Acoust. Sci. & Tech.
39, 6 (2018)
Study on reduction of tunnel blasting infrasound using silencer with tube resonators
Yasuyuki Iwane1; , Masahito Kobayashi1 , Hidenobu Uchida1 , Takuya Kawasumi2 ,
Hidehisa Sekine2 and Yosuke Yasuda2
1
Tobishima Corporation, 5472 Kimagase, Noda, 270–0222 Japan
2
Kanagawa University, 3–27–1 Rokkakubashi, Kanagawa-ku, Yokohama, 221–8686 Japan
(Received 19 March 2018, Accepted for publication 29 April 2018)
1. Introduction
Infrasound is one of the major problems caused by
blasting in tunnel construction. It is hardly audible but shakes
window frames and glass of neighboring buildings. Hence,
infrasound is a major cause of complaints against blasting [1].
Sound insulation doors are generally applied as a counter-
measure against the blasting sound. The performance of an
insulation door decreases at the resonance frequency, and the
insulation characteristics can be described by the mass law
at frequencies above the resonance frequency and by the
stiffness law at lower frequencies [2]. Therefore, even if the
mass of an insulation door is increased by filling the door with
concrete or sand, the insulation performance for infrasound
may not be sufficient. There are some cases where multiple
doors are applied to improve sound insulation performance,
but the performance may be lowered at specific frequencies
due to the resonance in the space between the doors.
To overcome these problems, a variety of measures using
resonance-type silencers have been developed in recent years.
These silencers are roughly classified into two types:
Helmholtz type and tube-type. Some applications of the
Helmholtz type resonators to tunnel construction sites have
been reported by Tanigawa et al. [3], Tanaka et al. [4], and
Abe et al. [5]. In these studies, noise reduction effects of 5
to 15 dB at 20 to 63 Hz for tunnel blasting were observed.
Regarding the application of tube resonators, Honda and
Watanabe confirmed noise reduction effects of at least 15 dB
at 20 to 63 Hz for tunnel blasting [6]. In these applications, the
noise reduction effects were confirmed at frequencies of more
than 16 Hz. However, it is known that frequencies of about
4 and 8 Hz are dominant in the tunnel blasting sound due to
the DS detonator time interval of 0.25 s [7]. DS detonators
are often used in tunnel blasting because of their economic
efficiency and ease of handling. Studies confirming the
reduction of noise around these frequencies have not been
reported.
In this study, the effects of a silencer using tube resonators
are investigated for infrasound at 4 and 8 Hz. Based on a one-
dimensional sound field analysis, where the optimum instal-
lation positions of the silencer were examined [8], noise
reduction effects are studied through a numerical analysis and
confirmed through an on-site experiment.

e-mail: yasuyuki iwane@tobishima.co.jp
428
#2018 The Acoustical Society of Japan
Keywords: Tunnel, Blasting, Infrasound, Tube resonator
PACS number: 43.28.Dm, 43.50.Gf [doi:10.1250/ast.39.428]
2. Outline of silencer
The composition of the silencer and the specifications of
the tube resonators are shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1,
respectively. Tube resonators are placed on a carriage and
arranged along the tunnel walls as the longitudinal direction
of the tubes is aligned with the direction of the tunnel. One
end of each tube resonator is closed and the other end is open.
When the length of the tube corresponds to ð2n  1Þ=4,
where n is a positive integer and  is the wavelength, acoustic
resonance occurs and the sound pressure approaches zero at
the open end of the tube. We make use of this phenomenon to
control the sound radiation from tunnels. The average lengths
of the tubes used to reduce sound at frequencies of 4 and 8 Hz
are about 22 and 9 m, respectively. The tubes for 4 Hz have
bent shapes to shorten the installation space and those for 8 Hz
have straight shapes.
3. Arrangement of silencer and insulation door
A tunnel space, in which infrasound propagates as plane
waves, can be regarded as a one-dimensional sound field. We
examined the optimal installation positions of the tube
resonators in a main tube (a tunnel) by the theory of sound
propagation in a one-dimensional sound field [8]. One end
of the main tube is closed (vibration surface) and the other
end is open (wellhead). Examples of tube positions and effects
are shown in Fig. 2. Figure 2(a) represents a resonance state,
where a vibration surface vibrates at speed v and the main
tube resonates at the frequency corresponding to 3=4. In
this case, the open-end position of the main tube is a node of
the sound pressure and the vibration surface position is an
anti-node. Figure 2(b) shows the case where a tube is installed
so that its open end is located =2 from the vibration surface
of the main tube. The nodes and anti-nodes of the sound
pressure are swapped compared with those in Fig. 2(a)
because the tube makes a node of the sound pressure at its
open end and the vibration surface position. As a result, the
radiation power is greatly reduced even if the speed v of
the vibration surface is large, because the radiation power is
determined by the product of v and the sound pressure on
the vibration surface. On the other hand, when the tube
resonator is installed so that its open end is located =4 from
the vibration surface, as shown in Fig. 2(c), the sound
pressure distribution is nearly the same as that in Fig. 2(a)
and the vibration surface position corresponds to an anti-node
 Y. IWANE et al.: REDUCTION OF TUNNEL BLASTING INFRASOUND

Table 1 Specifications of tube resonators.

Resonance Type of Cross-sectional Number

Length of tube
frequency cross-sectional area of tube Numerical On-site
(m)
(Hz) shape (m2 ) analysis experiment
A 0.842 22.813 2 2
4 B 1.684 18.981 2 2
D 0.702 22.839 0 1
A 0.853 8.243 2 2
8
C 1.416 9.600 2 3

8 Hz (C) Carriage P2 11 m Sound insulation door

8 Hz (A)
8 Hz (A) 1m
8 Hz (C) 1m
4 Hz (D) P1
4 Hz (A)
4 Hz (A)

4 Hz (B) 4 Hz (B) Wellhead

Rail Silencer
Excavation face
Measurement point

Fig. 1 Composition of silencer.

Fig. 3 Locations of silencer, sound insulation door, and
measurement points.

(a) Resonance state

Main tube arrangement of the tube resonators and the sound insulation
Sound pressure door as follows.
Node Anti-node Node Anti-node The locations of the silencer, sound insulation door, and
v
measurement points for the on-site experiment in Sect. 5 are
shown in Fig. 3. The sound insulation door was installed in
3λ/4 the tunnel at about 10 m from the wellhead. Here we regarded
the insulation door as a vibration source and installed the tube
(b) Effective position resonators so that the open ends of all the tubes were 1 m from
Main tube Sound pressure the door on the wellhead side, which resulted in the nodes
Anti-node Node Anti-node Node of the sound pressure being near the insulation door. This
v
arrangement enabled us to robustly obtain the sound reduction
Tube resonator effect independently of the excavation face position.
λ/2

4. Confirmation of sound reduction effects through

(c) Non-effective position numerical analysis
Main tube Sound pressure 4.1. Analysis conditions
Anti-node Node Anti-node The boundary element method (BEM) was used for three-
v dimensional wave-based numerical analysis. The analysis
Tube resonator
model is shown in Fig. 4. The cross-sectional shape of the
λ/4 tunnel was a semicircle of radius 7.0 m. The ground surface
was an infinite rigid plane. All boundaries were degenerate
Fig. 2 Examples of tube positions and effects. (zero thickness) and rigid. The sound pressure level (SPL) at
a measurement point near the wellhead, 11.0 m from the
vibration surface and at 6.5 m height, was calculated using a
of the sound pressure. In this case, a reduction effect is not velocity amplitude of the vibration surface (i.e., the sound
obtained. insulation door) of 1.0 m/s. To simplify the modeling, the
As described above, the sound reduction effects of the four types of tube resonators in Table 1 were considered (the
tube resonators vary with the distance between the open ends type D tube for 4 Hz and the type C tube for 8 Hz were
of the tubes and the sound source. This means that the omitted). The open ends of all the tubes were 1.0 m from the
excavation face position in the tunnel greatly affects the sound vibration surface. The interval of the analysis frequencies was
reduction effect. To overcome this problem, we devised an 0.1 Hz.

429
 Acoust. Sci. & Tech. 39, 6 (2018)

Vibration surface
(Sound insulation door)
8 Hz (C)
Measurement point
11 m (Wellhead) 8 Hz (A) 8 Hz (A)
4 Hz (A) 4 Hz (A)

6.5 m
7.0 m 4 Hz (B) 4 Hz (B)

Fig. 4 Analysis model.

170
4 Hz (B) Not applied
160
Applied Fig. 6 Photograph of silencer.
150 4 Hz (A)
SPL [dB]

8Hz (C)
140
Table 2 Specifications of blasting.
130
8 Hz (A) Length of tunnel Quantity of
120 3.7 Hz 8.3 Hz
No.
(m) explosive (kg)
Silencer
4.5 Hz 9.3 Hz
110 1 254.7 32.8
0 5 10 15 2 258.3 88.4 Applied
Frequency [Hz] 3 263.1 31.2
4 265.5 29.0
Fig. 5 Numerical results for SPL at measurement point Not applied
5 267.9 31.0
(wellhead).

4.2. Analysis results 30

The analysis results for SPL are shown in Fig. 5. The SPL 25
values are reduced by the application of the silencer at the
20
ΔL [dB]

four frequencies corresponding to the four types of tube

resonators. On the other hand, the SPL values are amplified in 15
the vicinity of these frequencies. In the analysis, sharp peaks 10
and dips appear because the damping effect is not considered. No.1 No.2 No.3
In real situations, however, the peaks and dips are expected to 5
No.4 No.5
be gentler due to damping. 0
0 5 10 15
5. Confirmation of sound reduction effects through on- Frequency [Hz]
site experiment
5.1. Experimental conditions
Fig. 7 Experimental results of differences in SPL
An on-site experiment was conducted at a tunnel between points P1 and P2.
construction site. The photograph of silencer is shown in
Fig. 6. The cross-sectional area of the tunnel was about
110 m2 . As shown in Fig. 3, two measurement points were the blasting are shown in Table 2. The measurement was
arranged with the sound insulation door between them: P1 at performed three times with the silencer and twice without the
the excavation face side near the sound insulation door and P2 silencer, where the latter situation was simulated by closing
at the wellhead. The maximum values of SPL during blasting, the open ends of the tubes with plywood boards.
L pmax , were used for evaluation. However, mainly due to the 5.2. Experimental results
conditions of the lithology distribution and the location of The measurement results for L are shown in Fig. 7.
blasting caps, the SPL values in the case of blasting vary even Here, the frequency resolution in the measurement was
if the quantity of the explosive and the length of the tunnel 0.5 Hz. The values of L increase by about 3 dB at 3.5 Hz and
are roughly the same. For this reason, the differences in SPL about 9 dB at 7.5 Hz when using the silencer, indicating that
between points P1 and P2, L ¼ L pmax,P1  L pmax,P2 , were the sound reduction effect is improved. Compared with the
adopted to evaluate the reduction effects. The five types of analysis results, the frequency range in which the reduction
tube resonators in Table 1 were applied for the experiment. effects appear is wider. Moreover, the peaks and dips are
The cross-sectional area ratio of the tubes to the tunnel was gentler and an increase in SPL is hardly observed except for
about 5% for the 4 and 8 Hz tubes. The specifications of blasting No. 1 at around 5.5 Hz. This can be attributed to a

430
 Y. IWANE et al.: REDUCTION OF TUNNEL BLASTING INFRASOUND
damping effect due to the vibration of the steel plates from
which the tube resonators are made. It is also observed that the
reduction effect at around 4 Hz is smaller than that at around
8 Hz. This may be due to the reflection and damping at the
bent section of the tubes for 4 Hz and due to the larger
variation of the resonance frequency of the tubes for 4 Hz than
that for 8 Hz.
6. Conclusion
A silencer using tube resonators was developed especially
to reduce infrasound at 4 and 8 Hz, and its sound reduction
effects were investigated through a numerical analysis and
an on-site experiment. In the numerical analysis, reduction
effects were only observed at the resonance frequencies of
the tubes. In the on-site experiment, in contrast, reduction
effects were seen in a relatively wide frequency range around
4 and 8 Hz due to various damping effects. As a result, it was
confirmed that this silencer can be applied to actual tunnel
construction sites.
References
[1] Y. Inoue, ‘‘Trend of reducing methods for blasting sound of
tunnel construction,’’ J. INCE/J, 41, 253–257 (2017) (in
Japanese).
[2] S. Takata, M. Kiyama, K. Kumatoriya and T. Wakitani, ‘‘A
study of sound insulation wall of blast in tunnel construction,’’
Proc. 1994 Autumn Meet. INCE/J, pp. 73–76 (1994) (in
Japanese).
[3] M. Tanigawa, Y. Mihara, S. Nishimura, T. Aso and M. Imazu,
‘‘Reduction of blast sound in tunnel by using absorber based on
Helmholtz resonators,’’ Proc. Symp. Rock Mech., 42, pp. 34–37
(2014) (in Japanese).
[4] H. Tanaka, K. Masuda and T. Sudoh, ‘‘Resonator installed
between double sound insulation door,’’ J. INCE/J, 41, 268–273
(2017) (in Japanese).
[5] M. Abe, T. Kotani and Y. Urushido, ‘‘Tunnel basting sound
reduction device using recycled drum,’’ J. INCE/J, 41, 276–277
(2017) (in Japanese).
[6] Y. Honda and M. Watanabe, ‘‘Noise reduction of tunnel blasting
with acoustic tubes,’’ Proc. Inter-Noise 2013 (Innsbruck),
pp. 2516–2521 (2013).
[7] T. Shindo, S. Hirano and Y. Nawaoka, ‘‘Characteristics of noise
in tunnel blasting and example of noise control,’’ Rep. Tech.
Res. Inst. Ohbayashi-Gumi, Ltd., No. 34, 152–156 (1987) (in
Japanese).
[8] Y. Murasawa, H. Sekine, Y. Yasuda, Y. Iwane, M. Kobayashi
and H. Uchida, ‘‘Noise reduction in one-dimensional sound field
using tube resonators: theoretical study,’’ Proc. Autumn Meet.
Acoust. Soc. Jpn., pp. 1001–1004 (2016) (in Japanese).
431