View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by UTHM Institutional Repository

INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION APPROACH FOR MONORAIL SYSTEM

DJAMAL HISSEIN DIDANE

A thesis submitted in
fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the
Degree of Master of Science in Railway Engineering

Center For Graduate Studies

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia

JANUARY 2014
 v

ABSTRACT

This study presents an overview on the possibilities of interior noise reduction for
monorail system using passive means. Nine samples out of three materials were
subjected for noise test and the performance of each sample was observed. It is found
that all of these samples have proved to reduce a significant amount noise at low and
high frequencies even though the amount reduced differ from one sample to another.
It is also been noticed that this reductions were denominated by means of absorption
for some samples such as those from rubber material, and it was dominated by means
of reflection for some others such as those from aluminum composite and paper
composite. Moreover, from these different acoustic properties of each material, the
whereabouts to install every material is different as well. It was suggested that, the
rubber material should be installed on the upper floor of the monorail while, the
paper composite should be installed under floor, and the aluminum composite should
be installed at the outer parts from the monorail such as the apron door, ceiling, etc.
However, despite their promising potential to reduce noise, there were few
uncertainties with some samples at certain frequency, for example samples from
aluminum composite could not reduce noise at 1250 Hz which denotes that it is not a
good practice to use this material at that frequency. However, in terms of ranking,
samples from rubber material reduced the largest amount followed by paper
composite samples and aluminum composite samples held the last position as the
least feasible with an average of 26.46%, 24.69% and 16.05% respectively as for the
third sample in every material. This concludes that the passive approach adopted in
this study seems to be feasible.
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE i
DECLERATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATION xv
LIST OF APPENDICES xvi
CHAPETR 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem statement 3
1.3 Aim 3
1.4 Objective 3
1.5 Scope of study 4
1.6 Significance of study 4
1.7 Research limitations 4
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Acoustic noise in railway trains 5
2.3 Noise in the environment 8
2.3.1 Energy environmental advantage of railways 11
2.4 Mechanism of noise generation 13
2.5 Noise sources and reduction methods 16
 vii

2.5.1 Viscoelastic damping materials 18

2.5.2 Rolling noise 21
2.5.2.1 Wheel design 23
2.5.2.2 Wheel dynamics 24
2.5.2.3 Track design 25
2.5.2.4 Track dynamics 26
2.5.2.5 Braking system 26
2.5.2.6 Local shielding 26
2.5.3 Aerodynamic noise 27
2.5.3.1 Pantograph noise 28
2.5.3.2 Aerodynamic noise in the bogie area 29
2.5.3.3 Nose of the power car 30
2.5.4 Locomotive exhaust noise 30
2.5.5 Traction motor noise 32
2.5.6 Cooling fans 32
2.5.7 Structure born noise 33
2.5.8 Horn noise 33
2.5.9 Curve squeal 34
2.6 Recommended exposure limit (REL) 34
2.7 Literature review summary 37
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 39
3.1 Introduction 39
3.2 The details of the experimental samples 42
3.3 Experimental equipment 42
3.3.1 Sound level meter 42
3.3.2 Impedance tube kit 45
3.3.3 Acrylic box 46
3.4 Testing materials 47
3.4.1 Rubber sheet 47
3.4.2 Aluminum composite 48
3.4.3 Paper composite 51
3.5 Testing procedure 53
3.6 Mathematical formulation 54
 viii

3.6.1 Decibel (dB) 54

3.6.2 Sound power and pressure level 55
3.6.3 Sound equivalent level 56
3.6.4 Sound intensity level 56
3.6.5 Acoustic impedance 57
3.7 Current existing interior noise level 58
3.8 Selection and measuring techniques 60
3.9 Experimental work 61
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 63
4.1 Introduction 63
4.2 Empty box 64
4.3 Rubber sheet 65
4.3.1 Acoustic properties 65
4.3.2 R3 67
4.3.3 R6 70
4.3.4 R9 72
4.3.5 Comparison between R3, R6 & R9 75
4.4. Aluminum composite 77
4.4.1 Acoustic properties 77
4.4.2 AC3 78
4.4.3 AC6 81
4.4.4 AC9 83
4.4.5 Comparison between AC3, AC6 & AC9 86
4.5 Paper composite 88
4.5.1 Acoustic properties 88
4.5.2 PC3 89
4.5.3 PC6 92
4.5.4 PC9 94
4.5.5 Comparison between PC3, PC6 & PC9 97
4.6 Comparison of all samples 99
4.7 Synthesis 102
4.7.1 Rubber 102
4.7.2 Aluminum composite 103
 ix

4.7.3 Paper composite 104

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 105
5.1 Conclusions 105
5.2 Synthesis 106
5.3 Recommendations 107
REFERENCES 108
APPENDIX 111
 x

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Noise annoyance for the population in the old states 9

of Germany
2.2 Energy efficiency of various forms of transport 12
2.3 Share of energy consumption and transport 13
volumes for rail
2.4 Frequency range for different types of railway noise 14
2.5 Identification of sources 17
2.6 Measured noise reduction obtained for various wheel
and track treatments in Silent Freight and Silent Track
projects to nearest whole dB 24
2.7 Noise exposure levels and durations that no worker
shall equal or exceed 36
3.1 Details of the experimental samples 42
3.2 Sound Level Meter (SLM) specifications 43
3.3 Specification of rubber sheet 47
3.4 Technical specifications for paper composite 52
3.5 Noise level when all the main and auxiliary
equipment switched ON at full load 58
3.6 Noise level when all the main and auxiliary equipment
switched ON at minimum load (HVAC OFF) 58
3.7 Proposed installation locations 62
4.1 Noise level at different frequency for empty box 64
4.2 Noise level comparison for R3 68
4.3 Noise level comparison for R6 71
4.4 Noise level comparison for R9 73
4.5 Noise level comparison for R3, R6 & R9 75
 xi

4.6 Noise level comparison for AC3 79

4.7 Noise level comparison for AC6 82

4.8 Noise level comparison for AC9 84

4.9 Noise level comparison for AC3, AC6 & AC9 86

4.10 Noise level comparison for PC3 90

4.11 Noise level comparison for PC6 93

4.12 Noise level comparison for PC9 95

4.13 Noise level comparison for PC3, PC6 & PC9 98

4.14 Noise level comparison for all samples 100

 xii

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Power spectrum density of the interior acoustic noise 6

2.2 Subjective experienced annoyance of the
federal german population 8
2.3 Typical comparisons of energy consumption
(litres of fuel) and carbon dioxide emissions (kg) for
various modes of transport per 100 passenger-km 13
2.4 Summary of average sound level reductions 15
2.5 Sound transmission loss in one-third octave bands 20
2.6 Schematic diagram of installation of water-based
coatings on the whole internal car body and bitumen
-based damping sheet on the sidewall and floor panel
in the carriage C1 21
2.7 The damping treatment of the car body 21
2.8 Details of the wheel-railed interaction 22
2.9 Transition speed Ut for a high speed wheeled train
(ICE or TGV) with an average level of noise 27
2.10 Schematic diagram for measurement of noise from
high speed train 29
2.11 Components of active-passive system 31
3.1 Methodology flowchart 41
3.2 Impedance tube kit for high and low frequency 45
3.3 Acrylic box 46
3.4 Rubber sheet 48
3.5 Aluminum composite panel structure 50
3.6 Aluminum composite panel 51
3.7 Paper composite material 53
 xiii

3.8 The new monorail during noise measurement 59

3.9 Monorail gearbox 61
4.1 Noise level against frequency for the empty box 65
4.2 Absorption coefficient against frequency for
rubber material without an air gap 66
4.3 Absorption coefficient against frequency for
rubber material with a 10 mm air gap 67
4.4 Noise level against frequency for R3 69
4.5 Comparing noise level for R3 and empty box 69
4.6 Noise level against frequency for R6 70
4.7 Noise level against frequency for empty box and R6 72
4.8 Noise level against frequency for R9 74
4.9 Noise level against frequency for empty box and R9 74
4.10 Noise level against frequency for R3, R6 & R9 76
4.11 Average percentage difference for R3, R6 & R9 77
4.12 Absorption coefficient against frequency for
aluminum composite 78
4.13 Noise level against frequency for AC3 80
4.14 Noise level against frequency for empty box and AC3 80
4.15 Noise level against frequency for AC6 81
4.16 Noise level against frequency for empty box and AC6 83
4.17 Noise level against frequency for AC9 85
4.18 Noise level against frequency for empty box and AC9 85
4.19 Noise level against frequency for AC3, AC6 & AC9 87
4.20 Average percentage difference for AC3, AC6 & AC9 88
4.21 Absorption coefficient against frequency for
paper composite 89
4.22 Noise level against frequency for PC3 91
4.23 Noise level against frequency for empty box and PC3 91
4.24 Noise level against frequency for PC6 92
4.25 Noise level against frequency for empty box and PC6 94
4.26 Noise level against frequency for PC9 96
4.27 Noise level against frequency for empty box and PC9 96
 xiv

4.28 Noise level against frequency for PC3, PC6 & PC9 97
4.29 Average percentage difference for PC3, PC6 & PC9 99
4.30 Noise level against frequency for all samples 101
4.31 Average percentage difference for all samples 101
4.32 Monorail inner view 102
4.33 The new four car monorail 103
 xv

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATION

dB - Decibel

I - Sound intensity level

Ire - Reference intensity standardized as 10-12 W/m2

Lp - Sound pressure level

Lw - Sound power level

Pre - Reference pressure of 20µ Pa

P - Sound pressure radiated by the source, Pa

U - Volume flow

Wre - Reference power 10-12 watt

W - Sound power radiated by the source, w

Z - Acoustic impedance
 xvi

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A Experimental setup 111

B Experimental samples 113
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Rail transport is perceived as one of the most efficient and environmental friendly means
of transport. That is due to its potential of being safer, comfortable, environmental friendly
and energy efficient form of transport. These characteristics have led to a considerable
expansion of their role in the movement of freight, in long-distance high-speed passenger
travel, and also to solve congestion in densely populated areas, in the form of light rail
and tramway systems. Railways are therefore entering a new era of higher speeds and
higher capacities both for intercity and urban systems and are set to play their part in
reducing the environmental burden caused by the steady growth in road transport [1].
Unfortunately, the noise pollution from railways is significant, as several
investigations have identified noise and vibrations as key factors to high comfort [2]. Due
to this need to improve the quality, comfort level and the environmental requirements of
railway transportation system, train operators and manufacturers have become more
concerned with noise and vibration reduction in train coaches [3]. This concern arises
from two different demands, both having in mind the improvement of passenger comfort.
On one hand, from environmental authorities who are interested in reducing the general
noise level emitted into the surroundings. On the other hand, is due to the necessity of
 2

railway train operators to improve their competitiveness within the passenger transport
market by offering more comfortable journeys, but at the same time to produce lighter
train coaches. These two trends have led to increasingly sophisticated noise specifications
for modern railway trains, including maximum noise levels under conditions such as full-
speed running, acceleration, braking, standing, and parking, whether the train is at a
ground level, in a tunnel or on a bridge, either in a straight path, or in a curve [3]. As a
result, the quality and the ride comfort of the passengers on monorail will not be achieved
without mitigating the noise level within the monorail car as minimum as possible in order
to satisfy customer needs as well as maintaining low environmental noise.
Besides, as the evolvement of high speed train and less traditional methods of
coach construction are now being considered, it is necessary to assess in advance the
possible acoustic consequences of any proposed changes. This can hardly be done without
a clear understanding of certain basic features of noise field characterization inside and
outside railway trains. When these features are understood it becomes possible not only
to forecast the effects of changes but also to modify train design. Thus, through the
inclusion of advanced means of noise reduction mechanisms, a considerable reduction of
the internal sound pressure level inside the train/monorail coach will eventually improve
passenger comfort to a satisfactory level [3].

In the normal train, one of the major problems is to prevent noise and vibrations
generated by exterior sources, such as the wheel–rail rolling noise and the braking noise.
However, unlike the normal train, the major source of noise on the monorail is not from
the wheel-rail interaction, nor from the braking system, because it runs on beams. But
rather, the source is actually coming mainly from the propulsion system (gearbox). As a
result, this study is going to focus on finding ways to reduce noise level on the monorail
by identifying different types of materials with low frequency; since the noise type on the
monorail is a low frequency noise, and noise absorptive or reflective materials to insulate
the interior surfaces of the monorail coach (apron door, under floor and the roof) which
will have a considerable noise reduction on the internal noise of the monorail coach.
 3

1.2 Problem statement

Railways are proven to be a sustainable and climate friendly means of transport. However,
they do influence the environment. One of the critical effect is the noise they produce. As
a result, the interior noise reduction has become one important concern of railway
operating environments due to the influence of increased speeds and reduced vehicle
weights for energy efficiency. Thus, in order to ensure that the environmentally-friendly
aspect of the railways is maintained; the noise level in the monorail has to be in a moderate
level that no one would be exposed to noise levels which endanger health and quality of
life. Therefore, this study was conducted to mitigate the noise coming into the monorail
coach/car using suitable materials to insulate the interior surfaces of the monorail
coach/car, and absorbing the noise that already inside the coach interior such the air-
conditioning noise or those penetrated to the coach interior through air-born path, or
transmitted through the panels of the coach, by installing absorptive materials inside the
coach.

1.3 Aim

The purpose of this study is to mitigate the current internal noise level in the monorail
coach/car without changing the existing design of the system.

1.4 Objectives

The objectives of this study are:

i. Characterization of noise reduction performance for each material.

ii. Identify the optimum location and the suitable thickness for every material to be
installed on the Monorail.
 4

1.4 Scope of study

The scopes of this study are:

i. The noise reduction method would mainly focus on low frequency, fire retardant,
light weight, low cost and easy installation materials.

ii. The reduction method would involve variety of different materials.

iii. The technique used should fit the existing design of the monorail coach.

iv. 3D geometrical model or a prototype model will be developed

v. At least 5 dB will be reduced from the existing noise level

1.5 Significance of study

This study is expected to contribute in determining suitable materials to reduce the internal
noise in the monorail coach which will have a positive impact on ride comfort of the
passengers. In addition, the low noise level obtained from this study will also have a good
effect on the environmental noise generated by the monorail. Furthermore, optimal
location with suitable thickness to install every material is identified which will give
insight to the monorail manufactures on where to install these materials.

1.6 Research limitations

The limitations encountered throughout this study are:

i. Budget

ii. Material availability

iii. Weight

iv. Time
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the theoretical background on previous research related to railway
acoustic noise in general and discuss the various sources excite such noise. It also discuss
about the countermeasures have been taken by the concerned parties regarding this noise.
In addition, application of various means such as active and passive means were adopted
in many studies which involved the use of various materials to mitigate such noise was
also have given a look.

2.2 Acoustic noise in railway trains

In normal train, there are two noise sources acoustic noise can be produced from; either
from inside noise sources like the ventilation or air-conditioning systems, or from outside
noise sources like the wheel– rail interaction, the propulsion or hydraulic systems, brakes,
compressor and aerodynamics.

However, acoustic noise can reach the coach interior by two different routes: the
air-borne path and the structure-borne path. In the airborne path, sound is radiated directly
 6

from a source into the surrounding air. This sound is then transmitted through the panels
of the coach. Thus, air-borne sound is mainly transmitted, but not exclusively, through the
air. In the structure-borne path, vibration from a vibration source is transmitted to and
excites the panels of the coach body. These panels then radiate sound to the coach interior.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to split the contribution of each of these noise paths to
the overall interior noise in normal operation [3]. Thus, Botto, Sousa & Costa (2004) have
adopted in their study a more realistic identification method by means of field tests
involving simultaneous measurement of:

i. the interior sound pressure level,

ii. the outside sound pressure level, and
iii. The structural vibration level, i.e. the one that is not caused by the incidence
of air-borne sound, for two different running conditions in which the relative
proportions of the acoustic and vibration inputs differ [3].

Figure 2.1: power spectrum density of the interior acoustic noise: (a) PSD on
a straight path; (b) PSD on a curve [3]

On the other hand, Fan et al. (2008) have revealed that, the propulsion system and
brakes were identified as the main noise sources responsible for the low frequency noise,
 7

while the high frequency noise is due to the wheel/rail interaction as can be seen in Figure
2.1. The same trend is found in the monorail interior noise which is a low frequency noise
and the propulsion system is the found to be the main source [2].

However, Fan et al. (2008) also have found that one of the major problems is to
prevent noise and vibrations generated by exterior sources, e.g. the wheel–rail rolling
noise and the braking noise. The interior noise inside a railway coach is composed of air-
borne at middle and high frequencies and structure-borne sound below 250 Hz. With a
trend towards lighter trains the structure-borne sound will increase. There is a conflict
between light weight structures and low levels of noise and vibrations. It has been proven
difficult to achieve a satisfactory comfort level without adding mass to the structure.
Moreover, they have revealed that Passive damping using viscoelastic materials is simpler
to implement and more cost-effective than semi-active and active techniques [2].

In terms of insulation, Botto et al. (2004) have declared that, the first attempts that
have been made to insulate railway trains against acoustic noise have been based largely
on the assumption that most of the noise is rail-wheel-generated and that the highest level
occurs beneath the train coach. The result is that current train coach floors have quite high
transmission losses at the expenses of heavy thick isolating materials like plywood.
Similarly, the latter assumption could be made on monorail system as well but the highest
noise is from the propulsion system. However, it is by no means clear that the insulation
of other parts of the train coach against airborne sound is equally adequate, nor whether
sufficient isolation against structure-borne noise is provided.

Furthermore, the conventional methods of suppressing acoustic noise using

passive noise absorbers generally do not work well at low frequencies. This is mainly
because at these low frequencies the acoustic wavelength becomes larger when compared
to the thickness of a typical acoustic absorber. It is also difficult to stop low frequency
sound being transmitted from one space to another unless the intervening barrier is very
heavy. Nowadays, in transportation systems, these problems are most of the times difficult
to solve using only passive methods since the solutions are very demanding in terms of
weight and bulk. Independent of the solution to be adopted (passive, active or both), to
 8

reach interior acoustic comfort inside train coaches, a careful analysis is needed towards
acoustic noise characterization inside the train coach [3].

2.3 Noise in the environment

One of the most important environmental stress factors for people in industrialized
societies is noise with the consequence that they may feel annoyed by various noise
sources, although the degree of annoyance differ considerably. Typical environmental
noise sources include road traffic, air traffic, rail traffic, industry, noisy neighbors and
sports facilities. The distribution of the degree of annoyance is shown in Figure 2.2 and
Table 2.1.

Figure 2.2: The subjective experienced annoyance of the federal German

population [7]
 9

Table 2.1: Noise annoyance for the population in the old states of Germany [7]

Noise source Degree of Total Annoyance by town size

(number of inhabitants)
annoyance (%)
< 5000 < 20000 <100000 >100000
Road traffic Strongly 21 16 19 25 22
annoyed
annoyed 51 48 52 48 57
Air traffic Strongly 14 14 16 14 11
annoyed
annoyed 41 44 42 38 38
Rail traffic Strongly 3 2 3 6 3
annoyed
annoyed 19 14 25 16 21
Industrial Strongly 4 3 4 3 4
noise annoyed
annoyed 17 11 18 22 17
Loud Strongly 4 3 5 4 4
neighbors annoyed
annoyed 17 10 17 18 22
Sports Strongly 1 1 1 1 1
facilities annoyed
annoyed 6 5 7 5 6

As it is seen in Figure 2.2 and Table 2.1 the most pervading transportation noise
source is road traffic, with 21% of the people being highly annoyed, followed by air traffic
at 14%, with rail traffic appearing only in third place at 3%. These figures refer to the
Federal Republic of Germany for the year 1993. Rail traffic is less annoying, in general,
than noise from industry and noisy neighbors (4% highly annoyed) [7, 8].

The same trend is found in a number of studies have been undertaken to contrast
road traffic and railway noises through either social surveys or simulated laboratory
 10

experiments. Railway noise has been found to be less annoying in many European studies.
Proposed explanations for such differential annoyance response include differences in
acoustic properties between the two sources, such as frequency characteristics and
loudness and regularity and predictability of noise event intervals. The perception people
and their attitude towards the two modes of transport may also affect their annoyance to
these two individual noise sources. However, a number of Japanese studies showed that
railway noise was no less annoying or even more so than road traffic noise, probably due
to train-induced vibration, socio-cultural factors and differences in train schedule and
average distances of houses to the railway [8, 9].

Moreover, in the study conducted by Kurra, Morimoto & Maekawa (1998) the
road and rail difference was confirmed to be greater in urban environments than in rural
areas. Berry compared three U.K. surveys including railway and road traffic noises and
suggested that the railway noise was not always less annoying than road traffic noise. On
the other hand, the regression lines for aircraft and road traffic noise seem to be almost
parallel to each other with a 10 dB(A) constant difference for the same annoyance degree,
implying higher annoyance from aircraft noise. Cooperet et al. in their Heathrow Airport
study, compared the source-specific annoyances expressed on a four-point scale and
showed that aircraft noise caused relatively higher annoyance at Leq (outdoor) = 60
dB(A), whilst below this level, road traffic noise caused higher disturbance [10].

However, Knall (1995) compared with other areas of interference, and found that
communication is the area in which it is generally agreed that railway noise is at its most
annoying. Interference with sleep, on the other hand, was only seldom mentioned, and
was not considered as being so serious; furthermore, it is not closely related to the noise
level due to railway traffic. In addition to the noise level, non-acoustic factors such as
attitude towards the railway, neighborhood environment, sensitivity to noise, etc., also
affect the annoyance reaction to railway traffic noise. With the same average noise level,
rail traffic noise is less annoying than road traffic noise. The degree of this difference is,
however, dependent upon the relevant time period (day or night), upon the absolute level\
and upon the observed annoyance and disturbance variables [7].
 11

While from the Chinese experience, the environmental noise of railway is

generated mainly from two groups of sources, i.e. railway line noises and railway station
noises. Railway line noise includes the whistling noise of locomotives and train operating
noises (composed of rolling noise, traction noise and aerodynamic noise). Railway station
noise includes the whistling noise of locomotives in passenger stations, freight stations,
operating stations, engineering workshop and train workshop as well as loudspeaker
broadcasts in these various places. However, according to a survey of main trunk lines in
china whistle noise can occupy 70% of the total energy in A-weighted equivalent
continuous sound pressure level at some particular sites near railway stations, alongside
some railway line sections in urban regions. This demonstrates that among the existing
railway noise sources whistle noise is the most important in China [11].

Moreover, the loudspeaker used for the purpose of communication and operational
control at railway stations or railway workshops, has become one of the main source of
noise in these areas due to the fact that the A-weighted sound level at 50 m away from the
column-type loudspeaker installed at a high place reaches 80–85 dB [11].

2.3.1 Energy environmental advantage of railways

As in Table 2.2, if a comparison is made in terms of passenger-km, trains can offer

substantial energy efficiencies over other forms of transport. Furthermore, in terms of their
overall contribution to the transport market, trains consume a much lower proportion of
the energy budget than their proportional share of the market as in Table 2.3 and Figure
2.3. As examples, in Sweden trains use only 1.8 per cent of the total transport energy to
carry 7 per cent of the passenger-km and 38 per cent of the freight tonnes-km; in Japan,
with a very high 30 per cent share of the passenger market, trains consume only 7 per cent
of the total transport energy.
Moreover, one of the environmental advantage of the train is its ability to run on
clean forms of electricity, thus reducing emissions while also conserving hydrocarbon
fuels. As shown in Table 2.3, in Switzerland all trains are electric, with 97% of their power
coming from renewable hydropower which makes rail energy consumption about 4%
 12

only. While In France, it is 3.8% only, due to the fact that 77% of the railway passenger-
km are on electric trains, and the vast majority of the energy for which comes from nuclear
power. The case for increasing electrification ratios is therefore very strong on
environmental grounds, particularly if the power is generated from non-fossil fuels;
however, the short-term economic case is often used to prevent this investment for the
future [12].

Table 2.2: Energy efficiency of various forms of transport [12]

Efficiency
Mode Passenger-km/MJ- kg-km/MJ
Human on bicycle 18 1100
(mass 60 kg)
Human walking 5 300
Intercity train 1.7 100
Boeing 747 0.94 56
Urban bus 0.9 55
Car (4 passengers), long 0.7 40
journey
Concorde 0.2 12
Car (1.15 passengers), 0.2 12
urban commuting
 13

Table 2.3: Share of energy consumption and transport volumes for rail [12]

Energy Passenger-km Tonnes-km

Country consumption (%) (%) (%)

Germany 3.3 6.7 19.4

France 3.8 7.5 25

Sweden 1.8 7 38

Switzerland 4 18 35

Figure 2.3: Typical comparisons of energy consumption (litres of fuel) and carbon
dioxide emissions (kg) for various modes of transport per 100 passenger-km [12]

2.4 Mechanism of noise generation

Railway noise is generated from different sources and it can be categorized as air-born
and structure-born noises. Rolling noise is established as originating from structural
vibrations of the wheel, rail and sleepers resulting from the combined surface roughness
of the wheel and running surfaces. Roughness on wheels can be induced by factors such
as the use of tread brakes, especially those made from cast iron [3-5].
 14

However, ground borne vibrations and structure-borne noise mainly occur at low
frequencies (< 50 Hz). Frequencies above this are attenuated increasingly rapidly.
Vibration disturbance is usually caused by the large vertical dynamic forces between
wheels and rails. These forces fluctuate in response to wheel and rail roughness over a
wide range of frequencies.

In addition, the wheel squeal originates from frictional instability in curves

between the wheel and rail. Stick-slip oscillations (more accurately referred to as roll-slip)
excite a wheel resonance; the wheel vibration radiates noise efficiently. In the study
conducted by Eadie et al. (2004) the accepted model involves top of rail (TOR) frictional
instability under lateral creep conditions leading to excitation of out of plane wheel
bending oscillations. These are radiated and heard as squeal. The starting point for squeal
is lateral creep forces that occur as a bogie goes through a curve and the wheel/rail contact
patch becomes saturated with slip (creep saturation). A critical component in all the
modeling work is the requirement that beyond the point of creep saturation, further
increases in creep levels lead to lower coefficient of friction. This is known as negative
friction, referring to the slope of the friction creep curve at saturated creep conditions. In
more general tribological terms, this would be equated to changes in sliding velocity,
rather than the railroad term creep. This leads to roll-slip oscillations between the wheel
and the rail which excite a wheel resonance, and the wheel web radiates the noise [5].

Table 2.4: Frequency range for different types of railway noise [5]

Noise type Frequency range (Hz)

Rolling 30–5000
Flat spots 50–250 (speed dependent)
Ground borne vibrations 4–80
Structure – borne noise 30–200
Top of rail squeal 1000–5000
Flanging noise 5000–10000
 15

However, from the Figure 2.4 shown below it is seen that friction modifiers can
reduce overall noise in curves across a wide range of wheel/rail systems.

Figure 2.4: Summary of average sound level reductions [5]

This work also shows that in practical railways there is a large variation in absolute
sound levels and spectral patterns. These have been characterized across trams, Metro,
and heavy haul freight. The results show that:

i. Friction modifiers reduce squeal noise across all systems considered.

ii. Friction modifiers reduce flanging noise in all transit systems tested, but not
necessarily in freight, where effective gauge face lubrication may also be
required because of the higher lateral and flanging forces, especially in sharper
curves.
iii. For systems with highest overall noise levels, the noise tends to be reduced
across a broader part of the spectrum with friction modifiers.
iv. In one case, some reduction in low frequency vibration has been observed with
friction modifier application [5].
 16

2.5 Noise sources and reduction methods

In the past few years Botto et al. (2004) have conducted an experimental study on active
noise control and applied to a laboratory railway coach model and concluded that, noise
reduction can be achieved by two different methods. The first one consists of using passive
means which are based on the absorption and reflection properties of materials, presenting
excellent noise cancellation properties for frequencies above 1 kHz. The other method
consists of using active means, which can show considerable noise cancellation
performance for noise frequencies below1 kHz. The design of active noise cancellation
systems are based on the principle of wave interference, where a sound is generated with
the same amplitude as the noise source but with an adequate phase shift, in order to cancel
the primary noise. This is usually known as active noise control (ANC) [3]. It is worth to
mention that the noise reduction mechanism that will be adopted in our study is by using
passive means even though the interior noise inside the monorail coach is of low
frequency.

Moreover, the first attempts that have been made to insulate railway trains against
acoustic noise have been based largely on the assumption that most of the noise is rail-
wheel-generated and that the highest level occurs beneath the train coach [3]. However,
this phenomenon is not so on the monorail, because firstly, it is not running on rails, and
secondly, the internal noise level on monorail is mainly coming from the motor or
gearbox, although the highest noise level occurs beneath the monorail coach as well.
Therefore, low frequency and high absorptive materials will be used to reduce such noise
coming from the motor/gearbox in order to reach interior acoustic comfort inside the
monorail coach.

However, Mellet et al. (2006) have adopted the classical acoustic measurements
method to identify the main sources responsible for the noise radiated by high speed trains
and highlight the importance of both the power cars in the overall train noise for speeds
above 300km/h. Hence, the power cars become the main contribution in the overall noise
emitted by the train set at high speed. These measurements have been used to classify
 17

these sources according to their behavior and the speed dependence of their contribution.
Three main families have been identified with the aero-acoustic sources:
i. Aero-acoustic sources mainly composed of the bogies, pantograph and its
accessories and the front windscreen
ii. Rolling noise source composed of wheels.
iii. Unclassified, which have been added to put unclassifiable sources such as the
louvres. Insufficient information is available to discriminate if the noise emitted
by these sources is generated by the flow over these louvres or from the cooling
fan operation [16] as shown in Table 2.5 below.

Table 2.5: Identification of sources [16]

High speed train
Identified sources
First bogie
Second bogie
Front glass
Forward power car Pantograph recess
Wheels
Louvers air inlets
Louvers air outlets
Ventilation
Middle coaches Wheels
Inter-coach gap
Pantograph
Last bogie
Rear power car Wheels
First bogie
Louvers air inlets
 18

2.5.1 Viscoelastic damping materials

Fan et al. (2008) have adopted the material damping in their study and concluded that, the
material damping is able to extract mechanical or acoustical energy from a vibrating
system and convert it into heat, by taking advantage of the viscoelastic damping capacity
around the glass transition region. Taking into account the spectral characteristics in
internal noise in railway vehicles, three new types of damping materials, such as bitumen-
based damping materials, butyl rubber damping materials, and water-based damping
coating, are developed for damping treatment of railway carriages to reduce the dominant
components of noise within carriages [2]. Similarly, this trend will be adopted in our study
as well but by using bitumen-based damping material, cement and acoustic foam.

In addition, there is tuned viscoelastic damper (TVD) similar to a dynamic

absorber or referred to as tuned mass damper. TVDs are generally applicable to reduce
vibration/noise with a single frequency or a narrow band of frequency. Even if they are
designed to reduce vibration/noise frequency at a given frequency, several TVDs with
different frequency range have a wide band effect. The TVDs are very sensitive to the
expected operating temperature range and the glass transition temperature of the
viscoelastic material. Any temperature change in the damping material caused by energy
dissipation into the internal heating is sufficient to alter the dynamic stiffness. This may
lead the TVDs to detune itself. This characteristic of the TVDs makes elastomeric
materials for TVDs only used in the rubbery region where slight changes in temperature
do not have significant effect on the stiffness [2].

Besides, Fan et al. (2008) have also mentioned that the properties of viscoelastic
materials are significantly dependent on environmental conditions such as temperature,
vibration frequency, pre-load, dynamic load, environmental humidity and so on, therefore,
proper surface treatment, dimension and appropriate characteristics of the damping
material is of vital importance for the success of viscoelastic material in adding damping
to the structure system. However, the new method introduced, which used viscoelastic
constraint layers pasted partially on the outside sheeting of the car body. Based on the
theoretical evaluation, it was found at the choice of the optimal length and appropriate
 19

characteristics lead to the maximum damping. These optimum parameters could give birth
to the maximum improvement of riding comfort in a lightweight car body of a high-speed
train. The full scale experimental results of Fan et al. (2008) showed that the riding
comfort level was improved by about 3 dB at 275 km/h [2].

Furthermore, the sound absorption and transmission loss of about 80 samples of

three types of damping materials were measured by the method of standing wave
separation. The sound transmission loss of the least efficient and the most efficient
damping materials among three kinds is illustrated in Figure 2.5. The three types of
damping materials of optimal transmission loss and higher loss factor as shown in Figure
2.5(a), (c) and (e), were selected for the survey study. The bitumen-based damping
materials in Figure 2.5(a) have higher transmission loss at low frequency than the other
two damping materials shown in Figure 2.5(c) and (e). These three types of viscoelastic
damping materials using damping treatment method mentioned above have been applied
to the luxury sleeper carriage to investigate the optimal reduction effect of damping
materials on noise and vibration.

However, Bitumen based and butyl rubber damping sheet were designed to isolate
the transmission of vibration from the bogie frame to the car floor and attenuate the
vibration of the wall panel of car body. Water-based damping compound of synthetic resin
and fillers is suitable to spray onto the whole internal surfaces of the car body to prevent
the transmission of rolling noise through car body [2].

These three types of damping materials were installed on two carriages C1 and C2.
The entire installation of damping materials on the carriage C1 is shown in Figure 2.6.
The two sleeper carriages C1 and C2 were, respectively, equipped with 3.0 mm thickness
of bitumen-based damping sheet and butyl rubber damping sheet on the inner surface of
corrugated steel panel under the car floor, the upper surface of the floor panel and the side
wall 484 mm high above the floor surface, as shown in Figure 2.6 and Figure 2.7(a).
Furthermore, as shown in Figure 2.7(b), the water-based damping compound was sprayed
onto the whole wall surface of the carriage C1 to replace the sprayed common damping
material on the normal sleeper carriage C3.
 20

(a) the best efficient bitumen-based damping material, (b) the least efficient bitumen-based
damping material; (–) bitumen-based damping sheet with thickness of 2.5 mm; (- - -) the
laminate consisting of 1.2 mm thick steel sheet and 2.5 mm thick bitumen-based damping
sheet

(c) the best efficient butyl rubber damping material; (d) the least efficient butyl rubber
damping material; (–) 3 mm thick butyl rubber damping sheet; (- - -) the laminate consisting
of 1.2 mm thick steel sheet and 3 mm thick butyl rubber damping sheet.

(e) The most efficient water-based damping coatings; (f) the least efficient water-based
damping coatings; (–) 2.4 mm thick water-based damping coating; (- - -) the laminate
consisting of 1.2 mm thick steel sheet and 2.4 mm thick water-based damping coating

Figure 2.5: Sound transmission loss in one-third octave bands [2]

 21

Figure 2.6: Schematic diagram of installation of water-based coatings on the

whole internal car body and bitumen-based damping sheet on the sidewall and floor
panel in the carriage C1 [2]

Figure 2.7: The damping treatment of the car body: (a) the equipment of damping sheets
on the corrugated steel panel and side wall of the car body and (b) the car body sprayed
with water-based damping coating [2]

2.5.2 Rolling noise

Rolling noise is caused by structural vibrations of the wheel, rail and sleepers induced by
the combined surface roughness of the wheel and rail running surfaces. It also transmits
 22

vibrations to other parts of the train. Therefore, in the recent years the main focus of
research into rolling noise has been the application of theoretical models to the design of
low noise wheels and tracks. Furthermore, Thompson et al. (1995) have further clarified
that, when a railway wheel rolls on straight or slightly curved track in the absence of
discontinuities, a broadband noise is emitted which is known as rolling noise. Theoretical
models for this rolling noise have been substantially developed by them [13]. They added
that rolling noise is generated by surface irregularities (roughness) on the wheel and/or
rail running surface. These roughnesses introduce a relative vibration between the wheel
and the rail, the consequent wheel and rail vibrations radiating noise [1, 4, 13, 14].

Moreover, as in Figure 2.8, the roughness induces a vertical relative displacement

between the wheel and rail or in the Hertzian contact spring, the motion of each depending
on the relative amplitudes (and phases) of their receptances. The local contact defections
are represented by a linearized incremental stiffness, which is valid only for relatively
small amplitudes, but allows the model to be implemented in the frequency domain [13].
In contrast, this trend is not so in monorail system, because it does not run on rails
and thus the main source of noise is from the propulsion system.

Figure 2.8: Details of the wheel-railed interaction [13]

 23

2.5.2.1 Wheel design

The shape of the wheel also has turned out to have significant effect on the noise generated
by the wheel-rail interface. Optimized wheel designs using theoretical models have been
considered for some time. However, in the OFWHAT project an optimized wheel shape
was designed and implemented that had a thick web and diameter of 860 mm. This was
predicted to reduce the wheel component by 4 dB although in field tests only 1 dB
reduction was measured. The design was, in any case, unsuitable for application in tread-
braked vehicles. In Silent Freight, optimized wheel shapes were again studied. In this case,
the thermo-mechanical requirements of tread braking had to be taken into account, which
imposed a further constraint. Two 860 mm diameter wheels were produced, each predicted
to reduce the wheel noise by 3 dB; experimental results showed modest reductions.
However, for a disc-braked wheel, the potential of shape optimization is much greater
than for a tread-braked wheel.

Wheel shape optimization was attempted on a TGV in France as well, producing

4–5 dB less noise in the frequency range above 1.6 kHz where the wheel is expected to
dominate. A small (640 mm diameter) straight-webbed design has been shown to produce
as much as 18 dB reduction in wheel noise compared with a conventional wheel, although
the track component of noise can increase slightly due to a shift in the contact filter effect
[4]. The other main area in which wheel noise reductions are sought is in added damping.
More recently such damping treatments have also been used in attempts to reduce rolling
noise. A reductions of 3–4 dB was predicted in the wheel component of noise.

An alternative method of adding damping is a tuned absorber system. Absorbers

of various designs have been used on railway wheels for many years in Germany with
success. Applications elsewhere have been less successful. Simple tuned absorbers were
used in the OFWHAT project and achieved a 4 dB reduction, while in the Silent Freight
project reductions of up to 7 dB were found in combination with optimized wheels. A
wheel cover, which shielded the wheel web, was also studied in Silent Freight. This, in
combination with the optimized wheel design, also reduced the wheel noise by about 8
dB. Table 2.6 summarizes the main results obtained in the combined final tests of the
 24

Silent Freight and Silent Track projects. The first column of results indicates the reduction
in the wheel component of noise compared to the reference wheel and the first row
similarly the reduction in track component of noise. The remaining figures are reductions
in overall noise due to the various combinations of measures [4]. However, all of these
optimization techniques are not applicable in the monorail system due to some reasons
mentioned earlier.

Table 2.6: Measured noise reduction obtained for various wheel and track
treatments in Silent Freight and Silent Track projects to nearest whole dB [4]

Wheel Stiffer Reference Stiffer New New

noise pads track + pads + track track+
reduction absorbers absorbers absorbers
Track noise - 2 6 5 3 7
reduction
Perforated wheel 4 2 6 4 2 6
with ring damper
Optimized wheel 8 3 7 5 4 8
with shields
Optimized wheel 7 3 7 6 4 8
with tuned
absorbers

2.5.2.2 Wheel dynamics

It is also found that the wheel dynamics also has an effect on the vibration created and that
will increase the total amount of noise produced. A railway wheel is a very lightly damped
resonant body, which can be characterized readily by its normal modes. Axial modes are
categorized by the number of nodal diameters (n) and the number of nodal circles (m)
radial modes are also important and are categorized by the number of nodal diameters.
However, from the simulation model developed by Thompson et al. (1995) it is found to
 108

REFERENCES

1. Fan, Rongping, et al. "Experimental study of the effect of viscoelastic damping

materials on noise and vibration reduction within railway vehicles." Journal of
Sound and Vibration 319.1 (2009): 58-76.
2. M. Ayala Botto, J.M.C. Sousa and J.M.G.Sá da Costa, “Intelligent Active
Noise Control Applied to a Laboratory Railway Coach Model,” Control
Engineering Practice, 13 (2005), 473–84
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2004.04.009>.
3. Talotte, C., et al. "Identification, modelling and reduction potential of railway
noise sources: a critical survey." Journal of Sound and Vibration 267.3 (2003):
447-468.
4. Eadie, Donald T., Marco Santoro, and Joe Kalousek. "Railway noise and the
effect of top of rail liquid friction modifiers: changes in sound and vibration
spectral distributions in curves." Wear 258.7 (2005): 1148-1155.
5. Sayed Abas Ali, “Railway Noise Levels, Annoyance and Countermeasures in
Assiut, Egypt,” Applied Acoustics, 66 (2005), 105–13
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2004.06.005>.
6. Obermeyer Planen, “RAILWAY NOISE AND VIBRATION : EFFECTS
AND CRITERIA,” 193 (1996), 9–20.
7. Lam, Kin-Che, et al. "Annoyance response to mixed transportation noise in
Hong Kong." Applied Acoustics 70.1 (2009): 1-10.
8. Cinzia Buratti, Elisa Belloni and Elisa Moretti, “Façade Noise Abatement
Prediction: New Spectrum Adaptation Terms Measured in Field in Different
Road and Railway Traffic Conditions,” Applied Acoustics, 76 (2014), 238–48
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2013.08.016>.
9. S. Kurra, M. Morimoto and Z.I. Maekawa, “Transportation Noise
Annoyance—a Simulated-Environment Study for Road, Railway and Aircraft
 109

Noises, Part 1: Overall Annoyance,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, 220

(1999), 251–78 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jsvi.1998.1928>.
10. Gu Xiaoan, “Railway Environmental Noise Control in China,” Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 293 (2006), 1078–85
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2005.08.058>.
11. Yano, T., T. Yamashita, and K. Izumi. "Comparison of community
annoyance from railway noise evaluated by different category
scales." Journal of sound and Vibration 205.4 (1997): 505-511.
12. Xuetao Zhang, “The Directivity of Railway Noise at Different Speeds,”
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 329 (2010), 5273–88
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2010.07.003>.
13. Tassi, Patricia, et al. "Living alongside railway tracks: Long-term effects of
nocturnal noise on sleep and cardiovascular reactivity as a function of
age."Environment international 36.7 (2010): 683-689.
14. Smith, R. A. "Railways: how they may contribute to a sustainable
future."Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F:
Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit 217.4 (2003): 243-248.
15. Thompson, D. J., B. Hemsworth, and N. Vincent. "Experimental validation
of the TWINS prediction program for rolling noise, part 1: description of the
model and method." Journal of sound and vibration 193.1 (1996): 123-135.
16. Talotte, C. "Aerodynamic noise: a critical survey." Journal of Sound and
Vibration 231.3 (2000): 549-562.
17. Bewes, O. G., et al. "Calculation of noise from railway bridges and viaducts:
Experimental validation of a rapid calculation model." Journal of Sound and
Vibration 293.3 (2006): 933-943.
18. Mellet, C., et al. "High speed train noise emission: Latest investigation of the
aerodynamic/rolling noise contribution." Journal of sound and
vibration 293.3 (2006): 535-546.
19. Thompson, D. J., and C. J. C. Jones. "A review of the modelling of wheel/rail
noise generation." Journal of sound and vibration 231.3 (2000): 519-536.
20. Remington, P., et al. "A hybrid active-passive system for controlling
locomotive exhaust noise." InterNoise00 (2000).
 110

21. Lei, Shi, et al. "Numerical Analysis of Aerodynamic Noise of a High-Speed

Pantograph." Digital Manufacturing and Automation (ICDMA), 2013 Fourth
International Conference on. IEEE, 2013.
22. L Rosenstock, “Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise
Exposure,” National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health., 1998, 1–
132 <http://dx.doi.org/No. 98-126>.
23. Kooijman, P. P., et al. "Curve squeal of railbound vehicles (part 2): set-up for
measurement of creepage dependent friction coefficient." Proceedings of
Internoise, Nice, France 3 (2000): 1564-1567.