REDUCING UNDERWATER NOISE FROM LARGE COMMERCIAL SHIPS: CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Concerns about the effects of underwater noise pollution from shipping have led to a number of initiatives to develop quieting technologies for large commercial ships. These include the development of non-mandatory technical guidelines for reducing ship noise by the International Maritime Organization. For most merchant vessels the noise generated by cavitation will dominate all other sources of noise from that vessel. In addition, the noisiest vessels will contribute most of the shipping related hydroacoustic noise. The noisiest vessels are also likely to suffer excessive cavitation and may be operating inefficiently. Such vessels may be identified on the basis of efficiency indices or noise measurements and are most likely to benefit from remedial action to reduce noise which may also improve fuel efficiency. Slow steaming practices since 2007 resulted in an observed reduction in mean speeds from 15.6 (sd = 4.2) knots in 2007 to 13.8 (sd = 3.0) knots in 2013 for ships transiting the major shipping route in the eastern Mediterranean. Based on general observed relationships between speed and noise for vessels with fixed pitch propellers, we estimated that slow steaming in the last five years has likely reduced the overall broadband acoustic footprint from these ships by over 50%. There is still a lack of data on noise levels from individual ships and how these relate to different factors such as loading and trim and also a need for noise measurements from new propeller design concepts that offer improvement in fuel efficiency through reduced cavitation. Ongoing research on these issues should help develop further practical and economic quieting technologies in addition to measures already identified in the IMO guidelines.

[1]  Thomas Lücke Propeller and Rudder in Off-Design Conditions , 2013 .

[2]  S. Simpson,et al.  Noise negatively affects foraging and antipredator behaviour in shore crabs , 2013, Animal Behaviour.

[3]  Werner Stefanie,et al.  Monitoring Guidance for Underwater Noise in European Seas- Part II: Monitoring Guidance Specifications , 2014 .

[4]  Nathan D. Merchant,et al.  Assessing sound exposure from shipping in coastal waters using a single hydrophone and Automatic Identification System (AIS) data. , 2012, Marine Pollution Bulletin.

[5]  R. Heitmeyer,et al.  Acoustic source‐level measurements for a variety of merchant ships , 1991 .

[6]  D. Ponirakis,et al.  Acoustic quality of critical habitats for three threatened whale populations , 2014 .

[7]  John A. Hildebrand,et al.  Relationship between container ship underwater noise levels and ship design, operational and oceanographic conditions , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[8]  Roberto Muscari,et al.  Ship underwater noise assessment by the acoustic analogy, part III: measurements versus numerical predictions on a full-scale ship , 2013 .

[9]  William A. Welch,et al.  Greenhouse gas and criteria emission benefits through reduction of vessel speed at sea. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[10]  C. Clark,et al.  Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication , 2009 .

[11]  Kazuyuki Ouchi,et al.  Model and full scale CFD analysis of propeller boss cap fins (PBCF) , 2012 .

[12]  Linda S. Weilgart,et al.  MARINE NOISE POLLUTION - INCREASING RECOGNITION BUT NEED FOR MORE PRACTICAL ACTION , 2014 .

[13]  Adam S Frankel,et al.  Quantifying Loss of Acoustic Communication Space for Right Whales in and around a U.S. National Marine Sanctuary , 2012, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[14]  Dana L. Wright,et al.  Radiated noise from commercial ships in the Gulf of Maine: implications for whale/vessel collisions. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  J. Hildebrand,et al.  Increases in deep ocean ambient noise in the Northeast Pacific west of San Nicolas Island, California. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  B. Howe,et al.  Ocean ambient sound: Comparing the 1960s with the 1990s for a receiver off the California coast , 2002 .

[17]  P. Tyack,et al.  Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise , 2007 .

[18]  Michael Schmidt,et al.  Contemporary Bulk Carrier Design to Meet IMO EEDI Requirements , 2013 .

[19]  S. Wales,et al.  An ensemble source spectra model for merchant ship-radiated noise. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  A. Popper,et al.  A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. , 2010, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[21]  Atilla Incecik,et al.  A study of numerical ship underwater noise prediction , 2013 .

[22]  A. Frankel,et al.  A New Context‐Based Approach to Assess Marine Mammal Behavioral Responses to Anthropogenic Sounds , 2012, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[23]  Paul A. Lepper,et al.  Measurement of radiated ship noise , 2013 .

[24]  Steven Leonard,et al.  The Becker Mewis Duct ® - Challenges in Full-Scale Design and new Developments for Fast Ships , 2013 .

[25]  Dietrich Kurt Wittekind,et al.  A Simple Model for the Underwater Noise Source Level of Ships , 2014 .

[26]  Arveson,et al.  Radiated noise characteristics of a modern cargo ship , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  Gerrit Blacquière,et al.  Assessment of natural and anthropogenic sound sources and acoustic propagation in the North Sea , 2009 .