URBAN TRACK Final Conference Alternative to Floating Track Slab
High Attenuation Sleeper
Presented by Ian Robertson, ALSTOM24 June 2010, Prague
Final Conference 24 June 2010 2
Contents
Specific objectives of study
Chosen concept
Detailed design and laboratory test
Site test (ongoing)
Conclusions
Final Conference 24 June 2010 3
Specific objectives of study
Develop slab track with following technical characteristics
metro environment (18t axle load, 100 kph)
equivalent vibration performance to Floating Slab Track
ability to meet all railway constraints
Safety (derailment) including track level evacuation
Comfort
maintenance
Construction method
for standard equipment and methods
production rate as conventional track slab
Lower costs compared to AFST
For capital portion (design+procure+build)
For maintenance portion
Final Conference 24 June 2010 4
Chosen conceptReview of existing systems worldwidePrevious generation bi-block sleepers for CTRL
Relatively low weight Tie bar overstressed with very soft pads Track gauge variations with very soft padsChosen concept = mono-block resilient sleeper High attenuation due to
High sleeper mass (350
400 kg)Very soft resilient inserts (8KN/mm/fastener)Adapted to tracklaying gantriesMaintenance friendly
Final Conference 24 June 2010 5
Detailed design and laboratory testHAS mono-bloc sleeper concept
Rigid boot
Concrete sleeperFastening
system according
to customer
choicesealing
Holes for conductor rail support
Final Conference 24 June 2010 6
Detailed design and laboratory test
Comparison of Different Antivibratile System
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
201
1
,
6
2
,
5
4
6
,
3
1
0
1
6
2
5
4
0
6
3
1
0
0
1
5
8
2
5
1
Frequency (Hz)
I
n
s
e
r
t
i
o
n
G
a
i
n
(
d
B
)
Insertion Gain SFS 312 (dB)
Insertion Gain DFC Pandrol (dB)
Insertion Gain CTRL 2(dB)
Insertion Gain FST (Taipei) (dB)
Insertion Gain EGG_2(dB)
Insertion gain target
Final Conference 24 June 2010 7
Detailed design and laboratory test
DESIGN FULLY COMPLIANT WITH MOST RAIL FASTENERS
Typical tunnel layout
Final Conference 24 June 2010 8
Detailed design and laboratory test
Based on OBLEX project 20 cm gain
Dia.5.8 Dia. 5.6
Typical case of impact on tunnel diameter
Final Conference 24 June 2010 9
Detailed design and laboratory test
Time
Load 2 Hz
5 HzFmax
.Fmax
Actual load diagram with sine shape
Optimum load diagram with triangle shape simulating wheel passage
Simplified load diagram used during fatigue test to simulate bogie passage
ACHIEVED 4,5 MILLIONS LOAD CYCLE WITH SUCCESS
HAS mono-bloc sleeper dynamic testing regime
Final Conference 24 June 2010 10
Detailed design and laboratory test
Mechanical test carried out Fatigue test with inclined loads according to the
following phases :
1M Cycles @ low frequency (3 Hz) applied load between 10kN et 75kN, centred, inclined at 38
0.5MCycles @ moderate frequency (5 Hz) applied load between 30/40kN et 75kN centred , inclined at 38
2M Cycles @ low frequency (3 Hz) applied load between 10kN et 75kN, inclined at 10
and 38
1 M Cycles @ moderate frequency (5 Hz) applied load between 30/40kN et 75kN, inclined at 10
and 38
NO PAD WEARING & NO VERTICAL STIFFNESS LOSS AFTER 4.5M CYCLES
(EN13230: 2M CYCLES)
Final Conference 24 June 2010 11
Detailed design and laboratory test
EXCITATIO N
MONOBLOC SLEEPER
RAIL
RIGID HULL
RAIL
PRELOAD
CONCRETE BASE
SENSOR S
Testing arrangementsAcoustic test
mechanical test
Final Conference 24 June 2010 12
Detailed design and laboratory test
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
MN/m
0 32 40 50 64kN
Stifffness vs static load at 8Hz
K (MN/m)
Dynamic test results
Final Conference 24 June 2010 13
Site test (ongoing)
Several possibilities reviewed notably SINGAPORE Circle LineCEF test site (Valenciennes)
CEF chosen Easier logistics To respect URBAN TRACK timing
Construction just completed June 11
Vibration tests scheduled July
Introduction
Final Conference 24 June 2010 14
Site test -
Situation
Test section 190m radius 160mm cant
Situation within CEF site
Actual track to replace
ballasted track
fishplated U50 rail
good ground conditions EV2 above 80 MPA
Final Conference 24 June 2010 15
Site test
50m of High
Attenuation
Track 2 x 6.5m of transition slab with ballasted track Sleeper spacing
700mmWelded
rail on high attenuation zone Fishplated
joints allowing
movement
at
each
end of test
General Layout
Final Conference 24 June 2010 16
Site test Typical section
Final Conference 24 June 2010 17
Site test
Detailed design concept
230
230
80
2583 80 200
Reinforced
U-shaped foundationTrack
slab
concrete
unreinforced With frequent joints to avoid shrinkage cracking
Final Conference 24 June 2010 18
Site test
After
HAS vibration testingAxle
load
= 25 tonnes
Total load = 280MGT HAS resilient
inserts to replace by stiffer inserts
(30MN/M)
Structural design based on Eurocode
2 Load
Model 71
Crack 0.2mm
Detailed design assumptions
Final Conference 24 June 2010 19
Site test
Neighbouring (existing) ballast track
Total dynamic
stiffness
around
80kN/mm per
fastener
High
Attenuation
Sleeper Track
Under sleeper pad
= 1,5*8 kN/mm
Total stiffness = 11kN/mm per
fastener
Transition zone
Target total stiffness
= 46kN/mm
Under sleeper pad
= 70 to 80 kN/mm per
fastener
Total stiffness
= 47 to 52 kN/mm per
fastener
0.70.6 0.7
HAS Track
Ballast track
Transition zone
70.7
Transition slab design
Final Conference 24 June 2010 20
Site test Construction after concreting of foundation
Final Conference 24 June 2010 21
Site testConstruction before track slab concreting
Final Conference 24 June 2010 22
Site test
In July testing of following zonesHAS track Transition trackStatic measurements
Soil impedance
Unloaded and loaded track impedance Determination of in situ HAS track characteristics
Rail surface quality
Testing
Final Conference 24 June 2010 23
Site test
Dynamic measurements (6 pass-bys) train induced
vibration levels
on track slab concrete
outside U shaped foundation
rail and sleeper deflection
of both rails rail and sleeper lateral displacements
Testing
Final Conference 24 June 2010 24
Site test
Strain measurementsCaptors on rail foot 5 sleeper spacing per measurement site
Testing
Final Conference 24 June 2010 25
Site test
Vibration simulationHAS track
parameters
measured
PACT reference
track
parametersMeasured
roughness
Rolling
Stock data Insertion gain calculation
in 1/3rd octave bands
Testing
Final Conference 24 June 2010 26
Conclusions
High performance alternative to floating track slab
Ideal for underground metro applications
Could absorb railway loads applied to sensitive bridges
In high speed tunnel application
Theoretically compared to S3
high speed 4dB (halved the vibration level)
Limiting operational criteria (mixed operations, speed, twist) to determine
Costing being completed but ballpark figures are
Compared to typical metro floating track slab
Design, procure and build cost HAS gives 10% saving
Maintenance costs for HAS are much lower
Potential to reduce tunnelling costs
Further information
final report will be ready after completion of CEF tests in August 2010
See URBAN TRACK website http://www.urbantrack.eu/
RGCF no 191 February 2010
Railway Engineering 2009
High Attenuation Sleeper