pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.08656 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-10 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY· eess.SP

Analysis and Control of Acoustic Emissions from Marine Energy Converters

Jiaqin He , Max Malyi , Jonathan Shek This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 17:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SYeess.SP
keywords acoustic emissionsmarine energy converterstidal current convertersdirect-drive generatormaximum power point trackingmarine mammalssound pressure levelstemporary threshold shift
0
0 comments X

The pith

Direct-drive permanent magnet synchronous generators eliminate mechanical tonal noise in tidal current converters, while de-tuning the maximum power point tracking coefficient by a factor of 1.2 reduces marine mammal temporary threshold-shi

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper develops a control engineering framework to lower underwater acoustic emissions from tidal current converters, addressing a key barrier to commercial marine renewable projects. It uses a simulation model to compare two mitigation approaches: replacing a geared induction generator with a direct-drive permanent magnet synchronous generator, and adjusting operational parameters such as switching frequency and the maximum power point tracking coefficient. The direct-drive architecture cuts sound pressure levels and removes mechanical tonal noise sources. For existing geared systems, increasing the maximum power point tracking coefficient by a factor of 1.2 lowers the chance of exceeding temporary threshold shift limits for marine mammals while incurring only a 3.58 percent energy yield penalty. The work proposes a tiered strategy of selecting quiet generator designs for sensitive sites and applying power curtailment during critical migration windows.

Core claim

The direct-drive permanent magnet synchronous generator architecture reduces sound pressure levels and effectively eliminates mechanical tonal noise. For existing geared systems, de-tuning the maximum power point tracking coefficient by a factor of 1.2 reduces the probability of exceeding temporary threshold shift limits for marine mammals, with a quantified energy yield reduction of 3.58 percent. Lowering switching frequencies increases power electronic losses by over 2000 percent with negligible acoustic benefit.

What carries the argument

The MATLAB/Simulink model of a tidal current converter used to simulate and compare acoustic emissions across generator architectures and control settings.

If this is right

  • Direct-drive permanent magnet synchronous generator topologies should be selected for acoustically sensitive deployment sites.
  • Maximum power point tracking coefficient de-tuning can serve as a transient operational mode during critical biological migration periods.
  • Switching frequency reduction is not a viable mitigation option because it produces large increases in power losses with no meaningful acoustic improvement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Real-sea validation of the simulation results would be needed to confirm whether the modeled noise reductions translate to actual deployment conditions.
  • The same hierarchical mitigation logic could be tested on wave energy converters or other marine renewable devices that produce similar tonal noise.
  • Coupling the control strategy with real-time acoustic or animal-presence sensors might allow dynamic activation of the de-tuning mode only when marine mammals are nearby.

Load-bearing premise

The MATLAB/Simulink model accurately represents real-world acoustic emissions, sound propagation underwater, and the hearing thresholds of marine mammals without significant unmodeled effects.

What would settle it

Direct field measurements of sound pressure levels and tonal components from an operating direct-drive permanent magnet synchronous generator tidal converter compared with a geared induction generator unit under matched current conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08656 by Jiaqin He, Jonathan Shek, Max Malyi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The SeaGen tidal turbine, a commercial-scale horizontal-axis TCC deployed in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland [11]. where ρ is fluid density, A is rotor swept area, U is flow velocity, and Cp is the power coefficient, which is a non-linear function of the tip speed ratio λ and blade pitch angle β [15]. Conventional control strategies, such as maximum power point tracking (MPPT), aim solely to maximise Cp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Audiograms of target marine mammal species and the derived generic hearing threshold (GTV) used as the baseline for acoustic impact assessment. The engineering constraints are defined by the onset of TTS and PTS. Following the exposure models by Heathershaw et al. [25] and Richards et al. [14], the limit thresholds are calculated as: T T S = GT V + 75 − 10 log10  T 28800 , (2) P T S = GT V + 95 − 10 log1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Baseline operational characteristics of the simulated TCCS: (a) power coefficient Cp, (b) tip speed ratio λ, (c) mechanical torque, and (d) power output. The simulation demonstrates the dynamic response of the control system to turbulent inflow. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-series of SPL components for the reference geared TCC at 50 m distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spatial propagation of acoustic emissions at rated power (T = 7340 s) from 10 m to 200 m. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dynamic step response of the power coefficient (Cp) under varying Kopt values. The instability in lower Kopt regimes highlights the trade-off between acoustic mitigation and control stability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Correlation between SPL and rotational speed under different MPPT gain coefficients (Kopt). The de-tuned controller (1.2Kopt) limits maximum RPM, capping peak acoustic emissions. decrease in acoustic energy), it incurred an energy yield penalty of 3.58%. Conversely, decreasing Kopt (0.8) increased both energy production and noise, confirming the direct coupling between aerodynamic efficiency and acoustic e… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Acoustic profile of the direct-drive PMSG architecture. Total SPL (solid line) is now dominated solely by inflow turbulence (dashed line), significantly lowering the overall noise floor compared to the geared baseline. turbine creates a zone of influence where marine mammals are at risk of TTS within a 100 m radius and PTS within 10 m. From a licensing perspective, this acoustic footprint is significant. I… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Environmental licensing related to underwater acoustic emissions represents a critical bottleneck for the commercial deployment of marine renewable energy. This study presents a control engineering framework to mitigate acoustic risks from tidal current converters without compromising project viability. A MATLAB/Simulink model of a tidal current converter was utilised to evaluate two distinct mitigation tiers: (1) architectural modification, comparing a geared induction generator against a direct-drive permanent magnet synchronous generator, and (2) operational control, analysing the impact of switching frequencies and maximum power point tracking coefficient tuning. Results indicate that lowering switching frequencies is ineffective, increasing power electronic losses by over 2000% with negligible acoustic benefit. Conversely, the direct-drive permanent magnet synchronous generator architecture reduced sound pressure levels, effectively eliminating mechanical tonal noise. For existing geared systems, de-tuning the maximum power point tracking coefficient by a factor of 1.2 reduced the probability of exceeding temporary threshold shift limits for marine mammals, with a quantified energy yield reduction of 3.58%. These findings propose a hierarchical mitigation strategy: selecting direct-drive topologies for acoustically sensitive sites, and utilising maximum power point tracking coefficient based power curtailment as a transient operational mode during critical biological migration periods.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a MATLAB/Simulink-based control engineering study of acoustic emissions from tidal current converters. It evaluates two mitigation approaches: (1) replacing a geared induction generator with a direct-drive permanent-magnet synchronous generator (PMSG) to eliminate mechanical tonal noise, and (2) detuning the maximum-power-point-tracking (MPPT) coefficient by a factor of 1.2 in existing geared systems, which the simulations indicate reduces the probability of exceeding marine-mammal temporary threshold shift (TTS) limits at the cost of a 3.58 % energy-yield reduction. The authors conclude with a hierarchical strategy that recommends direct-drive topologies for sensitive sites and MPPT detuning as a transient operational mode.

Significance. If the simulation fidelity is later confirmed, the work supplies concrete, quantitative guidance on acoustic-risk mitigation that directly addresses a documented permitting bottleneck for marine renewable energy. The explicit energy-penalty figure (3.58 %) and the comparison of architectural versus operational controls constitute a practical contribution to the systems-and-control literature on sustainable energy devices.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model-validation section (likely §2 or §3)] Model-validation section (likely §2 or §3): the quantitative claims—noise elimination by the direct-drive PMSG and the 3.58 % energy loss with 1.2× MPPT detuning—rest entirely on unvalidated simulation outputs. No calibration against measured sound-pressure-level data from deployed turbines, tank tests, or field recordings is reported, nor is any sensitivity analysis to unmodeled effects such as site-specific bathymetry or nonlinear bubble noise provided. This directly undermines confidence in the central numerical results.
  2. [Results section (acoustic and TTS analysis)] Results section (acoustic and TTS analysis): the reported reduction in exceedance probability for TTS limits is presented without error bars, confidence intervals, or Monte-Carlo variation over uncertain propagation parameters. Because the TTS threshold and propagation-loss models are themselves taken from external literature, the robustness of the 1.2 detuning factor as an operating point cannot be assessed from the given evidence.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction use the term “sound pressure levels” without specifying the reference pressure or frequency weighting; a brief clarification would improve readability.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state whether the plotted spectra are narrow-band or one-third-octave and whether they represent instantaneous or time-averaged quantities.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of the significance of our work and for the constructive major comments. We address each point below, indicating planned revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Model-validation section (likely §2 or §3): the quantitative claims—noise elimination by the direct-drive PMSG and the 3.58 % energy loss with 1.2× MPPT detuning—rest entirely on unvalidated simulation outputs. No calibration against measured sound-pressure-level data from deployed turbines, tank tests, or field recordings is reported, nor is any sensitivity analysis to unmodeled effects such as site-specific bathymetry or nonlinear bubble noise provided. This directly undermines confidence in the central numerical results.

    Authors: We concur that empirical validation of the simulation model against field or tank measurements would strengthen the quantitative claims. As this is a modeling and control study, the current work relies on physics-based models parameterized from literature. In the revised version, we will add a new subsection on model assumptions and limitations, and conduct a sensitivity analysis with respect to key uncertain parameters including bathymetry effects and bubble noise contributions. We will also clarify that full calibration is planned as future experimental work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Results section (acoustic and TTS analysis): the reported reduction in exceedance probability for TTS limits is presented without error bars, confidence intervals, or Monte-Carlo variation over uncertain propagation parameters. Because the TTS threshold and propagation-loss models are themselves taken from external literature, the robustness of the 1.2 detuning factor as an operating point cannot be assessed from the given evidence.

    Authors: We agree that the lack of uncertainty quantification makes it difficult to assess the robustness of the reported 3.58% energy loss and the TTS exceedance reduction. We will revise the results section to include Monte Carlo simulations varying the propagation loss and TTS threshold parameters within literature-reported ranges, and will add error bars or 95% confidence intervals to the probability estimates in the figures and text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims are direct simulation outputs

full rationale

The paper's central results—the SPL reduction from direct-drive PMSM architecture and the 3.58% energy-loss trade-off from 1.2× MPPT detuning—arise from comparative runs of a MATLAB/Simulink model. These quantities are generated as model outputs under different configurations rather than being fitted to a target acoustic metric or defined in terms of themselves. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes appear as load-bearing steps in the derivation chain. The analysis remains self-contained as an evaluation of model behavior against external benchmarks of acoustic risk.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a domain-specific simulation model whose accuracy is assumed rather than independently verified within the provided text.

free parameters (1)
  • MPPT detuning factor = 1.2
    The factor of 1.2 is selected and evaluated within the simulation to quantify risk reduction versus energy loss.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The simulation model accurately captures acoustic emissions from generator components and their underwater propagation.
    This premise underpins all comparisons of sound pressure levels and marine mammal threshold exceedance probabilities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5740 in / 1281 out tokens · 39826 ms · 2026-05-18T17:47:18.328641+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    A MATLAB/Simulink model of a tidal current converter was utilised to evaluate two distinct mitigation tiers: (1) architectural modification, comparing a geared induction generator against a direct-drive permanent magnet synchronous generator, and (2) operational control, analysing the impact of switching frequencies and maximum power point tracking coefficient (K opt) tuning.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    de-tuning the maximum power point tracking coefficient by a factor of 1.2 reduced the probability of exceeding temporary threshold shift limits

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    International Energy Outlook 2016,

    Conti J, Holtberg P, Diefenderfer Jet al, “International Energy Outlook 2016,” USDOE Energy Information Administration (EIA), Washington, DC (United States), Tech. Rep., 2016, https: //doi.org/10.2172/1296780

    work page doi:10.2172/1296780 2016

  2. [2]

    Turning the Tide: Tidal Power in the UK,

    Sustainable Development Commission, “Turning the Tide: Tidal Power in the UK,” Tech. Rep., 2007, https://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php@id=607.html (20 November 2025, date last accessed). [Online]. Available: https://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php@ id=607.html

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Exceeding the Betz Limit with Tidal Turbines,

    Vennell R, “Exceeding the Betz Limit with Tidal Turbines,”Renewable Energy, vol.55, pp. 277–285, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.12.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.12.016 2013

  4. [4]

    Survey of Energy Resources,

    Clarke AW, Trinnaman JA, “Survey of Energy Resources,” World Energy Council, Tech. Rep., 2010, https://www.worldenergy.org/publications/entry/world-energy-resources-2010-survey (20 November 2025, date last accessed). [Online]. Available: https://www.worldenergy.org/ publications/entry/world-energy-resources-2010-survey

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Acoustic Noise Measurement Methodology for the Billia Croo Wave Energy Test Site,

    Lepper P, Harland E, Robinson Set al, “Acoustic Noise Measurement Methodology for the Billia Croo Wave Energy Test Site,” The European Marine Energy Centre Ltd., Tech. Rep., 2012, https://www.emec.org.uk/?wpfb dl=66 (20 November 2025, date last accessed). [Online]. Available: https://www.emec.org.uk/?wpfb dl=66

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Ocean Energy Development in Europe: Current Status and Future Perspectives,

    Magagna D, Uihlein A, “Ocean Energy Development in Europe: Current Status and Future Perspectives,”International Journal of Marine Energy, vol.11, pp. 84–104, 2015, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijome.2015.05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijome.2015.05.001 2015

  7. [7]

    Potential Environmental Effects of Marine Re- newable Energy Development — The State of the Science,

    Copping AE, Hemery LG, Overhus DMet al, “Potential Environmental Effects of Marine Re- newable Energy Development — The State of the Science,”Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, vol.8, no. 11, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8110879

    work page doi:10.3390/jmse8110879 2020

  8. [8]

    Noise in the Sea and Its Impacts on Marine Organisms,

    Peng C, Zhao XG, Liu GX, “Noise in the Sea and Its Impacts on Marine Organisms,”International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol.12, no. 10, pp. 12 304–12 323, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph121012304

    work page doi:10.3390/ijerph121012304 2015

  9. [9]

    A hybrid model of tumor growth and angiogenesis: In silico experiments

    Tougaard J, “Underwater Noise from a Wave Energy Converter is Unlikely to Affect Marine Mammals,”PLOS ONE, vol.10, no. 7, p. e0132391, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0132391

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone 2015

  10. [10]

    The Use of Acoustic Devices to Warn Ma- rine Mammals of Tidal-Stream Energy Devices,

    Wilson B, Carter C, “The Use of Acoustic Devices to Warn Ma- rine Mammals of Tidal-Stream Energy Devices,” Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS), Tech. Rep., 2013, https://www.gov.scot/publications/ use-acoustic-devices-warn-marine-mammals-tidal-stream-energy-devices/ (20 November 2025, date last accessed). [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.sc...

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    SeaGen Environmental Monitoring Programme: Final Report,

    Keenan G, Sparling C, Williams Het al, “SeaGen Environmental Monitoring Programme: Final Report,” Royal Haskoning, Tech. Rep., 2011, https://tethys. pnnl.gov/publications/seagen-environmental-monitoring-programme-final-report (20 Novem- ber 2025, date last accessed). [Online]. Available: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/ seagen-environmental-monitorin...

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    Noise Modelling of Tidal Turbine Arrays for Environmental Impact Assessment,

    Lloyd TP, Humphrey VF, Turnock SR, “Noise Modelling of Tidal Turbine Arrays for Environmental Impact Assessment,” inProceedings of the 9th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Southampton, United Kingdom, 2011, https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/192959/ (20 November 2025, date last accessed). [Online]. Available: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/192959/ 14

    work page 2011

  13. [13]

    An Experimental Investigation on Cavitation, Noise, and Slip- stream Characteristics of Ocean Stream Turbines,

    Wang D, Atlar M, Sampson R, “An Experimental Investigation on Cavitation, Noise, and Slip- stream Characteristics of Ocean Stream Turbines,”Proceedings of the Institution of Mechan- ical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, vol.221, no. 2, pp. 219–231, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1243/09576509JPE310

    work page doi:10.1243/09576509jpe310 2007

  14. [14]

    Underwater noise study supporting scottish executive strategic environmental assessment for marine renewables,

    Richards SD, Harland EJ, Jones SAS, “Underwater noise study supporting scottish executive strategic environmental assessment for marine renewables,” Qinetiq, Tech. Rep., 2007, https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/65375/ (20 November 2025, date last accessed). [Online]. Available: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/65375/

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    Fundamentals Applicable to the Utilisation of Marine Current Turbines for Energy Production,

    Bahaj AS, Myers LE, “Fundamentals Applicable to the Utilisation of Marine Current Turbines for Energy Production,”Renewable Energy, vol.28, no. 14, pp. 2205–2211, 2003, https://doi. org/10.1016/S0960-1481(03)00103-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s0960-1481(03)00103-4 2003

  16. [16]

    Modelling, Control and Frequency Domain Analysis of a Tidal Current Conversion System with Onshore Converters,

    Sousounis MC, Shek KH, Mueller MA, “Modelling, Control and Frequency Domain Analysis of a Tidal Current Conversion System with Onshore Converters,”IET Renewable Power Generation, vol.10, no. 2, pp. 158–165, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2014.0331

    work page doi:10.1049/iet-rpg.2014.0331 2016

  17. [17]

    The Habitat Preferences of Marine Mammals West of Scotland (UK),

    MacLeod CD, Weir CR, Pierpoint Cet al, “The Habitat Preferences of Marine Mammals West of Scotland (UK),”Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, vol.87, no. 1, pp. 157–164, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315407055270

    work page doi:10.1017/s0025315407055270 2007

  18. [18]

    Field Studies of Hearing in Teleost Fish,

    Chapman CJ, “Field Studies of Hearing in Teleost Fish,”Helgol¨ ander Wissenschaftliche Meere- suntersuchungen, vol.24, no. 1, pp. 371–390, 1973, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01609527

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01609527 1973

  19. [19]

    Low-Frequency Underwater Hearing Sensitivity in Bel- ugas, Delphinapterus-Leucas,

    Awbrey FT, Thomas JA, Kastelein RA, “Low-Frequency Underwater Hearing Sensitivity in Bel- ugas, Delphinapterus-Leucas,”The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol.84, no. 6, pp. 2273–2275, 1988, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.397022

    work page doi:10.1121/1.397022 1988

  20. [20]

    Audiogram of a Striped Dolphin (Stenella Coeruleoalba),

    Kastelein RA, Hagedoorn M, Au WWL et al, “Audiogram of a Striped Dolphin (Stenella Coeruleoalba),”The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol.113, no. 2, pp. 1130– 1137, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1532310

    work page doi:10.1121/1.1532310 2003

  21. [21]

    Underwater Hearing Sensitivity of Harbor Seals (Phoca Vitulina) for Narrow Noise Bands Between 0.2 and 80 kHz,

    Kastelein RA, Wensveen P, Hoek L et al, “Underwater Hearing Sensitivity of Harbor Seals (Phoca Vitulina) for Narrow Noise Bands Between 0.2 and 80 kHz,”The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol.126, no. 1, pp. 476–483, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3132522

    work page doi:10.1121/1.3132522 2009

  22. [22]

    Kastelein RA, Hoek L, de Jong CAFet al, “The Effect of Signal Duration on the Underwater De- tection Thresholds of a Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena Phocoena) for Single Frequency-Modulated Tonal Signals between 0.25 and 160 kHz,”The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 128, no. 5, pp. 3211–3222, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3493435

    work page doi:10.1121/1.3493435 2010

  23. [23]

    Killer Whale (Orcinus Orca) Hearing: Auditory Brain- stem Response and Behavioral Audiograms,

    Szymanski MD, Bain DE, Kiehl K et al, “Killer Whale (Orcinus Orca) Hearing: Auditory Brain- stem Response and Behavioral Audiograms,”The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol.106, no. 2, pp. 1134–1141, 1999, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.427121

    work page doi:10.1121/1.427121 1999

  24. [24]

    Shipboard Measurements of the Hearing of the White-Beaked Dolphin Lagenorhynchus Albirostris,

    Nachtigall PE, Mooney TA, Taylor KA et al, “Shipboard Measurements of the Hearing of the White-Beaked Dolphin Lagenorhynchus Albirostris,”Journal of Experimental Biology, vol.211, no. 4, pp. 642–647, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.014118

    work page doi:10.1242/jeb.014118 2008

  25. [25]

    The Environmental Impact of Underwa- ter Sound,

    Heathershaw, AD, Ward PD, David AM, “The Environmental Impact of Underwa- ter Sound,”Proceedings - Institute of Acoustics, vol.23, no. 4, pp. 1–12, 2001, https://www.ioa.org.uk/system/files/proceedings (20 November 2025, date last accessed). [Online]. Available: https://www.ioa.org.uk/system/files/proceedings/ad heathershaw pd ward sas jones r rogers unde...

    work page 2001

  26. [26]

    Modelling Techniques for Underwater Noise Generated by Tidal Turbines in Shallow Waters,

    Lloyd TP, Turnock SR, Humphrey VF, “Modelling Techniques for Underwater Noise Generated by Tidal Turbines in Shallow Waters,” inInternational Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, vol.44373, 2011, pp. 777–785, https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2011-49994. 15

    work page doi:10.1115/omae2011-49994 2011

  27. [27]

    Aero-Hydroacoustics for Ships, Technical Report No. ADA150673,

    Blake WK, “Aero-Hydroacoustics for Ships, Technical Report No. ADA150673,” David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Tech. Rep., 1984, https: //apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA150673 (20 November 2025, date last accessed). [Online]. Available: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA150673

    work page 1984

  28. [28]

    Wiley Online Library, 2007, ch

    Bruce RD, Moritz CT, Bommer AS,Sound Power Level Predictions for Industrial Machinery. Wiley Online Library, 2007, ch. 82, pp. 1001–1009, https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470209707.ch82

    work page doi:10.1002/9780470209707.ch82 2007

  29. [29]

    Characteristics of the Operational Noise from Full Scale Wave Energy Converters in the Lysekil Project: Estimation of Potential Environmental Impacts,

    Haikonen K, Sundberg J, Leijon M, “Characteristics of the Operational Noise from Full Scale Wave Energy Converters in the Lysekil Project: Estimation of Potential Environmental Impacts,” Energies, vol.6, no. 5, pp. 2562–2582, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3390/en6052562

    work page doi:10.3390/en6052562 2013

  30. [30]

    A Case Study of Localization and Identification of Noise Sources From a Pitch and a Stall Regulated Wind Turbine,

    Lee GS, Cheong CL, Shin SBet al, “A Case Study of Localization and Identification of Noise Sources From a Pitch and a Stall Regulated Wind Turbine,”Applied Acoustics, vol.73, pp. 817–827, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2012.03.001. 16

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2012.03.001 2012