Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Research Paper by Bose
Research Paper by Bose
Ground-Borne Vibrations
Tulika Bose 1; Deepankar Choudhury, M.ASCE 2; Julian Sprengel 3; and Martin Ziegler 4
Abstract: In the present-day context, man-made sources of ground-borne vibration are rising at a very rapid rate due to increasing construction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina A&T State Univ on 05/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
work, blasting activities, and rapidly expanding rail and road traffic systems. As a consequence, amplified levels of ground-borne vibration
occur, causing annoyance to residents living in nearby areas, posing a threat to the stability of old structures, and interfering with instrumen-
tation works in industries. This paper discusses an investigation into the use of trenches as a means of mitigating ground vibration caused by
propagation of surface (Rayleigh) waves. Two- and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) finite-element models were developed using PLAXIS for
identifying key factors affecting the vibration isolation efficiency of open and infill trenches. Parametric studies were carried out, and the results
were analyzed to arrive at optimum values of geometrical and material properties of trenches. Numerical analysis showed that, for open
trenches, normalized depth is the decisive factor and width is of importance in trenches that are very shallow. For infill trenches, it was observed
that low-density materials perform exceedingly well as infill materials but their performance is highly sensitive to the relative shear-wave
velocity between the infill material and the in situ soil. Finally, an in-depth analysis was carried out to investigate the performance of
polyurethane foam trenches in mitigating vibrations caused by harmonic loads. The analysis was extended to study the effectiveness of
these geofoam barriers in damping out the vibrations generated by a moving train. In this case, barrier efficiency was shown to increase
with increasing train speed. The key findings suggest that trenches are a simple and effective solution for reducing ground-borne vibrations.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001915. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Geofoam trenches; Infill trenches; Moving loads; Numerical finite-element model; Open trenches; Vibration isolation;
Wave barriers.
a function of both depth and width. Al-Hussaini and Ahmad (1991) effectiveness of these materials was determined. The efficiency of a
studied the horizontal screening efficiency of barriers and reported geo-foam barrier system was subsequently investigated in depth for
that trenches were more effective in damping vertical vibrations than both a harmonic load and a moving train. The focus of this study
horizontal vibrations. Ahmad et al. (1996) used 3D BEM to study was the performance of trenches given various materials, geomet-
active isolation of machines using open trenches; Al-Hussaini and rical parameters, system configurations, and loading applications.
Ahmad (1996) used infill trenches for the same purpose. The results Two- and three-dimensional numerical finite-element models
were compared with experiments and good agreement was found. were developed using PLAXIS, validated using results from the
Yang and Hung (1997) developed a finite-element model with in- literature, and then used to investigate open and infill trenches.
finite elements to investigate the efficiency of open and infill Parametric variations in material and geometrical properties of infill
trenches for vibrations due to passing trains. It was reported that trenches were analyzed, and the results, in terms of efficiency, were
trenches were less effective in screening low-frequency vibration. compared. Optimum barrier dimensions were also investigated. In
Hung et al. (2004) carried out similar studies and observed that this study, the soil was considered to be elastic, homogenous,
trenches were more effective in screening waves caused by a train and isotropic. The loading considered was initially periodic and
moving at supercritical speed compared with subcritical speed. harmonic and later modified to simulate a moving train.
Ju and Lin (2004) reported similar results.
Adam and Estorff (2005) employed coupled BEM-FEM in a time
domain to study the effectiveness of trenches in reducing building Vibration Isolation Efficiency of Open Trenches
vibrations. They found that 80% of the forces in the building com-
ponent could be reduced by a well-designed barrier. Andersen and
Nielsen (2005) applied the same coupled approach and reported that Numerical Model
trenches were better at mitigating vertical vibrations than horizontal A numerical model was developed to understand the behavior and
vibrations. Wang et al. (2006, 2009) numerically investigated the efficiency of open trenches, as wave barriers, in mitigating ground-
efficiency of expanded polystyrene (EPS) barriers in protecting borne vibrations generated by a harmonic load vibrating in the ver-
buried structures under blast load. Leonardi and Buonsanti tical direction. The 2D axisymmetric model consisted of 15 noded
(2014) studied the efficiency of concrete and compacted soil barriers triangular elements. Average element size was fixed, based on the
for reducing train-induced vibrations. Esmaeili et al. (2014) and recommendations of Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer (1973), to be one-
Zakeri et al. (2014) investigated V-shaped and step-shaped trenches, eighth to one-tenth of the wavelength. In order to account for
respectively. Their findings revealed that trenches with such modi- the semi-infinite extent of the soil, viscous boundary conditions
fied geometries were more effective than conventional rectangular were assigned along the model edges to avoid undue wave reflec-
trenches. tions. Standard fixities were applied, wherein the vertical sides
Full-scale experimental studies were conducted by Massarsch were restrained horizontally (ux ¼ 0) and the bottom was fully re-
(1991) on the efficiency of gas cushion screen systems. These sys- strained (ux ¼ uy ¼ 0). A linear elastic soil model was chosen be-
tems were found to be comparable to open trenches. Baker (1994) cause wave propagation in soil involving trenches usually generates
carried out field tests on stiffer and softer barriers made of concrete small strains, meaning that material nonlinearities arising from
and bentonite, respectively. Davies (1994) carried out 20-g centri- small variations in stress over a cycle are not very influential.
fuge tests to study the screening effectiveness of EPS barriers on
buried objects. The tests indicated that low acoustic materials could
reduce the magnitude of ground shock loading on buried structures.
Zeng et al. (2001) performed tests on rubber-modified asphalt and
found that, owing to a high damping ratio, the modified asphalt
could be used effectively beneath high-speed railway tracks as a
foundation material for vibration attenuation. Itoh et al. (2005) con-
ducted centrifuge tests and suggested using a combination of crumb
rubber–modified asphalt at the vibration source and an EPS barrier
along the transmission path. Murillo et al. (2009) performed 50-g
centrifuge tests on EPS barriers and reported incremental efficiency
to be a function of barrier depth. Alzawi and EI-Naggar (2011)
carried out full-scale field tests to study the effectiveness of geofoam
barriers. Their findings revealed a significant increase in perfor-
mance for normalized barrier depth greater than 0.6.
Research to date has lacked a systematic procedure for selecting
Fig. 1. Schematic of vibration isolation system using an open trench.
the best infill material to be used in trenches for a given soil
Considering this, soil behavior at small strain levels were assumed trench, particle displacements were fairly insignificant and the influ-
to be linearly elastic without significant loss of accuracy. (Yang and ence of the trench almost disappeared. To enumerate Ar, then, x ¼
Hung 1997; Andersen and Nielsen 2005; Alzawi and EI-Naggar 10LR was used in this study, as in the studies carried out by Ahmad
2011). In wave propagation problems involving barriers, in order and Al-Hussaini (1991) and Yang and Hung (1997).
to prevent the results from depending on load frequency, trench
geometrical parameters are usually normalized with those of the
Rayleigh wavelength, LR (Ahmad and Al-Hussaini 1991). Fig. 1 is Parametric Study
a schematic of the developed numerical model; Fig. 2 shows the The three variables that define an open trench are depth, d, width,
model’s meshing details. w, and screening distance l, which can be optimized to achieve
maximum screening efficiency. In this study, the trench was placed
Model Validation at different locations. Different combinations of width and depth
The results of any vibration isolation scheme are typically ex- were chosen against which system efficiency could be evaluated.
pressed as an amplitude reduction ratio, ARR (Woods 1968), which The input parameters for the soil domain were the same as
is given as those in Yang and Hung (1997). The relevant properties were
density, ρ ¼ 1,800 kg=m3 ; shear-wave velocity, V S ¼ 101 m=s;
AI
ARR ¼ ð1Þ Rayleigh wave velocity, V R ¼ 93 m=s; LR ¼ 3 m; Poisson’s ratio,
AO ν ¼ 0.25; and damping coefficient, ξ ¼ 5%. The source of vibration
was taken to be a periodic harmonic load of magnitude 1 kN vibrat-
where AI = displacement or velocity amplitude after trench instal-
ing vertically at a frequency of 31 Hz. For practical purposes, the
lation; and AO = displacement or velocity amplitude before trench
footing carrying the vibrating load was not included in the numerical
installation.
model because it did not alter or affect the results of the study
The values of ARR vary at different locations beyond the trench.
(Kattis et al. 1999).
To have an idea of the overall performance of the barrier, an average
Fig. 4 shows the results of the parametric study, plotted in terms
was computed by integrating ARR over the barrier influence zone,
of variation in average amplitude reduction ratio/system efficiency
x, represented by the average amplitude reduction ratio (Ar)
with changes in the trench’s normalized geometrical parameters.
Z The barrier was placed at two screening distances (L ¼ 3 and
1
Ar ¼ ðARRÞdx ð2Þ L ¼ 5) and analyzed for a wide range of depth, D, and width
x
W, values. From the figure, it can be observed that open trenches
From this, overall system efficiency or effectiveness (Ef) could have excellent vibration isolation capacity. In the range considered
be evaluated as for the parametric study here, the minimum efficiency of the system
was as high as 55% whereas the maximum was more than 80%. It
Ef ¼ ð1 − ArÞ × 100 ð3Þ became evident that normalized depth was the key parameter con-
trolling system effectiveness, which was maximized with increas-
The numerical model was first validated, as mentioned previ- ing normalized depth, D. This was true for all trench locations and
ously. For that purpose, an open trench of depth d ¼ 1.0LR , width widths. For an efficiency Ef > 60%, D had to be greater than 0.8.
w ¼ 0.1LR , and screening distance l ¼ 5LR was considered. In addition, the performance of the trench was observed not to be
Fig. 3(a) plots the variation in ARR with normalized distance be- very sensitive to the barrier location, L. The same was true for the
yond the source of vibration. Good agreement was found between trench width, W, with the exception of very shallow trenches. For
the simulated results and those reported in the literature. these cases, the response of the system improved with increasing
To compute system efficiency as a whole, average amplitude re- width, mainly because open trenches represent a discontinuity in
duction was calculated over a zone of influence, x, beyond the the ground profile across which no part of the wave energy is al-
barrier. For this purpose, the area over which the trench exerted lowed to pass, meaning that wave reflection plays the major role.
its influence was determined by plotting the normalized soil particle Hence, for a sufficiently deep barrier that obstructs Rayleigh waves,
displacement beyond the barrier, as shown in Fig. 3(b). It is evident creation of a finite discontinuity in the ground surface is sufficient.
from this plot that, after a distance of roughly 10LR beyond the open However, for a very shallow trench, as in this case, not all of the
0.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina A&T State Univ on 05/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.2
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Analysis of an open trench: (a) 2D finite-element model verification, W ¼ 0.1, D ¼ 1, L ¼ 5; and (b) normalized vertical displacement
amplitude of the ground surface.
0.5 50
L=3,W=0.17
L=3,W=0.33
0.4 60
L=3,W=0.50
L=5,W=0.17
0.3 L=5,W=0.33 70
L=5,W=0.50
0.2 80
0.1 90
0 100
0.5 1.0 1.5
considered for the soil domain were ρsoil ¼ 1,850 kg=m3 , V Ssoil ¼
Vibration Isolation Efficiency of Infill Trenches 225 m=s, ν soil ¼ 0.4, and ξ soil ¼ 5%. The dynamic load was
simulated to be periodic and harmonic, vibrating vertically at a fre-
Two-Dimensional Parametric Study quency of 45 Hz. The barrier was placed at a fixed distance of 2.5 m
from the load and was of a constant depth of 3 m (D ¼ 0.65) and a
Open trenches, though an excellent method of mitigating ground-
width of 0.25 m. The ratio of infill material density to soil density,
borne vibrations, find their use in limited cases owing to stability
ρfill =ρsoil , was varied from 0.02 to 4.20. The shear-wave velocity
issues. Hence, infill trenches become a popular choice when the
ratio of the infill material to that of the soil, V Sfill =V Ssoil , was
wavelength exceeds a depth beyond which open vertical cuts find
changed from 0.25 to 6.0. The damping properties of the infill were
difficulty in construction and stability. For an open trench, wave
kept in the 5–15% range.
reflection plays the major role, whereas, for an infill trench, the
combination of energy in the reflected and transmitted waves
governs efficiency. Results and Discussion
In this study, infill materials having both lower and higher den-
sities (ρfill ) compared with the soil domain were chosen. For each Fig. 5 plots the variation in Ar with changes in ratio of infill shear-
material density, the shear-wave velocity (V Sfill ) was gradually in- wave velocity to that of the soil for various material density ratios. It
creased from low to high. A parametric study was carried out with is observed that the functioning of the trench was largely dependent
these widespread spectra of infill materials to assess their relative on the contrast between the properties of the infill and those of the in
efficiencies. Also, for a few chosen densities the damping charac- situ soil. Infill density and shear-wave velocity had a great impact on
teristics of the materials were varied. The relevant parameters the results, which were different for low- and high-density materials.
0.8 0.4
0.6 0.3
0.4 0.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina A&T State Univ on 05/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(a) (b)
0.9 1.2
D= 0.60 A=0.5
0.8 D= 0.80 A=0.8
1.0 A=1.2
D= 1.00
A=1.5
0.7 A=2.0
0.8 A=2.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3 0.2
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(c) (d)
Fig. 7. Variation in the average amplitude reduction ratio with changes in various geometrical parameters of a geofoam trench: (a) normalized
screening distance; (b and c) width; and (d) slenderness ratio.
shallow trench (d=w ¼ 1.5–2.0 m). Extra cost incurred in creating present study. The boundary conditions were to (1) completely re-
deeper trenches does not bring about greater benefits. In fact, with strain the bottom edge and (2) prevent the vertical model boundaries
an increasing cross-sectional area, the optimum d=w ratio hovered from moving in the direction of their normal. Element size was kept
near 1.5. Again, for low slenderness ratio values, d=w < 2, an in- roughly less than one-eighth of the smallest Rayleigh wavelength
creasing cross-sectional area had a very positive impact on system (Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer 1973). In addition, local refinement of
efficiency. For d=w ¼ 1, Ar decreased by approximately 55% when the mesh was done near the critical areas of interest such as the load-
A increased from 0.5 to 2.5 m2 . For d=w > 2, increasing area did ing zone and the barrier location and in general on the ground sur-
not have much of an impact on performance except for very small face to ensure accuracy of the results. Fig. 8(a) shows the discretized
cross sections (A < 0.80 m2 ). 3D model developed for this problem. A linear elastic model was
adopted for all materials considering a small strain behavior.
The numerical model was first validated with results from the
Three-Dimensional Finite-Element Model and literature. For this purpose, the field data recorded by Alzawi and
Analysis EI-Naggar (2011) were taken for comparison. Fig. 8(b) shows good
agreement between the results obtained in this study and those ob-
Validation of Present Model served by Alzawi and EI-Naggar (2011). The differences in some
cases could be due to variability and anisotropy in soil properties in
After an extensive 2D parametric study of the performance of PU localized areas in the field.
foam trenches as wave barriers, a 3D analysis of their responses
with other configurations and loading conditions was carried
out. A 3D finite-element model (100 × 50 × 20 m) was developed Results and Discussion
in the PLAXIS 3D dynamic module using 10 noded tetrahedral
elements. The model dimensions were chosen to avoid any boun- Influence of Barrier System Type
dary effects (Kumar et al. 2017; Kumar and Choudhury 2018). The 3D model was next employed to study the response of other
Viscous boundaries were applied along the edges to account for geofoam barrier configurations. Usually, the most common profile
the semi-infinite extent of the soil and to prevent undue wave adopted for wave barriers is a straight, rectangular vertical cut into
reflection along the boundaries (Kumar et al. 2015, 2016). Studies the ground. In this section, calculations are performed with another
have shown that the wave relaxation coefficients related to absorb- simple barrier configuration: two continuous foam walls kept at
ent boundaries, C1 ¼ 1.0 and C2 ¼ 0.25, result in reasonably good the spacing, s, shown in Fig. 9(a). Simulations were carried out
absorption of waves at the edges (Wang et al. 2009; Brinkgreve and to determine the influence of s between the two walls on system
Vermeer 1998). Accordingly, these coefficients were adopted in the performance. Analyses were performed by varying the normalized
Fig. 8. 3D analysis of geofoam trenches: (a) typical model developed in PLAXIS; and (b) validation of the numerical model, l ¼ 2.5 m, f ¼ 50 Hz.
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Analysis of a double-walled continuous rectangular geofoam trench system: (a) schematic; and (b) variation in the average amplitude
reduction ratio with changes in the normalized spacing between walls.
spacing, S ¼ s=LR , from 0.2 to 1.0 for a 30–60-Hz frequency range. Fig. 10 shows the developed numerical model, which had
The PU foam barriers were of normalized depth, D ¼ 0.75 m, and dimensions of 200 × 100 × 20 m—large enough to prevent wave
width, w ¼ 0.2 m, and were placed at location, L ¼ 0.53 m, from reflections from the boundaries. The track rested on an embank-
the source of vibration. The size, fixities, boundary conditions, and ment of width 5 m and height 0.5 m. For simplicity, the properties
meshing of the 3D model were the same as described in the preced- of the soil in the embankment and the ground remained the same
ing section. The material properties of the in situ soil and geofoam as described previously. The track consisted of a pair of steel rails
were also unchanged. The values of Ar were computed for vertical resting on concrete sleepers, both modeled using beam elements.
velocity by observing the time history of nodes on the ground The rail and sleeper cross-sectional areas were, respectively, Arail ¼
surface along a monitoring path. Fig. 9(b) shows the variation in 0.0077 m2 and Asleeper ¼ 0.05 m2 . The sleepers were laid on the
average amplitude reduction ratio as a function of barrier normalized ground at a spacing, c, of 0.6 m.
spacing for the chosen frequency range. It can be seen that this The vehicle unit chosen for this demonstration was a typical
barrier system was quite effective in damping out vertical soil vibra- German ICE3 railcar with a distance, X, between the first and last
tions. The Ar values were much lower at higher frequencies, indi-
cating better system performance. In addition, the system response
was quite sensitive to the barrier spacing, especially at low values,
S ¼ 0.2–0.4. In the frequency range chosen for this study, the
optimum spacing was approximately 0.5–0.6LR. Wider spacing
would not bring any added benefits in terms of increasing efficiency
and could even be detrimental to the performance in some cases.
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Variation in soil particle velocity with changes in train speed in the absence of a trench: (a) time domain; and (b) frequency domain.
(a) (b)
(c)
Fig. 12. Comparative analysis of velocity in the frequency domain in the presence and absence of a trench: (a) 80 km=h; (b) 180 km=h; and
(c) 250 km=h.
The geofoam trench was chosen to be of depth 5 m and width material relative to the in situ soil; the damping characteristics
0.5 m. It was placed at roughly 10 m from the center of the track. of the infill material were not significant. It was shown that both
The material properties of the foam and the soil domain were the low- and high-density materials (in comparison with the in situ
same as before. soil) are ideal for use in infill trenches but their performance is
Results and Discussion. Fig. 11(a) shows the influence of train highly sensitive to the relative stiffness of the trench material and
speed on the velocity of soil particles on the ground surface. It is the in situ soil. For the former category (ρfill =ρsoil < 0.15), the
seen that, with increasing train speed, vibration velocity increased, upper limit is V Sfill =V Ssoil < 1.0; for the latter (ρfill =ρsoil > 1),
especially in the near-field region. This was most notable for vertical the lower limit is V Sfill =V Ssoil > 2.5.
vibrations, which were very high in the near field, although their • PU foam trenches proved to be very effective in damping out
attenuation with distance occurred at a very fast rate. At distances ground-borne vibrations. Their efficiency was shown to depend
far away from the source of vibration, horizontal and vertical veloc- on normalized depth, width, screening distance, and, d=w ratio.
ities were nearly the same for all train speeds. Fig. 11(b) shows In areas near the source of vibration (0.4 < L < 1.8), the barrier
typical results of the analysis in the frequency domain, comparing showed a greater dependency on both screening distance and
the velocity of vibration for different speeds in the absence of a depth, but in regions far away (L > 1.8) the influence of screen-
trench. It is observed that, with increasing train speed, ground vibra- ing distance was almost eliminated. The optimum barrier depth
tion frequency increased. For a train speed of 80 km=h, vibration for all purposes could be taken as 1.2. Increasing width was
frequency ranged 0–30 Hz. For speed of 180 km=h, the predominant shown to have a positive impact on the barrier in both near-field
range of vibration was 10–40 Hz, and for a speed of 250 km=h, the and far-field isolation. Regarding cross-sectional area, for
range was 20–55 Hz. Fig. 12 compares the frequency of vertical A < 1.0 m2 a deeper trench (d=w ¼ 4.0–5.0) was optimal.
vibration, in the presence and absence of the trench, for the different However, for A > 1.0 m2 the optimal d=w ratio was 1.5–2.0.
train speeds. From Fig. 12(a), it is clearly observed that, at 80 km=h, • Three-dimensional analysis revealed that double-walled contin-
vibration frequency post-trench installation was mostly arrested uous rectangular trenches performed well as wave barriers but
within 20 Hz. Frequencies of 20–30 Hz were partly damped their functioning was sensitive to normalized spacing. Optimal
by the wave barrier. The same trend is noted in Figs. 12(b and c). normalized spacing in this study was shown to be roughly
Fig. 12(b) shows that frequencies of 30–40 Hz were mostly damped 0.5–0.6 times the Rayleigh wavelength.
out. The particles vibrated primarily at 0–30 Hz, and especially at • The barriers were found to be quite effective in damping out
10–20 Hz. In the latter case [Fig. 12(c)], frequencies higher than vibrations caused by passage of a moving load. They mostly
40 Hz were completely blocked by the barrier. This shows that damped out the high-frequency or shorter-wavelength compo-
the high-frequency or shorter wavelength waveforms were blocked nents from the vibration velocities, indicating increasing system
very effectively by the barrier. For the chosen barrier depth (5 m) and efficiency with increasing train speed.
soil profile, corresponding to a frequency of 40 Hz, the normalized These observations can be generalized to arrive at the conclu-
depth, D, was approximately 1.0. For frequencies higher than 40 Hz, sion that trenches are very effective when used as wave barriers to
D was greater than 1 and the barrier effectively depleted these mitigate ground-borne vibrations.
frequency contents. Hence, more efficiency was achieved at higher
train speeds, as in this case the quasi-static track response had higher
frequency contents. Acknowledgments
The first author would like to thank the German Academic
Exchange Service (DAAD) for providing financial assistance to
Conclusions carry out a part of this study at RWTH Aachen University in the
A numerical finite-element analysis was carried out using PLAXIS DAAD-IIT Masters Students Exchange Program.
to interpret the behavior of open and infill trenches when acting as
wave barriers to reduce ground-borne vibrations. The behavior and
responses of trenches having a wide range of geometrical and Notation
material properties, different barrier types, and loading conditions
The following symbols are used in this paper:
were analyzed. This analysis was carried out in stages, on both
open and infill trenches, with a special focus on polyurethane ARR = amplitude reduction ratio;
foam trenches. The developed model was used to identify the Ar = average amplitude reduction ratio;
key factors affecting the vibration isolation capacity of trenches. A = cross-sectional area;
Two-dimensional simulations were performed in order to under- D = normalized trench depth;
stand the impact of geometrical and material properties of the d = trench depth;
trenches on their efficiency as wave barriers against vibrations E = elastic modulus;
W = normalized trench width; Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
w = trench width; 215–222. Stockholm.
X = axle distance in railcars; Hung, H. H., Y. B. Yang, and D. W. Chang. 2004. “Wave barriers for
reduction of train-induced vibrations in soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Δt = dynamic time step;
Eng. 130 (12): 1283–1291. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
ν = Poisson’s ratio; (2004)130:12(1283).
ξ = damping coefficient; and Itoh, K., X. Zeng, M. Koda, O. Murata, and O. Kusakabe. 2005. “Centrifuge
ρ = density. simulation of wave propagation due to vertical vibration on shallow
foundations and vibration attenuation countermeasures.” J. Vibr. Control
11 (6): 781–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546305054150.
References Ju, S. H., and H. T. Lin. 2004. “Analysis of train-induced vibrations and
vibration reduction schemes above and below critical Rayleigh speeds
Aboudi, J. 1973. “Elastic waves in half-space with thin barrier.” J. Eng. by finite element method.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 24 (12):
Mech. 99 (1): 69–83. 993–1002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.05.004.
Adam, M., and O. Von Estorff. 2005. “Reduction of train-induced building Kattis, S. E., D. Polyzos, and D. E. Beskos. 1999. “Vibration isolation by a
vibrations by using open and filled trenches.” Comput. Struct. 83 (1): row of piles using a 3-D frequency domain BEM.” Int. J. Numer.
11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.08.010. Methods Eng. 46 (5): 713–728. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097
Ahmad, S., and T. M. Al-Hussaini. 1991. “Simplified design for vibration -0207(19991020)46:5%3C713::AID-NME693%3E3.0.CO;2-U.
screening by open and in-filled trenches.” J. Geotech. Eng. 117 (1): Kuhlemeyer, R. L., and J. Lysmer. 1973. “Finite element method accuracy
67–88. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:1(67). for wave propagation problems.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 99 (5):
Ahmad, S., T. M. Al-Hussaini, and K. L. Fishman. 1996. “Investigation on 421–427.
active isolation of machine foundations by open trenches.” J. Geotech. Kumar, A., and D. Choudhury. 2018. “Development of new prediction
Eng. 122 (6): 454–461. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410 model for capacity of combined pile-raft foundations.” Comput.
(1996)122:6(454). Geotech. 97 (May): 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017
Al-Hussaini, T. M., and S. Ahmad. 1991. “Design of wave barriers for .12.008.
reduction of horizontal ground vibration.” J. Geotech. Eng. 117 (4): Kumar, A., D. Choudhury, and R. Katzenbach. 2016. “Effect of earthquake
616–636. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:4(616). on combined pile-raft foundation.” Int. J. Geomech. 16 (5): 04016013.
Al-Hussaini, T. M., and S. Ahmad. 1996. “Active isolation of machine https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000637.
foundations by in-filled trench barriers.” J. Geotech. Eng. 122 (4): Kumar, A., D. Choudhury, J. Shukla, and D. L. Shah. 2015. “Seismic
288–294. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:4(288). design of pile foundation for oil tank by using PLAXIS3D.” Disaster
Alzawi, A., and M. H. El Naggar. 2011. “Full scale experimental study on Adv. 8 (6): 33–42.
vibration scattering using open and in-filled (geofoam) wave barriers.” Kumar, A., M. Patil, and D. Choudhury. 2017. “Soil-structure interaction in
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 31 (3): 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j a combined pile-raft foundation: A case study.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
.soildyn.2010.08.010. Geotech. Eng. 170 (2): 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.16
Andersen, L., and S. R. K. Nielsen. 2005. “Reduction of ground vibration
.00075.
by means of barriers or soil improvement along a railway track.” Soil
Leonardi, G., and M. Buonsanti. 2014. “Reduction of train-induced
Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 25 (7–10): 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
vibrations by using barriers.” Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 7 (17):
.soildyn.2005.04.007.
623–632. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.7.715.
Baker, J. M. 1994. “An experimental study on vibration screening by
Leung, K. L., I. G. Vardoulakis, and D. E. Beskos. 1987. “Vibration
in-filled trench barriers.” M.Sc. thesis, State Univ. of New York.
Barkan, D. D. 1962. Dynamics of bases and foundations, Chaps. VIII and isolation of structures from surface waves in homogeneous and nonho-
IX. 374–406. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. mogeneous soils.” In Soil-structure interaction, edited by A. S. Cakmak,
Beskos, D. E., G. Dasgupta, and I. G. Vardoulakis. 1986. “Vibration 155–169. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
isolation using open or filled trenches. Part I: 2-D homogeneous soil.” Massarsch, K. R. 1991. “Ground vibration isolation using gas cushions.” In
Comput. Mech. 1 (1): 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00298637. Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Brinkgreve, B. J., and P. A. Vermeer. 1998. PLAXIS finite element code for Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 1461–1470. Rolla, MO: Univ. of
soil and rock analysis. Delft, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema. Missouri at Rolla.
Choudhury, D., and A. D. Katdare. 2013. “New approach to determine May, T. W., and B. A. Bolt. 1982. “The effectiveness of trenches in reduc-
seismic passive resistance on retaining walls considering seismic ing seismic motion.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 10 (2): 195–210.
waves.” Int. J. Geomech. 13 (6): 852–860. https://doi.org/10.1061 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290100203.
/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000285. McNeill, R. L., B. E. Margason, and F. M. Babcock. 1965. “The role of soil
Choudhury, D., A. D. Katdare, and A. Pain. 2014. “New method to com- dynamics in the design of stable test pads.” In Proc., Guidance and
pute seismic active earth pressure on retaining wall considering seismic Control Conf., 366–375. New York, NY: American Institute of
waves.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. Int. J. 32 (2): 391–402. https://doi.org/10 Aeronautics and Astronautics.
.1007/s10706-013-9721-8. Murillo, C., L. Thorel, and B. Caicedo. 2009. “Ground vibration isolation
Davies, M. C. R. (1994). “Dynamic soil–structure interaction resulting with geofoam barriers: Centrifuge modeling.” Geotext. Geomembr.
from blast loading.” In Vol. 94 of Proc., Int. Conf. on Centrifuge 27 (6): 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.03.006.
.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.04.002. .org/10.1177/107754630100700403.