
Agencies and Departments involved in noise technology re-
search that provided advice, information on their programs,
and representatives to present these programs, as well as
participate on the discussions is very much appreciated:
XII
-------
DOD (Army, Navy, Air Force), NASA, DOT and its operating
modes (FHWA, UMTA, FRA), DOI (BOM), NSF, HEW (NIOSH). We
would in particular like to extend special thanks to NASA
for their extensive support.
Appreciation is expressed to the contractors that sup-
ported this effort. Verve Research Corporation (Ms. JoAnn
Hairston, Program Manager), for assistance in planning and
the administrative support provided at the Symposium. Dr.
William Benson and Mr. Reynold Greenstone of ORI, Inc. for
support in reviewing the information obtained at the Sympo-
sium and support in preparing the final report.
This entire project was carried out under auspices of
the Technology and Federal Programs Division of the Office
of Noise Abatement and Control at EPA. Mr. John C. Schettino,
Director of the Technology and Federal Programs Division
and Mr. Harvey J. Nozick, Chief of the Technology Branch,
conceived the need for a symposium and provided guidance
and direction in its conduct. Program management was
provided by Mr. Roger W. Heymann, Program Manager, and Mr.
Thomas L. Quindry, Project Officer.
Xlll
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hazardous as well as intrusive environmental noises
that degrade the quality of life are continuing and ubiq-
uitous problems of contemporary society. Recognizing the
magnitude of noise problems and seeking to alleviate them,
Congress, through the Quiet Communities Act of 1978, gave
new directives to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to support research in noise abatement technology.
This Symposium on Noise Technology Research was the first
response of the EPA to the new Congressional directives.
The Symposium was held on January 29-31, 1979, in Dal-
las, Texas. Over 200 invited participants, representing a
broad spectrum of noise-related interests and expertise,
provided a comprehensive assessment of current needs in
noise-abatement technology, a comprehensive review of cur-
rent research to determine which needs may not be met by
current research, and a set of recommendations for research
that should take precedence in fulfilling unmet needs. The
Symposium participants also gave their recommendations as
to the roles of Government, universities, and industry in
performing the necessary research.
OVERVIEW
While in general a fundamental understanding of machine-
ry and construction equipment noise, surface transportation
noise, and aviation noise exists, the need for further re-
search was identified if significant noise reductions are to
be achieved in the future. Despite the fact that the noise
abatement technology of each of the three problem areas is
xv
-------
at a different level of development, each area is at a lev-
el where more experiments, analyses and demonstration of
technology must be done if further improvements are to be
achieved.
The Federal Government has a function to perform noise
technology research. To complement industry's research ef-
forts to develop and market quieter products, the Government
should support basic research and conduct cooperative de-
monstration projects to encourage and promote the acceptance
of available technology. Research that has a high risk
or that will involve a long delay until applicable results
are achieved is a necessary Government function. The private
sector, on the other hand, while expected to conduct basic
research must have the responsibility for product development
("low-risk" research). The Government must act as a coordi-
nator between Federal and private research programs, and
the private sector has a responsibility to participate in
the coordination activities. Further, the Government should
furnish a single office for exchange and dissemination of
information on noise technology research. The private sector
should participate in activities (e.g., symposia, workshops,
and technical information service) devised to facilitate
exchange of information.
With respect to industrial machinery, the ability to
design and develop or even to redesign existing equipment
and processes to meet significantly reduced noise levels
is lacking. This lack has prevented development and inte-
gration of technology that would reduce noise and yet meet
the requirements of high productivity necessary if industry
is to compete in domestic and foreign markets. In many
situations it has been impossible for industry to introduce
acceptable, quiet equipment because such equipment does not
exist.
Present noise control technology is limited with respect
to surface transportation vehicles. Many principal sources
of noise associated with surface transportation vehicles
(e.g., diesel engines, tire-roadway interaction, and wheel-
rail interaction) are common to many classes of vehicles or
large segments of the industry. The ability to signifi-
cantly reduce the noise from these few principal sources
would result in reductions for a great many particular noise
sources.
Past technology has enabled the aircraft industry to
make large gains in reducing aircraft noise. Additional
gains can be expected from applying present technology,
xvi
-------
however a greater fundamental understanding will be needed
if greater progress is to be achieved.
FINDINGS OF THE MACHINERY AND CONSTRUCTION WORKSHOP
Very little research is currently being done to develop
new equipment and processes to meet required lower noise
levels. Rather, almost all research is directed to finding
retrofit technology to shield equipment now in use. A rel-
atively large number of machines and processes in each of
the primary industries (metal fabrication; wood, paper;
chemical, petroleum, electric utility; food, tobacco, glass;
textile, printing; underground and surface mining, and re-
lated processing plants; construction) was identified as
needing research.
All of the industrial subgroups concluded that some
products and processes in their industries required some
Federal support of research. Each of the subgroups indi-
cated that an essential function of the Federal Government
is to support research that would advance basic knowledge
and lead to the development of noise control technology
and expertise where demonstrated needs exist. There are
five specific roles for the Federal Government in develop-
ing noise control technology.
First, the need for limited Federal Government involve-
ment in machinery and construction equipment noise control
RD&D was recognized. The activities of the Federal Govern-
ment must be directed at meeting well-documented needs. The
Federal effort must be coordinated with and complement ef-
forts of the private sector. More specifically, the Federal
effort can complement the private effort by doing high-risk
research that needs to be done where the private sector is
unwilling or unable to do it. Small manufacturers, for ex-
ample, will be particularly in need of assistance because
they do not have the capital to invest in research nor the
expertise necessary to take an initiative in noise control.
Second, the Federal Government has a role to partici-
pate in, support, and provide technical coordination for
demonstration projects. There were some differences in
the need felt for Government participation among different
industry groups, and the differences may, to some degree,
result from differences in available noise control tech-
nology; the more primitive the technology, the more need
there is for technology development and the less need for
demonstration. As a consequence, it was observed that
xvi i
-------
there will be less need for research and more need for
demonstration as research, in due course, produces solu-
tions to noise control problems.
Third, the Federal Government has a role to play in
coordinating research activities within the Government and
between the Government and the private sector. The need
for a focal point within the Federal Government to facili-
tate communications and coordination with the private sec-
tor was defined. The focal point would also serve as a
means for allowing the private sector to influence the
conduct and planning of Federal research programs by means
of a joint committee with representatives from Federal De-
partments and Agencies, universities, and industries. A
joint committee would serve to ensure that national noise
goals and priorities, training needs to provide future ex-
pertise in noise control technology, and the constraints
imposed by practical working conditions are all being met.
Fourth, it was recognized that some Federal Agencies
have unique needs unrelated to those of the private sector.
For example, the DOD's activities with respect to artillery
is unique as far as the private sector is concerned. Those
Agencies with a mandate to do so will have to conduct ap-
propriate research to meet particular mission needs.
Fifth, the Government also has a role in collecting
and disseminating information. This role can be performed
as part of the coordination role; that is, the center for
coordination could include a technical information center.
The need for a centralized source of information was most
strongly felt by the machinery workshop, probably because
the other workshops represent much more centralized indus-
tries. Further, both aviation and surface transportation
have had a heavy involvement in Government and privately
funded noise control research for quite a long period of
time, whereas noise control research in machinery and con-
struction equipment is in its infancy. Thus the machinery
industries have not had sufficient time or experience in
ways of communicating with each other and with the Govern-
ment. Further, since most machinery noise control efforts
to date have used enclosures for retrofit, there would be
little benefit in communicating because each particular
workplace is unique.
The private sector has an important role in develop-
ing noise control technology, for industry possesses the
detailed knowledge of the problems that must be solved if
the workplace and environmental requirements are to be met.
It is for this reason that industry must participate in
xviii
-------
the planning and conduct of Federal research. Thus far,
industry has been primarily involved in short-term develop-
ment of retrofit solutions because compliance with current
regulations has taken precedence over longer-term goals and
because incentives have been too weak to stimulate research
on noise control technology or to encourage purchase of
quiet equipment. Both industrial research and demand for
quiet machinery could be stimulated by stronger tax incen-
tives. Another strong incentive would be provided by pre-
dictable enforcement of regulations and predictable future
regulations; in short, less uncertainty about the regulatory
environment.
FINDINGS OF THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP
In regard to the roles to be played by the private
sector and the Government in developing noise-control tech-
nology the workshop's consensus was that the Federal Govern-
ment's role is to identify the need to reduce product noise,
to conduct basic research and demonstration programs, and
to set required sound levels. Private industry should be
primarily involved in achieving the required sound-level
reduction. The transfer of research into marketable tech-
nology is the province of industry. Government should be
involved in basic high-risk new technology rather than
incremental improvement of current technology. A minority
felt that the Government should be more broadly involved
in the entire RD&D chain through basic and applied research
as well as demonstrations to the extent that this partici-
pation fills gaps left by industrial activity and meets
societal needs.
The Federal Government should take the lead in ranking
community noise sources and their impact. Purely acousti-
cal descriptors may not be adequate to predict noise impact
and further research in this area is needed. Social, psy-
chological, and economic factors must also be considered.
Basic research requiring Government support is called
for in regard to diesel engine noise, which may now be at
the lowest level possible with today's technology. Funda-
mental knowledge of combustion processes is likewise needed
to establish integrated approaches to the possibly conflict-
ing goal of low noise, fuel economy, and low exhaust
emissions.
Basic research is still needed on the mechanism of tire
noise generation and on the role of the pavement in producing
xix
-------
tire noise. The basic mechanisms of noise generation
in the wheel-rail interaction are still only superficially
understood with major questions still to be resolved. Be-
cause of the diverse elements and organizations involved
in tire-road and wheel-rail interaction noise (e.g., pave-
ment, tire, vehicle design and usage, and other related
variables), the Federal Government should sponsor coordi-
nated RD&D activities in this area. In furtherance of such
a coordinated effort, industry may provide tires, vehicles,
and other equipment and facilities as needed. Also in this
connection better standard tire test procedures are needed
for both on-road and indoor testing. In particular, the
procedure described in SAE J57a (1976)1 should be improved
to increase reliability of measurement.
Another consideration is that the Federal Government
is preparing to resurface 40,000 miles of interstate and
300,000 miles of State highway. Those RD&D programs neces-
sary to develop a road surface technology that will yield
acceptable tire-roadway noise levels while meeting perfor-
mance and design factors such as skid resistance should be
undertaken.
Incentives for noise-control RD&D by equipment manufac-
turers are provided by the awareness of impending regula-
tions and can be sharpened by better definition of national
objectives. On the other hand, regulatory uncertainty can
inhibit the development of product lines because manufac-
turers cannot plan for future years. In some cases indus-
try may halt research for fear that future regulations may
make products unsalable.
Educational institutions can play an important role in
solving noise problems. They should be training the future
noise-control specialists at both the undergraduate and
graduate levels. They should perform basic research under
both Government and industry auspices. They should be in-
volved in establishing new test methods and can serve as
an independent source of data and validation.
Government-supported demonstration programs should
provide the basis for the transfer of technology from the
research stage to commercial production. They should be so
1SAE J57a (1976) SAE Recommended Practice, Sound Level
of Highway Truck Tires, Society of Automotive Engineers,
Inc., Warrendale, Pennsylvania, June 1976.
xx
-------
conducted as to demonstrate the practical real-world per-
formance on a production basis of advanced products. Coop-
eration between Government and industry as in the "Quiet
Truck" program is particularly desirable. If demonstration
programs require manufacturers' products, the respective
manufacturers should be consulted in the selection of
representative products.
FINDINGS OF THE AVIATION WORKSHOP
Incorporation of noise control considerations in the
design of the recently introduced new-generation aircraft
to meet Federal regulatory requirements will probably re-
quire payload and fuel-efficiency penalties. Technology R&D
programs are necessary if future noise reductions are to be
achieved without excessive penalties. Basic and applied
research advance basic knowledge and understanding. R&D
provides the opportunity for technological breakthroughs.
It leads to new ideas, technology innovations, advanced de-
sign, and predictive methodology.
Engine noise from conventional take-off and landing
(CTOL) aircraft is still the principal source of noise im-
pact in the airport community.
Significant reductions in engine noise were made in
the past through the introduction of the high bypass ratio
turbofan engines and duct acoustic liners to suppress fan
tones; the former to reduce jet noise and the latter to re-
duce fan noise, these being the dominant sources. Future
progress in aviation noise reduction will be more difficult
to achieve because many noise sources contribute relatively
equally to the total noise. Research cannot now be directed
at these major sources as in the past but must now be di-
rected at many additional noise sources, for which funda-
mental understanding is lacking.
A detailed list of research needs was identified, for
the two categories of propulsive and nonpropulsive sources.
The areas in which research is needed are as follows:
Nonpropulsive
Propagation
Reliable flight data
Validation of design prediction techniques
Development of scaling factors
Airframe
xxi
-------
Propulsive
Conventional take-off and landing (CTOL)
Short take-off and landing (STOL)
Supersonic transport (SST)
General aviation
Flow impingement
Rotor and propeller internal and external noise
Gearbox noise prediction
Transmission of noise through fuselages
Identification of a single accepted validated prediction
model is of great importance to public officials concerned
with land-use planning around airports. More details of
and the rationale for these needs are given in section II.C,
The relative roles of the various Federal Agencies/
NASA, DOD, FAA, and EPA, with respect to support of the avi-
ation noise effort were reviewed. A larger, long term pro-
gram of Federal support was judged to be required. The
scope and difficulty of the research needs for engine noise
reduction alone led to the conclusion by the Workshop that
Federal funds for aviation noise RT&D should be increased,
and this conclusion extends to other noise sources. It was
felt that NASA should have the principal Federal role for
supporting noise RT&D, but that there should be another
source (FAA) of Federal funding. EPA should retain its co-
ordinating role, while DOD should support basic research.
Any increase in Federal support that occurs should not
be for in-house NASA efforts but primarily for grants and
contracts outside the Federal Government.
The Federal Government's support should be aimed at
long-range research and/or high-risk technology.
Demonstration programs will be required from time to
time, but these programs must be carefully selected. They
should be conducted to encourage the application of new
technology in production aircraft. Prerequisite to conduct-
ing any demonstration is the availability of a new technol-
ogy package. Needs are anticipated for full-scale demon-
stration of selected propulsion system components for
helicopters, general aviation aircraft, and high-speed
turboprop aircraft, and mechanical jet noise suppressors
for conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) jet aircraft.
It was felt that product development, proving, and in-
tegration of technology into a developing product are the
xxii
-------
province of industry, which is currently supporting a sub-
stantial noise research program at a level equal to that of
the government (about 25 million dollars per year—combined
Fiscal Year funding and manpower). Industry should have a
dominant role in short-term payoff and/or low-risk research/
however its participation in noise RT&D and in conduct of
the federal R&T program was felt to be essential.
There are a number of pressures other than certifica-
tion requirements forcing industry to conduct noise R&D and
to reduce aircraft noise. These include direct social pres-
sure, competition, airline requests, curfews, and litigation.
A need for the coordination and/or development of na-
tional objectives with respect to aviation noise was iden-
tified. A clearer statement of objectives is essential to
planning of future research programs. A need for one Cen-
tral Agency to serve as a focal point for bringing together
information was cited. Because of its legislative mandate,
EPA should lead in coordination of aviation noise research
efforts, but because NASA has the principal role in the gov-
ernment for RT&D it should have a part in coordination.
xxiii
-------
SYMPOSIUM RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NOISE RESEARCH
1. Adequate levels of funding support for research
should be provided by the Federal Government to comple-
ment private sector efforts in meeting national noise
needs. Current levels of Federal funding in the ma-
chinery and construction, surface transportation, and
aviation areas should be increased to accelerate devel-
opment of technology to solve stated national noise
problems.
2. There are appropriate roles for both the Federal
Government and the private sector in noise control re-
search, and their research efforts should complement
each other. Industry's efforts should be primarily
directed toward the implementation of noise-control
technology whereas the Federal Government's efforts
should be confined to problem areas in which there is
an established need. Efforts of the Federal Government
should be directed primarily toward basic research,
which provides the basis for new technology.
3. The Federal Government should be involved in long-
duration and/or high-risk research. Industry should
be involved in short-duration and/or low-risk technol-
ogy applications for specific configurations. This
should not preclude industry involvement in high risk
and/or long duration noise research.
4. Another appropriate role for the Federal Govern-
ment is to support industry in carrying out demonstra-
tion programs to test the feasibility of new noise-
control concepts. If demonstrations are to accomplish
their purpose, they must be conducted in a real-world
user environment and must show that the new concepts
comply with existing regulations, avoid new hazards,
are practical and cost effective, and meet requirements
for manufacturability, maintainability, productivity,
and reliability. Such demonstration programs can be
very helpful in introducing new technology into the
market place.
5. The Federal Government should assure continued
support for certain needed noise research programs to
maintain noise research capabilities. This commitment
to continued support should assure the retaining of
specialized personnel, research teams, and facilities
throughout the Federal Agencies, universities, and in
some cases industry.
XXIV
-------
It is important that societal needs and goals
(which may become manifest as regulations) be clearly
established, that goals whether they are intended to
meet health criteria or annoyance criteria have a well
established scientific basis. Where necessary, research
should be undertaken to establish a scientific basis,
and a strategy for meeting these goals be developed. A
clear definition of goals should be developed to serve
as an incentive for research in noise control technology.
EPA should take the lead in coordinating noise re-
search activities among the Federal Agencies, and re-
search plans should be coordinated with industry. The
Federal research coordination efforts must take into
consideration the need for each of the Federal Agencies
to satisfy its own mission mandates. In aviation, NASA
should have a coordinating responsibility with EPA.
The Federal Government should furnish a single office
for exchange and dissemination of information on noise
technology research. The private sector should par-
ticipate in activities (e.g., symposia, workshops, and
technical information services) devised to facilitate
exchange of information.
Educational institutions should be supported in
their functions of training personnel and performing
basic research funded and guided by government and
industry, and providing independent and unbiased con-
sulting service to Government and industry.
A long list of noise technology research needs
was identified in each of the three workshops: ma-
chinery and construction equipment, surface transpor-
tation, and aviation. Both the public and private
sectors should support and undertake efforts to ad-
dress these identified needs.
Technology research must be undertaken to ad-
dress the many noise problems of the indus-
trial sector. Each of the industrial areas
represented, identified research needs: Punch
presses, forging hammers, large fans, high-
speed equipment, textile machines, and rotary
equipment are a few randomly selected exam-
ples. Because of the large number of re-
search needs requiring attention, priorities
for research must be established. There is
a great deal of commonality of manufacturing
XXV
-------
processes and noise generating mechanisms
among various industries. In this regard,
research efforts have the potential to re-
duce noise across industry lines.
The principal sources of surface transporta-
tion noise are, for the most part common to
all vehicles. Three general areas have been
identified as having a great impact on sur-
face transportation noise. In this regard,
high priority must be given to noise research
efforts on:
Diesel engines
Tire and tire-roadway interactions
Rail wheel and track interactions
With respect to the long list of technology
research needs developed in the aviation
area, it is essential that engine noise re-
ceive attention and that its multiplicity
of nearly equal noise contributors be ad-
dressed if further noise reductions of ad-
vanced subsonic conventional take-off
and landing (CTOL) aircraft are to be ob-
tained. In addition, if optimum noise and
performance considerations are to be effec-
tively incorporated into future aircraft de-
sign, then improved and validated component
noise prediction methodologies must be de-
veloped. These are two of the more important
examples of research needs enumerated by the
aviation workshop participants.
XXVI
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This Symposium was EPA's first response to new Con-
gressional directives in the Quiet Communities Act of 1978
for EPA to engage in and support research in the area of
noise-control technology. The goal was to provide a com-
prehensive assessment of national noise technology research
programs and needs from the standpoint of both the public
and private sectors. The Symposium focused on noise con-
trol research in the areas of machinery and construction
equipment, surface transportation, and aviation.
The Symposium was set up specifically to deal with
matters pertaining to noise technology research. In this
regard, ground rules were established at the inception of
the planning stages of the Symposium that specifically ex-
cluded other areas such as those relating to regulations
and health and welfare with respect to noise.
The defined objectives of the Symposium were:
1. To provide a critical assessment of national
noise technology research programs and needs
from the perspective of Federal Agencies, State
and local governments, manufacturers, users,
trade associations, labor, universities, public
interest, and foreign interests.
2. To provide guidance to Federal Agencies in plan-
ning their noise technology RD&D programs.
3. To develop priority recommendations for Federal
noise research.
4. To identify new institutional arrangements for
conducting noise RD&D and improving communica-
tion between the Federal government and the
private sector.
5. To encourage industry to conduct noise technology
research programs and to provide guidance with
respect to the direction of their programs.
1-1
-------
The detailed planning of the Symposium was performed
jointly by EPA and a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) and
three supporting panels, representing private sector in-
terests as well as Federal Agencies and Departments. EPA's
role in the Symposium was that of project instigator and
provider of management, guidance, and resources to con-
duct the Symposium. In every instance, the advice of the
members of the Project Advisory Committee was sought.
Participants in the Symposium represented a broad
spectrum of private sector interests, as well as foreign
interests. Those invited to participate represented:
Federal Agencies and Departments, State and local govern-
ments, industrial manufacturers and users, trade associa-
tions, acoustical consultants, labor unions, public
interest groups, universities, and foreign interests.
Participants from the following countries attended:
Canada, England, France, West Germany, and Sweden. The
professional backgrounds of the participants covered many
fields of engineering and science. The participants were
drawn from technical, policy, and management levels.
The Federal Agencies and Departments which partici-
pated in the Symposium are identified below:
MACHINERY & CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT WORKSHOP
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Mines (BOM)
Health, Education and Welfare
National Institute for
Occupational Safety &
Health (NIOSH)
Department of Defense
Army, Navy
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and
Health Administration
(OSHA)
Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA)
National Science Founda-
tion (NSF)
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA)
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
WORKSHOP
Department of Transpor-
tation
Urban Mass Transit
Administration (UMTA)
Federal Highway Ad-
ministration (FHWA)
Federal Railway Ad-
ministration (FRA)
Department of Defense
Army Tank & Automo-
tive Command
1-2
-------
AVIATION WORKSHOP
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
(NASA)
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Department of Defense
Army, Navy, Air Force
Three workshops were established to deal with noise
control research in each of the three areas: machinery and
construction equipment, surface transportation, and avia-
tion. These workshops functioned concurrently. To facili-
tate functioning with a very large number of people and to
direct attention to critical areas of interest each of the
workshops was subdivided into subgroups:
Machinery and Construction
• Primary metals, fabricated metals,
machinery, and transportation equipment
• Lumber, wood, furniture, and paper
• Chemicals, petroleum, and electric
utility
• Food, tobacco, and glass
• Textile and printing
• Underground mining and surface process-
ing plants
• Surface mining and construction.
Surface Transportation
• Exterior sound propagation in the com-
munity and vehicle interior noise
• Engines and propulsion systems
• Intake, exhaust, cooling and allied
engine subsystems
• Interaction of tire-roadway and
wheel-rail.
1-3
-------
Aviation
• Airframe
• Rotors and propellers
• Propagation
• Engines.
The mechanics of the Symposium are suggested by the
program agendas that were used (see Appendix C). Briefly,
the manner of proceeding was:
The keynote addresses at the initial plenary
session set the stage and proper tone of the
Symposium. Views on the noise control program
were given by representatives of the executive
and legislative branches of the Government and
information in foreign noise research efforts
was also presented. The three workshops then
met separately. Representatives from the Fed-
eral Agencies presented their noise control pro-
grams to the workshop covering their area of
research. The aviation workshop then heard
addresses by some of their subgroup leaders
giving background discussions of the status
of aviation noise control programs. The other
workshops heard addresses by some of their sub-
group leaders on conceptual approaches to the
issues to be reviewed in depth the following
day. The participants spent the second day of
the Symposium entirely within the workshops and
addressed the discussion issues. The third and
final day was used to summarize and develop a
final statement on each workshop's activities.
These statements were presented before the en-
tire body in the closing plenary session.
The discussion issues dealt with by each of the work-
shops were relatively similar. Some differences on the
issues between workshops were necessary to accommodate the
specific needs and interests of each area. The issues for
each workshop are identified in Appendix D. Generally,
the issues dealt with the current status of noise control
technology, future research needs, and the appropriate
roles to be played by the Federal and private sectors.
With respect to the issues addressed, the aviation work-
shop had the greatest differences, considering such sub-
issues as: whether the Federal noise research program
was properly balanced between the various elements of
RD&D; and whether the Federal program should be induced
to put risk capital into noise research.
1-4
-------
II. SYMPOSIUM RESULTS
IIA. MACHINERY AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WORKSHOP
RESPONSES TO ISSUES
The Machinery and Construction Equipment Workshop found
it necessary to define specific noise goals to which noise
control research needs could be related. In this regard, the
workshop assumed for the purposes of discussion, an A-weighted
sound level of 90 dB as a goal for an 8-hour exposure in the
workplace. No specific criterion was assumed for environmental
noise, and as a result the treatment of this subject was more
general. It should be understood that the responses of the
workshop would vary with changes in assumed goal and that the
assumption of a goal does not constitute an endorsement in
any sense by anyone present at the meeting or by any organiza-
tion represented at the meeting.
What is the status of noise control technology?
OVERVIEW
The issue of the status of noise control technology was
approached in part by considering the availability of and
needs for both source and retrofit controls.
Few source controls for industrial equipment with appli-
cability across product and process lines were found to be '
available. Source controls were, for the most part, felt to
be the optimum long-term approach necessary for reducing noise.
They are usually associated with lower total costs (i.e., im-
plementation, maintenance, and productivity) than retrofit.
Source controls are usually implemented during new product de-
sign. The retrofit approach to reducing equipment noise is
usually less than optimum because of the higher long-term cost
II-l
-------
required to implement it. For example, many retrofits must be
done repeatedly because they are temporary "fixes." With re-
spect to noise, a major problem facing American industry today
is the availability of control technology that falls within
the economic bounds required by profit-making firms.
Some technology, for the most part retrofit, does exist
in areas to reduce and control both occupational and envi-
ronmental noise and is both technologically and economically
feasible. However, there are many products and processes for
which acceptable control methods are not available. At pres-
ent there are, according to EPA estimates, some 3.5 million
Americans working in environments where levels exceed DOL
workplace noise-exposure requirements. EPA estimates also
show that there are some 13.5 million Americans working in
noise environments sufficient to cause some hearing loss.
Technology research is one approach to developing tech-
nologically and economically acceptable methods for noise
control.
l.a. What major noise-related research programs does industry
(corporations and trade associations) have underway?*
Very few programs were identified within the private sec-
tor that are focused on research, design, and demonstration
of source noise controls. Due to competitive proprietary
needs as well as information transfer constraints imposed by
anti-trust restrictions, identification of industrial noise-
control research is difficult. There are retrofit programs
underway in most industries, and current efforts are for the
most part directed at retrofit. Trade associations, indus-
trial manufacturers, industrial users, consulting firms, re-
search institutes, and universities are conducting the
private-sector projects underway.
*Federal noise control research programs have been identified
in the report published by the Federal Interagency Machinery
and Construction Panel (refer to the Introduction), Federal
Research, Development, and Demonstration Programs in Machinery
and Construction Noise, EPA 550/9-78-306, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., February 1978.
II-2
-------
The following industry noise-control research projects
and/or organizations supporting noise research were identified:
Sponsor
Aluminum Association Inc.
American Foundryman's
Society
American Iron and Steel
Institute
Forging Industry Educa-
tional Research Foundation
Industrial Fasteners
Institute
Organization Resources
Inc.
Canners League of Cali-
fornia
Northwest Food Processors
Association
Chocolate Manufacturers
Association
North Carolina Dairy
Producers
American Bakers Associ-
ation
Technology Area
Saws
Burners, furnaces,
grinders, chippers,
shakeout, jolt and
squeeze devices
Rolling mills,
furnaces (electric
arc, burner)
Forging burners
22 pieces of equip-
ment (cold headers,
swaggers, out
formers, pointers)
Glass Packaging Institute Closures
Punch presses
Research
Organization
University
of Wisconsin
H. L. Blachford
Michigan Tech-
nological
University
H. L. Blachford
North Carolina
State
Bolt Beranek
and Newman, Inc.
Bolt Beranek
and Newman, Inc.
North Carolina
State
II-3
-------
Research
Sponsor Technology Area Organization
Textile Industry Textile machinery Unidentified
equipment user
and several
machinery
manufacturers
Underground Mining Mining equipment Several manu-
Industry facturers and
users
American Mining Congress Mining equipment Task group
(AMC) being formed
Surface Mining Industry Mining and con- Several manu-
struction equip- facturers
ment
l.b. What are the principal approaches available to reduce
equipment and process noise?
Approaches available to reduce equipment and process
noise depend very much on whether the equipment is in the
conceptual and/or design stage of its development or whether
the equipment has been fully designed into a marketable prod-
uct and is ready to be or has already been installed for
field use.
For a number of reasons, source controls are for the
most part restricted to the conceptual and design stage of
equipment development. The consensus was that few source
controls are available, although they would be the most
acceptable and economical long-term solutions.
Retrofit controls (such as enclosures) for the most part
embody approaches that in some cases can be adapted to equip-
ment and processes already developed and can be adapted to
new equipment in development. Retrofit approaches to reduc-
ing equipment and process noise are the principal approaches
currently available and utilized to reduce noise. These ap-
proaches involve:
Enclosures of employees and/or equipment
Substitution of equipment and process
II-4
-------
Equipment, process, plant layout
Barriers
Vibration damping materials
Equipment and process redesign
Material changes
Vibration isolation (limited retrofit
applications)
I.e. What are some of the major types of equipment and pro-
cesses for which noise control methods are unavailable?
A list of specific items of equipment was developed for
which acceptable source control solutions were unavailable
and for which technology research, development, and demonstra-
tion efforts were necessary (refer to Table 2.1). Entries
on this list should not be considered all inclusive. Also,
inclusion on this list does not necessarily mean that some
controls, at least through retrofit, are not already avail-
able. With respect to processes (involving assemblage of
many or special equipments) noise control techniques are of-
ten unavailable. It should be noted that the availability of
technology does not in itself mean that adequate incentives
exist for its implementation (refer to issue 3).
II-5
-------
TABLE 2.1. MAJOR TYPES OF EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES
FOR WHICH FURTHER NOISE SOURCE CONTROL RESEARCH, DE-
VELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION EFFORTS ARE NECESSARY*
a. Metals/Fabrication Equipment and Processes
**Mechanical power press/shear
**Saws
**Hand tools (electric and pneumatic, grinders,
chippers, scaling, jackhammer)
**Metal Removal
**Forge hammers
Cold headers
Swaggers
Nut formers
Pointers (metal removal)
Shake-out
Jolt and squeeze
Air arc gouging
Burner/furnaces
Electric arc furnaces
Material-handling systems
Plasma spraying
Riveters
Rolling mills
Rotary scrap choppers
Shredding
Scarfers
Spray guns
Air conveyors
Chutes
Sand blasting
Torch solder gun
Welders
b. Wood/Lumber/Paper Equipment and Processes
Sawmill
Planer-matchers
Head rigs
*Please refer to paragraph I.e. for an explanation of the
applicability of this list.
**Highest priority within this subgroup
II-6
-------
Sawmill (continued)
Edgers
Trim saws
Ripsaws
Sanders
Conveyors
Chippers
Moulding
Moulders
Cut off saws
Rip saws
Chippers
Paper
Machine rooms
Corrugators
Pumps
Grinders
Saws
Chippers
Furniture
Rough planers
Cutoff saws
Rip saws
Surfacers
Moulders
Tenoners
Shapers
Routers
Carvers
Chippers
II-7
-------
Plywood
Lathes
Clippers
Stackers
Trim saws
Chippers
Chemical/Petroleum/Electric Utility Equipment
and Processes
Centrifugal compressors
Multi-stage centrifugal compressors
Gear boxes
Burners
Gas turbines
Very large fans
Rotating equipment air cooling systems
Fluid control valves
Internal combustion engines
Size reduction equipment
Positive displacement pumps
d. Food/Tobacco/Glass Equipment and Processes
Food
Container contact
High-speed rotating machinery
Product mixing and shredding
Weiner peelers
Dough preparation mills
Extension equipment
Tobacco
Making machines
Tippers
Packers
Packaging
II-8
-------
Tobacco (continued)
Leaf stemming lines
Vacuum conveying
Air ejection
Dust collectors
Product impingement
Wet machines
Dryers
Glass
Cooling air equipment
e. Textile/Printing Equipment and Processes
Textile
Looms (rapier, fly shuttle,
projectile and jet)
Ring spinning
Texturing
Spin-draw
Twisting
Winding
Coning
Knitting
Printing
Rotary presses of all
types
Folders
Air-operated scrap removal
systems
Drive trains
II-9
-------
f. Underground Mining/Surface Processing Plants
Equipment and Processes
(A relatively long list of equipment used in underground and
surface processing plant operations could be developed from
the basic processes listed below.)
Extractive equipment such as cutting machines
Percussive equipment
Impact devices
Coal and rock preparation: crushing, screening,
and other preparation processes
Internal combustion engine
g. Construction/Surface Mining Equipment and Processes
Work-tool interface (rock bit striking rock)
Internal combustion engine (diesel and gasoline)
Back-up and forward warning alarms
11-10
-------
l.d. Has there been noise abatement technology transference
from one product/process to another?
In general, retrofit solutions for noise control are
transferable and have been transferred from industry to in-
dustry. Enclosures, for example, have found wide applica-
tion but only as a general concept, for the particular re-
quirements of specific workplaces vary enormously.
There is a great deal of commonality among machines and
manufacturing processes with respect to basic mechanical
movements and mechanisms. In this regard, technology to
reduce noise at its source is readily transferred across
equipment and manufacturing process lines. However, instal-
lation factors (e.g., pipes, supports, and ducts) are not
common, even in the same plant location, with respect to
noise radiation. Impact noise reduction is an example where-
in knowledge of how to control a given source can affect
many equipments and processes.
The fact that little source control transference has
occurred is due principally to the high degree of unavail-
ability of source controls. The inability of individual in-
dustrial corporations to divulge their manufacturing tech-
nology developments because of anti-trust restrictions as
well as competitive market pressures to some degree inhibits
technology transfer.
I.e. What research should be done?
In the response to prior issue I.e. a long list of
equipment was identified for which source controls were un-
available and for which research was necessary. Some of the
variables that should be considered in establishing priorities
were identified. These variables are also contained in the
answers to issues 2.a, 2.b, 2.e, 3.c, and 3.d. A list of per-
haps ten high-priority needs should be identified and devel-
oped. The following factors were identified as ones that
might be considered when establishing research priorities:
Final levels of allowable exposure promulgated by the
Department of Labor/Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) in the workplace noise standard
Final equipment noise and labeling regulations promul-
gated by the Environmental Protection Administration
(EPA)
11-11
-------
Ability of industry to implement noise controls
Extent and seriousness of the impact of given equip-
ment and processes on the health and welfare of the
general- and workplace-population (e.g., number of
people over-exposed, extent of over-exposure, and
number of pieces of equipment
Willingness of the Federal Government, original
equipment manufacturer, and equipment users to assist
with a specific machine.
In reviewing this issue it was felt that research efforts
should, in most cases, be followed through from the beginning
in the laboratory (development of basic understanding) through
to demonstration of the end product. The importance of in-
dustry participation in demonstrations was emphasized. It
should be noted again that an A-weighted sound level of 90 dB
as a long-term goal for research was assumed for the purposes
of the workshop.
11-12
-------
2. What role should the Federal Government play in develop-
ing noise control technology?
OVERVIEW
All industrial subgroups identified the need for limited
Federal Government involvement in machinery and construction
equipment noise control RD&D. [Refer also to the "General"
response to issue 3.] All subgroups concluded that some prod-
ucts and processes in their industries required Federal sup-
port of research. Any activities undertaken by the Federal
Government, however, must be directed at filling well-defined
needs; and criteria for need should be defined as they were
in this symposium (e.g., degree of risk of hearing impairment,
number of people exposed, availability of control technology,
and rate of progress by industry).
Any activities undertaken by the Federal Government
should complement those of the private sector. Federal activ-
ities should include: support of basic research (high risk),
applied research, demonstration projects; establishing a cli-
mate or incentives (such as tax) for support of noise control
RD&D by the private sector, coordination of Federal research
with the private sector. More specifically, the Federal ef-
fort should complement the private effort by doing primarily
high risk research that needs to be done when the private
sector is unwilling or unable to do it. High risk basic re-
search is an area in which industry is seldom able to invest
the required long-term resources.
Definitions that generally distinguish between basic re-
search and applied research are difficult to establish, for
what is one person's basic research is frequently another's
applied research. Thus, no attempt is made to identify
clearly the views of the participants as related to basic
or applied research.
Lack of basic knowledge is currently a serious impedi-
ment to developing source noise control technology. Each
of the industry group reports agreed that a major role of the
Federal Government is to support research that will advance
basic knowledge and develop expertise.
11-13
-------
Coordination. There was a general consensus that there
was a need for coordinating the research activities within
the Federal Government as well as coordinating between the
Federal and private sectors. It was felt one focal point
should exist within the Federal Government to support co-
ordination. The need for private sector participation and
input into the conduct and planning of the Federal research
programs was defined.
Demonstration Projects. There was general agreement
that there should be Federal support of demonstration proj-
ects, although there were differences among the industry
groups in the level of effort judged to be necessary. Some
of the industry groups felt a significantly stronger Federal
effort was required in research than in demonstration. One
factor that undoubtedly influences the need for demonstra-
tion projects is the adequacy of available technology. If
there is little available technology, Federal efforts will
be better directed to research to further the development
of basic knowledge that will later support the development
of technology. Industry's involvement in any Federal ef-
forts to demonstrate noise control technology is defined as
essential.
General. The Federal Government should stimulate in-
dustrial involvement in noise control research by offering
tax incentives and by paying premium prices for quieted
goods when private-sector demand might not in itself be a
sufficient forcing factor. Occupational and environmental
Federal regulations place uniform demands on an entire in-
dustry and are a driving force for research in the private
sector. Noise goals can also impel research when they are
practical and properly defined with respect to time. Fed-
eral labeling requirements could serve as inducements to
industrial manufacturers to reduce product noise and spur
necessary research.
A minority view offered by some of the Federal repre-
sentatives was that some Federal Agencies, such as DOD and
DOI may have Legislative Mandates that require them to under-
take specific noise research to meet their own mandated needs
rather than "National" needs.
11-14
-------
2.a. What factors should influence Federal involvement in
noise research?
The general view was that the role of the Federal Govern-
ment in developing noise technology should be limited in the
sense that program efforts in noise control research must be
focused on societal needs and directed at high need, high
priority areas. Federal programs should emphasize relatively
high risk long-term research problems, those with low prob-
ability of immediate return on investment and leave product
design to the private sector.
A number of factors were identified that should influence
Federal efforts:
Degree of risk of hearing impairment. This factor will
be a function of both severity of exposure and number of
people exposed. Workmen's compensation claims for hear-
ing impairment could be one measure of risk. This fac-
tor also interacts with other health and safety hazards.
Anticipated benefits. For example, areas in which the
greatest reduction in potential for hearing impairment
can be achieved should receive the highest priority—a
"worst first" priority.
Availability of basic knowledge of noise control, avail-
ability of noise control technology, incentives probabil-
ity of immediate success in finding a suitable technol-
ogy, extent of private involvement already present and
the rate of progress toward a solution, and the ability
(or need for support) and willingness of the private
sector to solve a problem. Lack of any of these factors
was identified as establishing a need for Federal in-
volvement. Research in areas where essential basic
knowledge does not exist, where noise control technology
does not exist, and where the probability of immediate
success is low all might be called high risk research,
that is, any return on funds invested in research will
be relatively far in the future if at all.
Highly fragmented industries. In many instances such
industries may not be able to muster sufficient re-
sources even for product development, so some support
may be needed outside of the high-risk area. On the
other hand, there may be areas in which there should
be some combined investment, for example, joint support
might be given to a project begun by a trade associa-
tion. In general. Federal efforts should complement,
not duplicate, private efforts.
11-15
-------
2.b. For what products, processes/ and industries should the
Federal Government be undertaking noise research?
Factors influencing where Federal support for noise con-
trol RD&D should be directed were identified in the response
to issues 2.a. and I.e. Some specific types of equipment and
processes for which noise control methods were unavailable
were identified in the response to issue I.e. Other types
of equipment and processes for which noise control methods
are available but/ for one reason or another, are unacceptable
could be listed, but these types should be assigned a lower
priority. All of the industrial subgroups concluded in their
summaries that some products and processes in their respective
industries required some Federal undertaking of research.
Each of the groups indicated that an essential role to be
played by the Federal Government was to support research that
would advance basic knowledge and lead to the development of
noise control technology and expertise.
2.c. What other areas of noise generation should receive
Federal research support?
In addition to the products and processes indicated by
the answer to issue 2.b it was felt research attention should
be directed at the basic sources of noise as well as controls
common to many different products and processes:
Basic Noise Sources
High-speed rotary systems that transfer energy or
materials
Combustion
Fluid moving systems
Process fluid control systems
Material cutting
Material forming
Power transmission
Bearings
11-16
-------
Belts
Impact-impulse
Noise Control Factors
New process technology with inherently lower noise
such as in mining equipment
Materials used for noise control.
2.d. What future technology developments will influence
noise control and/or research?
Three developments appeared to have the most general ap-
plication. Automation and computer control will allow remote
location of operators, but maintenance crews will remain in
the noise fields. The shift in dependence on, as well ^as de-
velopment of, new energy sources may well introduce noise-
control problems that will have to be addressed. For in-\
stance, much of the equipment used in surface and underground
mining produces noise levels potentially harmful to hearing.
2.e. What balance should be given to support for demonstra-
tion programs and research to develop new technology?
On the whole, development of new technology, research,
and demonstration received about equal emphasis. One indus-
try group felt, at the beginning of its session, that there
should be no Federal support for demonstration programs but
later changed its position to recommend jointly sponsored
programs—industry would supply facilities and workers and
Government would supply technical support. Another felt that
demonstrations should receive more emphasis than research.
These differences seem to reflect some differences in the
status of noise-control technology among industry groups. In
other words, Federal resources need to be directed to devel-
opment of technology if there is little in the way of tech-
nology to demonstrate. In general, it can be said that rela-
tive emphasis should depend on the current state of noise
control technology in a particular industry and that the em-
phasis should shift from development of technology to demon-
stration of technology as progress is made.
11-17
-------
3. What role should the private sector play in developing
noise control technology?
OVERVIEW
The general response to this question was that industry
must furnish the direction for development of noise control
technology. Goals have been set by the EPA* and workplace
and environmental regulations have been set by the DOL
and EPA respectively; but the direction for research
needs to come from the private sector (industry, university)
because it possesses detailed knowledge of what problems must
be solved for the goals to be achieved. Thus, industry must
have, in this sense, a leading role if meaningful and timely
research is to be conducted. Although industry participation
will depend on its assessment of the incentives, industry
feels strongly that it can contribute to basic research, prod-
uct development, and demonstration projects.
From the point of view of the private sector the motive
force for noise control is incentive. Without incentives,
both positive and negative, there can be no technological
development, and present incentives for noise control are
weak, absent, or uncertain. Current incentives produce the
current level of research, and the level of effort will ad-
just to changes in them.
It should also be pointed out that many small manufac-
turers do not have the resources to carry out product devel-
opment research even if generous incentives were to become
available to them.
3.a. Can industry solve the noise problems without input
and assistance of the Federal Government?
There was no consensus on this subissue. Generally, in-
dustry expressed confidence that they could solve the problem
provided that the proper economic incentives were available.
However, many of the smaller manufacturers felt that they did
not possess the necessary resources, nor could they justify
the investment without the definite assurance of a satisfac-
tory return. Some of the smaller manufacturers felt that
*Toward a National Strategy for Noise Control, U.S. Government
Printing Office 720-117/1999, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., April 1977.
11-18
-------
almost under no circumstances could they devote resources to
noise control. Other negative responses cited the inability
of industry to justify the allocation of the necessary re-
sources to noise research because of current market demands.
Also in research areas where full public disclosure is desired,
conduct of research by the Federal Government was preferred
to avoid conflict with anti-trust laws.
3.b. What are the incentives for noise control RD&D by
equipment "manufacturers" and "users"?
Incentives have been classified according to whether
they affect equipment manufacturer or equipment user, and
according to whether they presently exist in the economic sys-
tem or are needed and could potentially exist. Present in-
centives were identified as, in general, relatively weak,
though their strength varied greatly from group to group and
from product to product. Present economic incentives define
what research will take place on the basis of supply and de-
mand. With respect to retrofit noise controls, negative
incentives presently exist for its implementation.
MANUFACTURER
Present Incentives
Competition with both domestic and foreign manufacturers
to improve or at least maintain market position is a
strong incentive.
Profit motive is an essential incentive. The equipment
manufacturers stated that they could not invest in devel-
oping quieter equipment until there was an adequate market
and/or until noise was a strong selling factor. Many of
the users, however, countered by saying that a market was
available because they would pay more for quieter indus-
trial equipment if it were available.
Equipment purchase specifications specifying noise re-
quirements were cited as an area that has not been fully
utilized as much as it could, it represents customer
pressure and forces market demand. It was suggested
that the Federal Government through its purchasing power
play a role in forcing market demand by specifying quiet
equipment. GSA was one Federal Agency noted that could
play a role through purchasing and specifications.
11-19
-------
Present and anticipated product noise regulations, both
domestic and foreign, were cited as potentially powerful
incentives. They have been little used; but their use
is growing, and many manufacturers are attempting to an-
ticipate future regulations.
Potential Incentives
Tax incentives to invest in research and development of
quieter products would allow a stronger case to be made
for investment to meet an anticipated future demand.
Some preference was expressed for tax incentives over
direct government contracts. However, the ability to
use tax incentives were correlated to some degree to the
size of the manufacturer (refer to the Overview to issue
3 on the previous page). The smaller manufacturer might
not be able to respond, even given these incentives, and
he may not be able to bid on government contracts, as
well.
Decreased cost of product liability claims to the equip-
ment manufacturer for hearing loss.
EQUIPMENT USER
Present Incentives
Compliance with the Federally imposed DOL workplace
noise standards as well as local ordinances is the strong-
est and most immediate incentive. At present there is
more of an incentive for development and implementation
of retrofit solutions than for research to develop source
controls. Primarily variability of enforcement and to a
lesser extent uncertainty of future standards have made
this incentive compliance with standards much weaker than
it might otherwise be. Current uncertainty with respect
to future limits of the DOL/OSHA workplace noise stan-
dard were cited as an inhibiting factor.
Concern for the health, safety, and welfare of workers
through the reduction of noise hazardous to hearing.
11-20
-------
Potential Incentives
Decreased costs from workman's compensation claims and
maintaining hearing-conversation programs.
Increased productivity resulting from working in an area
with an optimum environment.
Tax credits for buying relatively quiet products.
3.c. In what specific areas should noise control research
be done by private industry?
The general response to the question was that private
industry must take the dominant, leading role if, in fact,
meaningful and timely research is to be conducted. It was
emphasized that industry's involvement is not limited to a
particular area such as basic research or applied research
or demonstration but, rather, it encompasses all research
areas. All subgroups, however, clearly identified one
area—that of applications research or more appropriately
product development. By necessity this approach must be
taken by industry whenever proprietary developments—either
products or processes—are involved. Product development
requires long-term research efforts involving significant
changes in product lines.
3.d. What are the constraints that inhibit development of
noise control technology by industry?
In general, absence of the incentives discussed under
subissue 3.b. inhibit development. Other inhibitors were
identified and further elaboration on some of the incen-
tives discussed under subissue 3.b. was developed.
There is a lack of basic knowledge, as discussed under
Issue 1, and there is a lack of expertise to apply what
knowledge there is.
There is a lack of research facilities, and insufficient
money has been allocated by industry to do research in exist-
ing facilities. There are several closely related reasons
for this circumstance. On the one hand, other environmental,
health and safety problems are competing for research money,
and, on the other, there is great variability in the enforce-
ment of noise regulations. Further, noise is not a life-
threatening occupational hazard. All of these factors sum to
a low priority rating when research money is being allocated.
11-21
-------
There are also legal constraints that act to inhibit
development. Industry can be reluctant to demonstrate new
technology for fear that regulatory agencies will consider it
a generally "feasible control." Exchange of information
about noise control technology is also inhibited by fear of
restraint-of-trade provisions in anti-trust law. This factor
reinforces the inhibitory effect of competition on exchange
of information. These legal and competitive restraints sug-
gest that the government can have a stimulative role in joint
demonstration projects and exchange of information about the
technology used in them. Emphasis on retrofit under enforce-
ment of current regulations diverts funding from research to
fixes.
3.e. what role should educational institutions play in RD&D
for the industrial, and machinery and construction
equipment areas?
Universities should be a source of educated professionals
having an engineering and scientific training in acoustics;
and should engage in research, development, and demonstration
activities, with principal efforts centered on basic research.
There was some discussion on whether there was currently an
adequate number of college trained professionals in acoustics
to solve the technology problems that had to be addressed,
but no consensus was reached on this point. With respect to
the RD&D process, there was no consensus with respect to the
full role that had to be played by the university. There was
a clear consensus, however, that the university should be a
resource for undertaking basic research, principally long
term. Some sentiment was also expressed by industry for
university involvement in the development and demonstration
phases of the RD&D process partly because they would serve
to provide the training that industry requires and needs.
There was general agreement that uncertainty in goals and in
funding university research has a detrimental effect on both
the research and training functions./ If universities are to
be relied on to develop and maintain noise-control research
capabilities, then sustained support is mandatory. The cur-
rent system used to fund research at universities—which is
fragmented at best—must be improved if they are to be re-
sponsive. The remaining question is—Who should provide the
funding? There was an indication that industry may be will-
ing to provide some level of support, as it has in the past.
11-22
-------
4. How and in which areas can Government and industry work
together on noise RD&D programs?
There appears to be a general consensus among the par-
ticipants that:
a. There is a need for Government and industry to work
together on basic noise research.
b. Results of the research work should be demonstrated
on projects to provide a means to disseminate the
information to all interested parties on a regular,
periodic basis. It was also felt that there should
be joint participation in the process of identifying
needs for research projects and settling of goals
and objectives for them. The thought was also ex-
pressed that while noise research may well be neces-
sary it would be insufficient by itself to abate
noise.
4.a. What method/procedures can be utilized to disseminate
and implement the results of successful RD&D programs?
a. The answers the various groups developed to this
question ranged over the numerous existing channels
of communication to include regular dissemination
of printed reports, presentations of technical papers
in technical society meetings, publications of arti-
cles in trade journals, advertising the availability
of such information in the press, presentation of
work in workshops and symposia convened for this
specific purpose.
b. The need for informing interested parties of the cur-
rently existing sources of such information and how
to utilize them was pointed out, and it was indicated
that only minimal advantage is being taken of the
vast array of information that already exists. The
principal reasons that existing information is not
being utilized is that the very existence and loca-
tion of much of it is not widely known. This sug-
gested the need for a single contact point somewhere
in the Federal Government where questions concerning
noise research can be presented and answers obtained.
c. It was also suggested that trade associations could
provide a service to their members by providing
11-23
-------
noise-research information to them that originates
within the Federal Government.
4.b. What specific noise-control demonstration programs
would aid equipment manufacturers and users to intro-
duce noise control measures?
a. The combined report from the seven sub-groups re-
sulted in a list of factors that were felt to be
essential to the adoption by industry of the re-
sults of any demonstration programs. The factors
identified, not necessarily in order of importance,
are:
(1) Successful demonstration in a user environ-
ment of user acceptability.
(2) Cost effectiveness.
(3) Practicability.
(4) Reliability.
(5) Maintainability.
(6) Productivity.
(7) Durability.
(8) Achievement of compliance (with applicable
regulations).
(9) Avoidance of any new hazards to health and
safety (fire hazard, visibility restrictions,
etc.).
In other words for the demonstrated technology to
be accepted by industry it must satisfy all of the
real-world demands imposed by users in profitable
operations.
11-24
-------
4.c. What forum or mechanism can be used effectively to pro-
vide for an exchange between Government and industry
concerning noise research needs and accomplishments?
There seems to be some difficulty in answering this ques-
tion, perhaps because of its similarity to 4.a.
Among the suggestions for a forum or mechanism were:
There should be a central source for disseminating infor-
mation, operating on a regular basis, and producing peri-
odic reports.
There shall be distribution of printed communications
containing information from the same central source
through publication and trade journals, trade associa-
tions, technical societies—both through active par-
ticipation in committee work by Government people, and
through presentation of technical papers and also a
suggestion that conference proceedings be made freely
available through Government funding.
Finally, a recommendation was made that a steering com-
mittee be formed to act as an intermediary through which
research needs could be conveyed to EPA and/or the Fed-
eral Government; and at the same time noise research
accomplishments could be made known and their adoption
encouraged by the broad range of interests represented
by such a committee. This committee could have repre-
sentation from across the private sector, particularly
the industrial manufacturers, acoustical consultants,
labor, and the Federal Government. The desirability of
establishing a mechanism for review of progress and dif-
ficulties in Federal research programs by the private
sector was identified. Meetings including program re-
view sessions could fill this need.
Joint participation by the Government with the private
sector in research and demonstration programs would, in
itself, serve as an effective mechanism for identifying
future research needs to the Government.
Workshops, directed to narrowly defined areas, were
identified as an effective and desirable mechanism for
defining specific research needs in particular areas.
11-25
-------
Adequate non-adversary communication between the Federal
Government and the private sector does not presently
exist. In this regard, a need for the Government and,
in particular, the EPA to encourage two-way communica-
tion was identified.
A set of recommendations was developed by the chemical,
petroleum, and electric utility subgroup and presented to
the plenary session of the Machinery and Construction Equip-
ment Workshop. The recommendations were not adopted by the
workshop, so they are given here as a minority opinion at
the request of the subgroup. The subgroup recommended:
a. Joint industry, university, and government par-
ticipation in establishing achievable noise goals
b. Positive marketplace incentives for development
and implementation of noise control technology
c. Joint partnership for industry, university, and
government in a noise research program, includ-
ing: goals, budget, and schedule
d. A separate program for fundamental noise research
e. A separate program for determining the effective-
ness of a research and implementation program
f. A separate program for assembling and disseminat-
ing results.
11-26
-------
IIB. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP
RESPONSES TO ISSUES
1. What is the status of noise control technology?
l.a. What are some of the major types of equipment for
which noise control methods are unavailable?
The principal noise sources for all surface trans-
portation vehicles (highway, off-road, rail) are for the
most part common to all vehicles and can be readily grouped
into just a few classifications as shown here:
Internal combustion engines (diesel and gasoline)
Power system drive trains
Principal engine subsystem components such as intake,
exhaust, cooling, and allied subsystems
Tire and roadway, and their interactions
Rail wheel and track, and their interactions.
The presentation which follows is, as far as possible,
in terms of these classifications. In general, some tech-
nology is available for controlling noise at its source for
each of the components of surface transportation vehicles.
The internal combustion engine is a universal power-
plant for surface transportation vehicles. Due in part to
fuel economy needs, the use of the diesel engine, particu-
larly for automobiles, is expected to increase in the coming
years. The current diesel engine is noisier than its coun-
terpart, the gasoline engine. Knowledge on how to reduce
the noise of the internal combustion engine through funda-
mental design is limited.
Tire noise originates from a complex interaction of
the tire with the road surface. Although significant work
11-27
-------
has been performed in recent years in an effort to under-
stand the mechanisms of noise generation associated with
this interaction, these mechanisms are not well understood.
Without an increased understanding of the noise-generation
mechanisms, current technology does not appear to permit
further noise reductions of any significant amount. The
current-generation quieter tires are at the minimum noise
levels that can be achieved by current knowledge.
The noise generated from the wheel/rail interaction
can be categorized into three groupings: wheel squeal at
curves and railroad retarders, impact noise, and roar noise.
Knowledge of the basic mechanisms of noise generation for
each of these categories is only superficial and as a re-
sult there are no adequate methods of noise control.
l.b. What are the principal approaches available to reduce
equipment noise?
Standard acoustical techniques such as use of enclo-
sures, vibration isolation, damping, muffling, redesign of
components, etc., are available. It is possible to elimi-
nate a noise source through redesign of the system (one
example is the use of demand-actuated cooling fans).
Based on the limited understanding of the wheel/rail
interaction, attenuation measures presently used are not
ideal solutions. Some noise control measures in use are
lubrication, resilient wheels, damping for rail squeal at
curves, ramp control and alternate brake-shoe material,
continuous welded rail, wheel truing and rail grinding.
With respect to available approaches for reducing
the annoyance of tire noise, a minority opinion was that
the frequency spectrum of the noise generated by the tire
could be altered.
I.e. What noise-related research programs does industry
(corporations and trade associations) have underway?
Noise-technology research programs have been conducted
in all areas by one or another company. No specific noise-
related programs being conducted by corporations and trade
associations were identified. For proprietary reasons,
noise research programs of corporations could not be
identified.
11-28
-------
Some examples of research programs that were identi-
fied in general terms are as follows:
"Acoustical Intensity Technique," a new approach
for component noise source identification—to be
published soon by the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE).
Community noise source descriptors, all-weather
test facility, environmental effects on noise
measurement, correlation of bare engine to com-
plete truck noise levels, variability of noise
measurements, roadside surveys for long-term
noises-level changes are typical of industry
joint efforts.
l.d. Has there been noise-abatement technology transference
from one product/process to another?
There have been many cases of technology transference
in the field of surface transportation noise control. Some
examples of such transference are cited here:
Application of cooling-system noise-control technology
across all vehicle types
Mufflers from trucks to locomotives
Engines, tires, mufflers from trucks to buses.
Rail/wheel technology has benefited from the transfer
of FHWA work on ground vibration isolation and from
industrial work on structural damping techniques,
vibration isolation, noise diagnosis, and noise source
identification.
Some comments regarding technology transference are:
Noise-technology transfer on an intracompany basis is
generally effective. Company-to-company transfer is
slower and limited to review of formal reports for
the most part. Applied research by companies is not
usually transferred for proprietary and/or antitrust
reasons.
Basic research would be readily transferable on a
broad basis, but not much is available.
11-29
-------
Technical societies provide effective means for com-
municating technology developments.
Applicability of a transfer of technology must be
validated in demonstration projects if it is to be
accepted.
I.e. What are the noise-control research needs?
Concerns for achieving improved fuel economy, reduced
emissions, and reduced noise from internal combustion en-
gine operations point to a need for fundamental research
on combustion processes and integrated approaches to meet
these concurrent needs.
For the most part noise-control research needs center
on controlling noise at the source. This requires an im-
proved basic understanding of noise-generation mechanisms.
Areas in which this research is needed are discussed in
the following paragraphs.*
Internal Combustion Engines (Diesel) and Power System
Drive Trains
A better understanding of noise generation and propa-
gation through or from the engine and drive train that can
be applied to the design process from inception, is needed:
The phenomenon of diesel engine block ringing due to
the combustion process is not well enough understood
and requires more investigation.
Mechanical noise resulting from the moving parts of the
engine has been investigated but more work needs to be
done in the actual application of theoretical solutions,
More investigation needs to be done in the use of iso-
lation mounting techniques to control re-radiation of
engine noise through the vehicle frame and panels.
*It was pointed out that, owing to the relatively short
time that was available to the Symposium participants to
discuss and review the issues, it was not possible to
develop a truly comprehensive list of noise-control re-
search needs.
11-30
-------
Intake, Exhaust, and Allied Subsystem Noise Control
Better understanding of intake, exhaust, and allied
subcomponents is required as listed below:
Basic*
Source, radiation and perforation
impedances for exhaust attenuators
Non-linear effects of exhaust noise
attenuators (mufflers)
- large-amplitude waves
- flow effects
- temperature gradients
Higher order modes of resonance of
flow-generated noise in exhaust sys-
tems and intake systems
Applied
Measurement techniques
Vibration isolation between engine and exhaust
Source characterization
Effect of catalytic converters
New materials (acoustical and structural)
Water injection into exhaust gases
System modeling (acoustics and fluids)
Packaging to lower volume
Back pressure
Inlet restriction
Weight reduction
Shell noise of mufflers
*Note: theoretical and experimental work required in all
basic research areas.
11-31
-------
Cooling System (Fans) Research
Cooling system research needs are listed below;
Basic*
Fan-noise mechanisms
- tip effects
- separation
- flow noise
Fluid mechanics of fan
Heat-rejection mechanism (engines)
Applied
Systems approach to heat transfer
(match fans, radiators, pumps, etc.)
Cooling system design based on results
of new basic research
Alternate configurations such as
centrifugal fans, natural convection
radiators, etc.
Pitch control of fans
Heat storage
Cooling-fin damping and design
Auxiliary Equipment Research
Hydraulic fluid and structure-borne sound transmis-
sion need to be studied.
Tire and Roadway Interactions
With current tire-roadway noise technology there ap-
pears to be a "noise floor." Basic research needs to be
done to determine whether this "noise floor" really exists.
In order to realize the full benefits of further research
and development to reduce engine noise, tire/road noise re-
ductions must be advanced concurrently, or else total ve-
hicle in program noise reduction will, in general, remain
unaffected.
11-32
-------
If the apparent lower limit for tire noise is to be
lowered, it can only be reduced by conducting basic research
into the mechanisms of tire-noise generation. Factors such
as life-cycle cost, traction, rolling resistance, wear,
tire use, and manufacturing methodology are variables with
which noise-technology research must be integrated.
Although the road surface is an equally important fac-
tor in the generation of tire-roadway interaction noise, it
is typically excluded from consideration during roadway de-
sign and selection of pavement surfaces and finishes, partly
because of limited knowledge of the causes and methods of
reducing tire-road interaction noise. Factors that need
to be integrated are: roadway surface materials, surface
texture, skid resistance, and roadway design.
In the near future the resurfacing of some 40,000
miles of the interstate Federal highway system and 300,000
miles of state highway will be undertaken. All available
technology for reducing tire-roadway interaction noise
need to be brought into play in that effort. It should
be a relatively high priority area for further research
so that noise-control technology can be developed and in-
troduced in timely fashion.
Current methods for measuring noise from tires and
their interactions with roadway pavement for both outdoor
and indoor test conditions are inadequate. The widely
used Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) test procedure
J57a "Recommended Practice, Sound Level of Highway Truck
Tires," for example, needs to be improved with respect
to the accuracy and precision it allows. The accuracy
and precision of the various tire laboratory noise-test
facilities are unknown as well as the correlation between
laboratory and field measurements.
Rail Wheel and Track Interactions
Some specific research needs for the problem of rail
wheel and track interaction generated noise (wheel squeal at
curves, railroad retarders, impact noise, roar noise) are:
Alternative rail-joining techniques
Criteria for determining when wheel turning and/or
rail grinding are required
Rail grinding techniques
11-33
-------
An understanding of the causes of rail corrugation
and methods of preventing wheel flats
Materials, e.g., high-energy-dissipative structural
materials and vibration-damping materials
Materials
There is a need for new and improved materials for
noise control. Currently available materials used in con-
trolling noise have limitations with respect to such fac-
tors as cost, durability for extended use, flammability,
acoustic effectiveness, adaptability and effectiveness in
environmental extremes.
2. What role should the Federal Government play in
developing noise-control technology?
2.a. What factors should influence Federal involvement
in noise research?
The Federal Government should be involved in basic
high-risk new technology research rather than low-risk
research that could or would be done by industry.
Current Federal program funding for surface transpor-
tation noise-control projects is low when contrasted with
its total public impact.
Factors that should influence Federal involvement are:
Societal needs that require an accelerated noise re-
duction program or quieter product that will not be
brought about by normal market forces and industry.
Ability and incentives for industry to meet and adopt
to technology needs. Marginal industries have fiscal
constraints that meet the amount of money and re-
sources available for devoting to noise technology
research could require research support from the
Federal Government. In this context "industries"
means the entire industry and not simply a single
company.
Problems arising from system or component interactions,
Involvement of the Federal Government is needed in
11-34
-------
such areas of interaction because individual industries
cannot solve these problems alone. Many of the noises
associated with surface transportation operations are
not the result of any one industry's products but in-
stead the result of interactions from products of dif-
ferent industries. Tire roadway interaction is an
example. The study of noise emissions resulting from
this interaction requires expertise in not only tire
mechanisms but in pavement materials and surfaces as
well.
Maintenance of in-house capability. The Federal Gov-
ernment needs to have a capability to assess, to some
degree on its own, the status and developments with
respect to noise control technology; and as such should
have, at least on a small scale, an in-house capability
to undertake some parts of the RD&D chain. In this
regard the Federal Government should never put itself
into a position where one-hundred percent of its re-
search work is contracted out.
2.b. For what products and industries should the Federal
Government be undertaking noise research?
The Federal Government should conduct applied research
and demonstration programs as needed to fill gaps left by
industrial activity in order to meet societal needs and in
particular, basic (high-risk) research.
Transfer of research into marketable technology lead-
ing to a commercial product is the province of industry and
the Federal Government should not be involved.
The Federal Government should support necessary demon-
stration programs that must be done in partnership with
industry. A program in the surface transportation area
such as the DOT "Quiet Truck" program is an example of this
type of government and industry cooperation.
2.c. What other areas of noise generation should receive
Federal research support?
The Federal Government should develop an integral
national noise study including all noise sources to deter-
mine current noise levels (without resorting to unjustified
extrapolation) and determine the changes anticipated in
11-35
-------
national noise levels due to voluntary or mandatory noise
reductions. These determinations should be updated
periodically.
The Federal Government should play a leading role in
research to develop the necessary measurement methodologies,
For measurement methodologies that impact private industry,
the Federal Government should work with industry to develop
domestic and international measurement procedures.
Highway design variables, such as land-use planning,
zoning, noise barriers, etc., should be further investi-
gated by the Federal Government as possible methods of
noise-control technology.
Government research on new materials should continue
through demonstration and development of products if there
are no private manufacturers in business making the
materials.
Federal transportation grants should permit in-service
test of new concepts prior to spending on capital equipment
for putting such concepts into production.
2.d. What future technology developments will influence
noise control and/or research?
Future developments include the following:
Dieselization and weight reduction of motor vehicles
Improved communication can lead to less of a need
for personal travel, thus less noise impact from
vehicles
Use of electric and other alternative propulsion
technologies
Noise impact of new tire designs intended to in-
crease fuel efficiency
Future developments with respect to repaving of
parts of the nation's highways may affect tire
noise
Overall surface transportation system changes in
response to fuel economy and emission control re-
quirements may affect vehicle noise.
11-36
-------
2.e. What are the principal factors that need to be shown
in demonstration programs to encourage adoption by
industry?
If adoption and utilization of developed technology
is to be encouraged through demonstration programs, these
programs must show through in-service testing such factors
as: practicability, durability, maintainability, relia-
bility, functional performance, and initial and operating
costs.
11-37
-------
3. What role should the private sector play in develop-
ing noise control technology?
3.a. Can industry solve the noise problems without input
from and assistance of the Federal Government?
The major responsibility for the development of needed
technology rests with private industry. Once the Federal
Government identifies a need to reduce product noise through
regulation and sets a required sound level to be met by a
class of products, then private industry alone should be
involved in product sound-level reduction.
A minority view with respect to Federal involvement
once a product regulation is set is that the Government
should not be excluded from supporting basic research on
the product for the following reasons:
Industry's results are too closely guarded and real
information may be too slow in coming to the surface.
Industry's initiatives may be too weak, if research
does not hold out future monetary gains.
3.b. What are the incentives for noise-control RD&D by
equipment manufacturers and users?
Research incentives for the surface transportation
industry result primarily from impending regulations.
These incentives can be sharpened by better definition of
national objectives. Under certain situations market com-
petition can also serve as a strong incentive. An example
of market incentives is the demand for passenger cars with
low interior noise levels. Additional incentives include:
Profit (return on investment, payback period)
Good marketability
Financial and technical feasibility to manufacture
the low noise product
Relatively low risk, i.e., results from research can
be expected to pay off
Avoidance of regulatory actions through voluntary im-
plementation of noise control measures
11-38
-------
Meeting existing or future regulations
Improvement of corporate image
3.c. In what specific areas should noise-control research
be done by private industry?
As stated in the response to subissue 3a, above, "pri-
vate industry alone should be involved in product sound-
level reduction [to meet a sound level required by the
Government]." Transfer of research into marketable tech-
nology is the province of industry.
3.d. What are the constraints that inhibit development of
noise-control technology by industry?
Some of the inhibiting factors are the direct opposites
of the incentives listed in response to issue 3b. Addi-
tional inhibiting factors are:
Resource limitations to do research—marginal in-
dustries and companies have constraints on their
abilities to participate in transferring research
into a marketable product. A lack of facilities
and trained personnel may also be a factor.
Test procedures that do not reflect actual product
usage—a product may be quieter in use than the
test indicates.
Competing societal needs and incompatible require-
ments—there are higher priorities than noise control,
such as, safety, fuel economy, and exhaust emissions
control.
Multiple regulations—international, Federal, State,
and local governments may impose different require-
ments on the same product.
Regulatory uncertainty—when a manufacturer cannot
plan for future years, development of a new or exist-
ing product line can be inhibited. As a consequence
of uncertain regulatory actions, industry may cease
to invest funds in a product because of the possi-
bility that the product may never be allowed to be
marketed.
11-39
-------
Anti-trust restrictions restrict communication between
companies—companies cannot discuss details such as
implementation costs and product development plans.
This restricted communication slows down the process
of information transfer to some degree and inhibits
the adoption of new ideas. Research efforts some-
times must be duplicated by other companies.
3.e. What role should educational institutions play in
solving noise problems?
Universities should provide undergraduate introduction
to and graduate programs in noise control. Educational
institutions should also conduct basic research under both
Government and industry auspices, with close oversight by
the sponsors to provide incentives for best creative ef-
forts. This also relates to Government-industry coopera-
tion. High costs of instrumentation and facilities limit
the ability of universities to conduct research.
The university sector should be involved when needs
for test methodologies or levels are being defined. Uni-
versities can provide an independent source of data and
validation.
11-40
-------
4. How and in which areas can Government and industry
work together on noise RD&D programs?
4.a. What methods or procedures can be utilized to dis-
seminate and implement the results of successful
RD&D programs?
Communication of research results can be satisfac-
torily achieved through the combined use of workshops,
technical society meetings and journals, and formal con-
tractor reports.
Implementation of results can be accelerated by
Government procurement of "quiet products" on a wider
basis, including State and local purchases.
4.b. What specific noise-control demonstration programs
would aid equipment manufacturers and users to in-
troduce noise-control measures?
The purpose of a noise demonstration program should
be to provide a transfer of technology from the research
stage to the state where products are introduced into com-
merce. Demonstration programs should be of sufficient
scale to evaluate the durability, maintainability, relia-
bility, and initial and operational cost characteristics
of an advanced product in the real world. They should
also be oriented to evaluate any possible accidental bene-
fits in performance and other qualities. Demonstrations
should include exposure to a full range of geographical
and operational environments, and should be conducted with
properly trained maintenance and operational personnel.
Noise demonstration programs should not be laboratory
research type programs but programs that can be achieved
on a production basis. This requires a sufficient defini-
tion of the demonstration program. If the demonstration
program requires manufacturers' products, the respective
manufacturers should be consulted to help in representa-
tive product selection.
Technology application demonstrations should be sup-
ported as joint cooperative efforts with industry (e.g.,
the Quiet-Truck program).
Industry can cooperate with Government through pro-
vision of services and equipment—Government should provide
funds for engineering.
11-41
-------
Government and industry should work together to demon-
strate advanced exhaust system design. This would include
vibration isolation between engine and exhaust components,
new acoustical and structural materials, light-weight, low
volume, low back-pressure and low shell-noise technology
techniques.
An advanced cooling-system demonstration program is
needed and should be based on a systems approach. The op-
timum trade-off between energy consumption, cost, and
noise reduction should be established.
4.c. what forum or mechanism can be used effectively to pro-
vide for an exchange between Government and industry
concerning noise research needs and accomplishments?
Open review by the private sector of the progress made
on research programs sponsored by the Federal Government
would serve as a means of fostering the interchange of
technical information. The current meetings that EPA/ONAC
holds to review the progress being made on the various EPA-
sponsored studies with industry and universities on the
internal combustion engine were cited as an example. The
Federal Government should be invited to monitor the progress
being made in the various industry trade association re-
search projects.
A need exists for a single focal point within the Fed-
eral Government to which questions on research can be di-
rected and from which answers can be obtained. EPA/ONAC
was cited as the Federal Agency that should handle this.
One of the responsibilities of this focal point should be
to coordinate the dissemination of information on the re-
search programs of all Federal Agencies. Periodic news-
letters were cited as one of the mechanisms that could be
utilized to keep information flowing to all interested
parties.
Technical coordinating committees made up of repre-
sentatives from the Federal Government and the private
sector (industry, universities, etc.) should be formed
to facilitate communications relating to noise technology
and research. These committees should meet regularly and
continuously. Activities of this body could include:
Technology assessments
Preview of on-going and planned Federal research
programs
11-42
-------
Participation in the planning of Federal research
programs
One or more committees might be formed to focus on a
specific area or areas as necessary, such as tire and road
interaction noise. Such a committee would be made up of
the various elements associated with tire noise technology
and pavement design.
Cooperative work programs, in which industry and gov-
ernment people are exchanged for short periods of time,
would foster communication and an exchange of ideas.
Professional society meetings and technical committees,
such as SAE, were identified to be effective mechanisms for
technical exchanges. The need for government participation
in these activities was cited.
Symposia, such as this particular symposium, are an
effective mechanism for obtaining broad perspectives on
any given issue.
11-43
-------
IIC. AVIATION WORKSHOP RESPONSES TO ISSUES
1. What Is the Status of Aviation Noise Control Technology?
It was a consensus view that at the current state of air-
craft noise control technology, significant operating cost
and performance penalties result from noise reduction to meet
FAR 36 (stage 3) certification levels. The magnitudes of the
penalties vary widely depending on whether the design is for
an entirely new aircraft, for a stretched version of an exist-
ing aircraft, or for an engine retrofit without growth in pay-
load or range. While much of the noise reduction in existing
CTOL aircraft has resulted from design features which also im-
proved aircraft performance and reduced operating costs, some
features incorporated to meet the constraints of noise regu-
lations result in reduced performance and increased operating
costs. For current designs of new 3-engine aircraft there is
about a 6 percent penalty payload to gross weight ratio due
to design for noise certification levels 5 EPNdB below 1969
FAR 36, and there is a corresponding increase in fuel con-
sumption of about 3 percent. Retrofit of higher bypass ratio
engines to existing airframes is very expensive in direct op-
erating cost unless the aircraft can be reconfigured to accom-
modate more payloads.
Significant penalties in performance and direct operat-
ing costs result from the necessity to design for noise levels
about 3 EPNdB below certification levels to allow for uncer-
tainties in the prediction of the noise levels which the de-
veloped aircraft will produce. The opportunity to reduce
these uncertainties provides a strong incentive for noise R&D.
The acoustics of various engine noise sources is an ex-
tremely complex and difficult technology subject. With very
substantial input of research effort by the government and
the industry in the past 10 years, significant advances in
basic understanding of the mechanisms of the various sources
are beginning to be made. It is vital that the momentum of
this progress be continued, if practical applications of some
of the basic work toward reduced noise are to be realized and
11-45
-------
more broadly expanded. Currently, the methodology of acous-
tics prediction and noise control design for aircraft engines
is by no means adequately developed. This lack of precision
in the noise design art generally leads to poor trades be-
tween noise and performance. It is hoped that with acceler-
ated effort, the noise design technology can be brought to a
comparable level of maturity as those in other engine compo-
nent design disciplines.
At the current state of noise control technology, reduc-
tion of noise levels appreciably below FAR 36 (stage 3) would
result to very large penalties in payload/gross weight ratio
and fuel burned, the penalty rising at an increasing rate as
the noise limit is lowered. Extensive R&D on noise control
is required to make levels below FAR 36 (stage 3) technologi-
cally feasible. New technology is needed not only for CTOL
aircraft, including propeller-driven types, but for STOL air-
craft and helicopters as well.
The workshop was structured to identify and roughly pri-
oritize, within each technical area, the new technology
needed for noise control. No attempt was made to establish
priorities across the technical areas of engine noise, air-
frame noise, rotor and propeller noise, and propagation, nor
to allocate resources. Specific recommendations are mainly
technical in nature.
11-46
-------
2. What Role Should the Federal Government Play in Develop-
ing Aviation Noise Control Technology?
• A large and expanding federal role is recommended.
The total annual funding for Federal programs in avia-
tion noise research now totals about $25M (combined
Fiscal Year funding and manpower) and is roughly com-
parable to funding for related programs by the avia-
tion industry. Discussion indicated that the Federal
support for aviation noise research should be approx-
imately doubled in the near future and that this in-
creased level of support be used to sponsor additional
grants and contracts for basic and applied research
• A sustained federal program is necessary.
In order to meet the long term EPA noise goal of 65LDN
in communities near airports a sustained program of
basic research will be essential to provide a favor-
able climate for the generation of new ideas and inno-
vations, whereas applied research activities will ad-
vance the required design and prediction methodology.
Program continuity also provides for the specialized
training of research personnel and the maintenance of
research teams, both of which are vital to the effec-
tive advancement of noise control technology.
• particular federal agencies were foreseen to have
specific roles as follows:
DOD - Continuing of mission oriented research at a
relatively low support level
FAA - Rulemaking and serving as an alternate source
for research funding
EPA - Coordinating of the Federal program and de-
fining overall strategy and goals
NASA - Sustaining a major research and technology
program to include those items requiring long
duration efforts and/or high risks. The de-
sirability of NASA participation in coordina-
tion of research in certain specific technical
areas was indicated
It was noted that the Federal Government should accept
the role as leader in the development of acceptable
noise propagation prediction methods. Because such
11-47
-------
methodology would have general application outside
the field of aircraft noise, the Government should
also accept the responsibility for funding the bulk
of this much needed effort. Discussion indicated that
while there are substantial Government funded efforts
currently in progress in several different Agencies
to develop such prediction methods, they do not seem
to be well coordinated. It is therefore recommended
that a single Agency within the Government be assigned
the leadership responsibility.
• Special advice to NASA:
The NASA, which has the largest segment of the federal
noise research program, was singled out for some par-
ticular advice. It was recommended that emphasis be
continued by NASA on research and technology aspects
and that demonstration activities be very carefully se-
lected. Needs were cited for long range planning of
NASA programs to be coordinated with industry to
assure maximum relevancy and ultimate utilization of
research results, improvements in the timely communi-
cation of NASA research results to industry, and more
effective NASA-industry communications and collabora-
tive activities. It was noted that needs exist for a
large quiet wind tunnel for the testing of full-scale
aircraft and components for aeroacoustic purposes.
Modifications to the existing Ames 40x80 and 80x120
foot wind tunnels were mentioned as possibilities for
meeting such needs in the landing approach and take
off-climbout speed ranges.
11-48
-------
3. What Role Should the Private Sector Play in Developing
Aviation Noise Control Technology?
• Some industry noise control initiatives result from
competitive pressures.
Social pressures arising from adverse reactions to
noise is forcing manufacturers of aircraft to pro-
duce quieter and more efficient flight vehicles than
the competition. Such noise control initiatives
arise from market place pressures caused by such
diverse factors as airport curfews and differential
landing fees/ and litigation.
• Industry programs should complement government
programs.
Industry programs are now comparable in magnitude to
those of the Federal Government. In order to comple-
ment the primary Federal Government role in the sup-
port of long duration and/or high risk basic and
applied research/ industry should continue to perform
the short duration and/or low risk technology appli-
cations to specific configurations. Active partici-
pation in the validation of methodology, in the per-
formance of trade-off studies/ and in the development
and proving of new technology (including research
techniques) are appropriate roles for industry.
• Industry participation is essential in validation.
Industry participation should also complement that of
the Federal Government in the development and valida-
tion of prediction techniques such as those suitable
for use in the NASA ANOP program. The procedures
so developed are apt to be more useful to potential
users in industry if industry has a part in the full
scale flight evaluations and subsequent improvement
exercises.
• Technology integration is a role of industry.
Industry should conduct trade-off studies to show the
relationships of noise control to cost and perfor-
mance. It is only by trade-off studies performed
within the normal constraints of industry that the
true value of new technology can be established. An
ultimate proof of new technology is its adoption by
industry.
11-49
-------
4. What Aviation Noise Research Areas Require Federal
Support? What Programs in Progress Require Further
Emphasis?
Engine noise remains the principal source of noise im-
pact in the airport community from CTOL aircraft. Signifi-
cant progress has been made in the past in reducing engine
noise through the introduction of high bypass ratio turbofan
engines to reduce jet noise/ modification of fan design con-
cepts and development of duct liner technology to suppress
fan tones. Further noise reduction progress is difficult and
will come slowly due to the present balance of noise from
many sources within current engines. No longer can progress
in noise reduction be made by reducing just jet noise and
just fan noise. Rather, progress must come through research
leading to the simultaneous reduction of noise from several
engine sources.
Highest priority research areas. The highest priority
research areas are concerned with the dominant sources on
present engines. The dominant sources vary from application
to application, and for takeoff and landing power, and depend
strongly on bypass ratio (BPR).
1. Jet noise, both high- and low-bypass ratio. Jet
noise remains the dominant source of noise on take-
off for both narrow and wide-body CTOL aircraft.
Increasing bypass ratio has been the main approach
to lowering jet noise, but is limited by the per-
formance penalties that result at higher bypass
ratios. Suppressors do not exist for efficiently
controlling this noise for growth versions of exist-
ing aircraft or new aircraft. Research is needed
to understand the mechanisms of noise generation,
the propagation of noise through the exhaust, the
understanding of forward velocity and installation
effects, and the generation and development of
noise suppression concepts. For example, the use
of internal mixers for both jet noise reduction
and propulsive efficiency improvement for high by-
pass ratio CTOL aircraft should receive research
attention.
2. Fan noise generation and duct propagation. Fan
noise is the dominant noise source on most current
generation aircraft at approach power. Fan noise
can impact the community either when propagated
11-50
-------
forward through the inlet or rearward through the
bypass duct. Research is needed that will improve
the understanding of fan noise generation, prop-
agation through and radiation from inlet and ex-
haust ducts, and development of ground test methods
that simulate forward velocity effects on these
problems. The development of a comprehensive pre-
diction method that is consistent with fundamental
aeroacoustic theory and accounting for all the im-
portant source mechanisms is most critically needed.
Ground test procedures are also needed which limit
the noise generation during static testing to those
sources associated with flight. Fan noise technol-
ogy is now to the point that low noise fan and duct
design concepts should receive more emphasis.
Duct treatment. A duct treatment technology exists
and is being applied to the control of fan tones
in all current aircraft. However, design of this
treatment is largely an art, requiring experience,
cut and try methods, and extensive testing. Needed
is a better understanding of the suppression mech-
anisms of the duct liners, the effects of flow on
suppression, and design procedures which would en-
able the matching of the treatment to the true noise
sources, or duct modal structure, in flight. New
lining concepts should be explored.
4. High velocity jet noise. SST-type aircraft cannot
utilize the high bypass ratio engines which have
been so successful for subsonic aircraft since su-
personic cruise requires a high velocity jet (very
low bypass ratio). Before an SST is environmen-
tally viable, we must be able to control the noise
of high velocity jets or develop a new engine cycle
that generates lower jet velocity on takeoff, such
as the variable cycle engine. Research must include
an understanding of shock cell and jet mixing noise,
prediction of installation and forward velocity
effects, and methods of suppression. Applied re-
search effort to optimize the designs of many pre-
viously proposed and tested mechanical suppressor
schemes to match the engine cycle or exhaust.
Lower priority research areas. Still important, but of
lower priority than those listed above, are several addi-
tional sources for noise control. These are research areas
11-51
-------
which offer payoff in the future or where progress must be
made before engine noise can be lowered significantly on ad-
vanced engines.
1. Advanced inlets. This general area is felt to
have long-range potential for controlling forward
radiated noise from engine nacelles. The concepts
combine accelerating flows with treatment technol-
ogy for more efficient suppression of forward ra-
diated noise. Generally included are such concepts
as sonic or hybrid inlets. Also included are geo-
metric concepts such as the scooped or scalloped
inlet. Such inlets offer the potential for major
noise reductions in the future.
2. Core noise. Core noise is the noise generated with-
in the engine core (other than turbine noise) which
is propagated through the exhaust. It is currently
observable for some turbofan engines and can become
a dominant noise source on future turbofan engines
when low frequency jet exahust noise has been re-
duced significantly, and on turboshaft engines. Its
sources, such as in the combustion process or in
the internal flow aerodynamics, must be understood
and design procedures evolved for its prediction
and control.
Turbine noise. High frequency turbine noise propa-
gates out the exhaust and is an important source of
noise on today's high bypass ratio CTOLs at approach
power. Acoustical linings are used to reduce the
turbine noise in today's engines. Future engine
turbine designs having higher turbine aerodynamic
loading and pressure ratios are expected to raise
the relative importance of this source of noise.
It is important that new research efforts toward
better understanding of methods to reduce the noise
at the sources be undertaken.
4. Test and instrumentation technology. Progress in
engine noise reduction will be impeded without spe-
cial test and instrumentation technology for diag-
nosis of noise sources and performance evaluation
of noise control devices. Laser technology for
sensing fluid dynamic and acoustic phenomena, data
11-52
-------
processing and acquisition techniques for separat-
ing noise from multiple sources, low signal to
noise ratio data processing techniques, turbulence
control screens for static engine testing, and
very quiet aeroacoustic test facilities are in
this category.
Research scope. The principal areas of research needs
are in the fundamental and applied areas. The consensus is
that long-term payoffs can only come from such an emphasis.
Across the board, in all the engine noise areas, there is a
need for understanding and prediction of flight effects. This
includes methods for ground test that result in data that can
be reliably extrapolated to flight conditions. In all cases,
research needs to be aimed at understanding noise generation,
predictive schemes, and the creation of a design methodology
from which suppression concepts can evolve.
Facility needs. Some sentiment was expressed for a
large-scale, quiet wind tunnel facility to meet national
needs. The need can probably be met by acoustical treatment
of the 40x80 tunnel at Ames Research Center. It should be
capable of handling the wide body class of high bypass ratio
engines and should have a background noise level sufficiently
low to permit the study of core noise, turbine noise, etc.,
on future, quieter engines. The tunnel would be used for both
research and development, and possibly for certification of
engines prior to flight.
Payoff. The guaranteed results of an expansion of re-
search in these areas would be a maturing of the process of
designing for noise. A more mature design technology could
be translated into either lower noise levels or equivalent
noise levels with fewer cost/performance penalties, and in
lower dollar cost for developing quieter new aircraft. How-
ever, major noise reduction can only come through new con-
cepts or breakthroughs, which cannot be guaranteed. There-
fore, an expansion of the research program can only offer
increased opportunities for breakthroughs. Certainly, new
concepts and breakthroughs will not result unless the vari-
ous problems under discussion are actively subjects for
research. In terms of actual noise reduction, the group felt
that 5-10 EPNdB in 10-20 years, relative to present high by-
pass ratio turbofan noise is possible. The spread in noise
reduction and time is a function of the magnitude and aggres-
siveness with which the research program is conducted.
11-53
-------
Requirements. The scope and difficulty of the research
needs for engine noise reduction lead to the conclusion that
present funding levels are insufficient. More than token
progress can only be made by significant increases. The
group felt that a reasonable starting point would be to in-
crease the Federal funding level for noise R&D by a factor
of two starting in FY 81.
• Airframe noise research requirements involve both
nonpropulsive and propulsive flow interaction
sources.
Non-propulsive Flow Sources. Involved are airflows
not associated with the aircraft propulsion system
and which flow over the airframe and interact with
various components such as flaps, landing gear,
wheel wells, etc., to produce noise. The primary
need is for accurate validated prediction schemes
which can be used to assess the importance of the
airframe noise problem from a firm base. Reliable
flight data, uncontaminated by engine noise, are
needed for the validation. The identification of
noise sources needs to be pursued more vigorously.
New and unexpected sources, such as flap brackets
and edges, have recently been identified. Noise
control/reduction cannot proceed in a rational man-
ner until the sources are known. The development
of scaling rules must be pursued in order to deter-
mine the applicability of model scale tests to the
full scale problem. A large scale quiet flow*fa-
cility is needed for a vigorous ground based re-
search program on airframe noise. Emphasis should
now be placed on improving the fundamental under-
standing of the generation and prediction of the
noise, with research on identification and devel-
opment of noise reduction concepts receiving lower
priority.
Propulsive Flow Sources. Involved are airflows
from the exhausts of jet engines and the slipstreams
of propellers which flow over portions of the wing
and produce noise. Such flow surface interaction
noise problems are expected on all STOL vehicles
having integrated lift-propulsion systems and are
of concern for interior noise as well as exterior
noise. Existing flyover noise prediction methods
are based on small scale model testing and it is
11-54
-------
thus desirable to acquire flight test data on the
QSRA and the two AMST aircraft for validation
purposes.
Impingement/flow surface interactions which affect
flyover noise are also expected on CTOL vehicles.
On CTOL aircraft these problems include possible
prop wake/wing interactions on aircraft such as the
C-130 and the proposed high speed turboprop air-
planes. Moreover, some proposed SST configurations
employ over-the-wing engine locations which involve
jet exhaust associated impingements on the wings.
These latter CTOL related phenomena should be given
a higher research priority than related phenomena
which are unique to STOL configurations.
Rotorcraft related noise research requirements in-
volve both the external and internal environments,
and include refinements in the understanding of
rotor and gear box noise generation and prediction,
and the full scale validation of prediction methods
Validation and Refinement of Gearbox Noise Prediction.
Currently, first level interior noise prediction
methods exist for an uninstalled transmission/gearbox,
Such methods require detailed structural modeling and
dynamic response characteristics. Refinements are
required to improve the accuracy of high-frequency
component amplification and resonances and to account
for installed effects. Since helicopter gearbox de-
signs are configuration dominated, validation of
these methods is necessary for a variety of designs
and installations. Although the noise transmission
paths from the gearbox to the interior of the vehicle
are different for turboprop CTOLs than for the heli-
copter, the fundamental generation and prediction
technology are similar.
Refinement and Validation of Overall Rotor Noise
Prediction. Rotor noise prediction methods require
refinements and full scale validation to improve
accuracies sufficient for design purposes. Pending
certification requirements will specify compliance
levels for three flight conditions: flyover, ap-
proach, and takeoff. While some tradeoff or allow-
ances in levels will be permitted between these
three conditions, accuracies on the order of at least
11-55
-------
2 to 3 EPNdB are necessary. Once certification is
promulgated, helicopters must be designed below the
compliance limits by the accuracy margins in order
to assure a high probability of certification.
Establishment of a Data Base. Validation of rotor
prediction methods requires systematic noise data
acquisition for a variety of rotor types and main/
tail rotor combinations. This data base must include
simultaneous measurements of the vehicle noise char-
acteristics and the rotor aerodynamics (including
fluctuations). Additionally, the data base must be
broad enough to adequately account for airspeed,
rate of descent, rate of climb, gross weight and
control variations.
Development of Main Rotor Broadband Noise Prediction
Method. Rotor tip speed reduction and increases in
number of blades result in a higher relative contri-
bution of broadband noise. First level prediction
methods tend to underpredict the broadband component,
particularly for modern rotor types with advanced
airfoils, twist distributions, and tip shapes. Im-
proved prediction methods are required now which
take into account these design variables.
Evaluation of Installation Effects on Tail Rotor
Noise. The noise of tail rotors exceeds that of main
rotors in some configurations and can be directly
influenced by main rotor downwash, the proximity of
the tailboom, the engine exhaust flow, and in forward
flight, by disturbed flow past the fuselage. The
influence of each significant effect on noise gener-
ation must be isolated and quantified. This entails
whirl stand and wind tunnel testing of both unshrouded
and shrouded tail rotor configurations followed by
free-flight.
Propeller related noise research requirements involve
both external and internal environments and include
research relating to G/A, Large Conventional Propeller
and Proposed High Speed Turboprop (HST) Aircraft.
11-56
-------
Development and Validation of Cabin Noise Predic-
tion Procedures Applicable to G/A, Large Conven-
tional Propeller and HST Aircraft. The mechanisms
of noise transmission into a propeller aircraft are
not well understood. Transmission paths for noise
have not been confirmed by test although work on a
single engine G/A aircraft is now underway to es-
tablish the magnitude of engine vibration and noise
structurally transmitted to the cabin. This work
on single engine aircraft should be expanded to in-
clude multi-engine G/A aircraft and large multi-
engine propeller aircraft.
Work is also underway on theoretical methodology for
predicting the noise transmission characteristics of
fuselage sidewalls in G/A aircraft. Validation of
this methodology is also underway on a limited basis.
Engineering-type computer programs should be devel-
oped from the theoretical methodology after validity
has been established. Validation of this work by
industry should be expanded and trade-off studies
which include industry should be conducted to es-
tablish cabin interior noise control concepts. This
work should also be expanded to consider larger con-
ventional propeller aircraft including the new air-
craft required for the expanding commuter market.
The cabin noise of the HST must be consistent with
that of current turbofan aircraft for it to have the
passenger acceptability needed to be a viable fuel
efficient alternative to current large transport
aircraft. The program underway to develop validated
procedures for predicting the near field noise of
the HST should be continued for use in noise reduc-
tion studies and also to provide the input to fuse-
lage noise transmission prediction procedures.
Studies of noise transmission of fuselage walls and
the HST are underway. However, the validity of the
methodology used in these studies has not been fully
established. Development of new methodology which
addresses the high cruise speed and transonic tip
speed operation of the HST is required.
A data base for validation work is needed and should
be obtained with the participation of industry.
11-57
-------
Continue Existing Program to^ Optimize the Aeroacousj^
tic Performance of G/A Propellers and Expand the
Effort to include Innovative Propulsor Designs. The
existing NASA and EPA programs to develop and vali-
date prediction procedures for G/A propellers is
endorsed. The close cooperation with industry in
this work should continue to insure the early in-
troduction of new noise reduction concepts on pro-
duction aircraft. This work should be expanded to
evaluate the potential of innovative noise reduction
concepts such as the Q-Fan, a shrouded propulsor.
Experimentally Evaluate and Develop Validated Pro-
cedures to Predict Installation Effects on G/A, Large
Propeller, and HST Aircraft. The effects of install-
ing a propeller on an aircraft should be established
by measurements on existing aircraft. The effects
of nacelle tiltf the blockage of the nacelle behind
the propeller and the presence of the wing and fuse-
lage near the propeller are all areas of needed in-
vestigation. Validated procedures should then be de-
veloped to predict the noise of installation effects
identified as important in the experimental program.
This work is considered particularly important for
development of new large turboprop aircraft using
conventional propeller technology. Installation ef-
fects on these aircraft have been identified as a
problem in meeting the FAR 36 (stage 3) noise
requirements.
Develop and Validate Methods for Predicting Reverse
Thrust Noise of Propeller Aircraft. The possibility
of regulating reverse thrust noise has been discussed
in international meetings. If reverse thrust noise
is indeed a community noise problem, a validated
prediction method is required. At present, very
little is known about this noise component. Some
definitive measurements of existing installations
should be made and then a prediction method should
be developed which can be validated by the test data.
Develop and Validate Methods for Predicting Noise of
Turboshaft Engines. Core noise of turbofan engines
has not been considered a significant problem and
has therefore received much less attention than fan
and jet noise which are the dominant noise control
11-58
-------
problems in current turbofan transports and the su-
personic transport. However, in a turboshaft engine,
the core noise is dominant and will require attention
in G/A, large conventional and HST aircraft. Valid
prediction procedures suited for existing and ad-
vanced technology engines are required.
Develop and Validate a Method for Predicting Airport
Noise and High Speed Cruise Noise of the HST. Dur-
ing takeoff and landing, the HST operates at tip
speeds similar to existing turboprop aircraft, and
this is believed to result in acceptable noise
levels around the airport. During high speed cruise
at high altitude, the HST will operate at transonic
tip speeds. Validation methodology is needed to
predict the airport noise and the noise on the
ground under the flight path.
Aviation noise propagation research needs involve
basic studies of air attenuation, extra ground at-
tenuation, path interruption and sound transmission
through structures; and the development of improved
noise exposure prediction methods.
Large Distance Air and Ground Attentuation. The top
priority need in propagation research is the devel-
opment and validation of methods to predict attenua-
tion over large distances including both air and
ground effects. Although fundamental air absorption
in a constant, controlled environment is considered
to be fairly well understood, there is a need for
additional data at frequencies below 4,000 Hz. In
addition, substantial work is needed to develop pre-
diction methods which define propagation losses
through a non-homogeneous and/or turbulent atmos-
phere over the large distances significant for land
use planning (typical of the outdoor propagation
situation), and for a range of weather conditions.
The significance of non-linear effects for aviation
noise propagation also needs to be established.
Prediction methods for extra ground attenuation are
not validated and no well accepted standards exist.
There are existing theories for this general phenom-
enon based on idealized acoustical impedance models
of the ground, but they have not yet been validated
to any significant degree. The several existing pre-
diction methods are empirical in nature. They are
11-59
-------
generally based on an inadequate data base and pro-
vide widely varying results. Standardized methods
of measuring ground impedance are also required.
Path Interruption. Path interruption includes such
items as shielding of the source by airframe/engine
configurations, or attenuation near a receiver by
barriers, other ground structures, or ground cover,
such as vegetation. Theories exist for predicting
airframe/engine shielding effects and these have
been partly validated by research at the Institute
of Sound and Vibration, United Kingdom. Theoretical
models also exist for predicting effectiveness of
most practical barrier designs but further research
is needed to validate the effectiveness of thick
barriers such as earth berms and buildings. Fur-
thermore, existing barrier design models have not
been validated for application to shielding of dis-
tant receivers near airport boundaries. There are
also theoretical models which account for excess
attenuation effects attributable to ground topography
and various types of ground cover or vegetation, but
their applicability to noise abatement near airports
is limited.
Transmission Through Building Structures. With the
exception of mobile home structures, practical models
exist or will soon be available (from HUD) for the
prediction of noise transmission through, and effec-
tiveness of sound (and thermal) insulation of build-
ings. Limited data are available to validate the
noise reduction effectiveness of such treatments.
However, a much broader sample of basic noise reduc-
tion performance of existing structures for aircraft
noise, as distinguished from other sources, is needed,
In addition, validation data for predicted effective-
ness of noise reduction treatment of buildings is
relatively limited.
Methods of Measuring Atmospheric Properties. Stand-
ardized methods of measuring the atmospheric proper-
ties such as temperature, humidity, wind, ambient
pressure, etc., are required in order to properly
represent the atmosphere through which sound may
travel over its propagation path, from air to ground
or ground to ground.
11-60
-------
Further Development and Validation of Airport Noise
Prediction Model. Local public officials, airport
operators, and land use planners need a usable val-
idated model for noise impact prediction at and
around airports. These people currently are faced
with numerous models, data gaps, and confusion among
Federal agencies on predictive validity. An accu-
rate procedure for calculating aircraft noise ex-
posure is needed with a good data base on noise for
all commercial aircraft, noise for general aviation
aircraft, noise information on operational proce-
dures; and a method for adjusting for random or
deliberate variation in flight tracks.
The model should be validated to account for mete-
orological conditions as well as source and proce-
dural data with as narrow a confidence span as pos-
sible. This is an urgent need. Land use decisions
around airports are being made every day, usually
without considering noise. The multiplicity of
models and questions about validity are barriers to
effective involvement of local public officials in
land use planning around airports. A generally ac-
ceptable prediction method of proven validity is
needed as a tool in protecting undeveloped land
around existing airports.
11-61
-------
5. Are Demonstration Programs Needed to Stimulate the Adop-
tion of Advanced Aviation Noise Technology?
• Carefully selected demonstrations will be needed.
The role of selected demonstrations is to encourage
the application of new technology in production air-
craft while keeping the risk to industry at a mini-
mum. A prerequisite for any demonstration is a
package of new technology, well understood and pre-
viously validated at laboratory scale, together with
the design constraints encountered in a real world
situation.
• Specific items requiring demonstrations are identi-
fied. Needs are anticipated for full scale demon-
strations of selected propulsion system components
for helicopters, G/A aircraft, high speed turboprop
aircraft and CTOL aircraft requiring mechanical jet
noise suppressors as follows:
Jet Noise Mechanical Suppressors. For high specific
thrust (high exhaust jet velocity) engine systems
such as possible future design AST engines, the abil-
ity to substantially reduce the jet exhaust noise is
critical in meeting environmental requirements. A
large number of mechanical suppressor design concepts
have been successfully demonstrated in scale model
form in the past, and the reasons for their effec-
tiveness are well understood theoretically. A lim-
ited number of such boilerplate designs have also
been successfully demonstrated in engine sizes either
in actual flight or in wind tunnel environments. The
next step needed is a suitable demonstrator program
to test in flight or in simulated flight specific
designs that reflect a greater degree of realism in
terms of acceptable mechanical design complexity,
weight and performance impacts. Consideration should
also be given to the demonstration of a fully retrac-
table design, in order to assess its mechanical
acceptability.
Non-Propulsive Noise Sources. Ultimately, some full
scale wind tunnel and flight testing is necessary if
airframe noise reduction methods are to have credi-
bility; however, the manufacturers would prefer to
have Government research funding spent primarily on
fundamentals at this time.
11-62
-------
Helicopter Rotors. Advanced configurations designed
to check particular theoretical concepts or predic-
tion schemes, or which represent optimized aeroa-
coustic designs, require flight demonstration. Ex-
isting single-rotor and tandem-rotor helicopters
provide a means to test a variety of configurations.
The Army/NASA Rotor Systems Research Aircraft also
provides a testbed for large single-rotor designs
which can be tested over an extensive range of gross
weights and airspeeds.
General Aviation Propulsion Systems. The demonstra-
tion of noise reduction by new propeller configura-
tions is planned and should be continued. This is
believed to be a low cost and low risk program which
does not require extensive Federal Government support.
On the other hand, a possible flight demonstration
of the Q-Fan, a recently tested wind tunnel low pres-
sure ratio shrouded propulsor, is an example of an
innovative high cost and high risk program which
probably would require extensive Government support.
High Speed Turboprop. It is not now possible to ac-
ceptably test the high powered multibladed propel-
lers proposed for high Mach number CTOL applications.
Thus, short of full scale flight tests, a number of
questions relating to the seriousness of the cruise
far field noise problem and the cabin interior noise
problem will remain. Demonstration flight tests are
required at realistic flight conditions and for
realistic fuselage structures.
11-63
-------
III. KEYNOTE ADDRESSES
Mr. Charles L. Elkins
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Noise Control Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
I'm very pleased to be here this morning to welcome all
of you to EPA's Noise Technology Research Symposium. We hope
this Symposium will serve as a major milestone in the devel-
opment of a National Noise Control Research Program. I'm sure
that all of us fully recognize that if we are to reduce noise
created by the products of our society, we need to have avail-
able an adequate technology base and that research is the key
to the development of that base.
I'd like to take a few minutes to tell you why we decid-
ed to hold this Symposium and what we hope can be accomplished
during the next three days. In 1976 in pursuing our congres-
sional directive to coordinate the noise research of the
Federal Government we formed three Federal interagency panels
to address the technology research areas of aviation, surface
transportation and machinery and construction equipment. Mr.
Harry Johnson, then Director of the Aeronautical Propulsion
Division of NASA was Chairman of the Aviation Panel and Mr.
Joseph Lamonica, Chief of the Division of Health for Mine
Safety and Health Administration, was Chairman of the Machi-
nery and Construction Panel and Mr. Harry Close who was then
Director of the Office of Noise Abatement of the Department
of Transportation was Chairman of the Surface Transportation
Panel. Each of these panels reviewed all of the major Noise
Technology Research Programs underway in the Federal Govern-
ment from fiscal year 1975 through 1978. These panels also
collectively assessed from their perspectives the adequacy
and the direction of the total Federal Noise Technology Re-
search Program. Each of these panels published a report and
-------
the EPA then published an overview summary report and you
have all been given copies of these reports.
These reports were provided to Congress in April of 1978
to support the oversight hearings on the Noise Control Act of
1972 which were ongoing at that time. And as a result of
those hearings Congress passed and the President signed in
November the Quiet Communities Act of 1978. This act pro-
vides new directives to EPA to conduct and promote the ad-
vancement of noise control technology through research, and
these directives emphasize the important role of other Feder-
al Agencies in the achievement of this objective.
This Symposium represents our initial response to these
Congressional directives. By bringing together this group we
are asking you to help us launch a more aggressive, more
sharply focused noise technology research effort in which all
segments of society can participate for the benefit of all of
us. We have convened this three-day Symposium to fully re-
view noise control technology needs, incorporating the per-
spectives of all interested parties, not just those of the
involved Federal Agencies. We hope that the report of this
Symposium will provide a national research agenda which will
help the Federal government set its research priorities and
which can serve as a guide for research by the private sec-
tor as well.
To bring the broadest possible perspectives into play in
reviewing the national noise research needs, we've asked a
diverse group of participants and experts to participate in
this symposium. We have as participants representatives from
Federal Agencies and Departments, State and local governments,
industrial manufacturers and users, trade associations, un-
ions, public interest groups, universities and international
interests. We've asked representatives from the Senate Com-
mittee on Environment and Public Works and the White House Of-
fice of Science and Technology Policy to be keynote speakers
to provide you with the thoughts and concerns of the execu-
tive and legislative branches of the Federal government in
relation to the national policy of noise abatement and con-
trol. And we have also asked a representative from the Eco-
nomic Commission for Europe to speak to us so that we may
obtain some perspectives on European technology research and
development.
Let me briefly summarize some of EPA's own perspectives
on this problem. Excessive noise created by aircraft, vari-
ous surface transportation modes and industrial plants and
equipment is degrading the quality of life for many people in
America. Much can be done by the incorporation of available
technology but studies we have done show that this will not
be sufficient.
III-2
-------
In the aviation area we have, as we all know, a situa-
tion in which airport operators are facing millions of dol-
lars of lawsuits. In our view these lawsuits so far repre-
sent only the tip of the iceberg. The recent promulgation of
more stringent levels for new production aircraft will help
but the trend to larger aircraft and the forecasted increase
in operations will wipe out the benefits of these regulations
for those who live around airports as we go into the Twenty-
First Century. Unless, that is, further action is taken.
Turning to urban traffic noise, this is a serious noise
problem for some ninety-seven million Americans. Trucks,
buses, motorcycles, light vehicles and rail carriers are all
sources of this excessive transportation noise. Increases in
the numbers of these sources will, in time, wipe out the
noise reduction benefits which have already been promised in
the Federal regulations. Technological changes brought on by
the requirements for improved energy efficiency may intensify
the noise problems.
In the occupational noise area some three-and-a-half to
four million industrial workers have occupational noise ex-
posures which exceed OSHA's requirements. As you know, the
principal consequence and concern with excessive work place
noise is the permanent loss of hearing the workers can incur.
Faced with OSHA's requirements to reduce noise in the work
place through engineering controls, industry has apparently
been unable in some cases to do so because of the absence of
technically feasible methods. And it is no news to most of
you that serious hearing loss is taking place among workers
even in those plants which meet the OSHA standards. Fur-
ther reduction is needed in these plants as wellf in our
view, and technology will probably be a constraint in some
of these cases also. In all of these areas hearing loss and
other auditory effects of noise such as sleep and speech in-
terference are not the only concern. There has been increas-
ing scientific evidence that noise may also be a contributing
factor in various physical and psychological diseases. Al-v
though these research studies do not fall within the purview
of this meeting and its objectives, the Quiet Communities Act
does direct EPA to support research on these non-auditory
effects of noise, and we plan to do so beginning in October
of this year.
As a final word on EPA's perspective, it is our view
that support for industrial technology research and technol-
ogy innovation and development is essential for the survival
and growth of our economy. The U.S. economy is suffering a
slowdown in productivity with a growth rate that is now
slower than that of most other major industrial nations.
III-3
-------
Technology research necessary to support the environmental
demands of our society should, whenever possible, be coordi-
nated with these research programs relating to productivity
development. We know foreign governments are doing a great
deal to support their civilian research and development pro-
grams and so too we would like to work with the private sec-
tor or develop in concert a National Noise Technology Re-
search Program.
The Quiet Communities Act of 1978 enhances EPA's role in
the noise research area. EPA is encouraged to conduct or to
finance research on the control of noise with either public
or private organizations. This includes development and
demonstration of noise control technology. We at EPA would
like to use the results of this workshop to help support and
give additional focus to the Noise Technology Research Pro-
grams of each of the Federal Agencies and Departments in-
volved in noise research, including now EPA. We also hope
that individual companies will find the results of this Sym-
posium helpful in establishing new research priorities.
Three days is a very short time in which to accomplish
this objective. To be most productive during our meeting,
may I suggest that we agree to do the following: first,
direct our attention to noise technology research needs.
Discussions of noise effects research needs or instrumenta-
tion and measurement needs should be postponed until a later
time. Secondly, avoid philosophical discussions related to
regulatory concerns; specifically, the need or the lack of
need for regulations or current regulatory actions. I'm
sure there are strong opinions here about the Federal govern-
ment's regulatory program but these discussions will divert
us from our objectives here. We welcome these comments at
other times and places, however. Thirdly, keep the objec-
tives in mind and remember that we have a limited time in
which to address some very difficult issues. So let's maxi-
mize our efforts to develop conclusions and recommendations.
Fourthly/ make sure your views are heard. Because of the
nature of the Symposium we have tried to maximize the output
by restricting the total number of participants. So in some
cases many of you are the only representatives of a particu-
lar interest. We need each of you to take an active role in
these discussions because if you don't express your views
they may not be incorporated in the conclusions of this Sym-
posium and in the shaping of a national noise control tech-
nology research Agenda for the future.
I want to thank each of you for your support. I want to
assure you that we at EPA are going to work very hard to ob-
tain the support of the Congress, the President and the
III-4
-------
private sector, support which will be necessary to meet the
national noise technology research needs ahead. We hope you
will do these things as well. Let's begin by producing a
well thought out report of the deliberations of this Sympo-
sium. We look forward to working with you during the next
three days to produce this report. Thank you.
III-5
-------
Mr. Carl Gerber
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy
I am pleased to be here this morning and to deliver one
of the keynote addresses to this important symposium for
which EPA has gathered a cross section of people involved and
interested in noise technology research. Noise is something
that affects everyone of us in our daily lives and is an is-
sue in many countries as well. Chuck discussed the magnitude
of the noise problem and the need for noise research with you.
I would like to address the subject of this symposium in
the context of overall Federal research and development pol-
icy. The Office of Science and Technology Policy which I am
representing here today is concerned that all Federal deci-
sions, not just regulatory, are made on the basis of sound
scientific and technical information to the maximum extent
feasible. To achieve this goal we encourage and endorse ef-
forts to develop needed scientific and technical information.
We recognize that resources are limited and are particularly
supportive of efforts such as this symposium that can ident-
ify the most critical needs. Equally important is the in-
volvement of all sections of our society in developing the
scientific and technical information base, for it is clear
that the Federal government cannot—and indeed need not—be
the sole generator of information. Much knowledge and capa-
bility exist in the private sector that can and must be
tapped.
However, even in a period of budget austerity, the Fed-
eral government remains committed to and supportive of devel-
opment of the needed technical information. Dr. Press, the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and
Science Advisor to the President, and President Carter him-
self are both firmly committed to a sound, Federally support-
ed basic research and development program. President Carter
in his 1980 fiscal budget message to Congress said, and I
quote:
III-7
-------
"I believe that the Federal government must lead the
way in investing in the Nation's future. Despite
necessary overall constraints, this budget contin-
ues my policy of providing real growth in Federal
support of basic research. Such support is a rela-
tively small fraction of the total budget—$4.6
billion in 1980—but is vital to the future of our
Nation. The knowledge created through basic re-
search holds the potential for breakthroughs to the
solution of problems we face or will face in such
critical areas as agriculture, health, environment,
energy, defense, and the overall productivity of
our economy. Higher productivity gains in the fu-
ture, moreover, will make an important contribution
to reducing inflation."
While support for research and development remains a ma-
jor Federal goal, the total burden and responsibility for re-
search and development funding must be shared by the private
sector. The basic Federal philosophy involves funding those
research areas where the pay-off may be distant and those
development projects where the initial costs and risk might
prohibit private investment. When such projects reach a de-
velopment or demonstration stage where industry investment is
feasible and attractive, it is our feeling that Federal sup-
port should be phased out and the private sector take over.
This approach has evolved from the basic belief that in-
dustry is somewhat reluctant to engage in major exploratory
basic research because of the length of time it takes for the
payback, sometimes twenty-five years. In addition, basic re-
search is difficult to keep secret and as a result some sec-
tors of industry see little financial incentive in investing
in basic research. On the other hand, it is more likely that
the private sector will engage in a high-technology applied
research area where the return on the investment is more
secure.
The extent of industrial investment involved in research
and development is currently under study as part of a presi-
dentially directed interagency study on industrial innovation.
This study, a Domestic Policy Review led by the Department of*
Commerce and involving some thirty Federal Agencies and of-
fices, is now well under way. More than one hundred persons
from business and industry are serving on specific task
forces set up by the Department of Commerce and the Depart-
ment of the Treasury. It is proceeding on the premise that
innovation is a complex process influenced by a great number
of factors, many but not all of which are affected by govern-
ment policies and programs. The study is covering a number
III-8
-------
of issue or option areas. These include: economic and trade
policy; environmental, health and safety regulations; tax
policies and venture capital formulation; Federal procurement
practices; direct Federal support of research and development;
patents and information; the regulation of industry structure
and competition; and managerial philosophy and practices af-
fecting research and development.
The goal of this study, as in the case of all Domestic
Policy Reviews, is to present the President with a series of
highly focused options. The study will attempt also to indi-
cate the impact of these options on specific sectors. The
President's economic advisors and inflation fighters are ex-
tremely interested in the innovation study for they recognize
that longer term gains against inflation must derive from
improved productivity, new economic growth, and improved in-
ternational competitiveness of American products.
Of course there are no guarantees that all the proposals
made will be universally adopted. In a matter as complex and
far-reaching as this there are bound to be differing ideas
and some disagreement as to the possible solutions. However,
this study represents the highest level of attention this is-
sue has ever received in the government, and the study group
is working closely with industry, academia, labor, and pub-
lic interest groups to get the fullest and broadest input
possible.
Without trying to predict or preempt the outcome of this
study, I would like to discuss briefly the bearing research
has on innovation. There is, however, considerable differ-
ence of opinion of the role that research plays in the total
process of innovation. Some people feel that it is a mis-
take to identify innovation too closely with research. This
view stems from the idea that the initial invention or dis-
covery is only a small part of the innovation, which depends
more for its success on development and marketing. This
view, I believe, is too narrow and shortsighted, particularly
for innovations in high-technology fields. Such innovations
will increasingly have to come from new discoveries in basic
science and engineering, from research that will allow us to
develop strikingly new products and processes rather than
depend solely on incremental improvements.
We cannot expect to transcend our environmental prob-
lems, improve our efficiency in using energy and materials,
and move into new, high-technology frontiers without consid-
erable advances in basic research. While incremental innova-
tions are important, we can expect most of our competition
from abroad to come in the class of incremental innovation.
III-9
-------
If we are going to show real leadership we must operate from
a strong base of new knowledge. And we must find better ways
to apply that knowledge to new processes, products and serv-
ices that can in turn spawn broader economic growth.
It is worthwhile also, I believe, to raise a point or
two on industrial based research and development, particular-
ly as it relates to the Federal role. One attitude voiced by
some industry officials is that private industry seeks the
removal of disincentives to research and development much
more than direct Federal funding of industrial research and
development. There appears to be a widespread feeling that
regulations, tax structures and other government activities
inhibit innovative research and force companies to concen-
trate on defensive research, incremental product change and
marketing.
Let me focus for a moment on this. Regulation in par-
ticular is cited today as a major inhibiting force against
innovation. The argument is that compliance is generally
very costly and draws off company talent and resources that
could be devoted to new developments. There are some prob-
lems in this area and, as a result, there is already some
government effort underway to prune regulations, simplify re-
quirements and reporting and coordinate the actions of the
regulatory agencies. The President has established a regu-
latory council, presently headed by EPA Administrator Costle,
to examine for the first time all of the proposed regulatory
actions of the Executive Departments, non-independent agen-
cies and when they agree the actions of the independent regu-
latory agencies as well.
This council will not only prepare a calendar listing
all regulatory activities underway but will undertake some
crosscutting studies such as impact on specific industries
or specific groups in our society. Also the council may be-
come involved in the planning of research activities to sup-
port regulatory activities.
While arguments against current regulations may be valid
to some degree, government regulatory actions must be viewed
in perspective with other goals of our society. We must
strike some balance in this matter. Thus, though we cannot
afford a mindless pursuit of a totally pristine environment,
we dare not follow the other extreme of abandoning reasonable
goals and efforts in order to give ourselves a quick shot of
economic growth, however attractive that might appear at the
moment.
111-10
-------
Our approach to solving these complex problems must be
rational. Among other things, our approach should seek to
gain a better understanding of the present regulatory pro-
cess and how to improve such processes. In particular we
need to focus more on the adequacy of data, their interpre-
tation and means of systems-wide risk/benefit analysis. We
need to come to grips with the dilemma posed by the evergrow-
ing capability to measure ever smaller quantities and the
question of very low level effects. Industrial and academic
research can help us gain more certainty about biological ef-
fects and technological solutions and thus help government
agencies base their regulations on more definitive knowledge.
This should help bring about a greater confidence in Federal
decision-making and broader consensus on regulation. But
even with better information we will still face making deci-
sions based on considerable uncertainty and there will con-
tinue to be disagreement on the best course of action.
In addition to discussing Federal support of research
and development and examining industrial research and innova-
tion, it also is useful to mention, at least briefly, the
university-industry relationship.
There is no doubt that American academia and industry
have had distinct differences and virtues related to research.
Our university research thrived and won world renown because
of its environment of freedom and independence. That environ-
ment has allowed for the fullest bloom of scientific inquiry.
It has attracted the best minds from within this country and
abroad. It has permitted development of a most productive
relationship between education and research, between student
and professor. As a result it has generated an enormous fund
of scientific knowledge and continues to do so.
On the other hand, American industry has also benefited
from the ability to operate in a free market, to choose its
own mode of operations and its own approach to the pursuit of
profits. Though on these bases it would seem that both in-
stitutions operate in two different worlds with entirely dif-
ferent motivations, there are strong connections between them.
Industry has relied on the broad fund of research re-
sults universities provide. The universities are the source
of its new scientists, engineers and technicians. But even
while its virtues have been recognized, through the years
there has been a feeling that more could be done to make this
relationship more productive.
A number of differences have traditionally divided in-
dustry and academia. A few of these have been persistent and
III-ll
-------
are still basic to some of the problems we face in this area.
Perhaps the most persistent from industry's view springs from
the fundamental differences mentioned earlier. Industry gen-
erally feels that most universities are not empathetic to
the needs of industry and this reflects in the training of
graduate scientists and engineers. Indications of this were
confirmed several years ago when a survey of the presidents
of some seven hundred and fifty major companies revealed that
more than half were less than satisfied with the doctoral
scientists and engineers they had hired. Other follow-up
studies have corroborated this finding.
Of course, from the university researchers' standpoint
we hear the other side of this issue: the complaints that
industrial research is too product-and-market oriented, that
its planning is too short-term, that it is hesitant about
taking risks. This is not the atmosphere in which university
people are trained so there is bound to be a somewhat strain-
ed relationship.
It is unlikely, due to the basic nature of the two in-
stitutions, that we are going to resolve these problems com-
pletely. And perhaps we should not for there are some funda-
mental virtues in the different roles these institutions play
and it might weaken both if they became too much alike. We
should not want our university research system to become ex-
clusively an applied research arm of industry any more than
we want our industrial companies to lose their drive that
comes from market orientation. However, whether industry
believes it or not, much of industry's future lies in the re-
sults of the untargeted basic research taking place in the
universities, research that is publicly supported mainly by
government funding.
On the other hand, the university researcher should not
overlook the fact that to a considerable extent industry's
short-term gains are what generates the funds that support
basic research. In spite of their different roles there is
a symbiotic relationship and it is one that should continue.
Much has and is being done by industry and the univer-
sities themselves to improve their relationship in research
and development but, in addition, the government has under-
taken several efforts to bring these two groups closer
together.
One Federal agency that pioneered this activity was the
Department of Defense's Advance Research Project Agency, ARPA.
In the mid-1960's ARPA undertook a specific goal-oriented ma-
terials research program that established university-industry
111-12
-------
teams to work in defined fields. This was an experimental
program aimed at the coupling of university and industry.
ARPA also has conducted a cooperative program in computer
sciences that has been instrumental in advancing certain as-
pects of the computer industry.
Another agency that has been active in encouraging
university-industry interaction is the National Science Foun-
dation. The NSF has approached this through such mechanisms
as supporting university-industry workshops, organized re-
search areas and research initiation grants.
Though not the focus of this symposium, the development
of a better understanding of the risks posed by noise is an
underlying need that must be addressed. Unfortunately, it is
not now possible and may never be to determine the precise
effects and degree of risk posed by exposure to noise. So in
noise, as with all other potentially hazardous activities and
substances, control decisions must be made on a conservative
basis.
Most environmental agents which affect health are for-
eign to man's evolutionary experience; noise, however, dif-
fers in being an excess of what is, at lower levels, a neces-
sary, beneficial and natural process. Therefore, for noise
exposure the crucial issues are related to quantifying the
deleterious effects which occur in the transition range be-
tween exposures to sounds which are necessary and beneficial
and exposures which are clearly harmful. This was examined
in detail in 1976-77 by a task force on environmental health
under the direction of the National Institute of Environmen-
tal Health Sciences, NIEHS.
The health effects of noise exposure can be divided into
those that are direct and those that are indirect. Direct
effects include both temporary and permanent loss of hearing
as well as non-aural physiologic effects. Hearing loss is
related to exposure level, to the recovery period between
exposures and to the number and duration of exposures. In-
direct effects, as Chuck mentioned, include those related to
communication, to performance and other behavioral patterns
and to annoyance.
The NIEHS task force found considerable progress has
been made in quantifying the noise environment existing in
the United States since publication of an earlier task force
report in 1970. This information was accrued in large part
from activities generated by the Occupational Safety and
Health Act and the Noise Control Act of 1972.
111-13
-------
For additional discussion of the health effects and re-
lated research needs I refer you to the report of the second
task force for research planning entitled "Human Health and
the Environment: Some Research Needs." It was published by
HEW in 1977.
Given the long time it will take to develop a better un-
derstanding of the effects of noise on humans, it is crucial
that resources in both the public and private sectors be de-
voted to examining what technological changes can be made to
reduce noise. And it is important in this quest to examine,
in addition to incremental technological changes, what major,
new innovations are needed not only to reduce noise but also
to achieve other socially desirable goals such as energy ef-
ficiency and increased productivity. Without an adequate
understanding of the effect of noise on humans and the tech-
nological means of controlling it, decisions will be made
that might either create a hazard to human health or impose
an unnecessary economic burden on society.
Equally important to identifying national research and
development needs is deciding how we as a nation, both the
public and private sectors, can meet these research and de-
velopment needs. Critical to both identifying R&D needs and
determining the priorities in which these needs are addressed
is the active participation in this process by all sectors:
government, industry, academia, labor and the public. These
are formidable tasks and I wish you success as you undertake
them.
111-14
-------
Dr. George Jacobson
U.S. Senate Staff
Environment and Public Works Committee
I am very pleased to be here today, and I look forward
to this symposium as a good educational experience. I don't
have the technical expertise in noise technology or acous-
tical engineering that most of you have, but because of our
subcommittee responsibilities for control of noise pollution,
I have become very committed to doing whatever is possible
to reduce the levels of environmental noise in this country.
I should say at the outset that I will be speaking pri-
marily for myself. It's fair to say that no one person
speaks for Congress, although some of you may think the prob-
lem is that there is a surplus of volunteers.
I will resist making jokes about noise pollution in
Washington.
Seriously, I consider it a great honor to have been
associated with Senator John Culver and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works. I have especially enjoyed the
opportunity to work on issues related to the control and re-
duction of environmental noise.
Congress has been involved for about nine years now in
noise control and related legislation. Several of the pre-
vious speakers have mentioned some of those laws. I'll run
through them again and make some observations about what Con-
gress had intended. During the next few minutes my attempt
will be to discuss current congressional interests and con-
cerns in this area.
After considering the issue for several years, Congress
finally passed the Noise Control Act in 1972. That law did
two important things. There were several sub-issues as well,
but the major impact of that law was to give EPA the respon-
sibility to identify major sources of.noise in this country,
and then to establish regulations which set the upper limit
111-15
-------
on noise that could be emitted by certain products at the time
of their manufacture. In that 1972 law was also a charter for
EPA research in the area of noise control. This included re-
search on health effects and on control technology. In addi-
tion, and probably more importantly, there was a charter to
EPA to coordinate the entire Federal research effort in this
area.
For various reasons Congress didn't pay too much atten-
tion to what happened in the noise program for several years.
There were other major pieces of environmental legislation
emerging from the Public Works Committee during that time.
As you know, the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, and several other major anti-pollution laws now
on the books came out of this committee. It's no surprise
that those issues took up the attention of those responsible
for the noise matters.
Then about two years ago the General Accounting Office,
an investigative arm of Congress, began a review of EPA's
noise program. That resulted in a report that was somewhat
critical, justly perhaps, of the slowness with which EPA was
implementing the 1972 Act—namely identifying noise sources
and then promulgating regulations. At about the same time
came the creation of the Subcommittee on Resource Protection,
under the chairmanship of Senator Culver. The subcommittee
was given jurisdiction over noise control, so we immediately
began looking into the broad issue of noise control legisla-
tion and the noise program in EPA.
Last year we conducted extensive oversight hearings on
the 1972 Act, at the same time soliciting suggestions of ways
in which there could be greater advances made.
Witnesses included representatives of several Federal
Agencies involved—EPA and the Department of Transportation.
We heard from State and local officials who were running
noise control programs, from scientific experts in the area
of noise control technology and in the area of health effects
research, and we heard as well from several experts in noise
law.
As a result of those hearings Senator Culver introduced
the Quiet Communities Act which eventually did pass Congress
and was signed by the President last November (PL 95-609).
The new Act included a reauthorization of the 1972 act, so
in that sense it didn't reduce EPA's authority. But it also
amended the original noise law by redirecting EPA in several
important areas. First, to provide technical assistance and
support to State and local programs around the country and,
111-16
-------
second, to support research in the areas of control technology
and health effects.
I might just take a moment to explain the reasoning be-
hind our move to shift EPA's efforts more toward providing
support for State and local noise control programs. In our
review during the last several years it became apparent that
the regulations EPA had promulgated should have a positive
effect some years in the future, when a new generation of
trucks, garbage compactors, motorcycles, or whatever come
into use. There ought to be a noticeable reduction in the
noise produced by individual machines.
But, on the other hand, if only the Federal regulations
are in effect and there is no follow-up, those benefits will
certainly be lost—overcome by the fact that the number of
new machines in operation is increasing so rapidly that the
total volume of noise will remain as high or higher than
the 1970 level. Furthermore, there must be a concerted effort
to insure maintenance and monitoring of these machines wher-
ever they're used. It's clear that EPA itself cannot enforce
the law and monitor the machinery in every city of this
country.
At the same time we determined that since 1970 an in-
creasing number of communities around the country were be-
coming interested in developing their own noise control pro-
grams. Those programs may include very simple monitoring of
community noise, or ordinances restricting the output of
noise from a given piece of property, or even temporal or
spatial zoning so that certain kinds of noise are restricted
to certain parts of the city.
However, local officials were very direct in stating
that their prime concern was a lack of expertise on their
part. They simply did not have the trained personnel or the
equipment—even simple equipment—necessary to conduct their
programs in an effective way.
So the Quiet Communities Act was seen as the impetus to
help EPA provide the technical assistance, training, and per-
haps even the equipment, to communities and States around
the country, so that there could be a coordinated and comple-
mentary effort by Federal, State and local governments. The
idea then becomes to regulate at the Federal level those few
items for which that would be effective, but then to deal
with local problems separately as they occur. Each community
tends to have its own special situation because of the local
geography, the way the community has been laid out, and
existing State and local laws.
111-17
-------
The research goals for fiscal year 1979 were described
in the Quiet Communities Act, but each year our subcommittee
also passes a separate piece of legislation authorizing the
budget for EPA's entire research and development effort. in
that Act last year we included four million dollars for noise-
related research. This was split with two million dollars
for research on noise control technology, and two million
dollars to study primarily non-auditory health effects of
excessive noise. Unfortunately, the Senate and House Appro-
priations Committee didn't support that particular segment of
our authorization bill. However, the President's budget pro-
posal for fiscal year 1980 does contain half a million dollars
for noise-related research.
I think it's fair to say that EPA's role in actually con-
ducting this research will remain small, and therefore its
efforts to coordinate research conducted by other Federal
Agencies, universities, and industry will probably be most
important.
Now I'd like to say a few words about how I perceive
future congressional interest and what we would hope to see
happen. Congress reacts similarly to industry in some ways,
in wanting to see research be productive in a real sense—
not just producing research papers, but rather results that
will show up on the marketplace. Congressional opinion about
the Federally supported research in noise control is much
the same. It's not enough that the research is going on, but
that research should be having some beneficial effects. The
results should not be just quieter machinery, but ultimately
a quieter environment.
When Congress passes laws like the Noise Control Act or
the Quiet Communities Act it's with the intention of improv-
ing the quality of the environment and improving the health
and welfare of our citizens. Any Federal research should be
productive in the sense that it's helping industry and help-
ing the nation have quieter machines. At the same time, we
are looking at Federal regulations to see that they are not
simply in place on the books, but that they are, in fact,
having an effect in reducing environmental noise. To be
frank I must say that it's not clear that any of these things
is happening at this point.
It is perhaps too soon to expect to see the effect of
regulations on new machinery, because most of the trucks,
buses and motorcycles on the road are older generation vehi-
cles. But presumably within the next decade, depending on
the generation time for these machines, we should be able to
see some positive effects.
111-18
-------
As a general philosophy in developing all its environ-
mental legislation, the Committee on Environment and Public
Works has taken a strong and consistent position that regu-
lations set either by Congress or by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency be strong enough to "drive" research in a par-
ticular field. In other words, standards should be tough
enough so that at least for future years they can not be
satisfied by current technologies. Therefore it becomes im-
perative for anyone involved with those industries to be ac-
tive at the forefront of research and making real progress.
Apparently, this has worked quite well in the control
of air and water pollution. I think it's clear that scrubbers
were developed quickly because of the clean air standards.
Despite the fact that scrubbers are not a particularly elegant
solution, and we hope they will not be the final solution in
cleaning up stack emissions, they nevertheless work better
than anything else available today and they've had a positive
effect on air quality.
There is a real question whether EPA's regulations in
the noise area have, in fact, driven industry to advance the
frontiers of research. There may have been a limited posi-
tive effect, but this is something I'm kind of anxious to
learn about at this meeting. But as I said, if there is any
criticism that would come from our committee, it would be
that the standards were not stringent enough to force real
advances in control technology.
I would say that our committee, and I think the same
would be true for the House Committee with this jurisdiction,
is quite willing at some point to try new approaches to con-
trol noise pollution. We're not wedded to the idea of hav-
ing regulations like those now on the books. Perhaps some
type of national ambient standard, or possibly the concept
of noise charges should be explored more carefully. These
are the sorts of things that we will be looking at during
coming years if it appears that the present approach is not
effective in reducing environmental noise.
It is a little beyond the scope of this meeting, but we
are also very interested in knowing what are the real costs
of noise to society. Anytime we talk about regulations or
legislation it is important to know the real costs to the
nation of a given pollutant. In this case it's clear that
there are large economic costs to the nation from noise pol-
lution, although there aren't yet many well-documented stud-
ies. Property values alone must have been affected by bil-
lions of dollars across the country. And at the same time
the incremental costs of health care are probably larger than
111-19
-------
many of us would suspect. But, again, these particular areas
have not been well-studied, and should be part of a broader
research effort stimulated by the Federal government.
Our committee feels strongly that we need more effective
cooperation between a number of different groups in carrying
out noise-related research. This is especially true of Fed-
eral Agencies themselves. In the history of noise control
over the last seven or eight years those Agencies have, for
the most part, not been extremely successful in cooperating
in a productive way. I hope this is changing now. It cer-
tainly is something we're trying to encourage. That's diffi-
cult to do from the outside, but it's clear that if the FAA,
EPA, and NASA are all working in different directions then
that is not productive.
There is also a real need for cooperation between dif-
ferent levels of government—Federal, State and local—not
only in the kinds of programs we are hoping to promote through
EPA, but also in the general sharing of information and sup-
port from other Federal Agencies. This is going on to some
extent through the Department of Transportation, and I com-
mend that, but there certainly can be much more that is done.
And finally, as Carl Gerber said very nicely, there has
to be a better relationship than there has been in the past
between the government and universities and industry. This
is something that can be enormously successful if it is car-
ried off. That may be one way by which the productivity of
our nation's research institutions can be most quickly
uplifted.
I will summarize by saying that I have guarded optimism
about the prospects of reducing environmental noise in our
country. I am strongly committed to it personally, and I
will do everything I can, working through our committee, to
see that this happens. Certainly I welcome any suggestions
any of you have. I hope to talk with as many of you person-
ally in the next three days as is possible. Chuck Elkins
was correct in saying that this meeting should not dwell on
regulations and legislation, but I would like to hear from
you individually about them. Thank you.
111-20
-------
Dr. Claude Lamure
Director
Institut De Recherche Des Transports
Centre D1Evaluation Et De Recherche Des Nuisances, France
The main noise problem in Europe has long been the noise
of industrial machinery; for some fifteen years, however, the
road traffic noise has kept increasing; it has affected almost
the whole population whereas plane movements only disturb a
comparatively smaller amount of people than in the U.S. Be-
sides, recently built aircraft emit much lower noise levels
than those we had in the past decades even though they carry
far more passengers; this accounts for the fact that many re-
searchers in Europe are concerned with noise from ground trans-
portation. On the other hand, let us mention that the acous-
tic insulation of blocks of flats has also been the topic of
active research, for the greater half of European families
live in flats. Yet, we shall only deal here with the problems
of terrestrial transport noise.
This address was accompanied by photographic slides
which are omitted in the present text.
111-21
-------
I. PROTECTION AGAINST THE NOISE OF HEAVY TRAFFIC ROADS
Ii - MEASURING AND ESTIMATING THE TRAFFIC NOISE HAS BROUGHT
FORTH QUITE A NUMBER OF STUDIES IN THE UNIVERSITIES, PUBLIC
RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENTS AND ALSO A FEW PRIVATE COMPANIES.
First, governments had to decide on units to measure
the fluctuating noise emitted by road or railway traffic.
In the past few years, most European countries have adopted
Leq in dB(A) to evaluate day nuisances. Great Britain alone
which was -by far- the first country to act in this field
has kept the LIQ. As regards sleep disturbance, active
European studies sponsored by the EEC should enable to de-
cide on a complementary noise index for the night within
2 years. Let us also mention that some research works are
specially devoted to the nuisance and propagation of low
frequencies emitted by the vehicles (TRRL in G.B. - IRT Cern
in France). The accepted limits of Leq during the day in
front of the facades of houses is 65dB(A) in France.
Numerous methods have been then elaborated to predict
the traffic noise.
I2 - METHODS FOR PREDICTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS IN EUROPE
Methods for predicting traffic noise levels have been or
are being developed in different countries of Europe, with
the following characteristics.
• Most of them are Leq-based methods (Denmark, France,
Germany, Netherlands...) The others are LIQ methods,
but tend to be adapted to estimate Leq (Switzerland,
U.K.).
• Most of them are regarded at a national level as
operational methods for protection, evaluation or
111-22
-------
planning purpose, by reference to the national noise
criteria or guide lines involved, (for example:
Leq24 hours 45 dBA satisfying
Danish guidelines)
Leq24 hours 55 dBA unsatisfying
• These methods include simple nomograms or formulas,
computer-based methods, and scale model methods.
Some methods include several steps (2 steps in Den-
mark, 4 steps in France...), with increasing complex-
ity, precision, and cost.
• Some of the methods can be applied to railway noise
or/an industry noise prediction as well as road noise
(Netherlands, Switzerland...).
The computer models for traffic noise prediction which
exist within the European countries are different concerning
structure of algorithm, acoustic laws implied, input para-
meters and output results, cost and precision, type of
application.
I3 - PREDICTION OF MOTORWAY NOISE LEVELS IN FRANCE -
COMPUTER MODEL
The following methods have been described in the Noise
Guide ("Guide du Bruit des Transports Terrestres - Ministere
de 1'Equipement - 1976-1978 Paris"), they are of current use
by road engineers and planners in France. The first is a
simplified method: five successive charts or nomograms,
which use the following input data: traffic volume, speed,
distance to the road, percentage of heavy vehicles, gradient
and angle of view - give a single value of Leq. This value
is a rough prediction, which makes the users determine whether
or not there is a noise problem at the location considered.
The second is a detailed, nomograph-based method, where
a good knowledge of traffic and site configuration is assumed
- the calculation is done step by step, and includes detailed
site configuration parameters (ground effect, reflective fa-
cades, diffracting edges). This method estimates Leq levels
accurately in most situations. It can be used for the esti-
mation of noise barrier protection effect. But the method
can be time-consuming with rising site complexity.
111-23
-------
The third method (3) involves the same parameters as the
previous one, by use of the computer program BRUIT. This
program has been developed to process complex built-up area
situations, where the nomogram-based method supposes a lot of
calculations. In this program, distance, air and ground at-
tenuation, multiple reflection and diffraction by obstacles
are assumed, on the basis of an algorithm which searches for
the acoustic paths between any two points of the space, one
source and one receiver (figure 1).
FIGURE 1
SOURCE
CQfMER i-DDEL "BRUIT",
EXAMPLES OF ACOUSTIC PATHS TO BE
The data can be entered from a map of the site with an
automatic reading table. A writing table draws a map and
positions the Leq Levels.
The fourth method is the use of performant scale models
for areas involving propagation paths of increasing complex-
ity. Such facilities have been developed in France where
they have been used for urban acoustic planning purpose,
study of special acoustic devices such as road-covers or
half covers and road noise propagation research.
111-24
-------
The propagation is simulated with a model from a point
source to a point receiver (the scale used is 1/100 at the
C.S.T.B. Laboratory). A computer processes the source and
microphone positions and the measured noise levels in order
to compute Leq for the given traffic data.
These four methods from a very simple to a very sophis-
ticated are very different in structure, cost, precision,
handling, accuracy. Therefore the user has a good panel for
choosing the best fit for his predictions and protection
problem.
I4 - PROTECTION MEANS ALONG THE ROADS
Building either walls or earth banks is now very common
along the highways in the vicinity of metropolitan areas,
such protection cut lOdB or more, they are more efficient for
medium- or high-pitched frequencies as well as peak noises.
The technical problems are well known to civil engineers;
the use of absorbents is still rather rare as the available
materials are not entirely satisfactory and multiple-reflex-
ion areas - which require such absorbents - are not that many.
Generally, the shape of the barrier is designed in order to
avoid harmful reflexions.
Since blocks of flats in Europe are generally high and
close to roadways, it may be necessary to build very tall
barriers such as the one bordering the Orly-Paris motorway -
it is 9 meters high. Some barriers are made of glass, one
type is both a noise and safety barrier. Mentioned below
are a few examples of motorway noise control:
PROTECTION OF SINGLE-STORY HOUSES - After widening the
previous 2x2 road to a 4 x 2 urbanmotorway the single-story
houses turned out to be at 5-10 m from the curb-side, which
can be considered as the "ideal" situation from a road noise
control point of view, when a not too-high nor too-long
acoustic barrier can be highly effective.
In this particular site, a 5 m high massive concrete
barrier was erected at the curb after arrangement with resi-
dents (who preferred the barrier to double windows). This
barrier is 140 m long, its efficiency is 10-14 dBA for the
first row of houses. The cost was $700 (1975) per linear
metre.
111-25
-------
PROTECTION OF MEDIUM-SIZED BUILDINGS - In this area, the
previous boulevard was in 1973 converted into a high-speed •
2x3 road. As a result, the existing buildings were exposed
to rapidly increasing noise levels, most of them exceeding
70 dBA (Leg).
This site includes (1) 4-story existing buildings, with
400 apartments; before protection, 50 of them were exposed
to Leq levels from 73 to 76 dBA, (2) 10 hectares open area,
where public service buildings have been planned (schools,
hospital, etc.). Before protection, this area had 65-75 dBA
Leq levels.
It was decided to to build a joint concrete barrier/earth
berm, under the condition that the barrier would stop at the
local street junction. After erection, the 5-6 m height/400 m
long system has lowered the upper Leq levels down to 65-70 dBA
(efficiency 4 to 11 dBA) for the buildings. The levels in the
surrounding open field area have decreased to a maximum 65 dBA
Leq level, which can be considered as acceptable. The total
cost was $150,000 (1975), land price excluded.
PROTECTION OF SEVERAL TALL BUILDINGS NEAR A MOTORWAY BY
A COVER - KREMLIN-BICETRE - In many situations (tall build-
ings), noise protection by screens would require unrealistic
heights. One has then either to reinforce the noise protec-
tion of the facades, or to cover the road. This very costly
solution can be acoustically effective, but there are many
problems to solve relative to geometry and acoustic charac-
teristics of the system, stability, safety, and ventilation,
etc. For the inner side must be carefully examined. The B6
motorway passes through Kremlin Bicetre in a depressed cut
section between rows of 7-story old buildings. Leq levels
before protection ranged from 75 up to 80 dBA. It was de-
cided to close the section with a horizontal cover made of
double iron plates. A ventilating noise-proofed system evac-
uates the exhaust gas. The 460 m cover was erected without
stopping traffic. Its efficiency is about 15 dBA (the cover
has a limited length; the reverberant field inside the cut
section has increased; the local streets outside make noise
etc.). The price of the cover was $500/m2 (1978) including
material, works, and light.
PROTECTION OF SEVERAL TALL BUILDINGS BY A HALF-COVER
—GENNEVILLIERS - With the new A86 motorway near Paris, the
noise control problem has been tackled at the study stage,
111-26
-------
and therefore the noise barriers integrated to the road as
a whole. At Gennevilliers, this motorway passes along tall
buildings, and a noise barrier would have been uneffective.
Finally a half-cover has been set up on the building side
of the motorway. This half-cover partially increases the
reverberant field, but acts as a vertical barrier with a
diffracting edge. It is not necessary to light the road
because of translucid plastic panels, nor to ventilate. The
price of the half-cover was of the same order as the previous
one $500/m2, everything included.
I5 - BUILDING INSULATION
In most cases, when dealing with built up areas or long-
existing roads, it is necessary to insulate the facades of
the buildings while maintaining a proper ventilation. Acous-
tic insulation techniques have improved significantly. More-
over the energy crisis has encouraged many people to use
double glazing so that several systems are now available and
very efficient both in acoustic and thermic matters.
Double glazing is not generally efficient against noise
because the panes are too thin or too close. In this respect
consumers are not well informed. However some systems using
thick glass can be efficient.
PROTECTION OF A TALL BUILDING NEAR A MOTORWAY - A 5-story
building is located at 15-30 m from the edge of the embanked
motorway. In situ measurements show 72-74 dBA Leg levels;
76-78 dBA levels are expected in 1980. The noise insulation
of the facade was about 20 dBA. Given the respective build-
ing and road position, building a noise barrier would have
been unrealistic. In such a situation the last solution was
to improve the sound proofing of the facade. It was done by
doubling the windows with 8 mm glass and 46 mm thick wool,
set up on balconies. The noise insulation thus obtained is
about 30 dBA, for the outdoor window alone. The cost was
$1500 (1976) by dwelling. The technological progress to be
hoped in facade insulation is highly dependent on the build-
ing practice and not on fundamental research.
111-27
-------
II. REDUCING VEHICLE NOISE
Reducing noise at its source is presumably the best
solution as it does not set any prerequisites to urban
architecture and people's way of life. Besides it is the
only way to reduce low frequencies.
Let us first recall what European regulations are as
defined by the E.E.C.
REGULATIONS
A decree of 13 April 1972 states that the noise from
motor vehicles must not exceed the levels given in the fol-
lowing table, the quoted values being subject to a tolerance
of 1 dB.
These noise levels are measured in well-defined condi-
tions. The microphone is located at a height of 7.5 m above
the ground and at a distance of 7.5 m from the centre line
of motion of the vehicle. The vehicle should be running in
2nd or 3rd gear depending on whether it is fitted with a
4 or more than 4 speed gear box and the engine should be
running at 3/4 of the speed corresponding to maximum power
output except where this would result in a vehicle speed or
more than 50 km/h. Running under these conditions the ve-
hicle should be accelerated at the maximum rate from a point
10 m before reaching the location directly opposite the mi-
crophone to a point 10 m beyond this same location. The
noise level to be noted for the test should be the maximum
value recorded during the traverse of the vehicle. These
measuring conditions are the subject of the ISO R 362
standard.
The extent to which these maximum acceptable levels of
noise are to be reduced in the future in terms of EEC regu-
lations has already been decided.
111-28
-------
Type of vehicle
Max imum
acceptable
noise level
(dBA)
Today in '82
A. Vehicles listed in section II of the
Highway Code
Al. Private cars 82 80
A2. Vehicles other than private cars having
an all-up weight of 3.5 tons 84 81
A3. Vehicles having an all-up weight greater
than 3.5 tons and not included in 89 82
category 4 or 5
A4. Public transport vehicles having engines
rated at 220 HP or more Autobus 91 85
Autocars 91 87
A5. Commercial vehicles having an all-up
weight of 12 tons or more and an 91 88
engine rated at 200 HP or more
Cl. Two-wheeled vehicles
C.I.I. Mopeds 73
C.I.2. Lightweight motorcycles 80
C.I.3. Motorcycles 84
C2. Vehicles having more than two wheels
C.2.1 Mopeds 74
C.2.2 Vehicles classed as lightweight 81
motorcycles
These new regulations are to come into force on 1 April
1980 for new models (except for public transport vehicles
fitted with engines rated at 200 HP or more for which there
is to be a 2 year delay) and 1 October 1982 for existing de-
signs of vehicle. With these new regulations the maximum
acceptable noise levels will be reduced by 2 dBA for private
111-29
-------
cars, by 3 dBA for the complete range of heavy vehicles and
by 6 to 7 dBA for public transport vehicles.
The above arrangements apply in the case of approval
tests on new vehicles and they involve the use of a suitable
site and test equipment. It would however be difficult to
check the condition of vehicles already in use in the same
way. A decree of 14 April 1975 accordingly defines a test
to be made at a fixed location that is applicable both in the
case of approval tests on new vehicles and also for checking
the condition of the exhaust systems of vehicles already in
operation. The maximum acceptable levels quoted for new ve-
hicles are increased by 5 dBA in the case of tests on vehicles
already in operation.
It must be possible to reproduce the results without any
difficulty when conducting approval tests to verify that new
vehicles meet the requirements and when checking the condi-
tion of vehicles that are already in use. Fines can be ap-
plied when vehicles contravene the regulations (Article 62
of the Highway Code).
II2. TECHNICAL RESEARCH ON REDUCING MECHANICAL NOISE
Although there are technical possibilities for reducing
noise of mechanical origin there does not seem to be any
prospect for the moment, or for some time to come, of reduc-
ing rolling noise (a symposium will be held on the topic of
tire noise in Stockholm August 1979).
On the other hand an appreciable reduction in the over-
all noise level can only be achieved on dealing with all the
important sources of noise since no one of them is really
preponderant.
Research is generally carried out by the vehicle build-
ers - as regards engines - though such public research es-
tablishments - as the ISVR in Southampton, the Anstalt fur
Verbrennungsmotoren in Graz, Austria or the IFF in Paris
have contributed a great deal to it. Governments often
sponsor the part of the research they consider useful; in
Great Britain the ISVR has launched a study on a quiet truck
prototype, now resumed by Fodden and Rolls Royce.
111-30
-------
II,. ENGINE NOISE
The behavior of an engine with respect to the generation
of noise and vibration can be represented to a first order of
approximation by the following diagram:
Excitation forces
(Combustion forces Mechanical forces)
Transmission of the excitation
via moving parts and oil films
Direct excitation of the
structure bordering the
combustion chamber
Excitation of the engine block
Excitation of housing
and accessories
z
Radiation of noise
Thus the reduction of noise as a result of taking action
on the engine itself can be concerned with the exciting force
(explosion or combustion and the associated mechanical forces
such as those due to side slap of the piston), with the trans-
mission of that force via the moving parts and oil films or
with the mechanical and acoustical response of the radiating
structures involved (engine block, housing and accessories).
111-31
-------
II3 j. ACTION CONCERNING THE EXCITING FORCE
The mass of gas vibrating under the pressure resulting
from the combustion excites the combustion chamber and the
combustion noise is radiated from the cylinder head. At the
same time the pressure exerted on the piston is transmitted
to the moving parts attached to that piston and this gives
rise to mechanical noise. Thus the cylinder pressure dia-
gram is an important characteristic here since it is this
characteristic which determines the amplitude and the fre-
quency spectrum of the exciting force. This diagram is very
different according to whether we are concerned with a spark
ignition or a diesel engine and the parameters involved in
any action that is taken will also be different. (I.P.p.
Paris)
In the case of diesel engines the frequency spectrum
of the exciting force can vary considerably given the wide
variation in the design of the combustion chambers. Impor-
tant parameters here are the rate of injection and the self-
ignition delay and because of this it is found that natural
intake direct injection engines, supercharged direct injec-
tion engines or engines with M type combustion chambers all
behave differently with regard to the generation of noise
and they do not respond in the same way to alterations to
the same parameters. The noise emitted by a supercharged
diesel engine is less than that emitted by a natural intake
engine of the same power when both engines are running at a
steady speed. This difference can however disappear when the
speeds are changing with significant loads on the engines.
There are fewer factors contributing to differences in
the case of spark ignition engines and in general for opera-
tion around the optimum power output point the important
parameters to be controlled are the engine speed, the rate
of charging of the cyclinders and the compression ratio.
Adjustment of these parameters can lead to a 1 to 3 dBA re-
duction in the noise emitted by the engine but this is at
the expense of changes in the specific fuel consumption,
increased pollution and the generation of smoke such that
a compromise has to be made. (I.P.P. report to I.R.T.)
II3 2' ACTION CONCERNING THE MOVING PARTS
It is now understood that useful results can be obtained
by considering the transmission of the exciting forces and
111-32
-------
acting on the moving parts involved (connecting rods, crank
arms, crank shafts). In particular we know that there can
be undesirable effects when the resonant frequency excita-
tion of the crank shaft can in turn excite resonant displace-
ments of the engine block itself. If this can occur it may
be necessary to consider new arrangements of the moving parts
along the line of the crankshaft including the bearings but
the results of doing this have not so far been very encour-
aging (Renault).
It is also know that the oil films play an essential
role in the transmission of forces to the engine block.
(I.S.V.R.)
A number of characteristic parameters have been studied
on using a previously constructed experimental rig that en-
abled us to analyse the transmission of forces across an oil
film. It was found that the oil film played an essential
role in this transmission and that the behavior could be
modelled (spring + damping system). It was shown that the
transmission of forces was reduced on increasing the stress
in the shaft or its play in the bearings or on reducing the
speed of rotation of the shaft, its diameter (for the same
amount of play), the width of the bearing block or the vis-
cosity of the oil.
H3.3. ACTION CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF THE ENGINE BLOCK
There has been appreciable progress in this field in de-
veloping analytical procedures, in improving our knowledge of
mechanical behavior of the structure and in making proposals
for particular lines of research. Some of the work here is
being carried out in specialist laboratories with an interna-
tional reputation such as the Institute of Noise and Vibra-
tion at Southampton (U.K.).
The work that has been carried out was concerned first
of all with the development of better procedures for inves-
tigating the acoustic and vibratory response of the engine
block. Investigations concerning the deformation show that
each engine block needs to be regarded as a particular case.
It was shown that coupling between the crankshaft and the
engine block was possible. The crankshaft amplifies the ex-
citation frequencies that are close to its resonant frequen-
cies. Thus it is necessary to examine ways of stiffening the
engine block so that the resonant frequencies of this unit
are a long way from those of the crankshaft.
111-33
-------
• It is already known that the noise emitted by
the engine block can be appreciably reduced
(2-5 dBA) on treating certain accessory units
coupled to the block where such units would
otherwise normally be responsible for the ra-
diation of a lot of noise. This reduction in
noise can be achieved either on fitting appro-
priate jointing material or on enclosing the
radiation elements. A closely fitting screen,
i.e., a screen consisting, for example, of
sheet metal lined with fibre glass that is
directly attached to an integral part of the
engine block can be quite effective in the
case of a small and strongly radiating ele-
ment. Such treatment is however difficult to
apply if the element is of a complex shape and
it is then better to consider modifications to
the structural arrangement of the element
itself.
Such treatment can yield good results but it can only
be applied where relatively sophisticated experimental fa-
cilities are available and on the basis of a detailed anal-
ysis of the behavior of each type of engine.
• Modifications to the actual structure of the
engine block can be made. The mass of the
engine block can be increased which is useful
as regards the reduction of noise but this is
contrary to the present trend which is to re-
duce the weight of the block. A better ap-
proach is to obtain the required shift in
resonant frequencies by appropriate stiffen-
ing of the structure or by making use of
alloys or of composite materials in order to
modify the mechanical response. Hopefully
this will lead to appreciable reductions in
noise (of the order of 5 dBA) in the long
term.
• However in the near future, the combustion
having been optimised and the accessories
treated, use will be made of sound proofing
hoods. Various applications have demonstrated
both the effectiveness of this technique in
reducing noise (5-8 dBA) and the technical and
economic difficulties that can arise. Thus
there are difficulties with regard to avail-
able space and the location of the hood and
of access to the engine, difficulties with
111-34
-------
regard to cooling of the enclosed engine in
that larger and more costly cooling systems
are required which can themselves be noisier
if this possibility does not receive due at-
tention, difficulties with regard to relia-
bility, fire risks and maintenance and finally
there is the difficulty of finding suitable
materials in that the effectiveness of the
technique depends on the provision of absorb-
ent materials which at the present time are
not very suited to the application. Thus the
use of hoods to reduce noise will require a
new approach to the design as a whole such
that the noise reducing facility is an inte-
gral part of the engine instead of being in-
troduced into an engine compartment which was
not designed from the start to accommodate the
additional equipment. It should be noted that
the difficulties that arise in fitting these
hoods will vary considerably from one vehicle
to another, certain vehicles (e.g., rear-engined
buses) being already suited to their use.
• Noise could also be reduced on altering the
cubic capacity and the speed of the engines.
In fact noise increases with engine capacity
and to a much greater extent with engine speed.
In general,.however, large capacity engines
running at lower speeds emit less noise for
the same power output than do smaller capacity
engines. A decrease of 20 percent in engine
speed for the same power output results in a
reduction of about 2 dBA in the engine noise.
However, given the present situation with regard to the
costs of motor vehicles and fuel this reduction of noise as
a result of increasing engine capacity does not appear to be
a very attractive proposition from a socio-economic point of
view. Except in the case of an unexpected change in the eco-
nomic conditions we cannot count on any reversal in the tend-
ency towards higher engine speeds (which increased by 25 per-
cent per year on average over the period 1960 to 1970).
II3 4. NOVEL ENGINES
A considerable reduction in noise levels can be expected
in the case of the operation of vehicles driven by electric
motors or by external combustion engines.
111-35
-------
However, even with these vehicles it will be necessary
to deal with noise coming from sources other than the driving
unit (mechanisms, accessories, transmissions, wheel-road con-
tact) in order to obtain significant reductions in the overall
noise level.
II4. INTAKE AND EXHAUST NOISE
The primary function of an exhaust system is to control
the flow of gas coming from the engine so as to reduce the
aerodynamic noise that would otherwise result in exhausting
this high energy flow directly into the surrounding air.
Thus a distinction can be made between the basic and resid-
ual aerodynamic noise at the output of the silencer and the
noise emitted by the exhaust systems as a result of the vi-
bration of the metal walls of that system, this vibration
being a result of the coupling with the engine block and
the excitation by the exhaust gas.
As regards the basic aerodynamic noise this can be re-
duced on increasing the volume of the silencer, by increas-
ing the pressure loss or on using absorbent materials such
as fibre glass. At the present time it is the first solu-
tion which has proved to be the most satisfactory. Thus we
know how to design efficient silencers so far as the reduc-
tion of noise is concerned. This design can be based on
established methods of calculation or on the use of elec-
trical analogue systems the latter being employed to deter-
mine the best arrangement of the various pipes and gas de-
compression chambers fitted to the silencers.
The design problems here are those concerned with the
size (larger systems are more effective) and the life of
the exhaust system. In general exhaust systems are not
sufficiently robust, have too short a life and are too read-
ily affected by external weather and chemical conditions.
These limitations contribute to the deficiencies of old
motor vehicles with regard to the emission of noise. The
use of steel having a longer life than that currently em-
ployed should result in the production of more robust si-
lencers that will have a longer life but will presumably
be more expensive such that a compromise between perform-
ance and overall cost will need to be made. (Research in
France by Pechiney Cy.)
The exhaust systems of two-stroke engines (commonly
fitted to two-wheel vehicles) are designed so that they can
be dismantled for the removal of carbon and this feature
111-36
-------
can give rise to a degradation of the exhaust system due to
the handling or to amateur repairs to the silencer chambers.
Reductions in the oil content of fuel mixtures in the near
future (currently recommended content: 4 percent; target
content: 2 to 3 percent) should eliminate the production of
carbon and two-stroke engines can then be equipped with
permanently attached silencers. Meanwhile until this be-
comes possible manufacturers should consider the design of
silencers that can be removed, but not dismantled, for the
cleaning out of carbon.
As regards the noise radiated by the exhaust system this
is limited at present on decoupling the system from the engine
by means of flexible steel sleeves. This is an effective but
not very robust arrangement since the sleeves are located in
a high temperature region, more research is needed on this
field.
In addition to the above considerations the development
of anti-pollution devices, e.g., post combustion devices or
catalysers, can in themselves give rise to new problems with
regard to the exhaust system silencers. The development of
such devices must on no account be carried out to the detri-
ment of improvements made with regard to the effectiveness
and life of silencers. Programs of work aimed at reducing
noise and pollution respectively should proceed in parallel.
Intake noise can be reduced on making use of resonators
or of tubes fitted with open cell material that absorbs the
noise. The latter solution gives rise to reliability prob-
lems because of the degradation of the absorbent material
with time. Both of these solutions are effective so far as
the reduction of noise is concerned but there are problems
because of their size.
H5. ACTION CONCERNING FAN NOISE
The fan is a very significant source of noise on certain
heavy vehicles. In addition to this it should be noted that
the provision of hoods over the engines leads to the require-
ment for a greater cooling system capability and a consequent
increase in fan noise if this possibility does not receive
due attention.
Noise can be reduced on using high efficiency fans since
these are generally quieter. Such fans usually have larger
diameter blades and accordingly run at lower speeds.
111-37
-------
The Bertin Cy in France studied the profile of the fan
blades, the shape of the boss, the minimization of any play
at the extremity of the fan blades and the position of the
cooling system with respect to the engine with a view to
increasing the aerodynamic efficiency so that it will be
possible to run the fan at a lower speed. Fans that can be
disengaged from the driving shaft are used if possible.
Such attention can lead to the design of cooling systems
that are consistent with enclosure of the engine, that are
more efficient and that moreover meet the requirements to
economize on the consumption of fuel.
lie. ACTION ON THE TRANSMISSION
D
On some vehicles the transmission system connected to
the engine generates an appreciable amount of noise. In
these cases it is necessary to deal with the transmission
in the same way as the engine or to enclose the system, for
example, by means of a deck in the form of an extension of
the screening plate beneath the engine. (ISVR, Metravib
in Lyon.)
II-. REDUCTION OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE NOISE
Providing all the more important sources of noise are
dealt with it will be possible to achieve a significant re-
duction in the total noise emitted by motor vehicles such
that the levels will be less than the maximum acceptable
limits to be defined by the 1980 regulations. It will be
easier to reduce the noise on certain vehicles than on others
because of their smaller engines or the fact that more space
is available. As a result of the investigations that have
been made, particularly in France where manufacturers have
been engaged in research with some financial support from
the I.R.T., it is possible to predict orders of magnitude
for the reduction in noise that could be achieved in prac-
tice in the future and of the costs of the recommended
treatments.
It should be possible to achieve a reduction of 4 to
6 dBA, in terms of the ISO criteria, for private cars as a
result of a partial or total enclosure of the engine, of at-
tention to the cooling system and, in some cases, of modifi-
cations to the silencer.
A serious problem will arise in the case of small com-
mercial vehicles (less than 3.5 tons) because of the lack
111-38
-------
of space for the installation of any enclosures and the pro-
vision of an adequate cooling system.
In general it is anticipated that the noise levels from
medium weight and heavy goods vehicles could be reduced to:
• 86 dBA (ISO standard) as a result of major
action on the accessories.
• Below 86 dBA as a result of partial or total
enclosure of the engine and of modifications
to the cooling system.
Some of the vehicles in this category will be more dif-
ficult to deal with than others particularly in the case of
those fitted with small capacity, high speed engines.
Noise reducing treatment will be quite effective in the
case of rear-engined buses since there is adequate space in
this case for the enclosures and the provision of a larger
capacity cooling system. Sound-proofed buses (80 dBA) have
in fact already been produced.
Apart from the problem associated with the provision of
more powerful cooling systems with larger radiators and fans
all the proposed noise reducing treatments will involve the
difficulty of finding suitable materials.
The limitations are not very significant so far as noise
insulation is concerned (such as screens which rely on the
mass of material involved) since any sufficiently dense mat-
erial is suitable. However noise absorption which is an im-
portant function in the case of enclosures requires the use
of materials that have suitable acoustic characteristics (ef-
ficient absorption over a wide range of frequencies) and that
are also fire resistant, durable and compact. It is most
important that investigations be made concerning the provi-
sion of suitable noise absorbing materials. The same remarks
apply to the provision of damping materials (housing joints).
It should be noted that manufacturers have not so far
had sufficient experience and are not yet able to take a
sufficiently general view of the subject to be able to make
an overall assessment concerning the effectiveness and in
particular the reliability over a period of time of the
recommended noise reducing treatments.
In particular there is not a proper understanding of
the previously mentioned problems associated with enclosure
of the engines. It is clear that these problems can only
111-39
-------
be resolved satisfactorily if they are taken into account
at the preliminary design stage of a motor vehicle project.
There is also an inadequate appreciation of the effects
of the noise reducing treatments on costs. It is difficult
to estimate costs in the case of experimental vehicles and
except for particular cases (sound-proofed buses) there is
little information available at the moment on the direct
costs of applying the proposed noise reducing treatments.
However, as a first approximation it is estimated that
there will be a 1 percent increase in the cost of private
cars for each 1 dBA reduction in noise level for the first
few decibels of such a reduction and an increase of 20 to
35 kg in the vehicle weight for a reduction of 4 dBA in the
noise level. In the case of medium weight lorries it should
be possible to reduce the noise level to the 86 dBA target
for a 3 to 4 percent increase in the cost of the vehicle
(cabin plus chassis) and to 83 dBA for a 5 to 8 percent in-
crease in this same cost.
The increases in vehicle costs will be somewhat less
in the case of rear-engined buses: 3 to 4 percent for the
target level of 84 dBA and 4 to 5 percent for a level of
80 dBA. The treatment here would involve an increase of
about 50 kg in the weight of the vehicle and an increase in
fuel consumption of about 1 litre/100 km.
There is a lack of data at the present time on the costs
and weight increases in the case of the heavier lorries (maxi-
codes) and of two-wheeled vehicles.
In addition to direct costs we need to allow for the
effects on operating and maintenance costs. Certain treat-
ments result in increases in the weight of the vehicle and
the power of the cooling system and this leads to increased
fuel consumption. In addition to this, badly designed noise
reducing systems can impede access to the engine such that
additional maintenance effort and hence expenditure is
necessary.
It is also necessary to allow for the additional costs
associated with the need to check the performance of sound
proofing systems before leaving the factory and their sub-
sequent maintenance during operation of the vehicle.
The cost of sound-proofing treatment depends very much
on when it is applied. It costs more to apply such treat-
ment to an existing vehicle which conforms to the present
111-40
-------
regulations but which was not originally designed to accom-
modate additional sound proofing equipment than it does when
the same treatment is considered at the preliminary design
stage of a projected vehicle when the sound proofing equip-
ment can be integrated with other facilities. Satisfactory
treatment to reduce noise cannot be based on makeshift or
improvised solutions to the problems.
111-41
-------
III. THE BRITISH VEHICLE PROGRAM
IIIi. THE PROGRAM
The Quiet Heavy Vehicle (QHV) Project was initiated by
TRRL in 1971. The QHV Project was aimed at demonstrating
that practical heavy diesel-engined articulated vehicles
could be produced with external noise levels which are some
10 dB(A) lower than the 1971 values (i.e., down to about
80 dB(AJ) and secondly indicating the relationship between
cost and noise level.
This class of vehicle was chosen as the first to be
considered because it was thought to be the most difficult
to quieten having the most powerful and noisiest engines.
The QHV Project has been coordinated by TRRL in coop-
eration with the other participating organizations and was
divided into two main phases, (1) a research phase during
which the various noise producing components of standard
vehicles would be quietened by existing and new technology
and (2) a development phase resulting in commercially via-
ble vehicles for demonstration.
British manufacturers of commercial vehicles were ap-
proached and British Leyland, Fodens Ltd, and Rolls Royce
Motors Ltd agreed to take part. The research on the basic
noise producing components was entrusted to the Institute
of Sound and Vibration Research (ISVR) at Southampton Uni-
versity, and the Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA)
and lately the National Engineering Laboratory (NEL). TRRL
undertook the work on tire-road surface noise.
Table 1 shows the allocation of work to the research
organizations and table 2 the objectives.
111-42
-------
TABLE 1. SOME EUROPEAN CENTERS WORKING IN THE
FIELD OF VEHICLE NOISE
INSTITUTE OF SOUND AND VIBRATION RESEARCH
(PR PRIECE) - SOUTHAMPTON - U.K.
INSTITUTE FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
(A.V.L.) - GRAZ - AUSTRIA
INSTITUT FRANCAIS DU PETROLE
(COMBUSTION NOISE) - PARIS - FRANCE
OFFICE NATIONAL D1ETUDES AERONAUTIQUES
PARIS - FRANCE
TRANSPORT AND ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY
(MAINLY TIRE NOISE) - CROWTHORNE - U.K.
METRAVIB
ECULLY NEAR LYON - FRANCE - (ENGINE AND
TRANSMISSION NOISE)
SOME EUROPEAN CENTERS WORKING IN
THE FIELD OF HIGHWAY NOISE
TRANSPORT AND ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY
CROWTHORNE - U.K.
INSTITUT DE RECHERCHE DBS TRANSPORT - CERN
LYON-BRON - FRANCE
INSTITUTE OF SOUND AND VIBRATION RESEARCH
SOUTHAMPTON - U.K.
BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT
WATFORD - U.K.
BUNDESANSTALT FUR STRASSENWESEN
KOLN - GERMANY
MULLER - BBM
MUNCHEN - GERMANY
TECHNISH PSYSISCHE DIENST TNO
DELFT - NETHERLAND
CENTRE SCIENTIPIQUE ET TECHNIQUE DU BATIMENT
GRENOBLE - FRANCE
111-43
-------
TABLE 2. NOISE OBJECTIVES FOR HEAVY TRUCKS
1 - At least 10 dB(A) less than initial levels
general target level down to 80 dB(A)
2-75 dB(A) inside the cab
3 - Compliance with all current and proposed vehicle
construction and use regulations
4 - The exhaust noise target 69 dB(A) was extended to a
low frequency noise maximum value of 90 dB(C).
OBJECTIVES FOR THE QUIET HEAVY TRUCK
Noise levels
in dB(A) Engine and
(ISO R362) Transmission Fan Exhaust Inlet Total
Today's heavy
truck
Target
Reduction
87.5-90
74
13.5-16
80-88
74
6-14
72-93
74
0-24
79.5
74
5.5
90
80
—
OBJECTIVES OF RENAULT VEHICULES INDUSTRIELS FOR HEAVY VEHICLE
111-44
-------
IH2. THE RESULTS
As regards the components, the solutions which were
eventually adopted:
• The engine - this is a Rolls Royce engine with
6 cylinders in line direct injection and water
cooling, 13 litres cylinder volume, 320 Hp for
1950 r/mn (can reach 400 Hp). This engine has
been altered in order to increase the rigidity
of some of the elements (oil sump), to discon-
nect the radiating parts (with the help of
specific materials and assembly devices), last
to enclose some radiating surfaces with close
screens fitted on parts that have low vibra-
tion levels. The result is simpler geometri-
cal structure, slightly lighter than the former
engine, offering the same performances though.
Its acoustic power level has been considerably
lowered (up to a 10 dB decrease).
• The gear box has been eventually enclosed; al-
tering the structure of the box having proven
inefficient.
• The transmission - no notable modification.
• The exhaust was altered through an increase of
the silencer volume and an optimization, the
disconnection of the exhaust tube is achieved
through a flexible steel tube.
• The cooling was significantly altered, consid-
ering the engine was encapsulated. With the
increased needs in the delivery and pressure
of the cooling air it was necessary to use a
mixed fan (axial, centrifuge) offering excel-
lent aerodynamic and sound characteristics.
Behind the quadrangular radiator several tubes
were placed to ensure air circulation. The
whole thing is rather bulky.
• Radial tires were chosen.
111-45
-------
In the vehicle itself the main changes have arisen from
all that room taken up by the cooling system. The bulk of
its length lies behind the radiator, therefore the engine had
to be that much displaced. It is encapsulated with a casing
containing glasswool., The silencer is fixed transversally
ahead of the for axle. It consists in two exhaust pipes in
series with a total length of about 4 m by 28 m diameter.
Table 3 gives the results of the experiment. The 10 dB
in the ISO norm is equally obtained for urban speeds. At
high speed, the noise emitted by the tires become predomi-
nant and the dB cut is lesser.
TABLE 3. RESULTS
LENGTH
WEIGHT
COST
FUEL EFFICIENCY
Tractor and maximum length trailer com-
bination exceeds the permitted 15 m by
0.4 m (bulky fan)
4 percent more equivalent to 0.8 percent
of a fully laden tractor and trailer
8-10 percent more than the standard
vehicle
Little different due to improvements in
engine efficiency and lower cooling fan
power consumption
Tire noise target is met at speed below 80 km/h
(75-77 dB(A) is exceeded 2-5 dB(A) at 100 km/h
Exhaust system noise
Engine
71 dB(A) - 92 dB(C)
10 dB(A) less
111-46
-------
III3. FOLLOWING PROGRAM
The program must end with a time of evaluation bearing
on the vehicle performances in:
• acoustics (viability of the modifications)
• economics (effect on energy consumption)
• maintenance.
The results will put an end to the QHV program. It
might be completed by a similar program on noise reduction
concerning a light vehicle or a van.
III4. CONCLUSION
The Quiet Heavy Vehicle program has been a success -
what emerges is a practical vehicle compatible with the
British regulations, thanks to industrial proceedings that
assumed new technological solutions apparently trustful,
(until the current works on the vehicle whole evaluation
have been completed). Consequently the ISO 80 dB target is
possible on a vehicle of that category belonging to the
heaviest and most powerful which means the noisiest and most
difficult to insulate.
Yet the solution raises some issues, for instance:
Is not the engine enclosure redundant with the insula-
tion of the engine itself?
Is the low position of the silencer compatible with the
normal use. It seems that the British legislation in this
field is different form the French one?
Is the whole length of the vehicle acceptable?
111-47
-------
IV. RAILWAY TRANSPORT
Some research and the use of efficient techniques have
been developed for a number of years particularly about
underground systems and trains, for we can remark that big
European cities often resort to underground lines or modern
tramways networks. In October '78, the second international
workshop on railway noise was organized in Lyons by ISVR
and IRT-CERN. Tires have been used in Paris and for the new
systems in Lyons and Marseilles. This one avoids - in par
ticular - the propagation of vibrations and low frequency ~
radiations. Rolling noise is efficiently reduced by screen*
in underground stations it is perfectly possible to use con
ventional absorbents. Studying the iron-against-iron roll-
ing noise remains to be completed, there is no valuable re-
sult yet in Europe.
111-48
-------
CONCLUSION
A great deal of rather conventional devices have been
developed as a protection against railway and traffic noise.
Research is wanted in the field of wheel and tire noise and
weather-proof absorbents.
On the other hand what seems possible for the reduction
of noise emitted by the vehicles is: minus 5 dB for cars,
minus 10 dB for heavy trucks.
A development phase resulting in commercially viable
vehicles is over as regards buses and well under way as re-
gards trucks. Now we may have some concern with the low
frequency noise emitted by the vehicle.
Getting higher noise reduction requires research on
materials to be used in such milieu as the exhaust and
around the engine. Technological development could also
concentrate on the whole cooling system of thermic engines.
As for the main industrial tendencies today we believe
the major steps taken now for example by electronics are not
going to interfere favorably with our sound environment con-
trary to our air pollution. We might be more optimistic as
regards the works on ceramics applied to thermal engines
but Europe has not gone very far yet in this field.
111-49
-------
APPENDIX A
ATTENDEES AT THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOISE TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM
A-l
-------
SYMPOSIUM PARTICIPANTS
Moderator
Mr. John C. Schettino
Director, Technology and Federal
Programs Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Opening Remarks
Ms. Adelene Harrison
Regional Administrator
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Keynote Speakers
Mr. Charles L. Elkins
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Noise Control Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Mr. Carl Gerber
Executive Office of the
president
Office of Science and
Technology Policy
Dr. George Jacobson
U.S. Senate Staff
Environment and Public Works
Committee
Dr. Claude Lamure
Director, Du Centre d1Evaluation
et de Recherche des Nuisances
Institut de Recherche des
Transports
Bron, Prance
A-3
-------
MACHINERY AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WORKSHOP
Mr. Erik Ahlberg
Atlas Copco MCT AB
S-102 60 Stockholm
Sweden
Dr. Adnan Akay
Mechanical Engineering
Department
Wayne State University
667 Merrick
Detroit, MI 48202
Mr. Douglas Anderson
Rockwell International
Draper Division
25 Hopedale Street
Hopedale, MA 01747
Mr. Edward Bailey
Joy Manufacturing Company
Route 12, Box 37
Newport, NH 03773
or. Ronald Bailey
Center for Acoustical Studies
North Carolina State
University
P.O. Box 5246
Raleigh, NC 27607
Mr. Lawrence J. Bain
Rockwell International
Graphic Systems Division
5601 West 31st Street
Chicago, IL 60650
Mr. Edmund Bangs
IIT Research Institute
Technology Transfer and Market
Research Section
10 West 35th Street
Chicago, IL 60616
Mr. Larry Bares
Senior Environmental Engineer •
Noise Control
Peabody Coal Company
301 North Memorial Drive
St. Louis, MO 63102
Mr. Robert Alex Baron
Citizens for a Quieter City,
Incorporated
110 West End Avenue, 17D
New York, NY 10023
Mr. Donald G. Bastian
Harris Corporation
Schriber Division
4900 Webster Street
Dayton, OH 45414
Mr. Joseph B. Bhavsar
C. E. Lummus Company
Room 6231
P.O. Box 22105
Houston, TX 77027
A-5
-------
Mr. Stephen M. Blazek
Assistant Director, Ship
Silencing Division
Research and Technology
Directorate
Naval Sea Systems Command
(SEA 037B)
Department of the Navy
Washington/ DC 20362
Mr. Michael S. Bobeczko
Corporate Noise Control
Engineer
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical
Corporation
Room OB 1328
300 Lakeside Drive
Oakland, CA 94643
Mr. Edwin P. Bounous
Consultant
Woodworking Machinery
Manufacturers of America
106 Mimosa Street
Morganton, NC 28655
Mr. Robert Bruce
Deputy Division Director
Physical and Environmental
Control
Technologies Division
Bolt Beranek and Newman,
Incorporated
50 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Mr. J. Alton Burks
Supervisory Acoustical
Engineer
Bureau of Mines
4800 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Dr. John A. L. Campbell
Director of Research and
Development
Peabody Coal Company
65 South 65th Street
Belleville, IL 62223
Dr. R. A. Cassanova
Associate Division Chief
Technology and Development
Laboratory
Engineering Experiment Station
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
Mr. James E. Coyne
(Vice President, Forging
Industry Educational
Research Foundation)
Vice President
Wyman-Gordon Company
244 Worchester street
North Grafton, MA 01536
Mr. Donald R. Crawford
Weyerhaeuser Company
Weyerhaeuser Technical Center
M. S. TWC 2H-19
Tacoma, WA 98401
Mr. Donald P. Cummins
Giddings & Lewis Machine
Tool Company
142 Doty Street
Fond du Lac, WI 54935
Mr. C. B. Dahl
Director of Development
Beloit Corporation
Beloit, WI 53511
Mr. John U. Damian
Off-Highway Vehicle Planning
Manager
Environmental and Safety
Engineering Staff
Ford Motor Company
Room 240
The American Road
Dearborn, MI 48121
Mr. J. Harrison Daniel
Staff Engineer
Division of Mining Research
Health and Safety
Bureau of Mines
Room 937
2401 E Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20241
A-6
-------
Mr. Terrence A. Dear
Senior Consultant - Noise
Control
Engineering Service
Division
E. I. Du Pont de Nemours &
Company
Wilmington, DE 19898
Mr. George M. Diehl
Consultant
Ingersoll-Rand Company
643 John Mitchell Avenue
Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
Mr. T. James DuBois
Southern California Edison
P.O. Box 800
Rosemead, CA 91770
Dr. Richard Edsell
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)
U.S. Department of Labor
Room N3673
200 Constitution Avenue
Washington, DC 20210
Mr. Edward Ellingson
Advanced Technology Center
All is Chalmers
9180 - 5th Avenue
Oak Creek, WI 53154
Dr. Paul D. Emerson
School of Textiles
North Carolina State
University
Raleigh, NC 27650
Mr. James T. Ferguson
Director of Industrial
Environmental Control
Climax Molybdenum Company
13949 West Colfax Avenue
Golden, CO 80401
Mr. Ray Gilbert
Technology Transfer Division
Terrestrial Applications
Branch
NASA Headquarters, Code ETU-6
Washington, DC 20546
Mr. Cliff Godsey
John Deere Dubuque Works
P.O. Box 538
Dubuque, IA 52001
Mr. Lewis S. Goodfriend
Lewis S. Goodfriend &
Associates
7 Saddle Road
Cedar Knolls, NJ 07927
Mr. John D. Harris
Corporate Test Center
JI Case
24th and Center Streets
Racine, WI 43404
Dr. Franklin D. Hart
Director, Center for
Acoustical Studies
North Carolina State
University
Box 5801
Raleigh, NC 27607
Mr. Lewis Held
Assistant Chief Engineer
Terex-Division of General
Motors
5405 Darrow Road
Hudson, OH 44236
Dr. Robert Hershey
Vice President for Systems
Engineering
Science Management Corporation
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Dr. Charles E. Hickman
Southern Company Services,
Incorporated
P.O. Box 2625
Birmingham, AL 35206
Mr. Richard C. Holmquist
Director, Manufacturers
Services
American Mining Congress
1100 Ring Building
Washington, DC 20036
A-7
-------
Me. Melvin E. Jacob
Engineering Service
U.S. Government Printing
Office
North Capitol & H Streets, N.W.
Washington, DC 20401
Mr. Paul Jensen
Bolt Beranek and Newman,
Incorporated
50 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Mr. Paul A. Kannapell
Monsanto Company
Mail Zone F3WA
800 North Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63166
Mr. John Kieronski
Whittin-Robert Machine Works
P.O. Box 250
Sanford, NC 27330
Mr. Joe Kolonko
Senior R&D Engineer
Cincinnati Milacron
Department 88D
4701 Marburg Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Dr. Gary H. Koopmann
Mechanical Engineering
Department
4800 Calhoun Boulevard
University of Houston
Houston, TX 77004
Dr. B. Andrew Kugler
Bolt Beranek and Newman,
Incorporated
21120 Vanowen Street
P.O. Box 633
Canoga Park, CA 91305
Mr. Louis H. LeBlanc
Joy Manufacturing Company
Claremont, NH 03743
Mr. A. Dennis Loken
Fiat-Allis Construction
Machinery, Incorporated
3000 South 6th Street
Springfield, IL 62710
Dr. Donald Lyons
Professor of Textiles
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29631
Dr. Richard Madden
Bolt Beranek and Newman,
Incorporated
50 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Mr. James Maddrey
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company
401 North Main Street
Winston Salem, NC 27102
Mr. John J. McNally
(Representing Construction
Industry Manufacturers
Association)
Manager, Product Safety and
Environmental Control
Caterpillar Tractor Company
Peoria, IL 61629
Mr. Richard K. Miller
Richard K. Miller and
Associates, Incorporated
464 Armour Circle, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30324
Mr. James B. Moreland
Acoustics and Noise Control
Research Laboratories
Westinghouse Electric
Corporation
Research and Development
Center
1310 Beulah Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15235
A-3
-------
Mr. Vinay Nagpal
Control Components,
Incorporated
2567 Southeast Main Street
Irvine, CA 92714
Dr. Renny S. Norman
IIT Research Institute
10 West 35th Street
Chicago, IL 60616
Mr. Walter H. Page
International Harvester
600 WoodfieId Drive
Schumburg, IL 60196
Mr. Ellis Pardue
Manager, Office of Health
and Safety Services
Hanes Corporation
555 Ricks Drive
Winston Salem, NC 27103
Mr. Kenneth L. Patrick
Director, Safety
Western wood Products
Association
Yeon Building
Portland, OR 97204
Dr. William N. Patterson
Manager, Product Planning
and Development
Gardner-Denver Company
P.O. Box 1020
Denver, CO 80201
Mr. James E. Peat
Shell Oil Company
P.O. Box 3105
Houston, TX 77001
Mr. Howard K. Pelton
Pelton/Blum, Incorporated
1015 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75202
Dr. N. Duke Perreira
Department of Mechanical
Engineering
Room 291
Taylor Hall
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
Mr. James C. Pullen
Manager, Environmental
Activities
Celanese Fibers Company
Box 32414
Charlotte, NC 28232
Mr. Everett Quade
Division Manager of
Mechanical Development
Alcoa Technical Center
Alcoa Center, PA 15069
Mr. Richard D. Robertson
Vice-President
Philip Morris, USA
100 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Mr. Samuel Sarkisian
Verson Allsteel Press Company
8300 South Central Expressway
P.O. Box 15828
Dallas, TX 75215
Mr. Richard Schoeller, Jr.
David Taylor Naval Ship
Research and Development
Center
Code 2743
Annapolis Laboratory
Annapolis, MD 21402
Dr. Paul Schomer
U.S. Army Construction
Engineering Research
Laboratory
P.O. Box 4005
Champaign, IL 61820
A-9
-------
Mr. James G. Seebold
Standard Oil of California
555 Market Street, Room 912
San Francisco, CA 94105
Mr. John Seiler
Mine Safety and Health
Administration
4800 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Mr. William Shelton
Senior Project Engineer for
Noise Control
Peabody Coal Company
65 South 65th Street
Belleville, IL 62223
Mr. Robert Slone
Wyle Laboratories
P.O. Box 10008
Huntsville, AL 35807
Dr. Harold A. Spuhler
program Manager, Engineering
Applications
Division of Applied Research
National Science Foundation
Room 1126
1800 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20550
Dr. John S. Stewart
Center for Acoustical Studies
North Carolina State
University
Box 5801
Raleigh, NC 27607
Mr. Allan Teplitzky
Manager, Acoustics
Consolidated Edison Company
of New York
Room 3065
4 Irving Place
New York, NY 10003
Mr. L. Phillip Thomas
Burlington Industries,
Incorporated
P.O. Box 21107
Greensboro, NC 27420
Dr. William R. Thornton
Gulf Research and Development
P.O. Box 2038
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
Mr. Edwin Toothman
(Representing Industrial
Fastners Institute, and
American Iron and Steel
Institute)
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Room B-252
Martin Tower
Bethlehem, PA 18061
Mr. Michael Trykoski
Edison Electric Institute
1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Mr. David J. Ulrich
Corning Glass Works
Building Number 8, 5th Floor
Corning, NY 14830
Mr. Woodford L. Van Tifflin
General Motors Corporation
Plant Engineering Programs
General Motors Building 9-264
Detroit, MI 48202
Dr. Istvan L. Ver
Principal Consultant
Bolt Beranek and Newman,
Incorporated
50 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Mr. Stanley Waggoner
Department of Agricultural
Engineering
University of California at
Davis
Davis, California 95616
Mr. L. Alan Weakly
Director of Mining Research
St. Joe Minerals Corporation
Viburnum, MO 65566
A-10
-------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP
Dr. Timothy M. Barry
Office of Research (HRS-42)
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
Transpoint Building
2100 Second Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
Mr. Richard Bauman
R&D Center
B. F. Goodrich
9921 Brecksville Road
Brecksville, OH 44140
Dr. Erich K. Bender
Manager, Applied Technology
Bolt Beranek and Newman,
Incorporated
50 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Dr. Peter Cheng
Stemco, Incorporated
P.O. Box 1989
Longview, TX 75601
Mr. H. A. Cook
Senior Project Engineer
Highway Vehicle Engineering
Mack Truck Incorporated
P.O. Box 1761
Allentown, PA 18105
Mr. Jozef DeEskinazi
Research Engineer
Cooper Tire and Rubber Company
Lima and Western Avenues
Findlay, OH 45840
Mr. Larry T. Dorsch
Tire Engineer
The Firestone Tire and
Rubber Company
1200 Firestone Parkway
Akron, OH 44317
Mr. John D. Eagleburger
Technical Coordination
Product Quality and Safety
The Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company
Akron, OH 44316
Dr. Allen C. Eberhardt
Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering
North Carolina State
University
3211 Broughton Hall
Raleigh, NC 27650
Dr. Tony F. W. Embleton
National Research Council
Montreal Road
Ottawa, ON K1A OS1
Canada
A-ll
-------
Mr. Larry J. Eriksson
Vice President, Research
Nelson Industries
P.O. Box 428
Stoughton, WI 53589
Mr. Robert N. Frantz
Chrysler Corporation
Department 418-32-10
P.O. Box 1118
Detroit, MI 48288
Dr. Conan P. Furber
Manager, Office of
Environmental Studies
Research and Test Department
Association of American
Railroads
Room 620
1920 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Mr. William J. K. Gibson
Senior Automotive Engineer
American Trucking Association
1616 P Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Mr. Raymond Gorman
Ryder Truck Rental
P.O. Box 520816
Miami, FL 33152
Mr. Damon C. Gray
Program Manager
Office of Noise Abatement and
Control (ANR-471)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. James A. Groening
Noise Control Consulting
Division
H. L. Blachford, Incorporated
1855 Stephenson Highway
Box 397
Troy, MI 48084
Mr. William Hammer
Research and Advanced
Development
Detroit Diesel Allison Division
General Motors Corporation
13200 West Outer Drive
Detroit, MI 48239
Mr. Robert Hellweg
Noise Pollution Control
Division of Standards
State of Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Dr. Robert Hickling
Departmental Research Engineer
General Motors Research
Laboratories
12 Mile and Mound Roads
Warren, MI 48090
Mr. Dennis Kabele
Advanced Power Systems
Engine Engineering Division
John Deere Product Engineering
Center
Box 270
Waterloo, IA 50704
Dr. Detleff Karstens
FO-Messverfahren
Akustik Forschung
Volkswagenwerk, AG
3180 Wolfsburg
West Germany
Mr. John Koper
Research and Development
(RRD-12)
Federal Railroad Administration
Department of Transportation
Transpoint Building, Room 4207
2100 Second Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
Mr. Frederick W. Krey
General Motors Technical Center
CMC Truck and Coach
660 South Boulevard East
Pontiac, MI 48053
A-12
-------
Dr. Leonard G. Kurzweil
Environmental Technology Branch
Code DTS-331
Transportation Systems Center
Department of Transportation
Kendall Square
Cambridge, MA 02142
Dr. Claude A. Lamure, EP-ICPC
Director, Du Centre d1Evaluation
et de Recherche des Nuisances
Institut de Recherche des
Transports
109 Avenue Salvadore Allende
Bron 69500 France
Dr. James M. Lawther
Applied Research Laboratory
Room 460
Pennsylvania State University
P.O. Box 30
State College, PA 16801
Mr. William A. Leasure
Office of Heavy Duty Vehicle
Research (NRD-20)
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Department of Transportation
Transpoint Building
2100 Second Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
Mr. Eugene Lehr
Chief, Environmental and
Coordination Division
U.S. Department of
Transportation
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
Mr. James Lewis
Automotive Engineer
Automotive Department
United Parcel Service
Greenwich Office Park 15
Greenwich, CT 06830
Mr. Seymour A. Lippmann
Manager, Tire Vehicle Dynamics
Laboratory
Uniroyal Tire Company
6600 Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48232
Dr. Spencer Lucas
Dunlop Tire and Rubber Company
P.O. Box 1109
Buffalo, NY 14240
Dr. Richard H. Lyon
Department of Mechanical
Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Room 366
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
Mr. Alvin E. Marshall
Environmental Research Office
Ford Motor Company
Parklane Towers East, Suite 704
One Parklane Boulevard
Dearborn, MI 48126
Mr. Robert L. Mason
Code DTS-331
Transportation Systems Center
Department of Transportation
Kendall Square
Cambridge, MA 02142
Mr. Frank E. Matyja
Tire Engineer
General Tire and Rubber Company
1 General Street
Akron, OH 44319
Dr. Daniel P. Maxfield
Branch Chief, Technology
Assessments and Implementation
Office of Transportation
Programs
AS/Conservation and Solar
Applications
U.S. Department of Energy
Room 3214D
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20545
A-13
-------
Mr. Nicholas Miller
Staff Engineer, Sound and
Energy Department
International Harvester
P.O. Box 1109
Fort Wayne, IN 46801
Mr. Charles Moon
Truck Group Engineering
White Motor Corporation
35129 Curtis Boulevard
East Lake, OH 44094
Mr. Anthony W. Paolillo
New York City Transit Authority
370 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Mr. Charles A. Preuss
Staff Engineer
Vehicle Regulations Department
Volkswagen of America,
Incorporated
711 East 11 Mile Road
Warren, MI 48090
Mr. Edwin G. Ratering
Director, Vehicular Noise
Control
General Motors Technical
Center
General Motors Corporation
Warren, MI 48090
Mr. Jerry Reagan
Chief, Noise and Air Quality
Branch (HHP-43)
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
400 7th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
Mr. Rodger F. Ringham
Vice President, Engineering
International Harvester
1707 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Dr. D. H. Robbins
Highway Safety Research
Institute
University of Michigan
2901 Baxter Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Dr. Douglas W. Rowley
Donaldson Company, Incorporated
P.O. Box 1299
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Mr. Max Rumbaugh
Project Manager, Advance
Technology
Schwitzer Engineered Components
Wallace Murray Corporation
1125 Brookside Avenue
P.O. Box 80-B
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Mr. Larry Schaefer
Manager, Power Train Systems
American Motors Corporation
14250 Plymouth Road
Detroit, MI 48232
Mr. Wesley E. Schweider
Executive Engineer
Vehicle Noise Control
Ford Motor Company
Room 240
The American Road
Dearborn, MI 48121
Dr. Edward Shalis
U.S. Army Tank and Automotive
Command DRDTA-RTAS
Warren, MI 48090
Dr. Ben H. Sharp
Manager, Washington Office
Wyle Laboratories
2361 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202
Dr. Joseph W. Sullivan
Department of Mechanical
Engineering
Ray W. Herrick Laboratories
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47905
A-14
-------
Dr. S. Martin Taylor
Department of Geography
McMasters University
1280 Main Street West
Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1
Canada
Mr. James K. Valus
Department 899
Electro Motor Division of
General Motors
9301 West 55th Street
LaGrange, IL 60525
Mr. Bernard J. Vierling
Director
Office of Bus and Paratransit
Technology
Urban Mass Transportation
Administration
Department of Transportation
2100 Second Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
Mr. Ronald J. Wasko
Manager, Acoustics and
Electromagnetic Department
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Association
300 New Center Building
Detroit, MI 48202
Mr. Donald R. Whitney
Executive Engineer
GM Environmental Staff
General Motors Corporation
Vehicular Noise Control
General Motors Technical
Center
Warren, MI 48090
A-15
-------
AVIATION WORKSHOP
Mr. Niels B. Andersen
Pan American World Airways,
Incorporated
Room 2145, Building 208
JFK International Airport
Jamaica, NY 11430
Mr. Donald Ahrens
Cessna Aircraft Company
P.O. Box 1521
Wichita, KS 67201
Mr. Warren F. Ahtye
NASA Ames Research Center
Mail Stop 247-1
Moffett Field, CA 94035
Dr. Gordon Banerian
Code RT-3
NASA Headquarters
600 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20546
Mr. Jeffrey Bowles
NASA Ames Research Center
Mail Stop N237-9
Moffett Field, CA 94035
Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon
Department of City Planning
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30032
Mr. Kenneth Bushell
Rolls Royce Limited
Derby Engine Division
P.O. Box 31
Derby, DE 2 8BJ
England
Mr. Walter V. Collins
Noise Abatement Officer
Los Angeles Department of
Airports
Number 1 World Way
Los Angeles, CA 90009
Mr. Charles R. Cox
Group Engineer, Acoustics
Bell Helicopter
P.O. Box 482
Fort Worth, TX 76101
Mr. R. E. Coykendall
Aircraft Development Manager
Engineering
United Airlines
San Francisco International
Airport
San Francisco, CA 94128
Dr. Fereidoun Farassat
Joint Institute
(George Washington University/
NASA)
Mail Stop 169
Hampton, VA 23665
A-17
-------
Mr. Charles E. Feiler
NASA Lewis Research Center
Mail Stop 500-208
2100 Brook Park Road
Cleveland, OH 44135
Dr. Martin Fink
United Technologies Research
Center
Silver Lane
East Hartford, CT 06108
Mr. Clyde z. Fitzgerald
Airport Director's Office
Santa Monica Airport
3200 Airport Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Mr. Jack S. Gibson
Acoustics and Propulsion
Department 72-47, Zone 13
Lockheed-Georgia Company
Marietta, GA 30063
Mr. George C. Greene
NASA Langley Research Center
Mail Stop 461
Hampton, VA 23656
Mr. Derrick R. Higton
Defense Equipment Staff
British Embassy
3100 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W,
Washington, DC 20008
Mr. R. G. Hoch
S.N.E.C.M.A.
Centre ol'Essais de Villaroche
77550 Moissy Cramayel
France
Dr. C. G. Hodge
Boeing Commercial Airplane
Company
Mail Stop 73-15
P.O. Box 3707
Renton, WA 98124
Dr. Thomas H. Hodgson
Center for Acoustical Studies
North Carolina State
University
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. E. H. Hooper
Beech Aircraft Corporation
9709 East Central Avenue
Wichita, KS 67201
Mr. Harvey H. Hubbard
Assistant Division Chief
Acoustics and Noise Reduction
Division
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Building 1208, Mail Stop 462
Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23666
Dr. A.K.M.F. Hussain
Department of Mechanical
Engineering
University of Houston
Houston, TX 77004
Dr. K. Karamcheti
Department of Aeronautics and
Astronautics
Durand Building
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
Dr. Jack L. Kerrebrock
Head, Department of Aeronautics
and Astronautics
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Room 33-207
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
Mr. Donald L. Lansing
NASA Langley Research Center
Mail Stop 460
Hampton, VA 23665
A-18
-------
Dr. John B. Large
institute of Sound and
Vibration
Southampton University
Southampton, England S09 5NH
Mr. Robert Lee
Manager, Acoustics Design
Technology
Aircraft Engine Group
General Electric Company
Mail Drop H-77
1-77 and Jinson Road
Cincinnati, OH 45215
Mr. Richard J. Linn
Director, Technological
Development
American Airlines, Incorporated
633 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Mr. Michael Lorette
Boeing Commercial Airplane
Company
Mail Stop 73-15
P.O. Box 3707
Renton, WA 98124
Dr. Lucio Maestrello
NASA Langley Research Center
310 Williamsburg Court
Newport News, VA 23606
Dr. Ramani Mani
General Electric Company
Visiting Professor
California Institute of
Technology
Mail Code 301-46
Pasadena, CA 91125
Mr. Paul F. Massier
jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Mail Code 67-201
Pasadena, CA 91103
Lieutenant Robert McGregor, USAF
APL-TBC
Wright Patterson Air Force Base
Dayton, OH 45433
Mr. Aubert L. McPike
Director, Industry Associated
Activities
McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft
Company
Mail Code 36-77
3855 Lakewood Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90846
Mr. Frederick B. Metzger
Acoustics and Noise Control
Hamilton Standard
Mail Stop 1A-3-6
Bradley Field Road
Windsor Locks, CT 06096
Mr. A. A. Mikolajczak
Manager, Aerodynamic,
Thermodynamic, and Control
Systems
Pratt & Whitney Aircraft
Administration 1 North
400 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108
Mr. Homer G. Morgan
Chief, Acoustics and Noise
Reduction Division
NASA Langley Research Center
Mail Stop 462
Hampton, VA 23665
Mr. Richard G. Nagel
(Representing City of
El Segundo)
622 Eucalyptus Drive
El Segundo, CA 90245
Dr. S. Paul Pao
Aerospace Technologist
NASA Langley Research Center
Mail Stop 461
Hampton, VA 23665
Mr. Robert E. Pendley
Director, Engineering
Technology Acoustics
McDonnell Douglas Corporation
3855 Lakewood Boulevard
Department 251
Mail Stop 35-57
Long Beach, CA 90846
A-19
-------
Dr. Mariano Perulli
Office National D1Etudes et de
Recherches Aerospatiales
29 Avenue de la Division Leclerc
Chatillon - Sous - Bagneux
(Hauts-de-Seine)
92320 Chatillon, France
Mr. Walter H. Rockenstein II
Alderman, llth Ward
307 City Hall
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Mr. Richard Russell
Chief Engineer, Noise
Technology
Boeing Commercial Airplane
Company
Mail Stop 73-15
P.O. Box 3707
Renton, WA 98124
Dr. Frederick Schmitz
Aero Mechanics Laboratory
U.S. Army
Research and Technology
Laboratory
Ames Research Center, 215-1
Moffett Field, CA 94034
Mr. Nathan Shapiro
Lockheed-California Company
Department 75-40, Building
63-A1
P.O. Box 551
Burbank, CA 91520
Mr. Edward B. Smith
General Electric Company
Mail Drop H-77
Cincinnati, OH 45215
Mr. William C. Sperry
Senior Technical Advisor
Office of Noise Abatement and
Control (ANR-471)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Steve E. Starley
Airport Program Manager
Office of Noise Abatement and
Control (ANR-471)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Commander Allen J. Stewart,
CEC, USN
Code 09PB
Headquarters
Naval Facilities Engineering
Command
200 Stovall Street
Alexandria, VA 22332
Mr. Lou C. Sutherland
Deputy Director
Wyle Research/Wyle Labs
128 Maryland Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
Mr. John M. Tyler
Consultant, National
Organization to Insure a
Sound-Controlled Environment
(NOISE)
25 Knob Hill Road
Glastonbury, CT 06033
Mr. Uwe von Glahn, Chief
Jet Acoustics Branch
NASA Lewis Research Center
Mail Stop 500-208
2100 Brook Park Road
Cleveland, OH 44135
Mr. John Wesler
Director, Office of
Environment and Energy
(AEE-1)
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Transportation
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20591
A-20
-------
Mr. Craig A. Wilson
Engineering Acoustics
AVCO Lycoming Division
550 South Main Street
Stratford, CT 06497
Dr. Allan J. Zuckerwar
Old Dominion University
Research Foundation
128 Sandpiper Street
Newport News, VA 23602
A-21
-------
EPA NOISE TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM
PROGRAM STAFF
Mr. John C. Schettino
Director, Technology and
Federal Programs Division
Office of Noise Abatement
and Control (ANR-471)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Harvey J. Nozick
Chief, Technology Branch
Office of Noise Abatement and
Control (ANR-471)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Roger W. Heymann
Program Manager, Technology
Branch
Office of Noise Abatement
and Control (ANR-471)
U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Thomas L. Quindry
Project Officer, Technology
Branch
Office of Noise Abatement
and Control (ANR-471)
U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency
Washington, DC 20460
A-23
-------
OBSERVERS
Mr. Ted Carnes
Pelton/Blum, Incorporated
1015 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
Mr. Kenneth E. Feith
Chief, General Products Branch
Office of Noise Abatement and
Control (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Dr. George Jacobson
U.S. Senate Staff
Environment and Public Works
Committee
4204 Dirksen Senate Office
Building
Washington, DC 20510
Ms. Anne H. Kohut
Noise Regulation Reporter
Bureau of National Affairs
1231 25th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
Mr. Michael D. Langberg
Construction Equipment
5 South Wabash Avenue
Chicago, IL 60603
Mr. Kim A. Nelson
American Trucking Association
1616 P Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Dr. Paul V. Pawlik
Senior Program Analyst
Office of Noise Abatement
and Control (ANR-471)
U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Fred Romano
Office of Research (HRS-42)
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of
Transportation
Transpoint Building
2100 Second Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
Dr. William E. Roper
Chief, Surface Transportation
Branch
Office of Noise Abatement and
Control (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Thomas Towers
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
U.S. Department of Labor
Room N 3660
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20210
A-25
-------
APPENDIX B
SUBGROUP ASSIGNMENTS
B-l
-------
MACHINERY AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WORKSHOP
SUBGROUP ASSIGNMENTS
Franklin Hart
North Carolina State
University
Chairman
J. Alton Burks
Bureau of Mines
Co-Chairman
Terrence Dear
E.I. Du Pont de Ne-
mours and Company
Co-Chairman
Subgroup A
Primary Metals, Fabricated Metals,
and Transportation Equipment
*Ronald Bailey
North Carolina State
University
*Ronald Bruce
Bolt Beranek and Newman,
Incorporated
Adnan Akay
Wayne State University
Edmund Bangs
IIT Research Institute
Michael Bobeczko
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical
Corporation
James Coyne
Representing Forging Industry
Educational Research
Foundation
Donald Cummins
Giddings and Lewis Machine Tool
Company
Richard Edsell
U.S. Department of Labor
^Session Leaders
B-3
-------
Joe Kolonko
Cincinnati Milacron
James Moreland
Westinghouse Electric
Corporation
Everett Quade
Alcoa Technical Center
Samuel Sarkisian
Verson Allsteel Press Company
Harold Spuhler
National Science Foundation
Edwin Toothman
Representing Industrial
Fasteners Institute, and
American Iron and Steel
Institute
Woodford Van Tifflin
General Motors Corporation
Istvan Ver
Bolt Beranek and Newman,
Incorporated
Subgroup B
Lumber, Wood, Furniture, and Paper
*Edwin Bounous
Woodworking Machinery
Manufacturers of America
(Consultant)
*John Stewart
North Carolina State
University
Donald Crawford
Weyerhaeuser Company
C. B. Dahl
Beloit Corporation
Robert Hershey
Science Management
Corporation
Gary H. Koopmann
University of Houston
B. Andrew Kugler
Bolt Beranek and Newman,
Incorporated
Kenneth Patrick
Western Wood Products Association
Howard Pelton
Pelton/Blum, Incorporated
Subgroup C
Chemical, Petroleum, and Electric Utility
*Terrence Dear
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours
and Company
Stephen M. Blazek
Department of the Navy
B-4
-------
*Allen Teplitzky
Consolidated Edison Company
of New York
Joseph Bhavsar
C.E. Lummus Company
Paul Kannapell
Monsanto Company
Vinay Nagpal
Control Components,
Incorporated
James Peat
Shell Oil Company
Richard Schoeller
David Taylor Naval Ship
Research and Development
Center
T. James DuBois
Southern California Edison
Charles Hickman
Southern Company Services,
Incorporated
James Seebold
Standard Oil of California
William Thornton
Gulf Research and Development
Michael Trykoski
Edison Electric Institute
Subgroup D
Food, Tobacco, and Glass
*R. A. Cassanova
Georgia Institute of
Technology
*Renny Norman
IIT Research Institute
Ray Gilbert
NASA
Lewis Goodfriend
Lewis S. Goodfriend &
Associates
Paul Jensen
Bolt Beranek and Newman,
Incorporated
James Maddrey
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company
Richard Miller
Richard K. Miller & Associates,
Incorporated
N. Duke Perreira
University of Texas
Richard Robertson
Philip Morris, USA
David Ulrich
Corning Glass Works
Stanley Waggoner
University of California
at Davis
B-5
-------
Subgroup E
Textile and Printing
*Paul Emerson
North Carolina State
University
*L. Phillips Thomas
Burlington Industries,
Incorporated
Douglas Anderson
Rockwell International
Lawrence Bain
Rockwell International
Donald Bastian
Harris Corporation
Melvin Jacob
U.S. Government Printing Office
John Kieronski
Whitten-Robert Machine Works
Donald Lyons
Clemson University
Ellis Pardue
Hanes Corporation
James Pullen
Celanese Fibers Company
Subgroup F
Underground Mining and Surface Processing Plants
*William Patterson
Gardner-Denver Company
*L. Alan Weakly
St. Joe Minerals Corporation
Erik Ahlberg
Atlas Copco (Sweden)
Edward Bailey
Joy Manufacturing Company
John Campbell
Peabody Coal Company
J. Harrison Daniel
Bureau of Mines
George Diehl
Ingersoil-Rand Company
(Consultant)
Edward Ellingson
Allis Chalmers
James Ferguson
Climax Molybdenum Company
Richard Holmguist
American Mining Congress
Richard Madden
Bolt Beranek and Newman,
Incorporated
John Seiler
Mine Safety and Health
Administration
William Shelton
Peabody Coal Company
Robert Slone
Wyle Laboratories
B-6
-------
Subgroup G
Surface Mining and Construction
*John Damian
Ford Motor Company
*John McNally
Representing Construction
Industry Manufacturers
Association
Larry Bares
Peabody Coal Company
Robert Baron
Citizens for a Quieter City,
Incorporated
Cliff Godsey
John Deere Dubuque Works
John Harris
JI Case
Lewis Held
Terex-Division of General
Motors
Louis LeBlanc
Joy Manufacturing Company
A. Dennis Loken
Fiat-Allis Construction
Machinery, Incorporated
Walter H. Page
International Harvester
Paul Schomer
U.S. Army Construction
Engineering Research
Laboratory
B-7
-------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP
SUBGROUP ASSIGNMENTS
Edwin Ratering
General Motors Corporation
Chairman
Bernard Vierling
UMTA, Department of Transportation
Co-Chairman
Subgroup A
Exterior Sound Propagation in the
Community and Vehicle Interior Noise
*Bernard Vierling
UMTA, Department of
Transportation
* Ronald Wasko
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Association
Timothy Barry
Federal Highway Administration
Richard Bauman
B. F. Goodrich
Claude Lamure
institut de Recherche des
Transports
(Bron, France)
Alvin Marshall
Ford Motor Company
*Session Leaders
Frank Matyja
General Tire and Rubber Company
D. H. Robbins
University of Michigan
Wesley Schwieder
Ford Motor Company
Edward Shalis
U.S. Army Tank and Automotive
Command
S. Martin Taylor
McMasters University (Canada)
Donald Whitney
General Motors Corporation
B-9
-------
Subgroup B
Engines and Propulsion Systems
*Robert Mason
U.S. Department of
Transportation
*Rodger Ringham
International Harvester
H. A. Cook
Mack Truck Incorporated
Damon Gray
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
William Hammer
General Motors Corporation
Robert Hellweg
State of Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency
Dennis Kabele
John Deere Product
Engineering Center
Detleff Karstens
Volkswagenwerk (Germany)
Richard Lyon
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Daniel Maxfield
U.S. Department of Energy
Charles Moon
White Motor Corporation
Ben Sharp
Wyle Laboratories
Joseph Sullivan
Purdue University
James Valus
Electro Motor Division of
General Motors
Subgroup C
Intake, Exhaust, Cooling, and
Allied Engine Subsystems
*Erich Bender
Bolt Beranek and Newman,
Incorporated
*Tony Embleton
National Research Council
(Canada)
Peter Cheng
Stemco, Incorporated
Larry Eriksson
Nelson Industries
Robert Frantz
Chrysler Corporation
Raymond Gorman
Ryder Truck Rental
B-10
-------
James Groening
H.L. Blachford,
Incorporated
Frederick Krey
CMC Truck and Coach
James Lewis
United Parcel Service
Nicholas Miller
International Harvester
Charles Preuss
Volkswagen of America,
Incorporated
Douglas Rowley
Donaldson Company, Incorporated
Max Rumbaugh
Wallace Murray Corporation
Larry Schaefer
American Motors Corporation
Subgroup D
Interaction of Tire/Roadway
and Wheel/Rail
*Robert Hickling
General Motors Research
Laboratories
*Eugene Lehr
U.S. Department of
Transportation
Jozef DeEskinazi
Cooper Tire and Rubber
Company
Larry Dorsch
The Firestone Tire and
Rubber Company
John Eagleburger
The Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Company
Allen Eberhardt
North Carolina State
University
Conan Furber
Association of American
Railroads
William Gibson
American Trucking Association
John Koper
Federal Railroad Administration
Leonard Kurzweil
U.S. Department of
Transportation
James Lawther
Pennsylvania State University
William Leasure
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration
Seymour Lippmann
Uniroyal Tire Company
Spencer Lucus
Dunlop Tire and Rubber
Company
Anthony Paolillo
New York City Transit
Authority
Jerry Reagan
Federal Highway Administration
B-ll
-------
AVIATION WORKSHOP
SUBGROUP ASSIGNMENTS
jack Kerrebrock
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Chairman
Harvey Hubbard
NASA
Co-chairman
Subgroup A
Airframe
*Donald Lansing
NASA
*William Sperry
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Niels Andersen
Pan American world Airways,
Incorporated
Warren Ahtye
NASA
Martin Fink
United Technologies Research
Center
'Session Leaders
Jack Gibson
Lockheed-Georgia Company
C. G. Hodge
Boeing Commercial Airplane
Company
Thomas Hodgson
North Carolina State University
K. Karamcheti
Stanford University
Robert Pendley
McDonnell Douglas Corporation
B-13
-------
Subgroup B
Rotor and Propeller Noise
*Charles Cox
Bell Helicopter
*Frederick Metzger
Hamilton Standard
Donald Ahrens
Cessna Aircraft Company
Fereidoun Farassat
Joint Institute (George
Washington university/NASA)
Clyde Fitzgerald
Santa Monica Airport
George Greene
NASA
E. H. Hooper
Beech Aircraft Corporation
Harvey Hubbard
NASA
Frederick Schmitz
NASA
John Wesler
Federal Aviation Administration
Subgroup C
Propagation
*Aubert McPike
McDonnell Douglas Aircraft
Company
*Lou Sutherland
Wyle Research/Wyle Labs
Jeffrey Bowles
NASA
Clifford Bragdon
Georgia Institute of
Technology
Walter Collins
Los Angeles Department of
Airports
R. E. Coykendall
United Airlines
John Large
Southampton University
(England)
Richard Linn
American Airlines,
Incorporated
Michael Lorette
Boeing Commercial Airplane
S. Paul Pao
NASA
Walter Rockenstein
City of Minneapolis
Nathan Shapiro
Lockheed-California Company
B-14
-------
Steve Starley
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Allen Stewart
U.S. Navy
Allan Zuckerwar
Old Dominion University
Subgroup D
Engine Noise
*Robert Lee
General Electric Company
*Homer Morgan
NASA
Gordon Banerian
NASA
Kenneth Bushell
Rolls Royce Limited
Charles Feiler
NASA
Derrick Higton
British Embassy
R. G. Hoch
S.N.E.C.M.A.
(France)
A.K.M.F. Hussain
University of Houston
Jack Kerrebrock
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Lucio Maestrello
NASA
Ramani Mani
General Electric Company
(California Institute of
Technology)
Paul Massier
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Robert McGregor
Wright Patterson Air Force Base
A. A. Mikolajczak
Pratt & Whitney Aircraft
Richard Nagel
City of El Segundo
Robert Pendley
McDonnell Douglas Corporation
Mariano Perulli
Office National D1Etudes et de
Recherches Aerospatiales
(France)
Richard Russell
Boeing Commercial Airplane
Company
Edward Smith
General Electric Company
John Tyler
N.O.I.S.E.
Uwe von Glahn
NASA
Craig Wilson
AVCO Lycoming Division
B-15
-------
APPENDIX C
PROGRAM AGENDAS FOR:
MACHINERY AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WORKSHOP
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP
AVIATION WORKSHOP
C-l
-------
MACHINERY AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT PROGRAM
SUNDAY, JANUARY 28, 1979
7:00-9:30 pm MAIN REGISTRATION PERIOD
8:30-10:00 pm Meeting of Project Advisory
Committee (Workshop Chairmen
and Co-Chairmen) and Advisory
Panel Members
MONDAY. JANUARY 29, 1979
7:45-8:30 am FINAL REGISTRATION
Centre Complex
Lobby
Montreal Room
Centre Complex
Lobby
PLENARY SESSION
Keynote Speakers
8:30-8:40 am Welcome by Adelene Harrison
Regional Administrator,
Region 6, U.S. EPA
8:40-8:50 am Introduction by John C. Schettino
Director, Technology and Federal
Programs Division, U.S. EPA
Office of Noise Abatement and
Control (ONAC)
8:50-9:15 am Charles L. Elkins, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Noise
Control Programs, U.S. EPA
9:15-9:40 am Carl Gerber, Executive Office of
the President, Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP)
9:40-10:05 am George Jacobson, U.S. Senate
Environment and Public Works
Committee Staff
10:05-10:30 am Claude Lamure
Institut de Recherche des Transports
Bron, France
New York City
Room
03
-------
10:30-10:45 am
10:45-Noon
10:45-11:15 am
11:15-11:35 am
11:35-11:50 am
11:50-Noon
Noon-1:30 pm
1:30-1:45 pm
1:45-2:00 pm
2:00-2:15 pm
2:15-2:30 pm
2:30-3:00 pm
3:00-3:15 pm
3:15-5:30 pm
BREAK
At conclusion of refreshment
break participants divide into
three separate and concurrently
functioning workshops
WORKSHOP SESSIONS
Federal Agency representatives
present noise technology research
program updates. Questions and
Comments
Speakers:
J. Harrison Daniel
DOI/Bureau of Mines
Questions and Answers
Harold A. Spuhler
National Science Foundation
Questions and Answers
LUNCH
Stephen M. Blazek
DOD/U.S. Navy
Questions and Answers
William N. McKinnery, Jr.
OHEW/National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
Questions and Answers
General discussion of the total
Federal program
BREAK
Centre Complex
Foyer
London Room
WORKSHOP SESSIONS
15 minute review of issues to
be addressed in workshop and
sub-group sessions followed by
questions and comments from
participants
Open
Centre Complex
Foyer
London Room
C-4
-------
Speakers:
3:15-3:30 pm
3:30-3:40 pm
3:40-3:55 pm
3:55-4:05 pm
4:05-4:20 pm
4:20-4:30 pm
4:30-4:45 pm
4:45-4:55 pm
4:55-5:30 pm
6:30-7:30 pm
7:30-9:30 pm
8:00-5:30 pm
Issue fl
Robert D. Bruce
Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.
Questions and Answers
Issue fl
Frank D. Hart
N.C. State University
Questions and Answers
Issue |3
Terrence A. Dear
E.I. du Pont De Nemours and
Company
Questions .and Answers
Issue #4
John J. McNally
Cateplllar, Tractor Company
representing CIMA
Questions and Answers
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Discussion of ground rules and
method of operation for
symposium
SOCIAL HOUR (Cash Bar)
BANQUET DINNER
TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1979
SUB-GROUP SESSIONS
Workshop subdivides into sub-
groups to address workshop issues
International
Ballroom
International
Ballroom
A - Metals/Fabrication
B - Wood/Paper
Hong Kong Room
Mexico City Room
C-5
-------
8:00-10:00 am
C - Chemical/Petroleum/
Electric Utility
D - Food/Tobacco/Glass
E - Textile/Printing
F - Underground Mining/Surface
Processing Plants
G - Construction/Surface Mining
Issue fl: What is the status of
Noise Control Technology?
Copenhagen Room
Montreal Room
Frankfurt Room
Brussels Room
Rome Room
10:00-10:15 am BREAK
10:15-12:10 pm
Centre Complex
Foyer
12:10-1:30 pm
1:30-3:20 pm
3:20-3:35 pm
3:35-5:30 pm
5:30-7:30 pm
7:30-10:30 pm
Issue |2: What role should the
Federal Government play in
developing Noise Control
Technology?
SYMPOSIUM GROUP LUNCHEON
Issue jf3: What role should the
private sector play in developing
Noise Control Technology?
BREAK
International
Ballroom
Centre Complex
Foyer
Issue f4: How and in which
areas can government and industry
work together on Noise RDAD
programs?
DINNER BREAK
Project Advisory Committee
Chairmen, Co-Chairmen, and
Advisory Panel Members meet to
develop summary outline
Open
New York City
Room
Machinery A Construction London Room
Equipment Chairmen, Co-Chairmen
and Advisory Panel members working
group
C-6
-------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1979
8:00-10:00 am WORKSHOP SESSION London Room
Plenary review within Machinery
it Construction Equipment Workshop
of prior day's results. Presentation
of findings, majority and minority
opinions to Workshop before presenta-
tion to full Plenary Session
10:00-10:15 am BREAK Centre Complex
Foyer
10:15-12:30 pm PLENARY SESSION New York City
All participants assemble to Room
review and discuss results of
Workshop Activities
10:15-10:45 am AVIATION
10:45-11:15 am (MACHINERY A CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
11:15-11:45 am SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
11:45-l 2:30 pm GENERAL DISCUSSION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF WORKSHOP
CONCLUSIONS
12:30 pm ADJOURNMENT
C-7
-------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
SUNDAY, JANUARY 28, 1979
7:00-9:30 pm MAIN REGISTRATION PERIOD
8:30-10:00 pm Meeting of Project Advisory
Committee (Workshop Chairmen
and Co-Chairmen) and Advisory
Panel Members
MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1979
7:45-8:30 am FINAL REGISTRATION
Centre Complex
Lobby
Montreal Room
Centre Complex
Lobby
PLENARY SESSION
Keynote Speakers
8:30-8:40 am Welcome by Adelene Harrison
Regional Administrator,
Region 6, U.S. EPA
8:40-8:50 am Introduction by John C. Schettino
Director, Technology and Federal
Programs Division, U.S. EPA
Office of Noise Abatement and
Control (ONAC)
8:50-9:15 am Charles L. Elkins, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Noise
Control Programs, U.S. EPA
9:15-9:40 am Carl Gerber, Executive Office of
the President, Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP)
9:40-10:05 am George Jacobson, U.S. Senate
Environment and Public Works
Committee Staff
10:05-10:30 am Claude Lamure
Institut de Recherche des Transports
Bron, France
New York City
Room
C-9
-------
10:30-10:45 am
10:45-Noon
10:45-10:55 am
10:55-11:10 am
11:10-11:25 am
11:25-11:35
11:35-Noon
Noon-1:30 pm
1:30-1:45 pm
1:45-2:00 pm
2:00-2:15 pm
2:15-2:30 pm
2:30-3:00 pm
BREAK
At conclusion of refreshment
break participants divide into
three separate and concurrently
functioning workshops
WORKSHOP SESSIONS
Federal Agency representatives
present noise technology research
program updates. Questions and
Comments
Speakers:
Eugene Lehr
DOT/Office of Environment and
Safety
Leonard G. Kurzweil
DOT/Urban Mass Transportation
Administration
Timothy M. Barry
DOT/Federal Highway
Administration
John Koper
Robert L. Mason
DOT/Federal Railroad
Administration
General discussion of the DOT
program
LUNCH
Edward Shalis
U.S. Army/Tank and Automotive
Command
Questions and Answers
Damon Gray
U.S. EPA, Office of Noise
and Abatement and Control
Questions and Answers
General discussion of the total
Federal program
Centre Complex
Foyer
Sydney Room
Open
C-10
-------
3:00-3:15pm BREAK
3:15-5:30 pm WORKSHOP SESSIONS
IS minute review of issues to
be addressed in workshop and
sub-group sessions followed by
questions and comments from
participants
Speakers:
3:15-3:30 pm Issue fl
Erich K. Bender
Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.
3:30-3:40 pm Questions and Answers
3:40-3:55 pm Issue f2
Bernard j. Vierling
DOT/Urban Mass Transportation
Administration
Centre Complex
Foyer
Sydney Room
3:55-4:05 pm
4:05-4:20 pm
4:20-4:30 pm
4:3CM:45 pm
4:45-4:55 pm
4:55-5:30pm
Questions and Answers
Issue |3
Robert Hickling
General Motors Research Labs
Questions and Answers
Issue §4
Rodger Ringham
International Harvester
Questions and Answers
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Discussion of ground rules and
method of operation for
symposium
6:30-7:30 pm SOCIAL HOUR (Cash Bar)
7:30-4:30 pm BANQUET DINNER
International
Ballroom
International
Ballroom
C-ll
-------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1979
8:00-5:30 pm SUB-GROUP SESSIONS
Workshop subdivides into sub-
groups to address workshop issues
Surface Transportation Sub-Groups
A - Exterior Sound Propagation Texican Room A
in the Community and Vehicle
Interior Noise
B - Noise Control of Engines and Texican Room B
Propulsion Systems
C - Noise Control of Intake, Bowie Room
Exhaust, Cooling, and Allied
Engine Subsystems
D - Noises from Interaction of Reagan Room
Tire/Roadway and Wheel/Rail
8:00-10:00 am Issue fl: What is the status of
Noise Control Technology?
10:00-10:15 am BREAK Centre Complex
Foyer
10:15-12:10 pm Issue #2: What role should the
Federal Government play in
developing Noise Control
Technology?
12:10-1:30 pm SYMPOSIUM GROUP LUNCHEON International
Ballroom
1:30-3:20 pm Issue |3: What role should the
private sector play in developing
Noise Control Technology?
3:20-3:35 pm BREAK Centre Complex
Foyer
3:35-5:30 pm Issue §4: How and in which
areas can government and industry
work together on Noise RD&D
programs?
5:30-7:30 pm DINNER BREAK Open
7:30-10:30 pm Project Advisory Committee New York City
Chairmen, Co-Chairmen, and Room
Advisory Panel Members meet to
develop summary outline
C-12
-------
Surface Transportation Chairmen, Sydney Room
Co-Chairmen and Advisory Panel
members working group
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1979
8:00-10:00 am WORKSHOP SESSION
Plenary review within Surface
Transportation Workshop of prior
day's results. Presentation of
findings, majority and minority
opinions to Workshop before
presentation to full Plenary
Session
10:00-10:15 am BREAK
10:15-12:30 pm PLENARY SESSION
All participants assemble to
review and discuss results of
Workshop Activities
10:15-10:45 am AVIATION
10:45-11:15 am MACHINERY A CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
11:15-11:45 am SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
11:45-12:30 pm GENERAL DISCUSSION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF WORKSHOP
CONCLUSIONS
Sydney Room
Centre Complex
Foyer
New York City
Room
12:30pm
ADJOURNMENT
C-13
-------
AVIATION PROGRAM
SUNDAY, JANUARY 28, 1979
7:00-9:30 pm MAIN REGISTRATION PERIOD
8:30-10:00 pm Meeting of Project Advisory
Committee (Workshop Chairmen
and Co-Chairmen) and Advisory
Panel Members
MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1979
7:45-8:30 am FINAL REGISTRATION
PLENARY SESSION
Keynote Speakers
Centre Complex
Lobby
Montreal Room
Centre Complex
Lobby
8:30-8:40 am
8:40-8:50 am
8:50-9:15 am
9:15-9:40 am
9:40-10:05 am
Welcome by Adelene Harrison
Regional Administrator,
Region 6, U.S. EPA
Introduction by John C. Schettino
Director, Technology and Federal
Programs Division, U.S. EPA
Office of Noise Abatement and
Control (ONAC)
Charles L. Elklns, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Noise
Control Programs, U.S. EPA
Carl Gerber, Executive Office of
the President, Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP)
George Jacobson, U.S. Senate
Environment and Public Works
Committee Staff
New York City
Room
10:05-10:30 am Claude Lamure
Institut de Recherche des Transports
Bron, France
C-15
-------
10:30-10:45 am
Centre Complex
Foyer
10:45-Noon
10:45-11:00 am
11:00-11:15 am
11:15-11:30 am
11:30-12:10pm
BREAK
At conclusion of refreshment
break participants divide into
three separate and concurrently
functioning workshops
WORKSHOP SESSIONS Mexico City
Federal Agency representatives Room
present noise technology research
program updates. Questions and
Comments
Speakers:
Robert McGregor
DOD/U.S. Air Force
Questions and Answers
Gordon Banerian
NASA, Headquarters
Charles E. Feiler
Uwe H. von Glahn
NASA, Lewis Research Center
12:10-1:30pm LUNCH
1:30-2:15 pm
Open
Homer G. Morgan
NASA, Langley Research Center
2:15-2:45 pm General discussion of the NASA
program
2:45-3:15 pm General discussion of the total
Federal program
3:15-3:30pm BREAK
3:30-6:00 pm WORKSHOP SESSIONS
Presentation of papers on
status of Aviation noise
control technology
Speakers:
3:30-3:55 pm CTOL
Richard E. Russell
Boeing Company of America
(Questions and Answers)
Centre Complex
Foyer
Mexico City
Room
C-16
-------
3:55-4:20 pm CTOL
Robert E. Pendley
McDonnell Douglas Corporation
(Questions and Answers)
4:20-4:45 pm STOL
Jeffrey Bowles
Michael Shovlin
NASA, Ames Research Center
(Questions and Answers)
4:45-5:10 pm ROTARY WING
Charles R. Cox
Bell Helicopter
(Questions and Answers)
5:10-5:35 pm SST
Gordon Banerian
NASA Headquarters
(Questions and Answers)
5:35-6:00 pm GENERAL DISCUSSION
Discussion of ground rules and
method of operation for
symposium
6:30-7:30 pm SOCIAL HOUR (Cash Bar)
7:30-9:30 pm BANQUET DINNER
TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1979
8:00-5:30 pm SUB-GROUP SESSIONS
Workshop subdivides Into sub-
groups to address workshop Issues
Aviation Su6-Groap*
A - Airframe Noise
B - Rotor & Propeller Noise
C - Propagation
D - Engine Noise
8:00-9:30 am Issu* ft: What is the status of
Noise Control Technology?
9:30-10:00 Issue |2: What role should the
Federal Government play in
developing Noise Control
Technology?
International
Ballroom
International
Ballroom
Amsterdam Room
Sydney Room
London Room
Paris Room
C-17
-------
10:00-10:15 am BREAK
10:15-11:15 am
11:15-Noon
Centre Complex
Foyer
Noon-1:30 pm
1:30-2:15 pm
2:15-3:15 pm
3:15-3:30 pm
3:30-4:00
4:00-5:30 pm
5:30-7:30 pm
7:30-10:30 pm
ISHM |2 Discussion Continues
(Questions and Answers)
ISMM f3: What general and
specific areas require Federal
research support? What programs
in progress require further
emphasis?
SYMPOSIUM GROUP LUNCHEON
Issue |3 Discussion Continues
(Questions and Answers)
Issue f4: What role should the
private sector play in developing
noise control technology?
BREAK
International
Ballroom
Centre Complex
Foyer
Issue f4 Discussion Continues
(Questions and Answers)
Issue f5: Are there demonstra-
tion programs needed to
stimulate the adoption of advanced
noise technology?
(Questions and Answers)
DINNER BREAK
Project Advisory Committee
Chairmen, Co-Chairmen, and
Advisory Panel Members meet to
develop summary outline
Open
New York City
Room
Aviation Chairmen, Co-Chairmen, Mexico City
and Advisory Panel members Room
working group
C-18
-------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1979
8:00-10:00 am WORKSHOP SESSION Mexico City
Plenary review within Aviation Room
Workshop of prior day's results.
Presentation of findings, majority
and minority opinions to Workshop
before presentation to full Plenary
Session
10:00-10:15 am BREAK Centre Complex
Foyer
10:15-12:30 pm PLENARY SESSION New York City
All participants assemble to Room
review and discuss results of
Workshop Activities
10:15-10:45 am AVIATION
10:45-11:15 am MACHINERY A CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
11:15-11:45 am SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
11:45-12:30 pm GENERAL DISCUSSION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF WORKSHOP
CONCLUSIONS
12:30 pm ADJOURNMENT
C-19
-------
APPENDIX D
ISSUES FOR:
MACHINERY AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WORKSHOP
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP
AVIATION WORKSHOP
D-l
-------
MACHINERY AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WORKSHOP ISSUES
1. What is the status of Noise Control Technology?
a. What major noise related research programs does industry
(corporations and trade associations) have underway
(Federal have already been identified)?
b. What are the principal approaches available to reduce
equipment and process noise?
c. What are some of the major types of equipment and pro-
cesses for which noise control methods are unavailable?
d. Has there been noise abatement technology transference
from one product/process to another?
e. What research should be done?
2. What role should the Federal government play in developing
Noise Control Technology?
a. What factors should influence Federal involvement in
noise research?
b. For what products, processes, and industries should the
Federal government be undertaking noise research?
c. What other areas of noise generation should receive
Federal research support?
d. What future technology developments will influence noise
control and/or research?
e. What balance should be given to support for demonstration
programs and research to develop new technology?
D-3
-------
3. What role should the private sector play in developing Noise
Control Technology?
a. Can industry solve the noise problems without input and
assistance of the Federal government?
b. What are the incentives for noise control RD&D by
equipment manufacturers and users?
c. In what specific areas should noise control research be
done by private industry?
d. What are the constraints that inhibit development of
noise control technology by industry?
e. Waht role should educational institutions play in RD&D
for the industrial/ and machinery and construction
equipment areas?
4. How and in which areas can government and industry work
together on Noise RD&D programs?
a. What method/procedures can be utilized to disseminate and
implement the results of successful RD&D programs?
b. What are the principal factors that need to be shown in
demonstration programs to encourage adoption by industry?
c. What forum or mechanism can be used effectively to
provide for an exchange between government and industry
concerning noise research needs and accomplishments?
D-4
-------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP ISSUES
1. What is the status of Noise Control Technology?
a. What are some of the major types of equipment for which
noise control methods are unavailable?
b. What are the principal approaches available to reduce
equipment noise?
c. What noise related research programs do industry
(corporations and trade associations) have underway?
d. Has there been noise abatement technology transference
from one product/process to another?
2. What role should the Federal government play in developing
Noise Control Technology?
a. What factors should influence Federal involvement in
noise research?
b. For what products, and industries should the Federal
government be undertaking noise research?
c. What other areas of noise generation should receive
Federal research support?
d. What future technology development will influence noise
control and/or research?
e. What are the principal factors that need to be shown in
demonstration programs to encourage adoption by industry?
D-5
-------
What role should the private sector play in developing Noise
Control Technology?
a. Can industry solve the noise problems without input and
assistance of the Federal government?
b. What are the incentives for noise control RD&D by
equipment manufacturers and users?
c. In what specific areas should noise control research be
done by private industry?
d. What are the constraints that inhibit development of
noise control technology by industry?
e. What role should educational institutions play in solving
noise problems?
How and in which areas can government and industry work
together on Noise RD&D programs?
a. What method/procedures can be utilized to disseminate and
implement the results of successful RD&D programs?
b. What specific noise control demonstration programs would
aid equipment manufacturers and users to introduce noise
control measures?
c. What forum or mechanism can be used effectively to
provide for an exchange between government and industry
concerning noise research needs and accomplishments?
D-6
-------
AVIATION WORKSHOP ISSUES
Five main issues:
1. What is the status of Noise Control Technology?
a. CTOL (Carrier, general aviation/business jets)
b. STOL
c. Rotory Wing
d. SST
2. What role should the Federal government play in developing
Noise Control Technology?
3. What general and specific areas require Federal research
support? What programs in progress require further emphasis?
a. Engine noise
(1) Jet
(2) Turbomachinery
(3) Core noise
(4) Treatment
b. Airframe
c. Propellers and rotors
d. Propagation
4. What role should the private sector play in developing noise
control technology?
5. Are there demonstration programs needed to stimulate the
adoption of advanced noise technology?
a. Engine noise
(1) Jet
(2) Turbomach inery
(3) Absorptive treatment
b. Air frame
c. Propellers and rotors
d. Propagation
D-7
-------
Ten "sub-issues" to support the course of the discussion on the
five main issues and provide some specific informational needs:
a. How adequate is the national R&T program to establish
fundamental understanding of the phenomena controlling
noise production?
b. How adequate is the present capability for predicting the
noise characteristics of a new design?
c. What elements are lacking in the national R&T program to
establish adequacy in the above two senses?
d. What elements of the present Federal noise research
program should be contracted or eliminated in favor of
others of greater importance?
e. Are there demonstration programs needed to stimulate the
adoption of advanced noise control technology?
f. Is the Federal program properly balanced between activi-
ties in: basic research, applied research, demonstra-
tion, and development?
g. Does the congressional mandate for Federal noise control
research which results mainly from public pressure,
provide a sound basis for the program, or should industry
attempt to motivate the program?
h. What is the purpose of the Federal noise research program
(e.g. establish a basis for regulation, etc.)?
i. Should there be a larger scale Federal program with
longer term commitments?
j. Can and should the private sector be induced to put risk
capital into noise research? How?
D-8
« «. S. OOVMJIMKNT PRINTING OFFICE : 1979 621-olB/nn
------- |