READ ME File For 'Simplified prediction models for acoustic installation effects of train-mounted equipment' Dataset DOI: 10.5258/SOTON/D2979 Date that the file was created: February, 2024 ------------------- GENERAL INFORMATION ------------------- ReadMe Author: David Thompson, University of Southampton, ORCID: 0000-0002-7964-5906 Date of data collection: July 2021 ~ February 2023 Information about geographic location of data collection: University of Southampton, U.K. Related projects: TRANSIT, funded by EU Horizon 2020 and the Europe’s Rail Joint Undertaking under grant agreement 881771 -------------------------- SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION -------------------------- Licenses/restrictions placed on the data, or limitations of reuse: Licence: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Recommended citation for the data: Data from David Thompson, Dong Zhao, Giacomo Squicciarini, Simplified prediction models for acoustic installation effects of train-mounted equipment, Railway Engineering Science, 2024. This dataset supports the publication: AUTHORS: David Thompson, Dong Zhao, Giacomo Squicciarini TITLE: Simplified prediction models for acoustic installation effects of train-mounted equipment JOURNAL: Railway Engineering Science Journal DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40534-024-00333-9 -------------------- DATA & FILE OVERVIEW -------------------- This dataset contains: Figure_data.xlsx This contains the data contained in each figure of the paper. The data for each part-figure is contained in a separate sheet of the spreadsheet. The figures are as follows: Fig. 3 Insertion loss results of the four train geometries from the 2D BE models for different receiver heights relative to the top of the rail. (a) Rectangular train geometry; (b) train roof with chamfered corners; (c) train roof with rounded corners; (d) train roof with single fairing Fig. 4 Insertion loss for the rectangular train model in example one-third octave bands. Receivers at: (a) 0 m height; (b) 3 m height; (c) 6 m height; (d) 9 m height Fig. 5 Comparison of 2.5D BE results (black lines) and the analytical results (grey lines) in one-third octave bands at x=0 for different heights of receiver relative to the top of the rail. (a) Rectangular train geometry; (b) train roof with chamfered corners; (c) train roof with rounded corners; (d) train roof with single fairing Fig. 6 Level difference between the analytical and the BE results for the rectangular train geometry in example one-third octave bands. Receiver height at: (a) 3 m; (b) 6 m Fig. 7 Level difference between the analytical and the BE results for the train with fairing in example one-third octave bands. Receiver height at: (a) 3 m; (b) 6 m Fig. 11 (a) Estimated insertion loss for the bottom face; (b) estimated insertion loss for the front and the rear faces Fig. 12 Comparison of the transfer functions (L_p-L_W) for the side faces (left or right) between the analytical model results and the 2.5D BE results when the source and the receivers are on the same side. (a) Position R1 (x=0 m, height 1.2 m); (b) position R3 (x=6 m, height 1.2 m) Fig. 13 Comparison of the transfer functions (L_p-L_W) for the bottom face between the analytical model results and the 2.5D BE results. (a) Position R1 (x=0 m); (b) position R3 (x=6 m) Fig. 14 Level difference between the sound pressure predicted using the analytical model and the 2.5D BE model for the receivers on the left at (a) the lower microphone height of 1.2 m and (b) the higher microphone height of 3.5 m above the rail head Fig. 15 Level differences in the IL between the analytical and the BE results for roof-mounted sources as a function of frequency (four train geometries, receiver heights [-5 9] m, longitudinal positions [-20 20] m) Fig. 16 Level differences of the IL between the analytical and the BE results for roof-mounted sources plotted against receiver height (four train geometries, longitudinal positions [-20 20] m). (a) Frequency bands 50-200 Hz; (b) frequency bands 250-4000 Hz Fig. 17 Range of the insertion loss predicted using the analytical model for roof-mounted source using only a single corner position and single source location. (a) Lower receivers; (b) upper receivers Fig. 18 Range of the insertion loss predicted using the analytical model for roof-mounted source. (a) Lower receivers; (b) upper receivers Fig. 19 Standard deviation of the insertion loss predicted using the analytical model for roof-mounted source. Comparison of results for a single location of the diffraction corner and all 8 locations, and for a single source position and 3 positions. (a) Lower receivers; (b) upper receivers Fig. 20 Range of the sound pressure level difference between the predictions and the measurement for all the receivers for underframe-mounted equipment. (a) Analytical model compared with BE model; (b) analytical model compared with measurement Fig. 21 Standard deviation of the sound pressure level from the predictions for underframe-mounted equipment. (a) Lower receivers; (b) upper receivers