Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
12.3
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Assessment
12.3.1 Introduction
The impact from ground-borne vibration from rail transit systems is evident from two main
effects:
•
Perceptible vibration, i.e. vibration of floors, walls, etc. inside buildings that can be
perceived by humans through tactile sensation, contact of whole body parts with the
vibrating surfaces or audible motion such as the rattling of windows; and
•
Low frequency noise, i.e. sound waves usually radiated by the vibrating surfaces inside
buildings that are perceived by the human ear as noise.
In contrast with airborne noise, ground-borne vibration is a phenomenon most people do not
experience everyday as the background vibration level in most residential areas is well below the
threshold of vibration for humans (in the order of 0.01 m/s2) but is highly dependent on direction,
position and frequency. Human response to vibration is a very new and complex specialist field.
Many countries, including South Africa, are only now recognising the impact that vibration may
have on the comfort and health of the population. There is also a lack of standards and assessment
criteria that can be used to conduct a vibration impact assessment (a useful reference on the topic
is ‘The Handbook of Human Vibration’ by M.J. Griffin).
Low frequency noise, usually defined as noise below 250 Hz, frequently results from vibration that
propagates through foundations of buildings and structures which then excites surfaces inside,
such as walls, floors and ceilings, to vibrate. This vibratory motion results in sound waves that
propagate through the air and are perceived by the human ear as noise. It is also possible that low
frequency sound waves may interact with other parts of the human body and thereby be perceived
as a discomfort. In general the levels of low frequency noise causing annoyance is far less than the
levels usually associated with unwanted noise, even when using the A-weighting scale.
The main source of ground-borne vibration for rapid rail transit systems is the interaction between
the wheels of the carriages and the track. Obviously worn (or flat) wheels and/or worn tracks will
increase the level of vibration. Furthermore, special track work such as switches will also increase
the level of vibration. In the transmission of this vibration through the rock and/or soil, the two
main sources of attenuation are geometric spreading and the dispersion of vibration energy
through frictional losses in the media. Once the vibration reaches a building it is transferred
Noise and Vibration Study
12-27
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
through the foundations into the structure. Any structural resonances that may be excited will
increase the effect of the vibration.
12.3.2 Descriptors for Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise
Vibration, which is defined as oscillatory motion of a particle, body or surface, needs to be
described by at least two quantities, one relating to the frequency, or frequency content, of the
vibration and the other to the amplitude of the motion.
The most commonly used measure for frequency is Hertz (Hz), which is a measure of the number
of oscillations that occur per second. Frequently a vibration contains more than one frequency and
then it is possible to refer to vibration in a frequency range. Computing the third-octave values of
the vibration can also represent the spectral distribution. It is possible to eliminate the notion of
frequency by calculating the R.M.S. or root mean square, of the vibration. To retain the notion of
frequency it is possible to calculate the R.M.S. value for a particular frequency range, or
alternatively by applying relevant frequency related weighting functions, or filters, as defined in
various standards and textbooks.
The amplitude of vibration can be given as displacement, velocity or acceleration measures. The
most commonly used measures are velocity in metres per second (m/s) or in some instances as
millimetres per second (mm/s) and acceleration in metres per second per second (m/s2).
Frequently acceleration is also expressed in the unit g, which refers to the gravitational
acceleration constant and is commonly taken to be equal to 9.8 m/s2.
It is also possible to express vibration levels as a logarithmic scale in decibels, similar to sound
pressure levels for expressing noise. The relevant calculations are:
v
Lv = 20 log10 
 vr



a
La = 20 log10 
 ar
for velocity levels, and



for acceleration
levels
with the reference levels vr = 10-9 m/s and ar = 10-6 m/s2 respectively as specified in ISO 1683.
In this report, both velocity and acceleration measures are used depending on the applicable
standard and calculation procedure. However all units adhere to the standard SI system and
therefore velocity is expressed in m/s and acceleration in m/s2. When the logarithmic scale is used
the reference levels defined above apply. When reporting vibration levels in decibels the units are
specified as dBV in this report to distinguish it from dBA, which is used for A-weighted noise
levels, and only refers to velocity levels.
Noise and Vibration Study
12-28
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
Hence, in this report when vibration is expressed as a vibration (or velocity) level it will be
designated as dBV and the reference value, vr = 10-9 m/s used to calculate it.
12.3.3 Standards and Regulations Regarding Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise
There are no regulations in South Africa pertaining to the impact of ground-borne vibration.
However, there is at least one national standard dealing with the effect of vibration on buildings,
viz. SABS ISO 4866:1990 “Mechanical Vibration and Shock – Vibration of Buildings – Guidelines
for the Measurement of Vibrations and Evaluation of their effects on Buildings”. It is not known
whether there has ever been any in-depth investigation into the environmental impact of vibration
in South Africa, or a detailed assessment of the vibration impact of any proposed project to date.
The current tendency in South Africa regarding the regulation of noise and vibration measurement
and assessment is to follow developments in Europe. One manifestation of this is the adoption of
existing ISO standard as SABS standards or codes of practise, SABS ISO 4866:1990 being a case
in point. The use of 85 dBA as a limit for an eight-hour noise exposure level in SA legislation,
versus 90 dBA as used in the USA, is another example. In this regard are there two existing ISO
standards, viz. ISO 2631-1 1997 “Guide for the Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole Body
Vibration – Part 1: General”, and ISO 2631-2 1989 “Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole
Body Vibration – Part 2: Continuous and Shock Induced Vibration in Buildings (1 to 80 Hz”),
which deal with the evaluation of human exposure to whole corpse vibration. Although these
standards are reasonably clear on the measurement and assessment procedures they are very vague
in defining appropriate exposure limits. Of these, only ISO 2631-1 1991 has been incorporated as
an SABS standard, namely SABS ISO 2631-1 1991 “Guide for the Evaluation of Human Exposure
to Whole Body Vibration – Part 1: General”.
ISO 2631-1 1991 is similar to an equivalent British Standard, BS 6841: British Standard Guide to
Measurement and Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-body Mechanical Vibration and
Repeated Shock, which came about partially through the efforts of Prof M.J. Griffin at the ISVR,
University of Southampton. More recent work in Britain, the EIA of the Channel Tunnel Rail
Link (CTRL) by Ashdown Environmental Ltd. Hood et al. 1996, made use of this standard, and
the vibration dose value (VDV) defined therein, to assess the vibration impact of trains in tunnel.
In the USA the Department of Transportation refers mainly to US standards. In a report on
‘Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment’, 1995, reference is made to both ISO 2631-2
1989 and ANSI S3.29-1983 (ASA 48-1983), America National Standard: Guide to Evaluation of
Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings.
Noise and Vibration Study
12-29
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
It is proposed that for this project the vibration measurement and assessment guidelines described
in ISO 2631 Parts 1 and 2 be followed. The guidelines proposed in Appendix A of ISO 2631-2
were used to assess the vibration impact.
12.3.4 Assessment Procedure
•
Methodology used in Predicting Vibration and Noise Levels
Various methods to predict the vibration levels due to new underground rail systems have
been used in the past. One approach is to make extensive use of measured data, both to
determine the vibration levels of the source (trains) as well as the attenuation in the
transmission path. The data are then correlated with empirically derived predictions, which in
turn are used to predict the vibration level of the new installation, see Hood et al., 1996. For
this approach, detailed information regarding the types of trains, operational procedures and
construction details is required.
At the same time, similar systems, types of trains and
construction methods, must be accessible for measurement purposes.
It is also possible to approach the problem in a more fundamental way. If one assumes that the
strength of the source can be accurately measured or predicted then the vibration energy is
attenuated in the transmission path. The first link in this chain is the construction of the
railway itself. The coupling between the rail and the surrounding geological formation need to
be accurately measured, or modelled, to determine how much energy, originating from the
wheel-rail interaction, is transferred to the surrounding rock or soil. From here the vibration is
mainly attenuated by geometric spreading and material damping. The first is a function of the
radial distance from the source that the vibration energy travels while the second depends on
the material properties of the material that govern the frictional losses as the waves pass
through it. Additional effects, such as reflection and refraction at discontinuities as well as
other phenomena, such as dispersion, that may occur confound these calculations. At present
there is still a lack of understanding as to how geological formations influence the vibration
attenuation. It is, therefore, a very costly approach requiring detailed information and analysis,
which may still not produce reliable results.
Another more general approach is suggested in ‘Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment’, 1995, where a general assumption is made on the strength of the source and the
attenuation of the vibration with distance from the source, irrespective if it is through the
ground or along the surface. The work in this report was later extended to include high-speed
trains, ‘High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment’, 1998. In
this later report some additions were made specific to high-speed transit systems and the graph
Noise and Vibration Study
12-30
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
depicting the input vibration strength and attenuation with distance updated to reflect the case
of a train travelling at 240 km/h. The proposed methodology is that a base curve, representing
an upper-bound for typical high-speed train ground vibration measurements, is adjusted by
various factors to incorporate known characteristics of the system being analysed such as
construction of the track and tunnel; depth and geology of the soil; and the type and
construction of the building where the receiver is positioned. Both a more general approach,
used for planning and when insufficient information is available, as well as a detailed vibration
assessment procedure, including measurements to determine source strength and transmission
characteristics, is presented.
For this project, the more general approach to predict the
vibration levels was followed. In order to do this it was important to make certain assumptions
regarding the source of the vibration. For this study it is assumed that it will be a rapid rail
system making use of electrical power in distributed propulsion units. A typical configuration
will consist of four carriages with the two at either end having two sets of driving axles. The
strength of the vibration source is expressed as a vibration velocity level, Lv, in dBV. In
Figure 12.1 the vibration levels from High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment, 1998, which was used for this assessment, are shown. These values were
adjusted according to the adjustments listed in Table 12.3 (note: Table 12.3 is based on Table
10-1 of ‘High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment’, 1998,
with some key deviations that are highlighted and explained in the text below).
Vibration Levels due to Trains Travelling at High Speed
RMS Vibration Level [dBV]
140
240 km/h
120
180 km/h
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
10
100
1000
Distance from trackcentreline [m]
Figure 12.1:
Vibration Levels from High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment, 1998 .
Noise and Vibration Study
12-31
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Table 12.3:
Adjustment factors for predicting ground-borne vibration
Factor
Adjustment Value
Speed
Vehicle Speed
Resilient wheels
Comment
Adjustment
(Reference Speed 240 km/h)
0 dB
-1.6 dB
-2.5 dB
-3.5 dB
-4.7 dB
-7.6 dB
240 km/h
200 km/h
180 km/h
160 km/h
120 km/h
100 km/h
0 dB
(Taken as 0 dB in this study)
Worn wheels or
wheel with flats
Worn or
corrugated track
+10 dB
(Taken as 0 dB in this study)
+10 dB
(Taken as 0 dB in this study)
Crossovers and
other special
track-work
Jointed track
+10 dB
(Applied where present, e.g. near stations)
Floating
trackbed
slab
Ballast mats
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
+5 dB
(Taken as 0 dB in this study)
-15 dB
(Taken as 0 dB in this study)
High resilience
fasteners
-10 dB
(Taken as 0 dB in this study)
-5 dB
(Taken as 0 dB in this study)
Resiliently
supported ties
-10 dB
(Taken as 0 dB in this study)
Type of track
structure
Relative to at grade tie & ballast:
Aerial/viaduct structure
-10 dB
Open Cut
0 dB
Relative to bored subway tunnel in soil:
Station
-5 dB
Cut and cover
-3 dB
Rock based
-15 dB
Noise and Vibration Study
12-32
Vibration level is approximately proportional
to 20* log10(speed/speedref). In some cases it
has been observed to be as low as 10 to 15*
log10(speed/speedref).
(In this study this adjustment was calculated
based on the predicted vehicle speed)
Resilient wheels do not generally affect
ground-borne vibration except at frequencies
greater than about 80 Hz.
Wheel flats or wheels that are unevenly worn
can cause high vibration levels.
If both wheels and track are worn then only
one adjustment should be used. Corrugated
track is a common problem, however, it is
difficult to predict the conditions that causes
corrugation to occur.
Wheel impacts at special track-work with
standard frogs will significantly increase
vibration levels.
Jointed track causes higher vibration levels
than welded track.
The reduction achieved with a floating slab
track-bed is strongly dependent on the
frequency characteristics of the vibration.
Actual reduction is strongly dependent on
frequency of vibration.
Slab track with track fasteners that are very
compliant in the vertical direction can reduce
vibration at frequencies greater than 40Hz.
Resiliently supported tie systems in tunnels
have been found to provide very effective
control of low frequency vibration.
The general rule is the heavier the structure
the lower the vibration levels. Putting the
track in cut may reduce the vibration slightly.
Rock based subways will create higher
frequency vibration.
(Applied as appropriate in this study)
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
Table 12.3 Cont.
Geologic
conditions
that promote
efficient
vibration
propagation
Coupling to
building
foundation
Floor-to-floor
attenuation
Amplification
due
to
resonance of
floors, walls,
and ceilings
Radiated
sound
Efficient propagation in soil
+10 dB
(Applied as appropriate in this study)
Refer to text for guidance on identifying areas
where efficient propagation is possible.
Adjust
Dist.
15 m
+2 dB
30 m
+4 dB
45 m
+6 dB
60 m
+9 dB
(Applied as appropriate in this study)
Wood frame
-5 dB
1-2 Story commercial
-7 dB
2-4 Story masonry
-10 dB
Large masonry on piles
-10 dB
Large masonry on spread footings -13 dB
Foundation in rock
0 dB
1 to 5 Floors above grade
-2 dB/floor
5 to 10 Floors above grade
-1 dB/floor
(Taken as 0 dB in this study)
+6 dB
The positive adjustment accounts for the lower
attenuation of vibration in rock compared to
soil. Because it is more difficult to get vibration
energy into rock, propagation through rock
usually results in lower vibration than
propagation through soil.
The general rule is the heavier the building
construction the greater the coupling loss.
Propagation in rock
(Taken as 0 dB in this study)
Peak frequency of ground vibration:
Low frequency (<30 Hz)
-78 dB
Typical (Peak 30 to 60 Hz)
-63 dB
High frequency (>60 Hz)
-48 dB
(Applied as appropriate in this study)
(Taken as either -7 dB or -13 dB in this study
depending on the land-use of the area)
This factors accounts for dispersion and
attenuation of the vibration energy as it
propagates through a building.
The actual amplification will vary greatly
depending on the type of construction. The
amplification is lower near the wall/floor and
wall/ceiling intersections.
Use these adjustments to Lv to estimate the Aweighted sound level given the averaged
vibration velocity of the room surfaces. Use the
high frequency adjustment for subway tunnels
in rock.
Train speed: The level of ground-borne vibration increases with train speed. It is proposed
that this increase be predicted as 20 times the logarithm of the speed ratio, or
 speed
∆ Lv = 20 log
 speed
ref


 dB


This means for a doubling of train speed the vibration level will increase by approximately 6
dB and if the speed will be halved it will decrease by 6 dB.
Wheels: Clearly the type and condition of the wheels influence the vibration level. In this
study it is assumed that the wheels are steel and in good condition. It should be noted that
worn wheels with flat spots might increase the vibration levels by as much as 10 dB, a
condition that can be rectified by periodic machining of the wheel sets.
Track system: The construction of the track plays a major role in causing vibration. In this
study it is assumed that the system will be constructed from continuously welded rail with very
Noise and Vibration Study
12-33
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
few joints present. At this stage it is also assumed that no additional mitigation measures, such
as resiliently mounted ties, ballast mats and floating slab track-bed, will be implemented.
Furthermore, the track is considered to be in good condition with no corrugation present.
Type of structure: The types of structure for the proposed system will consist mainly of
subway tunnels, at grade and in cut open sections and elevated structures in the form of
bridges. The relevant adjustment values for the track layout, i.e. at grade, elevated or subway,
are applied along the track as applicable.
Geological condition: It is known that some soil types and shallow bedrock lead to efficient
propagation of vibration. In this study most of the tunnelling will either be in, or close to,
bedrock.
As it is generally accepted that vibration, especially high frequency vibration,
propagates efficiently through hard, un-weathered rock care is taken to apply the appropriate
corrections in this assessment. The required adjustment for this condition (+10 dB) is made
when the bedrock is at, or very close to the surface. In addition, the correction to take into
account the distance that the vibration will propagate through solid rock is applied throughout.
Furthermore, the soil conditions were studied and the appropriate adjustments made in cases
where it is reasonable to expect that there will be limited attenuation due to absorption. The
effect of groundwater on the propagation of vibration has not been quantified and therefore no
correction for a shallow water table is applied.
Building foundations: In this study it is assumed that all buildings are on spread footings
except for commercial buildings. Therefore the adjustment are taken as either –7 dB, for
typical suburban houses and one and two storey commercial buildings or –13 dB for larger,
multi-storey masonry and concrete buildings, selected as appropriate for the land use in the
area.
Floor-to-floor attenuation: The appropriate adjustments were considered when applicable
however the vibration in this study is assessed for all buildings on the ground floor, hence no
adjustment.
Amplification due to resonance: In this study it is assumed that there are no significant floor or
wall resonances present.
Radiated sound: The A-weighted sound pressure levels were estimated using the values
presented in Table 1. When in subway the “high frequency” value of –48 dB is used if the
Noise and Vibration Study
12-34
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
tunnel is in the solid bedrock, else the “typical” value of –63 dB is used. When the track is at
grade or in cut the value of –78 dB is used.
•
Assessment Criteria
For this project the guidelines in Annex A of ISO 2631-2 were used to derive a set of vibration
levels that can be used to assess the impact of the predicted ground vibration levels. These
values are listed in Table 12.4.
Table 12.4:
Place
Critical working
areas (e.g. hospital
operating theatres,
precision
laboratories, etc.)
Residential
Office
Workshops
Ground-borne vibration velocity level impact criteria
Time
Continuous or intermittent
vibration
Transient vibration excitation
with several occurrences per day
Day
0.0001 m/s
100 dBV*
0.0001 m/s
100 dBV
0.0004 m/s
0.00014 m/s
0.0004 m/s
112 dBV
103 dBV
112 dBV
0.0030 m/s
0.00014 m/s
0.0060 m/s
130 dBV
103 dBV
136 dBV
0.0008 m/s
118 dBV
0.0090 m/s
139 dBV
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
* dB re 1x10-9m/s
These levels are somewhat higher than those proposed in ‘High-Speed Ground Transportation
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment’, 1998. For instance the recommended levels in the
USA for residential buildings are 100 dB and 108 dB for frequent and infrequent events
respectively (the document does not differentiate between day and night-time levels). It is
only for critical working areas where the USA levels are half those proposed in ISO 2631-2. It
should however be pointed out that the levels referred to in ISO 2631-2 is for the averaged,
weighted, R.M.S. velocity while the USA levels are for the un-weighted R.M.S. measurements.
It is common practice to band limit the measured vibration signals between 1 and 80 Hz, for
whole body vibration assessment, and in addition apply various frequency weighting curves
depending on the point where the vibration is entering the body as well as the direction. In
general the weighted levels will therefore be less than the un-weighted levels.
The impact of low frequency noise was assessed according to the guidelines of ‘High-Speed
Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment’, 1998, and the noise impact
levels set therein were used for this project. These levels are in line with international practise,
(Hood, et.al. 1996) and are shown in Table 12.5.
Noise and Vibration Study
12-35
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
The proposed frequency operation is from 5h30 to 23h00 with trains running at 10 minute
headway in both directions on the Johannesburg-Pretoria and 15 minute headway on the
Sandton-JIA corridor. This amount to 210 and 140 passes on the respective lines per day, and
can therefore be considered to be frequent and/or intermittent as proposed in tables 2 and 3. If
two trains cross each other it may lead to an increase of 3 dB in the ground-borne noise and
vibration levels due to a doubling of the vibration energy. As the suggested tolerance in
‘High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment’, 1998, is given
as 5 dB and the method makes no provision to account for more than one train being present
on the same section at any given time this was also the approach used in this study. As a 3 dB
increase in noise level is barely noticeable by the average person this assumption is not likely
to significantly decrease the predicted impact.
Table 12.5:
Ground-borne noise level impact criteria
Place
Time
Critical working areas (e.g.
auditoriums, theatres, etc.)
Day
Frequent Events*
Infrequent Events
30 dBA
38 dBA
40 dBA
35 dBA
40 dBA
48 dBA
43 dBA
48 dBA
Night
Day#
Night
Day
Night
Residential
Office
* Frequent Events is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day.
#
Daytime levels are taken as 5 dB higher than that proposed in High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment, 1998.
The maximum acceptable ground-borne vibration and noise levels used for this assessment are
therefore:
Table 12.6:
Ground-borne vibration and noise level impact criteria
Period of Day
Vibration Level
Noise Level
06h00-22h00 (daytime/evening)
112 dBV
40dBA
22h00-06h00 (night-time)
103 dBV
35 dBA
Critical working areas
100 dBV
30 dBA
Where critical working areas include:
*
Hospital operating theatres (for vibration).
*
Precision laboratories (for vibration).
*
Auditoriums (for noise).
*
Concert halls (for noise).
Noise and Vibration Study
12-36
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
*
Theatres (for noise).
*
Recording studios (including TV recording studios) (for vibration and noise).
12.3.5 Vibration Impact Assessment
•
Land Usage and Vibration Sensitive Sites
The current and future land usage profile is analysed in a separate section of the overall EIA
report. The only vibration sensitive sites along the proposed the track are a number of
hospitals and clinics with operating theatres where ground-borne vibration might interfere with
the use of sensitive equipment. A list of these is included in Table 12.7. Note that auditoria
and studios are not more sensitive to vibration, which interferes with the operation of sensitive
equipment, than other office type environments and are therefore not listed in Table 12.7.
The land usage profile was used to distinguish between predominantly single and double
storey residential buildings and multi-storey commercial and light industrial buildings. As far
as noise sensitive sites are concerned there are a number of critical sites that may be affected.
These are primarily educational facilities along the route as indicated in the land usage report.
Table 12.7:
Vibration sensitive sites
Vibration sensitive site
•
Distance [km]
Argyle & Brenthurst Clinic
0,8
Brenthurst Clinc
1,6
Zuid-Afrikaans Hospital
58,1
Existing Profile of Vibration and Available Data of Major Vibration Sources
There are no existing data available on the vibration profile of the area. The area varies from
urban, to suburban to rural and the existing vibration sources are typical for these areas. The
most common vibration sources present include transportation systems, roads, freeways and
railroads, and light industrial activity, with very low levels of ground-borne vibration. It is
likely that the various local authorities have received no complaints of ground-borne vibration
to date.
No subways, or high-speed rail transit systems, are present along the proposed route. The last
section of the proposed Johannesburg-Hatfield line as well as a section of the Sandton-JIA line
coincides with an existing rail corridor. The rail traffic along these lines is much slower than
the proposed Gautrain, and the current vibration levels expected from this source should be
Noise and Vibration Study
12-37
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
low. Therefore, the population in the area currently experiences no ground-borne vibration and
noise.
•
Predicted Ground-borne Vibration Levels
The vibration levels were predicted along the route according to the methodology set out in
Section 12.3.4. The predicted levels along the Johannesburg-Hatfield and the Sandton-JIA
lines are shown in Figures 12.2 and 12.3 respectively. From these graphs it is clear that when
the trains will be in tunnels the surface vibration levels is substantially less than when the train
is at grade. The main reason is the 15 dB attenuation allowed for when the transit system is in
rock-based tunnels. When in tunnel the maximum vibration levels are mostly below 90 dBV
and it is only when the track is at grade, or in cut that the levels exceed 100 dBV at the
centreline. At a standoff distance of 25 m from the centreline the vibration levels are in most
cases below 100 dBV as well, and at 50 m below 90 dBV. It is only in those cases where the
geology is such that it can be expected that the vibration will be efficiently propagated that the
levels do not attenuate fast enough to drop below 100 dBV.
The only area on the Johannesburg-Hatfield line that may be of some concern is at the entrance
of the tunnel through Salvokop (55 km) where the geological formation consists of iron
quartzite that could efficiently conduct the vibration.
However, this area is currently
undeveloped, and will most likely remain as such in future. The telecommunication equipment
at the top of this hill can easily be isolated from the vibration should it become a concern.
The vibration levels at the surface for the tunnel sections in Johannesburg are at most 90 dBV,
which is below the threshold where humans will be able to perceive the vibration. It is
therefore highly unlikely that people living in the close proximity of the tunnel will be able to
feel the vibration of a passing train.
Noise and Vibration Study
12-38
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Vibration Levels (Jhb-Hatfield)
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
Surface - Track Centreline
Surface - 25m Standoff
Surface - 75m Standoff
Night-Time Max Level
Surface - 100m Standoff
Surface - 50m Standoff
Daytime Maximum Level
Critical Areas Max Level
Vibration Level [dBV]
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0
20000
Figure 12.2:
40000
Distance [m]
60000
Predicted vibration levels – Johannesburg-Hatfield line
Vibration Levels
(Sandton-JIA)
Surface - Track Centreline
Surface - 100m Standoff
Surface - 25m Standoff
Surface - 50m Standoff
Surface - 75m Standoff
Daytime Maximum Level
Night-Time Max Level
Critical Areas Max Level
Vibration Level [dBV]
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0
5000
Figure 12.3:
Noise and Vibration Study
10000
Distance [m]
15000
20000
Predicted vibration levels – Sandton-JIA line
12-39
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
•
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
Predicted Ground-borne Noise Levels
The ground-borne noise levels were predicted along the route from the estimated ground
vibration levels as explained in Section 12.3.4. The predicted levels are shown in Figures 12.4
and 12.5 for the Johannesburg-Hatfield and Sandton-JIA lines respectively. In Figure 12.4 it is
evident that the predicted ground-borne noise levels may have more of an impact than the
predicted vibration levels. The predicted noise levels are closer to and in some cases exceed
the impact criteria set in Section 12.3.4: “Assessment Criteria”. It is especially in those
instances where the solid bedrock is close to the surface that the predicted ground-borne noise
levels rise to above 40 dBA. In these cases, a number of factors combine to cause the higher
predicted values. Firstly it is assumed that the vibration will propagate with less attenuation
through solid rock, compared to weathered rock and soil, due to a decrease in the damping
properties of the material. Secondly is it assumed that solid rock will be particularly efficient
in the propagation of higher frequency (>60 Hz) vibration and hence will the radiated sound
level, which is A-weighted, be expected to be higher. If both these factors are taken into
consideration it leads to an increase of up to 30 dB.
When the track is on the surface the predicted level at the centreline is up to 20 dB higher than
25 m away from the track. Clearly in these instances the noise levels quickly attenuates with
distance from the track and will therefore not impact the community living near to the track.
(It is much more likely that airborne noise will have a significant impact on these communities
as it can be expected that when the track is not in tunnel that the airborne noise levels will be
significantly higher than the ground-borne noise, which is also predominantly low frequency.)
Noise Levels (Jhb-Hatfield)
Surface - Track Centreline
Surface - 75m Standoff
Surface - 100m Standoff
Daytime Maximum Level
Surface - 25m Standoff
Night-Time Max Level
Surface - 50m Standoff
Critical Areas Max Level
50
Noise Level [dBA]
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
Figure 12.4:
Noise and Vibration Study
10000
20000
30000
40000
Distance [m]
50000
60000
Predicted ground-borne noise levels – Johannesburg-Hatfield line
12-40
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
Noise Levels (Sandton-JIA)
50
Surface - Track Centreline
Surface - 100m Standoff
Surface - 25m Standoff
Surface - 50m Standoff
Surface - 75m Standoff
Daytime Maximum Level
Night-Time Max Level
Critical Areas Max Level
Noise Level [dBA]
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
•
0
5000
10000
Distance [m]
15000
Figure 12.5:
Predicted ground-borne noise levels – Sandton-JIA line
20000
Impact Assessment during Operations
From the predicted ground-borne noise and vibration results presented in the previous section
it is clear that for the subway sections of the track there will be no perceivable vibration present
at the surface except in one or two isolated areas. It is therefore unlikely that the vibration
from the passing trains will be noticed at the surface and hence no vibration impact is
expected. In the single area (Salvokop) where the vibration level is above the 112 dBV
daytime impact level there are no permanent residences or offices, and the area will most likely
remain undeveloped in future.
However, low frequency noise due to ground-borne vibration may be audible in some areas
above the subway, notably those areas where the bedrock is close to the surface. The affected
areas include Houghton Estate (2.2-2.6 km); The Wilds Botanical Garden (3.0 km) the exit of
the tunnel at the Marlboro station (15 km) and Salvokop (55.2 km). Of these the most critical
section is through Houghton Estate where the Roedean school and the Parktown Vocational
College may be affected. The ground-borne noise level in these two facilities are projected to
be approximately 35 dBA, which is above the 30 dBA impact level for critical areas. It may
also be that in some residences the 35 dBA night-time impact level will be exceeded. At the
Marlboro station the sensitive sites are at least 200 m away from the track and therefore will
not be affected. As stated before the Salvokop area is undeveloped and hence no impact is
expected.
Noise and Vibration Study
12-41
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
The vibration input data used for the analysis is an upper bound of available measurements and
it may therefore also be that the actual train sets used will exert less vibration. Furthermore,
the assumptions used of predicting the propagation of vibration through solid rock used in this
study is conservative and hence the predicted levels should be seen as an upper bound. The
actual levels, once the system is operational, will probably be less than those used for this
assessment.
In the areas where the track is on the surface neither the vibration nor the noise levels seem to
be sufficiently high to impact the environment beyond the railroad reserve. Where the track is
not in tunnel the airborne noise will be much more noticeable than the ground-borne noise and
hence will the impact, if any, be primarily attributable to the airborne noise.
The ground-borne vibration and noise impact during high-speed train operations is summarised
in Table 12.8.
Noise and Vibration Study
12-42
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Table 12.8:
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
Ground-borne noise and vibration impact during high-speed train operation
Impact
Nature
Extent
Duration
Probability
Vibration
Perceptible vibration due Local, limited to the Permanent, daily Improbable
(subway)
to
high-speed
Significance
Low
Status
Proposed mitigation
Positive
Construction of track
train immediate area above during all hours
bed.
operation in the subway and adjacent to the of operation.
tunnel.
detail.)
subway route.
Noise
Audible, low frequency Local, limited to the Permanent, daily Probable
(subway)
noise due to high-speed immediate area above during all hours
bed.
train operation in the and adjacent to the of operation.
detail.)
subway tunnel.
and to
grade)
high-speed
operation.
Medium
Neutral
Construction of track
(See text for
subway route.
Vibration (in Perceptible vibration due Local, limited to the Permanent, daily Improbable
cut
(See text for
train immediate
Low
Positive
Low
Positive
area during all hours
around the route of of operation.
the track.
Noise (in cut Audible, low frequency Local, limited to the Permanent, daily Improbable
and grade)
noise due to high-speed immediate
train operation.
area during all hours
around the route of of operation.
the track.
Noise and Vibration Study
12-43
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
•
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
Impact Assessment during Construction
Most of the construction activities during the construction of the Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
(GRRL) will be similar to typical construction activities usually associated with other urban
construction projects such as the erection of larger buildings, requiring extensive excavation,
and road construction. The construction activities that may lead to ground-borne noise and
vibration will be mainly associated with earthworks, such as the excavation of earth; loading
and movement of trucks carrying material to be removed from the site; compacting by
vibratory and impact compactors, etc. These activities are of such a nature that the vibration
impact will be very similar to other extensive projects that the public has been exposed to in
the past and therefore no more than the usual level of complaints associated with ground-borne
vibration and noise can be expected. However, the excavation of the tunnel will be an activity
that may result in noise and vibration that can be very different to what the public has been
used to. This activity may lead to ground-borne vibration and noise in the affected areas. It is,
therefore, important to investigate the vibration impact that these activities will have on the
surrounding communities in more detail.
In a report by Hiller and Crab, 2000, data on ground-borne vibration caused by mechanised
construction works associated with transport systems are provided. From Figure 46a of this
report it is clear that drilling and blasting operations, as proposed for the GRRL subway
construction, can lead to vibration which is at least an order of magnitude higher than that
observed from mechanised tunnelling by tunnel boring machines. Peak particle velocities as
high as 0.01 m/s (140 dBV) were measured 20 m away from the Frome Valley Relief Sewer
tunnel in the United Kingdom. In this case the charge size was relatively small, 0.6 to 1.2 kg
per blast event. In the case of the GRRL subway it can be assumed that larger charges will be
used, which in turn will lead to increased vibration. From this, albeit limited data it is possible
to conclude that it is very likely that the levels of ground-borne vibration will be sufficiently
high so that persons living in the immediate vicinity of the tunnelling operations will detect it.
In the same report, Hiller and Crab propose that the noise levels from drilling and blasting
tunnelling operations can be predicted by the equation:
L p = 127 − 54 log10 r
where Lp is the predicted ground-borne noise level in dBA and r is the distance from the source
in m. The depth of the tunnel varies but is typically at least 20 m metres, where Lp = 57 dBA,
to nearly 90 m, where Lp = 21.5 dBA.
It is clear that the impact in this regard may be
significant and there will be a significant community reaction should the construction take
place as proposed, i.e. drilling and blasting.
Noise and Vibration Study
12-44
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Table 12.9:
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
Ground-borne noise and vibration impact during construction
Impact
Vibration
(drilling and
blasting)
Nature
Perceptible vibration
due to blasting
operations during
construction of the
subway tunnel.
Extent
Local, limited to the
immediate area above
and adjacent to the
subway route.
Duration
During
construction of
the subway
tunnel.
Probability
Highly
probable
Significance
High
Status
Negative
Noise (drilling
and blasting)
Audible, low
frequency noise due
to blasting operations
during construction of
the subway tunnel.
Local, limited to the
immediate area above
and adjacent to the
subway route.
During
construction of
the subway
tunnel.
Highly
probable
High
Negative
Local, limited to the
immediate area around
the construction site
and along the routes of
the
construction
vehicles.
Local, limited to the
immediate area around
the construction site
and along the routes of
the construction
vehicles.
During
the Probable
construction
phase of the
project.
Medium
Neutral
During the
construction
phase of the
project.
Medium
Neutral
Vibration (other Perceptible vibration
operations)
due
to
other
operations during the
construction phase.
Noise (other
operations)
Audible, low
frequency noise due
to other operations
during the
construction phase.
Noise and Vibration Study
12-45
Probable
Proposed mitigation
Alternative
construction method,
such as mechanised
tunnelling.
Restrict construction
activities to daytime.
Alternative
construction method,
such as mechanised
tunnelling.
Restrict construction
activities to daytime.
Restrict construction
activities to daytime.
Restrict construction
activities to daytime.
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
12.3.6 Assessment of Alternative Alignments
During the course of the study alternative alignments were proposed to the original route. The
route was adapted in a total of eight locations with the most significant, from a ground-borne noise
and vibration perspective, the options between the Sandton and Marlboro Stations (Alternatives 2)
as well as the option of placing the track in an underground tunnel after the Pretoria Station
(Alternatives 6). The ground-borne noise and vibration levels were estimated using the same
procedure as for the original route and the impact of the different alternatives are discussed below.
•
Alternatives 1a & 1b (Between Rosebank and Sandton Stations)
For the proposed Alternatives 1a and 1b the track will remain, as for the original alignment, in
a tunnel underneath Fricker Road and Oxford Road respectively. As the geology for the area
is fairly consistent the ground-borne noise and vibration levels for the proposed alternatives are
similar to the original alignment and therefore the impact will be the same along this section
irrespective of the chosen alignment. The original predicted ground vibration level at the
centreline on surface is well below the perception level of 90 dB(V) and, therefore, similar
impact (insignificant) is predicted for both alternatives.
•
Alternatives 2 a-c (Alignment after the Sandton Station)
The proposed alternatives to the north of Sandton Station will all three result in similar or
lower impacts than the original alignment. From Figure 12.6 it is clear that as soon as the track
goes underground the ground-borne noise and vibration levels fall by as much as 20 dB. It is
therefore desirable to keep the track underground for as long as possible and the direct tunnel
(Alternative 2b) is the preferred alignment. Alternative 2b will result in a reduced impact by
ground borne vibration and is, therefore, the preferred alignment.
•
Alternatives 3 (Alignment after the Sandton Station)
The alternative alignment between Marlboro and Midrand Stations seems to have a very
similar impact than the original alignment with a difference of at most 5 dB in the respective
levels. Along most of this section the track will be on surface and hence the airborne noise
will be the most dominant effect to consider. As far as ground-borne noise and vibration is
concerned there is no reason to favour one of the two proposed alignment along this section.
•
Alternatives 4 (Southern approach to the Centurion Station)
The alternative alignment between Marlboro and Midrand Stations seems to have a very
similar impact than the original alignment but there are some areas where the geological
Noise and Vibration Study
12-46
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
condition may tend to increase the ground-borne noise somewhat. However, as the geological
data available for this alternative is not complete and some assumptions were made it may be
that the prediction is overly conservative. Furthermore, this section is also on surface and
hence the airborne noise will dominate the impact so that it is difficult to recommend the route
with the lowest ground borne vibration and noise impact.
•
Alternatives 5 (Section north of Centurion Station)
The alternative alignment along the N14 freeway results in ground-borne vibration levels
which are very similar to the original proposed route. Again no preferred alternative, from a
ground-borne noise and vibration impact consideration, can be identified.
Noise and Vibration Levels (Alternatives 2)
Noise Level - Original Allignment
Vibration Level - Original Allignment
Noise Level - Alternative 2a
Vibration Level - Alternative 2a
Noise Level - Alternative 2c
Noise Level - Alternative 2b
Vibration Levels - Alternative 2c
Vibration Levels - Alternative 2b
Levels [dBA or dBV]
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
10,500
Figure 12.6:
•
11,500
12,500
13,500 14,500
Distance [m]
15,500
16,500
Comparison of Alternatives 2a, b and c to the north of Sandton Station
Alternatives 6 (Alternative alignments in Pretoria)
The proposed alternative alignments in Pretoria will have a significant effect on the groundborne vibration impact. The different alternatives are compared in Figure 12.7, where it is
clear that the options where the track is placed in a tunnel the impact will be significantly less
than when it remains on surface. One should remember that when in tunnel the airborne noise
components all but disappear and the ground-borne noise levels become dominant. Another
concern in the Pretoria area is the high water table, which some authors have associated with
the efficient propagations of ground-borne noise and vibration.
Noise and Vibration Study
12-47
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
Alternative 6a or 6b clearly results in lower vibration levels on the surface at the track
centreline except for the last kilometre of Alternative 6a where the construction changes to a
cut-and-cover configuration while, at the same location, the structure will be close to solid
bedrock. In this area the vibration levels approaches the 100 dBV but do decay to 90 dBV
within the first 25 metres. The noise level, however, remains above 35 dB(A) for at least
50 m. Since the land use in this area is indicated as being commercial and it might be that the
impact will not be as severe as indicated. However, there are at least two vibration sensitive
sites in this area, Nedpark Hospital (59 km) and the Pretoria Heart Hospital (59.35 km). The
current predicted ground-borne noise and vibration levels for both of these sites are too high,
by as much as 20 dB(A), and therefore, if Alternative 6a is in future considered as a viable
alternative to the proposed route, a more detail analysis of the predicted ground-borne noise
and vibration levels in this area should be undertaken.
Although the original alignment were not judged to have a high impact from ground-borne
noise and vibration it may be advantageous to place the track in tunnel to eliminate the impact
from airborne noise in the Muckleneuk area provided the levels in the cut and cover sections
can be reduced through appropriate mitigation measures.
Noise and Vibration Levels (Alternatives 6)
Noise Level - Original Allignment
Vibration Level - Alternative 6a
Noise Level - Alternative 6c
Vibration Levels - Alternative 6d
Noise Level - Alternative 6f
Vibration Level - Alternative 6fc
Vibration Level - Original Allignment
Noise Level - Alternative 6b
Vibration Levels - Alternative 6c
Noise Level - Alternative 6e
Vibration Level - Alternative 6f
Noise Level - Alternative 6a
Vibration Levels - Alternative 6b
Noise Level - Alternative 6d
Vibration Level - Alternative 6e
Noise Level - Alternative 6fc
Levels [dBA or dBV]
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
55,800
56,800
Figure 12.7:
Noise and Vibration Study
57,800
Distance [m]
58,800
59,800
Comparison of Alternatives 6 in the Pretoria area
12-48
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
•
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
Alternatives 7 and 8 (Alternative alignments along the Sandton-JIA line)
These two alternatives, being slight variations of the original alignment, have very similar
impacts than the original route. Hence, there is no clear preference for either based on the
available data.
In conclusion, in all cases the alternatives where the track will be placed in an underground
tunnel there seem to be a reduced impact from ground-borne noise and vibration. In these
cases the airborne noise will be significantly reduced and therefore it is probably the preferred
option. However, in the case of alternative 6a there is a concern at the end of the tunnel where
the cut and cover construction method is proposed. In this case a more detail analysis will be
required as there are at least two vibration sites in close proximity. Where the construction
and layout of the track remains the same, and only a slight variation in alignment is proposed,
there is no clear preference between the alternatives, based on the expected impact of groundborne noise and vibration.
12.3.7 Mitigation Procedures
In this report it has been assumed that no mitigatory measures will be taken to reduce the groundborne noise and vibration from the trains. The most common procedure to reduce the groundborne vibration from rapid rail transit systems is to isolate (or decouple) the track from the
underlying foundation. In this regard the following measures can be taken:
•
Resilient fasteners: These devices are used to fasten the rails to the concrete track slabs.
By making use of fasteners that are less stiff in the vertical direction, it is possible to
reduce the ground-borne vibration by as much as 5 to 10 dB.
•
Ballast mats: These rubber or elastomer pads are placed underneath the ballast, usually on
top of a concrete foundation or compacted soil or sub-ballast. Most applications of this
procedure are found in tunnels or on bridges. Attenuation as high as 10 to 15 dB has been
recorded with this type of construction.
•
Resilient supported ties:
By making use of rubber pads between the ties and the
foundation it is possible to reduce the vibration by at least 10 dB.
•
Floating slab: Supporting the concrete slab on resilient elements, usually rubber or a
similar elastomer, the system will be very effective to reduce the vibration above the
vertical resonance frequency of the system, usually around 15 Hz. By making use of even
softer suspension it is possible to reduce the vibration even more. A typical value used for
the attenuation is around 15 dB.
Noise and Vibration Study
12-49
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
It is however important to note that these reductions are not necessarily cumulative and one should
rather investigate each case individually and then only apply the most appropriate procedure.
Another step that can significantly reduce ground-borne noise and vibration is proper maintenance
of wheels and track as corrugated track and wheels with flat spots can increase the ground-borne
vibration by as much as 10 dB. The maintenance procedures required in this regard include:
•
Regular monitoring and grinding of the rails to prevent corrugation.
•
Machining of the wheels sets to ensure that the profiles are smooth and without flat spots.
•
Reconditioning of carriages ensuring optimal suspension systems, brakes and wheels.
•
Installation of wheel condition monitoring systems to identify carriages most in need of
wheel truing.
Other mitigatory measures include the location of special trackwork judiciously taking the train
speed and other operational issues into consideration. Trenches have been used to control at
surface vibration.
12.3.8 Conclusion
The method proposed in ‘High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment’, 1998, was used to assess the ground-borne vibration and noise impact of the
proposed Gauteng Rapid Rail Link between Johannesburg and Pretoria. It is probable that some
isolated areas may be impacted during the operational phase by low frequency noise caused by the
ground-borne vibration. The extent of this impact will be limited and it may be possible to
mitigate the effect by specifying suitable mitigation steps. During the construction phase of the
subway tunnel it is highly probable that both ground-borne vibration and low frequency noise will
impact the areas directly above and adjacent to the proposed route. Selecting an alternative
construction method, i.e. mechanised tunnelling, can reduce the impact. Alternatively, restricting
the blasting events to daytime will also reduce the impact. Other construction operations will have
a similar impact than comparable construction projects in the past. The alternative alignments
suggested all have a similar vibration impact, except where the track is placed in an underground
tunnel. In these cases the excepted ground-borne noise and vibration levels are not a concern and
most likely much smaller than the airborne noise when the track is on surface. It is therefore
suggested that the Alternatives 2b, 6a and 6b be the preferred options.
Noise and Vibration Study
12-50
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
12.4 References
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION (1987). British Standard Guide to Measurement and
Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-body Mechanical Vibration and Repeated Shock. BS
6841, London.
GAUTENG PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT (1999). Noise Control Regulations.
HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC. (1995). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment. Final Report prepared for Office of Planning, Federal Transit Administration, US
Department of Transportation, Washington.
HILLER, D., M. AND CRABB, G.I., (2002). Groundborne Vibration caused by Mechanised
Construction Works. Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report 429, Zurich.
HOOD, R.A., GREER, R.J., BRESLIN, M. AND WILLIAMS, P.R. (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, London.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION FOR STANDARDIZATION (1997). Guide for the
Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole Body Vibration – Part 1: General, ISO 2631-1, Zurich.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION FOR STANDARDIZATION (1989). Evaluation of
Human Exposure to Whole Body Vibration – Part 2: Continuous and Shock Induced Vibration in
Buildings (1 to 80 Hz), ISO 2631-2, Zurich.
MINISTERIE VOLKSHUISVESTING, RUIMTELIJKE ORDENING EN MILEUBEHEER
(2002). Reken- en Meetvoorschrift Railverkeerslawaai, 2002.
NELSON, PM (Editor) (1987). Transportation Noise Reference Book. Butterworth & Co.
(Publishers) Ltd.
SOUTH AFRICAN BUREAU OF STANDARDS (1996). Code of Practice SABS 0103:1994,
The Measurement and Rating of Environmental Noise with Respect to Annoyance and to Speech
Communication, Pretoria, RSA.
Noise and Vibration Study
12-51
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
SOUTH AFRICAN BUREAU OF STANDARDS (1994). Code of Practice SABS 0210:1994,
Calculating and Predicting Road Traffic Noise, Pretoria, RSA.
SOUTH AFRICAN BUREAU OF STANDARDS (2000). Code of Practice SABS 0328:2000,
Methods for Environmental Noise Impacts, Pretoria, RSA.
SOUTH AFRICAN BUREAU OF STANDARDS (1997). Guide for the Evaluation of Human
Exposure to Whole Body Vibration – Part 1: General, SABS ISO 2631-1:1997, Pretoria.
SOUTH AFRICAN BUREAU OF STANDARDS (1999). Mechanical Vibration and Shock –
Vibration of Buildings – Guidelines for the Measurement of Vibrations and Evaluation of their
effects on Buildings, SABS ISO 4866:1990, Pretoria
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH LABORATORY (1977). The Prediction of Noise from Road
Construction Sites. TRL, Crowthorne UK.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH LABORATORY (2002). Selection of Interim Computation
Methods for Road and Rail Transportation, Project Report PR/SE/116/00.
UK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (1995). Calculation of Railway Noise. HMSO, London.
UK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (1995). Calculation of Railway Noise (Supplement No. 1).
HMSO, London.
US
DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION,
US
FEDERAL
RAILROAD
ADMINISTRATION (1998). High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment, Washington DC.
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, US FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
(1995). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington DC.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (1998), High-Speed Ground Transportation
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Office of Railroad Development, Federal Railroad
Administration, Washington.
Various National Railway Noise Standards.
Noise and Vibration Study
12-52
21/10/02
Environmental Impact Assessment: Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link
Volume 3: Socio-Economic Environment
WATKINS, LH. Environmental Impact of Roads and Traffic. Applied Science Publishers Ltd,
Essex, UK.
Noise and Vibration Study
12-53
21/10/02