noise & vibration mitigation in railway track · low-frequency excitations are difficult to...
Post on 25-Oct-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
NOISE & VIBRATION MITIGATION IN RAILWAY TRACK
Coenraad EsveldEsveld Consulting Services
Emeritus Professor of Railway Engineering TU Delft
2
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
Noise: Rolling; Engines; Curves; Braking; Aerodynamics.
Vibration: Rayleigh waves (at surface); Compression waves (tunnels); Shear waves (tunnels).
3
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
CLASSIFICATION NOISE ANNOYANCE
4
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
SQUEALING NOISE
Mitigating measures:• Lubrication;• Asymmetric rail grinding, shift of contact point wheel rail.
5
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
CONTRIBUTION OF NOISE SOURCESTotal
Sleeper
Wagon
Rail Wheel
Sleeper
6
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
METHODS OF NOISE REDUCTION Track Design
– Component selection (pads/sleepers)
– Embedded rail/special slabtracks– Damping
Barriers– Up to 10dB but affected by layout
of tracks/buildings– Expensive & visual impact– Low barriers & shrouds: not
interoperable
Acoustic grinding– Effective for corrugation– Not so effective for tracks in good
condition Absorptive Layers
– Low results on the rail– Higher results on slab track -
absorbs wheel noise Vehicle Design
– Wheel diameter– Wheel damping
7
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
ENERGY DISTRIBUTED IN STRESS WAVES:
Rayleigh 67 % Shear 26 % Compression 7 %
GeometricalDamping Law
Vibrating source
Horiz.Comp.
RelativeAmplitude
Shear Wave
ν = 0.25
ShearWindow
GeometricalDamping Law
R-1
++
+ +
+
––
Compression wave
R-1
R-2 R-2 R-0.5
Rayleigh WaveVert.Comp.
8
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
VIBRATION PROPAGATION AT GRADE
9
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
VIBRATION PROPAGATION BY UNDERGROUND
10
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
The human body is susceptible to the following frequencies: 0.1 - 0.2Hz : resonance of the organ of balance, resulting in
phenomena characteristic of seasickness; 4 - 8 Hz: resonance of the contents of abdomen and
thorax; 30 - 80 Hz: resonance of eyes in the eye sockets,
resulting in loss of focus;
The audibility limit lies at a frequency of approximately 20 Hz.
SUSCEPTIBILITY OF HUMAN BODY
11
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013CU
RVES
OF
EQU
ALVI
BRAT
ION
PERC
EPTI
ON
rms2
0.18 fEP v ( f )f1
5.6
= +
peak rmsv 2v=
2a 2 fv ( 2 f ) dπ π= =
102
101
8
5
3
2
8
5
3
2
100
8
5
3
2
10-1
101
100
10-1
5
3
2
8
5
3
2
8
5
3
2
8
Vibr
atio
n ve
loci
ty (r
ms-
valu
e) [m
m/s
]
Vibr
atio
n ve
loci
ty (p
eak
valu
e) [m
m/s
]
EP = equal perception
EP = 25.6
EP = 12.8
EP = 6.4
EP = 3.2
EP = 1.6
EP = 0.8EP = 0.56EP = 0.4
EP = 0.28
EP = 0.2
EP = 0.14
EP = 0.1
521 10 5020 100Frequency f [Hz]
Not noticeable
Very weak
Weak
Good
Strong
Very strong
12
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
CLASSIFICATION OF VIBRATION LEVELS
ISOGERMANYReference v0not standardized LEP [dB] = 20 log10(v/v0), with for instance v0 = 10-8 m/s
13
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
MEASURED VIBRATIONNEAR UNDERGROUND
14
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
EFFECT OF HIGH-SPEED MEASURED AT DB
15
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
mw cw kw F ( t )+ + =
( ) ( ) ( )π
≈
= =
1 kf2 m
K kw f F f H fTransmission Ratio
Mitigating measures:• Reduce force, cq excitation:
grinding, weld straightening;• Change natural frequency relative to
dominant excitation frequency:softer rail pads, resilient layers, …….
VIBRATION TRANSFER
k c
m
w
Fexcitation
Kresponse
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01 0.1 1.0√2 10.0
f = excitation (impressed) frequency [Hz]f/fn
trans
mis
sion
ratio
|K(f)
/F(f)
|
ζ = 1.0
ζ = 0.5
ζ = 0.2
ζ = 0.1 ζ ζ = 0
16
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
Dom
inan
t exc
itatio
n fre
quen
cy
Natu
ral f
requ
ency
stru
ctur
ef
f
f
1
→X
→=
Excitation spectrum
Transfer function
Response spectrum
VIBRATION TRANSFER II
excit naturalf 2 f>
17
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
Low-frequency excitations are difficult to reduce
1 kf2 mπ
≈
Low stiffness and large mass necessary to achieve low frequency! Not with sleeper and rail pad, but with elastically supported slab.
PRACTICAL LIMITS
18
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
Cork rubberConcrete block
Casting
BLOCK TRACK
19
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
STEDEF
20
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
PANDROL VANGUARD
21
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
WHISPER RAIL THYSSENKRUPP
Vertical up to 10 mm Lateral < 2 mm
22
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
KÖLNER EI
23
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
ELASTIC RAIL SUPPORT
24
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
SA 42 RAIL LOW NOISE -5 dB(A) compared to
ballasted track -7 dB(A) compared to
conventional slab track 60 % less consumption of
corkelast compared to UIC 54
25
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
EMBEDDED RAIL ON STEEL BRIDGE
26
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
SILENT BRIDGE WITH EMBEDDED RAIL
27
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
SILENT BRIDGE VERSUS CONVENTIONAL
28
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
CAST-IN SLEEPER
Ballast
Elastic supported sleeper
Polyurethane
Reinforced concrete
Filler concrete
29
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
TRACK ON ELASTICALLY SUPPORTED SLAB
30
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
GERB Floating Slab Track Systems
31
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
Wege für MenschenUSP – Under Sleeper Pads
UNDER SLEEPER PAD (USP)
33
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
UNDER SLEEPER PADS (USP) Increase of contact area between concrete and ballast (Riessberger): 5-10 % without USP ~ 35 % with USP
Adding resilience and thus reducing dynamic forces Very effective in areas with high impact forces: frog area of turnouts; transitions near engineering structures;
Effective solution at spots with maintenance problems due to poor subgrade;
37
ECS
www.esveld.com
Innorail2013
CONCLUSIONS Apply mitigating measures preferably at the source: smooth wheel-rail interface; sufficient track resilience;
Reduction of natural frequency: low spring stiffness; large mass;
1 kf2 mπ
≈
top related