Behavior of soil fouled ballast-geogrid interfaces at different rates of

shearing
Kumari Sweta Syed Khaja Karimullah Hussaini
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Patna, Patna, Bihar, India

ABSTRACT
This paper presents the shear behavior of unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced fresh and soil fouled ballast based on
large-scale direct shear tests. Fresh granite ballast with an average particle size (D50) of 42 mm, and triaxial geogrid
were used in this study. Tests were performed at different normal stresses (σn) and shearing rates (Sr) ranging from 35
kPa to 100 kPa and 2.5 to 10.0 mm/min, respectively. To simulate the effects of mud pumping, a predetermined quantity
of soil was added that represents a fouling level, void contamination index (VCI), of 40 % in the current study. The
experimental test results revealed that the shear strength of ballast was highly influenced by the soil fouling. The friction
angle of unreinforced ballast is found to decrease from 64.5° to 53.4° when the ballast is fouled with soil. Moreover, the
presence of soil fines also decreases the ballast breakage by reducing the inter-particle attrition. However, the inclusion
of geogrid was found to enhance the friction angle and reduce the particle breakage of both fresh and fouled ballast. The
current study highlights the shear behavior of soil fouled ballast at different rates of shearing and the beneficial effects of
inclusion of geogrid in stabilizing the fresh and fouled ballast.

1 INTRODUCTION 1987; Raymond and Ismail 2003; Kwan 2006; Brown et

Ballast is a free draining granular material that helps in
distributing the load to the underlying subballast and
subgrade soil. However, upon repeated application of
train load, ballast deteriorates and becomes fouled due
to the breakage of particles, the infiltration of external
fine particles and mud pumping under excessive cyclic
loads and saturated soil conditions. Mud pumping in
railway tracks generally occurs after heavy rains that
causes flooding in the areas adjacent to the track and
the rise of ground water table. This will eventually
soften the subgrade soil resulting in the formation of soil
slurry. Upon continuous train loading, the soil slurry
moves upward through the voids of the ballast and gets
deposited in the ballast layer that eventually reduces its
shear strength and permeability thus endangering track
stability. Several cases of ballast fouling are reported
every year by Indian Railways. Figure 1 shows the
photograph of a railway track affected by mud pumping.
As a solution to this problem, the tracks are cleaned
periodically irrespective of the extent of fouling. For
instance, old railway track are cleaned once in 10 years
irrespective of the track conditions but few are not even
cleaned for more than 15 years (Anbazhagan et al.
2012). Therefore, it is important to study the effect of
fouling on the performance of ballast so that the
maintenance cycles can be scheduled based on the
extent of fouling of track and not just based on the age
of track.
In the recent past, geogrids are widely used in
stabilizing the railway ballast (Bathurst and Raymond
al. 2007; Fernandes et al. 2008; Indraratna et al. 2006;
2012, 2013a, 2013b; Hussaini et al. 2012, 2014; 2015,
2016; Chen et al. 2014; Mishra et al. 2014;; Qian et al.
2015, 2018; Das 2016; Liu et al. 2016; Chen et al.
2017; Esmaeili et al. 2017; Sweta and Hussaini 2017;
2018). The inclusion of geogrids in the railway ballast
holds the particles in position and inhibits the lateral
spreading of the ballast. Moreover, it increases the
confining pressure and reduces the breakage of the
particles. However, when the ballast is fouled, the
interaction between the particles and geogrids may
change as the intruded fine particles clogs the opening
of the voids which reduces the interlocking and frictional
resistance between the geogrid and ballast particles.
Several researchers have studied the behavior of fresh
and fouled ballast under direct shear conditions (Huang
et al. 2009; Indraratna et al. 2012; Hussaini et al. 2012;
Sweta and Hussaini 2017; 2018). Indraratna et al.
(2012) evaluated the shear behavior of various ballast-
geogrid interfaces at a uniform and single shearing rate
(Sr) of 2.75 mm/min. Hussaini et al. (2012) presented
the effect of the aperture size of geogrid to stabilize the
ballast of a given gradation. However, recent
investigations by Sweta and Hussaini (2018) have
assessed the effect of shearing rates on fresh ballast-
geogrid interfaces. Further, Huang et al. (2009) have
determined the overall shear strength of fresh and coal-
fouled ballast. Indraratna et al. (2013b) evaluated
deformation in coal-fouled ballast stabilized with
geogrids under cyclic loading. Recently, Chawla and

1

Figure 1. Mud pumping in KTE-SGRL line (Katni-
Singhrauli- WCR) railway track
Shahu (2016) conducted model tests to investigate
reinforcement benefits of geosynthetics on mud
pumping under both static and cyclic loading conditions.
However, these model tests were conducted on
reduced ballast sizes that were different from the
gradation adapted by Indian Railway. Further,
Indraratna et al. (2013c) described the shear behavior
of clay fouled ballast under drained triaxial tests.
However, its effect on railway ballast under direct shear
conditions at different rates of shearing has not been
evaluated yet. In this context, a series of large-scale
direct shear tests were conducted on unreinforced and
geogrid-reinforced fresh and fouled ballast (as per
gradation adapted by Indian Railway) at different
applied normal stresses (σn) and rates of shearing (Sr).
1.1 Quantification of ballast fouling
There are several methods for the estimation of degree
of ballast fouling in the railway track. Selig and Waters
(1994) estimated ballast fouling in terms of Fouling
Index (FI) as the summation of percentage (by weight)
passing through the sieves of 4.75 and 0.075 mm.
Feldman and Nissen (2002) introduced Percentage void
contamination (PVC) as the ratio of bulk volume of
fouling material and initial volume of ballast voids. In
PVC method, volume of the fouling material needs to be
calculated after compaction by standard proctor test.
However, this technique does not always give the
correct volume of fouling material in realistic track
environment. Moreover, they do not taken into account
of the specific gravity of the fouling material. Therefore,
Void Contamination Index (VCI) is adapted in the
current study, which can be defined as the ratio of
actual volume of fouling material (Vf) to the volume of
ballast voids, Vvb (Indraratna et al. 2011).
𝑉𝑓
𝑉𝐶𝐼 =
𝑉𝑣𝑏
By substituting relevant parameters, it can
expressed as
1+𝑒𝑓 𝐺𝑠𝑏 𝑀𝑓
𝑉𝐶𝐼 = × × × 100 [2]
𝑒𝑏 𝐺𝑠𝑓 𝑀𝑏
Where ef is the void ratio of fouling material, eb is the
void ratio of fresh ballast, Gsb is the specific gravity of
ballast, Gsf is the specific gravity of fouling material, Mf
is the dry mass of fouling material, Mb is the dry mass of
fresh ballast.
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
In order to understand the shear behavior of geogrid-
reinforced fresh and fouled ballast, a series of large-
scale direct shear tests were conducted on unreinforced
and geogrid-reinforced fresh and fouled ballast. It
consists of two 450 mm × 450 mm square boxes having
an overall depth of 300 mm. The upper box is free to
move while the lower box is fixed in position. The
capacity of load cells employed to measure the applied
normal stress and shear stress is 300 kN/m 2. The
maximum shear displacement that could be allowed
using this apparatus is up to 100 mm. Fresh granite
ballast collected from a quarry near Pakud, Jharkhand,
India. The particle size distribution of railway ballast is
adapted as per the guidelines provided by Indian
Railway code IRS-GE-1(2004) (Figure 2). The grain
size characteristics of railway ballast used in the current
study are shown in Table 1.
The fouling material used in the current study is the
clayey-silty soil (CL-ML) collected from the IIT Patna
campus and its particle size gradation is shown in
Figure 2. A triangular aperture geogrid (labeled G4)
having aperture size of 69 × 69 mm and ultimate tensile
strength (Tult) of 21 kN/m was used. This geogrid was
selected for reinforcing the fouled ballast as it was
found to enhance the strength of clean ballast (Sweta
and Hussaini 2017, 2018).
Table 1. Grain size characteristics of railway ballast
Particle Dmax D50
Material Cu Cc
shape (mm) (mm)
Ballast Angular 65 42 2.18 0.97
The extent of soil to be added was chosen to attain a
void contamination index (VCI) of 40 % (Indraratna et
al., 2013b). The sample was prepared by thorough
mixing of sieved ballast, soil and water in required
proportions. The moisture content of the soil during
mixing was kept slightly higher than that of liquid limit
(34.2%, as evaluated in this study) of soil. The mixed
sample was then placed and compacted in the shear
box with the help of electric vibrator.
[1]
be
2

Figure 2. Particle size distributions of ballast and soil
used in the current study
A 7 mm thick rubber membrane was placed beneath
the electric vibrator to minimize the breakage of ballast
during compaction. Triangular aperture geogrid was
placed at the interface of upper and lower boxes of
direct shear apparatus (Figure 3). The tests were
conducted at different applied normal stresses (σn) and
shearing rates (Sr) of 35, 70 and 100 kPa and 2.5, 5.0
and 10.0 mm/min, respectively. The different shear
strain rates considered here in effect simulates the
passage of trains at different speeds wherein the
increasing train speeds are simulated by higher rates of
shear strain and vice-versa. All tests were conducted up
to a shear displacement of 67.5 mm which corresponds
to the lateral strain of 15%. Shear load and
displacement (both horizontal and vertical) were
measured with the help of load cell and LVDTs,
respectively.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Stress-Displacement behavior of unreinforced and
geogrid-reinforced fresh and fouled ballast
The variation of stress ratio (τ/σn) and vertical
displacement (dv) with horizontal displacement (dh) of
both fresh and fouled ballast at different rates of
shearing (Sr) is shown in Figure 4. It is observed that
the value of stress ratio (τ/σn) of unreinforced fresh and
fouled ballast initially increases up to a horizontal
displacement of about 25-50 mm and then decreases
marginally thereafter. The fluctuation seen in τ/σn may
be attributed to the sudden loss of interlock or breakage
of interlocked particles.
Figure 3. Placement of triangular aperture geogrid at
the interface of the upper and lower boxes of direct
shear apparatus
Moreover, the vertical displacement (dv) of both fresh
and fouled sample shows initial compression in the
specimen till it reaches the horizontal displacement (dh)
of about 10-15 mm followed by dilation. It is further
shown from Figure 4 that the value of τ/σn and dv of
both fresh and fouled ballast decreases with the
increase in shearing rate (Sr). For instance, τ/σn of fresh
and fouled ballast decreases from 2.09 to 1.94 and 1.57
to 1.34 respectively as Sr increased from 2.5 to 10.0
mm/min (σn=70 kPa). Likewise, the vertical
displacement (dv) of fresh and fouled ballast decreases
from 14.87 to 13.11 mm and 16.21 to 13.56 mm
respectively. This may be primarily attributed to the
quicker sliding of the particles which allows less time for
inter-particle interaction of the ballast. A similar kind of
behavior was observed for subballast interface by
Biabani and Indraratna (2015).
Figure 5 further shows variation of stress ratio
(τ/σn) and vertical displacement (dv) with horizontal
displacement (dh) of unreinforced and geogrid-
reinforced fresh and fouled ballast. It is observed that
inclusion of geogrid G4 increases the stress ratio (τ/σn)
of both fresh and fouled ballast. The increase in τ/σn is
primarily attributed to the interlocking of the particles
with the aperture of geogrid. For the tests conducted at
the applied normal stress of 70 kPa and at shearing
rate of 5.0 mm/min, the value of τ/σn of fresh and fouled
ballast increased from 1.97 to 2.17 and 1.44 to 1.65
respectively when reinforced with geogrid G4. It is
further shown from Figure 5 the value of stress ratio
(τ/σn) of fouled ballast is found to be comparatively
lower than that of fresh ballast. This is primarily
because the soil fines coat the particle surfaces which
will reduce its shearing resistance. Moreover, the
vertical displacement (dv) of fouled ballast is slightly
higher than that of fresh ballast. The presence of soil
3
fines which would acts as a lubricant for the ballast,
help the particles to slide or roll over each other.
Figure 4. Variation of stress ratio (τ/σn) and vertical
displacement (dv) with horizontal displacement (dh) at
different rates of shearing of unreinforced (a) fresh and,
(b) fouled ballast
These observations are in line with the studies
conducted in past for coal-fouled ballast (Huang et al.
2009; Indraratna et al. 2011, 2013b). Moreover,
inclusion of geogrids in both fresh and fouled ballast
inhibits the spreading of ballast and hence reduces the
vertical displacement. For example, the value of dv of
fresh and fouled ballast decreased from 13.78 to 12.03
mm and 14.82 to 14.32 mm respectively when
reinforced with geogrid G4.
Figure 6 depicts the variation of friction angle
(φ) with shearing rates (Sr) of both unreinforced and
geogrid-reinforced fresh and fouled ballast.
Figure 5. Comparison of stress ratio (τ/σn) and vertical
displacement (dv) with horizontal displacement (dh) of
unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced fresh and fouled
ballast
3.2 Effect of shearing rate (Sr) on the friction angle (φ)
of fresh and fouled ballast
It is observed that the angle of internal friction (φ) of
both unreinforced fresh and fouled ballast decreases
with the increase in shearing rates (Sr). For instance,
the friction angle of unreinforced fresh and fouled
ballast decreases from 64.5° to 62.8° and 57.6° to 53.4°
respectively as Sr increases from 2.5 to 10.0 mm/min
(σn=70 kPa). Likewise, for the similar values of σn, the
apparent friction angle (δ) of fresh and fouled ballast
decreases from 66.6° to 64.9° and 60.7° to 57.1°
respectively with the increase in Sr.
It is further observed that inclusion of geogrid G4
increases the friction angle of both fresh and fouled
ballast. For instance, the apparent friction angle (δ) of
fresh and fouled ballast increased from 64.5° to 66.6°
and 57.6° to 60.7° when reinforced with geogrid G4
(Sr=2.5 mm/min). This is primarily because of the
interlocking of the ballast particles with the aperture of
the geogrid. Moreover, the value of φ of fouled ballast
(in case of both unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced) is
relatively lower than that of fresh ballast. For example,
for the tests conducted at applied normal stress of 70
kPa and shearing rate of 2.5 mm/min, the friction angle
of fresh unreinforced ballast decreases from 64.5° to
57.6° when the ballast is fouled with soil. This is
primarily because the soil fines covers the ballast
particle surfaces while filling the voids and reduces the
inter-particle interaction and interlocking of the ballast
particles with the geogrids. This observation is in
accordance with the several past researches conducted
for clay fouled ballast (Dombrow et al. 2009; Indraratna
et al. 2013c).
4
 sieve size of both unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced
fresh and fouled ballast. It is to be noted that the
positive ∆Wk represents the decrease in percentage
retained on that sieve due to particle breakage, while
the negative ∆Wk represents the increase in percentage
retained in that sieve due to movement of the broken
particles through larger sieves. The breakage of the
ballast is quantified in terms of Marsal’s Breakage (Bg)
(Marsal, 1967). It is evident from Figure 7 that breakage
(in case of fresh and fouled ballast) mostly occurred in
bigger particles (53-31.5 mm). This is primarily because
bigger particles take up the entire load (Hussaini et al.
2015) and the presence of naturally micro cracks (Lade
et al. 1996) makes them more vulnerable to breakage.
It is further observed that breakage of bigger particles is
comparatively lower in fouled ballast than that of fresh
ballast. Moreover, inclusion of geogrids reduces the
extent of breakage in bigger particles of both fresh and
fouled ballast.
Figure 8 represents the variation of breakage (Bg) of
unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced fresh and fouled
ballast with different rates of shearing. It is observed
Figure 6. Variation of friction angle with shearing rates that breakage of both fresh and fouled ballast increases
of both unreinforced and reinforced fresh and fouled with the increase in Sr. For instance, tests conducted at
ballast the applied normal stress of 70 kPa, the value of Bg of
unreinforced fresh and fouled ballast increases from
The friction angle (φ) of both the unreinforced and that 9.65 to 10.60 % and 5.20 to 7.96 % respectively as Sr
reinforced with different geogrids with the applied increases from 2.5 to 10.0 mm/min. Further, breakage
shearing rate is established to be governed by a of particles of fouled ballast is found to be
logarithmic relationship as expressed in Equation 3; comparatively lower than that of fresh ballast. This is
primarily because the fouling material (soil fines)
𝜑 = −𝑎𝑙𝑛(𝑆𝑟 ) + 𝑏 [3] causes cushioning effect on ballast that prevents the
inter-particle attrition and reduces the breakage of
where φ=angle of internal friction, Sr=shearing rate, a & ballast particles. For instance, the value of Bg of fresh
b are the empirical constants. The values of relevant ballast (in case of both unreinforced and reinforced
constants a & b are determined and presented in Table ballast) reduces from 9.65 to 5.20 % when the ballast is
2. The empirical model presented here in this study will fouled with soil (σn=70 kPa; Sr=2.5 mm/min). Figure 8
help the rail practitioners to predict the friction angle of further reveals the extent of particle breakage in case of
ballast for different rates of shearing. both fresh and fouled ballast reduces with the inclusion
of geogrid G4. For instance, for tests conducted at an
Table 2. Values of the coefficients a and b related to the applied normal stress of 70 kPa and at shearing rate of
effect of shearing rate on friction angle of the 2.5 mm/min, the value of Bg of fresh and fouled ballast
unreinforced and reinforced ballast decreases from 9.65 to 4.30 % and from 5.20 to 2.85
%, respectively.
Material a b
Fresh Ballast 1.24 65.47
Fouled Ballast 3.03 60.34
Fresh Ballast+G4 1.25 67.58
Fouled Ballast+G4 2.60 63.09

3.3 Breakage of ballast

The assessment of particle breakage is important

because it affects the overall shear strength and
deformation behavior of ballast which in turn governs
the track stability. Therefore, in order to determine the
extent of particle breakage in fresh and fouled ballast,
each test specimen is sieved before and after the test
and the changes in the gradation is noted for the further Figure 7. Variation of particle distribution of
computation of ballast breakage. Figure 7 shows the unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced fresh and fouled
variation of difference in percentage retained (∆Wk) with ballast with grain size

5

Figure 8. Variation of breakage of ballast (Bg) with
shearing rates (Sr) of unreinforced and geogrid-
reinforced fresh and fouled ballast
The breakage of both the unreinforced and that
reinforced with different geogrids with the applied
shearing rate is established to be governed by a
logarithmic relationship as expressed in Equation 4;
𝐵𝑔 = 𝑐𝑙𝑛(𝑆𝑟 ) + 𝑑 [4]
where Bg= breakage of ballast, Sr=shearing rate, c & d
are the empirical constants. The values of relevant
constants c & d are determined and presented in Table
3. In the absence of any constitutive model, the
empirical model presented here will help the rail
practitioners to predict the extent of breakage with rate
of shearing.
Table 3. Values of the coefficients c and d related to the
effect of shearing rate on the breakage of unreinforced
and reinforced ballast
Material c d
Fresh Ballast 0.69 9.08
Fouled Ballast 1.99 3.46
Fresh Ballast+G4 0.58 3.76
Fouled Ballast+G4 1.46 1.34
4 CONCLUSIONS
The shear behavior of unreinforced and geogrid-
reinforced fresh and fouled ballast was evaluated in the
current study. The friction angle of fresh and fouled
ballast was found to decrease with the increase in
shearing rates. For the applied normal stress of 70 kPa,
the friction angle of fresh and fouled ballast decreased
from 64.5° to 62.8° and 57.6° to 53.4° as Sr increased
from 2.5 to 10.0 mm/min. The breakage of ballast was
evaluated in terms of Marsal’s Breakage (Bg). It was
observed that breakage of ballast increases with the
increase in rates of shearing. The value of Bg of
unreinforced fresh and fouled ballast increases from
9.65 to 10.60 % and from 5.2 to 7.96 %, respectively
(σn=70 kPa). Further, it was clearly illustrated from the
current study that the inclusion of triangular aperture
geogrid G4 increases the shear strength of both fresh
and fouled ballast. For the tests conducted at an
applied normal stress of 70 kPa and shearing rate of
10.0 mm/min, the friction angle of unreinforced fresh
and fouled ballast increased from 62.8° to 64.9° and
53.4° to 57.1° respectively when reinforced with geogrid
G4. Moreover, breakage of both fresh and fouled ballast
was found to reduce from 10.6 to 5.1 % and 7.96 to
4.87 %, respectively.
It is further revealed that friction angle of fouled
ballast was comparatively lower than that of fresh
ballast. Moreover, the soil fines covering the particle
surface acts as a lubricant which helps the particles to
slide/roll over each other thus increased the dilation.
However, the breakage observed in case of fouled
ballast was comparatively lower than that of fresh
ballast. Empirical models were presented to establish
the effect of rate of shearing on friction angle and
breakage of ballast. Hence, the current study showed
that the fouling of ballast decreases the overall shear
strength of track and highlights the effectiveness of
geogrid-reinforcement in stabilizing fresh and fouled
ballast.
REFERENCES
Anbazhagan, P., Bharatha, T.P. and Amarajeevi, G.
2012. Study of ballast fouling in railway track
formation, Indian Geotechnical Journal, 42(2): 87-
99.
Bathurst, R.J. and Raymond, G.P. 1987. Geogrid
reinforcement of ballasted track, Transportation
Research Record, 1153: 8–14.
Biabani, M.M. and Indraratna, B. 2015. An evaluation of
of the interface behaviour of rail subballast
stabilised with geogrids and geomembranes,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 43(3): 240-249.
Brown, S.F., Kwan, J. and Thom, N.H. 2007.
Identifying the key parameters that influence
geogrid reinforcement of railway ballast, Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 25(6): 326-335.
Chawla, S. and Shahu, J.T. 2016. Reinforcement and
mud pumping benefits of geosynthetics in railway
tracks: Model tests, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 44: 366-380.
Chen, C., McDowell, G.R. and Thom, N.H. 2014.
Investigating geogrid-reinforced ballast:
Experimental pull-out tests and discrete element
modeling, Soil and Foundations, 54(1): 1-11.
Chen, X., Jia, Y. and Zhang, J. 2017. Geogrid
reinforcement and the critical state of graded
aggregate used in heavy haul railway transition
subgrade, Transportation Geotechnics, 11: 27-40.
6
Das, B.M. 2016. Use of geogrid in the construction of
railroads, Innovative Infrastructure Solution, 15: 1-
12.
Dombrow, W., Huang, H. and Tutumluer, E. 2009.
Comparison of coal dust fouled railroad ballast
behavior-granite vs. limestone, In Tutumluer, Al-
Qadi (Eds), Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways
and Airfields, Taylor and Francis Group, 1349-1357.
Esmaeili, M., Zakeri, J.A. and Babaei, M. 2017.
Laboratory and field investigation of the effect of
geogrid reinforced ballast on railway track lateral
resistance, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 45: 23-
33.
Feldman, F. and Nissen, D. 2002. Alternative testing
method for measurement of ballast fouling, In
conference on railway engineering, RTSA,
Wollongong, 101-109.
Fernandas, G., Palmeira, E. M. and Gomes, R. C.
2008. Performance of geosynthetic-reinforced
alternative sub-ballast material in a railway track,
Geosynthetics International, 15(5): 311-321.
Huang, H., Tutumluer, E. and Dombrow, W. 2009.
Laboratory characterization of fouled railroad ballast
behavior, Transportation Research Record, 2117.
Hussaini, S.K.K., Indraratna, B. and Vinod, J.S. 2012.
Performance of geosynthetically-reinforced rail
ballast in direct shear conditions, In G. A. Narsilio,
A. Arulrajah & J. Kodikara (Eds), 11th Australia-New
Zealand Conference on Geomechanics: Ground
Engineering in a Changing World. Australia:
Engineers Australia (ANZ 2012), 1268-1273.
Hussaini, S. K. K., Indraratna, B. and Vinod, J.S. 2014.
An experimental investigation on the deformation
and degradation behavior of geogrid-reinforced
ballast, In J. Pombo, (Editor), Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on Railway
Technology: Research, Development and
Maintenance, Civil-Comp Press, Stirlingshire, UK,
125: 2014.
Hussaini, S.K.K., Indraratna, B. and Vinod, J. S. 2015.
Application of Optical-Fiber Bragg Grating Sensors
in Monitoring the Rail Track Deformations,
Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 38(4): 387-
396.
Hussaini, S.K.K., Indraratna, B. and Vinod, J. S. 2016.
A laboratory investigation to assess the functioning
of railway ballast with and without geogrids,
Transportation Geotechnics, 6: 45-54.
Indraratna, B., Khabbaz, H., Salim, W. and Christie,
H.D. 2006. Geotechnical properties of ballast and
role of geosynthetics in rail track stabilization,
Ground Improvement, 10 (3): 91–101.
Indraratna, B., Ngo, N.T. and Rujikiatkamjorn, C. 2011.
Behavior of geogrid-reinforced ballast under various
levels of fouling, Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
29: 313-322.
Indraratna, B., Hussaini, S.K.K. and Vinod, J.S. 2012.
On the shear behavior of ballast-geosynthetic
interfaces, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 35(2):
305-312.
Indraratna, B., Hussaini, S.K.K. and Vinod, J. S. 2013a.
The lateral displacement response of geogrid-
reinforced ballast under cyclic loading, Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 39: 20-29.
Indraratna, B., Ngo, N.T. and Rujikiatkamjorn, C.
2013b. Deformation of coal fouled ballast stabilized
with geogrid under cyclic load, ASCE, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
139(8): 1275-1289.
Indraratna, B., Tennkoon, N., Nimbalkar, S. and
Rujikiatkamjorn, C. 2013c. Behavior of clay-fouled
ballast under drained triaxial testing, Geotechnique,
63(5): 410-419.
IRS-GE-1, 2004 Specifications for Track Ballast,
Research Design and Standard Organisation
(RDSO), Ministry of Railways, India.
Kwan, C.C.J. 2006. Geogrid reinforcement of railway
ballast, PhD thesis, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, UK.
Lade, P.V., Yamamuro, J.A. and Bopp, P.A. 1996.
Significance of particle crushing in granular
materials, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 122
(4): 309–316.
Liu, S., Huang, H., Qiu, T. and Kwon, J. 2016. Effect of
geogrid on railroad ballast particle movement.
Transportation Geotechnics, 9, 110–122.
Marsal, R.J. 1967. Large scale testing of rock fills
material, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, 97(2): 27-43.
Mishra, D., Qian, Y., Kazmee, H. and Tutumluer, E.
2014. Investigation of geogrid-reinforced railroad
ballast behavior using triaxial testing and discrete
element modeling, Transportation Research
Record, 2462: 1-12.
Qian, Y., Mishra, D., Tutumluer, E. and Kazmee, H. A.
2015. Characterization of geogrid reinforced ballast
behavior at different levels of degradation through
triaxial shear strength test and discrete element
modeling, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 43:
393-402.
Qian, Y., Mishra, D., Tutumluer, E., Mishra, D. and
Kazmee, H.A. 2018. Triaxial testing and discrete-
element modelling of geogrid-stabilised rail ballast,
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers -
Ground Improvement (In Press).
Raymond, G.P. and Ismail, I. 2003. The effects of
geogrid reinforcement on unbound aggregates,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 21 (6): 355–380.
Selig, E.T. and Waters, J.M. 1994. Track
Geotechnology and Substructure Management.
Thomas Telford, London.
7
Sweta, K. and Hussaini, S.K.K. 2017. Behavior of
geogrid-reinforced railroad ballast under direct
shear conditions, IGC 2017 GeoNEst, IIT Guwahati,
1-4.
Sweta, K. and Hussaini, S.K.K. 2018. Effect of shearing
rate on the behavior of geogrid-reinforced railroad
ballast under direct shear conditions, Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 46(3): 251-256.