PROCEEDINGS of the
23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

Model for total noise assessment under consideration of source
specific exposure-response-curves
Manfred LIEPERT1; Johannes LANG1, Ulrich MOEHLER1, Dirk SCHRECKENBERG2
1

Möhler + Partner Ingenieure AG, Germany
2

ZEUS GmbH, Germany

ABSTRACT
Although most of the German population is exposed to multiple noise sources, noise legislation in Germany
is subdivided in regulations for each noise source. In order to improve the quality of life there is a lack of a
total noise assessment. The German Federal Environmental Agency therefor initiated the research
project ”Model for total noise assessment”. As a part of this project the method of the German VDI standard
3722-2 on the assessment of the impact of noise from multiple sources was further developed. With the helpof exposure - response relationships for individual source types a total noise assessment for road traffic,
railway, aircraft and industrial noise is possible. For this purpose the exposure-response relationships of the
new WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines are used. The possibility of considering health effects andcombining annoyance ratings and other health effects are discussed. In a second step of this project noise
mitigation in case of multiple noise sources are investigated. Different methods for the cost distribution were
examined regarding their advantages and disadvantages in the application. The proposed method of cost
distribution was ﬁnally tested in case studies using the further development of the VDI standard.
Keywords: Total Noise, Exposure-response relationship, financing model, health effects

1. INTRODUCTION
The German population is exposed to a multitude of noise sources; as a general rule, the persons affected are
simultaneously impacted by multiple noise sources. For comprehensive protection from noise immission, theimplementing regulations subordinated to the German Immissions Protection Law (BundesImmissionsschutzgesetz, 1) lack a mandatory total noise assessment. At the same time, persons affected bynoise currently do not have a claim to noise mitigation measures, if the noise is caused by already existing
traffic routes.
In pursuit of an approach towards a legal regulation of a total noise appraisal, the present publication deals
with the issues outlined below. Four work packages are handled by an interdisciplinary project team. Eachof the work packages has a special focus, which is handled by the relevant specialists.
The work was split into the following work packages (WP):• WP 1: Further development of a concept for total noise assessment based on the German
standard VDI 3722-2 with the inclusion of health aspects• WP 2: Proposal for a financing model for noise mitigation measures in connection with a
total noise assessment and legal implementation• WP 3: Enhancement of the Musterstadt “(Sample City)" data set contained in the standard
DIN 45687• WP 4: Testing of the developed model for total noise assessment
In this presentation the results of work packages 1, 2 und 4 are presented.

2. Further development of total noise assessment based on VDI 3722-2
VDI 3722-2 (9) "Effects of traffic noise - Characteristic quantities in case of impact of multiple
sources" (VDI 3722 Part 2:2013-05) proposes methods enabling the estimation of total noise
annoyance with the help of exposure – response relationships for individual source types (currently:

5153

air, rail and road traffic). The same method is described for estimation of total noise sleep disturbance.
These tools can be used for the acoustic assessment of planning alternatives (VDI 3722-2, 1. Scope).
VDI 3722-2 contains a number of regulatory gaps and provides scope for further development,
which is covered in WP 1. Five aspects are addressed:
2.1. Application of levels outside the value range
The exposure-response curves used for the determination of effects apply to a defined noise level
range for individual source types. This applies to functions describing the percentage of annoyed
persons (%A), highly annoyed persons (%HA), sleep-disturbed persons (%SD) and highly sleepdisturbed persons (%HSD). The question of how to handle situations, in which individual source types
contributing to the total noise exposure are situated outside this value range, remains open. For levels
above the value range of the exposure – response curves, a linear extension beyond a calculated 100%annoyance level is proposed, given that information regarding the progression of the curve or theturning point from exponential functions towards sigmoid curves is not available and linear
continuation appears to be the simplest assumption with the minimum of uncertainty in this situation.
A linear extension of the Lr,N level range between 0 dB and 40 dB is recommended for levels below
the value range with reported sleep disturbance, in accordance with the approach proposed by Probst& Gillé (4). Concerning exposure-response curves relating to the proportion of (highly) annoyed
persons, it is recommended for the source-type related rating levels L DEN < 37 dB (for %A) and LDEN
< 42 dB (for %HA) that the renormalized substitute level be set to 37 dB (for %A) and 42 dB (for %HA),
and the corresponding %A/HA portion to 0%. The substitute levels thus defined are consideredappropriately in the calculation of the effect-related substitution level L AES .
2.2. Selection of annoyance curves with a view to situation-dependent advantages anddisadvantages of % A curves compared to % HA curves
It is suggested that no binding regulation should be established, which exposure- response curves(%A/HA, %SD/HSD) has to be used. This decision should be made depending on the concrete planningcases. Rather it is recommended that substitution levels be applied on the basis of all variants of
exposure-response curves contained in VDI 3722-2 (currently: %A, %HA, %SD, %HSD). Thus
different rankings of measures may result, depending on the objective pursued and the effectconsidered. However, new exposure-response curves are available for noise annoyance and reported
sleep disturbance that relate exclusively to %HA and %HSD. Hence, the effective quantities %A
and %SD can be eliminated completely, if these new curves were to be included in the VDI standard.
2.3. Investigation and assessment of potential interaction between daytime and nighttime
effects for different source type combinations.
On the assumption that adequate, physiological quality of sleep is the major target for the night
period, it is suggested that maximum level criteria and physiological awakening criteria related tothese maximum level criteria should be included in VDI 3722-2, rather than restricting oneself to thenight-time continuous noise level alone. However, this presupposes the availability of exposureresponse curves for additional, noise-induced awakenings from field studies for all noise type sources
included, and for a variety of further population groups (such as children, persons with sleep-relevant
diseases). The total noise assessment in this case will not be made on the basis of (high) sleepdisturbed persons or annoyed persons, but rather on the basis of the number of additional (total) noiseinduced awakenings. In addition, the night-time continuous noise level should be maintained, so as tobe able to show night-time effects going beyond physiological awakenings.
Furthermore, it is suggested that characteristic quantities both on the effect and on the exposureside should be selected according to the envisaged effective times of the proposed noise abatement
measures. Measures aimed at 24 hour protection throughout the day, or effective over 24 hours, may
be assessed in terms of the total noise effects with a substitution method with the inclusion of Lr,TAN
and, e.g., noise annoyance as effective quantity (%A, %HA), even if the different noise type sources
used in the calculations are effective at different times of the day. On the other hand, measures aimed
at night-time protection (such as operational restrictions limited to certain times of the day) will be
evaluated with exposure-response curves for sleep disturbance (%SD, %HSD).

5154

2.4. Further development of VDI 3722-2 with a view to the inclusion of industrial andcommercial noise.
Our recommendation for the further development of VDI 3722-2 is, that in the absence of novel
findings, the exposure-response curves proposed by Miedema & Vos (3) for the %HA related to thenoise emitted by year-round industrial facilities (other industries) should be used.
As for the consideration of noise generated by wind turbines in the VDI 3722-2 the exposureresponse curve for %HA (interior) from Janssen & Vos (2) may be used, if only noise annoyance isconsidered. In the case of the calculation of a total-noise effect index, the use of %HA and %HSD
functions for road traffic noise is recommended as alternative, as in the case of industrial andcommercial noise.
2.5. Evaluation of VDI 3722-2 under considerations of health protection and suggestions
for improvement.
Up to now, the VDI 3722-2 considers methods for the estimation of noise annoyance and sleep
disturbance. No further health effects are taken into account. Meanwhile a number of studies areavailable that investigated the evidence of health risks caused by noise immissions. These noise
induced health risks mostly under investigation are cardiovascular diseases. In order to include theseeffects into the method of VDI 3722-2 the use of exposure-response relationships based on the WHOReview regarding noise induced health risks for cardiovascular diseases (van Kempen et al., 7,8) areproposed.
To take into consideration further health aspects and to be able to show all effects (annoyance,
sleep disturbance, different diseases) considered in an index, a procedure based on the concept of the
DALY-index (Tobollik, M., Plaß, D., Steckling, N. et al., 6) is suggested. The DALY-index (disability
adjusted life years) represents the total amount of lost life years caused by environmental impact andis calculated by summing up different (noise related) health effects weighted with an effect related
disability weight. The disability weight DW ranges from 0 (full healthy) to 1 (death).
For planning purposes the following approach is suggested:• Calculation of effect-related substitution levels Lr,TAN for %HA and Lr,N for %HSD with thehelp of the latest, most recent exposure-response curves.
• Calculation of the number of highly annoyed persons in the area under review using thefunction for road traffic noise, and of the number of highly sleep-disturbed persons in thearea under review using the function for road traffic noise, in each case multiplied with thenumber of inhabitants.
• Calculation of the number of persons additionally suffering from total-noise induced
disease (population-attributable risk, PAR) for selected major diseases. The calculation
should be based on up-to-date, robust relative risk estimates for total noise related to LDEN
and information on the prevalence of the respective disease in the area being surveyed.
Alternatively, the calculation can be based on information on prevalence from official
statistics (regional, state-wide or national health reports).
• Multiplication of the number of (highly) annoyed, sleep-disturbed and additional diseaseaffected persons with their respective disability weight (DW). Rounding of the weighted
values to the neared whole number of cases.
• If several diseases are considered, select the one with the highest DW weighted PAR.
• Summation to obtain an overall index: Addition of weighted (rounded) numbers of casesof annoyance, sleep disturbance and (selected) diseases to obtain an overall index of thenumber of cases of impairment due to total noise.
• Inclusion of input data pertaining to age, life expectancy, duration of disability fromofficial statistics: Calculation of disability-free life years lost (disability-adjusted life years,
DALYs).

3. Financing model for noise abatement measures
To ensure sustainable and effective protection of the population against noise, a reduction of thetotal noise level should be aimed for. Despite technical advances regarding the implementation ofnoise mitigation measures at source, noise mitigation at the propagation path (such as noise protection
walls and acoustic barriers) must still play a key role in planning when it comes to reducing the noise

5155

load. The latter will be effective for more than a single source, meaning that the costs need to be
distributed to the polluters according to a consistent distribution model. Until now, such procedures
and regulations for sharing the costs for noise abatement measures between different polluters havenot been provided for.
The distribution of cost to one or more originators of the total noise load must be achieved
transparently and without discrimination. Otherwise acceptance by the parties involved in theplanning process and affected persons cannot be expected. In particular, the following aspects must
be considered, which are essential for the distribution of costs:• Observation of polluter-pays principle (fairness of cost): Costs should be attributed to that
traffic authority benefiting from the measure in terms of their obligation to reduce the noiselevel.
• Commutativity (interchangeability): Cost distribution should not be affected by the orderin which the measures are implemented.
• Independence from a given effective date: Costs should not be dependent upon an arbitraryeffective date.
• Area independence: The exact selection of the boundaries of a designated area selected for
implementation of noise abatement measures should not influence the distribution of cost.
The present investigation presents existing approaches towards cost distribution and submits
further proposals. From the above, four financing models based on different approaches wereidentified and presented. These different models are:•Financing model "Contribution to existing noise": Cost is distributed on the basis of theenergetic contribution of a noise source towards the total noise load prior to theimplementation of the noise abatement measure (energetic percentage contribution of anoise source towards overall noise).

ͳͲ଴ǡଵൈ஺ൈ ͳͲͲ ൌ ܿ‫݊݅ܣ݊݋݅ݐݑܾ݅ݎݐ݊݋‬ΨሺͳͲ଴ǡଵൈ஺ ൅ ͳͲ଴ǡଵൈ஻ ሻ•‫ݐݏ݋ܥ‬஺ ൌ •(1)Financing model "Contribution to noise level reduction": Cost is distributed on the basisof the ratio between the reduction of the noise from a given source and the reduction of
total noise from all sources.
σ௜ ͳͲ଴ǡଵൈ൫௅ಲǡ೔ǡ೛ೝ೔೚ೝି௅ಲǡ೔ǡೞೠ್ೞ೐೜ೠ೐೙೟ ൯σ௜ ͳͲ଴ǡଵൈ൫௅ಲǡ೔ǡ೛ೝ೔೚ೝ ି௅ಲǡ೔ǡೞೠ್ೞ೐೜ೠ೐೙೟ ൯଴ǡଵൈ൫௅ಳǡ೔ǡ೛ೝ೔೚ೝ ି௅ಳǡ೔ǡೞೠ್ೞ೐೜ೠ೐೙೟ ൯൅ σ௜ ͳͲൈ ‫்ݐݏ݋ܥ‬௢௧

(2)

Financing model "Weighted contribution to noise level reduction": As in the case of thepreceding model, cost is distributed on the basis of the ratio between reduction of noisefrom a given source and the reduction of noise from all sources; however, the contributionof a given source is weighted with its contribution towards total noise load, whereby whilesources that do not contribute to total noise will not take a share of the cost.

‫ݐݏ݋ܥ‬஺ൌσ௜ ݃஺௜ ൈ ͳͲ଴Ǥଵൈ൫௅ಲǡ೔ǡ೛ೝ೔೚ೝ ି௅ಲǡ೔ǡೞೠ್ೞ೐೜ೠ೐೙೟ ൯σ௜ ݃஺௜ ൈ ͳͲ଴Ǥଵൈ൫௅ಲǡ೔ǡ೛ೝ೔೚ೝ ି௅ಲǡ೔ǡೞೠ್ೞ೐೜ೠ೐೙೟ ൯ ൅ σ௜ ݃஻௜ ൈ ͳͲ଴Ǥଵൈ൫௅ಳǡ೔ǡ೛ೝ೔೚ೝ ି௅ಳǡ೔ǡೞೠ್ೞ೐೜ೠ೐೙೟ ൯ൈ ‫்ݐݏ݋ܥ‬௢௧ ଵ

5156

݃ ൌ െ ଵ଴ ‫ כ‬ο‫ܮ‬௣௥௜௢௥ ൅ ͳ݃ൌͲfor ǻL ൑ 10for ǻL > 10

where

WeightingDifference between the assessment level of the total noiseg:ǻL prior :(3)

load and the assessment level of the traffic noise source
under consideration prior to the implementation of themeasures•

Financing model "Contribution to energetic load reduction": Cost is distributed on thebasis of the ratio between the reduction of an effect-related load index for a given source
and the reduction of this index related to overall noise.

‫ݐݏ݋ܥ‬௝ ൌ  ‫ݐݏ݋ܥ‬௧௢௧ ൈ ܹ‫ܫܤܧ‬௝ǡ௣௥௜௢௥ െ ܹ‫ܫܤܧ‬௝ǡ௦௨௕௦௘௤௨௘௡௧
ܹ‫ܫܤܧ‬௣௥௜௢௥ െ ܹ‫ܫܤܧ‬௦௨௕௦௘௤௨௘௡௧

(4)ூܹ‫ ܫܤܧ‬ൌ ෍ ܰ௜ ൈ ͳͲ଴ǡଵ௅ಲಶೄǡ೔ூୀଵwhere:

LAES,i:point iN i:

Effect-related substitution level to VDI 3722-2 for %HA at calculation
Number of affected persons at calculation point i

On the basis of methodological considerations and calculation examples, the four models arecompared using the criteria for a financing model listed above. The results of the comparison are
shown in the following table.
Table 1:Comparison of the different financing models

Financing model /"Contribution to"Contribution to"Weighted"Contribution toCriteria

existing noise"

noise level

contribution to noise

energetic load

reduction"level reduction"

reduction"

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No, except when

Limited decrease of

initial situation is

initial situation iscommutativity whenchosen equal forchosen equal for all

initial situation is

all noise

noise mitigation

chosen equal for all

mitigation

measuresnoise mitigation

Fairness of cost

No, within themeaning of noise
reduction

Commutativity

No, except whenmeasuresmeasures
Yes

Limited, as timing ofIndependence fromNo, as timing ofan effective dateinitial situation

initial situationinfluences cost

influences cost

distribution

distribution

Area independence

No

Yes

Yes

LimitedYes

As good practice, the financing model "Contribution to energetic load reduction" was chosen,
based on the renormalized substitute levels and effect-related substitution levels to VDI 3722-2
for %HA as characteristic quantity for load.

5157

A possible further development of this approach may consist in the inclusion of the summary effectindicator (Population-attributable risk PAR) shown before instead of the characteristic quantity %HA.
The respective calculation formula for the financing model would be as follows:ܲ‫ܴܣ‬௝ǡ௣௥௜௢௥ െ ܲ‫ܴܣ‬௝ǡ௦௨௕௦௘௤௨௘௡௧
(5)‫ݐݏ݋ܥ‬௝ ൌ  ‫்ݐݏ݋ܥ‬௢௧ ൈ ܲ‫ܴܣ‬௩௢௥௛௘௥ െ ܲ‫ܴܣ‬௦௨௕௦௘௤௨௘௡௧
withPARj : Population-attributable risk from source j; with prior = prior to the implementationof a measure, and subsequent = subsequent to the implementation of a measure
PAR: Population-attributable risk from total noise; where prior: prior to theimplementation of a measure and subsequent = subsequent to the implementation ofa measure

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The study was conducted on behalf of the German Federal Environmental Agency(Umweltbundesamt) in the framework of the “Ressortforschungsplan” of the German Federal Ministry
for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.

REFERENCES
1. Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 17. Mai 2013 (BGBl. I S.
1274), das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 8. April 2019 (BGBl. I S. 432) geändert worden ist
2. JANSSEN, S. A., VOS, H., EISSES, A. R. und PEDERSEN, E., 2011. A comparison between exposureresponse relationships for wind turbine annoyance and annoyance due to other noise sources. In: The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 130(6), 3746-3753. DOI: 10.1121/1.3653984
3. MIEDEMA, H.M.E. und VOS, H., 2004. Noise annoyance from stationary sources: relationships with
exposure metric day-evening-night level (DENL) and their confidence intervals. In: The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 116, 334-343
4. PROBST, W. und GILLÈ, M., 2014. Wirkung von Verkehrsgeräuschen. Erstellung einer Testaufgabe für
die Berechnung von Kenngrößen und Kennwerten beim Einwirken mehrerer Quellenarten nach VDI 3722
Blatt 2:2013-05. Bericht im Auftrag des DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. Backnang: Braunstein+ Berndt GmbH
5. SCHADE, L., 2014. Gesamtlärm und verursachergerechte Kostenverteilung bei der Lärmsanierung.
ALD-Veranstaltung „Gesamtlärm“, 22.09.2014, Berlin
6. TOBOLLIK, M., PLASS, D., STECKLING, N., MERTES, H., MYCK, T., ZIESE, T., WINTERMEYER,
D., HORNBERG, C., 2018. Umweltbedingte Krankheitslasten in Deutschland. In:
Bundesgesundheitsblatt, 61, 747–756
7. VAN KEMPEN, E.E.M.M., CASAS, M., PERSHAGEN, G. und FORASTER, M., 2017. Cardiovascularand metabolic effects of environmental noise. Systematic evidence review in the framework of thedevelopment of the WHO environmental noise guidelines for the European Region. Bilthoven (TheNetherlands): RIVM Report 2017-0078, doi: DOI 10.21945/RIVM-2017-0078
8. VAN KEMPEN, E.E.M.M., CASAS, M., PERSHAGEN, G. & FORASTER, M., 2018. WHO
Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noiseand Cardiovascular and Metabolic Effects: A Summary. In: International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 15, 379. DOI: doi:10.3390/ijerph15020379
9. VDI 3722-2, 2013. „Wirkung von Verkehrsgeräuschen – Kenngrößen beim Einwirken mehrerer
Quellenarten“, Mai 2013
10. World Health Organization (WHO), 2011. Burden of disease from environmental noise. Quantification ofhealthy life years lost in Europe. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe
11. World Health Organization (WHO), 2012. Methodological guidance for estimating the burden of disease
from environmental noise. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe
12. World Health Organization (WHO), 2017. WHO methods and data sources for global burden of disease
estimates 2000-2015. Geneva: WHO Department of Information, Evidence and Research
13. World Health Organization (WHO), 2018. Environmental noise guidelines for the European Region.
Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe
14. Umweltbundesamt “Modell zur Gesamtlärmbewertung”, Abschlussbericht, Forschungskennzahl 3715 55
1030, in preparation

5158