In recent years, ballasted railway tracks have increasingly been replaced by ballastless slab track systems, including area- and frame-type designs, on critical infrastructure such as high-speed railways, tunnels, and bridges. These systems offer enhanced stability, faster and more comfortable travel, and reduced maintenance costs. Among these, frame-type slab tracks are more cost-effective to produce compared to area-type tracks. Therefore, this study evaluates the fatigue behavior of a newly developed frame-type ballastless slab track system installed on the Istanbul Airport metro line. A full-scale experimental setup was used, following an established testing protocol. While the system successfully satisfied fatigue performance criteria over three million cycles, with maximum railhead displacements below 1.1 mm, it failed to meet vertical static stiffness requirements due to variations in under-rail pad properties. Subsequent component-level tests revealed high stiffness heterogeneity among pads. These findings underscore the importance of quality control in pad production and suggest that current testing procedures should incorporate variable stiffness values to better simulate in-service behavior.
DurgunYGüllüAÇalımF, et al.Investigation of the effect of reinforcement type on the flexural performance of slab tracks. J Transport Eng Part A Syst2023; 149(6): 04023039.
2.
HuangJSuQLiuT, et al.Vibration and long‐term performance analysis of pile‐plank‐supported low subgrade of ballastless track under excitation loads. Shock Vib2015; 2015: 1–12.
3.
FengQSunKChenH, et al.Lifetime performance assessment of railway ballastless track systems affected by a mortar interface defect. J Aero Eng2019; 32(4): 04019037.
4.
DuWRenJLiuW, et al.Analysis of mechanical properties and deformation characteristics of debonding-repaired slab track. Int J Real Ther2023; 12(5): 781–802.
5.
ZhangJCaiCZhuS, et al.Experimental investigation on dynamic performance evolution of double-block ballastless track under high-cycle train loads. Eng Struct2022; 254: 113872.
6.
YangXZhangYZhangZ, et al.Effect of novel phononic crystals vibration isolator on vibration reduction for floating slab track considering the random dynamical load of the vehicle. Int J Real Ther2023; 12(5): 827–852.
7.
MatiasSRFerreiraPA. Railway slab track systems: review and research potentials. Struct Infrastruct Eng2020; 16(12): 1635–1653.
8.
XuebingZYangQZhizhouZ, et al.Experimental study on compression failure of type II ballastless track slab based on optical fiber sensing. Transp Res Rec2024; 2678: 03611981241239655.
9.
ZhangZGaoLZhongY, et al.Numerical and experimental study of new fully prefabricated ballastless track. Eng Struct2024; 311: 118178.
10.
ČebašekTMEsenAFWoodwardPK, et al.Full-scale laboratory testing of ballast and concrete slab tracks under phased cyclic loading. Transp Geotech2018; 17: 33–40.
11.
ZhaoPDingCGuoL, et al.A prototype fatigue test for slab track subjected to the coupling action of wheel load, temperature variation, and water erosion. Proc Inst Mech Eng - Part F J Rail Rapid Transit2019; 233(5): 566–579.
12.
YuZXieYShanZ, et al.Fatigue performance of CRTS III slab ballastless track structure under high-speed train load based on concrete fatigue damage constitutive law. J Adv Concr Technol2018; 16(5): 233–249.
13.
ShengXZhengWZhuZ. Mechanical behaviors and fatigue performances of ballastless tracks laid on long-span cable-stayed bridges with different arrangements. Sensors2019; 19(19): 4195.
14.
GüllüAÖzdenBÖlçerB, et al.Rapid and easily applicable procedure for full-scale laboratory tests of ballastless slab tracks. J Transport Eng Part A Syst2021; 147(9): 04021050.
15.
ToprakMAGüllüAÖzdenB, et al.Fatigue behavior evaluation of two full-scale composite ballastless slab tracks incorporating steel and glass fiber rods. Constr Build Mater2025; 468: 140456.
16.
AndoKSunagaMAokiH, et al.Development of slab tracks for hokuriku shinkansen line. QR of RTRI2001; 42(1): 35–41.
17.
TarifaMZhangXRuizG, et al.Full-scale fatigue tests of precast reinforced concrete slabs for railway tracks. Eng Struct2015; 100: 610–621.
18.
PovedaEYuRCLanchaJC, et al.A numerical study on the fatigue life design of concrete slabs for railway tracks. Eng Struct2015; 100: 455–467.
19.
YangJWangJSPengX. Design and behavior of RPC slab track. Appl Mech Mater2014; 587-589: 1100–1105.
20.
WeiKZhaoZRenJ, et al.High-speed vehicle–slab track coupled vibration analysis of the viscoelastic-plastic dynamic properties of rail pads under different preloads and temperatures. Veh Syst Dyn2021; 59(2): 171–202.
21.
ZhuSCaiCSpanosPD. A nonlinear and fractional derivative viscoelastic model for rail pads in the dynamic analysis of coupled vehicle–slab track systems. J Sound Vib2015; 335: 304–320.
22.
ZhangXThompsonDJNtotsiosE, et al.Effect of baseplate flexibility and rail pad stiffness on slab track dynamics. Eng Struct2025; 334: 120296.
23.
ChoiJYKimSHKimMH, et al.Development of track support stiffness measurement and evaluation system for slab tracks. Appl Sci2020; 10(12): 4344.
24.
ZhangXYThompsonDJNtotsiosE, et al.Effect of baseplate flexibility and rail pad stiffness on slab track dynamics. Eng Struct2025; 334: 120296.
25.
SunSXuQ. Damage distribution and mechanical properties analysis of CRTS III slab track under uneven subgrade settlement. Structures2023; 58: 105350.
26.
SongXQianYWangK, et al.Effect of rail pad stiffness on vehicle–track dynamic interaction excited by rail corrugation in metro. Transp Res Rec2020; 2674(4): 225–243.
27.
Van DykB. Fastening system stiffness measurement and influence on railway track. Proc Int Crosstie Fastening System Symp. Rail Transportation and Engineering Center, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, 2016.
28.
SadeghiJRabieeSKhajehdezfulyA. Development of train ride comfort prediction model for railway slab track system. Lat Am J Solid Struct2020; 17(7): e304.
29.
Federal Railroad Administration. High-speed rail turnout literature review. FRA, 2016.
30.
European Committee for Standardization. EN 13146-9: railway applications—Track—test methods for fastening systems—Part 9: determination of stiffness. CEN, 2020.
