Efficiency of Open and Infill Trenches in Mitigating

Ground-Borne Vibrations
Tulika Bose 1; Deepankar Choudhury, M.ASCE 2; Julian Sprengel 3; and Martin Ziegler 4

Abstract: In the present-day context, man-made sources of ground-borne vibration are rising at a very rapid rate due to increasing construction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina A&T State Univ on 05/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

work, blasting activities, and rapidly expanding rail and road traffic systems. As a consequence, amplified levels of ground-borne vibration
occur, causing annoyance to residents living in nearby areas, posing a threat to the stability of old structures, and interfering with instrumen-
tation works in industries. This paper discusses an investigation into the use of trenches as a means of mitigating ground vibration caused by
propagation of surface (Rayleigh) waves. Two- and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) finite-element models were developed using PLAXIS for
identifying key factors affecting the vibration isolation efficiency of open and infill trenches. Parametric studies were carried out, and the results
were analyzed to arrive at optimum values of geometrical and material properties of trenches. Numerical analysis showed that, for open
trenches, normalized depth is the decisive factor and width is of importance in trenches that are very shallow. For infill trenches, it was observed
that low-density materials perform exceedingly well as infill materials but their performance is highly sensitive to the relative shear-wave
velocity between the infill material and the in situ soil. Finally, an in-depth analysis was carried out to investigate the performance of
polyurethane foam trenches in mitigating vibrations caused by harmonic loads. The analysis was extended to study the effectiveness of
these geofoam barriers in damping out the vibrations generated by a moving train. In this case, barrier efficiency was shown to increase
with increasing train speed. The key findings suggest that trenches are a simple and effective solution for reducing ground-borne vibrations.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001915. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Geofoam trenches; Infill trenches; Moving loads; Numerical finite-element model; Open trenches; Vibration isolation;
Wave barriers.

Introduction In addition, these waves attenuate with distance in a rather slow

Ground-borne vibrations generated from machines, construction
activities, and transportation, are often of intense levels, posing
a great challenge for engineers to build structures in such areas that
are serviceable to residents. The problem has become acute with the
advent of high-speed railway networks that are expanding at a very
rapid rate across the globe. As train speeds and axle loads keep on
increasing, vibration levels are amplified to a great extent. Energy
from the surface sources of vibration mainly propagates in the form
of Rayleigh waves, which are confined to a narrow zone near the
surface of the elastic half-space (Choudhury and Katdare 2013).
1
Ph.D. Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Technical Univ. of
Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark; formerly, PG Student, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai
400076, India. Email: bosetulika11@gmail.com
2
Institute Chair Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India; Adjunct Professor,
Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research, CSIR Campus, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu 600113, India (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid
.org/0000-0002-2331-7049. Email: dc@civil.iitb.ac.in
3
Ph.D. Research Scholar, Dept. of Geotechnical Engineering, RWTH
Aachen Univ., Aachen 52074, Germany. Email: sprengel@geotechnik
.rwth-aachen.de
4
Professor and Director, Geotechnical Engineering and Institute of
Foundation Engineering, Soil Mechanics, Rock Mechanics and Waterways
Construction, RWTH Aachen Univ., Aachen 52074, Germany. Email:
ziegler@geotechnik.rwth-aachen.de
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 28, 2017; approved on
February 7, 2018; published online on May 30, 2018. Discussion period
open until October 30, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
manner when compared with body waves, which predominate near
the source of vibration. Hence, vibration-induced damages and
distress to structures on the surface are extremely high because of
the Rayleigh waves (Choudhury et al. 2014).
Vibration isolation using trenches (open or infill) as wave barriers
may be a quick, simple, and cost-competitive way to deal with this
problem. Trenches function as wave barriers by curbing the motion
of the traveling wave, leading to energy degeneration. An open
trench acts like a finite discontinuity in the ground surface across
which no energy is transmitted. For an infill trench, there is a differ-
ence in material impedance at the junction of the in situ soil and the
trench. This causes energy redistribution across the trench in the
form of reflected and transmitted waves. Trenches are used as wave
barriers in two scenarios: (1) active or near-field isolation and (2) pas-
sive or far-field isolation. In the former, they are built enclosing the
source of vibration (e.g., vibrating machines); in the latter, they are
built near the objects to be shielded (e.g., buildings to be protected
from vibrations of nearby rail and road traffic).
In vibration isolation studies involving wave barriers, numerical
methods of analysis have found popularity. Theoretical solutions are
limited, involving simplified geometries, and full-scale testing meth-
ods are often expensive. The earliest experimental work was carried
out by Barkan (1962), Neumeuer (1963), and McNeil et al. (1965).
Not all of these attempts proved to be successful, but their findings
gave insight into the mechanism of screening by wave barriers.
Woods (1968) performed a series of field experiments for both near-
and far-field isolation using open trenches. Minimum trench depths
of 0.6LR (LR = Rayleigh wavelength) for active isolation and
1.33LR for passive isolation were suggested, considering 75%
screening efficiency. Haupt (1981) carried out a number of scaled
model tests using both solid concrete barriers and lightweight bore

© ASCE 04018048-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018048

 holes and open trenches. This study showed that barrier efficiency is
a function of parameters in terms of wavelength normalized dimen-
sions. Aboudi (1973), Fuyuki and Matsumoto (1980), and May and
Bolt (1982) carried out numerical studies using FEM or finite
difference method (FDM). Later, boundary element method (BEM)
found popularity owing to its simplicity and was widely used in
wave propagation problems (e.g., Emad and Manolis 1985; Beskos
et al. 1986; Leung et al. 1987).
An extensive parametric study was carried out by Ahmad and
Al-Hussaini (1991) on the use of open and infill trenches as wave
barriers. The screening efficiency of open trenches was found to be
dependent mainly on depth; that of infill trenches was reported to be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina A&T State Univ on 05/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a function of both depth and width. Al-Hussaini and Ahmad (1991)
studied the horizontal screening efficiency of barriers and reported
that trenches were more effective in damping vertical vibrations than
horizontal vibrations. Ahmad et al. (1996) used 3D BEM to study
active isolation of machines using open trenches; Al-Hussaini and
Ahmad (1996) used infill trenches for the same purpose. The results
were compared with experiments and good agreement was found.
Yang and Hung (1997) developed a finite-element model with in-
finite elements to investigate the efficiency of open and infill
trenches for vibrations due to passing trains. It was reported that
trenches were less effective in screening low-frequency vibration.
Hung et al. (2004) carried out similar studies and observed that
trenches were more effective in screening waves caused by a train
moving at supercritical speed compared with subcritical speed.
Ju and Lin (2004) reported similar results.
Adam and Estorff (2005) employed coupled BEM-FEM in a time
domain to study the effectiveness of trenches in reducing building
vibrations. They found that 80% of the forces in the building com-
ponent could be reduced by a well-designed barrier. Andersen and
Nielsen (2005) applied the same coupled approach and reported that
trenches were better at mitigating vertical vibrations than horizontal
vibrations. Wang et al. (2006, 2009) numerically investigated the
efficiency of expanded polystyrene (EPS) barriers in protecting
buried structures under blast load. Leonardi and Buonsanti
(2014) studied the efficiency of concrete and compacted soil barriers
for reducing train-induced vibrations. Esmaeili et al. (2014) and
Zakeri et al. (2014) investigated V-shaped and step-shaped trenches,
respectively. Their findings revealed that trenches with such modi-
fied geometries were more effective than conventional rectangular
trenches.
Full-scale experimental studies were conducted by Massarsch
(1991) on the efficiency of gas cushion screen systems. These sys-
tems were found to be comparable to open trenches. Baker (1994)
carried out field tests on stiffer and softer barriers made of concrete
and bentonite, respectively. Davies (1994) carried out 20-g centri-
fuge tests to study the screening effectiveness of EPS barriers on
buried objects. The tests indicated that low acoustic materials could
reduce the magnitude of ground shock loading on buried structures.
Zeng et al. (2001) performed tests on rubber-modified asphalt and
found that, owing to a high damping ratio, the modified asphalt
could be used effectively beneath high-speed railway tracks as a
foundation material for vibration attenuation. Itoh et al. (2005) con-
ducted centrifuge tests and suggested using a combination of crumb
rubber–modified asphalt at the vibration source and an EPS barrier
along the transmission path. Murillo et al. (2009) performed 50-g
centrifuge tests on EPS barriers and reported incremental efficiency
to be a function of barrier depth. Alzawi and EI-Naggar (2011)
carried out full-scale field tests to study the effectiveness of geofoam
barriers. Their findings revealed a significant increase in perfor-
mance for normalized barrier depth greater than 0.6.
Research to date has lacked a systematic procedure for selecting
the best infill material to be used in trenches for a given soil
© ASCE 04018048-2
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018048
domain. Most studies have focused on open trenches or selected
infill materials like concrete or bentonite. In addition, loading
has been considered to be mostly harmonic and the trench geom-
etry to be a rectangular single wall. Generalized performance of
materials based on their characteristic properties, such as density
or stiffness, is missing in the literature. There is also a need for
determining the sensitivity of trench efficiency to changes in geo-
metrical parameters. In this study, an attempt was made to fill in the
gaps in the literature by studying the performance of trenches
methodically, beginning with the simplest case of open trenches.
Next, parametric studies were carried out for a wide range of ma-
terials in an infill trench for a given soil domain, and the relative
effectiveness of these materials was determined. The efficiency of a
geo-foam barrier system was subsequently investigated in depth for
both a harmonic load and a moving train. The focus of this study
was the performance of trenches given various materials, geomet-
rical parameters, system configurations, and loading applications.
Two- and three-dimensional numerical finite-element models
were developed using PLAXIS, validated using results from the
literature, and then used to investigate open and infill trenches.
Parametric variations in material and geometrical properties of infill
trenches were analyzed, and the results, in terms of efficiency, were
compared. Optimum barrier dimensions were also investigated. In
this study, the soil was considered to be elastic, homogenous,
and isotropic. The loading considered was initially periodic and
harmonic and later modified to simulate a moving train.
Vibration Isolation Efficiency of Open Trenches
Numerical Model
A numerical model was developed to understand the behavior and
efficiency of open trenches, as wave barriers, in mitigating ground-
borne vibrations generated by a harmonic load vibrating in the ver-
tical direction. The 2D axisymmetric model consisted of 15 noded
triangular elements. Average element size was fixed, based on the
recommendations of Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer (1973), to be one-
eighth to one-tenth of the wavelength. In order to account for
the semi-infinite extent of the soil, viscous boundary conditions
were assigned along the model edges to avoid undue wave reflec-
tions. Standard fixities were applied, wherein the vertical sides
were restrained horizontally (ux ¼ 0) and the bottom was fully re-
strained (ux ¼ uy ¼ 0). A linear elastic soil model was chosen be-
cause wave propagation in soil involving trenches usually generates
small strains, meaning that material nonlinearities arising from
small variations in stress over a cycle are not very influential.
Fig. 1. Schematic of vibration isolation system using an open trench.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina A&T State Univ on 05/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Typical 2D numerical model developed for an open trench in PLAXIS.
Considering this, soil behavior at small strain levels were assumed
to be linearly elastic without significant loss of accuracy. (Yang and
Hung 1997; Andersen and Nielsen 2005; Alzawi and EI-Naggar
2011). In wave propagation problems involving barriers, in order
to prevent the results from depending on load frequency, trench
geometrical parameters are usually normalized with those of the
Rayleigh wavelength, LR (Ahmad and Al-Hussaini 1991). Fig. 1 is
a schematic of the developed numerical model; Fig. 2 shows the
model’s meshing details.
Model Validation
The results of any vibration isolation scheme are typically ex-
pressed as an amplitude reduction ratio, ARR (Woods 1968), which
is given as
AI
ARR ¼ ð1Þ
AO
where AI = displacement or velocity amplitude after trench instal-
lation; and AO = displacement or velocity amplitude before trench
installation.
The values of ARR vary at different locations beyond the trench.
To have an idea of the overall performance of the barrier, an average
was computed by integrating ARR over the barrier influence zone,
x, represented by the average amplitude reduction ratio (Ar)
Z The barrier was placed at two screening distances (L ¼ 3 and
1
Ar ¼ ðARRÞdx ð2Þ
x
From this, overall system efficiency or effectiveness (Ef) could
be evaluated as
Ef ¼ ð1 − ArÞ × 100 ð3Þ
The numerical model was first validated, as mentioned previ-
ously. For that purpose, an open trench of depth d ¼ 1.0LR , width
w ¼ 0.1LR , and screening distance l ¼ 5LR was considered.
Fig. 3(a) plots the variation in ARR with normalized distance be-
yond the source of vibration. Good agreement was found between
the simulated results and those reported in the literature.
To compute system efficiency as a whole, average amplitude re-
duction was calculated over a zone of influence, x, beyond the
barrier. For this purpose, the area over which the trench exerted
its influence was determined by plotting the normalized soil particle
displacement beyond the barrier, as shown in Fig. 3(b). It is evident
from this plot that, after a distance of roughly 10LR beyond the open
© ASCE 04018048-3
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018048
trench, particle displacements were fairly insignificant and the influ-
ence of the trench almost disappeared. To enumerate Ar, then, x ¼
10LR was used in this study, as in the studies carried out by Ahmad
and Al-Hussaini (1991) and Yang and Hung (1997).
Parametric Study
The three variables that define an open trench are depth, d, width,
w, and screening distance l, which can be optimized to achieve
maximum screening efficiency. In this study, the trench was placed
at different locations. Different combinations of width and depth
were chosen against which system efficiency could be evaluated.
The input parameters for the soil domain were the same as
those in Yang and Hung (1997). The relevant properties were
density, ρ ¼ 1,800 kg=m3 ; shear-wave velocity, V S ¼ 101 m=s;
Rayleigh wave velocity, V R ¼ 93 m=s; LR ¼ 3 m; Poisson’s ratio,
ν ¼ 0.25; and damping coefficient, ξ ¼ 5%. The source of vibration
was taken to be a periodic harmonic load of magnitude 1 kN vibrat-
ing vertically at a frequency of 31 Hz. For practical purposes, the
footing carrying the vibrating load was not included in the numerical
model because it did not alter or affect the results of the study
(Kattis et al. 1999).
Fig. 4 shows the results of the parametric study, plotted in terms
of variation in average amplitude reduction ratio/system efficiency
with changes in the trench’s normalized geometrical parameters.
L ¼ 5) and analyzed for a wide range of depth, D, and width
W, values. From the figure, it can be observed that open trenches
have excellent vibration isolation capacity. In the range considered
for the parametric study here, the minimum efficiency of the system
was as high as 55% whereas the maximum was more than 80%. It
became evident that normalized depth was the key parameter con-
trolling system effectiveness, which was maximized with increas-
ing normalized depth, D. This was true for all trench locations and
widths. For an efficiency Ef > 60%, D had to be greater than 0.8.
In addition, the performance of the trench was observed not to be
very sensitive to the barrier location, L. The same was true for the
trench width, W, with the exception of very shallow trenches. For
these cases, the response of the system improved with increasing
width, mainly because open trenches represent a discontinuity in
the ground profile across which no part of the wave energy is al-
lowed to pass, meaning that wave reflection plays the major role.
Hence, for a sufficiently deep barrier that obstructs Rayleigh waves,
creation of a finite discontinuity in the ground surface is sufficient.
However, for a very shallow trench, as in this case, not all of the
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 2.5 1.2
Present study Open Trench
Ahmad and Al- 1.0 No Trench
2.0 Hussaini 1991
Beskos et al. 1986
0.8
1.5
0.6
1.0
0.4

0.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina A&T State Univ on 05/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.2

0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15
(a) (b)

Fig. 3. Analysis of an open trench: (a) 2D finite-element model verification, W ¼ 0.1, D ¼ 1, L ¼ 5; and (b) normalized vertical displacement
amplitude of the ground surface.

0.5 50
L=3,W=0.17
L=3,W=0.33
0.4 60
L=3,W=0.50
L=5,W=0.17
0.3 L=5,W=0.33 70
L=5,W=0.50

0.2 80

0.1 90

0 100
0.5 1.0 1.5

Fig. 4. Variation in the average amplitude reduction ratio with changes

in the normalized depth of an open trench.

Fig. 5. Variation in the average amplitude reduction ratio with changes

wave energy is blocked by the barrier, meaning that width has an in the shear-wave velocity ratio of an infill trench and in situ soil.
important role to play. This observation is consistent with the find-
ings reported by Ahmad and Al-Hussaini (1991).

Vibration Isolation Efficiency of Infill Trenches
Two-Dimensional Parametric Study
Open trenches, though an excellent method of mitigating ground-
borne vibrations, find their use in limited cases owing to stability
issues. Hence, infill trenches become a popular choice when the
wavelength exceeds a depth beyond which open vertical cuts find
difficulty in construction and stability. For an open trench, wave
reflection plays the major role, whereas, for an infill trench, the
combination of energy in the reflected and transmitted waves
governs efficiency.
In this study, infill materials having both lower and higher den-
sities (ρfill ) compared with the soil domain were chosen. For each
material density, the shear-wave velocity (V Sfill ) was gradually in-
creased from low to high. A parametric study was carried out with
these widespread spectra of infill materials to assess their relative
efficiencies. Also, for a few chosen densities the damping charac-
teristics of the materials were varied. The relevant parameters
considered for the soil domain were ρsoil ¼ 1,850 kg=m3 , V Ssoil ¼
225 m=s, ν soil ¼ 0.4, and ξ soil ¼ 5%. The dynamic load was
simulated to be periodic and harmonic, vibrating vertically at a fre-
quency of 45 Hz. The barrier was placed at a fixed distance of 2.5 m
from the load and was of a constant depth of 3 m (D ¼ 0.65) and a
width of 0.25 m. The ratio of infill material density to soil density,
ρfill =ρsoil , was varied from 0.02 to 4.20. The shear-wave velocity
ratio of the infill material to that of the soil, V Sfill =V Ssoil , was
changed from 0.25 to 6.0. The damping properties of the infill were
kept in the 5–15% range.
Results and Discussion
Fig. 5 plots the variation in Ar with changes in ratio of infill shear-
wave velocity to that of the soil for various material density ratios. It
is observed that the functioning of the trench was largely dependent
on the contrast between the properties of the infill and those of the in
situ soil. Infill density and shear-wave velocity had a great impact on
the results, which were different for low- and high-density materials.

© ASCE 04018048-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018048


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina A&T State Univ on 05/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Variation in the average amplitude reduction ratio with changes
in the damping characteristics of an infill trench.
In general, low-density materials (ρfill =ρsoil < 0.15) performed
well as wave barriers compared with high-density materials. In fact,
their performance was comparable to that of open trench. However,
their response depended on the relative shear-wave velocity of the
infill material and the in situ soil, V Sfill =V Ssoil . The system per-
formed efficiently, displaying lower Ar values, when the shear-
wave velocity of the fill material was lower than that of the soil
because, in this case, the low-density materials had sufficient en-
ergy dissipation capacity. With increasing infill shear-wave veloc-
ity, either Ar increased or efficiency decreased. An upper limiting
value could be identified as 1; as V Sfill =V Ssoil approached 1.0, Ar
increased sharply.
On the other hand, dense infill materials (ρfill =ρsoil > 1.0) also
functioned effectively in the trench, exhibiting lower Ar at very high
shear-wave velocities compared with the in situ soil. The lower limit
in this case was 2.5. For V Sfill =V Ssoil > 2.5, Ar was generally lower
or efficiency was higher, indicating that high-density materials
having sufficient stiffness could resist the incoming wave. Materials
having a density of 0.15 < ρfill =ρsoil < 1 performed well when the
shear-wave velocity was 1.0 > V Sfill =V Ssoil > 2.5).
Fig. 6 shows the variation in Ar with changing infill material
damping keeping all other parameters unchanged. It is observed
that Ar was not very sensitive to changes in the damping character-
istics of the infill materials. When the damping coefficient of the
infill increased from 5 to 15%, no significant changes were detected
in Ar.
Vibration Isolation Efficiency of Geofoam Trenches
The results described in the previous section indicate that low-
density materials having lower shear-wave velocity relative to the
surrounding soil are ideal for use as trench infill. Additional analyses
were carried out on a low-density geofoam infill material. The type
of geofoam chosen was polyurethane, a leading member of the
wide ranging and diverse family of polymers. Polyurethane is manu-
factured in both solid and cellular forms and can be rigid as well as
flexible.
Two-Dimensional Parametric study
A stepwise sensitivity analysis was carried out to investigate how
the geometrical parameters of polyurethane foam trench (PU foam)
influence the efficiency.
© ASCE 04018048-5
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018048
First, the impact of geofoam trench depth, D, and screening
distance, L, were analyzed while keeping trench width, w,
constant at 0.25 m. Following that, w was varied for chosen depths,
keeping the trench fixed at two locations simulating near-field
and far-field isolation. Finally, the influence of cross-sectional area,
A, and ratio, d=w, was investigated. Soil and loading parameters
were the same as those for the infill trenches; the properties of
the PU foam, taken from Alzawi and EI-Naggar (2011), were
V S ¼ 330 m=s, ρ ¼ 61 kg=m3 .
Results and Discussion
Influence of Barrier Depth and Location
The trench was placed at different locations, L, at which the nor-
malized depth, D, was changed from 0.3 to 1.5; the width was kept
constant. Fig. 7(a) shows the combined influence of D and L on the
average amplitude reduction ratio, Ar. First, it was observed that the
PU foam trenches had very good vibration isolation capacity; Ar
showed a major dependency on both screening distance and normal-
ized depth. Second, it was observed that on changing the normalized
distance, L, from 0.4 to 1.6, Ar changed in a complex manner de-
pending on depth. For L > 1.8, effectiveness was mostly governed
by normalized depth and was almost independent of the barrier’s
distance from the source of vibration. Thus, it might be said that
increasing D generally results in decreasing Ar, but in a complicated
way that depends on barrier position. For far-field isolation, an in-
crease in D was generally accompanied by a boost in system effi-
ciency; for near-field isolation, the same was not always true. Third,
increasing the barrier’s depth, D, beyond 1.1 or 1.2 did not have any
significant impact on Ar. The optimum barrier depth could therefore
be considered approximately 1.2 for all practical purposes.
Influence of Barrier Width
Geofoam trenches were placed at two locations—in the first case
simulating relatively near-field isolation, with L ¼ 0.4, and in the
second case simulating far-field isolation, with L ¼ 1.5. In both
cases, simulations were performed for a few chosen depths by vary-
ing the width of the trench and keeping the barrier location fixed.
Figs. 7(b and c) show the influence of width, w, on average ampli-
tude reduction ratio. It can be clearly seen that, unlike in the open
trench, where width did not play a significant role in system effi-
ciency, in the geofoam trenches width had a substantial impact
on performance. In an infill trench, wave reflection, absorption,
and transmission all have a role to play and hence overall system
stiffness is important, in which width is an integral part. In this study,
with an increase in width from 0.15 to 0.35, Ar decreased by
approximately 40% for almost all depths and for both isolation
cases. Fig. 7(b) shows that, for near-field isolation increasing depth
did not have the same impact on system efficiency that it did for
far-field isolation [Fig. 7(c)].
Influence of Barrier Cross-Sectional Area and Slenderness
Ratio
For the barrier at L ¼ 1.5, the influence of cross-sectional area, A,
on performance was investigated along with the optimum d=w ratio
for each cross-sectional area. The size of the cross-sectional area
was increased gradually from 0.5 to 2.5 m2 . For each area, the slen-
derness of the trench (d=w) was progressively varied from 0.5 to
approximately 6.0. Fig. 7(d) shows the combined influence of
cross-sectional area and slenderness ratio on the functioning of
the trenches. For smaller cross-sectional areas (A < 1.0 m2 ), it
was reasonable to construct a deep trench (d=w ¼ 4.0–5.0 m)
rather than a shallow one for greater efficiency. However, for larger
cross-sectional areas (A > 1.0 m2 ), it was sufficient to construct a
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 1.4 0.7
D=0.3 D= 0.60
D=0.5 D= 0.80
1.2 D=0.8 0.6
D= 1.00
D=1.0
D=1.2
1.0 D=1.5 0.5

0.8 0.4

0.6 0.3

0.4 0.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina A&T State Univ on 05/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(a) (b)

0.9 1.2
D= 0.60 A=0.5
0.8 D= 0.80 A=0.8
1.0 A=1.2
D= 1.00
A=1.5
0.7 A=2.0
0.8 A=2.5
0.6
0.6
0.5

0.4
0.4

0.3 0.2
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(c) (d)

Fig. 7. Variation in the average amplitude reduction ratio with changes in various geometrical parameters of a geofoam trench: (a) normalized
screening distance; (b and c) width; and (d) slenderness ratio.

shallow trench (d=w ¼ 1.5–2.0 m). Extra cost incurred in creating
deeper trenches does not bring about greater benefits. In fact, with
an increasing cross-sectional area, the optimum d=w ratio hovered
near 1.5. Again, for low slenderness ratio values, d=w < 2, an in-
creasing cross-sectional area had a very positive impact on system
efficiency. For d=w ¼ 1, Ar decreased by approximately 55% when
A increased from 0.5 to 2.5 m2 . For d=w > 2, increasing area did
not have much of an impact on performance except for very small
cross sections (A < 0.80 m2 ).
Three-Dimensional Finite-Element Model and
Analysis
Validation of Present Model
After an extensive 2D parametric study of the performance of PU
foam trenches as wave barriers, a 3D analysis of their responses
with other configurations and loading conditions was carried
out. A 3D finite-element model (100 × 50 × 20 m) was developed
in the PLAXIS 3D dynamic module using 10 noded tetrahedral
elements. The model dimensions were chosen to avoid any boun-
dary effects (Kumar et al. 2017; Kumar and Choudhury 2018).
Viscous boundaries were applied along the edges to account for
the semi-infinite extent of the soil and to prevent undue wave
reflection along the boundaries (Kumar et al. 2015, 2016). Studies
have shown that the wave relaxation coefficients related to absorb-
ent boundaries, C1 ¼ 1.0 and C2 ¼ 0.25, result in reasonably good
absorption of waves at the edges (Wang et al. 2009; Brinkgreve and
Vermeer 1998). Accordingly, these coefficients were adopted in the
present study. The boundary conditions were to (1) completely re-
strain the bottom edge and (2) prevent the vertical model boundaries
from moving in the direction of their normal. Element size was kept
roughly less than one-eighth of the smallest Rayleigh wavelength
(Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer 1973). In addition, local refinement of
the mesh was done near the critical areas of interest such as the load-
ing zone and the barrier location and in general on the ground sur-
face to ensure accuracy of the results. Fig. 8(a) shows the discretized
3D model developed for this problem. A linear elastic model was
adopted for all materials considering a small strain behavior.
The numerical model was first validated with results from the
literature. For this purpose, the field data recorded by Alzawi and
EI-Naggar (2011) were taken for comparison. Fig. 8(b) shows good
agreement between the results obtained in this study and those ob-
served by Alzawi and EI-Naggar (2011). The differences in some
cases could be due to variability and anisotropy in soil properties in
localized areas in the field.
Results and Discussion
Influence of Barrier System Type
The 3D model was next employed to study the response of other
geofoam barrier configurations. Usually, the most common profile
adopted for wave barriers is a straight, rectangular vertical cut into
the ground. In this section, calculations are performed with another
simple barrier configuration: two continuous foam walls kept at
the spacing, s, shown in Fig. 9(a). Simulations were carried out
to determine the influence of s between the two walls on system
performance. Analyses were performed by varying the normalized

© ASCE 04018048-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018048

 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina A&T State Univ on 05/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. 3D analysis of geofoam trenches: (a) typical model developed in PLAXIS; and (b) validation of the numerical model, l ¼ 2.5 m, f ¼ 50 Hz.

(a) (b)

Fig. 9. Analysis of a double-walled continuous rectangular geofoam trench system: (a) schematic; and (b) variation in the average amplitude
reduction ratio with changes in the normalized spacing between walls.

spacing, S ¼ s=LR , from 0.2 to 1.0 for a 30–60-Hz frequency range.
The PU foam barriers were of normalized depth, D ¼ 0.75 m, and
width, w ¼ 0.2 m, and were placed at location, L ¼ 0.53 m, from
the source of vibration. The size, fixities, boundary conditions, and
meshing of the 3D model were the same as described in the preced-
ing section. The material properties of the in situ soil and geofoam
were also unchanged. The values of Ar were computed for vertical
velocity by observing the time history of nodes on the ground
surface along a monitoring path. Fig. 9(b) shows the variation in
average amplitude reduction ratio as a function of barrier normalized
spacing for the chosen frequency range. It can be seen that this
barrier system was quite effective in damping out vertical soil vibra-
tions. The Ar values were much lower at higher frequencies, indi-
cating better system performance. In addition, the system response
was quite sensitive to the barrier spacing, especially at low values,
S ¼ 0.2–0.4. In the frequency range chosen for this study, the
optimum spacing was approximately 0.5–0.6LR. Wider spacing
would not bring any added benefits in terms of increasing efficiency
and could even be detrimental to the performance in some cases.
Fig. 10 shows the developed numerical model, which had
dimensions of 200 × 100 × 20 m—large enough to prevent wave
reflections from the boundaries. The track rested on an embank-
ment of width 5 m and height 0.5 m. For simplicity, the properties
of the soil in the embankment and the ground remained the same
as described previously. The track consisted of a pair of steel rails
resting on concrete sleepers, both modeled using beam elements.
The rail and sleeper cross-sectional areas were, respectively, Arail ¼
0.0077 m2 and Asleeper ¼ 0.05 m2 . The sleepers were laid on the
ground at a spacing, c, of 0.6 m.
The vehicle unit chosen for this demonstration was a typical
German ICE3 railcar with a distance, X, between the first and last

Barrier Performance for a Moving Load

Simulation of Moving Load. Up to this point, a harmonic load
was considered in all analyses. However, the scenario was changed
for a load that, apart from being dynamic, shifts its position with
time, which is the case for a moving load such as a train. Because a
moving load, compared with a static load, can significantly increase
displacements in a structure, the response of the PU foam barrier
Fig. 10. 3D numerical model developed for simulating a moving load.
under moving-load vibrations was investigated.

© ASCE 04018048-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018048

 wagon axles of 21.6 m. The length of the loading in the rail, Xo,
was Xo ¼ X þ 2 × 0.3X ≈ 34.80 m, with the additional length
accounting for shear force distribution and impact load distribution
effects (Shahraki et al. 2014). To replicate a train moving on the
rails, point loads were applied along the length of the beam at a
spacing of c=2 ¼ 0.30 m. Thus, the total number of dynamic loads
(N) per rail was N ¼ Xo=c=2 ¼ 117.The value assigned to each
point load was the vertical wheel load (P ¼ 80 kN).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina A&T State Univ on 05/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
To incorporate moving load, dynamic signals multipliers were
assigned to each of these 117 point loads. The signal for each load
location represented how the forces varied at that particular point in
the rail as the wheel load moved along. The multipliers were ob-
tained by considering the rail to be a beam resting on an elastic pin
foundation and analyzed under a set of unit static loads at different
locations. Each point load was multiplied by the value of its own
signal for every dynamic time step. The latter parameter accounted

(a) (b)

Fig. 11. Variation in soil particle velocity with changes in train speed in the absence of a trench: (a) time domain; and (b) frequency domain.

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 12. Comparative analysis of velocity in the frequency domain in the presence and absence of a trench: (a) 80 km=h; (b) 180 km=h; and
(c) 250 km=h.

© ASCE 04018048-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018048

 for the time taken by the train to cross a distance of c=2. For
example, a train traveling at a speed, V, of 180 km=h would
exibit a time lag between two consecutive point loads of
Δt ¼ c=2=V ¼ 0.3 m=50 m=s ¼ 0.006 s. Accordingly, the time
step for this dynamic analysis was 0.006 s. The total time of analy-
sis was based on the time taken by the last axle to cross the loading
zone. In this study, analyses were carried out for train speeds of
250, 180, and 80 km=h. At these chosen speeds, track responses
could be assumed to be mainly quasi-static and the dynamic effects
to be negligible. Dynamic forces due to wheel-rail irregularity and
defects such as wheel flats were neglected. Here, the focus was on
quasi-static track response.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina A&T State Univ on 05/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The geofoam trench was chosen to be of depth 5 m and width
0.5 m. It was placed at roughly 10 m from the center of the track.
The material properties of the foam and the soil domain were the
same as before.
Results and Discussion. Fig. 11(a) shows the influence of train
speed on the velocity of soil particles on the ground surface. It is
seen that, with increasing train speed, vibration velocity increased,
especially in the near-field region. This was most notable for vertical
vibrations, which were very high in the near field, although their
attenuation with distance occurred at a very fast rate. At distances
far away from the source of vibration, horizontal and vertical veloc-
ities were nearly the same for all train speeds. Fig. 11(b) shows
typical results of the analysis in the frequency domain, comparing
the velocity of vibration for different speeds in the absence of a
trench. It is observed that, with increasing train speed, ground vibra-
tion frequency increased. For a train speed of 80 km=h, vibration
frequency ranged 0–30 Hz. For speed of 180 km=h, the predominant
range of vibration was 10–40 Hz, and for a speed of 250 km=h, the
range was 20–55 Hz. Fig. 12 compares the frequency of vertical
vibration, in the presence and absence of the trench, for the different
train speeds. From Fig. 12(a), it is clearly observed that, at 80 km=h,
vibration frequency post-trench installation was mostly arrested
within 20 Hz. Frequencies of 20–30 Hz were partly damped
by the wave barrier. The same trend is noted in Figs. 12(b and c).
Fig. 12(b) shows that frequencies of 30–40 Hz were mostly damped
out. The particles vibrated primarily at 0–30 Hz, and especially at
10–20 Hz. In the latter case [Fig. 12(c)], frequencies higher than
40 Hz were completely blocked by the barrier. This shows that
the high-frequency or shorter wavelength waveforms were blocked
very effectively by the barrier. For the chosen barrier depth (5 m) and
soil profile, corresponding to a frequency of 40 Hz, the normalized
depth, D, was approximately 1.0. For frequencies higher than 40 Hz,
D was greater than 1 and the barrier effectively depleted these
frequency contents. Hence, more efficiency was achieved at higher
train speeds, as in this case the quasi-static track response had higher
frequency contents.
Conclusions
A numerical finite-element analysis was carried out using PLAXIS
to interpret the behavior of open and infill trenches when acting as
wave barriers to reduce ground-borne vibrations. The behavior and
responses of trenches having a wide range of geometrical and
material properties, different barrier types, and loading conditions
were analyzed. This analysis was carried out in stages, on both
open and infill trenches, with a special focus on polyurethane
foam trenches. The developed model was used to identify the
key factors affecting the vibration isolation capacity of trenches.
Two-dimensional simulations were performed in order to under-
stand the impact of geometrical and material properties of the
trenches on their efficiency as wave barriers against vibrations
© ASCE 04018048-9
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018048
caused by harmonic loads. A 3D analysis was also carried out for
dynamic loads that change position with time.
Observations from the results of this study are as follows:
• Open trenches performed exceedingly well in mitigating ground
vibrations. The main parameter controlling efficiency was nor-
malized depth, D. For D > 0.8, system effectiveness in all cases,
irrespective of location or width, was found to be greater than
75%. Trench width did not play a very important role except
in extremely shallow trenches. The efficiency of an open trench
as a wave barrier was not very sensitive to screening distances.
• For infill trenches, the most important parameters governing
efficiency were density and shear-wave velocity of the infill
material relative to the in situ soil; the damping characteristics
of the infill material were not significant. It was shown that both
low- and high-density materials (in comparison with the in situ
soil) are ideal for use in infill trenches but their performance is
highly sensitive to the relative stiffness of the trench material and
the in situ soil. For the former category (ρfill =ρsoil < 0.15), the
upper limit is V Sfill =V Ssoil < 1.0; for the latter (ρfill =ρsoil > 1),
the lower limit is V Sfill =V Ssoil > 2.5.
• PU foam trenches proved to be very effective in damping out
ground-borne vibrations. Their efficiency was shown to depend
on normalized depth, width, screening distance, and, d=w ratio.
In areas near the source of vibration (0.4 < L < 1.8), the barrier
showed a greater dependency on both screening distance and
depth, but in regions far away (L > 1.8) the influence of screen-
ing distance was almost eliminated. The optimum barrier depth
for all purposes could be taken as 1.2. Increasing width was
shown to have a positive impact on the barrier in both near-field
and far-field isolation. Regarding cross-sectional area, for
A < 1.0 m2 a deeper trench (d=w ¼ 4.0–5.0) was optimal.
However, for A > 1.0 m2 the optimal d=w ratio was 1.5–2.0.
• Three-dimensional analysis revealed that double-walled contin-
uous rectangular trenches performed well as wave barriers but
their functioning was sensitive to normalized spacing. Optimal
normalized spacing in this study was shown to be roughly
0.5–0.6 times the Rayleigh wavelength.
• The barriers were found to be quite effective in damping out
vibrations caused by passage of a moving load. They mostly
damped out the high-frequency or shorter-wavelength compo-
nents from the vibration velocities, indicating increasing system
efficiency with increasing train speed.
These observations can be generalized to arrive at the conclu-
sion that trenches are very effective when used as wave barriers to
mitigate ground-borne vibrations.
Acknowledgments
The first author would like to thank the German Academic
Exchange Service (DAAD) for providing financial assistance to
carry out a part of this study at RWTH Aachen University in the
DAAD-IIT Masters Students Exchange Program.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
ARR = amplitude reduction ratio;
Ar = average amplitude reduction ratio;
A = cross-sectional area;
D = normalized trench depth;
d = trench depth;
E = elastic modulus;
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 f = frequency;
G = shear modulus;
L = normalized distance;
LR = Rayleigh wavelength;
l = distance;
N = number of dynamic loads;
P = vertical wheel load;
S = normalized spacing;
s, c = spacing;
V R = Rayleigh wave velocity;
V S = shear-wave velocity;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina A&T State Univ on 05/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
W = normalized trench width;
w = trench width;
X = axle distance in railcars;
Δt = dynamic time step;
ν = Poisson’s ratio;
ξ = damping coefficient; and
ρ = density.
References
Aboudi, J. 1973. “Elastic waves in half-space with thin barrier.” J. Eng.
Mech. 99 (1): 69–83.
Adam, M., and O. Von Estorff. 2005. “Reduction of train-induced building
vibrations by using open and filled trenches.” Comput. Struct. 83 (1):
11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.08.010.
Ahmad, S., and T. M. Al-Hussaini. 1991. “Simplified design for vibration
screening by open and in-filled trenches.” J. Geotech. Eng. 117 (1):
67–88. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:1(67).
Ahmad, S., T. M. Al-Hussaini, and K. L. Fishman. 1996. “Investigation on
active isolation of machine foundations by open trenches.” J. Geotech.
Eng. 122 (6): 454–461. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410
(1996)122:6(454).
Al-Hussaini, T. M., and S. Ahmad. 1991. “Design of wave barriers for
reduction of horizontal ground vibration.” J. Geotech. Eng. 117 (4):
616–636. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:4(616).
Al-Hussaini, T. M., and S. Ahmad. 1996. “Active isolation of machine
foundations by in-filled trench barriers.” J. Geotech. Eng. 122 (4):
288–294. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:4(288).
Alzawi, A., and M. H. El Naggar. 2011. “Full scale experimental study on
vibration scattering using open and in-filled (geofoam) wave barriers.”
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 31 (3): 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.soildyn.2010.08.010.
Andersen, L., and S. R. K. Nielsen. 2005. “Reduction of ground vibration
by means of barriers or soil improvement along a railway track.” Soil
Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 25 (7–10): 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.soildyn.2005.04.007.
Baker, J. M. 1994. “An experimental study on vibration screening by
in-filled trench barriers.” M.Sc. thesis, State Univ. of New York.
Barkan, D. D. 1962. Dynamics of bases and foundations, Chaps. VIII and
IX. 374–406. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Beskos, D. E., G. Dasgupta, and I. G. Vardoulakis. 1986. “Vibration
isolation using open or filled trenches. Part I: 2-D homogeneous soil.”
Comput. Mech. 1 (1): 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00298637.
Brinkgreve, B. J., and P. A. Vermeer. 1998. PLAXIS finite element code for
soil and rock analysis. Delft, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
Choudhury, D., and A. D. Katdare. 2013. “New approach to determine
seismic passive resistance on retaining walls considering seismic
waves.” Int. J. Geomech. 13 (6): 852–860. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000285.
Choudhury, D., A. D. Katdare, and A. Pain. 2014. “New method to com-
pute seismic active earth pressure on retaining wall considering seismic
waves.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. Int. J. 32 (2): 391–402. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s10706-013-9721-8.
Davies, M. C. R. (1994). “Dynamic soil–structure interaction resulting
from blast loading.” In Vol. 94 of Proc., Int. Conf. on Centrifuge
© ASCE 04018048-10
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018048
Modelling—Centrifuge, 319–324. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A.
Balkema.
Emad, K., and G. D. Manolis. 1985. “Shallow trenches and propagation of
surface waves.” J. Eng. Mech. 111 (2): 279–282. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1985)111:2(279).
Esmaeili, M., J. Zakeri, and S. Mosayebi. 2014. “Investigating the opti-
mized open V-shaped trench performance in reduction of train-induced
ground vibrations.” Int. J. Geomech. 14 (3): 04014004. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000331.
Fuyuki, M., and Y. Matsumoto. 1980. “Finite difference analysis of
Rayleigh wave scattering at a trench.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 70 (6):
2051–2069.
Haupt, W. A. 1981. “Model tests on screening of surface waves.” In Vol. 3 of
Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
215–222. Stockholm.
Hung, H. H., Y. B. Yang, and D. W. Chang. 2004. “Wave barriers for
reduction of train-induced vibrations in soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 130 (12): 1283–1291. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(2004)130:12(1283).
Itoh, K., X. Zeng, M. Koda, O. Murata, and O. Kusakabe. 2005. “Centrifuge
simulation of wave propagation due to vertical vibration on shallow
foundations and vibration attenuation countermeasures.” J. Vibr. Control
11 (6): 781–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546305054150.
Ju, S. H., and H. T. Lin. 2004. “Analysis of train-induced vibrations and
vibration reduction schemes above and below critical Rayleigh speeds
by finite element method.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 24 (12):
993–1002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.05.004.
Kattis, S. E., D. Polyzos, and D. E. Beskos. 1999. “Vibration isolation by a
row of piles using a 3-D frequency domain BEM.” Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng. 46 (5): 713–728. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097
-0207(19991020)46:5%3C713::AID-NME693%3E3.0.CO;2-U.
Kuhlemeyer, R. L., and J. Lysmer. 1973. “Finite element method accuracy
for wave propagation problems.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 99 (5):
421–427.
Kumar, A., and D. Choudhury. 2018. “Development of new prediction
model for capacity of combined pile-raft foundations.” Comput.
Geotech. 97 (May): 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017
.12.008.
Kumar, A., D. Choudhury, and R. Katzenbach. 2016. “Effect of earthquake
on combined pile-raft foundation.” Int. J. Geomech. 16 (5): 04016013.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000637.
Kumar, A., D. Choudhury, J. Shukla, and D. L. Shah. 2015. “Seismic
design of pile foundation for oil tank by using PLAXIS3D.” Disaster
Adv. 8 (6): 33–42.
Kumar, A., M. Patil, and D. Choudhury. 2017. “Soil-structure interaction in
a combined pile-raft foundation: A case study.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
Geotech. Eng. 170 (2): 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.16
.00075.
Leonardi, G., and M. Buonsanti. 2014. “Reduction of train-induced
vibrations by using barriers.” Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 7 (17):
623–632. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.7.715.
Leung, K. L., I. G. Vardoulakis, and D. E. Beskos. 1987. “Vibration
isolation of structures from surface waves in homogeneous and nonho-
mogeneous soils.” In Soil-structure interaction, edited by A. S. Cakmak,
155–169. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Massarsch, K. R. 1991. “Ground vibration isolation using gas cushions.” In
Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 1461–1470. Rolla, MO: Univ. of
Missouri at Rolla.
May, T. W., and B. A. Bolt. 1982. “The effectiveness of trenches in reduc-
ing seismic motion.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 10 (2): 195–210.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290100203.
McNeill, R. L., B. E. Margason, and F. M. Babcock. 1965. “The role of soil
dynamics in the design of stable test pads.” In Proc., Guidance and
Control Conf., 366–375. New York, NY: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Murillo, C., L. Thorel, and B. Caicedo. 2009. “Ground vibration isolation
with geofoam barriers: Centrifuge modeling.” Geotext. Geomembr.
27 (6): 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.03.006.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Neumeuer, H. 1963. “Untersuchungen uber die Abschirmung eines
bestehenden Gebaudes gegen Erschutterungen beim Bau and Betrieb
einer U-Bahnstrecke.” [In German.] Baumaschine und Bautechnik 10 (1):
23–29.
Shahraki, M., M. R. S. Sadaghiani, K. J. Witt, and T. Meier. 2014. “3D
modelling of train induced moving loads on an embankment.” Plaxis
Bull. 36 (Autumn): 10–15.
Wang, J. G., W. Sun, and S. Anand. 2009. “Numerical investigation on
active isolation of ground shock by soft porous layers.” J. Sound Vibr.
321 (3–5): 492–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2008.09.047.
Wang, Z. L., Y. C. Li, and J. G. Wang. 2006. “Numerical analysis of
attenuation effect of EPS geofoam on stress-waves in civil defense en-
gineering.” Geotext. Geomembr. 24 (5): 265–273. https://doi.org/10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina A&T State Univ on 05/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.04.002.
© ASCE 04018048-11
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(8): 04018048
Woods, R. D. 1968. “Screening of surface waves in soils.” J. Soil Mech.
Found. Eng. Div. 94 (4): 951–979.
Yang, Y. B., and H. H. Hung. 1997. “A parametric study of wave barriers
for reduction of train induced vibrations.” Int. J. Numer. Methods
Eng. 40 (20): 3729–3747. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207
(19971030)40:20%3C3729::AID-NME236%3E3.0.CO;2-8.
Zakeri, J. A., M. Esmaeili, and S. A. Mosayebi. 2014. “Numerical inves-
tigation of the effectiveness of a step-shaped trench in reducing
train-induced vibrations.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F: J. Rail
Rapid Transit 228 (3): 298–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544097
12473094.
Zeng, X., J. G. Rose, and J. S. Rice. 2001. “Stiffness and damping ratio of
rubber modified asphalt mixes: Potential vibration attenuation for high
speed railway track beds.” J. Vibr. Control 7 (4): 527–538. https://doi
.org/10.1177/107754630100700403.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.