Load Factor Method for Dynamic Track Loadings
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 114, Issue 1
Abstract
Design of track structural components and foundations is based upon design loads higher than the nominal static values. These design loads generally have been determined using dynamic impact factors as multipliers of the nominal static loads. A review of commonly used impact factors is given, as dependent upon track and vehicle characteristics, and operating conditions. Field measurements of the distribution of static and dynamic wheel loads at five sites are presented. A load factor method, derived from the field measurements, is given that can be used to characterize the distribution of track loads. Although a single wheel or axle load may be appropriate for the design of certain structural components, multiple axle loadings should be used to estimate stresses and deformations that result at depth, or to analyze the loadings on buried structures. The axle spacings on typical freight cars are such that four axles are sufficient to account for multiple axle loadings. An approach is outlined to characterize the complete multiple axle dynamic load distribution for use in a probability‐based design procedure.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Ahlf, R. E. (1985). “Report of the Ballast and Subgrade Subcommittee of the Association of American Railroads' Track Maintenance Planning Committee.” Association of American Railroads, Chicago, Ill., Nov.
2.
American Railway Engineering Association (AREA). (1984). Manual for railway engineering. Washington, D.C.
3.
Cerny, L. T. (1985). “The question of the 125‐ton car.” Railway track & structures, 81(12), 22–24.
4.
Clark, C. W. (1957). “Track loading fundamentals—Parts 1–7.” Railway Gazette, 106, London, U.K.
5.
Committee on Pipeline Crossings of Railroads and Highways. (1964). “Interim specifications for the design of railroads and highways.” ASCE, New York, N.Y., Jan.
6.
DiPilato, M. A., Steinberg, E. I., and Simon, R. A. (1983). “Ballast and subgrade requirements study: Railroad track substructure—Design and performance evaluation practices.” FRA/ORD‐83/04.2, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, D.C., Jun.
7.
Eisenmann, J. (1972). “Germany gains a better understanding of track structure.” Railway Gazette Int., Aug., 305–308.
8.
Frederick, C. O., and Round, D. J. (1984). “Vertical track loading.” Proc., Track Technology for the Next Decade, Thomas Telford Ltd., London, U.K., Jul., 135–149; Discussion, 151–169.
9.
Harrison, H. D., et al. (1984). “Correlation of concrete tie track performance in revenue service and at the facility for accelerated service testing.” Report No. FRA/ORD‐84‐02.1, Final Report to the Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, D.C., Aug.
10.
Joubert, E. (1982). “Management of track maintenance: a systems approach.” Proc., 2nd Int. Heavy Haul Railway Conf., Colorado Springs, Colo., Sep., 555–564.
11.
Lane, G. S. (1982). “The effects of track and traffic parameters on the development of track vertical roughness.” Proc., 2nd Int. Heavy Haul Railway Conf., Colorado Springs, Colo., Sep., 395–405.
12.
O'Rourke, T. D., et al. (1986). “State‐of‐the‐art review: Practices for pipeline crossings at railroads.” Report No. GRI 86/0210, Gas Research Institute, Chicago, Ill., Aug.
13.
Prause, R. H., et al. (1977). “An analytical and experimental evaluation of concrete cross tie and fastener loads.” Interim Report to the Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. DOT, Washington, D.C., Report No. FRA/ORD/77‐71, Dec.
14.
Price, B. H. (1982). “Use of force level data for policing track quality.” Proc., 2nd Int. Heavy Haul Railway Conf., Colorado Springs, Colo., Sep., 536–544.
15.
Raymond, G. P. (1985). “Analysis of track support and determination of track modulus.” Transportation Res. Rec. 1022, Washington, D.C., 80–91.
16.
Round, D. J. (1984). “The effect of rail straightness on track geometry and deterioration.” Proc., Track Technology for the Next Decade, Thomas Telford Ltd., London, U.K., Jul., 255–275.
17.
Selig, E. T., et al. (1979). “Status report—Ballast experiments, intermediate (175 MGT) substructure stress and strain data.” Interim Report No. FRA/TTC/Dr‐10 (IR), Prepared for FAST Program, Transportation Systems Ctr., Cambridge, Mass., Sept.
18.
Srinivasan, M. (1969). Modern Permanent Way. Somaiga Publications, Bombay, India.
19.
Stewart, H. E. (1982). “The prediction of track performance under dynamic traffic loading,” thesis presented to the University of Massachusetts, at Amherst, Mass., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
20.
Talbot, A. N. (1918, 1920). “Stresses in railroad tracks, Report of the Special Committee on Stresses in Railroad Track.” Proc., AREA, First Progress Report, Vol. 19, 873–1062;
Second Progress Report Vol. 21, 645–814.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 114 • Issue 1 • January 1988
Pages: 21 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 ASCE.
History
Published online: Jan 1, 1988
Published in print: Jan 1988
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.