Experimental and Numerical Determination of Transfer Functions Along Railway Tracks

Experimental and numerical determination of transfer
functions along railway tracks
H. Verbraken 1 , G. Degrande 1 , G. Lombaert 1

1 KU Leuven, Department of Civil Engineering,
Kasteelpark Arenberg 40 B2448, B-3001, Heverlee, Belgium
e-mail: hans.verbraken@bwk.kuleuven.be
Abstract
Ground borne vibration in buildings due to railway traffic is a major concern in densely built up areas. In
practice, railway induced vibration is often predicted by means of empirical methods such as the Detailed
Vibration Assessment developed by the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The vibration velocity
level in the free field is predicted based on a separate characterization of the source and the wave propagation.
They are characterized by a force density and a line transfer mobility, respectively. The line transfer mobility
represents the energy transmitted through the soil due to a line source, such as a train on a track. The
force density represents the power per unit length introduced into the soil by the source. While the force
density is determined indirectly by subtracting the line transfer mobility from the vibration velocity due to
a train passage, the line transfer mobility is determined directly based on wave propagation tests. In this
paper, the determination of the line transfer mobility is investigated experimentally and numerically. The
line transfer mobility depends on the dynamic track and soil characteristics, but is also influenced by the
experimental setup used during the measurement. The location of the impact points, on the track or the soil,
as well as the number of impact points and their spacing have an influence on the determination of the line
transfer mobility. First, the line transfer mobility is investigated experimentally. Results are obtained from
a measurement campaign where transfer functions from the track to the free field have been measured for
several impact points. Second, a numerical prediction model is used to simulate the transfer functions from
the track to the free field and predict the line transfer mobility numerically.
1 Introduction
The introduction of new transportation infrastructure in an urban environment can generate vibration and
re-radiated noise in buildings that cause discomfort to people. An accurate prediction of this vibration is
required so that effective mitigation measures can be taken during the design proces.
Several numerical models have been developed for the prediction of free field vibration due to railway traffic
[1, 2]. Numerical models are frequently used for the prediction of railway induced vibration in new built
situations. The validation of these models shows that a good knowledge of all relevant input parameters such
as the dynamic soil characteristics is required to accurately predict ground vibrations due to running trains.
In practice, empirical prediction methods such as the prediction procedure proposed by Nelson and Sauren-
man [3] are often used. This method is elaborated as the Detailed Vibration Assessment procedure in the
guidance manuals of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) [4] and the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) [5] of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The FRA procedure predicts the vibration velocity level
Lv [dB ref 10−8 m/s] in one-third octave bands as:
Lv = LF + TML (1)
2973
2974 P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2012-USD2012
√ m/s
where LF is the force density [dB ref 1N/ m ] and TML is the line transfer mobility [dB ref 10−8 N/√ ].
m
(a) (b)
Figure 1: Setup for vibration propagation tests at grade with impacts (a) on the rail and (b) on the soil
adjacent to the track.
The line transfer mobility TML is a measure for the vibration energy that is transmitted through the soil
relative to the power per unit length radiated by the source. It is determined experimentally with the setup
shown in Fig. 1a. The point transfer mobilities TMPk [dB ref 10−8 m/s N ] due to single load impacts on the
track are integrated along the rail alignment to obtain a line transfer mobility TML .
The force density LF is a measure for the power per unit length radiated by the source. It is obtained
indirectly from equation (1) by subtracting the line transfer mobility TML from the vibration velocity level
Lv measured during a train passage.
The vibration velocity level Lv at a specific site (site 1) due to a train passage can now be predicted with the
FRA procedure. Two different cases are considered. First the case is considered where a track is present on
site 1, but new rolling stock will be used. The line transfer mobility TML is determined experimentally at
site 1. The force density LF cannot be determined, however, and is therefore determined at another site (site
2) with similar characteristics for the train, the track and the soil. As a track is present at site 1 and site 2, the
line transfer mobility is determined by giving impacts on the track (figure 1a).
Second, the case is considered where no track is present at site 1. The line transfer mobility at this site has
to be determined with impacts directly on the soil. The force density is again determined at another site
(site 2) with similar characteristics. The line transfer mobility at site 2, however, should now be determined
with impacts on the soil, adjacent to the track (figure 1b). In this approach, an equivalent force density is
obtained that represents the energy that has to be introduced into the soil adjacent to the track to obtain the
same vibration velocity level as for the train passage.
This paper focusses on the determination of the line transfer mobility. The accuracy of the line transfer
mobility is investigated experimentally and numerically. The line transfer mobility depends on the dynamic
track and soil characteristics, and is furthermore influenced by the experimental setup used during the mea-
surement. The location of the impact points, on the track or the soil adjacent to the track, as well as the
number of impact points and their spacing have an influence on the determination of the line transfer mobil-
ity. In section 2, the line transfer mobility is investigated experimentally. The results from a measurement
campaign are discussed where transfer functions from the track to the free field have been measured for
several impact points. In section 3, a numerical prediction model is used to simulate these transfer functions
and predict the line transfer mobility numerically. The conclusions are presented in section 4.
R AILWAY DYNAMICS AND GROUND VIBRATIONS 2975
2 Experimental results
2.1 Measurement site
In March 2011 and May 2012, experiments have been carried out at a site in Lincent (Belgium) along the
high speed line L2 between Brussels and Köln. The aim of the measurements was to obtain measured values
for the vibration velocity level Lv , the force density LF and the line transfer mobility TML . For this purpose,
the response has been measured in several points in the free field and on the track for a total of 103 passages
of different train types. Next, transfer functions have been measured between the track and the free field by
giving impacts on the track as well as by giving impacts on the soil adjacent to the track. Impacts are given at
several locations along the railway track, so that the experimental line transfer mobility can be determined.
Figure 2 shows the measurement setup. Five measurement lines A, B, C, D and E are selected perpendicular
to the track. On these measurement lines, sixteen channels are located in the free field and ten channels are
located on the track. As this paper focusses on the transfer between the track and the free field, only the
measured transfer functions are discussed. The results are shown for two points on the central measurement
line C.
C
E D B A
19.8 m 19.8 m
10.2 m 10.2 m
x
y
Figure 2: Measurement setup at the site in Lincent.

The site in Lincent has been frequently studied in the context of railway induced vibration and wave prop-
agation in the soil and is therefore well described. Previous vibration measurements have been performed
during homologation tests of the high speed line [6], while measurements of the rail receptance have been
used to identify the dynamic characteristics of the track [1].
The high speed line consists of two tracks, one track in the direction of Köln (track 1) and one track in the
direction of Brussels (track 2). The tracks are classical ballasted tracks with continuously welded UIC 60
rails. The rails are supported every 0.60 m by resilient studded rubber pads on a prestressed monoblock
concrete sleeper. From the rail receptance measurements, a rail pad stiffness krp = 153.4 × 106 N/m
and damping crp = 13.5 × 103 Ns/m are obtained [1]. The sleepers have a length lsl = 2.5 m, a width
wsl = 0.235 m, a heigth hsl = 0.205 m (under the rail) and a mass msl = 300 kg. The track is supported
by a porphyry ballast layer with a thickness hb = 0.35 m and a density ρb = 1700 kg/m3 . From the
rail receptance measurements, a ballast stiffness kb = 920.7 × 106 N/m (per sleeper) and damping cb =
16.6 × 103 Ns/m are obtained [1]. Under the ballast, a limestone sub-ballast with a thickness of 0.60 m is
present and the soil is improved over a depth of 1.0 m by means of lime.
The soil at the test site is considered to be a layered halfspace. A number of Seismic Analysis of Surface
Waves (SASW) tests and Seismic Cone Penetration Tests (SCPTs) has been performed in order to determine
the soil layering and the dynamic soil characteristics. The results of an SASW test performed by KU Leuven
in 2008 reveal the presence of two layers on top of a halfspace [7] (table 1).
Layer h Cs Cp βs βp ρ
[m] [m/s] [m/s] [-] [-] [kg/m3 ]
1 1.4 128 286 0.044 0.044 1800
2 2.7 176 286 0.038 0.038 1800
3 ∞ 355 1667 0.037 0.037 1800
Table 1: Dynamic soil characteristics for the site in Lincent.
In the experiment, the origin is located at the centre of track 2. The x-axis is perpendicular to the track,
while the y-axis corresponds to the longitudinal direction of the track (figure 2). The z-axis is the vertical
direction. The results of the experiments are described in a measurement report [8].
2.2 Transfer function
For the determination of the transfer function between a source and a receiver point, a number of impacts is
given at the source point with an impact hammer recording the force, while the acceleration is measured in
the receiver point. In the experiment, transfer functions are determined between the track and the free field
as well as between the soil adjacent to the track and the free field. In the first case, impacts are given on the
sleepers of the track, while in the second case impacts are given on an aluminium foundation located at 5.05
m from the track.
In both cases, several impact points along the railway track are selected, so that the line transfer mobility can
be obtained from the experimental data. The impact points are denoted by the labels yii, where the number
ii refers to the y-coordinate of the impact point.
The acceleration is measured in a number of receiver points in the free field. The results are shown for the
measurement points FF06C and FF24C on measurement line C (figure 2), at 6 m and 24 m from the track,
respectively.
In order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the experimental data, a large number of hammer impacts
is recorded and the average transfer function is computed. The frequency content v̂il (ω) of the velocity in
channel i and the frequency content of the force fˆkl (ω) at impact point k are computed for each impact l. The
transfer function Ĥki (ω) between the impact point k and the receiver point i is then estimated by means of
the H1 estimator [9]:
Ŝik (ω)
Ĥki (ω) = (2)
Ŝkk (ω)
The cross power spectral density Ŝij (ω) of channels i and j is computed as:
N
1 X
Ŝij (ω) = x̂l (ω)x̂l∗
j (ω) (3)
N l=1 i
where x̂li (ω) is the frequency content of signal in channel i for event l, x̂l∗
j (ω) is the complex conjugate of
x̂lj (ω) and N is the total number of events.
As each measurement leads to a different transfer function, the estimation Ĥki (ω) of the transfer function is
a random variable for which a variance and a confidence interval can be computed.
Figure 3 shows the average transfer function and the 95% confidence interval obtained with 100 impacts on
the track at impact point y00. At 6 m from the track (figure 3a), the transfer function is determined very
accurately. The confidence interval is very small and concentrated in a narrow region around the average
value of the transfer function. Only at low frequencies, the uncertainty is slightly higher. The response is
attenuated with increasing distance from the track (figure 3b) due to geometrical and material damping in the
soil. The uncertainty on the transfer function increases with increasing distance from the track, especially
at higher frequencies where the response is attenuated more strongly and the signal-to-noise ratio decreases
accordingly.
50 50
FF06C FF24C
Mobility [dB ref 10−8 m/s/N]
25 25
0 0
−25 −25
−50 −50
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]
(a) (b)
Figure 3: Average experimental mobility (black line) and 95% confidence interval (grey region) determined
with 100 impacts on the track at point y00 in channels (a) FF06C and (b) FF24C.
Similar observations can be made for an impact point on the track at a larger distance from the measurement
line. Figure 4 shows the average transfer function and 95% confidence interval obtained with 100 impacts
on the track at impact point y70. Due to the larger distance between the source and the receiver, the transfer
function is smaller compared to the transfer function determined at y10 (figure 3), while the uncertainty
increases.
50 50
FF06C FF24C

25 25
0 0
−25 −25
−50 −50
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
(a) (b)
Figure 4: Average experimental mobility (black line) and 95% confidence interval (grey region) determined
with 100 impacts on the track at point y70 in channels (a) FF06C and (b) FF24C.
2.3 Point transfer mobility
The point transfer mobility TMPk [dB ref 10−8 m/s N ] is defined as the one-third octave band representation
of the transfer function Ĥki (ω) between an impact point k and receiver point i:
" R ω2 #
ω1 |Ĥki (ω)|2 dω
TMPk = 10 log10 − TMP0 (4)
∆ω
where TMP0 = 20 log10 [10−8 ] is the reference value of the point transfer mobility.
As the transfer function Ĥki (ω) is a statistical variable, the point transfer mobility TMPk is a statistical
variable as well for which a variance and a confidence interval can be computed.
Figures 5 and 6 show the average point transfer mobility and 95% confidence interval determined with
100 impacts on the track at impact point y00 and y70, respectively. As the point transfer mobility is an
averaged value in one-third octave bands, the uncertainty in an entire frequency band decreases compared to
the uncertainty of the narrow band transfer function, assuming independence between the transfer function at
different frequencies. Both for impact point y00 and y70, a relatively accurate estimate of the point transfer
mobility is determined from the measurements, with a maximum confidence interval of 5 dB.
2.4 Line transfer mobility

m/s
The line transfer mobility TML [dB ref 10−8 N/ √ ] represents the vibration energy that is transmitted through
m
the soil due to a line source. The line source is used to represent a train with a length L and na axles. The line
transfer mobility is determined based on the summation of the na point transfer mobilities TMPk obtained
from different impact points k along the track:
" na
#
X TMP
k
TML = 10 log 10 h 10 10 (5)
k=1
Figure 7 shows different setups for the location of the impact points. When transfer of vibration due to a train
is considered, na impact points should be located at the exact positions of the axles (figure 7a). Each axle
has a characteristic length L/na . An equivalent line source with na equidistant impact points with spacing
h = L/na can be used, however, to represent the train (figure 7b). The number of impact points in equation 5
50 50
FF06C FF24C
TMP [dB ref 10−8 M/s/N]

25 25
0 0
−25 −25
k
k
−50 −50
8 16 31.5 63 125 8 16 31.5 63 125
1/3 octave band center frequency [Hz] 1/3 octave band center frequency [Hz]
(a) (b)
Figure 5: Average experimental point transfer mobility (black line) and 95% confidence interval (grey region)
determined with 100 impacts on the track at point y00 in channels (a) FF06C and (b) FF24C.
50 50
FF06C FF24C
25 25
0 0
−25 −25
k
−50 −50
8 16 31.5 63 125 8 16 31.5 63 125
(a) (b)
Figure 6: Average experimental point transfer mobility (black line) and 95% confidence interval (grey region)
determined with 100 impacts on the track at point y70 in channels (a) FF06C and (b) FF24C.
can be chosen arbitrarely, however, when more or less impact points are required. With n equidistant impact
points, the spacing is modified accordingly to h = L/n (figure 7c). In the FRA manual, another setup is
suggested with impact points at the start and the end of the line source (figure 7d). Using the trapezoidal rule,
the edge points only account for half the length h/2 of the impact point spacing h, resulting in the following
expression [4]:

1 TMP1 TM P
2
TML = 10 log10 h 10 10 + 10 10 + . . .
2

TMP
n−1 1 TMPn
+10 10 + 10 10 (6)
2
In the following, the line transfer mobility is determined for different values of the spacing h, the length L
and the location of the impact point (on the track or on the soil).
Figure 8 compares the experimental line transfer mobilities representing a line source of 200 m, obtained
with a different spacing h between the impact points. Close to the track, the influence of the impact point
spacing is very high, as the distance between the impact points and the receiver points close to the track is
strongly modified when a different spacing is used. The influence of the impact point spacing decreases with
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
h
h/2
Figure 7: Setups for the determination of the line transfer mobility TML .
increasing distance from the track. A good agreement between the line transfer mobilities is found in all
receiver points when a spacing of 10 m and 20 m is adopted.
TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]
TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]
50 50
FF06C FF24C
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−10 −10
8 16 31.5 63 125 8 16 31.5 63 125
(a) (b)
Figure 8: Average experimental line transfer mobility determined with impacts on the track with a length of
200 m and an impact point spacing of 40 m, 20 m and 10 m (grey to black lines) in channels (a) FF06C and
(b) FF24C.
Figure 9 compares the experimental line transfer mobilities with different source lengths obtained with an
impact point spacing of 10 m. Close to the track, the influence of the source length is very small, as the
length of the source is large relative to the distance from the track. At a larger distance, the influence is
only slightly higher. This indicates that the point transfer mobilities at a larger distance from the origin only
contribute little to the line transfer mobility and can be omitted without a large impact on the result.
Figure 10 shows the line transfer mobility obtained with a source length of 200 m with an impact point
spacing of 20 m and compares the results obtained with impacts on the track and on the soil. The difference
TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]
TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]

50 50
FF06C FF24C
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−10 −10
8 16 31.5 63 125 8 16 31.5 63 125
(a) (b)
Figure 9: Average experimental line transfer mobility determined with impacts on the track with an impact
point spacing of 10 m over a length of 100 m, 120 m, 140 m, 160 m, 180 m and 200 m (grey to black lines)
in channels (a) FF06C and (b) FF24C.
between both experimental line transfer mobilities is generally less than 5 dB. This means that the effect of
the track on the line transfer mobility is limited and that a good approximation of the line transfer mobility
is obtained when impacts are given on the soil adjacent to the track. This is an important conclusion, as no
access on the track is needed to measure the line transfer mobility in the latter case so that railway traffic
should not be interrupted. At the site in Lincent, the impact points adjacent to the track are located at 5.05
m from the track centerline, however, which is still in the area that is property of the railway exploitation
company. This also implies that the line transfer mobility can be accurately measured on sites where new
tracks will be built.
TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]
TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]
50 50
FF06C FF24C
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−10 −10
8 16 31.5 63 125 8 16 31.5 63 125
(a) (b)
Figure 10: Average experimental line transfer mobility determined with impacts on the track (black line) and
impacts on the soil (grey line) in channels (a) FF06C and (b) FF24C.
3 Numerical results
3.1 Numerical model
In this section, a numerical model of the track and the soil is used to simulate the line transfer mobility
numerically.
The track–soil system is modeled by means of a coupled 2.5D finite element–boundary element (FE-BE)
model [1, 10] (figure 11). The track and the soil are assumed to be invariant in the longitudinal direction y,
allowing for an efficient formulation by means of a Fourier transform from the spatial coordinate y to the
wavenumber ky . Figure 11 shows the cross section of the model. The rails are modeled as Euler-Bernoulli
beams, the rail pads as continuous spring–damper connections and the sleepers as a uniformly distributed
mass, rigid in the plane of the cross-section. The sleepers are supported by a ballast layer, which is modeled
as an elastic continuum with 2.5D finite volume elements. The soil is modeled by means of boundary
elements at the interface between the ballast and the soil.
Rail
Rail pad
Sleeper
z
Ballast
Soil
x
Figure 11: Cross section of the track–soil model.
The dynamic characteristics of the track and the soil, discussed in section 2, are used for the computation
of the predicted transfer functions. However, as the characteristics of the ballast layer have been fitted to
experimental results by means of a different numerical model, alternative ballast properties are considered
based on practical tests [7]. The ballast is modeled as an isotropic elastic continuum with a density ρ =
1700 kg/m, a Young’s modulus E = 408 × 106 N/m2 and a Poisson’s coefficient ν = 1/3. With these data,
a ballast stiffness kb = 684.7 × 106 N/m is obtained.
As the presence of the second track can be disregarded in the transfer functions, only the ballast under track
2 is modeled with a trapezoidal shape with a top width wtop = 3.6 m and a bottom width wbottom = 5.6 m
(figure 11).
3.2 Transfer function
Figure 12 shows the predicted transfer function obtained with impacts on the track at point y00, compared
to the experimental value of the transfer function. For this impact point, the agreement is relatively good.
This is not the case, however, for transfer function obtained with impacts at point y70, shown in figure 13.
At low frequencies, the experimental transfer function is slightly overestimated, while at frequencies above
50 Hz, it is dramatically underestimated. This is more clearly visible in the point transfer mobility, which is
discussed in the following subsection.
3.3 Point transfer mobility
Figures 14 and 15 show the predicted point transfer mobility for impacts on the track at impact points y00
and y70, compared to the experimental result. When the distance between the impact point and the receiver
point is small, the agreement between both results is relatively good. At larger distance, a discrepancy be-
tween the experimental and predicted results is observed. Generally, the experimental point transfer mobility
50 50
6m 24m
25 25
Mobility [m/s/N]
Mobility [m/s/N]
0 0
−25 −25
−50 −50
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
(a) (b)
Figure 12: Average experimental mobility (thick line) and 95% confidence interval (grey region) and pre-
dicted mobility (thin line) for impacts on the track at point y00 at (a) 6 m and (b) 24 m from the track.
50 50
6m 24m
25 25
Mobility [m/s/N]
Mobility [m/s/N]
0 0
−25 −25
−50 −50
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
(a) (b)
Figure 13: Average experimental mobility (thick line) and 95% confidence interval (grey region) and pre-
dicted mobility (thin line) for impacts on the track at point y70 at (a) 6 m and (b) 24 m from the track.
at larger distances is underestimated at higher frequencies, which is also observed in the point transfer mo-
bility for impact point y70 (figure 15). This might be due to an overestimation of the material damping in
the soil. The point transfer mobilities obtained with impacts on the soil are not shown here, but demonstrate
the same trend.
The agreement between experimental and predicted point transfer mobilities is relatively bad, with differ-
ences up to 25 dB for some impact points. The difference may be due to parameter errors or to assumptions
made in the numerical model. Although the site in Lincent is relatively well described, it is possible that the
identified dynamic parameters are not sufficiently accurate, leading to a discrepancy between experimental
and predicted results. In the numerical model, an equivalent soil profile is used with a horizontal layering.
Furthermore, longitudinal invariance is assumed along the direction of the track. Both assumptions may not
corresponds to the real situation and possibly lead to an increase of the discrepancy between experimental
and predicted results.
50 50
6m 24m
TMP [dB ref 10−8 m/s/N]

25 25
0 0
−25 −25
k
k
−50 −50
8 16 31.5 63 125 8 16 31.5 63 125
(a) (b)
Figure 14: Average experimental point transfer mobility (thick line) and 95% confidence interval (grey
region) and predicted point transfer mobility (thin line) for impacts on the track at point y00 at (a) 6 m and
(b) 24 m from the track.
50 50
6m 24m
25 25
0 0
−25 −25
k
−50 −50
8 16 31.5 63 125 8 16 31.5 63 125
(a) (b)
Figure 15: Average experimental point transfer mobility (thick line) and 95% confidence interval (grey
region) and predicted point transfer mobility (thin line) for impacts on the track at point y70 at (a) 6 m and
(b) 24 m from the track.
3.4 Line transfer mobility
The point transfer mobilities obtained with impacts at different locations along the track are used to compute
the line transfer mobility, as explained in subsection 2.4.
Figure 16 shows the predicted line transfer mobility obtained with a source length of 200 m and an impact
point spacing of 20 m, compared to the experimental result. Especially at low frequencies, there is a discrep-
ancy up to 10 dB between the predicted and the experimental line transfer mobility. The agreement between
experimental and predicted results is now better, however, than for the point transfer mobility. The point
transfer mobility close to the measurement line (figure 14) contributes more to the line transfer mobility than
the point transfer mobility at larger distance from the measurement line (figure 15). The discrepancy in the
line transfer mobility at higher frequencies is therefore smaller.
The predicted point transfer mobilities allow to numerically verify the influence of the source length and
spacing between different impact points, as well as the influence of determining the line transfer mobility
with impacts on the track or on the soil adjacent to the track, which has been investigated experimentally in
subsection 2.4.
TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]
TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]

50 50
6m 24m
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−10 −10
8 16 31.5 63 125 8 16 31.5 63 125
(a) (b)
Figure 16: Average experimental line transfer mobility (thick line) and predicted line transfer mobility (thin
line) for impacts on the track with an impact point spacing of 20 m over a length of 200 m at (a) 6 m and (b)
24 m from the track.
Figure 17 compares the predicted line transfer mobilities representing a line source of 200 m, obtained with
a different spacing h between the impact points, and can be compared to figure 8. Figure 18 compares
predicted line transfer mobilities with different source lengths obtained with an impact interval of 10 m and
can be compared to figure 9. The same trends are observed for the predicted results as for the experimental
results.
TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]
TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]
50 50
6m 24m
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−10 −10
8 16 31.5 63 125 8 16 31.5 63 125
(a) (b)
Figure 17: Predicted line transfer mobility determined with impacts on the track with a length of 200 m and
an impact point spacing of 40 m, 20 m and 10 m (grey to black lines) in channels (a) FF06 and (b) FF24.
Figure 19 compares the predicted line transfer mobilities obtained with impacts on the track and impacts on
the soil adjacent to the track. Both approaches result in a difference generally below 5 dB, with peaks up to
10 dB. Comparing figure 19 with figure 10, the influence of the position of the source point is slightly higher
for the predicted line transfer mobility.
The results in this section show that it is difficult to accurately predict transfer functions and the correspond-
ing one-third octave band point transfer mobilities numerically. The agreement between experimental and
predicted results is better when the line transfer mobility is considered, however. When the numerical results
are used to investigate the influence of the setup for the determination of the line transfer mobility, similar
results are found as for the experimental results. This indicates that the dynamic behavior of the track and
the soil is well accounted for in the numerical model. Accurate paramaters are required, however, to obtain
TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]
TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]

50 50
6m 24m
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−10 −10
8 16 31.5 63 125 8 16 31.5 63 125
(a) (b)
Figure 18: Predicted line transfer mobility determined with impacts on the track with an impact point spacing
of 10 m over a length of 100 m, 120 m, 140 m, 160 m, 180 m and 200 m (grey to black lines) in channels (a)
FF06 and (b) FF24.
TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]
TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]
50 50
6m 24m
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
−10 −10
8 16 31.5 63 125 8 16 31.5 63 125
(a) (b)
Figure 19: Predicted line transfer mobility determined with impacts on the track (black line) and impacts on
the soil (grey line) at (a) 6 m and (b) 24 m from the track.
reliable predictions of the transfer functions.
4 Conclusions
In the FRA procedure, the wave propagation due to a line source on a track is characterized by means of a
line transfer mobility. In this paper, the line transfer mobility is investigated experimentally and numerically.
For this purpose, a measurement campaign has been carried out where transfer functions between the track
and the free field have been measured. Furthermore, a numerical model is used to predict the line transfer
mobility numerically.
The influence of the setup on the line transfer mobility is investigated. The influence of the location of
the impact points, on the track or on the soil, as well as the number of impact points and their spacing is
determined. From the experimental investigation, it can be concluded that the difference between a line
transfer mobility determined with impacts on the track or the soil is relatively small, below 5 dB. In the
numerical results, the difference is slightly higher. The influence of the number and spacing of the impact
points is found to be similar for the experimental and the predicted results.
The comparison of the experimental and predicted results shows that it is difficult to accurately predict trans-
fer functions numerically. The discrepancy between both results might be due to an insufficiently accurate
knowledge of the dynamic characteristics or due to differences between the model and the real situation.
The accuracy is better for impact points close to the measurement line at y = 0 m than for points at a larger
distance, which might indicate that the damping in the soil is overestimated. As the impact points close to
the measurement line are dominant in the line transfer mobility, a reasonable agreement is obtained for the
line transfer mobility.
Acknowledgements
The first author is a PhD Fellow of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO - Vlaanderen). The support of
FWO is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] G. Lombaert, G. Degrande, J. Kogut, and S. François. The experimental validation of a numerical
model for the prediction of railway induced vibrations. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 297(3-5):512–
535, 2006.
[2] X. Sheng, C.J.C. Jones, and M. Petyt. Ground vibration generated by a load moving along a railway
track. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 228(1):129–156, 1999.
[3] J.T. Nelson and H.J. Saurenman. A prediction procedure for rail transportation groundborne noise and
vibration. Transportation Research Record, 1143:26–35, 1987.
[4] C.E. Hanson, D.A. Towers, and L.D. Meister. High-speed ground transportation noise and vibration
impact assessment. HMMH Report 293630-4, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad
Administration, Office of Railroad Development, October 2005.
[5] C.E. Hanson, D.A. Towers, and L.D. Meister. Transit noise and vibration impact assessment. Report
FTA-VA-90-1003-06, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Admininistration, Office of
Planning and Environment, May 2006.
[6] J. Kogut and G. Degrande. Transfer functions between the HST track and the free field on the line
L2 Brussels-Köln in Lincent. Report BWM-2003-03, Department of Civil Engineering, K.U.Leuven,
January 2003. STWW Programme Technology and Economy, Project IWT-000152.
[7] P. Coulier, G. Degrande, A. Dijckmans, J. Houbrechts, G. Lombaert, W. Rücker, L. Auersch,

M. Rodrı́guez Plaza, V. Cuellar, D. Thompson, A. Ekblad and A. Smekal. Scope of the parametric
study on mitigation measures on the transmission path. RIVAS Deliverable D4.1, October 2011.
[8] H. Verbraken, P. Coulier, G. Lombaert, and G. Degrande. Measurement of train passages and transfer
functions at a site in lincent. Report BWM-2012-05, Department of Civil Engineering, K.U.Leuven,
June 2012.
[9] D.J. Ewins. Modal testing: theory and practice. Research Studies Press Ltd., Letchworth, UK, 1984.
[10] S. François, M. Schevenels, G. Lombaert, P. Galvı́n, and G. Degrande. A 2.5D coupled FE-BE method-
ology for the dynamic interaction between longitudinally invariant structures and a layered halfspace.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 199(23-24):1536–1548, 2010.

Experimental and Numerical Determination of Transfer Functions Along Railway Tracks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Experimental and Numerical Determination of Transfer Functions Along Railway Tracks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Experimental and numerical determination of transfer

functions along railway tracks

H. Verbraken 1 , G. Degrande 1 , G. Lombaert 1

2.1 Measurement site

Figure 2: Measurement setup at the site in Lincent.

Table 1: Dynamic soil characteristics for the site in Lincent.

2.2 Transfer function

Mobility [dB ref 10−8 m/s/N]

Mobility [dB ref 10−8 m/s/N]

2.3 Point transfer mobility

2.4 Line transfer mobility

TMP [dB ref 10−8 M/s/N]

TMP [dB ref 10−8 M/s/N]

TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]

TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]

TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]

TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]

3.1 Numerical model

Figure 11: Cross section of the track–soil model.

3.2 Transfer function

3.3 Point transfer mobility

TMP [dB ref 10−8 m/s/N]

TMP [dB ref 10−8 m/s/N]

3.4 Line transfer mobility

TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]

TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]

TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]

TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]

TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]

TML [dB ref 10−8 (m/s)/(N/m0.5)]

reliable predictions of the transfer functions.

[7] P. Coulier, G. Degrande, A. Dijckmans, J. Houbrechts, G. Lombaert, W. Rücker, L. Auersch,

You might also like