Application of Nanotechnology in Pavements, Geological Disasters, and

Foundation Settlement Control Technology GSP 244 ASCE 2014

Evaluation of Track Substructure Thickness Design via Geo-reinforcement

Techniques
Jeongho Oh, A.M. ASCE
1

Assistant Professor, Department of Railroad Facility Engineering, Korea National University of

Transportation, Uiwang-Si, South Korea; j-oh@ut.ac.kr

ABSTRACT: Railway engineering has rapidly evolved to accommodate higher speed

and heavier transport loads in a timely fashion. This trend brings attention for railroad
engineers to come up with an effective track structure design that minimizes frequent
maintenance activities and prolongs service lives. In this study, the effectiveness of
geo-reinforcement techniques for track substructure enhancement such as cement
treated subballast, asphalt subballast, and application of geosynthetics is evaluated via
a limited numerical analysis in terms of thickness design that related to material
savings. For the evaluation of track substructure thickness design, a threshold stress
approach is employed that gauges tie-ballast contact stress and vertical stress at the top
of subgrade layer. It is envisioned that the application of geo-reinforcement for track
substructure appears to be effective in improving the load bearing capacity that results
in reduced substructure thickness. Further studies need to be conducted to develop a
logical mechanistic railroad design procedure to account for use of various types of
reinforcement methods.
INTRODUCTION
The transition of design concepts from empirical to mechanistic approach has been
attempted in pavement engineering. The concept of mechanistic-empirical pavement
design program (M-E PDG), which is developed from the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) project 1-37A, is based upon advanced
material characterization, climatic effects on material behavior, traffic load in terms of
magnitude and frequency, and performance prediction during service life. Similar to
this trend, several studies have made an effort to develop a mechanistic procedure to
determine layer thickness subjected to various train traffic condition.
Li et al (1998) published consecutive papers on the development and
application of method for railroad track foundation design. They developed a
methodology to select granular layer thickness that consequently prevents two
common railroad subgrade failures (progressive shear failure and excessive plastic
deformation) due to repeated traffic loading. Limiting traffic load-induced deviator
stress in the subgrade was employed as a design criterion, which is supposed to
produce allowable subgrade strain or deformation. Traffic load was characterized by
the dynamic wheel loads and the total equivalent number of repeated load applications

133

Application of Nanotechnology in Pavements, Geological Disasters, and

Foundation Settlement Control Technology GSP 244 ASCE 2014

for the design period. However this method has a limitation on determining subgrade
deviator stress, since it is based upon a limited number of test results on high plasticity
soils that generally represent weak subgrade condition.
Rose et al (2006, 2010) presented a performance-based layered elastic railway
trackbed structural design and analysis using KENTRACK program, which was
initially developed to analyze traditional all-granular layered trackbeds and asphalt
layered trackbeds. The current version of this program includes option to
accommodate a composite track substructure dealing with a combination of granular
and asphalt layers. Similar to the M-E PDG program, it predicts the performance lives
with respect to the subgrade vertical stress and fatigue cracking of asphalt subballast
layer to determine design layer thickness. However it also exhibits limitations on
adopting the performance model that has originally been developed from pavement
engineering.
The reinforcement of substructure using geosynthetics or chemical
stabilization has been found to be effective for increasing load bearing capacity and
extending service life. Leshchinksy and Ling (2013) conducted numerical modeling
of the behavior of ballasted railway with geocell confinement. The study revealed that
three dimensional confinements of geocell improved load bearing capacity
significantly when used on a wide range of subgrade stiffness, when using weaker
ballast.
Scullion et al (2008) conducted a study with the Portland Cement Association
(PCA) to review the proposed models for soil-cement base and cement modified soils
incorporated into the M-E PDG program. They proposed a new test to measure key
material properties such as resilient modulus and modulus of rupture for such
stabilized materials. For the design purpose, the performance prediction models were
calibrated and built into two software packages developed in this study.
In this study, the effectiveness of geo-reinforcement techniques for track
substructure enhancement using cement treated subballast, asphalt subballast, and
application of geosynthetics is evaluated via a limited numerical analysis in terms of
thickness design that related to material savings.
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS SETUP
In this study, the author used a finite element program PLAXIS 2D (Brinkgreve et al.
2006) under plane strain condition of 15 node elements for the parametric study. Due
to symmetry, only one half of the track section was considered in the numerical model
as shown in Fig. 1. To accommodate geo-reinforcement modeling, the following
substructures were considered:
Geogrid placed at the one-third depth from the bottom of the ballast layer
Asphalt concrete subballast
Cement treated subballast
Oh (2013) found that the placement of geogrid at the one-third depth from the bottom
of the ballast layer exhibited the most effectiveness in controlling substructure
deformation.

134

Application of Nanotechnology in Pavements, Geological Disasters, and

Foundation Settlement Control Technology GSP 244 ASCE 2014

135

With respect to the boundary condition, both sides were set to move vertically
while the bottom was fixed to prevent any movement. For the traffic loading, an
equivalent dynamic wheel load (Pdl) for a given static wheel load (Psl) was computed
as per the American Railway Engineering Association (AREA 1996) approach and is
given by:
0.0052V
Pdl = 1 +
Psl
D

(1)

Where V and D are train speed (in km/h) and wheel diameter (in meter), respectively.
For the parametric study, a representative vertical load was applied to produce
acceptable ballast sleeper interface stress within 450 kPa in a control ballasted track
without geo-reinforcement. (US Army of Corps Engineers, 2000). Based on equation
(1), an equivalent dynamic wheel load of 260 kN was applied with given vehicle speed
equal to 200 km/hour, 1 meter of wheel diameter, and 125 kN of static wheel load.
With regard to geogrid modeling, a geogrid element provided by PLAXIS was
employed along with interface elements that are connected with adjacent track
substructure layers. The only property in a geogrid data set is the elastic axial stiffness,
EA, in terms of force per unit width. Based on the study conducted by Oh (2013), 500
kN/m was used in this study.
Sleeper

Ballast
Geogrid
Sub-ballast

Subgrade

FIG. 1. Modeled track substructure.

MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
It is well known that typical ballast and subballast materials exhibit stress dependency
and resilient behavior. In order to stress dependent modulus of ballast layer, a

Application of Nanotechnology in Pavements, Geological Disasters, and

Foundation Settlement Control Technology GSP 244 ASCE 2014

136

hardening soil model was applied for ballast layer as given in equation (2).
E50 = E

ref
50

c cot + 3

ref
c cot + p

(2)

Where E50 is a confining stress (3) dependent secant modulus at 50% strength for
primary loading, pref is a reference confining pressure, E50ref is a reference modulus for
primary loading corresponding to the reference confining pressure pref, c is a cohesion,
is a friction angle, and m is a factor ranging from 0.5 to 1.0. For the granular
subballast and subgrade layer, the Mohr-Coulomb model was employed to capture the
plastic points that indicate the stress states exceed the yield surface. Asphalt subballast
layer was modeled as linear elastic material even though asphalt material is well
known as viscoelastic material susceptible to the change of temperature and loading
frequency.
Cement treated subballast layer was also modeled as linear elastic material.
According to the Scullion et al (2008), the typical modulus of cement treated base
layer ranges from 344.5 to 13780 MPa, while the cement modified soil has 172 to 689
MPa of resilient modulus. Table 1 summarizes material properties used in parametric
study.
Table 1. Material Properties used in the Finite Element Analysis
Property

Sleeper

Ballast

Sub
ballast

Model
Thickness
(m)
(kN/m3)
E (MPa)

E50ref (MPa)
Eoedref (MPa)
Eurref (MPa)
ur
EA (kN/m)
C(kN/m2)
(degree)
(degree)
Pref (kN/m2)
m
K0nc
Rf

Elastic

HS

MC

AC
Subballast
Elastic

0.2

0.3

0.2

24
10340
0.3
-

15.3
70
67
210
0.1
45
0.0
100
0.5
0.3
0.9

19
100
0.35
1.0
30
0.0
-

CementSub-ballast

Sub
grade

Elastic

MC

0.1

0.1

3.5

23
1500
0.38
-

17
1000
0.25
-

17
50
0.4
5.0
30.0
0.0
-

Application of Nanotechnology in Pavements, Geological Disasters, and

Foundation Settlement Control Technology GSP 244 ASCE 2014

137

Eoedref: tangent stiffness for primary oedometer loading, Eurref: triaxial unloading/reloading
stiffness, ur: Poissons ratio for loading conditions, = effective friction angle, =
dilatancy angle, K0nc =coefficient of earth pressure at rest for normal consolidation,
Rf=failure ratio.
PERFORMACE CRITERIA
It is crucial to establish performance criteria to conduct mechanistic thickness design
for pavement or railroad. There are various performance criteria for M-E PDG
depending on material and pavement types. In this study, the following performance
criteria were adopted despite of limitation in applying these for the evaluation of track
substructure thickness design.

Where
Na
t
Ea
Nd
c
Es

N a = 0.0795 t3.291 E a0.853

(3)

N d = 4.837 10 5 c3.734 Es+3.583

(4)

= number of repetitions to fatigue cracking of the asphalt subballast layer;

= tensile strain at the bottom of asphalt subballast layer;
= elastic modulus of asphalt subballast layer;
= number of repetitions to subgrade layer failure;
= maximum traffic induced compression stress at the top of the subgrade layer;
and
= elastic modulus of subgrade layer.

Equations (3) and (4) are employed to assess the performance of asphalt subballast and
subgrade layer respectively, which is incorporated into the KENTRACK program.
With regard to the cement treated subballast layer, the following fatigue relationship is
employed in this study as follows:

0.972 c1 t
M
rup
log N f =
0.0825 * c 2

(5)

Where
Nf
= number of repetitions to fatigue cracking of the stabilized layer;
t
= maximum traffic induced tensile stress at the bottom of the stabilized layer
(psi);
Mrup = 28 day modulus of rupture (Flexural Strength) (psi); and
c1, c2 = field calibration factors.
Scullion et al (2008) used equations (5) in the developed program. A design limit for
accumulative fatigue damage is set to be 25% of the total fatigue life. The study

Application of Nanotechnology in Pavements, Geological Disasters, and

Foundation Settlement Control Technology GSP 244 ASCE 2014

138

conducted by Scullion et al provided the beta coefficients as follows:

c1=1.0645, c2=0.9003 for the granular soil cement; and
c1=1.8985, c2=2.5580 for the fine-grained soil cement.
In this study, the granular soil cement was assumed along with 1378 kPa (200 psi) of
28 day modulus of rupture based on the recommendation of M-E PDG.
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS RESULTS
With given material properties in Table 1, a series of finite element analyses were
conducted. Table 2 compares key parameters obtained from each case. A control
section was included to gauge the effectiveness of geo-reinforcement in this study.
Table 2. Comparison of Key Parameters of Finite Element Analyis
Property
Ballast-sleeper interface
stress (kPa)
Subgrade stress (kPa)
AC strain (%)
Max. tensile stress (kPa)
Max. Shear strain (%)
Nd

Control

Geogrid

AC
Subballast

Cement
Subballast

321.6

288.9

325.6

326

124.9
11

113.4
16

130.4
0.10
3.75

128.9
1000

All cases were found to meet the criterion of ballast-sleeper interface stress by
exhibiting vertical stress level less than 448 kPa. However, it should be noted that the
interface stress was slightly reduced with geogrid reinforcement compared to the
control case.
The number of repetitions to failure was computed using equations (3) to (5)
for each case. For the control and geogrid reinforced sections, the performance
criterion based on subgrade stress was only considered using equation (4). With
respect to asphalt concrete sub-ballasted track, both criteria were applied using
equations (3) and (4). The performance of cement treated sub-ballasted track structure
was evaluated using equations (5). The allowable number of repetitions was assumed
as 10000 to estimate damage factor, which is computed by dividing allowable number
of repetitions by the number of repetitions to the failure. If damage factor is less than
a value of one, then the structure can be expected to exceed its design life, otherwise
the structure is expected to fail prematurely. However the value is much less than one,
the structure is probably designed too conservatively. Table 3 summarizes the
analysis results.
Table 3. Comparison of Service Life based on Performance Criteria
Damage Factor
Control
Geogrid
AC
Cement

Application of Nanotechnology in Pavements, Geological Disasters, and

Foundation Settlement Control Technology GSP 244 ASCE 2014

Subgrade failure
Asphalt failure
Cement treated failure

1.5
-

1.1
-

Subballast
1.8
6.0
-

139

Subballast
1.7
6.9

The results presented in Table 3 indicate that all cases showed a slight degree of
damage with respect to subgrade failure. However it should be noted that when the
substructure was reinforced with asphalt concrete and cement stabilization, the
damage factor slightly increased due to increased subgrade compressive stress, which
was similarly found from a previous study conducted by Park et al (2012). The author
is of the opinion that the presence of high stiffness layer between ballast and subgrade
might attribute to higher confinement thorough subgrade.
The damage factor in terms of asphalt failure and cement treated failure
yielded significantly high number, requiring alternative design. An attempt was made
to modify the current design in order to meet the performance criteria. The following
findings were obtained.
Increased 5 cm of AC sub-ballast and reduced 5 cm of ballast reduces AC
tensile strain by 30 percent and reduces subgrade compressive stress by 6
percent. In this case, since the damage factors tend to be closer one, this
design seems to be more appropriate.
Increased 5 cm of cement treated sub-ballast and reduced 5 cm of ballast
reduces cement treated tensile strain by 7 percent and reduces subgrade
compressive stress by 4 percent. In this case, the damage factors with respect
to the cement treated failure significantly reduced up to 1.4, even though the
degree of reduction of tensile stress was not that substantial. Therefore, this
design seems to be more appropriate with regard to the performance criteria.
CONCLUSIONS

Application of Nanotechnology in Pavements, Geological Disasters, and

Foundation Settlement Control Technology GSP 244 ASCE 2014

This study aims to evaluate the influence of geo-reinforcement of railway on the

thickness design. The following conclusions were made from this limited evaluation.
1) Geogrid reinforcement was most effective in reducing subgrade compressive
stress and ballast-sleeper interface stress.
2) The application of AC and cement treated sub-ballast provides higher
confinement within the layer system, thus it produces slightly higher subgrade
compressive and ballast-sleeper interface stress.
3) More researches should be conducted to quantify key strain and stress values
to conduct performance evaluation. As shown in Fig. 2, the maximum tensile
stress within the cement treated sub-ballast layer is generated along the
boundary of sleeper.
4) Although the attempt was made to modify the current design to satisfy the
performance criteria, the author is of the opinion that further study needs to be
conducted to verify the performance models which are originally developed
from pavement design.
5) Instead of adjusting layer thickness, ensuring higher material quality shall be
another option unless it does increase the construction cost.
6) The development of more logical mechanistic design approach for track
substructure is urgent to minimize maintenance cost due to frequent relevant
activities.

FIG. 2. Distribution of tensile stress of the cement treated sub-ballat.

REFERENCES
Applied Research Associates. Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and
Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. Final Report, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Project 1-37A, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 2004.
Li, D. and Selig, E.T. (1998). "Method for railroad track foundation design. I:
Development." J. Geotechnical & Geoenv. Engrg., Vol. 124 (4): 316-322.
Li, D. and Selig, E.T. (1998). "Method for railroad track foundation design. II:
Applications." J. Geotechnical & Geoenv. Engrg., Vol. 124 (4): 323-329.

140

Application of Nanotechnology in Pavements, Geological Disasters, and

Foundation Settlement Control Technology GSP 244 ASCE 2014

Rose, J. and Konduri, K. (2006). KENTRACK-A Railway Trackbed Structural Design

Program, Proceedings of the 2006 AREMA Annual Conference, 31 pages.
Rose, J., Agarwal, N.K., Brown, J.D., and Ilavala, N. (2010). KENTRACK, A
Performance-Based Layered Elastic Railway Trackbed Structural Design and
Analysis Procedure- A Tutorial, Proceedings of the 2010 Joint Rail Conference
JRC 2010, Urbana, Illinois, USA.
Leshchinsky, B. and Ling, H.I. (2013). Numerical modeling of behavior of railway
ballasted structure with geocell confinement. Geotextile and Geomembranes 36,
33-43.
Scullion, T., Uzan, J., Hilbrich, S., and Chen, P. (2008). Thickness Design Systems
for Pavements Containing Soil-Cement Bases. Research Report PCA R&D
SN2863, Portland Cement Association.
Oh, J. (2013). Parametric Study on Geogrid-Reinforced Track Substructure. IJR
International Journal of Railway, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 59-63.
American Rail Engineering Association (1996). Manual for railway engineering, Vol.
1, AREA, Washington, D.C.
Park, K. S., Lee, S.H., Lee, J.W., Lyu, T.J. (2012). Optimum Thickness Decision of
Railway Roadbed for a Ballasted Track Using GEOTRACK, Korean Railway
Conference, pp.1102-1109

141