Edinburgh Research Explorer

Benchmarking railway vibrations - Track, vehicle, ground and

building effects

Citation for published version:

Connolly, DP, Kouroussis, G, Laghrouche, O, Ho, CL & Forde, MC 2015, 'Benchmarking railway vibrations -
Track, vehicle, ground and building effects' Construction and Building Materials, vol. 92, pp. 64–81. DOI:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.042

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.042

Link:
Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer

Document Version:
Peer reviewed version

Published In:
Construction and Building Materials

General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)
and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and
abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Take down policy

The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer
content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please
contact openaccess@ed.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and
investigate your claim.

Download date: 17. Jan. 2019

 Benchmarking Railway Vibrations - Track, Vehicle, Ground and Building
Effects

Connolly, D. P., Kouroussis, G., Laghrouche, O., Ho, C. L. & Forde, M. C.

In : Construction and Building Materials. 92, p. 64–81

Keywords: Passenger comfort, railway track dynamics, underground train, high speed rail,
urban tram, critical velocity, structural vibration, railway vibration, environmental
assessment, EIA, track displacements, soil parameter assessment, site investigation

Abstract
This paper reviews, synthesises and benchmarks new understandings relating to
railway vibrations. Firstly, the effect of vibrations on passenger comfort is evaluated,
followed by its effect on track performance. Then ground-borne vibration is discussed along
with its effect on the structural response of buildings near railway lines. There is discussion
of the most suitable mathematical and numerical modelling strategies for railway vibration
simulation, along with mitigation strategies. Regarding ground borne vibration, structural
amplification is discussed and how vibration mitigation strategies can be implemented.
There is also a focus on determining how ‘critical velocity’ and ‘track critical velocity’ are
evaluated – with the aim of providing clear design guidelines related to Rayleigh wave
velocity. To aid this, conventional site investigation data is reviewed and related to critical
velocity calculations. The aim is to provide new thinking on how to predict critical velocity
from readily available conventional site investigation data.

Introduction
Over the last 50 years there has been an increasing demand for more access to the
railways for both passenger and freight carriage. One emerging way to satisfy this demand
for increased capacity has been to create high speed passenger routes – thus freeing up
capacity on the existing networks for classic rail serving urban conurbations and providing
extra capacity for freight trains. Figure 1 illustrates the evolution of railway train speeds
since the 1960’s.

1
 Figure 1 - Historical maximum train speed timeline (data taken from [1])

With the creation of this extra capacity, much at high speeds - railway vibration is
now a growing engineering challenge due to the higher speeds and heavier loads, in close
proximity to densely populated urban environments. These faster or heavier trains impart
greater forces into the track and can result in elevated vibration levels within both train and
track, thus effecting passenger safety, maintenance costs and passenger comfort. In
addition, when these vibrations propagate outward from the track they interact with their
surrounding environment, which can cause negative side effects, particularly in urbanised
areas.
This paper attempts to provide a comprehensive, detailed review of the vibrations
generated within the train, track, ground and nearby structures, with each component being
reviewed separately. For each element, vibration generation/propagation is described,
along with practical considerations, mitigation possibilities and potential modelling
approaches. It aims to do so in a manner that is useful for both academics and
practitioners.
Firstly, as the wheel-rail interface is the source of vibration, the mechanisms that
generate vibrations are discussed, along with general wave propagation theory. Then
vibration propagation within the train vehicle is reviewed with a focus on passenger comfort
which is becoming increasingly important on new lines. Next the role of the track is
considered with a focus on numerical modelling and common vibration mitigation
procedures. The role of the ground in the transfer of vibration from track to nearby
structures is also analysed with a focus on modelling and critical velocity effects. Lastly,
building vibration and the generation of in-door noise is reviewed. It should be noted that
this work is complementary to other state of the art reviews into railway vibration, as listed
in Table 1 below.

Topic of review paper Reference

2
Railway vibration - modelling approaches [2], [3], [4]
Track settlement [5]
Track loading conditions [6], [7], [8], [9]
Vehicle dynamics [10]
Track vibration mitigation [11]
Tunnel vibration [12]
Building vibration [13], [14]
Passenger comfort [15]
Table 1 - Topics of previous review papers

Background

Vibration generation
Railway vibration and noise arise from the forces generated at the contact point
between train wheel and the rail. These forces can be broken down into their quasi-static
and dynamic components [16]. Quasi-static forces arise from the train weight and are
independent of train speed. They dominate the track response and near field, at distances
up to one quarter of a wavelength [17]. If the track is considered as a Euler beam resting on
an elastic foundation, the quasi static deflection of a typical track is shown in Figure 2 and
can be calculated analytically by

𝑃 + 𝑚𝑤 𝑔 −𝛽|𝑥−𝑣 𝑡|
𝑤(𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑤(𝑥 − 𝑣0 , 𝑡) = [cos(𝛽|𝑥 − 𝑣0 𝑡|) + sin(𝛽|𝑥 − 𝑣0 𝑡|)] 𝑒 0
8𝐸𝑟 𝐼𝑟 𝛽 3

Where w(x,t) is the track deflection at position ‘x’ and time ‘t’. ‘Er’ and ‘Ir’ are the Young’s
modulus and second moment of area of the Euler beam respectively. The train load is of
constant force ‘P’, moving at a constant speed ‘v0’, and ‘Kf’ is the stiffness per unit length of
the Winkler foundation. β is defined as:
4 𝐾𝑓
𝛽=√
4𝐸𝑟 𝐼𝑟

3
 Figure 2 – Quasi-static track deflection

In contrast, dynamic excitation is speed dependent and arises from factors such as
changes in stiffness due to sleeper placement, irregularities at the wheel/rail interface and
the soil support conditions. Dynamic excitation from irregularities and rail joints is slowly
becoming a less influential excitation mechanism due to the widespread use of continuously
welded rails and improved track maintenance.
Although all railway lines generate vibration, differences between train/track
features mean that that the characteristics of the generated vibrations vary widely.
Historically, four cases have been of particular concern:

Underground trains – generate vibrations with a higher frequency spectrum than over-
ground tracks. Although noise is also generated, it is contained within the tunnel and
therefore vibrations are of primary concern for structures located above the line.
High speed trains – generate elevated amplitude vibrations due to their increased speeds.
Additionally, if their speed becomes comparable to the wave speed in the supporting soil
then vibration levels may become magnified.
Urban tramways – Generate relatively low amplitude vibrations, however their close
proximity to buildings can cause negative structural effects. Furthermore, increases in
unsprung mass due to the more frequent deployment of low-floor vehicles has exacerbated
vibration problems.
Freight trains – generate high amplitude, low frequency vibration (due to their low speed)
that can propagate to large distances from the track.

Wave propagation
Upon generation, the vibrations caused at the wheel/rail interface propagate
through the track and into the free field in the form of waves. These waves are categorised
as either body waves or surface waves. Surface waves travel along a structures (i.e. soil)
surface and decay exponentially with depth. Body waves propagate primarily beneath the
soil surface. Wave propagation characteristics are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 - Seismic wave propagation (slice view) [after 18]

Compressional waves (P-waves) propagate in a longitudinal direction and travel

faster than all other types of waves. Shear waves (S-waves) propagate in a transverse
direction and although they travel faster than Rayleigh waves, they always travel slower
than P-waves. Rayleigh waves are the slowest type of seismic wave, the speed of which can

4
be approximated using numerous formulas ([19], [20], [21]). The analytical formulas to
calculate P and S wave speeds are:
𝜆 + 2𝜇
𝐶𝑝 = √
𝜌
𝜇
𝐶𝑠 = √
𝜌
Where ρ is density, λ is bulk modulus and μ is the shear modulus (λ and μ are also
known as Lame’s parameters).
Although other types of waves are theoretically possible (e.g. Lamb waves in layers
and Stoneley waves at interfaces), compressional, shear and Rayleigh are the most common
and are the focus of this research. Furthermore, an emphasis is placed on the propagation
of Rayleigh waves as they transmit approximately two thirds of the total excitation energy
(Rayleigh waves≈67%, S-waves≈26%, P-waves≈7% [18]). Therefore they are most likely to
cause negative effects in both the railway track and nearby structures.

There are a wide variety of parameters used to classify soil material. Different
parameters are used in different circumstances and determined in different ways. Table 2
lists some of these parameters and their context, where S.I. is Site Investigation:

Soil parameter Soil type Purpose or Obtained in

application traditional S.I.
Liquid limit Clay Classification Yes
Plastic limit Clay Classification Yes
Moisture content Granular & clay Classification Yes
Density Granular & clay Classification + Yes
numerical analysis
Particle size Granular & clay Classification Yes
distribution
Shear strength Granular & clay Design: foundation & Yes
slope stability
Over-consolidation Granular & clay No
ratio
Poisson’s ratio Granular & clay Numerical analysis No
Young’s modulus Granular & clay Numerical analysis No
Damping Granular & clay Numerical analysis No
Table 2 – Material properties

For numerical analysis wave propagation can be efficiently described using four main
material properties: Density, Poisson’s ratio, Young’s modulus and damping. Although more
traditionally measured soil characteristics such as moisture content, particle size
distribution, liquid and plastic limits, consolidation ratio, etc. affect material characteristics
(and thus wave propagation), their effect is usually accounted for by changes in the values
of the aforementioned parameters.

5
 The real challenge is that the conventional site investigation does not measure Density,
Poisson’s ratio, Young’s modulus and damping. This aspect will be explored later in the
paper and a proposal made to relate conventional site investigation data to required
numerical analysis input data.

Review of numerical analysis input data

Density – Measured in a conventional SI - the mass divided by the unit volume of a material.
Density typically increases with depth because lower soil layers tend to have experienced
elevated consolidation and therefore the solid particles are more tightly packed together.

Poisson’s ratio – When a material is compressed using a force in a single direction, Poisson’s
ratio defines the degree to which the material expands in the other two directions. This is
the ratio of expansion to the contraction caused by the compression.
Sudden increases of Poisson’s ratio within a soil are often due to the presence of the
water table. This is particularly true for clays which when fully saturated become
incompressible (i.e. υ≈0.5). In this case the P-wave speed increases dramatically because
the wave speed becomes more representative of the water rather than the soil. On the
other hand the S-wave velocity remains unchanged because water has no shear strength
and thus the wave speed remains representative of the soil. Changes in wave speed with
respect to Poisson’s ratio are shown in Figure 4. It can be noticed that Poisson’s ratio also
has an effect on Rayleigh wave speed. This effect is minor because the Rayleigh wave speed
can never exceed the shear wave speed. Therefore Rayleigh wave speed is usually located
in the range of 85-95% of the S-wave velocity.

Figure 4 - The effect of Poisson’s ration on seismic wave speeds

Young’s modulus – A measure of the stiffness of a material. It is calculated using the

tangent modulus of the initial, linear portion of the stress-strain curve. As stiffness (of both
track and subgrade) is the main criteria used for quality control during construction, Young’s
modulus is a highly influential parameter in the generation and propagation of railway
vibration.
At large strains soils behave non-linearly because shear modulus depends highly on
strain. Although large strains may occur in geotechnical engineering applications such as

6
pile driving, blasting or on off-shore oil rigs, in the case of ground vibration from railways,
soil particle deformation is typically very small in comparison to its dimensions. The
magnitude of strain experienced by the soil during train passage is therefore low (10-5 %)
and can be modelled using ‘small strain’ theory. This allows for the soil to be considered as
a linear elastic material and for the shear modulus to be considered to be equal to the
‘maximum shear modulus’.
Damping – A measure of the rate at which energy is reduced as it disperses and
passes through a material. The total damping ratio is composed of geometrical and material
damping and has a non-linear relationship with frequency. This frequency dependence
makes damping modelling more complex for time domain modelling in comparison to
frequency domain modelling. Regarding in-situ soils, material damping is typically greatest
in the upper layers and reduces with depth. This is because the soil particles in the upper
layers are less compacted, meaning the wave loses greater energy as it passes through the
air voids. Furthermore, if a soil is saturated then it may exhibit elevated viscous damping at
high frequencies. Regarding the track, damping is caused by the ballast and, if present, by a
combination of rail pads, under-sleeper pads and ballast mats.

The role of the train

Vibration generated at the wheel/rail interface propagates both into the track/soil,
and also vertically upwards into the train vehicle. It is important that vehicle vibration is
minimised because it affects passenger comfort, which is often a primary track design
requirement (especially on high speed lines). Therefore trains are typically fitted with two
suspension systems that are connected via a bogie. The suspension system connecting the
wheel and bogie is the first suspension system and the second suspension system connects
the bogie and car body ([22]). Originally this design was used predominantly to improve
passenger comfort on high speed trains, however is now becoming common among other
train types such as intercity locomotives.

Vibration Frequency Effect on Passenger Ref

0.8-8Hz Reading & writing impairment [24], [23]
1.25-6.3Hz Reading impairment [25]
0.25-0.32Hz Motion sickness [24]
Other [23], [24],
[25]
Table 3 – Vehicle vibration effects on passengers

Passenger comfort is often prioritised on high speed lines because the high speed
market is positioned towards business and luxury customers. In comparison, for freight
lines, passengers are typically not carried, so comfort is not prioritised. Therefore,
particularly for business travellers, it is important that the train provides an environment
conducive to work (i.e. reading and writing capabilities are not impaired) – see Table 3.
Low frequency lateral vibration in the range (0.8-8Hz) was found to interfere with
reading and writing tasks by [26], with frequencies below 5 Hz proving particularly
influential. Similar findings were made by [27] who found that passenger reading speed was
impaired between 1.25 and 6.3 Hz, with maximum interference at 4Hz. Further studies [24]
were conducted and it was found that passenger writing ability was also effected by low

7
frequency vibration, however the duration of vibration was also important. It was also
found that the probability of spilling liquid from a hand-held cup was also affected by
frequencies in the same range.
In addition to facilitating reading and writing tasks, it is important that railway travel
does not interfere with sedentary tasks [28] or cause passengers to experience motion
sickness. Therefore [29] analysed 4,000 commercial train passages and found that tilting
trains induced higher levels of motion sickness than non-tilting trains. Additionally, it was
found that vibrations in the 0.25-0.32Hz range were most influential in causing motion
sickness.
A challenge with assessing passenger comfort is that results are highly dependent on
the individual under investigation. Therefore the majority of studies are performed under
physical test conditions and used to derive empirical exposure relationships. These
experiments are often undertaken in lab conditions where the subjects experience
vibrations at predetermined and discrete frequencies. Despite this, train passengers are
routinely subject to a spectrum of vibration frequencies that are constantly changing.
Therefore, with the end goal of reducing passenger discomfort, the vibration levels entering
the train vehicle must first be modelled and then abatement measures investigated.

To model vehicle vibration, a time domain multibody modelling approach can be used. For
example, [30] developed a numerical model to simulate the vibrations of a high speed train
passing over a bridge. The model results were assessed using maximum acceleration
criteria and a comfort index, and it was found that rail roughness had a significant effect on
passenger comfort. Alternative evaluation approaches are outlined in [31], [32],[33], [34],
[35], [36], [37].

Mitigation of vehicle vibration

Solutions to the reduction of vehicle vibration [38] can be divided into design
solutions and maintenance solutions (Table 4).

Mitigation of vehicle vibration Refs

Design solution Reduction in unsprung mass [38]
Better wheel/axle design, braking control or [39]
higher performance materials
Resilient wheels [40]
Active vibration control systems [41]
Maintenance solution Assess wheel shape
Table 4 - Strategies for the mitigation of vehicle vibration

The role of the track

The role of the track is to support the moving vehicles and distribute their forces into
the supporting soil. A key factor is track stiffness. If it is too low then the soil and ballast
experience increased deformation and the locomotives require additional power to traverse
the track. Alternatively, if the track stiffness is too high then the wheel stresses are
concentrated within a small area on the rail thus generating corrugation [39]. Additionally,
if stiffness varies radically over track sections (e.g. transitions) then this also causes elevated
track deterioration and vibrations [40].

8
 Idealised track stiffness values are different between countries, however these are
typically based on expected train types (e.g. freight or high speed). Therefore, for lines that
facilitate different types of rolling stock, it is difficult to determine an ideal track stiffness.
Thus, track vibration and degradation can be problematic in such cases. Two influential
track imperfections (not solely caused due to track stiffness) that contribute to track
vibrations are:

Wheel out-of-roundness – Wheels become out-of-round as a result of the manufacturing

process, or from repeated loading at high frequency contents [41]. The most common
manifestation is the formation of wheelflats, caused primarily by train braking/deceleration.
As a result, a high frequency impact force is generated at every rotation when the corners of
the wheelflat impact the rail. Recently, this has been highlighted as one of the key factors
contributing to track vibration [42], [43].
Rail irregularities – Changes in lateral/vertical geometry, or stiffness associated with the
rail. These may occur due to many factors, such as switches, welds, track settlement, ballast
deterioration, ballast-slab transition zones and excessive wear [6].

As mentioned earlier, there are numerous dynamic excitation mechanisms that

contribute to railway vibrations [45], many of which are outlined in Figure 5. It can be seen
that the excitations associated with the locomotive are found at low frequencies and the
excitations associated with the wheel, rail and track are found at higher frequencies. These
higher frequencies often manifest themselves in the form of air-borne noise, while the
lower frequencies generate ground vibration. Bands have been drawn on Figure 5 to
illustrate a variety of perception threshold levels, in accordance with BS ISO 14837 [46]. It
should also be noted that train-track resonant conditions can develop where the natural
track frequencies are excited. These effects and their interaction with the underlying soil
are still not fully understood, and are currently the focus of much research [47].

9
 Figure 5 – Typical frequency ranges of excitation

Analytical track modelling

Train-track interaction is the source of railway vibration and therefore it is important
that it is modelled accurately. If the vibration response is modelled inaccurately, then not
only the track vibration will be erroneous, potential train, ground and structural vibration
calculations will also contain errors. Modelling can be undertaken using either analytical or
numerical models, and can be computed in either the time or frequency domain.
Furthermore, depending on project scope, a moving or stationary load can also be
simulated.
Analytical models are attractive because they are more computationally efficient in
comparison to numerical approaches. One reason for this is that numerical models suffer
from spurious reflections at truncated model edges. For non-complex geometries such as
soil masses, absorbing boundaries can be used, however, for more complex track type
models, such boundary conditions are challenging to implement. Therefore, when using
numerical methods, the total length of track modelled must be much larger than the region
of interest.
For such reasons, analytical models have been analysed widely, particularly before
the advent of modern computing technology. Early approaches to track modelling used the
assumption that the rail could be modelled as a single beam (typically Euler-Bernoulli)
resting on a Winkler foundation ([47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]). This foundation was used
to describe the track or a combination of the track and soil. Therefore the track was often
modelled as a homogenous material.
Single layer methods were useful for investigating the low frequency characteristics
of the track [9]. Therefore further investigation was undertaken to investigate the
interaction between various beams and plates with underlying soil, by [53]. It was found
that model accuracy was improved by replacing the Euler beam formulation with that of a
Timoshenko beam [54], [55], [56] and [57]. Timoshenko beams account for additional
degrees of freedom (shear forces) in comparison to Euler beams and therefore allow for
higher accuracy modelling of track dynamics.

Figure 6 – Single layer track model (continuously supported)

Two layer models were also proposed and were considered an improvement over
single layer models because they allowed for railpads, sleepers and ballast to be simulated
[17], [58]. In the two layer model illustrated in Figure 7, the ballast and railpads are
assumed to be massless, however these can be included by introducing additional layers
(e.g. 3 layer models [59]). Despite this, the use of a continuous support meant that sleeper
effects were not modelled. Instead the effect of the discrete sleepers was uniformly
distributed over the length of the model. Although this was found to be adequate for some
problems [9], and was well suited for slab track modelling, when modelling ballasted tracks
it meant that sleeper passage frequencies (Figure 5) were ignored.

10
 Figure 7 – Two layer track model (continuously supported)

To facilitate the inclusion of sleeper effects, discretely supported models were also
developed [60], [61], [17]. Figure 8 shows a Timoshenko beam discretely supported by
individual sleepers with viscous damping.
It should also be noted that the track support conditions (subgrade) have a
significant effect on track stiffness and therefore have been found to affect track response.
For the models previously mentioned, the track base has been assumed rigid. Although this
may be suitable for tracks where the supporting material has a stiffness comparable to the
track ([62]), discrepancies occur when the supporting material is soft. Therefore research
has also been undertaken into modelling the subgrade as an elastic half-space [63], [64],
[65], [66], [67].

Figure 8 – Two layer track model (discretely supported)

A common method for analysing the frequency characteristics of railway tracks is to

calculate the track receptance (track deflection per unit of stationary input force). This
transfer function describes the propagation of energy through a system for a set range of
frequencies. It is used because it provides a useful tool for investigating the natural
frequencies of the track. When known, these frequencies can be dampened accordingly.
The receptance results for the various types of frequency domain track models
discussed previously are shown in Figure 9. On the figure are drawn the typical upper
thresholds for human (5-80Hz) and structural (30-250Hz) vibration perception. It can be
seen that there are discrepancies between modelling approaches for both the human and
structural response ranges, thus emphasising the need to correctly model the discrete
support condition and multiple layers.

11
 Figure 9 – Analytical track models – receptance characteristics

Although point receptances are useful for understanding general track

characteristics, it is also often desirable to investigate the effect of a moving load on track
response. This introduces more complexity into the analytical approach and has been
studied for a moving point load, [68], [64], [47], [69], [70], [71]. In an attempt to make the
excitation mechanism more realistic, the problem has also been formulated using a multi-
body excitation [72], [73], [74].

Finite element track modelling

Although analytical models are well suited to predicting the response of the
straightforward 2D track geometries mentioned previously, they are less well suited for
including multi-body vehicle effects and track/wheel irregularities. To overcome these
limitations the track has frequently been modelled using more versatile numerical methods.
In particular, the finite element (FE) method has proven a highly applicable tool.
A wide range of proposed FE track models were reviewed by [9]. Similarly to the
analytical approaches (Figure 6 - Figure 8), these can be divided into two dimensional, one
layer, two layer [75], [76], and three or more layer models [77], [78], [79], [46], [80], [81].
Multi-body vehicle modelling approaches were then used to more realistically replicate the
frequency content of excitation from a moving train ([82], [83],[21]). It was found that
upgrading the approach from a basic moving point load improved model accuracy drastically
[82], and therefore a fully integrated train-track system could be simulated (e.g. Figure 10).
Similarly, this allowed for the investigation of vibration response due to wheelflats [84], rail
irregularities [75], [85], [86], ballast-slab transition zones [87] and other defects [88].

12
 Figure 10 – Coupled train-track model

In a similar manner to analytical model development, research has been undertaken

in an attempt to include subgrade stiffness (i.e. soil) contributions in track response
calculations. The difference between these types of track models and the ones discussed in
the ground modelling section later in this report, are that the track response is of interest,
not the far field ground vibrations. Therefore the soil model is included solely to increase
the accuracy of the track model. The most common approach to achieving this is to model
the ground as a linear elastic half-space. This approach was undertaken by [89] to study
critical velocity effects. A challenge of this approach is that computational time is increased
and absorbing boundary conditions are needed to terminate the unbounded soil domain.
Another notable assumption associated with the previously mentioned models is
that the track response can be reduced down to two dimensions. A challenge with this
approach is that the stress distribution from the rails is then uniformly distributed over the
sleeper width. This is unrepresentative of the physical problem. To overcome this, [90],
[91] and [92] modelled the track components in three dimensions. An advantage of this was
that none of the track material properties required tweaking to account for the 2D stress
distribution approximation. To overcome some of the aforementioned challenges, it should
be noted that a variety of commercial train-track modelling software is also available (e.g.
Vampire, Simpack and Adams/rail).

Model type Significance Ref

Single beam (typically Euler- Analytical – 2D [48-53]
Bernoulli) on Winkler
Foundation

13
Single beam (Timoshenko) Analytical – 2D [55-58]
Two layer models Analytical – 2D [17], [59]
Three layer models [60]
Discretely supported models Analytical – 2D [61], [62], [17]
Elastic half-space models Analytical – 2D [64-68]
Moving point load Analytical – 2D [69], [65], [48], [70-72]
Multi-body excitation Analytical – 2D [73-75]
Two layer models FEM – 2D [76-77]
Three layer models FEM – 2D [78-80, 47, 81-82]
Three layer models FEM – 3D [94, 93]
Table 5 – Summary of track modelling approaches

Ballast modelling
[9] commented that if track vibration is to be better understood, ballast behaviour
must first be further investigated. This is particularly important for investigating and
improving ballast maintenance. Therefore, in recent years, there has been a rapid increase
in ballast modelling, with the discrete element method (DEM - [95]), proving a highly
suitable approach [96-99]. This is because ballast particles are typically large (approximately
40mm) and thus cannot be realistically modelled as a continuum material. Therefore the DE
approach allows for the simulation of a large body of individual ballast particles, which can
be used to investigate its abrasive, compactive and crushable nature. A challenge with DE
modelling is that the complex geometries and non-linear nature of individual ballast
particles leads to high computational demand. Therefore, current research is focused on
reducing this demand, with a goal of integrating DE ballast models within a FE track
modelling framework [100-101].

Mitigation of track vibration

Track vibrations are undesirable from both passenger comfort and environmental
standpoints. Additionally, as the wheel/rail interface is the source of all railway vibration, it
is often efficient to isolate the vibration as close to the excitation location as possible. This
is typically done using either permanent or temporary measures.
Temporary measures are approaches such as rail grinding to reduce the
imperfections at the interface, thus creating a smoother contact between wheel and rail.
Alternative permanent measures include the use of continuously welded rail technology
which eliminates the discontinuity associated with rail joints. This approach is becoming
widespread, particularly on high speed lines. Another permanent approach is to insert
highly damped pads between track components [102]. For example rail pads can be
inserted between rail and sleepers to reduce the vibration and stresses between
components. Sleeper pads act in a similar manner, but are placed between sleepers and
ballast. Both rail and sleeper pads act to dampen high frequency vibration and shift the
spectrum to a lower range. This helps to reduce the overall track vibration levels, however
these low frequency vibrations are more likely to resonate with structure/buildings close to
the track. It should also be noted that slab tracks can be used instead of ballasted tracks,

14
and facilitate a reduction in vibration levels due to their increased stiffness. Additionally,
floating slab tracks are often used in tunnels to provide additional isolation.

The role of the ground

The ground acts as the transmission path for vibration that can eventually reach nearby
structures. Thus it is important to understand and predict the characteristics of it.
A large body of work has been, and continues to be undertaken into Elastodynamic
waveform modelling – see Table 6.

Modelling approach Comments Ref

Elastodynamic wave Analytical expressions for a [103-106]
propagation homogenous half-space excited by a
stationary point load
Analytical approach to include a [107-114, 48, 115,
moving train/track model 49, 116-122]
Finite difference time Low computational effort and high [123-124]
domain method (FDTD) performance ABC’s
Finite element modelling Complex geometries can be [93-94, 125, 90]
modelled
Coupled finite element – Complex geometries can be [126-132]
boundary element modelling modelled using FE and large offsets
modelled using BE
2.5D methods Reduces computer run time [133-134, 84, 135-
136]
Pipe-in-pipe (PiP) models Efficiently calculate underground [137-138]
vibration
Empirical approaches For initial scoping studies [139-141, 236]
Table 6 - Summary of Elastodynamic railway modelling research

Such problems were first analysed by [103], and later by [104-106] to develop analytical
expressions to describe wave propagation within a homogenous half-space due to a
stationary point load. Although these solutions proved invaluable in the validation of many
complex wave propagation models proposed thereafter, the adaption of such an analytical
approach to include a moving train/track model that is representative of a railway system, is
challenging. The first steps towards achieving this were undertaken by [114, 48, 115, 49,
116-122] who built upon Lamb’s work to facilitate moving load simulation. Further
modifications were proposed by [107-113] to tailor the approach to railways. Despite this,
to enable the train-track system to be modelled analytically, many assumptions must be
made to reduce model complexity, particularly with respect to model geometry and
excitation mechanism. Although significant research into this area is still being pursued
[142], these challenges mean that it has become more common to use numerical
techniques as they are better suited to simulating the aforementioned complexities.

One of the more straightforward numerical modelling tools is the finite difference time
domain method (FDTD) [143,144]. It is based on approximating a strong formulation of the

15
seismic wave equation using a central differencing integration scheme. The domain is usually
discretised into velocity and stress components that are staggered in 2D/3D space.
The advantages of the FDTD method are that it requires relatively low computational
effort. This is because the velocity/stress discretisation is well structured and therefore it is
straightforward to divide the workload between multiple computer processors. Also, high
performance absorbing boundary conditions have been developed (e.g. perfectly matched
layers) which are more straightforward to implement within the FDTD method than for
other alternative numerical methods. (E.g. [145-146]). This means that the domain sizes can
be reduced, therefore further decreasing the total number of model calculations.
These strengths have led to the investigation of the suitability of FDTD for railway
problems to be explored. However, the FDTD method offers reduced performance in
modelling domains with complex geometries and free surfaces. Therefore it is challenging
to simulate railway track components, or the coupling between wheel and rail. Despite this,
it was successfully used by [123] to model a railway track and embankment, with the input
force obtained directly from a time history collected experimentally from a train.
Alternatively, [124] used the FDTD technique to explicitly model the railway track. In this
work an unpublished method to reduce dispersion within the complex track geometries was
used.
To overcome the absorbing boundary challenges faced by the FDTD method, Sheng et al
([68, 147]) proposed a semi-analytical. The governing equations for the vehicle were
computed in the frequency domain while the track-soil equations were solved in the
frequency-wavenumber domain. This resulted in a single transfer function for the overall
system. It was found that this approach was more computationally efficient in comparison
to alternative numerical methods [148]. It was also able to efficiently model track/wheel
irregularity effects.
A weakness of the approach was that many assumptions were required to formulate the
analytical expressions used to calculate the transfer functions. Therefore it was difficult to
include complex changes to geometry or calculate structural vibration. This is important
because detailed soil models are commonly used to appraise mitigation measures (e.g.
wave barriers). Furthermore, the coupling between track and ground was based on the
stress distribution between each sub-model, which should ideally be determined from in-
situ experiments [149].
An alternative modelling tool to the FDTD method is the finite element method (FEM) ,
[150-152]. It utilises a weak form of the seismic wave equation and a key strength is that
complex geometries can be modelled, particularly with the widespread availability of
graphical user interfaces (e.g. ABAQUS, LSDYNA, ANSYS) associated with commercial
software. This is useful for railway applications because track components and their
connections can be modelled explicitly ([93-94]). For time domain modelling it allows for
the straightforward investigation of track defects (e.g. rail irregularities and local defects
[125]) and changes in stiffness (e.g. transitions from ballast to slab track [90]). Despite this,
as with the FDTD method, for unbounded domains (e.g. soils) an absorbing boundary
condition (ABC) is required to prevent reflections from edges of the domain.
For time domain FE modelling, solutions such as infinite elements [153-155] the
combined FE-thin layer method (Fig. 13 – [156]), and the scaled boundary FE method [157]
have been proposed. More recently, the usage of perfectly matched layers (PML) has been
preferred due to its superior performance. PML is a series of layers that have identical
material properties to the modelling domain, however they act to stretch both the real and

16
imaginary coordinate space. This serves to dampen wave amplitudes in a frequency
independent and more efficient manner than previous ABC approaches [158,159,145].
A weakness of time domain simulation for 3D wave propagation modelling is the large
computational expense required to compute the solution at every timestep. This results in
computational run times of hours/days. Therefore, a commonly used alternative approach
is to perform the analysis in the frequency domain. This requires that an eigenvalue
problem is solved for each frequency of interest, resulting in reduced computational
requirements. A weakness of the frequency domain FE approach is that the majority of time
domain ABC’s cannot be used in the frequency domain, thus making it difficult to prevent
boundary effects.
To overcome these limitations the finite element has frequently been coupled with the
boundary element method ([160-161] (Fig. 11). The boundary element method only
requires the boundary of the domain to be meshed, and uses greens functions to model
wave propagation. This means that vibrations can be modelled at large offsets which is
attractive for railway applications. A disadvantage of the boundary element method is that
irregular geometries within the domain cannot be modelled. This makes track modelling
challenging and therefore it has been coupled with the finite element method with the aim
of combining the strengths of both methods. To do so, the track region and near field are
typically modelled using the finite element method, while the far field is simulated using the
boundary element method. Although this approach can be formulated in the time domain
[126-128], a frequency domain approach has more often been used due to reduced run
times [129-132]. Furthermore, when formulating the BE equations in the frequency
domain, damping is modelled in a straightforward manner using a complex valued shear
modulus, while in the time domain, damping is more challenging to simulate.

Figure 11 – The coupled BE/FE approach

A downside of the BE/FE approach is that the matrix formulation for the FE region is well
structured and uniform whereas the matrices for the BE regions are sparse. Therefore it can
become computationally expensive to compute the solution. Additionally, although it is
novel to predict ground vibration levels at very large offsets (inside the BE region), the
assessment of structural vibration is typically of greater importance in commercial projects.
For areas inside the BE region, structural vibration is difficult to determine due to the
difficulty of coupling a building to the surface of a BE domain [162]. Therefore, it is common
for the soil and building to be modelled as two uncoupled systems [163].

17
 One approach to reduce the computational demand of the aforementioned large 3D
models is to use a 2.5D approach [133-134, 84, 135-136]. To do so the track is usually
considered as invariant in the direction of train passage, thus allowing for the problem to be
approximated using a 2D geometry, while accounting for 3D loading conditions (Fig 12). The
solution is found in the frequency-wavenumber domain and results in much reduced
computational cost in comparison to 3D models. To do so, a Fourier transformation in the
direction of train passage is used:

+∞
𝑢̃(𝑥, 𝑘𝑦 , 𝑧, 𝜔) = ∫ 𝑢̂(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧, 𝜔) exp(𝑖𝑘𝑦 𝑦) 𝑑𝑦
−∞
+∞
1
𝑢̂(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧, 𝜔) = ∫ 𝑢̃(𝑥, 𝑘𝑦 , 𝑧, 𝜔) exp(−𝑖𝑘𝑦 𝑦) 𝑑𝑘𝑦
2𝜋 −∞

where x, y and z are the coordinate axis (perpendicular to train passage, parallel to train
passage and vertical respectively). To calculate the solution, a 2D model is computed for all
desired frequencies (ω) and wavenumbers (ky), and then the 3D solution is recovered via the
inverse Fourier transformation with respect to wavenumber. Large computational savings
are made unless the number of wavenumbers is large.

Figure 12 – The 2.5D approach

Although this approach is efficient for calculating the soil response for invariant track
geometries (e.g. slab track), it is more difficult to model the stress distribution associated
with discrete sleeper (i.e. ballast) tracks. One approach to overcome this limitation is to use
a Floquent transform [164-165].

18
 Figure 13 – The coupled FE/TLM approach

Although a broad selection of numerical approaches have been discussed to predict soil
vibration propagation, it should be noted that there are many unmentioned alternative
approaches. Some of these include pipe-in-pipe (PiP) models [137-138] to efficiently
calculate underground vibration, empirical approaches [139-141] for initial scoping studies,
and hybrid models [132], and coupled FE-meshless methods. It should also be noted that for
any model to be considered valid, it must be checked against a variety of experimental
results [166–168, 237].
Furthermore, one notable aspect to consider when choosing a prediction tool is the
desired frequency range. If re-radiated ground-borne noise is a concern then the frequency
range under consideration must be higher than for ground-borne vibration. A challenge with
numerical modelling is that the maximum frequency that can be accurately resolved is
related to the element discretisation. Higher frequencies require smaller element
dimensions thus significantly increasing computational requirements. Therefore, sometimes
analytical alternatives are attractive because they are less sensitive to changes in frequency
content.

Mitigation of ground vibration

Soil vibration can be mitigated using trenches (aka wave barriers - Figure 14a).
These are excavated soil sections located in the ground at distance from the track. They are
typically filled using a low density material (e.g. gas cushion [169] or polyurethane[170]) to
increase the reflection coefficient between the soil and the trench, thus increasing its
effectiveness. Essentially, the backfill should be of a low acoustic impedance compared to
the background soil. They have been successfully used on Swedish projects in Gnarp,
Stockholm, Uppsala and Saffle in the 1980’s [171], and Dusseldorf, Germany [171].
Extensive numerical modelling has been undertaken into their effectiveness [18, 170, 172-
176, 94], and it is consistently found that trench depth should be approximately half the
length of the dominant Rayleigh wavelength.

19
 An alternative approach is to use subgrade stiffening at strategic ground locations
(Figure 14b). This serves to increase the soil stiffness and thus dampen the propagation of
vibration. Possible stiffening techniques include deep vibro-compaction, deep soil mixing,
stone columns, grouting or vacuum consolidation. A more comprehensive comparison
between techniques can be found in [177]. Despite this, it should be noted that the
deployment of such ground vibration mitigation measures is financially intensive and should
be avoided if possible.

Figure 14 – Left: (a) Trench deployment, Right: (b) Subgrade stiffening

Critical velocity effects

When train speeds approach the underlying Rayleigh wave speed of the supporting
soil it is possible that large increases in track vibration may occur. This is an area of
increasing importance for high speed rail because as operational speeds increase, the
probability of train speeds approaching this ‘critical velocity’ at a particular site increases.
Another important aspect is the ‘track critical velocity’, which is often described as the
minimal phase velocity of bending waves propagating in the in the track supported by the
ballast. Despite this, it is typically found that ‘track critical velocity’ is many times higher
than the soil Rayleigh wave velocity.
Experimental evidence of critical velocity effects has been collected on Swedish, UK
and Dutch lines and is shown in Figure 15. It is clear that as the normalised speed (train
velocity/Rayleigh wave velocity) increases towards a value of 1, the track displacement
grows exponentially. Trains exceeding the Rayleigh wave velocity are referred to as ‘trans-
Rayleigh’ trains. These can give rise to a ‘boom’ and the creation of a Mach cone [90]. This
exponential growth is a function of the initial track displacement and therefore not always
problematic. For example, if track displacements are very low, then although an increase in
train speed may cause a threefold increase in displacement, this value may still be below the
maximum safety threshold. Despite this, it is clear that under certain, and not fully
understood circumstances, that track deflections can become large (e.g. >10mm [178]).
This area is the focus of extensive research activity and is challenging due to the
complex coupling between track and ground structure that contains many individual
Rayleigh wave speeds and resonant frequencies, which can be analysed using a dispersion

20
diagram [17]. Similarly, the train excitation also generates a wide spectrum of excitation
frequencies that increases problem complexity.
Another unanswered question is the behaviour of track deflections above the critical
velocity. As seen in Fig. 15, data is scarce related to train speeds above this value. Therefore,
although numerical models have been used to extrapolate the true behaviour of the
response curve, and to approximate critical velocity values using dispersion curves [17], this
is still an active area of research.
One of the challenges in modelling critical velocity behaviours is that when track
displacements become large, it undergoes ‘large’ shear strain. Therefore the system no
longer behaves in a linear manner and thus material behaviour must be modelled using non-
linear theory [179]. This increases model complexity, makes non-linear material parameter
selection challenging, and increases computational cost. Furthermore, when modelling non-
linear soil effects it is usually necessary to use time domain modelling approaches rather
than the frequency domain.
In practical terms many railway designers will attempt to ensure that train velocity
does not exceed 0.7 times the Rayleigh wave velocity.

Figure 15 – Critical velocity effects (Redrawn from [178])

Mitigation of critical velocities

A key difference between mitigating common ground vibrations and vibrations due
critical velocity effects are the stakeholders involved. For common ground vibration, the
levels are relatively small and the main stakeholders are the owners of buildings located
close to the track. For vibration due to critical velocity effects, the key stakeholders are the
railway operators and track asset managers.
Abatement measures are undertaken in the soil located beneath/within the track
(active isolation) whereas for common vibration these measures are taken in the soil closer
to the structure (passive isolation).

21
 In practice, when excessive vibration levels have been encountered, the most
common mitigation measures have been to reduce vehicle speed over soils with low
Rayleigh wave velocities. This approach was initially undertaken at Ledsgard, Sweden where
the operational line speed was reduced from 200 km/h to 130 km/h [181]. This meant that
the normalised speed with respect to the Rayleigh wave speed was reduced, and therefore
track deflections were reduced. A disadvantage of this approach is that it is expensive over
long time scales because line capacity is reduced. Therefore, in the long-term, an
engineering solution is preferable.
An engineering solution is to increase soil stiffness. Historically, one of the most
commonly recorded soil properties is undrained shear strength. Therefore, to determine
the necessary stiffness required to safeguard against critical velocity effects, the following
equation can be used:

𝐸 = 𝐾𝑐 ∙ 𝑐𝑢

Where the correlation factor Kc is dependent on plasticity index. Table 7 shows

typical values for an overconsolidation ratio of between 1 and 2. In practise, it is often
assumed that for design purposes, the “design critical velocity” is limited to 0.7 times
Rayleigh wave velocity. Figure 16 shows design critical velocities for various undrained
shear strength and plasticity index values (density=1800 kg/m3). It is observed that:

1. Higher plasticity soils can be more problematical than low plasticity soils

2. Further consideration needs to be given to soft/weak soils. For example, [182, 115]
reported unexpectedly poor performance of weak soils in Sweden. This could be due
a build-up in positive pore water pressure in the saturated clay – giving rise to a
reduction in the effective stress and consequently a short term reduction in the
encountered undrained shear strength. The latter would then reduce the Rayleigh
velocity and thus the “design critical velocity”. This latter mechanism, well known in
highway construction design, has not been discussed in the railway environment.

Plasticity Index, Ip (%) Correlation factor, Kc

< 30 600 – 1,500

30 – 50 300-600
> 50 175
Table 7 – Soil correlation factors based on plasticity index (taken from [183])

22
 Figure 16 – Design critical velocity (saturated soil)

Note that ground improvement techniques used for critical velocity mitigation are
similar to the subgrade stiffening described for common vibration abatement, but placed
beneath the track, rather than at soil locations outwith the track. The purpose of this is to
increase the underlying Rayleigh wave speed. At Ledsgard, lime/cement columns were
placed to depths of between 7m and 13m below the track. This solution was found to
significantly reduce the track deflections. Alternative solutions include stone columns, piles
and the application of polyurethane [184, 185].

The role of structures

Vibrations generated within the train/track propagate through the soil before
reaching man-made structures. They then cause structural vibration and in-door noise ,
which is a growing problem internationally [186]. The soil serves to dampen vibrations,
particularly at high frequencies so the majority of the vibration spectrum arriving at these
structures is below 100 Hz (Figure 5). As the natural frequencies of most buildings are
located below 10Hz, the soil shifts the track vibration to a range more likely to resonate with
structures. Despite this, for intercity trains and high speed trains passing on traditional at-
grade, cutting or embankment tracks, noise is usually more dominant than vibration. This is
partly because on these lines, due to compulsory land purchases during construction, few
buildings are located within 60m of the track. Locations out-with this distance are still
subject to railway noise, however vibrations are sufficiently dampened thus preventing
disturbance.

In comparison, there are two cases where railway vibration is an increasing concern:
(1) underground high speed lines, and (2) urban tramways. In these cases it is more
common that vibrations will arrive at nearby structures with the amplitude and frequency
characteristics to cause negative structural effects. Therefore, vibration

23
propagation/prediction for underground high speed lines, and urban tramways is the focus
of this section.
Underground high speed lines are problematic because noise is confined within the
tunnel, however vibration propagates to the surrounding soil and interacts with structures
located above the tunnel. Although many railway tunnels are located deep below the
earth’s surface, buildings with deep foundations may experience elevated vibration levels.
For these cases, S-waves dominate the response at distances close to the tunnel, however
as distance increases, P-wave can become destructive. In comparison, for at-grade tracks,
Rayleigh surface waves carry the majority of vibration energy.
The second case is that of urban tramways. Although trams move with low speeds,
they can have high unsprung masses [187], and their urban setting means that buildings are
located very close to the track. Therefore, there are a large number of stakeholders
potentially affected.
The third case is that of freight traffic which moves with low speeds, and typically
has very high unsprung mass [188,189]. This generates high amplitude, low frequency
vibration (+20 dB below 20 Hz) that can propagate to large distances from the track. It is
difficult to mitigate such vibration because the long Rayleigh wavelengths propagate deep
within the soil.
Irrespective of the proposed train-track system, when a new line is planned it is
usually implicit that a vibration assessment is undertaken. This involves a scoping
assessment, and depending on its findings, is followed by a more detailed assessment at any
sensitive sites.

Scoping/empirical assessment
Scoping assessments are used during (or sometimes before) the planning stage of a
new line and are most frequently based upon empirical relationships and previous
experience. It is typical for such empirical relationships to be the only form of vibration
study undertaken on a new line as numerical modelling remains primarily confined to
research.
A commonly used approach is that outlined by [139], [190] where a recipe is used to
adjust a base vibration-distance curve to calculate absolute vibration levels within
structures close to the line. The recipe is based on vibration levels recorded from previous
train passages and provides a straightforward method for assessment. An important issue
raised is that existing buildings can amplify vibrations significantly (i.e 100% increase),
depending on their type. This is a significant simplification as many structural and furnishing
factors may need to be taken into account for a specific structure. An alternative
assessment and calculation procedure is outlined by [191] which was derived from TGV
passages recorded in France and used to calculate tunnel vibrations for a UK rail project.
Similarly, [192] statistically analysed vibration levels on Swedish and Norwegian rail
lines to develop a methodology for predicting high speed rail vibrations in Oslo. Also, [193]
outlined an empirical model based on experimental results obtained in Sweden. The model
was able to predict one second r.m.s (root mean square) values based on receiver distance,
wheel force, vibration attenuation and train speed. Lastly, [194] proposed a scoping model
that was based on straightforward analytical expressions and then calibrated using
experimental field data.

Detailed prediction

24
 Detailed prediction models may involve a variety of experimental and numerical
methodologies. They are deployed for highly sensitive sites where either high accuracy is
required, or the problem is bespoke.
For tramway vibration, indoor noise (i.e. reradiated groundborne noise) is of primary
concern and when undertaking prediction it is common to use a physical experiment
approach [139], 195-197]. This involves performing impact tests at the location of the
potential tram line and measuring the vibration frequency response in the floors of
surrounding buildings (typically vertical vibration at floor mid-spans). If the impact force is
also recorded then a transfer function can be calculated. This transfer function is combined
with a transfer function simulating the vibration response of the newly proposed train/track
system under investigation (calculated numerically, experimentally or empirically [198]. The
final transfer function represents the frequency response of the buildings to the new line,
and can be used to estimate indoor noise levels.
The strength of using an experimental approach is that the exact soil wave
propagation characteristics of the test site, and the coupling between soil and structure are
included in the calculation. If an alternative numerical approach was used the soil
properties at the test site would need to be acquired and then used to recreate a model of
the test site and proposed new track [199]. As existing soil records are usually not
sufficiently detailed to determine the numerical parameters required for detailed
investigation, in-situ geophysical tests must be performed (although, some simple
relationships between conventional SI data and numerical input data were given above).
The most common acquisition method for this application is multi-channel analysis of
surface waves testing (MASW), which enforces the assumption of horizontal homogenous
soil layering, and challenging in the presence of high gradient topographies (i.e. building
foundations). It has also been well documented that the optimisation approach performed
during post-processing results in a non-unique solution [200]. Furthermore, measurement
procedures related to the calculation of low frequency damping are not yet well developed.

In addition to the errors introduced during MASW testing and post-processing, there
are also potential errors introduced by the numerical soil modelling approach (e.g. boundary
effects, non-linear effects…etc) [201]. Therefore, in comparison to the experimental
transfer function approach, numerical methods introduce unnecessary risk into the
prediction process. Similar challenges arise relating to the modelling of the soil-structure
interaction/coupling [202-204], which if modelled explicitly using numerical methods,
requires extensive computational effort. Furthermore, it should also be noted that the time
required to perform a numerical prediction is often longer than an experimental one. This is
because the deployment of numerical models is computationally intense and requires more
time than the experimental transfer function investigation. This effect can be magnified if
high accuracy predictions are required (e.g. for a hospital, manufacturing plant or concern
hall), because for this single site, the same model may need to be computed numerous
times to assess the effect of input parameter uncertainty on vibration levels [205-206].
For underground high speed lines, it is possible to use a similar experimental
approach, where a borehole is drilled to the depth of the proposed tunnel, and an impact
performed at the base. This method is impractical if the water table location is likely to
change after construction (e.g. tidal effects), or if large offset measurements are required.

25
Similarly, if the proposed site cannot be accessed then it may become necessary to use
numerical modelling.
The numerical modelling approaches used to predicting structural vibration from
underground lines [137-138], 207-208, 124, 129] are similar to those discussed in the
previous soil propagation section. This is because it is common to predict soil vibration
using numerical methods and then use an empirical transfer function based on the building
type [139, 209-210] to calculate the structural vibration and thus indoor noise. This
approach is taken because the computational demand of coupling a building to a train, track
and soil model is prohibitive, with many site-specific (and thus challenging to quantify)
parameters.
Numerical models remain attractive because, assuming a suitable model exists, the
assessment process may be cheaper and quicker to deploy, particularly if the consultant is
not based near the projects’ geographical location. Despite this, to achieve high accuracy,
numerical methods often require geophysical investigations to determine input parameters
(e.g. soil, track and building characteristics). If these parameters can be obtained, then
rather than potentially compromising the extensive effort required to simulate soil vibration
by combining it with an empirical approach for building vibration, there is a desire to model
the entire physical problem numerically. Thus, with the aim of superseding the current
approach, much research is being undertaken to numerically predict the entire wave
propagation path from train wheel to structure and its ultimate conversion into indoor
noise. If the entire system can be correctly modelled then it becomes possible to better
investigate mitigation measures and the effect of track changes directly on indoor noise.
Despite this, if/when numerical modelling overcomes these problems; another challenge is
the quantification and acquisition of additional structure-soil coupling parameters.
In an attempt to model the entire wave propagation path, [211] developed a finite
element model of a building and used a harmonic load to simulate the vibrations generated
by an underground train. Alternatively, [212] used a sub-modelling approach to couple a 2D
building with a 3D underground train, track and soil model. This frequency domain
approach allowed for the rapid calculation of the building response and included rail
irregularities.
[213-214] also predicted structural vibration and in-door noise, but using a FE/BE
approach. The track was modelled using the finite element method and the boundary
element method was used for the soil response. To simulate the structural response a sub-
structuring approach was used and the in-door acoustic response calculated using spectral
finite element methods.
As vibration prediction models become more complex, achieving higher accuracy,
software computational times increase. The four cornerstones of a prediction model are
interlinked and are shown in Figure 17. As a counterexample, for a simple empirical model,
the execution time is negligible, the usability is high meaning extensive training is not
required, and parameter requirements are low meaning few input parameters require
investigation prior to execution. However, these advantages are offset by the low model
accuracy.

26
 Figure 17 – The four desirable characteristics of a vibration prediction model

The effects of structural vibration

If the natural frequencies of the ground vibration and a nearby structure are similar,
then the structure will vibrate. This can impact on humans dwelling within this structure
[215] through three primary methods:

1. Whole body response

2. Low frequency noise from vibrating floors and walls

3. Noise/vibration from other objects, e.g. rattling of windows, doors and furniture

A large body of research has attempted to derive exposure–response relationships to

determine the level of annoyance of building residents to railway vibrations [216,217]. For
example, [218,188] derived relationships for freight trains, [219] analysed annoyance for
passenger trains, and [220] analysed the effect of the quantity of train passages on
annoyance.
Additionally, vibration is perceived differently depending on the subject’s reference
value of vibration. For example, for an existing railway line that is upgraded and vibration
levels are less than 25% greater than the levels previously experienced, residents are
unlikely to perceive the increase [184].
There are many national and international standards which provide guidelines for
acceptable vibration levels [221,188]. Vibration levels are typically calculated differently
depending on country, however in general, can be divided into three broad types: Maximum
running RMS (root mean squared) values, energy equivalent RMS descriptors and VDV
(vibration dose values) as used in the UK [222]. These types are also subject to individual
frequency weightings and directional weightings depending on country. Some of the most
commonly used international metrics to predict vibration levels include: KB [223], VDV [224]
and VdB [139]. Furthermore, investigations into the relationship between noise and
vibration and have found that:

27
 1. When combined, the presence of both noise and vibration can affect the human
perception of each individual component.
2. Vibration has little effect on perceived noise levels [225], but that noise has an effect
on perceived vibration levels [226]. This has been found in both the lab and in field
testing [227].
3. No standards or guidelines currently include combined noise-vibration relationships.
4. Human perception to vibration (and noise) is highly subjective and dependent on
many factors [228-229, 221].

Mitigation of structural vibration

If a structure is planned to be constructed near a railway line then rather than
implement a ground abatement measure (e.g. trench), it is also possible to isolate the
vibration via structural design. This approach is most commonly employed for buildings
above underground railway lines [230].
Many structural abatement type approaches stem from earthquake engineering
principles. The main principle is to isolate the building from the ground vibration, typically,
using a spring type mechanism (aka base isolation) to alter the frequency response of the
system. Despite this, isolation is complex because the soil-building response is dynamic and
effected by the foundation properties, isolation method, structural flexibility and building
damping [13]. Approaches to isolation include [13]:

1. Mounting the new building on springs [230–234]

2. Increasing the thickness of the lower floor [235].

Conclusions
From a synthesis of over 200 scientific papers, a number of new conclusions
regarding ground borne vibrations and Rayleigh waves from classic and high speed railways
have emerged:

(1) Vehicle vibration is an area that affects passenger comfort. The implications of differing
vibration frequency ranges have been synthesised from the literature highlighting the effect
on the passengers’ ability to read and write – typically it is worst at around 4 Hz. Motion
sickness occurs at even lower frequencies in the range 0.25-0.32 Hz. Mitigation strategies
have then been synthesised from the literature – e.g. reduction in unsprung mass and active
control; systems.

(2) It is well established that track vibrations are undesirable because they cause riding
quality and safety concerns; and increase track degradation. A large volume of papers have
been written on predicting track and ground borne vibrations using techniques ranging from
classical mathematical analyses to finite element (FEM) and boundary element methods
(BEM). The many analysis techniques have been summarised in tabular format drawing
attention to 2-D, 2.5-D and 3-D analyses. An attempt has been made to present a clear and
simplified set of guidelines for designers. An obvious conclusion is that the more complex 3-
D models are computationally hungry.

(3) Literature refers to the ‘critical velocity’ of both the train and the track. Although
difficult to quantify in absolute terms, it has been demonstrated that if the train exceeds

28
both the Rayleigh wave velocity and the ‘track critical velocity’ (> Rayleigh velocity) then the
train will be subject to large amplitude vibrations and a Mach cone wave propagation
pattern will develop.

(4) It is now clear that for design and operational purposes, that trains should be operated
below the Rayleigh wave velocity.

(5) The review of papers demonstrates that conventional site investigations (SI) do not
provide the relevant data for estimation of Rayleigh velocities. Despite this, for the first
time, using work by Jamiolkowski et al. [183], a relationship was developed relating a
conventional SI to input parameters for the calculation of Rayleigh wave velocity, linked to
soil plasticity. From this analysis, for the first time, estimates of ‘critical velocity’ have been
made, albeit these must be seen as embryonic at this stage in the state-of-the-art. The
‘critical velocity’ was calculated at 0.7 of the Rayleigh wave velocity.

(6) At the proposed ‘critical velocity’, calculated as 0.7 times the Rayleigh wave velocity,
exaggerated problems due to the ‘track critical velocity’ should therefore be avoided.

(7) The ground provides the propagation path between track and nearby buildings.
Structural vibration is an increasing concern in urban environments. It has been shown that
structural vibrations become more noticeable when combined with noise pollution. The FRA
proposes that structural building resonance can amplify ground borne vibrations by over
100%.

(8) Various vibration mitigation strategies have been identified ranging from ground
improvement to wave isolation measures such as trenches backfilled with low acoustic
impedance backfill.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported financially by EPSRC grant number EP/H029397/1. The authors are
grateful to Heriot Watt University, Université de Mons and the University of Edinburgh for
the support and resources provided to undertake this research.

References

[1] UIC High Speed Department, “High speed lines in the world,” 2013.

[2] H. Hung and Y. Yang, “A Review of Researches on Ground-Borne Vibrations with

emphasis on those induced by trains,” Proc. Natl. Sci. Counc., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–16,
Jun. 2000.

[3] G. Lombaert, G. Degrande, S. François, and D. J. Thompson, “Ground-borne vibration

due to railway traffic,” in International Workshop of Railway Noise, 2013, no. figure 1,
pp. 266–301.

29
[4] J. Avillez, M. Frost, S. Cawser, C. Skinner, A. El-Hamalawi, P. Fleming, and P. Shields,
“Procedures for estimating environmental impact from railway induced vibration - a
review,” in Proceedings of the Internoise 2012/ASME NCAD meeting, 2012.

[5] T. Dahlberg, “Some railroad settlement models—a critical review,” Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit, vol. 215, no. 4, pp. 289–300, Jan. 2001.

[6] A. M. Remennikov and S. Kaewunruen, “Progress in Structural Engineering and

Materials : Structural Safety and Reliability A review of loading conditions for railway
track structures due to train and track vertical interaction,” Struct. Control Heal.
Monit., no. October 2006, pp. 207–234, 2008.

[7] D. W. Barke and W. K. Chiu, “A Review of the Effects of Out-Of-Round Wheels on

Track and Vehicle Components,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit, vol.
219, no. 3, pp. 151–175, Jun. 2005.

[8] Y. Sato, A. Matsumoto, and K. Knothe, “Review on rail corrugation studies,” Wear,
vol. 253, pp. 130–139, 2002.

[9] K. Knothe and S. Grassie, “Modelling of railway track and vehicle/track interaction at
high frequencies,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., vol. 22, pp. 209–262, 1993.

[10] K. Popp, H. Kruse, and I. Kaiser, “Vehicle-Track Dynamics in the Mid-Frequency

Range,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., no. January 2014, pp. 423–464, 2010.

[11] Deutsche Bagn AG and Hans-Joerg Terno, “State of the art review of mitigation
measures on track. Deliverable 3.1 (RIVAS),” 2011.

[12] A. Eitzenberger, “Train-induced Vibrations in Tunnels – A Review,” 2008.

[13] D. E. H. Newland and H. E. M. Hunt, “Isolation of buildings from ground vibration - a

review of recent progress,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., vol. 205, pp. 39–52, 1991.

[14] D. Clouteau, R. Cottereau, and G. Lombaert, “Dynamics of structures coupled with

elastic media—A review of numerical models and methods,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 332,
no. 10, pp. 2415–2436, May 2013.

[15] N. J. Mansfield, “Low Frequency Vibration Comfort - a literature review,” Hum.

Perform., 2006.

[16] G. Lombaert and G. Degrande, “Ground-borne vibration due to static and dynamic
axle loads of InterCity and high-speed trains,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 319, pp. 1036–1066,
Jan. 2009.

[17] D. Thompson, Railway Noise and Vibration. Mechanisms, modelling and means of
control. Elsevier Ltd, 2009, pp. 1–532.

30
[18] R. Woods, Screening of surface waves in soils, J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE, 94 (1968),
pp. 951-979

[19] L. Bergmann, Ultrasonics and their Scientific and Technical Applications. Wiley, New
York, 1948.

[20] M. Rahman and T. Michelitsch, “A note on the formula for the Rayleigh wave speed,”
Wave Motion, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 272–276, Jan. 2006.

[21] P. G. Malischewsky, “Comparison of approximated solutions for the phase velocity of

Rayleigh waves (Comment on ‘Characterization of surface damage via surface
acoustic waves’),” Nanotechnology, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 995–996, Jun. 2005.

[22] G. Kouroussis, D. P. Connolly, and O. Verlinden, “Railway induced ground vibrations -

a review of vehicle effects,” Int. J. Rail Transp., vol. 2, no. 2, 2014.

[23] J. Sundström and S. Khan, “Influence of stationary lateral vibrations on train

passengers’ difficulty to read and write.,” Appl. Ergon., vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 710–8, Nov.
2008.

[24] C. Corbridge and M. J. Griffin, “Effects of vertical vibration on passenger activities:

writing and drinking,” Ergonomics, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 1313–1332, 1991.

[25] H. Suzuki, “Research trends on riding comfort evaluation in Japan,” Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit, vol. 212, no. 1, pp. 61–72, Jan. 1998.

[26] M. G. Pollard and N. J. A. Simons, “Passenger comfort-the role of active suspensions,”

J. Automob. Eng., vol. 198D, no. 11, pp. 161–175, 1984.

[27] M. J. Griffin, “Effects of horizontal whole-body vibration on reading,” Appl. Ergon.,

vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 165–169, 1994.

[28] M. S. Khan and J. Sundstrom, “Effects of vibration on sedentary activities in passenger

trains,” Low Freq. Noise Vib. Act. Control, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 43–55, Mar. 2007.

[29] H. Suzuki, H. Shiroto, and K. Tezuka, “Effects of Low Frequency Vibration on Train
Motion Sickness Vibration,” Q. Rep. RTRI, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 35–39, 2005.

[30] M. H. Kargarnovin, D. Younesian, D. Thompson, and C. Jones, “Ride comfort of high-

speed trains travelling over railway bridges,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 173–
199, 2005.

[31] W. Yoo, C. Lee, W. Jeong, and S. Kim, “Development and application of new
evaluation system for ride comfort and vibration on railway vehicles,” J. Mech. Sci.
Technol., vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 1469–1477, Jul. 2005.

31
[32] A. Stribersky, F. Moser, and W. Rulka, “Structural dynamics and ride comfort of a rail
vehicle system,” Adv. Eng. Softw., vol. 33, no. 7–10, pp. 541–552, Jul. 2002.

[33] Y. Wu and Y. Yang, “Steady-state response and riding comfort of trains moving over a
series of simply supported bridges,” Eng. Struct., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 251–265, Jan.
2003.

[34] J. Yau, Y. Yang, and S. Kuo, “Impact response of high speed rail bridges and riding
comfort of rail cars,” Eng. Struct., vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 836–844, Sep. 1999.

[35] J. H. Lee, B. S. Jin, and Y. Ji, “Development of a Structural Equation Model for ride
comfort of the Korean high-speed railway,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 7–14,
Jan. 2009.

[36] M. Nejlaoui, Z. Affi, A. Houidi, and L. Romdhane, “Analytical modeling of rail vehicle
safety and comfort in short radius curved tracks,” Comptes Rendus Mécanique, vol.
337, no. 5, pp. 303–311, May 2009.

[37] K. Karakasis, D. Skarlatos, and T. Zakinthinos, “A factorial analysis for the

determination of an optimal train speed with a desired ride comfort,” Appl. Acoust.,
vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 1121–1134, Oct. 2005.

[38] G. Wilson, H. Saurenman, and J. Nelson, “Control of ground-borne noise and

vibration,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 339–350, 1983.

[39] A. Pita, P. F. Teixeira, and F. Robuste, “High speed and track deterioration: the role of
vertical stiffness of the track,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit, vol.
218, no. 1, pp. 31–40, Jan. 2004.

[40] T. Dahlberg, “Railway Track Stiffness Variations – Consequences and

Countermeasures,” vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2010.

[41] J. Nielsen and A. Johansson, “Out-of-round railway wheels-a literature survey,” Proc.
Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit, vol. 214, no. 2, pp. 79–91, Jan. 2000.

[42] J. Nielsen, A. Mirza, S. Cervello, A. Frid, R. Muller, B. Nelain, and P. Ruest, “Train
Induced Ground Vibration – Optimised Rolling Stock Mitigation Measures and their
Parameters (RIVAS),” 2013.

[43] J. Nielsen, A. M. Mirza, P. Ruest, P. Huber, S. Cervello, R. Muller, and B. Nelain,

“Guideline for Design of Vehicles Generating Reduced Ground Vibration (RIVAS),”
2013.

[44] N. Varandas, P. Hölscher, M.a.G. Silva, Dynamic behaviour of railway tracks on

transitions zones, Comput Struct, 89 (13–14) (2011), pp. 1468-1479

[45] M. Heckl, G. Hauck, and R. Wettschureck, “Structure-Borne Sound and Vibration From
Rail Traffic,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 193, no. 1, pp. 175–184, May 1996.

32
[46] British Standards Institution, “Mechanical vibration — Ground-borne noise and
vibration arising from rail systems — BS ISO 14837 Part 1 : General guidance,” 2005.

[47] R. Ferrara, G. Leonardi, and F. Jourdan, “A Two-Dimensional Numerical Model to

Analyze the Critical Velocity of High Speed Infrastructure The 2D Numerical Model,”
in Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on civil, structural and
environmental engineering computing, 2013, pp. 1–16.

[48] J. Kenney, “Steady-state vibrations of beam on elastic foundation for moving load,” J.
Appl. Mech., vol. 76, pp. 359–364, 1954.

[49] L. Fryba, Vibration of Solids and Structures Under Moving Loads. Groningen, The
Netherlands: Noordhoff International Publishing, 1972, pp. 1–524.

[50] S. Iwnicki, Handbook of Railway Vehicle Dynamics. 2006, pp. 1–552.

[51] S. G. Newton and R. a Clark, “An investigation into the dynamic effects on the track of
wheelflats on railway vehicles,” Arch. J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 1959-1982 (vols 1-23), vol. 21,
no. 4, pp. 287–297, Jun. 1979.

[52] C. Cai, Y. K. Cheung, and H. C. Chan, “Dynamic response of infinite continuous beams
subjected to a moving force - An exact method,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 123, no. 22, pp.
461–472, 1988.

[53] S. Chonan, “The elastically supported Timoshenko beam subjected to an axial force
and a moving load,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 573–581, 1975.

[54] L. Auersch, “Dynamic interaction of various beams with the underlying soil – finite
and infinite, half-space and Winkler models,” Eur. J. Mech. - A/Solids, vol. 27, pp. 933–
958, Sep. 2008.

[55] A. Suiker, R. de Borst, and C. Esveld, “Critical behaviour of a Timoshenko beam-half

plane system under a moving load,” Arch. Appl. Mech., vol. 68, no. 3–4, pp. 158–168,
Apr. 1998.

[56] Y. Chen, “Response of an Infinite Timoshenko Beam on a Viscoelastic Foundation To a

Harmonic Moving Load,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 241, no. 5, pp. 809–824, Apr. 2001.

[57] M. H. Kargarnovin, D. Younesian, D. J. Thompson, and C. J. C. Jones, “Response of

beams on nonlinear viscoelastic foundations to harmonic moving loads,” Comput.
Struct., vol. 83, no. 23–24, pp. 1865–1877, Sep. 2005.

[58] M. Kargarnovin, “Dynamics of Timoshenko beams on Pasternak foundation under

moving load,” Mech. Res. Commun., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 713–723, Dec. 2004.

[59] T. Wu and D. J. Thompson, “On the parametric excitation of the wheel/track system,”
J. Sound Vib., vol. 278, no. 4–5, pp. 725–747, Dec. 2004.

33
[60] X. Lei and J. G. Rose, “Track vibration analysis for railways with mixed passenger and
freight traffic,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. , Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit, 2008.

[61] D. Mead, “Free wave propagation in periodically supported infinite beams,” J. Sound
Vib., vol. 11, pp. 187–197, 1970.

[62] B. Croft, “The development of rail-head acoustic roughness.”

[63] G. Kouroussis, G. Gazetas, I. Anastasopoulos, C. Conti, and O. Verlinden, “Discrete

modelling of vertical track–soil coupling for vehicle–track dynamics,” Soil Dyn. Earthq.
Eng., vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 1711–1723, Dec. 2011.

[64] K. Knothe and Y. Wu, “Receptance behaviour of railway track and subgrade,” Arch.
Appl. Mech., vol. 68, no. 7–8, pp. 457–470, Aug. 1998.

[65] S. Patil, “Natural Frequencies of a Railroad Track,” J. Appl. Mech., vol. 54, no. 2, pp.
299–304, 1987.

[66] Z. G. Cao, Y. Q. Cai, H. L. Sun, and C. J. Xu, “Dynamic responses of a poroelastic half-
space from moving trains caused by vertical track irregularities,” Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech., vol. 35, pp. 761–786, 2011.

[67] Y. Cai, Z. Cao, H. Sun, and C. Xu, “Effects of the dynamic wheel–rail interaction on the
ground vibration generated by a moving train,” Int. J. Solids Struct., vol. 47, no. 17, pp.
2246–2259, Aug. 2010.

[68] X. Sheng, C. J. C. Jones, and D. J. Thompson, “A theoretical model for ground vibration
from trains generated by vertical track irregularities,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 272, no. 3–5,
pp. 937–965, May 2004.

[69] S. Timoshenko, The collected papers of Stepan Prokopovitch Timoshenko 1878-1972.

London ; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953, pp. 1–642.

[70] M. Shamalta and A. V Metrikine, “Analytical study of the dynamic response of an

embedded railway track to a moving load,” Arch. Appl. Mech., vol. 73, pp. 131 – 146,
2003.

[71] M. J. M. M. Steenbergen and A. V Metrikine, “The effect of the interface conditions

on the dynamic response of a beam on a half-space to a moving load,” J. Mech., vol.
26, pp. 33–54, 2007.

[72] L. Sun, “Dynamic displacement response of beam-type structures to moving line

loads,” Int. J. Solids Struct., vol. 38, no. 48–49, pp. 8869–8878, Nov. 2001.

[73] A. V Metrikine, “Stability of a two-mass oscillator moving on a beam supported by a

visco-elastic half-space,” Int. J. Solids Struct., vol. 42, no. 3–4, pp. 1187–1207, Feb.
2005.

34
[74] J. C. O. Nielsen and T. J. S. Abrahamsson, “Coupling of physical and modal
components for analysis of moving non-linear dynamic systems on general beam
structures,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., vol. 33, pp. 1843–1859, 1992.

[75] X. Sheng, C. J. C. Jones, and D. J. Thompson, “A comparison of a theoretical model for

quasi-statically and dynamically induced environmental vibration from trains with
measurements,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 267, pp. 621–635, 2003.

[76] X. Lei and N. Noda, “Analyses of dynamic response of vehicle and track coupling
system with random irregularity of track vertical profile,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 258, pp.
147–165, 2002.

[77] J. Nielsen and A. Igeland, “Vertical Dynamic Interaction Between Train and Track
Influence of Wheel and Track Imperfections,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 187, no. 5, pp. 825–
839, Nov. 1995.

[78] G. Kouroussis, O. Verlinden, and C. Conti, “A two-step time simulation of ground

vibrations induced by the railway traffic,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng.
Sci., vol. 226, no. 2, pp. 454–472, Oct. 2012.

[79] Y. Q. Sun and M. Dhanasekar, “A dynamic model for the vertical interaction of the rail
track and wagon system,” Int. J. Solids Struct., vol. 39, pp. 1337–1359, 2002.

[80] S. H. Ju, J. R. Liao, and Y. L. Ye, “Behavior of ground vibrations induced by trains
moving on embankments with rail roughness,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 30, no. 11,
pp. 1237–1249, Nov. 2010.

[81] W. Zhai, “Two simple fast integration methods for large-scale dynamic problems in
engineering,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., vol. 39, no. 1994, pp. 4199–4214, 1996.

[82] W. M. Zhai, Q. C. Wang, Z. W. Lu, and X. S. Wu, “Dynamic effects of vehicles on tracks
in the case of raising train speeds,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit,
vol. 215, no. 2, pp. 125–135, Jan. 2001.

[83] G. Kouroussis, O. Verlinden, and C. Conti, “On the interest of integrating vehicle
dynamics for the ground propagation of vibrations: the case of urban railway traffic,”
Veh. Syst. Dyn., vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 1553–1571, Dec. 2010.

[84] P. A. Costa, R. Calcada, and A. S. Cardoso, “Influence of train dynamic modelling

strategy on the prediction of track-ground vibrations induced by railway traffic,” Proc.
Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit, vol. 226, no. 4, pp. 434–450, Jan. 2012.

[85] R. G. Dong, S. Sankar, and R. V Dukkipati, “A finite element model of railway track and
its application to the wheel flat problem,” Arch. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail
Rapid Transit 1989-1996 (vols 203-210), vol. 208, no. 16, pp. 61–72, Jun. 1994.

[86] S. H. Ju, H. Lin, C. Hsueh, and S. Wang, “A simple finite element model for vibration
analyses induced by moving vehicles,” Online, no. April, pp. 1232–1256, 2006.

35
[87] L. Auersch, “The excitation of ground vibration by rail traffic: theory of vehicle-track-
soil interaction and measurements on high-speed lines,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 284, pp.
103–132, Jun. 2005.

[88] M. Banimahd, J. Kennedy, P. Woodward, and G. Medero, “Behaviour of train – track

interaction in stiffness transitions,” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., vol. 1, pp. 1–10, 2010.

[89] Y. Bezin, S. D. Iwnicki, M. Cavalletti, E. De Vries, F. Shahzad, and G. Evans, “An

investigation of sleeper voids using a flexible track model integrated with railway
multi-body dynamics,” J. rail rapid transit, vol. 223, pp. 597–607, 2009.

[90] A. El Kacimi, P. K. Woodward, O. Laghrouche, and G. Medero, “Time domain 3D finite

element modelling of train-induced vibration at high speed,” Comput. Struct., vol.
118, pp. 66–73, Mar. 2013.

[91] J. Wang, X. Jin, and Y. Cao, “High-speed maglev train-guideway-tunnel-soil modelling

of ground vibration,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit, vol. 226, no. 3,
pp. 331–344, Oct. 2011.

[92] J. Wang, X. Jin, Y. Cao, and X. Du, “Numerical Simulation of High-Speed Maglev
Vehicle-Guideway-Tunnel-Soil System,” Int. J. Comput. Methods Eng. Sci. Mech., vol.
13, no. 2, pp. 93–107, Mar. 2012.

[93] D. Connolly, A. Giannopoulos, and M. C. Forde, “Numerical modelling of ground

borne vibrations from high speed rail lines on embankments,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.,
vol. 46, pp. 13–19, Mar. 2013.

[94] D. Connolly, A. Giannopoulos, W. Fan, P. K. Woodward, and M. C. Forde, “Optimising

low acoustic impedance back-fill material wave barrier dimensions to shield
structures from ground borne high speed rail vibrations,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol.
44, pp. 557–564, Jul. 2013.

[95] C. O’Sullivan, Particulate Discrete Element Modelling: A Geomechanics Perspective.

2011, p. 576.

[96] W. L. Lim and G. R. McDowell, “Discrete element modelling of railway ballast,”

Granul. Matter, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 19–29, Jan. 2005.

[97] M. Lu and G. R. McDowell, “The importance of modelling ballast particle shape in the
discrete element method,” Granul. Matter, vol. 9, no. 1–2, pp. 69–80, Jul. 2006.

[98] S. Lobo-Guerrero and L. E. Vallejo, “Discrete Element Method Analysis of Railtrack

Ballast Degradation during Cyclic Loading,” Granul. Matter, vol. 8, no. 3–4, pp. 195–
204, Mar. 2006.

[99] A. Suiker, “Dynamic Behaviour of a Layer of Discrete Particles, Part 2: Response To a

Uniformly Moving, Harmonically Vibrating Load,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 240, no. 1, pp.
19–39, Feb. 2001.

36
[100] F. Dubois, M. Renouf, P. Taforel, and C. Voivret, “On the use of an high performance
hybrid FEM/DEM modelling approach for an improved simulation of railway track,” in
RTSE International Workshop - Ballast: Issues and Challenges, 2013.

[101] H. Huang and S. Chrismer, “Discrete element modeling of ballast settlement under
trains moving at ‘Critical Speeds’,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 38, pp. 994–1000, Jan.
2013.

[102] P. A. Costa, R. Calçada, and A. S. Cardoso, “Ballast mats for the reduction of railway
traffic vibrations. Numerical study,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 42, pp. 137–150, Nov.
2012.

[103] H. Lamb, “On the propagation of tremors over the surface of an elastic solid,” Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. London. Ser. A, Contain. Pap. a Math. or Phys. Character, vol. 203, pp.
1–42, Jul. 1904.

[104] J. D. Achenbach, “Lamb ’ s problem for solids of general anisotropy,” Science (80-. ).,
vol. 24, pp. 227–242, 1996.

[105] J. D. Achenbach, Wave Propagation in Elastic Solids. North Holland, 1984, p. 440.

[106] T. G. Gutowski and C. L. Dym, “Propagation of ground vibration: A review,” J. Sound

Vib., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 179–193, 1976.

[107] V. V Krylov, Noise and Vibration from High-Speed Trains. Thomas Telford Ltd, 2001,
pp. 1–435.

[108] V. V. Krylov, “Vibrational impact of high-speed trains. I. Effect of track dynamics,” J.

Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 100, no. 5, p. 3121, 1996.

[109] H. Dieterman and A. Metrikine, “The Equivalent stiffness of a half-space interacting

with a beam. Critical velocities of a moving load along the beam,” Eur. J. Mech. -
A/Solids, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 67–90, 1996.

[110] G. Degrande and G. Lombaert, “An efficient formulation of Krylov’s prediction model
for train induced vibrations based on the dynamic reciprocity theorem,” J. Acoust.
Soc. Am., vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 1379–1390, 2001.

[111] H. Grundmann and S. Lenz, “Nonlinear interaction between a moving SDOF system
and a Timoshenko beam / halfspace support,” Arch. Appl. Mech., vol. 72, pp. 830–
842, 2003.

[112] A. Karlstrom and A. Bostrom, “An analytical model for train-induced ground
vibrations from railways,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 292, pp. 221–241, Apr. 2006.

[113] H. Takemiya, “Simulation of track–ground vibrations due to a high-speed train: the

case of X-2000 at Ledsgard,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 261, no. 3, pp. 503–526, Mar. 2003.

37
[114] I. Sneddon, Fourier Transforms. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA, 1951.

[115] D. C. Gakenheimer and J. Miklowitz, “Transient Excitation of an Elastic Half Space by a

Point Load Traveling on the Surface,” J. Appl. Mech., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 505–515, 1969.

[116] J. Luco and R. Apsel, “On the greens functions for a layered half-space - part 1,” Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 909–929, 1983.

[117] B. Alabi, “A parametric study on some aspects of ground-borne vibrations due to rail
traffic,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 153, no. 1, pp. 77–87, 1992.

[118] A. T. de Hoop, “The moving-load problem in soil dynamics - the vertical displacement
approximation,” Wave Motion, vol. 36, pp. 335–346, 2002.

[119] M. C. M. Bakker, M. D. Verweij, B. J. Kooij, and H. A. Dietermana, “The traveling point

load revisited,” Wave Motion, vol. 29, pp. 119–135, 1999.

[120] W. Liao, T. Teng, and C. Yeh, “A method for the response of an elastic half-space to
moving sub-Rayleigh point loads,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 284, no. 1–2, pp. 173–188, Jun.
2005.

[121] H. Grundmann, M. Lieb, and E. Trommer, “The response of a layered half-space to

traffic loads moving along its surface,” Arch. Appl. Mech. (Ingenieur Arch., vol. 69, no.
1, pp. 55–67, Feb. 1999.

[122] M. Lieb and B. Sudret, “A fast algorithm for soil dynamics calculations by wavelet
decomposition,” Arch. Appl. Mech. (Ingenieur Arch., vol. 68, no. 3–4, pp. 147–157,
Apr. 1998.

[123] M. Katou, T. Matsuoka, O. Yoshioka, Y. Sanada, and T. Miyoshi, “Numerical simulation

study of ground vibrations using forces from wheels of a running high-speed train,” J.
Sound Vib., vol. 318, pp. 830–849, Dec. 2008.

[124] R. M. Thornely-Taylor, “The Prediction Of Vibration , Groundborne And Structure-

Radiated Noise From Railways Using Finite Difference Methods – Part I - Theory,” in
Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics, 2004, vol. 26, pp. 1–11.

[125] G. Kouroussis, O. Verlinden, and C. Conti, “Free field vibrations caused by high-speed
lines: Measurement and time domain simulation,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 31, no.
4, pp. 692–707, Apr. 2011.

[126] P. Galvin and J. Domínguez, “Experimental and numerical analyses of vibrations

induced by high-speed trains on the Córdoba–Málaga line,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.,
vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 641–657, Apr. 2009.

[127] J. O’Brien and D. Rizos, “A 3D BEM-FEM methodology for simulation of high speed
train induced vibrations,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 25, pp. 289–301, Apr. 2005.

38
[128] P. Galvín and a. Romero, “A 3D time domain numerical model based on half-space
Green’s function for soil–structure interaction analysis,” Comput. Mech., Nov. 2013.

[129] X. Sheng, C. Jones, and D. Thompson, “Prediction of ground vibration from trains
using the wavenumber finite and boundary element methods,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 293,
no. 3–5, pp. 575–586, Jun. 2006.

[130] L. Andersen and S. R. K. Nielsen, “Reduction of ground vibration by means of barriers

or soil improvement along a railway track,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 25, no. 7–10,
pp. 701–716, Aug. 2005.

[131] L. Auersch, “The Influence of the Soil on Track Dynamics and Ground-Borne
Vibration,” in Noise and Vibration Mitigation for Rail Transportation Systems,
Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Railway Noise, T. Maeda, P.-E.
Gautier, C. E. Hanson, B. Hemsworth, J.T. Nelson, B. Schulte-Werning, D. Thompson,
and P. de Vos, eds., Vol. 99, 2008, pp. 122–128.

[132] H. Verbraken, G. Lombaert, and G. Degrande, “Verification of an empirical prediction

method for railway induced vibrations by means of numerical simulations,” J. Sound
Vib., vol. 330, no. 8, pp. 1692–1703, Apr. 2011.

[133] S. François, M. Schevenels, P. Galvin, G. Lombaert, and G. Degrande, “A 2.5D coupled

FE–BE methodology for the dynamic interaction between longitudinally invariant
structures and a layered halfspace,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., vol. 199, no.
23–24, pp. 1536–1548, Apr. 2010.

[134] Y. Yang and H. Hung, “A 2.5D finite/infinite element approach for modelling
viscoelastic bodies subjected to moving loads,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., vol. 51,
no. 11, pp. 1317–1336, Aug. 2001.

[135] X. Bian, W. Jin, and H. Jiang, “Ground-borne vibrations due to dynamic loadings from
moving trains in subway tunnels,” J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 870–876,
Nov. 2012.

[136] Y. B. Yang, F. Asce, and H. H. Hung, “Soil Vibrations Caused by Underground Moving
Trains,” J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng., vol. 134, pp. 1633–1644, 2008.

[137] S. Gupta, M. Hussein, G. Degrande, H. E. M. Hunt, and D. Clouteau, “A comparison of

two numerical models for the prediction of vibrations from underground railway
traffic,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 608–624, Jul. 2007.

[138] M. F. M. Hussein and H. E. M. Hunt, “A numerical model for calculating vibration due
to a harmonic moving load on a floating-slab track with discontinuous slabs in an
underground railway tunnel,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 321, no. 1–2, pp. 363–374, Mar.
2009.

[139] Federal Railroad Administration, “High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and

Vibration Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of Transportation,” 2012.

39
[140] D. P. Connolly, G. Kouroussis, A. Giannopoulos, O. Verlinden, P. K. Woodward, and M.
C. Forde, “Assessment of railway vibrations using an efficient scoping model,” Soil
Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 58, pp. 37–47, Mar. 2014.

[141] F. Rossi, A Nicolini “A simple model to predict train-induced vibration - theoretical

formulation and experimental validation.”, Environ Impact Asses, 23 (3) (2003), pp. P.

[142] Salvador, J. Real, C. Zamorano, A. Villanueva, A procedure for the evaluation of

vibrations induced by the passing of a train and its application to real railway traffic,
Math Comput Model, 53 (1–2) (2011), pp. 42-54 305-322,

[143] J. Virieux, “P-SV wave propagation in heterogenous media: Velocity-stress finite-

difference method,” Geophysics, vol. 51, no. 4, 1986.

[144] R. W. Graves, “Simulating Seismic Wave Propagation in 3D Elastic Media Using

Staggered-Grid Finite Differences,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 1091–
1106, 1996.

[145] U. Basu, “Explicit finite element perfectly matched layer for transient three-
dimensional elastic waves,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., vol. 77, pp. 151–176, 2009.

[146] A. Giannopoulos, S. Melling, and D. P. Connolly, “A Second Order PML

Implementation for FDTD Seismic Modelling,” in Near Surface Geoscience 2012 – 18th
European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 2012.

[147] X. Sheng, C. J. C. Jones, and M. Petyt, “Ground Vibration Generated By a Load Moving
Along a Railway Track,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 228, no. 1, pp. 129–156, Nov. 1999.

[148] X. Sheng, C. J. C. Jones, and M. Petyt, “Ground Vibration Generated By a Harmonic

Load Acting on a Railway Track,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 225, no. 1, pp. 3–28, Aug. 1999.

[151] X. Sheng, “Ground vibrations generated from trains (PhD thesis),” University of
Southampton, 2001.

[150] G. Liu and S. Quek, The Finite Element Method - A practical course. Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003, pp. 1–365.

[151] M. Petyt, Introduction to finite element vibration analysis. Cambridge University

Press, 2010, p. 518.

[152] I. Smith and D. Griffiths, Programming the finite element method. NY: Wiley, 1997,
pp. 1–648.

[153] P. Bettess and O. C. Zienkiewicz, “Diffraction and refraction of surface waves using
finite and infinite elements,” J. Numer. Methods Eng., vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 1271–1290,
1977.

[154] P. Bettess, Infinite elements. Penshaw press, 1992.

40
[155] R. Astley, “Infinite elements for wave problems: a review of current formulations and
an assessment of accuracy,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., vol. 49, pp. 951–976, 2000.

[156] J. Barbosa, J. Park, E. Kausel, Perfectly matched layers in the thin layer method,
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng, 217–220 (April) (2012), pp. 262-274

[157] T. Ekevid, N. Wiberg, Wave propagation related to high-speed train A scaled

boundary FE-approach for unbounded domains, Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng,
191 (2002), pp. 3947-3964

[158] J. P. Berenger, “A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic

waves,” J. Comput. Phys., vol. 114, no. 2, pp. 185–200, Oct. 1994.

[159] U. Basu, “Perfectly matched layers for time-harmonic elastodynamics of unbounded

domains: theory and finite-element implementation,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
Eng., vol. 192, pp. 1337–1375, Mar. 2003

[160] J. Domínguez, Boundary elements in dynamics. WIT Press, 1993, p. 450.

[161] E. Çelebi, S. Fırat, and İ. Çankaya, “The effectiveness of wave barriers on the dynamic
stiffness coefficients of foundations using boundary element method,” Appl. Math.
Comput., vol. 180, no. 2, pp. 683–699, Sep. 2006.

[162] P. Fiala, S. Gupta, G. Degrande, and F. Augusztinovicz, “A Numerical Model for Re-
radiated Noise in Buildings,” pp. 115–121, 2008.

[163] M. Villot, C. Guigou, P. Jean, and N. Picard, “Definition of appropriate procedures to

predict exposure in buildings and estimate annoyance (RIVAS),” 2012.

[164] D. Clouteau, M. Arnst, T. M. Al-Hussaini, and G. Degrande, “Freefield vibrations due to

dynamic loading on a tunnel embedded in a stratified medium,” J. Sound Vib., vol.
283, no. 1–2, pp. 173–199, May 2005.

[165] D. Clouteau, R. Othman, M. Arnst, and H. Chebli, “A numerical model for ground-
borne vibrations from underground railway traffic based on a periodic finite element-
boundary element formulation,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 293, pp. 645–666, 2006.

[166] G. Degrande and L. Schillemans, “Free Field Vibrations During the Passage of a Thalys
High-Speed Train At Variable Speed,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 247, no. 1, pp. 131–144, Oct.
2001.

[167] Connolly DP. High speed rail dataset; 2014. www.davidpconnolly.com

[168] G. Kouroussis, D. P. Connolly, M. C. Forde, and O. Verlinden, “Train speed calculation

using ground vibrations,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit, vol. 0, no.
0, pp. 1–18, Dec. 2014.

41
[169] H. Kanda, H. Ishii, and O. Yoshioka, “Field Measurement and its analysis of ‘Hybrid
Vibration Isolation Wall’ using gas cushions,” Transp. Res. Board Annu. Meet., 2006.

[170] A. Alzawi and M. Hesham El Naggar, “Full scale experimental study on vibration
scattering using open and in-filled (GeoFoam) wave barriers,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.,
vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 306–317, Mar. 2011.

[171] K. R. Massarsch, “Vibration Isolation using Gas-filled Cushions,” in Geo-Frontiers,

2005, pp. 1–22.

[172] S. Kattis, D. Polyzos, and D. Beskos, “Modelling of pile wave barriers by effective
trenches and their screening effectiveness,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 18, no. 1, pp.
1–10, Jan. 1999.

[173] Y. Yang and H. Hung, “A parametric study of wave barriers for reduction of train-
induced vibrations,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., vol. 40, pp. 3729–3747, 1997.

[174] G. Gao, G. Shi, S. Feng, and C. Qiu, “3D analysis of in-filled trench as passive barriers
for ground vibration isolation,” Sci. China Ser. G Physics, Mech. Astron., vol. 51, no.
10, pp. 1573–1585, Aug. 2008.

[175] A. Karlstrom and A. Bostrom, “Efficiency of trenches along railways for trains moving
at sub- or supersonic speeds,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 625–641, Jul.
2007.

[176] S. H. Ju, “Three-Dimensional Analyses of Wave Barriers for Reduction of Train-

Induced Vibrations,” no. July, pp. 740–748, 2004.

[177] P. Coulier, G. Degrande, A. Dijckmans, J. Houbrechts, G. Lombaert, W. Rucker, L.

Auersch, M. R. Plaza, V. Cuellar, D. Thompson, A. Ekbald, and A. Smekal, “Scope of the
parametric study on mitigation measures on the transmission path (RIVAS -
Deliverable D4.1),” 2011.

[178] B. Picoux, R. Rotinat, J. P. Regoin, and D. Le Houédec, “Prediction and measurements

of vibrations from a railway track lying on a peaty ground,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 267, no.
3, pp. 575–589, Oct. 2003.

[179] P. A. Costa, R. Calcada, A. S. Cardoso, and A. Bodare, “Influence of soil non-linearity

on the dynamic response of high-speed railway tracks,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 30,
pp. 221–235, 2010.

[180] C. Madshus, S. Lacasse, A. Kaynia, and L. Harvik, “Geodynamic Challenges in High

Speed Railway Projects,” in Geotechnical Engineering for Transportation Projects,
2004, pp. 192–215.

[181] G. Holm, B. Andreasson, P. Bengtsson, A. Bodare, and H. Eriksson, “Mitigation of

Track and Ground Vibrations by High Speed Trains at Ledsgard, Sweden. Report 10.
Svensk Djupstabilisering,” 2002.

42
[182] C. Madshus, “High-Speed Railway Lines on Soft Ground: Dynamic Behaviour At Critical
Train Speed,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 231, no. 3, pp. 689–701, Mar. 2000.

[183] M. Jamiolkowski, R. Lanellotia, S. Marchetti, R. Nova, and E. Pasqualini, “Design

parameters for soft clays,” in In Proc. 7th European Conference Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 1979, pp. 27–57.

[184] P. K. Woodward, J. Kennedy, G. M. Medero, and M. Banimahd, “Maintaining absolute

clearances in ballasted railway tracks using in situ three-dimensional polyurethane
GeoComposites,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit, vol. 226, no. 3, pp.
257–271, Sep. 2011.

[185] P. K. Woodward, J. Kennedy, G. M. Medero, and M. Banimahd, “Application of in situ

polyurethane geocomposite beams to improve the passive shoulder resistance of
railway track,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit, vol. 226, no. 3, pp.
294–304, Sep. 2011.

[186] D. Stiebel, R. Muller, E. Bongini, A. Ekbald, G. Coquel, and A. A. Alguacil, “Definition of

reference cases typical for hot-spots in Europe with existing vibration problems
(RIVAS - Deliverable D1.5),” 2012.

[187] G. Kouroussis, O. Verlinden, and C. Conti, “Contribution of vehicle / track dynamics to

the ground vibrations induced by the Brussels tramway,” in International Conference
on Noise and Vibration Engineering (ISMA2010), 2010, vol. 2010, pp. 3489–3502.

[186] C. E. Hanson, D. A. Towers, and L. D. Meister, “Transit noise and vibration (Federal
Railroad Administration),” 2006.

[187] R. A. Hood, R. J. Greer, M. Breslin, and P. R. Williams, “The calculation and assessment
of ground-borne noise and perceptible vibration from trains in tunnels,” J. Sound Vib.,
vol. 193, no. 1, pp. 215–225, 1996.

[188] CargoVibes (FP7); 2013.

[189] RIVAS – Railway Induced Vibration Abatement Solutions (FP7); 2013.

[190] Hanson CE, Towers DA, Meister LD. Transit noise and vibration (Federal Railroad
Administration); 2006.

[191] R.A. Hood, R.J. Greer, M. Breslin, P.R. Williams, The calculation and assessment of
ground-borne noise and perceptible vibration from trains in tunnels, J Sound Vib, 193
(1) (1996), pp. 215-225

[192] C. Madshus, C. Bessason, and L. Harvik, “Prediction model for low frequency vibration
from high speed railways on soft ground,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 193, no. 1, pp. 195–203,
1996.

43
[193] M. Bahrekazemi, “Train-Induced Ground Vibration and Its Prediction (PhD thesis),”
Stockholm University, 2004.

[194] F. Rossi and A. Nicolini, “A simple model to predict train-induced vibration:

theoretical formulation and experimental validation,” Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.,
vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 305–322, May 2003.

[195] J. Nelson and H. Saurenman, “A prediction procedure for rail transportation

groundborne noise and vibration,” Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board, no. 1143,
pp. 26–35, 1987.

[196] E. Bovey, “Development of an impact method to determine the vibration transfer

characteristics of railway installations,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 357–370,
1983.

[197] C. With and a Bodare, “Prediction of train-induced vibrations inside buildings using
transfer functions,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 93–98, Feb. 2007.

[198] H. Kuppelweiser and A. Ziegler, “A tool for predicting vibration and structure-borne
noise immissions caused by railways,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 193, no. 1, pp. 261–267,
1996.

[199] C. With, A. V. Metrikine, and A. Bodare, “Identification of effective properties of the

railway substructure in the low-frequency range using a heavy oscillating unit on the
track,” Arch. Appl. Mech., vol. 80, no. 9, pp. 959–968, Aug. 2009.

[200] M. Schevenels, G. Lombaert, G. Degrande, and S. François, “A probabilistic

assessment of resolution in the SASW test and its impact on the prediction of ground
vibrations,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 172, no. 1, pp. 262–275, Jan. 2008.

[201] H. E. M. Hunt and M. F. M. Hussein, “Vibration from railways: can we achieve better
than +/-10dB prediction accuracy?,” in 14th International Congress on Sound and
Vibration, 2007.

[202] J. P. Wolf and C. Song, “Some cornerstones of dynamic soil – structure interaction,”
Eng. Struct., vol. 24, pp. 13–28, 2002.

[203] S. C. Dutta and R. Roy, “A critical review on idealization and modeling for interaction
among soil–foundation–structure system,” Comput. Struct., vol. 80, no. 20–21, pp.
1579–1594, Aug. 2002.

[204] S. G. Shah, C. H. Solanki, and J. A. Desai, “Soil structure interaction analysis methods
State of art Review,” Int. J. Civ. Struct. Eng., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 176–204, 2011.

[205] O. Bewes, “Managing uncertainty in groundborne noise and vibration predictions,” in

ANC conference, 2012, no. May.

44
[206] S. Jones, K. Kuo, M. Hussein, and H. Hunt, “Prediction uncertainties and inaccuracies
resulting from common assumptions in modelling vibration from underground
railways,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit, vol. 226, no. 5, pp. 501–
512, Mar. 2012.

[207] S. Jones, “Ground Vibration from Underground Railways: How Simplifying

Assumptions Limit Prediction Accuracy (PhD thesis),” University of Cambridge, 2010.

[208] L. Andersen and C. J. C. Jones, “Coupled boundary and finite element analysis of
vibration from railway tunnels—a comparison of two- and three-dimensional
models,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 293, no. 3–5, pp. 611–625, Jun. 2006.

[209] J. Lermo, E. Ovando, and M. Limaymanta, “Empirical transfer functions to build soil
classification maps for seismic design,” no. 1998, 2008.

[210] L. Auersch, “Building Response due to Ground Vibration — Simple Prediction Model
Based on Experience with Detailed Models and Measurements,” Int. J. Acoust. Vib.,
vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 101–112, 2010.

[211] T. Balendra, K. Chua, K. Lo, and S. Lee, “Steady-state vibration of subway-soil-building

system,” J. Eng. Mech., vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 145–162, 1989.

[212] M. Hussein, H. E. M. Hunt, K. Kuo, P. A. Costa, and J. Barbosa, “The use of sub-
modelling technique to calculate vibration in buildings from underground railways,”
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit, Nov. 2013.

[213] P. Fiala, G. Degrande, and F. Augusztinovicz, “Numerical modelling of ground-borne

noise and vibration in buildings due to surface rail traffic,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 301, no.
3–5, pp. 718–738, Apr. 2007.

[214] A. B. Nagy, P. Fiala, F. Márki, F. Augusztinovicz, G. Degrande, S. Jacobs, and D.

Brassenx, “Prediction of interior noise in buildings generated by underground rail
traffic,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 293, no. 3–5, pp. 680–690, Jun. 2006.

[215] M.G. Smith, I. Croy, M. Ogren, K. Persson Waye, On the influence of freight trains on
humans: a laboratory investigation of the impact of nocturnal low frequency vibration
and noise on sleep and heart rate, PLoS One, 8 (2) (2013), p. e55829

[216] Yano T. Community response to Shinkansen noise and vibration: a survey in areas
along the Sanyo Shinkansen line; 2004. p. 1837–41.

[217] R. Klæboe, Vibration in dwellings from road and rail traffic—Part II: exposure–effect
relationships based on ordinal logit and logistic regression models, Appl Acoust, 64 (1)
(2003), pp. 89-109

[218] C. Sharp, J. Woodcock, G. Sica, E. Peris, A.T. Moorhouse, D.C. Waddington, Exposure–
response relationships for annoyance due to freight and passenger railway vibration
exposure in residential environments, J Acoust Soc Am, 135 (1) (2014), pp. 205-212

45
[219] Zapfe J, Saurenman H, Fidell S. Ground-bourne noise and vibration in buildings caused
by rail transit (TCRP Project D-12). Transport Res Board, December; 2009. p. 1–208.

[220] A. Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, M. Orgen, T. Jerson, E. Ohrstrom, Railway noise annoyance and

the importance of number of trains, ground vibration, and building situational factors,
Noise Heal, 14 (59) (2012), pp. 190-201

[221] P. Elias and M. Villot, “Review of existing standards, regulations and guidelines , as
well as laboratory and field studies concerning human exposure to vibration.
Deliverable D1.4. (RIVAS),” 2011.

[222] D.C. Waddington, J. Woodcock, E. Peris, J. Condie, G. Sica, A.T. Moorhouse, et al.,
Human response to vibration in residential environments, J Acoust Soc Am, 135 (1)
(2014), pp. 182-193

[223] Deutsches Institut fur Normung. DIN 4150-2 – human exposure to vibration in
buildings. International Standards Organisation; 1999.

[224] M.J. Griffin, A comparison of standardized methods for predicting the hazards of
whole-body vibration and repeated shocks, J Sound Vib, 215 (4) (1998), pp. 883-914

[225] H. Howarth and M. Griffin, “The annoyance caused by simultaneous noise and
vibration from railways,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 2317–2323, 1991.

[226] P. Paulsen and J. Kastka, “Effects of combined noise and vibration on annoyance,” J.
Sound Vib., vol. 181, no. 2, pp. 295–314, 1995.

[227] H. Findeis and E. Peters, “Disturbing effects of low-frequency sound immissions and
vibrations in residential buildings,” Noise Heal., vol. 6, no. 23, pp. 29–35, 2004.

[228] G. Sica, E. Peris, J. S. Woodcock, A. T. Moorhouse, and D. C. Waddington, “Design of

measurement methodology for the evaluation of human exposure to vibration in
residential environments.,” Sci. Total Environ., Jul. 2013.

[229] E. Peris, J. Woodcock, G. Sica, A. T. Moorhouse, and D. C. Waddington, “Annoyance

due to railway vibration at different times of the day.,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 131,
no. 2, pp. EL191–6, Feb. 2012.

[230] R. A. Walker, “Buildings on springs,” Nature, vol. 2011, no. 5051, pp. 794–796, 1966.

[231] R. A. Walker, Buildings on springs. International Series of Monographs in Civil

Enginering, vol. 2. Pergamon, Oxford, 1969.

[232] J. P. Talbot and H. E. M. Hunt, “The effect of side-restraint bearings on the

performance of base-isolated buildings,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng.
Sci., vol. 217, no. 8, pp. 849–859, Jan. 2003.

46
[233] T. Boxoen, D. Risbey, and C. Weber, “Train Induced Vibration Isolation of theskyvue ,
Sydney Australia,” no. August, 2010.

[234] J. P. Talbot, “On the Performance of Base-Isolated Buildings: A Generic Model (PhD
thesis),” 2001.

[235] N. Zhao, M. Sanayei, J. A. Moore, J. A. Zapfe, and E. M. Hines, “Mitigation of Train-

Induced Floor Vibrations in Multi-Story Buildings Using a Blocking Floor,” in Structures
Congress, 2010, pp. 1–11.

[236] D.P. Connolly, G. Kouroussis, P.K. Woodward, A. Giannopoulos, O. Verlinden, M.C.

Forde, Scoping prediction of re-radiated ground-borne noise and vibration near high
speed rail lines with variable soils, Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, 66 (2014) (2014), pp. 78-88,

[237] Connolly, DP, Kouroussis, G, Fan, W, Percival, M, Giannopoulos, A, Woodward, PK, et

al. An experimental analysis of embankment vibrations due to high speed rail. In:
Proceedings of the 12th International Railway Engineering Conference; 2013.

47