The results of a Federal Railroad Administration research project into the factors that contribute to differential displacements at railroad track transitions are presented in this paper. Data from instrumented high-speed passenger (Amtrak) sites suggest that poorly supported ties increase the loads applied on the underlying ballast and can accelerate differential displacements. Poorly supported ties amplify the tie–ballast interaction, which eventually results in large permanent vertical displacements at those locations. This paper presents the location and depth at which permanent vertical displacements are occurring, the “root cause” of these permanent differential vertical displacements, and design and remedial measures that focus on reducing poorly supported ties in transition zones.
Sasaoka C, Davis D, Koch K, et al. Implementing track transition solutions. Technology Digest TD-05-001, 2005. Pueblo, CO Transportation Technology Center Inc.
2.
Nicks J. The bump at the end of the railway bridge. PhD Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2009.
3.
Sasaoka C and Davis D. Implementing track transition solutions for heavy axle load service. In: The AREMA annual conference, Chicago, IL, 2005.
Hyslip J, Li D and McDaniel C. Railway bridge transition case study. In: Tutumluer E and Al-Qadi IL (eds) The eighth international conference on bearing capacity of roads, railways and airfields, Champaign, IL, 2009, pp.1341–1348.
6.
MishraDTutumluerEStarkTD. Investigation of differential movement at railroad bridge approaches through geotechnical instrumentation. J Zhejiang Uni-Science A2012; 13(11): 814–824.
7.
MishraDTutumluerEBolerH. Instrumentation and performance monitoring of railroad track transitions using multidepth deflectometers and strain gauges. Transport Res Record: J Transport Research Board2014; 2448: 105–114.
8.
Sussmann T and Selig E. Resilient modulus backcalculation techniques for track. In: Specialty Conference on Performance Confirmation of Constructed Geotechnical Facilities, Amherst, MA, US, 9–12 April 2000, pp.401–411. American Society of Civil Engineers.
9.
ChangCSAdegokeCWSeligET. GEOTRACK model for railroad track performance. J Geotech Engng Div1980; 106(11): 1201–1218.
10.
StarkTDWilkSTSussmannTR. Evaluation of tie support at transition zones. Transport Res Record: J Transport Res Board2015. 1–19.
11.
DeBeerMHorakEVisserAThe multidepth deflectometer (MDD) system for determining the effective elastic moduli of pavement layers. In: BushAJBaladiG (eds). Nondestructive testing of pavements and backcalculation of moduli, Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1989, pp. 70–89.
12.
Sussmann T and Selig E. Evaluation of increased axle loading on northeast corridor track substructure. Report for Amtrak, 1998. Hadley, MA: Ernest T. Selig Inc.
13.
Bilow D and Li D. Concrete slab track test on the high tonnage loop at the Transportation Technology Center. In: The AREMA annual conference, Chicago, IL, 2005, pp.1–23.
14.
SeligETWatersJM. Track geotechnology and substructure management, London, UK: Thomas Telford, 1994.
15.
CoehloBHölscherPPriestJ. An assessment of transition zone performance. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2011; 225: 129–139.
16.
Stark TD and Wilk ST. Factors causing differential movement at railway transitions based on field monitoring, field inspections, and numerical modeling. Report no., 2014. Washington DC: Federal Rail Administration.
17.
LundqvistADahlbergT. Load impact on railway track due to unsupported sleepers. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2005; 219: 67–77.
18.
DahlbergT. Some railroad settlement models – a critical review. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2001; 215: 289–300.
19.
VarandasJNHölscherPSilvaMAC. Dynamic behaviour of railway track on transition zones. Comput Struct2011; 89: 1468–1479.
20.
PaixãoAFortunatoECalçadaR. Design and construction of backfills for railway track transitions. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2015; 229(1): 58–70.
21.
NamuraASuzukiT. Evaluation of countermeasures against differential settlement at track transitions. Q Rep RTRI2007; 48(3): 176–182.
22.
LiDOtterDCarrG. Railway bridge approaches under heavy axle load traffic: problems, causes, and remedies. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2010; 224: 383–390.
23.
Cantrell DD and Bourgonje TL. Transition from bridge end to bridge and bridge to bridge end. In: The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association annual Conference, Chicago, IL, September 2014, pp.1–21.
24.
EssvedC. Modern railway track, Zaitbommel, The Netherlands: MRT Productions, 2001.
25.
NamuraAKohataYMiuraS. Study on optimum size of railway sleeper for ballasted track. Struct Engng Earthq Engng2005; 22(2): 245–255.
