PROCEEDINGS of the23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

Combined effect of vibrations on railway noise annoyance
Shigenori YOKOSHIMA1; Takashi MORIHARA2; Yasunao MATSUMOTO3
12Kanagawa Environmental Research Center, Japan

National Institute of Technology, Ishikawa College, Japan
3

Saitama, UniversityABSTRACT
In Japan, annoyance due to noise from the high-speed “Shinkansen” railways is more annoying than thatfrom conventional railways, as reported in the previous study. The reasons for the difference have been
explored mainly from psychological point of view. A previous comparison survey along the Shinkansen andconventional railways found that inhabitants living along the Shinkansen railways had negative attitudes tothe noise. Therefore, no recognition of necessity of noise from the Shinkansen railways was considered tRbring about higher annoyance than that from conventional railways. In addition, the combined effect of noiseand ground-borne vibrations from the Shinkansen railways on annoyance could increase higher annoyance.
However, each effect of ground borne vibrations as well as negative attitudes on noise annoyance has notbeen quantitatively evaluated. We performed a secondary analysis using individual datasets, exposures andannoyance associated with noise and ground-borne vibrations from the railways, derived from the previous
twelve surveys. Applying a multiple logistic regression analysis to the datasets, we quantitatively provided
the effects of negative attitudes and ground-borne vibrations on noise annoyance.
Keywords: Annoyance, Noise, Ground-borne vibrations, Logistic regression analysis, Combined effect

1. INTRODUCTIONIn European countries and the United States, studies on adverse effects of noise on people havebeen energetically addressed. For example, Miedema et al. (1) conducted a meta-analysis using thesocio-acoustic survey data archive of TNO (The Netherlands Organization for Applied ScientificResearch). They derived individual exposure-response relationship for aircraft, road traffic andrailway noises, and revealed lower annoyance due to railway noise than that of noise from othertransportations. Since similar results had been reported in other studies conducted in Europe,"Railway bonus" of around 5 dB, are reflected in the environmental standards of European countries.
On the other hand, results from socio-acoustic surveys in Japan have not supported the existenceof "Railway bonus". Yokoshima et al. (2) and Ota et al. (3) conducted a secondary analysis using theSocio-Acoustic Survey Data Archive (SASDA), and have established relationships between exposure
and prevalence of noise annoyance for each mode of transportation. The prevalence of annoyancedue to military aircraft noise is the highest, followed by the Shinkansen railway, civilian aircraft,conventional railway, and road traffic noises. This finding indicates that there is no “Railway Bonus”
in Japan, unlike European countries.
On the other hand, in "ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE GUIDELINES for the European Region" (4),published in October 2018, recommended exposure levels for enviro nmental noise in order to protect
population health. Since respective recommendation values of Lden for road traffic and railway noise
are 53 dB and 54 dB, the difference between the two noise sources is not clear. In addition, theguidelines develop no recommendation for high-speed railway. Socio-acoustic surveys in Japanrevealed higher annoyance due to noise from the Shinkansen railways than that from conventional
railways. Therefore, it is difficult to sufficiently discuss community response to noise fr om
high-speed trains based on the datasets for conventional railway noise. .
1

yokoshima.7c7q@pref.kanagawa.jp
morihara@ishikawa-nct.ac.jp
3ymatsu@mail.saitama-u.ac.jp23631

Several studies were performed to clarify the reason for the difference in community response
between conventional and high-speed railways. Comparing community response to general noise inresidential areas along the Shinkansen and conventional railways, Tamura (5) found that noise fromthe Shinkansen railway is regarded more negatively than convent ional railway noise. He also
indicated that inhabitants living in the areas along the Shinkansen railway are generally concernedwith noise issues and recognize no need for the Shinkansen railway. Subsequently, Yokoshima et al.
(6, 7) clarified that combined effect of noise and ground-borne vibrations on annoyance from theTokaido Shinkansen railway increases higher individual annoyance. Furthermore, Yokoshima et al.
(8) performed a secondary analysis using individual datasets associated with noise and ground-borne
vibrations from the Shinkansen railways. The datasets were based on six socio-acoustic surveys
which were separately conducted in residential areas along the various Shinkansen lines. Applying alogistic regression analysis to the datasets, they confirmed the combined effects of noise andground-borne vibrations from the Shinkansen railways on annoyance, and provided therepresentative relationship between the combination of noise and vibration exposures, and theprevalence of each annoyance.
The previous studies suggested the negative attitudes and combined effect of ground-borne
vibrations increase higher annoyance from noise due to high-sped railways than that fromconventional railways. However, each effect on noise annoyance has not been quantitatively
evaluated. In particular, it is very important to develop the evaluation method for community
response to combined environment factors. In this paper, we performed a secondary analysis using
the datasets derived from previous surveys conducted in residential areas along the railways in Japan(7 and 5 datasets for Shinkansen and conventional railways, respectively). Applying a multiple
logistic regression analysis to the datasets, we quantitatively provided the effects of ground-borne
vibrations and negative attitudes on noise annoyance.

2. METHODS
2.1 Socio-acoustic surveys
Individual datasets for conventional railways (CR) analyzed in this paper were derived from fivesurveys CR01 to CR05 shown in Table 1. On the other hand, individual datasets for the Shinkansen
railways (SR) were derived from seven surveys SR01 to SR07 shown in Table 2. The surveys wereconducted separately, except for CR05 and SR05 surveys conducted along the Kyushu Shinkansen
line. All the datasets were equipped with noise exposure, vibration exposure (measurements invertical direction) and annoyance due to railway noise (5 point verbal scale).
CR02, CR05, SR02 and SR05 targeted inhabitants living not only in detached houses (DH) but
also in apartment buildings (AB). For example, noise levels from railways are much lower inapartment buildings made of reinforced concrete than those in detached wooden houses, because of amarked difference soundproof performance. Similarly, foundations of detached houses are greatly
different from those of AB. Vertical railway-induced ground-borne vibrations slightly increasedwhen transmitted to DH and decreased when transmitted to AB. Taking these into consideration, in
this paper, only data for detached houses were analyzed.
Table 1 – Outline of conventional railway survey datasetsSurvey

FYLocation aMethod

CR01

1997

KNG Pref.

Visit-Mail bb

Housing type Annoyance
Response(DH; AB) c
proportion (%) eCR02

2002

KNG Pref.

Visit-Mail

CR03

2004䇵2006

FKO Pref.

Visit-Mail b

STM Cityb

CR04
CR05

2011

Visit-Mail

2011–2012 KMM Pref. Visit-Visit b

DHunbearable79310

DH & ABICBENd64422

DHICBEN d49653

DHICBENd29170

DH & ABICBEN d30559

a: Kanagawa (KNG), Fukuoka (FKO), Saitama (STM), and Kumamoto (KMM).
b: Distribution-collection method.
c: Detached house (DH) and Apartment building (AB).
d: International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise (ICBEN).
e: Response proportion of detached houses.

3632

Samplesize

Table 2 – Outline of Shinkansen railway survey datasetsSurvey

FYLocation aLine b

SR01‘95–‘96

KA Pref.

TSL Visit-Mail bcMethodHousing type Annoyance
ResponseSample(DH; AB) dproportion (%) fsizeSR02‘01–‘03KA Pref.

TSLVisit-Mail

SR03

‘03

FU Pref.

SSL

Visit-Mail cInterview

DHunbearable

72709

DH & ABICBENe57872

DHICBEN e

66358

DHe58

175

ICBEN e45559e4529452927

SR04

‘04

NG City

TSL

SR05‘11–‘12KU Pref.

KSL Visit-Visit c DH & AB

ICBENcDHICBENDHICBEN e

SR06

’13

NA Pref.

HSL Mail-Mail

SR07

‘16

IS & TO Prefs.

HSL Mail-Mail c

a: Kanagawa (KA), Fukuoka (FU), Nagoya (NG), Kumamoto (KU), Nagano (NN), Ishikawa (IS) and Toyama (TO).
b: Tokaido Shinkansen line (TSL), Sanyo Shinkansen line (SSL), Hokuriku Shinkansen line (HSL), and Kyushu
Shinkansen line (KSL).
c: Distribution-collection method.
d: Detached house (DH); Apartment building (AB).
e: International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise (ICBEN).
f: Response proportion of detached houses.

2.2 Measurement
Measurement of noise and ground-borne vibrations from railways was conducted on a site-by-sitebasis for each survey. For the included surveys except SR04, measurement was performed after thesocial survey was completed. Conversely, for the SR04 survey, the city government carried out its
measurement before the social survey. It should be noted that vibration exposure was not estimated forsome inhabitants in the SR03 survey.
Regarding noise measurement, A-weighted sound exposure levels (LAE) of the pass-by noise fromthe trains were measured at several points at different distances from the track. Some surveys
estimated the LAE values from the maximum A-weighted and S-weighted sound pressure level(LASmax). At each point, day-evening-night sound pressure level (Lden) as noise exposures wascalculated as the mean energy value of measured LAE and the number of pass-by trains during theday-time (7:00–19:00), evening-time (19:00–20:00) and night-time (22:00–7:00). From the above
results, depending on noise emission and propagation conditions, one or more distance attenuation
equations were formulated for each noise index via logarithmic regression. Then, the noise exposure toeach respondent was estimated based on the corresponding formula.
Similarly, the maximum vibration level in the vertical direction (LVzmax) on the surface of theground was measured at almost the same points as the noise measurement. The reference accelerationof the vibration level is 10−5 m/s2. The maximum-based index (L Vmax) was calculated from the meanvalue of the top 50% of the measured LVzmax values. The vibration exposure for each respondent wasestimated using the same method as that for noise exposure.
In this study, we present the relationship of LVzmax and maximum transient vibration value (MTVV:m/s2) (9) for vertical ground-borne vibrations caused by the Shinkansen railways. Shimoyama et al.
(10) indicated the following approximate expression:
10log10(MTVV/10 -5)2 = LVzmax + 1.8
The noise and vibration exposure values were rounded to one decimal place in this paper.

3. RESULTS
3.1 Demographic factors
Table 3 shows the relative frequency distributions of demographic and housing factors. Overall,there were proportionally more female respondents than male respondents. Respondents aged 50years or older accounted for more than 70% of each railway. This may have been driven by the factthat the analysis examined only detached houses. About 90% of the detached houses had wooden
frame structures.

3633

Subsequently, Lden and LVmax values were compared among the railways. Table 4 shows the resultsof cross tabulating the categories of Lden (38 dB ≤ Lden 67 dB B) and LVmax (35 dB ≤ LVmax ≤ 64 dB)
for each railway. The ranges of Exposures were divided into 5-dB intervals. The parentheses in thetable indicate the relative frequency of Lden and LVmax categories. Lden values for the CR weredistributed in higher level ranges than those for the SR. On the other hand, comparing among therailways at the same Lden category, it can be seen that LVmax values for the SR were distributed atrelatively higher ranges than those for the CR.
Table 3 – Demographic factors and housing structure
ItemCategory

CRSR

Sex

Male

834 (40%)1670 (44%)

Female1256 (60%)

2151 (56%)

Less than 30

72 ( 3%)156 ( 4%)30-39

156 ( 7%)286 ( 7%)40-49

303 (14%)631 (16%)50-59

477 (23%)899 (23%)60-69

566 (27%)

1060 (28%)

70 or over

521 (25%)810 (21%)

Wooden1878 (90%)

3395 (88%)

Others220 (10%)461 (12%)

Age

Housing structure

Table 4 – Cross tabulate between noise and vibration exposures
CRLVmax

SR

45-44

45-54

55-64

Total

45-44

45-54

55-64

Total

38-42

80

79

0

159 (9%)

68

101

55

224 (6%)

42-47

97

96

0

193 (11%)

366

501

164

1031 (31%)

48-52

90

204

5

299 (18%)

360

774

303

1437 (40%)

53-57

83

209

59

351 (21%)

106

279

270

655 (19%)

58-62

76

186

98

360 (21%)

524

111

140 (4%)63-67

9435(26%)160
934(55%)

0905
(26%)

31682
(48%)

4907(26%)

7 (0%)

Lden

Total

174 343 (20%)
336
1705(20%)3494

3.2 Logistic Regression
To quantitatively evaluate the effects of ground-borne vibrations and negative attitudes on noise
annoyance from the railways, we applied a multiple logistic regression analysis to the datasets using
IBM SPSS Statistics 23.
As indices of noise annoyance due to railway noise, the responses of the most annoyed category,and of either category of the most annoyed or next annoyed were defined as “Extremely Annoyed”(EA) and “Very Annoyed” (VA), respectively. The analysis was applied to EA/VA as the dependent
variable, while exposures (Lden and LVmax), railway type (CR and SR), sex, age, and the interaction
between railway type and LVmax category were included as independent variables. Taking theestimation accuracy of exposures into account, Lden (38–67 dB) and LVmax (35–64 dB) were divided
into 5- or 10-dB intervals, respectively.
Tables 5 shows the odds ratio (OR) and the lower/upper limit of the 95% confidence interval(LCI/UCI) of each category for EA/VA due to railway noise. The OR was based on the following
reference categories: CR (railway type), Male (sex), <30 (age), 38–42 dB (Lden), 45–54 dB (LVnax),and SR*45–54 dB (railway type*LVmax).

3634

As shown in Table 5, the OR of SR (railway type) was larger than 1 and the LCI was also morethan 1. Female (sex) showed the OR and UCI with less than 1. Therefore, female was less annoyedby railway noise than male. Age had no significant impact on railway noise annoyance.
Within an Lden range of 48–52 dB or above, the OR and LCI were larger than 1. Subsequently,
within an L Vmax range of 35–44 dB, the OR and UCI were smaller than 1; within an LVmax range of
55–64 dB, the OR and LCI were larger than 1. These results show a significant increase effect innoise annoyance in the Lden range of 48–52 dB or above and a significant increase effect of LVmax onnoise annoyance. For the interaction item, the UCI of SR*35–44dB and LCI of SR*5 5–64dB werelarger and smaller than 1, respectively. Therefore, there was no interaction between railway type andvibration exposure for noise annoyance. This result suggests no difference in the average slope of therelationship between LVmax and the prevalence of noise annoyance by railway type.
Table 5 – Logistic regression analysis of EA/VA due to railway noise
Item

Category

EAOR

Railway type

VA

95% CICR

1SR

2.415

Male

1Female

0.714

<30

130-39

0.655

0.352

1.220

40-49

0.900

0.521

50-29

1.058

60-69

OR

95% CI

1
2.255

3.628

0.671

0.901

0.633

0.406

0.988

1.554

0.726

0.488

1.08

0.628

1.784

0.933

0.639

1.362

1.109

0.660

1.864

0.984

0.676

1.432

70≤

0.651

0.377

1.123

0.628

0.426

0.927

38–42 dB

1

43–47 dB

1.461

0.705

3.031

1.820

1.112

2.981

48–52 dB

4.102

2.067

8.141

4.787

2.989

7.669

53–57 dB

3.530

1.750

7.121

4.500

2.775

7.299

58–62 dB

9.663

4.677

19.967

9.117

5.429

15.311

63–67 dB

11.7465.281

26.12615.0798.538

26.62835–44 dB

0.621

0.439

0.879

0.696

0.547

0.886

45–54 dB

155–64 dB

1.552

1.197

2.012

1.421

1.166

1.731

Railway

SR*35–44dB

0.582

0.292

1.161

0.821

0.511

1.333

type*LVmax

SR*45–54 dB1SR*55–64 dB

1.064

0.557

1.203

Sex

AgeLden

LVmax

1.740

3.351

2.860
10.584

0.874

0.778
1111
0.641

1.764

0.819

Constant

0.076

0.206

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.72

0.70

4. DISCUSSION
Based on a reanalysis of datasets compiled in five and seven socio-acoustic surveys conducted
separately in Japan, we examined each effect of ground-borne vibrations and negative attitudes onnoise annoyance of inhabitants living along the Shinkansen or conventional railway lines.

3635

In this study, we confirmed the combined effect of ground-borne vibrations on noise annoyance.
According to rough calculation, the OR of 10 dB increase in vibration exposure was estimated to beabout 1.5 on geometric average. On the other hand, re-calculating the ORs of 5 dB increase in noise
exposure, based on the neighboring category, became 0.86–2.81 (EA) and 0.94–2.63 (VA); geometricaverage of the ORs obtained was about 1.7. These results provide that the OR of change of 5 dB innoise exposure is equivalent to that of 13 dB (≈ 10*log1.7/log1.5) in vibration exposure.
Regarding railway type, noise from the Shinkansen railways is more annoying than that fromconventional railways. As Tamura pointed out in the previous report, negative attitudes towards theShinkansen railways increase its noise annoyance (5). Whereas the OR of railway tape was about 2.4,
the averaged OR of 5 dB increase in noise exposure for EA was determined to be about 1.6. When
the OR of railway type is expressed in noise exposure Lden, negative attitudes towards theShinkansen railway noise equal the increase of about 9 dB (≈ 5*log2.4/log1.6). Similar calculation
for VA provided equivalent increase of about 10 dB in noise exposure. Thus, very annoyed response
is more likely to be affected by negative attitudes than extremely annoyed response.

5. CONCLUSIONSTo quantitatively evaluate each effect of negative attitudes and ground-borne vibrations
increasing higher noise annoyance of people along railway lines, we performed a secondary analysis.
Individual datasets, exposures and annoyance associated with noise and ground -borne vibrations
from the railways, derived from the previous twelve surveys were used for analysis. Applying a
multiple logistic regression analysis to the datasets, we confirmed negative attitudes had significant
effect on noise annoyance at the 5 % level. We also clarified the combined effect of ground-borne
vibrations on noise annoyance not only for high-speed railways but also for conventional railways.
In addition, we expressed the effect of negative attitudes on noise annoyance in Lden. In future
research, we intend to address the combined effects of noise exposure on vibration annoyance fromrailways. Further, we advance research to develop evaluation methods for combination of noise andground-borne vibrations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The present study was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientists Research (C) of Japan Society for
the Promotion of Science (No. 15K06341, 18K04472 and 18H01518).

REFERENCES
1. Miedema H.M.E, Vos H. Exposure-response relationships for transportation noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
1998; 104:3432-3445.
2. Yokoshima S, Yano T, Kawai K, Morinaga M, Ota A. Representative dose-response curves forindividual transportation noises in Japan. Proc. Inter-noise, 19–22 August 2012, New-York, USA.
3. Ota A, Yokoshima S, Yano T, Kawai K, Morinaga M, Morihara T. Analysis of annoyance anddisturbance reaction to traffic noise in Japan with Socio-Acoustic Survey Data Archive, SASDA, Proc.
Inter-noise, 15–18 September 2013, Innsbruck, Austria..
4. World Health organization Regional Office for Europe, Environmental Noise Guidelines for theEuropean Region, 2018.
5. Tamura A. Comparison of community response to outdoor noise in the areas along Shinkansen andordinary railroad. Proc. Inter-noise, 29–31 August 1994, Yokohama, Japan.
6. Yokoshima S, Tamura A. Combined annoyance due to Shinkansen railway noise and vibration. Proc.
Inter-noise, 7–10 August 2005, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
7. Yokoshima S, Tamura A. Interactive effects between Shinkansen railway noise and vibration onannoyance. Proc. Inter-noise, 3–6 December 2006, Honolulu, USA.
8. YokoshimaS, MoriharaT, Sato T, Yano T. Combined Effects of High-Speed Railway Noise and GroundVibrations on Annoyance, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017; 14(8), 845.
9. International Organization for Standardization. Mechanical vibration and shock – Evaluation of human
exposure to whole-body vibration – Part 1: General requirements, ISO 2631-1, 1997.
10. Shimoyama K; Yokoshima S; Ota A, Morihara T, Tetsuya H, Higashijima D, Yano T. Noise andvibration analysis of the Tokaido, Sanyo, Nagano, and Kyusyu Shinkansen line (in Japanese). Proc.
INCE/J, 17–18 September 2014, Tokyo, Japan.

3636