Interior Noise Reduction Approach for Monorail System
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UTHM Institutional Repository INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION APPROACH FOR MONORAIL SYSTEM DJAMAL HISSEIN DIDANE A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the Degree of Master of Science in Railway Engineering Center For Graduate Studies Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia JANUARY 2014 v ABSTRACT This study presents an overview on the possibilities of interior noise reduction for monorail system using passive means. Nine samples out of three materials were subjected for noise test and the performance of each sample was observed. It is found that all of these samples have proved to reduce a significant amount noise at low and high frequencies even though the amount reduced differ from one sample to another. It is also been noticed that this reductions were denominated by means of absorption for some samples such as those from rubber material, and it was dominated by means of reflection for some others such as those from aluminum composite and paper composite. Moreover, from these different acoustic properties of each material, the whereabouts to install every material is different as well. It was suggested that, the rubber material should be installed on the upper floor of the monorail while, the paper composite should be installed under floor, and the aluminum composite should be installed at the outer parts from the monorail such as the apron door, ceiling, etc. However, despite their promising potential to reduce noise, there were few uncertainties with some samples at certain frequency, for example samples from aluminum composite could not reduce noise at 1250 Hz which denotes that it is not a good practice to use this material at that frequency. However, in terms of ranking, samples from rubber material reduced the largest amount followed by paper composite samples and aluminum composite samples held the last position as the least feasible with an average of 26.46%, 24.69% and 16.05% respectively as for the third sample in every material. This concludes that the passive approach adopted in this study seems to be feasible. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE i DECLERATION ii DEDICATION iii ACKNOLEDGEMENTS iv ABSTRACT v TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LIST OF TABLES x LIST OF FIGURES xii LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATION xv LIST OF APPENDICES xv i CHAPETR 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Problem statement 3 1.3 Aim 3 1.4 Objective 3 1.5 Scope of study 4 1.6 Significance of study 4 1.7 Research limitations 4 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Acoustic noise in railway trains 5 2.3 Noise in the environment 8 2.3.1 Energy environmental advantage of railways 11 2.4 Mechanism of noise generation 13 2.5 Noise sources and reduction methods 16 vii 2.5.1 Viscoelastic damping materials 18 2.5.2 Rolling noise 21 2.5.2.1 Wheel design 23 2.5.2.2 Wheel dynamics 24 2.5.2.3 Track design 25 2.5.2.4 Track dynamics 26 2.5.2.5 Braking system 26 2.5.2.6 Local shielding 26 2.5.3 Aerodynamic noise 27 2.5.3.1 Pantograph noise 28 2.5.3.2 Aerodynamic noise in the bogie area 29 2.5.3.3 Nose of the power car 30 2.5.4 Locomotive exhaust noise 30 2.5.5 Traction motor noise 32 2.5.6 Cooling fans 32 2.5.7 Structure born noise 33 2.5.8 Horn noise 33 2.5.9 Curve squeal 34 2.6 Recommended exposure limit (REL) 34 2.7 Literature review summary 37 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 39 3.1 Introduction 39 3.2 The details of the experimental samples 42 3.3 Experimental equipment 42 3.3.1 Sound level meter 42 3.3.2 Impedance tube kit 45 3.3.3 Acrylic box 46 3.4 Testing materials 47 3.4.1 Rubber sheet 47 3.4.2 Aluminum composite 48 3.4.3 Paper composite 51 3.5 Testing procedure 53 3.6 Mathematical formulation 54 viii 3.6.1 Decibel (dB) 54 3.6.2 Sound power and pressure level 55 3.6.3 Sound equivalent level 56 3.6.4 Sound intensity level 56 3.6.5 Acoustic impedance 57 3.7 Current existing interior noise level 58 3.8 Selection and measuring techniques 60 3.9 Experimental work 61 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 63 4.1 Introduction 63 4.2 Empty box 64 4.3 Rubber sheet 65 4.3.1 Acoustic properties 65 4.3.2 R3 67 4.3.3 R6 70 4.3.4 R9 72 4.3.5 Comparison between R3, R6 & R9 75 4.4. Aluminum composite 77 4.4.1 Acoustic properties 77 4.4.2 AC3 78 4.4.3 AC6 81 4.4.4 AC9 83 4.4.5 Comparison between AC3, AC6 & AC9 86 4.5 Paper composite 88 4.5.1 Acoustic properties 88 4.5.2 PC3 89 4.5.3 PC6 92 4.5.4 PC9 94 4.5.5 Comparison between PC3, PC6 & PC9 9 7 4.6 Comparison of all samples 99 4.7 Synthesis 102 4.7.1 Rubber 102 4.7.2 Aluminum composite 103 ix 4.7.3 Paper composite 104 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 105 5.1 Conclusions 105 5.2 Synthesis 106 5.3 Recommendations 107 REFERENCES 108 APPENDIX 111 x LIST OF TABLES 2.1 Noise annoyance for the population in the old states 9 of Germany 2.2 Energy efficiency of various forms of transport 12 2.3 Share of energy consumption and transport 13 volumes for rail 2.4 Frequency range for different types of railway noise 14 2.5 Identification of sources 17 2.6 Measured noise reduction obtained for various wheel and track treatments in Silent Freight and Silent Track projects to nearest whole dB 24 2.7 Noise exposure levels and durations that no worker shall equal or exceed 36 3.1 Details of the experimental samples 42 3.2 Sound Level Meter (SLM) specifications 43 3.3 Specification of rubber sheet 47 3.4 Technical specifications for paper composite 52 3.5 Noise level when all the main and auxiliary equipment switched ON at full load 58 3.6 Noise level when all the main and auxiliary equipment switched ON at minimum load (HVAC OFF) 58 3.7 Proposed installation locations 62 4.1 Noise level at different frequency for empty box 64 4.2 Noise level comparison for R3 68 4.3 Noise level comparison for R6 71 4.4 Noise level comparison for R9 73 4.5 Noise level comparison for R3, R6 & R9 75 xi 4.6 Noise level comparison for AC3 79 4.7 Noise level comparison for AC6 82 4.8 Noise level comparison for AC9 84 4.9 Noise level comparison for AC3, AC6 & AC9 86 4.10 Noise level comparison for PC3 90 4.11 Noise level comparison for PC6 93 4.12 Noise level comparison for PC9 95 4.13 Noise level comparison for PC3, PC6 & PC9 98 4.14 Noise level comparison for all samples 100 xii LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 Power spectrum density of the interior acoustic noise 6 2.2 Subjective experienced annoyance of the federal german population 8 2.3 Typical comparisons of energy consumption (litres of fuel) and carbon dioxide emissions (kg) for various modes of transport per 100 passenger-km 13 2.4 Summary of average sound level reductions 15 2.5 Sound transmission loss in one-third octave bands 20 2.6 Schematic diagram of installation of water-based coatings on the whole internal car body and bitumen -based damping sheet on the sidewall and floor panel in the carriage C1 21 2.7 The damping treatment of the car body 21 2.8 Details of the wheel-railed interaction 22 2.9 Transition speed Ut for a high speed wheeled train (ICE or TGV) with an average level of noise 27 2.10 Schematic diagram for measurement of noise from high speed train 29 2.11 Components of active-passive system 31 3.1 Methodology flowchart 41 3.2 Impedance tube kit for high and low frequency 45 3.3 Acrylic box 46 3.4 Rubber sheet 48 3.5 Aluminum composite panel structure 50 3.6 Aluminum composite panel 51 3.7 Paper composite material 53 xiii 3.8 The new monorail during noise measurement 59 3.9 Monorail gearbox 61 4.1 Noise level against frequency for the empty box 65 4.2 Absorption coefficient against frequency for rubber material without an air gap 66 4.3 Absorption coefficient against frequency for rubber material with a 10 mm air gap 67 4.4 Noise level against frequency for R3 69 4.5 Comparing noise level for R3 and empty box 69 4.6 Noise level against frequency for R6 70 4.7 Noise level against frequency for empty box and R6 72 4.8 Noise level against frequency for R9 74 4.9 Noise level against frequency for empty box and R9 74 4.10 Noise level against frequency for R3, R6 & R9 76 4.11 Average percentage difference for R3, R6 & R9 77 4.12 Absorption coefficient against frequency for aluminum composite 78 4.13 Noise level against frequency for AC3 80 4.14 Noise level against frequency for empty box and AC3 80 4.15 Noise level against frequency for AC6 81 4.16 Noise level against frequency for empty box and AC6 83 4.17 Noise level against frequency for AC9 85 4.18 Noise level against frequency for empty box and AC9 85 4.19 Noise level against frequency for AC3, AC6 & AC9 87 4.20 Average percentage difference for AC3, AC6 & AC9 88 4.21 Absorption coefficient against frequency for paper composite 89 4.22 Noise level against frequency for PC3 91 4.23 Noise level against frequency for empty box and PC3 91 4.24 Noise level against frequency for PC6 92 4.25 Noise level against frequency for empty box and PC6 94 4.26 Noise level against frequency for PC9 96 4.27 Noise level against frequency for empty box and PC9 96 xiv 4.28 Noise level against frequency for PC3, PC6 & PC9 97 4.29 Average percentage difference for PC3, PC6 & PC9 99 4.30 Noise level against frequency for all samples 101 4.31 Average percentage difference for all samples 101 4.32 Monorail inner view 102 4.33 The new four car monorail 103 xv LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATION dB - Decibel I - Sound intensity level -12 2 Ire - Reference intensity standardized as 10 W/m Lp - Sound pressure level Lw - Sound power level Pre - Reference pressure of 20µ Pa P - Sound pressure radiated by the source, Pa U - Volume flow -12 Wre - Reference power 10 watt W - Sound power radiated by the source, w Z - Acoustic impedance xvi LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX TITLE PAGE A Experimental setup 111 B Experimental samples 113 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Rail transport is perceived as one of the most efficient and environmental friendly means of transport.