Application of in situ polyurethane geocomposite beams to improve the passive shoulder resistance of railway track

Abstract

Recent research has highlighted the effect of the individual contributions of the crib, shoulder, and base resistance to the lateral behaviour of a typical railway sleeper under loading. The contribution of the shoulder ballast has been seen to provide around 30 per cent of the lateral resistance for an unloaded sleeper. The addition of extra ballast in the shoulder area provides a very limited increase in lateral sleeper resistance. It is common in areas of high lateral loading, such as switch and crossings, to provide sleeper end plates to improve the passive resistance of the track. Sleeper end plates have, however, many disadvantages, not least is the need to disturb the ballast in order to facilitate their installation. The application of polyurethane reinforcement of the ballast shoulder to rapidly form an in situ GeoComposite shoulder beam (geobeam) has many advantages over end plates, including the ability of the lateral beam to be installed directly after the track geometry has been corrected; the lateral track geometry can then be ‘captured’ at installation. The beam can also be formed while the trains are still running. In this article the application of lateral GeoComposite side beams to improve the passive resistance of the shoulders is illustrated through analytical and numerical analysis. The application of the technique to actual problem sites is also presented and the performance of the technique at the Harford bridge transition site discussed.

Keywords

lateral loading polyurethane track geometry polymers finite element rail track passive resistance lateral alignment end plates track reinforcement ballast stabilization GeoComposites railways sleepers

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Le Pen

L. M.

Powrie

Contribution of base, crib and shoulder ballast to the lateral sliding resistance of railway track: a geotechnical perspective. Proc. IMechE, Part F: J. Rail Rapid Transit, 2010, 225, 113–128, DOI: 10.1177/0954409710397094.

Selig

E. T.

Waters

J. M.

Track geotechnology and substructure management, 1994 (Telford, London, UK).

Smith

I. M.

Griffiths

D. V.

Programming the finite element method, 1988 (Wiley, Tiptree, UK).

Caquot

Kerisel

Tables for the calculation of passive pressure, active pressure and bearing capacity of foundation, 1948 (Gautheir-Villars, Paris, France).

Panagiotis

Design and behaviour of railway ballast. MSc Thesis, School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, 2001.

European Rail Research Institute, Committee D202. Improved knowledge of forces in CWR track (including switches). Report 3, theory of CWR track stability, European Rail Research Institute, Utrecht, 1995.

European Rail Research Institute, Committee D202. Improved knowledge of forces in CWR track (including switches). Report 2, review of existing experimental work in behaviour of CWR track, European Rail Research Institute, Utrecht, 1995.

Esveld

Modern railway track, 2001 (MRT Productions, Zaltbommel, The Netherlands).

British Railways Board GM/TT0088. Railway group standard: permissible track forces for railway vehicles, Railway Technical Centre, Derby, 1993.

10.

Network Rail RT/CE/S/049. Track design handbook, Network Rail, London, 2004.

11.

Thompson

Woodward

P. K.

Track stiffness management using the XiTRACK GeoComposite. Permanent Way Inst. J., 2004, 122(3), 135–138.

12.

Woodward

P. K.

Thompson

Banimahd

GeoComposite technology: reducing railway maintenance. Proc. ICE, Transport, 2007, 160(3), 109–115.

13.

Kennedy

A full-scale laboratory investigation into railway track substructure performance and ballast reinforcement. PhD Thesis, School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, UK, 2011.

14.

Network Rail RT/CE/C/039. Company code of practice formation treatments, issue 2, Network Rail, London, December 2003.

15.

Woodward

P. K.

Nicholl

Zettor

Application of XiTRACK GeoComposite technology to Bletchley Points on the West Coast Main Line. The Seventh International Railway Engineering Conference, London, UK, 2004.

16.

Woodward

P. K.

Nicholl

Thompson

Cost effective solution of persistent track faults using XiTRACK GeoComposite technology. Permanent Way Inst. J., 2005, 123(4), 191–195.

17.

Kabo

A numerical study of the lateral ballast resistance in railway tracks. Proc. IMechE, Part F: J. Rail Rapid Transit, 2006, 220, 425–433, DOI: 10.1243/0954409JRRT61.

18.

Woodward

P. K.

Zettor

Kaddouri

Banimahd

Advanced non-linear dynamic finiteelement modelling of railway track behaviour. The Eighth International Railway Engineering Conference, London, UK, 2004.

19.

Griffiths

D. V.

Numerical modelling of interfaces using conventional finite elements. The Fifth International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Nagoya, Japan, 1985.

20.

Medero

G. M.

Schnaid

Gehling

W. Y. Y.

Oedometer behaviour of an artificially cemented highly collapsible soil. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng, 2009, 135(6), 840–843, DOI: 10.1061/ASCE1090-0241(2009)135:66(840).