262 Fed Square Pty LTD Submission

r'": !
=
f'i- !'11
_ i"'
_i r.:
L... I~~. t~i' -1- Lr
~::; f.) i i 1=:1 1:~ !;:::
- ... . ....
Melbourne Metro Rail Project - Environmental Effects Statement Hearing

Madam Chair, Inquiry Members, thank you for the opportunity to present at the Inquiry.
My name is Sharon Pollard and I am the General Manager Operations at Fed Square Pty Ltd.
)
Fed Square Pty Ltd broadly supports the Melbourne Metro Rail Project and will continue to work with the
Melbourne Metro Rail Authority and other stakeholders with the delivery of the project.
The structure and spaces within Federation Square have become the heartbeat of Melbourne. It is important
that the site maintains this position for all its stakeholders. It is not only an iconic world class public space; it
also encompasses commercial tenants ranging from food and beverage providers, through to major
government and cultural entities such as The Australian Centre for the Moving Image (ACMI) , SBS and the
National Gallery Victoria's Ian Potter Centre.
The site is managed and operated by Fed Square Pty Ltd , which is a commercial enterprise wholly owned by
the State Government. Fed Square serves to operate under Federation Square's Constitution and Civic and
Cultural Charter and the organisation is committed to be a viable and sustainable business entity.
Fed Square submitted a response to the EES through the online portal. The presentation today builds on the
key points outlined in that submission.
Fed Square will be significantly impacted through all stages of the CBD South Station project. These impacts
can be broadly grouped into the following four categories:
Structural impacts
Operational impacts
Design integrity impacts

Revenue impacts
Structural impacts
Federation Square's construction is unique in that is built over a working railway and has a complex vibration
and acoustic attenuation system in place. While this system will provide some security against the impacts of
the Melbourne Metro Rail works it is critical to the site that the structural integrity of the supporting deck
structure and underlying supporting crash walls is maintained at all times. Construction noise and vibration may
adversely impact on the acoustic attenuation system.
Fed Square requests that the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority work with Fed Square to develop strategies and
plans that mitigate impacts, minimise damage to the Fed Square site and remediate any unavoidable damage.
A critical element of this process is the sharing of reports and as an example of this we submit to the Inquiry the
original Vibration and Acoustic Attenuation Criteria (Appendix A) for the Federation Square site.
Fed Square sees the key elements to be covered in the structural impacts mitigation process as:
FED SQUARE PTY. LTD.

CNR SWANSTON +
FUNDERS STREETS
MELBOURNE 3000 AUSTRALIA
TELEPHONE ..01 3 0055 1000
FASCIMJLE
..01 3 963 3652
INFOOFEDSOUARE.COM
FEDSOUARE.COM
ABN 99 005 731 479
:
:....
--~ ---
,... . . - --"I . . J
C:Ut:r~'.1-i I Ui"!
I
~:;
-
DI
1 1:~J 1:;~ 1:::
... - . ! 1 . -..
The Melbourne Metro Rail Authority carrying out an agreed range of base line reporting relevant to
Federation Square and sharing this data/report with Fed Square.
The Melbourne Metro Rail Authority carrying out an agreed range of monitoring at regu lar intervals
during and post the Melbourne Metro Rail works and sharing the data/reports with Fed Square.
An agreed escalation process, if readings (particularly noise and vibration) move beyond current or
recommended levels.
An agreed mitigation strategy that will be implemented to reduce or minimise the impact.
An agreed resolution/compensation process.
While we appreciate that the full extent of structural impacts will be revealed as the project progresses, Fed
Square would like to raise a number of broad points from the outset. These are:
Noise and Vibration
The report notes that there is likely to be vibration impacts on human comfort specifically for ACMI ,
however this is likely to extend to other areas of Federation Square particularly due to the nature of the
site's built form . Fed Square requests that specific consideration be given to the comfort of other site
occupants .
Due to the unique construction methods used at Federation Square, vibration generated during
construction is also likely to have a significant impact on movemenUvibration joints , facades, paving,
gallery spaces, cinemas ... etc. Fed Square requests the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority carry out a
comprehensive site assessment to consider the impacUpotential damage to infrastructure vibration
generated during construction is likely to cause and that this information be shared with Fed Square for
feedback and input.
Ground Movement
Fed Square conducts annual building and fa<;:ade inspections to monitor the integrity and performance
of the site. The anticipated impact associated with ground movement is likely to have a direct impact on
buildings and fac;:ades which will require additional monitoring throughout the duration of the
construction phase and for a period after the completion of the project. Therefore Fed Square requests
that any costs associated with additional inspections and any subsequent remed iation be funded by the
Melbourne Metro Rail Authority.
Structural Integrity
On review of the current station design it appears that there is a significant issue with respect to
ensuring ongoing stability for the Federation Square deck structure as it appears the intention is to
remove a main stability shear wall. This has been reviewed by Fed Square's Structural Engineering
Consultant who was part of the Structural Engineering team that developed the Federation Square
deck structure and has consulted with Fed Square throughout the life of the precinct. Their advice is as
follows.

CNR SWANSTON +
FLINDERS STREETS
TELEPHONE +01 300551900
FASCIMILE
+01 3 0063 3652
INFO@FEDSOUARE.COM
FEDSOUARE.COM
ABN 99 005 731 479
r - r" .. j"'... r-- r -.. :- ..r- -, 1.
t~ I:: ...J t: 1::: j-j
~:::; f") i i1=1 p ~::

000
Ott
i .l u j "j
t
The potential impact and specific elements are outlined below and identified on the attached mark- up
of the structural engineering design drawing (Appendix B):
1. Undermining or instability of the foundation system due to tunnel and proposed station entry
structure construction.
2. Noise and vibration from tunnel construction and operation as well as construction of the
proposed station entry.
3. Operational impact due to tunnel and entry portal construction activities.
4. Loss of structural integrity of the Federation Square deck structure due to proposed
construction of cut and cover entry tunnel and interface with Federation Square.
Particular attention is drawn to item 4 above associated with the Federation Square interface structure.
Appendix B is a mark-up of the original structural engineering design drawing for the north west lower
level Federation Square structure. Elements associated with structural stability as highlighted on the
mark-up are;
o Footings and columns
o Retaining wall
o Main deck stabilising sheer wall
Potential exists for some or all of these elements to be undermined or destabilised resulting in damage
to structural elements of Federation Square during construction activities.
Operational impacts
Fed Square requests that the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority work with Fed Square to develop strategies and
plans that mitigate impacts to the Fed Square site . Particularly as it is a 24 hour precinct open every day of the
year.
'
While we appreciate that the full extent of operational impacts will be revealed as the project progresses, Fed
Square would like to raise a few broad points from the outset. These are:
Transport
Fed Square is concerned about the potential impact increased and rerouted pedestrian movement will
have on the site during the construction phase of the project. Federation Square currently has in
excess of 10 million visits per year, which involves a mix of direct customers and commuter traffic. The
accessibility and flow of pedestrian management is carefully assessed and managed on a daily basis in
order to provide a safe environment for all our visitors. Fed Square is mindful that the excavation site
will likely have a significant impact on general site movements and the organisation would like to see
more detailed modelling to properly assess the impact on the asset and its patrons during and post
construction works.
FED S QUARE PTY. LTD.
CNR SWANSTON +
FLINDERS STREETS
TELEPHONE +61 3 0055 1000
FASCIMILE
+61 3 !:853 3652
INFO@FEDSOUARE.COM
FEDSOUARE.COM
ABN 99 085 731 479
:.... r.:: I= r..;;.... P 1:e T .., . n;. i.
'
..... !... - '"
I. " "
:::: 1"11i f'-1 1;

.. !:::
- ..... =! . . !.,,
- 1
1
1
Land Use and Planning
The location of the excavation site and potential loss of buildings at Federation Square is likely to have
an impact on a number of adjacent buildings and event activations, particularly in relation to general
access and egress of the site. Fed Square would like to work with the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority
to ensure that construction activities take into account potential impacts on safe, practical and timely
access and egress around the site, particularly in relation to a number of adjacent tenancies that use
these areas for operational purposes and event clients who need unrestricted access at critical times.
Landscape and Visual
Fed Square seeks continued consultation in relation to landscape and visual impact in relation to both
during the construction phase of the project.
Contaminated Land and Soil Management
Details associated with the management and handling of contaminated land and soil is likely to impact
on Fed Square's site operations. While it is acknowledged that the project will have stringent controls in
place, it is foreseeable that there will be instances that will require additional scrutiny. Fed Square
would like to be provided with greater detail in relation to the local management of both clean fill and
prescribed waste within the precinct, as well as ongoing consultation regarding any unforeseen issues
if they were to arise.
Precinct safety
As a high profile public precinct it is critical that Federation Square maintain its reputation as a safe,
family friendly location . Therefore Fed Square requests the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority consult
extensively with Fed Square in relation to the works to be carried out onsite with (amongst other things)
a focus on:
o Traffic flow (pedestrian, tenant and event)
o Emergency egress
o Security, including site security plans
o Sightlines and other visual impacts
o Wayfinding
Services
The need to provide services to the tunnel and station structures may result in interruption to Fed
Square infrastructure and supply services. The full impacts of these needs to be more clearly outlined
to Fed Square by the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority.
CNR SWAMSTON +
FLINDERS STREETS
TELEPHONE +61 3 00551 000
FASCIMILE
+61 3 go....63 3652
INFO@FEDSOUARE.COM
FEDSOUARE.COM
ABN 99 085 731 479
r- t"....- . - - -i- .......
... - ,..... r-
--11r ..
:::;
U - H ..!i:'-. i::
i- 1=Ut:1:'.1~i
i .1u11
Design integrity impacts

Fed Square requests we continue to be involved with the planning and design of the new station entrance, as
its final design will have a significant impact on the architectural integrity of the Federation Square precinct and
the commercial activity of Fed Square (in the form of new tenancy space opportunities, existing tenancies,
opportunities to conduct events and other commercial opportunities).
Additionally the final design will impact on pedestrian flow at Federation Square and adjacent areas. This in
turn will impact on site security, evacuation plans, occupational health and safety and other critical/emergency
planning for the site as well as signage and illumination levels.
Revenue impacts
The location of the excavation site and potential loss of buildings at Federation Square is likely to have a
significant impact on a number of adjacent buildings and tenants and event activations.
In relation to Community and Stakeholder Engagement, Fed Square acknowledges that we have been included
as part of the panel of stakeholders, however it needs to be emphasised that the site and organisation operates
as both a community amenity and a commercial business. Therefore we believe that Fed Square, our tenants
and other commercial operations should be included as part of the assessment of business impacts. We ask
that Fed Square be included as a separate entity for the purposes of being consulted with as a commercial
business to ensure that the interests of our organisation and associated stakeholders are protected .
To provide insight into the extent of the potential impact on the commercial business of Fed Square and our
associated stakeholders, the scale of the Melbourne Metro Rail Project will have a significant financial impact
on the following:
1,700 commercial and community events held at Federation Square each year and potential loss of
revenue associated the reduction of hireable space
Operation of the Federation Square car park that provides revenue to maintain and operate the asset
due to construction traffic
Loss of revenue for 35 onsite tenancies and Fed Square as the landlord
Public perception of Federation Square and its services

Public amenity, security and site operations
Therefore Fed Square requests that its business and stakeholders be included as part of the business impact
assessment and be involved in any subsequent consultation. This will allow the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority
to work with Fed Square and our tenants to quantify the business impacts, where possible collectively mitigate
and limit the impacts and when necessary provide appropriate compensation. Fed Square acknowledges that
we have commenced discussion with the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority regarding the financial impacts to the
precinct but request that the scope of these continued discussions take into account all revenue impacts to the
precinct, not just events and removed tenancies.

CNR SWANSTON +
FLINDERS STREETS
TELEPHONE -Kl 1 3 9655 1900
FASCIM ILE
-Kl 1 3 9'Xl3 3652
INFOOFEDSOUARE.COM
FEDSOUARE.COM
ABN 99 085 731 479
....
While it is difficult to calculate the full extent of the financial impact at this point, Fed Square has developed
some indicative figures and submitted them to the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority. These figu res are:
Tenancy rental reductions - $1,500,000
Loss of event hire spaces - $600,000

As mentioned the works are expected to impact car park revenue. It is hoped the secondary entrance fro m
Batman Avenue will minimise the impact of restricted access from Russell Street, but the full extent of the
impact will need to be assessed as access details are clarified.
Additionally, over the works period Fed Square will lose familiarity amongst our clients and considering there is
likely a significant staff turnover in that length of time, Fed Square will need to develop the Events and
Programing side of the business again. This means more upfront campaign and advocacy work to re-launch
the space. Expected costs for the re-development of this offering are $ 250,000.
In conclusion Fed Square understands the long term benefits this project will bring to the city and continues to
broadly support the Melbourne Metro Rail Project. Fed Square feels that both we and the Melbourne Metro Rail
Authority have shown a clear intention to engage pragmatically and proactively in relation to this project and
Fed Square requests that this continues in reference to the points raised above.
I'd like to thank the Inquiry for the opportunity to present today and for your consideration of our submission.
Fed Square looks forward to continuing to work constructively with the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority in the
delivery of this project and trusts our submission has assisted the Inquiry in thei r consideration of the project.
Digitally signed by
Sharon Pollard
Date: 2016.09.28
13:59:12 + 10'00'
SHARON POLLARD
FED SQUARE PTY LTD
GENERAL MANAGER OPERATIONS
CNR SWANSTON + FLINDERS STREET MELBOURNE VIC 3000
T +61 3 9655 1940
F +61 3 9663 3652
SHARON.POLLARD@FEDSQUARE.COM
FEDSQUARE.COM

CNR SWANSTON +
FLINDERS STREETS
TELEPHONE +61 3 9355 1900
FASCIMILE
+61 3 ~3 3652
INFOOFEDSOUARE.COM
FEDSOUARE .COM
ABN 99 005 731 479
Appendix A - Vibration and Acoustic Attenuation Criteria for the Federation Square site.

CNR SWANSTON +
FLINDERS STREETS
TELEPHONE +61 3 0055 1900
FASCIMILE
+61 3 9363 3652
INFOOFEDSOUARE.COM
FEDSOUARE.COM
ABN gg 085 731 479
REPORT 7037-R1
FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT

RAILWAY NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION
Prepared fo r
Office of Major Projects

Level 8, 55 Swanston Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
21 August 1997
RICHARD HEGGIE ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

Sydney Level 2, 2 Lincoln Street (PO Box 176), Lane Cove NSW 2066, Australia. Telephone (02) 9427 8100
Brisbane Level 1, 56 Jephson Street, Toowong OLD 4066 , Australia. Telepho ne (07) 3870 4625
REPORT 7037-R1
Quality System
Richard Heggie Associates Pty Ltd operates under a Quality System which has been certified by Quality Assurance Services Pty
Limited to comply with all the requirements of ISO 900 I :1994 "Quality Systems - Model for Quality Assurance in Design,
Development, Production, Installation and Servicing" (Licence No 3236).
This document has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of that System.
Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants - AAAC

Richard Heggie Associates is a Member Firm of the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants.
Reference
Status
Date
S1717037R1
Revision 0
21.8.97
Prepared
Checked
Document S17\FEDERATION SQUARE NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION 1997

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIAT ES
PTY
LTD
Authorised
21 August 1997
Page 2 of 43
REPORT 7037-R1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Federation Square Project is a Victorian Government initiative to provide a majo r new civic
and cultural facility on the edge of the Melbourne CBD. This will be an airspa ce development
over the railway lines immediately east of Flinders Street Station.
Richard Heggie Associates has been engaged to provide advice to the Office of Major Projects
regarding railway noise and vibration impacts on the Federation Square Project. This advice has
been prepared in association with Connell Wagner Pty Ltd.
The following report outlines the options available and provides recommendations in rega rd to
these concepts. As such, it constitutes strategic advice in relation to both noise and vibration
issues, without specific reference to the outcomes of the architectural design competition (which
was run in parallel with this investigation).
NOISE SOURCES
Airborne Noise
The wayside noise normally associated with surface rail operations is termed "airborne" noise.
This noise is emitted from sources including wheels, rails, diesel eng ines, etc and is transmitted
as pressure waves within the air.
The most significant airborne noise sources will be diesel engine noise and wheel/rail noise
(particularly at crossings and turnouts).
Regenerated Noise
The low frequency noise which occurs in airspace developments over railway tracks and in
buildings adjacent to rail tunnels is predominantly caused by the transmission of ground-borne
vibration, rather than the direct transmission of noise through the air. Th is ground-borne
vibration causes the walls and floors of buildings to vibrate and hence to radiate noise,
commonly termed "regenerated noise".
)
Some activities, such as sleeping, theatre, and audio production , are more prone to disturbance
from regenerated noise than other activities, such as shopping or office tasks . In outdoor
environments, such as the Civic Square, regenerated noise would not be significant.
Tactile Vibration
Apart from causing regenerated noise, vibration may also be found offensive if it can be readily
observed by building occupants. The vibration may be felt directly or may be perceived as visible
movement or audible rattling of objects.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 3 of 43
REPORT 7037-R1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OPTIONS FOR NOISE AND VIBRATION MITIGATION
Options considered for noise and vibration control include the following :
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Ballast Mat
Under-Sleeper-Pads
Swing Nose Crossings
Slab Track Options (DFFs and floating slab)
Structural Isolation Using Rubber Bearings
Structural Isolation Using Steel Springs
Siting of noise sensitive occupancies
STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS
The following items have been identified as structural considerations which may impact on the
feasibility, constructability and cost of the vibration mitigation measures:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Available building envelope (ie outside the PTC structure gauge)

Crash walls and crash load requirements
Wind loads
Earthquakeloads
Wall and/or column spacings
Existing Princes Gate structure
Requirement for structural breaks
Deflection of spring elements during or after construction
Natural frequency of building elements
Live load versus dead load
Form of vibration isolation
Deck structure (concrete or steel/concrete composite)
VIBRATION MEASUREMENTS
Vibration from PTC trains was measured on 2, 3 and 18 April 1997. The measu rements were
primarily on the Princes Gate structure, as this will form part of the proposed deve lopment.
Supplementary measurements were also carried out on the Northern Loop ramp and on midtrack columns for the Box Hill Central structure.
PREDICTED NOISE AND VIBRATION LEVELS
From the measurement results, standardised mean and typical maximum spectra for vertical
column vibration have been determined for locations with and without rail ru nning surface
discontinuities. The standardised vibration spectra for track adjacent to turnouts is presented
below, together with the range of measured mean vibration levels.
Standardised Column Vibration Spectra for Track with Running Surface Discontinuities

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 4 of 43
REPORT 7037-R1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
VIBRATION AND REGENERATED NOISE PREDICTIONS

The vibration and regenerated noise predictions are summarised in the table below. Th is table
provides a pictorial indication of compliance (or otherwise) using a hierarchy of ticks and
crosses. A large number of ticks indicates a high factor of safety for compliance.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 5 of 43
REPORT 7037-R1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Summary of Vibration and Regenerated Noise Predictions
Wlntergarden
Civic
Square
Zone A
Secure Venues
Zone B
Zone C
A1
B1
B2
Rpc:;t~11r::a nt
Outdoors
W e ather
protected
EJ<h1b1tion
Areas
r;afpe;.::inti
Storage
Clnemedla Centre
Zone E
Zone O
C1
C2
C3
01
02
03
E1
E2
Offices
Performing
Arts spaces
Exh1b1tion
spaces
Offices
Cinemas
Studios
Plant and
storage
Otfoces
Low
retail
Acoustical
Sensitivity
Negligible
Low
Low
Moderate
Very High
High
Moderate
High
Very high
Negligible
Train Noise
Design
Goal (dBA)
NIA
50
50
40-45
30-35
40
40-45
35
25
65
Vibration
Sensitivity
Low to
moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
High
Very high
Low
L ow
Vibration
Design
Goal
(mm/s)
0.4 to 0.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.14
0.8
0.8
50-55
Track with running surface discontinuities

No Isolation
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()(
Rubber
Bearings
lil
)()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()(
)()()(
)()()(
lilllllll
fj
Steel
Springs
1!111111
l!IH
1!11!11!1
lllill
Ill
01!1
)()()(
111111
r:Jl i
Ballast Mat
)()(
)()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
11111
)()()(
xx
)()()(
)()()(
RI
1111
lilllllll
llH
1!11!
il!lll!I
)()(
llH
llllilrll
)()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
11111
Ill
... ...
Bearing &
Mat
Springs &
Mat
Smooth Continuous Track
No isolation
Ill
xx
Rubber
Bearings
lllill
!!I
)()(
xx
Ste el
Spri ngs
IHll:I
lll!lllil
lilllllll
Hlil
Ill
llllll
llr:ltll
xx
111111
rilll!ll
Ballast Mat
l!llll
xx
)()()(
)()()(
xx
xxx
)()()(
lllillll
lil
Bearings &
Mat
Clllllll
Cllll
llllll
lllll:I
llllll
)()()(
lllllll
lllli11il
Springs &
Mat
lilllllll
lllllllll
llllllill
1111111
1!1!1111
lillillil
ElllCl
lllllllil
llllllCI
lllH
llllllll
llllll
~
o
x
xx
xxx
Compliance >10 dB
Compliance >5 dB
Compliance >2 dB
Marginal
Non compliance >2 dB
AIRBONE NOISE PREDICTIONS

The acceptability of the predicted airborne noise in the various occupancy categories are
indicated in the two following tables.
Document S171FEDERATION SQUARE NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION 1997

RICHARD
H EGG I E
A S SOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 6 of 43
REPORT 7037-R1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact of Airborne Wheel-Rail Noise
Civic Square
Wintergarden
Secure Venues
C(ngmedla Centre
Zone A
Zones
ZoneC
Zon e 0
A1
Outdoors
Zono E
E1
C2
C3
Cafes and
Retail
Offices
Perfonning
Arts Spaces
El<hlbltion
Spac es
Offices
Cinemas
Studios
Storage
Offices
82
w~ath er
Restaur;1nt
Protected
01
03
E2
C1
81
ExhibRion
Storage
02
Plotnt and
Areas
Acoustical
sensitivity
Negligible
Low
Low
Moderate
Ver; High
High
Moderate
Hi gh
Very High
Negligibl e
Low
Train noise
design goal
(d8A)
NIA
50
50
40-45
30- 35
40
40-45
35
25
65
50- 55
Wheel-rail
noise on
OK
OK
OK
Marg inal at
deck level
OK at Level 1
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Marginal at
Unacceptable
OK
at deck level
OK at Level 1
deck l evel
O K at
level 1
at deck level
Unacceptable.
Speci alist
OK
at dec k lev el
OK at Level 1
OK at l evel 1
acoustic
OK
Margin a!
at deck
level
smooth tra ck
OK
Wheel-rail
noise near
tum out
Marginal at
deck level
(exceeds
preferred
design goal)
Marginal at
deck level
(exceeds
preferred
design
goal)
Unacceptable at
deck level
OK at Level 1
Unacceptable
at deck Level
OK at Lev el 1
Unacceptab le
at deck level
OK at Lev el 1
desi9n of
studios
required
Unacceptab
teat deck
level
O K at
Level 1
Unacceptabl e
at deck level
OK at Level 1
Unacceptable.
Specialist
acoustic
design of
studios
required
Impact of Locomotive Exhaust Noise

Civic
Square
Wintergarden
Secure Venues
Cincmc-dia Centre
Z one A
ZoneB
ZoneC
Zon e D
A1
Outdo ors
81
82
Weather
Protected
Exhibiti on
At'e as
Restaurant
Cafcs and
01
C1
C2
C3
Exhlbttlon
Offices
Performing
Arts Sp.1ccs
Spaces
Offices
02
Storage
ZonoE
03
E1
E2
Cinemas.
Studios
Plant and
Storag e
Offices
Retail
Acoustical
sensitivity
Negligible
Low
Low
Moderate
Very High
High
Moderate
High
Very Hi gh
Negli gible
Low
Train noise
design goal
(d8A)
NIA
50
50
4045
30-35
40
40...45
35
25
65
50-55
Locomotiv
e Exhaust
Noise
OK
Unacceptable
at deck l evel
OK at Lev el 1
with isolation
above deck
Unacceptable
at deck level
OK at Level 1
'Mth isolaUon
above deck
Unacceptable
at deck level
Marginal at
Leve\ 1 with
isolation
above deck
Unacceptabl e
Unacceptable
at deck level
and Level 1
OK at Level 2
with isolation
above deck
Unacceptabl e
at deck l evel
Marginal at
Level 1 with
isolation
abov e dec k
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Ma rginal
at deck
level
Unacceptabl e
at deck level
OK at Lever 1
with isol ation
abov e deck
Note: The assessments in this table a pply to regular events. Occasional one oft" events at higher noise levels would be acceptable in all areas
except the studios.
RECOMMENDATIONS
a.
On the basis of the summary of noise and vibration predictions, the only vibration
mitigation measures which will satisfy all requirements (excluding studios) are those which
incorporate steel springs to achieve a very low natural frequency.
Rubber bearing isolation would be suitable for cafes, offices and weather protected
exhibition areas, provided the rail running surfaces are smooth and continuous. If t he rails
have discontinuities (including poorly finished welds) this isolation would be unsuitable for
office areas.
Document S17\FEDERATlON SQUARE NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION 1997

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 7 of 43
REPORT 7037-R1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In view of the current design status, the risk of track deterioration over time, and the
inability to upgrade the isolation system once constructed, the preferred approach is to use
steel spring isolation under all built areas.
b.
No vibration isolation is proposed for the Russell Street extension, which would be
separated from the remaining development by a structural break.
c.
Care should be taken to avoid direct contact between the Federation Square structure and
the Northern Loop concrete ramp. Each structure should be independently piled and
physically separate.
d.
In the vicinity of the Metrol building, it would be possible to reduce the structural vibration
isolation requirements , subject to the proposed occupancy and distance from the nearest
track.
e.
None of the vibration isolation options will be adequate to provide the necessary protection
to television and radio studios. These would therefore need to be constructed with their
own independent vibration isolation, either within the ma in structure , or prefe rably at a
remote location at the south of the site .
f.
In addition to the above, it is recommended that ballast mat be installed under the turnout
on the southern most track. This turnout will be frequently crossed by diesel locomotives,
(which have high unsprung mass) and is therefore likely to be a source of higher vibration
levels than any of the other turnouts.
g.
Airborne noise transmission through the deck is another important consideration , both in
relation to general wheel-rail noise and also diesel locomotive exhaust noise. Options for
control of airborne noise include careful siting of occupancies according to their noise
sensitivity, and/or provision of a non-noise-sensitive level (carparking or storage) at the
base of buildings.
This latter approach would allow the vibration isolation to be moved above deck level,
simplifying the deck construction. Whilst this approach may increase the height of the
development, it would provide good control over both airborne and regenerated no ise,
resulting in maximum flexibility in site planning .

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 8 of 43
REPORT 7037-R1

VIBRATION AND REGENERATED NOISE INVESTIGATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
12
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
12
POTENTIAL NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACTS

3.1
General Comments
3.2
Airborne Noise
3.3
Regenerated Noise
3.4
Vibration
13
13
13
14
15
NOISE AND VIBRATION CRITERIA AND SENSITIVITY ZONES
16
OPTIONS FOR VIBRATION AND REGENERATED NOISE MITIGATION

5.1
Ballast Mat
5.2
Under-Sleeper-Pads
5.3
5.4
Slab Track Options
5.5
5.6
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
OPTIONS FOR AIRBORNE NOISE MITIGATION

6.1
Sound Transmission Loss
6.2
Site Planning and Separation of Spaces
6.3
Vibration Isolation
6.4
Full Height Crash Walls
6.5
Acoustic Absorption
20
20
21
22
22
22
7.1
General Comments
7.2
Vertical Loads
7.3
Horizontal Loads
Dimensional Constraints
7.4
7.5
Design Concepts
7.6
Additional Considerations Relating to Isolation
23
GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
25
9.1
Measurement Procedures
9.2
nstrumentation
9.3
Results
26
26
27
28

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
23
23
24
24
24
25
21 August 1997
Page 9 of 43
REPORT 7037-R1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
10
11
PREDICTED VIBRATION AND REGENERATED NOISE LEVELS

10.1 Standardised Vibration Spectra
10.2 Amplification within Structure and Conversion to Noise
10.3 Insertion Loss of Ballast Mat
10.4 Insertion Loss of Structural vibration Isolation
10.5 Summary of Vibration and Regenerated Noise Predictions
30
30
31
32
32
33
PREDICTED AIRBORNE NOISE LEVELS

11.1 Data from PTC Measurements and Other Sources
11.2 Airborne Noise Levels at the Underside of the Deck
11.3 Airborne Noise Levels in Spaces Above the Deck
11.4 Impact of Airborne Noise
35
EXTENT OF TREATMENT
12.1 Vibration and Regenerated Noise Control
12.2 Airborne Noise Control
37
13
COST IMPLICATIONS
40
14
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
41
15
REFERENCES
42
)
12
35
35
36
36
37
39
TABLES
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 6 .1.1
Table 7.2.1
Table 9.1.1
Table 9.2.1
Table 10.5.1
Table 11.1.1
Table 11.3.1
Table 11.4.1
Table 11.4.2
Table13.1
16
Noise and Vibration Sensitivity Zones
Areas and Usage (based on the Noise and Vibration Consultant's Brief)
17
Sound Transmission Loss of Concrete Floors (after Bies and Hansen, 1996)
21
Maximum and Minimum Typical Floor Loads (Working)
for a Notional 4 Storey Building
23
Measurement Locations
27
Instrumentation
28
34
Typical Diesel Electric Locomotive Noise Levels at 20 m
35
Predicted Airborne Noise Levels in Spaces Immediately Above the Deck
36
Impact of Airborne Wheel-Rail Noise
37
Impact of Locomotive Exhaust Noise
37
Cost Estimates for Structural Isolation (Additional cost over non-isolated option) 41

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 10 of 43
REPORT 7037-R1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
FIGURES
Figure 9.3.1
Figure 10 .1.1
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
10.1.2
10.2.1
10.3.1
10.4.1
Mean Column Base Vertical Vibration Levels

(Indicating the range of levels at various locations)
Standardised Column Vibration Spectra for Track with Running Surface
Discontinuities
Standardised Column Vibration Spectra for Smooth Continuous Track
Amplification of Vibration between Column and Mid Span
Ballast Mat Insertion Loss
Predicted Insertion Loss of Structural Vibration Isolation
29
30
31
31
32
33
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Federation Square Site Plan

Vibration Measurement Locations at Box Hill
Spring Isolation Literature
Vibration Measurement Results
Vibration Predictions
Regenerated Noise Predictions
Report of Structural Implications

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 11of43
REPORT 7037-R1

OFFICE OF MAJOR PROJECTS
INTRODUCTION
The Federation Square Project is a Victorian Government initiative to

provide a major new civic and cultural facility on the edge of the
Melbourne CBD. This will be in the form of an airspace development
over the railway lines immediately east of Flinders Street Station.
Richard Heggie Associates has been engaged to provide advice to the
Office of Major Projects regarding railway noise and vibration impacts on
the Federation Square Project. This advice has been prepared in
association with Connell Wagner Pty Ltd, whose role was to evaluate
structural design aspects and cost implications associated with the noise
and vibration mitigation options.
The following report outlines the options available and provides
recommendations in regard to these concepts. As such, it constitutes
both strategic and specific advice in relation to vibration and regenerated
noise issues as well as airborne noise issues. Specific architectural
concepts have not been addressed, as this investigation was carried out
in parallel with the architectural design competition.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Federation Square Project is linked to a rationalisation of the

Jollimont Rail Yards and the trackwork immediately adjacent to
Flinders Street Station.
The 3.2 hectare Federation Square site is bounded by Flinders Street,

Swanston Street, Batman Avenue and an extension of Russell Street.
The majority of the site will be an airspace development above the twelve
parallel railway tracks , with the remaining areas comprising the
Princes Gate substructure (at the north of the site) and the vicinity of the
current Metro! Building (at the south of the site) . A site plan is provided in
Appendix A.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSO C IATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 12 of 43
REPORT 7037-R1 FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT - RAILWAY NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION
The development will feature four main co mponents, these being:

o
A new Civic Square for major civic events and celebrations .
A Winter Garden, comprising enclosed (atrium style), semi-enclosed

and open public activity spaces, with garden and botanical displays,
festival and restaurant activity.
"Ticketable"
performance
and
exhibition
facilities,
plus
accommodation for leading festival companies. This will include a
versatile 400 seat theatre, plus 1600 m2 of exhi bition space.
Screen Culture (Cinemedia) Centre , providing a showcase for

television, cinema and multi-media techno logies, plus offices and
accommodation for the State's Cinemedia Organisation. Th is may
include operating television and radio studios, plus cinemas, film
library and research facilities.
POTENTIAL NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACTS
3.1
General Comments
The functions of the Federation Square site will range from a relatively
low sensitivity to noise and vibration through to extremely high sensitivity.
The proposed radio and television studies and (to a lesser extent) theatre
and cinemas, require very low background noise levels in order to fulfil
their normal functions.
Ironically, the chosen site is possibly the most noise and vibration
affected development site in the Melbourne business district.
The reason this site is so highly affected is that almost all of the build ing
columns will be in close proximity to ra ilway tracks, enabling vibration
(structure-borne noise) to propagate freely into the structure. In addition ,
the majority of the floor area will be exposed to high levels of airborne
noise from the railway operations below.
3.2
Airborne Noise
The wayside noise normally associated with surface rail operations is
"airborne" noise. This noise is emitted from sources including wheels,
rails , diesel engines, etc and is transmitted as pressure waves with in the
air.
In the open, this noise is primarily attenuated by distance, althoug h
significant reductions may also be achieved by means of acoustic
shielding from barriers or cuttings.
In enclosed spaces, airborne noise is reflected by hard surfaces, with
multiple reflections resulting in a reverberant build-up of noise and hence
higher train noise levels than occur under free-field conditions.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 13 of 43
REPORT 7037-R1 - FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT- RAILWAY NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION
The reverberation depends on the extent of acoustic absorption within the

enclosed space. The absorption does not alter the noise generation, but
reduces the reverberant build-up by partially absorbing rather than
reflecting the incident sound waves. With ballasted track, a degree of
acoustic absorption occurs as a result of the porous nature of the crushed
rock ballast.
The most significant airborne noise sources will be diesel engine noise
and wheel/rail noise (particularly at crossings and turnouts) . These noise
sources are discussed in greater detail in Section 11.
The transmission of airborne noise into the Federation Square
Development will be a function of the sound transmission loss
characteristics of the concrete deck and exposed parts of the building
facade.
3.3
Regenerated Noise
The low frequency noise which occurs in airspace developments over
railway tracks and in buildings adjacent to rail tunnels is predominantly
caused by the transmission of ground-borne vibration, rather than the
direct transmission of noise through the air. This vibration causes the
walls and floors of buildings to vibrate and hence to radiate noise,
commonly termed "regenerated noise", or "structure-borne noise".
The vibration is generated by wheel-rail interaction and is transmitted
through the ground and into the building structure. Noise control is
therefore most readily achieved by interrupting the transmission path of
the vibration. This can be implemented at the building or at the trackbed .
Regenerated noise has a rumbling character, which increases and
decreases in level as the train approaches and departs the site. This
type of noise occurs in various existing buildings and would have been
clearly apparent in the Princes Gate building prior to demolition.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 14 of 43
REPORT 7037-R1 - FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT - RAILWAY NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION
Regenerated noise is a complex phenomenon, involving a variety of

factors including:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Wheel and rail condition

Unsprung mass of rail cars
Rail support stiffness (resilience)
Ground properties (rock or soil characteristics)
Propagation distance
Building footing design
Building structure design
Acoustic absorption within the building
In most situations, these factors cannot be defined and hence predictions

are normally carried out (at least partially) using emp irical methods.
Consideration of the relative sensitivity of the receiving space must also
be included in the evaluation and assessment of potentia l impacts.
The fact that regenerated noise may be aud ible does not necessary
indicate that it is offensive or disturbing. In some cases, the train noise
may pass unnoticed, due to the masking effect of other ambient noise
sources, activities or distractions.
Some activities , such as sleeping, theatre and aud io production, are more
prone to disturbance from regenerated noise than other activities, such
as shopping or office tasks . In outdoor environments, such as the Civic
Square, regenerated noise would not need to be considered.
Design goals to minimise disturbance to particular activities have been
established and are presented in Section 4.
3.4
Vibration
Apart from causing regenerated noise, vibration may also be found
offensive if it can be strongly felt by building occupants . The vibration
may be felt directly or may be perceived as visi ble moveme nt or audible
rattling of objects .
Vibration at the levels under consideration would not be expected to
cause damage to buildings , nor present any safety risk . Normal office
equipment would also be unaffected by the railway vibration .
Vibration may be of concern in restaurants and outdoor cafes if it results
in rattling of glasses or crockery. Vibration may also be of concern in the
proposed television studio if it causes rattling or visible vibration of props
or lighting .

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21August1997
Page 15 of 43
NOISE AND VIBRATION CRITERIA AND SENSITIVITY ZONES
In order to provide a framework for presentation of findings , the various

building occupancies have been grouped into zones of similar use and
sensitivity to noise and vibration. These zones are listed in Table 4.1.
The allocation of occupancy areas to zonal categories is indicated in
Table 4.2.
The train noise and vibration design goals apply to a "typical maximum"
train passby event (ie the level which would be exceeded by no more
than 10% of events).
These design goals are based on AS 2107-1987 and AS 2670-1990, with
appropriate adjustments to account for the intermittent nature of railway
noise and vibration.
Table 4.1
Noise and Vibration Sensitivity Zones

Civic
Square
Zone A
Acoustical
Sensitivity
Wintergarden
Secure Venues
Zones
Zone C
Zon e E
Zone 0
C1
C2
C3
Offices
Performing
Arts spaces
Exhibition
spaces
Offices
Cinemas
Studios
Plant and
storage
Offices'
Low
Moderate
Very High
High
Moderate
High
Very
high
Negligible
Low
50
50
40-45
30-35
40
40-45
35
25
65
50-55
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
High
Very
high
Low
Low
0.4
0.4
0.4
0 .2
0.2
0 .4
0 .2
0.14
0.8
0 .8
A1
81
82
W eather
protected
Exhibition
Areas
RP~tA1 mmt
Outdoors
Negligible
Low
NIA
Low to
moderate
Train
Noise
Storage
Clnemedia Centre
r.;1fA~
Anrl
reta il
01
02
03
E1
E2
Design
Goal
(dBA)
Vibration
Sensitivity
Vibration
0.4 to 0.8
Design
Goal
(mm/s
rms)
Notes
1. Offices in which a degree of rail noise is acceptable (eg an environment like a railway ticket office, maintenance
2.
staff facilities, etc)

Higher levels would be clearly felt but may be tolerable in some outdoor areas where no specific risk of disturbance
exists (eg areas without cafes, etc)

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 16 of 43
Table 4.2
Areas and Usage (based on the Noise and Vibration Consultant's Brief)
Area/Level
Use
Zone
Platform 15/16
General storage
Plantrooms
Video storage and associated offices
Film archives and conservation storage
E1
E1
E2
E2
Ground Level
Batman Avenue
Metrol Environment
Gardens
Restaurants
Retail
A1
B2
B2
Deck Level
Civic Square
Restaurants and retail
Video Library
Exhibition Gallery Spaces
Visitor Information Centre
Atrium and courtyard spaces
A1
B2
01
C3
B2
B1
Levels 1/2
Multimedia Gallery
Cinemas
Performance Venue/Function Rooms
TV/Radio Broadcast Studio
C3
02
C2
03
Upper Levels 2/3
Offices
Library
C1 /D1
01
Note that areas and levels of various occupancies may differ in the final design as a result of acoustical (or other)
considerations.
OPTIONS FOR VIBRATION AND REGENERATED NOISE MITIGATION
5.1
Ballast Mat
Ballast mat is a resilient material designed to be placed on concrete or
earth formation beneath conventional ballasted track. The normal ballast
depth and track structure are retained and general track maintenance is
by conventional methods.
The insertion loss (difference between vibration levels with and without) is
a function of the dynamic stiffness of the mat, together with the ballast
depth, unsprung mass, etc.
The insertion loss provided by ballast mats is also affected by the
impedance of the substructure. Concrete or rock substructures result in
maximum performance . Earth formations result in lower insertion loss
due to the comparatively lower impedance.
The track through the Federation Square site is on earth formation and
construction of concrete slabs is regarded as impractical. Therefore, the
predicted insertion loss will be less than may be reported for some other
sites.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 17 of 43
REPORT 7037-R1 FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT RAILWAY NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION
Most ballast mats are manufactured to comply with a German Railway

Specification (DBTL 918071 ), which covers aspects such as static and
dynamic stiffness, test methods, flammability, durability, etc. Ballast mats
are typically 20 mm to 45 mm thick, and may be manufactured from
natural rubber, synthetic rubber or cellular polyurethane.
Various
stiffness grades are available to suit a range of load conditions and
vibration isolation requirements.
Most ballast mats are suitable for installation on a prepared earth
formation, however some require a concrete slab. Installation would
require removal of the existing track and ballast, rolling of the formation ,
installation of the mat and reinstatement of the track.
Ballast mats are largely maintenance free, with a minimum design life of
20 years required under the German Railway Specification. Most
manufacturers claim that samples of ballast mat have been removed after
up to 20 years service and found to be in good condition . An expectation
of 30 years-plus service is therefore reasonable.
Normal mechanised tamping can be undertaken without affecting ballast

mats, however mechanised ballast cleaning may risk damage to the mat.
As the ballast would prevent fines penetrating from beneath, ballast
cleaning would be a less frequent requirement.
5.2
Under-Sleeper-Pads
Under-sleeper-pads are manufactured from materials similar to ballast

mat. These are adhered to the underside of sleepers (normally concrete)
and are used in conjunction with conventional ballasted track to achieve a
degree of vibration isolation.
Under-sleeper-pads are more economical than ballast mat, but provide
only moderate performance, with low insertion loss at high frequencies.
Detailed calculations have therefore not been included in this report.
5.3
With conventional turnouts and diamond crossings, a significant rail

discontinuity occurs at the crossings (ie locations at which a wheel flange
must pass through another rail) . This discontinuity can be virtually
eliminated by means of a swing nose crossing.
Swing nose crossings are generally used only for high speed turnouts.
The suitability of swing nose crossings for short radius turnouts would
need to be determined in consultation with track engineers.
We are not aware of any design which would be suitable for diamond
crossings, however there is only one diamond crossing in the proposed
new track layout.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 18 of 43
PTC advise that they currently do not have any swing nose crossings in
service and have already let a contract for conventional turnouts. Design,
development and approval of swing nose crossings for use within the
system would take at least 12 months, even assuming a short radius
design can be developed.
5.4
Slab Track Options
Where slab track is used in preference to ballasted track, vibration

isolation can be achieved by means of res ilient direct fixation fasteners
(DFFs). These items replace the conventional rail baseplate, and are
located directly between the rail and tracks lab at norma l sleeper spacing.
Their function is to avoid any rigid contact between the ra ils and the slab.
The Northern Loop ramp has a form of resilient DFF, which would provide
some vibration isolation. Resilient DFFs are unlikely to be feasible on
other tracks, as this would require construction of full concrete trackslabs.
Similarly, other slab-based vibration isolation systems (such as floating

trackslabs) are likely to be impractical, due to the limited track
occupations available for construction works.
If required, improved vibration isolation could be achieved on the
Northern Loop ramp by installation of DFFs with greater resilience,
however this is not considered necessary at this stage.
5.5
Vibration isolation may be provided within a build ing structure by

introducing a resilient layer. This commonly takes the form of elastomeric
bearings (similar to bridge bearings) installed beneath the lowest
occupied level of the building.
Structural vibration isolation systems are sometimes inaccessible, and
must therefore be designed to be durable over the life of the building.
Elastomeric bearings have been used to provide vibration isolation for
many buildings constructed over railway tunnels, and have been found to
provide good long-term durability.
The performance of a vibration isolation system is dependent on the
fundamental natural frequency, in addition to other factors. Due to
stability constraints, and the fact that the dynamic stiffness of elastomers
is higher than the static stiffness, it is impractical to design this type of
building vibration isolation system with a fundamental frequency lower
than approximately 8 Hz.
This design frequency is a function of the active mass and the dynamic
stiffness of the bearing. Where a structure has a high ratio between the
maximum design load and the dead load, the ability to achieve a low
natural frequency is further inhibited.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 19 of 43
In practice, the active mass of the isolation system may also be reduced
by internal building resonances, which result in lower insertion loss than
would be predicted by simple single degree of freedom theory.
One advantage of elastomeric bearings is that they contain inherent
material damping, typically in the order of 5% critical. This lim its the
amplification at the system's natural frequency.
A disadvantage of elastomeric bearings is the low lateral stiffness , wh ich
often results in a need for supplementary horizontal restraint, either by
inclining some bearings or by provision of additional lateral restraint
bearings.
5.6

The concept of vibration isolation using steel springs is similar to that for
elastomeric bearings.
The isolation is located within the structure
beneath the lowest occupied level, with no rigid connection between the
isolated and non-isolated structures . The use of stee l springs permits
much lower natural frequencies to be achieved, typically down to 3.5 Hz.
Traditional disadvantages of steel springs relate to their lack of internal

damping. This potentially allows high amplification of vibration at the
natural frequency and loss of vibration isolation at the frequencies
associated with each spring's internal resonances.
These disadvantages may be resolved by the use of supplementary
damping systems and by partially immersing the spring in a highly
damped material.
These issues are discussed in representative
promotional literature from spring manufacturer Gerb, which is enclosed
in Appendix C.
OPTIONS FOR AIRBORNE NOISE MITIGATION
6.1
Sound Transmission Loss

The airborne railway noise levels above the deck and i1side the buildings
will be lower than those below the deck, due to the Sound Transmission
Loss of the intervening materials (deck, floors, walls etc).
The Sound Transmission Loss of a material is a measure of the extent to
which it will prevent airborne noise passing between spaces separated by
the material. For a given partition, the STL is a function of the mass,
stiffness, damping and coupling, and is normally determined in 1/3 octave
or octave frequency bands by laboratory testing.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 20 of 43
The resultant noise levels in the receiving space are also affected by the
room volume, degree of acoustic absorption etc, however it is often the
Sound Transmission Loss which is most readily controlled during the
design process.
The Sound Transmission Loss required for the building facades will be
determined during the detailed design phase and are not anticipated to
place any major constraint on the concept planning phase of the project.
The Sound Transmission Loss of the deck must also be considered , as
the underside of the deck will be exposed to higher noise levels than the
facade and depending on the design, a relatively la rge building footprint
may be exposed to noise transmitted through the deck.
Bies and Hansen (1996) quote the following Sound Transmission Loss
values for various concrete floor constructions. If the deck is constructed
as a Bondek Slab the concrete thickness wou ld be in the order of
170 mm (excluding toppings or specialist finishes). If precast concrete
planks are used, the effective thickness is expected to be at least
250 mm.
Table 6.1.1
Sound Transmission Loss of Concrete Floors (after Bies and Hansen, 1996)
Sound Transmission Loss (dB)
Slab Thickness
6.2
63 Hz
125 Hz
250 Hz
500 Hz
1 kHz
2 kHz
4 kHz
100 mm
32
37
36
45
52
59
62
200 mm
36
42
41
50
57
60
65
300 mm
37
40
45
52
59
63
67
Site Planning and Separation of Spaces

For most airborne noise, significant additional noise reduction can be
obtained by siting the receiving space further from the source. Siting a
critical receiver one level higher in the building or one room further away
increases the noise reduction by the Sound Transm ission Loss of the
additional partition (floor or wall), less an allowance for the reverberation
of the intervening space.
A very effective means of airborne noise mitigation is therefore available
to the building designers in the early planning stages.
Highly sensitive spaces, such as studios and theatres, should preferably
not be located directly on the deck. Other less sensitive occupancies
(such as dressing rooms, cafes, storage etc) may be used to provide an
additional level of separation between the deck and the sensitive spaces.
This strategy of placing sensitive occupancies higher in the building can
be very effective in reducing airborne noise transmission, but has only a
minor effect on regenerated noise levels.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 21 of 43
Other planning strategies which may be applied include not building over
those parts of the site regularly affected by diesel locomotive noise, and
biasing development to the most northern and southern parts of the site
(which are less affected by airborne railway noise).
6.3
Vibration Isolation
For most airborne noise, vibration isolation provides little additional

benefit over the Sound Transmission Loss of the building materials.
However, if the airborne noise is capable of generating significant
vibration within the building (such as may occur when low frequency
noise excites resonances in floors, walls etc) then vibration isolation may
be necessary to prevent transmission of this vibration and resultant
structure-borne noise throughout the building.
)
This is likely to be the case with locomotive exhaust noise (particularly at
idle), but not the general wheel-rail noise.
6.4
Full Height Crash Walls

Full height crash walls will provide some containment of noise, but will
result in a local increase in noise in the immediate vicinity of the source.
The containment of noise may be advantageous in relation to the
locomotive exhaust noise, in conjunction with special mitigation measures
in the area regularly affected by this noise.
Full height crash walls would provide no advantage in regard to airborne
noise from normal electric passenger train operations .
6.5
Acoustic Absorption
Acoustically absorptive materials may be used to reduce the reflection

and reverberation of noise within enclosed and semi-enclosed spaces.
Examples of absorptive treatments include fibreglass wool faced with

perforated metal, such as that used in the underground loop and at Box
Hill stations. For most noise sources, including wheel-rail noise, a
However, for the
treatment thickness of 100 mm is appropriate.
locomotive exhaust noise (which contains high levels of low frequency
noise), a special purpose design with greater thickness would be
required.
Irrespective of whether absorptive treatments are adopted for other
tracks, such treatment should be conside red for platforms 12 and 13 in
order to avoid excessive reverberant bu ild-up of noise on the enclosed
platforms (particularly to address locomotive engine noise and PA system
intelligibility).

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21August1997
Page 22 of 43
7 .1
General Comments
Structural issues associated with noise and vibration control at the
Federation Square site have been addressed in conjunction with Connell
Wagner Pty Ltd. Connell Wagner's report entitled "Federation Square
Sub-Structure - Report of Structural Implications of Proposed Vibration
Isolation Alternatives", dated 14 August 1997, is included as Appendix
G. The information presented in this section is primarily drawn from that
report, supplemented by loading information from OMP and previous
advice from Connell Wagner.
7 .2
Vertical Loads
The superimposed load applied to the deck structure is expected to vary
between 0 kPa and 65 kPa, depending on the final design and the extent
of live load present.
The column spacings for the proposed superstructure will be designed to
match the line of the crash walls under. Wherever this is not feasible, a
transfer structure above the deck will be provided to transfer any column
loads to the line of the crash walls.
Whilst it is essential that all structural elements (including vibration
isolation) are designed to sustain the maximum design load, it is
necessary to design the vibration isolation system to perform at the lower
loads expected in practice. As an example, Table 7.2.1 provides
indicative loads for a notional building of up to four stories . The normal
working load would be the design point for the vibration isolation.
Functionality at minimum and maximum load would also need to be
assessed.
Table 7.2.1
Maximum and Minimum Typical Floor Loads (Working)

for a Notional 4 Storey Building
Dead Load
Live Load
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Normal
Minimum
10 kPa
7.25 kPa
5 kPa
2 kPa
0 kPa
Deck only
10 kPa
7.25 kPa
5 kPa
2 kPa
0 kPa
Deck + superstructure
37 kPa
29 kPa
25 kPa
10 kPa
0 kPa
Civic Deck (West End)
Building Zone (East End)
Actual loads for the Federation Square project will not be known until the
preferred architectural scheme is refined and structural design is
underway.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 23 of 43
7.3
Horizontal Loads
The design horizontal loads associated with wind and earthquake effects
are predicted to be in the order of 3% of the maximum vertical design
loads. These loads will exceed those expected due to wind.
If rubber bearings are used for the vibration isolation, it will be necessary
to install "keepers" to transfer horizontal loads between the columns and
the deck structure. These "keepers" would be mounted on the deck
structure, and would need to be isolated from the columns.
If spring units are used for vibration isolation, any horizontal loads would
generally be transmitted through the springs (which are likely to have a
shear stiffness approximately 80% of the vertical stiffness). If necessary,
"keepers" will also be installed to provide emergency overload capacity.
This overload capacity would only be required in the event of a derailment
resulting in significant crash loading on the columns.
Under crash load conditions, horizontal loads on isolation elements

located beneath the deck may be as high as 100 kN per metre of wall,
which would be between 10% and 80% of the vertical load , depending on
whether the isolation element is supporting deck only, or the 65 kPa
maximum design load.
7.4
Dimensional Constraints
Rubber bearings can be accommodated with in the envelope of the

proposed 750 mm wide crash wall , with the exception of the "keepers",
which would be required to transfer the horizontal thrusts which would be
associated with crash loading on the columns.
Spring units may be designed to fit generally within the envelope of the
proposed 750 mm wide crash walls, except for a small (nominally 40 mm)
overhang on each side.
Where structural breaks are required and spring units are used below
deck level, the top of the crash wall will need to be enlarged in plan to
accommodate the parallel sets of springs. It is unclear at th is stage
whether this may encroach on the structure gauge. Scope is available for
expanded capitals on most walls, however clearance may be restricted in
some instances. This aspect will need to be exam ined on a case by case
basis during development of firm design proposals.
7.5
Design Concepts
The following design concepts are presented in sketch form in

Appendix G:
o
o
Rubber bearings below deck

Spring units below deck
Structural breaks
Ballast mat

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 24 of 43
Non-isolated structure
In addition to these individual concepts, a composite concept exists,

whereby a non-isolated structure may be constructed to deck level, with
isolation inserted between deck level and the building level above. While
an attractive alternative from a structural perspective, the deck level of
buildings would be suitable only for non-sensitive uses, such as car
parking, storage etc.
7 .6
Additional Considerations Relating to Isolation

Connell Wagner advise that the fundamental frequencies for the deck
structure are likely to be in the range 5 Hz to 6 Hz. This frequency range
is below the natural frequency achievable with a rubber vibration isolation
system and would result in the vibration efficiency being lower than
estimated by simple calculations. A steel spring vibration isolation
system would have the advantage of a design frequency comfortably
below the natural frequency of the deck.
At the Princes Gate structure, vibration isolation could be implemented

either below the deck level (by demolishing the top of the existing
columns and constructing new capitals), or above deck level (with the
existing deck used for non-sensitive uses only) .
If below deck vibration isolation is implemented, the existing frame
strength of the building would not be available to resist the horizontal
loads applied by the Flinders Street retaining wall. Alternative bracing
systems would need to be installed if below deck vibration isolation is
implemented in this area.
8
GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Among other factors, the amplitude of ground vibration at the source is a
function of the ground impedance (ie its response to a dynamic force
input). This property is related to the density, stiffness, damping and
stratification of the ground, and normally varies with both frequency and
loading conditions.
For given forcing conditions, ground with high impedance (high stiffness)
will have comparatively smaller amplitudes of vibration than ground with
low impedance. Hence, track founded on rock will have lower amplitudes
of vibration at the formation level than track founded on soils.
Where a rock stratum exists some distance below the ground surface,
the impedance mismatch at the interface results in partial reflection of the
vibration , and hence lower vibration amplitudes in the rock than in the
overlying soils.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 25 of 43
Conversely, vibration transmission is more efficient in stiffer, less damp

materials, such as rock, resulting in less attenuation with distance when
vibration is transmitted through rock rather than soil. There is also less
coupling loss at the interface between rock and building footings than
occurs at spread footings on soils.
In regard to the Federation Square project, the issue of distance
attenuation is only of secondary importance, as most columns will be in
very close proximity to one or more tracks.
Another factor worth considering is the mechanism by which vibration is
radiated from source. In a simple textbook example (elastic half space),
vibration is radiated from a source at the ground surface in the form of
three principle wave types:
o
o
o
Compression wave
Shear wave
Surface wave (Rayleigh wave)
Of these wave types, the surface wave contains the majority of the
vibration energy. Hence, high level foundations are often subjected to
higher levels of vibration than deep piles (which span through zones of
higher and lower vibration level).
For this reason, the vibration measurements were carried out on the
Princes Gate structure, which was expected to yie ld results more
applicable to the proposed development than measurements of vibration
at the ground surface.
In general, deep foundations are preferred over high level foundations,
particularly where the footings can be piled to competent rock. It is
understood that the foundations of all new columns from Federation
Square deck will be taken to rock, which is in keeping w ith th is general
recommendation. The only exception to this may be some high level
footings at the western end of site.
)
9
9.1
Measurement Procedures
Measurements of vibration from PTC trains were carried out on 2, 3 and

18 April 1997. The measurements were primarily on the Princes Gate
structure, as this will form part of the proposed development.
Supplementary measurements were also carried out on the Northern
Loop ramp and on mid-track columns for the Box Hill Central structure.
Measurement locations are listed in Table 9.1.1 and are indicated on the
Site Plans in Appendix C and Appendix D.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 26 of 43
Table 9.1.1.
Measurement Locations
Location
Description
Column base, Princes Gate - east end
Column base, Princes Gate - west end
Top of column, Princes Gate - east end
Mid slab, Princes Gate - east end
10
Top of column, Princes Gate - east end
11
Mid slab, Princes Gate - east end
12
Wall, Northern Loop ramp
13
14
15
Column base, Box Hill
16
17
The vibration measurements were carried out using a measurement

system comprising accelerometers, charge amplifiers, digital tape
recorder and dynamic signal analyser.
All measurements were recorded and then subsequently analysed off site
to provide a third octave band frequency spectrum for each train passby.
The analysis was undertaken using the analyser's "peak hold" function,
whereby each third octave band represents the maximum RMS level
occurring during the train passby, with an RMS averaging time of
1.6 seconds.
Train speeds were measured by stop watch, where possible.
9.2
Instrumentation
The instrumentation used in this investigation is listed in Table 9.2.1 .

RICHARD
HEGGIE
A SSOC IA TES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 27 of 43
REPORT 7037-R1 FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT RAILWAY NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION
Table 9.2.1
Instrumentation
Instrument
Manufacturer
Model Number
Accelerometers
BrOel & Kjrer
4370
Charge Amplifiers
BrOel & Kjrer
2635
Accelerometer Calibrator
BrOel & Kjrer
4294
Digital Tape Recorder
Sony
PC208A
Dynamic Signal Analyser
Hewlett Packard
3561A
The charge amplifiers were set to provide an output proportional to

velocity, with the full system calibrated by means of a standard 10 mm/s
vibration source (accelerometer calibrator). The cal ibration signal was
recorded on tape for each channel, and used to provide a reference level
for the analyser.
The results are presented in dB re 1E-6 mm/s, which is related to the

RMS velocity by the following relationship:
Lv
=20 log10(__:y__)
1E-6
Where Lv is the vibration level in dB and V is the vibration velocity in

mm/s.
9.3
Results
The vibration measurement results are presented in Appendix D, in the

form of mean 1/3 octave band spectra at each location.
Measurements of trains running on tracks immediately adjacent to the
measurement locations are unfactored. Measurements of trains at
greater distances have been scaled to compensate for possible distance
effects. Both unfactored and compensated results are presented.
At Box Hill, the track is laid on ballast mat, resulting in lower measured
vibration levels than would occur with conventional track. To enable
comparison with other measurements, these results have been
compensated by adding the insertion loss determined by the acoustical
consultant originally involved in the Box Hill Central Project.
As the track at Box Hill is continuously welded rail, with no turnouts, an
additional spectrum has been derived to predict possible vibration levels
adjacent to a turnout.
The overall vibration levels at the various locations had standard
deviations ranging between 2 dB and 6 dB. A standard deviation of 4 dB
may be regarded as typical.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 28 of 43
Significant variation occurred between the vibratio n levels measured at

the various locations. Figure 9.3.1 indicates the spread in measured
levels (with averaged levels presented for si milar, adjacent locations). At
the east end of Princes Gate, the measured levels had a com paratively
high low frequency content, whereas at the western end of Princes Gate,
the vibration levels had above average high frequency content.
Figure 9.3.1
Note:
Mean Column Base Vertical Vibration Levels

(Indicating the range of levels at various locations)
Adjustments have been added to the vibration measurements at Box Hill to predict vibration leve ls in
the absence of ballast mat and with the addition of a rail discontinuity, such as a tu rnout. These resu lts
indicate that continuous welded rail on concrete sleepers would be expected to cause vibration
emissions within the range of values measured at the Federation Square site.

RICHARD
HEGG I E
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 29 of 43
10
PREDICTED VIBRATION AND REGENERATED NOISE LEVELS
10.1
Standardised Vibration Spectra

From the measurement results, standard ised mean spectra for vertical
column vibration have been determined for locations with and without rail
running surface discontinuities.
The standardised vibration spectrum for track adjacent to turnouts is
presented in Figure 10.1.1, together with the range of measured mean
vibration levels (including compensated levels as discussed in
Section 9.3).
In each frequency band , the standardised vibration level has been set at
3 dB below the highest mean level for any of the relevant locations, with
each location being deemed relevant to (or indicative of) vibration levels
adjacent to either continuous rail or joints and turnouts.
Figure 10.1.2 is a similar presentation for the standardised vibration

spectrum for trains on smooth continuous track. This spectrum is based
on the average of the two measurement locations deemed relevant.
'Typical maximum" spectra are also shown on the plots. These are 5 dB
above the standardised mean spectra and may be considered as nom inal
10% exceedance values (ie these higher levels are not expected to occur
during more than one in ten train vibration events).
Figure 10.1.1 Standardised Column Vibration Spectra for Track with Running Surface
Discontinuities

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 30 of 43
Figure 10.1.2 Standardised Column Vibration Spectra for Smooth Continuous Track
)
It should be noted that the vibration emissions from continuous welded
rail may under some circumstances approach those adjacent to joints
and turnouts . This may occur at poorly dressed or poorly aligned welds,
or in instances where temporary bolted joints are installed .
The conservative approach is therefore to assume the higher spectrum
for design purposes throughout the site. An alternative approach wou ld
be to adopt the lower spectrum at distances exceed ing 25 m from special
trackwork.
10.2
Amplification within Structure and Conversion to Noise

Resonances within a structure result in amplification of vibration over a
broad frequency range. On the basis of data presented by Nelson
(1987), the amplification spectrum presented in Figure 10.2.1 has been
used for prediction purposes . Nelson indicates that amplification values
found in practice are typically within 3 dB of these values.
Figure 10.2.1 Amplification of Vibration between Column and Mid Span

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 31of43
The predicted floor vibration levels in dB re 1E-6 mm/s are converted to

linear noise levels by subtracting 27 dB, based on recommendations in
Nelson (1987) . The 1/3 octave band levels are then A-weighted and
logarithmically summed to produce an overall level in dBA.
In practice, the internal noise levels will also be a function of the total air
volume and extent of acoustically absorptive materials. Data presented
by Saureman et al (1982) indicates that the actual conversion to noise is
unlikely to differ from the notional value by more than +4 dB, -6 dB.
Furthermore, the most noise sensitive spaces are normally contain above
average acoustic absorption, and are therefore less likely to exceed the
predictions.
10.3
Insertion Loss of Ballast Mat

On the basis of prediction methodologies presented by Wettschuereck
(1995, 1997), the insertion loss of ballast mat is expected to be as
indicated in Figure 10.3.1 .
Figure 10.3.1
Ballast Mat Insertion Loss
)
The ballast mat insertion loss is a function of its dynamic stiffness,
together with other factors such as the unsprung mass of the rolling stock,
ballast depth and substructure stiffness. The assessments presented in
this report assume a ballast mat with dynamic stiffness of 0.04 N/mm 3 .
10.4
Insertion Loss of Structural vibration Isolation

The insertion loss of structural vibration insolation is often initially
calculated using single degree of freedom theory. This results in
over-prediction of the isolation performance, which must be compensated
by some other means.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 32 of 43
For this investigation, the measured difference in vibration level across

the structural isolation has been examined for several existing buildings.
Taking a simplifying assumption that active mass is lost to the isolation
system as frequency increases (due to natural modes of vibration within
the building), a relationship was developed, modifying simple theory to
enable prediction of insertion loss for a notional building.
Insertion loss was then predicted for a nom inal 9 Hz rubber vibration
isolation system and a nominal 3.5 Hz stee l spring vibration isolation
system. These values are indicated in Figure 9.4.1.
Figure 10.4.1
Predicted Insertion Loss of Structural Vibration Isolation
10.5

Predicted vibration levels with various isolation treatments are presented
in Appendix E. Similar predictions for regenerated noise are presented
in Appendix F.
The predictions are summarised in Table 10.5.1. This table provides a
pictorial indication of compliance (or otherwise) using a hierarchy of ticks
and crosses. A large number of ticks indicates a high factor of safety for
compliance.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 33 of 43
Table 10.5.1 Summary of Vibration and Regenerated Noise Predictions

Civic
Square
Zone A
A1
Outdoors
Secure Venues
Wlntergarden
Zone B
Zone C
81
82
Weather
protected
R11~t:111r::ant
r .r:lfPc:.::1nrt
Exh1b1t1on
Zone E
Zone O
C1
C2
C3
Offices
Performing
Arts spaces
Exh1b1lion
retail
Storage
Clnemed la Centre
spaces
01
02
03
E1
E2
Offices
Cinemas
Studios
Plant and
storage
Offices
Low
Areas
Acoustical
Sensitivity
Negligible
Low
Low
Moderate
Very High
High
M od erate
High
Very high
Negligible
T raln Noise
Design
Goal (dBA)
NIA
50
50
40-45
30-35
40
40-45
35
25
65
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
High
Very high
Low
Low
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.14
0.8
0.8
Low ta
Vibration
Sensitivity
moderate
Vibration
Design
Goal
(mm/s)
50-55
0.4 to 0.8
Track with run n ing surface discontinuities

No isolation
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
xx
Rubber
Bearings
fjJ
xx
)()()(
)()()(
xx
)()()(
)()()(
lllllllll
[;]
Steel
Springs
l!Jlll li'I
lllllllll
llJJ;llll
lll:ll
l!I
l!ll!J
)()()(
1111!1 111
llll!llll
Ballast Mat
xx
xx
)()()(
xxx
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
xxx
OOlll
Bearing &
Mat
)()()(
xx
)()()(
)()()(
llll!llll
llllil
Springs &
Mat
lllllllll
llll>llll
l!lllllll
Ol lllf))
Ill
[;]Iii
lll(;ll!J
Ill
xx
ii!llllll
llll!llll
Smooth Continuous Track
No isolation
!\l~
xx
xx
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
lill!I
Rubber
Bearings
llllll~
Ill
Iii
xx
xx
)()()(
lillilill
l:llll
Steel
Springs
lllrlllil
llll!JOI
i lllOl
IEllllll
"'
llllll
l!lllll!J
Ill
xx
~llllll
Olllllll
Ballast Mat
[;J[;J
xx
)()()(
)()()(
xx
)()()(
)()()(
lilllllll
l!I
Bearings &
Mat
llll!ll!I
1'1111
l!lil
liJ[;I
Gilli
)()()(
[;] ~Gl
l!J[;J IJI
Springs &
Mat
11llllii
lllOl lil
lilllllil
Olllllll
lillilfll
liilllllii
l!llHI
[;J l!Jll]
lilOllll
1!101[;]
!ll!llil
[;Jll:J
Ill
0
xx
)()()(
Compliance >10 dB
Compliance >5 dB
Compliance >2 dB
Marginal

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 34 of 43
11
PREDICTED AIRBORNE NOISE LEVELS
11.1
Data from PTC Measurements and Other Sources

Noise emission levels for typical rail vehicles have been obtained from a
PTC measurement report (Ref: PW:KD:S7:AV7) and a variety of other
sources. The noise levels reported by PTC for a sing le G-Class
Locomotive at a distance of 20 m are presented in Table 11.1.1 .
Table 11.1 .1 Typical Diesel Electric Locomotive Noise Levels at 20 m

A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level dBA (re: 2 x 10" Pa
Locomotive
Throttle
Octave Band Centre Frequency (Hz)
Overall
Setting
16
31.5
63
125
250
500
1k
2k
4k
8k
Idle
42.5
61
60.5
57
55
62.5
60.5
58.5
53.5
45.5
68.5
High Idle
43
58.5
57
53.5
54.5
62
58
57.5
53 .5
46
67
1st Notch
43
58.5
57
51 .5
54
62
59.5
57
53
45.5
67
2nd Notch
43
49
70
55.5
55.5
63
60.5
57.5
57.5
46.5
71 .5
3rd Notch
42.5
47.5
66
57
59.5
67
65
61
57
54
72
4th Notch
42.5
46.5
63.5
60
62
66
69
65
58.5
59
73.5
5th Notch
43
48
57.5
62.5
62
68
70.5
65.5
60
58
74.5
6th Notch
43
46
58
67.5
64
71
70.5
69
62.5
59.5
76.5
7th Notch
43
48
60
68.5
72.5
71.5
74.5
70.5
64
58
79
8th Notch
43.5
48
61 .5
66.5
81.5
73.5
74
72
67 .5
59
83.5
It is reasonable to assume that the dominant sou rce of low frequency

noise from locomotives is the engine exhaust. This is located on the top
of the locomotive, approximately 4 m above ra il level.
For electric passenger trains running at an average speed of 50 km/h on
track in good condition, the typical maximum noise level at 20 m wou ld be
77 dBA. This value is based on measurements by Richard Heggie
Associates. Similar values are also presented by Nelson (1987).
Measured noise levels at wheel height in a Sydney City Underground
Tunnel are typically in the range 100 dBA to 105 dBA on jointed track,
with train speeds around 50 km/h.
11.2
Airborne Noise Levels at the Underside of the Deck

At the underside of the deck, typical maximum noise levels from electric
passenger trains are predicted to be 85 dBA for smooth continuous track
and 95 dBA in the general vicinity of turnouts.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 35 of 43
Noise from a single diesel locomotive exhaust at the underside of the

deck is calculated to be approximately 20 dB higher than the levels
measured at 20 m under free-field conditions (Table 11.1.1 ).
For
assessment purposes, it is assumed that the noise level would be close
to its maximum value over an area of approximately 10 m by 10 m
centred on the locomotive exhaust, and that noise from additional
locomotives would increase the area affected, rather than significantly
increasing the maximum noise level at the underside of the deck.
11.3
Airborne Noise Levels in Spaces Above the Deck

Airborne noise levels in spaces above the deck have been calculated on
the basis of the anticipated noise levels beneath the deck, the sound
transmission loss of a 200 mm thick floor (deck plus nominal toppings)
and an adjustment for reverberation in the space above. The adjustment
used is that recommended for "average" acoustic conditions by Bies and
Hansen (1996). This adjustment ranges from a maximum of +13 dB in
the 63 Hz octave band down to +3 dB in the 8 kHz octave band.
The predicted noise levels in building spaces immediately above the deck
are presented in Table 11.3.1. Airborne noise levels on the 1st Floor
would be 20 dBA to 30 dBA lower than those on the deck level,
depending on the frequency content of the noise source, and other
factors.
Table 11.3.1 Predicted Airborne Noise Levels in Spaces Immediately Above the Deck
Noise Source
Operating Condition
Airborne Noise Level
Wheel Rail Noise
Smooth track
Turnout
47 dBA
57 dBA
Locomotive Exhaust
Low idle
High Idle
Notch 1
Notch 2
Notch 3
Notch 4
Notch 5
Notch 6
Notch 7
Notch 8
67 dBA
65 dBA
65 dBA
68 dBA
64dBA
63 dBA
60 dBA
61 dBA
65 dBA
71 dBA
11.4
Impact of Airborne Noise

At the predicted levels, airborne noise would be regarded as offensive for
some of the proposed uses within the Federation Square Development.
Table 11.4.1 indicates the acceptability of wheel rail noise in relation to
various occupancies.
Table 11.4.2 indicates the acceptability of
locomotive exhaust noise in various occupancies.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 36 of 43
Due to the difference in frequency content, the airborne wheel-rail noise

would be slightly less offensive than eithe r airborne exhaust noise or
regenerated noise at the same level.
Table 11.4.1 Impact of Airborne Wheel-Rail Noise
CM cSquare
Wintergarden
Sec ure Venues
Cinemcd Ja Centre
Zone A
ZoneB
Zone C
Zonc D
A1
Outdoors
81
82
Weather
Restaurant
Protected
Cafe' and
Re1afl
Exhibition
C1
Storage
ZoneE
C2
C3
Perfonning
Exhibition
Offices
Arts Spaces
Spaces
Offic es
Cinemas
Studios
Storage
Offic es
01
E1
03
02
EZ
Plant and
Areas
Acoustical
sensitivity
Negl igi ble
Low
Low
Moderate
Very High
High
Moderate
Hi gh
Very High
Negligible
Low
Train noise
NIA
50
50
40-45
30-35
40
40-45
35
25
65
50-55
OK
OK
OK
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Margi nal at
deck l evel
OK at
Lev el 1
Un acceptable
Unacceptable.
OK
OK
at deck level
Specialist
OK at Level 1
acoustic
design o f
studios
r equired
design goal
(d8A)
Wheel.rail
Marginal a t
noise on
de ck level
at deck level
at deck level
smooth track
OK at Lev el 1
OK at Level 1
OK at Level 1
OK
Wheel.rail
noise near
turnout
Margi nal at
deck level
(ex ceeds
preferred
design go al )
Marginal at
deck level
(exceeds
pre ferred
design
Unacceptable at
deck level
OK at Level 1
Unacceptable
at deck l evel
OK at L evel 1
Unacceptable
at deck level
OK at Level 1
Unacceptab
le at deck
level
OK at
Level 1
Unacceptab le
at deck l evel
OK at Level 1
goal)
)
OK
Unacceptable.
Sp ecialist
acoustic
design o f
studios
requi red
Marginal
at deck
l evel
Table 11.4.2 Impact of Locomotive Exhaust Noise

Civic
Wintergarden
Secure Venue'
Cinemedia Cent re
Square
Zone A
Zone B
Zon eC
Z onc D
A1
Outdoors
C2
Cl
Exh~bition
Caftt and
Reta ti
Offices
Performi ng
Arts Spaces
Spaces:
Offices
Cinemas
Studios
Sto rage
Offic e!;
82
W eather
R estaurant
Prot~cted
Exh ibition
Areas
02
Z onc E
C1
81
01
Storag e
03
E1
E2
Pbnt and
Acoustical
sensi.tivity
Negligi ble
Low
Low
Moderate
Very High
H igh
Moderate
H i gh
Very High
Negligible
Low
Train noise
design goal
NIA
50
50
40-45
30-35
40
40-45
35
25
65
50-55
OK
Unacceptable
at dec k level
OK at Le vel 1
with isolation
above deck
Unacceptable
at deck level
OK at Level 1
with isolation
above deck
U nacceptable
at deck lev el
Marginal at
L evel 1 with
isolation
above deck
Unacceptable
Unacceptabl e
at deck lev el
and Level 1
OK at Level 2
with isol ati on
abo ve deck
Unacceptab!e
at deck level
M argi nal at
Lev el 1 wi th
isol ati on
above deck
Unacceptabl e
Unacceptable
Mar gi nal
a t deck
l evel
Unacceptable
at dec k l evel
O K at Level 1
with isolation
above deck
( d8A)
Locomoliv
e Exhaust
Noise
Note: The assessments in this table apply to regular events . Occasional "one off' events at higher noise levels would be acceptable in all areas
except the studios.
12
EXTENT OF TREATMENT
12.1
Vibration and Regenerated Noise Control

On the basis of the summary of noise and vibration predictions in
Table 10.5.1 , the only vibration mitigation measures which will satisfy all
requirements (excluding studios) are those which incorporate steel
springs to achieve a very low natural frequency.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 37 of 43
Rubber bearing isolation would be suitable for cafes, offices and weather
protected exhibition areas, provided the rail running surfaces are smooth
and continuous. If the rails have discontinuities (including poorly finished
welds) this isolation would be unsuitable for office areas.
Any rail discontinuity within 25 m may be regarded as close enough to
influence the selection of isolation type.
In view of the current design status, the risk of track deterioration over
time, and the inability to upgrade the isolation system once constructed,
the preferred approach is to use steel spring isolation under all built
areas.
Excessive changes in isolation type (ie from nothing to rubber to spring,
etc) should be avoided as structural breaks will be required at each
transition . The structural breaks must then be continued up through the
buildings, resulting in an ongoing need for coordination and close
supervision (particularly during installation of services, etc.).
Installation of vibration isolation which exceeds the design goals for a
particular location is by no means a waste of money and effort. The
superior performance will further reduce the perceptibility of the noise and
vibration and therefore improve the subjective "quality" of the spaces.
As discussed above, it is recommended that the structure be designed
with steel spring isolation under all buildings . Similar isolation (or
alternatively rubber bearing isolation) should be extended under those
deck areas likely to be used for outdoor cafes, etc.
The remaining outdoor areas may remain unisolated , however, vibration
will be clearly perceptible. If such vibration is not acceptable to OMP,
then spring isolation should be considered for the open deck areas also.
No vibration isolation is proposed for the Russell Street extension, which
is assumed to be separated from the remaining development by a
structural break.
Care should be taken to avoid direct contact between the Fede ration
Square structure and the Northern Loop concrete ramp. Each structure
should be independently piled and physically separate.
In the vicinity of the Metrol building, it would be possible to reduce the
structural vibration isolation requirements, subject to the proposed
occupancy and distance from the nearest track.
None of the vibration isolation options will be adequate to provide the
necessary protection to television and rad io studios. These would
therefore need to be constructed with their own independent vibration
isolation, either within the main structure, or preferably at a remote
location at the south of the site.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 38 of 43
In addition to the above, it is recommended that ballast mat be installed

under the turnout on the southern most track. This turnout will be
frequently crossed by diesel locomotives, (which have high unsprung
mass) and is therefore likely to be a source of higher vibration levels than
any of the other turnouts.
The unsprung mass per axle of a G Class locomotive is 40% higher than
that of a Comeng suburban car. This, together with the additional
number of axles, would be expected to result in vibration levels 5 dB
(80%) higher than suburban cars .
An "average" locomotive event will therefore be equivalent to a "typical
maximum" suburban train event. Occasional locomotive hauled train
events on those lines which are normally used by suburban trains on ly
are therefore not expected to cause significant additional disturbance.
The lines which will be predominantly used by locomotive hauled trains
will be continuous welded rail, with only one turnout, to the east of
Platform 12. As the vibration emissions are predicted to be 5 dB to 10 dB
higher at this location than the continuous track, this is the only area
where vibration from locomotive hauled trains is predicted to regularly
exceed the levels predicted for the majority of the site. Hence the
recommendation that the area in the vicinity of this turnout should be
treated with ballast mat.
12.2
Airborne Noise Control

Two strategic options exist for the control of airborne noise on the
Federation Square Site. Once a fundamental site strategy is selected,
the bulk of the built area would be addressed by this means, however
additional or alternative means may also be used in some areas.
The two strategy options are:
A.
No construction in the areas most affected by diesel locomotive

noise, and allocation of uses with low acoustical sensitivity to the
Deck level.
B.
Use of the deck level in all buildings for uses with very low
acoustical sensitivity (such as carparking, storage, mechan ical plant
and loading docks), together with provision of vibration isolation
between the deck level and Level 1 of bu ildings, rather than
beneath the deck.
Option A would require full height crash walls to be constructed in the

area most frequently used by diesel locomotives, and would effectively
sterilise part of the site from building (unless Option B is used locally in
this area).
Occupancies which would be suitable for location at deck level (in regard
to airborne noise) are indicated in Tables 11.4.1and11.4.2.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 39 of 43
The disadvantage of Option B is that it requires an unoccupied building

level beneath virtually all of the occupancies initially proposed for the
Federation Square Development. Whilst this defeats one of the initial
objectives of the Design Brief, it may simplify the design of construction
of the deck and would ensure that all occupancies have the necessary
protection from airborne noise.
It should be noted that even with Option B, the most sensitive spaces
should not be located over the area frequency used by diesel
locomotives.
The crash walls which are proposed for full height construction (to conta in
the diesel exhaust noise) are marked on the site plan in Appendix A.
Acoustic absorption is recommended for the track frequently used by
diesel locomotives. As a minimum, this treatment would be applied at the
underside of the deck in the vicinity of Platforms 12 and 13, as indicated
on the site plan in Appendix A.
The nature of the absorptive treatment would be perforated steel sheet

(ribbed or corrugated) spanning between the deck joists and backed with
mineral wool. The perforation size, thickness of mineral wool and
spacing between the perforated sheet and deck would be determined
during the detailed design phase . The mineral wool would be wrapped in
a fine plastic membrane to avoid the ingress of oil from the diesel fumes ,
which could otherwise create a fire hazard.
13
COST IMPLICATIONS
The cost of pre-loaded steel spring units is likely to be in the order of

$40 to $60 per tonne of supported weight.
Non pre-loaded spring units would be slightly cheape r, at $30 to $50 per
tonne supported , however the available units are designed for a higher
natural frequency (less isolation performance) and would not be su itable
for replacement in the event that changes in load are required at a future
date.
The cost of laminated rubber bearings would be in the order of $15 per
tonne supported.
Preliminary estimates have been prepared for the total cost of
incorporating spring elements or bearings with various loading conditions.
These costs are listed in Table 13.1.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 40 of 43
Table 13.1
Cost Estimates for Structural Isolation

(Additional cost over non-isolated option)
Cost per m 2
Maximum
Superimposed
Load
Rubber Bearings
Steel Springs
Additional Cost perm for

structural Breaks in E-W Direction
15 kPa
$48
$148
$1450
25 kPa
$68
$218
$1450
40 kPa
$98
$348
$1450
50 kPa
$114
$394
$1450
65 kPa
$140
$490
$1450
The total cost associated with the isolation will vary depending on the
extent of area requiring treatment, but is expected to be in the range
$4 million to $8 million.
The cost of resilient ballast mat would be in the order of $195 per m2 of
plan area, including allowance for installation and coverage of wall areas,
where required .
The cost of acoustic absorption treatment is estimated to be $100 per m2 ,
with a minimum treatment area of 3000 m 2 .
14
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
a.
This investigation concludes that vibration isolation will be requi red

under all buildings within the Federation Square Deve lopment. The
concrete deck should also be provided with vibration isolation in any
open areas likely to be used as cafes and outdoor restaurants.
b.
Other open air deck areas do not necessarily requi re isolation,

however it should be understood that the train vibration will be clearly
perceptible in non isolated areas.
c.
Wherever buildings are to be located over tracks , it is recommended

that vibration isolation be incorporated into the structure , either
immediately below the deck level, or immediately below Level 1 if the
deck level is used for non-sensitive uses, such as carparking or
storage.
d.
To meet the noise and vibration design goals (excluding studios) the
use of a steel spring isolation system is recommended . Such a
system should have a design natural frequency in the range of
3.5 Hz to 4 Hz, and incorporate appropriate damping.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 41of43
e.
Additional vibration isolation treatments will be required for the

studios. These should preferably be located away from the railway
lines and at ground level (ie at the very southern boundary of the
site).
f.
A small section of ballast mat is recommended under a turnout

frequently used by diesel locomotives. Ballast mat is not considered
necessary for the remainder of the site. Its use would enhance the
vibration isolation provided by the proposed steel springs, but would
not eliminate the need for them.
g.
Airborne noise transmission through the deck is another important

consideration, both in relation to general wheel-rail noise and also
diesel locomotive exhaust noise. Options for control of airborne
noise include careful siting of occupancies according to their noise
sensitivity, and/or provision of a non-noise-sensitive level (carparking
or storage) at the base of buildings.
This latter approach would allow the vibration isolation to be moved

above deck level, simplifying the deck construction. Whilst this
approach may increase the height of the development, it would
provide good control over both airborne and regenerated noise,
resulting in maximum flexibility in site planning.
15
REFERENCES
Australian Standard AS 2107-1987 "Acoustics - Recommended

Design Sound Levels and Reverberation Times for Building Interiors.
Australian Standard AS 2630-1990 "Elevation of Human Exposure to

Whole Body Vibration".
BS 64 72-1992 "Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in

Buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz)"
American Public Transit Association "1981 Guidelines for Design of

Rail Transit Facility"
Bies and Hansen (1996) "Engineering Noise Control - Theory and

Practice" E&FN Spon
Heiland D (1992) "Base Isolation for Buildings by Vibration Control

Using Spring Units and Viscodampers" International Workshop on
Recent Developments in Base Isolation Techniques for Buildings,
Tokyo.
Nelson P (1987)
Butterworths.
PTC Scientific Services (1997) "Noise and Ground Vibration

Measurements Performed on Locomotive and Suburban Trains"
13 June1997, Ref PW:KD :S7:AV7.
Saureman H et al (1982) "Handbook of Urban Rail Noise and

Vibration Control", US Department of Transportation.
"Transportation

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
Noise
Reference
Book",
21 August 1997
Page 42 of 43
Wettschurek, R (1995} "Vibration and Structure-borne Sound

Isolation by Means of Cellular Polyurethane (PUR) Elastoners" Rail
Engineering International Issue 2, June 1995.
Wettschurek R (1997) "Measures to Reduce Structure-borne Noise

Emissions Induced by Above-ground, Open Railway Lines" Rail
Engineering lnternations, Issue 1, 1997.

RICHARD
HEGGIE
ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
21 August 1997
Page 43 of 43
"
FEDE f~~ i:::! TI 011

. ... I . - ........ .
..: 11 11 !!" J !.,.1-

._t -. -'! ! I . !....
Appendix B - Original structural engineering design drawing for the North West lower level Federation
Square structure

CNR SWANSTON +
FLINDERS STREETS
TELEPHONE +61 3 0055 1000
FASCIMILE
+61 3 ro33 3652
INFOOFEDSOUARE.COM
FEDSOUARE.COM
ABN 99 085 731 479
Appendix B - Original structural engineeri ng design drawing for the North West lower level Federation Square structure.
0)
12)
CD
0._'
CT
r;::,;;.;,,.~~!,:.:.""'
:;r:;--:;._,._WG
~ ~=~=}_ ~--~~~~"r~ _ r~~::-_~;:!~2:=~

f::.::~:~_:~
~: -~~
~
~
,
-~~- ,k- -~,...::_.
-~ if...-. :c:J . \ !
3l== .
),? tl I , , ! r : ~.~. -~ f -::..-::. ~ -::::::.:;.
- .~_
t11~#----'
-x
'f.
'
,,
h
r
:
)
:
'
-....
;:-.:;-~.
.
~"
~--::'.::::d.__
- - - ..
-- --
'< -i~
__ ......._ _ !. ____ j _______ _ _____ _ f--... -- - 7'-t ~ + + ,.--- " 2
-~
",;\,____
~;':!~~: :::-..::..~~,--;:;.._~~.=.__ -=- =i:--~-:---:?.; 1 -~ -'. '.:.-~~ -j.-::;..,,-- / .-=-;: .. '--- ----;-- - :,:
~~
I
~ ,. ,,\\,'~
-~~,_t_ _ ~,...........f~ - ' ~--~t-~T
~ :!;,~~:,,:
-~ r'
~
~- , ~:_~~"'
!~:;'.'-' ~ I
- 'f.it;
2
"'--"
1-=F"':
'
'
, '
'
\I
>'
% _
J;;::O';;';,!.
' lj '
l
, .
--'
jl'-17 1,
' ,,=
1T
7i?.f> ' ---~""'-- _,,_. ' ':

.~
I J.r.. '
:1k:
r-;1~_-~"'.".'--: ':1-"~ l ~.:cJp. 1 1---'~:=-,-~ -----:- ------:r--~ ~- . . -~ -~~.::- ,-.:.ir.~:\- it:-r~~---~- ; 11-_,
~
-, -- '
f- - ~
~ . ' \\' ~ . ,' 1. 1!---
---
''
'
I : "
'
'
-,,.,.;:.,-r
,
.,
-- . ,
"I"
. ,....4~i;-
;-<IN
~;::-...." - p-, - -~
" ---i' __ ~. _
_;, 15'\_,, . . ...:{;;..1 ;.__...___ B;;----::i- 1 ------ 1 r-w---~.---,~~..
1
-i
~-:;:tj,_ '
~?
,
!1
' {. ~> 1~
-- - -
, l ~~';J
_\
)'
- -
'
4--o-
- 1- -
~------- ------~~--"
'~--
,: __ ---_, :
, .r.r
, 1,.
-- .. ,
---:.;:.p
'
.
\\
- -~
' -. 1 - '-- - - - ~,., 1
'-::
, -
l - --- L~---~..:..l::------Ii ____;,._ -- ----~----=---i=-..;k

c
n
I' ...__.
---- '
1 -
~::--,=~
- - -.- ----
...., ' l
c......
:1'!~~--'
_,
--- -
1 ,
"="-'
---
------
_ J,
. -..
Ia
1;
- --
l Ex i s tif\olJ Column ;and Foo t1nq

&x i. n.inq R._taini r.9 Wall
3 la.h tJnq S l&b~li inq Sh r Ma.l.l.
VISITORS CENTRE GROUND SLAB LAYOUT - ZOJ>IE A

TYPJC>L
SLA~..YJ!.Q.
t2Smn THi(K R.C. $L,),e

iif'~2
FABRIC TOP
QN (ti"'t k T sTA8ilt 5D
::iR ~ p ::~J\IEO
s.;.!lin
fQ.UJ'IAU~T
GENERA NOIE
81.il\.0[11
~ to.,~~
~...f1.r..lll: JT'J:
tcrf~
ro H
D Tt\T O' [.QiTING
Sf X"""5
~'71f"' ~
"l.P"'V.t. S"'U "~ T.,.;
f'{
_..,. , t;JS r,-,

'\al t !i'ft~
~.mlTo:tH l~
..- -...., ..,_..

I ~~~
~-
- "---. . .
- . ,;.
----.
...-~-....,-
..
I --~---
:-""'"'
...,_.__......_ ......, ..
...........,....
..
~ Tu~:~- :-~ _]
!SSUfO FOR
CO NSTIW(TION
~~r;~
~ .......
_.,. ,
- -,.;
~:~fflt}'
\
,,,.... ~
.. .
-1\.._\jt~
....., .. B.t_la""""'~Oitom
'..-.n:N!'ISQ'Wt
J(._'"t\"w!B,......,,,,..
-=---=-- -~
- __ ... /
,
L M1.B1
zo:NEASUE f-'UH
..
- -
ru=.
"'~ --
t l:>
1-..-SMBl.A - Ij
D

262 Fed Square Pty LTD Submission

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

262 Fed Square Pty LTD Submission

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

r'": !

Melbourne Metro Rail Project - Environmental Effects Statement Hearing

Design integrity impacts

FED SQUARE PTY. LTD.

FED SQUARE PTY. LTD.

r - r" .. j"'... r-- r -.. :- ..r- -, 1.

t~ I:: ...J t: 1::: j-j

~:::; f") i i1=1 p ~::

FED S QUARE PTY. LTD.

:.... r.:: I= r..;;.... P 1:e T .., . n;. i.

..... !... - '"

:::: 1"11i f'-1 1;

Land Use and Planning

Landscape and Visual

Contaminated Land and Soil Management

FED SQUARE PTY. LTD.

r- t"....- . - - -i- .......

Design integrity impacts

Public perception of Federation Square and its services

FED SQUARE PTY. LTD.

Loss of event hire spaces - $600,000

FED SQUARE PTY. LTD.

FED SQUARE PTY. LTD.

FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT

Office of Major Projects

RICHARD HEGGIE ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants - AAAC

Document S17\FEDERATION SQUARE NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION 1997

FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT

Document S17\FEDERATION SQUARE NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION 1997

FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT

Available building envelope (ie outside the PTC structure gauge)

Document S17\FEDERATION SQUARE NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION 1997

FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT

VIBRATION AND REGENERATED NOISE PREDICTIONS

Document S17\FEDERATION SQUARE NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION 1997

FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT

Track with running surface discontinuities

Smooth Continuous Track

AIRBONE NOISE PREDICTIONS

Document S171FEDERATION SQUARE NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION 1997

FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT

Impact of Locomotive Exhaust Noise

Document S17\FEDERATlON SQUARE NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION 1997

FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT

Document S17\FEDERATION SQUARE NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION 1997

FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT

POTENTIAL NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACTS

NOISE AND VIBRATION CRITERIA AND SENSITIVITY ZONES

OPTIONS FOR VIBRATION AND REGENERATED NOISE MITIGATION

OPTIONS FOR AIRBORNE NOISE MITIGATION

Document S17\FEDERATION SQUARE NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION 1997

FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT

PREDICTED VIBRATION AND REGENERATED NOISE LEVELS

PREDICTED AIRBORNE NOISE LEVELS

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Document S17\FEDERATION SQUARE NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION 1997

FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT

Mean Column Base Vertical Vibration Levels

Federation Square Site Plan

Document S17\FEDERATION SQUARE NOISE AND VIBRATION INVESTIGATION 1997

FEDERATION SQUARE PROJECT

OFFICE OF MAJOR PROJECTS