Investigation of hanging crosstie problem at bridge approaches: a train–track–bridge model coupled with discrete element method

Abstract

Nonuniform track support and differential settlements are commonly observed in bridge approaches where the ballast layer can develop gaps at crosstie-ballast interfaces often referred to as a hanging crosstie condition. Hanging crossties usually yield unfavorable dynamic effects such as higher wheel loads, which negatively impact the serviceability and safety of railway operations. Hence, a better understanding of the mechanisms that cause hanging crossties and their effects on the ballast layer load-deformation characteristics is necessary. Since the ballast layer is a particulate medium, the discrete element method (DEM), which simulates ballast particle interactions individually, is ideal to explore the interparticle contact forces and ballast movements under dynamic wheel loading. Accurate representations of the dynamic loads from the train and track superstructure are needed for high-fidelity DEM modeling. This paper introduces an integrated modeling approach, which couples a single-crosstie DEM ballast model with a train–track–bridge (TTB) model using a proportional–integral–derivative control loop. The TTB–DEM model was validated with field measurements, and the coupled model calculates similar crosstie displacements as the TTB model. The TTB–DEM provided new insights into the ballast particle-scale behavior, which the TTB model alone cannot explore. The TTB–DEM coupling approach identified detrimental effects of hanging crossties on adjacent crossties, which were found to experience drastic vibrations and large ballast contact force concentrations.

Keywords

Hanging crosstie / Crosstie gap / Transition zone / Model coupling / Discrete element method / Train–track model

References

[1] BanimahdM, WoodwardPK, KennedyJ, MederoGM. Behaviour of train–track interaction in stiffness transitions. Proc Inst Civ Eng Transp, 2012, 165: 205-214

[2] LiD, DavisD. Transition of railroad bridge approaches. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng, 2005, 131: 1392-1398.

[3] MuramotoK, NakamuraT, SakuraiT. A study of the effect of track irregularity prevention methods for the transition zone between different track structures. Q Rep RTRI, 2012, 53: 211-215.

[4] NamuraA, SuzukiT. Evaluation of countermeasures against differential settlement at track transitions. Q Rep RTRI, 2007, 48: 176-182.

[5] ZhuJY, ThompsonDJ, JonesCJC. On the effect of unsupported sleepers on the dynamic behaviour of a railway track. Veh Syst Dyn, 2011, 49: 1389-1408.

[6] ZhuJJ, AhmedAKW, RakhejaS, et al.. Development of a vehicle–track model assembly and numerical method for simulation of wheel–rail dynamic interaction due to unsupported sleepers. Veh Syst Dyn, 2010, 48: 1535-1552.

[7] ShiJ, ChanAH, BurrowMP. Influence of unsupported sleepers on the dynamic response of a heavy haul railway embankment. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part F J Rail Rapid Transit, 2013, 227: 657-667.

[8] ZhangS, XiaoX, WenZ, et al.. Effect of unsupported sleepers on wheel/rail normal load. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, 2008, 28: 662-673.

[9] WangH, MarkineV. Dynamic behaviour of the track in transitions zones considering the differential settlement. J Sound Vib, 2019, 459114863.

[10] SunY, GuoY, ChenZ, et al.. Effect of differential ballast settlement on dynamic response of vehicle–track coupled systems. Int J Struct Stab Dyn, 2018, 181850091.

[11] LundqvistA, DahlbergT. Load impact on railway track due to unsupported sleepers. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part F J Rail Rapid Transit, 2005, 219: 67-77.

[12] Wang H, Markine VL, Shevtsov IY et al (2015) Analysis of the dynamic behaviour of a railway track in transition zones with differential settlement. In: 2015 Joint Rail Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, San Jose, California, USA, p V001T01A024

[13] VarandasJN, HölscherP, SilvaMA. Settlement of ballasted track under traffic loading: application to transition zones. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part F J Rail Rapid Transit, 2014, 228: 242-259.

[14] ZhaiW, SunX. A detailed model for investigating vertical interaction between railway vehicle and track. Veh Syst Dyn, 1994, 23: 603-615.

[15] HouW, TutumluerE, LiW. A validated train-track-bridge model with nonlinear support conditions at bridge approaches. Infrastructures, 2021, 659.

[16] SysynM, PrzybylowiczM, NabochenkoO, et al.. Mechanism of sleeper–ballast dynamic impact and residual settlements accumulation in zones with unsupported sleepers. Sustainability, 2021, 137740.

[17] RecueroAM, EscalonaJL, ShabanaAA. Finite-element analysis of unsupported sleepers using three-dimensional wheel–rail contact formulation. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part K J Multi-Body Dyn, 2011, 225: 153-165

[18] ZhangX, ZhaoC, ZhaiW. Dynamic behavior analysis of high-speed railway ballast under moving vehicle loads using discrete element method. Int J Geomech, 2017, 1704016157.

[19] ShiS, GaoL, CaiX. Effect of tamping operation on mechanical qualities of ballast bed based on DEM-MBD coupling method. Comput Geotech, 2020, 124103574.

[20] FerellecJ-F, PeralesR, NhuV-H. Analysis of compaction of railway ballast by different maintenance methods using DEM. EPJ Web Conf, 2017, 14015032.

[21] TutumluerE, QianY, HashashYMA, et al.. Discrete element modelling of ballasted track deformation behaviour. Int J Rail Transp, 2013, 1: 57-73.

[22] HouW, FengB, LiW, et al.. Evaluation of ballast behavior under different tie support conditions using discrete element modeling. Transp Res Rec, 2018, 2672: 106-115.

[23] FengB, HouW, TutumluerE. Implications of field loading patterns on different tie support conditions using discrete element modeling: dynamic responses. Transp Res Rec, 2019, 2673: 509-520.

[24] NgamkhanongC, FengB, TutumluerE, et al.. Evaluation of lateral stability of railway tracks due to ballast degradation. Constr Build Mater, 2021, 278122342.

[25] FengB, ParkEH, HuangH, et al.. Discrete element modeling of full-scale ballasted track dynamic responses from an innovative high-speed rail testing facility. Transp Res Rec, 2019, 2673: 107-116.

[26] Boler H (2020) Analyses and modeling of track transition site responses from instrumented bridge approaches. Dissertation, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

[27] SysynM, PrzybylowiczM, NabochenkoO, et al.. Mechanism of the sleeper–ballast dynamic impact in void zones with unsupported sleepers. Sustainability, 2021, 13147740.

[28] ZhangX, ZhaoC, ZhaiW. Importance of load frequency in applying cyclic loads to investigate ballast deformation under high-speed train loads. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, 2019, 120: 28-38.

[29] GuoY, ShiC, ZhaoC, et al.. Numerical analysis of train–track–subgrade dynamic performance with crumb rubber in ballast layer. Constr Build Mater, 2022, 336127559.

[30] FangJ, ZhaoC, ShiC, ZhaiZ, CaiC. Dynamic impact of sleeper unsupported defects on the heavy haul locomotive-ballasted track coupling system. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, 2024, 176108292.

[31] LiuZ, FengB, TutumluerE. Coupling train–track models with the discrete element method for a more realistic simulation of ballasted track dynamic behavior. Transp Res Rec, 2023, 2677(8): 414-427.

[32] BolerH, MishraD, TutumluerE, et al.. Stone blowing as a remedial measure to mitigate differential movement problems at railroad bridge approaches. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part F J Rail Rapid Transit, 2019, 233: 63-72.

[33] RabbiMF, BruzekR, SussmannTR, et al.. A study of vertical tie reaction forces in ballasted railroad tracks through field instrumentation and numerical modeling. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part F J Rail Rapid Transit, 2022, 237(1): 65-79.

[34] ZhaoD, NezamiEG, HashashYMA, et al.. Three-dimensional discrete element simulation for granular materials. Eng Comput, 2006, 23: 749-770.

[35] MoaveniM, WangS, HartJM, et al.. Evaluation of aggregate size and shape by means of segmentation techniques and aggregate image processing algorithms. Transp Res Rec, 2013, 2335: 50-59.

[36] LuM, McDowellGR. The importance of modelling ballast particle shape in the discrete element method. Granul Matter, 2006, 9: 69-80.

[37] NguyenD-H, AzémaE, SornayP, et al.. Effects of shape and size polydispersity on strength properties of granular materials. Phys Rev E, 2015, 91032203.

[38] Tutumluer E, Huang H, Hashash YMA et al (2006) Aggregate shape effects on ballast tamping and railroad track lateral stability. In: AREMA annual conference. Citeseer, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, pp 17–20

[39] QianY, BolerH, MoaveniM, et al.. Characterizing ballast degradation through Los Angeles abrasion test and image analysis. Transp Res Rec, 2014, 2448: 142-151.

[40] WheelerLN, TakeWA, HoultNA, et al.. Use of fiber optic sensing to measure distributed rail strains and determine rail seat forces under a moving train. Can Geotech J, 2019, 56: 1-13.

[41] PetersJF, MuthuswamyM, WibowoJ, et al.. Characterization of force chains in granular material. Phys Rev E, 2005, 72041307.

[42] MinhNH, ChengYP, ThorntonC. Strong force networks in granular mixtures. Granul Matter, 2014, 16: 69-78.

[43] ZhangL, NguyenNGH, LambertS, et al.. The role of force chains in granular materials: from statics to dynamics. Eur J Environ Civ Eng, 2017, 21: 874-895.

[44] BianX, LiW, QianY, et al.. Analysing the effect of principal stress rotation on railway track settlement by discrete element method. Géotechnique, 2020, 70: 803-821.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s)