Mitigation of Train-Induced Ground Vibrations; Lessons from the Ledsgård Project

Ground vibrations due to train traffic on ground surface railways built on soft soil can cause annoyance to people, disturb the function of sensitive machinery in nearby buildings and increase the maintenance costs of the track. At low frequencies (\u3c 20 Hz) the level of vibrations is highly dependent on train weight and speed. This issue must be considered in the design of new railway lines or upgrading old ones. In 1997, shortly after inauguration of the X-2000 high-speed passenger trains between Gothenburg and Malmö in the southern Sweden, extremely high vibration levels were reported in the railway structure, nearby soil and the catenaries at the Ledsgård site and other locations along the newly built ¨West Coast Line¨. In order to mitigate the vibrations and allow the trains to run at their design speed of 200 km/h, soil stabilization using the lime-cement column method was carried out in summer 2000. Measurements before and after the countermeasure showed that, vibrations in the track at maximum speed (200 km/h) were reduced by factor of ten or more. The paper presents the soil stabilization project and some results from the measurements carried out in connection with it

Flexible implementation and the Consumer Rights Directive

This report shows that despite the full harmonisation approach promoted by the European Commission and adopted by the EU legislature in the case of the Consumer Rights Directive, the member states still have some opportunities to adjust European norms to the national reality. Nevertheless, our sample of four EU countries – Czechia, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands – documents that the member states do not use the space for discretion offered by the Directive’s substantive provisions to a great extent. Our analysis shows that the four member states tried to preserve their existing consumer protection regimes to the greatest possible extent. They used discretion in such a way that enabled retaining existing domestic laws and practices. In contrast to largely harmonized substantive CRD norms, the enforcement rests largely in member states powers. The means of putting the consumer contract law into practice shows some overlaps, but their use varies largely. The member states differ, importantly, in the overall emphasis on private or public enforcement. More specific differences include lists of remedies, persons who can bring the complaints, bodies dealing with the complaints or in the range and severity of penalties. The availability of class actions and ADR, but especially their use, differs wildly

Flexible implementation and the Consumer Rights Directive

This report shows that despite the full harmonisation approach promoted by the European Commission and adopted by the EU legislature in the case of the Consumer Rights Directive, the member states still have some opportunities to adjust European norms to the national reality. Nevertheless, our sample of four EU countries – Czechia, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands – documents that the member states do not use the space for discretion offered by the Directive’s substantive provisions to a great extent. Our analysis shows that the four member states tried to preserve their existing consumer protection regimes to the greatest possible extent. They used discretion in such a way that enabled retaining existing domestic laws and practices. In contrast to largely harmonized substantive CRD norms, the enforcement rests largely in member states powers. The means of putting the consumer contract law into practice shows some overlaps, but their use varies largely. The member states differ, importantly, in the overall emphasis on private or public enforcement. More specific differences include lists of remedies, persons who can bring the complaints, bodies dealing with the complaints or in the range and severity of penalties. The availability of class actions and ADR, but especially their use, differs wildly.This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 822304. The content of this document represents only the views of the InDivEU consortium and is its sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains

Is flexible implementation an effective and legitimate way to cope with heterogeneity in the European Union?

This policy brief brings together the findings from different studies done under Work Package 7 of the InDivEU project. Based on these studies, it formulates a number of more general conclusions and recommendations. The underlying question are how flexible implementation in the EU works and whether it can be an effective and legitimate way to cope with heterogeneity among member states. Flexible implementation allows for a more nuanced balance between EU-level cooperation and member state autonomy than differentiated integration, under which member states are either fully ‘in’ or ‘out’ of an EU-level policy arrangement. In doing so, it may contribute to the acceptance of EU policies by member states. At the same time, flexible implementation presents a trade-off between (the benefits of) flexibility and the level of ambition in an EU policy arrangement, as member states tend to use flexibility to preserve existing domestic policy arrangements. Based on this, we recommend to pay more systematic attention to the potential advantages of disadvantages of flexible implementation when proposing and discussing policy proposals. Moreover, it would be good to stimulate cross-border learning between member states, in order to enhance the innovative potential of flexible implementation

Mitigation of vibration by sheet pile walls. Results of vibration measurements

status: accepte

Mitigation of vibration by sheet pile walls. Results of numerical simulations

status: accepte

Reduction of Phantom Limb Pain and Improved Proprioception through a TSR-Based Surgical Technique: A Case Series of Four Patients with Lower Limb Amputation

Four patients underwent targeted sensory reinnervation (TSR), a surgical technique in which a defined skin area is first selectively denervated and then surgically reinnervated by another sensory nerve. In our case, either the area of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve or the saphenous nerve was reinnervated by the sural nerve. Patients were then fitted with a special prosthetic device capable of transferring the sense of pressure from the sole of the prosthesis to the newly wired skin area. Pain reduction after TSR was highly significant in all patients. In three patients, permanent pain medication could even be discontinued, in one patient the pain medication has been significantly reduced. Two of the four patients were completely pain-free after the surgical intervention. Surgical rewiring of existing sensory nerves by TSR can provide the brain with new afferent signals seeming to originate from the missing limb. These signals help to reduce phantom limb pain and to restore a more normal body image. In combination with special prosthetic devices, the amputee can be provided with sensory feedback from the prosthesis, thus improving gait and balance