Transition zones are constructions intended to provide smooth passage of a train, when moving from a track supported on an embankment to a track on a stiff structure, such as a bridge, tunnel or culvert. The design of transition zones is based on creating a gradual stiffness variation between the free track and the stiffer structure. In the Netherlands, the standard transition zone design consists of placing a concrete approach slab before and after the structure. In the present paper, the performance of a typical transition zone is assessed, by means of numerical analysis. After validation of the results it is shown that the presence of a concrete slab, combined with the fact that the sleepers are hanging, causes a stress redistribution towards the free end of the approach slabs. This aggravates the long-term deformation of the soil and increases the differential settlement under normal train speed. A critical train speed is identified for the transition zone.
FröhlingRD. Low frequency dynamic vehicle/track interaction: modelling and simulation. Vehicle Syst Dynam Suppl1998; 28(1): 30–46.
2.
HuntHEM. Settlement of railway track near bridge abutments. Proc Inst Civ Eng – Transp1997; 123(1): 68–73.
3.
LiMXDBerggrenEG. A study of the effect of global track stiffness and its variations on track performance: simulation and measurement. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2010; 224(5): 375–382.
4.
LeiXZhangB. Influence of track stiffness distribution on vehicle and track interaction in track transition. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2010; 224(6): 592–604.
5.
BanimahdMWoodwardPKKennedyJ. Behaviour of train-track interaction in stiffness transitions. Transport2012; 165(TR3): 205–214.
6.
EsveldC. Modern Railway Track, 2nd ed. The Netherlands: MRT–Productions, 2001. .
7.
LundqvistALarssonRDahlbergT. Influence of railway track stiffness variations on wheel/rail contact force. In: Track for high–speed railways, Porto: FEUP, 2006, pp. 1–12. .
8.
ShanYAlbersBSavidisSA. Influence of different transition zones on the dynamic response of track–subgrade systems. Comput Geotech2013; 48(1): 21–28.
9.
KerrADBathurstLA. A method of upgrading the performance of track transitions for high-speed service, Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, 2001. .
10.
SasaokaCDDaviesDD. Implementing track transition solutions for heavy axle load service. In: AREMA 20052005, pp. 1–31. CD–ROM, Chicago.
11.
Hyslip JP, Li D and McDaniel CR. Railway bridge transition case study. In: Tutumluer E and Al-Qadi L (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international conference on bearing capacity of roads, railways and airfields, Taylor & Francis Group, London, 2009, pp.1341–1348. CRC Press.
12.
InsaRSalvadorPInarejosJ. Analysis of the influence of under sleeper pads on the railwayvehicle/track dynamic interaction in transition zones. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2012; 226(4): 409–420.
PlotkinDDavisD. Bridge approaches and track stiffness, Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, 2008. .
15.
LiDOtterDCarrG. Railway bridge approaches under heavy axle load traffic: problems, causes, and remedies. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2010; 224(5): 383–390.
16.
HölscherPMeijersP. Literature study of knowledge and experience of transition zones, The Netherlands: GeoDelft, 2007. .
17.
CoelhoBZHölscherPPriestJ. An assessment of transition zone performance. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2011; 225(2): 129–139.
18.
Zuada CoelhoBE. Dynamics of railway transition zones in soft soils, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology, 2011. .
19.
Roddeman D. Tochnog Professional. Finite Element Application Technology, www.feat.nl (2009, accessed date).
20.
KuhlemeyerRLLysmerJ. Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems. J Soil Mech Found Div1973; 99(5): 421–427.
21.
PottsDMZadravkovićL. Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering – theory, London: Thomas Telford, 1999. .
22.
BatheKJWilsonEL. Stability and accuracy analysis of direct integration methods. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam1973; 1(3): 283–291.
23.
BodeCHirschauerRSavidisSAThree-dimensional time domain analysis of moving loads on railway tracks on layered soils. In: SchmidC (ed). Wave 2000, The Netherlands: Balkema, 2000, pp. 3–12. .
24.
CaiYSunHXuC. Three–dimensional analyses of dynamic response of track-ground system subjected to a moving train load. Comput Struct2008; 86(7–8): 816–824.
25.
ProfillidisV. Applications of finite element analysis in the rational design of track bed structures. Comput Struct1986; 22(3): 439–443.
26.
ProfillidisVPoniridisP. The mechanical behaviour of the sleeper-ballast interface. Comput Struct1986; 24(3): 437–441.
27.
MadshusCKayniaAM. High-speed railway lines on soft ground: dynamic behaviour at critical train speed. J Sound Vib2000; 231(3): 689–701.
28.
PaolucciRMaffeisAScandellaL. Numerical prediction of low-frequency ground vibrations induced by high–speed trains at Ledsgaard, Sweden. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng2003; 23(6): 425–433.
29.
PicouxBLe HouédecD. Diagnosis and prediction of vibration from railway trains. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng2005; 25(12): 905–921.
30.
GalvínPDomínguezJ. Analysis of ground motion due to moving surface loads induced by high-speed trains. Eng Anal Boundary Elem2007; 31(11): 931–941.
31.
HölscherPMeijersP. Analysis of track and soil behaviour at transition zones – Case study near Gouda Goverwelle, The Netherlands: Deltares, 2009. .
32.
CampanellaRGStewartWP. Seismic cone analysis using digital signal processing for dynamic site characterization. Canad Geotechn J1992; 29(3): 477–486.
33.
KarlLHaegemanWDegrandeG. Determination of the material damping ratio and shear wave velocity with Seismic Cone Penetration Test. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng2006; 26(12): 1111–1126.
34.
HardinBODrnevichVP. Shear modulus and damping in soils: measurement and parameter effects. J Soil Mech Found Div, Proc Amer Soc Civil Eng1972; 98(SM6): 603–624.
35.
BoltonMDWilsonJMR. An experimental and theoretical comparison between static and dynamic torsional soil test. Géotechnique1989; 39(4): 585–599.
36.
VerruijtACornejo CórdovaC. Moving loads on an elastic half-plane with hysteretic damping. J Appl Mech2001; 68(6): 915–921.
37.
LysmerJKuhlemeyerAM. Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J Eng Mech Div, Proc Amer Soc Civil Eng1969; 6719(4): 859–877.
38.
CoelhoBZHölscherPBarendsF. Enhancement of double integration procedure through spectral subtraction. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng2011; 31(4): 716–722.
39.
CoelhoBZPriestJHölscherP. Monitoring of transition zones in railways. Railway engineering – 2009, London: Engineering Technics Press, 2009, pp. 1–9. .
40.
Li ZG and Wu TX. Vehicle/track impact due to passing the transition between floating slab and ballasted track. In: Schulte-Werning B, Thompson D, Gautier, P-E, et al. (eds) Noise and vibration for rail transportation systems – proceedings of the 9th international workshop on railway noise, Munique, 2008, pp.94–100.
41.
Cuperus JLA and de Nie FC. Strengthening the road–bed of a railway supported by soft soil and situated amidst the buildings of the central part of a town. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Rotterdam, 1948, pp.1–7.
42.
de Nie FC. Undulation of railway embankments on soft sub–soil during passing of trains. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering Rotterdam, 1948, pp.8–12.
43.
GrassieSLCoxSJ. The dynamic response of railway track with unsupported sleepers. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part D: J Automob Eng1985; 199(2): 123–136.
44.
LundqvistADahlbergT. Load impact on railway track due to unsupported sleepers. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2005; 219(2): 67–77.
45.
AugustinSGudehusGHuberGNumerical model and laboratory tests on settlement of ballast track. In: PoppKSchiehlenW (eds). System dynamics and long-term behaviour of railway vehicles, track and subgrade, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg: New York, 2003, pp. 317–336. (Lecture Notes in Applied Mechanics, vol. 6).
46.
SegilETWatersJM. Track geotechnology and substructure management, London: Thomas Telford, 1994. .
47.
DietermanHAMetrikineAV. Steady–state displacements of a beam on an elastic half-space due to a uniformly moving constant load. Eur J Mech A/Solids1997; 16(2): 295–306.
48.
WolfJP. Dynamic soil–structure interaction, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1985. .
49.
AuerschL. Wave propagation in layered soils: Theoretical solution in wavenumber domain and experimental results of hammer and railway traffic excitation. J Sound Vib1994; 173(2): 233–264.
