Journal of Sound and Vibration (1983) 87(2), 273

RAPPORTEUR’S REPORT, SESSION 4:

ELEVATED STRUCTURE NOISE

A. W. PAOLILLO

New York City Transit Authority, Brooklyn, New York 11201, U.S.A.

(Received 24 May 1982)

Session leader Dr L. Wittig of Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts,
presented the lead paper entiled “Railway elevated structure noise-a review”. There
were no contributed papers. Dr Wittig reviewed the work being done by Bolt Beranek
and Newman for the U.S. Department of Transportation to quantify the problem of
elevated structure noise and recommend solutions. This work included the development
of a noise rating criterion, a noise impact inventory of U.S. elevated rail rapid transit
structures, an analytical model, a noise control design guide, and a case study analysis.
Dr Wittig also briefly discussed the study Bolt Beranek and Newman is conducting for
the New York City Transit Authority to develop cost effective noise control designs for
New York City’s elevated structures.
Mr Christopher Morris of the Urban Transit Development Corporation, Ontario,
Canada commented on Dr Wittig’s description of noise benefits composition brake shoes
may provide compared with cast iron brake shoes on tread brake systems. The literature
suggests composition brake shoes result in smoother wheel surfaces and therefore lower
noise levels. Mr Morris indicated that cast iron brake shoes have better wet fade resistance
than composition shoes.
Dr George Wilson, of Wilson, Ihrig and Associates, Oakland, California, discussed
damping of new elevated structures in the U.S.A. to reduce low frequency rumbling
noise that easily transmits into residential buildings, causing more annoyance than the
“A’‘-weighted sound level would predict. A discussion also followed concerned with
reported noise level reductions provided by track ballast.
Mr E. L. Bovey of London Transport, London, England, questioned the effect a stiff
resilient rail fastener would have on groundborne noise and vibration near elevated
structures. Dr L. Kurzweil (BBN) and Dr P. Remington (BBN) explained that the natural
frequency of a soft resilient fastener is 100 Hz and the stiff fastener Dr Wittig talked
about to optimize the “thickness resonance” has a natural frequency of 300 Hz. Because
the groundborne vibration occurs at frequencies below 100 Hz, stiffening the fastener
would not affect the groundborne vibration. Another point brought out by Dr Remington
in response to a question from Dr H. Saurenman of Wilson, Ihrig and Associates, is that
the wood ties are quite soft, having a spring constant of approximately 170 000 lb/in.

273
0022-460X/83/060273 +01$03.00/O @ 1983 Academic Press Inc. (London) Limited