Transition zones corresponding to the passage from railway tracks on embankment to natural ground or settlement free structures are frequently problematic for maintenance. Changing stiffness of the track and differential settlements are the main causes for the degradation of tracks and foundations at transitions. This paper presents a methodology to predict the settlement of the track due to train loading, applicable to transition zones. The methodology is based on dynamic calculations using a (non-linear) train–track interaction model and an incremental settlement model. Important non-linear aspects in dynamic models for railway transitions are the loss of contact between the sleepers and the ballast and the non-linear constitutive behaviour of the ballast. The settlements are calculated paying attention to the factors that most influence the long-term behaviour of ballast, such as the amplitude of the applied dynamic force and the number of loading cycles. The importance of the dynamic loading from the trains and of the constitutive models used for the trackbed layers is analysed.
BaesslerMRueckerW. Track settlement due to cyclic loading with low minimum pressure and vibrations. System dynamics and long-term behaviour of railway vehicles, track and subgrade, Springer, 2003.
2.
López-PitaATeixeiraPCasasC. Evolution of track geometric quality in high-speed lines: Ten years experience of the Madrid–Seville line. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2007; 221(2): 147–155. DOI: 10.1243/0954409JRRT62.
3.
Schmitt L. Recent SNCF research on ballasted high speed track. Fatigue behaviour. In: Track for high-speed railways, Porto, Portugal, 2006.
KerrADMoroneyBE. Track transition problems and remedies, Technical report, American Railway Engineering Association, Bulletin 742, 1993.
7.
SchoolemanRB. Overgang kunstwerk-aardebaan voor de hoge-snelheidslijn, Technical report 7-96-110-10, T. U. Delft, 1996.
8.
ReadDLiD. Design of track transitions, Pueblo, Colorado: Technical report 79, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 2006.
9.
MauerL. An interactive track-train dynamic model for calculation of track error growth. Veh Sys Dyn: Int J Veh Mech Mob1995; 24(1): 209–209. . DOI: 10.1080/00423119508969626.
10.
HuntH. Settlement of railway track near bridge abutments. Proc ICE: Transport1997; 123(1): 68–73.
11.
KempfertHHuY. Prediction on the long-term behavior of subsoils under high-speed railways. Geotechnical engineering for transportation infraestructure, Amsterdam: Balkema, 1999.
12.
AugustinSGudehusGHuberG. Numerical model and laboratory tests on settlement of ballast track. System dynamics and long-term behaviour of railway vehicles, track and subgrade, Springer, 2003.
13.
SuikerAde BorstR. A numerical model for the cyclic deterioration of railway tracks. Int J Numer Methods Eng2003; 57(4): 441–470. DOI: 10.1002/nme.683.
14.
LundqvistADahlbergT. Dynamic train/track interaction including model for track settlement evolvement. Veh Sys Dyn: Int J Veh Mech Mob2004; 41: 667–676.
15.
SaussineGCholetCGautierP. Modelling ballast behaviour under dynamic loading. Part 1: A 2D polygonal discrete element method approach. Comp Methods App Mech Eng2006; 195(19–22): 2841–2859. DOI: 10.1016/j.cma.2005.07.006.
16.
GardienW. Transitions from rheda track to ballast track, Utrecht: Technical report GMVWG-040029300, Holland Railconsult, 2005.
17.
LuMMcDowellG. The importance of modelling ballast particle shape in the discrete element method. Granular Matter2007; 9: 69–80. DOI: 10.1007/s10035-006-0021-3.
18.
RecueroAEscalonaJShabanaA. Finite-element analysis of unsupported sleepers using three-dimensional wheelrail contact formulation. Proc IMechE, Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics2011; 225(2): 153–165. DOI: 10.1177/2041306810394971.
19.
PriestJPowrieW. Determination of dynamic track modulus from measurement of track velocity during train passage. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng2009; 135(11): 1732–1732. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000130.
20.
ShentonM. Ballast deformation and track deterioration. Track technology, London: Thomas Telford Ltd, 1985, pp. 253–265.
DiyaljeeV. Effects of stress history on ballast deformation. J Geotech Eng1987; 113(8): 909–914. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:8(909).
23.
LackenbyJIndraratnaBMcDowellG. Effect of confining pressure on ballast degradation and deformation under cyclic triaxial loading. Geotechnique2007; 57(6): 527–536.
24.
SatoY. Japanese studies on deterioration of ballasted track. Veh Sys Dyn: Int J Veh Mech Mob1995; 24(1): 197–197. DOI: 10.1080/00423119508969625.
25.
LimW. Mechanics of railway ballast behaviour. PhD, UK: University of Nottingham, 2004.
26.
SekineEKonoAKitoA. Strength and deformation characteristics of railroad ballast in ballast particle abrasion process. Quart Rep RTRI2005; 46(4): 256–261.
27.
Office of Research and Experiments. Stresses in the rails, the ballast and the formation resulting from traffic loads. Technical report D71/RP 13/E, International Union of Railways, Office of Research and Experiments, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1970.
28.
Alva-HurtadoJSeligE. Permanent strain behavior of railroad ballast. 10th International Conference, Stockholm, Sweden1981; vol 1, The Netherlands: A.A. Balkema, pp. 543–546.
29.
DahlbergT. Some railroad settlement models – a critical review. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2001; 215(4): 289–300. DOI: 10.1243/0954409011531585.
30.
FordR. Differential ballast settlement, and consequent undulations in track, caused by vehicle-track interaction. Veh Sys Dyn: Int J Veh Mech Mob1995; 24(1): 222–233.
31.
AndersonWKeyA. Model testing of two-layer railway track ballast. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng2000; 126(4): 317–323. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:4(317).
32.
SuikerASeligEFrenkelR. Static and cyclic triaxial testing of ballast and subballast. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng2005; 131(6): 771–782. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:6(771).
33.
IndraratnaBKhabbazHSalimW. Geotechnical properties of ballast and the role of geosynthetics. J Ground Improve2006; 10(3): 91–102.
34.
IndraratnaBSalimW. Mechanics of ballasted rail tracks: a geotechnical perspective, Taylor & Francis, 2005.
35.
VarandasJHölscherPSilvaM. Dynamic behaviour of railway tracks on transitions zones. Comp & Struc2011; 89(13–14): 1468–1479. DOI: 16/j.compstruc.2011.02.013.
36.
TimoshenkoSGoodierJ. Theory of elasticity, 3rd edn, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 1970.
37.
NielsenJCOOscarssonJ. Simulation of dynamic train-track interaction with state-dependent track properties. J Sound Vibr2004; 275(3–5): 515–532. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2003.06.033.
38.
LysmerJKuhlemeyerR. Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J Eng Mech Div1969; 95(EM4): 859–877.
39.
HölscherPMeijersP. Analysis of track and soil behaviour at transition zones, Deltares: Technical report 1001069-000-GEO-0006-sr, 2009.
40.
CoelhoBHölscherPPriestJ. An assessment of transition zone performance. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2011; 25(2): 129–139.
41.
HölscherP. The dynamics of foundations for high speed lines on soft soils. Int J Railway Tech2012; 1: 147–166. DOI: 10.4203/ijrt.1.1.7.
42.
EsveldC. Eindrapport trillingshinder (final report on vibration hinderance, in Dutch), Gouda, The Netherlands: Technical report CUR/COB commission L40, 2000.
43.
The MathWorks Inc. Release R2009b documentation for MATLAB, 2009.
