EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (): DOI: https://10.1007/s11803-024-2223-2

Numerical analysis of moving train induced vibrations on tunnel,

surrounding ground and structure
Swati Srivastav1†, Sowmiya Chawla2‡ and Swapnil Mishra3§

1. Department of Applied Geophysics, Indian Institute of Technology (ISM), Dhanbad 826004, India
2. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (ISM), Dhanbad 826004, India
3. Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (ISM), Dhanbad 826004, India

Abstract: This study is focused on the effect of vibration induced by moving trains in tunnels on the surrounding ground
and structures. A three-dimensional finite element model is established for a one-track railway tunnel and an adjacent twelve-
storey building frame by using commercial software Midas GTS-NX (2019) and Midas Gen. This study considered the
moving load effect of a complete train, which varies with space as well as with time. The effect of factors such as train
speed, overburden pressure on the tunnel and variation in soil properties are studied in the time domain. As a result, the
variations in horizontal and vertical acceleration for two different sites, i.e., the free ground surface (without structure) and
the area containing the structure, are compared. Also, the displacement pattern of the raft foundation is plotted for different
train velocities. At lower speeds, the heaving phenomenon is negligible, but as the speed increases, both the heaving and
differential settlement increase in the foundation. This study demonstrates that the effect of moving train vibrations should
be considered in the design of new nearby structures and proper ground improvement should be considered for existing
structures.

Keywords: moving train load; tunnels; vibration effect; finite element method (FEM); wave propagation

1 Introduction
In recent decades, the increase in population density
has necessitated the development of more sophisticated
and efficient modes of transportation. As population
density rises, the demand for transportation infrastructure
rises, but the land surface area continues to shrink,
making it more challenging to construct surface railway
tracks. Therefore, the development of underground
tunnels can serve as a solution to the problem of limited
land usage. Nevertheless, underground traffic has its
own unique complexities.
India currently operates semi-high-speed trains
with an operational speed between 150 km/h and 180 km/h
and aims to upgrade its rail transit structure to high-
speed trains, whereas high-speed trains around the
world operate at speeds greater than 300 km/h. As
train speed increases, the vibrations along railway
lines become a major concern, as they will propagate
through the soil layers to the surface of the ground. If
Correspondence to: Sowmiya Chawla, Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (ISM),
Dhanbad, India
Tel: +91-7070654099
E-mail: sowmiya@iitism.ac.in
†
Master Student; ‡Associate Professor; §Assistant Professor
Received January 23, 2022; Accepted April 6, 2023
this vibration exceeds the limit, it will have the potential
to affect the existing structure’s foundation and will
also influence the design of newly planned structures.
Lamb’s groundbreaking research compared the response
of isotropic and homogeneous elastic half-spaces to
different harmonic and impulsive loads (Kourossis et
al., 2014). Three types of waves are generated when an
oscillating point load is applied to an elastic half space.
Rayleigh waves (surface) attenuated at a rate inversely
proportional to the square root of the surface’s distance in
the far field. The other two were body waves, namely the
primary wave and the shear wave, which attenuated at a
rate that was inversely proportional to the distance from
the surface (speed in the order CP>Cs>Cr). The Rayleigh
wave is typically the dominant surface wave. However,
the concept of wave propagation is generally applicable
to an elastic half-space, whereas in the real world the
ground consists of multiple soil strata. Consequently,
if the elastic and linear behavior of each soil stratum is
maintained, it is possible to extend this method to each
layer or soil stratum, which is defined by its Young’s
modulus Ei (or shear modulus Gi), Poisson’s ratio vi,
density ρi (i being the layer index), and damping ratio.
The vibration was transmitted from the underground
tunnel entrance to the superstructure via the contact
between the train wheel and rail. Figure 1 is a graphical
representation of the wave transmission through the
soil layers caused by the movement of the train in the
 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
Fig. 1 Propagation of ground vibration into the building from
underground tunnel railway (FTA, 2006)
underground tunnel.
The potential of the transmitted wave is highly
dependent on the dynamic properties of the soil layers
and the rail wheel contact characteristics (Gutowskiand
and Dym, 1976). The train tunnel system’s vibration
excites the ground surrounding the tunnel and propagates
through the soil layers to the foundations of buildings
and other systems on the ground surface. The effect
will become more hazardous if the natural frequency
of the structure exceeds the wave frequency, i.e., if the
structure is in a resonance state.
There are various methods such as field experiments,
analytical methods, empirical prediction models and
numerical simulations that have been used by many
researchers to predict the ground vibration responses in
the past. Most of the initial key research on ground borne
vibration has been done by field experiment (Pan and
Xie, 1990; Vadillo et al., 1996; Degrande et al., 2006;
Feng et al., 2021) and empirical prediction (Kurzweil,
1979; Melke, 1988; Trochides, 1991; Hood et al., 1996)
because of their reliability and simplicity. But in these
methods, the parametric study is not easily performed. To
overcome this limitation, studies have been carried out by
analytical method to study the railway induced vibration
phenomenon (Krylov and Ferguson, 1994). The effect of
quasi static load is represented by the analytical beam
model, in which the load is transmitted to soil through the
rail and sleeper (Krylov and Ferguson, 1994). Metrikine
and Vrouwenvelder (2000) extended the model to
study the soil-track interaction. This method generally
requires complicated calculations, and this drawback
was overcome by the numerical method based on finite
element, where the moving train is more conveniently
simulated and train-induced vibration and propagation
could also be predicted. Yang et al. (2007) studied the
ground vibrations due to underground trains considering
soil-tunnel interaction and gave a brief review of the
research works on ground vibrations caused by trains
moving in underground tunnels. Yang and Hung (2008)
developed a 2.5D finite or infinite element approach
for assessing the wave propagation problem caused
by underground moving trains. Hung and Yang (2010)
presented the details for implementing the 2.5D finite/
infinite element approach. Lin et al. (2016) presented
a procedure for the seismic analysis of underground
tunnels by 2.5D finite/infinite element approach.
Lin et al. (2017) studied the 2D seismic response of
horizontally aligned twin tunnels by using the finite/
infinite element approach. Feizi et al. (2022) studied the
seismic ground amplification induced by box-shaped
tunnels. Yang et al. (2017) did a comparative study of
2D and 2.5D responses of long underground tunnels to
moving train loads. The dynamic response of a tunnel
embedded in layered foundation soil with different
saturated conditions have been analytically evaluated
by Di et al. (2022). The train movement simulation and
calculation of ground surface vibration induced by train
movement was studied on Tehran’s subway tunnel by
Real et al. (2015). Numerical analysis of ground surface
vibration induced by underground train movement
was also performed by Nejati et al. (2012). Centrifuge
modeling of ground-borne vibrations induced by railway
traffic in tunnels was also studied by Yang et al. (2022).
Zhang et al. (2022) studied the dynamic response
analysis of a multiple-beam structure subjected to a
moving load. Most of the previous researchers studied
the 2D and 3D numerical model for surface railway track
and surrounding structures (Zou et al., 2016), but very
few models have been developed with an underground
structure (Hong and Liu, 2006; Wang et al., 2013) to
study the direct effect of tunnel vibration on the surface
structure and its foundations.
In this study, a parametric study is carried out using
a finite element method (FEM) based numerical model
that included tunnel, soil layers, and ground structure
with a pile raft foundation was generated by using
commercially available software Midas GTS-NX (2019)
and its direct effect has been studied on the ground
surface and on nearby structure and its foundation. The
Mohr-Coulomb elastoplastic constitutive model has
been used to simulate the soil behavior. The viscous
boundaries have been considered to ensure that there was
no reflection of waves from the boundaries and Rayleigh
damping was also simulated to ensure reliable results.
2 Analysis details
2.1 Tunnel cross-section
A circular tunnel of diameter 6.26 m was modeled at
a depth of 16.87 m from the ground surface. The Tunnel
opening was supported with a reinforced concrete lining
with a thickness of 0.28 m. The elastic modulus of
reinforced concrete (RC) liners, Ec was 3.16 × 107 kPa
and the Poisson’s ratio was 0.15. One railway tracks
Indian gauge 1435 mm embedded in the concrete slab
rested on a concrete layer inside the bottom of the tunnel
was considered in this study (Fig. 2).
2.2 Soil properties
Delhi is located in Zone Ⅳ of India’s earthquake
zoning maps. This study analyzes a typical section of
 Swati Srivastav et al.: Numerical analysis of moving train induced vibrations on tunnel, surrounding ground and structure

the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) tunnel
between the Rajiv Chowk and Patel Chowk metro
stations. The DMRC tunnel was excavated through
deposits of alluvium, also known as Delhi silt. In this
study, the engineering properties of alluvium were
taken from Yadav (2005) and Soni (2015), and the
variation in elasticmodulus of Delhi silt with depth is
summarized in Fig. 3 and Table 1. Each of layers 1, 2,
and 5 is 10 m thick, while layers 3 and 4 are 15 m thick
(Fig 2.2.1). The in situ unit weight, γbulk, and saturated
unit weight, γsat, were assumed to be 18 and 20 kN/m3
respectively for all layers (layer 1, layer 2, layer 3, layer 4,
layer 5 (Fig. 3). During the analysis, the entire soil
domain was considered to be dry. Cohesion c of Delhi
silt was assumed to be zero (cohesionless silt), and the
values of friction angle (φ) and dilatational angle (ψ)
were determined to be 35° and 5°, respectively (Singh
et al., 2017). Damping in the soil and RC liners was
accounted for as 10% and 2%, respectively (Singh et al.,
2017).
2.3 Structure specification
A twelve-storey building with a pile raft foundation
and structure of M20 concrete, column with cross-section
0.45 m × 0.45 m and beams of cross-section 0.3 m × 0.2 m,
nine piles of diameter 1 m and length of 10 m embedded
in raft of thickness 0.3 m was considered for this analysis.
The complete structure was modelled at a distance of
25 m from the center of the ground surface.

2.4 Vehicle characteristics

In this study, the effects of moving train were studied
for which EL- 18 standard, 6 car vehicle, axle load 180 kN,
having 24 axels moving in the metro tunnel has been
considered. The train axle and other dimensional details
are L= 17.7 m, a = 2.1 m, b = 10 m (Fig. 4). The train
load varies with time as well as space, and the load vs.
time graph is shown to better represent its initial state,
i.e., the starting point of the railway track (Fig. 5).
Fig. 2 Tunnel section (after Real et al., 2015)
3 Three-dimensional numerical modelling

3.1 Geometric modelling

Fig. 3 Geometry of nominal model (front view)
Consideration is given to the three-dimensional
(3D) modelling of a metro tunnel embedded in five
distinct soil strata with a twelve-storey building at the
ground surface. The width of the model to be taken
was 140 m in the global X-direction, the total depth in
the global Y-direction was 60 m, and the depth of the
soil consisted of five soil layers (Fig. 3). The modified
constitutive Mohr-Coulomb model and the elastic
model were used to simulate the behavior of the soil and
structural component, respectively. Water depth was not
taken into account when calculating the total soil depth.
Hatzigeorgiou and Beskos (2010) have observed that a
minimum of 6-10 nodes per wavelength must be present
in a model for it to generate reliable results. This study

Table 1 Material properties

Depth Thickness Dry unit weight, Saturated unit weight, Elastic modulus Poisson’s ratio, Damping ratio
(m) (m) γd (kN/m3) γs (KN/m3) (kPa) μ (%)
0‒10 10 18 20 7500 0.25 10
10‒20 10 18 20 15000 0.25 10
20‒35 15 18 20 30000 0.25 10
35‒50 15 18 20 40000 0.25 10
50‒60 10 18 20 50000 0.25 10
Concrete lining 0.28 25 - 3.16×107 0.15 2
 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
utilized 12 noded hybrid elements to discretize the entire
domain (Fig. 6).
Since the hybrid element is a combination of
tetrahedral and hexahedral elements, it must utilize the
properties of both types (Midas, 2019). As hexahedral
elements produce more precise results, tetrahedral
elements are best suited for stress-concentrated regions.
In this study, the tunnel openings fall within a region
of stress concentration; therefore, hybrid elements were
used to improve precision.
3.2 Load application
The effect of the moving train was considered in
this study despite the fact that quasi static load, as in
dynamic load inertial force, is considerable which causes
structure to vibrate. Conversely, in quasi static load, the
inertial force consideration is minimal. However, it has
been observed that the results obtained are similar at
low strain. The total axel load of 180 kN was divided
into two halves and acts on the nodes of the two the
parallel rails. The effect of 24 axels has been considered
a From Eq. (2), ϕi is the eigen vector associated with
a a a a
Fig. 4 Geometry of wheel axle load distribution of a train
Fig. 5 Moving train load
Fig. 6 Isometric view of Discretized Nominal model
as moving simultaneously at the speed of 60 m/s in the
nominal model.
3.3 Analysis
The eigenvalue analysis was performed first to obtain
the main vibration mode or the characteristic frequencies
and the period of the given system. Eigenvalue extraction
using normal mode analysis has been performed and
formulation of the same, neglecting the damping, have
been shown in Eq. (1).
Mu  Ku  0 (1)
where, M is the mass matrix, K is the stiffness matrix, u
is the displacement vector and ü is the second derivative
of the displacement vector (acceleration vector).
Whereas in the linear system free vibration is
represented by the harmonic function (Real et al., 2015)
u  i cos  i t  (2)
the mode shape of the ωi natural frequency. By combining
Eqs. (1) and (2), Eq. (3) can be obtained. Equation (3)
has been used for the eigenvalue analysis herein.
K  i
2
M  i  0 (3)
As this eigenvalue problem is dependent on the mass
and stiffness of the system and if any static load is to be
considered, these loads should be converted into masses.
In this study, all the floor loads on the buildings were
converted into masses to be considered in the eigenvalue
analysis.
Equation (3) is computed for n values of the natural
circular frequencies of the system ωi and eigenvectors
ϕi. Natural frequencies fi were also computed by Eq. (4).
i
fi  (4)
2
For analysis purposes, the elastic boundaries at the
surface of the soil layers were provided; their stiffness is
calculated as follows:
1 1
K v0  a  E0  , K h0    E0  (5)
30 30
where, E0 is the elastic modulus of soil and a is a
coefficient that depends on the test conditions.
The subgrade reaction modulus Kv (= Kh) is
recalculated using the computed K v0 (see the online
help manual of Midas GTS-NX (2019)).
 Swati Srivastav et al.: Numerical analysis of moving train induced vibrations on tunnel, surrounding ground and structure
3
Bv
K v   K h   K v0 
2 (6)
30
Here, Bv= Av . Av is the area where the subgrade
reaction spring will be installed (Midas GTS-NX (2019)
manual).
The predominant periods obtained from the
eigenvalue analysis were 1.682663 s and 1.61263 s.
These predominant periods were further utilized
while performing linear time history analysis and
ignoring the response from the moving train load
vibration. Linear time history is solved by using Eq. (7)
Mu  Cu  Ku  F a  t  (7)
where, M is the global mass matrix, ü is the vector of
acceleration, C is the damping matrix, u̇ is the vector
of velocity, K is the stiffness matrix, u is the vector
of displacement and Fa(t) is the time dependent force
vector. Where, M and K depend on the material and
stiffness properties, but C is not directly related to these
properties. The damping effects in the linear time history
analysis were applied to the damping matrix C in the
following form:
C M  K  B (8)
where, α is the mass proportional damping coefficient,
β is the stiffness proportional damping coefficient, M is
the mass matrix of the element, K is the stiffness matrix
of the element and B is the damping matrix due to the
damping element (damper) (Midas GTS-NX (2019)
manual).
The damping ratio is then calculated by orthogonal
transformation of the damping matrix and results in
Eq. (9)
 i
i   (9)
2i 2
in this equation ξi, ωi are the damping ratio and the
frequency of the system..
Here, α and β were calculated by using the
predominant frequencies obtained from eigenvalue
analysis. While considering the dynamic analysis,
boundaries of the soil surface are such that it should not
reflect the waves generating during the movement of the
train. Therefore, to counteract this phenomenon, viscous
boundaries were assigned at the surface of the soil layers
to make it act as infinite boundaries. The coefficient of
viscous boundaries stiffness was computed with the help
of input data such as elastic modulus and Poison’s ratio,
etc.
3.4 Validation of literature
An attempt was made to validate some of the
significant findings from the previous literature and to
ensure the reliability of the software used in this study
with respect to the moving train load analysis. The in-
situ vertical vibrations that were generated due to the
movement of vehicle “RENFE CIVIA 465” running at
a speed of 55 km/h in the tunnel, located in a Spanish
commuter train line near Madrid, has been observed
at the middle of the slab (Real et al., 2015). The same
had been attempted in this study for the validation of
the vertical time history. The comparison of recorded
vertical acceleration in the study of Real et al. (2015)
and calculated acceleration in the validation is shown
in Fig. 7. The average difference of amplitude has been
observed as 10.3 %.
3.5 Parametric study
A comprehensive parametric analysis was carried
out to examine the effects of various parameters on the
ground surface vibration, such as the fluctuation in train
speed, the depth of the cover, and the elastic modulus.
Engineers can improve their knowledge of complex
models through the use of a parametric study.
The analysis has been performed for the speeds,
i.e., 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 m per second. On the other
hand, because there was a large amount of data, and
because an effort was made to simplify the study, it was
condensed. Some of the outcomes, such as horizontal
acceleration and pile deformation, have been compared
for very low, medium, and very high speeds, which are
20, 60, and 100 m per second, respectively. The analysis
was performed at a shallow depth of tunnel (at low
overburden pressure); i.e., at 6 m from the ground surface,
which was 16.87 m in nominal conditions. The results
were also observed after changing the elastic modulus of
the upper two layers to the lower value (Table 2).
Although the load speed of 60 m/s (equivalent to
216 km/h) and 100 m/s (equivalent to 360 km/h) is
common for a surface high-speed train, it is too high
for an underground (subway) train and the variation
of the stress wave speed and load speed (c) affects
the propagation of vibration in the media. It has been
observed in past studies that in the sub-critical case, c < Cr
(Cr = the velocity of Rayleigh wave), since the velocity
of the wave is larger than that of the moving load, the
stress waves propagate to the observation point before
the load arrives. For the super-critical case, c > Cr, the
Fig. 7 Comparison of vertical acceleration at middle of slab
 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

reverse is true (Yang et al., 2019; Hung and Yang, 2010;
Lin et al., 2016, 2017). The velocity of Rayleigh wave
Cr, primary wave Cp, and secondary wave was found to
be 50.4, 54.77 and 94.86 m/s, respectively, in this study.
It has been found that the load speed of 60 m/s and
100 m/s is lying in the super-critical case as c > Cr.
Therefore, the motivation for including such a high
speed in this study is to account for future development.
The purpose of this analysis is to determine how the
ground will react when a train travelling at such a high
speed is brought into a real-world situation or the extent
to which speed can be increased.
4 Results and discussion
Generally, humans are more sensitive to velocity and
acceleration rather than displacement during vibration.
Accordingly, in this study, an attempt is made to depict
the level of vibrations. To examine the human suffering
and the factor of vulnerability created by ground
vibrations, two methods were adopted: (1) particle peak
velocity (PPV), (2) root mean square velocity (Vrms). Vrms
provides the result from the entire velocity time history
and is computed as:
T
1 2
v t 
T 0
Vrms 
The vibration level in decibels was calculated using
this Vrms value:
V 
Lv  20log10  rms 
 Vref 
where, Lv is the velocity level in decibels (dB), Vref is the
reference velocity amplitude and its value is generally
adopted as equal to 1×10-5 in/s in the American standard
and 5×10-5 mm/s in all other places (Nejati et al., 2012)
accordingly, Vref was assumed as 5×10-5 mm/s. Table 3
shows the human and structural response to different
vibrations levels. Here three models were considered,
Model 1: with all nominal conditions (Table 2), Model 2:
overburden pressure height is reduced to 6 m from
16.87 m, and Model 3: the elastic modulus of the
upper two layers has been reduced, E1 (Layer 1) was
reduced to 1.5 MPa and E2 (Layer 2) was reduced to
15 MPa. Horizontal acceleration, vertical acceleration,
and vertical displacement of the raft was obtained for
different train speeds for Model 1, Model 2 and Model 3.
Accordingly, the results have been observed and are
discussed.
4.1 Velocity level attenuation
The influence of train speed on attenuation of
vibrations at various distances from the center of the
ground surface were studied for three different models
(Fig. 8). The increase in train speed was accompanied
by the increase in velocity level. The velocity level was
attenuated at a higher rate for a train speed of 40 m/s,
whereas the attenuation rate decreased after 20 m from
the middle of the ground surface for a train speed of 20 m/s in
Model 1. From the results, it has been observed that the
depth is inversely proportional to frequency, where high
(10)
velocity waves dissipated their energy while traveling
through the soil medium at a higher rate and traveled
less distance. Conversely, the low velocity waves lose
energy at a slower rate, so their effect persisted for a
longer distance from the origin. This trend became
more intense for Model 2, where at some distance it
(11)
matched the rate of attenuation for a 60 m/s train speed.
A different trend in velocity attenuation was observed
for Model 3, where the stiffness of the soil relaxed the
damping to a higher degree. From Fig. 8(c), it is seen that
the values of the velocity level are substantially lower

Table 2 Parameters of present study

Parameters Nominal value Values used to keep other parameters at nominal values
Train speed (m/s) 60 20, 40, 80, 100
Overburden pressure hight (m) 16.87 6
Layer 1, E1 (MPa) 7.5 1.5
Layer 2, E2 (MPa) 15 5

Table 3 Typical ground-borne vibration level (FTA, 2006)

Human/structural response Velocity level (dB)
Threshold, minor cosmetic damage blasting from construction projects fragile buildings 100
Difficulty with vibration- sensitive tasks such as reading a video screen 90
Residential annoyance, infrequent 80 rapid transit rail upper range events 80
Residential annoyance, frequent bus or truck over bump events 70
Limit for vibration sensitive equipment. Approx. threshold for human perception of vibration 60
 Swati Srivastav et al.: Numerical analysis of moving train induced vibrations on tunnel, surrounding ground and structure
when compared to other models. The velocity level was
attenuated at a faster rate for the 20 m/s train speed,
whereas the attenuation rate was observed to be similar
for all other train speeds. The train speeds of 40 m/s
and 60 m/s exhibited almost the same velocity level in
this case.
It has further been observed that at higher velocity,
there was gap in velocity attenuation rate and the
attenuation rate exhibited a similar trend at higher train
speeds. Hence, the trend of the velocity attenuation at
different distances from the center of the metro tunnel is
a key factor to observe for safety and reduced the factor
of vulnerability for the inhabitants living in that region.
The velocity level should be in the prescribed limit as
suggested by the FTA (Federal Transit Administration)
2016 guidelines (Nejati et al., 2012). From Fig. 8, it is
seen that the velocity level reached 83.1 dB, 88 dB and
89.09 dB for the three models. It was also observed that
these velocity levels were greater than the prescribed
limit suggested by FTA (2006), under human/structural
response to infrequent 80 rapid transit the upper range is
80 dB (Table 3).
Fig. 8 Variation of velocity attenuation at different train speed
for different cases: (a) nominal model Model 1; (b) when
reduction in depth of tunnel Model 2; (c) when reduction
in elastic modulus of soil layers Model 3
4.2 Vertical acceleration
Vertical acceleration at the middle of the ground
surface for three different models has been compared.
For the nominal model (Model 1) (Table 2), a maximum
of 11.97 mm/s2 vertical acceleration has been observed
at 100 m/s of train speed (Fig. 9(a)) but this effect
becomes magnified as 24.7 mm/s2. This is because
when the tunnel depth is reduced to 6 m, the frequency
of vibration increases, and the waves travel faster with
sufficient energy associated with them (Fig. 9(b)).
Further, the reduction of the soil layer modulus (E1 =
1.5 MPa, E2 = 5 MPa), i.e., in Model 3, also affects the
vertical acceleration. It increased up to 17.11 mm/s2 for
100 m/s of train speed, since the waves travelling in the
soft soil had greater amplitude to carry the same energy.
However, with the damping properties of the soil, the
energy was absorbed in soft soil and its effects decayed
with time, whereas the frequency decreased when
compared to Model 1 (Fig. 9(c)). Hence, a metro tunnel
at shallow depth and in soft soil drastically affected the
vertical acceleration. Accordingly, more caution should
be given to design new structures or existing structures
that are located near shallow metro tunnels with
prevailing soft soil conditions nearby.
Fig. 9 Comparison of the vertical acceleration at the middle of
ground surface for (a) Model 1; (b) Model 2; (c) Model 3
 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
4.3 Horizontal acceleration
The effect of the train speeds on three numerical
models, i.e., Model 1, Mode 2 and Model 3, on two
zones, i.e., on the ground surface that contains the
structure (shown by the left arrow) and the ground area
without a structure, i.e., the free surface (shown by right
arrow) are shown in Fig. 6.
The effect of vibrations has been observed with
Fig. 10 Case 1: Model 1 horizontal acceleration at middle
cross-section of ground surface at 20 m/s (a) right side
without structure, (b) left side with structure
Fig. 11 Case 1: Model 1 horizontal acceleration at middle of
ground surface at 60 m/s (c) right side without structure,
(d) left side with structure
the help of horizontal acceleration at these two zones,
as the vertical acceleration was counterbalanced by the
weight of the structure and horizontal acceleration and
its amplification was more adversely affect the structure
(see Fig. 10, Fig. 11 and Fig. 12).
The effect of train speed at different locations from
the right of the center of the ground surface (without any
structure) and from the left of the center of the ground
surface (with structure) is represented in Figs. 10(a), 10(b)
for 20 m/s, Figs. 11(c), 11(d) for 60 m/s, and Figs. 12(e),
12(f) for 100 m/s.
The horizontal acceleration was observed more
on the left side of center (i.e., with structure) at low
train speeds but this effect was reversed at higher train
speeds. The effect of the horizontal acceleration was
more predominant at a distance of 10 m to 40 m from the
center, where at lower speeds, the time period for wave
response was primarily due to its low frequency, which
was one of the reasons it affected the nearby structure.
Therefore, higher structures/skyscrapers which are to be
constructed near high-speed metro tunnels in the range
of 40 m should be designed and analyzed with proper
consideration of vibrational effects. This effect should be
reversed for the reduction in overburden pressure and for
reduction of the elastic modulus for soil layers.
4.4 Effect of change in overburden pressure
Horizontal acceleration was observed more on
the right side of center (i.e., without structure) at low
train speeds, but the effect was reversed at higher train
speeds, i.e., more horizontal acceleration was observed
at the left of the center of the ground surface at higher
train speeds as shown in Figs. 13, 14 and 15. This trend
of horizontal acceleration was the reverse from that in
Fig. 12 Case 1: Model 1 horizontal acceleration at middle of
ground surface at 100 m/s (e) right side without structure,
(f) left side with structure
 Swati Srivastav et al.: Numerical analysis of moving train induced vibrations on tunnel, surrounding ground and structure
nominal model (Model 1). The horizontal acceleration
was more predominant at a distance of 10 m to 40 m
from the center. Hence, high structures which are close
to the metro tunnels and are in the range of 10 m to 40 m
should be provided with proper ground improvement
techniques, if the acceleration value reaches beyond
consideration at the time of design.
4.5 Effect of elastic modulus of soil layers
The pattern or variation of horizontal acceleration
was observed to be same as that of the nominal model;
i.e., at low velocity vibrational effects were more on the
Fig. 13 Case 2: Model 2 horizontal acceleration at middle
cross-section of ground surface at 20 m/s (a) right side
without structure, (b) left side with structure
Fig. 14 Case 2: Model 2 horizontal acceleration at middle
cross-section of ground surface at 60 m/s (c) right side
without structure, (d) left side with structure
left side (with structure) but had higher values for the
condition where the elastic modulus of the soil layers
have been reduced. As the stiffness of soil reduced, the
amplification occured in the acceleration values, but on
the other hand, the vibrational effect also dampened at a
faster rate (see Figs.16, 17 and 18).
4.6 Effect on pile raft
Three points, two on the extreme left and right and
one on the middle at the edge of the raft shown as Points
A, C and B, respectively, (see Fig. 3) were selected to
observe the results. Greater differential settlement and
Fig. 15 Case 2: Model 2 horizontal acceleration at middle
cross-section of ground surface at 100 m/s (e) right
side without structure, (f) left side with structure
Fig. 16 Case 3: variation of soil modulus (E1, E2) (Model 3)
effect on horizontal acceleration at speed 20 m/s
(a) without structure, (b) with structure
 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

Fig. 17 Case 3: variation of soil modulus (E1, E2) (Model 3)

effect on horizontal acceleration at speed 60 m/s
(c) without structure, (d) with structure

Fig. 19 Effect on vertical displacement at left, middle and

right point on raft at (a) 20 m/s, (b) 60 m/s, (c) 100 m/s
for Model 1

Fig. 18 Case 3: variation of soil modulus (E1, E2) (Model 3)

effect on horizontal acceleration at speed 100 m/s
(e) without structure, (f) with structure

the heaving effect was observed at higher train speeds.

For the nominal model (Model 1), the max differential
settlement observed was 0.123 mm for the 80 m/s train
speed, while the max differential settlement observed
was 0.136 mm and 0.671 mm for the 100 m/s train speed
for Model 2 and Model 3, respectively. The tension Fig. 20 Effect on vertical displacement at left, middle and right
zone was also observed at a later time period. Differential point on raft at (a) 20 m/s, (b) 60 m/s, (c) 100 m/s for
settlement was calculated (see Figs. 19, 20 and 21) by Model 2
 Swati Srivastav et al.: Numerical analysis of moving train induced vibrations on tunnel, surrounding ground and structure

subtracting the peak values of the higher and lower value

curves of the two extremes points on the raft.
Displacement contours for various speeds and for
various models were also observed. Displacement
contours were generated for the vertical displacement in
the global Z – direction. A comparison of displacement
contours were observed (see Figs. 22, 23 and 24) where
the maximum displacement represents the downward
settlement and the minimum displacement represents
the heaving.

4.7 Displacement contours

From Figs. 21, 22 and 23, the images in the left

column represent the heaving and those in the right
column represent the downward settlement. Figure 22
shows the response for all three models for the speed of
20 m/s. Similarly, Figs. 23 and 24 show the response for 60
m/s and 100 m/s, respectively.
It was seen that by lowering the stiffness, the
affected zone area also increased and by lowering the
tunnel depth, the affected zone was shifted towards the
structure. Figures 21, 22 and 23 illustrate the effect on
the ground and the surface structure at different train
speeds.
Fig. 21 Effect on vertical displacement at left, middle and right
point on raft at (a) 20 m/s, (b) 60 m/s, (c) 100 m/s for
Model 3

Fig. 22 Left column ((a), (c), (e)) min displacement; right column ((b), (d), (f)) max displacement at 20 m/s. (a), (b) Nominal model;
(c), (d) for reduction in overburden pressure; and (e), (f) for reduction in elastic modulus
 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

Fig. 23 Left column ((a), (c), (e)) min displacement; right column ((b), (d), (f)) max displacement at 60 m/s. (a), (b) Nominal model;
(c), (d) for reduction in overburden pressure; and (e), (f) for reduction in elastic modulus

5 Conclusions be due to lack of cushioning effect, provided by the thick

This study concentrates on the simulation of moving
train dynamic load, measurement of ground surface
vibrations and their effects on nearby structures. It was
performed by using finite element based numerical
analysis. The results were recorded on the middle
horizontal cross-section of the model. The conclusions
given below are valid for the conditions assumed in the
analysis.
(1) The maximum velocity level at the mid-point
was found for different cases at levels sufficient to cause
human annoyance. Velocity levels of 83.1 dB, 88 dB and
89.09 dB were found in Model 1, Model 2 and Model
3, respectively. Hence, a decrease in the overburden
pressure and a reduction in the strength of the soil media
increases the annoyance level. However, as the distance
from center increases, these values were reduced. The
limit of the velocity level was also confirmed to be within
the guidelines of the Federal Transit Administration and
Indian standard noise pollution.
(2) It was observed that reduction in overburden
pressure affects the vertical acceleration and vertical
velocity at the center; i.e., if the tunnels are to be
constructed at shallow depth with less stiff soil, then the
effects of vibration will be larger in magnitude. This may
soil cover which can absorb vibrations and distribute it
uniformly thereby avoiding any collateral damage.
(3) It was found that the effect of horizontal
acceleration was magnified in the periphery of 10 m to
40 m distance from the point of load application.
This could be due to attenuation of waves and their
superimposition, thereby increasing the magnitude of
deformations manifolds. Hence, horizontal acceleration
and its effects should be considered when constructing
any new structure in this zone and proper ground
improvement techniques should be applied to the existing
structures. The tunnel was analyzed at shallow depth
with existing nearby structures; it was also observed that
at higher velocity, the horizontal acceleration increased.
Hence, the train induced vibrational analysis becomes
more important in preventing the failure of existing
structures and the design of new structures.
(4) In the analysis, heaving was not observed at
lower train speeds in the raft foundation, but as the
speed increased, the heaving effect and the differential
settlement also increased. Heaving occured mainly due to
accumulation of the energy at a point due to higher train
speed. As soon as the train passed through the tunnel, a
large number of vibrations were dissipated across and
along the structure. Soil structure interaction played
 Swati Srivastav et al.: Numerical analysis of moving train induced vibrations on tunnel, surrounding ground and structure
Fig. 24 Left column ((a), (c), (e)) min displacement right column ((b), (d), (f)) max displacement at 100 m/s. (a), (b) Nominal model;
(c), (d) for reduction in overburden pressure; and (e), (f) for reduction in elastic modulus
an important role. At higher train speeds, the induced
vibrations were accumulated in a very small span of
time. However, with lower train speeds, differential
settlement and heaving decreased.
(5) This study will assist in the design of underground
as well as ground structures. The effect of moving train
vibrations needs to be considered while designing new
structures, since for nearby tunnels, even a minute
amount of differential settlement can lead to great
devastation. The effect of moving train vibrations should
also be analyzed to provide suitable ground improvement
techniques to reduce the vibrational effects on existing
structures near the tunnels and to provide safety for
nearby inhabitants.
References
Degrande G, Schevenels M, Chatterjee P, Van de Velde
W, Hölscher P, Hopman V and Dadkah N (2006),
“Vibrations Due to a Test Train at Variable Speeds in a
Deep Bored Tunnel Embedded in London Clay,” Journal
of Sound and Vibration, 293(3-5): 626–644.
Feizi D, Marnani JA, Alielahi H and Panji M (2022),
“Seismic Ground Amplification Induced by Box-Shaped
Tunnels,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, 21(3): 697–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11803-022-2119-y
Feng SJ, Li FH, Zhang XL, Dong GW and Li JP (2021),
“In-Situ Experimental Investigation of the Influence of
Structure Characteristics on Subway-Induced Building
Vibrations,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, 20(3): 673–685.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration) (2006), Transit
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Department of
Transportation, USA.
Gutowski TG and Dym CL (1976), “Propagation of
Ground Vibration: A Review,” Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 49(2): 179–193.
Hatzigeorgiou GD and Beskos DE (2010), “Soil–
Structure Interaction Effects on Seismic Inelastic
Analysis of 3-D Tunnels,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 30(9): 851–861.
Hong J and Liu W (2006), “Analysis of Effects Induced
by Subway Train on Surrounding Building Vibration,”
Journal of Vibration and Shock, 25(4): 142–145.
Di HG, Guo HJ, Zhou SH, Wang BL, He C and Zhang
XH (2022), “An Analytical Model for Evaluating the
Dynamic Response of a Tunnel Embedded in Layered
Foundation Soil with Different Saturations,” Earthquake
 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 21(3): 663–
681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-022-2120-5
Hood RA, Greer RJ, Breslin M and Williams PR
(1996), “The Calculation and Assessment of Ground-
Borne Noise and Perceptible Vibration from Trains in
Tunnels,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, 193(1): 215–
225.
Hung HH and Yang YB (2010), “Analysis of Ground
Vibrations Due to Underground Trains by the 2.5D Finite/
Infinite Element Approach,” Earthquake Engineering
and Engineering Vibration, 9(3): 327–335.
Kouroussis G, Connolly DP and Verlinden O (2014),
“Railway-Induced Ground Vibrations—A Review
of Vehicle Effects,” International Journal of Rail
Transportation, 2(2): 69–110.
Krylov V and Ferguson C (1994), “Calculation of
Low-Frequency Ground Vibrations from Railway
Trains,” Applied Acoustics, 42(3): 199–213.
Kurzweil LG (1979), “Ground-Borne Noise and
Vibration from Underground Rail Systems,” Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 66(3): 363–370.
Lin KC, Hung HH, Yang JP and Yang YB (2016),
“Seismic Analysis of Underground Tunnels by the 2.5D
Finite/Infinite Element Approach,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 85: 31–43.
Lin SY, Hung HH, Yang JP and Yang YB (2017),
“Seismic Analysis of Twin Tunnels by a Finite/
Infinite Element Approach,” International Journal of
Geomechanics, 17(9): 04017060.
Melke J (1988), “Noise and Vibration from
Underground Railway Lines: Proposals for a Prediction
Procedure,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, 120(2):
391–406.
Metrikine AV and Vrouwenvelder ACWM (2000),
“Surface Ground Vibration Due to a Moving Train in
a Tunnel: Two-Dimensional Model,” Journal of Sound
and Vibration, 234(1): 43–66.
Midas GTS-NX (2019), Geotechnical and Tunnel
Analysis System Reference Manual for Modelling,
Integrated Design and Analysis, Midas Corporation,
Korea.
Nejati HR, Ahmadi M and Hashemolhosseini H (2012),
“Numerical Analysis of Ground Surface Vibration
Induced by Underground Train Movement,” Tunneling
and Underground Space Technology, 29: 1–9.
Pan CS and Xie ZG (1990), “Measurement and
Analysis of Vibrations Caused by Passing Trains in
Subway Running Tunnel,” China Civil Engineering
Journal, 23(2): 21‒28. (in Chinese)
Real T, Zamorano C, Ribes F and Real JI (2015), “Train-
Induced Vibration Prediction in Tunnels Using 2D and
3D FEM Models in Time Domain,” Tunneling and
Underground Space Technology, 49: 376–383.
Singh M, Viladkar MN and Samadhiya NK (2017),
“Seismic Analysis of Delhi Metro Underground
Tunnels,” Indian Geotechnical Journal, 47(1): 67–83.
Soni S (2015), “Static and Dynamic Response of Delhi
Metro Tunnels,” Doctoral Dissertation, IIT Delhi, India.
Trochides A (1991), “Ground-Borne Vibrations in
Buildings Near Subways,” Applied Acoustics, 32(4):
289–296.
Vadillo EG, Herreros J and Walker JG (1996),
“Subjective Reaction to Structurally Radiated Sound
from Underground Railways: Field Results,” Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 193(1): 65–74.
Wang HF, Lou ML, Chen X and Zhai YM (2013),
“Structure–Soil–Structure Interaction Between
Underground Structure and Ground Structure,” Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 54: 31–38.
Yadav HR (2005), “Geotechnical Evaluation and Analysis
of Delhi Metro Tunnels,” Doctoral Dissertation, IIT
Delhi, India.
Yang WB, Qian ZH, Tu JL, Zhou ZY, Yan QX, Fang
Y and He C (2022), “Centrifuge Modelling of Ground-
Borne Vibrations Induced by Railway Traffic in
Underground Tunnels,” Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration, 21(2): 517–528.
Yang YB, Hung HH and Hsu LC (2007), “Ground
Vibrations Due to Underground Trains Considering
Soil-Tunnel Interaction,” Interaction & Multiscale
Mechanics: An International Journal, 1(1): 157–175.
Yang YB and Hung HH (2008), “Soil Vibrations Caused
by Underground Moving Trains,” Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134(11): 1633–
1644.
Yang YB, Liang X, Hung HH and Wu Y (2017),
“Comparative Study of 2D and 2.5D Responses of Long
Underground Tunnels to Moving Train Loads,” Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 97: 86–100.
Yang YB, Liu SJ, Li QM and Ge PB (2019), “Stress
Waves in Half-Space Due to Moving Train Loads by
2.5D Finite/Infinite Element Approach”, Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 125: 105714.
Zhang YT, Jiang LZ, Zhou WB, Liu SH, Feng YL, Liu
X and Lai ZP (2022), “Dynamic Response Analysis of a
Multiple-beam Structure Subjected to a Moving Load,”
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,
21(3): 769–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-022-
2106-3
Zou C, Wang Y, Moore J and Sanayei M (2016), “Train-
Induced Field Vibration Measurements of Ground
and Over-Track Buildings,” Science of the Total
Environment, 575: 1339–1351.