READ ME File For 'A framework to predict the airborne noise inside railway vehicles with application to rolling noise'

Dataset DOI: 10.5258/SOTON/D1788

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

This dataset supports the publication:
AUTHORS:Hui Li, David Thompson, Giacomo Squicciarini, Xiaowan Liu, Martin Rissmann, Pascal Bouvet, Francisco D. Denia, 
        Luis Baeza, Julián Martín Jarillo, Juan Moreno García-Loygorri
TITLE:A framework to predict the airborne noise inside railway vehicles with application to rolling noise 
JOURNAL:Applied Acoustics 
PAPER DOI IF KNOWN:DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2021.108064


This dataset contains:

Data relating to figures

The figures are as follows:

Fig. 5  Measured reverberation time and absorption coefficient of the interior cabin
Fig. 7  2.5D models. The model for the wheel omits the fairing
Fig. 10  (a) Incident sound power, (b) transmitted sound power. Sound power levels in dB(A) re 10^-12 W.
Fig. 11  Sound pressure level distribution along the cabin axis, dB(A) re 2x10^-5 Pa (values shifted for confidentiality reasons)
Fig. 12  Sound pressure level spectra showing contributions from wheels, rails and sleepers, dB(A) re 2x10^-5 Pa; (a) end of the carriage, 
(b) middle of the carriage (values shifted for confidentiality reasons)
Fig. 13  Absorption coefficients (per floor area) for passengers based on data for audience. Standing passengers with a density of about 
2.7 people/m2 from [45] and seated passengers with a density of 2 people/m2 from [46], compared with the measured absorption of the train
Fig. 14  Sound pressure level spatial distribution under different levels of occupancy, (a) 250 Hz, (b) 400 Hz, (c) 800 Hz, (d) 1600 Hz 
(values shifted for confidentiality reasons).
Fig. 15  Sound pressure level at the (a) end of the carriage, (b) middle of the carriage (values shifted for confidentiality reasons)
Fig. 17  Comparison of predicted and measured sound pressure levels beneath the vehicle, dB(A) re 2x10^-5 Pa; (a) at the gangway (point 1003), 
(b) nearer to the middle region (point 1008)
Fig. 18  Comparisons between the 2.5D predictions and the measurements on a running vehicle, dB(A) re 2x10^-5 Pa. (a) Point 1010, (b) point 1011
Fig. 19  Comparison between predictions and measurements, (a) point 2003, (b) point 2004, (c) point 2005, (d) point 2006 (values shifted 
for confidentiality reasons).
Fig. 20  Comparison of sound decay along the train between predictions and measurements. : 400 Hz, SEA; : 800 Hz, SEA; : Overall, SEA; : 400 Hz, 
Measured; : 800 Hz, Measured; : Overall, Measured (values shifted for confidentiality reasons)



Date of data collection: September 2017 ~ August 2020

Information about geographic location of data collection: University of Southampton, U.K.

Licence:Creative Commons Attribution 4.0


Related projects:
The associated paper received funding from China Scholarship Council and the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking under the European Union's Horizon 2020 
research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 777564).




Date that the file was created: 27/03, 2021