READ ME File For 'The shadow effect on the ground surface due to vibration transmission from a railway tunnel'

Dataset DOI: 10.5258/SOTON/D1242

ReadMe Author: David Thompson, University of Southampton, ORCID: 0000-0002-7964-5906

This dataset supports the publication:
AUTHORS: Qiyun Jin, David J. Thompson, Daniel E.J. Lurcock, Evangelos Ntotsios
TITLE: The shadow effect on the ground surface due to vibration transmission from a railway tunnel
JOURNAL: Transportation Geotechnics
PAPER DOI: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100335


This dataset contains:

Data relating to all figures

The figures are as follows:

Figure 2. Averaged acceleration level and the background noise at different locations due to the trains on (a) far track; (b) near track. Locations A, B and C are at 0 m, 10 m and 20 m from the tunnel centreline respectively.
Figure 3. Vibration levels relative to location A. (a) B minus A for far track; (b) C minus A for far track; (c) B minus A for near track; (d) C minus A for near track.
Figure 5. Response on the ground surface to a unit force at the tunnel base at different frequencies. (a) vertical response; (b) pseudo-resultant response
Figure 6. Vertical response on the ground surface in the y direction at different frequencies (x=0) showing the definition of the width and magnitude of the shadow zone.
Figure 7. Pseudo-resultant for receivers on a horizontal line at a distance 15 m above the load in a full-space for a Poisson’s ratio of (a) 0.49; (b) 0.33.
Figure 8. Pseudo-resultant normalised to maximum value and individual components for receivers at a distance 15 m from the load for a Poisson’s ratio of 0.49. ?, pseudo-resultant; ? ?, vertical; ? ? ?, lateral. (a) 4 Hz, (b) 8 Hz, (c) 16 Hz, (d) 63 Hz.
Figure 9. Pseudo-resultant normalised to maximum value and individual components for receivers at a distance 15 m from the load for a Poisson’s ratio of 0.33. ?, pseudo-resultant; ? ?, vertical; ? ? ?, lateral. (a) 4 Hz, (b) 8 Hz, (c) 16 Hz, (d) 63 Hz.
Figure 10. Displacements on the ground surface in different frequency bands due to excitation at depth of (a) 0 m, (b) 15 m.
Figure 11. Pseudo-resultant response on the ground surface plotted against frequency compared for forces at different depth (5, 10 and 15 m): thick lines: directly above the excitation (at y=0); thin lines: maximum response.
Figure 12. Response level difference (a) and width of shadow area (b) plotted against non-dimensional frequency fd/cs compared for force at different depths.
Figure 13. Response at y=0 (a) and maximum response (b) plotted against frequency for different soil shear wave speeds; depth of force 15 m.
Figure 14. Response level difference (a) and width of shadow area (b) plotted against non-dimensional frequency fd/cs for different soil shear wave speeds; depth of force 15 m.
Figure 15. Pseudo-resultant response: (a) at y=0 and (b) maximum response, plotted against frequency for different soil compressional wave speeds; depth of force 15 m.
Figure 16. Response level difference (a) and width of shadow area (b), plotted against frequency for different soil compressional wave speeds; depth of force 15 m.
Figure 17. Pseudo-resultant displacement responses to a unit force compared at four excitation frequencies in one-third octave bands for three different models. (a) 8 Hz, (b) 16 Hz, (c) 31.5 Hz, (d) 63 Hz.
Figure 18. Response level difference (a) and width of shadow area (b) plotted against frequency for three different models.
Figure 19. Response level difference (a) and width of shadow area (b), plotted against frequency for different tunnel diameters. Depth of tunnel 25 m.
Figure 20. Response level difference (a) and width of shadow area (b), plotted against frequency for different lining thicknesses. Depth of tunnel 25 m.

Date of data collection: January 2016 - December 2019

Information about geographic location of data collection: 
University of Southampton, U.K.; 
Measurements at Hollingbourne, Kent, U.K.

Licence: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

Related projects:
None

Date that the file was created: February 2020