Transition of Railroad Bridge Approaches
Publication: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Volume 131, Issue 11
Abstract
Years of investigations have shown that very stiff track structures on railroad bridges and abrupt stiffness changes between the bridge and the approach are two factors that can accelerate the performance problems associated with concrete tie track, ballasted deck concrete bridges. These problems include rapid track geometry degradation and cracking of concrete ties. For the four sites investigated, the resulting geometry degradation (or differential settlement between bridge and approach) came from the ballast and subballast layers, with additional contribution from the underlying soil layers (subgrade). Remedies intended to strengthen the approach subgrade may not be effective, if they are not designed to produce consistent and acceptable track stiffness between the bridge and the approach. The study presented in this paper was conducted on a number of railroad bridges and their approaches on a western railroad in the United States. The objective of the study was to investigate the factors that can cause or accelerate performance problems associated with bridge approach or track transition, and to identify and evaluate appropriate mitigation methods.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The Association of American Railroads and the Federal Railroad Administration sponsored the research presented in this paper. The UP Railway provided assistance and cooperation for the field investigations and tests. Many TTCI and UP engineers, including Duane Otter, Randy Thompson, Satya Singh, Brian Doe, and Bill GeMeiner, have made contributions to various phases of the study.
References
Briaud, J., James, R. W., and Hoffman, S. B. (1997). “Settlement of bridge approaches (the bump at the end of the bridge).” NCHRP Synthesis 234, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Elkins, J., Brickle, B., Wilson, N., Singh, S., and Wu, H. (2002). “Track structure modeling with NUCARSTM and its validation.” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 37, 420–431.
Frohling, R. D. , Sheffel, H., and Ebersohn, W. (1995). “The vertical dynamic response of a rail vehicle caused by track stiffness variations along the track.” Proc., 14th IAVSD Symp., International Association for Vechicle System Dynamics, Praha, Czech Republic.
Hoppe, E. J. (2001). “The use, design, and control of bridge approach slabs.” Routes and Roads, 312, 24–33.
Hunt, H. (1997). “Settlement of railway track near bridge abutments.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., Transp., 123(1), 68–73.
Kerr, A. D., and Bathurst, L. A. (2000). “Pads ease track transitions.” Railw. Track Struct., August, 57–64.
Kerr, A. D., and Moroney, B. E. (1993). “Track transition problems and remedies.” Bulletin 742, American Railway Engineering Association, Landover, Md., 267–298.
Li, D. (2000). “Deformations and remedies for soft railroad subgrade subjected to heavy axle loads.” Advances in transportation and geoenvironmental systems using geosynthetics, ASCE, Reston, Va., 307–321.
Li, D. (1994). “Railway track granular layer thickness design based on subgrade performance under repeated loading.” PhD thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.
Li, D., Thompson, R., Marquez, P., and Kalay, S. (2004). “Development and implementation of a continuous vertical track-support testing technique.” Transportation Research Record 1863, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 68–73.
Mitchell, B. (1995). “Treating transition zones on the NEC.” Railw. Track Struct., February, 16.
Patel, N., and Jordan, H. (1996). “Ballasted track transitions.” Proc., Rapid Transit Conf. American Public Transit Association, Washington, D.C., 116–126.
Redden, J. W., Selig, E. T., and Zaremsbki, A. M. (2002). “Stiff track modulus considerations.” Railw. Track Struct., February, 25–30.
Rose, J., Walker, L. A., and Li, D. (2002). “Heavy haul asphalt underlayment trackbeds: Pressure, deflection, materials, properties measurements.” Proc. Railway Engineering (CD-ROM), ECS Publications, Edinburgh, U.K.
Selig, E. T., and Li, D. (1994). “Track modulus: Its meaning and factors influencing it.” Transportation Research Record 1470, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 17–25.
Selig, E. T., and Waters, J. (1994). Track geotechnology and substructure management, Thomas Telford, London.
Sharpe, P., Armitage, R. J. , Heggie. W. G. , and Rogers, A. (2002). “Innovative design of transition zones.” Proc., Railway Engineering (CD-ROM), ECS Publications, Edinburgh, U.K.
Singh, S. (2003). “Effect of track stiffness transition between approach and bridge and perturbation-generated loads in this region.” Internal TTCI Rep. Transportation Technology Center, Inc., Pueblo, Colo.
Smekal, A. (1997). “Transition structures of railway bridges.” Proc., World Congress of Railway Research, Firenze, Italy.
Zarembski, A. M., and Palese, J. (2003). “Transitions eliminate impact at crossing.” Railw. Track Struct., August, 28–30.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Volume 131 • Issue 11 • November 2005
Pages: 1392 - 1398
Copyright
© 2005 ASCE.
History
Received: Jan 22, 2004
Accepted: Apr 13, 2005
Published online: Nov 1, 2005
Published in print: Nov 2005
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.