Impact of Underground Construction n Urban-Built Environments

Underground infrastructures are an integral part of modern cities as they serve to counter problems of surface congestion and environmental degradation. The problems of ground vibrations, vibration induced noise and ground movements that arise during construction and operation of underground activities are parameters that must be incorporated during the design stage of underground structures. Control measures must be put in place to minimize these negative impacts so that the urban-built environment remains undisturbed.

S. K. Singh, Senior Principal Scientist, Shatadru Kundu, Project Assistant CSIR, Roorkee, Utkarsh Singh, Deptt. of Civil Engg., Manipal University of Jaipur.
S. K. Singh, Senior Principal Scientist, Shatadru Kundu, Project Assistant CSIR, Roorkee, Utkarsh Singh, Deptt. of Civil Engg., Manipal University of Jaipur.

The underground space provides provisions for sewage systems, rapid mass transportation, groundwater and geothermal energy (Bobylev, 2016) and protection from adverse weather conditions and natural hazards. The space is useful for the urban-built environment in various ways as it provides space for land usage and construction of essential and useful structures such as car parks, recreational facilities, museums and aquariums, protective structures, pipeline systems, water lines, etc. In hills and mountains, underground tunnels serve as a passageway and give protection against landslides.

However, underground constructions have certain limitations which are prevalent during and after construction (Chow et al., 2002). During construction, problems of noise and vibrations arise due to the excavation. Another notable limitation is the increase in surface congestion due to roads being blocked, traffic diversions and traffic jams. During post-construction, fear of entrapment and unfamiliarity of the people adjusting to the new underground structures are two issues. The operational phase of an underground metro system causes vibrations of such high impact that it tends to shake the urban-built structures and sometimes leads to crack formations in them.

The feasibility of construction of an underground structure depends on the location and geology of the ground where it is to be constructed (Gong et al., 2016; Li et al., 2017). These effects involve the potential noise and vibration waves that are generated, affecting people and properties of the urban-built environment. Vibration from underground metros and railways is generated mostly at the rail-wheel interface and propagates through the ground into the structural foundation of the urban-built environment (Yang et al., 2013; Vladimir et al., 2017). These disturb the nearby houses, sensitive electronic equipments, measuring installation set-ups etc. (Celebi et al., 2013). The vibration occurs due to difference of frequency levels between the surface and the underground spaced. Therefore, consideration of ground vibrations and ground movements is necessary during the design and construction of underground structures.

Structures represent an important field for understanding the vibrational impact. These come under excitation when their wavelength matches with that of ground vibrations (Dawn et al., 1979). These can be reduced to their minimum values, provided appropriate control measures are taken (Berta, 1994). Ground geology is a major factor governing the impact of vibration. Soft soils tend to produce larger deformation than hard soils. Phenomena like Soil Layering enhance the magnitudes of vibrations due to wave reflection from stiff soils (Watts et al., 2000). The induced vibrations caused by underground metros and railways have high energy and low frequency but would not affect buildings if their frequency falls within the audible limits of 20 Hz (Hildebrand, 2004). Damage to structures due to differential settlement of foundations is basically caused by repeated dynamic excitations having low amplitudes (Karg et al., 2010). Therefore, ground vibrations require serious attention and need to be measured for appropriate and economic design of the underground structure so that it can function well and cause no disturbance to the urban-built environment.

The Underground Space
Impact of Underground ConstructionFigure 1: Underground space usage by the urban-built environment
The underground space can be simply defined as the space below the natural elevation of the ground surface (Rönkä et al, 1999). It is a valuable resource and demands consideration during the planning of a city (Bobbylev, 2009). Underground structures have wide applications, but these structures cannot be reverted to their original form once constructed (Sterling, 2012). The key features of an underground structure are:
  • Provision for activities or infrastructures that are either difficult to construct above ground or are undesirable there (Godard, 1995)
  • Protection to anything that is placed underground be it humans or materials
  • Enhancement of serviceability, amenity and safety of urban areas
Underground space has found diverse usage in the urban-built environment. Some of these are:
  • Rapid mass transit system in urbanized areas: Urban metro systems involve underground tunnels which serve as a rapid and flexible mode of transportation in the busy cities. Ex: Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation
  • Storage: Natural resources like oil, Liquefied Petroleum Gas, Liquefied Natural Gas as well as regular essentials like food grains and packed food are all kept underground for storage and conservation.
  • Sewage and waste water disposal: Pipelines are installed underground in the urban-built environment to serve as medium for sewage transport from pipelines of houses.
The conditions of the ground determine the approach and method of excavation to be adopted. Just like Drilling and Blasting is preferable in self-supporting grounds, the Earth Pressure Tunnel Boring Machine (EPB-TBM) is preferable for softer grounds. It is quite critical to determine the geological condition of an area where an underground construction is to be carried out. Based on it, the appropriate excavation method is adopted.

The various methods of excavation for underground construction are as follows:
  • Drilling and Blasting: This method is preferable for very hard ground, grounds with varying properties, underground structures of less length, caverns, stations etc. This method involves drilling blast holes followed by the operations of charging, ignition, ventilation, scaling and mucking.
  • Hydraulic and Pneumatic Hammers: This method is suitable for weak rocks and its approach is like Drilling and Blasting without using explosives. Vibration and fumes are also avoided in this method. Dust particles are treated by water spraying.
  • Gripper TBM: This is used for excavating competent and hard rocks. Rock is fragmented by chipping between cutters.
  • Roadheader: This excavating machine is highly effective in hard grounds
  • Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM): This is useful for rock and firm soil without need of a face pressure as it has a mechanical face support.
  • Earth Pressure Balance Tunnel Boring Machine (EPB-TBM): Useful for soft soils where the TBM progresses forward by balancing earth pressure while excavating soil at the same time. The TBM is equipped with a full-faced cutterhead for ground cutting.
  • Slurry/Hydro-shield TBM: The TBM is fitted with a full face cutterhead which provides face support by pressurizing boring fluid inside the cutterhead chamber.
  • Double shield TBM: This machine uses the features of gripper and shield in a TBM and serves as a quick method of excavation.
Impact on Urban Built Environment
Urban-built environment includes roads, bridges, buildings, dams, sanitary facilities etc. Underground constructions have not only helped in controlling surface congestion but have benefitted the natural and urban-built environment in multiple ways.

Impact of Underground ConstructionFigure 2: Flowchart showing the different benefits of underground space

Benefits of underground construction (Godard, 1995; Rönkä et al, 1998; Durmisevic, 1999; Chow et al., 2002; Petroutsatou et al., 2010; Sterling et al., 2012).
  • Location: They provide space for constructions that are unwanted above ground such as car parks. An underground structure such as subways builds proximity to the existing urban-built facilities. It is also helpful when it is impossible to construct structures on unbuildable sites.
  • Rapid Transportation System: It facilitates fast commuting.
  • Water pipelines and Sewage system: The entry of freshwater and exit of wastewater from houses are served by the underground pipeline system. The sewage system also runs on underground pipeline network. Egg-shaped underground sewer tunnels are constructed for the very same purpose.
  • Storage: The limited number of access points of underground structures makes it more convenient to store materials and prevent entry of intruders. To some extent, ammunitions can also be stored underground. It is highly useful for food storage as the ground has an insulating nature and does not hamper the quality of food.
  • Protection: Underground structures provide excellent protection against fire because the ground is incombustible and provides thermal insulation to the structures beneath it. Similarly, during earthquakes, the underground structures are constrained to move along with the ground motions. The urban-built environment is also protected by underground structures from severe weather conditions like storms, cyclones, tsunamis, floods etc. Man-made disasters like explosions, radioactive fallouts or even times of war can also be countered.
  • Thermal isolation: A uniform thermal temperature is maintained up to a depth of 500m for most places. The moderate temperature and the slow response of large thermal mass of earth are significantly helpful towards energy storage and conservation. Conduction losses from buildings are lessened in cold climatic conditions. The requirement of energy for tempering air infiltration is lessened. Thus, energy conservation can be better achieved by the urban-built environment if some of the urban-built systems such as offices or homes are shifted underground as per convenience.
  • Preservation: An underground structure has lesser visual impact than an equivalent surface structure. It is important in siting facilities when industrial locations are proposed to be shifted to the urban-built environment. This also helps in preservation of the natural ecosystem of the urban-built environment as trees will not be required to be cut and lesser damage will be inflicted on the ecological cycle. The run-off waters from rain are reduced and chances of soil erosion are also reduced as a result.
  • Economic Savings: An underground infrastructure does not require much maintenance as its property is unaltered by external disturbances due to the isolating and insulating nature of ground. This leads to economic savings.
  • Recreation: Underground space serves for the urban-built environment to establish recreational facilities such as museums and aquariums. This also is helpful in terms of preservation, surface space saving and storage.
Limitations (Sterling et al., 1992; Carmody et al., 1994; Durmisevic, 1999).
  • Fear of entrapment, a major psychological problem would affect people when shifted to underground, due to unfamiliarity with the new location and its systems, for example, ventilation systems of underground structures.
  • Dwelling in underground structures result in loss of connection with the natural world. There is no facility for sunlight or for observing weather changes. Lack of openness in the underground structure leads to poor ventilation.
  • Development of positive pressure during fire can reduce the fire resisting capabilities of construction materials.
  • Lack of oxygen levels in case of fire.
  • Induced vibrations due to underground transport result in noise and disturbance in the urban- built environment. Ground movements are caused due to induced vibrations which eventually lead to surface settlement. All these three phenomena lead to surface cracks on walls and floors of buildings.
  • In case of explosions, deep underground facilities have limited points of connection to the surface. A person has to climb upstairs to escape and there is also difficulty in venting out poisonous fumes caused by fire.
  • Heavier gases may seep underground and be present in heavier concentration than at surface. Grounds containing poisonous gases and chemicals cause health problems. Thus, ventilation is an important criterion.
  • Traffic management is a major issue during underground construction of a project that can take 10-15 years for completion. During the construction period, roads get blocked and traffic has to be diverted. This results in enhanced traffic volume which eventually leads to surface congestion. Sometimes traffic diversion leads to longer travel distances which lead to wastage of time and fuel (Bhutani et al., 2016).
Impact of Underground ConstructionFigure 3: Flowchart showing the different limitations of underground space

Ground Vibrations
One of the most significant aspects affecting the urban-built environment are ground vibrations, vibration induced noise and ground movements. The underground construction has led to interference in the regular orientation of ground and its behavior with the urban-built environment. It leads to disruption of balance of ground stress and results in stress redistribution, which in-turn lead to ground vibrations and ground movements. Researchers have observed that movement of the ground located above underground structures are more in cohesionless than cohesive grounds (Fattah et al., 2011). These phenomena ultimately result in displacement, deformation, settlement and collapse of the surface buildings, bridges, roads etc. (Yuan et al, 2011). The problem of ground movement is usually of minor significance but where surface structures are present, can lead to significant damage.

Ground vibrations are transmitted through the ground on to the urban-built environment like buildings, bridges, roads etc. (Berta, 1994; Yang et al., 2018). If not designed properly, these vibrations would tend to form cracks on surface structures and cause the walls and floors to shake (Connolly et al., 2016). The vibrations produced during railway or metro operation in an urbanized area are generated as a result of dynamic forces, track unevenness and the quasi-static track displacement influenced by successive axle loads (Jones et al, 1996). The main sources of vibrations resulting from underground constructions are the operations of pile driving, dynamic compaction, blasting and heavy machineries.

The different types of vibration include the P-waves, the S-waves and the R-waves. Vibration waves travel initially as compression waves (P-wave) and shear waves (S-wave) which propagate radially outward and are transmitted through the ground into the surface structures. When these waves reach the surface, they are generated as Rayleigh waves (R-wave) which experience viscous damping (Verhas, 1979). The diffraction and reflection of bulk waves tend to amplify these vibration waves. Heavy freight trains produce ground vibrations with predominant frequency of 4-30 Hz which may lead to damage of property if the amplitude of these vibrations is high enough (Jones et al, 1996).

Both ground vibration and its re-radiated noise are undesirable for humans and result in distress. In the urban-built environment, it is natural that the ground vibrations and their noise levels are high. Ground-borne noise, which generally occurs when these ground induced vibrations tend to vibrate the surface structures, generally has an appreciable frequency between 50 and 160 Hz (Hood et al., 1996). The vibration generated within the premises of the urban-built environment due to an underground moving train has frequency signals in the range of 22.5 Hz to 90 Hz (Vladimir et al., 2017). These negative impacts from the railway lines may be due to various reasons like construction of a new line, upgrading an exist ing rail line or changing rail switches. An environmental impact assessment is hence necessary before measuring vibrations of buildings and underground tunnels.

The properties of the structures of urban-built environment change due to the effect of vibrations as additional stresses are induced in them. Their features depend on the geology, materials constituting the building, and heterogeneity and uncertainty of soil deposits at site. These residual strains arise from the foundation movements associated with moisture changes in soil, thermal movements associated with temperature changes in material, humidity changes and substandard building construction. This leads to expansion, shrinkage and swelling of structure, and also results in a decrease in its lifespan. Ground vibrations with PPV value more than 15 mm/s damage the structures of urban-built environment.

Measurement of Ground Vibrations
The measurement of ground vibrations is essential so as to ensure a proper design and construction approach for the underground structure. The energy propagated in the soil due to rail traffic dominates at low frequency as it touches its peak when the frequency of waves ranges between 10-20 Hz. The effect of damping is also low at low frequencies and hence not much of ground attenuation is required. In order to mitigate the ground vibration levels caused due to underground structures, it is important to measure them. The following criteria are needed to be measured for proper assessment ground vibration:
  • Vibratory force produced due to a running train on an underground structure
  • Attenuation of ground vibrations between the underground structure and ground surface
  • The interaction between the ground vibration and building structures
Ground vibrations can be measured by both in-situ tests (Degrande et al., 2001) and numerical modeling. Numerical modeling is specifically useful in urban-built environment where noise is generated and transmitted through the underground structures into the buildings. The numerical modeling is used to calculate ground vibration response of structures near the underground railway lines. Various approaches have been made towards numerical modeling such as the finite element method (Kouroussis et al., 2011; Connolly et al., 2013a; Vogiatzis, 2010; Zhai et al., 2011), boundary element (Kattis et al., 1999), hybrid finite-boundary element (Lopes et al., 2014; Sheng et al., 2006; Galvin et al., 2010), finite difference (Thornely-Taylor, 2004), and semi-analytical models (Sheng et al., 2004; Salvador et al., 2011). Regardless of the methods adopted, all the data must be compared against the national or international standards for proper assessment of the ground vibrations and the ground-borne noise.

It is essential to have a parameter in order to measure ground vibrations. One such parameter is the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) having measurement units of mm/s. PPV refers to the movement of particles present within the ground and not the ground surface. Yarmohammadi et al.(2018) studied the average PPV values of some jet-grouted overlapping columns after their construction. The variation in the average PPV values with the number of columns for each length of column is shown in Fig.4.

Impact of Underground ConstructionFigure 4: Variation of the PPV with columns based on their size and quantity

There were columns of two different lengths of 2 m and 3 m who’s average PPV values were studied and then compared with the standard limits recommended by Han (2015). These recommended data of Han is given in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table.1. PPV values and their impact (Han, 2015)
PPV (mm/s) Level of Perception
<1 Slightly perceptible
1-3 Distinctly perceptible
3-8 Strongly perceptible
8-20 Disturbing

Table.2. Recommended values of maximum PPV as per structure (Han, 2015)
Structure Recommended maximum PPV (mm/s)
Industrial buildings 3 - 5
Residential buildings 5 - 15
Sensitive structures 20 - 40
Underground vibration induced noise levels are measured with the help of different empirical formulae depending on the location of noise source. The noise source can be varied such as wheel-rail interaction, noise from conversation of people, ventilation system of the underground structure.

Mohanan et al. (1989) studied the noise levels of functional metros of the Calcutta Metro Rail. A variation of the noise levels at different locations of the underground tunnels of Calcutta metro system has been shown in Fig.5.

Impact of Underground ConstructionFigure 5: Measured Noise levels of Calcutta Metro Rail (Mohanan et al. (1989)

Note: All loudness values are measured in decibel units

L10 and L50 - noise level exceeding 10% and 50% time of measurement duration respectively
L90 – A-weighted sound level equalled or exceeded 90% of the time of measurement duration
Leq – Equivalent noise level

Ground vibrations and its induced noise should be maintained under limits as per standard code provisions. Their magnitudes vary in different locations. Table 3 gives the general guidelines on the limits of noise exposure that the World Health Organization (WHO) had made. The data in Table 4 gives the limiting vibrations for cosmetic damage and relate to transient vibrations which do not give rise to resonant responses in structures and low-rise buildings. The sources of vibration measured for these limiting values were underground constructions, piling, ground compaction, road and rail traffic etc.

Table 3. WHO recommended Exposure Noise Levels
Environment Recommended maximum Leq Level (dB(A))
Industry/ Occupational 75
Urban Daytime 55
Urban Night-time 45
Indoor Daytime 45
Indoor Night-time 35

Table 4. Transient vibration guide values for cosmetic damage at building base (BS 5228)
Type of Building Peak component velocity in frequency range of predominant pulse
4 to 15 Hz 15 Hz and above
Industrial and Heavy commercial buildings 50 mm/s at 4 Hz and above 50 mm/s at 4 Hz and above
Residential/  light commercial buildings 15 mm/s at 4 Hz increasing 20 mm/s at 15 Hz 20 mm/s at 15 Hz increasing to 50 mm/s at 40 Hz and above

Table 5 addresses the effect of construction-induced vibrations on both surface and underground structures for both short- and long-term duration. Vibration measurements were taken from the foundation level of a building for short term vibration and at the top of roof for long term vibrations.

Table 5. Limiting values of vibration velocity for evaluation of building damage for short-term and long-term impact (DIN 4150, Part 3)
Structure Frequency
(Hz)
Peak Velocity (mm/s) Location of measurement
  Short-term Long-term
Office and Industries 1 20 - Foundation
  10 20 -
  10 20 -
  50 40 -
  50 40 -
  100 50 -
  1 - 10 Top Floor, Horizontal
  100 - 10
Domestic houses and similar construction 1 5 - Foundation
  10 5 -
  10 5 -
  50 15 -
  50 15 -
  100 20 -
  1 - 5 Top floor, horizontal
  100 - 5
Other buildings sensitive to vibrations 1 3 - Foundation
  10 3  
  10 3  
  50 8  
  50 8  
  100 10  
  1 - 2, 5 Top floor, horizontal
  100 - 2, 5

Tables 6 & 7 give the Swiss standard SN 640 312 (1979) which considers the effect of transient and continuous vibrations on buildings. Table 6 categorizes the different types of buildings whereas Table 7 gives the maximum vibration levels for continuous vibrations as per SN 640 312.

Table 6. Category of Buildings as per SN 640 312 classification
Building Category Building Type
I Reinforced concrete structures for industrial purposes, bridges, towers
  Subsurface structures such as caverns, tunnels with or without concrete lining
II Buildings with concrete foundations and concrete floors, buildings made of stone and concrete masonry/ blocks.
  Subsurface structures, water mains, tubes and caverns in soft rock
III Buildings with concrete foundations & basement, timber floors, masonry
IV Especially vibration-sensitive structures and buildings requiring protection

Table 7. Maximum vibration levels for continuous vibrations (SN 640 312)
Building Category Frequency Range (Hz) Recommended Vibration Velocity (mm/s)
I 10-30 12
  30-60 12-18
II 10-30 8
  30-60 8-12
III 10-30 5
  30-60 5-8
IV 10-30 3
  30-60 3-5

Ground Movements
Underground constructions are accompanied by ground movements which are obtained at the surface in a trough form. Ground movements are a clear proof of the effect of deformation caused by underground construction. Such effects occur in several phases like the excavation phase, construction phase and post construction phase. The post construction phase is time-dependent and arises from effects like creep, consolidation, pore water pressure distribution, and recompaction (Rankin, 1988). This may also lead to a sudden catastrophic failure of the structures of the urban-built environment.

The different causes of ground movements (Fattah et al., 2011; Lu et al, 2009) are as follows:
  • Elastic and plastic deformations of soil
  • Running of soil
  • Excessive excavation of ground
  • Ploughing, yawing or negotiating curves
  • Deflection of supports and linings of the underground structures
  • Vibrational effect of excavating machines
  • Soil Consolidation of disturbed soil
  • An operational underground metro system
The effect of ground movements on the urban-built environment depend on the type, rate, magnitude and distribution of the ground movement along with the features of the urban-built structures. The measured ground movements have been studied by different researchers on different soils.

Ground movements in the form of surface settlement cause several impacts. During underground construction, there is an increase in effective stress in drawdown affected areas due to pore pressure reduction caused by drawdown. Underground construction causing ground movements result in heaving and thus, the foundation level of the structure is disturbed. As a result, the buildings or other urban-built structures undergo settlement. There is also a fall in the water table.

The following tables show the variation of ground movements for two different soils i.e, stiff clays and soft clays in tunnels of different sizes located at different depths. Stiff clays cannot be moulded and have high strength ranging between 75-150 kN/m2. So, the vibration waves travel quicker due to rigidity of the medium. Soft clays are relatively weak having strength between 20-40 kN/m2 and can be moulded very easily by slight application of finger pressure.

In Tables 8 and 9, the ground movement is found to vary mostly in the range between 0.1 to 10 mm except for one or two readings where an excessive deformation of 25 mm was observed for stiff clays. For soft clays, the deformation value was found abnormally excessive (20-25 mm) in one of the readings when compared with the other two readings. This suggests that underground constructions in soft soils have a greater risk for the urban-built environment. Better methods of excavation like usage of Earth Pressure Balance Tunnel Boring Machine (EPB-TBM) should be implemented for such low strength soils. Deeper underground locations are better for underground activities to maintain minimum risk for the urban-built environment.

Table 8. Measured Ground Movements for Stiff Clays (Rankin, 1988)
Tunnel Diameter (m) Tunnel Depth (m) Ground Movement (mm)
4.15 20 5
32 3-7
4.15 30 7
6.5
2.56 24 25*
3.85 25 5
4.15 24.4 11
7.5
2.5

Table 9. Measured Ground Movements for Soft Clays (Rankin, 1988)
Tunnel Diameter (m) Tunnel Depth (m) Ground Movement (mm)
3.7 9.25 0.3
3 6 20-25*
2.7 4.5 5

Challenges of the Urban-Built Environment
The urban-built environment has faced many negative impacts due to underground constructions mostly in the form of ground vibrations, noise and ground movements. This issue thus requires serious attention. The underground induced vibration waves need to be mitigated to minimum levels so that their generation does not affect. The building vibrations can be sensed by humans when their frequency ranges between 1 Hz and 80 Hz. The ground-borne vibrations start shaking the walls and floors of a building when their frequency ranges between 16 Hz and 250 Hz. This in turn causes re-radiated and structure induced noise (Schevenels et al., 2017). Ground induced vibrations and noise needs to be mitigated at their source, their transmission path and the neighboring structures.

Vibrations can be mitigated at the source by grinding the rails, using soft rail pads, under-sleeper pads and floating slab tracks (Nelson, 1996; Loy, 2004; Hilderbrand, 2004; Lombaert et al., 2006). Other measures include modification of features of the dynamic vehicle, reduction of the wheel-rail unevenness, and usage of resilient elements such as ballast mats. Such mats result in a low resonance frequency which effectively reduces the free-field vibrations (Lombaert et al., 2006). The mats significantly reduce the impact by high frequency vibrations. It spreads the vibration waves over a large area to reduce the impact at a particular point. However, the degree of reduction is dependent on the angle between the track and the line that connects the source and receiver. Along the transmission path of vibrations, the best way of mitigation is to impede the propagation of ground vibrations.

This can be achieved by constructing open trenches (Karlstrom et al., 2007), construct soft and stiff buried wall barriers (Woods, 1968; Massarsch, 2005; Kattis et al, 1999; Coulier et al., 2015), subgrade stiffening (Andersen et al., 2005), install wave impeding blocks (Takemiya et al., 1994; Peplow et al, 1999) and wave reflectors (Krylov, 2005; Dijckmans et al., 2015). Stiff wall barriers can be formed by using concrete slab (Ahmad et al., 1992) or sheet pile (Dijckmans et al., 2016) in soil or by stiffening soil by jet grouting (Coulier et al., 2015). The installation of these walls reflects the incident waves causing a reduction in wave transmission. They cause reduction in wave propagation when the trace wavelength is less than bending wavelength of barrier wall. Their performance to mitigate the vibration further depends on the ground properties and size of wall used (Schevenels et al., 2017). The receiving end of ground vibrations is the urban-built environment itself. Mitigation measures involve improvement of foundation design and base isolation. However, these measures are structure dependent and vary for different structures.

The vibration waves can be mitigated by using barriers that modify the propagation medium. While providing materials for mitigating the vibrations it should be maintained that they are neither soft nor have high stiffness values as such features cannot generate significant impact (Auserch et al., 2017). The application of a resilient mat below the track slab gives rise to a new resonant frequency of the system and results in attenuation of energy from track to the ground (Colao et al., 2017). The degree of mitigation depends on the type of ground medium. Likewise, the floating slab on a stiff soil shows better mitigation of vibration waves than a stiff soil. Table 10 presents the different noise mitigation measures and their effectiveness.

Table.10. Mitigation measures with their contribution to Noise reduction (Tumavice et al., 2010)
Mitigation Measure Noise Reduction
Retrofitting with K-blocks 8-10
Retrofitting with LL – brake blocks 8-10
Wheel absorbers 1-3
Track absorbers 1-3
Accoustic rail grinding 1-3
Noise Barriers 5-15
Noise insulated windows 10-30

The transmission speed of underground vibrations can be reduced by incorporating a high resilient element in its path such as rubber spring can be used under the rails, sleepers or the supporting plates. Foam rubber mat can also be used under the ballast as a resistant material to counter underground vibrations (Costa et al., 2010). These measures turn out to be the most effective when the materials are made as soft as their safety limits permit and also when the mass between the resilient material and the rail is made very large, keeping cost under consideration. In this way, the resonant frequency of the mass-spring system can be maintained very low (10-20 Hz). This will provide a good isolation medium at frequencies of 40 Hz or higher in order to control the ground induced vibrations and noises.

However, a low ratio of dynamic stiffness to the static stiffness should be maintained till a frequency of 50 Hz as it leads to a small static deflection and good vibration isolation. The pronounced resonances of any plate between rail and elastic element must be avoided as it tends to deteriorate the isolation of a plate-spring system. This can be done by using small plate elements that are connected only by damping materials. Other methods to control the underground rail induced vibration include construction of thicker walls of the underground structure or create ditches or resilient mounts under the buildings and bridges (Heckl et al.,1996).

Conclusion
Underground structures are important and beneficial for urban-built environment in several ways starting from rapid mass transportation to food storage, oil and LPG storage, protection from natural disasters and adverse climate, environmental preservation and energy conservation. In-spite of several advantages, it has some disadvantages like psychological disturbance and isolation for people. Problems of traffic maintenance during underground construction are a major drawback. Problems like ground vibrations, vibration induced noise and ground movement arise during underground constructions, which excite the buildings, leading to distresses. It is, therefore, important to design and establish underground structures appropriately. In addition, use of EPB-TBMs for underground excavation in soft soils, underpinning, sheet piling, usage of resilient materials between rails etc. are needed.

References
  1. Ahmad, S., and Al-Hussaini, T. M. 1991. Simplified design for vibration screening by open and in-filled trenches. Journal of geotechnical engineering, 117, 67-88.
  2. Andersen, L., and Nielsen, S. R. 2005. Reduction of ground vibration by means of barriers or soil improvement along a railway track. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25(7-10), 701-716.
  3. Auersch, L. 2017. Mitigation of railway induced vibration at the track, in the transmission path through the soil and at the building. Procedia engineering, 199, 2312-2317.
  4. Berta, G. 1994. Blasting-induced vibration in tunnelling. Tunnelling and underground space technology, 9, 175-187.
  5. Bhutani, R., Ram, S., and Ravinder, K. 2016. Impact of metro rail construction work zone on traffic environment. Transportation Research Procedia, 17, 586-595.
  6. Bobylev, N. 2009. Mainstreaming sustainable development into a city's Master plan: A case of Urban Underground Space use. Land Use Policy, 26, 1128-1137.
  7. Bobylev, N. 2016. Transitions to a high density urban underground space. Procedia Engineering, 165, 184-192.
  8. Broere, W. 2016. Urban underground space: Solving the problems of today’s cities. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 55, 245-248.
  9. BS 5228-2: 2009. Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 2: Vibration.
  10. Carmody, J., Huet, O., and Sterling, R. 1994. Life safety in large underground buildings: principles and examples. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 9, 19-29.
  11. Celebi, E., and Kırtel, O. 2013. Non-linear 2-D FE modeling for prediction of screening performance of thin-walled trench barriers in mitigation of train-induced ground vibrations. Construction and Building Materials, 42, 122-131.
  12. Chow, F. C., Paul, T., Vähääho, I. T., Sellberg, B., and Lemos, L. J. L. 2002. Hidden aspects of urban planning: utilisation of underground space. In Proc. 2nd Int. Conference on Soil Structure Interaction in Urban Civil Engineering.
  13. Colaço, A., Costa, P. A., Amado-Mendes, P., Godinho, L., and Calçada, R. 2017. Mitigation of vibrations and re-radiated noise in buildings generated by railway traffic: a parametric study. Procedia engineering, 199, 2627-2632.
  14. Connolly, D. P., Marecki, G. P., Kouroussis, G., Thalassinakis, I., and Woodward, P. K. 2016. The growth of railway ground vibration problems - a review. Science of the Total Environment, 568, 1276-1282.
  15. Connolly, D., Giannopoulos, A., and Forde, M. C. 2013. Numerical modelling of ground borne vibrations from high speed rail lines on embankments. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 46, 13-19.
  16. Costa, P. A., Calçada, R., & Cardoso, A. S. 2012. Ballast mats for the reduction of railway traffic vibrations. Numerical study. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 42, 137-150.
  17. Costa, P. A., Calçada, R., Cardoso, A. S., and Bodare, A. 2010. Influence of soil non-linearity on the dynamic response of high-speed railway tracks. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 30, 221-235.
  18. Coulier, P., Cuéllar, V., Degrande, G., and Lombaert, G. 2015. Experimental and numerical evaluation of the effectiveness of a stiff wave barrier in the soil. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 77, 238-253.
  19. Coulier, P., Cuéllar, V., Degrande, G., and Lombaert, G. 2015. Experimental and numerical evaluation of the effectiveness of a stiff wave barrier in the soil. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 77, 238-253.
  20. Dawn, T.M. and Stanworth, C.G. 1979. Ground vibrations from passing trains. Journal of sound and vibration, 66, 355-362.
  21. Degrande, G. and Schillemans, L., 2001. Free field vibrations during the passage of a Thalys high-speed train at variable speed. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 247, 131-144.
  22. Dijckmans, A., Coulier, P., Jiang, J., Toward, M. G. R., Thompson, D. J., Degrande, G., and Lombaert, G. 2015. Mitigation of railway induced ground vibration by heavy masses next to the track. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 75, 158-170.
  23. Dijckmans, A., Ekblad, A., Smekal, A., Degrande, G., and Lombaert, G. 2016. Efficacy of a sheet pile wall as a wave barrier for railway induced ground vibration. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 84, 55-69.
  24. DIN 4150. 1999. Vibration in buildings – Part 3: Effect on structures. Deutsches Institut fur Normen, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin. 12p.
  25. Durmisevic, S. 1999. The future of the underground space. Cities, 16, 233-245.
  26. Fattah, M.Y., Kais T.S, and Nahla M.S. 2011. Settlement trough due to tunneling in cohesive ground." Indian Geotechnical Journal, 41, 64-75.
  27. Galvín, P., Romero, A., and Domínguez, J. 2010. Fully three-dimensional analysis of high-speed train–track–soil-structure dynamic interaction. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 329, 5147-5163.
  28. Godard, J.P. and Sterling, R.L. 1995. General considerations in assessing the advantages of using underground space. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 10, 287-297.
  29. Goel, R. K. 2001. Status of tunnelling and underground construction activities and technologies in India. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 16, 63-75.
  30. Gong, Q., Yin, L., Ma, H., and Zhao, J. 2016. TBM tunnelling under adverse geological conditions: an overview. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 57, 4-17.
  31. Han, J. 2015. Principles and practice of ground improvement. John Wiley & Sons.
  32. Heckl, M., Hauck, G., and Wettschureck, R. 1996. Structure-borne sound and vibration from rail traffic. Journal of sound and vibration, 193, 175-184.
  33. Hildebrand, R. 2004. Effect of soil stabilization on audible band railway ground vibration. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 24, 411-424.
  34. 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, 215-225.
  35. Jones, C. J. C., and Block, J. R. 1996. Prediction of ground vibration from freight trains. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 193, 205-213.
  36. Karg, C., François, S., Haegeman, W., and Degrande, G. 2010. Elasto-plastic long-term behavior of granular soils: Modelling and experimental validation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 30, 635-646.
  37. Karlström, A., and Boström, A. 2007. Efficiency of trenches along railways for trains moving at sub-or supersonic speeds. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 27, 625-641.
  38. Kattis, S. E., Polyzos, D., and Beskos, D. E. 1999. Modelling of pile wave barriers by effective trenches and their screening effectiveness. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 18, 1-10.
  39. Kattis, S. E., Polyzos, D., and Beskos, D. E. 1999. Vibration isolation by a row of piles using a 3D frequency domain BEM. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 46, 713-728.
  40. Kouroussis, G., Gazetas, G., Anastasopoulos, I., Conti, C., and Verlinden, O. 2011. Discrete modelling of vertical track–soil coupling for vehicle–track dynamics. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31, 1711-1723.
  41. Krylov, V. V. 2005. Scattering of Rayleigh waves by heavy masses as method of protection against traffic-induced ground vibrations. Environmental vibrations. Prediction, monitoring, mitigation and evaluation, 393-398.
  42. Li, S., Liu, B., Xu, X., Nie, L., Liu, Z., Song, J., Sun, H., Chen, L. and Fan, K., 2017. An overview of ahead geological prospecting in tunneling. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 63, 69-94.
  43. Lombaert, G., Degrande, G., Vanhauwere, B., Vandeborght, B., and François, S. 2006. The control of ground-borne vibrations from railway traffic by means of continuous floating slabs. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 297(3-5), 946-961.
  44. Lopes, P., Costa, P. A., Calçada, R., and Cardoso, A. S. 2014. Influence of soil stiffness on building vibrations due to railway traffic in tunnels: Numerical study. Computers and Geotechnics, 61, 277-291.
  45. Loy, H. 2012. Mitigating vibration using under-sleeper pads. Railway Gazette International, 168.
  46. Lu, Z. P., and Liu, G. B. 2009. Analysis of surface settlement due to the construction of a shield tunnel in soft clay in Shanghai.
  47. Massarsch, K. R. 2005. Vibration isolation using gas-filled cushions. In Soil dynamics symposium in honor of professor Richard D. Woods, 1-20.
  48. Mohanan, V., Sharma, O., and Singal, S. P. 1989. A noise and vibration survey in an underground railway system. Applied acoustics, 28, 263-275.
  49. Nelson, J. T. 1996. Recent developments in ground-borne noise and vibration control. Journal of sound and vibration, 193, 367-376.
  50. Parriaux, A., Tacher, L., and Joliquin, P. 2004. The hidden side of cities- towards three-dimensional land planning. Energy and Buildings, 36, 335-341.
  51. Peplow, A. T., Jones, C. J. C., and Petyt, M. 1999. Surface vibration propagation over a layered elastic half-space with an inclusion. Applied Acoustics, 56, 283-296.
  52. Petroutsatou, K. and Lambropoulos, S. 2010. Road tunnels construction cost estimation: a structural equation model development and comparison. Operational Research, 10,163-173.
  53. Rankin, W. J. 1988. Ground movements resulting from urban tunnelling: predictions and effects. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications 5, 79-92.
  54. Rönkä, K., Ritola, J. and Rauhala, K. 1998. Underground space in land-use planning. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 13, 39-49.
  55. Salvador, P., Real, J., Zamorano, C., and Villanueva, A. 2011. A procedure for the evaluation of vibrations induced by the passing of a train and its application to real railway traffic. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 53, 42-54.
  56. Schevenels, M., and Lombaert, G. 2017. Double wall barriers for the reduction of ground vibration transmission. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 97, 1-13.
  57. Sheng, X., Jones, C. J. C., and Thompson, D. J. 2004. A theoretical model for ground vibration from trains generated by vertical track irregularities. Journal of sound and vibration, 272, 937-965.
  58. Sheng, X., Jones, C. J. C., and Thompson, D. J. 2006. Prediction of ground vibration from trains using the wavenumber finite and boundary element methods. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 293, 575-586.
  59. Sterling, R., Admiraal, H., Bobylev, N., Parker, H., Godard, J.P., Vähäaho, I., Rogers, C.D., Shi, X. and Hanamura, T., 2012. Sustainability issues for underground space in urban areas. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning, 165, 241-254.
  60. Sterling, R., Carmody, J., and Rockenstein II, W. H. 1992. Case study of life safety standards for a large mined underground space facility in minneapolis, minnesota. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 7, 119-125.
  61. Svinkin, M. R. 2004. Minimizing construction vibration effects. Practice periodical on structural design and construction, 9, 108-115.
  62. Swiss Standard. 1992. Erschutterungen – Erschutterungseinwirkungen auf Bauwerke (Swiss Standard on vibration effects on buildings), SN 640 312a, Vereinigung Schweizerischer Strassenfachleute (VSS). Kommission 272, Unterbau and Fundationsschichten, 9.
  63. Takemiya, H., and Fujiwara, A. 1994. Wave propagation/impediment in a stratum and wave impeding block (WIB) measured for SSI response reduction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 13, 49-61.
  64. Thornely-Taylor, R. M. 2004. The prediction of vibration, ground-borne and structure-radiated noise from railways using finite difference method-Part1-theory. Proceeding of the Institute of Acoustics, 26 (Pt 2), 69-79.
  65. Tumavičė, A., Laurinavičius, A., Jagniatinskis, A., and Vaitkus, A. 2016. Environmental noise mitigation measures for Lithuanian Railway Network. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 2704-2713.
  66. Verhas, H. P. 1979. Prediction of the propagation of train-induced ground vibration. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 66, 371-376.
  67. Vladimir, S., and Ilya, T. 2017. To the question of vibration levels prediction inside residential buildings caused by underground traffic. Procedia Engineering, 176, 371-380.
  68. Vogiatzis, K. 2010. Noise and vibration theoretical evaluation and monitoring program for the protection of the ancient “Kapnikarea Church” from Athens metro operation. International Review of Civil Engineering, 1, 328-333.
  69. Watts, G. R. and Krylov, V. V. 2000. Ground-borne vibration generated by vehicles crossing road humps and speed control cushions. Applied Acoustics, 59, 221-236.
  70. WHO. 1980. Environmental health criterion no. 12: Executive summary on noise, Geneva.
  71. Woods R. 1968. Screening of surface waves in soils. J Soil Mech Found Div Proc ASCE, 94, 951–79.
  72. Yang, W., Cui, G., Xu, Z., Yan, Q., He, C., and Zhang, Y. 2018. An experimental study of ground-borne vibration from shield tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 71, 244-252.
  73. Yang, W., Hussein, M. F. M., and Marshall, A. M. 2013. Centrifuge and numerical modelling of ground-borne vibration from an underground tunnel. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 51, 23-34.
  74. Yarmohammadi, F., Rafiee-Dehkharghani, R., Behnia, C., and Aref, A. J. 2018. Topology optimization of jet-grouted overlapping columns for mitigation of train-induced ground vibrations. Construction and Building Materials, 190, 838-850.
  75. Yuan, C., Wang, X., Wang, N., and Zhao, Q. 2012. Study on the effect of tunnel excavation on surface subsidence based on GIS data management. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 12, 1387-1392.
  76. Zhai, W., He, Z., and Song, X. 2010. Prediction of high-speed train induced ground vibration based on train-track-ground system model. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 9, 545-554.

NBM&CW June 2020

Click Here
To Know More / Contact The Manufacturer
Please provide your details we will contact you as soon as possible
Choose Title from the listPlease let us know your name.
Please let us know your Designation.
Invalid Input
Please let us know your email address.
Please let us know your City.
Please let us know your Contact Number.
Please brief your query.
Our other value-added services:

To receive updates through e-mail on Products, Technologies, equipment, please Select the Product Category(s) you are interested in and click Submit. This will help you not only to save time but also to get best quote for right products from many manufacturers of the same category; it helps you to evaluate and negotiate the best price.

Equipment & Machinery
Invalid Input
Building Products
Invalid Input

Open-type TBM produced by CRCHI creates a new record in China

Being the longest water delivery line in the history of Jilin province, transferring water from Songhua River into Central Jilin Province will transfer the largest capacity of water and cover the largest areas. The water diversion Read More ...

Composite Shell Lining for Tunnels and Mined Stations

Amit Kaul, BASF India Limited (Construction Chemicals Division), India, tells about the innovative tunnel lining system and related design aspects, and also describes the main advantages of this lining system in comparison Read More ...

The Largest Diameter TBM in India Made by CRCHI will be used in Mumbai Coastal Road Project

On March 18, 2020, India’s largest diameter TBM was packed at CRCHI’s first industrial park in the Changsha city, central-south of China. It will pass through Shanghai Port to Mumbai for a costal road project. With an excavation Read More ...

CREG Φ15.8m Slurry TBM Solution for Chunfeng Tunnel in Shenzhen

Chunfeng Tunnel is the first bi-directional four-lane highway tunnel in Shenzhen, China, with two decks within one tunnel. The tunnel is 3,603m long; its average radius of curve is R750m and its biggest gradient reaches 49% Read More ...

CRCHI TBMs used in Under River Tunnel Project of Yuan River in Changde in Hunan Province, China, for customer CRCC 14th Bureau Group

The under-river tunnel project of Yuan River in Changde is a twin-tube tunnel in the Chinese inland city of Changde. The tunnel connects two sides of the Yuan River, and with its two-way and four-lane, it will promote harmonious Read More ...

GHH’s MK-A35 – Ideal for Tunneling & Mass Mining

With the 2020 upgrade of its long-proven MK-A35 model, GHH, German manufacturer of heavy machinery for mining, tunneling, and special civil engineering, presents the first 35-ton class dump truck, already operating in the field Read More ...

Srons Engineers, India’s first company to manufacture SDA Bars, has a strong quality control policy in place

Established in 2015 to support the growing demand of its Rock Hardware products, Srons Engineers is an Indian manufacturer of Rock Bolts, Self-drilling Anchor systems and Self Drilling Anchor Bolt parts like hollow bar & rod Read More ...

Tunneling, Rock Support & Geotechnical Solutions by MIPL & ROBIT

Machino International (MIPL) - a specialist company based in New Delhi, is a leading supplier of Construction, Tunnelling and Geotechnical products. The company has more than 30 years of experience in H.E.P, Road Tunnels, Cavern projects Read More ...

Turkey’s Tough Geology Inspires Robust Machine Design

Driven through a mountain side with 600-m of cover in Central Turkey, the Kargi Kizilirmak Hydroelectric Project is one of the most challenging tunneling projects ever completed in the region. The project is located on the Kızılırmak River Read More ...

CREG’s EPB TBM Ready to Perform in Italy

The Turin-Venice high-speed rail is part of the Pan-European Multimodal Corridor, which traverses the northern part of Italy and connects the northwest to the northeast of the country. It is an important gateway for Western European countries Read More ...

Characteristics & Categorization of Tunnel Fires & Their Mitigation

A fire that develops in a tunnel interacts with the ventilation airflow and generates complicated air flow patterns and turbulence in the vicinity. The heat generated warms up the surrounding air, and in case of a slope inside Read More ...

Mapei: Injection Solutions for Underground Construction

Injection can be defined as the introduction of a material with pressure into the ground or a structure for waterproofing and for consolidating voids, cracks and porosity. Generally, the injection can be categorised as Pre Read More ...

Tunnel Renovation Redefined

During renovation of the Hasselborner Tunnel in Central Hesse, Germany, contractor Baresel used a method they hadn't tried before. Parts of the tunnel lining had to be removed and the areas were subsequently Read More ...

GHH adds Shotcreting Machine to its - Tunneling Equipment Solutions

GHH is offering state-of-the-art and proven IS26 Concrete Spraying (Shotcrete) machine in India. The machine is suitable for shotcreting application in medium and large sized tunnels with cross sections ranging Read More ...

Kishanganga Hydro Power project – A New Power House

Inaugurated by the Prime Minister of India, the Kishanganga Hydro Electric Power project is the first mega hydro power plant to be awarded as EPC to HCC by NHPC. Located at Bandipore in north Kashmir, the Read More ...

Tunneling to Prosperity: Solutions, Equipment and Technologies

India is one of the fastest growing markets for tunnel construction due to various infrastructure development projects underway across the country. Tunnels are required for hydroelectric power projects, for improving road Read More ...
NBM&CW

New Building Material & Construction World

New Building Material & Construction World
MGS Architecture

Modern Green Structures & Architecture

Modern Green Structures & Architecture
L&ST

Lifting & Specialized Transport

Lifting & Specialized Transport
II&TW

Indian Infrastructure & Tenders Week

Indian Infrastructure & Tenders Week