Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 15-37

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 15...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 12 2. LITERATURE REVIEW The goals of the literature review were to 1)
From page 16...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 13 response relationships)
From page 17...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 14 The acceleration weighting curves used in various standards are shown in Figure 1. The quantities shown in the figure are: • Wm (KB)
From page 18...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 15 Figure 1: Acceleration Weighting Curves Figure 2: Weighting Curves in Terms of Velocity
From page 19...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 16 Figure 3: Normalized Velocity Weighting Curves The commonality of the weighting curves raises the question as to how much difference the weighting curves make in evaluating typical train-induced ground vibration spectra. Several typical train vibration spectra are shown in Figure 4.
From page 20...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 17 Table 4 shows that, except for the simulated very low-frequency spectrum, the variation between weighted and un-weighted levels after normalization is negligible (less than 0.5 dB)
From page 21...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 18 Table 4: Weighted Acceleration Metrics for Representative Train Spectra Spectrum Velocity VdB1 Weighted Acceleration Levels, dB2 Wm Wk ANSI BS 6841 1. Rapid Transit Un-normalized 72.0 51.0 58.3 50.9 60.3 Normalization Factor 0.0 21.0 13.9 20.9 11.8 Normalized Value 72.0 72.0 72.2 71.8 72.0 Difference -- 0.0 0.2 -0.2 0.0 2.
From page 22...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 19 Most RMS detectors used in sound and vibration analyzers perform an exponential running average of the RMS sound or vibration level. The exponential time weighting for the running average is defined as: 2/1 0 /)
From page 23...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 20 Table 5: Comparison of v95 and Average Vibration Level for Typical Transit Vibration Levels Train Measured Vibration Levels, BART Train Passbys, VdB 0 m 3.8 m 7.6 m 11.4 m 15.2 m 22.9 m 30.5 m Train 1 71.8 68.5 69.9 64.4 70.6 68.3 66.4 Train 2 71.2 67.7 69.4 64.3 70.3 68.1 65.7 Train 3 71.2 67.9 69.5 64.2 70.2 68.0 65.8 Train 4 72.5 69.2 70.4 65.3 70.6 68.2 66.0 Train 5 71.0 67.8 69.3 63.9 69.9 67.5 65.4 Train 6 72.6 71.0 73.1 62.1 71.3 70.1 67.8 Train 7 72.5 71.0 73.1 61.9 71.1 69.8 67.5 Train 8 67.8 65.2 66.3 59.4 67.6 66.0 63.8 Train 9 73.0 71.9 73.2 58.0 69.6 68.7 67.5 Train 10 73.0 71.9 74.0 61.4 70.8 69.5 67.3 Train 11 72.9 71.1 73.0 63.4 71.8 70.6 68.2 Averages Decibel1 72.0 69.8 71.6 63.0 70.4 68.8 66.7 Linear2 71.9 69.6 71.3 62.8 70.4 68.7 66.6 Lv953 74.0 72.7 74.7 65.9 72.1 70.8 68.6 Difference4 2.0 2.9 3.1 2.9 1.7 2.0 1.9 1. Energy average of decibel values.
From page 24...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 21 Figure 5: Example of Statistical Maximum Velocity (BART data at 7.6 m) Vibration Dose Value (VDV)
From page 25...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 22 4 1 4       = ∑ i itotal VDVVDV It is important to note that the frequency weighting scheme used with Vibration Dose Values is the BS 6841(z)
From page 26...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 23 Table 6: Standardized Frequency-Weighted Sound Levels Sound Level Weighting Source Description A ANSI 1.4-1983 (R2006) Nominal equal-loudness at low sound levels B ANSI 1.4-1983 (R2006)
From page 27...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 24 Figure 6: Common Weighting Networks Used for Assessing Airborne Sound Impacts Some of the more relevant conclusions of the MSP expert panel include the following: • Loudness level contours (such as those of Stevens (13)
From page 28...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 25 predictor of rattle, not of long-term annoyance. It has subsequently been shown empirically to function well as a predictor of the annoyance engendered by rattle.
From page 29...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 26 It is difficult to directly compare the vibration limits adopted by different countries because many standards measure vibration differently. Figure 8 shows the approximate limits (in VdB)
From page 30...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 27 Figure 8: National Limits for Rail Transit Vibration 2.4 Research on Human Response to Vibration A variety of laboratory and field studies of human response to vibration have been published. The research ranges from ride quality studies, to hand-arm vibration due to work tools, to whole body vibration.
From page 31...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 28 experimentally derived perception thresholds are generally higher than those stated in ANSI S3.29 (4) particularly at frequencies below 20 Hz.
From page 32...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 29 Figure 10: Equal Vibration Perception Contours Compared to Perception Threshold (Adapted from Bellman et al, 2004 (25)
From page 33...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 30 2.4.2 Combined Effects of Broadband Noise and Ground-Borne Vibration The consensus of a small body of research on the combined annoyance of noise and vibration is that noise is more annoying when accompanied by vibration. For example, in an evaluation of noise and vibration near railways in Sweden, Öhrström and Skånberg (26)
From page 34...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 31 frequent (>70 events/day) , occasional (30-70 events/day)
From page 35...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 32 orthogonal directions over a 24-hour period. Train events were separated from the background vibration, and a number of different vibration metrics were calculated including the Vibration Dose Value, as well as overall levels using Wb and Wg weighting curves.
From page 36...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 33 Figure 11: Annoyance Response of Survey Respondents Source: Klæboe et al.
From page 37...
... TCRP D-12 Final Report 34 A recent study (34) was commissioned by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

Key Terms



This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.