ES Vol 3 (Technical App)

966 

Fauch Hill Wind Farm 

Technical Appendix 9.6 

Candidate Turbine Specification 

Data

967 

Estimated Sound Power Level 

E-82 E3 

Page 

1 of 3 

Estimated 

Sound Power Level 

of the 

ENERCON E-82 E3 

Operational Mode I 

(Data Sheet) 

Imprint 

Publisher: 

Copyright: 

Content subject to 

change: 

ENERCON GmbH ▪ Dreekamp 5 ▪ 26605 Aurich ▪ Germany 

Phone: +49 4941 927-0 

Fax: +49 4941 927-109 

© ENERCON GmbH. Any reproduction, distribution and utilisation of this document as well as the 

communication of its contents to third parties without express authorisation is prohibited. Violators will 

be held liable for monetary damages. All rights reserved in the event of the grant of a patent, utility 

model or design. 

ENERCON GmbH reserves the right to change, improve and expand this document and the subject 

matter described herein at any time without prior notice. 

Revision 

Revision: 1.0 

Department: ENERCON GmbH / Site Assessment 

Glossary 

WEC 

WECs 

means an ENERCON wind energy converter. 

means more than one ENERCON wind energy converter. 

Document information: 

Author/Revisor/ date: 

Approved / date: 

Translator /date: 

Sch/ May 2010 

JSt/ May 2010 

© Copyright ENERCON GmbH. All rights reserved. 

Documentname SIAS-04-SPL E-82 E3 OM I 3MW Est Rev1_0-eng-eng.doc 

Revision /date: 

Rev 1.0 / May 2010

968 


E-82 E3 

Page 

2 of 3 

Estimated Sound Power Level for the E-82 E3 with 3 MW rated 

power 

in relation to standardized wind speed v S at 10 m height 

hub height 

V s 

in 10 m height 

85 m 98 m 108 m 

5 m/s 98.0 dB(A) 98.4 dB(A) 98.7 dB(A) 

6 m/s 102.0 dB(A) 102.4 dB(A) 102.7 dB(A) 

7 m/s 105.0 dB(A) 105.3 dB(A) 105.5 dB(A) 

8 m/s 106.0 dB(A) 106.0 dB(A) 106.0 dB(A) 

9 m/s 

10 m/s 

95% rated power 106.0 dB(A) 106.0 dB(A) 106.0 dB(A) 

in relation to wind speed at hub height 

wind speed at hub 

height [m/s] 

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 


[dB(A)] 

98.0 100.9 103.6 105.3 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106 

1. The relation between the estimated sound power level and the standardized wind speed v S in 

10 m height as shown above is valid on the premise of a logarithmic wind profile with a roughness 

length of 0.05 m. The relation between the estimated sound power level and the wind speed at 

hub height applies for all hub heights. During the sound measurements the wind speeds are 

derived from the power output and the power curve of the WEC. 

2. An estimated tonal audibility of ΔL a,k ≤ 2 dB can be expected over the whole operational range 

(valid in the near vicinity of the turbine according to IEC 61 400 -11 ed. 2). 

3. The estimated sound power level values given in the table are valid for the Operational Mode I. 

The respective power curve is the calculated power curve E-82 E3 dated November 2009 (Rev. 

2.x). 

4. Due to the typical measurement uncertainties, if the sound power level is measured according to 

one of the accepted methods the measured values can differ from the values shown in this 

document in the range of +/- 1 dB. 





Sch/ May 2010 

JSt/ May 2010 




Rev 1.0 / May 2010

969 


E-82 E3 

Page 

3 of 3 

Accepted measurement methods are: 

a) IEC 61400-11 ed. 2 („Wind turbine generator systems – Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement 

techniques; Second edition“), and 

b) the FGW-Guidelines („Technische Richtlinie für Windenergieanlagen – Teil 1: Bestimmung der 

Schallemissionswerte“, published by the association “Fördergesellschaft für Windenergie 

e.V.”, 18 th revision). 

If the difference between total noise and background noise during a measurement is less than 

6 dB a higher uncertainty must be considered. 

5. For noise-sensitive sites it is possible to operate the E-82 E3 with reduced rotational speed and 

reduced rated power during night time. The sound power levels resulting from such operational 

mode can be provided in a separate document upon request. 

6. The sound power level of a wind turbine depends on several factors such as but not limited to 

regular maintenance and day-to-day operation in compliance with the manufacturer’s operating 

instructions. Therefore, this data sheet can not, and is not intended to, constitute an express or 

implied warranty towards the customer that the E-82 E3 WEC will meet the exact sound power 

level values as shown in this document at any project specific site. 





Sch/ May 2010 

JSt/ May 2010 




Rev 1.0 / May 2010

970 

Müller-BBM GmbH 

Branch Office Gelsenkirchen 

Am Bugapark 1 

45899 Gelsenkirchen 

Germany 

Tel. +49 (209) 98308-0 

Fax +49 (209) 98308-11 

www.MuellerBBM.de 

Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Michael Köhl 

Tel. +49 (209) 98308-21 

Michael.Koehl@MuellerBBM.de 

2011-01-19 

M89 031/2 khl 

Sound emission measurement 

according to IEC 61400-11 

at a wind turbine of the type 


located in 26632 Ihlow/Simonswolde 

(Germany) 

Test Report No. M 89 031/2 

P:\khl\89\89031\M89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC : 19. 01. 2011 

Client: 

Acoustic consultants: 

Enercon GmbH 

Dreekamp 5 

26605 Aurich 


Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Marcus Paewinsky 

Date of the report: 19 January 2011 

Date of the tests: 24 August 2010 

Total number of pages: 

78 pages, thereof 

19 pages text, 

4 pages Appendix A 

14 pages Appendix B 

23 pages Appendix C 

4 pages Appendix D 

3 pages Appendix E and 

11 pages Appendix F 

Certified quality management system according to ISO 9001 

Müller-BBM GmbH 

Accredited testing laboratory according to ISO/IEC 17025 Branch Office Gelsenkirchen, HRB München 86143 

Managing directors: Horst Christian Gass 

Bernd Grözinger, Dr. Carl-Christian Hantschk 

Dr. Edwin Schorer, Norbert Suritsch

971 

Table of contents 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

Summary 4 

1 Task 5 

2 References 5 

3 Description of the wind turbine 6 

3.1 Surroundings of the investigated WT 6 

3.2 Technical data of the WT 6 

4 Execution of the measurements 7 

4.1 Time of the measurements 7 

4.2 Description of the measuring set-up 7 

4.3 Measuring equipment 8 

4.4 Measured parameters 9 

4.5 Execution of the measurements 9 

5 Evaluation and results regarding the sound emission of the WT 11 

5.1 Measurement of the wind speed 11 

5.1.1 Determination of the standardised wind speed from the measured 

electric power 11 

5.1.2 Determination of the standardised wind speed from the 

measurements with the anemometer 13 

5.2 Equivalent continuous sound pressure level during operation of the 

WT 13 

5.3 Equivalent continuous sound pressure level during standstill of the 

WT 14 

5.4 Equivalent continuous sound pressure levels with background noise 

correction 14 

5.5 Sound power level of the WT as a function of the standardised wind 

speed 14 

5.6 Sound power level of the WT 16 

5.7 Sound power level of the WT related to the normalized wind speed in 

hub height 16 

5.8 Tonal components of the WT noise 17 

5.9 Summarized results 17 

5.10 Remarks regarding computational accuracy and rounding 17

972 

6 Measuring uncertainty 18 

6.1 Influences on site 18 

6.2 Measuring uncertainty type A and B 18 

6.3 Total measuring uncertainty 18 

7 Apparent sound power level related to other hub heights 19 

Appendices 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

Layout plan and photos 

Documentation of measurement 

Results of the evaluation 

Calculated performance curve, performance curve used for 

the evaluation (linearized), certificate of the manufacturer 

Master sheet noise 

Apparent sound power level related to other hub heights 

(hub heights: 78 m, 85 m, 98 m, 108 m and 138 m) 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011

973 

Summary 

For the company Enercon GmbH, sound emission measurements at a wind turbine 

(WT) of the type ENERCON E-82 E3 with a hub height of 98 m were carried out in 

26632 Ihlow/Simonswolde, Germany. 

The sound emission measurements were carried out on 24 th August 2010 according 

to DIN EN 61400-11 (German version of IEC 61400-11) with the WT operated with a 

maximum electric power of 3000 kW and a maximum rotational speed from 6 rpm to 

18 rpm. 

Hereby a maximum sound power level of L WA = 105.4 dB(A) was determined in the 

standardised wind class of 10 m/s, which was calculated from the electrical power 

data of the WT. 

Due to the noise impression on site no tonal or impulsive noise emitted by the wind 

turbine components was audible. An evaluation of impulsivity therefore was not 

applied. But to verify the noise impression related to the tonality, an evaluation of 

tonality according to IEC 61400-11 in combination with DIN 45681 was performed. 

The results have shown that no tone adjustments K TN in the vicinity of the WT were 

necessary. 

For the uncertainty of the sound emission data, a value of U C = 0.8 dB was determined 

according to IEC 61400-11. 

Responsible for the technical content: 


Telephone: ++49(0)209 98308-21 

MÜLLER-BBM 

Accredited Test Laboratory 

according to ISO/IEC 17025 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

DAP-PL-2465.10

974 

1 Task 

For the company Enercon GmbH, sound emission measurements at a wind turbine 

(WT) of the type ENERCON E-82 E3 with a hub height of 98 m are to be performed 

in 26632 Ihlow/Simonswolde, Germany. 

The measuring set-up shall meet the requirements of DIN EN 61400-11 (German 

version of IEC 61400-11) with the WT operating with a maximum electric power of 

3000 kW and a maximum rotational speed up to 18 rpm. Figure A 1 in Appendix A 

shows a layout plan with the position of the WT. 

2 References 

[1] IEC TS 61400-11 Wind turbines. Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement 

techniques. November 2002. 

[2] IEC TS 61400-14 Wind turbines - Part 14: Declaration of apparent sound power 

level and tonality values. March 2005. 

[3] DIN EN 61400-11: Wind turbine generator systems – Part 11: Acoustic noise 

measurement techniques. March 2007. 

[4] DIN 45681: Determination of tonal components of noise and determination of a 

tone adjustment for the assessment of noise immissions. March 2005. 

[5] DIN EN 61672 - 1 (IEC 61672-1:2002): Sound level meters . Part 1: 

Specifications (IEC 61672-1:2002); German version EN 61672-1:2003. 

[6] DIN EN 60942 (IEC 60942:2003): Sound calibrators (IEC 60942:2003); 

German version EN 60942:2003. 

[7] DIN 1333: Presentation of numerical data. February 1992. 

[8] Fördergesellschaft Windenergie e.V: 

Technische Richtlinien für Windenergieanlagen (FGW-Richtlinie) , Teil 1: 

Bestimmung der Schallemissionswerte, Revision 18, Stand 01.02.2008. 

[9] Enercon GmbH: 

E-mails of the Site Assessment department with certificate of the manufacturer, 

performance curve for 3000 kW, extract from minute average values of the WT 

plant Enercon E-82 E3; Aurich, August and September 2010. 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011

975 

3 Description of the wind turbine 

3.1 Surroundings of the investigated WT 

The surroundings of the investigated WT are shown in the Figures A 2 to A 4 in 

Appendix A. 

As can be taken from the photos, the surroundings are characterized by agriculture. 

Within a large radius of the WT, the surrounding area is relatively even. 

3.2 Technical data of the WT 

The WT is a gearless machine, which is operated in partial load with variable speed 

and individual pitch control. The following specifications are valid: 

Manufacturer: 

Type: 

Enercon GmbH, Dreekamp 5, 26605 Aurich 


Serial No. : 82001 

Data of the WT: 

Rated power: 3000 kW, horizontal axis wind turbine 

Height of the rotor centre above the ground: H = 98 m 

Switch-on wind speed: 2.5 m/s 

Rated wind speed: 16 m/s 

Pitch power control, electric drive 

Tower material: concrete 

Rotor: 

Generator: 

Rotor diameter: D = 82 m 

Upwind turbine with active pitch control, in partial load operation with 

variable speed of 6 to 18 rpm 

Independent control system for each rotor blade 

Distance between rotor centre and tower centre line: 4.62 m 

E-82 E3 

Gear unit: 

The plant is designed without any gear unit. 

The short version of the manufacturer’s certificate is shown on figure D 3 in 

Appendix D. 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011

976 

4 Execution of the measurements 

4.1 Time of the measurements 

The measurements were carried out on 24 August 2010 between 03:50 p.m. and 

08:28 p.m.. 

4.2 Description of the measuring set-up 

According to [1], for the sound emission measurements the microphone was installed 

on a sound-reflecting board made of aluminium. The dimensions of the board are: 

Diameter 1.1 m, 

Thickness 3.0 mm. 

According to [1], the reference point must be on the lee side of the WT in an angle of 

± 15° with regard to the wind direction during the measurements. This position was 

observed (see Figure A 2 in Appendix A). 

The wind direction was controlled before any single measurement and the position of 

the measuring board was adjusted along the prepared distance-line, if necessary. 

The microphone was protected against wind-induced noise by means of two windscreens. 

For the first windscreen, one half of the original B&K foam ball with a diameter 

of 90 mm was used. The second windscreen was a set-up developed by Müller- 

BBM (see Figure A 4 in Appendix A). The frequency response of this screen had 

been checked in Müller-BBM’s reverberation chamber. It resulted from this test that a 

frequency response correction was required for the evaluated frequency range which 

was taken into account during the further evaluations. 

According to [1], the reference point for sound measurements must have a distance 

to the tower centreline of the WT of R O = H + D/2 (permissible tolerance: ± 20 %). For 

the hub height of H = 98,4 m and the rotor diameter of D = 82 m it follows that 

R O = 139,4 m. Thus, taking into consideration the tolerance, the reference point must 

be located at a distance of R O = 111,5 m up to R O = 167,3 m. With a distance of 

R O = 153,8 m between reference point and the tower centreline of the WT, the requirement 

stated in [1] was fulfilled. 

With a distance between tower centreline and centre of rotor of R T - R f = 4.62 m and 

the vertical height difference between reference point and tower foundation of 0 m, an 

inclination angle φ = 31.9° results. Thus, the requirement of 25°≤ φ ≤ 40° according to 

[1] was fulfilled. 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

According to [1], an anemometer has to be installed in headwind direction in front of 

the WT at a height of between 10 m and hub height. The distance to the rotor level 

must be between 2*D and 4*D. Due to the described procedures in [8] related to WT 

with higher hub heights it is acceptable to set up the mast closer to the WT.

977 

Because of a technical failure with the mast no data were recorded with the wind 

speed indicator and the wind direction indicator. Instead of that the meteorological 

data of the equipment of an adjacent met mast were collected. This met mast is 

erected in a distance of approx. 142 m south of the E-82 E3. On figure A 3 in Appendix 

A the met mast is depicted. 

The indicators on top of this met mast, in a height of 30 m above ground, are calibrated 

and therefore suitable for any further evaluation. 

4.3 Measuring equipment 

The measuring equipment used for the measurements on site and for the evaluation 

in the laboratory is listed in Table 1. 

Table 1. 

Equipment for measurement and evaluation 

Name Manufacturer Type Serial No. 

Precision sound analyser Brüel & Kjaer 2260 2131750 

Microphone Brüel & Kjaer 4189 2097077 

Calibrator Brüel & Kjaer 4231 1821239 

Windscreen, primary Brüel & Kjaer UA0237 - 

Windscreen, secondary Müller-BBM - - 

Anemometer 

Wind speed indicator 

Wind direction indicator 

Deutsche Windguard 

Deutsche Windguard 

TFC adv. 

TFC 

06101657 

0408408 

Weather station Conrad BAR 899 HG 1006147 

Barometer Brüel & Kjaer UZ003 - 

Thermometer - - - 

Notebook Dell Latitude E6400 - 

Mobile measuring system 

Measuring and evaluation 

software 

Müller-BBM Vibro- 

Akustik Systeme 

GmbH 

Müller-BBM Vibro- 

Akustik Systeme 

GmbH 

PAK-Mobil MKII - 

PAK Version 5.5 

Evaluation software Müller-BBM WEA_DaV Version 1.2f 

Laser range finder Leica LRF 1200 scan 1136324 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

The applied precision sound analyser, the accompanying microphone and the calibrator 

were calibrated and fulfill the requirements of class 1 according to DIN EN 61672 

[5] (precision sound analyser) respectively DIN EN 60942 [6] (calibrator). 

The acoustic measuring chain was calibrated before the measurements. 

The calibration was checked and confirmed after the measurements. All measuring 

and evaluation devices are checked regularly in our own calibration laboratory. They 

meet the requirements on measuring and evaluation equipment stated in [1].

978 

4.4 Measured parameters 

During the measurements, the following quantities were recorded and digitally saved 

by the PAK multi-channel measuring system as a function of time: 

• Sound pressure level at the reference point (parallel recording and saving by a 

calibrated sound analyser) 

• Wind speed and direction measured with the wind indicators of Müller-BBM 

• Wind speed recorded with the anemometer of the WT 

• Electric power P m and rotational speed measured at the WT 

In addition, the atmospheric pressure p and the air temperature T K at the beginning of 

each test series was taken from the weather station and documented. 

4.5 Execution of the measurements 

At the time of the measurements, the E-82 E3 was operated with a maximum electric 

power of 3000 kW. For this operational mode as well as for standstill of the WT, the 

following measuring times were realized: 

- WT in operation with a maximum electric power of 3000 kW: 95 minutes 

- WT during standstill, i.e. background noise measurements: 80 minutes 

The following Table 2 gives an overview of the test runs and the observed weather 

conditions during the measurements. The stated 10 s averages of the wind speed 

and wind direction were determined from the data recorded with the wind speed and 

wind direction indicators of the met mast in a height of 30 m. 

Table 2. 

Summary of the test runs considered in the evaluation, with accompanying 

weather conditions 

Test 

No. 

Operational 

mode of 

the WT 

Time 

Weather station 

Temperature 

in °C 

Atmospheric 

pressure 

in hPa 

Anemometer at a height of 30 m 

Wind direction in ° Wind speed in m/s 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Average 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Average 

M_01 

Standstill 

15:50 - 

16:20 

20 1003 -- -- -- 9 17 13 

M_03 

3000 kW 

16:33- 

16:41 

20 1003 -- -- -- 11 17 15 

M_04 

3000 kW 

17:05 - 

17:35 

20 1003 -- -- -- 8 18 13 

M_05 

3000 kW 

17:44 - 

17:58 

19 1003 219 273 251 7 18 12 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

M_06 

M_07 

M_08 

M_09 

3000 kW 

3000 kW 

Standstill 

Standstill 

18:05- 

18:21 

18:25- 

18:52 

19:44- 

20:14 

20:38- 

20:58 

18 1002 224 266 242 7 15 11 

16 1000 198 261 234 8 17 12 

15 1000 201 267 233 8 14 11 

13 1000 199 245 219 6 11 8

979 

The above-mentioned test runs are documented in detail in the Figures B 1 to B 13 in 

Appendix B. The time slices which were excluded from the evaluation because of 

disturbing background noise are marked with a grey shade. If required, further disturbing 

background noise was cut out in the laboratory during the evaluation. 

Enercon provided the operating data of the investigated WT for the day measurement 

with [9]. These data are shown in Figure C 21 in Appendix C. 

Table 3. 

Number of 10 s intervals recorded during the measurements, which were used for 

the evaluation 

Test No. 

Standardised wind class, m/s 

7 8 9 10 

WT in operation 

M_03 -- -- 2 6 

M_04 7 31 31 19 

M_05 11 3 17 16 

M_06 10 25 31 17 

M_07 6 18 51 31 

total 34 77 132 89 

Standstill of the WT 

M_01 -- 6 27 39 

M_08 22 59 50 26 

M_09 61 19 3 -- 

Total 83 84 80 65 

According to [1], measuring data for each wind speed class with a total measuring 

time of 180 s should be determined for the evaluation. 

As shown in the above Table 3, during the measurements with the WT in operation 

as well as the measurements while the WT was in standstill, a sufficient number of 

10 s averages according to [1] was determined in the wind classes 7 m/s to 10 m/s. 

In the wind classes 6 m/s an insufficient number of 10 s averages was determined 

and therefore these values are not shown in Table 3. 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011

980 

5 Evaluation and results regarding the sound emission of the WT 

The most important target of the evaluation is to describe the sound emission of the 

WT as a function of wind speed. According to IEC 61400-11 [1], the so-called 

“standardised wind speed V S ” should be used as a reference value. This is the wind 

speed converted to reference conditions (at a height of 10 m and a roughness length 

of 0.05 m) assuming a logarithmic wind profile. 

According to [1], the measured wind speed range can be divided into wind classes 

with a width of 1 m/s. These wind classes have to be arranged symmetrically and not 

overlapping to integer values of wind speed. 

The first step in the evaluation consists in determining this standardised wind speed, 

which can then be correlated with the other measuring data. 

5.1 Measurement of the wind speed 

According to [1], the wind speed should be determined either 

1. from the generated power output and the performance curve of the WT or 

2. from the measurement with an anemometer. 

Method 1 is obligatory for measurements within the scope of a certification or declaration 

of sound emission values. 

For background noise measurements during standstill of the WT, the wind speed is 

determined from values measured by means of the anemometer at a height of 12 m. 

In the following chapters, both methods are described. 

5.1.1 Determination of the standardised wind speed from the measured electric 

power 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

The standardised wind speed V S during operation of the WT is determined according 

to the method described as preferable according to [1] from the measured electric 

power of the WT and the performance curve of the WT. The performance curve of the 

WT illustrates the relation of the wind speed V Z at the height of the rotor centre and 

the electric power P n generated by the WT for atmospheric standard conditions of 

15°C and 101.3 kPa. The power curve was submitted by the manufacturer Enercon in 

[9]. It is a calculated power output curve and is shown in the form of a diagram and a 

table in Figure D 1 in Appendix D. For further evaluation, the power curve is approximated 

by a linearization of the individual data points. This linearization is shown in 

Figure D 2 in Appendix D. 

As the investigated WT has an active pitch control, no correction of the measured 

electric power P m to the atmospheric standard conditions is required for the evaluation. 

Instead, according to [1] the measured power is used for the standardised electric 

power: 

P n = P m (1)

981 

For systems with active pitch control, the wind speed V D determined from the performance 

curve must be corrected to the standard climatic conditions according to 

equation (4) from [1]. 

V H 

V D 

T ref 

T k 

p 

p ref 

1 

3 

⎛ p ⎞ 

ref 

⋅Tk 

V = ⋅ 

⎜ 

⎟ 

H 

VD 

in m/s (2) 

⎝ p ⋅Tref 

⎠ 

corrected wind speed in hub height in m/s 

wind speed derived from performance curve in m/s 

= 288 K, temperature at standard conditions 

measured temperature in K 

measured atmospheric pressure in kPa 

= 101.3 kPa, atmospheric pressure at standard conditions 

With the weather data from the measurements, the following equation results: 

V H = V D ⋅ 1,001 (for T min ) und V H = V D ⋅ 1,009 (for T max ) 

According to [1], the wind speed V Z in hub height, which results from the performance 

curve for P n , can be converted to the standardised wind speed V S by applying the 

following equation: 

V 

S 

= V 

Z 

⎡ ⎛ z 

⋅⎢ln 

⎜ 

⎢⎣ 

⎝ z0 

ref 

ref 

⎞ ⎛ 

⎟⋅ln 

⎜ 

⎠ ⎝ 

H 

z 

O 

⎞⎤ 

⎡ ⎛ 

⎟⎥: 

⎢ln 

⎜ 

⎠⎥⎦ 

⎢⎣ 

⎝ 

H 

z 

0ref 

⎞ ⎛ 

⎟⋅ln 

⎜ 

⎠ ⎝ 

z 

z 

O 

⎞⎤ 

⎟⎥ 

⎠⎥⎦ 

in m/s (3) 

V S 

standardised wind speed at a height of 10 m 

V Z 

wind speed in hub height; in this case, the wind speed at hub height V H 

derived from the power curve and corrected to standard conditions 

z 

ref 

reference height of 10 m 

z 0 ref 

reference roughness length of 0.05 m 

H 

z 

z 

0 

hub height, in this case H = 98,4 m above the ground 

height of the anemometer, here z = H 

roughness length at the measuring position, here z 0 = 0.05 m 

For the existing geometry of the WT, the following equation results: 

V S = V z ⋅ 0.699 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

In all, the conversion of V D via V H to V S results in the following equation: 

V S = V D ⋅ 0,699 (for T min ) und V S = V D ⋅ 0,705 (for T max ) 

Using the conversion factors for the standardised wind speed and standardised 

power, a polynomial results, which describes the connection between measured 

electric power P m and the standardised wind speed V S . 

The corresponding corrections were considered in the evaluation.

982 

5.1.2 Determination of the standardised wind speed from the measurements 

with the anemometer 

According to [1], for the determination of the wind speed during the background noise 

measurements and perhaps in some cases for the WT noise measurements, the 

results of the wind speed measurements with the anemometer of Müller-BBM should 

be used. 

Corresponding to the method described in section 6.1.1, the wind speed data V z recorded 

with the equipment on top of the adjacent met mast (z = 30.0 m above the 

ground) should be converted to the standardised wind speed V S according to equation 

(3). 

V S = V Z ⋅ 0,828 

5.2 Equivalent continuous sound pressure level during operation of the WT 

Based on [1], the noise behaviour of a WT during emission measurements should be 

recorded and documented for the standardised wind speeds between 6 m/s and 

10 m/s. 

These standardised wind speeds are derived from the generated power by means of 

the power curve. In the present case, the rated power is 3000 kW. 

According to [1], if 95 % of the rated power is obtained below the standardised wind 

class of 10 m/s, the measured values above 95 % of the rated power have to be 

corrected with the so-called nacelle anemometer. In this method, for all measuring 

data between 5 % and 95 % of the rated power of the WT, a linear regression between 

the wind speed V n recorded with the nacelle anemometer and the wind speed 

in hub height V H - determined from the electric power of the WT - is carried out. With 

the determined regression, the data of the nacelle anemometer, which are above 

95 % of the rated power, are corrected. 

The data pairs of the wind speed V H determined from the electric power of the WT 

and the wind speed V n recorded with the nacelle anemometer, which are used for 

calculating the regression, are shown in Figure C 1 in Appendix C. 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

Figure C 2 Appendix C gives an overview of the measured data used for the evaluation 

of the investigated WT. In the diagram showing the determined sound pressure 

levels depending on the standardised wind speed (at the bottom on the left in Figure 

C 2), those sound pressure levels are shown, which were measured directly and 

averaged over a period of 10 seconds. 10 seconds averages were used instead of 1 

minute averages to maximise the precision and it is consistent with the procedures 

described in [8]. All measuring data shown in the diagram were used for calculating 

the regression. 

Table 4 on page 15 shows the relation between the standardised wind speed and the 

electric power of the WT, which was determined from the measurements.

983 

The results listed in Table 4 show that on the two days of measurements during normal 

operation of the WT, an electric power of approx. 2750 kW was achieved in the 

standardised wind class of 10 m/s. 95 % of the rated power of the WT (i.e. 2850 kW) 

are achieved for a standardised wind speed of approx. 10.5 m/s. 

5.3 Equivalent continuous sound pressure level during standstill of the WT 

During standstill of the WT, the standardised wind speed is determined from measurements 

with the anemometer of Müller-BBM. Apart from that, the evaluation for standstill 

of the WT is carried out in the same way as for operation of the WT. Table 4 on 

page 15 shows the results of the evaluation for standstill of the WT. They describe the 

wind-induced background noise and the disturbing noise at the reference position, 

which could not be suppressed. 

5.4 Equivalent continuous sound pressure levels with background noise correction 

In order to determine the sound pressure levels caused only by the WT, according to 

section 8.2 of [1] the measuring results during operation of the WT have to be corrected 

with the measuring results during standstill. 

This background noise correction results in values L S for the energy-equivalent continuous 

sound pressure levels caused only by the WT at the reference position. 

If the equivalent continuous sound pressure levels of the background noise L n during 

the measurements are by more than 6 dB below the levels L S+n (noise of the WT including 

background noise), the background noise correction is made according to 

equation (8) from [1]. For these measurements, this applies to the wind classes 7 m/s 

to 10 m/s. Within that correction a κ -factor of 1,0 – which is used for the correction of 

the measured wind speed - was applied. 

Table 4 shows the corresponding values. 

5.5 Sound power level of the WT as a function of the standardised wind speed 

According to [1], the sound power level L WA,k of the WT is calculated from the sound 

pressure level at the reference position with background noise correction L Aeq,c,k 

according to the following equation: 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

2 

⎛ 4 π R ⎞ 

1 

L WA,k = L Aeq,c,k - 6 + 10 lg 

⎜ 

⎟ in dB(A) (4) 

⎝ S0 

⎠ 

L Aeq,c,k A-weighted sound pressure level measured at reference conditions and 

with background noise correction for integer wind speed values; according 

to [1], this value corresponds to L S in Table 4. 

R 1 

diagonal distance between rotor centre and microphone; 

R 1 consists of the distance between rotor centre and tower centreline, 

the distance between tower centreline and reference position and the 

vertical distance between the reference position and the rotor flange 

centre 

S 0 reference area S 0 = 1 m 2

984 

With the following dimensions/heights 

• vertical distance between reference position and WT foundation: 0,0 m 

• distance between rotor centre and the tower centreline: 4.62 m 

• horizontal distance between microphone and the tower- outer face : 150.0 m 

• diameter of the tower base: 7.5 m 

• hub height: 98.4 m 

for the diagonal distance between rotor centre and microphone a value of 

R 1 = 186.4 m 

results, and for the relation between L WA and L Aeq,c,k the following equation: 

L WA = L Aeq,c,k + 50.4 dB(A) 

Thus, for operation of the WT, the sound power levels L WA,k listed in Table 4 can be 

calculated. 

Table 4. 

Evaluation in summary 

Wind 

class 

V s in 

m/s 

Standard 

-ised 

power P n 

in kW 

Rotational 

speed 

[rpm] 

WT and 

background 

noise (L S+n ) 

L Aeq in dB(A) 

Background 

noise 

(L n ) L Aeq 

in dB(A) 

Power curve: 3000 kW (mode 1) 

Corrected 

level (L S ) 

L Aeq,c, k 

in dB(A) 

Apparent 

Soundpower 

level 

L WA,k 

in dB(A) 

7 1586,2 16,0 ** 54,3 39,7 54,1 104,5 

8 2035,2 16,4 ** 54,4 42,5 54,1 104,5 

9 2447,0 16,8 ** 54,9 45,4 54,4 104,8 

10 2747,0 17,2 ** 55,8 48,2 55,0 105,4 

10,5 * 2850,0 17,3 ** 55,9 49,6 54,7 105,1 

* Wind speed at 95 % rated power 

** derived from the recorded data 

The data listed in Table 4 were determined from the regression analyses required 

according to [1], i.e.: 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

- fourth-degree regression for the WT noise 

- linear regression for background noise 

The individual data points and the calculated regression analyses are shown in 

Figure C 3 in Appendix C. The sound pressure levels determined at more than 95 % 

of the rated power are marked in the figure, as required according to [1].

985 

5.6 Sound power level of the WT 

As already described in section 5.2, the noise behaviour of a WT shall be determined 

by means of sound emission measurements in the range of the standardised wind 

speeds between 6 m/s and 10 m/s. 

In the present case, sound power levels at the investigated WT could be determined 

in the wind classes of 7 m/s to 10 m/s. 

Figures C 5 to C 8 in Appendix C show the corresponding sound power level spectra 

in 1/3 octave bandwidth for the standardised wind classes 7 m/s to 10 m/s. The 

sound power levels in 1/3 octave and octave bandwidth are stated in a table beside 

the 1/3 octave spectrum. 

Based on these measurements and evaluations, a maximum sound power level for 

the investigated WT of 

results. 

L WA = 105.4 dB(A) 

5.7 Sound power level of the WT related to the normalized wind speed in hub 

height 

In table 5 are listed the sound power levels related to the wind speed V H in hub height 

based on the results in table 4. The data used for the calculation of the sound power 

level are depicted in figure C 4 in Appendix C. 

Table 5. Sound power level of the WT related to the normalized wind speed in hub height 

and 10 m height 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

Wind speed in hub 

height V H 

in m/s 

Wind speed in 10 m 

height V S * 

in m/s 

Sound power level 

L WA,k 

in dB(A) 

10,0 7,0 104,4 

10,5 7,3 104,5 

11,0 7,7 104,5 

11,5 8,0 104,4 

12,0 8,4 104,5 

12,5 8,7 104,5 

13,0 9,1 104,7 

13,5 9,4 104,9 

14,0 9,8 105,1 

14,5 10,1 105,1 

15,0 10,5 104,8 

(*) The wind speed in 10 m height is derived by the division of the values of V H with the 

divisor ≈ 0,7 (see section 5.1.1).

986 

5.8 Tonal components of the WT noise 

According to [1] and [3], for the determination of tonal components 12 narrowband 

spectra have to be evaluated for a period of 10 seconds each. From these 12 spectra, 

the tone adjustment is determined as the average of the single values. 

The evaluated spectra are shown in Figures C 9 to C 14 in Appendix C. Owing to the 

measuring data at hand, the evaluation of tonal components according to [1] in combination 

with [4] was carried out for the wind classes 7 to 10 m/s. Figures C 17 to C 20 

in Appendix C show the comprehensive evaluation for each wind class. 

Finally no tone adjustments K TN in the vicinity of the WT were determined. 

5.9 Summarized results 

The following Table 5 shows the summarized results of the evaluation. 

Table 6. Apparent sound power levels and Tone adjustment 

Wind 

class V s 

in m/s 

Power 

P n in kW 

Sound power level 

L WA in dB(A) 

Tone adjustment 

K TN in dB 

7 1586,2 104,5 0 

8 2035,2 104,5 0 

9 2447,0 104,8 0 

10 2747,0 105,4 0 

Thus, the apparent maximum sound power level of the WT at a standardised wind 

speed of 10 m/s is 

L WA = 105.4 dB(A). 

The summarized results are also listed in the master sheet “noise” in the appendix E. 

5.10 Remarks regarding computational accuracy and rounding 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

In this test report, all final results for level data are stated rounded to one position 

after the decimal point, taking into consideration the rounding regulations stated in 

DIN 1333, sheet 2 (February 1992). However, the calculations are performed by 

using all positions after the decimal point. Thus, it is guaranteed that no additional 

mistakes will occur by rounding.

987 

6 Measuring uncertainty 

6.1 Influences on site 

The influences on site on the noise measurements in the area of the base plate are 

estimated to be “very low” owing to the direct influence of the WT and owing to the 

distance to the nearest vegetation. 

6.2 Measuring uncertainty type A and B 

According to Annex D of [1] in combination with [8], the measuring uncertainty for the 

sound power level of the WT depending on the wind speed is calculated as follows: 

- Measuring uncertainty U A,s for the measured values L Aeq during operation of the 

WT was estimated to 0,2 dB. 

- For the measuring uncertainties U B1 to U B9 the typical values stated in Table D.1 

in [1] are applied: 

• calibration 

• measuring device 

• sound-reflecting board 

• measuring distance 

• impedance 

• turbulence 

U B1 = 0.2 dB 

U B2 = 0.2 dB 

U B3 = 0.3 dB 

U B4 = 0.1 dB 

U B5 = 0.1 dB 

U B6 = 0.4 dB 

• wind speed U B7 = 0.2 dB (calculated from the power output 

of the WT) 

• direction 

U B8 = 0.3 dB 

• background noise U B9 = 0.3 dB (see Table 4) 

6.3 Total measuring uncertainty 

For the combined total measuring uncertainty U c , according to [1] the following equation 

is valid: 

2 2 2 

U 

C 

= U 

A 

+ UB1 

+ UB2 

+ ... + UB 

2 

9 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

Thus, for the total sound power level L WA a total measuring uncertainty of U C = 0.8 dB 

results.

988 

7 Apparent sound power level related to other hub heights 

The determined apparent sound power levels of the investigated wind turbine can be 

converted to another hub height for a wind turbine of the same type. A method for 

calculating the corresponding values for different hub heights is described in [2] as 

well as in [8]. For this purpose the functional relation between the sound pressure 

levels and the wind speed value at 10 m, in fact the regression coefficients, is used 

(compare Figure C 3 in Appendix C). 

The results of the aforementioned conversion of the determined apparent sound 

power levels to other hub heights are listed in table 7. 

Tabelle 7. Apparent sound power levels related to other hub heights 

hub height 

L WA,P 

wind speed V 10, ref 

6 m/s 7 m/s 8 m/s 9 m/s 10 m/s v 10,ref,95% L WA,P,95% Pnenn 

78 m L WA,P -- 104,5 dB(A) 104,5 dB(A) 104,7 dB(A) 105,3 dB(A) 10,8 m/s -- 

85 m L WA,P -- 104,5 dB(A) 104,5 dB(A) 104,7 dB(A) 105,3 dB(A) 10,7 m/s -- 

98 m L WA,P -- 104,5 dB(A) 104,5 dB(A) 104,8 dB(A) 105,4 dB(A) 10,5 m/s 105,1 dB(A) 

108 m L WA,P -- 104,5 dB(A) 104,5 dB(A) 104,9 dB(A) 105,4 dB(A) 10,4 m/s 105,1 dB(A) 

138 m L WA,P -- 104,5 dB(A) 104,5 dB(A) 105,1 dB(A) 105,4 dB(A) * 10,0 m/s 105,4 dB(A) 

(*) wind speed value at 10 m corresponding to 95 % of rated power 

The extracts with the values for the different hub heights are pictured in Appendix F. 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011

989 

Appendix A 

Layout plan and photos 

P:\khl\89\89031\M89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

M89 031/2 khl 

2011-01-19 

Appendix A Page 1

990 

reference point 

anemometer 

Wind direction: 

westsouthwest 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

Figure A 1. Layout of the windfarm and the measuring positions at the WT (plan not true to 

scale)

991 

Figure A 2. View from the measuring board to the WT 

met mast 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

Figure A 3. View to the met mast

992 

Windscreen and measuring board 

Figure A 4. microphone (inside the secondary windscreen) 

with surroundings (grass) 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011

993 

Appendix B 

Documentation of the measurements 

P:\khl\89\89031\M89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

M89 031/2 khl 

2011-01-19 

Appendix B Page 1

994 

VV2 

5.0 

measurement m_01_p 24.08.2010 15:50:58 h 

background noise (marked) 

dB(A) 

sound pressure level reference position 

M89031 Simonswolde designation: 82001 

ENERCON E-82 E3 operation state: Standstill 

4.5 

60 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

50 

2.5 

2.0 

1.6 

1.8 

1.7 

min: 

max: 

average 

9.2 

16.5 

12.8 : 

s 

40 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

wind direction Müller-BBM anemometer 

360 degree 

270 

180 

90 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

20 m/s wind speed WT 

wind speed Müller-BBM anemometer 

15 

2.5 

21.1 

10.1 

min: 

max: 

average: 

10 

5 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

1/min 

40 4000 kW 

power output WT rotational speed 

30 

3000 

20 

2000 

10 

1000 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

s 

0 0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

Figure B 1. Relevant measuring data of the measurement m_01

995 

VV2 

5.0 



dB(A) 



ENERCON E-82 E3 operation state: 3000 kW 

4.5 

60 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

50 

2.5 

2.0 

-2.2 

2.7 

2.5 

min: 

max: 

average 

10.9 

17.1 

14.6 : 

s 

40 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


360 degree 

270 

180 

90 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 



15 

3.6 

18.3 

14.7 

min: 

max: 

average: 

10 

5 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

1/min 

40 4000 kW 


30 

3000 

20 

2000 

10 

1000 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

s 

0 0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


996 

measurement m_03_p 24.08.2010 16:33:23 Uhr M89031 Simonswolde designation: 82001 



VV2 dB(A) 

5.0 

sound pressure reference position 

4.5 

60 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

50 

2.5 

2.0 

s 

40 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

2.5k 

2k 

1.6k 

1.25k 

1k 

800 

630 

500 

400 

315 

250 

200 

160 

125 

100 

80 

63 

Hz 


dB(A) 

45 

50 

40 

20 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 s 

1/min 

power output WT 

40 4000 kW 

rotional speed 

40 

35 

30 

25 

30 

3000 

20 

2000 

10 

1000 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

s 

0 0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

Figure B 3. Relevant measuring data and Campbell-Plot of the measurement m_03

997 

VV2 

5.0 



dB(A) 




4.5 

60 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

50 

2.5 

2.0 

2.7 

2.7 

2.7 

min: 

max: 

average 

8.3 

17.6 

12.5 : 

s 

40 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


360 degree 

270 

180 

90 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 



15 

8.1 

18.6 

13.5 

min: 

max: 

average: 

10 

5 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

1/min 

40 4000 kW 


30 

3000 

20 

2000 

10 

1000 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

s 

0 0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


998 




VV2 dB(A) 

5.0 


4.5 

60 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

50 

2.5 

2.0 

s 

40 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

2.5k 

2k 

1.6k 

1.25k 

1k 

800 

630 

500 

400 

315 

250 

200 

160 

125 

100 

80 

63 

Hz 


dB(A) 

45 

50 

40 

20 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 s 

1/min 


40 4000 kW 


40 

35 

30 

25 

30 

3000 

20 

2000 

10 

1000 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

s 

0 0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


999 

VV2 

5.0 



dB(A) 




4.5 

60 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

50 

2.5 

2.0 

219.2 

272.7 

250.5 

min: 

max: 

average 

7.3 

18.0 

12.4 : 

s 

40 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


360 degree 

270 

180 

90 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 



15 

8.1 

21.1 

14.3 

min: 

max: 

average: 

10 

5 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

1/min 

40 4000 kW 


30 

3000 

20 

2000 

10 

1000 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

s 

0 0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


1000 




VV2 dB(A) 

5.0 


4.5 

60 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

50 

2.5 

2.0 

s 

40 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

2.5k 

2k 

1.6k 

1.25k 

1k 

800 

630 

500 

400 

315 

250 

200 

160 

125 

100 

80 

63 

Hz 


dB(A) 

45 

50 

40 

20 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 s 

1/min 


40 4000 kW 


40 

35 

30 

25 

30 

3000 

20 

2000 

10 

1000 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

s 

0 0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


1001 

VV2 

5.0 



dB(A) 




4.5 

60 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

50 

2.5 

2.0 

223.6 

266.3 

242.3 

min: 

max: 

average 

7.2 

14.9 

11.0 : 

s 

40 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


360 degree 

270 

180 

90 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 



15 

8.3 

17.1 

12.5 

min: 

max: 

average: 

10 

5 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

1/min 

40 4000 kW 


30 

3000 

20 

2000 

10 

1000 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

s 

0 0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


1002 




VV2 dB(A) 

5.0 


4.5 

60 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

50 

2.5 

2.0 

s 

40 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

2.5k 

2k 

1.6k 

1.25k 

1k 

800 

630 

500 

400 

315 

250 

200 

160 

125 

100 

80 

63 

Hz 


dB(A) 

45 

50 

40 

20 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 s 

1/min 


40 4000 kW 


40 

35 

30 

25 

30 

3000 

20 

2000 

10 

1000 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

s 

0 0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


1003 

VV2 

5.0 



dB(A) 




4.5 

60 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

50 

2.5 

2.0 

198.0 

260.6 

233.6 

min: 

max: 

average 

7.9 

17.1 

11.6 : 

s 

40 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


360 degree 

270 

180 

90 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 



15 

8.8 

19.2 

13.5 

min: 

max: 

average: 

10 

5 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

1/min 

40 4000 kW 


30 

3000 

20 

2000 

10 

1000 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

s 

0 0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


1004 




VV2 dB(A) 

5.0 


4.5 

60 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

50 

2.5 

2.0 

s 

40 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

2.5k 

2k 

1.6k 

1.25k 

1k 

800 

630 

500 

400 

315 

250 

200 

160 

125 

100 

80 

63 

Hz 


dB(A) 

45 

50 

40 

20 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 s 

1/min 


40 4000 kW 


40 

35 

30 

25 

30 

3000 

20 

2000 

10 

1000 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

s 

0 0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


1005 

VV2 

5.0 



dB(A) 




4.5 

60 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

50 

2.5 

2.0 

200.9 

267.1 

233.0 

min: 

max: 

average 

8.1 

14.1 

10.5 : 

s 

40 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


360 degree 

270 

180 

90 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 



15 

1.8 

17.1 

7.8 

min: 

max: 

average: 

10 

5 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

1/min 

40 4000 kW 


30 

3000 

20 

2000 

10 

1000 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

s 

0 0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


1006 

VV2 

5.0 



dB(A) 




4.5 

60 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

50 

2.5 

2.0 

198.5 

244.8 

218.8 

min: 

max: 

average 

6.0 

11.2 

8.4 : 

s 

40 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


360 degree 

270 

180 

90 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 



15 

1.7 

13.8 

6.8 

min: 

max: 

average: 

10 

5 

s 

0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 

1/min 

40 4000 kW 


30 

3000 

20 

2000 

10 

1000 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

s 

0 0 

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 


1007 

Appendix C 

Results of the evaluation 

P:\khl\89\89031\M89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

M89 031/2 khl 

2011-01-19 

Appendix C Page 1

1008 

WT-type: ENERCON E-82 E3 designation: 82001 

WT-location: Simonswolde 

measuring date: 24.08.2010 

operation state: 3000 kW 

data points for determination of regression between VH and Vn (nacelle anemometer method) 

VH [m/s] 

20 

15 

10 

5 

9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

0 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 

Vn [m/s] 

Figure C 1. Pair of variates to determine the regression between VH and Vn

1009 

9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

M89031 WT-type: ENERCON E-82 E3 Serial No.: 82001 

WEA_DaV data base (parameters): 

Operation mode: 3000 kW Micropos: Ro 

WT derived from power ouput data, background noise according to VZ,10-second-average 

s 

measuring intervall Hz 

1/3 octave spectra total noise 

dB(A) 

50 

1/10 windclass 

1200 

6.3k 

1/1 windclass 

900 

4k 

2.5k 

45 

600 

1.6k 

300 

1k 

0 

6 7 8 9 10 

630 

40 

dB(A) 

sound pressure level 

400 

35 

total noise 

250 

regression 

160 

60 

measurement 

avg 1/10 wc 

100 

30 

avg 1/1 wc 

63 

40 

25 

6 7 8 9 10 

Hz 

1/3 octave spectra background noise 

dB(A) 

50 

6.3k 

50 

4k 

background noise 

regression 2.5k 

45 

measurement 1.6k 

avg 1/10 wc 

avg 1/1 wc 1k 

40 

630 

40 

400 

35 

250 

30 

6 7 8 9 10 

standardised windclass in 

160 

100 

63 

40 

6 7 8 9 10 

standardised windclass in m/s 

Figure C 2. Summary of the data used for the evaluation for WT at the reference point, average values and regressions 

30 

25

1010 

WT-type: ENERCON E-82 E3 designation: 82001 


date of measurement: 24.08.2010 

operation state: Enercon E-82 E3 

9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

equivalent continuous sound pressure level LAeq in dB(A) 

10-seconds-average 

70 

60 

50 

40 

evaluated sound pressure level at the reference position and calculated regressions 

total noise: 

data points up to 95 % rated power 

data points over 95 % rated power (corrected) 

regression WT noise 

background noise: 

data points background noise 

regression 

regression coefficients: A 0 A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 

(x 0 ) (x 1 ) (x 2 ) (x 3 ) (x 4 ) 

total noise L S+n -262,22651 154,63493 -28,131348 2,2522682 -0,06677678 

background noise L n 19,602273 2,8288279 

background noise, kappa-corrected L n 19,602273 2,8288279 

30 

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

standardised wind speed v10 in m/s 

Figure C 3. Correlation between the sound pressure level and the standardised wind speed for the reference point and calculated regressions

1011 

WT-type: Enercon E-82 E3 

Measurement at WT 1 (Serial number: 82001) in 26632 Ihlow/Simonswolde, Germany 

date: 24.08.2010; rated power: 3.000 kW 

Evaluated sound pressure levels at the reference position and calculated regressions 

75 

equivalent sound pressure level L Aeq in dB(A), 

10 seconds average 

70 

65 

60 

55 

50 

45 

40 

values up to 95 % rated power 

values over 95 % rated power 

values background noise 

Polynomisch (values up to 95 % rated power) 

Linear (values background noise) 

9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

35 

regression coefficients: A 0 A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 

(x 0 ) (x 1 ) (x 2 ) (x 3 ) (x 4 ) 

total noise L S+n -334,665035 131,021173 -16,4472166 0,9097728 -0,0186668 

30 

background noise, kappa-corrected L n 20,7298216 1,9490448 

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 

standardised wind speed V H in m/s 

Figure C 4. Correlation between the sound pressure level and the standardised wind speed for the reference point and calculated regressions

1012 

WT-type: ENERCON E-82 E3 Serial No.: 82001 

WT-location: Simonswolde operation mode: 3000 kW 


110 

100 

sound power level at the integer windclass 7 m/s 

Sum (A) 

1/3 octave 

frequency 

(Hz) 

octave 

frequency 

(Hz) 

1/3 octave 

band level 

dB(A) 

octave 

band level 

dB(A) 

9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

A-weighted sound power level in dB re 10 pW 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k 

frequency, Hz 

sound power level: 104.5 dB(A) 

89031_20100824 m_07_p 

50 77,9 

63 63 82,3 

80 86,1 

100 88,6 

125 125 90,2 

160 91 

200 93,6 

250 250 95,4 

315 95,6 

400 93,3 

500 500 94,2 

630 94,4 

800 92,7 

1k 1k 91,8 

1,25k 90,4 

1,6k 91,1 

2k 2k 89,3 

2,5k 86,3 

3,15k 85,3 

4k 4k 82,7 

5k 80,5 

6,3k 74,8 

8k 8k 76,5 

10k 73,4 

Figure C 5. Sound power level for the wind class 7 m/s in third-octave bandwidth (diagram and table) and 

in octave bandwidth (table) 

88,1 

94,8 

99,7 

98,8 

96,5 

94,1 

88,0 

79,9

1013 




110 


Sum (A) 

1/3 octave 

frequency 

(Hz) 

octave 

frequency 

(Hz) 

1/3 octave 

band level 

dB(A) 

octave 

band level 

dB(A) 

100 

9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k 

frequency, Hz 


89031_20100824 m_07_p 

50 79,9 

63 63 83,7 

80 86,8 

100 89,1 

125 125 89,5 

160 92,9 

200 95,3 

250 250 96 

315 94,1 

400 95,2 

500 500 95,2 

630 92,9 

800 91,2 

1k 1k 89,4 

1,25k 90,3 

1,6k 88,6 

2k 2k 86 

2,5k 84,5 

3,15k 81,8 

4k 4k 77,7 

5k 74,1 

6,3k 78,2 

8k 8k 63,4 

10k 63,6 



89,1 

95,6 

100,0 

99,3 

95,1 

91,5 

83,7 

78,5

1014 




110 

100 


Sum (A) 

1/3 octave 

frequency 

(Hz) 

octave 

frequency 

(Hz) 

1/3 octave 

band level 

dB(A) 

octave 

band level 

dB(A) 

9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k 

frequency, Hz 


89031_20100824 m_07_p 

50 75,5 

63 63 79,1 

80 82,5 

100 85,7 

125 125 89,2 

160 88,6 

200 92,3 

250 250 95 

315 96 

400 94,5 

500 500 95,7 

630 96,1 

800 93,8 

1k 1k 91,7 

1,25k 89,7 

1,6k 90,5 

2k 2k 89,2 

2,5k 88,8 

3,15k 86,3 

4k 4k 83,9 

5k 79,4 

6,3k 76,2 

8k 8k 80,5 

10k 75,8 



84,7 

92,9 

99,5 

100,3 

96,8 

94,3 

88,8 

82,8

1015 




110 


Sum (A) 

1/3 octave 

frequency 

(Hz) 

octave 

frequency 

(Hz) 

1/3 octave 

band level 

dB(A) 

octave 

band level 

dB(A) 

100 

9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k 

frequency, Hz 


89031_20100824 m_07_p 

50 76,5 

63 63 80,3 

80 83,7 

100 86 

125 125 89,5 

160 88,9 

200 92,3 

250 250 94,9 

315 95,9 

400 94,7 

500 500 96,3 

630 96,9 

800 94,8 

1k 1k 92,8 

1,25k 91 

1,6k 91,7 

2k 2k 90,4 

2,5k 90,1 

3,15k 89,2 

4k 4k 85,6 

5k 82,1 

6,3k 79,5 

8k 8k 82,4 

10k 72,7 



85,9 

93,2 

99,4 

100,8 

97,9 

95,6 

91,3 

84,5

1016 

A-weighted sound pressure level in dB re dB(A) [2e-5Pa] 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

Evaluation tonality for the integer windclass 7 m/s operation mode:3000 kW 

WT-location: Simonswolde Serial No.: 82001 

WEA-type: ENERCON E-82 E3 

measurement: sound pressure reference position 

[avg] Average [Q] APS spectra 

m_05_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 

time intervall: 40 to 50 s 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

[avg] Average [Q]APS spectra 

m_05_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


m_05_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


0 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_05_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_05_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_05_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

Figure C 9. Narrowband spectra (Δf = 2 Hz) of the WT-noise at the standardised wind speed of 7 m/s

1017 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 






m_06_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


m_06_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


m_06_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


0 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_06_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_06_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_06_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


1018 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 






m_05_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 

time intervall: 250.5 to 260.5 s 

9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


0 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


1019 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 






m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


0 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


1020 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 






m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


0 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


1021 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 






m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


0 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


1022 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 






m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


0 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_04_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


1023 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 






m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 


m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


0 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


m_07_p 0.0 to 3000.0 Hz 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

frequency, Hz 


1024 

Project No.: M89 031 

WT type 

E-82 E3 

Location 

Simonswolde 

Rated power 

3000 kW 

Wind class 

7 m/s 

Frequency resolution: 2 Hz 

Frequency range: 90 bis 2772 Hz 

Averaged Delta_L: 

-10 dB 

Tone adjustment: 0 dB 

Uncertainty: -- 

Spectrum 

1: 89031_20100824_m_05_p_40_50_PAK 

Frequency 

delta_L 

Characteristic 

FG 

FgStart FgEnd Ls LT LG av uncertainty 

[Hz] [dB] [Hz] [Hz] [dB(A)] [dB(A)] [dB(A)] [dB] [dB] 

-- -- keine Töne gefunden -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

2: 89031_20100824_m_05_p_50_60_PAK 

3: 89031_20100824_m_05_p_60_70_PAK 

4: 89031_20100824_m_05_p_70_80_PAK 

5: 89031_20100824_m_05_p_80_90_PAK 

6: 89031_20100824_m_05_p_90_100_PAK 

7: 89031_20100824_m_06_p_60_70_PAK 







9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


8: 89031_20100824_m_06_p_70_80_PAK 


9: 89031_20100824_m_06_p_80_90_PAK 


10: 89031_20100824_m_06_p_90_100_PAK 


11: 89031_20100824_m_06_p_210_220_PAK 

12: 89031_20100824_m_06_p_220_230_PAK 


Figure C 17. Results of the evaluation of tonality for the wind class 7 m/s

1025 


WT type 

E-82 E3 

Location 

Simonswolde 

Rated power 

3000 kW 

Wind class 

8 m/s 

Frequency resolution: 

Frequency range: 


Tone adjustment: 

Uncertainty: 

Spectrum 

1: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_90_100_PAK 

2: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_250.5_260.5_PAK 

3: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_300.5_310.5_PAK 

4: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_330.5_340.5_PAK 

5: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_370.5_380.5_PAK 

6: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_400.5_410.5_PAK 

7: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_410.5_420.5_PAK 

8: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_490.5_500.5_PAK 

2 Hz 

90 bis 2772 Hz 

-7.38 dB 

0 dB 

2.68 dB 

Frequency delta_L Characteristic FG FgStart FgEnd Ls LT LG av uncertainty 






98 0,39 Ton gefunden 60 160 25,79 41,19 42,81 -2,01 2,68 




9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


9: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_500.5_510.5_PAK 


10: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_520.5_530.5_PAK 


11: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_1550.5_1560.5_PAK 

12: 89031_20100824_m_05_p_180_190_PAK 



1026 


WT type 

E-82 E3 

Location 

Simonswolde 

Rated power 

3000 kW 

Wind class 

9 m/s 





Uncertainty: 

Spectrum 

1: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_170_180_PAK 

2: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_270_280_PAK 

3: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_330_340_PAK 

4: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_690_700_PAK 

5: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_700_710_PAK 

6: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_740_750_PAK 

7: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_750_760_PAK 

8: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_810_820_PAK 

2 Hz 

90 bis 2772 Hz 

-7.24 dB 

0 dB 

2.93 dB 










786 0,67 Ton gefunden 720 858 26,24 42,76 44,70 -2,61 2,93 

9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


9: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_950_960_PAK 


10: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_1260_1270_PAK 


11: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_1370_1380_PAK 

12: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_1660_1670_PAK 



1027 


WT type 

E-82 E3 

Location 

Simonswolde 

Rated power 

3000 kW 

Wind class 

10 m/s 





Uncertainty: 

Spectrum 

1: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_20_30_PAK 

2: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_440.5_450.5_PAK 

3: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_860.5_870.5_PAK 

4: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_1530.5_1540.5_PAK 

5: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_1670.5_1680.5_PAK 

6: 89031_20100824_m_04_p_1760.5_1770.5_PAK 

7: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_60_70_PAK 

8: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_220_230_PAK 

2 Hz 

90 bis 2772 Hz 

-4.72 dB 

0 dB 

1.55 dB 



2000 1,48 1856 2156 15,58 35,32 37,36 -3,51 2,36 

2002 2,15 1858 2158 14,81 35,22 36,59 -3,52 2,06 







9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


9: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_710_720_PAK 


10: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_990_1000_PAK 


11: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_1610_1620_PAK 

12: 89031_20100824_m_07_p_1620_1630_PAK 



Recorded data from the tested wind turbine E-82 E3 (Serial-No.: 82001) 

at the location 26632 Ihlow/Simonswolde, Germany 


1-minute-averagee 

5000 

4500 

4000 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

15:00 

15:15 

15:30 

15:45 

16:00 

16:15 

16:30 

16:45 

17:00 

17:15 

17:30 

17:45 

18:00 

18:15 

18:30 

18:45 

19:00 

19:15 

19:30 

elektr. Leistung [kW], Gondelposition absolut [°] 

19:45 

20:00 

20:15 

20:30 

20:45 

Uhrzeit 

50 

45 

40 

35 

Windgeschwindigkeit [m/s], Drehzahl [1/min] 

1028 

power output average nacelle position absolute 

rotation speed average wind speed average 

Figure C 21. System data recorded from the 2010-08-24 as one-minute average values 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011

1029 

Scatterplot -rotational speed via electrical power output- 

Measurements at the tested E-82 E3 (Serial number: 82001) 

located in 26632 Ihlow/Simonswolde, Germany from the date 24.08.2010 

rated power: 3000 kW 

25,00 

23,00 

measurement_m_3 measurement_m_4 measurement_m_5 

measurement_m_6 

measurement_m_7 

21,00 

Drehzahl [1/min] 

19,00 

17,00 

15,00 

13,00 

11,00 

9,00 

7,00 

9031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

5,00 

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

el. Leistung [kW] 

Figure C 22. Scatterplot of the measurements in 26632 Ihlow/Simonswolde, Germany

1030 

Appendix D 

Calculated power curve, 

power curve used for the evaluation (linearized), 

certificate of the manufacturer 

P:\khl\89\89031\M89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

M89 031/2 khl 

2011-01-19 

Appendix D Page 1

1031 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

Figure D 1. Power curve used for the evaluation

1032 

WT-type: ENERCON E-82 E3 


measuring date: 24.08.2010 

power output curve used for evaluations (linearised) 

3500 

power in kW 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

0 

5 10 15 20 

wind speed in hub height in m/s 

Figure D 2. Linearization calculated from the power curve for 3000 kW

1033 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

Figure D 3. Certificate of the manufacturer (short version)

1034 

Appendix E 

Master sheet noise 

P:\khl\89\89031\M89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

M89 031/2 khl 

2011-01-19 

Appendix E Page 1

1035 

Extract of test report page 1/2 

Master Sheet "Noise", according to "Technische Richtlinien für Windenergieanlagen, 

Teil 1: Bestimmung der Schallemissionswerte“ 

Sound Power level L WA,P 

Extract of test report according to Annex C of [1] 

Extract of test report M89 031/2 

regarding noise emission of wind turbine (WT) Enercon E-82 E3 

General Technical specifications (manufacturer) 

Manufacturer: 

Enercon GmbH 

Rated power (generator): 3.000 kW 

Impulsivity (close-up range) K IN 

8 m/s 2035 kW --- dB 

Dreekamp 5 Rotor diameter: 82 m 

26605 Aurich Hub height above ground: 98 m 

Serial number: 

82001 Tower design: tube tower 

WT-location: 

RW: 

HW: 

2.592.266 

5.914.847 

material: 

Power control: 

concrete 

pitch 

Complementations of rotor (manufacturer) Complementations of gear and generator (manufacturer) 

blades: 

Enercon GmbH 

Manufacturer of gear: 

--- 

Type of blades: 

E-82-2 

Type of gear: 

--- 

Pitch angel: variable 

Manufacturer of generator: 

Enercon GmbH 

Number of blades: 3 

Type of generator: 

E-82 E3 

Rated speed(s)/speed range: 6 - 18 rpm (reduced) 

Rated speed(s)/speed range: 

6 - 18 rpm (reduced) 

test report of power curve: 

Enercon GmbH: Calculated output curve of the E-82 E3 Rev. 2.0 

Noise emission parameter 

Reference 

Noise emission 

values 

Remarks 

Standardized wind 

speed at 10 m above Electric power 

ground 

6 m/s -- kW -- dB(A) 

[3] 

7 m/s 1586 kW 104,5 dB(A) 

8 m/s 2035 kW 104,5 dB(A) 

9 m/s 2447 kW 104,8 dB(A) 

10 m/s 2747 kW 105,4 dB(A) 

10,5 m/s 2850,0 kW 105,1 dB(A) 

[4] 

6m/s --kW --dB 

[3] 

7 m/s 1586 kW 2,0 dB 

Tonality (close-up range) K TN 

8 m/s 2035 kW 1,0 dB 

9 m/s 2447 kW 0,0 dB 

10 m/s 2747 kW --- dB 

10,5 m/s 2850,0 kW --- dB 

[4] 

6 m/s -- kW --- dB 

[3] 

7 m/s 1586 kW --- dB 

9 m/s 2447 kW --- dB 

10 m/s 2747 kW --- dB 

10,5 m/s 2850,0 kW --- dB 

[4] 

one third octave sound power level at reference point v 10 = 6 m/s 

frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

octave sound power level at reference point v 10 = 6 m/s 

frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 77,9 82,3 86,1 88,6 90,2 91,0 93,6 95,4 95,6 93,3 94,2 94,4 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 92,7 91,8 90,4 91,1 89,3 86,3 85,3 82,7 80,5 74,8 76,5 73,4 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave 88,1 94,8 99,7 98,8 96,5 94,1 88,0 79,9 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 79,9 83,7 86,8 89,1 89,5 92,9 95,3 96,0 94,1 95,2 95,2 92,9 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 91,2 89,4 90,3 88,6 86,0 84,5 81,8 77,7 74,1 78,2 63,4 63,6 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave 89,1 95,6 100,0 99,3 95,1 91,5 83,7 78,5

1036 

page 2/2 


Frequenz 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P,Terz 75,5 79,1 82,5 85,7 89,2 88,6 92,3 95,0 96,0 94,5 95,7 96,1 

Frequenz 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P,Terz 93,8 91,7 89,7 90,5 89,2 88,8 86,3 83,9 79,4 76,2 80,5 75,8 


Frequenz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P,Terz 84,7 92,9 99,5 100,3 96,8 94,3 88,8 82,8 


Frequenz 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P,Terz 76,5 80,3 83,7 86,0 89,5 88,9 92,3 94,9 95,9 94,7 96,3 96,9 

Frequenz 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P,Terz 94,8 92,8 91,0 91,7 90,4 90,1 89,2 85,6 82,1 79,5 82,4 72,7 


Frequenz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P,Terz 85,9 93,2 99,4 100,8 97,9 95,6 91,3 84,5 

This test report extract is only valid with the manufacturer's certificate from 25.9.2010. 

The declarations in this extract are only valid in combination with the test report M89 031/2 from 10.1.2011 [5] 

(especially for calculations of sound propagation). 

Remarks: 

[1] Technische Richtlinien für Windenergieanlagen, Teil 1: Bestimmung der Schallemissionswerte 

Rev. 18 vom 01.02.2008 (Herausgeber: Fördergesellschaft Windenergie e.V., Stresemannplatz 4, D-24103 Kiel) 

[2] IEC TS 61400-11 Wind turbines. Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques. November 2002 

[3] In this windclass no values were determined 

[4] sound power level for the wind speed at 95 % rated power (v10 = 10,5 m/s) considering the conditions on the day of measurement, the power curve 

the above mentionted power curve and the hub height of the investigated WT 

[5] Müller-BBM testreport M89 031/2 10.1.2011 

Measured by: Müller-BBM GmbH 

branch office Gelsenkirchen 

Am Bugapark 1 

D-45 899 Gelsenkirchen 

Date of report: 2011-01-19 

______________________ 

Dipl.-Ing. (FH) M. Köhl 

MÜLLER-BBM 

Accredited Testing Laboratory 

according to DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

DGA-PL-2465.10

1037 

Appendix F 

Apparent sound power level related to other hub heights 

(hub heights: 78 m, 85 m, 98 m, 108 m and 138 m) 

P:\khl\89\89031\M89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

M89 031/2 khl 

2011-01-19 

Appendix F Page 1

1038 




Method of calculating apparent sound power level to another hub height according to Annex C of [1] and [2] 




Manufacturer: 

Enercon GmbH 

Rated power (generator): 

3.000 kW 





WT-location: 

RW: 

HW: 

2.592.266 

5.914.847 

material: 


concrete 

pitch 


blades: 

Enercon GmbH 


--- 


E-82-2 

Type of gear: 

--- 

Pitch angel: variabel 


Enercon GmbH 



E-82 E3 

Rated speed(s)/speed range: 6 - 18 rpm (mode I) 


6 - 18 rpm (mode I) 



Reference 


parameter 

Remarks 



ground 

6 m/s -- kW -- dB(A) 

[3] 

7 m/s 1463 kW 104,5 dB(A) 


8 m/s 1909 kW 104,5 dB(A) 

9 m/s 2343 kW 104,7 dB(A) 

10 m/s 2670 kW 105,3 dB(A) 

10,8 m/s 2850 kW -- dB(A) 

[3] 

6 m/s -- kW --- dB 

[3] 

7 m/s 1463 kW --- dB 


8 m/s 1909 kW --- dB 

9 m/s 2343 kW --- dB 

10 m/s 2670 kW --- dB 

10,8 m/s 2850 kW --- dB 

[3] 


8 m/s 1909 kW --- dB 

6 m/s -- kW --- dB 

[3] 

7 m/s 1463 kW --- dB 

9 m/s 2343 kW --- dB 

10 m/s 2670 kW --- dB 

10,8 m/s 2850 kW --- dB 

[3] 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 77,8 82,2 86,0 88,5 90,1 90,9 93,5 95,3 95,5 93,2 94,1 94,3 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 92,6 91,7 90,3 91,0 89,2 86,2 85,2 82,6 80,4 74,7 76,4 73,3 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave 88,0 94,8 99,7 98,7 96,4 94,0 88,0 79,8 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 79,9 83,7 86,8 89,1 89,5 92,9 95,3 96,0 94,1 95,2 95,2 92,9 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 91,2 89,4 90,3 88,6 86,0 84,5 81,8 77,7 74,1 78,2 63,4 63,6 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave 89,1 95,7 100,0 99,4 95,2 91,5 83,8 78,5

1039 

page 2/2 


Frequenz 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P,Terz 75,4 79,0 82,4 85,6 89,1 88,5 92,2 94,9 95,9 94,4 95,6 96,0 

Frequenz 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P,Terz 93,7 91,6 89,6 90,4 89,1 88,7 86,2 83,8 79,3 76,1 80,4 75,7 


Frequenz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P,Terz 84,6 92,7 99,3 100,1 96,7 94,2 88,7 82,7 


Frequenz 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P,Terz 76,4 80,2 83,6 85,9 89,4 88,8 92,2 94,8 95,8 94,6 96,2 96,8 

Frequenz 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P,Terz 94,7 92,7 90,9 91,6 90,3 90,0 89,1 85,5 82,0 79,4 82,3 72,6 


Frequenz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P,Terz 85,7 93,0 99,2 100,7 97,8 95,4 91,2 84,4 




Remarks: 


Rev. 18 vom 01. February 2008 (Herausgeber: Fördergesellschaft Windenergie e.V., Stresemannplatz 4, D-24103 Kiel) 

[2] IEC 61400-14 TS ed. 1, Declaration of Sound Power Level und Tonality Values of Wind Turbines, 2005-03 


[4] The working point of 95% of the rated power, for which the maximum sound power level was stated, is 

according to the reference power curve and the hub height of the measured WT under standardized 

meteorological conditions v10= 10,8 m/s 

[5] Müller-BBM testreport M89 031/2 from 19.1.2011 



Am Bugapark 1 



______________________ 


89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

MÜLLER-BBM 



DGA-PL-2465.10

1040 








Manufacturer: 

Enercon GmbH 


3.000 kW 





WT-location: 

RW: 

HW: 

2.592.266 

5.914.847 

material: 


concrete 

pitch 


blades: 

Enercon GmbH 


--- 


E-82-2 

Type of gear: 

--- 



Enercon GmbH 



E-82 E3 






Reference 


parameter 

Remarks 



ground 

6 m/s -- kW -- dB(A) 

[3] 

7 m/s 1503 kW 104,5 dB(A) 


8 m/s 1941 kW 104,5 dB(A) 

9 m/s 2370 kW 104,7 dB(A) 

10 m/s 2702 kW 105,3 dB(A) 

10,7 m/s 2850 kW -- dB(A) 

[3] 

6 m/s -- kW --- dB 

[3] 

7 m/s 1503 kW --- dB 


8 m/s 1941 kW --- dB 

9 m/s 2370 kW --- dB 

10 m/s 2702 kW --- dB 

10,7 m/s 2850 kW --- dB 

[3] 


8 m/s 1941 kW --- dB 

6 m/s -- kW --- dB 

[3] 

7 m/s 1503 kW --- dB 

9 m/s 2370 kW --- dB 

10 m/s 2702 kW --- dB 

10,7 m/s 2850 kW --- dB 

[3] 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 77,9 82,3 86,1 88,6 90,2 91,0 93,6 95,4 95,6 93,3 94,2 94,4 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 92,7 91,8 90,4 91,1 89,3 86,3 85,3 82,7 80,5 74,8 76,5 73,4 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave 88,0 94,8 99,7 98,7 96,5 94,1 88,0 79,8 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 79,9 83,7 86,8 89,1 89,5 92,9 95,3 96,0 94,1 95,2 95,2 92,9 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 91,2 89,4 90,3 88,6 86,0 84,5 81,8 77,7 74,1 78,2 63,4 63,6 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave 89,1 95,7 100,0 99,4 95,2 91,5 83,8 78,5

1041 

page 2/2 


Frequenz 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P,Terz 75,4 79,0 82,4 85,6 89,1 88,5 92,2 94,9 95,9 94,4 95,6 96,0 

Frequenz 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P,Terz 93,7 91,6 89,6 90,4 89,1 88,7 86,2 83,8 79,3 76,1 80,4 75,7 


Frequenz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P,Terz 84,6 92,8 99,4 100,2 96,8 94,3 88,7 82,8 


Frequenz 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P,Terz 76,4 80,2 83,6 85,9 89,4 88,8 92,2 94,8 95,8 94,6 96,2 96,8 

Frequenz 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P,Terz 94,7 92,7 90,9 91,6 90,3 90,0 89,1 85,5 82,0 79,4 82,3 72,6 


Frequenz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P,Terz 85,8 93,1 99,3 100,7 97,8 95,5 91,2 84,4 




Remarks: 











Am Bugapark 1 



______________________ 


89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

MÜLLER-BBM 



DGA-PL-2465.10

1042 








Manufacturer: 

Enercon GmbH 


3.000 kW 





WT-location: 

RW: 

HW: 

2.592.266 

5.914.847 

material: 


concrete 

pitch 


blades: 

Enercon GmbH 


--- 


E-82-2 

Type of gear: 

--- 



Enercon GmbH 



E-82 E3 






Reference 


parameter 

Remarks 



ground 

6 m/s -- kW -- dB(A) 

[3] 

7 m/s 1586 kW 104,5 dB(A) 


8 m/s 2035 kW 104,5 dB(A) 

9 m/s 2447 kW 104,8 dB(A) 

10 m/s 2747 kW 105,4 dB(A) 

10,5 m/s 2850 kW 105,1 dB(A) 

[3] 

6 m/s -- kW --- dB 

[3] 

7 m/s 1586 kW --- dB 


8 m/s 2035 kW --- dB 

9 m/s 2447 kW --- dB 

10 m/s 2747 kW --- dB 

10,5 m/s 2850 kW --- dB 

[3] 


8 m/s 2035 kW --- dB 

6 m/s -- kW --- dB 

[3] 

7 m/s 1586 kW --- dB 

9 m/s 2447 kW --- dB 

10 m/s 2747 kW --- dB 

10,5 m/s 2850 kW --- dB 

[3] 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 77,9 82,3 86,1 88,6 90,2 91,0 93,6 95,4 95,6 93,3 94,2 94,4 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 92,7 91,8 90,4 91,1 89,3 86,3 85,3 82,7 80,5 74,8 76,5 73,4 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave 88,1 94,8 99,7 98,8 96,5 94,1 88,0 79,9 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 79,9 83,7 86,8 89,1 89,5 92,9 95,3 96,0 94,1 95,2 95,2 92,9 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 91,2 89,4 90,3 88,6 86,0 84,5 81,8 77,7 74,1 78,2 63,4 63,6 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave 89,1 95,7 100,0 99,4 95,2 91,5 83,8 78,5

1043 

page 2/2 


Frequenz 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P,Terz 75,5 79,1 82,5 85,7 89,2 88,6 92,3 95,0 96,0 94,5 95,7 96,1 

Frequenz 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P,Terz 93,8 91,7 89,7 90,5 89,2 88,8 86,3 83,9 79,4 76,2 80,5 75,8 


Frequenz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P,Terz 84,7 92,9 99,5 100,3 96,9 94,4 88,8 82,9 


Frequenz 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P,Terz 76,5 80,3 83,7 86,0 89,5 88,9 92,3 94,9 95,9 94,7 96,3 96,9 

Frequenz 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P,Terz 94,8 92,8 91,0 91,7 90,4 90,1 89,2 85,6 82,1 79,5 82,4 72,7 


Frequenz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P,Terz 85,8 93,1 99,3 100,8 97,9 95,5 91,3 84,5 




Remarks: 











Am Bugapark 1 



______________________ 


89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

MÜLLER-BBM 



DGA-PL-2465.10

1044 








Manufacturer: 

Enercon GmbH 


3.000 kW 





WT-location: 

RW: 

HW: 

2.592.266 

5.914.847 

material: 


concrete 

pitch 


blades: 

Enercon GmbH 


--- 


E-82-2 

Type of gear: 

--- 



Enercon GmbH 



E-82 E3 






Reference 


parameter 

Remarks 



ground 

6 m/s -- kW -- dB(A) 

[3] 

7 m/s 1618 kW 104,5 dB(A) 


8 m/s 2066 kW 104,5 dB(A) 

9 m/s 2472 kW 104,9 dB(A) 

10 m/s 2777 kW 105,4 dB(A) 

10,4 m/s 2850 kW 105,1 dB(A) 

[3] 

6 m/s -- kW --- dB 

[3] 

7 m/s 1618 kW --- dB 


8 m/s 2066 kW --- dB 

9 m/s 2472 kW --- dB 

10 m/s 2777 kW --- dB 

10,4 m/s 2850 kW --- dB 

[3] 


8 m/s 2066 kW --- dB 

6 m/s -- kW --- dB 

[3] 

7 m/s 1618 kW --- dB 

9 m/s 2472 kW --- dB 

10 m/s 2777 kW --- dB 

10,4 m/s 2850 kW --- dB 

[3] 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 77,9 82,3 86,1 88,6 90,2 91,0 93,6 95,4 95,6 93,3 94,2 94,4 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 92,7 91,8 90,4 91,1 89,3 86,3 85,3 82,7 80,5 74,8 76,5 73,4 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave 88,1 94,8 99,7 98,8 96,5 94,1 88,1 79,9 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 79,9 83,7 86,8 89,1 89,5 92,9 95,3 96,0 94,1 95,2 95,2 92,9 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 91,2 89,4 90,3 88,6 86,0 84,5 81,8 77,7 74,1 78,2 63,4 63,6 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave 89,1 95,7 100,0 99,4 95,2 91,5 83,8 78,5

1045 

page 2/2 


Frequenz 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P,Terz 75,6 79,2 82,6 85,8 89,3 88,7 92,4 95,1 96,1 94,6 95,8 96,2 

Frequenz 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P,Terz 93,9 91,8 89,8 90,6 89,3 88,9 86,4 84,0 79,5 76,3 80,6 75,9 


Frequenz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P,Terz 84,8 93,0 99,6 100,4 96,9 94,4 88,9 82,9 


Frequenz 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P,Terz 76,5 80,3 83,7 86,0 89,5 88,9 92,3 94,9 95,9 94,7 96,3 96,9 

Frequenz 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P,Terz 94,8 92,8 91,0 91,7 90,4 90,1 89,2 85,6 82,1 79,5 82,4 72,7 


Frequenz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P,Terz 85,8 93,1 99,3 100,8 97,9 95,5 91,3 84,5 




Remarks: 











Am Bugapark 1 



______________________ 


89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

MÜLLER-BBM 



DGA-PL-2465.10

1046 








Manufacturer: 

Enercon GmbH 


3.000 kW 





WT-location: 

RW: 

HW: 

2.592.266 

5.914.847 

material: 


concrete 

pitch 


blades: 

Enercon GmbH 


--- 


E-82-2 

Type of gear: 

--- 



Enercon GmbH 



E-82 E3 






Reference 


parameter 

Remarks 



ground 

6 m/s -- kW -- dB(A) 

[3] 

7 m/s 1746 kW 104,5 dB(A) 


8 m/s 2184 kW 104,5 dB(A) 

9 m/s 2590 kW 105,1 dB(A) 

10 m/s 2850 kW 105,4 dB(A) 

10,0 m/s 2850 kW 105,4 dB(A) 

[3] 

6 m/s -- kW --- dB 

[3] 

7 m/s 1746 kW --- dB 


8 m/s 2184 kW --- dB 

9 m/s 2590 kW --- dB 

10 m/s 2850 kW --- dB 

10,0 m/s 2850 kW --- dB 

[3] 


8 m/s 2184 kW --- dB 

6 m/s -- kW --- dB 

[3] 

7 m/s 1746 kW --- dB 

9 m/s 2590 kW --- dB 

10 m/s 2850 kW --- dB 

10,0 m/s 2850 kW --- dB 

[3] 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 

89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 77,9 82,3 86,1 88,6 90,2 91,0 93,6 95,4 95,6 93,3 94,2 94,4 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 92,7 91,8 90,4 91,1 89,3 86,3 85,3 82,7 80,5 74,8 76,5 73,4 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave 88,1 94,8 99,7 98,8 96,5 94,1 88,1 79,9 


frequency 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 80,0 83,8 86,9 89,2 89,6 93,0 95,4 96,1 94,2 95,3 95,3 93,0 

frequency 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P, 1/3 octave 91,3 89,5 90,4 88,7 86,1 84,6 81,9 77,8 74,2 78,3 63,5 63,7 


frequency 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P, octave 89,2 95,7 100,1 99,4 95,2 91,6 83,8 78,6

1047 

page 2/2 


Frequenz 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P,Terz 75,8 79,4 82,8 86,0 89,5 88,9 92,6 95,3 96,3 94,8 96,0 96,4 

Frequenz 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P,Terz 94,1 92,0 90,0 90,8 89,5 89,1 86,6 84,2 79,7 76,5 80,8 76,1 


Frequenz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P,Terz 85,0 93,1 99,8 100,5 97,1 94,6 89,1 83,1 


Frequenz 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 

L WA,P,Terz 76,5 80,3 83,7 86,0 89,5 88,9 92,3 94,9 95,9 94,7 96,3 96,9 

Frequenz 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 

L WA,P,Terz 94,8 92,8 91,0 91,7 90,4 90,1 89,2 85,6 82,1 79,5 82,4 72,7 


Frequenz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

L WA,P,Terz 85,9 93,2 99,4 100,8 97,9 95,6 91,3 84,5 




Remarks: 







meteorological conditions v10= 10 m/s 




Am Bugapark 1 



______________________ 


P:\khl\89\89031\M89031_02_Pbe_1E.DOC:19. 01. 2011 

M89 031/2 khl 

2011-01-19 

MÜLLER-BBM 



DGA-PL-2465.10 

Appendix F Page 11

1048 

Acoustic Emission, SWT-2.3-82 VS 

Document ID: E R WP-EN431-10-0000-0161-00 

PE / 2009.03.31 

Conveyed confidentially as trade secret 

SWT-2.3-82 VS 

Acoustic Emission 

Sound Power Levels 

The warranted sound power levels are presented with reference to the code IEC 61400-11:2002 with 

amendment 1 dated 2006-05 based on a hub height of 80 m and a roughness length of 0.05 m as described 

in the IEC code. The sound power levels (L WA ) presented are valid for the corresponding wind speeds 

referenced to a height of 10 m above ground level. 

Wind speed [m/s] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Up to 

18 

Standard setting 90.3 98.5 103.2 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 

”Setting -1 dB” 90.3 98.5 102.6 103.5 103.5 103.5 103.5 103.5 103.5 103.5 

”Setting -2 dB” 90.3 98.5 101.9 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 

”Setting -3 dB” 90.3 98.4 101.2 101.5 101.5 101.5 101.5 101.5 101.5 101.5 

”Setting -4 dB” 90.3 97.8 100.2 100.5 100.5 100.5 100.5 100.5 100.5 100.5 

”Setting -5 dB” 90.3 97.4 99.2 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 

Tabel 1: Noise emission, L WA [dB(A) re 1 pW] 

Typical Octave Band 

Typical, not warranted octave band spectra are tabulated below for 6 and 8 m/s referenced to 10m height. 

Octave band, center frequency [Hz] 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

Standard setting 75.8 87.6 96.4 97.5 97.0 94.9 92.7 86.5 

”Setting -1 dB” 76.1 87.8 95.8 95.8 95.2 94.0 91.4 85.1 

”Setting -2 dB” 76.4 87.9 95.2 94.0 93.3 93.2 90.3 84.0 

”Setting -3 dB” 76.7 87.8 94.5 91.9 91.4 92.4 89.6 83.5 

”Setting -4 dB” 77.0 87.5 93.5 90.1 90.1 91.7 89.5 83.8 

”Setting -5 dB” 77.0 86.6 91.8 89.6 90.4 90.9 90.0 84.7 

Table 2: Typical octave band for 6 m/s 

Octave band, center frequency [Hz] 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

Standard setting 77.8 87.8 96.5 98.6 98.9 96.3 94.4 88.6 

”Setting -1 dB” 77.6 87.3 95.4 97.3 97.9 95.4 93.8 88.1 

”Setting -2 dB” 77.6 87.0 94.3 96.1 97.0 94.5 93.3 87.6 

”Setting -3 dB” 77.5 86.6 93.1 94.7 96.0 93.5 92.8 87.2 

”Setting -4 dB” 77.4 86.2 91.9 93.3 95.0 92.6 92.3 86.7 

”Setting -5 dB” 77.1 85.6 90.7 92.1 93.8 91.5 91.5 86.0 

Table 3: Typical octave band for 8 m/s 

Noise Restricted Operation 

The lower sound power levels presented for ”Setting -1 dB”, ”Setting -2 dB”, ”Setting -3 dB”, ”Setting -4 dB” 

and ”Setting -5 dB” are achieved by controlling the SWT-2.3-82 VS wind turbine in a noise restricted mode of 

operation. This noise restricted mode of operation will, depending on the mode, have an impact on the power 

output of the turbine. Please contact Siemens for further information on this option. 

Siemens Wind Power A/S 

© All Rights Reserved 2009 

1 / 1 

SWT-2.3-82 VS 80m Acoustic Emission max extended version.doc

1049 

Sound Power Level E-82 E2 

Page 

1 of 3 


of the 


Operational Mode I 

(Data Sheet) 

Imprint 

Editor: 

ENERCON GmbH ▪ Dreekamp 5 ▪ 26605 Aurich ▪ Germany 

Telephone: 04941-927-0 

Fax: 04941-927-109 

Copyright: Unless otherwise specified in this document, the contents of this document are protected by copyright of 

ENERCON GmbH. All rights reserved. No use, including any copying or publishing, of this information is 

permitted without the prior written consent of ENERCON GmbH. 

Updates: ENERCON GmbH reserves the right to continuously update and modify this document and the items 

described therein at any time without prior notice. 

Revision 

Revision: 1.1 

Department: ENERCON GmbH / Site Assessment 

Glossary 

WEC 

WECs 

means an ENERCON wind energy converter. 

means more than one ENERCON wind energy converter. 





Sr/ 2011-11 

RWo/ 2011-11 

1.1/ 2011-11 

Documentname 


SIAS-04-SPL E-82 E2 OM I 2,3MW Rev1_1-eng-eng.doc

1050 


Page 

2 of 3 

Sound Power Level for the E-82 E2 with 2300 kW rated power 

hub height 

in relation to standardized wind speed v S at 10 m height 

V s 

in 10 m height 

78 m 85 m 98 m 108 m 138 m 

5 m/s 96,3 dB(A) 96.6 dB(A) 97.2 dB(A) 97.5 dB(A) 98.2 dB(A) 

6 m/s 100.7 dB(A) 101.0 dB(A) 101.6 dB(A) 101.9 dB(A) 102.6 dB(A) 





95% rated power 104.0 dB(A) 104.0 dB(A) 104.0 dB(A) 104.0 dB(A) 104.0 dB(A) 

Measured value at 95% 

rated power 

103,4 dB(A) 

KCE 209244-03.03 

104,1 dB(A) 

MBBM M95 777/1 

104,0 dB(A) 

KCE 211372-01.01 

in relation to wind speed at hub height 

wind speed at hub 

height [m/s] 

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 


[dB(A)] 

96.6 99.9 102.6 103.5 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 

1. The relation between the sound power level and the standardized wind speed v S in 10 m height as 

shown above is valid on the premise of a logarithmic wind profile with a roughness length of 

0.05 m. The relation between the sound power level and the wind speed at hub height applies for 

all hub heights. During the sound measurements the wind speeds are derived from the power 

output and the power curve of the WEC. 

2. A tonal audibility of ΔL a,k ≤ 2 dB can be expected over the whole operational range (valid in the 

near vicinity of the turbine according to IEC 61 400 -11 ed. 2). 





Sr/ 2011-11 

RWo/ 2011-11 

1.1/ 2011-11 

Documentname 



1051 


Page 

3 of 3 

3. The sound power level values given in the table are valid for the Operational Mode I (defined via 

the rotational speed range of 6 – 18 rpm). The respective power curve is the calculated power 

curve E-82 E2 dated November 2009 (Rev. 3.x). 

4. The values displayed in the tables above are based on official and internal measurements of the 

sound power level. If available the official measured values are given in this document as a 

reference (in italic print). The extracts of the official measurements can be made available upon 

request. The values given in the measurement extracts do not replace the values given in this 

document. All measurements have been carried out according to the recommended German and 

international standards and guidelines as defined in the measurement reports, respectively. 

5. Due to the typical measurement uncertainties, if the sound power level is measured according to 

one of the accepted methods the measured values can differ from the values shown in this 

document in the range of +/- 1 dB. 

Accepted measurement methods are: 

a) IEC 61400-11 ed. 2 („Wind turbine generator systems – Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement 

techniques; Second edition“), and 

b) the FGW-Guidelines („Technische Richtlinie für Windenergieanlagen – Teil 1: Bestimmung der 

Schallemissionswerte“, published by the association “Fördergesellschaft für Windenergie 

e.V.”, 18 th revision). 

If the difference between total noise and background noise during a measurement is less than 

6 dB a higher uncertainty must be considered. 

6. For noise-sensitive sites it is possible to operate the E-82 E2 with reduced rotational speed and 

reduced rated power during night time. The sound power levels resulting from such operational 

mode can be provided in a separate document upon request. 

7. The sound power level of a wind turbine depends on several factors such as but not limited to 

regular maintenance and day-to-day operation in compliance with the manufacturer’s operating 

instructions. Therefore, this data sheet can not, and is not intended to, constitute an express or 

implied warranty towards the customer that the E-82 E2 WEC will meet the exact sound power 

level values as shown in this document at any project specific site. 





Sr/ 2011-11 

RWo/ 2011-11 

1.1/ 2011-11 

Documentname 



1052 



Calculated Grid Noise Map

1053

1054 



Numerical ETSU R97 Noise 

Limits

1055. 


Appendix 9.8 - Numerical ETSU R97 Noise Limits 

Appendix 9.8.1 - ETSU R97 Numerical Noise Limits - Daytime 

Site 

Site Location and Site 

ETSU R97 Daytime noise limits in dB L A90, 10min 

Description 4m/s 5m/s 6m/s 7m/s 8m/s 9m/s 10m/s 11m/s 12m/s 

M01 Cairns House 39 40 40 41 41 42 43 44 45 

M02 Crosswood Burn 43 44 45 47 48 50 51 52 53 

M03 Halfway House 39 39 39 41 42 45 48 52 56 

M04 Harperig 44 46 48 49 50 52 53 53 54 

M05 Mid Crosswood 38 38 39 41 43 45 48 51 55 

M06 Owl Barn 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 

M07 Aberlyn 41 42 43 45 48 50 53 57 60 

M08 Berry Knowe 38 38 39 41 43 46 49 52 56 

M09 Brook Bank 43 44 45 46 48 50 52 54 56 

M10 Colzium 38 38 38 40 42 45 48 51 54 

M11 Crosswood House 53 53 54 55 56 57 58 60 62 

M12 WesterCrosswood Hill 39 41 43 46 49 52 56 60 64 

M13 

M14 

M15 

Crosswood Hill 

(based upon M12 - Wester 

Crosswood Hill baseline data) 

The Beeches 



Little Moss Cottage 



39 41 43 46 49 52 56 60 64 

39 41 43 46 49 52 56 60 64 

39 41 43 46 49 52 56 60 64 

Appendix 9.8 - ETSU R97 Noise Limits 24.1.2012 1

1056. 


Appendix 9.8 - Numerical ETSU R97 Noise Limits 

Appendix 9.8.2 - ETSU R97 Numerical Noise Limits –Night-time 

Site 

Site Location and Site 

ETSU R97 Night-time noise limits in dB L A90, 10min 

Description 4m/s 5m/s 6m/s 7m/s 8m/s 9m/s 10m/s 11m/s 12m/s 

M01 Cairns House 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 

M02 Crosswood Burn 43 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 

M03 Halfway House 43 43 43 43 43 44 46 47 47 

M04 Harperig 43 43 46 49 51 54 56 59 62 

M05 Mid Crosswood 43 43 43 43 43 44 46 48 48 

M06 Owl Barn 43 43 43 43 44 46 48 50 52 

M07 Aberlyn 43 43 43 43 44 48 52 58 64 

M08 Berry Knowe 43 43 43 43 43 43 45 47 48 

M09 Brook Bank 43 43 43 45 47 49 50 51 52 

M10 Colzium 43 43 43 43 43 44 47 48 49 

M11 Crosswood House 53 53 53 54 54 55 56 58 61 

M12 WesterCrosswood Hill 43 43 43 43 46 49 51 52 52 

M13 

M14 

M15 

Crosswood Hill 



The Beeches 



Little Moss Cottage 



43 43 43 43 46 49 51 52 52 

43 43 43 43 46 49 51 52 52 

43 43 43 43 46 49 51 52 52 

Appendix 9.8 - ETSU R97 Noise Limits 24.1.2012 2

Camilty Wind Farm 

Harburnhead ES Noise Chapter 

March 2013 

List of Appendices 

Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©

Harburnhead Windfarm Chapter 12 

Environmental Statement 

Noise 

12 NOISE 

12.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter evaluates the effects of noise from the proposed Harburnhead Windfarm (“the 

Development”) on nearby noise-sensitive receptors during construction, operation and 

decommissioning. 

The aim of the assessment is to predict the levels of noise potentially produced by the Development at 

the nearest noise sensitive receptors and assess these against relevant standards and guidelines. 

A glossary of acoustic terminology and a definition of terms are contained at the end of this chapter. 

The Noise Technical Appendix, A12 in Volume II of the Environmental Statement (ES), presents further 

analysis, descriptions of methodologies and data used in this assessment. 

12.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

12.2.1 Relevant Guidance (Operational Noise) 

The following guidance, legislation and information sources have been considered in carrying out this 

assessment: 

• the Scottish Government’s web-based planning information on onshore wind turbines (revised 

October 23 2011) 1 ; 

• Planning Advice Note 1/2011 (PAN 1/2011): Planning and Noise 2 ; 

• ETSU-R-97: The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms 3 ; 

• Bowdler et al. 2009: Prediction and Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise 4 ; 

• ‘The measurement of low frequency noise at three UK wind farms’, Hayes McKenzie, The 

Department for Trade and Industry, URN 06/1412, 2006 5 ; 

• ‘Research into aerodynamic modulation of wind turbine noise’. Report by University of Salford, The 

Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, URN 07/1235, July 2007 6 ; and 

• ETSU W/13/00385/REP: A Critical Appraisal of Wind Farm Noise Propagation 7 . 

Relevant Development Plan and other planning policies are set out in Chapter 5: Planning Policy of this 

ES. 

12.2.1.1 Scottish Government Planning Information on Onshore Wind 

The former Planning Advice Note 45 (PAN 45): Renewable Energy Technologies has been replaced with 

web-based information which provides advice to local authorities on the planning issues associated with 

windfarm development. With regard to noise from windfarms, it states that ETSU-R-97: The 

Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms: 

“...describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise, which should be followed by 

applicants and consultees, and used by planning authorities to assess and rate noise from wind 

energy developments, until such time as an update is available. This gives indicative noise levels 

thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing 

unreasonable burdens on wind farm developers, and suggests appropriate noise conditions.” 

The information goes on to refer to Circular 10/1999 (now superseded) as setting out Government 

policy on the role of the planning system in controlling noise, and states that the PAN on Planning and 

1 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/National-Planning-Policy/themes/renewables/Onshore 

2 Planning Advice Note 1/2011: Planning and Noise, The Scottish Government, March 2011 

3 ETSU-R-97: The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU for the DTI, 1996. 

4 Bowdler et al. (2009). Prediction and Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise: Agreement about relevant factors for noise assessment 

from wind energy projects. Acoustic Bulletin, Vol 34 No2 March/April 2009, Institute of Acoustics. 

5 ‘The measurement of low frequency noise at three UK wind farms’, Hayes McKenzie, The Department for Trade and Industry, URN 

06/1412, 2006. 

6 Research into aerodynamic modulation of wind turbine noise’. Report by University of Salford, The Department for Business, 

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, URN 07/1235, July 2007. 

7 ETSU W/13/00385/REP: A Critical Appraisal of Wind Farm Noise Propagation, ETSU for the DTI 2000. 

Noise provides advice on the role of the planning system in helping to prevent and limit the adverse 

effects of noise. 

It also states that: 

“The most conclusive summary of the implications of low frequency wind farm noise for planning 

policy is given by the UK Government's statement regarding the findings of the Salford University 

report into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise. The report concludes that there is no 

evidence of health effects arising from infrasound or low frequency noise generated by wind 

turbines.” 

12.2.1.2 PAN 1/2011: Planning and Noise 

PAN 1/2011 supersedes Circular 10/1999 Planning and Noise and PAN 56: Planning and Noise and 

provides advice on the role of the planning system in helping to prevent and limit the adverse effects of 

noise. It promotes the principles of good acoustic design and the appropriate location of new 

potentially noisy development. An associated Technical Advice Note offers advice on the assessment of 

noise impact and includes details of the legislation, technical standards and codes of practice 

appropriate to specific noise issues. 

Appendix 1 of the Technical Advice Note: Assessment of Noise describes the use of ETSU R 97 in the 

assessment of wind turbine noise. It also makes reference to the advice contained in Bowdler et al. 

(2009). 

12.2.1.3 ETSU-R-97 

ETSU-R-97 provides a framework for the assessment and rating of noise from wind turbine 

installations. It has become the accepted standard for windfarm developments in the UK, is 

recommended by Scottish Government Planning Advice and the methodology has therefore been 

adopted for the present assessment. 

Both background noise and noise from wind turbines typically vary with windspeed. According to 

ETSU-R-97, windfarm noise assessments should therefore consider the site-specific relationship 

between windspeed and background noise, along with the particular noise emission characteristics of 

the proposed wind turbines. 

ETSU-R-97 specifies the use of the L A90,10min descriptor for both background and wind turbine noise. 

Therefore, unless otherwise specified, all references to noise levels within this chapter relate to this 

descriptor. Similarly, all windspeeds referred to relate to a height of 10 m above ground level (AGL) at 

the location of the Development, standardised in accordance with Bowdler et al. (2009) or BS:EN (IEC) 

61400-11:2003 8 as appropriate, unless otherwise stated. 

The document recommends the application of external noise limits at the nearest noise-sensitive 

properties, to protect outside amenity and prevent sleep disturbance inside dwellings. These limits 

take the form of a 5 dB margin above the prevailing background noise level, except where background 

noise levels are lower than certain thresholds, where fixed lower limits apply. Separate limits apply for 

quiet daytime and night-time periods, as outlined below. 

During daytime, the guidance specifies limits designed to protect the amenity of residents whilst 

enjoying the external garden areas of their properties. The limits are based on the prevailing 

background noise level for ‘quiet daytime’ periods, defined in ESTU-R-97 as: 

• 18:00 – 23:00 every day; 

• 13:00 – 18:00 on Saturday; and 

• 07:00 – 18:00 on Sundays. 

ETSU-R-97 recommends that the fixed lower noise limit for daytime should be set within the range 35 

to 40 dB, L A90,10min , with the choice of value dependent on the following factors: 

• The number of dwellings in the neighbourhood of the Development; 

• The effect of the noise limits on the number of kWh (kilo Watt hours) generated; and 

8 BS EN (IEC). 61400-11:2003 Wind Turbine Generator Systems – Part 11: Acoustic Noise Measurement Techniques 

Enel Viento S.L 

November 2011 Page 12-1

Chapter 12 

Noise 

• The duration and level of exposure. 

Due to the low number of dwellings within close vicinity and the large amount of energy potentially 

generated, it is considered appropriate to assess the Development against a limit of 40dB(A) during the 

daytime period. 

Different standards apply at night, where potential sleep disturbance is the primary concern rather than 

the requirement to protect outdoor amenity. Night-time is considered to be all periods between 23:00 

and 07:00. A limit of 43 dB(A) is recommended for night-time at windspeeds or locations where the 

prevailing windspeed-related night-time background noise level is lower than 38 dB(A). At other times, 

the limit of 5dB above the prevailing windspeed-related background noise level applies. The value of 

night-time fixed lower limit was selected in order to ensure that internal noise levels remained below 

those considered to have the potential to cause sleep disturbance, taking account of the attenuation of 

noise when passing from outdoors to indoors, and making allowance for the presence of open 

windows. 

Where the occupier of the property has a financial interest in the Development, ETSU-R-97 states that 

the fixed lower noise limit for both daytime and night-time can be increased to 45 dB(A). 

12.2.1.4 Prediction and Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise 

An article in the March / April 2009 Edition of the Institute of Acoustics’ Acoustics Bulletin (Bowdler et 

al. 2009) sets out a number of preferred procedures for the prediction and assessment of windfarm 

noise and the form in which certain information should be presented to support an environmental noise 

assessment for a proposed windfarm development. 

The authors of the article included members of the Noise Working Group responsible for the 

preparation of ETSU-R-97, and acoustic specialists who advise developers, local authorities and third 

party interests. The recommendations in the article are intended to enhance the quality of windfarm 

noise assessments and usefully limit areas of disagreement between parties acting for developers and 

those acting for objectors, and supplement the recommendations of ETSU-R-97. The article is 

generally agreed to represent a statement of best practice on the specific aspects of windfarm noise 

assessments which it addresses and is specifically referred to in the Technical Advice Note which 

accompanies PAN 1/2011: Planning and Noise. The following issues were addressed by the article: 

• The acquisition of baseline data; 

• The prediction of wind turbine noise immission 9 level at receptors locations; and 

• The significance of low-frequency noise, infrasound and ground-borne vibration. 

12.2.1.4.1 Acquisition and Analysis of Background Noise Data (to account for wind shear) 

The recommendations of this article relate principally to the measurement and use of windspeed data, 

against which background noise measurements are correlated. The article recommends measuring 

windspeeds at two heights; H1 and H2, H1 being not less than 60% of the proposed turbine hub 

height and H2 being between 40% and 50% of the proposed hub height. For each ten minute period 

the mean windspeed measured at height H1 should be corrected to hub height using a specified 

procedure, which takes account of the wind shear conditions occurring during that 10-minute period. A 

standardised 10m-height windspeed is then calculated from this hub height windspeed using the 

procedure specified in BS EN 61400-11:2003 Section 8.1, which applies a standardised wind shear 

profile. This allows for the effects of variations between the wind shear characteristics of the site of 

the proposed turbines and the site on which noise emissions were measured to be eliminated. 

The above procedure has been followed in the assessment based upon windspeeds measured at 

heights of 30 m and 70 m, which represent the best available data for extrapolating wind speeds to the 

worst-case proposed hub height of 85 m. 

12.2.1.4.2 Prediction of Wind Turbine Noise Immission Levels 

Bowdler et al. 2009 recommends the use of the ISO 9613-2 10 method in calculating the levels of wind 

turbine noise at receptor locations (‘immission levels’), with the following specific measures: 

9 Literally incoming noise, i.e. the noise levels at receptor locations. 

Harburnhead Windfarm 


• the turbine sound power levels should be stated, and whether these are measured levels, 

measured levels with an allowance for measurement uncertainty, warranted levels or generic 

levels; 

• the atmospheric conditions assumed should be stated, with 10 o C and 70% Relative Humidity 

preferred; 

• the ground factor assumed should be either: 

(i) 

(ii) 

G=0 (hard ground), together with measured sound power levels; or 

G=0.5 (mixed ground); together with a receiver height of 4.0 m and either 

manufacturer’s warranted sound power levels, or measured sound power levels plus an 

allowance for measurement uncertainty. 

• barrier attenuation should not be included; and 

• the predicted noise levels (L Aeq,t ) may be converted to the required L A90,10min by subtracting 2 dB. 

Section12.2.4 details the turbine sound power levels used in the assessment and the assumptions 

made in the calculation of predicted noise immission levels. 

ISO 9613-2 provides a prediction of noise levels likely to occur under worst-case conditions; those 

favourable to the propagation of sound, i.e., down-wind or under a moderate, ground-based 

temperature inversion as often occurs at night (often referred to as stable atmospheric conditions). 

The specific measures recommended in Bowdler et al. 2009 have been shown to provide good 

correlation with levels of wind turbine noise measured at operational windfarms 11 . 

12.2.1.4.3 Low-frequency Noise, Infrasound and Ground-borne Vibration 

Bowdler et al. 2009 concludes that: 

“...there is no robust evidence that low frequency noise (including ‘infrasound’) or ground-borne 

vibration from wind farms generally has adverse effects on wind farm neighbours”. 

12.2.1.5 Low Frequency Noise 

A study 12 , published in 2006 by acoustic consultants Hayes McKenzie on the behalf of the DTI, 

investigated low frequency noise from windfarms. This study concluded that there is no evidence of 

health effects arising from infrasound or low frequency noise generated by wind turbines, but that 

complaints attributed to low frequency noise were in fact, possibly due to a phenomenon known as 

Amplitude Modulation (AM). 

12.2.1.6 Research into Amplitude Modulation 

A further study 13 was carried out on behalf of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory 

Reform (BERR) by the University of Salford, which investigated the incidence of noise complaints 

associated with windfarms and whether these were associated with AM. This report defined AM as 

aerodynamic noise from wind turbines with a greater degree of fluctuation than normal at blade 

passing frequency. Its aims were to ascertain the prevalence of AM on UK windfarm sites, to try to 

gain a better understanding of the likely causes, and to establish whether further research into AM is 

required. 

The study concluded that AM has occurred at only a small number (4 of 133) of windfarms in the UK, 

and only for between 7% and 15% of the time. It also states that, at present, the causes of AM are 

not well understood and that prediction of the effect is not currently possible. BERR has decided 

against conducting further research into the phenomenon at this stage, and no revision to the current 

guidelines (ETSU-R-97) on windfarm noise assessment has been recommended. 

10 ISO (1996). ISO 9613-2:1996 Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors – Part 2: General Method of 

Calculation 

11 Bullmore et al. (2009). Wind Farm Noise Predictions and Comparison with Measurements, Third International Meeting on Wind 

Turbine Noise, Aalborg, Denmark 17 – 19 June 2009 

12 ‘The measurement of low frequency noise at three UK wind farms’, Hayes Mckenzie, The Department for Trade and Industry, 

URN 06/1412, 2006. 

13 ‘Research into aerodynamic modulation of wind turbine noise’. Report by University of Salford, The Department for Business, 

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, URN 07/1235, July 2007. 


Page 12-2 November 2011



Noise 

12.2.1.7 Vibration 

Research undertaken by Snow in 1996 14 found that levels of ground-borne vibration 100 m from the 

nearest wind turbine were significantly below criteria for 'critical working areas' given by British 

Standard BS6472:1992 Evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz), and 

were lower than limits specified for residential premises by an even greater margin. 

This chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) sets out the overall approach that has been taken in 

undertaking the assessments of the likely environmental effects of the proposed Harburnhead 

Windfarm (hereafter referred to as the “Development”), detailing the relevant legislative framework. 

Ground-borne vibration from wind turbines can be detected using sophisticated instruments several 

kilometres from the windfarm site as reported by Keele University 15 . This report clearly shows that, 

although detectable using highly sensitive instruments, the magnitude of the vibration is orders of 

magnitude below the human level of perception and does not pose any risk to human health. 

12.2.1.8 Other Issues 

A recently published report by DEFRA 16 examines the use of statutory nuisance to deal with windfarm 

noise complaints where the enforcement of planning conditions has not resolved the complaints. As 

statutory nuisance operates within a separate mechanism to that of the EIA process, the findings of the 

report have not been considered further within the assessment. It is considered that by carrying out a 

noise assessment at the application/EIA stage, the likelihood of nuisance occurring is limited. 

12.2.2 Consultation 

Consultation was carried out with West Lothian Council’s Environmental Health Department in order to 

agree baseline noise monitoring locations. The Council was informed that baseline noise monitoring 

would be carried out in accordance with ETSU-R-97 at four representative locations around the site. 

Photographs and descriptions of the equipment in-situ were sent to the Environmental Health Officer 

(EHO) directly following the installation of equipment. 

12.2.3 Cumulative Noise Assessment 

ETSU-R-97 states that the assessment should take account of the effect of noise from all wind turbines 

that may affect a particular receptor. The existing developments of Pates Hill and Muirhall windfarms, 

and the proposed development of Harrows Law windfarm have the potential to cumulatively affect 

nearby receptors. The cumulative effects of Pates Hill, Muirhall and Harrows Law windfarms together 

with the Development are assessed in Section 12.4.3. 

12.2.4 Operational Noise Assessment Methodology 

In summary, the assessment process comprises: 

• identification of potential receptors, i.e. houses and other potentially noise-sensitive locations; 

• measurement of existing (baseline) background noise levels at a representative selection of the 

potential receptors; 

• establishment of limits for acceptable levels of wind turbine noise, based on the measured 

background noise and as specified in ETSU-R-97; 

• prediction of the likely levels of wind turbine noise received at each receptor; and 

• comparison of the predicted levels with the noise limits. 

From these identified receptors, background noise measurements were carried out at four 

representative locations, of which West Lothian Council’s Environmental Health Department was 

informed. No objections were received from the Council regarding the selected monitoring locations. 

The method of measuring background noise is described in ETSU-R-97, Chapter 7, and summarised in 

Section 12.3.3. In brief, it involves continuous measurement of both background noise levels at the 

receptors, and windspeeds at the location of the turbines for a period of at least one week. The 

resulting data is then sorted into quiet daytime and night-time periods and the relationship between 

windspeed and background noise established for each location. 

The method of predicting levels of wind turbine noise at receptors is discussed in Section 12.2.1.4.2. 

This method was applied to the calculation of both noise contour plots and individual receptor 

predictions for the assessment of noise from the Development and the assessment of cumulative noise. 

Additionally, a directivity function was applied for the prediction of cumulative noise, as discussed in 

Section 12.4.3.4. 

The candidate turbine for the purpose of the noise assessment is the Enercon E82 2.3 MW, with a hub 

height of 85 m, with the exception of turbines 8 and 9 which will have a hub height of 78 m as detailed 

in Chapter 4: Project Description of this ES. The manufacturer’s noise emission (sound power level) 

data at both hub heights and measurement test report data has been obtained for this turbine, which 

are included in Technical Appendix A12.1 and summarised in Tables 12.1 and 12.2. Sound power level 

data provided by Enercon are guaranteed under the condition that a 1 dB uncertainty value is applied 

across all windspeeds. The sound power level data shown in Table 12.1 includes the specified 

uncertainty value. Sound power level data outside the range of windspeeds specified by the 

manufacturer have been extrapolated from the data provided. 

The guaranteed sound power levels provided by the manufacturer were modelled with a mixed ground 

(G=0.5) factor, in accordance with Bowdler et al. 2009. Whilst the choice of turbine ultimately installed 

will depend on various factors, the Enercon E82 turbine is representative of the range of turbines 

expected to be available. 

Table 12.1: Manufacturer’s Noise Emission Data, Enercon E82 2.3 MW 

Standardised 10 m Windspeed, ms -1 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11+ 

Sound Power Level, dB, L WA 

Enercon E82, 78 m Hub 91.9 17 97.3 101.7 104.3 105.0 105.0 105.0 105.0 18 

Enercon E82, 85 m Hub 93.2 97.6 102.0 104.5 105.0 105.0 105.0 105.0 

It is standard practice to predict noise levels for a reference windspeed and to adjust these for other 

windspeeds, according to the variation in sound power level with windspeed. The noise spectrum for 

the Enercon E82 2.3 MW shown in Table 12.2 corresponding to the maximum sound power level at 

windspeeds between 4 and 10 ms -1 has been used as the source for modelling purposes. This was first 

adjusted to 105.0 dB(A) to obtain predicted noise levels valid for windspeeds between 8 and 10 ms -1 , 

then further adjustments made to provide predictions for other windspeeds. 

Potential receptors in the area around the development were initially identified from Ordnance Survey 

1:25,000 Scale digital mapping and then confirmed as permanent dwellings using Ordnance Survey 

Address Layer 2 data; a database which combines Royal Mail address data with buildings identified on 

large-scale Ordnance Survey Mapping and provides addresses, descriptions and grid references. 

Information was also provided by the Development site’s landowners. 

14 ETSU (1997), Low Frequency Noise and Vibrations Measurement at a Modern Wind Farm, prepared by D J Snow. 

15 Microseismic and infrasound monitoring of low frequency noise and vibrations from wind farms: recommendations on the siting of 

wind farms in the vicinity of Eskdalemuir, Scotland”. Keele University, 2005 

16 NANR 277 – Wind Farm Noise: Statutory Nuisance Complaints Methodology, June 2011 

17 Sound power levels for windspeeds of 4 ms -1 have been extrapolated from the difference between the values at 5 and 6ms -1 . 

18 Sound power levels for windspeeds of 11 ms -1 and above have been assigned from the highest sound power level emission as 

detailed in document SIAS-04-SPL E-82 E2 OM 1 2,3MW Rev1_0-eng-eng.doc, provided in Appendix A12.1 



Chapter 12 

Noise 

Table 12.2: Octave Band Spectra of Enercon E82 2.3 MW 

Octave Band Frequency (Hz) 

63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 

Sound Power Level, dB, L WA , 

Spectrum measured in 

windspeed of 9 ms -1 86.7 94.7 94.4 97.0 98.8 93.9 81.6 73.5 

Above spectrum scaled 

88.4 96.4 96.1 98.7 100.5 95.6 83.3 75.2 

to 105.0 dB 

The Enercon E82 has the potential to operate in a range of reduced rated power modes, to control 

noise emissions across a range of windspeeds at which the turbine can operate. In order to comply 

with noise limits during daytime periods, it is necessary to operate turbines 1 and 3 in the reduced 

rated power mode of 1 MW, at standardised 10 m wind speeds of 6 and 7ms -1 . Table 12.3 details the 

noise emission of turbines 1 and 3 (both at 78 m hub height) whilst operating in this reduced mode, 

inclusive of a 1 dB(A) safety factor in order to guarantee the data provided by the manufacturer. The 

manufacturer’s noise emission data for reduced rated power modes is included in Technical Appendix 

A12.1. During night-time periods, restrictions to standard turbine operations are not required. 

Table 12.3: Noise Emission Data, Enercon E82 - Noise Constrained Mode 


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11+ 


Enercon E82, 78 m Hub 91.9 97.3 100.5 100.5 105.0 105.0 105.0 105.0 19 

Whilst the turbine ultimately selected for construction will be subject to a competitive procurement 

process, noise management measures similar to those offered by Enercon are typical, and are likely to 

also be available from other turbine manufacturers. A warranty will be sought from the manufacturer 

of the turbine selected for development in order to confirm that an assessment of noise would result in 

noise immission levels at receptor locations being less than or equal to the noise limits set out in this 

chapter, and that no tonality considered to require a penalty through the method described in ETSU-R- 

97 will be present. 

12.2.5 Noise Limits 

The method of deriving operational noise limits specified by ETSU-R-97 is described in Section 12.2.1.3. 

Noise limits derived from ETSU-R-97 for this assessment are therefore: 

• daytime: the higher of 40 dB(A) or 5 dB(A) above the prevailing quiet daytime background noise 

level); and 

• night-time: The higher of 43 dB(A) or 5 dB(A) above the prevailing night-time background noise 

level. 

There is also provision for an increase in the fixed lower limit value where the occupier of the property 

has a financial interest in the development. In this situation, the limit for both daytime and night-time 

becomes the higher of 45 dB(A) or 5 dB(A) above the prevailing background noise level for the relevant 

period. However, as no properties are financially involved in the Development, this condition does not 

apply. 

12.2.6 Significance Criteria 

The acceptable limits for wind turbine operational noise are clearly defined in the ETSU-R-97 document 

to "offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable 

restrictions on wind farm development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens on 

wind farm developers or planning authorities". Therefore, the assessment determines whether the 

19 Sound power levels for the reduced rated power mode have been confirmed by Enercon and sourced from document SIAS-04- 

SPL E-82 E2 red Rev1_0-eng-eng.doc, when considered together with data from unrestricted operation of the turbine, detailed in 

document GD022915-en, rev 6, page 6, provided in Appendix A12.1. 



calculated immission levels at nearby noise sensitive properties lie below the noise limits derived in 

accordance with ETSU-R-97. Where the noise immission levels at noise sensitive properties are shown 

to be below derived noise limits the impact is considered to be not significant in terms of the EIA 

Regulations. 

12.2.7 Construction Noise 

12.2.7.1 Relevant Guidance 

The following legislation, guidance and standards are of particular relevance to construction noise: 

• the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (CoPA 1974); 

• the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990); and 

• BS 5228:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites. 

12.2.7.1.1 The Control of Pollution Act 1974 

CoPA 1974 provides Local Authorities with powers to control noise and vibration from construction 

sites. 

Section 60 of the Act enables a Local Authority to serve a notice to persons carrying out construction 

work of its requirements for the control of site noise. This may specify plant or machinery that is or is 

not to be used; the hours during which construction work may be carried out; the level of noise or 

vibration that may be emitted; and provide for changes in circumstances. Appeal procedures are 

available. 

Section 61 of the Act allows for those carrying out construction work to apply to the Local Authority in 

advance for consent to carry out the works. This is not mandatory, but is often to the advantage of 

the developer, as once consent is issued, the Local Authority is no longer able to take action under 

Section 60 of CoPA 1974 or Section 80 of the EPA 1990. It does not, however, prevent nuisance action 

under Section 82 of the EPA 1990. The application is expected to give as much detail as possible about 

the works to be carried out, the methods to be used and the measures that will be taken to minimise 

noise and vibration. 

12.2.7.1.2 The Environmental Protection Act 1990 

The EPA 1990 specifies mandatory powers available to Local Authorities in respect of any noise that 

either constitutes or is likely to cause a statutory nuisance, which is also defined in the Act. A duty is 

imposed on Local Authorities to carry out inspections to identify statutory nuisances, and to serve 

abatement notices against these. Procedures are also specified with regards to complaints from 

persons affected by a statutory nuisance. 

12.2.7.1.3 BS 5228:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open sites 

BS 5228:2009 is published in two parts: Part 1- Noise and Part 2- Vibration. The discussion below 

relates mainly to Part 1- Noise, however, the recommendations of Part 2 in terms of vibration are 

broadly very similar. 

It refers to the need for the protection against noise and vibration of persons living and working in the 

vicinity of and those working on construction and open 20 sites. It recommends procedures for noise 

and vibration control in respect of construction operations. 

The standard stresses the importance of community relations, and states that early establishment and 

maintenance of these relations throughout the carrying out of site operations will go some way towards 

allaying people’s concerns. In terms of neighbourhood nuisance, the following factors are likely to 

affect the acceptability of construction noise: 

• site location, relative to the noise sensitive premises; 

• existing ambient noise levels; 

• duration of site operations; 

• hours of work; 

• the attitude of local residents to the site operator; and 

20 An open site is a site such as an open-cast coal mine, landfill site or similar 





Noise 

• the characteristics of the noise produced. 

Recommendations are made regarding the supervision, planning, preparation and execution of works, 

emphasising the need to consider noise at every stage of the operation. 

Measures to control noise are described, including: 

• control of noise at source by, e.g.,: 

• substitution of plant or activities by less noisy ones; 

• modification of plant or equipment to reduce noise emissions; 

• the use of noise control enclosures; 

• the siting of equipment and its method of use; and 

• equipment maintenance; and 

• controlling the spread of noise, e.g., by increasing the distance between plant and noise-sensitive 

premises or by the provision of acoustic screening. 

Another key revision to the standard is the inclusion of a discussion of noise control targets, and 

example criteria for the assessment of the significance of noise effects. These are not mandatory. 

Methods of calculating the levels of noise resulting from construction activities are provided, as are 

updated source levels for various types of plant, equipment and construction activities. 

Rather than assessing the effects of construction noise in terms of noise level, it is proposed to adopt 

the mitigation measures outlined in Section 12.5.2, which are considered to be best practice, as 

advocated in BS 5228. Construction noise will be limited in duration and confined to working hours as 

specified by the Council which can be adequately controlled through planning condition, therefore no 

further assessment of construction noise is considered necessary. 

Noise during decommissioning will be of a similar nature to that of construction and will be managed 

through best practice or other guidance or legislation relevant at the time. 

12.3 BASELINE DESCRIPTION 

12.3.1 Identification of Potential Receptors 

A noise contour plot was initially prepared for a layout consisting of 29 turbines. A similar plot for the 

final proposed layout of 22 Enercon E822.3 MW turbines (as described in Chapter 4: Project Description 

of this ES) is presented in Figure 12.1. 

Based upon the initial layout, potential noise-sensitive receptors (houses, built-up areas, etc.) were 

identified through the examination of Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 scale digital mapping and Ordnance 

Survey Address Layer 2 Data. Receptor locations were confirmed through site visits. The following 

potentially noise-sensitive locations (shown in Figure 12.1) were initially identified: 

• Aberlyne; 

• Beechcroft; 

• South Cobbinshaw; 

• Kiprig; 

• Harburnhead; 

• Harburnhead House; 

• South Lodge; 

• The Beeches; 

• Torphin Cottage; and 

• Torphin House. 

12.3.2 Selection of Baseline Noise Survey Locations 

Following a site visit to confirm the appropriateness of receptor locations, of the potentially noisesensitive 

receptors identified above, the following noise monitoring locations were selected for the 

deployment of equipment: 

• Aberlyne; 

• South Cobbinshaw; 

• Kiprig; and 

• Harburnhead. 

12.3.3 Baseline Noise Survey 

Baseline noise measurements were carried out at the locations and the dates detailed in Table 12.4 

and shown in Figure 12.1. The survey was carried out in accordance with the method specified in 

ETSU-R-97. The following specific measures ensured this compliance: 

• type 1 measuring equipment, equipped with all-weather windshields suitable for use in elevated 

windspeeds, were used, which were calibrated at the start of the survey and at the end of the 

survey. No significant calibration drift occurred; 

• measurements were performed at a height of 1.4 m AGL, in free-field conditions, i.e., a minimum 

of 3.5 m and, where possible, more than 10 m from any reflective surface other than the ground. 

• background noise levels were recorded at continuous 10-minute intervals, as L A90, 10min . Other 

parameters recorded included the L Aeq,10min ; 

• during the survey, windspeeds were measured using a 71 m meteorological mast located at grid 

reference 303425, 658192 at heights of 30 m, 50 m and 70 m. Hub height (85 m) windspeeds 

were calculated from the 30 m and 70 m windspeeds, and these used to calculate standardised 

10 m windspeeds, using the procedure specified in Section 12.2.1.4.1; 

• rain gauges were initially deployed at Aberlyne and South Cobbinshaw. Once the survey reached 

its conclusion at Aberlyne, the rain gauge at this location was relocated to Harburnhead until the 

end of the survey period; 

• data from periods when significant rainfall (greater than 0.1 mm/hour) was recorded were excluded 

from further analysis, through the method detailed in paragraph 12.3.4; and 

• ETSU-R-97 recommends at least one week of data for each monitoring location, after exclusions 

are taken into account. In practice, this minimum was comfortably exceeded. 

Survey record sheets and calibration certificates are included in Technical Appendix A12.2. 

Table 12.4: Baseline Noise Survey 

Location Grid 

Reference 

Date of Survey 

Aberlyne 305235, 

657841 

Harburnhead 304276, 

660003 

Kiprig 302955, 

660562 

South 

Cobbinshaw 

301799, 

657272 

Description of 

Monitoring Location 

21/07/2010– 25/08/2010 Garden to side of 

house. 

21/07/2010 – 25/08/2010 On grass verge adjacent 

to house. 

21/07/2010 – 02/09/2010 In garden to rear of 

house. 

29/07/2010 – 10/09/2010 In garden to the south 

west of property. 

Noise Sources Observed 

During Survey Visits 

Local traffic along A70, dogs, 

sheep along local road. 

Birdsong, wind in trees, local 

traffic along B7008. 

Wind in trees, golfers talking 

nearby. 

Wind in trees. Residents 

walking on gravel path. 



Chapter 12 

Noise 

12.3.4 Background Noise Levels 

The measured background noise levels and standardised 10 m windspeeds were correlated and sorted 

into quiet daytime and night-time periods. Where rainfall was recorded, the following procedures were 

carried out in order to exclude periods potentially affected by heavy rainfall: 

• where one ten-minute interval in any hour coincided with rainfall, noise data corresponding to this 

interval was removed from analysis; 

• where more than two ten-minute intervals in any hour coincided with rainfall, noise data one hour 

either side of the recorded intervals were removed from analysis, inclusive of any intervals 

between; and 

• where rainfall occurred for more than half of a defined ETSU-R-97 measurement period, noise data 

measured throughout the entire period was removed from analysis. 

Due to a power failure affecting the noise monitoring equipment installed at Harburnhead, 

measurements only continued for a period of 24 hours following initial deployment. This issue was 

later identified and addressed during a subsequent site visit. Similarly at Kiprig, a technical fault 

resulted in the loss of a week’s worth of data which was identified during the survey. As a result, 

measurements at Kiprig and Harburnhead continued for an additional one and two weeks respectively 

following the decommissioning of noise monitoring equipment at other locations. 

Scatter plots of background noise against wind speed were prepared for each monitoring location for 

quiet daytime and night-time periods. Where measured noise levels were found to be unusually 

elevated for periods which could not be attributed to high windspeed conditions, data was analysed 

further and considered for removal. Trendlines (lines of best fit) were then applied to scatter plots of 

the data to represent ‘prevailing background noise level’ curves. It was found that in all cases, third 

and fourth-order polynomials provided a good fit to the data, and a conservative relationship between 

windspeed and background noise level. 

Table 12.5 details the prevailing background noise levels obtained for quiet daytime and night-time 

measurement periods. In most instances, standardised 10 m windspeeds above 10 ms -1 were not 

obtained. The prevailing background noise level has assumed to remain constant at the higher 

windspeeds, as indicated by figures in italics in Table 12.5. This is considered to be a conservative 

assumption, as background noise levels are generally understood to increase with increasing 

windspeeds. Charts 12.1 to 12.8 also present this data graphically. 

Table 12.5: Prevailing Background Noise Levels 

Receptor Standardised 10 m Windspeed, ms -1 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

12.3.5 Noise Assessment Locations 



The closest noise sensitive receptors surrounding the Development have been selected for assessment, 

in order to represent the properties potentially most affected. Background noise levels measured at 

the four properties detailed in Table 12.4 have been assumed to be representative of the background 

noise environments at other properties in similar nearby locations. Should the predicted operational 

noise levels from the Development comply with the requirements of ETSU-R-97 at these closest 

receptors, predicted noise levels at receptors further from the Development will also comply. 

Table 12.6 details the locations assessed, their distance to the nearest proposed turbine and the 

baseline noise levels applied. 

Table 12.6: Noise Assessment Locations 

Receptor Eastings Northings Distance 

to Nearest 

Turbine 21 

Aberlyne 305223 657808 1302 m Aberlyne 

Beechcroft 301343 660221 1582 m Kiprig 

Crosswoodburn 305508 657764 1546 m Aberlyne 

Baseline Noise 

Data Applied 

Harburnhead 304269 660011 701 m Harburnhead 

Harburnhead House 304471 660753 1457 m Harburnhead 

Kiprig 302976 660584 843 m Kiprig 

South Cobbinshaw 301799 657272 1575 m South Cobbinshaw 

South Lodge 304586 660374 1177 m Harburnhead 

The Beeches 304471 656773 1392 m Aberlyne 

Torphin Cottage 302991 660626 887 m Kiprig 

Torphin House 303326 660959 1281 m Kiprig 

Prevailing Background Noise Level, dB, LA 90,10min 

Quiet Daytime 

Aberlyne 33.0 34.9 38.1 42.1 45.6 46.8 46.8 46.8 46.8 

Harburnhead 27.9 29.9 32.3 35.0 37.9 40.7 43.5 46.0 48.0 

Kiprig 32.0 34.0 36.1 38.3 40.4 42.0 43.0 43.2 43.2 

South Cobbinshaw 28.3 30.7 34.2 38.0 40.7 40.7 40.7 40.7 40.7 

Night-time 

Aberlyne 28.0 29.8 33.7 38.9 44.0 46.7 46.7 46.7 46.7 

Harburnhead 22.8 25.2 28.2 31.6 35.3 39.1 42.7 46.2 49.1 

Kiprig 30.5 31.6 33.5 36.2 39.8 43.9 48.2 52.3 55.5 


21 NB These are plan distances, calculation of noise levels are based upon slant distance, i.e. taking account of relative elevation of 

source and receptor. 





Noise 

12.3.6 Noise Limits 

Table 12.7 details the noise limits calculated for each property from the prevailing background noise 

levels, as detailed in Section 12.2.1.3 Noise Limits. The limits are also shown graphically in charts 12.1 

to 12.8. 

12.4 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS 

12.4.1 Predicted Operational Noise Levels 

Table 12.8 details the predicted noise levels for each of the noise assessment locations detailed in 

Table 12.6, for both daytime and night-time periods. 

Table 12.7: Noise Limits 


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Noise Limit, dB, LA 90,10min 

Quiet Daytime 

Aberlyne 40.0 40.0 43.1 47.1 50.6 51.8 51.8 51.8 51.8 

Beechcroft 40.0 40.0 41.1 43.3 45.4 47.0 48.0 48.2 48.2 

Crosswoodburn 40.0 40.0 43.1 47.1 50.6 51.8 51.8 51.8 51.8 

Harburnhead 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 42.9 45.7 48.5 51.0 53.0 

Harburnhead House 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 42.9 45.7 48.5 51.0 53.0 

Kiprig 40.0 40.0 41.1 43.3 45.4 47.0 48.0 48.2 48.2 


South Lodge 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 42.9 45.7 48.5 51.0 53.0 

The Beeches 40.0 40.0 43.1 47.1 50.6 51.8 51.8 51.8 51.8 

Torphin Cottage 40.0 40.0 41.1 43.3 45.4 47.0 48.0 48.2 48.2 

Torphin House 40.0 40.0 41.1 43.3 45.4 47.0 48.0 48.2 48.2 

Night-time 

Aberlyne 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.9 49.0 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 

Beechcroft 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 44.8 48.9 53.2 57.3 60.5 


Harburnhead 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 44.1 47.7 51.2 54.1 


Kiprig 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 44.8 48.9 53.2 57.3 60.5 


South Lodge 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 44.1 47.7 51.2 54.1 

The Beeches 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.9 49.0 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 


Torphin House 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 44.8 48.9 53.2 57.3 60.5 

Table 12.8: Predicted Noise Immission Levels 


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Predicted Noise Level, dB, L A90,10min 

Daytime 

Aberlyne 25.1 29.5 33.9 36.2 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 

Beechcroft 22.6 27.1 31.4 33.8 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 


Harburnhead 29.2 33.9 37.9 39.9 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 


Kiprig 27.6 32.1 36.4 38.8 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.5 


South Lodge 25.5 30.1 34.2 36.4 37.6 37.6 37.6 37.6 37.6 

The Beeches 23.9 28.3 32.7 35.1 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 


Torphin House 24.8 29.3 33.5 35.9 36.7 36.7 36.7 36.7 36.7 

Night-time 

Aberlyne 25.1 29.5 33.9 36.5 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 

Beechcroft 22.6 27.1 31.5 34.0 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 


Harburnhead 29.2 33.9 38.3 40.8 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 


Kiprig 27.6 32.1 36.5 39.0 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.5 


South Lodge 25.5 30.1 34.5 37.0 37.6 37.6 37.6 37.6 37.6 

The Beeches 23.9 28.3 32.7 35.2 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 


Torphin House 24.8 29.3 33.7 36.2 36.7 36.7 36.7 36.7 36.7 



Chapter 12 

Noise 

12.4.2 Operational Noise Assessment 

The assessment of predicted operational noise levels against the noise limits derived in accordance 

with ETSU-R-97 is detailed below. 

Table 12.9 details the difference (margin) between predicted noise immission levels (Table 12.8) and 

the range of derived noise limits (Table 12.7) for each of the properties assessed. A negative margin 

indicates that the predicted noise level is lower than the limit. 

Charts 12.1 to 12.8 show the measured background noise levels, prevailing background noise level, 

and noise limits for each monitoring location. These charts also show predicted noise levels for the 

monitoring location itself and additional receptors for which the background is considered to be 

representative. 

It can be seen from Table 12.9 and Charts 12.1 to 12.8, the predicted noise levels at all receptors are 

no higher than the noise limits in all cases, at all windspeeds, and are therefore compliant with 

ETSU limits. 

Table 12.9: Margins Between Predicted Turbine Noise and Derived Noise Limits 


Quiet Daytime 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Noise Margin, dB 

Aberlyne -14.9 -10.5 -9.2 -10.9 -13.6 -14.8 -14.8 -14.8 -14.8 

Beechcroft -17.4 -12.9 -9.7 -9.5 -10.9 -12.5 -13.5 -13.7 -13.7 

Crosswoodburn -16.6 -12.1 -10.9 -12.5 -15.3 -16.5 -16.5 -16.5 -16.5 

Harburnhead -10.8 -6.1 -2.1 -0.1 -1.5 -4.3 -7.1 -9.6 -11.6 

Harburnhead House -16.1 -11.5 -7.3 -5.1 -7.0 -9.8 -12.6 -15.1 -17.1 

Kiprig -12.4 -7.9 -4.7 -4.5 -5.9 -7.5 -8.5 -8.7 -8.7 

South Cobbinshaw -17.0 -12.6 -8.2 -8.8 -10.8 -10.8 -10.8 -10.8 -10.8 

South Lodge -14.5 -9.9 -5.8 -3.6 -5.3 -8.1 -10.9 -13.4 -15.4 

The Beeches -16.1 -11.7 -10.4 -12.0 -14.9 -16.1 -16.1 -16.1 -16.1 

Torphin Cottage -12.8 -8.3 -5.1 -4.9 -6.3 -7.9 -8.9 -9.1 -9.1 

Torphin House -15.2 -10.7 -7.6 -7.4 -8.7 -10.3 -11.3 -11.5 -11.5 

Night-time 

Aberlyne -17.9 -13.5 -9.1 -7.4 -12.0 -14.7 -14.7 -14.7 -14.7 

Beechcroft -20.4 -15.9 -11.5 -9.0 -10.3 -14.4 -18.7 -22.8 -26.0 


Harburnhead -13.8 -9.1 -4.7 -2.2 -1.6 -2.7 -6.3 -9.8 -12.7 


Kiprig -15.4 -10.9 -6.5 -4.0 -5.3 -9.4 -13.7 -17.8 -21.0 


South Lodge -17.5 -12.9 -8.5 -6.0 -5.4 -6.5 -10.1 -13.6 -16.5 

The Beeches -19.1 -14.7 -10.3 -8.7 -13.3 -16.0 -16.0 -16.0 -16.0 


Torphin House -18.2 -13.7 -9.3 -6.8 -8.1 -12.2 -16.5 -20.6 -23.8 



Decisions on micrositing of the turbines, as set out in Chapter 4: Project Description of this ES, and the 

final choice of turbine model and its mode of operation, will be made so as to maintain compliance with 

the limits set out in this chapter, or those applied through planning conditions. 





Noise 

Chart 12.1: Aberlyne - Quiet Daytime Operational Noise Assessment 

Chart 12.3: South Cobbinshaw - Quiet Daytime Operational Noise Assessment 

60 

y = -0.02523x 4 + 0.45370x 3 - 2.31967x 2 + 4.38180x + 30.05139 

R² = 0.35981 

60 

y = -0.02640x 4 + 0.45023x 3 - 2.23221x 2 + 4.81038x + 22.68159 

R² = 0.44670 

50 

50 

Noise Level, LA90,10min, dB(A) 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Measured Background Noise Level 

Noise Limit 

Predicted Noise Level - Aberlyne 

Predicted Noise Level - Crosswoodburn 

Predicted Noise Level - The Beeches 

Prevailing Background Noise 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Noise Limit 

Predicted Noise Level - South Cobbinshaw 


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 

Standardised 10 m Windspeed , ms -1 


Chart 12.2: Aberlyne - Night-time Operational Noise Assessment 

Chart 12.4: South Cobbinshaw - Night-time Operational Noise Assessment 

60 

y = -0.03205x 4 + 0.58060x 3 - 2.82054x 2 + 3.61053x + 29.68875 

R² = 0.49632 

60 

y = -0.02117x 4 + 0.39591x 3 - 2.14450x 2 + 4.78018x + 19.81635 

R² = 0.37846 

50 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Noise Limit 

Predicted Noise Level - Aberlyne 

Predicted Noise level - Crosswoodburn 

Predicted Noise Level - The Beeches 



40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Noise Limit 

Predicted Noise Level - South Cobbinshaw 


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 





Chapter 12 

Noise 



Chart 12.5: Kiprig - Quiet Daytime Operational Noise Assessment 

Chart 12.7: Harburnhead - Quiet Daytime Operational Noise Assessment 

60 

y = -0.03486x 3 + 0.64061x 2 - 1.70204x + 30.82128 

R² = 0.57220 

60 

y = -0.02331x 3 + 0.56484x 2 - 1.67373x + 27.05450 

R² = 0.67825 

50 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Noise Limit 

Predicted Noise Level - Kiprig 

Predicted Noise Level - Torphin Cottage 

Predicted Noise Level - Torphin House 

Predicted Noise Level - Beechcroft 


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Noise Limit 

Predicted Noise Level - Harburnhead 

Predicted Noise Level - South Lodge 

Predicted Noise Level - Harburnhead House 


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 



Chart 12.6: Kiprig- Night-time Operational Noise Assessment 

Chart 12.8: Harburnhead - Night-time Operational Noise Assessment 

60 

y = -0.00612x 4 + 0.14863x 3 - 0.91669x 2 + 2.53825x + 27.10286 

R² = 0.36819 

60 

y = -0.02966x 3 + 0.75595x 2 - 2.63805x + 23.19183 

R² = 0.74501 

50 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Noise Limit 

Predicted Noise Level - Kiprig 

Predicted Noise Level - Torphin Cottage 

Predicted Noise Level - Torphin House 

Predicted Noise Level - Beechcroft 


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Noise Limit 

Predicted Noise Level - Harburnhead 

Predicted Noise Level - South Lodge 

Predicted Noise Level - Harburnhead House 


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 







Noise 

12.4.3 Cumulative Effects Assessment 

An assessment of the cumulative effects of noise from the Development together with three other 

windfarms in the nearby area has been undertaken. The windfarms considered as part of this 

cumulative assessment are Pates Hill windfarm, located approximately 3 km to the west, Muirhall wind 

farm located approximately 5 km to the south west, and Harrows Law wind farm located approximately 

3.5 km to the south east, all of which are shown in Figure 12.1. Both the Pates Hill and Muirhall 

windfarm developments are operational, however Harrows Law windfarm is currently within the 

application process, having been refused consent at planning committee during the writing of this 

chapter. As the application for the proposed development is still within the period of appeal, it has 

been considered in the cumulative assessment in order to represent a worst case scenario and a 

comprehensive assessment. 

As two of the windfarm developments considered in the cumulative assessment are already 

operational, noise emissions for the turbine models installed at the respective developments have been 

obtained from the relevant manufacturers. In the case of Harrows Law windfarm, details of turbine 

noise emissions have been sourced from the Harrows Law Windfarm, Volume 2: Environmental 

Statement Main Report, February 2010. 

12.4.3.1 Pates Hill Windfarm – Noise Emissions 

Noise emissions for the Vestas V80 2.0 MW turbine model operating at Pates Hill windfarm have been 

obtained from Vestas. As it is uncertain if the data provided by the manufacturer is warranted, 

emission levels from this windfarm have been modelled with a hard ground factor (G=0.0), in 

accordance with the Bowdler et al. 2009. 

12.4.3.2 Muirhall Windfarm – Noise Emissions 

Noise emissions for the Repower MM92 turbine model operating at Muirhall windfarm have been 

obtained from Repower. As the data is warranted by the manufacturer, emission levels from this 

windfarm have been modelled with a mixed ground factor (G=0.5), in accordance with the Bowdler et 

al. 2009. 

12.4.3.3 Harrows Law Windfarm – Noise Emissions 

Noise emissions from the proposed Harrows Law windfarm have been sourced from the Harrows Law 

Windfarm Environmental Statement, reproduced in Tables 12.14 and 12.15 below. As it is not 

specified within the Harrows Law Windfarm environmental statement whether the data is warranted or 

measured, as a worst case approach the data has been assumed to be measured, and modelled with a 

hard ground factor (G=0). 

Table 12.14: Noise Emission Data, Siemens SWT-2.3-82 


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 


SWT-82-VS 73 m Hub 90.3 98.5 103.2 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 

Table 12.15: Octave Band Spectra of Siemens SWT-2.3-VS 

Octave Band Frequency (Hz) 

63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 


SWT-82-VS spectrum 77.8 87.8 96.5 98.6 98.9 96.3 94.4 88.6 

The assessment methodology detailed in Section 12.2.1.4.2 has also been followed for the cumulative 

assessment. 

12.4.3.4 Accounting for the Effect of Wind Direction on Sound Propagation 

Due to the position of each windfarm, in the majority of instances it is not possible for receptors to be 

in a downwind position of several windfarms simultaneously. To account for this, a directivity factor 

has been applied to calculate the worst case propagation conditions as a function of wind direction. 

For the position of each turbine relative to each receptor, the propagation direction (the direction from 

the turbine to the receptor) has been calculated. Then, for each of 24 x 15-degree wind direction 

intervals, the difference between wind direction and propagation direction has been calculated for each 

turbine location relative to each receptor. An adjustment was then applied to the noise level from each 

turbine at each receptor to account for the effects on sound propagation of wind direction relative to 

the propagation direction, based on a formula contained in Bowdler 2007 22 , which is described as “...a 

pragmatic basis on which to form a view of the cumulative impact and one that is substantially better 

than simply adding the worst-case values for every windfarm”. These adjustments are detailed in 

Table 12.16. 

Table 12.16: Attenuation Levels due to Wind Direction 

Difference Between Wind Direction 

Adjustment (dB) 

and Propagation Direction(deg) 

0 0.0 

15 -0.1 

30 -0.3 

45 -0.6 

60 -1.0 

75 -1.5 

90 -2.0 

105 -2.7 

120 -3.5 

135 -4.4 

150 -5.5 

165 -7.0 

180 -10.0 

On this basis, the worst-case wind direction for each receptor has been identified, i.e. that which 

results in the highest cumulative level of wind turbine noise taking into account the difference between 

wind direction and propagation direction for each turbine. 

12.4.3.5 Cumulative Noise Levels 

Table 12.17 below details the predicted cumulative noise immission levels from the cumulative 

assessment, with additional information detailing the wind directions under which such worst case 

levels are predicted to occur, the results of which are also shown in charts 12.9 to 12.16. 

Predicted cumulative noise immission levels calculated as a function of the worst case wind direction 

are at most 2.3 dB(A) higher than those predicted for the Development alone. This maximum 

difference is predicted at Beechcroft located to the north west of the Development, at a windspeed of 5 

ms -1 . In certain cases, the cumulative noise level assessed as function of worst-case wind direction is 

predicted to be no higher than that from the Development alone. 

22 Bowdler, D. (2007) Clocaenog Forest SSA Wind Farms Cumulative Impact Assessment, New Acoustics, September 2007 



Chapter 12 

Noise 

Table 12.17: Predicted Cumulative Noise Immission Levels 

Receptor 

Worst 


Case 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Wind 

Direction 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level, dB, L 

(deg) 

A90,10min 

Daytime 

Aberlyne 300 25.4 30.0 34.3 36.5 37.2 37.2 37.2 37.2 37.2 

Beechcroft 150 24.6 29.3 33.3 35.3 36.0 35.9 35.7 35.8 35.8 

Crosswoodburn 285 23.9 28.6 32.9 35.1 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 

Harburnhead 210 29.2 33.9 37.9 39.9 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 

Harburnhead House 210 24.2 28.8 33.0 35.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 

Kiprig 180 27.8 32.3 36.6 38.9 39.6 39.6 39.6 39.6 39.6 

South Cobbinshaw 30 24.5 29.2 33.3 35.4 36.0 36.0 35.8 35.9 35.9 

South Lodge 210 25.7 30.3 34.5 36.5 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 

The Beeches 315 24.5 29.1 33.4 35.6 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.2 

Torphin Cottage 180 27.5 32.0 36.3 38.6 39.3 39.3 39.2 39.2 39.2 

Torphin House 180 25.1 29.7 33.9 36.2 36.9 36.9 36.9 36.9 36.9 

Night-time 

Aberlyne 300 25.4 30.0 34.4 36.7 37.2 37.2 37.2 37.2 37.2 

Beechcroft 150 24.6 29.3 33.4 35.4 36.0 35.9 35.6 35.8 35.8 

Crosswoodburn 285 23.9 28.6 33.0 35.3 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 

Harburnhead 210 29.2 33.9 38.3 40.8 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 

Harburnhead House 210 24.2 28.8 33.2 35.6 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 

Kiprig 180 27.8 32.3 36.7 39.1 39.6 39.6 39.6 39.6 39.6 

South Cobbinshaw 30 24.5 29.2 33.3 35.5 36.0 36.0 35.8 35.9 35.9 

South Lodge 210 25.7 30.3 34.7 37.1 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 

The Beeches 315 24.5 29.1 33.4 35.7 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.2 

Torphin Cottage 180 27.5 32.0 36.3 38.8 39.3 39.3 39.2 39.2 39.2 

Torphin House 180 25.1 29.7 34.0 36.4 36.9 36.9 36.9 36.9 36.9 

Noise limits for the cumulative assessment are equal to those detailed in Table 12.7 for the assessment 

of noise solely from the Development. Table 12.18 details the margin between the predicted 

cumulative noise levels and the derived noise limits. A negative margin indicates that the predicted 

cumulative noise level is lower than the limit. 

Table 12.18: Margins Between Predicted Cumulative Turbine Noise and Noise Limits 


Quiet Daytime 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Cumulative Noise Margin, dB 

Aberlyne -14.6 -10.0 -8.8 -10.6 -13.4 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 

Beechcroft -15.4 -10.7 -7.8 -8.0 -9.4 -11.1 -12.3 -12.4 -12.4 


Harburnhead -10.8 -6.1 -2.1 -0.1 -1.5 -4.3 -7.1 -9.6 -11.6 


Kiprig -12.2 -7.7 -4.5 -4.4 -5.8 -7.4 -8.4 -8.6 -8.6 


South Lodge -14.3 -9.7 -5.5 -3.5 -5.2 -8.0 -10.8 -13.3 -15.3 

The Beeches -15.5 -10.9 -9.7 -11.5 -14.4 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6 


Torphin House -14.9 -10.3 -7.2 -7.1 -8.5 -10.1 -11.1 -11.3 -11.3 

Night-time 

Aberlyne -17.6 -13.0 -8.6 -7.2 -11.8 -14.5 -14.5 -14.5 -14.5 

Beechcroft -18.4 -13.7 -9.6 -7.6 -8.8 -13.0 -17.6 -21.5 -24.7 


Harburnhead -13.8 -9.1 -4.7 -2.2 -1.6 -2.7 -6.3 -9.8 -12.7 


Kiprig -15.2 -10.7 -6.3 -3.9 -5.2 -9.3 -13.6 -17.7 -20.9 


South Lodge -17.3 -12.7 -8.3 -5.9 -5.3 -6.4 -10.0 -13.5 -16.4 

The Beeches -18.5 -13.9 -9.6 -8.2 -12.8 -15.5 -15.5 -15.5 -15.5 


Torphin House -17.9 -13.3 -9.0 -6.6 -7.9 -12.0 -16.3 -20.4 -23.6 



As can be seen from Table 12.18 and Charts 12.9 to 12.16 the predicted cumulative noise levels are in 

all cases lower than the limits. The predicted cumulative levels are therefore considered to be 

acceptable within the terms of ETSU-R-97 and not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 





Noise 

60 

Chart 12.9: Aberlyne - Quiet Daytime Cumulative Operational Noise 

Assessment 

y = -0.02523x 4 + 0.45370x 3 - 2.31967x 2 + 4.38180x + 30.05139 

R² = 0.35981 

60 

Chart 12.11: South Cobbinshaw - Quiet Daytime Cumulative Operational Noise 

Assessment 

y = -0.02640x 4 + 0.45023x 3 - 2.23221x 2 + 4.81038x + 22.68159 

R² = 0.44670 

50 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Noise Limit 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Aberlyne 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - The Beeches 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Crosswoodburn 


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Noise Limit 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - South 

Cobbinshaw 


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 



60 

Chart 12.10: Aberlyne - Night-time Cumulative Operational Noise Assessment 

y = -0.03205x 4 + 0.58060x 3 - 2.82054x 2 + 3.61053x + 29.68875 

R² = 0.49632 

60 

Chart 12.12: South Cobbinshaw - Night-time Cumulative Operational Noise 

Assessment 

y = -0.02117x 4 + 0.39591x 3 - 2.14450x 2 + 4.78018x + 19.81635 

R² = 0.37846 

50 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Noise Limit 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Aberlyne 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - The Beeches 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Crosswoodburn 



40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Noise Limit 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - South 

Cobbinshaw 


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 





Chapter 12 

Noise 



60 

Chart 12.13: Kiprig - Quiet Daytime Cumulative Operational Noise Assessment 

y = -0.03486x 3 + 0.64061x 2 - 1.70204x + 30.82128 

R² = 0.57220 

60 

Chart 12.15: Harburnhead - Quiet Daytime Cumulative Operational Noise 

Assessment 

y = -0.02331x 3 + 0.56484x 2 - 1.67373x + 27.05450 

R² = 0.67825 

50 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Noise Limit 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Kiprig 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Torphin Cottage 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Torphin House 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Beechcroft 


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Noise Limit 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Harburnhead 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - South Lodge 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Harburnhead House 


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 

Standardised 10 m Wind Speed, ms -1 


60 

Chart 12.14: Kiprig- Night-time Cumulative Operational Noise Assessment 

y = -0.00612x 4 + 0.14863x 3 - 0.91669x 2 + 2.53825x + 27.10286 

R² = 0.36819 

60 

Chart 12.16: Harburnhead - Night-time Cumulative Operational Noise 

Assessment 

y = -0.02966x 3 + 0.75595x 2 - 2.63805x + 23.19183 

R² = 0.74501 

50 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Noise Limit 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Kiprig 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Torphin Cottage 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Torphin House 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Beechcroft 


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Noise Limit 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Harburnhead 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - South Lodge 

Predicted Cumulative Noise Level - Harburnhead House 


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 







Noise 

12.5 MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS 

12.5.1 Operational Noise Mitigation 

In all cases the levels of operational noise are predicted to be compliant with the requirements of 

ETSU-R-97. 

12.5.1.1 Residual Operational Effects 

Mitigation measures are embedded within the design of the Development for operation during daytime 

periods, where turbines 1 and 3 are required to operate in restricted power modes. Residual effects 

are therefore assessed as not significant. 

12.5.2 Construction Noise Mitigation 

The following good practice measures will be required of all contractors during construction: 

Construction noise will be limited in duration and confined to working hours as specified by the Council 

and can therefore be adequately controlled through planning condition. The application of mitigation 

measures where applicable will also ensure that any noise from site will be adequately controlled. 

Noise during decommissioning will be of a similar nature to that of construction and will be managed 

through best practice or other guidance or legislation relevant at the time. 

• operations shall be limited to times agreed with West Lothian Council’s Environmental Health 

Department; 

• deliveries of turbine components, plant and materials by HGV to site shall only take place by 

designated routes and within times agreed with West Lothian Council; 

• the Developer shall publicise the construction programme (for example, in local newspapers, 

through mailings to local residents, through an on-site information board at the site access, and on 

the Developer’s website) for the commencement and duration of operations, provide details of the 

project programme and provide named contacts for daytime and out of hours; 

• the site contractors shall be required to select the quietest item of suitable plant available for all site 

operations where practicable; 

• where practicable, the work programme will be phased, which would help to reduce the combined 

effects arising from several noisy operations; 

• where necessary and practicable, noise from fixed plant and equipment will be contained within 

suitable acoustic enclosures or behind acoustic screens; 

• all sub-contractors appointed by the main contractor will be formally and legally obliged, required 

through contract, to comply with all environmental noise conditions; 

• where practicable, night time working will not be carried out. Local residents shall be notified in 

advance of any night-time construction activities likely to generate significant noise levels, e.g., 

turbine erection; and 

• any plant and equipment normally required for operation at night (23:00 - 07:00), e.g., generators 

or dewatering pumps, shall be silenced or suitably shielded to ensure that the night-time lower 

threshold of 45 dB, LA eq,night shall not be exceeded at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. 

12.5.2.1 Residual Construction Effects 

Application of the above measures to manage construction noise will ensure that effects are minimised 

as far as is reasonably practicable and that the construction process is operated in compliance with the 

relevant legislation. 

12.6 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 

An assessment of potential noise effects has been carried out for the operational, construction and 

decommissioning stages of the Development. 

Operational noise has been assessed in accordance with ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of 

Noise from Windfarms and with current best practice, as published in Bowdler et al. 2009. It has been 

shown that the Development would comply with the requirements of ETSU-R-97 at all receptor 

locations. 

The cumulative effects of the Development, the nearby operational Pates Hill and Muirhall windfarms 

and the proposed Harrows Law windfarm have also been considered. The cumulative noise levels were 

found to be within the derived noise limits. 



Chapter 12 

Noise 

12.7 GLOSSARY 

The following items of acoustic terminology may have been referred to in the preceding chapter. 

AGL: Above Ground Level 

Background Noise: The background noise level is the under lying level of noise present at a 

particular location for the majority (usually 90%) of a period of time. As such it excludes any shortduration 

noises, such as individual passing cars (but not continuous traffic), dogs barking or passersby. 

Sources of background noise typically include such things as wind noise, traffic and continuously 

operating machinery (e.g. air conditioning or generators). 

Decibel (dB): The decibel is the basic unit of noise measurement. It relates to the cyclical changes in 

air pressure created by the sound (Sound Pressure Level) and operates on a logarithmic scale, ranging 

upwards from 0 dB. 0 dB is equivalent to the normal threshold of hearing at a frequency of 1000 Hz. 

Each increase of 3 dB on the scale represents a doubling in the Sound Pressure Level, and is typically 

the minimum noticeable change in sound level under normal listening conditions. For example, while an 

increase in noise level from 32 dB to 35 dB represents a doubling in sound pressure level, this change 

would only just be noticeable to the majority of listeners. 

dB(A): Environmental noise levels are usually discussed in terms of dB(A). This is known as the A- 

weighted sound pressure level, and indicates that a correction factor has been applied, which 

corresponds to the human ear’s response to sound across the range of audible frequencies. The ear is 

most sensitive in the middle range of frequencies (around 1000-3000 Hertz (Hz)), and less sensitive at 

lower and higher frequencies. The A-weighted noise level is prevailing by analysing the level of a 

sound at a range of frequencies and applying a specific correction factor for each frequency before 

calculating the overall level. In practice this is carried out automatically within noise measuring 

equipment by the use of electronic filters, which adjust the frequency response of the instrument to 

mimic that of the ear. 

dB(Z): The un-weighted or linear sound pressure level. 

Façade: A façade noise level is one measured at, or very close to, the façade of a building. These are 

typically 3 dB higher than free-field levels, due to reflection. 

Free Field: This term refers to a location where the propagation (movement) of sound is not affected 

by the presence of obstacles or surfaces which would cause reflections (echoes). 

Frequency: The frequency of a sound is equivalent to its pitch in musical terms. The units of 

frequency are Hertz (Hz), which represents the number of cycles (vibrations) per second. 

Noise Immission: The sound pressure level detected at a given location (e.g. nearest dwelling). 

LA 90,t : This term is used to represent the A-weighted sound pressure level that is exceeded for 90% of 

a period of time, t. This is used as a measure of the background noise level. 

LA eq,t : This term is known as the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level for a period 

of time, t. It is similar to an average, and represents the sound pressure level of a sound of continuous 

intensity that would result in an equal quantity of sound energy as a sound which varies in intensity. 

Low frequency noise: Noise at the lower end of the range of audible frequencies (20 Hz – 20 kHz). 

Usually refers to noise below 250 Hz. Should not be confused with infrasound, which is sound below 

the lowest normally audible frequency, 20 Hz. 

Noise: Unwanted sound. May refer to both natural (e.g. wind, birdsong etc) and artificial sounds (e.g. 

traffic, noise from wind turbines, etc.). It is assumed that all background sounds are unwanted, for the 

purposes of this assessment. 

Noise contour plot: A diagram showing lines of equal sound levels (isobels) in a similar manner to 

height contours on an Ordnance Survey map or isobars (lines of equal pressure) on a weather map. 

Noise sensitive receptors: Locations that may potentially be adversely affected by the addition of a 

new source of noise. These can include residential properties, outdoor areas and sensitive species. 



Sound power (W): The sound energy radiated per unit time by a sound source, measured in watts 

(W). 

Sound power level (Lw): Sound power measured on the decibel scale, relative to a reference value 

(Wo) of 10 -12 W. 

Sound pressure (P): The fluctuations in atmospheric pressure relative to atmospheric pressure, 

measured in Pascals (Pa). 

Sound pressure level (Lp): Sound pressure measured on the decibel scale, relative to a sound 

pressure of 2 x 10 -5 Pa. 

Tonal element: A characteristic of a sound where the sound pressure level in a particular frequency 

range is greater than in those frequency ranges immediately above higher or lower. This would be 

perceived as a humming or whining sound. 

Vibration: In this context, refers to vibration carried in structures such as the ground or buildings, 

rather than airborne noise. 



298000 

299000 

300000 

301000 

302000 

303000 

304000 

305000 

306000 

307000 

308000 

309000 

661000 

Beechcroft 

Kiprig 

Torphin House 

Harburnhead House 

South Lodge 

661000 

662000 

660000 

662000 

Key 

Proposed Turbine 

Elevation 

Harburnhead 

660000 

35dB 

40dB 

45dB 

50dB 

659000 

659000 

55dB 

Pates Hill 

Turbine 

Property 

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2011. All rights reserved. License number 100048606 

652000 

653000 

654000 

655000 

656000 

657000 

658000 

298000 

299000 

300000 

Muirhall 

301000 

South Cobbinshaw 

302000 

303000 

304000 

Harrows Law 

305000 

Aberlyne 

306000 

307000 

308000 

309000 

652000 

653000 

654000 

655000 

656000 

657000 

658000 

Noise Assesment Locations 

Noise Monitoring Location 

1:40,000 Scale @ A3 

0 1 2 km 

Produced:LHu 

Reviewed:PM 

Approved: PP 

Ref: 189/ES/050 

Date: 21/11/2011 

Noise Contour Plot 

Figure 12.1 

Revision: A 


Environmental Statement

ES Vol 3 (Technical App)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?